Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GAUDIOSO EREZO v. AGUEDO JEPTE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 162267 2008-07-04	PCI LEASING v. UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In the case now before the Court, there is not even a sale of the vehicle involved, but a mere lease, which remained unregistered up to the time of the occurrence of the quasi-delict that gave rise to the case. Since a lease, unlike a sale, does not even involve a transfer of title or ownership, but the mere use or enjoyment of property, there is more reason, therefore, in this instance to uphold the policy behind the law, which is to protect the unwitting public and provide it with a definite person to make accountable for losses or injuries suffered in vehicular accidents.[21] This is and has always been the rationale behind compulsory motor vehicle registration under the Land Transportation and Traffic Code and similar laws, which, as early as Erezo, has been guiding the courts in their disposition of cases involving motor vehicular incidents. It is also important to emphasize that such principles apply to all vehicles in general, not just those offered for public service or utility.[22]
	GR No. 160286 2004-07-30	SPS. FRANCISCO M. HERNANDEZ AND ANICETA ABEL-HERNANDEZ AND JUAN GONZALES v. SPS. LORENZO DOLOR AND MARGARITA DOLOR YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Indeed to exempt from liability the owner of a public vehicle who operates it under the "boundary system" on the ground that he is a mere lessor would be not only to abet flagrant violations of the Public Service Law, but also to place the riding public at the mercy of reckless and irresponsible drivers reckless because the measure of their earnings depends largely upon the number of trips they make and, hence, the speed at which they drive; and irresponsible because most if not all of them are in no position to pay the damages they might cause.[15]
	GR No. 128705 2001-06-29	CONRADO AGUILAR v. COMMERCIAL SAVINGS BANK QUISUMBING, J.
In synthesis, we hold that the registered owner, the defendant-appellant herein, is primarily responsible for the damage caused to the vehicle of the plaintiff-appellee, but he (defendant-appellant) has a right to be indemnified by the real or actual owner of the amount that he may be required to pay as damage for the injury caused to the plaintiff-appellant.[8]