133. Lopez et.al vs.

Pan Am, 16 SCRA 431 Facts: Then Senate Pro Tempore Lopez booked 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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

147.are to be paid only if other items of damages are alleged in the complaint/info or if they are not so alleged. merely incidental or dependent upon AD/CD 148. D allegations were not included in info so co-accused raised issue of non-payment of docket fees.gross negligence/ careless constitute wanton misconduct— justifies award 153. the AD claimed are not included in the computation of filing fees. the corresponding filing fees need not be paid and shall simply constitute a 1st lien on a judgment. Filing fees not required. ED awarded even if not alleged. .Where civil axn is instituted together with crim axn. No need for docket fees. ED also claimed but amt not specified. except in award for actual damages. seized delivery trucks of SM which were levied against due to failure to pay tax. City Treasurer. . other than actual. . is alleged in he complaint/info that corresponding filing fees shall be paid by OP upon filing thereof in court for trial 7.when amount of damages is not alleged. amount need not be proved becoz its determination depends upon CD that may be awarded 2. shall constitute a first lien on judgment 154. General Info for libel alleged 100M worth of AME damages. 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. People vs escano 4 separate crim actions for estafa were filed. 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. Accepted order but did not tell plaintiff: no more appropriate social envelopes ED may be awarded to aggrieved party. brought axn to recover actual/compens dams plus certain amount of atty’s fees. san Miguel Francisco Magno. 1. . Conso for joint trial Upon finding that offended parties seek to enforce civl liabilities by way of AD. Singson 1. Quasi-delictual liability where there are contract relations .only when the amt of damages. respo judge ordered clerk to require payment of filing fees.

was granted a lease for a duration of 50 years (June 6.Case 8: Singson vs BPI. As soon as the judgment became final and executory. Passengers should be protected and insured a pleasant trip.exercise of proprietary functions.a quasi delict. city officials ordered the exhumation and removal of the remains of sr. 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. 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. 1971June 6. the Manager forced him to vacate his first class seat because a white man had a better right to the seat. Owned therefor in its proprietary or private character • City entered into contract of lease. 2021) on a land in the North Cemetery. Damages are proper. • 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. Sr. Lower court decided that plaintiffs cannot recover upon basis of quasi-delict because relation between parties was contractual. 5. Singson filed action: for damages in consequence of said illegal freezing of account. Manila Facts: Singson was on the defendants in a civil case that ordered them to pay the sum of 105. resulting in the temporary freeing of the account of the plaintiff. Series of 1975. 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. North Cemetery is a patrimonial property created by resolution of Municipal Board.56 to Philippine Milling Co. 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. 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. allegedly in accordance with Admin Order No. Case 9: Air France vs Carrascoso. However. from said lot and said lot was leased to another family. He had a first class round trip ticket from Manila to Rome. • Wrongful expulsion is a violation of public duty by the air carrier. when the plane was in Bangkok.539. was buried in said lot. in 1975. 23 SCRA 1117 Nature: Appeal from Judgment of the CFI. city may then sue and be sued . However. court served a writ of garnishment upon BPI-insofar as Villa-Abrille’s credits against bank were concerned. Carrascoso filed complaint for damages. 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. Facts: Wife of deceased Vivencio Sto Domingo Sr.

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. tie broke. 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. is obliged to pay for the damage done. Zigomar. 373. as they were under no such obligations to induce Cuddy to violate his contract with Gilchrist 1314. Cause: dislodging of the crosspiece or piling under the stringer by the water of the bay raised by recent typhoon. p. Such fault or negligence. inspecting and repairing it.• City is liable for the tortuous act committed by its agents to verify and check the duration of contract of lease. B. there being fault or negligence. 7 Phil 359 Nature: Appeal from a judgment of CFI.. 29 Phil 542 Nature: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI. The handcar’s track sagged. Rakes vs AG&P Co. to rent the film for a week at 125. The act or omission in the breach of a legal duty Article 2176. owner of the film. Manila Facts: Plaintiff’s leg was broken and was eventually amputated because of an incident at the company’s yard. CC: Any 3rd person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party. starting May 26. 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. 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. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another. rails slid off and caught plaintiff (or somethin’ like that). entered into a contract with Gilchrist. Cuddy returned money to Gilchrist and told him that Espejo and his partner would rent film for 350. 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. Iloilo Facts: Cuddy. . Basic elements of quasi-delictual liability 1. Before said date. Interference with Contracts Case 11: Gilchrist vs Cuddy.

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 . 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. 33 Phil 8 Nature: Appeal from 3 judgments of the CFI. which the law requires in order to avoid damage. regulated by 1101 (Old CC)  this contract binds employer to provide safe appliances for use of employees Cangco vs Manila Railroad Co. where necessary. 713 struck their car right in the center. He sounded his horn for the people to get out of the way. municipality of Cavite Viejo. Facts: Plaintiffs amd 3 other companions hired a taxicab from Bachrach Garage and Taxicab Co for a trip to Cavite Viejo. for its negligence and the negligence of its employees Ratio:  The diligence of a good father of a family.. (malamang!) Issue: WON Manila Railroad is liable for damages due to breach of legal duty Held: YES. At about 7-8 meters from crossing. plaintiff saw an autoruck parked on left side of road with people alighting from it. 59 Phil 758 Nature: Appeal from a judgment of CFI. On their way back. the automobile was struck by a train and the plaintiffs injured. while crossing the tracks of defendant railroad in San Juan. Laguna. 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. Manila Facts: Plaintiff was driving their Studebaker at 19-25 mi/hr to go sightseeing in Pagsanjan.Liability of Employer to Worker  arises out of contractual relations between them. supra Lilius vs Manila Railroad. 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. trees and shrubs. All of them got injured. With him were his wife and 4-year-old daughter. Locomotive No. Crossfield and Del Rosario. Manila Railroad. Manila. JJ. • 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.

and died upon reaching St. He was running across the street to catch the car but before his position had become secure. by reaching his arm out the full length. He asked one Jose Soco to report the situation to the Malabon station of the Manila Electric Company. unless they here ‘the signal of the car’ (syemps. 55 Phil 427 Nature: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI. Issue: WON there was breach of legal duty Held: YES Ratio:  Pole was located close enough to public place so that a person. Msg was transmitted at 2:25 pm. no matter of what nature. 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. when he placed his right hand on a wire connected with an electric pole situated near Santa Lucia Gate. At 4 pm.  Plaintiff’s negligence in attempting o board moving car was not the proximate cause of the injury. Manila Facts: Ignacio del Prado’s right foot was caught and crushed by car no. and even before his raised right foot had reached the platform. the motorman applied the power and the car gave a slight lurch forward. Manila Facts: Juan Astudillo met his death through electrocution. got electrocuted. 52 Phil 900 Nature: Appeal from judgment of the CFI. Astudillo vs Manila Electric CO. Manila Facts: Jose Noguera noticed that an electric wire in Dimas-Alang Street was burning and its connections smoking.  Duty of carrier extends to persons boarding the cars as well as alighting therefrom. would be able to take hold of one of the wires .  Premature acceleration of car was breach of this duty. wire still wasn’t fixed and Alberto del Rosario. touched the wire. 9 years old. 57 Phil 478 Nature: Appeal from a judgment of CFI.• 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. Issue: WON there was breach of legal duty Held: Yes Ratio:  Although motorman was not bound to stop to let the plaintiff on. owing to the child’s immature years and natural curiosity to do something out of the ordinary Del Prado vs Manila Electric Company. umamin pa ang gago) Del Rosario vs Manila Electric Co. 74 and had to be amputated the following day. Direct and proximate cause was the premature acceleration. Plaintiff’s foot slipped and his hand was jerked loose from the handpost and he fell to the ground. Intramuros. Luke’s.. 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.

While crossing the tracks to enter his premises. 28 Phil 122 Nature: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI.. The fulfillment of the conditions does not render unnecessary other precautions required by ordinary care. In case of fraud. the provision of Article 1171 and 2201.  City Engineer: even if wire was triple braid weather proof type. if touched by a person. it is immaterial whether he is drunk or sober. Corliss vs Manila Railroad Company Nature: Direct Appeal from a decision of the CFI. 21. 2201. Fault or negligence 1173. leaped forward and fell. on plaintiff’s part Ratio: . The crossing bars were not put down and no guard was at the gatehouse when the accident happened. Pampanga Facts: Ralph Corliss. bad faith. was driving a jeep on his way back to Clark Air Force Base. Jr. 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. would endanger life of that person by electrocution Compliance with a franchise. the horse stumbled. ordinance.. 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. If the law or contract does not state the diligence which I to be observed in the performance. 1171. Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all obligations. 2. Wright vs Manila Electric Co. Plaintiff was drunk during that time. causing vehicle to strike one of the rails with great force. Issue: WON there was negligence Held: Yes. par 2. Plaintiff was thrown from the vehicle and caused the injuries complained of. Any waiver of an action for future fraud is void. malice or wanton attitude. or a statute is not conclusive proof that there was no negligence. 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. shall apply. The jeep collided with a locomotive of Manila Railroad Company. par 2. of the time and of the place. Manila Facts: Plaintiff drove home in a calesa. When negligence shows bad faith.

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

he claimed that his headlights suddenly failed and when he switched them to bright. or  Seeing that there were no other persons on the bridge.  Control of situation had passed to defendant and it was his duty to bring his car to an immediate stop. Phoenix Construction vs IAC. Calibo was killed while his companions sustained injuries. Dumptruck was parked askew and no lights or any so-called early warning reflector devices were set anywhere near the truck. Truck’s driver was unhurt. . While he was proceeding down the general Lacuna Street. a cargo truck from the opposite direction collided with the jeep. Facts: Engineer Calibo was driving jeep owned by Bacnotan Consolidated Industries. 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). At about 59 yards after crossing the bridge. With him were Roranes and Patos.Held: Yes. To avoid collision. Glan People’s Lumber and Hardware vs NLRC Nature: Petition for certiorari to review the judgment of the CA. Witnesses: jeep was zigzagging because driver was drunk. 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. Inc. 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. as it has been in 2179 of CC. he swerved his car to the left but it was too late and his car smashed into the dump truck. he saw a Ford dump truck parked on the right hand side of the street. has itself been rejected. 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.

