G.R. No. 48006. July 8, 1942.
FAUSTO BARREDO, petitioner, vs. SEVERINO GARCIA and TIMOTEA ALMARIO, respondents.
FACTS
In the early morning of May 3, 1936, a head-on collision occurred on the road between Malabon and Navotas, Rizal, between a taxi owned and operated by petitioner Fausto Barredo (under the name Malate Taxicab) and driven by his employee, Pedro Fontanilla, and a carretela. The collision overturned the carretela, fatally injuring one of its passengers, 16-year-old Faustino Garcia. Fontanilla was convicted in a criminal action for reckless imprudence and sentenced to prison. The court reserved the right to file a separate civil action. Subsequently, the parents of the deceased, respondents Severino Garcia and Timotea Almario, filed a civil action for damages directly against Barredo as Fontanilla’s employer, based on Article 1903 of the Civil Code. The Court of First Instance of Manila awarded damages, which the Court of Appeals modified by reducing the amount. The Court of Appeals found Barredo liable under Article 1903, holding that he failed to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of Fontanilla, who had a record of traffic violations. Barredo contested this, arguing that since Fontanilla’s negligence was punishable under the Revised Penal Code, Barredo’s liability should only be subsidiary under the Penal Code, and because no civil action was first pursued against Fontanilla himself, Barredo could not be held primarily liable.
ISSUE
Whether a separate civil action for damages under Article 1903 of the Civil Code (quasi-delict) can be maintained directly against the employer, Fausto Barredo, independently of the criminal action against the employee, Pedro Fontanilla, for the same negligent act.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding Barredo primarily and directly liable under Article 1903 of the Civil Code. The Court ruled that a quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana) under Articles 19021910 of the Civil Code is a distinct legal institution from a delict (crime) under the Penal Code. They can exist independently, and the civil liability arising from a quasi-delict is separate from the civil liability arising from a crime. Consequently, an employer’s liability under Article 1903 for the negligent acts of an employee is primary and direct, based on the employer’s own presumed negligence in selection or supervision (unless proven to have exercised the diligence of a good father of a family). This liability exists independently of any criminal prosecution of the employee. The fact that the employee’s act is also punishable under the Penal Code does not preclude the application of Civil Code provisions on quasi-delict. Therefore, the respondents could sue Barredo directly under Article 1903 without first exhausting the employee’s (Fontanilla’s) property. The Court emphasized the importance of this separate remedy to ensure adequate and efficacious redress for damages.