REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

BRANCH III
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
BAGUIO CITY

NAPASPAS BUS LINE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. JF-1995

For: DAMAGES

RODOLFO MONTERO, EUGENIO RODRIGUEZ and

MASAGANA BONDING INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
Defendants.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

MEMORANDUM
FOR THE DEFENDANTS

RODOLFO MONTERO, EUGENIO RODRIGUEZ, and MASAGANA

BONDING INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. (collectively referred herein as
“Defendants”), by counsel, most respectfully states:

NATURE OF THE CASE

The Plaintiff filed this civil action for DAMAGES against the
Defendants which arose due to a motor vehicle collision that happened at
the intersection of Governor Pack Road, Baguio City.

THE PARTIES

Plaintiff Napaspas Bus Line, Inc. is a corporation duly organized

under the laws of the Philippines engaged in the business of
transportation and hereinafter represented by its General Manager, Mr.
Pablo Escobar. It may be served with summons and other court processes
to its principal place of business at Engineers Hill, Baguio City,
Philippines.

Defendant Rodolfo Montero, Filipino, of legal age, married, and a

resident of 123 Trancoville, Baguio City, Philippines, is the owner and
operator of BK Cargo Truck with plate number LFL 538. Defendant
Montero may be served with summons and other court processes in the
said address.

1 | Memorandum – Napaspas Bus Line, Inc. v. Montero, et al.

 Defendant Eugenio Rodriguez, Filipino, of legal age, married, and a
resident of 421 Honeymoon Rd., Baguio City, Philippines, is an employee
of Defendant Montero and the driver of the BK Cargo Truck owned by the
latter. Defendant Rodriguez may be served with summons and other
court processes in the said address.

Defendant Masagana Bonding Insurance Company, Inc., is a

corporation duly organized under the laws of the Philippines engaged in
insurance business with principal place of business at Porta Vaga mall,
Session Rd. Baguio City. Defendant MBIC may be served with summons
and other court processes in the said address.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On May 20, 2019, at about 7:00 in the morning, Passenger Bus No.
2468 with Plate No. 909 owned and operated by plaintiff was navigating
Harrison Road, Baguio City. Upon nearing the intersection of Governor
Pack Road, a speeding BK Cargo Truck from Gov. Pack Rd., driven by
Eugenio Rodriguez and owned and operated by Rodolfo Montero, swiftly
swerved to enter the Harrison Road. Lane, thereby hitting the passenger
bus.

The utter disregard of traffic rules and regulations and the reckless
driving of Rodriguez caused the unfortunate accident. Because of the
impact, the passenger bus was severely damaged. However, there were
no passengers in the bus, thus no one was injured except the driver.

It became necessary to engage the services of mechanics and bus

body works specialist to repair and restore the passenger bus’ condition
in order to be roadworthy again. Plaintiff incurred a total of ₱200,000.00
for the repair of the bus. Consequently, Plaintiff also incurred loss of
earnings from the suspension of the bus while being repaired, amounting
to ₱100,000.00.

On June 5, 2019, Plaintiff, through counsel, sent a demand letter

addressed to defendant Montero for the reimbursement of the expenses
incurred for the repair of the bus. On July 5, 2019, Plaintiff, through
counsel, once again sent a demand letter to Defendant Montero for the
payment of the expenses of the repair of the bus.

On July 25, 2019, Plaintiff through counsel sent a demand letter

addressed to Montero’s insurance company, Masagana Bonding
Insurance Company, Inc. In a letter dated July 30, 2019, the insurance
company denied Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Montero’s insurance.

2 | Memorandum – Napaspas Bus Line, Inc. v. Montero, et al.

 With Defendant Montero’s continued refusal to pay, along with
Defendant insurance company’s denial of Plaintiff’s claim, Plaintiff is
constrained to refer the matter to the courts and engage the services of
legal counsels to protect its right and to prevent further damage on its
part. Plaintiff also seeks the payment of attorney’s fees amounting to
₱20,000.00.

Defendants, on the other hand, claim otherwise.

Eugenio Rodriguez was not at all speeding the BK Cargo Truck

along Governor Pack Road. In fact, he was slowly traversing Governor
Pack Road only at a speed of 20 kilometers per hour. The collision
happened at 7:00 in the morning, and Rodriguez could not have possibly
driven at a faster speed because there were many students walking along
and across Governor Pack Road. The traffic situation was also the same
in the adjacent Harrison Road. The incident happened on a Monday, a
weekday, and the traffic along Governor Pack Road is known to be heavy
as there are schools and universities, a mall, and a bus terminal in the
vicinity. The collision is completely attributable to the bus driver’s fault,
and not of the Defendants.

Eugenio Rodriguez did not utterly disregard traffic rules and

regulations. In fact, there was a traffic enforcer in the intersection of
Governor Pack Road and Harrison Road. Eugenio Rodriguez obeyed the
traffic enforcer, while it was the bus driver who utterly disregarded the
traffic rules and regulations by not obeying the traffic enforcer on duty.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

1. WHETHER OR NOT RODOLFO MONTERO SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE

FOR DAMAGES

2. WHETHER OR NOT EUGENIO RODRIGUEZ SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE

FOR DAMAGES

3. WHETHER OR NOT MASAGANDA BONDING INSURANCE COMPANY,

INC. SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR DAMAGES

4. WHETHER NAPASPAS BUS LINE, INC. IS ENTITLED TO ANY

DAMAGES

STATEMENT OF DISCUSSION/ARGUMENTS

I. DEFENDANT RODOLFO MONTERO IS NOT LIABLE FOR

DAMAGES
3 | Memorandum – Napaspas Bus Line, Inc. v. Montero, et al.
 The Plaintiff would like to impress upon this Honorable Court that
Defendant Rodolfo Montero should be held liable under Article 2184 and
2180 of the Civil Code because he is the employer of Eugenio Rodriguez.

