Hence, the instant petition raising the following (3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions
issues: which involve title to, or possession of, real
property, or any interest therein where
the assessed value of the property or interest
A. The Honorable Court of Appeals therein docs not exceed Twenty thousand pesos
committed a reversible error when it held (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila,
that "since [petitioner] failed to allege where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty
the assessed value of the subject thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest,
property, the court a quo has not damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees,
acquired jurisdiction over the action and litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That in
all proceedings thereat are null and cases of land not declared for taxation purposes,
void," as such conclusion is contradictory the value of such property shall be determined
to the doctrine of estoppel. by the assessed value of the adjacent lots.
[20] Rollo, pp. 59-60. Id., citing People v. Napat-a, 258-A Phil. 994,
[35]
[23]Malana v. Tappa, 616 Phil. 177, 190 (2009), [37] Id. at 141.
citing Laresma v. Abellana, 484 Phil. 766, 778-779
(2004). Formal Offer of Evidence of Petitioner before
[38]
September 24, 2014, 736 SCRA 508, 522. [39] 331 Phil. 962 (1996).
[25] 131 Phil. 556, 565 (1968). Bernardo, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, supra, at
[40]
[27] Calimlim v. Ramirez, 204 Phil. 25, 35 (1982). C & S Fishfarm Corp. v. CA, 442 Phil. 279, 290-
[42]
291 (2002).
[28] Id. (Emphasis supplied)
[43] Zacarias v. Anacay, supra note 24.
[29] G.R. No. 103200, August 31, 1994, 236 SCRA 78.
Before the Court is a Petition for Review under Thereafter, said RTC Decision became final and
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which petitioner executory; hence, the trial court issued a writ of
Camilo Sibal filed, assailing the Decision1 of the execution.
Court of Appeals (CA), dated March 16, 2011,
and its Resolution2 dated July 7, 2011 in CA-G.R. On August 8, 2008, Sibal filed a Petition for
SP NO. 104774. The CA affirmed the Decision3 of Annulment of the RTC Decision before the CA,
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao where he raised lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic
City, Cagayan, Branch 02, dated January 5, fraud as grounds. On March 16, 201l, the CA
2007, in Civil Case No. 6429. dismissed Sibal' s petition, thus:
The facts, as gathered from the records, are as WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant
follows: petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
CERTIFIC ATI ON
THIRD DIVISION
Meanwhile, the complaint for illegal dismissal It is well-settled that "(t)he jurisdiction of the
filed by Alibudbud was dismissed. The LA's Supreme Court in cases brought to it from the CA
Decision[29] dated February 19, 2008 held that the is limited to reviewing and revising the errors of
redundancy she suffered resulted from a valid re- law imputed to it, its findings of fact being
organization program undertaken by Malayan in conclusive. In several decisions, however, the
view of the downturn in the latter's sales.[30] It Court enumerated the exceptional
further ruled that Alibudbud failed to establish circumstances when the Supreme Court may
any violation or arbitrary action exerted upon her review the findings of fact of the CA," [38] such as
by Malayan, which merely exercised its in the instant case.
management prerogative when it terminated
her services.[31] A careful study of the case would reveal that the
RTC correctly took cognizance of the action for
On November 28, 2008, the RTC rendered a replevin contrary to the pronouncement of the
Decision[32] which granted the complaint for CA.
replevin. The RTC mentioned the following
observations and conclusions, to wit: (1) "Replevin is an action whereby the owner or
Alibudbud is under obligation to pay in full the person entitled to repossession of goods or
acquisition cost of the car issued to her by chattels may recover those goods or chattels
Malayan; (2) the LA's Decision dated February 19, from one who has wrongfully distrained or taken,
2008 which dismissed the illegal dismissal or who wrongfully detains such goods or chattels.
complaint settled the issue being banked upon It is designed to permit one having right to
possession to recover property in specie from one Decision dated May 15, 2013 and Resolution
who has wrongfully taken or detained the dated September 6, 2013 of the Court of Appeals
property. The term may refer either to the action in CA-G.R. CV No. 92940 are REVERSED and SET
itself, for the recovery of personalty, or to the ASIDE. The Decision dated November 28, 2008 of
provisional remedy traditionally associated with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 27, in
it, by which possession of the property may be Civil Case No. 05-113528 is,
obtained by the plaintiff and retained during the accordingly, REINSTATED.
pendency of the action."[39]
SO ORDERED.
