SANTOS VS. SIBUG

SANTOS VS. SIBUG

G.R. NO. L-26815

May 26, 1981

Melencio-Herrera, J.

FACTS:

Vicente Vidad is a duly authorized passenger jeepney operator. Prior to the accident date, Santos was the owner of a passenger jeep, but he had no certificate of public convenience for the operation of the vehicle as a public passenger jeep. He then transferred his jeep to the name of Vidad so that it could be operated under the latter’s certificate of public convenience. Santos, in effect, became a kabit operator.

On the accident date, Sibug was bumped by a passenger jeepney operated by Vidad and driven by Gragas. As a result thereof, Sibug filed a complaint for damages against Vidad and Gragas.

The trial court sentenced Vidad and Gragas, jointly and severally, to pay Sibug for the damages he suffered.

Sheriff of Manila levied on a motor vehicle registered in the name of Vidad (but owned by Santos).

Santos presented a third-party claim with the Sheriff alleging actual ownership of the motor vehicle levied upon, and stating that registration thereof in the name of Vidad was merely to enable Santos to make use of Vidad’s certificate of public convenience.

ISSUE/S: WON the subject motor vehicle owned by Santos should be attached to satisfy the money judgment against Vidad who is the registered owner of the same.

RULING: YES.

Sec. 20 (g) of the Public Service Act: “... it shall be unlawful for any public service or for the owner, lessee or operator thereof, without the approval and authorization of the Commission previously had – ... (g) to sell, alienate, mortgage, encumber or lease its property, franchise, certificates, privileges, or rights, or any part thereof.”

In this case, Santos had fictitiously sold the jeepney to Vidad, who had become the registered owner and operator of record at the time of the accident. It is true that Vidad had executed a re-sale to Santos, but the document was not registered. Although Santos, as the kabit was the true owner as against Vidad, the latter, as the registered owner/operator and grantee of the franchise, is directly and primarily responsible and liable for the damages caused to Sibug, the injured party, as a consequence of the negligent or careless operation of the vehicle.

This ruling is based on the principle that the operator of record is considered the operator of the vehicle in contemplation of law as regards the public and third persons even if the vehicle involved in the accident had been sold to another where such sale had not been approved by the then Public Service Commission. For the same basic reason, as the vehicle here in question was registered in Vidad’s name, the levy on execution against said vehicle should be enforced so that the judgment in the Branch XVII case may be satisfied, notwithstanding the fact that the secret ownership of the vehicle belonged to another. Santos, as the kabit should not be allowed to defeat the levy on his vehicle and to avoid his responsibilities as a kabit owner for he had led the public to believe that the vehicle belonged to Vidad. This is one way of curbing the pernicious kabit system that facilitates the commission of fraud against the travelling public.