METRO MANILA TRANSIT CORPORATION, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND NENITA CUSTODIA.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 104408
- Promulgated: 1993-06-21
- Ponente: Regalado, J.
Doctrine
Findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are entitled to great respect and are generally conclusive upon the Supreme Court, subject to limited review when the appellate court's appreciation of evidence is manifestly mistaken.
The party asserting the affirmative bears the burden to present the quantum of evidence required by law and must produce the best and most competent evidence available to sustain its position.
Common carriers are held to the highest degree of diligence; where an employer is shown to have an employment relationship, liability for employee torts within scope arises unless the employer proves due diligence of a good father of a family.
Facts
Plaintiff Nenita Custodio sued drivers and Metro Manila Transit Corporation (MMTC) for damages arising from a vehicular collision; trial court found both drivers concurrently negligent and absolved MMTC for exercising due diligence in hiring and supervising its drivers.
MMTC's training officer Milagros Garbo testified about MMTC's driver selection and training procedures and the documentary requirements for new and re-entry applicants.
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's findings; MMTC questioned (1) necessity of documentary evidence for witness testimony, (2) disturbance of witnesses' testimonies on appeal, and (3) sufficiency of proof of MMTC's due diligence.
This Court reviewed whether the Court of Appeals' factual findings are conclusive, discussed burden of proof, and ultimately examined MMTC's proof of exercising due diligence as an employer/common carrier.
Issues
Whether documentary evidence was necessary to support the positive testimonies of witnesses Garbo and Bautista.
Whether the testimonies of witnesses Garbo and Bautista may be disturbed on appeal.
Whether MMTC proved it exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family in selecting and supervising its employee-driver.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment; it found MMTC failed to clearly establish due diligence and thus must suffer consequences for not submitting all evidence within its control, so the appellate affirmance stands.
The Court recognized that findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are generally conclusive, though the Supreme Court may review them when convinced the appellate court erred in appreciation of evidence.
The Court affirmed the award to plaintiff and declined to grant interest as damages because private respondent did not specifically pray for interest and Article 2211 leaves interest in quasi-delicts to judicial discretion.
Keywords
G.R. No. 104408, due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees, vehicular collision, complaint for damages, joint tortfeasors, solidary liability, negligence, proximate cause of the accident, traffic rules and regulations, public utility jeepney, Metro Manila Transit Corporation (MMTC), damages, Article 2176 Civil Code, quasi-delict, employer-employee relationship, employees, selection, trial, supervision, company