Valenzuela vs.

CA
G.R. No. 115024; February 7, 1996

Concepts: Contributory Negligence, Emergency Rule, Liability of Employer

Facts:
Ma. Lourdes Valenzuela was driving a blue Mitsubishi lancer from her restaurant at
Marcos highway to her home in Araneta Avenue. While driving, she noticed that something was
wrong with her tires. She stopped at a lighted place by the side walk to check and ask help if
needed. She was told by the people present that her tire was flat. Thus, she decided to park her
car and turned on the emergency lights. She alighted from her car and assisted the man who will
be fixing her tire when suddenly she was bumped by a 1987 Mitsubishi Lancer driven by Richard
Li. The vehicle was registered under Alexander Commercial, Inc. This accident resulted to her
confinement for 20 days and the amputation of her knee.

The expenses for the hospital amounted to Php 120,000 and the cost of the artificial leg
was Php 27,000 which were paid by defendants from the car insurance. Valenzuela asked for
Php 1M for moral damages, Php 100,000 for exemplary damages and Php 180,000 for other
medical and related expenses.

Richard Li denied the allegation that he was negligent. He claimed that Valenzuela’s car
was improperly parked and the area was poorly lighted. He also counterclaimed for damages,
since Valenzuela was negligent for driving without a license.

A witness testified that Li’s car was approaching the scene very fast. He also stated that
Li was under the influence of alcohol, since he clearly smelled of it.

The trial court found Li guilty of gross negligence and liable for damages under Article
2176 of the Civil Code. It also held Alexander Commercial, Inc., Li’s employer, jointly and severally
liable for the damages under Article 2180. The Court of Appeals sustained that Li was liable for
the damages but absolved Alexander Commercial Inc., Li’s employer, from any liability against
Valenzuela. It dismissed the defendants’ counterclaims.

Issues: 1.) Whether or not Li should be held liable for the damages.
2.) Whether or not Valenzuela was contributorily negligent.
3.) Whether or not Alexander Commercial, Inc., Li’s employer, should be jointly and
severally liable for the damages.

Held:
1. Yes. Negligence is commonly understood as the conduct which creates an undue risk of harm
to others. It is the failure to observe that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which
circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. The circumstances
established by the evidence showed that Li was grossly negligent in driving the Mitsubishi Lancer.
It was emphasized that he was driving at a fast speed at 2:00 AM after a heavy downpour which
made the street slippery. There was also ample evidence showing that he was under the influence
of liquor.

2. No. Contributory negligence is the conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a
legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to
conform for his own protection. Valenzuela exercised standard reasonably dictated by
emergence. It could not be considered as contributory to the accident that happened to her. The
emergency that led her to park her car on a sidewalk of Aurora Boulevard was not her fault. It was
evident that she took all the reasonable precautions.

3. Yes. Under the civil law, an employer is liable for the negligence of his employees in the
discharge of their respective duties, the basis of which liability is not respondeat superior (master
is liable for servant’s acts), but the relationship of pater familias (exercise of a good father of the
family in the selection and supervision of his employees). Alexander Commercial, Inc. did exercise
the care and diligence of a good father of the family in entrusting its company car to Li. It was not
shown that the company took the necessary steps in determining the driving proficiency and
history of Li before he was given his own company car.