FAUSTO BARREDO VS.

SEVERINO GARCIA and

TIMOTEO ALMARIO
G.R. No. 48006
FACTS:
On May 3, 1936, there was a head-on collision
between a taxi of the Malate Taxi driven by Fontanilla
and a carretela guided by Dimapilis. The carretela was
overturned and a passenger, 16-year-old boy Garcia,
suffered injuries from which resulted to his death. A
criminal action was filed against Fontanilla, and he was
convicted. The court in the criminal case granted the
petition to reserve the civil action against Barredo, the
proprietor of the Malate Taxi and the employer of
Fontanilla, making him primarily and directly
responsible under culpa aquiliana. It was undisputed
that Fontanillas negligence was the cause of the
accident as he was driving on the wrong side of the
road at high speed, and there was no showing that
Barredo exercised the diligence of a good father of a
family.

Barredos theory of defense is that Fontanillas

negligence being punishable by the Revised Penal
Code, that his liability as employer is only subsidiary
liable but Fontanilla was sued for civil liability, hence,
Barredo claims that he can not be held liable.

ISSUE:
Whether or not complainants liability as
employer of Fontanilla was only subsidiary and not as
primarily and directly responsible under Article 1903 of
the Civil Code.

RULING:
No, the Supreme Court ruled that
complainants liability is not only subsidiary but also
primary liability. The Court affirmed the decision of the
Court of Appeals which ruled that the liability sought to
be imposed upon Barredo in this action is not a civil
obligation arising from a felony, but an obligation
imposed in Article 1903 of the Civil Code by reason of
his negligence in the selection or supervision of his
servant or employee.

QUASI-DELICT OR CULPA AQUILIANA is a

separate legal institution under the Civil Code and is
entirely distinct and independent from a delict or crime

as punished under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). In

this jurisdiction, the same negligent act causing
damage may produce civil liability (subsidiary) arising
from a crime under Art. 103 of the RPC; or create an
action for the quasi delict or culpa aquiliana (primary)
and the parties injured are free to choice which course
to take.

In the instant case, the negligent act of

Fontanilla produced two liabilities of Barredo.
First, a subsidiary one because of the civil liability of
Fontanilla arising from the latters criminal negligence;
and second, Barredos primary and direct
responsibility arising from his presumed negligence as
an employer in the selection of his employees or their
supervision, under Art. 1903 of the Civil Code.

The parties instituted an action for damages

under Art. 1903 of the Civil Code. Barredo was
found guilty of negligence for carelessly employing
Fontanilla, who had been caught several times for
violation of the Automobile Law and speeding violation.
Thus, the petition is denied. Barredo must indemnify
plaintiffs under the provisions of Art. 1903 of the Civil
Code.

73 Phil 607
Torts and Damages Civil Liability from Quasi
Delicts vs Civil Liability from Crimes

At about 1:30am on May 3, 1936, Fontanillas taxi

collided with a kalesa thereby killing the 16 year old
Faustino Garcia. Faustinos 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 taxi (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 reserved his right to file a separate civil

action and this is more expeditious because by the
time of the SC judgment Fontanilla is already serving
his sentence and has no property. It was also proven
that Barredo is negligent in hiring his employees
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 reserved 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 drivers negligence) but
rather for his own negligence in selecting his employee
(Article 1903).