You are on page 1of 11

1. ELCANO V.

HILL 77 SCRA 98
Reginald Hill, a minor, caused the death of Agapito (son of Elcano). Elcano filed a criminal case against Reginald but
Reginald was acquitted for “lack of intent coupled with mistake.” Elcano then filed a civil action against Reginald and
his dad (Marvin Hill) for damages based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Hill argued that the civil action is barred by
his son’s acquittal in the criminal case; and that if ever, his civil liability as a parent has been extinguished by the fact
that his son is already an emancipated minor by reason of his marriage.
ISSUE: Whether or not Marvin Hill may be held civilly liable under Article 2180.
HELD: Yes. The acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case does not bar the filing of a separate civil action. A separate
civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or
acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if accused is actually charged also criminally, to recover
damages on both scores, and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the
awards made in the two cases vary. In other words, the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of Section 3,
Rule 111, refers exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas the civil
liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration
in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by the accused.
Briefly stated, culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law. While it is true
that parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of the child (Article 327, Civil Code), and under Article 397,
emancipation takes place “by the marriage of the minor child”, it is, however, also clear that pursuant to Article 399,
emancipation by marriage of the minor is not really full or absolute. Thus “Emancipation by marriage or by voluntary
concession shall terminate parental authority over the child’s person. It shall enable the minor to administer his
property as though he were of age, but he cannot borrow money or alienate or encumber real property without the
consent of his father or mother, or guardian. He can sue and be sued in court only with the assistance of his father,
mother or guardian.” Therefore, Article 2180 is applicable to Marvin Hill – the SC however ruled since at the time of
the decision, Reginald is already of age, Marvin’s liability should be subsidiary only – as a matter of equity.
2. TAYLOR V. MERALCO 16 PHIL 8 16 Phil. 18 – Civil Law – Torts and Damages – Element – Quasi Delicts
David Taylor was a 15 year old boy who spent time as a cabin boy at sea; he was also able to learn some principles
of mechanical engineering and mechanical drawing from his dad’s office (his dad was a mechanical engineer); he
was also employed as a mechanical draftsman earning P2.50 a day – all said, Taylor was mature well beyond his
age. One day in 1905, he and another boy entered into the premises of Manila Electric power plant where they found
20-30 blasting caps which they took home. In an effort to explode the said caps, Taylor experimented until he
succeeded in opening the caps and then he lighted it using a match which resulted to the explosion of the caps
causing severe injuries to his companion and to Taylor losing one eye. Taylor sued Manila Electric alleging that
because the company left the caps exposed to children, they are liable for damages due to the company’s
negligence.
ISSUE: Whether or not Manila Electric is liable for damages.
HELD: No. The SC reiterated the elements of quasi delict as follows: (1) Damages to the plaintiff. (2) Negligence by
act or omission of which defendant personally, or some person for whose acts it must respond, was guilty. (3) The
connection of cause and effect between the negligence and the damage. In the case at bar, it is true that Manila
Electric has been negligent in disposing off the caps which they used for the power plant, and that said caps caused
damages to Taylor. However, the causal connection between the company’s negligence and the injuries sustained by
Taylor is absent. It is in fact the direct acts of Taylor which led to the explosion of the caps as he even, in various
experiments and in multiple attempts, tried to explode the caps. It is from said acts that led to the explosion and hence

and approved by. others signed by either respondent or Vicente Araneta. Hence. The series of experiments made by him in his attempt to produce an explosion admit of no other explanation. sent Taylor to the US. more mature both mentally and physically than the average boy of his age. was able to earn P2.. they have given their stamp of approval. show clearly that he knew what he was about. The Board did not act upon the proposal. A third party complaint was file by respondent against. proposed to the board of Ace Advsertising Corp. “The just thing is that a man should suffer the damage which comes to him through his own fault. he had been to sea as a cabin boy. The CFI rendered judgement ordering the respondent to pay Ace for the amount disbursed with interest at a legal rate until full payment and dismissed the third party complaint. Taylor at the time of the accident was well-grown youth of 15. to send Ricardo Taylor to the US to take up special studies in television. and the record discloses throughout that he was exceptionally well qualified to take care. Nor can there be any reasonable doubt that he had reason to anticipate that the explosion might be dangerous.20 on account of Taylor’s travel and studies. In their defense. Petitioner Luis Araneta. signed three of the vouchers. authority