CARTICIANO VS. NUVAL

CARTICIANO VS. NUVAL

FACTS: Plaintiff Zacarias Carticiano was on his way home to Imus, Cavite. He was driving his father’s Ford Laser car. On the same date and time, defendant Nuval’s owner-type Jeep, then driven by defendant Darwin was traveling on the opposite direction going to Parañaque. When the two cars were about to pass one another, Darwin veered his vehicle to his left going to the center island of the highway an occupied the lane which plaintiff Zacarias was traversing. Zacarias’ Ford Laser collided head-on with Nuval’s Jeep. Darwin immediately fled from the scene. Zacarias suffered multiple fracture. He underwent a leg operation and physical therapy. Nuval offered P100,000.00 as compensation for the injuries caused. Plaintiffs refused to accept it. Plaintiffs filed a criminal suit against Darwin and a civil suit against defendants for damages. Trial court ruled infavor of plaintiffs. CA reversed the decision.

ISSUE: W/N employer Nuval can be held liable.

RULING: Petition granted.

RATIO: Article 2180 of the Civil Code provides that employers shall be liable for damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. The facts established in the case at bar show that Darwin was acting within the scope of the authority given him when the collision occurred. That he had been hired only to bring respondent’s children to and from school must be rejected. True, this may have been one of his assigned tasks, but no convincing proof was presented showing that it was his only task. His authority was to drive Nuval’s vehicle. Once a driver is proven negligent in causing damages, the law presumes the vehicle owner equally negligent and imposes upon the latter the burden of proving proper selection of employee as a defense. Respondent failed to show that he had satisfactorily discharged this burden.

*Mia