examine the applicant for employment as to his qualifications, his

experience and record of service.

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.
*

G.R. No. 146173. December 11, 2003. 267

CECILIA YAMBAO, petitioner, vs. MELCHORITA C. VOL. 418, DECEMBER 11, 2003 267
ZUÑIGA, LEOVIGILDO C. ZUÑIGA, REGINALDO C.
ZUÑIGA, AND THE MINORS, HERMINIGILDO C. Yambao vs. Zuñiga
ZUÑIGA, JR., AND LOVELY EMILY C. ZUÑIGA—both
represented by their legal guardian, the aforenamed PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and
MELCHORITA C. ZUÑIGA, respondents. resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Civil Law; Contracts; Contract of Carriage; Negligence; Esmeraldo R. Acorda for petitioner.
Appeals; Whether a person is negligent or not is a question of fact, Semproniano S. Ochoco for respondents.
which this Court cannot pass upon in a petition for review on
certiorari.—Whether a person is negligent or not is a question of QUISUMBING, J.:
fact, which this Court cannot pass upon in a petition for review on
certiorari, as our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law. This petition for review1 on certiorari seeks to reverse and
The resolution of factual issues is the function of the trial court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated
and its findings on these matters are, as a general rule, binding September 8, 2000, in CA-G.R. CV 2 No. 52275. The
on this Court, more so where these have been affirmed by the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the Regional
Court of Appeals. Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Bulacan, Branch 8, in
Civil Case No. 581-M-92, finding herein petitioner, among
Same; Same; Same; “Diligence of a Good Father” Principle; others, liable for the untimely death of Herminigildo
The “diligence of a good father” means diligence in the selection Zuñiga in a vehicular accident and ordering her to
and supervision of employees.—The “diligence of a good father” indemnify his legal heirs, the respondents 3 herein. Also
referred to in the last paragraph of the aforecited statute means challenged in this petition is the resolution of the Court of
diligence in the selection and supervision of employees. Thus, Appeals, dated November 27, 2000, denying the petitioner’s
when an employee, while performing his duties, causes damage to Motion for Reconsideration.
persons or property due to his own negligence, there arises the Petitioner Cecilia Yambao is the registered owner of
juris tantum presumption that the employer is negligent, either in “Lady Cecil and Rome Trans” passenger bus with Plate No.
the selection of the employee or in the supervision over him after CVK 606, with a public transport franchise to ply the
the selection. For the employer to avoid the solidary liability for a Novaliches-via Quirino-Alabang route.
tort committed by his employee, an employer must rebut the The respondents are the legal heirs of the late
presumption by presenting adequate and convincing proof that in
Herminigildo Zuñiga Melchorita Zuñiga is the surviving
the selection and supervision of his employee, he or she exercises
spouse, while Leovigildo, Reginaldo, Herminigildo, Jr., and
the care and diligence of a good father of a family.
Lovely Emily are their children.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Employer must carefully examine The facts, as established by the trial court and affirmed
the applicant for employment as to his qualifications, his by the appellate court, are as follows:
experience and record of service.—Case law teaches that for an At around 3:30 p.m. of May 6, 1992, the bus owned by
employer to have exercised the diligence of a good father of a the petitioner was being driven by her driver, one Ceferino
family, he should not be satisfied with the applicant’s mere G. Venturina along the northbound lane of Epifanio delos
possession of a professional driver’s license; he must also carefully Santos Avenue (EDSA), within the vicinity of Bagong
Barrio, Kalookan City. With Venturina was the bus insurance policies to pay the herein plaintiffs the following sums
conductor, Fernando Dumaliang. Suddenly, of money:

1. P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of Herminigildo

_______________
Zuñiga;
1 Rollo, pp. 14-26. Per Associate Justice Teodoro P. Regino, and 2. P92,000.00 as funeral expense;
concurred in by Associate Justices Conchita Carpio-Morales and Perlita J. 3. P200,000.00 as moral damages;
Tria-Tirona.
4. P30,000.00 as exemplary damages;
2 CA Rollo, pp. 47-55.
5. P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees;
3 Rollo, p. 27.

