Art. 2176.

Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
(1902a)
Relate lang natin to dalawang cases:

Barredo vs Garcia
At about 1:30am on May 3, 1936, Fontanillas taxi
collided with a kalesa thereby killing the 16 year old
Faustino Garcia. Faustinos parents filed a criminal suit
against Fontanilla and reserved their right to file a
separate civil suit. Fontanilla was eventually convicted.
After the criminal suit, Garcia filed a civil suit against
Barredo the owner of the taxi (employer of Fontanilla).
The suit was based on Article 1903 of the civil code
(negligence of employers in the selection of their
employees). Barredo assailed the suit arguing that his
liability is only subsidiary and that the separate civil suit
should have been filed against Fontanilla primarily and
not him.
ISSUE: Whether or not Barredo is just subsidiarily
liable.
HELD: No. He is primarily liable under Article 1903
which is a separate civil action against negligent
employers. Garcia is well within his rights in suing
Barredo. He reserved his right to file a separate civil

Republic of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee

vs
Luzon Stevedoring Corporation, Defendant-appellant
Facts of the case: In the early afternoon of August
17,1960, barge L-1892, owned by Luzon Stevedoring
Corporation was being towed down the Pasig river by
tugboats also owned by the said corporation. The barge
rammed against Nagtahan bridge causing damages. The
river at that time was swollen and the current swift due
to heavy downpour. Sued by the Republic of the
Philippines for actual and consequential damages,
defendant disclaimed liability on the ground that it had
exercised due diligence, and that it only because of force
majeure and that the bridge was an obstruction. After
due trial, court rendered judgment holding defendant
liable for the damages caused. Defendant appealed to a
higher court on the basis that the lower court erred in its
decision.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the collision between the
barge and Nagtahan bridge is caused by fortuitous event
or force majeure.
2. Whether or not the Lower Court erred in
introducing additional damages after the case has rested.
Decision: Wherefore, seeing no error in the Lower
Court's decision, the same is affirmed.

action and this is more expeditious because by the time

of the SC judgment Fontanilla is already serving his
sentence and has no property. It was also proven that
Barredo is negligent in hiring his employees because it
was shown that Fontanilla had had multiple traffic
infractions already before he hired him something he
failed to overcome during hearing. Had Garcia not
reserved his right to file a separate civil action, Barredo
would have only been subsidiarily liable. Further,
Barredo is not being sued for damages arising from a
criminal act (his drivers negligence) but rather for his

Based on Article 1174, fortuitous events are

those that cannot be foreseen or avoided there
inevitable.
On the second point, the lower court did not
abused its power in adding additional charges
as the plaintiff presented vouchers and papers
to support the charges.

own negligence in selecting his employee.