Oblicon Page 1

8/9/2019 Oblicon Page 1

1/156


2/156

The case, therefore, is one in which time is material and of the essence of thecontract. on-pa)ment at the da) involves absolute forfeiture is such be theterms of the contract, as is the case here. !ourts cannot with safet) var) thestipulation of the parties b) introducin& equities for the relief of the insureda&ainst their own ne&li&ence.

The aforecited decisions are decisive of the proposition that non-pa)ment of premiumsb) reason of war puts an end to the contract.

There is, however, one aspect of the case at bar not raised before and upon which theplaintiff rest her case in the alternative.

#n its answer, the defendant alle&ed that >throu&h its $eneral 4&ents, anson, rthand Stevenson, #nc., it had its offices open in the cit) of 'anila durin& the /apaneseoccupation in the *hilippines.> Ta in& advanta&e of this alle&ation, and i&norin& her

own in her complaint ? that >for the whole duration of the 5war; and from thence tosometime thereafter, that is, in ctober, 19 +, . . . defendant closed its business in the#slands, and had absolutel) no a&enc) or representative here to represent it, withauthorit) to collect premiums from the #nsured.> ? the plaintiff asserts that it was thedefendant@s dut) to notif) her husbands of its postal address durin& the war, and thatits failure to do so eAcused deliquenc) in the pa)ment of the premiums. The plaintiffcites the provision of the contract which states that >all premiums subsequent to thefirst )ear are pa)able to the !ompan)@s authori%ed cashier at the place stated in the

fourth pa&e hereof, or at such other place instead thereof as ma) be desi&nated fromtime to time b) noticed to the !ompan) mailed to the #nsured at his last nown postoffice address.>

The evidence on this feature of the case reveals that, the defendant bein& an enem)corporation, its offices, which were housed at the !haco buildin& when the hostilitiesbro e out, were ordered closed b) the /apanese 'ilitar) authorities in /anuar) 19 2,and the officers of anson, rth and Stevenson, #nc., defendants &eneral a&ents,bein& 4merican citi%ens, were entered. #n addition, on 4u&ust 2+ the /apaneseadministration issued >#nstruction o. 01> b) which enem) alien insurance companieswere eApressl) prohibited from doin& business.


3/156

#n the face of the /apanese 'ilitar) decrees, which found sanctions in international law,the failure of the defendant or its Bilipino emplo)ees to advise the insured of thedefendant@s new address did not wor as a forfeiture of the ri&ht to have the premiumssatisfied promptl). :hile clandestine transactions between the parties durin& the warmi&ht be bindin&, it was not obli&ator) on the insurer, and it was well-ni&h ris ) for itsemplo)ees, to send out notices to its widel) scattered polic) holders, what with the

postal service under the control and administration of the ruthless occupants.

There is no dut) when the law forbids7 and there is no obli&ation without correspondin&ri&ht enDo)ed b) another. The insured had no ri&ht to demand that the defendantmaintain an office durin& the war, and the defendant was not obli&ated to do so. adthe defendant not opened an) office at all durin& the occupation and stopped receivin&premiums absolutel), the plaintiff@s position would not have been an) better or worsefor the closin& and suspension of the defendant@s business. ad the plaintiff@s husband

actuall) tendered his premiums and the defendant@s emplo)ees reDected them, hecould not have insisted on the pa)ment as a matter of ri&ht. Stated otherwise, thedefendant@s openin& of an interim office partoo of the nature of the privile&e to thepolic) holders to eep their policies operative rather than a dut) to them under thecontract.

f this privile&e, incidentall), $on%a&a could have ta en advanta&e if he was reall)intent on preservin& his polic). ncontroverted or admitted is the fact that thedefendant@s a&ent, throu&h whom he had been insured, lived in 'alabon, Ri%al, and

was his close acquaintance7 and so were some of the defendant@s Bilipino emplo)eeswho handled the insurance business of anson, rth and Stevenson durin& theoccupation. 4nd $on%a&a admittedl) come to 'anila on a visit ever) now and then,and could have, without difficult), contacted an) of those people.

Bor another thin&, the polic) carried a clause providin& for its reinstatement undercertain conditions within three )ears from the date of lapse on application of theinsured. The present polic) lapsed on /une 12, 19 , the !ompan)@s 'anila branch

was reopened on 'a) 1, 19 + and resumed re&ular business throu&h the same&eneral a&ents at the :ilson


4/156

Villaroel v. Estrada, 71 Phil 140 (1940)

GR No. L-47&'2 D(c()*(r 19, 1940+OHN F. ILLARROEL, appellant-appellant,vs.

(r ar/ o E ra/a, turned-appellee.D. Felipe Agoncillo in representation of the appellant-appelante.D. Crispin Oben inrepresentation of the defendant-appellee.

C!#S#

A3a c( a,+.% n 'a) 9, 1912, 4leDandro B. !allao, mother of defendant /ohn B. 8illarroel, obtained fromthespouses'ariano Cstrada and Severina a loan of *1, ((( pa)able after seven )ears5CAhibito4;. 4leDandra died,leavin& as sole heir to the defendant.Spouses 'ariano Cstrada andSeverina alsodied, leavin& as soleheir to the plaintiff


5/156

thedefendant, who has alread) prescribed, but in which the defendant contracted the4u&ust 9,19 ( 5CAhibito


6/156

$t about half past one in the -ornin/ of ay 3' 193*' on the road betweenalabon and "a+otas' Pro+ince of Ri al' there was a head on collision between

a ta0i of the alate ,a0icab dri+en by Pedro ontanilla and a carretela /uidedby Pedro i-apalis. ,he carretela was o+erturned' and one of its passen/ers'1* year old boy austino (arcia' su ered in5uries fro- which he died two dayslater. $ cri-inal action was 6led a/ainst ontanilla in the %ourt of irst nstanceof Ri al' and he was con+icted and sentenced to an indeter-inate sentence ofone year and one day to two years of prision correccional . ,he court in thecri-inal case /ranted the petition that the ri/ht to brin/ a separate ci+il actionbe reser+ed. ,he %ourt of $ppeals a8r-ed the sentence of the lower court inthe cri-inal case. e+erino (arcia and ,i-otea $l-ario' parents of thedeceased on arch 7' 1939' brou/ht an action in the %ourt of irst nstance of

anila a/ainst austo #arredo as the sole proprietor of the alate ,a0icab and

e-ployer of Pedro ontanilla. :n July &' 1939' the %ourt of irst nstance ofanila awarded da-a/es in fa+or of the plainti s for P2'))) plus le/al interest

fro- the date of the co-plaint. ,his decision was -odi6ed by the %ourt of$ppeals by reducin/ the da-a/es to P1'))) with le/al interest fro- the ti-ethe action was instituted. t is undisputed that ontanilla ;s ne/li/ence was thecause of the -ishap' as he was dri+in/ on the wron/ side of the road' and athi/h speed. $s to #arredo;s responsibility' the %ourt of $ppeals found<... t is ad-itted that defendant is ontanilla;s e-ployer. ,here is proof that he

e0ercised the dili/ence of a /ood father of a fa-ily to pre+ent da-a/e. = ee p.22' appellant;s brief.> n fact it is shown he was careless in e-ployin/ ontanillawho had been cau/ht se+eral ti-es for +iolation of the $uto-obile Law andspeedin/ =!0hibit $> ? +iolation which appeared in the records of the #ureau of Public @orAs a+ailable to be public and to hi-self. ,herefore' he -ustinde-nify plainti s under the pro+isions of article 19)3 of the %i+il %ode.

,he -ain theory of the defense is that the liability of austo #arredo is

/o+erned by the Re+ised Penal %ode B hence' his liability is only subsidiary' andas there has been no ci+il action a/ainst Pedro ontanilla' the person cri-inallyliable' #arredo cannot be held responsible in the case. ,he petitioner;s briefstates on pa/e 1)<... ,he %ourt of $ppeals holds that the petitioner is bein/ sued for his failure toe0ercise all the dili/ence of a /ood father of a fa-ily in the selection andsuper+ision of Pedro ontanilla to pre+ent da-a/es su ered by therespondents. n other words' ,he %ourt of $ppeals insists on applyin/ in the

http://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act3815-revised-penal-code.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act3815-revised-penal-code.html


7/156

case article 19)3 of the %i+il %ode. $rticle 19)3 of the %i+il %ode is found in%hapter ' ,itle 1*' #ooA V of the %i+il %ode. ,his fact -aAes said article to aci+il liability arisin/ fro- a cri-e as in the case at bar si-ply because %hapter

of ,itle 1* of #ooA V of the %i+il %ode' in the precise words of article 19)3 ofthe %i+il %ode itself' is applicable only to Cthose =obli/ations> arisin/ fro-wron/ful or ne/li/ent acts or co--ission not punishable by law .

,he /ist of the decision of the %ourt of $ppeals is e0pressed thus<

... @e cannot a/ree to the defendant;s contention. ,he liability sou/ht to bei-posed upon hi- in this action is not a ci+il obli/ation arisin/ fro- a felony ora -isde-eanor =the cri-e of Pedro ontanilla'>' but an obli/ation i-posed inarticle 19)3 of the %i+il %ode by reason of his ne/li/ence in the selection orsuper+ision of his ser+ant or e-ployee.

,he pi+otal Duestion in this case is whether the plainti s -ay brin/ thisseparate ci+il action a/ainst austo #arredo' thus -aAin/ hi- pri-arily anddirectly' responsible under article 19)3 of the %i+il %ode as an e-ployer ofPedro ontanilla. ,he defendant -aintains that ontanilla;s ne/li/ence bein/punishable by the Penal %ode' his =defendant;s> liability as an e-ployer is onlysubsidiary' accordin/ to said Penal code' but ontanilla has not been sued in aci+il action and his property has not been e0hausted. ,o decide the -ain issue'

we -ust cut throu/h the tan/le that has' in the -inds of -any confused and 5u-bled to/ether delitos and cuasi delitos ' or cri-es under the Penal %ode andfault or ne/li/ence under articles 19)2 191) of the %i+il %ode. ,his should bedone' because 5ustice -ay be lost in a labyrinth' unless principles andre-edies are distinctly en+isa/ed. ortunately' we are aided in our inDuiry bythe lu-inous presentation of the perple0in/ sub5ect by renown 5urists and weare liAewise /uided by the decisions of this %ourt in pre+ious cases as well asby the sole-n clarity of the consideration in se+eral sentences of the upre-e

,ribunal of pain.$uthorities support the proposition that a quasi-delict or C culpa aquiliana C is aseparate le/al institution under the %i+il %ode with a substanti+ity all its own'and indi+iduality that is entirely apart and independent fro- delict or cri-e.Epon this principle and on the wordin/ and spirit article 19)3 of the %i+il %ode'the pri-ary and direct responsibility of e-ployers -ay be safely anchored.

,he pertinent pro+isions of the %i+il %ode and Re+ised Penal %ode are asfollows


8/156

% V L %: !

