Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-48006 July 8, 1942
FAUSTO BARREDO, petitioner,
vs.
SEVERINO GARCIA and TIMOTEA ALMARIO, respondents.
Celedonio P. Gloria and Antonio Barredo for petitioner.
Jose G. Advincula for respondents.
BOCOBO, J.:

This case comes up from the Court of Appeals which held the petitioner herein, Fausto Barredo, liable in damages for the death of
Faustino Garcia caused by the negligence of Pedro Fontanilla, a taxi driver employed by said Fausto Barredo.

At about half past one in the morning of May 3, 1936, on the road between Malabon and Navotas, Province of Rizal, there was a head-
on collision between a taxi of the Malate Taxicab driven by Pedro Fontanilla and a carretela guided by Pedro Dimapalis. The carretela
was overturned, and one of its passengers, 16-year-old boy Faustino Garcia, suffered injuries from which he died two days later. A
criminal action was filed against Fontanilla in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and he was convicted and sentenced to an
indeterminate sentence of one year and one day to two years of prision correccional. The court in the criminal case granted the petition
that the right to bring a separate civil action be reserved. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence of the lower court in the criminal
case. Severino Garcia and Timotea Almario, parents of the deceased on March 7, 1939, brought an action in the Court of First Instance
of Manila against Fausto Barredo as the sole proprietor of the Malate Taxicab and employer of Pedro Fontanilla. On July 8, 1939, the
Court of First Instance of Manila awarded damages in favor of the plaintiffs for P2,000 plus legal interest from the date of the complaint.
This decision was modified by the Court of Appeals by reducing the damages to P1,000 with legal interest from the time the action was
instituted. It is undisputed that Fontanilla 's negligence was the cause of the mishap, as he was driving on the wrong side of the road,
and at high speed. As to Barredo's responsibility, the Court of Appeals found:

... It is admitted that defendant is Fontanilla's employer. There is proof that he exercised the diligence of a good father of a
family to prevent damage. (See p. 22, appellant's brief.) In fact it is shown he was careless in employing Fontanilla who had
been caught several times for violation of the Automobile Law and speeding (Exhibit A) — violation which appeared in the
records of the Bureau of Public Works available to be public and to himself. Therefore, he must indemnify plaintiffs under the
provisions of article 1903 of the Civil Code.

The main theory of the defense is that the liability of Fausto Barredo is governed by the Revised Penal Code; hence, his liability is only
subsidiary, and as there has been no civil action against Pedro Fontanilla, the person criminally liable, Barredo cannot be held
responsible in the case. The petitioner's brief states on page 10:

... The Court of Appeals holds that the petitioner is being sued for his failure to exercise all the diligence of a good father of a
family in the selection and supervision of Pedro Fontanilla to prevent damages suffered by the respondents. In other words,
The Court of Appeals insists on applying in the case article 1903 of the Civil Code. Article 1903 of the Civil Code is found in
Chapter II, Title 16, Book IV of the Civil Code. This fact makes said article to a civil liability arising from a crime as in the case
at bar simply because Chapter II of Title 16 of Book IV of the Civil Code, in the precise words of article 1903 of the Civil Code
itself, is applicable only to "those (obligations) arising from wrongful or negligent acts or commission not punishable by law.

The gist of the decision of the Court of Appeals is expressed thus:

... We cannot agree to the defendant's contention. The liability sought to be imposed upon him in this action is not a civil
obligation arising from a felony or a misdemeanor (the crime of Pedro Fontanilla,), but an obligation imposed in article 1903 of
the Civil Code by reason of his negligence in the selection or supervision of his servant or employee.

The pivotal question in this case is whether the plaintiffs may bring this separate civil action against Fausto Barredo, thus making him
primarily and directly, responsible under article 1903 of the Civil Code as an employer of Pedro Fontanilla. The defendant maintains
that Fontanilla's negligence being punishable by the Penal Code, his (defendant's) liability as an employer is only subsidiary, according
to said Penal code, but Fontanilla has not been sued in a civil action and his property has not been exhausted. To decide the main
issue, we must cut through the tangle that has, in the minds of many confused and jumbled together delitos and cuasi delitos, or crimes
under the Penal Code and fault or negligence under articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. This should be done, because justice may be
lost in a labyrinth, unless principles and remedies are distinctly envisaged. Fortunately, we are aided in our inquiry by the luminous
presentation of the perplexing subject by renown jurists and we are likewise guided by the decisions of this Court in previous cases as
well as by the solemn clarity of the consideration in several sentences of the Supreme Tribunal of Spain.

Authorities support the proposition that a quasi-delict or "culpa aquiliana " is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code with a
substantivity all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from delict or crime. Upon this principle and on the
wording and spirit article 1903 of the Civil Code, the primary and direct responsibility of employers may be safely anchored.

The pertinent provisions of the Civil Code and Revised Penal Code are as follows:
 CIVIL CODE

ART. 1089 Obligations arise from law, from contracts and quasi-contracts, and from acts and omissions which are unlawful or
in which any kind of fault or negligence intervenes.

xxx xxx xxx

ART. 1092. Civil obligations arising from felonies or misdemeanors shall be governed by the provisions of the Penal Code.

ART. 1093. Those which are derived from acts or omissions in which fault or negligence, not punishable by law, intervenes
shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter II, Title XVI of this book.

xxx xxx xxx

ART 1902. Any person who by an act or omission causes damage to another by his fault or negligence shall be liable for the
damage so done.

ART. 1903. The obligation imposed by the next preceding article is enforcible, not only for personal acts and omissions, but
also for those of persons for whom another is responsible.

The father and in, case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are liable for any damages caused by the minor children who
live with them.

Guardians are liable for damages done by minors or incapacitated persons subject to their authority and living with them.

Owners or directors of an establishment or business are equally liable for any damages caused by their employees while
engaged in the branch of the service in which employed, or on occasion of the performance of their duties.

The State is subject to the same liability when it acts through a special agent, but not if the damage shall have been caused by
the official upon whom properly devolved the duty of doing the act performed, in which case the provisions of the next
preceding article shall be applicable.

Finally, teachers or directors of arts trades are liable for any damages caused by their pupils or apprentices while they are
under their custody.

The liability imposed by this article shall cease in case the persons mentioned therein prove that they are exercised all the
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage.

ART. 1904. Any person who pays for damage caused by his employees may recover from the latter what he may have paid.

REVISED PENAL CODE

ART. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. — Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.

ART. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. — The exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1,
2, 3, 5, and 6 of article 12 and in subdivision 4 of article 11 of this Code does not include exemption from civil liability, which
shall be enforced to the following rules:

First. In cases of subdivision, 1, 2 and 3 of article 12 the civil liability for acts committed by any imbecile or insane person, and
by a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has acted without discernment
shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or
negligence on their part.

Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authority, legal guardianship, or control, or if such
person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property, excepting property exempt from
execution, in accordance with the civil law.

Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of article 11, the person for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be
civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received.

The courts shall determine, in their sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable.
When the respective shares can not be equitably determined, even approximately, or when the liability also attaches to the
Government, or to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever the damage has been caused with the
consent of the authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations.

Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of article 12, the persons using violence or causing the fear shall be primarily liable
and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, those doing the act shall be liable, saving always to the latter that part of their property
exempt from execution.

ART. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavern keepers and proprietors of establishment. — In default of persons
criminally liable, innkeepers, tavern keepers, and any other persons or corporation shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in
their establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall
have been committed by them or their employees.

Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses lodging therein,
or the person, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper
himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the
directions which such innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect to the care of and vigilance over such
goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or intimidation against or intimidation of persons unless
committed by the innkeeper's employees.

ART. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. — The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall
also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their
servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.

xxx xxx xxx

ART. 365. Imprudence and negligence. — Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been
intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum
and medium periods shall be imposed.

Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act which would otherwise constitute a grave felony,
shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods; if it would have constituted a less serious felony,
the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed."

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, nevertheless article 1093 limits cuasi-delitos to acts or omissions "not punishable by law." But inasmuch as article 365
of the Revised Penal Code punishes not only reckless but even simple imprudence or negligence, the fault or negligence under article
1902 of the Civil Code has apparently been crowded out. It is this overlapping that makes the "confusion worse confounded." However,
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. The same negligent act causing damages
may produce civil liability arising from a crime under article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, or create an action for cuasi-delito or culpa
extra-contractual under articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code.

The individuality of cuasi-delito or culpa extra-contractual looms clear and unmistakable. This legal institution is of ancient lineage, one
of its early ancestors being the Lex Aquilia in the Roman Law. In fact, in Spanish legal terminology, this responsibility is often referred to
as culpa aquiliana. The Partidas also contributed to the genealogy of the present fault or negligence under the Civil Code; for instance,
Law 6, Title 15, of Partida 7, says: "Tenudo es de fazer emienda, porque, como quier que el non fizo a sabiendas en daño al otro, pero
acaescio por su culpa."

The distinctive nature of cuasi-delitos survives in the Civil Code. According to article 1089, one of the five sources of obligations is this
legal institution of cuasi-delito or culpa extra-contractual: "los actos . . . en que intervenga cualquier genero de culpa o negligencia."
Then article 1093 provides that this kind of obligation shall be governed by Chapter II of Title XVI of Book IV, meaning articles 1902-
0910. This portion of the Civil Code is exclusively devoted to the legal institution of culpa aquiliana.

Some of the differences between crimes under the Penal Code and the culpa aquiliana or cuasi-delito under the Civil Code are:

1. That crimes affect the public interest, while cuasi-delitos are only of private concern.

2. That, consequently, the Penal Code punishes or corrects the criminal act, while the Civil Code, by means of indemnification, merely
repairs the damage.

3. That delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts, because the former are punished only if there is a penal law clearly covering them,
while the latter, cuasi-delitos, include all acts in which "any king of fault or negligence intervenes." However, it should be noted that not
all violations of the penal law produce civil responsibility, such as begging in contravention of ordinances, violation of the game laws,
infraction of the rules of traffic when nobody is hurt. (See Colin and Capitant, "Curso Elemental de Derecho Civil," Vol. 3, p. 728.)

Let us now ascertain what some jurists say on the separate existence of quasi-delicts and the employer's primary and direct liability
under article 1903 of the Civil Code.

Dorado Montero in his essay on "Responsibilidad" in the "Enciclopedia Juridica Española" (Vol. XXVII, p. 414) says:

El concepto juridico de la responsabilidad civil abarca diversos aspectos y comprende a diferentes personas. Asi, existe una
responsabilidad civil propiamente dicha, que en ningun casl lleva aparejada responsabilidad criminal alguna, y otra que es
consecuencia indeclinable de la penal que nace de todo delito o falta."

The juridical concept of civil responsibility has various aspects and comprises different persons. Thus, there is a civil
responsibility, properly speaking, which in no case carries with it any criminal responsibility, and another which is a necessary
consequence of the penal liability as a result of every felony or misdemeanor."

Maura, an outstanding authority, was consulted on the following case: There had been a collision between two trains belonging
respectively to the Ferrocarril Cantabrico and the Ferrocarril del Norte. An employee of the latter had been prosecuted in a criminal
case, in which the company had been made a party as subsidiarily responsible in civil damages. The employee had been acquitted in
the criminal case, and the employer, the Ferrocarril del Norte, had also been exonerated. The question asked was whether the
Ferrocarril Cantabrico could still bring a civil action for damages against the Ferrocarril del Norte. Maura's opinion was in the affirmative,
stating in part (Maura, Dictamenes, Vol. 6, pp. 511-513):

Quedando las cosas asi, a proposito de la realidad pura y neta de los hechos, todavia menos parece sostenible que
exista cosa juzgada acerca de la obligacion civil de indemnizar los quebrantos y menoscabos inferidos por el choque de los
trenes. El titulo en que se funda la accion para demandar el resarcimiento, no puede confundirse con las responsabilidades
civiles nacidas de delito, siquiera exista en este, sea el cual sea, una culpa rodeada de notas agravatorias que motivan
sanciones penales, mas o menos severas. La lesion causada por delito o falta en los derechos civiles, requiere restituciones,
reparaciones o indemnizaciones, que cual la pena misma atañen al orden publico; por tal motivo vienen encomendadas, de
ordinario, al Ministerio Fiscal; y claro es que si por esta via se enmiendan los quebrantos y menoscabos, el agraviado excusa
procurar el ya conseguido desagravio; pero esta eventual coincidencia de los efectos, no borra la diversidad originaria de las
acciones civiles para pedir indemnizacion.

Estas, para el caso actual (prescindiendo de culpas contractuales, que no vendrian a cuento y que tiene otro regimen),
dimanan, segun el articulo 1902 del Codigo Civil, de toda accion u omision, causante de daños o perjuicios, en que intervenga
culpa o negligencia. Es trivial que acciones semejantes son ejercitadas ante los Tribunales de lo civil cotidianamente, sin que
la Justicia punitiva tenga que mezclarse en los asuntos. Los articulos 18 al 21 y 121 al 128 del Codigo Penal, atentos al
espiritu y a los fines sociales y politicos del mismo, desenvuelven y ordenan la materia de responsabilidades civiles nacidas
de delito, en terminos separados del regimen por ley comun de la culpa que se denomina aquiliana, por alusion a precedentes
legislativos del Corpus Juris. Seria intempestivo un paralelo entre aquellas ordenaciones, y la de la obligacion de indemnizar a
titulo de culpa civil; pero viene al caso y es necesaria una de las diferenciaciones que en el tal paralelo se notarian.

Los articulos 20 y 21 del Codigo Penal, despues de distribuir a su modo las responsabilidades civiles, entre los que sean por
diversos conceptos culpables del delito o falta, las hacen extensivas a las empresas y los establecimientos al servicio de los
cuales estan los delincuentes; pero con caracter subsidiario, o sea, segun el texto literal, en defecto de los que sean
responsables criminalmente. No coincide en ello el Codigo Civil, cuyo articulo 1903, dice; La obligacion que impone el articulo
anterior es exigible, no solo por los actos y omisiones propios, sino por los de aquellas personas de quienes se debe
responder; personas en la enumeracion de las cuales figuran los dependientes y empleados de los establecimientos o
empresas, sea por actos del servicio, sea con ocasion de sus funciones. Por esto acontece, y se observa en la jurisprudencia,
que las empresas, despues de intervenir en las causas criminales con el caracter subsidiario de su responsabilidad civil por
razon del delito, son demandadas y condenadas directa y aisladamente, cuando se trata de la obligacion, ante los tribunales
civiles.

