macasaet & assoc v comm on audit - air france v carrascoso for nov 5 2015.docx

7/24/2019 Macasaet & Assoc v Comm on Audit - Air France v Carrascoso for Nov 5 2015.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/macasaet-assoc-v-comm-on-audit-air-france-v-carrascoso-for-nov-5-2015docx 1/76

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 83748 May 12, 1989

FLAVIO K MACASAET & ASSOCIATES, INC., petitioner,

vs.

COMMISSION ON AUIT a!" P#ILIPPINE TOURISM

AUT#ORIT$, respondents.

F. Sumulong & Associates Law Ofces or petitioner.

MELENCIO%#ERRERA, J.:

In this Petition for Certiorari, pursuant to Section 7, Article I

of the !"#7 Constitution, 1 petitioner, $lavio %. Macasaet &

Associates, Inc., pra's that the rulin( of public respondent

Co))ission on Audit *C+A den'in( its clai) for co)pletion

of pa')ent of professional fees be overturned. -he facts

follo. +n !/ Septe)ber !"77 respondent Philippine -ouris)

Authorit' *P-A entered into a Contract for 0Pro1ect 2esi(nand Mana(e)ent Services for the develop)ent of the

proposed 3a)boan(a 4olf and Countr' Club, Calarian,

3a)boan(a Cit'0 ith petitioner co)pan', but ori(inall'

ith $lavio % Macasaet alone *hereinafter referred to si)pl'

as the 0Contract0.

5nder the Contract, P-A obli(ated itself to pa' petitioner a

professional fee of seven *76 of the actual construction

cost, as follos

AR-IC8E I9 : PR+$ESSI+NA8 $EE

In consideration for the professional services

to be perfor)ed b' 2esi(ner under Article I of

this A(ree)ent, the Authorit' shall pa' seven

percent *76 of the actual construction cost .

In addition, a Schedule of Pa')ents as provided for hile

the construction as in pro(ress and up to its ;nal

co)pletion, thus

AR-IC8E 9 : SC<E258E +$ PA=MEN-S

!. 5pon the e>ecution of the A(ree)ent but

not )ore than ;fteen *!/ da's, a )ini)u)

pa')ent e?uivalent to !@ percent of the

professional fee as provided in Art. I9

co)puted upon a reasonable estimated

construction cost of the pro1ect.

. 5pon the co)pletion of the sche)atic

desi(n services, but not )ore than !/ da'safter the sub)ission of the sche)atic desi(n

to the Authorit', a su) e?uivalent to !/6 of

the professional fee as stated in Art. I9

co)puted upon the reasonable estimated

construction cost of the pro1ect.

. 5pon co)pletion of the desi(n

develop)ent services, but not )ore than !/



da's after sub)ission of the desi(n

develop)ent to the authorit', a su)

e?uivalent to @6 of the professional fee as

stated in Art. I9, co)puted upon

the reasonable estimated construction cost .

. 5pon co)pletion of the contract docu)ent

services but not )ore than !/ da's after

sub)ission of the contract docu)ent to the

Authorit', a su) e?uivalent to /6 of the

professional fee as stated in Art. I9, shall be

paid co)puted on the same basis as above.

/. 5pon co)pletion of the orD and

acceptance thereof b' the Authorit', the

balance of the professional fee, co)puted onthe nal actual project cost shall be paid.

*E)phasis supplied

Pursuant to the fore(oin( Schedule, the P-A )ade periodic

pa')ents of the stipulated professional fees to petitioner.

And, upon co)pletion of the pro1ect, P-A paid petitioners

hat it perceived to be the balance of the latters

professional fees.

It turned out, hoever, that after the pro1ect as co)pleted,P-A paid Supra Construction Co)pan', the )ain contractor,

the additional su) of P,!#,!"#.F representin( the

escalation cost of the contract price due to the increase in

the price of construction )aterials.

5pon learnin( of the price escalation, petitioner re?uested

pa')ent of P!",@.7 additional professional fee

representin( seven *76 percent of P,!#,!"#.F.

+n Gul' !"#/ P-A denied pa')ent on the (round that 0the

sub1ect price escalation referred to increased cost of

construction )aterials and did not entail additional orD on

the part of petitioner as to entitle it to additional

co)pensation under Article 9I of the contract.0 2

Reconsiderations sou(ht b' the petitioner, up to respondent

C+A, ere to no avail. -he latter e>pressed the opinion that

0to allo sub1ect clai) in the absence of a shoin( that

e>tra or additional services had been rendered b' clai)ant

ould certainl' result in overpa')ent to hi) to the

pre1udice of the 4overn)ent0 *!st Indorse)ent, Gul' !@,

!"#7, p. , Rollo, p. .

<ence this Petition, to hich e (ave due course.

-he basic issue for resolution is petitioners entitle)ent to

additional professional fees, hich, in turn, hin(es on

hether or not the price escalation should be included in the

0;nal actual pro1ect cost.0

Public respondents, throu(h the Solicitor 4eneral, )aintain

that petitioner had been paid its professional fee upon

co)pletion of the pro1ect and that its clai) for additional

pa')ent is ithout an' le(al and factual basis for, after all,

no additional architectural services ere rendered otherthan the ones under the ter)s of the Contract. +n the other

hand, petitioner anchors its clai) to additional professional

fees, not on an' chan(e in services rendered, but on Article

I9, and para(raph / of Article 9, of the Contract, supra.

-he ver' ter)inolo(ies used in the Contract call for

aHr)ative relief in petitioners favor.



5nder Article I9 of said Contract, petitioner as to be

entitled to seven *76 of the 0actual construction cost .0

5nder para(raphs !, , , and , Article 9, periodic

pa')ents ere to be based on a 0reasonable estimated

construction cost .0 ulti)atel', under para(raph /, Article 9,

the balance of the professional fee as to be co)puted on

the basis of 0the nal actual project cost .0

-he use of the ter)s 0actual construction cost0, (radatin(

into 0nal actual project cost 0 is not ithout si(ni;cance.

-he real intend)ent of the parties, as shon b' para(raph

/, Article 9, of their Contract as to base the ulti)ate

balance of petitioners professional fees not on 0actual

construction cost 0 alone but on the ;nal actual pro1ect cost

not on 0construction cost0 alone but on 0 project cost .0 B' so

providin(, the Contract alloed for Je>ibilit' based onactualit' and as a )atter of e?uit' for the contractin(

parties. $or evidentl', the ;nal actual pro1ect cost ould not

necessaril' tall' ith the actual construction cost initiall'

co)puted. -he 0;nal actual pro1ect cost0 covers the totalit'

of all costs as actuall' and ;nall' deter)ined, and lo(icall'

includes the escalation cost of the contract price.

It )atters not that the price escalation aarded to the

construction co)pan' did not entail additional orD for

petitioner. As a )atter of fact, neither did it for the )aincontractor. -he increased cost of )aterials as not the

doin( of either contractin( part'.

-hat an escalation clause as not speci;call' provided for in

the Contract is of no )o)ent either for it )a' be considered

as alread' 0builtKin0 and understood fro) the ver' ter)s

0actual construction cost,0 and eventuall' 0;nal actual

pro1ect cost.0

Article 9I of the Contract, supra, has no bearin( on the

present controvers' either. It speaDs of an' )a1or chan(e in

the plannin( and en(ineerin( aspects necessitatin( the

aard and pa')ent of additional co)pensation. Ad)ittedl',

there as no additional orD b' petitioner, hich re?uired

additional co)pensation. Rather, petitioners clai) is for

pa')ent of the balance of its professional fees based on the

0;nal actual pro1ect cost0 and not for additional

co)pensation based on Article 9I.

-he ter)inolo(ies in the contract bein( clear, leavin( no

doubt as to the intention of the contractin( parties, their

literal )eanin( control *Article !7@, Civil Code. -he price

escalation cost )ust be dee)ed included in the ;nal actual

pro1ect cost and petitioner held entitled to the pa')ent of

its additional professional fees. +bli(ations arisin( fro)contract have the force of la beteen the contractin(

parties and should be co)plied ith in (ood faith *Article !!

/", Civil Code.

L<ERE$+RE, the rulin( of respondent Co))ission on Audit

is hereb' SE- ASI2E and respondent Philippines -ouris)

Authorit' is hereb' ordered to pa' petitioner the additional

a)ount of P!",@.7 to co)plete the pa')ent of its

professional fee under their Contract for Pro1ect 2esi(n and

Mana(e)ent Services.

S+ +R2ERE2.

Fernan C.!. "ar#asa $utierre% !r. Cru% aras Feliciano

$anca'co adilla (idin Sarmiento Cortes $ri)o*A+uino

,edialdea and -egalado !!. concur.



Foo!o'(

! Section 7. ... 5nless otherise provided b'

this Constitution or b' la, an' decision,

order, or rulin( of each Co))ission )a' be

brou(ht to the Supre)e Court on certiorari b'

the a((rieved part' ithin thirt' da's fro)

receipt of a cop' thereof

Article 9I : C<AN4E +$ +R2ERS

Should the Authorit' order an' )a1or chan(e

on the plannin( and en(ineerin( aspects after

de;nite desi(ns have been previousl' a(reed

upon and the co)putation, desi(nin(, and

draftin( orDs co)pleted resultin( inadditional orD, additional co)pensation shall

be e?uitabl' paid for such additional orD as

)utuall' a(reed upon b' both parties.


SUPREME COURTManila

$IRS- 2I9ISI+N

G.R. No. L%3))*+ A-( 3), 1988

MARCELO AGCAOILI, plaintiKappellee

vs.

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE

S$STEM, defendantKappellant.

Artemio L. Agcaoili or plainti*appellee.

Ofce o the $o#ernment Corporate Counsel or deendant*

appellant.



NARVASA, J.:

-he appellant 4overn)ent Service Insurance S'ste), *4SIS,

for short havin( approved the application of the appellee

A(caoili for the purchase of a house and lot in the 4SIS

<ousin( Pro1ect at Nan(Da MariDina, Rial, sub1ect to the

condition that the latter should forthith occup' the house,

a condition that A(acoili tried to ful;ll but could not for the

reason that the house as absolutel' uninhabitable

A(caoili, after pa'in( the ;rst install)ent and other fees,

havin( thereafter refused to )aDe further pa')ent of other

stipulated install)ents until 4SIS had )ade the house

habitable and appellant havin( refused to do so, optin(

instead to cancel the aard and de)and the vacation b'

A(caoili of the pre)ises and A(caoili havin( sued the 4SIS

in the Court of $irst Instance of Manila for speci;cperfor)ance ith da)a(es and havin( obtained a favorable

1ud()ent, the case as appealled to this Court b' the 4SIS.

Its appeal )ust fail.

-he essential facts are not in dispute. Approval of A(caoilis

afore)entioned application for purchase 1 as contained in

a letter 2 addressed to A(caoili and si(ned b' 4SIS Mana(er

Archi)edes 9illanueva in behalf of the Chair)anK4eneral

Mana(er, readin( as follos

Please be infor)ed that 'our application to

purchase a house and lot in our 4SIS <ousin(

Pro1ect at Nan(Da, MariDina, Rial, has been

approved b' this +Hce. 8ot No. F, BlocD No.

*# , to(ether ith the housin( unit

constructed thereon, has been allocated to

'ou.

=ou are, therefore, advised to occup' the said

house i))ediatel'.

If 'ou fail to occup' the sa)e ithin three *

da's fro) receipt of this notice, 'our

application shall be considered auto)aticall'

disapproved and the said house and lot ill be

aarded to another applicant.

A(caoili lost no ti)e in occup'in( the house. <e could not

sta' in it, hoever, and had to leave the ver' ne>t da',

because the house as nothin( )ore than a shell, in such a

state of inco)pleteness that civilied occupation as not

possible ceilin(, stairs, double allin(, li(htin( facilities,

ater connection, bathroo), toilet Ditchen, draina(e, ere

ine>istent. A(caoili did hoever asD a ho)eless friend, acertain 9illanueva, to sta' in the pre)ises as so)e sort of

atch)an, pendin( co)pletion of the construction of the

house. A(caoili thereafter co)plained to the 4SIS, to no

avail.

-he 4SIS asDed A(caoili to pa' the )onthl' a)ortiations

and other fees. A(caoili paid the ;rst )onthl' install)ent

and the incidental fees, 3 but refused to )aDe further

pa')ents until and unless the 4SIS co)pleted the housin(

unit. Lhat the 4SIS did as to cancel the aard and re?uireA(caoili to vacate the pre)ises. 4

A(caoili reacted b'

institutin( suit in the Court of $irst Instance of Manila for

speci;c perfor)ance and da)a(es. * Pendin( the action, a

ritten protest as lod(ed b' other aardees of housin(

units in the sa)e subdivision, re(ardin( the failure of the

S'ste) to co)plete construction of their on

houses. + Gud()ent as in due course rendered , 7 on the

basis of the evidence adduced b' A(caoili onl', the 4SIS

havin( opted to dispense ith presentation of its on



proofs. -he 1ud()ent as in A(caoilis favor and contained

the folloin( dispositions, 8 to it

! 2eclarin( the cancellation of the aard *of

a house and lot in favor of plainti *Mariano

A(caoili ille(al and void

+rderin( the defendant *4SIS to respect

and enforce the aforesaid aard to the

plainti relative to 8ot No. F, BlocD No. *#

of the 4overn)ent Service Insurance S'ste)

*4SIS lo cost housin( pro1ect at Nan(Da

MariDina, Rial

+rderin( the defendant to co)plete the

house in ?uestion so as to )aDe the sa)ehabitable and authoriin( it *defendant to

collect the )onthl' a)ortiation thereon onl'

after said house shall have been co)pleted

under the ter)s and conditions )entioned in

E>hibit A and

+rderin( the defendant to pa' P!@@.@@ as

da)a(es and P@@.@@ as and for attorne's

fees, and costs.

Appellant 4SIS ould have this Court reverse this 1ud()ent

on the ar(u)ent that:

! A(caoili had no ri(ht to suspend pa')ent of

a)ortiations on account of the inco)pleteness of his

housin( unit, since said unit had been sold 0in the condition

and state of co)pletion then e>istin( ... *and he is dee)ed

to have accepted the sa)e in the condition he found it hen

he accepted the aard0 and assu)in( inde;niteness of the

contract in this re(ard, such circu)stance precludes a

1ud()ent for speci;c perfor)ance. 9

Perfection of the contract of sale beteen it and A(caoili

bein( conditioned upon the latters i))ediate occupanc' of

the house sub1ect thereof, and the latter havin( failed to

co)pl' ith the condition, no contract ever ca)e into

e>istence beteen the) 1)

A(caoilis act of placin( his ho)eless friend, 9illanueva,

in possession, 0ithout the prior or subse?uent Dnoled(e

or consent of the defendant *4SIS0 operated as a

repudiation b' A(caoili of the aard and a deprivation of the

4SIS at the sa)e ti)e of the reasonable rental value of the

propert'. 11

A(caoilis oer to bu' fro) 4SIS as contained in a printed

for) dran up b' the latter, entitled 0Application to

Purchase a <ouse andOor 8ot.0 A(caoili ;lled up the for),

si(ned it, and sub)itted it. 12 -he acceptance of the

application as also set out in a for) *)i)eo(raphed also

prepared b' the 4SIS. As alread' )entioned, this for) sent

to A(caoili, dul' ;lled up, advised hi) of the approval of his

0application to purchase a house and lot in our 4SIS <ousin(

Pro1ect at NAN4%A, MARI%INA, RI3A8,0 and that 08ot No. F,BlocD No. *# , to(ether ith the housin( unit constructed

thereon, has been allocated to 'ou.0 Neither the application

for) nor the acceptance or approval for) of the 4SIS : nor

the notice to co))ence pa')ent of a )onthl'

a)ortiations, hich a(ain refers to 0the house and lot

aarded0 : contained an' hint that the house as

inco)plete, and as bein( sold 0as is,0 i.e., in hatever

state of co)pletion it )i(ht be at the ti)e. +n the other

hand, the condition e>plicitl' i)posed on A(caoili : 0to



occup' the said house i))ediatel',0 or in an' case ithin

three * da's fro) notice, otherise his 0application shall

be considered auto)aticall' disapproved and the said house

and lot ill be aarded to another applicant0 : ould i)pl'

that construction of the house as )ore or less co)plete,

and it as b' reasonable standards, habitable, and that

indeed, the aardee should sta' and live in it it could not

be interpreted as )eanin( that the aardee ould occup' it

in the sense of a pioneer or settler in a rude ilderness,

)aDin( do ith hatever he found available in the

envirorn)ent.

-here as then a perfected contract of sale beteen the

parties there had been a )eetin( of the )inds upon the

purchase b' A(caoili of a deter)inate house and lot in the

4SIS <ousin( Pro1ect at Nan(Da MariDina, Rial at a de;niteprice pa'able in a)ortiations at P!./F per )onth, and

fro) that )o)ent the parties ac?uired the ri(ht to

reciprocall' de)and perfor)ance. 13 It as, to be sure, the

dut' of the 4SIS, as seller, to deliver the thin( sold in a

condition suitable for its en1o')ent b' the bu'er for the

purpose conte)plated , 14 in other ords, to deliver the

house sub1ect of the contract in a reasonabl' livable state.

-his it failed to do.

It sold a house to A(caoili, and re?uired hi) to i))ediatel'occup' it under pain of cancellation of the sale. 5nder the

circu)stances there can hardl' be an' doubt that the house

conte)plated as one that could be occupied for purposes

of residence in reasonable co)fort and convenience. -here

ould be no sense to re?uire the aardee to i))ediatel'

occup' and live in a shell of a house, a structure consistin(

onl' of four alls ith openin(s, and a roof, and to theorie,

as the 4SIS does, that this as hat as intended b' the

parties, since the contract did not clearl' i)pose upon it the

obli(ation to deliver a habitable house is to advocate an

absurdit', the creation of an unfair situation. B' an'

ob1ective interpretation of its ter)s, the contract can onl'

be understood as i)posin( on the 4SIS an obli(ation to

deliver to A(caoili a reasonabl' habitable dellin( in return

for his undertaDin( to pa' the stipulated price. Since 4SIS

did not ful;ll that obli(ation, and as not illin( to put the

house in habitable state, it cannot invoDe A(caoilis

suspension of pa')ent of a)ortiations as cause to cancel

the contract beteen the). It is a>io)atic that 0*in

reciprocal obli(ations, neither part' incurs in dela' if the

other does not co)pl' or is not read' to co)pl' in a proper

)anner ith hat is incu)bent upon hi).0 1*

Nor )a' the 4SIS succeed in 1ustif'in( its cancellation of the

aard to A(caoili b' the clai) that the latter had notco)plied ith the condition of occup'in( the house ithin

three * da's. -he record shos that A(caoili did tr' to

ful;ll the condition he did tr' to occup' the house but found

it to be so uninhabitable that he had to leave it the folloin(

da'. <e did hoever leave a friend in the structure, ho

bein( ho)eless and hence illin( to accept shelter even of

the )ost rudi)entar' sort, a(reed to sta' therein and looD

after it. -hus the ar(u)ent that A(caoili breached the

a(ree)ent b' failin( to occup' the house, and b' alloin(

another person to sta' in it ithout the consent of the 4SIS,

)ust be re1ected as devoid of )erit.

$inall', the 4SIS should not be heard to sa' that the

a(ree)ent beteen it and A(caoili is silent, or i)precise as

to its e>act prestation Bla)e for the i)precision cannot be

i)puted to A(caoili it as after all the 4SIS hich caused

the contract to co)e into bein( b' its ritten acceptance of

A(caoilis oer to purchase, that oer bein( contained in a

printed for) supplied b' the 4SIS. Said appellant havin(



caused the a)bi(uit' of hich it ould no )aDe capital,

the ?uestion of interpretation arisin( therefro), should be

resolved a(ainst it.

It ill not do, hoever, to dispose of the controvers' b'

si)pl' declarin( that the contract beteen the parties had

not been validl' cancelled and as therefore still in force,

and that A(caoili could not be co)pelled b' the 4SIS to pa'

the stipulated price of the house and lot sub1ect of the

contract until and unless it had ;rst co)pleted construction

of the house. -his ould leave the contract han(in( or in

suspended ani)ation, as it ere, A(caoili unillin( to pa'

unless the house ere ;rst co)pleted, and the 4SIS averse

to co)pletin( construction, hich is precisel' hat has been

the state of aairs beteen the parties for )ore than tent'

*@ 'ears no. +n the other hand, assu)in( it to befeasible to still ;nish the construction of the house at this

ti)e, to co)pel the 4SIS to do so so that A(caoilis

prestation to pa' the price )i(ht in turn be de)anded,

ithout )odif'in( the price therefor, ould not be ?uite fair.

-he cost to the 4SIS of co)pletion of construction

at present prices ould )aDe the stipulated price

disproportionate, unrealistic.

-he situation calls for the e>ercise b' this Court of its e?uit'

1urisdiction, to the end that it )a' render complete justice to both parties.

As e . . reaHr)ed in Air Manila, Inc. vs.

Court of Industrial Relations *# SCRA /7",

/#" !"7#Q. 0*E?uit' as the co)ple)ent of

le(al 1urisdiction seeDs to reach and do

co)plete 1ustice here courts of la, throu(h

the inJe>ibilit' of their rules and ant of

poer to adapt their 1ud()ents to the special

circu)stances of cases, are inco)petent so to

do. E?uit' re(ards the spirit of and not the

letter, the intent and not the for), the

substance rather than the circu)stance, as it

is variousl' e>pressed b' dierent courts...

0 1+

In this case, the Court can not re?uire speci;c perfor)ance

of the contract in ?uestion accordin( to its literal ter)s, as

this ould result in ine?uit'. -he prevailin( rule is that in

decreein( speci;c perfor)ance e?uit' re?uires17 :

... not onl' that the contract be 1ust and

e?uitable in its provisions, but that the

conse?uences of speci;c perfor)ance

liDeise be e?uitable and 1ust. -he (eneralrule is that this e?uitable relief ill not be

(ranted if, under the circu)stances of the

case, the result of the speci;c enforce)ent of

the contract ould be harsh, ine?uitable,

oppressive, or result in an unconscionable

advanta(e to the plainti . .

In the e>ercise of its e?uit' 1urisdiction, the Court )a'

ad1ust the ri(hts of parties in accordance ith the

circu)stances obtainin( at the ti)e of rendition of 1ud()ent, hen these are si(ni;cantl' dierent fro) those

e>istin( at the ti)e of (eneration of those ri(hts.

-he Court is not restricted to an ad1ust)ent of

the ri(hts of the parties as the' e>isted hen

suit as brou(ht, but ill (ive relief

appropriate to events occurin( endin( the

suit. 18



Lhile e?uitable 1urisdiction is (enerall' to be

deter)ined ith reference to the situation

e>istin( at the ti)e the suit is ;led, the relief

to be accorded b' the decree is (overned b'

the conditions hich are shon to e>ist at the

ti)e of )aDin( thereof, and not b' the

circu)stances attendin( the inception of the

liti(ation. In )aDin( up the ;nal decree in an

e?uit' suit the 1ud(e )a' ri(htl' consider

)atters arisin( after suit as brou(ht.

-herefore, as a (eneral rule, e?uit' ill

ad)inister such relief as the nature, ri(hts,

facts and e>i(encies of the case de)and at

the close of the trial or at the ti)e of the

)aDin( of the decree. 19

-hat ad1ust)ent is entirel' consistent ith the Civil 8a

principle that in the e>ercise of ri(hts a person )ust act ith

1ustice, (ive ever'one his due, and observe honest' and

(ood faith. 2) Ad1ust)ent of ri(hts has been held to be

particularl' applicable hen there has been a depreciation

of currenc'.

2epreciation of the currenc' or other )ediu)

of pa')ent contracted for has fre?uentl'

been held to 1ustif' the court in ithholdin(speci;c perfor)ance or at least conditionin( it

upon pa')ent of the actual value of the

propert' contracted for. -hus, in an action for

the speci;c perfor)ance of a real estate

contract, it has been held that here the

currenc' in hich the plainti had contracted

to pa' had (reatl' depreciated before

enforce)ent as sou(ht, the relief ould be

denied unless the co)plaint ould undertaDe

to pa' the e?uitable value of the land. *Lillard

& -a'loe 5.S.Q # Lall //7,!" 8. Ed /@!

2ou(hdrill v. Edards, /" Ala 21

In deter)inin( the precise relief to (ive, the Court ill

0balance the e?uities0 or the respective interests of the

parties, and taDe account of the relative hardship that one

relief or another )a' occasion to the) .22

-he co)pletion of the un;nished house so that it )a' be

put into habitable condition, as one for) of relief to the

plainti A(caoili, no lon(er appears to be a feasible option in

vie of the not inconsiderable ti)e that has alread'

elapsed. -hat ould re?uire an ad1ust)ent of the price of

the sub1ect of the sale to confor) to present prices of

construction )aterials and labor. It is )ore in Deepin( iththe realities of the situation, and ith e?uitable nor)s, to

si)pl' re?uire pa')ent for the land on hich the house

stands, and for the house itself, in its un;nished state, as of

the ti)e of the contract. In fact, this is an alternative relief

proposed b' A(caoili hi)self, i.e., 0that 1ud()ent issue . .

*orderin( the defendant *4SIS to e>ecute a deed of sale

that ould e)bod' and provide for a reasonable

a)ortiation of pa')ent on the basis of the present actual

un;nished and unco)pleted condition, orth and value of

the said house.

23

L<ERE$+RE, the 1ud()ent of the Court a +uo insofar as it

invalidates and sets aside the cancellation b' respondent

4SIS of the aard in favor of petitioner A(caoili of 8ot No.

F, BlocD No. *# of the 4SIS lo cost housin( pro1ect at

Nan(Da, MariDina, Rial, and orders the for)er to respect

the aforesaid aard and to pa' da)a(es in the a)ounts

speci;ed, is A$$IRME2 as bein( in accord ith the facts and

the la. Said 1ud()ents is hoever )odi;ed b' deletin( the



re?uire)ent for respondent 4SIS 0to co)plete the house in

?uestion so as to )aDe the sa)e habitable,0 and instead it

is hereb' +R2ERE2 that the contract beteen the parties

relative to the propert' above described be )odi;ed b'

addin( to the cost of the land, as of the ti)e of perfection of

the contract, the cost of the house in its un;nished state

also as of the ti)e of perfection of the contract, and

correspondin(l' ad1ustin( the a)ortiations to be paid b'

petitioner A(caoili, the )odi;cation to be eected after

deter)ination b' the Court a +uo of the value of said house

on the basis of the a(ree)ent of the parties, or if this is not

possible b' such co))issioner or co))issioners as the

Court )a' appoint. No pronounce)ent as to costs.

S+ +R2ERE2.

Cru% $anca'co A+uino and ,edialdea !!. concur.

Foo!o'(

! 2ated Gune , !"F.

2ated +ctober /, !"F/ *E>h. A $older of

E>hibits,p.!.

+.R. No. !#F//#, +ct. !@, !"FF.

E>h. 2, $older of E>hibits, p. .

/ 2ocDeted as Civil Case No. F"!7.

F -he letter as sent thru the aardees

0Sa)ahan( 8aDas n( Mahihirap,0 cop' havin(

been )arDed at the trial as E>h. $ to the

letter as attached a resolution of said

Sa)ahan adopted at its )eetin( of Gul' ,

!"F7 and to hich, in turn, as appended a

pa(e list of unco)pleted houses ith a

speci;cation of ite)s not co)pleted.

7 B' <on. Manuel P. Barcelona, presidin( over

Br. 9III of the C$I of Manila Record on Appeal,

pp. K/, Rollo, p. !.

# Parenthetical insertions Identif'in( the

parties, supplied.

" Appellants brief, pp. !!K!.

