Noche buena tragedy

Whenever an employee’s negligence causes damage or injury to another, there instantly arises a presumption that there is negligence on the part of the employer either in the selection of the employee or the supervision over him after the selection. This is the principle applied in this case of a bus company (MMTC) and its driver Alex.

The case happened in the afternoon of Christmas eve when everybody seemed to be rushing and busy preparing for noche buena or doing a last minute shopping. Among them were Flora and her neighbor Mila together with the latter’s daughter Aida. The three were then on their way to Baclaran to buy foodstuffs for their noche buena. For sometime, they stood on the island at the street intersection waiting for the traffic light to change so they could cross to the other side to take their ride. Upon seeing the red light for the vehicles, Flora and her companions stepped off the island and started to cross. At this moment, Mila saw an MMTC bus no. 033 coming from their right at a fast clip trying to beat the red light. In an instant, the left front portion of the bus hit Flora on the right side of her head with such impact that her right ear was slashed off and she was thrown to the pavement unconscious. It was only upon the prodding of Mila that the bus driver, later on identified as Alex, brought the victim to the nearest hospital for emergency medical attention. But Flora never regained consciousness and died one week later.

The aggrieved surviving husband and children of Flora lost no time in suing MMTC and its driver Alex for damages for the untimely death of Flora as a result of the "wanton and reckless manner, gross violation of the traffic rules and regulations and without due regard to the safety of others" on the part of Alex in driving the bus.

Alex and MMTC denied liability and insisted that the accident was due solely to the victim’s own negligence. They claimed that since it was then about eight hours before Christmas the victim’s thoughts were naturally directed towards the noche buena as she crossed where there was no pedestrian lane and while the green light for vehicular traffic was still on. Alex claimed that he failed to see the victim and her companions and could not have fathomed what was in her mind at that time. MMTC on the other hand contended that it had exercised diligence in the selection and supervision of its drivers particularly with regards to safety measures, presenting to the court pertinent guidelines for the screening and selection of its drivers as well as the periodic seminars on road safety. It argued that the act of Alex in bringing the victim to the hospital reflects its diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees.

Were MMTC and Alex correct?

No.

There is no evidence to support the claim that the victim was so engrossed in thinking about the noche buena while crossing a busy street. MMTC and Alex’s stance regarding the negligence of the victim is non sequitur. It simply does not follow that one who is run over by a vehicle on Christmas Eve (or any other holiday for that matter) is negligent because his thoughts were on the holiday festivities. Instead, the records show that the MMTC bus was being driven recklessly. Alex’s claim that he failed to see the victim and her companions proves his recklessness and lack of caution in driving his vehicle.

For the MMTC to escape solidary liability on the other hand, it must rebut the presumption that it was also negligent either in the selection or supervision of Alex by presenting convincing proof to the contrary. MMTC has failed to do that. Its claim that Alex’s act of bringing the victim to the nearest medical center shows adequate supervision over its employees deserves but scant consideration. For one, the act was after the fact of negligence on Alex part. For another, Alex’s act was not voluntary nor spontaneous; he had to be prevailed upon by the victim’s companions to extend assistance. MMTC’s guidelines for screening and selection of it drivers as well as periodic seminars do not prove its due diligence. It failed to show that Alex had actually undergone such screening or had attended said seminars. The mere formulation of various company policies on safety without showing that they were being complied with is not sufficient to exempt an employer from liability arising from negligence of its employees. MMTC is therefore primarily and directly liable for the damages caused by its erring driver, Alex, pursuant to Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, which provides that the obligation to pay for damages or injury caused to another by fault or negligence is demandable not only for one’s own acts but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible like the employer (Metro Manila Transit Corp. et al. vs. Court of Appeals et. al. G.R. 141089 August 1, 2002).

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]