Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
transportation law

transportation law

Ratings: (0)|Views: 7|Likes:
Published by Arah Obias Cope
case digests
case digests

More info:

Published by: Arah Obias Cope on Feb 06, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/22/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Tamayo vs. Aquino et al & Rayos - G.R. Nos. L-12634 and L-12720 -May 29, 1959
Facts:Epifania Gonzales (wife of Aquino) boarded a truck owned by Tamayo, holderof a certificate of public convenience to operate. Allegedly, while Epifania wasmaking a trip aboard the truck, it bumped against a culvert on the side of theroad, causing her death. Aquino et al filed an action for damages against Tamayo. Tamayo answered alleging that the truck is owned by Rayos, so hefiled a 3rd party complaint against him (Rayos). The CFI ruled that Tamayo isthe registered owner, under a public convenience certificate but such truckwas sold to Rayos one month after the accident, but he (Tamayo) did notinform the Public Service Commission of the sale. CFI held Tamayo and Rayos jointly and severally liable to Aquino. CA affirmed, holding that, both theregistered owner (Tamayo) and the actual owner and operator (Rayos) shouldbe considered as joint tortfeasors and should be made liable in accordancewith Article 2194 of the Civil Code (solidary).Issue: WON Art 2194 (solidary liability) is applicable; and, if NOT, howshould Tamayo (holder of the cert. of public convenience) participate withRayos (transferee/operator) in the damages recoverable.Held: No, Art 2194 is not applicable. The action instituted in this case is one for breach of contract, for failure of the defendant to carry safety the deceased for her destination. The liabilityfor which he is made responsible, i.e., for the death of the passenger, maynot be considered as arising from a quasi-delict. As the registered owner Tamayo and his transferee Rayos may not be held guilty of tort or a quasi-delict; their responsibility is NOT SOLIDARY.As Tamayo is the registered owner of the truck, his responsibility to thepublic or to any passenger riding in the vehicle or truck must be direct. If thepolicy of the law is to be enforced and carried out, the registered ownershould not be allowed to prove that a third person or another has become theowner, so that he may thereby be relieved of the responsibility to the injured.But as the transferee, who operated the vehicle when the passenger died, isthe one directly responsible for the accident and death he should in turn bemade responsible to the registered owner for what the latter may have beenadjudged to pay. In operating the truck without transfer thereof having beenapproved by the Public Service Commission, the transferee acted merely asagent of the registered owner and should be responsible to him (theregistered owner), for any damages that he may cause the latter by hisnegligence.
 
 Yakult Phils. v. CA, G.R. No. 91856, October 5, 1990
Gancayco, J.Facts:In 1982, five-year old Roy Camaso, while standing on the sidewalk of M. de laFuenteStreet, Sampaloc, Manila, was sideswiped by motorcycle owned by Yakult Philippines anddriven by its employee, Larry Salvado. The latter wascharged with the crime of recklessimprudence resulting to slight physicalinjuries in an information that was filed with the thenCity Court of Manila. In1984, a complaint for damages was filed by Roy Camaso representedby hisfather, David Camaso, against Yakult and Salvado in RTC Manila. A decisionwasrendered in the civil case ordering defendants Yakult and Salvado to pay jointly andseverally the plaintiff sums for actual expenses for medicalservices and hospital bills,attorney’s fees and the costs of the suit.Issue:whether or not a civil action instituted after the criminal action was filedprosper evenif there was no reservation to file a separate civil actionHeld:Yes. Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure provides asfollows:SEC. 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. — When a criminalaction isinstituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability isimpliedlyinstituted with the criminal action, unless the offended partywaives the civilaction, reserves his right to institute it separately, orinstitutes the civil actionprior to the criminal action.x x x The reservation of the right to institute the separate civil actions shallbemade before the prosecution starts to present its evidence andundercircumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunityto makesuch reservation. The civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted withthecriminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserveshis right toinstitute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to thecriminal action. It is alsoprovided that the reservation of the right to institutethe separate civil action shall be madebefore the prosecution starts topresent its evidence and under circumstances affording theoffended party areasonable opportunity to make such reservation. In this case, theoffendedparty has not waived the civil action, nor reserved the right toinstitute it separately. Neitherhas the offended party instituted the civil actionprior to the criminal action. However, thecivil action in this case was filed incourt before the presentation of the evidence for theprosecution in the

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->