Short answer. Yes. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees may recover from them what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. The right arises once you have actually paid, and it is a separate claim against your own employee rather than part of the injured party's case.
What the law says
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.
Civil Code, Article 2181 — Right of Reimbursement. Read the full provision →
What the law says
one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved
Civil Code, Article 2199 — Actual Damages Must Be Proved. Read the full provision →
Why you were the one who paid
Article 2180 makes an employer answerable for damage caused by employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, which is why the injured party came to the business rather than to the driver or the technician. Article 2181 is the balancing provision: 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. Vicarious liability makes the loss recoverable from the party most likely to be able to answer for it; this article stops that from being the end of the story.
The right is measured by what you paid
The recovery is what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim — not a penalty, not an estimate of the harm to the business, and not the amount originally demanded. So the proof that matters is proof of payment: the judgment or settlement, the receipt or quittance, and whatever identifies which claim the money answered. Amounts spent around the incident that were not paid in satisfaction of the claim sit outside the article. Article 2199 says the same thing in general terms, allowing one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved.
A right to recover is not a right to take
The article gives you a claim against the employee. It does not authorise self-help, and it says nothing at all about withholding wages, offsetting the amount against salary or holding back final pay. Deductions from an employee's pay answer to labour legislation, not to this provision, and an employer who treats Article 2181 as a licence to deduct can turn a good reimbursement claim into a separate dispute with a different forum and different rules. Establish the right first; recover it in the manner the law allows.
What to keep from the moment the incident happens
Three things decide a later reimbursement claim: that the person was your employee, that the damage came from their act or omission, and that you paid because of it. Keep the employment records and the assignment for that day, the incident report made at the time, and every document in the chain from demand to payment. The claim is often the last thing an employer thinks about, months after the money has gone out, by which point the file has been closed and the employee may have left.
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.
- Mariano Mendoza and Elvira Lim vs. Spouses Leonora J. Gomez and Gabriel V. Gomez, G.R. No. 160110, June 18, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Philtranco Service Ent., Inc. et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 120553, June 17, 1997 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 2180 — Vicarious Liability
- Civil Code, Article 2176 — Quasi-Delict Defined (Culpa Aquiliana)