Chapter 15
The Defendants
By Group 2
Members: Cariaga, Dulay,
Regio, and Zuñiga
Once Upon a
Tort..
...defendants, from
bosses to parents to
the state, danced
around liability, each
hoping someone else
would take the fall...
Concurrent Negligence & Vicarious Liability
What is Concurrent Negligence?
Definition & Rule:
Arises when the negligent acts or omissions of two or more persons
proximately cause a single injury (Joint Tortfeasorship).
Key Rule (Art. 2194 NCC): The liability of joint tortfeasors is solidary.
The injured party can demand and recover the total damages from any
one of the tortfeasors.
Who is a Joint Tortfeasor?
Based on Worcester v. Ocampo, anyone who commands, instigates,
promotes, cooperates in, aids, or abets the commission of a tort.
Types of Joint Tortfeasors
1.By Cooperation:
Parties who cooperate in bringing about a result are
solidarily liable, even if their cooperation is formalized by a
written agreement (Chan v. Iglesia ni Cristo).
2.Part of Causal Set:
Each person's act or omission is an efficient part of the
cause; the fact that they acted without prior agreement or
malice does not matter.
3.Separate Causal Sets:
Persons who acted separately or independently are still
joint tortfeasors if their concurrent or successive negligent
acts are the proximate causes of a single injury (e.g.,
collision involving two vehicles).
Reimbursement (Art. 1217)
A tortfeasor who pays the full solidary debt can seek reimbursement from co-debtors
for their respective shares.
Apportionment
The share of liability among tortfeasors is determined by comparative negligence (e.g.,
Allied Bank v. Lim Sio Wan where the Court imposed a 60:40 liability split).
Motor Vehicles (Art. 2184)
The owner who is in the vehicle is solidarily liable with the driver.
This liability is not vicarious, but based on the owner's own concurrent negligence
(failure to exercise due diligence to prevent the mishap).
Vicarious Liability: Core Concepts 💼
Quasi-Delict (Art. 2176 NCC)
NOT the doctrine of Respondeat Superior (strict liability).
Basis: The employer/person's own negligence in the selection
and supervision of the employee/minor.
Defense: Liability ceases if they prove they exercised the due
diligence of a good father of a family.
Justification: Enterprise Theory (losses are a natural risk of
the business).
Delict / Crime (Art. 103 RPC)
IS the doctrine of Respondeat Superior (strict liability).
Basis: Strict, absolute, and subsidiary liability for a felony
committed by an employee in the discharge of their duties.
Defense: Due diligence in selection and supervision is not a
valid defense under the RPC.
Vicarious Liability: Persons Liable (Art. 2180)
Parents: Now principally and solidarily liable for their unemancipated minors (Art. 219,
Family Code). Fault is presumed (Libi v. IAC).
Guardians: Liable for minors or incapacitated persons under their authority.
Employers/Owners/Managers: Liable for employees/household helpers acting within
the scope of their assigned tasks.
Schools: Also principally and solidarily liable (Art. 218, Family Code).
Amadora Rule: The teacher-in-charge is generally liable for students in custody.
Exception: The Head of School is liable for Schools of Arts and Trades due to the
inherently high-risk activities.
State: Liable only when acting through a special agent.
Liability of Employers under the
New Civil Code
General Principle: Owners and managers are directly and primarily
liable for damages caused by their employees’ negligence within
the scope of their assigned tasks. Liability is solidary with the
employee
Vicarious liability attaches if:
1. Employer-Employee relationship exists;
2. Employee is negligent;
3. Act done in performance of assigned task.
Application of Control and Employment
Independent Contractors: Not liable since the control test is not met; liability
rests on the contractor (e.g., security agency).
Borrowed Employee Rule: The original employer remains liable as long as control
over the employee continues.
Working Scholars: Considered employees for Art. 2180 purposes; the employer
remains vicariously liable.
Labor-Only Contracting: In labor-only contracting, the principal is deemed the
direct employer and is solidarily liable with the contractor.
Performance of Assigned Task: Employer is liable only if the act was done in
furtherance of business or benef icial to the employer.
Deviation from Work: Minor deviation does not remove liability, but major
deviation for personal reasons does.
Case: Castilex Industrial Corp. v. Vasquez, Jr. (1999) — Manager used
company vehicle for a personal trip; SC held employer not liable as act was
not in furtherance of business.
Presumption, Defenses, and Special Rules
Presumption of Negligence: Employee negligence raises a presumption of
employer negligence (in selection or supervision).
Defenses of Employer: Employer may avoid liability by proving due diligence in
selection and supervision.
Diligence in Selection: Must show diligence of a good father of a family in
hiring competent employees.
Diligence in Supervision: Must prove proper monitoring, enforcement of
rules, and regular supervision.
Solidary Liability: Employer’s liability is direct, primary, and solidary with the
employee (Art. 2194); employee need not be joined.
Registered Owner Rule: The registered owner of a vehicle is liable for damages
from its operation, even if driven by another’s employee (e.g., kabit system).
Based on public policy to protect the public.
Subsidiary Liability of Employers
Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code governs the subsidiary
liability of an employer or defendant, where liability is not
imposed on a single employer but may extend to two or more
employers who are solidarily liable.
This statutory provision requires the concurrence
of four requisites for subsidiary liability
1. The employer of the convicted accused sought
to be made liable is indeed the employer of the
convicted accused.
2. The employee is engaged in an industry or
work.
3. The employee committed the offense in the
discharge of their duties.
4. The employee is insolvent.
Conclusiveness of Conviction and
Ipso Facto Liability
The employer's subsidiary liability becomes
effective by operation of law upon the The conviction is conclusive
employee's conviction and proof of the on the negligence or fault of
latter's insolvency. the employee, and the
employer cannot present
The conviction of the employee in the evidence to show that
criminal case is binding and conclusive diligence in selection and
upon the employer regarding the supervision was exercised.
employee's guilt.
The employer's liability
cannot be separated from
the employee's liability.
Limitations on Liability
1. Performance of Assigned Task: The statutory limitation dictates that the crime must be
committed "in the discharge of his duties".
2. Insolvency: Insolvency is a prerequisite. It is generally def ined as the lack of means to pay one’s
debts.
Enforcement and Due Process
The subsidiary liability is enforced by filing a
motion for execution in the same criminal case
where the employee was convicted.
This is not merely a matter of execution but
requires a determination based on the evidence.
The employer is guaranteed due process,
requiring the court to issue precise notice and
conduct a hearing to determine the legal
applicability and propriety of the liability,
allowing the employer to establish any defense
Vicarious Liability under
Special Laws (R.A. No. 10586)
Special laws, such as R.A. No. 10586 (Anti-
Drunk and Drugged Driving Act), impose a
different kind of liability.
This law imposes direct and principal liability
on the owner or operator of public utility
and commercial vehicles (like trucks, buses,
delivery vans, etc.) for the driver's offenses.
The owner/operator is held liable unless
they can prove they exercised
extraordinary diligence in the selection
and supervision of the driver.
Liability of Parents/Parental Authority
Parents or guardians are liable for both negligent and intentional acts of their children
(Civil Code, Art. 2180; Family Code, Art. 221). Even after a child turns 18, parents may still be liable
until the child reaches 21 (Family Code, Art. 236, as amended).
Liability is primary, not subsidiary, meaning parents are directly responsible alongside their child.
Parents can escape liability by proving they exercised the diligence of a “good father of a family” to prevent
damage. The burden of proof rests on them. Due diligence includes instruction, supervision, and monitoring of the
child’s activities, especially when dangerous.
Cuadra v. Monfort: A child accidentally blinded another while playing innocently. The court ruled the parents were
not liable, as the act was an innocent prank that no parent could reasonably foresee or prevent.
Cases on Liability of Parents/Parental Authority
CRESENCIO v IAC: Julie Ann Gotiong (18) and Wendell Libi (18–19) were sweethearts. Both Julie Ann and Wendell died from
gunshot wounds inflicted by the same licensed Smith & Wesson revolver registered to Wendell’s father. Evidence strongly
indicated Wendell was the assailant of Julie Ann and then killed himself. The doctrine of vicarious liability could not apply
to adopting parents because the child was not under their control at the time of the tort.
