G.R. No.

L-48006 July 8, 1942

FAUSTO BARREDO, petitioner, Vs. SEVERINO GARCIA and TIMOTEA ALMARIO, respondents.

Facts

There was a head-on collision between a taxi of the Malate Taxicab driven by Pedro Fontanilla
and a carretela guided by Pedro Dimapalis. Due to the impact of collision, the carretela was
overturned, which cost the death of one of its passengers, a 16-year-old boy named Faustino
Garcia. In the Court of First Instance of Rizal, a criminal action was filed against fontanilla, he
was convicted and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of one year and one day to two
years of prision correccional. The court in the criminal case granted the request to bring a
separate civil action regarding the case. It was proved that the accident was cost by Fontanilla’s
negligence as he was driving on the wrong side of the road, and at high speed. As to Barredo’s
responsibility, the Court of Appeals found that there is no proof that he exercised the diligence of
a good father of a family to prevent damage. It was shown he was careless in employing
Fontanilla, who had been caught several times for violation of the Automobile Law and speeding.
According to the main theory of the defense, it was said that the liability of Fausto Barredo is
governed by the Revised Penal Code which makes his liability only subsidiary.

Issue Whether or not the plaintiffs may bring this separate civil action against Fausto Barredo,
thus making him primarily and directly, responsible under article 1903 of the Civil Code as an
employer of Pedro Fontanilla.
Ruling
Yes. The judgement of Court of Appeals affirmed with costs against the defendant petitioner as
the employer, Fausto Barredo, was found primarily and directly responsible under article 1903 of
the Civil Code as an employer of Pedro Fontanilla. The obligation imposed by the next preceding
article is enforcible, not only for personal acts and omissions, but also for those of persons for
whom another is responsible. Owners or Employers of an establishment or business are equally
liable for any damages caused by their employees while engaged in the branch of the service in
which employed, or on occasion of the performance of their duties.

It will thus be seen that while the terms of articles 1902 of the Civil Code seem to be broad
enough to cover the driver’s negligence in the instant case, nevertheless article 1093 limits
cuasi-delitos to acts or omissions “not punishable by law.” But inasmuch as article 365 of the
Revised Penal Code punishes not only reckless but even simple imprudence or negligence, the
fault or negligence under article 1902 of the Civil Code has apparently been crowded out.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1942/jul1942/gr_l-48006_1942.html

Yes. The judgement of Court of Appeals affirmed with costs against the defendant petitioner as
the employer, Fausto Barredo, was found primarily and directly responsible under article 1903 of
the Civil Code as an employer of Pedro Fontanilla. It was proved that Fausto barredo wasn’t
careful in handling his employees which result to accident just like what happened in this case
his failure as an employer made him liable with all the damages that his employee costed. Article
1903 provides The obligation imposed by the next preceding article is enforcible, not only for
personal acts and omissions, but also for those of persons for whom another is responsible.
G.R. No. L-48006 July 8, 1942
FAUSTO BARREDO, petitioner, Vs. SEVERINO GARCIA and TIMOTEA ALMARIO,
respondents.

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 by the negligence of Pedro Fontanilla,
a taxi driver employed by said Fausto Barredo.

Facts

There was a head-on collision between a taxi of the Malate Taxicab driven by Pedro Fontanilla
and a carretela guided by Pedro Dimapalis. Due to the impact of collision, the carretela was
overturned, which cost the death of one of its passengers, a 16-year-old boy named Faustino
Garcia. In the Court of First Instance of Rizal, a criminal action was filed against fontanilla, he
was convicted and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of one year and one day to two
years of prision correccional. The court in the criminal case granted the request to bring a
separate civil action regarding the case.

Issue

Whether or not the plaintiffs may bring this separate civil action against Fausto Barredo, thus
making him primarily and directly, responsible under article 1903 of the Civil Code as an
employer of Pedro Fontanilla.

Ruling

Yes. The judgement of Court of Appeals affirmed with costs against the defendant petitioner as
the employer, Fausto Barredo, was found primarily and directly responsible under article 1903 of
the Civil Code as an employer of Pedro Fontanilla. It was proved that Fausto barredo wasn’t
careful in handling his employees which result to accident just like what happened in this case
his failure as an employer made him liable with all the damages that his employee costed. It was
shown that he was careless in hiring Fontanilla, who had been caught several times violating the
Automobile Law.
EXPLANATION

Nagkaroon ng banggaan sa pagitan ng isang taxi ng Malate Taxicab na minamaneho ni Pedro

Fontanilla at isang kalesa na minamaneho ni Pedro Dimapalis. Dahil sa impact ng banggaan,
nabaligtad ang kalesa na ikinasawi ng isa sa mga pasahero nito, isang 16 years old na lalaki na
nagngangalang Faustino Garcia. In the Court of First Instance of Rizal, a criminal action was
filed against fontanilla, he was convicted and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of one
year and one day to two years of prision correccional (minimum period). The court in the criminal
case granted the request to bring a separate civil action regarding the case. It was proved that
the accident was cost by Fontanilla’s negligence as he was driving on the wrong side of the
road, and at high speed.

Issue
Whether or not the plaintiffs may bring this separate civil action against Fausto Barredo, thus
making him primarily and directly, responsible under article 1903 of the Civil Code as an
employer of Pedro Fontanilla.

Ruling

Yes. The judgement of Court of Appeals affirmed with costs against the defendant petitioner as
the employer, Fausto Barredo, was found primarily and directly responsible under article 1903 of
the Civil Code as an employer of Pedro Fontanilla. It was proved that Fausto barredo wasn’t
careful in handling his employees which result to accident just like what happened in this case
his failure as an employer made him liable with all the damages that his employee costed. It was
shown that he was careless in hiring Fontanilla, who had been caught several times violating the
Automobile Law.

He is primarily liable under Article 1903 which is a separate civil action against negligent
employers

Sued for damages arising from a criminal act (his driver’s negligence) but rather for his own
negligence in selecting his employee (Article 1903).

(Foreword: The Barredo case was decided by the Supreme Court prior to the present Civil Code.
However, the principle enunciated in said case, that responsibility for fault or negligence as
quasi-delict is distinct and separate from negligence penalized under the Revised Penal Code, is
now specifically embodied in Art. 2177 of the Civil Code.)