Liability of ERs under RPC

Under Art. 103 of the RPC, ER may be held subsidiary liability for felonies committed
by their ees in the discharge of the latters duties. This liability attaches when the
employees who are convicted of crimes commited in the persormance of their work
are found to be insolcent and are thus unable to satisfy the civil liability adjusfed. In
order tat an er may be held sub liabilt for the ees civil liability in the criminal
actions, it need onlu be shown
1. That the er is engaged in any industry
2. That the ee committed the offense in the discharge of his duties and
3. That he is insolvent(Basa Marketing Corp. v Bolinao, 117 SCRA 156)
The subsidiary liability of the ER arises after conviction of the EE in the criminal
action. When all these requisites are present, the employer becomes ipso facto
subsidiary liable upon the EEs conviction

Convicted that carries a civil liability.

Pp v Employee
The subsidiary liability is deemed written.
Why

When is use of employers vehicle considered acting on occasion of function or to

be acting within scope of assigned task?
I.

Operation of Employers Motors Vehicle in going to or from meals

It has been held that an employee who uses his employers vehicle in going from his
work to a place where he intends to eat or in returning to work from a meal is not
ordinarily acting within the scope of this employment in the absence of evidence of
some special business benefit to the employer.
II.

Operation of Employers vehicle in going to or from work

In the same vein, travelling to and from the place of work is ordinarily a personal
problem or concern of the employee, and not a part of his services to his employer.
Hence, in the absence of some special benefit to the employer other than the mere
performance of the services available at the place where he is needed, the
employee is not acting within the scope of his employment even though he uses his
employers motor vehicle. (Castillex v Vasquez, GR No. 132266, December 21,
1999)

There was already company policy on how to get from point A to point B. If

Specifically

Defenses that can be raised:

If under 2180: due diligence in selection and supervision
Evidence needed. Testimonial not enough

If under 103 of RPC:

1.
2.
3.
4.

Distinguished from defense of employer in culpa contractual.

ART. 1759
(Does NOT cease)

BAR QUESTION:
TN: Case Cerezo v Tuazon
2015 bar exam
2013 bar exam
Crash landed in Cagayan
Plane undershot the runway

YHT Realty v CA
Gr no 126780, February 17, 2005
Any waiver of liability is void. Imbued with public trust etc

Recourse of er held vicariously liable:

Art. 2181, NCC

Owner of vehicle in the vehicle at the time of mishap

Art. 1284.
Solidary: implications?