or ratification. As it is established that corporate funds were disbursed unauthorized. and that he cannot demand reparation therefor from another. The existence of a contract between the parties constitutes no bar to the commission of a tort by one against the other and the consequent recovery of . notwithstanding that he was occupying a contractual position at Ace? Otherwise stated. While abroad. Respondent appealed to CA. Then a year after. this appeal. His attempt to discharge the cap by the use of electricity.50 a day as a mechanical draftsman thirty days after the injury was incurred. Respondent assured Antonio Araneta. whether or not quasi-delict (tort) may be committed a party in a contract? Held: Yes. CA affirmed the decision of trial court with regard to its decision in favor of Ace but reversed the dismissal of the 3rd party complaint. The evidence of record leaves no room for doubt that he well knew the explosive character of the cap with which he was amusing himself. general manager. CA found as a factthat Taylor’s trip had neither been authorized nor ratified by Ace. The respondent in his answer denied the charge and claimed that the trip was nonetheless ratified by the company’s board and at any event he had the discretion as general manager to authorize the trip which was for the company’s benefit. the company treasurer. Taylor continued to receive his salaries. Respondent proved that some of the checks to cover the expenses of Taylor were signed by Vicente and Luis. Luis and Vicente claimed that they signed the checks in good faith as they were approved by respondent. It held that Luis and Vicente were also privy to the authorized disbursement of corporate monies with the respondent.” 3. That when they approved signed the checks. Ace Advertising disbursed P5. a compny director. and the final success of his endeavors brought about by the applications of a match to the contents of the cap.043. the case is of a simple quasi-delict committed by them against the corporation. Issue: Whether or not petitioner is guilty of quasi-delict. followed by his efforts to explode it with a stone or a hammer.the injuries. the respondent. Vicente and Luis and Taylor. DE JOYA Facts: Respondent De Joya. ARANETA V. The items corresponding to his salaries appeared in vouchers prepared upon orders of. Nevertheless. that expenses will be handled by other parties which later was confirmed through a memorandum. All told. Ace Advertising filed a complaint before the CFI against respondent for the recovery of the total sum disbursed to Taylor alleging that the trip was made without its knowledge.

injurious language. there is also a tortuous act based on culpa aquiliana. that any rule or discourteous conduct on the part of employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the carrier. wounded feelings and social humiliation. that was not the true intent between the parties. petitioner remained passive. His guilt is manifest on account of. among others. The testimony of Carrascoso must be admitted based on res gestae. ISSUE 1: Whether or not Air France is liable for damages and on what basis. It avers that the issuance of a first class ticket to Carrascoso was not an assurance that he will be seated in first class because allegedly in truth and in fact. and Third. embarrassments and humiliations. It appears that Air France’s liability is based on culpa-contractual and on culpa aquiliana. That said contract was breached when Air France failed to furnish first class transportation at Bangkok. Testimony on the entry does not come within the proscription of the best evidence rule. Damages are proper. Second. They have a right to be treated by the carrier’s employees with kindness. In court. So it is. The excitement had not as . Besides. resulting in moral damages. Such testimony is admissible. Carrascoso was issued a first class round trip ticket by Air France. But during a stop-over in Bangkok. Carrascoso testified. Culpa Aquiliana Here. Such claim is simply incredible. This is a violation of public duty by the Air France — a case of quasi-delict. The Supreme Court did not give credence to Air France’s claim that the issuance of a first class ticket to a passenger is not an assurance that he will be given a first class seat. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. when the dialogue between Carrascoso and the purser happened. Carrascoso protested but when things got heated and upon advise of other Filipinos on board. that he when he was forced to take the tourist class. thereby causing him mental anguish. courtesy and due consideration. throughout the period of Taylor’s trip and to the payment of the latter’s salary. the SC ruled. They are entitled to be protected against personal misconduct. Air France also questioned the admissibility of Carrascoso’s testimony regarding the note made by the purser because the said note was never presented in court. that there was bad faith when Air France’s employee compelled Carrascoso to leave his first class accommodation berth “after he was already. seated” and to take a seat in the tourist class. 