LG Foods Vs Agraviador

LG Foods v.
Agraviador (2006)
The Case
Review on certiorari of a decision of the CA on 25 April 2003 affirming an order of Bacolod RTC,
which in turn
denied the petitioners motion to dismiss an action for damages arising from a vehicular accident
instituted by the
Vallejera spouses.
The Facts
On February 26, 1996, Charles Vallereja, a 7-year old son of the Vallejera spouses, was hit by a Ford
Fiera vanowned by LG Foods Corporation (LG Foods) and driven by their employee, Vincent
Norman Yeneza y Ferrer.Charles died as a result of the accident.An information for reckless
imprudence resulting to homicide was filed against the driver before the BacolodMTCC. Before the
trial could be concluded, however, the accused driver committed suicide. The case was
thendismissed.On June 23, 1999, the spouses Vallejera filed a complaint for damages against LG
Foods alleging that asemployers, they failed to exercise due diligence in the selection and
supervision of their employees.In their defense, LG Foods denied liability by claiming to have
exercised such diligence and prayed for dismissal forlack of cause of action. Also in their motion to
dismiss, they argued that the complaint was a claim for subsidiaryliability against an employer
under A1035, RPC and, as such, there must first be a judgment of conviction againsttheir driver to
hold them liable. Since such condition
was not fulfilled due to the latters death, they argued, the
spouses had no cause of action.The trial court denied the motion for lack of merit. Also, it denied the
motion for reconsideration of the matter. LGFoods then went on certiorari to the CA alleging grave
abuse of discretion of the part of the trial judge.The CA, however, affirmed the RTC decision ruling
that the complaint by the spouses does not purport to be basedon subsidiary liability since the basic
elements of such liability, such as conviction and insolvency of the accusedemployee, were not even
alleged in said complaint. It then said that the complaint purports to exact responsibilityfor fault or
negligence under A2176, CC, which is entirely separate and distinct from civil liability arising
fromnegligence under the A103, RPC. Liability under A2180, CC is direct and immediate, and not
conditioned upon priorrecourse against the negligent employee or showing of insolvency.
The Issue
Whether the cause of action of the Vallejera spouses is founded on CC or RPC.
The Ruling
The case is a negligence suit brought under A2176, CC to recover damages primarily from LG Foods
as employersresponsible for their negligent driver pursuant to A2180, CC. The obligation imposed
by A2176 is demandable notonly for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for
whom one is responsible. Thus, theemployer is liable for damages caused by his employees.
The Ratio
First. Nothing in the allegations in the complaint suggests that the LG Foods are being made to
account for theirsubsidiary liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. Plus, the
complaint did not even aver the basicelements for the subsidiary liability of an employer under said
provision

Second. While not explicitly stated that the suit was for damages based on quasi-delict, it alleged
gross fault andnegligence on the part of the driver and the failure of LG Foods, as employers, to
exercise due diligence in theselection and supervision of their employees. It was further alleged
that LG Foods is civilly liable for thenegligence/imprudence of their driver since they failed to
exercise the necessary diligence required of a goodfather of the family in the selection and
supervision of their employees, which diligence, if exercised, could haveprevented the vehicular
accident that resulted to the death of their 7-year old son.Third. Section 2, Rule 2, of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure defines cause of action as the "act or omission bywhich a party violates the right
of another." Such act or omission gives rise to an obligation which may come fromlaw, contracts,
quasi contracts, delicts or quasi-delicts.Corollarily, an act or omission causing damage to another
may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the partof the offender, i.e., 1) civil liability ex
delicto, and 2) independent civil liabilities, such as those (a) not arising froman act or omission
complained of as felony (e.g., culpa contractual or obligations arising from law; the
intentionaltorts;14 and culpa aquiliana15); or (b) where the injured party is granted a right to file
an action independent anddistinct from the criminal action. Either of these two possible liabilities
may be enforced against the offender.Stated otherwise, victims of negligence or their heirs have a
choice between an action to enforce the civil liabilityarising from culpa criminal under Article 100
of the Revised Penal Code, and an action for quasi-delict (culpaaquiliana) under Articles 2176 to
2194 of the Civil Code.This is illustrated in A1161, CC providing that civil obligation arising from
criminal offenses shall be governed bypenal laws subject to the provision of A2177 and of the
pertinent provision of Chapter 2, Preliminary Title onHuman Relation, and of Title XVIII of this
Book, regulating damages. This means that A2177 provides an alternativeremedy for the plaintiff.
The choice is with the plaintiff.Fourth. Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the liability of the
employer is direct or immediate, not conditionedupon prior recourse against the negligent
employee and a prior showing of insolvency. This was the recourse of the spouses since there was
no conviction in the criminal case against the driver.Fifth. LG Foods has been alleging that "they had
exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of [their]employees." This defense is an
admission that indeed the petitioners acknowledged the private respondents'cause of action as one
for quasi-delict under A2180, CC.Sixth. Since it is as if there was no criminal case to speak of due to
its premature termination, the fact that therewas no prior reservation made to institute a separate
civil action is of no moment.

LG Foods Vs Agraviador

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LG Foods Vs Agraviador

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LG Foods v.

You might also like