You are on page 1of 2

as punished under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

In
this jurisdiction, the same negligent act causing
FAUSTO BARREDO VS. SEVERINO GARCIA and damage may produce civil liability (subsidiary) arising
TIMOTEO ALMARIO from a crime under Art. 103 of the RPC; or create an
action for the quasi delict or culpa aquiliana (primary)
G.R. No. 48006 and the parties injured are free to choice which course
to take.
FACTS:

On May 3, 1936, there was a head-on collision


between a taxi of the Malate Taxi driven by Fontanilla In the instant case, the negligent act of
and a carretela guided by Dimapilis. The carretela was Fontanilla produced two liabilities of Barredo.
overturned and a passenger, 16-year-old boy Garcia, First, a subsidiary one because of the civil liability of
suffered injuries from which resulted to his death. A Fontanilla arising from the latters criminal negligence;
criminal action was filed against Fontanilla, and he was and second, Barredos primary and direct
convicted. The court in the criminal case granted the responsibility arising from his presumed negligence as
petition to reserve the civil action against Barredo, the an employer in the selection of his employees or their
proprietor of the Malate Taxi and the employer of supervision, under Art. 1903 of the Civil Code.
Fontanilla, making him primarily and directly
responsible under culpa aquiliana. It was undisputed
that Fontanillas negligence was the cause of the
accident as he was driving on the wrong side of the The parties instituted an action for damages
road at high speed, and there was no showing that under Art. 1903 of the Civil Code. Barredo was
Barredo exercised the diligence of a good father of a found guilty of negligence for carelessly employing
family. Fontanilla, who had been caught several times for
violation of the Automobile Law and speeding violation.
Thus, the petition is denied. Barredo must indemnify
plaintiffs under the provisions of Art. 1903 of the Civil
Barredos theory of defense is that Fontanillas Code.
negligence being punishable by the Revised Penal
Code, that his liability as employer is only subsidiary
liable but Fontanilla was sued for civil liability, hence,
Barredo claims that he can not be held liable. 73 Phil 607

Torts and Damages Civil Liability from Quasi


ISSUE: Delicts vs Civil Liability from Crimes

Whether or not complainants liability as


employer of Fontanilla was only subsidiary and not as
primarily and directly responsible under Article 1903 of At about 1:30am on May 3, 1936, Fontanillas taxi
the Civil Code. collided with a kalesa thereby killing the 16 year old
Faustino Garcia. Faustinos parents filed a criminal suit
against Fontanilla and reserved their right to file a
RULING: separate civil suit. Fontanilla was eventually convicted.
After the criminal suit, Garcia filed a civil suit against
No, the Supreme Court ruled that Barredo the owner of the taxi (employer of
complainants liability is not only subsidiary but also Fontanilla). The suit was based on Article 1903 of the
primary liability. The Court affirmed the decision of the civil code (negligence of employers in the selection of
Court of Appeals which ruled that the liability sought to their employees). Barredo assailed the suit arguing
be imposed upon Barredo in this action is not a civil that his liability is only subsidiary and that the separate
obligation arising from a felony, but an obligation civil suit should have been filed against Fontanilla
imposed in Article 1903 of the Civil Code by reason of primarily and not him.
his negligence in the selection or supervision of his
servant or employee. ISSUE: Whether or not Barredo is just subsidiarily
liable.

HELD: No. He is primarily liable under Article 1903


QUASI-DELICT OR CULPA AQUILIANA is a
which is a separate civil action against negligent
separate legal institution under the Civil Code and is
employers. Garcia is well within his rights in suing
entirely distinct and independent from a delict or crime
Barredo. He reserved his right to file a separate civil Garcia not reserved his right to file a separate civil
action and this is more expeditious because by the action, Barredo would have only been subsidiarily
time of the SC judgment Fontanilla is already serving liable. Further, Barredo is not being sued for damages
his sentence and has no property. It was also proven arising from a criminal act (his drivers negligence) but
that Barredo is negligent in hiring his employees rather for his own negligence in selecting his employee
because it was shown that Fontanilla had had multiple (Article 1903).
traffic infractions already before he hired him
something he failed to overcome during hearing. Had

You might also like