Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Syki Vs Begasa

    Uploaded by

    Seyn
    121 views2 pages
    Ernesto Syki's truck, driven by his employee Elizalde Sablayan, rear-ended a passenger jeepney that had stopped to pick up Salvador Begasa and others. Begasa was injured falling from the jeepney. Begasa sued Syki, Sablayan, and the jeepney owner. The trial court dismissed the jeepney owner but found Syki and Sablayan jointly liable. The issue on appeal was whether Syki was liable for his employee's actions. The Supreme Court ruled that Sablayan's negligence in speeding and failing to slow down caused the accident. As the sole proximate cause, Syki was liable under civil code for the damages to

    Original Description:

    torts case

    Original Title

    syki vs begasa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Ernesto Syki's truck, driven by his employee Elizalde Sablayan, rear-ended a passenger jeepney that had stopped to pick up Salvador Begasa and others. Begasa was injured falling from the jeepney. Begasa sued Syki, Sablayan, and the jeepney owner. The trial court dismissed the jeepney owner but found Syki and Sablayan jointly liable. The issue on appeal was whether Syki was liable for his employee's actions. The Supreme Court ruled that Sablayan's negligence in speeding and failing to slow down caused the accident. As the sole proximate cause, Syki was liable under civil code for the damages to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Flag for inappropriate content
    121 views2 pages

    Syki Vs Begasa

    Uploaded by

    Seyn
    Ernesto Syki's truck, driven by his employee Elizalde Sablayan, rear-ended a passenger jeepney that had stopped to pick up Salvador Begasa and others. Begasa was injured falling from the jeepney. Begasa sued Syki, Sablayan, and the jeepney owner. The trial court dismissed the jeepney owner but found Syki and Sablayan jointly liable. The issue on appeal was whether Syki was liable for his employee's actions. The Supreme Court ruled that Sablayan's negligence in speeding and failing to slow down caused the accident. As the sole proximate cause, Syki was liable under civil code for the damages to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    ERNESTO SYKI, petitioner, vs. SALVADOR BEGASA, respondent. [G.R. No. 149149.

    October 23, 2003] Facts: Respondent Salvador Begasa and his three companions
    flagged down a passenger jeepney driven by Joaquin Espina and owned by Aurora
    Pisuena. While respondent was boarding the passenger jeepney (his right foot
    already inside while his left foot still on the boarding step of the passenger jeepney),
    a truck driven by Elizalde Sablayan and owned by petitioner Ernesto Syki bumped the
    rear end of the passenger jeepney. Respondent fell and fractured his left thigh bone.
    Respondent filed a complaint for damages for breach of common carrier‘s
    contractual obligations and quasi-delict against Aurora Pisuena, the owner of the
    passenger jeepney;, herein petitioner Ernesto Syki, theowner of the truck;, and
    Elizalde Sablayan, the driver of the truck. After hearing, the trial court dismissed the
    complaint against Aurora Pisuena, the owner and operator of the passenger jeepney,
    but ordered petitioner Ernesto Syki and his truck driver, Elizalde Sablayan, to pay
    respondent Salvador Begasa, jointly and severally Issue: 1. Whether or not petitioner
    is liable for the act of his employee. 2. Whether he exercised the diligence of a good
    father of a family.

    38

    Ruling: In the present case, was respondent partly negligent and thus, should not
    recover the full amount of the damages awarded by the trial court? We rule in the
    negative. In sum, the sole and proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of
    petitioners driver who, as found by the lower courts, did not slow down even when
    he was already approaching a busy intersection within the city proper. The passenger
    jeepney had long stopped to pick up respondent and his three companions and, in
    fact, respondent was already partly inside the jeepney, when petitioners driver
    bumped the rear end ofrear-ended it. The impact was so strong such that
    respondent fell and fractured his left thigh bone (femur), and suffered severely
    woundeds in his left knee and leg. No doubt that respondentpetitioners driver was
    reckless speeding. Since the negligence of petitioners driver was the sole and
    proximate cause of the accident, in the present case, petitioner is liable, under
    Article 2180 of the Civil Code, to pay damages to respondent Begasa for the injuries
    sustained by latterhim. Petition denied.

    You might also like