The Defendantsiv. EmployersThird DivisionFilamer v. IACGR No. 7511A!"!st 17# 1$$G!

tierre%# &'Fa(ts'

Funtecha was a working student of Filamer Christian Institute. Beinga part-time janitor and a scholar of
petitioner Filamer,

he )as(onsidered an employee

even if he was assigned to clean thepremises for just 2 hours every day. llan !asa, the son of Filamer"s
president !r. gustin !asa, was theofficial driver of the school"s vehicle. #ince Funtecha and llan livedin
the same house, Funtecha, holder of a student driver"s license,re$uested llan to take over the vehicle
and drive it home. llan!asa turned over the vehicle to Funtecha only after driving down aroad,
negotiating a sharp dangerous cur%, and viewing that the roadwas clear.  fast moving truck with glaring
lights nearly hit them sothey swerved to the right to avoid collision. &pon swerving, theyheard a sound
as if something had %umped against the vehicle, %utthey did not stop to check. &nfortunately, their
jeep swerved towardsthe pedestrian, 'otenciano (apunan who was walking in his lane inthe direction
against vehicular traffic, and hit him.)he heirs of (apunan filed an action against Filamer for damages.
Inits defense, Filamer alleged that Funtecha acted outside of his scopeof his authority. )herefore, it was
only Funtecha who was lia%le andnot Filamer.

Iss!e'

*hether or not Filamer Christian Institute is lia%le for the acts of Funtecha

*eld'

+es, Filamer is lia%le for the acts of Funtecha.

Ratio'

In learning how to drive while taking the vehicle home in the directionof llans house, Funtecha
definitely was not having a joy ride.Funtecha was not driving for the purpose of his enjoyment or for
afrolic of his own %ut ultimately, for the service for which the jeepwas intended %y the petitioner
school. )herefore, the Court isconstrained to conclude that the act of Funtecha in taking over thesteering
wheel was one done for and in %ehalf of his employer for which act the petitioner-school cannot deny
any responsi%ility %yarguing that it was done %eyond the scope of his janitorial duties. eneed not have
an official appointment for a drivers position in order that the petitioner may %e held responsi%le for
his grossly negligentact, it %eing sufficient that the act of driving at the time of the incidentwas for the
%enefit of the petitioner. ence,

the fa(t that F!nte(ha)as not the s(hool driver or )as not a(tin" )ithin the s(ope of his +anitorial d!ties does
not relieve the petitioner of the ,!rdenof re,!ttin" the pres!mption that there )as ne"li"en(e on itspart

either in the selection of a servant or employee, or in thesupervision over him

.

)he petitioner has failed to show proof of itshaving e/ercised the re$uired diligence of a good father of a
familyover its employees Funtecha and llan.

-hat does s!pervision of employee in(l!de

It includes the formulation of suita%le rules and regulations for theguidance of its employees and the
issuance of proper instructionsintended for the protection of the pu%lic and persons with whom
theemployer has relations through his employees.

-as there any sho)in" that Filamer provided r!les and re"!lations

0one.