Barredo vs. Garcia, G.R. No. L-48006, July 8, 1942 2.

May Barredo be held

SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 primarily liable as the
employer for Fontanilla’s
DOCTRINE: negligence? YES – YES.

Plaintiffs may choose bring cause of action under RATIO:

the Civil Code (as quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana)
rather than the Penal Code for practical purposes. Petitioners may institute separate civil action to
Employer is primarily (instead of subsidiarily) recover damages.
liable, as it was shown that he had not exercised the
standard of diligence required by the Civil Code Petitioners are seeking to recover damages not as a
over his employee. result of the felony (delito), but as a result of a
quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana). The latter is
FACTS: recognized by the civil code as a separate legal
concept.
On May 3, 1936, a Malate Taxicab driven by Pedro
Fontanilla collided with a carriage that had Faustino The court has recognizes how delicts and quasi-
Garcia as passenger. The latter died two days later delicts overlap, and people resort to bringing actions
due to the injuries he sustained. as quasi-delict because of the speedier disposition of
proceedings. The court sees the advantage of
Garcia’s parents brought a criminal action against bringing a case under quasi-delict rather that
Fontanilla before the Court of First Instance of criminal negligence as a way to protect private
Rizal, which found him guilty of the charge. The rights and efficaciously bring redress to the injured
court likewise granted the petition to reserve the party.
right to bring a separate civil action.
Barredo is primarily/directly/principally liable.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed ruling in the
criminal case. Meanwhile, the civil action was Since the present action is a separate civil suit and
instituted in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of not an action to recover damages arising from
Manila against Fontanilla and his employer Fausto criminal liability, Barredo’s negligence under the
Barredo. CFI of Manila awarded damages to the Civil Code provision invoked makes him directly
parents worth 2,000 plus legal interest. CA reduced liable.
the amount to 1k.
Preponderance of evidence is sufficient to prove his
Barredo’s responsibility hinged on his failure to negligence (instead of beyond reasonable doubt)
abide by the standard set by the Civil Code which is because the case at bar is a civil action.
that of exercising care as a good father of a family.
Under this, Barredo is primarily liable.

Defendants assert that Barredo is only subsidiarily

liable under Art. 100 of the RPC since Fontanilla
was found guilty under that said law.

ISSUES:

1. May the petitioners

institute a separate civil
action against the
respondents? – YES.
Barredo v Garcia (Torts) making him primarily and directly, responsible
under article 1903 of the Civil Code as an
employer of Pedro thus making him primarily
and directly, responsible under article 1903 of
BARREDO V GARCIA G.R. No. L-48006 July the Civil Code as an employer of Pedro
8, 1942 FAUSTO BARREDO, petitioner, vs. Fontanilla
SEVERINO GARCIA and TIMOTEA
ALMARIO, respondents.
RULING:
Yes.
FACTS:
The responsibility in question is imposed on the
At about half past one in the morning of May 3,
occasion of a crime or fault, but not because of
1936, on the road between Malabon and
the same, but because of the cuasi- delito, that
Navotas, Province of Rizal, there was a head-
is to say, the imprudence or negligence of the
on collision between a taxi of the Malate
father, guardian, proprietor or manager of the
Taxicab driven by Pedro Fontanilla and a
establishment, of the teacher, etc. Whenever
carretela guided by Pedro Dimapalis. The
anyone of the persons enumerated in the
carretela was overturned, and one of its
article referred to (minors, incapacitated
passengers, 16-year-old boy Faustino Garcia,
persons, employees, apprentices) causes any
suffered injuries from which he died two days
damage, the law presumes that the father,
later. A criminal action was filed against
guardian, teacher, etc. have committed an act
Fontanilla in the Court of First Instance of
of negligence in not preventing or avoiding the
Rizal.
damage. It is this fault that is condemned by
the law.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS (CRIMINAL
One is not responsible for the acts of others,
CASE):
because one is liable only for his own faults,
1. CFI- Rizal – Fontanilla was convicted and
this being the doctrine of article 1902; but, by
sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of one
exception, one is liable for the acts of those
year and one day to two years of prision
persons with whom there is a bond or tie which
correccional. The court in the criminal case
gives rise to the responsibility.
granted the petition that the right to bring a
separate civil action be reserved.
2. CA: affirmed the sentence of the lower court
in the criminal case. Crimes under penal code
Severino Garcia and Timotea Almario, parents 1. affect public interest
of the deceased on March 7, 1939, brought an 2. Penal Code punishes or corrects the criminal
action in the Court of First Instance of Manila act
against Fausto Barredo as the sole proprietor 3. not as broad as quasi-delicts because
of the Malate Taxicab and employer of Pedro crimes are punished only if there is a penal law
Fontanilla. clearly covering them
4. proof beyond reasonable doubt is required
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS (CIVIL
CASE):
1. CFI – Manila: Fausto Barredo is liable in Culpa aquiliana / Cuasi-delito
damages for the death of Faustino Garcia
caused by negligence of Pedro Fontanilla, a 1. Only of private concern
taxi driver employed by Barredo in the amount 2. Civil Code, by means of indemnification,
of 2,000. merely repairs the damage (includes both
2. CA: reduced the damages to 1,000. reckless and simple negligence)
3. include all acts in which “any kind of fault or
ISSUE: negligence intervenes”
Whether the plaintiffs may bring this separate when there is exercise of the care and
civil action against Fausto Barredo, thus diligence of a good father of a family, the
presumption is overcome and he is relieved preceeding article is demandable, not only for
from liability. personal acts and omissions, but also for those
of the persons for whom they should be
4. only preponderance of evidence is required responsible.
"The father, and on his death or incapacity, the
Note: not all violations of the penal law produce mother, is liable for the damages caused by the
civil responsibility. minors who live with them.
xxx xxx xxx "Owners or directors of an
The action against the principal is accessory in establishment or enterprise are equally liable
the sense that it implies the existence of a for the damages caused by their employees in
prejudicial act committed by the employee, but the service of the branches in which the latter
it is not subsidiary in the sense that it can not may be employed or in the performance of their
be instituted till after the judgment against the duties. xxx xxx xxx
author of the act or at least, that it is subsidiary "The liability referred to in this article shall
to the principal action; the action for cease when the persons mentioned therein
responsibility (of the employer) is in itself a prove that they employed all the diligence of a
principal action. (Laurent, Principles of French good father of a family to avoid the damage."
Civil Law) The basis of civil law liability is not
respondent superior but the relationship of the same act of negligence being a proper
pater familias. This theory bases the liability of subject-matter either of a criminal action
the master ultimately on his own negligence with its consequent civil liability arising
and not on that of his servant. A quasi-delict from a crime or of an entirely separate and
or culpa extra-contractual is a separate and independent civil action for fault or
distinct legal institution, independent from negligence under article 1902 of the Civil
the civil responsibility arising from criminal Code. Thus, in this jurisdiction, the
liability, and that an employer is, under separate individually of a cuasi-delito or
article 1903 of the Civil Code, primarily and culpa aquiliana under the Civil Code has
directly responsible for the negligent acts been fully and clearly recognized, even with
of his employee. regard to a negligent act for which the
wrongdoer could have been prosecuted and
Thus, there were two liabilities of Barredo: first, convicted in a criminal case and for which,
the subsidiary one because of the civil liability after such a conviction, he could have been
of the taxi driver arising from the latter's sued for this civil liability arising from his
criminal negligence; and, second, Barredo's crime.
primary liability as an employer under article
1903. The plaintiffs were free to choose which
course to take, and they preferred the second
remedy. In so doing, they were acting within
their rights. It might be observed in passing,
that the plaintiff choose the more expeditious
and effective method of relief, because
Fontanilla was either in prison, or had just been
released, and besides, he was probably
without property which might be seized in
enforcing any judgment against him for
damages.
Section 1902 of that chapter reads: "A person
who by an act or omission causes damage to
another when there is fault or negligence shall
be obliged to repair the damage so done.
"SEC. 1903. The obligation imposed by the
 PEDRO ELCANO and PATRICIA a distinction as regards the proof required in
ELCANO, in their capacity a criminal case and a civil case. To find the
as Ascendants of accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt
AgapitoElcano, deceased,plaintiffs- beyond reasonable doubt is required, while in a
appellants, civil case, preponderance of evidence is
sufficient to make the defendant pay
vs. in damages. Furthermore, a civil case
for damages on the basis of quasi-delict does is
REGINALD HILL, minor, and MARVIN independently instituted from a criminal act.
HILL, as father and Natural Guardian of As such the acquittal of Reginald Hill in
said minor, defendants-appellees. the criminal case has not extinguished his
liability for quasi-delict, hence that acquittal is
G.R. No. L-24803 [May 26, 1977] not a bar to the instant action against him.

