Torts And Damages Case Digest: Fausto

Barredo V. Severino Garcia And Timotea

Laws Applicable: ART. 1089, ART. 1092, ART. 1093, ART. 1094 of the Civil
Code, ART. 101, ART. 102, ART. 103, ART. 365 of RPC
Lessons Applicable: Quasi-delict (Torts and Damages)

FACTS:
 May 3, 1936 1:30 am: road between Malabon and Navotas, Province of
Rizal, there was a head-on collision between a taxi of the Malate Taxicab
driven by Pedro Fontanilla and a carretela guided by Pedro Dimapalis
 The carretela was overturned and its passenger Faustino Garcia
(16 years old boy) suffered injuries from which he died two days later
 Fontanilla 's negligence was the cause of the mishap
 he was driving on the wrong side of the road and at high
speed
 criminal action was filed against Fontanilla in the CFI
 CA affirmed CFI: he was convicted and sentenced to an indeterminate
sentence of 1 year and 1 day to 2 years of prision correccional. The court in
the criminal case granted the petition that the right to bring a separate civil
action be reserved. 
 March 7, 1939: parents Severino Garcia and Timotea Almario brought an
action in the CFI of Manila against Fausto Barredo as the sole proprietor of
the Malate Taxicab and employer of Fontanilla 
 Barredo was careless in employing Fontanilla who had been
caught several times for violation of the Automobile Law and
speeding violation which appeared in the records of the Bureau of Public
Works available to be public and to himself
 Therefore, he must indemnify plaintiffs under the provisions of
article 1903 of the Civil Code
 defense: liability of Barredo is governed by the
RPC>liability is only subsidiary (no civil action against the driver Fontanilla
Barredo cannot be held responsible in the case)
 CFI awarded damages for P2,000 plus legal interest 
 CA: reduced the damages to P1,000 w/ legal interest 
 Applied Article 1903: applicable only to those (obligations) arising
from wrongful or negligent acts or commission not punishable by law
 by reason of his negligence in the selection or supervision
of his servant or employee
ISSUE: W/N the parents may bring separate civil action against Barredo, thus
making him primarily and directly, responsible under article 1903 of the Civil
Code as an employer 

HELD: YES. CA Affirmed.

CIVIL CODE
ART. 1089 Obligations arise from law, from contracts and quasi-
contracts, and from acts and omissions which are unlawful or in
which any kind of fault or negligence intervenes.
xxx     xxx     xxx
ART. 1092. Civil obligations arising from felonies or misdemeanors
shall be governed by the provisions of the Penal Code.
ART. 1093. Those which are derived from acts or omissions in which
fault or negligence, not punishable by law, intervenes shall be
subject to the provisions of Chapter II, Title XVI of this book.
xxx     xxx     xxx
ART 1902. Any person who by an act or omission causes damage to
another by his fault or negligence shall be liable for the damage so
done.
ART. 1903. The obligation imposed by the next preceding article is
enforcible, not only for personal acts and omissions, but also for
those of persons for whom another is responsible.
The father and in, case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are
liable for any damages caused by the minor children who live with
them.
Guardians are liable for damages done by minors or incapacitated
persons subject to their authority and living with them.
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.
The State is subject to the same liability when it acts through a
special agent, but not if the damage shall have been caused by the
official upon whom properly devolved the duty of doing the act
performed, in which case the provisions of the next preceding
article shall be applicable.
Finally, teachers or directors of arts trades are liable for any
damages caused by their pupils or apprentices while they are under
their custody.
The liability imposed by this article shall cease in case the persons
mentioned therein prove that they are exercised all the diligence of
a good father of a family to prevent the damage.
ART. 1904. Any person who pays for damage caused by his
employees may recover from the latter what he may have paid.
REVISED PENAL CODE
ART. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. — Every person
criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
ART. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. — The
exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3,
5, and 6 of article 12 and in subdivision 4 of article 11 of this Code
does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be
enforced to the following rules:
First. In cases of subdivision, 1, 2 and 3 of article 12 the civil
liability for acts committed by any imbecile or insane person, and by
a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine but under
fifteen years of age, who has acted without discernment shall
devolve upon those having such person under their legal authority
or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence
on their part.
Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor
under his authority, legal guardianship, or control, or if such person
be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their
own property, excepting property exempt from execution, in
accordance with the civil law.
Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of article 11, the
person for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be
civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have
received.
The courts shall determine, in their sound discretion, the
proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable.
When the respective shares can not be equitably determined, even
approximately, or when the liability also attaches to the
Government, or to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and,
in all events, whenever the damage has been caused with the
consent of the authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be
made in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations.
Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of article 12, the
persons using violence or causing the fear shall be primarily liable
and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, those doing the act
shall be liable, saving always to the latter that part of their property
exempt from execution.
ART. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavern keepers and
proprietors of establishment. — In default of persons criminally
liable, innkeepers, tavern keepers, and any other persons or
corporation shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their
establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal
ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall have
been committed by them or their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods
taken by robbery or theft within their houses lodging therein, or the
person, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided that such
guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the
person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the
inn; and shall furthermore have followed the directions which such
innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect
to the care of and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach
in case of robbery with violence against or intimidation against or
intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeeper's
employees.
ART. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. — The
subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also
apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in
any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants,
pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of
their duties.
xxx     xxx     xxx
ART. 365. Imprudence and negligence. — Any person who, by
reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been
intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty
of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony,
the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods
shall be imposed.
Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit
an act which would otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer
the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods;
if it would have constituted a less serious felony, the penalty
of arresto mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed."
  Some of the differences between crimes under the Penal Code and
the culpa aquiliana or cuasi-delito under the Civil Code are:
 1. That crimes affect the public interest, while cuasi-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 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 king of fault or negligence
intervenes." However, it should be noted that not all violations of the penal
law produce civil responsibility, such as begging in contravention of
ordinances, violation of the game laws, infraction of the rules of traffic when
nobody is hurt.

