Gelisan V Alday

Bienvenido Gelisan v. Benito Alday G.R. No.
L-30212 September 30, 1987 Ponente: Padilla Registered Owner Rule
FACTS: On January 31, 1962, Gelisan and Espiritu entered into a contract under which the latter hired Gelisans freight truck for the purpose of hauling rice, sugar, flour and fertilizer. It was agreed that: the rate would be P18.00 per trip within Manila, the loads shall not exceed 200 sacks, and that Espiritu shall bear and pay all losses and damages attending the carriage of the goods to be hauled by him. Espiritus driver then took the truck on February 1, 1962. Plaintiff Alday, a trucking operator, owns about 15 freight trucks, and had known the Espiritu since 1948 as a truck operator. Alday had a contract to haul the fertilizers of the Atlas Fertilizer Corporation (Atlas) from Pier 4, North Harbor, to its Warehouse in Mandaluyong. Alday met Espiritu at the gate of Pier 4 and the latter offered the use of his truck with the driver and helper at 9 centavos per bag of fertilizer. Alday accepted the offer and instructed his checker to let Espiritu haul the fertilizer. Espiritu made two hauls of 200 bags of fertilizer per trip. The fertilizer was delivered to his driver and helper with the necessary way bill receipts. However, he did not deliver the fertilizer to the Atlas bodega at Mandaluyong and he could not be found Alday reported the loss to the Manila Police Department. Espiritu was later arrested and booked for theft while the truck was found by Alday on Sto. Cristo St., and was later impounded by the police. Gelisan claimed the truck but as he could not produce at the time the registration papers, the police would not release the same to him. He paid the premium of P300 to a surety company for the release of the truck. Alday was compelled to pay the value of the 400 bags of fertilizer, in the amount of P5,397.33, to Atlas so that, on 12 February 1962, he filed a complaint against Espiritu and Gelisan with the CFI of Manila, for the recovery of damages suffered by him thru the criminal acts committed by the defendants. The defendant, Roberto Espiritu failed to file an answer and was, accordingly, declared in default.
On the other hand, Gelisan, disowned responsibility. He claimed that he had no contractual relations with the plaintiff Alday as regards the hauling and/or delivery of the 400 bags of fertilizer; that the alleged misappropriation or nondelivery by Espiritu, was entirely beyond his (Gelisan's) control and knowledge, and which only became known to him on 8 February 1962 when his freight truck was impounded by the police; and that in his written contract of hire with Espiritu, it was expressly provided that the latter will bear and pay all loss and damages attending the carriage of goods to be hauled by him. CFI ruled that only Espiritu was liable since Gelisan was not privy to the contract between Espiritu and Alday. CA ruled that Gelisan is also liable for being the registered owner of the truck; and that the lease contract between Gelisan and Espiritu, with the stipulation that Espiritu shall bear and pay all losses attending the carriage of goods, is not binding upon Alday for not having been previously approved by the Public Service Commission. Gelisan appealed to SC.
ISSUE: WON Gelisan is liable for damages to Alday for the nondelivery of the bags of fertilizer
HELD: Yes. The registered owner of a public service vehicle is responsible for damages that may arise from consequences incident to its operation or that may be caused to any of the passengers therein. Montoya vs. Ignacio: Since a franchise is personal in nature any transfer or lease thereof should be notified to the Public Service Commission so that the latter may take proper safeguards to protect the interest of the public. xxx It follows that if the property covered by the franchise is transferred, or leased to another without obtaining the requisite approval, the transfer is not binding against the Public Service Commission and in contemplation of law the grantee continues to be responsible under the franchise in relation to the Commission and to the Public. Nevertheles, Gelisan has a right to be indemnified by Espiritu for the amount that he may be required to pay as damages to Alday. The lease contract in question, although not effective against the public for not having been approved by the Public Service Commission, is valid and binding between the contracting parties.

Gelisan V Alday

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gelisan V Alday

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gelisan V Alday

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bienvenido Gelisan v. Benito Alday G.R. No.

L-30212 September 30, 1987 Ponente: Padilla Registered Owner Rule

You might also like