A driver of a bus owned by company Z ran over a boy who died instantly. A criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide was filed against the driver. He was convicted and was ordered to pay P2 Million in actual and moral damages to the parents of the boy who was an honor student and had a bright future. Without even trying to find out if the driver had assets or means to pay the award of damages, the parents of the boy filed a civil action against the bus company to make it directly liable for the damages.
a) Will their action prosper? (4%)
b) If the parents of the boy do not wish to file a separate civil action against. the bus company, can they still make the bus company liable if the driver cannot’ pay the award for damages? If so, what is the nature of the employer’s liability and how may civil damages be satisfied? (3%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
(a) Yes, the direct action will prosper, and (b) yes, the parents may enforce subsidiary liability in the criminal case. Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers are directly liable for quasi-delicts of employees
Unlock the full Civil Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
What is the nature of an employer's liability for a quasi-delict committed by an employee under Article 2180 of the Civil Code?
Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employer vicarious liability for quasi-delict is direct and primary.
Under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, when does the subsidiary liability of an employer attach?
Subsidiary liability under Article 103 RPC attaches after conviction of the employee and proof of his insolvency.
What defense may an employer raise to defeat a primary civil action based on quasi-delict under Article 2180?
An employer can defeat a quasi-delict claim by proving diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee.
Under Article 2177 of the Civil Code, what restriction applies to recovering damages under both penal and civil laws?
Choices available with full access.
How may the subsidiary civil liability of an employer be satisfied if the convicted employee is insolvent?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Employer Vicarious Liability
Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers are liable for damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. This liability is direct, primary, and independent of the employee's financial solvency. The injured party may institute a separate civil action against the employer based on quasi-delict without first exhausting remedies against the negligent employee. The employer can escape liability only by proving that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees.
2. Employer Subsidiary Liability
Under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, employers engaged in any kind of industry are subsidiarily liable for civil indemnities adjudged against their employees convicted of crimes committed in the discharge of their duties. Unlike primary vicarious liability under civil law, subsidiary criminal liability requires that the employee be convicted in the criminal action and that execution against the employee's property returns unsatisfied due to insolvency. Once insolvency is established, the subsidiary liability of the employer can be enforced directly in the same criminal proceeding.
3. Independent Civil Actions
Under Article 2177 of the Civil Code, responsibility for fault or negligence under quasi-delict is entirely separate and distinct from civil liability arising from negligence under the Revised Penal Code. An injured party or his heirs may choose to pursue an independent civil action for quasi-delict against the employer or enforce the employer's subsidiary criminal liability. However, the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission. The choice of remedy dictates the required burden of proof and the necessity of establishing employee insolvency.