Topic:Apprentices FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. [ .R. No. !"##$. Octo%er #&, #''(.

) Ponente: KAPUNAN, J.: N*t+re: This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC of Ro!as Cit", which found petitioner #ilamer Christian $nstitute and %aniel #untecha negligent and therefore answera&le for the resulting injuries caused to private respondent Potenciano Kapunan, 'r( F*cts: Private respondent Potenciano Kapunan, 'r(, an eight")two)"ear old retired schoolteacher (now deceased , was struc* &" the Pino" jeep owned &" petitioner #ilamer and driven &" its alleged emplo"ee, #untecha, as Kapunan, 'r( was wal*ing along Ro!as Avenue, Ro!as Cit"( As a result, he suffered multiple injuries for which he was hospitali+ed for a total of twent" (,- da"s( .vidence showed that at the precise time of the vehicular accident, onl" one headlight of the jeep was functioning( #untecha, who onl" had a student driver/s permit, was driving after having persuaded Allan 0asa, the authori+ed driver, to turn over the wheels to him( The two fled from the scene after the incident( A tric"cle driver &rought the unconscious victim to the hospital( Thereafter, Kapunan, 'r( instituted a criminal case against #untecha alone for serious ph"sical injuries through rec*less imprudence and reserved his right to file an independent civil action( The inferior court found #untecha guilt" as charged and on appeal, his conviction was affirmed( Pursuant to his reservation, Kapunan, 'r( commenced a civil case for damages &efore the RTC of Ro!as Cit"( Named defendants in the complaint were petitioner #ilamer and #untecha( Also included was Agustin 0asa, the director and president of #ilamer Christian $nstitute, in his personal capacit" in that he personall" authori+ed and allowed said %aniel #untecha who was his house&o" at the time of the incident, to drive the vehicle in 1uestion despite his *nowledge and awareness that the latter did not have the necessar" license or permit to drive said vehicle( 2is son, Allan 0asa, who was with #untecha at the time of the accident, was not impleaded as a co)defendant( The trial court rendered judgment finding not onl" petitioner #ilamer and #untecha to &e at fault &ut also Allan 0asa, a non) part"( The Appellate Court rendered the assailed judgment affirming the trial court/s decision in toto( 2ence this present recourse &" petitioner #ilamer averring that it cannot &e held responsi&le for the tortious act of #untecha on the ground that there is no e!isting emplo"er)emplo"ee relationship &etween them( Iss+e: 3hether or not #ilamer cannot &e held responsi&le for the tortious act of #untecha on the ground that there is no e!isting emplo"er)emplo"ee relationship &etween them( R+,in-: 4.'( Petitioner #ilamer cannot &e considered as #untecha/s emplo"er( #untecha &elongs to that special categor" of students who render service to the school in e!change for free tuition #untecha wor*ed for petitioner for two hours dail" for five da"s a wee*( 2e was assigned to clean the school passagewa"s with sufficient time to prepare for his classes( As admitted &" Agustin 0asa in open court, #untecha was not even included in the compan" pa"roll( The wording of 'ection 56 is clear and e!plicit and leaves no room for e1uivocation( $t is o&viousl" intended to eliminate a gra" area in la&or relations and see*s to define in categorical terms the precise status of wor*ing scholars in relation to the learning institutions in which the" wor* for the privilege of a free education( 7ut even if we were to concede the status of an emplo"ee on #untecha, still the primar" responsi&ilit" for his wrongdoing cannot &e imputed to petitioner #ilamer for the plain reason that at the time of the accident, it has &een satisfactoril" shown that #untecha was not acting within the scope of his supposed emplo"ment( Private respondents/ attempt to hold petitioner #ilamer directl" and primaril" answera&le to the injured part" under Article ,58of the Civil Code would have prospered had the" proceeded against Allan 0asa, the authori+ed driver of the Pino" jeep and undisputa&l" an emplo"ee of petitioner( $t was Allan/s irresponsi&le act of entrusting the wheels of the vehicle to the ine!perienced #untecha which set into motion the chain of events leading to the accident resulting in injuries to Kapunan, 'r( 7ut under the present set of circumstances, even if the trial court did find Allan guilt" of negligence, such conclusion would not &e &inding on Allan( $t must &e recalled that Allan was never impleaded in the complaint for damages and should &e considered as a stranger as far as the trial court/s judgment is concerned( $t is a!iomatic that no man shall &e affected &" a proceeding to which he is a stranger( .ispositive Portion: 32.R.#9R., in view of the foregoing, the decision under review of the Court of Appeals is here&" '.T A'$%.( The complaint for damages is ordered %$'0$''.% as against petitioner #ilamer Christian $nstitute for lac* of cause of action( No costs( '9 9R%.R.%(