Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942

7/24/2019 Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942

1/25

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-48006 July 8, 1942

FAUSTO BARREDO,petitioner,

vs.SEVERINO GARIA !"# TI$OTEA AL$ARIO,respondents.

Celedonio P. Gloria and Antonio Barredo for petitioner.

Jose G. Advincula for respondents.

BOOBO, J.%

This case comes up from the Court of Appeals which held the petitioner herein, Fausto

Barredo, liable in damages for the death of Faustino Garcia caused b the negligence of

!edro Fontanilla, a ta"i driver emploed b said Fausto Barredo.

At about half past one in the morning of #a $, %&$', on the road between #alabon and

Navotas, !rovince of (i)al, there was a head*on collision between a ta"i of the #alate

Ta"icab driven b !edro Fontanilla and a carretela guided b !edro +imapalis. The

carretela was overturned, and one of its passengers, %'*ear*old bo Faustino Garcia,

suffered inuries from which he died two das later. A criminal action was filed against

Fontanilla in the Court of First -nstance of (i)al, and he was convicted and sentenced to an

indeterminate sentence of one ear and one da to two ears ofprision correccional. The

court in the criminal case granted the petition that the right to bring a separate civil action be

reserved. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence of the lower court in the criminal

case. everino Garcia and Timotea Almario, parents of the deceased on #arch /, %&$&,

brought an action in the Court of First -nstance of #anila against Fausto Barredo as the sole

proprietor of the #alate Ta"icab and emploer of !edro Fontanilla. 0n 1ul 2, %&$&, the

Court of First -nstance of #anila awarded damages in favor of the plaintiffs for !3,444 plus

legal interest from the date of the complaint. This decision was modified b the Court of

Appeals b reducing the damages to !%,444 with legal interest from the time the action was

instituted. -t is undisputed that Fontanilla 5s negligence was the cause of the mishap, as he

was driving on the wrong side of the road, and at high speed. As to Barredo5s responsibilit,

the Court of Appeals found6

... -t is admitted that defendant is Fontanilla5s emploer. There is proof that he

e"ercised the diligence of a good father of a famil to prevent damage. 7ee p. 33,

appellant5s brief.8 -n fact it is shown he was careless in emploing Fontanilla who had

been caught several times for violation of the Automobile 9aw and speeding 7E"hibit

A8 : violation which appeared in the records of the Bureau of !ublic ;or


2/25

The main theor of the defense is that the liabilit of Fausto Barredo is governed b the

(evised !enal Code= hence, his liabilit is onl subsidiar, and as there has been no civil

action against !edro Fontanilla, the person criminall liable, Barredo cannot be held

responsible in the case. The petitioner5s brief states on page %46

... The Court of Appeals holds that the petitioner is being sued for his failure toe"ercise all the diligence of a good father of a famil in the selection and supervision

of !edro Fontanilla to prevent damages suffered b the respondents. -n other words,

The Court of Appeals insists on appling in the case article %&4$ of the Civil Code.

Article %&4$ of the Civil Code is found in Chapter --, Title %', Boo< -> of the Civil

Code. This fact ma


3/25

and spirit article %&4$ of the Civil Code, the primar and direct responsibilit of emploers

ma be safel anchored.

The pertinent provisions of the Civil Code and (evised !enal Code are as follows6

C->-9 C0+E

A(T. %42& 0bligations arise from law, from contracts and @uasi*contracts, and from

acts and omissions which are unlawful or in which an


4/25

Finall, teachers or directors of arts trades are liable for an damages caused b

their pupils or apprentices while the are under their custod.

The liabilit imposed b this article shall cease in case the persons mentioned

therein prove that the are e"ercised all the diligence of a good father of a famil to

prevent the damage.

A(T. %&4. An person who pas for damage caused b his emploees ma recover

from the latter what he ma have paid.

(E>-E+ !ENA9 C0+E

A(T. %44. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. : Ever person criminall liable

for a felon is also civill liable.

A(T. %4%. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. : The e"emption fromcriminal liabilit established in subdivisions %, 3, $, D, and ' of article %3 and in

subdivision of article %% of this Code does not include e"emption from civil liabilit,

which shall be enforced to the following rules6

irst.-n cases of subdivision, %, 3 and $ of article %3 the civil liabilit for acts

committed b an imbecile or insane person, and b a person under nine ears of

age, or b one over nine but under fifteen ears of age, who has acted without

discernment shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal authorit

or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on their part.

hould there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authorit,

legal guardianship, or control, or if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile,

or minor shall respond with their own propert, e"cepting propert e"empt from

e"ecution, in accordance with the civil law.