Siendo como se ve, diverso el titulo de esta obligacion, y formando verdadero postulado de nuestro regimen judicial la
separacion entre justicia punitiva y tribunales de lo civil, de suerte que tienen unos y otros normas de fondo en distintos
cuerpos legales, y diferentes modos de proceder, habiendose, por añadidura, abstenido de asistir al juicio criminal la
Compañia del Ferrocarril Cantabrico, que se reservo ejercitar sus acciones, parece innegable que la de indemnizacion por los
daños y perjuicios que le irrogo el choque, no estuvo sub judice ante el Tribunal del Jurado, ni fue sentenciada, sino que
permanecio intacta, al pronunciarse el fallo de 21 de marzo. Aun cuando el veredicto no hubiese sido de inculpabilidad,
mostrose mas arriba, que tal accion quedaba legitimamente reservada para despues del proceso; pero al declararse que no
existio delito, ni responsabilidad dimanada de delito, materia unica sobre que tenian jurisdiccion aquellos juzgadores, se
redobla el motivo para la obligacion civil ex lege, y se patentiza mas y mas que la accion para pedir su cumplimiento
permanece incolume, extraña a la cosa juzgada.

As things are, apropos of the reality pure and simple of the facts, it seems less tenable that there should be res judicata with
regard to the civil obligation for damages on account of the losses caused by the collision of the trains. The title upon which
 the action for reparation is based cannot be confused with the civil responsibilities born of a crime, because there exists in the
latter, whatever each nature, a culpa surrounded with aggravating aspects which give rise to penal measures that are more or
less severe. The injury caused by a felony or misdemeanor upon civil rights requires restitutions, reparations, or
indemnifications which, like the penalty itself, affect public order; for this reason, they are ordinarily entrusted to the office of
the prosecuting attorney; and it is clear that if by this means the losses and damages are repaired, the injured party no longer
desires to seek another relief; but this coincidence of effects does not eliminate the peculiar nature of civil actions to ask for
indemnity.

Such civil actions in the present case (without referring to contractual faults which are not pertinent and belong to another
scope) are derived, according to article 1902 of the Civil Code, from every act or omission causing losses and damages in
which culpa or negligence intervenes. It is unimportant that such actions are every day filed before the civil courts without the
criminal courts interfering therewith. Articles 18 to 21 and 121 to 128 of the Penal Code, bearing in mind the spirit and the
social and political purposes of that Code, develop and regulate the matter of civil responsibilities arising from a crime,
separately from the regime under common law, of culpa which is known as aquiliana, in accordance with legislative precedent
of the Corpus Juris. It would be unwarranted to make a detailed comparison between the former provisions and that regarding
the obligation to indemnify on account of civil culpa; but it is pertinent and necessary to point out to one of such differences.

Articles 20 and 21 of the Penal Code, after distriburing in their own way the civil responsibilities among those who, for different
reasons, are guilty of felony or misdemeanor, make such civil responsibilities applicable to enterprises and establishments for
which the guilty parties render service, but with subsidiary character, that is to say, according to the wording of the Penal
Code, in default of those who are criminally responsible. In this regard, the Civil Code does not coincide because article 1903
says: "The obligation imposed by the next preceding article is demandable, not only for personal acts and omissions, but also
for those of persons for whom another is responsible." Among the persons enumerated are the subordinates and employees
of establishments or enterprises, either for acts during their service or on the occasion of their functions. It is for this reason
that it happens, and it is so observed in judicial decisions, that the companies or enterprises, after taking part in the criminal
cases because of their subsidiary civil responsibility by reason of the crime, are sued and
sentenced directly and separately with regard to the obligation, before the civil courts.

Seeing that the title of this obligation is different, and the separation between punitive justice and the civil courts being a true
postulate of our judicial system, so that they have different fundamental norms in different codes, as well as different modes of
procedure, and inasmuch as the Compaña del Ferrocarril Cantabrico has abstained from taking part in the criminal case and
has reserved the right to exercise its actions, it seems undeniable that the action for indemnification for the losses and
damages caused to it by the collision was not sub judice before the Tribunal del Jurado, nor was it the subject of a sentence,
but it remained intact when the decision of March 21 was rendered. Even if the verdict had not been that of acquittal, it has
already been shown that such action had been legitimately reserved till after the criminal prosecution; but because of the
declaration of the non-existence of the felony and the non-existence of the responsibility arising from the crime, which was
the sole subject matter upon which the Tribunal del Jurado had jurisdiction, there is greater reason for the civil obligation ex
lege, and it becomes clearer that the action for its enforcement remain intact and is not res judicata.

Laurent, a jurist who has written a monumental work on the French Civil Code, on which the Spanish Civil Code is largely based and
whose provisions on cuasi-delito or culpa extra-contractual are similar to those of the Spanish Civil Code, says, referring to article 1384
of the French Civil Code which corresponds to article 1903, Spanish Civil Code:

The action can be brought directly against the person responsible (for another), without including the author of the act. The
action against the principal is accessory in the sense that it implies the existence of a prejudicial act committed by the
employee, but it is not subsidiary in the sense that it can not be instituted till after the judgment against the author of the act or
at least, that it is subsidiary to the principal action; the action for responsibility (of the employer) is in itself a principal action.
(Laurent, Principles of French Civil Law, Spanish translation, Vol. 20, pp. 734-735.)

Amandi, in his "Cuestionario del Codigo Civil Reformado" (Vol. 4, pp. 429, 430), declares that the responsibility of the employer is
principal and not subsidiary. He writes:

Cuestion 1. La responsabilidad declarada en el articulo 1903 por las acciones u omisiones de aquellas personas por las que
se debe responder, es subsidiaria? es principal? Para contestar a esta pregunta es necesario saber, en primer lugar, en que
se funda el precepto legal. Es que realmente se impone una responsabilidad por una falta ajena? Asi parece a primera vista;
pero semejante afirmacion seria contraria a la justicia y a la maxima universal, segun la que las faltas son personales, y cada
uno responde de aquellas que le son imputables. La responsabilidad de que tratamos se impone con ocasion de un delito o
culpa, pero no por causa de ellos, sino por causa del causi delito, esto es, de la imprudencia o de la negligencia del padre, del
tutor, del dueño o director del establecimiento, del maestro, etc. Cuando cualquiera de las personas que enumera el articulo
citado (menores de edad, incapacitados, dependientes, aprendices) causan un daño, la ley presume que el padre, el tutor, el
maestro, etc., han cometido una falta de negligencia para prevenir o evitar el daño. Esta falta es la que la ley castiga. No hay,
pues, responsabilidad por un hecho ajeno, sino en la apariencia; en realidad la responsabilidad se exige por un hecho propio.
La idea de que esa responsabilidad sea subsidiaria es, por lo tanto, completamente inadmisible.

Question No. 1. Is the responsibility declared in article 1903 for the acts or omissions of those persons for who one is
responsible, subsidiary or principal? In order to answer this question it is necessary to know, in the first place, on what the
 legal provision is based. Is it true that there is a responsibility for the fault of another person? It seems so at first sight; but such
assertion would be contrary to justice and to the universal maxim that all faults are personal, and that everyone is liable for
those faults that can be imputed to him. The responsibility in question is imposed on the occasion of a crime or fault, but not
because of the same, but because of the cuasi-delito, that is to say, the imprudence or negligence of the father, guardian,
proprietor or manager of the establishment, of the teacher, etc. Whenever anyone of the persons enumerated in the article
referred to (minors, incapacitated persons, employees, apprentices) causes any damage, the law presumes that the father,
guardian, teacher, etc. have committed an act of negligence in not preventing or avoiding the damage. It is this fault that is
condemned by the law. It is, therefore, only apparent that there is a responsibility for the act of another; in reality the
responsibility exacted is for one's own act. The idea that such responsibility is subsidiary is, therefore, completely inadmissible.

Oyuelos, in his "Digesto: Principios, Doctrina y Jurisprudencia, Referentes al Codigo Civil Español," says in Vol. VII, p. 743:

Es decir, no responde de hechos ajenos, porque se responde solo de su propia culpa, doctrina del articulo 1902; mas por
excepcion, se responde de la ajena respecto de aquellas personas con las que media algun nexo o vinculo, que motiva o
razona la responsabilidad. Esta responsabilidad, es directa o es subsidiaria? En el orden penal, el Codigo de esta clase
distingue entre menores e incapacitados y los demas, declarando directa la primera (articulo 19) y subsidiaria la segunda
(articulos 20 y 21); pero en el orden civil, en el caso del articulo 1903, ha de entenderse directa, por el tenor del articulo que
impone la responsabilidad precisamente "por los actos de aquellas personas de quienes se deba responder."

That is to say, one is not responsible for the acts of others, because one is liable only for his own faults, this being the doctrine
of article 1902; but, by exception, one is liable for the acts of those persons with whom there is a bond or tie which gives rise to
the responsibility. Is this responsibility direct or subsidiary? In the order of the penal law, the Penal Code distinguishes
between minors and incapacitated persons on the one hand, and other persons on the other, declaring that the responsibility
for the former is direct (article 19), and for the latter, subsidiary (articles 20 and 21); but in the scheme of the civil law, in the
case of article 1903, the responsibility should be understood as direct, according to the tenor of that articles, for precisely it
imposes responsibility "for the acts of those persons for whom one should be responsible."

Coming now to the sentences of the Supreme Tribunal of Spain, that court has upheld the principles above set forth: that a quasi-
delict or culpa extra-contractual is a separate and distinct legal institution, independent from the civil responsibility arising from criminal
liability, and that an employer is, under article 1903 of the Civil Code, primarily and directly responsible for the negligent acts of his
employee.

One of the most important of those Spanish decisions is that of October 21, 1910. In that case, Ramon Lafuente died as the result of
having been run over by a street car owned by the "compañia Electric Madrileña de Traccion." The conductor was prosecuted in a
criminal case but he was acquitted. Thereupon, the widow filed a civil action against the street car company, paying for damages in the
amount of 15,000 pesetas. The lower court awarded damages; so the company appealed to the Supreme Tribunal, alleging violation of
articles 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code because by final judgment the non-existence of fault or negligence had been declared. The
Supreme Court of Spain dismissed the appeal, saying:

Considerando que el primer motivo del recurso se funda en el equivocado supuesto de que el Tribunal a quo, al condonar a la
compañia Electrica Madrileña al pago del daño causado con la muerte de Ramon La fuente Izquierdo, desconoce el valor y
efectos juridicos de la sentencia absolutoria deictada en la causa criminal que se siguio por el mismo hecho, cuando es lo
cierto que de este han conocido las dos jurisdicciones bajo diferentes as pectos, y como la de lo criminal declrao dentro de los
limites de su competencia que el hecho de que se trata no era constitutivo de delito por no haber mediado descuido o
negligencia graves, lo que no excluye, siendo este el unico fundamento del fallo absolutorio, el concurso de la culpa o
negligencia no califacadas, fuente de obligaciones civiles segun el articulo 1902 del Codigo, y que alcanzan, segun el 1903,
netre otras perosnas, a los Directores de establecimientos o empresas por los daños causados por sus dependientes en
determinadas condiciones, es manifesto que la de lo civil, al conocer del mismo hehco baho este ultimo aspecto y al condenar
a la compañia recurrente a la indemnizacion del daño causado por uno de sus empleados, lejos de infringer los mencionados
textos, en relacion con el articulo 116 de la Ley de Enjuciamiento Criminal, se ha atenido estrictamente a ellos, sin invadir
atribuciones ajenas a su jurisdiccion propia, ni contrariar en lo mas minimo el fallo recaido en la causa.

Considering that the first ground of the appeal is based on the mistaken supposition that the trial court, in sentencing
the Compañia Madrileña to the payment of the damage caused by the death of Ramon Lafuente Izquierdo, disregards the
value and juridical effects of the sentence of acquittal rendered in the criminal case instituted on account of the same act,
when it is a fact that the two jurisdictions had taken cognizance of the same act in its different aspects, and as the criminal
jurisdiction declared within the limits of its authority that the act in question did not constitute a felony because there was no
grave carelessness or negligence, and this being the only basis of acquittal, it does no exclude the co-existence of fault or
negligence which is not qualified, and is a source of civil obligations according to article 1902 of the Civil Code, affecting, in
accordance with article 1903, among other persons, the managers of establishments or enterprises by reason of the damages
caused by employees under certain conditions, it is manifest that the civil jurisdiccion in taking cognizance of the same act in
this latter aspect and in ordering the company, appellant herein, to pay an indemnity for the damage caused by one of its
employees, far from violating said legal provisions, in relation with article 116 of the Law of Criminal Procedure, strictly
followed the same, without invading attributes which are beyond its own jurisdiction, and without in any way contradicting the
decision in that cause. (Emphasis supplied.)
It will be noted, as to the case just cited:

First. That the conductor was not sued in a civil case, either separately or with the street car company. This is precisely what happens
in the present case: the driver, Fontanilla, has not been sued in a civil action, either alone or with his employer.

Second. That the conductor had been acquitted of grave criminal negligence, but the Supreme Tribunal of Spain said that this did not
exclude the co-existence of fault or negligence, which is not qualified, on the part of the conductor, under article 1902 of the Civil Code.
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 have been held subsidiarily liable for the
same. But the plaintiffs are directly 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. In so doing, they were acting within their
rights. It might be observed in passing, that the plaintiff choose the more expeditious and effective method of relief, because Fontanilla
was either in prison, or had just been released, and besides, he was probably without property which might be seized in enforcing any
judgment against him for damages.

Third. That inasmuch as in the above sentence of October 21, 1910, the employer was held liable civilly, notwithstanding the acquittal
of the employee (the conductor) in a previous criminal case, with greater reason should Barredo, the employer in the case at bar, be
held liable for damages in a civil suit filed against him because his taxi driver had been convicted. The degree of negligence of the
conductor in the Spanish case cited was less than that of the taxi driver, Fontanilla, because the former was acquitted in the previous
criminal case while the latter was found guilty of criminal negligence and was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of one year and
one day to two years of prision correccional.

(See also Sentence of February 19, 1902, which is similar to the one above quoted.)

In the Sentence of the Supreme Court of Spain, dated February 14, 1919, an action was brought against a railroad company for
damages because the station agent, employed by the company, had unjustly and fraudulently, refused to deliver certain articles
consigned to the plaintiff. The Supreme Court of Spain held that this action was properly under article 1902 of the Civil Code, the court
saying:

Considerando que la sentencia discutida reconoce, en virtud de los hechos que consigna con relacion a las pruebas del pleito:
1.º, que las expediciones facturadas por la compañia ferroviaria a la consignacion del actor de las vasijas vacias que en su
demanda relacionan tenian como fin el que este las devolviera a sus remitentes con vinos y alcoholes; 2.º, que llegadas a su
destino tales mercanias no se quisieron entregar a dicho consignatario por el jefe de la estacion sin motivo justificado y con
intencion dolosa, y 3.º, que la falta de entrega de estas expediciones al tiempo de reclamarlas el demandante le originaron
daños y perjuicios en cantidad de bastante importancia como expendedor al por mayor que era de vinos y alcoholes por las
ganancias que dejo de obtener al verse privado de servir los pedidos que se le habian hecho por los remitentes en los
envases:

Considerando que sobre esta base hay necesidad de estimar los cuatro motivos que integran este recurso, porque la
demanda inicial del pleito a que se contrae no contiene accion que nazca del incumplimiento del contrato de transporte, toda
vez que no se funda en el retraso de la llegada de las mercancias ni de ningun otro vinculo contractual entre las partes
contendientes, careciendo, por tanto, de aplicacion el articulo 371 del Codigo de Comercio, en que principalmente descansa
el fallo recurrido, sino que se limita a pedir la reparaction de los daños y perjuicios producidos en el patrimonio del actor por la
injustificada y dolosa negativa del porteador a la entrega de las mercancias a su nombre consignadas, segun lo reconoce la
sentencia, y cuya responsabilidad esta claramente sancionada en el articulo 1902 del Codigo Civil, que obliga por el siguiente
a la Compañia demandada como ligada con el causante de aquellos por relaciones de caracter economico y de jurarquia
administrativa.