Facts of the Case: 2. Yes, the above mentioned provision may still
be applied against Atty Marvin Hill. Although
Respondent Reginald Hill killed the son of the parental authority is terminated
plaintiffs named Agapito Elcano. A criminal upon emancipation of the
complaint was instituted against him but he child, emancipation by marriage is not
was acquitted on the ground that his act was absolute, i.e. he can sue and be sued in court
not criminal, because of lack of intent to kill, only with the assistance of his father, mother or
couple with mistake. Subsequently, plaintiffs guardian. As in the present case, killing
filed a complaint for recovery someone else contemplated judicial litigation,
of damages against defendantReginald Hill, a thus, making Article 2180 apply to Atty.
minor, married at the time of the occurrence, [Link], inasmuch as it is evident that
and his father, the defendant Marvin Hill, with Reginald is now of age, as a matter of equity,
who he was living and getting subsistence, for the liability of Atty. Hill has become milling,
the same killing. A motion to dismiss was filed subsidiary to that of his son.
by the defendants. The Court of First Instance
of Quezon City denied the motion.
Nevertheless, the civil case was finally Torts And Damages
dismissed upon motion for reconsideration.
Case Digest: Pedro
Issues:
Elcano, Et Al., V. Reginal
1. WON the present civil action for damages is
barred by the acquittal of Reginald in Hill Et Al. (1977)
the criminal case.
G.R. No. L-24803 May 26, 1977
2. WON Article 2180 (2nd and last paragraphs) Laws Applicable: ART. 2177,Article 397,article
of the Civil Code may be appliedagainst Atty. 1093,Article 2180 of the Civil Code
Hill, notwithstanding the undisputed fact that
Lessons Applicable: Quasi-delict (Tort and
at the time of the occurrence complained of.
Reginald, though a minor, living with and Damages)
getting subsistence from his father, was already
legally married. FACTS:
 Reginald Hill, a minor, married but living
Ruling of the Court:
with his father, Atty. Marvin Hill with whom
1. No, the present civil action for damages is he was living and getting subsistence
not barred by the acquittal of Reginald in killed Agapito Elcano
the criminal case. Firstly, there is
 CFI Civil Case: dismissed on the ground Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover
that he was acquitted on the ground that damages twice for the same act or
his act was not criminal, because of "lack of omission of the defendant.
intent to kill, coupled with mistake  in reiteration of Garcia, that culpa
 Spouses Elcano appealed aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent
ISSUES: acts which may be punishable by law
1. W/N the civil action should be barred by  It results, therefore, that the acquittal of
the acquittal of criminal action - NO Reginal Hill in the criminal case has not
2. W/N the Civil Code can be applied to extinguished his liability for quasi-delict,
Atty. Marvin Hill even though Reginald is hence that acquittal is not a bar to the
already married -YES instant action against him.
HELD: order appealed from is reversed 2. YES
 While it is true that parental authority is terminated
upon emancipation of the child (Article 327, Civil
1. NO. Code), and under Article 397, emancipation takes place
 separate individuality of a cuasi- "by the marriage of the minor (child)", it is, however,
delito or culpa aquiliana, under the Civil also clear that pursuant to Article 399, emancipation by
Code has been fully and clearly recognized, marriage of the minor is not really full or absolute.
even with regard to a negligent act for Thus "(E)mancipation by marriage or by voluntary
which the wrongdoer could have been concession shall terminate parental authority over the
prosecuted and convicted in a criminal case child's person. It shall enable the minor to administer
and for which, after such a conviction, he his property as though he were of age, but he cannot
could have been sued for this civil liability borrow money or alienate or encumber real property
arising from his crime. without the consent of his father or mother, or
 If we were to hold that articles 1902 to guardian. He can sue and be sued in court only with the
1910 of the Civil Code refer only to fault or assistance of his father, mother or guardian."
negligence not punished by law,
accordingly to the literal import of article  Article 2180, "(T)he obligation imposed by
1093 of the Civil Code, the legal institution article 2176 is demandable not only for
of culpa aquiliana would have very little one's own acts or omissions, but also for
scope and application in actual life those of persons for whom one is
 to find the accused guilty in a criminal case, responsible
proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is  the marriage of a minor child does not
required, while in a civil case, relieve the parents of the duty to see to it
preponderance of evidence is sufficient to that the child, while still a minor, does not
make the defendant pay in damages. . give answerable for the borrowings of
Otherwise. there would be many instances money and alienation or encumbering of
of unvindicated civil wrongs. "Ubi jus real property which cannot be done by their
Idemnified remedium." minor married child without their consent
 ART. 2177. Responsibility for fault or  Reginald is now of age, as a matter of
negligence under the preceding article is equity, the liability of Atty. Hill has become
entirely separate and distinct from the civil milling, subsidiary to that of his son.
liability arising from negligence under the
Torts and Damages – Civil Liability from Quasi Delicts sued in court only with the assistance of his father,
vs Civil Liability from Crimes mother or guardian.” Therefore, Article 2180 is
applicable to Marvin Hill – the SC however ruled since
Reginald Hill, a minor, caused the death of Agapito
at the time of the decision, Reginald is already of
(son of Elcano). Elcano filed a criminal case against
age, Marvin’s liability should be subsidiary only – as a
Reginald but Reginald was acquitted for “lack of
matter of equity.
intent coupled with mistake.” Elcano then filed a civil
action against Reginald and his dad (Marvin Hill) for
damages based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Hill
argued that the civil action is barred by his son’s Equitable Leasing Corporation vs Suyom
acquittal in the criminal case; and that if ever, his civil 388 SCRA 445 (2002)
liability as a parent has been extinguished by the fact
that his son is already an emancipated minor by
reason of his marriage. Facts:
On July 17, 1994, a Fuso Road Tractor driven by
ISSUE: Whether or not Marvin Hill may be held civilly Raul Tutor rammed into the house cum store of
liable under Article 2180. Myrna Tamayo in Tondo, Manila. A portion of the
HELD: Yes. The acquittal of Reginald in the criminal house was destroyed which caused death and
case does not bar the filing of a separate civil action. injury. Tutor was charged with and later
convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in
A separate civil action lies against the offender in a
multiple homicide and multiple physical injuries.
criminal act, whether or not he is criminally
prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided Upon verification with the Land Transportation
that the offended party is not allowed, if accused is Office, it was known that the registered owner of
