iv. Nature of Liability

Nature of Liability

Concept

Liability for damage may rest on a person’s own wrongful act or arise from a legal rule making that person answer for another’s act. The nature of the liability depends on its basis: a person who unlawfully causes damage answers for that conduct, while an employer may be held liable for an employee’s tort under the rules on quasi-delict or subsidiarily liable for a felony under the Revised Penal Code. (Art. 20, Civil Code)¹ (Imperial v. Heirs of Bayaban, G.R. No. 197626, 24 June 2019)² (Art. 103, Revised Penal Code)³

Governing provisions

Article 20 of the Civil Code requires a person who willfully or negligently causes damage contrary to law to indemnify the injured party. Article 19 sets the standard of justice, honesty, and good faith in exercising rights and performing duties. Negligence in performing an obligation may also give rise to demandable responsibility, subject to regulation by the courts according to the circumstances. (Art. 20, Civil Code)¹ (Art. 19, Civil Code)⁴ (Art. 1172, Civil Code)⁵

Under the Revised Penal Code, Articles 102 and 103 provide for subsidiary civil liability in the situations they specify. Article 104 states that civil liability under those provisions includes restitution, reparation of damage, and indemnification for consequential damages. (Art. 102, Revised Penal Code)⁶ (Art. 103, Revised Penal Code)³ (Art. 104, Revised Penal Code)⁷

Requisites / Rules

• For employer liability under Article 2180, establish the employer-employee relationship and that the employee acted within the scope of the assigned task when the tort was committed. Only then does the employer’s defense of due diligence in selection come into play. (Caravan Travel and Tours International, Inc. v. Abejar, G.R. No. 170631, 10 February 2016)⁸
• For subsidiary liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, the provision covers specified persons or entities engaged in industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties. Its subsidiary character follows Article 102. (Art. 103, Revised Penal Code)³ (Art. 102, Revised Penal Code)⁶

Distinctions

Article 2180 concerns vicarious liability for a tort: liability may be imposed by legal fiction even without a contractual relationship with the injured party. By contrast, Article 103 expressly extends the subsidiary liability described in Article 102 to the persons and felonies it identifies. Do not treat the two bases as interchangeable merely because both may involve an employer and a worker. (Imperial v. Heirs of Bayaban)² (Art. 103, Revised Penal Code)³

Key doctrines

Liability for another’s act need not imply that the person held liable personally committed the harmful act. Public policy may justify extra-contractual liability despite the absence of that person’s moral culpability. In Imperial v. Heirs of Bayaban, proof that the employee acted within assigned tasks, coupled with the employer’s failure to rebut the presumption of negligence in selection and supervision, resulted in solidary liability for damages. (Imperial v. Heirs of Bayaban)²

Exceptions

Article 102 separately addresses goods taken by robbery or theft from lodging guests: the innkeeper’s subsidiary liability depends on advance notice of the deposit and the guest’s compliance with directions for its care. In robbery involving violence against or intimidation of persons, that liability does not attach unless the innkeeper’s employees committed it. (Art. 102, Revised Penal Code)⁶

Bar tip

Identify the source of liability first. Then state whether the claim concerns the defendant’s own conduct, Article 2180 liability for another’s tort, or subsidiary liability under Articles 102–103 of the Revised Penal Code. (Art. 20, Civil Code)¹ (Imperial v. Heirs of Bayaban)² (Art. 102, Revised Penal Code)⁶ (Art. 103, Revised Penal Code)³