!econd.-n cases falling within subdivision of article %%, the person for whose

benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civill liable in proportion to the benefit

which the ma have received.

The courts shall determine, in their sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which

each one shall be liable.

;hen the respective shares can not be e@uitabl determined, even appro"imatel, or when

the liabilit also attaches to the Government, or to the maorit 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 b

special laws or regulations.


5/25

"hird. -n cases falling within subdivisions D and ' of article %3, the persons using violence or

causing the fear shall be primaril liable and secondaril, or, if there be no such persons,

those doing the act shall be liable, saving alwas to the latter that part of their propert

e"empt from e"ecution.

A(T. %43. !ubsidiary civil liability of inn#eepers$ tavern #eepers and proprietors ofestablish%ent. : -n default of persons criminall liable, inn


6/25

limits cuasi-delitosto acts or omissions ?not punishable b law.? But inasmuch as article $'D

of the (evised !enal Code punishes not onl rec


7/25

+orado #ontero in his essa on ?(esponsibilidad? in the ?Enciclopedia 1uridica Espaola?

7>ol. >--, p. %8 sas6

El concepto uridico de la responsabilidad civilabarca diversos aspectos

comprende a diferentes personas. Asi, e"iste una responsabilidad civil propiamente

dicha, @ue en ningun casl lleva apareada responsabilidad criminal alguna, otra@ue es consecuencia indeclinable de la penal @ue nace de todo delito o falta.?

The uridical concept of civil responsibilit has various aspects and comprises

different persons. Thus, there is a civil responsibilit, properl spea


8/25

los fines sociales politicos del mismo, desenvuelven ordenan la materia de

responsabilidades civiles nacidas de delito, en terminos separados del regimen por

le comun de la culpa @ue se denomina a@uiliana, por alusion a precedentes

legislativos del Corpus Juris. eria intempestivo un paralelo entre a@uellas

ordenaciones, la de la obligacion de indemni)ar a titulo de culpa civil= pero viene al

caso es necesaria una de las diferenciaciones @ue en el tal paralelo se notarian.

9os articulos 34 3% del Codigo !enal, despues de distribuir a su modo las

responsabilidades civiles, entre los @ue sean por diversos conceptos culpables del

delito o falta, las hacen e"tensivas a las empresas los establecimientos al servicio

de los cuales estan los delincuentes= pero con caracter subsidiario, o sea, segun el

te"to literal, en defecto de los que sean responsables cri%inal%ente. No coincide en

ello el Codigo Civil, cuo articulo %&4$, dice= 9a obligacion @ue impone el articulo

anterior es e&igible, no solo por los actos omisiones propios, sino por los de

aquellas personas de quienes se debe responder= personas en la enumeracion de

las cuales figuran los dependientes empleados de los establecimientos oempresas, sea por actos del servicio, sea con ocasion de sus funciones. !or esto

acontece, se observa en la urisprudencia, @ue las empresas, despues de

intervenir en las causas criminales con el caracter subsidiario de su responsabilidad

civil por ra)on del delito, son demandadas condenadas directa y aislada%ente,

cuando se trata de la obligacion, ante los tribunales civiles.

iendo como se ve, diverso el titulo de esta obligacion, formando verdadero

postulado de nuestro regimen udicial la separacion entre usticia punitiva

tribunales de lo civil, de suerte @ue tienen unos otros normas de fondo en distintos

cuerpos legales, diferentes modos de proceder, habiendose, por aadidura,abstenido de asistir al uicio criminal la Compaia del Ferrocarril Cantabrico, @ue se

reservo eercitar sus acciones, parece innegable @ue la de indemni)acion por los

daos peruicios @ue le irrogo el cho@ue, no estuvo sub )udiceante el Tribunal del

1urado, ni fue sentenciada, sino @ue permanecio intacta, al pronunciarse el fallo de

3% de mar)o. Aun cuando el veredicto no hubiese sido de inculpabilidad, mostrose

mas arriba, @ue tal accion @uedaba legitimamente reservada para despues del

proceso= pero al declararse @ue no e"istio delito, ni responsabilidad dimanada de

delito, materia unicasobre @ue tenian urisdiccion a@uellos u)gadores, se redobla el

motivo para la obligacion civil e& lege, se patenti)a mas mas @ue la accion para

pedir su cumplimiento permanece incolume, e"traa a la cosa )u*gada.

