My employee injured someone while on duty — can I escape liability by proving I was careful in selecting and supervising him?

Why you are exposed to liability in the first place

Article 2180 extends the obligation to answer for damage in Article 2176 beyond a person's own acts, to acts of people they are responsible for. It states plainly: 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. If your employee caused injury while performing work you assigned, this provision is what puts you, the employer, on the hook for that harm in the first place, separate from your employee's own liability.

The diligence defense the article itself provides

The same article that creates this liability also builds in the escape route you are asking about. It states: 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. "All the diligence of a good father of a family" describes the standard of care an ordinarily prudent person would exercise. If you can genuinely prove you met that standard, your liability under this article does not simply get reduced; it ceases.

What this diligence actually needs to cover

The defense is not satisfied by care in only one respect. Since the responsibility being escaped covers your role as employer generally, proving diligence typically means showing care both in selecting the employee in the first place and in supervising how they carried out their assigned tasks afterward. Diligence limited to how you chose the employee, without ongoing attention to how they actually performed the work, leaves a gap the article's language does not appear to excuse, since the obligation exists because of the employment relationship as a whole, not merely the hiring decision.

Why the burden rests on you to prove it

Article 2180 phrases the defense as something the employer must affirmatively prove, not something the injured party has to disprove. That places the burden squarely on you once your employee's liability-causing act within the scope of assigned tasks is established. Simply asserting that you generally run a careful operation is not the same as proving the specific diligence you exercised in this employee's selection and supervision. Concrete evidence of your hiring practices, training, oversight, and any corrective measures taken is what this defense actually requires to succeed.

Cases citing this provision

These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.

• Pedro De Belen and Bejan Mora Semilla vs. Virginia Gebe Fuchs, G.R. No. 258557, October 23, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Caravan Travel and Tours International, Inc. vs. Ermilinda R. Abejar, G.R. No. 170631, February 10, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Greenstar Express, Inc. and Fruto L. Sayson, Jr. vs. Universal Robina Corporation and Nissin Universal Robina Corporation, G.R. No. 205090, October 17, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• CICL XXX vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 238798, March 14, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →

Related provisions

• Civil Code, Article 2180 — Vicarious Liability