Partial Defense: Doctrine of Contributory Negligence (Art. 2179, Civil 1.

1. Fracture left femur, junction of middle and distal third,

Code) comminuted.

G.R. No. 149149             October 23, 2003 2. Lacerated wounds, left poplitial 10 cm. left leg anterior
2.5 cm.
ERNESTO SYKI, petitioner,
vs. 3. Abrasion left knee. 2

SALVADOR BEGASA, respondent.
On October 29, 1992, respondent filed a complaint for
DECISION damages for breach of common carrier’s contractual
obligations and quasi-delict against Aurora Pisuena, the owner
CORONA, J.: of the passenger jeepney;, herein petitioner Ernesto Syki, the
owner of the truck;, and Elizalde Sablayan, the driver of the
Assailed in the instant this petition for review under Rule 45 of truck.
the Rules of Court is the decision dated January 31, 2001 of
1 

the Court of Appeals, affirming the decision dated May 5, 1998 After hearing, the trial court dismissed the complaint
of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental, Branch 48, against Aurora Pisuena, the owner and operator of the
Bacolod City, in Civil Case No. 7458 for damages. The trial passenger jeepney, but ordered petitioner Ernesto Syki and
court awarded actual and moral damages to herein respondent his truck driver, Elizalde Sablayan, to pay respondent
Salvador Begasa who suffered injuries in an accident due to Salvador Begasa, jointly and severally, actual and moral
the negligence of Elizalde Sablayan, the truck driver of damages plus attorney’s fees as follows:
petitioner Ernesto Syki.
1. Actual damages of ₱48,308.20 less the financial
The facts follow. assistance given by defendant Ernesto Syki to plaintiff
Salvador Begasa in the amount of ₱4,152.55 or a total
On June 22, 1992, around 11:20 a.m., near the corner of amount of ₱44,155.65;
Araneta and Magsaysay Streets, Bacolod City, respondent
Salvador Begasa and his three companions flagged down a 2. The amount of ₱30,000.00 as moral damages;
passenger jeepney driven by Joaquin Espina and owned by
Aurora Pisuena. While respondent was boarding the 3. The amount of ₱20,000.00 as reasonable attorney’s
passenger jeepney (his right foot already inside while his left fees.3

foot still on the boarding step of the passenger jeepney), a

truck driven by Elizalde Sablayan and owned by petitioner Petitioner Syki and his driver appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Ernesto Syki bumped the rear end of the passenger jeepney. However, the appellate court found no reversible error in the
Respondent fell and fractured his left thigh bone (femur). He decision of the trial court and affirmed the same in toto. The
4 

also suffered lacerations and abrasions in his left leg, thusas appellate court also denied their motion for reconsideration. 5

follows:
Aggrieved, petitioner Ernesto Syki filed the instant petition for
review, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in not finding
respondent Begasa guilty of contributory negligence. Hence, presumption of negligence, he is relieved of liability. In other
6 

the damages awarded to him (respondent) should have been words, the burden of proof is on the employer.
decreased or mitigated. Petitioner also contends that the
appellate court erred in ruling that he failed to observe the The question is: how does an employer prove that he had
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and indeed exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in
supervision of his driver. He asserts that he presented the selection and supervision of his employee? The case
sufficient evidence to prove that he observed the diligence of a of Metro Manila Transit Corporation vs. Court of
good father of a family in selecting and supervising the said Appeals is instructive:
7 

employee, thus he should not be held liable for the injuries

sustained by respondent. In fine, the party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who asserts
the affirmative of the issue has the burden of presenting at the
The petition has no merit. trial such amount of evidence required by law to obtain a
favorable judgment. . .In making proof in its or his case, it is
Article 2180 of the Civil Code provides: paramount that the best and most complete evidence is
formally entered.1ªvvphi1.nét

