8/7/15, 7:11 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 332Page 1 of 13 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07db8dd164b29b53000a0094004f00ee/p/AKX396/?username=GuestG.R. No. 122039. May 31, 2000.*VICENTECALALAS,petitioner,vs.COURTOFAPPEALS,ELIZAJUJEURCHESUNGAandFRANCISCO SALVA, respondents.Judgments; Res Judicata; The principle of res judicata does notapplywhereapartyinapendingcasewasneverapartyinaprevious one.TheargumentthatSungaisboundbytherulinginCivilCaseNo.3490findingthedriverandtheownerofthetruckliable for quasi-delict ignores the fact that she was never a party tothat case and, therefore, the principle of res judicata does not apply.NoraretheissuesinCivilCaseNo.3490andinthepresentcasethe same. The issue in Civil Case No. 3490 was whether Salva andhis driver Verena were liable for quasi-delict for the damage causedtopetitionersjeepney.Ontheotherhand,theissueinthiscaseiswhetherpetitionerisliableonhiscontractofcarriage.Thefirst,quasi-delict,alsoknownasculpaaquilianaorculpaextracontractual,hasasitssourcethenegligenceofthetortfeasor.Thesecond,breachofcontractorculpacontractual,ispremiseduponthe negligence in the performance of a contractual obligation.Common Carriers; BreachofContract;Quasi-Delicts;Torts;Inquasi-delict,thenegligenceorfaultshouldbeclearlyestablishedbecauseitisthebasisoftheaction,whereasinbreachofcontract,theactioncanbeprosecutedmerelybyprovingtheexistenceofthecontractandthefactthattheobligor,inthiscasethecommoncarrier,failedtotransporthispassengersafelytohisdestination.Consequently,inquasi-delict,thenegligenceorfaultshouldbeclearlyestablishedbecauseitisthebasisoftheaction,whereasinbreachofcontract,theactioncanbeprosecutedmerelybyprovingtheexistenceofthecontractandthefactthattheobligor,inthiscase the common carrier, failed to transport his passenger safely tohis destination. In case of death or injuries to passengers, Art. 1756oftheCivilCodeprovidesthatcommoncarriersarepresumedto8/7/15, 7:11 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 332Page 2 of 13 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07db8dd164b29b53000a0094004f00ee/p/AKX396/?username=Guesthavebeenatfaultortohaveactednegligentlyunlesstheyprovethat they observed extraordinary diligence as defined in Arts. 1733and1755oftheCode.Thisprovisionnecessarilyshiftstothecommon carrier the burden of proof._______________* SECOND DIVISION.357VOL. 332, MAY 31, 2000 357Calalas vs. Court of AppealsSame;Same;Same;Same;DoctrineofProximateCause;Thedoctrineofproximatecauseisapplicableonlyinactionsforquasi-delicts,notinactionsinvolvingbreachofcontract.There is, thus,nobasisforthecontentionthattherulinginCivilCaseNo.3490,findingSalvaandhisdriverVerenaliableforthedamagetopetitionersjeepney,shouldbebindingonSunga.Itisimmaterialthattheproximatecauseofthecollisionbetweenthejeepneyandthetruckwasthenegligenceofthetruckdriver.Thedoctrineofproximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasi-delict, not inactionsinvolvingbreachofcontract.Thedoctrineisadeviceforimputingliabilitytoapersonwherethereisnorelationbetweenhimandanotherparty.Insuchacase,theobligationiscreatedbylawitself.But,wherethereisapre-existingcontractualrelationbetweentheparties,itisthepartiesthemselveswhocreatetheobligation,andthefunctionofthelawismerelytoregulatetherelation thus created.Same; Same; Same; Same; Presumption of Negligence; Upon thehappeningoftheaccident,thepresumptionofnegligenceatoncearises, and it becomes the duty of a common carrier to prove that heobservedextraordinarydiligenceinthecareofhispassengers.Inthecaseatbar,uponthehappeningoftheaccident,thepresumption of negligence at once arose, and it became the duty ofpetitionertoprovethatheobservedextraordinarydiligenceinthecareofhispassengers.Now,didthedriverofjeepneycarrySungasafely as far as human care and foresight could provide, using the8/7/15, 7:11 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 332Page 3 of 13 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07db8dd164b29b53000a0094004f00ee/p/AKX396/?username=Guestutmostdiligenceofverycautiouspersons,withdueregardforallthecircumstancesasrequiredbyArt.1755?Wedonotthinkso.Several factors militate against petitioners contention.Same; Same; Fortuitous Event; Words and Phrases; The takingofanextensionseatisnotanimpliedassumptionofriskonthepart of the passenger; A caso fortuito is an event which could not beforeseen, or which, though foreseen, was inevitable; Requisites.WefindithardtogiveseriousthoughttopetitionerscontentionthatSungastakinganextensionseatamountedtoanimpliedassumptionofrisk.Itisakintoarguingthattheinjuriestothemanyvictimsofthetragediesinourseasshouldnotbecompensatedmerelybecausethosepassengersassumedagreaterriskofdrowningbyboardinganoverloadedferry.Thisisalsotrueofpetitionerscontentionthatthejeepneybeingbumpedwhileitwasimproperlyparkedconstitutescasofortuito.Acasofortuitoisan event which could not358358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDCalalas vs. Court of Appealsbeforeseen,orwhich,thoughforeseen,wasinevitable.Thisrequires that the following requirements be present: (a) the cause ofthebreachisindependentofthedebtorswill;(b)theeventisunforeseeableorunavoidable;(c)theeventissuchastorenderitimpossibleforthedebtortofulfillhisobligationinanormalmanner;and(d)thedebtordidnottakepartincausingtheinjurytothecreditor.Petitionershouldhaveforeseenthedangerofparkinghisjeepneywithitsbodyprotrudingtwometersintothehighway.Same;Same;Damages;Asageneralrule,moraldamagesarenotrecoverableinactionsfordamagespredicatedonabreachofcontract for it is not one of the items enumerated under Art. 2219 oftheCivilCode.Asageneralrule,moraldamagesarenotrecoverableinactionsfordamagespredicatedonabreachofcontract for it is not one of the items enumerated under Art. 2219 oftheCivilCode.Asanexception,suchdamagesarerecoverable:(1)8/7/15, 7:11 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 332Page 4 of 13 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07db8dd164b29b53000a0094004f00ee/p/AKX396/?username=Guestin cases in which the mishap results in the death of a passenger, asprovidedinArt.1764,inrelationtoArt.2206(3)oftheCivilCode;and(2)inthecasesinwhichthecarrierisguiltyoffraudorbadfaith, as provided in Art. 2220.Same;BadFaith;Thecommoncarriersadmissioninopencourt that his driver failed to assist the injured passenger in going toa nearby hospital cannot be construed as an admission of bad faith.Inthiscase,thereisnolegalbasisforawardingmoraldamagessincetherewasnofactualfindingbytheappellatecourtthatpetitioneractedinbadfaithintheperformanceofthecontractofcarriage.Sungascontentionthatpetitionersadmissioninopencourt that the driver of the jeepney failed to assist her in going to anearbyhospitalcannotbeconstruedasanadmissionofbadfaith.ThefactthatitwasthedriveroftheIsuzutruckwhotookhertothe hospital does not imply that petitioner was utterly indifferent totheplightofhisinjuredpassenger.Ifatall,itismerelyimpliedrecognition by Verena that he was the one at fault for the accident.PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of theCourt of Appeals.The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Leo B. Diocos for petitioner.359VOL. 332, MAY 31, 2000 359Calalas vs. Court of Appeals Enrique S. Empleo for private respondent Sunga. Eduardo T. Sedillo for private respondent Salva.MENDOZA, J.:This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision1 ofthe Court of Appeals, dated March 31, 1991, reversing thecontrarydecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch36,Dumaguete City, and awarding damages instead to privaterespondent Eliza Jujeurche Sunga as plaintiff in an actionfor breach of contract of carriage.Thefacts,asfoundbytheCourtofAppeals,areas8/7/15, 7:11 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 332Page 5 of 13 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07db8dd164b29b53000a0094004f00ee/p/AKX396/?username=Guestfollows:At 10 oclock in the morning of August 23, 1989, privaterespondentElizaJujeurcheG.Sunga,thenacollegefreshmanmajoringinPhysicalEducationattheSilimanUniversity,tookapassengerjeepneyownedandoperatedbypetitionerVicenteCalalas.Asthejeepneywasfilledtocapacityofabout24passengers,Sungawasgivenbytheconductor an extension seat, a wooden stool at the back ofthe door at the rear end of the vehicle.On the way to Poblacion Sibulan, Negros Occidental, thejeepney stopped to let a passenger off. As she was seated attherearofthevehicle,Sungagavewaytotheoutgoingpassenger. Just as she was doing so, an Isuzu truck drivenby Iglecerio Verena and owned by Francisco Salva bumpedthe left rear portion of the jeepney. As a result, Sunga wasinjured. She sustained a fracture of the distal third of thelefttibia-fibulawithseverenecrosisoftheunderlyingskin.Closedreductionofthefracture,longlegcircularcasting,andcasewedgingweredoneundersedation.HerconfinementinthehospitallastedfromAugust23toSeptember7,1989.Herattendingphysician,Dr.DaniloV.Oligario, an orthopedic surgeon, certified she would remainon a cast for a period of_______________1 Per Justice Artemon D. Luna and concurred in by Justices Hector L.Hofilena and B.A. Adefuin-dela Cruz.360360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDCalalas vs. Court of Appealsthreemonthsandwouldhavetoambulateincrutchesduring said period.On October 9, 1989, Sunga filed a complaint for damagesagainstCalalas,allegingviolationofthecontractofcarriagebytheformerinfailingtoexercisethediligencerequired of him as a common carrier. Calalas, on the otherhand,filedathird-partycomplaintagainstFranciscoSalva, the owner of the Isuzu truck.8/7/15, 7:11 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 332Page 6 of 13 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07db8dd164b29b53000a0094004f00ee/p/AKX396/?username=Guest(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)ThelowercourtrenderedjudgmentagainstSalvaasthirdpartydefendantandabsolvedCalalasofliability,holdingthatitwasthedriveroftheIsuzutruckwhowasresponsiblefortheaccident.Ittookcognizanceofanothercase(CivilCaseNo.3490),filedbyCalalasagainstSalvaandVerena,forquasi-delict,inwhichBranch37ofthesamecourtheldSalvaandhisdriverVerenajointlyliableto Calalas for the damage to his jeepney.OnappealtotheCourtofAppeals,therulingofthelower court was reversed on the ground that Sungas causeofactionwasbasedonacontractofcarriage,notquasi-delict,andthatthecommoncarrierfailedtoexercisethediligencerequiredundertheCivilCode.Theappellatecourt dismissed the thirdparty complaint against Salva andadjudgedCalalasliablefordamagestoSunga.Thedispositive portion of its decision reads:WHEREFORE,thedecisionappealedfromisherebyREVERSEDandSETASIDE,andanotheroneisenteredorderingdefendant-appellee Vicente Calalas to pay plaintiff-appellant:P50,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages;P50,000.00 as moral damages;P10,000.00 as attorneys fees; andP1,000.00 as expenses of litigation; andto pay the costs.SO ORDERED.Hence, this petition. Petitioner contends that the ruling inCivil Case No. 3490 that the negligence of Verena was the361VOL. 332, MAY 31, 2000 361Calalas vs. Court of