Ernesto Martin vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Manila Electric Company
G.R. No. 82248, January 30, 1992
205 SCRA 591
PETITION for review from the decision of the Court of Appeals
FACTS:
A private car owned by petitioner Ernesto Martin crashed into a Meralco electric post while being driven by Nestor Martin. Meralco demanded reparation from the owner but the demand was rejected so it filed a suit for damages against the latter as the alleged employer of the driver. The petitioner’s main defense was that Nestor Martin was not his employee.
ISSUES:
1. Can existence of an employer-employee relationship be presumed?
2. Who has the burden of proving one’s cause of action?
RULING:
1. Employment relationship between Ernesto Martin and Nestor Martin could not be presumed. It is neither presumption juris nor presumption hominis. Based on the facts presented by the parties, the deduction made is not among the conclusive or disputable presumptions under the Rules of Court. Neither is it a presumption hominis because the facts proved, or not denied, such as the ownership of the car and the circumstances of the accident, are not enough bases for the inference that the petitioner is the employer of Nestor Martin.
A presumption is defined as an inference as to the existence of a fact not actually known, arising from its usual connection with another which is known, or a conjecture based on past experience as to what course human affairs ordinarily take. It is either a presumption juris, or of law, or a presumption hominis, or of fact.
2. Ei incumbit probotio qui dicit, non qui negat. The Court applied the ancient rule that “if the plaintiff, upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of action, fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which he bases his claim, the defendant is under no obligation to prove his exception or defense. As the employment relationship between Ernesto Martin and Nestor Martin could not be presumed, it was necessary for the plaintiff to establish it by evidence. Meralco had the burden of proof, or the duty “to present evidence on the fact in issue necessary to establish his claim” as required by Rule 131, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court. Failure to do this was fatal to its action. It was enough for the defendant to deny the alleged employment relationship, without more, for he was not under obligation to prove this negative averment.
Tort
It is important to stress that the complaint for damages was filed by the private respondent against only Ernesto Martin as alleged employer of Nestor Martin, the driver of the car at the time of the accident. Nestor Martin was not impleaded. The action was based on tort under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, providing in part that:
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.
The above rule is applicable only if there is an employer-employee relationship although it is not necessary that the employer be engaged in any business or industry. It differs in this sense from Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, which requires that the employer be engaged in an industry to be subsidiarily liable for the felony committed by his employee in the course of his employment.
Employment Relationship
Whether or not engaged in any business or industry, the employer under Article 2180 is liable for the torts committed by his employees within the scope of their assigned task. But it is necessary first to establish the employment relationship. Once this is done, the plaintiff must show, to hold the employer liable, that the employee was acting within the scope of his assigned task when the tort complained of was committed. It is only then that the defendant, as employer, may find it necessary to interpose the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee as allowed in that article.
Myline Cordial 
Leave a comment