Art. 2181.

Whoever pays for the damage caused by his

dependents or employees may recover from the latter
what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the
claim. (1904)
Right of reimbursement
-

this does not exempt the author from personal liability

injured party can bring an action directly against such
author OR
the persons responsible for him OR
both
in any case , persons enumerated in Article 2180 are
given the right to seek reimbursement from the former
for what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the
claim of plaintiff
RULE : the one at fault should answer for damage
caused by him

dependents or employees in Article 2181

- construed to include ALL PERSONS for whom another is
liable under Article 2180
- REASON : legislator, by imposing liability upon persons
with supervisory authority over them
- DID NOT EXEMPT THE AUTHOR OF NEGLIGENT ACT OR
OMISSION FROM PERSONAL LIABILITY
- THE INJURED IS MERELY SECURED AGAINST POSSIBLE
INSOLVENCY OF SAID AUTHOR
- IF HE IS INSOLVENT, THERE IS NO REASON WHY HE
SHOULD NOT BE LIABLE TO ANOTHER WHO HAS PAID
FOR HIM
Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person causing
damage has no parents or guardian, the minor or
insane person shall be
answerable with his own property in an action against
him where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed. (n)
Where tortfeasor a minor or insane person without
parent or guardian

ACTION : may be brought against him where a

guardian ad litem shall be appointed by court
His own property, if any, shall answer for the damage

Art. 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may

make use of the same is responsible for the damage
which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost.
This responsibility shall cease only in case the damage
should come from force majeure or from the fault of
the person who has suffered damage. (1905)
Liability of possessor of an animal
1. Liability independent of fault or negligence
a. NOT based on negligence or the presumed lack
of vigilance of possessor or user of the animal
causing damage
b. Based on natural equity AND
c. Principle of social interest
d. That he who possesses animals for his utility ,
pleasure, or service must answer for the
damage which such animal may cause
Adoption of Doctrine of Strict Liability
- where tort liability cannot be avoided even in the
absence of fault or negligence and regardless of good
faith of defendant
- clearly implying that liability is imposed as a matter of
public policy
2. Liability limited to possessor or user
a. Possessor or user of animal
b. REASON : he is the one who has custody and
control, he is in a position to prevent the animal
from causing damage
c. NOTE : this liability obtains even if he loses such
custody and control
d. REASON : animal escaped or was lost
Owner of animal : held not liable for injuries caused by it to
its caretaker, who has paid by the owner for his work
- being injured was one of the risks of the caretakers
occupation

it was his business to prevent the animal from causing

injury to himself or to anyone
HELD : The heirs of caretaker who died as a
consequence of his injuries CANNOT SURE the owner

3. Kind of animal covered

a. The provision does not make distinction as to
what kind of animal is used or possessed
b. May be construed as applicable generally to all
animals, WHETHER domestic, domesticated, or
wild
c. Birds also covered since they can also cause
damage
i. Birds IPOT or Birds feces or excrement?
4. Defenses
a. ONLY EXCEPTION : FORCE MAJEURE
i. General Rule : The possessor or user of an
animal is liable for acts of animal,
whether they are instinctive or due to its
defects
ii. Exception : When instinctive act is due to
force majeure such as :
1. Lightning
2. Thunder
3. To the act of a third person (Noisy
vehicles, unforeseen obstacles)
4. NO LIABILTIY ON PART of the
possessor
The owner is liable only for such damage that may be
produced as a consequence of the special danger from the
animal
- RESULTING from its nature as a living thing with
impulses of its own
- HENCE : owner will not be liable if THE ANIMAL IS
BODILY MOVED BY OTHERS AND SHOULD FALL,
CAUSING IJURY TO ANOTHER
- NOR WHEN IT MERELY FOLLOWS THE WILL OF THE
PERSON GUIDING IT
*HOWEVER, THE OWNER WILL BE LIABLE IF :
- It runs wild because it is freightened by some noise, object

REASON : DAMAGE WOULD RESULT FROM SPECIAL DANGER

TO ANIMAL
Requisites of Force Majeure in this provision :
1. same be extraordinary and unforeseen
Example :
-

