QUASI-DELICT

IMPRUDENCE, NEGLIGENCE, LACK OF FORESIGHT, LACK OF SKILL

CULPA AQUILIANA & CULPA CRIMINAL SAME?

CULPA CRIMINAL-AFFECTS PUBLIC INTEREST, BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
REQUIREMENT
CULPA AQUILIANA –PRIVATE CONCERN, FALLING UNDER PROPENDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
REQUIREMENT

“IN NEGLIGENCE CASES, THE AGGRIEVED PARTY HAS THE CHOICE BETWEEN:
1. ENFORCE THE CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE CRIME, UNDER ART 100 OF THE
RPC, EVERY PERSON CRIMINALLY LIABLE IS ALSO CIVILLY LIABLE. (civil liability ex
delicto)
HERE, THE EMPLOYER MAY BE HELD SUBSIDIARILY CIVILLY LIABLE FOR THE FELONY
COMMITTED BY HIS EMPLOYEE IN THE FISCHARGE OF HIS DUTY.
2. SEPARATE ACTION FOR QUASI-DELICT UNDER ART 2176 OF THE CIVIL CODE: (civil
liability quasi delicto). This is AN ACTION PREDICATED ON QUASI DELICT AGAINST THE
EMPLOYER RAFAEL TRUCKING FOR THE ACT OR OMISSION OF ITS EMPLOYEE AND
WOULD NECESSITATE ONLY A PROPENDERANCE OF EVIDENCE TO PREVAIL. HERE,
THE LIABILITY OF THE EMPLOYER IS DIRECT AND PRIMARY.
IN BOTH CASES, THE RULE AGAINST DOUBLE RECOVERY UNDER ART 2177 PREVAILS.
MEANING, THE INJURED PARTY CANNOT AVAIL HIMSELF OF ANY OTHER REMEDY
BECAUSE HE MAY NOT RECOVER TWICE FOR THE SAME NEGLIGENT ACT OR OMISSION
OF THE ACCUSED.

Case 7: Rafael Reyes Trucking Corp vs People, Apr 3, 2000

Facts
THIS CASE DISCCUSES:
1. FILING OF SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES OR
FILING A SEPARATE ACTION FOR QUASI-DELICT UNDER art 2176 OF THE CIVIL CODE
(RULE 111 , SEC 1, PAR 3 OF THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE)
2. SUPREME COURT’S DECISION ON THE AWARDING OF DAMAGES TO THE OFFENDED
PARTIES IN THE CRIMINAL CASE, WHEN AND IF THERE IS A FILING OF SEPARATE
CIVIL ACTION

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. JUNE 1989 THE DRIVER , ACCUSED , RAFAEL DUNCA, WAS DRIVING A TRAILER
TRUCK WITH 2000 CASES OF EMPTY BOTTLES OF BEER GRANDE (FROM SAN MIGUEL
BREWERY). THIS TRUCK IS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF RAFAEL REYES TRUCKING
CORP. THE DRIVER DUNCA WAS FOUND RO WILLFULLY, UNLAWFULLY AND
FELONIOUSLY DROVE THE TRUCK CAUSING THAT NEGLIGENCE, CARELESSNESS
AND IMPRUDENTCE TO HIT THE NISSAN PICK UP DRIVEN BY FELICIANO BALCITA AND
PASSENGER FRANCISCO DY JR. CAUSING THEIR IMMEDIATE DEATH.
2. THE CASE CHARGED TO DUNCA: RECKLESS IMPORUDENCE RESULTING IN DOUBLE
HOMICIDE BY THE RTC AND BY THE CA.
3. THE IMPORTANT FACTS OF THIS CASE IS WHEN THE HEIR OF THE OFFENDED
PARTIES: MRS DY & CHILDREN AND MRS BALCITA AND MINOR CHILDREN MADE A
 RESERVATION TO FILE A SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENSES CHARGES.
FILED: FILED WITH RTC A COMPLAINT AGAINST PETITIONER RAFAEL REYES
TRUCKING , AS EMPLOYER OF DRIVER BASED IN QUASI DELICT .
RULE 111 ,SEC 1, PAR 3 OF THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE:
WHEN PRIVATE RESPONDENTS , AS COMPLAINANTS N THE CRIMINAL ACTION ,
RESERVED THE
RIGHT TO FILE THE SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION , THEY WAIVED OTHER AVAILABLE CIVIL
ACTIONS PREDICATED ON THE SAME ACT OR OMIISSION OF THE ACCUSED-DRIVER.
SUCH CIVIL ACTION INCLUDES THE RECOVERY OF DAMAGES UNDER ART 2176 OF
THE CIVIL CODE, ARISING FROM THE SAME ACT OR OMISSION OF THE ACCUSED.
4. TECHNICAL GROUNDS: IN DEC 1989, AFTER 6 MOS, PRIVATE RESPONDENTS OR
OFFENDED PARTIES MENTIONED, HEIRS, WITHDREW THE RESERVATION TO FILE A
SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED AND MANIFESTED THAT THEY WILL
WITHDRAW THE RESERVATION FOR A SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION.
BUT FAILED TO WITHDRAW THE CIVIL ACTION (ACTUAL WITHDRAWAL IN THE COURT,
TO DO THE ACTUAL TECHNICAL PROCESS).

5. ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THIS WITHDRAWAL IS WHEN THE RTC , DESPITE THE
RESERVATION FILED BY THE HEIRS, THE RTC AND LATER THE CA DISMISSED THAT
FACT (RESERVATION)AND AWARDED DAMAGESN IN ITS RULING:
P3M as compensatory DAMAGES, P1M –MORAL DAMAGES, P1,030,000 FUNERAL
EXPENSES

6. THUS, IT WAS APPEALED BY THE ACCUSED, RAFAEL REYES TRUCKING COR THRU
THIS CERTIORARI, CLAIMING THAT A RESERVATION WAS MADE AND THAT THIS
DAMAGES CANNOT BE APPLIED OR AWARDED IN THIS CASE

ISSUES:
1. MAY THE PETITIONER OR OWNER OF THE TRUCK, REYES TRUCKING CORP, BE HELD
SUBSIDIARY LIABLE FOR THE DAMAGES AWARDED BY RTC IN THIS CRIMINAL
ACTION DESPITE THE FILING OF THE RESERVATION.
2. MAY THE COURT AWARD DAMAGES TO THE OFFENDED PARTIES DESPITE THE FIING
OF A SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION?

RULING:
1. NO, RAFAEL TRUCKING, JUDGED GUILTY OF CRIMINAL LIABLITY, CANNOT BE HELD
SUBSIDIARY LIABLE OF THE CIVIL LIABILITY BECAUSE OF THE FILING OF THE
SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION BASED ON QUASI DELICT. THE CRIMINAL ACTION DOES
NOT INSTITUTE A CIVIL ACTION.
2. NO., THE COURT ERRED (BOTH RTC AND CA) IN AWARDING CIVIL DAMAGES IN THE
CRIMINAL CASE AND IN DISMISSIN THE SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION.

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI OF THE ACCUSED WAS GRANTED. THE COURT

ORDERED THE CIVIL LIABILITY (NOT OF COURSE THE CRIMINAL ACTION) TO BE RE-
OPENED TO DETERMINE THE LIABILITY OF THE DEFENDANT, RAFAEL TRUCKING TO
 PLAINTIFFS AND THAT OF PLAINTIFFS ON DEFENDANTS COUNTER CLAIM.

OTHER NOTES:
1. the reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made before the
prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording the
offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.

2. Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. -When a criminal action is instituted, the
civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action,
unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately,
or institute the civil action prior to the criminal action.

Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code, and
damages under Article 32, 33, 34 (DAMAGES) and 2176 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused.

Other Cases
[CASE DIGEST] Baksh v. CA (G.R. No. 97336)

February 19, 1993

FACTS:

Gashem Shookat Baksh, an Iranian exchange student taking a medical course at the Lyceum
Northwestern Colleges in Dagupan, courted and proposed marriage to Marilou T. Gonzales, a 22-
year old single Filipino and a pretty lass of good moral character and reputation duly respected in her
community. Marilou accepted the marriage proposal.

Subsequently, Gashem forced her to live with him. Marilou, who was a virgin before she began living
with Gashe, became pregnant. She was later provided some medicine for abortion by Gashem.

Marilou was subjected to threats and maltreatment by Gashem, who later on repudiated their
marriage agreement, saying that he is already married to someone living in Bacolod City.

Marilou sought damages against Gashem for the alleged violation of their agreement to get married.
The trial Court ruled in her favor and awarded her moral damages in the sum of P20,0000, attorney's
fees in the sum of P3,000, and litigation expenses in the sum of P2,000.

In his appeal, Gashem argued that Article 21 of the Civil Code does not apply in this case because of
the following: (1) he claims to have not committed any moral wrong or injury or violated any good
custom or public policy; (2) he has not professed love or proposed marriage to Marilou; (3) he never
maltreated her; (4) the trial court liberally invoked Filipino customs, traditions and culture, to his
prejudice; (5) his actions were tolerable under his Muslim upbringing; and (6) the mere breach of
promise to marry is not actionable.

ISSUE:

Whether Marilou may recover damages from Gashem on the basis of Article 21. -- YES.

HELD:

Consent to sexual intercourse obtained through a promise to marry (by a subtle scheme or deceptive
device, when he actually had no intention to marry) may justify an award of damages pursuant to
Article 21 not because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the
willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter.

Article 21 is designed to expand the concept of torts or quasidelict in this jurisdiction by granting
adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human
foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in the statute books.

It is essential, however, that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy.

In the instant case it was Gashem's fraudulent and deceptive protestations of love for and promise to
marry Marilou that made her surrender her virtue and womanhood to him and to live with him on the
honest and sincere belief that he would keep said promise, and it was also what made Marilou's
parents agree to their daughter's livingin with him preparatory to their supposed  marriage.

Case 2 David Taylor vs Manila Electric

David Taylor was a 15 year old boy who spent time as a cabin boy at sea; he was also able to learn
some principles of mechanical engineering and mechanical drawing from his dad’s office (his dad
was a mechanical engineer); he was also employed as a mechanical draftsman earning P2.50 a day
– all said, Taylor was mature well beyond his age.

One day in 1905, he and another boy entered into the premises of Manila Electric power plant
where they found 20-30 blasting caps which they took home. In an effort to explode the said
caps, Taylor experimented until he succeeded in opening the caps and then he lighted it using
a match which resulted in the explosion of the caps causing severe injuries to his companion
and in Taylor losing one eye.

Taylor sued Manila Electric alleging that because the company negligently left the caps exposed to
children, they are liable for damages.

ISSUE: Whether or not Manila Electric is liable for damages.

HELD: No. The SC reiterated the elements of quasi delict as follows:

(1)  Damages to the plaintiff.

(2)  Negligence by act or omission of which defendant personally, or some person for whose
acts it must respond, was guilty.

(3)  The connection of cause and effect between the negligence and the damage.
In the case at bar, it is true that Manila Electric has been negligent in disposing off the caps which
they used for the power plant, and that said caps caused damages to Taylor. However, the causal
connection between the company’s negligence and the injuries sustained by Taylor is absent. It is in
fact the direct acts of Taylor which led to the explosion of the caps as he even, in various experiments
and in multiple attempts, tried to explode the caps. It is from said acts that led to the explosion and
hence the injuries.

