oblicon 4 cases

8/10/2019 ObliCon 4 Cases

1/24

Barredo vs Garcia and Almario

73 Phil 607Torts and Damages Civil Liability from Quasi Delicts vs Civil Liability from CrimesAt about 1:30am on May 3, 1936, Fontanillas taxi collided with a !alesa" the#eby!illin$ the 16 yea# old Faustino %a#cia& Faustinos 'a#ents (led a c#iminal suit

a$ainst Fontanilla and #ese#)ed thei# #i$ht to (le a se'a#ate ci)il suit& Fontanillawas e)entually con)icted& A*te# the c#iminal suit, %a#cia (led a ci)il suit a$ainst+a##edo the owne# o* the taxi -em'loye# o* Fontanilla.& /he suit was based onA#ticle 1903 o* the ci)il code -ne$li$ence o* em'loye#s in the selection o* thei#em'loyees.& +a##edo assailed the suit a#$uin$ that his liability is only subsidia#yand that the se'a#ate ci)il suit should ha)e been (led a$ainst Fontanilla '#ima#ilyand not him&

ISSUE: hethe# o# not +a##edo is ust subsidia#ily liable&

HELD:2o& e is '#ima#ily liable unde# A#ticle 1903 which is a se'a#ate ci)il actiona$ainst ne$li$ent em'loye#s& %a#cia is well within his #i$hts in suin$ +a##edo& e#ese#)ed his #i$ht to (le a se'a#ate ci)il action and this is mo#e ex'editiousbecause by the time o* the 45 ud$ment Fontanilla is al#eady se#)in$ his sentenceand has no '#o'e#ty& t was also '#o)en that +a##edo is ne$li$ent in hi#in$ hisem'loyees because it was shown that Fontanilla had had multi'le t#acin*#actions al#eady be*o#e he hi#ed him somethin$ he *ailed to o)e#come du#in$hea#in$& ad %a#cia not #ese#)ed his #i$ht to (le a se'a#ate ci)il action, +a##edowould ha)e only been subsidia#ily liable& Fu#the#, +a##edo is not bein$ sued *o#

dama$es a#isin$ *#om a c#iminal act -his d#i)e#s ne$li$ence. but #athe# *o# hisown ne$li$ence in selectin$ his em'loyee -A#ticle 1903.&

8e'ublic o* the Phili''inesSUPREME COURT

Manila


2/24

2 +A25

G.R. o. L!"#$$% uly ;, 19


3/24

D e cannot a$#ee to the de*endants contention& /he liability sou$ht to beim'osed u'on him in this action is not a ci)il obli$ation a#isin$ *#om a *elony o# amisdemeano# -the c#ime o* Ped#o Fontanilla,., but an obli$ation im'osed in a#ticle1903 o* the 5i)il 5ode by #eason o* his ne$li$ence in the selection o# su'e#)isiono* his se#)ant o# em'loyee&

/he 'i)otal Iuestion in this case is whethe# the 'laintis may b#in$ this se'a#ateci)il action a$ainst Fausto +a##edo, thus ma!in$ him '#ima#ily and di#ectly,

#es'onsible unde# a#ticle 1903 o* the 5i)il 5ode as an em'loye# o* Ped#oFontanilla& /he de*endant maintains that Fontanillas ne$li$ence bein$ 'unishableby the Penal 5ode, his -de*endants. liability as an em'loye# is only subsidia#y,acco#din$ to said Penal code, but Fontanilla has not been sued in a ci)il action andhis '#o'e#ty has not been exhausted& /o decide the main issue, we must cutth#ou$h the tan$le that has, in the minds o* many con*used and umbledto$ethe# delitosand cuasi delitos, o# c#imes unde# the Penal 5ode and *ault o#ne$li$ence unde# a#ticles 190=?1910 o* the 5i)il 5ode& /his should be done,because ustice may be lost in a laby#inth, unless '#inci'les and #emedies a#edistinctly en)isa$ed& Fo#tunately, we a#e aided in ou# inIui#y by the luminous

'#esentation o* the 'e#'lexin$ subect by #enown u#ists and we a#e li!ewise$uided by the decisions o* this 5ou#t in '#e)ious cases as well as by the solemncla#ity o* the conside#ation in se)e#al sentences o* the 4u'#eme /#ibunal o* 4'ain&Autho#ities su''o#t the '#o'osition that a &uasi'delicto# culpa a&uiliana" is ase'a#ate le$al institution unde# the 5i)il 5ode with a substanti)ity all its own, andindi)iduality that is enti#ely a'a#t and inde'endent *#om delict o# c#ime& J'on this'#inci'le and on the wo#din$ and s'i#it a#ticle 1903 o* the 5i)il 5ode, the '#ima#yand di#ect #es'onsibility o* em'loye#s may be sa*ely ancho#ed&

/he 'e#tinent '#o)isions o* the 5i)il 5ode and 8e)ised Penal 5ode a#e as *ollows:5HE 5B@

A8/& 10;9 Bbli$ations a#ise *#om law, *#om cont#acts and Iuasi?cont#acts, and*#om acts and omissions which a#e unlaw*ul o# in which any !ind o* *ault o#ne$li$ence inte#)enes&

x x x x x x x x xA8/& 109=& 5i)il obli$ations a#isin$ *#om *elonies o# misdemeano#s shall be$o)e#ned by the '#o)isions o* the Penal 5ode&A8/& 1093& /hose which a#e de#i)ed *#om acts o# omissions in which *ault o#ne$li$ence, not 'unishable by law, inte#)enes shall be subect to the '#o)isions o*5ha'te# , /itle KH o* this boo!&

x x x x x x x x x

A8/ 190=& Any 'e#son who by an act o# omission causes dama$e to anothe# byhis *ault o# ne$li$ence shall be liable *o# the dama$e so done&A8/& 1903& /he obli$ation im'osed by the next '#ecedin$ a#ticle is en*o#ceable,not only *o# 'e#sonal acts and omissions, but also *o# those o* 'e#sons *o# whomanothe# is #es'onsible&

/he *athe# and in, case o* his death o# inca'acity, the mothe#, a#e liable *o# anydama$es caused by the mino# child#en who li)e with them&%ua#dians a#e liable *o# dama$es done by mino#s o# inca'acitated 'e#sons subectto thei# autho#ity and li)in$ with them&Bwne#s o# di#ecto#s o* an establishment o# business a#e eIually liable *o# anydama$es caused by thei# em'loyees while en$a$ed in the b#anch o* the se#)ice inwhich em'loyed, o# on occasion o* the 'e#*o#mance o* thei# duties&

/he 4tate is subect to the same liability when it acts th#ou$h a s'ecial a$ent, butnot i* the dama$e shall ha)e been caused by the ocial u'on whom '#o'e#lyde)ol)ed the duty o* doin$ the act 'e#*o#med, in which case the '#o)isions o* thenext '#ecedin$ a#ticle shall be a''licable&Finally, teache#s o# di#ecto#s o* a#ts t#ades a#e liable *o# any dama$es caused bythei# 'u'ils o# a''#entices while they a#e unde# thei# custody&


4/24

/he liability im'osed by this a#ticle shall cease in case the 'e#sons mentionedthe#ein '#o)e that they a#e exe#cised all the dili$ence o* a $ood *athe# o* a *amilyto '#e)ent the dama$e&A8/& 190


5/24

A8/& 36L& m'#udence and ne$li$ence& Any 'e#son who, by #ec!lessim'#udence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitutea $#a)e *elony, shall sue# the 'enalty o* a##esto mayo# in its maximum 'e#iod to'#ision co##eccional in its minimum 'e#iodG i* it would ha)e constituted a less$#a)e *elony, the 'enalty o* a##esto mayo# in its minimum and medium 'e#iodsshall be im'osed&Any 'e#son who, by sim'le im'#udence o# ne$li$ence, shall commit an act which

would othe#wise constitute a $#a)e *elony, shall sue# the 'enalty o* arrestomayorin its medium and maximum 'e#iodsG i* it would ha)e constituted a lessse#ious *elony, the 'enalty o* arresto mayorin its minimum 'e#iod shall beim'osed&"t will thus be seen that while the te#ms o* a#ticles 190= o* the 5i)il 5ode seem tobe b#oad enou$h to co)e# the d#i)e#s ne$li$ence in the instant case, ne)e#thelessa#ticle 1093 limits cuasi'delitosto acts o# omissions not 'unishable by law&" +utinasmuch as a#ticle 36L o* the 8e)ised Penal 5ode 'unishes not only #ec!less bute)en sim'le im'#udence o# ne$li$ence, the *ault o# ne$li$ence unde# a#ticle 190=o* the 5i)il 5ode has a''a#ently been c#owded out& t is this o)e#la''in$ that

ma!es the con*usion wo#se con*ounded&" owe)e#, a close# study shows thatsuch a concu##ence o* sco'e in #e$a#d to ne$li$ent acts does not dest#oy thedistinction between the ci)il liability a#isin$ *#om a c#ime and the #es'onsibility *o#cuasi?delitos o# cul'a ext#a?cont#actual& /he same ne$li$ent act causin$ dama$esmay '#oduce ci)il liability a#isin$ *#om a c#ime unde# a#ticle 100 o* the 8e)isedPenal 5ode, o# c#eate an action *o# cuasi'delitoo# culpa e,tra'contractualunde#a#ticles 190=?1910 o* the 5i)il 5ode&

/he indi)iduality o* cuasi'delitoo# culpa e,tra'contractuallooms clea# andunmista!able& /his le$al institution is o* ancient linea$e, one o* its ea#ly ancesto#sbein$ the Le, A&uiliain the 8oman Eaw& n *act, in 4'anish le$al te#minolo$y, this

#es'onsibility is o*ten #e*e##ed to as cul'a aIuiliana& /he Pa#tidas also cont#ibutedto the $enealo$y o* the '#esent *ault o# ne$li$ence unde# the 5i)il 5odeG *o#instance, Eaw 6, /itle 1L, o* Pa#tida 7, says: /enudo es de *a>e# emienda, 'o#Iue,como Iuie# Iue el non (>o a sabiendas en dao al ot#o, 'e#o acaescio 'o# sucul'a&"

/he distincti)e natu#e o* cuasi'delitossu#)i)es in the 5i)il 5ode& Acco#din$ toa#ticle 10;9, one o* the ()e sou#ces o* obli$ations is this le$al institution o* cuasi'delitoo# culpa e,tra'contractual: los actos & & & en Iue inte#)en$a cualIuie#$ene#o de cul'a o ne$li$encia&" /hen a#ticle 1093 '#o)ides that this !ind o*obli$ation shall be $o)e#ned by 5ha'te# o* /itle KH o* +oo! H, meanin$ a#ticles

190=?0910& /his 'o#tion o* the 5i)il 5ode is exclusi)ely de)oted to the le$alinstitution o* culpa a&uiliana&4ome o* the die#ences between c#imes unde# the Penal 5ode and the culpaa&uilianao# cuasi'delitounde# the 5i)il 5ode a#e:1& /hat c#imes aect the 'ublic inte#est, while cuasi'delitosa#e only o* '#i)ateconce#n&=& /hat, conseIuently, the Penal 5ode 'unishes o# co##ects the c#iminal act, whilethe 5i)il 5ode, by means o* indemni(cation, me#ely #e'ai#s the dama$e&3& /hat delicts a#e not as b#oad as Iuasi?delicts, because the *o#me# a#e 'unishedonly i* the#e is a 'enal law clea#ly co)e#in$ them, while the latte#, cuasi'delitos,include all acts in which any !in$ o* *ault o# ne$li$ence inte#)enes&" owe)e#, itshould be noted that not all )iolations o* the 'enal law '#oduce ci)il #es'onsibility,such as be$$in$ in cont#a)ention o* o#dinances, )iolation o* the $ame laws,in*#action o* the #ules o* t#ac when nobody is hu#t& -4ee 5olin and 5a'itant,5u#so lemental de @e#echo 5i)il," Hol& 3, '& 7=;&.Eet us now asce#tain what some u#ists say on the se'a#ate existence o* Iuasi?delicts and the em'loye#s '#ima#y and di#ect liability unde# a#ticle 1903 o* the5i)il 5ode&@o#ado Monte#o in his essay on 8es'onsibilidad" in the nciclo'edia u#idicas'aola" -Hol& KKH, '&


6/24

l conce'to u#idico de la responsabilidad civilaba#ca di)e#sos as'ectos ycom'#ende a di*e#entes 'e#sonas& Asi, existe una #es'onsabilidad ci)il'#o'iamente dicha, Iue en nin$un casl lle)a a'a#eada #es'onsabilidad c#iminalal$una, y ot#a Iue es consecuencia indeclinable de la 'enal Iue nace de tododelito o *alta&"

/he u#idical conce't o* ci)il #es'onsibility has )a#ious as'ects and com'#isesdie#ent 'e#sons& /hus, the#e is a ci)il #es'onsibility, '#o'e#ly s'ea!in$, which in

no case ca##ies with it any c#iminal #es'onsibility, and anothe# which is anecessa#y conseIuence o* the 'enal liability as a #esult o* e)e#y *elony o#misdemeano#&"Mau#a, an outstandin$ autho#ity, was consulted on the *ollowin$ case: /he#e hadbeen a collision between two t#ains belon$in$ #es'ecti)ely to the Fe##oca##il5antab#ico and the Fe##oca##il del 2o#te& An em'loyee o* the latte# had been'#osecuted in a c#iminal case, in which the com'any had been made a 'a#ty assubsidia#ily #es'onsible in ci)il dama$es& /he em'loyee had been acIuitted in thec#iminal case, and the em'loye#, the Fe##oca##il del 2o#te, had also beenexone#ated& /he Iuestion as!ed was whethe# the Fe##oca##il 5antab#ico could still

b#in$ a ci)il action *o# dama$es a$ainst the Fe##oca##il del 2o#te& Mau#as o'inionwas in the a#mati)e, statin$ in 'a#t -Mau#a, Dictamenes, Hol& 6, ''& L11?L13.:Nuedando las cosas asi, a '#o'osito de la #ealidad 'u#a y neta de los $ec$os,toda)ia menos 'a#ece sostenible Iue exista cosa -ugadaace#ca de la obli$acionci)il de indemni>a# los Iueb#antos y menoscabos in*e#idos 'o# el choIue de lost#enes& l titulo en Iue se *unda la accion 'a#a demanda# el #esa#cimiento, no'uede con*undi#se con las #es'onsabilidades ci)iles nacidas de delito, siIuie#aexista en este, sea el cual sea, una culpa rodeadade notas a$#a)ato#ias Iuemoti)an sanciones 'enales, mas o menos se)e#as& Ea lesion causada 'o# delito o*alta en los de#echos ci)iles, #eIuie#e #estituciones, #e'a#aciones o

indemni>aciones, Iue cual la 'ena misma ataen al o#den 'ublicoG 'o# tal moti)o)ienen encomendadas, de o#dina#io, al Ministe#io FiscalG y cla#o es Iue si 'o# esta)ia se enmiendan los Iueb#antos y menoscabos, el a$#a)iado excusa '#ocu#a# elya conse$uido desa$#a)ioG 'e#o esta e)entual coincidencia de los e*ectos, nobo##a la di)e#sidad o#i$ina#ia de las acciones ci)iles 'a#a 'edi# indemni>acion&stas, 'a#a el caso actual -'#escindiendo de cul'as contractuales, Iue no)end#ian a cuento y Iue tiene ot#o #e$imen., dimanan, se$un el a#ticulo 190= del5odi$o 5i)il, de toda accion u omision, causante de daos o 'e#uicios, en Iueinte#)en$a cul'a o ne$li$encia& s t#i)ial Iue acciones semeantes son ee#citadasante los /#ibunales de lo ci)il cotidianamente, sin Iue la usticia 'uniti)a ten$a

Iue me>cla#se en los asuntos& Eos a#ticulos 1; al =1 y 1=1 al 1=; del 5odi$oPenal, atentos al es'i#itu y a los (nes sociales y 'oliticos del mismo, desen)uel)eny o#denan la mate#ia de #es'onsabilidades ci)iles nacidas de delito, en te#minosse'a#ados del #e$imen 'o# ley comun de la cul'a Iue se denomina aIuiliana, 'o#alusion a '#ecedentes le$islati)os del Corpus uris& 4e#ia intem'esti)o un 'a#aleloent#e aIuellas o#denaciones, y la de la obli$acion de indemni>a# a titulo de cul'aci)ilG 'e#o )iene al caso y es necesa#ia una de las di*e#enciaciones Iue en el tal'a#alelo se nota#ian&Eos a#ticulos =0 y =1 del 5odi$o Penal, des'ues de dist#ibui# a su modo las#es'onsabilidades ci)iles, ent#e los Iue sean 'o# di)e#sos conce'tos cul'ables deldelito o *alta, las hacen extensi)as a las em'#esas y los establecimientos alse#)icio de los cuales estan los delincuentesG 'e#o con ca#acte# subsidia#io, o sea,se$un el texto lite#al, en defecto de los &ue sean responsables criminalmente & 2ocoincide en ello el 5odi$o 5i)il, cuyo a#ticulo 1903, diceG Ea obli$acion Iue im'oneel a#ticulo ante#io# es e,igible, no solo 'o# los actos y omisiones '#o'ios, sino porlos de a&uellas personas de &uienes se debe responderG 'e#sonas en laenume#acion de las cuales ($u#an los de'endientes y em'leados de losestablecimientos o em'#esas, sea 'o# actos del se#)icio, sea con ocasion de sus*unciones& Po# esto acontece, y se obse#)a en la u#is'#udencia, Iue las em'#esas,des'ues de inte#)eni# en las causas c#iminales con el ca#acte# subsidia#io de su


7/24

#es'onsabilidad ci)il 'o# #a>on del delito, son demandadas y condenadas directay aisladamente, cuando se t#ata de la obli$acion, ante los t#ibunales ci)iles&4iendo como se )e, di)e#so el titulo de esta obli$acion, y *o#mando )e#dade#o'ostulado de nuest#o #e$imen udicial la se'a#acion ent#e usticia 'uniti)a yt#ibunales de lo ci)il, de sue#te Iue tienen unos y ot#os no#mas de *ondo endistintos cue#'os le$ales, y di*e#entes modos de '#ocede#, habiendose, 'o#aadidu#a, abstenido de asisti# al uicio c#iminal la 5om'aia del Fe##oca##il

5antab#ico, Iue se #ese#)o ee#cita# sus acciones, 'a#ece inne$able Iue la deindemni>acion 'o# los daos y 'e#uicios Iue le i##o$o el choIue, no estu)o sub-udiceante el /#ibunal del u#ado, ni *ue sentenciada, sino Iue 'e#manecio intacta,al '#onuncia#se el *allo de =1 de ma#>o& Aun cuando el )e#edicto no hubiese sidode incul'abilidad, most#ose mas a##iba, Iue tal accion Iuedaba le$itimamente#ese#)ada 'a#a des'ues del '#ocesoG 'e#o al decla#a#se Iue no existio delito, ni#es'onsabilidad dimanada de delito, mate#ia unicasob#e Iue tenian u#isdiccionaIuellos u>$ado#es, se #edobla el moti)o 'a#a la obli$acion ci)il e, lege, y se'atenti>a mas y mas Iue la accion 'a#a 'edi# su cum'limiento 'e#maneceincolume, ext#aa a la cosa -ugada&

