Civil Law 2- ObliCon- MMTC and Apolinario Ajoc vs. C.A. and Col. Sabalburo et al

This case is with regard to Art 1162- Culpa Aquiliana


Case of Metro Manila Transport Corporation and Apolinario Ajoc vs. C.A. and Col. Sabalburo et al
G.R.No. 141089 01August2002

FACTS OF THE CASE:
Last December 24 1986 Florentina Sabalburo and her companions were making their way to Baclaran to buy foodstuffs for Noche Buena. Florentina Sabalburo and her companions waited for the traffic light to turn red so that they could cross the street to take a ride to Baclaran. Upon crossing the street during the red light, Florentina Sabalburo was hit by a fast moving MMTC bus, driven by Apolinario Ajoc.
Ms. Sabalburo was then taken by the driver and conductress of the MMTC bus to San Juan de Dios hospital. The victim was not able to regain consciousness and she succumbed to her injuries on January 03, 1987. The Trial court decided in favor of Sabalburo et. al and ordered MMTC to pay damages. MMTC then appealed the case to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the trial court.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Was the RTC and CA correct in ordering MTCC to pay damages to the plaintiff?

- Yes, According to the S.C. both courts are correct in awarding damages to the plaintiff.
- Even though MMTC argues that the proximate cause of the victim’s death is her negligence thus requesting the court to apply Art 2179 of the civil code, instead of Art 2176, the S.C upheld the findings of the trial courts that the driver and MMTC had been negligent in its duties and it is this negligence that led to the death of the victim thus showing that Art 2176 is the more applicable provision in this case.
- Also MMTC is liable for the death of the victim due to Art 2180 of the civil code, wherein the obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions-, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
- It should be shown that whenever an employee’s negligence causes damage or injury to another, there instantly arises a presumption juris tantum that there was negligence on the part of the employer, either in the selection of the employee (culpa in eligiendo) or the supervision over him after the selection (culpa in vigilando). Hence, to escape solidary liability for a quasi-delict committed by his employee, an employer must rebut the presumption by presenting convincing proof that in the selection and supervision of his employee, he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family. In the present case, petitioner MMTC failed to rebut the presumption of negligence on its part.

HELD:

The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Obligations and Contracts Terms:

CULPA AQUILIANA- refers to acts or omissions which cause damage to another, there being fault or negligence on the part of the defendant, who is obliged by law to pay for the damages done.

Art 2176 of the Civil Code is applied if there’s no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. Although the Supreme Court has already held that a quasi- delict can occur even if there is a contractual relation, since the act that lead to the breaking a contract may also be a tort

I hope this helps.

Jeff David