MA.

LOURDES VALENZUELA, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OFAPPEALS, RICHARD LI and ALEXANDER COMMERCIAL, INC., respondents.

G.R. No. 117944. February 7, 1996.*

RICHARD LI, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and MA. LOURDES VALENZUELA, respondents.

G.R. No. 115024. February 7, 1996.*

KAPUNAN, J.:
Digest Author: Jude Fanila

Topic: VI. Persons Vicariously Liable – Owners/Managers/Employers - Within the scope of assigned tasks

Case Summary: Petitioner, Lourdes while driving home got a flat tire. Parked her car close to the sidewalk to
inspect it. Subsequently, respondent Li driving a company car bumped into her. Led to her left leg being
amputated. Subsequent action for damages. SC found that respondent company should be held liable with Li
as the grant of a company car to an employee principally serves the interests of the business by allowing
representatives or managerial employees to meet with clients. Thus, absent proof that they exercised due
diligence in testing Li’s driving proficiency they are solidarily liable with him under NCC 2180.

Petitioners: Ma. Lourdes Valenzuela – lady who got rammed by respondent, Li’s car.
Respondents: CA – absolved defendant company of liability | Richard Li – driver who rammed Li | Alexander
Commercial Inc., - company of Li who provided the car

Doctrines Involved: The liability of an employer for the negligence of his employee is not based on the
principle of respondeat superior but that of pater familias. in which the liability ultimately falls upon the
employer, for his failure to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision
of his employees.

Special case - Here, the practice in question involves company practice of large companies in providing their
employees of managerial rank or representatives with company cars. Such cars are wholly owned and
maintained by the company. Companies are expected to exercise due diligence when the give full use and
enjoyment of a company car to an employee.

Connection to work – similarly, grant of unlimited use of company car to employees principally serves the
business and goodwill of a company. Either by projecting a successful business image of the company or
practically, by allowing its employees to reach clients conveniently.

FACTS:
1. June 24 1990 – 2AM, plaintiff Lourdes Valenzuela was driving home from work (Marcos Hwy.
Restaurant) to her home (Araneta Ave.) On the way there, noticed that her tire was flat. Stopped along
a side-walk about 1-1/2 feet away and put on her emergency lights.
a. While parked, her car was hit by a car driven by defendant, Richard Li. Car was registered in
the name of the defendant company, Alexander Commercial, Inc.
 b. The impact led to Lourdes’ left leg being severed up to the middle of her thigh. Thereafter
was admitted to the UERM memorial medical center, where she was found to have suffered
traumatic amputation of the left leg, up to distal thigh. 1
c. 20 day confinement, costing P120k. Artificial leg costing P27k.
2. Thereafter, Lourdes filed a complaint for damages against the defendants. Claiming the following
amounts:
a. P1M Moral Damages|P100k in exemplary damages| P180k in medical and related expenses,
including loss of earning.
3. Respondent, Li raised the defense that he was not negligent. That due to the rainy conditions visibility
was poor. That he was temporarily blinded by a car coming from the opposite direction that had full
bright lights, which led him to swerve to avoid a collision with that car. Alleged that Lourdes’ car had
no parking lights nor early warning devices which was compounded by the poor lighting of the area.
That the car itself was protruding diagonally toward the road.
a. Filed a counterclaim, alleging that Lourdes was reckless/negligent as she had no license to
drive.
4. RTC of Quezon found Li guilty of gross negligence, liable under 2176. Also found defendant company
jointly and severally liable under NCC 2180.
a. Basis – eyewitness testimony of a certain Rodriguez, who testified to seeing Li’s car
approaching in a zigzag pattern prior to the collision. Also testified that Richard Li smelled
strongly of liquor.
b. Award - P41,840.00, as actual damages, representing the miscellaneous expenses of the
plaintiff as a result of her severed left leg;
c. The sums of
i. (a) P37,500.00, for the unrealized profits because of the stoppage of plaintiff’s Bistro
La Conga restaurant three (3) weeks after the accident on June 24, 1990;
ii. (b) P20,000.00, a month, as unrealized profits of the plaintiff in her Bistro La Conga
restaurant, from August, 1990 until the date of this judgment; and
iii. (c) P30,000.00, a month, for unrealized profits in plaintiff’s two (2) beauty salons from
July, 1990 until the date of this decision;
iv. P1,000,000.00, in moral damages; P50,000.00, as exemplary damages; P60,000.00, as
reasonable attorney’s fees; and Costs.
5. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC with modification
a. Finding that evidence sufficiently established that Lourdes was properly parked along the
sidewalk at the time of the accident. However, cleared defendant company from liability.
b. Reduced the amount of moral damages to P500,000.00. Exemplary damages, an award of
P50,000.00 for the same, in addition to costs, attorney’s fees and the other damages.
6. Both parties appealed.
a. Richard Li – not negligent. Proximate cause was Lourdes’ own negligence. Even if it was him,
contributory negligence means that award should be mitigated. Contributory as she parked in
a no parking zone.
b. Valenzuela – appeals reduction of award of actual and moral damages. Also the absolution of
Alexander Commercial Inc.

