barredo v. garcia gr l-48006 jul 8 1942
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/24/2019 Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942
1/25
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-48006 July 8, 1942
FAUSTO BARREDO,petitioner,
vs.SEVERINO GARIA !"# TI$OTEA AL$ARIO,respondents.
Celedonio P. Gloria and Antonio Barredo for petitioner.
Jose G. Advincula for respondents.
BOOBO, J.%
This case comes up from the Court of Appeals which held the petitioner herein, Fausto
Barredo, liable in damages for the death of Faustino Garcia caused b the negligence of
!edro Fontanilla, a ta"i driver emploed b said Fausto Barredo.
At about half past one in the morning of #a $, %&$', on the road between #alabon and
Navotas, !rovince of (i)al, there was a head*on collision between a ta"i of the #alate
Ta"icab driven b !edro Fontanilla and a carretela guided b !edro +imapalis. The
carretela was overturned, and one of its passengers, %'*ear*old bo Faustino Garcia,
suffered inuries from which he died two das later. A criminal action was filed against
Fontanilla in the Court of First -nstance of (i)al, and he was convicted and sentenced to an
indeterminate sentence of one ear and one da to two ears ofprision correccional. The
court in the criminal case granted the petition that the right to bring a separate civil action be
reserved. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence of the lower court in the criminal
case. everino Garcia and Timotea Almario, parents of the deceased on #arch /, %&$&,
brought an action in the Court of First -nstance of #anila against Fausto Barredo as the sole
proprietor of the #alate Ta"icab and emploer of !edro Fontanilla. 0n 1ul 2, %&$&, the
Court of First -nstance of #anila awarded damages in favor of the plaintiffs for !3,444 plus
legal interest from the date of the complaint. This decision was modified b the Court of
Appeals b reducing the damages to !%,444 with legal interest from the time the action was
instituted. -t is undisputed that Fontanilla 5s negligence was the cause of the mishap, as he
was driving on the wrong side of the road, and at high speed. As to Barredo5s responsibilit,
the Court of Appeals found6
... -t is admitted that defendant is Fontanilla5s emploer. There is proof that he
e"ercised the diligence of a good father of a famil to prevent damage. 7ee p. 33,
appellant5s brief.8 -n fact it is shown he was careless in emploing Fontanilla who had
been caught several times for violation of the Automobile 9aw and speeding 7E"hibit
A8 : violation which appeared in the records of the Bureau of !ublic ;or
-
7/24/2019 Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942
2/25
The main theor of the defense is that the liabilit of Fausto Barredo is governed b the
(evised !enal Code= hence, his liabilit is onl subsidiar, and as there has been no civil
action against !edro Fontanilla, the person criminall liable, Barredo cannot be held
responsible in the case. The petitioner5s brief states on page %46
... The Court of Appeals holds that the petitioner is being sued for his failure toe"ercise all the diligence of a good father of a famil in the selection and supervision
of !edro Fontanilla to prevent damages suffered b the respondents. -n other words,
The Court of Appeals insists on appling in the case article %&4$ of the Civil Code.
Article %&4$ of the Civil Code is found in Chapter --, Title %', Boo< -> of the Civil
Code. This fact ma
-
7/24/2019 Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942
3/25
and spirit article %&4$ of the Civil Code, the primar and direct responsibilit of emploers
ma be safel anchored.
The pertinent provisions of the Civil Code and (evised !enal Code are as follows6
C->-9 C0+E
A(T. %42& 0bligations arise from law, from contracts and @uasi*contracts, and from
acts and omissions which are unlawful or in which an
-
7/24/2019 Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942
4/25
Finall, teachers or directors of arts trades are liable for an damages caused b
their pupils or apprentices while the are under their custod.
The liabilit imposed b this article shall cease in case the persons mentioned
therein prove that the are e"ercised all the diligence of a good father of a famil to
prevent the damage.
A(T. %&4. An person who pas for damage caused b his emploees ma recover
from the latter what he ma have paid.
(E>-E+ !ENA9 C0+E
A(T. %44. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. : Ever person criminall liable
for a felon is also civill liable.
A(T. %4%. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. : The e"emption fromcriminal liabilit established in subdivisions %, 3, $, D, and ' of article %3 and in
subdivision of article %% of this Code does not include e"emption from civil liabilit,
which shall be enforced to the following rules6
irst.-n cases of subdivision, %, 3 and $ of article %3 the civil liabilit for acts
committed b an imbecile or insane person, and b a person under nine ears of
age, or b one over nine but under fifteen ears of age, who has acted without
discernment shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal authorit
or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on their part.
hould there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authorit,
legal guardianship, or control, or if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile,
or minor shall respond with their own propert, e"cepting propert e"empt from
e"ecution, in accordance with the civil law.
!econd.-n cases falling within subdivision of article %%, the person for whose
benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civill liable in proportion to the benefit
which the ma have received.
The courts shall determine, in their sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which
each one shall be liable.
;hen the respective shares can not be e@uitabl determined, even appro"imatel, or when
the liabilit also attaches to the Government, or to the maorit of the inhabitants of the
town, and, in all events, whenever the damage has been caused with the consent of the
authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed b
special laws or regulations.
-
7/24/2019 Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942
5/25
"hird. -n cases falling within subdivisions D and ' of article %3, the persons using violence or
causing the fear shall be primaril liable and secondaril, or, if there be no such persons,
those doing the act shall be liable, saving alwas to the latter that part of their propert
e"empt from e"ecution.
A(T. %43. !ubsidiary civil liability of inn#eepers$ tavern #eepers and proprietors ofestablish%ent. : -n default of persons criminall liable, inn
-
7/24/2019 Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942
6/25
limits cuasi-delitosto acts or omissions ?not punishable b law.? But inasmuch as article $'D
of the (evised !enal Code punishes not onl rec
-
7/24/2019 Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942
7/25
+orado #ontero in his essa on ?(esponsibilidad? in the ?Enciclopedia 1uridica Espaola?
7>ol. >--, p. %8 sas6
El concepto uridico de la responsabilidad civilabarca diversos aspectos
comprende a diferentes personas. Asi, e"iste una responsabilidad civil propiamente
dicha, @ue en ningun casl lleva apareada responsabilidad criminal alguna, otra@ue es consecuencia indeclinable de la penal @ue nace de todo delito o falta.?
The uridical concept of civil responsibilit has various aspects and comprises
different persons. Thus, there is a civil responsibilit, properl spea
-
7/24/2019 Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942
8/25
los fines sociales politicos del mismo, desenvuelven ordenan la materia de
responsabilidades civiles nacidas de delito, en terminos separados del regimen por
le comun de la culpa @ue se denomina a@uiliana, por alusion a precedentes
legislativos del Corpus Juris. eria intempestivo un paralelo entre a@uellas
ordenaciones, la de la obligacion de indemni)ar a titulo de culpa civil= pero viene al
caso es necesaria una de las diferenciaciones @ue en el tal paralelo se notarian.
9os articulos 34 3% del Codigo !enal, despues de distribuir a su modo las
responsabilidades civiles, entre los @ue sean por diversos conceptos culpables del
delito o falta, las hacen e"tensivas a las empresas los establecimientos al servicio
de los cuales estan los delincuentes= pero con caracter subsidiario, o sea, segun el
te"to literal, en defecto de los que sean responsables cri%inal%ente. No coincide en
ello el Codigo Civil, cuo articulo %&4$, dice= 9a obligacion @ue impone el articulo
anterior es e&igible, no solo por los actos omisiones propios, sino por los de
aquellas personas de quienes se debe responder= personas en la enumeracion de
las cuales figuran los dependientes empleados de los establecimientos oempresas, sea por actos del servicio, sea con ocasion de sus funciones. !or esto
acontece, se observa en la urisprudencia, @ue las empresas, despues de
intervenir en las causas criminales con el caracter subsidiario de su responsabilidad
civil por ra)on del delito, son demandadas condenadas directa y aislada%ente,
cuando se trata de la obligacion, ante los tribunales civiles.