In reversing the trial court's ruling, the CA
declared that "[Alibudbud] could not have Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Perez,
availed of the Car Financing Plan if she was not and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
an employee of [Malayan]. The status of being
an employee and officer of [Alibudbud] in
[Malayan] was, therefore, one of the pre-
condition before she could avail of the benefits
of the Car Financing Plan. Such being the case,
there is no doubt that [Alibudbud's] availing of
the Car Financing Plan being offered by
[Malayan] was necessarily and intimately June 13, 2016
connected with or related to her employment in
the aforesaid Company."[40]
[26] Id.
Through this Petition for Review on WHEREFORE, considering that the [respondent]
Certiorari,[7] Caravel Travel and Tours was able to provide by preponderance of
International, Inc. (Caravan) prays that the evidence her cause of action against the
Decision[8] dated October 3, 2005 and the defendants, judgment is hereby rendered
Resolution[9] dated November 29, 2005 of the ordering defendants JIMMY BAUTISTA and
Court of Appeals Twelfth Division be reversed CARAVAN TRAVEL and TOURS[,] INC., to jointly
and set aside.[10] and solidarity pay the plaintiff, the following, to
wit:
On July 13, 2000, Jesmariane R. Reyes (Reyes)
was walking along the west-bound lane of 1. The amount of P35,000.00 representing actual
Sampaguita Street, United Paraaque damages;
Subdivision IV, Paraaque City.[11] A Mitsubishi L-
300 van with plate number PKM 195[12] was 2. The amount of P300,000.00 as moral damages;
travelling along the east-bound lane, opposite
Reyes.[13] To avoid an incoming vehicle, the van 3. The amount of P30,000.00 as exemplary
swerved to its left and hit Reyes.[14] Alex Espinosa damages;
(Espinosa), a witness to the accident, went to her
aid and loaded her in the back of the 4. The amount of P50,000.00 as and by way of
van.[15] Espinosa told the driver of the van, Jimmy attorney's fees; and
Bautista (Bautista), to bring Reyes to the
hospital.[16] Instead of doing so, Bautista 5. The cost of suit.
appeared to have left the van parked inside a SO ORDERED.[31]
nearby subdivision with Reyes still in the Caravan's Motion for Reconsideration[32] was
van.[17] Fortunately for Reyes, an unidentified denied through the October 20, 2003 Order[33] of
civilian came to help and drove Reyes to the the Regional Trial Court.
hospital.[18]
The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification
Upon investigation, it was found that the the Regional Trial Court's July 31, 2003 Decision
registered owner of the van was and October 20, 2003 Order, as follows:
Caravan.[19] Caravan is a corporation engaged
in the business of organizing travels and WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant
tours.[20] Bautista was Caravan's employee appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed
assigned to drive the van as its service driver.[21] Decision dated 31 July 2003 and Order dated 20
October 2003 of the Regional Trial Court, City of
Caravan shouldered the hospitalization expenses Para[]aque, Branch 258, in Civil Case No. 00-
of Reyes.[22] Despite medical attendance, Reyes 0447 are AFFIRMED with the
died two (2) days after the accident.[23] following MODIFICATIONS:
The registration of the vehicle, on the other hand, In its selection of Bautista as a service driver,
is accessible to the public. petitioner contented itself with Bautista's
submission of a non-professional driver's
Here, respondent presented a copy of the license.[112] Hence, in Sally Balledo's cross-
Certificate of Registration[105] of the van that hit examination:
Reyes.[106] The Certificate attests to petitioner's
ownership of the van. Petitioner itself did not . . . when he was promoted as service
Q :
dispute its ownership of the van. Consistent with driver, of course, there were certain
requirements and among other else, you indispensable to the business of and beneficial to
made mention about a driver's license. their employer. To this, we add that actual
A :Yes, Sir. implementation and monitoring of consistent
Would you be able to show to this compliance with said rules should be the
Honorable Court whether indeed this constant concern of the employer, acting
Q :
person did submit a driver's license to your through dependable supervisors who should
company? regularly report on their supervisory functions.
A :Yes, Sir.
.... In order that the defense of due diligence in the
Do you recall what kind of driver's license selection and supervision of employees may be
Q :
is this? deemed sufficient and plausible, it is not enough
A :The Land Transportation Office. to emptily invoke the existence of said company
Is it a professional driver's license or non- guidelines and policies on hiring and supervision.
