POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

COLLEGE OF LAW

OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

SECOND SEMESTER AY 2023 - 2024

NAME: Irlandez, Ma. Christine M.

SECTION: JD 1-2

CASE DIGEST

TITLE OF THE CASE: Cang v. Cullen, G.R. No. 163078, Nov. 25, 2009
GR # AND DATE: G.R. No. 163078, Nov. 25, 2009
PONENTE: NACHURA, J

CASE DOCTRINE Negligence is conduct that creates an undue risk of harm to others. It is the failure
to observe that degree of care, precaution and vigilance that circumstances justly
demand.

FACTS Nardo was operating a taxi when Saycon, who was travelling on a motorcycle
without protective headgear, veered into his lane and bumped him. After the
impact, Nardo drove back to help Saycon, two traffic enforcers ordered Nardo to
take Saycon to the hospital. No sketch of the accident was done by the enforcers.
Saycon claims that it was Nardo that sideswept him and that Nardo tried to
speed away until he was flagged down by peace officers. Cullen, the employer of
Saycon, shouldered the hospital expenses of Saycon and is now claiming
damages from Nardo and Cang, the owner of the taxi.

The RTC dismissed the case stating that Cullen is not entitled to damages. The
CA reversed the RTC decision claiming that the RTC did not give credit to a
witness’ account of the accident.
ISSUE/S: Whether or not the CA erred in awarding damages to respondent?
RULING: Saycon was operating the motor vehicle as a student-driver without being
accompanied by a duly licensed driver. Article 2185 provides that it is presumed
that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the
mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.

Negligence is conduct that creates an undue risk of harm to others. It is the failure
to observe that degree of care, precaution and vigilance that circumstances justly
demand. To determine whether there is negligence in a given situation, the
Supreme Court laid down this test: Did defendant, in doing the alleged negligent act,
use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used
in the same situation? If not, the person is guilty of negligence.

Saycon was negligent since he should not have been driving alone. The law
requires that the holder of a student-driver’s permit should be accompanied by a
duly licensed driver when operating a motor vehicle. Further, he was not wearing
a helmet and he was speeding. All these prove that he was negligent.

Neither can Cullen as Saycon’s employer be entitled to claim damages. Cullen

was negligent in the selection and supervision of her employees. When an
employee causes damage due to his own negligence while performing his own
duties, there arises the juris tantum presumption that his employer is negligent,
rebuttable only by proof of observance of the diligence of a good father of a
family.
The fact that Saycon was driving alone is proof enough that Cullen was negligent.
 Either she did not know that he only had a student’s permit or she allowed him
to drive alone knowing this deficiency.
FALLO WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED. The
Decision dated December 2, 2002 and the Resolution dated February 23, 2004 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 69841 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 22, in Civil Case No.
CEB-20504 is hereby REINSTATED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED