Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 75112 October 16, 1990
FILAMER CRISTIAN INSTITUTE, petitioner,
vs.
ONORA!LE COURT OF APPEALS, ONORA!LE ENRI"UE P. SUPLICO, #$ %#&
c'('c#t) '& *+,-e o. t%e Re-#o$'/ Tr#'/ Co+rt,. !r'$c% 0I1, Ro2'& C#t) '$, t%e
/'te POTENCIANO 3APUNAN, SR., '& &+b&t#t+te, b) %#& %e#r&, $'4e/)5 LEONA
3APUNAN TIANGCO, CICERO 3APUNAN, *ESUS 3APUNAN, SANTIAGO
3APUNAN, POTENCIANO 3APUNAN, *R., PA6 3APUNAN PU!LICO, SUSA
3APUNAN GENUINO '$, ERLIN7A 3APUNAN TESORO, respondents.
Aquilina B. Brotarlo for petitioner.
Rhodora G. Kapunan for the Substituted Heirs of the late respondent.

FERNAN, C.J.:
This is a petition for revie of the decision
1
of the !ourt of "ppeals affir#in$ the
%ud$#ent of the Re$ional Trial !ourt &RT!' of Ro(as !it), *ranch +, in !ivil !ase No.
V-,... hich found petitioner /ila#er !hristian Institute and Daniel /untecha ne$li$ent
and therefore anserable for the resultin$ in%uries caused to private respondent
Potenciano 0apunan, Sr.
Private respondent Potenciano 0apunan, Sr., an ei$ht)-to-)ear old retired
schoolteacher &no deceased', as struc1 b) the Pino) %eep oned b) petitioner
/ila#er and driven b) its alle$ed e#plo)ee, /untecha, as 0apunan, Sr. as al1in$
alon$ Ro(as "venue, Ro(as !it) at 2345 in the evenin$ of October .5, +677. "s a result
of the accident, 0apunan, Sr. suffered #ultiple in%uries for hich he as hospitali8ed for
a total of tent) &.5' da)s.
9vidence shoed that at the precise ti#e of the vehicular accident, onl) one headli$ht
of the %eep as functionin$. /untecha, ho onl) had a student driver:s per#it, as
drivin$ after havin$ persuaded "llan Masa, the authori8ed driver, to turn over the heels
to hi#. The to fled fro# the scene after the incident. " tric)cle driver brou$ht the
unconscious victi# to the hospital.
Thereafter, 0apunan, Sr. instituted a cri#inal case a$ainst /untecha alone in the !it)
!ourt of Ro(as !it) for serious ph)sical in%uries throu$h rec1less i#prudence. 0apunan,
Sr. reserved his ri$ht to file an independent civil action. The inferior court found
/untecha $uilt) as char$ed and on appeal, his conviction as affir#ed b) the then
!ourt of /irst Instance of !api8.
2

Pursuant to his reservation, 0apunan, Sr. co##enced a civil case for da#a$es
8
before
the RT! of Ro(as !it). Na#ed defendants in the co#plaint ere petitioner /ila#er and
/untecha. "lso included as "$ustin Masa, the director and president of /ila#er
!hristian Institute, in his personal capacit) in that he personall) authori8ed and alloed
said Daniel /untecha ho as his housebo) at the ti#e of the incident, to drive the
vehicle in ;uestion despite his 1noled$e and aareness that the latter did not have the
necessar) license or per#it to drive said vehicle. His son, "llan Masa, ho as ith
/untecha at the ti#e of the accident, as not i#pleaded as a co-defendant.
9