!@ /d., pp. 7K#.

!! Appellants brief, pp. #K!@.

! E>h. E.

I Art. !7/, Civil Code Paci;c +>'(en &

Acet'lene Co. v. Central BanD, 7 SCRA F#/.

! 8i) v. de los Santos, # SCRA 7"#.

I/ Art. !!F", last para(raph, Civil Code.

!F Cristobal vs. Melchor, !@! SCRA #/7, #F/.

!7 77! A). Gur. d, !@!.



!# @C.G.S. "".

!" 7 A) Gur. d. #!#.

@ Art. !", Civil Code 0Ever' person )ust, in

the e>ercise of his ri(hts and in the

perfor)ance of his duties, act ith 1ustice,

(ive ever'one his due, and observe and (ood

faith.0

! 7! A). Gur. d, !@.

A). Gur. nd F#KF" 0-heir is a (eneral

principle that a court of e?uit' ill balance

the e?uities beteen the parties in

deter)inin( hat, if an', relief to (ive. . . -hus, for e>a)ple, herein the eect of the

onl' relief hich can be (ranted to protect the

plainti ill be destructive of the defendants

business, hich ould be laful but for the

har) it does to the plainti, relief )a' be

refused if, on a balancin( of the respective

interests, that of the defendant is found to be

relativel' i)portant, and that of the plainti

relativel' insi(ni;cant. . .0

Record on Appeal, p. / Rollo, p. !.




SUPREME COURT

Manila

SEC+N2 2I9ISI+N

G.R. No. 12)*92 Ma/0 14, 1997

TRAERS RO$AL ANK EMPLO$EES UNION%

INEPENENT, petitioner,

vs.

NATIONAL LAOR RELATIONS COMMISSION a!"EMMANUEL NOEL A. CRU, respondents.

REGALAO, J.:

Petitioner -raders Ro'al BanD E)plo'ees 5nion and private

respondent Att'. E))anuel Noel A. Cru, head of the E.N.A.

Cru and Associates la ;r), entered into a retainer

a(ree)ent on $ebruar' F, !"#7 hereb' the for)er

obli(ated itself to pa' the latter a )onthl' retainer fee of

P,@@@.@@ in consideration of the la ;r)s undertaDin( to

render the services enu)erated in their

contract. 1 Parentheticall', said retainer a(ree)ent as

ter)inated b' the union on April , !""@. 2

2urin( the e>istence of that a(ree)ent, petitioner union

referred to private respondent the clai)s of its )e)bers for

holida', )idK'ear and 'earKend bonuses a(ainst their

e)plo'er, -raders Ro'al BanD *-RB. After the appropriate

co)plaint as ;led b' private respondent, the case as

certi;ed b' the Secretar' of 8abor to the National 8abor

Relations Co))ission *N8RC on March , !"#7 and

docDeted as N8RCKNCR Certi;ed Case No. @FF. 3

+n Septe)ber , !"##, the N8RC rendered a decision in the

fore(oin( case in favor of the e)plo'ees, aardin( the)

holida' pa' dierential, )idK'ear bonus dierential, and

'earKend bonus dierential. 4 -he N8RC, actin( on a )otion

for the issuance of a rit of e>ecution ;led b' private

respondent as counsel for petitioner union, raed the case

to 8abor Arbiter +sald 8oreno. *

<oever, pendin( the hearin( of the application for the ritof e>ecution, -RB challen(ed the decision of the N8RC

before the Supre)e Court. -he Court, in its decision

pro)ul(ated on Au(ust @, !""@, + )odi;ed the decision of

the N8RC b' deletin( the aard of )idK'ear and 'earKend

bonus dierentials hile aHr)in( the aard of holida' pa'

dierential. 7



-he banD voluntaril' co)plied ith such ;nal 1ud()ent and

deter)ined the holida' pa' dierential to be in the a)ount

of P!7/,7".. Petitioner never contested the a)ount thus

found b' -RB. 8 -he latter dul' paid its concerned

e)plo'ees their respective entitle)ent in said su) throu(h

their pa'roll. 9

After private respondent received the above decision of the

Supre)e Court on Septe)ber !#, !""@, 1) he noti;ed the

petitioner union, the -RB )ana(e)ent and the N8RC of his

ri(ht to e>ercise and enforce his attorne's lien over the

aard of holida' pa' dierential throu(h a letter dated

+ctober #, !""@. 11

-hereafter, on Gul' , !""!, private respondent ;led a

)otion before 8abor Arbiter 8oreno for the deter)ination of his attorne's fees, pra'in( that ten percent *!@6 of the

total aard for holida' pa' dierential co)puted b' -RB at

P!7/,7"., or the a)ount of P!7,/7"., be declared as

his attorne's fees, and that petitioner union be ordered to

pa' and re)it said a)ount to hi). 12

-he -RB )ana(e)ent )anifested before the labor arbiter

that the' did not ish to oppose or co))ent on private

respondents )otion as the clai) as directed a(ainst the

union,

13

hile petitioner union ;led a co))ent andopposition to said )otion on Gul' !/, !""!. 14 After

considerin( the position of the parties, the labor arbiter

issued an order 1* on Nove)ber F, !""! (rantin( the

)otion of private respondent, as follos

L<ERE$+RE, pre)ises considered, it is

hereb' ordered that the -RA2ERS R+=A8

BAN% EMP8+=EES 5NI+N ith oHces at

%anlaon -oers, Ro>as Boulevard is hereb'

ordered *sic to pa' ithout dela' the

attorne's fees due the )ovant la ;r),

E.N.A. CR53 and ASS+CIA-ES the a)ount of

P!7,/7. or ten *!@6 per cent of the

P!7/,7". aarded b' the Supre)e Court

to the )e)bers of the for)er.

-his constrained petitioner to ;le an appeal ith the

N8RC on 2ece)ber 7, !""!, seeDin( a reversal of

that order. 1+

+n +ctober !", !"", the $irst 2ivision of the N8RC

pro)ul(ated a resolution aHr)in( the order of the labor

arbiter. 17 -he )otion for reconsideration ;led b' petitioner

as denied b' the N8RC in a resolution dated Ma' ,!""/, 18hence the petition at bar.

Petitioner )aintains that the N8RC co))itted (rave abuse

of discretion a)ountin( to lacD of 1urisdiction in upholdin(

the aard of attorne's fees in the a)ount of P!7,/7., or

ten percent *!@6 of the P!7/,7". (ranted as holida'

pa' dierential to its )e)bers, in violation of the retainer

a(ree)ent and that the challen(ed resolution of the N8RC

is null and void, 19 for the reasons hereunder stated.

Althou(h petitioner union concedes that the N8RC has

1urisdiction to decide clai)s for attorne's fees, it contends

that the aard for attorne's fees should have been

incorporated in the )ain case and not after the Supre)e

Court had alread' revieed and passed upon the decision of

the N8RC. Since the clai) for attorne's fees b' private

respondent as neither taDen up nor approved b' the



Supre)e Court, no attorne's fees should have been

alloed b' the N8RC.

-hus, petitioner posits that the N8RC acted ithout

1urisdiction in )aDin( the aard of attorne's fees, as said

act constituted a )odi;cation of a ;nal and e>ecutor'

1ud()ent of the Supre)e Court hich did not aard

attorne's fees. It then cited decisions of the Court declarin(

that a decision hich has beco)e ;nal and e>ecutor' can

no lon(er be altered or )odi;ed even b' the court hich

rendered the sa)e.

+n the other hand, private respondent )aintains that his

)otion to deter)ine attorne's fees as 1ust an incident of

the )ain case here petitioner as aarded its )one'

clai)s. -he (rant of attorne's fees as the conse?uence ofhis e>ercise of his attorne's lien. Such lien resulted fro)

and corresponds to the services he rendered in the action

herein the favorable 1ud()ent as obtained. -o include

the aard of the attorne's fees in the )ain case

presupposes that the fees ill be paid b' -RB to the adverse

part'. All that the nonKinclusion of attorne's fees in the

aard )eans is that the Supre)e Court did not order -RB to

pa' the opposin( part' attorne's fees in the concept of

da)a(es. <e is not therefore precluded fro) ;lin( his

)otion to have his on professional fees ad1udicated.

In vie of the substance of the ar(u)ents sub)itted b'

petitioner and private respondent on this score, it appears

necessar' to e>plain and conse?uentl' clarif' the nature of

the attorne's fees sub1ect of this petition, in order to

dissipate the apparent confusion beteen and the

conJictin( vies of the parties.

-here are to co))onl' accepted concepts of attorne's

fees, the soKcalled ordinar' and e>traordinar'. 2) In its

ordinar' concept, an attorne's fee is the reasonable

co)pensation paid to a la'er b' his client for the le(al

services he has rendered to the latter. -he basis of this

co)pensation is the fact of his e)plo')ent b' and hisa(ree)ent ith the client.

In its e>traordinar' concept, an attorne's fee is an

inde)nit' for da)a(es ordered b' the court to be paid b'

the losin( part' in a liti(ation. -he basis of this is an' of the

cases provided b' la here such aard can be )ade, such

as those authoried in Article @#, Civil Code, and is

pa'able not to the la'er but to the client, unless the' have

a(reed that the aard shall pertain to the la'er as

additional co)pensation or as part thereof.

It is the ;rst t'pe of attorne's fees hich private

respondent de)anded before the labor arbiter. Also, the

present controvers' ste)s fro) petitioners apparent

)isperception that the N8RC has 1urisdiction over clai)s for

attorne's fees onl' before its 1ud()ent is revieed and

ruled upon b' the Supre)e Court, and that thereafter the

for)er )a' no lon(er entertain clai)s for attorne's fees.

It ill be noted that no clai) for attorne's fees as ;led b'

private respondent before the N8RC hen it acted on the

)one' clai)s of petitioner, nor before the Supre)e Court

hen it revieed the decision of the N8RC. It as onl' after

the <i(h -ribunal )odi;ed the 1ud()ent of the N8RC

aardin( the dierentials that private respondent ;led his

clai) before the N8RC for a percenta(e thereof as attorne's

fees.



It ould obviousl' have been i)possible, if not i)proper, for

the N8RC in the ;rst instance and for the Supre)e Court

thereafter to )aDe an aard for attorne's fees hen no

clai) therefor as pendin( before the). Courts (enerall'

rule onl' on issues and clai)s presented to the) for

ad1udication. Accordin(l', hen the labor arbiter orderedthe pa')ent of attorne's fees, he did not in an' a'

)odif' the 1ud()ent of the Supre)e Court.

As an ad1unctive episode of the action for the recover' of

bonus dierentials in N8RCKNCR Certi;ed Case No. @FF,

private respondents present clai) for attorne's fees )a'

be ;led before the N8RC even thou(h or, better stated,

especiall' after its earlier decision had been revieed and

partiall' aHr)ed. It is ell settled that a clai) for attorne's

fees )a' be asserted either in the ver' action in hich theservices of a la'er had been rendered or in a separate

action. 21

Lith respect to the ;rst situation, the re)ed' for recoverin(

attorne's fees as an incident of the )ain action )a' be

availed of onl' hen so)ethin( is due to the

client. 22 Attorne's fees cannot be deter)ined until after

the )ain liti(ation has been decided and the sub1ect of the

recover' is at the disposition of the court. -he issue over

attorne's fees onl' arises hen so)ethin( has been

recovered fro) hich the fee is to be paid. 23

Lhile a clai) for attorne's fees )a' be ;led before the

1ud()ent is rendered, the deter)ination as to the propriet'

of the fees or as to the a)ount thereof ill have to be held

in abe'ance until the )ain case fro) hich the la'ers

clai) for attorne's fees )a' arise has beco)e ;nal.

+therise, the deter)ination to be )ade b' the courts ill

be pre)ature. 24 +f course, a petition for attorne's fees

)a' be ;led before the 1ud()ent in favor of the client is

satis;ed or the proceeds thereof delivered to the client. 2*

It is apparent fro) the fore(oin( discussion that a la'er

has to options as to hen to ;le his clai) for professional

fees. <ence, private respondent as ell ithin his ri(hts

hen he )ade his clai) and aited for the ;nalit' of the

1ud()ent for holida' pa' dierential, instead of ;lin( it

ahead of the aards co)plete resolution. -o declare that a

la'er )a' ;le a clai) for fees in the sa)e action onl'

before the 1ud()ent is revieed b' a hi(her tribunal ould

deprive hi) of his aforestated options and render ineective

the fore(oin( pronounce)ents of this Court.

Assailin( the rulin(s of the labor arbiter and the N8RC,

petitioner union insists that it is not (uilt' of un1ustenrich)ent because all attorne's fees due to private

respondent ere covered b' the retainer fee of P,@@@.@@

hich it has been re(ularl' pa'in( to private respondent

under their retainer a(ree)ent. -o be entitled to the

additional attorne's fees as provided in Part 2 *Special

Billin(s of the a(ree)ent, it avers that there )ust be a

separate )utual a(ree)ent beteen the union and the la

;r) prior to the perfor)ance of the additional services b'

the latter. Since there as no a(ree)ent as to the pa')ent

of the additional attorne's fees, then it is considered

aived.

0n contra, private respondent contends that a retainer fee is

not the attorne's fees conte)plated for and co))ensurate

to the services he rendered to petitioner. <e asserts that

althou(h there as no e>press a(ree)ent as to the a)ount

of his fees for services rendered in the case for recover' of

dierential pa', Article !!! of the 8abor Code supplants this



o)ission b' providin( for an aard of ten percent *!@6 of a

)one' 1ud()ent in a labor case as attorne's fees.

It is ele)entar' that an attorne' is entitled to have and

receive a 1ust and reasonable co)pensation for services

perfor)ed at the special instance and re?uest of his client.

As lon( as the la'er as in (ood faith and honestl' tr'in(

to represent and serve the interests of the client, he should

have a reasonable co)pensation for such services. 2+ It ill

thus be appropriate, at this 1uncture, to deter)ine if private

respondent is entitled to an additional re)uneration under

the retainer a(ree)ent 27 entered into b' hi) and

petitioner.

-he parties subscribed therein to the folloin( stipulations

>>> >>> >>>

-he 8a $ir) shall handle cases and e>tend le(al services

under the para)eters of the folloin( ter)s and conditions

A. $0"0-AL S0-1/C0S

!. Assurance that an Associate of the 8a

$ir) shall be desi(nated and be available on a

da'KtoKda' basis dependin( on the 5nionsneeds

. 8e(al consultation, advice and render

opinion on an' actual andOor anticipator'

situation confrontin( an' )atter ithin the

clients nor)al course of business

. Proper docu)entation and notariation of

an' or all transactions entered into b' the

5nion in its da'KtoKda' course of business

. Revie all contracts, deeds, a(ree)ents or

an' other le(al docu)ent to hich the union

is a part' si(nator' thereto but prepared or

caused to be prepared b' an' other third

part'

/. Represent the 5nion in an' case herein

the 5nion is a part' liti(ant in an' court of la

or ?uasiK1udicial bod' sub1ect to certain fees

as ?uali;ed hereinafter

F. 8ia*ise ith andOor folloKup an' pendin(application or an' papers ith an'

(overn)ent a(enc' andOor an' private

institution hich is directl' related to an'

le(al )atter referred to the 8a $ir).

B. S0C/AL L0$AL S0-1/C0S

!. 2ocu)entation of an' contract and other

le(al instru)entOdocu)ents arisin( andOor

re?uired b' 'our 5nion hich do not fall underthe cate(or' of its ordinar' course of business

activit' but re?uires a special, e>haustive or

detailed stud' and preparation

. Conduct or undertaDe researches andOor

studies on special pro1ects of the 5nion



. Render active and actual participation or

assistance in conference table ne(otiations

ith -RB )ana(e)ent or an' other third

person*s, 1uridical or natural, herein the

presence of counsel is not for )ere

consultation e>cept CBA ne(otiations hichshall be sub1ect to a speci;c a(ree)ent

*pursuant to P2 !"! and in relation to BP

!@ & 7

. Preparation of Position Paper*s,

Me)oranda or an' other pleadin( for and in

behalf of the 5nion

/. Prosecution or defense of an' case

instituted b' or a(ainst the 5nion and,

F. Represent an' )e)ber of the 5nion in an'

proceedin( provided that the particular

)e)ber )ust (ive hisOher assent and that

prior consent be (ranted b' the principal

oHcers. $urther, the )e)ber )ust confor) to

the rules and policies of the 8a $ir).

C. F00 S2-3C23-0

In consideration of our co))it)ent to render

the services enu)erated above hen

re?uired or necessar', 'our 5nion shall pa' a

)onthl' retainer fee of -<REE -<+5SAN2

PES+S *P<P ,@@@.@@, pa'able in advance on

or before the ;fth da' of ever' )onth.

An Appearance $ee hich shall be ne(otiable

on a caseKtoKcase basis.

An' and all Attorne's $ees collected fro) the

adverse part' b' virtue of a successful

liti(ation shall belon( e>clusivel' to the 8a

$ir).

It is further understood that the fore(oin(

shall be ithout pre1udice to our clai) for

rei)burse)ent of all outKofKpocDet e>penses

coverin( ;lin( fees, transportation,

publication costs, e>penses coverin(

reproduction or authentication of docu)ents

related to an' )atter referred to the 8a $ir)

or that hich redound to the bene;t of the5nion.

2. S0C/AL (/LL/"$S

In the event that the 5nion avails of the

services dul' enu)erated in -itle B, the 5nion

shall pa' the 8a $ir) an a)ount )utuall'

a(reed upon PRI+R to the perfor)ance of

such services. -he su) a(reed upon shall be

based on actual ti)e and eort spent b' thecounsel in relation to the i)portance and

)a(nitude of the )atter referred to b' the

5nion. <oever, char(es )a' be4A/105 b'

the 8a $ir) if it ;nds that ti)e and eorts

e>pended on the particular services are

inconse?uential but such ri(ht of aiver is

dul' reserved for the 8a $ir).



>>> >>> >>>

-he provisions of the above contract are clear and need no

further interpretation all that is re?uired to be done in the

instant controvers' is its application. -he P,@@@.@@ hich

petitioner pa's )onthl' to private respondent does notcover the services the latter actuall' rendered before the

labor arbiter and the N8RC in behalf of the for)er. As

stipulated in Part C of the a(ree)ent, the )onthl' fee is

intended )erel' as a consideration for the la

;r)scommitment to render the services enu)erated in Part

A *4eneral Services and Part B *Special 8e(al Services of

the retainer a(ree)ent.

-he dierence beteen a co)pensation for a co))it)ent

to render le(al services and a re)uneration for le(alservices actuall' rendered can better be appreciated ith a

discussion of the to Dinds of retainer fees a client )a' pa'

his la'er. -hese are a (eneral retainer, or a retainin( fee,

and a special

retainer. 28

A (eneral retainer, or retainin( fee, is the fee paid to a

la'er to secure his future services as (eneral counsel for

an' ordinar' le(al proble) that )a' arise in the routinar'

business of the client and referred to hi) for le(al action.

-he future services of the la'er are secured and

co))itted to the retainin( client. $or this, the client pa's

the la'er a ;>ed retainer fee hich could be )onthl' or

otherise, dependin( upon their arran(e)ent. -he fees are

paid hether or not there are cases referred to the la'er.

-he reason for the re)uneration is that the la'er is

deprived of the opportunit' of renderin( services for a fee to

the opposin( part' or other parties. In ;ne, it is a

co)pensation for lost opportunities.

A special retainer is a fee for a speci;c case handled or

special service rendered b' the la'er for a client. A client

)a' have several cases de)andin( special or individual

attention. If for ever' case there is a separate and

independent contract for attorne's fees, each fee is

considered a special retainer.

As to the ;rst Dind of fee, the Court has had the occasion to

e>pound on its concept in 6ilado #s. 5a#id 29 in this ise

-here is in le(al practice hat is called a

0retainin( fee,0 the purpose of hich ste)s

fro) the realiation that the attorne' is

disabled fro) actin( as counsel for the other

side after he has (iven professional advice to

the opposite part', even if he should declineto perfor) the conte)plated services on

behalf of the latter. It is to prevent undue

hardship on the attorne' resultin( fro) the

ri(id observance of the rule that a separate

and independent fee for consultation and

advice as conceived and authoried. 0A

retainin( fee is a preli)inar' fee (iven to an

attorne' or counsel to insure and secure his

future services, and induce hi) to act for the

client. It is intended to re)unerate counsel for

bein( deprived, b' bein( retained b' one

part', of the opportunit' of renderin( services

to the other and of receivin( pa' fro) hi),

and the pa'ment o such ee in the absence

o an e7press understanding to the contrar'

is neither made nor recei#ed in pa'ment o

the ser#ices contemplated its pa'ment has

no relation to the obligation o the client to

pa' his attorne' or the ser#ices or which he



has retained him to perorm.0 *E)phasis

supplied.

Evidentl', the P,@@@.@@ )onthl' fee provided in the

retainer a(ree)ent beteen the union and the la ;r)

refers to a (eneral retainer, or a retainin( fee, as said)onthl' fee covers onl' the la ;r)s pled(e, or as

e>pressl' stated therein, its 0co))it)ent to render the

le(al services enu)erated.0 -he fee is not pa')ent for

private respondents e>ecution or perfor)ance of the

services listed in the contract, sub1ect to so)e particular

?uali;cations or per)utations stated there.

4enerall' speaDin(, here the e)plo')ent of an attorne' is

under an e>press valid contract ;>in( the co)pensation for

the attorne', such contract is conclusive as to the a)ount of co)pensation. 3) Le cannot, hoever, appl' the fore(oin(

rule in the instant petition and treat the ;>ed fee of

P,@@@.@@ as full and suHcient consideration for private

respondents services, as petitioner ould have it.

Le have alread' shon that the P,@@@.@@ is independent

and dierent fro) the co)pensation hich private

respondent should receive in pa')ent for his services. Lhile

petitioner and private respondent ere able to ;> a fee for

the latters pro)ise to e>tend services, the' ere not able

to co)e into a(ree)ent as to the la ;r)s actual

perfor)ance of services in favor of the union. <ence, the

retainer a(ree)ent cannot control the )easure of

re)uneration for private respondents services.

Le, therefore, cannot favorabl' consider the su((estion of

petitioner that private respondent had alread' aived his

ri(ht to char(e additional fees because of their failure to

co)e to an a(ree)ent as to its pa')ent.

$irstl', there is no shoin( that private respondent

une?uivocall' opted to aive the additional char(es in

consonance ith Part 2 of the a(ree)ent. Secondl', thepro)pt actions taDen b' private respondent, i.e., servin(

notice of char(in( lien and ;lin( of )otion to deter)ine

attorne's fees, belie an' intention on his part to renounce

his ri(ht to co)pensation for prosecutin( the labor case

instituted b' the union. And, lastl', to adopt such theor' of

petitioner )a' frustrate private respondents ri(ht to

attorne's fees, as the for)er )a' si)pl' and unreasonabl'

refuse to enter into an' special a(ree)ent ith the latter

and convenientl' clai) later that the la ;r) had

relin?uished its ri(ht because of the absence of the sa)e.

-he fact that petitioner and private respondent failed to

reach a )eetin( of the )inds ith re(ard to the pa')ent of

professional fees for special services ill not absolve the

for)er of civil liabilit' for the correspondin( re)uneration

therefor in favor of the latter.

+bli(ations do not e)anate onl' fro) contracts. 31 +ne of

the sources of e>traKcontractual obli(ations found in our

Civil Code is the ?uasiKcontract pre)ised on the Ro)an

)a>i) that nemo cum alterius detrimento locupletari

protest . As e)bodied in our la, 32 certain laful, voluntar'

and unilateral acts (ive rise to the 1uridical relation of ?uasiK

contract to the end that no one shall be un1ustl' enriched or

bene;ted at the e>pense of another.

A ?uasiKcontract beteen the parties in the case at bar

arose fro) private respondents laful, voluntar' and



unilateral prosecution of petitioners cause ithout aaitin(

the latters consent and approval. Petitioner cannot den'

that it did bene;t fro) private respondents eorts as the

la ;r) as able to obtain an aard of holida' pa'

dierential in favor of the union. It cannot even hide behind

the cloaD of the )onthl' retainer of P,@@@.@@ paid toprivate respondent because, as de)onstrated earlier,

private respondents actual rendition of le(al services is not

co)pensable )erel' b' said a)ount.

Private respondent is entitled to an additional re)uneration

for pursuin( le(al action in the interest of petitioner before

the labor arbiter and the N8RC, on top of the P,@@@.@@

retainer fee he received )onthl' fro) petitioner. -he la

;r)s services are decidedl' orth )ore than such basic fee

in the retainer a(ree)ent. -hus, in Part C thereof on 0$eeStructure,0 it is even provided that all attorne's fees

collected fro) the adverse part' b' virtue of a successful

liti(ation shall belon( e>clusivel' to private respondent,

aside fro) petitioners liabilit' for appearance fees and

rei)burse)ent of the ite)s of costs and e>penses

enu)erated therein.

A ?uasiKcontract is based on the presu)ed ill or intent of

the obli(or dictated b' e?uit' and b' the principles of

absolute 1ustice. So)e of these principles are *! It is

presu)ed that a person a(rees to that hich ill bene;t

hi) * Nobod' ants to enrich hi)self un1ustl' at the

e>pense of another and * Le )ust do unto others hat

e ant the) to do unto us under the sa)e

circu)stances. 33

As earl' as !"@, e alloed the pa')ent of reasonable

professional fees to an interpreter, notithstandin( the lacD

of understandin( ith his client as to his re)uneration, on

the basis of ?uasiKcontract. 34 <ence, it is not necessar' that

the parties a(ree on a de;nite fee for the special services

rendered b' private respondent in order that petitioner )a'

be obli(ated to pa' co)pensation to the for)er. E?uit' and

fair pla' dictate that petitioner should pa' the sa)e after it

accepted, availed itself of, and bene;ted fro) privaterespondents services.

Le are not unaare of the old rulin( that a person ho had

no Dnoled(e of, nor consented to, or protested a(ainst the

la'ers representation )a' not be held liable for attorne's

fees even thou(h he bene;ted fro) the la'ers

services. 3* But this doctrine )a' not be applied in the

present case as petitioner did not ob1ect to private

respondents appearance before the N8RC in the case for

dierentials.

9ieed fro) another aspect, since it is clai)ed that

petitioner obtained respondents le(al services and

assistance re(ardin( its clai)s a(ainst the banD, onl' the'

did not enter into a special contract re(ardin( the

co)pensation therefor, there is at least the inno)inate

contract of acio ut des *I do that 'ou )a' (ive. 3+ -his rule

of la, liDeise founded on the principle a(ainst un1ust

enrich)ent, ould also arrant pa')ent for the services of

private respondent hich proved bene;cial to petitioners

)e)bers. In an' case, hether there is an a(ree)ent or

not, the courts can ;> a reasonable co)pensation hich

la'ers should receive for their professional

services. 37 <oever, the value of private respondents le(al

services should not be established on the basis of Article

!!! of the 8abor Code alone. Said article provides

Art. !!!. Attorne's fees. : *a In cases of

unlaful ithholdin( of a(es the culpable



part' )a' be assessed attorne's fees

e?uivalent to ten percent of the a)ount of the

a(es recovered.

>>> >>> >>>

-he i)ple)entin( provision 38 of the fore(oin( article

further states

Sec. !!. Attorne'8s ees. : Attorne's fees in

an' 1udicial or ad)inistrative proceedin(s for

the recover' of a(es shall not e>ceed !@6

of the a)ount aarded. -he fees )a' be

deducted fro) the total a)ount due the

innin( part'.

