17. LARRY ESTACION vs NOE BERNARDO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 144723, February 27, 2006

Doctrine:
For an employer to have exercised the diligence of a good father of a family, he
should not be satisfied with the applicant’s mere possession of a professional driver’s
license; he must also carefully examine the applicant for employment as to his
qualifications, his experience and record of service. Petitioner failed to present
convincing proof that she went to this extent of verifying Venturina’s qualifications,
safety record, and driving history. The presumption juris tantum that there was
negligence in the selection of her bus driver, thus, remains unrebutted.

Facts:
On October 16, 1982 in the afternoon, respondent Noe Bernardo was going
home to Dumaguete from Cebu. He boarded a Ford Fiera jeepney driven by
Quinquillera and owned by Bandoquillo. He was seated on the extension seat at the
center of the Fiera. From San Jose, an old woman wanted to ride so Noe offered his
seat and hung/stood on the left rear carrier of the vehicle. The Fiera slowed down and
stopped to pick up more passengers.

Suddenly, an Isuzu cargo truck owned by the petitioner Larry Estacion and
driven by Gerosano, which was travelling in the same direction, hit the rear portion of
the jeepney. The Fiera crushed Bernardo’s legs and feet, and he was brought to
Silliman University Medical Center where his lower left leg was amputated. Police
report showed that there were 10 more who were injured by the accident.

On February 18, 1993, Bernardo, and his guardian ad litem Arlie Bernardo, filed
with the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete a complaint for damages arising from
quasi-delict against petitioner as owner of the truck and his driver. RTC ruled that
Gerosano was negligent and it was the direct and proximate cause of the incident. It
also held petitioner liable as employer. CA affirmed in toto the RTC.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner is liable and whether or not Bernardo was guilty of
contributory negligence

Held:
YES.

For an employer to have exercised the diligence of a good father of a family, he

should not be satisfied with the applicant’s mere possession of a professional driver’s
license; he must also carefully examine the applicant for employment as to his
qualifications, his experience and record of service. Petitioner failed to present
convincing proof that she went to this extent of verifying Venturina’s qualifications,
safety record, and driving history. The presumption juris tantum that there was
negligence in the selection of her bus driver, thus, remains unrebutted.
 From the way the truck reacted to the application of the brakes, it can be shown
that Gerosano was driving at a fast speed because the brakes skidded a lengthy 48
ft. as shown in the sketch of the police. There was also only one tire mark which meant
that the brakes of the truck were not aligned properly, otherwise, there would have
been 2 tire marks. It is the negligent act of the petitioner’s driver of driving the cargo
truck at a fast speed coupled with faulty brakes which was the proximate cause of the
respondent Bernardo’s injury. As employer of Gerosano, petitioner is primarily and
solitarily liable for the quasi-delict committed by the former. He is presumed to be
negligent in the selection of his employee which petitioner failed to overcome. He failed
to show that he examined driver Gerosano as to his qualifications, experience and
records.

Bernardo is guilty of contributory negligence by standing at the rear portion of

the jeep. Contributory Negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party,
contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the
standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection. Bernardo’s act of
standing on the left rear portion showed his lack of ordinary care and foresight that
such act could cause him harm or put his life in danger. To hold a person as having
contributed to his injuries, it must be shown that he performed an act that brought
about his injuries in disregard of warning or signs of an impending danger to health
and body. Quinquillera (jeepney driver) was also negligent because there was
overloading which is in violation of traffic rules and regulations. He also allowed
Bernardo to stand on the left rear of his jeep. There is also a presumption of negligence
on the part of the owner of the jeep, Bandoquillo, to which she did not rebut.
 17. LARRY ESTACION vs NOE BERNARDO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 144723, February 27, 2006

Doctrine:
For an employer to have exercised the diligence of a good father of a family, he
should not be satisfied with the applicant’s mere possession of a professional driver’s
license; he must also carefully examine the applicant for employment as to his
qualifications, his experience and record of service. Petitioner failed to present
convincing proof that she went to this extent of verifying Venturina’s qualifications,
safety record, and driving history. The presumption juris tantum that there was
negligence in the selection of her bus driver, thus, remains unrebutted.

Facts:
On October 16, 1982 in the afternoon, respondent Noe Bernardo was going
home to Dumaguete from Cebu. He boarded a Ford Fiera jeepney driven by
Quinquillera and owned by Bandoquillo. He was seated on the extension seat at the
center of the Fiera. From San Jose, an old woman wanted to ride so Noe offered his
seat and hung/stood on the left rear carrier of the vehicle. The Fiera slowed down and
stopped to pick up more passengers.

Suddenly, an Isuzu cargo truck owned by the petitioner Larry Estacion and
driven by Gerosano, which was travelling in the same direction, hit the rear portion of
the jeepney. The Fiera crushed Bernardo’s legs and feet, and he was brought to
Silliman University Medical Center where his lower left leg was amputated. Police
report showed that there were 10 more who were injured by the accident.

On February 18, 1993, Bernardo, and his guardian ad litem Arlie Bernardo, filed
with the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete a complaint for damages arising from
quasi-delict against petitioner as owner of the truck and his driver. RTC ruled that
Gerosano was negligent and it was the direct and proximate cause of the incident. It
also held petitioner liable as employer. CA affirmed in toto the RTC.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner is liable and whether or not Bernardo was guilty of
contributory negligence

Held:
YES.

For an employer to have exercised the diligence of a good father of a family, he

should not be satisfied with the applicant’s mere possession of a professional driver’s
license; he must also carefully examine the applicant for employment as to his
qualifications, his experience and record of service. Petitioner failed to present
convincing proof that she went to this extent of verifying Venturina’s qualifications,
safety record, and driving history. The presumption juris tantum that there was
negligence in the selection of her bus driver, thus, remains unrebutted.
 From the way the truck reacted to the application of the brakes, it can be shown
that Gerosano was driving at a fast speed because the brakes skidded a lengthy 48
ft. as shown in the sketch of the police. There was also only one tire mark which meant
that the brakes of the truck were not aligned properly, otherwise, there would have
been 2 tire marks. It is the negligent act of the petitioner’s driver of driving the cargo
truck at a fast speed coupled with faulty brakes which was the proximate cause of the
respondent Bernardo’s injury. As employer of Gerosano, petitioner is primarily and
solitarily liable for the quasi-delict committed by the former. He is presumed to be
negligent in the selection of his employee which petitioner failed to overcome. He failed
to show that he examined driver Gerosano as to his qualifications, experience and
records.

Bernardo is guilty of contributory negligence by standing at the rear portion of

the jeep. Contributory Negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party,
contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the
standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection. Bernardo’s act of
standing on the left rear portion showed his lack of ordinary care and foresight that
such act could cause him harm or put his life in danger. To hold a person as having
contributed to his injuries, it must be shown that he performed an act that brought
about his injuries in disregard of warning or signs of an impending danger to health
and body. Quinquillera (jeepney driver) was also negligent because there was
overloading which is in violation of traffic rules and regulations. He also allowed
Bernardo to stand on the left rear of his jeep. There is also a presumption of negligence
on the part of the owner of the jeep, Bandoquillo, to which she did not rebut.