As things are, aproposof the realit pure and simple of the facts, it seems less

tenable that there should beres )udicatawith regard to the civil obligation for

damages on account of the losses caused b the collision of the trains. The title

upon which the action for reparation is based cannot be confused with the civil

responsibilities born of a cri%e, because there e"ists in the latter, whatever each

nature, a culpasurrounded with aggravating aspects which give rise to penal


9/25

measures that are more or less severe. The inur caused b a felon or

misdemeanor upon civil rights re@uires restitutions, reparations, or indemnifications

which, li


10/25

damages caused to it b the collision was not sub )udicebefore the "ribunal del

Jurado, nor was it the subect of a sentence, but it remained intact when the decision

of #arch 3% was rendered. Even if the verdict had not been that of ac@uittal, it has

alread been shown that such action had been legitimatel reserved till after the

criminal prosecution= but because of the declaration of the non*e"istence of the

felon and the non*e"istence of the responsibilit arising from the crime, which wasthe solesubect matter upon which the "ribunal del Juradohad urisdiction, there is

greater reason for the civil obligation e& lege, and it becomes clearer that the action

for its enforcement remain intact and is not res )udicata.

9aurent, a urist who has written a monumental wor< on the French Civil Code, on which the

panish Civil Code is largel based and whose provisions on cuasi-delitoor culpa e&tra-

contractualare similar to those of the panish Civil Code, sas, referring to article %$2 of

the French Civil Code which corresponds to article %&4$, panish Civil Code6

The action can be brought directl against the person responsible 7for another8,without including the author of the act. The action against the principal is accessor

in the sense that it implies the e"istence of a preudicial act committed b the

emploee, but it is not subsidiar in the sense that it can not be instituted till after the

udgment against the author of the act or at least, that it is subsidiar to the principal

action= the action for responsibilit 7of the emploer8 is in itself a principal action.

79aurent, !rinciples of French Civil 9aw, panish translation, >ol. 34, pp. /$*/$D.8

Amandi, in his ?Cuestionario del Codigo Civil (eformado? 7>ol. , pp. 3&, $48, declares

that the responsibilit of the emploer is principal and not subsidiar. e writes6

Cuestion %. 9a responsabilidad declarada en el articulo %&4$ por las acciones u

omisiones de a@uellas personas por las @ue se debe responder, es subsidiariaH es

principalH !ara contestar a esta pregunta es necesario saber, en primer lugar, en

@ue se funda el precepto legal. Es @ue realmente se impone una responsabilidad

por una falta aenaH Asi parece a primera vista= pero semeante afirmacion seria

contraria a la usticia a la ma"ima universal, segun la @ue las faltas son

personales, cada uno responde de a@uellas @ue le son imputables. 9a

responsabilidad de @ue tratamos se impone con ocasion de un delito o culpa, pero

nopor causade ellos, sino por causa del causi delito, esto es, de la imprudencia o

de la negligencia del padre, del tutor, del dueo o director del establecimiento, del

maestro, etc. Cuando cual@uiera de las personas @ue enumera el articulo citado

7menores de edad, incapacitados, dependientes, aprendices8 causan un dao, la le

presume @ue el padre, el tutor, el maestro, etc., han cometido una falta de

negligencia para prevenir o evitar el dao. Esta falta es la @ue la le castiga. No ha,

pues, responsabilidad por un hecho aeno, sino en la apariencia= en realidad la

responsabilidad se e"ige por un hecho propio. 9a idea de @ue esa responsabilidad

sea subsidiaria es, por lo tanto, completamente inadmisible.


11/25

uestion No. %. -s the responsibilit declared in article %&4$ for the acts or omissions

of those persons for who one is responsible, subsidiar or principalH -n order to

answer this @uestion it is necessar to ol. >--, p. /$6

Es decir, no responde de hechos aenos, por@ue se responde solo de su propia

culpa, doctrina del articulo %&43= mas por e"cepcion, se responde de la aena

respecto de a@uellas personas con las @ue media algun ne"o o vinculo, @ue motiva

o ra)ona la responsabilidad. Esta responsabilidad, es directa o es subsidiariaH En el

orden penal, el Codigo de esta clase distingue entre menores e incapacitados losdemas, declarando directa la primera 7articulo %&8 subsidiaria la segunda 7articulos

34 3%8= pero en el orden civil, en el caso del articulo %&4$, ha de entenderse

directa, por el tenor del articulo @ue impone la responsabilidad precisamente ?por los

actos de a@uellas personas de @uienes se deba responder.?

