Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 203, which affirmed on Appeal the Decision2 dated 31 August 2006 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Muntinlupa City, Branch 80, finding merit in respondents' Complaint for Sum of Money and Damages, in Civil Case No. 5191.

The operative facts are uncomplicated. Petitioner Mencorp Transport Systems, Inc. (Mencorp) is engaged in the transportation business operating a fleet of passenger buses known as Dominion Bus Lines (Dominion Bus). Respondent Abgretch International Movers, Inc. (Abgretch) is a trucker, hauler, and forwarder.

At or about 9:45 o'clock in the evening of 19 October 2001 along McArthur Highway, Barangay Lourdes, Bamban, Tarlac, an accident occurred involving one of Mencorp's buses bearing Plate Number AVK-8353 and driven by Wendy Mendiola Jr., Abgretch's Isuzu ten-wheeler truck (Plate Number UTV-367)4 driven by respondent Silverio Ajos (Ajos), and a Toyota Aerostar (Plate Number CHS-959),5 driven by one Nestor Vigila.

The Police Report revealed that the Dominion Bus was traveling northward when its steering wheel suddenly went "wild and uncontrollable" owing to the heavy downpour of rain and the slippery road. It turned around, encroached the lane for south-moving vehicles, and rammed into the front part of the ten-wheeler truck. The Toyota Aerostar, which was trailing behind the ten-wheeler truck, bumped into the rear portion of the latter vehicle. As a result thereof, Abgretch's truck was badly wrecked. Ajos, two truck helpers, and the occupants of the Isuzu truck were injured and rushed to the nearest hospital for medical treatment.

2 Id., pp. 78-82.

3 Rollo, p. 40.

Asserting that Mencorp was at fault and that its driver failed to exercise due negligence in operating the Dominion Bus, Abgretch instituted a Complaint before the MeTC, represented by Roberto Aguinaldo, the ten-wheeler truck was out of use, its General Manager. During such time that Abgretch averred that it lost earnings for 20 days, equivalent to losses at P3,000.00 daily.

In the meantime, Ajos intervened in the suit claiming that before the fateful accident, he was earning P350.00 a day as a driver for Abgretch. Owing to his injuries, he could no longer drive and earn a living. He averred that Mencorp refused to pay for his medical bills which at the time he instituted his Motion in Intervention had amounted to P63,760.35. He thus prayed for reimbursement of his hospital bills, loss of income, damages and attorney's fees.8

Mencorp disclaimed liability insisting that the accident was due to a fortuitous event. It advanced the theory that Ajos was primarily negligent, having placed himself within the operation of the maxim Volenti Non Fit Injuria.9 Mencorp avowed that it could not be at fault for it had always exercised diligence in selecting and supervising its own emplyees.10

Ploughing through the respective postures of the parties, the MeTC rendered a Decision, disposing thusly—

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in the following manner:

1. Ordering (Mencorp) to pay (Abgretch) the amount of P60,000.00 as loss of income for 20 days of the (Abgretch's) Isuzu Ten Wheeler Truck;

2. Ordering (Mencorp) to pay intervenor Silverio Ajos the amount of P63,750.35 as reimbursement for the actual medical expenses he spent to recover his injury;

3. Ordering (Mencorp) to pay the intervenor Silverio Ajos P46,200.00 as his salary loss from October 19, 2001 up to the filing of this complaint; and

4

Rollo, p.62.

Negligence is the failure to observe, for the protection of the interest of another person, that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. 12

We are exasperated by petitioner's insolent claim that its driver operated the Dominion Bus with utmost diligence and that the cause of the accident was the deluge of rain and the slippery road. If We believe hook, line and sinker such pretext, then every driver would be involved in a senseless road mishap during a heavy downpour. There is no reason why the steering wheel of the Dominion Bus would suddenly become "wild and uncontrollable"13 if it were not for the driver's recklessness. He should have taken all the necessary safety precautions, observing considerable speed at a slippery highway, at such a time when there was almost zero visibility due to the rain. Clearly, petitioner's driver failed to exercise reasonable care which ordinarily a prudent person would have used in the same situation. This is plain and simple negligence the immediate and proximate cause of the accident.

