Petition: review on certiorari Petitioner: Fausto Barredo Respondent: Severino Garcia and Timoteo Almario Ponencia: Bocobo DOCTRINE: Instituting independent civil action based on culpa aquiliana Plaintiffs may choose bring cause of action under the Civil Code (as quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana) rather than the Penal Code for practical purposes. Employer (Barredo) is primarily (instead of subsidiarily) liable, as it was shown that he had not exercised the standard of diligence required by the Civil Code over his employee. FACTS: 1. May 3, 1936: Malate Taxicab driven by Pedro Fontanilla collided with a carriage that had Faustino Garcia as passenger. The latter died two days later due to the injuries he sustained. 2. Garcias parents brought a criminal action against Fontanilla before the CFI of Rizal, where he was found guilty. Court a quo likewise granted the petition that reserved the right to bring a separate civil action. 3. CA affirmed ruling in the criminal case. Meanwhile, the civil action was instituted in the CFI of Manila against Fontanilla and his employer Fausto Barredo. CFI of Manila awarded damages to the parents worth 2,000 plus legal interest. CA reduced the amount to 1k. Barredos responsibility hinged on his failure to abide by the standard set by the Civil Code which is that of exercising care as a good father of a family. Under this, Barredo is primarily liable. 4. Defendants assert that Barredo is only subsidiarily liable under Art. 100 of the RPC since Fontanilla was found guilty under that said law. ISSUES: 1. WoN petitioners may institute separate civil action against the respondents
2. WoN Barredo may be held primarily liable as the
employer for Fontanillas negligence PROVISION: Article 1093 (Old Civil Code) 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. Article 2180 (in NCC, as adopted). 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 industry. RULING + RATIO: 1. YES. Petitioners may institute separate civil action to recover damages. - Petitioners are seeking to recover damages not as a result of the felony (delito), but as a result of a quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana). The latter is recognized by the civil code as a separate legal concept. - The court has recognizes how delicts and quasi-delicts overlap, and people resort to bringing actions as quasi-delict because of the speedier disposition of proceedings. The court sees the advantage of bringing a case under quasi-delict rather that criminal negligence as a way to protect private rights and efficaciously bring redress to the injured party. 2. YES. Barredo is primarily/directly/principally liable. - Since the present action is a separate civil suit and not an action to recover damages arising from criminal liability, Barredos negligence under the Civil Code provision invoked makes him directly liable. - Preponderance of evidence is sufficient to prove his negligence (instead of beyond reasonable doubt) because the case at bar is a civil action. DISPOSITION: Petition granted. - CA decision affirmed. Costs against defendants.