Difference between vicarious liability and solidary liability of car owner

Dear PAO,

My private jeepney, which was driven by Ador, bumped into a car, resulting in physical injury to the other driver. The aggrieved car driver is now claiming that I am solidarily liable for the acts of my driver. I am thinking that I am not liable for damages since I was not aboard the jeepney when the incident occurred. What is my liability as a car owner under the circumstances?

Willer

Dear Willer,

The liability of a car owner may be vicarious or solidary. Vicarious liability is governed by Article 2180 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, which provides that:

“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.

“xxx

“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.

“Xxx

“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.”

On the other hand, the solidary liability of the car owner arises under Article 2184 of the same law which states that:

“In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months.”

The afore-cited provisions of the law were expounded in the case entitled, De Belen and Semilla vs. Fuchs, GR 258557, Oct. 23, 2023, where the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, stated that:

“Article 2184 of the Civil Code speaks of a situation where the owner is in the vehicle. In such a case, the owner becomes solidarily liable for damages caused by their negligent driver except if they could show that they could not prevent the misfortune even with the use of due diligence. On the other hand, in a situation where the owner is not in the motor vehicle, they become vicariously liable for damages caused by an employee acting within the scope of their assigned task except if the owner shows that they observed the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.”

Applying the above-quoted decision in your situation, you can only be made solidarily liable for the damages caused by your negligent driver if you were inside your jeepney when the incident happened. Your possible defense in such a case is to show that you cannot prevent the incident even with due diligence. Given that you were not in the vehicle when the incident happened, you cannot be held solidarily liable under Article 2184 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines.

Still, even if you were not in the vehicle, you may be held vicariously liable, as an employer, for the incident and for the damages caused by the negligence of your driver (employee). You may, however, defend yourself from this liability by showing that you observed due diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]