Alan, a mall security guard, negligently shot Kazuto, a customer who died on the spot. The heirs of Kazuto filed an action for damages against Alan, for his own negligence, and his employer, Ryota Security Agency (RSA), for failure to observe diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. In due course, the trial court ruled that both Alan and RSA are negligent and ordered them to pay damages in favor of the heirs of Kazuto, to wit: FOR THESE REASONS, the complaint for quasi-delict is GRANTED. Alan is civilly liable to pay the heirs of Kazuto PHP 1,000,000.00 actual damages, PHP 500,000.00 moral damages, and PHP 500,000.00 exemplary damages. Ryota Security Agency, as employer, is subsidiarily liable to pay the award of damages in case of the employee’s insolvency. The award of damages shall earn interest at the rate of 12% from filing of the complaint until finality of the decision. SO ORDERED. Did the trial court properly impose the civil liabilities of Alan and RSA? Explain.
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
No, the trial court did not properly impose the civil liabilities of Alan and RSA. Under Articles 2180 and 2194 of the Civil Code, an employer's liability for an employee's quasi-delict is primary and solidary, not subsidiary. Subsidiary liability
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
Under Articles 2180 and 2194 of the Civil Code, what is the nature of an employer's liability for a quasi-delict committed by an employee?
An employer's liability for an employee's quasi-delict is primary and solidary under Articles 2180 and 2194.
When does subsidiary liability of an employer apply under Philippine law?
Subsidiary liability applies to civil liability arising from crimes under the Revised Penal Code when the offender is insolvent.
How can an employer rebut the statutory presumption of negligence under Article 2180 of the Civil Code?
An employer rebuts the presumption of negligence by proving diligence in both employee selection and supervision.
Under Nacar v. Gallery Frames, what is the applicable legal interest rate on unliquidated damages awarded in a quasi-delict case?
Choices available with full access.
Why was the trial court's decision imposing civil liabilities on Ryota Security Agency held to be erroneous?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Employer Solidary Liability
Under Article 2180 in relation to Article 2194 of the Civil Code, the liability of an employer for damages caused by the negligent act or omission of an employee acting within the scope of assigned tasks is primary and solidary. The injured party may proceed directly against the employer, the employee, or both simultaneously. An employer cannot claim mere subsidiary liability in an action grounded on quasi-delict, as subsidiary liability applies exclusively to civil liability arising from crimes under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code.
2. Employer Defense Standard
To overcome the statutory presumption of negligence under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, an employer must establish that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in both the selection and supervision of its employees. Employer diligence in selection requires thoroughly examining character, background, and technical qualifications prior to hiring. Employer diligence in supervision requires formulating adequate workplace rules, issuing proper operational instructions, and establishing regular monitoring systems to ensure strict compliance by security personnel and other employees.
3. Computation of Interest
Under the landmark doctrine of Nacar v. Gallery Frames, legal interest on unliquidated damages arising from a quasi-delict is imposed at the rate of six percent per annum. The legal interest does not run from the date of the filing of the complaint, but rather begins from the date of the judicial or extrajudicial demand, or from the date the trial court renders its decision quantifying the damages. Once the judgment awarding damages becomes final and executory, the total monetary liability earns six percent interest until full satisfaction.