Vicarious Liability

a. By State
Bar Exam Questions:
1.

In the last quarter of 2012, about 5,000

container vans of imported goods
intended for the Christmas Season
were seized by agents of the Bureau of
Customs. The imported goods were
released only on January 10,2013. A
group of importers got together and
filed an action for damages before the
Regional Trial Court of Manila against
the Department of Finance and the
Bureau of Customs.
The Bureau of Customs raised the
defense of immunity from suit and,
alternatively, that liability should lie
with XYZ Corp. which the Bureau had
contracted for the lease of ten (10)
high powered van cranes but delivered
only five (5) of these cranes, thus
causing the delay in its cargo-handling
operations. It appears that the Bureau,
despite demand, did not pay XYZ Corp.
the Php 1.0 Million deposit and
advance rental required under their
contract.
(A) Will the action by the group
of importers prosper? (5%)
(B) Can XYZ Corp. sue the
Bureau of Customs to collect
rentals
for
the
delivered
cranes? (5'%)

2.

The Ambassador of the Republic of

Kafiristan referred to you for handling,
the case of the Embassy's Maintenance
Agreement with CBM, a private
domestic
company
engaged
in
maintenance work. The Agreement
binds CBM, for a defined fee, to
maintain the Embassy's elevators, airconditioning
units
and
electrical
facilities. Section 10 of the Agreement
provides that the Agreement shall be
governed by Philippine laws and that
any legal action shall be brought before
the proper court of Makati. Kafiristan
terminated the Agreement because

CBM allegedly did not comply with their

agreed maintenance standards.
CBM contested the tennination and
filed a complaint againstKafiristan
before the Regional Trial Court of
Makati. The Ambassador wants you to
file a motion to dismiss on the ground
of state immunity from suit and to
oppose the position that under Section
10 of the Agreement, Kafiristan
expressly waives its immunity from
suit.
Under these facts, can the Embassy
successfully invoke immunity from suit? (6%)
Discussion:
Even though the rule as to immunity of a state
from suit is relaxed, the power of the courts
ends when the judgment is rendered. Although
the liability of the state has been judicially
ascertained, the state is at liberty to determine
for itself whether to pay the judgment or not,
and execution can not issue on a judgment
against the state. Such statutes do not
authorize a seizure of state property to satisfy
judgments recovered, and only convey
implication that the legislature will recognize
such judgment as final and make provision for
the satisfaction thereof. (49 Am. Jur., Sec. 104,
pp. 312-320.)
Judgments against a state, in cases where it
has consented to be sued, generally operate
merely to liquidate and establish plaintiff's
claim in the absence of express provision;
otherwise they can not be enforced by
processes of law; and it is for the legislature to
provide for their payment in such manner as it
sees fit. (59 C.J. sec. 501, p. 331; 81 C.J.S., sec.
232, p. 1343.)
It is a well-entrenched rule in this jurisdiction,
embodied in Article 2180 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines, that the State is liable only for
torts caused by its special agents, specially
commissioned to carry out the acts complained
of outside of such agent's regular duties
(Merritt vs. Insular Government, supra; Rosete
vs. Auditor General, 81 Phil. 453). There being

no proof that the making of the tortious

inducement was authorized, neither the State
nor its funds can be made liable therefor.
b. By teachers
WHO CAN BE HELD LIABLE?
1. The school
2. The schools administrators;
3. and Teachers
WHY ARE THEY LIABLE?
According to Tolentino, a teacher must
not only be charged with teaching but also
vigilance over their students or pupils.
Without the parents to look after their children
when in school, it is the teacher who takes over
in the supervision.
It is thus fitting that the basis of a
teachers liability is the principle of in loco
parentis.
Principle of in loco parentis
- means in the place of a parent,
- exists when a person undertakes care
and control of another in absence of such
supervision by natural parents and in
absence of formal legal approval, and is
temporary in character and is not to be
likened to an adoption which is permanent.
LEGAL BASIS FOR THEIR LIABILITY

New Civil Code

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.

The father and, in case of his

death
or
incapacity,
the
mother, are responsible for the
damages caused by the minor
children who live in their
company.

Guardians
are
liable
for
damages caused by the minors
or incapacitated persons who
are under their authority and
live in their company.

