Vicarious liability

Dear Atty. Maan,

My uncle works as a delivery driver for a logistics company. While making deliveries, he accidentally hit a motorcycle, injuring its rider. The rider sued both my uncle and the company for damages. However, the company denies liability, claiming that it exercised due diligence in hiring and supervising its drivers. Can the company still be held liable?

Jean

□□□□□

Dear Jean,

Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers are vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of their employees if such acts were committed in the course of employment. To be free from liability, the employer must prove that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family both in hiring and in supervising its workers. It must show actual evidence, such as background checks, evaluations, and records of supervision or discipline which demonstrates that it took reasonable precautions to prevent negligence.

If the employer cannot present such proof, the law presumes that it was negligent in supervising or selecting its employee. As a result, the company and the employee may both be held jointly and solidarily liable for the damages caused.

As a general rule, one is only responsible for his own act or omission.[24] This general rule is laid down in Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which provides:

Art. 2176. 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 pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

The law, however, provides for exceptions when it makes certain persons liable for the act or omission of another. One exception is an employer who is made vicariously liable for the tort committed by his employee under paragraph 5 of Article 2180.[25] Here, although the employer is not the actual tortfeasor, the law makes him vicariously liable on the basis of the civil law principle of pater familias for failure to exercise due care and vigilance over the acts of one's subordinates to prevent damage to another. (G.R. No. 185597, 2 August 2017)

Hope this helps.

Atty. Mary Antonnette Baudi