By ATTY JOEY T. BANDAY
Is it imperative to apply the registered owner rule? YES. And this is the story.
Sometime in 2000, Janine R. Cruz was walking along the west-bound lane of Sampaguita Street, UPS IV, Parañaque City. Opposite Janine, a Mitsubishi L-300 van was travelling along the east-bound lane. To avoid an incoming vehicle, the van swerved to its left. It hit Janine. A good Samaritan brought Janine to a hospital. However, Janine died two days after the accident.
Upon investigation, it was found out that the registered owner of the Van was Caravan Travel, Inc., an entity engaged in the business of organizing travel and tours in Manila. The driver was Jim Bautista in the employ of Caravan as its service driver.
Janine’s paternal Aunt subsequently filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque a Complaint for damages against Jim and Caravan . The Complaint alleged that Jim was an employee of Caravan and that Caravan as the registered owner of the van should be held directly and primarily liable.
After trial, the RTC found that Jim was grossly negligent in driving the vehicle. In addition, it awarded damages to the complainant.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the RTC. And after the denial of its Motion for Reconsideration, Caravan appealed to the Supreme Court.
And the SC ruled in the following tenor:
“ x x x.
Contrary to petitioner’s position, it was not fatal to respondent’s cause that she herself did not adduce proof that ________ acted within the scope of his authority. It was sufficient that ___________ proved that the petitioner was the registered owner of the van that hit ________.
The resolution of this case must consider two (2) rules. First, Article 2180’s specification that “[e]mployers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees . . . acting within the scope of their assigned tasks[.] “Second, the operation of the registered owner rule that registered owners are liable for death or injuries caused by the operation of their vehicles.
These rules appear to be in conflict when it comes to cases in which the employer is also the registered owner of a vehicle. Article 2180 requires proof of two things; first, an employment relationship between the driver and the owner; and second, that the driver acted within the scope of his or her assigned tasks. On the other hand, applying the registered owner rule only requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant-employer is the registered owner of the vehicle.
x x x
Thus, it is imperative to apply the registered owner rule in a manner that harmonizes it with Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. Rules must be construed in a manner that will harmonize them with other rules so as to form a uniform and consistent system of jurisprudence. In light of this, the words used in Del Carmen are particularly notable. There, this court stated that Article 2180 “should defer to the registered owner rule”. It never stated that Article 2180 should be totally abandoned.
I wish to stress that in cases where both the registered-owner rule and Article 2180 apply, the plaintiff must first establish that the employer is the registered owner of the vehicle involved. Once the plaintiff successfully proves ownership, there arises a disputable presumption that the requirements of Article 2180 have been proven. Then and only then, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to show that no liability under Article 2180 has arisen.
Next story please. And stay safe.
For questions or comments, email the writer at atty.joeytbanday@gmail.com.
