2. Persons Made Responsible for Others

2. Persons Made Responsible for Others

a. In General i. Quasi-delicts ii. Indirect liability for intentional acts iii. Presumption of negligence on persons indirectly responsible iv. Nature of liability b. In Particular i. Parents ii. Guardian iii. Owners and Managers of Establishments and Enterprises iv. Employers v. State vi. Teachers and Heads of Establishments of Arts and Trades

Against whom filed (Sec. 96, P.D. 1529)

If the loss, damage, or deprivation is wholly through the fault, negligence, omission, mistake, or misfeasance of the court personnel, the ROD or his deputies and employees: the action must be brought against the ROD and the National Treasurer.

If the same is attributable to persons other than said officials, the action must be brought against the ROD, the National Treasurer, and such other persons.

The Officious Manager Can Delegate Management of the Properties to Another

If the officious manager delegates to another person all or some of his duties, he shall be liable for the acts of the delegate, without prejudice to the direct obligation of the latter toward the owner of the business.

The responsibility of two or more officious managers shall be solidary, unless the management was assumed to save the thing or business from imminent danger. (Art. 2146, NCC)

The owner can seek the full amount of damages from any one of two or more officious managers when their responsibility is solidary, unless the management was assumed to save the thing or business from imminent danger. (Art. 2146, NCC)

If no knowledge of owner of vehicle not liable

An owner of a vehicle cannot be held liable for an accident involving the said vehicle if the same was driven without his consent or knowledge, and by a person not employed by him. (Duavit v. CA, G.R. No. 82318, May 18, 1989)

Captain of the Ship Doctrine

Under the captain-of-the-ship doctrine, a head surgeon may be held responsible for negligence in the operating room by personnel under the surgeon’s control; the doctrine does not make the surgeon liable for everything that goes wrong. (AQUINO, Torts and Damages)

The fact that there is a trend in American Jurisprudence to do away with the Captain of the Ship Doctrine does not mean that this court will ipso facto follow said trend. (Ramos v. CA, G.R. 124354)

Joinder of Guarantor and Principal As Parties Defendant

General rule: The guarantor, not being a joint contractor with his principal, cannot be sued with his principal.

Exception: Where it would serve merely to delay the ultimate accounting of the guarantor or if no different result would be attained if the plaintiff were forced to institute separate actions against the principal and the guarantors.

Procedure When Creditor Sues (Art. 2062)

• Sent against the principal – The guarantor cannot be sued with his principal, much less alone, except in the cases mentioned in Art. 2059 where the guarantor is not entitled to the benefit of excussion.
• Notice to guarantor of the action – guarantor must be notified so that he may appear, if he so desires, and set up defenses he may want to offer
• Guarantor appears – voluntary appearance does not constitute a renunciation of his right to excussion.
• Guarantor does not appear –
• He cannot set up the defenses which, by appearing are allowed to him by law; and
• It may no longer be possible for him to question the validity of the judgment rendered against the debtor
• But he may still invoke the benefit of excussion
• Hearing before execution can be issued against the guarantor – a guarantor is entitled to be heard before an execution can be issued against him where he is not a party in the case involving his principal.

Effects of Compromise (Art. 2063)

Compromise – a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced.

• Compromise between creditor and principal debtor benefits the guarantor but does not prejudice him.
• Compromise between guarantor and the creditor benefits but does not prejudice the principal debtor.

Reason: A compromise binds only the parties thereto and not third persons. Thus, it cannot prejudice the guarantor or debtor who was not party to the compromise. But if it benefits a third person, then the compromise may bind that third person.

Sub-Guarantor’s Right To Excussion (Art. 2064)

Sub-guarantor enjoys the benefit of excussion with respect to:

• Principal debtor; and
• Guarantor

Reason: He stands with respect to the guarantor on the same footing as the latter does with respect to the principal debtor.

Benefit of Division Among Several Guarantors (Art. 2065)

• In whose favor applicable - should there be several guarantors of only one debtor and for the same debt, the obligation to answer for the same is divided among all.
• Cannot be availed of if there are:
• Two or more debtors of one debt, even if they be bound solidarily, each with different guarantors; or
• Two or more guarantors of the same debtor but for different debts
• The benefit of division among co-guarantors ceases in the same cases and for the same reasons as the benefit of excussion against the principal debtor.
• Extent of liability of several guarantors – joint obligation
• General rule: The obligation to answer for the debt is divided among all of them. The guarantors are not liable to the creditor beyond the shares which they are respectively bound to pay.
• Exception: Solidarity has been expressly stipulated.

Benefit of Division among Several Guarantors:

In order that the guarantor may be entitled to the benefit of division, it is not required that he point out the property of his co-guarantors.

Reason: Obligation of the guarantor with respect to his co-guarantors is not subsidiary but direct and does not depend as to its origin on the solvency or insolvency of the latter.

A guarantor who has paid may demand from each co-guarantor the latter’s share of the payment only if payment was made pursuant to a judicial demand or the principal debtor is insolvent (Art. 2073).

Right to Reimbursement: The guarantor who pays for a debtor must be indemnified by the latter.

What Comprises the Right of the Guarantor to Demand Indemnity or Reimbursement from the Principal Debtor (Art. 2066)

• Total amount of the debt - The guarantor has no right to demand reimbursement until he has actually paid the debt, unless by the terms of the contract, he is given the right before making payment.
• Legal interest - It is immaterial that the debt did not earn interest for the creditor, because the guarantor’s right to legal interest is granted by law by virtue of the payment he has made, and is independent of the creditor’s right to claim interest which was necessarily regulated by the stipulations between him and the debtor.
• Expenses incurred by the guarantor - The expenses referred to are only those that the guarantor has to satisfy in accordance with law as a consequence of the guaranty. These expenses are limited to those incurred by the guarantor after having notified the debtor that payment has been demanded of him by the creditor.
• Exception: The guarantor cannot demand for reimbursement for litigation expenses, when such expenses are due to its failure to fulfill its obligation to pay upon demand. (Tuason v. Machuca, G.R. No. L-22177, 1924)
• Damages, if they are due.

Illegitimate Child

As for an illegitimate child, the mother generally exercises sole parental authority under Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by RA 9255, and bears the corresponding responsibility under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Acknowledgment by, or residence with, the father does not by itself transfer that authority to him.

De facto guardians covered by Art. 2180 of the NCC

De facto guardians are relatives and neighbors who take upon themselves the duty to care and support orphaned children without passing through judicial proceedings.

NOTE: They are liable for acts committed by children while living with them and are below 18 years of age, the law being applied by analogy.