HERNANDEZ v.

DOLOR

*This is a case about how an employer is solidarily liable for the acts of his employee

Facts:
Boyet Dolor and Oscar Valmocina died as a result of a collision between an owner type jeep driven by
Dolor and a passenger type jeep driven by herein petitioner Juan Gonzales. Other passengers also
suffered physical injuries. Consequently, respondents commenced an action for damages against
petitioners, driver (Gonzales) and the owner of the vehicle (spouses Hernandez).

During the trial, the following were established:

1. The owner type jeep was travelling at a moderate speed
2. The passenger jeepney was travelling fast when it bumped into the owner
3. Petitioner Juan Gonzales obtained his professional driver’s license only 3 monthes before the
accident occurred.
4. Hernandez spouses leases the jeep to the driver on a daily basis.

Hernandez spouses are contending that they should not be impleaded in the case since they were not in
the jeep during the accident. They also claimed that there is no employer-employee relationship that
exists between them and the driver since they only lease the jeep to the latter.

Trial Court held rendered the decision in favor of the victims and held Hernandez spouses solidarily
liable. CA affirmed the decision but with a few modifications on the amount of the damages.

Issue:
W/N Hernandez spouses are solidarily liable with Juan Gonzales

Held:
Hernandez spouses are solidarily liable.

1. Even though they were not in the jeep during the accident, they are still answerable under
several provisions of the Civil Code namely:

Article 2180… employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned
tasks, even thought eh former are not engaged in any business or activity

Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there

being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties,
is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter

While the above provisions do not expressly provide for the solidary liability, they should be read
in consonance with Article 2180 – one can be liable for the acts or omission of another whom he
is responsible for, meaning that an employer is accountable for the actions of his employees.
Article 2194 categorically states that responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for
quasi-delict is solidary.
2. The Hernandez spouses maintained that Julian Gonzales is not their employee because the latter
pays them daily for the use of the jeepney. They argued that they are practicing a lease
agreement using the “boundary system”. SC held that there exists an employer-employee
relationship because by agreeing to the Hernandez, there would be a villation of the Public
Service Law and we are going to place the riding public at the mercy of reckless and
irresponsible drivers because most drivers are in no position to pay for damages when accidents
occur.