Scribd
Upload
1K views1 page

DGST R TRANSPORT V Yu

1) Loreta J. Yu was hit and killed by a bus driven by Antonio P. Gimena, an employee of R Transport Corporation. Luisito G. Yu sued R Transport, Gimena, and Metro Manila Transport Corporation (MMTC) for damages. 2) MMTC argued it was not liable as it was merely the registered owner of the bus, having purchased it for resale to R Transport, who was the actual operator. 3) R Transport argued it was not solidarily liable with MMTC as it was not the registered owner. However, the court ruled R Transport was solidarily liable under tort law for the negligent actions of its employee, regardless

Uploaded by

Jan-Lawrence Olaco
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views1 page

DGST R TRANSPORT V Yu

1) Loreta J. Yu was hit and killed by a bus driven by Antonio P. Gimena, an employee of R Transport Corporation. Luisito G. Yu sued R Transport, Gimena, and Metro Manila Transport Corporation (MMTC) for damages. 2) MMTC argued it was not liable as it was merely the registered owner of the bus, having purchased it for resale to R Transport, who was the actual operator. 3) R Transport argued it was not solidarily liable with MMTC as it was not the registered owner. However, the court ruled R Transport was solidarily liable under tort law for the negligent actions of its employee, regardless

Uploaded by

Jan-Lawrence Olaco
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

R TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. LUISITO G.

YU
GR No. 174161, February 18, 2015 RULING:

FACTS: NO , Under Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more


persons who are liable for a quasi-delict is solidary. In the
At around 8:45 in the morning of December 12, 1993, Tamayo case the responsibility of the registered owner
Loreta J. Yu, after having alighted from a passenger bus and actual operator of a truck which caused the death of
in front of Robinson's Galleria along the north-bound its passenger is not solidary, the same is due to the fact
lane of Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA), was hit and that the action instituted was one for breach of contract.
run over by a bus driven by Antonio P. Gimena, who...
was then employed by petitioner R Transport However, It must be noted that the case at hand does
Corporation. Loreta was immediately rushed to Medical not involve a breach of contract of carriage, as in
City Hospital where she was pronounced dead on arrival. Tamayo, but a tort or quasi-delict under Article 2176, in
relation to Article 2180 of the New Civil Code. As such,
The husband of the deceased, Luisito G. Yu, filed a the liability for which R Transport is being made
Complaint for damages before the RTC of Makati City responsible actually arises not from a pre-existing
against petitioner R Transport, Antonio Gimena, and contractual relation between petitioner and the
Metro Manila Transport Corporation (MMTC) for the deceased, but from a damage caused by the negligence
death of his wife. of its employee.

MMTC denied its liability reasoning that it is merely the R Transport cannot, therefore, rely on the ruling in
registered owner of the bus involved in the incident, the Tamayo and escape its solidary liability for the liability of
actual owner, being R Transport. It explained that under the employer for the negligent conduct of its subordinate
the Bus Installment Purchase Program of the is direct and primary, subject only to the defense of due
government, MMTC merely purchased the subject bus, diligence in the selection and supervision of the
among several others, for resale to petitioner R employee.
Transport, which will in turn operate the same within
Metro Manila. Since it was not actually operating the bus It has consistently been of the view that it is for the
which killed respondent's wife, nor was it the employer better protection of the public for both the owner of
of the driver thereof, MMTC alleged that the complaint record and the actual operator to be adjudged jointly and
against it should be dismissed. severally liable with the driver. As aptly stated by the
appellate court, “the principle of holding the registered
R Transport alleged that Yu had no cause of action owner liable for damages notwithstanding that
against it for it had exercised due diligence in the ownership of the offending vehicle has already been
selection and supervision of its employees and drivers transferred to another is designed to protect the public
and that its buses are in good condition. Meanwhile, the and not as a shield on the part of unscrupulous
driver Antonio Gimena was declared in default for his transferees of the vehicle to take refuge in, in order to
failure to file an answer to the complaint. It also cited the free itself from liability arising from its own negligent
case of Vargas vs. Langcay and Tamayo v. Aquino act.”
insisting that it should not be held solidarily liable with
MMTC for it is not the registered owner of the bus which
killed the deceased and contends that it is the registered
owner of the vehicle, rather than the actual owner, who
must be jointly and severally liable with the driver of the
passenger vehicle for damages incurred by third persons
as a consequence of injuries or death sustained in the
operation of said vehicle.

ISSUE:

Is R TRANSPORT correct in its argument that since it was


not the registered owner of the bus which bumped the
victim; it cannot be held liable for the damage?

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy