1.] Barredo vs.

Garcia 73 Phil 607 (1942)

Facts:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

At about 1:30 am on May 3, 1936, taxi driver Fontanilla guided by Dimapilis collided head on with a kalesa thereby
injuring and killing the 16 year old Faustino Garcia.
Faustinos parents, Garcia and Alamario, filed a criminal suit against Fontanilla and reserved their right to file a
separate civil suit.
Fontanilla was eventually convicted.
After the criminal suit, on March 7, 1939, the parents of the deceased instituted a civil suit against Barredo the owner
of the Malate taxicab (employer of Fontanilla) making him primarily and directly responsible under culpa acquiliana of
Article 2180 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
The suit was based on Article 1903 of the civil code (negligence of employers in the selection of their employees).
Barredos defense was that Fontanillas negligence is punished by the Revised Penal Code, but since Fontanilla was
not sued for civil liability, therefore, Barredo claims that he cannot be held liable arguing that his liability is only
subsidiary and that the separate civil suit should have been filed against Fontanilla primarily and not him.

ISSUE: Whether or not Barredo, as employer, is civilly liable for the acts of his employee, Fontanilla. Whether or not the parents
of the deceased file 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.
HELD: Yes. Barredo is primarily liable under Article 1903. The parents were well within their rights in suing him.
1.
2.
3.

4.

Quasi-delict or culpa acquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code of the Philippines and is entirely
distinct and independent from a delict or crime under the Revised Penal Code.
In this jurisdiction, the same negligent act causing damage may produce civil liability (subsidiary) arising from a crime
under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines; or create an action for quasi-delicto or culpa aquiliana
under Articles 2179 and 2180 of the Civil Code and the parties are free to choose which course to take.
And in the instant case, the negligent act of Fontanilla produces two (2) liabilities of Barredo: First, a subsidiary one
because of the civil liability of Fontanilla arising from the latters criminal negligence under Article 103 of the Revised
Penal Code, and second, Barredos primary and direct responsibility arising from his presumed negligence as an
employer under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
Barredo was held liable for damages. 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. He is not being sued for
damages arising from a criminal act (his drivers negligence) but rather for his own negligence in selecting his
employee (Article 1903).

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.