● Amyline Antonio, who was seriously injured, brought this case in the RTC
[239] Fabre v. CA1 G.R. No. 111127 | July 26, 1996 | J. Mendoza
SUMMARY Petitioners Sps. Fabre owned a minibus. They hired Cabil to drive the
bus that was normally being used as a school service. WWCF hired the petitioners
to transport its members from Manila to La Union. On the route to La Union, the bus
came upon a sharp curve on the highway and because it was dark, raining, and since
the bus was running at 50kph it skidded to the left road shoulder and crashed into
the fence along the side of the road. Several passengers were injured. RTC and CA
held that the driver was negligent. SC affirmed and held that the owners of the bus
are jointly and severally liable with the driver.
DOCTRINE Owners and driver of the bus may be jointly and severally liable for the
injuries suffered by their passengers.
FACTS
● Petitioners Engracio Fabre, Jr. and his wife owned a 1982 Mazda minibus
○ The bus was used as a school service for children in Manila
○ Driver was Porfiro Cabil. His job was to take the school children to
and from St. Scholastica’s College
● Nov 2, 1084 - private respondent Word for the World Christian Fellowship
Inc. (WWCF) hired the petitioners to transport 33 members of its Young
Adults Ministry from Manila to La Union and back. Payment was P3,000.
● Although the bus was supposed to leave at 5PM, because some of the
members were late the bus left at 8PM
● The bridge through the usual route at Carmen, La Union was under repair
so they took a detour through the town of Baay in Lingayen.
● 11:30PM - Cabil came upon a sharp curve on the highway. The road was
slippery because it was raining, causing the bus, which was running at the
speed of 50kph, to skid to the left road shoulder.
○ The bus hit the left traffic steel brace and sign along the road and
rammed the fence of one Jesus Escano, then turned over and
landed on its left side, coming to a full stop only after a series of
impacts. The bus came to rest off the road.
○ Several passengers were injured.
○ Private respondent Amyline Antonio was thrown on the floor of the
bus and pinned down by a wooden seat
● Cabil claimed that he did not see the curve until it was too late, that he was
not familiar with the area, and that the area was dark and there was no sign
on the road. He said that he saw the curve when he was already within 15
to 30 meters of it. He allegedly slowed down to 30 kilometers per hour, but
it was too late.
1
Respondents are CA, WWCF, and several of the injured passengers
of Makati, Metro Manila.
○ As a result of the accident, she is now suffering from paraplegia
and is permanently paralyzed from the waist down.
● RTC held that the evidence showed that the negligence of the defendants
led to the accident. No convincing evidence was shown that the minibus
was properly checked for travel to a long distance trip and that the driver
was properly screened and tested before being admitted for employment.
● CA affirmed the decision with respect to the award for damages to Amuline
but dismissed it with respect to the other plaintiffs for failure to prove their
respective claims.
ISSUE: W/N petitioners were negligent - YES
HELD/RATIO
● The Court held that petitioners were negligent. (although the Court
corrected the award for damages)
● First, the Court clarified that this case is both a breach of contract of carriage
and a quasi-delict
● [On negligence] The finding that Cabil drove his bus negligently, while his
employer, the Fabres, who owned the bus, failed to exercise the diligence
of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of their
employees is fully supported by the evidence on record.
○ Factual findings of the trial court and CA are binding and
conclusive being supported by evidence.
● Undisputed that Cabil drove his bus at the speed of 50 kph and only slowed
down when he noticed the curve some 15 to 30 meters ahead.
○ He should have driven the vehicle at a moderate speed given the
conditions of the road (dark + raining)
○ Also, he was unfamiliar with the terrain
○ Thus, Cabil was grossly negligent and should be held liable for the
injuries suffered by private respondent Amyline Antonio.
● Pursuant to Arts. 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code his negligence gave rise
to the presumption that his employers, the Fabres, were themselves
negligent in the selection and supervision of their employees.
○ Due diligence in the selection of employees is not just requiring
a driver’s license. Employer should’ve examined the qualifications,
experience, and record of service.
○ Due diligence in supervision, on the other hand, requires the
formulation of rules and regulations for the guidance of employees
and issuance of proper instructions as well as actual
 implementation and monitoring of consistent compliance with the
rules.
● In this case, petitioners Fabre, in allowing Cabil to drive, did not consider
the fact that he had been driving for school children in Manila only.
○ They hired him only after 2 weeks of apprenticeship
○ They had not tested him on his qualifications to drive long distance
travel
○ The existence of hiring procedures and supervisory policies
cannot be casually invoked to overturn the presumption of
negligence on the part of an employer.
● Also, petitioners are still liable even if it was not their fault that their
departure was delayed.The hour of departure had not been fixed. Even if it
had been, the delay did not bear directly on the cause of the accident.
● Petitioners are still also liable even if their contract stated that WWCF would
be responsible for the conduct of the trip. The Court has held that:
○ [A] person who hires a public automobile and gives the driver
directions as to the place to which he wishes to be conveyed, but
exercises no control over the conduct of the driver, is not
responsible for acts of negligence of the latter or prevented from
recovering for injuries suffered from a collision between the
automobile and a train, caused by the negligence or the
automobile driver.
● As common carriers, the Fabres must exercise "extraordinary diligence" for
the safe transportation of the passengers to their destination. This duty of
care is not excused by proof that they exercise the diligence of a good father
of the family in the selection and supervision of their employees.2
● Hence, RTC and CA were correct in ruling that the finding that petitioners
were negligent justify the findings of breach of contract of carriage
● [As to damages] Court sustains the award of damages in favor of Amulline
Antonio but rules that the CA erred in increasing the amount of
compensatory damages to P600,000. Award of P500,000 by RTC for
compensatory damages was already reasonable.
○ CA also erred in increasing the award of moral damages (from
P20k to P50k) and in decreasing the award of atty’s fees (from
25% of recoverable amount to P10k)
○ Other awards for damages to Antonio are affirmed since they are
supported by evidence in the records of the case
● [Main issue - on solidary liability] Court holds that the owners and driver
of the bus may be jointly and severally liable for the injuries suffered by their
passengers.
2
Art. 1759 - Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the
negligence or willful acts of the former's employees, although such employees may have
acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers.
○ No difference even if the liability of the owners is from breach of
contract and the liability of the driver is from quasi-delict.
● Some members of the Court, though, are of the view that under the
circumstances they are liable on quasi-delict.
○ “It is true that in Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals this Court exonerated the jeepney driver from liability to
the injured passengers and their families while holding the owners
of the jeepney jointly and severally liable, but that is because that
case was expressly tried and decided exclusively on the theory of
culpa contractual.”
● In this case, respondents filed their case on the basis of both breach of
contract and quasi-delict. This is permitted as long as they do not recover
twice from the same injury.
○ What is clear from the cases is the intent of the plaintiff there to
recover from both the carrier and the driver, thus, justifying the
holding that the carrier and the driver were jointly and severally
liable because their separate and distinct acts concurred to
produce the same injury.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION as to award of damages. Petitioners are ORDERED to PAY jointly
and severally the private respondent Amyline Antonio the following amounts:
1) P93,657.11 as actual damages;
2) P500,000.00 as the reasonable amount of loss of earning capacity of plaintiff
Amyline Antonio;
3) P20,000.00 as moral damages;
4) P20,000.00 as exemplary damages;
5) 25% of the recoverable amount as attorney's fees; and
6) costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.