Appealsproximatecauseoftheaccidentnegateshisliabilityandthattoruleotherwisewouldbetomakethecommoncarrieraninsurerofthesafetyofitspassengers.HecontendsthatthebumpingofthejeepneybythetruckownedbySalvawasacasofortuito.Petitionerfurther8/7/15, 7:11 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 332Page 7 of 13 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07db8dd164b29b53000a0094004f00ee/p/AKX396/?username=GuestassailstheawardofmoraldamagestoSungaontheground that it is not supported by evidence.The petition has no merit.The argument that Sunga is bound by the ruling in CivilCase No. 3490 finding the driver and the owner of the truckliable for quasi-delict ignores the fact that she was never apartytothatcaseand,therefore,theprincipleofresjudicata does not apply.NoraretheissuesinCivilCaseNo.3490andinthepresentcasethesame.TheissueinCivilCaseNo.3490waswhetherSalvaandhisdriverVerenawereliableforquasidelictforthedamagecausedtopetitionersjeepney.Ontheotherhand,theissueinthiscaseiswhetherpetitionerisliableonhiscontractofcarriage.Thefirst,quasi-delict,alsoknownasculpaaquilianaorculpaextracontractual,hasasitssourcethenegligenceofthetortfeasor.Thesecond,breachofcontractorculpacontractual,ispremiseduponthenegligenceintheperformance of a contractual obligation.Consequently,inquasi-delict,thenegligenceorfaultshouldbeclearlyestablishedbecauseitisthebasisoftheaction,whereasinbreachofcontract,theactioncanbeprosecutedmerelybyprovingtheexistenceofthecontractandthefactthattheobligor,inthiscasethecommoncarrier,failedtotransporthispassengersafelytohisdestination.2 In case of death or injuries to passengers, Art.1756oftheCivilCodeprovidesthatcommoncarriersarepresumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligentlyunlesstheyprovethattheyobservedextraordinarydiligence as defined in Arts. 1733 and_______________2SeeB.BALDERRAMA,THEPHILIPPINELAWONTORTSANDDAMAGES 20 (1953).362362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDCalalas vs. Court of Appeals1755oftheCode.Thisprovisionnecessarilyshiftstothe8/7/15, 7:11 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 332Page 8 of 13 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07db8dd164b29b53000a0094004f00ee/p/AKX396/?username=Guestcommon carrier the burden of proof.There is, thus, no basis for the contention that the rulingin Civil Case No. 3490, finding Salva and his driver Verenaliableforthedamagetopetitionersjeepney,shouldbebindingonSunga.Itisimmaterialthattheproximatecauseofthecollisionbetweenthejeepneyandthetruckwasthenegligenceofthetruckdriver.Thedoctrineofproximatecauseisapplicableonlyinactionsforquasi-delict,notinactionsinvolvingbreachofcontract.Thedoctrine is a device for imputing liability to a person wherethere is no relation between him and another party. In suchacase,theobligationiscreatedbylawitself.But,wherethereisapre-existingcontractualrelationbetweentheparties,itisthepartiesthemselveswhocreatetheobligation, and the function of the law is merely to regulatetherelationthuscreated.Insofarascontractsofcarriageareconcerned,someaspectsregulatedbytheCivilCodearethoserespectingthediligencerequiredofcommoncarrierswithregardtothesafetyofpassengersaswellasthe presumption of negligence in cases of death or injury topassengers. It provides:ART. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business andforreasonsofpublicpolicy,areboundtoobserveextraordinarydiligenceinthevigilanceoverthegoodsandforthesafetyofthepassengers transported by them, according to all the circumstancesof each case.Suchextraordinarydiligenceinthevigilanceoverthegoodsisfurther expressed in articles 1734, 1735, and 1746, Nos. 5, 6, and 7,while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers isfurther set forth in articles 1755 and 1756.ART.1755.Acommoncarrierisboundtocarrythepassengerssafelyasfarashumancareandforesightcanprovide,usingtheutmostdiligenceofverycautiouspersons,withdueregardforallthe circumstances.ART. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, commoncarriersarepresumedtohavebeenatfaultortohaveactednegligently,unlesstheyprovethattheyobservedextraordinarydiligence as prescribed by articles 1733 and 1755.3638/7/15, 7:11 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 332Page 9 of 13 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07db8dd164b29b53000a0094004f00ee/p/AKX396/?username=GuestVOL. 332, MAY 31, 2000 363Calalas vs. Court of AppealsIn the case at bar, upon the happening of the accident, thepresumption of negligence at once arose, and it became thedutyofpetitionertoprovethatheobservedextraordinarydiligence in the care of his passengers.Now, did the driver of jeepney carry Sunga safely as farashumancareandforesightcouldprovide,usingtheutmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regardfor all the circumstances as required by Art. 1755? We donotthinkso.Severalfactorsmilitateagainstpetitionerscontention.First, as found by the Court of Appeals, the jeepney wasnotproperlyparked,itsrearportionbeingexposedabouttwometersfromthebroadshouldersofthehighway,andfacing the middle of the highway in a diagonal angle. Thisis a violation of the R.A. No. 4136, as amended, or the LandTransportation and Traffic Code, which provides:Sec.54.ObstructionofTraffic.Nopersonshalldrivehismotorvehicleinsuchamannerastoobstructorimpedethepassageofanyvehicle,nor,whiledischargingortakingonpassengersorloadingorunloadingfreight,obstructthefreepassageofothervehicles on the highway.Second,itisundisputedthatpetitionersdrivertookinmorepassengersthantheallowedseatingcapacityofthejeepney, a violation of 32(a) of the same law. It provides:Exceedingregisteredcapacity.Nopersonoperatinganymotorvehicleshallallowmorepassengersormorefreightorcargoinhisvehicle than its registered capacity.ThefactthatSungawasseatedinanextensionseatplacedherinaperilgreaterthanthattowhichtheotherpassengerswereexposed.Therefore,notonlywaspetitionerunabletoovercomethepresumptionofnegligenceimposedonhimfortheinjurysustainedbySunga,butalso,theevidenceshowshewasactuallynegligent in transporting passengers.WefindithardtogiveseriousthoughttopetitionerscontentionthatSungastakinganextensionseat8/7/15, 7:11 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 332Page 10 of 13 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07db8dd164b29b53000a0094004f00ee/p/AKX396/?username=Guestamountedtoanimpliedassumptionofrisk.Itisakintoarguing that the364364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDCalalas vs. Court of Appealsinjuriestothemanyvictimsofthetragediesinourseasshouldnotbecompensatedmerelybecausethosepassengers assumed a greater risk of drowning by boardinganoverloadedferry.Thisisalsotrueofpetitionerscontentionthatthejeepneybeingbumpedwhileitwasimproperly parked constitutes caso fortuito.Acaso fortuitoisaneventwhichcouldnotbeforeseen,orwhich,thoughforeseen,wasinevitable.3Thisrequiresthatthefollowingrequirementsbepresent:(a)thecauseofthebreachisindependentofthedebtorswill;(b)theeventisunforeseeableorunavoidable;(c)theeventissuchastorender it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation inanormalmanner;and(d)thedebtordidnottakepartincausingtheinjurytothecreditor.4Petitionershouldhaveforeseenthedangerofparkinghisjeepneywithitsbodyprotruding two meters into the highway.Finally,petitionerchallengestheawardofmoraldamagesallegingthatitisexcessiveandwithoutbasisinlaw. We find this contention well taken.Inawardingmoraldamages,theCourtofAppealsstated:Plaintiff-appellantatthetimeoftheaccidentwasafirst-yearcollegestudentinthatschoolyear1989-1990attheSillimanUniversity,majoringinPhysicalEducation.Becauseoftheinjury,she was not able to enroll in the second semester of that school year.She testified that she had no more intention of continuing with herschooling, because she could not walk and decided not to pursue herdegree, major in Physical Education because of my leg which has adefect already.Plaintiff-appellantlikewisetestifiedthatevenwhileshewasunder confinement, she cried in pain because of her injured left foot.As a result of her injury, the Orthopedic Surgeon also certified thatshe has residual bowing of the fracture side. She likewise decided8/7/15, 7:11 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 332Page 11 of 13 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07db8dd164b29b53000a0094004f00ee/p/AKX396/?username=GuestnottofurtherpursuePhysicalEducationashermajorsubject,because my left leg x x x has a defect already._______________3 CIVIL CODE, ART. 1174.4 JuanF.Nakpil&Sonsv.CourtofAppeals,144SCRA596(1986);Vasquezv.CourtofAppeals,138SCRA553(1985);Republicv.LuzonStevedoring Corp., 128 Phil. 313 (1967).365VOL. 332, MAY 31, 2000 365Calalas vs. Court of AppealsThoseareherphysicalpainsandmoralsufferings,theinevitablebedfellowsoftheinjuriesthatshesuffered.UnderArticle2219ofthe Civil Code, she is entitled to recover moral damages in the sumof P50,000.00, which is fair, just and reasonable.Asageneralrule,moraldamagesarenotrecoverableinactionsfordamagespredicatedonabreachofcontractforit is not one of the items enumerated under Art. 2219 of theCivil Code.5 As an exception, such damages are recoverable:(1)incasesinwhichthemishapresultsinthedeathofapassenger,asprovidedinArt.1764,inrelationtoArt.2206(3) of the Civil Code; and (2) in the cases in which thecarrierisguiltyoffraudorbadfaith,asprovidedinArt.2220.6Inthiscase,thereisnolegalbasisforawardingmoraldamagessincetherewasnofactualfindingbytheappellatecourtthatpetitioneractedinbadfaithintheperformance of the contract of carriage. Sungas contentionthat petitioners admission in open court that the driver ofthe jeepney failed to assist her in going to a nearby hospitalcannot be construed as an admission of bad faith. The factthat it was the driver of the Isuzu truck who took her to thehospitaldoesnotimplythatpetitionerwasutterlyindifferent to the plight of his injured passenger. If at all, itismerelyimpliedrecognitionbyVerenathathewastheone at fault for the accident.WHEREFORE,thedecisionoftheCourtofAppeals,8/7/15, 7:11 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 332Page 12 of 13 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07db8dd164b29b53000a0094004f00ee/p/AKX396/?username=Guestdated March 31, 1995, and its resolution, dated September11,1995,areAFFIRMED,withtheMODIFICATIONthatthe award of moral damages is DELETED.SO ORDERED. Bellosillo (Chairman) and Buena, JJ., concur._______________5 Foresv.Miranda,105Phil.236(1959);Mercadov.Lira,3SCRA124 (1961).6PhilippineRabbitBusLines,Inc.v.Esguerra,117SCRA741(1982); Sabena Belgian World Airlines v. Court of Appeals, 171 SCRA 620(1989); ChinaAirlines,Ltd.v.IntermediateAppellateCourt, 169SCRA226 (1989).366366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPeople vs. Doinog Quisumbing and De Leon, Jr., JJ., On leave.Judgment affirmed with modification.Notes.Therulesonextraordinaryresponsibilityofcommoncarriersremainbasicallyunchangedevenwhenthecontractisbreachedbytortalthoughnoncontradictoryprinciplesonquasi-delictmaythenbeassimilatedasalsoformingpartofthegoverninglaw.(SabenaBelgianWorldAirlines vs. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 38 [1996])Proximatecause,whichisdeterminedbyamixedconsideration of logic, common sense, policy and precedent,isthatcausewhich,innaturalandcontinuoussequence,unbrokenbyanyefficientinterveningcause,producestheinjury,andwithoutwhichtheresultwouldnothaveoccurred.(BankofthePhilippineIslandsvs.CourtofAppeals, 641 SCRA 326 [2000])While the driver of an improperly parked vehicle may beliable in case of collision, the driver of a moving vehicle whohadnoopportunitytoavoidthecollisionduetohisownmakingisnotrelievedofliability,suchaswhenhis8/7/15, 7:11 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 332Page 13 of 13 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07db8dd164b29b53000a0094004f00ee/p/AKX396/?username=Guestnegligenceistheimmediateandproximatecauseofthecollision.(Austriavs.CourtofAppeals,327SCRA668[2000])o0o Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 1 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=GuestVOL. 73, JULY 8, 1942 607Barredo vs. Garcia and Almariotitle be issued in favor of Santiago Impe rial, but subject tothemortgagelienofLuisMeneseswhichappearsdulynotedinthecertificatetobecancelled.LuisMenesesmay,inasinglecomplaint,suetheAdornadosandSantiagoImperialforthecollec tionofhismortgagecredit,theformerasprimaryobligorsandthelatterasownerofthepropertymortgaged,withoutprejudicetoanyrightwhichSantiagoImperialmayhaveagainsttheassurancefund.We make no pronouncement as to costs in this in stance.Yulo, C. J., Ozaeta, Paras, and Bocobo, J J., concur.Judgment modified.[No. 48006.!July 8, 1942]FAUSTOBARREDO,petitioner,vs.SEVERINOGARCIAandTIMOTEA ALMARIO, respondents.1.DAMAGES;QUASI-DELICTOR"CULPAAQUILIANA";PRIMARYANDDIRECTRESPONSIBILITYOFEMPLOYERSUNDERARTICLES1902-1910OFTHECIVILCODE.A head-on collision between a taxi and a carretela resulted inthe death of a 16-year-old boy, one of the passengers of the car retela.Acriminalactionwasfiledagainstthetaxidriverandhewasconvictedandsentencedaccordingly.Thecourtinthecriminalcasegranted the petition that the right to bring a separate civil action bereserved.There aftertheparentsofthedeceasedbroughtsuitfordamagesagainsttheproprietorofthetaxi,theemployerofthetaxidriver, under article 1903 of the Civil Code. Defendant contended thathisliabilitywasgovernedbytheRevisedPenalCode,accordingtowhichhisresponsibilitywasonlysecondary,butnocivilactionhadbeenbroughtagainstthetaxidriver.Held:Thatthisseparatecivil8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 2 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=Guestactionlies,theemployerbeingprimarilyanddirectlyresponsibleindamages under articles 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code.2.ID.;ID.;ID.Aquasi-delictor"culpaaquiliana"isaseparatelegalinstitution under the Civil Code, with a substantivity all its own, andindividualitythatisentirelyapartandindependentfromadelictorcrime.Uponthisprinciple,andonthewordingandspiritofarticle1903oftheCivilCode,theprimaryanddirectresponsibilityofemployers may be safely anchored.3.ID.; ID.; ID.The individuality of cuati-delito or culpa extra-contractualloomsclearandunmis takable.Thislegalinstitutionisofancientlineage, one of its early ancestors being the Lex Aquilia in the RomanLaw. In fact, in Spanish legal trminology, this responsibility is oftenreferredtoasculpa aquiliana. ThePartidasalsocontributedtothegenealogy of the present fault or negligence under the Civil Code: forinstance,Law6,Title16,ofPartida7,says:"Tenudoesdefazeremienda,porque,cmoquierqueelnonfizoasabiendaseldaoalotro, pero acaesci por su culpa."4.ID.; ID.; ID.The distinctive nature of cuasi-delitos survives in the CivilCode. According to article 1089, one of the five sources of oblig ationsis this legal institution of cuasi-delito or culpa extra-contractual: "losactos!*!*!*!enqueintervengacualquiergenerodeculpaonegligencia."Thenarticle1093providesthatthiskindofobligationshallbegovernedbyChapterIIofTitleXVIofBookIV,meaningarticles1902-1910.ThisportionoftheCivilCodeisexclusivelydevoted to the legal institution of culpa aquiliana.5.ID.;ID.;ID.;DISTINCTIONBETWEENCRIMESUNDERTHEPENALCODEANDTHE"CULPAAQUILIANA"OR"CUASI-DELITO"UNDERTHECIVILCODE.Adistinctionexistsbetweenthecivilliabil ityarisingfromacrimeandtheresponsibilityforcuasi-delitosorculpaextra-contractual.Thesamenegligentactcausingdamagesmayproducecivilliabilityarising from a crime un der article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, orcreateanactionforcuasi-delitoorculpaextra-contractualunderarticles1902-1910oftheCivilCode.Plaintiffswerefreetochoosewhichremedytoenforce.SomeofthedifferencesbetweencrimesunderthePenalCodeandtheculpaaquilianaor cuasi-delitounderthe Civil Code are enumerated in the decision.6.ID.;ID.;ID.;OPINIONSOFJURISTS.Thedecisionsetsoutextractsfromopinionsofjuristsontheseparateexistenceofcuasi-delictsandtheemployer's primary and direct liability under article 1903 of the CivilCode.7.ID.; ID.; ID.; SENTENCES OF THE SUPREME TRI-6088/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 3 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=Guest608 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATEDBarredo vs. Garcia and AlmarioBUNAL OF SPAIN.The decision cites sentences of the Supreme TribunalofSpainupholdingtheprinciplesabovesetforth:thatacuasi-delictor culpa extra-contractual is a separate and distinct legal institution,independentfromthecivilresponsibilityarisingfromcriminalliability, and that an employer is, under article 1903 of the Civil Code,primarilyanddirectlyresponsibleforthenegligentactsofhisem -ployee.8.ID.;ID.;ID.;DECISIONSOFTHISCOURT.DecisionsofthisCourtarealsocited holding that, in this jurisdiction, the separate individuality of acuasi-delitoorculpaaquilianaundertheCivilCodehasbeenfullyand clearly recognized, even with regard to a negligent act for. whichthewrongdoercouldhavebeenprosecutedandconvictedinacriminalcaseandforwhich,aftersuchaconviction,hecouldhavebeen sued for his civil liability arising from his crime.9.ID.;ID.;ID.;FOUNDATIONSOFDOCTRINESABOVESETFORTH;LITERALMEANINGOFTHELAW.TheRevisedPenalCodepunishesnotonlyrecklessbutalsosimplenegligence;ifitshouldbeheldthatarticles1902-1910,CivilCode,applyonlytonegligencenotpunishablebylaw, culpa aquiliana would have very little appli cation in actual life.The literal meaning of the law will not be used to smother a principleofsuchancientoriginandsuchfull-growndevelopmentasculpaaquiliana.10.ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;DEGREEOFPROOF.Therearenumerouscasesofcriminal negligence which can not be shown beyond reasonable doubt,butcanbeprovedbyapreponderanceofevidence.Insuchcases,defendant can and should be made responsible in a civil action underarticles 1902 to 1910, Civil Code. Ubi jus ibi remedium.11.ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;EXPEDITIOUSREMEDY.Theprimaryanddirectresponsibilityofemployerunderarticle1903,CivilCode,ismorelikelytofacilitateremedyforcivilwrongs.Suchprimaryanddirectresponsibility of employers is calculated to protect society.12.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PRACTICE OF RELYING SOLELY ON CIVIL RESPONSIBILITY FORACRIME.Theharmdonebysuchpracticeispointedout,andtheprincipleofresponsibilityforfaultornegligenceunderarticles1902et seq., of the Civil Code is restored to its full vigor.PETITION for review on certiorari.The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 4 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=GuestCeledonio P. Gloria and Antonio Barredo for petitioner.Jose G. Advincula for respondents.BOCOBO,!J.:ThiscasecomesupfromtheCourtofAppealswhichheldthepetitionerherein,FaustoBarredo,liableindamagesforthedeathofFaustinoGarciacausedbythenegligenceofPedroFontanilla,ataxidriveremployedbysaid Fausto Barredo.At about half past one in the morning of May 3, 1936, onthe road between Malabon and Navotas, Province of Rizal,therewasaheadoncollisionbetweenataxioftheMalateTaxicab driven by Pedro Fontanilla and a carretela guidedby Pedro Dimapilis. The carretela was overturned, and oneof its passengers, 16-year-old boy Faustino Garcia, sufferedinjuriesfromwhichhediedtwodayslater.Acriminalaction was filed against Fontanilla in the Court of First In -stanceofRizal,andhewasconvictedandsentencedtoanindeterminatesentenceofoneyearandonedaytotwoyears of prisin correccional. The court in the criminal casegranted the petition that the right to bring a separate civilactionbereserved.TheCourtofAppealsaffirmedthesentenceofthelowercourtinthecriminalcase.SeverinoGarciaandTimoteaAlmario,parentsofthedeceased,onMarch7,1939,broughtanactionintheCourtofFirstInstanceofManilaagainstFaustoBarredoasthesoleproprietoroftheMalateTaxicabandem ployerofPedroFontanilla.OnJuly8,1939,theCourtofFirstInstanceofManilaawardeddamagesinfavoroftheplaintiffsforP2,000pluslegalinterestfromthedateofthecomplaint.ThisdecisionwasmodifiedbytheCourtofAppealsbyreducingthedamagestoP1.000withlegalinterestfromthetimetheactionwasinstituted.ItisundisputedthatFontanilla's negligence was the cause of the mishap, as hewasdrivingonthewrongsideoftheroad,andathighspeed.AstoBarredo'sresponsibility,theCourtofAppealsfound:"*!*!*!ItisadmittedthatdefendantisFon tanilla'semployer. There is no proof that he exercised the diligence of a goodfatherofafamilytopreventthedamage.(Seep.22,appellant'sbrief.)InfactitisshownhewascarelessinemployingFontanillawhohadbeencaughtseveraltimesforviolationoftheAutomobile8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 5 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=GuestLawandspeeding(ExhibitA)violationswhichappearedintherecords of the Bureau of Public Works available to the public and tohimself.Therefore,hemustindemnifyplaintiffsundertheprovisions of article 1903 of the Civil Code."ThemaintheoryofthedefenseisthattheliabilityofFaustoBarredoisgovernedbytheRevisedPenalCode;hence, his liability is only subsidary, and as there has beennocivilactionagainstPedroFontanilla,thepersoncriminally liable, Barredo cannot be609VOL. 73, JULY 8, 1942 609Barredo vs. Garcia and Almarioheld responsible in this case The petition er's brief states onpage 10:*!*!*!TheCourtofAppealsholdsthatthepetitionerisbeingsuedforhisfailuretoexerciseallthediligenceofagoodfatherofafamilyintheselectionandsupervisionofPedroFontanillatopreventdamagessufferedbytherespondents.Inotherwords,theCourtofAppealsinsistsonapplyinginthiscasearticle 1903 of the Civil Code. Article 1903 of the Civil Code is foundinChapterII,Title16,BookIVoftheCivilCode.Thisfactmakessaid article inapplicable to a civil liability arising from a crime as inthe case at bar simply because Chapter II of Title 16 of Book IV ofthe Civil Code, in the precise words of article 1903 of the Civil Codeitself, is applicable only to "those (obligations) arising from wrongfulor negligent acts or omissions not punishable by law.'"ThegistofthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsisexpressed thus:"*!*!