That is to sa, one is not responsible for the acts of others, because one is liable onl

for his own faults, this being the doctrine of article %&43= but, b e"ception, one is

liable for the acts of those persons with whom there is a bond or tie which gives rise

to the responsibilit. -s this responsibilit direct or subsidiarH -n the order of the

penal law, the !enal Code distinguishes between minors and incapacitated personson the one hand, and other persons on the other, declaring that the responsibilit for

the former is direct 7article %&8, and for the latter, subsidiar 7articles 34 and 3%8= but

in the scheme of the civil law, in the case of article %&4$, the responsibilit should be

understood as direct, according to the tenor of that articles, for precisel it imposes

responsibilit ?for the acts of those persons for whom one should be responsible.?


12/25

Coming now to the sentences of the upreme Tribunal of pain, that court has upheld the

principles above set forth6 that a quasi-delictor culpa e&tra-contractualis a separate and

distinct legal institution, independent from the civil responsibilit arising from criminal

liabilit, and that an emploer is, under article %&4$ of the Civil Code, primaril and directl

responsible for the negligent acts of his emploee.

0ne of the most important of those panish decisions is that of 0ctober 3%, %&%4. -n that

case, (amon 9afuente died as the result of having been run over b a street car owned b

the ?compaia Electric #adrilea de Traccion.? The conductor was prosecuted in a criminal

case but he was ac@uitted. Thereupon, the widow filed a civil action against the street car

compan, paing for damages in the amount of %D,444 pesetas. The lower court awarded

damages= so the compan appealed to the upreme Tribunal, alleging violation of articles

%&43 and %&4$ of the Civil Code because b final udgment the non*e"istence of fault or

negligence had been declared. The upreme Court of pain dismissed the appeal, saing6

Considerando @ue el primer motivo del recurso se funda en el e@uivocado supuestode @ue el Tribunal a quo, al condonar a la compaia Electrica #adrilea al pago del

dao causado con la muerte de (amon 9a fuente -)@uierdo, desconoce el valor

efectos uridicos de la sentencia absolutoria deictada en la causa criminal @ue se

siguio por el mismo hecho, cuando es lo cierto @ue de este han conocido las dos

urisdicciones bao diferentes as pectos, como la de lo criminal declrao dentro de

los limites de su competencia @ue el hecho de @ue se trata no era constitutivo de

delito por no haber mediado descuido o negligencia graves, lo @ue no e"clue,

siendo este el unico fundamento del fallo absolutorio, el concurso de la culpa o

negligencia no califacadas, fuente de obligaciones civiles segun el articulo %&43 del

Codigo, @ue alcan)an, segun el %&4$, netre otras perosnas, a los +irectores deestablecimientos o empresas por los daos causados por sus dependientes en

determinadas condiciones, es manifesto @ue la de lo civil, al conocer del mismo

hehco baho este ultimo aspecto al condenar a la compaia recurrente a la

indemni)acion del dao causado por uno de sus empleados, leos de infringer los

mencionados te"tos, en relacion con el articulo %%' de la 9e de Enuciamiento

Criminal, se ha atenido estrictamente a ellos, sin invadir atribuciones aenas a su

urisdiccion propia, ni contrariar en lo mas minimo el fallo recaido en la causa.

