SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 98275 November 13, 1992
BA FINANCE CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
ON. COURT OF APPEA!S, REGIONA! TRIA! COURT OF ANGE!ES CIT", BRANC !#I,
CAR!OS OCAMPO, INOCENCIO TUR!A, SPOUSES MOISES AGAPITO $%& SOCORRO M.
AGAPITO $%& NICO!AS CRU',respondents.
ME!O, J.:
The uestion of petitioner!s responsibilit" for da#a$es %hen on March &, '()*, an accident
occurred involvin$ petitioner!s Isu+u ten,%heeler truc- then driven b" an e#plo"ee of .ino
/astro is the thrust of the petition for revie% on certiorari no% before 0s considerin$ that neither
the driver nor .ino /astro appears to be connected %ith petitioner.
On October '*, '()), the disputed decision in the suit belo% %as rendered b" the court of ori$in
in this #anner1
'. Orderin$ Roc- 2.3. and Ro$elio Villar " 3#are 4ointl" and severall" to
pa" the plaintiffs as follo%s1
a5 To the plaintiff /arlos Oca#po 6 P'7',&89.99:
b5 To the plaintiff Moises Oca#po 6 P7(),899.99
c5 To the plaintiff Nicolas /ru+ 6 P'8;,<;9.99
d5 To the plaintiff Inocencio Turla, Sr. 6 ;),999.99
7. Dis#issin$ the case a$ainst .ino /astro
*. Dis#issin$ the third,part" co#plaint a$ainst STRON=HO.D
;. Dis#issin$ all the counterclai# of the defendants and third,part"
defendants.
8. Orderin$ RO/> to rei#burse 2.3. the total a#ount of P&77,)(9.99 %hich
the latter is ad4ud$ed to pa" to the plaintiffs. ?p. ;&, Rollo5
Respondent /ourt of 3ppeals affir#ed the appealed disposition in toto throu$h @ustice Rasul,
%ith @ustices De Pano, @r. and I#perial concurrin$, on practicall" the sa#e $rounds arrived at b"
the court a quo ?p. 7), Rollo5. Afforts eBerted to%ards re,evaluation of the adverse %ere futile ?p.
*<, Rollo5. Hence, the instant petition.
The lo%er court ascertained after due trial that Ro$elio Villar " 3#are, the driver of the Isu+u
truc-, %as at fault %hen the #ishap occurred in as #uch as he %as found $uilt" be"ond
reasonable doubt of rec-less i#prudence resultin$ in triple ho#icide %ith #ultiple ph"sical
in4uries %ith da#a$e to propert" in a decision rendered on Cebruar" '&, '(); b" the Presidin$
@ud$e of 2ranch & of the Re$ional Trial /ourt stationed at Malolos, 2ulacan. Petitioner %as
ad4ud$ed liable for da#a$es in as #uch as the truc- %as re$istered in its na#e durin$ the
incident in uestion, follo%in$ the doctrine laid do%n b" this /ourt in Perez vs. Gutierrez ?8*
S/R3 ';( D'(<*E5 and Erezo, et al. vs. Jepte ?'97 Phil. '9* D'(8<E5. In the sa#e breadth, Roc-
/o#ponent Philippines, Inc. %as ordered to rei#burse petitioner for an" a#ount that the latter
#a" be ad4ud$ed liable to pa" herein private respondents as eBpressl" stipulated in the contract
of lease bet%een petitioner and Roc- /o#ponent Philippines, Inc. Moreover, the trial court
applied 3rticle 7'(; of the ne% /ivil /ode on solidar" accountabilit" of 4oin tortfeasors insofar as
the liabilit" of the driver, herein petitioner and Roc- /o#ponent Philippines %as concerned ?pp.
&,<, Decision: pp. ;;,;8, Rollo5.
To the uestion of %hether petitioner can be held responsible to the victi# albeit the truc- %as
leased to Roc- /o#ponent Philippines %hen the incident occurred, the appellate court
ans%ered in the affir#ative on the basis of the 4urisprudential do$#as %hich, as aforesaid, %ere
relied upon b" the trial court althou$h respondent court %as uic- to add the caveat e#bodied in
the lease covenant bet%een petitioner and Roc- /o#ponent Philippines relative to the latter!s
dut" to rei#burse an" a#ount %hich #a" be ad4ud$ed a$ainst petitioner ?pp. *7,**, Rollo5.