Considering that the sentence, in question recognizes, in virtue of the facts which it declares, in relation to the evidence in the
case: (1) that the invoice issued by the railroad company in favor of the plaintiff contemplated that the empty receptacles
referred to in the complaint should be returned to the consignors with wines and liquors; (2) that when the said merchandise
reached their destination, their delivery to the consignee was refused by the station agent without justification and
with fraudulent intent, and (3) that the lack of delivery of these goods when they were demanded by the plaintiff caused him
losses and damages of considerable importance, as he was a wholesale vendor of wines and liquors and he failed to realize
the profits when he was unable to fill the orders sent to him by the consignors of the receptacles:

Considering that upon this basis there is need of upholding the four assignments of error, as the original complaint did not
contain any cause of action arising from non-fulfillment of a contract of transportation, because the action was not based on
the delay of the goods nor on any contractual relation between the parties litigant and, therefore, article 371 of the Code of
Commerce, on which the decision appealed from is based, is not applicable; but it limits to asking for reparation for losses and
damages produced on the patrimony of the plaintiff on account of the unjustified and fraudulent refusal of the carrier to deliver
the goods consigned to the plaintiff as stated by the sentence, and the carrier's responsibility is clearly laid down in article
1902 of the Civil Code which binds, in virtue of the next article, the defendant company, because the latter is connected with
the person who caused the damage by relations of economic character and by administrative hierarchy. (Emphasis supplied.)
The above case is pertinent because it shows that the same act may come under both the Penal Code and the Civil Code. In that case,
the action of the agent was unjustified and fraudulent and therefore could have been the subject of a criminal action. And yet, it was
held to be also a proper subject of a civil action under article 1902 of the Civil Code. It is also to be noted that it was the employer and
not the employee who was being sued.

Let us now examine the cases previously decided by this Court.

In the leading case of Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co. (7 Phil., 359, 362-365 [year 1907]), the trial court awarded damages to the
plaintiff, a laborer of the defendant, because the latter had negligently failed to repair a tramway in consequence of which the rails slid
off while iron was being transported, and caught the plaintiff whose leg was broken. This Court held:

It is contended by the defendant, as its first defense to the action that the necessary conclusion from these collated laws is that
the remedy for injuries through negligence lies only in a criminal action in which the official criminally responsible must be
made primarily liable and his employer held only subsidiarily to him. According to this theory the plaintiff should have procured
the arrest of the representative of the company accountable for not repairing the track, and on his prosecution a suitable fine
should have been imposed, payable primarily by him and secondarily by his employer.

This reasoning misconceived the plan of the Spanish codes upon this subject. Article 1093 of the Civil Code makes obligations
arising from faults or negligence not punished by the law, subject to the provisions of Chapter II of Title XVI. Section 1902 of
that chapter reads:

"A person who by an act or omission causes damage to another when there is fault or negligence shall be obliged to
repair the damage so done.

"SEC. 1903. The obligation imposed by the preceeding article is demandable, not only for personal acts and
omissions, but also for those of the persons for whom they should be responsible.

"The father, and on his death or incapacity, the mother, is liable for the damages caused by the minors who live with
them.

xxx xxx xxx

"Owners or directors of an establishment or enterprise are equally liable for the damages caused by their employees
in the service of the branches in which the latter may be employed or in the performance of their duties.

xxx xxx xxx

"The liability referred to in this article shall cease when the persons mentioned therein prove that they employed all
the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid the damage."

As an answer to the argument urged in this particular action it may be sufficient to point out that nowhere in our general
statutes is the employer penalized for failure to provide or maintain safe appliances for his workmen. His obligation therefore is
one 'not punished by the laws' and falls under civil rather than criminal jurisprudence. But the answer may be a broader one.
We should be reluctant, under any conditions, to adopt a forced construction of these scientific codes, such as is proposed by
the defendant, that would rob some of these articles of effect, would shut out litigants against their will from the civil courts,
would make the assertion of their rights dependent upon the selection for prosecution of the proper criminal offender, and
render recovery doubtful by reason of the strict rules of proof prevailing in criminal actions. Even if these articles had always
stood alone, such a construction would be unnecessary, but clear light is thrown upon their meaning by the provisions of the
Law of Criminal Procedure of Spain (Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal), which, though never in actual force in these Islands, was
formerly given a suppletory or explanatory effect. Under article 111 of this law, both classes of action, civil and criminal, might
be prosecuted jointly or separately, but while the penal action was pending the civil was suspended. According to article 112,
the penal action once started, the civil remedy should be sought therewith, unless it had been waived by the party injured or
been expressly reserved by him for civil proceedings for the future. If the civil action alone was prosecuted, arising out of a
crime that could be enforced only on private complaint, the penal action thereunder should be extinguished. These provisions
are in harmony with those of articles 23 and 133 of our Penal Code on the same subject.

An examination of this topic might be carried much further, but the citation of these articles suffices to show that the civil
liability was not intended to be merged in the criminal nor even to be suspended thereby, except as expressly provided in the
law. Where an individual is civilly liable for a negligent act or omission, it is not required that the injured party should seek out a
third person criminally liable whose prosecution must be a condition precedent to the enforcement of the civil right.

Under article 20 of the Penal Code the responsibility of an employer may be regarded as subsidiary in respect of criminal
actions against his employees only while they are in process of prosecution, or in so far as they determine the existence of the
criminal act from which liability arises, and his obligation under the civil law and its enforcement in the civil courts is not barred
 thereby unless by the election of the injured person. Inasmuch as no criminal proceeding had been instituted, growing our of
the accident in question, the provisions of the Penal Code can not affect this action. This construction renders it unnecessary
to finally determine here whether this subsidiary civil liability in penal actions has survived the laws that fully regulated it or has
been abrogated by the American civil and criminal procedure now in force in the Philippines.

The difficulty in construing the articles of the code above cited in this case appears from the briefs before us to have arisen
from the interpretation of the words of article 1093, "fault or negligence not punished by law," as applied to the comprehensive
definition of offenses in articles 568 and 590 of the Penal Code. It has been shown that the liability of an employer arising out
of his relation to his employee who is the offender is not to be regarded as derived from negligence punished by the law, within
the meaning of articles 1902 and 1093. More than this, however, it cannot be said to fall within the class of acts unpunished by
the law, the consequence of which are regulated by articles 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code. The acts to which these articles
are applicable are understood to be those not growing out of pre-existing duties of the parties to one another. But where
relations already formed give rise to duties, whether springing from contract or quasi contract, then breaches of those duties
are subject to articles 1101, 1103, and 1104 of the same code. A typical application of this distinction may be found in the
consequences of a railway accident due to defective machinery supplied by the employer. His liability to his employee would
arise out of the contract of employment, that to the passengers out of the contract for passage, while that to the injured
bystander would originate in the negligent act itself.

In Manzanares vs. Moreta, 38 Phil., 821 (year 1918), the mother of the 8 of 9-year-old child Salvador Bona brought a civil action against
Moreta to recover damages resulting from the death of the child, who had been run over by an automobile driven and managed by the
defendant. The trial court rendered judgment requiring the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of P1,000 as indemnity: This Court in
affirming the judgment, said in part:

If it were true that the defendant, in coming from the southern part of Solana Street, had to stop his auto before crossing Real
Street, because he had met vehicles which were going along the latter street or were coming from the opposite direction along
Solana Street, it is to be believed that, when he again started to run his auto across said Real Street and to continue its way
along Solana Street northward, he should have adjusted the speed of the auto which he was operating until he had fully
crossed Real Street and had completely reached a clear way on Solana Street. But, as the child was run over by the auto
precisely at the entrance of Solana Street, this accident could not have occurred if the auto had been running at a slow speed,
aside from the fact that the defendant, at the moment of crossing Real Street and entering Solana Street, in a northward
direction, could have seen the child in the act of crossing the latter street from the sidewalk on the right to that on the left, and
if the accident had occurred in such a way that after the automobile had run over the body of the child, and the child's body
had already been stretched out on the ground, the automobile still moved along a distance of about 2 meters, this
circumstance shows the fact that the automobile entered Solana Street from Real Street, at a high speed without the
defendant having blown the horn. If these precautions had been taken by the defendant, the deplorable accident which caused
the death of the child would not have occurred.

It will be noticed that the defendant in the above case could have been prosecuted in a criminal case because his negligence causing
the death of the child was punishable by the Penal Code. Here is therefore a clear instance of the same act of negligence being a
proper subject-matter either of a criminal action with its consequent civil liability arising from a crime or of an entirely separate and
independent civil action for fault or negligence under article 1902 of the Civil Code. Thus, in this jurisdiction, the separate individually of
a cuasi-delito or culpa aquiliana under the Civil Code has been fully and clearly recognized, even with regard to a negligent act for
which the wrongdoer could have been prosecuted and convicted in a criminal case and for which, after such a conviction, he could
have been sued for this civil liability arising from his crime.

Years later (in 1930) this Court had another occasion to apply the same doctrine. In Bernal and Enverso vs. House and Tacloban
Electric & Ice Plant, Ltd., 54 Phil., 327, the parents of the five-year-old child, Purificacion Bernal, brought a civil action to recover
damages for the child's death as a result of burns caused by the fault and negligence of the defendants. On the evening of April 10,
1925, the Good Friday procession was held in Tacloban, Leyte. Fortunata Enverso with her daughter Purificacion Bernal had come
from another municipality to attend the same. After the procession the mother and the daughter with two others were passing along
Gran Capitan Street in front of the offices of the Tacloban Electric & Ice Plant, Ltd., owned by defendants J. V. House, when an
automobile appeared from the opposite direction. The little girl, who was slightly ahead of the rest, was so frightened by the automobile
that she turned to run, but unfortunately she fell into the street gutter where hot water from the electric plant was flowing. The child died
that same night from the burns. The trial courts dismissed the action because of the contributory negligence of the plaintiffs. But this
Court held, on appeal, that there was no contributory negligence, and allowed the parents P1,000 in damages from J. V. House who at
the time of the tragic occurrence was the holder of the franchise for the electric plant. This Court said in part:

Although the trial judge made the findings of fact hereinbefore outlined, he nevertheless was led to order the dismissal of the
action because of the contributory negligence of the plaintiffs. It is from this point that a majority of the court depart from the
stand taken by the trial judge. The mother and her child had a perfect right to be on the principal street of Tacloban, Leyte, on
the evening when the religious procession was held. There was nothing abnormal in allowing the child to run along a few
paces in advance of the mother. No one could foresee the coincidence of an automobile appearing and of a frightened child
running and falling into a ditch filled with hot water. The doctrine announced in the much debated case of Rakes vs. Atlantic
Gulf and Pacific Co. ([1907]), 7 Phil., 359), still rule. Article 1902 of the Civil Code must again be enforced. The contributory
negligence of the child and her mother, if any, does not operate as a bar to recovery, but in its strictest sense could only result
in reduction of the damages.
It is most significant that in the case just cited, this Court specifically applied article 1902 of the Civil Code. It is thus that although J. V.
House could have been criminally prosecuted for reckless or simple negligence and not only punished but also made civilly liable
because of his criminal negligence, nevertheless this Court awarded damages in an independent civil action for fault or negligence
under article 1902 of the Civil Code.

In Bahia vs. Litonjua and Leynes (30 Phil., 624 [year 1915), the action was for damages for the death of the plaintiff's daughter alleged
to have been caused by the negligence of the servant in driving an automobile over the child. It appeared that the cause of the mishap
was a defect in the steering gear. The defendant Leynes had rented the automobile from the International Garage of Manila, to be used
by him in carrying passengers during the fiesta of Tuy, Batangas. Leynes was ordered by the lower court to pay P1,000 as damages to
the plaintiff. On appeal this Court reversed the judgment as to Leynes on the ground that he had shown that the exercised the care of a
good father of a family, thus overcoming the presumption of negligence under article 1903. This Court said:

As to selection, the defendant has clearly shown that he exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family. He
obtained the machine from a reputable garage and it was, so far as appeared, in good condition. The workmen were likewise
selected from a standard garage, were duly licensed by the Government in their particular calling, and apparently thoroughly
competent. The machine had been used but a few hours when the accident occurred and it is clear from the evidence that the
defendant had no notice, either actual or constructive, of the defective condition of the steering gear.

The legal aspect of the case was discussed by this Court thus:

Article 1903 of the Civil Code not only establishes liability in cases of negligence, but also provides when the liability shall
cease. It says:

"The liability referred to in this article shall cease when the persons mentioned therein prove that they employed all
the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid the damage."

From this article two things are apparent: (1) That when an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or employee there
instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the matter or employer either in the selection of
the servant or employee, or in supervision over him after the selection, or both; and (2) that presumption is juris tantum and
not juris et de jure, and consequently, may be rebutted. It follows necessarily that if the employer shows to the satisfaction of
the court that in selection and supervision he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family, the
presumption is overcome and he is relieve from liability.

This theory bases the responsibility of the master ultimately on his own negligence and not on that of his servant.

The doctrine of the case just cited was followed by this Court in Cerf vs. Medel (33 Phil., 37 [year 1915]). In the latter case, the
complaint alleged that the defendant's servant had so negligently driven an automobile, which was operated by defendant as a public
vehicle, that said automobile struck and damaged the plaintiff's motorcycle. This Court, applying article 1903 and following the rule
in Bahia vs. Litonjua and Leynes, said in part (p. 41) that:

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 engaged in his master's employment as such owner.

Another case which followed the decision in Bahia vs. Litonjua and Leynes was Cuison vs. Norton & Harrison Co., 55 Phil., 18 (year
1930). The latter case was an action for damages brought by Cuison for the death of his seven-year-old son Moises. The little boy was
on his way to school with his sister Marciana. Some large pieces of lumber fell from a truck and pinned the boy underneath, instantly
killing him. Two youths, Telesforo Binoya and Francisco Bautista, who were working for Ora, an employee of defendant Norton &
Harrison Co., pleaded guilty to the crime of homicide through reckless negligence and were sentenced accordingly. This Court,
applying articles 1902 and 1903, held:

The basis of civil law liability is not respondent superior but the relationship of pater familias. This theory bases the liability of
the master ultimately on his own negligence and not on that of his servant. (Bahia vs.Litonjua and Leynes [1915], 30 Phil., 624;
Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co. [1918], 38 Phil., 768.)