In the ;rst place, the fees )entioned here are the

e>traordinar' attorne's fees recoverable as inde)nit' for

da)a(es sustained b' and pa'able to the prevailin( part. In

the second place, the ten percent *!@6 attorne's fees

provided for in Article !!! of the 8abor Code and Section !!,

Rule 9III, BooD III of the I)ple)entin( Rules is the )a>i)u)

of the aard that )a' thus be (ranted. 39 Article !!! thus

;>es onl' the li)it on the a)ount of attorne's fees the

victorious part' )a' recover in an' 1udicial or ad)inistrative

proceedin(s and it does not even prevent the N8RC fro)

;>in( an a)ount loer than the ten percent *!@6 ceilin(

prescribed b' the article hen circu)stances arrant it. 4)

-he )easure of co)pensation for private respondents

services as a(ainst his client should properl' be addressed

b' the rule of +uantum meruit lon( adopted in this

1urisdiction. 9uantum meruit , )eanin( 0as )uch as he

deserves,0 is used as the basis for deter)inin( the la'ers

professional fees in the absence of a contract, 41but

recoverable b' hi) fro) his client.

Lhere a la'er is e)plo'ed ithout a price for his services

bein( a(reed upon, the courts shall ;> the a)ount

on+uantum meruit basis. In such a case, he ould beentitled to receive hat he )erits for his services. 42

It is essential for the proper operation of the principle that

there is an acceptance of the bene;ts b' one sou(ht to be

char(ed for the services rendered under circu)stances as

reasonabl' to notif' hi) that the la'er perfor)in( the tasD

as e>pectin( to be paid co)pensation therefor. -he

doctrine of +uantum meruit is a device to prevent undue

enrich)ent based on the e?uitable postulate that it is un1ust

for a person to retain bene;t ithout pa'in( for it.43

+ver the 'ears and throu(h nu)erous decisions, this Court

has laid don (uidelines in ascertainin( the real orth of a

la'ers services. -hese factors are no codi;ed in Rule

@.@!, Canon @ of the Code of Professional Responsibilit'

and should be considered in ;>in( a reasonable

co)pensation for services rendered b' a la'er on the basis

of +uantum meruit . -hese are *a the ti)e spent and the

e>tent of services rendered or re?uired *b the novelt' and

diHcult' of the ?uestions involved *c the i)portance of the

sub1ect )atter *d the sDill de)anded *e the probabilit' of

losin( other e)plo')ent as a result of acceptance of the

proered case *f the custo)ar' char(es for si)ilar

services and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to

hich the la'er belon(s *( the a)ount involved in the

controvers' and the bene;ts resultin( to the client fro) the

services *h the contin(enc' or certaint' of co)pensation

*i the character of the e)plo')ent, hether occasional or

established and *1 the professional standin( of the la'er.



<ere, then, is the Ja e ;nd in the aard for attorne's

fees in favor of private respondent. Instead of adoptin( the

above (uidelines, the labor arbiter forthith but erroneousl'

set the a)ount of attorne's fees on the basis of Article !!!

of the 8abor Code. <e co)pletel' relied on the operation of

Article !!! hen he ;>ed the a)ount of attorne's fees atP!7,/7.. 44 +bserve the conclusion stated in his order. 4*

>>> >>> >>>

$IRS-. Art. !!! of the 8abor Code, as

a)ended, clearl' declares )ovants ri(ht to a

ten *!@6 per cent of the aard due its client.

In addition, this ri(ht to ten *!@6 per cent

attorne's fees is supple)ented b' Sec. !!!,

Rule 9III, BooD III of the +)nibus RulesI)ple)entin( the 8abor Code, as a)ended.

>>> >>> >>>

As alread' stated, Article !!! of the 8abor Code re(ulates

the a)ount recoverable as attorne's fees in the nature

of damages sustained b' and aarded to the pre#ailing

part' . It )a' not be used therefore, as the lone standard in

;>in( the e>act a)ount pa'able to the law'er b' his client

for the legal ser#ices he rendered. Also, hile it li)its the

)a>i)u) alloable a)ount of attorne's fees, it does not

direct the instantaneous and auto)atic aard of attorne's

fees in such )a>i)u) li)it.

It, therefore, behooves the ad1udicator in ?uestions and

circu)stances si)ilar to those in the case at bar, involvin( a

conJict beteen la'er and client, to observe the above

(uidelines in cases callin( for the operation of the principles

of +uasi*contract and +uantum meruit , and to conduct a

hearin( for the proper deter)ination of attorne's fees. -he

criteria found in the Code of Professional Responsibilit' are

to be considered, and not disre(arded, in assessin( the

proper a)ount. <ere, the records do not reveal that the

parties ere dul' heard b' the labor arbiter on the )atterand for the resolution of private respondents fees.

It is a>io)atic that the reasonableness of attorne's fees is a

?uestion of fact. 4+ +rdinaril', therefore, e ould have

re)anded this case for further reception of evidence as to

the e>tent and value of the services rendered b' private

respondent to petitioner. <oever, so as not to needlessl'

prolon( the resolution of a co)parativel' si)ple

controvers', e dee) it 1ust and e?uitable to ;> in the

present recourse a reasonable a)ount of attorne's fees infavor of private respondent. $or that purpose, e have dul'

taDen into account the accepted (uidelines therefor and so

)uch of the pertinent data as are e>tant in the records of

this case hich are assistive in that re(ard. +n such

pre)ises and in the e>ercise of our sound discretion, e

hold that the a)ount of P!@,@@@.@@ is a reasonable and fair

co)pensation for the le(al services rendered b' private

respondent to petitioner before the labor arbiter and the

N8RC.

L<ERE$+RE, the i)pu(ned resolution of respondent

National 8abor Relations Co))ission aHr)in( the order of

the labor arbiter is M+2I$IE2, and petitioner is hereb'

+R2ERE2 to pa' the a)ount of -EN -<+5SAN2 PES+S

*P!@,@@@.@@ as attorne's fees to private respondent for the

latters le(al services rendered to the for)er.

S+ +R2ERE2.



-omero uno ,endo%a and 2orres !r. !!. concur.

Foo!o'(

! -ollo, FK@.

/bid., /, !@/.

/bid., .

/bid., /.

/ /bid., !@F.

F -raders Ro'al BanD vs. N8RC and -raders

Ro'al BanD E)plo'ees 5nion, 4.R. No. ##!F#.

7 /bid., !K#.

# /bid., !@F.

" /bid., !7, !@F.

!@ /bid., !@F.

!! /bid., !!K!!.

! /bid., "K.

! /bid., !@7.

! /bid., K/.

!/ /bid., FK".

!F /bid., 7.

!7 /bid., !7K!.

!# /bid., K/.

!" /bid., 7K#.

@ Pineda E.8., 8e(al and Gudicial Ethics, !""

ed., @.

! -olentino vs. Escalona, 4.R. No. 8KF//F,

Ganuar' , !"F", F SCRA F!.

uirante, et al. vs. Inter)ediate Appellate

Court, et al., 4.R. No. 7##F, Ganuar' !,!"#", !F" SCRA 7F".

+tto 4)ur, Inc. vs. Revilla, et al., // Phil.

F7 *!"!.

See uirante, et al. vs. Inter)ediate

Appellate Court, et al., supra, $n. .

/ Palanca vs. Pecson, " Phil. !" *!"/.

F 2e 4u)an vs. 9isa'an Rapid -ransit Co.,

Inc., et al., F# Phil. F *!"".

7 -ollo, FK@.

# Pineda, op. cit ., K/, $n. @.

" # Phil. /7" *!"", citing 7 C.G.S. !@!".



@ $rancisco vs. Matias, 4.R. No. 8K!F",

Ganuar' !, !"F/, !@ SCRA #".

! Article !!/7, Civil Code.

Article !, Civil Code.

-olentino, A.M., Co))entaries and

Gurisprudence on the Civil Code, 9ol. 9, !""

ed., /7/.

See Pere vs. Po)ar, Phil. F# *!"@.

/ +rosco vs. <eirs of <ernande, ! Phil. 77

*!"@!.

F Corpu vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 4.R. No.

8K@, Gune @, !"#@, "# SCRA .

7 Panis vs. =an(co, / Phil. "" *!"#.

# Sec. !!, Rule 9III, BooD III of the +)nibus

Rules I)ple)entin( the 8abor Code.

" Sebu(uero, et al. vs. N8RC, et al., 4.R. No.

!!/", Septe)ber 7, !""/, # SCRA /.

@ -a(anas vs. N8RC, et al., 4.R. No. !!#7F,

Septe)ber 7, !""/, # SCRA !.

! SesbreTo vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 4.R.

No. !!7#, Gune #, !""/, / SCRA @.

8oreno vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 4.R.

No. #/#, Au(ust @, !""@, !#" SCRA F@.

A(palo, R.E., -he Code of Professional

Responsibilit' for 8a'ers, !""! ed., /7.

-he a)ount is short b' P/.@@ because !@6

of P!7/,7". is P!7,/7"..

/ -ollo, #K".

F 4onales vs. National <ousin( Corporation,

4.R. No. /@@", 2ece)ber !#, !"7", " SCRA

7#F.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L%48))+ y 8, 1942

FAUSTO ARREO, petitioner,

vs.

SEVERINO GARCIA a!" TIMOTEAALMARIO, respondents.

Celedonio . $loria and Antonio (arredo or petitioner.

!ose $. Ad#incula or respondents.

OCOO, J.5



-his case co)es up fro) the Court of Appeals hich held

the petitioner herein, $austo Barredo, liable in da)a(es for

the death of $austino 4arcia caused b' the ne(li(ence of

Pedro $ontanilla, a ta>i driver e)plo'ed b' said $austo

Barredo.

At about half past one in the )ornin( of Ma' , !"F, on the

road beteen Malabon and Navotas, Province of Rial, there

as a headKon collision beteen a ta>i of the Malate -a>icab

driven b' Pedro $ontanilla and a carretela (uided b' Pedro

2i)apalis. -he carretela as overturned, and one of its

passen(ers, !FK'earKold bo' $austino 4arcia, suered

in1uries fro) hich he died to da's later. A cri)inal action

as ;led a(ainst $ontanilla in the Court of $irst Instance of

Rial, and he as convicted and sentenced to an

indeter)inate sentence of one 'ear and one da' to to'ears of prision correccional. -he court in the cri)inal case

(ranted the petition that the ri(ht to brin( a separate civil

action be reserved. -he Court of Appeals aHr)ed the

sentence of the loer court in the cri)inal case. Severino

4arcia and -i)otea Al)ario, parents of the deceased on

March 7, !"", brou(ht an action in the Court of $irst

Instance of Manila a(ainst $austo Barredo as the sole

proprietor of the Malate -a>icab and e)plo'er of Pedro

$ontanilla. +n Gul' #, !"", the Court of $irst Instance of

Manila aarded da)a(es in favor of the plaintis for P,@@@

plus le(al interest fro) the date of the co)plaint. -his

decision as )odi;ed b' the Court of Appeals b' reducin(

the da)a(es to P!,@@@ ith le(al interest fro) the ti)e the

action as instituted. It is undisputed that $ontanilla s

ne(li(ence as the cause of the )ishap, as he as drivin(

on the ron( side of the road, and at hi(h speed. As to

Barredos responsibilit', the Court of Appeals found

... It is ad)itted that defendant is $ontanillas

e)plo'er. -here is proof that he e>ercised the

dili(ence of a (ood father of a fa)il' to prevent

da)a(e. *See p. , appellants brief. In fact it is

shon he as careless in e)plo'in( $ontanilla ho

had been cau(ht several ti)es for violation of theAuto)obile 8a and speedin( *E>hibit A : violation

hich appeared in the records of the Bureau of Public

LorDs available to be public and to hi)self.

-herefore, he )ust inde)nif' plaintis under the

provisions of article !"@ of the Civil Code.

-he )ain theor' of the defense is that the liabilit' of $austo

Barredo is (overned b' the Revised Penal Code hence, his

liabilit' is onl' subsidiar', and as there has been no civil

action a(ainst Pedro $ontanilla, the person cri)inall' liable,Barredo cannot be held responsible in the case. -he

petitioners brief states on pa(e !@

... -he Court of Appeals holds that the petitioner is

bein( sued for his failure to e>ercise all the dili(ence

of a (ood father of a fa)il' in the selection and

supervision of Pedro $ontanilla to prevent da)a(es

suered b' the respondents. In other ords, -he

Court of Appeals insists on appl'in( in the case

article !"@ of the Civil Code. Article !"@ of the Civil

Code is found in Chapter II, -itle !F, BooD I9 of the

Civil Code. -his fact )aDes said article to a civil

liabilit' arisin( fro) a cri)e as in the case at bar

si)pl' because Chapter II of -itle !F of BooD I9 of the

Civil Code, in the precise ords of article !"@ of the

Civil Code itself, is applicable onl' to 0those

*obli(ations arisin( fro) ron(ful or ne(li(ent acts

or co))ission not punishable b' law.



-he (ist of the decision of the Court of Appeals is e>pressed

thus

... Le cannot a(ree to the defendants contention.

-he liabilit' sou(ht to be i)posed upon hi) in this

action is not a civil obli(ation arisin( fro) a felon' ora )isde)eanor *the cri)e of Pedro $ontanilla,, but

an obli(ation i)posed in article !"@ of the Civil

Code b' reason of his ne(li(ence in the selection or

supervision of his servant or e)plo'ee.

-he pivotal ?uestion in this case is hether the plaintis

)a' brin( this separate civil action a(ainst $austo Barredo,

thus )aDin( hi) pri)aril' and directl', responsible under

article !"@ of the Civil Code as an e)plo'er of Pedro

$ontanilla. -he defendant )aintains that $ontanillasne(li(ence bein( punishable b' the Penal Code, his

*defendants liabilit' as an e)plo'er is onl' subsidiar',

accordin( to said Penal code, but $ontanilla has not been

sued in a civil action and his propert' has not been

e>hausted. -o decide the )ain issue, e )ust cut throu(h

the tan(le that has, in the )inds of )an' confused and

1u)bled to(ether delitos and cuasi delitos, or cri)es under

the Penal Code and fault or ne(li(ence under articles !"@K

!"!@ of the Civil Code. -his should be done, because 1ustice

)a' be lost in a lab'rinth, unless principles and re)edies

are distinctl' envisa(ed. $ortunatel', e are aided in our

in?uir' b' the lu)inous presentation of the perple>in(

sub1ect b' renon 1urists and e are liDeise (uided b' the

decisions of this Court in previous cases as ell as b' the

sole)n clarit' of the consideration in several sentences of

the Supre)e -ribunal of Spain.

Authorities support the proposition that a +uasi*delict or

0culpa a+uiliana 0 is a separate le(al institution under the

Civil Code ith a substantivit' all its on, and individualit'

that is entirel' apart and independent fro) delict or cri)e.

5pon this principle and on the ordin( and spirit article

!"@ of the Civil Code, the pri)ar' and direct responsibilit'

of e)plo'ers )a' be safel' anchored.

-he pertinent provisions of the Civil Code and Revised Penal

Code are as follos

CI9I8 C+2E

AR-. !@#" +bli(ations arise fro) la, fro) contracts

and ?uasiKcontracts, and fro) acts and o)issions

hich are unlaful or in hich an' Dind of fault or

ne(li(ence intervenes.

> > > > > > > > >

AR-. !@". Civil obli(ations arisin( fro) felonies or

)isde)eanors shall be (overned b' the provisions of

the Penal Code.

AR-. !@". -hose hich are derived fro) acts or

o)issions in hich fault or ne(li(ence, not

punishable b' la, intervenes shall be sub1ect to the

provisions of Chapter II, -itle 9I of this booD.

> > > > > > > > >

AR- !"@. An' person ho b' an act or o)ission

causes da)a(e to another b' his fault or ne(li(ence

shall be liable for the da)a(e so done.



AR-. !"@. -he obli(ation i)posed b' the ne>t

precedin( article is enforcible, not onl' for personal

acts and o)issions, but also for those of persons for

ho) another is responsible.

-he father and in, case of his death or incapacit', the)other, are liable for an' da)a(es caused b' the

)inor children ho live ith the).

4uardians are liable for da)a(es done b' )inors or

incapacitated persons sub1ect to their authorit' and

livin( ith the).

+ners or directors of an establish)ent or business

are e?uall' liable for an' da)a(es caused b' their

e)plo'ees hile en(a(ed in the branch of theservice in hich e)plo'ed, or on occasion of the

perfor)ance of their duties.

-he State is sub1ect to the sa)e liabilit' hen it acts

throu(h a special a(ent, but not if the da)a(e shall

have been caused b' the oHcial upon ho) properl'

devolved the dut' of doin( the act perfor)ed, in

hich case the provisions of the ne>t precedin(

article shall be applicable.

$inall', teachers or directors of arts trades are liable

for an' da)a(es caused b' their pupils or

apprentices hile the' are under their custod'.

-he liabilit' i)posed b' this article shall cease in

case the persons )entioned therein prove that the'

are e>ercised all the dili(ence of a (ood father of a

fa)il' to prevent the da)a(e.

AR-. !"@. An' person ho pa's for da)a(e caused

b' his e)plo'ees )a' recover fro) the latter hat

he )a' have paid.

RE9ISE2 PENA8 C+2E

AR-. !@@. Ci#il liabilit' o a person guilt' o elon'. :

Ever' person cri)inall' liable for a felon' is also

civill' liable.

AR-. !@!. -ules regarding ci#il liabilit' in certain

cases. : -he e>e)ption fro) cri)inal liabilit'

established in subdivisions !, , , /, and F of article

! and in subdivision of article !! of this Code does

not include e>e)ption fro) civil liabilit', hich shall

be enforced to the folloin( rules

First. In cases of subdivision, !, and of article !

the civil liabilit' for acts co))itted b' an' i)becile

or insane person, and b' a person under nine 'ears

of a(e, or b' one over nine but under ;fteen 'ears of

a(e, ho has acted ithout discern)ent shall

devolve upon those havin( such person under their

le(al authorit' or control, unless it appears that there

as no fault or ne(li(ence on their part.

Should there be no person havin( such insane,

i)becile or )inor under his authorit', le(al

(uardianship, or control, or if such person be

insolvent, said insane, i)becile, or )inor shall

respond ith their on propert', e>ceptin( propert'

e>e)pt fro) e>ecution, in accordance ith the civil

la.



Second. In cases fallin( ithin subdivision of article

!!, the person for hose bene;t the har) has been

prevented shall be civill' liable in proportion to the

bene;t hich the' )a' have received.

-he courts shall deter)ine, in their sound discretion, theproportionate a)ount for hich each one shall be liable.

Lhen the respective shares can not be e?uitabl'

deter)ined, even appro>i)atel', or hen the liabilit' also

attaches to the 4overn)ent, or to the )a1orit' of the

inhabitants of the ton, and, in all events, henever the

da)a(e has been caused ith the consent of the authorities

or their a(ents, inde)ni;cation shall be )ade in the )anner

prescribed b' special las or re(ulations.

2hird. In cases fallin( ithin subdivisions / and F of article

!, the persons usin( violence or causin( the fear shall be

pri)aril' liable and secondaril', or, if there be no such

persons, those doin( the act shall be liable, savin( ala's to

the latter that part of their propert' e>e)pt fro) e>ecution.

AR-. !@. Subsidiar' ci#il liabilit' o inn:eepers

ta#ern :eepers and proprietors o establishment . :

In default of persons cri)inall' liable, innDeepers,

tavern Deepers, and an' other persons or corporation

shall be civill' liable for cri)es co))itted in their

establish)ents, in all cases here a violation of

)unicipal ordinances or so)e (eneral or special

police re(ulation shall have been co))itted b' the)

or their e)plo'ees.

InnDeepers are also subsidiaril' liable for the

restitution of (oods taDen b' robber' or theft ithin

their houses lod(in( therein, or the person, or for the

pa')ent of the value thereof, provided that such

(uests shall have noti;ed in advance the innDeeper

hi)self, or the person representin( hi), of the

deposit of such (oods ithin the inn and shall

further)ore have folloed the directions hich suchinnDeeper or his representative )a' have (iven the)

ith respect to the care of and vi(ilance over such

(oods. No liabilit' shall attach in case of robber' ith

violence a(ainst or inti)idation a(ainst or

inti)idation of persons unless co))itted b' the

innDeepers e)plo'ees.

AR-. !@. Subsidiar' ci#il liabilit' o other persons. :

-he subsidiar' liabilit' established in the ne>t

precedin( article shall also appl' to e)plo'ers,teachers, persons, and corporations en(a(ed in an'

Dind of industr' for felonies co))itted b' their

servants, pupils, orD)en, apprentices, or

e)plo'ees in the dischar(e of their duties.

> > > > > > > > >

AR-. F/. I)prudence and ne(li(ence. : An' person

ho, b' recDless i)prudence, shall co))it an' act

hich, had it been intentional, ould constitute a

(rave felon', shall suer the penalt' of arresto

)a'or in its )a>i)u) period to prision correccional

in its )ini)u) period if it ould have constituted a

less (rave felon', the penalt' of arresto )a'or in its

)ini)u) and )ediu) periods shall be i)posed.

An' person ho, b' si)ple i)prudence or

ne(li(ence, shall co))it an act hich ould



otherise constitute a (rave felon', shall suer the

penalt' of arresto ma'or in its )ediu) and

)a>i)u) periods if it ould have constituted a less

serious felon', the penalt' of arresto ma'or in its

)ini)u) period shall be i)posed.0

It ill thus be seen that hile the ter)s of articles !"@ of

the Civil Code see) to be broad enou(h to cover the

drivers ne(li(ence in the instant case, nevertheless article

!@" li)its cuasi*delitos to acts or o)issions 0not

punishable b' la.0 But inas)uch as article F/ of the

Revised Penal Code punishes not onl' recDless but even

si)ple i)prudence or ne(li(ence, the fault or ne(li(ence

under article !"@ of the Civil Code has apparentl' been

croded out. It is this overlappin( that )aDes the 0confusion

orse confounded.0 <oever, a closer stud' shos thatsuch a concurrence of scope in re(ard to ne(li(ent acts does

not destro' the distinction beteen the civil liabilit' arisin(

fro) a cri)e and the responsibilit' for cuasiKdelitos or culpa

e>traKcontractual. -he sa)e ne(li(ent act causin( da)a(es

)a' produce civil liabilit' arisin( fro) a cri)e under article

!@@ of the Revised Penal Code, or create an action for cuasi*

delito or culpa e7tra*contractual under articles !"@K!"!@ of

the Civil Code.

-he individualit' of cuasi*delito or culpa e7tra*

contractual loo)s clear and un)istaDable. -his le(al

institution is of ancient linea(e, one of its earl' ancestors

bein( the Le7 A+uilia in the Ro)an 8a. In fact, in Spanish

le(al ter)inolo(', this responsibilit' is often referred to as

culpa a?uiliana. -he Partidas also contributed to the

(enealo(' of the present fault or ne(li(ence under the Civil

Code for instance, 8a F, -itle !/, of Partida 7, sa's

0-enudo es de faer e)ienda, por?ue, co)o ?uier ?ue el

non ;o a sabiendas en daTo al otro, pero acaescio por su

culpa.0

-he distinctive nature of cuasi*delitos survives in the Civil

Code. Accordin( to article !@#", one of the ;ve sources of

obli(ations is this le(al institution of cuasi*delito or culpae7tra*contractual 0los actos . . . en ?ue interven(a cual?uier

(enero de culpa o ne(li(encia.0 -hen article !@" provides

that this Dind of obli(ation shall be (overned b' Chapter II of

-itle 9I of BooD I9, )eanin( articles !"@K@"!@. -his

portion of the Civil Code is e>clusivel' devoted to the le(al

institution of culpa a+uiliana.

So)e of the dierences beteen cri)es under the Penal

Code and the culpa a+uiliana or cuasi*delito under the Civil

Code are

!. -hat cri)es aect the public interest, hile cuasi*

delitos are onl' of private concern.

. -hat, conse?uentl', the Penal Code punishes or corrects

the cri)inal act, hile the Civil Code, b' )eans of

inde)ni;cation, )erel' repairs the da)a(e.

. -hat delicts are not as broad as ?uasiKdelicts, because the

for)er are punished onl' if there is a penal la clearl'

coverin( the), hile the latter, cuasi*delitos, include all acts

in hich 0an' Din( of fault or ne(li(ence intervenes.0

<oever, it should be noted that not all violations of the

penal la produce civil responsibilit', such as be((in( in

contravention of ordinances, violation of the (a)e las,

infraction of the rules of traHc hen nobod' is hurt. *See

Colin and Capitant, 0Curso Ele)ental de 2erecho Civil,0 9ol.

, p. 7#.



8et us no ascertain hat so)e 1urists sa' on the separate

e>istence of ?uasiKdelicts and the e)plo'ers pri)ar' and

direct liabilit' under article !"@ of the Civil Code.

2orado Montero in his essa' on 0Responsibilidad0 in the

0Enciclopedia Guridica EspaTola0 *9ol. 9II, p. ! sa's

El concepto 1uridico de la responsabilidad ci#il abarca

diversos aspectos ' co)prende a diferentes

personas. Asi, e>iste una responsabilidad civil

propia)ente dicha, ?ue en nin(un casl lleva

apare1ada responsabilidad cri)inal al(una, ' otra

?ue es consecuencia indeclinable de la penal ?ue

nace de todo delito o falta.0

-he 1uridical concept of civil responsibilit' hasvarious aspects and co)prises dierent persons.

-hus, there is a civil responsibilit', properl' speaDin(,

hich in no case carries ith it an' cri)inal

responsibilit', and another hich is a necessar'

conse?uence of the penal liabilit' as a result of ever'

felon' or )isde)eanor.0

Maura, an outstandin( authorit', as consulted on the

folloin( case -here had been a collision beteen to

trains belon(in( respectivel' to the $errocarril Cantabrico

and the $errocarril del Norte. An e)plo'ee of the latter had

been prosecuted in a cri)inal case, in hich the co)pan'

had been )ade a part' as subsidiaril' responsible in civil

da)a(es. -he e)plo'ee had been ac?uitted in the cri)inal

case, and the e)plo'er, the $errocarril del Norte, had also

been e>onerated. -he ?uestion asDed as hether the

$errocarril Cantabrico could still brin( a civil action for

da)a(es a(ainst the $errocarril del Norte. Mauras opinion

as in the aHr)ative, statin( in part *Maura, 5ictamenes,

9ol. F, pp. /!!K/!

uedando las cosas asi, a proposito de la realidad

pura ' neta de los hechos, todavia )enos parece

sostenible ?ue e>ista cosa ju%gada acerca de laobli(acion civil de inde)niar los ?uebrantos '

)enoscabos inferidos por el cho?ue de los trenes. El

titulo en ?ue se funda la accion para de)andar el

resarci)iento, no puede confundirse con las

responsabilidades civiles nacidas de delito, si?uiera

e>ista en este, sea el cual sea, una culpa rodeada de

notas a(ravatorias ?ue )otivan sanciones penales,

)as o )enos severas. 8a lesion causada por delito o

falta en los derechos civiles, re?uiere restituciones,

reparaciones o inde)niaciones, ?ue cual la pena)is)a ataTen al orden publico por tal )otivo vienen

enco)endadas, de ordinario, al Ministerio $iscal '

claro es ?ue si por esta via se en)iendan los

?uebrantos ' )enoscabos, el a(raviado e>cusa

procurar el 'a conse(uido desa(ravio pero esta

eventual coincidencia de los efectos, no borra la

diversidad ori(inaria de las acciones civiles para

pedir inde)niacion.

