FAUSTO BARREDO, petitioner, vs. SEVERINO GARCIA and TIMOTEO ALMARIO, respondents
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 Civil Code.)
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 of Article 1903 of the Civil Code, the primary and direct responsibility of employers may be 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 civil responsibility, 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.”
