TRANSPO - 16. Sps Hernandez v Sps Dolor

Spouses Hernandez v . Spouses Dolor G.R. No. 160286. July 30, 2004 FACTS: Lorenzo Menard Boyet Dolor, Jr. was driving an owner-type jeepney owned by her mother, Margarita, towards Anilao, Batangas. As he was traversing the road, his vehicle collided with a passenger jeepney driven by petitioner Juan Gonzales and owned by his copetitioner Francisco Hernandez. Boyet and his passenger died. Passengers also on board the owner-type jeep, which was totally wrecked, suffered physical injuries. The collision also damaged the passenger jeepney of Francisco Hernandez and caused physical injuries to its passengers. Respondents commenced an action for damages alleging that driver Juan Gonzales was guilty of negligence and lack of care and that the Hernandez spouses were guilty of negligence in the selection and supervision of their employees. Petitioners countered that the proximate cause of the death and injuries sustained by the passengers of both vehicles was the recklessness of Boyet who was driving in a zigzagging manner under the influence of alcohol. Petitioners also alleged that Gonzales was not the driver-employee of the Hernandez spouses as the former only leased the jeepney on a daily basis. Hernandez spouses further claimed that even if an employer-employee relationship is found to exist between them, they cannot be held liable because as employers they exercised due care in the selection and supervision of their employee. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of respondents. CA affirmed with modifications. Hence the present petition. ISSUE:

W/N Hernandez spouses are solidarily liable with Juan Gonzales, although it is of record that they were not in the passenger jeepney when the accident occurred. HELD: YES. They are still answerable under several provisions of the Civil Code namely Article 2180 and Article 2176. While the above provisions do not expressly provide for the solidary liability, they should be read in consonance with Article 2180 – one can be liable for the acts or omission of another a nother whom he is responsible for, meaning that an employer is accountable for the actions of his employees. Article 2194 categorically states that responsibility of two or more persons who are liablefor quasi-delict is solidary. The Hernandez spouses maintained that Julian Gonzales is not their employee because the latter pays them daily for the use of the jeepney. They argued that they are practicing a lease agreement using the “boundary system”. SC  SC  held that there exists an employeremployee relationship because by agreeing with spouses Hernandez, there would be a violation of the Public Service Law and the riding public is placed at the mercy of reckless and irresponsible drivers because most drivers are in no position to pay for damages when accidents occur.