Fausto Barredov.

Severino Garcia and Timotea Almario

GR No L-48006, July 8, 1942
Re: Civil Liability from Quasi Delicts v. Civil Liability from Crimes
FACTS:
On May 3, 1936, Fontanilla’s taxi collided with a carretela. The carretela was overturned, and one
of its passengers, 16-year-old boy FaustinoGarcia, suffered injuries from which he died two days later.
Faustino’s parents filed a criminal suit against Fontanilla and reserved their right to file a separate civil
suit. Fontanilla was eventually convicted.
After the criminal suit, Garcia filed a civil suit against Barredo, the owner of the taxi and employer
of Fontanilla. The suit was based on Article 1903 of the civil code, negligence of employers in the
selection of their employees.
Barredo however assailed the suit arguing that his liability 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 criminallyliable, Barredo cannot be held responsible in the case.
ISSUE:
Is Fausto Barredo subsidiary liable under the Revised Penal Code or primarily and directly liable under
the Civil Code?
HELD:
Fausto Barredo is primarily and directly liable under the Civil Code specifically under Article 1903
which is a separate civil action against negligent employers.

The defendant has failed to recognize the distinctionbetween civil liability arising from a crime,
which is governed by the Revised Penal Code, and the responsibility for culpa aquiliana under the New
Civil Code, and has likewise failed to give the importance to the latter type of civilaction.

It must be noted that Garcia reserved his right to file a separate civil action under Article 1903 of
the New Civil Codeand it was also proven that Barredo is indeed negligent in hiring his employees
because it was shown that Fontanilla had multiple traffic infractions before he hired him, something he
failed to overcome during hearing.From these factsperse, Barredo failed to exercise the required diligence
of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee, Fontanilla.

It must be further noted that, Barredo is not being sued for damages arising from a criminal act,
his driver’s negligence, but rather for his own negligence in selecting his employee as governed by Article
1903 of the New Civil Code.
The Supreme Court discussed that under Article 1903 of the New Civil Code, two things are
apparent:
(1) That when an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant oremployee there instantly arises a
presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the matter oremployer either in the selection
of the servant or employee, or in supervision over him after the selection, or both; and
(2) That presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure, and consequently, may be rebutted. Itfollows
necessarily that if the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in selection and supervisionhe
has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family, the presumption is overcome and he
isrelieve from liability.