MACARIO v CA: A 10-year-old minor, shot Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle, causing injuries that led to her death. Before
the incident, the Rapisura spouses had filed to adopt Adelberto (December 10, 1981). Adoption was granted on November
18, 1982, after the shooting. Who is liable for damages: the natural parents who had custody at the time, or the adopting
parents? The shooting occurred while Adelberto was under the actual custody of his natural parents. Parental liability
under the Civil Code (Article 2180) and Family Code (Article 221) depends on actual custody and control, not merely on the
filing or granting of an adoption petition.
Liability of Parents/Parental Authority
A guardian is entrusted by law with the custody and control of the person, estate, or
both of infants, insane, or other persons incapable of managing their own affairs.
Guardians are civilly liable like parents for acts of wards who are under their supervision and live with them.
Not all guardians are vicariously liable for acts of the ward.
Criminal liability (Revised Penal Code, Art. 101): Only guardians of imbecile or insane persons can be liable.
Civil liability (Civil Code, Art. 2180): Guardians are liable for acts of wards who live in their company and are under
their authority. “Authority over the person” is required; authority over property only is not enough. Ward must
reside with the guardian for liability to attach.
Schools, Teachers, & Administrators
Article 218, Family Code: Schools, administrators, teachers, or child care institutions
have special parental authority over minors under their supervision, instruction, or
custody.
They are principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by acts or omissions of minors under their care. If the
school is sued together with teachers/administrators, all are jointly and solidarily liable.
Supervision, Instruction, or Custody
Liability applies during all authorized activities, inside or outside school premises. “Custody” does not require
boarding; student need not live at school. Liability exists when the student is under the control or influence of
school authorities during legitimate school-related activities, including recess or campus privileges.
Official Activities Outside School
Extracurricular activities or field trips count as authorized activities under Article 218.
Schools are not liable for purely private activities outside school (e.g., St. Francis High School picnic), unless they
implicitly sanctioned or failed to prevent foreseeable risks. Liability is limited to acts under school control or
influence; remote causes (like a minor driving recklessly) do not trigger school liability (St. Mary’s Academy v.
Carpitanos).
Parents remain subsidiarily liable under Article 219 of the Family Code. Primary authority is replaced by the school
or other persons exercising special parental authority during the child’s custody.
Spouses
Absolute Community of Property
Under Article 94(9), Family Code, the community property is vicariously liable
for liabilities arising from a crime or quasi-delict committed by either spouse,
if the wrongdoer’s exclusive property is insufficient. Payments are treated as
advances deducted from the debtor-spouse’s share upon liquidation.
Conjugal Partnership of Gains
For marriages under the conjugal partnership of gains regime, the general rule
is that tort liabilities are chargeable only to the separate property of the
wrongdoer.
Separation of Property
Under a separation of property regime, each spouse owns and manages their
own property and earnings. Each is solely liable for obligations—including those
from quasi-delicts—arising from their own acts or omissions.
State, & Government Instrumentalities
The State cannot be sued without its consent. Consent may be given by a special law or a general law.
Special Agents (Art. 2180, Civil Code)
The State is liable when it acts through a special agent—someone performing a specific task outside
regular official duties.
In Merritt v. Government of the Philippine Islands, the Court held that the State is liable only when
acting as a juridical person through such agents, not for acts of regular officials performing inherent
functions.
In BPI v. Central Bank, the Court reiterated that the State is liable for torts of special agents only.
When performing proprietary functions, however, it is treated as an ordinary employer.
Government-Owned or Controlled Corporations (GOCCs)
In PNR v. IAC, the Court ruled that immunity depends on the nature of the function. If the GOCC
performs governmental functions, it is immune. If it engages in commercial or proprietary activities, it
may be sued like a private entity.
State, & Government Instrumentalities
Immunity of Foreign Governments
Foreign States are generally immune from suit.
However, in Arigo v. Swift, the Court discussed the tort exception under international law, as seen in
the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)—allowing suits for tortious acts causing injury or
property damage within the forum state. Though not yet customary international law, states adopting
such exceptions do not violate international law.
Municipal Corporations
Under Article 2189, Civil Code, provinces, cities, and municipalities are liable for injuries or deaths
caused by defective roads, bridges, or public works under their control or supervision.
Liability attaches if the LGU has control or supervision, even if it does not own the road.
Knowledge of defect is presumed; maintenance is a continuing duty.
From teachers to
spouses, officers to
partners, and
innkeepers to
corporate leaders,
the law holds
everyone responsible
for the harm they
cause.
The End