iendo como se ve, diverso el titulo de esta obligacion, formando verdadero
postulado de nuestro regimen udicial la separacion entre usticia punitiva
tribunales de lo civil, de suerte @ue tienen unos otros normas de fondo en distintos
cuerpos legales, diferentes modos de proceder, habiendose, por aadidura,abstenido de asistir al uicio criminal la Compaia del Ferrocarril Cantabrico, @ue se
reservo eercitar sus acciones, parece innegable @ue la de indemni)acion por los
daos peruicios @ue le irrogo el cho@ue, no estuvo sub )udiceante el Tribunal del
1urado, ni fue sentenciada, sino @ue permanecio intacta, al pronunciarse el fallo de
3% de mar)o. Aun cuando el veredicto no hubiese sido de inculpabilidad, mostrose
mas arriba, @ue tal accion @uedaba legitimamente reservada para despues del
proceso= pero al declararse @ue no e"istio delito, ni responsabilidad dimanada de
delito, materia unicasobre @ue tenian urisdiccion a@uellos u)gadores, se redobla el
motivo para la obligacion civil e& lege, se patenti)a mas mas @ue la accion para
pedir su cumplimiento permanece incolume, e"traa a la cosa )u*gada.
As things are, aproposof the realit pure and simple of the facts, it seems less
tenable that there should beres )udicatawith regard to the civil obligation for
damages on account of the losses caused b the collision of the trains. The title
upon which the action for reparation is based cannot be confused with the civil
responsibilities born of a cri%e, because there e"ists in the latter, whatever each
nature, a culpasurrounded with aggravating aspects which give rise to penal
-
7/24/2019 Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942
9/25
measures that are more or less severe. The inur caused b a felon or
misdemeanor upon civil rights re@uires restitutions, reparations, or indemnifications
which, li
-
7/24/2019 Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942
10/25
damages caused to it b the collision was not sub )udicebefore the "ribunal del
Jurado, nor was it the subect of a sentence, but it remained intact when the decision
of #arch 3% was rendered. Even if the verdict had not been that of ac@uittal, it has
alread been shown that such action had been legitimatel reserved till after the
criminal prosecution= but because of the declaration of the non*e"istence of the
felon and the non*e"istence of the responsibilit arising from the crime, which wasthe solesubect matter upon which the "ribunal del Juradohad urisdiction, there is
greater reason for the civil obligation e& lege, and it becomes clearer that the action
for its enforcement remain intact and is not res )udicata.
9aurent, a urist who has written a monumental wor< on the French Civil Code, on which the
panish Civil Code is largel based and whose provisions on cuasi-delitoor culpa e&tra-
contractualare similar to those of the panish Civil Code, sas, referring to article %$2 of
the French Civil Code which corresponds to article %&4$, panish Civil Code6
The action can be brought directl against the person responsible 7for another8,without including the author of the act. The action against the principal is accessor
in the sense that it implies the e"istence of a preudicial act committed b the
emploee, but it is not subsidiar in the sense that it can not be instituted till after the
udgment against the author of the act or at least, that it is subsidiar to the principal
action= the action for responsibilit 7of the emploer8 is in itself a principal action.
