Upload
macy
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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 !/
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 2/76
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.
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 3/76
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 $ri)o*A+uino
,edialdea and -egalado !!. concur.
7/24/2019 Macasaet & Assoc v Comm on Audit - Air France v Carrascoso for Nov 5 2015.docx
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/macasaet-assoc-v-comm-on-audit-air-france-v-carrascoso-for-nov-5-2015docx 4/76
Foo!o'(
! Section 7. ... 5nless otherise provided b'
this Constitution or b' la, an' decision,
order, or rulin( of each Co))ission )a' be
brou(ht to the Supre)e Court on certiorari b'
the a((rieved part' ithin thirt' da's fro)
receipt of a cop' thereof
Article 9I : C<AN4E +$ +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.
Republic of the Philippines
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.
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 5/76
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
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 6/76
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
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 7/76
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(
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 8/76
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
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 9/76
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
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 10/76
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$I of Manila Record on Appeal,
pp. K/, Rollo, p. !.
# Parenthetical insertions Identif'in( the
parties, supplied.
" Appellants brief, pp. !!K!.
!@ /d., pp. 7K#.
!! Appellants brief, pp. #K!@.
! E>h. E.
I Art. !7/, Civil Code Paci;c +>'(en &
Acet'lene Co. v. Central BanD, 7 SCRA F#/.
! 8i) v. de los Santos, # SCRA 7"#.
I/ Art. !!F", last para(raph, Civil Code.
!F Cristobal vs. Melchor, !@! SCRA #/7, #F/.
!7 77! A). Gur. d, !@!.
7/24/2019 Macasaet & Assoc v Comm on Audit - Air France v Carrascoso for Nov 5 2015.docx
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/macasaet-assoc-v-comm-on-audit-air-france-v-carrascoso-for-nov-5-2015docx 11/76
!# @C.G.S. "".
!" 7 A) Gur. d. #!#.
@ Art. !", Civil Code 0Ever' person )ust, in
the e>ercise of his ri(hts and in the
perfor)ance of his duties, act ith 1ustice,
(ive ever'one his due, and observe and (ood
faith.0
! 7! A). Gur. d, !@.
A). Gur. nd F#KF" 0-heir is a (eneral
principle that a court of e?uit' ill balance
the e?uities beteen the parties in
deter)inin( hat, if an', relief to (ive. . . -hus, for e>a)ple, herein the eect of the
onl' relief hich can be (ranted to protect the
plainti ill be destructive of the defendants
business, hich ould be laful but for the
har) it does to the plainti, relief )a' be
refused if, on a balancin( of the respective
interests, that of the defendant is found to be
relativel' i)portant, and that of the plainti
relativel' insi(ni;cant. . .0
Record on Appeal, p. / Rollo, p. !.
7/24/2019 Macasaet & Assoc v Comm on Audit - Air France v Carrascoso for Nov 5 2015.docx
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/macasaet-assoc-v-comm-on-audit-air-france-v-carrascoso-for-nov-5-2015docx 12/76
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SEC+N2 2I9ISI+N
G.R. No. 12)*92 Ma/0 14, 1997
TRAERS RO$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
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 13/76
-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
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 14/76
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.
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 15/76
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
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 16/76
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
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 17/76
. 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).
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 18/76
>>> >>> >>>
-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
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 19/76
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
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 20/76
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
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 21/76
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.
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 22/76
<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.
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 23/76
-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. !@!".
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 24/76
@ $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
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 25/76
-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.
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 26/76
-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.
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 27/76
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.
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 28/76
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
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 29/76
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#.
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 30/76
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
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 31/76
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
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 32/76
)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
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 33/76
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
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 34/76
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.
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 35/76
+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
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 36/76
!!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
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 37/76
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
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 38/76
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.
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 39/76
> > > > > > > > >
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
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 40/76
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,
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 41/76
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.
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 42/76
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.
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 43/76
-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
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 44/76
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'
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 45/76
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 :
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 46/76
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
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 47/76
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.
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 48/76
Republic of the Philippines
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 $irst Instance of
ueon Cit' dated Ganuar' ", !"F/ in Civil Case No. K
#!@, Pedro Elcano et al. vs. Re(inald <ill et al. dis)issin(,
upon )otion to dis)iss of defendants, the co)plaint of
plaintis for recover' of da)a(es fro) defendant Re(inald
<ill, a )inor, )arried at the ti)e of the occurrence, and his
father, the defendant Marvin <ill, ith ho) he as livin(
and (ettin( subsistence, for the Dillin( b' Re(inald of the
son of the plaintis, na)ed A(apito Elcano, of hich, hencri)inall' prosecuted, the said accused as ac?uitted on
the (round that his act as not cri)inal, because of 0lacD of
intent to Dill, coupled ith )istaDe.0
Actuall', the )otion to dis)iss based on the folloin(
(rounds
!. -he present action is not onl' a(ainst but a
violation of section !, Rule !@7, hich is no
Rule III, of the Revised Rules of Court
. -he action is barred b' a prior 1ud()ent
hich is no ;nal and or in res*adjudicata
. -he co)plaint had no cause of action
a(ainst defendant Marvin <ill, because he as
relieved as (uardian of the other defendant
throu(h e)ancipation b' )arria(e.
*P. , Record p. , Record on Appeal.Q
as ;rst denied b' the trial court. It as onl' upon )otion
for reconsideration of the defendants of such denial,
reiteratin( the above (rounds that the folloin( order as
issued
Considerin( the )otion for reconsideration
;led b' the defendants on Ganuar' !, !"F/
7/24/2019 Macasaet & Assoc v Comm on Audit - Air France v Carrascoso for Nov 5 2015.docx
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/macasaet-assoc-v-comm-on-audit-air-france-v-carrascoso-for-nov-5-2015docx 49/76
and after thorou(hl' e>a)inin( the
ar(u)ents therein contained, the Court ;nds
the sa)e to be )eritorious and ellKfounded.
L<ERE$+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.
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 50/76
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,
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 51/76
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
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 52/76
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.
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 53/76
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
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 54/76
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!(
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 55/76
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,
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 56/76
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
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 57/76
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.
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 58/76
Republic of the Philippines
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
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 59/76
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.
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 60/76
+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*
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 61/76
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
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 62/76
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
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 63/76
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
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 64/76
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
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 65/76
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.
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 66/76
+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
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 67/76
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
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 68/76
+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.
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 69/76
-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
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 70/76
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 $austino, another itness fordefendant, ho as the chief of the Reservation+Hce of defendant, testi;ed as follos
0 <o does the person in the ticDetKissuin(oHce Dno hat reservation the passen(erhas arran(ed ith 'ouU
7/24/2019 Macasaet & Assoc v Comm on Audit - Air France v Carrascoso for Nov 5 2015.docx
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/macasaet-assoc-v-comm-on-audit-air-france-v-carrascoso-for-nov-5-2015docx 71/76
A -he' call us up b' phone and asD for thecon;r)ation.0 *t.s.n., p. 7, Gune !", !"/"
In this connection, e ?uote ith approval hat thetrial Gud(e has said on this point
Lh' did the, usin( the ords of itnessErnesto 4. Cuento, 0hite )an0 have a0better ri(ht0 to the seat occupied b' Mr.CarrascosoU -he record is silent. -hedefendant airline did not prove 0an' better0,na', an' ri(ht on the part of the 0hite )an0to the 0$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
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 72/76
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
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 73/76
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
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 74/76
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!".
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 75/76
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.
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 76/76
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.