As thin$s a#e, aproposo* the #eality 'u#e and sim'le o* the *acts, it seems lesstenable that the#e should be res -udicatawith #e$a#d to the ci)il obli$ation *o#dama$es on account o* the losses caused by the collision o* the t#ains& /he titleu'on which the action *o# #e'a#ation is based cannot be con*used with the ci)il#es'onsibilities born of a crime, because the#e exists in the latte#, whate)e# eachnatu#e, a culpa su##ounded with a$$#a)atin$ as'ects which $i)e #ise to 'enalmeasu#es that a#e mo#e o# less se)e#e& /he inu#y caused by a *elony o#misdemeano# u'on ci)il #i$hts #eIui#es #estitutions, #e'a#ations, o#indemni(cations which, li!e the 'enalty itsel*, aect 'ublic o#de#G *o# this #eason,they a#e o#dina#ily ent#usted to the oce o* the '#osecutin$ atto#neyG and it is

clea# that i* by this means the losses and dama$es a#e #e'ai#ed, the inu#ed 'a#tyno lon$e# desi#es to see! anothe# #elie*G but this coincidence o* eects does noteliminate the 'eculia# natu#e o* ci)il actions to as! *o# indemnity&4uch ci)il actions in the '#esent case -without #e*e##in$ to cont#actual *aults whicha#e not 'e#tinent and belon$ to anothe# sco'e. a#e de#i)ed, acco#din$ to a#ticle190= o* the 5i)il 5ode, *#om e)e#y act o# omission causin$ losses and dama$es inwhich cul'a o# ne$li$ence inte#)enes& t is unim'o#tant that such actions a#ee)e#y day (led be*o#e the ci)il cou#ts without the c#iminal cou#ts inte#*e#in$the#ewith& A#ticles 1; to =1 and 1=1 to 1=; o* the Penal 5ode, bea#in$ in mind thes'i#it and the social and 'olitical 'u#'oses o* that 5ode, de)elo' and #e$ulate the

matte# o* ci)il #es'onsibilities arising from a crime, se'a#ately *#om the #e$imeunde# common law, o* culpawhich is !nown as a&uiliana, in acco#dance withle$islati)e '#ecedent o* the Corpus uris& t would be unwa##anted to ma!e adetailed com'a#ison between the *o#me# '#o)isions and that #e$a#din$ theobli$ation to indemni*y on account o* ci)il culpaG but it is 'e#tinent and necessa#yto 'oint out to one o* such die#ences&A#ticles =0 and =1 o* the Penal 5ode, a*te# dist#ibutin$ in thei# own way the ci)il#es'onsibilities amon$ those who, *o# die#ent #easons, a#e $uilty o* *elony o#misdemeano#, ma!e such ci)il #es'onsibilities a''licable to ente#'#ises andestablishments *o# which the $uilty 'a#ties #ende# se#)ice, but with subsidia#ycha#acte#, that is to say, acco#din$ to the wo#din$ o* the Penal 5ode, in default oft$ose %$o are criminally responsible& n this #e$a#d, the 5i)il 5ode does notcoincide because a#ticle 1903 says: /he obli$ation im'osed by the next'#ecedin$ a#ticle is demandable, not only *o# 'e#sonal acts and omissions, butalso *o# those o* 'e#sons *o# whom anothe# is #es'onsible&" Amon$ the 'e#sonsenume#ated a#e the subo#dinates and em'loyees o* establishments o#ente#'#ises, eithe# *o# acts du#in$ thei# se#)ice o# on the occasion o* thei#*unctions& t is *o# this #eason that it ha''ens, and it is so obse#)ed in udicialdecisions, that the com'anies o# ente#'#ises, a*te# ta!in$ 'a#t in the c#iminalcases because o* thei# subsidia#y ci)il #es'onsibility by #eason o* the c#ime, a#e


8/24

sued and sentenced directlyand separatelywith #e$a#d to the obligation, be*o#ethe ci)il cou#ts&4eein$ that the title o* this obli$ation is die#ent, and the se'a#ation between'uniti)e ustice and the ci)il cou#ts bein$ a t#ue 'ostulate o* ou# udicial system,so that they ha)e die#ent *undamental no#ms in die#ent codes, as well asdie#ent modes o* '#ocedu#e, and inasmuch as the 5om'aa del Fe##oca##il5antab#ico has abstained *#om ta!in$ 'a#t in the c#iminal case and has #ese#)ed

the #i$ht to exe#cise its actions, it seems undeniable that the action *o#indemni(cation *o# the losses and dama$es caused to it by the collision wasnot sub -udicebe*o#e the Tribunal del urado, no# was it the subect o* a sentence,but it #emained intact when the decision o* Ma#ch =1 was #ende#ed& )en i* the)e#dict had not been that o* acIuittal, it has al#eady been shown that such actionhad been le$itimately #ese#)ed till a*te# the c#iminal '#osecutionG but because o*the decla#ation o* the non?existence o* the *elony and the non?existence o* the#es'onsibility a#isin$ *#om the c#ime, which was the solesubect matte# u'onwhich the Tribunal del urado had u#isdiction, the#e is $#eate# #eason *o# the ci)ilobli$ation e, lege, and it becomes clea#e# that the action *o# its en*o#cement

#emain intact and is not res -udicata&Eau#ent, a u#ist who has w#itten a monumental wo#! on the F#ench 5i)il 5ode, onwhich the 4'anish 5i)il 5ode is la#$ely based and whose '#o)isions on cuasi'delitoo# culpa e,tra'contractuala#e simila# to those o* the 4'anish 5i)il 5ode,says, #e*e##in$ to a#ticle 13;< o* the F#ench 5i)il 5ode which co##es'onds to a#ticle1903, 4'anish 5i)il 5ode:

/he action can be b#ou$ht di#ectly a$ainst the 'e#son #es'onsible -*o# anothe#.,without includin$ the autho# o* the act& /he action a$ainst the '#inci'al isaccesso#y in the sense that it im'lies the existence o* a '#eudicial act committedby the em'loyee, but it is not subsidia#y in the sense that it cannot be instituted

till a*te# the ud$ment a$ainst the autho# o* the act o# at least, that it is subsidia#yto the '#inci'al actionG the action *o# #es'onsibility -o* the em'loye#. is in itsel* a'#inci'al action& -Eau#ent, P#inci'les o* F#ench 5i)il Eaw, 4'anish t#anslation, Hol&=0, ''& 73


9/24

is liable *o# those *aults that can be im'uted to him& /he #es'onsibility in Iuestionis im'osed on the occasion o* a c#ime o# *ault, but not because o* the same, butbecause o* the cuasi'delito, that is to say, the im'#udence o# ne$li$ence o* the*athe#, $ua#dian, '#o'#ieto# o# mana$e# o* the establishment, o* the teache#, etc&hene)e# anyone o* the 'e#sons enume#ated in the a#ticle #e*e##ed to -mino#s,inca'acitated 'e#sons, em'loyees, a''#entices. causes any dama$e, the law'#esumes that the *athe#, $ua#dian, teache#, etc& ha)e committed an act o*

ne$li$ence in not '#e)entin$ o# a)oidin$ the dama$e& t is this *ault that iscondemned by the law& t is, the#e*o#e, only a''a#ent that the#e is a #es'onsibility*o# the act o* anothe#G in #eality the #es'onsibility exacted is *o# ones own act&

/he idea that such #es'onsibility is subsidia#y is, the#e*o#e, com'letelyinadmissible&Byuelos, in his @i$esto: P#inci'ios, @oct#ina y u#is'#udencia, 8e*e#entes al5odi$o 5i)il s'aol," says in Hol& H, '& 7Iuie#do, desconoceel )alo# y e*ectos u#idicos de la sentencia absoluto#ia deictada en la causac#iminal Iue se si$uio 'o# el mismo hecho, cuando es lo cie#to Iue de este hanconocido las dos u#isdicciones bao di*e#entes as 'ectos, y como la de lo c#iminaldecl#ao dent#o de los limites de su com'etencia Iue el hecho de Iue se t#ata no


10/24

e#a constituti)o de delito 'o# no habe# mediado descuido o ne$li$encia $#a)es, loIue no excluye, siendo este el unico *undamento del *allo absoluto#io, el concu#sode la cul'a o ne$li$encia no cali*acadas, *uente de obli$aciones ci)iles se$un ela#ticulo 190= del 5odi$o, y Iue alcan>an, se$un el 1903, net#e ot#as 'e#osnas, alos @i#ecto#es de establecimientos o em'#esas 'o# los daos causados 'o# susde'endientes en dete#minadas condiciones, es mani*esto Iue la de lo ci)il, alconoce# del mismo hehco baho este ultimo as'ecto y al condena# a la com'aia

#ecu##ente a la indemni>acion del dao causado 'o# uno de sus em'leados, leosde in*#in$e# los mencionados textos, en #elacion con el a#ticulo 116 de la Eey denuciamiento 5#iminal, se ha atenido est#ictamente a ellos, sin in)adi#at#ibuciones aenas a su u#isdiccion '#o'ia, ni cont#a#ia# en lo mas minimo el *allo#ecaido en la causa&5onside#in$ that the (#st $#ound o* the a''eal is based on the mista!ensu''osition that the t#ial cou#t, in sentencin$ the Compa/ia 0adrile/ato the'ayment o* the dama$e caused by the death o* 8amon Ea*uente >Iuie#do,dis#e$a#ds the )alue and u#idical eects o* the sentence o* acIuittal #ende#ed inthe c#iminal case instituted on account o* the same act, when it is a *act that the

two u#isdictions had ta!en co$ni>ance o* the same act in its die#ent as'ects,and as the c#iminal u#isdiction decla#ed within the limits o* its autho#ity that theact in Iuestion did not constitute a *elony because the#e was no $#a)eca#elessness o# ne$li$ence, and this bein$ the only basis o* acIuittal, it does notexclude the co?existence o* *ault o# ne$li$ence which is not Iuali(ed, and is asource of civil obligations according to article 1234 of t$e Civil Code, aectin$, inacco#dance with a#ticle 1903, amon$ othe# 'e#sons, the mana$e#s o*establishments o# ente#'#ises by #eason o* the dama$es caused by em'loyeesunde# ce#tain conditions, it is mani*est that t$e civil -urisdiccion in ta+ingcogniance of t$e same act in t$is latter aspect and in ordering t$e company"

appellant $erein" to pay an indemnity for t$e damage caused by one of itsemployees, *a# *#om )iolatin$ said le$al '#o)isions, in #elation with a#ticle 116 o*the Eaw o* 5#iminal P#ocedu#e, strictly follo%ed t$e same" %it$out invadingattributes %$ic$ are beyond its o%n -urisdiction" and %it$out in any %aycontradicting t$e decision in t$at cause& -m'hasis su''lied&.t will be noted, as to the case ust cited:)irst& /hat the conducto# was not sued in a ci)il case, eithe# se'a#ately o# with thest#eet ca# com'any& /his is '#ecisely what ha''ens in the '#esent case: the d#i)e#,Fontanilla, has not been sued in a ci)il action, eithe# alone o# with his em'loye#&*econd& /hat the conducto# had been acIuitted o* $#a)e c#iminal ne$li$ence, but

the 4u'#eme /#ibunal o* 4'ain said that this did not exclude the co?existence o**ault o# ne$li$ence, which is not Iuali(ed, on the 'a#t o* the conducto#, unde#a#ticle 190= o* the 5i)il 5ode& n the '#esent case, the taxi d#i)e# was *ound $uiltyo* c#iminal ne$li$ence, so that i* he had e)en sued *o# his ci)il #es'onsibilitya#isin$ *#om the c#ime, he would ha)e been held '#ima#ily liable *o# ci)il dama$es,and +a##edo would ha)e been held subsidia#ily liable *o# the same& +ut the'laintis a#e di#ectly suin$ +a##edo, on his '#ima#y #es'onsibility because o* hisown '#esumed ne$li$ence which he did not o)e#come unde# a#ticle 1903&

