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

t !"30am on #ay 3$ !%36$ &ontanilla's ta(i collided )ith a *+alesa, thereby +illing the !6 year old &austino -arcia. &austino's /arents filed a criminal suit against &ontanilla and reserved their right to file a se/arate civil suit. &ontanilla )as eventually convicted. fter the criminal suit$ -arcia filed a civil suit against 0arredo the o)ner of the ta(i 1em/loyer of &ontanilla2. The suit )as based on rticle !%03 of the civil code 1negligence of em/loyers in the selection of their em/loyees2. 0arredo assailed the suit arguing that his liability is only subsidiary and that the se/arate civil suit should have been filed against &ontanilla /rimarily and not him. ISSUE: 3hether or not 0arredo is 4ust subsidiarily liable. HELD: 5o. 6e is /rimarily liable under rticle !%03 )hich is a se/arate civil action against negligent em/loyers. -arcia is )ell )ithin his rights in suing 0arredo. 6e reserved his right to file a se/arate civil action and this is more e(/editious because by the time of the 7C 4udgment &ontanilla is already serving his sentence and has no /ro/erty. 8t )as also /roven that 0arredo is negligent in hiring his em/loyees because it )as sho)n that &ontanilla had had multi/le traffic infractions already before he hired him something he failed to overcome during hearing. 6ad -arcia not reserved his right to file a se/arate civil action$ 0arredo )ould have only been subsidiarily liable. &urther$ 0arredo is not being sued for damages arising from a criminal act 1his driver's negligence2 but rather for his o)n negligence in selecting his em/loyee 1 rticle !%032.

G.R. No. L-48006 July 8, 1942FAUSTO BARREDO, petitioner, vs. SEVERINO GAR IA !"# TI$OTEAAL$ARIO, respondents. BO OBO, J. % At about half past one in the morning of May 3, 1936, on the roadbetween Malabon and Navotas, rovin!e of "i#al, there was a head$on!ollision between a ta%i o f the Malate Taxicab driven by Pedro Fontanillaand a carretela guided by Pedro Dimapalis. The carretela wasoverturned, and one of its passengers, 1 !year!old boy Faustino "arcia,suffered in#uries from which he died two days later. $ criminal actionwas filed against Fontanilla in the %F& of 'i(al, and he was convicted andsentenced to an indeterminate sentence of one year and one day to twoyears of prision correccional . The court in the criminal case granted thepetition that the right to bring a separate civil action be reserved. The%$ affirmed the sentence of the lower court in the criminal case.)everino "arcia and Timotea $lmario, parents of the deceased on March*, 1+,+, brought an action in the %F& of Manila against Fausto -arredoas the sole proprietor of the Malate Taxicab and employer of PedroFontanilla. .n /uly 0, 1+,+, the %F& of Manila awarded damages in favorof the plaintiffs for P1,222 plus legal interest from the date of thecomplaint. This decision was modified by the %$ by reducing thedamages to P1,222 with legal interest from the time the action wasinstituted. &t is undisputed that Fontanilla 3s negligence was the cause of the mishap, as he was driving on the wrong side of the road, and at highspeed. The main theory of the defense is that the liability of Fausto-arredo is governed by the 'evised Penal %ode4 hence, his liability isonly subsidiary, and as there has been no civil action against PedroFontanilla, the person criminally liable, -arredo cannot be heldresponsible in the case. &))567 89: plaintiffs may bring this separate civil action against Fausto-arredo, thus ma;ing him primarily and directly, responsible underarticle 1+2, of the %ivil %ode as an employer of Pedro Fontanilla

< 6 = D 7 > 6 ) . T h e l i a b i l i t y s o u g h t t o b e i m p o s e d u p o n - a r r e d o i n t h i s action is not a civil obligation arising from a felony or a misdemeanor?the crime of Pedro Fontanilla,@, but an obligation imposed in article1+2, of the %ivil %ode by reason of his negligence in the selection orsupervision of his servant or employee.$uthorities support the proposition that a Auasi!delict or B culpa aAuiliana B is a separate legal institution under the %ivil %ode with a substantivityall its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and independent fromdelict or crime. 5pon this principle and on the wording and spirit article1 + 2 , o f t h e % i v i l % o d e , t h e p r i m a r y a n d d i r e c t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f employers may be safely anchored.

