I. The Conceptual Framework
Seavey – there is a predominant purpose which the law serves in actions of
A. The Concept of a Tort - A proper understanding of the term "tort"' requires
understanding it in its original context.
1. Tort in Common Law
a. Etymology
i. "tort" - from the Latin tortus, which means "twisted" or "crooked."
ii. A tort is a conduct which is twisted or crooked, not straight
iii. English – general synonym for wrong
b. Definition
i. Tort has yet to obtain a universally accepted definition
ii. Proposed Definitions
- A violation of a duty imposed by law
- A wrong independent of contract
- An act or omission giving rise… to a civil remedy which is not an action of
contract
- A civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, for which the court will
provide a remedy in form of an action for damages
- A breach of duty (other than a contractual or quasi-contractual duty)
creating an obligation, and giving rise to an action for damages
- an injury inflicted otherwise than by a mere breach of contract; or, to be
more nicely accurate, one's disturbance of another in rights which the
law has created, either in the absence of contract, or in consequence of a
relation which a contract had established between the parties;
- an act or omission, not a mere breach of contract, and producing injury
to another, in the absence of any existing lawful relation of which such
act or omission is a natural outgrowth or incident
iii. Torts is often defined by what it is not and the possible remedy once it is
proven to exist
iv. Definition tells nothing about why individuals in the various instances called
“torts” are entitled for damages
v. "numerous attempts which have been made to define the term have
succeeded only in achieving language so broad that it includes other matters
than torts or else so narrow that it leaves out some torts themselves.'
c. Common Theme
i. Diversity in types of wrong which fall within the rubric of “torts” makes it
extremely difficult to discover any general principle upon which they may all
be based, unless it is… that injured are to be compensated, and anti-social
behavior is to be discouraged.
ii. No such thing as a Law of Tort, but only a law of unconnected tort
= a set of pigeonholes, each bearing a name, into which the act or omission
of the defendant must be fitted before the law will take cognizance of it and
afford a remedy.
iii.
tort, and that there are principles which run through the entire subject, so
that it is entitled, to be regarded as a distinct branch of the law
- Tort signature:
1. The action is based upon a theory that one person has caused harm
to another.
- Distinguished from crimlaw which directly vindicate state interest, law
of contracts which gives sanctions to promises, law of restitution which
seeks primarily to prevent unjust enrichment
iv. Prosser and Keeton – there is a central theme, basis or idea running through
the cases of what are called tort, which although difficult to put into words,
does distinguish them in greater or less degree from other types of cases
2. “Tort” under Philippine Law
a. Existence of Philippine Tort Law
i. May be assumed from the decisions of the Court using the term “tort” and
the fact that it appears in at least two Philippine statutes.
ii. Countless PH law books
iii. Jarencio – PH sources based on American law on torts
- Found it fundamentally erroneous
- Created belief and impression that foundation of law on torts was
common and not civil
- PH law on tort is based on the Civil Code
- Art. 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code – “Obligations which arise from Fault
or Negligence” – QUASI-DELICT
iv. Intent of Framers
- Reject the term tort for quasi-delict- former best describe the civil action
for damages envisioned under the proposed code.
- The Commission also thought of the possibility of adopting the word
"tort" from Anglo-American law.
- But "tort" under that system is much broader than the Spanish-Philippine
concept of obligations arising from non-contractual negligence.
- "Tort" in Anglo-American jurisprudence includes not only negligence, but
also intentional criminal acts, such as assault and battery, false
imprisonment and deceit.
- In the general plan of the Philippine legal system, intentional and
malicious acts are governed in the Penal Code, although certain
exceptions are made in the Project.
v. Civil Code Text
- Appears to reflect the intent of framers
- Old CC makes no mention of the term
- Garcia – although no distinct and separate department for torts existed
under the Spanish law, it did not mean that wrongs of this character
could have no redress in court.
