ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta - @Magtanong Kay Attorney | July 29, 2021
Dear Chief Acosta,
Nasagasaan ang aking asawa ng bus driver tatlong buwan nang nakalilipas. Nakasuhan na ang driver na nakasagasa sa kanya. Nais ko ring kasuhan ang may-ari ng bus o bus operator upang mapanagot sila sapagkat naniniwala akong mayroon silang pagkukulang sa pagpili nila ng kanilang driver. Maaari ko ba itong gawin? – Fred
Dear Fred,
Para sa inyong kaalaman, ang inyong idinudulog ay sakop ng Article 2180 ng Civil Code of the Philippines. Ayon sa nasabing probisyon:
“Art. 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 of 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.” (Binigyang-diin)
Samakatwid, maaari ninyong sampahan ng kaso ang bus operator ng bus driver na nakasagasa sa inyong asawa. Ito ay maaaring gawin sapagkat ang employer ay mayroong tinatawag na vicarious liability kung ang kanyang empleyado ay mapatunayang may kamaliang nagawa na maituturing na quasi-delict.
Kaugnay nito, sa desisyon ng Kagalang-galang na Korte Suprema sa Filcar Transport Services vs. Jose A. Espinas (G.R. No. 174156, June 20, 2012, Ponente: Honorable former Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion), nakasaad ang sumusunod:
“Under Article 2176, in relation with Article 2180, of the Civil Code, an action predicated on an employee’s act or omission may be instituted against the employer who is held liable for the negligent act or omission committed by his employee.
Although the employer is not the actual tortfeasor, the law makes him vicariously liable on the basis of the civil law principle of pater familias for failure to exercise due care and vigilance over the acts of ones subordinates to prevent damage to another.[10] In the last paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the employer may invoke the defense that he observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.”
Ayon sa nasabing desisyon, ang employer ay pinapanagot ng batas sa quasi-delict ng kanyang empleyado sapagkat ipinapalagay na siya ay nagkulang sa angkop na pangangalaga at pagbabantay sa kanya. Sa kabila nito, bago siya panagutin ng batas sa quasi-delict na nagawa ng kanyang empleyado, kinakailangan munang mahatulang may sala ang nasabing empleyado.
Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay.
Maraming salamat sa inyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.