Jose Koh blew the horn of his car. 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. 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. by stopping in his turn or swerving his jeep away from the truck. truck was within its own lane and driver had already applied brakes) Bustamante vs CA. swerved to the left and entered the lane of the truck.Issue: WON Koh was negligent Held: NO.road was descending . emergency rule applies .should have stopped bus pr swerved it to the side of the road even down to its shoulder McKee vs IAC. ripping off the said wall from the driver’s sear to the last rear seat. • While truck was about 30 meters away. Thinking that truck driver was just joking. Jose Koh. 3 people in the Ford escort died including the driver. he already collided with the cargo truck.  Jeep driver’s duty was to seize the opportunity of avoidance. (also.vehicle was an old 1947 cargo truck whose front wheels were already wiggling • Court also found bus driver negligent: . bus driver shifted from 4th to 3rd gear so he could overtake a Kubota hand tractor. wither of which he had sufficient time to do while running at a speed of only 30 km/hr. While in the process of overtaking tractor. the 2 vehicles sideswiped each other. • Court found truck driver negligent: . Several passengers of the bus were thrown out and died as a result of their injuries. not merely to expect truck to swerve and leave him a clear path. -Truck and Ford collided in Pulong Pulo Bridge along MacArthur Highway. bus driver saw the truck’s front wheels wiggling and he also observed that truck was heading towards his lane. The front left side portion of the body of the truck sideswiped the left sidewall of the passenger bus. He attempted to return to his lane but before he could do so.Issue: WON Calibo had the last clear chance to avoid the accident Held: Yes Ratio:  While still 30 meters away from truck. 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.was running fast .

unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in 1733 and 1755. the owner is solidarily liable with his driver. prevented the misfortune. 1756. Such extraordinary diligence is vigilance over the goods further expressed in 1734. 1735. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide. Fernandez. if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method. the provisions of Article 2180 are applicable. a person driving a vehicle is presumed negligent if at the time of the mishap. IN motor vehicle mishaps. 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. 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. 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 . with a due regard for all the circumstances. Common carriers. If the owner was not on the motor vehicle. he was violating any traffic regulation Presumed negligence 2184. in not guilty of negligence. 5. except when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business. Unless there is proof to the contrary. 51 SCRA 181 Nature: Appeal from decision of CA Facts: . 1755. could have. if the former. and is required to act without tie to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger. 2188. unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought by his own negligence .2185. such as firearms and poison. truck driver did not reduce its speed before the actual impact of collision. from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy. using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons. 1733. In case of death of or injuries to passengers. 6.Ratio:  emergency rule: one who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger. 2180. it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap. according to all the circumstances of each case. common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. if he had been found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding 2 moths. Teague vs. are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them. 7 while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in 1755 and 1756. by the use of due diligence.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. and 1745 nos. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent. he was violating any traffic regulation. who was in the vehicle. 2185.

failure to conform to such standard is negligence.5 meters in width. negligence per se or negligence in and of itself. spread to and burned several neighboring houses.  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. at least 2 unobstructed stairways of not less than 1 meter and 20 cm in width should be constructed. 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. 1955. Fire broke out.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. 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. . Section 491 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila provided that for a building such as the one where the institute was. across the street. The 2nd floor of the building had only 1 stairway. of about 1. 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. that the accident arose from want of care. • 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. smashing posts and causing bridge to list. 21 SCRA 279 Nature: Appeal from a decision of the CFI. Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) Africa vs Caltex..’ Barge rammed against one of the wooden piles of the Nagtahan bailey bridge.  Incident happened because of want of care on Caltex’ part. Issue: WON negligence could be presumed in the case at bar Held: YES Ratio:  when the standard of care is fixed by law. Although no part of the Gil-Armi building caught fire. including personal properties and effects inside them. 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. aside from the fact that the defendant did not have a permit to use building as a schoolhouse. an unknown person lighted a cigarette and threw the burning match stick near the main valve of the underground tank. in the absence of a legal excuse. in the absence of explanation by the defendant. it affords reasonable evidence. It was owned and operated by Mercedes Teague.

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. Issue: WON doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to the case at bar Held: Yes Ratio:  The unusual event that the barge. 167 SCRA 363 Nature: Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the then IAC. J. Cruz vs CA. 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.  In the ordinary course of events. Fire broke out in petitioner’s shop and both shop and house were razed to the ground. Facts: Plaintiff and companion wee repairing the tire of their cargo truck which was parked along the right side of the National Highway. paint. such a thing does not happen if proper care is used. under the circumstance involved. F. an immovable and stationary object. exclusively controlled by appellant. 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. 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 . Defendant’s truck bumped the plaintiff and latter was injured and hospitalized. Veloso. Request fell on deaf ears.River at the time was swollen and current swift on account of a heavy downpour. 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. 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. direct evidence is absent and not readily available  Evidence on record discloses that: • 3 or 4 meters from rear of parked truck. sawdust. Ratio:  doctrine can be invoked when and only when.

or the one who uses the same. causing physical injuries to the latter. Plaintiff seeks to hold defendants liable under 1905: The possessor of an animal. 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. .Afialda vs Hisole Nature: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI. • 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. 1957 FACTS:  While driving his employer’s car. he was gored by one of them and later died as a consequence of his injuries. Estanda struck a child. 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. even if such animal should escapre from him or stray away. is liable for any damages it may cause.

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

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.  Since there was a criminal complaint filed. 1990 FACTS:  Jose Pagsibigan purchased a plane ticket for a Manila-Taipei-Hongkong-Manila flight from the Transaire Travel Agency. and consequently the employees of Norton and Harrison through him. that the driver of the truck and his companions were also in the employ of Norton & Harrison. that Ora was also employed by Norton & Harrison Co. However. retained the power of directing and controlling his work. . and not by Art. thus making them his employees in such work. and sufficient allegation in the present action that Bautista and Binoya committed the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence. he is not an independent contractor. Such distinction is important because Norton & Harrison Co.  For his negligence. And it was the negligence in loading the lumber and the use of minors on the truck which caused the death of the boy.3.  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 such foreman. (mejo mahirap intindihin ang syllogism ng decision) Villareal. In the performance of his duties as foreman. Ora was the agent or employee of Norton & Harrison. he used the services of Bautista and Binoya for the loading and unloading of said lumber. Ora was charged with the duty of directing the loading and transportation of the lumber. that Ora had regularly rented out his truck to Norton & Harrison Co. 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. Norton & Harrison are therefore civilly liable for the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence committed by these 2 employees. as an employer of Ora. is also responsible for the death.  As an employee of Norton. Judgment reversed. 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. defendant Norton & Harrison Co. for the purpose of transporting the latter’s lumber 4. 1902 & 1903. as capataz (foreman) and that it was his duty as such employee to direct the loading and transportation of lumber 5.

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

there are admitted exceptions. all that is required is that the employee.  However. 1992 FACTS:  Funtecha was a working student. With respect to PAL and Espiritu . an agent who duly acts as such is not personally liable to 3rd persons.  One day. they bumped a pedestrian walking in his lane. Espiritu is primarily liable to Pagisbigan under Article 2176 of the CC. there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the employer. PAL failed to overcome such presumption. PAL was duly informed of CAL’s revised sked. FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE v IAC August 17. the school driver and son of the school president. For the failure of PAL to rebut the legal presumption of negligence.  But there is no basis to hold CAL liable on a quasi-delict. Decision modified. As found by CA. after negotiating a sharp dangerous curb. and this suffices to hold the employer primarily and solidarily liable for the tortious act of the employee. ISSUE: Won Filamer Christian Institute should be held liable . PAL had been issuing and selling ticket based on said revised time sked. by claiming that his action against CAL is based on breach of contract of carriage. Funtecha came upon a fast moving truck so that he had to swerve to the right to avoid a collision. As a general proposition. being a part-time janitor and scholar of Filamer Christian Institute. whereby Pagsibigan seeks recovery for the damages from both PAL and Espiritu without qualification. what is sought to be imposed is the direct and primary liability of PAL as an employer.  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. Funtecha. however. he made a detour on appeal. Masa stopped the vehicle he was driving and allowed Funtecha to take over behind the wheel. However. The pedestrian died due to the accident. requested Masa.  IN an action premised on the employee’s negligence. It is thus evident that when Pagsibigan sensed that he cannot hold CAL liable on a quasi-delict. PAL. to allow him to drive the school vehicle. .  For his negligence. it is also primarily liable under Article 2180 of CC. committed a quasi-delict which caused damage to another.  PAL’s main defense is that is only an agent. however. . can demand from Espiritu reimbursement of the amount which it will have to pay the offended party’s claim. 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. who already had a student’s driver’s license. CA exonerated CAL of any liability for fault or negligence. Assenting to the request.  Under Article 2180. Upon swerving. and in fact. This presumption. as in this case where the agent is being sued for damages arising from a tort committed by his employee. by his negligene.

It is sufficient that the act of driving at the time of the incident was for the benefit of the school. 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. in learning how to drive while taking the vehicle home in the direction of Allan’s home. the employee driving the vehicle derived some benefit from the act. 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.  Thus. Furthermore. However. 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. Funtecha definitely was not having a joy ride or for enjoyment. includes any act done by an employee.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 employer shall have recourse against the negligent employee for whatever damages are paid to the heirs of the plaintiff. is primary and solidary. is merely a guide to the enforcement of the substantive law on labor. 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. which provides for the exclusion of working scholars in the employment coverage and on which the petitioner is anchoring its defense. 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. An implementing rule on labor cannot be used by an employer s a shield to avoid liability under the substantive provisions of the CC.  Rule X.)  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. The liability of the employer. for the service for which the jeep was intended by the petitioner school. but ultimately. Present case does not involve a labor dispute. 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. under Article 2180.  Petitioner school has failed to show that it exercised diligence of a good father of a family. (School president had knowledge of Funtecha’s desire to learn how to drive.  Thus. .  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. 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. 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 which Duavit did not push through as the parents of Sabiniano apologized to Duavit on his behalf.  TC found Sabiniano negligent in driving the vehicle but absolved Duavit on the ground that there was no employer-employee relationship between them.Motion granted. and that former took the vehicle without consent or authority of the latter. she was held liable by the court. 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. 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. but she did not surrender to the Motor Vehicles Office the corresponding AC plates. In Vargas. and hence. as regards the public and 3rd persons. In Erezo v Jepte case.  CA held the two of them jointly and severally liable. So when the jeepney later on figured in an accident. he was thus estopped from later on denying such representation. 1989 FACTS:  The jeep being driven by defendant Sabiniano collided with another jeep. This ruling is still relevant and applicable.  Sabiniano himself admitted that he took Duavit’s jeep from the garage without consent or authority of the owner. which had then 2 passengers on it. must be upheld. holding that the operator of record continues to be the operator of vehicle in contemplation of law. 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. He testified further that Duavit even filed charges against him for theft of the jeep. Vargas sold her jeepney to a 3rd person.  A case was filed against Sabiniano as driver and against Duavit as owner of the jeep.  CA’s reliance on the cases of Erezo v Jepte and Vargas v Langcay is misplaced and cannot be sustained. DUAVIT v COURT OF APPEALS May 18.  Duavit admitted ownership of the jeep but denied that Sabiniano was his employee. HELD: NO  In Duquillo v Bayot (1939). 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 Vehicles Office and had it registered under his name. .

he shot and killed Atty. unless the offended party waives the civil action.  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. Inc.  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. and he acted beyond the scope of his duty. Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that Section 1. The jeep was virtually stolen from the petitioner’s garage. Napoleon Dulay after an altercation occurred between them in the premises of said establishment. the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action. alleged employers of defendant Torzuela. Safeguard and Superguard were impleaded as alternative defedants for. What is then the nature of petitioner’s action?  Contrary to the theory of private respondents. an Information charging Torzuela with homicide was filed with RTC Makati.  Meanwhile. 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. DULAY v COURT OF APPEALS April 3. This is precisely what the petitioners opted to do in this case. reserves his right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.. 1995 FACTS:  While Benigno Torzuela was on duty as security guard of “Big Bang sa Alabang”. 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. Superguard impliedly acknowledged responsibility for his acts by extending sympathies to the plaintiffs. and/or Superguard Security Corp. When a criminal action is instituted.  The heirs of Dulay filed a complaint for damages under Article 2176 against Torzuela and Safeguard Investigation and Secuirty Co.  Upon motion. Herein petitioner does not deny ownership of vehicle but denies having employed or authorized the driver Sabiniano. Decision and resolution annulled and set aside. there is no justification for limiting the scope of Article 2176 of the CC to acts or omissions resulting from negligence. 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. In the complaint. The circumstances of the above cases are entirely different from those in the present case. However. Well-entrenched is the doctrine that . while Safeguard appears to be the employer of Torzuela. They alleged that Torzuela’s act of shooting was committed with deliberate intent (dolo).