/hus, the#e we#e two liabilities o* +a##edo: (#st, the subsidia#y one because o* theci)il liability o* the taxi d#i)e# a#isin$ *#om the latte#s c#iminal ne$li$enceG and,second, +a##edos '#ima#y liability as an em'loye# unde# a#ticle 1903& /he'laintis we#e *#ee to choose which cou#se to ta!e, and they '#e*e##ed the second#emedy& n so doin$, they we#e actin$ within thei# #i$hts& t mi$ht be obse#)ed in'assin$, that the 'lainti choose the mo#e ex'editious and eecti)e method o*#elie*, because Fontanilla was eithe# in '#ison, o# had ust been #eleased, andbesides, he was '#obably without '#o'e#ty which mi$ht be sei>ed in en*o#cin$ any

ud$ment a$ainst him *o# dama$es&T$ird& /hat inasmuch as in the abo)e sentence o* Bctobe# =1, 1910, the em'loye#was held liable ci)illy, notwithstandin$ the acIuittal o* the em'loyee -theconducto#. in a '#e)ious c#iminal case, with $#eate# #eason should +a##edo, the


11/24

em'loye# in the case at ba#, be held liable *o# dama$es in a ci)il suit (led a$ainsthim because his taxi d#i)e# had been con)icted& /he de$#ee o* ne$li$ence o* theconducto# in the 4'anish case cited was less than that o* the taxi d#i)e#,Fontanilla, because the *o#me# was acIuitted in the '#e)ious c#iminal case whilethe latte# was *ound $uilty o* c#iminal ne$li$ence and was sentenced to anindete#minate sentence o* one yea# and one day to two yea#s o*prisioncorreccional&

-*ee also4entence o* Feb#ua#y 19, 190=, which is simila# to the one abo)eIuoted&.n the 4entence o* the 4u'#eme 5ou#t o* 4'ain, dated Feb#ua#y 1ca del incum'limiento del cont#ato de t#ans'o#te, toda)e> Iue no se *unda en el #et#aso de la lle$ada de las me#cancias ni de nin$unot#o )inculo cont#actual ent#e las 'a#tes contendientes, ca#eciendo, 'o# tanto, dea'licacion el a#ticulo 371 del 5odi$o de 5ome#cio, en Iue '#inci'almentedescansa el *allo #ecu##ido, sino Iue se limita a 'edi# la #e'a#action de los daos y'e#uicios '#oducidos en el 'at#imonio del acto# 'o# la inusti(cada y dolosane$ati)a del 'o#teado# a la ent#e$a de las me#cancias a su nomb#e consi$nadas,se$un lo #econoce la sentencia, y cuya #es'onsabilidad esta cla#amente

sancionada en el a#ticulo 190= del 5odi$o 5i)il, Iue obli$a 'o# el si$uiente a la5om'aia demandada como li$ada con el causante de aIuellos 'o# #elaciones deca#acte# economico y de u#a#Iuia administ#ati)a&5onside#in$ that the sentence, in Iuestion #eco$ni>es, in )i#tue o* the *acts whichit decla#es, in #elation to the e)idence in the case: -1. that the in)oice issued bythe #ail#oad com'any in *a)o# o* the 'lainti contem'lated that the em'ty#ece'tacles #e*e##ed to in the com'laint should be #etu#ned to the consi$no#s withwines and liIuo#sG -=. that when the said me#chandise #eached thei# destination,thei# deli)e#y to the consi$nee was #e*used by the station a$ent without

usti(cation and with fraudulent intent, and -3. that the lac! o* deli)e#y o* these$oods when they we#e demanded by the 'lainti caused him losses and dama$eso* conside#able im'o#tance, as he was a wholesale )endo# o* wines and liIuo#sand he *ailed to #eali>e the '#o(ts when he was unable to (ll the o#de#s sent tohim by the consi$no#s o* the #ece'tacles:5onside#in$ that u'on this basis the#e is need o* u'holdin$ the *ou# assi$nmentso* e##o#, as the o#i$inal com'laint did not contain any cause o* action a#isin$ *#omnon?*ul(llment o* a cont#act o* t#ans'o#tation, because the action was not basedon the delay o* the $oods no# on any cont#actual #elation between the 'a#tiesliti$ant and, the#e*o#e, a#ticle 371 o* the 5ode o* 5omme#ce, on which thedecision a''ealed *#om is based, is not a''licableG but it limits to as!in$ *o#


12/24

#e'a#ation *o# losses and dama$es '#oduced on the 'at#imony o* the 'lainti onaccount o* the unusti(ed and fraudulent refusalo* the ca##ie# to deli)e# the $oodsconsi$ned to the 'lainti as stated by the sentence, and the ca##ie#s#es'onsibility is clearly laid do%n in article 1234 of t$e Civil Codewhich binds, in)i#tue o* the next a#ticle, the de*endant com'any, because the latte# is connectedwith the 'e#son who caused the dama$e by #elations o* economic cha#acte# andby administ#ati)e hie#a#chy& -m'hasis su''lied&.

/he abo)e case is 'e#tinent because it shows that the same act may come unde#both the Penal 5ode and the 5i)il 5ode& n that case, the action o* the a$ent wasunusti(ed and fraudulentand the#e*o#e could ha)e been the subect o* a c#iminalaction& And yet, it was held to be also a '#o'e# subect o* a ci)il action unde#a#ticle 190= o* the 5i)il 5ode& t is also to be noted that it was the em'loye# andnot the em'loyee who was bein$ sued&Eet us now examine the cases '#e)iously decided by this 5ou#t&n the leadin$ case o* 8a!es vs.Atlantic %ul* and Paci(c 5o& -7 Phil&, 3L9, 36=?36LQyea# 1907R., the t#ial cou#t awa#ded dama$es to the 'lainti, a labo#e# o* thede*endant, because the latte# had ne$li$ently *ailed to #e'ai# a t#amway in

conseIuence o* which the #ails slid o while i#on was bein$ t#ans'o#ted, andcau$ht the 'lainti whose le$ was b#o!en& /his 5ou#t held:t is contended by the de*endant, as its (#st de*ense to the action that thenecessa#y conclusion *#om these collated laws is that the #emedy *o# inu#iesth#ou$h ne$li$ence lies only in a c#iminal action in which the ocial c#iminally#es'onsible must be made '#ima#ily liable and his em'loye# held only subsidia#ilyto him& Acco#din$ to this theo#y the 'lainti should ha)e '#ocu#ed the a##est o* the#e'#esentati)e o* the com'any accountable *o# not #e'ai#in$ the t#ac!, and on his'#osecution a suitable (ne should ha)e been im'osed, 'ayable '#ima#ily by himand seconda#ily by his em'loye#&

/his #easonin$ misconcei)ed the 'lan o* the 4'anish codes u'on this subect&A#ticle 1093 o* the 5i)il 5ode ma!es obli$ations a#isin$ *#om *aults o#ne$li$ence not punis$ed by t$e la%, subect to the '#o)isions o* 5ha'te# o* /itleKH& 4ection 190= o* that cha'te# #eads:A 'e#son who by an act o# omission causes dama$e to anothe# when the#e is*ault o# ne$li$ence shall be obli$ed to #e'ai# the dama$e so done&45& 1903& /he obli$ation im'osed by the '#ecedin$ a#ticle is demandable, notonly *o# 'e#sonal acts and omissions, but also *o# those o* the 'e#sons *o# whomthey should be #es'onsible&/he *athe#, and on his death o# inca'acity, the mothe#, is liable *o# the dama$es

caused by the mino#s who li)e with them&x x x x x x x x xBwne#s o# di#ecto#s o* an establishment o# ente#'#ise a#e eIually liable *o# thedama$es caused by thei# em'loyees in the se#)ice o* the b#anches in which thelatte# may be em'loyed o# in the 'e#*o#mance o* thei# duties&

x x x x x x x x x/he liability #e*e##ed to in this a#ticle shall cease when the 'e#sons mentionedthe#ein '#o)e that they em'loyed all the dili$ence o* a $ood *athe# o* a *amily toa)oid the dama$e&"As an answe# to the a#$ument u#$ed in this 'a#ticula# action it may be sucientto 'oint out that nowhe#e in ou# $ene#al statutes is the em'loye# 'enali>ed *o#*ailu#e to '#o)ide o# maintain sa*e a''liances *o# his wo#!men& is obli$ationthe#e*o#e is one Cnot 'unished by the laws and *alls unde# ci)il #athe# thanc#iminal u#is'#udence& +ut the answe# may be a b#oade# one& e should be#eluctant, unde# any conditions, to ado't a *o#ced const#uction o* these scienti(ccodes, such as is '#o'osed by the de*endant, that would #ob some o* thesea#ticles o* eect, would shut out liti$ants a$ainst thei# will *#om the ci)il cou#ts,would ma!e the asse#tion o* thei# #i$hts de'endent u'on the selection *o#'#osecution o* the '#o'e# c#iminal oende#, and #ende# #eco)e#y doubt*ul by#eason o* the st#ict #ules o* '#oo* '#e)ailin$ in c#iminal actions& )en i* these


13/24

a#ticles had always stood alone, such a const#uction would be unnecessa#y, butclea# li$ht is th#own u'on thei# meanin$ by the '#o)isions o* the Eaw o* 5#iminalP#ocedu#e o* 4'ain -Ley de 5n-uiciamiento Criminal., which, thou$h ne)e# inactual *o#ce in these slands, was *o#me#ly $i)en a su''leto#y o# ex'lanato#yeect& Jnde# a#ticle 111 o* this law, both classes o* action, ci)il and c#iminal,mi$ht be '#osecuted ointly o# se'a#ately, but while the 'enal action was 'endin$the ci)il was sus'ended& Acco#din$ to a#ticle 11=, the 'enal action once sta#ted,

the ci)il #emedy should be sou$ht the#ewith, unless it had been wai)ed by the'a#ty inu#ed o# been ex'#essly #ese#)ed by him *o# ci)il '#oceedin$s *o# the*utu#e& * the ci)il action alone was '#osecuted, a#isin$ out o* a c#ime that could been*o#ced only on '#i)ate com'laint, the 'enal action the#eunde# should beextin$uished& /hese '#o)isions a#e in ha#mony with those o* a#ticles =3 and 133 o*ou# Penal 5ode on the same subect&An examination o* this to'ic mi$ht be ca##ied much *u#the#, but the citation o*these a#ticles suces to show that the ci)il liability was not intended to beme#$ed in the c#iminal no# e)en to be sus'ended the#eby, exce't as ex'#essly'#o)ided in the law& he#e an indi)idual is ci)illy liable *o# a ne$li$ent act o#

omission, it is not #eIui#ed that the inu#ed 'a#ty should see! out a thi#d 'e#sonc#iminally liable whose '#osecution must be a condition '#ecedent to theen*o#cement o* the ci)il #i$ht&Jnde# a#ticle =0 o* the Penal 5ode the #es'onsibility o* an em'loye# may be#e$a#ded as subsidia#y in #es'ect o* c#iminal actions a$ainst his em'loyees onlywhile they a#e in '#ocess o* '#osecution, o# in so *a# as they dete#mine theexistence o* the c#iminal act *#om which liability a#ises, and his obli$ation unde#the ci)il law and its en*o#cement in the ci)il cou#ts is not ba##ed the#eby unless bythe election o* the inu#ed 'e#son& nasmuch as no c#iminal '#oceedin$ had beeninstituted, $#owin$ out o* the accident in Iuestion, the '#o)isions o* the Penal

