BARREDO VS.

GARCIA no civil actions were made against the driver of the

taxicab, the person criminally liable.
Parties: Fausto Barredo (employer of Pedro
Fontanilla, the taxi driver allegedly responsible for the The Court ruled that there were two liabilities of
death of Faustino Garcia) and Severino Garcia and Barredo: first, the subsidiary one because of the civil
Timotea Alamaro (parents of the deceased) liability of the taxi driver arising from the latter's
criminal negligence; and, second, Barredo's primary
Facts of the Case: At about 1:30 am of May 3, 1936, liability as an employer under Art. 1903. The plaintiffs
on the road between Malabon and Navotas, Province were free to choose which course to take, and they
of Rizal, there was a head-on collision between a taxi preferred the second remedy. In so doing, they were
of the Malate Taxicab driven by Pedro Fontanilla and acting within their rights.
a carretela guided by Pedro Dimapalis. The carretela
was overturned, and one of its passengers, 16-year- The Court has recognized how delicts and quasi-
old boy Faustino Garcia, suffered injuries from which delicts overlap, and that people resort to bringing
he died two days later. actions as quasi-delict because of the speedier
disposition of proceedings. The Court has seen the
Premise of Criminal Case: A criminal action was advantage of bringing a case under quasi-delict rather
filed against Fontanilla in the Court of First Instance of that criminal negligence as a way to protect private
Rizal, where he was convicted, which was affirmed by rights and efficaciously bring redress to the injured
the CA. party.

Premise of Quasi Delict Case: A civil action was ELCANO VS. HILL
filed against Fausto Barredo in the Court of First
Instance of Manila as the sole proprietor of the Malate Parties: Pedro Elcano and Patricia Elcano (parents of
Taxicab and employer of Pedro Fontanilla. deceased, Agapito Elcano) and Reginald Hill
(accused, minor) and Marvin Hill (father of accused,
Trial Court Decision: The Court of First Instance of minor)
Manila awarded damages in favor of the plaintiffs for
P2,000 plus legal interest from the date of the Facts of the Case: Reginald Hill, a minor, married at
complaint. that time but living under the guardianship of his
father, was accused of killing Agapito Elcano.
Thus, Barredo filed an appeal to the CA.
Premise of Criminal Case: A criminal action was
Defense of Barredo in CA: On appeal, the defense filed against Hill, but he was acquitted on the ground
argued that that the liability of Fausto Barredo is that his act was not criminal because of his lack of
governed by the Revised Penal Code; hence, his intent to kill, coupled with mistake.
liability is only subsidiary, as there has been no civil
action against Pedro Fontanilla (his property not yet Premise of Quasi Delict Case: Complainants Elcano
exhausted), the person criminally liable, Barredo filed a complaint for recovery of damages against
cannot be held responsible in this case. Reginald Hill and his father Marvin Hill, with who he
was living and getting subsistence at the CFI of QC.
Court of Appeals Decision: Held Barredo liable,
stating that the liability sought to be imposed against Thus, the Hills filed a motion to dismiss to, which
Fausto Barredo is not a civil obligation arising from a was denied.
felony or a misdemeanor, but an obligation ;imposed
in Article 1903 of the Civil Code by reason of his Defenses of the Hills:
negligence in the selection or supervision of his 1. The present action is not only against but a
servant or employee. violation of section 1, Rule 107, which is now Rule III,
of the Revised Rules of Court;
Issue in the SC: Whether or not Garcia can file a
separate civil action against Barredo, owner of the 2. The action is barred by a prior judgment which is
taxicab, and hold the latter primarily liable for the civil now final and or in res-adjudicata;
liability arising from quasi-delicts even though no civil
actions were made against the driver of the taxicab, 3. The complaint had no cause of action against
the person criminally liable. defendant Marvin Hill, because he was relieved as
guardian of the other defendant through emancipation
(Same defense in CA) by marriage.