Q :
proffesional [sic] driver's license? As the negligence of the employee gives rise to
A :Non-professional. the presumption of negligence on the part of the
Q :You are not sure? employer, the latter has the burden of proving
COURT:Non professional, professional? that it has been diligent not only in the selection
It's a non-professional.[113] (Emphasis of employees but also in the actual supervision of
A :
supplied) their work. The mere allegation of the existence
Employing a person holding a non-professional of hiring procedures and supervisory policies,
driver's license to operate another's motor without anything more, is decidedly not sufficient
vehicle violates Section 24 of the Land to overcome presumption.
Transportation and Traffic Code, which provides:
We emphatically reiterate our holding, as a
SEC. 24. Use of driver's license and badge. ... warning to all employers, that "(t)he mere
formulation of various company policies on
.... safety without showing that they were being
complied with is not sufficient to exempt
No owner of a motor vehicle shall engage, petitioner from liability arising from negligence of
employ, or hire any person to operate such its employees. It is incumbent upon petitioner to
motor vehicle, unless the person sought to be show that in recruiting and employing the erring
employed is a duly licensed professional driver. driver the recruitment procedures and company
Evidently, petitioner did not only fail to exercise policies on efficiency and safety were followed."
due diligence when it selected Bautista as Paying lip-service to these injunctions or merely
service driver; it also committed an actual going through the motions of compliance
violation of law. therewith will warrant stern sanctions from the
Court.[116] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
To prove that it exercised the required diligence For failing to overturn the presumption that the
in supervising Bautista, petitioner presented requirements of Article 2180 have been satisfied,
copies of several memoranda and company petitioner must be held liable.
rules.[114] These, however, are insufficient because
petitioner failed to prove actual
compliance. Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. III
Court of Appeals[115] emphasized that to establish
diligence in the supervision of employees, the Petitioner's argument that it should be excused
issuance of company policies must be coupled from liability because Bautista was already
with proof of compliance: dropped as a party is equally unmeritorious. The
liability imposed on the registered owner is direct
Due diligence in the supervision of employees, on and primary.[117] It does not depend on the
the other hand, includes the formulation of inclusion of the negligent driver in the action.
suitable rules and regulations for the guidance of Agreeing to petitioner's assertion would render
employees and the issuance of proper impotent the rationale of the motor registration
instructions intended for the protection of the law in fixing liability on a definite person.
public and persons with whom the employer has
relations through his or its employees and the Bautista, the driver, was not an indispensable
imposition of necessary disciplinary measures party under Rule 3, Section 7[118] of the 1997 Rules
upon employees in case of breach or as may be of Civil Procedure. Rather, he was a necessary
warranted to ensure the performance of acts party under Rule 3, Section 8.[119] Instead of
insisting that Bautistawho was nothing more who must be included in an action before it may
than a necessary partyshould not have been properly go forward.
dropped as a defendant, or that petitioner,
along with Bautista, should have been dropped, A person is not an indispensable party, however,
petitioner (as a co-defendant insisting that the if his interest in the controversy or subject matter
action must proceed with Bautista as party) is separable from the interest of the other parties,
could have opted to file a cross-claim against so that it will not necessarily be directly or
Bautista as its remedy. injuriously affected by a decree which does
complete justice between them. Also, a person is
The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure spell out the not an indispensable party if his presence would
rules on joinder of indispensable and necessary merely permit complete relief between him and
parties. These are intended to afford "a complete those already parties to the action, or if he has
determination of all possible issues, not only no interest in the subject matter of the action. It is
between the parties themselves but also as not a sufficient reason to declare a person to be
regards to other persons who may be affected an indispensable party that his presence will
by the judgment."[120] avoid multiple litigation.[123]
Petitioner's interest and liability is distinct from that
However, while an exhaustive resolution of of its driver. Regardless of petitioner's employer-
disputes is desired in every case, the distinction employee relationship with Bautista, liability
between indispensable parties and necessary attaches to petitioner on account of its being the
parties delineates a court's capacity to render registered owner of a vehicle that figures in a
effective judgment. As defined by Rule 3, Section mishap. This alone suffices. A determination of its
7, indispensable parties are "[p]arties in interest liability as owner can proceed independently of
without whom no final determination can be had a consideration of how Bautista conducted
of an action[.]" Thus, their non-inclusion is himself as a driver. While certainly it is desirable
debilitating: "the presence of indispensable that a determination of Bautista's liability be
parties is a condition for the exercise of juridical made alongside that of the owner of the van he
power and when an indispensable party is not was driving, his non-inclusion in these
before the court, the action should be proceedings does not absolutely hamper a
dismissed."[121] judicious resolution of respondent's plea for relief.