The passing of vehicle creating a noise which

freightens a horse, which in turn, runs loose and kills
or injures a person, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FORCE
MAJEURE
The event is a COMMON ONE, which the possessor of
animal COULD HAVE FORESEEN and against which he
cold have taken proper precaution

b. Fault of person suffering damage

i. The possessor of an animal is NOT LIABLE
if damage or injury is caused by the fault
or negligence of injured person himself
EXAMPLE :
-

The victim deprives himself of a right to complain, if he

is guilty of any act or omission which unnecessarily
exposes himself to the action of the animal, whether or
not he knows its vices or habits
No excuse for him to say that he was merely
observing, admiring or even caressing the animal,
because the latter cannot know his purpose
THUS, ONE WHO PROVOKES A DOG OR ENTES
ANOTHERS HOUSE AT NIGHT AND IS BITTEN BY A DOG
OR APPROACHES A HORSE FROM THE REAR AND IS
KICKED BY IT, CANNOT RECOVER DAMAGES

5. Acts of a third person

a. The possessor or user of the animal is still liable
even if the damage or injury was caused
through the act or negligence of a third person
UNLESS it can be shown that the incident was
extraordinary and unforeseen as to be equated
with force majeure

b. The burden of proving fault rests upon the

defendant to make the third person liable for the
resulting damage
c. If thirf person is a child, ward, or employee of
possessor or user : Article 2180 would be
APPLICABLE
Cases :
The dog that caused death of a child was owned by the
deceased father of petitioner in whose house she was staying
at the time of incident in question
-

Liable. Possession, not ownership of dog, the

issue.
What must be determined is the possession of the dog
that admittedly was staying in the house in question,
REGARDLESS of ownership of dog or of the house

Afialda vs Hisole : a person hired as caretaker of a carabao

fore him to death and his heirs thereupon sued the owner of
the animal for damages
- complaint was DISMISSED on the ground that it was
the caretakers duty to prevent the carabao from
causing injury to anyone, including himself
Petitioners, the possessors at the time of incident
- while it is true that she is not really the owner of the
house
- which was still part of Vicente mirandas estate
- no doubt that she and her husband were its possessors
at the time of incident in question
- She was the only heir residing in Cebu City and the
most logical person to take care of property
- Which was only six kilometers from her own house
- There is evidence showing that she and her family
regularly went to the house, once or twice weekly,
according to at least one witness, and used it virtually
as a second house
Mere possession, even without actual control

the petitioners contention that they could not be

expected to exercise remote control of dog is NOT
ACCEPTABLE
2183 of Civil Code : holds the possessor liable even if
the animal should escape or be lost and so be
removed from his control

Vicious as well as tame animals covered

- and it does not matter either that as the petitioners
also content the dog was tame and was merely
provoked by child into biting her
- THE LAW DOES NOT SPEAK ONLY VICIOUS ANIMALS
BUT COVERS EVEN TAME ONES AS LONG AS THEY
CAUSE INJURY
- As for the alleged rpovcation, THE PETITIONERS FORGT
THAT THENESS WAS ONLY THREE YEARS OLD AT THE
TIME SHE WAS ATTACKED AND CAN HARDLY BE
FAULTED FOR WHATEVER SHE MIGHT HAVE DONE TO
THE ANIMAL
Art. 2184. 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 or reckless driving or violating traffic
regulations at least twice within the next preceding
two months.
Liability of owner in motor vehicle mishaps
1. Owners covered : owners who are not included in
terms of Article 2180 as owners of an establishment
or enterprise
a. Intended to cover only owners of motor veicles
for private use
b. GENERALLY : not applicable to motor vehicles for
public use and convenience
c. REASON : the operator, usually a corporation,
CANNOT in the very nature of things, be in the
motor vehicale at the time of the mishap

d. EXCEPTION : If manager of bus company was in

bus at the time of mishap
Article 2184 : Applies if :
a) owner was in the vehicle
b) at the time of mishap

shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and

corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies
committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices,
or employees in the discharge of their duties.chanrobles
virtual law library

