9.

Gutierrez v Gutierrez, September 23, 1931 AUTHOR: MAGO

G.R. No 34840 Notes:
TOPIC: Quasi-Delict
PONENTE: Malcolm J.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
The theory of the law is that the running of the machine by a child to carry other members of the family is within the scope of the
owner's business, so that he is liable for the negligence of the child because of the relationship of master and servant.
Emergency Recit:

FACTS:
On February 2, 1930, a passenger truck and an automobile of private ownership collided while attempting to pass each other on a
bridge. The truck was driven by the chauffeur Abelardo Velasco, and was owned by Saturnino Cortez. The automobile was being
operated by Bonifacio Gutierrez, a lad 18 years of age, and was owned by Bonifacio’s father and mother, Mr. and Mrs. Manuel
Gutierrez. At the time of the collision, the father was not in the car, but the mother, together with several other members of the
Gutierrez family were accommodated therein.

The collision between the bus and the automobile resulted in Narciso Gutierrez (a passenger in the autobus) suffering a fractured right
leg which required medical attendance for a considerable period of time. Gutierrez sued both parties for damages.

ISSUE(S): Whether or not both the driver of the truck and automobile are liable for damages and indemnification due to their
negligence. What are the legal obligations of the defendants?

HELD: Yes. Both for different sources of obligation

RATIO:
Bonifacio Gutierrez’s obligation arises from culpa aquiliana. On the other hand, Saturnino Cortez’s and his chauffeur Abelardo
Velasco’s obligation rise from culpa contractual.

The youth Bonifacio was an incompetent chauffeur, that he was driving at an excessive rate of speed, and that, on approaching the
bridge and the truck, he lost his head and so contributed by his negligence to the accident. The guaranty given by the father at the
time the son was granted a license to operate motor vehicles made the father responsible for the acts of his son. Based on these
facts, pursuant to the provisions of Art. 1903 of the Civil Code, the father alone and not the minor or the mother would be liable for
the damages caused by the minor. The theory of the law is that the running of the machine by a child to carry other members of the
family is within the scope of the owner's business, so that he is liable for the negligence of the child because of the relationship of
master and servant.

The liability of Saturnino Cortez, the owner of the truck, and his chauffeur Abelardo Velasco rests on a different basis, namely, that of
contract.

DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):