- Statute
- Civil Code
- Article
- Art. 2180
- Topic
- Vicarious liability
- Status
- In force
- Book
- BOOK IV Obligations and Contracts
- Title
- TITLE XVII EXTRA-CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
- Chapter
- CHAPTER 2 Quasi-delicts
- Year
- 1949
- Cited by
- Multiple Supreme Court decisions
The provision
ARTICLE 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)
Intellegal Wiki · In plain terms
A person is liable not only for their own acts but also for those of persons for whom they are responsible — parents for their minor children, employers for their employees acting within assigned tasks, and so on. This liability is direct and rests on a presumption of negligence in selection or supervision, which the responsible person may rebut by proving the diligence of a good father of a family.
An editorially maintained plain-language explanation of this provision — not legal advice.
Intellegal Wiki · How the courts apply it
In Safeguard Security Agency v. Lauro Tangco, the Supreme Court held: Where an employee commits a quasi-delict under Article 2176 within the scope of assigned duties, the employer's liability under Article 2180 is direct and solidary; reserving a separate civil action does not bar choosing quasi-delict as the cause of action.
One leading Supreme Court case applying this provision.
Cases applying this article
- Bataclan v. Medina
- Africa v. Caltex (Phil.), Inc.
- Spouses Benjamin C. Mamaril v. The Boy Scout of the Philippines
- Viloria v. Continental Airlines
- Cornelio Lampesa v. Dr. Juan de Vera, Jr.
- Keihin-Everett Forwarding Co. v. Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Co.
- National Transmission Corporation v. Leslie L. de Jesus
- Rcj Bus Lines v. Standard Insurance Company
Other Supreme Court decisions also apply this article.