L.G. FOODS CORPORATION and VICTORINO GABOR vs .

PAGAPONG-AGRAVIADO

G.R. No. 158995. September 26, 2006

FACTS:

 Spouses Florentino and Theresa Vallejera, private respondents herein, had a 7-year old son. He was hit by a (Ford Fiera)
van, owned by the petitioners and driven at the time by an employee of the LG Foods Corp. The child died as a result of the
accident.
 Spouses Vallejera filed an action for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide against the driver before the MTCC.
 During the pendency of the case, the accused driver committed suicide.
 Hence, the MTCC dismissed the criminal action.
 Spouses Vallejera, thereafter, filed a complaint for damages before the RTC against the petitioners as employers of the
deceased driver, alleging that as such employers, they failed to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of
their employees.
 Petitioners denied liability for the death of the child, claiming that they had exercised the required due diligence in the
selection and supervision of their employees, including the deceased driver.
 Later on, defendant-petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging lack of cause of action on the part of private respondents.
Petitioners contended that the complaint is actually a claim for subsidiary liability against an employer under the
provision of Article 103 of the RPC, and that there must first be a judgment of conviction against their driver as a condition
sine qua non to hold them liable. They further argued that respondent spouses did not make a reservation to institute
a separate action for damages when the criminal case was filed, the damage suit in question is thereby deemed instituted
with the criminal action, which was already dismissed.
 RTC denied petitioners’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of merit. It likewise denied the subsequent motion for reconsideration (MR).
 Petitioners then went on certiorari to the CA, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in refusing to
dismiss the complaint for damages. CA denied the petition and upheld the RTC.
 The appellate court agrees with the RTC that the complaint does not allege the basic elements for subsidiary liability under
Article 103. Verily, the complaint exacts responsibility for fault or negligence under Art. 2176 of the Civil Code; therefore, the
liability under Article 2180 is direct and immediate, and not conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent employee
or prior showing of the latter’s insolvency. CA likewise denied petitioners’ MR.
 Hence, the present recourse to the SC.

ISSUE: Is the cause of action in the complaint founded on Article 103 of the RPC or on Article 2180 of the Civil Code? Is it
necessary for the victims of negligent act make reservation to institute a separate action for damages when the criminal action was
filed?

HELD:

Nothing in the foregoing allegations suggests, even remotely, that the herein petitioners are being made to account for their
subsidiary liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. As correctly pointed out by the trial court in denying the petitioners'
Motion to Dismiss, the complaint did not even aver the basic elements for the subsidiary liability of an employer under Article 103
of the Revised Penal Code, such as the prior conviction of the driver in the criminal case 􀁃led against him nor his insolvency.

Admittedly, the complaint did not explicitly state that plaintiff Vallejeras were suing the defendant petitioners for damages based
on quasi-delict. Clear it is, however, from the allegations of the complaint that quasi-delict was their choice of remedy against the
petitioners. To stress, the plaintiff spouses alleged in their complaint gross fault and negligence on the part of the driver and the
failure of the petitioners, as employers, to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees. The spouses
further alleged that the petitioners are civilly liable for the negligence/imprudence of their driver since they failed to exercise the
necessary diligence required of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of their employees, which diligence, if
exercised, could have prevented the vehicular accident that resulted to the death of their 7-year old son.
 Corollarily, 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; 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

EITHER of these two possible liabilities may be enforced against the offender.

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-delict (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.
 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.

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.

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 quasi-delict/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.

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.

Had the respondent 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; that it is the
subsidiary liability of the defendant 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. Since there was no conviction in the criminal case against the
driver, precisely because death intervened prior to the termination of the criminal proceedings, the spouses' recourse was,
therefore, to sue the petitioners for their direct and primary liability based on quasi-delict.

Other notes:

Citing Maniago v. CA, petitioner would argue that Civil Case No. 99-10845 should have been dismissed for failure of the
respondent spouses to make a reservation to institute a separate civil action for damages when the criminal case against the driver
was filed.

 There, the civil case was filed while the criminal case against the employee was still pending. Here, the criminal case
against the employee driver was prematurely terminated due to his death. Precisely, Civil Case No. 99-10845 was 􀁃led
by the respondent spouses because no remedy can be obtained by them against the petitioners with the dismissal of
the criminal case against their driver during the pendency thereof.
 The circumstance that no reservation to institute a separate civil action for damages was made when the criminal case
was filed is of no moment for the simple reason that the criminal case was dismissed without any pronouncement having
been made therein. In reality, therefore, it is as if there was no criminal case to speak of in the first place. And for
the petitioners to insist for the conviction of their driver as a condition sine qua non to hold them liable for damages is to
ask for the impossible.