This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
L-48006 July 8, 1942 14/06/2010 11:19:00
← ← ← FACTS: On May 3, 1936 in the province of Rizal, a head-on collision occurred between a taxi and a carretela. The taxi was operated by Malate Taxicab and was driven by Pedro Fontanilla while the carretela was guided by Pedro Dimapalis. One of the passengers of the carretela – a 16 year old boy named Faustino Garcia – suffered injuries which eventually caused his death. ← ← A criminal action was filed against Fontanilla in the CFI of Rizal. The court in the criminal case granted the petition that a separate civil action be reserved. The CA affirmed the decision of the CFI. On March 7, 1939, the parents of the deceased brought an action in the CFI of Manila against Barredo – the sole proprietor of the Malate Taxicab. The court awarded damages in favor of the plaintiffs. The CA modified the court’s decision by reducing the amount of damages. ← ← The CA found that defendant was careless in employing Fontanilla who had been caught violating the Automobile Law several times – as shown in his records with the Burea of Public Works. Defendant must therefore indemnify the plaintiffs under the provisions of Article 1903 of the CC. ← ← The defendant maintains that Fontanilla's negligence is punishable by the RPC hence according to said code his liability as an employer is only subsidiary. However, Fontanilla has not been sued in a civil action and his property has not been exhausted. ← ← ISSUE: ← Whether the plaintiffs may bring a separate civil action against Barredo, thus making him primarily and directly responsible under Article 1903 of the CC as Fontanilla’s employer or not. ← ← HELD:
← Authorities suuport the proposition that a quasi-delict or a culpaaquiliana is a separate legal institution under the CC with a substantivity all on its own. ← ← It will thus be seen that while the terms of articles 1902 of the Civil Code seem to be broad enough to cover the driver's negligence in the instant case. Upon this principle and on the wording and spirit of Article 1903 of the CC. and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from delict or crime. the primary and direct respronsiblity of employers may be safely anchored. nevertheless article 1093 limits cuasi-delitos to acts or omissions "not punishable by law." However. ← ← The distinctive nature of cuasi-delitos survives in the Civil Code. one of the five sources of obligations is this legal institution of cuasi-delito or culpa extra-contractual: "los actos . It is this overlapping that makes the "confusion worse confounded. . . the fault or negligence under article 1902 of the Civil Code has apparently been crowded out. . The same negligent act causing damages may produce civil liability arising from a crime under article 100 of the Revised Penal Code." Then article 1093 provides that this kind of obligation shall be governed by Chapter II of Title XVI of Book IV. This portion of the Civil Code is exclusively devoted to the legal institution of culpa aquiliana." But inasmuch as article 365 of the Revised Penal Code punishes not only reckless but even simple imprudence or negligence. or create an action for cuasi-delito or culpa extra-contractual under articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. meaning articles 1902-0910. en que intervenga cualquier genero de culpa o negligencia. According to article 1089. a closer study shows that such a concurrence of scope in regard to negligent acts does not destroy the distinction between the civil liability arising from a crime and the responsibility for cuasi-delitos or culpa extra-contractual.
coupled with mistake. ← ← Whether there is a cause of action against Reginald’s father. hence that acquittal is not a bar to the instant action against him. Hill G. under the CC has been fully and clearly recognized. L-24803 11:19:00 ← ← ← May 26.” ← ← Subsequently. he could have been sued for civil liability arising from his crime. Marvin. ← ← ISSUES: ← Whether the action for recovery of damages against Reginald and Marvin Hill is barred by res judicata. of fault or negligence as a source of obligation. after such a conviction. ← ← HELD: ← The acquittal of Reginald Hill in the criminal case has not extinguished his liability for quasi-delict. even with regard to a negligent act for which the wrongdoer could have been prosecuted and convicted in a criminal case and for which. petitioners filed a civil action for recovery of damages against defendants.Elcano vs. No. for which he was criminally prosecuted. criminal and civil. which the latter countered by a motion to dismiss. Reginald Killed Agapito Elcano – son of petitioners. ← ← In this jurisdiction the separate individuality of a quasi-delict. which was firmly established in this jurisdiction in Barredo vs. co-defendant. he was acquitted on the ground that his act was not criminal because of “lack of intent to kill. 1977 14/06/2010 FACTS: Reginald Hill was a married minor living and getting subsistence from his father. However.R. ← ← There is need for reiteration and further clarification of the dual character. Garcia. Marvin. ← .
the mother. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. Rule 111. and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two. provided that the offended party is not allowed. whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted. the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. was living with his father and getting subsistence from him at the time of the killing. if he is actually charged also criminally. ← ← Under Arti. assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. 399. ← . 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 criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by the accused. to recover damages on both scores.” ← ← Consequently. 2180. although married. (e) of Section 3. in providing that a minor emancipated by marriage may not sue or be sued without the assistance of the parents is that such emancipation does not carry with it freedom to enter into transactions or do any act that can give rise to judicial litigation. In the case at bar. a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act. are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.← Article 2177 of the NCC provides that: “Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from the negligence under the Penal Code. refers exclusively to civil liability found on Article 100 of the RPC. the clear implication of Art. ← ← The joint and solidary liability of parents with their offending children is in view of the parental obligation to supervise minor children in order to prevent damage to third persons. the father and in case of his death or incapacity. On the other hand. Reginald. In other words.
← Marvin Hill is vicariously liable. ← ← ← ← ← ← . since Reginald has come of age. However. as a matter of equity. the former’s liability is not merely subsidiary.
14/06/2010 11:19:00 ← .