Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 193 views

    01 Barredo vs. Garcia Digest

    Uploaded by

    Nichole Lanuza
    This case involves a civil suit filed against Fausto Barredo, the owner of a taxi company, for damages resulting from the death of Faustino Garcia caused by the negligent driving of Pedro Fontanilla, one of Barredo's taxi drivers. Fontanilla was criminally convicted for the death. The court held Barredo primarily liable under Article 1903 of the Civil Code as Fontanilla's employer, rather than Fontanilla being solely liable under the Penal Code. The court found differences between criminal liability under the Penal Code and civil liability or "culpa aquiliana" under the Civil Code, and that plaintiffs could directly sue the employer for damages in a separate civil suit in addition to any criminal

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    01 Barredo vs. Garcia Digest

    Uploaded by

    Nichole Lanuza
    193 views1 page
    This case involves a civil suit filed against Fausto Barredo, the owner of a taxi company, for damages resulting from the death of Faustino Garcia caused by the negligent driving of Pedro Fontanilla, one of Barredo's taxi drivers. Fontanilla was criminally convicted for the death. The court held Barredo primarily liable under Article 1903 of the Civil Code as Fontanilla's employer, rather than Fontanilla being solely liable under the Penal Code. The court found differences between criminal liability under the Penal Code and civil liability or "culpa aquiliana" under the Civil Code, and that plaintiffs could directly sue the employer for damages in a separate civil suit in addition to any criminal

    Original Description:

    notes

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a civil suit filed against Fausto Barredo, the owner of a taxi company, for damages resulting from the death of Faustino Garcia caused by the negligent driving of Pedro Fontanilla, one of Barredo's taxi drivers. Fontanilla was criminally convicted for the death. The court held Barredo primarily liable under Article 1903 of the Civil Code as Fontanilla's employer, rather than Fontanilla being solely liable under the Penal Code. The court found differences between criminal liability under the Penal Code and civil liability or "culpa aquiliana" under the Civil Code, and that plaintiffs could directly sue the employer for damages in a separate civil suit in addition to any criminal

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    193 views1 page

    01 Barredo vs. Garcia Digest

    Uploaded by

    Nichole Lanuza
    This case involves a civil suit filed against Fausto Barredo, the owner of a taxi company, for damages resulting from the death of Faustino Garcia caused by the negligent driving of Pedro Fontanilla, one of Barredo's taxi drivers. Fontanilla was criminally convicted for the death. The court held Barredo primarily liable under Article 1903 of the Civil Code as Fontanilla's employer, rather than Fontanilla being solely liable under the Penal Code. The court found differences between criminal liability under the Penal Code and civil liability or "culpa aquiliana" under the Civil Code, and that plaintiffs could directly sue the employer for damages in a separate civil suit in addition to any criminal

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Barredo vs.

    Garcia
    G.R. No. L-48006 July 8, 1942

    FACTS:

    This case comes up from the Court of Appeals which held the petitioner herein, Fausto
    Barredo, liable in damages for the death of Faustino Garcia caused by the negligence of Pedro
    Fontanilla, a taxi driver employed by said Fausto Barredo. A criminal action was filed against
    Fontanilla in the CFI, and he was convicted and sentenced. The court in the criminal case
    granted the petition that the right to bring a separate civil action be reserved. The parents of the
    deceased brought an action in the CFI against Fausto Barredo as the sole proprietor of the
    Malate Taxicab and employer of Pedro Fontanilla. The CFI awarded damages in favor of the
    plaintiffs The main theory of the defense is that the liability of Fausto Barredo is governed by the
    Revised Penal Code; hence, his liability is only subsidiary, and as there has been no civil action
    against Pedro Fontanilla, the person criminally liable, Barredo cannot be held responsible in the
    case.

    ISSUES:

    Whether the plaintiffs may bring a separate civil action against Fausto Barredo, thus
    making him primarily and directly, responsible under article 1903 of the Civil Code as an employer
    of Pedro Fontanilla?

    HELD:

    Yes. Some of the differences between crimes under the Penal Code and the culpa
    aquiliana or cuasi-delito under the Civil Code are: 1. That crimes affect the public interest, while
    cuasi-delitos are only of private concern. 2. That, consequently, the Penal Code punishes or
    corrects the criminal act, while the Civil Code, by means of indemnification, merely repairs the
    damage. 3. That delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts, because the former are punished only
    if there is a penal law clearly covering them, while the latter, cuasi-delitos, include all acts in which
    "any king of fault or negligence intervenes."

    Firstly, the Revised Penal Code in article 365 punishes not only reckless but also simple
    imprudence. if we were to hold that articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code refer only to fault or
    negligence not punished by law, according to the literal import of article 1093 of the Civil Code,
    the legal institution of culpa aquiliana would have very little scope and application in actual life.
    Secondly, to find the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is
    required, while in a civil case, preponderance of evidence is sufficient to make the defendant pay
    in damages. Thirdly, to hold that there is only one way to make defendants liability effective, and
    that is, to sue the driver and exhaust his (the latter's) property first, would be tantamount to
    compelling the plaintiff to follow a devious and cumbersome method of obtaining a relief.
    Fourthly, because of the broad sweep of the provisions of both the Penal Code and the Civil Code
    on this subject, which has given rise to overlapping or concurrence of spheres already discussed,
    and for lack of understanding of the character and efficacy of the action for culpaaquiliana there
    has grown up a common practice to seek damages only by virtue of the Civil responsibility arising
    from crime

    You might also like