BARREDO V GARCIA G.R. No. L-48006 July 8, 1942 FAUSTO BARREDO, petitioner, vs.

SEVERINO GARCIA and TIMOTEA ALMARIO, respondents.

FACTS:
At about half past one in the morning of May 3, 1936, on the road between Malabon
and Navotas, Province of Rizal, there was a head- on collision between a taxi of the
Malate Taxicab driven by Pedro Fontanilla and a carretela guided by Pedro Dimapalis.
The carretela was overturned, and one of its passengers, 16-year-old boy Faustino
Garcia, suffered injuries from which he died two days later. A criminal action was
filed against Fontanilla in the Court of First Instance of Rizal.

DECISION OF LOWER COURTS (CRIMINAL CASE):

1. CFI- Rizal – Fontanilla was convicted and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence
of one year and one day to two years of prision correccional. The court in the
criminal case granted the petition that the right to bring a separate civil action be
reserved.
2. CA: affirmed the sentence of the lower court in the criminal case.
Severino Garcia and Timotea Almario, parents of the deceased on March 7, 1939,
brought an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Fausto Barredo as
the sole proprietor of the Malate Taxicab and employer of Pedro Fontanilla.

DECISION OF LOWER COURTS (CIVIL CASE):

1. CFI – Manila: Fausto Barredo is liable in damages for the death of Faustino Garcia
caused by negligence of Pedro Fontanilla, a taxi driver employed by Barredo in the
amount of 2,000.
2. CA: reduced the damages to 1,000.

ISSUE:
Whether the plaintiffs may bring this separate civil action against Fausto Barredo,
thus making him primarily and directly, responsible under article 1903 of the Civil
Code as an employer of Pedro thus making him primarily and directly, responsible
under article 1903 of the Civil Code as an employer of Pedro Fontanilla

RULING:
Yes.
The responsibility in question is imposed on the occasion of a crime or fault, but not
because of the same, but because of the cuasi- delito, that is to say, the imprudence
or negligence of the father, guardian, proprietor or manager of the establishment, of
the teacher, etc. Whenever anyone of the persons enumerated in the article referred
to (minors, incapacitated persons, employees, apprentices) causes any damage, the
law presumes that the father, guardian, teacher, etc. have committed an act of
negligence in not preventing or avoiding the damage. It is this fault that is
condemned by the law.
One is not responsible for the acts of others, because one is liable only for his own
faults, this being the doctrine of article 1902; but, by exception, one is liable for the
acts of those persons with whom there is a bond or tie which gives rise to the
responsibility.

Crimes under penal code

1. affect public interest
2. Penal Code punishes or corrects the criminal act
3. not as broad as quasi-delicts because crimes are punished only if there is a penal
law clearly covering them
4. proof beyond reasonable doubt is required

Culpa aquiliana / Cuasi-delito

1. Only of private concern
2. Civil Code, by means of indemnification, merely repairs the damage (includes both
reckless and simple negligence)
3. include all acts in which “any kind of fault or negligence intervenes”
when there is exercise of the care and diligence of a good father of a family, the
presumption is overcome and he is relieved from liability.
4. only preponderance of evidence is required

Note: not all violations of the penal law produce civil responsibility.

The action against the principal is accessory in the sense that it implies the existence
of a prejudicial act committed by the employee, but it is not subsidiary in the sense
that it can not be instituted till after the judgment against the author of the act or at
least, that it is subsidiary to the principal action; the action for responsibility (of the
employer) is in itself a principal action. (Laurent, Principles of French Civil Law) The
basis of civil law liability is not respondent superior but the relationship of pater
familias. This theory bases the liability of the master ultimately on his own
negligence and not on that of his servant. A quasi-delict or culpa extra-contractual is
a separate and distinct legal institution, independent from the civil responsibility
arising from criminal liability, and that an employer is, under article 1903 of the Civil
Code, primarily and directly responsible for the negligent acts of his employee.