The owners and managers of

an establishment or enterprise
are likewise responsible for
damages caused by their
employees in the service of the
branches in which the latter are
employed or on the occasion of
their functions.

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.

The State is responsible in like

manner when it acts through a
special agent; but not when the
damage has been caused by
the official to whom the task
done properly pertains, in
which case what is provided in
Article
2176
shall
be
applicable.

Lastly, teachers or heads of

establishments of arts and
trades shall be liable for
damages caused by their
pupils and students or
apprentices, so long as they
remain in their custody.
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.
(1903a)

Family Code
Art. 218. The school, its administrators and
teachers, or the individual, entity or institution
engaged in child are shall have special parental
authority and responsibility over the minor
child while under their supervision, instruction
or custody.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all
authorized activities whether inside or outside
the premises of the school, entity or institution.
(349a)
WHEN ARE THEY LIABLE?

Teachers are liable for the acts or

omission of their pupils and students in
their custody

Heads of establishments of arts and

trades are liable for the act or
omission of apprentices in their
custody
Reason for difference:
The reason for the disparity can be traced to
the fact that historically the head of the school
of arts and trades exercised a closer tutelage
over his pupils than the head of the academic
school.
By contrast, the head of the academic school
was not as involved with his students and
exercised only administrative duties over the
teachers who were the persons directly dealing
with the students.
The head of the academic school had then (as
now) only a vicarious relationship with the
students. Consequently, while he could not be
directly faulted for the acts of the students, the
head of the school of arts and trades, because

of his closer ties with them, could be so

blamed. ( Amadora vs CA G.R. No. L-47745
April 15, 1988)
What does the phrase so long
as they remain in their custody
means?
The student is considered in the
custody of the school authorities for as long as
he is under the control and influence of the
school and within its premises, regardless of
whether the semester has started or has
ended.
As long as it can be shown that the
student is in the school premises in pursuance
of a legitimate student objective, in the
exercise of a legitimate student right, and even
in the enjoyment of a legitimate student right,
and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate
student privilege, the responsibility of the
school authorities over the student continues.
Indeed, even if the student should be doing
nothing more than relaxing in the campus in
the company of his classmates and friends and
enjoying the ambience and atmosphere of the
school, he is still within the custody and subject
to the discipline of the school authorities under
the provisions of Article 2180. ( Amadora vs CA
G.R. No. L-47745 April 15, 1988)

Liability of teachers for nonminors

Does a student need to be a minor for a
teacher to be liable?
NO. This is one of the differences
between a parents responsibility
and
that of a teachers. Under Article 221 of the
Family Code of the Philippines, parents are
responsible for their unemancipated minor
children, while Article 2180 of the Civil Code
does not provide any qualifications nor age
limit. Thus, the liability of a teacher applies to
all students, even those of age. Although
according to Tolentino, who quotes Plainol &
Ripert, the degree of vigilance of non-minors is
not the same as over minors. This view is
supported by Articles 218 and 219 of the
Family Code.

Liability Outside School

May a teacher escape liability for outings
and activities held outside the school but
authorized by the school?
NO. Art 218 of the Family Code states
that authority and
responsibility
shall
apply
to
all
authorized
activities
whether inside or outside the premises
of the school, entity
or institution. Special
parental authority and responsibility
applies

to all authorized activities, whether inside or

outside
the school premises.

Waivers
Can
a
teacher
or
school
escape
responsibility by asking parents to file a
waiver during field trips and outings?
This issue is closely related to liabilities
outside school and Art 218 is clear that
authority and responsibility
shall apply to
all authorized activities whether inside or
outside the premises of the school,
entity or
institution.
The fact that the parents allowed their child to
join the activity, or even signed a waiver for
this purpose, does not mean that the
teacher(s)-in-charge were already relieved of
their duty to observe the required diligence of
a good father of a family in ensuring the safety
of the children.
The waiver not to hold the school or its
teachers responsible for negligence is not valid
because the waiver is contrary to public policy.
Thus, a teacher can still be made to answer for
damages by the parent of the pupil or student
in case she failed to exercise the proper
diligence to prevent harm or injury to the pupil
or student.
At best, what the waiver can bring
about is a reminder to the teacher of his duty
of diligence.

