Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MR. v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 148974 2010-07-02	OMC CARRIERS v. SPS. ROBERTO C. NABUA AND ROSARIO T. NABUA PERALTA, J.
After a thorough and extensive review of the records, this Court is unconvinced that petitioner company had satisfactorily discharged its burden. The alleged Memorandum (Exhibit 6) alluded to by petitioner company amounts to nothing more than a "reminder memo on offenses punishable by dismissal,"[27] wherein specific offenses are spelled out to which erring employees may be punished by the company. Likewise, the alleged circulars[28] from Petron amount to nothing more than minutes of the "Haulers Meeting," a list of "Hot Spots" and a "Table of Penalties." These circulars do not, in any way, concern safety procedures to prevent accident or damage to property or injury to people on the road. It bears to stress that the existence of supervisory policies cannot be casually invoked to overturn the presumption of negligence on the part of the employer.[29]
	GR NO. 157658 2007-10-15	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. CA NACHURA, J.
In view of the foregoing, We will now discuss the liability of petitioner PNR. Article 2180[20] of the New Civil Code discusses the liability of the employer once negligence or fault on the part of the employee has been established. The employer is actually liable on the assumption of juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection and supervision of its employees. The liability is primary and can only be negated by showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee, a factual matter that has not been demonstrated.[21] Even the existence of hiring procedures and supervisory employees cannot be incidentally invoked to overturn the presumption of negligence on the part of the employer.[22]
	GR NO. 147791 2006-09-08	CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF PHILIPPINES v. REBECCA G. ESTRELLA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is well-settled in Fabre, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[15] that the owner of the other vehicle which collided with a common carrier is solidarily liable to the injured passenger of the same. We held, thus:The same rule of liability was applied in situations where the negligence of the driver of the bus on which plaintiff was riding concurred with the negligence of a third party who was the driver of another vehicle, thus causing an accident. In Anuran v. Buño, Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, and Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, the bus company, its driver, the operator of the other vehicle and the driver of the vehicle were jointly and severally held liable to the injured passenger or the latter's heirs. The basis of this allocation of liability was explained in Viluan v. Court of Appeals, thus:
	GR NO. 146635 2005-12-14	MARCELO MACALINAO v. EDDIE MEDECIELO ONG TINGA, J.
On the other hand, due diligence in supervision 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.[51] Admonitions to drive carefully without the corresponding guidelines and monitoring of the employee do not satisfy the due diligence required by law either.