Considering that the first ground of the appeal is based on the mista


13/25


14/25

7!ee alsoentence of Februar %&, %&43, which is similar to the one above @uoted.8

-n the entence of the upreme Court of pain, dated Februar %, %&%&, an action was

brought against a railroad compan for damages because the station agent, emploed b

the compan, had unustl andfraudulently, refused to deliver certain articles consigned to

the plaintiff. The upreme Court of pain held that this action was properl under article%&43 of the Civil Code, the court saing6

Considerando @ue la sentencia discutida reconoce, en virtud de los hechos @ue

consigna con relacion a las pruebas del pleito6 %.I, @ue las e"pediciones facturadas

por la compaia ferroviaria a la consignacion del actor de las vasias vacias @ue en

su demanda relacionan tenian como fin el @ue este las devolviera a sus remitentes

con vinos alcoholes= 3.I, @ue llegadas a su destino tales mercanias no se @uisieron

entregar a dicho consignatario por el efe de la estacion sin motivo ustificado con

intencion dolosa, $.I, @ue la falta de entrega de estas e"pediciones al tiempo de

reclamarlas el demandante le originaron daos peruicios en cantidad de bastanteimportancia como e"pendedor al por maor @ue era de vinos alcoholes por las

ganancias @ue deo de obtener al verse privado de servir los pedidos @ue se le

habian hecho por los remitentes en los envases6

Considerando @ue sobre esta base ha necesidad de estimar los cuatro motivos @ue

integran este recurso, por@ue la demanda inicial del pleito a @ue se contrae no

contiene accion @ue na)ca del incumplimiento del contrato de transporte, toda ve)

@ue no se funda en el retraso de la llegada de las mercancias ni de ningun otro

vinculo contractual entre las partes contendientes, careciendo, por tanto, de

aplicacion el articulo $/% del Codigo de Comercio, en @ue principalmente descansael fallo recurrido, sino @ue se limita a pedir la reparaction de los daos peruicios

producidos en el patrimonio del actor por la inustificada dolosa negativa del

porteador a la entrega de las mercancias a su nombre consignadas, segun lo

reconoce la sentencia, cua responsabilidad esta claramente sancionada en el

articulo %&43 del Codigo Civil, @ue obliga por el siguiente a la Compaia demandada

como ligada con el causante de a@uellos por relaciones de caracter economico de

urar@uia administrativa.

Considering that the sentence, in @uestion recogni)es, in virtue of the facts which it

declares, in relation to the evidence in the case6 7%8 that the invoice issued b the

railroad compan in favor of the plaintiff contemplated that the empt receptacles

referred to in the complaint should be returned to the consignors with wines and

li@uors= 738 that when the said merchandise reached their destination, their deliver

to the consignee was refused b the station agent without ustification and

with fraudulent intent, and 7$8 that the lac< of deliver of these goods when the were

demanded b the plaintiff caused him losses and damages of considerable

importance, as he was a wholesale vendor of wines and li@uors and he failed to


15/25

reali)e the profits when he was unable to fill the orders sent to him b the consignors

of the receptacles6

Considering that upon this basis there is need of upholding the four assignments of

error, as the original complaint did not contain an cause of action arising from non*

fulfillment of a contract of transportation, because the action was not based on thedela of the goods nor on an contractual relation between the parties litigant and,

therefore, article $/% of the Code of Commerce, on which the decision appealed

from is based, is not applicable= but it limits to as


16/25

punished by the law, subect to the provisions of Chapter -- of Title >-. ection %&43

of that chapter reads6

?A person who b an act or omission causes damage to another when there

is fault or negligence shall be obliged to repair the damage so done.

?EC. %&4$. The obligation imposed b the preceeding article is demandable,

not onl for personal acts and omissions, but also for those of the persons for

whom the should be responsible.

?The father, and on his death or incapacit, the mother, is liable for the

damages caused b the minors who live with them.

" " " " " " " " "

?0wners or directors of an establishment or enterprise are e@uall liable forthe damages caused b their emploees in the service of the branches in

which the latter ma be emploed or in the performance of their duties.

" " " " " " " " "

?The liabilit referred to in this article shall cease when the persons

mentioned therein prove that the emploed all the diligence of a good father

of a famil to avoid the damage.?

As an answer to the argument urged in this particular action it ma be sufficient to

point out that nowhere in our general statutes is the emploer penali)ed for failure to

provide or maintain safe appliances for his wor


17/25

e"pressl reserved b him for civil proceedings for the future. -f the civil action alone

was prosecuted, arising out of a crime that could be enforced onl on private

complaint, the penal action thereunder should be e"tinguished. These provisions are

in harmon with those of articles 3$ and %$$ of our !enal Code on the same subect.

An e"amination of this topic might be carried much further, but the citation of thesearticles suffices to show that the civil liabilit was not intended to be merged in the

criminal nor even to be suspended thereb, e"cept as e"pressl provided in the law.