 She eventually filed an action for recovery of moral and exemplary damages against Luna and De Leon Brokerage. She averred that there exists an employer-employee relationship between Luna and De Leon . 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. petitioners may proceed directly against Torzuela and the private respondents.  At the appellate court. De Leon claimed that: 1. 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. complaint is not clear whether she was suing for damages resulting from quasi-delict or for civil liability arising from crime. Luna reserved her right to file a separate civil action. since the averments are more characteristic of an action of the latter nature 2. 1. She alleged that she suffered injuries because of Luna’s carelessness and imprudence 2. BUT WON the shooting was attended by negligence or actually done within the scope of Torzuela’s duties. Luna was not in the discharge of his duties at the time of the accident 4. WON Superguard and/or Safeguard failed to exercise due diligence are matters that should be resolved after trial on merits. CA affirmed. she presented the judgment of conviction  TC held the 2 solidarily liable. judgment of conviction inadmissible as evidence of a quasi-delict 3. as argued by petitioners.  The petitioner’s complaint sufficiently alleged an actionable breach on the part of Torzuela and Superguard and/or Safeguard.  It having been established that the instant action is not ex-delicto. The driver of the passenger jeepney was acquitted. In this criminal action.  Luna had been prosecuted and convicted of the crime of homicide with physical injuries thru reckless imprudence. 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. DE LEON BROKERAGE CO INC v CA February 28. but also acts which are voluntary and intentional (See Elcano v Hill & Andamo v IAC)  And. To prove Luna’s negligence. Because of the principle of vicarious responsibility. as in the instant case. Luna. Case remanded to RTC for trial on merits. 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.Article 2176 covers not only acts committed with negligence.

 The reservation in the criminal action does not preclude a subsequent action based on a quasi-delict. Reason for his return to Manila is not clear.  As part of the daily operations of his business. whatever doubts as to the nature of Steen’s action are resolved by her prayer that the 2 be held solidarily liable. 1912 FACTS:  Fausta Litonjua purchased an automobile and later turned it over to International garage. And she reserved because otherwise. In the absence of determinative proof that there was a cessation or suspension of his service. 2180 as “owners of an establishment or enterprise. At any rate.  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. Complaint does not. there is a clear statement of a right of action under Article 2180 of the CC. She waited for the results of the criminal action because she wanted to be sure which driver and respective employer she could rightly sue. which caused her injuries. because this is a matter of defense. since both Luna and the driver of the jeep were prosecuted. 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 .” Judgment affirmed. BAHIA v LITONJUA AND LEYNES March 30. . and did not have to allege that De Leon did not exercise due diligence in choosing and supervising Luna. which is owned and managed by his son Ramon Ramirez.  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.  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.  Notwithstanding the presentation of the judgment of conviction. but it does not appear that he was on errand of his own. Ramirez rented the automobile donated by his mother to Mariano Leynes. since the civil action for recovery of civil liability is deemed instituted with the criminal action. The mention of criminal conviction merely tended to support her claim that Luna had been recklessly negligent in driving the truck. Ramirez also supplied Leynes a chauffeur and a machinist for the purpose of conveying to and from Balayan and Tuy. De Leon must still be held liable since it failed to prove exercise of due diligence.  At any rate. 2.a defense available only to employer being sued under a quasi-delict.Since there is the averment in No. the court in the criminal proceeding would have awarded her indemnity. it is clear that Steen did not base her suit on criminal conviction. It cannot be inferred therefrom that Steen had chosen to file the very civil action she had reserved.

 While in Balayan. make her responsible for the results of the accident.  TC found Leynes liable but dismissed complait against Fausta. it rammed into the wall of a house against which the daughter of plaintiff Bahia was leaning at the time. either actual or constructive of the defective condition of the steering gear.  Under Article 1903 of the CC (now Article 2176).  Bahia then filed an action against the Fausta (donor of auto). It was caused by a defect in the machine as to which the defendant has shown himself free from responsibility. that fact does not. 2 things are apparent: 1. METRO MANILA TRANSIT CORP v CA June 21. and Leynes. nevertheless. As to selection. 1993 . Ramirez. 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. the automobile refused to obey the direction of the driver in turning a corner due to a defect in the steering gear. Ramirez was not made a party. The establishment belonged to the son.under who was directing and controlling the operation of the automobile at the time of the accident. presumption of negligence on the part of the employer whenever there is an injury caused by the negligence employee 2. at the time of the accident. The workmen were likewise selected from a standard garage. It appears that Fausta was not aware of the contract with Leynes. the evidence shows that the death of the child was not caused by a failure to promulgate rules and regulations. 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. and apparently thoroughly competent. which so far as appeared in good condition. While is may be said that. this fact is not conclusive in making him responsible for the negligence of the chauffeur or for the defects in the auto itself. and he had the full management and control of it and received all the profits therefrom. The automobile crushed the child to death. were duly licensed.  In the instant case. ISSUE: Who should be held responsible HELD:  SC opined that the action as to Fausta was properly dismissed. 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. presumption is juris tantum and may be rebutted. While she may have been in one sense the owner of the machine. 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. the chauffeur who was driving the auto was a servant of Leynes. As a consequence. she turned it over to the garage of her son for use therein. Although the mother purchased the automobile. under the other facts of the case. SC found that defendant had exercised due diligence when he obtained the machine from a reputable garage. 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 judgment against Leynes must be reversed and the complaint against him must be dismissed.

since she was still a minor.  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.FACTS:  Nenita Custodio was a paying passenger of a public utility jeepney. Should it be held solidarily liable with the other defendants HELD: No  Conclusion of CA is more firmly grounded on jurisprudence and amply supported by evidence of record than that of TC. briefed in traffic rules and regulations before the start of duty. As joint tortfeasors. when it collided with a bus driven by Leonardo and owned by the Metro Manila Transit Corp (MMTC).  Hence. object or documentary. to buttress an apparently biased testimony. it was not only careful and diligent in choosing and screening applicants for job openings. they were not able to present any evidence that its driver has complied with all the clearances and trainings. Assisted by her parents. that it checked its employees to determine WON they were positive for alcohol and d.  It is procedurally required for each party in case to prove his own affirmative assertion by the degree of evidence required by law.  In the instant case. MMTC fell short of the required evidentiary quantum as would convincingly and undoubtedly prove its diligence. ISSUE: Did MMTC exercise due diligence. MMTC presented its training officer and its transport supervisor who respectively testified that: 1. they cannot be considered as sufficiently persuasive proof that MMTC observed due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees. Custodio suffered physical injuries. b. MMTC was absolved on the ground that it exercised diligence of a good father of a family in selecting and supervising its employees. both drivers.  As a result of the collision. that they followed other rules and regulations of the Bureau of Land Transportation and of the company.  At the trial court. she filed a complaint for damages against the drivers of the automobiles and their respective employers.  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. Declarations are not enough. . inasmuch as the witnesses’ (training supervisor and transport supervisor) dwelt on mere generalities. a. 2. and evidence as to the alleged written guidelines of the company.  MMTC should have presented other evidence.  TC found both drivers concurrently negligent. then driven by Calebag and owned by Lamayo. Such party must present all available evidence at his disposal in the manner that may be necessary to buttress his claim. as well as Lamayo (owner of the jeepney) were held solidarily liable for damages sustained by Custodio. by seeing to it that its employees were in proper uniforms. but was also strict and diligent in supervising its employees. and c.

 TC ordered the 2 jointly and severally to pay the parents of the deceased moral and exemplary damages. 1976 FACTS:  Benigno Gutierrez was awarded by the Bureau of Public Works the contract to construct a drainage in Manila. CA affirmed judgment. Mabini Elementary School along the street.  The parents of the child filed a suit for actual. as the solidarity of the obligation is justified by the very nature thereof. 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.  When the pile of earth and mud reached the height of the fence. MMTC solidarily liable. 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. Because of the heavy stress thus placed on the fence. the case is undoubtedly based on a quasi-delict under Article 2180. .  As held in Gutierrez v Gutierrez. was hit and pinned down by the falling debris of the wall.  SC quoted with approval the basis of TC’s award for moral and exemplary damages. a school child who was then playing inside the school grounds. the drivers and owners of the said vehicles shall be primarily. directly and solidarily liable for damages and it is immaterial that one action is based on quasi-delict and the other on culpa contractual. She was buried underneath and eventually died. moral and exemplary damages against Gutierrez and Balisalisa. He engaged Domingo Balisala as project engineer. ISSUE: Are defendants liable for moral and exemplary damages. 2. where the injury is due to the concurrent negligence of the drivers of the colliding vehicles. Indeed. Negligence of defendants has been clearly established by evidence. the contract between the government and Gutierrez stipulated that the contractor would furnish himself his own labor plant. no evidence is necessary to show that defendants were negligent in the performance of their obligation. actual expenses. defense of alleged non-existence of such relationship cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.  When the adobe wall collapsed. a portion of it gave way and collapsed. the crane’s steel scooper was used to press them down.  Under the supervision of Balisalisa. HELD: YES  Employer-employee relationship existed between the them and the crane operators: 1. attorney’s fees and costs of suit. the workers of Gutierrez dug up a street by means of crane. Judgment of CA affirmed. GUTIERREZ v CA November 29. The earth and the mud dig up were scooped by the crane and dumped against the exterior side of the adobe stone of A.

Dominador Ong. Cadwallader is thus absolved from all liability. 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. 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. When an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or employee. Judgment affirmed. . carefully and efficiently. if not intelligence. some boys noticed him swimming underwater for a long time. could be reasonably expected by any person of ordinary prudence. 30. owned by Cadwallader. 2. In Art. The wharf was partially demolished and the timber piled on it were thrown into the water.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. 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. TC however did not make any definite findings on the negligence of the captain. therefore. Between 4:40-4:45. Zamboanga. Lasa and all officers of Helen C were duly licensed to hold their positions when the wharf collapsed. The lifeguard Manuel Abaño was then informed and he immediately jumped and retrieved the apparently lifeless body of Ong from the bottom. in the course of its maneuvers. steamer Helen C. being made only of adobe held together by mortar and w/out reinforcements. 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. In July 5. Two things are apparent from Art 1903: 1. For this omission on their part. Miguel Lasa struck the wharf of Walter Smith at the port of Olutanga. Cadwallader proved that the Capt. WALTER SMITH & CO vs CADWALLADER FACTS: On Aug. They exerted efforts to revive him but the boy died. went with his bros to the pool. 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.1926. QC. 14. The wharf was old. ISSUE: WON Cadwallader as owner of the steamship is liable for the damages caused by said steamship HELD: No. More so with respect to Gutierrez so that other contractors similarly situated will be more careful. 1952. This presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure and consequently may be rebutted. "xxx" "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. They should have foreseen the danger but they failed to take the necessary precautions. and they were chosen for their reputed skill in directing and navigating the Helen C safely. commanded by Capt. RATIO: This case deals with an obligation arising from culpa aquiliana or negligence and must be decided in accordance with Art 1902-1903. they should be held responsible for moral and exemplary damages. ONG vs METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT FACTS: Metropolitan Water District owns and operates 3 swimming pools in Balara. The collapse. The steamship slightly struck the wharf but not with such force since it was difficult for her to strike it with such force. Lasa. which was fragile.