Thus, there were two liabilities of Barredo: first, the subsidiary one because of the
civil liability of the taxi driver arising from the latter's criminal negligence; and,
second, Barredo's primary liability as an employer under article 1903. The plaintiffs
were free to choose which course to take, and they preferred the second remedy. In
so doing, they were acting within their rights. It might be observed in passing, that
the plaintiff choose the more expeditious and effective method of relief, because
Fontanilla was either in prison, or had just been released, and besides, he was
probably without property which might be seized in enforcing any judgment against
him for damages.

Section 1902 of that chapter reads: "A person who by an act or omission causes
damage to another when there is fault or negligence shall be obliged to repair the
damage so done.

"SEC. 1903. The obligation imposed by the preceeding article is demandable, not
only for personal acts and omissions, but also for those of the persons for whom they
should be responsible.

"The father, and on his death or incapacity, the mother, is liable for the damages
caused by the minors who live with them.
xxx xxx xxx "Owners or directors of an establishment or enterprise are equally liable
for the damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which
the latter may be employed or in the performance of their duties. xxx xxx xxx
"The liability referred to in this article shall cease when the persons mentioned
therein prove that they employed all the diligence of a good father of a family to
avoid the damage."

the same act of negligence being a proper subject-matter either of a criminal action
with its consequent civil liability arising from a crime or of an entirely separate and
independent civil action for fault or negligence under article 1902 of the Civil Code.
Thus, in this jurisdiction, the separate individually of a cuasi-delito or culpa aquiliana
under the Civil Code has been fully and clearly recognized, even with regard to a
negligent act for which the wrongdoer could have been prosecuted and convicted in
a criminal case and for which, after such a conviction, he could have been sued for
this civil liability arising from his crime.
Gashem Shookat Baksh V. CA, Et Al (1993)

G.R. No. 97336 February 19, 1993

Laws Applicable: Art. 21, Art. 23 and Art. 2176 of the Civil Code
Lessons Applicable: Quasi-delict (Torts and Damages)

FACTS:
Gashem Shookat Baksh (Gashem), a medical student in Lyceum Northwestern
Dagupan City, courted and proposed to marry 22 years old, single, Filipino and a
pretty lass of good moral character and reputation duly respected in her community
she accepted his love on the condition that they would get married after the end of
the school semester (October that year)
Gashem visited her parents in Pangasinan for approval for marriage
August 20 1987: Gashem forced her to live with him when she was still a virgin then
he started to maltreat and threatened to kill her resulting into injuries
would tie plaintiff's hands and feet while he went to school, and he even gave her
medicine at 4 o'clock in the morning that made her sleep the whole day and night
until the following day
she became pregnant, but Gashem gave her some medicine to abort the fetus
Gashem continued to live with defendant and kept reminding him of his promise to
marry her until he asked her not to live with him anymore as he is already married to
someone living in Bacolod City
he lived with another woman in Bacolod City but did not marry that woman, just like
what he did to plaintiff
resigned from her job at the restaurant after she had accepted defendant's proposal
Plaintiff's father, a tricycle driver, already looked for sponsors for the wedding,
started preparing for the reception by looking for pigs and chickens, and even already
invited many relatives and friends to the forthcoming wedding.
prayed for judgment ordering Gashem to pay her damages
Gashem: never proposed marriage to or agreed to be married; he did not maltreat
her, but only told her to stop coming to his place because he discovered that she had
deceived him by stealing his money and passport
RTC: favored private respondent and against Gashem
gave full credit to the private respondent's testimony because, inter alia, she would
not have had the temerity and courage to come to court and expose her honor and
reputation to public scrutiny and ridicule if her claim was false
CA: affirmed RTC
Gashem's acts are palpably and undoubtedly against morals, good customs, and
public policy, and are even gravely and deeply derogatory and insulting to our
women, coming as they do from a foreigner who has been enjoying the hospitality of
our people and taking advantage of the opportunity to study in one of our
institutions of learning
Gashem criticizes the trial court for liberally invoking Filipino customs, traditions and
culture, and ignoring the fact that since he is a foreigner, he is not conversant with
such Filipino customs, traditions and culture. As an Iranian Moslem, he is not familiar
with Catholic and Christian ways. He stresses that even if he had made a promise to
marry, the subsequent failure to fulfill the same is excusable or tolerable because of
his Moslem upbringing; he then alludes to the Muslim Code which purportedly
allows a Muslim to take four (4) wives and concludes that on the basis thereof, the
trial court erred in ruling that he does not posses good moral character. Moreover,
his controversial "common law life" is now his legal wife as their marriage had been
solemnized in civil ceremonies in the Iranian Embassy. As to his unlawful cohabitation
with the private respondent, petitioner claims that even if responsibility could be
pinned on him for the live-in relationship, the private respondent should also be
faulted for consenting to an illicit arrangement
promised to marry her would not be actionable since mere breach of promise is not
actionable