Petitioner asseverates that it should not have been haled to court and ordered to respond for the
da#a$e in the #anner arrived at b" both the trial and appellate courts since para$raph 8 of the
co#plaint lod$ed b" the plaintiffs belo% %ould indicate that petitioner %as not the e#plo"er of
the ne$li$ent driver %ho %as under the control an supervision of .ino /astro at the ti#e of the
accident, apart fro# the fact that the Isu+u truc- %as in the ph"sical possession of Roc-
/o#ponent Philippines b" virtue of the lease a$ree#ent.
3side fro# castin$ clouds of doubt on the propriet" of invo-in$ the Perez and Erezo doctrines,
petitioner continue to persist %ith the idea that the pronounce#ents of this /ourt in Duavit vs.
Court of Appeals ?'<* S/R3 ;(9 D'()(E5 and Duquillo vs. Bayot ?&< Phil '*' D'(*(E5 dovetail
%ith the factual and le$al scenario of the case at hand. Curther#ore, petitioner assu#es, $iven
the so,called hiatus on the basis for the a%ard of da#a$es as decreed b" the lo%er and
appellate courts, that 3rticle 7')9 of the ne% /ivil /ode on vicarious liabilit" %ill divest petitioner
of an" responsibilit" absent as there is an" e#plo"er,e#plo"ee relationship bet%een petitioner
and the driver.
/ontrar" to petitioner!s eBpectations, the recourse instituted fro# the rebuffs it encountered #a"
not constitute a sufficient foundation for reversal of the i#pu$ned 4ud$#ent of respondent court.
Petitioner is of the i#pression that the Perez and Erezo cases are inapplicable due to the
variance of the $enerative facts in said cases as a$ainst those obtainin$ in the controvers" at
bar. 3 contrario, the lesson i#parted b" @ustice .abrador in Erezo is still $ood la%, thus1
. . . In previous decisions, Fe alread" have held that the re$istered o%ner of
a certificate of public convenience is liable to the public for the in4uries or
da#a$es suffered b" passen$ers or third persons caused b" the operation
of said vehicle, even thou$h the sa#e had been transferred to a third
person. ?Monto"a vs. I$nacio, (; Phil., ')7 89 Off. =a+., '9): Roue vs.
Maliba" Transit, Inc., =.R. No. .,)8&', Nove#ber '), '(88: Vda. de Medina
vs. /resencia, (( Phil., 89&, 87 Off. =a+., D'9E, ;&9&.5 The principle upon
%hich this doctrine is based is that in dealin$ %ith vehicles re$istered under
the Public Service .a%, the public has the ri$ht to assu#e or presu#ed that
the re$istered o%ner is the actual o%ner thereof, for it %ould be difficult %ith
the public to enforce the actions that the" #a" have for in4uries caused to
the# b" the vehicles bein$ ne$li$entl" operated if the public should be
reuired to prove %ho actual the o%ner is. Ho% %ould the public or third
persons -no% a$ainst %ho# to enforce their ri$hts in case of subseuent
transfer of the vehiclesG Fe do not i#pl" b" this doctrine, ho%ever, that the
re$istered o%ner #a" not recover %hatever a#ount he had paid b" virtue of
his liabilit" to third persons fro# the person to %ho# he had actuall" sold,
assi$ned or conve"ed the vehicle.
Uner the sa!e principle the re"istere o#ner of any vehicle, even if not
use for a pu$lic service, shoul pri!arily responsi$le to the pu$lic or to the
thir persons for in%uries cause the latter #hile the vehicle is $ein" riven
on the hi"h#ays or streets. &he !e!$ers of the Court are in a"ree!ent
that the efenant'appellant shoul $e hel lia$le to plaintiff'appellee for the
in%uries occasione to the latter $ecause of the ne"li"ence of the river,
even if the efenant'appellant #as no lon"er an o#ner of the vehicle at the
ti!e of the a!a"e $ecause he ha previously sol it to another. Fhat is
the le$al basis for his ?defendants,appellant!s5 liabilit"G
There is a presu#ption that the o%ner of the $uilt" vehicle is the defendant,
appellant as he is the re$istered o%ner in the Motor Vehicle Office. Should
he not be allo%ed to prove the truth, that he had sold it to another and thus
shift the responsibilit" for the in4ur" to the real and the actual o%nerG The
defendants hold the affir#ative of this proposition: the trial court hold the
ne$ative.
