MELENDEZ, AARON JAMES C.

ASSIGNMENT # 1 EH 401

PART I

Anna, Bea and Christine died in San Fernando, Cebu when a passenger bus they were riding
caught fire after crashing into an acacia tree. The bus, owned by Oliver and driven by Darwin,
came from Mantalongon on its way to Cebu City. It appears that as the bus neared the gate of
the school building in the municipality of San Fernando, Cebu, another passenger bus, driven by
Dwayne and owned by Othello, tried to overtake it, but that instead of giving way, Darwin
increased the speed of his bus and raced with the overtaking bus. Darwin lost control of his bus.
As a result, it crashed into a tree and burst into flames.

1. An employer’s liability based on a quasi-delict is primary and direct, while the employer’s
liability based on a delict is merely subsidiary. What does the legal term “primary and
direct,” as contrasted with “subsidiary,” refer to? (5%)

The term “primary and direct” refers to the liability based on culpa aquiliana which
holds the employer primarily liable for tortious acts of its employees 1, subject to the
defense that the employer exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of his employees. 2 Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the
liability of the employer is direct.

In contrast, subsidiary liability under the Revised Penal Code 3 refers to the liability
that originates from a delict committed by the employee, who is primarily liable and upon
whose primary liability his employer’s subsidiary liability is to be based. To hold the
employer liable in a subsidiary capacity under a delict, the aggrieved party must initiate a
criminal action where the employee’s delict and corresponding primary liability are
established. 4 The conviction of the employee primarily liable is a condition sine qua non for
the employer’s subsidiary liability.5

2. Suppose that the heirs sued Darwin criminally for reckless imprudence resulting to
homicide, and five years later, were able to obtain conviction.

a) State the conditions necessary so that the civil aspect of the judgment in the criminal
case may be imposed against Oliver, and the possible defense that Oliver may raise to
defeat liability, assuming all conditions you have laid down are shown to exist. (5%)

1
Cerezo v. Tuazon, G.R. No. 141538, March 23, 2004.
2
Franco v. IAC, G.R. No. 71137, October 5, 1989.
3
Arts. 103 and 104.
4
Cerezo v. Tuazon, G.R. No. 141538, March 23, 2004.
5
L.G. Foods Corp. v. Pagapong-Agraviador, G.R. No. 158995, September 26, 2006.

1
 For it to attach, the following conditions must be satisfied: (a) they are indeed the
employers of the convicted employees; (b) they are engaged in some kind of industry;
(c) the crime was committed by the employees in the discharge of their duties; and (d)
the latter has not been satisfied due to insolvency.6 When all requisites are present, the
employer becomes ipso facto subsidiary liable.7

However, Oliver may raise the defense of Double Recovery under Art. 2177 of the
Civil Code and Sec. 3, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. This presupposes that the injured
parties recovered damages from other sources such as a favorable decision from a
criminal or civil case instituted against the Dwayne and Othello.

b) Suppose that the trial court’s judgment of conviction did not include pronouncement as to
civil liability. Upon receipt of the judgment, the heirs filed a civil action against Oliver relying
on the latter’s vicarious liability under our civil laws.

If you were counsel for Oliver, what defense/s will you interpose, if any? How may Oliver
prove such defense/s? (15%)

A. He can raise the defense that Darwin is not his employee. He may present
evidence that the Four-Fold test, Control test, and the Economic Dependence
Test are not satisfied. Oliver may also prove that Darwin is an independent
contractor or an agent of the former.

B. He raise the defense that the Darwin acted outside his assigned task. To prove
such defense, it may be established through any the following tests: Furtherance
Test8, Special Benefit Test9, or the Roving Commission Test10.

C. He may prove that he exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of his employees. In the selection of prospective
employees, employers are required to examine them as to 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.11 Mere testimony is insufficient.

6
Calang v. People, G.R. No. 190696, August 3, 2010.
7
Carpio v. Doroja, G.R. No. 84516, December 5, 1989.
8
Filamer Christian Institute v. IAC, 212 SCRA 637.
9
Castilex Industries v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 132266, December 21, 1999.
10
Ibid.
11
Syki vs Begasa, G.R. No. 149149, October 23, 2003.

2
 D. He invoke prescription. The prescriptive period must be counted from the day of
the quasi-delict occurred.12 The filing of the criminal action does not suspend the
prescriptive period to file an action based on quasi-delict. 13 He may present
evidence that the incident occurred more than 4 years from the date the civil
action is filed.

PART II

1. What is “strict” in the doctrine of strict liability tort? Provide example of an instance where
strict liability tort may apply. (5%)

It refers to a liability arising from torts that arises and it is unnecessary to prove the
defendant’s negligence.14

Cases include liability arising from injury caused by animals under the defendant’s
possession under Article 2183 of the Civil Code; liability of manufacturers and processors of
foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods arising death or injury caused by any noxious
or harmful substances under Article 2187 of the Civil Code; liability from injury caused by
dispensing the wrong medicine by the druggist; 15 and liability of the head of the family for
damages caused by things thrown or failing from the building he is residing under Article 2193
of the Civil Code.

2. What is a tort of outrage? When is there a tort of outrage? (5%)

It is a civil action filed by an individual to assuage the injuries to his emotional tranquility
due to personal attacks on his character. 16

It requires the following: (a) the conduct of the defendant was intentional or in reckless
disregard of the plaintiff; (b) the conduct was extreme and outrageous; (c) a causal connection
between the conduct of the defendant and the plaintiff’s mental distress; (d) and the mental
distress was extreme and severe. 17

Extreme and outrageous conduct, as a cause of action, is defined as a the 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. 18

12
Paulan v. Sarbia, G.R. No. L-10542, July 31, 1958.
13
Capuno v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company, G.R. L-19331, April 30, 1965.
14
63 AmJur 2d, at p. 723
15
Mercury Drug v. Baking, G.R. No. 156037, May 25, 2007.
16
MVRS Publications, et al. v. Islamic Da’wah Council of the Phil., G.R. No. 135306, January 28, 2003.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid.

3
3. When is there tortuous interference? (5%)

It occurs when a third person induces another to violate his contract. The law makes
such third person liable. 19 The following elements must be met: (a) existence of a valid
contract; (b) knowledge of the third person on the existence of the contract; (c) and
interference of the third person without legal justification or excuse. 20

4. What are acts contra bonus mores? What must be alleged in order to successfully file a
case based on acts contra bonus mores? (5%)

These are acts that are legal but it is contrary to morals, good customs, public order, or
public policy. The following elements must be satisfied to file such case: (a) There is an act
which is legal; (b) but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy;
(c) and it is done with intent to injure.21

5. What is the principle of law laid down in Vestil v. Court of Appeals? (5%)

The Supreme Court ruled that Article 2183 of the Civil Code holds the possessor liable
even if the animal should “escape or be lost” and so be removed from his control. It does not
matter that the dog was tame and was merely provoked by the child into biting her. The law
does not speak only of vicious animals but covers even tame ones as long as they cause injury.
According to Manresa, the obligation imposed by Article 2183 of the Civil Code is not based on
the negligence or on the presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or user of the animal
causing the damage. It is based on natural equity and on the principle of social interest that he
who possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or service must answer for the damage which
such animal may cause. 22

19
Art. 1314, New Civil Code
20
So Ping Bun v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120554, September 21, 1999.
21
Art. 21, New Civil Code
22
Vestil v. IAC, G.R. No. 74431, November 6, 1989.