Employers’ liability

Dear Atty. Joji,

One of my drivers, while using our company van to make an official delivery, accidentally hit a pedestrian. I later found out that the injured person is suing both my driver and my company. Even though I was not personally involved in the accident, can I still be held liable as the employer?

Daphne

□□□□□

Dear Daphne,

Article 2180 of the Civil Code provides that a person is not only liable for one’s own quasi-delictual acts, but also for those persons for whom one is responsible for. This liability is popularly known as vicarious or imputed liability.

“Art. 2180. 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.”

To sustain claims against employers for the acts of their employees, the following requisites must be established: (1) That the employee was chosen by the employer personally or through another; (2) That the service to be rendered in accordance with orders which the employer has the authority to give at all times; and (3) That the illicit act of the employee was on the occasion or by reason of the functions entrusted to him.

Significantly, to make the employee liable under paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 2180, it must be established that the injurious or tortuous act was committed at the time the employee was performing his functions.

To be relieved of liability, the employer should show that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family, both in the selection of the employee and in the supervision of the performance of his duties. Thus, in the selection of its prospective employees, the employer is required to examine them as to their qualifications, experience, and service records etc. (Estacion v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 144723, 27 February 2006)

It must be stressed, however, that the above rule is applicable only if there is an employer-employee relationship. This employer-employee relationship cannot be presumed but must be sufficiently proven by the plaintiff. The plaintiff must also show that the employee was acting within the scope of his assigned task when the tort complained of was committed. It is only then that the defendant, as employer, may find it necessary to interpose the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees. (Reyes vs Doctolero et. al, G.R. No. 185597. 2 August 2017)

Hope this helps.

Atty. Joji Alonso