At about 1:30am on May 3, 1936, Fontanillas taxi collided with a kalesa thereby killing the 16 year old

Faustino Garcia. Faustinos parents filed a criminal suit against Fontanilla and reserved their right to file a
separate civil suit. Fontanilla was eventually convicted. After the criminal suit, Garcia filed a civil suit
against Barredo the owner of the taxi (EMPLOYER of Fontanilla). The suit was based on Article 1903
of the civil code (negligence of EMPLOYERS in the selection of their employees). Barredo assailed the
suit arguing that his liability is only subsidiary and that the separate civil suit should have been filed
against Fontanilla primarily and not him.
ISSUE: Whether or not Barredo is just subsidiarily liable.
HELD: No. He is primarily liable under Article 1903 which is a separate civil action against negligent
employers. Garcia is well within his rights in suing Barredo. He reserved his right to file a separate civil
action and this is more expeditious because by the time of the SC judgment Fontanilla is already serving
his sentence and has no property. It was also proven that Barredo is negligent in hiring his employees
because it was shown that Fontanilla had had multiple traffic infractions already before he hired him
something he failed to overcome during hearing. Had Garcia not reserved his right to file a separate civil
action, Barredo would have only been subsidiarily liable. Further, Barredo is not being sued for damages
arising from acriminal act (his drivers negligence) but rather for his own negligence in selecting his
employee (Article 1903).

On May 3, 1936, there was a head-on collision between a taxi of the Malate taxicab driven by Fontanilla
and a carretela guided by Dimapilis. The carretela was over-turned, and a passenger, a 16-year old boy,
Garcia, suffered injuries from which he died. A criminal action was filed against Fontanilla, and he was
convicted. The court in the criminal case granted the petition to reserve the civil action. Garcia and
Almario, parents of the deceased, on March 7, 1939, filed a civil action against Barredo, the proprietor of
the Malate Taxicab and EMPLOYER of Fontanilla, making him primarily and directly responsible
under culpa acquiliana of Article 2180 of the CivilCode of the Philippines. It is undisputed that
Fontanillas negligence was the cause of the accident, as he was driving on the wrong sideof the road at
high speed, and there was no showing that Barredo exercised the diligence of a good father of a family, a
defense to Article 2180 of the said Code. Barredos theory of defense is that Fontanillas negligence being
punished by the Revised Penal Code, his liability as EMPLOYER is only subsidiary, but Fontanilla, was
not sued for civil liability. Hence, Barredo claims that he cannot be held liable.
Issue: Whether or not Barredo, as EMPLOYER is civilly liable for the acts of Fontanilla, his employee.
Held: Quasi-delict or culpa acquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code of the
Philippines is entirely distinct and independent from a delict or crime under the Revised Penal Code. In
this jurisdiction, 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. And in the instant case, the negligent act of Fontanilla produces two (2)
liabilities of Barredo: First, a subsidiary one because of the civil liability of Fontanilla arising from the
latters criminal negligence under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, and second, Barredos primary

and direct responsibility arising from his presumed negligence as an EMPLOYER under Article 2180
ofthe Civil Code. Since the plaintiffs are free to choose what remedy to take, they preferred the second,
which is within their rights. This is the more expedious and effective method of relief because Fontanilla
was either in prison or just been released or had no property. Barredo was held liable for damages.