BARREDO vs GARCIA

FACTS:
Barredo employer was sued for damages for the death of the defendants son.Barredo is the
owner of taxi whose driver (Fontanilla) bumped a calesa resulting into the death of the
defendants son.
The driver was convicted as a result.
The Civil case to claim damages was reserved by the victims family.
On this regard, Barredo contends that his liability is subsidiary only to that of the driver as per
Art 100 of RPC.

ISSUE:
Whether the plaintiffs may bring this separate civil action against FaustoBarredo, thus making him
primarily and directly, responsible under article 1903 of the Civil Code as an employer of Pedro
Fontanilla.

HELD:
Yes, he is primarily liable for damages based on quasi-delict.

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 delict or crime. Upon this principle and on the wording and spirit article 1903 of
the Civil Code, the primary and direct responsibility of employers may be safely anchored.

ELCANO vs HILL
FACTS:
For the killing of his son by Reginald, a minor, for which the latter was acquitted on the ground
that his act was not criminal, because of "lack of intent to kill, coupled with mistake".
Petitioner instituted a civil case to claim damages arising from the death of his son.
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that action is barred by a prior judgment
which is now final and or in res-adjudicata.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the resent civil action for damages barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the criminal
case wherein the action for civil liability, was not reversed.

HELD:
No. It is not barred.

According to the Code Commission: "The foregoing provision (Article 2177) through at first sight
startling, is not so novel or extraordinary when we consider the exact nature of criminal and civil
negligence. The former is a violation of the criminal law, while the latter is a "culpa aquiliana" or quasi-
delict, of ancient origin, having always had its own foundation and individuality, separate from criminal
negligence. Such distinction between criminal negligence and "culpa extracontractual" or "cuasi-delito"
has been sustained by decision of the Supreme Court of Spain and maintained as clear, sound and
perfectly tenable by Maura, an outstanding Spanish jurist. Therefore, under the proposed Article 2177,
acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence, whether on reasonable doubt or not, shall not be a
bar to a subsequent civil action, not for civil liability arising from criminal negligence, but for damages
due to a quasi-delict or 'culpa aquiliana'. But said article forestalls a double recovery."