Negligence as a Question in Fact

The employer shall be held liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting
within the scope of their assigned task. The employer can avoid liability by proving that he exercised the diligence
of a good father of a family to avoid damages. The plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of
evidence the employees breach in his duty of care owed to the plaintiff that the employee was negligent in failing
to exercise the diligence required to avoid injury to the plaintiff, and that such negligence was the proximate cause
of the injury suffered.
1 Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides that whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict. In this regard, the question of the drivers
negligence is a question of fact.

In the case of 2 Yambao vs. Zuniga, petitioner failed to exercise due diligence in selection and supervision of her
driver. Petitioner failed to present evidence that she exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of
her employee, the fact that she failed to offer certified true copy of drivers license and clearances shows that she
was unable to exercise due diligence in selection of Venturina Her allegation that before she hired Venturina she r
equired him to submit his drivers license and clearances is worthless, such allegations, unsubstantiated by
evidence, are not equivalent to proof under the rules of evidence. Nor did petitioner show that she exercised due
supervision over Venturina after his selection as petitioner did not present proof that she drafted and implemented
training programs and guidelines on road safety for her employees. Such negligence was the proximate cause of
the massive injuries sustained by Herminigildo Zuniga which resulted to his death thereafter.

1Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides that whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties, is called a quasi-delict.

2 Yambao vs. Zuniga: G.R. No. 146173: December 11, 2003