Barredo vs.

Garcia(QUASI-DELICT)
Petitioner: Fausto Barredo
Respondents: Severino Garcia and Timotra Almario
Ponente: Bocobo

FACTS:
! On the morning of MAY 3, 1936, there was a head-on collision between a taxi of the Malate
Taxicabdriven by Pedro FONTANILLA employed by BARREDO and a carretela guided by
Dimapalis. A 16-year-old passenger of the carretela named Faustino Garcia suffered injuries from
the collision and later on died after two days from the accident.

! A criminal action was instituted against Fontanilla in CFI Rizal where he was convicted and
sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of one year and one day to two years of prision
correccional. The said court also granted a petition to be granted the right to reserve for a separate
civil action.

! On MARCH 7, 1939,Severino Garcia and Timotea Almario, parents of the deceased, brought an
action in CFI Manila against Fausto Barredo and his employer Fontanilla.

! Later on CFI Manila awarded damages in favor of the plaintiff for P 2,000.00 + legal interest.

! It is undisputed that Fontanillas negligence was the cause of the accident as he was driving at
the wrong side of the road at a high speed.

! As to Barredos responsibility, CA found out that he was careless in hiring Fontanilla who had
been caught several times for violation of the Automobile Law and speeding which appeared in
public records. Therefore he must indemnify the plaintiffs under the provisions of ART 1903 of the
Civil Code.

! The main theory of the defense is that the liability of Barredo is governed by RPC; hence his
liability is only subsidiary, and there has been no civil action against Fontanilla(person criminally
liable), so Barredo cannot be held responsible in the case.
! CA decision is summarized: We cannot agree to the defendant's contention. The liability
sought to be imposed upon him in this action is not a civil obligation arising from a felony or a
misdemeanor (the crime of Pedro Fontanilla,), but an obligation imposed in article 1903 of the Civil
Code by reason of his negligence in the selection or supervision of his servant or employee.

ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT the plaintiffs may bring this separate civil action against Fausto Barredo, thus
making him primarily and directly, responsible under article 19035
of the Civil Code as an employer of Pedro Fontanilla.

HELD:
Quasi-Delict or Culpa Aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code with a
substantivityon its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from delict or crime.
The courts shall determine, in their sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which each one
shall be liable. 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 quasi-delict 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 quasi-delict or culpa
extra-contractual under articles 1902-1910 of the Old Civil Code.

Some of the differences between crimes under the Penal Code and the quasi-delict under the Civil
Code are:

1. That crimes affect the public interest, while Quasi-Delicts 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 the former are punished only if there is a
penal law clearly covering them, while the latter 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.

In this case, the negligent act of Fontanilla produced two liabilities of Barredo, first is the
subsidiary liability from the criminal negligence of Fontanilla and second, Barredos primary
and direct responsibility arising from his negligence as an employer under ART. 2180 of
New civil code.

In view of the foregoing, the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be and is hereby
affirmed, with costs against the defendant-petitioner.