Elcano v Hill
osted on August 3, &'13by fulawstudents

PEDRO ELCANO and PATRICIA ELCANO v REGINALD HILL, and MARVIN HILL, G.R. No. L-24803. May 26, 1977

Procedural His ory! "#e $illi%& o' #e so%, (&a)i o, o' )lai% i''s-a))ella% s, de'e%da% - a))ellee Re&i%ald Hill *as )rosecu ed cri+i%ally i% ,ri+i%al ,ase No. -102 o' #e ,our o' .irs /%s a%ce o' 0ue1o% ,i y. (' er due rial, #e *as ac2ui ed o% #e &rou%d #a #is ac *as %o cri+i%al 3ecause o' 4lac$ o' i% e% o $ill, cou)led *i # +is a$e.5 "#e a))ella% s 'iled 'or a +o io% 'or reco%sidera io% rei era i%& #a #e ac io% is %o o%ly a&ai%s 3u a 6iola io% o' sec io% 1, Rule 107, *#ic# is %o* Rule ///, o' #e Re6ised Rules o' ,our 7 #e ac io% is 3arred 3y a )rior 8ud&+e% *#ic# is %o* 'i%al a%d or i% res-adjudicata7 #e co+)lai% #ad %o cause o' ac io% a&ai%s de'e%da% Mar6i% Hill, 3ecause #e *as relie6ed as &uardia% o' #e o #er de'e%da% #rou&# e+a%ci)a io% 3y +arria&e.9u #e +o io% *as dis+issed. He%ce, #e )lai% i''sa))ella% s a))ealed 'or resolu io%s o% #e dis+issal o' #e case, #a #e )rese% ac io% is a&ai%s a%d 6iola es :ec. 1, Rule 111 a%d #a Rules o' ,our is a))lica3le.

: a e+e% o' .ac s! ())eal 'ro+ #e order o' #e ,our o' .irs /%s a%ce o' 0ue1o% ,i y da ed ;a%uary 29, 196- i% ,i6il ,ase No. 0-8102, Pedro <lca%o e al. 6s. Re&i%ald Hill e al. dis+issi%&, u)o% +o io% o dis+iss o' de'e%da% s, #e co+)lai% o' )lai% i''s 'or reco6ery o' da+a&es 'ro+ de'e%da% Re&i%ald Hill, a +i%or, +arried a #e i+e o' #e occurre%ce, a%d #is 'a #er, #e de'e%da% Mar6i% Hill, *i # *#o+ #e *as li6i%& a%d &e i%& su3sis e%ce, 'or #e $illi%& 3y Re&i%ald o' #e so% o' #e )lai% i''s, %a+ed (&a)i o<lca%o, o' *#ic#, *#e% cri+i%ally )rosecu ed, #e said accused *as ac2ui ed o% #e &rou%d #a #is ac *as %o cri+i%al, 3ecause o' 4lac$ o' i% e% o $ill, cou)led *i # +is a$e.5 / *as o%ly u)o% +o io% 'or reco%sidera io% o' #e de'e%da% s o' suc# de%ial, rei era i%& #e &rou%ds #a #e 'ollo*i%& order *as issued, #e ,our 'i%ds #e sa+e o 3e +eri orious a%d *ell-'ou%ded. He%ce,

)lai% i''s-a))ella% s a))ealed i% #e :u)re+e ,our #e 'ollo*i%& resolu io%s! "H< PR<:<N" (,"/=N /: N=" =NL> (G(/N:" 9?" (L:= ( @/=L("/=N =. :<,"/=N 1, R?L< 107, N=A R?L< 111, =. "H< R<@/:<B R?L<: =. ,=?R", (NB "H(" :<,"/=N 3CcD =. R?L< 111, R?L<: =. ,=?R" /: (PPL/,(9L<7 "H< (,"/=N /: 9(RR<B 9> ( PR/=R ;?BGM<N" AH/,H /: N=A ./N(L =R R<:-(B;?B/,"(7 "H< PR/N,/PL<: =. 0?(:/B<L/,":, (R"/,L<: 2176 "= 2194 =. "H< ,/@/L ,=B<, (R< /N(PPL/,(9L< /N "H< /N:"(N" ,(:<7 a%d "H(" "H< ,=MPL(/N" :"("<: N= ,(?:< =. (,"/=N (G(/N:" B<.<NB(N" M(R@/N H/LL 9<,(?:< H< A(: R<L/<@<B (: G?(RB/(N =. "H< ="H<R.