An indispensable party is a party who has such Contrary to petitioner's claim, this Certificate is
an interest in the controversy or subject matter not hearsay. Evidence is hearsay when its
that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his probative value is based on the personal
absence, without injuring or affecting that knowledge of a person other than the person
interest, a party who has not only an interest in actually testifying.[125] Here, the Certificate sought
the subject matter of the controversy, but also to establish that respondent herself paid
has an interest of such nature that a final decree Pealoza P35,000.00 as funeral expenses for
cannot be made without affecting his interest or Reyes' death:[126]
leaving the controversy in such a condition that
its final determination may be wholly inconsistent
with equity and good conscience. It has also 3. Na ang aking kontrata ay
been considered that an indispensable party is a nagkakahalaga ng P35,000-00 [sic] sa
person in whose absence there cannot be a lahat ng nagamit na materiales at labor
determination between the parties already nito kasama ang lote na ibinayad sa
before the court which is effective, complete, or akin ni Gng. ERMILINDA REYES ABEJAR na
equitable. Further, an indispensable party is one siyang aking kakontrata sa
pagsasagawa ng naturang Both the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial
paglilibingan.[127] (Emphasis supplied) Court found Bautista grossly negligent in driving
the van and concluded that Bautista's gross
It was respondent herself who identified the negligence was the proximate cause of Reyes'
Certificate. She testified that she incurred funeral death. Negligence and causation are factual
expenses amounting to P35,000.00, that she paid issues.[129] Findings of fact, when established by
this amount to Pealoza, and that she was the trial court and affirmed by the Court of
present when Pealoza signed the Certificate: Appeals, are binding on this court unless they are
patently unsupported by evidence or unless the
[ATTY. judgment is grounded on a misapprehension of
Did you incur any expenses? facts.[130] Considering that petitioner has not
LIM] :
A: Meron po. presented any evidence disputing the findings of
How much did you spend for the death of the lower courts regarding Bautista's negligence,
Q: these findings cannot be disturbed in this appeal.
Jesmarian [sic] Reyes?
'Yun pong P35,000.00 na pagpapalibing at The evidentiary bases for the award of civil
A: indemnity and exemplary damages stand. As
saka...
You said that you spent P35,000.00. Do you such, petitioner must pay the exemplary
Q : have any evidence or proof that you spent damages arising from the negligence of its
that amount? driver.[131] For the same reasons, the award of
A: Meron po. P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity is justified.[132]
Showing to you this sort of certification.
Q: The award of moral damages is likewise proper.
What relation has this...
A: 'Yan po' yung contractor nagumawa.
Q : Contractor of what? Article 2206(3) of the Civil Code provides:
'Yan po' yung mismong binilhan ko ng lupa
A: ARTICLE 2206. The amount of damages
at nitso.
.... for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall
There is a signature at the top of the printed be at least three thousand pesos, even though
ATTY. there may have been mitigating circumstances.
name Julian Penalosa [sic]. Whose
LIM : In addition:
signature is this?
A: 'Yan po' yung mismong contractor.
.... ....
Q : Did you see him sign this?
A: Opo.[128] (Emphasis supplied) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate
Respondent had personal knowledge of the descendants and ascendants of the
facts sought to be proved by the Certificate, i.e. (3)deceased may demand moral damages for
that she spent P35,000.00 for the funeral expenses mental anguish by reason of the death of the
of Reyes. Thus, the Certificate that she identified deceased. (Emphasis supplied)
and testified to is not hearsay. It was not an error For deaths caused by quasi-delict, the recovery
to admit this Certificate as evidence and basis of moral damages is limited to the spouse,
for awarding P35,000.00 as actual damages to legitimate and illegitimate descendants, and
respondent. ascendants of the deceased.[133]
The Court of Appeals likewise did not err in Persons exercising substitute parental authority
awarding civil indemnity and exemplary are to be considered ascendants for the purpose
damages. of awarding moral damages. Persons exercising
substitute parental authority are intended to
Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides: stand in place of a child's parents in order to
ensure the well-being and welfare of a
ARTICLE 2206. The amount of damages for death child.[134] Like natural parents, persons exercising
caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at substitute parental authority are required to,
least three thousand pesos, even though there among others, keep their wards in their
may have been mitigating circumstances[.] company,[135] provide for their
Further, Article 2231 of the Civil Code provides: upbringing,[136] show them love and
affection,[137] give them advice and
ARTICLE 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary counsel,[138] and provide them with
damages may be granted if the defendant companionship and understanding.[139] For their
acted with gross negligence. part, wards shall always observe respect and
obedience towards the person exercising case, be on the amount finally
parental authority.[140] The law forges a adjudged.
