You are on page 1of 85

133. Lopez et.al vs.

Pan Am, 16 SCRA 431
Facts:
Then Senate Pro Tempore Lopez booked 1 st class tickets from Tokyo to San Francisco. He was
traveling with wife, daughter and son-in-law.
On May 24, 1960, they arrived in Tokyo only to discover that they no longer had 1 st class
accommodations. They took flight under protest ‘cause Senator had scheduled meeting and wife had
check-up at Mayo clinic
Damages claimed > breach of contract in bad faith
Issue: WON they can recover moral damages
HELD: Yes, bad faith existed
Ratio:
1) 2220: moral damages are recoverable in breach of contracts where the defendant acted fraudulently or
in bad faith
2) Badges of Bad Faith
a) Employee Herranz cancelled reservationof Lopez’ together with that of the Rufinos  only the
Rufinos cancelled
b) Despite knowledge that reserv ations have been cancelled, when lopez party called in to
confirm, they assured them of 1st class accommodations
3) Such willful non-disclosure of the cancellation or pretense that the reservations of the plaintiffs stood is
the factor to which is attributable the breach of the resulting contract
4) It is humiliating to be compelled to travel as such, contrary to what is rightfully to be expected from the
contractual undertaking
Moral damages sustained by Senator:
- social humiliation, wounded feelings, mental anguish
-senator siya ek ek
-P 100, 000
Wife: discomfort sustained in tourist class for 13 hours =physical suffering
 P50, 000
daughter/husband: P25, 000 for social humiliation
 lose of prestige?
134. Zulueta vs Pan Am, 43 SCRA 397
Facts: <person’s case>
Rafael Zulueta, with his wife & daughter were passengers aboard flight No. 841-23 from Honolulu
to Manila. Plane had 30 minute stop-over in Wake island where they (passengers) were allowed to
disembark.
Mr. Zulueta disembarked so he could relieve himself but found CR full of soldiers so he went to
beach…hmm
Flight was delayed. He was later found. “ You people almost made me miss your flight. You have
a defective announcing system and I was not paged.”
Away…away… later asked to open their bags <allegedly another person, which they (Pan Am)
were never able to identify mentioned something about a bomb>.
K. Siton, airport manager, offloaded Mr. Zulueta but allowed wife and daughter to continue with
flight.
Issue: non moral damages may be recovered.
HELD: Yes
Ratio:
1) 21: Any person who willfully causes lose or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
2) 2217: Moral damages include physical suffering mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury. Though incabale of
pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the
defendant’s wrongful act/omission.
a) rude reception (captain: What in the hell do you think you are?)
b) abusive language/scornful reference: monkeys
c) unfriendly attitude, ugly stares, unkind remarks received

d) arbitrary/high-handed decision of leaving him at island
e) wife suffered nervous breakdown because of the embarrassment, insults, humiliations.
3) Contract between carrier involves special & peculiar obligations and duties. There’s a promise and duty
of protection and courteous treatment
4) Contract of air carriage generates a relation attended with a public duty. Neglect or malfeasance of
carrier’s employees naturally could give ground for an action for damages
1 M  500T ( he contributed to gravity)
135. Yutuk vs. manila Electric, 2 SCRA 337
Facts:
Meralco Jaime went to Yutuk’s house and told maid that he wanted to enter premises to check
meter. Yutuk told him that meter was outside. Later, electricity was cut off and when Yutuk asked him what
the trouble was, he replied with another question: Why she was paying only 50% of bills.
Yutuk thought Jaime came to fix her defective meter which she had reported to Meralco’s
collectors but Jaime told her that she was stealing electric current using by using a jumper.
Filed case for slander vs. Jaime  convicted
Meralco filed for theft > dismissed
Issue: Moral damages
Held: Yes
Ratio: While moral damages are incapable of pecuniary estimation, they are made recoverable, if they are
the proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission; and since these damages affect
aggrieved party’s moral feelings and personal pride, “ these should be weighed in the determination of the
indemnity.”
Issue: WON there was bad faith
HELD: no really but “ at the very least, the facts of case show the appellant did it with reckless negligence
Ratio:
1. when Yutuk reported incident, company showed unwillingness to entertain
* said they would only if Jaime would be convicted in slander case
2. then filed complaint for theft!
-motivated purely by malice and ill-will and as a retaliatory measure for civil axn filed by plaintiff
- filed case only 4 mos after supposed discovery thereof
250thou-exorbitant
25,000 MD
-mental anguish by reason of false imputation
- besmirched rep, ridicule, humiliation
- personal circs and reputation considered
136. Simex
Simex, engaged in exportation of food products, deposited 100thou with Bank. Later issued checks
against account. Bounced.
Bank investigation: amt not credited to account and was immdtly rectified
MD at 20thou
1. initial carelessness of bank, aggravated by lack of promtitufe in repairing error justifies award
2. MP awarded not to penalize but to compensate plaintiff for injuries
3. Corpo: no MD except when it has good repu that is debased, resulting in its social humilation
4. damages suffered

credit line cancelled

orders not acted upon pending receipt of payment

reputation tarnished

standing in biz com reduced

prestige as reliable debtor diminished

137. magbanua
6 petitioners were share tenant of defendants. Defendants diverted free flow of water from lots which
caused land to dry up. Def then asked them to vacate areas for they could no longer plant without water.
MD YES
1. 2219 permits award for MD for acts under 21
“ any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner contrary to yada yada”
2. obvious they were denied H20 so they would vacate land.
138 Tan Koepe
Masa had been PTNR’s tenant for 10 years. He wrote asking for conversion of share tenancy relation to
one of leasehold, applied for conversion, authorized.
PETR filed 6 crim cases!
MD YES
1. unfounded successive complaints even without oral testimonies prove existence of factual basis
for MD
2. suffered humiliation of incarceration
3. motive: harassment and embarrassment and retaliatory measure for conversion award
139. Ford
Facts:
Girl slapped another girl during election.
MD YES
1. 2219: any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner contrary to xx”
2. slap is unlawful aggression
3. face personifies one’s dignity and slapping it is a personal affront
4. considering position and fact that it was election day, nothing but shame, humiliation and dishonor
would have been heaped upon her by the indignities she had to suffer.
5thou
141. bagumbayan
Family went to watch concert and waiter spilled drinks on wife
NO MD
1. embarrassment is not the mental anguish contemplated in 2217 for which MD can be recovered
2. mental suffering: distress or serious pain distinguished from annoyance, regret, or vexation
142. Vda de medina
Avarque was driving jeepney which smashed into MERALCO post resulting in passenger Medina’s death.
At that time, Cresencia had not acquired approval from PUB service commission for the sale of jeepney.
Absoulte owner was Rosario.
NO AND
1. untenable since AND cannot co-exist with compensatory damages
2. ND’s purpose is to vindicate or recognize right that has been violated, in order to preclude further
contest thereon, and not for the purpose of indemnifying plaintiff for any loss suffered by him
3. Ct’s award of compensatory/exemplary damages are in themselves judicial recognition that plaintiff’s
right was violated.
143. Northwest

respondent, then Commissioner of Public Highways, boarded plane with 1 st class ticket to Tokyo. In
Okinawa, he was compelled to transfer to tourist.
ND awarded
1. valid since CT did not grant A, M, E damages
special reasons to justify award
a. position
b. no explanation why his ticket was marked as waitlisted
c. was made to pay 1st class
d. no explanation why other person had better right thereto
144. Cogeo
A cert of public convenience was issued in favor of LS to ply CC route.
LS issued resolution adopting Bandera system where coop members were allowed to queue for
passengers at pathway in exchange for 20 pesos
Assoc. responded by forming human barricade and took over operations for 10 days
ND awarded
WON respondent usurped prop right of respondent
YES
Cert of Public convenience is property and Public Service Law: can be sold because it has considerable
material value and a valuable asset—cannot be taken without due process of law
Assoc thru barricade violated right of LS to operate services.
2222: damages in every case where any property right has been invaded
145. Araneta
Araneta, import/export guy, issued $500 check which was later dishonored—account closed.
Bank apologized and rectified error but 2 similar incidents happened again.
TD awarded
1. ok in cases where definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be offered but Ct is convince that there has
been such a loss
example: injury to commercial credit or to goodwill of firm
here: he was a merchant of long standing and good reputation
146: NPC
NPC bought stuff from International Commodities thru rep, NATL merchandising Corp.
Contract: nonpayment---LD at a rate of 2/5 of 1% of full contract price for 1 st 30 days of default and 4/5 of
1% for every day thereafter
Supplier failed to deliver due to inability to secure shipping space.
LD awarded
1. if agreed upon the same should be enforced instead of awarding only nominal dams
2. NPC suffered: no production of fertilized coz sulfur not delivered

Filing fees not required. ED awarded even if not alleged.are to be paid only if other items of damages are alleged in the complaint/info or if they are not so alleged. SM filed case for damages Magno filed counterclaim for moral and exemplary No exemplary-mere finding that allegations in complaint were not true and that mistake in instituting action vs. seized delivery trucks of SM which were levied against due to failure to pay tax. D allegations were not included in info so co-accused raised issue of non-payment of docket fees. except in award for actual damages. brought axn to recover actual/compens dams plus certain amount of atty’s fees. . No need for docket fees. amount need not be proved becoz its determination depends upon CD that may be awarded 2. merely incidental or dependent upon AD/CD 148. shall constitute a first lien on judgment 154.147.Where civil axn is instituted together with crim axn. People vs escano 4 separate crim actions for estafa were filed. is alleged in he complaint/info that corresponding filing fees shall be paid by OP upon filing thereof in court for trial 7.only when the amt of damages. . 1. . Accepted order but did not tell plaintiff: no more appropriate social envelopes ED may be awarded to aggrieved party. . Quasi-delictual liability where there are contract relations .when amount of damages is not alleged. respo judge ordered clerk to require payment of filing fees. san Miguel Francisco Magno. Singson 1. City Treasurer.gross negligence/ careless constitute wanton misconduct— justifies award 153. ED also claimed but amt not specified. wrong party—do not justify award Pancific and Munsayac: emailed by MJ or JP Radio Comm RCPI transmitted condolence msg in hapi bday card placed in xmas gram envelope. General Info for libel alleged 100M worth of AME damages. other than actual. the AD claimed are not included in the computation of filing fees. Conso for joint trial Upon finding that offended parties seek to enforce civl liabilities by way of AD. the corresponding filing fees need not be paid and shall simply constitute a 1st lien on a judgment.

18 SCRA 155 Nature: Petition for review by certiorari of a decision of the CA Facts: Rafael Carrascoso was one of the 48 Filipino pilgrims who left Manila for Lourdes. Bank immediately rectified mistake. He had a first class round trip ticket from Manila to Rome. Manila Facts: Singson was on the defendants in a civil case that ordered them to pay the sum of 105. Lower court decided that plaintiffs cannot recover upon basis of quasi-delict because relation between parties was contractual. However. Case 9: Air France vs Carrascoso.539.  doubt WON ticket was confirmed as first class is immaterial as claim is based on the wrongful expulsion itself Case 10: City of Manila vs IAC. city may then sue and be sued . Bank included Singson’s account and latter discovered this when BM Glass Service told him that the check he issued was not honored by bank becoz it had been garnished. 5. was buried in said lot. 23 SCRA 1117 Nature: Appeal from Judgment of the CFI. when the plane was in Bangkok. city officials ordered the exhumation and removal of the remains of sr. Wife was shocked and enraged (malamang!) Issue: WON operations of public cemetery are governmental or proprietary function Held: Proprietary Ratio: In the absence of special laws. in 1975. Singson filed action: for damages in consequence of said illegal freezing of account. Carrascoso filed complaint for damages.  Wrongful expulsion is a violation of public duty by the air carrier. allegedly in accordance with Admin Order No. Passengers should be protected and insured a pleasant trip. However. resulting in the temporary freeing of the account of the plaintiff. 2021) on a land in the North Cemetery. Facts: Wife of deceased Vivencio Sto Domingo Sr. the Manager forced him to vacate his first class seat because a white man had a better right to the seat. from said lot and said lot was leased to another family.exercise of proprietary functions.a quasi delict. court served a writ of garnishment upon BPI-insofar as Villa-Abrille’s credits against bank were concerned. As soon as the judgment became final and executory. was granted a lease for a duration of 50 years (June 6. North Cemetery is a patrimonial property created by resolution of Municipal Board. Held: NO Ratio: The existence of a contract between parties does not bar the commission of a tort by one against the other and the consequential recovery of damages therefor. 1971June 6.Case 8: Singson vs BPI.56 to Philippine Milling Co. Sr. Owned therefor in its proprietary or private character  City entered into contract of lease. Series of 1975. Issue: WON damages may be recovered on the basis of the expulsion Held: Yes Ratio:  The contract of air carriage generates a relation attended with public duty. Damages are proper. 179 SCRA 428 Nature: Petition for certiorari to review the decision and the resolution of the CA. Issue: WON existence of contract bars commission of tort by one against the other and the consequent recovery of damages therefor.

. Basic elements of quasi-delictual liability 1. as they were under no such obligations to induce Cuddy to violate his contract with Gilchrist 1314. Manila Facts: Plaintiff’s leg was broken and was eventually amputated because of an incident at the company’s yard. Interference with Contracts Case 11: Gilchrist vs Cuddy.. Cuddy returned money to Gilchrist and told him that Espejo and his partner would rent film for 350. if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. tie broke. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another. Such fault or negligence. Rakes vs AG&P Co. they not knowing the identity of one of the contracting parties Held: Yes Ratio:  mere right to compete could not justify appellants in intentionally inducing Cuddy to take away Gilchrist’s contractual rights  liability arises from unlawful acts and no from contractual obligations. B. Cause: dislodging of the crosspiece or piling under the stringer by the water of the bay raised by recent typhoon. owner of the film. starting May 26. Plaintiff now charges defendant with negligence breach of duty on its part in failing to properly secure load of iron to vehicles or to skillfully build tramway by maintaining. to rent the film for a week at 125. is obliged to pay for the damage done. City is liable for the tortuous act committed by its agents to verify and check the duration of contract of lease. Iloilo Facts: Cuddy. The act or omission in the breach of a legal duty Article 2176. Court issued mandatory injunction ordering Cuddy to deliver film to Gilchrist and an ex parte prelim injunction restraining Espejo and partner from receiving and exhibiting film until further orders from court Issue: WON Espejo and partner were liable for interfering with the contract between Gilchrist and Cuddy. Zigomar. 7 Phil 359 Nature: Appeal from a judgment of CFI. Before said date. 373. rails slid off and caught plaintiff (or somethin’ like that). Contributory negligence The negligence of injured person does not operate as a bar to recovery but only in reduction of the damages he may claim. The handcar’s track sagged. CC: Any 3rd person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party. there being fault or negligence. inspecting and repairing it. 29 Phil 542 Nature: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI. p. entered into a contract with Gilchrist.

713 struck their car right in the center. He was entirely unacquainted with the conditions of the road and had no knowledge of the existence of a railroad crossing at Dayap (view was obstructed by houses. which the law requires in order to avoid damage. Locomotive No. On their way back. instruct him properly  supervision and instruction includes promulgation of proper rules and regulations and the formulation and publication of proper instructions for their guidance in cases where such rules are regulations are necessary  custom of driver to approach and pass over railroad crossings without lessening speed and other such precautions . municipality of Cavite Viejo. Manila. Crossfield and Del Rosario. for its negligence and the negligence of its employees Ratio:  The diligence of a good father of a family. All of them got injured. the automobile was struck by a train and the plaintiffs injured. He sounded his horn for the people to get out of the way.  no semaphore at crossing in Dayap to serve as warning of its existence in order that they might take the necessary precautions before crossing railroad  flagman and switchman were not at his post  engineer did not take necessary precautions even after he knew of flagman’s and switchman’s absence: did not slacken speed and did not continuously ring bell and blow whistle Yamada vs. is not confined to the careful and prudent selection of subordinates or employees but includes inspection of their work and supervision of the discharge of their duties. while crossing the tracks of defendant railroad in San Juan. At about 7-8 meters from crossing. Facts: Plaintiffs amd 3 other companions hired a taxicab from Bachrach Garage and Taxicab Co for a trip to Cavite Viejo. 33 Phil 8 Nature: Appeal from 3 judgments of the CFI. Laguna.Liability of Employer to Worker  arises out of contractual relations between them. plaintiff saw an autoruck parked on left side of road with people alighting from it. With him were his wife and 4-year-old daughter. regulated by 1101 (Old CC)  this contract binds employer to provide safe appliances for use of employees Cangco vs Manila Railroad Co. Manila Facts: Plaintiff was driving their Studebaker at 19-25 mi/hr to go sightseeing in Pagsanjan. JJ. 59 Phil 758 Nature: Appeal from a judgment of CFI. where necessary. supra Lilius vs Manila Railroad.. trees and shrubs. (malamang!) Issue: WON Manila Railroad is liable for damages due to breach of legal duty Held: YES. Issue: WON taxicab company fully discharged its duty when it furnished a suitable car and selected a driver who had 5-6 years experience Held: NO Ratio:  duty not only to furnish a suitable and proper car and select competent operator but also to supervise and. Manila Railroad.

9 years old. Intramuros.  Duty of carrier extends to persons boarding the cars as well as alighting therefrom. Manila Facts: Jose Noguera noticed that an electric wire in Dimas-Alang Street was burning and its connections smoking. president of company even testified that none of its drivers were accustomed to stop or even reduce speed or take any precaution in approaching and passing over the railroad crossings. it was his duty to do no act that would have the effect of increasing the plaintiff’s peril while he was attempting to board the car.  Premature acceleration of car was breach of this duty. Manila Facts: Juan Astudillo met his death through electrocution. Luke’s. 52 Phil 900 Nature: Appeal from judgment of the CFI. wire still wasn’t fixed and Alberto del Rosario. and even before his raised right foot had reached the platform. 57 Phil 478 Nature: Appeal from a judgment of CFI. the motorman applied the power and the car gave a slight lurch forward. unless they here ‘the signal of the car’ (syemps. and died upon reaching St. Astudillo vs Manila Electric CO.  Plaintiff’s negligence in attempting o board moving car was not the proximate cause of the injury. got electrocuted. Issue: WON there was breach of legal duty Held: YES Ratio:  Pole was located close enough to public place so that a person. would be able to take hold of one of the wires . Plaintiff’s foot slipped and his hand was jerked loose from the handpost and he fell to the ground. 55 Phil 427 Nature: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI.. Issue: WON there was an act/omission in breach of legal duty Held: Yes Ratio:  delay in leaving the danger unguarded so long after the information of the trouble was received constituted negligence of the part of Company  Apparent Contributory Negligence of Child: Did not relieve company of responsibility. Issue: WON there was breach of legal duty Held: Yes Ratio:  Although motorman was not bound to stop to let the plaintiff on. He was running across the street to catch the car but before his position had become secure. He asked one Jose Soco to report the situation to the Malabon station of the Manila Electric Company. touched the wire. no matter of what nature. when he placed his right hand on a wire connected with an electric pole situated near Santa Lucia Gate. Msg was transmitted at 2:25 pm. At 4 pm. Manila Facts: Ignacio del Prado’s right foot was caught and crushed by car no. Direct and proximate cause was the premature acceleration. 74 and had to be amputated the following day. owing to the child’s immature years and natural curiosity to do something out of the ordinary Del Prado vs Manila Electric Company. by reaching his arm out the full length. umamin pa ang gago) Del Rosario vs Manila Electric Co.

In case of fraud. Jr. malice or wanton attitude. Fault or negligence 1173. on plaintiff’s part Ratio: . the horse stumbled. Pampanga Facts: Ralph Corliss. When negligence shows bad faith. it is immaterial whether he is drunk or sober. The fulfillment of the conditions does not render unnecessary other precautions required by ordinary care. Issue: WON there was negligence Held: Yes. While crossing the tracks to enter his premises. ordinance. was driving a jeep on his way back to Clark Air Force Base. par 2. 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. causing vehicle to strike one of the rails with great force. Any waiver of an action for future fraud is void. 21. Issue: WON there was negligence on part of company Held: Yes Ratio:  a considerable portion of the ties were above the level of the street  mere intoxication is not negligence nor does the mere fact of intoxication establish a want of ordinary care  If person’s conduct is characterized by a proper degree of care and prudence.  City Engineer: even if wire was triple braid weather proof type. 28 Phil 122 Nature: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI. the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation. that which is expected of a good father of the family shall be required. 1171. bad faith. if touched by a person.. 2. would endanger life of that person by electrocution Compliance with a franchise. leaped forward and fell. Plaintiff was thrown from the vehicle and caused the injuries complained of. of the time and of the place. Manila Facts: Plaintiff drove home in a calesa. Corliss vs Manila Railroad Company Nature: Direct Appeal from a decision of the CFI. par 2. or a statute is not conclusive proof that there was no negligence. the provision of Article 1171 and 2201. Plaintiff was drunk during that time. If the law or contract does not state the diligence which I to be observed in the performance. The crossing bars were not put down and no guard was at the gatehouse when the accident happened. 2201. Wright vs Manila Electric Co.. shall apply. Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all obligations. The jeep collided with a locomotive of Manila Railroad Company.

Instead. he cannot recover damages. Issue: WON there was negligence . Contributory negligence 2179. Bacani. and told latter about the wire but Baldomero said he could not do it. Rakes vs AG&P Co. Issue: WON there was negligence Held: Yes. of their functions. touched the wire. Wire was cut. He then turned to the right but passed so closely to the horse that the latter being frightened. Later. Pangasinan. Even if crossbars were not put down and that there was no guard. they did not cut off from plant the flow of electricity  Baldomero did not take necessary precaution to prevent anybody from approaching the live wire  Company’s liability for injury caused by his employees’ negligence is defined in par 4. 37 Phil 809 Nature: Facts: Plaintiff Picart was riding a pony on a bridge. however guided his car toward the plaintiff without diminution of speed until he was only a few feet away. he improperly pulled his horse over to the railing on the right. but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. He also saw Cirpriano Baldomero. jumped around and was killed by the passing car. The driver of the automobile. plaintiff still had the duty to stop his jeep to avoid collision and that the main witness of the defendant-appellee. was not qualified to do so at the time of the accident. barrio captain saw broken wire and warned people not to go near wire. Seeing an automobile ahead.   Negligence is want of care required by the circumstances. 69 SCRA 263 Nature: Petitioner for certiorari to review the decision of the CFI. Facts: During a storm. the plaintiff may recover damages. 2180: The owner and manager of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by the employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasions. 3 years and 8 months old. the transmission line of the Alcala Electric Plant were blown down and fell on the electric wire. When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury. Manuel Saynes. Plaintiff was sufficiently warned (locomotive had blown its siren or whistle) Umali vs Bacani. But if his negligence was only contributory. supra Last Clear Chance Picart vs. Picart was thrown off the horse and suffered contusions. laborer at the plant. who drove the engine. the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care. Electric plant Ratio:  didn’t bother to remove banana plants which posed great danger to the electric post supporting the electric wires  upon knowing possible danger due to effects of storm. J. one end of which was left hanging on the post and other fell to the ground under the fallen banana plants. The following morning. Smith. and got electrocuted and subsequently died. chanced upon the place. he was going to look for a lineman to do it.