ISSUE: W/N damages may be recovered for a breach of promise to marry on the basis
of Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines

HELD: YES. Petition is denied.

existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong
Under the present laws, there is no crime, as the girl is above nineteen years of age
Art. 23. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the
damage.
Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which defines a quasi-delict thus:

Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or

negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there
is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and
is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

Quasi-delict, known in Spanish legal treatises as culpa aquiliana, is a civil law concept
while torts is an Anglo-American or common law concept. Torts is much broader than
culpa aquiliana because it includes not only negligence, but international criminal
acts as well such as assault and battery, false imprisonment and deceit.
intentional and malicious acts, with certain exceptions, are to be governed by the
Revised Penal Code while negligent acts or omissions are to be covered by Article
2176 of the Civil Code

Article 21 fills that vacuum and has greatly broadened the scope of the law on civil
wrongs; it has become much more supple and adaptable than the Anglo-American
law on torts

acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise
thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual
congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and that the
promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to
accept him and to obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the award of
damages pursuant to Article 21

It is essential, however, that such injury should have been committed in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.

In fact, it is apparent that she had qualms of conscience about the entire episode for
as soon as she found out that the petitioner was not going to marry her after all, she
left him. She is not, therefore, in pari delicto with the petitioner. Pari delicto means
"in equal fault; in a similar offense or crime; equal in guilt or in legal fault."
let it not be said that this Court condones the deplorable behavior of her parents in
letting her and the petitioner stay together in the same room in their house after
giving approval to their marriage. It is the solemn duty of parents to protect the
honor of their daughters and infuse upon them the higher values of morality and
dignity.
Naguiat v. NLRC (1997) / Panganiban

Facts
CFTI [Sergio as President; Antolin as VP] held a concessionaire's contract with AAFES
for the operation of taxi services in Clark Air Base. Respondents were previously
employed by CFTI as taxi drivers. However, AAFES was dissolved as a result of the US
military bases phase-out. During the negotiations between AAFES Taxi Drivers
Association and CFTI re: separation benefits, it was agreed that separated drivers will
be given P500/year of service. Other drivers accepted the amount, but respondents
refused to accept it.
The respondents, through NOWM, filed a complaint against S. Naguiat
(NE), AAFES, and AAFES TDA. They alleged that they were hired by CFTI and then
assigned to NE which managed, controlled, and supervised their employment. They
averred that they were entitled to separation pay based on their earnings of $15 for
working 16 days/month. CFTI's defense that the cessation of business was due to
financial losses and lost business opportunity.
Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering CFTI to pay
respondents P1,200/year of service for humanitarian consideration. NLRC affirmed
LA's decision with modification by granting separation pay $120/year of service, and
held that Naguiat Enterprises, S. Naguiat, and A. Naguiat are jointly and severally
liable with CFTI. NLRC issued a second resolution denying the MfR of the petitioners.

Corporate Torts; Our jurisprudence is wanting as to the definite scope of “corporate

tort.”—Our jurisprudence is wanting as to the definite scope of “corporate tort.”
Essentially, “tort” consists in the violation of a right given or the omission of a duty
imposed by law. Simply stated, tort is a breach of a legal duty. Article 283 of the
Labor Code mandates the employer to grant separation pay to employees in case of
closure or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious
business losses or financial reverses, which is the condition obtaining at bar. CFTI
failed to comply with this law imposed duty or obligation. Consequently, its
stockholder who was actively engaged in the management or operation of the
business should be held personally liable.
DR. HUANG v. PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS, INC.
G.R. No. 180440; December 5, 2012 Second Division

FACTS:
A Complaint for Damages was filed by Dr. Huang against Dusit Hotel alleging
negligence of t Hotel’s staff, in the untimely putting out all the lights within
the hotel’s swimming pool area as well as the locking of the main entrance door of
the area, prompting petitioner to grope for a way out. While doing so, a folding
wooden counter top, which she lifted as she reached for a hotel phone, fell on her
head causing her serious brain injury.

The trial court ruled that Huang’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate
cause of her injury, she cannot recover damages. Huang elevated the matter to the
CA which affirmed the decision of trial court. Huang on Appeal contended that an
implied contract existed between them in view of the fact that the hotel guest status
extends to all those who avail of its service sits patrons and invitees. It follows then
that all those who patronize the hotel and its facilities, including those who are
invited to partake of those facilities, like her, are generally regarded as guests of the
hotel. As such, Dusit Hotel is responsible by implied contract for the safety and
welfare of Huang while the latter was inside their premises by exercising due care,
which they failed to do.

She argues that a person who goes in a hotel without a "bukol" or hematoma and
comes out of it with a "bukol" or hematoma is a clear case of res ipsa loquitur.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the complaint is one for violation of an Implied Contract so that
res ipsa loquitur is applicable in this case?

2. Whether or not respondents are liable for the injury sustained by the petitioner
based on the theory of quasi-delict?

Ruling:
1. No. The allegations in Huang’s Complaint constitute a cause of action for
quasi-delict, which under the New Civil Code is defined as an act, or omission which
causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence.
2. Huang utterly failed to prove the alleged negligence of Dusit Hotel. Her own
Complaint affirmed that Dusit Hotel afforded medical assistance to her after she met
the unfortunate accident inside the hotel’s swimming pool facility. It was established
that petitioner stayed in the hotel’s swimming pool facility beyond its closing hours;
she lifted the folding counter top that eventually hit her head; and Dusi Hotelt
extended medical assistance to her. As such, no negligence can be attributed to the
respondents or to their staff.
PNCC vs. CA. G. R. No. 116896. May 5, 1997

Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of decision made by the Court of Appeals

Facts: On 18 November 1985, petitioner Philippine National Construction

Corporation (PNCC) executed a contract of lease with private respondents,
stipulating to pay rent for the use of land, at the monthly rate of P 20,000.00
payableyearly in advance. The said land is to be used by petitioner as site for a rock
crushing plant. The term of lease is for fiveyears, commencing on the date of
issuance of an industrial clearance by the Ministry of Human Settlements
(Ministry).On 7 January 1986 PNCC obtained a Temporary Use Permit from the
Ministry for the proposed rock crushing project.Nine days later private respondents
wrote to PNCC, asking for the first annual rental, and assuring that they have
stoppedconsidering proposals of other aggregates plants in favor of PNCC.In reply,
PNCC argued that the contract must commence on the date of issuance by the
Ministry of an industrial clearancein their favor. It also expressed its desire to
terminate the contract it executed with respondents, due to “
financial, as well as technical difficulties.” Respondents refused to accede to PNCC’s
request for pre termination and on 19 May 1986,instituted an action against PNCC
for Specific Performance with Damages. Trial court ruled in favor of respondents
andordered PNCC to pay rentals for two years, with legal interests plus attorney’s
fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed thedecision of the trial court upon appeal by
PNCC; hence, this case.

Issues:(1) WON contract commences on the date of issuance of clearance by

Ministry;(2) WON PNCC should be released from its contract with respondents due
to unforeseen events and causes beyond itscontrol;(3) WON sum of money ordered
to be paid by the court is excessive and;(4) WON PNCC was deprived of right to due
process.