79aurent, !rinciples of French Civil 9aw, panish translation, >ol. 34, pp. /$*/$D.8
Amandi, in his ?Cuestionario del Codigo Civil (eformado? 7>ol. , pp. 3&, $48, declares
that the responsibilit of the emploer is principal and not subsidiar. e writes6
Cuestion %. 9a responsabilidad declarada en el articulo %&4$ por las acciones u
omisiones de a@uellas personas por las @ue se debe responder, es subsidiariaH es
principalH !ara contestar a esta pregunta es necesario saber, en primer lugar, en
@ue se funda el precepto legal. Es @ue realmente se impone una responsabilidad
por una falta aenaH Asi parece a primera vista= pero semeante afirmacion seria
contraria a la usticia a la ma"ima universal, segun la @ue las faltas son
personales, cada uno responde de a@uellas @ue le son imputables. 9a
responsabilidad de @ue tratamos se impone con ocasion de un delito o culpa, pero
nopor causade ellos, sino por causa del causi delito, esto es, de la imprudencia o
de la negligencia del padre, del tutor, del dueo o director del establecimiento, del
maestro, etc. Cuando cual@uiera de las personas @ue enumera el articulo citado
7menores de edad, incapacitados, dependientes, aprendices8 causan un dao, la le
presume @ue el padre, el tutor, el maestro, etc., han cometido una falta de
negligencia para prevenir o evitar el dao. Esta falta es la @ue la le castiga. No ha,
pues, responsabilidad por un hecho aeno, sino en la apariencia= en realidad la
responsabilidad se e"ige por un hecho propio. 9a idea de @ue esa responsabilidad
sea subsidiaria es, por lo tanto, completamente inadmisible.
-
7/24/2019 Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942
11/25
uestion No. %. -s the responsibilit declared in article %&4$ for the acts or omissions
of those persons for who one is responsible, subsidiar or principalH -n order to
answer this @uestion it is necessar to ol. >--, p. /$6
Es decir, no responde de hechos aenos, por@ue se responde solo de su propia
culpa, doctrina del articulo %&43= mas por e"cepcion, se responde de la aena
respecto de a@uellas personas con las @ue media algun ne"o o vinculo, @ue motiva
o ra)ona la responsabilidad. Esta responsabilidad, es directa o es subsidiariaH En el
orden penal, el Codigo de esta clase distingue entre menores e incapacitados losdemas, declarando directa la primera 7articulo %&8 subsidiaria la segunda 7articulos
34 3%8= pero en el orden civil, en el caso del articulo %&4$, ha de entenderse
directa, por el tenor del articulo @ue impone la responsabilidad precisamente ?por los
actos de a@uellas personas de @uienes se deba responder.?
That is to sa, one is not responsible for the acts of others, because one is liable onl
for his own faults, this being the doctrine of article %&43= but, b e"ception, one is
liable for the acts of those persons with whom there is a bond or tie which gives rise
to the responsibilit. -s this responsibilit direct or subsidiarH -n the order of the
penal law, the !enal Code distinguishes between minors and incapacitated personson the one hand, and other persons on the other, declaring that the responsibilit for
the former is direct 7article %&8, and for the latter, subsidiar 7articles 34 and 3%8= but
in the scheme of the civil law, in the case of article %&4$, the responsibilit should be
understood as direct, according to the tenor of that articles, for precisel it imposes
responsibilit ?for the acts of those persons for whom one should be responsible.?
-
7/24/2019 Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942
12/25
Coming now to the sentences of the upreme Tribunal of pain, that court has upheld the
principles above set forth6 that a quasi-delictor culpa e&tra-contractualis a separate and
distinct legal institution, independent from the civil responsibilit arising from criminal
liabilit, and that an emploer is, under article %&4$ of the Civil Code, primaril and directl
responsible for the negligent acts of his emploee.
