CASE NO. 20.

GR NO. 160286, JULY 30, 2004

SPOUSES HERNANDEZ ET AL VS. SPOUSES DOLOR ET AL

FACTS:
 Boyet Dolor, Jr was the driver of an owner-type jeepney owned by his
mother
 Petitioner Gonzales was the driver of a passenger jeepney owned by
Petitioner Hernandez
 A collision between the two jeepneys occurred resulting in the death of 3
passengers of the jeepney driven by Dolor, Jr and physical injuries towards 3
of the passengers of the passenger jeepney driven by Petitioner Gonzales.
 Respondents Dolor filed an action for damages against the Petitioners,
alleging that Petitioner Gonzales was negligent in his driving and Petitioner
Hernandez was also negligent in the selection and supervision of their
employees.
 During the trial of the case, it was found that Petitioner Gonzales had just
acquired his professional driver’s license 3 months prior to the incident.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not Petitioner Gonzales is an employee of Petitioner Spouses
Hernandez
 Whether or not Spouses Hernandez are solidarily liable with Petitioner
Gonzales for the damages that were incurred during the incident

HELD:
 The Supreme Court held in the positive for both issues. A driver who
operates a public vehicle under the boundary system is indeed an employee
of the owner of the public vehicle; to dismiss this would be a flagrant
violation of the Public Utility Act which is intended to protect the general
public. Given there exists an employer-employee relationship between
Spouses Hernandez and Gonzales, as employers, Spouses Hernandes shall
be liable for the damages caused by their employees acting within the scope
of their assigned tasks, as provided under Article. 2180. It shows us that
there is solidary liability between employers and employees for quasi-delicts
that may have been committed by the employee.