Held: Petition denied.

Ratio:(1) PNCC is estopped from claiming that Lease Contract commences on the
date of issuance of clearance by Ministry,because in its letter to respondents, PNCC
recognized its obligation to pay rentals counted from the date the temporarypermit
was issued.(2) PNCC cites Art. 1266, asserting that it should be released from the
obligatory force of the contract because its purposedid not materialize due to
unforeseen events and causes beyond its control. However, this article applies only
toobligations “to do” and not “to give”, while obligation arising out of said contract is
an obligation “to do”. Further, PNCCexecuted the contract with open eyes on the
deteriorating conditions of the country and mere pecuniary inability to fulfill an
engagement does not discharge a contractual obligation. The “unforeseen events
and causes beyond its control” citedby PNCC are not the legal and physical
impossibilities contemplated in Art. 1266.(3) PNCC asserts that it was not able to use
and enjoy the land and is not entitled to pay damages cited by the court.However,
respondents suffered damages because of its inability to use the premises.
Respondents are entitled toindemnification under Art. 1659 of the Civil Code.(4)
PNCC was not deprived of due process because trial court granted several
postponements to petitioner before itwaived the presentation of evidence in
petitioner’s behalf.
Pedro Elcano, Et Al., V. Reginal Hill Et Al. (1977)
G.R. No. L-24803 May 26, 1977

Laws Applicable: ART. 2177,Article 397,article 1093,Article 2180 of the Civil Code
Lessons Applicable: Quasi-delict (Tort and Damages)

FACTS:
Reginald Hill, a minor, married but living with his father, Atty. Marvin Hill with whom
he was living and getting subsistence killed Agapito Elcano
CFI Civil Case: dismissed on the ground that he was acquitted on the ground that his
act was not criminal, because of "lack of intent to kill, coupled with mistake
Spouses Elcano appealed

ISSUES:
W/N the civil action should be barred by the acquittal of criminal action - NO
W/N the Civil Code can be applied to Atty. Marvin Hill even though Reginald is
already married -YES
HELD: order appealed from is reversed

1. NO.
separate individuality of a cuasi-delito or culpa aquiliana, under the Civil Code has
been fully and clearly recognized, even with regard to a negligent act for which the
wrongdoer could have been prosecuted and convicted in a criminal case and for
which, after such a conviction, he could have been sued for this civil liability arising
from his crime.

If we were to hold that articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code refer only to fault or
negligence not punished by law, accordingly to the literal import of article 1093 of
the Civil Code, the legal institution of culpa aquiliana would have very little scope and
application in actual life to find the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt
beyond reasonable doubt is required, while in a civil case, preponderance of
evidence is sufficient to make the defendant pay in damages. . Otherwise. there
would be many instances of unvindicated civil wrongs. "Ubi jus Idemnified
remedium."

ART. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is
entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the
Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or
omission of the defendant.

in reiteration of Garcia, that culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts
which may be punishable by law It results, therefore, that the acquittal of Reginal Hill
in the criminal case has not extinguished his liability for quasi-delict, hence that
acquittal is not a bar to the instant action against him.

2. YES
While it is true that parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of the child
(Article 327, Civil Code), and under Article 397, emancipation takes place "by the
marriage of the minor (child)", it is, however, also clear that pursuant to Article 399,
emancipation by marriage of the minor is not really full or absolute. Thus
"(E)mancipation by marriage or by voluntary concession shall terminate parental
authority over the child's person. It shall enable the minor to administer his property
as though he were of age, but he cannot borrow money or alienate or encumber real
property without the consent of his father or mother, or guardian. He can sue and be
sued in court only with the assistance of his father, mother or guardian."

Article 2180, "(T)he obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for
one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible the marriage of a minor child does not relieve the parents of the duty to
see to it that the child, while still a minor, does not give answerable for the
borrowings of money and alienation or encumbering of real property which cannot
be done by their minor married child without their consent Reginald is now of age, as
a matter of equity, the liability of Atty. Hill has become milling, subsidiary to that of
his son.