*!Wecannotagseetothedefendant'scontention.Theliability sought to be imposed upon him in this action is not a civilobligation arising from a felony or a misdemeanor (the crime of Pe -droFontanilla),butanobligationimposedinarticle1903oftheCivil Code by reason of his negligence in the selection or supervisionof his servant or em ployee."Thepivotalquestioninthiscaseiswhetherthe8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 6 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=GuestplaintiffsmaybringthisseparatecivilactionagainstFaustoBarredo,thusmakinghimprimarilyanddirectly.respon sibleunderarticle1903oftheCivilCodeasanemployerofPedroFontanilla.Thedefendantmaintainsthat Fontanilla's negligence being punishable by the PenalCode,his(defendant's)liabilityasanemployerisonlysubsidary,accordingtosaidPenalCode,butFontanillahas not been sued in a civil action and his property has notbeenexhausted.Todecidethemainissue,wemustcutthroughthetanglethathas,inthemindsofmany,confused and jumbled to gether delitos and cuasi-delitos, orcrimes under the Penal Code and fault or negligence underarticles1902-1910oftheCivilCode.Thisshouldbedone,because justice may be lost in a labyrinth, unless principlesand remedies are distinctly envisaged. Fortunately, we areaidedinourinquirybytheluminouspresentacinofthisperplexingsubjectbyrenownjuristsandwe'arelike wiseguidedbythedecisionsofthisCourtinpreviouscasesaswellasbythesolemnclarityoftheconsiderationsinseveral sen tences of the Supreme Tribunal of Spain.Authorities support the proposition that a quasi-delict or"culpaaquiliana"isaseparatelegalinstitutionundertheCivilCode,withasubstantivityallitsown,andindividuality that is entirely apart and independent from adelictorcrime.Uponthisprinciple,andonthewordingand spirit of article 1903 of the Civil Code, the primary anddirect responsibility of employers may be safely anchored.ThepertinentprovisionsoftheCivilCodeandRevisedPenal Code are as follows :CIVIL CODE"ART.1089.!Obligationsarisefromlaw,fromcon tractsandquasi-contracts, and from acts and omissions which are unlawful orin which any kind of fault or negligence intervenes."*!!*****"ART.1092.!Civilobligationsarisingfromfelo niesormisdemeanorsshallbegovernedbytheprovisionsofthePenalCode."ART. 1093.!Thosewhicharederivedfromactsoromissionsinwhich fault or negligence, not punishable by law, intervenes shall besubject to the provisions of Chapter II, Title XVI of this book."******8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 7 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=Guest"ART.1902.!Anypersonwhobyanactoromis sioncausesdamage to another by his fault or negligence shall be liable for thedamage so done."ART.1903.!Theobligationimposedbythenextprecedingarticleisenforcible,notonlyforpersonalactsandomissions,butalso for those of persons for whom another is responsible."Thefather,and,incaseofhisdeathorincapacity,themother,areliableforanydamagescausedbytheminorchildrenwholivewith them."Guardiansareliablefordamagesdonebyminorsorincapacitatedpersonssubjecttotheirauthorityandlivingwiththem."Owners or directors of an establishment or business are equallyliable for any damages caused by their employees while engaged inthebranchoftheserviceinwhichemployed,oronoccasionoftheperformance of their duties."The State is subject to the same liability when it acts through aspecial agent, but not if the damage shall have been caused by theofficialuponwhomproperlydevolvedthedutyofdoingtheactperformed, in which case the provisions of the next preceding articleshall be applicable."Finally,teachersordirectorsofartsandtradesareliableforanydamagescausedbytheirpupilsorapprenticeswhiletheyareunder their custody."Theliabilityimposedbythisarticleshallceaseincasethepersonsmentionedthereinprovethattheyexercisedallthediligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage.""ART.1904.!Anypersonwhopaysfordamagecausedbyhisemployees may recover from the latter what he may have paid."REVISED PENAL CODE"ART.100.!Civilliabilityofapersonguiltyoffelony.Everyperson criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.610610 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATEDBarredo vs. Garcia and Almario"ART. 101.!Rules regarding civil liability in cer tain cases.Theexemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3,5, and 6 of article 12 and in subdivision 4 of article 11 of this Code8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 8 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=Guestdoesnotincludeexemptionfromcivilliability,whichshallbeenforced subject to the following rules:"First.!In cases of subdivisions 1, 2 and 3 of article 12 the civilliability for acts committed by any imbecile or insane person, and byapersonundernineyearsofage,orbyoneoverninebutunderfifteenyearsofage,whohasactedwithoutdiscernment,shalldevolveuponthosehavingsuchpersonundertheirlegalauthorityor control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence ontheir part."Shouldtherebenopersonhavingsuchinsane,imbecileorminor under his authority, legal guardanship, or control, or if suchpersonbeinsolvent,saidinsane,imbecile,orminorshallrespondwith their own property, excepting property exempt from execution,in accordance with the civil law."Second.!In cases falling within subdivision 4 of article 11, thepersonsforwhosebenefittheharmhasbeenpreventedshallbecivillyliableinpropor tiontothebenefitwhichtheymayhavereceived."Thecourtsshalldetermine,intheirsounddiscretion,theproportionate amount for which each one shall be liable."Whentherespectivesharescannotbeequitablydetermined,evenapproximately,orwhenthelia bilityalsoattachestotheGovernment, or to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and,inallevents,wheneverthedamagehasbeencausedwiththeconsentoftheauthoritiesortheiragents,indemnificationshallbemade in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations."Third.!Incasesfallingwithinsubdivisions5and6ofarticle12, the persons using violence or causing the fear shall be primarilyliableandsecondarily,or,iftherebenosuchpersons,thosedoingthe act shall be liable, saving always to the latter that part of theirproperty exempt from execution."ART.102.!Subsidiarycivilliabilityofinnkeepers,tavernkeepersandproprietorsofestablishment.Indefaultofpersonscriminally liable, innkeepers, tavern keepers, and any other personsorcorpora tionsshallbecivillyliableforcrimescommittedintheirestablishments,inallcaseswhereavio lationofmunicipalordinancesorsomegeneralorspecialpoliceregulationshallhavebeen committed by them or their employees."Innkeepersarealsosubsidarilyliablefortherestitutionofgoodstakenbyrobberyortheftwith intheirhousesfromguestslodgingtherein,orforthepaymentofthevaluethereof,providedthatsuchguestsshallhavenotifiedinadvancetheinn keeper8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 9 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=Guesthimself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of such goodswithintheinn;andshallfurthermorehavefollowedthedirectionswhichsuchinnkeeperorhisrepresentativemayhavegiventhemwithrespecttothecareofandvigilanceoversuchgoods.Noliabilityshallattachincaseofrobberywithviolenceagainstorintimidationofpersonsunlesscommittedbytheinnkeeper'sem-ployees."ART.103.!Subsidiarycivilliabilityofotherper sons.Thesubsidaryliabilityestablishedinthenextprecedingarticleshallalsoapplytoemployers,teachers,persons,andcorporationsengagedinanykindofindustryforfeloniescommittedbytheirservants,pupils,workmen,apprentices,oremploy eesinthedischarge of their duties."******"ART.365.!ImprudenceandNegligence.Anypersonwho,byrecklessimprudence,shallcommitanyactwhich,haditbeenintentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penaltyof arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisin correccional in itsminimumperiod;ifitwouldhaveconstitutedalessgravefelony,thepenaltyofarrestomayorinitsminimumandmediumperiodsshall be im posed."Anypersonwho,bysimpleimprudenceornegligence,shallcommitanactwhichwouldotherwiseconstituteagravefelony,shallsufferthepenaltyofarrestomayorinitsmediumandmaxi-mum periods; if it would have constituted a less serious felony, thepenalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed."It will thus be seen that while the terms of article 1902oftheCivilCodeseemtobebroadenoughtocoverthedriver's negli gence in the instant case, nevertheless article1093limitscuasi-delitostoactsoromissions"notpunishablebylaw."Butinasmuchasarticle365oftheRevisedPenalCodepun ishesnotonlyrecklessbutevensimpleimprudenceornegligence,thefaultornegligenceunderarticle1902oftheCivilCodehasapparentlybeencrowdedout.Itisthisoverlappingthatmakesthe"confusionworseconfounded."However,acloserstudyshowsthatsuchaconcurrenceofscopeinregardtonegligent acts does not destroy the distinction between thecivil liability arising from a crime and the responsibility forcuasi-delitos or culpa extra-contractual. The same negligentactcausingdamagesmayproducecivilliabilityarisingfromacrimeunderarticle100oftheRevisedPenalCode,8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 10 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=Guestorcreateanactionforcuasi-delitoorculpaextra-contractual under articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code.Theindividualityofcuasi-delitoorculpaextra-contractualloomsclearandunmistakable.Thislegalinstitutionisofancientlineage,oneofitsearlyancestorsbeingtheLexAquiliaintheRomanLaw.Infact,inSpanishlegaltrminology,thisresponsibil ityisoftenreferredtoasculpaaquiliana.ThePartidasalsocontributedtothegeneal ogyofthepresentfaultornegligence under the Civil Code; for instance, Law 6, Title15, of Partida 7, says: "Tenudo es de fazer611VOL. 73, JULY 8, 1942 611Barredo vs. Garcia and Almarioemienda, porque, cmo quier que el non fizo sabiendas eldano al otro, pero acaesci por su culpa."Thedistinctivenatureofcuasi-delitossurvivesintheCivil Code. According to arti cle 1089, one of the five sourcesofobligationsisthislegalinstitutionofcuasi-delitoorculpaextra-contractual:"losactos!*!*!*enqueintervenga cualquiergenerodeculpaonegligencia."Thenarticle1093providesthatthiskindofobligationshallbegovernedbyChapterIIofTitleXVIofBookIV,meaningarticles1902-1910.ThisportionoftheCivilCodeisexclusivelydevotedtothelegalinstitutionofculpaaquiliana.Some of the differences between crimes under the PenalCodeandtheculpaaquilianaorcuasi-delitoundertheCivil Code are:1.!That crimes affect the public interest, while cuasi-delitos areonly of private con cern. 2.!That, consequently, the Penal Code punishes or corrects thecriminalact,whiletheCivilCode,bymeansofindemnification,merely repairs the damage.3.!Thatdelictsarenotasbroadasquasi-delicts,becausetheformerarepunishedonlyifthereisapenallawclearlycoveringthem,whilethelatter,cuasi-delitos, includeallactsinwhich"anykind of fault or neg ligence intervenes." However, it should be noted8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 11 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=Guestthatnotallviolationsofthepenallawproducecivilresponsibility,suchasbeg gingincontraventionofordinances,viola tionofthegamelaws,infractionoftherulesoftrafficwhennobodyishurt.