- Tort in Spanish Code – under another name
 - Art 1902 – says nothing about tort yet in effect, it gives the exact
description of a tort
- ARTICLE 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 2176- exact definition of tort
- Culpa aquiliana – comprise the Philippine Tort Law- cannot be said for
the current Civil Code – express rejection of term
- CodeCom- does not reject the concept of tort
- Evident intent to adopt the common law concept of tort and to
incorporate the different, intentional and unintentional common law
torts in the Civil Code.
b. Scope of Philippine Tort Law
i. Tort as a concept is reflected in a number of Civil Code provisions
ii. Exact boundaries- beyond “Quasi-delict” – unclear
iii. Carpio – quasi delict is an area of tort law
- Classification of Torts
1. Intentional Tort
2. Negligent Tort
3. Strict Liability Tort
c. Definition of “Tort” under Philippine Law
i. Naguiat v NLRC – tort “consists in the violation of a right given or the
omission of a duty imposed by law” or “breach of a legal duty [obiter dicta-
thus not binding]
- The Court defined tort as a breach of a legal duty to characterize the
failure of CFTI to grant separation pay under Article 283 of the Labor
Code as a tort and consequently to make its stockholder personally
liable.
ii. Liwayway Vinzons-Chato v Fortune – a tort is a wrong (too broad)
- A tortuous act is the commission or omission of an act by one, without
right, whereby another receives some injury, directly or indirectly, in
person, property, or reputation. (not completely accurate because there
is a tort called “abuse of right” where the act is committed in the
exercise of a right or performance of a duty.
- Court characterized Art. 32 of Civil Code as a tort
- There are cases in which it has been stated that civil liability in tort is
determined by the conduct and not by the mental state of the
tortfeasor, and there are circumstances under which the motive of the
defendant has been rendered immaterial
- Intent not element in tort
d. Elements of Tort
- Prosser and Keeton – ELEMENTS OF TORT (1) A duty or obligation
recognized by law, requiring a person to conform to a certain standard
of conduct, for the protection of others against unreasonable risks (2) A
failure on the person's part to conform to the standard: a breach of a
duty (3) A reasonably close causal connection between the conduct and
resulting injury; (legal cause; proximate cause) (4) Actual loss or damage
resulting to the interests of another. [Not binding in PH Jurisdiction,
common law tort]
- Garcia v Salvador – ELEMENTS OF ACTIONABLE CONDUCT (1) duty (2)
breach (3) injury (4) proximate causation
- Elements of intentional tort under Art. 20
- Lucas v Tuano- medical negligence case- alleged violation of Art 2176-
court used the 4 elements to establish existence of medical negligence
under Art 2176
- Ocean Builders v Spouses – 3 Elements (1)duty (2) breach (3)injury and
proximate causation
1. It is interesting that the Court characterized the action as based on
tort although at the end of its decision, it stated that the company
and Hao were not guilty of negligence.
2. This is interesting because negligence does not appear to be relevant
in the context of the elements identified by the Court nor in the
violation of the legal provision.
3. Regardless of whether the provision was violated negligently or not,
the violator would be liable for damages.
4. Negligence of the employer would only be relevant if the action was
based on quasi-delict.
5. Nevertheless, based on these cases, it seems that the Court has
adopted the four elements of tort under common law and applied it
to cases which could fall under Article 20 of the Civil Code.
3. The Purpose of Tort Law
a. Difficulty in defining tort – most profitable method of delimiting the field of tort
liability is to describe it in terms of the policies which have brought it onto
existence
b. Understanding the purpose of tort law may help in determining whether a
particular cause of action is a tort action or not.
c. The purpose of tort law is compensation of individuals for losses which they have
suffered within the scope of their legally recognized interests.
d. Providing compensation for harm is perhaps the important purpose of tort law
e. American Jurisprudence - A primary purpose of tort law is that those responsible
for the wrong should bear the cost of their tortious conduct. Thus, a principal
function of tort law is to compensate a victim for the wrongdoing or unreasonable
conduct of the tortfeasor.
f. Policy or purpose of the tort compensation (1) the compensation of innocent
parties (2) shifting the loss to responsible parties or distributing it among
appropriate entities. (3) the deterrence of wrongful conduct or conduct that
creates an unreasonable risk of injury to others (4) providing an incentive to
prevent future harm through the payment of damages.
