iii. Presumption of Negligence on Persons Indirectly Responsible

Presumption on the negligence of the employer

Once the employee’s negligence and the other requisites of Article 2180 are established, the employer is presumed negligent in the selection or supervision of the employee, subject to the statutory diligence defense. This liability of the employer is primary and direct. (Standard Vacuum Oil Co. vs. Tan and Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-13048. February 27, 1960)

Once the employee’s fault is established, the employer can then be made liable on the basis of the presumption that the employer failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees. (LRTA v. Navidad, G.R. No. 145804, February 7, 2005)

Q: A van and a tricycle figured in an accident along Sumulong Highway in Antipolo City. The van was owned and registered under Imperial's name, and was driven by Laraga. The tricycle was driven by Mercado.

The Bayaban Spouses, who were on board the tricycle, sustained injuries requiring therapy and post-medical treatment. The Bayaban Spouses demanded compensation from Imperial, Laraga, and Mercado for the hospital bills and loss of income that they sustained while undergoing treatment. When neither Imperial, Laraga, nor Mercado heeded their demand, the Bayaban Spouses filed a Complaint for damages.

The RTC ruled in favor of the Bayaban Spouses. It found Laraga negligent and the proximate cause of the accident. On appeal, the CA maintained Laraga’s liability, ruling that "the registered owner of a motor vehicle is primarily and directly responsible for the consequences of its operation, including the negligence of the driver, with respect to the public and all third persons."

1. Does the burden of proof fall upon Imperial to prove that his employee, Laraga, was not acting within the scope of his assigned tasks?

2. Should Imperial be vicariously liable for the damages sustained by the Bayaban Spouses?

A:

• NO. The burden of proving the existence of an employer-employee relationship and that the employee was acting within the scope of his or her assigned tasks rests with the plaintiff under the Latin maxim "ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" or "he who asserts, not he who denies, must prove." Therefore, it is not incumbent on the employer to prove that the employee was not acting within the scope of his assigned tasks. Once the plaintiff establishes the requisite facts, the presumption that the employer was negligent in the selection and supervision of the employee arises, disputable with evidence that the employer has observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
• YES. Specifically, under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers may be held liable for damage caused by the fault or negligence of their employees, even without moral culpability, but only if the employees are acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, subject to the statutory diligence defense. An act is deemed an assigned task if it is "done by an employee, in furtherance of the interests of the employer or for the account of the employer at the time of the infliction of the injury or damage."

Considering that the petitioner failed to dispute the presumption of negligence on his part, he was correctly deemed liable for the damages incurred by the Bayaban Spouses when the tricycle they were riding collided with the van driven by the petitioner's employee, Laraga. (Raul S. Imperial v. Heirs of Neil Bayaban, And Mary Lou Bayaban, G.R. No. 197626, June 24, 2019)

Requisites for the application of the doctrine

Resort to the doctrine may be allowed only when:

• The accident is of such character as to warrant an inference that it would not have happened except for the defendant’s negligence;
• The accident must have been caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive management or control of the person charged with the negligence complained of; and
• The accident must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured. (Josefa v. MERALCO, G.R. No. 182705, July 18, 2014)

Thus, it is not applicable when an unexplained accident may be attributable to one of several causes, for some of which the defendant could not be responsible. (FGU Insurance Corp. v. G. P. Sarmiento Trucking Co., G.R. No. 141910, August 6, 2002)

Principle of Vicarious Liability or Law on Imputed Negligence (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010 BAR)

The obligation imposed by Art. 2176 of the NCC for quasi-delicts is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those persons for whom one is responsible. (Art. 2180, NCC)

RES IPSA LOQUITUR