CASTILEX INDUSTRIAL CORP. vs. VASQUEZ JR.

5th paragraph1 of Article 2180 should be

GR No. 132266 | December 21, 1999 | Davide Jr., C.J. | interpreted to mean that it is not necessary for the
Petition for Review on Certiorari of a Decision of the employer to be engaged in any business or
CA industry to be liable for the negligence of his
Petitioners: Castilex Industrial Corp. employee who is acting within the scope of his
Respondents: Vicente Vasquez Jr., Luisa So Vasquez assigned task.
& Cebu Doctors’ Hospital, Inc.  Distinctions between paragraph 42 and 5
Paragraph 4 Paragraph 5
Facts: owners and managers of employers in general,
 On August 28, 1988, at around 1:30 to 2 AM, an establishment or whether or not engaged
Romeo So Vasquez was driving a Honda enterprise in any business or
motorcycle around Fuente Osmenñ a Rotunda. He industry
was travelling counter-clockwise, the normal flow covers negligent acts of encompasses negligent
of traffic, but without any protective helmet or employees committed acts of employees acting
goggles. He was only carrying a Student’s Permit to either in the service of within the scope of their
Drive. the branches or on the assigned task
 Benjamin Abad, a Production Manager of Castilex occasion of their
Industries Corp, a business engaged in the functions
manufacturing and selling of furniture, was then expansion of paragraph 4
driving the company-owned Toyota Hi-Lux Pick- in both employer
coverage and acts
up.
included.
 Abad drove the said car out of the parking lot of
negligent acts of
Goldie’s Restaurant where he had some snacks
employees, whether or
after working overtime and had a chat with his not the employer is
friends. Instead of going around the Osmenñ a engaged in a business or
Rotunda, he made a short cut against the flow of industry, are covered so
the traffic in proceeding to general Maxilom St. or long as they were acting
to Belvic St. within the scope of their
 In the process, a collision occurred between the assigned task, even
motorcycle and Toyota Hi-Luz Pick-up. Vasquez though committed
sustained severe injuries as a result of the neither in the service of
collision. the branches nor on the
 Abad stopped his vehicle and brought Vasquez to occasion of their
the Southern islands Hospital and later to the Cebu functions.
Doctor’s Hospital.
 On September 5, 1988, Vasquez died at the Cebu  Whether or not engaged in any business or
Doctor’s Hospital. Abad signed an industry, an employer is liable for the torts
acknowledgement of Responsible party where he committed by employees within the scope of his
agreed to pay whatever hospital bills professional assigned tasks. But it is necessary to establish the
fees and other incidental charges Vasquez may employer-employee relationship; once this is done,
incur. the plaintiff must show, to hold the employer
 A criminal case was filed against Abad which was liable, that the employee was acting within the
subsequently dismissed for failure to prosecute. scope of his assigned task when the tort
 The Spouses Vasquez instituted an action for complained of was committed. It is only then that
damages against Abad and Castilex. Cebu Doctors’ the employer may find it necessary to interpose
Hospital intervened to collect unpaid balance for the defense of due diligence in the selection and
the medical expense given to Romeo Vasquez. supervision of the employee.
 TC: ordered Abad and Castilex to pay jointly and
severally the spouses and Cebu Doctors’ Hospital 2. NO
 CA: affirmed the TC’s ruling but held the liability of
Castilex as vicarious and not solidary with Abad 1
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
Issue:
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of
1. WON Castilex is vicariously liable with Abad
their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in
2. WON Abad was performing acts within the range
any business or industry.
of his employment
Ratio: 2
1. YES The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise
 The phrase “even though the former are not are likewise responsible for damages caused by their
employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are
engaged in any business or industry” found in the employed or on the occasion of their functions.
 There is no absolutely hard and fast rule can be within the scope employer's motor
stated which will furnish the complete answer to of his employment vehicle
the problem of whether at a given moment, an while so driving
employee is engaged in his employer's business in the vehicle
special errand or
the operation of a motor vehicle, so as to fix
roving
liability upon the employer because of the commission
employee's action or inaction; but rather, the result employee
varies with each state of facts. continues in the
 In Filamer Christian vs. IAC, the SC held that: service of his
 acts done within the scope of the employee's employer until he
assigned tasks includes "any act done by an actually reaches
employee in furtherance of the interests of the home
employer or for the account of the employer at employer is not
the time of the infliction of the injury or liable, even if the
employee is
damages.
deemed to be
 The mere fact that Abad was using a service acting within the
vehicle at the time of the injurious incident is not scope of his
of itself sufficient to charge petitioner with liability employment,
for the negligent operation of said vehicle unless it when the
appears that he was operating the vehicle within employee has left
the course or scope of his employment. the direct route of
Operation of Operation of Use of his work or back
Employer’s Employer’s Employer’s home and is
pursuing a
Motor Vehicle Vehicle in Vehicle Outside
personal errand of
in Going to or Going to or Regular his own
From Meals From Work Working Hours
employee is not traveling to and employer is not
 Although the aforementioned principles of
ordinarily acting from the place of generally liable for
within the scope work is ordinarily the employee's
Americam common law are based on the doctrine
of his employment a personal negligent of respondeat superior, they are still applicable in
in the absence of problem or operation of the this jurisdiction.
evidence of some concern of the vehicle during the  Before the collision occurred, Abad had snacks and
special business employee, and not period of a chat with his friends at Goldie’s Restaurant,
benefit to the a part of his permissive use, which is 7 km away from Castilex. Fuente Osmenñ a
employer services to his even where the is known as a lively place where prostitutes, pimps
employer employer and drug addicts littered.
contemplates that
 At the time of the vehicular accident, Abad was
a regularly
assigned motor
with a woman in his car who shouted: “Daddy,
vehicle will be Daddy!”.
used by the  Abad was engaged in affairs of his own or was
employee for carrying out a personal purpose not in line with
personal as well his duties at the time he figured in a vehicular
as business accident. It was then about 2:00 a.m. of 28 August
purposes and 1988, way beyond the normal working hours.
there is some  Hence, Castilex has no duty to show that it
incidental benefit exercised the diligence of a good father of the
to the employer
family in providing Abad with a service vehicle.
evidence that by in the absence of
using the some special Dispositive: Petition is granted. CA decision and
employer's benefit to the resolution is affirmed with modification that Castilex is
vehicle to go to employer other absolved from liability.
and from meals, than the mere
an employee is performance of
enabled to reduce the services
his time-off and so available at the
devote more time place where he is
to the needed, the
performance of employee is not
his duties acting within the
supports the scope of his
finding that an employment even
employee is acting though he uses his