In General | Persons Made Responsible for Others | The Tortfeasor | QUASI-DELICTS

CIVIL LAW > XI. QUASI-DELICTS > B. The Tortfeasor > 2. Persons Made Responsible for Others > a. In General

Under Philippine civil law, quasi-delicts (culpa aquiliana) are governed by the provisions of the Civil Code, specifically under Articles 2176 to 2194. Quasi-delicts refer to acts or omissions by a person, which, without contractual relation, cause damage to another, obligating the person at fault to pay for the damage caused. In this context, liability for quasi-delicts is not limited to the tortfeasor (the one directly at fault) but extends to certain persons who are made responsible for the acts of others under their authority or control. This principle is rooted in public policy considerations to ensure accountability for those in a position to influence or prevent the wrongful act.

General Legal Basis

Article 2180 of the Civil Code establishes vicarious liability, providing that certain individuals are held responsible for damages caused by others under their authority, supervision, or control. It embodies the principle that the duty of diligence extends beyond one's own actions to include a duty to supervise those under one's care.

Persons Made Responsible for Others

1. Parents

   • Scope of Liability: Parents are responsible for the quasi-delicts committed by their unemancipated minor children living in their company.
   • Basis: This responsibility arises from their duty to supervise and discipline their children.
   • Presumption of Negligence: Parents are presumed negligent when their child commits a quasi-delict, but this presumption can be rebutted if they can prove that they exercised proper diligence to prevent the wrongful act.

2. Guardians

   • Scope of Liability: Guardians are liable for the acts of their wards, similar to the liability of parents.
   • Extent: The liability covers damage caused by minors or incompetents under their guardianship when such persons reside with them.
   • Defense: Guardians may rebut the presumption of negligence by proving the exercise of due diligence.

3. Employers

   • Scope of Liability: Employers are liable for quasi-delicts committed by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned duties.
   • Legal Basis: Article 2180 establishes the doctrine of respondeat superior (let the superior answer), holding employers accountable for acts committed within the course of employment.
   • Due Diligence Defense: An employer may avoid liability by proving:
     • Selection of competent and qualified employees.
     • Adequate supervision to prevent harm.
   • If the employer cannot establish these elements, liability is direct and personal.

4. Teachers and Heads of Establishments of Learning

   • Scope of Liability: Teachers and heads of schools are liable for damages caused by their students or apprentices, provided the wrongful act occurs while under their supervision.
   • Applicability: The liability arises only during school hours or activities under the school’s control.
   • Defense: The presumption of negligence can be overcome by proving proper supervision and care.

5. Owners and Managers of Enterprises

   • Scope of Liability: Owners of businesses and enterprises are responsible for damages caused by their employees while performing assigned tasks.
   • Vicarious Liability: Similar to employers, the responsibility arises when the employee acts within the course and scope of employment.
   • Due Diligence: The same defenses applicable to employers apply to owners and managers.

6. State Responsibility

   • Government Employees: The State is generally not liable for acts of its employees unless it consents to be sued, as per the doctrine of state immunity.
   • Exceptions: Liability may attach in cases involving acts done in a proprietary capacity or when liability is expressly provided by law.

Elements of Liability

To hold a person vicariously liable for the acts of others, the following elements must be established:

1. Existence of Quasi-Delict: A wrongful act or omission must have been committed, causing damage to another.
2. Relationship: A specific legal or supervisory relationship must exist between the tortfeasor and the person sought to be held liable (e.g., parent-child, employer-employee).
3. Act Within Scope of Relationship: The wrongful act must occur within the context or during the period of supervision or control.
4. Presumption of Negligence: There is a presumption that the person responsible for another (e.g., a parent or employer) was negligent in their duty of supervision.

Defenses

Persons made responsible for the acts of others may invoke defenses to rebut liability:

1. Exercise of Diligence: Showing proof that they exercised all necessary diligence in supervising or controlling the person who committed the quasi-delict.
2. No Supervisory Responsibility: Demonstrating that the wrongful act occurred outside the period or scope of supervision.
3. Intervening Cause: Proving that an independent and unforeseeable event caused the damage, breaking the chain of causation.

Policy Considerations

The principle of vicarious liability under quasi-delicts ensures:

• Effective supervision and control by those entrusted with authority.
• Compensation for victims who may otherwise face challenges in recovering damages from the tortfeasor.
• Promotion of accountability in relationships involving authority and dependence.

In conclusion, the liability of persons made responsible for others under quasi-delict law is a carefully balanced mechanism that ensures both accountability and fairness, allowing for defenses rooted in due diligence while protecting the interests of victims.