Case Digest: CAEDO et al vs. YU KHE THAI and RAFAEL BERNARDO

CAEDO et al vs. YU KHE THAI and RAFAEL BERNARDO

G.R. No. L-20392 December 18, 1968

FACTS:

Plaintiff Caedo was driving his Mercury car at about 5:30 in the morning of March 24, 1958 along E. de los Santos Ave., in the vicinity of San LorenzoVillage bound for the airport. Several members of his family were in the car. Coming from the opposite direction was the Cadillac car of defendant Yu Khe Thai driven by his driver Rafael Bernardo. The two cars were traveling at a moderate speed with their headlights on. Ahead of the Cadillac was a caretela. Defendant’s driver did not notice it until he was about eight (8) meters away. Instead of slowing down behind the caretela defendant’s driver veered to the left with the intention of passing by the caretela but in doing so its rear bumper caught the ream of thecaretela’s left wheel wrenching it off. Defendant’s car skidded obliquely to the other end and collided with the on-coming vehicle of the plaintiff. The plaintiff on his part, slackened his speed and tried to avoid the collision by veering to the right but the collision occurred just the same injuring the plaintiff and members of his family. Plaintiff brought an action for damages against both the driver and owner of the Cadillac car. There was no question that defendant’s driver was negligent and liable.

ISSUE:

Whether or not defendant Yu Khe Thai, owner of the car, who was in the car, was solidarily liable with the driver under Art. 2184, of the Civil Code.

RULING:

The applicable law is Article 2184 of the Civil Code. Under the said provision, if the causative factor was the driver’s negligence, the owner of the vehicle who was present is likewise held liable if he could have prevented the mishap by the exercise of due diligence. The basis of the master’s liability in civil law is not respondent superior but rather the relationship of paterfamilias. The theory is that ultimately the negligence of the servant, if known to the master and susceptible of timely correction by him, reflects his own negligence if he fails to correct it in order to prevent injury or damage.

Negligence on the part of the owner, if any, must be sought in the immediate setting and circumstances of the accident, that is, in his failure to detain the driver from pursuing a course which not only gave him clear notice of the danger but also sufficient time to act upon it. We do not see that such negligence may be imputed. The car, as has been stated, was not running at an unreasonable speed. The road was wide and open, and devoid of traffic that early morning. There was no reason for the car owner to be in any special state of alert. He had reason to rely on the skill and experience of his driver. He became aware of the presence of the carretela when his car was only twelve meters behind it, but then his failure to see it earlier did not constitute negligence, for he was not himself at the wheel. And even when he did see it at that distance, he could not have anticipated his driver’s sudden decision to pass the carretela on its left side in spite of the fact that another car was approaching from the opposite direction. The time element was such that there was no reasonable opportunity for Yu Khe Thai to assess the risks involved and warn the driver accordingly. The thought that entered his mind, he said, was that if he sounded a sudden warning it might only make the other man nervous and make the situation worse. It was a thought that, wise or not, connotes no absence of that due diligence required by law to prevent the misfortune. Under the facts the owner of the car was not liable.