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
Basically, above the knee amputation
 1. W/N defendant company should be held liable under NCC 2180 for the negligence of its
employee? – YES
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 superior2. 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

2
This provides liability of a master for the acts of their servant
 before they gave him full and unlimited use of the company of car. Thus, jointly
and Severally Liable.
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)