268 _______________

4 A separate criminal complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide,

268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED docketed as Crim. Case No. 156134, was also filed against Venturina before the
Yambao vs. Zuñiga Metropolitan Trial Court in Caloocan City, Branch 52. However, the lower court
could not proceed with the trial due to the failure and refusal of the accused
Venturina to appear. See Rollo, p. 16.
the bus bumped Herminigildo Zuñiga, a pedestrian. Such
was the force of the impact that the left side of the front
269
windshield of the bus was cracked. Zuñiga was rushed to
the Quezon City General Hospital where he was given
medical attention, but due to the massive injuries VOL. 418, DECEMBER 11, 2003 269
sustained, he succumbed shortly thereafter. Yambao vs. Zuñiga
Private 4 respondents, as heirs of the victim, filed a
Complaint against petitioner and her driver, Venturina, 6. P5,000.00 as litigation expenses; and
for damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 581-M-92 at the 7. To pay the cost of the suit.
RTC of Malolos City. The complaint essentially alleged that
Venturina drove the bus in a reckless, careless and to be paid by all the herein defendants and third party
imprudent manner, in violation of traffic rules and defendants within thirty (30) days from receipt of this Decision.
regulations, without due regard to public safety, thus The counterclaim of the defendant Cecilia Yambao is hereby
resulting in the victim’s premature death. dismissed for lack of
5 merit.
In her Answer, the petitioner vehemently denied the SO ORDERED.”
material allegations of the complaint. She tried to shift the
blame for the accident upon the victim, theorizing that In finding for the respondents herein, the trial court
Herminigildo bumped into her bus, while avoiding an observed:
unidentified woman who was chasing him. She further
alleged that she was not liable for any damages because as [T]he allegations and evidence presented by the defendants that it
an employer, she exercised the proper diligence of a good was the victim Herminigildo Zuñiga who bumped the bus owned
father of a family, both in the selection and supervision of by defendant Cecilia Yambao and her husband . . . is incredible if
her bus driver. not preposterous. No sane person would bump his head or body
On September 8, 1995, the trial court rendered against a running bus along a big highway like EDSA at Bagong
judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads: Barrio, Caloocan City and neither did any of the defendants
presented (sic) any evidence or proof to show that the victim was
“In view of the foregoing consideration, judgment is hereby mentally deranged at the time of the accident and 6 the
rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants presumption therefore is that he was in his normal senses.
ordering the herein defendants jointly and severally, with Plaridel
Surety & Insurance Co., and Times Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. In holding the petitioner liable for Herminigildo’s
7 death,
to the extent of their respective liabilities under their respective the trial court applied Article 1756 of the Civil Code,
observing that petitioner had failed to prove8 that she9 bus, thus hitting the victim with fatal results, the appellate
observed the diligence required by Articles 1733 and 1755 court, however, found the trial court’s reliance on Articles
of the said Code. 1755 and 1756 of the Civil Code misplaced. It held that this
was a case of quasi-delict, there being no pre-existing
_______________ contractual relationship between the parties. Hence, the
law on common carriers was inapplicable. The court a quo
5 Id., at pp. 35-36. then found the petitioner directly and primarily liable as
6 CA Rollo, pp. 53-54. Venturina’s employer pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil
7 Art. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common Code as she failed to present evidence to prove that she has
carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, observed the diligence of a good father of a family in the
unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed selection and supervision of her employees.
in Articles 1733 and 1755. Yambao then duly moved for reconsideration,
11 but her
8 Art. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for motion was denied for want of merit.
reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in Hence, this petition for review, anchored on the
the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers following formulation of issues:
transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case. Such
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further I
expressed in articles 1734, 1735, and 1745, nos. 5, 6, and 7 while the
extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is farther set forth
WHETHER OR NOT THE ALLEGATIONS AND EVIDENGE
in articles 1755 and 1756.
PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER, THE VICTIM
9 Art. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely
HERMINIGILDO ZUÑIGA WAS THE ONE WHO BUMPED
as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence
THE BUS OWNED BY HEREIN PETITIONER CECILIA
of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.
YAMBAO AND HER HUSBAND AND

