BARREDO v.

GARCIA
BOCOBO; July 8, 1942 Petition for review on certiorari

FACTS

 The case cane from the CA, holding Fausto Barredo liable for damages for death of Faustino
Garcia caused by negligence of Pedro Fontanilla, a taxi driver employed by Fausto Barredo
 May 3, 1936 – in a road between Malabon and Navotas, head-on collision between taxi of
Malate Taxicab and carretela guided by Pedro Dimapilis thereby causing overturning of the
carretela and the eventual death of Garcia, 16-yo boy and one of the passengers
 Fontanilla convicted in CFI and affirmed by CA and separate civil action is reserved
 Parents of Garcia filed action against Barredo as sole proprietor of Malate Taxicab as
employer of Fontanilla
 CFI and CA awarded damages because Fontanilla’s negligence apparent as he was driving on
the wrong side of the road and at a high speed
- no proof he exercised diligence of a good father of the family as Barredo is careless
in employing (selection and supervision) Fontanilla who had been caught several
times for violation of Automobile Law and speeding> CA applied A1903CC that
makes inapplicable civil liability arising from crime because this is under obligations
arising from wrongful act or negligent acts or omissions punishable by law
 Barredo’s defense is that his liability rests on RPC. Therefore, liability only subsidiary and
because no civil action against Fontanilla, and thus, he too cannot be held responsible

ISSUE/HELD:

WoN parents of Garcia may bring separate civil action against Barredo making him primarily liable
and directly responsible under A1903CC as employer of Fontanilla – YES

RATIO:

There are two actions available for parents of Garcia. One is under the A100RPC wherein the
employer is only subsidiarily liable for the damages arising from the crime thereby first exhausting
the properties of Fontanilla. The other action is under A1903CC (quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana)
wherein as the negligent employer of Fontanilla, Barredo is held primarily liable subject to proving
that he exercising diligence of a good father of the family. The parents simply took the action under
the Civil Code as it is more practical to get damages from the employer because he has more money
to give than Fontanilla who is yet to serve his sentence.

Difference between Crime and Quasi-delict

1) Crimes – public interest; Quasi-delict – only private interest

2) Penal code punishes or corrects criminal acts; Civil Code by means of indemnification merely
repairs the damage
3) delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts; crimes are only punished if there is a penal law;
quasi-delicts include any kind of fault or negligence intervenes
NOTE: not all violations of penal law produce civil responsibility
e.g. contravention of ordinances, violation of game laws, infraction of rules of traffic when
nobody is hurt
4) crime – guilt beyond reasonable doubt; civil – mere preponderance of evidence
Presumptions:
1) injury is caused by servant or employee, there instantly arises presumption of
negligence of master or employer in selection, in supervision or both
2) presumption is juris tantum not juris et de jure TF may be rebutted by proving
exercise of diligence of a good father of the family
- Basis of civil law liability: not respondent superior but the relationship of pater familias
- motor accidents – need of stressing and accentuating the responsibility of owners of motor
vehicles