Atienza, Adrian Gabriel S.

Barredo v. Garcia; GR No. L-48006; July 8, 1942

Facts: On May 3, 1963, on a road between Malabon and Navotas,Rizal, a head-on

collision between a taxi of Malate Taxicab, driven by Pedro Fontanilla, and a
caretella, driven by Pedro Dimapalis. The caretella was overturned and a 16-year
old boy, Faustino Garcia, suffered injuries which caused his death after two days.

The collision was due to Fontanilla’s negligence as he was driving on the wrong
side of the road at high speed. Fontanilla was convicted, and in the criminal case
the court granted the right to bring a separate civil action to be reserved.

The parents of Faustino, Severino Garcia and Timotea Almario, filed and action
against Fausto Barredo as the employer of Fontanilla and sole proprietor of Malate
Taxicab. It was argued that Barredo was irresponsible in hiring Fontanilla, who
had previously been cited for speeding and violating the Automobile Law,
according to records kept by the Bureau of Public Works that were open to the
public as well as to himself. He must therefore compensate the plaintiffs in
accordance with the terms of Article 1903 of the Civil Code.

The defense argued that the liability of Barredo is governed by the RPC, and that it
is only subsidiary.

Issue: Whether or not the plaintiffs may bring this separate civil action against
Fausto Barredo, thus making him primarily and directly, responsible under article
1903 of the Civil Code as an employer of Pedro.

Held: Yes. The obligation in question is imposed as a result of a crime or mistake,

but not because of that crime or mistake, but rather because of a quasi-delict, such
as the imprudence or negligence of the father, guardian, business owner or
manager, teacher, etc. The law assumes that the father, guardian, teacher, etc.
committed an act of negligence by failing to prevent or avoid the damage
whenever one of the individuals listed in the article referred to, such as minors,
incapacitated persons, employees, apprentices causes any harm. This violation is
condemned by the law.

According to the doctrine of Article 1902, one is only accountable for his or her
own mistakes and is therefore not responsible for the actions of others. However,
by way of exception, one is accountable for the actions of those with whom they
share a bond or connection that makes them responsible. According to Article 1903
of the Civil Code, an employer is held primarily and directly liable for the
negligent actions of his employee. A quasi-delict is a separate and distinct legal
institution that is independent of the civil responsibility resulting from criminal
liability.

As a result, Barredo was held liable for two things: first, the taxi driver's civil
liability as a result of his criminal negligence; and second, Barredo's primary
liability as an employer under Article 1903. The plaintiffs had a choice of how to
proceed, and they favored the second remedy. They were within their rights to act
in this way. It should be noted that Fontanilla was likely without property that
could be seized in order to enforce any judgment against him for damages because
he was either incarcerated or had recently been released, and the plaintiff chose the
more expedient and effective method of relief.

Even with regard to a negligent act for which the wrongdoer could have been
prosecuted and found guilty in a criminal case and for which, after such a
conviction, he could have been sued for this civil liability arising from his crime,
the separate individuality of a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana under the Civil Code
may be fully and clearly recognized.