Torts And Damages.pdf

1 TORTS AND DAMAGES PART I – TORTS A. Introductory Concepts QUASI-DELICT, aka culpa aquiliana is a civil law concept while torts is an Anglo-American or common law concept. Torts is much broader since it includes intentional or unintentional acts. Article 2176, NCC:

ELEMENTS:

1. 2. 3.

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 preexisting contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict.

(NPD) acts of negligence by defendant damage to plaintiff connection of the cause and effect b/n 1 and 2 (PROXIMATE CAUSE)

General Rule: No quasi-delict if there exists a contractual relation between the parties. In quasi-delict, the source is the LAW; in culpa-contractual, source is the CONTRACT.

Exception:

The act that breaks the contract may also be a tort. Test: Even without the contract, there is still tort.

Tort vs. Quasi-delict Tort Common law (customs, usages) May be intentional May be criminal No pre-existing contractual obligation

Quasi-delict Civil law Unintentional (may or may not be voluntary) May be criminal (i.e., criminal negligence) No pre-existing contractual obligation

ELEMENT #1. CULPA – NEGLIGENCE Article 1173, NCC:

The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2 shall apply.

If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required. No fixed standard of diligence.

2 Minimum standard: good father of a family – a person with ordinary intelligence and prudence Degrees: 1. Slight - failure to exercise great or extraordinary care 2. Ordinary - want of ordinary care and diligence, that is, such care and diligence as an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under the same or similar circumstance 3. Gross -materially greater than ordinary negligence, consists of an entire absence of care or an absence of even slight care or diligence; thoughtless disregard for consequences or an indifference to the rights or welfare of others Elements of negligence (Picart vs. Smith)i 1. reasonable foresight of harm 2. failure to take the necessary precautions Kinds of culpa: 2. 3.

1. Culpa criminal (RPC) Culpa contractual (NCC – obligations and contracts) Culpa aquiliana – (NCC –quasi delicts)

As to interest As to purpose As to basis of liability

Culpa criminal Public Punitive/correct ive There must be a law which punishes the act or omission.

Culpa aquiliana Private Reparation through indemnification Includes all acts in which any kind of fault or negligence intervenes

Remedies/Right of Action Independent Alternatives: Art. 1161. Civil obligations arising from criminal offenses shall be governed by the penal laws, subject to the provisions of Article 2177, and of the pertinent provisions of Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, on Human Relations, and of Title XVIII of this Book, regulating damages. WAYS OF INSTITUTING CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY WRONGFUL CONDUCT: (Civil Code - Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 217; and Rule 111 of the Rules of Court): 1) Civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from offense charged, deemed instituted with the criminal action; 2) Civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from offense charged, separately instituted, the right to institute separately having been reserved in the criminal action; 3) Civil action for recovery of civil liability for the same offense, instituted prior to the criminal action;

3 4) Civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from offense charged, the injured party opting to consider the punishable act or omission as a quasidelict; and 5) Civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from a non–punishable act or omission.

• •

An aggrieved party may file a criminal case and civil case for independent civil actions or quasi-delict on the same negligent act or omission. An act or omission may give rise to 2 separate liabilities: Article 1161, NCC : 1) Civil liability ex delicto under Article 100 of the RPC; 2) Independent civil liabilities a) Not arising from felonious acts – Article 31; Intentional torts - Articles 32 and 34; and culpa aquiliana – Article 2176

4 Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter. Art.32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages: (1) Freedom of religion; (2) Freedom of speech; (3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication; (4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention; (5) Freedom of suffrage; (6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law; (7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use; (8) The right to the equal protection of the laws; (9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures; (10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same; (11) The privacy of communication and correspondence; (12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law; (13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances; (14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form; (15) The right of the accused against excessive bail; (16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf; (17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self, or from being forced to confess guilt, or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession, except when the person confessing becomes a State witness;

5 (18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional; and (19) Freedom of access to the courts. In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and mat be proved by a preponderance of evidence. The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated. The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute. Art. 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action.

b) Where injured party given right to file an action independent and distinct from criminal action under Article 33 Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. •

Either may be enforced subject to Caveat in Article 2177. Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.

6

As to liability

As to cause of action

As to diligence required As to defense of due diligence in the selection and supervisions of employees

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Culpa contractual Incidental (culpa is an accident in the performance of an obligation already existing) Must prove 1) existence of contract 2) breach of contract Extraordinary negligence (in case of common carriers) Not available

Culpa aquiliana Direct (culpa is substantive and independent, of itself constitutes source of obligation b/n persons not formerly connected by legal tie) Negligence

Ordinary negligence Available

Aggrieved party can institute separate civil actions on different sets of defendants: one based on culpa contractual and the other based on culpa aquiliana.

General Rule: The party who relies on negligence for his cause of action has the burden of proving the existence of the same, otherwise his action will fail. Under certain circumstances, however, negligence may be presumed therefrom and plaintiff is relieved of proving negligence in the ordinary way. Presumptions of negligence, NCC Arts. 2184-2185, 2188, 1756 Art. 2184 – In motor vehicle mishaps, 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 preceding two months. Art. 2185 – Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation. Art. 2188 – There is a prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant if the death or injury results from his possession of

7 dangerous weapons or substances, such as firearms and poison, except when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business. Art. 1756 – In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755. Art. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case. xxx Art. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. Art. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755. ELEMENT #2. Damage to Plaintiff ELEMENT #3. Causal Relation between act or omission and damage In order to be entitled to recovery, the plaintiff must show a causal connection between the injury received and the violation of the statutory prohibition. In other words, he must show that violation was the proximate or legal cause of the injury. DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE Bataclan vs. Medinaii • • • •

That cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. Legal cause/ Dominant cause /Immediate cause / Efficient cause Acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion Need NOT be sole cause or direct cause or nearest in time or place to result

a. Distinguished from Immediate Cause The last of a series or chain of causes tending to a given result, and which, of itself, directly produces the result or event. A cause may be immediate in this sense, and yet not “proximate”, and conversely, the proximate cause (that which directly and efficiently brings about the result) may not be immediate. The familiar illustration is that of a drunken man falling into the water and drowning. His intoxication is the proximate cause of his death, if it can be said that he would not have fallen into the water when

8 sober; but the immediate cause of death is suffocation by drowning.

b. Distinguished from the Intervening Cause Intervening cause, which will relieve liability for an injury, is an independent cause which intervenes between the original wrongful act or omission and the injury, turns aside the natural sequence of events, and produces a result which would not otherwise have followed and which could not have been reasonably anticipated. An act of an independent agency which destroys the causal connection between the negligent act and the wrongful injury, in which case damages are not recoverable because the original wrongful act is not the proximate cause. “efficient intervening cause”is a new and independent force which breaks the connection between the original wrong and injury, and itself becomes the direct and immediate cause, i.e., proximate cause. c. Distinguished from Remote and Concurrent Cause Remote- a cause which would in the normal experience of mankind would not lead to the event which happened; effect does not necessarily follow. Concurrent – causes acting contemporaneously and together causing injury, which would not have resulted in absence of either. Two distinct causes operating at the same time to produce a given result, which might be produced by either, are concurrent causes, successive and unrelated in an operation, cannot be concurring, and one will be regarded as the proximate and efficient and responsible cause, and the other will be regarded as the remote cause. d. Test of proximate cause -

-

Effectiveness of the cause, but-for test, sine qua non rule “whether such conduct is a cause without which the injury would not have taken place” Foreseeability test – must be shown that the actor foresaw or should have foreseen the injurious consequences of his act or omission Negligence cannot be imputed to acts that may not be reasonably foreseen is applicable in criminal cases. US vs. Tanedo – accused went hunting, saw wild chickens and shot. Slug hit chicken, recoiled, struck to death tenant not in line of fire US vs. Tayongtong – chauffeur,moderate speed, due diligence, man suddenly and unexpectedly crossed the street US vs. Knight – truck passed slow moving road roller, boy jumped from sideboard directly in front of truck RPC Article 12, para. 4 – Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing is exempt from criminal liability. (No civil liability also – Damnum Absque Injuria).

-

In conjunction with natural and probable consequence test

9

Cases: Taylor vs. Manila Electric Railroad & Light Co., 16 Phil 8 Bataclan vs. Medina, 102 Phil 181 Fernando vs. Court of Appeals, 208 SCRA 714 Sanitary Steam Laundry vs. CA, 300 SCRA 20 Mercury Drug vs. Baking, G. R. No. 156037, May 25, 2007 DOCTRINE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY/IMPUTED NEGLIGENCE - doctrine that visits upon one person responsibility for the negligence of another based on PUBLIC POLICY. Extra Contractual Culpa 1) morally culpable; or MORAL RESPONSIBILITY – failed to exercise due care in the selection and control of one's agents or servants or control over persons who by reason of their status, occupy a position of dependency with respect to the person made liable for their conduct. 2) imputed by legal fiction (others who are in a position to exercise an absolute or limited control over the person committing the act) A person who has not committed the act or omission which caused damage or injury to another may nevertheless be held civilly liable to the latter either directly or subsidiarily under certain circumstances. A) DELICTS/CRIMINAL OFFENSES/PUNISHABLE ACTS OR OMISSIONS * RPC Articles 101, 102, 103 with respect to the civil liability of the offender arising from the crime committed by him under Article 100 of RPC. General Rule: Criminal liability is personal but civil liability arising therefrom it may not be. Thus, one may be civilly liable for one's own criminal acts and those caused by persons for whom the law makes one responsible, even if the actor/perpetrator is not criminally liable. Defense: absence of fault or negligence on his part

Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. — Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. — The exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced subject to the following rules: First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the civil liability for acts

10 committed by an imbecile or insane person, and by a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has acted without discernment, shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on their part. Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authority, legal guardianship or control, or if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property, excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil law. Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received. The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable. When the respective shares cannot be equitably determined, even approximately, or when the liability also attaches to the Government, or to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever the damages have been caused with the consent of the authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations. Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12, the persons using violence or causing the fears shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, those doing the act shall be liable, saving always to the latter that part of their property exempt from execution. 1) for acts done without discernment - minor is exempt from criminal liability - person who had minor under his legal authority or control is civilly liable defense: no fault or negligence on his part - minor is liable directly with his property if - has no parent/guardian - parent/guardian is without fault or insolvent Liability vacuum: Who shall be liable for minors who act with discernment? Resort to Article 2180 of the NCC on quasi-delict as amended by Article 221 of the Family Code. Art. 221: Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living in their company and under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law. Article 2180 of the NCC covers obligations arising from both quasi-delicts and criminal offenses. See Libi vs. IAC, et al.iii 2) for acts done involuntarily - persons using the violence or causing the fear: primarily liable

11 - persons doing the act : secondarily liable 3) for acts done to avoid greater evil or injury - person for whose benefit the harm has been prevented: civilly liable in proportion to benefit received Subsidiary Civil Liability of Innkeepers Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments. — In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall have been committed by them or their employees. Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the directions which such innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect to the care and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeeper's employees. Innkeepers are subsidiarily liable for 1) crimes committed in their establishments 2) violations of municipal ordinances both by their employees and by others 3) robbery or theft from their guests except: with violence against or intimidation of persons except: when committed by their employees Note: Innkeeper's civil liability over effects deposited with them by travellers are governed by: 1) Art. 102 of RPC – subsidiary liability; 2) NCC on necessary deposits – direct and primary liability Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. — The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.

Requisites for employer to be subsidiarily liable: 1) an employee has committed a crime in the discharge of his duties; 2) said employee is insolvent and has not satisfied his civil liability; 3) the employer is engaged in some kind of industry (i.e., whether it exists to carry out a purpose [gain, charitable]) Article 103

Article 2180

12

Civil Liability of employer

Subsidiary

Direct and primary

Defense of due diligence

Not applicable. Presumption that there is failure to exercise due diligence. Negligence of EE is negligence of ER.

Applicable. Two defenses of ER:1) employee not negligent; 2) even if EE negligent, ER exercised due diligence

Quantum of proof

Proof beyond reasonable doubt

Preponderance of evidence

Judgment of Conviction

Must secure judgment against EE. Binds the ER. Condition sine qua non for ER's liability.

Not applicable.

Applicable.

Not applicable.

Insolvency of employee

Does not bind the ER

B. QUASI DELICTS/NON-PUNISHABLE INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT ACTS OR OMISSIONS – * The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions but also for those for whom one is responsible. Cases: Caedo vs. Yu Khe Thai, 26 SCRA 381 Kapalaran Bus Line vs. Coronado, G. R. No. 85331, August 25, 1989 Anonuevo vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G. R. No. 130003, October 20,2004 Mendoza vs. Soriano, et al., G. R. No. 164012, June 8, 2007 ii iii

102 Phil 181 G.r. No., 70890, September 18, 1992.

13 Art. 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. a.

Parents Libi vs. IAC, G.R. No. 70880, September 18, 1992 Cuadra vs. Monfort, 35 SCRA 160 Tamargo vs. CA, 290 SCRA 518 Basis: Parental authority Adoptive vs. Natural parents - Test: actual custody Absence of parent/guardian: Property of minor is liable.