5ode can not aect this action& /his const#uction #ende#s it unnecessa#y to (nallydete#mine he#e whethe# this subsidia#y ci)il liability in 'enal actions has su#)i)edthe laws that *ully #e$ulated it o# has been ab#o$ated by the Ame#ican ci)il andc#iminal '#ocedu#e now in *o#ce in the Phili''ines&

/he diculty in const#uin$ the a#ticles o* the code abo)e cited in this casea''ea#s *#om the b#ie*s be*o#e us to ha)e a#isen *#om the inte#'#etation o* thewo#ds o* a#ticle 1093, *ault o# ne$li$ence not 'unished by law," as a''lied to thecom'#ehensi)e de(nition o* oenses in a#ticles L6; and L90 o* the Penal 5ode& thas been shown that the liability o* an em'loye# a#isin$ out o* his #elation to hisem'loyee who is the oende# is not to be #e$a#ded as de#i)ed *#om ne$li$ence

'unished by the law, within the meanin$ o* a#ticles 190= and 1093& Mo#e thanthis, howe)e#, it cannot be said to *all within the class o* acts un'unished by thelaw, the conseIuence o* which a#e #e$ulated by a#ticles 190= and 1903 o* the5i)il 5ode& /he acts to which these a#ticles a#e a''licable a#e unde#stood to bethose not $#owin$ out o* '#e?existin$ duties o* the 'a#ties to one anothe#& +utwhe#e #elations al#eady *o#med $i)e #ise to duties, whethe# s'#in$in$ *#omcont#act o# Iuasi cont#act, then b#eaches o* those duties a#e subect to a#ticles1101, 1103, and 110< o* the same code& A ty'ical a''lication o* this distinctionmay be *ound in the conseIuences o* a #ailway accident due to de*ecti)emachine#y su''lied by the em'loye#& is liability to his em'loyee would a#ise outo* the cont#act o* em'loyment, that to the 'assen$e#s out o* the cont#act *o#'assa$e, while that to the inu#ed bystande# would o#i$inate in the ne$li$ent actitsel*&n 0ananares vs. 0oreta, 3; Phil&, ;=1 -yea# 191;., the mothe# o* the ; o* 9?yea#?old child 4al)ado# +ona b#ou$ht a ci)il action a$ainst Mo#eta to #eco)e# dama$es#esultin$ *#om the death o* the child, who had been #un o)e# by an automobiled#i)en and mana$ed by the de*endant& /he t#ial cou#t #ende#ed ud$ment#eIui#in$ the de*endant to 'ay the 'lainti the sum o* P1,000 as indemnity: /his5ou#t in a#min$ the ud$ment, said in 'a#t:


14/24

* it we#e t#ue that the de*endant, in comin$ *#om the southe#n 'a#t o* 4olana4t#eet, had to sto' his auto be*o#e c#ossin$ 8eal 4t#eet, because he had met)ehicles which we#e $oin$ alon$ the latte# st#eet o# we#e comin$ *#om theo''osite di#ection alon$ 4olana 4t#eet, it is to be belie)ed that, when he a$ainsta#ted to #un his auto ac#oss said 8eal 4t#eet and to continue its way alon$4olana 4t#eet no#thwa#d, he should ha)e adusted the s'eed o* the auto which hewas o'e#atin$ until he had *ully c#ossed 8eal 4t#eet and had com'letely #eached a

clea# way on 4olana 4t#eet& +ut, as the child was #un o)e# by the auto '#ecisely atthe ent#ance o* 4olana 4t#eet, this accident could not ha)e occu##ed i* the autohad been #unnin$ at a slow s'eed, aside *#om the *act that the de*endant, at themoment o* c#ossin$ 8eal 4t#eet and ente#in$ 4olana 4t#eet, in a no#thwa#ddi#ection, could ha)e seen the child in the act o* c#ossin$ the latte# st#eet *#om thesidewal! on the #i$ht to that on the le*t, and i* the accident had occu##ed in such away that a*te# the automobile had #un o)e# the body o* the child, and the childsbody had al#eady been st#etched out on the $#ound, the automobile still mo)edalon$ a distance o* about = mete#s, this ci#cumstance shows the *act that theautomobile ente#ed 4olana 4t#eet *#om 8eal 4t#eet, at a hi$h s'eed without the

de*endant ha)in$ blown the ho#n& * these '#ecautions had been ta!en by thede*endant, the de'lo#able accident which caused the death o* the child would notha)e occu##ed&t will be noticed that the de*endant in the abo)e case could ha)e been'#osecuted in a c#iminal case because his ne$li$ence causin$ the death o* thechild was 'unishable by the Penal 5ode& e#e is the#e*o#e a clea# instance o* thesame act o* ne$li$ence bein$ a '#o'e# subect?matte# eithe# o* a c#iminal actionwith its conseIuent ci)il liability a#isin$ *#om a c#ime o# o* an enti#ely se'a#ateand inde'endent ci)il action *o# *ault o# ne$li$ence unde# a#ticle 190= o* the 5i)il5ode& /hus, in this u#isdiction, the se'a#ate indi)idually o* a cuasi'delitoo# culpa

a&uilianaunde# the 5i)il 5ode has been *ully and clea#ly #eco$ni>ed, e)en with#e$a#d to a ne$li$ent act *o# which the w#on$doe# could ha)e been '#osecutedand con)icted in a c#iminal case and *o# which, a*te# such a con)iction, he couldha)e been sued *o# this ci)il liability a#isin$ *#om his c#ime&

Sea#s late# -in 1930. this 5ou#t had anothe# occasion to a''ly the same doct#ine&n Bernal and 5nverso vs. 6ouse and Tacloban 5lectric 7 8ce Plant" Ltd. , L< Phil&,3=7, the 'a#ents o* the ()e?yea#?old child, Pu#i(cacion +e#nal, b#ou$ht a ci)ilaction to #eco)e# dama$es *o# the childs death as a #esult o* bu#ns caused by the*ault and ne$li$ence o* the de*endants& Bn the e)enin$ o* A'#il 10, 19=L, the%ood F#iday '#ocession was held in /acloban, Eeyte& Fo#tunata n)e#so with he#

dau$hte# Pu#i(cacion +e#nal had come *#om anothe# munici'ality to attend thesame& A*te# the '#ocession the mothe# and the dau$hte# with two othe#s we#e'assin$ alon$ %#an 5a'itan 4t#eet in *#ont o* the oces o* the /acloban lect#ic Tce Plant, Etd&, owned by de*endants & H& ouse, when an automobile a''ea#ed*#om the o''osite di#ection& /he little $i#l, who was sli$htly ahead o* the #est, wasso *#i$htened by the automobile that she tu#ned to #un, but un*o#tunately she *ellinto the st#eet $utte# whe#e hot wate# *#om the elect#ic 'lant was Uowin$& /hechild died that same ni$ht *#om the bu#ns& /he t#ial cou#ts dismissed the actionbecause o* the cont#ibuto#y ne$li$ence o* the 'laintis& +ut this 5ou#t held, ona''eal, that the#e was no cont#ibuto#y ne$li$ence, and allowed the 'a#entsP1,000 in dama$es *#om & H& ouse who at the time o* the t#a$ic occu##ence wasthe holde# o* the *#anchise *o# the elect#ic 'lant& /his 5ou#t said in 'a#t:Althou$h the t#ial ud$e made the (ndin$s o* *act he#einbe*o#e outlined, hene)e#theless was led to o#de# the dismissal o* the action because o* thecont#ibuto#y ne$li$ence o* the 'laintis& t is *#om this 'oint that a mao#ity o* thecou#t de'a#t *#om the stand ta!en by the t#ial ud$e& /he mothe# and he# child hada 'e#*ect #i$ht to be on the '#inci'al st#eet o* /acloban, Eeyte, on the e)enin$when the #eli$ious '#ocession was held& /he#e was nothin$ abno#mal in allowin$the child to #un alon$ a *ew 'aces in ad)ance o* the mothe#& 2o one could *o#eseethe coincidence o* an automobile a''ea#in$ and o* a *#i$htened child #unnin$ and


