Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 87 views

    L.G. Foods vs. Agraviador

    Uploaded by

    VEDIA GENON
    This case discusses the liability of employers for damages caused by their employees. The Court ruled that under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers are directly liable for the negligence of their employees in performing their duties. While victims can choose to sue under Article 103 of the Penal Code which establishes subsidiary employer liability, the plaintiffs in this case correctly based their claim on Article 2180 of the Civil Code by alleging the employer failed to exercise due diligence in selecting and supervising the negligent driver who caused a vehicular accident. Therefore, the employer's liability was direct and not dependent on first pursuing a claim against the negligent employee.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    L.G. Foods vs. Agraviador

    Uploaded by

    VEDIA GENON
    87 views2 pages
    This case discusses the liability of employers for damages caused by their employees. The Court ruled that under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers are directly liable for the negligence of their employees in performing their duties. While victims can choose to sue under Article 103 of the Penal Code which establishes subsidiary employer liability, the plaintiffs in this case correctly based their claim on Article 2180 of the Civil Code by alleging the employer failed to exercise due diligence in selecting and supervising the negligent driver who caused a vehicular accident. Therefore, the employer's liability was direct and not dependent on first pursuing a claim against the negligent employee.

    Original Description:

    a

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses the liability of employers for damages caused by their employees. The Court ruled that under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers are directly liable for the negligence of their employees in performing their duties. While victims can choose to sue under Article 103 of the Penal Code which establishes subsidiary employer liability, the plaintiffs in this case correctly based their claim on Article 2180 of the Civil Code by alleging the employer failed to exercise due diligence in selecting and supervising the negligent driver who caused a vehicular accident. Therefore, the employer's liability was direct and not dependent on first pursuing a claim against the negligent employee.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    87 views2 pages

    L.G. Foods vs. Agraviador

    Uploaded by

    VEDIA GENON
    This case discusses the liability of employers for damages caused by their employees. The Court ruled that under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers are directly liable for the negligence of their employees in performing their duties. While victims can choose to sue under Article 103 of the Penal Code which establishes subsidiary employer liability, the plaintiffs in this case correctly based their claim on Article 2180 of the Civil Code by alleging the employer failed to exercise due diligence in selecting and supervising the negligent driver who caused a vehicular accident. Therefore, the employer's liability was direct and not dependent on first pursuing a claim against the negligent employee.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    5

    L.G. Foods v. Agraviador


    503 SCRA 170
    Garcia, J.

    DOCTRINE OF THE CASE: Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the liability of the
    employer is direct or immediate. It is not conditioned upon prior recourse against the
    negligent employee and a prior showing of insolvency of such employee.

    FACTS: This is petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals
    affirming the order of the RTC of Bacolod City, which denied the petitioners’ motion to
    dismiss in a civil case, an action for damages arising from a vehicular accident thereat
    instituted by the herein private respondent, the spouses Florentino and Theresa
    Vallejera against the petitioners. In this negligence suit, Charles, a 7-year old son of the
    Vallejera spouses, was hit by a Ford Fiera van owned by LG Foods Corp. and driven by
    their employee, Vince Ferrer. A case for reckless imprudence resulting to homicide was
    filed against the driver, however, before trial could be concluded, the accused
    committed suicide. Hence, the case was dismissed and subsequently, a complaint for
    damages was filed by the spouses against the LG Foods alleging that as employers,
    they failed to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees.
    In their defense, LG Foods denied liability by claiming to have exercised such diligence
    and prayed for dismissal for lack of cause arguing that since the complaint was a claim
    for subsidiary liability against as employer under Art. 103 of the RPC and as such, there
    must first be a judgment for conviction against their driver to hold them liable and since
    such condition was not fulfilled due to the latter’s death, spouses have no cause of
    action.

    ISSUE: Whether the cause of action of the spouses is founded on Article 103 of RPC.

    RULING: No. The cause of action was founded on Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. Victims
    of negligence or their heirs have a choice between an action to enforce the civil liability
    arising from culpa criminal under Article 100 in relation to Art. 103 of the Revised Penal
    Code, and an action for quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana) under Articles 2176 to 2194 of the
    Civil Code. Here, the complaint sufficiently alleged that the death of the couple’s minor
    son was caused by the negligent act of the petitioners’ driver; and that the petitioners
    themselves were civilly liable for the negligence of their driver for failing “to exercise the
    necessary diligence required of a good father of the family in the selection and
    supervision of [their] employee, the driver, which diligence, if exercised, would have
    prevented said accident. Had the respondent spouses elected to sue the petitioners
    based on Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, they would have alleged that the guilt
    of the driver had been proven beyond reasonable doubt; that such accused driver is
    insolvent; that it is the subsidiary liability of the defendant petitioners as employers to
    pay for the damage done by their employee (driver) based on the principle that every
    person criminally liable is also civilly liable.

    You might also like