Facts: There was a head-on collision between a taxi of the Malate Taxicab driven by Pedro Fontanilla and a carretela

that caused the killing of 16-year-old boy Faustino Garcia. A criminal action was then filed against Fontanilla where he was convicted. After the criminal suit, Garcia filed a civil suit against Barredo the owner of the taxi (employer of Fontanilla) based on Article 2180 of the New Civil Code. However the defense used by Fausto Barredo is that his liability is governed by the Revised Penal Code; hence, his liability is only subsidiary, and as there has been no civil action against Pedro Fontanilla, the person criminally liable, he cannot be held responsible in the case. Issue: WON the plaintiffs may bring the 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 Fontanilla. Held: Yes. The Court, in said case, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding that a quasi-delict is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code, with a substantivity all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from a delict or crime. Some of the differences between crimes under the RPC and Quasi-delicts under the Civil 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. Further, Barredo 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).

(Foreword: The Barredo case was decided by the Supreme Court prior to the present Civil Code. However, the principle enunciated in said case, that responsibility for fault or negligence as quasi-delict is distinct and separate from negligence penalized under the Revised Penal Code, is now specifically embodied in Art. 2177 -2180 of the Civil Code.) Sa orig case-1902-1910 of the civil code sya.