This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2010-07-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Normally, employers keep files concerning the qualifications, work experience, training, evaluation, and discipline of their employees.[31] The failure of petitioners to put forth evidence to substantiate the testimonies of the witnesses is certainly fatal to its cause. | |||||
|
2009-04-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is settled that where the insurance contract provides for indemnity against liability to third persons, the liability of the insurer is direct and such third persons can directly sue the insurer. The direct liability of the insurer under indemnity contracts against third party liability does not mean, however, that the insurer can be held solidarily liable with the insured and/or the other parties found at fault, since they are being held liable under different obligations. The liability of the insured carrier or vehicle owner is based on tort, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code;[55] while that of the insurer arises from contract, particularly, the insurance policy. The third-party liability of the insurer is only up to the extent of the insurance policy and that required by law; and it cannot be held solidarily liable for anything beyond that amount.[56] Any award beyond the insurance coverage would already be the sole liability of the insured and/or the other parties at fault.[57] | |||||
|
2006-12-14 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In the selection of prospective employees, employers are required to examine them as to their qualifications, experience, and service records.[35] On the other hand, due diligence in the supervision of employees includes the formulation of suitable rules and regulations for the guidance of employees and the issuance of proper instructions intended for the protection of the public and persons with whom the employer has relations through his or its employees and the imposition of necessary disciplinary measures upon employees in case of breach or as may be warranted to ensure the performance of acts indispensable to the business of and beneficial to their employer. To this, we add that actual implementation and monitoring of consistent compliance with said rules should be the constant concern of the employer, acting through dependable supervisors who should regularly report on their supervisory functions.[36] To establish these factors in a trial involving the issue of vicarious liability, employers must submit concrete proof, including documentary evidence. | |||||
|
2006-09-08 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The Court of Appeals correctly awarded respondents exemplary damages in the amount of P20,000.00 each. Exemplary damages may be awarded in addition to moral and compensatory damages.[24] Article 2231 of the Civil Code also states that in quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence. [25] In this case, petitioner's driver was driving recklessly at the time its truck rammed the BLTB bus. Petitioner, who has direct and primary liability for the negligent conduct of its subordinates, was also found negligent in the selection and supervision of its employees. In Del Rosario v. Court of Appeals,[26] we held, thus:ART. 2229 of the Civil Code also provides that such damages may be imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good. While exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right, they need not be proved, although plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded. Exemplary Damages are imposed not to enrich one party or impoverish another but to serve as a deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions. Regarding attorney's fees, we held in Traders Royal Bank Employees Union-Independent v. National Labor Relations Commission,[27] that: | |||||
|
2005-02-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The indemnity for death caused by a quasi-delict used to be pegged at P3,000.00,[25] based on Article 2206 of the Civil Code, which reads:ART. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. In addition: | |||||
|
2004-06-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We are fully aware that there is no hard-and-fast rule on the quantum of evidence needed to prove due observance of all the diligence of a good father of a family as would constitute a valid defense to the legal presumption of negligence on the part of an employer or master whose employee has by his negligence, caused damage to another. x x x (R)educing the testimony of Albert to its proper proportion, we do not have enough trustworthy evidence left to go by. We are of the considered opinion, therefore, that the believable evidence on the degree of care and diligence that has been exercised in the selection and supervision of Roberto Leon y Salazar, is not legally sufficient to overcome the presumption of negligence against the defendant company. The above-quoted ruling was reiterated in a recent case again involving the Metro Manila Transit Corporation,[12] thus:In the selection of prospective employees, employers are required to examine them as to their qualifications, experience, and service records.[13] On the other hand, with respect to the supervision of employees, employers should formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation, and impose disciplinary measures for breaches thereof. To establish these factors in a trial involving the issue of vicarious liability, employers must submit concrete proof, including documentary evidence. | |||||
|
2003-07-31 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Moral damages should also be awarded for the mental anguish and moral suffering suffered by the heirs of Henry Tugade brought about by his untimely demise. As held by this Court, the award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration, within the limits possible, of the spiritual status quo ante and therefore must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted.[46] | |||||
|
2002-12-27 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| For this purpose, they have the burden of proving that they have indeed exercised such diligence, both in the selection of the employee and in the supervision of the performance of his duties.[17] In the selection of prospective employees, employers are required to examine them as to their qualifications, experience and service records.[18] With respect to the supervision of employees, employers must formulate standard operating procedures, | |||||