Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
L-22533
February 9, 1967
PLACIDO C. RAMOS and AUGUSTO L. RAMOS, petitioners, vs. PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING CO. OF THE P.I. and ANDRES BONIFACIO, respondents. BENGZON, J.P., J.:
FACTS: The car driven by Augusto Ramos (son of co-plaintiff Placido Ramos) collided with the truck of PEPSI, driven by the driver and co-defendant Andres Bonifacio. As a result, the Ramoses sued Bonifacio and Pepsi. The trial court found Bonifacio negligent and declared that PEPSI-COLA had not sufficiently proved that it exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. PEPSI-COLA and Bonifacio, solidarily, were ordered to pay the plaintiffs damages. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals. CA affirmed the decision of the trial court, but absolved PEPSI-COLA from liability, finding that it sufficiently proved due diligence in the selection of its driver Bonifacio. In its decision, CA stated the basis for its decision: The uncontradicted testimony of Juan T. Anasco, personnel manager of defendant company, was to the effect that defendant driver was first hired as a member of the bottle crop in the production department; that when he was hired as a driver, 'we had size [sic] him by looking into his background, asking him to submit clearances, previous experience, physical examination and later on, he was sent to the pool house to take the usual driver's examination, consisting of: first, theoretical examination and second, the practical driving examination, all of which he had undergone, and that the defendant company was a member of the Safety Council. Our Supreme Court had put it down as a rule that In order that the defendant may be considered as having exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family, he should not have been satisfied with the mere possession of a professional driver's license; he should have carefully examined the applicant for employment as to his qualifications, his experiences and record of service. Defendant Company has taken all these steps. ISSUE: Whether PEPSI-COLA exercised due diligence in the selection of its employee. HELD: The appellants contended that Aasco, being PEPSI-COLA's employee, is a biased and an interested witness. This is a question of fact, and the SC would not disturb the findings of CA. It should perhaps be stated that in the instant case no question is raised as to due diligence in the supervision by PEPSI-COLA of its driver. Article 2180 points out that 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 occasion of their functions. This responsibility shall cease when the employers prove that they observed the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage; hence, PEPSI-COLA shall be relieved from liability (rebuttable presumption of negligence). The decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby affirmed.