15/24

*allin$ into a ditch (lled with hot wate#& /he doct#ine announced in the muchdebated case o* 8a!es )s& Atlantic %ul* and Paci(c 5o& -Q1907R., 7 Phil&, 3L9., still#ule& A#ticle 190= o* the 5i)il 5ode must a$ain be en*o#ced& /he cont#ibuto#yne$li$ence o* the child and he# mothe#, i* any, does not o'e#ate as a ba# to#eco)e#y, but in its st#ictest sense could only #esult in #eduction o* the dama$es&t is most si$ni(cant that in the case ust cited, this 5ou#t s'eci(cally a''lieda#ticle 190= o* the 5i)il 5ode& t is thus that althou$h & H& ouse could ha)e been

c#iminally '#osecuted *o# #ec!less o# sim'le ne$li$ence and not only 'unished butalso made ci)illy liable because o* his c#iminal ne$li$ence, ne)e#theless this 5ou#tawa#ded dama$es in an inde'endent ci)il action *o# *ault o# ne$li$ence unde#a#ticle 190= o* the 5i)il 5ode&n Ba$ia vs. Liton-ua and Leynes-30 Phil&, 6=< Qyea# 191L., the action was *o#dama$es *o# the death o* the 'laintis dau$hte# alle$ed to ha)e been caused bythe ne$li$ence o* the se#)ant in d#i)in$ an automobile o)e# the child& t a''ea#edthat the cause o* the misha' was a de*ect in the stee#in$ $ea#& /he de*endantEeynes had #ented the automobile *#om the nte#national %a#a$e o* Manila, to beused by him in ca##yin$ 'assen$e#s du#in$ the (esta o* /uy, +atan$as& Eeynes was

o#de#ed by the lowe# cou#t to 'ay P1,000 as dama$es to the 'lainti& Bn a''ealthis 5ou#t #e)e#sed the ud$ment as to Eeynes on the $#ound that he had shownthat the exe#cised the ca#e o* a $ood *athe# o* a *amily, thus o)e#comin$ the'#esum'tion o* ne$li$ence unde# a#ticle 1903& /his 5ou#t said:As to selection, the de*endant has clea#ly shown that he exe#cised the ca#e anddili$ence o* a $ood *athe# o* a *amily& e obtained the machine *#om a #e'utable$a#a$e and it was, so *a# as a''ea#ed, in $ood condition& /he wo#!men we#eli!ewise selected *#om a standa#d $a#a$e, we#e duly licensed by the %o)e#nmentin thei# 'a#ticula# callin$, and a''a#ently tho#ou$hly com'etent& /he machine hadbeen used but a *ew hou#s when the accident occu##ed and it is clea# *#om the

e)idence that the de*endant had no notice, eithe# actual o# const#ucti)e, o* thede*ecti)e condition o* the stee#in$ $ea#&/he le$al as'ect o* the case was discussed by this 5ou#t thus:A#ticle 1903 o* the 5i)il 5ode not only establishes liability in cases o* ne$li$ence,but also '#o)ides when the liability shall cease& t says:/he liability #e*e##ed to in this a#ticle shall cease when the 'e#sons mentionedthe#ein '#o)e that they em'loyed all the dili$ence o* a $ood *athe# o* a *amily toa)oid the dama$e&"F#om this a#ticle two thin$s a#e a''a#ent: -1. /hat when an inu#y is caused by thene$li$ence o* a se#)ant o# em'loyee the#e instantly a#ises a '#esum'tion o* law

that the#e was ne$li$ence on the 'a#t o* the matte# o# em'loye# eithe# in theselection o* the se#)ant o# em'loyee, o# in su'e#)ision o)e# him a*te# theselection, o# bothG and -=. that '#esum'tion is-uris tantumand not-uris et de

-ure, and conseIuently, may be #ebutted& t *ollows necessa#ily that i* theem'loye# shows to the satis*action o* the cou#t that in selection and su'e#)isionhe has exe#cised the ca#e and dili$ence o* a $ood *athe# o* a *amily, the'#esum'tion is o)e#come and he is #elie)e *#om liability&

/his theo#y bases the #es'onsibility o* the maste# ultimately on his ownne$li$ence and not on that o* his se#)ant&

/he doct#ine o* the case ust cited was *ollowed by this 5ou#t in Cerf vs. 0edel-33Phil&, 37 Qyea# 191LR.& n the latte# case, the com'laint alle$ed that thede*endants se#)ant had so ne$li$ently d#i)en an automobile, which was o'e#atedby de*endant as a 'ublic )ehicle, that said automobile st#uc! and dama$ed the'laintis moto#cycle& /his 5ou#t, a''lyin$ a#ticle 1903 and *ollowin$ the #ulein Ba$ia vs. Liton-ua and Leynes, said in 'a#t -'&


16/24

action *o# dama$es b#ou$ht by 5uison *o# the death o* his se)en?yea#?old sonMoises& /he little boy was on his way to school with his siste# Ma#ciana& 4omela#$e 'ieces o* lumbe# *ell *#om a t#uc! and 'inned the boy unde#neath, instantly!illin$ him& /wo youths, /eles*o#o +inoya and F#ancisco +autista, who we#ewo#!in$ *o# B#a, an em'loyee o* de*endant 2o#ton T a##ison 5o&, 'leaded $uiltyto the c#ime o* homicide th#ou$h #ec!less ne$li$ence and we#e sentencedacco#din$ly& /his 5ou#t, a''lyin$ a#ticles 190= and 1903, held:

/he basis o* ci)il law liability is not respondent superiorbut the #elationshi'o*pater familias& /his theo#y bases the liability o* the maste# ultimately on hisown ne$li$ence and not on that o* his se#)ant& -+ahia vs.Eitonua and EeynesQ191LR, 30 Phil&, 6=ed to na)i$ate and di#ect a )essel o* any

tonna$e, and that the a''ellee cont#acted his se#)ices because o* his #e'utationas a ca'tain, acco#din$ to F& 5& 5adwallade#& /his bein$ so, we a#e o* the o'inionthat the '#esum'tion o* liability a$ainst the de*endant has been o)e#come by theexe#cise o* the ca#e and dili$ence o* a $ood *athe# o* a *amily in selectin$ 5a'tainEasa, in acco#dance with the doct#ines laid down by this cou#t in the cases citedabo)e, and the de*endant is the#e*o#e absol)ed *#om all liability&t is, the#e*o#e, seen that the de*endants theo#y about his seconda#y liability isne$ati)ed by the six cases abo)e set *o#th& e is, on the autho#ity o* these cases,'#ima#ily and di#ectly #es'onsible in dama$es unde# a#ticle 1903, in #elation toa#ticle 190=, o* the 5i)il 5ode&

Eet us now ta!e u' the Phili''ine decisions #elied u'on by the de*endant& estudy (#st, City of 0anila vs. 0anila 5lectric Co., L= Phil&, L;6 -yea# 19=;.& Acollision between a t#uc! o* the 5ity o* Manila and a st#eet ca# o* the Manilalect#ic 5o& too! 'lace on une ;, 19=L& /he t#uc! was dama$ed in the amount o*P1,7;;&=7& 4ixto ustaIuio, the moto#man, was '#osecuted *o# the c#ime o*dama$e to '#o'e#ty and sli$ht inu#ies th#ou$h #ec!less im'#udence& e was*ound $uilty and sentenced to 'ay a (ne o* P900, to indemni*y the 5ity o* Manila*o# P1,7;;&=7, with subsidia#y im'#isonment in case o* insol)ency& Jnable tocollect the indemnity *#om ustaIuio, the 5ity o* Manila (led an action a$ainst theManila lect#ic 5om'any to obtain 'ayment, claimin$ that the de*endant was

subsidia#ily liable& /he main de*ense was that the de*endant had exe#cised thedili$ence o* a $ood *athe# o* a *amily to '#e)ent the dama$e& /he lowe# cou#t#ende#ed ud$ment in *a)o# o* the 'lainti& /his 5ou#t held, in 'a#t, that this casewas $o)e#ned by the Penal 5ode, sayin$:ith this '#elimina#y 'oint out o* the way, the#e is no esca'in$ the conclusion thatthe '#o)isions o* the Penal 5ode $o)e#n& /he Penal 5ode in easily unde#standablelan$ua$e autho#i>es the dete#mination o* subsidia#y liability& /he 5i)il 5odene$ati)es its a''lication by '#o)idin$ that ci)il obli$ations a#isin$ *#om c#imes o#misdemeano#s shall be $o)e#ned by the '#o)isions o* the Penal 5ode& /hecon)iction o* the moto#man was a misdemeano# *allin$ unde# a#ticle 60< o* thePenal 5ode& /he act o* the moto#man was not a w#on$*ul o# ne$li$ent act o#omission not 'unishable by law& Acco#din$ly, the ci)il obli$ation connected u'with the Penal 5ode and not with a#ticle 1903 o* the 5i)il 5ode& n othe# wo#ds,the Penal 5ode a#ms its u#isdiction while the 5i)il 5ode ne$ati)es its

u#isdiction& /his is a case o* c#iminal ne$li$ence out o* which ci)il liability a#isesand not a case o* ci)il ne$li$ence&

x x x x x x x x xBu# deduction, the#e*o#e, is that the case #elates to the Penal 5ode and not to the5i)il 5ode& ndeed, as 'ointed out by the t#ial ud$e, any die#ent #ulin$ would'e#mit the maste# to esca'e scot?*#ee by sim'ly alle$in$ and '#o)in$ that the


17/24

maste# had exe#cised all dili$ence in the selection and t#ainin$ o* its se#)ants to'#e)ent the dama$e& /hat would be a $ood de*ense to a st#ictly ci)il action, butmi$ht o# mi$ht not be to a ci)il action eithe# as a 'a#t o* o# '#edicated oncon)iction *o# a c#ime o# misdemeano#& -+y way o* 'a#enthesis, it may be said*u#the# that the statements he#e made a#e oe#ed to meet the a#$umentad)anced du#in$ ou# delibe#ations to the eect that a#ticle 090= o* the 5i)il 5odeshould be dis#e$a#ded and codal a#ticles 1093 and 1903 a''lied&.

t is not clea# how the abo)e case could su''o#t the de*endants '#o'osition,because the 5ou#t o* A''eals based its decision in the '#esent case on thede*endants '#ima#y #es'onsibility unde# a#ticle 1903 o* the 5i)il 5ode and not onhis subsidia#y liability a#isin$ *#om Fontanillas c#iminal ne$li$ence& n othe# wo#ds,the case o* 5ity o* Manila )s& Manila lect#ic 5o&, su'#a, is '#edicated on anenti#ely die#ent theo#y, which is the subsidia#y liability o* an em'loye# a#isin$*#om a c#iminal act o* his em'loyee, whe#eas the *oundation o* the decision o* the5ou#t o* A''eals in the '#esent case is the em'loye#s '#ima#y liability unde#a#ticle 1903 o* the 5i)il 5ode& e ha)e al#eady seen that this is a '#o'e# andinde'endent #emedy&

