6. Barredo v.

Garcia, 73 Phil 607

FACTS:
There was a head-on collision between a taxi of the Malate taxicab driven by Fontanilla
and a carretela directed by Dimapilis. The carretela was over-turned, and a passenger, a 16-
year old boy, Garcia, experienced injuries from which he died. A criminal action was filed
against Fontanilla, and he was sentenced. The court in the criminal case granted the petition to
reserve the civil action. Garcia and Almario, parents of the deceased, on March 7, 1939, filed a
civil action against Barredo, the proprietor of the Malate Taxicab and employer of Fontanilla,
making him primarily and directly responsible under culpa acquiliana of Article 2180 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines. It is undisputed that Fontanilla’s negligence was the cause of the
accident, as he was driving on the wrong side of the road at high speed, and there was no
showing that Barredo exercised the diligence of a good father of a family, a defense to Article
2180 of the said Code. Barredo’s theory of defense is that Fontanilla’s negligence being
punished by the Revised Penal Code, his liability as employer is only subsidiary, but Fontanilla,
was not sued for civil liability. Hence, Barredo claims that he cannot be held liable.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Barredo, as employer is civilly liable for the acts of Fontanilla, his employee.

RULING:
Quasi-delict or culpa acquiliana is a distinct legal institution under the Civil Code of the
Philippines is completely separate and independent from a delict or crime under the Revised
Penal Code. In this jurisdiction, the same negligent act causing damage may produce civil
liability (subsidiary) arising from a crime under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines; or create an action for quasi-delicto or culpa aquiliana under Articles 2179 and 2180
of the Civil Code and the parties are free to choose which course to take. And in the instant
case, the negligent act of Fontanilla produces two (2) liabilities of Barredo: First, a subsidiary
one because of the civil liability of Fontanilla arising from the latter’s criminal negligence under
Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, and second, Barredo’s primary and direct responsibility
arising from his presumed negligence as an employer under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. As
the plaintiffs are free to choose what remedy to take, they preferred the second, which is within
their rights. This is the more expedious and effective method of relief because Fontanilla was
either in prison or just been released or had no property. Barredo was held liable for damages.