Taylor at the time of the accident was a well-grown youth of 15, more mature both mentally and
physically than the average boy of his age; he had been to sea as a cabin boy; was able to earn
P2.50 a day as a mechanical draftsman thirty days after the injury was incurred; and the record
discloses throughout that he was exceptionally well qualified to take care. The evidence of record
leaves no room for doubt that he well knew the explosive character of the cap with which he was
amusing himself. The series of experiments made by him in his attempt to produce an explosion
admit of no other explanation. His attempt to discharge the cap by the use of electricity, followed
by his efforts to explode it with a stone or a hammer, and the final success of his endeavors
brought about by the applications of a match to the contents of the cap, show clearly that he
knew what he was about. Nor can there be any reasonable doubt that he had reason to
anticipate that the explosion might be dangerous.

“The just thing is that a man should suffer the damage which comes to him through his own fault, and
that he cannot demand reparation therefor from another.”

Case 3: HEIRS OF PEDRO TAYAG v. FERNANDO S. ALCANTARA +

On September 25, 1974, the petitioners, heirs of Pedro Tayag, alleging among others that in the
afternoon of September 2, 1974, while Pedro Tayag Sr. was riding on a bicycle along MacArthur
Highway at Bo. San Rafael, Tarlac, Tarlac on his way home, he was bumped and hit by a Philippine
Rabbit Bus bearing Body No. 1107 and Plate No. YL 604 PUB '74, driven by Romeo Villa, as a result
of which he sustained injuries which caused his instantaneous death. 

n October 25, 1977, the respondent Judge rendered a decision[6] in Criminal Case No. 836,
acquitting the accused Romeo Villa of the crime of homicide on the ground of reasonable doubt.

Thereafter, the private respondents filed a motion to dismiss[7] Civil Case No. 5114 on the ground
that the petitioners have no cause of action against them, the driver of the bus having been acquitted
in the criminal action.  The petitioners opposed the motion[8] alleging that their cause of action is not
based on crime but on quasi delict.

Issue: whether or not the respondent Judge acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction and/or with
grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Civil Case No. 5114.

Ruling

Yes, respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in
dismissing Civil Case No. 5114.

The petitioners' cause of action being based on a quasi-delict, the acquittal of the driver, private
respondent Romeo Villa, of the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 836 is not a bar to the
prosecution of Civil Case No. 5114 for damages based on quasi-delict.[1Art. 31.  When the civil
action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such
civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the
latter."

Evidently, the above quoted provision of the Civil Code refers to a civil action based, not on the act or
omission charged as a felony in a criminal case, but one based on an obligation arising from other
sources,[13] like quasi delict.[14]

Elements of quasi delict were also present

Case 4: Elcano v. Hill (G.R. No. L-24803)

FACTS:

Reginald Hill was accused of killing Agapito Elcano. Hill was subsequently acquitted on the ground
that his act was not considered criminal because of “lack of intent to kill, coupled with mistake.”

Pedro Elcano, father of the victim Agapito, filed a case for recovery of damages instead against
Reginald and his father, Marvin Hill, before the Court of First Instance of Quezon City.

The Hills filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging, among others, that the action is barred by a prior
judgment which is now final and or in res-adjudicata. The CFI granted said motion. Hence, the instant
petition.

ISSUE:

Whether the action for recovery of damages by the Elcanos is barred by the acquittal of Reginald Hill
in the criminal case filed against him. -- NO.

HELD:

The acquittal of Reginald Hill does not extinguish his liability for quasi-delict, and the acquittal is not a
bar for civil action for damages.

Under Art  2177, acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence, shall not be a bar to a
subsequent civil action, nor for civil liability arising from criminal negligence, but for damages due to a
quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana.

Art 2177 means that a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not
he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not
allowed, if he is actually charged also criminally, to recover damages on both scores, and would be
entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two
cases vary.

Culpa acquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may or may not be punished by law.

In the case of Barredo vs. Garcia, the Supreme Court held that negligent act can result in civil liability
under the Penal Code and the Civil Code. In that case the Court said that an act of negligence may
be a proper subject matter either of a criminal action with its consequent civil liability arising from a
crime or of an entirely separate and independent civil action for fault or negligence under the Civil
Code (1902).
Case 5: Santos v Pizardo

In an Information dated April 25, 1994, Dionisio M. Sibayan (Sibayan) was charged with Reckless
Imprudence Resulting to Multiple Homicide and Multiple Physical Injuries in connection with a vehicle
collision between a southbound Viron Transit bus driven by Sibayan and a northbound Lite Ace Van,
which claimed the lives of the van's driver and three (3) of its passengers, including a two- month old
baby, and caused physical injuries to five (5) of the van's passengers. After trial, Sibayan was
convicted
and sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1)
day to four (4) years and two (2) months. However, as there was a reservation to file a separate civil
action, no pronouncement of civil liability was made by the municipal circuit trial court in its decision
promulgated on December 17, 1998.
On October 20, 2000, petitioners filed a complaint for damages against Sibayan, Viron Transit and its
President/Chairman, Virgilio Q. Rondaris, with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,

DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:

(1) Trial Court: dismissed the complaint on the principal ground that the cause of action had already
prescribed. According to the trial court, actions based on quasi delict, as it construed petitioners'
cause of action to be, prescribe four (4) years from the accrual of the cause of action. Hence,
notwithstanding the fact that petitioners reserved the right to file a separate civil action, the complaint
ought to be dismissed on the ground of prescription.
(2) CA: dismissed the same for error in the choice or mode of appeal
ISSUE:
Has the action prescribed?

RULING:
No.
A reading of the complaint reveals that the allegations therein are consistent with petitioners' claim
that the action was brought to recover civil liability arising from crime. Although there are allegations
of negligence on the part of Sibayan and Viron Transit, such does not necessarily mean that
petitioners were pursuing a cause of action based on quasi delict, considering that at the time of the
filing of the complaint, the cause of action ex quasi delicto had already prescribed. Besides, in cases
of negligence, the offended party has the choice between an action to enforce civil liability arising
from crime under the Revised Penal Code and an action for quasi delict under the Civil Code.

Principle
An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part
of the offender, i.e., (1) civil liability ex delicto, under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code; and (2)
independent civil liabilities, such as those (a) not arising from an act or omission complained of as a
felony, e.g., culpa contractual or obligations arising from law under Article 31 of the Civil Code,
intentional torts under Articles 32 and 34, and culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil Code; or
(b) where the injured party is granted a right to file an action independent and distinct from the
criminal action under Article 33 of the Civil Code.15 Either of these liabilities may be enforced against
the offender subject to the caveat under Article 2177 of the Civil Code that the plaintiff cannot recover
damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant and the similar proscription against
double recovery under the Rules above-quoted.

Case 6: Bernabe Castillo Et Al V. Hon. Court Of Appeals, Et Al (1989)

FACTS:
 Barnabe Castillo's Version (May 2, 1965, 2:00 p.m.)
 Bernabe Castillo was driving his jeep on the right lane of the McArthur Highway with Generosa
Castillo, his wife, father Serapion Castillo, seated in front and Eulogio Castillo, then a minor
child at the rate of 25 kms/hr
 Juanito Rosario, with his wife, Cresencia Rosario drove his car speeding and oncoming the same
lane for the purpose of overtaking a cargo truck
 o evade collission, Bernabe swerved his jeep hard right and the car rested on the shoulder of the
right lane as the jeep's rear left wheel was on the road, leaving short tiremarks behind it while the
rear left long tire-marks
 The jeep suffered a shattered windshield, pushed-in radiator. The left mid-portion of its bumper
badly dented. The car had a flat tire on its right front wheel; its right fender badly dented as the
headlamp on top of it. The bumber stooped downward.
 Bernabe's patella on his right knee was fractured and he suffered serious physical injuries, in
other parts of his body. Serapion Castillo whose head crushed through the windshield and was
nearly beheaded, while the other two passengers suffered multiple slight and less serious injuries.

Juanito Rosario's Version  (May 2, 1965, 2:30 p.m.)

 He was about to overtake a slow cargo truck but due to a flat tire, he parked his car on the left
shoulder of the road
 as he was about to get off to fix the flat tire, the car was suddenly bumped by the jeep driven by
Bernabe from the opposite direction
 In the criminal case, Juanito was acquited from the crime for reckless imprudence on the ground
that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt
 Court held that the collision was not due to the negligence of Juanito Rosario but it was Castillo's
own act of driving the jeep to the shoulder of the road where the car was is the proximate cause of
the collision

 CA affirmed CFI: Dismissed the case against Juanito as well as the counterclaim against
Bernabe 

ISSUE: W/N the negligence of Juanito can make him civilly liable despite being acquitted from his
criminal charges 

HELD: NO
Negligence does not exist
It was the Court of Appeals’ findings that the collision was not due to the negligence of Juanito
Rosario but rather it was Castillo’s own act of driving the jeep to the shoulder of the road where the
car was, which was actually the proximate cause of the collision. With this findings, the Court of
Appeals exonerated Juanito Rosario from civil liability on the ground that the alleged negligence did
not exist.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red
Report of the Code of Commission
 ART. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate
and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff
cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.
 According to the Code Commission: "The foregoing provision (Article 2177) through at first sight
startling, is not so novel or extraordinary when we consider the exact nature of criminal and civil
negligence. The former is a violation of the criminal law, while the latter is a "culpa aquiliana" or
quasi-delict, of ancient origin, having always had its own foundation and individuality, separate
from criminal negligence. Such distinction between criminal negligence and "culpa
extracontractual" or "cuasi-delito" has been sustained by decision of the Supreme Court of Spain
and maintained as clear, sound and perfectly tenable by Maura, an outstanding Spanish jurist.
Therefore, under the proposed Article 2177, acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence,
whether on reasonable doubt or not, shall not be a bar to a subsequent civil action, not for civil
liability arising from criminal negligence, but for damages due to a quasi-delict or 'culpa aquiliana'.
But said article forestalls a double recovery.", (Report of the Code) Commission, p. 162.)