actually charged also criminally, to recover damages the tractor was Equitable Leasing
on both scores, and would be entitled in such Corporation/leased to Edwin Lim. On April 15,
eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, 1995, respondents filed against Raul Tutor,
assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. In Ecatine Corporation (Ecatine) and Equitable
other words, the extinction of civil liability referred to Leasing Corporation (Equitable) a Complaint for
in Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule 111, refers exclusively to damages.
civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised
Penal Code, whereas the civil liability for the same The petitioner alleged that the vehicle had
act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a already been sold to Ecatine and that the former
crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the was no longer in possession and control thereof
criminal case that the criminal act charged has not at the time of the incident. It also claimed that
happened or has not been committed by the Tutor was an employee, not of Equitable, but of
Ecatine.
accused. Briefly stated, culpa aquiliana includes
voluntary and negligent acts which may be
Issue:
punishable by law. Whether or not the petitioner was liable for
While it is true that parental authority is terminated damages based on quasi delict for the negligent
upon emancipation of the child (Article 327, Civil acts.
Code), and under Article 397, emancipation takes
place “by the marriage of the minor child”, it is, Held:
however, also clear that pursuant to Article 399, The Lease Agreement between petitioner and
emancipation by marriage of the minor is not really Edwin Lim stipulated that it is the intention of the
parties to enter into a finance lease
full or absolute. Thus “Emancipation by marriage or
agreement. Ownership of the subject tractor was
by voluntary concession shall terminate parental
to be registered in the name of petitioner, until
authority over the child’s person. It shall enable the the value of the vehicle has been fully paid by
minor to administer his property as though he were Edwin Lim.
of age, but he cannot borrow money or alienate or
encumber real property without the consent of his Lim completed the payments to cover the full
father or mother, or guardian. He can sue and be price of the tractor. Thus, a Deed of Sale over the
tractor was executed by petitioner in favor of would move to the other side. Seeing that
Ecatine represented by Edwin Lim. However, the the pony was apparently quiet, the
Deed was not registered with the LTO.
defendant, instead of veering to the right
Petitioner is liable for the deaths and the injuries while yet some distance away or slowing
complained of, because it was the registered down, continued to approach directly
owner of the tractor at the time of the toward the horse without diminution of
[Link] Court has consistently ruled that, speed. When he had gotten quite near,
regardless of sales made of a motor vehicle, the there being then no possibility of the
registered owner is the lawful operator insofar as horse getting across to the other side, the
the public and third persons are concerned.
defendant quickly turned his car
Since Equitable remained the registered owner of sufficiently to the right to escape hitting
the tractor, it could not escape primary liability for the horse; but in so doing the automobile
the deaths and the injuries arising from the passed in such close proximity to the
negligence of the driver. animal that it became frightened and
turned its body across the bridge, got hit
by the car and the limb was broken. The
PICART vs. SMITH, JR. horse fell and its rider was thrown off
G.R. No. L-12219 with some violenceAs a result of its
March 15, 1918 injuries the horse died. The plaintiff
STREET, J.: received contusions which caused
FACTS: On the Carlatan Bridge in La temporary unconsciousness and required
Union. Picart was riding on his pony over medical attention for several days.
said bridge. Before he had gotten half way
across, Smith approached from the
opposite direction in an automobile. As From a judgment of the CFI of La Union
the defendant neared the bridge he saw a absolving Smith from liability Picart has
horseman on it and blew his horn to give appealed.
warning of his approach. He continued
his course and after he had taken the ISSUE: WON Smith was guilty of
bridge he gave two more successive blasts, negligence such as gives rise to a civil
as it appeared to him that the man on obligation to repair the damage done
horseback before him was not observing HELD: the judgment of the lower court
the rule of the road. must be reversed, and judgment is here
Picart saw the automobile coming and rendered that the Picart recover of Smith
heard the warning signals. However, damages
being perturbed by the novelty of the YES
apparition or the rapidity of the approach,
he pulled the pony closely up against the The test by which to determine the
railing on the right side of the bridge existence of negligence in a particular case
instead of going to the left. He says that may be stated as follows: Did the
the reason he did this was that he thought defendant in doing the alleged negligent
he did not have sufficient time to get over act use that person would have used in the
to the other side. As the automobile same situation? If not, then he is guilty of
approached, Smith guided it toward his negligence. The existence of negligence in
left, that being the proper side of the road a given case is not determined by
for the machine. In so doing the reference to the personal judgment of the
defendant assumed that the horseman
actor in the situation before him. The law himself on the wrong side of the road. But
considers what would be reckless, as we have already stated, Smith was also
blameworthy, or negligent in the man of negligent; and in such case the problem
ordinary intelligence and prudence and always is to discover which agent is
determines liability by that. The question immediately and directly responsible. It
as to what would constitute the conduct of will be noted that the negligent acts of the
a prudent man in a given situation must two parties were not contemporaneous,
of course be always determined in the since the negligence of the defendant
light of human experience and in view of succeeded the negligence of the plaintiff
the facts involved in the particular case. by an appreciable interval. Under these
circumstances the law is that the person
Could a prudent man, in the case under who has the last fair chance to avoid the
consideration, foresee harm as a result of impending harm and fails to do so is
the course actually pursued? If so, it was chargeable with the consequences,
the duty of the actor to take precautions to without reference to the prior negligence
guard against that harm. Reasonable of the other party.
foresight of harm, followed by ignoring of
the suggestion born of this prevision, is
always necessary before negligence can be
held to exist. Stated in these terms, the
proper criterion for determining the
existence of negligence in a given case is
this: Conduct is said to be negligent when Picart v Smith (Torts)
a prudent man in the position of the PICART V SMITH G.R. No. L-12219 March 15, 1918 AMADO
tortfeasor would have foreseen that an PICART, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FRANK SMITH,
effect harmful to another was sufficiently JR., defendant- appellee.