Teacher

School

2180
(Resp
Super

Stranger

School

Contra

Who is At fault?

Who to sue?

Student

Teacher, Head
School
Administrator

b. Exemption
rule

from

Caveat

MERCURY
DRUG
CORP.
GR. No. 156037, May 28, 2007

STRICT LIABILITY TORTS

When you speak of torts, the basis of liability is
you being at fault but then there can be a kind
of tort that even if there is no fault imputed
there can still be liability and these are very
limited kinds you would call strict liability torts.
Why would you allow imputing liability on
somebody when there is no fault?
SC said that there are very limited kinds of
activities where the person engaged in such
activities derives some sense of pleasure,
utility, or service and then the source of that
pleasure, utility, service may have imputed
damage on another.
In the allocation of loss and risk, it is just fair
that one who derives pleasure, utility, or
service from that activity should be the one
held liable for the damage.
What are these instances?

The possessor of an animal (NOT

necessarily the owner) or whoever may make
use of the same is responsible for the damage
which it may cause, although it may escape or
be lost. 'This responsibility shall cease only in
case the damages should come from force
majeure from the fault of the person who has
suffered damage.
Bar Question:
Primo owns a pet iguana which he
keeps in a man-made pond enclosed by a fence
situated in his residential lot. A typhoon
knocked down the fence of the pond and the
iguana crawled out of the gate of Primos
residence. N, a neighbor who was passing by,
started throwing stones at the iguana, drawing
the iguana to move toward him. N panicked
and ran but tripped on something and suffered
a broken leg.
liable

for

BAKING

Sebastian M. Baking went to the clinic of Dr.

Cesar Sy for a medical check-up. After
undergoing
an
ECG,
and
several
examininations, Dr. Sy found the respondents
blood sugar and triglyceride were above
normal. The doctor then prescribed two
medical prescriptions- Diamicron for the blood
sugar and Benalize for his triglyceride.
Respondent then proceeded to Mercury Drug
Alabang to buy the prescribed medicines. The
sales lady misread the prescription for
Diamicron as a prescription for Dormicum. Thus
what was sold was Dormicum, a potent
sleeping tablet. Unaware of the wrong
medicine, he took one pill on three consecutive
days. On the third day he took the medicine,
he met an accident while driving his car. He fell
asleep while driving. He could not remember
anything about the collision nor felt its impact.
Suspecting the tablet he took, respondent went
back to Dr. Sy who was shocked after finding
that what was sold was Dormicum instead of
Diamicron. He filed the present complaint for
damages against petitioner. The trial court
favored the defendant which was affirmed by
the
CA
hence
this
petition.
ISSUE: Is petitioner negligent, and if so, is the
negligence was the proximate cause of the
accident?

a. Possessors of animals

Is anyone
Explain. (4%)

v.

emptor

Ns

injuries?

HELD: YES. Art. 2176 provide the requisites of

negligence: 1. damage suffered by the plaintiff,
2. fault or negligence of the defendant, 3.
connection of cause and effect between the
fault or negligence of the defendant and the
damage incurred by the plaintiff. It is generally
recognized that the drugstore business is
imbued with public interest. Obviously,
petitioners employee was grossly negligent in
selling the wrong prescription. Considering that
a fatal mistake could be a matter of life and
death for a buying patient, the said employee
should have been very cautious in dispensing
medicines. She should have verified whether
the medicine she gave respondent was indeed
the one prescribed by the physician. Petitioner
contends that the proximate cause of the
accident was respondents negligence in
driving his car. Proximate cause is that cause,
which in natural and continuous sequence
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause,
produces the injury, and without which the
result would not have occurred Proximate
cause is determined from the facts of each

case, upon a combined consideration of logic,

common sense, policy, and precedent. Here,
the vehicular accident could not have occurred
had petitioners employee been careful in
reading the prescription. Without the potent
effect of Dormicum, a sleeping tablet, it was
unlikely that respondent would fall asleep while
driving his car, resulting in collision. Petition
DENIED.
SPECIAL TORTS

but which is contrary to morals, good

custom, public order, or public policy;
and (3) it is done with intent to injure.
A common theme runs through Articles
19 and 21, and that is, the act
complained of must be intentional.
b. Emotional Distress Court Action

is personal in nature, i.e., it is a civil

action filed by an individual to assuage
the injuries to his emotional tranquility
due to personal attacks on his
character.

reactive harm principle which

includes injuries to individual emotional
tranquility in the form of an infliction of
emotional distress.