(See Colin and Capitant, "Curso Elemental de Derecho Civil," Vol. 3,p. 728.)Letusnowascertainwhatsomejurjstssayontheseparateexistenceofquasi-delictsandtheemployer'sprimaryanddirectlia bilityunderarticle1903oftheCivilCode.Dorado Montero in his essay on "Responsabilidad" in the"Enciclopedia Juridica Espaola" (Vol. XXVII, p. 414) says:"Elconceptojuridicodelaresponsabilidadcivilabarca diversosaspectosycomprendeadiferentespersonas.Asl,existeunaresponsabilidadcivilpropiamentcdicha,queenningncasollevaaparejadaresponsabilidadcriminalalguna,yotraqueesconsecuenciaindeclinabledelapenalquenacedetododelitoofalta.""Thejuridicalconceptofcivilresponsibilityhasvariousaspectsand comprises different persons. Thus, there is a civil responsibility,properlyspeaking,whichinnocasecarrieswithitanycriminalresponsibility,andanotherwhichisanecesarycon sequenceofthepenal liability as a result of every felony or misdemeanor."Maura,anoutstandingauthority,wasconsultedonthefollowingcase:Therehadbeenacollisionbetweentwotrainsbelong ingrespectivelytotheFerrocarrilCantabricoandtheFerrocarrildelNorte.Anemployeeofthelatterhadbeenprosecutedinacriminalcase,inwhichthecompany had been made a party as subsidarily re sponsibleincivildamages.Theemployeehadbeenacquittedinthecriminal case, and the employer, the Ferrocarril del Norte,had also been exonerated. The question asked was whetherthe Ferrocarril Cantabrico could still bring a civil action fordamages against the Ferrocarril del Norte. Maura's opinionwas in the affirmative, stating in part (Maura, Dictmenes,Vol. 6, pp. 511-513):"Quedando las cosas as, a proposito de la realdad pura y neta delos hechos, todavia menos parece sostenible que exista cosa juzgadaacercadelaobligacioncivildeindemnizarlosquebrantoaymenoscabos inferidos por el choque de los trenee. El ttulo en que se8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 12 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=Guestfundalaaccinparademandarelresarcimiento,nopuedeconfundirseconlasresponsabilidadescivilesnacidasdedelito,siquiera exista en este, sea 61 cual sea, una culpa rodeada de notasagravatorias que motivan sanciones penales, ms o menos severas.La lesion causada por delito o falta en los derechos civiles, requiererestituciones,reparacionesoindemnizaciones,quecuallapenamismaatanenalordenpublico;portalmotivovienenencomendadas,deordinario,alMinisterioFis cal;yclaroesquesiporestaviaseenmiendanlosquebrantoaymenoscabos,elagraviadoexcusaprocurarelyaconseguidodesagravio;peroestaeventualcoincidenciadelosefectos,noborraladiversidadoriginaria de las acciones civiles para pedir indemnizacion."Estas, para el caso actual (prescindiendo de culpas contractules,quenovendrianacuentoyquetienenotroregimen),dimanan,segnelarticulo1902delCdigoCivil,detodaaccinuomision,causantededaflosoperjuicios,enqueintervengaculpaonegligencia. Es trivial que acciones semejantes son ejercitadas antelosTribunalesdelocivilcotidanamente,sinquelaJusticiapunitiva tenga que mezclarse en los asuntos. Los artculos 18 al 21y121al128delCdigoPenal,atentosalespirituyalosfinessocialesypolticosdelmismo,desenvuelvenyordenanlamateriaderesponsabilidadescivilesnacidasdedelito,entermmosseparadosdelregimenporleycomundelaculpaquesedenominaaquiliana, poralusionaprecedenteslegislativesdelCorpusJuris.Seria intempestivo un paralelo entre aquellas ordenaciones, y la dela obligation de indemnizar a ttulo de culpa civil; pero viene al casoyesnecesariaunadelasdiferenciacionesqueeneltalparallosenotarian."Losartculos20y21delCdigoPenal,despusdedistribuirasumodolasresponsabilidadesciviles,entrelosqueseanpordiversos conceptos culpables del delito o falta, las hacen extensivasa las em-612612 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATEDBarredo vs. Garcia and Almariopresasylosestablecimientosalserviciodeloscualesestnlosdelincuentes;perotoncarctersubsidiario,osea,Beguneltextoliteral,endefectodelosqueseanresponsablescriminalmente.NocoincideenelloelCdigoCivil,cuyoartculo1903,dice;La8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 13 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=Guestobligacin que impone el artculo anterior es exi gible, no slo por losactosyomisionespropios,linoporlosdeaquellaspersonasdequienes se debe responder; personas en la enumeracin de las cualesfiguranlosdependientesyempleadosdelosesta blecimientosoempresas,seaporactosdelservicio,seaconocasindesuafunciones. Por esto acontece, y se observa en la jurisprudencia, quelas empresas, despulo de intervenir en las causas criminales con elcarcter subsidiario de su responsabilidad civil por razn del delito,sondemandadasycondenadasdirectayaisladamente,cuandosetrata de la obli gacion, ante los tribunales civiles."Siendocmoseve,diversoelttulodeestaobligacion,yformandoverdaderopostuladodenuestroregimenjudiciallaseparation entre justicia punitiva y tribunales de lo civil, de suertequetienenunosyotrosnormaadefondoendistintoscuerposlegates, y diferentes modos de proceder, habiendose, por afiadidura,abstenidodeasistiraljuiciocriminallaCompaniadelFerrocarrilCantabrico,quesereservoejercitarsusacciones,pareceinnegablequeladeindemnizacinporlosdanosyperjuiciosqueleirrogdelchoque,noestuvosubjudiceanteelTribunaldelJurado,nifusentenciada,sinoquepermaneciointacta,alpronunciarseelfallode21demarzo.Auncuandoelveredictonohubiesesidodeinculpabilidad,mostrosemsarriba,quetalaccinquedabalegitimamentereservadaparadespueadelproceso;peroaldeclararsequenoexistiddelito,niresponsabilidaddimanadadedelito,ma terianicasobrequetenianjurisdictionaquellosjuzgadores, se redobla el motivo para la obligacion civil ex lege, y sepatentizamsymsquelaactionparapedirsucumplimientopermanece incolume, extrafia a la cosa juzgada.""Asthingsare,aproposoftherealitypureandsimpleofthefacts,itseemslesstenablethatthereshouldberesjudicatawithregardtothecivilobligationfordamagesonaccountofthelossescaused by the collision of the trains. The title upon which the actionforreparationisbasedcannotbecon fusedwiththecivilresponsibilitiesbornofacrime,becausethereexistsinthelatter,whatever each nature, a culpa surrounded with aggravating aspectswhich give rise to penal measures that are more or less severe. Theinjury caused by a felony or misdemeanor upon civil rights requiresrestitutions,reparations,orindemnificationswhich,likethepen-altyitself,affectpublicorder;forthisreason,theyareordinarilyentrustedtotheofficeofthepros ecutingattorney;anditisclearthatifbythismeansthelossesanddamagesarerepaired,theinjuredpartynolongerdesirestoseekanotherre lief;butthis8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 14 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=Guestcoincidence of effects does not eliminate the peculiar nature of civilactions to ask for in demnity."Suchcivilactionsinthepresentcase(withoutreferringtocontractual,faultswhicharenotpertinentandbelongtoanotherscope) are derived, according to article 1902 of the Civil Code, fromevery act or omission causing losses and damages in which culpa ornegligence intervenes. It is un important that such actions are everydayfiledbe forethecivilcourtswithoutthecriminalcourtsinterfering therewith. Articles 18 to 21 and 121 to 128 of the PenalCode,bearinginmindthespiritandthesocialandpoliticalpurposesofthatCode,developandregulatethematterofcivilresponsibilitiesarisingfromacrime,separatelyfromtheregimeundercommonlaw,ofculpawhichisknownasaquiliana,inaccordance with legislative pre cedent of the Corpus Juris. It wouldbe unwar ranted to make a detailed comparison between the formerprovisionsandthatregardingtheobligationtoindemnifyonaccount of civil culpa; but it is pertinent and necessary to point outto one of such differences."Articles 20 and 21 of the Penal Code, after distributing in theirownwaythecivilresponsibil itiesamongthosewho,fordifferentreasons,areguiltyoffelonyormisdemeanor,makesuchcivilresponsibilitiesapplicabletoenterprisesandestab lishmentsforwhichtheguiltypartiesrenderserv ice,butwithsubsidarycharacter, that is to say, according to the wording of the Penal Code,indefaultofthosewhoarecriminallyresponsible.Inthisregard,theCivilCodedoesnotcoincidebecausearticle1903says:'Theobligation imposed by the next preceding article is demandable, notonlyforpersonalactsandomissions,butalsoforthoseofpersonsforwhomanotherisresponsible.'Amongthepersonsenumeratedarethesubordinatesandemployeesofestablishmentsorenterprises, either for acts during their service or on the occasion oftheirfunctions.Itisforthisreasonthatithap pens,anditissoobservedinjudicialdecisions,thatthecompaniesorenterprises,aftertakingpartinthecriminalcasesbecauseoftheirsubsidiarycivilresponsibilitybyreasonofthecrime,aresuedandsentenceddirectly and separately with regard to the obligation, before the civilcourts."Seeingthatthetitleofthisobligationisdif ferent,andtheseparationbetweenpunitivejusticeandthecivil,courtsbeingatruepostulateofourjudicialsystem,sothattheyhavedifferentfunda mental norms in different codes, as well as different modes ofprocedure,andinasmuchastheCompaniadelFerrocarril8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 15 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=GuestCantabrico has abstained from taking part in the criminal case andhasreservedtherighttoexerciseitsactions,itseemsundeniablethattheactionforindemnificationforthelossesanddamagescaused to it by the collision was not sub judice beforetheTribunaldelJurado,norwasitthesubjectofasentence,butitremainedintactwhenthedecisionofMarch21wasrendered.Eveniftheverdicthadnotbeenthatofacquittal,ithasalreadybeenshownthatsuchactionhadbeenlegitimatelyreservedtillafterthecriminal prosecu-613VOL. 73, JULY 8, 1942 613Barredo vs. Garcia and Almariotion;butbecauseofthedeclarationofthenon-existenceofthefelonyandthenon-existenceoftheresponsibilityarisingfromthecrime,whichwasthesole subjectmatteruponwhichtheTribunaldelJuradohadjurisdiction,thereisgreaterreasonforthecivilobligationexlege,anditbecomesclearerthattheactionforitsenforcement remain intact and is not res judicata."Laurent,ajuristwhohaswrittenamon umentalworkon the French Civil Code, on which the Spanish Civil Codeislargelybasedandwhoseprovisionsoncuasi-delitoorculpa extra-contractual aresimilartothoseoftheSpanishCivilCode,says,referringtoarticle1384oftheFrenchCivil Code which cor responds to article 1903, Spanish CivilCode:"Theactioncanbebroughtdirectlyagainstthepersonresponsible(foranother),withoutinclud ingtheauthoroftheact.Theactionagainsttheprincipalisaccessoryinthesensethatitimpliestheexistenceofaprejudicialactcommittedbytheemployee,butitisnotsubsidaryinthesensethatitcannotbeinstituted till after the judgment against the author of the act or atleast,thatitissubsidarytotheprincipalaction;theactionforresponsibility(oftheemployer)isinitselfaprincipalaction."