The Revised Motor Vehicle .a% ?3ct No. *((7, as a#ended5 provides that
the vehicle #a" be used or operated upon an" public hi$h%a" unless the
sa#e is properl" re$istered. It has been stated that the s"ste# of licensin$
and the reuire#ent that each #achine #ust carr" a re$istration nu#ber,
conspicuousl" displa"ed, is one of the precautions ta-en to reduce the
dan$er of in4ur" of pedestrians and other travelers fro# the careless
#ana$e#ent of auto#obiles, and to furnish a #eans of ascertainin$ the
identit" of persons violatin$ the la%s and ordinances, re$ulatin$ the speed
and operation of #achines upon the hi$h%a"s ?7 R. /. .. ''<&5. Not onl"
are vehicles to be re$istered and that no #otor vehicles are to be used or
operated %ithout bein$ properl" re$istered fro# the current "ear, furnish the
Motor Vehicle Office a report sho%in$ the na#e and address of each
purchaser of #otor vehicle durin$ the previous #onth and the
#anufacturer!s serial nu#ber and #otor nu#ber. ?Section 8DcE, 3ct No.
*((7, as a#ended.5
Re$istration is reuired not to #a-e said re$istration the operative act b"
%hich o%nership in vehicles is transferred, as in land re$istration cases,
because the ad#inistrative proceedin$ of re$istration does not bear an"
essential relation to the contract of sale bet%een the parties ?/hinchilla vs.
Rafael and Verda$uer, *( Phil. )))5, but to per#it the use and operation of
the vehicle upon an" public hi$h%a" ?section 8DaE, 3ct No. *((7, as
a#ended5. the #ain ai# of #otor vehicle re$istration is to identif" the o%ner
so that if an" accident happens, or that an" da#a$e or in4ur" is caused b"
the vehicle on the public hi$h%a"s, responsibilit" therefor can be fiBed on a
definite individual, the re$istered o%ner. Instances are nu#erous %here
vehicles runnin$ on public hi$h%a"s caused accidents or in4uries to
pedestrians or other vehicles %ithout positive identification of the o%ner or
drivers, or %ith ver" scant #eans of identification. It is to forestall these
circu#stances, so inconvenient or pre4udicial to the public, that the #otor
vehicle re$istration is pri#aril" obtained, in the interest of the deter#inations
of persons responsible for da#a$es or in4uries caused on public hi$h%a"s.
One of the principle purposes of #otor vehicles
le$islation is identification of the vehicle and of the
operator, in case of accident: and another is that the
-no%led$e that #eans of detection are al%a"s available
#" act as a deterrent fro# laB observance of the la%
and of the rules of conservative and safe operation.
Fhatever purpose there #a" be in these statutes, it is
subordinate at the last to the pri#ar" purpose of
renderin$ it certain that the violator of the la% or of the
rules of safet" shall not escape because of lac- of
#eans to discover hi#. The purpose of the statute is
th%arted, and the displa"ed nu#ber beco#es a Hshare
and delusion,H if courts %ould entertain such defenses
as that put for%ard b" appellee in this case. No
responsible person or corporation could be held liable
for the #ost outra$eous acts of ne$li$ence, if the"
should be allo%ed to pace a H#iddle#anH bet%een
the# and the public, and escape liabilit" b" the #anner
in %hich the" reco#pense their servants. ?>in$ vs.
2reha# 3uto#obile /o., Inc. ';8 S. F. 7<), 7<(.5
Fith the above polic" in #ind, the uestion that defendant,appellant poses
is1 should not the re$istered o%ner be allo%ed at the trial to prove %ho the
actual and real o%ner is, and in accordance %ith such proof escape or
evade responsibilit" and la" the sa#e on the person actuall" o%nin$ the
vehicleG Fe hold %ith the trial court that the la% does not allo% hi# to do
so: the la%, %ith its ai# and polic" in #ind, does not relieve hi# directl" of
the responsibilit" that the la% fiBes and places upon hi# as an incident or
conseuence of re$istration. Fere a re$istered o%ner allo%ed to evade
responsibilit" b" provin$ %ho the supposed transferee or o%ner is, it %ould
be eas" for hi#, b" collusion %ith others or other%ise, to escape said
responsibilit" and transfer the sa#e to an indefinite person, or to one %ho
possesses no propert" %ith %hich to respond financiall" for the da#a$e or
in4ur" done. 3 victi# of rec-lessness on the public hi$h%a"s is usuall"
%ithout #eans to discover or Identif" the person actuall" causin$ the in4ur"
or da#a$e. He has no #eans other then b" a recourse to the re$istration in
the Motor Vehicles Office to deter#ine %ho is the o%ner. The protection that
the la% ai#s to eBtend to hi# %ould beco#e illusor" %ere the re$istered
o%ner $iven the opportunit" to escape liabilit" b" disprovin$ his o%nership.