. . . . . . . . .x x x x x x x x x
Coming now to the case at bar, while there is no rule which
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their requires that testimonial evidence, to hold sway, must be
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of corroborated by documentary evidence, inasmuch as the
their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged witnesses’ testimonies dwelt on mere generalities, we cannot
in any business or industry. consider the same as sufficiently persuasive proof that there
was observance of due diligence in the selection and
xxxxxxxxx supervision of employees. Petitioner’s attempt to prove its
"deligentissimi patris familias" in the selection and supervision
......... of employees through oral evidence must fail as it was unable
to buttress the same with any other evidence, object or
The responsibility treated in this article shall cease when the documentary, which might obviate the apparent biased nature
persons herein mentioned prove they observed all the of the testimony.
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
Our view that the evidence for petitioner MMTC falls short of
From the above provision, when an injury is caused by the the required evidentiary quantum as would convincingly and
negligence of an employee, a legal presumption instantly undoubtedly prove its observance of the diligence of a good
arises that the employer was negligent, either or both, in the father of a family has its precursor in the underlying rationale
selection and/or supervision of his said employee duties. The pronounced in the earlier case of Central Taxicab Corp. vs. Ex-
said presumption may be rebutted only by a clear showing on Meralco Employees Transportation Co., et. al., set amidst an
the part of the employer that he had exercised the diligence of almost identical factual setting, where we held that:
a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his
employee. If the employer successfully overcomes the legal The failure of the defendant company to produce in court any
‘record’ or other documentary proof tending to establish that it
had exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in National Bureau of Investigation; to undergo tests of their
the selection and supervision of its drivers and buses, driving skills, concentration, reflexes, and vision; and, to
notwithstanding the calls therefore by both the trial court and complete training programs on traffic rules, vehicle
the opposing counsel, argues strongly against its pretensions. maintenance, and standard operating procedures during
emergency cases.
We are fully aware that there is no hard-and-fast rule on the
quantum of evidence needed to prove due observance of all . . . . . . . . .x x x x x x x x x
the diligence of a good father of a family as would constitute a
valid defense to the legal presumption of negligence on the Although testimonies were offered that in the case of Pedro
part of an employer or master whose employee has by his Musa all these precautions were followed, the records of his
negligence, caused damage to another. x x x (R)educing the interview, of the results of his examinations, and of his service
testimony of Albert to its proper proportion, we do not have were not presented. . . [T]here is no record that Musa attended
enough trustworthy evidence left to go by. We are of the such training programs and passed the said examinations
considerable opinion, therefore, that the believable evidence before he was employed. No proof was presented that Musa
on the degree of care and diligence that has been exercised in did not have any record of traffic violations. Nor were records
the selection and supervision of Roberto Leon y Salazar, is not of daily inspections, allegedly conducted by supervisors, ever
legally sufficient to overcome the presumption of negligence presented. . . The failure of MMTC to present such
against the defendant company. (emphasis ours) documentary proof puts in doubt the credibility of its witnesses.

The above 1993 ruling in Metro Manila Transit Corporation vs. x x x x x x x x x. . . . . . . . .

Court of Appeals was reiterated in a recent case again
involving the Metro Manila Transit Corporation, thus:
8  It is noteworthy that, in another case involving MMTC,
testimonial evidence of identical content, which MMTC
In the selection of prospective employees, employers are presented to show that it exercised the diligence of a good
required to examine them as to their qualifications, experience, father of a family in the selection and supervision of employees
and service records. On the other hand, with respect to the and thus avoid vicarious liability for the negligent acts of its
supervision of employees, employers should formulate employees, was held to be insufficient to overcome the
standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation, presumption of negligence against it. (emphasis ours)
and impose disciplinary measures for breaches thereof. To
establish these factors in a trial involving the issue of vicarious Based therefore on jurisprudential law, the employer must not
liability, employers must submit concrete proof, including merely present testimonial evidence to prove that he had
documentary evidence. observed the diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of his employee, but he must also
In this case, MMTC sought to prove that it exercised the support such testimonial evidence with concrete or
diligence of a good father of a family with respect to the documentary evidence.  The reason for this is to obviate the
1awphi1.nét

selection of employees by presenting mainly testimonial biased nature of the employer’s testimony or that of his
evidence on its hiring procedure. According to MMTC, witnesses. 9

