Author: R

Barredo v Garcia (1942)

Petition: review on certiorari
Petitioner: Fausto Barredo
Respondent: Severino Garcia and Timoteo Almario
Ponencia: Bocobo
DOCTRINE: Instituting independent civil action based on
culpa aquiliana
Plaintiffs may choose bring cause of action under the
Civil Code (as quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana) rather than
the Penal Code for practical purposes. Employer
(Barredo) is primarily (instead of subsidiarily) liable, as it
was shown that he had not exercised the standard of
diligence required by the Civil Code over his employee.
FACTS:
1. May 3, 1936: Malate Taxicab driven by Pedro
Fontanilla collided with a carriage that had
Faustino Garcia as passenger. The latter died two
days later due to the injuries he sustained.
2. Garcias parents brought a criminal action against
Fontanilla before the CFI of Rizal, where he was
found guilty. Court a quo likewise granted the petition
that reserved the right to bring a separate civil
action.
3. CA affirmed ruling in the criminal case. Meanwhile,
the civil action was instituted in the CFI of Manila
against Fontanilla and his employer Fausto
Barredo. CFI of Manila awarded damages to the
parents worth 2,000 plus legal interest. CA reduced
the amount to 1k. Barredos responsibility hinged on
his failure to abide by the standard set by the Civil
Code which is that of exercising care as a good
father of a family. Under this, Barredo is primarily
liable.
4. Defendants assert that Barredo is only subsidiarily
liable under Art. 100 of the RPC since Fontanilla was
found guilty under that said law.
ISSUES:
1. WoN petitioners may institute separate civil
action against the respondents

2. WoN Barredo may be held primarily liable as the

employer for Fontanillas negligence
PROVISION:
Article 1093 (Old Civil Code) Owners or directors
of an establishment or business are equally liable
for any damages caused by their employees while
engaged in the branch of the service in which
employed, or on occasion of the performance of
their duties.
Article 2180 (in NCC, as adopted). 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.
RULING + RATIO:
1. YES. Petitioners may institute separate civil
action to recover damages.
- Petitioners are seeking to recover damages
not as a result of the felony (delito), but as a
result of a quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana). The
latter is recognized by the civil code as a
separate legal concept.
- The court has recognizes how delicts and
quasi-delicts overlap, and people resort to
bringing actions as quasi-delict because of
the speedier disposition of proceedings. The
court sees the advantage of bringing a case
under quasi-delict rather that criminal
negligence as a way to protect private rights
and efficaciously bring redress to the injured
party.
2. YES. Barredo is primarily/directly/principally
liable.
- Since the present action is a separate civil
suit and not an action to recover damages
arising from criminal liability, Barredos
negligence under the Civil Code provision
invoked makes him directly liable.
- Preponderance of evidence is sufficient to
prove his negligence (instead of beyond
reasonable doubt) because the case at bar
is a civil action.
DISPOSITION: Petition granted.
- CA decision affirmed. Costs against
defendants.