Umorder po kami ng coffee and sandwiches sa waiter nilang nagngangalang Tony. Una pa lang, napansin ko nang may pagkabarumbado ang waiter nilang ito. Parang mainit ang kanyang ulo at ang sama ng kanyang serbisyo.
Isi-serve na po niya ang kape ko nang biglang dumulas ang order namin sa tray na dala ni Tony at tumapon ang kape sa akin. Galit na galit ako dahil mainit ’yung kape kaya nalapnos ang balat ko sa may dibdib kung saan ako natapunan ng kape. Dagdag pa doon ay naantala ang schedule ko noong araw na ’yon.
Tinawag ko ang manager ng coffee shop at sinabi kong dapat nilang panagutan ang damage na ginawa ng waiter nila. Tama naman po ako, di ba? – Richie Carbonel ng Pasay City
Tama, may katwiran ka Richie na panagutin ang coffee shop under Art. 2180 of the New Civil Code. Ayon dito, ang obligasyon arising from a quasi delict may be demandable not only for one’s own act but also against the owner and management of an establishment with respect to damages caused by their employees while the latter is employed or on the occasion of their function. Kahit na accident ang nangyari, ang may-ari ng coffee shop ay dapat pa ring managot sa damages na natamo mo.
Anu-ano ba ang mga elemento ng quasi-delict situations? In actions based on quasidelicts, before the person injured can recover damages from the defendant, it is necessary that he must be able to prove the following. 1) The fault or negligence of the defendant; 2) The damage suffered or incurred by the plaintiff, and 3) the relation of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damage incurred by the plaintiff.
However, if the owner or management of the establishment can prove that they observed the diligence of a good father of a family para maiwasan ang injury or damage sa ’yo, Richie, then they could not be held civilly liable.
Maaring i-awas sa suweldo ni Tony ang damages na dulot ng kanyang ginawa kung siya ay mapatunayang nagkasala.