FAUSTO BARREDO, petitioner, vs.
SEVERINO GARCIA and TIMOTEO ALMARIO, respondents of Article 1903 of the Civil Code, the primary and direct responsibility of employers may be
No. 48006. July 8, 1942
Facts:
A head-on collision between a taxicab owned by Barredo and a carretela occurred. The carretela was
overturned and one of its passengers, a 16-year old boy, the son of Garcia and Almario, died as a result
of the injuries which he received. The driver of the taxicab, an employee of Barredo, was prosecuted for
the crime and was convicted. When the criminal case was instituted, Garcia and Almario reserved their
right to institute a separate civil action for damages. Subsequently, Garcia and Almario instituted
a civil action for damages against Barredo, the employer of the taxicab driver.
Issue:
Whether or not they can file a separate civil action against Fausto Barredo making him primarily
and directly responsible
Held:
(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 of the CivilCode.)
The defendant maintains that Fontanilla’s negligence being punishable by the Penal Code,
his (defendant’s) liability as an employer is only subsidiary, according to said Penal Code, but
Fontanilla has not been sued in a civil action and his property has not been exhausted. To decide
the main issue, we must cut thru the tangle that has, in the minds of many, confused and jumbled
together delitos and cuasi delitos, or crimes under the Penal Code and fault or negligence
under Articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. According to the Supreme Tribunal of Spain:
“Authorities support the proposition that a quasi-delict or ‘culpa aquiliana’ 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. Upon this principle, and on the wording and spirit
safely anchored.
“It will thus be seen that while the terms of Article 1902 of the Civil Code seem to be broad
enough to cover the driver’s negligence in the instant case, nevertheless Article 1903 limits
cuasi-delitos TO ACTS OR OMISSIONS ‘NOT PUNISHABLE BY LAW.’ But inasmuch as Article 365 of
the Revised Penal Code punishes not only reckless but even simple imprudence or negligence, the fault
or negligence under Article 1902 of the Civil Code has apparently been crowded out. It is this
overlapping that makes the “confusion worse confounded.’ However, a closer study shows that such
a concurrence of scope in regard to negligent acts does not destroy the distinction between
the civil liability arising from a crime and the responsibility for cuasi-delitos or culpa
extra-contractual. The same negligent act causing damages may produce civil liability arising from a
crime under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code; or create an action for cuasi-delito or culpa
extra-contractual under Articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. “Some of the differences between
crimes under the Penal 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 civilresponsibility, such as begging in contravention of ordinances, violation of the game
laws, infraction of the rules of traffic when nobody is hurt.
“The foregoing authorities clearly demonstrate the separate individuality of cuasi-delitos or culpa
aquiliana under the Civil Code. Specifically they show that there is a distinction
between civil liability arising from criminal negligence (governed by the Penal Code) and
responsibility for fault or negligence under Articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code, and that the
same negligent act may produce either a civil liability arising from a crime under the Penal Code, or
a separate responsibility for fault or negligence under Articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code.
Still more concretely the authorities above cited render it inescapable to conclude that the employer
– in this case the defendant-petitioner – is primarily and directly liable under Article 1903 of
the Civil Code.”
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 driver’s negligence) but rather for his own negligence in
selecting his employee (Article 1903).
Maria Benita A. Dulay, Et Al., V. The Court Of Appeals, Et Al.(1995)
FACTS:
 December 7, 1988: Due to a heated argument, Benigno Torzuela, the security guard on
duty at Big Bang Sa Alabang carnival, shot and killed Atty. Napoleon Dulay
 Maria Benita A. Dulay, widow of the deceased Napoleon Dulay, in her own behalf and in
behalf of her minor children filed an action for damages against Benigno Torzuela for wanton
and reckless discharge of the firearm and Safeguard Investigation and Security Co., Inc.,
(Safeguard) and/or Superguard Security Corp. (Superguard) as employers
for negligence having failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the
supervision and control of its employee to avoid the injury
 Superguard:
 Torzuela's act of shooting Dulay was beyond the scope of his duties,
and was committed with deliberate intent (dolo), the civil liability therefor is governed by Article
100 of the Revised Penal Code, which states:
Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of a felony. — Every person criminally liable for a felony is also
civilly liable.
 civil liability under Article 2176 applies only to quasi-offenses under
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code
 CA Affirmed RTC: dismising the case of Dulay
ISSUE: W/N Superguard and Safeguard commited an actionable breach and can be civilly liable even
if Benigno Torzuela is already being prosecuted for homicide
HELD: YES. Petition for Review is Granted. remanded to RTC for trial on the merits
 Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:
Sec. 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for
the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party
waives the civil action , reserves his right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to
the criminal action
Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code, and damages under
Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of
the accused
 Contrary to the theory of private respondents, there is no justification for limiting the scope
of Article 2176 of the Civil Code to acts or omissions resulting from negligence. Well-entrenched is
the doctrine that article 2176 covers not only acts committed with negligence, but also acts which
are voluntary and intentional.
 Article 2176, where it refers to "fault or negligence," covers not only acts "not punishable by
law" but also acts criminal in character; whether intentional and voluntary or negligent.
Consequently, a separate civil action against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is
criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not
allowed, if he is actually charged also criminally, to recover damages on both scores, and would
be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in
the two cases vary
 extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule 111, refers exclusively to
civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas the civil liability for the
same act considered as quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a
declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been
committed by the accused
 It is enough that the complaint alleged that Benigno Torzuela shot Napoleon Dulay resulting
in the latter's death; that the shooting occurred while Torzuela was on duty; and that either
SUPERGUARD and/or SAFEGUARD was Torzuela's employer and responsible for his acts.
Air France vs Rafael Carrascoso
Civil Law – Torts and Damages – Negligence – Malfeasance – Quasi-Delict
Remedial Law – Evidence – Hearsay Rule – Res Gestae – Startling Event
In March 1958, Rafael Carrascoso and several other Filipinos were tourists en route to Rome from
Manila. Carrascoso was issued a first class round trip ticket by Air France. But during a stop-over in
Bangkok, he was asked by the plane manager of Air France to vacate his seat because a white man
allegedly has a “better right” than him. Carrascoso protested but when things got heated and upon
advise of other Filipinos on board, Carrascoso gave up his seat and was transferred to the plane’s
tourist class.
After their tourist trip when Carrascoso was already in the Philippines, he sued Air France for damages
for the embarrassment he suffered during his trip. In court, Carrascoso testified, among others, that he
when he was forced to take the tourist class, he went to the plane’s pantry where he was approached
by a plane purser who told him that he noted in the plane’s journal the following:
First-class passenger was forced to go to the tourist class against his will, and that
the captain refused to intervene
The said testimony was admitted in favor of Carrascoso. The trial court eventually awarded damages in
favor of Carrascoso. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Air France is assailing the decision of the trial court and the CA. It avers that the issuance of a first class
ticket to Carrascoso was not an assurance that he will be seated in first class because allegedly
truth and in fact, that was not the true intent between the parties.
Air France also questioned the admissibility of Carrascoso’s testimony regarding the note made by the
purser because the said note was never presented in court.
ISSUE 1: Whether or not Air France is liable for damages and on what basis.
ISSUE 2: Whether or not the testimony of Carrasoso regarding the note which was not presented in
court is admissible in evidence.
HELD 1: Yes. It appears that Air France’s liability is based on culpa-contractual and on culpa aquiliana.
Culpa Contractual
There exists a contract of carriage between Air France and Carrascoso. There was a contract to furnish
Carrasocoso a first class passage; Second, That said contract was breached when Air France failed to
furnish first class transportation at Bangkok; and Third, that there was bad faith when Air France’s
employee compelled Carrascoso to leave his first class accommodation berth “after he was already,
seated” and to take a seat in the tourist class, by reason of which he suffered inconvenience,
embarrassments and humiliations, thereby causing him mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded
feelings and social humiliation, resulting in moral damages.