Arambulo vs. 0anila 5lectric Co.-LL Phil&, 7L., is anothe# case in)o!ed by thede*endant& A moto#man in the em'loy o* the Manila lect#ic 5om'any had beencon)icted o homicide by sim'le ne$li$ence and sentenced, amon$ othe# thin$s, to'ay the hei#s o* the deceased the sum o* P1,000& An action was then b#ou$ht toen*o#ce the subsidia#y liability o* the de*endant as em'loye# unde# the Penal5ode& /he de*endant attem'ted to show that it had exe#cised the dili$ence o* a$ood *athe# o* a *amily in selectin$ the moto#man, and the#e*o#e claimedexem'tion *#om ci)il liability& +ut this 5ou#t held:n )iew o* the *o#e$oin$ conside#ations, we a#e o* o'inion and so hold, -1. that theexem'tion *#om ci)il liability established in a#ticle 1903 o* the 5i)il 5ode *o# all

who ha)e acted with the dili$ence o* a $ood *athe# o* a *amily, is not a''licable tothe subsidia#y ci)il liability '#o)ided in a#ticle =0 o* the Penal 5ode&/he abo)e case is also ext#aneous to the theo#y o* the de*endant in the instantcase, because the action the#e had *o# its 'u#'ose the en*o#cement o* thede*endants subsidia#y liability unde# the Penal 5ode, while in the case at ba#, the'laintis cause o* action is based on the de*endants '#ima#y and di#ect#es'onsibility unde# a#ticle 1903 o* the 5i)il 5ode& n *act, the abo)e case dest#oysthe de*endants contention because that decision illust#ates the '#inci'le that theem'loye#s '#ima#y #es'onsibility unde# a#ticle 1903 o* the 5i)il 5ode is die#entin cha#acte# *#om his subsidia#y liability unde# the Penal 5ode&

n t#yin$ to a''ly the two cases ust #e*e##ed to, counsel *o# the de*endant has*ailed to #eco$ni>e the distinction between ci)il liability a#isin$ *#om a c#ime,which is $o)e#ned by the Penal 5ode, and the #es'onsibility *o# cuasi'delitoo# culpa a&uilianaunde# the 5i)il 5ode, and has li!ewise *ailed to $i)e theim'o#tance to the latte# ty'e o* ci)il action&

/he de*endant?'etitione# also cites )rancisco vs. !nrubia-


18/24

/he le$al '#o)isions, autho#s, and cases al#eady in)o!ed should o#dina#ily besucient to dis'ose o* this case& +ut inasmuch as we a#e announcin$ doct#inesthat ha)e been little unde#stood in the 'ast, it mi$ht not be ina''#o'#iate toindicate thei# *oundations&Fi#stly, the 8e)ised Penal 5ode in a#ticle 36L 'unishes not only #ec!less but alsosim'le ne$li$ence& * we we#e to hold that a#ticles 190= to 1910 o* the 5i)il 5ode#e*e# only to *ault o# ne$li$ence not 'unished by law, acco#din$ to the lite#al

im'o#t o* a#ticle 1093 o* the 5i)il 5ode, the le$al institution o* cul'a aIuilianawould ha)e )e#y little sco'e and a''lication in actual li*e& @eath o# inu#y to'e#sons and dama$e to '#o'e#ty th#ou$h any de$#ee o* ne$li$ence e)en thesli$htest would ha)e to be indemni(ed only th#ou$h the '#inci'le o* ci)illiability a#isin$ *#om a c#ime& n such a state o* aai#s, what s'he#e would #emain*o# cuasi'delitoo# culpa a&uilianaO e a#e loath to im'ute to the lawma!e# anyintention to b#in$ about a situation so absu#d and anomalous& 2o# a#e we, in theinte#'#etation o* the laws, dis'osed to u'hold the lette# that !illeth #athe# than thes'i#it that $i)eth li*e& e will not use the lite#al meanin$ o* the law to smothe# and#ende# almost li*eless a '#inci'le o* such ancient o#i$in and such *ull?$#own

de)elo'ment as culpa a&uilianao# cuasi'delito, which is conse#)ed and madeendu#in$ in a#ticles 190= to 1910 o* the 4'anish 5i)il 5ode&4econdly, to (nd the accused $uilty in a c#iminal case, '#oo* o* $uilt beyond#easonable doubt is #eIui#ed, while in a ci)il case, '#e'onde#ance o* e)idence issucient to ma!e the de*endant 'ay in dama$es& /he#e a#e nume#ous cases o*c#iminal ne$li$ence which cannot be shown beyond #easonable doubt, but can be'#o)ed by a '#e'onde#ance o* e)idence& n such cases, the de*endant can andshould be made #es'onsible in a ci)il action unde# a#ticles 190= to 1910 o* the5i)il 5ode& Bthe#wise, the#e would be many instances o* un)indicated ci)ilw#on$s& 9bi -us ibi remedium&

/hi#dly, to hold that the#e is only one way to ma!e de*endants liability eecti)e,and that is, to sue the d#i)e# and exhaust his -the latte#s. '#o'e#ty (#st, would betantamount to com'ellin$ the 'lainti to *ollow a de)ious and cumbe#somemethod o* obtainin$ #elie*& /#ue, the#e is such a #emedy unde# ou# laws, but the#eis also a mo#e ex'editious way, which is based on the '#ima#y and di#ect#es'onsibility o* the de*endant unde# a#ticle 1903 o* the 5i)il 5ode& Bu# )iew o*the law is mo#e li!ely to *acilitate #emedy *o# ci)il w#on$s, because the '#ocedu#eindicated by the de*endant is waste*ul and '#oducti)e o* delay, it bein$ a matte#o* common !nowled$e that '#o*essional d#i)e#s o* taxis and simila# 'ubliccon)eyance usually do not ha)e sucient means with which to 'ay dama$es&

hy, then, should the 'lainti be #eIui#ed in all cases to $o th#ou$h this#oundabout, unnecessa#y, and '#obably useless '#ocedu#eO n const#uin$ thelaws, cou#ts ha)e endea)o#ed to sho#ten and *acilitate the 'athways o* #i$ht and

ustice&At this unctu#e, it should be said that the '#ima#y and di#ect #es'onsibility o*em'loye#s and thei# '#esumed ne$li$ence a#e '#inci'les calculated to '#otectsociety& o#!men and em'loyees should be ca#e*ully chosen and su'e#)ised ino#de# to a)oid inu#y to the 'ublic& t is the maste#s o# em'loye#s who '#inci'ally#ea' the '#o(ts #esultin$ *#om the se#)ices o* these se#)ants and em'loyees& t isbut #i$ht that they should $ua#antee the latte#s ca#e*ul conduct *o# the 'e#sonneland 'at#imonial sa*ety o* othe#s& As /heilha#d has said, they should #e'#oachthemsel)es, at least, some *o# thei# wea!ness, othe#s *o# thei# 'oo# selection andall *o# thei# ne$li$ence&" And acco#din$ to Man#esa, t is much mo#e eIuitableand ust that such #es'onsibility should *all u'on the '#inci'al o# di#ecto# whocould ha)e chosen a ca#e*ul and '#udent em'loyee, and not u'on the inu#ed'e#son who could not exe#cise such selection and who used such em'loyeebecause o* his con(dence in the '#inci'al o# di#ecto#&" -Hol& 1=, '& 6==, =nd d&.Many u#ists also base this '#ima#y #es'onsibility o* the em'loye# on the '#inci'leo* #e'#esentation o* the '#inci'al by the a$ent& /hus, Byuelos says in the wo#!al#eady cited -Hol& 7, '& 7


19/24

)ienen a se# como una sola 'e#sonalidad, 'o# #e*undicion de la del de'endienteen la de Iuien le em'lea y utili>a&" -become as one 'e#sonality by the me#$in$ o*the 'e#son o* the em'loyee in that o* him who em'loys and utili>es him&". Allthese obse#)ations acIui#e a 'eculia# *o#ce and si$ni(cance when it comes tomoto# accidents, and the#e is need o* st#essin$ and accentuatin$ the#es'onsibility o* owne#s o* moto# )ehicles&Fou#thly, because o* the b#oad swee' o* the '#o)isions o* both the Penal 5ode and

the 5i)il 5ode on this subect, which has $i)en #ise to the o)e#la''in$ o#concu##ence o* s'he#es al#eady discussed, and *o# lac! o* unde#standin$ o* thecha#acte# and ecacy o* the action *o# culpa a&uiliana, the#e has $#own u' acommon '#actice to see! dama$es only by )i#tue o* the ci)il #es'onsibility a#isin$*#om a c#ime, *o#$ettin$ that the#e is anothe# #emedy, which is by in)o!in$ a#ticles190=?1910 o* the 5i)il 5ode& Althou$h this habitual method is allowed by ou# laws,it has ne)e#theless #ende#ed '#actically useless and nu$ato#y the mo#eex'editious and eecti)e #emedy based on culpa a&uilianao# culpa e,tra'contractual& n the '#esent case, we a#e as!ed to hel' 'e#'etuate this usualcou#se& +ut we belie)e it is hi$h time we 'ointed out to the ha#m done by such

'#actice and to #esto#e the '#inci'le o* #es'onsibility *o# *ault o# ne$li$ence unde#a#ticles 190= et se&& o* the 5i)il 5ode to its *ull #i$o#& t is hi$h time we caused thest#eam o* Iuasi?delict o# culpa a&uilianato Uow on its own natu#al channel, sothat its wate#s may no lon$e# be di)e#ted into that o* a c#ime unde# the Penal5ode& /his will, it is belie)ed, ma!e *o# the bette# sa*e$ua#din$ o* '#i)ate #i$htsbecause it #e?establishes an ancient and additional #emedy, and *o# the *u#the##eason that an inde'endent ci)il action, not de'endin$ on the issues, limitationsand #esults o* a c#iminal '#osecution, and enti#ely di#ected by the 'a#ty w#on$edo# his counsel, is mo#e li!ely to secu#e adeIuate and ecacious #ed#ess&n )iew o* the *o#e$oin$, the ud$ment o* the 5ou#t o* A''eals should be and is

he#eby a#med, with costs a$ainst the de*endant?'etitione#&:ulo" C.." 0oran" !aeta and Paras" ."concu#&


20/24

Mendo)a vs. Arrie*a' +, SCRA ,,-

&ac*s:Bn Bctobe# ==, 1969, at a#ound a# o)e#too! the t#uc!, swe#)ed to the le*t

and hit his ca#& e *u#the# testi(ed that be*o#e im'act, 4ala>a# um'ed *#om theee' not !nowin$ that 4ala>a# was hit by the t#uc! o* Montoya& Montoya a#med

this& Bn the othe# hand, 4ala>a# t#ied to show that a*te# o)e#ta!in$ the t#uc!, he

Uashed a si$nal showin$ his intention to tu#n le*t but was sto''ed at by a

'oliceman di#ectin$ t#ac at the inte#section which he contends to be the time he

was hit by the t#uc! causin$ his ee' to hit 'etitione#s ca#&

Isses:

-1. hethe# o# not the dama$es ensued to the )ehicle o* 'etitione# shall be theliability o* the d#i)e# o* the ee' o# o* the t#uc!&

