Imperial vs.

Heirs of Bayaban

xxx… It was 3PM and Laraga was driving in Antipolo City, where, as alleged by petitioner, his greenhouse
and garden were located. It is worth noting that according to the petitioner, he loaned the van to Pascua
for the maintenance of his greenhouse and the repair of the water line pipes in his garden. The logical
conclusion is that Laraga was driving the van in connection with the upkeep of petitioner’s Antipolo
greenhouse and garden. Laraga was driving the van in furtherance of the interests of petitioner at the
time of the account. Xxx

Considering that petitioner failed to dispute the presumption of negligence on his part, he was correctly
deemed liable for the damages incurred by the Bayaban Spouses when the tricycle they were riding
collided with the van driven by petitioner’s employee, Laraga. It must be noted that the accident
happened because Laraga tried to overtake another vehicle and, in doing so, drove to the opposite lane
when the van collided with the approaching tricycle. Laraga was negligent in operating the van.

*So if you look at the circumstance of the case, Laraga was on his way, in fact, to the business place of
Imperial. So Imperial cannot claim that he acted beyond the scope of his duties and this was correctly
upheld by the Supreme Court.

VDM Trading and Spouses Domingo vs. Carungcong

Here there was an issue in the unit being occupied by the Spouses Domingo because allegedly the unit
above them which is owned by Carungcong had gaslighting and pipe line work to be done in their unit
which resulted to soapy water leaking into the Spouses Domingo’s unit. So the Spouses Domingo filed a
complaint for damages against Carungcong and Wack Wack Twin Towers Condominium Association,
Inc., the owner of the condominium.

So here the the SC said the requisites of a quasi-delict were not met and, therefore, Carungcong could
not be held liable. This is a unique case because it involves a condominium unit and it’s one of the first
case samples where there is no finding of negligence so we should look at how the elements of quasi-
delict are applied here and how the SC said that there was insufficient proof to show that there was, in
fact, negligence on the part of Carungcong.

To constitute quasi-delict, the alleged fault or negligence committed by the defendant must be the
proximate cause of the damage or injury suffered by the plaintiff.

Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred.

State in simple terms, it must be proven that the supposed fault or negligence committed by the
respondents, i.e., the undertaking of plumbing works on unit 2308B-1, was the cause of the damage to
the Unit. Such was not proven by the petitioners.

First, as correctly observed by the CA, the claim that a supposed leak in the plumbing works located in
the balcony of Unit 2308B-1 caused the leakage of soapy water in various parts of the Unit, including the
various bedrooms inside the unit, is highly doubtful and illogical. As noted by the CA, the subject
plumbing works are isolated in the balcony area of Unit 2308B-1. The petitioners do not dispute that the
said area is separated from the other areas of the unit and sealed off by a wall and beam. Hence, if a
leakage in the plumbing works on the balcony of Unit 2308B-1 indeed occurred, is is highly improbable
that suck leak would spread to a wide area of the unit.

Second, aside from the unsubstantiated self-serving testimony of Atty. Villareal, there was no evidence
presented to show that the supposed widespread leak of soapy water in the various parts of the unit
was caused by plumbing works on the balcony of the said balcony. No witness or document establishing
a causal link between the plumbing works and the damage to the unit was offered. The petitioners could
have utilized assessors or technical experts on building and plumbing works to personally examine and
assess the damage caused to the unit to provide some substantiation to the claim of proximate cause.
However, no such witness was presented. The petitioners relied solely on the testimony of their own
counsel, Atty. Villareal. Proximate cause cannot be established by the mere say-so of a self-serving
witness.

Lastly, the fact that the plumbing works done in Unit 2308B-1 was not the cause of the damage suffered
by the petitioners’ unit is further supported by the factual finding of the CA that a case before the
HLURB was previously filed by the petitioners against Golden Dragon. In this complaint, which was
offered evidence by the petitioners themselves, the latter alleged that in 1998, way before the
installation of the subject plumbing works in Unit 2308B-1, they had already discovered water leaks in
the unit which damaged the interiors thereof. It was the petitioners’ allegation that the water leakage in
the unit was made possible due to the Golden Dragon’s delivery of a “defective and/or standard unit”. In
fact, the CA noted that the HLURB issued a Decision dated July 9, 2009 holding Golden Dragon liable for
the water leakage suffered by the petitioners. It is of no coincidence that the award for actual damages
granted to the petitioners is similar to the award for the actual damages sought by the petitioners in the
instant case.

Heirs of Mendoza vs. ES Trucking Forwarders

The heirs of Catalina who sued ES Trucking over a vehicular accident, claiming that ES Trucking did not
exercise due diligence of a good the father of family in the selection of their driver because it hired a
driver who did not have the necessary training for driving a trailer truck. They argued that because ES
Trucking is a common carrier, there’s a presumption of negligence that may only be defeated if evidence
of the observance of diligence required by law is presented.

In this case, it has been proven by the preponderant evidence that Timtim recklessly drove the prime
mover truck which caused the death of Catalina. Although the employer is not the actual torfeasor, the
law makes the employer vicariously liable on the basis of the civil law principle of paterfamilias for
failure to exercise due care and vigilance over the acts of one’s subordinates to prevent damage to
another. When the employee caused damage due to his own negligence while performing his own
duties, there arises a presumption that the employer is negligent. This may be rebutted only by proof of
observance of the diligence of a good father of a family. The “diligence of a good father” referred to in
the last paragraph of Article 2180 means diligence in the selection and supervision of employees.
In the selection of its prospective employees, the employer is required to examine them as to their
qualifications, experience, and service records. ES Trucking did not require Timtim to present any
document other than this professional driver’s license and job application form.

ES Trucking was not only negligent in hiring Timtim but even in supervising the latter. They permitted
Timtim to drive the subject vehicle to transport goods of its customers knowing that the vehicle is not
duly registered with the LTFRB. So, Timtim was not actually qualified to drive the truck because his
license was not qualified to drive the truck assigned to him.