Barredo vs Garcia

Torts and Damages Civil Liability from Quasi Delicts vs Civil Liability from Crimes

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 a criminal act
(his drivers negligence) but rather for his own negligence in selecting his employee (Article
1903)