0ne of the most important of those panish decisions is that of 0ctober 3%, %&%4. -n that
case, (amon 9afuente died as the result of having been run over b a street car owned b
the ?compaia Electric #adrilea de Traccion.? The conductor was prosecuted in a criminal
case but he was ac@uitted. Thereupon, the widow filed a civil action against the street car
compan, paing for damages in the amount of %D,444 pesetas. The lower court awarded
damages= so the compan appealed to the upreme Tribunal, alleging violation of articles
%&43 and %&4$ of the Civil Code because b final udgment the non*e"istence of fault or
negligence had been declared. The upreme Court of pain dismissed the appeal, saing6
Considerando @ue el primer motivo del recurso se funda en el e@uivocado supuestode @ue el Tribunal a quo, al condonar a la compaia Electrica #adrilea al pago del
dao causado con la muerte de (amon 9a fuente -)@uierdo, desconoce el valor
efectos uridicos de la sentencia absolutoria deictada en la causa criminal @ue se
siguio por el mismo hecho, cuando es lo cierto @ue de este han conocido las dos
urisdicciones bao diferentes as pectos, como la de lo criminal declrao dentro de
los limites de su competencia @ue el hecho de @ue se trata no era constitutivo de
delito por no haber mediado descuido o negligencia graves, lo @ue no e"clue,
siendo este el unico fundamento del fallo absolutorio, el concurso de la culpa o
negligencia no califacadas, fuente de obligaciones civiles segun el articulo %&43 del
Codigo, @ue alcan)an, segun el %&4$, netre otras perosnas, a los +irectores deestablecimientos o empresas por los daos causados por sus dependientes en
determinadas condiciones, es manifesto @ue la de lo civil, al conocer del mismo
hehco baho este ultimo aspecto al condenar a la compaia recurrente a la
indemni)acion del dao causado por uno de sus empleados, leos de infringer los
mencionados te"tos, en relacion con el articulo %%' de la 9e de Enuciamiento
Criminal, se ha atenido estrictamente a ellos, sin invadir atribuciones aenas a su
urisdiccion propia, ni contrariar en lo mas minimo el fallo recaido en la causa.
Considering that the first ground of the appeal is based on the mista
-
7/24/2019 Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942
13/25
-
7/24/2019 Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942
14/25
7!ee alsoentence of Februar %&, %&43, which is similar to the one above @uoted.8
-n the entence of the upreme Court of pain, dated Februar %, %&%&, an action was
brought against a railroad compan for damages because the station agent, emploed b
the compan, had unustl andfraudulently, refused to deliver certain articles consigned to
the plaintiff. The upreme Court of pain held that this action was properl under article%&43 of the Civil Code, the court saing6
Considerando @ue la sentencia discutida reconoce, en virtud de los hechos @ue
consigna con relacion a las pruebas del pleito6 %.I, @ue las e"pediciones facturadas
por la compaia ferroviaria a la consignacion del actor de las vasias vacias @ue en
su demanda relacionan tenian como fin el @ue este las devolviera a sus remitentes
con vinos alcoholes= 3.I, @ue llegadas a su destino tales mercanias no se @uisieron
entregar a dicho consignatario por el efe de la estacion sin motivo ustificado con
intencion dolosa, $.I, @ue la falta de entrega de estas e"pediciones al tiempo de
reclamarlas el demandante le originaron daos peruicios en cantidad de bastanteimportancia como e"pendedor al por maor @ue era de vinos alcoholes por las
ganancias @ue deo de obtener al verse privado de servir los pedidos @ue se le
habian hecho por los remitentes en los envases6
Considerando @ue sobre esta base ha necesidad de estimar los cuatro motivos @ue
integran este recurso, por@ue la demanda inicial del pleito a @ue se contrae no
contiene accion @ue na)ca del incumplimiento del contrato de transporte, toda ve)
@ue no se funda en el retraso de la llegada de las mercancias ni de ningun otro
vinculo contractual entre las partes contendientes, careciendo, por tanto, de
aplicacion el articulo $/% del Codigo de Comercio, en @ue principalmente descansael fallo recurrido, sino @ue se limita a pedir la reparaction de los daos peruicios
producidos en el patrimonio del actor por la inustificada dolosa negativa del
porteador a la entrega de las mercancias a su nombre consignadas, segun lo
reconoce la sentencia, cua responsabilidad esta claramente sancionada en el
articulo %&43 del Codigo Civil, @ue obliga por el siguiente a la Compaia demandada
como ligada con el causante de a@uellos por relaciones de caracter economico de
urar@uia administrativa.