4. he sued Air France for damages for the embarrassment he suffered during his trip. indignities and abuses from such employees. ISSUE 2: Whether or not the testimony of Carrasoso regarding the note which was not presented in court is admissible in evidence. The stress of Carrascoso’s action is placed upon his wrongful expulsion. but the ouster incident. respect. As such he neglected to perform his duties properly to the damage of the firm of which he was an officer. The subject of inquiry is not the entry. and that the captain refused to intervene The said testimony was admitted in favor of Carrascoso. he was asked by the plane manager of Air France to vacate his seat because a white man allegedly has a “better right” than him. HELD 1: Yes. Rafael Carrascoso and several other Filipinos were tourists en route to Rome from Manila. After their tourist trip when Carrascoso was already in the Philippines. Carrascoso gave up his seat and was transferred to the plane’s tourist class. CARRASCOSO 18 SCRA 155 Civil Law – Torts and Damages – Negligence – Malfeasance – Quasi-Delict Remedial Law – Evidence – Hearsay Rule – Res Gestae – Startling Event In March 1958. Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. There was a contract to furnish Carrasocoso a first class passage. The trial court eventually awarded damages in favor of Carrascoso. Culpa Contractual There exists a contract of carriage between Air France and Carrascoso. in spite of his being a vice-president and director of Ace. AIR FRANCE V. the impact of the startling occurrence was still fresh and continued to be felt.damages. he went to the plane’s pantry where he was approached by a plane purser who told him that he noted in the plane’s journal the following: First-class passenger was forced to go to the tourist class against his will. Air France’s contract with Carrascoso is one attended with public duty. by reason of which he suffered inconvenience. even though there is a contract of carriage between Air France and Carrascoso. HELD: 2: Yes. Air France is assailing the decision of the trial court and the CA. serious anxiety.

” In the present case. under the circumstances.” The responsibility of the common carrier. Defendant having breached its contracts in bad faith. Zulueta. as a common carrier. had to relieve himself and thus looked for a secluded place in the beach. He reserved his right to file a separate civil action and this is more expeditious because by the time of the SC judgment Fontanilla is already serving his sentence and has no property. Zulueta vs. affecting as it does public interest.30 per day. After the criminal suit. Pan Am Facts: Mr. Barredo assailed the suit arguing that his liability is only subsidiary and that the separate civil suit should have been filed against Fontanilla primarily and not him. to cause to him the greatest possible inconvenience. The rationale behind exemplary or corrective damages is. He is primarily liable under Article 1903 which is a separate civil action against negligent employers. or otherwise. Zulueta was off-loaded. ISSUE: Whether or not Barredo is just subsidiarily liable. Held: Yes. It thus escapes the operation of the hearsay rule. Thus. It forms part of the res gestae. The airport manager of then sent Mr. If “gross negligence” warrants the award of exemplary damages. It was also proven that Barredo is negligent in hiring his employees because it was shown that Fontanilla had had . as regards the passenger’s safety. may award exemplary damages in addition to moral damages 6. by the posting of notices. by statements on tickets. however. but. defendant’s agents had acted with malice aforethought and evident bad faith. under said contract. BARREDO V. Mr. Statements then. not merely to transport them to Manila. Zulueta was off-loaded to retaliate and punish him for the embarrassment and loss of face thus suffered by defendant’s agent. Faustino’s parents filed a criminal suit against Fontanilla and reserved their right to file a separate civil suit. 1936. as the name implies. in this environment. however. Issue: WON Pan Am should be held liable. Zulueta and his wife and child boarded a flight of Pan Am from Wake Island to the Phil. he was delayed in boarding for some 20 or 30 minutes. The suit was based on Article 1903 of the civil code (negligence of employers in the selection of their employees). While Mr. Zulueta to answer back. are admissible as part of the res gestae. that it “cannot be dispensed with” or even “lessenedby stipulation. but. that in off-loading plaintiff at Wake Island. Its trustworthiness has been guaranteed. to provide an example or correction for public good. malicious and tainted with bad faith. 5. As a result. Garcia filed a civil suit against Barredo – the owner of the taxi (employer of Fontanilla). Mr. to chastise him. also. Fontanilla’s taxi collided with a “kalesa” thereby killing the 16 year old Faustino Garcia. the defendant did not only fail to comply with its obligation to transport Mr. as stated earlier. pursuant to which the latter was bound. Fontanilla was eventually convicted. Mr. HELD: No. the court. Zulueta to Manila. The Zuluetas had a contract of carriage with the defendant.yet died down. also. with more reason is its imposition justified when the act performed is deliberate. Zulueta a letter stating that his stay in Wake Island would be for a minimum of one week during which he would be charged $13. acted in a manner calculated to humiliate him. for a substantial monetary consideration paid by the former. the captain of the plane demonstrated an intemperate and arrogant tone thereby impelling Mr. is of such a nature. GARCIA AND ALMARIO 73 Phil 607 73 Phil 607 Torts and Damages – Civil Liability from Quasi Delicts vs Civil Liability from Crimes At about 1:30am on May 3. to make him suffer. to do so with “extraordinary diligence” or “utmost diligence. The utterance of the purser regarding his entry in the notebook was spontaneous. Garcia is well within his rights in suing Barredo. ——————————————————— With regard to DAMAGES It is obvious. and related to the circumstances of the ouster incident. Zulueta was reaching the ramp.

