Week 4 Case 10 G.R. No. 181398 Flashcards
Petitioner FEB Leasing & Finance Corporation is the registered owner of the Tanker.
BG Hauler, Inc. is the lessee of the tanker.
Estilloso is the driver of the tanker and is the employee of BG Hauler, Inc.
FGU Insurance is the insurer.
Does the registered owner of a financially leased vehicle remain liable for loss, damage, or injury caused by the vehicle notwithstanding an
exemption provision in the financial lease contract?
RA 5980 was still in effect that time. It was amended by RA 8556, which exempts liability in case of any loss, damage, or injury to third persons the registered owners of vehicles financially leased to another, but this was not yet enacted at that time.
Yes.
In PCI Leasing & Finance, Inc. v. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 162267, July 4, 2008:
A registered owner is liable, not the lessee and the lessee’s driver, for damages arising from a collision, despite express provision in the lease contract to the effect that the lessee shall indemnify and hold the registered owner free from any liabilities, damages, suits, claims, or judgments arising from lessee’s usage of the leased motor vehicle.
What are the consequences due to the petitioner as stipulated in its lease contract between BG Hauler, Inc.
In the present case, petitioner did not
file a cross-claim against BG Hauler. Hence, this Court cannot require BG Hauler to reimburse
petitioner for the latter’s liability to the spouses Baylon. However, as the registered owner of the oil
tanker, petitioner may not escape its liability to third persons.
What is stipulated in Section 5 of RA 4136?
What is stipulated in Section 5 of RA 4136 is the compulsory motor vehicle registration.
All motor vehicles used or operated on or upon any highway of the Philippines must be registered with the Bureau of Land Transportation (now Land Transportation Office) for the current year. Furthermore, any encumbrances of motor vehicles must be recorded with the Land Transportation Office in order to be valid against third parties.
What is the responsibility of a registered owner of motor vehicles to the public and third persons?
In accordance with the law on compulsory motor vehicle registration, this Court has consistently ruled that, with respect to the public and third persons, the registered owner of a motor vehicle is directly and primarily responsible for the consequences of its operation regardless of who the actual vehicle owner might be. Well-settled is the rule that the registered owner of the vehicle is liable for quasi-delicts resulting from its use. Thus, even if the vehicle has already been sold, leased, or transferred to another person at the time the vehicle figured in an accident, the registered vehicle owner would still be liable for damages caused by the accident. The sale, transfer or lease of the vehicle, which is not registered with the Land Transportation Office, will not bind third persons aggrieved in an accident involving the vehicle. The compulsory motor vehicle registration underscores the importance of registering the vehicle in the name of the actual owner.
What is the policy behind the rule of compulsory motor vehicle registration?
The policy behind the rule is to enable the victim to find redress by the expedient recourse of identifying the registered vehicle owner in the records of the Land Transportation Office. The registered owner can be reimbursed by the actual owner, lessee or transferee who is known to him. Unlike the registered owner, the innocent victim is not privy to the lease, sale, transfer or encumbrance of the vehicle. Hence, the victim should not be prejudiced by the failure to register such transaction or encumbrance.
What reasoning to the public policy and rule in compulsory motor vehicle registration is espoused in PCI Leasing & Finance, Inc. v. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.?
The burden of registration of the lease contract is minuscule compared to the chaos that may result if registered owners or operators of vehicles are freed from such responsibility. Petitioner pays the price for its failure to obey the law on compulsory registration of motor vehicles for registration is a pre-requisite for any person to even enjoy the privilege of putting a vehicle on public roads.
What reasoning to the public policy and rule in compulsory motor vehicle registration is espoused in Erezo v. Jepte?
The main aim of motor vehicle registration is to identify the owner so that if any accident happens, or
that any damage or injury is caused by the vehicle on the public highways, responsibility therefor can be fixed on a definite individual, the registered owner. Instances are numerous where vehicles
running on public highways caused accidents or injuries to pedestrians or other vehicles without positive identification of the owner or drivers, or with very scant means of identification. It is to forestall these circumstances, so inconvenient or prejudicial to the public, that the motor vehicle registration is primarily ordained, in the interest of the determination of persons responsible for damages or injuries caused on public highways.
Why is the protection of victims against registered vehicle owners (especially those who try to evade responsibility) necessary?
Were a registered owner allowed to evade responsibility by proving who the supposed transferee or owner is, it would be easy for him, by collusion with others or, or otherwise, to escape said responsibility and transfer the same to an indefinite person, or to one who possesses no property with which to respond financially for the damage or injury done. A victim of recklessness on the public highways is usually without means to discover or identify the person actually causing the injury or damage. He has no means other than by a recourse to the registration in the Motor Vehicles Office to determine who is the owner. The protection that the law aims to extend to him would become illusory were the registered owner given the opportunity to escape liability by disproving his ownership. If the policy of the law is to be enforced and carried out, the registered owner should not be allowed to prove the contrary to the prejudice of the person injured, that is to prove that a third person or another has become the owner, so that he may be thereby be relieved of the responsibility to the injured person.
