Vicarious liability is an essential legal concept in the Philippines, where one party can be held responsible for the actions of another. It is important to understand the intricacies of this concept, especially under the New Civil Code.
What is vicarious liability?
There is vicarious lability (also called the “Doctrine of Imputed Negligence”) where a person is not only liable for torts committed by himself, but also for torts committed by others with whom he has certain relationship and for whom he is responsible.
Vicarious liability encompasses the moral responsibility which may consist in having failed to exercise due care in one’s own acts, or in having failed to exercise due care in selection and control of one’s agents or servants, or in the control of persons who, by reasons of their status, occupy a position of dependency with respect to the person made liable for their conduct.
Who are vicariously liable?
The following are liable for acts committed by another:
- Persons liable for acts committed by minors;
- Guardians;
- Owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise;
- Employers;
- State;
- Schools, teachers, and administrators;
- Other persons vicariously liable:
- Innkeepers and hotelkeepers;
- Partnerships; and
- Spouses.
What is an available defense of persons cited in Arts. 2176 and 2180 in order to free themselves from vicarious liability?
The responsibility treated in Article 2180 shall cease when the persons mentioned proved that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
What is the nature of the responsibility of an employer for the negligence of his employees?
The responsibility of an employer for the negligence of his employees in the performance of his duties is primary, that is, the injured party may recover from the employer directly, regardless of the solvency of his employees.
The liability is likewise solidary with the employee consistent with Article 2194 of the New Civil Code. Consequently, the employee is not even an indispensable party in a case against the employer. It is not necessary for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the employee because there is no merger or renunciation of rights but only mutual representation. The employee is not even a necessary party because complete relief is available from either.
Nevertheless, this vicarious lability is applicable only it there is an employer-employee relationship.This employer-employe relationship cannot be presumed but must be sufficiently proven by the plaintiff. The plaintiff must also show that the employes was acting within the scope of his assigned tasks when the tort complained of was committed.
What is the “borrowed employee rule”?
An employer-employee relationship still exists even if the employee was loaned by the employer to another person or entity because control over the employee subsists. Thus, to illustrate, the vicarious lability of a municipality as employer remains even if its driver-employee was assigned to the mayor.
What are the rules for the liability of schools, its teachers, and administrators, and the Individual or entity engaged in childcare for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices?
For minor children, under the Family Code, the school, is administrators and teachers. or the individual, entity or institution engaged in childcare:
- Shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody
- Such authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution
- They shall as principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the ads or omissions of the unemancipated minor while the parents, judicial guardians, or the persons exercising substitute parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable.
Note: The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under the particular circumstances.
Article 218 of the Family Code does not make any distinction as to the kind of school that has substitute parental authority over minor children.
What are possible defenses of the employer who is sought to be made vicariously liable for the acts of its employees?
The following are possible defenses:
- That the employer had no employment relationship with the employee;
- That the employee acted outside the scope of his assigned tasks; or
- That the employer exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of the employee.
What is the remedy of persons who are made responsible for others?
Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim.
When is the State made, responsible for others?
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 property pertains, in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable.
Who are special agents for whose acts the state is made responsible?
Under Art. 2180; par. 6 the New Civil Code, the State voluntarily assumes liability for acts done, through special agents, thus:
- If the state agent is a public official, the agent must be specially commissioned to do a particular task, and 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 for its agent’s tort; and
- 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.
Note: Certain functions and activities which can only be performed by the government are generally “governmental in character, and so the State is immune from tort liability. On the other hand, a service which can also be provided by a private corporation and by virtue of which, it collects revenues, is considered a “proprietary function”, and so there may be liability for the torts of agents within the scope of their employment
A special agent is one who receives a definite and fixed order or commission, foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office if he is a special official.
Vicarious liability is a significant legal concept under the New Civil Code of the Philippines. It ensures that employers and principals are held accountable for the actions of their employees and agents when those actions occur within the scope of their duties. Understanding this concept is crucial for both victims seeking compensation and those looking to minimize their potential liability.
Source:
The New Civil Code
The Family Code
The Revised Penal Code
