Torts; Quasi-delict; Liability; Employers/Owners/Managers
Before the SC, spouses Jayme insists on the liability of Mayor
Sps. Jayme v. Apostol
GR No. 163609 (2008)
Facts:
1. On February 1989, Mayor Miguel of Koronadal South Cotabato
was on board an Isuzu pick-up truck driven by Lozano, an
employee of the Municipality of Koronadal. Driver Lozano
borrowed the truck to bring Mayor Miguel to the airport to catch
his flight to Manila. The truck was registered under the name of
Rodrigo Apostol.
2. While the pick up truck was traversing the highway, it hit Marvin
Jayme, a minor who was crossing the highway. The intensity of
the collision sent the boy some 50 meters away from the point of
impact, clearly indicating that the driver was at a very high speed
when the accident happened. The boy sustained severe head
injuries that he needed to be airlifted to another hospital. Despite
the medical attention, the boy died 6 days after the incident.
3. The parents of the boy sued, Mayor Miguel, the driver, the
registered owner of the truck, and the actual possessor of said
vehicle. The RTC ruled that the Mayor, the driver and the
registered owner of the truck solidarily liable for damages.
4. At the CA, Mayor Miguel argues that the RTC erred in ruling him
liable as he is not the employer of the driver. That in the records,
it is clear that the employer of Lozano is clearly the Municipality
of Koronadal. He raised that although the incident was
unfortunate, it could not be attributed to him. CA ruled in favor of
the Mayor saying that he was a mere passenger of the truck and
the liability is upon the registered owner of the vehicle, Rodrigo
Apostol.
Torts and Damages | Atty. Kim Dayag | PLS Summer Class 2019
5.
Miguel.
Issue:
Whether or Mayor Miguel was the employer of Lozano, hence
making him liable for the negligence of said driver
Ruling:
1. No. Mayor Miguel is not the employer of Lozano. It has been held
that for an employer to liable, the employer-employee
relationship must be established using the four-fold test. It has
been held that although an employee was loaned by the employer
to another person, the employer-employee relationship still
subsist because control over the employee is still under the
employer.
2. Here, the Court ruled that it is the Municipality who is the
employer of Lozano although he is assigned to the Mayor.
However, the Municipality as an agent of the State engaged in
governmental function, is immune from suit. (A State agent may
only be sued if acting in proprietary capacity). SC explained that
municipal corporations are generally not liable for torts
committed by them in the discharge of governmental functions.
(La Union v. Firme)
3. In the case at bar, the liability is upon the registered owner of the
truck, Rodrigo Apostol. SC said that settled is the rule that the
registered owner of the vehicle is solidarily liable with the driver
for the damages incurred by the passengers or of third persons,
while the driver is operating the subject vehicle. That regardless
of who the actual owner of the vehicle is, the registered owner in
record continues to be the operator of the vehicle as regards the
public and third persons. As such, he is directly and primarily
responsible for the consequences incidental to its operation.
4. In this case, the Court decreed that it is indeed tragic for the
parents to lose their son. However no matter how much they
insist on Mayor Miguel’s liability, the law on the matter is clear:
only the negligent driver, the driver’s employer, and the
registered owner of the vehicle are liable for the death of a third
person resulting from the negligent operation of the vehicle.

Torts and Damages | Atty. Kim Dayag | PLS Summer Class 2019