Case Digest: SPS. BUENAVENTURA JAYME AND ROSARIO JAYME vs. RODRIGO APOSTOL, ET AL.

SPS. BUENAVENTURA JAYME AND ROSARIO JAYME, petitioners,
vs.
RODRIGO APOSTOL, FIDEL LOZANO, ERNESTO SIMBULAN, MAYOR FERNANDO Q. MIGUEL, MUNICIPALITY OF KORONADAL (NOW CITY OF KORONADAL), PROVINCE OF SOUTH COTABATO, represented by the MUNICIPAL TREASURER and/or MUNICIPAL MAYOR FERNANDO Q. MIGUEL, and THE FIRST INTEGRATED BONDING AND INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., respondents.

G.R. No. 163609     [November 27, 2008]

FACTS:

On February 5, 1989, Mayor Miguel of Koronadal, South Cotabato was on board the Isuzu pick-up truck driven by Fidel Lozano, an employee of the Municipality of Koronadal. The pick-up truck was registered under the name of Rodrigo Apostol, but it was then in the possession of Ernesto Simbulan. Lozano borrowed the pick-up truck from Simbulan to bring Miguel to Buayan Airport at General Santos City to catch his Manila flight.
The pick-up truck accidentally hit Marvin C. Jayme, a minor, who was then crossing the National Highway in South Cotabato. The intensity of the collision sent Marvin some 50 meters away from the point of impact, a clear indication that Lozano was driving at a very high speed at the time of the accident. Marvin sustained severe head injuries. Despite medical attention, Marvin expired six (6) days after the accident.

ISSUE:

MAY a municipal mayor be held solidarily liable for the negligent acts of the driver assigned to him
MAY an LGU be held liable for the tortuous act of a government employee.

RULING:

1. It is uncontested that Lozano was employed as a driver by the municipality. That he was subsequently assigned to Mayor Miguel during the time of the accident is of no moment. The Municipality of Koronadal remains to be Lozano’s employer notwithstanding Lozano’s assignment to Mayor Miguel. Even assuming arguendo that Mayor Miguel had authority to give instructions or directions to Lozano, he still cannot be held liable. In Benson v. Sorrell, the New England Supreme Court ruled that mere giving of directions to the driver does not establish that the passenger has control over the vehicle. Neither does it render one the employer of the driver.
Mayor Miguel was neither Lozano’s employer nor the vehicle’s registered owner. There existed no causal relationship between him and Lozano or the vehicle used that will make him accountable for Marvin’s death. Mayor Miguel was a mere passenger at the time of the accident.
2. The municipality may not be sued because it is an agency of the State engaged in governmental functions and, hence, immune from suit. This immunity is illustrated in Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v. Firme, where the Court held that municipal corporations are suable because their charters grant them the competence to sue and be sued. Nevertheless, they are generally not liable for torts committed by them in the discharge of governmental functions and can only be held answerable only if it can be shown that they were acting in proprietary capacity. In permitting such entities to be sued, the State merely gives the claimant the right to show that the defendant was not acting in governmental capacity when the injury was committed or that the case comes under the
exceptions recognized by law. Failing this, the claimant cannot recover.
Liability attaches to the registered owner, the negligent driver and his direct employer. Settled is the rule that the registered owner of a vehicle is jointly and severally liable with the driver for damages incurred by passengers and third persons as a consequence of injuries or death sustained in the operation of said vehicles. Regardless of who the actual owner of the vehicle is, the operator of record continues to be the operator of the vehicle as regards the public and third persons, and as such is directly and primarily responsible for the consequences incident to its operation.
The petition is DENIED.

Share this:

Leave a Reply