probable to warrant his foregoing conduct FACTS:

or guarding against its consequences. The plaintiff was riding on his pony over the Carlatan bridge in
La Union. Before he had gotten half way across, the defendant
approached from the opposite direction in an automobile, going
at the rate of about ten or twelve miles per hour. As the
Applying this test to the conduct of the defendant neared the bridge he saw a horseman on it and blew
defendant in the present case we think his horn to give warning of his approach. He continued his
course and after he had taken the bridge he gave two more
that negligence is clearly established. A successive blasts, as it appeared to him that the man on
prudent man, placed in the position of the horseback before him was not observing the rule of the road.
Seeing that the pony was apparently quiet, the defendant,
defendant, would in our opinion, have instead of veering to the right while yet some distance away or
recognized that the course which he was slowing down, continued to approach directly toward the horse
without diminution of speed.
pursuing was fraught with risk, and would The plaintiff, it appears, saw the automobile coming and heard
therefore have foreseen harm to the horse the warning signals. However, being perturbed by the novelty
of the apparition or the rapidity of the approach, he pulled the
and the rider as reasonable consequence pony closely up against the railing on the right side of the
of that course. Under these circumstances bridge instead of going to the left. He says that the reason he
did this was that he thought he did not have sufficient time to
the law imposed on the Smith the duty to get over to the other side. The automobile passed in such
guard against the threatened harm. close proximity to the animal that it became frightened and
turned its body across the bridge with its head toward the
railing. The horse fell and its rider was thrown off with some
violence.
It goes without saying that the plaintiff As a result of its injuries the horse died. The plaintiff received
himself was not free from fault, for he was contusions which caused temporary unconsciousness and
required medical attention for several days.
guilty of antecedent negligence in planting
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
1. CFI – La Union – absolved the defendant from liability. attempted to reach the other side, but
ISSUE: unfortunately he became the victim of his
whether or not the defendant in maneuvering his car in the own miscalculation.
manner above described was guilty of negligence such as
gives rise to a civil obligation to repair the damage done

