Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines V
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines V
Phil-American Forwarders
FACTS
When a party deliberately adopts a certain theory and the case is
Pineda recklessly drove a freight truck [owned by Phil- decided upon that theory in the court below, he will not be permitted
American Forwarders] along the national highway at Pampanga, to change his theory on appeal because, to permit him to do so, could
and the truck bumped the PRBL bus driven by Pangalangan. As be unfair to the adverse party. Thus, the Supreme Court disregarded
a result, Pangalangan suffered injuries and the bus was Pangalangan and Philippine Rabbit s argument that the doctrine of
damaged and could not be used for 79 days, thus depriving PRBL piercing the corporate veil be used against PAFI, Archimedes Balingit
of earnings amounting to P8,665.51. Balingit was the manager of Phil- and his wife. The issue was not raised in the trial court below. The
American Forwarders. case has to be decided based on allegations stated in the pleadings
(complaint) of the appellants, where it was assumed that Balingit and
PRBL and Pangalangan filed a complaint for his wife has separate legal personality from Philippine-American
damagesagainst Phil-American Forwarders, Balingit, and Pineda. Forwarders.
Defendants said Balingit was not Pinedas employer. Balingit moved
that the complaint against him be dismissed on the ground that PRBL Civil Law (Torts)
and Pangalangan had no cause of action against him. CFI dismissed
the complaint against Balingit, on the ground that he is not the
manager of an establishment as contemplated in NCC 2180. The terms employers and owners and managers of an
establishment or enterprise (dueos o directores de un
establicimiento o empresa) used in Article 2180 of the New Civil Code
ISSUE AND HOLDING (formerly Article 1903, the 1889 Civil Code of Spain/Old Civil Code)
does not include manager of corporation. The Supreme Court
WON the terms employers and owners and managers of an interpreted the term manager (directores, Spanish) is used in the
establishment or enterprise embrace the manager of a corporation sense of employer, as it may be gathered from the articles context.
owning a truck, the reckless operation of which allegedly resulted in
the vehicular accident from which the damage arose. NO. Thus, the Supreme Court held that Balingit, as manager and employee
of Philippine-American Forwarders, is not liable for damages awarded
RATIO to Pangalangan and Philippine Rabbit.
Those terms do not include the manager of a corporation. It may be Type of Appeal
gathered from the context of NCC 2180 that the term manager
(director in the Spanish version) is used in the sense of employer. Appeal on pure question of law by Philippine Rabbit and Pangalangan
Hence, no tortious or quasi-delictual liability can be imposed on of the Court of the First Instance Tarlac decision, which dismissed
Balingit as manager of Phil-American Forwarders, in connection with liability of Philippine-American Forwarders manager Archimedes
the vehicular accident in question, because he himself may be Balingit.
regarded as an employee or dependienteof Phil-American
Forwarders.
Facts
CFI AFFIRMED
Pangalangan and Philippine Rabbit alleged that on 24 November 1962,
Fernando Pineda drove recklessly the freight truck owned by his
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines and Felix Pangalangan, plaintiff-appellants employer Philippine-American Forwarders along the national highway
vs. Philippine-American Forwarders, Inc. (PAFI), Archimedes Balingit at Sto. Tomas, Pampanga. It bumped the Philippine Rabbit bus driven
and Fernando Pineda, by Felix Pangalangan. As a result of the accident, Pangalangan was
injured and the damaged bus
GR No. L-25142, 25 March 1975, 63 SCRA 231 Doctrines Remedial Law
(Civil Procedure)
cannot be used for seventy-nine (79) days, causing loss of income properly pertains, in which case what is provided in article 2176 shall
amounting to PhP8,665.81 to Philippine Rabbit. Philippine Rabbit and be applicable. Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and
Pangalangan as plaintiffs, filed a case for damages against the trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students
defendants Philippine-American Forwarders, its manager Archimedes or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody. The
Balingit and the driver Fernando Pineda for damages and lost income responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons
sustained by Philippine Rabbit and the injuries sustained by herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good
Pangalangan. Balingit stated in defense that he is not Pineda s father of a family to prevent damage. (1903a)
employer and he asked for the dismissal of the plaintiffs case as they
had no cause of action against him. The CFI Tarlac held only PAFI and Held by the Supreme Court
Pineda liable for damages and injuries sustained and dismissed
Balingit s liability. As a result, Philippine Rabbit and Pangalangan The trial court
appealed the trial court s decision to the Supreme Court.
Issues In their appeal, Felix Pangalangan and Philippine Rabbit raised
the
s decision on appeal is
issues: 1.Whether the trial court was right in dismissing the liability of
PAFI manager Archimedes Balingit to the damage sustained by them? AFFIRMED
2. Whether the issue that Phil-American Forwarders, Inc. and Balingit and costs against plaintiff-appellants. The Supreme Court held that
and his wife should be treated as one and the same civil personality based on the allegations of the complaint of appellants Philippine
can be raised and adjudged on appeal? Rabbit and Pangalangan, Balingit has no liability based on tort or
quasi-delict as manager of Phil-American Forwarders, Inc. in
connection with the vehicular accident because he may be regarded
Legal Provisions as an employee of Phil-American Forwarders, Inc.
The New Civil Code states: Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission The Supreme Court interpreted the term manager is used in the
causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged sense of employer, as it may be gathered from the articles context.
to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no
pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-
delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a) The Supreme Court disregarded the appellants argument raised on
Article 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable appeal that the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil be used against
not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons PAFI, Archimedes Balingit and his wife. Since that issue was not raised
for whom one is responsible. The father and, in case of his death or in the trial court below, it cannot be raised also on appeal. The case
incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by has to be decided based on allegations stated in the pleadings
the minor children who live in their company. Guardians are liable for (complaint) of the appellants, where it was assumed that Balingit and
damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are his wife has a separate legal personality from that of Philippine-
under their authority and live in their company American Forwarders, Inc