Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
Liability without fault or negligence
A person becomes civilly liable to another if the former commits or fails to do an act which causes damage to the latter by reason of his fault or negligence. There are instances, however, wherein one is made liable even in the absence of fault, negligence or intent. This is what we call as strict liability tort.
Strict liability tort can be committed even if reasonable care was exercised and regardless of the state of mind of the actor at that time. A common example of this type of tort is the liability of the possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same. Art. 2183 of the Civil Code holds the afore-mentioned person responsible for the damage which the animal may cause, although it may escape or be lost. It is interesting to note that the possessor of the animal is held liable even if the animal escapes or be lost without his knowledge. There is however a way out for possessor as his responsibility shall cease in case the damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered damage.
Another interesting provision in our Civil Code is Art. 2193 which provides that the head of a family that lives in a building or a part thereof is responsible for damages caused by things thrown or falling from the same. Here, the liability of the head of a family is absolute as the provision does not indicate a presumption or admit proof of care. The term head of the family is not limited to the owner of the building as it may even include the lessee thereof. In the case of Dingcong v. Karaan, 72 Phil. 14, the co-lessee of the property was made liable for the act of a guest who left the faucet open causing water to fall from the second floor and to damage the goods of Karaan in the floor below.
In Article 1711 of the Civil Code, owners of enterprises and other employers are obliged to pay compensation for the death of or injuries to their laborers, workmen, mechanics, or other employees, even though the event may have been purely accidental or entirely due to a fortuitous cause, if the death or personal injury arose out of and in the course of the employment. The language of the provision indicates that the same is strict liability because liability exists even if the cause is purely accidental.
In this type of tort, the defense of the exercise of the required diligence of a good father of a family will not hold water. The law, therefore, imposes an obligation to the animal possessor, the head of a family, and to owners of enterprises and other employers to institute measures to avoid causing harm to another person. Once damage is caused to another, the pleas of good faith, lack of negligence or lack of intent will not hold water. (Reference: Torts and Damages 2016 Edition by Timoteo B. Aquino)