270 _______________

10 Rollo, p. 25.
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 11 Supra, note 3.

Yambao vs. Zuñiga

271

Dissatisfied, Yambao filed an appeal with the Court of

Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 52275, faulting the VOL. 418, DECEMBER 11, 2003 271
trial court for failing to appreciate that: (a) it was the Yambao vs. Zuñiga
victim who ran into her bus, and (b) she had exercised the
proper diligence of a bonus pater familiar in the selection WHO DISREGARDED THE TRAFFIC RULES AND
and supervision of her employee, the driver of said bus. REGULATIONS AT THE PLACE AND TIME OF THE
On September 8, 2000, the Court of Appeals decided CA- INCIDENT WHICH UNDOUBTEDLY AND CONCLUSIVELY
G.R. CV No. 52275 as follows: PROVED THAT IT WAS THE PLAINTIFF’S OWN
NEGLIGENCE THAT WAS THE IMMEDIATE AND
“WHEREFORE, on the foregoing modificatory premises, and PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS DEATH.
considering that the same result has been reached by the trial
court, its Decision dated September 8, 1995 is hereby II
AFFIRMED.
Costs against defendant-appellant.
10
WHETHER OR NOT, PETITIONER CECILIA YAMBAO IS
SO ORDERED.” NOT LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES AND THAT SHE
EXERCISED THE PROPER DILIGINCE OF A GOOD FATHER
While sustaining the trial court’s findings that Venturina OF THE FAMILY, BOTH IN THE SELECTION12 AND
had been reckless and negligent in driving the petitioner’s SUPERVISION OF HER DRIVER AND/OR EMPLOYEE.
At the outset, we must state that the first issue raised by (NBI), the Philippine National Police, and the barangay
the petitioner is a factual one. Whether 13 a person is where he resides. She also required him to present his
negligent or not is a question of fact, which this Court Social Security System (SSS) Number prior to accepting
cannot pass upon in a petition for review on certiorari, 14 as him for employment. She likewise stresses that she
our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law. The inquired from Venturina’s previous employer about his
resolution of factual issues is the function of the trial court employment record, and only hired him after it was shown
and its findings on these15 matters are, as a general rule, to her satisfaction that he had no blot upon his record.
binding on this Court, more so where 16 these have been The petitioner’s arguments ring hollow and fail to sway
affirmed by the Court of Appeals. We have carefully this Court.
examined and weighed the petitioner’s arguments on the The law governing petitioner’s liability, as the employer
first issue submitted, as well as the evidence on record, and of bus driver Venturina, is Article 2180 of the Civil Code,
find no cogent reason to disregard the cited general rule, the full text of which reads:
much less to reverse the factual findings of the trial court 17

as upheld by the court a quo. Hence, we sustain the trial Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable
court’s finding, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that it not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of
was Venturina’s reckless and imprudent driving of persons for whom one is responsible.
petitioner’s bus, which is the proximate cause of the The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother,
victim’s death. are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who
To our mind, therefore, the only issue before the Court live in their company.
properly is whether petitioner exercised the diligence of a Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or
good father of a family in the selection and supervision of incapacitated persons who are under then authority and live in
her employees, thus absolving her from any liability. their company.
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are
likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the
_______________
service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the
12 Rollo, p. 97. occasion of their functions.
13 Thermochem Incorporated v. Naval, G.R. No. 131541, 20 October Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
2000, 344 SCRA 76, 82. employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their
14 Almira v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115966, 20 March 2003, 399 assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any
SCRA 351, 358. business or industry.
15 Mckee v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. Nos. 68102-03, 16 July
1992, 211 SCRA 517, 537. _______________
16 Supra, note 13 at p. 83.
17 Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another
272 there being fault or negligence is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such
fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between
the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
this Chapter.
Yambao vs. Zuñiga
273
Petitioner contends that as an employer, she observed the
proper diligence of a good father of a family, both in the VOL. 418, DECEMBER 11, 2003 273
selection and supervision of her driver and therefore, is
Yambao vs. Zuñiga
relieved from any liability for the latter’s misdeed. To
support her claim, she points out that when Venturina
applied with her as a driver in January 1992, she required The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a
him to produce not just his driver’s license, but also special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the
clearances from the National Bureau of Investigation
official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case 274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable.
Yambao vs. Zuñiga
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades
shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or
sometime in January 1992 and she then required him to
apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.
submit his license and clearances. However, the record
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the
likewise shows that she did admit that Venturina
persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence
submitted the said requirements only on May 6, 1992, or on
of a good father of a family to prevent damage. (Italics ours)
the very day of the fatal accident itself (italics for
The “diligence of a good father” referred to in the last emphasis). In other words, petitioner’s own admissions
paragraph of the aforecited statute means 18 diligence in the
clearly and categorically show that she did not exercise due
selection and supervision of employees. Thus, when an diligence in the selection of her bus driver.
employee, while performing his duties, causes damage to In any case, assuming arguendo that Venturina did
persons or property due to his own negligence, there arises submit his license and clearances when he applied with
the juris tantum presumption that the employer is petitioner in January 1992, the latter still fails the test of
negligent, either in the selection of the 19employee or in the due diligence in the selection of her bus driver. Case law
supervision over him after the selection. For the employer teaches that for an employer to have exercised the diligence
to avoid the solidary liability for a tort committed by his of a good father of a family, he should not be satisfied with
employee, an employer must rebut the presumption by the applicant’s mere possession of a professional driver’s
presenting adequate and convincing proof that in the license; he must also carefully examine the applicant for
selection and supervision of his employee, he or she employment as to 22 his qualifications, his experience and

