ERNESTO MARTIN, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 82248
- Promulgated: 1992-01-30
- Ponente: Cruz, J.
Doctrine
He who alleges must prove his allegation — the plaintiff must establish the employment relationship before employer vicarious liability under Article 2180 can be imposed.
Owner liability under Article 2180 requires proof that the employee was acting within the scope of his assigned task at the time of the tort; only then may defenses like due diligence in selection be relevant.
A factual presumption of employment from vehicle type applies to commercial vehicles (e.g., six-by-six truck) but not to a private vehicle; absence of evidence of business use or employment defeats the claim.
Facts
Ernesto Martin owned a private car (plate No. NPA-930) that crashed into a Meralco electric post at about 2 a.m. on 11 May 1982 while driven by Nestor Martin, wrecking the car and severely damaging the pole.
Meralco demanded reparation from Ernesto Martin; upon refusal, it sued in the RTC of Pasig seeking P17,352.00 plus attorney's fees and costs, alleging liability as employer of the driver.
Petitioner's principal defense was that Nestor Martin was not his employee; no evidence was offered to show the vehicle was used for business or that the driver was the petitioner's employee.
The case turned on the rule that the party who alleges must prove his allegation and on whether the employment relationship under Article 2180 was established.
Issues
Whether the employer (Ernesto Martin) is liable for the torts of the driver under Article 2180 when the alleged employment relationship has not been established.
Ruling
The petition was granted; the Court reversed the respondent court's decision and dismissed Civil Case No. 48045, finding the employment relationship under Article 2180 was not established and thus employer liability was not shown.
Keywords
G.R. No. 82248, he who alleges must prove his allegation, employer-employee relationship, tort, Article 2180 Civil Code, damages, burden of proof, presumption, presumption juris, presumption hominis, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee, Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals, petition for review, Revised Penal Code Article 103, nestor martin, employee, employer