While he was proceeding down the general Lacuna Street. he swerved his car to the left but it was too late and his car smashed into the dump truck. At about 59 yards after crossing the bridge.  Control of situation had passed to defendant and it was his duty to bring his car to an immediate stop. as it has been in 2179 of CC. has itself been rejected. a cargo truck from the opposite direction collided with the jeep. Witnesses: jeep was zigzagging because driver was drunk. Glan People’s Lumber and Hardware vs NLRC Nature: Petition for certiorari to review the judgment of the CA. he saw a Ford dump truck parked on the right hand side of the street. . Issue: WON there was negligence Held: Yes  primary for Phoenix  Contributory for car driver Ratio:  Employer’s failure to exercise vigilance over its employee is evident from the improper parking of the truck on the street at night along employee’s residence  Doctrine of last clear chance does not seem to have a role to play in a jurisdiction where the common law concept of contributory negligence as an absolute bar to recovery by the plaintiff. Inc. Phoenix Construction vs IAC. Dumptruck was parked askew and no lights or any so-called early warning reflector devices were set anywhere near the truck. he claimed that his headlights suddenly failed and when he switched them to bright. Facts: Engineer Calibo was driving jeep owned by Bacnotan Consolidated Industries. or  Seeing that there were no other persons on the bridge. To avoid collision.Held: Yes. With him were Roranes and Patos. Truck’s driver was unhurt. to take the other side and pass sufficiently far away from the horse to avoid the danger of collision Test: Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect harmful to another was sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing the conduct or guarding against its consequences. plaintiff was on the wrong side of bridge  defendant is also liable under doctrine of last clear chance Ratio:  Defendant is also liable as he had the fair opportunity to avoid the accident after he realized the situation created by the negligence of the plaintiff could by no means then place himself in a position of greater safety. Calibo was killed while his companions sustained injuries. 148 SCRA 353 Nature: Petition for review of the decision of the IAC Facts: Leonardo Dionisio was on his way from a cocktails-and-dinner meeting with his boss (drove a Volkswagen).

Thinking that truck driver was just joking.vehicle was an old 1947 cargo truck whose front wheels were already wiggling  Court also found bus driver negligent: .Issue: WON Calibo had the last clear chance to avoid the accident Held: Yes Ratio:  While still 30 meters away from truck.Issue: WON Koh was negligent Held: NO. The front left side portion of the body of the truck sideswiped the left sidewall of the passenger bus. truck was within its own lane and driver had already applied brakes) Bustamante vs CA.was running fast . he already collided with the cargo truck.road was descending . While in the process of overtaking tractor. Issue: WON doctrine of last clear chance applies to the case at bar Held: No Ratio:  case is not a suit between the owners and drivers of colliding vehicles but a suit brought by the heirs of the deceased passengers against both owners and drivers of the vehicles. Jose Koh. not merely to expect truck to swerve and leave him a clear path. (also. Several passengers of the bus were thrown out and died as a result of their injuries. wither of which he had sufficient time to do while running at a speed of only 30 km/hr.  While truck was about 30 meters away. -Truck and Ford collided in Pulong Pulo Bridge along MacArthur Highway. 211 SCRA 517 Nature: Petition for review from the resolution of the then IAC Facts: Driver Cargo truck Ruben Galang Ford escort Jose Koh Owner Tayag and Manalo To avoid hitting 2 boys who suddenly darted from the right side of the road and into the lane of the car.  Court found truck driver negligent: . 193 SCRA 603 Nature: Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the CA Facts: Driver Gravel and sand truck Montesiano Mazda passenger bus Susulin Owner Del Pilar Magtibay and Serrado Truck and bus collided. bus driver shifted from 4th to 3rd gear so he could overtake a Kubota hand tractor. by stopping in his turn or swerving his jeep away from the truck.  Jeep driver’s duty was to seize the opportunity of avoidance. bus driver saw the truck’s front wheels wiggling and he also observed that truck was heading towards his lane. emergency rule applies .should have stopped bus pr swerved it to the side of the road even down to its shoulder McKee vs IAC. 3 people in the Ford escort died including the driver. Jose Koh blew the horn of his car. swerved to the left and entered the lane of the truck. He attempted to return to his lane but before he could do so. ripping off the said wall from the driver’s sear to the last rear seat. the 2 vehicles sideswiped each other.

If the owner was not on the motor vehicle. except when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business. In case of death of or injuries to passengers. 7 while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in 1755 and 1756. with a due regard for all the circumstances. common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide. Unless there is proof to the contrary. Fernandez. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant if the death or injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons or substances. 5. unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought by his own negligence . the provisions of Article 2180 are applicable. in not guilty of negligence. Common carriers. unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in 1733 and 1755. from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy. Such extraordinary diligence is vigilance over the goods further expressed in 1734. Teague vs. if the former.2185. by the use of due diligence. The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on occasion of their functions. he was violating any traffic regulation. Car driver had given emergency signals for truck to slow down so that car could go back to its lane  driving at 48 km/hr on a 30 km/hr bridge . and is required to act without tie to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger. a person driving a vehicle is presumed negligent if at the time of the mishap. it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap. 51 SCRA 181 Nature: Appeal from decision of CA Facts: . if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method. 6. according to all the circumstances of each case.Koh adopted best means to avoid hitting the 2 boys  cargo truck driver had last clear chance to avoid the accident  upon seeing that car had entered his lane to avoid the boys. 2185. using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons. he was violating any traffic regulation Presumed negligence 2184. if he had been found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding 2 moths. IN motor vehicle mishaps. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent. and 1745 nos. could have.Ratio:  emergency rule: one who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger. the owner is solidarily liable with his driver. who was in the vehicle. prevented the misfortune. 1733. are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them. 2180. 1755. 1735. such as firearms and poison. 1756. 2188. truck driver did not reduce its speed before the actual impact of collision.

. in the absence of a legal excuse. It was owned and operated by Mercedes Teague. Section 491 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila provided that for a building such as the one where the institute was. 4 students were found dead and several others injured on account of the panic which ensued and the subsequent stampede. Manila Facts: (oblicon case ‘to. that the accident arose from want of care.  Death of Lourdes Fernandez was due to the gross negligence of the defendant who failed to exercise due care and diligence for the safety of its students in not providing the building with adequate fire exits and in not practicing fire drill exercises to avoid the stampede. So??? May natatandaan pa ba tayong case dun? ) Barge owned by Luzon Stevedoring was being towed down the Pasig River by tugboats ‘bangus’ and ‘Barbero. of about 1. aside from the fact that the defendant did not have a permit to use building as a schoolhouse. negligence per se or negligence in and of itself. including personal properties and effects inside them. 1955. across the street. 16 SCRA 448 Nature: Petition for review by certiorari of a decision of the CA Facts: While Leandro Flores was transferring gasoline from a tank truck into the underground tank of Caltex.The Realistic Institute was a vocational school for hair and beauty culture. a fire broke out in a store for surplus materials located 10 meters away from institute. 21 SCRA 279 Nature: Appeal from a decision of the CFI.  Incident happened because of want of care on Caltex’ part. The 2nd floor of the building had only 1 stairway. failure to conform to such standard is negligence. at least 2 unobstructed stairways of not less than 1 meter and 20 cm in width should be constructed. smashing posts and causing bridge to list. Fire broke out.. Although no part of the Gil-Armi building caught fire. in the absence of explanation by the defendant.5 meters in width.  station was located in a very busy district near the Obrero market where it is common to see people smoking or lighting a cigarette  concrete walls (fire wall) were only 2 ½ meters high and could not avoid flames from leaping over it in case of fire  station also housed a garage and repair shop-overcrowding Republic vs Luzon Stevedoring Co. an unknown person lighted a cigarette and threw the burning match stick near the main valve of the underground tank. it affords reasonable evidence. Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) Africa vs Caltex.’ Barge rammed against one of the wooden piles of the Nagtahan bailey bridge. spread to and burned several neighboring houses. Issue: WON negligence could be presumed in the case at bar Held: YES Ratio:  when the standard of care is fixed by law. Issue: WON the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to the case at bar Held: Yes Ratio:  res ipsa loquitur: where the thing which caused the injury complained of is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants 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. On Oct 24.

River at the time was swollen and current swift on account of a heavy downpour. Issue: WON doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to the case at bar Held: Yes Ratio:  furniture manufacturing shop contained combustible materials such as wood chips. direct evidence is absent and not readily available  Evidence on record discloses that:  3 or 4 meters from rear of parked truck. varnish and fuel and lubricants  firewall should have been constructed as required by city ordinance  fire could have been caused by a heated motor or a lit cigarette  workers sometimes smoked inside shop Layugan vs IAC. Ratio:  doctrine can be invoked when and only when.  In the ordinary course of events. Request fell on deaf ears. rammed the bridge supports raises a presumption of negligence on the part of the appellant or its employees manning the barge or the tugs that towed it.F. sawdust. such a thing does not happen if proper care is used. Cruz vs CA. J. F. a lighted kerosene lamp was placed  defendant did not check vehicle before he took it on the road and thus was not able to discover that the brake fluid pipe on the right was cut Assumption of risk . Veloso. Defendant’s truck bumped the plaintiff and latter was injured and hospitalized. Fire broke out in petitioner’s shop and both shop and house were razed to the ground. Issue: Won doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to the case at bar Held: NO Res ipsa loquitur (Black’s): a rule of evidence whereby negligence of alleged wrongdoer may be inferred from mere fact that accident happened provided character accident and circumstances attending it lead reasonably to belief that in absence if negligence it would not have occurred and that thing which caused injury is shown to have been under management and control of alleged wrongdoer. 164 SCRA 731 Nature: Petition to review the decision of the CA Facts: Gregorio Mable repeatedly approached Eric Cruz to request that a firewall be constructed between shop and private respondent’s residence. Issue: WON doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to the case at bar Held: Yes Ratio:  The unusual event that the barge. exclusively controlled by appellant. an immovable and stationary object. paint. under the circumstance involved. Facts: Plaintiff and companion wee repairing the tire of their cargo truck which was parked along the right side of the National Highway. 167 SCRA 363 Nature: Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the then IAC.

Estanda struck a child. causing physical injuries to the latter.Afialda vs Hisole Nature: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI. 1957 FACTS:  While driving his employer’s car.  One of the risks of the caretaker’s occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the consequences ORTALIZ v ECHARRI July 31. Iloilo Facts: Afialda was employed as caretaker of defendant spouses’ carabaos. While tending the animals. or the one who uses the same. Issue: WON defendant spouses are liable Held: NO Ratio:  statute refers to possessor or user of animal  possessor or user has the custody and control of the animal and is therefore the one in apposition to prevent it from causing damage. even if such animal should escapre from him or stray away. . This liability shall cease only in case the damage should arise from force majeure or from fault of the person who may have suffered it. he was gored by one of them and later died as a consequence of his injuries. Plaintiff seeks to hold defendants liable under 1905: The possessor of an animal. is liable for any damages it may cause.

 The driver. a complaint for damages was filed.  SC would later confirm from testimony that: 1.  The child’s father. the truck in question was owned by Antonio Ora 2. the complaint of Ortaliz’s contained a sufficient cause of action. Having in view the above provisions of law. Article 2184 provides that If the owner was not in the motor vehicle. even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.  The driver and his companion in the truck were charged with the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence to which they pleaded guilty.  Likewise. 1930 FACTS:  A truck owned by a certain Antonio Ora was on its way to Santa Mesa carrying large pieces of lumber belonging to Norton & Harrison Co. . Subsequently. Consequently. stopped the truck for the purpose of rearranging it.  However. CUISON v NORTON & HARRISON CO. ISSUE: Won Ortaliz’s complaint has sufficient cause of action against Echarri as employer of Estanda HELD: YES  Article 2180 states that Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within their scope of their assigned tasks. a civil action for damages entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action. The boy died instantly. before it could be rearranged. October 14. upon noticing that the lumber had become loosened. defendant Echarri. some large pieces of lumber fell from the truck and pinned beneath it a 7-year old boy who was passing by. may be brought by the injured party. that the lumber was owned by Norton & Harrison Co.” is untenable in view of Article 2180: Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees XXX even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. filed a complaint for damages against Estanda’s employer. who was with two other people (Binoya and Bautista. plaintiff Ortaliz. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution xxx Order of dismissal of lower court revoked. the contention of Echarri that plaintiff should have reserved the civil action is untenable in view of Article 33: In cases of physical injuries. a criminal case for Slight Physical Injuries Through Reckless Imprudence was filed against Estanda. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was subsequently convicted. all 3 of them are below 18). the provisions of Article 2180 applies.  The contention of Echarri that there should be allegation in the complaint that “the defendant was engaged in some kind of industry and that employee committed the crime in the discharge of his duties in connection with the industry.

However. but they were not the men who were directed by Ora to load the lumber on the truck  CFI absolved Norton & Harrison from the complaint which alleged that the death of the boy was caused by its negligence. ISSUE: Won Norton & Harrison should be held responsible HELD: YES  It is evident that Ora was a contractor and employee at the same time of Norton & Harrison Co. he used the services of Bautista and Binoya for the loading and unloading of said lumber. that Ora had regularly rented out his truck to Norton & Harrison Co. is also responsible for the death. Ora was charged with the duty of directing the loading and transportation of the lumber. for the purpose of transporting the latter’s lumber 4. retained the power of directing and controlling his work. CHINA AIRLINES LTD v COURT OF APPEALS May 18. concurs  Concurs with the result but the case at bar is governed by the provisions of Article 20 in connection with Article 17 of the Penal Code and Article 1092 of the CC. defendant Norton & Harrison Co. .  As an employee of Norton. 1902 & 1903.  Ora was a foreman of the defendants Norton and Harrison for the loading and unloading of their lumber the falling of which caused the death of the boy. as an employer of Ora. Such distinction is important because Norton & Harrison Co.  Since there was a criminal complaint filed.3. In the performance of his duties as foreman. Judgment reversed. (mejo mahirap intindihin ang syllogism ng decision) Villareal. thus making them his employees in such work. and consequently the employees of Norton and Harrison through him. 1990 FACTS:  Jose Pagsibigan purchased a plane ticket for a Manila-Taipei-Hongkong-Manila flight from the Transaire Travel Agency. Ora was the agent or employee of Norton & Harrison. he is not an independent contractor. Norton & Harrison are therefore civilly liable for the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence committed by these 2 employees. as capataz (foreman) and that it was his duty as such employee to direct the loading and transportation of lumber 5. and not by Art.  As such foreman.  For his negligence. that the driver of the truck and his companions were also in the employ of Norton & Harrison. and sufficient allegation in the present action that Bautista and Binoya committed the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence. And it was the negligence in loading the lumber and the use of minors on the truck which caused the death of the boy. that Ora was also employed by Norton & Harrison Co.

 PAL.  When Pagisibigan showed up at the airport an hour before the supposed scheduled time of departure. . 1968 5:20 PM flight of China Airlines. that China Airlines did not inform the issuing PAL branch of the revised timetable of CAL flights PAL asserted a cross-claim against CAL. for its part.  CA ruled out claim for moral and exemplary damages. SC deemed it wise to determine the true nature of the action instituted by Pagsibigan. that is. were informed of the revised schedule of flights 2. to enforce the civil liability of CAL for breach of contract and.  In view of the proscription against double recovery. It awarded nominal damages. embarrasment.  China Airlines.  In its defense. It did not award moral damages. that the issuing PAL branch had in fact been issuing and selling tickets based on the revised time sked CAL also asserted a cross claim against PAL. WF and SN. he was informed that the CAL plane he was supposed to take for Taipei had left at 10:20 AM that day. through its ticketing agent Roberto Espiritu. PAL alleged that: 1. likewise. .  According to SC. a perusal of the complaint of Pagisbigan will disclose that the allegations therein make out a case for a quasi-delict. MA. including PAL.  SC noted that Pagsibigan has opted to seek redress by pursuing two remedies at the same time. as a result of which he suffered besmirched reputation.  TC found PAL and Roberto Espiritu jointly and severally liable by way of exemplary damages. to recover from PAL and Espiritu for tort or culpa aquiliana. issued to Pagsibigan the plane ticket which showed that the latter had been booked at the June 10. The said agency contacted Philippine Airlines which at that time was a sales and ticketing agent of China Airlines. He alleged that Espiritu had been grossly negligent in his duties. departing from Manila for Taipei. that notices of these revised sked were furnished to all sales agent 3. the departure time indicated on Pagsibigan’s plane ticket was furnished and confirmed by China Airlines 2. averred 1. Pagsibigan took the re-scheduled flight. thereby warranting award for moral damages.  The PAL employees then made appropriate arrangements so that he could take the PAL’s flight to Taipei the ff day.  A few months after. that all airlines. ISSUE: Who should be held liable HELD: PAL With respect to CAL . he filed a complaint for moral damages and attorney’s fees against PAL. . CAL was exonerated.

 One day.  IN an action premised on the employee’s negligence. it is also primarily liable under Article 2180 of CC. With respect to PAL and Espiritu . however. . CA exonerated CAL of any liability for fault or negligence.  It is thus evident that when Pagsibigan sensed that he cannot hold CAL liable on a quasi-delict. he made a detour on appeal. what is sought to be imposed is the direct and primary liability of PAL as an employer. PAL had been issuing and selling ticket based on said revised time sked. Masa stopped the vehicle he was driving and allowed Funtecha to take over behind the wheel.Had Pagisibigan intended to maintain an action based on breach of contract. Decision modified. and this suffices to hold the employer primarily and solidarily liable for the tortious act of the employee. to allow him to drive the school vehicle. however. . there are admitted exceptions. there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the employer. FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE v IAC August 17. an agent who duly acts as such is not personally liable to 3rd persons. For the failure of PAL to rebut the legal presumption of negligence. This presumption. who already had a student’s driver’s license. Funtecha.  But there is no basis to hold CAL liable on a quasi-delict.  SC did not allow Pagsibigan to change his theory at this stage because it would be unfair for CAL as it would have no opportunity to present further evidence material to the new theory.  When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee. 1992 FACTS:  Funtecha was a working student. Espiritu is primarily liable to Pagisbigan under Article 2176 of the CC.  Under Article 2180. by his negligene. as in this case where the agent is being sued for damages arising from a tort committed by his employee. he could have sued CAL alone considering that PAL is not a real party to the contract. . PAL. being a part-time janitor and scholar of Filamer Christian Institute. requested Masa. However. by claiming that his action against CAL is based on breach of contract of carriage.  PAL’s main defense is that is only an agent. all that is required is that the employee. PAL failed to overcome such presumption. and in fact. may be rebutted by a clear showing on the part of the employer that it has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee.  For his negligence. PAL was duly informed of CAL’s revised sked. Assenting to the request. whereby Pagsibigan seeks recovery for the damages from both PAL and Espiritu without qualification. As found by CA. committed a quasidelict which caused damage to another. As a general proposition. the school driver and son of the school president. can demand from Espiritu reimbursement of the amount which it will have to pay the offended party’s claim.

in furtherance of the interests of the employer or for the account of the employe at the time of the infliction of the injury or damage  Even if somehow. but ultimately. Upon swerving. in learning how to drive while taking the vehicle home in the direction of Allan’s home. However. the employer shall have recourse against the negligent employee for whatever damages are paid to the heirs of the plaintiff. under Article 2180. for the service for which the jeep was intended by the petitioner school. Funtecha definitely was not having a joy ride or for enjoyment. after negotiating a sharp dangerous curb. school had failed to show that it impose sanctions or warned its employees against the use of its vehicles by persons other than the driver. The liability of the employer. Petitioner has not shown that it has set forth rules and guidelines as would prohibit any one of its employees from taking control over its vehicles if one is not the official driver or prohibiting the authorized driver from letting anyone than him to drive the vehicle. the existence of a presumptive liability of the employer is determined by answering the question of whether or not the servant was at the time of the accident performing any act in furtherance of his master’s business. However.  Thus. The pedestrian died due to the accident. . Furthermore. On Labor Code’s Rule X  The clause “within the scope of their assigned tasks” (found in CC) for purposes of raising the presumption of liability of an employer. Filamer has an obligation to pay damages for injury arising from the unskilled manner by which Funtecha drove the vehicle since the law imposes upon the employers vicarious liability for acts or omissions of its employees. Funtecha came upon a fast moving truck so that he had to swerve to the right to avoid a collision. includes any act done by an employee. (School president had knowledge of Funtecha’s desire to learn how to drive. ISSUE: Won Filamer Christian Institute should be held liable HELD: YES  First it should be noted that driving the vehicle to and from the house of the school president were both Allan and Funtecha reside is an act in furtherance of the interest of the petitioner-school. the employee driving the vehicle derived some benefit from the act.  Petitioner school has failed to show that it exercised diligence of a good father of a family.)  Court is thus constrained to conclude that the act of Funtecha in taking over the steering wheel was one done for and in behalf of his employer for which act the school cannot deny any responsibility by arguing that it was done beyond the scope of his janitorial duties.  Thus. is primary and solidary. It is sufficient that the act of driving at the time of the incident was for the benefit of the school. The school jeep had to be brought home so that the school driver can use it to fetch students in the morning of the next school day.  The fact that Funtecha was not the school driver does not relieve the school from the burden of rebutting the presumption of negligence on its part. they bumped a pedestrian walking in his lane.

DUAVIT v COURT OF APPEALS May 18.  CA held the two of them jointly and severally liable. He testified further that Duavit even filed charges against him for theft of the jeep. 1989 FACTS:  The jeep being driven by defendant Sabiniano collided with another jeep. which provides for the exclusion of working scholars in the employment coverage and on which the petitioner is anchoring its defense. This ruling is still relevant and applicable. HELD: NO  In Duquillo v Bayot (1939). is merely a guide to the enforcement of the substantive law on labor. which had then 2 passengers on it. but which Duavit did not push through as the parents of Sabiniano apologized to Duavit on his behalf.  A case was filed against Sabiniano as driver and against Duavit as owner of the jeep. SC ruled that an owner of a vehicle cannot be held liable for an accident involving a vehicle if the same was driven without his consent or knowledge and by a person not employed by him.  Duavit admitted ownership of the jeep but denied that Sabiniano was his employee. Motion granted.  CA’s reliance on the cases of Erezo v Jepte and Vargas v Langcay is misplaced and cannot be sustained. defendant Jepte was held liable for the death of Erezo even if he was not really the owner of the truck that killed the latter because he represented himself as its owner to the Motor . must be upheld. and hence. As a result of the collision the passengers of the other jeep suffered injury and the automobile itself had to be repaired because of the extensive damage. Present case does not involve a labor dispute.  Sabiniano himself admitted that he took Duavit’s jeep from the garage without consent or authority of the owner. and that former took the vehicle without consent or authority of the latter. Rule X. An implementing rule on labor cannot be used by an employer s a shield to avoid liability under the substantive provisions of the CC.  TC found Sabiniano negligent in driving the vehicle but absolved Duavit on the ground that there was no employer-employee relationship between them. It is not the decisive law in a civil suit for damage instituted by an injured person during a vehicular accident against a working student of a school and against the school itself. ISSUE: Won the owner of a private vehicle which figured in an accident can be held liable under Article 2180 of the CC when the said vehicle was neither driven by an employee of the owner nor taken with the consent of the latter. In Erezo v Jepte case.

Superguard impliedly acknowledged responsibility for his acts by extending sympathies to the plaintiffs.Vehicles Office and had it registered under his name. holding that the operator of record continues to be the operator of vehicle in contemplation of law. The jeep was virtually stolen from the petitioner’s garage.  Meanwhile. an Information charging Torzuela with homicide was filed with RTC Makati.  The circumstances of the above cases are entirely different from those in the present case. Decision and resolution annulled and set aside. while Safeguard appears to be the employer of Torzuela. Herein petitioner does not deny ownership of vehicle but denies having employed or authorized the driver Sabiniano. he shot and killed Atty. Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that Section 1.  Superguard/Safeguard alleged that a complaint of petitioner for damages based on negligence under Article 2176 cannot lie because said article is applicable only to quasi-offenses.  The heirs of Dulay filed a complaint for damages under Article 2176 against Torzuela and Safeguard Investigation and Secuirty Co. Safeguard and Superguard were impleaded as alternative defedants for.. she was held liable by the court. In Vargas. unless the offended party waives the civil action. TC judge dismissed the complaint against the alternative defendants on the ground that the complaint did not state facts necessary to constitute a quasi-delict since it does not mention any negligence on the part of Torzuela. alleged employers of defendant Torzuela. So when the jeepney later on figured in an accident. he was thus estopped from later on denying such representation.  Upon motion. Inc. In the complaint. ISSUE: Won petitioner can sustain a valid cause of action under Article 2176 against the employer of Torzuela HELD: YES  It is undisputed that Benigno Torzuela is being prosecuted for homicide for the fatal shooting of Dulay. the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action. Napoleon Dulay after an altercation occurred between them in the premises of said establishment. but she did not surrender to the Motor Vehicles Office the corresponding AC plates. DULAY v COURT OF APPEALS April 3. reserves his right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. and he acted beyond the scope of his duty. . When a criminal action is instituted. as regards the public and 3rd persons. 1995 FACTS:  While Benigno Torzuela was on duty as security guard of “Big Bang sa Alabang”. They alleged that Torzuela’s act of shooting was committed with deliberate intent (dolo). and/or Superguard Security Corp. Vargas sold her jeepney to a 3rd person.

BUT WON the shooting was attended by negligence or actually done within the scope of Torzuela’s duties. the private respondents opposed the civil action on the ground that the same is founded on a delict and not on a quasi-delict as the shooting was not attended by negligence. as argued by petitioners. there is no justification for limiting the scope of Article 2176 of the CC to acts or omissions resulting from negligence. However.  Luna had been prosecuted and convicted of the crime of homicide with physical injuries thru reckless imprudence. she presented the judgment of conviction  TC held the 2 solidarily liable. 1962 FACTS:  Angeline Steen suffered injuries as a result of the collision between the passenger jeepney she was riding and the cargo truck owned by De Leon Brokerage and recklessly driven by its employee. as in the instant case. Case remanded to RTC for trial on merits. Because of the principle of vicarious responsibility. To prove Luna’s negligence. petitioners may proceed directly against Torzuela and the private respondents. De Leon claimed that: . Well-entrenched is the doctrine that Article 2176 covers not only acts committed with negligence.  It having been established that the instant action is not ex-delicto. The driver of the passenger jeepney was acquitted. This is precisely what the petitioners opted to do in this case. Luna reserved her right to file a separate civil action.  The petitioner’s complaint sufficiently alleged an actionable breach on the part of Torzuela and Superguard and/or Safeguard.  She eventually filed an action for recovery of moral and exemplary damages against Luna and De Leon Brokerage. CA affirmed.  At the appellate court. It is well-settled that the filing of an independent civil action before the prosecution in the criminal action presents evidence is even far better than a compliance with the requirement of an express reservation. but also acts which are voluntary and intentional (See Elcano v Hill & Andamo v IAC)  And. Torzuela’s act of shooting Dulay is also actionable under Article 33 of the CC because the term “physical injuries” found therein has already been construed to include bodily injuries causing death (Capuno v Pepsico) Independent civil action may be filed under Article 33 so long as the crime is not the result of criminal negligence. Luna. WON Superguard and/or Safeguard failed to exercise due diligence are matters that should be resolved after trial on merits. DE LEON BROKERAGE CO INC v CA February 28. What is then the nature of petitioner’s action?  Contrary to the theory of private respondents. it is incumbent upon Safeguard and/or Superguard to prove that they exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employee. In this criminal action.

De Leon must still be held liable since it failed to prove exercise of due diligence.a defense available only to employer being sued under a quasi-delict.  Note: that owner of vehicle must also be in the vehicle at the time of the accident refers to owners of vehicles not included in the terms of Art. At any rate. It cannot be inferred therefrom that Steen had chosen to file the very civil action she had reserved. the court in the criminal proceeding would have awarded her indemnity.  Steen did not have to wait for the termination of the criminal proceeding or to reserve in the same her right to file a separate civil action. whatever doubts as to the nature of Steen’s action are resolved by her prayer that the 2 be held solidarily liable.1. And she reserved because otherwise.  At any rate. judgment of conviction inadmissible as evidence of a quasi-delict 3.  Notwithstanding the presentation of the judgment of conviction. In the absence of determinative proof that there was a cessation or suspension of his service. complaint is not clear whether she was suing for damages resulting from quasi-delict or for civil liability arising from crime. She averred that there exists an employer-employee relationship between Luna and De Leon Since there is the averment in No. 2180 as “owners of an establishment or enterprise. it is clear that Steen did not base her suit on criminal conviction. it is obvious that De Leon understood that it was being held liable under the CC because of its affirmative defense that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family . and did not have to allege that De Leon did not exercise due diligence in choosing and supervising Luna.  The reservation in the criminal action does not preclude a subsequent action based on a quasidelict.” Judgment affirmed. Luna was not in the discharge of his duties at the time of the accident 4. Complaint does not. which caused her injuries. 2. The mention of criminal conviction merely tended to support her claim that Luna had been recklessly negligent in driving the truck.  Was Luina in the performance of his duties at the time of the collision? He testified that on the day of the accident he was instructed to go to the province. it cannot be held solidarily liable with Luna ISSUE: What is the nature of Steen’s cause of action: quasi-delict or delict HELD: Quasi-delict  Steen’s complaint is based on quasi-delict. 1. She waited for the results of the criminal action because she wanted to be sure which driver and respective employer she could rightly sue. because this is a matter of defense. since both Luna and the driver of the jeep were prosecuted. since the averments are more characteristic of an action of the latter nature 2. but it does not appear that he was on errand of his own. She alleged that she suffered injuries because of Luna’s carelessness and imprudence 2. there is a clear statement of a right of action under Article 2180 of the CC. . since the civil action for recovery of civil liability is deemed instituted with the criminal action. Reason for his return to Manila is not clear.

Although the mother purchased the automobile.  In the instant case. As a consequence. While she may have been in one sense the owner of the machine.  TC found Leynes liable but dismissed complait against Fausta. this fact is not conclusive in making him responsible for the negligence of the chauffeur or for the defects in the auto itself. While is may be said that. Ramirez also supplied Leynes a chauffeur and a machinist for the purpose of conveying to and from Balayan and Tuy. 1912 FACTS:  Fausta Litonjua purchased an automobile and later turned it over to International garage. Ramirez. and Leynes.  While in Balayan. she turned it over to the garage of her son for use therein.  Under Article 1903 of the CC (now Article 2176). It appears that Fausta was not aware of the contract with Leynes.  The judgment against Leynes must be reversed and the complaint against him must be dismissed. the death of the child caused by a defect in the steering gear immediately raised the presumption that Leynes was negligence in selecting a defective automobile or in his failure to maintain it in good condition after selection.  Bahia then filed an action against the Fausta (donor of auto). in as much as the profits derived from the trips of the auto belonged to him and the auto was operated under his direction. the automobile refused to obey the direction of the driver in turning a corner due to a defect in the steering gear. under the other facts of the case. The automobile crushed the child to death.under who was directing and controlling the operation of the automobile at the time of the accident. that fact does not.BAHIA v LITONJUA AND LEYNES March 30. 2 things are apparent: 1. Ramirez was not made a party. which is owned and managed by his son Ramon Ramirez. . and he had the full management and control of it and received all the profits therefrom. Ramirez rented the automobile donated by his mother to Mariano Leynes. it rammed into the wall of a house against which the daughter of plaintiff Bahia was leaning at the time. presumption of negligence on the part of the employer whenever there is an injury caused by the negligence employee 2. presumption is juris tantum and may be rebutted.  As part of the daily operations of his business. ISSUE: Who should be held responsible HELD:  SC opined that the action as to Fausta was properly dismissed. at the time of the accident. nevertheless. make her responsible for the results of the accident. the chauffeur who was driving the auto was a servant of Leynes. The establishment belonged to the son.

when it collided with a bus driven by Leonardo and owned by the Metro Manila Transit Corp (MMTC).  TC found both drivers concurrently negligent. 2. by seeing to it that its employees were in proper uniforms. and c. As joint tortfeasors. Custodio suffered physical injuries. both drivers. and apparently thoroughly competent. as well as Lamayo (owner of the jeepney) were held solidarily liable for damages sustained by Custodio.  At the trial court. It was caused by a defect in the machine as to which the defendant has shown himself free from responsibility. since she was still a minor. 1993 FACTS:  Nenita Custodio was a paying passenger of a public utility jeepney. METRO MANILA TRANSIT CORP v CA June 21. that it checked its employees to determine WON they were positive for alcohol and d. but was also strict and diligent in supervising its employees. The workmen were likewise selected from a standard garage. were duly licensed. Sufficient time had not elapsed to require an examination of the machine by the defendant as a part of his duty of inspection and supervision.  As a result of the collision. and evidence as to the alleged written guidelines of the company. which so far as appeared in good condition. While it does not appear that the defendant formulated rules and regulations for the guidance of the drivers and gave them proper instructions designed for the protection of the public and the passengers. the evidence shows that the death of the child was not caused by a failure to promulgate rules and regulations. she filed a complaint for damages against the drivers of the automobiles and their respective employers. MMTC was absolved on the ground that it exercised diligence of a good father of a family in selecting and supervising its employees. it was not only careful and diligent in choosing and screening applicants for job openings.  The collision happened after failure of both vehicles to slow down or blow their horns when they were simultaneously approaching the same intersection in Taguig. The machine had been used but a few hours when the accident occurred and it is clear from the evidence that the defendant had no notice. that they followed other rules and regulations of the Bureau of Land Transportation and of the company. they were not able to present any evidence that its driver has complied with all the clearances and trainings. SC found that defendant had exercised due diligence when he obtained the machine from a reputable garage. then driven by Calebag and owned by Lamayo. either actual or constructive of the defective condition of the steering gear. MMTC presented its training officer and its transport supervisor who respectively testified that: 1. ISSUE: Did MMTC exercise due diligence.As to selection. Should it be held solidarily liable with the other defendants HELD: No . b. Assisted by her parents.  CA modified TC’s decision by holding MMTC solidarily liable with the other defendants on the ground that the testimonies of the training officer and transport supervisor were not enough to overcome the presumption of negligence. briefed in traffic rules and regulations before the start of duty. a.

inasmuch as the witnesses’ (training supervisor and transport supervisor) dwelt on mere generalities. MMTC fell short of the required evidentiary quantum as would convincingly and undoubtedly prove its diligence. they cannot be considered as sufficiently persuasive proof that MMTC observed due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees. MMTC solidarily liable. GUTIERREZ v CA November 29. a portion of it gave way and collapsed.  When the pile of earth and mud reached the height of the fence. Conclusion of CA is more firmly grounded on jurisprudence and amply supported by evidence of record than that of TC.  Hence. moral and exemplary damages against Gutierrez and Balisalisa. the workers of Gutierrez dug up a street by means of crane. actual expenses.  With the allegation and subsequent proof of negligence against the defendant driver and of an employer-employee relationship between him and MMTC in this instance. ISSUE: Are defendants liable for moral and exemplary damages. Judgment of CA affirmed. 1976 FACTS:  Benigno Gutierrez was awarded by the Bureau of Public Works the contract to construct a drainage in Manila. CA affirmed judgment.  The parents of the child filed a suit for actual. object or documentary.  TC ordered the 2 jointly and severally to pay the parents of the deceased moral and exemplary damages.  Under the supervision of Balisalisa. was hit and pinned down by the falling debris of the wall. Mabini Elementary School along the street. attorney’s fees and costs of suit.  MMTC should have presented other evidence. The earth and the mud dig up were scooped by the crane and dumped against the exterior side of the adobe stone of A.  It is procedurally required for each party in case to prove his own affirmative assertion by the degree of evidence required by law.  As held in Gutierrez v Gutierrez. as the solidarity of the obligation is justified by the very nature thereof. He engaged Domingo Balisala as project engineer. to buttress an apparently biased testimony. the case is undoubtedly based on a quasi-delict under Article 2180. a school child who was then playing inside the school grounds.  In the instant case. the drivers and owners of the said vehicles shall be primarily. the crane’s steel scooper was used to press them down.  When the adobe wall collapsed. Declarations are not enough. . Such party must present all available evidence at his disposal in the manner that may be necessary to buttress his claim. directly and solidarily liable for damages and it is immaterial that one action is based on quasi-delict and the other on culpa contractual. where the injury is due to the concurrent negligence of the drivers of the colliding vehicles. She was buried underneath and eventually died. Because of the heavy stress thus placed on the fence.

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 or in supervision over him after selection or both. if not intelligence. Indeed. which was fragile. could be reasonably expected by any person of ordinary prudence. in the course of its maneuvers. 30. they should be held responsible for moral and exemplary damages. The collapse. the crane operator was actually operating and managing the heavy equipment in the construction site of the defendants in connection with their construction job 3.1926. Judgment affirmed. This presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure and consequently may be rebutted. therefore. no evidence is necessary to show that defendants were negligent in the performance of their obligation. The steamship slightly struck the wharf but not with such force since it was difficult for her to strike it with such force. commanded by Capt. 2. "xxx" . TC held that Cadwallader was not liable since the partial demolition was due to the excessive weight of timber piled and bad conditions of piles supporting the wharf. steamer Helen C. the contract between the government and Gutierrez stipulated that the contractor would furnish himself his own labor plant. They should have foreseen the danger but they failed to take the necessary precautions. More so with respect to Gutierrez so that other contractors similarly situated will be more careful. 1903: "Owners or directors of any establishment or business are in the same way liable for any damages caused by their employees while engaged in the branch of the service in which employed or on the occasion of the performance of their duties. ISSUE: WON Cadwallader as owner of the steamship is liable for the damages caused by said steamship HELD: No. The wharf was old.HELD: YES  Employer-employee relationship existed between the them and the crane operators: 1. 2. Miguel Lasa struck the wharf of Walter Smith at the port of Olutanga. Zamboanga. The wharf was partially demolished and the timber piled on it were thrown into the water.  SC quoted with approval the basis of TC’s award for moral and exemplary damages. Two things are apparent from Art 1903: 1. RATIO: This case deals with an obligation arising from culpa aquiliana or negligence and must be decided in accordance with Art 1902-1903. owned by Cadwallader. WS infers that there was negligence on the part of the captain of ship and that the impact of the ship with the wharf was due to the excessive force with which the captain ordered the winches to work. WALTER SMITH & CO vs CADWALLADER FACTS: On Aug. They ought to have known that it was not the right thing to do-to pile up the big volume of earth against the wall. For this omission on their part. Negligence of defendants has been clearly established by evidence. TC however did not make any definite findings on the negligence of the captain. In Art. When an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or employee. being made only of adobe held together by mortar and w/out reinforcements. defense of alleged non-existence of such relationship cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

ONG vs METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT FACTS: Metropolitan Water District owns and operates 3 swimming pools in Balara. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL vs CA FACTS: Ferdinand Castillo. The operator of swimming pools will not be held liable for the drowning or death of a patron if said operator had exercised due diligence in the selection of and supervision over. there is sufficient evidence to show that MWD had taken all necessary precautions: 1. They exerted efforts to revive him but the boy died. HELD: NO RATIO: The spouses Ong who were claiming for damages had the burden of proving that the damage is caused by the fault or negligence of MWD or one of its employees and were not able to do so. Dominador Ong. 4. TC found 6 teachers liable but dismissed the case against the school. Abaño gave him manual artificial respirator. Thus the presumption of liability against the defendant had been overcome by the exercise of diligence and car of a good father of the family in selecting Capt. 3. principal and one teacher. Rules and regulations governing use of pools are on display at conspicuous places. Security guards are always available. CA found school and principal liable with the teachers. Lastly. I-C of St. Cadwallader proved that the Capt. 2. Ferdinand died as a result. 6. 1952. and they were chosen for their reputed skill in directing and navigating the Helen C safely.in that it had taken all necessary precautions to avoid danger to the lives of its patrons or prevent accident which may cause their death. some boys noticed him swimming underwater for a long time. Between 4:40-4:45. . On female teacher was apparently drowning and some students came to her rescue. The parents filed complaint against the school and the teachers contending that the death of their son was due to the failure of petitioners to exercise proper diligence of a good father of the family. 14. There is a clinic provided with oxygen resuscitator. Lasa. carefully and efficiently. The lifeguard Manuel Abaño was then informed and he immediately jumped and retrieved the apparently lifeless body of Ong from the bottom. Swimming pools are equipped with ring buoy. In July 5. Bottom of pool is painted w/ black colors to insure clear visibility."the liability imposed in this article shall cease in case the persons subject thereto prove that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of the family to prevent the damage" In this case. QC. 7. A male nurse and sanitary inspector were employed. Cadwallader is thus absolved from all liability. ST. Francis High School joined a picnic of 1-B and 1-C at Talaan Beach Sariaya Quezon. the nurse and sanitary inspector injected camphorated oil and applied oxygen resuscitator. went with his bros to the pool. its employees and that it had observed the diligence required by law under the circumstances . All of these show that MWD has done what is humanly possible under the circumstances to restore life to Ong and for that reason it is unfair to hold it liable for his death. the Doctrine of last clear chance can never apply where the party charged is required to act instantaneously and if the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all means at hand after the peril is and should have been discovered. toy roof. The employees of MWD also did everything possible to bring the boy to life. oxygen resuscitator and first aid medicine kit. 5. 6 trained and proficient lifeguards were employed and are on duty two at a time. a doctor was sent for. In this case. towing line. ISSUE: WON the death of the Ong can be attributed to the negligence of defendant and/or its employees so as to entitle plaintiff to recover damages. Lasa and all officers of Helen C were duly licensed to hold their positions when the wharf collapsed.

but did nothing about it. especially as the present action is not one against the government. teachers did all what is humanely possible to save the child.E. The fact that the duties and positions of defendants were indicated does not mean that they are being sued in their official capacities. he suffered actual and moral damages. RATIO: Before the employer may be held liable for the negligence of his employee under Art 2180. the negligence attributed to the teachers was not proven. teachers and scout masters who have knowledge first aid application and swimming. filed a complaint against Forencio Brazas. In this case. operator of Samar Express Transit. not on a school day and while the teachers and students were holding a purely private affair. this does not exempt the employees from personal liability. especially if there are no persons having direct supervision over them. So the injured party can bring an action directly against the author of the negligent act or omission. 2. 2176 is applicable to the case at bar HELD: No. although he may sue as joint defendants such author and the person responsible for him. The class adviser of 1-C did her best and exercised diligence of a good father of a family to prevent any untoward incident or damage to all students who joined the picnic as evidenced by: 1. BELIZAR vs BRAZAS FACTS: Pedro Balizar. It was also not an extra-curricular activity. The defendants were being sued in their capacity as employees of Bureau of Public Highways. ISSUE: WON dismissal of case was correct HELD: No. The incident happened not within school premises. In the case at bar. Ratio: Although Art.E. Brazas filed motion to dismmiss claiming that the plaintiff has no cause of action against them because they are being sued in their official capacities and therefor the claim for damages should be directed against the State. . one of his autotrucks while being transported. He claims that due to their gross negligence in not providing the ferryboat with safety devices. fell into the river and was submerged for 30 hrs. In addition. inviting 2 P. the act or omission which caused the damage must have occurred while the employee was in the performance of his assigned task.ISSUE: WON Art 2180 in relation to Art. Such picnic had no permit from the school head or the principal since it was not a school sanctioned activity. was in fact invited. 2180 CC provides for the liability of an employer for the tortious acts of his employees. His silence and negligence in performing his role as principal head of the school must be construed as an implied consent of the activity. DISSENT: Padilla The presumption in Art 2180 is not conclusive and should be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that the owner or manager exercised the care and diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of the employees causing the injury or damage. 3. et al. the principal knew of the picnic. Padilla agrees with CA that no proof was presented to absolve the manager/principal. Both P. Principal should have taken appropriate measures to ensure the safety of his students. TC dismissed the complaint. the teachers /petitioners were not in the performance of their actual task. As a consequence. or if there is proof of the existence of negligence on their part. life savers were especially brought by the teachers in case of emergency.

Romeo Vasquez was driving his motorcycle around the Osmeña Rotunda in the normal flow and collided with the company pick-up driven by Benjamin Abad who was going against the flow of the the traffic in the same Rotunda. Abad signed an acknowledgement of Responsible party wherein he would pay all the expenses. riding on a motorcycle at a speed of 10-12 mi/hr. ISSUE: WON Gov’t may be held liable in this case HELD: NO RATIO: Art 1903. In the case at bar. around 1:30-2 am. collided with an ambulance of the General Hospital which turned suddenly and unexpectedly without having sounded any whistle or horn Merrit was severely injured. ISLAND FACTS: Merrit. par 5 of Old CC states that: “The State is liable in this sense when it acts through a special agent but not when the damage should have been caused by the official to whom properly it pertained to do the act performed. TC held that Gov’t is liable for damages sustained by plaintiff even if the collision was due to the negligence of chauffeur. 5. that the employee was acting within the scope of his assigned task when the tort complained of was committed. pimps. Thus. he did some overtime work at petitioner’s office. Castilex had no duty to show that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in providing Abad with a service vehicle. Thereafter he went to a restaurant at a place known as a “haven for prostitutes. At the night of the incident. 28.and drug pushers and addicts” The Court finds that Abad was engaged in affairs of his own (had a woman in the car with him not young enough to call him Daddy!!) or was carrying out a personal purpose not in line with his duties at the time he figured in a vehicular accident. TC held that both must pay jointly and solidarily.CASTILEX INDUSTRIAL CORP vs VASQUEZ FACTS: On Aug. Since there is a paucity (scarcity. it is undisputed that Abad was production manager of Castilex. to hold emplyer liable. CA affirmed but held that the liability of Castilex is only vicarious and not solidary. It was 2 am and way beyond normal working hours. ISSUE: WON an employer may be held vicariously (subsidiarily) liable for the death resulting from the negligent operation by a managerial employee of a company-issued vehicle HELD: NO RATIO: Art 2180 par 5 says that WON engaged in any business or industry. 1988. But it is necessary to first establish the employee-employer rel’nship. His overtime had ended. 1988. justice and equity require that Castilex be relieved of vicarious liability for the consequences of the negligence of Abad in driving its vehicle. Vasquez died at the hospital on Sept. insufficiency) of evidence that Abad was acting within the scope of the functions entrusted to him. an employer is liable for the torts committed by emplyees within the scope of his assigned tasks. in which case the provisions of the preceding article shall be applicable” . State MERRIT vs GOV’T OF PHIL. His condition had undergone depreciation and his efficiency as a contractor was affected. Then the plaintiff must show. It is only then that the employer can interpose the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employee. Vasquez parents commenced an action for damages against Abad and Castilex.

Heirs bagan proceedings for damages against provincial gov’t. the responsibility of the State is limited by Art 1903 to the case wherein it acts through a special agent who. Jose Frayno ignited his cigarette-lighter near a 5-gallon drum into which gasoline was being drained. The chauffeur of the ambulance of the General Hospital was not a special agent thus the Gov’t is not liable. All persons and entities acting by commission of the gov’t such as governmental enterprises and other organs of the gov’t created for activities ordinarily of ungovernmental nature. are special agents. a declaration must be made that Torralba was a special agent within the scope of Art 1903 par 5. A fire erupted burning the bodega as well as neighboring houses including the house and personal property of Rosete. But this principle applies only to the Insular Gov’t as distinguished from prov’l or municipal gov’ts. J ECA is a special agent of the Gov’t since it was organized by the gov’t for the same substantial purpose as Phil Relief and Rehabilitation purposes. Thus. The storing of gasoline and other combustible materials requires the securing of license and permit and ECA was not granted such permit. 1903 does not apply to executive agent who is an employee of the active administration and who on his own responsibility performs the functions which are inherent and naturally pertain to his office which are regulated by law and regulations. he ran over Proceto Palafox killing him. in which case the provisions of the preceding article shall be applicable” There was no showing that whatever negligence may be imputed to ECA was done by a special agent. The officers of ECA did not act as special agents of government within the meaning in Art 1903 when they stored gasoline in the warehouse of ECA. Thus the Gov’t is not liable. executes the trust confided to him. foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office if he is a special official. Special agent is one who receives a definite and fixed order or commission. Palafox was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence. the government is liable for the damages caused by ECA. ROSETE V AUDITOR GENERAL FACTS: Inside the building used by Emergency Control Administration as a bodega in which oil and gasoline were stored. While driving his truck in compliance with his duties. . Art. in representing the state and being bound to act as an agent thereof. DISSENT: Perfecto. PALAFOX vs PROVINCE OF ILOCOS NORTE FACTS: Sabas Torralba was employed as driver of Provincial Gov’t of Ilocos Norte detailed to the Office of District Enginner.Thus. ISSUE: WON Prov’l Gov’t is liable HELD: NO RATIO: To attach liability to the state. ISSUE: WON Gov’t is liable for the damages caused by the fire HELD: NO RATIO: Art 1903 par 5 applies in this case “The State is liable in this sense when it acts through a special agent but not when the damage should have been caused by the official to whom properly it pertained to do the act” performed.

REPUBLIC vs PALACIO FACTS: Ortiz instituted action against Handong Irrigation Association to recover possession of land which HIA allegedly entered and occupied at the inducement of Irrigation Service Unit. but these functions are only incidental to the principal aim of the agency. Thus execution cannot issue on a judgment against the state. the government is not liable. The construction or maintenance of roads in which the driver worked at the time of the accident is admittedly governmental activities. Hence. There being no proof that the making of the tortuous inducement was authorized. RA 3601).” The state and the community as a whole are largely benefited by the services the agency renders. Other issues: Even if the liability of the state had been judicially ascertained. as illustrated in Mendoza case concerning liability of municipal corporations for negligent acts of its employees.  NIA is a government agency vested with a corporate personality separate and distinct from the government (Sec 1. The SC held that NIA was negligent in the supervision of Garcia and was therefore liable under Art 2180(6) CC in relation to Art 2176 CC. Mendoza held that if the negligent employee was engaged in the performance of governmental duties as distinguished from proprietary or business functions. rehabilitating. A writ of execution and order of garnishment was served against the deposits and trust funds of ISU to pay for the damages to Ortiz . Gov’t is not liable.  SolGen. the state is at liberty to determine for itself whether to pay the judgment or not. this motion for reconsideration. Hence. neither the state nor its funds can be made liable. of Public Works and Communications. thus is governed by the Corporation Law. and is therefore not liable for the tortious act of Garcia. Issue: Whether NIA may be held liable for damages caused by the negligent acts of its employees Held: YES  NIA was created for the purpose of “constructing. relying on PD 552 and Angat River Irrigation System. which is the irrigation of lands. and administering all national irrigation systems in the Philippines. The son dies because of injuries sustained from the accident. ISSUE: WON State or its fund can be made liable for damages HELD : NO RATIO: The ISU liability in inducing HIA to invade and occupy land of Ortiz arose from torts and not from contract.CA upheld on the basis that ISU is engaged in the private business of purchase and sale of irrigation pumps. improving. argues that NIA does not perform solely proprietary functions but is an agency of government tasked with governmental functions. including all communal and pump irrigation projects. It is a well-entrenched rule in this jurisdiction that embodied in Art 2180 of CC that the State is only liable for torts caused by its special agents especially commissioned to carry out the acts complained of outside of such agent’s regular duties. an agency under the Dept. . et al v Angat River workers’ Union. Fontanilla v Maliaman (194 SCRA 486) Facts:  NIA driver Garcia bumped a bicycle ridden by petitioners’ son and Deligo.The heirs of Palafox invoked the doctrine of respondeat superior. who was not its special agent. that the master shall answer.

a non-academic institution. The liability for tortuous acts of the student passes from the parent to the teacher. School heads and teachers. he remarked that Palisoc was acting like a foreman. Decision reversed . The incident occurred in Lourdes Catholic School.” seems to contemplate a situation where a pupil lives and boards with the teacher. teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices. maintenance. and insurance and to recover the cost of construction. Custody. Petitioner argues that the teacher or head of the school should be held liable because the incident took place in a Catholic School. citing the ruling in Mercado v CA. RECON DENIED WITH FINALITY Mercado v CA (108 Phil 414) Facts: Manuel. Hence. Jr. The trial court found Daffon guilty for quasi-delict (Why not a felony?).” Daffon was of legal age at the time of the incident. Palisoc stumbled on an engine block and fell unconscious. Jr. . insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the NIA charter. stand in loco parentis to students who remain in their custody. and influence of the latter supersedes that of the parents. Augusto was the aggressor. Issue: Whether teachers or head of the school can be held liable under Art 2180 Held: NO Art 2180. It is authorized to exercise the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law. NIA may also sue and be sued in court. direction. Augusto’s father and herein petitioner. on the right cheek with a piece of razor. As a result. The cause of death was internal injuries “probably caused by strong fist blows. The latter retaliated with a barrage of blows causing Palisoc to retreat. and Augusto quarreled over a pitogo. “So long as they remain in their custody. Issue: Whether defendants-school officials are jointly and severally liable as tortfeasors Held: YES Valenton (head) and Quibule (teacher) are liable for damages under Art 2180 CC. PD 552. to a certain extent. Brillantes is not liable as being a member of the school’s board of directors. where both were classmates. etc. Augusto wounded Manuel. Palisoc slightly slapped Daffon in the face. liable for moral damages and expenses for the injury inflicted by his son. but absolved the defendantsofficials of MTI. He died thereafter. CA holds Ciriaco. as used in Art 2180. this petition. last par: Lastly. such that the control. without the father’s fault. Under Sec 2. means the protective and supervisory custody that the school and its heads and teachers exercise over their students for as long as they are in attendance in the school. While retreating. While Daffon was working on a machine at the school’s laboratory. including recess time. hence the parents were not liable under Art 2180. and not to any academic educational institution (Exconde v Capuno). NIA is allowed to collect fees and other charges as may be necessary to cover the cost of operation. Such a situation does not exist in the case at bar since the students go home to their parents after class. The provision only applies to an institution of arts and trades. so long as they remain in their custody.petitioner not liable for moral damages Palisoc v Brillantes (41 SCRA 548) Facts: Palisoc and Daffon were classmates at the Manila Technical Institute (MTI).

The basis of the presumption of negligence in Art 2180 is some culpa in vigilando that the parents,
teachers, etc. are supposed to have incurred in the exercise of their authority. Where the parent places
the child under the custody of the teacher, the latter, and not the parent, should be the one responsible
for the tortuous act of the child.
Judgment modified - Daffon, Valenton, and Quibule are jointly and severally liable

Dissent (Makalintal)
The size of enrollment of educational institutions makes it highly unrealistic to consider students as
“in the custody” of teachers or school heads merely from the fact of enrollment and class attendance,
unless the latter can prove due diligence. The restrictive interpretation of Art 2180 in Mercado should be
maintained.
Under Art 2180, parents are responsible for the tortious acts of their minor children who live in their
company. Since the basis of liability of teachers and school heads is in loco parentis, the said provision
should be applied by analogy, i.e. “so long as they remain in their custody” should be equated with “who
live in their company; and school heads and teachers should not be responsible for damages caused by
children who are no longer minors.
Amadora v CA (160 scra 315)
Facts:
Pabling Daffon shot classmate Alfredo Amadora in the auditorium of Colegio de San Jose. He was
convicted of homicide thru reckless imprudence. Alfredo’s parents filed a civil action to recover
damages against CSJ, its rector, the high school principal, the dean of boys, and the physics teacher,
together with Pabling and two other students.
The CFI found the school officials liable for damages. The CA, however, reversed the CFI decision
because: 1) Art 2180 was not applicable since CSJ was not a school of arts and trades; 2) the students
were not in the custody of the school at the time of the incident since the semester had already ended;
3) there was no clear identification of the gun; and 4) the defendants had exercised the necessary
diligence in preventing the injury.
In this petition for certiorari, petitioners contend that Alfredo went to school to finish his physics
experiment as a prerequisite for graduation; hence, he was under the custody of the private
respondents. The private respondents, on the other hand, contend that Alfredo went to school to submit
his physics experiment; hence, he was no longer under their custody since the semester had already
ended.
Issue:
1) Whether Art 2180 applies to establishments which are technically not schools of arts and trades
2) Whether private respondents are liable for damages under Art 2180
Held:
1) YES
Art 2180 applies to all schools, academic as well as non-academic. Teachers, in general, shall
be liable for the acts of their students except where the school is technical in nature, in which case it is
the head thereof who shall be answerable. Following the cannon of reddendo singula singulis,
“teachers” should apply to the words “pupils and students” and “heads of establishments of arts and
trades” to the word “apprentices.”
2) NO
The same vigilance is expected from the teacher over his students, regardless of the nature of the
school where he is teaching. The injury subject of liability is caused by the student and not by the
school or any of its personnel and equipment. It may be inflicted by any student regardless of the
school where he is registered.

The student is under the custody of school authorities as long as he is under the control and
influence of the school and within its premises, whether the semester has already begun or has
already ended. As long as it can be shown that the student is in the school in the pursuit of a
legitimate student objective, in the exercise of a legitimate student right, and even in the enjoyment of
a legitimate student privilege, the responsibility of the school continues.
The teacher-in-charge is liable for his students’ torts as he is designated to exercise supervision
over them. Moreover, the teacher is liable regardless of the student’s age.
In this case, none of the private respondents were held liable. The rector, dean of boys, and high
school principal cannot be held liable because they were not teachers-in-charge. The physics teacher
was not negligent. The school cannot be held directly liable since Art 2180 only speaks of teacher or
head of the school of arts and trades.
PETITION DENIED - sorry na lang
PARTIAL DISSENT (Melencio-Herrera)
Restrictive meaning given to “teacher” as “teacher-in-charge” contravenes the concept of substitute
parental authority.
School may be held liable as an employer for damages caused by their employees under Art 2180.
Salvosa v IAC (166 SCRA 274)
Facts:
Jimmy Abon was the duly appointed armorer of the
Baguio Colleges Foundation ROTC. He received his appointment from the AFP, who also pays his salary
and gives him orders. He was also a commerce student of the same school.
On that fateful night of 3 March 1977, Abon shot fellow student Napoleon Castro in BCF’s parking
space. Castro died and Abon was convicted of homicide.
Castro’s heirs sue Abon, BCF, and its officers for damages. The trial court held Abon, BCF, and Ben
Salvosa (BCF Pres) liable for damages. The IAC affirmed the decision with modification. Hence, this
petition.
IAC ruled that the shooting incident occurred at about dismissal time, and was therefore within the
“recess time” referred to in Palisoc v Brillantes.
Issue: Whether petitioner can be held solidarily liable with Abon for damages under Art 2180
Held: NO
Custody refers to protective and supervisory custody that the school and its heads and teachers
exercise over its students as long as they are in attendance in the school, including recess time.
Recess, as embraced in the phrase at attendance in the school, is a temporary adjournment of
school activities where the student remains within call of his mentor and is not permitted to leave the
school premises, or the area within which the school activity is conducted. By its nature, it does not
include dismissal.
The mere fact of being enrolled or being in the premises of the school without more does not
constitute attending school or being in the protective and supervisory custody of the school, as
contemplated in the law.
Abon cannot be considered to have been at attendance in the school , or in the custody of BCF,
when he shot Castro. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be held solidarily liable with Abon for damages
under Art 2180.
REVERSED - petitioners are not solidarily liable
Ylarde v Aquino (163 scra 697)
Facts:
Petitioners in this case are the parents of Novelito Ylarde, who died as a result of injuries suffered
after being crushed by a huge boulder.

Novelito was among 18 students, aged ten to eleven, requested by their teacher, herein private
respondent, Edgardo Aquino to help dig a hole beside a one-ton concrete block where the said block
may be buried. When the hole was deep enough to accommodate the block, Aquino went to see Banez
who was about 30m away. He left the boys to level the soil around the hole, and allegedly told them not
to touch the stone.
A few minutes after he left, the boys jumped into the pit. One of them jumped on top of the concrete
block causing it to slide towards the pit’s opening. The concrete block pinned Ylarde before he could get
out.
Petitioners’ suit was dismissed by the lower court for the ff reasons: 1) digging was in line with
WorkEd; 2) Aquino exercised utmost diligence; and 3) Ylarde’s death was due to his own reckless
imprudence. The CA affirmed the lower court’s decision. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether respondents are liable for damages: Aquino for negligence under Art 2176, and Soriano
(the school principal) as head of school under Art 2180
Held: Aquino - YES, Soriano - NO
Soriano is not liable since he is the head of an academic institution. Only heads of schools of arts
and trades are liable for torts committed by their students (Amadora v CA).
Aquino’s negligent act of leaving his students in such a dangerous site is the proximate cause of
Ylarde’s death. He left the children to level the soil around the excavation when it was so apparent that
the huge stone was on the brink of falling. He went to an area where he would not be able to check on
the children’s safety, and left the children close to the excavation, an obviously attractive nuisance.
Natural for the children to play around
The boulder falling into the pit was a natural consequence of its weight and the loose soil
A teacher in loco parentis should make sure that the children are protected from all harm while in
his company. In this case, petitioner was clearly negligent in his duty.
PETITION GRANTED - Aquino pays damages
PSBA v CA (205 SCRA 729)
Facts:
Carlitos Bautista, a student of PSBA, was stabbed in the school’s premises by outsiders. He dies,
prompting his parents to file an action for damages against PSBA.
PSBA files a motion to dismiss arguing that it is beyond the ambit of Art 2180 since it is an academic
institution. The lower court denied their motion to dismiss. Their motion for recon was also denied. The
CA affirmed the lower court’s decision by citing the Palisoc ruling that Art 2180 is applicable to all kinds
of educational institutions. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether PSBA can be held liable for damages
Held: YES
Art 2180 does not apply since the persons who caused the injury were not students of PSBA, for
whose acts the school could be made liable.
There is a contractual relation that exists between academic institutions and students enrolled
therein. The academic institution undertakes to provide the student with education. There is also an
implicit obligation of providing students with an atmosphere conducive to learning, i.e. provide the
proper security measures. Because of this contractual obligation, the rules on quasi-delict do not really
govern.
A contractual relation is a condition sine qua on to the school’s liability for negligence, unless the
negligence occurs in bad faith.
Petition denied
Soliman, Jr v Tuason (209 scra 47)

Facts:
Maximo Soliman, Jr., a student of Republic Central Colleges, was shot in the premises of RCC by
security guard Jimmy Solomon. He filed a civil complaint for damages against RCC, RL security
Agency, and Solomon.
RCC filed a motion to dismiss arguing that it cannot be held liable because: 1) it is not the employer
of Solomon; and 2) Art 2180 does not apply because Solomon is not a student of RCC.
The RTC granted the motion to dismiss, and denied petitioner’s motion for recon. Hence, this
petition.
Issue: Whether RCC can be held liable for damages
Held: YES
Art 2180 does not apply because Solomon is not an employee or student of RCC. As a general
rule, a client or customer of a security agency has no hand in selecting the guards that will be assigned
to it. The duty to observe due diligence in selecting the guards cannot, in the ordinary course of events,
be demanded from the client. Instructions given by the client to the guard are no more than requests
commonly envisaged in the contract of services with the agency.
Respondent judge was in serious error when he dismissed the action on the grounds that Soliman’s
only cause of action was Art 2180. Judge should have allowed petitioner to prove acts that constitute a
breach of obligation ex contractu or ex lege on the part of RCC.
Petition granted - case remanded to RTC for further proceedings
2. effect of acquittal
Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be
instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of the defendant, the
court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in case the complaint should be found
to be malicious.
Jarantilla vs CA
PETITION to review decision of CA
Facts:
 Jose Kuan Sing sideswiped by a Volkswagen Beetle driven by Jarantilla, resulting to physical
injuries
 Jarantilla accordingly sharged with serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence
 Kuan Sing did not reserve right to institute a separate civil action and he intervened in the
prosecution of said crim case through a private prosecutor.
 Petitioner Jarantilla acquitted on “reasonable doubt”
 Subsequently, Sing filed Civil Case for damages involving the same subject matter and act in
previous crim case.
Issue: WON Kuan Sing can file a separate action for Civil Liability arising from the same act or omission
wherein Jarantilla was acquitted in the criminal action on reasonable doubt and no civil liability was
adjudicated or awarded in the judgment of acquittal.
Held: Yes
 If the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been
proven beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for the same act or omission may be instituted. -It is allowed under Article 29 of the Civil Code.
 Another relevant doctrine given by jurisprudence: If the court fails to make any pronouncement,
favorable or unfavorable, as to the civil liability of the accused, then this amounts to a reservation
of the right to have the civil liability litigated and determined in a separate action. The rules
nowhere provide that if a court fails to determine the civil liability it becomes no longer
enforceable.

 Merced filed motion hold trial of crim case  Motion Denied.  People vs.. Zapanta vs Montesa ORIGINAL ACTION in the SC. scared he might be forced to live with Liz  Feb 1958: Elizabeth Ceasar filed crim complaint for bigamy against Merced. .  After pleading not guilty in crim case. threatened. force and intimidation. Ritter 3. and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal.There is also persuasive logic in the view that the acquittal of the accused foreclosed the civil liability based on Article 100 RPC. and intimidated him into signing an affidavit to the effect that he and Liz had been living together as husband and wife for over 5 yrs. w/o need for a marriage license. for the annulment of their marriage on the ground of duress.  June 1958: Zapanta filed in CFI of Pampanga a civil case against Yco. Certiorari with prohibition. Pre-judicial questions which must be decided before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed. filed this action in SC. As seen in the rule. then the causative act or omission becomes divested of its penal element and becomes in effect a quasi-delict. Mtion denied.he was asked to return to Cebu but refused. Merced vs Diez ORIGINAL Action in the Supreme Court. Writ prayed for granted. that this affidavit was used in securing their marriage of exceptional character. prejudicial questions Art. and Mtion for Recon denied. the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein. Here. Writ prayed for Denied. shall be governed by rules of court which the Supreme Court shall promulgate and which shall not be in conflict with the provisions of this Code. alleging that: her relatives forced. Issue: WON crim case should be suspended / WON there was a prejudicial question. as he contracted marriage with her when he was still validly married to a certain Estrella Guarin.immediately left Liz after marriage and never lived with her . then there is a prejudicial question. 36. Facts:  Jan 1958: Abundio Merced filed a complaint for annulment of his second marriage with Elizabeth Ceasar.the allegations of the complaint by Kuan Sing supports and is constitutive of a case for quasi-delict.  There is a prejudicial question in the case at bar. a prejudicial question has two elements: (1)question must be determinative of the case before the court and (2) jurisdiction to try the same must be lodged in another court.  . Prohibition Facts:  May 1958: Olimpia Yco filed in CFI of Bulacan crim case of Bigamy against Zapanta. determination of force will prove that his act of contracting a second marriage while there was a subsisting one was involuntary. Held: Yes  If there arises an issue/question in a case. the annulment case was filed in Pampanga. as he was previously married to a Eufrocina Tan. If there is an acquittal. Yco filed motion to dismiss but denied.  Sept 1958: Zapanta filed motion in crim case of Bigamy to suspend proceedings therein on the ground that the determination of the issue involved in civil case was a prejudicial question. that he was forced into marrying Liz before Municipal Judge (lucky guy ) . On the second element.

Art. Held: No. and intimidation of bodily harm. Held: Yes. Thus. But the question of invalidity can not be decided in the criminal action for Bigamy but in a civil action for annulment. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. and observe honesty and good faith. a marriage would be illegal and void. the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein.  Also. shall indemnify the latter for the same.  SC adds that the principle of prejudicial question is to be applied even if there is only one court before which the civil action and the criminal action are to be litigated. Basic principles.  Since (1) the validity of the marriage cannot be determined in the criminal case and (2) since prosecution for bigamy does not lie unless the elements of a valid second marriage appears. Issue: WON such constitutes a prejudicial question. contrary to law.  While case pending.  Aragon: filed motion in crim case to dismiss said case on the ground that the civil action for annulment of the second marriage is a prejudicial question. Every person must. 20.  Trial court denied. Rule 111 (see ROC) HUMAN RELATIONS A. Pe vs Pe .Issue: WON action to annul marriage is a prejudicial question in a prosecution to Bigamy.  If there arises an issue/question in a case. it does not determine the existence of any of the elements of the charge of Bigamy. dapat nag-motion for recon muna si Aragon  Order appealed from affirmed. threats.  The civil action does not decide that defendant-appellant Aragon did not enter the marriage against his will and consent. good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. Ppl vs Aragon APPEAL from the order of the CFI of Cebu Facts:  Aragon charged in the CFI of Cebu with the crime of Bigamy for having contracted marriage w/ Efigenia Palomer when his marriage with Martina Godinez was still subsisting.  A decision thereon is not essential to the determination of the criminal charge. give everyone his due. abuse of right Art. Every person who. it is not a prejudicial question. Art. Palomer filed in same CFI of Cebu a civil case to annul her marriage with Aragon since the latter forced her to marry him through force. 19. because the complaint does not allege that he was the victim of force and intimidation. act with justice. 21. then there is a prejudicial question.  Without the element of consent. and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal.  Aragon can not use his own malfeasance to defeat the action based on his criminal act. wilfully or negligently causes damage to another. it is necessary then that a decision in a civil action to the effect that the second marriage contains all the essentials of a valid marriage must first be secured. in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties. Petition granted.

defendant became close to the plaintiffs who regarded him as a member of their family. Lolita was staying with her brothers and sisters at their residence at 54B España Extension. Quezon City. Lolita disappeared from said house. Because of such fact and the similarity in their family name. thru an ingenious scheme or trickery. Hermosisima vs CA PETITION for review by certiorari Facts:  Soledad Cabigas an Francisco Hermosisima were sweeathearts before. compensatory. succeeded in winning the affection and love of Lolita to the extent of having illicit relations with her. as well as (2) for support of said child and (3) damages for breach of promise. Even filed deportation proceedings against defendant. Plaintiffs are the parents. On April 14.00 as damages and P2.  Kiko impregnated Soledad in a boat cabin (M/V Escaño. 1957. He was forbidden to see Lolita.500. the court may not presume that it was the defendant who deliberately induced such relationship” Issue: WON damages should be granted.000.00. Defendant was an adopted son of a Chinaman named Pe Beco. trial court: Complaint not actionable-. they do not constitute a valid cause of action. in connection with occupation.a letter of defendant to Lolita The disappearance of Lolita was reported to the police authorities and the NBI but up to the present there is no news or trace of her whereabouts. The wrong he has caused her and her family is indeed immeasurable considering the fact that he is a married man. to which Kiko was apprentice pilot). Sometime in 1952. but nevertheless proceded with the love affair. exclusive of attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.00 as attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. Damages awarded: P5. a collateral relative of Lolita's father. forbidden to see each other. he has committed an injury to Lolita's family in a manner contrary to morals. 24 years old and unmarried Defendant Alfonso Pe is a married man and works as agent of La Perla Cigar and Cigarette Factory. but then married Romanita Perez.  Indeed. "In the absence of proof on this point. brothers and sisters of one Lolita Pe. BUT denied ever promising Soledad marriage. good customs and public policy as contemplated in Article 21 of the new Civil Code. Chris Hermosisima as natural child of Francisco Hermosisima. but through a clever strategy. This is shown by the fact that defendant frequented the house of Lolita on the pretext that he wanted her to teach him how to pray the rosary. no other conclusion can be drawn from this chain of events than that defendant not only deliberately. Verily.          Plaintiffs brought this action before the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover moral.  Francisco admitted paternity and willingness to support. Defense: granting that the facts alleged were true. Rumors reached Lolita’s parents. Sometime in April. 1957. seduced the latter to the extent of making her fall in love with him. Held: Yes  The circumstances under which defendant tried to win Lolita's affection cannot lead to any other conclusion than that it was he who. He stayed in the town of Gasan. The affair continued nonetheless. Lolita was staying with her parents in the same town. .. Found : note on a crumpled piece of paper inside Lolita's aparador -.000.failed to prove that defendant deliberately and in bad faith tried to win Lolita's affection.  Soledad Cabigas filed with CFI of Cebu a complaint for (1) the acknowledgement of her child. exemplary and corrective damages in the amount of P94. Started their clandestine love affair. promised to marry her. defendant frequented the house of Lolita --to teach him how to pray the rosary (yan ang style) The two eventually fell in love with each other. Marinduque.

Issue: WON an action for damages exists Held: Yes. even increasing the actual and moral damages. SC does not find Kiko morally guilty of seduction because the CFI itself found that complainant “surrendered herself” to petitioner because. Petitioner denied all allegation and even alleged that Gonzales had deceived him by stealing his money and passport. The next day. 1954. Issue: WON there could be an action for damages Held: Yes. and P500 as attorney’s fees. petitioner repudiated their marriage agreement and told her that he was married to someone in Bacolod City. or malevolent manner Gashem Shookat Baksh vs CA Facts: Marilou Gonzales alleged that petitioner courted her sometime in August 1987 and promised to marry her after the end of the school semester of the same year. he sent her the ff. oppressive. telegram: NOTHING CHANGED REST ASSURED RETURNING VERY SOON APOLOGIZE MAMA PAPA LOVE PAKING   Beatriz sued for damages but Velez claimed that: his failure to marry plaintiff was due to fortuitous event and circumstances beyond his control that breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. exemplary damages based on 2232: defendant acted in wanton. Held: No  Syquia case: Action for breach of promise to marry has no standing in the civil law.500 for actual and compensatory damages. 2. petitioner began maltreating her and during a confrontation before the barangay captain of Guilig.  CA affirmed. apart from the right to recover money or property advanced upon the faith of such promise. Am leaving on the Convair today.CFI ordered payment of P 4. aside from support to child (P30 / month).  Wassmer vs Valdez Facts: Franciso Velez and Beatriz Wassmer decided to get married on September 4. Issue: WON moral damages are recoverable for breach of promise to marry. reckless. petitioner forced her to live with him. Subsequently. Article 21 provides: Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. Petitioner visited her parents to secure their approval to the marriage.000 as moral damages. but based on Article 21 Ratio: 1. Later. “overwhelmed by her love for him” she “wanted to bind” him “by having a fruit of their engagement even before they had the benefit of clergy”. P5. There was seduction and therefore liable for moral damages. Two days before the wedding. Francisco left a note for his bride-to-be: Will have to postpone wedding-My mother opposes it. fraudulent. moral damages are recoverable  Article 2219 (10): moral damages are recoverable in the cases mentioned in Article 21 4. based on Article 21 . Damages:  invitations were printed and distributed  dresses bought  matrimonial bed!  Bridal showers and gifts received 3.

Salamat mel!! Facts:  The Commercial Air Lines. so the complaint of NAC was directed to the insolvency court. CALI's balance sheet was also presented to the creditors. The order of insolvency was issued by the court. The Shell Company of the Philippine Islands (defendant) is a corporation organized in England and licensed to do business here. In case the creditors do not come to an agreement.Upon learning of the action in the US. cannot be held liable for criminal seduction because girl was above 18 Velayo. etc vs Shell see Mel’s digest. has broadened the scope of the law on civil wrongs 2. A writ of attachment was applied for and issued against the C-54 plane. the creditors agreed on the ff: 1) That a working committee (composed of three parties) shall be created which would supervise the preservation of CALI's assets while the creditors attempted to agree on a fair distribution of such assets. Article 21.  Fitzgerald was appointed to represent the creditors in the working committee. CALI's fuel needs are supplied by the defendant.Shell Oil Company filed a complaint against CALI before the Superior Court of California for the collection of the assigned credit. The next day.  08/06/48 . the Nat'l Airports Corporation (NAC.CALI organized a luncheon meeting to inform all its creditors that the company was in a state of insolvency and had to stop operation. CALI's total indebtedness to the defendant at that time was P152.  08/12/48 . the basis for the award was the fraud and deceit behind the promise to marry and the willful injury to her honor and reputation  she had sex with him not because of lust but because of moral seduction  “man’s promise to marry is the proximate cause of the acceptance of his love  his representation to fulfill that promise Is the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress” 3. the defendant company assigned its credit against CALI in favor of Shell Oil Company.68.Ratio: 1.  In the same meeting. The balance sheet included a C-54 plane in the United States. Fitzgerald represented the defendant in such meeting.641. instead of all the creditors)  Meanwhile.  10/07/48 . (As a result of this writ. an American Corporation. On the very same day. only then can insolvency proceedings be filed.29. 2) That all of the creditors present should avoid presenting its claim before an insolvency court.440. so it filed its own complaint with attachment before the CFI of Manila.The working committee met for the first time to study the way of making a fair division of the assets. the credit was increased to $85081. for $79. . together with Articles 19 and 20. Inc (CALI) is a Philippine corporation engaged in the air transportation business.  08/09/48 .  Shortly thereafter. CALI filed a petition for voluntary insolvency. the stockholders of CALI decided to effect the sale of CALI's properties to PAL. the proceeds of the eventual sale of the plane would pertain exclusively to Shell Oil. another creditor of CALI) learned of the action in the US.  CALI's Board of Directors explained that there was a proposed sale of CALI's assets in favor of Philippine Air Lines.

Fitzgerald and defendant company met with the other creditors for the purpose of reaching an agreement for the fair dist'n of assets BUT at the same time. and liable to an action by the assignee for double the value of the property sought to be embezzled or disposed of. 37 of the insolvency Law. (a sum equal to the value of the plane as compensatory damages. before the assignment is made.  Note: Even if the new civil code only took effect in 1950 and the acts complained of took place in 1948. Since there is no clear proof on record about the real value of the plane. and the same amount as exemplary damages). Art. goods. He immediately sought a writ of injunction to restrain defendant from prosecuting the complaint filed in California. Held: YES Ratio:  It is obvious that defendant effected the transfer of its credit upon learning of the precarious economic situation of CALI. 2253 which states that: "But if a right should be declared for the first time in this Code. the provisions of the new civil code would still apply pursuant to Art. good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. chattels or effects of the insolvent. Velayo now confines his action to the recovery of damages against the defendant.. the court holds defendant liable to pay Velayo (as assignee of the insolvent CALI) a sum double the amount of the value of the plane at the time the credit was transferred. he is chargeable therewith. The transfer made without the knowledge of the other creditors was a shrewd and surprise move that enabled defendant to collect almost all if not the entire amount of its credit."  In addition.. it had already divested itself of its credit)  The defendant took advantage of its knowledge that an insolvency proceeding was to be instituted if the creditors did not agree as to the manner of dist'n.  Having failed to restrain the progress of the attachment suit in California. 21 of the Civil Code provides that: "Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. having notice of the commencement of proceedings in insolvency. (In other words." This provision was intended to cover the untold numbers of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to provide for specifically in the statutes. provided said new right does not prejudice or impair any vested or acquired right of the same origin. court would not be in a position to enforce its orders against Shell Oil Company. even though the act or event which may give rise thereto may have been done or may have occurred under the prior legislation. the value shall be determined in the lower court. .  The court denied the petition for issuance of a writ of injunction because a Phil. Hence. which is an American corp. Issue: WON there was a betrayal of trust and confidence on the part of defendant company which can be made the basis for damages.  This is a clear violation of Sec. this appeal. or having reason to believe that insolvency proceedings are about to be commenced. embezzles or disposes of any money. Velayo was appointed assignee of CALI in the insolvency proceedings. outside of the jurisdiction of the Phils. it shall be effective at once."  Hence. which states that: "If any person. The lower court dismissed the complaint for damages.

. Hendry called him a crook and a swindler. Tobias was also told that a hundred more suits can be field against him. Judgment reversed. 1. give everyone his due. they abused the right that they invoke. Every person who. Sometime in 1972. Tobias passed lie detector test. Herbert Hendrry. 37 of Insolvency Law since what the defendant disposed of was actually his own credit and not any property of the insolvent company. shall indemnify the latter for the same. However. the SC belied this claim by explaining that if no attachment of the plane was made.  NOTE: In the motion for recon filed by defendant. Executive Vice President and General Manager confronted him by stating that he was the number one suspect and ordered him to take a forced one week leave. Ratio: Art. Every person must. Article 19 and remedied by Article 20. signature. 20. However. (Exemplary damages were reduced to P25000 after the motion for recon was filed) Globe vs Mckay Facts: Restituto Tobias was employed by petitioner as purchasing agent and admin assistant to the engineering operations manager. in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties. and initials. and observe honesty and good faith. Company still filed 6 criminal cases. Issue: WON petitioners are liable for damages to private respondent Held: Yes. All were dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. However. causing damage to Tobias and for which latter must be indemnified. willfully or negligently causes damage to another. Art. act with justice. Investigation instituted by company resulted to ff: Manila police: cleared Tobias of any participation Private investigator: found him guilty but also stated that further investigations were to be conducted MM Police Chief Document Examiner: Tobias not guilty. it was argued that the other creditors were not prejudiced at all by the transfer of the credit. 19. and to leave the office keys. 45% of their claims and not just 30%. the other creditors would receive approx.Note: The Court did not strictly apply Sec. 5 for estafa thru falsification of commercial documents and 1 for discovering secrets thru seizure of correspondence. He was also ordered to take a lie detector test and to submit specimens of his handwriting. to leave his table drawers open. the effect as to the amount of damages awarded is the same. It is clear that the other creditors were prejudiced. Hendry wrote company stating that Globe Mackay dismissed Tobias due to dishonesty. Tobias reported anomalies in company: fictitious purchases and other fraudulent transactions for which it lost several thousands of pesos. When he reported back to work. contrary to law. not to communicate with the office. Even if they claimed that it was their right to dismiss Tobias. When Tobias sought employment with RETELCO.

Issue: WON petitioner is liable for damages Held: NO Ratio: 1. Unjust enrichment Art.2. Albenson made an extrajudical demand upon Baltao but latter denied that he issued the check or that the signature was his.” Company traced source of check and later discovered that the signature belonged to one Eugenio Baltao. no abuse of right 2. shall return the same to him. Art. EL Woodworks. Sr. there is a legal right or duty 2. Company filed a complaint against Baltao for violation of BP 22. and it was unduly delivered through mistake. the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited. 3. 3.. it is done with intent to injure B. or any other means. the obligation to return it arises. but which is contrary to morals. who manages the biz establishment. 2154. Even when an act or event causing damage to another's property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant. acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground. 23. public order or public policy 3. It was later discovered that private respondent had son: Eugene Baltao III. 22. and the III. The imputation of guilt without basis and the pattern of harassment during the investigations of Tobias transgress the standards o human conduct under article 19. (1895) . there is an act which is legal 2. Every person who through an act of performance by another. exercised in bad faith 3. Jr. A Pacific Banking Corporation Check was given and drawn against the account of EL Woodworks. Damnum absque injuria: damages or loss which does not constitute a violation of a legal right or amount to a legal wrong is not actionable  NA to case at bar coz the abusive manner in which the right to dismiss was exercised amounted to a legal wrong Albenson vs CA Facts: Albenson delivered mild steel plates to Guaranteed Industries Inc. there was no malicious prosecution: there must be proof that:  the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person and  that it was intiated deliberately by defendant knowing that his charges were false and groundless Elements of abuse of right under Article 19: 1. If something is received when there is no right to demand it. good custom. Art. Father filed complaint for damages. for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another Elements under Article 21: contra bonus mores: 1. honestly belived that it was private respondent who issued check based on ff inquiries:  SEC records showed that president to Guaranteed was Eugene Baltao  Bank said signature belonged to EB  EB did not do his part in clarifying that there were in fact 3 Ebs. Such check was later dishonored for the reason “Account Closed.

Every person shall respect the dignity. or other personal condition. In all contractual. Pursuant to this. personality. 25. (3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends. place of birth. the person enforcing the contract must show that the terms thereof have been fully explained to the former. though they may not constitute a criminal offense. intrusion is limited to what it necessary to keep film a truthful historical account 4. ignorance. privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. lowly station in life. Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display during a period of acute public want or emergency may be stopped by order of the courts at the instance of any government or private charitable institution. personality. and Pres Ramos approved the making of a film entitled The Four day Revolution. physical defect. 26. Issue: WON the production and filming of picture constituted an unlawful intrusion upon his right to privacy Held: NO Ratio: 1. when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence. tender age or other handicap. film was about EDSA revolution and does not relate to the individual life and certainly not to the private life of Enrile 3. 1332. Protection of disadvantaged Art. film was not yet completed. Ayer acceded and proceed to film the picture but Enrile filed Complaint with Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Prelim Injunction stating that petitioner’s production of film without his consent and over his objection constitutes a violation of his right to privacy. Respect for dignity. property or other relations. indigence. Ostentatious display of wealth Art. Ayer vs Capulong Facts: MTRCB. Enrile replied and stated that no reference whatsoever should be made to him or any member of his family much less to any matter purely personal to them. other govt agencies. and mistake or fraud is alleged. . (4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs. thus no clear and present danger of any violation of any right to privacy existed 2. mental weakness. or if the contract is in a language not understood by him. The right of privacy of a public figure is narrower than that of an ordinary citizen. privacy and peace of ind of another Art. The following and similar acts. Art. shall produce a cause of action for damages. 24. E. the courts must be vigilant for his protection. (n) D. Ayer Productions wrote Enrile about film and enclosed a synopsis. prevention and other relief: (1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence: (2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another. When one of the parties is unable to read.C.

PUBLIC FIGURE: A person who. Amaro vs Samanguit Facts: Jose Amaro was assaulted and shot near the city government building of Silay. Vicenta left for the States. by his accomplishments. fame. Because of that incident. The elopement did not materialize because Vicenta’s mother discovered such marriage. Husband field complaint: Vs. to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against he latter. Issue: WON there is an action for alienation of affections against parents Held: NO Ratio: 1. Parents: for having dissuaded and discouraged Vicenta from joining her husband and alienating her affections Vs.000 damages awarded to parents deemed excessive:  filing of suit nay have wounded their feelings and caused anxiety but this has not seriously injured their reputation or otherwise prejudiced them. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects. or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in hi s doings. Her parents asked the advice of one Father Reynes and subsequently agreed to recelebrate the marriage. parents themselves suggested that the marriage be celebrated again 3. Roman Catholic Church: for having decreed annulment Parents filed counterclaim for moral and exemplary damages. However. for which the husband is entitled to the corresponding indemnity (2176) 45. Vicenta refused to proceed with the ceremony because a letter from the students of san Carlos College disclosed that Pastor and their matchmaker. his affairs. Info was then filed. 27. F. without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken. without just cause. Russel Leo Moran in Nevada. Subsequently. no proof of malice 2. also. or mode of living. lawsuits having become a common occurrence in present society. However. and her denial of consortium and her desertion of husband constitute in law a wrong caused through her fault. Pacita Noel had an amorous relationship. and his character has become a public personage. acquired a foreign divorce and married an American. Dereliction of duty Art. they went to the office of the chief of police but the latter harassed and terrorized them. Tenchavez vs Escaño Facts: Vicenta Escaño and Pastor Tenchavez secretly got married before a Catholic chaplain and planned to elope. they gave up their right and interest in the prosecution of the crime. Vicenta appeared to have acted independently and being of age. . she was entitled to judge what was best for her and ask that her decisions be respected THERE WAS A VALID MARRIAGE between Vicenta and Pastor: remember persons…so…  Vicenta’s refusal to perform her wifely duties. City Mayor advised appellee to investigate crime.

A dirty and rusty 4-inch nail. He sued City of Manila and Asiatic Integrated Corp under whose administration the Sta. Fiscal is also under the duty not to prosecute if there are insufficient evidence to support a case PROVINCES. he stepped on an uncovered opening w/c could not be seen because of dirty rainwater. Issue: Won there was dereliction of duty Held: NO Ratio: 1. ISSUE: WON City of Manila should be jointly and solidarily liable with Asiatec HELD: YES . MUNICIPALITIES JIMENEZ v CITY OF MANILA FACTS: Jimenez bought bagoong at the Santa Ana public market at the time that it was flooded with ankle-deep water. CA reversed and held Asiatec liable and absolved City of Manila. CITIES. Provincial fiscal rendered opinion stating that there was no prima facie case: statements were made in good faith and for the sole purpose of serving the best interests of the public. His left leg swelled and he developed fever. walked w/crutches for 15 days and could not operate his school buses. pierced his left leg to a depth of 1½ inches. TC found for respondent. Free Press. stuck inside the uncovered opening.Case is based on article 21 and/or 27. He was confined for 20 days. refusal to prosecute because of insufficient evidence is not refusal without just cause to perform an official duty 2. refusal to perform official duty without just cause gives rise to an action for damages Zulueta vs Nicholas Facts: Plaintiff filed a complaint for libel against the provincial governor of Rizal and the staff members of Phil. Ana had been placed by virtue of Management and Operating Contract. Fiscal absolved governor and staff. Issue: WON chief of police was guilty of dereliction of duty Held: Yes Ratio: 1. As he turned around to go home.

public buildings. that they were adequately covered. 2. City employed a market master for the Sta. The City should have seen to it that the openings were covered. Mayor Bagatsing of Manila admitted such control and supervision in his letter to Finance Sec. operated on and confined. Ana public Market whose primary duty is to take direct supervision and control of that particular public market 4. It was evident that the certain opening was already uncovered. or injuries. any person by reason of the defective conditions of roads. there is no question that Sta. Ana public market remained under the control of the City as evidenced by: 1. vendors would remove the iron grills to hasten the flow of water. city or municipality over the defective public building in question is enough. public buildings and other public works” in particular and is therefore decisive in this case. streets. establishes a general rule regulating the liability of City Of Manila while Art 2189 CC governs the liability due to “defective streets. In the case at bar. Asiatec and Cityy are joint tortfeasors and are solidarily liable. suffered by. it was held that Art 1. the contract bet Asiatec and City which explicitly states that “prior approval” of the City is still needed in the operations. bridges. Such acts were not prohibited nor penalized by the City. ISSUE: WON Control or supervision over a national road by the City of Dagupan exists which makes City liable under Art 2189 HELD: Yes. GUILATCO v CITY OF DAGUPAN FACTS: Gilatco. 30 of Tax Code “The treasurer shall exercise direct and immediate supervision. Sec 4 of RA 409.RATIO: In the City of Manila v Teotico case. She had been deprived of income. Ordinary precautions could have been taken during good weather to minimize danger to life and limb. The drainage hole could have been placed under the stalls rather than the passageways. Thus. and 5 months after this incident it was still uncovered. She sued for damages. Perez Blvd is a National Road under the control and supervision of City of Dagupan. Such manhole is partially covered by a flowerpot leaving a gaping hole about 2 ft long and 1½ feet wide. It was also held that for liability under 2189 to attach. She was hospitalized. (Court Interpreter) was about to board a tricycle at a sidewalk when at Perez Blvd when she accidentally fell into a manhole causing her right leg to be fractured. Virata (“The City retains the power of supervision and control over its public markets…) 3. control and supervision by the province. Petitioner had the right to assume there were no openings in the middle of the passageways and if any. under their control and supervision. it is not even necessary that such defective road or street belongs to the City. Sec. city or municipality. FACTORY ETC. which City of Manila is invoking in this case. No warning sign of impending danger was evident. cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of. PROPRIETORS OF BUILDING. Thus the negligence of the City is the proximate cause of the injury suffered. There were also findings that during floods. administration and control over public markets…” It is thus the duty of the City to exercise reasonable care to keep the public market reasonably safe for people frequenting the place for their marketing needs. and other public works. It is not necessary that such belongs to such province. petitioner would not have fallen into it. Had it been covered. . RATIO: Art 2189 says : Provinces.

The municipality cannot be held liable for the torts committed by its regular employee who was then engaged in the discharge of governmental functions. Consent can be implied or expressed. Municipal Corp. was also Ex Officio Highway Engineer. GOTESCO INVESTMENT CORP v CHATTO FACTS: Gloria Chatto and her 15-yr old daughter. a gravel and sand truck driven by Manandeg and owned by Velasquez. nonsuability of the State. And can be held answerable if it is shown that they were acting in proprietary capacity. Such control and supervision is exercised through the City Engineer Tangco. Hence the City is liable. Although these two officials are employees of the Nat’l Gov’t. the State may not be sued without its consent. MUNICIPALITY OF SAN FERNANDO v FIRME FACTS: A collision occurs involving a passenger jeepney driven by Balagot and owned by Nieverras. the control and supervision of the national road exists and is provided for in the charter of Dagupan. Heirs of Baniña instituted a complaint for damages against jeepney owner and driver. of San Fernando and dump truck driver liable jointly and severally. the ceiling of its balcony collapsed. construction and improvement of streets. Ex Officio City Engineer of Bureau of Public Works. The owner and driver of jeepney filed 3rd Party complaint against Mun. the driver of dump truck was on his way to Naguilian River to get a load of sand and gravel for the repair of San Fernando’s municipal streets. 3038 which provides for the standing consent of the State to be sued in cases of money claims. Implied consent is when gov’t enters into business contracts descending to the level of the other contracting party or when State files a complaint opening itself to counter claim. who aside from his official capacity as City Engineer. and a dump truck driven by Bislig and owned by the municipality of San Fernando. Hardly 10 mins after entering the theater. public buildings and public works. and Building Official and received compensation for these functions. are suable because their charters grant them the competence to sue and be sued. they are detailed with the City of Dagupan and hence receive instruction and supervision from the city through the City Engineer. The function of supervision over streets. Expressed consent may be embodied in a general such as Act No. they are not liable for the torts committed by them in the discharge of governmental functions. may be legislated by the Municipal Board. ISSUE: WON the respondent Court committed grave abuse of discretion when it deferred and failed to resolve the defense of non-suability of the state HELD: YES RATIO: Under Art XVI sec 3 Consti Law. Several passengers including Baniña. It provided that the laying out. In the case at bar. Subsequently. La Union. The complaint was amended to implead Mun. Nevertheless. pertaining through the City Engineer is coursed through a Maintenance Foreman and a Maintenance Engineer. Lina. Plenty of people were watching the film so they could not find seats at the balcony level. or special law such as in the Merritt case. and regulation of the use thereof. Hence. went to see a movie “Mother Dear” at Superama I. owned by Gotesco Investment Corp. the case was transferred to Branch presided by Firme. Firme rendered Mun. the judgment of Firme is reversed. avenues and alleys and sidewalks. of San Fernando and driver of dump truck. negligence of owner and driver of the jeepney as the proximate cause of collision.In the case at bar. Pandemonium ensued in the darkness of the theater but the two women were able to crawl their way out and walked to . a governmental function. died and 4 were injured. of San Fernando and dump truck driver as defendants who raised the defenses of lack of cause of action.

as a co-lessee and manager of the hotel has to answer for the damage caused by things that thrown or falling from the hotel (Art. Gotesco would still be liable because it was guilty of negligence.nearby FEU hospital. As disclosed by the testimony. DINGCONG VS KANAAN (thanks to Banwar) Nature: Petition for review on Certiorari Facts:  Dingcong brothers are co-lessees in the upper floor of the house owned by Saenz  Brothers established the central hotel in the building where they were the managers  A guest. 1910 of the Codigo Civil) . the doctrine being subject to no other exception or qualification than that he does not contract against unknown defects not discoverable by ordinary or reasonable means. Such defects could have been easily discovered if only Gotesco exercised due diligence and care in keeping and maintaining the premises. RATIO: It is settled that the owner or proprietor of a place of public amusement impliedly warrants that the premises. there was no adequate inspection of the premises before the date of the accident. and the thing that caused the injury is wholly and exclusively under the control and management of the defendants. This implied warranty has given rise to the rule that: Where a patron of a theater or other place of public amusement is injured. and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of events would not have happened if proper care had been exercised. its occurrence raises a presumption or permits of an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant. this does not prove at all that there was no defects in the construction. Even if the structural designs were approved and permitted by the City engineer. Echivarria. ISSUE: WON Gotesco is liable HELD: Yes. And assuming that the cause of the collapse was due to force majeure. The court found that the collapse was due to the construction defects and not force majeure as Gotesco claimed. appliances and amusement devices are safe for the purpose for which they are designed. This presumption was not overcome by Gotesco. occupied room 10 of the hotel for P30 per month  Kanaans occupied the lower floor of the hotel where they established a bazaar  Echivarria let his faucet leak while the pipes of the hotel were undergoing repairs  A bucket was placed underneath the leaking faucet to catch the dripping water – the bucket overflowed  Water seeped through the floor – the merchandise in the bazaar below got wet and damaged worth around P1T  Kanaans brought an action for damages against the managers (brothers Dingcong) and Echivarria (person who let the faucet leak)  CFI absolved 1 Dingcong brother only (kasi namatay na yung isa) but held Echivarria liable  CA reversed – holding Dingcong liable for the damages Issue: WON the manager can be held liable Held: YES Ratio:  Dingcong. Both were treated for physical injuries which would incapacitate them for a period of 2-4 weeks.

they did. this petition. In view of the above and since the court (CFI) has not yet begun the trial (de novo). . (A new trial or retrial had in which the whole case is retried as if no trial whatever had been had in the first instance).  CFI judge denied the motion to dismiss. 2. RATIO:  Petitioners contention that Section 1 of Rule 111 means that a separate civil action can be filed only at the institution of the criminal action and never on appeal to the next higher court is erroneous. Trial de novo will be conducted. He was found guilty as charged with award of damages in favor of the offended parties. the offended parties filed with another branch of CFI of Misamis Occidental a separate and independent civil action for damages in connection with the accident. Section 1 Rule 111 with Section 7 Rule 123. They argued that it was not allowable at this stage where the criminal case was already on appeal at the CFI. the alleged employer of Abellana was included as defendant.  Abellana appealed the decision with the CFI.  Hence.  The defendants sought the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that there was no reservation for the filing thereof in the City Court. Judgment of the City Court on the criminal case was vacated on appeal. presumed that the guest Echivarria would use the faucet. These.  A criminal case for physical injuries through reckless imprudence was filed with the City Court of Ozamis City against Abellana. Echivarria was a guest of the hotel and was the direct cause of the damage  But Dingcong did NOT exercise the diligence of a good father of the family  He knew that the pipes of the hotel were under repair. 1974 NATURE: Petition for certiorari from an order of the CFI of Misamis Occidental FACTS:  A cargo truck driven by Francisco Abellana had a collision with a motorized pedicab resulting in injuries to its passengers. offended parties may expressly waive in the CFI the civil action impliedly instituted with the criminal action and reserve their right to institute a separate action. rationalizing that: 1. At this stage. ISSUE: WON petitioners may still file a separate civil action for damages considering that the judgment of conviction of lower court had been vacated on appeal and a trial de novo had been ordered HELD: Yes. In such complaint for damages. but only provided a bucket to deal with the problem of the leaks Judgment Affirmed ABELLANA v MARAVE May 29.

 The grant of power to this Court under the Constitution does not extend to any diminution. 1983 -. of Prisons. Larry Salvado. ISSUE: WON a civil action instituted after the criminal action was filed prosper even if there was no reservation to file a separate civil action HELD: Yes. a civil action for damages entirely separate and independent from the criminal action may be brought by injured party.. increase or modification of substantive right.  Defendants filed a petition for certiorari in the CA challenging the jurisdiction of the RTC over said civil case. Andres v Wolfe.  Lastly. the criminal negligence being without malice 2.: 1985 RCP being procedural may apply retrospectively to the present case) .  Oct. 1989 – RTC rendered decision in the civil case ordering defendants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiff. Petition dismissed. They contended that: 1. which is to assure parties justice accdg to law. 1990 Nature: Petition for review of the decision of the CA FACTS:  While driving a motorcycle owned by Yakult Phils. People v Jamisola  Also. a separate civil action may not be filed unless reservation thereof is expressly made  CA dismissed the petition. 1984 – A complaint for damages was filed by offended party against Yakult and Salvado in the RTC of Manila. such as that provided for in Article 33.” This rule is supported by a number of cases: People v Carreon. Above interpretation ignores what is so explicitly provided in Section 7 of Rule 123: “An appealed case shall be tried in all respects anew in the CFI as if it had been originally instituted in the court.  May 26. any counsel must not ignore the basic purpose of litigation.  Jan. 19. He is not to fall prey to the vice of literalness. a civil action for damages cannot be filed independently of the criminal action under Art 33.b. Motion for recon denied. 6. Section 1 Rule 111 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure (n. Crisostomo v Dir.Salvado was charged with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries in an information filed with the City Court of Manila. the restrictive interpretation of petitioners would give rise to a serious constitutional question as regards Article 33 of the CC: in cases of physical injuries. Court should avoid construing a statute or legal norm in such a manner as would give rise to a constitutional doubt. sideswiped a 5 year old boy who was then standing on a sidewalk. YAKULT v CA October 5. employee of same company.

waterpaths and contrivances including an artificial lake. built. can be held civilly liable for damages under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the CC on quasi-delicts such that the resulting civil case can proceed independently of the criminal case HELD: Yes. Petition denied. 1983 – Petitioners filed a civil for damages against same corporation.  IAC affirmed decision of TC.  February 22. Neither has the offended party instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action. The inundation allegedly caused a young man to drown. prohibition and mandamus to review the decision of the then IAC FACTS:  The Missionaries of Our Lady of Law Salette. 1984 -.  August 27. endangered the lives of petitioners and their laborers.RATIO:  In this case.  Actual filing of the civil action is even far better than a compliance with the requirement of an express reservation that should be made by the offended party before the prosecution presents its evidence. so that in the disposition of the criminal action no damages was awarded. damaged petitioners’ crops and plants. as the criminal case which was instituted ahead of the civil case was still unresolved. thereby causing inundation and damage to an adjacent land. ANDAMO v IAC November 6. which has built. 1990 NATURE: Petition for certiorari. a religious corporation.  However. washed away costly fences. 1984 – Upon motion of corporation. said constructions allegedly inundated an adjacent land owned by petitioner spouses Andamo. nor reserved the right to institute it separately. as in this case. Inc.  April 26. the offended party has not waived the civil action. through its agents. Motion for recon denied. trial court dismissed the civil case for lack of jurisdiction. on a parcel of land which it owned.  However. for destruction by means of inundation under Art 325 of RPC.  July 1982 -.  Aforecited revised rule requiring such previous reservation also covers quasi-delict as defined under Art 2176 arising from same act or omission of the accused.Petitioners then instituted a criminal action before the RTC of Cavite against the officers and directros of the corporatio. through its agents.Upon corporation’s motion to dismiss or suspend the civil action. the civil action in this case was filed in court before the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution in the criminal action of which the judge presiding on the criminal case was duly informed. waterpaths.. among other damages. water conductors and contrivances within its land. . trial court issued an order suspending further hearings in the civil case until after judgment in the related criminal case. ISSUE: WON a corporation.

Issue: WON the deceased’s life expectancy should be made the basis in determining loss of earnings. Mindoro on November 23. Decision reversed and set aside. Padilla’s mother. Inc. filed a complaint demanding 600thou as actual and compensatory damages. covers not only acts “not punishable by law” but also acts criminal in character. fault or negligence of defendant and causal connection between the two. whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted. Trial court based its award on the life expectancy of the deceased and awarded the ff: 1. that his action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter. 1990 Facts: Nicanor Padilla was one of the 33 persons who died while on board PAL plane that crashed on Mt. 477thou: expected income 2.RATIO:  Dismissal of the civil case is erroneous considering that it is predicated on a quasi-delict. provided that the offended party is not allowed. (See Castillo v CA)  As held by the SC in Azucena v Potenciano. Held: YES. his only heir. (if the tortfeasor is actually charged also criminally). 10thou: attorney’s fees 4. To subordinate the civil action contemplated in the said articles to the result of the criminal porsecution – whether it be conviction or acquittal – would render meaningless the independent character of the civil action and the clear injuncttion in Article 31.  Article 2176. plus exemplary damages and 60thou as attorney’s fees. and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two. 10thou: moral damages 3. and to pay costs PAL invoked US law and claimed that in determining loss of earnings arising from death. whether intentional and voluntary or negligence. assuming the awards made in the two cases vary.  A careful examination of the petitioners’ complaint shows that the civil action is one under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the CC on quasi-delicts. Consequently.  resort to foreign jurisprudence is proper only when there is no law or decision available locally to settle controversy . whichever is shorter. PAL. whenever it refers to “fault or negligence”. the basis should be the life expectancy of the deceased OR the beneficiary. Baco. All the elements of a quasi-delict are present: damages suffered. 1960. a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act. in quasi-delicts the civil action is entirely independent of the criminal case accdg to Articles 33 and 2177. vs CA. to recover damages on both scores. such that if proven would make a clear case of a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana.

basis of actual damages proven:  manager and auditor of Allied Overseas Trading Company and Padilla Shipping Company testified to Padilla’s income damages awarded based on earning capacity: 417thou  gross annual income of 23. 1764 and 2206: award of damages for death is computed on the basis of the life expectancy of the deceased Art. In addition: (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased. exemplary damages  fixed by court . 380 loss of earnings Petitioners prayed that CA’s original decision be affirmed in toto. the CA amended its decision and deleted:  6thou moral damages  13. (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of Article 291. 1973 Heirs of Castro vs Bustos. indemnity for the death of the victim  at least 3 thou  even if there are mitigating circumstances 2. As to the award of damages. 2206. 2. 1764. even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. Issue: What are the items of damages recoverable in cases of death? Held: moral damages and loss of earnings awarded Ratio: When death occurs as a result of crime. 900 net income x 30 years life expectancy  with legal rate of interest of 6% per annum from the date of judgment on August 31.Ratio: 1. may demand support from the person causing the death. Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be awarded in accordance with Title XVIII of this Book. had no earning capacity at the time of his death.100 – 9200 living expenses= 13. unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant. Article 2206 shall also apply to the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier. concerning Damages. 1969 Facts: Bustos killed Castro and was found guilty of homicide by lower court. legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. (3) The spouse. such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos. and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter. the exact duration to be fixed by the court. the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent’s inheritance by the law of testate or intestate succession. for a period not exceeding five years. indemnity for loss of earning capacity plus amount for support if deceased was obliged to give any to any person 3. the heirs are entitled to the ff damages: 1. Art.

100. 000 moral damages Issue: correctness of damages Held: 1. 250. Rules governing damages laid down in other laws shall be observed insofar as they are not in conflict with this Code. 2195. Damages may be: . injury or illness is regulated by special laws. 1992 Facts: Quilation killed the officer-in-charge of PROFEM and was found guilty of murder. 445: AFFIRMED: brother was able to present receipts of expenses 2. The provisions of this Title shall be respectively applicable to all obligations mentioned in Article 1157. 2196. Art. attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation  actual amount  only when separate civil action has been filed or when exemplary damges are awarded 6. The rules under this Title are without prejudice to special provisions on damages formulated elsewhere in this Code. General Provisions Art.000 moral damages: SC said that TC lumped the ff monetary obligations under ‘moral damages’  loss of earning capacity: 114. actual damages of 26. his mother suffered a mild stroke DAMAGES A. 2197. interests in proper cases 7. moral damages loss of earning capacity are recoverable separately from the indemnity for death] Capistrano concurs: duty of fiscal to demand payment.000: gross earnings – living expenses  educational support for sisters: 10thou  mental anguish suffered: 20thou awarded.000 indemnity for death: REDUCED to 50thou based on prevailing jurisprudence 3. moral damages  for mental anguish  fixed by court  recoverable by descendants 5. 445 for actual damages for burial and related expenses  250. He was further sentenced to indeminify heirs:  100 thou for death  26. Compensation for workmen and other employees in case of death.  considered separate from fines when crime is attended by one or more aggravating circumstances 4. award should be made individually People vs Quilaton. Art.

GE is entitled to 13% of the gross f. or (6) Exemplary or corrective.  Par 8(b) of their agreement gives the valid causes for suspension of the contract. Sinungaling!  Art 2200 CC: indemnification for damages comprehends not only the value of the loss suffered but also that of the profits which the creditor fails to obtain. Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered. this appeal. LB gave a total of five notices to GE stating various reasons for non-performance of its obligation to supply the logs. Within a fourmonth period. 2199. 2205. and P40k as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. GE.  The contract was to remain effective for two years beginning June 1. 1959. It also agreed to supply 200M brd ft of logs to Japanese buyers over a five year period. Art. LB sent written notice to GE stating that it won’t be able to supply logs for export due to unavailability of additional logging machinery and restrictions imposed by the Phil. Damages may be recovered: (1) For loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury. Except as provided by law or by stipulation. B. (4) Temperate or moderate. NO (exemplary)  It should be noted that LB is guilty of breach of contract as the causes cited for non-performance of its obligation are not among those expressly stated in the contract.  GE’s reminder was left unheeded. General Enterprises v Lianga Bay Logging (11 SCRA 733) Facts:  General Enterprises (GE) entered into a contract with Lianga Bay Logging (LB) whereby the former was designated as distributor of the logs supplied by the latter. Govt. LB mentioned that it had an excess of  1M logs per month. Hence. (2) For injury to the plaintiff's business standing or commercial credit. . Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages. on the other hand. reminded LB to fulfill its obligations under the contract as otherwise it would be held liable for breach.b. among which are: a) the enactment of national or local law or ordinance. 1959. value of the logs exported. however. The principles of the general law on damages are hereby adopted insofar as they are not inconsistent with this Code. (5) Liquidated.(1) Actual or compensatory. (3) Nominal. The court ruled in its favor awarding P400k as actual damages. one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain.o. (2) Moral. b) issuance of any prohibitive or restrictive order. and c) any other cause not within the control of the party making relief from any of the requirements of the contract. 2200. Moreover. Hence. (1106) Art. 2198. Actual and compensatory damages Art. P100k as exemplary damages. On October 27. Issue: WON actual and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees are justified Held: YES (actual and attorney’s fees). Component elements: Art. it filed an action for breach of contract and recovery of damages with the CFI.

propeller shaft…LEMON! LEMON! LEMON!  Upon investigation. sold the logs to a Japanese buyer. oppressive. There is no proof that BL had already paid EAC said damages or that it had already been required to pay the same. The latter. as evidenced by receipts.01 commission per brd ft). When LB failed to deliver the logs beginning January 1960. to the Japanese buyer. through the East Asiatic Company (EAC).  The logs were to be loaded on the Kanatsu Maru over a two-day period.  The CFI awarded BL additional demurrage and dead freight expenses amounting to  $9k. this appeal. 1951. Hence. the engine started to have malfunctions which necessitated successive trips to GAMI’s repair shop.  Y was engaged in the trucking business. P50k is sufficient for its reprehensible act of resorting to half-truths in order to justify its desistance from the contract. Cagayan Timber (CT) agreed to deliver 740k brd ft of exportable logs to Basilan Lumber (BL) by September 1.  Terms of the agreement holding CT liable for damages it may cause BL are merely declaratory of the obligation assumed  Not demandable upon breach. Had LB continued to deliver the logs as it was bound pursuant to the agreement. In reversing the CFI decision.560. He relied on the representations of the latter’s representative that the engine was brand-new. or malevolent manner. GE sold over 7M brd ft of logs to Korea and earned P79k in commissions. which clearly indicated that it failed to earn its commissions it should during this period of time. the CA held that no damages may be recovered without satisfactory proof of the real existence of such damages (Arts 2200 and 2201 CC). release bearing hub and trunion bolt.e. However. the ship stayed in port for a total of eight days due to insufficient logs and poor stevedoring service. the ff were discovered: 1) Worn-out screw courtesy of Y’s mechanic . Issue: WON demurrage and dead freight not actually paid is recoverable in an action for breach of contract to supply Held: NO  Art 2199 CC: recoverable damages must be duly proved i. clutch disc. not merely speculative  Actual damage was caused to EAC who already paid demurrage and dead freight expenses. GE ceased to earn any commission. but upon proof of actual damage suffered DECISION AFFIRMED GA Machineries v Yaptinchay (126 SCRA 78) Facts:  Yaptinchay (Y) bought a Fordson engine from GA Machineries (GAMI) for P7. it is reasonable to expect that GE would have continued to earn its commission in much the same manner as it used to in connection with the previous shipment of logs.  Attorney’s fees justified considering the importance of the litigation and the amount of time and effort involved. Over a five month period beginning June 1959. which is approximately P400k (17 months remaining in contract X 2M brd ft per month X P0. The engine was installed in one of his trucks.  Within a week from delivery.  oil leak. DECISION MODIFIED Basilan Lumber v Cagayan Timber (2 SCRA 766) Facts:  In the amended terms of their contract. Mathematical genius not required!  P100k as exemplary damages is oppressive considering that LB did not act in a wanton (noodles).

590 as reimbursement for the purchase price of the engine. P7.  Songco filed an action to recover the 3rd PN. In his defense.017 piculs only. he bought Songco’s sugar cane as it stood. Motives: 1. Garcia’s macroetching test 3) Two-tone paint (unlike brand-new engine painted with single color) courtesy of Manila Trading Company  Y institutes action for indemnification for damages.  BEST EVIDENCE TEST: A person claiming damages lucro cessante must produce the best evidence of which his case is susceptible and if that evidence warrants the inference that he has been damaged by the loss of profits which he might with reasonable certainty have anticipated but for the defendant’s wrongful act. produced 2.  Award of actual damages is unwarranted under best evidence test. the award of P7. so that he could run his own cane in at the same time Songco’s cane should be milled by the Central 2.  Sellner then conceived the idea of buying the cane of Songco.  Sellner wanted to mill his cane to a nearby sugar cane central. . as it turned out. Hence. this petition.590 is justified. 1917 FACTS:  Songco and Sellner owned contiguous properties where a considerable quantity of sugar cane were planted. Issue: WON award of damages is justified Held: YES (reimbursement). have to be proven. CA affirms the decision.88 profit per trip multiplied by the number of trips the truck allegedly was unable to make)  Average actual profits of Y’s trucks plying the Manila-Baguio route would have provided a more reasonable basis for actual damages DECISION MODIFIED: award of P54k deleted SONGCO v SELLNER December 4.2) Tampered original motor number courtesy of Capt. However. he is entitled to recover. Such damages.  ART 2200 CC entitles Y to recover compensatory damages for actual loss suffered and prospective profits while Art 2201 entitles him to recover all damages which may be attributed to non-performance of the obligation. however. NO (actual)  GAMI committed a breach of contract of sale. Two of these notes were paid. Trial Court orders GAMI to pay Y P54k in actual damages. Hence. the central were not sure that they could mill his cane and would not promise to take it. The misrepresentation of the quality of the engine is tantamount to fraud or bad faith.000 piculs of sugar but the crop. Sellner alleged that Songco falsely represented that the cane would produce 3. Macasieb (P369.  “Projected profit” prepared by a Mr. He executed 3 promissory notes for the purchase price. which was going to be milled by the Sugar Central. and P2k in attorney’s fees. so that Sellner could get a right of way over Songco’s land for conveying his own sugar tot he central  Accordingly.

 Defendant appealed. this appeal. 1984 FACTS:  GTI Sportswear Corp.  SC deemed it best not to disturb as well the decision of the lower court not to award punitive damages claimed by the plaintiff on the ground that the attachment was maliciously sued out. upon learning of the attachment. P182k – value of 100 cartons of denim jeans lost. ISSUE: WON defendant is entitled to further damages for the alleged injury arising out of the attachment HELD: No  Lower court committed no error in refusing to award damages upon the ground cited by the defendant. 100 cartons were lost en route to the pier. Port Area.  It would appear later that the 100 cartons were diverted by the driver of Seavan’s delivery van.  However. at the time of the institution of the suit. SEAVAN CARRIER. Hence. in connivance with other persons. (formerly GTI Garments Corp.. Inc. A confession to this effect was signed by the driver. Mapa.  It then awarded damages to the defendant equivalent to the amount actually paid out by him in procuring the dissolution of the attachment. Judgment affirmed.) contracted the services of Seavan Carrier. P160K – Tariff and Customs duties paid by plaintiffs on the lost items . plus the legal rate of interest 2. v GTI SPORTSWEAR CORP.  Incidentally. plaintiffs sued out an attachment against the defendant.  GTI filed a case for a sum of money and damages.: 1. contending that the lower court erred in refusing to award him further damages for the injury done to his credit. September 28. Lower court ordered Seavan to pay plaintiff the ff. withheld further credit and forced him to sell a large quantity of sugar at a price much lower than he would have received if he could have carried it a few weeks longer. to warehouse in V. TC rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff. INC. as such damages were remote and speculative.  It could hardly be foreseen as a probable consequence of the suing out of his attachment that the creditors might withheld their credit. He alleged that one of his creditors.  Lower court found that the charge that the defendant was dispossessing of plaintiffs’ property was completely refuted by proof showing that the defendant is a man of large resources and had not attempted to convey away his property as alleged. for the transport of cartons of denim jeans for export. upon the ground that he was dispossessing of his property in fraud of his creditors. of the 294 cartons supposed to be delivered by GTI to South Harbor. Plaintiff certainly cannot be held accountable for the complications of defendant’s affairs which made possible the damage which in fact resulted.

Award of damages of P2.3. SC held that in order for damages under Article 2200 of the CC to be recovered. Bare assertion of loss would not suffice. 2207. the aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the deficiency from the person causing the loss or injury. Machineries. The evidence cannot warrant the award of damages for the loss of anticipated profits. but the customers. If the plaintiff's property has been insured. respondents failed to furnish the best evidence obtainable or even sufficient evidence in order to warrant the award by the lower court of the amount of P2. the best evidence obtainable by the injured party must be presented. .000 pieces of cotton jeans per month for the year 1978.4M. v Yaptinchay. v CA April 3.4M. obtained from PanMalay an insurance for its Mitsubishi Colt Lancer .4m deleted. after having learned the loss. the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract.  No document or written instrument was presented to prove that there were really orders of that volume for the year 1978. and he has received indemnity from the insurance company for the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or breach of contract complained of. Subrogation: Art. Inc. PAN MALAYAN INSURANCE CORP.  What was given in testimony were the corporation’s possible gross earnings had its foreign customers not learned about the loss of the 100 cartons of jeans. the orders were completely cancelled.4M damages against a claim and prayer involving lost merchandise valued at only P182k and with insufficient evidence to support it is an act amounting to grave abuse of discretion on the part of the lower court.  The only basis for the award was the testimony of the manager of the international department of GTI that there was an order of 12.  In G.4M – representing losses in the goodwill of plaintiff 4. and as in the Yaptinchay case. P2.  In the instant case. much less the amount of P2.A. If the amount paid by the insurance company does not fully cover the injury or loss. 1990 FACTS:  Canlubang Automotive Resources Corp. no evidence was presented to show the average actual profits realized by the respondents during the previous years to enable the lower court to reasonable ascertain the amount of actual damages that the latter suffered. cost of proceedings ISSUE: WON the award of damages was correct HELD: No  The award of P2. 20% of the total amount – as and for attorney’s fees 5.

 RTC dismissed Panmalay’s complaint. ISSUE: WON Panmalay was subrogated to the rights of Canlubang against the driver and his employer HELD: Yes  Article 2207 of the CC is founded on the well-settled principle of subrogation.  There are exceptions to this rule: 1. CA held that Section III-I of the pplicy.  Private respondents filed a motion to dismiss alleging that Panmalay had no cause of action since the “won damage” clause of the policy precluded subrogation under Art.  Both tribunals concluded that Panmalay could not now invoke Art 2207 and claim reimbursement. Indemnification under said article is on the assumption that there was no wrongdoer or no 3 rd party at fault. which was the basis for the settlement of the claim against insurance. but to no avail. It then demanded reimbursement from Fabie and her driver of said amount.  CA affirmed. Applying the ejusdem generis rule. did not cover damage arising from collision or overturning due to the negligence of 3 rd parties as one of the insurable risks. If the insured property is destroyed or damages through the fault or negligence of a party other than the assured. albeit on a somewhat different ground. upon payment to the assured. While the policy was still in effect. Payment by the insurer to the assured operates as an equitable assignment to the former of all the remedies which the latter may have against the 3 rd party whose negligence or wrongful act caused the loss. if the assured by his won act releases the wrongdoer or 3 rd party liable for the loss or damage. will be subrogated to the right of the assured to recover from the wrongdoer to the extent that the insurer has been obligated to pay. The car suffered damages in the amount of P42K. then the insurer. the insured car was hit by a pick-up owned by Erlinda Fabie but driven by another person. from liability 2.  Panmalay defrayed the cost of repair of the insured car. where the insurer pays the assured the value of the lost goods without notifying the carrier who has in good faith settled the assured’[s claim for loss 3. RTC held that payment by Panmalay under the “own damage” clause was an admission by the insurer that the damage was caused by the assured and/or its representatives.  Panmalay filed a complaint for damages with the RTC of Makati against Fabie and the driver. 2207 of the CC. where the insurer pays the assured for a loss which is not a risk covered by the policy (voluntary pymt) None of the exceptions are availing in the present case. . Panmalay averred that the damages caused to the insured car was settled under the “own damage” coverage of the insurance policy. It accrues simply upon payment of the insurance claim by the insurer. The right of subrogation is not dependent upon any privity of contract or upon written assignment of claim.

attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. Not only is it an erroneous interpretation of the provisions of the section. (3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff. (4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff. has no merit. has no legal obstacle from filing the complaint for damages against the 3rd parties responsible for the damage to the car. other than judicial costs. (8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws. 2208. The meaning advanced by Panmalay regarding the coverage of Section III-I of the policy is undeniable more beneficial to Canlubang than that insisted upon by the CA. except: (1) When exemplary damages are awarded. (10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded. the very parties to the policy. just and demandable claim. (9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime. Canlubang and Panmalay. as subrogee. (5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid. cannot be recovered. laborers and skilled workers. Hence.  Thus. it simply meant that it had assumed to reimburse the costs for repairing the damage to the insured vehicle. AS TO LC RULING: When Panmalay utilized the phrase “own damage”-. In the absence of stipulation. (7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers. Attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation Art.a pharase which. . In any case. were not shown to be in disagreement regarding the meaning and coverage of Section III-I.  AS TO CA RULING: CA’s ruling that the coverage of the insured risks under Section III-I of the policy does not include damage to the insured vehicle arising from collision or overturning due to negligent acts of a 3rd party. is not found in the insurance policy—to define the basis for its settlement. It is in this sense that the so-called “own damage” coverage of policy is different from the “3 rd party liability” coverage and from the “property damae” coverage. SC held that Panmalay. (2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest. but it also violates a fundamental rule on the interpretation of property insurance contracts where interpretation should be liberally in favor of the assured and strictly against the insurer in cases of disagreement between the parties. (6) In actions for legal support. incidentally. it was improper for CA to assert its own interpretation of the contract that is contrary to the clear understanding and intention of the parties to it.

ISSUE: WON RCPI is liable for attorney’s fees? HELD: No. the 25% rate of AF is not iniquitous and unconscionable. RR sued for damages and was awarded P20. POLYTRADE CORP v BLANCO FACTS: Polytrade Corp. this case should not have gone to court if Blanco had complied w/ his obligations. the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable. morals or public order. Such AF as damages are awarded in favor of litigant who is the judgment creditor entitled to enforce the judgment and not his counsel. Hence. NATURE OF ATTORNEY’S FEES Attorney’s fees (AF) provided in contracts as recoverable against the other party as damages are not the attorney’s fees recoverable as between attorney and client as provided for in the Rules of Court.961. The cablegrams were sent through RCPI which were in turn relayed to Globe for transmission for their foreign destinations. it is strictly binding upon defendants. RATIO: Under Art 2227. RCPI contends that that the award of AF was improper because there was no allegation in the complaint with AF. the nature and importance of litigation and the professional standing of the attorney may be an aid in the determination of the iniquity or unconscionableness of attorney’s fees as liquidated damages. Defendant contends that this is exorbitant and unconscionable.63 or 25% of the total principal indebtedness exclusive of interest was awarded. Blanco had converted such rawhide into leather and sold it. Rather. advising him of RR’s arrival in Sudan. In all cases. Polytrade’s lawyers are of high standing. RR also did not present any evidence to prove AF and the lower court’s decision failed to explain why AF was being awarded. TC found for Polytrade and Blanco was ordered to pay the purchase price + interest. ISSUE: WON attorneys’ fees were exorbitant and unconscionable HELD: No. Taha was not able to meet him in Sudan and the preparations for the int’l WALS conference had to be cancelled. In this case. the AF here is in the nature of liquidated damages and the stipulation therefore is aptly termed a penal clause. . Attorneys’ fees w/c amounted to P51. RCPI v RODRIGUEZ FACTS: Rufus Rodriguez. Also. and another to Merger in US advising her of the sched of int’l WALS conference. sent a cablegram to Taha in Sudan. liquidated damages whether intended as an indemnity or a penalty shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or unconscionable. The amount and character of the services rendered. However. filed four causes of action against Victoria Blanco to recover the purchase price of rawhide it delivered to the latter. This fact wasn’t reported to RR in Manila. As long as such stipulation is not contrary to law. the continued maintenance of Blanco of this suit is plainly intended for delay. It turned out that the message was delivered to the address on the message but the addressee was no longer staying there. In fact.(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered.000 attorney’s fees among others. because of the non-receipt of the cablegram.

2213. and in the absence of stipulation. just below the dispositive portion of the decision. Jr awarded the Reforminas damages with legal interest from the filing of the complaint until paid. the award of F was stated only once. 2209. be allowed upon damages awarded for breach of contract. goods or credit and court judgments. In this case. except when the demand can be established with reasonably certainty. shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon. the authority of CB is to fix a maximum rate of interest on loans and not to prescribe a fixed interest rate. Art. In this case. He further rendered that by legal interest meant 6% as provided for by Art 2209 CC. there being no stipulation to the contrary. Interest may. Such authority given to CB is absolute and unqualified and therefore the delegation of power to it is void. the award of AF as part of its liability should be allowed. (1108) Art. Only the legislature can change the laws. Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. Any other kind of monetary judgment does not fall under the coverage of said law for it is not within the ambit of authority granted to the central Bank. the indemnity for damages there being no stipulation to the contrary shall be the payment of interest agreed upon. Plana Concurring and Dissenting: Under Sec 1 a of Act 2655 as amended by PD 116. Reforminas contend that it should be 12% by virtue of Central Bank Circular No. the legal interest. The TC failed to justify the payment of AF by RCPI. JR FACTS: A fire occurred burning the boat FB Pacita III and fishing gear of the Reforminas. Circular 416 which took effect July 29. although the obligation may be silent upon this point.B. Art. Such court judgment refers only to judgments in litigations involving loans or forbearance of any money. they filed an action for recovery of damages for injury to persons and loss of property. 2212. which is six per cent per annum. be adjudicated in the discretion of the court. the indemnity for damages.. and in the absence of stipulation. 1974 pursuant to PD 116 which amended Act 2655 (Usury Law) which raised the legal interest fro 6% to 12% applies only to forbearances of money. the the decision of the judge is one rendered in an action for damages arising from injury to persons and loss of property and does not involve a loan much less forbearance of any money. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money. the same must be disallowed on appeal. Consequently.RATIO: In the recent case of Stronghold Insurance Company Inc. in the discretion of the court. Interest Art. In crimes and quasi-delicts. goods or credit. REFORMINA v TOMOL. Interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims or damages. 416. goods or credit. Judge Tomol. The law applicable is thus ART 2209 CC which states that: “ If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money and the debtor incurs in delay. v CA the court held that the reason for the award of AF must be stated in the text of the court’s decision otherwise if it is stated only in the dispositive portion of the decision. therefore. the legal interest which is 6% per annum. 2211. in a proper case. interest as a part of the damages may. ISSUE: WON the legal interest is 6% HELD: YES RATIO: C. . and the debtor incurs in delay. 2210. (1109a) Art.

plus exemplary damages and 60thou as attorney’s fees. concerning Damages. the court may equitably mitigate the damages under circumstances other than the case referred to in the preceding article. the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation. whichever is shorter. 2201.Extent and scope of actual damages 1. 10thou: moral damages 7. 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. (2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the contract. (3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded. and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted. In case of fraud. 477thou: expected income 6. Baco. 10thou: attorney’s fees 8. vs CA. Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be awarded in accordance with Title XVIII of this Book. that the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel. Cases: PAL. Held: YES. quasi-contracts. In contracts. In contracts and quasi-contracts. Trial court based its award on the life expectancy of the deceased and awarded the ff: 5. Article 2206 shall also apply to the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier. the defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiff's loss or injury. Inc. 2215. his only heir. 1960. malice or wanton attitude. and quasi-delicts. and to pay costs PAL invoked US law and claimed that in determining loss of earnings arising from death. bad faith. (4) That the loss would have resulted in any event. Issue: WON the deceased’s life expectancy should be made the basis in determining loss of earnings. (1107a) Art. filed a complaint demanding 600thou as actual and compensatory damages. 1764 and 2206: award of damages for death is computed on the basis of the life expectancy of the deceased Art. Mindoro on November 23. 1764. (5) That since the filing of the action. the basis should be the life expectancy of the deceased OR the beneficiary. as in the following instances: (1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract. .  resort to foreign jurisprudence is proper only when there is no law or decision available locally to settle controversy Ratio: 3. 1990 Facts: Nicanor Padilla was one of the 33 persons who died while on board PAL plane that crashed on Mt. contracts and quasi-contracts Art. Padilla’s mother.

1973 2. crimes and quasi-delicts Art. unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant. may demand support from the person causing the death. In crimes. Art. It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant. (3) The spouse.100 – 9200 living expenses= 13. which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. Art. (5) That since the filing of the action. the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover. 4. (3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded. In addition: (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased. Art. 2214. 2204. Art. even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. and quasi-delicts. for a period not exceeding five years. (2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the contract. the defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiff's loss or injury. 3. such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court. that the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel. 900 net income x 30 years life expectancy  with legal rate of interest of 6% per annum from the date of judgment on August 31. quasi-contracts. crimes and quasi-delicts resulting in death . and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in question. the defendant shall be liable for all damages. (4) That the loss would have resulted in any event.Art. In quasi-delicts. basis of actual damages proven:  manager and auditor of Allied Overseas Trading Company and Padilla Shipping Company testified to Padilla’s income damages awarded based on earning capacity: 417thou  gross annual income of 23. In crimes and quasi-delicts. the damages to be adjudicated may be respectively increased or lessened according to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances. legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. 2215. In contracts. the court may equitably mitigate the damages under circumstances other than the case referred to in the preceding article. (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of Article 291. 2206. 2202. the exact duration to be fixed by the court. 2203. the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent’s inheritance by the law of testate or intestate succession. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos. had no earning capacity at the time of his death. as in the following instances: (1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract.

Issue: What are the items of damages recoverable in cases of death? Held: moral damages and loss of earnings awarded Ratio: When death occurs as a result of crime. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos.Art. 2206. the CA amended its decision and deleted:  6thou moral damages  13. legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. 380 loss of earnings Petitioners prayed that CA’s original decision be affirmed in toto. even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. award should be made individually People vs Quilaton. (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of Article 291. As to the award of damages. exemplary damages  fixed by court  considered separate from fines  when crime is attended by one or more aggravating circumstances 11. indemnity for loss of earning capacity plus amount for support if deceased was obliged to give any to any person 10. Cases: Heirs of Castro vs Bustos. the exact duration to be fixed by the court. (3) The spouse. such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court. may demand support from the person causing the death. In addition: (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased. 1969 Facts: Bustos killed Castro and was found guilty of homicide by lower court. had no earning capacity at the time of his death. interests in proper cases 14. and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter. for a period not exceeding five years. unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant. the heirs are entitled to the ff damages: 8. 1992 Facts: . moral damages  for mental anguish  fixed by court  recoverable by descendants 12. the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent’s inheritance by the law of testate or intestate succession. indemnity for the death of the victim  at least 3 thou  even if there are mitigating circumstances 9. moral damages loss of earning capacity are recoverable separately from the indemnity for death] Capistrano concurs: duty of fiscal to demand payment. attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation  actual amount  only when separate civil action has been filed or when exemplary damges are awarded 13.

100. (3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication.000 indemnity for death: REDUCED to 50thou based on prevailing jurisprudence 6. (5) Freedom of suffrage. or any private individual. (8) The right to the equal protection of the laws. Unfair competition in agricultural. Separate civil actions 1.Quilation killed the officer-in-charge of PROFEM and was found guilty of murder.000 moral damages: SC said that TC lumped the ff monetary obligations under ‘moral damages’  loss of earning capacity: 114. machination or any other unjust. deceit. He was further sentenced to indeminify heirs:  100 thou for death  26. oppressive or highhanded method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers damage. (2) Freedom of speech. intimidation. 000 moral damages Issue: correctness of damages Held: 4. H. actual damages of 26. violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages: (1) Freedom of religion. who directly or indirectly obstructs. Any public officer or employee. 250. 445: AFFIRMED: brother was able to present receipts of expenses 5. 445 for actual damages for burial and related expenses  250. Violation of civil rights Art. (6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law. defeats. Unfair Competition Art. 32. (7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use. 28. commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force.000: gross earnings – living expenses  educational support for sisters: 10thou mental anguish suffered: 20thou awarded. . (4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention. his mother suffered a mild stroke G.

to meet the witnesses face to face. and mat be proved by a preponderance of evidence. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated. A year later. or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession. the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages. and for other relief.  After conducting a preliminary investigation. . (10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same. (12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law. (17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self. Cases: LIM v PONCE DE LEON August 29. and (19) Freedom of access to the courts. (15) The right of the accused against excessive bail. or cruel and unusual punishment. Alberto filed a complaint with the office of the Provincial Fiscal of Palawan alleging that after the sale Jikil forcibly took away the motor launch from him. or from being forced to confess guilt. The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.(9) The right to be secure in one's person. (13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances. The indemnity shall include moral damages. In any of the cases referred to in this article. house. to have a speedy and public trial. to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. (18) Freedom from excessive fines. whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense. except when the person confessing becomes a State witness. (16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel. (14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form. Fiscal Francisco De Leon filed with the CFI an information for Robbery with Force and Intimidation upon Persons against Jikil. (11) The privacy of communication and correspondence. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted). papers. and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf. unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional. 1975 FACTS:  Jikil Taha sold to Alberto Timbangcaya a motor launch.

The 1935 constitution vested the power to issue a search warrant in a judge and in no other officer.  No public official has the right to enter the premises of another without the proper search warrant or without the owner’s consent for the purpose of search and seizure. Rule 122 of RoC states that in the seizure of a stolen property warrant is still necessary. Jikil is not entitled to recover any damages. Maddela. It was only then that the Provincial Commander issued an order to seize and impound the motor launch. there was no law or rule that recognized the authority of Provincial Fiscals to issue a search warrant. whatever its source. ISSUE: WON there was a violation of a constitutional right? If so.  US v Delos Reyes: No amount of incriminating evidence. but they were in vain. Lim and Jikil prayed for actual. much less to order without warrant the seizure of a personal property even if it is the corpus delicti of a crime.  TC upheld the validity of the seizure on the ground that the authority to impound the corpus delicti in case pending the investigation is with the Provcl Fiscal who controls the prosecution and introduces evidence to the court.  Pursuant to the provisions of Art 32 and 2219. What RA 732 did was to broaden the power of provincial fiscals to conduct preliminary investigation. moral and exemplary damages.  De Leon cannot invoke provisions of RA 732 because there is nothing in said law which confers upon the provincial fiscals the authority to issue warrants. launch will be moved out of Balabac because it had no engine. exerted efforts to recover the seized motor launch. Orlando Maddela was the one who carried out the order and accordingly seized the motor launch from Delfin Lim. When Fiscal De Leon learned that the motor launch was in the town of Balabac.  Also. For the alleged violation of their constitutional rights. moral damages and exemplary damages from the public officer or employee responsible therefor. Only De Leon. .  He reiterated his request the 2nd time.  Delfin Lim. a person whose constitutional rights have been violated is entitled to actual. They then filed a complaint for damages against Fiscal De Leon and Detachment Cmmdr. together with Jikil Taha.  In addition. at the time the act complained of was committed. and such warrant may be issued by the judge alone after determination of probable cause. There is also no basis for apprehension that the m.  Argument that there is lack of time to procure a search warrant is untenable. will supply the place of such warrant. he wrote the Provincial Commander to impound and take custody of the motor launch.  But only Delfin Lim should be awarded. should De Leon and Maddela be both held liable for dmgs? HELD: Yes. alleging that the seizure of the motor launch was without a search warrant and was against Lim’s will.

 Upon motion. declared the Order as final. assuming that courts can entertain the present action. tortures and other forms of violence on them in order to obtain indiscriminatory information or confessions and in order to punish them. and that said plans are known to and sanctioned by defendants. defendants are immune from liability for acts done in the performance of their official duties 3. the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended 2. to note that to be held liable under Art 32 it is enough that there was a violation of the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs. complaint states no cause of action. Maddela was left with no alternative but to seize the vessel. exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. and is not requied that defendants should have acted in bad faith. plaintiffs were denied visits of relatives and lawyers plaintiffs were interrogated in violation of their rights to silence and counsel military men who interrogated them employed threats. without acting on the motion to set aside Fortun’s order. He was reluctant to impoun the m. 2.  Plaintiffs filed a civil action for actual/compensatory.  Later. adopting lock. 1988 FACTS:  Geb. plaintiffs may not cause a judicial inquiry into the circumstances of their detention in the guise of a damage suit because as to them. employing in most cases defectively issued judicial search warrants confiscated a number of purely personal items belonging to plaintiffs plaintiffs were arrested without proper warrants issued by the courts while in detention. ABERCA v VER April 15. Plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the order. to conduct pre-emptive strikes against known communist-terrorist (CT) underground houses in view of increasing reports about CT plans to sow disturbances in MM.  It is impt. 3. elements of the TFM were alleged to have done the ff.Legality of seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby. and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by 3 rd parties.  Only Fiscal De Leon may be held liable and not Maddela because he impounded the motor launch upon the order of his superior officer. known as Task Force Makabansa. Judge Fortun inhibited himself from the proceeding. moral. 7. While a subordinate officer may be held liable for executing unlawful orders of his superior officer.  A motion to dismiss was filed by defendants (thru counsel Estelito Mendoza) on the ff. Decision reversed.  Pursuant to said order. Fabian Ver ordered various intelligence units of the AFP. there are certain circumstances which would warrant Maddela’s exculpation from liability: 1. stock and barrel the arguments of the defendants. grounds: 1. 6.launch despite repeated orders. 2. 4. . raided several places. RTC Judge Fortun dismissed the case. 5.: 1. Judge Lising took over and. all violations of plaintiff’s constitutional rights were part of a concerted plan to terrorize them. Faced with a possible disciplinary action from his commander.

It is wrong to limit the plaintiff’s action for damages to “acts of alleged physical violence” which constituted delict or wrong. Because their prayer went unheeded. Neither can it be said that only those shown to have participated “directly” should be held liable. it was erroneous on the TC for holding that defendants cannot be held responsible for the wrongful acts of their subordinates because: 1. 2054. as well as indirectly responsible for its violation. say in accordance with Marcos’ Proclamation No. they filed this instant petition for certiorari. NO such relationship exists between superior officers of the military and their subordinates.e. ISSUE: WON the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus bars a civil action for damages for illegal searches conducted by military personnel and other violations of rights and liberties guaranteed under the Constitution WHO can be held liable: military personnel directly involved and/or their superiors as well HELD: No. Hence.  Article 32 of the CC which renders any public officer or employee or any private individual liable in damages for violating the Constitutional rights and liberties of another does not exempt the respondents from responsibility. Art. Concededly. where it is not the actor alone who must answer for damages. The doctrine has been generally limited in its application to principal and agent or to master and servant (i. MHP GARMENTS. Only judges are excluded from liability under the said article. but this cannot be construed as a blanket license or roving commission to disregard or transgress upon the rights and liberties of the individual citizens. their superiors may be held liable as well  Repsondents’ invocation of the doctrine of state immunity from suit totally misplaced. Art. their rights and cause of action for damages are even explicitly recognized in PD 1755 (re: right of action for injury arising from acts of public officer connected to Martial Law). employer and employee) relationship. 32 clearly specifies as actionable the act of violating or in any manner impeding or impairing any of the constitutional rights and liberties enumerated in said Article. Petition granted. the decisive factor in this case is the language of Article 32. 1994 . it may be true that they were merely responding to their duty.  Doctrine of respondeat superior inapplicable in the instant case. INC v CA September 2. provided their acts or omissions do not constitute a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute. 32 encompasses those directly. 2. The suspension of the privilege does nor render valid an otherwise illegal arrest or detention.  There is no merit in respondents’ suggestion that plaintiff’s cause of action is barred by the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. What is suspended is merely the right of an individual to seek release from detention through the writ of habeas corpus as a speedy means of obtaining his liberty.  Moreover.  Be that as it may.

 Thereafter. fraud. Judgment affirmed with modification. supplies. the omission will not exculpate MHP Garments and De Guzman. they should have filed a 3 rd party complaint against the raiding team for contribution or any other relief. 2. may be brought by the injured party. By standing by and apparently assenting thereto. 33.  De Guzman and 3 constabulary men went to the stores of respondents and seized Scout uniforms without warrant. ISSUE: WON petitioners should be held liable HELD: Yes  SC held that the evidence did not justify the warrantless search and seizure of respondents’ goods: 1. an exclusive franchise to sell and distribute official boy Scout uniforms. 3. no probable cause for the seizure  The members of the PC raiding team should have been included in the complaint for violation of the respondents’ constitutional rights.  Subsequently. 2. causing commotion and embarassment to respondents. the respondents filed a civil case against petitioners for sums of money and damages. Fiscal dismissed the complaint and ordered the return of the seized articles.  Accordingly.  TC was correct in granting damages to respondents. and physical injuries Art. CA affirmed. In cases of defamation. and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. It was also given authority to undertake the prosecution in court of all illegal sources of scout uniforms and other scouting supplies. Raid was conducted with the active participation of employee De Guzman. If petitioners did not have a hand in the raid. So with the MHP Garments which even received for safekeeping the goods unreasonably seized by the PC raiding team and De Guzman. 3. entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action. he was liable to the same extent as the officers themselves. a criminal complaint for unfair competition was filed against respondents. MHP tasked its employee. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution. He did not lift a finger to stop the seizure of the boy and girl scout items. and physical injuries a civil action for damages. badges and insignias. Defamation.FACTS:  MHP Garments was granted by the Boy Scouts of the Phils. Larry de Guzman to undertake surveillance and report to the PC of the activities of the respondents who were reported to selling Scout uniforms and paraphernalia without authority. They did not. progression of time between the receipt of the information and the raid of the stores shows there was sufficient time to apply for a judicial warrant. Still. TC ordered petitioners to pay. fraud. and refused to surrender them for quite a time despite the dismissal of its complaint against respondents. 1. . MHP Garments and De Guzman were indirectly involved in transgressing the right of respondents against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Carandang appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. or any physical injury or bodily injury. this petition was filed. it is evident then that the term “physical injuries” could not have been used in its specific sense as a crime defined in the RPC. but in their generic sense. CFI of Batangas found Tomas Valenton Jr.  Pending said appeal. guilty of the crime of frustrated homicide committed against the person of Cesar Carandang. not the crime of physical injuries.” Defamation and fraud are used in their ordinary sense because there are no specific provisions in the RPC using these terms as means of offenses defined therein. pending the termination of the criminal case in the CA. it was the intent of the Code Commission to establish a civil action for the bodily harm received by the complainant similar to the civil action for assault and battery. as they are understood under American Law. or frustrated homicide. “fraud” and “physical injuries. Hence. because the terms used with the latter are general terms.Cases: CARANDANG v SANTIAGO AND VALENTON May 29. MARCIA V CA FACTS: Bus of Victory Liner driven by Felardo Paje collided with jeep driven by Clement Marcia. Judge ruled that the trial of the civil case must await the result of the criminal case on appeal.  In any case. While civil case was in progress. so that these two terms must have used not tom impart any technical meaning. 1955 FACTS:  On September 1. Information for homicide and serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence was filed. Marcia died and two others were injured.  In other words.  Hence. or attempted homicide. Civil action for damages was subsequently filed. Writ granted. Paje was convicted by civil court but acquitted by CA saying that criminal negligence is wanting and that Paje was not guilty of criminal negligence. whether inflicted with intent to kill or not. the civil action should lie whether the offense committed is that of physical injuries. or even death. 1953. Carandang instituted with the CFI of Manila a complaint to recover from Valenton and his parents damages for the bodily injuries received on occasion of the commission of the crime of frustrated homicide. the term “physical injuries” should be understood to mean any bodily injury. ISSUE: WON the civil case should await the result of the criminal case on appeal The resolution of the above issue hinges on the interpretation of the term “physical injuries” as used in Article 33: won the term means physical injuries in the RPC only. HELD: No  Article 33 uses the words “defamation”. .  Valentons filed a motion to suspend the trial of the civil case. As motion for recon was denied.

and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action. Such civil action may be supported by a preponderance of evidence. or (2) Annoys or offends the senses.CFI dismissed civil case saying that Paje cannot be held civilly liable after it had ruled in the criminal action that negligence was wanting and that the collision was a case of pure accident. for which no independent civil action is granted in this Code or any special law. then the extinction of criminal liability will carry with it the extinction of civil liability. and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. business. 3. Furthermore. fraud and physical injuries. Hence. defies or disregards decency or morality. or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings. Part 3: nuisance A. When a person. “ In cases of defamation. 4. A nuisance is any act. but the justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed. establishment. or . claiming to be injured by a criminal offense. entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action may be brought by the injured party. if the act from which the civil liability arises is declared to be non-existent in the final judgment. the civil action shall be suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings. condition of property. or any body of water. such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings. or (3) Shocks. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution and shall require only preponderance of ecivence. 694. If during the pendency of the civil action. ISSUE: WON action for damages for physical injuries resulting from negligence is an independent. Rule 111 ROC. 34. Hence this appeal. RATIO: Reckless imprudence or criminal negligence is not one of the three crimes mentioned in Art 33. an information should be presented by the prosecuting attorney. when no independent civil action is provided Art. the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious. Sec 3. Definition Art.” The injuries suffered by petitioners were alleged to be the result of the criminal negligence . 35. charges another with the same. Upon the defendant's motion. Nonfeasance of police Art. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property. omission. the complaint may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender. or anything else which: (1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others. or (4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street. They were not inflicted with malice. a civil action for damages. no independent civil action for damages may be instituted in connection therewith. separate and distinct from criminal action in Art 33 HELD: No.

constructed an ice and cold storage plant in Iloilo City. Such houses were constructed on public streets and some on portions of riverbed. Council appointed committee to investigate and report upon the matters in the complaint. Nuisance is either public or private.(5) Hinders or impairs the use of property. It is a legitimate industry beneficial to the people and conducive to their health and comfort. Council passed a resolution giving Company 1 month to elevate their smokestacks or else their operations will be stopped or suspended. Kinds 1. nearby residents made complaints to the Municipal Council that the smoke from the plant was very injurious to their health and comfort. Neither can they authorize the extrajudicial condemnation and destruction of a thing as a nuisance which in its nature situation or use is not such. B. . The company is entitled to a fair and impartial hearing before a judicial tribunal. In this case. b. Per se or per accidens Cases: ILOIOLO COLD STORAGE CO VS MUNICIPAL COUNCIL FACTS: Iloilo Cold Storage Co. Nuisance per se – nuisances under any and all circumstances. that question cannot be determined by a mere resolution of the board. the plant is not a nuisance per se. 2. SITCHAL ET AL V AQUINO FACTS: Six class suits were brought against the City Engineer of Manila to enjoin him from carrying out his threat to demolish the houses of petitioners upon the ground that said houses constitute public nuisances. Nuisance per accidens – nuisance only because of the special circumstances and conditions surrounding it Municipal councils have under the code the power to declare and abate nuisances but they do not have the power to find as a fact that a particular thing is a nuisance when such a thing is not a nuisance per se. RATIO: Nuisance is anything that work hurt. inconvenience or damage (Blackstone) Two classes are: a. 695. ISSUE: WON Such houses are public nuisances and who may abate them HELD: Yes. ISSUE: WON a municipal corporation can declare the company’s plant a nuisance as operated and prescribe method of abating it HELD: No. a nuisance which affects the immediate safety of persons or properties or those presenting an emergency may be summarily abated under the undefined law of necessity. However. Sometime after the plant was completed and in operation. danger or damage upon individuals may be unequal. Public or private Art. If it were in fact a nuisance due to the manner of its operation. A public nuisance affects a community or neighborhood or any considerable number of persons. These things must be determined in the ordinary courts of law. A private nuisance is one that is not included in the foregoing definition. although the extent of the annoyance.

repairing and servicing motor vehicles. DE AYALA V BARRETTO FACTS: De Ayala proposed the erection of a combined brewery and ice plant on Calle General Solano. which means a shop for storing. CFI dismissed but CA reversed. unauthorized obstructions. 2830 of Manila such body-building shop is not within the purview of garage. 22 residents and property owners on the same street filed a suit or injunction against it on the ground that it’s a nuisance. condition of property or anything else which (4) obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street or any body of water. it is a public nuisance. at the owner’s expenses. Art 2196: The rules under this title are without prejudice to special provisions on damages formulated elsewhere in this code. refuse or neglect to remove the same. The business of RAMCAR is not a nuisance per se but in the account of its location. . Art 695 states that a public nuisance affects a community or neighborhood. whenever the owner or person responsible therefor shall. Sec 1122 of the Revised Ordinance of the City of Manila explicitly authorizes the city engineer to remove. The provisions in Art 700 and 702 CC being general provisions must yield to special provision specifically designed from the City of Manila. RAMCAR V MILLAR FACTS: RAMCAR has been engaged in auto-repair and body-building since 1938 in Ermita Manila. it is not necessary to remove all buildings and structures built in the place where it is presently located. The zoning ordinance of the city prohibits also its body-building operations. establishment. business. after official notice. ISSUE: WON there can be damages from nuisance HELD: YES RATIO: Art 697: The abatement of a nuisance does not preclude the right of any person injured to recover damages for its past existence. and even on Sundays and holidays. commission. or those parts which may be utilized for pursuits that are not forbidden by law or ordinance such as auto-repair.RATIO: Art 694 CC provides that a nuisance is any act. The City Enginner has the duty to abate such public nuisances as stated in the Sec 31 RA 409 or the Revised City Charter of Manila. Seven residents near or around the shop brought an action to abate said establishment as a nuisance since activites of the shop give rise to much noise and annoyance during all hours of the day up to nightime. However to abate this. ISSUE: WON RAMCAR’s auto-repair and body-building shop is a nuisance HELD: YES. RATIO: RAMCAR was granted a license to operate a garage and under Ordinance No. a fashionable residence street with large expensive houses. ISSUE: WON such brewery and ice plant is a nuisance HELD: No. Such houses of petitioners constructed without governmental authority on public streets and river beds obstruct at all times the free use by the public of said places and accordingly constitutes a nuisance per se aside from public nuisances.

The district health officer shall take care that one or all of the remedies against a public nuisance are availed of. Art. In addition. without committing a breach of the peace. . There is now a coal yard. or (3) Abatement. Lapse of time cannot legalize any nuisance. 699. warehouse . if it is specially injurious to himself. Every successive owner or possessor of property who fails or refuses to abate a nuisance in that property started by a former owner or possessor is liable therefor in the same manner as the one who created it. such action shall be commenced by the city or municipal mayor. Art. 700. especially beneficial for transportation purposes. 703. The remedies against a public nuisance are: (1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance: or (2) A civil action. 704. The district health officer shall determine whether or not abatement. electrical railroad and light co. In addition. If a civil action is brought by reason of the maintenance of a public nuisance. without judicial proceedings.RATIO: The locality in question is gradually being transformed from a fashionable residence area into an industrial center. 701. Art. C. club. or if necessary. 698. without judicial proceedings. is the best remedy against a public nuisance. by destroying the thing which constitutes the same. The abatement of a nuisance does not preclude the right of any person injured to recover damages for its past existence. whether public or private. Abatement Art. or doing unnecessary injury. public school. 702. But it is necessary: (1) That demand be first made upon the owner or possessor of the property to abate the nuisance. Art. 697. or one who remains there in the light of the fact of its transformation into a trading or manufacturing center. Art. lumberyards. One who settles in a district which has a natural watercourse. must submit to the ordinary annoyances and discomforts which are incidental to the reasonable and general conduct of such business. Art. Any private person may abate a public nuisance which is specially injurious to him by removing. Art. Pasig River is in it immediate the vicinity. The injunction will only be granted when there’s a pressing necessity and not just a trifling discomfort. sawmills and powerplant. Art. A private person may file an action on account of a public nuisance. the locality surrounding the site of the proposed plant has not sufficiently shown that the plant will be incongruous with it since another brewery is already in existence in the vicinity. 696.

without judicial proceedings. heat. However. The remedies against a private nuisance are: (1) A civil action. and (4) That the value of the destruction does not exceed three thousand pesos. jarring. or (2) If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be not a real nuisance. 705. dust. Art. Subject to zoning. Cases: D. Cases: . Art. A private person or a public official extrajudicially abating a nuisance shall be liable for damages: (1) If he causes unnecessary injury. without committing a breach of the peace or doing unnecessary injury. 706. by destroying the thing which constitutes the nuisance. factories and shops may be maintained provided the least possible annoyance is caused to the neighborhood. (3) That the abatement be approved by the district health officer and executed with the assistance of the local police. smoke. 682. Art. health. 683. police and other laws and regulations. glare and other causes. Any person injured by a private nuisance may abate it by removing. Art. offensive odor. or (2) Abatement. Easement against nuisance Art. it is indispensable that the procedure for extrajudicial abatement of a public nuisance by a private person be followed. or if necessary. water.(2) That such demand has been rejected. 707. Every building or piece of land is subject to the easement which prohibits the proprietor or possessor from committing nuisance through noise.