What is the so-called registered-owner-of-the-vehicle rule in vehicular mishaps?

The registered owner of the vehicle rule means that registered owner of any vehicle, even if not
used for public service, would primarily be responsible to the public or to third persons for
injuries caused by the latter while the vehicle was being driven on the highways or streets. In
Erezo v. Jepte, 102 Phil 103, 108 (1957), cited in Del Carmen, Jr. vs. Bacoy, et al., the Court
advised that “the main aim of motor vehicle registration is to identify the owner so that if any
accident happens, or that any damage or injury is caused by the vehicle on the public highways,
responsibility therefor can be fixed on a definite individual, the registered owner. Instances are
numerous where vehicles running on public highways caused accidents or injuries to pedestrians
or other vehicles without positive identification of the owner or drivers, or with very scant means
of identification. It is to forestall these circumstances, so inconvenient or prejudicial to the
public, that the motor vehicle registration is primarily ordained, in the interest of the
determination of persons responsible for damages or injuries caused on public highways.”

In Filcar Transport Services v. Espinas [G.R. No. 174156, June 20, 2012], the registered owner
of a motor vehicle tried to escape liability by positing the absence of employer-employee
relationship with the offending driver. The Court was not persuaded and ruled otherwise. It held
that “x x x in case of motor vehicle mishaps, the registered owner of the motor vehicle is
considered as the employer of the tortfeasor-driver, and is made primarily liable for the tort
committed by the latter under Article 2176, in relation with Article 2180, of the Civil Code.”

Indeed, this Court has consistently been of the view that it is for the better protection of the
public for both the owner of record and the actual operator to be adjudged jointly and severally
liable with the driver. As aptly stated by the appellate court, “the principle of holding the
registered owner liable for damages notwithstanding that ownership of the offending vehicle has
already been transferred to another is designed to protect the public and not as a shield on the
part of unscrupulous transferees of the vehicle to take refuge in, in order to free itself from
liability arising from its own negligent act. R Transport Corporation v. Yu [G.R. No. 174161,
February 18, 2015]

Case where employer was found to have satisfied the required diligence

In Reyes v. Doctolero et al. [G.R. No. 185597, August 2, 2017], the High Court sustained the
findings of the Court of Appeals in declaring that the security agency had observed the diligence
of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of the offending guard. Such
diligence in the selection was shown in the testimonial and documentary evidence showing that
the guard submitted all the documentary requirements in compliance with his application for
employment, including all clearances and training certificates as well as his proof of educational
attainment. Further, the diligence required in the supervision of the guard was also shown when
it conducted regular and close supervision of its security guards assigned to various clients,
round-the-clock inspection of posts, annual neuro-psychiatric tests and attendance to seminars,
among others.

Formulation of company policies on hiring and discipline requires proof of implementation

Indeed, the formulation of a supervisory hierarchy, company rules and regulations, and
disciplinary measures upon employees in case of breach, is indispensable. However, to prove due
diligence in the supervision of employees, it is not enough for an employer such as petitioner to
emptily invoke the existence of such a formulation. What is more important is the actual
implementation and monitoring of consistent compliance with the rules. Understandably, this
actual implementation and monitoring should be the constant concern of the employer, acting
through dependable supervisors who should regularly report on their supervisory functions.
Thus, there must be proof of diligence in the actual supervision of the employees’ work. Our
Lady of Lourdes Hospital v. Capanzana [G.R. No. 189218, March 22, 2017]

Owner of passenger jeepney is not lessor and is liable as employer

“x x x to exempt from liability the owner of a public vehicle who operates it under the “boundary
system” on the ground that he is a mere lessor would be not only to abet flagrant violations of the
Public Service Law, but also to place the riding public at the mercy of reckless and irresponsible
drivers — reckless because the measure of their earnings depends largely upon the number of
trips they make and, hence, the speed at which they drive; and irresponsible because most if not
all of them are in no position to pay the damages they might cause.” Hernandez vs. Dolor [G.R.
No. 160286, 30 July 2004

Rule requiring plaintiff to establish employer-employee relationship to hold employer

liable

Under the law, proof of employer-employee relationship is an important requisite before an

employer can be held liable for the damages caused by his employee acting within the scope of
their assigned tasks, even though the former is not engaged in any business or industry. Mere
allegation of such relationship is not enough. In Martin vs. CA, et al. [G.R. No. 82248, January
30, 1992, 205 SCRA 591], the Court recognized that it is enough for the supposed employer to
deny any relationship with his alleged employee and does not have to prove such negative
averment. Thus, the failure of the plaintiff to establish such employer-employee relationship
warrants the dismissal of his action.

Article 2180 provides for two (2) instances where the employer may be held liable for the
negligent act of its employee. First, the employer may only be held liable for the tort committed
by its employee if at the time of the incident, the employee was performing his assigned tasks;
second, 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. In both cases, one of the crucial requirements is
the employer-employee relationship between the parties.

