Law School Noob: [CASE DIGEST] Mercury Drug and Rolando Del Rosario v. Spouses Huang and Stephen Huang (G.R. No. 172122)

Friday, September 17, 2021

[CASE DIGEST] Mercury Drug and Rolando Del Rosario v. Spouses Huang and Stephen Huang (G.R. No. 172122)

June 22, 2007

FACTS:

A sedan owned by Stephen Huang and a six-wheeler Mitsubishi truck owned by Mercury Drug Corp. and driven by its employee Rolando del Rosario figured in an accident along C5 in Taguig, Metro Manila. As a result, the sedan was wrecked while Stephen Huang incurred massive injuries and became paralyzed from chest down requiring continuous medical and rehabilitation treatment. Spouses Huang, Stephen's parents, were with him in the vehicle at the time of the accident and consequently sustained injuries.

It must be noted that at the time of the accident, Del Rosario had a Traffic Violation Receipt because his driver’s license had been confiscated as he had been previously apprehended for reckless driving.

Before the RTC, Spouses Huang faulted Del Rosario for committing gross negligence and reckless imprudence, and Mercury Drug for failing to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its driver.

RTC found Del Rosario and Mercury Drug jointly and severally liable for damages. The CA upheld the RTC's ruling. Hence, the instant appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Mercury Drug should be held liable for the negligence of its employee Del Rosario. -- YES.

HELD:

The liability of the employer under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code is direct or immediate. It is not conditioned on a prior recourse against the negligent employee, or a prior showing of insolvency of such employee. It is also joint and solidary with the employee.

In selecting employees, the employer is required to examine them as to their qualifications, experience and service records. With respect to supervision, the employer should formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation and impose disciplinary measures for their breach. To establish such, concrete proof, such as documentary evidence must be submitted by him.

In the instant case, Mercury Drug is jointly and solidarily liable with Del Rosario. In order to be relieved of such liability, Mercury should show that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family, both in the selection and supervision of the employee in the performance of his duties. Mercury failed in both respects.

Mercury Drug presented testimonial evidence on its hiring procedure. It explained that applicants are required to take theoretical and actual driving tests, and a psychological examination.

But the SC found that the company was not able to discharge the required burden of proving that it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employee. In fact, it was shown that Del Rosario didn't take driving tests and psychological exams when he applied for the position of a Truck Man. In addition, Mercury didn't present Del Rosario's NBI and police clearances. Further, the last seminar attended by the driver occurred a long 12 years before the accident occurred. Lastly, Mercury didn't have a backup driver for long trips. When the accident happened Del Rosario has been out on the road for more than 13 hours.

Del Rosario drove the company’s truck without him having any license. The negligence with regard to supervision over Mercury's employees is also emphazised by the fact that Mercury didn't impose any sanction on Del Rosario when the latter reported to the former about the incident.

In view of the above, it is clear that Mercury didn't exercise due diligence sufficient enough for it to be excused from liability.

LAW SCHOOL LIFE

The real score on law school and alcohol

Law school is so demanding an endeavor, no decent law student would want to deliberately skip clat asses for a tall glass of beer, no matter how deliciously ice cold such beverage is. It just isn't done. At all [. . .]

Should law students take a leave of absence until the COVID-19 pandemic ends?

For many, the abrupt shift to digital learning due to the pandemic is a novel concept that is particularly difficult to adjust to. This is more pronounced among law students, where daily physical interactions with classmates and professors are necessary in fostering a robust academic experience [. . .]

So you took the Bar Exams and failed. Now what?

Failing the Bar constitutes an abysmal point in any law graduate's life. It can trigger a lot of negative things, which is why it is very important that Bar examinees should have a support system to cling on to in the event of failure [. . .]

Bar review season pitfalls and tips to make reviewing for the Bar Exams less stressful

The Bar Exam review season is when reviewees try to conjur everything they have learned in law school and condense everything into neat mental folders easily retrievable when needed. Doing so requires focus, concentration, determination, and wise use of resources, particularly time and money [. . .]

The lowdown on law school entrance exams: Top 3 law schools in the Philippines

The top three law schools in the Philippines by reputation, quality of their alumni, and passing rate in the Bar exams are the College of Law of the University of the Philippines in Quezon City, the Ateneo School of Law in Makati, and the College of Law of the San Beda University in Manila. Each year these schools manage to attract graduates from all over the Philippines. As such, competition for slots in any of these schools is intense [. . .]

The Filipino law student's guide to scoring law textbooks on the cheap

Law books are often thick and heavy tomes of specialized legal information, mostly annotations of laws or statutes with a discussion of existing jurisprudence. They can be very intimidating. Even worse, they are bound to punch a gaping hole in your wallet [. . .]

To digest or not to digest -- that's the question

Relying on digests spares one the trouble of having to go through the case itself, identifying relevant facts, determining key issues, and analyzing the court's rationale in coming up with its decision [. . .]