RULING: The negligence imputed to MRC was thus

Yes, he is liable. ruled out by the lower court, satisfactory
The control of the situation had then passed entirely to the
defendant; and it was his duty either to bring his car to an proof to that effect, in its opinion, being
immediate stop or, seeing that there were no other persons on lacking. Hence this appeal direct to us, the
the bridge, to take the other side and pass sufficiently far away
from the horse to avoid the danger of collision. Instead of doing amount sought in the concept of damages
this, the defendant ran straight on until he was almost upon the reaching the sum of P282,065.40.
horse.
The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined
by reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the
situation before him. The law considers what would be ISSUE: WON the lower court’s decision is
reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary erroneous
intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that.
It goes without saying that the plaintiff himself was not free HELD: The decision of the lower court
from fault, for he was guilty of antecedent negligence in dismissing the complaint, is affirmed.
planting himself on the wrong side of the road. But as we have
already stated, the defendant was also negligent; and in such NO
case the problem always is to discover which agent is
immediately and directly responsible. It will be noted that the
negligent acts of the two parties were not contemporaneous, The lower court judgment has in its favor
since the negligence of the defendant succeeded the
negligence of the plaintiff by an appreciable interval. Under
the presumption of correctness. It is
these circumstances the law is that the person who has the last entitled to great respect. In the absence of
fair chance to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is
chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the
compelling reasons, [the factual]
prior negligence of the other party. determination is best left to the trial judge
why had the advantage of hearing the
parties testify and observing their
PRECIOLITA V. CORLISS vs. THE demeanor on the witness stand.”
MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY But more importantly, this action is
G.R. No. L-21291 predicated on negligence, the Civil Code
March 28, 1969 making clear that whoever by act or
FACTS: Ralph Corliss Jr. was an air omission causes damage to another, there
police of the Clark Air Force Base. The being negligence, is under obligation to
jeep he was driving while accompanied pay for the damage done. Unless it could
with a P.C. soldier, collided with a be satisfactorily shown, therefore, that
locomotive of Manila Railroad Company MRC was guilty of negligence then it
(MRC) close to midnight at the railroad could not be held liable. The crucial
crossing in Balibago, Angeles, Pampanga, question, therefore, is the existence of
in front of the Clark Air Force Base. negligence.
Corliss Jr. died of serious burns at the
hospital the next day, while the soldier Negligence was defined by us in two 1912
sustained serious physical injuries and decisions, United States v. Juanillo and
burns. United States v. Barias. Cooley’
In the decision appealed from, the lower formulation was quoted with approval in
court, after summarizing the evidence, both the Juanillo and Barias decisions.
concluded that the deceased “in his Thus: “Judge Cooley in his work on Torts
eagerness to beat, so to speak, the (3d ed.), Sec. 1324, defines negligence to
oncoming locomotive, took the risk and be:
“The failure to observe for the protection shooting incident inside the Top Gun
of the interests of another person that Firearms and Ammunitions Store in
degree of care, precaution and vigilance Baguio City. Morales is the owner of the
which the circumstance justly demand gun store.
whereby such other person suffers
injury.” On the fateful day, Alfred was in the gun
store, with Matibag and Herbolario as
There was likewise a reliance on Ahern v. sales agents and caretakers of the store
Oregon Telephone Co. Thus: ” while owner Morales was in Manila. The
gun which killed Alfred is a gun owned by
“Negligence is want of the care required a store customer which was left with
by the circumstances. It is a relative or Morales for repairs, which he placed
comparative, not an absolute term and its inside a drawer. Since Morales would be
application depends upon the situation of going to Manila, he left the keys to the
the parties and the degree of care and store with the caretakers. It appears that
vigilance which the circumstances the caretakers took the gun from the
reasonably require. Where the danger is drawer and placed it on top of a table.
great, a high degree of care is necessary, Attracted by the sight of the gun, the
and the failure to observe it is a want of young Alfred got hold of the same.
ordinary care under the circumstances.” Matibag asked Alfred to return the gun.
The latter followed and handed the gun to
Matibag. It went off, the bullet hitting the
To repeat, by such a test, no negligence young Alfred in the head.
could be imputed to MRC and the action
of Corliss must necessarily fail. The facts
being what they are, compel the A criminal case for homicide was filed
conclusion that the liability sought to be against Matibag. Matibag, however, was
fastened on MRC had not arisen. acquitted of the charge against him
because of the exempting circumstance of
“accident” under Art. 12, par. 4 of the
Finally, each and every case on questions RPC.
of negligence is to be decided in
accordance with the peculiar
circumstances that present themselves. By agreement of the parties, the evidence
There can be no hard and fast rule. There adduced in the criminal case for homicide
must be that observance of that degree of against Matibag was reproduced and
care, precaution, and vigilance which the adopted by them as part of their evidence
situation demands. in the instant case.