Estas, para el caso actual *prescindiendo de

culpas contractuales, ?ue no vendrian a cuento ' ?ue

tiene otro re(i)en, di)anan, se(un el articulo !"@

del Codi(o Civil, de toda accion u o)ision, causante

de daTos o per1uicios, en ?ue interven(a culpa o

ne(li(encia. Es trivial ?ue acciones se)e1antes son

e1ercitadas ante los -ribunales de lo civil

cotidiana)ente, sin ?ue la Gusticia punitiva ten(a ?ue

)eclarse en los asuntos. 8os articulos !# al ! '

!! al !# del Codi(o Penal, atentos al espiritu ' a



los ;nes sociales ' politicos del )is)o, desenvuelven

' ordenan la )ateria de responsabilidades

civiles nacidas de delito, en ter)inos separados del

re(i)en por le' co)un de la culpa ?ue se deno)ina

a?uiliana, por alusion a precedentes le(islativos

del Corpus !uris. Seria inte)pestivo un paralelo entrea?uellas ordenaciones, ' la de la obli(acion de

inde)niar a titulo de culpa civil pero viene al caso '

es necesaria una de las diferenciaciones ?ue en el tal

paralelo se notarian.

8os articulos @ ' ! del Codi(o Penal, despues de

distribuir a su )odo las responsabilidades civiles,

entre los ?ue sean por diversos conceptos culpables

del delito o falta, las hacen e>tensivas a las

e)presas ' los estableci)ientos al servicio de loscuales estan los delincuentes pero con caracter

subsidiario, o sea, se(un el te>to literal, en deecto

de los +ue sean responsables criminalmente. No

coincide en ello el Codi(o Civil, cu'o articulo !"@,

dice 8a obli(acion ?ue i)pone el articulo anterior es

e7igible, no solo por los actos ' o)isiones

propios, sino por los de a+uellas personas de +uienes

se debe responder personas en la enu)eracion de

las cuales ;(uran los dependientes ' e)pleados de

los estableci)ientos o e)presas, sea por actos del

servicio, sea con ocasion de sus funciones. Por estoacontece, ' se observa en la 1urisprudencia, ?ue las

e)presas, despues de intervenir en las causas

cri)inales con el caracter subsidiario de su

responsabilidad civil por raon del delito, son

de)andadas ' condenadas directa ' aisladamente,

cuando se trata de la obli(acion, ante los tribunales

civiles.

Siendo co)o se ve, diverso el titulo de esta

obli(acion, ' for)ando verdadero postulado de

nuestro re(i)en 1udicial la separacion entre 1usticia

punitiva ' tribunales de lo civil, de suerte ?ue tienen

unos ' otros nor)as de fondo en distintos cuerpos

le(ales, ' diferentes )odos de proceder, habiendose,por aTadidura, abstenido de asistir al 1uicio cri)inal

la Co)paTia del $errocarril Cantabrico, ?ue se

reservo e1ercitar sus acciones, parece inne(able ?ue

la de inde)niacion por los daTos ' per1uicios ?ue le

irro(o el cho?ue, no estuvo sub judice ante el

-ribunal del Gurado, ni fue sentenciada, sino ?ue

per)anecio intacta, al pronunciarse el fallo de ! de

)aro. Aun cuando el veredicto no hubiese sido de

inculpabilidad, )ostrose )as arriba, ?ue tal accion

?uedaba le(iti)a)ente reservada para despues delproceso pero al declararse ?ue no e>istio delito, ni

responsabilidad di)anada de delito,

)ateria unica sobre ?ue tenian 1urisdiccion a?uellos

1u(adores, se redobla el )otivo para la obli(acion

civil e7 lege, ' se patentia )as ' )as ?ue la accion

para pedir su cu)pli)iento per)anece incolu)e,

e>traTa a la cosa ju%gada.

As thin(s are, apropos of the realit' pure and si)ple

of the facts, it see)s less tenable that there should

beres judicata ith re(ard to the civil obli(ation forda)a(es on account of the losses caused b' the

collision of the trains. -he title upon hich the action

for reparation is based cannot be confused ith the

civil responsibilities born o a crime, because there

e>ists in the latter, hatever each nature,

a culpasurrounded ith a((ravatin( aspects hich

(ive rise to penal )easures that are )ore or less

severe. -he in1ur' caused b' a felon' or



)isde)eanor upon civil ri(hts re?uires restitutions,

reparations, or inde)ni;cations hich, liDe the

penalt' itself, aect public order for this reason,

the' are ordinaril' entrusted to the oHce of the

prosecutin( attorne' and it is clear that if b' this

)eans the losses and da)a(es are repaired, thein1ured part' no lon(er desires to seeD another relief

but this coincidence of eects does not eli)inate the

peculiar nature of civil actions to asD for inde)nit'.

Such civil actions in the present case *ithout

referrin( to contractual faults hich are not pertinent

and belon( to another scope are derived, accordin(

to article !"@ of the Civil Code, fro) ever' act or

o)ission causin( losses and da)a(es in hich culpa

or ne(li(ence intervenes. It is uni)portant that suchactions are ever' da' ;led before the civil courts

ithout the cri)inal courts interferin( thereith.

Articles !# to ! and !! to !# of the Penal Code,

bearin( in )ind the spirit and the social and political

purposes of that Code, develop and re(ulate the

)atter of civil responsibilities arising rom a crime,

separatel' fro) the re(i)e under co))on la,

of culpa hich is Dnon as a+uiliana, in accordance

ith le(islative precedent of the Corpus !uris. It

ould be unarranted to )aDe a detailed

co)parison beteen the for)er provisions and thatre(ardin( the obli(ation to inde)nif' on account of

civil culpa but it is pertinent and necessar' to point

out to one of such dierences.

Articles @ and ! of the Penal Code, after

distriburin( in their on a' the civil responsibilities

a)on( those ho, for dierent reasons, are (uilt' of

felon' or )isde)eanor, )aDe such civil

responsibilities applicable to enterprises and

establish)ents for hich the (uilt' parties render

service, but ith subsidiar' character, that is to sa',

accordin( to the ordin( of the Penal Code, in

deault o those who are criminall' responsible. In

this re(ard, the Civil Code does not coincide becausearticle !"@ sa's 0-he obli(ation i)posed b' the

ne>t precedin( article is de)andable, not onl' for

personal acts and o)issions, but also for those of

persons for ho) another is responsible.0 A)on( the

persons enu)erated are the subordinates and

e)plo'ees of establish)ents or enterprises, either

for acts durin( their service or on the occasion of

their functions. It is for this reason that it happens,

and it is so observed in 1udicial decisions, that the

co)panies or enterprises, after taDin( part in thecri)inal cases because of their subsidiar' civil

responsibilit' b' reason of the cri)e, are sued and

sentenced directl' and separatel' ith re(ard to

theobligation, before the civil courts.

Seein( that the title of this obli(ation is dierent, and

the separation beteen punitive 1ustice and the civil

courts bein( a true postulate of our 1udicial s'ste),

so that the' have dierent funda)ental nor)s in

dierent codes, as ell as dierent )odes of

procedure, and inas)uch as the Co)paTa del$errocarril Cantabrico has abstained fro) taDin( part

in the cri)inal case and has reserved the ri(ht to

e>ercise its actions, it see)s undeniable that the

action for inde)ni;cation for the losses and da)a(es

caused to it b' the collision as not sub judice before

the 2ribunal del !urado, nor as it the sub1ect of a

sentence, but it re)ained intact hen the decision of

March ! as rendered. Even if the verdict had not



been that of ac?uittal, it has alread' been shon that

such action had been le(iti)atel' reserved till after

the cri)inal prosecution but because of the

declaration of the nonKe>istence of the felon' and

the nonKe>istence of the responsibilit' arisin( fro)

the cri)e, hich as the sole sub1ect )atter uponhich the 2ribunal del !uradohad 1urisdiction, there is

(reater reason for the civil obli(ation e7 lege, and it

beco)es clearer that the action for its enforce)ent

re)ain intact and is not res judicata.

8aurent, a 1urist ho has ritten a )onu)ental orD on the

$rench Civil Code, on hich the Spanish Civil Code is lar(el'

based and hose provisions on cuasi*delito or culpa e7tra*

contractual are si)ilar to those of the Spanish Civil Code,

sa's, referrin( to article !# of the $rench Civil Code hichcorresponds to article !"@, Spanish Civil Code

-he action can be brou(ht directl' a(ainst the person

responsible *for another, ithout includin( the

author of the act. -he action a(ainst the principal is

accessor' in the sense that it i)plies the e>istence of

a pre1udicial act co))itted b' the e)plo'ee, but it is

not subsidiar' in the sense that it can not be

instituted till after the 1ud()ent a(ainst the author of

the act or at least, that it is subsidiar' to the

principal action the action for responsibilit' *of the

e)plo'er is in itself a principal action. *8aurent,

Principles of $rench Civil 8a, Spanish translation,

9ol. @, pp. 7K7/.

A)andi, in his 0Cuestionario del Codi(o Civil Refor)ado0

*9ol. , pp. ", @, declares that the responsibilit' of the

e)plo'er is principal and not subsidiar'. <e rites

Cuestion !. 8a responsabilidad declarada en el

articulo !"@ por las acciones u o)isiones de

a?uellas personas por las ?ue se debe responder, es

subsidiariaU es principalU Para contestar a esta

pre(unta es necesario saber, en pri)er lu(ar, en ?ue

se funda el precepto le(al. Es ?ue real)ente sei)pone una responsabilidad por una falta a1enaU Asi

parece a pri)era vista pero se)e1ante a;r)acion

seria contraria a la 1usticia ' a la )a>i)a universal,

se(un la ?ue las faltas son personales, ' cada uno

responde de a?uellas ?ue le son i)putables. 8a

responsabilidad de ?ue trata)os se i)pone con

ocasion de un delito o culpa, pero no por causa de

ellos, sino por causa del causi delito, esto es, de la

i)prudencia o de la ne(li(encia del padre, del tutor,

del dueTo o director del estableci)iento, del)aestro, etc. Cuando cual?uiera de las personas ?ue

enu)era el articulo citado *)enores de edad,

incapacitados, dependientes, aprendices causan un

daTo, la le' presu)e ?ue el padre, el tutor, el

)aestro, etc., han co)etido una falta de ne(li(encia

para prevenir o evitar el daTo. Esta falta es la ?ue la

le' casti(a. No ha', pues, responsabilidad por un

hecho a1eno, sino en la apariencia en realidad la

responsabilidad se e>i(e por un hecho propio. 8a

idea de ?ue esa responsabilidad sea subsidiaria es,

por lo tanto, co)pleta)ente inad)isible.

uestion No. !. Is the responsibilit' declared in

article !"@ for the acts or o)issions of those

persons for ho one is responsible, subsidiar' or

principalU In order to anser this ?uestion it is

necessar' to Dno, in the ;rst place, on hat the

le(al provision is based. Is it true that there is a

responsibilit' for the fault of another personU It



see)s so at ;rst si(ht but such assertion ould be

contrar' to 1ustice and to the universal )a>i) that

all faults are personal, and that ever'one is liable for

those faults that can be i)puted to hi). -he

responsibilit' in ?uestion is i)posed on the occasion

of a cri)e or fault, but not because of the sa)e, butbecause of the cuasi*delito, that is to sa', the

i)prudence or ne(li(ence of the father, (uardian,

proprietor or )ana(er of the establish)ent, of the

teacher, etc. Lhenever an'one of the persons

enu)erated in the article referred to *)inors,

incapacitated persons, e)plo'ees, apprentices

causes an' da)a(e, the la presu)es that the

father, (uardian, teacher, etc. have co))itted an

act of ne(li(ence in not preventin( or avoidin( the

da)a(e. It is this fault that is conde)ned b' the la.It is, therefore, onl' apparent that there is a

responsibilit' for the act of another in realit' the

responsibilit' e>acted is for ones on act. -he idea

that such responsibilit' is subsidiar' is, therefore,

co)pletel' inad)issible.

+'uelos, in his 02i(esto Principios, 2octrina '

Gurisprudencia, Referentes al Codi(o Civil EspaTol,0 sa's in

9ol. 9II, p. 7

Es decir, no responde de hechos a1enos, por?ue seresponde solo de su propia culpa, doctrina del

articulo !"@ )as por e>cepcion, se responde de la

a1ena respecto de a?uellas personas con las ?ue

)edia al(un ne>o o vinculo, ?ue )otiva o raona la

responsabilidad. Esta responsabilidad, es directa o es

subsidiariaU En el orden penal, el Codi(o de esta

clase distin(ue entre )enores e incapacitados ' los

de)as, declarando directa la pri)era *articulo !" '

subsidiaria la se(unda *articulos @ ' ! pero en el

orden civil, en el caso del articulo !"@, ha de

entenderse directa, por el tenor del articulo ?ue

i)pone la responsabilidad precisa)ente 0por los

actos de a?uellas personas de ?uienes se deba

responder.0

-hat is to sa', one is not responsible for the acts of

others, because one is liable onl' for his on faults,

this bein( the doctrine of article !"@ but, b'

e>ception, one is liable for the acts of those persons

ith ho) there is a bond or tie hich (ives rise to

the responsibilit'. Is this responsibilit' direct or

subsidiar'U In the order of the penal la, the Penal

Code distin(uishes beteen )inors and

incapacitated persons on the one hand, and otherpersons on the other, declarin( that the

responsibilit' for the for)er is direct *article !", and

for the latter, subsidiar' *articles @ and ! but in

the sche)e of the civil la, in the case of article

!"@, the responsibilit' should be understood as

direct, accordin( to the tenor of that articles, for

precisel' it i)poses responsibilit' 0for the acts of

those persons for ho) one should be responsible.0

Co)in( no to the sentences of the Supre)e -ribunal of

Spain, that court has upheld the principles above set forththat a +uasi*delict or culpa e7tra*contractual is a separate

and distinct le(al institution, independent fro) the civil

responsibilit' arisin( fro) cri)inal liabilit', and that an

e)plo'er is, under article !"@ of the Civil Code, pri)aril'

and directl' responsible for the ne(li(ent acts of his

e)plo'ee.



+ne of the )ost i)portant of those Spanish decisions is that

of +ctober !, !"!@. In that case, Ra)on 8afuente died as

the result of havin( been run over b' a street car oned b'

the 0co)paTia Electric MadrileTa de -raccion.0 -he

conductor as prosecuted in a cri)inal case but he as

ac?uitted. -hereupon, the ido ;led a civil action a(ainstthe street car co)pan', pa'in( for da)a(es in the a)ount

of !/,@@@ pesetas. -he loer court aarded da)a(es so

the co)pan' appealed to the Supre)e -ribunal, alle(in(

violation of articles !"@ and !"@ of the Civil Code because

b' ;nal 1ud()ent the nonKe>istence of fault or ne(li(ence

had been declared. -he Supre)e Court of Spain dis)issed

the appeal, sa'in(

Considerando ?ue el pri)er )otivo del recurso se

funda en el e?uivocado supuesto de ?ue el -ribunal a+uo, al condonar a la co)paTia Electrica MadrileTa al

pa(o del daTo causado con la )uerte de Ra)on 8a

fuente I?uierdo, desconoce el valor ' efectos

1uridicos de la sentencia absolutoria deictada en la

causa cri)inal ?ue se si(uio por el )is)o hecho,

cuando es lo cierto ?ue de este han conocido las dos

1urisdicciones ba1o diferentes as pectos, ' co)o la de

lo cri)inal declrao dentro de los li)ites de su

co)petencia ?ue el hecho de ?ue se trata no era

constitutivo de delito por no haber )ediado descuido

o ne(li(encia (raves, lo ?ue no e>clu'e, siendo esteel unico funda)ento del fallo absolutorio, el concurso

de la culpa o ne(li(encia no califacadas, fuente de

obli(aciones civiles se(un el articulo !"@ del

Codi(o, ' ?ue alcanan, se(un el !"@, netre otras

perosnas, a los 2irectores de estableci)ientos o

e)presas por los daTos causados por sus

dependientes en deter)inadas condiciones, es

)anifesto ?ue la de lo civil, al conocer del )is)o

hehco baho este ulti)o aspecto ' al condenar a la

co)paTia recurrente a la inde)niacion del daTo

causado por uno de sus e)pleados, le1os de infrin(er

los )encionados te>tos, en relacion con el articulo

!!F de la 8e' de En1ucia)iento Cri)inal, se ha

atenido estricta)ente a ellos, sin invadir atribucionesa1enas a su 1urisdiccion propia, ni contrariar en lo

)as )ini)o el fallo recaido en la causa.

Considerin( that the ;rst (round of the appeal is

based on the )istaDen supposition that the trial

court, in sentencin( the Compa)ia ,adrile)a to the

pa')ent of the da)a(e caused b' the death of

Ra)on 8afuente I?uierdo, disre(ards the value and

1uridical eects of the sentence of ac?uittal rendered

in the cri)inal case instituted on account of thesa)e act, hen it is a fact that the to 1urisdictions

had taDen co(niance of the sa)e act in its dierent

aspects, and as the cri)inal 1urisdiction declared

ithin the li)its of its authorit' that the act in

?uestion did not constitute a felon' because there

as no (rave carelessness or ne(li(ence, and this

bein( the onl' basis of ac?uittal, it does no e>clude

the coKe>istence of fault or ne(li(ence hich is not

?uali;ed, and is a source o ci#il obligations

according to article ;<=> o the Ci#il Code, aectin(,

in accordance ith article !"@, a)on( otherpersons, the )ana(ers of establish)ents or

enterprises b' reason of the da)a(es caused b'

e)plo'ees under certain conditions, it is )anifest

that the ci#il jurisdiccion in ta:ing cogni%ance o the

same act in this latter aspect and in ordering the

compan' appellant herein to pa' an indemnit' or

the damage caused b' one o its emplo'ees, far fro)

violatin( said le(al provisions, in relation ith article



!!F of the 8a of Cri)inal Procedure, strictl'

ollowed the same without in#ading attributes which

are be'ond its own jurisdiction and without in an'

wa' contradicting the decision in that cause.

*E)phasis supplied.

It ill be noted, as to the case 1ust cited

First . -hat the conductor as not sued in a civil case, either

separatel' or ith the street car co)pan'. -his is precisel'

hat happens in the present case the driver, $ontanilla, has

not been sued in a civil action, either alone or ith his

e)plo'er.

Second. -hat the conductor had been ac?uitted of (rave

cri)inal ne(li(ence, but the Supre)e -ribunal of Spain saidthat this did not e>clude the coKe>istence of fault or

ne(li(ence, hich is not ?uali;ed, on the part of the

conductor, under article !"@ of the Civil Code. In the

present case, the ta>i driver as found (uilt' of cri)inal

ne(li(ence, so that if he had even sued for his civil

responsibilit' arisin( fro) the cri)e, he ould have been

held pri)aril' liable for civil da)a(es, and Barredo ould

have been held subsidiaril' liable for the sa)e. But the

plaintis are directl' suin( Barredo, on his pri)ar'

responsibilit' because of his on presu)ed ne(li(ence :

hich he did not overco)e : under article !"@. -hus,

there ere to liabilities of Barredo ;rst, the subsidiar' one

because of the civil liabilit' of the ta>i driver arisin( fro)

the latters cri)inal ne(li(ence and, second, Barredos

pri)ar' liabilit' as an e)plo'er under article !"@. -he

plaintis ere free to choose hich course to taDe, and the'

preferred the second re)ed'. In so doin(, the' ere actin(

ithin their ri(hts. It )i(ht be observed in passin(, that the

plainti choose the )ore e>peditious and eective )ethod

of relief, because $ontanilla as either in prison, or had 1ust

been released, and besides, he as probabl' ithout

propert' hich )i(ht be seied in enforcin( an' 1ud()ent

a(ainst hi) for da)a(es.

2hird. -hat inas)uch as in the above sentence of +ctober!, !"!@, the e)plo'er as held liable civill',

notithstandin( the ac?uittal of the e)plo'ee *the

conductor in a previous cri)inal case, ith (reater reason

should Barredo, the e)plo'er in the case at bar, be held

liable for da)a(es in a civil suit ;led a(ainst hi) because

his ta>i driver had been convicted. -he de(ree of ne(li(ence

of the conductor in the Spanish case cited as less than that

of the ta>i driver, $ontanilla, because the for)er as

ac?uitted in the previous cri)inal case hile the latter as

found (uilt' of cri)inal ne(li(ence and as sentenced to anindeter)inate sentence of one 'ear and one da' to to

'ears of prision correccional.

*See also Sentence of $ebruar' !", !"@, hich is si)ilar to

the one above ?uoted.

In the Sentence of the Supre)e Court of Spain, dated

$ebruar' !, !"!", an action as brou(ht a(ainst a railroad

co)pan' for da)a(es because the station a(ent, e)plo'ed

b' the co)pan', had un1ustl' andraudulentl' , refused to

deliver certain articles consi(ned to the plainti. -he

Supre)e Court of Spain held that this action as properl'

under article !"@ of the Civil Code, the court sa'in(

Considerando ?ue la sentencia discutida reconoce,

en virtud de los hechos ?ue consi(na con relacion a

las pruebas del pleito !.V, ?ue las e>pediciones

facturadas por la co)paTia ferroviaria a la



consi(nacion del actor de las vasi1as vacias ?ue en

su de)anda relacionan tenian co)o ;n el ?ue este

las devolviera a sus re)itentes con vinos ' alcoholes

.V, ?ue lle(adas a su destino tales )ercanias no se

?uisieron entre(ar a dicho consi(natario por el 1efe

de la estacion sin )otivo 1usti;cado ' con intenciondolosa, ' .V, ?ue la falta de entre(a de estas

e>pediciones al tie)po de recla)arlas el

de)andante le ori(inaron daTos ' per1uicios en

cantidad de bastante i)portancia co)o e>pendedor

al por )a'or ?ue era de vinos ' alcoholes por las

(anancias ?ue de1o de obtener al verse privado de

servir los pedidos ?ue se le habian hecho por los

re)itentes en los envases

Considerando ?ue sobre esta base ha' necesidad deesti)ar los cuatro )otivos ?ue inte(ran este recurso,

por?ue la de)anda inicial del pleito a ?ue se contrae

no contiene accion ?ue naca del incu)pli)iento del

contrato de transporte, toda ve ?ue no se funda en

el retraso de la lle(ada de las )ercancias ni de

nin(un otro vinculo contractual entre las partes

contendientes, careciendo, por tanto, de aplicacion el

articulo 7! del Codi(o de Co)ercio, en ?ue

principal)ente descansa el fallo recurrido, sino ?ue

se li)ita a pedir la reparaction de los daTos '

per1uicios producidos en el patri)onio del actor porla in1usti;cada ' dolosa ne(ativa del porteador a la

entre(a de las )ercancias a su no)bre consi(nadas,

se(un lo reconoce la sentencia, ' cu'a

responsabilidad esta clara)ente sancionada en el

articulo !"@ del Codi(o Civil, ?ue obli(a por el

si(uiente a la Co)paTia de)andada co)o li(ada con

el causante de a?uellos por relaciones de caracter

econo)ico ' de 1urar?uia ad)inistrativa.

Considerin( that the sentence, in ?uestion

reco(nies, in virtue of the facts hich it declares, in

relation to the evidence in the case *! that the

invoice issued b' the railroad co)pan' in favor of

the plainti conte)plated that the e)pt' receptacles

referred to in the co)plaint should be returned to theconsi(nors ith ines and li?uors * that hen the

said )erchandise reached their destination, their

deliver' to the consi(nee as refused b' the station

a(ent ithout 1usti;cation and ith raudulent intent ,

and * that the lacD of deliver' of these (oods hen

the' ere de)anded b' the plainti caused hi)

losses and da)a(es of considerable i)portance, as

he as a holesale vendor of ines and li?uors and

he failed to realie the pro;ts hen he as unable to

;ll the orders sent to hi) b' the consi(nors of the

receptacles

Considerin( that upon this basis there is need of

upholdin( the four assi(n)ents of error, as the

ori(inal co)plaint did not contain an' cause of action

arisin( fro) nonKful;ll)ent of a contract of

transportation, because the action as not based on

the dela' of the (oods nor on an' contractual

relation beteen the parties liti(ant and, therefore,

article 7! of the Code of Co))erce, on hich the

decision appealed fro) is based, is not applicablebut it li)its to asDin( for reparation for losses and

da)a(es produced on the patri)on' of the plainti

on account of the un1usti;ed and raudulent

reusal of the carrier to deliver the (oods consi(ned

to the plainti as stated b' the sentence, and the

carriers responsibilit' is clearl' laid down in article

;<=> o the Ci#il Code hich binds, in virtue of the

ne>t article, the defendant co)pan', because the



latter is connected ith the person ho caused the

da)a(e b' relations of econo)ic character and b'

ad)inistrative hierarch'. *E)phasis supplied.

-he above case is pertinent because it shos that the sa)e

act )a' co)e under both the Penal Code and the CivilCode. In that case, the action of the a(ent as un1usti;ed

and raudulent and therefore could have been the sub1ect of

a cri)inal action. And 'et, it as held to be also a proper

sub1ect of a civil action under article !"@ of the Civil Code.

It is also to be noted that it as the e)plo'er and not the

e)plo'ee ho as bein( sued.

8et us no e>a)ine the cases previousl' decided b' this

Court.

In the leadin( case of RaDes #s. Atlantic 4ulf and Paci;c Co.

*7 Phil., /", FKF/ 'ear !"@7Q, the trial court aarded

da)a(es to the plainti, a laborer of the defendant,

because the latter had ne(li(entl' failed to repair a tra)a'

in conse?uence of hich the rails slid o hile iron as

bein( transported, and cau(ht the plainti hose le( as

broDen. -his Court held

It is contended b' the defendant, as its ;rst defense

to the action that the necessar' conclusion fro)

these collated las is that the re)ed' for in1uries

throu(h ne(li(ence lies onl' in a cri)inal action in

hich the oHcial cri)inall' responsible )ust be

)ade pri)aril' liable and his e)plo'er held onl'

subsidiaril' to hi). Accordin( to this theor' the

plainti should have procured the arrest of the

representative of the co)pan' accountable for not

repairin( the tracD, and on his prosecution a suitable

;ne should have been i)posed, pa'able pri)aril' b'

hi) and secondaril' b' his e)plo'er.

-his reasonin( )isconceived the plan of the Spanish

codes upon this sub1ect. Article !@" of the Civil

Code )aDes obli(ations arisin( fro) faults orne(li(ence not punished b' the law, sub1ect to the

provisions of Chapter II of -itle 9I. Section !"@ of

that chapter reads

0A person ho b' an act or o)ission causes

da)a(e to another hen there is fault or

ne(li(ence shall be obli(ed to repair the

da)a(e so done.

0SEC. !"@. -he obli(ation i)posed b' thepreceedin( article is de)andable, not onl' for

personal acts and o)issions, but also for

those of the persons for ho) the' should be

responsible.

0-he father, and on his death or incapacit',

the )other, is liable for the da)a(es caused

b' the )inors ho live ith the).

> > > > > > > > >

0+ners or directors of an establish)ent or

enterprise are e?uall' liable for the da)a(es

caused b' their e)plo'ees in the service of

the branches in hich the latter )a' be

e)plo'ed or in the perfor)ance of their

duties.



> > > > > > > > >

0-he liabilit' referred to in this article shall

cease hen the persons )entioned therein

prove that the' e)plo'ed all the dili(ence of

a (ood father of a fa)il' to avoid theda)a(e.0

As an anser to the ar(u)ent ur(ed in this particular

action it )a' be suHcient to point out that nohere

in our (eneral statutes is the e)plo'er penalied for

failure to provide or )aintain safe appliances for his

orD)en. <is obli(ation therefore is one not

punished b' the las and falls under civil rather than

cri)inal 1urisprudence. But the anser )a' be a

broader one. Le should be reluctant, under an'conditions, to adopt a forced construction of these

scienti;c codes, such as is proposed b' the

defendant, that ould rob so)e of these articles of

eect, ould shut out liti(ants a(ainst their ill fro)

the civil courts, ould )aDe the assertion of their

ri(hts dependent upon the selection for prosecution

of the proper cri)inal oender, and render recover'

doubtful b' reason of the strict rules of proof

prevailin( in cri)inal actions. Even if these articles

had ala's stood alone, such a construction ould

be unnecessar', but clear li(ht is thron upon their)eanin( b' the provisions of the 8a of Cri)inal

Procedure of Spain *Le' de 0njuiciamiento Criminal,

hich, thou(h never in actual force in these Islands,

as for)erl' (iven a suppletor' or e>planator'

eect. 5nder article !!! of this la, both classes of

action, civil and cri)inal, )i(ht be prosecuted 1ointl'

or separatel', but hile the penal action as pendin(

the civil as suspended. Accordin( to article !!, the

penal action once started, the civil re)ed' should be

sou(ht thereith, unless it had been aived b' the

part' in1ured or been e>pressl' reserved b' hi) for

civil proceedin(s for the future. If the civil action

alone as prosecuted, arisin( out of a cri)e that

could be enforced onl' on private co)plaint, thepenal action thereunder should be e>tin(uished.

-hese provisions are in har)on' ith those of

articles and ! of our Penal Code on the sa)e

sub1ect.

An e>a)ination of this topic )i(ht be carried )uch

further, but the citation of these articles suHces to

sho that the civil liabilit' as not intended to be

)er(ed in the cri)inal nor even to be suspended

thereb', e>cept as e>pressl' provided in the la.

Lhere an individual is civill' liable for a ne(li(ent act

or o)ission, it is not re?uired that the in1ured part'

should seeD out a third person cri)inall' liable hose

prosecution )ust be a condition precedent to the

enforce)ent of the civil ri(ht.

5nder article @ of the Penal Code the responsibilit'

of an e)plo'er )a' be re(arded as subsidiar' in

respect of cri)inal actions a(ainst his e)plo'ees

onl' hile the' are in process of prosecution, or in so

far as the' deter)ine the e>istence of the cri)inalact fro) hich liabilit' arises, and his obli(ation

under the civil la and its enforce)ent in the civil

courts is not barred thereb' unless b' the election of

the in1ured person. Inas)uch as no cri)inal

proceedin( had been instituted, (roin( our of the

accident in ?uestion, the provisions of the Penal Code

can not aect this action. -his construction renders it

unnecessar' to ;nall' deter)ine here hether this



subsidiar' civil liabilit' in penal actions has survived

the las that full' re(ulated it or has been abro(ated

b' the A)erican civil and cri)inal procedure no in

force in the Philippines.

-he diHcult' in construin( the articles of the codeabove cited in this case appears fro) the briefs

before us to have arisen fro) the interpretation of

the ords of article !@", 0fault or ne(li(ence not

punished b' la,0 as applied to the co)prehensive

de;nition of oenses in articles /F# and /"@ of the

Penal Code. It has been shon that the liabilit' of an

e)plo'er arisin( out of his relation to his e)plo'ee

ho is the oender is not to be re(arded as derived

fro) ne(li(ence punished b' the la, ithin the

)eanin( of articles !"@ and !@". More than this,

hoever, it cannot be said to fall ithin the class of

acts unpunished b' the la, the conse?uence of

hich are re(ulated b' articles !"@ and !"@ of the

Civil Code. -he acts to hich these articles are

applicable are understood to be those not (roin(

out of preKe>istin( duties of the parties to one

another. But here relations alread' for)ed (ive rise

to duties, hether sprin(in( fro) contract or ?uasi

contract, then breaches of those duties are sub1ect to

articles !!@!, !!@, and !!@ of the sa)e code. A

t'pical application of this distinction )a' be found inthe conse?uences of a raila' accident due to

defective )achiner' supplied b' the e)plo'er. <is

liabilit' to his e)plo'ee ould arise out of the

contract of e)plo')ent, that to the passen(ers out

of the contract for passa(e, hile that to the in1ured

b'stander ould ori(inate in the ne(li(ent act itself.

In ,an%anares #s. ,oreta, # Phil., #! *'ear !"!#, the

)other of the # of "K'earKold child Salvador Bona brou(ht a

civil action a(ainst Moreta to recover da)a(es resultin(

fro) the death of the child, ho had been run over b' an

auto)obile driven and )ana(ed b' the defendant. -he trial

court rendered 1ud()ent re?uirin( the defendant to pa' theplainti the su) of P!,@@@ as inde)nit' -his Court in

aHr)in( the 1ud()ent, said in part

If it ere true that the defendant, in co)in( fro) the

southern part of Solana Street, had to stop his auto

before crossin( Real Street, because he had )et

vehicles hich ere (oin( alon( the latter street or

ere co)in( fro) the opposite direction alon(

Solana Street, it is to be believed that, hen he a(ain

started to run his auto across said Real Street and to

continue its a' alon( Solana Street northard, he

should have ad1usted the speed of the auto hich he

as operatin( until he had full' crossed Real Street

and had co)pletel' reached a clear a' on Solana

Street. But, as the child as run over b' the auto

precisel' at the entrance of Solana Street, this

accident could not have occurred if the auto had

been runnin( at a slo speed, aside fro) the fact

that the defendant, at the )o)ent of crossin( Real

Street and enterin( Solana Street, in a northard

direction, could have seen the child in the act ofcrossin( the latter street fro) the sidealD on the

ri(ht to that on the left, and if the accident had

occurred in such a a' that after the auto)obile had

run over the bod' of the child, and the childs bod'

had alread' been stretched out on the (round, the

auto)obile still )oved alon( a distance of about

)eters, this circu)stance shos the fact that the

auto)obile entered Solana Street fro) Real Street,



at a hi(h speed ithout the defendant havin( blon

the horn. If these precautions had been taDen b' the

defendant, the deplorable accident hich caused the

death of the child ould not have occurred.

It ill be noticed that the defendant in the above case couldhave been prosecuted in a cri)inal case because his

ne(li(ence causin( the death of the child as punishable b'

the Penal Code. <ere is therefore a clear instance of the

sa)e act of ne(li(ence bein( a proper sub1ectK)atter either

of a cri)inal action ith its conse?uent civil liabilit' arisin(

fro) a cri)e or of an entirel' separate and independent civil

action for fault or ne(li(ence under article !"@ of the Civil

Code. -hus, in this 1urisdiction, the separate individuall' of

a cuasi*delito or culpa a+uilianaunder the Civil Code has

been full' and clearl' reco(nied, even ith re(ard to a

ne(li(ent act for hich the ron(doer could have been

prosecuted and convicted in a cri)inal case and for hich,

after such a conviction, he could have been sued for this

civil liabilit' arisin( fro) his cri)e.

=ears later *in !"@ this Court had another occasion to

appl' the sa)e doctrine. In (ernal and 0n#erso #s. 6ouse

and 2acloban 0lectric & /ce lant Ltd., / Phil., 7, the

parents of the ;veK'earKold child, Puri;cacion Bernal,

brou(ht a civil action to recover da)a(es for the childs

death as a result of burns caused b' the fault andne(li(ence of the defendants. +n the evenin( of April !@,

!"/, the 4ood $rida' procession as held in -acloban,

8e'te. $ortunata Enverso ith her dau(hter Puri;cacion

Bernal had co)e fro) another )unicipalit' to attend the

sa)e. After the procession the )other and the dau(hter

ith to others ere passin( alon( 4ran Capitan Street in

front of the oHces of the -acloban Electric & Ice Plant, 8td.,

oned b' defendants G. 9. <ouse, hen an auto)obile

appeared fro) the opposite direction. -he little (irl, ho as

sli(htl' ahead of the rest, as so fri(htened b' the

auto)obile that she turned to run, but unfortunatel' she fell

into the street (utter here hot ater fro) the electric plant

as Join(. -he child died that sa)e ni(ht fro) the burns.

-he trial courts dis)issed the action because of thecontributor' ne(li(ence of the plaintis. But this Court held,

on appeal, that there as no contributor' ne(li(ence, and

alloed the parents P!,@@@ in da)a(es fro) G. 9. <ouse ho

at the ti)e of the tra(ic occurrence as the holder of the

franchise for the electric plant. -his Court said in part

Althou(h the trial 1ud(e )ade the ;ndin(s of fact

hereinbefore outlined, he nevertheless as led to

order the dis)issal of the action because of the

contributor' ne(li(ence of the plaintis. It is fro)

this point that a )a1orit' of the court depart fro) the

stand taDen b' the trial 1ud(e. -he )other and her

child had a perfect ri(ht to be on the principal street

of -acloban, 8e'te, on the evenin( hen the reli(ious

procession as held. -here as nothin( abnor)al in

alloin( the child to run alon( a fe paces in

advance of the )other. No one could foresee the

coincidence of an auto)obile appearin( and of a

fri(htened child runnin( and fallin( into a ditch ;lled

ith hot ater. -he doctrine announced in the )uch

debated case of RaDes vs. Atlantic 4ulf and Paci;cCo. *!"@7Q, 7 Phil., /", still rule. Article !"@ of

the Civil Code )ust a(ain be enforced. -he

contributor' ne(li(ence of the child and her )other,

if an', does not operate as a bar to recover', but in

its strictest sense could onl' result in reduction of the

da)a(es.



It is )ost si(ni;cant that in the case 1ust cited, this Court

speci;call' applied article !"@ of the Civil Code. It is thus

that althou(h G. 9. <ouse could have been cri)inall'

prosecuted for recDless or si)ple ne(li(ence and not onl'

punished but also )ade civill' liable because of his cri)inal

ne(li(ence, nevertheless this Court aarded da)a(es in anindependent civil action for fault or ne(li(ence under article

!"@ of the Civil Code.

In (ahia #s. Litonjua and Le'nes *@ Phil., F 'ear !"!/,

the action as for da)a(es for the death of the plaintis

dau(hter alle(ed to have been caused b' the ne(li(ence of

the servant in drivin( an auto)obile over the child. It

appeared that the cause of the )ishap as a defect in the

steerin( (ear. -he defendant 8e'nes had rented the

auto)obile fro) the International 4ara(e of Manila, to be

used b' hi) in carr'in( passen(ers durin( the ;esta of -u',

Batan(as. 8e'nes as ordered b' the loer court to pa'

P!,@@@ as da)a(es to the plainti. +n appeal this Court

reversed the 1ud()ent as to 8e'nes on the (round that he

had shon that the e>ercised the care of a (ood father of a

fa)il', thus overco)in( the presu)ption of ne(li(ence

under article !"@. -his Court said

As to selection, the defendant has clearl' shon that

he e>ercised the care and dili(ence of a (ood father

of a fa)il'. <e obtained the )achine fro) areputable (ara(e and it as, so far as appeared, in

(ood condition. -he orD)en ere liDeise selected

fro) a standard (ara(e, ere dul' licensed b' the

4overn)ent in their particular callin(, and

apparentl' thorou(hl' co)petent. -he )achine had

been used but a fe hours hen the accident

occurred and it is clear fro) the evidence that the

defendant had no notice, either actual or

constructive, of the defective condition of the

steerin( (ear.

-he le(al aspect of the case as discussed b' this Court

thus

Article !"@ of the Civil Code not onl' establishes

liabilit' in cases of ne(li(ence, but also provides

hen the liabilit' shall cease. It sa's

0-he liabilit' referred to in this article shall

cease hen the persons )entioned therein

prove that the' e)plo'ed all the dili(ence of

a (ood father of a fa)il' to avoid the

da)a(e.0

$ro) this article to thin(s are apparent *! -hat

hen an in1ur' is caused b' the ne(li(ence of a

servant or e)plo'ee there instantl' arises a

presu)ption of la that there as ne(li(ence on the

part of the )atter or e)plo'er either in the selection

of the servant or e)plo'ee, or in supervision over

hi) after the selection, or both and * that

presu)ption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure,

and conse?uentl', )a' be rebutted. It follos

necessaril' that if the e)plo'er shos to the

satisfaction of the court that in selection andsupervision he has e>ercised the care and dili(ence

of a (ood father of a fa)il', the presu)ption is

overco)e and he is relieve fro) liabilit'.

-his theor' bases the responsibilit' of the )aster

ulti)atel' on his on ne(li(ence and not on that of

his servant.



-he doctrine of the case 1ust cited as folloed b' this

Court in Cer #s. ,edel * Phil., 7 'ear !"!/Q. In the

latter case, the co)plaint alle(ed that the defendants

servant had so ne(li(entl' driven an auto)obile, hich as

operated b' defendant as a public vehicle, that said

auto)obile strucD and da)a(ed the plaintis )otorc'cle. -his Court, appl'in( article !"@ and folloin( the rule

in (ahia #s. Litonjua and Le'nes, said in part *p. ! that

-he )aster is liable for the ne(li(ent acts of his

servant here he is the oner or director of a

business or enterprise and the ne(li(ent acts are

co))itted hile the servant is en(a(ed in his

)asters e)plo')ent as such oner.

Another case hich folloed the decision in (ahia #s.

Litonjua and Le'nes as Cuison vs. Norton & <arrison Co.,

// Phil., !# *'ear !"@. -he latter case as an action for

da)a(es brou(ht b' Cuison for the death of his sevenK'earK

old son Moises. -he little bo' as on his a' to school ith

his sister Marciana. So)e lar(e pieces of lu)ber fell fro) a

trucD and pinned the bo' underneath, instantl' Dillin( hi).

-o 'ouths, -elesforo Bino'a and $rancisco Bautista, ho

ere orDin( for +ra, an e)plo'ee of defendant Norton &

<arrison Co., pleaded (uilt' to the cri)e of ho)icide

throu(h recDless ne(li(ence and ere sentenced

accordin(l'. -his Court, appl'in( articles !"@ and !"@,held

-he basis of civil la liabilit' is not respondent

superior but the relationship of pater amilias. -his

theor' bases the liabilit' of the )aster ulti)atel' on

his on ne(li(ence and not on that of his servant.

*Bahia #s.8iton1ua and 8e'nes !"!/Q, @ Phil., F

Can(co vs. Manila Railroad Co. !"!#Q, # Phil., 7F#.

In Lalter A. S)ith & Co. #s. Cadallader 4ibson 8u)ber Co.,

// Phil., /!7 *'ear !"@ the plainti brou(ht an action for

da)a(es for the de)olition of its harf, hich had been

strucD b' the stea)er <elen C belon(in( to the defendant.

-his Court held *p. /F

-he evidence shos that Captain 8asa at the ti)e

the plaintis harf collapsed as a dul' licensed

captain, authoried to navi(ate and direct a vessel of

an' tonna(e, and that the appellee contracted his

services because of his reputation as a captain,

accordin( to $. C. Cadallader. -his bein( so, e are

of the opinion that the presu)ption of liabilit'

a(ainst the defendant has been overco)e b' the

e>ercise of the care and dili(ence of a (ood father of

a fa)il' in selectin( Captain 8asa, in accordance ith

the doctrines laid don b' this court in the cases

cited above, and the defendant is therefore absolved

fro) all liabilit'.

It is, therefore, seen that the defendants theor' about his

secondar' liabilit' is ne(atived b' the si> cases above set

forth. <e is, on the authorit' of these cases, pri)aril' and

directl' responsible in da)a(es under article !"@, in

relation to article !"@, of the Civil Code.

8et us no taDe up the Philippine decisions relied upon b'the defendant. Le stud' ;rst, Cit' o ,anila #s. ,anila

0lectric Co., / Phil., /#F *'ear !"#. A collision beteen a

trucD of the Cit' of Manila and a street car of the Manila

Electric Co. tooD place on Gune #, !"/. -he trucD as

da)a(ed in the a)ount of P!,7##.7. Si>to Eusta?uio, the

)otor)an, as prosecuted for the cri)e of da)a(e to

propert' and sli(ht in1uries throu(h recDless i)prudence. <e

as found (uilt' and sentenced to pa' a ;ne of P"@@, to



inde)nif' the Cit' of Manila for P!,7##.7, ith subsidiar'

i)prison)ent in case of insolvenc'. 5nable to collect the

inde)nit' fro) Eusta?uio, the Cit' of Manila ;led an action

a(ainst the Manila Electric Co)pan' to obtain pa')ent,

clai)in( that the defendant as subsidiaril' liable. -he )ain

defense as that the defendant had e>ercised the dili(enceof a (ood father of a fa)il' to prevent the da)a(e. -he

loer court rendered 1ud()ent in favor of the plainti. -his

Court held, in part, that this case as (overned b' the Penal

Code, sa'in(

Lith this preli)inar' point out of the a', there is no

escapin( the conclusion that the provisions of the

Penal Code (overn. -he Penal Code in easil'

understandable lan(ua(e authories the

deter)ination of subsidiar' liabilit'. -he Civil Code

ne(atives its application b' providin( that civil

obli(ations arisin( fro) cri)es or )isde)eanors

shall be (overned b' the provisions of the Penal

Code. -he conviction of the )otor)an as a

)isde)eanor fallin( under article F@ of the Penal

Code. -he act of the )otor)an as not a ron(ful or

ne(li(ent act or o)ission not punishable b' la.

Accordin(l', the civil obli(ation connected up ith

the Penal Code and not ith article !"@ of the Civil

Code. In other ords, the Penal Code aHr)s its

1urisdiction hile the Civil Code ne(atives its 1urisdiction. -his is a case of cri)inal ne(li(ence out

of hich civil liabilit' arises and not a case of civil

ne(li(ence.

> > > > > > > > >

+ur deduction, therefore, is that the case relates to

the Penal Code and not to the Civil Code. Indeed, as

pointed out b' the trial 1ud(e, an' dierent rulin(

ould per)it the )aster to escape scotKfree b'

si)pl' alle(in( and provin( that the )aster had

e>ercised all dili(ence in the selection and trainin( of

its servants to prevent the da)a(e. -hat ould be a

(ood defense to a strictl' civil action, but )i(ht or)i(ht not be to a civil action either as a part of or

predicated on conviction for a cri)e or )isde)eanor.

*B' a' of parenthesis, it )a' be said further that

the state)ents here )ade are oered to )eet the

ar(u)ent advanced durin( our deliberations to the

eect that article @"@ of the Civil Code should be

disre(arded and codal articles !@" and !"@

applied.

It is not clear ho the above case could support the

defendants proposition, because the Court of Appeals based

its decision in the present case on the defendants pri)ar'

responsibilit' under article !"@ of the Civil Code and not on

his subsidiar' liabilit' arisin( fro) $ontanillas cri)inal

ne(li(ence. In other ords, the case of Cit' of Manila vs.

Manila Electric Co., supra, is predicated on an entirel'

dierent theor', hich is the subsidiar' liabilit' of an

e)plo'er arisin( fro) a cri)inal act of his e)plo'ee,

hereas the foundation of the decision of the Court of

Appeals in the present case is the e)plo'ers pri)ar'

liabilit' under article !"@ of the Civil Code. Le havealread' seen that this is a proper and independent re)ed'.

Arambulo #s. ,anila 0lectric Co. *// Phil., 7/, is another

case invoDed b' the defendant. A )otor)an in the e)plo'

of the Manila Electric Co)pan' had been convicted o

ho)icide b' si)ple ne(li(ence and sentenced, a)on( other

thin(s, to pa' the heirs of the deceased the su) of P!,@@@.

An action as then brou(ht to enforce the subsidiar' liabilit'



of the defendant as e)plo'er under the Penal Code. -he

defendant atte)pted to sho that it had e>ercised the

dili(ence of a (ood father of a fa)il' in selectin( the

)otor)an, and therefore clai)ed e>e)ption fro) civil

liabilit'. But this Court held

In vie of the fore(oin( considerations, e are of

opinion and so hold, *! that the e>e)ption fro) civil

liabilit' established in article !"@ of the Civil Code

for all ho have acted ith the dili(ence of a (ood

father of a fa)il', is not applicable to the subsidiar'

civil liabilit' provided in article @ of the Penal Code.

-he above case is also e>traneous to the theor' of the

defendant in the instant case, because the action there had

for its purpose the enforce)ent of the defendants

subsidiar' liabilit' under the Penal Code, hile in the case at

bar, the plaintis cause of action is based on the

defendants pri)ar' and direct responsibilit' under article

!"@ of the Civil Code. In fact, the above case destro's the

defendants contention because that decision illustrates the

principle that the e)plo'ers pri)ar' responsibilit' under

article !"@ of the Civil Code is dierent in character fro)

his subsidiar' liabilit' under the Penal Code.

In tr'in( to appl' the to cases 1ust referred to, counsel for

the defendant has failed to reco(nie the distinctionbeteen civil liabilit' arisin( fro) a cri)e, hich is

(overned b' the Penal Code, and the responsibilit'

for cuasi*delito or culpa a+uiliana under the Civil Code, and

has liDeise failed to (ive the i)portance to the latter t'pe

of civil action.

-he defendantKpetitioner also cites Francisco #s.

Onrubia *F Phil., 7. -hat case need not be set forth.

SuHce it to sa' that the ?uestion involved as also civil

liabilit' arisin( fro) a cri)e. <ence, it is as inapplicable as

the to cases above discussed.

-he fore(oin( authorities clearl' de)onstrate the separate

individualit' of cuasi*delitos or culpa a+uiliana under the

Civil Code. Speci;call' the' sho that there is a distinction

beteen civil liabilit' arisin( fro) cri)inal ne(li(ence

*(overned b' the Penal Code and responsibilit' for fault or

ne(li(ence under articles !"@ to !"!@ of the Civil Code,

and that the sa)e ne(li(ent act )a' produce either a civil

liabilit' arisin( fro) a cri)e under the Penal Code, or a

separate responsibilit' for fault or ne(li(ence under articles

!"@ to !"!@ of the Civil Code. Still )ore concretel', the

authorities above cited render it inescapable to conclude

that the e)plo'er : in this case the defendantKpetitioner :

is pri)aril' and directl' liable under article !"@ of the Civil

Code.

-he le(al provisions, authors, and cases alread' invoDed

should ordinaril' be suHcient to dispose of this case. But

inas)uch as e are announcin( doctrines that have been

little understood in the past, it )i(ht not be inappropriate to

indicate their foundations.

$irstl', the Revised Penal Code in article F/ punishes not

onl' recDless but also si)ple ne(li(ence. If e ere to hold

that articles !"@ to !"!@ of the Civil Code refer onl' to

fault or ne(li(ence not punished b' la, accordin( to the

literal i)port of article !@" of the Civil Code, the le(al

institution of culpa a?uiliana ould have ver' little scope

and application in actual life. 2eath or in1ur' to persons and

da)a(e to propert' throu(h an' de(ree of ne(li(ence :



even the sli(htest : ould have to be inde)ni;ed onl'

throu(h the principle of civil liabilit' arisin( fro) a cri)e. In

such a state of aairs, hat sphere ould re)ain for cuasi*

delito or culpa a+uilianaU Le are loath to i)pute to the

la)aDer an' intention to brin( about a situation so absurd

and ano)alous. Nor are e, in the interpretation of the las,disposed to uphold the letter that Dilleth rather than the

spirit that (iveth life. Le ill not use the literal )eanin( of

the la to s)other and render al)ost lifeless a principle of

such ancient ori(in and such fullK(ron develop)ent

as culpa a+uiliana or cuasi*delito, hich is conserved and

)ade endurin( in articles !"@ to !"!@ of the Spanish Civil

Code.

Secondl', to ;nd the accused (uilt' in a cri)inal case, proof

of (uilt be'ond reasonable doubt is re?uired, hile in a civil

case, preponderance of evidence is suHcient to )aDe the

defendant pa' in da)a(es. -here are nu)erous cases of

cri)inal ne(li(ence hich can not be shon be'ond

reasonable doubt, but can be proved b' a preponderance of

evidence. In such cases, the defendant can and should be

)ade responsible in a civil action under articles !"@ to

!"!@ of the Civil Code. +therise, there ould be )an'

instances of unvindicated civil ron(s. 3bi jus ibi remedium.

-hirdl', to hold that there is onl' one a' to )aDe

defendants liabilit' eective, and that is, to sue the driverand e>haust his *the latters propert' ;rst, ould be

tanta)ount to co)pellin( the plainti to follo a devious

and cu)berso)e )ethod of obtainin( relief. -rue, there is

such a re)ed' under our las, but there is also a )ore

e>peditious a', hich is based on the pri)ar' and direct

responsibilit' of the defendant under article !"@ of the Civil

Code. +ur vie of the la is )ore liDel' to facilitate re)ed'

for civil ron(s, because the procedure indicated b' the

defendant is asteful and productive of dela', it bein( a

)atter of co))on Dnoled(e that professional drivers of

ta>is and si)ilar public conve'ance usuall' do not have

suHcient )eans ith hich to pa' da)a(es. Lh', then,

should the plainti be re?uired in all cases to (o throu(h this

roundabout, unnecessar', and probabl' useless procedureUIn construin( the las, courts have endeavored to shorten

and facilitate the patha's of ri(ht and 1ustice.

At this 1uncture, it should be said that the pri)ar' and direct

responsibilit' of e)plo'ers and their presu)ed ne(li(ence

are principles calculated to protect societ'. LorD)en and

e)plo'ees should be carefull' chosen and supervised in

order to avoid in1ur' to the public. It is the )asters or

e)plo'ers ho principall' reap the pro;ts resultin( fro) the

services of these servants and e)plo'ees. It is but ri(ht that

the' should (uarantee the latters careful conduct for the

personnel and patri)onial safet' of others. As -heilhard has

said, 0the' should reproach the)selves, at least, so)e for

their eaDness, others for their poor selection and all for

their ne(li(ence.0 And accordin( to Manresa, 0It is )uch

)ore e?uitable and 1ust that such responsibilit' should fall

upon the principal or director ho could have chosen a

careful and prudent e)plo'ee, and not upon the in1ured

person ho could not e>ercise such selection and ho used

such e)plo'ee because of his con;dence in the principal or

director.0 *9ol. !, p. F, nd Ed. Man' 1urists also basethis pri)ar' responsibilit' of the e)plo'er on the principle

of representation of the principal b' the a(ent. -hus,

+'uelos sa's in the orD alread' cited *9ol. 7, p. 77 that

before third persons the e)plo'er and e)plo'ee 0vienen a

ser co)o una sola personalidad, por refundicion de la del

dependiente en la de ?uien le e)plea ' utilia.0 *0beco)e

as one personalit' b' the )er(in( of the person of the

e)plo'ee in that of hi) ho e)plo's and utilies hi).0 All



these observations ac?uire a peculiar force and si(ni;cance

hen it co)es to )otor accidents, and there is need of

stressin( and accentuatin( the responsibilit' of oners of

)otor vehicles.

$ourthl', because of the broad seep of the provisions ofboth the Penal Code and the Civil Code on this sub1ect,

hich has (iven rise to the overlappin( or concurrence of

spheres alread' discussed, and for lacD of understandin( of

the character and eHcac' of the action for culpa a+uiliana,

there has (ron up a co))on practice to seeD da)a(es

onl' b' virtue of the civil responsibilit' arisin( fro) a cri)e,

for(ettin( that there is another re)ed', hich is b' invoDin(

articles !"@K!"!@ of the Civil Code. Althou(h this habitual

)ethod is alloed b' our las, it has nevertheless rendered

practicall' useless and nu(ator' the )ore e>peditious and

eective re)ed' based on culpa a+uiliana or culpa e7tra*

contractual. In the present case, e are asDed to help

perpetuate this usual course. But e believe it is hi(h ti)e

e pointed out to the har) done b' such practice and to

restore the principle of responsibilit' for fault or ne(li(ence

under articles !"@ et se+. of the Civil Code to its full ri(or.

It is hi(h ti)e e caused the strea) of ?uasiKdelict or culpa

a+uiliana to Jo on its on natural channel, so that its

aters )a' no lon(er be diverted into that of a cri)e under

the Penal Code. -his ill, it is believed, )aDe for the better

safe(uardin( of private ri(hts because it reKestablishes anancient and additional re)ed', and for the further reason

that an independent civil action, not dependin( on the

issues, li)itations and results of a cri)inal prosecution, and

entirel' directed b' the part' ron(ed or his counsel, is

)ore liDel' to secure ade?uate and eHcacious redress.

In vie of the fore(oin(, the 1ud()ent of the Court of

Appeals should be and is hereb' aHr)ed, ith costs a(ainst

the defendantKpetitioner.

?ulo C.!. ,oran O%aeta and aras !!. concur.




SUPREME COURT

Manila

SEC+N2 2I9ISI+N

G.R. No. L%248)3 May 2+, 1977

PERO ELCANO a!" PATRICIA ELCANO, 6! 0'6

/aa/6y a( A(/'!"a!( o A-a6o E/a!o,

"'/'a('",plaintisKappellants,

vs.

REGINAL #ILL, 6!o, a!" MARVIN #ILL, a( a0'

a!" Naa Ga"6a! o (a6" 6!o, defendantsK

appellees.

Cru% & A#ecilla or appellants.

,ar#in -. 6ill & Associates or appellees.

ARREO, J.:

Appeal fro) the order of the Court of $irst Instance of

ueon Cit' dated Ganuar' ", !"F/ in Civil Case No. K

#!@, Pedro Elcano et al. vs. Re(inald <ill et al. dis)issin(,

upon )otion to dis)iss of defendants, the co)plaint of

plaintis for recover' of da)a(es fro) defendant Re(inald

<ill, a )inor, )arried at the ti)e of the occurrence, and his

father, the defendant Marvin <ill, ith ho) he as livin(

and (ettin( subsistence, for the Dillin( b' Re(inald of the

son of the plaintis, na)ed A(apito Elcano, of hich, hencri)inall' prosecuted, the said accused as ac?uitted on

the (round that his act as not cri)inal, because of 0lacD of

intent to Dill, coupled ith )istaDe.0

Actuall', the )otion to dis)iss based on the folloin(

(rounds

!. -he present action is not onl' a(ainst but a

violation of section !, Rule !@7, hich is no

Rule III, of the Revised Rules of Court

. -he action is barred b' a prior 1ud()ent

hich is no ;nal and or in res*adjudicata

. -he co)plaint had no cause of action

a(ainst defendant Marvin <ill, because he as

relieved as (uardian of the other defendant

throu(h e)ancipation b' )arria(e.

*P. , Record p. , Record on Appeal.Q

as ;rst denied b' the trial court. It as onl' upon )otion

for reconsideration of the defendants of such denial,

reiteratin( the above (rounds that the folloin( order as

issued

Considerin( the )otion for reconsideration

;led b' the defendants on Ganuar' !, !"F/



and after thorou(hl' e>a)inin( the

ar(u)ents therein contained, the Court ;nds

the sa)e to be )eritorious and ellKfounded.

L<ERE$+RE, the +rder of this Court on

2ece)ber #, !"F is hereb' reconsidered b'orderin( the dis)issal of the above entitled

case.

S+ +R2ERE2.

ueon Cit', Philippines, Ganuar' ", !"F/. *p.

@, Record p. !, Record on Appeal.

<ence, this appeal here plaintisKappellants, the spouses

Elcano, are presentin( for +ur resolution the folloin(assi(n)ent of errors

-<E 8+LER C+5R- ERRE2 IN 2ISMISSIN4 -<E

CASE B= 5P<+82IN4 -<E C8AIM +$

2E$EN2AN-S -<A- K

I

-<E PRESEN- AC-I+N IS N+- +N8= A4AINS-

B5- A8S+ A 9I+8A-I+N +$ SEC-I+N !, R58E

!@7, N+L R58E !!!, +$ -<E RE9ISE2 R58ES

+$ C+5R-, AN2 -<A- SEC-I+N *c +$ R58E

!!!, R58ES +$ C+5R- IS APP8ICAB8E

II

-<E AC-I+N IS BARRE2 B= A PRI+R

G524MEN- L<IC< IS N+L $INA8 +R RESK

A2G52IC-A

III

-<E PRINCIP8ES +$ 5ASIK2E8IC-S, AR-IC8ES

!7F -+ !" +$ -<E CI9I8 C+2E, ARE

INAPP8ICAB8E IN -<E INS-AN- CASE and

I9

-<A- -<E C+MP8AIN- S-A-ES N+ CA5SE +$

AC-I+N A4AINS- 2E$EN2AN- MAR9IN <I88

BECA5SE <E LAS RE8IE9E2 AS 45AR2IAN +$

-<E +-<ER 2E$EN2AN- -<R+54<EMANCIPA-I+N B= MARRIA4E. *pa(e ,

Record.

It appears that for the Dillin( of the son, A(apito, of

plaintisKappellants, defendantK appellee Re(inald <ill as

prosecuted cri)inall' in Cri)inal Case No. /!@ of the Court

of $irst Instance of ueon Cit'. After due trial, he as

ac?uitted on the (round that his act as not cri)inal

because of 0lacD of intent to Dill, coupled ith )istaDe.0

Parentheticall', none of the parties has favored 5s ith a

cop' of the decision of ac?uittal, presu)abl' becauseappellants do not dispute that such indeed as the basis

stated in the courts decision. And so, hen appellants ;led

their co)plaint a(ainst appellees Re(inald and his father,

Att'. Marvin <ill, on account of the death of their son, the

appellees ;led the )otion to dis)iss aboveKreferred to.



As Le vie the fore(oin( bacD(round of this case, the to

decisive issues presented for +ur resolution are

!. Is the present civil action for da)a(es barred b' the

ac?uittal of Re(inald in the cri)inal case herein the action

for civil liabilit', as not reversedU

. Ma' Article !#@ *nd and last para(raphs of the Civil

Code he applied a(ainst Att'. <ill, notithstandin( the

undisputed fact that at the ti)e of the occurrence

co)plained of. Re(inald, thou(h a )inor, livin( ith and

(ettin( subsistenee fro) his father, as alread' le(all'

)arriedU

-he ;rst issue presents no )ore proble) than the need for a

reiteration and further clari;cation of the dual character,

cri)inal and civil, of fault or ne(li(ence as a source of

obli(ation hich as ;r)l' established in this 1urisdiction

in (arredo #s. $arcia, 7 Phil. F@7. In that case, this Court

postulated, on the basis of a scholarl' dissertation b' Gustice

Bocobo on the nature of culpa a+uiliana in relation to culpa

criminal or delito and )ereculpa or fault, ith pertinent

citation of decisions of the Supre)e Court of Spain, the

orDs of reco(nied civilians, and earlier 1urisprudence of

our on, that the sa)e (iven act can result in civil liabilit'

not onl' under the Penal Code but also under the Civil Code.

-hus, the opinion holds

-he, above case is pertinent because it shos

that the sa)e act )achinist. co)e under both

the Penal Code and the Civil Code. In that

case, the action of the a(ent Dilleth un1usti;ed

and fraudulent and therefore could have been

the sub1ect of a cri)inal action. And 'et, it

as held to be also a proper sub1ect of a civil

action under article !"@ of the Civil Code. It

is also to be noted that it as the e)plo'er

and not the e)plo'ee ho as bein( sued.

*pp. F!/KF!F, 7 Phil.. 1

It ill be noticed that the defendant in the

above case could have been prosecuted in a

cri)inal case because his ne(li(ence causin(

the death of the child as punishable b' the

Penal Code. <ere is therefore a clear instance

of the sa)e act of ne(li(ence bein( a proper

sub1ect )atter either of a cri)inal action ith

its conse?uent civil liabilit' arisin( fro) a

cri)e or of an entirel' separate and

independent civil action for fault or

ne(li(ence under article !"@ of the Civil

Code. -hus, in this 1urisdiction, the separate

individualit' of a cuasi*delito or culpa

a+uiliana, under the Civil Code has been full'

and clearl' reco(nied, even ith re(ard to a

ne(li(ent act for hich the ron(doer could

have been prosecuted and convicted in a

cri)inal case and for hich, after such a

conviction, he could have been sued for this

civil liabilit' arisin( fro) his cri)e. *p. F!7, 7

Phil. 2

It is )ost si(ni;cant that in the case 1ust

cited, this Court speci;call' applied article

!"@ of the Civil Code. It is thus that althou(h

G. 9. <ouse could have been cri)inall'

prosecuted for recDless or si)ple ne(li(ence

and not onl' punished but also )ade civill'

liable because of his cri)inal ne(li(ence,



nevertheless this Court aarded da)a(es in

an independent civil action for fault or

ne(li(ence under article !"@ of the Civil

Code. *p. F!#, 7 Phil. 3

-he le(al provisions, authors, and casesalread' invoDed should ordinaril' be suHcient

to dispose of this case. But inas)uch as e

are announcin( doctrines that have been little

understood, in the past, it )i(ht not he

inappropriate to indicate their foundations.

$irstl', the Revised Penal Code in articles F/

punishes not onl' recDless but also si)ple

ne(li(ence. If e ere to hold that articles

!"@ to !"!@ of the Civil Code refer onl' to

fault or ne(li(ence not punished b' la,

accordin(l' to the literal i)port of article

!@" of the Civil Code, the le(al institution

of culpa a+uiliana ould have ver' little scope

and application in actual life. 2eath or in1ur'

to persons and da)a(e to propert'K throu(h

an' de(ree of ne(li(ence K even the sli(htest

K ould have to be Ide)ni;ed onl' throu(h

the principle of civil liabilit' arisin( fro) a

cri)e. In such a state of aairs, hat sphere

ould re)ain for cuasi*delito or culpaa+uilianaU Le are loath to i)pute to the

la)aDer an' intention to brin( about a

situation so absurd and ano)alous. Nor are

e, in the interpretation of the las, disposed

to uphold the letter that Dilleth rather than the

spirit that (iveth life. Le ill not use the

literal )eanin( of the la to s)other and

render al)ost lifeless a principle of such

ancient ori(in and such fullK(ron

develop)ent as culpa a+uiliana or cuasi*

delito, hich is conserved and )ade endurin(

in articles !"@ to !"!@ of the Spanish Civil

Code.

Secondar', to ;nd the accused (uilt' in a

cri)inal case, proof of (uilt be'ond

reasonable doubt is re?uired, hile in a civil

case, preponderance of evidence is suHcient

to )aDe the defendant pa' in da)a(es. -here

are nu)erous cases of cri)inal ne(li(ence

hich can not be shon be'ond reasonable

doubt, but can be proved b' a preponderance

of evidence. In such cases, the defendant can

and should be )ade responsible in a civil

action under articles !"@ to !"!@ of the Civil

Code. +therise. there ould be )an'

instances of unvindicated civil ron(s. 03bi

jus /demnied remedium.0 *p. F@,7 Phil.

$ourthl', because of the broad seep of the

provisions of both the Penal Code and the Civil

Code on this sub1ect, hich has (iven rise to

the overlappin( or concurrence of spheres

alread' discussed, and for lacD of

understandin( of the character and eHcac' of the action for culpa a+uiliana, there has

(ron up a co))on practice to seeD

da)a(es onl' b' virtue of the civil

responsibilit' arisin( fro) a cri)e, for(ettin(

that there is another re)ed', hich is b'

invoDin( articles !"@K!"!@ of the Civil Code.

Althou(h this habitual )ethod is alloed b',

our las, it has nevertheless rendered



practicall' useless and nu(ator' the )ore

e>peditious and eective re)ed' based

on culpa a+uiliana or culpa e7tra*contractual.

In the present case, e are asDed to help

perpetuate this usual course. But e believe it

is hi(h ti)e e pointed out to the har)s doneb' such practice and to restore the principle

of responsibilit' for fault or ne(li(ence under

articles !"@ et se?. of the Civil Code to its

full ri(or. It is hi(h ti)e e caused the strea)

of ?uasiKdelict or culpa a+uiliana to Jo on its

on natural channel, so that its aters )a'

no lon(er be diverted into that of a cri)e

under the Penal Code. -his ill, it is believed,

)aDe for the better safe(uardin( or private

ri(hts because it realtor, an ancient and

additional re)ed', and for the further reason

that an independent civil action, not

dependin( on the issues, li)itations and

results of a cri)inal prosecution, and entirel'

directed b' the part' ron(ed or his counsel,

is )ore liDel' to secure ade?uate and

eHcacious redress. *p. F!, 7 Phil.

Contrar' to an i))ediate i)pression one )i(ht (et upon a

readin( of the fore(oin( e>cerpts fro) the opinion in 4arcia

that the concurrence of the Penal Code and the Civil Codetherein referred to conte)plate onl' acts of ne(li(ence and

not intentional voluntar' acts K deeper reJection ould

reveal that the thrust of the pronounce)ents therein is not

so li)ited, but that in fact it actuall' e>tends to fault

or culpa. -his can be seen in the reference )ade therein to

the Sentence of the Supre)e Court of Spain of $ebruar' !,

!"!", supra, hich involved a case of fraud or estafa, not a

ne(li(ent act. Indeed, Article !@" of the Civil Code of

Spain, in force here at the ti)e of 4arcia, provided te>tuall'

that obli(ations 0hich are derived fro) acts or o)issions in

hich fault or ne(li(ence, not punishable b' law, intervene

shall be the sub1ect of Chapter II, -itle 9 of this booD *hich

refers to ?uasiKdelicts.0 And it is precisel' the underline

?uali;cation, 0not punishable b' la0, that Gustice Bocoboe)phasied could lead to an ulti)o construction or

interpretation of the letter of the la that 0Dilleth, rather

than the spirit that (iveth liftK hence, the rulin( that 0*Le

ill not use the literal )eanin( of the la to s)other and

render al)ost lifeless a principle of such ancient ori(in and

such fullK(ron develop)ent as culpa a+uiliana or+uasi*

delito, hich is conserved and )ade endurin( in articles

!"@ to !"!@ of the Spanish Civil Code.0 And so, because

Gustice Bacobo as Chair)an of the Code Co))ission that

drafted the ori(inal te>t of the ne Civil Code, it is to be

noted that the said Code, hich as enacted after the

4arcia doctrine, no lon(er uses the ter), !! not punishable

b' la,0 thereb' )aDin( it clear that the concept of culpa

a+uiliana includes acts hich are cri)inal in character or in

violation of the penal la, hether voluntar' or )atter.

-hus, the correspondin( provisions to said Article !@" in

the ne code, hich is Article !!F, si)pl' sa's,

0+bli(ations derived fro)+uasi*delicto shall be (overned b'

the provisions of Chapter , -itle 9II of this BooD, *on +uasi*

delicts and b' special las.0 More precisel', a ne

provision, Article !77 of the ne code provides

AR-. !77. Responsibilit' for fault or

ne(li(ence under the precedin( article is

entirel' separate and distinct fro) the civil

liabilit' arisin( fro) ne(li(ence under the

Penal Code. But the plainti cannot recover

da)a(es tice for the sa)e act or o)ission

of the defendant.



Accordin( to the Code Co))ission 0-he fore(oin( provision

*Article !77 throu(h at ;rst si(ht startlin(, is not so novel

or e>traordinar' hen e consider the e>act nature of

cri)inal and civil ne(li(ence. -he for)er is a violation of the

cri)inal la, hile the latter is a 0culpa a?uiliana0 or ?uasiK

delict, of ancient ori(in, havin( ala's had its onfoundation and individualit', separate fro) cri)inal

ne(li(ence. Such distinction beteen cri)inal ne(li(ence

and 0culpa e>tracontractual0 or 0cuasiKdelito0 has been

sustained b' decision of the Supre)e Court of Spain and

)aintained as clear, sound and perfectl' tenable b' Maura,

an outstandin( Spanish 1urist. -herefore, under the proposed

Article !77, ac?uittal fro) an accusation of cri)inal

ne(li(ence, hether on reasonable doubt or not, shall not

be a bar to a subse?uent civil action, not for civil liabilit'

arisin( fro) cri)inal ne(li(ence, but for da)a(es due to a

?uasiKdelict or culpa a?uiliana. But said article forestalls a

double recover'.0, *Report of the Code Co))ission, p. !F.

Althou(h, a(ain, this Article !77 does see) to literall' refer

to onl' acts of ne(li(ence, the sa)e ar(u)ent of Gustice

Bacobo about construction that upholds 0the spirit that

(iveth liftK rather than that hich is literal that Dilleth the

intent of the la)aDer should be observed in appl'in( the

sa)e. And considerin( that the preli)inar' chapter on

hu)an relations of the ne Civil Code de;nitel' establishes

the separabilit' and independence of liabilit' in a civil actionfor acts cri)inal in character *under Articles " to fro)

the civil responsibilit' arisin( fro) cri)e ;>ed b' Article !@@

of the Revised Penal Code, and, in a sense, the Rules of

Court, under Sections and *c, Rule !!!, conte)plate

also the sa)e separabilit', it is 0)ore con(ruent ith the

spirit of la, e?uit' and 1ustice, and )ore in har)on' ith

)odern pro(ress0K to borro the felicitous relevant

lan(ua(e in -a:es #s. Atlantic. $ul and acic Co., 7 Phil.

/", to hold, as Le do hold, that Article !7F, here it

refers to 0fault or ne(li(encia covers not onl' acts 0not

punishable b' la0 but also acts cri)inal in character,

hether intentional and voluntar' or ne(li(ent.

Conse?uentl', a separate civil action lies a(ainst the

oender in a cri)inal act, hether or not he is cri)inall'prosecuted and found (uilt' or ac?uitted, provided that the

oended part' is not alloed, if he is actuall' char(ed also

cri)inall', to recover da)a(es on both scores, and ould

be entitled in such eventualit' onl' to the bi((er aard of

the to, assu)in( the aards )ade in the to cases var'.

In other ords, the e>tinction of civil liabilit' referred to in

Par. *e of Section , Rule !!!, refers e>clusivel' to civil

liabilit' founded on Article !@@ of the Revised Penal Code,

hereas the civil liabilit' for the sa)e act considered as

a +uasi*delict onl' and not as a cri)e is not estin(uished

even b' a declaration in the cri)inal case that the cri)inal

act char(ed has not happened or has not been co))itted

b' the accused. BrieJ' stated, Le here hold, in reiteration of

4arcia, thatculpa a+uiliana includes voluntar' and ne(li(ent

acts hich )a' be punishable b' la.4

It results, therefore, that the ac?uittal of Re(inal <ill in the

cri)inal case has not e>tin(uished his liabilit' for +uasi*

delict , hence that ac?uittal is not a bar to the instant action

a(ainst hi).

Co)in( no to the second issue about the eect of

Re(inalds e)ancipation b' )arria(e on the possible civil

liabilit' of Att'. <ill, his father, it is also +ur considered

opinion that the conclusion of appellees that Att'. <ill is

alread' free fro) responsibilit' cannot be upheld.

Lhile it is true that parental authorit' is ter)inated upon

e)ancipation of the child *Article 7, Civil Code, and



under Article "7, e)ancipation taDes place 0b' the

)arria(e of the )inor *child0, it is, hoever, also clear that

pursuant to Article "", e)ancipation b' )arria(e of the

)inor is not reall' full or absolute. -hus 0*E)ancipation b'

)arria(e or b' voluntar' concession shall ter)inate

parental authorit' over the childs person. It shall enable the)inor to ad)inister his propert' as thou(h he ere of a(e,

but he cannot borro )one' or alienate or encu)ber real

propert' ithout the consent of his father or )other, or

(uardian. <e can sue and be sued in court onl' ith the

assistance of his father, )other or (uardian.0

No under Article !#@, 0*-he obli(ation i)posed b' article

!7F is de)andable not onl' for ones on acts or

o)issions, but also for those of persons for ho) one is

responsible. -he father and, in case of his death or

incapacit', the )other, are responsible. -he father and, in

case of his death or incapacit', the )other, are responsible

for the da)a(es caused b' the )inor children ho live in

their co)pan'.0 In the instant case, it is not controverted

that Re(inald, althou(h )arried, as livin( ith his father

and (ettin( subsistence fro) hi) at the ti)e of the

occurrence in ?uestion. $actuall', therefore, Re(inald as

still subservient to and dependent on his father, a situation

hich is not unusual.

It )ust be borne in )ind that, accordin( to Manresa, thereason behind the 1oint and solidar' liabilit' of presuncion

ith their oendin( child under Article !#@ is that is the

obli(ation of the parent to supervise their )inor children in

order to prevent the) fro) causin( da)a(e to third

persons. * +n the other hand, the clear i)plication of Article

"", in providin( that a )inor e)ancipated b' )arria(e

)a' not, nevertheless, sue or be sued ithout the

assistance of the parents, is that such e)ancipation does

not carr' ith it freedo) to enter into transactions or do an'

act that can (ive rise to 1udicial liti(ation. *See Manresa, Id.,

9ol. II, pp. 7FFK7F7, 77F. And surel', Dillin( so)eone else

invites 1udicial action. +therise stated, the )arria(e of a

)inor child does not relieve the parents of the dut' to see to

it that the child, hile still a )inor, does not (iveanserable for the borroin(s of )one' and alienation or

encu)berin( of real propert' hich cannot be done b' their

)inor )arried child ithout their consent. *Art. ""

Manresa, supra.

Accordin(l', in +ur considered vie, Article !#@ applies to

Att'. <ill notithstandin( the e)ancipation b' )arria(e of

Re(inald. <oever, inas)uch as it is evident that Re(inald

is no of a(e, as a )atter of e?uit', the liabilit' of Att'. <ill

has beco)e )illin(, subsidiar' to that of his son.

L<ERE$+RE, the order appealed fro) is reversed and the

trial court is ordered to proceed in accordance ith the

fore(oin( opinion. Costs a(ainst appellees.

Fernando @Chairman Antonio and ,artin !!. concur.

Concepcion !r. ! is on lea#e.

,artin ! was designated to sit in the Second 5i#ision.

S'aa' O6!6o!(



A:UINO, J, concurrin(

Article !7F of the Civil Code co)prehends an' culpable

act, hich is bla)eorth', hen 1ud(ed b' accepted le(al

standards. 0-he Idea thus e>pressed is undoubtedl' board

enou(h to include an' rational conception of liabilit' for thetortious acts liDel' to be developed in an' societ'.0 *Street, G.

in 2a'alt vs. Corporacion de PP. A(ustinos Recoletos, "

Phil. /#7, F@@. See article #, Civil Code and the rulin( that

0the infant tortfeasor is liable in a civil action to the in1ured

person in the sa)e )anner and to the sa)e e>tent as an

adult0 *7 A). Gur. #! cited b' Bocobo, G., in Ma(tiba' vs.

-ian(co, 7 Phil. /7F, /7".

S'aa' O6!6o!(

A:UINO, J, concurrin(

Article !7F of the Civil Code co)prehends an' culpable

act, hich is bla)eorth', hen 1ud(ed b' accepted le(al

standards. 0-he Idea thus e>pressed is undoubtedl' board

enou(h to include an' rational conception of liabilit' for the

tortious acts liDel' to be developed in an' societ'.0 *Street, G.in 2a'alt vs. Corporacion de PP. A(ustinos Recoletos, "

Phil. /#7, F@@. See article #, Civil Code and the rulin( that

0the infant tortfeasor is liable in a civil action to the in1ured

person in the sa)e )anner and to the sa)e e>tent as an

adult0 *7 A). Gur. #! cited b' Bocobo, G., in Ma(tiba' vs.

-ian(co, 7 Phil. /7F, /7".

Foo!o'(

! Referrin( to Sentence of the Supre)e Court

of Spain of $ebruar' !, !"!".

Referrin( to Mananares vs. Moreta, # Phil.#!.

Referrin( to Bernal et al, vs. <ouse et al., /

Phil. 7.

Parentheticall', Manresa see)in(l' holds.

the contrar' vie thus

0Sin e)bar(o, para no ineurrir en error ha'

?ue tener en cuenta ?ue los linea(e. del

precepts contenido en el presente articulo son

bastante )as reducidos, pues no se hallan

co)prendidos en el todos los datios ?ue pues

tener por causa la culpa o la ne(li(encia.

0En efecto, e>a)inando detenida)ente la

ter)inos (eneral de la culpa ' de la

ne(li(encia. se observe ?ue, tanto en una

co)o en otra de dichas causas, ha' tres

(eneroso o tres especies distintas, a saber

!. 8a ?ue represents una accion u o)ision

voluntaria por la ?ue results incu)plida una

obli(acion anterior)ente constituida.

. 8a ?ue sin e>istencia de una obli(acion

anterior produce un dano o per1uicio ?ue,



teniendo su ori(en en un hecho ilicito, no

reviste los caracteres de delito o falta '

. 8a ?ue teniendo por ori(en un hecho ?ue

constitu'a delito o falta produce una

responsabilidad civil co)o accesoria de laresponsabilidad cri)inal.

08a pri)era de estas tres especies de culpa o

ne(li(encia es sie)pre accesoria de una

obli(acion principal, cu'o incu)pli)iento da

ori(en a la ter)inos especial de la culpa en

)ateria de contratos, ' el eatudio de esta

debe har)s al e>a)inar cada contrato, en

especial, co)o lo hici)os asi, analiando

entoces los peculiares efectos de dicha culpa

en cada uno de ellos.

08a tercera de las especies citadas es

accesoria ta)bien, pues no puede concebirse

su e>istencia sin la de un delicto o falts ?ue la

produca. Es decir, ?ue solo al lado de la

responsabilidad cri)inal puede supuesto esa

responsabilidad civil ' la obli(acion

proveniente de la culpa, ineurrir co)o una

consecuencia de la responsabilidad cri)inal,

', por consi(uente, su e>a)en ' re(ulacionperusal. al 2erecho penal.

0Co)o consecuencia de ello, results ?ue la

unica especie de culpa ' o)isiones o

ne(li(encia ?ue puede ser ' es )eanhile.

del presente capitulo, es la separabilit', o sea

la ?ue sin la e>istencia de una obli(acion

anterior, ' sin nin(un antecedents

contractual, produce un dano o per1uico ?ue

tiene su ori(en en una accion u o)ision

culpable solo civil)ente as decir, ?ue siendo

ilicita, no reviste sin e)bar(o, los caracteres

de un delito o falta por no estar penada por lale'. = aun dentro de estos linea(e ha' ?ue

restrin(ir aun )as los ter)inos o la )ateria

propria de este articulo, el cual se re;ere

unica)ente a la culpa o ne(li(encia

personates del obli(ado, pero no a las ?ue

prudencia de actos o de o)isiones de

persons., distintas de este.0 *pp. FKF, 9ol.

II, Manresa, Codi(o Civil Espanol.

/ 0Nuestro Codi(o no ha se(uido la escuela

italiana, sino ?ue )as bien se ha

instantaneous, en el criterio de la doctrina

fullK(ron puesto ?ue i)pone la obli(acion de

reparar, el dano causado en virtud de una

presuncion 1uris tecu) de culpa por parte del

?ue tiene ba1o su autoridad o dependecia al

causante del daho, derivada del hici)os de no

haber puesto el cuidado ' la vinculos debida

en los actos de sus subordinados para evitar

dicho resultado. Asi es ?ue, se(un el parrafo

ulti)o del art. !,"@, cesa dicharesponsabilidad cuando se prueba ?ue los

obli(ados por los actos a1enos e)plearon toda

la dili(encia de un buen padre de fa)ilia.

8ue(o no es la causa de la obli(acion

i)puesta la representacion, ni el interes, ni la

necesidad de ?ue ha'a ?uienes responda del

dano causado por el ?ue no tiene

personalidad in (arantias de specialist. para



responsabilidad por siendo sino el

incu)pli)iento i)plicito o supuesto de los

deberes de precaucion ' de prudencia ?ue

i)puesta los vinculos civiles ?ue unica)ente

al obli(ado con las persons., por ?uienes debe

representacion, el )al causado, Por ese)otivo coloca dicha obli(acion entre las ?ue

prudencia de la culpa of ne(li(ent1 *pp.

F7@F7!, Manresa, Codi(o Civil Espanol, 9ol.

II.




SUPREME COURT

Manila

$IRS- 2I9ISI+N

G.R. No. L%32*99 !' 29, 1979

EGARO E. MENOA, petitioner

vs.

#ON. AUNIO . ARRIETA, P'(6"6!- "-' o a!/0

VIII, Co o F6( I!(a!/' o Ma!6a, FELINO

TIMOL, a!" ROOLFO SALAAR, respondents.

5a#id $. "itaan or petitioner.

Arsenio -. -e'es or respondent 2imbol.

Armando ,. ulgado or respondent Sala%ar.

MELENCIO%#ERRERA, J:

Petitioner, Ed(ardo Mendoa, seeDs a revie on certiorari of

the +rders of respondent Gud(e in Civil Case No. #@#@

dis)issin( his Co)plaint for 2a)a(es based on +uasi*

delict a(ainst respondents $elino -i)bol and Rodolfo

Salaar.

-he facts hich spaned the present controvers' )a' be

su))aried as follos

+n +ctober , !"F", at about @@ oclocD in the afternoon,

a threeK a' vehicular accident occurred alon( MacKArthur

<i(ha', Marilao, Bulacan, involvin( a Mercedes Ben

oned and driven b' petitioner a private 1eep oned and

driven b' respondent Rodolfo Salaar and a (ravel and

sand trucD oned b' respondent $elipino -i)bol and driven

b' $reddie Monto'a. As a conse?uence of said )ishap, to

separate Infor)ations for RecDless I)prudence Causin(

2a)a(e to Propert' ere ;led a(ainst Rodolfo Salaar and

$reddie Monto'a ith the Court of $irst Instance of Bulacan.

-he race a(ainst trucDKdriver Monto'a, docDeted as Cri)inal

Case No. SMK7, as for causin( da)a(e to the 1eep

oned b' Salaar, in the a)ount of Pl,F@.@@, b' hittin( it at

the ri(ht rear portion thereb' causin( said 1eep to hit and

bu)p an onco)in( car, hich happened to be petitioners

Mercedes Ben. -he case a(ainst 1eepKonerKdriver Salaar,

docDeted as Cri)inal Case No. SM #, as for causin(

da)a(e to the Mercedes Ben of petitioner in the a)ount of P#,#"@.@@

At the 1oint trial of the above cases, petitioner testi;ed that

1eepKonerK driver Salaar overtooD the trucD driven b'

Monto'a, served to the left (oin( toards the poblacion of

Marilao, and hit his car hich as bound for Manila.

Petitioner further testi;ed that before the i)pact, Salaar

had 1u)ped fro) the 1eep and that he as not aare that



Salaars 1eep as bu)ped fro) behind b' the trucD driven

b' Monto'a. Petitioners version of the accident as

adopted b' trucD driver Monto'a. GeepKonerKdriver Salaar,

on the other hand, tried to sho that, after overtaDin( the

trucD driven b' Monto'a, he Jashed a si(nal indicatin( his

intention to turn left toards the poblacion of Marilao butas stopped at the intersection b' a police)an ho as

directin( traHc that hile he as at a stop position, his

1eep as bu)ped at the rear b' the trucD driven b' Montova

causin( hi) to be thron out of the 1eep, hich then

served to the left and hit petitioners car, hich as

co)in( fro) the opposite direction.

+n Gul' !, !"7@, the Court of $irst Instance of Bulacan,

Branch 9, Sta. Maria, rendered 1ud()ent, statin( in its

decretal portion

IN 9IEL +$ -<E $+RE4+IN4, this Court ;nds

the accused $reddie Monto'a 45I8-= be'ond

reasonable doubt of the cri)e of da)a(e to

propert' thru recDless i)prudence in Cri)e.

Case No. SMK7, and hereb' sentences hi)

to pa' a ;ne of P"7./@ and to inde)nif'

Rodolfo Salaar in the sa)e a)ount of

P"7./@ as actual da)a(es, ith subsidiar'

i)prison)ent in case of insolvenc', both as to

;ne and inde)nit', ith costs.

Accused Rodolfo Salaar is hereb' AC5I--E2

fro) the oense char(ed in Cri)e. Case No.

SMK#, ith costs de o;cio, and his bond is

ordered canceled

S+ +R2ERE2. 1

-hus, the trial Court absolved 1eepKonerKdriver Salaar of

an' liabilit', civil and cri)inal, in vie of its ;ndin(s that the

collision beteen Salaars 1eep and petitioners car as the

result of the for)er havin( been bu)ped fro) behind b'

the trucD driven b' Monto'a. Neither as petitioner aarded

da)a(es as he as not a co)plainant a(ainst trucDKdriverMonto'a but onl' a(ainst 1eepKonerKdriver Salaar.

+n Au(ust , !"7@, or after the ter)ination of the cri)inal

cases, petitioner ;led Civil Case No. #@#@ ith the Court of

$irst Instance of Manila a(ainst respondents 1eepKonerK

driver Salaar and $elino -i)bol, the latter bein( the oner

of the (ravel and sand trucD driven b' Monto'a, for

indenti;cation for the da)a(es sustained b' his car as a

result of the collision involvin( their vehicles. GeepKonerK

driver Salaar and trucDKoner -i)bol ere 1oined as

defendants, either in the alternative or in solidum alle(edl'

for the reason that petitioner as uncertain as to hether

he as entitled to relief a(ainst both on onl' one of the).

+n Septe)ber ", !"7@, trucDKoner -i)bol ;led a Motion to

2is)iss Civil Case No. #@#@ on the (rounds that the

Co)plaint is barred b' a prior 1ud()ent in the cri)inal

cases and that it fails to state a cause of action. An

+pposition thereto as ;led b' petitioner.

In an +rder dated Septe)ber !, !"7@, respondent Gud(edis)issed the Co)plaint a(ainst trucDKoner -i)bol for

reasons stated in the aforeK )entioned Motion to 2is)iss +n

Septe)ber @, !"7@, petitioner sou(ht before this Court the

revie of that dis)issal, to hich petition e (ave due

course.



+n Ganuar' @, !"7!, upon )otion of 1eepKonerKdriver

Salaar, respondent Gud(e also dis)issed the case as

a(ainst the for)er. Respondent Gud(e reasoned out that

0hile it is true that an independent civil action for liabilit'

under Article !77 of the Civil Code could be prosecuted

independentl' of the cri)inal action for the oense fro)hich it arose, the Ne Rules of Court, hich tooD eect on

Ganuar' !, !"F, re?uires an e>press reservation of the civil

action to be )ade in the cri)inal action otherise, the

sa)e ould be barred pursuant to Section , Rule

!!! ... 2 Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration thereof as

denied in the order dated $ebruar' , !"7!, ith

respondent Gud(e su((estin( that the issue be raised to a

hi(her Court 0for a )ore decisive interpretation of the rule. 3

+n March /, !"7!, petitioner then ;led a Supple)ental

Petition before us, also to revie the last to )entioned

+rders, to hich e re?uired 1eepKonerKdriver Salaar to

;le an Anser.

2he Complaint against

truc:*owner 2imbol

Le shall ;rst discuss the validit' of the +rder, dated

Septe)ber !, !"7@, dis)issin( petitioners Co)plaint

a(ainst trucDKoner -i)bol.

In dis)issin( the Co)plaint a(ainst the trucDKoner,

respondent Gud(e sustained -i)bols alle(ations that the

civil suit is barred b' the prior 1oint 1ud()ent in Cri)inal

Cases Nos. SMK7 and SMK#, herein no reservation to

;le a separate civil case as )ade b' petitioner and here

the latter activel' participated in the trial and tried to prove

da)a(es a(ainst 1eepKdriverKSalaar onl' and that the

Co)plaint does not state a cause of action a(ainst trucDK

oner -i)bol inas)uch as petitioner prosecuted 1eepK

onerKdriver Salaar as the one solel' responsible for the

da)a(e suered b' his car.

LellKsettled is the rule that for a prior 1ud()ent to

constitute a bar to a subse?uent case, the folloin(

re?uisites )ust concur *! it )ust be a ;nal 1ud()ent * it

)ust have been rendered b' a Court havin( 1urisdiction over

the sub1ect )atter and over the parties * it )ust be a

1ud()ent on the )erits and * there )ust be, beteen the

;rst and second actions, Identit' of parties, Identit' of

sub1ect )atter and Identit' of cause of action.

It is conceded that the ;rst three re?uisites of res

judicata are present. <oever, e a(ree ith petitioner that

there is no Identit' of cause of action beteen Cri)inal Case

No. SMK7 and Civil Case No. #@#@. +bvious is the fact

that in said cri)inal case trucDKdriver Monto'a as not

prosecuted for da)a(e to petitioners car but for da)a(e to

the 1eep. Neither as trucDKoner -i)bol a part' in said

case. In fact as the trial Court had put it 0the oner of the

Mercedes Ben cannot recover an' da)a(es fro) the

accused $reddie Monto'a, he *Mendoa bein( a

co)plainant onl' a(ainst Rodolfo Salaar in Cri)inal Case

No. SMK#.4

And )ore i)portantl', in the cri)inal cases,the cause of action as the enforce)ent of the civil liabilit'

arisin( fro) cri)inal ne(li(ence under Article l of the

Revised Penal Code, hereas Civil Case No. #@#@ is based

on +uasi*delict under Article !#@, in relation to Article !7F

of the Civil Code As held in (arredo #s. $arcia et al. *

-he fore(oin( authorities clearl' de)onstrate

the separate in. individualit' of cuasi*



delitos or culpa a+uiliana under the Civil

Code. Speci;call' the' sho that there is a

distinction beteen civil liabilit' arisin( fro)

cri)inal ne(li(ence *(overned b' the Penal

Code and responsibilit' for fault or

ne(li(ence under articles !"@ to !"!@ of theCivil Code, and that the sa)e ne(li(ent act

)a' produce either a civil liabilit' arisin( fro)

a cri)e under the Penal Code, or a separate

responsibilit' for fault or ne(li(ence under

articles !"@ to !"!@ of the Civil Code. Still

)ore concretel', the authorities above cited

render it inescapable to conclude that the

e)plo'er in this case the defendantK

petitioner is pri)aril' and directl' liable under

article !"@ of the Civil Code.

-hat petitioners cause of action a(ainst -i)bol in the civil

case is based on ?uasiKdelict is evident fro) the recitals in

the co)plaint to it that hile petitioner as drivin( his car

alon( MacArthur <i(ha' at Marilao, Bulacan, a 1eep oned

and driven b' Salaar suddenl' served to his *petitioners

lane and collided ith his car -hat the sudden servin( of

Salaars 1eep as caused either b' the ne(li(ence and lacD

of sDill of $reddie Monto'a, -i)bols e)plo'ee, ho as

then drivin( a (ravel and sand trucD iii the sa)e direction as

Salaars 1eep and that as a conse?uence of the collision,petitioners car suered e>tensive da)a(e a)ountin( to

P!,#.@ and that he liDeise incurred actual and )oral

da)a(es, liti(ation e>penses and attorne's fees. Clearl',

therefore, the to factors that a cause of action )ust

consist of, na)el' *! plaintis pri)ar' ri(ht, i.e., that he is

the oner of a Mercedes Ben, and * defendants delict or

ron(ful act or o)ission hich violated plaintis pri)ar'

ri(ht, i.e., the ne(li(ence or lacD of sDill either of 1eepKoner

Salaar or of -i)bols e)plo'ee, Monto'a, in drivin( the

trucD, causin( Salaars 1eep to serve and collide ith

petitioners car, ere alle(ed in the Co)plaint. +

Conse?uentl', petitioners cause of action bein( based

on +uasi*delict respondent Gud(e co))itted reversible errorhen he dis)issed the civil suit a(ainst the trucDKoner, as

said case )a' proceed independentl' of the cri)inal

proceedin(s and re(ardless of the result of the latter.

Art. !. Lhen the civil action is based on an

obli(ation not arisin( fro) the act or o)ission

co)plained of as a felon', such civil action

)a' proceed independentl' of the cri)inal

proceedin(s and re(ardless of the result of

the latter.

But it is trucDKoner -i)bols sub)ission *as ell as that of

1eepKonerKdriver Salaar that petitioners failure to )aDe a

reservation in the cri)inal action of his ri(ht to ;le an

independent civil action bars the institution of such separate

civil action, invoDin( section , Rule !!!, Rules of Court,

hich sa's

Section . : Independent civil action. : In

the cases provided for in Articles !, , ,

and !77 of the Civil Code of thePhilippines, an independent civil action

entirel' separate and distinct fro) the

cri)inal action )a' be brou(ht b' the in1ured

part' durin( the pendenc' of the cri)inal

case, provided the ri(ht is reserved as

re?uired in the precedin( section. Such civil

action shau proceed independentl' of the



cri)inal prosecution, and shall re?uire onl' a

preponderance of evidence.

Interpretin( the above provision, this Court, in $arcia #s.

Florida 7 said

As e have stated at the outset, the sa)e

ne(li(ent act causin( da)a(es )a' produce

a civil liabilit' arisin( fro) cri)e or create an

action for ?uasiKdelict or culpa e>traK

contractual. -he for)er is a violation of the

cri)inal la, hile the latter is a distinct and

independent ne(li(ence, havin( ala's had

its on foundation and individualit'. So)e

le(al riters are of the vie that in

accordance ith Article !, the civil action

based upon ?uasiKdelict )a' proceed

independentl' of the cri)inal proceedin( for

cri)inal ne(li(ence and re(ardless of the

result of the latter. <ence, the proviso in

Section of Rule !!! ith reference to ...

Articles , and of the Civil Code is

contrar' to the letter and spirit of the said

articles, for these articles ere drafted ... and

are intended to constitute as e>ceptions to

the (eneral rule stated in hat is no Section

! of Rule !!!. -he proviso, hich isprocedural, )a' also be re(arded as an

unauthoried a)end)ent of substantive la,

Articles , and of the Civil Code, hich

do not provide for the reservation re?uired in

the proviso ... .

In his concurrin( opinion in the above case, Mr. Gustice

Antonio Barredo further observed that inas)uch as Articles

!7F and !77 of the Civil Code create a civil liabilit'

distinct and dierent fro) the civil action arisin( fro) the

oense of ne(li(ence under the Revised Penal Code, no

reservation, therefore, need be )ade in the cri)inal case

that Section of Rule !!! is inoperative, 0it bein(

substantive in character and is not ithin the poer of theSupre)e Court to pro)ul(ate and even if it ere not

substantive but ad1ective, it cannot stand because of its

inconsistenc' ith Article !77, an enact)ent of the

le(islature supersedin( the Rules of !"@.0

Le declare, therefore, that in so far as trucDKoner -i)bol is

concerned, Civil Case No. #@#@ is not barred b' the fact

that petitioner failed to reserve, in the cri)inal action, his

ri(ht to ;le an independent civil action based on ?uasiK

delict.

2he suit against

jeep*owner*dri#er Sala%ar

-he case as a(ainst 1eepKonerKdriver Salaar, ho as

ac?uitted in Cri)inal Case No. SMK#, presents a dierent

picture alto(ether.

At the outset it should be clari;ed that inas)uch as civil

liabilit' coKe>ists ith cri)inal responsibilit' in ne(li(encecases, the oended part' has the option beteen an action

for enforce)ent of civil liabilit' based

on culpacriminal under Article !@@ of the Revised Penal

Code, and an action for recover' of da)a(es based

on culpa a+uiliana under Article !77 of the Civil Code. -he

action for enforce)ent of civil liabilit' based on culpa

criminalunder section ! of Rule !!! of the Rules of Court is



dee)ed si)ultaneousl' instituted ith the cri)inal action,

unless e>pressl' aived or reserved for separate application

b' the oended part'. 8

-he circu)stances attendant to the cri)inal case 'ields the

conclusion that petitioner had opted to base his cause ofaction a(ainst 1eepKonerKdriver Salaar on culpa

criminal and not on culpa a+uiliana as evidenced b' his

active participation and intervention in the prosecution of

the cri)inal suit a(ainst said Salaar. -he latters civil

liabilit' continued to be involved in the cri)inal action until

its ter)ination. Such bein( the case, there as no need for

petitioner to have reserved his ri(ht to ;le a separate civil

action as his action for civil liabilit' as dee)ed i)pliedl'

instituted in Cri)inal Case No. SMK#.

Neither ould an independent civil action he. Noteorth' is

the basis of the ac?uittal of 1eepKonerKdriver Salaar in the

cri)inal case, e>pounded b' the trial Court in this ise

In vie of hat has been proven and

established durin( the trial, accused $reddie

Monto'a ould be held able for havin(

bu)ped and hit the rear portion of the 1eep

driven b' the accused Rodolfo Salaar,

Considerin( that the collision beteen the 1eep driven b' Rodolfo Salaar and the car

oned and driven b' Ed(ardo Mendoa as

the result of the hittin( on the rear of the 1eep

b' the trucD driven b' $reddie Monto'a, this

Court behaves that accused Rodolfo Salaar

cannot be held able for the da)a(es

sustained b' Ed(ardo Mendoas car. 9

Cr'stal clear is the trial Courts pronounce)ent that under

the facts of the case, 1eepKonerKdriver Salaar cannot be

held liable for the da)a(es sustained b' petitioners car. In

other ords, 0the fact fro) hich the civil )i(ht arise did

not e>ist. 0 Accordin(l', inas)uch as petitioners cause of

action as a(ainst 1eepKonerKdriver Salaar ise7* delictu,founded on Article !@@ of the Revised Penal Code, the civil

action )ust be held to have been e>tin(uished in

consonance ith Section *c, Rule !!! of the Rules of

Court 1) hich provides

Sec. . +ther civil actions arisin( fro)

oenses. : In all cases not included in the

precedin( section the folloin( rules shall be

observed

>>> >>> >>>

c E>tinction of the penal action does not

carr' ith it e>tinction of the civil, unless the

e>tinction proceeds fro) a declaration in a

;nal 1ud()ent that the fact fro) hich the

civil ni(ht arise did not e>ist. ...

And even if petitioners cause of action as a(ainst 1eepK

onerKdriver Salaar ere not e7*delictu, the end result

ould be the sa)e, it bein( clear fro) the 1ud()ent in thecri)inal case that Salaars ac?uittal as not based upon

reasonable doubt, conse?uentl', a civil action for da)a(es

can no lon(er be instituted. -his is e>plicitl' provided for in

Article " of the Civil Code ?uoted here under

Art. ". Lhen the accused in a cri)inal

prosecution is ac?uitted on the (round that



his (uilt has not been proved be'ond

reasonable doubt, a civil action for da)a(es

for the sa)e act or o)ission )a' be

instituted. Such action re?uires onl' a

preponderance of evidence ...

If in a cri)inal case the 1ud()ent of ac?uittal

is based upon reasonable doubt, the court

shall so declare. In the absence of an'

declaration to that eect, it )a' be inferred

fro) the te>t of the decision hether or not

the ac?uittal is due to that (round.

In so far as the suit a(ainst 1eepKonerKdriver Salaar is

concerned, therefore, e sustain respondent Gud(es +rder

dated Ganuar' @, !"7! dis)issin( the co)plaint, albeit on

dierent (rounds.

L<ERE$+RE, ! the +rder dated Septe)ber !, !"7@

dis)issin( Civil Case No. #@#@ a(ainst private respondent

$elino -i)bol is set aside, and respondent Gud(e, or his

successor, hereb' ordered to proceed ith the hearin( on

the )erits but the +rders dated Ganuar' @, !"7! and

$ebruar' , !"7! dis)issin( the Co)plaint in Civil Case No.

#@#@ a(ainst respondent Rodolfo Salaar are hereb'

upheld.

No costs.

S+ +R2ERE2.

2eehan:ee @Chairman ,a:asiar Fernande% $uerrero and

5e Castro !!. concur.

;Foo!o'(

! p. F, Rollo

pp. !7K!", Ibid.

pp. !#K!", Ibid.

2ecision P. F, Ibid

/ 7 Phi8 F@7, F@ *!"

F Raco)a vs. $ortich, "S CRA /!*!"7!

7 / SCRA @ *!"7

# Padua vs. Robles, FF SCRA #/ *!"7/

" pp. /KF, Rollo

!@ Eleano <ill, 77 SCRA "# *!"77



Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L%21438 S''<' 28, 19++

AIR FRANCE, petitioner,vs.RAFAEL CARRASCOSO a!" 0' #ONORALE COURT OFAPPEALS, respondents.

Lichauco ica%o and Agcaoili or petitioner.(eng%on 1illegas and Barraga or respondent -. Carrascoso.

SANC#E, J.:

-he Court of $irst Instance of Manila ! sentenced petitioner topa' respondent Rafael Carrascoso P/,@@@.@@ b' a' of)oral da)a(es P!@,@@@.@@ as e>e)plar' da)a(esP".@ representin( the dierence in fare beteen ;rstclass and tourist class for the portion of the trip Ban(DoDKRo)e, these various a)ounts ith interest at the le(al rate,fro) the date of the ;lin( of the co)plaint until paid plusP,@@@.@@ for attorne's fees and the costs of suit.



+n appeal, the Court of Appeals sli(htl' reduced thea)ount of refund on Carrascosos plane ticDet fro) P".@to P#.!@, and voted to aHr) the appealed decision 0in allother respects0, ith costs a(ainst petitioner.

-he case is no before us for revie on certiorari.

-he facts declared b' the Court of Appeals as 0 full'supported b' the evidence of record0, are

Plainti, a civil en(ineer, as a )e)ber of a (roup of # $ilipino pil(ri)s that left Manila for 8ourdes onMarch @, !"/#.

+n March #, !"/#, the defendant, Air $rance,throu(h its authoried a(ent, Philippine Air 8ines,Inc., issued to plainti a 0;rst class0 round trip

airplane ticDet fro) Manila to Ro)e. $ro) Manila toBan(DoD, plainti travelled in 0;rst class0, but atBan(DoD, the Mana(er of the defendant airline forcedplainti to vacate the 0;rst class0 seat that he asoccup'in( because, in the ords of the itnessErnesto 4. Cuento, there as a 0hite )an0, ho,the Mana(er alle(ed, had a 0better ri(ht0 to the seat.Lhen asDed to vacate his 0;rst class0 seat, theplainti, as as to be e>pected, refused, and tolddefendants Mana(er that his seat ould be taDenover his dead bod' a co))otion ensued, and,accordin( to said Ernesto 4. Cuento, 0)an' of the

$ilipino passen(ers (ot nervous in the tourist classhen the' found out that Mr. Carrascoso as havin(a hot discussion ith the hite )an )ana(erQ, the'ca)e all across to Mr. Carrascoso and paci;ed Mr.Carrascoso to (ive his seat to the hite )an0*-ranscript, p. !, <earin( of Ma' F, !"/" andplainti reluctantl' (ave his 0;rst class0 seat in theplane.

!. -he trust of the relief petitioner no seeDs is that erevie 0all the ;ndin(s0 of respondent Court of Appeals.Petitioner char(es that respondent court failed to )aDeco)plete ;ndin(s of fact on all the issues properl' laidbefore it. Le are asDed to consider facts favorable topetitioner, and then, to overturn the appellate courts

decision.

Co)in( into focus is the constitutional )andate that 0Nodecision shall be rendered b' an' court of record ithoute>pressin( therein clearl' and distinctl' the facts and thela on hich it is based0. / -his is echoed in the statutor'de)and that a 1ud()ent deter)inin( the )erits of the caseshall state 0clearl' and distinctl' the facts and the la onhich it is based0 F and that 0Ever' decision of the Court ofAppeals shall contain co)plete ;ndin(s of fact on all issuesproperl' raised before it0. 7

A decision ith absolutel' nothin( to support it is a nullit'. Itis open to direct attacD. # -he la, hoever, solel' insiststhat a decision state the 0essential ulti)ate facts0 uponhich the courts conclusion is dran. " A court of 1ustice isnot hidebound to rite in its decision ever' bit and piece ofevidence !@ presented b' one part' and the other upon theissues raised. Neither is it to be burdened ith the obli(ation0to specif' in the sentence the facts0which a part'considered as pro#ed. !! -his is but a part of the )entalprocess fro) hich the Court dras the essential ulti)atefacts. A decision is not to be so clo((ed ith details suchthat proli>it', if not confusion, )a' result. So lon( as thedecision of the Court of Appeals contains the necessar'facts to arrant its conclusions, it is no error for said courtto ithhold therefro) 0an' speci;c ;ndin( of facts ithrespect to the evidence for the defense0. Because as thisCourt ell observed, 0-here is no la that sore?uires0. ! Indeed, 0the )ere failure to specif' *in thedecision the contentions of the appellant and the reasonsfor refusin( to believe the) is not suHcient to hold thesa)e contrar' to the re?uire)ents of the provisions of la



and the Constitution0. It is in this settin( that in ,anig+ue, itas held that the )ere fact that the ;ndin(s 0ere basedentirel' on the evidence for the prosecution ithout taDin(into consideration or even )entionin( the appellants side inthe controvers' as shon b' his on testi)on'0, ould notvitiate the 1ud()ent. ! If the court did not recite in the

decision the testi)on' of each itness for, or each ite) ofevidence presented b', the defeated part', it does not )eanthat the court has overlooDed such testi)on' or such ite)of evidence. ! At an' rate, the le(al presu)ptions are thatoHcial dut' has been re(ularl' perfor)ed, and that all the)atters ithin an issue in a case ere laid before the courtand passed upon b' it. !/

$indin(s of fact, hich the Court of Appeals is re?uired to)aDe, )a'be de;ned as 0the ritten state)ent of theulti)ate facts as found b' the court ... and essential tosupport the decision and 1ud()ent rendered

thereon0. !F -he' consist of thecourts conclusions ith respect to the determinati#e actsin issue0. !7 A ?uestion of la, upon the other hand, hasbeen declared as 0one hich does not call for ane>a)ination of the probative value of the evidencepresented b' the parties.0 !#

. B' statute, 0onl' ?uestions of la )a' be raised0 in anappeal b' certiorari fro) a 1ud()ent of the Court ofAppeals. !" -hat 1ud()ent is conclusive as to the facts. It isnot appropriatel' the business of this Court to alter the factsor to revie the ?uestions of fact. @

Lith these (uideposts, e no face the proble) of hetherthe ;ndin(s of fact of the Court of Appeals support its 1ud()ent.

. Las Carrascoso entitled to the ;rst class seat he clai)sU

It is conceded in all ?uarters that on March #, !"/# he paidto and received fro) petitioner a ;rst class ticDet. But

petitioner asserts that said ticDet did not represent the trueand co)plete intent and a(ree)ent of the parties that saidrespondent Dne that he did not have con;r)edreservations for ;rst class on an' speci;c Ji(ht, althou(h hehad tourist class protection that, accordin(l', the issuanceof a ;rst class ticDet as no (uarantee that he ould have a

;rst class ride, but that such ould depend upon theavailabilit' of ;rst class seats.

-hese are )atters hich petitioner has thorou(hl'presented and discussed in its brief before the Court ofAppeals under its third assi(n)ent of error, hich reads0-he trial court erred in ;ndin( that plainti had con;r)edreservations for, and a ri(ht to, ;rst class seats on the0de;nite0 se()ents of his 1ourne', particularl' that fro)Sai(on to Beirut0. !