;here an individual is civill liable for a negligent act or omission, it is not re@uired

that the inured part should see< out a third person criminall liable whose

prosecution must be a condition precedent to the enforcement of the civil right.

nder article 34 of the !enal Code the responsibilit of an emploer ma be

regarded as subsidiar in respect of criminal actions against his emploees onl

while the are in process of prosecution, or in so far as the determine the e"istence

of the criminal act from which liabilit arises, and his obligation under the civil lawand its enforcement in the civil courts is not barred thereb unless b the election of

the inured person. -nasmuch as no criminal proceeding had been instituted, growing

our of the accident in @uestion, the provisions of the !enal Code can not affect this

action. This construction renders it unnecessar to finall determine here whether

this subsidiar civil liabilit in penal actions has survived the laws that full regulated

it or has been abrogated b the American civil and criminal procedure now in force in

the !hilippines.

The difficult in construing the articles of the code above cited in this case appears

from the briefs before us to have arisen from the interpretation of the words of article%4&$, ?fault or negligence not punished b law,? as applied to the comprehensive

definition of offenses in articles D'2 and D&4 of the !enal Code. -t has been shown

that the liabilit of an emploer arising out of his relation to his emploee who is the

offender is not to be regarded as derived from negligence punished b the law, within

the meaning of articles %&43 and %4&$. #ore than this, however, it cannot be said to

fall within the class of acts unpunished b the law, the conse@uence of which are

regulated b articles %&43 and %&4$ of the Civil Code. The acts to which these

articles are applicable are understood to be those not growing out of pre*e"isting

duties of the parties to one another. But where relations alread formed give rise to

duties, whether springing from contract or @uasi contract, then breaches of thoseduties are subect to articles %%4%, %%4$, and %%4 of the same code. A tpical

application of this distinction ma be found in the conse@uences of a railwa accident

due to defective machiner supplied b the emploer. is liabilit to his emploee

would arise out of the contract of emploment, that to the passengers out of the

contract for passage, while that to the inured bstander would originate in the

negligent act itself.


18/25

-n ,an*anares vs. ,oreta, $2 !hil., 23% 7ear %&%28, the mother of the 2 of &*ear*old child

alvador Bona brought a civil action against #oreta to recover damages resulting from the

death of the child, who had been run over b an automobile driven and managed b the

defendant. The trial court rendered udgment re@uiring the defendant to pa the plaintiff the

sum of !%,444 as indemnit6 This Court in affirming the udgment, said in part6

-f it were true that the defendant, in coming from the southern part of olana treet,

had to stop his auto before crossing (eal treet, because he had met vehicles which

were going along the latter street or were coming from the opposite direction along

olana treet, it is to be believed that, when he again started to run his auto across

said (eal treet and to continue its wa along olana treet northward, he should

have adusted the speed of the auto which he was operating until he had full

crossed (eal treet and had completel reached a clear wa on olana treet. But,

as the child was run over b the auto precisel at the entrance of olana treet, this

accident could not have occurred if the auto had been running at a slow speed, aside

from the fact that the defendant, at the moment of crossing (eal treet and enteringolana treet, in a northward direction, could have seen the child in the act of

crossing the latter street from the sidewal< on the right to that on the left, and if the

accident had occurred in such a wa that after the automobile had run over the bod

of the child, and the child5s bod had alread been stretched out on the ground, the

automobile still moved along a distance of about 3 meters, this circumstance shows

the fact that the automobile entered olana treet from (eal treet, at a high speed

without the defendant having blown the horn. -f these precautions had been ta


19/25

municipalit to attend the same. After the procession the mother and the daughter with two

others were passing along Gran Capitan treet in front of the offices of the Tacloban Electric

M -ce !lant, 9td., owned b defendants 1. >. ouse, when an automobile appeared from the

opposite direction. The little girl, who was slightl ahead of the rest, was so frightened b

the automobile that she turned to run, but unfortunatel she fell into the street gutter where

hot water from the electric plant was flowing. The child died that same night from the burns.The trial courts dismissed the action because of the contributor negligence of the plaintiffs.