the act or omission which caused the damage must have occurred while the employee was in the performance of his assigned task. In this case. toy roof. Lastly. Swimming pools are equipped with ring buoy. a doctor was sent for. 6. towing line. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL vs CA FACTS: Ferdinand Castillo. ST. 5. CA found school and principal liable with the teachers. oxygen resuscitator and first aid medicine kit. there is sufficient evidence to show that MWD had taken all necessary precautions: 1. Abaño gave him manual artificial respirator. 2176 is applicable to the case at bar HELD: No. 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. 3.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. RATIO: Before the employer may be held liable for the negligence of his employee under Art 2180. I-C of St. the teachers /petitioners were not in the performance of their actual task. Security guards are always available. On female teacher was apparently drowning and some students came to her rescue. Bottom of pool is painted w/ black colors to insure clear visibility. It was also not an extra-curricular activity. Francis High School joined a picnic of 1-B and 1-C at Talaan Beach Sariaya Quezon. In addition. 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. In the case at bar. principal and one teacher. The employees of MWD also did everything possible to bring the boy to life. TC found 6 teachers liable but dismissed the case against the school. 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. A male nurse and sanitary inspector were employed. not on a school day and while the teachers and students were holding a purely private affair. 4. the nurse and sanitary inspector injected camphorated oil and applied oxygen resuscitator. There is a clinic provided with oxygen resuscitator. 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. The incident happened not within school premises. the negligence attributed to the teachers was not proven. 6 trained and proficient lifeguards were employed and are on duty two at a time. Ferdinand died as a result. its employees and that it had observed the diligence required by law under the circumstances . ISSUE: WON Art 2180 in relation to Art. 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. Such picnic had no permit from the school head or the principal since it was not a school sanctioned activity. 7. 2. Rules and regulations governing use of pools are on display at conspicuous places. 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: .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.

especially if there are no persons having direct supervision over them. Both P. although he may sue as joint defendants such author and the person responsible for him. He claims that due to their gross negligence in not providing the ferryboat with safety devices. So the injured party can bring an action directly against the author of the negligent act or omission. 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. 1988. but did nothing about it. teachers and scout masters who have knowledge first aid application and swimming. fell into the river and was submerged for 30 hrs. In this case. life savers were especially brought by the teachers in case of emergency. The defendants were being sued in their capacity as employees of Bureau of Public Highways. Padilla agrees with CA that no proof was presented to absolve the manager/principal. 5. Principal should have taken appropriate measures to ensure the safety of his students. Vasquez died at the hospital on Sept. one of his autotrucks while being transported.E. CASTILEX INDUSTRIAL CORP vs VASQUEZ FACTS: On Aug. CA affirmed but held that the liability of Castilex is only vicarious and not solidary.E. especially as the present action is not one against the government. operator of Samar Express Transit. or if there is proof of the existence of negligence on their part. 2. the principal knew of the picnic. was in fact invited. 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. 28. around 1:30-2 am. As a consequence. BELIZAR vs BRAZAS FACTS: Pedro Balizar. ISSUE: WON dismissal of case was correct HELD: No. et al. he suffered actual and moral damages. Abad signed an acknowledgement of Responsible party wherein he would pay all the expenses. 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. The fact that the duties and positions of defendants were indicated does not mean that they are being sued in their official capacities. Ratio: Although Art. inviting 2 P. 2180 CC provides for the liability of an employer for the tortious acts of his employees. filed a complaint against Forencio Brazas. this does not exempt the employees from personal liability. teachers did all what is humanely possible to save the child. 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 . Vasquez parents commenced an action for damages against Abad and Castilex. 3. 1988. TC held that both must pay jointly and solidarily. TC dismissed the complaint.1.

riding on a motorcycle at a speed of 10-12 mi/hr. the responsibility of the State is limited by Art 1903 to the case wherein it acts through a special agent who. A fire erupted burning the bodega as well as neighboring houses including the house and personal property of Rosete. collided with an ambulance of the General Hospital which turned suddenly and unexpectedly without having sounded any whistle or horn Merrit was severely injured. . in which case the provisions of the preceding article shall be applicable” Thus. executes the trust confided to him. ISSUE: WON Gov’t may be held liable in this case HELD: NO RATIO: Art 1903. an employer is liable for the torts committed by emplyees within the scope of his assigned tasks. TC held that Gov’t is liable for damages sustained by plaintiff even if the collision was due to the negligence of chauffeur. It was 2 am and way beyond normal working hours. His condition had undergone depreciation and his efficiency as a contractor was affected. But it is necessary to first establish the employee-employer rel’nship. Special agent is one who receives a definite and fixed order or commission. 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. in representing the state and being bound to act as an agent thereof. ROSETE V AUDITOR GENERAL FACTS: Inside the building used by Emergency Control Administration as a bodega in which oil and gasoline were stored. that the employee was acting within the scope of his assigned task when the tort complained of was committed. Since there is a paucity (scarcity. Jose Frayno ignited his cigarette-lighter near a 5-gallon drum into which gasoline was being drained. Thereafter he went to a restaurant at a place known as a “haven for prostitutes. In the case at bar. His overtime had ended. Art. to hold emplyer liable. it is undisputed that Abad was production manager of Castilex. foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office if he is a special official. ISLAND FACTS: Merrit. Thus. he did some overtime work at petitioner’s office. At the night of the incident. 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. 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. pimps.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. The chauffeur of the ambulance of the General Hospital was not a special agent thus the Gov’t is not liable. 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. justice and equity require that Castilex be relieved of vicarious liability for the consequences of the negligence of Abad in driving its vehicle. insufficiency) of evidence that Abad was acting within the scope of the functions entrusted to him.RATIO: Art 2180 par 5 says that WON engaged in any business or industry. State MERRIT vs GOV’T OF PHIL.

the government is not liable. Thus the Gov’t is not liable. a declaration must be made that Torralba was a special agent within the scope of Art 1903 par 5. Thus. 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. Palafox was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence. ISSUE: WON Prov’l Gov’t is liable HELD: NO RATIO: To attach liability to the state. 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. The heirs of Palafox invoked the doctrine of respondeat superior. of Public Works and Communications. The construction or maintenance of roads in which the driver worked at the time of the accident is admittedly governmental activities. 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. that the master shall answer. DISSENT: Perfecto. 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. Gov’t is not liable.The storing of gasoline and other combustible materials requires the securing of license and permit and ECA was not granted such permit. 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. as illustrated in Mendoza case concerning liability of municipal corporations for negligent acts of its employees. But this principle applies only to the Insular Gov’t as distinguished from prov’l or municipal gov’ts. Heirs bagan proceedings for damages against provincial gov’t. While driving his truck in compliance with his duties. are special agents. 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. Mendoza held that if the negligent employee was engaged in the performance of governmental duties as distinguished from proprietary or business functions. the government is liable for the damages caused by ECA. an agency under the Dept. Hence. 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. he ran over Proceto Palafox killing him. .

It is authorized to exercise the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law. NIA may also sue and be sued in court. 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. 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. Augusto was the aggressor. Thus execution cannot issue on a judgment against the state. including all communal and pump irrigation projects. 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. PD 552. which is the irrigation of lands.  NIA is a government agency vested with a corporate personality separate and distinct from the government (Sec 1. NIA is allowed to collect fees and other charges as may be necessary to cover the cost of operation. insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the NIA charter. There being no proof that the making of the tortuous inducement was authorized.” The state and the community as a whole are largely benefited by the services the agency renders. neither the state nor its funds can be made liable.  SolGen. Jr. RECON DENIED WITH FINALITY Mercado v CA (108 Phil 414) Facts: Manuel. Augusto wounded Manuel. thus is governed by the Corporation Law. improving. Hence. this motion for reconsideration. RA 3601).  Under Sec 2. where both were classmates. liable for moral damages and expenses for the injury inflicted by his son. but these functions are only incidental to the principal aim of the agency. Augusto’s father and herein petitioner. and administering all national irrigation systems in the Philippines. 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. and is therefore not liable for the tortious act of Garcia. CA holds Ciriaco. et al v Angat River workers’ Union. Jr. . and Augusto quarreled over a pitogo. The incident occurred in Lourdes Catholic School. and insurance and to recover the cost of construction. relying on PD 552 and Angat River Irrigation System. rehabilitating. Hence. As a result. The son dies because of injuries sustained from the accident.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 .CA upheld on the basis that ISU is engaged in the private business of purchase and sale of irrigation pumps. Other issues: Even if the liability of the state had been judicially ascertained. the state is at liberty to determine for itself whether to pay the judgment or not. this petition. etc. who was not its special agent. maintenance. on the right cheek with a piece of razor. Fontanilla v Maliaman (194 SCRA 486) Facts:  NIA driver Garcia bumped a bicycle ridden by petitioners’ son and Deligo. argues that NIA does not perform solely proprietary functions but is an agency of government tasked with governmental functions.

” Daffon was of legal age at the time of the incident. Judgment modified . to a certain extent.” seems to contemplate a situation where a pupil lives and boards with the teacher. stand in loco parentis to students who remain in their custody. and not the parent. Palisoc stumbled on an engine block and fell unconscious. 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. The restrictive interpretation of Art 2180 in Mercado should be maintained. Where the parent places the child under the custody of the teacher. Valenton. Decision reversed . direction. Such a situation does not exist in the case at bar since the students go home to their parents after class. teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices. hence the parents were not liable under Art 2180. Custody. . the latter. The trial court found Daffon guilty for quasi-delict (Why not a felony?). teachers. should be the one responsible for the tortuous act of the child. 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. citing the ruling in Mercado v CA. he remarked that Palisoc was acting like a foreman. The liability for tortuous acts of the student passes from the parent to the teacher. as used in Art 2180. He died thereafter. and not to any academic educational institution (Exconde v Capuno). While Daffon was working on a machine at the school’s laboratory.Daffon. 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). but absolved the defendantsofficials of MTI. School heads and teachers. last par: Lastly. etc. Issue: Whether teachers or head of the school can be held liable under Art 2180 Held: NO Art 2180. “So long as they remain in their custody. a non-academic institution. unless the latter can prove due diligence. including recess time. without the father’s fault. 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.Petitioner argues that the teacher or head of the school should be held liable because the incident took place in a Catholic School. While retreating. are supposed to have incurred in the exercise of their authority. The basis of the presumption of negligence in Art 2180 is some culpa in vigilando that the parents. The cause of death was internal injuries “probably caused by strong fist blows. and influence of the latter supersedes that of the parents. such that the control. The provision only applies to an institution of arts and trades. Brillantes is not liable as being a member of the school’s board of directors. The latter retaliated with a barrage of blows causing Palisoc to retreat. Palisoc slightly slapped Daffon in the face.

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.  There is also persuasive logic in the view that the acquittal of the accused foreclosed the civil liability based on Article 100 RPC. If there is an acquittal, then the causative act or omission becomes divested of its penal element and becomes in effect a quasi-delict.  .the allegations of the complaint by Kuan Sing supports and is constitutive of a case for quasi-delict. Writ prayed for Denied. People vs. Ritter 3. prejudicial questions Art. 36. Pre-judicial questions which must be decided before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed, 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. Zapanta vs Montesa ORIGINAL ACTION in the SC. Prohibition

 If there arises an issue/question in a case. the annulment case was filed in Pampanga. But the question of invalidity can not be decided in the criminal action for Bigamy but in a civil action for annulment. Yco filed motion to dismiss but denied.  There is a prejudicial question in the case at bar. the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein. then there is a prejudicial question. Merced vs Diez ORIGINAL Action in the Supreme Court. w/o need for a marriage license. and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein. Held: Yes.immediately left Liz after marriage and never lived with her . and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. . Facts:  Jan 1958: Abundio Merced filed a complaint for annulment of his second marriage with Elizabeth Ceasar. Writ prayed for granted. for the annulment of their marriage on the ground of duress. 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. that this affidavit was used in securing their marriage of exceptional character. 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.  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. as he contracted marriage with her when he was still validly married to a certain Estrella Guarin.  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.. then there is a prejudicial question.he was asked to return to Cebu but refused. On the second element. and Mtion for Recon denied. Petition granted. Held: Yes  If there arises an issue/question in a case. Issue: WON crim case should be suspended / WON there was a prejudicial question.  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.  Without the element of consent. that he was forced into marrying Liz before Municipal Judge (lucky guy ) . determination of force will prove that his act of contracting a second marriage while there was a subsisting one was involuntary. 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. Here.her relatives forced.  After pleading not guilty in crim case.  June 1958: Zapanta filed in CFI of Pampanga a civil case against Yco. alleging that: . threatened.Facts:  May 1958: Olimpia Yco filed in CFI of Bulacan crim case of Bigamy against Zapanta.  Merced filed motion hold trial of crim case  Motion Denied. a marriage would be illegal and void. Mtion denied. As seen in the rule. scared he might be forced to live with Liz  Feb 1958: Elizabeth Ceasar filed crim complaint for bigamy against Merced. Certiorari with prohibition. force and intimidation. as he was previously married to a Eufrocina Tan. filed this action in SC. Issue: WON action to annul marriage is a prejudicial question in a prosecution to Bigamy.

