1988 Bar Questions Torts and Damages: Question: A.

Mario received from Edgar a pendant with diamonds valued at P5,000.00 to be sold on commission basis or to be returned on demand. In the evening of August 31, 1987, while he was walking home, two men snatched his clutched bag containing the pendant and ran away. Subsequently, the snatchers were apprehended and charged. During the pendency of the criminal case, Edgar brought an action against Mario for the recovery of the pendant or its value and damages. Mario interposed the defense of fortuitous event but Edgar contends (1) That the defense of fortuitous event is untenable because there was negligence on the part of the defendant; and (2) That if the defense is untenable, there must be a prior conviction of robbery before it can be availed of. Decide the case. Answer: A. (1) We would like to call the attention to the fact that the q uestion says contends So perhaps we should make a distinction if negligence is proven and if negligence is not proven. If the negligence of the defendant is not proven as Edgar contends, then the defense of fortuitous event is tenable. However, if negligence is proven to be present then the defense of fortuitous event is not tenable here and defendant will be liable. (2) There is no need of prior conviction in either case.

Transportation Law: Question: A. Mojar, a passenger in a bus operated by Times Transit Co. suffered serious physical injuries as a result of a vehicular accident. An information was filed against Ailes, driver of the bus, for serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence. Ailes was, however, acquitted on the merits of the case because, according to the judgement of the acquittal, he is not negligent. Subsequently, Mojar instituted action against Times transit Co., to recover damages. Will the action prosper? Answer: A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. If Mojar can prove the negligence of Ailes by preponderance of evidence, the action will prosper. He can still recover damages from the operator of the bus even if the driver has been acquitted In the criminal action, because it is clear that the action to recover is based on culpa contractual not on the act or omission complained of as a felony.