In Walter A. Smith & Co. vs. Cadwallader Gibson Lumber Co., 55 Phil., 517 (year 1930) the plaintiff brought an action for damages for
the demolition of its wharf, which had been struck by the steamer Helen C belonging to the defendant. This Court held (p. 526):

The evidence shows that Captain Lasa at the time the plaintiff's wharf collapsed was a duly licensed captain, authorized to
navigate and direct a vessel of any tonnage, and that the appellee contracted his services because of his reputation as a
captain, according to F. C. Cadwallader. This being so, we are of the opinion that the presumption of liability against the
defendant has been overcome by the exercise of the care and diligence of a good father of a family in selecting Captain Lasa,
in accordance with the doctrines laid down by this court in the cases cited above, and the defendant is therefore absolved from
all liability.
It is, therefore, seen that the defendant's theory about his secondary liability is negatived by the six cases above set forth. He is, on the
authority of these cases, primarily and directly responsible in damages under article 1903, in relation to article 1902, of the Civil Code.

Let us now take up the Philippine decisions relied upon by the defendant. We study first, City of Manila vs. Manila Electric Co., 52 Phil.,
586 (year 1928). A collision between a truck of the City of Manila and a street car of the Manila Electric Co. took place on June 8, 1925.
The truck was damaged in the amount of P1,788.27. Sixto Eustaquio, the motorman, was prosecuted for the crime of damage to
property and slight injuries through reckless imprudence. He was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of P900, to indemnify the City
of Manila for P1,788.27, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Unable to collect the indemnity from Eustaquio, the City of
Manila filed an action against the Manila Electric Company to obtain payment, claiming that the defendant was subsidiarily liable. The
main defense was that the defendant had exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. The lower court
rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. This Court held, in part, that this case was governed by the Penal Code, saying:

With this preliminary point out of the way, there is no escaping the conclusion that the provisions of the Penal Code govern.
The Penal Code in easily understandable language authorizes the determination of subsidiary liability. The Civil Code
negatives its application by providing that civil obligations arising from crimes or misdemeanors shall be governed by the
provisions of the Penal Code. The conviction of the motorman was a misdemeanor falling under article 604 of the Penal Code.
The act of the motorman was not a wrongful or negligent act or omission not punishable by law. Accordingly, the civil
obligation connected up with the Penal Code and not with article 1903 of the Civil Code. In other words, the Penal Code
affirms its jurisdiction while the Civil Code negatives its jurisdiction. This is a case of criminal negligence out of which civil
liability arises and not a case of civil negligence.

xxx xxx xxx

Our deduction, therefore, is that the case relates to the Penal Code and not to the Civil Code. Indeed, as pointed out by the
trial judge, any different ruling would permit the master to escape scot-free by simply alleging and proving that the master had
exercised all diligence in the selection and training of its servants to prevent the damage. That would be a good defense to a
strictly civil action, but might or might not be to a civil action either as a part of or predicated on conviction for a crime or
misdemeanor. (By way of parenthesis, it may be said further that the statements here made are offered to meet the argument
advanced during our deliberations to the effect that article 0902 of the Civil Code should be disregarded and codal articles
1093 and 1903 applied.)

It is not clear how the above case could support the defendant's proposition, because the Court of Appeals based its decision in the
present case on the defendant's primary responsibility under article 1903 of the Civil Code and not on his subsidiary liability arising from
Fontanilla's criminal negligence. In other words, the case of City of Manila vs. Manila Electric Co., supra, is predicated on an entirely
different theory, which is the subsidiary liability of an employer arising from a criminal act of his employee, whereas the foundation of
the decision of the Court of Appeals in the present case is the employer's primary liability under article 1903 of the Civil Code. We have
already seen that this is a proper and independent remedy.

Arambulo vs. Manila Electric Co. (55 Phil., 75), is another case invoked by the defendant. A motorman in the employ of the Manila
Electric Company had been convicted o homicide by simple negligence and sentenced, among other things, to pay the heirs of the
deceased the sum of P1,000. An action was then brought to enforce the subsidiary liability of the defendant as employer under the
Penal Code. The defendant attempted to show that it had exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in selecting the motorman,
and therefore claimed exemption from civil liability. But this Court held:

In view of the foregoing considerations, we are of opinion and so hold, (1) that the exemption from civil liability established in
article 1903 of the Civil Code for all who have acted with the diligence of a good father of a family, is not applicable to the
subsidiary civil liability provided in article 20 of the Penal Code.

The above case is also extraneous to the theory of the defendant in the instant case, because the action there had for its purpose the
enforcement of the defendant's subsidiary liability under the Penal Code, while in the case at bar, the plaintiff's cause of action is based
on the defendant's primary and direct responsibility under article 1903 of the Civil Code. In fact, the above case destroys the
defendant's contention because that decision illustrates the principle that the employer's primary responsibility under article 1903 of the
Civil Code is different in character from his subsidiary liability under the Penal Code.

In trying to apply the two cases just referred to, counsel for the defendant has failed to recognize the distinction between civil liability
arising from a crime, which is governed by the Penal Code, and the responsibility for cuasi-delito or culpa aquiliana under the Civil
Code, and has likewise failed to give the importance to the latter type of civil action.

The defendant-petitioner also cites Francisco vs. Onrubia (46 Phil., 327). That case need not be set forth. Suffice it to say that the
question involved was also civil liability arising from a crime. Hence, it is as inapplicable as the two cases above discussed.

The foregoing authorities clearly demonstrate the separate individuality of cuasi-delitos or culpa aquiliana under the Civil Code.
Specifically they show that there is a distinction between civil liability arising from criminal negligence (governed by the Penal Code)
and responsibility for fault or negligence under articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code, and that the same negligent act may produce
either a civil liability arising from a crime under the Penal Code, or a separate responsibility for fault or negligence under articles 1902 to
1910 of the Civil Code. Still more concretely, the authorities above cited render it inescapable to conclude that the employer — in this
case the defendant-petitioner — is primarily and directly liable under article 1903 of the Civil Code.

The legal provisions, authors, and cases already invoked should ordinarily be sufficient to dispose of this case. But inasmuch as we are
announcing doctrines that have been little understood in the past, it might not be inappropriate to indicate their foundations.

Firstly, the Revised Penal Code in article 365 punishes not only reckless but also simple negligence. If we were to hold that articles
1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code refer only to fault or negligence not punished by law, according to the literal import of article 1093 of the
Civil Code, the legal institution of culpa aquiliana would have very little scope and application in actual life. Death or injury to persons
and damage to property through any degree of negligence — even the slightest — would have to be indemnified only through the
principle of civil liability arising from a crime. In such a state of affairs, what sphere would remain for cuasi-delito or culpa aquiliana? We
are loath to impute to the lawmaker any intention to bring about a situation so absurd and anomalous. Nor are we, in the interpretation
of the laws, disposed to uphold the letter that killeth rather than the spirit that giveth life. We will not use the literal meaning of the law to
smother and render almost lifeless a principle of such ancient origin and such full-grown development as culpa aquiliana or cuasi-delito,
which is conserved and made enduring in articles 1902 to 1910 of the Spanish Civil Code.

Secondly, to find the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is required, while in a civil case,
preponderance of evidence is sufficient to make the defendant pay in damages. There are numerous cases of criminal negligence
which can not be shown beyond reasonable doubt, but can be proved by a preponderance of evidence. In such cases, the defendant
can and should be made responsible in a civil action under articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code. Otherwise, there would be many
instances of unvindicated civil wrongs. Ubi jus ibi remedium.

Thirdly, to hold that there is only one way to make defendant's liability effective, and that is, to sue the driver and exhaust his (the
latter's) property first, would be tantamount to compelling the plaintiff to follow a devious and cumbersome method of obtaining relief.
True, there is such a remedy under our laws, but there is also a more expeditious way, which is based on the primary and direct
responsibility of the defendant under article 1903 of the Civil Code. Our view of the law is more likely to facilitate remedy for civil
wrongs, because the procedure indicated by the defendant is wasteful and productive of delay, it being a matter of common knowledge
that professional drivers of taxis and similar public conveyance usually do not have sufficient means with which to pay damages. Why,
then, should the plaintiff be required in all cases to go through this roundabout, unnecessary, and probably useless procedure? In
construing the laws, courts have endeavored to shorten and facilitate the pathways of right and justice.

At this juncture, it should be said that the primary and direct responsibility of employers and their presumed negligence are principles
calculated to protect society. Workmen and employees should be carefully chosen and supervised in order to avoid injury to the public.
It is the masters or employers who principally reap the profits resulting from the services of these servants and employees. It is but right
that they should guarantee the latter's careful conduct for the personnel and patrimonial safety of others. As Theilhard has said, "they
should reproach themselves, at least, some for their weakness, others for their poor selection and all for their negligence." And
according to Manresa, "It is much more equitable and just that such responsibility should fall upon the principal or director who could
have chosen a careful and prudent employee, and not upon the injured person who could not exercise such selection and who used
such employee because of his confidence in the principal or director." (Vol. 12, p. 622, 2nd Ed.) Many jurists also base this primary
responsibility of the employer on the principle of representation of the principal by the agent. Thus, Oyuelos says in the work already
cited (Vol. 7, p. 747) that before third persons the employer and employee "vienen a ser como una sola personalidad, por refundicion
de la del dependiente en la de quien le emplea y utiliza." ("become as one personality by the merging of the person of the employee in
that of him who employs and utilizes him.") All these observations acquire a peculiar force and significance when it comes to motor
accidents, and there is need of stressing and accentuating the responsibility of owners of motor vehicles.

Fourthly, because of the broad sweep of the provisions of both the Penal Code and the Civil Code on this subject, which has given rise
to the overlapping or concurrence of spheres already discussed, and for lack of understanding of the character and efficacy of the
action for culpa aquiliana, there has grown up a common practice to seek damages only by virtue of the civil responsibility arising from
a crime, forgetting that there is another remedy, which is by invoking articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. Although this habitual
method is allowed by our laws, it has nevertheless rendered practically useless and nugatory the more expeditious and effective
remedy based on culpa aquiliana or culpa extra-contractual. In the present case, we are asked to help perpetuate this usual course. But
we believe it is high time we pointed out to the harm done by such practice and to restore the principle of responsibility for fault or
negligence under articles 1902 et seq. of the Civil Code to its full rigor. It is high time we caused the stream of quasi-delict or culpa
aquiliana to flow on its own natural channel, so that its waters may no longer be diverted into that of a crime under the Penal Code. This
will, it is believed, make for the better safeguarding of private rights because it re-establishes an ancient and additional remedy, and for
the further reason that an independent civil action, not depending on the issues, limitations and results of a criminal prosecution, and
entirely directed by the party wronged or his counsel, is more likely to secure adequate and efficacious redress.

In view of the foregoing, the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be and is hereby affirmed, with costs against the defendant-
petitioner.

Yulo, C.J., Moran, Ozaeta and Paras, JJ., concur.

 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-24803 May 26, 1977
PEDRO ELCANO and PATRICIA ELCANO, in their capacity as Ascendants of Agapito Elcano, deceased, plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
REGINALD HILL, minor, and MARVIN HILL, as father and Natural Guardian of said minor, defendants-appellees.
Cruz & Avecilla for appellants.
Marvin R. Hill & Associates for appellees.

BARREDO, J.:
Appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City dated January 29, 1965 in Civil Case No. Q-8102, Pedro Elcano et
al. vs. Reginald Hill et al. dismissing, upon motion to dismiss of defendants, the complaint of plaintiffs for recovery of damages from
defendant Reginald Hill, a minor, married at the time of the occurrence, and his father, the defendant Marvin Hill, with whom he was
living and getting subsistence, for the killing by Reginald of the son of the plaintiffs, named Agapito Elcano, of which, when criminally
prosecuted, the said accused was acquitted on the ground that his act was not criminal, because of "lack of intent to kill, coupled with
mistake."

Actually, the motion to dismiss based on the following grounds:

1. The present action is not only against but a violation of section 1, Rule 107, which is now Rule III, of the Revised
Rules of Court;
2. The action is barred by a prior judgment which is now final and or in res-adjudicata;
3. The complaint had no cause of action against defendant Marvin Hill, because he was relieved as guardian of the
other defendant through emancipation by marriage.
(P. 23, Record [p. 4, Record on Appeal.])
was first denied by the trial court. It was only upon motion for reconsideration of the defendants of such denial, reiterating the above
grounds that the following order was issued:
Considering the motion for reconsideration filed by the defendants on January 14, 1965 and after thoroughly
examining the arguments therein contained, the Court finds the same to be meritorious and well-founded.
WHEREFORE, the Order of this Court on December 8, 1964 is hereby reconsidered by ordering the dismissal of the
above entitled case.
SO ORDERED.
Quezon City, Philippines, January 29, 1965. (p. 40, Record [p. 21, Record on Appeal.)

Hence, this appeal where plaintiffs-appellants, the spouses Elcano, are presenting for Our resolution the following assignment of errors:

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE CASE BY UPHOLDING THE CLAIM OF DEFENDANTS THAT -
I
THE PRESENT ACTION IS NOT ONLY AGAINST BUT ALSO A VIOLATION OF SECTION 1, RULE 107, NOW
RULE 111, OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT, AND THAT SECTION 3(c) OF RULE 111, RULES OF COURT
IS APPLICABLE;
II
THE ACTION IS BARRED BY A PRIOR JUDGMENT WHICH IS NOW FINAL OR RES-ADJUDICTA;
III
THE PRINCIPLES OF QUASI-DELICTS, ARTICLES 2176 TO 2194 OF THE CIVIL CODE, ARE INAPPLICABLE IN
THE INSTANT CASE; and
IV
THAT THE COMPLAINT STATES NO CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT MARVIN HILL BECAUSE HE
WAS RELIEVED AS GUARDIAN OF THE OTHER DEFENDANT THROUGH EMANCIPATION BY MARRIAGE.
(page 4, Record.)
It appears that for the killing of the son, Agapito, of plaintiffs-appellants, defendant- appellee Reginald Hill was prosecuted criminally in
Criminal Case No. 5102 of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City. After due trial, he was acquitted on the ground that his act was
not criminal because of "lack of intent to kill, coupled with mistake." Parenthetically, none of the parties has favored Us with a copy of
the decision of acquittal, presumably because appellants do not dispute that such indeed was the basis stated in the court's decision.
And so, when appellants filed their complaint against appellees Reginald and his father, Atty. Marvin Hill, on account of the death of
their son, the appellees filed the motion to dismiss above-referred to.