"Emotional distress" means any

highly unpleasant mental reaction such
as extreme grief, shame, humiliation,
embarrassment, anger, disappointment,
worry, nausea, mental suffering and
anguish, shock, fright, horror, and
chagrin.

The plaintiff is required to show, among

other things, that he or she has suffered
emotional distress so severe that no
reasonable person could be expected to
endure it; severity of the distress is an
element of the cause of action, not
simply a matter of damages

Any party seeking recovery for mental

anguish must prove more than mere
worry,
anxiety,
vexation,
embarrassment, or anger. Liability does
not arise from mere insults, indignities,
threats, annoyances, petty expressions,
or other trivialities.

In determining whether the tort of

outrage had been committed, a plaintiff
is necessarily expected and required to
be hardened to a certain amount of
criticism, rough language, and to
occasional acts and words that are
definitely inconsiderate and unkind; the
mere fact that the actor knows that the
other will regard the conduct as
insulting, or will have his feelings hurt,
is not enough.

Elements of
Court Action

This one is the cases covered by the

chapter on Human Relations
a.

Abuse of Right Principle

even if you have the right, you
dont have the right to exercise it
excessively
If you file a case for damages
anchored on abuse of rights, then
when you file your complaint to the
court
it
should
contain
the
allegation of bad faith or malice.

NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN v REYES

Elsewhere, we explained that when "a
right is exercised in a manner which does not
conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19
and results in damage to another, a legal
wrong is thereby committed for which the
wrongdoer must be responsible." The object of
this article, therefore, is to set certain
standards which must be observed not only in
the exercise of ones rights but also in the
performance of ones duties. These standards
are the following: act with justice, give
everyone his due and observe honesty and
good faith. Its antithesis, necessarily, is any act
evincing bad faith or intent to injure. Its
elements are the following: (1) There is a legal
right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad
faith; (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or
injuring another. When Article 19 is violated, an
action for damages is proper under Articles 20
or 21 of the Civil Code. Article 20 pertains to
damages arising from a violation of law which
does not obtain herein as Ms. Lim was perfectly
within her right to ask Mr. Reyes to leave.
Article 21, on the other hand, states:
Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes
loss or injury to another in a manner
that is contrary to morals, good
customs
or
public
policy
shall
compensate the latter for the damage.
Article 21 refers to acts contra bonus
mores and has the following elements:
(1) There is an act which is legal; (2)

Emotional

Distress

1.
2.

3.

4.
c.

The conduct of the defendant was

intentional or in reckless disregard
of the plaintiff
The conduct was extreme and
outrageous
o means conduct that is so
outrageous in character, and so
extreme in degree, as to go
beyond all possible bounds of
decency, and to be regarded as
atrocious,
and
utterly
intolerable
in
civilized
society. The
defendant's
actions must have been so
terrifying
as
naturally
to
humiliate,
embarrass
or
frighten the plaintiff. Generally,
conduct will be found to be
actionable where the recitation
of the facts to an average
member of the community
would arouse his resentment
against the actor, and lead him
or
her
to
exclaim,
"Outrageous!" as his or her
reaction.
There was a causal connection
between the defendant's conduct
and the plaintiff's mental distress;
and
The plaintiff's mental distress was
extreme and severe

d. Interference
Relations

Alienation of Affection

Article 26 of NCC
Every person shall respect the dignity,
personality, privacy and peace of mind of
his neighbors and other persons. The
following and similar acts, though they may
not constitute a criminal offense, shall
produce a cause of action for damages,
prevention and other relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy of another's
residence:
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the
private life or family relations of
another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be
alienated from his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on
account of his religious beliefs, lowly
station in life, place of birth, physical
defect, or other personal condition.

Persons Intervening Exempt from Liability.

In every case of violence against women and
their children as herein defined, any person,
private individual or police authority or
barangay official who, acting in accordance
with law, responds or intervenes without using
violence or restraint greater than necessary to
ensure the safety of the victim, shall not be
liable for any criminal, civil or administrative
liability resulting therefrom.

