Case Summary (G.R. No. 48006)
Procedural History
After securing criminal conviction, Faustino’s parents filed a separate civil action on March 7, 1939, against Barredo as the taxi owner and employer. The Court of First Instance of Manila held Barredo liable and awarded ₱2,000 in damages with legal interest. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reduced the award to ₱1,000 and affirmed that Barredo’s liability arose under Article 1903 of the Civil Code for negligence in selecting and supervising Fontanilla, who had prior speeding violations.
Issue on Employer’s Liability
Barredo contended that his liability was governed exclusively by the Revised Penal Code, making him only subsidiarily liable upon exhaustion of Fontanilla’s civil assets. He argued Article 1903 of the Civil Code applies only to non-punishable negligence and thus is inapplicable where the employee’s fault is a crime.
Distinction Between Civil and Criminal Liability
The Supreme Court emphasized that quasi-delicts under the Civil Code (Articles 1902–1910) constitute a distinct branch of civil obligation separate from civil liability arising from crimes under the Penal Code (Article 100). While the same negligent act may give rise to both (i) a criminal action with attendant civil liability and (ii) an independent civil action for quasi-delict, the employer’s primary responsibility under Article 1903 is not subsidiary to criminal liability but stands on its own.
Jurisprudential Foundations
Drawing on Roman Lex Aquilia, Spanish Civil Code doctrine and decisions of Spain’s Supreme Tribunal, and prior Philippine decisions (e.g., Rakes v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co.), the Court held that:
• Article 1903 imposes direct liability on employers for acts of their employees, subject only to proof of “all the diligence of a good father of a family” in selection and supervision.
• This liability is juris tantum and may be rebutted by evidence of due diligence.
• Civil and criminal proceedings address different interests and operate under distinct procedural and proof standards; civil redress should not be contingent on criminal prosecution or exhaustion of the employee’s assets.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The Court reviewed the overlapping scope of Article
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 48006)
Case Title and Citation
- G.R. No. 48006, decided July 8, 1942
- Reported at 73 Phil. 607
- Petitioner: Fausto Barredo
- Respondents: Severino Garcia and Timotea Almario
Facts
- On May 3, 1936 at about 1:30 a.m., a head-on collision occurred on the Malabon–Navotas road, Rizal Province, between:
- A Malate Taxicab owned by petitioner Barredo and driven by Pedro Fontanilla
- A carretela guided by Pedro Dimapilis
- The carretela overturned; 16-year-old passenger Faustino Garcia suffered injuries and died two days later.
- Criminal proceedings in the CFI of Rizal convicted Fontanilla of negligent homicide (indeterminate sentence: one year and one day to two years prision correccional). Civil claims were expressly reserved.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed Fontanilla’s conviction.
Procedural History
- March 7, 1939: Faustino’s parents (Severino Garcia and Timotea Almario) filed a civil action in the CFI of Manila against Barredo (sole proprietor and Fontanilla’s employer).
- July 8, 1939: The CFI of Manila awarded P2,000 plus legal interest from complaint date.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals reduced damages to P1,000 with interest from institution of action.
- Barredo filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court.
Issue
- May the respondents maintain a separate civil action against their son’s employer, Fausto Barredo, holding him primarily and directly liable under Article 1903 of the Civil Code for the negligent acts of his employee—even though Fontanilla’s negligence was punishable under the Penal Code and the employer’s liability under that Code is typically subsidiary?
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Barredo’s liability is governed by the Revised Penal Code’s subsidiary-liability scheme; no primary civil suit may proceed until the employee’s property is exhausted.
- Article 1903 of the Civil Code applies only to torts “not punishable by law,” and thus does not extend to negligence punished under the Penal Code (Article 365).
Court of Appeals’ Ruling
- Admitted: Barredo was Fontanilla’s employer.
- Found insufficie