The Supreme Court did not give credence to Air France’s claim that the issuance of a first class ticket to
a passenger is not an assurance that he will be given a first class seat. Such claim is simply incredible.
Culpa Aquiliana
Here, the SC ruled, even though there is a contract of carriage between Air France and Carrascoso,
there is also a tortuous act based on culpa aquiliana. Passengers do not contract merely for
transportation. They have a right to be treated by the carrier’s employees with kindness, respect,
courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to be protected against personal misconduct,
injurious language, indignities and abuses from such employees. So it is, that any rule or discourteous
conduct on the part of employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages against
the carrier. Air France’s contract with Carrascoso is one attended with public duty. The stress of
Carrascoso’s action is placed upon his wrongful expulsion. This is a violation of public duty by the Air
France — a case of quasi-delict. Damages are proper.
HELD: 2: Yes. The testimony of Carrascoso must be admitted based on res gestae. The subject of
inquiry is not the entry, but the ouster incident. Testimony on the entry does not come within the
proscription of the best evidence rule. Such testimony is admissible. Besides, when the dialogue
between Carrascoso and the purser happened, the impact of the startling occurrence was still fresh and
continued to be felt. The excitement had not as yet died down. Statements then, in this environment,
in
are admissible as part of the res gestae. The utterance of the purser regarding his entry in the
notebook was spontaneous, and related to the circumstances of the ouster incident. Its trustworthiness
has been guaranteed. It thus escapes the operation of the hearsay rule. It forms part of the res gestae.
YHT REALY CORP V CA
FACTS
· Maurice Peaches McLoughlin is an Australian businessman-philanthropist
who used to stay at the Sheraton Hotel during his trips to the Philippines prior to 1984. He met
Brunhilda Mata-Tan who befriended him and showed him around. Tan convinced Mcloughlin to
 transfer to the Tropicana from the Sheraton where afterwards he stayed during his trips from Dec
1984 to Sept 1987.
· On 30 Oct 1987, McLoughlin arrived from Australia and registered with
Tropicana. He rented a safety deposit box as his usual practice. The box required two keys, the
guest had one and one from the management. He placed US $10,000 in one envelope and
US$5,000 in another , AU$10,000 in another envelope and other envelopes with his passport and
credit cards. On 12 Dec 1987, he took from the box the envelope with US$5,000 and the one with
AU$10,000 to go to Hong Kong for a short visit, because he was not checking out. When he
arrived in HK, the envelope with US$5,000 only contained US$3,000, but because he had no idea if
the safety deposit box has been tampered, he thought it was just bad accounting.
· After returning to Manila, he checked out of the Tropicana on 18 Dec 1987
and left for Australia. When he arrived he discovered that the envelope with US$10,000 was short
of US$5,000. He also noticed that the jewelry he bought in Hong Kong which he stored in the
safety deposit box upon his return to Tropicana was likewise missing, except for a diamond
bracelet.
· He went back to the PH on 4 Apr 1988 and asked Lainez (who had custody of
the management key) if some money was missing or returned to her, to which the latter
answered there was not. He again registered at the Tropicana and rented a safety deposit box. He
placed an envelope containing US$15,000, another of AU$10,000. On 16 Apr, he opened his safety
deposit box and noticed that US$2,000 and AU$4,500 was missing from the envelopes.
· He immediately confronted Lainez and Payam who admitted that Tan
opened the safety deposit box with the key assigned to McLoughlin. McLoughlin went up to his
room where Tan was staying and confronted her. Tan admitted that she had stolen
McLoughlin’s key and was able to open the safety deposit box with the assistance of Lopez,
Payam and Lainez. Lopez also told McLoughlin that Tan stole the key assigned to McLoughlin
while the latter was asleep.
· McLoughlin requested the management for an investigation of the
incident. Lopez got in touch with Tan and arranged for a meeting with the police and
McLoughlin. When the police did not arrive, Lopez and Tan went to the room of McLoughlin
at Tropicana and thereat, Lopez wrote on a piece of paper a promissory note.
· He made Lopez and Tan sign a promissory note for him for the loss. However,
Lopez refused liability on behalf of the hotel, reasoning that McLoughlin signed an "Undertaking
for the Use of Safety Deposit Box" which disclaims any liability of the hotel for things put inside
the box.
· On 17 May 1988 McLoughlin went back to AU and consulted his lawyers. They
wrote a letter addressed to Pres. Cory Aquino which was pushed back to the DOJ and the Western
Police District. He went back from the PH to AU several times more to attend business and follow
up but the matter was only filed on 3 Dec 1990 since he was not there to personally follow up.
· McLoughlin filed an action against YHT Realty Corporation, Lopez, Lainez,
Payam and Tan.
· The RTC rendered judgment in favor of McLoughlin. The CA modified only the
amount of damages awarded.
· Tan and Lopez, however, were not served with summons, and trial proceeded
with only Lainez, Payam and YHT Realty Corporation as defendants.
(a) whether the loss of money and jewelry is supported by the evidence. YES.
Where the credibility of a witness is an issue, the established rule is that great respect is accorded to
the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses by the trial court. The trial court is in the best position to
assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies because of its unique opportunity to observe
the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.
(b) whether there was gross negligence on the part of the innkeepers
Payam and Lainez, who were employees of Tropicana, had custody of the master key of the
management when the loss took place. They even admitted that they assisted Tan on three separate
occasions in opening McLoughlin’s safety deposit box.
The management contends that McLoughlin made its employees believe that Tan was his spouse for
she was always with him most of the time. The evidence on record is bereft of any showing that
McLoughlin introduced Tan to the management as his wife. Mere close companionship and intimacy
are not enough to warrant such conclusion. They should have confronted him as to his relationship
with Tan considering that the latter had been observed opening McLoughlin’s safety deposit box a
number of times at the early hours of the morning.
Art 2180, par (4) of the same Code provides that the owners and managers of an establishment or
enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the
branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. Given the fact that
the loss of McLoughlin’s money was consummated through the negligence of Tropicana’s employees
both the employees and YHT, as owner of Tropicana, should be held solidarily liable pursuant to Art
2193.
WON the "Undertaking for the Use of the Safety Deposit Box" is null and void.
Yes, it is null and void. Art. 2003[1] is controlling. This is an expression of public policy that the hotel
business like common carriers are imbued with public interest. This responsibility cannot be waived
away by any contrary stipulation in so-called "undertakings" that ordinarily appear in prepared forms
imposed by hotel keepers on guests for their signature.
The CA (former case) even ruled before that hotelkeepers are liable even though the effects are not
delivered to them or their employees, but it is enough that the effects are within the hotel or inn.
Pars. 2 and 4 of the undertaking manifestly contravene Art. 2003 of the NCC. Meanwhile, the defense
that Art. 2002 exempts the hotel-keeper from liability if the loss is due to the acts of the guest, family or
visitors falls because the hotel is guilty of negligence as well. This provision presupposes that the
hotel-keeper is not guilty of concurrent negligence or has not contributed in any degree to the
occurrence of the loss.
dispositive
· Damages awarded by the lower court sustained
· US$2,000.00 and AUS$4,500.00 or their peso equivalent at the time of
payment;
· Air fares for a total of 11 trips + transpo expense
· Hotel payments
· Moral 50K
· ED 10K
· AF 200K

[1] Art. 2003. The hotel-keeper cannot free himself from responsibility by posting notices to the effect
that he is not liable for the Arts brought by the guest. Any stipulation between the hotel-keeper and the
guest whereby the responsibility of the former as set forth in Arts 1998 to 2001 [37] is suppressed or
diminished shall be void.