$R,. 1)&9 :bli/ations arise fro- law' fro- contracts and Duasi contracts' andfro- acts and o-issions which are unlawful or in which any Aind of fault orne/li/ence inter+enes.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$R,. 1)92. %i+il obli/ations arisin/ fro- felonies or -isde-eanors shall be/o+erned by the pro+isions of the Penal %ode.

$R,. 1)93. ,hose which are deri+ed fro- acts or o-issions in which fault orne/li/ence' not punishable by law' inter+enes shall be sub5ect to the pro+isionsof %hapter ' ,itle FV of this booA.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$R, 19)2. $ny person who by an act or o-ission causes da-a/e to another byhis fault or ne/li/ence shall be liable for the da-a/e so done.

$R,. 19)3. ,he obli/ation i-posed by the ne0t precedin/ article is enforcible'not only for personal acts and o-issions' but also for those of persons for

who- another is responsible.

,he father and in' case of his death or incapacity' the -other' are liable for anyda-a/es caused by the -inor children who li+e with the-.

(uardians are liable for da-a/es done by -inors or incapacitated personssub5ect to their authority and li+in/ with the-.

:wners or directors of an establish-ent or business are eDually liable for anyda-a/es caused by their e-ployees while en/a/ed in the branch of theser+ice in which e-ployed' or on occasion of the perfor-ance of their duties.

,he tate is sub5ect to the sa-e liability when it acts throu/h a special a/ent'but not if the da-a/e shall ha+e been caused by the o8cial upon who-properly de+ol+ed the duty of doin/ the act perfor-ed' in which case thepro+isions of the ne0t precedin/ article shall be applicable.


9/156

inally' teachers or directors of arts trades are liable for any da-a/es causedby their pupils or apprentices while they are under their custody.

,he liability i-posed by this article shall cease in case the persons -entionedtherein pro+e that they are e0ercised all the dili/ence of a /ood father of afa-ily to pre+ent the da-a/e.

$R,. 19)4. $ny person who pays for da-a/e caused by his e-ployees -ayreco+er fro- the latter what he -ay ha+e paid.

R!V ! P!"$L %: !

$R,. 1)). Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. ? !+ery person cri-inallyliable for a felony is also ci+illy liable.

$R,. 1)1. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. ? ,he e0e-ption fro-cri-inal liability established in subdi+isions 1' 2' 3' G' and * of article 12 and insubdi+ision 4 of article 11 of this %ode does not include e0e-ption fro- ci+illiability' which shall be enforced to the followin/ rules<

irst. n cases of subdi+ision' 1' 2 and 3 of article 12 the ci+il liability for actsco--itted by any i-becile or insane person' and by a person under nine yearsof a/e' or by one o+er nine but under 6fteen years of a/e' who has actedwithout discern-ent shall de+ol+e upon those ha+in/ such person under theirle/al authority or control' unless it appears that there was no fault orne/li/ence on their part.

hould there be no person ha+in/ such insane' i-becile or -inor under hisauthority' le/al /uardianship' or control' or if such person be insol+ent' saidinsane' i-becile' or -inor shall respond with their own property' e0ceptin/property e0e-pt fro- e0ecution' in accordance with the ci+il law.

!econd. n cases fallin/ within subdi+ision 4 of article 11' the person for whosebene6t the har- has been pre+ented shall be ci+illy liable in proportion to thebene6t which they -ay ha+e recei+ed.

,he courts shall deter-ine' in their sound discretion' the proportionate a-ountfor which each one shall be liable.

@hen the respecti+e shares can not be eDuitably deter-ined' e+enappro0i-ately' or when the liability also attaches to the (o+ern-ent' or to the


10/156

-a5ority of the inhabitants of the town' and' in all e+ents' whene+er theda-a/e has been caused with the consent of the authorities or their a/ents'inde-ni6cation shall be -ade in the -anner prescribed by special laws orre/ulations.

"hird . n cases fallin/ within subdi+isions G and * of article 12' the personsusin/ +iolence or causin/ the fear shall be pri-arily liable and secondarily' or'if there be no such persons' those doin/ the act shall be liable' sa+in/ alwaysto the latter that part of their property e0e-pt fro- e0ecution.$R,. 1)2. !ubsidiary civil liability of inn#eepers$ tavern #eepers and proprietorsof establish%ent . ? n default of persons cri-inally liable' innAeepers' ta+ernAeepers' and any other persons or corporation shall be ci+illy liable for cri-esco--itted in their establish-ents' in all cases where a +iolation of -unicipalordinances or so-e /eneral or special police re/ulation shall ha+e beenco--itted by the- or their e-ployees.

nnAeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of /oods taAen byrobbery or theft within their houses lod/in/ therein' or the person' or for thepay-ent of the +alue thereof' pro+ided that such /uests shall ha+e noti6ed inad+ance the innAeeper hi-self' or the person representin/ hi-' of the depositof such /oods within the innB and shall further-ore ha+e followed thedirections which such innAeeper or his representati+e -ay ha+e /i+en the-

with respect to the care of and +i/ilance o+er such /oods. "o liability shallattach in case of robbery with +iolence a/ainst or inti-idation a/ainst orinti-idation of persons unless co--itted by the innAeeper;s e-ployees.

$R,. 1)3. !ubsidiary civil liability of other persons . ? ,he subsidiary liabilityestablished in the ne0t precedin/ article shall also apply to e-ployers'teachers' persons' and corporations en/a/ed in any Aind of industry forfelonies co--itted by their ser+ants' pupils' worA-en' apprentices' or

e-ployees in the dischar/e of their duties.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$R,. 3*G. -prudence and ne/li/ence. ? $ny person who' by recAlessi-prudence' shall co--it any act which' had it been intentional' wouldconstitute a /ra+e felony' shall su er the penalty of arresto -ayor in its-a0i-u- period to prision correccional in its -ini-u- periodB if it would ha+e


11/156

constituted a less /ra+e felony' the penalty of arresto -ayor in its -ini-u-and -ediu- periods shall be i-posed.

$ny person who' by si-ple i-prudence or ne/li/ence' shall co--it an actwhich would otherwise constitute a /ra+e felony' shall su er the penaltyof arresto %ayor in its -ediu- and -a0i-u- periodsB if it would ha+econstituted a less serious felony' the penalty of arresto %ayor in its -ini-u-period shall be i-posed.C

t will thus be seen that while the ter-s of articles 19)2 of the %i+il %ode see-to be broad enou/h to co+er the dri+er;s ne/li/ence in the instant case'ne+ertheless article 1)93 li-its cuasi-delitos to acts or o-issions Cnotpunishable by law.C #ut inas-uch as article 3*G of the Re+ised Penal%ode punishes not only recAless but e+en si-ple i-prudence or ne/li/ence'the fault or ne/li/ence under article 19)2 of the %i+il %ode has apparentlybeen crowded out. t is this o+erlappin/ that -aAes the Cconfusion worseconfounded.C Howe+er' a closer study shows that such a concurrence of scopein re/ard to ne/li/ent acts does not destroy the distinction between the ci+illiability arisin/ fro- a cri-e and the responsibility for cuasi delitos or culpae0tra contractual. ,he sa-e ne/li/ent act causin/ da-a/es -ay produce ci+illiability arisin/ fro- a cri-e under article 1)) of the Re+ised Penal %ode ' orcreate an action for cuasi-delito or culpa e&tra-contractual under articles 19)2

191) of the %i+il %ode. ,he indi+iduality of cuasi-delito or culpa e&tra-contractual loo-s clear andun-istaAable. ,his le/al institution is of ancient linea/e' one of its earlyancestors bein/ the 'e& Aquilia in the Ro-an Law. n fact' in panish le/alter-inolo/y' this responsibility is often referred to as culpa aDuiliana. ,hePartidas also contributed to the /enealo/y of the present fault or ne/li/enceunder the %i+il %odeB for instance' Law *' ,itle 1G' of Partida 7' says< C,enudoes de fa er e-ienda' porDue' co-o Duier Due el non 6 o a sabiendas en daIo

al otro' pero acaescio por su culpa.C ,he distincti+e nature of cuasi-delitos sur+i+es in the %i+il %ode. $ccordin/ toarticle 1)&9' one of the 6+e sources of obli/ations is this le/al institutionof cuasi-delito or culpa e&tra-contractual < Clos actos . . . en Due inter+en/acualDuier /enero de culpa o ne/li/encia.C ,hen article 1)93 pro+ides that thisAind of obli/ation shall be /o+erned by %hapter of ,itle FV of #ooA V'-eanin/ articles 19)2 )91). ,his portion of the %i+il %ode is e0clusi+elyde+oted to the le/al institution of culpa aquiliana .

http://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act3815-revised-penal-code.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act3815-revised-penal-code.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act3815-revised-penal-code.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act3815-revised-penal-code.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act3815-revised-penal-code.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act3815-revised-penal-code.html


12/156

o-e of the di erences between cri-es under the Penal %ode and the culpaaquiliana or cuasi-delito under the %i+il %ode are<1. ,hat cri-es a ect the public interest' while cuasi-delitos are only of pri+ateconcern.2. ,hat' conseDuently' the Penal %ode punishes or corrects the cri-inal act'while the %i+il %ode' by -eans of inde-ni6cation' -erely repairs the da-a/e.

3. ,hat delicts are not as broad as Duasi delicts' because the for-er arepunished only if there is a penal law clearly co+erin/ the-' while thelatter' cuasi-delitos ' include all acts in which Cany Ain/ of fault or ne/li/enceinter+enes.C Howe+er' it should be noted that not all +iolations of the penal lawproduce ci+il responsibility' such as be//in/ in contra+ention of ordinances'+iolation of the /a-e laws' infraction of the rules of tra8c when nobody ishurt. = ee %olin and %apitant' C%urso !le-ental de erecho %i+il'C Vol. 3' p.72&.>Let us now ascertain what so-e 5urists say on the separate e0istence of Duasidelicts and the e-ployer;s pri-ary and direct liability under article 19)3 of the%i+il %ode.

orado ontero in his essay on CResponsibilidadC in the C!nciclopedia Juridica!spaIolaC =Vol. FFV ' p. 414> says<

!l concepto 5uridico de la responsabilidad civil abarca di+ersos aspectos yco-prende a diferentes personas. $si' e0iste una responsabilidad ci+ilpropia-ente dicha' Due en nin/un casl lle+a apare5ada responsabilidadcri-inal al/una' y otra Due es consecuencia indeclinable de la penal Due nacede todo delito o falta.C

,he 5uridical concept of ci+il responsibility has +arious aspects and co-prisesdi erent persons. ,hus' there is a ci+il responsibility' properly speaAin/' which

in no case carries with it any cri-inal responsibility' and another which is anecessary conseDuence of the penal liability as a result of e+ery felony or-isde-eanor.C

aura' an outstandin/ authority' was consulted on the followin/ case< ,herehad been a collision between two trains belon/in/ respecti+ely to the

errocarril %antabrico and the errocarril del "orte. $n e-ployee of the latterhad been prosecuted in a cri-inal case' in which the co-pany had been -ade


