II. THE CONCEPT OF QUASI-DELICT A.
BARREDO V GARCIA BOCOBO; July 8, 1942 FACTS - from CA, holding Fausto Barredo liable for damages for death pf Faustino Garcia caused by negligence of Pedro Fontanilla, a taxi driver employed by Fausto Barredo - May 3, 1936 ± in road between Malabon and Navotas, head-on collision between taxi of Malate Taxicab and carretela guided by Pedro Dimapilis thereby causing overturning of the carretela and the eventual death of Garcia, 16-yo boy and one of the passengers - Fontanilla convicted in CFI and affirmed by CA and separate civil action is reserved - Parents of Garcia filed action against Barredo as sole proprietor of Malate Taxicab as employer of Fontanilla - CFI and CA awarded damages bec Fontanilla¶s negligence apparent as he was driving on the wrong side of the road and at a high speed > no proof he exercised diligence of a good father of the family as Barredo is careless in employing (selection and supervision) Fontanilla who had been caught several times for violation of Automobile Law and speeding > CA applied A1903CC that makes inapplicable civil liability arising from crime bec this is under obligations arising from wrongful act or negligent acts or omissions punishable by law - Barredo¶s defense is that his liability rests on RPC TF liability only subsidiary and bec no civil action against Fontanilla TF he too cannot be held responsible ISSUE WON parents of Garcia may bring separate civil action against Barredo making him primarily liable and directly responsible under A1903CC as employer of Fontanilla HELD YES - There are two actions available for parents of Garcia. One is under the A100RPC wherein the employer is only subsidiarily liable for the damages arising from the crime thereby first exhausting the properties of Fontanilla. The other action is under A1903CC (quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana) wherein as the negligent employer of Fontanilla, Barredo is held primarily liable subject to proving that he exercising diligence of a good father of the family. The parents simply took the action under the Civil Code as it is more practical to get damages from the employer bec he has more money to give than Fontanilla who is yet to serve his sentence. Obiter Difference bet Crime and Quasi-delict 1) crimes ± public interest; quasi-delict ± only private interest 2) Penal code punishes or corrects criminal acts; Civil Code by means of indemnification merely repairs the damage 3) delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts; crimes are only punished if there is a penal law; quasi-delicts include any kind of fault or negligence intervenes NOTE: not all violations of penal law produce civil responsibility e.g. contravention of ordinances, violation of game laws, infraction of rules of traffic when nobody is hurt 4) crime ± guilt beyond reasonable doubt; civil ± mere preponderance of evidence - Presumptions: 1) injury is caused by servant or employee, there instantly arises presumption of negligence of master or employer in selection, in supervision or both 2) presumption is juris tantum not juris et de jure TF may be rebutted by proving exercise of diligence of a good father of the family - basis of civil law liability: not respondent superior bu the relationship of pater familias - motor accidents ± need of stressing and accentuating the responsibility of owners of motor vehicles ELCANO V HILL 77 SCRA 98 BARREDO; May 26, 1977 FACTS - Reginald Hill, a minor yet married at the time of occurrence, was criminally prosecuted for the killing of Agapito Elcano (son of Pedro), and was acquitted for ³lack of intent to kill, coupled with mistake.´
- Pedro Elcano filed a complaint for recovery of damages from Reginald and his father Atty Marvin. CFI dismissed it. ISSUES 1. WON the civil action for damages is barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case wherein the action for civil liability was not reversed 2. WON Article 2180 (2nd and last par) of the CC can be applied against Atty. Hill, notwithstanding the fact that at the time of the occurrence, Reginald, though a minor, living with and getting subsistence from his father, was already legally married HELD 1. NO -The acquittal of Reginal Hill in the criminal case has not extinguished his liability for quasi-delict, hence that acquittal is not a bar to the instant action against him. -Barredo v Garcia (dual character²civil and criminal² of fault or negligence as a source of obligation): "The above case is pertinent because it shows that the same act may come under both the Penal Code and the Civil Code. In that case, the action of the agent was unjustified and fraudulent and therefore could have been the subject of a criminal action. And yet, it was held to be also a proper subject of a civil action under article 1902 of the Civil Code. It is also to be noted that it was the employer and not the employee who was being sued." "It will be noticed that the defendant in the above case could have been prosecuted in a criminal case because his negligence causing the death of the child was punishable by the Penal Code. Here is therefore a clear instance of the same act of negligence being a proper subject matter either of a criminal action with its consequent civil liability arising from a crime or of an entirely separate and independent civil action for fault or negligence under article 1402 of the Civil Code. Thus, in this jurisdiction, the separate individuality of a cuasi-delito or culpa aquiliana under the Civil Code has been fully and clearly recognized, even with regard to a negligent act for which the wrongdoer could have been prosecuted and convicted in a criminal case aria for which, after un a conviction, he could have been sued for this civil liability arising from his crime.´ -Culpa aquiliana includes acts which are criminal in character or in violation of a penal law, whether voluntary or negligent. -ART 1162: "Obligations derived from quasi-delicts shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 2, Title XVII of this Book, (on quasidelicts) and by special laws." More precisely, Article 2177 of the new code provides: "ART 277. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising front negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant." - According to the Code Commission: "The foregoing provision (Article 2177) through at first sight startling, is not so novel or extraordinary when we consider the exact nature of criminal and civil negligence. The former is a violation of the criminal law, while the latter is a 'culpa aquilian' or quasi-delict, of ancient origin, having always had its own foundation and individuality, separate from criminal negligence. Such distinction between criminal negligence and 'culpa extra-contractual' or 'cuasi-delito' has been sustained by decision of the Supreme Court of Spain and maintained as clear, sound and perfectly tenable by Maura, an outstanding Spanish jurist. Therefore, under the proposed Article 2177, acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence, whether on reasonable doubt or not, shall not be a bar to a subsequent civil action, not for civil liability arising from criminal negligence, but for damages due to a quasi-delict or 'culpa aquiliana'. But said article forestalls a double recovery," - Although, again, this Article 2177 does seem to literally refer to only acts of negligence, the same argument of Justice Bacobo about construction that upholds "the spirit that giveth life" rather than that which is literal that killeth the intent of the lawmaker should be observed in applying the same. And considering that me preliminary chapter on human relations of the new Civil Code definitely establishes the separability and independence of liability in a civil action for acts criminal in character (under Articles 29 to 12) from the civil responsibility arising from crime fixed by Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and, in a sense, the Rules of Court, under Sections 2 and 3 (c), Rule 111, contemplate also the same separability, it¶s "more congruent with the spirit of law, equity and justice, and more in harmony with modern progress", to hold, as We do hold, that Article 2176, where it refers to "fault or negligence," covers not only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent.
to recover damages on both scores. He claimed that he never proposed marriage to or agreed to be married. They later agreed to get married at the end of the school semester. Baksh later forced MG to live with him.They observed due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees. of good moral character and respected reputation in her community. .19. . the civil case may proceed as a separate and independent civil action.Article 2180 applies to Atty. she sustained injuries. Plaintiff¶s claims: . expenses..21 of the Civil Code HELD 1. . She prayed for payment for damages amounting to Php 45. 33.Cinco filed on Feb 25. The father and. provided that the offended party is not allowed.Subsequently.Damages were sustained by petitioner because of the collision .. . atty¶s fees.000 pesos atty¶s. Petitioner appealed this decision to respondent CA. MG accepted his love on the condition that they would get married. whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted. was living with his father and getting subsistence from him at the time of the occurrence in question. 19701 a complaint for recovery of damages on account of a vehicular accident involving his automobile and a jeepney driven by Romeo Hilot and operated by Valeriana Pepito and Carlos Pepito. emancipation takes place "by the marriage of the minor (child)". .The separate and independent civil action for quasi-delict is also clearly recognized in sec 2. also clear that pursuant to Article 399. therefore.000 plus additional costs. old Filipina. Feb. sue or be sued without the assistance of the parents. . although married.Baksh answered with a counterclaim. .At the pre-trial in the civil case. but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. The word damage is used in two concepts: the ³harm´ done and ³reparation´ for the harm done. inasmuch as it is evident that Reginald is now of age. Baksh repudiated their marriage agreement and asked her not to live with him anymore and that he is already married to someone in Bacolod. ISSUE WON damages may be recovered for a breach of promise to marry on the basis of Art. a criminal case was filed against the driver Romeo Hilot arising from the same accident. neither sought the consent of her parents nor forced her to live in his apt. . We here hold. Respondents¶ Comments: . YES (but«) . 21 applies to this case.Petitioner¶s cause of action is based on quasi-delict. an independent civil action entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action. Rule 111 of the Rules of Court: Sec 2. The father and. Petitioner was thus ordered to pay Php 20. petitioner started maltreating her even threatening to kill her and as a result of such maltreatment. 1979 FACTS . etc. The concept of quasi-delict. (However. are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. contending that the trial court erred in not dismissing the case for lack of factual and legal basis and in ordering him to pay moral damages. the mother. He can sue and be sued in court only with the assistance of his father. but he cannot borrow money or alienate or encumber real property without the consent of his father or mother. particularly of Romeo Hilot.Consequently.000 as moral damages plus misc. a situation which is not unusual. **MG¶s allegations in the complaint: .it was the fault r negligence of the driver in the operation of the jeepney owned by the Pepitos which caused the collision. in case of his death or incapacity. it is. according to Manresa. in reality. no intention of marrying her and that the promise was only a subtle scheme or
. He also prayed for 25. single. Petitioner¶s MFR having been denied. 1993 FACTS . Reasoning . ..Liability being predicated on quasi-delict. the reason behind the joint and solidary liability of parents with their offending child under Article 2180 is that is the obligation of the parent to supervise their minor children in order to prevent them from causing damage to third persons. that culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law. are responsible. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution. he elevated the matter on Certiorari to the CFI Cebu.Briefly stated. Factually. subsidiary to that of his son. is that such emancipation does not carry with it freedom to enter into transactions or do any act that can give rise to judicial litigation. it is not controverted that Reginald. may be brought by the injured party during the pendency of the criminal case. It makes no distinction between ³damage to persons´ on the one hand and ³damage to property´ on the other. Reginald was still subservient to and dependent on his father. in providing that a minor emancipated by marriage may not. proof that he had. raising the single issue of WON Art." . "(T)he obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions. provided the right is reserved as required in the preceding section. 21 CC decided in favor of private respondent. however. ISSUE WON there can be an independent civil action for damage to property during the pendency of the criminal action HELD YES
.That Baksh later courted and proposed to marry her. and is an exchange student taking up medicine at the Lyceum in Dagupan. if he is actually charged also criminally. residing in Dagupan.000 as moral damages and 3.Respondent CA promulgated the challenged decision affirming in toto the trial court¶s ruling which prompted Baksh to file this petition for certiorari. It shall enable the minor to administer his property as though he was of age. BAKSH V CA (Gonzales) 219 SCRA 115 DAVIDE. Hill notwithstanding the emancipation by marriage of Reginald. in reiteration of Garcia.Under Article 2180. and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. 21 may be applied. emancipation by marriage of the minor is not really full or absolute.On the other hand. Petitioner had visited MG¶s parents to secure their approval of the marriage. fees plus litigation expenses. applying Art.Private respondent Marilou Gonzales (MG) filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Gashem Shookat Baksh for the alleged violation of their agreement to get married. Independent civil action. mother or guardian. the liability of Atty. A week before the filing of the complaint. did not maltreat her but only told her to stop coming to his place after having discovered that she stole his money and passport. Art. which in turn dismissed the petition. admitting only the personal circumstances of the parties in the complaint but denied the rest of the allegations. assuming the awards made in the two cases vary.The City Court of Mandaue ordered the suspension of the civil case. Thus "(E)mancipation by marriage or by voluntary concession shall terminate parental authority over the child's person. and under Article 397. and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two. Hill has become milling.The RTC. And surely.That Baksh is an Iranian citizen. A day before the filing of the complaint. in case of his death or incapacity. 32. as a matter of equity. nevertheless. JR. as specifically provided for in Art 2177 of the Civil Code. .There was a direct causal connection between the damages he suffered and the fault and negligence of private respondents.In the instant case. 2. the mother. a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act. as enunciated in Art 2176 of the Civil Code. the clear implication of Article 399. counsel for private respondents moved to suspend the civil action pending the final determination of the criminal suit. 34 and 2177 of the Civil Code f the Philippines." . DISPOSITION Writ of Certiorari granted. Civil Code). ± In the cases prvided for in Articles 31. . YES Ratio In a breach of promise to marry where the woman is a victim of moral seduction. killing someone else invites judicial action. is so broad that in includes not only injuries to persons but also damage to property. And with respect to ³harm´ it is plain that it includes both injuries to person and property since ³harm´ is not limited to personal but also to property injuries. May 31.Where a man¶s promise to marry is in fact the proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in sexual congress. or guardian.That she is a 22 yr. . . .) .While it is true that parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of the child (Article 327.It must be borne in mind that. CINCO V CANONOY 90 SCRA 369 Melencio-Herrera.
