477 Phil. 317
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
WHEREFORE, premised on the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs ordering the defendants to pay plaintiffs jointly and severally:Petitioners appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the appealed decision in toto.[4]SO ORDERED.
- The sum of P55,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages;
- The sum of P20,000.00 for the repair of the motorcycle;
- The sum of P100,000.00 for the loss of earning capacity;
- The sum of P500,000.00 as moral damages;
- The sum of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;
- The sum of P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees plus cost of suit.
THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT PETITIONER DASSAD DID NOT EXERCISE THE DILIGENCE OF A GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY IN THE SELECTION AND SUPERVISION OF ITS EMPLOYEES WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 2180 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE AND RELATED JURISPRUDENCE ON THE MATTER.The petition is partly impressed with merit.II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT IN HOLDING PETITIONER EL BUENASENSO SY SOLIDARILY LIABLE WITH PETITIONERS DASSAD AND SECOSA IN VIOLATION OF THE CORPORATION LAW AND RELATED JURISPRUDENCE ON THE MATTER.III.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS AWARDING P500,000.00 AS MORAL DAMAGES IS MANIFESTLY ABSURD, MISTAKEN AND UNJUST.[5]
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged 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.On the other hand, Article 2180, in pertinent part, states:
The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible x x x.Based on the foregoing provisions, when an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, there instantly arises a presumption that there was negligence on the part of the employer either in the selection of his employee or in the supervision over him after such selection. The presumption, however, may be rebutted by a clear showing on the part of the employer that it exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee. Hence, to evade solidary liability for quasi-delict committed by an employee, the employer must adduce sufficient proof that it exercised such degree of care.[6]
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry x x x.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
In fine, the party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who asserts the affirmative of the issue has the burden of presenting at the trial such amount of evidence required by law to obtain a favorable judgment[8] . . . In making proof in its or his case, it is paramount that the best and most complete evidence is formally entered.[9]The above-quoted ruling was reiterated in a recent case again involving the Metro Manila Transit Corporation,[12] thus:
Coming now to the case at bar, while there is no rule which requires that testimonial evidence, to hold sway, must be corroborated by documentary evidence, inasmuch as the witnesses’ testimonies dwelt on mere generalities, we cannot consider the same as sufficiently persuasive proof that there was observance of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees. Petitioner’s attempt to prove its “deligentissimi patris familias” in the selection and supervision of employees through oral evidence must fail as it was unable to buttress the same with any other evidence, object or documentary, which might obviate the apparent biased nature of the testimony.[10]
Our view that the evidence for petitioner MMTC falls short of the required evidentiary quantum as would convincingly and undoubtedly prove its observance of the diligence of a good father of a family has its precursor in the underlying rationale pronounced in the earlier case of Central Taxicab Corp. vs. Ex-Meralco Employees Transportation Co., et al.,[11] set amidst an almost identical factual setting, where we held that:“The failure of the defendant company to produce in court any ‘record’ or other documentary proof tending to establish that it had exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its drivers and buses, notwithstanding the calls therefor by both the trial court and the opposing counsel, argues strongly against its pretensions.
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.
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.Jurisprudentially, therefore, the employer must not merely present testimonial evidence to prove that he observed the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee, but he must also support such testimonial evidence with concrete or documentary evidence. The reason for this is to obviate the biased nature of the employer’s testimony or that of his witnesses.[14]
In this case, MMTC sought to prove that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family with respect to the selection of employees by presenting mainly testimonial evidence on its hiring procedure. According to MMTC, applicants are required to submit professional driving licenses, certifications of work experience, and clearances from the National Bureau of Investigation; to undergo tests of their driving skills, concentration, reflexes, and vision; and, to complete training programs on traffic rules, vehicle maintenance, and standard operating procedures during emergency cases.x x x x x x x x x
Although testimonies were offered that in the case of Pedro Musa all these precautions were followed, the records of his interview, of the results of his examinations, and of his service were not presented. . . [T]here is no record that Musa attended such training programs and passed the said examinations before he was employed. No proof was presented that Musa did not have any record of traffic violations. Nor were records of daily inspections, allegedly conducted by supervisors, ever presented. . . The failure of MMTC to present such documentary proof puts in doubt the credibility of its witnesses.
. . . the award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration, within the limits possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; and therefore, it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. The intensity of the pain experienced by the relatives of the victim is proportionate to the intensity of affection for him and bears no relation whatsoever with the wealth or means of the offender.”[22]In the instant case, the spouses Francisco presented evidence of the searing pain that they felt when the premature loss of their son was relayed to them. That pain was highly evident in the testimony of the father who was forever deprived of a son, a son whose untimely death came at that point when the latter was nearing the culmination of every parent’s wish to educate their children. The death of Francis has indeed left a void in the lives of the respondents. Antonio Francisco testified on the effect of the death of his son, Francis, in this manner:
Moral damages are emphatically not intended to enrich a plaintiff at the expense of the defendant. They are awarded to allow the former to obtain means, diversion or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone due to the defendant’s culpable action and must, perforce, be proportional to the suffering inflicted.[24] We have previously held as proper an award of P500,000.00 as moral damages to the heirs of a deceased family member who died in a vehicular accident. In our 2002 decision in Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, et al.,[25] we affirmed the award of moral damages of P500,000.00 to the heirs of the victim, a mother, who died from injuries she sustained when a bus driven by an employee of the petitioner hit her. In the case at bar, we likewise affirm the portion of the assailed decision awarding the moral damages.
Q: (Atty. Balanag): What did you do when you learned that your son was killed on June 27, 1996?A: (ANTONIO FRANCISCO): I boxed the door and pushed the image of St. Niño telling why this happened to us.Q: Mr. Witness, how did you feel when you learned of the untimely death of your son, Erwin Suares (sic)?A: Masakit po ang mawalan ng anak. It’s really hard for me, the thought that my son is dead.x x x x x x x x x
Q: How did your family react to the death of Erwin Suarez Francisco?A: All of my family and relatives were felt (sic) sorrow because they knew that my son is (sic) good.Q: We know that it is impossible to put money terms(s) [on] the life of [a] human, but since you are now in court and if you were to ask this court how much would you and your family compensate? (sic)A: Even if they pay me millions, they cannot remove the anguish of my son (sic).[23]