Penal Code Civil Code
minors and incapacitated
other persons
persons
subsidiary (articles 20
direct (article 19) direct(Art. 1903) 
and 21)
 same act may come under both the Penal Code and the Civil Code
 interpretation of the words of article 1093 "fault or negligence not
punished by law"
 consequence of which are regulated by articles 1902 and 1903 of
the Civil Code
 The acts to which these articles are applicable are
understood to be those not growing out of pre-existing duties of the parties
to one another. 
 But where relations already formed give rise to duties, whether
springing from contract or quasi contract, then breaches of those duties are
subject to articles 1101, 1103, and 1104 of the same code. 
 A typical application of this distinction may be found in the
consequences of a railway accident due to defective machinery supplied by
the employer. His liability to his employee would arise out of the contract of
employment, that to the passengers out of the contract for passage, while
that to the injured bystander would originate in the negligent act itself.
 Article 1903 of the Civil Code not only establishes liability in cases of
negligence, but also provides when the liability shall cease. It says:
"The liability referred to in this article shall cease when the persons mentioned
therein prove that they employed all the diligence of a good father of a family
to avoid the damage."
 exemption from civil liability established in article 1903 of the Civil Code
for all who have acted with the diligence of a good father of a family, is not
 applicable to the subsidiary civil liability provided in article 20 of the Penal
Code
 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
 Rationales:
1. Revised Penal Code in article 365 punishes not only reckless but also
simple negligence. If we were to hold that articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil
Code refer only to fault or negligence not punished by law, according to
the literal import of article 1093 of the Civil Code, the legal institution of
culpa aquiliana would have very little scope and application in actual life
2. to find the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt is required, while in a civil case, preponderance of
evidence is sufficient to make the defendant pay in damages. There are
numerous cases of criminal negligence which can not be shown beyond
reasonable doubt, but can be proved by a preponderance of evidence. In
such cases, the defendant can and should be made responsible in a civil
action under articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code. Otherwise, there
would be many instances of unvindicated civil wrongs. Ubi jus ibi
remedium.
3. It is much more equitable and just that such responsibility should fall
upon the principal or director who could have chosen a careful and prudent
employee, and not upon the injured person who could not exercise such
selection and who used such employee because of his confidence in the
principal or director
4. not depending on the issues, limitations and results of a criminal
prosecution, and entirely directed by the party wronged or his counsel, is
more likely to secure adequate and efficacious redress