 g. Hershovitz – torts serve a “corrective justice” purpose “by requiring wrongdoers to
repair the wrongful losses they cause”
h. Economic Purpose – promotes efficiency by giving people incentives to take
account of costs they impose on others.
i. Tort is also supposed to provide deterrent to harmful conduct
j. these effects all flow from the type of damages that may be awarded for a
particular type of tort and therefore do not result from the torts themselves.
k. Tort law – point to who is liable
B. The Concept of a Quasi-Delict
1. Historical Background
a. The Commission agreed to use the term "quasidelict" for those obligations which
do not arise from law, contracts, quasi-contracts, or criminal offenses
b. the term "quasi-delict" corresponds to what is referred to in Spanish legal
treatises as "culpa aquiliana," "culpaextra-contractual" or "cuasi-delitos.
c. Barredo v Garcia – 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.
d. “quasi-delict” – existed even under the old Civil Code
2. Nature
a. Art. 1157 – Sources of Obligation – (5) Quasi-Delict
b. Compared to Art 1089 of OCC – “by those which any kind of fault or negligence
occurs
3. Governing Provisions
a. Art 1162 - Chapter 2, Title XVII of Book IV of the civil code, and by special laws.
Art 2176-2194
4. Definition
a. Article 2176 - defines a quasi-delict as the fault or negligence that accompanies
an act or omission which causes damage to another, there being no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties.
5. Scope
a. “Intentional” Acts?
i. Art. 2176 – cause of action based on quasi-delict requires that the act or
omission is committed with negligence
ii. No intent on the part of the defendant to harm the plaintiff
iii. Cangco v Manila Railroad –
- Voluntary act is not the same as an act done with willful intent, the
former merely referring to an act freely done or without compulsion
while the latter referring to an act done for the purpose of harm.
- A negligent act or omission, therefore, may be a voluntary act but cannot
be an intentional act.
iv. Elcano v Hill –
- Concept of culpa aquiliana includes acts which are criminal in character or
in violation of the penal law, whether voluntary or negligent
- Nature of culpa aquiliana in relation with culpa criminal or delito and
mere culpa or fault that the same given act can result in civil liability not
only under the Penal Code but also under the Civil Code
- Court argued that not only can the same act constitute a crime and a
quasi-delict at the same time, it further pointed out that the nature of
such acts may be negligent or intentional.
- While the deletion of the phrase does imply that a quasi-delict can cover
acts criminal in character, it does not necessarily follow that it covers
intentional criminal acts.
- It could simply mean that quasi-delicts can cover acts committed through
criminal negligence.
v. Andamo v IAC
- Article 2176, whenever it refers to "fault or negligence," covers not only
acts "not punishable by law" but also acts criminal in character, whether
intentional and voluntary or negligent.
vi. Baksh v CA
- Quasi-delict is limited to negligent acts or omissions and excludes the
notion of willfulness or intent
- Torts is much broader than culpa aquiliana because it includes not only
negligence, but intentional criminal acts as well such as assault and
battery, false imprisonment and deceit.
- In the general scheme of the Philippine legal system envisioned by the
Commission responsible for drafting the New Civil Code, intentional and
malicious acts with certain exceptions, are to be governed by the Revised
Penal Code while negligent acts or omissions are to be covered by Article
2176 of the Civil Code.
- In between these opposite spectrums are injurious acts which, in the
absence of Article 21, would have been beyond redress. Thus, Article 21
fills that vacuum.
- It is even postulated that together with Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil
Code, Article 21 has greatly broadened the scope of the law on civil
wrongs; it has become much more supple and adaptable than the Anglo-
American law on torts.
vii. A quasi-delict is committed by negligence and without willful intent to injure
although the act may be voluntary. An act may be voluntary and negligent at
the same time, but it cannot be "intentional" in the sense that there is intent
to harm and negligent at the same time.
b. Damage to Property
i. Cinco v Canonoy
- Concept of quasi-delict is so broad that it includes not only injuries to
persons but also damage to property
- It makes no distinction between "damage to persons" on the one hand
and "damage to property" on the other.