 Case 7: Jarantilla v CA
EDGAR JARANTILLA v. CA, GR No. 80194, 1989-03-21
Facts:
private respondent Jose Kuan Sing was "sideswiped by a vehicle in the evening of July 7, 1971 in
Iznart Street, Iloilo
 City".[1] The respondent Court of Appeals concurred in the findings of the court a quo that the
said vehicle which figured in the mishap, a Volkswagen (Beetle type)... car, was then driven by
petitioner Edgar Jarantilla along said street toward the direction of the provincial capitol, and that
private respondent sustained physical injuries as a consequence.
 Petitioner was accordingly charged before the then City Court of Iloilo for serious physical injuries
thru reckless jurisprudence in Criminal Case No. 47207 thereof.[3] Private respondent,... as the
complaining witness therein, did not reserve his right to institute a separate civil action and he
intervened in the prosecution of said criminal case through a private prosecutor.[4] Petitioner was
acquitted in said criminal case on reasonable doubt
 On October 30, 1974, private respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner in this former
Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch IV,[6] docketed therein as Civil Case
 No. 9976, and which civil action involved the same subject matter and act complained of in
Criminal Case No. 47027.[7
 In his answer filed therein, the petitioner alleged as special and affirmative defenses that... the
private respondent had no cause of action and, additionally, that the latter's cause of action, if
any, is barred by the prior judgment in Criminal Case No. 47207 inasmuch as when said criminal
case was instituted the civil liability was also deemed instituted... since therein plaintiff failed to
reserve the civil aspect and actively participated in the criminal case... the court below rendered
judgment on May 23, 1977 in favor of the herein private respondent and ordering herein petitioner
to pay the former the sum of P6,920.00 for hospitalization, medicines and so forth, P2,000.00 for
other actual expenses, P25,000.00... for moral damages, P5,000.00 for attorney's fees, and costs.
 Issues:
 whether the private respondent, who was the complainant in the criminal action for physical
injuries thru reckless imprudence and who participated in the prosecution thereof without
reserving the civil... action arising from the act or omission complained of, can file a separate
action for civil liability arising from the same act or omission where the herein petitioner was
 acquitted in the criminal action on reasonable doubt and no civil liability was adjudicated or
awarded in... the judgment of acquittal.
 Ruling:
 With the foregoing ancillary issue out of the way, We now consider the principal plaint of
petitioner.
 Apropos to such resolution is the settled rule that the same act or omission (in this case, the
negligent sideswiping of private respondent) can create two kinds of liability on the part of the
offender, that is, civil liability ex... delicto and civil liability ex quasi delicto.  Since the same
negligence can give rise either to a delict or crime or to a quasi-delict or tort, either of... these two
types of civil liability may be enforced against the culprit, subject to the caveat under Article 2177
of the Civil Code that the offended party cannot recover damages under both types of liability.

 Case 8 FAUSTO BARREDO, petitioner, vs. SEVERINO GARCIA and TIMOTEO ALMARIO,
respondents
No. 48006.           July 8, 1942
 Facts:
 A head-on collision between a taxicab owned by Barredo and a carretela occurred. The carretela
was overturned and one of its passengers, a 16-year old boy, the son of Garcia and Almario, died
as a result of the injuries which he received. The driver of the taxicab, an employee of Barredo,
was prosecuted for the crime and was convicted. When the criminal case was instituted, Garcia
and Almario reserved their right to institute a separate civil action for damages. Subsequently,
Garcia and Almario instituted a civil action for damages against Barredo, the employer of the
taxicab driver.
 Issue:
 Whether or not they can file a separate civil action against Fausto Barredo making him primarily
and directly responsible
 Held:
 (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.)
 The defendant maintains that Fontanilla’s negligence being punishable by the Penal Code,
his (defendant’s) liability as an employer is only subsidiary, according to said Penal Code, but
Fontanilla has not been sued in a civil action and his property has not been exhausted. To decide
the main issue, we must cut thru the tangle that has, in the minds of many, confused and jumbled
together delitos and cuasi delitos, or crimes under the Penal Code and fault or negligence under
Articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. According to the Supreme Tribunal of Spain:
 “Authorities support the proposition that a quasi-delict or ‘culpa aquiliana’ is a separate legal
institution under the Civil Code, with a substantivity all its own, and individuality that is entirely
apart and independent from a delict or crime. Upon this principle, and on the wording and spirit of
Article 1903 of the Civil Code, the primary and direct responsibility of employers may be safely
anchored.
 “It will thus be seen that while the terms of Article 1902 of the Civil Code seem to be broad
enough to cover the driver’s negligence in the instant case, nevertheless Article 1903 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. It is
this overlapping that makes the “confusion worse confounded.’ However, a closer study shows
that such a concurrence of scope in regard to negligent acts does not destroy the distinction
between the civil liability arising from a crime and the responsibility for cuasi-delitos or culpa extra-
contractual. The same negligent act causing damages may produce civil liability arising from a
 crime under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code; or create an action for cuasi-delito or culpa
extra-contractual under Articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. “Some of the differences between
crimes under the Penal Code are:
 “1. That crimes affect the public interest, while quasi-delitos are only of private concern.
 “2. That consequently, the Penal Code punishes or corrects the criminal act, while the Civil Code,
by means of indemnification, merely repairs the damage.
 “3. That delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts, because for the former are punished only if there
is a penal law clearly covering them, while the latter, cuasi-delitos, include all acts in which ‘ any
kind of fault or negligence intervenes.’ However, it should be noted that not all violations of the
penal law produce civil responsibility, such as begging in contravention of ordinances, violation of
the game laws, infraction of the rules of traffic when nobody is hurt.
 “The foregoing authorities clearly demonstrate the separate individuality of cuasi-delitos or culpa
aquiliana under the Civil Code. Specifically they show that there is a distinction between civil
liability arising from criminal negligence (governed by the Penal Code) and responsibility for fault
or negligence under Articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code, and that the same negligent act may
produce either a civil liability arising from a crime under the Penal Code, or a separate
responsibility for fault or negligence under Articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code. Still more
concretely the authorities above cited render it inescapable to conclude that the employer – in this
case the defendant-petitioner – is primarily and directly liable under Article 1903 of the Civil
Code.”