applicants are required to submit professional driving licenses,

certifications of work experience, and clearances from the
In this case, petitioner’s evidence consisted entirely of such observance in order to be free that would exculpate them
testimonial evidence. He testified that before he hired Elizalde from liability.
Sablayan, he required him to submit a police clearance in
order to determine if he was ever involved in any vehicular Petitioner next contends that, even if he is liable, the award of
accident. He also required Sablayan to undergo a driving test damages given to respondent should be decreased or
with conducted by his mechanic, Esteban Jaca. Petitioner mitigated because respondent was guilty of contributory
claimed that he, in fact, accompanied Sablayan during the negligence. Petitioner claims that his driver was allegedly
driving test and that during the test, Sablayan was taught to caught unaware when the passenger jeepney hailed by
read and understand traffic signs like "Do Not Enter," "One respondent suddenly stopped at the intersection of a national
Way," "Left Turn," and "Right Turn." highway. Petitioner argues that, had respondent flagged down
the passenger jeepney at the proper place, the accident could
Petitioner’s mechanic, Esteban Jaca, on the other hand, have been avoided. 12

testified that Sablayan passed the driving test and had never
figured in any vehicular accident except the one in question. Petitioner’s contention has no merit.
He also testified that he maintained in good condition all the
trucks of petitioner by checking the brakes, horns and tires Article 2179 provides:
thereof before leaving forproviding hauling services.10

When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and

Petitioner, however, never presented the alleged police proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But
clearance given to him by Sablayan, nor the results of if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and
Sablayan’s driving test. Petitioner also did not present records proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due
of the regular inspections that his mechanic allegedly care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall
conducted. The unsubstantiated and self-serving testimonies mitigate the damages to be awarded.
of petitioner and his mechanic arewere, without doubt,
insufficient to overcome the legal presumption that petitioner The underlying precept of the above article on contributory
was negligent in the selection and supervision of his driver. negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his
Accordingly, we affirm the ruling of the Court of Appeals own injury should not be and is not entitled to recover
that petitioner is liable for the injuries suffered by damages in full but must bear the consequences of his own
respondent. negligence. Inferrably, The defendant must thus be held liable
only for the damages actually caused by his negligence. 13

It should be emphasized that the legal obligation of employers

to observe due diligence in the selection and supervision of In the present case, was respondent partly negligent and thus,
their employees provided under in Article 2180 of the Civil should not recover the full amount of the damages awarded by
Code is not an empty provision or a mere formalism since the the trial court? We rule in the negative.
non-observance thereof actually becomes the basis of the
employers’ vicarious liability. Employers should thus seriously
11  There was no evidence that respondent Begasa and his three
observe such a degree of diligence (and must presentprove it companions flagged down the passenger jeepney at in a
in court by sufficient and concrete evidence) in court showing prohibited area. All the facts only showed was that the
passenger jeepney was near the corner of Araneta and
Magsaysay Streets, Bacolod City when petitioner’s driver Since the negligence of petitioner’s driver was the sole and
bumped it from the rear. No city resolution, traffic regulation or proximate cause of the accident, in the present case, petitioner
DPWH memorandum were was presented to show that the is liable, under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, to pay damages
passenger jeepney picked up respondent and his three to respondent Begasa for the injuries sustained by latterhim.
companions at in a prohibited area. In fact, the trial court
dismissed the case against the driver and/or owner of the WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The decision of
passenger jeepney on the ground that they were not liable, the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
which meaning, that no negligence could be attributed to them.
The trial court also found no negligence on the part of SO ORDERED.
respondent Begasa. This factual finding was affirmed in
toto by the Court of Appeals. 14

It must be emphasized that petitions for review under Rule 45

of the Rules of Court should deals only with questions of law.
The factual conclusions of the Court of Appeals are given great
weight and even finality by the Supreme Court, especially
when, as in the present case, the appellate court upholds the
findings of fact of the trial court. The factual findings of the
Court of Appeals can only be overturned if it is shown that such
findings are obviously whimsical, capricious and arbitrary, or
are contrary with to the factual findings of the trial court. In this
15 

case, we find no reason to overturn the factual findings of the

Court of Appeals. Thus, we affirm the appellate court’s finding
that there was no contributory negligence on the part of
respondent.

In sum, the sole  and proximate cause of the accident was the

negligence of petitioner’s driver who, as found by the lower
courts, did not slow down even when he was already
approaching a busy intersection within the city proper. The
16 

passenger jeepney had long stopped to pick up respondent

and his three companions and, in fact, respondent was already
partly inside the jeepney, when petitioner’s driver bumped the
rear end ofrear-ended it. The impact was so strong such that
respondent fell and fractured his left thigh bone (femur), and
suffered severely woundeds in his left knee and leg. No doubt
that respondent petitioner’s driver was reckless speeding.