Considering that the sentence, in @uestion recogni)es, in virtue of the facts which it
declares, in relation to the evidence in the case6 7%8 that the invoice issued b the
railroad compan in favor of the plaintiff contemplated that the empt receptacles
referred to in the complaint should be returned to the consignors with wines and
li@uors= 738 that when the said merchandise reached their destination, their deliver
to the consignee was refused b the station agent without ustification and
with fraudulent intent, and 7$8 that the lac< of deliver of these goods when the were
demanded b the plaintiff caused him losses and damages of considerable
importance, as he was a wholesale vendor of wines and li@uors and he failed to
-
7/24/2019 Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942
15/25
reali)e the profits when he was unable to fill the orders sent to him b the consignors
of the receptacles6
Considering that upon this basis there is need of upholding the four assignments of
error, as the original complaint did not contain an cause of action arising from non*
fulfillment of a contract of transportation, because the action was not based on thedela of the goods nor on an contractual relation between the parties litigant and,
therefore, article $/% of the Code of Commerce, on which the decision appealed
from is based, is not applicable= but it limits to as
-
7/24/2019 Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942
16/25
punished by the law, subect to the provisions of Chapter -- of Title >-. ection %&43
of that chapter reads6
?A person who b an act or omission causes damage to another when there
is fault or negligence shall be obliged to repair the damage so done.
?EC. %&4$. The obligation imposed b the preceeding article is demandable,
not onl for personal acts and omissions, but also for those of the persons for
whom the should be responsible.
?The father, and on his death or incapacit, the mother, is liable for the
damages caused b the minors who live with them.
" " " " " " " " "
?0wners or directors of an establishment or enterprise are e@uall liable forthe damages caused b their emploees in the service of the branches in
which the latter ma be emploed or in the performance of their duties.
" " " " " " " " "
?The liabilit referred to in this article shall cease when the persons
mentioned therein prove that the emploed all the diligence of a good father
of a famil to avoid the damage.?
As an answer to the argument urged in this particular action it ma be sufficient to
point out that nowhere in our general statutes is the emploer penali)ed for failure to
provide or maintain safe appliances for his wor
-
7/24/2019 Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942
17/25
e"pressl reserved b him for civil proceedings for the future. -f the civil action alone
was prosecuted, arising out of a crime that could be enforced onl on private
complaint, the penal action thereunder should be e"tinguished. These provisions are
in harmon with those of articles 3$ and %$$ of our !enal Code on the same subect.
An e"amination of this topic might be carried much further, but the citation of thesearticles suffices to show that the civil liabilit was not intended to be merged in the
criminal nor even to be suspended thereb, e"cept as e"pressl provided in the law.
;here an individual is civill liable for a negligent act or omission, it is not re@uired
that the inured part should see< out a third person criminall liable whose
prosecution must be a condition precedent to the enforcement of the civil right.
nder article 34 of the !enal Code the responsibilit of an emploer ma be
regarded as subsidiar in respect of criminal actions against his emploees onl
while the are in process of prosecution, or in so far as the determine the e"istence
of the criminal act from which liabilit arises, and his obligation under the civil lawand its enforcement in the civil courts is not barred thereb unless b the election of
the inured person. -nasmuch as no criminal proceeding had been instituted, growing
our of the accident in @uestion, the provisions of the !enal Code can not affect this
action. This construction renders it unnecessar to finall determine here whether
this subsidiar civil liabilit in penal actions has survived the laws that full regulated
it or has been abrogated b the American civil and criminal procedure now in force in
the !hilippines.
