L.G.

FOODS CORPORATION

V.

PAGAPONG-AGRAVIADOR

G.R. No. 158995 ; September 26, 2006

GARCIA, J.:

Facts:
On February 26, 1996, Charles Vallereja, a 7-year old son of the Vallejera
spouses, was hit by a Ford Fiera van owned by LG Foods Corporation (LG Foods) and
driven by their employee, Vincent Norman Yeneza y Ferrer. Charles died as a result of
the accident. An information for reckless imprudence resulting to homicide was filed
against the driver before the Bacolod MTCC. Before the trial could be concluded,
however, the accused driver committed suicide. The case was then dismissed. On June
23, 1999, the spouses Vallejera filed a complaint for damages against LG Foods alleging
that as employers, they failed to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of
their employees. In their defense, LG Foods denied liability by claiming to have
exercised such diligence and prayed for dismissal for lack of cause of action. Also in their
motion to dismiss, they argued that the complaint was a claim for subsidiary liability
against an employer under Art. 103 of RPC and, as such, there must first be a judgment
of conviction against their driver to hold them liable. Since such condition was not
fulfilled due to the latters death, they argued, the spouses had no cause of action. The
trial court denied the motion for lack of merit. Also, it denied the motion for
reconsideration of the matter. LG Foods then went on certiorari to the CA alleging grave
abuse of discretion of the part of the trial judge. The CA, however, affirmed the RTC
decision ruling that the complaint by the spouses does not purport to be based on
subsidiary liability since the basic elements of such liability, such as conviction and
insolvency of the accused employee, were not even alleged in said complaint. It then said
that the complaint purports to exact responsibility for fault or negligence under Art. 2176
of CC, which is entirely separate and distinct from civil liability arising from negligence
under the Art. 103 of RPC. Liability under Art. 2180 of CC is direct and immediate, and
not conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent employee or showing of
insolvency.

Issue:
Whether or not the spouses Vallejeras cause of action is founded on Article 103 of
the Revised Penal Code, as maintained by the petitioners, or derived from Article 2180 of
the Civil Code
 Ruling:
The case is a negligence suit brought under A2176, CC to recover damages
primarily from LG Foods as employers responsible for their negligent driver pursuant to
A2180, CC. The obligation imposed by A2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts
or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. Thus, the
employer is liable for damages caused by his employees.
First. Nothing in the allegations in the complaint suggests that the LG Foods are
being made to account for their subsidiary liability under Article 103 of the Revised
Penal Code. Plus, the complaint did not even aver the basic elements for the subsidiary
liability of an employer under said provision.
Second. While not explicitly stated that the suit was for damages based on quasi-
delict, it alleged gross fault and negligence on the part of the driver and the failure of LG
Foods, as employers, to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of their
employees. It was further alleged that LG Foods is civilly liable for the
negligence/imprudence of their driver since they failed to exercise the necessary
diligence required of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of their
employees, which diligence, if exercised, could have prevented the vehicular accident
that resulted to the death of their 7-year old son.
Third. Section 2, Rule 2, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure defines cause of
action as the "act or omission by which a party violates the right of another." Such act or
omission gives rise to an obligation which may come from law, contracts, quasi contracts,
delicts or quasi-delicts. Corollarily, an act or omission causing damage to another may
give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender, i.e., 1) civil liability
ex delicto, and 2) independent civil liabilities, such as those (a) not arising from an act or
omission complained of as felony (e.g., culpa contractual or obligations arising from law;
the intentional torts; and culpa aquiliana); or (b) where the injured party is granted a right
to file an action independent and distinct from the criminal action. Either of these two
possible liabilities may be enforced against the offender. Stated otherwise, victims of
negligence or their heirs have a choice between an action to enforce the civil liability
arising from culpa criminal under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and an action
for quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana) under Articles 2176 to 2194 of the Civil Code. This is
illustrated in A1161, CC providing that civil obligation arising from criminal offenses
shall be governed by penal laws subject to the provision of A2177 and of the pertinent
provision of Chapter 2, Preliminary Title on Human Relation, and of Title XVIII of this
Book, regulating damages. This means that A2177 provides an alternative remedy for the
plaintiff. The choice is with the plaintiff.
Fourth. Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the liability of the employer is
direct or immediate, not conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent employee
and a prior showing of insolvency. This was the recourse of the spouses since there was
no conviction in the criminal case against the driver.
Fifth. LG Foods has been alleging that "they had exercised due diligence in the
selection and supervision of [their] employees." This defense is an admission that indeed
the petitioners acknowledged the private respondents' cause of action as one for quasi-
delict under A2180, CC.
Sixth. Since it is as if there was no criminal case to speak of due to its premature
termination, the fact that there was no prior reservation made to institute a separate civil
action is of no moment.