METRO MANILA TRANSIT CORPORATION vs.

CA
223 SCRA 2521
(1993)

Facts:
On the morning of August 8, 17, Nenita Custodio boarded as paying passenger to a
public utility jeepney, driven by one Agudo Calebag, and owned by Victorino Lamayo, which is
bound to Bicutan, Taguig. While it is travelling at fast clip, another fast moving vehicle, a bus
owned by Metro Manila Transit Corporation, collided with it. The collision caused Nenita
Custodio to hit the windshield and was thrown thereafter. Nenita was brought at the Medical
City Hospital where she regained consciousness only after one week. Thereat she was confined
for 24 days and as a consequence, she was unable to work for 3 1/2 months.

Nenita filed for damages for neither the operator of the jeepney nor MMTC would pay
for the damages she sustained.

The RTC rules that MMTC is abstained from liability as it had shown diligence of a good
father of a family in employing and supervising its employees. The CA reversed the decision of
the RTC and found MMTC solidarily liable.

Issue:
Whether or not diligence of a good father of a family had been observed.

Ruling:
No, the required diligence was not observed.

The SC ruled that MMTC, being sued as employer of the bus driver under Art. 2180 or
vicarious liability, was not able to prove that it had exercised due diligence of a good father of a
family in the selection and supervision of its employees.

The basis of the employees vicarious liability is the responsibility imposed under Art.
2180 wherein there is a presumption of negligence on the part of the superior from failure to
exercise due care and vigilance over the act of the subordinate to prevent them from causing
damage. Negligence is imputed to them by law, unless they provide for the contrary. In the case
at bar, they had failed to prove the latter. Hence, the decision of the CA was affirmed and MMTC
was not exempted from liability.