CULPA AQUILIANA
Negligence is direct,
substantive and independent
of contract
No pre-existing obligation
(except of course the duty to
be careful in all human
actuations)
Proof: Preponderance of
evidence
Defense of “good father of a
family” in the selection and
supervision of employees is a
proper and complete defense
Ordinarily, the victim has to
prove the negligence of the
defendant. This is because his
action is based on alleged
negligence on the part of the
defendant.
CULPA CONTRACTUAL
Negligence is merely
incidental to the performance
of an obligation already
existing because of a contract
There is a pre-existing
obligation (a contract, either
express or implied)
Proof: Preponderance of
evidence
Defense of “good father of a
family” is not a proper defense
As long as it is proved that
there was a contract and that
it was not carried out, it is
presumed that the debtor is at
fault, and it is his duty to
prove that there was no
negligence in carrying out the
terms of the contract.
CULPA CRIMINAL
Negligence is direct,
substantive and independent
of contract
No pre-existing obligation
(except the duty never to
harm others)
Proof: Guilt beyond
reasonable doubt
This is not a proper defense.
Here, the employee’s guilt is
automatically the employer’s
civil guilt, if the former is
insolvent.
Accused is presumed
innocent until the contrary is
proved, so prosecution has
the burden of proving the
negligence of the accused.