they can be prosecuted separately and independently of each other. homicide through reckless imprudence filed to driver Romeo Punzalan and defendants . Robles 66 SCRA 485 s Facts: The citation of the case was a negligent act. inasmuch as Punzalan had already been sentenced to pay the herein petitioners the amounts above-stated. Adjectively and substantively. Issue:Whether or not that negligent act of Punzalan gives rise to the two separate and independent liabilities. against the driver for homicide thru reckless imprudence. That is to say. (1) the civil liability arising from crime or culpa criminal and (2) the liability arising from civil negligence or the so-called culpa aquiliana. now plaintiffs-appellees. sought to enforce such civil liability against her as owner of the jeepney. in an action with the Court of First Instance of Manila against defendant. but it did not prosper. . he shall be entitled in the second case only to the excess over the one fixed in the first case. GLORIOSO For the death of a three-year-old boy who was run over by a passenger jeepney. Barredo is not being sued for damages arising from a criminal act (his driver’s negligence) but rather for his own negligence in selecting his employee (Article 1903). he could not be adjudged to pay a higher amount. pursuant to Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. 7. The civil case was dismissed. but if he has already been paid a bigger amount in the first case. the said accident. LA MALLORCA 82 SCRA 245 – Civil Law – Torts and Damages – Distinction of Liability of Employers Under Article 2180 and Their Liability Under the Revised Penal Code . considering the fact that the civil action for damages brought by the parents of the child against the driver and the owner of the vehicle was dismissed. Thus. he may not recover anymore in the second case. . Further." 1 There was an appeal. only the bigger amount. that a negligent act such as that committed by Punzalan gives rise to at least two separate and independent kinds of liabilities. in the case at bar. if the plaintiff has already been ordered paid an amount in one case and in the other case the amount adjudged is bigger. the lower court being of the opinion that "in conscience" it could not "hold the . Padua vs.appellees as subsidiary liable. Held: It is by now settled beyond all cavil as to dispense with the citation of jurisprudence. defendant driver guilty of negligence or lack of care resulting in or contributory to. Had Garcia not reserved his right to file a separate civil action. two actions were filed by the parents. JOCSON V.multiple traffic infractions already before he hired him – something he failed to overcome during hearing. in the subsequent criminal case. although Article 2177 of the Civil Code precludes recovery of damages twice for the same negligent act or omission. These two concepts of fault are so distinct from each other that exoneration from one does not result in exoneration from the other." The parents. namely (1) the civil liability arising from crime or culpa criminal and (2) the liability arising from civil negligence or so called culpa aquiliana. which means that should there be varying amounts awarded in two separate cases. and the other. now appellant. The accused driver appealed raising as one of the issues "the propriety of sentencing the driver to pay indemnity to the parents of the deceased child. the first. which give rise to two separate liabilities. MENDOZA V. against its owner and the driver for culpa aquiliana. Barredo would have only been subsidiarily liable. the criminal action having been instituted while the civil case was pending trial. the Court of Appeals dismissing it for failure of appellants to pay the docketing fees. the plaintiff may recover. in effect. 9. 8.

