Quasi-Delict v. Delict

QUASI-DELICT V. DELICT

Barredo v. Garcia there was a head-on collision between a taxi of the Malate Taxicab Taxicab driven by Pedro Fontanilla and a carretela guided by Pedro Dimapalis. The carretela was overturned, and one of its passengers, !-year-old !-year-old boy Faustino "arcia, suffered in#uries from which he died two days later. $ criminal action was filed against Fontanilla in the %ourt of First &nstance of 'i(al, and he was convicted and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of one year and one day to two years of  prision  prision correccional  correccional . The court in the criminal case granted the petition that the right to bring a separate civil action be reserved. reserved. The %ourt of $ppeals affirmed the sentence of the lower court in the criminal case. parents of the deceased brought an action in the %ourt of First &nstance of Manila against Fausto )arredo )arredo as the sole proprietor of the Malate Taxicab and employer of Pedro Fontanilla. %ourt of First &nstance of Manila awarded damages in favor of the plaintiffs. his decision was modified by the %ourt of $ppeals by reducing the damages. The pivotal *uestion in this case is whether the plaintiffs may bring this separate civil action against Fausto )arredo, )arredo, thus ma+ing him primarily and directly, responsible responsible under article  of the %ivil %ode as an employe employerr of Pedro Fontanilla. The defendant maintains that Fontanilla/s negligence being punishable by the Penal %ode, his 0defendant/s1 liability as an employer is only subsidiary, according according to said Penal code, but Fontanilla has not been sued in a civil action and his property has not been exhausted. ISSUE2 ISSUE2 3hether the plaintiffs may bring this separate civil action against Fausto )arredo, )arredo, thus ma+ing him primarily and directly,, responsible under article  of the %ivil %ode as an employer of Pedro thus ma+ing him primarily and directly directly,, responsible under article  of the %ivil %ode as an employer of Pedro Fontanilla directly RULING2 RULING2 4es. The responsibility in *uestion is imposed on the occasion of a crime or fault, but not because of the same, but because of thecuasithecuasi- delito, delito, that is to say, the imprudence or negligence of the father, guardian, proprietor or manager of the establishment, of the teacher, etc. 3henever anyone of the persons enumerated in the article referred to 0minors, incapacitated persons, employees, apprentices1 causes any damage, the law presumes that the father father,, guardian, teacher,, etc. have committed an act of negligence in not preventing or avoiding teacher avoiding the damage. &t is this fault that is condemned by the law. 5ne is not responsible for the acts of others, because one is liable only for his own faults, this being the doctrine of article 67 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.

%rimes under penal code . affect public interest 6. Penal %ode punishes or corrects the criminal act . not as broad as *uasi-delicts because crimes are punished only if there is a penal law clearly covering covering them 8. proof beyond reasonable doubt is re*uired

%ulpa a*uiliana 9 %uasi-delito

. 5nly of private concern 6. %ivil %ode, by means of indemnification, merely repairs the damage 0includes both rec+less and simple negligence1 . include all acts in which :any +ind of fault or negligence intervenes;  when there is exercise of the care and diligence of a good father of a family, the presumption presumption is overcome and he is relieved from liability. 8. only preponderance of evidence is re*uired ection 6 of that chapter reads2 ?$ 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. ?>@%. . 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 ?5wners or directors of an establishment or enterprise are e*ually 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.? t%e sa$e act o# nelience &ein a proper s!&,ect-$atter eit%er o# a cri$inal action it% its conse!ent civil lia&ilit' arisin #ro$ a cri$e or o# an entirel' separate and independent civil action #or #a!lt or nelience !nder article ()*/ o# t%e Civil Code. T%!s" in t%is ,!risdiction" t%e separate individ!all' o# acuasi-delito or culpa aquiliana !nder t%e Civil Code %as &een #!ll' and clearl' reconi0ed" even it% reard to a nelient act #or %ic% t%e rondoer co!ld %ave &een prosec!ted and convicted in a cri$inal case and #or %ic%" a#ter s!c% a conviction" %e co!ld %ave &een s!ed #or t%is civil lia&ilit' arisin #ro$ %is cri$e.

%&A&= %5D@ $'T. B 5bligations arise from law, from contracts and *uasi-contracts, and from acts and omissions which are unlawful or in which any +ind of fault or negligence intervenes. xxx

xxx

xxx

$'T. 6. %ivil obligations arising from felonies or misdemeanors shall be governed by the provisions of the Penal %ode. $'T. . Those which are derived from acts or omissions in which fault or negligence, not punishable by law, intervenes shall be sub#ect to the provisions of %hapter &&, Title CA& of this boo+. xxx

xxx

xxx

$'T 6. $ny person who by an act or omission causes damage to another by his fault or negligence shall be liable for the damage so done. $'T. . The obligation imposed by the next preceding article is enforcible, 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. "uardians are liable for damages done by minors or incapacitated persons sub#ect to their authority and living with them. 5wners or directors of an establishment or business are e*ually 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 >tate is sub#ect 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 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 are exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. $'T. 8. $ny person who pays for damage caused by his employees may recover from the latter what he may have paid. '@A&>@D P@hould there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authority, legal guardianship, or control, or if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property, excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil law. Second. &n cases falling within subdivision 8 of article , the person for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received. The courts shall determine, in their sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable. 3hen the respective shares can not be e*uitably determined, even approximately, or when the liability also attaches to the "overnment, or to the ma#ority of the inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever the damage has been caused with the consent of the authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations. Third . &n cases falling within subdivisions E and ! of article 6, the persons using violence or causing the fear shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, those doing the act shall be liable, saving always to the latter that part of their property exempt from execution. $'T. 6. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavern keepers and proprietors of establishment .  &n default of persons criminally liable, inn+eepers, tavern +eepers, and any other persons or corporation shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall have been committed by them or their employees. &nn+eepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods ta+en by robbery or theft within their houses lodging therein, or the person, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in advance the inn+eeper himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn7 and shall furthermore have followed the directions which such inn+eeper or his representative may have given them with respect to the care of and vigilance over such goods. ome of the differences between crimes under the Penal %ode and the culpa aquiliana or cuasi-delito under the %ivil %ode are2 . That crimes affect the public interest, while cuasi-delitos are only of private concern. 6. That, conse*uently, the Penal %ode punishes or corrects the criminal act, while the %ivil %ode, by means of indemnification, merely repairs the damage.

. That delicts are not as broad as *uasi-delicts, because 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 +ing of fault or negligence intervenes.? owever, 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.

1adilla v. CA This is a petition for review on certiorari of a %ourt of $ppeals/ decision which reversed the trial court/s #udgment of conviction and ac*uitted the petitioners of the crime of grave coercion on the ground of reasonable doubt but inspite of the ac*uittal ordered them to pay #ointly and severally the amount of P,. to the complainants as actual damages. Padilla 0P1, et al. were found guilty of grave coercion for unlawfully preventing, bymeans of threat, force and violence, Aergara 0A1 and his family from closing their stallat a public mar+et and for forcibly opening the door of the stall, demolishing anddestroying it and the furnitures therein by axes and other massive instruments, andcarrying away the goods, wares and merchandise. $ccused allegedly too+ advantage of their positions2 P was the incumbent municipalmayor, while the rest were policemen except for one civilian. P, et al. appealed to the %$, claiming that P had the power to order removal of thestall, which was deemed a nuisance per se under a municipal ordinance. The %$ac*uitted the accused on ground of reasonable doubt, but still held them liable foractual damages 0P,!1 The issue posed in the instant proceeding is whether or not the respondent court committed a reversible error in re*uiring the petitioners to pay civil indemnity to the complainants after ac*uitting them from the criminal charge. 'G=&ee $rt. 6, 'evised Penal %ode17 and, where the civil liability does not arise from or is not based upon the criminal act of which the accused was ac*uitted 0%astro v. %ollector of &nternal 'evenue, 8 >%'$  The two liabilities are separate and distinct from each other. 5ne affects the social order and the other, private rights. 5ne is for the punishment or correction of the offender while the other is for reparation of damages suffered by the

aggrieved party... it is #ust and proper that, for the purposes of the imprisonment of or fine upon the accused, the offense should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. )ut for the purpose of indemnifying the complaining party, why should the offense also be proved beyond reasonable doubtI &s not the invasion or violation of every private right to be proved only by preponderance of evidenceI &s the right of the aggrieved person any less private because the wrongful act is also punishable by the criminal lawI  $rt. 6 of the %ivil %ode does not state that civil liability can be recovered only in a separate civil action. The civil liability can be recovered either in the same or a separate action. The purpose of recovering in the same action is to dispense with the filing of another civil action where the same evidence is to be presented, and the unsettling implications of permitting reinstiJtuttion of a separate civil action. owever, a separate civil action is warranted when 01 additionJal facts are to be established7 061 there is more evidence to be adduced7 01 there is full terminaJtion of the criminal case and a separate complaint would be more efficacious than a remand. ence, %$ did not err in awarding damages despite the ac*uittal.