threats. forbidden to see each other. 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. it is not a prejudicial question. Rule 111 (see ROC) HUMAN RELATIONS A. brothers and sisters of one Lolita Pe. 21.  While case pending. wilfully or negligently causes damage to another. 20.  Aragon can not use his own malfeasance to defeat the action based on his criminal act. Sometime in 1952. Lolita was staying with her parents in the same town. it does not determine the existence of any of the elements of the charge of Bigamy.  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. Art. Every person who. Basic principles. contrary to law. a collateral relative of Lolita's father. Even filed deportation proceedings against defendant. Every person must. Started their clandestine love affair. Defendant was an adopted son of a Chinaman named Pe Beco. exclusive of attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.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.  The civil action does not decide that defendant-appellant Aragon did not enter the marriage against his will and consent. Art. . act with justice.  Plaintiffs are the parents.  Also. The affair continued nonetheless. in connection with occupation. abuse of right Art. He stayed in the town of Gasan. 19. dapat nag-motion for recon muna si Aragon  Order appealed from affirmed. give everyone his due. compensatory. Issue: WON such constitutes a prejudicial question. exemplary and corrective damages in the amount of P94.000. Thus.  Rumors reached Lolita’s parents. because the complaint does not allege that he was the victim of force and intimidation. good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. Pe vs Pe  Plaintiffs brought this action before the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover moral. defendant became close to the plaintiffs who regarded him as a member of their family. and intimidation of bodily harm.  Trial court denied. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. shall indemnify the latter for the same. Marinduque. 24 years old and unmarried  Defendant Alfonso Pe is a married man and works as agent of La Perla Cigar and Cigarette Factory.  Because of such fact and the similarity in their family name. and observe honesty and good faith.00. 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. in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties. Held: No.  A decision thereon is not essential to the determination of the criminal charge.

Hermosisima vs CA PETITION for review by certiorari Facts:  Soledad Cabigas an Francisco Hermosisima were sweeathearts before. Damages awarded: P5. as well as (2) for support of said child and (3) damages for breach of promise. thru an ingenious scheme or trickery. SC does not find Kiko morally guilty of seduction because the CFI itself found that complainant “surrendered herself” to petitioner because. 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.  CFI ordered payment of P 4.00 as attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. 1954. and P500 as attorney’s fees. Lolita was staying with her brothers and sisters at their residence at 54B España Extension. good customs and public policy as contemplated in Article 21 of the new Civil Code. On April 14.. promised to marry her.00 as damages and P2. succeeded in winning the affection and love of Lolita to the extent of having illicit relations with her. Verily.    Sometime in April.failed to prove that defendant deliberately and in bad faith tried to win Lolita's affection. Lolita disappeared from said house. trial court: Complaint not actionable-.  Kiko impregnated Soledad in a boat cabin (M/V Escaño. 1957. Issue: WON moral damages are recoverable for breach of promise to marry. There was seduction and therefore liable for moral damages. to which Kiko was apprentice pilot).  Soledad Cabigas filed with CFI of Cebu a complaint for (1) the acknowledgement of her child.  Francisco admitted paternity and willingness to support. Defense: granting that the facts alleged were true. 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. aside from support to child (P30 / month). but nevertheless proceded with the love affair. He was forbidden to see Lolita. The wrong he has caused her and her family is indeed immeasurable considering the fact that he is a married man. Quezon City. apart from the right to recover money or property advanced upon the faith of such promise. Found : note on a crumpled piece of paper inside Lolita's aparador -. Held: No  Syquia case: Action for breach of promise to marry has no standing in the civil law. Wassmer vs Valdez Facts: Franciso Velez and Beatriz Wassmer decided to get married on September 4. Chris Hermosisima as natural child of Francisco Hermosisima. the court may not presume that it was the defendant who deliberately induced such relationship” Issue: WON damages should be granted. they do not constitute a valid cause of action. seduced the latter to the extent of making her fall in love with him. "In the absence of proof on this point. BUT denied ever promising Soledad marriage.500. even increasing the actual and moral damages. “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”.000.  CA affirmed.500 for actual and compensatory damages.  Indeed. no other conclusion can be drawn from this chain of events than that defendant not only deliberately. but then married Romanita Perez.000 as moral damages. he has committed an injury to Lolita's family in a manner contrary to morals. 1957. but through a clever strategy. P5.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. .

Petitioner visited her parents to secure their approval to the marriage. good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. 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. petitioner repudiated their marriage agreement and told her that he was married to someone in Bacolod City. 2. has broadened the scope of the law on civil wrongs 2. The next day. etc vs Shell see Mel’s digest. Issue: WON an action for damages exists Held: Yes. Petitioner denied all allegation and even alleged that Gonzales had deceived him by stealing his money and passport. Salamat mel!! Facts: . Damages:  invitations were printed and distributed  dresses bought  matrimonial bed!  Bridal showers and gifts received 3. Francisco left a note for his bride-to-be: Will have to postpone wedding-My mother opposes it. petitioner forced her to live with him. reckless. he sent her the ff. 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. Am leaving on the Convair today. fraudulent.Two days before the wedding. based on Article 21 Ratio: 1. but based on Article 21 Ratio: 1. 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.   Issue: WON there could be an action for damages Held: Yes. moral damages are recoverable  Article 2219 (10): moral damages are recoverable in the cases mentioned in Article 21 4. exemplary damages based on 2232: defendant acted in wanton. petitioner began maltreating her and during a confrontation before the barangay captain of Guilig. Later. Article 21 provides: Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. oppressive. together with Articles 19 and 20. Subsequently. Article 21. cannot be held liable for criminal seduction because girl was above 18 Velayo.

The court denied the petition for issuance of a writ of injunction because a Phil. so it filed its own complaint with attachment before the CFI of Manila.641. . this appeal.CALI organized a luncheon meeting to inform all its creditors that the company was in a state of insolvency and had to stop operation. for $79. 2) That all of the creditors present should avoid presenting its claim before an insolvency court. the credit was increased to $85081. The next day. CALI's Board of Directors explained that there was a proposed sale of CALI's assets in favor of Philippine Air Lines. the stockholders of CALI decided to effect the sale of CALI's properties to PAL. The order of insolvency was issued by the court. so the complaint of NAC was directed to the insolvency court. the Nat'l Airports Corporation (NAC. Velayo was appointed assignee of CALI in the insolvency proceedings. 08/12/48 . The Shell Company of the Philippine Islands (defendant) is a corporation organized in England and licensed to do business here. Shortly thereafter. CALI's balance sheet was also presented to the creditors. The lower court dismissed the complaint for damages. Velayo now confines his action to the recovery of damages against the defendant. instead of all the creditors) Meanwhile.• The Commercial Air Lines. which is an American corp. Fitzgerald represented the defendant in such meeting. The balance sheet included a C-54 plane in the United States. 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. Having failed to restrain the progress of the attachment suit in California. another creditor of CALI) learned of the action in the US.440. an American Corporation. He immediately sought a writ of injunction to restrain defendant from prosecuting the complaint filed in California. Fitzgerald was appointed to represent the creditors in the working committee.29. CALI's total indebtedness to the defendant at that time was P152. CALI filed a petition for voluntary insolvency.68. • • • • • • • • • • • • Issue: WON there was a betrayal of trust and confidence on the part of defendant company which can be made the basis for damages. On the very same day. Hence. 10/07/48 . 08/09/48 . (As a result of this writ. the defendant company assigned its credit against CALI in favor of Shell Oil Company. court would not be in a position to enforce its orders against Shell Oil Company. In case the creditors do not come to an agreement. A writ of attachment was applied for and issued against the C-54 plane.Shell Oil Company filed a complaint against CALI before the Superior Court of California for the collection of the assigned credit.Upon learning of the action in the US.The working committee met for the first time to study the way of making a fair division of the assets. In the same meeting. 08/06/48 . outside of the jurisdiction of the Phils. CALI's fuel needs are supplied by the defendant. Inc (CALI) is a Philippine corporation engaged in the air transportation business. only then can insolvency proceedings be filed. the proceeds of the eventual sale of the plane would pertain exclusively to Shell Oil.

However.. and liable to an action by the assignee for double the value of the property sought to be embezzled or disposed of. 37 of Insolvency Law since what the defendant disposed of was actually his own credit and not any property of the insolvent company. the value shall be determined in the lower court. it was argued that the other creditors were not prejudiced at all by the transfer of the credit." 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. even though the act or event which may give rise thereto may have been done or may have occurred under the prior legislation. 45% of their claims and not just 30%. 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. good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. he is chargeable therewith." Hence. This is a clear violation of Sec. before the assignment is made. Art. the effect as to the amount of damages awarded is the same. having notice of the commencement of proceedings in insolvency.Held: YES Ratio: • It is obvious that defendant effected the transfer of its credit upon learning of the precarious economic situation of CALI. However. • NOTE: In the motion for recon filed by defendant. the SC belied this claim by explaining that if no attachment of the plane was made. (a sum equal to the value of the plane as compensatory damages. 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. and the same amount as exemplary damages). embezzles or disposes of any money. which states that: "If any person. Since there is no clear proof on record about the real value of the plane. Note: The Court did not strictly apply Sec. it shall be effective at once. • Note: Even if the new civil code only took effect in 1950 and the acts complained of took place in 1948. 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. 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. or having reason to believe that insolvency proceedings are about to be commenced. chattels or effects of the insolvent. (In other words.. 37 of the insolvency Law." In addition. • • Judgment reversed. 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. (Exemplary damages were reduced to P25000 after the motion for recon was filed) Globe vs Mckay . provided said new right does not prejudice or impair any vested or acquired right of the same origin. 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. goods. It is clear that the other creditors were prejudiced. the other creditors would receive approx.

Tobias reported anomalies in company: fictitious purchases and other fraudulent transactions for which it lost several thousands of pesos. All were dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. Albenson made an extrajudical demand upon Baltao but latter denied that he issued the check or that the signature was his. Ratio: Art. Hendry wrote company stating that Globe Mackay dismissed Tobias due to dishonesty. and to leave the office keys. Every person who. 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. Tobias was also told that a hundred more suits can be field against him. causing damage to Tobias and for which latter must be indemnified.Facts: Restituto Tobias was employed by petitioner as purchasing agent and admin assistant to the engineering operations manager. willfully or negligently causes damage to another. 1. 5 for estafa thru falsification of commercial documents and 1 for discovering secrets thru seizure of correspondence. and initials. Such check was later dishonored for the reason “Account Closed. contrary to law. 2. not to communicate with the office. Sometime in 1972. give everyone his due. act with justice. Tobias passed lie detector test. Article 19 and remedied by Article 20. signature. Herbert Hendrry. Company still filed 6 criminal cases. When Tobias sought employment with RETELCO. Even if they claimed that it was their right to dismiss Tobias. 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. they abused the right that they invoke.” Company traced source of check and later discovered that the signature belonged to one Eugenio Baltao. He was also ordered to take a lie detector test and to submit specimens of his handwriting. and observe honesty and good faith. to leave his table drawers open. When he reported back to work. Art. 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. 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. 3. . Issue: WON petitioners are liable for damages to private respondent Held: Yes. Every person must. A Pacific Banking Corporation Check was given and drawn against the account of EL Woodworks. However. 19. 20. Hendry called him a crook and a swindler. shall indemnify the latter for the same. in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties.