Thus. could justify the award of damages pursuant to Art. together with his wife. 71 owned and operated by the Mactan Transit Co. is a civil law concept while torts is an Anglo-American or common law concept. she and her parents would have such a right of action. no civil action could be filed subsequent thereto unless the criminal case has been finally adjudicated. The reason therefor is set forth in the report of the Senate Committees on the Proposed Civil Code. intentional and malicious acts. not because of lust but because of moral seduction. of the PU car and the passenger bus that figured in the collision. Garcia. In between these opposite spectrums are injurious acts which. there is no crime. the legislator.In the instant case. guilty of negligence. that Art. Pedro Tumala. Torts is much broader than culpa aquiliana because it includes not only negligence.338 of the RPC because the private respondent was above 18 years of age at the time of the seduction. with the filing of the aforesaid criminal case. the civil aspect of the criminal case would have to be determined only after the termination of the criminal case
. Thus at one stroke. et.As the Code Commission itself stated in its Report: ³But the Code Commission has gone farther than the sphere of wrongs defined or determined by positive law. Garcia. Congress deliberately eliminated from the draft of the New Civil Code the provisions that would have made it so.The principal argument advanced by Mactan Inc. or 20 days before the filing of the present action for damages. the latter court having heard the witnesses and having had the opportunity to observe closely their deportment and manner of testifying. owners and drivers. Garcia. for the purpose of attending a conference of chiefs of government hospitals. 4960 of the Municipal Court of Sindangan. . and. In the general scheme of the Philippine legal system envisioned by the Commission responsible for
drafting the New Civil Code. the Commission has deemed it necessary. with certain exceptions. is not applicable because Art 33 applied only to the crimes of physical injuries or homicide. false imprisonment and deceit. DISPOSITION finding no reversible error in the challenged decision. is limited to negligent acts or omissions and excludes the notion of willfulness or intent. with prayer for preliminary attachment. 241-8 G Ozamis 71 owned and operated by respondent.´ . Neither can any civil action for breach of promise of marriage be filed. It is even postulated that together with Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code. FACTS . 2850) against the private respondents.Moreover.21 not because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter.Art. she and her parents cannot bring any action for damages. petitioners. The petitioner could not be held liable for criminal seduction punished under either Art. the cherished possession of every single Filipina. because the liability of the employer is merely subsidiary and does not arise until after final judgment has been rendered finding the driver.The lower court sustained Mactan Inc. though the grievous moral wrong has been committed. petitioners sustained various physical injuries which necessitated their medical treatment and hospitalization. . German C. . respondent Pedro Tumala was charged in Criminal Case No. it is the rule in this jurisdiction that appellate courts will not disturb the trial court's findings as to the credibility of witnesses. and Ester Francisco.21 has greatly broadened the scope of the law on civil wrongs. AUGUST 31. As a result of the aforesaid collision. hospital administrative officers. Pedro Tumala. 1972. Fully sensible that there are countless gaps in the statutes. 1971. Quasidelict. the instant petition is hereby DENIED DULAY VS CA 243 SCRA 220 GARCIA V FLORIDO 52 SCRA 420 ANTONIO. 7 at Zamboanga City. and bookkeepers of Regional Health Office No. 25) with plate No. and driven by respondent. the said Code contains a provision. The girl becomes pregnant. in a reckless. from which We quote: ³The elimination of this chapter is proposed. Inc. Luminosa L. Zamboanga del Norte. pursuant to Sec. not to the negligent act or imprudence of the driver. and Pedro Tumala. and driven by defendant. the private respondent surrendered her virginity. to incorporate in the proposed Civil Code the following rule: ³Art. petitioners.. Mactan Transit Co. Article 21. and although the girl and her family have suffered incalculable moral damage. Ricardo Vayson. Chief of the Misamis Occidental Hospital.This notwithstanding. Marcelino Inesin. if the foregoing rule is approved.deceptive device to entice or inveigle to accept him and to obtain her consent to the sexual act. it has become much more supple and adaptable than the Anglo-American law on torts. in the absence of Art. would have been beyond redress. Luminosa L. Art. 1971 with respondent Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental an action for damages (Civil Case No. "without prejudice to refiling the said civil action after conviction of the defendants in the criminal case filed by the Chief of Police of Sindangan. et. 33 of the New Civil Code. Garcia. Inc. that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals. which leave so many victims of moral wrongs helpless. hired and boarded a PU car with plate No. bookkeeper of said hospital. known in Spanish legal treatises as culpa aquiliana. but intentional criminal acts as well such as assault and battery. . even though they have actually suffered material and moral injury. Under the present laws. German C. the filing of the instant civil action is premature. for a roundtrip from Oroquieta City to Zamboanga City.The existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong. and dismissed the complaint ISSUES 1. 3 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. al to in a motion to dismiss was that the petitioners had no cause of action for on August 11.21 fills that vacuum. in the interest of justice. dismissing petitioners' action for damages against respondents. respectively.2176 CC.At about 9:30 a. But under the proposed article. grossly negligent and imprudent manner in gross violation of traffic rules and without due regard to the safety of the passengers aboard the PU car. said car collided with an oncoming passenger bus (No. and Ester Francisco. therefore. In short. denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration. and it was likewise these fraud and deception on appellant's part that made plaintiff's parents agree to their daughter's living-in with him preparatory to their supposed marriage. good customs or public policy. **Obiter: on Torts and Quasi-delicts .´ . . while the PU car was negotiating a slight curve on the national highway at kilometer 21 in Barrio Guisukan. good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.21 Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals.Alleging that both drivers of the PU car and the passenger bus were at the time of the accident driving their respective vehicles at a fast clip. Sindangan. unless the trial court had plainly overlooked facts of substance or value which. might affect the result of the case. Syquia. Art. That breach of promise to marry is not actionable has been definitely decided in the case of De Jesus vs. and from the order of said Court dated January 21. Zamboanga del Norte. in a complaint filed by the Chief of Police and that.On August 4.. Therefore.. which defines a quasi-delict.m. WON the lower court erred in dismissing the complaint for damages on the ground that since no express reservation was made by the complainants.. . as the girl is above 18 yrs of age. . The history of breach of promise suits in the United States and in England has shown that no other action lends itself more readily to abuse by designing women and unscrupulous men. or can not be proved.21. filed on September 1. respondent Court found that it was the petitioner's "fraudulent and deceptive protestations of love for and promise to marry plaintiff that made her surrender her virtue and womanhood to him and to live with him on the honest and sincere belief that he would keep said promise. 1971.' A promise of marriage either has not been made.. are to be governed by the Revised Penal Code while negligent acts or omissions are to be covered by Art. 77-4 W Z. would vouchsafe adequate legal remedy for that untold number of moral wrongs which it is impossible for human foresight to provide for specifically in the statutes. Al. 1973 NATURE Appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental.337 or Art. which is designed to expand the concept of torts or quasi-delict in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in the statute books.N.´ ³An example will illustrate the purview of the foregoing norm: 'A' seduces the nineteen-year old daughter of 'X. if considered.2176 CC. It is essential however. Zamboanga del Norte". Petitioner has miserably failed to convince Us that both the appellate and trial courts had overlooked any fact of substance or value which could alter the result of the case.
including an artificial lake. Certainly excessive speed in violation of traffic rules is a clear indication of negligence. Hearings were conducted including ocular inspections on the land. . which is procedural. petitioners filed a civil case for damages with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against respondent corporation.Petitioner spouses Emmanuel and Natividad Andamo are the owners of a parcel of land situated in Biga (Biluso) Silang.On April 26. washed away costly fences. WON the lower court erred in saying that the action is not based on quasi-delict since the allegations of the complaint in culpa aquiliana must not be tainted by any assertion of violation of law or traffic rules or regulations and because of the prayer in the complaint asking the Court to declare the defendants jointly and severally liable for moral.Accordingly. YES Ratio An action based on quasi-delict may be maintained independently from a criminal action. Ratio An action shall be deemed to be based on a quasi-delict when all the essential averments under Articles 2176-2194 of the New Civil Code are present. For by either of such actions his interest in the criminal case has disappeared. . having always had its own foundation and individuality. the trial court issued an order suspending further hearings in the civil case until after judgment in the related Criminal Case. prohibition and mandamus FACTS . 33 and 34 of the Civil Code.As a result of this action of petitioners the civil liability of private respondents to the former has ceased to be involved in the criminal action. 1983. grossly negligent and imprudent manner in violation of traffic rules and without due regard to the safety of the passengers
aboard the PU car" does not detract from the nature and character of the action. The former is a violation of the criminal law. or one where reservation to file the civil action need not be made. Undoubtedly an offended party loses his right to intervene in the prosecution of a criminal case. . it is my considered view that the latter provision is inoperative. were constructed. . 39 and 2177 of the Civil Code.. 25 by respondent Pedro Tumala resulting in the collision of the bus with the passenger car.It is. in the cases provided for by Articles 31. it being substantive in character and is not within the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate. subject to the limitation mentioned in the last sentence of Article 2177 of the Civil Code. . It should be emphasized that the same negligent act causing damages may produce a civil liability arising from a crime under Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code or create an action for quasi-delict or culpa extracontractual under Arts. may also be regarded as an unauthorized amendment of substantive law. November 6. precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand. damaged petitioners' crops and plants. The violation of traffic rules is merely descriptive of the failure of said driver to observe for the protection of the interests of others. which do not provide for the reservation required in the proviso. By instituting a civil action based on a quasi-delict. 620-621). Garcia. 2850 should be deemed as the reservation required. I concur in the judgment reversing the order of dismissal of the trial court in order that Civil Case No. caused a young man to drown. there is no question that petitioners never intervened in the criminal action instituted by the Chief of Police against respondent Pedro Tumala. compensatory and exemplary damages. Since Civil Case No. much less has the said criminal action been terminated either by conviction or acquittal of said accused. an enactment of the legislature superseding the Rules of 1940. 2850 is predicated on the above civil code articles and not on the civil liability imposed by the Revised Penal Code. whether as one that should be governed by the provisions of Section 2 of Rule 111 of the Rules which require reservation by the injured party considering that by the institution of the civil action even before the commencement of the trial of the criminal case. 2 in relation to Sec. endangered the lives of petitioners and their laborers during rainy and stormy seasons. however. while the latter is a distinct and independent negligence. namely: a) act or omission of the private respondents. therefore.Besides. . petitioners have in effect abandoned their right to press recovery for damages in the criminal case. which failure resulted in the injury on petitioners. petitioners instituted a criminal action against Efren Musngi.Within the land of respondent corporation. Articles 32. Articles 32. Inc) 191 SCRA 195 FERNAN. 4960) and the civil action by petitioners. 33. a complainant may be deemed to abandon his/her right to press recovery for damages in the criminal case. evident that by the institution of the present civil action for damages.But in whatever way We view the institution of the civil action for recover y of damages under quasi-delict by petitioners. 1964. Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette. HELD 1. et all ( 73 Phil. but it should be noted. may be instituted by the injured party during the pendency of the criminal case. petitioners have thereby foreclosed their right to intervene therein.As we have stated at the outset.On February 22. And later on dismissed the Civil Case for lack of jurisdiction. ANDAMO V IAC (Missionaries Of Our Lady Of La Salette. for the reason that the law itself (Article 33 of the Civil Code) already makes the reservation and the failure of the offended part y to do so does not bar him from bringing the action. 1990 NATURE Petition for certiorari. . b) presence of fault or negligence or the lack of due care in the operation of the passenger bus No." . 1 of Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Court which became effective on January 1. . c) physical injuries and other damages sustained by petitioners as a result of the collision. the injured party is entitled exclusively to the bigger one. and exposed plants and other improvements to destruction. which allegedly inundated and eroded petitioners' land. and even if it were not substantive but adjective.It is true that under Sec. We find no legal justification for respondent court's order of dismissal. 2176-2194 of the New Civil Code. the same negligent act causing damages may produce a civil liability arising from crime or create an action for quasi-delict or culpa extracontractual. officers and directors of respondent corporation. the civil action based upon quasi-delict may proceed independently of the criminal proceeding for criminal negligence and regardless of the result of the latter. I cannot see why a reservation had to be made in the criminal case. but also when he has actually instituted the civil action. because the action in fact satisfies the elements of quasidelict. not only when he has waived the civil action or expressly reserved his right to institute. and e) the absence of pre-existing contractual relations between the parties. that degree of care. 2. . which means that of the two possible judgments. for these articles were drafted .2.In July 1982. and have opted instead to recover them in the present civil case. The proviso. d) existence of direct causal connection between the damage or prejudice and the fault or negligence of private respondents. that neither Section 1 nor Section 2 of Rule 111 fixes a time limit when such reservation shall be made. there being no showing that prejudice could be caused by doing so. Orlando Sapuay and Rutillo Mallillin. an independent civil action entirely separate and distinct from the civil action. a religious corporation. SEPARATE OPINION BARREDO [concur] . under the peculiar circumstances of the case. .Article 2176 and 2177 definitely create a civil liability distinct and different from the civil action arising from the offense of negligence under the Revised Penal Code. provided said party has reserved his right to institute it separately. waterpaths and contrivances. . Reasoning . . As to the specific mention of Article 2177 in Section 2 of the Rule 111. Since the same negligent act resulted in the filing of the criminal action by the Chief of Police with the Municipal Court (Criminal Case No. Inc. for destruction by means of inundation under Article 324 of the Revised Penal Code. . as the criminal case which was instituted ahead of the civil case was still
. it is inevitable that the averments on the drivers' negligence in both complaints would substantially be the same. and are intended to constitute as exceptions to the general rule stated in what is now Section 1 of Rule 111. 2850 may proceed. This distinction has been amply explained in Barredo vs. as one based on culpa aquiliana. Reasoning . Hence.The circumstance that the complaint alleged that respondents violated traffic rules in that the driver drove the vehicle "at a fast clip in a reckless. it cannot stand because of its inconsistency with Article 2177. Some legal writers are of the view that in accordance with Article 31. . 607. Cavite which is adjacent to that of private respondent. YES.In the case at bar. "the proviso in Section 2 of Rule 111 with reference to . 1984. 33 and 34 of the Civil Code is contrary to the letter and spirit of the said articles. the actual filing of Civil Case No.
