This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-12-04 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Moreover, an appeal is favored over the institution of a separate civil action because the latter would only add to our clogged dockets.[29] | |||||
|
2002-09-05 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| subordinate is direct and primary, but is subject to the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee.[25] The enforcement of the judgment against the employer for an action based on Article 2176 does not require the employee to be insolvent, since the liability of the former is solidary -- the latter being statutorily considered a joint tortfeasor.[26] To sustain a claim based on quasi delict, the following requisites must be proven: (a) damage suffered by the plaintiff, (b) fault or negligence of the defendant, and (c) connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damage incurred by the plaintiff.[27] These two causes of action (ex delicto or ex quasi delicto) may be availed of, subject to the caveat[28] that the offended party cannot "recover damages twice for the same act or omission" or under both causes.[29] Since | |||||