Case 8 AVELINO CASUPANAN v. MARIO LLAVORE LAROYA, GR No. 145391, 2002-08-26

Facts:
Two vehicles, one driven by respondent Mario Llavore Laroya... and the other owned by petitioner
Roberto Capitulo... and driven by petitioner Avelino Casupanan... figured in an accident.
Laroya filed a criminal case against Casupanan for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to
property
On the other hand, Casupanan and Capitulo filed... a civil case against Laroya for quasi-delict
When the civil case was filed, the criminal case was then at its preliminary investigation stage.
Laroya, defendant in the civil case, filed a motion to dismiss the civil case on the ground of forum-
shopping considering the pendency of the criminal case. The MCTC... dismissed the civil case.
The Capas RTC... dismissing the petition for certiorari for lack of merit.
The Capas RTC ruled that... the proper remedy should have been an... appeal.
Issues:
whether an accused in a pending criminal case for reckless imprudence can validly file,
simultaneously and independently, a separate civil action for quasi-delict against the private
complainant in the criminal case
Ruling:
The essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the
same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to secure a favorable judgment.[
However, there is no forum-shopping in the instant case because the law and the rules
expressly allow the filing of a separate civil action which can proceed independently of the...
criminal action.
Laroya filed the criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property based on the
Revised Penal Code while Casupanan and Capitulo filed the civil action for damages based on Article
2176 of the Civil Code. Although these two actions arose from the same act... or omission, they have
different causes of action. The criminal case is based on culpa criminal punishable under the Revised
Penal Code while the civil case is based on culpa aquiliana actionable under Articles 2176 and 2177
of the Civil Code. These articles on culpa aquiliana... read:
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and
distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot
recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the... defendant.
Any aggrieved person can invoke these articles provided he proves, by preponderance of evidence,
that he has suffered damage because of the fault or negligence of another. Either the private
complainant or the accused can file a separate civil action under these articles.
There is nothing in the law or rules that state only the private complainant in a criminal case may
invoke these articles.
Section 1, Rule 111... provides
When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising
from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the
offended party waives the... civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or
institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made before the
prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended
party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.
Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, what is "deemed instituted" with the criminal action
is only the action to recover civil liability arising from the crime or ex-delicto. All the other civil
actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code are no longer
"deemed instituted," and may be filed separately and prosecuted independently even without any
reservation in the criminal action. The failure to make a reservation in the criminal action is not a
waiver of the right to file a separate and independent civil action based on these... articles of the Civil
Code. The prescriptive period on the civil actions based on these articles of the Civil Code
continues to run even with the filing of the criminal action. Verily, the civil actions based on
these articles of the Civil Code are separate, distinct and... independent of the civil action
"deemed instituted" in the criminal action.
Under the present Rule 111, the offended party is still given the option to file a separate civil action to
recover civil liability ex-delicto by reserving such right in the criminal action before the prosecution
presents its evidence. Also, the offended party is deemed to... make such reservation if he files a
separate civil action before filing the criminal action. If the civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto
is filed separately but its trial has not yet commenced, the civil action may be consolidated with the
criminal action. The... consolidation under this Rule does not apply to separate civil actions arising
from the same act or omission filed under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code.
Section 2, Rule 111
After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be
instituted until final judgment has been entered in the criminal action.
If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already been instituted, the latter shall be
suspended in whatever stage it may be found before judgment on the merits. The suspension shall
last until final judgment is rendered in the criminal... action.
Section 3, Rule 111
In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the
independent civil action may be brought by the offended party. It shall proceed independently
of the criminal action and... shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case,
however, may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged
in the criminal action.
There is no question that the offended party in the criminal action can file an independent civil action
for quasi-delict against the accused. Section 3 of the present Rule 111 expressly states that the
"offended party" may bring such an action but the "offended... party" may not recover damages twice
for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action. Clearly, Section 3 of Rule 111 refers to
the offended party in the criminal action, not to the accused.
Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, the independent civil action in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176
of the Civil Code is not deemed instituted with the criminal action but may be filed separately by the
offended party even without reservation. The commencement of the... criminal action does not
suspend the prosecution of the independent civil action under these articles of the Civil Code. The
suspension in Section 2 of the present Rule 111 refers only to the civil action arising from the crime, if
such civil action is reserved or filed before... the commencement of the criminal action.
Thus, the offended party can file two separate suits for the same act or omission. The first a
criminal case where the civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto is deemed instituted,
and the other a civil case for quasi-delict - without violating the rule on... non-forum shopping.
The two cases can proceed simultaneously and independently of each other. The
commencement or prosecution of the criminal action will not suspend the civil action for
quasi-delict. The only limitation is that the offended party cannot recover damages twice... for
the same act or omission of the defendant. In most cases, the offended party will have no
reason to file a second civil action since he cannot recover damages twice for the same act or
omission of the accused.
Similarly, the accused can file a civil action for quasi-delict for the same act or omission he is accused
of in the criminal case.
Thus, the civil action based on quasi-delict filed separately by Casupanan and Capitulo is proper.
The order of dismissal by the MCTC... on the ground of forum-shopping is erroneous.
the petition for review on certiorari is hereby GRANTED.

Rules on Damages

ART 1902. Any person who by an act or omission causes damage to another by his fault or
negligence shall be liable for the damage so done.

ART. 1903. 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.

The father and in, case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are liable for any damages caused by
the minor children who live with them.
Guardians are liable for damages done by minors or incapacitated persons subject to their authority
and living with them.

Owners or directors 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.

The State is subject to the same liability when it acts through a special agent, but not if the damage
shall have been caused by the official upon whom properly devolved the duty of doing the act
performed, in which case the provisions of the next preceding article shall be applicable.

Finally, teachers or directors of arts trades are liable for any damages caused by their pupils or
apprentices while they are under their custody.

The liability imposed by this article shall cease in case the persons mentioned therein prove that they
are exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage.

ART. 1904. Any person who pays for damage caused by his employees may recover from the latter
what he may have paid.