/ssue! /s #e )rese% ci6il ac io% 'or da+a&es 3arred 3y #e ac2ui al o' Re&i%ald i% #e cri+i%al case eE i%&uis#edF

(%s*er! "#e ac2ui al o' Re&i%al Hill i% #e cri+i%al case #as %o eE i%&uis#ed #is lia3ili y 'or ci6il case a%d quasi-delict, #e%ce #a ac2ui al is %o a 3ar o #e i%s a% ac io% a&ai%s #i+.

Reaso%i%&! (ccordi%& o #e ,ode ,o++issio%! 4"#e 'ore&oi%& )ro6isio% C(r icle 2177D #rou&# a 'irs si&# s ar li%&, is %o so %o6el or eE raordi%ary *#e% *e co%sider #e eEac %a ure o' cri+i%al a%d ci6il %e&li&e%ce. "#e 'or+er is a 6iola io% o' #e cri+i%al la*, *#ile #e la er is a 4cul)a a2uilia%a5 or 2uasi-delic , o' a%cie% ori&i%, #a6i%& al*ays #ad i s o*% 'ou%da io% a%d i%di6iduali y, se)ara e 'ro+ cri+i%al %e&li&e%ce. :uc# dis i%c io% 3e *ee% cri+i%al %e&li&e%ce a%d 4cul)a eE raco% rac ual5 or 4cuasi-deli o5 #as 3ee% sus ai%ed 3y decisio% o' #e :u)re+e ,our o' :)ai% a%d +ai% ai%ed as clear, sou%d a%d )er'ec ly e%a3le 3y Maura, a% ou s a%di%& :)a%is# 8uris . "#ere'ore, u%der #e )ro)osed (r icle 2177, ac2ui al 'ro+ a% accusa io% o' cri+i%al %e&li&e%ce, *#e #er o% reaso%a3le dou3 or %o , s#all %o 3e a 3ar o a

su3se2ue% ci6il ac io%, %o 'or ci6il lia3ili y arisi%& 'ro+ cri+i%al %e&li&e%ce, 3u 'or da+a&es due o a 2uasi-delic or Gcul)a a2uilia%aH. 9u said ar icle 'ores alls a dou3le reco6ery.5, CRe)or o' #e ,odeD ,o++issio%, ). 162.D "#e eE i%c io% o' ci6il lia3ili y re'erred o i% Par. CeD o' :ec io% 3, Rule 111, re'ers eEclusi6ely o ci6il lia3ili y 'ou%ded o% (r icle 100 o' #e Re6ised Pe%al ,ode, *#ereas #e ci6il lia3ili y 'or #e sa+e ac co%sidered as a quasi-delicto%ly a%d %o as a cri+e is %o es i%&uis#ed e6e% 3y a declara io% i% #e cri+i%al case #a #e cri+i%al ac c#ar&ed #as %o #a))e%ed or #as %o 3ee% co++i ed 3y #e accused.

Holdi%&! "#e order a))ealed 'ro+ is re6ersed a%d #e rial cour is ordered o )roceed i% accorda%ce *i # #e 'ore&oi%& o)i%io%. ,os s a&ai%s a))ellees.