The difficult in construing the articles of the code above cited in this case appears
from the briefs before us to have arisen from the interpretation of the words of article%4&$, ?fault or negligence not punished b law,? as applied to the comprehensive
definition of offenses in articles D'2 and D&4 of the !enal Code. -t has been shown
that the liabilit of an emploer arising out of his relation to his emploee who is the
offender is not to be regarded as derived from negligence punished b the law, within
the meaning of articles %&43 and %4&$. #ore than this, however, it cannot be said to
fall within the class of acts unpunished b the law, the conse@uence of which are
regulated b articles %&43 and %&4$ of the Civil Code. The acts to which these
articles are applicable are understood to be those not growing out of pre*e"isting
duties of the parties to one another. But where relations alread formed give rise to
duties, whether springing from contract or @uasi contract, then breaches of thoseduties are subect to articles %%4%, %%4$, and %%4 of the same code. A tpical
application of this distinction ma be found in the conse@uences of a railwa accident
due to defective machiner supplied b the emploer. is liabilit to his emploee
would arise out of the contract of emploment, that to the passengers out of the
contract for passage, while that to the inured bstander would originate in the
negligent act itself.
-
7/24/2019 Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942
18/25
-n ,an*anares vs. ,oreta, $2 !hil., 23% 7ear %&%28, the mother of the 2 of &*ear*old child
alvador Bona brought a civil action against #oreta to recover damages resulting from the
death of the child, who had been run over b an automobile driven and managed b the
defendant. The trial court rendered udgment re@uiring the defendant to pa the plaintiff the
sum of !%,444 as indemnit6 This Court in affirming the udgment, said in part6
-f it were true that the defendant, in coming from the southern part of olana treet,
had to stop his auto before crossing (eal treet, because he had met vehicles which
were going along the latter street or were coming from the opposite direction along
olana treet, it is to be believed that, when he again started to run his auto across
said (eal treet and to continue its wa along olana treet northward, he should
have adusted the speed of the auto which he was operating until he had full
crossed (eal treet and had completel reached a clear wa on olana treet. But,
as the child was run over b the auto precisel at the entrance of olana treet, this
accident could not have occurred if the auto had been running at a slow speed, aside
from the fact that the defendant, at the moment of crossing (eal treet and enteringolana treet, in a northward direction, could have seen the child in the act of
crossing the latter street from the sidewal< on the right to that on the left, and if the
accident had occurred in such a wa that after the automobile had run over the bod
of the child, and the child5s bod had alread been stretched out on the ground, the
automobile still moved along a distance of about 3 meters, this circumstance shows
the fact that the automobile entered olana treet from (eal treet, at a high speed
without the defendant having blown the horn. -f these precautions had been ta
-
7/24/2019 Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942
19/25
municipalit to attend the same. After the procession the mother and the daughter with two
others were passing along Gran Capitan treet in front of the offices of the Tacloban Electric
M -ce !lant, 9td., owned b defendants 1. >. ouse, when an automobile appeared from the
opposite direction. The little girl, who was slightl ahead of the rest, was so frightened b
the automobile that she turned to run, but unfortunatel she fell into the street gutter where
hot water from the electric plant was flowing. The child died that same night from the burns.The trial courts dismissed the action because of the contributor negligence of the plaintiffs.
But this Court held, on appeal, that there was no contributor negligence, and allowed the
parents !%,444 in damages from 1. >. ouse who at the time of the tragic occurrence was
the holder of the franchise for the electric plant. This Court said in part6
Although the trial udge made the findings of fact hereinbefore outlined, he
nevertheless was led to order the dismissal of the action because of the contributor
negligence of the plaintiffs. -t is from this point that a maorit of the court depart from
the stand ta
-
7/24/2019 Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942
20/25
garage and it was, so far as appeared, in good condition. The wor
-
7/24/2019 Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942
21/25
Francisco Bautista, who were wor
-
7/24/2019 Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942
22/25
misdemeanors shall be governed b the provisions of the !enal Code. The
conviction of the motorman was a misdemeanor falling under article '4 of the !enal
Code. The act of the motorman was not a wrongful or negligent act or omission not
punishable b law. Accordingl, the civil obligation connected up with the !enal Code
and not with article %&4$ of the Civil Code. -n other words, the !enal Code affirms its
urisdiction while the Civil Code negatives its urisdiction. This is a case of criminalnegligence out of which civil liabilit arises and not a case of civil negligence.
