BARREDO V.

GARCIA
FACTS:
On May 3, 1936, there was a head-on collision between a taxi of the Malate Taxicab
driven by Fontanilla and a carretela guided by Dimapilis. The carretela was
overturned, and a passenger a 16 year old boy, Garcia, suffered injuries from which
he died. A criminal action was filed against Fontanilla, and he was convicted. The
Court in the criminal case granted the petition to reserve the civil action. Garcia and
Almario, parents of the deceased, on March 7, 1939, filed a civil action against
Barredo, the proprietor of the Malate taxicab and employer of Fontanilla, making
him primarily and directly responsible under culpa aquiliana of Article 2180 of the
Civil Code. It was undisputed that Fontanillas negligence was the cause of the
accident, as he was driving on the wrong side of the road at high speed, and there
was no showing that Barredo exercised the diligence of a good father of a family, a
defense to article 2180 of the Code. Barredos theory of defense is that Fontanillas
negligence being punishable by the Revised Penal Code, his liability as employer is
only subsidiary; but Fontanilla was not sued for civil liability, hence, Barredo claims
that he cannot be held liable.

ISSUE:
Whether the plaintiffs may bring a separate civil action against Fausto Barredo, thus
making him primarily and directly responsible under Article 1903 of the Civil Code
as employer of Pedro Fontanilla.

HELD:
Yes. A separate civil action lies, the employer being primarily and directly
responsible in damages under articles 1902 and1903 of the civil Code. Quasi-delict
or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the civil code and is entirely
distinct and independent from a delict or crime under the Revised Penal Code. In
this jurisdiction, the same negligent act causing damage may produce civil liability
(subsidiary) arising from a crime under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code; or
create an action for quasi-delito or culpa aquiliana (primary) under Articles 2179
and 2180 of the Civil Code, and the parties are free to choose which course to take.
And, in the instant case, the negligent act of Fontanilla produces 2 liabilities of
Barredo: First, subsidiary one because of the civil liability of Fontanilla arising from
the latters criminal negligence under Article 103 of the revised Penal Code; and
second, Barredos employer under article 2180 of the Civil Code. Since the plaintiffs
are free to choose which remedy to take, they preferred the second, which is within

their rights. This is a more expeditious and effective method of relief because
Fontanilla was either in prison or had just been released or had no property.