Primary and direct liability

Is the registered owner of a motor vehicle liable for any accident, damage, injury or death caused by the driver of said vehicle even if there is no employer-employee relationship between them? Can the registered owner put up the defense that the driver acted beyond the scope of his authority or that it exercised due diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage as provided in Article 2180 of the Civil Code? These are the issues raised in this case of Ernie.

While driving his car along a major street, Ernie proceeded to cross an intersection when the signal light turned green. But when he was already in the middle of the intersection, another car coming from another street traversing the said intersection suddenly hit and bumped his car. As a result of the impact, Ernie’s car turned clockwise and was badly damaged. The other car escaped from the scene of the incident but Ernie was able to get its plate number.

After verifying with the Land Transportation Office, Ernie learned that the owner of the other car was FTS, a transport service company.

Ernie thus sent several letters to FTS and its President demanding payment for the damages sustained by his car amounting to P97,910.  When his demands were not heeded, he filed a complaint for damages against FTS and its President before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). 

In answer, FTS and its President alleged that while it is the registered owner of the car that hit and bumped Ernie’s car, said car was assigned to Atty. Flores, it’s Corporate Secretary, and was being driven by Tomas the personal driver of Atty. Flores. So FTS and its President denied liability to Ernie and claimed that the incident was not due to their fault or negligence since Tomas was not its employee and that they always exercised the due diligence required of a good father of a family in assigning their vehicle to a third party. Were they correct?

No. It is well settled that in case of motor vehicle mishaps, the registered owner of the motor vehicle is considered as the employer of the negligent driver, and the actual employer/operator is considered merely as an agent of such owner. Thus, whether there is an employer-employee relationship between the registered owner and the driver is irrelevant in determining the liability of the registered owner who is primarily and directly liable under Article 2176 in relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Code.

The main aim of the motor vehicle registration is to identify the owner so that if any accident happens, or that any damage or injury is caused by the vehicle on the public highways and streets, responsibility for such damage or injury or death can be fixed on a definite individual, the registered owner.

To a certain extent, the motor vehicle registration law modified Article 2180 of  the Civil Code by making the defenses therein provided unavailable to the registered owner of the motor vehicle. So FTS cannot use the defense that it exercised the due diligence of a good father of the family to prevent the damage or that the employee acted beyond the scope of his assigned task. But the liability for damages in this case cannot attach to the President of FTS because the liability of a corporation is not the liability of its corporate officers since it has a separate and distinct personality. While there are exceptions to this rule the circumstances in this case do not fall under said exceptions recognized by law. 

So FTS should pay Ernie P97, 910. 00 actual damages, with 6% interest from date of filing of complaint; P50, 000 moral damages; P20, 000 exemplary damages; and P20, 000 attorney’s fees (Filcar Transport Services vs. Espinas, G.R. 174156, June 29, 2012, 674 SCRA, 117).

E-mail:[email protected]