According to the Report of the Code Commission "the foregoing provision though at first sight startling. was at the time when he received the injuries complained of. Therefore.Article 2176. and David held the cap while Manuel applied a lighted match to the contents. can be held civilly liable for damages under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasidelicts such that the resulting civil case can proceed independently of the criminal case HELD Ratio YES. if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. The same negligence causing damages may produce civil liability arising from a crime under the Penal Code. for to subordinate the civil action contemplated in the said articles to the result of the criminal prosecution ² whether it be conviction or acquittal ² would render meaningless the independent character of the civil action and the clear injunction in Article 31. separate from criminal negligence. and the causal connection between the act and the damage. with a boy named Manuel Claparols. and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two. is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this chapter. in the event of an acquittal where the court has declared that the fact from which the civil action arose did not exist. All the elements of a quasi-delict are present. water conductors and contrivances within its land.While the property involved in the cited case belonged to the public domain and the property subject of the instant case is privately owned. provided that the offended party is not allowed. Manuel had his hand burned and wounded. 1910 NATURE An action to recover damages for the loss of an eye and other injuries. in quasi-delicts. .Article 2176 of the Civil Code imposes a civil liability on a person for damage caused by his act or omission constituting fault or negligence. An explosion followed. who and promised to make them a cylinder for a miniature engine. 1905. having always had its own foundation and individuality. Potenciano. Indeed. by his father. unless. crossed the footbridge to the Isla del Provisor. The former is a violation of the criminal law.The waterpaths and contrivances built by respondent corporation are alleged to have inundated the land of petitioners. .The decision was based on Section 3 (a).The distinctness of quasi-delicta is shown in Article 2177 of the Civil Code. causing more or less serious injuries to all three.After watching the operation of the travelling crane used in handling the defendant's coal. March 22. There is therefore. with no pre-existing contractual obligation between the parties make a clear case of a quasi delict or culpa aquiliana. became frightened and started to run away. is entitled to the use and enjoyment of the stream or lake. Murphy was not in his quarters. instituted by David Taylor. thereby causing inundation and damage to an adjacent land. his nearest relative. in which case the extinction of the criminal liability would carry with it the extinction of the civil liability.On the 30th of September. Article 431 of the Civil Code provides that "the owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such a manner as to injure the rights of a third person. Jessie. . As held in In Azucena vs. David Taylor. like the rest of the residents. a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act. or create an action for quasi-delicts or culpa extra-contractual under the Civil Code. which has built through its agents.unresolved. FACTS .
. If the structures cause injury or damage to an adjoining landowner or a third person. and (c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff. 1986. which is a "culpa aquiliana" or quasidelict. In the case of Castillo vs. there being fault or negligence. and David was struck in
1 Article 2176. to wit: (a) damages suffered by the plaintiff. Dionisio. but after the criminal action has been commenced the civil action cannot be instituted until final judgment has been rendered in the criminal action. spent some time in wandering about the company's premises.In the case of Samson vs. the boys. . the fact remains that petitioners' complaint sufficiently alleges that petitioners have sustained and will continue to sustain damage due to the waterpaths and contrivances built by respondent corporation. who when the boys proposed putting a match to the contents of the cap. of ancient origin. The plaintiff. Here they found some twenty or thirty brass fulminating caps scattered on the ground. Consequently. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. that his action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.
. Finding on inquiry that Mr. thereby causing loss and damages to a third party who. the alleged presence of damage to the petitioners. . assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. (if the tortfeasor is actually charged also criminally)." SIC UTERE TUO UT ALIENUM NON LAEDAS. . an assertion of a causal connection between the act of building these waterpaths and the damage sustained by petitioners. such structures must be so constructed and maintained using all reasonable care so that they cannot be dangerous to adjoining landowners and can withstand the usual and expected forces of nature.Petitioners appealed from that order to the Intermediate Appellate Court. They are intended for use in the explosion of blasting charges of dynamite. now Article 2176 of the Civil Code and held that "any person who without due authority constructs a bank or dike." Reasoning . or some other person for whose acts he must respond. and having considerable aptitude and training in mechanics.. Rule III of the Rules of Court which provides that "criminal and civil actions arising from the same offense may be instituted separately. Court of Appeals. a minor. 2 . Such fault or negligence. the act or omission of respondent corporation supposedly constituting fault or negligence. impelled apparently by youthful curiosity and perhaps by the unusual interest which both seem to have taken in machinery. shall be liable to the payment of an indemnity for loss and damages to the injured party. they opened one of the caps with a knife. ISSUE WON a corporation. the recitals of the complaint. whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. Moreover. the son of a mechanical engineer. this Court held that a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code with a substantivity all its own. the latter can claim indemnification for the injury or damage suffered. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another.On February 17. the acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirely irrelevant in the civil case. waterpaths. 2 Article 2177. to recover damages on both scores. A motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners was denied by the Appellate Court . an employee of the defendant. while the latter is a distinct and independent negligence. of course. (b) fault or negligence of the defendant. covers not only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts criminal in character. 15 years of age. "(t)he civil action is entirely independent of the criminal case according to Articles 33 and 2177 of the Civil Code. Such action if proven constitutes fault or negligence which may be the basis for the recovery of damages. . respondent Appellate Court affirmed the order of the trial court. and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from a delict or crime ² a distinction exists between the civil liability arising from a crime and the responsibility for quasi-delicts or culpa extra-contractual. is obliged to pay for the damage done. whenever it refers to "fault or negligence". plaintiff. the Court applied Article 1902. more mature than the average boy of his age. TAYLOR V MANILA ELECTRIC 16 PHIL 8 CARSON. Such distinction between criminal negligence and "culpa extra-contractual" or "cuasidelito" has been sustained by decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain ." . is not so novel or extraordinary when we consider the exact nature of criminal and civil negligence. adjoining landowners have mutual and reciprocal duties which require that each must use his own land in a reasonable manner so as not to infringe upon the rights and interests of others. about 12 years of age. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. they walked across the open space in the neighborhood of the place where the company dumped in the cinders and ashes from its furnaces. for the purpose of visiting one Murphy.A careful examination of the complaint shows that the civil action is one under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. stopping the flow or communication between a creek or a lake and a river. There can be no logical conclusion than this. and have in themselves a considerable explosive power. Although we recognize the right of an owner to build structures on his land.It must be stressed that the use of one's property is not without limitations. and finding that it was filled with a yellowish substance they got matches.. . whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted.The defendant is a foreign corporation engaged in the operation of a street railway and an electric light system in the city of Manila. received a slight cut in the neck.
. if such injury were attributable to the negligence of the defendant. ART. . . vs. that because of plaintiff's youth the intervention of his action between the negligent act of the defendant in leaving the caps exposed on its premises and the explosion which resulted in his injury should not be held to have contributed in any wise to the accident. upon the provisions of article 1089 of the Civil Code read together with articles 1902. . and neither is contention that a man has a right to do what will with his own property or that children should be kept under the care of their parents or guardians.In the case at bar.In support of his contention. he may not have known and probably did not know the precise nature of the explosion which might be expected from the ignition of the contents of the cap. Owners or directors of an establishment or enterprise are equally liable for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter may be employed or on account of their duties. by contracts. wherein the principal question was whether a railroad company was liable for in injury received by an infant while upon its premises. and illicit acts and omissions or by those in which any kind of fault or negligence occurs. It would be going far to say that "according to his maturity and capacity" he exercised such and "care and caution" as might reasonably be required of him. we are of opinion that under all the circumstances of this case the negligence of the defendant in leaving the caps exposed on its premises was not the proximate cause of the injury received by the plaintiff. ART. despite his denials on the witness stand. ART.50 a day as a mechanical draftsman thirty days after the injury was incurred.We are of opinion that under all the circumstances of this case the negligence of the defendant in leaving the caps exposed on its premises was not the proximate cause of the injury received by the plaintiff. elementary.True. .This conclusion is founded on reason.the face by several particles of the metal capsule. and 1908 of that code. The father.We agree with counsel for appellant that under the Civil Code. or for purposes of amusement.The trial court's decision. his entry upon defendant company's premises. but he well knew that a more or less dangerous explosion might be expected from his act. Plaintiff contends. was able to earn P2.These proposition are. attributable to the negligence of the company). Stout was vigorously controverted and sharply criticized in several courts. While it is the general rule in regard to an adult that to entitle him to recover damages for an injury resulting from the fault or negligence of another he must himself have been free from fault. and this latter the proximate cause of the accident which occasioned the injuries sustained by him. or that defendant or anyone else should be held civilly responsible for injuries incurred by him under such circumstances.). 657)." and. 1903. We are satisfied that the plaintiff in this case had sufficient capacity and understanding to be sensible of the danger to which he exposed himself when he put the match to the contents of the cap. and do not admit of discussion. and this is to be determined in each case by the circumstances of the case. by quasicontracts. awarding damages to the plaintiff. "attributable to the negligence of the defendant. must establish by competent evidence: (1) Damages to the plaintiff. and it is because we can not agree with this proposition. properly speaking. for his own pleasure and convenience. or some person for whose acts it must respond. and necessity. nor how long they had been there when the boys found them. upon the authority of the Turntable and Torpedo cases. ISSUE WON the defendants negligence is the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries HELD NO . and for kindling of explosive substances which may not have been placed in a safe and proper place. that he was sui juris in the sense that his age and his experience qualified him to understand and appreciate the necessity for the exercise of that
.No measures seems to have been adopted by the defendant company to prohibit or prevent visitors from entering and walking about its premises unattended. and had he not thereafter deliberately cut open one of the caps and applied a match to its contents. he well knew the explosive character of the cap with which he was amusing himself.But counsel for plaintiff contends that because of plaintiff's youth and inexperience. one of which injured his right eye to such an extent as to the necessitate its removal by the surgeons who were called in to care for his wounds.The evidence does definitely and conclusively disclose how the caps came to be on the defendant's premises. or if their owner had exercised due care in keeping them in an appropriate place. 1903 The obligation imposed by the preceding article is demandable. ART. 1089 Obligations are created by law. . and strolled around thereon without the express permission of the defendant. if such injury was. . without other fault on his part. which therefore was not. was guilty. and the record discloses throughout that he was exceptionally well qualified to take care of himself. and that the defendant. (3) The connection of cause and effect between the negligence and the damage." . under circumstances. . we are satisfied that plaintiffs action in cutting open the detonating cap and putting match to its contents was the proximate cause of the explosion and of the resultant injuries inflicted upon the plaintiff. which should be deemed to be the direct result of defendant's negligence in leaving the caps exposed at the place where
they were found by the plaintiff. and the intervention of his action between the negligent act of defendant in leaving the caps exposed on its premises and the accident which resulted in his injury should not be held to have contributed in any wise to the accident. in order to establish his right to a recovery. and yet he willfully. more mature both mentally and physically than the average boy of his age. of course. and of course he did not anticipate the resultant injuries which he incurred.The doctrine of the case of Railroad Company vs.As laid down in Railroad Co. . and on his death or incapacity the mother.But while we hold that the entry of the plaintiff upon defendant's property without defendant's express invitation or permission would not have relieved defendant from responsibility for injuries incurred there by plaintiff. The care and caution required of a child is according to his maturity and capacity only. but it is equally clear that plaintiff would not have been injured had he not. Stout (17 Wall. But the doctrine of the case is controlling in our jurisdiction. that we have thought proper to discuss and to consider that doctrine at length in this decision. S. although we accept the doctrine of the Turntable and Torpedo cases. 1908 The owners shall also be liable for the damage caused ² 1 By the explosion of machines which may not have been cared for with due diligence. is liable for the damages caused by the minors who live with them. (84 U. therefore is not civilly responsible for the injuries thus incurred. not only for personal acts and omissions. when they felt disposed so to do. such is not the rule in regard to an infant of tender years. but also for those of the persons for whom they should be responsible. and the cases based thereon. recklessly. from idle curiosity. 1902 A person who by an act or omission causes damage to another when there is fault or negligence shall be obliged to repair the damage so done. counsel for plaintiff relies on the doctrine laid down in many of the courts of last resort in the United States in the cases known as the "Torpedo" and "Turntable" cases. on the other hand. (2) Negligence by act or omission of which defendant personally. the plaintiff in an action such as that under consideration. and had he not picked up and carried away the property of the defendant which he found on its premises. . as under the generally accepted doctrine in the United States. . so as to prevent their entering on the premises of others is of sufficient weight to put in doubt. . The evidence of record leaves no room for doubt that. The liability referred to in this article shall cease when the persons mentioned therein prove that they employed all the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid the damage. entered upon the defendant's premises. justice. . . the real difficulty arising in the application of these principles to the particular facts developed in the case under consideration. it is not exempt from responsibility to such strangers for injuries arising from its negligence or from its tortious acts. the principles on which these cases turn are that "while a railroad company is not bound to the same degree of care in regard to mere strangers who are unlawfully upon its premises that it owes to passengers conveyed by it. and knowingly produced the explosion.It is clear that the accident could not have happened and not the fulminating caps been left exposed at the point where they were found." and that "the conduct of an infant of tender years is not to be judged by the same rule which governs that of adult.Counsel for the defendant and appellant rests his appeal strictly upon his contention that the facts proven at the trial do not established the liability of the defendant company under the provisions of these articles. plaintiff at the time of the accident was a wellgrown youth of 15. he had been to sea as a cabin boy.
