TITLE OF THE CASE: Barredo vs Garcia and Almario On July 17, 2011

73 Phil 607

LAW:

Torts and Damages – Civil Liability from Quasi Delicts vs Civil Liability from Crimes

ART. 1162. Obligations derived from quasi-delicts shall be governed by the

provisions of Chapter 2, Title XVII of this Book, and by special laws. (1093a)

Art. 100. (RPC)

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

Art. 1903 (old civil code)

The obligation imposed by the next preceding article is enforceable, 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 and 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 exercised all the diligence of a good father
of a family to prevent the damage."

FACTS OF THE CASE:

RTC RULING:

CA RULING:

ISSUE:
SC RULING:

—-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SHORT VERSION

FACTS:

At about 1:30am on May 3, 1936, Fontanilla’s taxi collided with a “kalesa” thereby
killing the 16 year old Faustino Garcia. Faustino’s parents filed a criminal suit
against Fontanilla and reserved their right to file a separate civil suit. Fontanilla was
eventually convicted. After the criminal suit, Garcia filed a civil suit against Barredo
– the owner of the taxi (employer of Fontanilla). The suit was based on Article 1903
of the civil code (negligence of employers in the selection of their employees).
Barredo assailed the suit arguing that his liability is only subsidiary and that the
separate civil suit should have been filed against Fontanilla primarily and not him.

RTC: (Court of First Instance of Rizal) Fontanilla was convicted and sentenced to
an indeterminate sentence of one year and one day to two prisión correccional.

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 against
Fausto Barredo as the sole proprietor of the Malate Taxicab and employer of Pedro
Fontanilla.

CA: 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.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Barredo is just subsidiarily liable.

HELD:
No. He is primarily liable under Article 1903 which is a separate civil action against
negligent employers. Garcia is well within his rights in suing Barredo. He reserved
his right to file a separate civil action and this is more expeditious because by the
time of the SC judgment Fontanilla is already serving his sentence and has no
property. It was also proven that Barredo is negligent in hiring his employees
because it was shown that Fontanilla had had multiple traffic infractions already
before he hired him – something he failed to overcome during hearing. Had Garcia
not reserved his right to file a separate civil action, Barredo would have only been
subsidiarity liable. Further, Barredo is not being sued for damages arising from a
criminal act (his driver’s negligence) but rather for his own negligence in selecting
his employee (Article 1903).