1990

Alvarez, Miguel Lorenzo O.

Johnny owns a Sarao jeepney. He asked his neighbor Van if he could operate the said jeepney under Vans certificate of public convenience. Van agreed and, accordingly, Johnny registered his jeepney under Van name. On June 10, 1990, one of the passenger jeepneys operated by Van bumped Tomas. Tomas was injured and in due time, he filed a complaint for damages against Van and his driver for the injuries he suffered. The court rendered judgment in favor of Tomas and ordered Van and his driver, jointly and severally, to pay Tomas actual and moral damages, attorneys fees, and costs. The Sheriff levied on the jeepney belonging to Johnny but registered in the name of Van. Johnny filed a 3rd party claim with the Sheriff alleging ownership of the jeepney levied upon and stating that the jeepney was registered in the name of Van merely to enable Johnny to make use of Vans certificate of public convenience. May the Sheriff proceed with the public auction of Johnnys jeepney. Discuss with reasons.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:Yes, the Sheriff may proceed with the auction sale of Johnnys jeepney. In contemplation of law as regards the public and third persons, the vehicle is considered the property of the registered operator (Santos vs. Sibug 104 SCRA 520)

Peter so hailed a taxicab owned and operated by Jimmy Cheng and driven by Hermie Cortez. Peter asked Cortez to take him to his office in Malate. On the way to Malate, the taxicab collided with a passenger jeepney, as a result of which Peter was injured, i.e., he fractured his left leg. Peter sued Jimmy for damages, based upon a contract of carriage, and Peter won. Jimmy wanted to challenge the decision before the SC on the ground that the trial court erred in not making an express finding as to whether or not Jimmy was responsible for the collision and, hence, civilly liable to Peter. He went to see you for advice. What will you tell him? Explain

SUGGESTED ANSWER:I will counsel Jimmy to desist from challenging the decision. The action of Peter being based on culpa contractual, the carriers negligence is presumed upon the breach of contract. The burden of proof instead would lie on Jimmy to establish that despite an exercise of utmost diligence the collision could not have been avoided