ISSUES + HELD:
1. W/N defendant company should be held liable under NCC 2180 for the negligence of its employee?
– YES

1
Basically, above the knee amputation
 a. Preliminary Issue of Negligence – SC finds that findings of lower court insofar as the
negligence of Li are controlling. Eyewitness testimony by an uninterested witness given greater
credence than claims of Li.
i. Contributory Negligence – Emergency rule applies. Under the doctrine, an individual
who suddenly finds himself in a situation of danger and is required to act without
much time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending
danger is not guilty of negligence.
1. While normally the emergency rule applies to cases where the opportunity to
weigh a threatening situation is absent, this is not an exclusive application.
The rule is not exclusive to only sudden events but determined by the over-
all nature of the circumstances.
ii. Application – Here, a woman driving a vehicle with a suddenly flat tire on a rainy
night will not be faulted for stopping at a point convenient for her and at a point not
a hazard to other motorists. In fact, would be more hazardous for her to not stop
because the flat tire posed a danger to other motorists.
b. Liability of the employer – lower courts absolved the company on the basis that no proof that
Li’s visit was in connection with his work.
i. Liability of employer – based on the principle of pater familias NOT of respondeat
superior 2. Thus, the liability that attaches to the employer arises from the failure to
exercise the due diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and
supervision of employees as applied under NCC 2180. i
1. St. Francis High School v. CA – miscited by the lower courts. It dealt with a
school, and the supervision of its teacher’s supervision of students during an
extracurricular activity. There, the basis was special parental authority under
FC 218. Not NCC 2180
2. NCC 2180 – here, employer liable when evidence has been shown that they
failed to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of their
employees. Normally, employers not expected to exercise supervision over
private activities of an employee or for those tasks unsanctioned or unrelated
to the employee’s tasks with the employer.
3. Special case - Here, the practice in question involves company practice of
large companies in providing their employees of managerial rank or
representatives with company cars. Such cars are wholly owned and
maintained by the company. Companies are expected to exercise due
diligence when the give full use and enjoyment of a company car to an
employee.
a. Connection to work – similarly, grant of unlimited use of company
car to employees principally serves the business and goodwill of a
company. Either by projecting a successful business image of the
company or practically, by allowing its employees to reach clients
conveniently.
ii. Application to Li – Li was an assistant manager. Admitted that he was often required
to perform work outside of the office and outside of normal office hours. Li’s claim
also was that he came from a social visit from his office-mate. Assuming this was true,
not a stretch to infer that this was work-related.
iii. Liability of Company – no evidence was presented to show that the company took
steps necessary to determine or ascertain the driving proficiency of Li before they
gave him full and unlimited use of the company of car. Thus, jointly and Severally
Liable.

2
This provides liability of a master for the acts of their servant
 c. Damages – Moral damages reverted to P1M – in greater accord with the naure and extent of
the injury suffered by Lourdes.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision

of the Court of Appeals is modified with the effect of
REINSTATING the judgment of the Regional Trial Court.
SO ORDERED.

RULING:

DISSENT:

NOTES:

i
Article 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts
or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages
caused by the minor children who live in their company.

Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under
their authority and live in their company.

The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages
caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on
the occasion of their functions.

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 State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the
damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case
what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable.

Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused
by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.

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. (1903a)