have been held subsidiarily liable for the same.
But the plaintiffs are directly
Concept of Quasi-delict; Elements (digest)
Barredo vs Garcia 73 Phil 607 (1942)
Facts:
On May 3, 1936, there was a head-on collision between a taxi of the Malate
taxicab driven by Pedro Fontanilla and a carretela guided by Pedro Dimapilis.
The carretela was over-turned, and one of the passengers, Faustino Garcia,
suffered injuries and died 2 days later. A criminal action was filed against
Fontanilla, and was convicted. The court in the criminal case granted the
petition to reserve the civil action. Parents of the deceased, later, filed a civil
action against Barredo, the proprietor of the Malate Taxicab and employer of
Fontanilla, making him primarily and directly responsible. It is undisputed that
Fontanilla’s 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. Main theory of
the defense is that the liability of Barredo is only subsidiary under the RPC
and since no civil action was filed against fontanilla he cannot be held
responsible in the case.
Issue: W/N plaintiffs may bring separate civil action against Fausto Barredo,
thus making him primarily and directly responsible under Art. 1903 of the civil
code as an employer of Pedro Fontanilla
Ruling:
In the present case, the taxi driver was found guilty of criminal negligence, so
that if he had even sued for his civil responsibility arising from the crime, he
would have been held primarily liable for civil damages, and Barredo would
suing Barredo, on his primary responsibility because of his own presumed
negligence — which he did not overcome — under article 1903. Thus, there
were two liabilities of Barredo: first, the subsidiary one because of the civil
liability of the taxi driver arising from the latter's criminal negligence; and,
second, Barredo's primary liability as an employer under article 1903. The
plaintiffs were free to choose which course to take, and they preferred the
second remedy.
The master is liable for the negligent acts of his servant where he is the owner
or director of a business or enterprise and the negligent acts are committed
while the servant is engage in his master’s employment as such owner.
Elcano vs Hill
77 SCRA 100 – May 26, 1977
Torts and Damages – Civil Liability from Quasi Delicts vs Civil Liability from
Crimes
Reginald Hill, a minor, caused the death of Agapito (son of Elcano). Elcano
filed a criminal case against Reginald but Reginald was acquitted for “lack of
intent coupled with mistake.” Elcano then filed a civil action against Reginald
and his dad (Marvin Hill) for damages based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
Hill argued that the civil action is barred by his son’s acquittal in the criminal
case; and that if ever, his civil liability as a parent has been extinguished by
the fact that his son is already an emancipated minor by reason of his
marriage.
ISSUE: Whether or not Marvin Hill may be held civilly liable under Article
2180.
1
HELD: Yes. The acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case does not bar the
filing of a separate civil action. A separate civil action lies against the offender
in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty
or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if accused is
actually charged also criminally, to recover damages on both scores, and
would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two,
assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. In other words, the
extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule 111, refers
exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code,
whereas the civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only
and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal
case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been
committed by the accused. Briefly stated, culpa aquiliana includes voluntary
and negligent acts which may be punishable by law.

While it is true that parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of

the child (Article 327, Civil Code), and under Article 397, emancipation takes
place “by the marriage of the minor child”, it is, however, also clear that
pursuant to Article 399, emancipation by marriage of the minor is not really
full or absolute. Thus “Emancipation by marriage or by voluntary concession
shall terminate parental authority over the child’s person. It shall enable the
minor to administer his property as though he were of age, but he cannot
borrow money or alienate or encumber real property without the consent of
his father or mother, or guardian. He can sue and be sued in court only with
the assistance of his father, mother or guardian.” Therefore, Article 2180 is
applicable to Marvin Hill – the SC however ruled since at the time of the
decision, Reginald is already of age, Marvin’s liability should be subsidiary
only – as a matter of equity.