(Laurent,PrinciplesofFrenchCivilLaw,Spanishtranslation,Vol.20, pp. 734-735.)Amandi,inhis"CuestionariodelCodigoCivilReformado"(Vol.4,pp.429,430),de claresthatthe8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 16 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=Guestresponsibilityoftheemployerisprincipalandnotsubsidary. He writes:"Cuestin1.!Laresponsabilidaddeclaradaenelartculo1903porlasaccionesuomisionesdeaquellaspersonasporlasquesedeberesponder,essubsidiaria?esprincipal?Paracontestaraestapreguntaesnecesariosaber,enprimerlugar,enque'sefundaelprecepto legal. Es que realmente se impone una responsabilidad porunafaltaajena?Aspareceaprimeravista;perosemejanteafirmacinseriacontrariaalajusticiayalamximauni versal,segnlaquelasfaltassonpersonales,ycadaunorespondedeaquellas que le son imputables. La responsabilidad de que tratamosseimponeconocasindeundelitooculpa,peronoporcausadeellos, sino por causa del cuasi delito, esto es, de la imprudencia o delanegligenciadelpadre,deltutor,deldueoodirectordelestablecimiento,delmaes tro,etc.Cuandocualquieradelaspersonasqueenumeraelartculocitado(menoresdeedad,in-capacitados,dependientes,aprendices)causanundao,laleypresumequeelpadre,eltutor,elmaestro,etc.,hancometidounafalta de negligencia para prevenir o evitar el dao. Esta falta es laque la ley castiga. No hay, pues, responsabilidad por un hecho ajeno,sino en la apariencia; en realidad la responsabilidad se exige por unhecho propio. La idea de que esa responsabilidad sea subsidaria es,por lo tanto, completamente inadmisible.""QuestionNo.1.!Istheresponsibilitydeclaredinarticle1903fortheactsoromissionsofthosepersonsforwhomoneisresponsible,subsidaryorprincipal?Inordertoanswerthisquestion it is necessary to know, in the first place, on what the legalprovisionisbased.Isittruethatthereisaresponsibilityforthefault of another person? It seems so at first sight; but such assertionwouldbecontrarytojusticeandtotheuniversalmaximthatallfaults are personal, and that everyone is liable for those faults thatcan be imputed to him. The responsibility in question is imposed ontheoccasionofacrimeorfault,butnotbecauseofthesame,butbecauseofthecuasi-delito,thatistosay,theimprudenceornegligenceofthefather,guardan,proprietorormanageroftheestablishment, of the teacher, etc. Whenever anyone of the personsenumeratedinthearticlereferredto(minors,in capacitatedpersons,employees,apprentices)causesanydamage,thelawpresumes that the father, guardan, teacher, etc. have committed anact of negligence in not preventing or avoiding the dam age. It is thisfaultthatiscondemnedbythelaw.Itis,therefore,onlyapparentthatthereisaresponsibilityfortheactofanother;inrealitythe8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 17 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=Guestresponsibilityexactedisforone'sownact.Theideathatsuchresponsibility is subsidary is, therefore, completely inadmissible."Oyuelos,inhis"Digesto:Principios,DoctrinayJurisprudencia,ReferentesalCdigoCivilEspaol,"saysin Vol. VII, p. 743:"Esdecir,noserespondedehechosajenos,porqueserespondeslodesupropiaculpa,doctrinadelartculo1902;msporexcepcin, se responde de la ajena respecto de aquellas personas conlasquemedaalgnnexoovinculo,quemotivaorazonalaresponsabilidad.Estaresponsabilidad,esdirectaoessubsidiaria?En el orden penal, el Cdigo de esta clase distingue entre menores eincapacitadosylosdems,declarandodirectalaprimera(artculo19)ysubsidiarialasegunda(articulos20y21);peroenelordencivil,enelcasodelartculo1903,hadeentendersedirecta,pot/eltenordelartculoqueimponelaresponsabilidadprecisamente'porlos actos de aquellas personas de quienes se deba responder.'""Thatistosay,oneisnotresponsiblefortheactsofothers,because one is liable only for his own faults, this being the doctrineofarticle1902;but,byexception,oneisliablefortheactsofthosepersonswithwhomthereisabondortiewhichgivesrisetotheresponsibility.Isthisresponsibilitydirectorsubsidiary?Intheorderofthepenallaw,thePenalCodedistinguishesbetweenminorsandincapacitatedpersonsontheonehand,andotherpersons on the other, declaring that the responsibility for the formerisdirect(article19),andforthelatter,subsidiary(articles20and21); but in the scheme of the civil law, in the case of article 1903, theresponsibility should be understood as direct, according to the tenorof that article, for precisely it imposes responsibility for the acts of614614 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATEDBarredo vs. Garcia and Almariothose persons for whom one should be responsible.'"Coming now to the sentences of the Supreme Tribunal ofSpain, that court has upheld the principles above set forth:thataquasi-delict or culpaextra-contractualisaseparateanddistinctlegalinstitution,inde pendentfromthecivilresponsibilityarisingfromcriminalliability,andthatan8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 18 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=Guestemployer is, under article 1903 of the Civil Code, primarilyanddirectlyresponsiblefortheneg ligentactsofhisemployee.One of the most important of those Span ish decisions isthatofOctober21,1910.Inthatcase,RamonLafuentediedastheresultofhavingbeenrunoverbyastreetcarowned by the "Compania Electrica Madrilena de Traccin."Theconductorwasprosecutedinacriminalcasebuthewasacquitted.Thereupon,thewidowfiledacivilactionagainst the street car company, praying for damages in theamountof15,000pesetas.Thelowercourtawardeddamages;sothecompanyappealedtotheSupremeTribunal, alleging violation of arti cles 1902 and 1903 of theCivilCodebecausebyfinaljudgmentthenon-existenceoffaultornegligencehadbeendeclared.TheSu premeCourtof Spain dismissed the appeal, saying:"ConsiderandoqueelprimermotivodelrecursosefundaenelequivocadosupuestodequeelTribunalaquo,alcondonaralaCompaaElctricaHadrileaalpagodeldaocausadoconlamuertedeRamnLafuenteIzquierdo,desconoceelvaloryefectosjurdicosdelasentenciaabsolutoriadictadaenlacausacriminalquesesiguiporelmismohecho,cuandoeslociertoquedeestehan conocido las dos jurisdicciones bajo diferentes aspectos, y cmoladelocriminaldeclar6dentrodeloslimitendesucompetenciaqueelhechodequesetratanoeraconstitutivodedelitopornohabermediadodescuidoonegligenciagraves,loquenoexcluye,siendo este el nico fundamento del fallo absolutorio, el concurso delaculpaonegligencianocalificadas,fuentedeobligacionescivilesSegnelartculo1902delCdigoCivil,yquealcanzan,segnel1903,entreotraspersonas,alosDirectoresdeestablecimientosoempresasporlosdaoscausadosporsusdependientesendeterminadas condiciones, es manifiesto que la de lo civil, al conocerdelmismohechobajoesteultimoaspectoyalcondenaralaCompaa recurrente a la indemnizacin del dao causado por unodesusempleados,lejosdeinfringirlosmencionadostextos,enrelacin con el artculo 116 de la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal, sehaatenidoestrictamenteaellos,sininvadiratribucionesajenasasujurisdiccinpropia,mcontrariarenlomasmnimoelfallorecado en la causa.""Consideringthatthefirstgroundoftheappealisbasedonthemistakensuppositionthatthetrialcourt,insentencingtheCompania Madrilena tothepaymentofthedamagecausedbythe8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 19 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=GuestdeathofRamonLafuenteIzquierdo,disregardsthevalueandjuridical effects of the sentence of acquittal rendered in the criminalcase instituted on account of the same act, when it is a fact that thetwojuris dictionshadtakencognizanceofthesameactinitsdifferentaspects,andasthecriminaljurisdic tiondeclaredwithinthe limits of its authority that the act in question did not constitutea felony because there was no grave carelessness or negligence, andthisbeingtheonlybasisofacquittal,itdoesnotexcludetheco-existenceoffaultornegligencewhichisnotqualified,andisasource of civil obligations according to article 1902 of the Civil Code,affecting, in accordance with article 1903, among other persons, themanagersofestablishmentsorenterprisesbyreasonofthedamagescausedbyemployeesundercertainconditions,itismanifest that the civil jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the sameactinthislatteraspectandinorderingthecompany,appellantherein,topayanindemnity.forthedamagecausedbyoneofitsemployees, farfromviolatingsaidlegalprovisions,inrelationwitharticle116oftheLawofCriminalProcedure,strictlyfollowedthesame,withoutinvadingattri buteswhicharebeyonditsownjurisdiction,andwithoutinanywaycontradictingthedecisioninthat cause." (Italics supplied.)It will be noted, as to the case just cited:First.!Thattheconductorwasnotsuedinacivilcase,eitherseparatelyorwiththestreetcarcompany.Thisispreciselywhathappensinthepresentcase:thedriver,Fontanilla,hasnotbeensued in a civil action, either alone or with his employer.Second.!Thattheconductorhadbeenac quittedofgravecriminalnegligence,buttheSupremeTribunalofSpainsaidthatthis did not exclude the co-existence of fault or negligence, which isnot qualified, on the part of the conductor, under article 1902 of theCivilCode.Inthepresentcase,thetaxidriverwasfoundguiltyofcriminalnegli gence,sothatifhehadevensuedforhiscivilresponsibilityarisingfromthecrime,hewouldhavebeenheldprimarilyliableforcivildamages,andBarredowouldhavebeenheldsubsidarilyliableforthesame.ButtheplaintiffsaredirectlysuingBarredo,"onhisprimaryresponsibilitybecauseofhisownpresumednegligencewhichhedidnotover comeunderarticle1903.Thus,thereweretwoliabilitiesofBarredo:first,thesub-sidaryonebecauseofthecivilliabilityofthetaxidriverarisingfromthelatter'scrim inalnegligence;and,second,Barredo'spri -maryliabilityasanemployerunderarticle1903.Theplaintiffs8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 20 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=Guestwere free to choose which course to take, and they preferred the615VOL. 73, JULY 8, 1942 615Barredo vs. Garcia and Almariosecond remedy. In so doing, they were act ing within their rights. Itmightbeobservedinpassing,thattheplaintiffschosethemoreexpeditiousandeffectivemethodofrelief,becauseFontanillawaseitherinprison,orhadjustbeenreleased,andbesides,hewasprobablywithoutpropertywhichmightbeseizedinenforcinganyjudgment against him for damages.Third.!ThatinasmuchasintheabovesentenceofOctober21,1910,theemployerwasheldliablecivilly,notwithstandingtheacquittaloftheemployee(theconductor)inapreviouscriminalcase, with greater reason should Barredo, the employer in the caseatbar,beheldliablefordamagesinacivilsuitfiledagainsthimbecause his taxi driver had been convicted. The degree of negligenceof the conductor in the Spanish case cited was less than that of thetaxidriver,Fontanilla,becausetheformerwasacquittedintheprevious criminal case while the latter was found guilty of criminalnegligenceandwassentencedtoanindeterminatesentenceofoneyear and one day to two years of prisin correctional.