R Transport Corporation v. Yu

On December 12, 1993, Loreta J. Yu alighted from a passenger bus in front of Robinson's Galleria on the northbound lane of EDSA and was hit and run over by a bus driven by Antonio P. Gimena, an employee of R Transport Corporation. She was pronounced dead on arrival. Her husband, Luisito G. Yu, sued R Transport, Gimena and Metro Manila Transport Corporation (MMTC) for damages in the RTC of Makati. MMTC argued that it was merely the registered owner, having bought the bus under a government installment program for resale to R Transport, the actual owner and operator. R Transport claimed due diligence in selecting and supervising its drivers. Gimena was declared in default. The RTC found that R Transport failed to prove diligence and held it and MMTC primarily and solidarily liable, with Gimena subsidiarily liable, for actual damages, loss of income, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed, modifying Gimena's liability to solidary, and ruled that not being the registered owner did not exculpate R Transport.

1. 1Whether the lower courts erred in finding the driver negligent and R Transport liable as his employer.
2. 2Whether R Transport, not being the registered owner of the bus, is exempt from solidary liability for the victim's death.

Petition denied. Negligence is a question of fact, and the concurring findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals bind the Court absent any recognized exception. The records showed that Gimena drove at reckless speed into a loading and unloading area of a commercial center, where a stopped bus should have warned him to slow down. Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, once the employee's negligence is established, the employer is presumed negligent in selection or supervision and must rebut the presumption with proof of the diligence of a good father of a family; R Transport presented none. Its reliance on Vargas v. Langcay and Tamayo v. Aquino failed. Following Jereos v. Court of Appeals, the rule making the registered owner jointly and severally liable never exempted the actual owner, and the registered owner may recover from the actual owner. Tamayo, which denied solidary liability, involved a breach of contract of carriage; this case is a quasi-delict under Article 2176 in relation to Article 2180, where the employer's liability is direct and primary. The Court reiterated that for the better protection of the public both the owner of record and the actual operator should be held jointly and severally liable with the driver, and that the registered owner rule is not a shield for transferees to escape liability for their own negligence. The Court of Appeals' decision and resolution were affirmed.