As We view the foregoing background of this case, the two decisive issues presented for Our resolution are:

1. Is the present civil action for damages barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case wherein the action for civil liability, was
not reversed?

2. May Article 2180 (2nd and last paragraphs) of the Civil Code he applied against Atty. Hill, notwithstanding the undisputed fact that at
the time of the occurrence complained of. Reginald, though a minor, living with and getting subsistenee from his father, was already
legally married?
The first issue presents no more problem than the need for a reiteration and further clarification of the dual character, criminal and civil,
of fault or negligence as a source of obligation which was firmly established in this jurisdiction in Barredo vs. Garcia, 73 Phil. 607. In
that case, this Court postulated, on the basis of a scholarly dissertation by Justice Bocobo on the nature of culpa aquiliana in relation
to culpa criminal or delito and mere culpa or fault, with pertinent citation of decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain, the works of
recognized civilians, and earlier jurisprudence of our own, that the same given act can result in civil liability not only under the Penal
Code but also under the Civil Code. Thus, the opinion holds:

The, above case is pertinent because it shows that the same act machinist. come under both the Penal Code and the
Civil Code. In that case, the action of the agent killeth unjustified and fraudulent and therefore could have been the
subject of a criminal action. And yet, it was held to be also a proper subject of a civil action under article 1902 of the
Civil Code. It is also to be noted that it was the employer and not the employee who was being sued. (pp. 615-616,
73 Phil.). 1

It will be noticed that the defendant in the above case could have been prosecuted in a criminal case because his
negligence causing the death of the child was punishable by the Penal Code. Here is therefore a clear instance of the
same act of negligence being a proper subject matter either of a criminal action with its consequent civil liability
arising from a crime or of an entirely separate and independent civil action for fault or negligence under article 1902
of the Civil Code. Thus, in this jurisdiction, the separate individuality of a cuasi-delito or culpa aquiliana, under the
Civil Code has been fully and clearly recognized, even with regard to a negligent act for which the wrongdoer could
have been prosecuted and convicted in a criminal case and for which, after such a conviction, he could have been
sued for this civil liability arising from his crime. (p. 617, 73 Phil.) 2

It is most significant that in the case just cited, this Court specifically applied article 1902 of the Civil Code. It is thus
that although J. V. House could have been criminally prosecuted for reckless or simple negligence and not only
punished but also made civilly liable because of his criminal negligence, nevertheless this Court awarded damages in
an independent civil action for fault or negligence under article 1902 of the Civil Code. (p. 618, 73 Phil.) 3

The legal provisions, authors, and cases already invoked should ordinarily be sufficient to dispose of this case. But
inasmuch as we are announcing doctrines that have been little understood, in the past, it might not he inappropriate
to indicate their foundations.

Firstly, the Revised Penal Code in articles 365 punishes not only reckless but also simple negligence. If we were to
hold that articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code refer only to fault or negligence not punished by law, accordingly to
the literal import of article 1093 of the Civil Code, the legal institution of culpa aquiliana would have very little scope
and application in actual life. Death or injury to persons and damage to property- through any degree of negligence -
even the slightest - would have to be Idemnified only through the principle of civil liability arising from a crime. In such
a state of affairs, what sphere would remain for cuasi-delito or culpa aquiliana? We are loath to impute to the
lawmaker any intention to bring about a situation so absurd and anomalous. Nor are we, in the interpretation of the
laws, disposed to uphold the letter that killeth rather than the spirit that giveth life. We will not use the literal meaning
of the law to smother and render almost lifeless a principle of such ancient origin and such full-grown development
as culpa aquiliana or cuasi-delito, which is conserved and made enduring in articles 1902 to 1910 of the Spanish Civil
Code.

Secondary, to find the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is required, while in a
civil case, preponderance of evidence is sufficient to make the defendant pay in damages. There are numerous
cases of criminal negligence which can not be shown beyond reasonable doubt, but can be proved by a
preponderance of evidence. In such cases, the defendant can and should be made responsible in a civil action under
articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code. Otherwise. there would be many instances of unvindicated civil wrongs. "Ubi
jus Idemnified remedium." (p. 620,73 Phil.)

Fourthly, because of the broad sweep of the provisions of both the Penal Code and the Civil Code on this subject,
which has given rise to the overlapping or concurrence of spheres already discussed, and for lack of understanding of
the character and efficacy of the action for culpa aquiliana, there has grown up a common practice to seek damages
only by virtue of the civil responsibility arising from a crime, forgetting that there is another remedy, which is by
invoking articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. Although this habitual method is allowed by, our laws, it has
nevertheless rendered practically useless and nugatory the more expeditious and effective remedy based on culpa
aquiliana or culpa extra-contractual. In the present case, we are asked to help perpetuate this usual course. But we
believe it is high time we pointed out to the harms done by such practice and to restore the principle of responsibility
for fault or negligence under articles 1902 et seq. of the Civil Code to its full rigor. It is high time we caused the
stream of quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana to flow on its own natural channel, so that its waters may no longer be
diverted into that of a crime under the Penal Code. This will, it is believed, make for the better safeguarding or private
rights because it realtor, an ancient and additional remedy, and for the further reason that an independent civil action,
not depending on the issues, limitations and results of a criminal prosecution, and entirely directed by the party
wronged or his counsel, is more likely to secure adequate and efficacious redress. (p. 621, 73 Phil.)
Contrary to an immediate impression one might get upon a reading of the foregoing excerpts from the opinion in Garcia that the
concurrence of the Penal Code and the Civil Code therein referred to contemplate only acts of negligence and not intentional voluntary
acts - deeper reflection would reveal that the thrust of the pronouncements therein is not so limited, but that in fact it actually extends to
fault or culpa. This can be seen in the reference made therein to the Sentence of the Supreme Court of Spain of February 14, 1919,
supra, which involved a case of fraud or estafa, not a negligent act. Indeed, Article 1093 of the Civil Code of Spain, in force here at the
time of Garcia, provided textually that obligations "which are derived from acts or omissions in which fault or negligence, not punishable
by law, intervene shall be the subject of Chapter II, Title XV of this book (which refers to quasi-delicts.)" And it is precisely the underline
qualification, "not punishable by law", that Justice Bocobo emphasized could lead to an ultimo construction or interpretation of the letter
of the law that "killeth, rather than the spirit that giveth lift- hence, the ruling that "(W)e will not use the literal meaning of the law to
smother and render almost lifeless a principle of such ancient origin and such full-grown development as culpa aquiliana or quasi-delito,
which is conserved and made enduring in articles 1902 to 1910 of the Spanish Civil Code." And so, because Justice Bacobo was
Chairman of the Code Commission that drafted the original text of the new Civil Code, it is to be noted that the said Code, which was
enacted after the Garcia doctrine, no longer uses the term, 11 not punishable by law," thereby making it clear that the concept of culpa
aquiliana includes acts which are criminal in character or in violation of the penal law, whether voluntary or matter. Thus, the
corresponding provisions to said Article 1093 in the new code, which is Article 1162, simply says, "Obligations derived from quasi-
delicto shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 2, Title XVII of this Book, (on quasi-delicts) and by special laws." More precisely,
a new provision, Article 2177 of the new code provides:

ART. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the
civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the
same act or omission of the defendant.

According to the Code Commission: "The foregoing provision (Article 2177) through at first sight startling, is not so novel or
extraordinary when we consider the exact nature of criminal and civil negligence. The former is a violation of the criminal law, while the
latter is a "culpa aquiliana" or quasi-delict, of ancient origin, having always had its own foundation and individuality, separate from
criminal negligence. Such distinction between criminal negligence and "culpa extracontractual" or "cuasi-delito" has been sustained by
decision of the Supreme Court of Spain and maintained as clear, sound and perfectly tenable by Maura, an outstanding Spanish jurist.
Therefore, under the proposed Article 2177, acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence, whether on reasonable doubt or not,
shall not be a bar to a subsequent civil action, not for civil liability arising from criminal negligence, but for damages due to a quasi-delict
or 'culpa aquiliana'. But said article forestalls a double recovery.", (Report of the Code) Commission, p. 162.)

Although, again, this Article 2177 does seem to literally refer to only acts of negligence, the same argument of Justice Bacobo about
construction that upholds "the spirit that giveth lift- rather than that which is literal that killeth the intent of the lawmaker should be
observed in applying the same. And considering that the preliminary chapter on human relations of the new Civil Code definitely
establishes the separability and independence of liability in a civil action for acts criminal in character (under Articles 29 to 32) from the
civil responsibility arising from crime fixed by Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and, in a sense, the Rules of Court, under
Sections 2 and 3 (c), Rule 111, contemplate also the same separability, it is "more congruent with the spirit of law, equity and justice,
and more in harmony with modern progress"- to borrow the felicitous relevant language in Rakes vs. Atlantic. Gulf and Pacific Co., 7
Phil. 359, to hold, as We do hold, that Article 2176, where it refers to "fault or negligencia covers not only acts "not punishable by law"
but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. Consequently, 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 he 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 estinguished 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, We here hold,
in reiteration of Garcia, that culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law.4

It results, therefore, that the acquittal of Reginal Hill in the criminal case has not extinguished his liability for quasi-delict, hence that
acquittal is not a bar to the instant action against him.

Coming now to the second issue about the effect of Reginald's emancipation by marriage on the possible civil liability of Atty. Hill, his
father, it is also Our considered opinion that the conclusion of appellees that Atty. Hill is already free from responsibility cannot be
upheld.

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 "(E)mancipation 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."

Now under Article 2180, "(T)he obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for
those of persons for whom one is responsible. The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible. The
father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in
their company." In the instant case, it is not controverted that Reginald, although married, was living with his father and getting
subsistence from him at the time of the occurrence in question. Factually, therefore, Reginald was still subservient to and dependent on
his father, a situation which is not unusual.

It must be borne in mind that, according to Manresa, the reason behind the joint and solidary liability of presuncion with their offending
child under Article 2180 is that is the obligation of the parent to supervise their minor children in order to prevent them from causing
damage to third persons. 5 On the other hand, the clear implication of Article 399, in providing that a minor emancipated by marriage
may not, nevertheless, 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. (See Manresa, Id., Vol. II, pp. 766-767, 776.) And surely,
killing someone else invites judicial action. Otherwise stated, the marriage of a minor child does not relieve the parents of the duty to
see to it that the child, while still a minor, does not give answerable for the borrowings of money and alienation or encumbering of real
property which cannot be done by their minor married child without their consent. (Art. 399; Manresa, supra.)

Accordingly, in Our considered view, Article 2180 applies to Atty. Hill notwithstanding the emancipation by marriage of Reginald.
However, inasmuch as it is evident that Reginald is now of age, as a matter of equity, the liability of Atty. Hill has become milling,
subsidiary to that of his son.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is reversed and the trial court is ordered to proceed in accordance with the foregoing opinion.
Costs against appellees.
Fernando (Chairman), Antonio, and Martin, JJ., concur.
Concepcion Jr., J, is on leave.
Martin, J, was designated to sit in the Second Division

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-50959 July 23, 1980
HEIRS OF PEDRO TAYAG, SR., petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE FERNANDO S. ALCANTARA, PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. and ROMEO VILLA Y
CUNANAN, respondents.

CONCEPCION JR., J.:

This is a petition for certiorari, premised upon the following facts:

On September 25, 1974, the petitioners, heirs of Pedro Tayag, Sr., namely: Crisanta Salazar, Pedro Tayag, Jr., Renato Tayag, Gabriel
Tayag, Corazon Tayag and Rodolfo Tayag, filed with the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, Branch I, presided over by the respondent
Judge, a complaint 1 for damages against the private respondents Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. and Romeo Villa y Cunanan —
docketed therein as Civil Case No. 5114 — alleging among others that in the afternoon of September 2, 1974, while Pedro Tayag Sr.
was riding on a bicycle along MacArthur Highway at Bo. San Rafael, Tarlac, Tarlac on his way home, he was bumped and hit by a
Philippine Rabbit Bus bearing Body No. 1107 and Plate No. YL 604 PUB '74, driven by Romeo Villa, as a result of which he sustained
injuries which caused his instantaneous death. In due time, the private respondents filed their answer, 2admitting some allegations and
denying the other allegations of the complaint

Thereafter, the private respondents filed a motion to suspend the trial 3 dated April 30, 1975, on the ground that the criminal
case 4 against the driver of the bus Romeo Villa was still pending in said court, and that Section 3, Rule Ill of the Revised Rules of Court
enjoins the suspension of the civil action until the criminal action is terminated. The respondent Judge granted the motion, and
consequently, suspended the hearing of Civil Case No. 5114. 5

On October 25, 1977, the respondent Judge rendered a decision 6 in Criminal Case No. 836, acquitting the accused Romeo Villa of the
crime of homicide on the ground of reasonable doubt.

Thereafter, the private respondents filed a motion to dismiss 7 Civil Case No. 5114 on the ground that the petitioners have no cause of
action against them the driver of the bus having been acquitted in the criminal action. The petitioners opposed the motions 8 alleging
that their cause of action is not based on crime but on quasi-delict.

Acting upon the said motion as well as the opposition thereto, the respondent Judge issued an order 9 dated April 13, 1978, dismissing
the complaint in Civil Case No. 5114.

10
The petitioners moved to reconsider; however, the same was denied by respondent Judge in his order 11 dated May 30, 1979.

Hence, the petitioners interposed the present petition for certiorari, to annul and set aside the order of respondent Judge dated April 13,
1977, claiming that the respondent Judge acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction and for with grave abuse of discretion in issuing
the disputed order, and that there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law except thru the present
petition.
After the private respondents had filed their comment, 12 this Court Resolved to consider the said comment as answer to the petition,
and the case was deemed submitted for decision on September 3, 1979.

The only issue to be resolved in the instant case is whether or not the respondent Judge acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction
and/or with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Civil Case No. 5114.

The petition is meritorious. Article 31 of the Civil Code provides as follows:

Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or commission complained of as a
felony. such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the
latter.