-=. hethe# o# not the t#uc!s owne# may be held liable *o# dama$es caused by

him em'loyee&

Held:/hus, the t#ial 5ou#t absol)ed ee'?owne#?d#i)e# 4ala>a# o* any liability, ci)il

and c#iminal, in )iew o* its (ndin$s that the collision between 4ala>a#Vs ee' and

'etitione#Vs ca# was the #esult o* the *o#me# ha)in$ been bum'ed *#om behind bythe t#uc! d#i)en by Montoya& 2eithe# was 'etitione# awa#ded dama$es as he was

not a com'lainant a$ainst t#uc!?d#i)e# Montoya but only a$ainst ee'?owne#?d#i)e#

4ala>a#&

/hat 'etitione#Vs cause o* action a$ainst /imbol in the ci)il case is based on Iuasi?

delict is e)ident *#om the #ecitals in the com'laint to wit: that while 'etitione# was

d#i)in$ his ca# alon$ MacA#thu# i$hway at Ma#ilao, +ulacan, a ee' owned and

d#i)en by 4ala>a# suddenly swe#)ed to his -'etitione#Vs. lane and collided with hisca# /hat the sudden swe#)in$ o* 4ala>a#Vs ee' was caused eithe# by the

ne$li$ence and lac! o* s!ill o* F#eddie Montoya, /imbolVs em'loyee, who was then

d#i)in$ a $#a)el and sand t#uc! iii the same di#ection as 4ala>a#Vs ee'G and that

as a conseIuence o* the collision, 'etitione#Vs ca# sue#ed extensi)e dama$es&

5lea#ly, the#e*o#e, the two *acto#s that a cause o* action must consist o*, namely:

-1. 'laintiVs '#ima#y #i$ht, i&e&, that he is the owne# o* a Me#cedes +en>, and -=.
http://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/03/mendoza-vs-arrietaa-91-scra-113.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/03/mendoza-vs-arrietaa-91-scra-113.html


21/24

de*endantVs delict o# w#on$*ul act o# omission which )iolated 'laintiVs '#ima#y

#i$ht, i&e&, the ne$li$ence o# lac! o* s!ill eithe# o* ee'?owne# 4ala>a# o# o* /imbolVs

em'loyee, Montoya, in d#i)in$ the t#uc!, causin$ 4ala>a#Vs ee' to swe#)e and

collide with 'etitione#Vs ca#, we#e alle$ed in the 5om'laint&

5onseIuently, 'etitione#Vs cause o* action bein$ based on Iuasi?delict, #es'ondent

ud$e committed #e)e#sible e##o# when he dismissed the ci)il suit a$ainst the

t#uc!?owne#, as said case may '#oceed inde'endently o* the c#iminal '#oceedin$s

and #e$a#dless o* the #esult o* the latte#&

n )iew o* what has been '#o)en and established du#in$ the t#ial, accused F#eddie

Montoya would be held able *o# ha)in$ bum'ed and hit the #ea# 'o#tion o* the

ee' d#i)en by the accused 8odol*o 4ala>a#& 5onside#in$ that the collision between

the ee' d#i)en by 8odol*o 4ala>a# and the ca# owned and d#i)en by d$a#do

Mendo>a was the #esult o* the hittin$ on the #ea# o* the ee' by the t#uc! d#i)en

by F#eddie Montoya, this 5ou#t beha)es that accused 8odol*o 4ala>a# cannot be

held able *o# the dama$es sustained by d$a#do Mendo>aVs ca#&


22/24

P/ili00ine Sc/ool o1 Bsiness Adminis*ra*ion vs. CA 23$4 SCRA 53+ GR

o. #"%+#. &e6rar7 "' ,+"38

&ac*s: 5a#litos +autista was stabbed while on the second Uoo# '#emises o* theschools by assailants who we#e not membe#s o* the schools academic community&

/his '#om'ted the 'a#ents o* the deceased to (le a suit in the 8/5 o* Manila *o#dama$es a$ainst P4+A and its co#'o#ate oce#s&

/he de*endant schools -now 'etitione#. sou$ht to ha)e the suit dismissed on the$#ound o* no cause o* action and not within the sco'e o* the '#o)ision o* A#t =1;0since it is an academic institution& /he t#ial cou#t o)e##uled the 'etitione#scontention and its decision was late# a#med by the a''ellate cou#t&

Isse: hethe# the decision o* the a''ellate cou#t '#ima#ily ancho#ed on the lawo* Iuasi?delicts is )alid&

Held: Althou$h the 4u'#eme 5ou#t a$#eed to the decision o* the 5ou#t o* A''ealsto deny the 'etition o* motion to dismiss by the P4+A, they do not a$#ee to the

'#emises o* the a''ellate cou#ts #ulin$&

A#t =1;0, in conunction with A#t =176 o* the ci)il code establishes the #ule o* inloco 'a#entis, they can not be held liable to the acts o* 5alitos assailants whichwe#e not students o* the P4+A and because o* the cont#actual #elationshi'&

/he school and the students, u'on #e$ist#ation established a cont#act betweenthem, #esultin$ in bilate#al obli$ations& /he institution o* lea#nin$ must '#o)ide

thei# students with an atmos'he#e that '#omotes o# assists its '#ima#yunde#ta!in$ o* im'a#tin$ !nowled$e, and maintain 'eace and o#de# within its'#emises&

/he 45 dismissed the 'etition and the case was #emanded to the t#ail cou#t todete#mine i* the school ne$lected its obli$ation to 'e#*o#m based on thecont#actual #elation o* them and the students&
http://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/03/philippine-school-of-business.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/03/philippine-school-of-business.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/03/philippine-school-of-business.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/03/philippine-school-of-business.html


23/24

9ose Amadora vs Cor* o1 A00eals

Civil La% Torts and Damages Article 41;3 Liability of *c$ools of Arts and

Trades and Academic *c$ools Liability of Teac$ers and 6eads of *c$ool

n A'#il 197=, while the hi$h school students o* 5ole$io de 4an ose?8ecoletoswe#e in the school audito#ium, a ce#tain Pablito @aon (#ed a $un& /he st#ay bullethit Al*#edo Amado#a& Al*#edo died& @aon was con)icted o* #ec!less im'#udence#esultin$ in homicide& /he 'a#ents o* Al*#edo sued the school *o# dama$es unde#A#ticle =1;0 o* the 5i)il 5ode because o* the schools ne$li$ence&

/he t#ial cou#t #uled in *a)o# o* Amado#a& /he t#ial cou#t #uled that the '#inci'al,the dean o* boys, as well as the teache#?in?cha#$e a#e all ci)illy liable& /he schoola''ealed as it a)e##ed that when the incident ha''ened, the school yea# has

al#eady ended& Amado#a a#$ued that e)en thou$h the semeste# has al#eadyended, his son was the#e in school to com'lete a school #eIui#ement in his Physicssubect& /he 5ou#t o* A''eals #uled in *a)o# o* the school& /he 5A #uled that unde#the last 'a#a$#a'h o* A#ticle =1;0, only schools o* a#ts and t#ades -)ocationalschools. a#e liable not academic schools li!e 5ole$io de 4an ose?8ecoletos&

ISSUE: hethe# o# not 5ole$io de 4an ose?8ecoletos, an academic school, isliable unde# A#ticle =1;0 o* the 5i)il 5ode *o# the to#tuous act o* its students&

HELD:Ses& /he 4u'#eme 5ou#t made a #e?examination o* the '#o)ision on the last

'a#a$#a'h o* A#ticle =1;0 which '#o)ides:Lastly" teac$ers or $eads of establis$ments of arts and trades s$all be liable fordamages caused by t$eir pupils and students or apprentices so long as t$eyremain in t$eir custody.

/he 4u'#eme 5ou#t said that it is time to u'date the inte#'#etation o* the abo)elaw due to the chan$in$ times whe#e the#e is ha#dly a distinction between schoolso* a#ts and t#ade and academic schools& /hat bein$ said, the 4u'#eme 5ou#t #uledthat AEE schools, academic o# not, may be held liable unde# the said '#o)ision o*A#ticle =1;0&

/he 4u'#eme 5ou#t howe)e# cla#i(ed that the school, whethe# academic o# not,should not be held di#ectly liable& ts liability is only subsidia#y&Fo# non?academic schools, it would be the '#inci'al o# head o* school who shouldbe di#ectly liable *o# the to#tuous act o* its students& /his is because histo#ically, innon?academic schools, the head o* school exe#cised a close# administ#ation o)e#thei# students than heads o* academic schools& n sho#t, they a#e mo#e hands onto thei# students&Fo# academic schools, it would be the teache#?in?cha#$e who would be di#ectlyliable *o# the to#tuous act o* the students and not the dean o# the head o* school&

/he 4u'#eme 5ou#t also #uled that such liability does not cease when the schoolyea# ends o# when the semeste# ends& Eiability a''lies whene)e# the student is in

the custody o* the school autho#ities as lon$ as he is unde# the cont#ol andinUuence o* the school and within its '#emises, whethe# the semeste# has not yetbe$un o# has al#eady ended at the time o* the ha''enin$ o* the incident& As lon$as it can be shown that the student is in the school '#emises in 'u#suance o* ale$itimate student obecti)e, in the exe#cise o* a le$itimate student #i$ht, ande)en in the enoyment o* a le$itimate student #i$ht, and e)en in the enoyment o*a le$itimate student '#i)ile$e, the #es'onsibility o* the school autho#ities o)e# thestudent continues& ndeed, e)en i* the student should be doin$ nothin$ mo#e than#elaxin$ in the cam'us in the com'any o* his classmates and *#iends and enoyin$


24/24

the ambience and atmos'he#e o* the school, he is still within the custody andsubect to the disci'line o* the school autho#ities unde# the '#o)isions o* A#ticle=1;0&At any #ate, the 8M@S o* the teache#, to a)oid di#ect liability, and *o# the school,to a)oid subsidia#y liability, is to show '#oo* that he, the teache#, exe#cised thenecessa#y '#ecautions to '#e)ent the inu#y com'lained o*, and the schoolexe#cised the dili$ence o* a bonus pater familias&

n this case howe)e#, the Physics teache# in cha#$e was not '#o'e#ly named, andthe#e was no sucient e)idence '#esented to ma!e the said teache#?in?cha#$eliable& Absent the di#ect liability o* the teache#s because o* the *o#e$oin$ #eason,the school cannot be held subsidia#ity liable too&

oblicon 4 cases

Documents