When is the employee deemed to be acting within the scope of his assigned tasks?

Acts done within the scope of the employee’s assigned tasks include “any act 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 damages.” Filamer Christian Institute v. Intermediate
Appellant Court

In Castilex, the Court counseled that the mere fact that driver was using a service vehicle at the
time of the injurious incident is not of itself sufficient to charge the employer with liability for
the negligent operation of said vehicle unless it appears that the employee was operating the
vehicle within the course or scope of his employment.

Case where employer was not held liable since employee was not deemed in the
performance of his duties

Under Article 2180, paragraph 5, the employer may only be held liable for the tort committed by
its employee if at the time of the incident, the employee was performing his assigned tasks.

In Castilex Industrial Corporation vs. Vasquez, Jr. et al. [G.R. No. 132266 December 21,
1999], the employee was already engaged in affairs of his own or was carrying out a personal
purpose not in line with his duties at the time he figured in a vehicular accident, emphasizing that
the incident already happened at 2:00 a.m. of and way beyond the normal working hours. “x x x
his overtime work had already been completed. His being at a place which, as petitioner put it,
was known as a “haven for prostitutes, pimps, and drug pushers and addicts,” had no connection
to petitioner’s business; neither had it any relation to his duties as a manager. Rather, using his
service vehicle even for personal purposes was a form of a fringe benefit or one of the perks
attached to his position.”

Who is deemed the employer of a security guard recruited and hired by a security agency
and assigned and posted at the agency’s clients?

The security agency is considered the employer. In Mercury Drug Corporation v. Libunao
[G.R. No. 144458, July 14, 2004], the Court ratiocinated that “where the security agency
recruits, hires and assigns the works of its watchmen or security guards to a client, the employer
of such guards or watchmen is such agency, and not the client, since the latter has no hand in
selecting the security guards. Thus, the duty to observe the diligence of a good father of a family
cannot be demanded from the said client. x x x”

x x x “liability for illegal or harmful acts committed by the security guards attaches to the
employer agency, and not to the clients or customers of such agency. As a general rule, a client
or customer of a security agency has no hand in selecting who among the pool of security guards
or watchmen employed by the agency shall be assigned to it; the duty to observe the diligence of
a good father of a family in the selection of the guards cannot, in the ordinary course of events,
be demanded from the client whose premises or property are protected by the security guards.”

Rule that employer of house helper is liable for damages caused by the latter

Paragraph 5 of Article 2180 states that “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.

When offending child is up for adoption, natural parents are indispensable parties

Article 2180 of the Civil Code, in part, provides that 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. This liability of the parents is anchored on the relationship existing between the
parents and the minor child living with them and over whom, the law presumes, the parents
exercise supervision and control.

The grant of the petition for adoption will not result to the retroactive transfer of parental
authority from the natural parents to the adopting parents. The retroactive effect referred to by
Section 39 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code applies only when such is essential to permit
the accrual of some benefit or advantage in favor of the adopted child. In Tamargo vs. CA, et al.
[G.R. No. 85044, June 3, 1992, 209 SCRA 518], the Court asseverated that to hold that parental
authority had been retroactively lodged in the adopting parents would be unfair and
unconscionable. The law does not contemplate of burdening adopting parents with liability for a
tortious act that they could not have foreseen and which they could not have prevented since the
child was not yet living in their company.

Vehicle was used outside of assigned task and employer is the registered owner– employer
is liable under the “registered owner rule”

In Aguilar Sr. v. Commercial Savings Bank [G.R. No. 128705, June 29, 2001, citing BA
Finance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 98275, November 13, 1992], the High
Court ruled that the registered owner of any vehicle, even if not for public service, is primarily
responsible to third persons for deaths, injuries and damages it caused. This is true even if the
vehicle is leased to third persons. Thus, in said BA Finance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
case, the registered owner was held principally liable even if he had no employer-employee
relationship with the driver. He may however demand reimbursement from the lessee of the
vehicle as per their lease agreement.

Rule that the complaint does not have to allege negligence on the part of employer

The complaint does not have to allege the negligence of the defendant employer. It is enough
that there is allegation of negligence on the part of employee and his employer-employee
relationship. In Viron Transportation Co., Inc. v. Delos Santos [G.R. No. 138296, November
22, 2000, 345 SCRA 509, 517], it was held that it is not necessary to state that petitioner was
negligent in the supervision or selection of its employees, inasmuch as its negligence is
presumed by operation of law. Allegations of negligence against the employee and that of an
employer-employee relation in the complaint are enough to make out a case of quasi-delict under
Article 2180 of the Civil Code.