Evidently, the above quoted provision of the Civil Code refers to a civil action based, not on the act or omission charged as a felony in a
criminal case, but one based on an obligation arising from other sources, 13 like quasi delict. 14

In the case at bar, the allegations of the complaint clearly show that petitioners' cause of action was based upon a quasi delict. 15 Thus,
the complaint alleged among others:

xxxxxxxxx

4. That on September 2, 1974, at about 6:00 o'clock in the afternoon at Sitio Pag-asa, Bo. San Rafael Tarlac, Tarlac,
along MacArthur Highway and while riding on a bicycle on his way home to Bo. San Sebastian, Tarlac, Tarlac, Pedro
Tayag, Sr. was bumped and hit by a Philippine Rabbit Bus bearing Body No. 1107 and Plate No. YL 604 PUB '74 and
as result of which he sustained physical injuries which cause his instantaneous death and the bicycle he was riding
on was damaged and destroyed;

5. That the Philippine Rabbit Bus ... was at the time of the accident being driven by defendant Romeo Villa y
Cunanan in a faster and greater speed than what was reasonable and proper and in a gray negligent, careless,
reckless and imprudent manner, without due regards to injuries to persons and damage to properties and in violation
of traffic rules and regulations;

6. That defendant Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines Inc. has failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in
the selection and supervision of its employees, particularly defendant Romeo Villa y Cunanan otherwise the accident
in question which resulted in the death of Pedro Tayag, Sr. and damage to his property would not have occurred.

xxxxxxxxx

All the essential averments for a quasi delictual action are present, namely: (1) an act or omission constituting fault or negligence on the
part of private respondent; (2) damage caused by the said act or commission; (3) direct causal relation between the damage and the
act or commission; and (4) no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. In the case of Elcano vs. Hill, 16 this Court held that:

... a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminality prosecuted and
found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not snowed, if he is actually charged also criminally, to
receiver 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),
Section 3, Rule III, 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, We here hold, in reiteration of Garcia that culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent
acts which may be punishable by law.

The petitioners' cause of action being based on a quasi delict the acquittal of the driver, private respondent Romeo Villa, of the crime
charged in Criminal Case No. 836 is not a bar to the prosecution of Civil Case No. 5114 for damages based on quasi-delict.17

In the light of the foregoing, We hold that respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in
dismissing Civil Case No. 5114.

WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal should be, as it is hereby set aside, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further
proceedings, with costs against the private respondents.

SO ORDERED.

Abad Santos and De Castillo * JJ., concur.

 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 97336 February 19, 1993

GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH, petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MARILOU T. GONZALES, respondents.
Public Attorney's Office for petitioner.
Corleto R. Castro for private respondent.

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

This is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to review and set aside the Decision 1 of the respondent
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 24256 which affirmed in toto the 16 October 1939 Decision of Branch 38 (Lingayen) of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pangasinan in Civil Case No. 16503. Presented is the issue of whether or not damages may be
recovered for a breach of promise to marry on the basis of Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

The antecedents of this case are not complicated:

On 27 October 1987, private respondent, without the assistance of counsel, filed with the aforesaid trial court a complaint2 for damages
against the petitioner for the alleged violation of their agreement to get married. She alleges in said complaint that: she is twenty-two
(22) years old, single, Filipino and a pretty lass of good moral character and reputation duly respected in her community; petitioner, on
the other hand, is an Iranian citizen residing at the Lozano Apartments, Guilig, Dagupan City, and is an exchange student taking a
medical course at the Lyceum Northwestern Colleges in Dagupan City; before 20 August 1987, the latter courted and proposed to
marry her; she accepted his love on the condition that they would get married; they therefore agreed to get married after the end of the
school semester, which was in October of that year; petitioner then visited the private respondent's parents in Bañaga, Bugallon,
Pangasinan to secure their approval to the marriage; sometime in 20 August 1987, the petitioner forced her to live with him in the
Lozano Apartments; she was a virgin before she began living with him; a week before the filing of the complaint, petitioner's attitude
towards her started to change; he maltreated and threatened to kill her; as a result of such maltreatment, she sustained injuries; during
a confrontation with a representative of the barangay captain of Guilig a day before the filing of the complaint, petitioner repudiated their
marriage agreement and asked her not to live with him anymore and; the petitioner is already married to someone living in Bacolod
City. Private respondent then prayed for judgment ordering the petitioner to pay her damages in the amount of not less than
P45,000.00, reimbursement for actual expenses amounting to P600.00, attorney's fees and costs, and granting her such other relief
and remedies as may be just and equitable. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 16503.

In his Answer with Counterclaim,3 petitioner admitted only the personal circumstances of the parties as averred in the complaint and
denied the rest of the allegations either for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof or because
the true facts are those alleged as his Special and Affirmative Defenses. He thus claimed that he never proposed marriage to or agreed
to be married with the private respondent; he neither sought the consent and approval of her parents nor forced her to live in his
apartment; he did not maltreat her, but only told her to stop coming to his place because he discovered that she had deceived him by
stealing his money and passport; and finally, no confrontation took place with a representative of the barangay captain. Insisting, in his
Counterclaim, that the complaint is baseless and unfounded and that as a result thereof, he was unnecessarily dragged into court and
compelled to incur expenses, and has suffered mental anxiety and a besmirched reputation, he prayed for an award of P5,000.00 for
miscellaneous expenses and P25,000.00 as moral damages.

After conducting a pre-trial on 25 January 1988, the trial court issued a Pre-Trial Order4 embodying the stipulated facts which the
parties had agreed upon, to wit:

1. That the plaintiff is single and resident (sic) of Bañaga, Bugallon, Pangasinan, while the defendant is single, Iranian
citizen and resident (sic) of Lozano Apartment, Guilig, Dagupan City since September 1, 1987 up to the present;
2. That the defendant is presently studying at Lyceum Northwestern, Dagupan City, College of Medicine, second year
medicine proper;
3. That the plaintiff is (sic) an employee at Mabuhay Luncheonette , Fernandez Avenue, Dagupan City since July,
1986 up to the present and a (sic) high school graduate;
4. That the parties happened to know each other when the manager of the Mabuhay Luncheonette, Johhny Rabino
introduced the defendant to the plaintiff on August 3, 1986.
After trial on the merits, the lower court, applying Article 21 of the Civil Code, rendered on 16 October 1989 a decision 5 favoring the
private respondent. The petitioner was thus ordered to pay the latter damages and attorney's fees; the dispositive portion of the
decision reads:
IN THE LIGHT of the foregoing consideration, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the
defendant.
1. Condemning (sic) the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of twenty thousand (P20,000.00) pesos as moral
damages.
2. Condemning further the defendant to play the plaintiff the sum of three thousand (P3,000.00) pesos as atty's fees
and two thousand (P2,000.00) pesos at (sic) litigation expenses and to pay the costs.
3. All other claims are denied.6
The decision is anchored on the trial court's findings and conclusions that (a) petitioner and private respondent were lovers, (b) private
respondent is not a woman of loose morals or questionable virtue who readily submits to sexual advances, (c) petitioner, through
machinations, deceit and false pretenses, promised to marry private respondent, d) because of his persuasive promise to marry her,
she allowed herself to be deflowered by him, (e) by reason of that deceitful promise, private respondent and her parents — in
accordance with Filipino customs and traditions — made some preparations for the wedding that was to be held at the end of October
1987 by looking for pigs and chickens, inviting friends and relatives and contracting sponsors, (f) petitioner did not fulfill his promise to
marry her and (g) such acts of the petitioner, who is a foreigner and who has abused Philippine hospitality, have offended our sense of
morality, good customs, culture and traditions. The trial court gave full credit to the private respondent's testimony because, inter alia,
she would not have had the temerity and courage to come to court and expose her honor and reputation to public scrutiny and ridicule if
her claim was false.7

The above findings and conclusions were culled from the detailed summary of the evidence for the private respondent in the foregoing
decision, digested by the respondent Court as follows:

According to plaintiff, who claimed that she was a virgin at the time and that she never had a boyfriend before,
defendant started courting her just a few days after they first met. He later proposed marriage to her several times
and she accepted his love as well as his proposal of marriage on August 20, 1987, on which same day he went with
her to her hometown of Bañaga, Bugallon, Pangasinan, as he wanted to meet her parents and inform them of their
relationship and their intention to get married. The photographs Exhs. "A" to "E" (and their submarkings) of defendant
with members of plaintiff's family or with plaintiff, were taken that day. Also on that occasion, defendant told plaintiffs
parents and brothers and sisters that he intended to marry her during the semestral break in October, 1987, and
because plaintiff's parents thought he was good and trusted him, they agreed to his proposal for him to marry their
daughter, and they likewise allowed him to stay in their house and sleep with plaintiff during the few days that they
were in Bugallon. When plaintiff and defendant later returned to Dagupan City, they continued to live together in
defendant's apartment. However, in the early days of October, 1987, defendant would tie plaintiff's hands and feet
while he went to school, and he even gave her medicine at 4 o'clock in the morning that made her sleep the whole
day and night until the following day. As a result of this live-in relationship, plaintiff became pregnant, but defendant
gave her some medicine to abort the fetus. Still plaintiff continued to live with defendant and kept reminding him of his
promise to marry her until he told her that he could not do so because he was already married to a girl in Bacolod
City. That was the time plaintiff left defendant, went home to her parents, and thereafter consulted a lawyer who
accompanied her to the barangay captain in Dagupan City. Plaintiff, her lawyer, her godmother, and a barangay
tanod sent by the barangay captain went to talk to defendant to still convince him to marry plaintiff, but defendant
insisted that he could not do so because he was already married to a girl in Bacolod City, although the truth, as
stipulated by the parties at the pre-trial, is that defendant is still single.

Plaintiff's father, a tricycle driver, also claimed that after defendant had informed them of his desire to marry Marilou,
he already looked for sponsors for the wedding, started preparing for the reception by looking for pigs and chickens,
and even already invited many relatives and friends to the forthcoming wedding. 8

Petitioner appealed the trial court's decision to the respondent Court of Appeals which docketed the case as CA-G.R. CV No. 24256. In
his Brief,9 he contended that the trial court erred (a) in not dismissing the case for lack of factual and legal basis and (b) in ordering him
to pay moral damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs.

On 18 February 1991, respondent Court promulgated the challenged decision 10 affirming in toto the trial court's ruling of 16 October
1989. In sustaining the trial court's findings of fact, respondent Court made the following analysis:

First of all, plaintiff, then only 21 years old when she met defendant who was already 29 years old at the time, does
not appear to be a girl of loose morals. It is uncontradicted that she was a virgin prior to her unfortunate experience
with defendant and never had boyfriend. She is, as described by the lower court, a barrio lass "not used and
accustomed to trend of modern urban life", and certainly would (sic) not have allowed
"herself to be deflowered by the defendant if there was no persuasive promise made by the defendant to marry her."
In fact, we agree with the lower court that plaintiff and defendant must have been sweethearts or so the plaintiff must
have thought because of the deception of defendant, for otherwise, she would not have allowed herself to be
photographed with defendant in public in so (sic) loving and tender poses as those depicted in the pictures Exhs. "D"
and "E". We cannot believe, therefore, defendant's pretense that plaintiff was a nobody to him except a waitress at
the restaurant where he usually ate. Defendant in fact admitted that he went to plaintiff's hometown of Bañaga,
Bugallon, Pangasinan, at least thrice; at (sic) the town fiesta on February 27, 1987 (p. 54, tsn May 18, 1988), at (sic)
a beach party together with the manager and employees of the Mabuhay Luncheonette on March 3, 1987 (p. 50,
tsn id.), and on April 1, 1987 when he allegedly talked to plaintiff's mother who told him to marry her daughter (pp. 55-
56, tsn id.). Would defendant have left Dagupan City where he was involved in the serious study of medicine to go to
plaintiff's hometown in Bañaga, Bugallon, unless there was (sic) some kind of special relationship between them?
And this special relationship must indeed have led to defendant's insincere proposal of marriage to plaintiff,
communicated not only to her but also to her parents, and (sic) Marites Rabino, the owner of the restaurant where
plaintiff was working and where defendant first proposed marriage to her, also knew of this love affair and defendant's
proposal of marriage to plaintiff, which she declared was the reason why plaintiff resigned from her job at the
restaurant after she had accepted defendant's proposal (pp. 6-7, tsn March 7, 1988).
 Upon the other hand, appellant does not appear to be a man of good moral character and must think so low and have
so little respect and regard for Filipino women that he openly admitted that when he studied in Bacolod City for
several years where he finished his B.S. Biology before he came to Dagupan City to study medicine, he had a
common-law wife in Bacolod City. In other words, he also lived with another woman in Bacolod City but did not marry
that woman, just like what he did to plaintiff. It is not surprising, then, that he felt so little compunction or remorse in
pretending to love and promising to marry plaintiff, a young, innocent, trustful country girl, in order to satisfy his lust
on her. 11

and then concluded:

In sum, we are strongly convinced and so hold that it was defendant-appellant's fraudulent and deceptive
protestations of love for and promise to marry plaintiff that made her surrender her virtue and womanhood to him and
to live with him on the honest and sincere belief that he would keep said promise, and it was likewise these (sic) fraud
and deception on appellant's part that made plaintiff's parents agree to their daughter's living-in with him preparatory
to their supposed marriage. And as these acts of appellant are palpably and undoubtedly against morals, good
customs, and public policy, and are even gravely and deeply derogatory and insulting to our women, coming as they
do from a foreigner who has been enjoying the hospitality of our people and taking advantage of the opportunity to
study in one of our institutions of learning, defendant-appellant should indeed be made, under Art. 21 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines, to compensate for the moral damages and injury that he had caused plaintiff, as the lower
court ordered him to do in its decision in this case. 12

Unfazed by his second defeat, petitioner filed the instant petition on 26 March 1991; he raises therein the single issue of whether or not
Article 21 of the Civil Code applies to the case at bar. 13

It is petitioner's thesis that said Article 21 is not applicable because he had not committed any moral wrong or injury or violated any
good custom or public policy; he has not professed love or proposed marriage to the private respondent; and he has never maltreated
her. He criticizes the trial court for liberally invoking Filipino customs, traditions and culture, and ignoring the fact that since he is a
foreigner, he is not conversant with such Filipino customs, traditions and culture. As an Iranian Moslem, he is not familiar with Catholic
and Christian ways. He stresses that even if he had made a promise to marry, the subsequent failure to fulfill the same is excusable or
tolerable because of his Moslem upbringing; he then alludes to the Muslim Code which purportedly allows a Muslim to take four (4)
wives and concludes that on the basis thereof, the trial court erred in ruling that he does not posses good moral character. Moreover,
his controversial "common law life" is now his legal wife as their marriage had been solemnized in civil ceremonies in the Iranian
Embassy. As to his unlawful cohabitation with the private respondent, petitioner claims that even if responsibility could be pinned on
him for the live-in relationship, the private respondent should also be faulted for consenting to an illicit arrangement. Finally, petitioner
asseverates that even if it was to be assumed arguendo that he had professed his love to the private respondent and had also
promised to marry her, such acts would not be actionable in view of the special circumstances of the case. The mere breach of promise
is not actionable. 14

On 26 August 1991, after the private respondent had filed her Comment to the petition and the petitioner had filed his Reply thereto,
this Court gave due course to the petition and required the parties to submit their respective Memoranda, which they subsequently
complied with.

As may be gleaned from the foregoing summation of the petitioner's arguments in support of his thesis, it is clear that questions of fact,
which boil down to the issue of the credibility of witnesses, are also raised. It is the rule in this jurisdiction that appellate courts will not
disturb the trial court's findings as to the credibility of witnesses, the latter court having heard the witnesses and having had the
opportunity to observe closely their deportment and manner of testifying, unless the trial court had plainly overlooked facts of substance
or value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. 15

Petitioner has miserably failed to convince Us that both the appellate and trial courts had overlooked any fact of substance or values
which could alter the result of the case.