 - Indeed, the word "damage" is used in two concepts: the "harm" done and
'reparation" for the harm done.
- And with respect to '"arm" it is plain that it includes both injuries to
person and property since '"harm" is not limited-to personal but also to
property injuries.
6. Elements
a. Elements of Quasi-Delict under Art 2176 (1) act or omission (2) damage to
another (3) fault or negligence (4) no pre-existing contractual relation
b. Elements from Jurisprudence (1) damage to the plaintiff (2) negligence, by act or
omission, of the defendant, or by some other person for whose act the
defendant must respond (3) connection of cause and effect between the fault or
negligence of the defendant and the damage incurred by the plaintiff
c. Sir Casis: Instead of damage, element should be injury because there can be
damage without injury from which no damage can be awarded
C. The Relationship between Tort and Quasi-Delict
1. Distinct Concept
a. Tort and Quasi-Delict -> not two terms referring to the same concept but there
are cases where they are treated as if they refer to the same concept.
- Because of that inconsistency , there appears to be no existing conceptual
framework which can serve as basis for analysis
b. Tort under PH Law – are those causes of action entitling a person to remedies,
mainly in the form of damages for the injury caused to him; Similar but is not
necessarily identical with common law torts
c. Quasi-delict is the concept define in Art 2176; It is a cause of action whereby
one who is injured by an act or omission of another, there being fault or
negligence, is entitled to an award of damages, there being no pre-existing
contractual relationship between the parties
d. Torts – classification of several causes of action; Quasi-delict is a single cause of
action.
e. Torts – may include both negligent acts and acts with intent to harm; quasi-
delict - covers only negligent acts with no intent to harm
2. Framework
a. Possible that the same act or omission may be considered either as tort or as a
quasi-delict.
b. it was discussed that based on one framework, a quasi-delict is a subset of tort.
c. Thus, one way of looking at it is that a quasidelict is a tort committed via
negligence or a quasidelict is a "negligence tort."
d. Thus, the relationship may be represented by two circles, with quasi-delict as a
smaller circle completely within the larger circle of tort.
e. Garcia - Article 1902 of the old Civil Code, which is nearly identical to the first
sentence of Article 2176, describes what a tort is.
f. If this is correct, then this is an argument supporting the view that a quasi-delict
is a kind of tort.
g. In addition, there are cases which state that Article 2176 supports a cause of
action on tort.
h. BPI v. Lifetime, the Court stated the cause of action was based on tort and cited
Article 2176 as legal basis.
i. Gregorio v. CA - when it referred to "every tort case filed under Article 2176."
j. These statements could be taken to mean that Article 2176 defines one of the
causes of action that can be considered a tort but not that tort is limited to what
is described in Article 2176.
k. Coca-cola Bottlers v. CA- Quasi-delict, as defined in Article 2176 of the Civil
Code, (which is known in Spanish legal treatises as culpa aquiliana, culpa extra-
contractual or cuasi-delitos) is homologous but not identical to tort under the
common law, which includes not only negligence, but also intentional criminal
acts, such as assault and battery, false imprisonment, and deceit
l. Thus, based on this case, quasi-delict is homologous but not identical to tort.
m. Being homologous means that a quasi-delict is like a tort.
n. This could be taken to mean that tort and quasi-delict are two distinct albeit
similar concepts.
o. But it must be noted that what the Court was comparing was quasi-delict and
common law tort and not tort as it is understood in Philippine law.
p. As mentioned previously, tort would be considered as a classification of actions,
which generally gives rise to an action for damages as a result of injury caused
to the plaintiff.
q. These actions would include: (1) " quasi-delict (Articles 2176 and 2180); (2) "
strict liability tort (Articles 1711, 1723, 2183, 2187,2189-2193); (3) human
relations torts (Articles 19, 20, 21, and 26); (4) independent civil actions
(Articles 32 to 35).
D. Quasi-Delict and Delict
1. Distinguishing Quasi-Delict from Delict
a. Barredo v Garcia - 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.
- Whatever happens to the criminal action does not affect the quasi-delictual
action.
