transportation LAW

A.Y. 2018-2019
CASE TITLE: VALENZUELA VS. CA
G.R. NO/DATE: 253 SCRA 303
DOCTRINE: EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY

FACTS:
Ma. Lourdes Valenzuela was driving a blue Mitsubishi lancer from her restaurant at Marcos highway to
her home in Araneta Avenue. She was with a companion. While driving she noticed something was
wrong with her tires. She stopped at a lighted place and verified it to ask help if needed. She was told by
the people present that her tire was flat and decided to park her car and turned on the emergency lights.
She alighted from her car and assisted the man who will be fixing her tire when suddenly she was
bumped by a 1987 Mitsubishi Lancer driven by Richard Li and registered under Alexander Commercial,
Inc. This accident resulted to her confinement for 20 days and amputation of her knee. The expenses for
the hospital amounted to Php 120,000 and the cost of the artificial leg was
Php 27,000 which were paid by defendants from the car insurance. Valenzuela asked for Php 1M for
moral damages, Php 100,000 for exemplary damages and Php 180,000 for other medical and related
expenses.
Richard Li denied the allegation that he was negligent. He claimed that Valenzuela’s car was
improperly parked and the area was poor lighted. He also counterclaimed for damages for Valenzuela
was negligent for driving without a license.
A witness testified that Li’s car was approaching the scene very fast. He stated that Li was under
the influence of alcohol since he could smell it.
The trial court found Li guilty of gross negligence and liable for damages under Article 2176 of the
Civil Code. It also held Alexander Commercial, Inc. Li’s employer jointly and severally liable for the
damages under Article 2180. The Court of Appeals sustained that Li was liable for the damages but
absolved Alexander Commercial Inc., Li’s employer, from any liability against Valenzuela. It dismissed the
defendants’ counterclaims.

ISSUE:
1.) Whether or not Li shall be held liable for the damages?
2.) Whether or not Valenzuela was also negligent on her part?
3.) Whether or not Alexander Commercial, Inc., Li’s employer, shall be jointly and severally
liable for the damages?

HELD:
1. Yes. Negligence is commonly understood as the conduct which creates an undue risk of harm to
others. It is the failure to observe that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which circumstances justly
demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. The circumstances established by the evidence
showed that Li was grossly negligent in driving the Mitsubishi Lancer. It was emphasized that he was
driving at a fast speed at 2:00 AM after a heavy downpour which made the street slippery. There was also
ample evidence showing that he was under the influence of liquor.

2. No. Contributory negligence is the conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal
cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for
his own protection. Valenzuela did exercise standard reasonably dictated by emergence. It could not be
considered as contributory to the accident that happened to her. The emergency that led her to park her
car on a sidewalk of Aurora Boulevard was not her fault. It was evident that she took all the reasonable
precautions.

1
 transportation LAW
A.Y. 2018-2019

3. Yes. Under the civil law, an employer is liable for the negligence of his employees in the discharge of
their respective duties, the basis of which liability is not respondeat superior but the relationship of pater
familias which theory bases the liability of the master ultimately on his own negligence and not on that of
his servant. Alexander Commercial, Inc. did not demonstrate that it exercised the care and diligence of a
good father of the family in entrusting its company car to Li. It was not shown that the company took the
necessary steps in determining the driving proficiency and history of Li.