relationship between the ward and the person
exercising substitute parental authority such that 3. When the judgment of the court
the death or injury of one results in the damage awarding a sum of money becomes final
or prejudice of the other. and executory, the rate of legal interest,
whether the case falls under paragraph
Moral damages are awarded to compensate 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 6% per
the claimant for his or her actual injury, and not annum from such finality until its
to penalize the wrongdoer.[141] Moral damages satisfaction, this interim period being
enable the injured party to alleviate the moral deemed to be by then an equivalent to
suffering resulting from the defendant's a forbearance of credit.[146] (Emphasis
actions.[142] It aims to restoreto the extent supplied)
possible"the spiritual status quo ante[.]"[143]
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals
Given the policy underlying Articles 216 and 220 dated October 3, 2005 is AFFIRMED with the
of the Family Code as well as the purposes for following MODIFICATIONS: (a) actual damages in
awarding moral damages, a person exercising the amount of P35,000.00 shall earn interest at
substitute parental authority is rightly considered the rate of 6% per annum from the time it was
an ascendant of the deceased, within the judicially or extrajudicially demanded from
meaning of Article 2206(3) of the Civil Code. petitioner Caravan Travel and Tours International,
Hence, respondent is entitled to moral damages. Inc. until full satisfaction; (b) moral damages,
exemplary damages, and attorney's fees shall
As exemplary damages have been awarded earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
and as respondent was compelled to litigate in the date of the Regional Trial Court Decision until
order to protect her interests, she is rightly entitled full satisfaction; and (c) civil indemnity shall earn
to attorney's fees.[144] interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of the Court of Appeals Decision until full
However, the award of interest should be satisfaction.
modified. This modification must be consistent
with Nacar v. Gallery Frames,[145] in which we SO ORDERED.
ruled:
Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo,
and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
2. When an obligation, not constituting a
loan or forbearance of money, is
breached, an interest on the amount of
damages awarded may be imposed at
the discretion of the court at the rate
of 6% per annum. No interest, however, [1] CIVIL CODE, art. 2180 provides:
shall be adjudged on unliquidated
claims or damages, except when or until ARTICLE 2180. The obligation imposed by article
the demand can be established with 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts
reasonable certainty. or omissions, but also for those of persons for
Accordingly, where the demand is whom one is responsible.
established with reasonable certainty,
the interest shall begin to run from the ....
time the claim is made judicially or
extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code), but Employers shall be liable for the damages
when such certainty cannot be so caused by their employees and household
reasonably established at the time the helpers acting within the scope of their assigned
demand is made, the interest shall begin tasks, even though the former are not engaged
to run only from the date the judgment in any business or industry.
of the court is made (at which time the
quantification of damages may be ....
deemed to have been reasonably
ascertained). The actual base for the The responsibility treated of in this article shall
computation of legal interest shall, in any cease when the persons herein mentioned prove
that they observed all the diligence of a good [17] Id.
father of a family to prevent damage.
[18] Id.
[2] CIVIL CODE, art. 2176 provides:
[19] Rollo, p. 134, Court of Appeals Decision.
ARTICLE 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or RTC records, pp. 2, Complaint; and 47, Answer
[20]
518-521 [Per J. Perez, Second Division]. [28] Rollo, p. 138, Court of Appeals Decision.
Associate Justice of this court) of the Twelfth Case No. 00-0447. The Decision, promulgated on
Division. July 31, 2003, was penned by Judge Raul E. De
Leon of Branch 258.
Id. at 166-167. The Resolution was penned by
[9]
[16] CA rollo, p. 31, Regional Trial Court Decision. [41] Id. at 42.
[42] Id. at 31. Registrar of Calamba, Laguna; 188, Death
Certificate of Leonora R. Landicho issued by the
[43] Id. at 43. Municipal Civil Registrar of Candelaria, Quezon;
and 189, Certificate of Death of Leonora R.
[44] Id. at 44. Landicho issued by the Parish of San Pedro
Bautista, Candelaria, Quezon.
[45] Id. at 233, Caravan's Memorandum.