- Success of the quasi-delictual action does not depend on the success of the
criminal action
- Differences between crimes and cuasi-delitos may be summarized as follows:
(1) That crimes affect the public interest, while cuasidelitos 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, cuasi-delitos include all acts in which "any kind of fault or
negligence intervenes."
 - Sir Casis’ Observation
1. As to the statement that cuasi-delitos are only of private concern, it must
be said that the interaction between members of the society is a public
policy concern of the state. In particular, the quasi-delictual actions under
Article 2180 are clearly a public concern as they impact provisions of the
constitution itself. For instance, under Article 2180, parents and guardians
are made responsible for the acts of minor children in their custody. This
is a public policy concern under the constitution Thus, quasi-delictual
actions are a public concern in the sense that the relations covered by
these actions and the obligations within them are a state interest.
Perhaps, what was meant by the statement that a quasi-delict is a private
concern is that in the case of quasi-delicts, legal injury is suffered only by
individuals and not by the state (not unless the act also constitutes a
crime or a felony) whereas in the case of crimes, legal injury is suffered
both by the state and the individual. This simply means that in the case of
quasi-delicts, only the private citizen injured has a cause of action while in
the case of crime, both private individual and the state have a cause of
action. So it is not really a question of concern but locus standi.
2. On the other hand, the statement that an action based on quasi-delict
merely repairs the damage caused is not always true. While the focus of
the award of damages in quasi-delictual litigation is to compensate the
injured, it is also true that some forms of damages are punitive in nature.
Nominal damages are awarded in order that a right, which has been
violated or invaded, may be vindicated or recognized and not for purposes
of indemnifying the injured. Exemplary damages are imposed by way of
example or correction for the common good to deter similar actions in the
future. Attorney's fees may also be awarded as a punitive measure where
one party shows bad faith.
3. Finally, the statement that quasi-delicts are broader than crimes seems to
be based on the fact that crimes require a penal law clearly covering them
while quasidelicts include all acts in which "any kind of fault or negligence
intervenes." But if broader means "more," it can be argued that there are
more crimes listed in the penal code and special laws than the possible
types of quasi-delicts. In fact, one can say that there are only two types of
quasi-delicts: the fault or negligence caused by the person directly or the
fault or negligence of a person in relation to one the person is responsible
for. The idea may be that there are an infinite number of acts that can fall
within these two categories. But it can also be argued that there are an
infinite number of ways a person can fulfill the elements of an offense or
a felony. So it is actually difficult to determine whether quasi-delicts are in
fact broader than crimes in terms of number.
2. Overlap between Quasi-Delict and Delict
a. Jurisprudence has explained that the same negligent act causing damage may
produce civil liability arising from a crime under Article 100 of the Revised Penal
Code, or create an action for quasi-delict
b. Barredo v. Garcia.
- 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.
- The Court explained that the driver's negligence fell within the concept of
quasi-delict under Article 1902 of the Civil Code then. But Article 1093 of the
Civil Code then appears to limit quasi-delict to "wrongful or negligent acts or
omissions not punishable by law."
- Thus, if the act or omission is punished by law or is a crime, then strictly
construing the rule would mean that the act cannot be a quasi-delict.
- Because Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code punishes not only reckless but
even simple imprudence or negligence, very few acts or omissions, if any,
would fall within the fault or negligence under Article 1902.
- But the Court ruled that this overlapping or concurrence in scope does not
destroy the distinction between crimes and quasi-delicts.
