Practice question
After a driver’s criminal conviction, an injured person pursues a properly grounded independent quasi-delict claim against the employer and has not recovered twice. The employer says the conviction forces all civil claims exclusively into subsidiary Penal Code liability. Under Barredo, which is correct?
- The conviction does not erase the distinct Civil Code basis
- Every conviction abolishes all quasi-delict claims
- Only a second criminal conviction can revive civil law
- The employer necessarily becomes immune
- The victim must accept zero damages regardless of the independent claim
Legal references
- Civil Code RA386: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html Articles1759,2176–2180.
- Revised Penal Code Act3815: https://lawphil.net/statutes/acts/act_3815_1930.html Article103.
- Barredo v Garcia GR48006 July8,1942 MAIN: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1942/jul1942/gr_48006_1942.html Primary employer tort liability distinguished from subsidiary penal liability.
- Cangco v Manila Railroad GRL12191 October14,1918 MAIN: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1918/oct1918/gr_l-12191_1918.html Contract liability distinguished from selection-supervision defense.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.