QUASI-DELICTS IN CIVIL LAW

Overview

A quasi-delict, also known as a "tort" under Philippine civil law, is defined in Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which provides that:

"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."

Quasi-delicts impose liability for damages arising from fault or negligence, even in the absence of a contractual relationship.

Persons Made Responsible for Others

Under quasi-delictual liability, certain persons are held responsible not only for their own acts but also for the acts of others. This principle is rooted in vicarious liability, governed by the following provisions of the Civil Code:

1. General Principle

Under Article 2180, individuals or entities are made responsible for damages caused by the acts of persons under their care or supervision. This includes:

Parents: Responsible for the damages caused by their minor children who live with them.
Guardians: Responsible for the damages caused by their wards.
Employers: Responsible for the damages caused by their employees in the performance of their duties.
Teachers and Heads of Establishments: Responsible for the damages caused by their students or apprentices under their supervision.

2. Requisites for Liability

To establish liability under quasi-delicts for persons made responsible for others, the following elements must be proven:

Damage: Actual damage must have occurred.
Fault or Negligence: Fault or negligence on the part of the person causing the damage must be established.
Relationship: There must be a supervisory or custodial relationship between the tortfeasor and the person sought to be held liable.
Scope of Authority or Supervision: The act causing the damage must occur within the scope of the relationship or supervision.

3. Defense of Due Diligence

Under Article 2180, persons made responsible for others may escape liability by proving that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family (bonus paterfamilias) to prevent the damage. For instance:

Employers must prove that they exercised diligent hiring, supervision, and training of employees.
Parents must demonstrate reasonable efforts in disciplining and controlling their children.

Failure to exercise such diligence results in liability.

Specific Applications

A. Parents

Parents are primarily and directly liable for the acts of their minor children who reside with them.
Liability arises regardless of whether the child acted willfully or negligently.
This liability may be escaped if the parents prove that they exercised proper diligence in the upbringing and supervision of their children.

B. Guardians

Guardians are responsible for damages caused by their wards.
The same rule of exercising diligence applies to escape liability.

C. Employers

Employers are responsible for damages caused by their employees, provided the act was committed within the scope of employment or official duties.
Employers can be held solidarily liable with the employee when negligence is established.

D. Teachers and Heads of Establishments

Under Article 2180, teachers and school heads are responsible for acts of students or apprentices under their custody.
This liability applies during the time the students or apprentices are under their supervision and authority.

Key Jurisprudence

Ylarde v. Aquino, G.R. No. L-23788 (1968):
- Established that quasi-delicts require only fault or negligence as a basis for liability and do not require the presence of a contractual relationship.
Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131173 (2000):
- Held that an employer is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its employees performed in the course of their employment.
Sampayan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95662 (1991):
- Clarified the defense of due diligence for employers, emphasizing the need for a concrete showing of diligence in hiring, training, and supervising employees.
Amadora v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47745 (1983):
- Recognized that teachers and schools have a special duty of care for the acts of their students.

Other Relevant Provisions

Article 2182: Negligence of a Minor

Even a minor can be held liable for a quasi-delict if the minor acts with discernment.

Article 2184: Joint Liability of Motor Vehicle Owners and Drivers

Owners of motor vehicles are jointly and severally liable for damages caused by the negligent operation of the vehicle by a driver in their employ.

Article 2179: Mitigation of Damages

If the plaintiff contributed to the damage, the courts may mitigate liability in proportion to the degree of contributory negligence.

Legal Remedies and Liability

Victims of quasi-delicts may pursue:

Actual damages: For measurable losses (e.g., medical expenses, property damage).
Moral damages: For pain and suffering, mental anguish, and emotional distress.
Exemplary damages: When the defendant acted with gross negligence.
Attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, under certain circumstances.

Conclusion

Quasi-delicts play a vital role in ensuring accountability for wrongful acts committed without contractual obligations. The imposition of vicarious liability on certain persons or entities underscores the principle of social responsibility, holding individuals accountable not only for their own negligence but also for the acts of those under their supervision or care. Proper diligence serves as a critical defense, and its exercise must be substantiated to escape liability.