SPOUSES PACIS VS. MORALES The trial court rendered its decision in
G.R. No. 169467 favor of petitioners, ordering the
February 25, 2010 defendant to pay plaintiffs indemnity for
FACTS: petitioners filed with the trial the death of Alfred, actual damages for
court a civil case for damages against the hospitalization and burial, expenses
respondent Morales. incurred by the plaintiffs, compensatory
Petitioners are the parents of Alfred Pacis, damages, MD and AF.
a 17-year old student who died in a Respondent appealed to the CA, which
reversed the trial court’s Decision and This case involves the accidental
absolved respondent from civil liability discharge of a firearm inside a gun store.
under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. MR Under PNP Circular No. 9, entitled the
denied, hence this petition. “Policy on Firearms and Ammunition
Dealership/Repair,” a person who is in
ISSUE: Was Morales negligent? the business of purchasing and selling of
HELD: Petition granted. The CA decision firearms and ammunition must maintain
is set aside and the trial court’s Decision basic security and safety requirements of
reinstated. a gun dealer, otherwise his License to
YES Operate Dealership will be suspended or
This case for damages arose out of the canceled.
accidental shooting of petitioners’ son.
Under Article 1161 of the Civil Code, Indeed, a higher degree of care is required
petitioners may enforce their claim for of someone who has in his possession or
damages based on the civil liability arising under his control an instrumentality
from the crime under Article 100 of the extremely dangerous in character, such as
RPC or they may opt to file an dangerous weapons or substances. Such
independent civil action for damages person in possession or control of
under the Civil Code. In this case, instead dangerous instrumentalities has the duty
of enforcing their claim for damages in to take exceptional precautions to prevent
the homicide case filed against Matibag, any injury being done thereby. Unlike the
petitioners opted to file an independent ordinary affairs of life or business which
civil action for damages against involve little or no risk, a business dealing
respondent whom they alleged was with dangerous weapons requires the
Matibag’s employer. Petitioners based exercise of a higher degree of care.
their claim for damages under Articles
2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. As a gun store owner, respondent is
presumed to be knowledgeable about
** firearms safety and should have known
Unlike the subsidiary liability of the never to keep a loaded weapon in his store
employer under Article 103 of the RPC, to avoid unreasonable risk of harm or
the liability of the employer, or any injury to others. Respondent has the duty
person for that matter, under Article 2176 to ensure that all the guns in his store are
of the Civil Code is primary and direct, not loaded. Firearms should be stored
based on a person’s own negligence. unloaded and separate from ammunition
Article 2176 states: when the firearms are not needed for
ready-access defensive use. With more
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission reason, guns accepted by the store for
causes damage to another, there being repair should not be loaded precisely
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for because they are defective and may cause
the damage done. Such fault or an accidental discharge such as what
negligence, if there is no pre-existing happened in this case. Respondent was
contractual relation between the parties, clearly negligent when he accepted the
is called quasi-delict and is governed by gun for repair and placed it inside the
the provisions of this Chapter. drawer without ensuring first that it was
not loaded. In the first place, the defective
gun should have been stored in a vault.
Alfred died due to a gunshot wound in the head which he
Before accepting the defective gun for sustained while he was at gunstore. The bullet which
repair, respondent should have made sure killed Alfred was fired from a gun brought in by a
that it was not loaded to prevent any customer of the gun store for repair. The gun, was left by
Morales in a drawer of a table located inside the gun
untoward accident. Indeed, respondent store.
should never accept a firearm from
another person, until the cylinder or Morales as in Manila at the time. His employee Armando
Jarnague, who was the regular caretaker of the gun
action is open and he has personally store was also not around. Jarnague entrusted to
checked that the weapon is completely Matibag and Herbolario a bunch of keys which included
unloaded. For failing to insure that the the key to the drawer where the gun was kept. It appears
that Matibag and Herbolario later brought out the gun
gun was not loaded, respondent himself from the drawer and palced it in top of the table. Attacted
was negligent. Furthermore, it was not by it, Alfred got hold of it. Matibag asked Alfred to return
shown in this case whether respondent the gun. Alfred followed but it went off the bullet hitting
Alfred.
had a License to Repair which authorizes
him to repair defective firearms to restore The trial court held Morales civilly liable for the death of
its original composition or enhance or Alftred under A2180 in relation to A2176, ruling that the
accidental shooting of Alfred which caused his death
upgrade firearms. was partyl due to the negligence of Morales’ emplyee –
Matibag. CA reversed, ruling that there was no
employee-employer relationship because Matibag was
Clearly, respondent did not exercise the not under the control of Morales with respect to the
degree of care and diligence required of a means and methods in the performance of his worK,
good father of a family, much less the thus A2180 cannot apply. And even if Matibag was an
employee, Morales still cannot be held civilly liable
degree of care required of someone because there is no negligence can be attributed to
dealing with dangerous weapons, as Morales because he kept the gun.
would exempt him from liability in this
ISSUE: WON Morales is civilly liable?
case.
RULING: YES. Respondent was clearly negligent when
he accepted the gun for repair and placed it inside the
drawer without ensuring first that it was not loaded. For
failing to insure that the gun was not loaded, Morales
himself was negligent.
PACIS v MORALES
Under PNP Circular No. 9, entitled the “Policy on
Topic: Owners and managers of establishments and Firearms and Ammunition Dealership/Repair,” a person
enterprises who is in the business of purchasing and selling
of firearms and ammunition must maintain basic security
DOCTRINE: A higher degree of care is required of and safety requirements of a gun dealer, otherwise his
someone who has in his possession or under his control License to Operate Dealership will be suspended or
an instrumentality extremely dangerous in character, canceled.
such as dangerous weapons or substances. Such
person in possession or control of dangerous As a gun store owner, Morales is presumed to be
