TRANSPORTATION

31 – R Transport vs. Yu
TOPIC: Common Carriers: Nature and Basis of Liabilities
Citation G.R. No 174161; 750 SCRA 696
Date Feb 18, 2015
Relevant Codal ARTICLE 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own
Provision acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. x x x x

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers
acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any
business or industry. x x x x

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned
prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
Case Doctrine/s Related to Topic
1. In quasi-delicts, once the negligence of the employee is proven to be the cause of the damage to a third
person, a presumption instantly arises that the employer was remiss in the selection and/or supervision of
the negligent employee.
2. In an action based on a breach of a contract of carriage, the holder of the certificate of public convenience
or registered owner’s liability to the public or to any passenger riding its vehicle is direct and the transferee,
being the actual operator of the vehicle and as the one directly responsible for the accident, may in turn be
made responsible to the registered owner for what the latter may have been adjudged to pay.
Case Summary
Loreta Yu was hit by a bus driven by Gimena, registered to MMTC and actually owned and operated by R
Transport Co. The accident was due to the fact that Gimena was driving recklessly. Loreta’s husband sued all
three parties and the SC held Gimena, MMTC and R Transport solidarily liable.

FACTS:
1. On the morning of December 12, 1993, Loreta Yu, alighted from a passenger bus along the north-
bound lane of EDSA
○ She was hit and run over by a bus driven by Antonio Gimena (Gimena)
■ Gimena was employed by R Transport Corp.
○ Loreta was rushed to the Medical City Hospital but she was pronounced dead on arrival
2. The husband of Loreta filed a Complaint for damages for the death of his wife before the RTC of Makati
against:
○ R Transport (the actual owner of the bus)
○ Gimena (the driver of the bus)
○ Metro Manila Transport Corporation/MMTC (the registered owner of the bus)
■ Under the Bus Installment Purchase Program of the gov’t, the MMTC only purchased the
subject bus for resale to R Transport
3. The parties raised the following defenses
○ R Transport: it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees and
drivers and that its buses are in good condition
○ MMTC: R Transport is the actual owner of the of the bus and employer of Gimena
○ Gimena was declared in default
4. RTC held R Transport and MMTC solidarily liable
○ R Transport failed to prove that it exercised the diligence required of a good father of a family in
the selection and supervision of its driver
○ MMTC: it would unduly prejudice a third person, who is a victim of a tort, to look beyond the
certificate of registration and prove who the actual owner is in order to enforce a right of action
5. CA affirmed the RTC Decision
○ Gimena was also held solidarily liable

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUE # 1 HELD
Whether or not R Transport is liable for the death of Loreta Yes, R Transport is directly liable for
the death of Loreta.
RATIO
1. Gimena, an employee of R Transport, was clearly guilty of negligence in operating the buses

Page 1 of 2
TRANSPORTATION
31 – R Transport vs. Yu
TOPIC: Common Carriers: Nature and Basis of Liabilities
○ Negligence – the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that
degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such
other person suffers injury
○ Negligent acts (as per records)
■ Driving at a reckless speed
■ Bumped the deceased in a loading and unloading area
■ Failed to exercise caution upon seeing the stopped bus beside his lane
2. Under Art. 2180 of the CC, employers are liable for the damage caused by their employees acting
within the scope of their assigned tasks
○ Once the negligence on the part of the employee is established, a presumption instantly arises
that the employer was remiss in the selection and/or supervision of the negligent employee
○ Employer can rebut this presumption by presenting adequate and convincing proof that it
exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of
its employees.
○ IN THIS CASE, R Transport failed to present any proof that it exercised the required diligence.
3. R Transport cannot deflect its liability to MMTC, the registered owner of the bus
○ The cases cited by R Transport exempted the actual owner of the passenger vehicle from
liability
○ The Court explained that if the action was based on a breach of a contract of carriage, the
registered owner and the actual operation would not be solidary
■ In that case, the transferee (actual operator) would be deemed as an agent of the
registered owner
○ However, if the cause of action arises from a quasi-delict, wherein the damage is caused by the
negligence of its employee, the liability of the employer for the negligent conduct is direct and
primary.

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUE #2 HELD
Whether or not MMTC can be held solidarily liable with R Transport YES, MMTC is solidarily liable with R
Transport
RATIO
1. This is for the better protection of the pubic for both the owner of record and the actual operator to be adjudged
solidarily liable with the driver

RULING:
WHEREFORE, the petition is denied. The CA Decision is AFFIRMED.

Page 2 of 2