Vicarious Liability
issue on a judgment against the state. Such statutes do not
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, air-conditioning 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
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 school’s 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 teacher’s 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 non- minors
Does a student need to be a minor for a teacher to be liable?
NO. This is one of the differences between a parent’s
responsibility and that of a teacher’s. 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.
Who is At fault? Who to sue? Basis of liability Defenses that can be
raised

Student Teacher, Head Diligence of a good

School father of a family
Administrator • 2180 paragraph
(Loco Parentis)
• Art 218 1nd 219
of Family Code

Teacher School Diligence in the

selection and
supervision of employee
2180 paragraph 5
(Respondeat Superior)

Stranger School Faithful compliance of

the terms of the
contract
Contract
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?
a. Possessor’s of animals
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 Primo’s 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.
Is anyone liable for N’s injuries? Explain. (4%)
b. Exemption from Caveat emptor rule
MERCURY DRUG CORP. v. BAKING
GR. No. 156037, May 28, 2007
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 respondent’s 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?
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, petitioner’s
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 respondent’s 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 petitioner’s 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
This one is the cases covered by the chapter on Human
Relations
a. Abuse of Right Principle
 even if you have the right, you don’t 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 one’s rights but also in the performance of one’s
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) 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 Emotional Distress Court Action
1. The conduct of the defendant was intentional or
in reckless disregard of the plaintiff
2. 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.
3. There was a causal connection between the
defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's mental
distress; and
4. The plaintiff's mental distress was extreme and
severe
c. 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.
 Exception:
RA 9262 SECTION 34
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.
d. Interference with Contractual Relations
 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: o Hospital is liable for its own negligence

 Duty, Breach, Injury, Proximate Causation Note: NO EE-ER relationship between doctor and hospital. SC
overturned itself in the 2002 decision of Ramos vs CA saying
STANDARD OF DILIGENCE REQUIRED that there was no element of control.

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
o Solidarily liable with its agent(doctor)
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 patient’s 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 physician’s
communications to the patient, then must be measured by the
patient’s 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 patient’s decision.

 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)