Equally settled is the rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court. It is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence introduced by the parties before the lower court.
There are, however, recognized exceptions to this rule. Thus, in Medina vs.Asistio, Jr., 16 this Court took the time, again, to enumerate
these exceptions:

xxx xxx xxx

(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures (Joaquin v. Navarro,
93 Phil. 257 [1953]); (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurb or impossible (Luna v. Linatok, 74
Phil. 15 [1942]); (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion (Buyco v. People, 95 Phil. 453 [1955]); (4) When the
judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts (Cruz v. Sosing,
L-4875, Nov. 27, 1953); (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting (Casica v. Villaseca, L-9590 Ap. 30, 1957;
unrep.) (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is
contrary to the admissions of both appellate and appellee (Evangelista v. Alto Surety and Insurance Co., 103 Phil.
401 [1958]);
 (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court (Garcia v. Court of Appeals, 33 SCRA
622 [1970]; Sacay v. Sandiganbayan, 142 SCRA 593 [1986]); (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without
citation of specific evidence on which they are based (Ibid.,); (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in
the petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents (Ibid.,); and (10) The finding of fact of the
Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record
(Salazar v. Gutierrez, 33 SCRA 242 [1970]).

Petitioner has not endeavored to joint out to Us the existence of any of the above quoted exceptions in this case. Consequently, the
factual findings of the trial and appellate courts must be respected.

And now to the legal issue.

The existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong. 17 Congress deliberately eliminated from the
draft of the New Civil Code the provisions that would have made it so. The reason therefor is set forth in the report of the Senate
Committees on the Proposed Civil Code, from which We quote:

The elimination of this chapter is proposed. That breach of promise to marry is not actionable has been definitely
decided in the case of De Jesus vs. Syquia. 18 The history of breach of promise suits in the United States and in
England has shown that no other action lends itself more readily to abuse by designing women and unscrupulous
men. It is this experience which has led to the abolition of rights of action in the so-called Heart Balm suits in many of
the American states. . . . 19

This notwithstanding, the said Code contains a provision, Article 21, which is designed to expand the concept of torts or quasi-delict in
this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to
specifically enumerate and punish in the statute books. 20

As the Code Commission itself stated in its Report:

But the Code Commission had gone farther than the sphere of wrongs defined or determined by positive law. Fully
sensible that there are countless gaps in the statutes, which leave so many victims of moral wrongs helpless, even
though they have actually suffered material and moral injury, the Commission has deemed it necessary, in the
interest of justice, to incorporate in the proposed Civil Code the following rule:

Art. 23. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to
morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

An example will illustrate the purview of the foregoing norm: "A" seduces the nineteen-year old daughter of "X". A
promise of marriage either has not been made, or can not be proved. The girl becomes pregnant. Under the present
laws, there is no crime, as the girl is above nineteen years of age. Neither can any civil action for breach of promise
of marriage be filed. Therefore, though the grievous moral wrong has been committed, and though the girl and family
have suffered incalculable moral damage, she and her parents cannot bring action for damages. But under the
proposed article, she and her parents would have such a right of action.

Thus at one stroke, the legislator, if the forgoing rule is approved, would vouchsafe adequate legal remedy for that
untold number of moral wrongs which it is impossible for human foresight to provide for specifically in the statutes. 21

Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which defines a quasi-delict thus:

Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the
damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called
a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

is limited to negligent acts or omissions and excludes the notion of willfulness or intent. Quasi-delict, known in Spanish legal
treatises as culpa aquiliana, is a civil law concept while torts is an Anglo-American or common law concept. Torts is much
broader than culpa aquiliana because it includes not only negligence, but international criminal acts as well such as assault
and battery, false imprisonment and deceit. In the general scheme of the Philippine legal system envisioned by the
Commission responsible for drafting the New Civil Code, intentional and malicious acts, with certain exceptions, are to be
governed by the Revised Penal Code while negligent acts or omissions are to be covered by Article 2176 of the Civil
Code. 22 In between these opposite spectrums are injurious acts which, in the absence of Article 21, would have been beyond
redress. Thus, Article 21 fills that vacuum. It is even postulated that together with Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code, Article
21 has greatly broadened the scope of the law on civil wrongs; it has become much more supple and adaptable than the
Anglo-American law on torts. 23
In the light of the above laudable purpose of Article 21, We are of the opinion, and so hold, that where a man's promise to m arry is in
fact the proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the
proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and that
the promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and to obtain her consent to the
sexual act, could justify the award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud
and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter. It is essential, however, that such injury
should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.

In the instant case, respondent Court found that it was the petitioner's "fraudulent and deceptive protestations of love for and promise to
marry plaintiff that made her surrender her virtue and womanhood to him and to live with him on the honest and sincere belief that he
would keep said promise, and it was likewise these fraud and deception on appellant's part that made plaintiff's parents agree to their
daughter's living-in with him preparatory to their supposed marriage." 24 In short, the private respondent surrendered her virginity, the
cherished possession of every single Filipina, not because of lust but because of moral seduction — the kind illustrated by the Code
Commission in its example earlier adverted to. The petitioner could not be held liable for criminal seduction punished under either
Article 337 or Article 338 of the Revised Penal Code because the private respondent was above eighteen (18) years of age at the time
of the seduction.

Prior decisions of this Court clearly suggest that Article 21 may be applied in a breach of promise to marry where the woman is a victim
of moral seduction. Thus, in Hermosisima vs. Court of Appeals,25 this Court denied recovery of damages to the woman because:

. . . we find ourselves unable to say that petitioner is morally guilty of seduction, not only because he is approximately
ten (10) years younger than the complainant — who was around thirty-six (36) years of age, and as highly
enlightened as a former high school teacher and a life insurance agent are supposed to be — when she became
intimate with petitioner, then a mere apprentice pilot, but, also, because the court of first instance found that,
complainant "surrendered herself" to petitioner because, "overwhelmed by her love" for him, she "wanted to bind" him
by having a fruit of their engagement even before they had the benefit of clergy.

In Tanjanco vs. Court of Appeals, 26 while this Court likewise hinted at possible recovery if there had been moral seduction, recovery
was eventually denied because We were not convinced that such seduction existed. The following enlightening disquisition and
conclusion were made in the said case:

The Court of Appeals seem to have overlooked that the example set forth in the Code Commission's memorandum
refers to a tort upon a minor who had been seduced. The essential feature is seduction, that in law is more than mere
sexual intercourse, or a breach of a promise of marriage; it connotes essentially the idea of deceit, enticement,
superior power or abuse of confidence on the part of the seducer to which the woman has yielded (U.S. vs.
Buenaventura, 27 Phil. 121; U.S. vs. Arlante, 9 Phil. 595).

It has been ruled in the Buenaventura case (supra) that —

To constitute seduction there must in all cases be some sufficient promise or inducement and the
woman must yield because of the promise or other inducement. If she consents merely from carnal
lust and the intercourse is from mutual desire, there is no seduction (43 Cent. Dig. tit. Seduction,
par. 56) She must be induced to depart from the path of virtue by the use of some species of arts,
persuasions and wiles, which are calculated to have and do have that effect, and which result in
her person to ultimately submitting her person to the sexual embraces of her seducer (27 Phil.
123).

And in American Jurisprudence we find:

On the other hand, in an action by the woman, the enticement, persuasion or deception is the
essence of the injury; and a mere proof of intercourse is insufficient to warrant a recovery.

Accordingly it is not seduction where the willingness arises out of sexual desire of curiosity of the
female, and the defendant merely affords her the needed opportunity for the commission of the act.
It has been emphasized that to allow a recovery in all such cases would tend to the demoralization
of the female sex, and would be a reward for unchastity by which a class of adventuresses would
be swift to profit. (47 Am. Jur. 662)

xxx xxx xxx

Over and above the partisan allegations, the fact stand out that for one whole year, from 1958 to 1959, the plaintiff-
appellee, a woman of adult age, maintain intimate sexual relations with appellant, with repeated acts of intercourse.
Such conduct is incompatible with the idea of seduction. Plainly there is here voluntariness and mutual passion; for
had the appellant been deceived, had she surrendered exclusively because of the deceit, artful persuasions and
wiles of the defendant, she would not have again yielded to his embraces, much less for one year, without exacting
 early fulfillment of the alleged promises of marriage, and would have cut short all sexual relations upon finding that
defendant did not intend to fulfill his defendant did not intend to fulfill his promise. Hence, we conclude that no case is
made under article 21 of the Civil Code, and no other cause of action being alleged, no error was committed by the
Court of First Instance in dismissing the complaint. 27

In his annotations on the Civil Code, 28 Associate Justice Edgardo L. Paras, who recently retired from this Court, opined that in a breach
of promise to marry where there had been carnal knowledge, moral damages may be recovered:

. . . if there be criminal or moral seduction, but not if the intercourse was due to mutual lust. (Hermosisima vs. Court of
Appeals,
L-14628, Sept. 30, 1960; Estopa vs. Piansay, Jr., L-14733, Sept. 30, 1960; Batarra vs. Marcos, 7 Phil. 56 (sic);
Beatriz Galang vs. Court of Appeals, et al., L-17248, Jan. 29, 1962). (In other words, if the CAUSE be the promise to
marry, and the EFFECT be the carnal knowledge, there is a chance that there was criminal or moral seduction, hence
recovery of moral damages will prosper. If it be the other way around, there can be no recovery of moral damages,
because here mutual lust has intervened). . . .

together with "ACTUAL damages, should there be any, such as the expenses for the wedding presentations (See Domalagon
v. Bolifer, 33 Phil. 471).

Senator Arturo M. Tolentino 29 is also of the same persuasion:

It is submitted that the rule in Batarra vs. Marcos, 30 still subsists, notwithstanding the incorporation of the present
article31 in the Code. The example given by the Code Commission is correct, if there was seduction, not necessarily
in the legal sense, but in the vulgar sense of deception. But when the sexual act is accomplished without any deceit
or qualifying circumstance of abuse of authority or influence, but the woman, already of age, has knowingly given
herself to a man, it cannot be said that there is an injury which can be the basis for indemnity.

But so long as there is fraud, which is characterized by willfulness (sic), the action lies. The court, however, must
weigh the degree of fraud, if it is sufficient to deceive the woman under the circumstances, because an act which
would deceive a girl sixteen years of age may not constitute deceit as to an experienced woman thirty years of age.
But so long as there is a wrongful act and a resulting injury, there should be civil liability, even if the act is not
punishable under the criminal law and there should have been an acquittal or dismissal of the criminal case for that
reason.

We are unable to agree with the petitioner's alternative proposition to the effect that granting, for argument's sake, that he did promise
to marry the private respondent, the latter is nevertheless also at fault. According to him, both parties are in pari delicto; hence,
pursuant to Article 1412(1) of the Civil Code and the doctrine laid down in Batarra vs. Marcos, 32 the private respondent cannot recover
damages from the petitioner. The latter even goes as far as stating that if the private respondent had "sustained any injury or damage in
their relationship, it is primarily because of her own doing, 33 for:

. . . She is also interested in the petitioner as the latter will become a doctor sooner or later. Take notice that she is a
plain high school graduate and a mere employee . . . (Annex "C") or a waitress (TSN, p. 51, January 25, 1988) in a
luncheonette and without doubt, is in need of a man who can give her economic security. Her family is in dire need of
financial assistance. (TSN, pp. 51-53, May 18, 1988). And this predicament prompted her to accept a proposition that
may have been offered by the petitioner. 34

These statements reveal the true character and motive of the petitioner. It is clear that he harbors a condescending, if not sarcastic,
regard for the private respondent on account of the latter's ignoble birth, inferior educational background, poverty and, as perceived by
him, dishonorable employment. Obviously then, from the very beginning, he was not at all moved by good faith and an honest motive.
Marrying with a woman so circumstances could not have even remotely occurred to him. Thus, his profession of love and promise to
marry were empty words directly intended to fool, dupe, entice, beguile and deceive the poor woman into believing that indeed, he
loved her and would want her to be his life's partner. His was nothing but pure lust which he wanted satisfied by a Filipina who honestly
believed that by accepting his proffer of love and proposal of marriage, she would be able to enjoy a life of ease and security. Petitioner
clearly violated the Filipino's concept of morality and brazenly defied the traditional respect Filipinos have for their women. It can even
be said that the petitioner committed such deplorable acts in blatant disregard of Article 19 of the Civil Code which directs every person
to act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his
obligations.

No foreigner must be allowed to make a mockery of our laws, customs and traditions.

The pari delicto rule does not apply in this case for while indeed, the private respondent may not have been impelled by the purest of
intentions, she eventually submitted to the petitioner in sexual congress not out of lust, but because of moral seduction. In fact, it is
apparent that she had qualms of conscience about the entire episode for as soon as she found out that the petitioner was not going to
marry her after all, she left him. She is not, therefore, in pari delicto with the petitioner. Pari delicto means "in equal fault; in a similar
offense or crime; equal in guilt or in legal fault." 35At most, it could be conceded that she is merely in delicto.
 Equity often interferes for the relief of the less guilty of the parties, where his transgression has been brought about
by the imposition of undue influence of the party on whom the burden of the original wrong principally rests, or where
his consent to the transaction was itself procured by
fraud. 36

In Mangayao vs. Lasud, 37 We declared:

Appellants likewise stress that both parties being at fault, there should be no action by one against the other (Art.
1412, New Civil Code). This rule, however, has been interpreted as applicable only where the fault on both sides is,
more or less, equivalent. It does not apply where one party is literate or intelligent and the other one is not. (c.f.
Bough vs. Cantiveros, 40 Phil. 209).

We should stress, however, that while We find for the private respondent, let it not be said that this Court condones the deplorable
behavior of her parents in letting her and the petitioner stay together in the same room in their house after giving approval to their
marriage. It is the solemn duty of parents to protect the honor of their daughters and infuse upon them the higher values of morality and
dignity.

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the challenged decision, the instant petition is hereby DENIED, with costs against the
petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Feliciano, Bidin, Romero and Melo, JJ., concur.
Gutierrez, Jr., J., is on leave.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 108017 April 3, 1995

MARIA BENITA A. DULAY, in her own behalf and in behalf of the minor children KRIZTEEN ELIZABETH, BEVERLY MARIE and
NAPOLEON II, all surnamed DULAY, petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, Former Eighth Division, HON. TEODORO P. REGINO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial Court National Capital Region, Quezon City, Br. 84, SAFEGUARD INVESTIGATION AND SECURITY CO., INC.,
and SUPERGUARD SECURITY CORPORATION, respondents.

