G.R. No. L-15992. May 31, 1961.
Pedro Ty Belizar, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Florencio Brazas, Felix Hilario, Lucio Baldonilo, Felix Balato, Teodoro Balato and Todesco Cebuano, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Pedro Ty Belizar, operator of Samar Express Transit, filed a complaint for damages against several employees of the Bureau of Public Highways. He alleged that due to the defendants’ gross negligence in failing to provide a ferry boat with safety devices at the Taft River crossing in Samar, one of his auto-trucks fell into the river while being transported. The vehicle remained submerged for over thirty hours, causing him actual and moral damages and necessitating the hiring of counsel.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss. Some argued the complaint stated no cause of action and that they were not the real parties in interest. Defendant Florencio Brazas specifically contended that since the employees were being sued for acts done in their official capacities, any claim for damages should be directed against the State. The Court of First Instance of Samar granted the motions and dismissed the complaint, prompting this direct appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint for failing to state a cause of action against the defendant public employees personally.

RULING

No. The order of dismissal was erroneous. The complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action under the doctrine of quasi-delict or tort. Article 2180 of the Civil Code, which establishes an employer’s vicarious liability for employees’ tortious acts, does not absolve the negligent employees from personal liability. An injured party may institute an action directly against the authors of the negligent act or omission, irrespective of suing their superiors or the state entity responsible for them jointly.
The lower court incorrectly relied on authorities pertaining to liability arising from a contract of carriage, such as Article 1733 of the Civil Code and related jurisprudence. The appellant’s action is fundamentally based on tort, not contract, making those citations inapplicable. Merely indicating the defendants’ official positions in the complaint does not automatically mean they are being sued in their official capacities, especially as the suit is not framed as an action against the Government itself. Therefore, the complaint should not have been dismissed for failing to state a cause of action. The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal order and remanded the case to the court of origin for further proceedings.