In the process however the stock in trade and certain furniture of Vergara were lost and destroyed. 1991 as the latter was to be operated on the next day at 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon. QUASI-DELICT VS DELICT
BARREDO V GARCIA BOCOBO. The company and driver then filed for dismissal of the civil case on the ground that the heirs do not have a cause of action because of the acquittal.The petitioner filed the appeal to the SC questioning the grant of actual damages despite a no guilty verdict.The Court also tackled the provision of Article 29 of the Civil Code to clarify whether a separate civil action is required when the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. this provision refers to a civil action based on an obligation arising from quasi-delict. the acquittal of Romeo Villa was based on reasonable doubt. nevertheless plaintiff's own act was the proximate and principal cause of the accident which inflicted the injury. According to Rowena. ISSUE WON Judge Alcantara correctly dismissed the civil case on the ground of no cause of action due to the acquittal of the driver HELD 1. The SC took the position that the said provision merely emphasizes that a civil action for damages is not precluded by an acquittal for the same criminal act.Rowena Umali De Ocampo accompanied her mother to the Perpetual Help Clinic and General Hospital.Rowena and her mother slept in the clinic on the evening of March 22. NCC provides: ³When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony. the crime of grave coercion was not proved in accordance with the law. The acquittal extinguishes the criminal liability but not the civil liability particularly if the finding is not guilty based on reasonable ground. Inc. the judgment of not guilty was based on reasonable doubt. CRUZ V CA (UMALI) 282 SCRA 188 FRANCISCO. the CA reversed the findings of the CFI and acquitted the appellants based on reasonable doubt but nonetheless ordered them to pay P9. . Sr. 1991.The petitioners were found guilty of grave coercion after trial at the CFI and were sentenced to five months and one day imprisonment and ordered to pay fines. has failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees. which caused his instantaneous death. and scheduled her for a hysterectomy operation on March 23. Pending the criminal case against the driver. she noticed that the clinic was untidy and the window and the floor were very dusty prompting her to ask the attendant for a rag to wipe the window and the floor with.Art. such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter´ . 31. Judge Alcantara granted this and dismissed the civil case. whether on reasonable doubt or not. the acquittal of the driver of the crime charged is not a bar to the prosecution for damages based on quasi-delict Reasoning . particularly defendant Romeo Villa y Cunanan. 1095). That defendant Philippine Rabbit Bus Lino. 1942 PADILLA V CA (Vergara) 129 SCRA 558 GUTIERREZ.degree of caution which would have avoided the injury which resulted from his own deliberate act.In the criminal case..
B. the driver as acquitted based on reasonable doubt. Order of CFI Tarlac set aside. can amend their complaint and base their action also on article 29 NCC which allows an
independent civil action for damages in case of acquittal on the ground of reasonable doubt.The requirement in section 2. 100 Phil. Yatco. . TAYAG V ALCANTARA 98 SCRA 723 CONCEPCION. "acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence. In turn. Otherwise. the accident in question which resulted in the death of Pedro Tayag. but for damages due to a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana". SEPARATE OPINION AQUINO [concur] . DISTINCTIONS 1. the court express a finding that the defendants¶ offenses are civil in nature. The petitioners. July 8. the heirs of Tayag instituted a civil action to recover damages from the company (Phil Rabbit Bus Inc) and the driver.The SC. quoting Section 3 (C) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court and various jurisprudence including PNB vs Catipon. The complaint itself shows that the claim was based on quasi-delit. Citing Elcano v Hill: a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act.I concur because petitioners' action for damages is based on article 2177 of the Civil Code. The stall of one Antonio Vergara was demolished pursuant to this order. so that while it may be true that these injuries would not have been incurred but for the negligence act of the defendant in leaving the caps exposed on its premises. Rowena tried to persuade her mother not to proceed with the operation. Prior to March 22. under which according to the Code Commission.Moreover. and that the injury incurred by him must be held to have been the direct and immediate result of his own willful and reckless act. went to the public market to execute an alleged order of the Mayor to clear the public market of stalls which were considered as nuisance per se. ISSUE WON the CA committed a reversible error in requiring the petitioners to pay civil indemnity to the complainants after acquitting them from the criminal charge HELD NO .
. 1997 NATURE Civil action for damages in a medical malpractice suit. driven by Romeo Villa. . NO Ratio The petitioners' cause of action being based on a quasi-delict. shall not be a bar to a subsequent civil action. 1980 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari the order of CFI Tarlac (dismissing petition for damages) FACTS . Hence. FACTS . The decision of the CA was based on the fact that the petitioners were charged with coercion when they should have been more appropriately charged with crime against person. provided that offended party is not allowed to recover damages on both scores DISPOSITION petition granted.600. Article 33 of the Civil Code also justifies the petitioners' independent civil action for damages since the term "physical injuries" therein embraces death (Dyogi vs. Judge Alcantara granted this motion. Because of the untidy state of the clinic. [date] NATURE Petition of rcertiorari to revies the decision of the Court of Appeals FACTS . In the case at bar. WON he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted. held that extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil. . Lydia was examined by the petitioner who found a "myoma" in her uterus. unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in the final judgment that the facts from which the civil action might arise did not exist. .Evidently. case REMANDED to lower court for further proceedings.´ All the essential averments for a quasi-delictual action are present: (1) act or omission constituting fault /negligence on the part of respondent (2) damage caused by the said act or omission (3) direct causal relation between the damage and the act or omission and (4) no preexisting contractual relation between the parties. as plaintiffs in the civil case. the company and driver filed a motion to suspend trial of the civil case on the ground that the criminal case was still pending. viz: ³6. Rule III of the Rules of Court that there should be a reservation in the criminal cases of the right to institute an independent civil action is contrary to law. .Pedro Tayag was riding a motorcycle when he was bumped by a Philippine Rabbit Bus. .On appeal. not for civil liability from criminal negligence.Petitioners. 1991.00 as actual damages. Since the standard of proof to be used in civil cases is preponderance of evidence. on or about February 8. 1964. De Guzman vs Alvia. and damage to his property would not have occurred. July 23. .
July 29. (2) that the doing or the failure to do that act is voluntary.Napoleon Macadangdang was found guilty and convicted of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to triple homicide. vested rights are acquired by the winning party. the absence of the fourth element of reckless imprudence: that the injury to the person or property was a consequence of the reckless imprudence. While they were waiting. not the court. and the assailed Resolutions AFFIRMED. nullifying or defeating the judgment. 1986. The deference of courts to the expert opinion of qualified physicians stems from its realization that the latter possess unusual technical skills which laymen in most instances are incapable of intelligently evaluating. Ercillo reoperated on her because there was blood oozing from the abdominal incision. DISPOSITION Petition is hereby DENIED. but it was not denied its day in court. the accused-employee has escaped and refused to surrender to the proper authorities. as in the instant case. But admittedly. He was allegedly
. Her death certificate states "shock" as the immediate cause of death and "Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (DIC)" as the antecedent cause. nullify or defeat a final judgment rendered by a competent court. unless the contrary is sufficiently established. but also with regard to its amount. as they are deemed to have waived the appeal. But in the event the the accused becoems insolvent. Lydia was already in shock and possibly dead as her blood pressure was already 0/0. While petitioner was closing the abdominal wall. the petitioner informed them that the operation was finished. Apparently the oxygen supply had run out and Rowena's husband together with the driver of the accused had to go to the San Pablo District Hospital to get oxygen. a seventeen-year old working student who was earning his keep as a cigarette vendor.In litigations involving medical negligence. The liability of an employer cannot be separated from that of the employee. Consequently. there must be proof of breach of duty on the part of the surgeon as well as a casual connection of such breach and the resulting death of his patient.In fact. Lydia was given the fresh supply of oxygen as soon as it arrived. (4) that material damage results from the reckless imprudence. .For whether a physician or surgeon has exercised the requisite degree of skill and care in the treatment of his patient is.At around 10pm. Dr. RTC convicted Fernando Gabat. when Dr. . multiple physical injuries and damage to property and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of 4 years. it can be said that by jumping bail. a person arrived to donate blood which was later transfused to Lydia. Phil. PEOPLE V LIGON 152 SCRA 419 YAP. he is deemed to have abandoned his appeal. it participated in the proceedings before the RTC. then the former has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of the case. However. may appeal the judgment of conviction independently of the accused HELD NO . Lydia was brought out of the operating room in a stretcher and the petitioner asked Rowena and the other relatives to buy additional blood for Lydia. gasping for breath. Unfortunately. and other circumstances regarding persons. If the proper losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period. head of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department of the San Pablo District Hospital. ISSUE WON an employer. Some thirty minutes after.Rowena and her other relatives waited outside the operating room while Lydia underwent operation. Bartolome Angeles.. and (5) that there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender. Ercillo went out of the operating room and instructed them to buy tagamet ampules which Rowena's sister immediately bought. . it cannot be said that the employer was deprived of due process. and to pay damages. The petitioner called Lydia into her office and the two had a conversation. they cannot seek relief from the court. physical condition. the patient died. the accused jumped bail and remained at large. Rowena and her other relatives then boarded a tricycle and followed the ambulance. While at large. . to allow them to appeal the final criminal conviction of their employees without the latter¶s consent would also result in improperly amending. 9 months and 11 days to 6 years. Lydia then informed Rowena that the petitioner told her that she must be operated on as scheduled. thus. Rowena then noticed her mother. .Thereafter.The elements of reckless imprudence are: (1) that the offender does or fails to do an act. . . In fact. Rabbit will be held liable for the civil liabilities. The operating staff then went inside the petitioner's clinic to take their snacks. of Robbery with Homicide and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua where he robbed and killed Jose Rosales y Ortiz. They bought type "A" blood and the same was brought by the attendant into the operating room. that petitioner was recklessly imprudent in the exercise of her duties as a surgeon.Even without expert testimony. Lydia's unstable condition necessitated her transfer to the San Pablo District Hospital so she could be connected to a respirator and further examined. About one hour had passed when Dr. the accused-employee. Angeles arrived. Thus. . deprived petitioner of the right to appeal. who was attached to an oxygen tank.February 17. Costs against petitioner. time and place. Rowena asked the petitioner if the operation could be postponed. employers are subsidiarily liable for the adjudicated civil liabilities of their employees in the event of the latter¶s insolvency. . who dutifully participated in the defense of its accused-employee. The attending physicians summoned Dr. degree of intelligence. 2004 NATURE Petition for Review FACTS . Expert testimony should have been offered to prove that the circumstances cited by the courts below are constitutive of conduct falling below the standard of care employed by other physicians in good standing when performing the same operation. PHIL.On Subsidiary Liability Upon Finality of Judgment: . petitioner admits that by helping the accused-employee. they were not able to comply with petitioner's order as there was no more type "A" blood available in the blood bank.Upon Lydia's arrival at the San Pablo District Hospital. she was wheeled into the operating room and the petitioner and Dr. This presumption is rebuttable by expert opinion which is so sadly
lacking in the case at bench. Ercillo came out again this time to ask them to buy blood for Lydia. a matter of expert opinion. April 14.After the lapse of a few hours. In the case before us.The accused cannot be accorded the right to appeal unless they voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the court or are otherwise arrested within 15 days from notice of the judgment against them. the plaintiff has the burden of establishing appellant's negligence and for a reasonable conclusion of negligence. in the generality of cases. RABBIT V PEOPLE GR NO. ISSUE WON the circumstances are sufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction against the petitioner for the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide HELD NO . It must be remembered that when the qualifications of a physician are admitted.After a judgment has become final.Under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. there is an inevitable presumption that in proper cases he takes the necessary precaution and employs the best of his knowledge and skill in attending to his clients. . thus. (3) that it be without malice. It might have lost its right to appeal. 1987 NATURE Appeal from the judgment of the RTC Manila FACTS . .147703 PANGANIBAN. . By the same token. she went into shock and her blood pressure dropped to 60/50. taking into consideration his employment or occupation.The decision convicting an employee in a criminal case is binding and conclusive upon the employer not only with regard to the former¶s civil liability. no cogent proof exists that any of these circumstances caused petitioner's death. . the judgment against him has become final and executory.WON has committed an "inexcusable lack of precaution" in the treatment of his patient is to be determined according to the standard of care observed by other members of the profession in good standing under similar circumstances bearing in mind the advanced state of the profession at the time of treatment or the present state of medical science. The transfer to the San Pablo City District Hospital was without the prior consent of Rowena nor of the other relatives present who found out about the intended transfer only when an ambulance arrived to take Lydia to the San Pablo District Hospital. .The following day.To allow employers to dispute the civil liability fixed in a criminal case would enable them to amend.
The Kombi did not stop after the victim fell down on the pavement near the foot of the underpass. there could be no reason for the latter to run after the Kombi and hang on to its window.The trial court gave full credence to the prosecution's version. Patrolmen Leonardo Pugao and Peter Ignacio. But for the purpose of indemnifying the complaining party. also went along with them. One affects the social order and the other. otherwise. His testimony that he saw Gabat grab the cigarette box from Rosales and forcibly pry loose the latter's hand from the windowsill of the Kombi is thus subject to a reasonable doubt. the offense should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. .Considering the above circumstances.While the prosecution witness. It was found out that there was a third person inside the Kombi. He is therefore entitled to acquittal on reasonable doubt. As to what precisely happened between Gabat and Rosales at the crucial moment. The court said that it is of common knowledge that cigarette
vendors plying their trade in the streets do not let go of their cigarette box. while he was trying to get from his pocket the change for the 5peso bill of Gabat. and the Kombi driven by Rogelio Ligon suddenly moved forward. is not entirely free from doubt because his observation of the event could have been faulty or mistaken. was riding in a 1978 Volkswagen Kombi owned by his father and driven by the other accused. When they reached the Luneta near the Rizal monument. bilateral. otherwise. Fernando Gabat. cigarette vendors. The taxicab driver. The taxicab which Castillo was driving was lower in height compared to the Kombi in which Gabat was ridinga fact admitted by Castillo at the trial. 1983. if taken into account. . a certain Rodolfo Primicias who was sleeping at the rear seat. 1983 . Castillo saw an owner-type jeep with two persons in it.a careful review of the record shows that certain material facts and circumstances had been overlooked by the trial court which. however." The two men in the jeep joined the chase and at the intersection of Vito Cruz and Roxas Boulevard. may be a disinterested witness with no motive. according to the court a quo. . . The two responsibilities are so different from each other that article 1813 of the present (Spanish) Civil Code reads thus: "There may be a compromise upon the civil action arising from a crime. 1984 . It is not controverted. Gabat. and both vehicles during that time were moving fast in the traffic. when the latter is not proved.On the other hand. The reasoning followed is that inasmuch as the civil responsibility is derived from the criminal offense.the co-accused. civil liability cannot be demanded. 1983. 1983 .Assistant Fiscal Cantos filed another information against Rogelio Ligon and Fernando Gabat for Robbery with Homicide based on a Supplemental Affidavit of Prudencio Castillo and a joint affidavit of Armando Espino and Romeo Castil. While waiting. that as the Kombi continued to speed towards Quiapo. dated October 23.The three were all brought by the police officers to the Western Police District and turned over to Pfc. Rosales to buy some cigarettes from him. . ISSUE WON the prosecution¶s set of facts should be given credence HELD NO . . which provides that the acquittal of the accused on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt does not necessarily exempt him from civil liability for the same act or omission. It has given rise to numberless instances of miscarriage of justice. would alter the result of the case in that they would introduce an element of reasonable doubt which would entitle the accused to acquittal. and to determine the logical result of the distinction.Article 29 of the Civil Code. the quantum of proof necessary to sustain Gabat's conviction of so serious a crime as robbery with homicide has not been met in this case." It is just and proper that. These affidavits were already prepared and merely sworn to before Fiscal Cantos on January 17.at about 6:10 p. . Recto Avenue.M. Gabat beckoned a cigarette vendor. He was traveling on the same lane in a slightly oblique position. Fermin Payuan.However. As the taxicab was right behind the Kombi. who allegedly witnessed the incident . In our view. 1984.October 23.00 more or less. has been explained by the Code Commission as follows: "The old rule that the acquittal of the accused in a criminal case also releases him from civil liability is one of the most serious flaws in the Philippine legal system. . occupying approximately one-third (1/3) of the rear end of the vehicle.6 Fernando Gabat and Rodolfo Primicias were released early morning the following day. . even if not tainted with bias." . where he was treated for multiple physical injuries and was confined thereat until his death on October 30. but Rogelio Ligon was detained and turned over to the City Fiscal's Office for further investigation. stating that there can be no doubt that Gabat forcibly took or grabbed the cigarette box from Rosales because. Rogelio Ligon. Castillo pursued it as it sped towards Roxas Boulevard. They drew their guns and told the driver. no vendor lets go of his precious box of cigarettes in order to change a peso bill given by a customer. why should the offense also be proved beyond reasonable doubt? Is not the invasion or violation of every private right to be proved only by a preponderance of evidence? Is the right of the aggrieved person any less private because the wrongful act is also punishable by the criminal law?
. Castillo was able to overtake the Kombi when the traffic light turned red. private rights. "other than to see that justice be done. Ligon which was coming from España Street going towards the direction of Quiapo. to alight from the Kombi. He sought their assistance in chasing the Kombi. it does not follow that a person who is not criminally liable is also free from civil liability. The two liabilities are separate and distinct from each other. 1983 . the trial court dismissed as incredible the testimony of Gabat that the cigarette vendor placed the cigarette box on the windowsill of the Kombi. Castillo. is the subject of conflicting versions by the prosecution and the defense. At the intersection of Quezon Boulevard and Lerma Street before turning left towards the underpass at C. .Judicial notice may also be taken of the fact that the rear windshield of the 1978 Volkswagon Kombi is on the upper portion. One is for the punishment or correction of the offender while the other is for reparation of damages suffered by the aggrieved party.an autopsy was conducted by the medico-legal officer of NBI which stated the cause of death of Rosales as "pneumonia hypostatic.robbed of his cigarette box containing cigarettes worth P300. filed an information against Rogelio Ligon charging him with Homicide thru Reckless Imprudence.prosecution tried to establish. . Rosales was rushed by some bystanders to the Philippine General Hospital. While the guilt of the accused in a criminal prosecution must be established beyond reasonable doubt. but the public action for the imposition of the legal penalty shall not thereby be extinguished. Rosales clung to the window of the Kombi but apparently lost his grip and fell down on the pavement. through the sole testimony of the taxicab driver that Gabat grabbed the box of cigarettes from Rosales and pried loose the latter's hand from the window of the Kombi. resulting in the latter falling down and hitting the pavement. specially considering that this occurrence happened in just a matter of seconds. and his companion. beeping his horn to make the driver stop.m. and immediately thereafter. Prudencio Castillo. the Court is not convinced with moral certainty that the guilt of the accused Fernando Gabat has been established beyond reasonable doubt.Following close behind (about 3 meters) the Kombi at the time of the incident was a taxicab driven by Castillo.Investigating Fiscal Cantos. having already been able to balance himself on the stepboard. thus making it visually difficult for Castillo to observe clearly what transpired inside the Kombi at the front end where Gabat was seated. The court also believed Castillo's testimony that Gabat forcibly removed or pried off the right hand of Rosales from the windowsill of the Kombi. the latter could not have fallen down. the traffic light changed to green. was never apprehended and is still at large. Payuan also prepared a Traffic Accident Report. Such reasoning fails to draw a clear line of demarcation between criminal liability and civil responsibility. telling them "nakaaksidente ng tao. . Castillo's line of vision was partially obstructed by the back part of the Kombi. where the acquittal was due to a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court as to the guilt of the accused." his testimony. secondary to traumatic injuries of the head. He immediately blocked the Kombi while the jeep pulled up right behind it.June 28. "This is one of those cases where confused thinking leads to unfortunate and deplorable consequences. While this transaction was occurring. they stopped. The two men on board the jeep turned out to be police officers.October 31. holding it with his left hand. following it at a distance of about three meters. Rosales approached the Kombi and handed Gabat two sticks of cigarettes.December 6. only a preponderance of evidence is required in a civil action for damages. for the purposes of the imprisonment of or fine upon the accused. These are circumstances which must be taken into consideration in evaluating Castillo's testimony as to what exactly happened between Gabat and the cigarette vendor during that crucial moment before the latter fell down. . Rogelio Ligon.
DISPOSITION Appellant acquitted for the crime of robbery and homicide. such third persons suffer damage. 1915. located upon the line of the defendant railroad company. Extra-contractual obligation has its source in the breach or omission of those mutual duties which civilized society imposes upon its members. of certain members of society to others.In commenting upon article 1093. found the facts substantially as above stated. rests upon the fact that in cases of non-contractual obligation it is the wrongful or negligent act or omission itself which creates the vinculum juris.the age. and the train station was lit dimly by a single light located some distance away. . he instituted this proceeding in the CFI Manilato recover damages of the defendant company. A master who exercises all possible care in the selection of his servant. and directs them with equal diligence. Expenses reached the sum of P 790. by reason of the negligence of his servants. and it is clear that the fall of the plaintiff was due to the fact that his foot alighted upon one of these melons at the moment he stepped upon the platform.but upon the principle announced in article 1902 which imposes upon all persons who by their fault or negligence.Its liability is direct and immediate. Article 1903 presumes negligence. ISSUE WON there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff HELD NO
Ratio In determining the question of contributory negligence in performing such act . Gulf and Pacific Co.25 in the form of medical and surgical fees and for other expenses in connection with the process of his curation. . 1918 NATURE An appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance disallowing the claim of the plaintiff for P1. do injury to another. took his position upon the steps of the coach. . . even within the scope of their employment. and the plaintiff appealed. which can be rebutted by proof of the exercise of due care in their selection and supervision. The breach of these general duties whether due to willful intent or to mere inattention. taking into consideration the qualifications they should possess for the discharge of the duties which it is his purpose to confide to them. McElroy. Their presence caused the plaintiff to fall as he alighted from the train. and physical condition of the passenger are circumstances necessarily affecting the safety of the passenger. where his right arm was badly crushed and lacerated. The legal rights of each member of society constitute the measure of the corresponding legal duties. His statement that he failed to see these objects in the darkness is readily to be credited." . Emilio Zuniga. but by mere negligence or inattention. The fundamental distinction between obligations of this character and those which arise from contract. an action is brought upon the theory of the extra-contractual liability of the defendant to respond for the damage caused by the carelessness of his employee while acting within the scope of his employment The Court. founding his action upon the negligence of the servants and employees of the defendant in placing the sacks of melons upon the platform and in leaving them so placed as to be a menace to the security of passenger alighting from the company's trains. . When Jose Cangco stepped off. QUASI-DELICT VS BREACH OF CONTRACT
CANGCO V MANILA RAILROAD CO 38 Phil 768 FISHER.Under the Spanish law. alighting safely at the point where the platform begins to rise from the level of the ground. Rizal. Article 1903 of the Civil Code is not applicable to obligations arising ex contractu. without willful intent. the court was made to rest squarely upon the proposition that article 1903 is not applicable to acts of negligence which constitute the breach of a contract. As the train slowed down another passenger. After the plaintiff alighted from the train the car moved forward possibly six meters before it came to a full stop. . he used a pass. said: (1) That when an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or employee there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the master or employer either in the selection of the servant or employee. other than contractual. Manresa clearly points out the difference between "culpa. Judgment was accordingly entered in favor of the defendant company. and (2) that presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure. generally embraced in the concept of status. . At the hearing in the CFI. This row of sacks was so placed that there was a space of only about two feet between the sacks of melons and the edge of the platform.In the Rakes vs. Litonjua and Leynes. which entitled him to ride upon the company's trains free of charge. Atlantic. 1915. has caused damage to another. or which arise from these relations. He was immediately brought to a hospital where an examination was made and his arm was amputated. and although negligence was attributable to the defendant by reason of the fact that the sacks of melons were so placed as to obstruct passengers passing to and from the cars. the trial judge. and consequently. or both. in cases imposed upon employers with respect to damages due to the negligence of their employees to persons to whom they are not bound by contract. thereby performs his duty to third persons to whom he is bound by no contractual ties. and should be considered. . and that the obligation to respond for the damage which plaintiff has suffered arises from the breach of that contract by reason of the failure of defendant to exercise due care in its performance.August 31.The plaintiff was drawn from under the car in an unconscious condition. sex. gives rise to an obligation to indemnify the injured party. . It follows necessarily that if the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in selection and supervision he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family. after citing the last paragraph of article 1903 of the Civil Code. . . His body at once rolled from the platform and was drawn under the moving car. He lived in San Mateo. one or both of his feet came in contact with a sack of watermelons with the result that his feet slipped from under him and he fell violently on the platform. whether the passenger acted prudently or recklessly . objects on the platform where the accident occurred were difficult to discern. The plaintiff was then carried to another hospital where a second operation was performed and the member was again amputated higher up near the shoulder.The foundation of the legal liability of the defendant is the contract of carriage. the presumption is overcome and he is relieved from liability. October 14. .On the side of the train where passengers alight at the San Mateo station there is a cement platform which begins to rise with a moderate gradient some distance away from the company's office and extends along in front of said office for a distance sufficient to cover the length of several coaches. supplied by the company.that is to say. .000 against the estate of the deceased James P.January 20. and he incurs no liability whatever if. the plaintiff himself had failed to use due caution in alighting from the coach and was therefore precluded from recovering. and with serious injuries.The accident occurred on a dark night.The liability arising from extra-contractual culpa is always based upon a voluntary act or omission which.
2.. substantive and independent. if productive of injury. the obligation of making good the damage caused. was employed by Manila Railroad Company as clerk. which the existence of those rights imposes upon all other members of society. may be rebutted. which of itself constitutes the source of an obligation between persons not formerly connected by any legal tie" and culpa considered as an "accident in the performance of an obligation already existing . FACTS .Jose Cangco. imposed by article 1903 of the Civil Code.Every legal obligation must of necessity be extra-contractual or contractual.The sack of melons on the platform is because it was the customary season for harvesting these melons and a large lot had been brought to the station for shipment to the market. especially to a person emerging from a lighted car. It follows that the defendant company is liable for the damage unless recovery is barred by the plaintiff's own contributory negligence. the plaintiff was returning home by rail from his daily labors. . such is not based upon the principle of respondent superior . nevertheless. whereas in contractual relations the vinculum exists
.In Bahia vs. or in supervision over him after the selection. and as the train drew up to the station in San Mateo the plaintiff while making his exit through the door. and that they constituted an effective legal cause of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. also an employee of the railroad company. but that presumption is refutable. Reasoning . and in coming daily by train to the company's office in the city of Manila where he worked. got off the same car. but only to extracontractual obligations .The employees of the railroad company were guilty of negligence in piling these sacks on the platform. but sentenced to indemnify the heirs of Jose Rosales y Ortiz.
2219. 2176 of the Code expressly excludes the cases where there is a "preexisting contractual relation between the parties. if there is no pro-existing contractual relation between the parties. we are likewise in full accord. if the accident was caused by plaintiff's own negligence. 2220 specifically provides for the damages that are caused by contractual breach. we have the logical result . "It may be admitted that had plaintiff waited until the train had come to a full stop before alighting. to some extent. Rule: no moral damages .The railroad company's defense involves the assumption that even granting that the negligent conduct of its servants in placing an obstruction upon the platform was a breach of its contractual obligation to maintain safe means of approaching and leaving its trains. and judgment is hereby rendered plaintiff for the sum of P3. and was accorded. The plaintiff was possessed of the vigor and agility of young manhood. under the circumstance. the bank's internal security procedures and policy would appear to be. It is to be considered whether an ordinarily prudent person.In considering the probability of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff the following circumstances are to be noted: The company's platform was constructed upon a level higher than that of the roadbed and the surrounding ground. Whoever by act or omission caused damage to another. as it was his daily custom to get on and off the train at this station. While the vehicle was descending the Sta. the damages should be apportioned. sex and condition of the passenger. Ratio Moral damages are not recoverable in damage actions predicated on a breach of the contract of transportation. February 23. Such fault or negligence.000. 38 Phil. Five of the passengers were injured. "An attempt to alight from a moving train is negligence per se. there being fault or negligence. Luis A. Upon his request.290. but the care which a man of ordinary prudence would use under similar circumstances. and prevent us from viewing the action for breach of contract as simultaneously embodying an action on tort. .L. SEPARATE OPINION MALCOLM . such damages are justly due. Under the doctrine of comparative negligence announced in the Rakes case. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.. xxx xxx xxx ART. wanton or deliberately injurious conduct. is obliged to pay for the damage done. 1953. to avoid injury. should be absolved from the complaint. and for the costs of both instances. and upon interposing a plea of guilty was sentenced accordingly. 1953. the first on May 23. as well as the codal concept of quasi-delict as essentially extra contractual negligence.In August 1988. causing it to swerve and to hit the bridge wall. would have acted as the passenger acted under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence. Luna. the limitation imposed by the new Code on the amount of the recovery. FORES V MIRANDA 105 PHIL 266 REYES. but because the definition of quasi-delict in Act. whereas if the accident was caused by defendant's negligence and plaintiff's negligence merely contributed to his injury.The Court is of the opinion that the correct doctrine relating to this subject is that expressed in Thompson's work on Negligence: "The test by which to determine whether the passenger has been guilty of negligence in attempting to alight from a moving railway train. . and (b) That a breach of contract can not be considered included in the description term "analogous cases" used in Art.the Manila Railroad Co.. namely. which provide as follows: "ART. The action for breach of contract imposes on the defendant carrier a presumption of liability upon mere proof of injury to the passenger. that entitles the spouse. Clarita submitted an affidavit of loss. DISPOSITION The decision of the Court of Appeals is modified by eliminating the award of P5. the driver lost control thereof.Exception: with moral damages if: y defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith y result in the death of a passenger in which case Article 1764 makes the common carrier expressly subject to the rule of Art. therefore. and a third one to remove such splint.00 by way of moral damages FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY V CA 241 SCRA 671 VITUG. of the age.The difference in conditions.25. thereby decreasing the risk incident to stepping off. He was taken to the National Orthopedic Hospital for treatment. J. and the burden is placed on the carrier to prove the it was due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure (Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co.Reason: the advantageous position of a party suing a carrier for breach of the contract of transportation explains. descendants and ascendants of the deceased passenger to "demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased" . the direct and proximate cause of the injury suffered by plaintiff was his own contributory negligence in failing to wait until the train had come to a complete stop before alighting. important to ascertain if defendant was in fact guilty of negligence. In order to replace the lost card. a second. FEBTC was forthwith informed. Mesa bridge at an excessive rate of speed. 1995 NATURE: Petition for review FACTS . 2176.In sum the rule is: Delict (breach of contract) Gen." . we are of full accord. is essential to justify an award of moral damages..B. and later was subjected to a series of operations. (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries.With one sentence in the majority decision.
." With the general rule relative to a passenger's contributory negligence. is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provision of this Chapter. the particular injury suffered by him could not have occurred." Adding these two points together.independently of the breach of the voluntary duty assumed by the parties when entering into the contractual relation. namely. March 4. including the respondent who suffered a fracture of the upper right humerus. At the time of the trial. when wire loops were wound around the broken bones and screwed into place.In October 1986. the carrier. is that of ordinary or reasonable care. It is the Court¶s conclusion that the conduct of the plaintiff in undertaking to alight while the train was yet slightly under way was not characterized by imprudence and that therefore he was not guilty of contributory negligence. effected to insert a metal splint. The place was perfectly familiar to the plaintiff. ISSUE WON the defendant is entitled to moral damages HELD NO. Moreover." Reasoning (a) In case of breach of contract (including one of transportation) proof of bad faith or fraud (dolus). 2219. In cases of this nature. 2206." "ART. There could be no uncertainty in his mind with regard either to the length of the step which he was required to take or the character of the platform where he was alighting. Clarita lost her credit card. The distance from the steps of the car to the spot where the alighting passenger would place his feet on the platform was thus reduced. This care has been defined to be. It is. i. it appears that respondent had not yet recovered the use of his right arm. 1959 NATURE Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals FACTS . 768 777).to meanwhile so record the lost card. unlike in suits for quasi-delict. The cement platform also assured to the passenger a stable and even surface on which to alight. that latter is relieved from the duty to establish the fault of the carrier." . or of his employees. Luna applied for.. the bank also issued a supplemental card to Clarita S.
. . compel us to differentiate between action ex contractu. not the care which may or should be used by the prudent man generally. 2220.Respondent was one of the passengers on a jeepney driven by Eugenio Luga. and judgment affirmed. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries. in view of Articles 2219 and 2220 of the new Civil Code. The accident occurred on the morning of March 22. [dissent] . may not escape liability by proving that it has exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees . a FAREASTCARD issued by petitioner Far East Bank and Trust Company ("FEBTC") at its Pasig Branch.e. defenses and proof. and it was by no means so risky for him to get off while the train was yet moving as the same act would have been in an aged or feeble person. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that.The driver was charged with serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence. and actions quasi ex delicto. not only because Art. no liability is imposed upon defendant. DISPOSITION The decision of the lower court is reversed.
but because the definition of quasi-delict in Art. 2220 they limited recovery of moral damages to breaches of contract in bad faith. .
. not only because Art. such damages are justly due. but the fact must be shown in evidence.Fores vs. negligence. 2220 specifically provides for the damages that are caused contractual breach. good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. . in view of Articles 2219 and 2220 of the new Civil Code. Article 21 is a mere declaration of a general principle in human relations that clearly must. would be to violate the clear provisions of the law. and in the case at bar there is no other evidence of such malice to support the award of moral damages by the Court of Appeals. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries. descendants and ascendants of the deceased passenger to "demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. To pay for the lunch. the RTC of Pasig ordered FEBTC to pay private respondents (a) P300. . that this difference was in the mind of the lawmakers when in Art. But the exceptional rule of Art. in a contract of carriage. can sufficiently indicate any deliberate intent on the part of FEBTC to cause harm to private respondents. its application can be warranted only when the defendant's disregard of his contractual obligation is so deliberate as to approximate a degree of misconduct certainly no less worse than fraud or bad faith.The Court has not in the process overlooked another rule that a quasi-delict can be the cause for breaching a contract that might thereby permit the application of applicable principles on tort even where there is a pre-existing contract between the plaintiff and the defendant This doctrine. Exceptionally. moral damages are not recoverable unless it is proved that the carrier was guilty of malice or bad faith. Furthermore. in which case Article 1764 makes the common carrier expressly subject to the rule of Art.Art. xxx xxx xxx .000.. FAREASTCARD undertakes the necessary action to avert its unauthorized use to protect its cardholders.00 exemplary damages. in this context. We have repeatedly ruled that moral damages are not recoverable in damage actions predicated on a breach of the contract of transportation. . the unfortunate incident occurred). William Anthony King. . demanded from FEBTC the payment of damages. the same must be discarded. 21.000.On 30 March 1990. To award moral damages for breach of contract. bad faith or malice in the sense of deliberate or wanton wrong doing and negligence (as mere carelessness) is too fundamental in our law to be ignored (Arts. Wilful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that. Luis was forced to pay in cash the bill amounting to P588.00 moral damages. Adrian V. . 2176 of the Code expressly excludes the cases where there is a "preexisitng contractual relations between the parties. 1764 makes it all the more evident that where the injured passenger does not die. is obliged to pay for the damage done.Festejo also sent a letter to the Manager of the Bahia Rooftop Restaurant to assure the latter that Luis was a "very valued clients" of FEBTC." A copy of this reply was sent to Luis by Festejo. F&B Manager of the Intercon. Most importantly.The distinction between fraud.Still evidently feeling aggrieved. . 2219. expressed the bank's apologies to Luis in his letter which stated that: In cases when a card is reported to our office as lost. cannot improve private respondents' case for it can aptly govern only where the act or omission complained of would constitute an actionable tort independently of the contract. a Fil-Am. in any case. is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. as a "Hot Card" or "Cancelled Card" in its master file. 2176. FEBTC has come to this Court with this petition for review. a VP of the bank. give way to the specific provision of Article 2220 of the Civil Code authorizing the grant of moral damages in culpa contractual solely when the breach is due to fraud or bad faith. .Bad faith. 1988. even if we are to assume that the provision could properly relate to a breach of contract.Article 21 of the Code. if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. Luis tendered a despedida lunch for a close friend.Article 21 states: Art. and (c) P20. The Civil Code provides: . bad faith.00 attorney's fees. 2220. However. Such fault or negligence.Its motion for reconsideration having been denied by the appellate court.In a letter. We think it is clear that the mere carelessness of the carrier's driver does not per se constitute or justify an inference of malice or bad faith on the part of the carrier. malice or wanton attitude. under the circumstances. .In case of fraud. In contracts and quasi-contracts. dated 11 Oct." .along with the principal card. includes gross. 2220. that entitles the spouse. therefore. unfortunately.By contrasting the provisions of these two articles it immediately becomes apparent that: (a) In case of breach of contract (including one of transportation) proof of bad faith or fraud ( dolus). (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries. Nothing in the findings of the trial court and the appellate court. contemplates a conscious act to cause harm. 2219. It is true that negligence may be occasionally so gross as to amount to malice. 2220. Naturally. ISSUE WON the petitioner is entitled to moral and exemplary damages HELD NO . Festejo. Luis felt embarrassed by this incident. . The test (whether a quasi-delict can be
. (b) P50.Art. however. the bank was remiss in indeed neglecting to personally inform Luis of his own card's cancellation.e.Art. Since the card was not honored. .It is to be presumed. moral damages are also allowed in case of death of a passenger attributable to the fault (which is presumed ) of the common carrier. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another. their consequences being clearly differentiated by the Code. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted.Concededly. and (b) That a breach of contract can not be considered included in the descriptive term "analogous cases" used in Art. 2206. without proof of bad faith or malice on the part of the defendant. Luis presented his FAREASTCARD to the attending waiter who promptly had it verified through a telephone call to the bank's Credit Card Department. the damages for which the obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation. wrote back to say that the credibility of Luis had never been "in question. wanton or deliberately injurious conduct. 11701172). it failed to inform him about its security policy. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that.On appeal to the Court of Appeals. we quote: Anent the moral damages ordered to be paid to the respondent. under the circumstances. . as required by Art. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. . 2201. there being fault or negligence. i.Malice or bad faith implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity. Neither could FEBTC's negligence in failing to give personal notice to Luis be considered so gross as to amount to malice or bad faith.On 06 October 1988. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.13. .Art. xxx xxx xxx . Miranda explained with great clarity the predominance that we should give to Article 2220 in contractual relations. The exception to the basic rule of damages now under consideration is a mishap resulting in the death of a passenger. through counsel. . such damages are justly due. and another guest at the Bahia Rooftop Restaurant of the Hotel Intercon Manila. in the absence of statutory provision to the contrary. the appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court. moral damages may be recovered where the defendant is shown to have acted in bad faith or with malice in the breach of the contract. Thus. Luis filed a complaint for damages with the RTC of Pasig against FEBTC. it is different from the negative idea of negligence in that malice or bad faith contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will.Art. Luis Luna. but not simple. and a carrier's bad faith is not to be lightly inferred from a mere finding that the contract was breached through negligence of the carrier's employees.In culpa contractual. which provide as follows: .000. and constitute unwarranted judicial legislation. it should be observed. . is essential to justify an award of moral damages. an overzealous employee of the Bank's Credit Card Department did not consider the possibility that it may have been him who was presenting the card at that time (for which reason. the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation.
that. the court may award exemplary damages if the defendant is found to have acted in a wanton. oppressive. was cured by the evidence. Cuento.16 They consist of the court's "conclusions with respect to the determinative facts in issue" . In contracts and quasi-contracts. NO. it would also be just as arduous to sustain the exemplary damages granted by the courts below. Carrascoso and pacified Mr."The mere failure to specify (in the decision) the contentions of the appellant and the reasons for refusing to believe them is not sufficient to hold the same contrary to the requirements of the provisions of law and the Constitution". is no error for said court to withhold therefrom "any specific finding of facts with respect to the evidence for the defense". . 2208. the Bangkok-Teheran leg. according to said Ernesto G.Constitution mandates that a judgment determining the merits of the case shall state "clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based" and that "Every decision of the Court of Appeals shall contain complete findings of fact on all issues properly raised before". However. but that such would depend upon the availability of first class seats. CA held that Air France should know whether or not the tickets it issues are to be honored or not. WON the amounts awarded to Carrascoso was excessive HELD 1. the act or omission complained of cannot by itself be held to stand as a separate cause of action or as an independent actionable tort. in the words of the witness Ernesto G. embarrassments and humiliations. Civil Code). serious anxiety. private respondents' damage claim is predicated solely on their contractual relationship. accordingly.QUESTION OF LAW: one which does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties 2.There was a contract to furnish plaintiff a first class passage covering.Carrascoso. Ratio . a civil engineer. and told defendant's Manager that his seat would be taken over his dead body. by reason of which he suffered inconvenience.Exemplary or corrective damages. -Also. Obiter. when his action is planted upon breach of contract and thus. petitioner is ordered to pay private respondent Luis A. when Carrascoso was asked to confirm his seat in Bangkok. Reasoning . "only questions of law may be raised" in an appeal by certiorari from a judgment of the Court of Appeals. who. he was granted the ³first class´ seat. then an air passenger is placed in the hollow of the hands of an airline. in turn. Carrascoso was having a hot discussion with the white man [manager]. they came all across to Mr. the plaintiff was issued. if the manager¶s actions could be justified. Deficiency in the complaint. . then why did they confirm Carrasco his seat? 3. or malevolent manner (Art. WON the transcribed testimony of Carrascoso regarding the account made by the air-carrier¶s purser is admissible in evidence as hearsay 7. the plaintiff. From Manila to Bangkok. such damages are granted if the defendant is shown to have been so guilty of gross negligence as to approximate malice. adherence to the ticket so issued is desirable. solely insists that a decision state the "essential ultimate facts" upon which the court's conclusion is drawn. issued plaintiff a ³first class´ round trip airplane ticket from Manila to Rome. 2229.Air France did not present evidence that the ³white man´ made a prior reservation. a first class ticket without any reservation whatever. notwithstanding the fact that seat availability in specific flights is therein confirmed. that said respondent knew that he did not have confirmed reservations for first class on any specific flight. . nor proved that the ³white man´ had ³better right´ over the seat. WON Carrascoso was entitled to moral damages.deemed to underlie the breach of a contract) can be stated thusly: Where. and if the ³white man´ had a better right to the seat. without a pre-existing contract between two parties. as was to be expected. 2221. temperate. . Civil Code). WON moral damages could be recovered from Air France. When asked to vacate his 'first class' seat. Luna an amount of P5. Civil Code. Second. and plaintiff reluctantly gave his 'first class' seat in the plane. left Manila for Lourdes w/ 48 other Filipino pilgrims. had a 'better right' to the seat.Petitioner asserts that said ticket did not represent the true and complete intent and agreement of the parties. however. through PAL. although he had tourist class protection. NO Ratio A decision is not to be so clogged with details such that prolixity. An amendment thereof to conform to the evidence is not even required. wounded feelings and social humiliation. September 28. In all other respects.A written document speaks a uniform language. YES. a commotion ensued.Nevertheless.xxx The law. WON the CA failed to make a complete findings of fact on all the issues properly laid before it. WON Carrascoso was entitled to the ³first class´ seat he claims. granted that their employee was accused of the tortuous act 5. liquidated or compensatory damages (Art. also.Art. there was a 'white man'. and Third. Cuento. fraudulent. the appealed decision is AFFIRMED.000. are intended to serve as an example or as correction for the public good in addition to moral. In quasi-delicts. said contract was breached when petitioner failed to furnish first class transportation at Bangkok. to honor its credit card issued to private respondent Luis should entitle him to recover a measure of damages sanctioned under Article 2221 of the Civil Code providing thusly: . thereby causing him mental anguish. contains the necessary facts to warrant its conclusions. YES Ratio. if not confusion. there must be an averment of fraud or bad faith which the CA allegedly failed to find 4. many of the Filipino passengers got nervous in the tourist class. FACTS . Et. ." . Carrascoso traveled in ³first class´ but at Bangkok. WON Carrascoso was entitled to exemplary damages 8.FINDINGS OF FACT: "the written statement of the ultimate facts as found by the court and essential to support the decision and judgment rendered thereon". amongst others. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff. may result. If there had been no seat.Given the above premises and the factual circumstances here obtaining. In criminal offenses. and paid for.Reasonable attorney's fees may be recovered where the court deems such recovery to be just and equitable (Art. WON the Court could review the questions of fact Substantive 2. Civil Code). 1966 NATURE PETITION for review by certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals. as proved by written documents (tickets«) 3. an act or omission can nonetheless amount to an actionable tort by itself. reckless. We see no issue of sound discretion on the part of the appellate court in allowing the award thereof by the trial court. when they found out that Mr. The trial court also accepted as evidence the written documents submitted by Carrasco and even the testimony of the air-carrier¶s employees attested that indeed. a first-class-ticket holder is not entitled to a first class seat. exemplary damages are imposed when the crime is committed with one or more aggravating circumstances (Art. So long as the decision of the Court of Appeals. if any. and. WON damages are proper in a breach contract
6. and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.If. Air France. may be vindicated or recognized. DISPOSITION The appealed decision is MODIFIED by deleting the award of moral and exemplary damages to private respondents.both TC and CA decided in favor of Carrascoso ISSUES Procedur al 1. Reasoning . Al) 18 SCRA 155 SANCHEZ. the Manager alleged. 2230. refused. the fact that the parties are contractually bound is no bar to the application of quasi-delict provisions to the case. that spoken word could be notoriously unreliable. Here.00 by way of nominal damages. they should have presented the manager to testify in court ± but they did not do so
. it. resulting in moral damages. It is (therefore) unnecessary to inquire as to whether or not there is sufficient averment in the complaint to justify an award for moral damages. which has been violated or invaded by the defendant. . Carrascoso to give his seat to the 'white man. the bank's failure. AIR FRANCE V CA (Carrascoso. . there was bad faith when petitioner's employee compelled Carrascoso to leave his first class accommodation berth "after he was already seated" and to take a seat in the tourist class. WON Carrascoso was entitled to attorney¶s fees 9. If only to achieve stability in the relations between passenger and air carrier. and if such. as petitioner underscores. even perhaps inadvertent. in its stead. the issuance of a first class ticket was no guarantee that he would have a first class ride. without such agreement. 2232. Carrasco was issued a ³first class ticket´. . the Manager of the defendant airline forced plaintiff to vacate the 'first class' seat that he was occupying because.
YES Ratio The Civil Code gives the Court ample power to grant exemplary damages-in contracts and quasi-contracts. . no student can absorb the intricacies of physics or explore the realm of arts when bullets are flying or where there looms around the school premises a constant threat to life and limb. Testimony of the entry does not come within the proscription of the best evidence rule.SYQUIAS base their claim for damages against Mla Memorial on either: (1) breach of its obligation to deliver a defect-free concrete vault. The excitement had not as yet died down. Costs against the petitioners. but the ouster incident. Costs against petitioner. (Mla Memorial) FACTS . fraudulent. is one attended with public duty. the said entry was made outside the Philippines and by an employee of petitioner. The grant of exemplary damages justifies a similar Judgment for attorneys' fees. action as we have said. The contract of air carriage. 5. For the willful malevolent act of petitioner's manager.. are beyond the ambit of that rule. the petition is DENIED.A stabbing incident on August 30. the subject of inquiry is not the entry. reckless. the impact of the startling occurrence was still fresh and continued to be felt. January 27. However. But respondent court¶s premise is incorrect. because of the relation which an air-carrier sustains with the public. The least that can be said is that the courts below felt that it is but just and equitable that attorneys' fees be given. . It invites people to avail of the comforts and I advantages it offers.After about a month. NO Ratio. They are entitled to be protected against personal misconduct. this is bad faith. the concrete vault encasing the coffin of the deceased was removed from its niche underground. and because there was a pre-existing contractual relation between the Syquias and Mla Memorial. indignities and abuses from such employees. SYQUIA V CA (Mla Memorial Park) 217 SCRA 624 CAMPOS. The petitioner contents that it should not be admitted as evidence. We accordingly vote to affirm the same. YES . Chief of Security and Assistant Chief of Security. and the exposed parts of the deceased's remains were damaged and soiled. DISPOSITION the foregoing premises considered. we. Petitioners the assailed the trial court¶s dispositions before the respondent appellate court which affirmed the trial court¶s ruling. They have a right to be treated by the carrier's employees with kindness. courtesy and due consideration. as it was only hearsay. It is expressly mentioned in Art. therefore.Juan SYQUIA. 1993 NATURE Petition for review of CA decision dismissing Syquia family¶s complaint for damages against Manila Memorial Park Cemetery. . preparatory to transferring the remains to a newly purchased family plot also at the same cemetery.
. worse. FACTS . (c) entire lining of coffin. It was established that his assailants were not members of the school¶s academic community but were outsiders. recklessness and lack of security precautions.Whatever kind of negligence it has committed. Treasure. 6. petitioner.Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. and that the captain refused to intervene". (2) gross negligence in failing to seal the concrete vault (Art. 1992
NATURE Petition to review the decision of Court of Appeals. This is a violation of public duty by the petitioner-air carrier-a case of quasi-delict. or malevolent manner". In this sense. .Defendants (now petitioners) sought to have the suit dismissed alleging that since they are presumably sued under Art.\ 9. be essayed. Because. they caused the opening of the concrete vault and discovered that: (a) the interior walls showed evidence of total flooding. he forcibly ejected him from his seat. As the concrete vault was being raised to the surface. 7. VP.The case should be tried on its merits. YES. Unless. oppressive. Also. they grow "out of the nervous excitement and mental and physical condition of the declarant". generates a relation attended with a public duty. Certainly. YES Ratio. naturally. The stress of Carrascoso's.Contract between the parties did not guarantee that the cement vault would be waterproof. Its business is mainly with the travelling public. when the dialogue happened. Trial Court¶s Ruling . Certainly.Pursuant to an authority granted by the Municipal Court of Parañaque. Reasoning .Carrascoso testified that the purser of the air-carrier made an entry in his notebooks reading "First class passenger was forced to go to the tourist class against his will. like PSBA. Inc. the facts and circumstances point to the reasonableness thereof. The only condition is that defendant should have "acted in a wanton. Such testimony is admissible. his employer. Reasoning ..The manager not only prevented Carrascoso from enjoying his right to a first class seat. MLA MEMORIAL is deemed to be liable for desecrating the grave of the dead.The suit impleaded PSBA. injurious language. But when an academic institution accepts students for enrollment. And the MFR was similarly dealt with. if forms part of the res gestae Ratio.43 And is. The Court of origin is hereby ordered to continue proceedings consistent wit this ruling of the Court. . . Reasoning . Reasoning . February 4. say that the judgment of the Court of Appeals does not suffer from 'reversible error. that any rude or discourteous conduct on the part of employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the carrier. in this environment.The manner of ejectment of respondent Carrascoso from his first class seat fits into this legal precept 8.The responsibility of an employer for the tortious act of its employees need not. (note: it was held that it was a case of quasi-delict even though it was a breach of contract) Ratio A contract to transport passengers is quite different in kind and degree from any other contractual relation. bad faith has assumed a meaning different from what is understood in law.Petitioner's contract with Carrascoso. For. It sought to adjudge them liable for the victim¶s death due to their alleged negligence. it may still be liable under the law on contracts. father of the deceased Vicente Syquia. "bad faith" contemplates a "state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes 4. clothing of the deceased. the Syquias discovered that the vault had a hole approx 3 in. the school makes itself responsible in providing their students with an atmosphere that is conducive for learning. PSBA is not liable. . authorized and instructed the defendant to inter the remains of deceased. 2176) . filth and silt causing the wooden parts to separate and to crack the viewing glass panel located directly above the head and torso of the deceased. 2180 that the liability arises from acts done by pupils or students of the institution. is placed upon his wrongful expulsion. made him suffer the humiliation of having to go to the tourist class compartment-just to give way to another passenger whose right thereto has not been established. The dictates of good sense suggest that we give our imprimatur thereto. 2180 on quasidelicts. The task of fixing these amounts is primarily with the trial court. So it is.No quasi-delict because the defendant was not guilty of any fault or negligence. 1985 which caused the death of Carlitos Bautista on the premises of the Philippine School of Business Administration (PSBA) prompted the parents of the deceased to file suit in the Manila RTC. . in diameter near the bottom and it appeared that water drained out of the hole. Statements then. could give ground for an action for damages. its President.also«From a reading of the transcript just quoted. must answer. PSBA V CA PADILLA. Neglect or malfeasance of the carrier's employees. For. YES . Damages are proper. (b) coffin was entirely damaged by water. 2180 of the Civil Code. DISPOSITION On balance. of course. the complaint states no cause of action against them since academic institutions.Respondent Trial court denied the motion to dismiss. are admissible as part of the res gestae. ISSUE WON respondent court is correct in denying dismissal of the case HELD Ratio Although a school may not be liable under Art. respect. he imposed his arbitrary will. JR. It would have been easy for Air France to contradict Carrascoso¶s testimony if they had presented the purser.