But this Court held, on appeal, that there was no contributor negligence, and allowed the

parents !%,444 in damages from 1. >. ouse who at the time of the tragic occurrence was

the holder of the franchise for the electric plant. This Court said in part6

Although the trial udge made the findings of fact hereinbefore outlined, he

nevertheless was led to order the dismissal of the action because of the contributor

negligence of the plaintiffs. -t is from this point that a maorit of the court depart from

the stand ta


20/25

garage and it was, so far as appeared, in good condition. The wor


21/25

Francisco Bautista, who were wor


22/25

misdemeanors shall be governed b the provisions of the !enal Code. The

conviction of the motorman was a misdemeanor falling under article '4 of the !enal

Code. The act of the motorman was not a wrongful or negligent act or omission not

punishable b law. Accordingl, the civil obligation connected up with the !enal Code

and not with article %&4$ of the Civil Code. -n other words, the !enal Code affirms its

urisdiction while the Civil Code negatives its urisdiction. This is a case of criminalnegligence out of which civil liabilit arises and not a case of civil negligence.

" " " " " " " " "

0ur deduction, therefore, is that the case relates to the !enal Code and not to the

Civil Code. -ndeed, as pointed out b the trial udge, an different ruling would permit

the master to escape scot*free b simpl alleging and proving that the master had

e"ercised all diligence in the selection and training of its servants to prevent the

damage. That would be a good defense to a strictl civil action, but might or might

not be to a civil action either as a part of or predicated on conviction for a crime ormisdemeanor. 7B wa of parenthesis, it ma be said further that the statements

here made are offered to meet the argument advanced during our deliberations to

the effect that article 4&43 of the Civil Code should be disregarded and codal articles

%4&$ and %&4$ applied.8

-t is not clear how the above case could support the defendant5s proposition, because the

Court of Appeals based its decision in the present case on the defendant5s primar

responsibilit under article %&4$ of the Civil Code and not on his subsidiar liabilit arising

from Fontanilla5s criminal negligence. -n other words, the case of Cit of #anila vs. #anila

Electric Co., supra, is predicated on an entirel different theor, which is the subsidiarliabilit of an emploer arising from a criminal act of his emploee, whereas the foundation

of the decision of the Court of Appeals in the present case is the emploer5s primar liabilit

under article %&4$ of the Civil Code. ;e have alread seen that this is a proper and

independent remed.

Ara%bulo vs. ,anila 1lectric Co.7DD !hil., /D8, is another case invo


23/25

The above case is also e"traneous to the theor of the defendant in the instant case,

because the action there had for its purpose the enforcement of the defendant5s subsidiar

liabilit under the !enal Code, while in the case at bar, the plaintiff5s cause of action is

based on the defendant5s primar and direct responsibilit under article %&4$ of the Civil

Code. -n fact, the above case destros the defendant5s contention because that decision

illustrates the principle that the emploer5s primar responsibilit under article %&4$ of theCivil Code is different in character from his subsidiar liabilit under the !enal Code.

-n tring to appl the two cases ust referred to, counsel for the defendant has failed to

recogni)e the distinction between civil liabilit arising from a crime, which is governed b the

!enal Code, and the responsibilit for cuasi-delitoor culpa aquilianaunder the Civil Code,

and has li


24/25

such ancient origin and such full*grown development as culpa aquilianaor cuasi-delito,

which is conserved and made enduring in articles %&43 to %&%4 of the panish Civil Code.

econdl, to find the accused guilt in a criminal case, proof of guilt beond reasonable

doubt is re@uired, while in a civil case, preponderance of evidence is sufficient to maol. %3, p. '33, 3nd Ed.8 #an urists also base this primarresponsibilit of the emploer on the principle of representation of the principal b the agent.

Thus, 0uelos sas in the wor< alread cited 7>ol. /, p. //8 that before third persons the

emploer and emploee ?vienen a ser como una sola personalidad, por refundicion de la

del dependiente en la de @uien le emplea utili)a.? 7?become as one personalit b the

merging of the person of the emploee in that of him who emplos and utili)es him.?8 All

these observations ac@uire a peculiar force and significance when it comes to motor


25/25

accidents, and there is need of stressing and accentuating the responsibilit of owners of

motor vehicles.

Fourthl, because of the broad sweep of the provisions of both the !enal Code and the Civil

Code on this subect, which has given rise to the overlapping or concurrence of spheres

alread discussed, and for lac< of understanding of the character and efficac of the actionfor culpa aquiliana, there has grown up a common practice to see< damages onl b virtue

of the civil responsibilit arising from a crime, forgetting that there is another remed, which

is b invo

Documents

Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942