Cangco was riding the train of Manila Railroad Co (MRC). ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of the civil case based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code is a bar for filing another action based on Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. Mendoza then filed a new suit against LMBC this time under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. Mendoza reserved his right to file a separate civil action. It was established that the employees of MRC were negligent in piling the sacks of watermelons. Jose Cangco vs Manila Railroad Co. either in the selection or supervision of his driver. However. the freight truck owned by Mendoza was bumped by a bus owned by La Mallorca Bus Company. that is to say. whatever done within the scope of his employment or not. When such a contractual relation exists the obligor may break the contract under such conditions that the same act which constitutes the . The Court also elucidated on the distinction between the liability of employers under Article 2180 and their liability for breach of contract [of carriage]: NOTES: But. the civil case was dismissed by reason of prescription as the case was filed 6 years after the collision. but by mere negligence or inattention. has caused damage to another. without willful intent. The lower court as well as the Court of Appeals agreed with LMBC. Article 2180 of the Civil Code makes an employer primarily and directly liable for reason of his own negligence. LMBC argued that the dismissal of the civil case is a bar for filing another case under Article 103 of the RPC by reason of res judicata. the mere fact that a person is bound to another by contract does not relieve him from extra-contractual liability to such person. he arose from his seat even though the train was not at full stop. HELD: Yes.In April 1950. MRC raised as a defense the fact that Cangco was also negligent as he failed to exercise diligence in alighting from the train as he did not wait for it to stop. 30 Phil 768 – Civil Law – Torts and Damages – Distinction of Liability of Employers Under Article 2180 and Their Liability for Breach of Contract On January 20. ISSUE: Whether or not Manila Railroad Co is liable for damages. When he was nearing his destination at about 7pm. In other words. 1915. He was an employee of the latter and he was given a pass so that he could ride the train for free. concentric. and it was by no means so risky for him to get off while the train was yet moving as the same act would have been in an aged or feeble person. he is not liable for the acts of the latter. HELD: No. He was also ignorant of the fact that sacks of watermelons were there as there were no appropriate warnings and the place was dimly lit. if the master has not been guilty of any negligence whatever in the selection and direction of the servant. Cangco has the vigor and agility of young manhood. Mendoza sued the bus driver for damage to property thru reckless imprudence. The bus driver was subsequently convicted of the crime charged. if the damage done by the servant does not amount to a breach of the contract between the master and the person injured. Article 2180 of the CC is predicated upon the employer’s own negligence while Article 103 of the RPC is predicated upon the a crime committed by an employee of the employer. Article 103 of the RPC makes an employer subsidiarily liable for damages caused by his negligent employee who is convicted from a previous criminal suit. When he was about to alight from the train (which was still slightly moving) he accidentally stepped on a sack of watermelons which he failed to notice due to the fact that it was dim. 10. Alighting from a moving train while it is slowing down is a common practice and a lot of people are doing so every day without suffering injury. These two fields. This caused him to lose his balance at the door and he fell and his arm was crushed by the train and he suffered other serious injuries. Civil action based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code and the civil action based on Article 103 of the RPC are two independent and separate actions based on distinct causes of actions therefore res judicata can not lie. Mendoza then filed a civil case based on Article 2180 against LMBC as the employer of the bus driver. He was dragged a few meters more as the train slowed down. The liability arising from extra-contractual culpa is always based upon a voluntary act or omission which. figuratively speaking.