Even when an act or event causing damage to another's property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant. tender age or other handicap. It was later discovered that private respondent had son: Eugene Baltao III. there is an act which is legal 2. (n) D. indigence. the obligation to return it arises. public order or public policy 3. the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited. mental weakness.Company filed a complaint against Baltao for violation of BP 22. When one of the parties is unable to read. for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another Elements under Article 21: contra bonus mores: 1. exercised in bad faith 3. but which is contrary to morals. Art. Unjust enrichment Art. Ostentatious display of wealth Art. 22. it is done with intent to injure B. ignorance. 3. and the III. and mistake or fraud is alleged. shall return the same to him. 1332. no abuse of right 2. Sr. 25. In all contractual. EL Woodworks. the courts must be vigilant for his protection. or if the contract is in a language not understood by him. Jr. 23. there is a legal right or duty 2. when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence. Father filed complaint for damages. Issue: WON petitioner is liable for damages Held: NO Ratio: 1. property or other relations. and it was unduly delivered through mistake. good custom. Art. who manages the biz establishment. acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground. (1895) C. 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. or any other means. Art.. 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. 24. Protection of disadvantaged Art. If something is received when there is no right to demand it. 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. 2154. . Every person who through an act of performance by another. the person enforcing the contract must show that the terms thereof have been fully explained to the former.

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. his affairs. though they may not constitute a criminal offense. Ayer Productions wrote Enrile about film and enclosed a synopsis. or mode of living. intrusion is limited to what it necessary to keep film a truthful historical account 4. 26. (3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends. personality. physical defect. Pursuant to this. Pacita Noel had an amorous relationship. personality. film was not yet completed. or other personal condition. film was about EDSA revolution and does not relate to the individual life and certainly not to the private life of Enrile 3.E. The right of privacy of a public figure is narrower than that of an ordinary citizen. 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. Every person shall respect the dignity. However. Parents: for having dissuaded and discouraged Vicenta from joining her husband and alienating her affections . Tenchavez vs Escaño Facts: Vicenta Escaño and Pastor Tenchavez secretly got married before a Catholic chaplain and planned to elope. 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. Her parents asked the advice of one Father Reynes and subsequently agreed to recelebrate the marriage. Vicenta left for the States. or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in hi s doings. acquired a foreign divorce and married an American. thus no clear and present danger of any violation of any right to privacy existed 2. and his character has become a public personage. Ayer vs Capulong Facts: MTRCB. The following and similar acts. by his accomplishments. shall produce a cause of action for damages. privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. Russel Leo Moran in Nevada. privacy and peace of ind of another Art. Husband field complaint: Vs. (4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs. place of birth. Respect for dignity. fame. other govt agencies. Issue: WON the production and filming of picture constituted an unlawful intrusion upon his right to privacy Held: NO Ratio: 1. lowly station in life. PUBLIC FIGURE: A person who. The elopement did not materialize because Vicenta’s mother discovered such marriage. Vicenta refused to proceed with the ceremony because a letter from the students of san Carlos College disclosed that Pastor and their matchmaker. and Pres Ramos approved the making of a film entitled The Four day Revolution.

Issue: Won there was dereliction of duty Held: NO Ratio: . Issue: WON there is an action for alienation of affections against parents Held: NO Ratio: 1. they gave up their right and interest in the prosecution of the crime. Free Press. and her denial of consortium and her desertion of husband constitute in law a wrong caused through her fault.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. Vicenta appeared to have acted independently and being of age. Because of that incident. 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. also. parents themselves suggested that the marriage be celebrated again 3. 27.Vs. 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. Case is based on article 21 and/or 27. However. lawsuits having become a common occurrence in present society. they went to the office of the chief of police but the latter harassed and terrorized them. F. without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken. Amaro vs Samanguit Facts: Jose Amaro was assaulted and shot near the city government building of Silay. no proof of malice 2. without just cause. for which the husband is entitled to the corresponding indemnity (2176) 45. Issue: WON chief of police was guilty of dereliction of duty Held: Yes Ratio: 1. Info was then filed. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects. 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. Fiscal absolved governor and staff. Subsequently. Dereliction of duty Art. Roman Catholic Church: for having decreed annulment Parents filed counterclaim for moral and exemplary damages. to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against he latter. City Mayor advised appellee to investigate crime.

city or municipality. public buildings and other public works” in particular and is therefore decisive in this case. TC found for respondent. it was held that Art 1. In the case at bar. establishes a general rule regulating the liability of City Of Manila while Art 2189 CC governs the liability due to “defective streets. control and supervision by the province. which City of Manila is invoking in this case. he stepped on an uncovered opening w/c could not be seen because of dirty rainwater. A dirty and rusty 4-inch nail. His left leg swelled and he developed fever. refusal to prosecute because of insufficient evidence is not refusal without just cause to perform an official duty 2. stuck inside the uncovered opening. Sec 4 of RA 409. there is no question that Sta. CITIES. pierced his left leg to a depth of 1½ inches. It is not necessary that such belongs to such province. 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. Ana had been placed by virtue of Management and Operating Contract. the contract bet Asiatec and City which explicitly states that “prior approval” of the City is still needed in the operations. administration and control over public markets…” . walked w/crutches for 15 days and could not operate his school buses. City employed a market master for the Sta. As he turned around to go home. 30 of Tax Code “The treasurer shall exercise direct and immediate supervision. It was also held that for liability under 2189 to attach. Sec.1. Ana public Market whose primary duty is to take direct supervision and control of that particular public market 4. CA reversed and held Asiatec liable and absolved City of Manila. ISSUE: WON City of Manila should be jointly and solidarily liable with Asiatec HELD: YES RATIO: In the City of Manila v Teotico case. He sued City of Manila and Asiatic Integrated Corp under whose administration the Sta. Mayor Bagatsing of Manila admitted such control and supervision in his letter to Finance Sec. Fiscal is also under the duty not to prosecute if there are insufficient evidence to support a case PROVINCES. He was confined for 20 days. 2. city or municipality over the defective public building in question is enough. Virata (“The City retains the power of supervision and control over its public markets…) 3. Ana public market remained under the control of the City as evidenced by: 1.

may be legislated by the Municipal Board. The City should have seen to it that the openings were covered. She had been deprived of income. RATIO: Art 2189 says : Provinces. died and 4 were injured. ISSUE: WON Control or supervision over a national road by the City of Dagupan exists which makes City liable under Art 2189 HELD: Yes. She was hospitalized. public buildings. La Union. . Thus. suffered by. Ordinary precautions could have been taken during good weather to minimize danger to life and limb. Such manhole is partially covered by a flowerpot leaving a gaping hole about 2 ft long and 1½ feet wide. No warning sign of impending danger was evident. and a dump truck driven by Bislig and owned by the municipality of San Fernando. Hence the City is liable. Had it been covered. In the case at bar. Such control and supervision is exercised through the City Engineer Tangco. GUILATCO v CITY OF DAGUPAN FACTS: Gilatco.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. it is not even necessary that such defective road or street belongs to the City. The function of supervision over streets. who aside from his official capacity as City Engineer. Thus the negligence of the City is the proximate cause of the injury suffered. and regulation of the use thereof. and Building Official and received compensation for these functions. bridges. and other public works. She sued for damages. Perez Blvd is a National Road under the control and supervision of City of Dagupan. was also Ex Officio Highway Engineer. and 5 months after this incident it was still uncovered. petitioner would not have fallen into it. the control and supervision of the national road exists and is provided for in the charter of Dagupan. It was evident that the certain opening was already uncovered. a gravel and sand truck driven by Manandeg and owned by Velasquez. avenues and alleys and sidewalks. under their control and supervision. Ex Officio City Engineer of Bureau of Public Works. Although these two officials are employees of the Nat’l Gov’t. PROPRIETORS OF BUILDING. MUNICIPALITY OF SAN FERNANDO v FIRME FACTS: A collision occurs involving a passenger jeepney driven by Balagot and owned by Nieverras. pertaining through the City Engineer is coursed through a Maintenance Foreman and a Maintenance Engineer. vendors would remove the iron grills to hasten the flow of water. Petitioner had the right to assume there were no openings in the middle of the passageways and if any. they are detailed with the City of Dagupan and hence receive instruction and supervision from the city through the City Engineer. There were also findings that during floods. that they were adequately covered. Several passengers including Baniña. Asiatec and Cityy are joint tortfeasors and are solidarily liable. Such acts were not prohibited nor penalized by the City. FACTORY ETC. construction and improvement of streets. public buildings and public works. any person by reason of the defective conditions of roads. or injuries. operated on and confined. The drainage hole could have been placed under the stalls rather than the passageways. cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of. (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. streets. It provided that the laying out.

Subsequently. Both were treated for physical injuries which would incapacitate them for a period of 2-4 weeks. they are not liable for the torts committed by them in the discharge of governmental functions. Expressed consent may be embodied in a general such as Act No. the case was transferred to Branch presided by Firme.Heirs of Baniña instituted a complaint for damages against jeepney owner and driver. In the case at bar. ISSUE: WON Gotesco is liable HELD: Yes. RATIO: It is settled that the owner or proprietor of a place of public amusement impliedly warrants that the premises. negligence of owner and driver of the jeepney as the proximate cause of collision. Hence. Lina. went to see a movie “Mother Dear” at Superama I. or special law such as in the Merritt case. of San Fernando and dump truck driver as defendants who raised the defenses of lack of cause of action. 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 can be held answerable if it is shown that they were acting in proprietary capacity. Nevertheless. 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. Hardly 10 mins after entering the theater. 3038 which provides for the standing consent of the State to be sued in cases of money claims. The complaint was amended to implead Mun. nonsuability of the State. 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. Consent can be implied or expressed. Municipal Corp. Firme rendered Mun. 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. the State may not be sued without its consent. Plenty of people were watching the film so they could not find seats at the balcony level. owned by Gotesco Investment Corp. The owner and driver of jeepney filed 3rd Party complaint against Mun. its occurrence raises a presumption or permits of an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant. the ceiling of its balcony collapsed. the judgment of Firme is reversed. and the thing that caused the injury is wholly and exclusively under the control and management of the defendants. are suable because their charters grant them the competence to sue and be sued. . GOTESCO INVESTMENT CORP v CHATTO FACTS: Gloria Chatto and her 15-yr old daughter. a governmental function. of San Fernando and dump truck driver liable jointly and severally. appliances and amusement devices are safe for the purpose for which they are designed. 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. Pandemonium ensued in the darkness of the theater but the two women were able to crawl their way out and walked to nearby FEU hospital. and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of events would not have happened if proper care had been exercised. The municipality cannot be held liable for the torts committed by its regular employee who was then engaged in the discharge of governmental functions. of San Fernando and driver of dump truck.

presumed that the guest Echivarria would use the faucet. 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. Echivarria. As disclosed by the testimony. 1974 NATURE: Petition for certiorari from an order of the CFI of Misamis Occidental FACTS: .This presumption was not overcome by Gotesco. this does not prove at all that there was no defects in the construction. but only provided a bucket to deal with the problem of the leaks Judgment Affirmed ABELLANA v MARAVE May 29. 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. Gotesco would still be liable because it was guilty of negligence. Even if the structural designs were approved and permitted by the City engineer. The court found that the collapse was due to the construction defects and not force majeure as Gotesco claimed. 1910 of the Codigo Civil) ♦ 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. there was no adequate inspection of the premises before the date of the accident. Such defects could have been easily discovered if only Gotesco exercised due diligence and care in keeping and maintaining the premises. And assuming that the cause of the collapse was due to force majeure. 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.

The defendants sought the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that there was no reservation for the filing thereof in the City Court. The grant of power to this Court under the Constitution does not extend to any diminution. Trial de novo will be conducted. • • • .” This rule is supported by a number of cases: People v Carreon. a civil action for damages entirely separate and independent from the criminal action may be brought by injured party. • Hence. 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. He was found guilty as charged with award of damages in favor of the offended parties. A criminal case for physical injuries through reckless imprudence was filed with the City Court of Ozamis City against Abellana. increase or modification of substantive right. 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. 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. they did. 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. These. Section 1 Rule 111 with Section 7 Rule 123. Abellana appealed the decision with the CFI. this petition. (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). 2. 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. such as that provided for in Article 33. Court should avoid construing a statute or legal norm in such a manner as would give rise to a constitutional doubt. of Prisons. In view of the above and since the court (CFI) has not yet begun the trial (de novo). 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. In such complaint for damages. Andres v Wolfe. People v Jamisola Also. rationalizing that: • • • 1. Judgment of the City Court on the criminal case was vacated on appeal. the alleged employer of Abellana was included as defendant. At this stage. CFI judge denied the motion to dismiss.• • A cargo truck driven by Francisco Abellana had a collision with a motorized pedicab resulting in injuries to its passengers. Crisostomo v Dir. They argued that it was not allowable at this stage where the criminal case was already on appeal at the CFI.

May 26. employee of same company. Section 1 Rule 111 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure (n.. the offended party has not waived the civil action. Neither has the offended party instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action. YAKULT v CA October 5. 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. • . 1983 -. Jan. 19. Motion for recon denied. Petition dismissed. Oct.• Lastly. so that in the disposition of the criminal action no damages was awarded. He is not to fall prey to the vice of literalness. 1984 – A complaint for damages was filed by offended party against Yakult and Salvado in the RTC of Manila.b.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 criminal negligence being without malice 2. They contended that: 1. any counsel must not ignore the basic purpose of litigation. 1990 Nature: Petition for review of the decision of the CA FACTS: • • • • • While driving a motorcycle owned by Yakult Phils.: 1985 RCP being procedural may apply retrospectively to the present case) RATIO: • • In this case. Larry Salvado. 6. However. 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. sideswiped a 5 year old boy who was then standing on a sidewalk. nor reserved the right to institute it separately. 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. which is to assure parties justice accdg to law. 1989 – RTC rendered decision in the civil case ordering defendants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiff. Defendants filed a petition for certiorari in the CA challenging the jurisdiction of the RTC over said civil case. a separate civil action may not be filed unless reservation thereof is expressly made • CA dismissed the petition. a civil action for damages cannot be filed independently of the criminal action under Art 33.

which has built. fault or negligence of defendant and causal connection between the two. The inundation allegedly caused a young man to drown. among other damages. 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. • • • • • ISSUE: WON a corporation.• 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. 1984 – Upon motion of corporation. RATIO: • • Dismissal of the civil case is erroneous considering that it is predicated on a quasi-delict. as in this case. thereby causing inundation and damage to an adjacent land. waterpaths. whenever it refers to “fault or negligence”. Motion for recon denied. trial court issued an order suspending further hearings in the civil case until after judgment in the related criminal case. However. a religious corporation. prohibition and mandamus to review the decision of the then IAC FACTS: • • The Missionaries of Our Lady of Law Salette. damaged petitioners’ crops and plants.. July 1982 -. such that if proven would make a clear case of a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana. whether intentional and voluntary or negligence. 1984 -. water conductors and contrivances within its land. ANDAMO v IAC November 6. Inc. 1983 – Petitioners filed a civil for damages against same corporation. for destruction by means of inundation under Art 325 of RPC. through its agents. 1990 NATURE: Petition for certiorari. said constructions allegedly inundated an adjacent land owned by petitioner spouses Andamo. as the criminal case which was instituted ahead of the civil case was still unresolved. • Article 2176. washed away costly fences. built. August 27. trial court dismissed the civil case for lack of jurisdiction.Upon corporation’s motion to dismiss or suspend the civil action. endangered the lives of petitioners and their laborers. on a parcel of land which it owned. 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. waterpaths and contrivances including an artificial lake. April 26.Petitioners then instituted a criminal action before the RTC of Cavite against the officers and directros of the corporatio. IAC affirmed decision of TC. covers not only acts “not punishable by law” but also acts criminal in character. through its agents. . All the elements of a quasi-delict are present: damages suffered. February 22.

1764. assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two. a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act. his only heir. PAL. that his action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter. plus exemplary damages and 60thou as attorney’s fees. Held: YES. Article 2206 shall also apply to the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier. Art. in quasi-delicts the civil action is entirely independent of the criminal case accdg to Articles 33 and 2177. 477thou: expected income 2. and to pay costs PAL invoked US law and claimed that in determining loss of earnings arising from death. even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. 1960. Decision reversed and set aside. 1764 and 2206: award of damages for death is computed on the basis of the life expectancy of the deceased Art. 10thou: moral damages 3. Baco. Mindoro on November 23. In addition: (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased. concerning Damages. (if the tortfeasor is actually charged also criminally). 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. the basis should be the life expectancy of the deceased OR the beneficiary. vs CA. whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos. 10thou: attorney’s fees 4. 1990 Facts: Nicanor Padilla was one of the 33 persons who died while on board PAL plane that crashed on Mt. Issue: WON the deceased’s life expectancy should be made the basis in determining loss of earnings.Consequently. (See Castillo v CA) • As held by the SC in Azucena v Potenciano. whichever is shorter. and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter. Inc. • resort to foreign jurisprudence is proper only when there is no law or decision available locally to settle controversy Ratio: 1. such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and . provided that the offended party is not allowed. Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be awarded in accordance with Title XVIII of this Book. filed a complaint demanding 600thou as actual and compensatory damages. Padilla’s mother. to recover damages on both scores. Trial court based its award on the life expectancy of the deceased and awarded the ff: 1.

(3) The spouse. the CA amended its decision and deleted:  6thou moral damages  13. may demand support from the person causing the death. moral damages loss of earning capacity are recoverable separately from the indemnity for death] . 1969 Facts: Bustos killed Castro and was found guilty of homicide by lower court. unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant. (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of Article 291. interests in proper cases 7. had no earning capacity at the time of his death. exemplary damages  fixed by court  considered separate from fines  when crime is attended by one or more aggravating circumstances 4. indemnity for loss of earning capacity plus amount for support if deceased was obliged to give any to any person 3. 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. As to the award of damages. the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent’s inheritance by the law of testate or intestate succession. the heirs are entitled to the ff damages: 1. indemnity for the death of the victim  at least 3 thou  even if there are mitigating circumstances 2. 380 loss of earnings Petitioners prayed that CA’s original decision be affirmed in toto. for a period not exceeding five years. attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation  actual amount  only when separate civil action has been filed or when exemplary damges are awarded 6. moral damages  for mental anguish  fixed by court  recoverable by descendants 5. 2.100 – 9200 living expenses= 13. 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. legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.awarded by the court. 1973 Heirs of Castro vs Bustos. 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 exact duration to be fixed by the court.

000 moral damages: SC said that TC lumped the ff monetary obligations under ‘moral damages’  loss of earning capacity: 114. (4) Temperate or moderate. 2196.000 indemnity for death: REDUCED to 50thou based on prevailing jurisprudence 3. 2199. General Provisions Art. 1992 Facts: Quilation killed the officer-in-charge of PROFEM and was found guilty of murder. Except as provided by law or by stipulation. Actual and compensatory damages Art. Damages may be: (1) Actual or compensatory. his mother suffered a mild stroke DAMAGES A. award should be made individually People vs Quilaton. 2195. Compensation for workmen and other employees in case of death. (3) Nominal. Rules governing damages laid down in other laws shall be observed insofar as they are not in conflict with this Code. Art. 445: AFFIRMED: brother was able to present receipts of expenses 2. or (6) Exemplary or corrective.000: gross earnings – living expenses  educational support for sisters: 10thou  mental anguish suffered: 20thou awarded. 250. 2198. 2197. injury or illness is regulated by special laws. Art. Art. actual damages of 26. He was further sentenced to indeminify heirs:  100 thou for death  26. The principles of the general law on damages are hereby adopted insofar as they are not inconsistent with this Code. The rules under this Title are without prejudice to special provisions on damages formulated elsewhere in this Code. 000 moral damages Issue: correctness of damages Held: 1. 445 for actual damages for burial and related expenses  250. one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. B. (5) Liquidated. 100. (2) Moral. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages. .Capistrano concurs: duty of fiscal to demand payment. The provisions of this Title shall be respectively applicable to all obligations mentioned in Article 1157.

Damages may be recovered: (1) For loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury. GE sold over 7M brd ft of logs to Korea and earned P79k in commissions. value of the logs exported. It also agreed to supply 200M brd ft of logs to Japanese buyers over a five year period. oppressive.b. Had LB continued to deliver the logs as it was bound pursuant to the agreement. The court ruled in its favor awarding P400k as actual damages.o. 1959. 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. on the other hand. but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain. Govt. however. which clearly indicated that it failed to earn its commissions it should during this period of time. Hence. 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. When LB failed to deliver the logs beginning January 1960. . GE. • Attorney’s fees justified considering the importance of the litigation and the amount of time and effort involved. 2200. LB gave a total of five notices to GE stating various reasons for non-performance of its obligation to supply the logs. and P40k as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. and c) any other cause not within the control of the party making relief from any of the requirements of the contract. among which are: a) the enactment of national or local law or ordinance. • GE’s reminder was left unheeded. or malevolent manner. • The contract was to remain effective for two years beginning June 1. which is approximately P400k (17 months remaining in contract X 2M brd ft per month X P0. 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. LB mentioned that it had an excess of ≥ 1M logs per month. ⇒Par 8(b) of their agreement gives the valid causes for suspension of the contract. reminded LB to fulfill its obligations under the contract as otherwise it would be held liable for breach. this appeal. GE is entitled to 13% of the gross f. (1106) Art. Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered. 1959. b) issuance of any prohibitive or restrictive order. it filed an action for breach of contract and recovery of damages with the CFI. • Over a five month period beginning June 1959. P100k as exemplary damages. GE ceased to earn any commission. 2205. Issue: WON actual and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees are justified Held: YES (actual and attorney’s fees). (2) For injury to the plaintiff's business standing or commercial credit. 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. 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. Within a fourmonth period. P50k is sufficient for its reprehensible act of resorting to half-truths in order to justify its desistance from the contract.01 commission per brd ft). On October 27. Mathematical genius not required! • P100k as exemplary damages is oppressive considering that LB did not act in a wanton (noodles). Moreover.Component elements: Art. Hence.