Article 2184 of the New Civil Code provides that:

“In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his
driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of
the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed
that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty of reckless
driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next
preceding two months.”

While Article 2180 reads:

X X X

“Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees

and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks,
even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the
persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence
of a good father of a family to prevent damage.”

X X X

Defendants, on the other hand, argue that the Article 2184 of the
Civil Code does not find any applicability in this case because Rodolfo
Montero exerted due diligence to prevent the misfortune by carefully and
diligently selecting Eugenio Rodriguez as his employee.

Under current jurisprudence, 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.1

In accordance with the evidence presented by the Defendants,

Eugenio Rodriguez is indeed a holder of a Professional Driver’s License.
Therefore, Rodriguez is qualified to be a driver. Rodolfo Montero himself
ascertained that Rodriguez is fit to be a driver of his truck by conducting
an on-the-road or actual test of Rodriguez’s driving skills. Furthermore,

1Ramos v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of the Philippines, 125 Phil. 701, 703-704 (1967) citing Campo v. Camarote, 100 Phil. 459,
463 (1956).

4 | Memorandum – Napaspas Bus Line, Inc. v. Montero, et al.

Montero conducts a daily briefing about road safety and proper driving
etiquette to his truck drivers, including Rodriguez.

Thus, Rodolfo Montero exercised the diligence of a good father of a

family in the supervision and selection of his employee Eugenio
Rodriguez.

Here, the burden of proof lies with the Plaintiff in establishing fault
or negligence on the part of the Defendants2. The presumption under in
Article 2180 has been disputed and Defendants have presented evidence
to rebut said presumption as there was no negligence on the part of
Defendant Rodolfo Montero in the hiring and supervision, and that there
is failure on the Plaintiff to prove that the employer remised to such duty.

Hence, Defendant Rodolfo Montero should not be held liable for

any damages.

II. DEFENDANT EUGENIO RODRIGUEZ IS NOT LIABLE FOR

DAMAGES

Eugenio Rodriguez is a holder of Professional Driver’s License No.

A01-13-001335. This initially proves that Rodriguez is qualified to be
employed as a professional driver of Rodolfo Montero.

In fact, it should be taken into consideration that it was the driver

of Napaspas Bus Line, Inc. who was negligent and did not observe the
proper traffic rules and regulations. Clearly, as established by the police
report, it was Plaintiff’s driver who disregarded the signals of the traffic
enforcer. It was through the Plaintiff’s driver’s contributory negligence
which caused the motor vehicle collision, and thus the Plaintiff must bear
his own loss.

Article 2179 reads as follows:

“When the plaintiff’s negligence was the immediate and proximate

cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence
was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the
injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may
recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be
awarded.”

Further, it cannot be said that the accident was due to the lack of
due care and diligence of Eugenio Rodriguez. As stated above, Rodriguez
exercised due diligence while driving the vehicle because of his

2 Ong vs. Metropolitan Water District, 104 Phil 397

5 | Memorandum – Napaspas Bus Line, Inc. v. Montero, et al.

experience and expertise and the circumstances revolving the facts of this
case.

The underlying precept on contributory negligence is that a

Plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury should not be
entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the consequences of his
own negligence. The Defendants must thus be held liable only for the
damages actually caused by their negligence.3

Therefore, Defendant Eugenio Rodriguez should not be held liable

for damages.

III. DEFENDANT MASAGANA BONDING INSURANCE COMPANY,

INC. IS NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES

IV. PLAINTIFF NAPASPAS BUS LINE, INC. IS NOT ENTITLED TO

ANY DAMAGES

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court to render judgment in favor of the Defendants and
against the Plaintiff, DISMISSING the case for lack of merit.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

Done in 2nd day of December 2019, in Baguio City, Philippines.

Baucas, Macatulad, and Alden Law Office

Counsel for the Defendant
107-F Purok 17,
Irisan, Baguio City
E-mail: baucasmacatulad.law@gmail.com

By:

ATTY. STEPHANIE LOVELY A. BAUCAS

Roll No. 82595
PTR No. 10999105-J/01-04-2019
IBP No. 1017158/01-04-2019
MCLE Compliance No. V-0020347
Dated April 11, 2019

3 Syki v. Begasa, G.R. No. 149149, 23 October 2003, 414 SCRA 237, 244.

6 | Memorandum – Napaspas Bus Line, Inc. v. Montero, et al.

Copy furnished:

ATTY. CHRISTIAN BARANDINO

Counsel for the Plaintiff

Dayorela Sotelo
President of Napaspas Bus Line, Inc.

EXPLANATION

A copy of this ANSWER was sent to the Plaintiff and its Counsel
through registered mail as personal service.

ATTY. STEPHANIE LOVELY A. BAUCAS

7 | Memorandum – Napaspas Bus Line, Inc. v. Montero, et al.