Case: Ylarde v Aquino

Mariano Soriano was the principal of the Gabaldon Primary School in Pangasinan while Edgardo
Aquino was a teacher therein. The school had several concrete blocks which were remnants of the
old school shop destroyed in World War II. Aquino decided to help clear the area. So after the
classes, he gathered 18 of his male pupils,  aged 10-11, and ordered them to dig beside a one-ton
concrete block in making a hole where the stone can be buried. The following day he called 4 of the
18 students, including Novelito Ylarde to complete the excavation. When the depth was right enough
to accommodate the concrete block, Aquino and his four pupils got out of the hole. Aquino left the
children to level the loose soil while he went to see another teacher for the key to the school
workroom where he can get some rope. Before leaving, he told the children “not to touch the stone”.
After he left, 3 of the children playfully jumped into the pit. Then, without any warning at all, the
remaining one jumped on top of the concrete block causing it to slide down towards the opening.
Unfortunately, Novelito Ylarde was pinned to the wall which led to his death 3 days after.  The parents
of Ylarde filed a suit for damages against both Aquino and Soriano.

Issues: 

Can Aquino and Soriano be held liable for damages?

eld: 

Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code,

it is only the teacher and not the head of an academic school who should be answerable for
torts committed by their students while in a school of arts and trades, it is only the head of the
school who can be held liable. It was held in Amadora vs. Court of Appeals that:

The legal provisions on which the action of plaintiffs is predicated are Articles 2176 and 2180
of the new Civil Code, the pertinent portions of which are quoted here under for ready
reference:
 ART. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is
so pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is
governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

ART. 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own
acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom — one is responsible.

. In other words, teachers in general shall be liable for the acts of their students except where the
school is technical in nature, in which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable.."

Hence, applying the said doctrine to this case, we rule that private respondent Soriano, as
principal, cannot be held liable for the reason that the school he heads is an academic school
and not a school of arts and trades. Besides, as clearly admitted by private respondent
Aquino, private respondent Soriano did not give any instruction regarding the digging.

From the foregoing, it can be easily seen that private respondent Aquino can be held liable
under Article 2180 of the Civil Code as the teacher-in-charge of the children for being
negligent in his supervision over them and his failure to take the necessary precautions to
prevent any injury on their persons. 

The legal provisions on which the action of plaintiffs is predicated are Articles 2176 and 2180
of the new Civil Code, the pertinent portions of which are quoted here under for ready
reference:

ART. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is
so pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is
governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

ART. 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own
acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom — one is responsible.

it is very clear that private respondent Aquino acted with fault and gross negligence when he: (1)
failed to avail himself of services of adult manual laborers and instead utilized his pupils aged
ten to eleven to make an excavation near the one-ton concrete stone which he knew to be a
very hazardous task; (2) required the children to remain inside the pit even after they had
finished digging, knowing that the huge block was lying nearby and could be easily pushed or
kicked aside by any pupil who by chance may go to the perilous area; (3) ordered them to
level the soil around the excavation when it was so apparent that the huge stone was at the
brink of falling; (4) went to a place where he would not be able to check on the children's
safety; and (5) left the children close to the excavation, an obviously attractive nuisance.

The negligent act of private respondent Aquino in leaving his pupils in such a dangerous site
has a direct causal connection to the death of the child Ylarde. Left by themselves, it was but natural
for the children to play around. Everything that occurred was the natural and probable effect of the
negligent acts of private respondent Aquino.
Needless to say, the child Ylarde would not have died were it not for the unsafe situation
created by private respondent Aquino which exposed the lives of all the pupils concerned to
real danger. (Ancheta vs. Ancheta, G.R. No. 145370, March 4, 2004)

Meeting 2:

Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Company, 38 Phil. 768

In this case, the Supreme Court discusses the difference and the effects of Culpa Contractual and
Culpa Aquiliana or Quasi –Delict and Contract of Carriage.
In culpa aquiliana (and culpa criminal), negligence is the direct, substantive and independent source
of the obligation, while in culpa contractual, negligence is merely incidental in the performance of an
already existing contractual obligation.

Culpa Aquiliana (Quasi –Delict)- When the sources of the obligation upon which plaintiff's cause of
action depends is a negligent act or omission, the burden of proof rests upon plaintiff to prove the
negligence — if he does not his action fails.

Culpa Contractual - facts averred show a contractual undertaking by defendant for the benefit of
plaintiff, and it is alleged that plaintiff has failed or refused to perform the contract, it is not necessary
for plaintiff to specify in his pleadings whether the breach of the contract is due to willful fault or to
negligence on the part of the defendant, or of his servants or agents. Proof of the contract and of its
nonperformance is sufficient prima facie to warrant a recovery.

The fundamental distinction between obligations of this character and those which arise from
contract, rests upon the fact that in cases of non-contractual obligation it is the wrongful or negligent
act or omission itself which creates the vinculum juris, whereas in contractual relations
the vinculum exists independently of the breach of the voluntary duty assumed by the parties when
entering into the contractual relation.

Facts of the Case

Jose Cangco, a copy clerk of Manila Railroad, used a pass supplied by his employer entitling him to
ride upon the company’s trains for free.

 On January 20, 1915, while the train was slowing down at the train’s San Mateo station,
Cangco arose from his seat and inched his way to the door. He was standing behind Zuniga,
 another passenger, who stood directly at the coach’s exit. Zuniga was able to alight safely on
the platform
 When the train had proceeded a little farther, Cangco stepped off also. However, one or both
of his feet came in contact with a sack of watermelons. As a result, his feet slipped from under
him and he fell violently on the platform.
 Cangco’s body rolled from the platform and was drawn under the moving car, where his right
arm was badly crushed and lacerated. He was rushed to a certain hospital in Manila where his
arm was amputated
 The result of this operation was unsatisfactory, and so Cangco had to be carried to another
hospital where a second operation was performed and the member was again amputated
higher up near the shoulder. In all, Cangco spent P790.25 in the form of medical and surgical
fees and for other expenses.
 It appears that the incident occurred between 7 and 8 in the evening. The station was dimly lit
at the time, so the objects on the platform were difficult to discern especially to a person
emerging from a lighted car.