. WON Mla Memorial breached its contract with petitioners. does not apply. Article 1756 of the Civil Code provides that common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as defined in Articles 1733 and 1755 of the Code.´ a wooden stool at the back of the door at the rear end of thevehicle. of the time and of the place. or alternatively 2. in this case the common carrier. Reasoning . On the other hand. Articles 1733. and that the common carrier failed to exercise the diligence required under the Civil Code." ." Standard dictionaries define seal as any of various closures or fastenings that cannot be opened without rupture and that serve as a check against tampering or unauthorized opening.CA affirmed judgment of dismissal. Her attending physician. The reason for the boring of the hole was explained by Henry Flores. . an Isuzutruck driven by Iglecerio Verena and owned by Francisco Salva bumped the leftrear portion of the jeepney. not quasi-delict. of 23 August 1989. Distinction between culpa aquiliana or culpa extracontractual.Sunga gave way to the outgoing passenger. Hence.00 as expenses of litigation. which found the driver and the owner of the truck liable for quasi-delict. The principle of res judicata. CALALAS VS MENDOZA GR 122039| 31 May 2000 FACTS -At 10 a. Her confinement in the hospital lasted from August 23 to September 7. Sunga was injured. the owner of the Isuzu truck.The father himself. 4. It cannot be extended by implication.000. and (4) P1." Mla Memorial bound itself to provide the concrete box to be sent in the interment. Eliza Jujeurche G. which is the law between them. then the literal meaning of the stipulation shall control. Danilo V.Rule 17 of the Rules and Regulations of MLA MEMORIAL provides that: ³Every earth interment shall be made enclosed in a concrete box. Sunga was given by the conductor an³extension seat."Sealed" cannot be equated with "waterproof". A contracting party cannot incur a liability more than what is expressly specified in his undertaking. Calalas¶ motion for reconsideration was denied 11 September 1995. -On appeal to the Court of Appeals. filed by Calalas against Salva and Verena. Oligario. . Common carriers presumed at fault unless they observed extraordinary diligence.000. 1755. NO Ratio Negligence is defined by law as the "omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons. the issues in Civil Case 3490 and in the present case are not the same. as she was never a party to that case. It took cognizance of another case (Civil Case 3490).Although a pre-existing contractual relation between the parties does not preclude the existence of a culpa aquiliana. She sustained afracture of the ³distal third of the left tibia-fibula with severe necrosis of the underlying skin.The act of boring a hole in the vault was necessary so as to prevent the vault from floating away. it is the parties themselves who create the obligation. The Supreme Court affirmed the 31 March 1991 decision and the 11 September 1995 resolution of the Court of Appeals. a concrete vault was installed and after the burial. Dr. 2. has as its source the negligence of the tortfeasor. 5. 1989. Finding no evidence of negligence. Sunga. Sunga filed a complaint for damages against Calalas before the RTC of Dumaguete City (Branch 36). The issue in Civil Case 3490 was whether Salva and his driver Verena were liable for quasi-delict for the damage caused to Calalas¶ jeepney. Further. When the terms of the contract are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties. and case wedging were done under sedation. the petition for review on certiorari. 2. and (5) to pay the costs.. (3) P10. As the jeepney wasfilled to capacity of about 24 passengers. The lower court rendered judgment. . the actual installment of which shall be made by the employees of the Association."Sealed" meant "closed. failed to transport his passenger safely to his destination. On the way to Poblacion Sibulan. for quasidelict. Herein. NO Ratio Parties are bound by the terms of their contract. As she was seated at the rear of the vehicle. Juan Syquia. In quasi-delict. the action can be prosecuted merely by proving the existence of the contract and the fact that the obligor. (2) P50. the issue in the present case is whether Calalas is liable on his contract of carriage. the diligence to be observed in the performance of the obligation is that which is expected of a good father of a family. it is immaterial that the proximate cause of the collision between the jeepney and the truck was the negligence of the truck driver. or in an outer wall of stone. certified she would remain on a cast for a period of 3 months and would have to ambulate in crutches during said period. the ruling of the lower court was reversed on the ground that Sunga¶s cause of action was based on a contract of carriage. therefore. Negros Occidental. took a passenger jeepney owned and operated by Vicente Calalas. Dispositive CA decision affirmed in toto. beyond the terms of the contract. then a collegefreshman majoring in Physical Education at the Siliman University. The doctrine is a device for imputing liability to a person where there is no relation between him and another party. The appellate court dismissed the third-party complaint against Salva and adjudged Calalas liable for damages to Sunga. The provision necessarily shifts to the common carrier the burden of proof. 3. Interment Foreman. breach of contract or culpa contractual is premised upon the negligence in the performance of a contractual obligation. Burden of proof In case of death or injuries to passengers. who said that: ³When the vault was placed on the grave a hole was placed on the vault so that water could come into the vault because it was raining heavily then because the vault has no hole the vault will float and the grave would be filled with water.They entered into a contract entitled "Deed of Sale and Certificate of Perpetual Care.Syquias claim that there was a breach of contract because it was stated in the brochures that ³lot may hold single or double internment underground in sealed concrete vault. -On 9 October 1989. On the other hand.m.´ .´ Closed reduction of the fracture.00 as attorney¶s fees. not in breach of contract The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasi-delict. whereas in breach of contract. an
orthopedic surgeon. ISSUES 1. alleging violation of the contract of carriage by the former in failing to exercise the diligence required of him as a common carrier. In such a case. also known as culpa aquiliana or culpa extra contractual. the jeepneystopped to let a passenger off. and the function of the law is merely to regulate the relation thus created.000. MFR was also denied. the obligation is created by law itself. and on 31 March 1991. chose the gravesite despite knowing that said area had to be constantly sprinkled with water to keep the grass green and that water would eventually seep through the vault.Private respondent has exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in preventing the accumulation of water inside the vault which would have resulted in the caving in of earth around the grave. brick or concrete. the negligence or fault should be clearly established because it is the basis of the action.000. But. not in actions involving breach of contract. with the modification that the award of moral damages is deleted. As a result. WON it can be liable for culpa aquiliana HELD 1. and culpa contractual Quasi-delict. The Court ordered Calalas tro pay Sunga (1) P50. Res Judicata does not apply Sunga is not bound by the ruling in Civil Case 3490. in which Branch 37 of the same court held Salva and his driver Verena jointly liable to Calalas for the damage to his jeepney. ISSUES & ARGUMENTS W/N The CA erred in reversing the TC¶s ruling? HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI NO.00 as actual and compensatory damages. the vault was covered by a cement lid. long leg circular casting. and 1756 NCC Insofar as contracts of carriage are concerned. circumstances of the case do not show negligence. Calalas. there is no reason to award damages.00 as moral damages. some aspects regulated by the Civil Code are those respecting the diligence required of common carriers with regard to the safety of passengers as well as
. (RCBC v CA) Reasoning . against Salva as third-party defendant and absolved Calalas of liability. on the other hand. Doctrine of proximate cause applicable only in quasi-delict." In the absence of stipulation or legal provision providing the contrary.´ Pursuant to this. holding that it was the driver of the Isuzu truck who was responsible for the accident. filed a third-party complaint against Francisco Salva. 1. where there is a pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. Just as she was doing so. .
iIt is akin to arguing that the injuries to the many victims of the tragedies in our seas should not be compensated merely because those passengers assumed a greater risk of drowning by boarding an overloaded ferry. When. but also. though foreseen. common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. taking into consideration his employment or occupation.
Art. Such fault or negligence. while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in articles 1755 and 1756. shall commit any act which.´ Article 1756 provides that ³In case of death of or injuries to passengers. Not only was Calalas unable to overcome the presumption of negligence imposed on him for the injury sustained by Sunga. shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period. there being fault or negligence. to death of a person shall be caused. 1173. in which case the defendant shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. In the imposition of these penalties. shall apply. 1735. and it became the duty of Calalas to prove that he had to observe extraordinary diligence in the care of his passengers. no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen. Section 32(a) (Exceeding registered capacity) Herein. 2178. Nos. (1902a) Art.the driver took in more passengers than the allowed seating capacity of the jeepney. In violation of traffic rules. but such liability may be regulated by the courts. When negligence shows bad faith. (n)
Title Fourteen: QUASI-OFFENSES Sole Chapter: CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE Art. the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201. 1171. using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons. 9.
. a violation of Section 32(a) of the same law. Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in articles 1734. In violation of traffic rules. When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in damage to the property of another. shall commit an act which would otherwise constitute a grave felony. its rear portion being exposed about 2 meters from the broad shoulders of the highway. if it would have constituted a less serious felony. The driver of jeepney did not carry Sunga ³safely as far as human care and foresight could provide. time and place.the presumption of negligence in cases of death or injury to passengers. 1174. the penalty of arresto menor in its maximum period shall be imposed. as amended. are liable for damages. 2177. if it would have constituted a less grave felony. according to the circumstances. obstruct the free passage of other vehicles on the highway. Except in cases expressly specified by the law. and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof. 5. The provisions of Articles 1172 to 1174 are also applicable to a quasi-delict. 2. Imprudence and negligence. Section 32 [a] (Exceeding registered capacity) provides that ³No person operating any motor vehicle shall allow more passengers or more freight or cargo in his vehicle than its registered capacity. the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed. would constitute a grave felony. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud. were inevitable. while discharging or taking on passengers or loading or unloading freight. paragraph 2. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is also demandable. Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all obligations. if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. Otherwise. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. which provides in Section 54 (Obstruction of Traffic) that ³No person shall drive his motor vehicle in such a manner as to obstruct or impede the passage of any vehicle. the presumption of negligence at once arose. degree of intelligence. 1172. physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons. (1103) Art. (1104a) Art. if done maliciously. Any person who. Driver of jeepney did not exercise utmost diligence of very cautious persons Upon the happening of the accident. 365. Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary. (1102a) Art. Taking of ³Extension seat´ cannot be considered an implied assumption of risk Sunga¶s taking an ³extension seat´ did not amount to an implied assumption of risk. from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy. the jeepney was not properly parked. by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile Law. is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. ³ On the other hand. the court shall exercise their sound discretion. Section 54 (Obstruction of Traffic) Herein. and 1746. unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed by articles 1733 and 1755. the evidence shows he was actually negligent in transporting passengers. (n) Art. are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them. A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any person who. or which. The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable: 1. in which case the court shall impose the penalty next lower in degree than that which should be imposed in the period which they may deem proper to apply. but without malice.´ 6. negligence. by simple imprudence or negligence. of the time and of the place. Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest. but which shall in no case be less than twenty-five pesos. had it been intentional. by simple imprudence or negligence. if it would have constituted a light felony. with due regard for all the circumstances. or delay. 2176. 1170. by reckless imprudence. This is a violation of the RA 4136. Any waiver of an action for future fraud is void. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons.´ The fact that Sunga was seated in an ³extension seat´ placed her in a peril greater than that to which the other passengers were exposed. using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons. and facing the middle of the highway in a diagonal angle. Article 1733 of the Civil Code provides that ³Common carriers. with due regard for all the circumstances´ as required by Article 1755. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. without regard to the rules prescribed in Article sixty-four. or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation. is obliged to pay for the damage done. the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging from an amount equal to the value of said damages to three times such value. doing or falling to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing of failing to perform such act. shall cause some wrong which. that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required. ² Any person who. Article 1755 of the Civil Code provides that ³ A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide. or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code. shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance. 8. according to all the circumstances of each case. the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be imposed. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than those provided in the first two paragraphs of this article. (1101) Art. or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk. (1105a) CHAPTER 2: QUASI-DELICTS Art. ³ 7. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another.6. would have constituted a light felony. nor. and 7.
. approved June 21.The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in this article shall be imposed upon the offender who fails to lend on the
spot to the injured parties such help as may be in this hand to give. As amended by R. 1790.A.