Case Southeastern College vs CA

Facts The roof of petitioners building was partly ripped of and blown away, landing on and destroying portion of the roofing of private respondents house, when a powerful typhoon hit metro Manila Typhoon Saling Upon ocular funnel-like structure Improper anchorage of the said trusses to the roof beams

Issues Ruling Whether the In order to be damage on the exempt from the roof of the liability due to building of fortuitous event , private there should have respondents been no human resulting from participation the impact of amounting to the falling negligent act. portions of the A person claiming school damages for buildings negligence of roof ripped another has the off by the burden of proving strong winds such (Only relied of typhoon on the report saling was submitted by a within the team that made the legal ocular inspection) contemplation Did no due to prove that fortuitous they have event? deviated from the approved plans and specification s
Prima Facie evidence of regular and proper construction of subject building (building permit and certificate of occupancy) (No complaint regarding any defect)

Case Dioquino vs Laureano

Facts A barge owned by LSC was being towed down the Pasig River by two of its TUgBoats, when it rammed against one of the wooden piles of the Nagtahan Bailey bridge, smashing the post and causing the bridge to list. The river at that time was swollen on the account of the heavy downpour for two days before Contention of defendant it assigned two of its most powerful tugboats and more competent and experience patrons

Issues Ruling WON the Precautions adopted collision of by LSCs showed LSCs barge risk anticipated with the It is not supports or enough that piers of the the event Nagtahan should not bridge was , have been in law, caused foreseen or by fortuitous anticipated event or force but it must majeure? be impossible to foresee LSC assumed the risks although the precautions they have adopted were insufficient LSC presumed negligent considering that the Nagtahan bridge was an immovable and stationary object and provided with adequate openings for the passage of watercraft Happening of the vent was clearly foreseen.

Case Dioquino vs Laureano

Facts B borrowed the car of L. While about to reach his destination, the car driven by Ls driver and with B as the sole passenger, was accidentally stoned by some mischievous boys playing along the road and its windshield was broken

Issue Did B assume the risk of the car being stoned?

Ruling No. What happened was clearly unforeseen. The risk was not evident as compared with the Republic vs Luzon Stevedoring case. In 1174,what is therein contemplated is the resulting liability even if caused by a fortuitous event where the party charged may be assumed to have considered the risk incident in the nature of the obligation to be performed..

Case
Ylarde vs Aquino

Facts
The teacher-in-charge, after bringing pupils to an excavation site dug by them, where several concrete blocks were to be buried, left them all by themselves, and one of the pupils fell into the pit School littered with several concrete blocks which were remnants from WWII (Being Buried) One meter and 40cm deep Respondent will get some rope. Told the students not to touch the stones W,X,Y playfully jumped into the pit and Z jumped on top of the concrete block causing it to slide

Issue
Were the acts and omissions on the part of EA amounted to falt or negligence which have direct causal relation to the death of his pupil Y?

Ruling
EA acted with fault and gross negligence. 1) Failed to avail himself services of adult laborers 2)required the children to remain on the pit knowing a concrete block as nearby 3) level the soil were it was apparent that the huge stone is on the brink of falling 4)went to a place where he could have not checked on the children 5)close to an excavation site, attractive nuisance Negligent act has a direct causal connection to the death (Playful and adventurous instinct) Y cannot be

charged with reckless imprudence (age and maturity must be considered) Defendant should have foreseen the danger (loco parentis)

Case Sanitary Steam Laundry vs CA

Facts At the time of the accident , the driver of the vehicle whose three passengers and several others were injured, was in violation of the Land Transportation and traffic code. Collision of a Mercedes Benz panel truck and Cimarron vehicle (3deaths, 7 injured) Contention of respondent 1) overloaded 2) front seat occupied by 4 persons 3) had only one headlight 4) Last chear chance

Issue WON the driver of the Cimarron was negligent considering at the time of the accident he was guilty of the traffic rules?

Ruling Not been shown that the negligence of the Cimarron driver contributed to the collision of the vehicles (without legal consequence unless it is a contributing cause) Either driver could have not avoided the accident (Contentions no basis) Negligence of petitioners driver was the proximate cause of accident (swerving at the opposite lane, not only mean high speed but tailgating the passenger jeepney ahead of it as well)
Tried to avoid the jeepney (60miles per hour)

Case

Facts

Issue

Ruling

FF Cruz vs CA

Petitioner,owner of a furniture manufacturing plant failed to construct a firewall as required by a city ordinance, as a result of which the fire that broke out in the shop spread to an adjacent lot Request was repeated several times but fell on deaf ears

Is the doctrine res ipsa loquitur applicable to the instant case? Would the failure of the petitioner to construct a firewall in accordance with city ordinances suffice to support a finding of negligence?

Yes. Where the thing which caused the injury complained of is shown to be under the management of the defendant and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have its management or control use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation. Failure to construct a firewall was an act of negligence(alc ohol and gasoline were stored, workers smoke inside the premises)

Case

Facts

Issue

Ruling

FF Cruz vs CA