Vicarious Liability of Employers and Other Persons Responsible for Acts of the Author of Negligence for Damage, Injury, or Death Caused by the Negligent Person

THE HEIRS OF THE LATE RUBEN REINOSO, SR vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al. G.R. No. 116121 July 18, 2011

Vicarious liability of an employer under Art. 2180, in relation to Art. 2176 of the New Civil Code.

If you are an owner of a commercial vehicle or even private vehicle driven by an employee or a helper acting within the scope of his or her assigned tasks, you may be held liable for damages caused by negligence of said employee.

The bigger problem is, in the event of an accident where the negligence of your employee has been determined, there arises a presumption of negligence on your part, as employer, in the selection and supervision of your employees. To overthrow the presumption, you have to convince the court that you exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of your employees.

In the case below, the Court provided a curt, but insightful  illustration of what constitutes diligence of a good father of a family in denying the defendant’s claim that he exercised the required diligence.

“The Court likewise sustains the finding of the RTC that the truck owner, Guballa, failed to rebut the presumption of negligence in the hiring and supervision of his employee. Article 2176, in relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Code, provides:

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

xxxx

Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Art. 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

xxxx

Employers shall be liable for the damage caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.

xxxx

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.

Whenever an employee’s negligence causes damage or injury to another, there instantly arises a presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection or supervision of his employee.²³ Thus, in the selection of prospective employees, employers are required to examine them as to their qualification, experience and service record. With respect to the supervision of employees, employers must formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation, and impose disciplinary measures for breaches thereof. These facts must be shown by concrete proof, including documentary evidence.²⁴ Thus, the RTC committed no error in finding that the evidence presented by respondent Guballa was wanting. It ruled:

x x x. As expected, defendant Jose Guballa, attempted to overthrow this presumption of negligence by showing that he had exercised the due diligence required of him by seeing to it that the driver must check the vital parts of the vehicle he is assigned to before he leaves the compound like the oil, water, brakes, gasoline, horn (9 tsn, July 17, 1986); and that Geronimo had been driving for him sometime in 1976 until the collision in litigation came about (5-6 tsn, ibid); that whenever his trucks gets out of the compound to make deliveries, it is always accompanied with two (2) helpers (16-17 tsn, ibid). This was all which he considered as selection and supervision in compliance with the law to free himself from any responsibility. This Court then cannot consider the foregoing as equivalent to an exercise of all the care of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his driver Mariano Geronimo."²⁵

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The May 20, 1994 Decision and June 30, 1994 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the March 22, 1988 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Manila, is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED." (emphasis added)

 

Award of Attorney’s Fees

xxx

With respect to the award of attorney's fees to respondents, no sufficient basis was established for the grant thereof.

It is well settled that attorney's fees should not be awarded in the absence of stipulation except under the instances enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code. As we have held in Rizal Surety and Insurance Company v. Court of Appeals:²³

Article 2208 of the Civil Code allows attorney's fees to be awarded by a court when its claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest by reason of an unjustified act or omission of the party from whom it is sought. While judicial discretion is here extant, an award thereof demands, nevertheless, a factual, legal or equitable justification. The matter cannot and should not be left to speculation and conjecture (Mirasol vs. De la Cruz, 84 SCRA 337; Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 173 SCRA 619).

In the case at bench, the records do not show enough basis for sustaining the award for attorney's fees and to adjudge its payment by petitioner. x x x.

Likewise, this Court held in Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals that:

"In Abrogar v. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 67970, January 15, 1988, 157 SCRA 57], the Court had occasion to state that '[t]he reason for the award of attorney's fees must be stated in the text of the court's decision, otherwise, if it is stated only in the dispositive portion of the decision, the same must be disallowed on appeal.' x x x."²⁴

Spouses Francisco M. Hernandez, et al. v. Spouses Lorenzo Dolor, et al.,  G.R. No. 160286, July 30, 2004

Read the full text of the case here.

Spouse, Legitimate and Illegitimate Descendants are Entitled to Moral Damages for One's Death. When may be denied.

xxx

As to the amount of moral damages which was awarded to respondents, a review of the records of this case shows that there exists no cogent reason to overturn the action of the appellate court on this aspect.

Under Article 2206, the "spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish for the death of the deceased." The reason for the grant of moral damages has been explained, thus:

. . . the award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration, within the limits possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; and therefore, it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. The intensity of the pain experienced by the relatives of the victim is proportionate to the intensity of affection for him and bears no relation whatsoever with the wealth or means of the offender.¹⁹

Moral damages are emphatically not intended to enrich a plaintiff at the expense of the defendant. They are awarded to allow the former to obtain means, diversion or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone due to the defendant's culpable action and must, perforce, be proportional to the suffering inflicted.²⁰

Truly, the pain of the sudden loss of one's offspring, especially of a son who was in the prime of his youth, and who holds so much promise waiting to be fulfilled is indeed a wellspring of intense pain which no parent should be made to suffer. While it is true that there can be no exact or uniform rule for measuring the value of a human life and the measure of damages cannot be arrived at by a precise mathematical calculation,²¹ we hold that the Court of Appeals' award of moral damages of P100,000.00 each to the Spouses Dolor and Spouses Valmocina for the death of their respective sons, Boyet Dolor and Oscar Valmocina, is in full accord with prevailing jurisprudence.²²

xxx

Spouses Francisco M. Hernandez, et al. v. Spouses Lorenzo Dolor, et al.,  G.R. No. 160286, July 30, 2004

Read the full text of the case here.

An Employer is Solidarily Liable with the Employee for Damages Caused by the Latter

xxx

Petitioners contend that the absence of the Hernandez spouses inside the passenger jeepney at the time of the collision militates against holding them solidarily liable with their co-petitioner, Juan Gonzales, invoking Article 2184 of the Civil Code, which provides:

ARTICLE 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months.

If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of article 2180 are applicable.

The Hernandez spouses argues that since they were not inside the jeepney at the time of the collision, the provisions of Article 2180 of the Civil Code, which does not provide for solidary liability between employers and employees, should be applied.

We are not persuaded.

Article 2180 provides:

ARTICLE 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.

Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company.

The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.

The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable.

Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. (Underscoring supplied)

On the other hand, Article 2176 provides –

Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

While the above provisions of law do not expressly provide for solidary liability, the same can be inferred from the wordings of the first paragraph of Article 2180 which states that the obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

Moreover, Article 2180 should be read with Article 2194 of the same Code, which categorically states that the responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary. In other words, the liability of joint tortfeasors is solidary.¹² Verily, under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, an employer may be held solidarily liable for the negligent act of his employee.¹³

xxx

Spouses Francisco M. Hernandez, et al. v. Spouses Lorenzo Dolor, et al.,  G.R. No. 160286, July 30, 2004

Read the full text of the case here.

What This Law Blog Aims To Achieve

It is amazing how times have changed. Ten to twenty years ago, only a few had a sense of what the internet could do. During those times legal services were most exclusive to, and restrictive in favor of, a relatively small number of people: mostly those who could afford to burn some cash for it. Incidentally, that was the same time the haves grew their wealth fastest, in some instances, at the expense of the have-nots. If you can litigate, you can win.

Fast forward to the present. Law and everything else are on the net. Everything that requires information has become a lot more accessible to all, rather than the traditional few. Google, for example, has revolutionized how we utilize information online, and it is rewarded handsomely in its share value today.

While paid legal services, unlike goods and pretty much every other service, continue to be prohibited online, owing to the puristic ideals by which traditional hard core legal conformists regard law practice (you can’t advertise legal practice: it is not business it is profession), free legal advice has become a matter of social connection.

While it’s true that lawyers charge relatively hefty amount (understandably because one has to endure nine years of college torture before he could take a crack at the Bar and, only if lucky enough, start clawing himself (never a walk in the park for beginning lawyers) in drudgery to recouping his investment earning a living–you’ll get chastised using the line), many are earnestly willing to provide free legal advice, at times leading to pro bono court representations.

With tons of articles, conversations in forum sites, the Codes and laws themselves, jurisprudence, and opinions, that graciously litter the web, one could get answers to otherwise costly legal questions for free. This bodes well for bridging the gaping divide for legal service access between two groups of people.

I would like to believe this ushers in the likelihood of more peace. When people feel they can be vindicated in law, vendetta slowly vanishes to oblivion.

With that optimism in mind, this law blog seeks to inform the readers on Philippines laws and legal developments, and respond to their legal quandaries.

Warning: This is aimed at both lawyers, law students, and Juan and all. There may be articles or posts, which find purpose only for lawyers and law students. If you chance upon them, you may try to see and appreciate what we endeavor to acquaint ourselves with, sometimes presented in no other way but discombobulated, other times you may actually find them easier to grasp (or so i thought), but at any rate, just have fun. It's like cracking a code.

If you don't find any use for them at all, my apologies, and I encourage you to browse through other posts that may respond to your query.