Practice question
An employee commits a private intentional assault during a wholly personal dispute, unrelated to any assigned task. The claimant proves only employment and intent, not the task connection or any independent employer wrong. The claimant argues Elcano makes the employer strictly answerable for every such assault. Which response is correct?
- Elcano automatically supplies every missing employer-liability element
- The case's recognition of intentional torts does not eliminate the need to establish the employer-related statutory basis
- Intent turns every private dispute into an assigned task
- Every employer must pay without any legal relationship
- The direct actor is immune because employment exists
Legal references
- Civil Code Articles 2176–2177, 2180 and 2194: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html
- Elcano v. Hill, GR L-24803, May 26, 1977, main decision, scope of culpa aquiliana: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/may1977/gr_24803_1977.html
- Safeguard Security Agency v. Tangco, GR 165732, December 14, 2006, main decision: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/40427
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.