(ingson vs ) *, &3 (+"A 111,Nature- Appeal from Judgment of the +.*, Manila.a!ts-( i n g s o n w a s o n t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n a ! i v i l ! a s e t h a t o r d e r e d t h e m t o p a y t h e s u m o f 1 ' / , / 3 9 . / 6 t o hilippine Milling +o. As soon as the 0udgment be!ame final and e%e!utory, !ourt served a writ of garnishment upon ) *$ insofar as 1illa$Abrille2s !redits against ban3 were !on!erned.)an3 in!luded (ingson2s a!!ount and latter dis!overed this when )M 4lass (ervi!e told him that the !he!3 he issued was not honored by ban3 be!o# it had been garnished.)an3 immediately re!tified mista3e, resulting in the temporary freeing of the a!!ount of the plaintiff.(ingson filed a!tion- for damages in !onse5uen!e of said illegal free#ing of a!!ount. 6ower !ourt de!idedthat plaintiffs !annot re!over upon basis of 5uasi$deli!t be!ause relation between parties was !ontra!tual.*ssue- 78N e%isten!e of !ontra!t bars !ommission of tort by one against the other and the !onse5uentre!overy of damages therefor.9eld- N8"atio- :he e%isten!e of a !ontra!t between parties does not bar the !ommission of a tort by one againstthe other and the !onse5uential re!overy of damages therefor.+ase 9- Air .ran!e vs +arras!oso, 1; (+"A 1//Nature- etition for review by !ertiorari of a de!ision of the +A.a!ts-"afael +arras!oso was one of the <; .ilipino pilgrims who left Manila for 6ourdes. 9e had a first !lassround trip ti!3et from Manila to "ome. 9owever, when the plane was in )ang3o3, the Manager for!ed himt o v a ! a t e h i s f i r s t ! l a s s s e a t b e ! a u s e a w h i t e m a n h a d a b e t t e r r i g h t t o t h e s e a t . + a r r a s ! o s o f i l e d !omplaint for damages.*ssue- 78N damages may be re!overed on the basis of the e%pulsion9eld=es"atioC :he !ontra!t of air !arriage generates a relation attended with publi! duty. assengers should beprote!ted and insured a pleasant trip. C 7rongful e%pulsion is a violation of publi! duty by the air !arrier$ a 5uasi deli!t. >amages areproper. C doubt 78N ti!3et was !onfirmed as first !lass is immaterial as !laim is based on the wrongfule%pulsion itself

4.". No. 6$&1<3;, (ept. &;, 1966

7hen !ulpa a5uiliana may arise even when there is a pre$e%isting !ontra!t between the parties .A+:(+arras!oso, a !ivil engineer, was a first !lass passenger of Air .ran!e on his way to "ome for a pilgrimage. .rom Manila to )ang3o3, he traveled in ?first !lass,2 but at )ang3o3, the Manager of Air .ran!e for!ed him to va!ate his seat in favor of a ?white man2 who had a ?better right to the seat.2 +arras!oso filed for moral damages, averring in his !omplaint the !ontra!t of !arriage between Air .ran!e and himself. Air .ran!e !laims that to authori#e an award for moral damages there must be an averment of fraud or bad faith, upon whi!h +arras!oso2s !omplaint is silent. *((@AWhether or not Carrascoso is entitled to award for moral damages

9A6>:he foregoing substantially aver- .irst, :hat there was a !ontra!t to furnish plaintiff a first !lass passage !overing, amongst others, the )ang3o3$:eheran legB (e!ond, :hat said !ontra!t was brea!hed when petitioner failed to furnishfirst !lass transportation at )ang3o3B and :hird, :hat there was bad faith when petitioner2s employee !ompelled +arras!oso to leave his first !lass a!!ommodation berth Cafter he was already seatedD and to ta3e a seat in the tourist !lass, by reason of whi!h he suffered in!onvenien!e, embarrassment and humiliation, thereby !ausing him mental anguish, serious an%iety, wounded feelings and so!ial humiliation, resulting in moral damages. *t is true that there is no spe!ifi! mention of the term bad faith in the !omplaint. )ut, the inferen!e of bad faith is thereB it may be drawn from the fa!ts and !ir!umstan!es set forth therein. :he !ontra!t was averred to establish the relation between the parties. )ut the stress of the a!tion is put on wrongful e%pulsion.
N8:A )ANA- 9ere there is a !ontra!t of !arriage between the parties and su!h !ontra!t was brea!hed by Air .ran!e when it wrongfully for!ed +arras!oso to va!ate the first !lass seat whi!h he paid for. :he wrongful e%pulsion is independent of the brea!h sin!e even without the !ontra!t, su!h wrongful e%pulsion may still ma3e Air .ran!e liable for damages. *n other words, the wrongful e%pulsion is in itself a tort.