Vicarious Liability

Vicariously Liable For General Defense Specific Defenses and Remarks

Parents a. Minor children; Exercise of due diligence of • Lack of physical custody of adoptive parents (see
a good father of a family to Tamargo v. Court of Appeals).
b. Living in their company prevent damage
• Civil liability of parents under the Revised Penal
Guardians a. Minors or incapacitated Code and Article 2180 is direct and primary, not
persons; subsidiary.

b. Under their authority; • The Family Code effectively amended Article 2180,
which provides that the mother shall only be
c. Living in their company responsible in case of the father’s death or
incapacity.

• Note previous discussion on children below 9 being

conclusively presumed incapable of negligence. Is
this consistent with Article 2180?

Teachers a. Pupils and students; • Custody over victim is immaterial. Note the Court’s
mistaken focus on custody of the victim in Amadora v.
b. Under their custody Court of Appeals. What is essential is custody over the
perpetrator.
Heads of a. Apprentices;
establishments of
arts and trades b. Under their custody

Schools, a. Unemancipated minor Exercise of the proper • See Article 219, in relation to Article 218, of the Family
administrators and child; diligence required under the Code. In St. Mary’s Academy v. Carpitanos, Article
teachers particular circumstances 219 was treated as a quasi-delict rather than a source
b. Under their supervision, of vicarious liability, i.e. the negligence of the school
Individual, entity, or instruction or custody. must be the proximate cause of the injury. Is this
institution engaged in correct?
child care
• Article 219 of the Family Code is limited to minors. In
contrast, Article 2180 of the Civil Code is not.

• Authority and responsibility shall apply to all

authorized activities whether inside or outside the
premises of the school, entity or institution. See
Salvosa v. Intermediate Appellate Court – is ROTC a
school activity? Was the defendant staying because
Vicarious Liability
Vicariously Liable For
Owners and a. Employees;
managers of an
establishment or b. In the service of the
enterprise branches in which they
are employed, OR on
occasion of their
functions
Employers, including a. Employees and
those not engaged in household helpers;
business or industry
b. Acting within the scope
of their assigned tasks.
General Defense
Exercise of due diligence of
a good father of a family to
prevent damage
Specific Defenses and Remarks
of instructions of the ROTC Commander or the
school?
• “Manager” is understood to mean employer (see
Phil. Rabbit v. Phil. American).
• The presumption of negligence will arise upon proof of
(a) the ER-EE relationship; and (b) that employee was
acting within the scope of assigned functions.
• Defense of due diligence requires proof of due
diligence in (a) selection; and (b) supervision.
Selection – employer must have examined
qualifications, experience, and service record.
Supervision – the employer must have (i) issued
company rules/SOP; (ii) monitored their
implementation; and (iii) imposed disciplinary
measures for their breach. Concrete evidence of
compliance with these requisites, including
documents, must be presented by the employer.
Ensuring that a driver holds a professional driver’s
license is not sufficient compliance with requirements
of selection. See Lampesa v. De Vera.
• If a principal is found guilty of labor-only contracting,
the principal can be held vicariously liable under
Article 2180. See National Power Corporation v. Court
of Appeals.
• In cases where both the registered-owner rule and
Article 2180 apply, the plaintiff must first establish that
the employer is the registered owner of the vehicle in
question. Once the plaintiff successfully proves
ownership, there arises a disputable presumption that
the requirements of Article 2180 have been proven
(i.e. existence of ER-EE relationship and acting within
scope of assigned tasks). As a consequence, the
burden of proof shifts to the defendant to show that no
liability under Article 2180 has arisen (i.e. exercise of
Vicarious Liability

Vicariously Liable For General Defense Specific Defenses and Remarks

due diligence in selection and supervision). See
Caravan Travel and Tours International v. Abejar.

• Note also obiter in Fontanilla v. Maliaman: even if the

employer can provide diligence in selection and
supervision of the employee, if he ratifies the wrongful
acts or takes no step to avert further damage, the
employer would still be liable.

• In Professional Services v. Agana, PSI was held liable

under: (1) the doctrine of “ostensible agency.” Review
the circumstances that Supreme Court considered in
concluding that ostensible agency existed; and (2) the
principle of corporate negligence for its failure to
perform its duties as a hospital. Review judicial
admissions made by PSI.

• Rules on liability of hospitals under Professional

Services v. Agana:

1. Where an employment relationship exists, a

hospital can be held vicariously liable under
Articles 2176 and 2180 or the principle of
respondeat superior.

2. Where no employment relationship exists, if it is

shown that the hospital represents to the patient
that the doctor is its agent, the hospital may be
held liable under Articles 2176 in relation to Article
1431 and 1869 of the Civil Code, or the principle
of apparent authority.

3. Regardless of its relationship with the doctor, a

hospital may also be held directly liable to the
patient for (a) its own negligence; or (b) failure to
follow established standards of conduct to which
it should conform as a corporation.
Vicarious Liability

Vicariously Liable For General Defense Specific Defenses and Remarks

• Note the rules on vicarious liability of employers in the
context of employees’ use of company cars in Castilex
v. Vasquez.

State Damages caused by special • A special agent is someone duly empowered by a

agent. definite order or commission to perform some act or
charged with some definite purpose which gives rise
to the claim (see Meritt v. Government).

• Fontanilla v. Maliaman:

The liability of the State has two aspects, namely:

1. Its public or governmental aspects where it is

liable for the tortious acts of special agents only.

2. Its private or business aspects (as when it

engages in private enterprises) where it
becomes liable as an ordinary employer.

Under the afore-quoted paragraph 6 of Art. 2180, the

State has voluntarily assumed liability for acts done
through special agents. The State’s agent, if a public
official, must not only be specially commissioned
to do a particular task but that such task must be
foreign to said official’s usual governmental
functions.

If the State’s agent is not a public official, and is

commissioned to perform non-governmental
functions, then the State assumes the role of an
ordinary employer and will be held liable as such
for its agent’s tort. Where the government
commissions a private individual for a special
governmental task, it is acting through a special agent
within the meaning of the provision.

Certain functions and activities, which can be

performed only by the government, are more or less
Vicarious Liability

Vicariously Liable For General Defense Specific Defenses and Remarks

generally agreed to be “governmental” in character,
and so the State is immune from tort liability. On the
other hand, a service which might as well be provided
by a private corporation, and particularly when it
collects revenues from it, the function is considered a
“proprietary” one, as to which there may be liability for
the torts of agents within the scope of their
employment.

• Do you agree with the distinction between public and

proprietary functions of government?