Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4K views

    Filamer v. IAC Digest

    Uploaded by

    Francis Guinoo
    Funtecha, a working student and part-time janitor for Filamer Christian Institute, was involved in a car accident while driving the school's vehicle home with another student, Allan Masa. Funtecha did not have a driver's license. The accident killed a pedestrian, Potenciano Kapunan. Kapunan's heirs sued Filamer for damages. Filamer argued it was not liable since Funtecha acted outside the scope of his duties. The court ruled that Filamer was liable because Funtecha drove the vehicle for the benefit of the school, not for his own enjoyment. As Funtecha's employer, Filamer had an obligation to properly supervise its employees,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Filamer v. IAC Digest

    Uploaded by

    Francis Guinoo
    4K views2 pages
    Funtecha, a working student and part-time janitor for Filamer Christian Institute, was involved in a car accident while driving the school's vehicle home with another student, Allan Masa. Funtecha did not have a driver's license. The accident killed a pedestrian, Potenciano Kapunan. Kapunan's heirs sued Filamer for damages. Filamer argued it was not liable since Funtecha acted outside the scope of his duties. The court ruled that Filamer was liable because Funtecha drove the vehicle for the benefit of the school, not for his own enjoyment. As Funtecha's employer, Filamer had an obligation to properly supervise its employees,

    Original Description:

    Torts and Damages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Funtecha, a working student and part-time janitor for Filamer Christian Institute, was involved in a car accident while driving the school's vehicle home with another student, Allan Masa. Funtecha did not have a driver's license. The accident killed a pedestrian, Potenciano Kapunan. Kapunan's heirs sued Filamer for damages. Filamer argued it was not liable since Funtecha acted outside the scope of his duties. The court ruled that Filamer was liable because Funtecha drove the vehicle for the benefit of the school, not for his own enjoyment. As Funtecha's employer, Filamer had an obligation to properly supervise its employees,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    4K views2 pages

    Filamer v. IAC Digest

    Uploaded by

    Francis Guinoo
    Funtecha, a working student and part-time janitor for Filamer Christian Institute, was involved in a car accident while driving the school's vehicle home with another student, Allan Masa. Funtecha did not have a driver's license. The accident killed a pedestrian, Potenciano Kapunan. Kapunan's heirs sued Filamer for damages. Filamer argued it was not liable since Funtecha acted outside the scope of his duties. The court ruled that Filamer was liable because Funtecha drove the vehicle for the benefit of the school, not for his own enjoyment. As Funtecha's employer, Filamer had an obligation to properly supervise its employees,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    The Defendants

    iv. Employers
    Third Division
    Filamer v. IAC
    GR No. 75112
    August 17, 1992
    Gutierrez, J:
    Facts: Funtecha was a working student of Filamer Christian Institute. Being
    a part-time janitor and a scholar of petitioner Filamer, he was
    considered an employee even if he was assigned to clean the
    premises for just 2 hours every day.

    Allan Masa, the son of Filamers president Mr. Agustin Masa, was the
    official driver of the schools vehicle. Since Funtecha and Allan lived
    in the same house, Funtecha, holder of a student drivers license,
    requested Allan to take over the vehicle and drive it home. Allan
    Masa turned over the vehicle to Funtecha only after driving down a
    road, negotiating a sharp dangerous curb, and viewing that the road
    was clear. A fast moving truck with glaring lights nearly hit them so
    they swerved to the right to avoid collision. Upon swerving, they
    heard a sound as if something had bumped against the vehicle, but
    they did not stop to check. Unfortunately, their jeep swerved towards
    the pedestrian, Potenciano Kapunan who was walking in his lane in
    the direction against vehicular traffic, and hit him.

    The heirs of Kapunan filed an action against Filamer for damages. In


    its defense, Filamer alleged that Funtecha acted outside of his scope
    of his authority. Therefore, it was only Funtecha who was liable and
    not Filamer.

    Issue: Whether or not Filamer Christian Institute is liable for the acts of
    Funtecha

    Held:

    Yes, Filamer is liable for the acts of Funtecha.

    Ratio: In learning how to drive while taking the vehicle home in the direction
    of Allan's house, Funtecha definitely was not having a joy ride.
    Funtecha was not driving for the purpose of his enjoyment or for a
    "frolic of his own" but ultimately, for the service for which the jeep
    was intended by the petitioner school. Therefore, the Court is
    constrained to conclude that the act of Funtecha in taking over the
    steering wheel was one done for and in behalf of his employer for
    which act the petitioner-school cannot deny any responsibility by
    arguing that it was done beyond the scope of his janitorial duties. He
    need not have an official appointment for a driver's position in order
    that the petitioner may be held responsible for his grossly negligent
    act, it being sufficient that the act of driving at the time of the incident
    was for the benefit of the petitioner. Hence, the fact that Funtecha
    was not the school driver or was not acting within the scope of
    his janitorial duties does not relieve the petitioner of the burden
    of rebutting the presumption that there was negligence on its
    part either in the selection of a servant or employee, or in the
    supervision over him. The petitioner has failed to show proof of its
    having exercised the required diligence of a good father of a family
    over its employees Funtecha and Allan.

    What does supervision of employee include?

    It includes the formulation of suitable rules and regulations for the


    guidance of its employees and the issuance of proper instructions
    intended for the protection of the public and persons with whom the
    employer has relations through his employees.

    Was there any showing that Filamer provided rules and regulations?

    None.

    Therefore:

    Petitioner Filamer has an obligation to pay damages for injury arising


    from the unskilled manner by which Funtecha drove the vehicle. The
    liability of Filamer is primary and solidary. It has, however, recourse
    against the negligent employee for whatever damages it has paid.

    You might also like