13/156

a party as subsidiarily responsible in ci+il da-a/es. ,he e-ployee had beenacDuitted in the cri-inal case' and the e-ployer' the errocarril del "orte' hadalso been e0onerated. ,he Duestion asAed was whether the errocarril%antabrico could still brin/ a ci+il action for da-a/es a/ainst the errocarril del"orte. aura;s opinion was in the a8r-ati+e' statin/ in part= aura' (icta%enes ' Vol. *' pp. G11 G13><

uedando las cosas asi' a proposito de la realidad pura y neta de los hechos 'toda+ia -enos parece sostenible Due e0ista cosa )u*gada acerca de laobli/acion ci+il de inde-ni ar los Duebrantos y -enoscabos inferidos por elchoDue de los trenes. !l titulo en Due se funda la accion para de-andar elresarci-iento' no puede confundirse con las responsabilidades ci+iles nacidasde delito ' siDuiera e0ista en este' sea el cual sea' una culpa rodeada de notasa/ra+atorias Due -oti+an sanciones penales' -as o -enos se+eras. La lesion

causada por delito o falta en los derechos ci+iles' reDuiere restituciones'reparaciones o inde-ni aciones' Due cual la pena -is-a ataIen al ordenpublicoB por tal -oti+o +ienen enco-endadas' de ordinario' al inisterio iscalBy claro es Due si por esta +ia se en-iendan los Duebrantos y -enoscabos' ela/ra+iado e0cusa procurar el ya conse/uido desa/ra+ioB pero esta e+entualcoincidencia de los efectos' no borra la di+ersidad ori/inaria de las accionesci+iles para pedir inde-ni acion.!stas' para el caso actual =prescindiendo de culpas contractuales ' Due no

+endrian a cuento y Due tiene otro re/i-en>' di-anan' se/un el articulo 19)2del %odi/o %i+il' de toda accion u o-ision' causante de daIos o per5uicios' enDue inter+en/a culpa o ne/li/encia. !s tri+ial Due acciones se-e5antes sone5ercitadas ante los ,ribunales de lo ci+il cotidiana-ente' sin Due la Justiciapuniti+a ten/a Due -e clarse en los asuntos. Los articulos 1& al 21 y 121 al12& del %odi/o Penal' atentos al espiritu y a los 6nes sociales y politicos del-is-o' desen+uel+en y ordenan la -ateria de responsabilidadesci+iles nacidas de delito ' en ter-inos separados del re/i-en por ley co-un de

la culpa Due se deno-ina aDuiliana' por alusion a precedentes le/islati+osdel Corpus Juris . eria inte-pesti+o un paralelo entre aDuellas ordenaciones' yla de la obli/acion de inde-ni ar a titulo de culpa ci+ilB pero +iene al caso y esnecesaria una de las diferenciaciones Due en el tal paralelo se notarian.Los articulos 2) y 21 del %odi/o Penal' despues de distribuir a su -odo lasresponsabilidades ci+iles' entre los Due sean por di+ersos conceptos culpablesdel delito o falta' las hacen e0tensi+as a las e-presas y los estableci-ientos al


14/156

ser+icio de los cuales estan los delincuentesB pero con caracter subsidiario' osea' se/un el te0to literal' en defecto de los que sean responsablescri%inal%ente . "o coincide en ello el %odi/o %i+il' cuyo articulo 19)3' diceB Laobli/acion Due i-pone el articulo anterior es e&igible ' no solo por los actos yo-isiones propios' sino por los de aquellas personas de quienes se deberesponder B personas en la enu-eracion de las cuales 6/uran los dependientesy e-pleados de los estableci-ientos o e-presas' sea por actos del ser+icio'sea con ocasion de sus funciones. Por esto acontece' y se obser+a en la

5urisprudencia' Due las e-presas' despues de inter+enir en las causascri-inales con el caracter subsidiario de su responsabilidad ci+il por ra on deldelito' son de-andadas y condenadas directa y aislada%ente ' cuando se tratade la obli/acion' ante los tribunales ci+iles.

iendo co-o se +e' di+erso el titulo de esta obli/acion' y for-ando +erdadero

postulado de nuestro re/i-en 5udicial la separacion entre 5usticia puniti+a ytribunales de lo ci+il' de suerte Due tienen unos y otros nor-as de fondo endistintos cuerpos le/ales' y diferentes -odos de proceder' habiendose' poraIadidura' abstenido de asistir al 5uicio cri-inal la %o-paIia del errocarril%antabrico' Due se reser+o e5ercitar sus acciones' parece inne/able Due la deinde-ni acion por los daIos y per5uicios Due le irro/o el choDue' no estu+o sub

)udice ante el ,ribunal del Jurado' ni fue sentenciada' sino Due per-aneciointacta' al pronunciarse el fallo de 21 de -ar o. $un cuando el +eredicto no

hubiese sido de inculpabilidad' -ostrose -as arriba' Due tal accion Duedabale/iti-a-ente reser+ada para despues del procesoB pero al declararse Due noe0istio delito' ni responsabilidad di-anada de delito' -ateria unica sobre Duetenian 5urisdiccion aDuellos 5u /adores' se redobla el -oti+o para la obli/acionci+il e& lege ' y se patenti a -as y -as Due la accion para pedir sucu-pli-iento per-anece incolu-e' e0traIa a la cosa )u*gada .$s thin/s are' apropos of the reality pure and si-ple of the facts' it see-s lesstenable that there should be res )udicata with re/ard to the ci+il obli/ation for

da-a/es on account of the losses caused by the collision of the trains. ,hetitle upon which the action for reparation is based cannot be confused with theci+il responsibilities born of a cri%e ' because there e0ists in the latter'whate+er each nature' a culpa surrounded with a//ra+atin/ aspects which /i+erise to penal -easures that are -ore or less se+ere. ,he in5ury caused by afelony or -isde-eanor upon ci+il ri/hts reDuires restitutions' reparations' orinde-ni6cations which' liAe the penalty itself' a ect public orderB for this


15/156

reason' they are ordinarily entrusted to the o8ce of the prosecutin/ attorneyBand it is clear that if by this -eans the losses and da-a/es are repaired' thein5ured party no lon/er desires to seeA another reliefB but this coincidence ofe ects does not eli-inate the peculiar nature of ci+il actions to asA forinde-nity.

uch ci+il actions in the present case =without referrin/ to contractual faultswhich are not pertinent and belon/ to another scope> are deri+ed' accordin/ toarticle 19)2 of the %i+il %ode' fro- e+ery act or o-ission causin/ losses andda-a/es in which culpa or ne/li/ence inter+enes. t is uni-portant that suchactions are e+ery day 6led before the ci+il courts without the cri-inal courtsinterferin/ therewith. $rticles 1& to 21 and 121 to 12& of the Penal %ode'bearin/ in -ind the spirit and the social and political purposes of that %ode'de+elop and re/ulate the -atter of ci+il responsibilities arising fro% a cri%e '

separately fro- the re/i-e under co--on law' of culpa which is Anownas aquiliana ' in accordance with le/islati+e precedent of the Corpus Juris . twould be unwarranted to -aAe a detailed co-parison between the for-erpro+isions and that re/ardin/ the obli/ation to inde-nify on account ofci+il culpa B but it is pertinent and necessary to point out to one of suchdi erences.$rticles 2) and 21 of the Penal %ode' after distriburin/ in their own way theci+il responsibilities a-on/ those who' for di erent reasons' are /uilty of felony

or -isde-eanor' -aAe such ci+il responsibilities applicable to enterprises andestablish-ents for which the /uilty parties render ser+ice' but with subsidiarycharacter' that is to say' accordin/ to the wordin/ of the Penal %ode' in default of those who are cri%inally responsible . n this re/ard' the %i+il %ode does notcoincide because article 19)3 says< C,he obli/ation i-posed by the ne0tprecedin/ article is de-andable' not only for personal acts and o-issions' butalso for those of persons for who- another is responsible.C $-on/ the personsenu-erated are the subordinates and e-ployees of establish-ents or

enterprises' either for acts durin/ their ser+ice or on the occasion of theirfunctions. t is for this reason that it happens' and it is so obser+ed in 5udicialdecisions' that the co-panies or enterprises' after taAin/ part in the cri-inalcases because of their subsidiary ci+il responsibility by reason of the cri-e' aresued and sentenced directly and separately with re/ard to the obligation 'before the ci+il courts.


16/156

eein/ that the title of this obli/ation is di erent' and the separation betweenpuniti+e 5ustice and the ci+il courts bein/ a true postulate of our 5udicialsyste-' so that they ha+e di erent funda-ental nor-s in di erent codes' aswell as di erent -odes of procedure' and inas-uch as the %o-paIa del

errocarril %antabrico has abstained fro- taAin/ part in the cri-inal case andhas reser+ed the ri/ht to e0ercise its actions' it see-s undeniable that theaction for inde-ni6cation for the losses and da-a/es caused to it by thecollision was not sub )udice before the "ribunal del Jurado ' nor was it thesub5ect of a sentence' but it re-ained intact when the decision of arch 21was rendered. !+en if the +erdict had not been that of acDuittal' it has alreadybeen shown that such action had been le/iti-ately reser+ed till after thecri-inal prosecutionB but because of the declaration of the non e0istence ofthe felony and the non e0istence of the responsibility arisin/ fro- the cri-e'

which was the sole sub5ect -atter upon which the "ribunal del Jurado had 5urisdiction' there is /reater reason for the ci+il obli/ation e& lege ' and itbeco-es clearer that the action for its enforce-ent re-ain intact and isnot res )udicata .Laurent' a 5urist who has written a -onu-ental worA on the rench %i+il %ode'on which the panish %i+il %ode is lar/ely based and whose pro+isionson cuasi-delito or culpa e&tra-contractual are si-ilar to those of the panish%i+il %ode' says' referrin/ to article 13&4 of the rench %i+il %ode which

corresponds to article 19)3' panish %i+il %ode< ,he action can be brou/ht directly a/ainst the person responsible =foranother>' without includin/ the author of the act. ,he action a/ainst theprincipal is accessory in the sense that it i-plies the e0istence of a pre5udicialact co--itted by the e-ployee' but it is not subsidiary in the sense that it cannot be instituted till after the 5ud/-ent a/ainst the author of the act or atleast' that it is subsidiary to the principal actionB the action for responsibility =of the e-ployer> is in itself a principal action. =Laurent' Principles of rench %i+il

Law' panish translation' Vol. 2)' pp. 734 73G.>

$-andi' in his C%uestionario del %odi/o %i+il Refor-adoC =Vol. 4' pp. 429' 43)>'declares that the responsibility of the e-ployer is principal and not subsidiary.He writes<

