Obligations and Contracts A2010page 2Prof. Labitag
2. WON Mendoza can file an independent civil case against Salazar
1. Yes.a) No, not all requisites of Res Judicata are present.
There is no identity of cause of action between the dismissed criminal caseand the new civil case.
In the criminal case, cause of action was enforcement of civil liabilityarising from criminal negligence. In the civil case, it was quasi-delict. The twofactors a cause of action must consist of are: (1) plaintiff’s primary right – Mendozaas owner of the car; (2) defendant’s delict or wrongful act or omission whichviolated the primary right – negligence or lack of skill, either of Salazar or of Montoya.b) No, right to file an independent civil action need not be reserved.
Sec. 2 of Rule 111, Rules of Court is inoperative because it is anunauthorized amendment of substantive law, and it cannot stand because of itsinconsistency with Art.2177.
Art.2176 and 2177 of Civil Code create a civil liability distinct anddifferent from the civil action arising from the offense of negligence under the RPC.2. No.
Civil action had extinguished because “the fact from which civil liabilitymight arise did not exist.” (Sec 3c, Rule 111, Rules of Court) Under the facts of thecase, Salazar cannot be held liable.
The offended party has an option between action for enforcement of civil liability based on culpa CRIMINAL (RPC, Art.100) or action for recovery of damages based on culpa AQUILIANA (CC, Art.2177). First option was deemedsimultaneously instituted with the criminal action unless expressly waived orreserved of separate application. It can be concluded that Mendoza opted to basehis cause of action on culpa criminal, as evidenced by his active participation in theprosecution of criminal suit against Salazar.
Order dismissing Civil Case against Timbol is set aside and trial court to proceedwith hearing on merits; orders dismissing complaint in Civil Case against Salazar areupheld.
; 4, 1992
Petition to review the decision of Court of Appeals.
- A stabbing incident on August 30, 1985 which caused the death of CarlitosBautista on the premises of the Philippine School of Business Administration (PSBA)prompted the parents of the deceased to file suit in the Manila RTC. It wasestablished that his assailants were not members of the school’s academiccommunity but were outsiders.- The suit impleaded PSBA, its President, VP, Treasure, Chief of Security andAssistant Chief of Security. It sought to adjudge them liable for the victim’s deathdue to their alleged negligence, recklessness and lack of security precautions.- Defendants (now petitioners) sought to have the suit dismissed alleging that sincethey are presumably sued under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, the complaint states nocause of action against them since academic institutions, like PSBA, are beyond theambit of that rule.- Respondent Trial court denied the motion to dismiss. And the MFR was similarlydealt with. Petitioners the assailed the trial court’s dispositions before therespondent appellate court which affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
WON respondent court is correct in denying dismissal of the case.
Although a school may not be liable under Art. 2180 on quasi-delicts, it maystill be liable under the law on contracts.
The case should be tried on its merits. But respondent court’s premiseis incorrect. It is expressly mentioned in Art. 2180 that the liability arises from actsdone by pupils or students of the institution. In this sense, PSBA is not liable. Butwhen an academic institution accepts students for enrollment, the school makesitself responsible in providing their students with an atmosphere that is conducivefor learning. Certainly, no student can absorb the intricacies of physics or explorethe realm of arts when bullets are flying or where there looms around the schoolpremises a constant threat to life and limb.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the petition isDENIED. The Court of origin is hereby ordered to continue proceedings consistentwit this ruling of the Court. Costs against the petitioners.
Melencio-Herrera (Chairman), Paras, Regalado and Nocon, JJ., concur.
; 15, 1988
Petition for certiorari to review the decision of Court of Appeals.
- A few days before high school graduation, while in the auditorium of his school(Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos), a classmate, Pablito Daffon, fired a gun thatmortally hit and killed Alfredo Amadora.- The victim’s parents filed a civil action for damages under Article 2180 of the CivilCode against the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, its rector, the high school principal,the dean of boys, and the physics teacher (the victim was in school to finish hisphysics experiment –a prerequisite to graduation), together with Daffon and twoother students, through their respective parents.- The pertinent provision reads:“Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liablefor damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices so long as theyremain in their custody.”