Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 110 views

    Duavit v. CA - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Juvial Guevarra Boston
    The Supreme Court ruled that the owner of a vehicle involved in an accident cannot be held liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code if the vehicle was driven without the owner's consent and by someone not employed by the owner. The case involved a vehicle owned by Gilberto Duavit that was involved in an accident while being driven by Oscar Sabiniano, who was not Duavit's employee. While Duavit admitted owning the vehicle, he denied Sabiniano was his employee. The trial court agreed, finding no employer-employee relationship. The Court of Appeals reversed this but the Supreme Court reinstated the trial court ruling, saying it would be like holding the owner of a stolen car liable for accidents caused by

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Duavit v. CA - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Juvial Guevarra Boston
    110 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the owner of a vehicle involved in an accident cannot be held liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code if the vehicle was driven without the owner's consent and by someone not employed by the owner. The case involved a vehicle owned by Gilberto Duavit that was involved in an accident while being driven by Oscar Sabiniano, who was not Duavit's employee. While Duavit admitted owning the vehicle, he denied Sabiniano was his employee. The trial court agreed, finding no employer-employee relationship. The Court of Appeals reversed this but the Supreme Court reinstated the trial court ruling, saying it would be like holding the owner of a stolen car liable for accidents caused by

    Original Description:

    TRANSPORTATION

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the owner of a vehicle involved in an accident cannot be held liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code if the vehicle was driven without the owner's consent and by someone not employed by the owner. The case involved a vehicle owned by Gilberto Duavit that was involved in an accident while being driven by Oscar Sabiniano, who was not Duavit's employee. While Duavit admitted owning the vehicle, he denied Sabiniano was his employee. The trial court agreed, finding no employer-employee relationship. The Court of Appeals reversed this but the Supreme Court reinstated the trial court ruling, saying it would be like holding the owner of a stolen car liable for accidents caused by

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    110 views1 page

    Duavit v. CA - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Juvial Guevarra Boston
    The Supreme Court ruled that the owner of a vehicle involved in an accident cannot be held liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code if the vehicle was driven without the owner's consent and by someone not employed by the owner. The case involved a vehicle owned by Gilberto Duavit that was involved in an accident while being driven by Oscar Sabiniano, who was not Duavit's employee. While Duavit admitted owning the vehicle, he denied Sabiniano was his employee. The trial court agreed, finding no employer-employee relationship. The Court of Appeals reversed this but the Supreme Court reinstated the trial court ruling, saying it would be like holding the owner of a stolen car liable for accidents caused by

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    82318 May 18, 1989

    GILBERTO M. DUAVIT, petitioner,


    vs.
    THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Acting through the Third Division, as Public Respondent, and
    ANTONIO SARMIENTO, SR. & VIRGILIO CATUAR respondents.

    PROVISION:
    Article 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or
    omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
    xxx
    The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages
    caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the
    occasion of their functions.

    FACTS:
    Plaintiffs Antonio Sarmiento, Sr. and Virgilio Catuar were aboard a jeep when suddenly, another jeep with
    plate number 99-97-F-J Manila 1971 driven by defendant Oscar Sabiniano hit and bumped plaintiff's jeep
    on the portion near the left rear wheel, and as a result of the impact plaintiff's jeep fell on its right and
    skidded. The plaintiffs have filed this case both against Oscar Sabiniano as driver, and against Gualberto
    Duavit as owner of the jeep. Defendant Gualberto Duavit, while admitting ownership of the other jeep
    (Plate No. 99-07-F-J Manila, 1971), denied that the other defendant (Oscar Sabiniano) was his employee.
    Duavit claimed that he has not been an employer of defendant Oscar Sabiniano at any time up to the
    present.

    The trial court found Oscar Sabiniano negligent in driving the vehicle but found no employer-employee
    relationship between him and the petitioner because the latter was then a government employee and he
    took the vehicle without the authority and consent of the owner. The petitioner was, thus, absolved from
    liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Court of Appeals rendered the questioned decision holding
    the petitioner jointly and severally liable with Sabiniano.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the owner of a private vehicle which figured in an accident can be held liable under Article
    2180 of the Civil Code when the said vehicle was neither driven by an employee of the owner nor taken
    with the consent of the latter.

    RULING:
    The owner of a vehicle cannot be held liable for an accident involving the said vehicle if the same was
    driven without his consent or knowledge and by a person not employed by him. It would be like holding
    liable the owner of a stolen vehicle for an accident caused by the person who stole such vehicle. The
    petition is granted.

    You might also like