(See also SentenceofFebruary19,1902,whichissimilartotheone above quoted.)IntheSentenceoftheSupremeCourtofSpain,datedFebruary14,1919,anactionwasbroughtagainstarailroadcompanyfordamagesbecausethestationagent,em ployedbythecompany,hadunjustlyandfraudulently,refused to deliver certain ar ticles consigned to the plaintiff.TheSupremeCourtofSpainheldthatthisactionwasproperlyunderarticle1902oftheCivilCode,thecourtsaying:"Considerandoquelasentenciadiscutidareconoce,envirtuddelos hechos que consigna con relacin a las pruebas del pleito: l., quelasexpedicionesfacturadasporlacompaaferroviariaalaconsignacindelactordelasvasijasvacasqueensudemandarelacionantenancmofinelqueestelasdevolvieraasusremitentes con vinos y alcoholes; 2. , que llegadas a su destino talesmercancasnosequisieronentregaradichoconsignatarioporel8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 21 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=Guestjefedelaestacinsinmotivojustificadoyconintencindolosa,y3.a,quelafaltadeentregadeestasexpedicionesaltiempodereclamarlaselde mandanteleoriginarondanosyperjuiciosencantidaddebastanteimportanciacmoexpendedoralpormayorque era de vinos y alcoholes por las ganancias que dejo de obtener alverseprivadodeservirlospedidosqueselehabanhechoporlosremitentes en loa envases:"Considerando que sobre esta base hay necesidad de estimar loscuatro motivos que integran este recurso, porque la demanda inicialdelpleitoaquesecontraenocontieneaccinquenazcadelincumplimiento del contrato de transporte, toda vez que no se fundaenelretrasodelallegadadelasmercancasnideningnotrovinculocontractualentrelaspartescontendientes,careciendo,portanto,deaplicacinelartculo371delCdigodeComercio,enqueprincipalmentedescansaelfallorecurrido,sinoqueselimitaapedirlareparacindelosdanosyperjuiciosproducidosenelpatrimoniodelactorporlainjustincadaydolosanegativadelporteador a la entrega de las mercancas a su nombre consignadas,segnloreconocelasentencia,ycuyaresponsabilidadestaclaramentesancionadaenelartculo1902delCdigoCivil,queobliga por el siguiente a la Compaa demandada cmo ligada con elcausantedeaquellosporrelacionesdecarctereconmicoydejerarqua administrativa.""Considering that the sentence, in question recog nizes, in virtueof the facts which it declares, in relation to the evidence in the case:(1)thattheinvoiceissuedbytherailroadcompanyinfavoroftheplaintiff contemplated that the empty receptacles referred to in thecomplaintshouldbereturnedtotheconsignorswithwinesandliquors;(2)thatwhenthesaidmerchandisereachedtheirdestina-tion,theirdeliverytotheconsigneewasrefusedbythestationagent without justification and with fraudulent intent, and (3) thatthe lack of delivery of these goods when they were demanded by theplaintiff caused him losses and damages of considerable importance,as he was a wholesale vendor of wines and liquors and he failed torealize the profits when he was unable to fill the orders sent to himby the consignors of the receptacles:"Considering that upon this basis there is need of upholding thefour assignments of error, as the original complaint did not containanycauseofactionarisingfromnon-fulfilmentofacontractoftransportation, because the action was not based on the delay of thegoodsnoronanycontractualre lationbetweenthepartieslitigantand,therefore,article371oftheCodeofCommerce,onwhichthe8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 22 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=Guestdecision appealed from is based, is not applicable; but it limits itselftoaskingforreparationforlossesanddamagesproducedonthepatrimonyoftheplaintifftmaccountoftheunjustifiedandfrau -dulentrefusalofthecarriertodeliverthegoodsconsignedtotheplaintiff as stated by the sentence, and the carrier's responsibility isclearlylaiddowninarticle1902oftheCivilCodewhichbinds,invirtue of the next article, the defendant company, because the latteris connected with the person who caused the damage by relations ofeconomicchar acterandbyadministrativehierarchy."(Italicssupplied.)TheabovecaseispertinentbecauseitshowsthatthesameactmaycomeunderboththePenalCodeandtheCivilCode.Inthatcase,theactionoftheagent.wasunjustifiedandfraudulentandthereforecouldhavebeenthesubjectofacriminalaction.Andyet,itwasheldtobealsoapropersubjectofacivilactionunderarticle1902ofthe Civil Code. It is also to be616616 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATEDBarredo vs. Garcia and Almarionotedthatitwastheemployerandnottheemployeewhowas being sued.Let us now examine the cases previously decided by thisCourt.In the leading case of Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf and PacificCo.(7Phil.,359,362-365[year1907]),thetrialcourtawardeddam agestotheplaintiff,alaborerofthede -fendant, because the latter had negligently failed to repaira tramway, in consequence of which the rails slid off whileiron was being transported, and caught the plaintiff whoselegwasbroken.ThisCourtheld:"Itiscontendedbythedefendant,asitsfirstdefensetotheactionthatthenecessaryconclusionfromthesecollatedlawsisthattheremedyforinjuriesthroughnegligenceliesonlyinacriminalactioninwhichtheofficialcriminallyresponsiblemustbemadeprimarilyliableandhisemployerheldonlysubsidarilytohim.Accordingtothistheorytheplaintiffshould have procured the arrest of the representative of the8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 23 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=Guestcompany accountable for not repairing the track, and on hisprosecutionasuitablefineshouldhavebeenimposed,payable primarily by him and secondarily by his employer."This reasoning misconceived the plan of the Spanish codes uponthissubject.Article1093oftheCivilCodemakesobligationsarising from faults or negligence not punished by the law, sub ject totheprovisionsofChapterIIofTitleXVI.Section1902ofthatchapter reads:" 'A person who by an act or omission causes damage to anotherwhenthereisfaultornegligenceshallbeobligedtorepairthedamage so done." 'SEC. 1903.!The obligation imposed by the pre ceding article isdemandable,notonlyforpersonalactsandomissions,butalsoforthose of the persons for whom they should be responsible."'The father, and on his death or incapacity, the mother, is. liablefor the damages caused by the minors who live with them."'Ownersordirectorsofanestablishmentorenterpriseareequallyliableforthedamagescausedbytheiremployeesintheserviceofthebranchesinwhichthelattermaybeemployedorinthe performance of their duties.*!!*!!*!!*!!*!!*!!*!!*"'Theliabilityreferredtointhisarticleshallceasewhenthepersonsmentionedthereinprovethattheyemployedallthediligence of a good father of a family to avoid the damage.'""As an answer to the argument urged in this particular action itmay be sufficient to point out that nowhere in our general statutesistheem ployerpenalizedforfailuretoprovideormaintainsafeappliancesforhisworkmen.Hisobligationthereforeisone'notpunishedbythelaws'andfallsundercivilratherthancriminaljurisprudence. But the answer may be a broader one. We should bereluctant,underanyconditions,toadoptaforcedconstructionofthesescientificcodes,suchasisproposedbythedefendant,thatwouldrobsomeofthesearticlesofeffect,wouldshutoutlitigantsagainst their will from the civil courts, would make the assertion oftheirrightsdependentupontheselectionforprosecutionoftheproper criminal offender, and render recovery doubtful by reason ofthe strict rules of proof prevailing in criminal actions. Even if thesearticleshadalwaysstoodalone,suchaconstructionwouldbeunnecessary,butclearlightisthrownupontheirmeaningbytheprovisionsoftheLawofCriminalProcedureofSpain(LeydeEnjuiciamientoCriminal),which,thoughneverinactualforceintheseIslands,wasformerlygivenasuppletoryorexplanatory8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 24 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=Guesteffect. Under article 111 of this law, both classes of action, civil andcriminal,mightbeprosecutedjointlyorseparately,butwhilethepenalactionwaspendingthecivilwassuspended.Accordingtoarticle 112, the penal action once started, the civil remedy should besought therewith, unless it had been waived by the party injured orbeen expressly reserved by him for civil proceedings for the future.If the civil action alone was prosecuted, arising out of a crime thatcouldbeenforcedonlyonprivatecomplaint,thepenalactionthereundershouldbeex tinguished.Theseprovisionsareinharmony with those of articles 23 and 133 of our Penal Code on thesame subject."An examination of this topic might be carried much further, butthecitationofthesearticlessufficestoshowthat.thecivilliabilitywasnotintendedtobemergedinthecriminalnoreventobesuspendedthereby,exceptasexpresslyprovidedinthelaw.Wherean individual is civilly liable for a negligent act or omission, it is notrequiredthattheinjuredpartyshouldseekoutathirdpersoncriminallyliablewhoseprosecutionmustbeaconditionprecedentto the enforcement of the civil right."Underarticle20ofthePenalCodetheresponsibilityofanemployermayberegardedassubsi daryinrespectofcriminalactionsagainsthisemployeesonlywhiletheyareinprocessofprosecution,orinsofarastheydeterminetheexistenceofthecriminalactfromwhichliabilityarises,andhisobligationunderthecivillawanditsenforce mentinthecivilcourtsisnotbarredthereby unless by the election of the injured person. Inasmuch as nocriminal proceeding had been instituted, grow ing out of the accidentinquestion,theprovisionsofthePenalCodecannotaffectthisaction.Thisconstructionrendersitunnecessarytofinallyde-termine here whether this subsidary civil liability in penal actionshas survived the laws that fully regulated it or has been abrogatedbytheAmericancivilandcriminalprocedurenowinforceinthePhilippines."Thedifficultyinconstruingthearticlesofthecodeabovecitedinthiscaseappearsfromthebriefsbeforeustohavearisenfromthe interpretation of the words of article 1093, 'fault or negligence617VOL. 73, JULY 8, 1942 617Barredo vs. Garcia and Almario8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 25 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=Guestnotpunishedbylaw,asappliedtothecompre hensivedefinitionofoffensesinarticles568and590ofthePenalCode.Ithasbeenshown that the liability of an employer arising out of his relation tohisemployeewhoistheoffenderisnottoberegardedasderivedfrom negligence punished by the law, within the meaning of articles1902and1093.Morethanthis,however,itcannotbesaidtofallwithin the class of acts unpunished by the law, the consequences ofwhichareregulatedbyarticles1902and1903oftheCivilCode.The acts to which these articles are applicable are understood to bethosenotgrowingoutofpre-existingdutiesofthepartiestooneanother.Butwhererelationsalreadyformedgiverisetoduties,whether springing from contract or quasi contract, then breaches ofthose duties are subject to articles 1101, 1103, and 1104 of the samecode.Atypicalapplicationofthisdistinctionmaybefoundintheconsequencesofarailwayaccidentduetodefectivemachinerysuppliedbytheemployer.Hisliabilitytohisemployeewouldariseout of the contract of employment, that to the passengers out of thecontractforpassage,whilethattotheinjuredbystanderwouldoriginate in the negligent act itself."In Manzanares vs. Moreta, 38 Phil., 821 (year 1918), themother of the 8 or 9-year-old child Salvador Bona brought acivilactionagainstMoretatorecoverdamagesresult ingfromthedeathofthechild,whohadbeenrun.overbyanautomobile driven and managed by the defendant. The trialcourtrenderedjudgmentrequiringthedefendanttopaythe plaintiff the sum of P1,000 as indemnity. This Court inaffirming the judgment, said in part:"If it were true that the defendant, in coming from the southernpartofSolanaStreet,hadtostophisautobeforecrossingRealStreet,becausehehadmetvehicleswhichweregoingalongthelatterstreetorwerecomingfromtheoppositedi rectionalongSolana Street, it is to be believed that, when he again started to runhisautoacrosssaidRealStreetandtocontinueitswayalongSo -lanaStreetnorthward,heshouldhaveadjustedthespeedoftheauto which he was operating until he had fully crossed Real StreetandhadcompletelyreachedaclearwayonSolanaStreet.But,asthechildwasrunoverbytheautopreciselyattheentranceofSolana Street, this accident could not