Held: Yes. Garcia can file a separate civil action They then filed a motion for reconsideration to
against Barredo and hold the latter primarily liable for dismiss the case, which was granted by the CFI.
the civil liability arising from quasi-delicts even though
Issue/s in the SC:

Page 1 of 6
1. WON the present civil action for damages is barred living with his father and getting subsistence from him
by the acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case. at the time of the occurrence in question. Factually,
2. WON Article 2180 (2nd and last paragraphs) of the therefore, Reginald was still subservient to and
Civil Code may be applied against Atty. Hill, dependent on his father, a situation which is not
notwithstanding the undisputed fact that at the time of unusual.
the occurrence complained of. Reginald, though a
minor, living with and getting subsistence from his It must be borne in mind that, according to Manresa,
father, was already legally married. the reason behind the joint and solidary liability of
presuncion with their offending child under Article
Held (1): No, the present civil action for damages is 2180 is that is the obligation of the parent to supervise
not barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the criminal their minor children in order to prevent them from
case. The concept of culpa aquiliana includes acts causing damage to third persons. \
which are criminal in character or in violation of the Accordingly, in Our considered view, Article 2180
penal law, whether voluntary or matter. applies to Atty. Hill notwithstanding the emancipation
by marriage of Reginald.
ART. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence
under the preceding article is entirely separate and VIRATA VS. OCHOA
distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence
under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover Parties: Heirs of deceased, Arsenio Virata and
damages twice for the same act or omission of the Victorio Ochoa (owner of passenger jeepney driven
defendant. by Maximo Borilla)

On the onther hand, Article 2176, where it refers to Facts of the Case: On September 24, 1975 one
"fault or negligencia covers not only acts "not Arsenio Virata died as a result of having been
punishable by law" but also acts criminal in character, bumped while walking along Taft Avenue, Pasay City
whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. by a passenger jeepney driven by Maximo Borilla and
Consequently, a separate civil action lies against the registered in the name Of Victoria Ochoa.
offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is
criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted. Premise of Criminal Case: An action for homicide
through reckless imprudence was instituted on
Moreover, there is a distinction as regards the proof September 25, 1975 against Maximo Borilla in the
required in a criminal case and a civil case. To find Court of First Instance of Rizal at Pasay City
the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt
beyond reasonable doubt is required, while in a civil Premise of Quasi Delict Case: The heirs of Arsenio
case, preponderance of evidence is sufficient to make also commenced a civil action for damages based on
the defendant pay in damages. quasi-delict against Borilla and Ochoa, resondents
herein in the CFI of Cavite.
Furthermore, a civil case for damages on the basis of
quasi-delict does is independently instituted from a Thus, Borilla and Ochoa filed a motion to dismiss.
criminal act. As such the acquittal of Reginald Hill in
the criminal case has not extinguished his liability for Defense of Borilla and Ochoa: There is another
quasi-delict, hence that acquittal is not a bar to the action (the criminal case), pending between the same
instant action against him. parties for the same cause (double jeopardy).

Held (2): No, the conclusion of appellees that Atty. Decision of Criminal Case: Borilla was acquitted on
Hill is already free from responsibility cannot be the ground that it was an accident.
upheld. While it is true that parental authority is
terminated upon emancipation of the child (Article Decision of Quasi Delict Case: motion for damages
327, Civil Code), and under Article 397, emancipation was granted.
takes place "by the marriage of the minor (child)", it is,
however, also clear that pursuant to Article 399, Issue: Whether or not the heirs of the Arsenio
emancipation by marriage of the minor is not really full Virata, can prosecute an action for the
or absolute. damages based on quasi-delict against Maximo
Borilla and Victoria Ochoa, driver and owner,
Now under Article 2180, "(T)he obligation imposed by respectively on the passenger jeepney that bumped
article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own Arsenio Virata.
acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for
whom one is responsible. The father and, in case of Held: Yes. In negligence cases the aggrieved parties
his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible may choose between an action under the Revised
for the damages caused by the minor children who Penal Code or of quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the
live in their company." In the instant case, it is not Civil Code of the Philippines. What is prohibited by
controverted that Reginald, although married, was Article 2177 of the Civil Code of the Philippines is to