4. but the latter told the barrio captain that he could not do it but that he was going to look for the lineman to fix it. 30 January 1976. (2) WON boy’s parents’ negligence exempts petitioner from liability. the banana plants standing near the transmission line of the Alcala Electric Plant (AEP) were blown down and fell on the electric wire. Esguerra. PLDT contends the injuries were the result of the negligence of the independent contractor the company hired (Barte) and should be the one held liable and not the company. CFI Pangasinan) and FIDEL H. With ordinary foresight. Vinculum Juris: (def) It means “an obligation of law”. J.storm. went to the place where the broken line wire was and got in contact with it. Issue: W/N PLDT can be held liable for the injuries caused to spouses Esteban Held: PLDT and Barte contends that the independent contractor placed signs on the road and that it was the fault of Mr. Sometime thereafter. Esteban because he did not diligently drive the jeepney. whose house is just on the opposite side of the road. the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendants' (petitioners’) lack of due care. (2) Art. Saynes. or the right of the obligee to enforce a civil matter in a court of law. the employees of the petitioner could have easily seen that even in case of moderate winds the electric line would be endangered by banana plants being blown down. Mr. 1989 Facts: Spouses Esteban were riding their jeep when they ran over an earth mound and fell in an open trench on the road resulting to slight injuries to the husband and serious injuries to the wife. It was only after the electrocution that the broken wire was fixed. Ruling: Decision affirmed. SAYNES G. Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the CFI of Pangasinan. a laborer of the AEP. SC finds no error in the findings of the respondent court in its original decision that the accident which befell private respondents was due to the lack of diligence of respondent Antonio Esteban and was not imputable to negligent omission on the part of petitioner PLDT.source of an extra-contractual obligation had no contract existed between the parties. L-40570. 2179 CC provides that if the negligence of the plaintiff (parents of the victim in this case) was only contributory. 1972. a storm with strong rain hit the Municipality of Alcala Pangasinan. 57079 September 29. No. The live electric wire was cut. TEODORO C. Manresa: Whether negligence occurs an incident in the course of the performance of a contractual undertaking or in itself the source of an extracontractual undertaking obligation. 12. RTC ruled in favour of the spouses while the CA under Justice Agrava as ponente reversed the decision of the RTC. PLDT v CA GR No. but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. The findings clearly show that the negligence of respondent Antonio Esteban was not only contributory to his injuries and those of his wife but goes to the very cause . a small boy of 3 years and 8 months old by the name of Manuel P. barrio captain saw Cipriano Baldomero. 11. This law may be availed of by the petitioner but does not exempt him from liability. its essential characteristics are identical. HON. ANGEL BACANI (Judge. asked him to fix it. The following morning.R. During the storm. one end of which was left hanging on the electric post and the other fell to the ground. UMALI vs. the plaintiff may recover damages. of Article 2180 of the Civil Code. (1) A careful examination of the records convinces the SC that a series of negligence on the part of defendants' employees in the AEP resulted in the death of the victim by electrocution. Esteban had quickly swerved from the outer lane thereby hitting the earth mound. Petitioner's liability for injury caused by his employees negligence is well defined in par.: Facts: On May 14. The boy was electrocuted and he subsequently died. Issues: (1) WON the proximate cause of the boy's death is due to a fortuitous event. The windshield of the jeep was also shattered due to the accident Spouses Esteban accused PLDT of negligence because of lack of warning signs placed near the manhole dug resulting on the earth mound on the road causing injuries to the wife.

it affords reasonable evidence. But the horse got scared so it turned its body across the bridge. instead he moved his horse closer to the railing. Manila. When Smith’s car has approached the horse at such proximity it left no chance for Picart extricate himself and vigilance on his part will not avert injury. Picart suffered injuries which required several days of medical attention while the horse eventually died. Spouses Africa et al vs Caltex Philippines. ISSUE: Whether or not Smith is negligent. in Rizal Avenue. the horse struck the car and its limb got broken. a tank truck was hosing gasoline into the underground storage of Caltex. Caltex and the branch owner (Mateo Boquiren) failed to install a concrete firewall to contain fire if in case one happens. the only purpose of said signs was to inform and warn the public of the presence of excavations on the site. 14. But Smith’s negligence succeeded that of Picart.” The gasoline station. a fire broke out from the gasoline station and the fire spread and burned several houses including the house of Spouses Bernabe and Soledad Africa. Amado Picart was riding his horse and while they were on a 75 meter long bridge. Smith saw at a distance when he blew his horn that Picart and his horse did not move to the other lane so he should have steered his car to the other lane at that point instead of swerving at the last minute. And so was Picart for planting himself on the wrong side of the road. But there was no evidence presented to prove this theory and no other explanation can be had as to the real reason for the fire. that the injury arose from defendant’s want of care. The persons who knew or .of the occurrence of the accident. It was not the lack of knowledge of these excavations which caused the jeep of respondents to fall into the excavation but the unexplained sudden swerving of the jeep from the inside lane towards the accident mound. Picart can therefore recover damages from Smith but such should be proportioned by reason of his contributory negligence. Smith continued driving towards Picart without slowing down and when he was already so near the horse he swerved to the other lane. Apparently. Allegedly. A fire occurred therein and spread to and burned the neighboring houses. ISSUE: Whether or not Caltex and Boquiren are liable to pay for damages.’s car approaching. he saw Frank Smith Jr. equipment and employees. without fault of the injured person. in the absence of the explanation. and thereby precludes their right to recover damages. Apparently also. This is pursuant to the application on the principle of res ipsa loquitur (“the transaction speaks for itself”) which states: “where the thing which caused injury. PICART V SMITH In December 1912. He therefore had the last clear chance to avoid the unfortunate incident. Boquiren and the Court of Appeals 16 SCRA 448 – Civil Law – Torts and Damages – Res Ipsa Loquitur In March 1948. 13. The presence of warning signs could not have completely prevented the accident. But Picart did not move his horse to the other lane. as one of its determining factors. someone (a passerby) threw a cigarette while gasoline was being transferred which caused the fire. HELD: Yes. was under the control of Caltex and Boquiren. HELD: Yes. with all its appliances. is under the exclusive control of the defendant and the injury is such as in the ordinary course of things does not occur if he having such control use proper care. The private respondents already knew of the presence of said excavations. Smith blew his horn thrice while he was still at a distance away because Picart and his horse were on Smith’s lane.

