ERNESTO MARTIN vs.

CA
G.R. No. 82248 January 30, 1992

FACTS:

Ernesto Martin was the owner of a private car. On May 11, 1982, while said car was
being driven by Nestor Martin, it crashed into a Meralco electric post in Antipolo, Rizal.
The car was wrecked and the pole severely damaged. Meralco subsequently demanded
reparation from Ernesto Martin, but the demand was rejected. It thereupon sued him
for damages, alleging that he was liable to it as the employer of Nestor. The petitioner’s
main defense was that Nestor Martin was not his employee. Meralco did not present any
evidence to prove that Nestor Martin was the employee of Ernesto Martin and that the
latter did not rebut such allegation.

ISSUE:

Can Ernesto Martin be held liable in this case?

RULING:

NO. Meralco has the burden of proof “to present evidence on the fact in issue necessary
to establish the claim” as required by Section 1, Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court.
As the employment relationship between Nestor Martin and Ernesto Martin could not
be presumed, it was necessary for the plaintiff to establish it by evidence. It was enough
for the defendant to deny the alleged employment relationship. The Court has
consistently applied the rule that “if the plaintiff, upon whom rests the burden of proving
his cause of action, fails to show in satisfactory manner the facts upon which he bases
his claim, the defendant is under no obligation to prove his exception or defense.”