%uestion 1. La responsabilidad declarada en el articulo 19)3 por las acciones uo-isiones de aDuellas personas por las Due se debe responder' es subsidiariaK


17/156

es principalK Para contestar a esta pre/unta es necesario saber' en pri-erlu/ar' en Due se funda el precepto le/al. !s Due real-ente se i-pone unaresponsabilidad por una falta a5enaK $si parece a pri-era +istaB perose-e5ante a6r-acion seria contraria a la 5usticia y a la -a0i-a uni+ersal'se/un la Due las faltas son personales' y cada uno responde de aDuellas Due leson i-putables. La responsabilidad de Due trata-os se i-pone con ocasion deun delito o culpa' pero no por causa de ellos' sino por causa del causi delito'esto es' de la i-prudencia o de la ne/li/encia del padre' del tutor' del dueIo odirector del estableci-iento' del -aestro' etc. %uando cualDuiera de laspersonas Due enu-era el articulo citado =-enores de edad' incapacitados'dependientes' aprendices> causan un daIo' la ley presu-e Due el padre' eltutor' el -aestro' etc.' han co-etido una falta de ne/li/encia para pre+enir oe+itar el daIo. !sta falta es la Due la ley casti/a. "o hay' pues' responsabilidad

por un hecho a5eno' sino en la aparienciaB en realidad la responsabilidad see0i/e por un hecho propio. La idea de Due esa responsabilidad sea subsidiariaes' por lo tanto' co-pleta-ente inad-isible.

uestion "o. 1. s the responsibility declared in article 19)3 for the acts oro-issions of those persons for who one is responsible' subsidiary or principalK

n order to answer this Duestion it is necessary to Anow' in the 6rst place' onwhat the le/al pro+ision is based. s it true that there is a responsibility for thefault of another personK t see-s so at 6rst si/htB but such assertion would be

contrary to 5ustice and to the uni+ersal -a0i- that all faults are personal' andthat e+eryone is liable for those faults that can be i-puted to hi-. ,heresponsibility in Duestion is i-posed on the occasion of a cri-e or fault' but notbecause of the sa-e' but because of the cuasi-delito ' that is to say' thei-prudence or ne/li/ence of the father' /uardian' proprietor or -ana/er of theestablish-ent' of the teacher' etc. @hene+er anyone of the personsenu-erated in the article referred to =-inors' incapacitated persons'e-ployees' apprentices> causes any da-a/e' the law presu-es that the

father' /uardian' teacher' etc. ha+e co--itted an act of ne/li/ence in notpre+entin/ or a+oidin/ the da-a/e. t is this fault that is conde-ned by thelaw. t is' therefore' only apparent that there is a responsibility for the act ofanotherB in reality the responsibility e0acted is for one;s own act. ,he idea thatsuch responsibility is subsidiary is' therefore' co-pletely inad-issible.:yuelos' in his C i/esto< Principios' octrina y Jurisprudencia' Referentes al%odi/o %i+il !spaIol'C says in Vol. V ' p. 743


18/156

!s decir' no responde de hechos a5enos' porDue se responde solo de su propiaculpa' doctrina del articulo 19)2B -as por e0cepcion' se responde de la a5enarespecto de aDuellas personas con las Due -edia al/un ne0o o +inculo' Due-oti+a o ra ona la responsabilidad. !sta responsabilidad' es directa o essubsidiariaK !n el orden penal' el %odi/o de esta clase distin/ue entre -enorese incapacitados y los de-as' declarando directa la pri-era =articulo 19> ysubsidiaria la se/unda =articulos 2) y 21>B pero en el orden ci+il' en el caso delarticulo 19)3' ha de entenderse directa' por el tenor del articulo Due i-pone laresponsabilidad precisa-ente Cpor los actos de aDuellas personas de Duienesse deba responder.C

,hat is to say' one is not responsible for the acts of others' because one isliable only for his own faults' this bein/ the doctrine of article 19)2B but' bye0ception' one is liable for the acts of those persons with who- there is a bondor tie which /i+es rise to the responsibility. s this responsibility direct orsubsidiaryK n the order of the penal law' the Penal %ode distin/uishes between-inors and incapacitated persons on the one hand' and other persons on theother' declarin/ that the responsibility for the for-er is direct =article 19>' andfor the latter' subsidiary =articles 2) and 21>B but in the sche-e of the ci+il law'in the case of article 19)3' the responsibility should be understood as direct'accordin/ to the tenor of that articles' for precisely it i-poses responsibility

Cfor the acts of those persons for who- one should be responsible.C

%o-in/ now to the sentences of the upre-e ,ribunal of pain' that court hasupheld the principles abo+e set forth< that a quasi-delict or culpa e&tra-contractual is a separate and distinct le/al institution' independent fro- theci+il responsibility arisin/ fro- cri-inal liability' and that an e-ployer is' underarticle 19)3 of the %i+il %ode' pri-arily and directly responsible for thene/li/ent acts of his e-ployee.

:ne of the -ost i-portant of those panish decisions is that of :ctober 21'191). n that case' Ra-on Lafuente died as the result of ha+in/ been run o+erby a street car owned by the Cco-paIia !lectric adrileIa de ,raccion.C ,heconductor was prosecuted in a cri-inal case but he was acDuitted. ,hereupon'the widow 6led a ci+il action a/ainst the street car co-pany' payin/ forda-a/es in the a-ount of 1G'))) pesetas. ,he lower court awarded da-a/esBso the co-pany appealed to the upre-e ,ribunal' alle/in/ +iolation of articles19)2 and 19)3 of the %i+il %ode because by 6nal 5ud/-ent the non e0istence


19/156

of fault or ne/li/ence had been declared. ,he upre-e %ourt of paindis-issed the appeal' sayin/<

%onsiderando Due el pri-er -oti+o del recurso se funda en el eDui+ocadosupuesto de Due el ,ribunal a quo ' al condonar a la co-paIia !lectrica

adrileIa al pa/o del daIo causado con la -uerte de Ra-on La fuenteDuierdo' desconoce el +alor y efectos 5uridicos de la sentencia absolutoria

deictada en la causa cri-inal Due se si/uio por el -is-o hecho' cuando es locierto Due de este han conocido las dos 5urisdicciones ba5o diferentes aspectos' y co-o la de lo cri-inal declrao dentro de los li-ites de suco-petencia Due el hecho de Due se trata no era constituti+o de delito por nohaber -ediado descuido o ne/li/encia /ra+es' lo Due no e0cluye' siendo esteel unico funda-ento del fallo absolutorio' el concurso de la culpa o ne/li/enciano califacadas' fuente de obli/aciones ci+iles se/un el articulo 19)2 del%odi/o' y Due alcan an' se/un el 19)3' netre otras perosnas' a los irectoresde estableci-ientos o e-presas por los daIos causados por sus dependientesen deter-inadas condiciones' es -anifesto Due la de lo ci+il' al conocer del-is-o hehco baho este ulti-o aspecto y al condenar a la co-paIia recurrentea la inde-ni acion del daIo causado por uno de sus e-pleados' le5os deinfrin/er los -encionados te0tos' en relacion con el articulo 11* de la Ley de!n5ucia-iento %ri-inal' se ha atenido estricta-ente a ellos' sin in+adir

atribuciones a5enas a su 5urisdiccion propia' ni contrariar en lo -as -ini-o elfallo recaido en la causa.%onsiderin/ that the 6rst /round of the appeal is based on the -istaAensupposition that the trial court' in sentencin/ the Co%pa+ia ,adrile+a to thepay-ent of the da-a/e caused by the death of Ra-on Lafuente Duierdo'disre/ards the +alue and 5uridical e ects of the sentence of acDuittal renderedin the cri-inal case instituted on account of the sa-e act' when it is a fact thatthe two 5urisdictions had taAen co/ni ance of the sa-e act in its di erent

aspects' and as the cri-inal 5urisdiction declared within the li-its of itsauthority that the act in Duestion did not constitute a felony because there wasno /ra+e carelessness or ne/li/ence' and this bein/ the only basis of acDuittal'it does no e0clude the co e0istence of fault or ne/li/ence which is notDuali6ed' and is a source of civil obligations according to article /0 of theCivil Code ' a ectin/' in accordance with article 19)3' a-on/ other persons'the -ana/ers of establish-ents or enterprises by reason of the da-a/escaused by e-ployees under certain conditions' it is -anifest that the civil


20/156


21/156

of ne/li/ence of the conductor in the panish case cited was less than that ofthe ta0i dri+er' ontanilla' because the for-er was acDuitted in the pre+iouscri-inal case while the latter was found /uilty of cri-inal ne/li/ence and wassentenced to an indeter-inate sentence of one year and one day to two yearsof prision correccional .=!ee also entence of ebruary 19' 19)2' which is si-ilar to the one abo+eDuoted.>

n the entence of the upre-e %ourt of pain' dated ebruary 14' 1919' anaction was brou/ht a/ainst a railroad co-pany for da-a/es because thestation a/ent' e-ployed by the co-pany' had un5ustly and fraudulently 'refused to deli+er certain articles consi/ned to the plainti . ,he upre-e %ourtof pain held that this action was properly under article 19)2 of the %i+il %ode'the court sayin/<

%onsiderando Due la sentencia discutida reconoce' en +irtud de los hechos Dueconsi/na con relacion a las pruebas del pleito< 1. ' Due las e0pedicionesfacturadas por la co-paIia ferro+iaria a la consi/nacion del actor de las +asi5as+acias Due en su de-anda relacionan tenian co-o 6n el Due este lasde+ol+iera a sus re-itentes con +inos y alcoholesB 2. ' Due lle/adas a sudestino tales -ercanias no se Duisieron entre/ar a dicho consi/natario por el

5efe de la estacion sin -oti+o 5usti6cado y con intencion dolosa' y 3. ' Due lafalta de entre/a de estas e0pediciones al tie-po de recla-arlas el

de-andante le ori/inaron daIos y per5uicios en cantidad de bastantei-portancia co-o e0pendedor al por -ayor Due era de +inos y alcoholes porlas /anancias Due de5o de obtener al +erse pri+ado de ser+ir los pedidos Due sele habian hecho por los re-itentes en los en+ases<

%onsiderando Due sobre esta base hay necesidad de esti-ar los cuatro-oti+os Due inte/ran este recurso' porDue la de-anda inicial del pleito a Duese contrae no contiene accion Due na ca del incu-pli-iento del contrato de

transporte' toda +e Due no se funda en el retraso de la lle/ada de las-ercancias ni de nin/un otro +inculo contractual entre las partescontendientes' careciendo' por tanto' de aplicacion el articulo 371 del %odi/ode %o-ercio' en Due principal-ente descansa el fallo recurrido' sino Due seli-ita a pedir la reparaction de los daIos y per5uicios producidos en elpatri-onio del actor por la in5usti6cada y dolosa ne/ati+a del porteador a laentre/a de las -ercancias a su no-bre consi/nadas' se/un lo reconoce lasentencia' y cuya responsabilidad esta clara-ente sancionada en el articulo


22/156

19)2 del %odi/o %i+il' Due obli/a por el si/uiente a la %o-paIia de-andadaco-o li/ada con el causante de aDuellos por relaciones de caracter econo-icoy de 5urarDuia ad-inistrati+a.

