1. Due Diligence

Diligence Required of an Officious Manager

The officious manager shall perform his duties with all the diligence of a good father of a family, and pay the damages which through his fault or negligence may be suffered by the owner of the property or business under management.

The courts may, however, increase or moderate the indemnity according to the circumstances of each case. (Art. 2145, NCC)

Due Diligence to Prevent the Damage

The vicarious liability shall cease when the defendants prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. (Art. 2180, NCC; Cuadra v. Monfort, G.R. No. L-24101, 30 Sept. 1970)

As for the employer, if he shows to the satisfaction of the court that in the selection and in the supervision of his employees, he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family, the presumption is overcome and he is relieved from liability. (Layugan v. IAC, G.R. No. L-49542, 12 Sep. 1980)

In Pilapil v. CA (G.R. No. 52159, 22 Dec. 1989), the Court held that respondents (common carriers) were not negligent in failing to take special precautions against threats to the safety of passengers which could not be foreseen, such as tortious or criminal acts of third persons. However, in Fortune Express, Inc. v. CA (G.R. No. 119756, 18 Mar. 1999), where a passenger bus was ambushed and one of the passengers was killed, the Court held the petitioner bus company liable as it did not take necessary precautions to protect the safety of passengers despite the report of a Philippine Constabulary agent that the Maranaos were planning to burn some of petitioner’s buses.

DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA

Defenses available to an employer

• Exercise of due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees (except in criminal action); and

NOTE: In the selection of prospective employees, employers are required to examine their qualifications, experience, and service records. On the other hand, with respect to the supervision of employees, employers should formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation, and impose disciplinary measures for breaches thereof. To establish these factors in a trial involving the issue of vicarious liability, employers must submit concrete proof, including documentary evidence. (Metro Manila Transit v. CA, G.R. No. 141089, September 27, 2004)

• The employer may contest liability by proving that the employee’s act was outside the scope of assigned tasks or functions under Article 2180 of the Civil Code; the time of the act and any violation of company rules are relevant facts, but are not conclusive by themselves.

Q: Would the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee be available to the employer in both instances?

A: NO. The defense of diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code is available only to those primarily liable thereunder, but not to those subsidiary liable under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. (Yumul v. Juliano, G.R. No. 47690, April 28, 1941)

Elements:

• They have been previously informed about the effects brought by the guests; and
• Is notification required before the common carrier becomes liable for lost belongings that remained in the custody of the passenger? NO. Actual delivery of the goods to the innkeepers or their employees is unnecessary before liability could attach to the hotelkeepers in the event of loss of personal belongings of their guests considering that the personal effects were inside the hotel or inn because the hotelkeeper shall remain accountable. Accordingly, actual notification was not necessary to render the petitioner as the common carrier liable for the lost personal belongings of Sesante. By allowing him to board the vessel with his belongings without any protest, the petitioner became sufficiently notified of such belongings. So long as the belongings were brought inside the premises of the vessel, the petitioner was thereby effectively notified and consequently duty-bound to observe the required diligence in ensuring the safety of the belongings during the voyage. Applying Article 2000 of the Civil Code, the petitioner assumed the liability for loss of the belongings caused by the negligence of its officers or crew. In view of our finding that the negligence of the officers and crew of the petitioner was the immediate and proximate cause of the sinking of the M/V Princess of the Orient, its liability for Sesante's lost personal belongings was beyond question. (Sulpicio Lines v. Sesante, 2016)
• The guests have taken the precautions prescribed regarding their safekeeping.