FAUSTO BARREDO v. SEVERINO GARCIA In this case, Barredo is being sued on his primary negligence as an employer under Art.
primary negligence as an employer under Art. 1903.
Barredo v. Garcia, 73 Phil. 607 (1942) | July 8, 1942 | Bocobo
Nature of Case: Damages
Digest maker: Arvi Rivera
SUMMARY: Cab driver was reckless, killing 16 yo. Driver was found guilty and parents
filed civil action against owner/employer. Employer says his liability only subsidiary.
However, Court found that owner could be held that employer’s liability could be primary
under culpa aquiliana.
DOCTRINE: 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.
FACTS:
● May 1936, Road bet. Malabon and Navotas - Head-on collision between a cab
operated by Malate Taxicab driven by Fontanilla and a carretela (horse-drawn
carriage) driven by Dimapalis.
● 16 y.o. passenger Garcia was seriously wounded and later died.
● Parents of the deceased (Garcia and Almario) later filed a criminal action against the
driver and he was found guilty and sentenced to 1yr. and 1 day to 2 yrs. of prision
correcional.
● Court granted parents' petition to reserve the civil action.
● March 7, 1939 - Parents filed civil action against Barredo, owner of Malate Taxicab
and Fontanilla's former employer.
● Parents' argument: Owner Barredo was primarily and directly responsible under the
concept of culpa aquiliana found in Art. 1903 of the CC. (Note: This is the old Art.
number, it is now Art. 2180)
● Owner's argument: His liability is governed by the RPC. Thus, it is only subsidiary.
Because there was no civil action against the driver, the person criminally liable, the
owner cannot be held responsible in this case. Art. 1903 not applicable because Art.
1903 itself says its application is limited to "those (obligations) arising from wrongful
or negligent acts or omissions not punishable by law.'"
● C.A. Decision: Barredo's contention untenable because the liability sought to be
imposed on him is not a civil obligation arising from the driver's misdemeanor, but
an obligation imposed in Art. 2180 of the CC by reason of his negligence* in selecting
his employee.
● *Driver was caught several times violating traffic laws and his record was available
to the general public and the owner himself.
ISSUE/S:
Whether the plaintiffs may bring a separate civil action against Barredo, making him
primarily and directly responsible under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code as an employer.
RULING: Yes. A separate civil action may be brought against Barredo and he may be found
primarily and directly responsible under Art. 2180 as the employer.
RATIO:
Because the driver was found guilty of criminal negligence, he would have been held primarily
liable for civil damages and Barredo would have been held subsidiary liable, had the driver
been sued in a civil action.
There were two liabilities of Barredo:
1) the subsidiary one because of the civil liability of the taxi driver arising from the latter's
criminal negligence;
2)Barredo's primary liability as an employer under Art. 1903.
The plaintiffs had the right to choose which course to take, and they preferred the second
remedy.
Possible reason plaintiffs chose 2nd option: It was the more expeditious and effective method
of relief, because Fontanillla was in prison or was just released and probably did not have the
capacity to pay.
__________________________________________________________________________________
NOTES:
Related provisions
Revised Penal Code:
ARTICLE 102. Subsidiary Civil Liability of Innkeepers, Tavernkeepers and Proprietors of
Establishments. — In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and
any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their
establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or
special police regulation shall have been committed by them or their employees…
ARTICLE 103. Subsidiary Civil Liability of Other Persons. — The subsidiary liability
established in the next preceding article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and
corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils,
workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.
Civil Code:
ARTICLE 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own
acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible…
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers
acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any
business or industry…
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned
prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
(1903a)
__________________________________________________________________________________
Other things the Court said:
After citing numerous legal sources and experts in its decision, the Court found it appropriate
to name the following as the foundations of the doctrines cited:
1. If we were to hold that articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code refer only to fault or
negligence not punished by law, according to the literal import of article 1093 of the
Civil Code, the legal institution of culpa aquiliana would have very little scope and
application in actual life. Death or injury to persons and damage to property
through any degree of negligence even the slightest would have to be indemnified
only through the principle of civil liability arising from a crime.
2. To find the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt is required, while in a civil case, preponderance of evidence is sufficient to
make the defendant pay in damages. In such cases, the defendant can and should be
made responsible in a civil action under articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code.
Otherwise, there would be many instances of unvindicated civil wrongs.

3. Thirdly, to hold that there is only one way to make, defendant's liability effective,
and that is, to sue the driver and exhaust his (the latter's) property first, would be
tantamount to compelling the plaintiff to follow a devious and cumbersome
method of obtaining relief.

4. Fourthly, because of the broad sweep of the provisions of both the Penal Code and
the Civil Code on this subject, which has given rise to the overlapping or concurrence
of spheres already discussed, and for lack of understanding of the character and
efficacy of the action for culpa aquiliana, there has grown up a common practice to
seek damages only by virtue of the civil responsibility arising from a crime,
FORGETTING that there is another remedy, which is by invoking articles 1902-
1910 of the Civil Code. Although this habitual method is allowed by our laws, it has
nevertheless rendered practically useless and nugatory the more expeditious and
effective remedy based on culpa aquiliana or culpo extra-contractual.