Genson vs Adarle 153 SCRA 512

FACTS: Arbatin was the successful bidder in a public auction of junk

and other unserviceable government property in the Highway
District Engineer’s Office of Roxas City. Arbatin then employed
Adarle to help him haul the junk. On a non-working day, when
Adarle and Buensalido, the driver of the payloader, were at the site
continuing to gather the junk, a bucket from the payloader fell and
injured Adarle to the point of paralyzing his lower extremities. Adarle
instituted an action against Arbatin, Buensalido, Marcelino (Civil
Engineer), and Genson (Highway District Engineer). RTC ruled in favor
of Adarle. IAC modified the previous ruling, absolving Marcelino from
liability, and averring that the liability of Genson is based on fault, by
allowing Arbatin and his men to work on the premises on a non-
working day, in contravention of his office’s policy. Petitioner Genson
then appealed the decision to the SC, stating that the facts upon
which the IAC declared that his liability is based on fault by allowing
the men to work on a non-working holiday is without basis.
Furthermore, he contends that by filing a suit against him, Adarle is
then filing a suit against the Republic, which violates the non-suability
of the State.

ISSUE: Whether or not Genson should be held liable, personally or

officially?

RULING: NO. With regard to the non-suability contention, Adarle filed

a suit against Genson personally, in his capacity as the Highway
District Engineer, and not the State or his office. As for the main issue,
there was no evidence to prove Genson’s presence when the
accident occurred, nor was there any basis for the lower courts to
hold that Genson was at fault by authorizing Arbatin and his men to
work on a non-working day. It might even be proven that working on
a Saturday for the specific purpose of hauling junk would be the time
when the most work can be done, as it has less traffic. The Master-
Servant doctrine in tort law cannot apply either, since despite the
fact that Buensalido, Genson’s employee, was “moonlighting” on a
non-working holiday, Buensalido’s arrangement with Arbatin was
purely private in nature, and had nothing to do with his being
employed under Genson. Thus, absent the showing of malice, bad
faith or gross negligence on the part of Genson, he cannot be held
liable for the acts committed by Buensalido and Arbatin.