BIDIN, J.:
This petition for certiorari prays for the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 29, 1991 in CA-G.R. CV No.
24646 which affirmed the order of the Regional Trial Court dismissing Civil Case No. Q-89-1751, and its resolution dated November 17,
1991 denying herein, petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:

On December 7, 1988, an altercation between Benigno Torzuela and Atty. Napoleon Dulay occurred at the "Big Bang Sa Alabang,"
Alabang Village, Muntinlupa as a result of which Benigno Torzuela, the security guard on duty at the said carnival, shot and killed Atty.
Napoleon Dulay.

Herein petitioner Maria Benita A. Dulay, widow of the deceased Napoleon Dulay, in her own behalf and in behalf of her minor children,
filed on February 8, 1989 an action for damages against Benigno Torzuela and herein private respondents Safeguard Investigation and
Security Co., Inc., ("SAFEGUARD") and/or Superguard Security Corp. ("SUPERGUARD"), alleged employers of defendant Torzuela.
The complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-89-1751 among others alleges the following:

1. . . .

Defendants SAFEGUARD INVESTIGATION AND SECURITY CO., INC., (Defendant Safeguard) and SUPERGUARD
SECURITY CORPORATION (Defendant Superguard) are corporations duly organized and existing in accordance
with Philippine laws, with offices at 10th Floor, Manufacturers Building, Inc., Plaza Santa Cruz, Manila. They are
impleaded as alternative defendants for, while the former appears to be the employer of defendant BENIGNO
TORZUELA (defendant TORZUELA), the latter impliedly acknowledged responsibility for the acts of defendant
TORZUELA by extending its sympathies to plaintiffs.

Defendant BENIGNO TORZUELA is of legal age, an employee of defendant SAFEGUARD and/or defendant
SUPERGUARD and, at the time of the incident complained of, was under their control and supervision. . . .

3. On December 7, 1988 at around 8:00 a.m., defendant TORZUELA, while he was on duty as security guard at the
"Big Bang sa Alabang," Alabang Village, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila shot and killed NAPOLEON V. DULAY with a .38
 caliber revolver belonging to defendant SAFEGUARD, and/or SUPERGUARD (per Police Report dated January 7,
1989, copy attached as Annex A);

4. The incident resulting in the death of NAPOLEON V. DULAY was due to the concurring negligence of the
defendants. Defendant TORZUELA'S wanton and reckless discharge of the firearm issued to him by defendant
SAFEGUARD and/or SUPERGUARD was the immediate and proximate cause of the injury, while the negligence of
defendant SAFEGUARD and/or SUPERGUARD consists in its having failed to exercise the diligence of a good father
of a family in the supervision and control of its employee to avoid the injury.

xxx xxx xxx

(Rollo, pp. 117-118)

Petitioners prayed for actual, compensatory, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. The said Civil Case No. Q-89-1751
was raffled to Branch 84 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, presided by respondent Judge Teodoro Regino.

On March 2, 1989, private respondent SUPERGUARD filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the complaint does not state a valid
cause of action. SUPERGUARD claimed that Torzuela's act of shooting Dulay was beyond the scope of his duties, and that since the
alleged act of shooting was committed with deliberate intent (dolo), the civil liability therefor is governed by Article 100 of the Revised
Penal Code, which states:

Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of a felony. — Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.

Respondent SUPERGUARD further alleged that a complaint for damages based on negligence under Article 2176 of the New Civil
Code, such as the one filed by petitioners, cannot lie, since the civil liability under Article 2176 applies only to quasi-offenses under
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. In addition, the private respondent argued that petitioners' filing of the complaint is premature
considering that the conviction of Torzuela in a criminal case is a condition sine qua non for the employer's subsidiary liability (Rollo, p.
55-59).

Respondent SAFEGUARD also filed a motion praying that it be excluded as defendant on the ground that defendant Torzuela is not
one of its employees (Rollo, p. 96).

Petitioners opposed both motions, stating that their cause of action against the private respondents is based on their liability under
Article 2180 of the New Civil Code, which provides:

Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also
for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
xxx xxx xxx
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope
of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or an industry.
xxx xxx xxx
(Emphasis supplied)
Petitioners contended that a suit against alternative defendants is allowed under Rule 3, Section 13 of the Rules of Court. Therefore,
the inclusion of private respondents as alternative defendants in the complaint is justified by the following: the Initial Investigation
Report prepared by Pat. Mario Tubon showing that Torzuela is an employee of SAFEGUARD; and through overt acts, SUPERGUARD
extended its sympathies to petitioners (Rollo, pp. 64 and 98).
Meanwhile, an Information dated March 21, 1989 charging Benigno Torzuela with homicide was filed before the Regional Trial Court of
Makati and was docketed as Criminal Case No. 89-1896.

On April 13, 1989, respondent Judge Regino issued an order granting SUPERGUARD'S motion to dismiss and SAFEGUARD'S motion
for exclusion as defendant. The respondent judge held that the complaint did not state facts necessary or sufficient to constitute a
quasi-delict since it does not mention any negligence on the part of Torzuela in shooting Napoleon Dulay or that the same was done in
the performance of his duties. Respondent judge ruled that mere allegations of the concurring negligence of the defendants (private
respondents herein) without stating the facts showing such negligence are mere conclusions of law (Rollo, p. 106). Respondent judge
also declared that the complaint was one for damages founded on crimes punishable under Articles 100 and 103 of the Revised Penal
Code as distinguished from those arising from, quasi-delict. The dispositive portion of the order dated April 13, 1989 states:

WHEREFORE, this Court holds that in view of the material and ultimate facts alleged in the verified complaint and in
accordance with the applicable law on the matter as well as precedents laid down by the Supreme Court, the
complaint against the alternative defendants Superguard Security Corporation and Safeguard Investigation and
Security Co., Inc., must be and (sic) it is hereby dismissed. (Rollo, p. 110)

The above order was affirmed by the respondent court and petitioners' motion for reconsideration thereof was denied.
Petitioners take exception to the assailed decision and insist that quasi-delicts are not limited to acts of negligence but also cover acts
that are intentional and voluntary, citing Andamo v. IAC (191 SCRA 195 [1990]). Thus, petitioners insist that Torzuela' s act of shooting
Napoleon Dulay constitutes a quasi-delict actionable under Article 2176 of the New Civil Code.

Petitioners further contend that under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code, private respondents are primarily liable for their negligence
either in the selection or supervision of their employees. This liability is independent of the employee's own liability for fault or
negligence and is distinct from the subsidiary civil liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. The civil action against the
employer may therefore proceed independently of the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111 Section 3 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners
submit that the question of whether Torzuela is an employee of respondent SUPERGUARD or SAFEGUARD would be better resolved
after trial.

Moreover, petitioners argue that Torzuela's act of shooting Dulay is also actionable under Article 33 of the New Civil Code, to wit:

Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct
from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the
criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. (Emphasis supplied)

In the same vein, petitioners cite Section 3, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court which provides:

Rule 111. . . . .

Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed independently — In the cases provided for in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of
the Civil Code of the Philippines, the independent civil action which has been reserved may be brought by the
offended party, shall proceed independently of the criminal action, and shall require only a preponderance of
evidence. (Emphasis supplied)

The term "physical injuries" under Article 33 has been held to include consummated, frustrated and attempted homicide. Thus,
petitioners maintain that Torzuela's prior conviction is unnecessary since the civil action can proceed independently of the criminal
action. On the other hand, it is the private respondents' argument that since the act was not committed with negligence, the petitioners
have no cause of action under Articles 2116 and 2177 of the New Civil Code. The civil action contemplated in Article 2177 is not
applicable to acts committed with deliberate intent, but only applies to quasi-offenses under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code.
Torzuela's act of shooting Atty. Dulay to death, aside from being purely personal, was done with deliberate intent and could not have
been part of his duties as security guard. And since Article 2180 of the New Civil Code covers only: acts done within the scope of the
employee's assigned tasks, the private respondents cannot be held liable for damages.

We find for petitioners.

It is undisputed that Benigno Torzuela is being prosecuted for homicide for the fatal shooting of Napoleon Dulay. Rule 111 of the Rules
on Criminal Procedure provides:

Sec. 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of
civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action , reserves
his right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.

Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code, and damages under Articles 32, 33,
34, and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused. (Emphasis
supplied)

It is well-settled that the filing of an independent civil action before the prosecution in the criminal action presents evidence is even far
better than a compliance with the requirement of express reservation (Yakult Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 190 SCRA 357 [1990]).
This is precisely what the petitioners opted to do in this case. However, the private respondents opposed the civil action on the ground
that the same is founded on a delict and not on a quasi-delict as the shooting was not attended by negligence. What is in dispute
therefore is the nature of the petitioner's cause of action.

The nature of a cause of action is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint as constituting the cause of action (Republic v.
Estenzo, 158 SCRA 282 [1988]). The purpose of an action or suit and the law to govern it is to be determined not by the claim of the
party filing the action, made in his argument or brief, but rather by the complaint itself, its allegations and prayer for relief. (De Tavera v.
Philippine Tuberculosis Society, 112 SCRA 243 [1982]). An examination of the complaint in the present case would show that the
plaintiffs, petitioners herein, are invoking their right to recover damages against the private respondents for their vicarious responsibility
for the injury caused by Benigno Torzuela's act of shooting and killing Napoleon Dulay, as stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the
complaint.

Article 2176 of the New Civil Code provides:

 Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay
for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties is
called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

Contrary to the theory of private respondents, there is no justification for limiting the scope of Article 2176 of the Civil Code to acts or
omissions resulting from negligence. Well-entrenched is the doctrine that article 2176 covers not only acts committed with negligence,
but also acts which are voluntary and intentional. As far back as the definitive case of Elcano v. Hill (77 SCRA 98 [1977]), this Court
already held that:

. . . Article 2176, where it refers to "fault or negligence," covers not only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts
criminal in character; whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. Consequently, a separate civil action 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 he 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
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, We here hold, in reiteration of
Garcia, that culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law. (Emphasis
supplied)

The same doctrine was echoed in the case of Andamo v. Intermediate Appellate Court (191 SCRA 195 [1990]), wherein the Court held:

Article 2176, whenever it refers to "fault or negligence," covers not only acts criminal in character, whether intentional
and voluntary or negligent. Consequently, a civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is
prosecuted or found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, (if the tortfeasor is actually
also charged 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. [citing Virata v. Ochoa, 81 SCRA 472]
(Emphasis supplied)

Private respondents submit that the word "intentional" in the Andamo case is inaccurate obiter, and should be read as "voluntary" since
intent cannot be coupled with negligence as defined by Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. In the absence of more substantial
reasons, this Court will not disturb the above doctrine on the coverage of Article 2176.

Private respondents further aver that Article 33 of the New Civil Code applies only to injuries intentionally committed pursuant to the
ruling in Marcia v. CA (120 SCRA 193 [1983]), and that the actions for damages allowed thereunder are ex-delicto. However, the term
"physical injuries" in Article 33 has already been construed to include bodily injuries causing death (Capuno v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co.
of the Philippines, 121 Phil. 638 [1965); Carandang v. Santiago, 97 Phil. 94 [1955]). It is not the crime of physical injuries defined in the
Revised Penal Code. It includes not only physical injuries but also consummated, frustrated, and attempted homicide (Madeja v. Caro,
126 SCRA 293 [1983]). Although in the Marcia case (supra), it was held that no independent civil action may be filed under Article 33
where the crime is the result of criminal negligence, it must be noted however, that Torzuela, the accused in the case at bar, is charged
with homicide, not with reckless imprudence, whereas the defendant in Marcia was charged with reckless imprudence. Therefore, in
this case, a civil action based on Article 33 lies.

Private respondents also contend that their liability is subsidiary under the Revised Penal Code; and that they are not liable for
Torzuela's act which is beyond the scope of his duties as a security guard. It having been established that the instant action is not ex-
delicto, petitioners may proceed directly against Torzuela and the private respondents. Under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code as
aforequoted, when an injury is caused by the negligence of the employee, there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was
negligence on the part of the master or employer either in the selection of the servant or employee, or in supervision over him after
selection or both (Layugan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 167 SCRA 363 [1988]). The liability of the employer under Article 2180 is
direct and immediate; it is not conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent employee and a prior showing of the insolvency of
such employee (Kapalaran Bus Lines v. Coronado, 176 SCRA 792 [1989]). Therefore, it is incumbent upon the private respondents to
prove that they exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employee.

Since Article 2176 covers not only acts of negligence but also acts which are intentional and voluntary, it was therefore erroneous on
the part of the trial court to dismiss petitioner's complaint simply because it failed to make allegations of attendant negligence
attributable to private respondents.

With respect to the issue of whether the complaint at hand states a sufficient cause of action, the general rule is that the allegations in a
complaint are sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants if, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid
judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer therein. A cause of action exist if the following elements are present, namely:
(1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the
named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of
the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for
recovery of damages (Del Bros Hotel Corporation v. CA, 210 SCRA 33 [1992]); Development Bank of the Philippines v. Pundogar, 218
SCRA 118 [1993])
This Court finds, under the foregoing premises, that the complaint sufficiently alleged an actionable breach on the part of the defendant
Torzuela and respondents SUPERGUARD and/or SAFEGUARD. It is enough that the complaint alleged that Benigno Torzuela shot
Napoleon Dulay resulting in the latter's death; that the shooting occurred while Torzuela was on duty; and that either SUPERGUARD
and/or SAFEGUARD was Torzuela's employer and responsible for his acts. This does not operate however, to establish that the
defendants below are liable. Whether or not the shooting was actually reckless and wanton or attended by negligence and whether it
was actually done within the scope of Torzuela's duties; whether the private respondents SUPERGUARD and/or SAFEGUARD failed to
exercise the diligence of a good father of a family; and whether the defendants are actually liable, are questions which can be better
resolved after trial on the merits where each party can present evidence to prove their respective allegations and defenses. In
determining whether the allegations of a complaint are sufficient to support a cause of action, it must be borne in mind that the
complaint does not have to establish or allege the facts proving the existence of a cause of action at the outset; this will have to be
done at the trial on the merits of the case (Del Bros Hotel Corporation v. CA, supra). If the allegations in a complaint can furnish a
sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained, the same should not be dismissed regardless of the defenses that may be
assessed by the defendants (Rava Dev't. Corp. v. CA, 211 SCRA 152 [1992] citing Consolidated Bank & Trust Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, 197 SCRA 663 [1991]). To sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, the complaint must show that the claim for
relief does not exist rather than that a claim has been defectively stated, is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain (Azur v. Provincial Board,
27 SCRA 50 [1969]). Since the petitioners clearly sustained an injury to their rights under the law, it would be more just to allow them to
present evidence of such injury.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals as well as the
Order of the Regional Trial Court dated April 13, 1989 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Civil Case No. Q-89-1751 is remanded
to the Regional Trial Court for trial on the merits. This decision is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.