instrumentalities has the duty to take exceptional knowledgeable about firearms safety and should have
precautions to prevent any injury being done thereby. known never to keep a loaded weapon in his store to
Unlike the ordinary affairs of life or business which avoid unreasonable risk of harm or injury to others.
involve little or no risk, a business dealing with Morales has the duty to ensure that all the guns in his
dangerous weapons requires the exercise of a higher store are not loaded. Firearms should be stored
degree of care. unloaded and separate from ammunition when the
firearms are not needed for ready access defensive use.
FACTS: Alfredo Pacis and Cleopatra Pacis filed a civil
case for damages against Jerome Jovanne Morales. In the first place, the defective gun should have been
Spouses Paceis are the parents of Alfred, 17 y.o. who stored in a vault. Before accepting the defective gun for
died in a shooting incident inside the Top Gun Firearms repair, Morales should have made sure that it was not
and Ammunitions Store (gun store) in Baguio City. loaded to prevent any untoward accident. Indeed,
Morales is the owner. Morales should never accept a firearm from another
 person, until the cylinder or action is open and he has CAA contended that the elevation in question "had
personally checked that the weapon is completely a legitimate purpose for being on the terrace and
unloaded
was never intended to trip down people and injure
Clearly, Morales did not exercise the degree of care and them. It was there for no other purpose but to drain
diligence required of a good father of a family, much less water on the floor area of the terrace."
the The bullet which killed Alfred was fired from a gun
brought in by a customer of the gun store for repair. But upon ocular inspection by the trial court, it was
Choice of claim of petitioners
found that the terrace was in poor condition. Under
This case for damages arouse out of the accidental RA 776, the CAA is charged with the duty of
shoting of Alfred. Under A1161 of the Civil Code planning, designing, constructing, equipping,
petitioners may enforce their claim for damages based expanding, maintenance...etc. of the Manila
on the civil liability arising from the crime under Article International Airport.
100 of the RPC or they may opt to file an independent
civil action for damages under the Civil Code.
Responsibility of CAA
In this case, instead of enforcing their claim for damages
in the homicide case filed against Matibag, petitioners The SC held that pursuant to Art. 1173, "the fault or
opted to file an independent civil action for damages negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of
against respondent whom they alleged was Matibag’s
employer. Petitioners based their claim for damages
that diligence which is required by the nature of the
under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. obligation and corresponds with the circumstances
of the person, of the time, and of the place." Here,
DISPOSITIVE: Morales is civilly liable to petitioners the obligation of the CAA in maintaining the
because he was negligent. viewing deck, a facility open to the public, requires
that CAA insure the safety of the viewers using it.
As these people come to look to where the planes
G.R. No. L-51806, November 8, 1988 and the incoming passengers are and not to look
down on the floor or pavement of the viewing deck,
the CAA should have thus made sure that no
o TORTS: What constitutes "Negligence"; dangerous obstructions or elevations exist on the
"Contributory Negligence" defined floor of the deck to prevent any undue harm to the
public.
FACTS:
Contributory Negligence
Ernest E. Simke, a naturalized Filipino citizen, was
Honorary Consul General of Israel in the Under Art. 2179, contributory negligence
Philippines. He went to Manila International Airport contemplates a negligent act or omission on the part
to meet his future son-in-law. As the plane was of the plaintiff, which although not the proximate
landing, he and his companions went to the viewing cause of his injury, CONTRIBUTED to his own
deck to watch the arrival of the plane. While damage. The Court found no contributory
walking, Simke slipped on an elevation 4 inches negligence on the part of the plaintiff, considering
high and fell on his back, breaking his thigh bone in the following test formulated in the early case of
the process. He underwent a 3-hour operation and Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil. 809 (1918):
after recovery he filed a claim for damages against
the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA), which The test by which to determine the existence of
was the government entity in charge of the airport. negligence in a particular case may be stated as
follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged
ISSUE: negligent act use that reasonable care and caution
which an ordinarily prudent man would have used
in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of
o Whether or not CAA was negligent negligence. The law here in effect adopts the
standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary
HELD: conduct of the discreet paterfamilias of the Roman
law. The existence of the negligence in a given case
is not determined by reference to the personal
judgment of the actor in the situation before him.
The law considers what would be reckless,
blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary
intelligence and prudence and determines liability
by that.

The question as to what would constitute the

conduct of a prudent man in a given situation must
of course be always determined in the light of
human experience and in view of the facts involved
in the particular case. Abstract speculations cannot
be here of much value but this much can be
profitably said: Reasonable men-overn their conduct
by the circumstances which are before them or
known to them. They are not, and are not supposed
to be omniscient of the future. Hence they can be
expected to take care only when there is something
before them to suggest or warn of danger. Could a
prudent man, in the case under consideration,
foresee harm as a result of the course actually
pursued' If so, it was the duty of the actor to take
precautions to guard against that harm. Reasonable
foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the
suggestion born of this prevision, is always
necessary before negligence can be held to exist....
[Picart v. Smith, supra, p. 813]

The private respondent, who was the plaintiff in the

case before the lower court, could not have
reasonably foreseen the harm that would befall him,
considering the attendant factual circumstances.
Even if the private respondent had been looking
where he was going, the step in question could not
easily be noticed because of its construction.

"WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error, the

Petition for review on certiorari is DENIED and the
decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No.
51172-R is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED."