Barredo vs. Garcia, G.R. No.

L-48006, July 8, 1942

FACTS:
On May 3, 1936, a 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.
Garcia’s parents brought a criminal action against Fontanilla before the
Court of First Instance of Rizal, which found him guilty of the charge. The court
likewise granted the petition to reserve the right to bring a separate civil action.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed ruling in the criminal case. Meanwhile, the
civil action was instituted in the Court of First Instance (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.
Barredo’s 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.
Defendants assert that Barredo is only subsidiarily liable under Art. 100 of
the RPC since Fontanilla was found guilty under that said law.

ISSUE:
May Barredo be held primarily liable as the employer for Fontanilla’s
negligence?

Ruling:
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 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.
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, Barredo’s negligence under the Civil Code provision invoked makes him
directly liable.