This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-12-04 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Based on these requisites, Dra. dela Llana must first establish by preponderance of evidence the three elements of quasi-delict before we determine Rebecca's liability as Joel's employer. She should show the chain of causation between Joel's reckless driving and her whiplash injury. Only after she has laid this foundation can the presumption - that Rebecca did not exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of Joel - arise.[30] Once negligence, the damages and the proximate causation are established, this Court can then proceed with the application and the interpretation of the fifth paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil Code.[31] Under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, in relation with the fifth paragraph of Article 2180, "an action predicated on an employee's act or omission may be instituted against the employer who is held liable for the negligent act or omission committed by his employee."[32] The rationale for these graduated levels of analyses is that it is essentially the wrongful or negligent act or omission itself which creates the vinculum juris in extra-contractual obligations.[33] | |||||
|
2010-07-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is thus clear that the employer of a negligent employee is liable for the damages caused by the latter. When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, there instantly arises a presumption of the law that there was negligence on the part of the employer, either in the selection of his employee or in the supervision over him after such selection. However, the presumption may be overcome by a clear showing on the part of the employer that he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee.[21] In other words, the burden of proof is on the employer.[22] Thus, petitioners must prove two things: first, that they had exercised due diligence in the selection of petitioner Aסalucas, and second, that after hiring Aסalucas, petitioners had exercised due diligence in supervising him. | |||||
|
2008-11-27 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| The underlying precept on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the consequences of his own negligence.[15] If indeed there was contributory negligence on the part of the victim, then it is proper to reduce the award for damages. This is in consonance with the Civil Code provision that liability will be mitigated in consideration of the contributory negligence of the injured party. Article 2179 of the Civil Code is explicit on this score:When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. | |||||
|
2008-02-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Once negligence on the part of the employee is established, a presumption instantly arises that the employer was negligent in the selection and/or supervision of said employee.[18] To rebut this presumption, the employer must present adequate and convincing proof that he exercised care and diligence in the selection and supervision of his employees. | |||||
|
2005-02-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The underlying precept on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the consequences of his own negligence. The defendant must thus be held liable only for the damages actually caused by his negligence.[15] The determination of the mitigation of the defendant's liability varies depending on the circumstances of each case. The Court had sustained a mitigation of 50% in Rakes v. AG & P;[16] 20% in Phoenix Construction, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court[17] and LBC Air Cargo, Inc. v. Court of Appeals;[18] and 40% in Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals[19] and Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Court of Appeals.[20] | |||||
|
2004-06-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Although testimonies were offered that in the case of Pedro Musa all these precautions were followed, the records of his interview, of the results of his examinations, and of his service were not presented. . . [T]here is no record that Musa attended such training programs and passed the said examinations before he was employed. No proof was presented that Musa did not have any record of traffic violations. Nor were records of daily inspections, allegedly conducted by supervisors, ever presented. . . The failure of MMTC to present such documentary proof puts in doubt the credibility of its witnesses. Jurisprudentially, therefore, the employer must not merely present testimonial evidence to prove that he observed the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee, but he must also support such testimonial evidence with concrete or documentary evidence. The reason for this is to obviate the biased nature of the employer's testimony or that of his witnesses.[14] | |||||