Otherwise, provs 2180 wold be appliacable (par 2) where the

owner even if he was not in vehicale would be liable UNLESS
he exercised due diligence to prevent damage
2. Opportunity to prevent mishap
a. If causative factor was the drivers negligence,
the owner of that car, who was present, is
likewise held liable if he could have prevented
the mishap by the exercise of due diligence
b. Negligence : under Article 2184 is to a certain
degree, necessarily subjective
c. Owner : should not be held liable for the
negligence of a competent driver, if by sudden
act of negligence, the owner could not have a
reasonable opportunity to prevent the act or its
continuance
3. When Drivers negligence presumed
a. No presumption that a driver was negligent
UNLESS he had been found guilty of reckless
driving or violating traffic regulations at least
twice within two months next preceding the
mishap
b. OR was violating any traffic violation at time of
the motor vehicle mishap
4. Civil liability of registered owner
a. Subsidiary if aggrieved party seeks relief
based on a DELICT or CRIME under ARTICLE 100
and 103 of RPC
Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. Every
person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly
liable.chanrobles virtual law library
Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. The
subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article

b. Solidary if complaint seeks relief based on a

quasi delict under Articles 2176 and 2180
In contemplation of the law, the registered owner of a motor
vehicle is the employer of the driver.
The sale of the motor vehicle if unregistered has no effect as
to right of public and persons to recover from unregistered
owner
CASE :
Car owner, who was present, is being held solidary liable with
his driver whose negligence was directly the cause of the
collision
-

Yus car bumped carretela in front

same time hit another car
yu was in the car at time of mishap
NO QUESTION that collision with other was directly
traceable to his drivers negligence and that he must
be liable for damages suffered by plaintiffs

HELD #1 :
-

Not solidarily liable

Article 2184 , CC the causative factor was the drivers
negligence, the owner of vehicle who was present is
likewise held liable if he could have prevented the
mishap by exercise of due diligence. THE RULE IS NOT
NEW, ALTHOUGH FORMULATES AS LAW FOR FIRST
TIME IN NEW CIVIL CODE

Chapman vs Underwood

if the driver, by a suddent act of negligence and

without the owner having a reasonable opportunity to
prevent the act or its continuance, INJURES A PERSON
OR VIOLATES THE CRIMINAL LAW
THE OWNER OF AUTOMOBILE, ALTHOUGH PRESENT
THEREIN AT TIME THE ACT WAS COMMITTES IS NOT
RESPONSIBLE
EITHER CIVILLY OR CRIMINALLY THEREFOR

THE ACT COMPLAINED OF MUST BE CONTINUED IN PRESENCE

OF OWNER FOR SUCH A LENGTH OF TIME THAT THE OWNER,
BY HIS ACQUIESCENCE, MAKES HIS DRIVERS ACT HIS OWN
HELD # 2 :
-

NEGLIGENCE OF DRIVER NOT IMPUTABLE TO

DEFENDANT APPELLANT

HELD # 3 :
- test of imputed negligence under Article 2184
- The test of imputed negligence under Article 2184 of
CC is :
- To a great degree, necessarily subjective
- Car owners are not held to a uniform and inflexible
standard of diligence as are professional drivers
- MANY CASES : they refrain from driving their own cars
and instead hire other persons to drive for them
precisely because they are nto trained or endowed
with sufficient discernment to know the rules of traffic
or to appreciate the relative dangers posed by the

different situations that are continually encountered on

road
WHAT WOULD BE A NEGLIGENT OMISSION UNDER
AFORESAID ARTICLE ON THE PART OF A CAR OWNERS
WHO IS IN THE PRIME OF AGE AND KNOWS HOW TO
HANDLE A MOTOR BEHICLE IS NOT NECESSARILY SO
ON THE PART SAY OF AN OLD AND INFIRM PERSON
WHO IS NOT SIMILARLY EQUIPPED

HELD # 4 :
- Test of negligence of car owner:
- His omission to do that which the evidence of his own
senses tells im he should do in order to avoid accident
- As far as perception concerned absent a minimum
level imposed by law, a maneuver that appears to be
fraught with danger to one passenger may appear to
be entirely safe and commonplace to another
Were the law to require a uniform standard of
perceptiveness, employment of professional driver by car
owners who, by their very inadequacies, have real need of
drivers services would be effectively prescribed