Holding Employee Partially Liable

Good day,

I'd like to start that I am by no means a lawyer, nor a law student, so I ask as a normal layperson with limited formal knowledge in Philippine Laws.

Under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, employers may be held liable for negligence caused by its employees while performing his/her duties. However, are employers allowed by the law to hold its employees liable for any damanges they incur due to negligence?

Ie. If an employee (driver) accidentally hits a pedestrian, the employee pay for the hospital bills of the said victim. In turn, (a) does the employer have the right to make the employee pay for part / whole of the damages (to the employer)? Furthermore, with the appropriate agreements (included in the company's rules and policies / contract signing)(b) does the employer have the right to withhold salaries to pay off the bill (in an affordable scheme for the employee)? (c) Does the employer have the right to withhold the bill off of the person's separation pay (whether or not the act is / isn't a valid reason for termination without separation pay)?

Employers MAY hold employees liable for damages due to negligence of the employee 1. based on contract, 2. if there is no contract, based on quasi-delict.

In your example, it will depend if there is a contract of carriage or none.

mel.key.16 wrote:Employers MAY hold employees liable for damages due to negligence of the employee 1. based on contract, 2. if there is no contract, based on quasi-delict.

In your example, it will depend if there is a contract of carriage or none.

So if a provision is included in the contract, then employees can be held liable. If so, how would quasi-delict take place? In the event of the victim suing the employer, does that mean the case is dismissed and be brought upon the employee, or only when the employer is found guilty and does have to pay compensation to the victim can the employer hold the employee liable?

Kindly narrate the whole facts of the case to put your question in the right context.

If an employee lost something while doing his job and the employment contract provides that he is liable, then that is when the liability under the contract arises. If there is no contract then the employer can ask for payment based on negligence.

However, 2180 has a broad application. If you (employer) own the vehicle and your driver bumps someone, you are BOTH equally held liable. The victim can ask for compensation from both of you. You are liable under quasi-delict OR if there is a contract of carriage, you are liable under the contract and/or quasi delict. Your driver is liable criminally and/or under quasi-delict.

Now, I guess you want to blame the driver. Your defense then is that you exerted due diligence in the selection of your employee - AKA the driver. HOWEVER this defense does not work IF there is a contract of carriage.

mel.key.16 wrote:Kindly narrate the whole facts of the case to put your question in the right context.

If an employee lost something while doing his job and the employment contract provides that he is liable, then that is when the liability under the contract arises. If there is no contract then the employer can ask for payment based on negligence.

However, 2180 has a broad application. If you (employer) own the vehicle and your driver bumps someone, you are BOTH equally held liable. The victim can ask for compensation from both of you. You are liable under quasi-delict OR if there is a contract of carriage, you are liable under the contract and/or quasi delict. Your driver is liable criminally and/or under quasi-delict.

Now, I guess you want to blame the driver. Your defense then is that you exerted ue diligence in the selection of your employee - AKA the driver. HOWEVER this defense does not work IF there is a contract of carriage.

Sorry, I'm not so familiar with legal terms, so can you expound on 'contract of carriage'? Also, there is no present case. I'm formulating / updating our company rules and regulations, and I want to state that parameter so that employees will be mindful / responsible of their work, especially when it involves other people. In the past, the employee had zero liability when they do something wrong, and the company shells out 100% of the compensation.

I want to instil in them that they'd have partial responsibility, even if they have to contribute to even 1/4 of the compensation, and even if they'll have 24 months to repay the company. Just worried that if I place that parameter, and it's actually against the laws that we have.

Contract of carriage - means that your industry/business is transporting people or goods.

There are too many variables. You may insert a provision on limited liability but it may be useless... depending on the variables.

mel.key.16 wrote:Contract of carriage - means that your industry/business is transporting people or goods.

There are too many variables. You may insert a provision on limited liability but it may be useless... depending on the variables.

Is that so? I thought that I might be able to add a general provision. But from the previous replies, the empoyee still has liability regardless of the contract, due to quasi-delict.

Thanks for answering my questions. Just wanted to have an idea / be familiar of the law so I can at least finish the first draft before sending it to the lawyer for revisions.

Let your lawyers revise the draft because I assume they are very familiar with your industry.