Dear PAO,

My friend was about to leave his house for work when he was hit by the van of his neighbor, which was then driven by the latter’s driver. According to my friend, he was stepping out of their gate when, all of a sudden, the van backed up and hit him, causing him to fall hard on the pavement and sustain injuries. The neighbors, who saw the whole incident, attest that the driver was negligent because, not only did he not signal when he was backing up, the backing maneuver was allegedly so abrupt that there was no way my friend could have foreseen or avoided it. Can my friend’s neighbor be held accountable for the expenses incurred by my friend due to the injuries from the accident? His neighbor insists he is not liable because it was his employee who was driving the van at the time, not him. Isn’t there a law that holds his neighbor liable for the negligence of his driver?

Angie

Dear Angie,

Each of us can be held accountable for our acts or omissions that cause injury to another party. This is true even if there exists no contractual relation between the parties involved in consonance with Article 2176 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, which states that:

“Art. 2176. 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.”

What is more, a person can be held liable not only for their own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom they are responsible. As in the case of employers, they may be held accountable for the acts or omissions of their employees, save in instances when they can prove that they exercised diligence to prevent the damage or injury. Article 2180 of the New Civil Code specifically mandates that:

“Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.x x x

“Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. x x x

“The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.”

In the situation which you have shared, we submit that your friend may demand his neighbor to assume the expenses that he incurred for the injuries which he sustained by reason of the accident involving him and his neighbor’s employee/driver. It is necessary, however, that your friend can establish that there was indeed negligence on the part of the driver.

It is not enough for your friend’s neighbor, in denying or deflecting liability, to say that it was his employee who was driving the van at the time of the unfortunate incident and not him, as a presumption of law arises that the employer is likewise negligent either in the selection of or supervision over a negligent employee who caused injury to another. Consequently, the said neighbor must be able to prove that he exercised diligence of a good father of a family in either selecting his driver or in the supervision of the latter. As laid down by the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, in the case of Jessica Maitim v. Maria Theresa P. Aguila (GR 218344, March 21, 2022):

“Jurisprudence has established that under Article 2180, ‘when an injury is caused by the negligence of the employee, there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the master or employer either in the selection of the servant or employee, or in supervision over him after selection or both.’ ‘The liability of the employer under Article 2180 is direct and immediate; it is not conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent employee and a prior showing of the insolvency of such employee.’

“Applying these concepts to the present case, the finding of negligence against Santos gave rise to the presumption of negligence on the part of Maitim in the latter’s selection and/or supervision of the former. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Maitim to prove that she exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of her employee, Santos.x x x

“Given the above, Maitim’s attempt to deflect liability clearly falls short as she was not able to present concrete proof that she exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of her employee, Santos. Therefore, the presumption of negligence against her stands, and she must be held solidarily liable with Santos.” (Emphasis supplied)

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]