If the polic" of the la% is to be enforced and carried out, the re$istered
o%ner should not be allo%ed to prove the contrar" to the pre4udice of the
person in4ured, that is, to prove that a third person or another has beco#e
the o%ner, so that he #a" thereb" be relieved of the responsibilit" to the
in4ured person.
The above polic" and application of the la% #a" appear uite harsh and
%ould see# to conflict %ith truth and 4ustice. Fe do not thin- it is so. 3
re$istered o%ner %ho has alread" sold or transferred a vehicle has the
recourse to a third,part" co#plaint, in the sa#e action brou$ht a$ainst hi#
to recover for the da#a$e or in4ur" done, a$ainst the vendee or transferee
of the vehicle. The inconvenience of the suit is no 4ustification for relievin$
hi# of liabilit": said inconvenience is the price he pa"s for failure to co#pl"
%ith the re$istration that the la% de#ands and reuires.
In s"nthesis, %e hold that the re$istered o%ner, the defendant,appellant
herein, is pri#aril" responsible for the da#a$e caused to the vehicle of the
plaintiff,appellee, but he ?defendant,appellant5 has a ri$ht to be inde#nified
b" the real or actual o%ner of the a#ount that he #a" be reuired to pa" as
da#a$e for the in4ur" caused to the plaintiff,appellant.
If the fore$oin$ %ords of %isdo# %ere applied in solvin$ the circu#stance %hereof the vehicle
had been alienated or sold to another, there certainl" can be no serious eBception a$ainst
utili+in$ the sa#e rationale to the antecedents of this case %here the sub4ect vehicle %as #erel"
leased b" petitioner to Roc- /o#ponent Philippines, Inc., %ith petitioner retainin$ o%nership
over the vehicle.
Petitioner!s reliance on the rulin$ of this /ourt in Duavit vs. Court of Appeals and in Duquillo vs.
Bayot ?supra5 is le$all" unpalatable for the purpose of the present discourse. The vehicles
adverted to in the t%o cases shared a co##on thread, so to spea-, in that the 4eep and the truc-
%ere driven in rec-less fashion %ithout the consent or -no%led$e of the respective o%ners.
/o$ni+ant of the inculpator" testi#on" spe%ed b" defendant Sabiniano %hen he ad#itted that
he too- the 4eep fro# the $ara$e of defendant Dauvit %ithout the consent or authorit" of the
latter, @ustice =utierre+, @r. in Duavit re#ar-ed:
. . . Herein petitioner does not den" o%nership of the vehicle involved in the
#ishap but co#pletel" denies havin$ e#plo"ed the driver Sabiniano or
even havin$ authori+ed the latter to drive his 4eep. The 4eep %as virtuall"
stolen fro# the petitioner!s $ara$e. To hold, therefore, the petitioner liable
for the accident caused b" the ne$li$ence of Sabiniano %ho %as neither his
driver nor e#plo"ee %ould be absurd as it %ould be li-e holdin$ liable the
o%ner of a stolen vehicle for an accident caused b" the person %ho stole
such vehicle. In this re$ard, %e cannot i$nore the #an" cases of vehicles
forcibl" ta-en fro# their o%ners at $unpoint or stolen fro# $ara$es and
par-in$ areas and the instances of service station attendants or #echanics
of auto repair shops usin$, %ithout the o%ner!s consent, vehicles entrusted
to the# for servicin$ or repair.?at p. ;(&.5
In the Duquillo case, the defendant therein cannot, accordin$ to @ustice Dia+, be held liable for
an"thin$ because of circu#stances %hich indicated that the truc- %as driven %ithout the
consent or -no%led$e of the o%ner thereof.
/onseuentl", there is no need for 0s to discuss the #atter of i#puted ne$li$ence because
petitioner #erel" presu#ed, erroneousl", ho%ever, that 4ud$#ent %as rendered a$ainst it on the
basis of such doctrine e#bodied under 3rticle 7')9 of the ne% /ivil /ode.
FHARACORA, the petition is hereb" DISMISSAD and decision under revie% 3CCIRMAD
%ithout special pronounce#ent as to costs.
SO ORDARAD.