Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 21 views

    Filamer V IAC Digest

    Uploaded by

    Voidè
    Filamer Christian Institute is liable for injuries caused by its employee Funtecha's negligent driving of the school vehicle, even though Funtecha was not officially designated as the driver. As Funtecha's employer, Filamer had an obligation to implement rules and provide proper supervision of employees. However, Filamer did not show that it had established any rules or regulations to guide employees like Funtecha. Therefore, Filamer is primarily and solidarily liable to pay damages to the victim, while retaining recourse against Funtecha for his negligence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    Filamer V IAC Digest

    Uploaded by

    Voidè
    21 views1 page
    Filamer Christian Institute is liable for injuries caused by its employee Funtecha's negligent driving of the school vehicle, even though Funtecha was not officially designated as the driver. As Funtecha's employer, Filamer had an obligation to implement rules and provide proper supervision of employees. However, Filamer did not show that it had established any rules or regulations to guide employees like Funtecha. Therefore, Filamer is primarily and solidarily liable to pay damages to the victim, while retaining recourse against Funtecha for his negligence.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    299558949 Filamer v IAC Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Filamer Christian Institute is liable for injuries caused by its employee Funtecha's negligent driving of the school vehicle, even though Funtecha was not officially designated as the driver. As Funtecha's employer, Filamer had an obligation to implement rules and provide proper supervision of employees. However, Filamer did not show that it had established any rules or regulations to guide employees like Funtecha. Therefore, Filamer is primarily and solidarily liable to pay damages to the victim, while retaining recourse against Funtecha for his negligence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    21 views1 page

    Filamer V IAC Digest

    Uploaded by

    Voidè
    Filamer Christian Institute is liable for injuries caused by its employee Funtecha's negligent driving of the school vehicle, even though Funtecha was not officially designated as the driver. As Funtecha's employer, Filamer had an obligation to implement rules and provide proper supervision of employees. However, Filamer did not show that it had established any rules or regulations to guide employees like Funtecha. Therefore, Filamer is primarily and solidarily liable to pay damages to the victim, while retaining recourse against Funtecha for his negligence.

    Copyright:

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

    The Defendants arguing that it was done beyond the scope of his janitorial duties.

    He
    iv. Employers need not have an official appointment for a driver's position in order
    that the petitioner may be held responsible for his grossly negligent
    Third Division act, it being sufficient that the act of driving at the time of the incident
    Filamer v. IAC was for the benefit of the petitioner. Hence, the fact that Funtecha
    GR No. 75112 was not the school driver or was not acting within the scope of
    August 17, 1992 his janitorial duties does not relieve the petitioner of the burden
    of rebutting the presumption that there was negligence on its
    Gutierrez, J: part either in the selection of a servant or employee, or in the
    supervision over him. The petitioner has failed to show proof of its
    Facts: Funtecha was a working student of Filamer Christian Institute. Being having exercised the required diligence of a good father of a family
    a part-time janitor and a scholar of petitioner Filamer, he was over its employees Funtecha and Allan.
    considered an employee even if he was assigned to clean the
    premises for just 2 hours every day.
    What does supervision of employee include?
    Allan Masa, the son of Filamer’s president Mr. Agustin Masa, was
    the official driver of the school’s vehicle. Since Funtecha and Allan It includes the formulation of suitable rules and regulations for the
    lived in the same house, Funtecha, holder of a student driver’s guidance of its employees and the issuance of proper instructions
    license, requested Allan to take over the vehicle and drive it home. intended for the protection of the public and persons with whom the
    Allan Masa turned over the vehicle to Funtecha only after driving employer has relations through his employees.
    down a road, negotiating a sharp dangerous curb, and viewing that
    the road was clear. A fast moving truck with glaring lights nearly hit Was there any showing that Filamer provided rules and regulations?
    them so they swerved to the right to avoid collision. Upon swerving,
    they heard a sound as if something had bumped against the vehicle, None.
    but they did not stop to check. Unfortunately, their jeep swerved
    towards the pedestrian, Potenciano Kapunan who was walking in his Therefore:
    lane in the direction against vehicular traffic, and hit him.
    Petitioner Filamer has an obligation to pay damages for injury arising
    The heirs of Kapunan filed an action against Filamer for damages. In from the unskilled manner by which Funtecha drove the vehicle. The
    its defense, Filamer alleged that Funtecha acted outside of his scope liability of Filamer is primary and solidary. It has, however, recourse
    of his authority. Therefore, it was only Funtecha who was liable and against the negligent employee for whatever damages it has paid.
    not Filamer.

    Issue: Whether or not Filamer Christian Institute is liable for the acts of
    Funtecha

    Held: Yes, Filamer is liable for the acts of Funtecha.

    Ratio: In learning how to drive while taking the vehicle home in the direction
    of Allan's house, Funtecha definitely was not having a joy ride.
    Funtecha was not driving for the purpose of his enjoyment or for a
    "frolic of his own" but ultimately, for the service for which the jeep
    was intended by the petitioner school. Therefore, the Court is
    constrained to conclude that the act of Funtecha in taking over the
    steering wheel was one done for and in behalf of his employer for
    which act the petitioner-school cannot deny any responsibility by

    You might also like