Case Digest: ERNESTO MARTIN V. CA AND MERALCO

ERNESTO MARTIN V. CA AND MERALCO

G.R. No. 82248 January 30, 1992

FACTS:

Ernesto Martin was the owner of a private car bearing license plate No. NPA-930. At around 2 o’clock in the morning of May 11, 1982, while being driven by Nestor Martin, it crashed into a Meralco electric post on Valley Golf Road, in Antipolo, Rizal. The car was wrecked and the pole severely damaged. Meralco subsequently demanded reparation from Ernesto Martin, but the demand was rejected. It thereupon sued him for damages in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, alleging that he was liable to it as the employer of Nestor Martin. The petitioner’s main defense was that Nestor Martin was not his employee. Meralco did not present any evidence to prove that Nestor Martin was the employee of Ernesto Martin and Ernesto Martin did not rebut such allegation.

ISSUE:

WON Ernesto Martin can be held liable.

HELD:

NO. Meralco had the burden of proof, or the duty “to present evidence on the fact in issue necessary to establish his claim” as required by Rule 131, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court. Failure to do this was fatal to its action. As the employment relationship between Ernesto Martin and Nestor Martin could not be presumed, it was necessary for the plaintiff to establish it by evidence. It was enough for the defendant to deny the alleged employment relationship, without more, for he was not under obligation to prove this negative averment. This Court has consistently applied the rule that “if the plaintiff, upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of action, fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which he bases his claim, the defendant is under no obligation to prove his exception or defense.”
Petition was granted.