And, the Court of Appeals disposed of this contention thus

2efendant see)s to capitalie on the ar(u)ent thatthe issuance of a ;rstKclass ticDet as no (uaranteethat the passen(er to ho) the sa)e had beenissued, ould be acco))odated in the ;rstKclassco)part)ent, for as in the case of plainti he had'et to )aDe arran(e)ents upon arrival at ever'station for the necessar' ;rstKclass reservation. Leare not i)pressed b' such a reasonin(. Le cannotunderstand ho a reputable ;r) liDe defendantairplane co)pan' could have the indiscretion to (iveout ticDets it never )eant to honor at all. It receivedthe correspondin( a)ount in pa')ent of ;rstKclassticDets and 'et it alloed the passen(er to be at the)erc' of its e)plo'ees. It is )ore in Deepin( ith theordinar' course of business that the co)pan' shouldDno hether or riot the ticDets it issues are to behonored or not.

Not that the Court of Appeals is alone. -he trial courtsi)ilarl' disposed of petitioners contention, thus



+n the fact that plainti paid for, and as issued a 0$irstclass0 ticDet, there can be no ?uestion. Apart fro) histesti)on', see plaintis E>hibits 0A0, 0AK!0, 0B0, 0BK!,0 0BK0, 0C0 and 0CK!0, and defendants on itness, RafaelAltona(a, con;r)ed plaintis testi)on' and testi;ed asfollos

. In these ticDets there are )arDs 0+.%.0 $ro) hat'ou Dno, hat does this +% )eanU

A. -hat the space is con;r)ed.

. Con;r)ed for ;rst classU

A. =es, 0;rst class0. *-ranscript, p. !F"

> > > > > > > > >

2efendant tried to prove b' the testi)on' of its itnesses8uis 3aldaria(a and Rafael Altona(a that althou(h plaintipaid for, and as issued a 0;rst class0 airplane ticDet, theticDet as sub1ect to con;r)ation in <on(Don(. -he courtcannot (ive credit to the testi)on' of said itnesses. +ralevidence cannot prevail over ritten evidence, andplaintis E>hibits 0A0, 0AKl0, 0B0, 0BKl0, 0C0 and 0CK!0 beliethe testi)on' of said itnesses, and clearl' sho that theplainti as issued, and paid for, a ;rst class ticDet ithoutan' reservation hatever.

$urther)ore, as hereinabove shon, defendants onitness Rafael Altona(a testi;ed that the reservation for a0;rst class0 acco))odation for the plainti as con;r)ed. -he court cannot believe that after such con;r)ationdefendant had a verbal understandin( ith plainti that the0;rst class0 ticDet issued to hi) b' defendant ould besub1ect to con;r)ation in <on(Don(.

Le have heretofore adverted to the fact that e>cept for asli(ht dierence of a fe pesos in the a)ount refunded onCarrascosos ticDet, the decision of the Court of $irstInstance as aHr)ed b' the Court of Appeals in all otherrespects. Le hold the vie that such a 1ud()ent ofaHr)ance has )er(ed the 1ud()ent of the loer

court.

I)plicit in that aHr)ance is a deter)ination b' theCourt of Appeals that the proceedin( in the Court of $irstInstance as free fro) pre1udicial error and 0all ?uestionsraised b' the assi(n)ents of error and all ?uestions that)i(ht have been raised are to be re(arded as ;nall'ad1udicated a(ainst the appellant0. So also, the 1ud()entaHr)ed 0)ust be re(arded as free fro) all error0. / Lereached this polic' construction because nothin( in thedecision of the Court of Appeals on this point ould su((estthat its ;ndin(s of fact are in an' a' at ar ith those ofthe trial court. Nor as said aHr)ance b' the Court ofAppeals upon a (round or (rounds dierent fro) those

hich ere )ade the basis of the conclusions of the trialcourt. F

If, as petitioner underscores, a ;rstKclassKticDet holder is notentitled to a ;rst class seat, notithstandin( the fact thatseat availabilit' in speci;c Ji(hts is therein con;r)ed, thenan air passen(er is placed in the hollo of the hands of anairline. Lhat securit' then can a passen(er haveU It illala's be an eas' )atter for an airline aided b' itse)plo'ees, to striDe out the ver' stipulations in the ticDet,and sa' that there as a verbal a(ree)ent to the contrar'.Lhat if the passen(er had a schedule to ful;llU Le have

lon( learned that, as a rule, a ritten docu)ent speaDs aunifor) lan(ua(e that spoDen ord could be notoriousl'unreliable. If onl' to achieve stabilit' in the relationsbeteen passen(er and air carrier, adherence to the ticDetso issued is desirable. Such is the case here. -he loercourts refused to believe the oral evidence intended todefeat the covenants in the ticDet.



-he fore(oin( are the considerations hich point to theconclusion that there are facts upon hich the Court ofAppeals predicated the ;ndin( that respondent Carrascosohad a ;rst class ticDet and as entitled to a ;rst class seatat Ban(DoD, hich is a stopover in the Sai(on to Beirut le(of the Ji(ht. 7 Le perceive no 0elter of distortions b' the

Court of Appeals of petitioners state)ent of its position0, aschar(ed b' petitioner. # Nor do e subscribe to petitionersaccusation that respondent Carrascoso 0surreptitiousl' tooDa ;rst class seat to provoDe an issue0. " And this because,as petitioner states, Carrascoso ent to see the Mana(er athis oHce in Ban(DoD 0to con;r) )' seat and because fro)Sai(on I as told a(ain to see the Mana(er0. @ Lh', then,as he alloed to taDe a ;rst class seat in the plane atBan(DoD, if he had no seatU +r, if another had a better ri(htto the seatU

. Petitioner assails respondent courts aard of )oral

da)a(es. Petitioners trenchant clai) is that Carrascososaction is planted upon breach of contract that to authoriean aard for )oral da)a(es there )ust be an aver)ent offraud or bad faith! and that the decision of the Court ofAppeals fails to )aDe a ;ndin( of bad faith. -he pivotalalle(ations in the co)plaint bearin( on this issue are

. -hat ... plainti entered into a contract of aircarria(e ith the Philippine Air 8ines for a valuableconsideration, the latter actin( as (eneral a(ents forand in behalf of the defendant, under hich saidcontract, plainti as entitled to, as defendant

a(reed to furnish plainti, $irst Class passa(e ondefendants plane durin( the entire duration ofplaintis tour of Europe ith <on(Don( as startin(point up to and until plaintis return trip toManila, ... .

. -hat, durin( the ;rst to le(s of the trip fro)<on(Don( to Sai(on and fro) Sai(on to Ban(DoD,defendant furnished to the plainti $irst Class

acco))odation but onl' after protestations,ar(u)ents andOor insistence ere )ade b' theplainti ith defendants e)plo'ees.

/. -hat ;nall', defendant ailed to pro#ide $irst Classpassa(e, but instead furnished plainti

onl' 2ourist Class acco))odations fro) Ban(DoD to -eheran andOor Casablanca, ... the plainti hasbeen compelledb' defendants e)plo'ees to leavethe $irst Class acco))odation berths atBan(DoD ater he was alread' seated.

F. -hat conse?uentl', the plainti, desirin( norepetition of the inconvenience and e)barrass)entsbrou(ht b' defendants breach of contract as forcedto taDe a Pan A)erican Lorld Aira's plane on hisreturn trip fro) Madrid to Manila.

> > > > > > > > >

. -hat liDeise, as a result of defendants failure to furnish$irst Class acco))odations aforesaid, plainti sueredinconveniences, e)barrass)ents, and hu)iliations, thereb'causin( plainti )ental an(uish, serious an>iet', oundedfeelin(s, social hu)iliation, and the liDe in1ur', resultin( in)oral da)a(es in the a)ount of P@,@@@.@@.

> > > > > > > > >

-he fore(oin(, in our opinion, substantiall' aver First , -hatthere as a contract to furnish plainti a ;rst class passa(ecoverin(, a)on(st others, the Ban(DoDK-eheran le( Second, -hat said contract as breached hen petitioner failed tofurnish ;rst class transportation at Ban(DoD and 2hird thatthere as bad faith hen petitioners e)plo'ee co)pelledCarrascoso to leave his ;rst class acco))odationberth ater he was alread' seated and to taDe a seat inthe tourist class, b' reason of hich he suered



inconvenience, e)barrass)ents and hu)iliations, thereb'causin( hi) )ental an(uish, serious an>iet', oundedfeelin(s and social hu)iliation, resultin( in )oral da)a(es.It is true that there is no speci;c )ention of the ter) badaith in the co)plaint. But, the inference of bad faith isthere, it )a' be dran fro) the facts and circu)stances set

forth therein.

-he contract as averred to establish therelation beteen the parties. But the stress of the action isput on ron(ful e>pulsion.

uite apart fro) the fore(oin( is that *a ri(ht the start ofthe trial, respondents counsel placed petitioner on (uard onhat Carrascoso intended to prove -hat hile sittin( in theplane in Ban(DoD, Carrascoso as oustedb' petitioners)ana(er ho (ave his seat to a hite )an / and *bevidence of bad faith in the ful;ll)ent of the contract aspresented ithout ob1ection on the part of the petitioner. Itis, therefore, unnecessar' to in?uire as to hether or not

there is suHcient aver)ent in the co)plaint to 1ustif' anaard for )oral da)a(es. 2e;cienc' in the co)plaint, ifan', as cured b' the evidence. An a)end)ent thereof toconfor) to the evidence is not even re?uired. F +n the?uestion of bad faith, the Court of Appeals declared

-hat the plainti as forced out of his seat in the ;rstclass co)part)ent of the plane belon(in( to thedefendant Air $rance hile at Ban(DoD, and astransferred to the tourist class not onl' ithout hisconsent but a(ainst his ill, has been suHcientl'established b' plainti in his testi)on' before the

court, corroborated b' the correspondin( entr' )adeb' the purser of the plane in his notebooD hichnotation reads as follos

0$irstKclass passen(er as forced to (o to thetourist class a(ainst his ill, and that thecaptain refused to intervene0,

and b' the testi)on' of an e'eKitness, Ernesto 4.Cuento, ho as a coKpassen(er. -he captain of theplane ho as asDed b' the )ana(er of defendantco)pan' at Ban(DoD to intervene even refused to doso. It is noteorth' that no one on behalf ofdefendant ever contradicted or denied this evidence

for the plainti. It could have been eas' fordefendant to present its )ana(er at Ban(DoD totestif' at the trial of the case, or 'et to secure hisdisposition but defendant did neither. 7

-he Court of appeals further stated :

Neither is there evidence as to hether or not a priorreservation as )ade b' the hite )an. <ence, ifthe e)plo'ees of the defendant at Ban(DoD sold a;rstKclass ticDet to hi) hen all the seats hadalread' been taDen, surel' the plainti should not

have been picDed out as the one to suer theconse?uences and to be sub1ected to the hu)iliationand indi(nit' of bein( e1ected fro) his seat in thepresence of others. Instead of e>plainin( to the hite)an the i)providence co))itted b' defendantse)plo'ees, the )ana(er adopted the )ore drasticstep of oustin( the plainti ho as then safel'ensconsced in his ri(htful seat. Le are stren(thenedin our belief that this probabl' as hat happenedthere, b' the testi)on' of defendants itness RafaelAltona(a ho, hen asDed to e>plain the )eanin( ofthe letters 0+.%.0 appearin( on the ticDets of plainti,

said 0that the space is con;r)ed for ;rst class.8iDeise, 3enaida $austino, another itness fordefendant, ho as the chief of the Reservation+Hce of defendant, testi;ed as follos

0 <o does the person in the ticDetKissuin(oHce Dno hat reservation the passen(erhas arran(ed ith 'ouU



A -he' call us up b' phone and asD for thecon;r)ation.0 *t.s.n., p. 7, Gune !", !"/"

In this connection, e ?uote ith approval hat thetrial Gud(e has said on this point

Lh' did the, usin( the ords of itnessErnesto 4. Cuento, 0hite )an0 have a0better ri(ht0 to the seat occupied b' Mr.CarrascosoU -he record is silent. -hedefendant airline did not prove 0an' better0,na', an' ri(ht on the part of the 0hite )an0to the 0$irst class0 seat that the plainti asoccup'in( and for hich he paid and asissued a correspondin( 0;rst class0 ticDet.

If there as a 1usti;ed reason for the action of the defendants Mana(er in Ban(DoD, thedefendant could have easil' proven it b'havin( taDen the testi)on' of the saidMana(er b' deposition, but defendant did notdo so the presu)ption is that evidenceillfull' suppressed ould be adverse ifproduced Sec. F", par *e, Rules of CourtQand, under the circu)stances, the Court isconstrained to ;nd, as it does ;nd, that theMana(er of the defendant airline in Ban(DoDnot )erel' asDed but threatened the plaintito thro hi) out of the plane if he did not(ive up his 0;rst class0 seat because the saidMana(er anted to acco))odate, usin( theords of the itness Ernesto 4. Cuento, the0hite )an0.#

It is reall' correct to sa' that the Court of Appeals inthe ?uoted portion ;rst transcribed did not use theter) 0bad faith0. But can it be doubted that therecital of facts therein points to bad faithU -he)ana(er not onl' prevented Carrascoso fro)

en1o'in( his ri(ht to a ;rst class seat orse, hei)posed his arbitrar' ill he forcibl' e1ected hi)fro) his seat, )ade hi) suer the hu)iliation ofhavin( to (o to the tourist class co)part)ent K 1ustto (ive a' to another passen(er hose ri(ht theretohas not been established. Certainl', this is bad faith.

5nless, of course, bad faith has assu)ed a )eanin(dierent fro) hat is understood in la. $or, 0badfaith0 conte)plates a 0state of )ind aHr)ativel'operatin( ith furtive desi(n or ith so)e )otive ofselfKinterest or ill or for ulterior purpose.0 "

And if the fore(oin( ere not 'et suHcient, there isthe e>press ;ndin( of bad aith in the 1ud()ent ofthe Court of $irst Instance, thus

-he evidence shos that the defendantviolated its contract of transportation ith

plainti in bad faith, ith the a((ravatin(circu)stances that defendants Mana(er inBan(DoD ent to the e>tent of threatenin( theplainti in the presence of )an' passen(ersto have hi) thron out of the airplane to (ivethe 0;rst class0 seat that he as occup'in( to,a(ain usin( the ords of the itness Ernesto4. Cuento, a 0hite )an0 ho) he*defendants Mana(er ished toacco))odate, and the defendant has notproven that this 0hite )an0 had an' 0betterri(ht0 to occup' the 0;rst class0 seat that the

plainti as occup'in(, dul' paid for, and forhich the correspondin( 0;rst class0 ticDetas issued b' the defendant to hi).@

/. -he responsibilit' of an e)plo'er for the tortious act of itse)plo'ees need not be essa'ed. It is ell settled inla. ! $or the illful )alevolent act of petitioners )ana(er,petitioner, his e)plo'er, )ust anser. Article ! of the CivilCode sa's



AR-. !. An' person ho illfull' causes loss or in1ur'to another in a )anner that is contrar' to )orals,(ood custo)s or public polic' shall co)pensate thelatter for the da)a(e.

In parallel circu)stances, e applied the fore(oin( le(al

precept and, e held that upon the provisions of Article!" *!@, Civil Code, )oral da)a(es are recoverable.

F. A contract to transport passen(ers is ?uite dierent inDind and de(ree fro) an' other contractual relation. Andthis, because of the relation hich an airKcarrier sustainsith the public. Its business is )ainl' ith the travellin(public. It invites people to avail of the co)forts andadvanta(es it oers. -he contract of air carria(e, therefore,(enerates a relation attended ith a public dut'. Ne(lect or)alfeasance of the carriers e)plo'ees, naturall', could(ive (round for an action for da)a(es.

Passen(ers do not contract )erel' for transportation. -he'have a ri(ht to be treated b' the carriers e)plo'ees ithDindness, respect, courtes' and due consideration. -he' areentitled to be protected a(ainst personal )isconduct,in1urious lan(ua(e, indi(nities and abuses fro) suche)plo'ees. So it is, that an' rule or discourteous conduct onthe part of e)plo'ees toards a passen(er (ives the latteran action for da)a(es a(ainst the carrier.

-hus, 0Lhere a stea)ship co)pan' / had accepted a

passen(ers checD, it as a breach of contract and a tort,(ivin( a ri(ht of action for its a(ent in the presence of thirdpersons to falsel' notif' her that the checD as orthlessand de)and pa')ent under threat of e1ection, thou(h thelan(ua(e used as not insultin( and she as note1ected.0 F And this, because, althou(h the relation ofpassen(er and carrier is 0contractual both in ori(in andnature0 nevertheless 0the act that breaDs the contract )a'be also a tort0. 7 And in another case, 0Lhere a passen(eron a railroad train, hen the conductor ca)e to collect his

fare tendered hi) the cash fare to a point here the trainas scheduled not to stop, and told hi) that as soon as thetrain reached such point he ould pa' the cash fare fro)that point to destination, there as nothin( in the conductof the passen(er hich 1usti;ed the conductor in usin(insultin( lan(ua(e to hi), as b' callin( hi) a lunatic,0 # and

the Supre)e Court of South Carolina there held the carrierliable for the )ental suerin( of said passen(er.;awphDl.nEt

Petitioners contract ith Carrascoso is one attended ithpublic dut'. -he stress of Carrascosos action as e havesaid, is placed upon his ron(ful e>pulsion. -his is aviolation of public dut' b' the petitioner air carrier : a caseof +uasi*delict . 2a)a(es are proper.

7. Petitioner dras our attention to respondent Carrascosostesti)on', thus :

=ou )entioned about an attendant. Lho is thatattendant and purserU

A Lhen e left alread' : that as alread' in the trip: I could not help it. So one of the Ji(ht attendantsapproached )e and re?uested fro) )e )' ticDetand I said, Lhat forU and she said, 0Le ill note that'ou transferred to the tourist class0. I said, 0Nothin(of that Dind. -hat is tanta)ount to acceptin( )'transfer.0 And I also said, 0=ou are not (oin( to notean'thin( there because I a) protestin( to this

transfer0.

Las she able to note itU

A No, because I did not (ive )' ticDet.

About that purserU



A Lell, the seats there are so close that 'ou feelunco)fortable and 'ou dont have enou(h le( roo),I stood up and I ent to the pantr' that as ne>t to)e and the purser as there. <e told )e, 0I haverecorded the incident in )' notebooD.0 <e read itand translated it to )e : because it as recorded in

$rench : 0$irst class passen(er as forced to (o tothe tourist class a(ainst his ill, and that the captainrefused to intervene.0

Mr. 9A8-E :

I )ove to striDe out the last part of the testi)on' ofthe itness because the best evidence ould be thenotes. =our <onor.

C+5R- :

I ill allo that as part of his testi)on'. "

Petitioner char(es that the ;ndin( of the Court of Appealsthat the purser )ade an entr' in his notebooD readin( 0$irstclass passen(er as forced to (o to the tourist class a(ainsthis ill, and that the captain refused to intervene0 ispredicated upon evidence Carrascosos testi)on' aboveQhich is inco)petent. Le do not thinD so. -he sub1ect ofin?uir' is not the entr', but the ouster incident. -esti)on'on the entr' does not co)e ithin the proscription of thebest evidence rule. Such testi)on' is ad)issible. "a

Besides, fro) a readin( of the transcript 1ust ?uoted, henthe dialo(ue happened, the i)pact of the startlin(occurrence as still fresh and continued to be felt. -hee>cite)ent had not as 'et died don. State)ents then, inthis environ)ent, are ad)issible as part of the resgestae. /@ $or, the' (ro 0out of the nervous e>cite)ent and)ental and ph'sical condition of the declarant0. /! -heutterance of the purser re(ardin( his entr' in the notebooD

as spontaneous, and related to the circu)stances of theouster incident. Its trustorthiness has been(uaranteed. / It thus escapes the operation of the hearsa'rule. It for)s part of the res gestae.

At all events, the entr' as )ade outside the Philippines.

And, b' an e)plo'ee of petitioner. It ould have been aneas' )atter for petitioner to have contradicted Carrascosostesti)on'. If it ere reall' true that no such entr' as)ade, the deposition of the purser could have cleared upthe )atter.

Le, therefore, hold that the transcribed testi)on' ofCarrascoso is ad)issible in evidence.

#. E>e)plar' da)a(es are ell aarded. -he Civil Code(ives the court a)ple poer to (rant e>e)plar' da)a(es :in contracts and ?uasiK contracts. -he onl' condition is thatdefendant should have 0acted in a anton, fraudulent,recDless, oppressive, or )alevolent )anner.0 / -he )annerof e1ect)ent of respondent Carrascoso fro) his ;rst classseat ;ts into this le(al precept. And this, in addition to )oralda)a(es./

". -he ri(ht to attorne's fees is full' established. -he (rantof e>e)plar' da)a(es 1usti;es a si)ilar 1ud()ent forattorne's fees. -he least that can be said is that the courtsbelo felt that it is but 1ust and e?uitable that attorne'sfees be (iven. // Le do not intend to breaD faith ith the

tradition that discretion ell e>ercised : as it as here :should not be disturbed.

!@. uestioned as e>cessive are the a)ounts decreed b'both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, thusP/,@@@.@@ as )oral da)a(es P!@,@@@.@@, b' a' ofe>e)plar' da)a(es, and P,@@@.@@ as attorne's fees. -hetasD of ;>in( these a)ounts is pri)aril' ith the trialcourt. /F -he Court of Appeals did not interfere ith thesa)e. -he dictates of (ood sense su((est that e (ive our



i)pri)atur thereto. Because, the facts and circu)stancespoint to the reasonableness thereof./7

+n balance, e sa' that the 1ud()ent of the Court ofAppeals does not suer fro) reversible error. Leaccordin(l' vote to aHr) the sa)e. Costs a(ainst

petitioner. So ordered.

Concepcion C.!. -e'es !.(.L. (arrera 5i%on -egala,a:alintal Baldi#ar and Castro !!. concur.(eng%on !.. !. too: no part.

Foo!o'(

!Civil Case No. ##!@, 0Rafael Carrascoso, plainti,vs. Air $rance, defendant,0 R.A., pp. 7"K#@.

C.A.K4.R. No. F/KR, 0Rafael Carrascoso, plaintiKappellee, vs. Air $rance, defendantKappellant.0

Appendi> A, petitioners brief, pp !FK!7. See alsoR.A., pp. FFKF7.

Petitioners brief, p. !.

/Section !, Article 9III, Constitution.

FSection !, Rule F, Rules of Court. See also Section

, Rule !@, in reference to 1ud()ents in cri)inalcases.

7Sec. . Rule /! Sec. *, Gudiciar' Act of !"#, asa)ended.

#Edards vs. McCo', Phil. /"#, F@! =an(co vs.Court of $irst Instance of Manila, et al., " Phil. !#,!"!.

"Bra(a vs. Millora, Phil. /#, F/.

!@/d.

!!Arin(o vs. Arena ! Phil. F, FF e)phasissupplied.

!Re'es vs. People. 7! Phil. /"#, F@@.

!People vs. Mani(?ue / +.4., No. ", pp. !F#,!F#, citin( Section ! of the Code of CivilProcedure and Section !, Art. 9III,Constitution, supra.

!Bad(er et al. vs. Bo'd, F/ S.L. *d, pp. F@!, F!@.

!/Section /, *) and *o, Rule !!, Rules of Court.

!FIn re 4oods Estate, FF P. *d, pp. 7!", 7".

!7Bad(er et al. vs. Bo'd, supra.

!#4oduco vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 8K!7F7,$ebruar' #, !"F.

!"Section , Rule /, Rules of Court, for)erl' Section, Rule F of the Rules of Court.

@Medel, et al. vs. Calasan, et al. 8K!#/, Au(ust!, !"F@ Astra?uillo, et al. vs. Gavier, et al., 8K@@, Ganuar' @, !"F/.

!Petitioners brief in the Court of Appeals, pp. #K"#.

2ecision of the Court of Appeals, Appendi> A,petitioners brief, pp. !#K!".



R.A., pp. F7, 7.

/ B C.G.S., p. "/ A). Gur. p. F7#.

/ A). Gur., pp. F77KF7#.

FSee 4arcia 9alde vs. Seterana -uason, @ Phil, ","/!.

7Carrascosos ticDet, accordin( to petitioner *brief,pp. 7K#, shos

Se()ent or le( Carrier$li(htNo.

2ate of2eparture

!. Manila to<on(Don(

PA8 @@A March @

. <on(Don( to

Sai(on

9N*Air

9ietna) F" March !. Sai(on to Beirut A$*Air $rance / March !

#Petitioners brief, p. /@ see also id., pp. 7 and F.

"/d., p. !@.

@/bid., p. !@.

!Article @, Civil Code reads 0Lillful in1ur' topropert' )a' be a le(al (round for aardin( )oral

da)a(es if the court should ;nd that, under thecircu)stances, such da)a(es are 1ustl' due. -hesa)e rule applies to breaches of contract here thedefendant acted fraudulentl' or in bad faith.0

R.A., p. K e)phasis supplied.

R.A., P. / second cause of action.

Copeland vs. 2unehoo et al., !# S.E., F7, [email protected] also / C.G.S., pp. 7/#K7/" !/ A). Gur., pp. 7FFK7F7.

/State)ent of Attorne' 9ille(as for respondentCarrascoso in open court. Respondents brief, p. .

FSection /, Rule !@, Rules of Court, in part reads0SEC. /. Amendment to conorm to or authori%e presentation o e#idence.:Lhen issues not raised b'the pleadin(s are tried b' e>press or i)plied consentof the parties, the' shall be treated in all respects, asif the' had been raised in the pleadin(s. Sucha)end)ent of the pleadin(s as )a' be necessar' tocause the) to confor) to the evidence and to raisethese issues )a' be )ade upon )otion of an' part'at an' ti)e, even after 1ud()ent but failure so toa)end does not aect the result of the trial of these

issues ...0 Co -ia)co vs. 2ia, etc., et al., 7/ Phil.F7, F7" G.M. -uason & Co., Inc., etc. vs. Bolanos, "/Phil. !@F, !!@.

72ecision, Court of Appeals, Appendi> A ofpetitioners brief, pp. !7K!#.

#2ecision of the Court of Appeals, Appendi> A ofpetitioners brief, pp. !7K!/!.

"Lords & Phrases, Per). Ed., 9ol. /, p. !, citin(

Lar;eld Natural 4as Co. vs. Allen, /" S.L. *d /,/#.

@R.A., p.7 e)phasis supplied.

!Article !#@, Civil Code.

Philippine Re;nin( Co. vs. 4arcia, et al., 8K!#7!and 8K!"F, Septe)ber 7, !"FF.



See Section , Chapter , -itle 9III, Civil Code.

R.C.8., pp. !!7K!!7/.

/An air carrier is a co))on carrier and airtransportation is si)ilar or analo(ous to land and

ater transportation. Mendoa vs. Philippine Air8ines, Inc., "@ Phil. #F, #!K#.

FAustroKA)erican S.S. Co. vs. -ho)as, # $. !.

7/d., p. .

#8ip)an vs. Atlantic Coast 8ine R. Co., " S.E. 7!,7!F.

"Petitioners brief, pp, !@K!@/.

"a9 Moran, Co))ents on the Rules of Court, !"Fed., p. 7F.

/@Section F, Rule !@, Rules of Court.

/!I9 Martin, Rules of Court in the Philippines, !"Fed., p. .

//bid.

/Article , Civil Code.

/Article ", Civil Code.

//Article @#, *! and *!!, Civil Code.

/FColeon(co vs. Claparols, 8K!#F!F, March !, !"FCorpus vs. Cuaderno, et al., 8K7!, March !,!"F/.

/7C. =utuD vs. Manila Electric Co)pan', 8K!@!F,Ma' !, !"F! 8ope et al. vs. Pan A)erican Lorld

Aira's, 8K!/, March @, !"FF.

macasaet & assoc v comm on audit - air france v carrascoso for nov 5 2015.docx

Documents