Barredo vs Garcia73 Phil 607 (1942)

Facts:

On May 3, 1936, there was a head-on collision between a taxi ofthe Malate taxicab driven by Pedro
Fontanilla and a carretela guided by PedroDimapilis. The carretela was over-turned, and one of the
passengers, FaustinoGarcia, suffered injuries and died 2 days later. A criminal action was filed
againstFontanilla, and was convicted. The court in the criminal case granted the petitionto reserve the
civil action. Parents of the deceased, later, filed a civil actionagainst Barredo, the proprietor of the
Malate Taxicab and employer of Fontanilla,making him primarily and directly responsible. It is
undisputed that Fontanilla’s negligence was the cause of the accident, as he was driving on the
wrong side ofthe road at high speed, and there was no showing that Barredo exercised thediligence of
a good father of a family. Main theory of the defense is that theliability of Barredo is only subsidiary
under the RPC and since no civil action wasfiled against fontanilla he cannot be held responsible in
the case.

Issue:

W/N plaintiffs may bring separate civil action against Fausto Barredo, thusmaking him primarily
and directly responsible under Art. 1903 of the civil code asan employer of Pedro Fontanilla

Ruling:

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, hewould have been held primarily liable for civil
damages, and Barredo would havebeen held subsidiarily liable for the same. But the plaintiffs are
directly suingBarredo, on his primary responsibility because of his own presumed negligence -which
he did not overcome - under article 1903. Thus, there were twoliabilities of Barredo: first, the
subsidiary one because of the civil liability of thetaxi driver arising from the latter's criminal
negligence; and, second, Barredo'sprimary liability as an employer under article 1903. The plaintiffs
were free tochoose which course to take, and they preferred the second remedy.The master is liable
for the negligent acts of his servant where he is theowner or director of a business or enterprise and the
negligent acts arecommitted while the servant is engage in his master’s employment as
such owner.

FAUSTO BARREDO, petitioner, vs. SEVERINO GARCIA and TIMOTEO ALMARIO,

respondents
No. 48006. July 8, 1942

Facts:

On May 3, 1936, there was a head-on collision between a taxi ofthe Malate taxicab driven by Pedro
Fontanilla and a carretela guided by PedroDimapilis. The carretela was over-turned, and one of the
passengers, FaustinoGarcia, suffered injuries and died 2 days later. A criminal action was filed
againstFontanilla, and was convicted. The court in the criminal case granted the petitionto reserve the
civil action. Parents of the deceased, later, filed a civil actionagainst Barredo, the proprietor of the
Malate Taxicab and employer of Fontanilla,making him primarily and directly responsible. It is
undisputed that Fontanilla’s negligence was the cause of the accident, as he was driving on the
wrong side ofthe road at high speed, and there was no showing that Barredo exercised thediligence of
a good father of a family. Main theory of the defense is that theliability of Barredo is only subsidiary
under the RPC and since no civil action wasfiled against fontanilla he cannot be held responsible in
the case.

Issue:

W/N plaintiffs may bring separate civil action against Fausto Barredo, thusmaking him primarily
and directly responsible under Art. 1903 of the civil code asan employer of Pedro Fontanilla

Held:

(Foreword: The Barredo case was decided by the Supreme Court prior to the present
Civil Code. However, the principle enunciated in said case, that responsibility for fault
or negligence as quasi-delict is distinct and separate from negligence penalized under
the Revised Penal Code, is now specifically embodied in Art. 2177 of the Civil Code.)

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 thru 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. According to 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 a delict or crime. Upon this principle, and
on the wording and spirit of Article 1903 of the Civil Code, the primary and direct
responsibility of employers may be safely anchored.

“It will thus be seen that while the terms of Article 1902 of the Civil Code seem to be
broad enough to cover the driver’s negligence in the instant case, nevertheless Article
1903 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. “Some of the
differences between crimes under the Penal Code are:

“1. That crimes affect the public interest, while quasi-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 for 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 kind 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.

“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.”