On Dece#ber +,, +6<4, the trial court rendered %ud$#ent findin$ not onl) petitioner
/ila#er and /untecha to be at fault but also "llan Masa, a non-part). Thus3
=H9R9/OR9, findin$ the aver#ents in the co#plaint as supported b) preponderance
of evidence to be reasonable and %ustified, and that defendants Daniel /untecha,
/ila#er !hristian Institute and "llan Masa are at fault and ne$li$ent of the acts
co#plained of hich causes &sic' in%ur) to plaintiff, %ud$#ent is hereb) rendered in favor
of the plaintiff and a$ainst the defendants, na#el)3 Daniel /untecha and /ila#er
!hristian Institute, the e#plo)er hose liabilit) is pri#ar) and direct, %ointl) and
severall), to pa) plaintiff the folloin$3
&+' to pa) the su# of T=O THO>S"ND NIN9 H>NDR9D /I/T?
P9SOS "ND /I/T? !9NT"VOS &P.,6@5.@5' as #edical e(penses
&9(h. A"A'B
&.' to pa) T=O H>NDR9D /ORT? ON9 P9SOS &P.,+.55' as
doctor:s fee &9(h. A!A'B
&4' to pa) THR99 H>NDR9D NIN9T? P9SOS &P465.55' as
additional e(penses incurred for thirt)-nine da)s at P+5.55 a da), for
re#uneration of plaintiff:s helper hile recuperatin$B
&,' to pa) /O>R THO>S"ND P9SOS &P,,555.55' as !ourt liti$ation
e(pensesB
1
&@' to pa) THR99 THO>S"ND P9SOS &P4,555.55' as loss of
earnin$s capacit)B
&2' to pa) T=9NT? THO>S"ND &P.5,555.55' pesos as #oral
da#a$esB
&7' to pa) /O>R THO>S"ND /IV9 H>NDR9D P9SOS &P,,@55.55'
as attorne):s feesB
&<' to pa) T=9NT? THO>S"ND P9SOS &P.5,555.55'as insurance
inde#nit) on the polic) contractB
and ithout pre%udice to the ri$ht of defendant /ila#er !hristian
Institute to de#and fro# co-defendant Daniel /untecha part-ti#e
e#plo)ee andCor "llan Masa a full ti#e e#plo)ee rei#burse#ent of
the da#a$es paid to herein plaintiff.
The defendant "$ustin Masa as director of defendant /ila#er
!hristian Institute has also failed to e(ercise the dili$ence re;uired of
a $ood father of a fa#il) in the supervision of his e#plo)ee "llan
Masa, bein$ his son. Hoever, the court absolved defendant "$ustin
Masa fro# an) personal liabilit) ith respect to the co#plaint filed
a$ainst hi# in his personal and private capacit), cause he as not in
the vehicle durin$ the alle$ed incident.
/or failure to prove their respective counterclai#s filed b) the
defendant Daniel /untecha, Dr. "$ustin Masa, and /ila#er !hristian
Institute, as a$ainst the herein plaintiff, sa#e are hereb) dis#issed.
The Denith Insurance !orporation as third part) defendant has failed
to prove that there as a polic) violation #ade b) the defendant
/ila#er !hristian Institute hich absolves the# fro# liabilit) under the
aforesaid insurance polic). The record shos that the defendant
Daniel /untecha hile drivin$ the said vehicle as havin$ a student
drivers license #ar1ed 9(h. A+A and acco#panied b) "llan Masa ho
is the authori8ed driver of said vehicle ith a professional drivers
license as shon b) 9(h. A4A.
This !ourt finds that defendant Daniel /untecha hile drivin$ the said
vehicle is considered as authori8ed driver in accordance ith the
polic) in ;uestion #ar1ed 9(h. A.-Masa and /!IA.
/indin$ the aver#ents in the third part) co#plaint filed b) defendant
/ila#er !hristian Institute as supported b) preponderance of
evidence as shon b) their e(hibits to be reasonable and %ustified,
%ud$#ent is hereb) rendered in favor of the said defendant and third
part) plaintiff /ila#er !hristian Institute as a$ainst third part)
defendant Denith Insurance !orporation.
The Denith Insurance !orporation as third part) defendant is hereb)
ordered to pa) in favor of the defendant and third part) plaintiff,
/ila#er !hristian Institute, the folloin$3
&+' to pa) T=9NT? THO>S"ND P9SOS
&P.5,555.55' as third part) liabilit) as provided in
the Denith Insurance !orporation polic) &9(h. A.A'B
&.' to pa) T9N THO>S"ND P9SOS
&P+5,555.55'as #oral da#a$esB
&4' to pa) /O>R THO>S"ND P9SOS &P,,555.55'
as !ourt liti$ation and actual e(pensesB
&,' to pa) THR99 THO>S"ND P9SOS &P4,555.55'
as attorne):s feesB
The defendants Daniel /untecha, /ila#er !hristian Institute and third
part) defendant Denith Insurance !orporation are hereb) ordered
%ointl) and severall), to pa) the costs of the suit.
5
Onl) petitioner /ila#er and third-part) defendant Denith Insurance !orporation
appealed the loer court:s %ud$#ent to the !ourt of "ppeals and as a conse;uence,
said loer court:s decision beca#e final as to /untecha. /or failure of the insurance fir#
to pa) the doc1et fees, its appeal as dis#issed on Septe#ber +<, +6<,. On Dece#ber
+7, +6<@, the "ppellate !ourt rendered the assailed %ud$#ent affir#in$ the trial court:s
decision in toto.
6
Hence the present recourse b) petitioner /ila#er.
It is petitioner /ila#er:s basic contention that it cannot be held responsible for the
tortious act of /untecha on the $round that there is no e(istin$ e#plo)er-e#plo)ee
relationship beteen the#. =e a$ree.
The !ivil !ode provides3
2
"rt. .+72. =hoever b) act or o#ission causes da#a$e to another,
there bein$ fault or ne$li$ence, is obli$ed to pa) for the da#a$e
done. Such fault or ne$li$ence, if there is no pre-e(istin$ contractual
relation beteen the parties, is called a ;uasi-delict and is $overned
b) the provisions of this !hapter.
"rt. .+<5. The obli$ation i#posed b) article .+72 is de#andable not
onl) for one:s on acts or o#issions but also for those of persons for
ho# one is responsible.
((( ((( (((
Employers shall be liable for the da#a$es caused b) their employees
and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned
tass, even thou$h the for#er are not en$a$ed in an) business or
industr).
((( ((( (((
The responsibilit) treated of in this article shall cease hen the
persons herein #entioned prove that the) observe all the dili$ence of
a $ood father of a fa#il) to prevent da#a$e. &9#phasis supplied'.
The le$al issue in this appeal is hether or not the ter# Ae#plo)erA as used in "rticle
.+<5 is applicable to petitioner /ila#er ith reference to /untecha.
In disclai#in$ liabilit), petitioner /ila#er has invo1ed the provisions of the Eabor !ode,
7
specificall) Section +,, Rule F of *oo1 III hich reads3
Sec. +,. !oring scholars. G There is no e#plo)er-e#plo)ee
relationship beteen students on the one hand, and schools, colle$es
or universities on the other, here students or1 for the latter in
e(chan$e for the privile$e to stud) free of char$eB provided the
students are $iven real opportunit), includin$ such facilities as #a) be
reasonable, necessar) to finish their chosen court under such
arran$e#ent. &9#phasis supplied'.
It is #anifest that under the %ust-;uoted provision of la, petitioner /ila#er cannot be
considered as /untecha:s e#plo)er. /untecha belon$s to that special cate$or) of
students ho render service to the school in e(chan$e for free tuition /untecha or1ed
for petitioner for to hours dail) for five da)s a ee1. He as assi$ned to clean the
school passa$ea)s fro# ,355 a.#. to 2355 a.#. ith sufficient ti#e to prepare for his
7345 a.#. classes. "s ad#itted b) "$ustin Masa in open court, /untecha as not
included in the co#pan) pa)roll.
:

The ordin$ of Section +, is clear and e(plicit and leaves no roo# for e;uivocation. To
dis#iss the i#ple#entin$ rule as one hich $overns onl) the Apersonal relationshipA
beteen the school and its students and not here there is alread) a third person
involved, as espoused b) private respondents, is to read into the la so#ethin$ that
as not le$islated there in the first place. The provision of Section +, is obviousl)
intended to eli#inate an ersthile $ra) area in labor relations and see1s to define in
cate$orical ter#s the precise status of or1in$ scholars in relation to the learnin$
institutions in hich the) or1 for the privile$e of a free education.
*ut even if e ere to concede the status of an e#plo)ee on /untecha, still the pri#ar)
responsibilit) for his ron$doin$ cannot be i#puted to petitioner /ila#er for the plain
reason that at the ti#e of the accident, it has been satisfactoril) shon that /untecha
as not actin$ ithin the scope of his supposed e#plo)#ent. His dut) as to seep
the school passa$es for to hours ever) #ornin$ before his re$ular classes. Ta1in$ the
heels of the Pino) %eep fro# the authori8ed driver at 2345 in the evenin$ and then
drivin$ the vehicle in a rec1less #anner resultin$ in #ultiple in%uries to a third person
ere certainl) not ithin the a#bit of his assi$ned tas1s. In other ords, at the ti#e of
the in%ur), /untecha as not en$a$ed in the e(ecution of the %anitorial services for hich
he as e#plo)ed, but for so#e purpose of his on. It is but fair therefore that /untecha
should bear the full brunt of his tortious ne$li$ence. Petitioner /ila#er cannot be #ade
liable for the da#a$es he had caused.
Private respondents: atte#pt to hold petitioner /ila#er directl) and pri#aril) anserable
to the in%ured part) under "rticle .+<5 of the !ivil !ode ould have prospered had the)
proceeded a$ainst "llan Masa, the authori8ed driver of the Pino) %eep and undisputabl)
an e#plo)ee of petitioner. It as "llan:s irresponsible act of entrustin$ the heels of the
vehicle to the ine(perienced /untecha hich set into #otion the chain of events leadin$
to the accident resultin$ in in%uries to 0apunan, Sr. *ut under the present set of
circu#stances, even if the trial court did find "llan $uilt) of ne$li$ence, such conclusion
ould not be bindin$ on "llan. It #ust be recalled that "llan as never i#pleaded in the
co#plaint for da#a$es and should be considered as a stran$er as far as the trial court:s
%ud$#ent is concerned. It is a(io#atic that no #an shall be affected b) a proceedin$ to
hich he is a stran$er.
9

=H9R9/OR9, in vie of the fore$oin$, the decision under revie of the !ourt of
"ppeals is hereb) S9T "SID9. The co#plaint for da#a$es
10
is ordered DISMISS9D as
a$ainst petitioner /ila#er !hristian Institute for lac1 of cause of action. No costs.
SO ORD9R9D.
3