Along this vein, We resonate the MeTC's discourse

From (the) set of facts, it could be well inferred that (petitioner's) driver was at fault and negligent in exercising the extra diligence and caution required of him by the attending circumstances of night time, slippery road and sudden downpour of rain. These circumstances are not fortuitous events upon which (petitioner) claimed as the proximate cause of the damage and injury suffered by (respondent Abgretch and respondent Ajos). These are the expected factors that could have cautioned the bus driver in lowering down the speed which he did not do so causing the tires to slip and the steering wheel to go wild. Having been thrown away and stopped only at a place away from the place it slipped and hit (respondent Abgretch's) truck, as shown in the sketch of the investigating officer, proves the fact that the bus was travelling at a considerable high speed.***

12 National Power Corporation vs. Heirs of Noble Casionan, 572 SCRA 71, 81 (27 November 2008). 13 lbid.

Neither is (petitioner's) contention that (respondent) Ajos' voluntar(il)y assumed the risk from a known danger, under the principle of Volenti non fit injuria (Consent to Injury) and he therefore must abide by the consequences meritorious. There was no showing that (respondent) Ajos was similarly at fault and equally contributed to the accident. The truck he drove did not slip nor was it out of its lane. Common observation shows that slippery wet roads do not necessarily result in similar incident except when vehicle drivers fail to exercise the due diligence, caution and care needed for safety driving."14

Having thus settled the pressing issue on the negligence of the driver of Dominion Bus, there instantly arises a presumption juris tantum that there was negligence on the part of the employer, herein petitioner, either in the selection of the employee (culpa in eligiendo) or the supervision over him after the selection (culpa in vigilando). 15 For the employer to avoid the solidary liability for a tort committed by his employee, an employer must rebut the presumption by presenting adequate and convincing proof that in the selection and supervision of his employee, he or she exercises the care and diligence of a good father of a family. 16 To fend off vicarious liability, employers must submit concrete proof, including documentary evidence, that they complied with everything that was incumbent on them.17

Lamentably, the records are bleak of evidence on the qualification, safety record, and driving history of petitioner's driver. As the presumption of negligence remains unrebutted, petitioner cannot escape vicarious liability for the quasi-delict committed by its employee. The responsibility of employers for the negligence of their employees in the performance of their duties is primary, that

14 Rollo, pp. 80-81.

15 See Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 386 SCRA 126, 133 (1 August 2002).

16 Estacion v. Bernardo, 483 SCRA 222, 237 (27 February 2006), quoting Yambao v. Zuniga, 418 SCRA 266, 273 (11 December 2003).

17 Manliclic vs. Calaunan, 512 SCRA 642, 664 (25 January 2007).

is, the injured party may recover from the employers directly, regardless of the solvency of their employees.18

Next, We dwell on the propriety of damages. Petitioner assails the award of loss of income to both respondents, medical reimbursement to respondent Ajos, and attorney's fees.

The court a quo affirmed the MeTC's award of loss of income and medical reimbursement based on preponderance of evidence— "affidavits, position papers and bundles of documents"19 which positively bolstered respondents' entitlement to these grants. Against these compelling proof, petitioner feebly argued that respondents could not have possibly earned that much in a day. Such bare allegation blows no hole in the respondents' cause. Ineluctably, We refuse to digress from the conclusion of the lower tribunals as they had the unique opportunity of scrutinizing the evidence proffered by respondents.

Likewise, We uphold the award of into this litigation because of their attorney's fees. Respondents were drawn uncompromising cry for damages ensuing from petitioner's negligence and its obstinate refusal to acknowledge its liability. They were compelled to hire an attorney to protect and defend their interests.20 The award of P10,000.00 for attorney's fees is just and reasonable given the circumstances prevailing in this case.

right of respondent Ajos to intervene. Finally, We thresh out the issue on the

Petitioner advances the theory that this case was covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure so that the Motion for Intervention was a prohibited pleading. The MeTC then had no jurisdiction to rule on the claims of respondent Ajos.

18 Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 495, 502 (16 November 1998). 19 Rollo, p. 31.

20 See Lagon v. Hooven Comalco Industries, Inc., 349 SCRA 363, 383 (17 January 2001).