- Thus, the Court ruled that the same negligent act causing injury may produce
civil liability arising from a crime under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code,
or create an action for quasi-delict
- In the end, the Court summarized the foundation of the doctrine that it was
stating in this case. (4 Doctrines Under Barredo Case)
c. The problem pointed out in Barredo v. Garcia no longer exists under the Civil Code
because the problematic phrase-'"not punishable by law"-in 1093 of the old Civil
Code no longer exists in Article 1162.
d. Elcano v. Hill
- Court: New Civil Code- no longer uses the term, "not punishable by law,"
thereby making it clear that the concept of culpa aquiliana includes act which
are criminal in character or in violation of the penal law, whether voluntary or
negligent.
e. Before quoting the relevant portion of Barredo, the Court said: In that case, this
Court postulated, on the basis of a scholarly dissertation by Justice Bocobo on the
nature of culpa aquiliana in relation to culpa criminal or delito and mere culpa or
fault, with pertinent citation of decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain, the works
of recognized civilians, and earlier jurisprudence of our own, that the same given
act can result in civil liability not only under the Penal Code but also under the Civil
Code.
f. In addition, the Court cited Article 2177 and stated: 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 aquilian' 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 extra-contractual' 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."
g. Thus, Article 2177 further supports the view that the same act, which was the basis
of a criminal action, can be the basis for a civil action for damages.
h. L.G. Foods v. Philadelfa Pagapong-Agraviadoro
i. The Court ruled that an act or omission causin damage to another may give rise to
two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender: 1) civil liability ex delicto;
and 2) independent civil liabilities such as those: (a) not arising from an act or
omission complained of as felony (e.g., culpa contractual or obligations arising from
law; the intentional torts; and culpa aquiliana); or (b) where the injured party is
granted a right to file an action independent and distinct from the criminal action.
j. It said that either of these two possible liabilities may be enforced against the
offender. It added: Stated otherwise, victims of negligence or their heirs have a
choice between an action to enforce the civil liability arising from culpa criminal
under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and an action for quasi-delic (culpa
aquiliana) under Articles 2176 to 2194 of the Civil Code. If, as here, the action
chosen is for quasi-delict, the plaintiff may hold the employer liable for the
negligent act of its employee, subject to the employer's defense of exercise of the
diligence of a good father of the family.
k. On the other hand, if the action chosen is for culpa criminal, the plaintiff can hold
the employer subsidiarily liable only upon proof of prior conviction of its employee.
l. Article 1161 of the Civil Code provides that civil obligation arising from criminal
offenses shall be governed by penal laws subject to the provision of Article 2177
and of the pertinent provision of Chapter 2, Preliminary Title on Human Relation,
and of Title XVIII of this Book, regulating damages.
m. Plainly, Article 2177 provides for the alternative remedies the plaintiff may
choose from in case the obligation has the possibility of arising indirectly from the
delict/crime or directly from quasidelict/ tort. The choice is with the plaintiff who
makes known his cause of action in his initiatory pleading or complaint, and not
with the defendant who cannot ask for the dismissal of the plaintiff's cause of
action or lack of it based on the defendant's perception that the plaintiff should
have opted to file a claim under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code.
n. Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the liability of the employer is direct or
immediate. It is not conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent
employee and a prior showing of insolvency of such employee.
o. In this case, the Court found that the complain sufficiently alleged that the death of
the couple's minor son was caused by the negligent act of the petitioners' driver.
p. It also ruled that the petitioner themselves were civilly liable for the negligence of
their driver for failing "to exercise the necessary diligence required of a good father
of the family in the selection and supervision of [their] employee, the driver, which
diligence, if exercised, would have prevented said accident."
q. It also held that had the spouses elected to sue the petitioners based on Article 103
of the Revised Penal Code, they would have alleged that the guilt of the driver had
been proven beyond reasonable doubt; that such accused driver is insolvent; and
that it was the subsidiary liability of the petitioners as employers to pay for the
damage done by their employee (driver) based on the principle that every person
criminally liable is also civilly liable.
r. The Court also noted that the petitioners, in their Answer with Compulsory
Counter-Claim, repeatedly made mention of Article 2180 of the Civil Code and
anchored their defense on their allegation that "they had exercised due diligence in
the selection and supervision of [their] employees."
s. The Court viewed this defense as an admission that indeed the petitioners
acknowledged the spouses' cause of action as one for quasi-delict under Article
2180 of the Civil Code.
t. Thus, the Court ruled that the case was a negligence suit brought under Article
2176 of the Civil Code to recover damages primarily from the petitioners as
employers responsible for their negligent driver pursuant to Article 2180 of the
Civil Code.