10 years of age. Ruling: Decision affirmed. June 3. but they gave no explanation thereof whatsoever. shot Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle causing injuries that resulted in her death. Due to the fall. Burgos Avenue was and is under its control and supervision. a national highway. It follows that they are the indispensable parties to the suit for damages. 1958. natural parents of Tamargo. Genaro N. city or municipality from which responsibility is exacted. Appeal by certiorari from a decision of the CA Concepcion." 16. he who charges negligence shall prove it. this circumstance would not necessarily detract from the City's "control or supervision. alleged that "the streets aforementioned were and have been constantly kept in good condition…and manholes thereof covered by the defendant City and the officers concerned…" Thus. controlling and disciplining the child. actual custody was then with the natural parents of Adelberto. minor. Hence. Retroactivity may be essential if it permits accrual of some benefit or advantage in favor of the adopted child. it is not necessary for the liability therein established to attach that the defective roads or streets belong to the province. In its answer to the complaint. 15. Petition for review was hereby granted. Burgos Avenue. the City. As he stepped down from the curb to board the jeepney he hailed. trial custody period either had not yet begin nor had been completed at the time of the shooting incident. Burgos Avenue were. “Parents and guardians are responsible for the damage caused by the child under their parental authority in accordance with the civil code”. In the case at bar. filed a complaint for damages against the natural parents of Adelberto with whom he was living the time of the tragic incident.R. their parental authority which includes instructing. he fell inside an uncovered and unlighted catch basin or manhole on P. during the shooting incident. Manila. City of Manila vs. and took a few steps. J.could have known how the fire started were Boquiren. The petitioners. Under Article 2189 CC. waiting for a jeepney. However. 85044. On appeal. 29 January 1968. Even if P. SC did not consider that retroactive effect may be given to the decree of adoption so as to impose a liability upon the adopting parents accruing at the time when they had no actual or physical custody over the adopted child. parental authority over Adelberto was still lodged with the natural parents. in effect. Note that ordinarily. Such petition was granted on November 1982 after the tragic incident. city or municipality have either "control or supervision" over said street or road. It is a fair and reasonable inference that the incident happened because of want of care. admitted that P. Caltex and their employees. Teotico City of Manila vs. L-23052. the spouses Rapisura filed a petition to adopt Adelberto Bundoc. within a "loading and unloading" zone. What said article requires is that the province.: Facts: On January 27. Teotico filed with the CFI Mla complaint against the City which dismissed the same.4 . Burgos Avenue. res ipsa loquitur is the exception because the burden of proof is shifted to the party charged of negligence as the latter is the one who had exclusive control of the thing that caused the injury complained of. 1992 FACTS: In October 1982. ISSUE: WON parental authority concerned may be given retroactive effect so as to make adopting parents the indispensable parties in a damage case filed against the adopted child where actual custody was lodged with the biological parents. No. the City had. Teotico and CA G. Tamargo vs CA GR No. Burgos Ave making it responsible for the damages suffered by Teotico. CA sentenced the City of Manila to pay damages. Under Article 35 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code. Teotico was at the corner of the Old Luneta and P. Teotico suffered injuries. HELD: Parental liability is a natural or logical consequence of duties and responsibilities of parents. therefore. In December 1981. Issue: WON the City of Manila have control or supervision over P. Adelberto Bundoc. parental authority is provisionally vested in the adopting parents during the period of trial custody however in this case.

