LG Foods v.

Agraviador (2006)
The Case Review on certiorari of a decision of the CA on 25 April 2003 affirming an order of Bacolod RTC, which in turn denied the petitioners motion to dismiss an action for damages arising from a vehicular accident instituted by the Vallejera spouses. The 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 A1035, 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 A2176, CC, which is entirely separate and distinct from civil liability arising from negligence under the A103, RPC. Liability under A2180, CC is direct and immediate, and not conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent employee or showing of insolvency. The Issue Whether the cause of action of the Vallejera spouses is founded on CC or RPC. The 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. The Ratio 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;14 and culpa aquiliana15); 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.