Cerezo V Tuazon

Cerezo v. Tuazon GR No. 141538, 23 Mar 2004 Facts: A passenger bus collided w/ a tricycle.
Tricycle driver Tuazon filed a complaint for damages against Mrs. Cerezo, as owner of the bus line, her husband, Atty. Cerezo, & bus driver Foronda. The trial court did not hold Atty. Cerezo liable as Tuazon failed to show that Mrs. Cerezos business benefited the family. Mrs. Cerezo was held solely liable for the damages sustained by Tuazon arising from the negligence of Mrs. Cerezos employee pursuant to Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. Mrs. Cerezo asserts that the trial court could not validly render judgment since it failed to acquire jurisdiction over Foronda who is an indispensable party to the case. She also contends that Tuazon failed to reserve his right to institute a separate civil action for damages in the criminal action. Issue: Whether the judgment was validly rendered Held: Yes. Mrs. Cerezos contention proceeds from the point of view of criminal law and not of civil law, while the basis of the present action of Tuazon is quasi-delict under the Civil Code, not delict under the Revised Penal Code. The same negligent act may produce civil liability arising from a delict under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, or may give rise to an action for a quasi-delict under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. An aggrieved party may choose between the two remedies. An action based on a quasidelict may proceed independently from the criminal action. 36 There is, however, a distinction between civil liability arising from a delict and civil liability arising from a quasi-delict. The choice of remedy, whether to sue for a delict or a quasi-delict, affects the procedural and jurisdictional issues of the action.37 Tuazon chose to file an action for damages based on a quasi-delict. In his complaint, Tuazon alleged that Mrs. Cerezo, "without exercising due care and diligence in the supervision and management of her employees and buses," hired Foronda as her driver. Tuazon became disabled because of Forondas "recklessness, gross negligence and imprudence," aggravated by Mrs. Cerezos "lack of due care and diligence in the selection and supervision of her employees, particularly Foronda."38 The trial court thus found Mrs. Cerezo liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Article 2180 states in part: Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. Contrary to Mrs. Cerezos assertion, Foronda is not an indispensable party to the case. An indispensable party is one whose interest is affected by the courts action in the litigation, and without whom no final resolution of the case is possible. 39 However, Mrs. Cerezos liability as an employer in an action for a quasi-delict is not only solidary, it is also primary and direct. Foronda is not an indispensable party to the final resolution of Tuazons action for damages against Mrs. Cerezo. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a quasi-delict is solidary. 40 Hence, each debtor is liable to pay for the entire obligation in full. There is no merger or renunciation of rights, but only mutual representation.41 Where the obligation of the parties is solidary, either of the parties is indispensable, and the other is not even a necessary party because complete relief
is available from either.42 Therefore, jurisdiction over Foronda is not even necessary as Tuazon may collect damages from Mrs. Cerezo alone. Moreover, an employers liability based on a quasi-delict is primary and direct, while the employers liability based on a delict is merely subsidiary. 43 The words "primary and direct," as contrasted with "subsidiary," refer to the remedy provided by law for enforcing the obligation rather than to the character and limits of the obligation. 44 Although liability under Article 2180 originates from the negligent act of the employee, the aggrieved party may sue the employer directly. When an employee causes damage, the law presumes that the employer has himself committed an act of negligence in not preventing or avoiding the damage. This is the fault that the law condemns. While the employer is civilly liable in a subsidiary capacity for the employees criminal negligence, the employer is also civilly liable directly and separately for his own civil negligence in failing to exercise due diligence in selecting and supervising his employee. The idea that the employers liability is solely subsidiary is wrong. 45 The action can be brought directly against the person responsible (for another), without including the author of the act. The action against the principal is accessory in the sense that it implies the existence of a prejudicial act committed by the employee, but it is not subsidiary in the sense that it can not be instituted till after the judgment against the author of the act or at least, that it is subsidiary to the principal action; the action for responsibility (of the employer) is in itself a principal action. In contrast, an action based on a delict seeks to enforce the subsidiary liability of the employer for the criminal negligence of the employee as provided in Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. To hold the employer liable in a subsidiary capacity under a delict, the aggrieved party must initiate a criminal action where the employees delict and corresponding primary liability are established. 47 If the present action proceeds from a delict, then the trial courts jurisdiction over Foronda is necessary. However, the present action is clearly for the quasi-delict of Mrs. Cerezo and not for the delict of Foronda. The trial court had jurisdiction and was competent to decide the case in favor of Tuazon and against Mrs. Cerezo even in the absence of Foronda. Contrary to Mrs. Cerezos contention, Foronda is not an indispensable party to the present case. It is not even necessary for Tuazon to reserve the filing of a separate civil action because he opted to file a civil action for damages against Mrs. Cerezo who is primarily and directly liable for her own civil negligence.

Cerezo V Tuazon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cerezo V Tuazon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cerezo V Tuazon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cerezo v. Tuazon GR No. 141538, 23 Mar 2004 Facts: A passenger bus collided w/ a tricycle.

You might also like