3. a storm with strong rain hit the Municipality of Alcala Pangasinan. No. Martinez. Layugan vs. (2) Art. the banana plants standing near the transmission line of the Alcala Electric Plant (AEP) were blown down and fell on the electric wire. HON. the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendants' (petitioners’) lack of due care.17. 1972. claimed that the driver of the parked truck failed to install early warning device which was the proximate cause of the incident. This law may be availed of by the petitioner but does not exempt him from liability. J. (1) A careful examination of the records convinces the SC that a series of negligence on the part of defendants' employees in the AEP resulted in the death of the victim by electrocution. as found by iac. one end of which was left hanging on the electric post and the other fell to the ground. RTC ruled in favor of Layugan. a cargo truck driven by Serrano bumped Layugan.R. IAC GR No. Petitioner's liability for injury caused by his employees negligence is well defined in par. But IAC reversed the decision of RTC. but the latter told the barrio captain that he could not do it but that he was going to look for the lineman to fix it. In res ipsa. The boy was electrocuted and he subsequently died. Isidro for damages. On the liability of Isidro: He is liable because he failed to prove exercise of diligence of a good father in supervising his driver and the mechanic. Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the CFI of Pangasinan. that the accident arose from want of care. L40570. the plaintiff may recover damages. 2179 CC provides that if the negligence of the plaintiff (parents of the victim in this case) was only contributory. the employees of the petitioner could have easily seen that even in case of moderate winds the electric line would be endangered by banana plants being blown down.storm. SAYNES G. 18. UMALI vs. Issues: (1) WON the proximate cause of the boy's death is due to a fortuitous event. 4. went to the place where the broken line wire was and got in contact with it. 2. The live electric wire was cut. causing injury resulting to amputation. but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. a laborer of the AEP. precisely the cause of injury is not known and resort to this rule is necessary in the absence of direct evidence of fact of injury. it affords a reasonable evidence in the absence of an explanation by the defendant. Ruling: Decision affirmed. is the one who is negligent (under res ipsa). It was only after the electrocution that the broken wire was fixed. Based on the testimony of the cargo truck driver. res ipsa does not apply because the cause of injury is established. which is the bumping. While Layugan and a companion was fixing a truck parked along the right side of the highway. CFI Pangasinan) and FIDEL H. (2) WON boy’s parents’ negligence exempts petitioner from liability. TEODORO C. With ordinary foresight. It is Isidro who is negligent. Also. RATIO: 1. whose house is just on the opposite side of the road. Sometime thereafter. Isidro. 1988 FACTS: 1. barrio captain saw Cipriano Baldomero. there was a problem in the breaks. 2. During the storm. HELD: No. Saynes. asked him to fix it. PLDT vs. E." In this case. ISSUE: Whether or not Layugan. CA . 19.: Facts: On May 14. On res ipsa: Res ipsa posits that "where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care. Esguerra. Isisdro should have checked the vehicle before allowing his driver to drive it. Layugan sued the cargo truck owner. 4. 13998 Nov. The following morning. ANGEL BACANI (Judge. a small boy of 3 years and 8 months old by the name of Manuel P. DISPOSTIVE: Granted. 30 January 1976. of Article 2180 of the Civil Code. in his defense.

Barte and Co. Respondent Antonio Esteban failed to notice the open trench which was left uncovered because of the creeping darkness and the lack of warning light or signs. an excavation allegedly undertaken by PLDT for the installation of its underground conduit system. to avoid the injury. PLDT alleged that the respondents were negligent and that it should be the independent contractor L. respondent spouses Esteban had their jeep ran over a sand of earth and fell into an open trench. 1968. Barte and Company which undertook said conduit system to be the one liable. are liable. 30. Private respondent cannot recover notwithstanding the negligence he imputes on PLDT considering that he had ¨the last clear chance¨.The latter claimed to have complied with its contract and had installed necessary barricades. Respondent spouses suffered physical injuries and their jeeps windshield was shattered. Issue: WON PLDT and L.R.Facts: On July.R. One who claims damages for the negligence of another has the burden of proof to show existence of such fault or negligence causative thereof Stress . hence he has no right to recover damages for the injuries which he and his wife suffered. Ruling: Private Respondent´s negligence was not merely contributory but goes to the very cause of the accident.