Cang V Cullen
Cang V Cullen
Nardo was operating a taxi when Saycon, who was travelling on a motorcycle
without protective headgear, veered into his lane and bumped him. After the impact, Nardo
drove back to help Saycon, two traffic enforcers ordered Nardo to take Saycon to the hospital.
No sketch of the accident was done by the enforcers. Saycon claims that it was Nardo that
sideswept him and that Nardo tried to speed away until he was flagged down by peace officers.
Cullen, the employer of Saycon, shouldered the hospital expenses of Saycon and is now
claiming damages from Nardo and Cang, the owner of the taxi. The RTC dismissed the case
stating that Cullen is not entitled to damages. The CA reversed the RTC decision claiming that
the RTC did not give credit to a witness’ account of the accident.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in awarding damages to respondent
Ruling:
YES. Saycon was operating the motor vehicle as a student-driver without being accompanied
by a duly licensed driver. Article 2185 provides that it is presumed that a person driving a motor
vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.
Negligence is conduct that creates an undue risk of harm to others. It is the failure to observe
that degree of care, precaution and vigilance that circumstances justly demand.
To determine whether there is negligence in a given situation, the Supreme Court laid down
this test: Did defendant, in doing the alleged negligent act, use that reasonable care and
caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, the
person is guilty of negligence. Saycon was negligent since he should not have been driving
alone. The law requires that the holder of a student-driver’s permit should be accompanied by
a duly licensed driver when operating a motor vehicle. Further, he was not wearing a helmet
and he was speeding. All these prove that he was negligent.
Neither can Cullen as Saycon’s employer be entitled to claim damages. Cullen was negligent in
the selection and supervision of her employee. When an employee causes damage due to his
own negligence while performing his own duties, there arises the juris tantum presumption
that his employer is negligent, rebuttable only by proof of observance of the diligence of a good
father of a family. The fact that Saycon was driving alone is proof enough that Cullen was
negligent. Either she did not know that he only had a student’s permit or she allowed him to
drive alone knowing this deficiency.