 In addition, the presence of a sack of watermelons on the platform where Cangco alighted can
be attributed to the fact that it was the customary season for harvesting these melons and a
large lot had been brought to the station for shipment to the market.

 On account of his injuries, Cangco filed an action for damages against Manila Railroad,
claiming that the latter’s employees were negligent in placing the sacks of melons upon the
platform and leaving them so placed as to be a menace to the security of passenger alighting
from the company’s trains.

 CFI: Denied Cangco’s claim for damages because although negligence was attributable to
Manila Railroad by reason of the fact that the sacks of melons were so placed as to obstruct
passengers passing to and from the cars, nevertheless, Cangco himself had failed to use due
caution in alighting from the coach. He was therefore precluded from recovering.
 Hence, the instant appeal.

Issue: Whether the liability and claim for damages of Cangco is culpa –aquiliana or culpa –
contractual?
Whether there is contributory negligence on the part of Cangco?

Ruling:
 Whether the liability and claim for damages of Cangco is culpa –aquiliana or culpa –
contractual?
The liability is culpa contractual but on the context of contract of carriage .
BREACH OF CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE, NOT VICARIOUS LIABILITY DUE TO THE
NEGLIGENCE OF ITS EMPLOYEES.

The foundation of the legal liability of Manila Railroad is the contract of carriage. The obligation to
respond for the damage which Cangco had suffered arises from the breach of that contract by reason
of Manila Railroad’s failure to exercise due care in its performance

not by reason of vicarious liability due to its employees’ negligence. Thus, it cannot excuse itself from
liability by showing that it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees.
But because of its contract to deliver passenger safety to its destination.
 BREACH OF CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE, NOT VICARIOUS LIABILITY DUE TO THE
NEGLIGENCE OF ITS EMPLOYEES.

Civil Code requires common carriers to observe extraordinary diligence in safely transporting their
passengers. Article 1733 of the Civil Code states: ART. 1733.Sep 27, 2017
Manila Railroad cannot post the defense that it exercised due diligence of a good father in the
selection and supervision of its employees to escape liability.

 Whether there is contributory negligence on the part of Cangco?

Is Cangco is guilty of contributory negligence , for alighting from a moving train without waiting until
the train had come to a complete stop. Under the doctrine of comparative negligence, if the accident
was caused by plaintiff’s own negligence, no liability is imposed upon defendant’s negligence and
plaintiff’s negligence merely contributed to his injury, the damages should be apportioned.

The Suprement Court held, NO

 First, he was not aware of the fact that the obstruction caused by the sacks of melons piled on
the platform existed; 
 the place was dark or dimly lighted. This is also a proof of a failure upon the part of Manila
Railroad in the performance of a duty owing by it to its passengers
 Cangco was possessed of the vigor and agility of young manhood, and it was by no means so
risky for him to get off while the train was yet moving as the same act would have been in an
aged or feeble person. The age, sex, and physical condition of the passenger are
circumstances necessarily affecting the safety of the passenger, and should be considered.

 The place was perfectly familiar to Cangco as it was his daily custom to get on and of the train
at this station. There could, therefore, be no uncertainty in his mind with regard either to the
length of the step which he was required to take or the character of the platform where he was
alighting.

Equitable Leasing Corporation vs. Lucita Suyom, Marissa Enano, Myrna Tamayo and Felix
Oledan

Equitable Leasing Corporation vs. Lucita Suyom, Marissa Enano, Myrna Tamayo and Felix
Oledan

FACTS:
             
A tractor driven by Raul Tutor rammed into a house-cum-store in Tondo, Manila. Part of the house
was destroyed. Two people died and four were injured. Tutor was convicted of reckless imprudence
resulting in multiple homicide and multiple physical injuries.Verification with the Land Transportation
Office revealed that the registered owner of the tractor was Equitable Leasing Corporation who
leased it to Edwin Lim. The relatives of the victims filed a civil case for damages.The Regional Trial
Court ruled against Equitable and ordered it to pay damages to the victims’ relatives. Upon
Equitable’s appeal, the Court of Appeals sustained the RTC. Equitable filed a petition for review with
the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:           Whether Equitable Leasing is liable for damages

RULING:
Yes, Equitable Leasing is liable. The petition is denied and the CA decision is affirmed.As the
registered owner of the tractor, Equitable Leasing is liable for the acts of Raul Tutor even if he was
actually the employee of Equitable’s former lessee, Ecatine Corporation, who became the actual
owner of the tractor by virtue of a deed of sale not registered with the LTO.
Regardless of sales made of a motor vehicle, the registered owner is the lawful operator
insofar as the public and third persons are concerned; consequently, it is directly and primarily
responsible for the consequences of its operation. In the eyes of the law, the owner/operator of record
is the employer of the driver, the actual owner/operator being considered as merely the agent of the
registered owner/operator. The principle applies even if the registered owner of any vehicle does not
use it for public service.The main aim of motor vehicle registration is to identify the owner so that if
any accident happens, or any damage or injury is caused by the vehicle, responsibility can be fixed
on a definite individual, the registered owner. Failure to register the deed of sale should not prejudice
victims, who have the right to rely on the principle that the registered owner is liable for damages
caused by the negligence of the driver.
Equitable Leasing can’t hide behind the allegation that Tutor was Ecatine Corp’s employee,
because it will prevent victims from recovering their loss on the basis of Equitable’s inaction in failing
to register the sale. The non-registration is Equitable’s fault, which should face the legal
consequences thereof.