Scribd
Upload
88 views2 pages

Greenstar Express Case

1) Greenstar Express sued Universal Robina Corp (URC) and its subsidiary Nissin Universal Robina Corp (NURC) for damages from a collision between Greenstar's bus and a van owned by URC but driven by NURC's manager. 2) The court considered both employer liability law and the registered owner rule. Under the registered owner rule, the owner of the vehicle is liable, while employer liability law requires proving employment and scope of duties. 3) The court ruled in favor of URC and NURC, finding they overcame the presumption of liability by showing the driver was not working at the time of the accident and was outside his work area, making his use

Uploaded by

bubuchokoy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
88 views2 pages

Greenstar Express Case

1) Greenstar Express sued Universal Robina Corp (URC) and its subsidiary Nissin Universal Robina Corp (NURC) for damages from a collision between Greenstar's bus and a van owned by URC but driven by NURC's manager. 2) The court considered both employer liability law and the registered owner rule. Under the registered owner rule, the owner of the vehicle is liable, while employer liability law requires proving employment and scope of duties. 3) The court ruled in favor of URC and NURC, finding they overcame the presumption of liability by showing the driver was not working at the time of the accident and was outside his work area, making his use

Uploaded by

bubuchokoy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

TRANSPORTATION LAW CONCEPT OF COMMON CARRIERS

Greenstar Express Inc v RULING: NO. Respondents URC and NURC


Universal Robina Corp are not liable for damages sustained by
G.R. No. 205090 | Oct. 17, 2016 Greenstar.
Topic: Registered Owner Rule
The resolution of this case must consider
two (2) rules. First, Article 2180’s
specification that ‘employers shall be liable
Petitioner Greenstar Express, Inc. is a for the damages caused by their employees .
corporation engaged in the business of . . acting within the scope of their assigned
public transportation, while petitioner Fruto tasks.’ Second, the operation of the
L. Sayson, Jr. is one of its bus drivers. registered-owner rule that registered
Respondents Universal Robina Corporation owners are liable for death or injuries
(URC) and Nissin Universal Robina caused by the operation of their vehicles.
Corporation (NURC) are domestic
corporations engaged in the food business. Article 2180 requires proof of two things:
NURC is a subsidiary of URC. URC is the first, an employment relationship between
the driver and the owner; and second, that
registered owner of a Mitsubishi L-300 van
the driver acted within the scope of his or
with plate number WRN 403 (URC van).
her assigned tasks. On the other hand,
About 0650 on Feb. 25, 2003 (a holiday), applying the registered-owner rule only
petitioner's bus, being driven toward Manila requires the plaintiff to prove that the
by Sayson, collided head-on with the URC defendant-employer is the registered owner
of the vehicle.
van, which was being driven Quezon
province-bound by NURC's Operations
Therefore, the appropriate approach is that
Manager, Renante Bicomong. Bicomong died
in cases where both the registered-owner
on the spot, while the colliding vehicles rule and Article 2180 apply, the plaintiff
sustained considerable damage. must first establish that the employer is the
Petitioners filed a Complaint against NURC registered owner of the vehicle in question.
Once the plaintiff successfully proves
to recover damages sustained during the
ownership, there arises a disputable
collision, premised on negligence while URC
presumption that the requirements of
was later impleaded as additional defendant. Article 2180 have been proven. As a
URC and NURC filed their respective consequence, the burden of proof shifts to
Answers, where they particularly alleged the defendant to show that no liability under
Article 2180 has arisen.
and claimed lack of negligence on their part
and on the part of Bicomong.
Respondents succeeded in overcoming the
After the issues were joined, trial proceeded. presumption of negligence, having shown:
During trial, only Sayson was presented by - that when the collision took place,
petitioners as eyewitness to the collision. Bicomong was not in the performance of his
work;
The RTC dismissed the complaint of the - that he was in possession of a service
petitioners to which the CA affirmed. vehicle that did not belong to his employer
NURC, but to URC, and which vehicle was not
ISSUE: Were Respondents liable to officially assigned to him, but to another
petitioners for the damages they sustained employee;
considering that the accident was attributed
to the negligence of Bicomong?
TRANSPORTATION LAW CONCEPT OF COMMON CARRIERS

- that his use of the URC van was Stated differently, the rule is that the
unauthorized; even if he had used the same antecedent negligence of a person does not
vehicle in furtherance of a personal preclude recovery of damages caused by the
undertaking in the past, this does not supervening negligence of the latter, who
amount to implied permission; had the last fair chance to prevent the
- that the accident occurred on a holiday and impending harm by the exercise of due
while Bicomong was on his way home to his diligence
family in Quezon province;
- and that Bicomong had no official business
whatsoever in his hometown in Quezon, or
in Laguna where the collision occurred, his
area of operations being limited to the Cavite
area.

Despite having seen Bicomong drive the URC


van in a precarious manner while the same
was still a good 250 meters away from his
bus, Sayson did not take the necessary
precautions, as by reducing speed and
adopting a defensive stance to avert any
untoward incident that may occur from
Bicomong’s manner of driving. When the van
began to swerve toward his bus, he did not
reduce speed nor swerve his bus to avoid
collision. Instead, he maintained his current
speed and course, and for this reason, the
inevitable took place. An experienced driver
who is presented with the same facts would
have adopted an attitude consistent with a
desire to preserve life and property; for
common carriers, the diligence demanded is
of the highest degree.

Petition was DENIED.

Doctrine of Last Clear Chance

The doctrine of last clear chance provides


that where both parties are negligent but the
negligent act of one is appreciably later in
point of time than that of the other, or where
it is impossible to determine whose fault or
negligence brought about the occurrence of
the incident, the one who had the last clear
opportunity to avoid the impending harm
but failed to do so, is chargeable with the
consequences arising therefrom.

You might also like