sic itur ad astra

Transportation Law | Boundary System A passenger jeepney owned by Delfin Bernardo and driven by Conrado Roque, under a boundary system arrangement, figured in an accident that killed an 8-year-old child, Cesar Magboo. Under their agreement, Roque paid a fixed daily amount to Bernardo for the use of the jeepney, while keeping the remaining earnings. Roque was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence and ordered to indemnify the victim’s parents, but he was unable to pay due to insolvency. The parents then filed an action against Bernardo to enforce his subsidiary liability as employer under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. Bernardo argued that no employer-employee relationship existed, claiming that the boundary system created only a lessor-lessee relationship. The issue is whether a jeepney owner under the boundary system is considered an employer and thus subsidiarily liable for the driver’s liability. The Supreme Court ruled that Bernardo is subsidiarily liable, holdi...

Transportation Law | Kabit System Spouses Nicasio M. Ocampo and Francisca Garcia purchased five taxicabs but, lacking a franchise, entered into an arrangement with Lita Enterprises, Inc. to operate the vehicles under its certificate of public convenience for a fee—an arrangement known as the kabit system. The vehicles were registered in Lita’s name but remained in the possession and control of the spouses, who operated them. One of the taxicabs figured in an accident causing the death of a motorcyclist, leading to a civil case where Lita, as registered owner, was held liable. After execution of judgment and sale of some vehicles, the spouses later demanded transfer of registration of the remaining units to their names. The lower courts granted relief in their favor. The issue is whether parties to a kabit system arrangement can seek relief from the courts and enforce rights arising from such agreement. The Supreme Court ruled that no relief can be granted to either party, because th...

Transportation Law | Registered Owner Rule A jeep owned by Gualberto Duavit was taken from his garage without his knowledge or consent by Oscar Sabiniano, who was not his employee. While driving along Ortigas Avenue, Sabiniano negligently collided with another jeep carrying Antonio Sarmiento, Sr. and Virgilio Catuar , causing serious injuries and damage. The victims filed a case for damages against both Sabiniano and Duavit. The trial court held only Sabiniano liable, finding no employer-employee relationship and no consent from Duavit. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding Duavit jointly and severally liable as the registered owner. The issue is whether the registered owner of a private vehicle can be held liable under the registered owner rule despite the vehicle being taken without his consent and driven by a non-employee. The Supreme Court ruled that Duavit is not liable, and clarified that the registered owner rule does not apply where the vehicle was used without the o...