have occurred if the auto hadbeenrunningataslowspeed,asidefromthefactthatthedefendant,atthemomentofcrossingRealStreetandenteringSolana Street, in a northward direction, could have seen the child in8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 26 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=Guestthe act of crossing the latter street from the sidewalk on the right tothat on the left, and if the accident had occurred in such a way thataftertheautomobilehadrunoverthebodyofthechild,andthechild'sbodyhadalreadybeenstretchedoutontheground,theautomobilestillmovedalongadistanceofabout2meters,thiscircumstanceshowsthefactthattheautomobileenteredSolanaStreetfromRealStreet,atahighspeedwithoutthedefendanthaving blown the horn. If these precautions had been taken by thedefendant,thedeplorableaccidentwhichcausedthedeathofthechild would not have occurred."Itwillbenoticedthatthedefendantintheabovecasecouldhavebeenprosecutedinacriminalcasebecausehisnegligencecausingthedeathofthechildwaspunishableby the Penal Code. Here is therefore a clear instance of thesame act of negligence being a proper subject-matter eitherofacriminalactionwithitsconsequentcivilliabilityarisingfromacrimeorofanentirelyseparateandindependentcivilactionforfaultornegligenceunderarticle 1902 of the Civil Code. Thus, in this jurisdiction, theseparateindividualityofacuasi-delitoorculpaaquilianaunder the Civil Code has been fully and clearly recognized,evenwithregardtoanegligentactforwhichthewrongdoercouldhavebeenprosecutedandconvictedinacriminalcaseandforwhich,aftersuchaconviction,hecould have been sued for this civil liability arising from hiscrime.Years later (in 1930) this Court had another occasion toapply the same doctrine. In Bernal and Enverso vs.HouseandTaclobanElectric&IcePlant,Ltd.,54Phil.,327,theparentsofthefive-year-oldchild,PurificacionBernal,broughtacivilactiontore coverdamagesforthechild'sdeathasaresultofburnscausedbythefaultandneg-ligence of the defendants. On the evening of April 10, 1925,theGoodFridaypro cessionwasheldinTacloban,Leyte.FortunataEnversowithherdaughterPurificacionBernalhadcomefromanothermunicipalitytoattendthesame.After the procession the mother and the daughter with twootherswerepassingalongGranCapitanStreetinfrontofthe offices of the Tacloban Electric & Ice Plant, Ltd., ownedbydefendantJ.V.House,whenanautomobileappearedfrom the opposite direction. The little girl, who was slightlyahead of the rest, was so frightened by the automobile that8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 27 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=Guestshe turned to run, but unfortunately she fell into the streetgutter where hot water from the electric plant was flowing.Thechilddiedthatsamenightfromtheburns.Thetrialcourtdis missedtheactionbecauseofthecontributorynegligence of the plaintiffs. But this Court held, on appeal,that there was no contributory negligence, and allowed theparentsP1,000indamagesfromJ.V.Housewhoatthetimeofthetragicoccurrencewastheholderofthefranchise for the electric plant. This Court said in part:618618 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATEDBarredo vs. Garcia and Almario"Althoughthetrialjudgemadethefindingsoffacthereinbeforeoutlined,heneverthelesswasledtoorderthedismissaloftheactionbecauseofthecontributorynegligenceoftheplaintiffs.Itisfromthispointthatamajorityofthecourtdepartfromthestandtakenbythetrialjudge.Themotherandherchildhadaperfectright to be on the principal street of Tacloban, Leyte, on the eveningwhenthereligiousprocessionwasheld.Therewasnothingabnormal in allowing the child to run along a few paces in advanceof the mother. No one could foresee the coincidence of an automobileappearing and of a frightened child running and falling into a ditchfilled with hot water. The doctrine an nounced in the much debatedcase of Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co. ([1907], 7 Phil., 359),still rule. Article 1902 of the Civil Code must again be enforced. Thecontributory negligence of the child and her mother, if any, does notoperateasabartorecovery,butinitsstrictestsensecouldonlyresult in reduction of the damages."Itismostsignificantthatinthecasejustcited,thisCourtspecificallyappliedarticle1902oftheCivilCode.ItisthusthatalthoughJ.V.Housecouldhavebeencrim-inally prosecuted for reckless or simple negligence and notonlypunishedbutalsomadecivillyliablebecauseofhiscriminalnegligence,neverthelessthisCourtawardeddamagesinanindependentcivilactionforfaultornegligence under article 1902 of the Civil Code.InBahiavs.LitonjuaandLeynes(30Phil.,624[year1915]),theactionwasfordamagesforthedeathofthe8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 28 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=Guestplaintiff'sdaughterallegedtohavebeencausedbythenegligence of the servant in driving an automobile over thechild. It appeared that the cause of the mishap was a defectin the steering gear. The defendant Leynes had rented theautomobile from the International Garage of Manila, to beusedbyhimincar ryingpassengersduringthefiestaofTuy,Batangas.LeyneswasorderedbythelowercourttopayP1,000asdamagestotheplaintiff.OnappealthisCourtreversedthejudgmentastoLeynesonthegroundthathehadshownthatheexercisedthecareofagoodfatherofafamily,thusovercomingthepresumptionofnegligence under article 1903. This Court said:"Astoselection,thedefendanthasclearlyshownthatheexercisedthecareanddiligenceofagoodfatherofafamily.Heobtained the machine from a reputable garage and it was, so far asappeared,ingoodcondition.Theworkmenwerelikewiseselectedfromastandardgarage,weredulylicensedbytheGovernmentintheirparticularcalling,andapparentlythoroughlycompetent.Themachine had been used but a few hours when the accident occurredanditisclearfromtheevidencethatthedefendanthadnonotice,eitheractualorconstructive,ofthedefectiveconditionofthesteering gear."The legal aspect of the case was discussed by this Courtthus:"Article1903oftheCivilCodenotonlyestab lishesliabilityineases of negligence, but also pro vides when the liability shall cease.It says:"'Theliabilityreferredtointhisarticleshallceasewhenthepersonsmentionedthereinprovethattheyemployedallthediligence of a good father of a family to avoid the damage."'"Fromthisarticletwothingsareapparent:(1)Thatwhenaninjuryiscausedbythenegligenceofaservantoremployeethereinstantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence onthepartofthemasteroremployereitherintheselectionoftheservant or employee, or in super vision over him after the selection,or both; and (2) that that presumption is juris tantum and not juriset de jure, and consequently, may be rebutted. It follows necessarilythatiftheemployershowstothesatisfactionofthecourtthatinselection and supervision he has exercised the care and diligence ofagoodfatherofafamily,thepresumptionisovercomeandheis8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 29 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=Guestrelieved from liability."This theory bases the responsibility of the master ultimately onhis own negligence and not on that of his servant."ThedoctrineofthecasejustcitedwasfollowedbythisCourtinCerfvs.Medel(33Phil.,37[year1915]).Inthelattercase,thecomplaintallegedthatthedefend ant'sservanthadsonegligentlydrivenanautomobile,whichwasoperatedbydefendantasapublicvehicle,thatsaidautomobilestruckanddamagedtheplaintiff'smotorcycle.This Court, applying article 1903 and following the rule inBahia vs. Litonjua and Leynes, said in part (p. 41) that:"Themasterisliableforthenegligentactsofhisservantwhereheistheownerordirectorofabusinessorenterpriseandthenegligentactsarecommittedwhiletheservantisengagedinhismaster's employment as such owner."AnothercasewhichfollowedthedecisioninBahiavs.LitonjuaandLeyneswasCuisonvs.Norton&HarrisonCo., 55 Phil., 18 (year 1930). The latter case was an actionfordamagesbroughtbyCuisonforthedeathofhisseven-year-old son Moises. The little boy was on his way to schoolwithhissisterMarciana.Somelargepiecesoflumberfellfromatruckandpinnedtheboyunderneath,instantlykillinghim.Twoyouths,TelesforoBinoyaandFranciscoBautista,whowereworkingforOra,anem ployeeofdefendantNorton&HarrisonCo.,pleadedguiltytothecrime of homicide619VOL. 73, JULY 8, 1942 619Barredo vs. Garcia and Almariothroughrecklessnegligenceandweresen tencedaccordingly.ThisCourt,applyingarticles1902and1903,held:"The basis of civil law liability is not respondent superior but therelationship of pater familial. Thistheorybasestheliabilityofthemasterultimatelyonhisownnegligenceandnotonthatofhisservant."(Bahiavs.LitonjuaandLeynes[1915],30Phil.,624;8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 30 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=GuestCangco vs. Manila Railroad Co. [1918], 38 Phil., 768.)InWalterA.Smith&Co.vs.CadwalladerGibsonLumber Co., 55 Phil., 517 (year 1930) the plaintiff broughtan action for damages for the demolition of its wharf, whichhadbeenstruckbythesteamerHelen.Cbelongingtothedefendant. This Court held (p. 526):"The evidence shows that Captain Lasa at the time the plaintiff'swharf collapsed was a duly licensed captain, authorized to navigateand direct a vessel of any tonnage, and that the appellee contractedhisservicesbecauseofhisreputationasacaptain,accordingtoF.C.Cadwallader.Thisbeingso,weareoftheopinionthatthepresumptionofliabilityagainstthedefendanthasbeenovercomeby the exercise of the care and diligence of a good father of a familyinselectingCaptainLasa,inaccordancewiththedoctrineslaiddownbythiscourtintheeasescitedabove,andthedefendantistherefore absolved from all liability."Itis,therefore,seenthatthedefendant'stheoryabouthissecondaryliabilityisnega tivedbythesixcasesabovesetforth.Heis,ontheauthorityofthesecases,primarilyanddirectlyresponsibleindamagesunderarticle1903,inrelation to article 1902, of the Civil Code.Let us now take up the Philippine decisions relied uponby the defendant. We study first, City of Manila vs. ManilaElectric Co., 52 Phil., 586 (year 1928). A collision between atruckoftheCityofManilaandastreetcaroftheManilaElectricCo.tookplaceonJune8,1925.ThetruckwasdamagedintheamountofP1,788.27.SixtoEustaquio,themotorman,wasprosecutedforthecrimeofdamagetopropertyandslightinjuriesthroughrecklessimprudence.He was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of P900, toindemnify the City of Manila for P1,788.27, with subsidaryim prisonmentincaseofinsolvency.UnabletocollecttheindemnityfromEustaquio,theCityofManilafiledanactionagainsttheManilaElectricCompanytoobtainpayment,claimingthatthedefendantwassubsidarilyliable.'Themaindefensewasthatthede fendanthadexercisedthediligenceofagoodfatherofafamilytoprevent the damage. The lower court rendered judgment infavoroftheplaintiff.ThisCourtheld,inpart,thatthiscase was governed by the Penal Code, saying:8/7/15, 7:12 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073Page 31 of 36 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f07dc69f34684c44f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALX268/?username=Guest"With this preliminary point out of the way, there is no escapingtheconclusionthattheprovisionsofthePenalCodegovern.ThePenalCode