ELEMENTS OF A QUASI DELICT:

(a) damages suffered by the plaintiff

(b) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond; and
(c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages
incurred by the plaintiff.

Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate
and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed
independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.

Fausto Barredo vs Severino Garcia

Facts: At one in the morning of May 3, 1936, on the road between Malabon and Navotas, Rizal, there was
a head-on collision between a taxi driven by Pedro Fontanilla and a carretela guided by Pedro Dimapalis.
One of the carretelas passengers, Faustino Garcia, suffered injuries from which he died two days later.
CFI and CA found Fontanilla guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in death. The right to file the civil
action was reserved. The parents of Garcia filed a civil case for damages against Fausto Barredo, the
employer of Fontanilla. CFI awarded P1,000 as damages. CA reduced it to P2,000. Barredo contends that
his liability is only subsidiary and since no civil action was raised against Fontanilla, Barredo cannot be
held responsible in the case.

ISSUE: Whether or not Barredos liability as employer of Fontanilla is only subsidiary.

HELD: No, his liability is primary and direct. Because he did not exercise the diligence of a good father
of a family in the selection of his employee, under Art. 1903 of the CC, he is primarily liable for damages
caused by Fontanillas negligence.

PEDRO ELCANO and PATRICIA ELCANO vs REGINALD HILL

Reginald Hill killed Agapito Elcano. The court acquitted Hill on the ground that his act was not criminal,
because of "lack of intent to kill, coupled with mistake. Hill filed a motion to dismiss the civil case for
damages filed by Elcano, contending that the acquittal of Hill in the criminal action barred the institution
of the civil action.
ISSUE: Whether or not acquittal in the criminal action bars the institution of a civil action.

HELD: No, the acquittal of Reginal Hill in the criminal case has not extinguished his liability for quasidelict. Art. 2177 of the CC states that Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is
entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code.

NATIVIDAD ANDAMO vs IAC

Spouses Emmanuel and Natividad Andamo are the owners of a parcel of land which is adjacent to the
land of the Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette, Inc. the Missionaries constructed , waterpaths and
contrivances which allegedly inundated and eroded petitioners' land, caused a young man to drown,
damaged petitioners' crops and plants, washed away costly fences, endangered the lives of petitioners and
their laborers during rainy and stormy seasons, and exposed plants and other improvements to
destruction. Andamo filed a criminal case for destruction by means of inundation. One year later, they
filed a civil case for damages. The trial court dismissed the civil case because the criminal case was still
not resolved. (Section 3 (a), Rule III of the Rules of Court which provides that "criminal and civil actions
arising from the same offense may be instituted separately, but after the criminal action has been
commenced the civil action cannot be instituted until final judgment has been rendered in the criminal
action." )

ISSUE: Whether or not a civil case can proceed independently of the criminal case which was filed ahead.

HELD: Yes, case according to Articles 33 and 2177 of the Civil Code, in quasi-delicts, "(t)he civil action
is entirely independent of the criminal case. The acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirely
irrelevant in the civil case, unless, of course, in the event of an acquittal where the court has declared that
the fact from which the civil action arose did not exist, in which case the extinction of the criminal
liability would carry with it the extinction of the civil liability

PORFIRIO CINCO vs HON. MATEO CANONOY

Cincos automobile and a jeepney driven by Romeo Hilot and operated by Carlos Pepito collided with
each other. A criminal case was filed against Hilot but at the pre-trial in the civil case, Pepito moved to
suspend the civil action pending the final determination of the criminal suit, invoking Rule 111, Section 3
(b) of the Rules of Court, which provides:
(b) After a criminal action has been commenced. no civil action arising from the same
offense can be prosecuted, and the same shall be suspended, in whatever stage it may be
found, until final judgment in the criminal proceeding has been rendered;

The City Court ordered the suspension of the civil case. Cinco filed a petition for certiorari to the CFI.
CFI dismissed the petition, stating that damage to property is not one of the instances when an
independent civil action is proper.

ISSUE: Whether or not there can be an independent civil action for damage to property during the
pendency of the criminal action.
HELD: Yes, section 2, Rule 111 states that an independent civil action may be brought by the injured
party during the pendency of the criminal case, provided the right is reserved. Reliance on section 3(b) is
faulty.

MARIA BENITA DULAY vs CA

Benigno Torzuela, the security guard on duty at the carnival, and Napoleon Dulay had an altercation, as a
result of which Torzuela shot and killed Dulay. The widow of Dulay filed an action for damages against
Torzuela, Safeguard Security Corp and Sureguard Security Corp. Safeguard and Sureguard filed a motion
to dismiss, alleging that a complaint for damages based on negligence under Article 2176 is not proper
because Article 2176 applies only to quasi-offenses under Article 365 of the RPC.
ISSUE: Whether or not Art. 2176 applies only to quasi-offenses under Art 365 of the RPC.
HELD: No. Contrary to the theory of private respondents, there is no justification for limiting the scope of
Article 2176 of the Civil Code to acts or omissions resulting from negligence. Well-entrenched is the
doctrine that article 2176 covers not only acts committed with negligence, but also acts which are
voluntary and intentional.

GERMAN GARCIA vs MARIANO FLORIDO

German Garcia and his wife Luminosa boarded a PU car owned by Marcelino Inesin and driven by
Ricardo Vayson. While on the highway, the car collided with a passenger bus owned by Mactan Transit
and driven by Pedro Tumala. The Garcias sustained injuries. Garcias filed a case for damages against the
owners and drivers of the PU car and the bus. Mactan filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that Garcia does
not have a cause of action because Tumala was already charged with a criminal case before the filing of
the civil action. Pursuant to sec 3 of Rule 111, the filing of the civil action is premature because the
liability of the employer is merely subsidiary and does not arise until after final judgment has been
rendered finding the driver guilty of negligence. The lower court dismissed the complaint for damages.
ISSUE: Whether or not the filing of the civil case is premature.
HELD: No,