Page 2 of 6
recover twice for the same negligent act. The civil indemnity is provided for by Batas Pambansa Blg.
extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (c) of 22 for which a private party or prosecutor may
Section 3, Rule 111, refers exclusively to civil liability intervene.
founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code,
whereas the civil liability for the same act considered Defense of Banal: Relies on the legal axiom that
as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not "Every man criminally liable is also civilly liable,"
extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal contends that indemnity may be recovered from the
case that the criminal act charged has not happened offender regardless of whether or not Batas
or has not been committed by the accused. The Pambansa Blg. 22 so provides.
acquittal of the driver, Maximo Borilla, of the crime
charged is not a bar to the prosecution of Civil Case Held: Yes. Generally, the basis of civil liability arising
for damages based on quasi-delict The source of the from crime is the fundamental postulate of our law
obligation sought to be enforced in Civil Case No. B- that "Every man criminally liable is also civilly liable"
134 is quasi-delict, not an act or omission punishable (Art. 100, The Revised Penal Code).
by law. Under Article 1157 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, quasi-delict and an act or omission Underlying this legal principle is the traditional theory
punishable by law are two different sources of that when a person commits a crime he offends two
obligation. entities namely ( 1) the society in which he lives in or
the political entity called the State whose law he had
BANAL VS. TADEO violated; and (2) the individual member of that society
whose person, right, honor, chastity or property was
Parties: Charmina Banal (complainant against actually or directly injured or damaged by the same
Claudio) and (Hon. Tomas Tadeo (presiding judge of punishable act or omission.
RTC, QC)
What gives rise to the civil liability is really the
Facts of the Case: Fifteen (15) separate informations obligation and the moral duty of everyone to repair or
for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 or the make whole the damage caused to another by reason
Bouncing Checks Law were filed against respondent of his own act or omission, done intentionally or
Rosario Claudio before the Regional Trial Court of negligently, whether or not the same be punishable by
Quezon City, originally assigned to Branch 84. law. In other words, criminal liability will give rise to
civil liability only if the same felonious act or omission
The presiding judge of Branch 84 inhibited himself results in damage or injury to another and is the direct
when Claudio, through counsel, filed a petition for and proximate cause thereof.
recuse.
Such is not the case in criminal actions for, to be
So, the case was re-raffled and then assigned to criminally liable, it is enough that the act or omission
Branch 105. After the pre-trial was set, Judge Johnico complained of is punishable, regardless of whether or
Serquina was replaced by Judge Tomas Tadeo as the not it also causes material damage to another.
presiding judge. (mala prohibita)

On January 8, 1987, the respondent court issued an Article 20 of the New Civil Code provides: Every
order rejecting the appearance of Atty. Nicolito L. person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently
Bustos as private prosecutor on the ground that the causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter
charge is for the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for the same.
which does not provide for any civil liability or
indemnity and hence, "it is not a crime against Regardless, therefore, of whether or not a special law
property but public order." so provides, indemnification of the offended party may
be had on account of the damage, loss or injury
Premise of Petition for Review on Certiorari: Banal directly suffered as a consequence of the wrongful act
filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied so of another.
he filed this petition.
Civil liability to the offended private party cannot thus
Issue: Whether or not the respondent Court acted be denied, the payee of the check is entitled to
with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of its receive the payment of money for which the worthless
jurisdiction in rejecting the appearance of a private check was issued. Having been caused the damage,
prosecutor. she is entitled to recompense.

Defense of Respondent Court: Batas Pambansa OCCENA VS. ICAMINA

Blg. 22 punishes the act of knowingly issuing
worthless checks as an offense against public order. Parties: Eulogio Occena (complainant) and Hon.
As such, it is argued that it is the State and the public Pedro Icamina (presiding judge of Branch X of RTC,
that are the principal complainants and, therefore, no Antique)

Page 3 of 6
Facts of the Case: Eulogio Occena filed a criminal Article 2219, par. (7) of the Civil Code allows the
complaint at the Second MTC of San Regimo, recovery of moral damages in case of libel, slander or
Belison, Antique for Grave Oral Defamation against any other form of defamation This provision of law
private respondent Cristina Vegafria alleging that the establishes the right of an offended party in a case for
latter had openly, publicly and maliciously insulted him oral defamation to recover from the guilty party
by uttering that he is a “foolish Barangay Captain, damages for injury to his feelings and reputation. The
traitor, tyrant and Judas” which caused great and offended party is likewise allowed to recover punitive
irreparable injury to his person and honor. or exemplary damages.

