Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/232304142/TORTS-Cases-1
Timestamp: 2015-03-30 10:19:09
Document Index: 270483394

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 1', 'ART. 1089', 'ART. 1092', 'ART. 1093', 'ART 1902', 'ART. 1903']

P. 1TORTS Cases 1TORTS Cases 1Ratings: (0)|Views: 1|Likes: 0Published by Mai Mai-maiThese are Supreme Court Decisions related to the subject Torts and Damages. Part 1 under the syllabus of Atty. JimenoThese are Supreme Court Decisions related to the subject Torts and Damages. Part 1 under the syllabus of Atty. JimenoMore info:Published by: Mai Mai-mai on Jul 02, 2014Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reservedAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/232304142/TORTS-Cases-107/02/2014pdftextoriginal Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT
Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-48006 July 8, 1942
FAUSTO BARREDO,
petitioner, vs. SEVERINO GARCIA and TIMOTEA ALMARIO,
respondents. Celedonio P. Gloria and Antonio Barredo for petitioner. Jose G. Advincula for respondents.
BOCOBO, J.
This case comes up from the Court of Appeals which held the petitioner herein, Fausto Barredo, liable in damages for the death of Faustino Garcia caused by the negligence of Pedro Fontanilla, a taxi driver employed by said Fausto Barredo. At about half past one in the morning of May 3, 1936, on the road between Malabon and Navotas, Province of Rizal, there was a head-on collision between a taxi of the Malate Taxicab driven by Pedro Fontanilla and a carretela guided by Pedro Dimapalis. The carretela was overturned, and one of its passengers, 16-year-old boy Faustino Garcia, suffered injuries from which he died two days later. A criminal action was filed against Fontanilla in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and he was convicted and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of one year and one day to two years of prision correccional . The court in the criminal case granted the petition that the right to bring a separate civil action be reserved. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence of the lower court in the criminal case. Severino Garcia and Timotea Almario, parents of the deceased on March 7, 1939, brought an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Fausto Barredo as the sole proprietor of the Malate Taxicab and employer of Pedro Fontanilla. On July 8, 1939, the Court of First Instance of Manila awarded damages in favor of the plaintiffs for P2,000 plus legal interest from the date of the complaint. This decision was modified by the Court of Appeals by reducing the damages to P1,000 with legal interest from the time the action was instituted. It is undisputed that Fontanilla 's negligence was the cause of the mishap, as he was driving on the wrong side of the road, and at high speed. As to Barredo's responsibility, the Court of Appeals found: ... It is admitted that defendant is Fontanilla's employer. There is proof that he exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. (See p. 22, appellant's brief.) In fact it is shown he was careless in employing Fontanilla who had been caught several times for violation of the Automobile Law and speeding (Exhibit A) —
violation which appeared in the records of the Bureau of Public Works available to be public and to himself. Therefore, he must indemnify plaintiffs under the provisions of article 1903 of the Civil Code. The main theory of the defense is that the liability of Fausto Barredo is governed by the Revised Penal Code; hence, his liability is only subsidiary, and as there has been no civil action against Pedro Fontanilla, the person criminally liable, Barredo cannot be held responsible in the case. The petitioner's brief states on page 10: ... The Court of Appeals holds that the petitioner is being sued for his failure to exercise all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of Pedro Fontanilla to prevent damages suffered by the respondents. In other words, The Court of Appeals insists on applying in the case article 1903 of the Civil Code. Article 1903 of the Civil Code is found in Chapter II, Title 16, Book IV of the Civil Code. This fact makes said article to a civil liability arising from a crime as in the case at bar simply because Chapter II of Title 16 of Book IV of the Civil Code, in the precise words of article 1903 of the Civil Code itself, is applicable only to "those (obligations) arising from wrongful or negligent acts or commission not