Exception:
RA 9262 SECTION 34

with

Contractual

Elements:
1. existence of a valid contract;
2. knowledge on the part of the third
person of the existence of contract;
and
3. interference of the third person is
without legal justification or excuse
o
there was no malice in the
interference of a contract, and
the impulse behind one's
conduct lies in a proper
business interest rather than in
wrongful motives, a party
cannot
be
a
malicious
interferer. Where the alleged
interferer
is
financially
interested, and such interest
motivates
his
conduct,
it
cannot be said that he is an
officious
or
malicious
intermeddler.

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
It is a particular form of negligence
which consists in the failure of the physician or
surgeon to apply his practice of medicine that
degree of care and skill which is ordinarily
employed by the profession generally, under
similar conditions, and in like surrounding
circumstances.
Elements Involved in Medical Negligence
Cases:

Duty,
Breach,
Causation

Injury,

Proximate

STANDARD OF DILIGENCE REQUIRED

GR: The standard contemplated for doctors is
simply the reasonable average merit among
ordinarily good physicians.

EXC: But a physician holding out himself as

having special knowledge and skill in the
treatment of a particular organ, disease or type
of injury is bound to bring to the discharge of
his duty to a patient employing him as such
specialist.
Factors in determining the degree of
learning and skill required of a physician
or surgeon in his treatment of a particular
case:

State of Medical or Surgical science at

the time
The locality in which the physician
practices
The general rules and principles of the
particular school of medicine which he
follows
The nature of the case
The condition of the patient

EVIDENTIARY RULE
GR: There is a necessity of expert testimony in
proving medical negligence.
EXC: Obvious errors, which the doctrine of
Res Ipsa Loquitor applies.
In such case, the need for an expert medical
testimony is dispensed with because the injury
itself provides the proof of negligence.
Meaning:
When common language and
experience teach that a resulting injury would
not have occurred to the patient if due care
had been exercised, an inference of negligence
may be drawn giving rise to an application of
the doctrine without medical evidence, which is
ordinarily required to show not only what
occurred but how and why it occurred.
WHEN IS A HOSPITAL LIABLE?

no employment relationship + hospital

holds out to the patient that the doctor
is its agent
o hospital may still be vicariously
liable under Article 2176 in
relation to Article 1431 and
Article 1869 of the Civil Code or
the
principle
of
apparent
authority/ agency by estoppels

Solidarily
liable
agent(doctor)

with

its

regardless of its relationship with the

doctor
o hospital may be held directly
liable to the patient for its own
negligence or failure to follow
established
standard
of
conduct to which it should
conform as a corporation
(corporate
negligence
doctrine)
o Hospital is liable for its own
negligence

Note: NO EE-ER relationship between doctor

and hospital. SC overturned itself in the 2002
decision of Ramos vs CA saying that there was
no element of control.
CAPTAIN OF THE SHIP DOCTRINE
Under this doctrine, the surgeon is
likened to a ship captain who must not only be
responsible for the safety of the crew but also
of the passengers of the vessel. The head
surgeon is made responsible for everything
that goes wrong within the four corners of the
operating room. It enunciates the liability of
the surgeon not only for the wrongful acts of
those who are under his physical control but
also those wherein he has extension of control.
DOCTRINE OF INFORMED CONSENT
A duty imposed on a doctor to explain
the risks of recommended procedures to a
patient before a patient determines whether or
not he or she should go forward with the
procedure.
The gravamen in an informed consent
case requires the plaintiff to point to
significant undisclosed information relating to
the treatment which would have altered her
decision to undergo it.
The element of ethical duty to disclose
material risks in the proposed medical
treatment cannot thus be reduced to one
simplistic
formula
applicable
in
all
instances. Further, in a medical malpractice
action based on lack of informed consent, the
plaintiff must prove both the duty and the

breach of that duty through expert testimony.

Such expert testimony must show the
customary standard of care of physicians in the
same practice as that of the defendant doctor.
The court thus concluded that the patients
right of self-decision can only be effectively
exercised if the patient possesses adequate
information to enable him in making an

intelligent choice. The scope of the physicians

communications to the patient, then must be
measured by the patients need, and that need
is whatever information is material to the
decision. The test therefore for determining
whether a potential peril must be divulged is its
materiality to the patients decision.