" " " " " " " " "
0ur deduction, therefore, is that the case relates to the !enal Code and not to the
Civil Code. -ndeed, as pointed out b the trial udge, an different ruling would permit
the master to escape scot*free b simpl alleging and proving that the master had
e"ercised all diligence in the selection and training of its servants to prevent the
damage. That would be a good defense to a strictl civil action, but might or might
not be to a civil action either as a part of or predicated on conviction for a crime ormisdemeanor. 7B wa of parenthesis, it ma be said further that the statements
here made are offered to meet the argument advanced during our deliberations to
the effect that article 4&43 of the Civil Code should be disregarded and codal articles
%4&$ and %&4$ applied.8
-t is not clear how the above case could support the defendant5s proposition, because the
Court of Appeals based its decision in the present case on the defendant5s primar
responsibilit under article %&4$ of the Civil Code and not on his subsidiar liabilit arising
from Fontanilla5s criminal negligence. -n other words, the case of Cit of #anila vs. #anila
Electric Co., supra, is predicated on an entirel different theor, which is the subsidiarliabilit of an emploer arising from a criminal act of his emploee, whereas the foundation
of the decision of the Court of Appeals in the present case is the emploer5s primar liabilit
under article %&4$ of the Civil Code. ;e have alread seen that this is a proper and
independent remed.
Ara%bulo vs. ,anila 1lectric Co.7DD !hil., /D8, is another case invo
-
7/24/2019 Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942
23/25
The above case is also e"traneous to the theor of the defendant in the instant case,
because the action there had for its purpose the enforcement of the defendant5s subsidiar
liabilit under the !enal Code, while in the case at bar, the plaintiff5s cause of action is
based on the defendant5s primar and direct responsibilit under article %&4$ of the Civil
Code. -n fact, the above case destros the defendant5s contention because that decision
illustrates the principle that the emploer5s primar responsibilit under article %&4$ of theCivil Code is different in character from his subsidiar liabilit under the !enal Code.
-n tring to appl the two cases ust referred to, counsel for the defendant has failed to
recogni)e the distinction between civil liabilit arising from a crime, which is governed b the
!enal Code, and the responsibilit for cuasi-delitoor culpa aquilianaunder the Civil Code,
and has li
-
7/24/2019 Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942
24/25
such ancient origin and such full*grown development as culpa aquilianaor cuasi-delito,
which is conserved and made enduring in articles %&43 to %&%4 of the panish Civil Code.
econdl, to find the accused guilt in a criminal case, proof of guilt beond reasonable
doubt is re@uired, while in a civil case, preponderance of evidence is sufficient to maol. %3, p. '33, 3nd Ed.8 #an urists also base this primarresponsibilit of the emploer on the principle of representation of the principal b the agent.
Thus, 0uelos sas in the wor< alread cited 7>ol. /, p. //8 that before third persons the
emploer and emploee ?vienen a ser como una sola personalidad, por refundicion de la
del dependiente en la de @uien le emplea utili)a.? 7?become as one personalit b the
merging of the person of the emploee in that of him who emplos and utili)es him.?8 All
these observations ac@uire a peculiar force and significance when it comes to motor
-
7/24/2019 Barredo v. Garcia Gr L-48006 Jul 8 1942
25/25
accidents, and there is need of stressing and accentuating the responsibilit of owners of
motor vehicles.
Fourthl, because of the broad sweep of the provisions of both the !enal Code and the Civil
Code on this subect, which has given rise to the overlapping or concurrence of spheres
alread discussed, and for lac< of understanding of the character and efficac of the actionfor culpa aquiliana, there has grown up a common practice to see< damages onl b virtue
of the civil responsibilit arising from a crime, forgetting that there is another remed, which
is b invo