Guardians Owners and Managers of Establishments and Enterprises Employers Kinds of employers covered: 1) those engaged in business/industry 2) those not engaged in business/industry example: ER of househelp applicability: if EE is in the performance of his assigned task This provision of law is not founded on the principle of respondeat superior (conclusive presumption of ER’s negligence) but on bonus pater familias (theory of presumed negligence). Respondeat superior (let the superior reply) holds that an employer is liable for negligent acts or omissions of their employees that result in bodily harm or property damage to third parties if these acts are done in the course of the employment.

14 The theory of presumed negligence is clearly deducible from the last paragraph of Article 2180 which provides that the responsibility herein mentioned shall cease if the employers prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family. (Tiu vs. Arriesgadoiv) Responsibility of employer is primary, and therefore, injured party may recover from the employers directly, regardless of the solvency of their employees (Victory Liner vs. Heirs of Malecdanv). Working scholar are employees A working student/part-time janitor and scholar of Filamer was, in relation to the school, an employee even if he was assigned to clean the school premises for only two hours in the morning of each school day. (Filamer Christian Institute vs. CAvi). Registered Owner Rule Registered owner is deemed as the actual employer, while the actual owner is deemed as an agent of the former. Employer can recover the whole amount he paid due to his vicarious liability. Article 2181: 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. e.

Owners of vehicles In an action based on quasi-delict, the registered owner of a motor vehicle is solidarily liable for the injuries and damages caused by the negligence of the driver, in spite of the fact that the vehicle may have already been the subject of an unregistered Deed of Sale in favor of any other person. Unless registered with the LTO, the sale- while valid and binding upon the parties- does not affect 3rd parties, especially victims of accidents involving the said transportation equipment. Thus, the registered owner was held liable for the acts of the driver employed by its former lessee who has become the owner of the vehicle by virtue of an unregistered Deed of Sale. (Equitable Leasing Corp. vs. Suyom, et al)vii. The driver is not an indispensable party in an action for damages against the employer. An indispensable party is one whose interest is affected by the court’s action in the litigation, and without whom no final resolution of the case is possible. However, since the employer’s liability in an action for quasi-delict is not only solidary, it is also primary and direct, the driver is not an indispensable party to the final resolution of the action for damages against the employer. (Ceruzo vs. Tuazon).viii Owner in the vehicle • •

Article 2184 applies Defense: due diligence in preventing the incident from happening Test: reasonable opportunity to prevent

The owner of an automobile, present in the vehicle, is not liable (either civilly or criminally) for the negligent acts of a competent driver unless such acts are

15 continued for such a length of time as to give the owner of a reasonable opportunity to observe them and to direct the driver to desist therefrom, and to fail to do so.xxx The act complained of must be continued in the presence of the owner for such a length of time that he, by acquiescence, makes his driver’s act as his own. (Chapman vs. Underwood).ix Owner not in the vehicle • •

Article 2180 applies Defense: due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees

Unauthorized use – no vicarious liability The owner of a vehicle cannot be held liable for an accident involving the said vehicle if the same was driven without his consent or knowledge and by a person not employed by him (Duavit vs. CA, et al.)x f.

State Kinds of functions: 1. proprietary – vicarious liability 2. governmental – vicarious liability only if State acts thru special agent – one who performs functions alien/foreign to his regular duties General Rule: State cannot be sued. Exception: if if consents. 1. express consent – by law (Article 2180) 2. implied

g.

Teachers and heads of establishments of arts and trades Types of schools: 1. academic institution: TEACHER is liable. 2. arts and trade: HEAD OF SCHOOL is liable. If school is both an academic institution and a school of arts and trade – BOTH the teacher and head of school is liable. Basis: in loco parentis Family Code provisions: Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institution engaged in child are shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody. Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution. (349a)

16 Art. 219. Those given the authority and responsibility under the preceding Article shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial guardians or the persons exercising substitute parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable. 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. All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. Defense - the last paragraph of Article 2180 which provides that the responsibility herein mentioned shall cease if the employers prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family. * must prove both due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees - How to prove selection: clearances, referrals, background check - How to prove supervision: trainings, prescribed rules of conduct, disciplinary measures Article 2180 should be read with Article 2194 which categorically states that the responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary (Hernandez, et al. vs. Dolor, et al.)xi iv

G.R.No. 138060, September 1, 2004. G.R. No. 1547278, December 27, 2002. vi G.R. No. 75112, August 17, 1992. vii G.R. No. 143360, September 5, 2002. viii G.R. No. 141538, March 23, 2004. ix G.R. No. 9010, March 28, 1914. x G.R. No. 82318, May 18, 1989. xi G.R. No. 160286, July 30, 2004. v

i

37 Phil 809.