punishable by law . The gist of the decision of the Court of Appeals is expressed thus: ... We cannot agree to the defendant's contention. The liability sought to be imposed upon him in this action is not a civil obligation arising from a felony or a misdemeanor (the crime of Pedro Fontanilla,), but an obligation imposed in article 1903 of the Civil Code by reason of his negligence in the selection or supervision of his servant or employee. The pivotal question in this case is whether the plaintiffs may bring this separate civil action against Fausto Barredo, thus making him primarily and directly, responsible under article 1903 of the Civil Code as an employer of Pedro Fontanilla. The defendant maintains that Fontanilla's negligence being punishable by the Penal Code, his (defendant's) liability as an employer is only subsidiary, according to said Penal code, but Fontanilla has not been sued in a civil action and his property has not been exhausted. To decide the main issue, we must cut through the tangle that has, in the minds of many confused and jumbled together delitos
and cuasi delitos
, or crimes under the Penal Code and fault or negligence under articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. This should be done, because justice may be lost in a labyrinth, unless principles and remedies are distinctly envisaged. Fortunately, we are aided in our inquiry by the luminous presentation of the perplexing subject by renown jurists and we are likewise guided by the decisions of this Court in previous cases as well as by the solemn clarity of the consideration in several sentences of the Supreme Tribunal of Spain. Authorities support the proposition that a quasi-delict or "
" is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code with a substantivity all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from delict or crime. Upon this principle and on the wording and spirit article 1903 of the Civil Code, the primary and direct responsibility of employers may be safely anchored. The pertinent provisions of the Civil Code and Revised Penal Code are as follows: CIVIL CODE ART. 1089 Obligations arise from law, from contracts and quasi-contracts, and from acts and omissions which are unlawful or in which any kind of fault or negligence intervenes. x x x x x x x x x ART. 1092. Civil obligations arising from felonies or misdemeanors shall be governed by the provisions of the Penal Code. ART. 1093. Those which are derived from acts or omissions in which fault or negligence, not punishable by law, intervenes shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter II, Title XVI of this book. x x x x x x x x x ART 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. 1903. The obligation imposed by the next preceding article is enforcible, not only for personal acts and omissions, but also for those of persons for whom another is responsible. The father and in, case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are liable for any damages caused by the minor children who live with them. Guardians are liable for damages done by minors or incapacitated persons subject to their authority and living with them. Owners or directors of an establishment or business are equally liable for any damages caused by their employees while engaged in the branch of the service in which employed, or on occasion of the performance of their duties. The State is subject to the same liability when it acts through a special agent, but not if the damage shall have been caused by the official upon whom properly devolved the duty of doing the act performed, in which case the provisions of the next preceding article shall be applicable. Activity (0)FiltersAdd to collectionReview Add NoteLikeShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and likeNo activity yetLoad more
More From This UserSonic Steel v ChuaMai Mai-maiUyco v LoMai Mai-maiOTHER DigestsMai Mai-maiMaloles II vs PhillipsMai Mai-maiExtra Digest for WillsMai Mai-maiDoro TheoMai Mai-maiCase Digest Yap, Taboada, Llorente, Cayatano, And RodelasMai Mai-maiCase Digest Yap, Taboada, Llorente, Cayatano, And RodelasMai Mai-maiRepublic Act No 3019Mai Mai-maiRepublic Act No. 10168Mai Mai-maiRepublic Act No 9208Mai Mai-maiRepublic Act No. 7080Mai Mai-maiRule 57-PR Preliminary AttachmentMai Mai-maiR-Crim List Contributors CrmproMai Mai-maiLab Rel AzucenaMai Mai-maiTAX LAWS 1 ATTY. ABAN NOTESMai Mai-maiPartnershipMai Mai-mailist of law office firmsMai Mai-maimorningsMai Mai-maiRecissible contracts PPTMai Mai-maimemory in a month work bookMai Mai-maiph constiMai Mai-maijurisprudence on Judicial Review Admin lawMai Mai-mai1992-2005 power statistics Mai Mai-mai