GENSON v ADARLE
FACTS
Arbatin was the successful bidder in a public auction of junk and other unserviceable government property in the Highway District Engineer’s Office of Roxas City. Arbatin then employed Adarle to help him haul the junk. On a non-working day, when Adarle and Buensalido, the driver of the payloader, were at the site continuing to gather the junk, a bucket from the payloader fell and injured Adarle to the point of paralyzing his lower extremities. Adarle instituted an action against Arbatin, Buensalido, Marcelino (Civil Engineer), and Genson (Highway District Engineer). RTC ruled in favor of Adarle. IAC modified the previous ruling, absolving Marcelino from liability, and averring that the liability of Genson is based on fault, by allowing Arbatin and his men to work on the premises on a non-working day, in contravention of his office’s policy. Petitioner Genson then appealed the decision to the SC, stating that the facts upon which the IAC declared that his liability is based on fault by allowing the men to work on a non-working holiday is without basis. Furthermore, he contends that by filing a suit against him, Adarle is then filing a suit against the Republic, which violates the non-suability of the State.
ISSUE
Whether or not Genson should be held liable, personally or officially?
HELD
NO. With regard to the non-suability contention, Adarle filed a suit against Genson personally, in his capacity as the Highway District Engineer, and not the State or his office. As for the main issue, there was no evidence to prove Genson’s presence when the accident occurred, nor was there any basis for the lower courts to hold that Genson was at fault by authorizing Arbatin and his men to work on a non-working day. It might even be proven that working on a Saturday for the specific purpose of hauling junk would be the time when the most work can be done, as it has less traffic. The Master-Servant doctrine in tort law cannot apply either, since despite the fact that Buensalido, Genson’s employee, was “moonlighting” on a non-working holiday, Buensalido’s arrangement with Arbatin was purely private in nature, and had nothing to do with his being employed under Genson. Thus, absent the showing of malice, bad faith or gross negligence on the part of Genson, he cannot be held liable for the acts committed by Buensalido and Arbatin.