%onsiderin/ that the sentence' in Duestion reco/ni es' in +irtue of the factswhich it declares' in relation to the e+idence in the case< =1> that the in+oiceissued by the railroad co-pany in fa+or of the plainti conte-plated that thee-pty receptacles referred to in the co-plaint should be returned to theconsi/nors with wines and liDuorsB =2> that when the said -erchandise reachedtheir destination' their deli+ery to the consi/nee was refused by the stationa/ent without 5usti6cation and with fraudulent intent ' and =3> that the lacA ofdeli+ery of these /oods when they were de-anded by the plainti caused hi-losses and da-a/es of considerable i-portance' as he was a wholesale +endorof wines and liDuors and he failed to reali e the pro6ts when he was unable to6ll the orders sent to hi- by the consi/nors of the receptacles<%onsiderin/ that upon this basis there is need of upholdin/ the fourassi/n-ents of error' as the ori/inal co-plaint did not contain any cause ofaction arisin/ fro- non ful6ll-ent of a contract of transportation' because theaction was not based on the delay of the /oods nor on any contractual relationbetween the parties liti/ant and' therefore' article 371 of the %ode of%o--erce' on which the decision appealed fro- is based' is not applicableB

but it li-its to asAin/ for reparation for losses and da-a/es produced on thepatri-ony of the plainti on account of the un5usti6ed and fraudulent refusal of the carrier to deli+er the /oods consi/ned to the plainti as stated by thesentence' and the carrier;s responsibility is clearly laid down in article /0 ofthe Civil Code which binds' in +irtue of the ne0t article' the defendantco-pany' because the latter is connected with the person who caused theda-a/e by relations of econo-ic character and by ad-inistrati+e hierarchy.=!-phasis supplied.>

,he abo+e case is pertinent because it shows that the sa-e act -ay co-eunder both the Penal %ode and the %i+il %ode. n that case' the action of thea/ent was un5usti6ed and fraudulent and therefore could ha+e been thesub5ect of a cri-inal action. $nd yet' it was held to be also a proper sub5ect ofa ci+il action under article 19)2 of the %i+il %ode. t is also to be noted that itwas the e-ployer and not the e-ployee who was bein/ sued.Let us now e0a-ine the cases pre+iously decided by this %ourt.


23/156

n the leadin/ case of RaAes vs. $tlantic (ulf and Paci6c %o. =7 Phil.' 3G9' 3*23*G Myear 19)7N> ' the trial court awarded da-a/es to the plainti ' a laborer ofthe defendant' because the latter had ne/li/ently failed to repair a tra-way inconseDuence of which the rails slid o while iron was bein/ transported' andcau/ht the plainti whose le/ was broAen. ,his %ourt held<

t is contended by the defendant' as its 6rst defense to the action that thenecessary conclusion fro- these collated laws is that the re-edy for in5uriesthrou/h ne/li/ence lies only in a cri-inal action in which the o8cial cri-inallyresponsible -ust be -ade pri-arily liable and his e-ployer held onlysubsidiarily to hi-. $ccordin/ to this theory the plainti should ha+e procuredthe arrest of the representati+e of the co-pany accountable for not repairin/the tracA' and on his prosecution a suitable 6ne should ha+e been i-posed'payable pri-arily by hi- and secondarily by his e-ployer.

,his reasonin/ -isconcei+ed the plan of the panish codes upon this sub5ect.$rticle 1)93 of the %i+il %ode -aAes obli/ations arisin/ fro- faults orne/li/ence not punished by the law ' sub5ect to the pro+isions of %hapter of

,itle FV . ection 19)2 of that chapter reads<C$ person who by an act or o-ission causes da-a/e to another when there isfault or ne/li/ence shall be obli/ed to repair the da-a/e so done.

C !%. 19)3. ,he obli/ation i-posed by the preceedin/ article is de-andable'not only for personal acts and o-issions' but also for those of the persons forwho- they should be responsible.

C,he father' and on his death or incapacity' the -other' is liable for theda-a/es caused by the -inors who li+e with the-.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C:wners or directors of an establish-ent or enterprise are eDually liable for theda-a/es caused by their e-ployees in the ser+ice of the branches in whichthe latter -ay be e-ployed or in the perfor-ance of their duties.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

http://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr1719-rakes-v-the-atlantic-gulf-and-pacific-co.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr1719-rakes-v-the-atlantic-gulf-and-pacific-co.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr1719-rakes-v-the-atlantic-gulf-and-pacific-co.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr1719-rakes-v-the-atlantic-gulf-and-pacific-co.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr1719-rakes-v-the-atlantic-gulf-and-pacific-co.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr1719-rakes-v-the-atlantic-gulf-and-pacific-co.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr1719-rakes-v-the-atlantic-gulf-and-pacific-co.html


24/156

C,he liability referred to in this article shall cease when the persons -entionedtherein pro+e that they e-ployed all the dili/ence of a /ood father of a fa-ilyto a+oid the da-a/e.C

$s an answer to the ar/u-ent ur/ed in this particular action it -ay besu8cient to point out that nowhere in our /eneral statutes is the e-ployerpenali ed for failure to pro+ide or -aintain safe appliances for his worA-en.His obli/ation therefore is one ;not punished by the laws; and falls under ci+ilrather than cri-inal 5urisprudence. #ut the answer -ay be a broader one. @eshould be reluctant' under any conditions' to adopt a forced construction ofthese scienti6c codes' such as is proposed by the defendant' that would robso-e of these articles of e ect' would shut out liti/ants a/ainst their will fro-the ci+il courts' would -aAe the assertion of their ri/hts dependent upon theselection for prosecution of the proper cri-inal o ender' and render reco+erydoubtful by reason of the strict rules of proof pre+ailin/ in cri-inal actions.!+en if these articles had always stood alone' such a construction would beunnecessary' but clear li/ht is thrown upon their -eanin/ by the pro+isions ofthe Law of %ri-inal Procedure of pain = 'ey de 1n)uicia%iento Cri%inal >' which'thou/h ne+er in actual force in these slands' was for-erly /i+en a suppletoryor e0planatory e ect. Ender article 111 of this law' both classes of action' ci+iland cri-inal' -i/ht be prosecuted 5ointly or separately' but while the penal

action was pendin/ the ci+il was suspended. $ccordin/ to article 112' the penalaction once started' the ci+il re-edy should be sou/ht therewith' unless it hadbeen wai+ed by the party in5ured or been e0pressly reser+ed by hi- for ci+ilproceedin/s for the future. f the ci+il action alone was prosecuted' arisin/ outof a cri-e that could be enforced only on pri+ate co-plaint' the penal actionthereunder should be e0tin/uished. ,hese pro+isions are in har-ony withthose of articles 23 and 133 of our Penal %ode on the sa-e sub5ect.$n e0a-ination of this topic -i/ht be carried -uch further' but the citation of

these articles su8ces to show that the ci+il liability was not intended to be-er/ed in the cri-inal nor e+en to be suspended thereby' e0cept as e0presslypro+ided in the law. @here an indi+idual is ci+illy liable for a ne/li/ent act oro-ission' it is not reDuired that the in5ured party should seeA out a third personcri-inally liable whose prosecution -ust be a condition precedent to theenforce-ent of the ci+il ri/ht.


25/156

Ender article 2) of the Penal %ode the responsibility of an e-ployer -ay bere/arded as subsidiary in respect of cri-inal actions a/ainst his e-ployeesonly while they are in process of prosecution' or in so far as they deter-ine thee0istence of the cri-inal act fro- which liability arises' and his obli/ationunder the ci+il law and its enforce-ent in the ci+il courts is not barred therebyunless by the election of the in5ured person. nas-uch as no cri-inalproceedin/ had been instituted' /rowin/ our of the accident in Duestion' thepro+isions of the Penal %ode can not a ect this action. ,his constructionrenders it unnecessary to 6nally deter-ine here whether this subsidiary ci+illiability in penal actions has sur+i+ed the laws that fully re/ulated it or hasbeen abro/ated by the $-erican ci+il and cri-inal procedure now in force inthe Philippines.

,he di8culty in construin/ the articles of the code abo+e cited in this caseappears fro- the briefs before us to ha+e arisen fro- the interpretation of thewords of article 1)93' Cfault or ne/li/ence not punished by law'C as applied tothe co-prehensi+e de6nition of o enses in articles G*& and G9) of the Penal%ode. t has been shown that the liability of an e-ployer arisin/ out of hisrelation to his e-ployee who is the o ender is not to be re/arded as deri+edfro- ne/li/ence punished by the law' within the -eanin/ of articles 19)2 and1)93. ore than this' howe+er' it cannot be said to fall within the class of acts

unpunished by the law' the conseDuence of which are re/ulated by articles19)2 and 19)3 of the %i+il %ode. ,he acts to which these articles areapplicable are understood to be those not /rowin/ out of pre e0istin/ duties ofthe parties to one another. #ut where relations already for-ed /i+e rise toduties' whether sprin/in/ fro- contract or Duasi contract' then breaches ofthose duties are sub5ect to articles 11)1' 11)3' and 11)4 of the sa-e code. $typical application of this distinction -ay be found in the conseDuences of arailway accident due to defecti+e -achinery supplied by the e-ployer. His

liability to his e-ployee would arise out of the contract of e-ploy-ent' that tothe passen/ers out of the contract for passa/e' while that to the in5uredbystander would ori/inate in the ne/li/ent act itself.

n ,an*anares vs. ,oreta ' 3& Phil.' &21 =year 191&> ' the -other of the & of 9year old child al+ador #ona brou/ht a ci+il action a/ainst oreta to reco+erda-a/es resultin/ fro- the death of the child' who had been run o+er by anauto-obile dri+en and -ana/ed by the defendant. ,he trial court rendered

http://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr12306-manzanares-v-moreta.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr12306-manzanares-v-moreta.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr12306-manzanares-v-moreta.html


26/156

5ud/-ent reDuirin/ the defendant to pay the plainti the su- of P1'))) asinde-nity< ,his %ourt in a8r-in/ the 5ud/-ent' said in part<

f it were true that the defendant' in co-in/ fro- the southern part of olanatreet' had to stop his auto before crossin/ Real treet' because he had -et

+ehicles which were /oin/ alon/ the latter street or were co-in/ fro- theopposite direction alon/ olana treet' it is to be belie+ed that' when he a/ainstarted to run his auto across said Real treet and to continue its way alon/

olana treet northward' he should ha+e ad5usted the speed of the auto whichhe was operatin/ until he had fully crossed Real treet and had co-pletelyreached a clear way on olana treet. #ut' as the child was run o+er by theauto precisely at the entrance of olana treet' this accident could not ha+eoccurred if the auto had been runnin/ at a slow speed' aside fro- the fact thatthe defendant' at the -o-ent of crossin/ Real treet and enterin/ olana

treet' in a northward direction' could ha+e seen the child in the act of crossin/the latter street fro- the sidewalA on the ri/ht to that on the left' and if theaccident had occurred in such a way that after the auto-obile had run o+er thebody of the child' and the child;s body had already been stretched out on the/round' the auto-obile still -o+ed alon/ a distance of about 2 -eters' thiscircu-stance shows the fact that the auto-obile entered olana treet fro-Real treet' at a hi/h speed without the defendant ha+in/ blown the horn. fthese precautions had been taAen by the defendant' the deplorable accident

which caused the death of the child would not ha+e occurred.

t will be noticed that the defendant in the abo+e case could ha+e beenprosecuted in a cri-inal case because his ne/li/ence causin/ the death of thechild was punishable by the Penal %ode. Here is therefore a clear instance ofthe sa-e act of ne/li/ence bein/ a proper sub5ect -atter either of a cri-inalaction with its conseDuent ci+il liability arisin/ fro- a cri-e or of an entirelyseparate and independent ci+il action for fault or ne/li/ence under article 19)2

of the %i+il %ode. ,hus' in this 5urisdiction' the separate indi+idually of a cuasi-delito or culpa aquiliana under the %i+il %ode has been fully and clearlyreco/ni ed' e+en with re/ard to a ne/li/ent act for which the wron/doer couldha+e been prosecuted and con+icted in a cri-inal case and for which' aftersuch a con+iction' he could ha+e been sued for this ci+il liability arisin/ fro-his cri-e.

