It is also very important to prove compliance and implementation of that

handbook otherwise it would be very easy to just ask a lawfirm to come up

with a compliance handbook and then just let it stow away sa inyong file
caldiments(?)

Q from student: Registered owner rule provides for primary liability man
ghapon?
Atty: Yes, primary and direct.

Q from student: So lahi ang registered owner and lahi ang employer so
you can go after the three sa driver, employer and registered owner?

Atty: Yes, but alternative causes of action ka sa tulo. Even if we forget 2180,
we just stick the registered owner rule. Pwedi man ang theft clause,
remember in your insurance nga gkawat siya, registered owner sya pero
gkawat iyang vehicle, so he has no control over the acts of the subsequent
driver so he cannot be liable but he will be the one impleaded but he will be
hear out in court.
So, kaning harmonization only applies if the registered owner is the employer
at the same time, meaning mu apply ghapon ang 2180 but ang na change
lang is what is the burden of proof on the part of the plaintiff and on the
part of the defendant.

The defenses under 2180 are also available for registered owner if the
registered owner is the employer at the same time. But if dili sya employer,
wala na tong ER-EE relationship. Ang imuha nlang gyung defense, gkawat
na siya, gkawat ang key, hijacked, holdapped, etc.

Even if naai hijacking, or whatever happens in the road, tan awn man ghapon
whether you were negligent under the circumstances. Tan awn man ghapon
if ang imong employee ning follow sa standard operating procedure.

There is a 2017 case no kadto bitawng, Our Lady of Lourds Hospital, katong
the nurses were held to be negligent because it took them 10minutes to
attend to the physician, nahurot na ang dextrose, ninghubag na, nagkaon
kaon lang silag pancit so under the circumstances, the hospital was held to
be negligent although the SC conceded that there was diligence in the
selection kay murag kadtong mga nurses qualified man jud but in the
supervision wala to sya naprove because in fact duha man gani unta required
na nurse but the other one is actually a midwife, upon realizing nga midwife
diay to ilahang g change ang time log sa isa ka nurse para duha na sila
magduty from 11pm to 6am.

But this is about two doctors, an anesthesiologist and a surgeon nga g filan
ug case sa bana because na brain dead na ang iyahang wife and the
proximate cause is the failure to supply oxygen tanks immediately and the
failure on the part of the nurses to respond, sige tawn balik balik ang bantay
unya walang lang, nagchika chika lang sila and it has also been proven by
the records that these nurses are late comers and habitual absentees and
despite that it is provided in the company handbook na dapat naay sanction
and it was proven na walai sanctions imposed upon these nurses. So wala
jud na prove sa employer, the hospital in this case, that they were able to
exercise due diligence in the supervision.

Kani siguro naa jud siguro mugawas ani ugma kaning mga yellow, if there is
one thing you need to remember about 2180, it is this. everything is here.
responsibility based on patria potestas, meaning you have control and
supervision over the employer, direct and immediate,etc.
And then your defense is diligence in the selection and supervision and it is
the burden of the employer to prove that.

How do you prove selection? g unsa nimo pagfile,what qualifications did we

impose.
How do you prove supervision? Come up with company rules and guidelines,
standard operating procedures and proof of implementation.

Ill send copies of the slides in PDF.

Even if it was proven by the hospital that there was diligence in the selection
because the nurses was qualified and competent, the hospital was remiss in
its obligation in the subsequent supervision (mga tardy, mao pai na assign
sa graveyard, nagbuzz several times ang bantay, wala man gyuy reaction,
ang dextrose naghurot na dugay nisunod)