Id. at 179, Abejar's Formal Offer of
[58]
[46] CIVIL CODE, art. 2206(3) provides: Documentary Exhibits; 190, Death Certificate of
Leticia Cortez Reyes issued by the Municipal Civil
ARTICLE 2206. The amount of damages for death Registrar of Tiong, Quezon; and 191, Certificate
caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at of Death of Domingo Estiva Reyes issued by the
least three thousand pesos, even though there City Civil Registrar of Manila.
may have been mitigating circumstances. In
addition: [59] TSN, April 10, 2002, p. 760.
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate [61] FAMILY CODE, art. 220 provides:
descendants and ascendants of the deceased
may demand moral damages for mental Art. 220. The parents and those exercising
anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. parental authority shall have with the respect to
their unemancipated children on wards the
Rollo, pp. 45-46, Petition for Review on
[47] following rights and duties:
Certiorari.
Second Division]. Erezo, et al. v. Jepte, 102 Phil. 103, 108 (1957)
[79]
[70] CIVIL CODE (1889), art. 1902 provides: [84] Id. at 1018.
ARTICLE 2176: Whoever by act or omission causes Phil. 834, 839-841 (2001) [Per J. Quisumbing,
damage to another, there being fault or Second Division].
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
done. [89] Id. at 835-837.
[72] 133 Phil. 825 (1968) [Per J. Zaldivar, En Banc]. [90] Id. at 837.
[74]Id. at 831. This court ruled that while Article Aguilar, Sr. v. Commercial Savings Bank, 412
[92]
1902 of the old Civil Code (now Article 2176) Phil. 834, 839-841 (2001) [Per J. Quisumbing,
does not require any relation between the Second Division].
plaintiff and the victim of the quasi-delict, Article
2206(3) of the Civil Code does. Hence, the [93] Id. at 839-840.
recovery of moral damages requires that the
plaintiff is the victim's spouse, legitimate or [94] Id. at 841.
illegitimate descendant or ascendant (Id. at
833). 686 Phil. 799 (2012) [Per J. Del Castillo, First
[95]
Division].
[75] Id. at 831.
[96] Id. at 817.
See Filcar Transport Services v. Espinas, 688
[76]
Phil. 430, 435 (2012) [Per J. Brion, Second 688 Phil. 430 (2012) [Per J. Brion, Second
[97]
Division]. Division].
[77] 102 Phil. 103 (1957) [Per J. Labrador, En Banc]. [98] Id. at 441.
SECTION 5. Compulsory Registration of Motor G.R. No. 160110, June 18, 2014, 726 SCRA 505,
[100]
Vehicles. - (a) All motor vehicles and trailer of any 518-521 [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
type used or operated on or upon any highway
of the Philippines must be registered with the [101] Filcar Transport Services v. Espinas, 688 Phil.
430, 441 (2012) [Per J. Brion, Second Division]. 1997 RULES OF CIV. PROC., Rule 3, sec. 7
[118]
provides:
[102] Id. at 441-442.
RULE 3. Parties to Civil Actions
Spouses Algura v. The Local Government Unit
[103]
of the City of Naga, 536 Phil. 819, 835 (2006) [Per ....
J. Velasco, Jr., Third Division].
SECTION 7. Compulsory Joinder of Indispensable
Del Carmen, Jr. v. Bacoy, 686 Phil. 799, 817
[104] Parties. Parties in interest without whom no final
(2012) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division]. determination can be had of an action shall be
joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.
[105] RTC records, p. 182.
1997 RULES OF CIV. PROC., Rule 3, sec. 8
[119]
for an employer to be liable for the acts of its SECTION 8. Necessary Party. A necessary party
employee, it is required that the employment is one who is not indispensable but who ought to
relationship is established, that the employee be joined as a party if complete relief is to be
acted within the scope of his or her assigned accorded as to those already parties, or for a
tasks, and that the employer failed to exercise complete determination or settlement of the
the diligence of a good father of a family in the claim subject of the action.
selection and supervision of the employee. See
Castilex Industrial Corp. v. Vasquez, Jr., 378 Phil. [120]Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, 181
1009, 1017 (1999) [Per C.J. Davide, Jr., First Phil. 432, 440-441 (1979) [Per J. Guerrero, First
Division] and Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Division].
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104408, June 21, 1993,
223 SCRA 521, 539 [Per J. Regalado, Second Lucman v. Malawi, 540 Phil. 289, 302 (2006)
[121]
[109] TSN, September 25, 2002, pp. 1247-1248. [123] Id. at 269-270.
[111] Id. at 1284-1285. Valencia v. Atty. Cabanting, 273 Phil. 534, 545
[125]
[142] Id.
[143] Id.
[146]