Oears later =in 193)> this %ourt had another occasion to apply the sa-edoctrine. n Bernal and 1nverso vs. 2ouse and "acloban 1lectric 3 4ce Plant$

http://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr30741-bernal-and-enverso-v-j-v-house-and-tacloban-electric-and-ice-plant-ltd.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr30741-bernal-and-enverso-v-j-v-house-and-tacloban-electric-and-ice-plant-ltd.html


27/156

'td. ' G4 Phil.' 327 ' the parents of the 6+e year old child' Puri6cacion #ernal'brou/ht a ci+il action to reco+er da-a/es for the child;s death as a result ofburns caused by the fault and ne/li/ence of the defendants. :n the e+enin/ of$pril 1)' 192G' the (ood riday procession was held in ,acloban' Leyte.

ortunata !n+erso with her dau/hter Puri6cacion #ernal had co-e fro-another -unicipality to attend the sa-e. $fter the procession the -other andthe dau/hter with two others were passin/ alon/ (ran %apitan treet in frontof the o8ces of the ,acloban !lectric ce Plant' Ltd.' owned by defendants J.V. House' when an auto-obile appeared fro- the opposite direction. ,he little/irl' who was sli/htly ahead of the rest' was so fri/htened by the auto-obilethat she turned to run' but unfortunately she fell into the street /utter wherehot water fro- the electric plant was Qowin/. ,he child died that sa-e ni/htfro- the burns. ,he trial courts dis-issed the action because of the

contributory ne/li/ence of the plainti s. #ut this %ourt held' on appeal' thatthere was no contributory ne/li/ence' and allowed the parents P1'))) inda-a/es fro- J. V. House who at the ti-e of the tra/ic occurrence was theholder of the franchise for the electric plant. ,his %ourt said in part<$lthou/h the trial 5ud/e -ade the 6ndin/s of fact hereinbefore outlined' hene+ertheless was led to order the dis-issal of the action because of thecontributory ne/li/ence of the plainti s. t is fro- this point that a -a5ority ofthe court depart fro- the stand taAen by the trial 5ud/e. ,he -other and her

child had a perfect ri/ht to be on the principal street of ,acloban' Leyte' on thee+enin/ when the reli/ious procession was held. ,here was nothin/ abnor-alin allowin/ the child to run alon/ a few paces in ad+ance of the -other. "o onecould foresee the coincidence of an auto-obile appearin/ and of a fri/htenedchild runnin/ and fallin/ into a ditch 6lled with hot water. ,he doctrineannounced in the -uch debated case of RaAes +s. $tlantic (ulf and Paci6c %o.=M19)7N>' 7 Phil.' 3G9> ' still rule. $rticle 19)2 of the %i+il %ode -ust a/ain beenforced. ,he contributory ne/li/ence of the child and her -other' if any' does

not operate as a bar to reco+ery' but in its strictest sense could only result inreduction of the da-a/es.

t is -ost si/ni6cant that in the case 5ust cited' this %ourt speci6cally appliedarticle 19)2 of the %i+il %ode. t is thus that althou/h J. V. House could ha+ebeen cri-inally prosecuted for recAless or si-ple ne/li/ence and not onlypunished but also -ade ci+illy liable because of his cri-inal ne/li/ence'

http://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr30741-bernal-and-enverso-v-j-v-house-and-tacloban-electric-and-ice-plant-ltd.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr30741-bernal-and-enverso-v-j-v-house-and-tacloban-electric-and-ice-plant-ltd.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr30741-bernal-and-enverso-v-j-v-house-and-tacloban-electric-and-ice-plant-ltd.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr1719-rakes-v-the-atlantic-gulf-and-pacific-co.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr1719-rakes-v-the-atlantic-gulf-and-pacific-co.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr30741-bernal-and-enverso-v-j-v-house-and-tacloban-electric-and-ice-plant-ltd.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr1719-rakes-v-the-atlantic-gulf-and-pacific-co.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr1719-rakes-v-the-atlantic-gulf-and-pacific-co.html


28/156

ne+ertheless this %ourt awarded da-a/es in an independent ci+il action forfault or ne/li/ence under article 19)2 of the %i+il %ode.

n Bahia vs. 'iton)ua and 'eynes =3) Phil.' *24 Myear 191G>' the action was forda-a/es for the death of the plainti ;s dau/hter alle/ed to ha+e been causedby the ne/li/ence of the ser+ant in dri+in/ an auto-obile o+er the child. tappeared that the cause of the -ishap was a defect in the steerin/ /ear. ,hedefendant Leynes had rented the auto-obile fro- the nternational (ara/e of

anila' to be used by hi- in carryin/ passen/ers durin/ the 6esta of ,uy'#atan/as. Leynes was ordered by the lower court to pay P1'))) as da-a/es tothe plainti . :n appeal this %ourt re+ersed the 5ud/-ent as to Leynes on the/round that he had shown that the e0ercised the care of a /ood father of afa-ily' thus o+erco-in/ the presu-ption of ne/li/ence under article 19)3.

,his %ourt said<$s to selection' the defendant has clearly shown that he e0ercised the care anddili/ence of a /ood father of a fa-ily. He obtained the -achine fro- areputable /ara/e and it was' so far as appeared' in /ood condition. ,heworA-en were liAewise selected fro- a standard /ara/e' were duly licensed bythe (o+ern-ent in their particular callin/' and apparently thorou/hlyco-petent. ,he -achine had been used but a few hours when the accidentoccurred and it is clear fro- the e+idence that the defendant had no notice'

either actual or constructi+e' of the defecti+e condition of the steerin/ /ear.

,he le/al aspect of the case was discussed by this %ourt thus<

$rticle 19)3 of the %i+il %ode not only establishes liability in cases ofne/li/ence' but also pro+ides when the liability shall cease. t says<

C,he liability referred to in this article shall cease when the persons -entionedtherein pro+e that they e-ployed all the dili/ence of a /ood father of a fa-ilyto a+oid the da-a/e.C

ro- this article two thin/s are apparent< =1> ,hat when an in5ury is caused bythe ne/li/ence of a ser+ant or e-ployee there instantly arises a presu-ptionof law that there was ne/li/ence on the part of the -atter or e-ployer eitherin the selection of the ser+ant or e-ployee' or in super+ision o+er hi- after theselection' or bothB and =2> that presu-ption is )uris tantu% and not )uris et de

http://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr9734-bahia-v-litonjua-and-leynes.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr9734-bahia-v-litonjua-and-leynes.html


29/156

)ure ' and conseDuently' -ay be rebutted. t follows necessarily that if thee-ployer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in selection andsuper+ision he has e0ercised the care and dili/ence of a /ood father of afa-ily' the presu-ption is o+erco-e and he is relie+e fro- liability.

,his theory bases the responsibility of the -aster ulti-ately on his ownne/li/ence and not on that of his ser+ant.

,he doctrine of the case 5ust cited was followed by this %ourt in Cerf vs.,edel =33 Phil.' 37 Myear 191GN> . n the latter case' the co-plaint alle/ed thatthe defendant;s ser+ant had so ne/li/ently dri+en an auto-obile' which wasoperated by defendant as a public +ehicle' that said auto-obile strucA andda-a/ed the plainti ;s -otorcycle. ,his %ourt' applyin/ article 19)3 andfollowin/ the rule in Bahia vs. 'iton)ua and 'eynes ' said in part =p. 41> that<

,he -aster is liable for the ne/li/ent acts of his ser+ant where he is the owneror director of a business or enterprise and the ne/li/ent acts are co--ittedwhile the ser+ant is en/a/ed in his -aster;s e-ploy-ent as such owner.

$nother case which followed the decision in Bahia vs. 'iton)ua and'eynes was %uison +s. "orton Harrison %o.' GG Phil.' 1& =year 193)>. ,helatter case was an action for da-a/es brou/ht by %uison for the death of hisse+en year old son oises. ,he little boy was on his way to school with his

sister arciana. o-e lar/e pieces of lu-ber fell fro- a trucA and pinned theboy underneath' instantly Aillin/ hi-. ,wo youths' ,elesforo #inoya andrancisco #autista' who were worAin/ for :ra' an e-ployee of defendant

"orton Harrison %o.' pleaded /uilty to the cri-e of ho-icide throu/h recAlessne/li/ence and were sentenced accordin/ly. ,his %ourt' applyin/ articles 19)2and 19)3' held<

,he basis of ci+il law liability is not respondent superior but the relationshipof pater fa%ilias . ,his theory bases the liability of the -aster ulti-ately on his

own ne/li/ence and not on that of his ser+ant. = #ahia vs. Liton5ua and LeynesM191GN' 3) Phil.' *24 B%an/co +s. anila Railroad %o. M191&N' 3& Phil.' 7*& .>

n @alter $. -ith %o. vs. %adwallader (ibson Lu-ber %o.' GG Phil.' G17 =year193)> the plainti brou/ht an action for da-a/es for the de-olition of itswharf' which had been strucA by the stea-er Helen % belon/in/ to thedefendant. ,his %ourt held =p. G2*><

