Barredo vs.

Garcia, Almario
Facts:
Pedro Fontanilla is a dirver of a taxicab, and his employer is herein petitioner, BARREDO.

There was a collision between the said taxicab and a carretela (Dimapalis). The
passenger of the carretela a 16 year old boy died. Thus parents instituted damages case.
award: cfi 2k, ca 1k.

Here, the driver was not sued in a civil action, alone or with his employer. But the one
being sued directly is the employer, anchored on the provision of the civil code ******* (old)

The petitioner contends that his liability is merely subsidiary with the driver as provided
for by the penal code from the latter’s criminal negligence. Pet contends that since the liability
sought to be imposed upon him is from a felony, hence he cannot be held primarily liable.

Other deets: here convicted na ung driver sa separate case and found that fontanillas’
negligence was the cause of the mishap. And court granted the filing of a separate civil action.

Issue: Subsidiary liability only?

Ruling:
“Quasi delict is a separate and distinct legal institution and independent from civil
liability arising from criminal liability”

Contrary to what the petitioner contends, the court ruled that civil liability was not intended
to be merged in the criminal (unless provided by law).

The ER may be held civilly liable for damages in a civil suit. The liability of the er arises
not from a criminal negligence but from quasi delict, which as said earlier, is a distinct and
separate legal institution.

RATIO:
The court agreed with the CFI and CA that the pet was negligent in the supervision of its
employees. Pet was careless in employing Fontanilla who had been caught several times
violating automobile laws and speeding as proved with competent evidence. These appear in
the public record which should have prompted pet in not hiring fontanilla. Thus clearly
negligent in selection.