After trial, Cristina was found guilty of Slight Oral It must be remembered that every defamatory
Defamation and was sentenced to pay the fine of Php. imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be
50. However, the trial court did not award damages to true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for
petitioner stating that the facts and circumstances did making it is shown. And malice may be inferred from
not warrant the awarding of moral damages. the style and tone of publication subject to certain
exceptions which are not present in the case at bar.
Premise of Appeal to RTC: Occena sought relief Calling petitioner who was a barangay captain an
from the Regional Trial Court which was denied. ignoramus, traitor, tyrant and Judas is clearly an
imputation of defects in petitioner’s character
Premise of Petition for Review on Certiorari: With sufficient to cause him embarrassment and social
the relief form the RTC denied, Occena filed a petition humiliation. Petitioner testified to the feelings of
for review on certiorari seeking to annul the RTC shame and anguish he suffered as a result of the
decision. incident complained of.

Defense of Occena: The RTC decision is contrary to PACIS VS. MORALES

Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code providing that
every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly Parties: Alfredo and Cleopatra Pacis (parents of
liable, and Article 2219 of the New Civil Code deceased, Alfred Dennis Pacis) and Jerome Morales
providing that moral damages may be recovered in (owner of Tog gun Firearms Ammunition Store, where
libel, slander or any other form of defamation. the deceased was shot)

Issue: Whether or not Occena is entitled to an award Facts of the Case: Alfred Dennis Pacis, then 17
of damages arising from the remarks uttered by years old and a first year student at the Baguio
private respondent and found by the trial court to be Colleges Foundation taking up BS Computer Science,
defamatory. died due to a gunshot wound in the head which he
sustained while he was at the Top Gun Firearm[s] and
Held: Yes. As a general rule, a person who is found Ammunition[s] Store (owned by Jerome Morales) by a
to be criminally liable offends two (2) entities: the state gun brought in by a customer of the gun store for
or society in which he lives and the individual member repair.
of the society or private person who was injured or
damaged by the punishable act or omission. Defendant Morales was in Manila at the time. His
employee Armando Jarnague, who was the regular
Civil obligations arising from criminal offenses are caretaker of the gun store was also not around. He
governed by Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code left earlier and requested sales agents Matibag and
which provides that "(E)very person criminally liable Herbolario to look after the gun store while he and
for a felony is also civilly liable," in relation to Article defendant Morales were away. Jarnague entrusted to
2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delict, the provisions Matibag and Herbolario a bunch of keys used in the
for independent civil actions in the Chapter on Human gun store which included the key to the drawer where
Relations and the provisions regulating damages, also the fatal gun was kept.
found in the Civil Code.
It appears that Matibag and Herbolario later brought
The offense of which private respondent was found out the gun from the drawer and placed it on top of
guilty is not one of those felonies where no civil the table. Attracted by the sight of the gun, the young
liability results because either there is no offended Alfred Dennis Pacis got hold of the same. Matibag
party or no damage was caused to a private person. asked Alfred Dennis Pacis to return the gun. The
There is here an offended party, whose main latter followed and handed the gun to Matibag. It went
contention precisely is that he suffered damages in off, the bullet hitting the young Alfred in the head.
view of the defamatory words and statements uttered
by private respondent, in the amount of Ten Premise of Criminal Case: A criminal case for
Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) as moral damages and homicide was filed against Matibag. Matibag,
the further sum of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000) as however, was acquitted of the charge against him
exemplary damages.

Page 4 of 6
because of the exempting circumstance of “accident”
under Art. 12, par. 4 of the RPC. Indeed, a higher degree of care is required. As a gun
store owner, respondent is presumed to be
Civil Liability of Morales: Trial court ordered knowledgeable about firearms safety and should have
Morales to indemnify the complainants or the death of known never to keep a loaded weapon in his store to
Alfred, actual damages for the hospitalization and avoid unreasonable risk of harm or injury to others.
burial, expenses incurred by the plaintiffs, Respondent has the duty to ensure that all the guns in
compensatory damages. his store are not loaded.

