Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 28 views

    14 Digested Pahabol

    Uploaded by

    Airah Macabanding
    The document discusses a vehicular accident case between a Cimarron owned by a private respondent and a panel truck owned by the petitioner. The court found the petitioner's driver to be responsible for the accident and held the petitioner liable for damages. The petitioner argued that the Cimarron driver was negligent and that it exercised due diligence in selecting employees, but the court rejected both arguments.

    Copyright:

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

    14 Digested Pahabol

    Uploaded by

    Airah Macabanding
    28 views2 pages
    The document discusses a vehicular accident case between a Cimarron owned by a private respondent and a panel truck owned by the petitioner. The court found the petitioner's driver to be responsible for the accident and held the petitioner liable for damages. The petitioner argued that the Cimarron driver was negligent and that it exercised due diligence in selecting employees, but the court rejected both arguments.

    Original Title

    14-digested-pahabol

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a vehicular accident case between a Cimarron owned by a private respondent and a panel truck owned by the petitioner. The court found the petitioner's driver to be responsible for the accident and held the petitioner liable for damages. The petitioner argued that the Cimarron driver was negligent and that it exercised due diligence in selecting employees, but the court rejected both arguments.

    Copyright:

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

    14 Digested Pahabol

    Uploaded by

    Airah Macabanding
    The document discusses a vehicular accident case between a Cimarron owned by a private respondent and a panel truck owned by the petitioner. The court found the petitioner's driver to be responsible for the accident and held the petitioner liable for damages. The petitioner argued that the Cimarron driver was negligent and that it exercised due diligence in selecting employees, but the court rejected both arguments.

    Copyright:

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

    #14

    SANITARY STEAM LAUNDRY, INC. vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS

    Facts:

    A Cimarron owned by Salvador Salenga, father of one of the employees of PMCI and was
    driven by Rolando Hernandez was travelling along Aguinaldo Highway in Imus, Cavite on its way back
    to Manila. At about 8:00 p.m., the Cimarron was hit on its front portion by petitioner’s panel truck,
    which was travelling in the opposite direction. The panel truck was on its way to petitioner’s plant in
    Dasmarias, Cavite after delivering some linen to the Makati Medical Center. The driver of the truck,
    Herman Hernandez, claimed that a jeepney in front of him suddenly stopped and that he stepped on
    the brakes to avoid hitting the jeepney and that this caused his vehicle to swerve to the left and
    encroach on a portion of the opposite lane. As a result, his panel truck collided with the Cimarron on
    the north-bound lane. The driver of the Cimarron, Rolando Hernandez, and two of his passengers,
    namely, Jason Bernabe and Dalmacio Salunoy, died. Several of the other passengers of the Cimarron
    were injured and taken to various hospitals.
    On December 4, 1980, private respondents filed this civil case for damages before the then Court
    of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig Branch, against petitioner. On November 23, 1990, the case was
    transferred to Regional Trial Court of Makati. The Regional Trial Court of Makati found petitioners
    driver to be responsible for the vehicular accident and accordingly held petitioner liable to private
    respondents. Its decision was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals. 

    Issue:
    1. Whether or not the driver of the Cimarron (private respondent) was guilty of contributory
    negligence.
    2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in its position that the petitioner failed to exercise
    due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees.
    Held:
    1. No. The court finds the contention of the petitioner that the driver of the Cimarron
    (private respondent) was guilty of contributory negligence, to be without merit. It has
    not been shown how the alleged negligence of the Cimarron driver contributed to the
    collision between the vehicles. Indeed, petitioner has the burden of showing a causal
    connection between the injury received and the violation of the Land Transportation and
    Traffic Code. He must show that the violation of the statute was the proximate or legal
    cause of the injury or that it substantially contributed thereto. Negligence, consisting in
    whole or in part, of violation of law, like any other negligence, is without legal
    consequence unless it is a contributing cause of the injury. The court finds that the
    swerving of petitioners panel truck to the opposite lane could mean not only that
    petitioners driver was running the vehicle at a very high speed but that he was tailgating
    the passenger jeepney ahead of it as well, thus, the proximate cause of the accident was
    the negligence of petitioners driver.

    2. No. The petitioners contention that the Court of Appeals erred in its position that the
    petitioner failed to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of its
    employees has no merit. The Court of Appeals did not say that petitioners failure to
    submit NBI and police clearances of its driver was proof that petitioner failed to exercise
    due diligence in the selection of its employees. What the Court of Appeals said was that
    petitioners policy of requiring prospective employees to submit NBI and police clearance
    and to have at least two (2) years experience as driver prior to employment was not
    enough to prove the exercise of due diligence and that even the policy petitioner failed to
    prove by its failure to present the drivers NBI and police records during the trial.

    You might also like