LG Foods v.

Agraviador (2006)

The Case

Review on certiorari of a decision of the CA on 25 April 2003 affirming an order of Bacolod RTC, which in turn
denied the petitioners’ motion to dismiss an action for damages arising from a vehicular accident instituted by the
Vallejera spouses.

The Facts

On February 26, 1996, Charles Vallereja, a 7-year old son of the Vallejera spouses, was hit by a Ford Fiera van
owned by LG Foods Corporation (LG Foods) and driven by their employee, Vincent Norman Yeneza y Ferrer.
Charles died as a result of the accident.

An information for reckless imprudence resulting to homicide was filed against the driver before the Bacolod
MTCC. Before the trial could be concluded, however, the accused driver committed suicide. The case was then
dismissed.

On June 23, 1999, the spouses Vallejera filed a complaint for damages against LG Foods alleging that as
employers, they failed to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees.

In their defense, LG Foods denied liability by claiming to have exercised such diligence and prayed for dismissal for
lack of cause of action. Also in their motion to dismiss, they argued that the complaint was a claim for subsidiary
liability against an employer under A1035, RPC and, as such, there must first be a judgment of conviction against
their driver to hold them liable. Since such condition was not fulfilled due to the latter’s death, they argued, the
spouses had no cause of action.

The trial court denied the motion for lack of merit. Also, it denied the motion for reconsideration of the matter. LG
Foods then went on certiorari to the CA alleging grave abuse of discretion of the part of the trial judge.

The CA, however, affirmed the RTC decision ruling that the complaint by the spouses does not purport to be based
on subsidiary liability since the basic elements of such liability, such as conviction and insolvency of the accused
employee, were not even alleged in said complaint. It then said that the complaint purports to exact responsibility
for fault or negligence under A2176, CC, which is entirely separate and distinct from civil liability arising from
negligence under the A103, RPC. Liability under A2180, CC is direct and immediate, and not conditioned upon prior
recourse against the negligent employee or showing of insolvency.

The Issue

Whether the cause of action of the Vallejera spouses is founded on CC or RPC.

The Ruling

The case is a negligence suit brought under A2176, CC to recover damages primarily from LG Foods as employers
responsible for their negligent driver pursuant to A2180, CC. The obligation imposed by A2176 is demandable not
only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. Thus, the
employer is liable for damages caused by his employees.

The Ratio

First. Nothing in the allegations in the complaint suggests that the LG Foods are being made to account for their
subsidiary liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. Plus, the complaint did not even aver the basic
elements for the subsidiary liability of an employer under said provision.
Second. While not explicitly stated that the suit was for damages based on quasi-delict, it alleged gross fault and
negligence on the part of the driver and the failure of LG Foods, as employers, to exercise due diligence in the
selection and supervision of their employees. It was further alleged that LG Foods is civilly liable for the
negligence/imprudence of their driver since they failed to exercise the necessary diligence required of a good
father of the family in the selection and supervision of their employees, which diligence, if exercised, could have
prevented the vehicular accident that resulted to the death of their 7-year old son.

Third. Section 2, Rule 2, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure defines cause of action as the "act or omission by
which a party violates the right of another." Such act or omission gives rise to an obligation which may come from
law, contracts, quasi contracts, delicts or quasi-delicts.

Corollarily, an act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part
of the offender, i.e., 1) civil liability ex delicto, and 2) independent civil liabilities, such as those (a) not arising from
an act or omission complained of as felony (e.g., culpa contractual or obligations arising from law; the intentional
torts;14 and culpa aquiliana15); or (b) where the injured party is granted a right to file an action independent and
distinct from the criminal action. Either of these two possible liabilities may be enforced against the offender.

Stated otherwise, victims of negligence or their heirs have a choice between an action to enforce the civil liability
arising from culpa criminal under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and an action for quasi-delict (culpa
aquiliana) under Articles 2176 to 2194 of the Civil Code.

This is illustrated in A1161, CC providing that civil obligation arising from criminal offenses shall be governed by
penal laws subject to the provision of A2177 and of the pertinent provision of Chapter 2, Preliminary Title on
Human Relation, and of Title XVIII of this Book, regulating damages. This means that A2177 provides an alternative
remedy for the plaintiff. The choice is with the plaintiff.

Fourth. Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the liability of the employer is direct or immediate, not conditioned
upon prior recourse against the negligent employee and a prior showing of insolvency. This was the recourse of
the spouses since there was no conviction in the criminal case against the driver.

Fifth. LG Foods has been alleging that "they had exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of [their]
employees." This defense is an admission that indeed the petitioners acknowledged the private respondents'
cause of action as one for quasi-delict under A2180, CC.

Sixth. Since it is as if there was no criminal case to speak of due to its premature termination, the fact that there
was no prior reservation made to institute a separate civil action is of no moment.