Manlangit vs. Urgel

REYNATO MANLANGIT vs.JUDGE MELITO L. URGEL
A.M. No. MTJ-95-1028 December 4, 1995
Administrative complaint for gross ignorance of the law.
Paras, J.:

Facts: On August 13, 1994, the jeepney owned by complainant and driven by Edgardo Castillo, plied its usual route going to Virac, Catanduanes. While approaching a blind curve, the jeepney driver occupied the wrong lane. At the curve, they suddenly saw a parked dump truck and in order to avoid collision driver swerved to the right and accidentally plunged into the river. The passengers sustained some injuries.
Consequently, a criminal complaint against Castillo and complainant was filed before the sala of respondent judge who then issued a warrant for the arrest of both Castillo and complainant.

Issue: WON complainant can be held criminally liable.

Ruling: It has been held in Chapman v. Underwood (G.R. No. 9010, March 28, 1914, 27 Phil 374.) "that An owner who sits in his automobile and permits his driver to continue in a violation of the law by the performance of negligent acts, after he has had reasonable opportunity to observe them and to direct that the driver cease therefrom, becomes himself responsible for such acts. On the other hand, if the driver, by a sudden act of negligence, and without the owner having reasonable opportunity to prevent the act or its continuance, injures a person or violates the criminal law, the owner of the automobile, although present therein at the time the act was committed, is not responsible, either criminally or civilly, therefor. The act complained of must be continued in the presence of the owner for such a length of time that the owner, by his acquiescence, makes his driver's acts his own."
In the case at bar, nowhere does it show that complainant participated in abetted or even approved the negligent and reckless manner in which his driver maneuvered the vehicle on that blind curve. Hence, the warrant of arrest issued by respondent judge was erroneous.

*Dan'q