ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 137779. June 14, 1999]

VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC., vs. ANIELOR BERUS, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 14, 1999.

G.R. No. 137779 (Vallacar Transit, Inc., vs. Anielor Berus, Jose Aldrin Bayabas, Virginia Bayabas, for herself and in behalf of her minor children; et al.)

Petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the regional trial court which held petitioner answerable for a vehicular accident.

On August 6, 1991, petitioner's passenger bus going north collided with a private jeep which was travelling southward. After the initial impact, petitioner's bus maintained its momentum in a zigzag manner, traveling nearly 20 meters more. It then collided with a passenger jeepney on the opposite lane and the force of the impact detached the jeepney's roof. The jeepney was dragged to a ditch by the bus which continued to move approximately another 20 meters more before it finally landed on the top of the roofless jeepney causing the death of 15 people.

During the trial, the lower court found that petitioner's driver was overspeeding when the incident occurred. Furthermore, the trial court declared petitioner liable for damages caused by the negligent act of its driver because of its failure to rebut the legal presumption of its negligence in the selection and supervision of its employees.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision with modification only as to the award of damages with respect to the imposition of interest. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was to no avail.

Thus, the instant petition which we find unmeritorious.

As to the findings of recklessness and negligence made by the two courts below, the Court has ruled that it is not to be burdened with the task of going over the evidence presented by the parties and analyzing, assessing, and weighing the same to ascertain if the trial court and the appellate court were correct in according credit to this or that piece of evidence of one party or the other (Alicbusan v. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 336 [1997]).

Anent the issue of diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees, the Court finds no error in the ruling of both lower courts for verily it has been ruled that in order that the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees may be deemed sufficient and plausible, it is not enough to emptily invoke the existence of company guidelines and policies on hiring and supervision. As the negligence of the employee gives rise to the presumption of negligence on the part of the employer, the latter has the burden of proving that it has been diligent not only in the selection of employees but also in the actual supervision of their work. The mere allegation of the existence of hiring procedures and supervisory policies, without anything more, is decidedly not sufficient to overcome such presumption (Metro Manila Transit Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 233 SCRA 521 [1992]).

Lastly, it has been held that in case of other obligations like in the case at bar, the interest on the amount of damages may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum (Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. CA, 234 SCRA 78 [1994]).

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE