L.G. FOODS v.

PHILADELFA
G.R. No. 158995

Date of Promulgation: September 26, 2006

Ponente: Garcia, J.
Petitioners: L.G. Foods Corporation and Victorino Gabor
Respondents: Hon. Philadelfa Pagapong-Agraviador and Sps. Florentino and Theresa
Vallejera

Facts:
On February 26, 1996, Charles Vallejera, the 7-year-old son of Florentino and Theresa Vallejera,
died after being hit by a Ford Fiera van owned by petitioners and driven by their employee,
Vincent Norman Yeneza. An information for reckless imprudence was filed against Yeneza
before the Bacolod MTCC. However, Yeneza committed suicide before the trial’s conclusion,
and the MTCC dismissed the criminal case.

On June 23, 1999, the spouses Vallejera filed before the Bacolod RTC a complaint for damages
against petitioners as employers of Yeneza. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss, contending that
the complaint is a claim for subsidiary liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code,
which requires a judgment of conviction. The RTC denied petitioners’ motion, and a subsequent
petition for certiorari was also denied by the CA.

Issues/Held:
WON the spouses Vallejeras’ cause of action is founded on Article 103 of the Revised Penal
Code – NO

Doctrines:
1. Article 2176, CC. 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. (1902a)

2. Article 2177, CC. 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. (n)

3. Art. 2180(1), (5), (8), CC. The 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.

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household
helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not
engaged in any business or industry.
 The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned
prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
(1903a)

Ratio:
An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on
the part of the offender:

1. Civil liability ex delicto; and

2. Independent civil liabilities, such as:
a. Liabilities not arising from an act or omission complained of as a felony (culpa
contractual, intentional torts, culpa aquiliana)
b. Where the injured party is granted a right to file an action independent and
distinct from the criminal action.

In other words, victims of negligence or their heirs have a choice between an action to enforce
civil liability arising from culpa criminal under Article 100 of the RPC, and an action for quasi-
delict under Articles 2176 to 2194 of the CC. If the chosen action is for quasi-delict, the plaintiff
may hold the employer liable for the negligent act of its employee, subject to the defense of due
diligence. On the other hand, if the action is for culpa criminal, the plaintiff can hold the
employer subsidiarily liable only upon proof of prior conviction of its employee.

Article 2177 provides for alternative remedies the plaintiff may choose from in case the
obligation may arise indirectly from crime or directly from quasi-delict. The choice lies with the
plaintiff who makes his cause of action known in his initiatory pleading or complaint. It must
also be noted that the liability of the employer under Article 2180 is direct or immediate.

Had the spouses Vallejera chosen to sue petitioners based on Article 103 of the RPC, they would
have alleged that petitioners’ liability was subsidiary. Since there was no conviction in the
criminal case, the spouses’ best recourse, then, was to sue petitioners for their direct and primary
liability based on quasi-delict. It is notable that petitioners repeatedly mentioned Article 2180 in
their answer, thus acknowledging the cause of action as one for quasi-delict.

Decision:
Petition is denied.