exercises
20 the care and diligence of a good father of a record of service. Petitioner failed to present convincing
family. In the instant case, we find that petitioner has proof that she went to this extent of verifying Venturina’s
failed to rebut the presumption of negligence on her part. qualifications, safety record, and driving history. The
Petitioner’s claim that she exercised due diligence in the presumption juris tantum that there was negligence in the
selection and supervision of her driver, Venturina, deserves selection of her bus driver, thus, remains unrebutted.
but scant consideration. Her allegation that before she Nor did petitioner show that she exercised due
hired Venturina she required him to submit his driver’s supervision over Venturina after his selection. For as
license and clearances is worthless, in view of her failure to pointed out by the Court of Appeals, petitioner did not
offer in evidence certified true copies of said license and present any proof that she drafted and implemented
clearances. Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, 21
training programs and guidelines on road safety for her
are not equivalent to proof under the rules of evidence. employees. In fact, the record is bare of any showing that
Moreover, as the court a quo aptly observed, petitioner petitioner required Venturina to attend “periodic seminars
contradicts herself. She declared that Venturina applied on road safety and traffic efficiency. Hence, petitioner
with her cannot claim exemption from any liability arising from the
recklessness or negligence of Venturina.
In sum, petitioner’s liability to private respondents for
_______________
the negligent and imprudent acts of her driver, Venturina,
18 Supra, note 15 at pp. 544-545. under Article 2180 of the Civil Code is both manifest and
19 Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Baesa, G.R. Nos. 79050-51, 14 clear. Petitioner, having failed to rebut the legal
November 1989, 179 SCRA 384, 393. presumption of negligence in the selection and supervision
20 Metro Manila Transit Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141089, 1 of her driver, is responsible for damages, the basis of the
August 2002, 386 SCRA 126, citing Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. liability being the relationship of pater familias or on
Baesa, supra, note 19; Umali v. Hon. Bacani, 161 Phil. 351, 357; 69 SCRA
263 (1976). _______________
21 Manzano v. Perez, Sr., 414 Phil. 728, 738; 362 SCRA 430 (2001).
22 Ramos v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of the Philippines, 125 Phil. 701,
274 703-704; 19 SCRA 289 (1967) citing Campo v. Camarote, 100 Phil. 459,
 463 (1956).

275

VOL. 418, DECEMBER 11, 2003 275

People vs. Rote
23

the employer’s own negligence. Thus, this Court has no

option but to uphold the ruling of the appellate court.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The
assailed decision of the Court of Appeals, dated September
8, 2000, in CA-G.R. CV No. 52275, as well as its resolution
dated November 27, 2000, denying petitioner Cecilia
Yambao’s motion for reconsideration are hereby
AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr.

and Tinga, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Note.—Neglect or malfeasance of the carrier’s

employees naturally could give ground for an action for
damages. (Morris vs. Court of Appeals, 352 SCRA 428
[2001])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2025 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.