Diligence of a good father of a family in the hiring and supervision of employees requires
documentary proof

Case law provides that the employer must not merely present testimonial evidence to prove that
he had observed the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his
employee, but he must also support such testimonial evidence with concrete or documentary
evidence. The reason for this is to obviate the biased nature of the employer’s testimony or that
of his witnesses. Syki v. Begasa [G.R. No. 149149, October 23, 2003]

In the selection of prospective employees, employers are required to examine them as to their
qualifications, experience and service records. In the supervision of employees, the employer
must formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation and impose
disciplinary measures for the breach thereof. To fend off vicarious liability, employers must
submit concrete proof, including documentary evidence, that they complied with everything that
was incumbent on them. Filipinas Synthetic Fiber Corporation v. De Los Santos, et al. [G.R.
No. 152033, March 16, 2011]

Owner of a vehicle not liable if vehicle was driven without his consent

In Duavit vs. CA [G.R. No. 82318, 11 May 1989, 173 SCRA 490], the Court had the occasion to
rule that an owner of a vehicle cannot be held liable for an accident involving the said vehicle if
the same was driven without his consent or knowledge and by a person not employed by him.
The Court further argued that to hold the owner of the vehicle liable for the accident caused by
the negligence of a third person who was neither his driver nor employee would be absurd as it
would be like holding liable the owner of a stolen vehicle for an accident caused by the person
who stole such vehicle.

Rule that employee’s negligence creates a presumption of negligence on the part of

employer

In Syki v. Begasa [G.R. No. 149149, October 23, 2003], citing [J. Cezar S. Sangco, Philippine
Law on Torts and Damages 553-4 (1994); Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the
Civil Code of the Philippines (1959), the Court held that “x x x when an injury is caused by the
negligence of an employee, a legal presumption instantly arises that the employer was negligent,
either or both, in the selection and/or supervision of said employee. The said presumption may
be rebutted only by a clear showing on the part of the employer that he had exercised the
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee. If the
employer successfully overcomes the legal presumption of negligence, he is relieved of
liability.”

Rule on the liability of the school for the civil obligation arising from negligent act of
working student

In Filamer Christian Institute vs. IAC, et al. [G.R. No. 75112, August 17, 1992, 212 SCRA
637, 643], the Court recognized that a school’s working student is considered an employee of the
school, even if he was assigned to clean the school premises for only two (2) hours in the
morning of each school day.

The Court further averred that the school cannot deny any responsibility by arguing that it was
done beyond the scope of his janitorial duties. The Court concluded that “taking over the steering
wheel was one done for and in behalf of his employer for which act the petitioner-school cannot
deny any responsibility by arguing that it was done beyond the scope of his janitorial duties. The
clause “within the scope of their assigned tasks” for purposes of raising the presumption of
liability of an employer, includes any act 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.”

Effect when client company gives instructions to agency’s guards

The fact that a client company may give instructions or directions to the security guards assigned
to it, does not, by itself, render the client responsible as an employer of the security guards
concerned and liable for their wrongful acts or omissions. Mercury Drug Corporation v.
Libunao [G.R. No. 144458, July 14, 2004]

Case where driver of a vehicle who bumped the rear portion of another car was declared
negligent; driver of the damaged car not guilty of contributory negligence; employer of
offending driver held solidarily liable

In Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals [253 SCRA 303, 7 February 1996], the Supreme Court ruled
that the “failure to react in a manner which would have avoided the accident could therefore have
been only due to either or both of the two factors: 1) that he was driving at a “very fast” speed as
testified by Rodriquez; and 2) that he was under the influence of alcohol. Either factor working
independently would have diminished his responsiveness to road conditions, since normally he
would have slowed down prior to reaching Valenzuela’s car rather than be in a situation forcing
him to suddenly apply his brakes.”

The Court also argued that “an actor who is confronted with an emergency is not to be held up to
the standard of conduct normally applied to an individual who is in no such situation. x x x
Under the “emergency rule” x x x an individual who suddenly finds himself in a situation of
danger and is required to act without much time to consider the best means that may be adopted
to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake what
subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be a better solution, unless the emergency was
brought by his own negligence.”

Further, the employer is liable since “in providing for a company car for business use and/or for
the purpose of furthering the company’s image, a company owes a responsibility to the public to
see to it that the managerial or other employees to whom it entrusts virtually unlimited use of a
company issued car are able to use the company issue capably and responsibly.”

Rule that the owner of an establishment or enterprise is liable for damages caused by his
employee

Under the law, the owner of the restaurant is liable pursuant to Article 2180, paragraph 4 of the
Civil Code which provides, among others, that “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.”

Rule that parents are solidarily liable for the civil obligation arising from the criminal act
of their child

Under the law, parents are held primarily liable for the civil obligation arising from the criminal
acts committed by their minor children who are under their legal authority and control, or who
live in their company. The parents can only be relieved of this primary liability if they prove that
they acted with diligence of a good father of a family to prevent any such incident. In Libi vs.
Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70890, September 18, 1992, the Supreme Court held
that whether the death of the victim was caused by a felony or a quasi-delict committed by the
child, the parents can be held primarily liable for damages arising therefrom.