VICENTE VERGARA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and AMADEO AMADEO AZARCON, respondents. respondents. G.R. No. 77679 September 30, 1987 – diri giintroduce ang requisites sa Q-D. Sir: In case of culpa criminal the moment the accused is insolvent after conviction, the employer is SUBSIDIARILY liable. Defense of an employer in: a. Criminal case- diligence is is NOT a defense ; even even if the employer says he exercised such diligence in hiring and supervising his employee. b. culpa acquiliana – diligence can be a defense c. culpa contractual – diligence is NOT a defense a mishap caused by defective brakes cannot be consideration as fortuitous in character. Certainly, the defects were curable and the accident preventable. Aku: if naa lang due diligence sa pagsupervise and pagcheck sa truck then, wala untai accident kay mafix man ang brakes unta.
FACTS: This case in action for damages against petitioner - Vergara by the private respondent Azarcon. The action arose from a vehicular accident that that occurred on August 5, 1979 in Gapan, Nueva Ecija, when Martin Belmonte, while driving a c argo truck belonging to petitioner, rammed "head-on" the store-residence of the private r espondent, causing damages thereto which were inventoried and assessed at P53,024.22. The petitioner alleged that his driver Martin Belmonte oper ated said cargo truck in a very diligent manner, that the steering wheel refused to respond to his effort and as a result of a blown-out tire and despite application of his brakes, the said c argo truck hit the store-residence of the private respondent, and that the said accident was an act of God for which he cannot be held liable.
ISSUE(S): Whether or not Vergara is negligent, and guilty of culpa aquiliana.
RULING: Yes. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence to over come the disputable presumption of negligence on his part in the selection and supervision of his driver. Also, it was established by competent evidence that the requisites of a quasi-delict are present in the case at bar. These requisites are: (1) damages to the plaintiff; (2) negligence, by act or omission, of which defendant, or some person for whose acts he must respond, was guilty; and (3) the connection of c ause and effect between such negligence and the damages.
Furthermore, according to the driver of the cargo truck, he applied the brakes but the latter did not work due to mechanical defect, contrary to the claim of the petitioner, a mishap caused by defective brakes cannot be consideration as fortuitous in character. Certainly, the defects were curable c urable and the accident preventable.