POBLETE VS.

FABROS
93 SCRA 200 (1979)

Presented by: Ferrer, R.

 POBLETE V. FABROS

I. PARTIES
A. PLAINTIFF:
Leopoldo Poblete (owner of the damaged Taxi Cab)

B. DEFENDANTS:
Donato Fabros (employer)
Godofredo de la Cruz (driver)
 POBLETE V. FABROS
III. COMPLAINT:
Complaint for Damages

IV. CASE NATURE:

APPEAL from an order of the CFI of Davao. (Cusi, Jr. J)
V. RD:
WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal dated April 17, 1968 is
hereby set aside, and let this case be remanded to the
court of origin for the rendition of the judgment on the
merits based on the evidence adduced during the trial.
 POBLETE V. FABROS
VI. FACTS OF THE CASE
1. De la Cruz figured a vehicular accident with the
taxi cab of Poblete.
Poblete sued “jointly and
severally” de la Cruz and
his employer Fabros for
damages.
Pending the case, de la
Cruz died.
 POBLETE V. FABROS
VI. FACTS OF THE CASE
2. RTC Order: dismissal of the case on the ground of
lack of cause of action
RTC reasoned that the civil action to
hold Fabros subsidiarily liable is
premature for not having filed any
criminal action against de la Cruz.
MR is denied.
Hence, this appeal.
 POBLETE V. FABROS
VII. ISSUE
Whether the basis of the claim is delict or quasi-
delict.
DELICT QUASI-DELICT
• Criminal action must • Civil action may
be tried first before the proceed
Civil action. independently from
the Criminal action.
• Employer is subsidiarily • Employer is primarily
liable. liable.

Case is remanded to the CFI.

 POBLETE V. FABROS
VIII. RATIO
This is an action based on quasi-delict (A. 2180 NCC)
and not on crime (A. 103 RPC).
• The relief sought in the Complaint is to impose “joint
and several” liability on the defendants.
• There is employer-employee relationship is alleged.
• The answer interposes the defense of a “due
diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection, employment and supervision of his
driver.”
 POBLETE V. FABROS
VIII. RATIO
SC noted that the Trial Court dismissed the case
- without even a MTD, and
- with evidence to support quasi-delict
SC’s reminder:
“Judges should give a deeper study and reflection in the
disposition of cases,
so that undue delay which could very well be avoided,
as in this case, had the judge been more circumspect and
analytical,
would not cause injustice to litigants, under the familiar maxim
that justice delayed is justice denied,
which should constantly sound its stern warning to all dispensers
of justice.”
 POBLETE V. FABROS
DOCTRINE
Death of a driver does not bar the prosecution of
employer for his liability under quasi-delict.