5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly same manner as if they had performed the wrongful act themselves. As regards the extent of their respective liabilities, the Court expressed in Far Eastern Shipping Company v. Court of Appeals:[24] x x x. Where several causes producing an injury are concurrent and each is an efficient cause without which the injury would not have happened, the injury may be attributed to all or any of the causes and recovery may be had against any or all of the responsible persons although under the circumstances of the case, it may appear that one of them was more culpable, and that the duty owed by them to the injured person was not same. No actor’s negligence ceases to be a proximate cause merely because it does not exceed the negligence of other acts. Each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result and is liable as though his acts were the sole cause of the injury. There is no contribution between joint tort-feasors whose liability is solidary since both of them are liable for the total damage. Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omissions of two or more persons, although acting independently, are in combination the direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third person, it is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury and either of them is responsible for the whole injury. x x x It would not be an excuse for any of the joint tortfeasors to assert that her individual participation in the wrong was insignificant as compared to those of the others.[25] Joint tortfeasors are not liable pro rata. The damages cannot be apportioned among them, except by themselves. They cannot insist upon an apportionment, for the purpose of each paying an aliquot part. They are jointly and severally liable for the whole amount.[26] Hence, Inovero’s liability towards the victims of their illegal recruitment was solidary, regardless of whether she actually received the amounts paid or not, and notwithstanding that her co-accused, having escaped arrest until now, have remained untried. Under Article 2211 of the Civil Code, interest as part of the damages may be adjudicated in criminal proceedings in the discretion of the court. The Court believes and holds that such liability for interest attached to Inovero as a measure of fairness to the complainants. Thus, Inovero should pay interest of 6% per annum on the sums paid by the complainants to be reckoned from the finality of this judgment until full payment.[27] WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on August 26, 2010, subject to the MODIFICATION that appellant Maricar B. Inovero is ordered to pay by way of actual damages to each of the complainants the amounts paid by them for placement, training and processing fees, respectively as follows: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57144 9/12