Fabre vs.

CA, 259 SCRA 426

G.R. No. 111127. July 26, 1996

FACTS:

Petitioners Engracio Fabre, Jr. and his wife were owners of a 1982 model Mazda
minibus. They used the bus principally in connection with a bus service for school children
which they operated in Manila. The couple had a driver, Porfirio J. Cabil, whom they
hired after trying him out for two weeks. His job was to take school children to and from
the St. Scholasticas College in Malate, Manila.

Private respondent Word for the World Christian Fellowship Inc. (WWCF)arranged with
petitioners for the transportation of 33 members of its Young Adults Ministry from
Manila to La Union and back in consideration of which private respondent paid
petitioners the amount of P3,000.00.

The usual route to Caba, La Union was through Carmen, Pangasinan. However, the
bridge at Carmen was under repair, so that petitioner Cabil, who was unfamiliar with the area ,it
being his first trip to La Union, was forced to takea detour through the town of Ba-ay in
Lingayen, Pangasinan. At 11:30 that night, petitioner Cabil came upon a sharp curve on the
highway, running on a south to east direction, which he described as siete. The road was
slippery because it was raining, causing the bus, which was running at the speed of 50
kilometers per hour, to skid to the left road shoulder. The bus hit the left traffic steel brace and
sign along the road and rammed the fence of one Jesus Escano, then turned over and landed
on its left side, coming to a full stop only after a series of impacts. The bus came to
rest off the road. A coconut tree which it had hit fell on it and smashed its front portion.

The driver, petitioner Cabil, claimed he did not see the curve until it was too late. He
said he was not familiar with the area and he could not have seen the curve despite the care he
took in driving the bus, because it was dark and there was no sign on the road. He said that he
saw the curve when he was already within 15 to 30 meters of it. He allegedly slowed down to
30 kilometers per hour, but it was too late.

The Lingayen police investigated the incident the next day. On the basis of their finding
they filed a criminal complaint against the driver, Porfirio Cabil. The case was later filed
with the Lingayen Regional Trial Court. Petitioners Fabre paid Jesus Escano P1,500.00
for the damage to the latters fence. On the basis of Escanos affidavit of desistance the case
against petitioners Fabre was dismissed.

Amyline Antonio, who was seriously injured, brought this case in the RTC of Makati,
Metro Manila. As a result of the accident, she is now suffering from paraplegia and is
permanently paralyzed from the waist down. During the trial she described the operations she
underwent and adduced evidence regarding the cost of her treatment and therapy.

The trial court found that no convincing evidence was shown that the
minibus was properly checked for travel to a long distance trip and that the driver was properly
screened and tested before being admitted for employment. Indeed, all the evidence
presented have shown the negligent act of the defendants which ultimately resulted to the
accident subject of this case.

The trial court ordered herein petitioners to pay Word for the World
Christian Fellowship, Inc. and Ms. Amyline Antonio for they were the only oneswho adduced
evidence for their claim for damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial
court with respect to Amyline Antonio but dismissed it with respect to the other plaintiffs on the
ground that they failed to prove their respective claims. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioners, jointly or solidarily, were negligent and if they are liable
for damages and to what extent.

HELD:

The finding that Cabil drove his bus negligently, while his employer, the Fabres, who
owned the bus, failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and
supervision of their employee is fully supported by the evidence on record. These factual
findings of the two courts we regard as final and conclusive, supported as they are by the
evidence. Indeed, it was admitted by Cabil that on the night in question, it was
raining, and, as a consequence, the road was slippery, and it was dark. He averred these
facts to justify his failure to see that there lay a sharp curve ahead. However, it
is undisputed that Cabil drove his bus at the speed of 50 kilometers per hour and only slowed
down when he noticed the curve some 15 to 30 meters ahead. By then it was too late for him to
avoid falling off the road. Given the conditions of the road and considering that the trip was
Cabils first one outside of Manila, Cabil should have driven his vehicle at a moderate speed.
There is testimony that the vehicles passing on that portion of the road should only be running
20kilometers per hour, so that at 50 kilometers per hour, Cabil was running at a very high speed.

Considering the foregoing, the fact that it was raining and the road was slippery, that it
was dark, that he drove his bus at 50 kilometers an hour when even on a good day the normal
speed was only 20 kilometers an hour, and that he was unfamiliar with the terrain, Cabil was
grossly negligent and should beheld liable for the injuries suffered by private respondent
Amyline Antonio.

Pursuant to Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code his negligence gave rise to the
presumption that his employers, the Fabres, were themselves negligent in the selection
and supervision of their employee. Due diligence in selection of employees is not satisfied by
finding that the applicant possessed a professional drivers license. The employer should also
examine the applicant for his qualifications, experience and record of service.

Due diligence in supervision, on the other hand, requires the formulation of rules and
regulations for the guidance of employees and the issuance of proper instructions
as well as actual implementation and monitoring of consistent compliance with the
rules.
 In the case at bar, the Fabres, in allowing Cabil to drive the bus to LaUnion, apparently
did not consider the fact that Cabil had been driving for schoolchildren only, from their homes to
the St. Scholasticas College in Metro Manila. hey had hired him only after a two-week
apprenticeship. They had tested him for certain matters, such as whether he could
remember the names of the children he would be taking to school, which were irrelevant to
his qualification to drive on a long distance travel, especially considering that the trip to La
Unionwas his first. The existence of hiring procedures and supervisory policies cannot be
casually invoked to overturn the presumption of negligence on the part of an employer.

Petitioners argue that they are not a common carrier, hence, ordinary
diligence or diligence of a good father of a family is only the degree of diligence due of them. As
already stated, this case actually involves a contract of carriage. Petitioners, the Fabres, did not
have to be engaged in the business of public transportation for the provisions of the Civil Code
on common carriers to apply to them. The article makes no distinction between one whose
principal business activity is the carrying of persons or goods or both, and one who does such
carrying only as an ancillary activity.

As common carriers, the Fabres were bound to exercise extraordinary diligence for the
safe transportation of the passengers to their destination. This duty of care is not excused by
proof that they exercised the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and
supervision of their employee.

The liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised all
the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their
employees.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed with modification as to the award of
damages. Petitioners are ordered to pay jointly and severally the private respondent
Amyline Antonio.