Torts - Barredo vs Garcia

Barredo vs. Garcia and Almario

73 Phil. 607 Facts:

Torts and Damages  – Civil Liability from Quasi Delicts vs Civil Liability from Crimes At about 1:30am on May 3, 1936, Fontanilla’s taxi collided with a “kalesa” thereby killing the 16 year old Faustino Garcia. Faustino’s parents filed a criminal suit against Fontanilla and reserved their right to file a separate civil suit. Fontanilla was eventually convicted. After the criminal suit, Garcia filed a civil suit against Barredo  – the owner of the tax i (employer of Fontanilla). The suit was based on Article 1903 of  the civil code (negligence of employers in the selection of their employees). Barredo assailed the suit 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

is just subsidiarily liable.

HELD:

No. He is primarily liable under Article 1903 which is a separate civil action against negligent employers. Garcia is well within his rights in suing Barredo. He re served his right to file a separate se parate civil action and this is more expeditious because by the time o f the SC judgment Fontanilla is already serving his sentence and has no property. It was also proven that Barredo is negligent in hiring his em ployees because it was shown that Fontanilla had had multiple traffic infractions already before he hired him  – something he failed to overcome during hearing. Had Garcia not re served his right to file a separate civil action, Barredo would have only been subsidiarily liable. Further, Barredo is not being sued for damages arising from a criminal act (his driver ’s negligence) but rather for his own negligence in selecting his employee (Article 1903). *** “Some of the differences between crimes under

“1.

the Penal Code are:

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 Ci vil 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.

xxxxx “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 re sponsibility 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 re sponsibility 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.”