Due Diligence as a Defense in Quasi-Delicts Under Philippine Law

Quasi-delicts, as defined under Article 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, involve acts or omissions causing damage to another, there being fault or negligence but without a pre-existing contractual obligation. The primary basis for liability is the negligent act or omission of a person, but Philippine jurisprudence recognizes defenses to mitigate or absolve liability, including the defense of due diligence.

This discussion will meticulously outline the concept of due diligence as a defense in quasi-delicts, its legal framework, its requirements, and its application in case law.

I. Legal Basis: Article 2180 of the Civil Code

Article 2180 of the Civil Code provides that certain individuals and entities are presumed liable for the damages caused by persons under their supervision or for things under their control, but they may be exonerated if they prove that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family (also called due diligence) to prevent the damage.

The provision states:

Employers are liable for damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks.
Parents are liable for damages caused by their unemancipated children living with them.
Teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades are liable for damages caused by their students or apprentices under their supervision.

However, liability under Article 2180 may be avoided if the defendant successfully demonstrates due diligence in the selection and supervision of their subordinates or in the management of their affairs.

II. The Elements of Due Diligence as a Defense

To successfully invoke due diligence as a defense, the defendant must prove the following:

A. Due Diligence in Selection

Employers or entities must exercise reasonable care in hiring individuals to ensure they are fit and qualified for the assigned tasks. This involves:

Conducting thorough background checks, including criminal records, prior work experience, and educational credentials.
Assessing the physical and mental fitness of the prospective employee.
Verifying licenses, certifications, and other professional qualifications, if applicable.

B. Due Diligence in Supervision

After selection, the employer must also demonstrate that they exercised proper supervision over the employee or subordinate. This includes:

Establishing clear guidelines, policies, and protocols regarding the performance of duties.
Providing adequate training to ensure that employees understand and can competently perform their tasks.
Monitoring the employee's conduct and performance regularly.
Taking corrective or disciplinary measures when misconduct or negligence is identified.

C. Proximate Cause Not Attributable to Negligence

Even with proof of due diligence, the defendant must establish that the proximate cause of the damage was not their negligence but rather an intervening act or the fault of another.

III. Jurisprudence on Due Diligence in Quasi-Delicts

Philippine courts have consistently applied the principles of due diligence in resolving cases involving quasi-delicts. Below are illustrative cases:

A. Ylarde v. Aquino (G.R. No. L-27187)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that an employer could not be held liable for the negligent act of their driver if it was shown that the employer exercised due diligence in both the selection and supervision of the driver.

Key takeaways:

Proof of regular monitoring and adherence to professional standards may exonerate the employer.
The employee’s fault must be shown to be outside the scope of proper supervision.

B. Torts Case: Responsibility of Schools

In cases involving schools, such as Palmero v. Court of Appeals, the courts have required school administrators to demonstrate that they took adequate measures to discipline and supervise students or apprentices under their control.

C. Favis v. Loyola (G.R. No. L-21450)

The court emphasized that due diligence is not a mere theoretical concept; it must be substantiated by evidence such as documented policies, records of training sessions, and evidence of periodic evaluations.

IV. Burden of Proof

The burden of proving due diligence rests upon the defendant. In demonstrating such diligence:

The defendant must present documentary evidence (e.g., employment records, supervision logs, safety training protocols).
Testimonial evidence from witnesses who can attest to the standards of supervision and control may also be relevant.
The courts assess whether the actions of the defendant meet the standard of a good father of a family, i.e., what a reasonably prudent person would have done under similar circumstances.

V. Limitations of Due Diligence as a Defense

While due diligence can exonerate a defendant, it is subject to certain limitations:

Inherent Negligence: If the negligent act stems from the employer's failure to provide adequate resources, tools, or facilities, the defense of due diligence may not apply.
Presumption of Negligence: Under Article 2180, the law presumes the defendant's negligence until due diligence is proven.
Intervening Acts: The defendant must prove that no intervening or concurrent negligence on their part contributed to the damage.

VI. Conclusion

The defense of due diligence is a robust legal strategy in quasi-delict cases but requires substantial proof and documentation. It is not sufficient to simply allege diligence; the defendant must provide concrete evidence demonstrating that they took reasonable measures to prevent harm.

Employers, parents, and school heads are advised to implement clear policies, maintain meticulous records, and continuously monitor their wards or employees to ensure compliance with their duty of care. Properly executed, this defense can shield individuals and entities from vicarious liability in quasi-delict cases.