,he e+idence shows that %aptain Lasa at the ti-e the plainti ;s wharfcollapsed was a duly licensed captain' authori ed to na+i/ate and direct a

http://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr10351-cerf-v-medel.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr10351-cerf-v-medel.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr10351-cerf-v-medel.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr10351-cerf-v-medel.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr32774-cuison-v-norton-harrison-co-binoya-and-bautista.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr9734-bahia-v-litonjua-and-leynes.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr9734-bahia-v-litonjua-and-leynes.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr9734-bahia-v-litonjua-and-leynes.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr9734-bahia-v-litonjua-and-leynes.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr9734-bahia-v-litonjua-and-leynes.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr12191-cangco-v-manila-railroad-co.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr32640-walter-a-smith-and-co-inc-v-cadwallader-gibson-lumber-company.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr32640-walter-a-smith-and-co-inc-v-cadwallader-gibson-lumber-company.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr32640-walter-a-smith-and-co-inc-v-cadwallader-gibson-lumber-company.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr32640-walter-a-smith-and-co-inc-v-cadwallader-gibson-lumber-company.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr10351-cerf-v-medel.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr10351-cerf-v-medel.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr32774-cuison-v-norton-harrison-co-binoya-and-bautista.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr9734-bahia-v-litonjua-and-leynes.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr9734-bahia-v-litonjua-and-leynes.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr12191-cangco-v-manila-railroad-co.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr32640-walter-a-smith-and-co-inc-v-cadwallader-gibson-lumber-company.html


30/156

+essel of any tonna/e' and that the appellee contracted his ser+ices becauseof his reputation as a captain' accordin/ to . %. %adwallader. ,his bein/ so' weare of the opinion that the presu-ption of liability a/ainst the defendant hasbeen o+erco-e by the e0ercise of the care and dili/ence of a /ood father of afa-ily in selectin/ %aptain Lasa' in accordance with the doctrines laid down bythis court in the cases cited abo+e' and the defendant is therefore absol+edfro- all liability.

t is' therefore' seen that the defendant;s theory about his secondary liability isne/ati+ed by the si0 cases abo+e set forth. He is' on the authority of thesecases' pri-arily and directly responsible in da-a/es under article 19)3' inrelation to article 19)2' of the %i+il %ode.

Let us now taAe up the Philippine decisions relied upon by the defendant. @estudy 6rst' City of ,anila vs. ,anila 1lectric Co. ' G2 Phil.' G&* =year 192&>. $collision between a trucA of the %ity of anila and a street car of the anila!lectric %o. tooA place on June &' 192G. ,he trucA was da-a/ed in the a-ountof P1'7&&.27. i0to !ustaDuio' the -otor-an' was prosecuted for the cri-e ofda-a/e to property and sli/ht in5uries throu/h recAless i-prudence. He wasfound /uilty and sentenced to pay a 6ne of P9))' to inde-nify the %ity of

anila for P1'7&&.27' with subsidiary i-prison-ent in case of insol+ency.

Enable to collect the inde-nity fro- !ustaDuio' the %ity of anila 6led anaction a/ainst the anila !lectric %o-pany to obtain pay-ent' clai-in/ thatthe defendant was subsidiarily liable. ,he -ain defense was that the defendanthad e0ercised the dili/ence of a /ood father of a fa-ily to pre+ent the da-a/e.

,he lower court rendered 5ud/-ent in fa+or of the plainti . ,his %ourt held' inpart' that this case was /o+erned by the Penal %ode' sayin/<@ith this preli-inary point out of the way' there is no escapin/ the conclusionthat the pro+isions of the Penal %ode /o+ern. ,he Penal %ode in easily

understandable lan/ua/e authori es the deter-ination of subsidiary liability. ,he %i+il %ode ne/ati+es its application by pro+idin/ that ci+il obli/ationsarisin/ fro- cri-es or -isde-eanors shall be /o+erned by the pro+isions ofthe Penal %ode. ,he con+iction of the -otor-an was a -isde-eanor fallin/under article *)4 of the Penal %ode. ,he act of the -otor-an was not awron/ful or ne/li/ent act or o-ission not punishable by law. $ccordin/ly' theci+il obli/ation connected up with the Penal %ode and not with article 19)3 ofthe %i+il %ode. n other words' the Penal %ode a8r-s its 5urisdiction while the

http://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr29356-city-of-manila-v-manila-electric-company.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr29356-city-of-manila-v-manila-electric-company.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr29356-city-of-manila-v-manila-electric-company.html


31/156

%i+il %ode ne/ati+es its 5urisdiction. ,his is a case of cri-inal ne/li/ence out ofwhich ci+il liability arises and not a case of ci+il ne/li/ence.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

:ur deduction' therefore' is that the case relates to the Penal %ode and not tothe %i+il %ode. ndeed' as pointed out by the trial 5ud/e' any di erent rulin/would per-it the -aster to escape scot free by si-ply alle/in/ and pro+in/that the -aster had e0ercised all dili/ence in the selection and trainin/ of itsser+ants to pre+ent the da-a/e. ,hat would be a /ood defense to a strictlyci+il action' but -i/ht or -i/ht not be to a ci+il action either as a part of orpredicated on con+iction for a cri-e or -isde-eanor. =#y way of parenthesis' it-ay be said further that the state-ents here -ade are o ered to -eet thear/u-ent ad+anced durin/ our deliberations to the e ect that article )9)2 ofthe %i+il %ode should be disre/arded and codal articles 1)93 and 19)3applied.>

t is not clear how the abo+e case could support the defendant;s proposition'because the %ourt of $ppeals based its decision in the present case on thedefendant;s pri-ary responsibility under article 19)3 of the %i+il %ode and noton his subsidiary liability arisin/ fro- ontanilla;s cri-inal ne/li/ence. n otherwords' the case of %ity of anila +s. anila !lectric %o.' supra' is predicated onan entirely di erent theory' which is the subsidiary liability of an e-ployerarisin/ fro- a cri-inal act of his e-ployee' whereas the foundation of thedecision of the %ourt of $ppeals in the present case is the e-ployer;s pri-aryliability under article 19)3 of the %i+il %ode. @e ha+e already seen that this is aproper and independent re-edy.

Ara%bulo vs. ,anila 1lectric Co. =GG Phil.' 7G> ' is another case in+oAed by thedefendant. $ -otor-an in the e-ploy of the anila !lectric %o-pany hadbeen con+icted o ho-icide by si-ple ne/li/ence and sentenced' a-on/ otherthin/s' to pay the heirs of the deceased the su- of P1'))). $n action was thenbrou/ht to enforce the subsidiary liability of the defendant as e-ployer underthe Penal %ode. ,he defendant atte-pted to show that it had e0ercised thedili/ence of a /ood father of a fa-ily in selectin/ the -otor-an' and thereforeclai-ed e0e-ption fro- ci+il liability. #ut this %ourt held


32/156

n +iew of the fore/oin/ considerations' we are of opinion and so hold' =1> thatthe e0e-ption fro- ci+il liability established in article 19)3 of the %i+il %ode forall who ha+e acted with the dili/ence of a /ood father of a fa-ily' is notapplicable to the subsidiary ci+il liability pro+ided in article 2) of the Penal%ode.

,he abo+e case is also e0traneous to the theory of the defendant in the instantcase' because the action there had for its purpose the enforce-ent of thedefendant;s subsidiary liability under the Penal %ode' while in the case at bar'the plainti ;s cause of action is based on the defendant;s pri-ary and directresponsibility under article 19)3 of the %i+il %ode. n fact' the abo+e casedestroys the defendant;s contention because that decision illustrates theprinciple that the e-ployer;s pri-ary responsibility under article 19)3 of the%i+il %ode is di erent in character fro- his subsidiary liability under the Penal%ode.

n tryin/ to apply the two cases 5ust referred to' counsel for the defendant hasfailed to reco/ni e the distinction between ci+il liability arisin/ fro- a cri-e'which is /o+erned by the Penal %ode' and the responsibility for cuasi-delito or culpa aquiliana under the %i+il %ode' and has liAewise failed to /i+e thei-portance to the latter type of ci+il action.

,he defendant petitioner also cites rancisco vs. 5nrubia =4* Phil.' 327> . ,hatcase need not be set forth. u8ce it to say that the Duestion in+ol+ed was alsoci+il liability arisin/ fro- a cri-e. Hence' it is as inapplicable as the two casesabo+e discussed.

,he fore/oin/ authorities clearly de-onstrate the separate indi+idualityof cuasi-delitos or culpa aquiliana under the %i+il %ode. peci6cally they showthat there is a distinction between ci+il liability arisin/ fro- cri-inal ne/li/ence=/o+erned by the Penal %ode> and responsibility for fault or ne/li/ence under

articles 19)2 to 191) of the %i+il %ode' and that the sa-e ne/li/ent act -ayproduce either a ci+il liability arisin/ fro- a cri-e under the Penal %ode' or aseparate responsibility for fault or ne/li/ence under articles 19)2 to 191) ofthe %i+il %ode. till -ore concretely' the authorities abo+e cited render itinescapable to conclude that the e-ployer ? in this case the defendantpetitioner ? is pri-arily and directly liable under article 19)3 of the %i+il %ode.

,he le/al pro+isions' authors' and cases already in+oAed should ordinarily besu8cient to dispose of this case. #ut inas-uch as we are announcin/ doctrines

http://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr22063-francisco-v-onrubia.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr22063-francisco-v-onrubia.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr22063-francisco-v-onrubia.html


33/156

that ha+e been little understood in the past' it -i/ht not be inappropriate toindicate their foundations.

irstly' the Re+ised Penal %ode in article 3*G punishes not only recAless butalso si-ple ne/li/ence. f we were to hold that articles 19)2 to 191) of the%i+il %ode refer only to fault or ne/li/ence not punished by law' accordin/ tothe literal i-port of article 1)93 of the %i+il %ode' the le/al institution of culpaaDuiliana would ha+e +ery little scope and application in actual life. eath orin5ury to persons and da-a/e to property throu/h any de/ree of ne/li/ence ?e+en the sli/htest ? would ha+e to be inde-ni6ed only throu/h the principleof ci+il liability arisin/ fro- a cri-e. n such a state of a airs' what spherewould re-ain for cuasi-delito or culpa aquiliana K @e are loath to i-pute to thelaw-aAer any intention to brin/ about a situation so absurd and ano-alous."or are we' in the interpretation of the laws' disposed to uphold the letter thatAilleth rather than the spirit that /i+eth life. @e will not use the literal -eanin/of the law to s-other and render al-ost lifeless a principle of such ancientori/in and such full /rown de+elop-ent as culpa aquiliana or cuasi-delito 'which is conser+ed and -ade endurin/ in articles 19)2 to 191) of the panish%i+il %ode.

econdly' to 6nd the accused /uilty in a cri-inal case' proof of /uilt beyondreasonable doubt is reDuired' while in a ci+il case' preponderance of e+idence

is su8cient to -aAe the defendant pay in da-a/es. ,here are nu-erous casesof cri-inal ne/li/ence which can not be shown beyond reasonable doubt' butcan be pro+ed by a preponderance of e+idence. n such cases' the defendantcan and should be -ade responsible in a ci+il action under articles 19)2 to191) of the %i+il %ode. :therwise' there would be -any instances ofun+indicated ci+il wron/s. 6bi )us ibi re%ediu% .