Thus, Morales appealed to the CA, which reversed

the decision and absolved respondent from civil CASUPANAN VS. LAROYA
liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
Parties: Mario Laroya (driver of one of the vehicles)
CA Ruling: Respondent cannot be held civilly liable and Avelino Casupanan (driver of the vehicle owned
since there was no employer-employee relationship by Roberto Capitulo)
between respondent and Matibag since the element
of control is absent. Thus, Article 2180 of the Civil Facts of the Case: Two vehicles, one driven by
Code does not apply in this case and respondent Laroya and the other owned by Capitulo and driven by
cannot be held liable. Casupanan, figured in an accident.

Likewise, their MR was denied. Premise of Criminal Case: Laroya filed a criminal
case against Casupanan for reckless imprudence
Issue: Whether or not Morales can be held civilly resulting in damage to property.
liable for the shooting of Alfred.
Premise of Quasi-Delict Case: While the criminal
Held: Yes. This case for damages arose out of the case was at its preliminary investigation stage,
accidental shooting of petitioners’ son. Under Article Casupanan and Capitulo filed a civil case against
116110 of the Civil Code, petitioners may enforce Laroya for quasi-delict.
their claim for damages based on the civil liability
arising from the crime under Article 10011 of the Thus, Laroya filed a motion to dismiss which was
Revised Penal Code or they may opt to file an granted.
independent civil action for damages under the Civil
Code. In this case, instead of enforcing their claim for Defense of Laroya for MD: That petitioners engaged
damages in the homicide case filed against Matibag, in forum shopping, considering the pendency of the
petitioners opted to file an independent civil action for criminal case.
damages against respondent whom they alleged was
Matibag’s employer. Petitioners based their claim for Casupanan and Capitulo filed a motion for
damages under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil reconsideration but was denied.
Code.
Defense of Casupanan and Capitulo for MR: The
Unlike the subsidiary liability of the employer under civil case is a separate civil action which can proceed
Article 10312 of the Revised Penal Code,13 the independently of the criminal case.
liability of the employer, or any person for that matter,
under Article 2176 of the Civil Code is primary and Petitioners therefore filed a petition for certiorari under
direct, based on a person’s own negligence. Article Rule 65 before the RTC.
2176 states:
RTC Decision: The RTC ruled that the order of
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes dismissal issued by the MCTC is a final order which
damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is disposes of the case and therefore the proper remedy
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or should have been an appeal.
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called quasi-delict and Issue: Whether or not Whether an accused in a
is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. pending criminal case for reckless imprudence can
validly file, simultaneously and independently, a
This case involves the accidental discharge of a separate civil action for quasi-delict against the private
firearm inside a gun store. Under PNP Circular No. 9, complainant in the criminal case.
entitled the “Policy on Firearms and Ammunition
Dealership/Repair,” a person who is in the business of Held: Yes. There was no forum shopping in this case.
purchasing and selling of firearms and ammunition Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, the
must maintain basic security and safety requirements independent civil action in Articles 32, 33, 34 and
of a gun dealer, otherwise his License to Operate 2176 of the Civil Code is not deemed instituted with
Dealership will be suspended or canceled. the criminal action but may be filed separately by the

Page 5 of 6
offended party even without reservation. The
commencement of the criminal action does not
suspend the prosecution of the independent civil
action under these articles of the Civil Code. The
suspension in Section 2 of the present Rule 111
refers only to the civil action arising from the crime, if
such civil action is reserved or filed before the
commencement of the criminal action.

Thus, The two cases can proceed simultaneously and

independently of each other. The commencement or
prosecution of the criminal action will not suspend the
civil action for quasi-delict. The only limitation is that
the offended party cannot recover damages twice for
the same act or omission of the defendant.

Similarly, the accused can file a civil action for quasi-

delict for the same act or omission he is accused of in
the criminal case. This is expressly allowed in
paragraph 6, Section 1 of the present Rule 111 which
states that the counterclaim of the accused may be
litigated in a separate civil action.

This is only fair for two reasons. First, the accused is

prohibited from setting up any counterclaim in the civil
aspect that is deemed instituted in the criminal case.
Second, the accused, who is presumed innocent, has
a right to invoke Article 2177 of the Civil Code, in the
same way that the offended party can avail of this
remedy which is independent of the criminal action.

Page 6 of 6