You are on page 1of 2

BARREDO v.

GARCIA
BOCOBO; July 8, 1942 Petition for review on certiorari

FACTS

The case cane from the CA, holding Fausto Barredo liable for damages for
death of Faustino Garcia caused by negligence of Pedro Fontanilla, a taxi
driver employed by Fausto Barredo
May 3, 1936 in a road between Malabon and Navotas, head-on collision
between taxi of Malate Taxicab and carretela guided by Pedro Dimapilis
thereby causing overturning of the carretela and the eventual death of Garcia,
16-yo boy and one of the passengers
Fontanilla convicted in CFI and affirmed by CA and separate civil action is
reserved
Parents of Garcia filed action against Barredo as sole proprietor of Malate
Taxicab as employer of Fontanilla
CFI and CA awarded damages because Fontanillas negligence apparent as he
was driving on the wrong side of the road and at a high speed
no proof he exercised diligence of a good father of the family as
Barredo is careless in employing (selection and supervision) Fontanilla
who had been caught several times for violation of Automobile Law
and speeding> CA applied A1903CC that makes inapplicable civil
liability arising from crime because this is under obligations arising
from wrongful act or negligent acts or omissions punishable by law
Barredos defense is that his liability rests on RPC. Therefore, liability only
subsidiary and because no civil action against Fontanilla, and thus, he too
cannot be held responsible

ISSUE/HELD:
WoN parents of Garcia may bring separate civil action against Barredo making him
primarily liable and directly responsible under A1903CC as employer of Fontanilla
YES

RATIO:
There are two actions available for parents of Garcia. One is under the A100RPC
wherein the employer is only subsidiarily liable for the damages arising from the
crime thereby first exhausting the properties of Fontanilla. The other action is under
A1903CC (quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana) wherein as the negligent employer of
Fontanilla, Barredo is held primarily liable subject to proving that he exercising
diligence of a good father of the family. The parents simply took the action under the
Civil Code as it is more practical to get damages from the employer because he has
more money to give than Fontanilla who is yet to serve his sentence.
Difference between Crime and Quasi-delict
1) Crimes public interest; Quasi-delict only private interest

2) Penal code punishes or corrects criminal acts; Civil Code by means of


indemnification merely repairs the damage
3) delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts; crimes are only punished if there is a
penal law; quasi-delicts include any kind of fault or negligence intervenes
NOTE: not all violations of penal law produce civil responsibility
e.g. contravention of ordinances, violation of game laws, infraction of rules of
traffic when nobody is hurt
4) crime guilt beyond reasonable doubt; civil mere preponderance of evidence
Presumptions:
1) injury is caused by servant or employee, there instantly arises
presumption of negligence of master or employer in selection, in
supervision or both
2) presumption is juris tantum not juris et de jure TF may be rebutted by
proving exercise of diligence of a good father of the family
Basis of civil law liability: not respondent superior but the relationship of pater
familias
motor accidents need of stressing and accentuating the responsibility of
owners of motor vehicles