Driver at iskul na may-ari ng sasakyang nakabangga, parehong puwedeng kasuhan
Dear Chief Acosta, Nabundol ng mini-van na pagmamay-ari ng private school ang anak ko. Dahil sa aksidente ay kinailangan siyang operahan. Napag-alaman namin na walang driver’s license ang driver ng paaralan. Humingi ako ng tulong sa school dahil sobrang laki ng nagastos namin pero ang sabi ng nakausap namin ay wala raw silang pananagutan dahil personal itong pagkakamali ng driver. Nais kong malaman kung wala ba talagang pananagutan ang paaralan sa nangyari sa aking anak? - Bernard
Dear Bernard, Para sa inyong kaalaman, ang batas na nakasasaklaw sa inyong katanungan ay ang Articles 2176 at 2180 ng New Civil Code of the Philippines kung saan nakasaad na:
Article 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.
x x x
Article 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 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.
Ayon sa mga nabanggit na probisyon, ang sinumang nagdulot ng kapinsalaan sa ibang tao dulot ng kanyang kapabayaan o pagkukulang ay dapat magbayad ng nararapat na danyos. Ang obligasyong ito ay hindi limitado sa taong direktang nagdulot ng kapinsalaan. Sa ilalim ng vicarious liability na tinutukoy ng Article 2180, ang employer ay may direktang pananagutan sa pinsalang nagawa ng kanyang empleyado habang ginagawa nito ang kanyang trabaho. Sa Sps. Jayme vs. Apostol, et.al. (G.R. No. 163609, 27 November 2008), ipinaliwanag ng Korte Suprema ang konsepto ng vicarious liability:
Article 2180 of the Civil Code provides that a person is not only liable for one’s own quasi-delictual acts, but also for those persons for whom one is responsible for. This liability is popularly known as vicarious or imputed liability. To sustain claims against employers for the acts of their employees, the following requisites must be established: (1) That the employee was chosen by the employer personally or through another; (2) That the service to be rendered in accordance with orders which the employer has the authority to give at all times; and (3) That the illicit act of the employee was on the occasion or by reason of the functions entrusted to him.
Significantly, to make the employee liable under paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 2180, it must be established that the injurious or tortuous act was committed at the time the employee was performing his functions.
Sa inyong sitwasyon, mayroong direktang pananagutan ang paaralan sa nangyari sa inyong anak kung mapatutunayang ang driver na nakaaksidente sa kanya ay kanilang empleyado at ang pangyayari ay naganap habang ang driver ay ginagampanan ang kanyang trabaho alinsunod sa iniatas sa kanya ng paaralan. At dahil na rin sa kawalan ng driver’s license ng driver, masasabing nagkaroon ng kapabayaan ang paaralan sa pagkuha at pagsubaybay sa kanilang empleyado.
Nawa ay nasagot namin ang inyong katanungan. Nais naming ipaalala sa inyo na ang opinyong ito ay nakabase sa inyong mga naisalaysay sa inyong liham at sa pagkakaintindi namin dito. Maaaring maiba ang opinyon kung mayroong karagdagang impormasyong ibibigay. Mas mainam kung personal kayong sasangguni sa abogado.
Maraming salamat sa patuloy ninyong pagtitiwala.
Comments