,hirdly' to hold that there is only one way to -aAe defendant;s liabilitye ecti+e' and that is' to sue the dri+er and e0haust his =the latter;s> property

6rst' would be tanta-ount to co-pellin/ the plainti to follow a de+ious andcu-berso-e -ethod of obtainin/ relief. ,rue' there is such a re-edy under ourlaws' but there is also a -ore e0peditious way' which is based on the pri-aryand direct responsibility of the defendant under article 19)3 of the %i+il %ode.:ur +iew of the law is -ore liAely to facilitate re-edy for ci+il wron/s' becausethe procedure indicated by the defendant is wasteful and producti+e of delay'it bein/ a -atter of co--on Anowled/e that professional dri+ers of ta0is andsi-ilar public con+eyance usually do not ha+e su8cient -eans with which to

http://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act3815-revised-penal-code.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act3815-revised-penal-code.html


34/156

pay da-a/es. @hy' then' should the plainti be reDuired in all cases to /othrou/h this roundabout' unnecessary' and probably useless procedureK nconstruin/ the laws' courts ha+e endea+ored to shorten and facilitate thepathways of ri/ht and 5ustice.

$t this 5uncture' it should be said that the pri-ary and direct responsibility ofe-ployers and their presu-ed ne/li/ence are principles calculated to protectsociety. @orA-en and e-ployees should be carefully chosen and super+ised inorder to a+oid in5ury to the public. t is the -asters or e-ployers whoprincipally reap the pro6ts resultin/ fro- the ser+ices of these ser+ants ande-ployees. t is but ri/ht that they should /uarantee the latter;s carefulconduct for the personnel and patri-onial safety of others. $s ,heilhard hassaid' Cthey should reproach the-sel+es' at least' so-e for their weaAness'others for their poor selection and all for their ne/li/ence.C $nd accordin/ to

anresa' C t is -uch -ore eDuitable and 5ust that such responsibility should fallupon the principal or director who could ha+e chosen a careful and prudente-ployee' and not upon the in5ured person who could not e0ercise suchselection and who used such e-ployee because of his con6dence in theprincipal or director.C =Vol. 12' p. *22' 2nd !d.> any 5urists also base thispri-ary responsibility of the e-ployer on the principle of representation of theprincipal by the a/ent. ,hus' :yuelos says in the worA already cited =Vol. 7' p.

747> that before third persons the e-ployer and e-ployee C+ienen a ser co-ouna sola personalidad' por refundicion de la del dependiente en la de Duien lee-plea y utili a.C =Cbeco-e as one personality by the -er/in/ of the person of the e-ployee in that of hi- who e-ploys and utili es hi-.C> $ll theseobser+ations acDuire a peculiar force and si/ni6cance when it co-es to -otoraccidents' and there is need of stressin/ and accentuatin/ the responsibility ofowners of -otor +ehicles.

ourthly' because of the broad sweep of the pro+isions of both the Penal %odeand the %i+il %ode on this sub5ect' which has /i+en rise to the o+erlappin/ orconcurrence of spheres already discussed' and for lacA of understandin/ of thecharacter and e8cacy of the action for culpa aquiliana ' there has /rown up aco--on practice to seeA da-a/es only by +irtue of the ci+il responsibilityarisin/ fro- a cri-e' for/ettin/ that there is another re-edy' which is byin+oAin/ articles 19)2 191) of the %i+il %ode. $lthou/h this habitual -ethod isallowed by our laws' it has ne+ertheless rendered practically useless and


35/156

nu/atory the -ore e0peditious and e ecti+e re-edy based on culpaaquiliana or culpa e&tra-contractual . n the present case' we are asAed to helpperpetuate this usual course. #ut we belie+e it is hi/h ti-e we pointed out tothe har- done by such practice and to restore the principle of responsibility forfault or ne/li/ence under articles 19)2 et seq . of the %i+il %ode to its full ri/or.

t is hi/h ti-e we caused the strea- of Duasi delict or culpa aquiliana to Qowon its own natural channel' so that its waters -ay no lon/er be di+erted intothat of a cri-e under the Penal %ode. ,his will' it is belie+ed' -aAe for thebetter safe/uardin/ of pri+ate ri/hts because it re establishes an ancient andadditional re-edy' and for the further reason that an independent ci+il action'not dependin/ on the issues' li-itations and results of a cri-inal prosecution'and entirely directed by the party wron/ed or his counsel' is -ore liAely tosecure adeDuate and e8cacious redress.

n +iew of the fore/oin/' the 5ud/-ent of the %ourt of $ppeals should be and ishereby a8r-ed' with costs a/ainst the defendant petitioner.

7ulo$ C.J.$ ,oran$ 5*aeta and Paras$ JJ.$ concur.

(.R. "o. ' 91 %R$ 113Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTanila

!" #$"%

!% :"

ay 31' 1979


36/156

(.R. "o. ' '+s.' .

, J. :

Petitioner' !d/ardo endo a' seeAs a re+iew on certiorari of the :rders ofrespondent Jud/e in %i+il %ase "o. &)&)3 dis-issin/ his %o-plaint for

a-a/es based on quasi delict a/ainst respondents elino ,i-bol and Rodolfoala ar.

,he facts which spawned the present contro+ersy -ay be su--ari ed asfollows<

:n :ctober 22' 19*9' at about 4


37/156

si/nal indicatin/ his intention to turn left towards the poblacion of arilao butwas stopped at the intersection by a police-an who was directin/ tra8cB thatwhile he was at a stop position' his 5eep was bu-ped at the rear by the trucAdri+en by onto+a causin/ hi- to be thrown out of the 5eep' which thenswer+ed to the left and hit petitioner;s car' which was co-in/ fro- theopposite direction.

:n July 31' 197)' the %ourt of irst nstance of #ulacan' #ranch V' ta. aria'rendered 5ud/-ent' statin/ in its decretal portion<

" V !@ : ,H! :R!(: "(' this %ourt 6nds the accused reddie ontoya(E L,O beyond reasonable doubt of the cri-e of da-a/e to property thrurecAless i-prudence in %ri-e. %ase "o. 227' and hereby sentences hi- topay a 6ne of P972.G) and to inde-nify Rodolfo ala ar in the sa-e a-ount ofP972.G) as actual da-a/es' with subsidiary i-prison-ent in case ofinsol+ency' both as to 6ne and inde-nity' with costs.

$ccused Rodolfo ala ar is hereby $% E ,,! fro- the o ense char/ed in%ri-e. %ase "o. 22&' with costs de o8cio ' and his bond is ordered canceled

: :R !R! . 1

,hus' the trial %ourt absol+ed 5eep owner dri+er ala ar of any liability' ci+iland cri-inal' in +iew of its 6ndin/s that the collision between ala ar;s 5eepand petitioner;s car was the result of the for-er ha+in/ been bu-ped fro-behind by the trucA dri+en by ontoya. "either was petitioner awardedda-a/es as he was not a co-plainant a/ainst trucA dri+er ontoya but onlya/ainst 5eep owner dri+er ala ar.

:n $u/ust 22' 197)' or after the ter-ination of the cri-inal cases' petitioner6led %i+il %ase "o. &)&)3 with the %ourt of irst nstance of anila a/ainstrespondents 5eep owner dri+er ala ar and elino ,i-bol' the latter bein/ theowner of the /ra+el and sand trucA dri+en by ontoya' for indenti6cation forthe da-a/es sustained by his car as a result of the collision in+ol+in/ their+ehicles. Jeep owner dri+er ala ar and trucA owner ,i-bol were 5oined asdefendants' either in the alternati+e or in solidu% alle/edly for the reason thatpetitioner was uncertain as to whether he was entitled to relief a/ainst both ononly one of the-.


38/156

:n epte-ber 9' 197)' trucA owner ,i-bol 6led a otion to is-iss %i+il %ase"o. &)&)3 on the /rounds that the %o-plaint is barred by a prior 5ud/-ent inthe cri-inal cases and that it fails to state a cause of action. $n :ppositionthereto was 6led by petitioner.

n an :rder dated epte-ber 12' 197)' respondent Jud/e dis-issed the%o-plaint a/ainst trucA owner ,i-bol for reasons stated in the afore-entioned otion to is-iss :n epte-ber 3)' 197)' petitioner sou/ht beforethis %ourt the re+iew of that dis-issal' to which petition we /a+e due course.

:n January 3)' 1971' upon -otion of 5eep owner dri+er ala ar' respondent Jud/e also dis-issed the case as a/ainst the for-er. Respondent Jud/ereasoned out that Cwhile it is true that an independent ci+il action for liabilityunder $rticle 2177 of the %i+il %ode could be prosecuted independently of thecri-inal action for the o ense fro- which it arose' the "ew Rules of %ourt'which tooA e ect on January 1' 19*4' reDuires an e0press reser+ation of theci+il action to be -ade in the cri-inal actionB otherwise' the sa-e would bebarred pursuant to ection 2' Rule 111 ... 2 Petitioner;s otion forReconsideration thereof was denied in the order dated ebruary 23' 1971' withrespondent Jud/e su//estin/ that the issue be raised to a hi/her %ourt Cfor a-ore decisi+e interpretation of the rule. 3

:n arch 2G' 1971' petitioner then 6led a upple-ental Petition before us'also to re+iew the last two -entioned :rders' to which we reDuired 5eep ownerdri+er ala ar to 6le an $nswer.

,he %o-plaint a/ainst

trucA owner ,i-bol

@e shall 6rst discuss the +alidity of the :rder' dated epte-ber 12' 197)'dis-issin/ petitioner;s %o-plaint a/ainst trucA owner ,i-bol.

n dis-issin/ the %o-plaint a/ainst the trucA owner' respondent Jud/esustained ,i-bol;s alle/ations that the ci+il suit is barred by the prior 5oint

5ud/-ent in %ri-inal %ases "os. 227 and 22&' wherein no reser+ationto 6le a separate ci+il case was -ade by petitioner and where the latteracti+ely participated in the trial and tried to pro+e da-a/es a/ainst 5eep


39/156

dri+er ala ar onlyB and that the %o-plaint does not state a cause of actiona/ainst trucA owner ,i-bol inas-uch as petitioner prosecuted 5eep ownerdri+er ala ar as the one solely responsible for the da-a/e su ered by his car.

@ell settled is the rule that for a prior 5ud/-ent to constitute a bar to asubseDuent case' the followin/ reDuisites -ust concur< =1> it -ust be a 6nal

5ud/-entB =2> it -ust ha+e been rendered by a %ourt ha+in/ 5urisdiction o+erthe sub5ect -atter and o+er the partiesB =3> it -ust be a 5ud/-ent on the-eritsB and =4> there -ust be' between the 6rst and second actions' dentity of parties' d

Oblicon Page 1

Documents