• Terms of the agreement holding CT liable for damages it may cause BL are merely declaratory of the obligation assumed ⇒Not demandable upon breach. release bearing hub and trunion bolt. NO (actual) • GAMI committed a breach of contract of sale. Hence. 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. the ff were discovered: 1) Worn-out screw courtesy of Y’s mechanic 2) Tampered original motor number courtesy of Capt. sold the logs to a Japanese buyer. as evidenced by receipts. The engine was installed in one of his trucks. • Within a week from delivery. The latter. • The logs were to be loaded on the Kanatsu Maru over a two-day period. There is no proof that BL had already paid EAC said damages or that it had already been required to pay the same. P7. CA affirms the decision. 1951.DECISION MODIFIED Basilan Lumber v Cagayan Timber (2 SCRA 766) Facts: • In the amended terms of their contract. Trial Court orders GAMI to pay Y P54k in actual damages.560. However. The misrepresentation of the quality of the engine is tantamount to fraud or bad faith. He relied on the representations of the latter’s representative that the engine was brand-new. . propeller shaft…LEMON! LEMON! LEMON! • Upon investigation. ⇒oil leak. Hence. the award of P7. Garcia’s macro-etching 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.590 is justified. • The CFI awarded BL additional demurrage and dead freight expenses amounting to ≈ $9k. clutch disc. Issue: WON award of damages is justified Held: YES (reimbursement). 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. Hence. this petition. Cagayan Timber (CT) agreed to deliver 740k brd ft of exportable logs to Basilan Lumber (BL) by September 1. the ship stayed in port for a total of eight days due to insufficient logs and poor stevedoring service. through the East Asiatic Company (EAC). to the Japanese buyer. not merely speculative • Actual damage was caused to EAC who already paid demurrage and dead freight expenses. the engine started to have malfunctions which necessitated successive trips to GAMI’s repair shop. In reversing the CFI decision. and P2k in attorney’s fees. • Y was engaged in the trucking business. this appeal.e.590 as reimbursement for the purchase price of the engine. the CA held that no damages may be recovered without satisfactory proof of the real existence of such damages (Arts 2200 and 2201 CC).

upon the ground that he was dispossessing of his property in fraud 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. so that Sellner could get a right of way over Songco’s land for conveying his own sugar tot he central • • Accordingly. Incidentally. which was going to be milled by the Sugar Central. In his defense. he is entitled to recover. Sellner wanted to mill his cane to a nearby sugar cane central. It then awarded damages to the defendant equivalent to the amount actually paid out by him in procuring the dissolution of the attachment. • 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. have to be proven. produced 2. Sellner alleged that Songco falsely represented that the cane would produce 3.• 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. He executed 3 promissory notes for the purchase price. so that he could run his own cane in at the same time Songco’s cane should be milled by the Central 2. as it turned out. However. Such damages. this appeal.017 piculs only.000 piculs of sugar but the crop. 1917 FACTS: • • • Songco and Sellner owned contiguous properties where a considerable quantity of sugar cane were planted. however. he bought Songco’s sugar cane as it stood.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. Hence. Motives: 1. at the time of the institution of the suit. the central were not sure that they could mill his cane and would not promise to take it. Macasieb (P369. • • • • . Sellner then conceived the idea of buying the cane of Songco. Songco filed an action to recover the 3rd PN. ⇒“Projected profit” prepared by a Mr. • Award of actual damages is unwarranted under best evidence test. Two of these notes were paid. plaintiffs sued out an attachment against the defendant. TC rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Mapa.. 2. Lower court ordered Seavan to pay plaintiff the ff. for the transport of cartons of denim jeans for export. 1984 FACTS: • • • GTI Sportswear Corp. upon learning of the attachment. He alleged that one of his creditors. of the 294 cartons supposed to be delivered by GTI to South Harbor. plus the legal rate of interest P160K – Tariff and Customs duties paid by plaintiffs on the lost items P2. to warehouse in V. September 28.) contracted the services of Seavan Carrier. P182k – value of 100 cartons of denim jeans lost. . GTI filed a case for a sum of money and damages.4M – representing losses in the goodwill of plaintiff 20% of the total amount – as and for attorney’s fees cost of proceedings • ISSUE: WON the award of damages was correct HELD: No • The award of P2. It would appear later that the 100 cartons were diverted by the driver of Seavan’s delivery van. in connivance with other persons.• Defendant appealed. Inc.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. Plaintiff certainly cannot be held accountable for the complications of defendant’s affairs which made possible the damage which in fact resulted. v GTI SPORTSWEAR CORP.: 1. 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. as such damages were remote and speculative. However. 3. 100 cartons were lost en route to the pier. contending that the lower court erred in refusing to award him further damages for the injury done to his credit. 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. SEAVAN CARRIER. (formerly GTI Garments Corp. 5. A confession to this effect was signed by the driver. 4. INC. Port Area. • Judgment affirmed. It could hardly be foreseen as a probable consequence of the suing out of his attachment that the creditors might withheld their credit. 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.

after having learned the loss. PAN MALAYAN INSURANCE CORP. 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. but to no avail. 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. but the customers. the best evidence obtainable by the injured party must be presented. much less the amount of P2. the orders were completely cancelled. SC held that in order for damages under Article 2200 of the CC to be recovered. The evidence cannot warrant the award of damages for the loss of anticipated profits. If the plaintiff's property has been insured. 2207. Bare assertion of loss would not suffice.• In G. Inc.4m deleted.4M.A. 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. • • • • Award of damages of P2. The car suffered damages in the amount of P42K. Subrogation: Art. Panmalay filed a complaint for damages with the RTC of Makati against Fabie and the driver. Panmalay defrayed the cost of repair of the insured car. It then demanded reimbursement from Fabie and her driver of said amount. v Yaptinchay. If the amount paid by the insurance company does not fully cover the injury or loss. the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract.000 pieces of cotton jeans per month for the year 1978. In the instant case. While the policy was still in effect. v CA April 3. the insured car was hit by a pick-up owned by Erlinda Fabie but driven by another person. 1990 FACTS: • • • • Canlubang Automotive Resources Corp. Panmalay averred that the damages caused to the insured car was settled under the “own damage” coverage of the insurance policy. No document or written instrument was presented to prove that there were really orders of that volume for the year 1978. the aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the deficiency from the person causing the loss or injury. 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. obtained from PanMalay an insurance for its Mitsubishi Colt Lancer . 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. . and as in the Yaptinchay case.4M. Machineries.

The right of subrogation is not dependent upon any privity of contract or upon written assignment of claim.• 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. . 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. upon payment to the assured. albeit on a somewhat different ground. • • • 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. 2207 of the CC. RTC dismissed Panmalay’s complaint. There are exceptions to this rule: if the assured by his won act releases the wrongdoer or 3 rd party liable for the loss or damage. did not cover damage arising from collision or overturning due to the negligence of 3 rd parties as one of the insurable risks. CA affirmed. It is in this sense that the so-called “own damage” coverage of policy is different from the “3rd party liability” coverage and from the “property damae” coverage. 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 3rd party whose negligence or wrongful act caused the loss. If the insured property is destroyed or damages through the fault or negligence of a party other than the assured. • AS TO LC RULING: When Panmalay utilized the phrase “own damage”-. It accrues simply upon payment of the insurance claim by the insurer. 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. Indemnification under said article is on the assumption that there was no wrongdoer or no 3rd party at fault. incidentally. then the insurer. • 1. Both tribunals concluded that Panmalay could not now invoke Art 2207 and claim reimbursement. from liability 2. it simply meant that it had assumed to reimburse the costs for repairing the damage to the insured vehicle. 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. CA held that Section III-I of the pplicy. is not found in the insurance policy—to define the basis for its settlement. has no merit. which was the basis for the settlement of the claim against insurance. • 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. 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. Applying the ejusdem generis rule.a pharase which.

(6) In actions for legal support. SC held that Panmalay. (8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws. cannot be recovered. 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. laborers and skilled workers.961. POLYTRADE CORP v BLANCO FACTS: Polytrade Corp. Attorneys’ fees w/c amounted to P51. 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.Not only is it an erroneous interpretation of the provisions of the section. TC found for Polytrade and Blanco was ordered to pay the purchase price + interest. were not shown to be in disagreement regarding the meaning and coverage of Section III-I. . (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. Attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation Art. 2208. In all cases. (5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid. In any case. (10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded. (11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered.63 or 25% of the total principal indebtedness exclusive of interest was awarded. Blanco had converted such rawhide into leather and sold it. has no legal obstacle from filing the complaint for damages against the 3rd parties responsible for the damage to the car. (4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff. as subrogee. Hence. (9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime. (3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff. Canlubang and Panmalay. except: (1) When exemplary damages are awarded. • Thus. attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. In the absence of stipulation. filed four causes of action against Victoria Blanco to recover the purchase price of rawhide it delivered to the latter. Defendant contends that this is exorbitant and unconscionable. (7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers. 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. the very parties to the policy. other than judicial costs. the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable. just and demandable claim.

in the discretion of the court. 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. Interest may. advising him of RR’s arrival in Sudan. the AF here is in the nature of liquidated damages and the stipulation therefore is aptly termed a penal clause. and the debtor incurs in delay. This fact wasn’t reported to RR in Manila. In this case. and another to Merger in US advising her of the sched of int’l WALS conference. RR also did not present any evidence to prove AF and the lower court’s decision failed to explain why AF was being awarded. just below the dispositive portion of the decision. RR sued for damages and was awarded P20. there being no stipulation to the contrary. RATIO: Under Art 2227. It turned out that the message was delivered to the address on the message but the addressee was no longer staying there. this case should not have gone to court if Blanco had complied w/ his obligations. sent a cablegram to Taha in Sudan. be allowed upon damages awarded for breach of contract. 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. the continued maintenance of Blanco of this suit is plainly intended for delay. Polytrade’s lawyers are of high standing. The amount and character of the services rendered. (1108) Art. the legal interest. However. because of the non-receipt of the cablegram. the same must be disallowed on appeal. Taha was not able to meet him in Sudan and the preparations for the int’l WALS conference had to be cancelled. Interest Art. The cablegrams were sent through RCPI which were in turn relayed to Globe for transmission for their foreign destinations. Rather. liquidated damages whether intended as an indemnity or a penalty shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or unconscionable. RATIO: In the recent case of Stronghold Insurance Company Inc. RCPI contends that that the award of AF was improper because there was no allegation in the complaint with AF. therefore. Such AF as damages are awarded in favor of litigant who is the judgment creditor entitled to enforce the judgment and not his counsel. . the 25% rate of AF is not iniquitous and unconscionable. the award of F was stated only once. Also. Hence. As long as such stipulation is not contrary to law. 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. RCPI v RODRIGUEZ FACTS: Rufus Rodriguez. the award of AF as part of its liability should be allowed. 2210. morals or public order. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money. which is six per cent per annum.. The TC failed to justify the payment of AF by RCPI.000 attorney’s fees among others.ISSUE: WON attorneys’ fees were exorbitant and unconscionable HELD: No. 2209. ISSUE: WON RCPI is liable for attorney’s fees? HELD: No. it is strictly binding upon defendants. and in the absence of stipulation. the indemnity for damages. shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon. In fact. In this case.

Reforminas contend that it should be 12% by virtue of Central Bank Circular No. Plana Concurring and Dissenting: Under Sec 1 a of Act 2655 as amended by PD 116. the indemnity for damages there being no stipulation to the contrary shall be the payment of interest agreed upon. Such authority given to CB is absolute and unqualified and therefore the delegation of power to it is void. 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. be adjudicated in the discretion of the court. JR FACTS: A fire occurred burning the boat FB Pacita III and fishing gear of the Reforminas. except when the demand can be established with reasonably certainty. and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted. and quasi-delicts. Interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims or damages. goods or credit. Art. He further rendered that by legal interest meant 6% as provided for by Art 2209 CC. Extent and scope of actual damages 1.Art. Judge Tomol. the authority of CB is to fix a maximum rate of interest on loans and not to prescribe a fixed interest rate. Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. 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.B. Only the legislature can change the laws. Circular 416 which took effect July 29. quasi-contracts. 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. (1107a) Art. the court may equitably mitigate the damages under circumstances other than the case referred to in the preceding article. 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. 416. REFORMINA v TOMOL. In contracts. they filed an action for recovery of damages for injury to persons and loss of property. although the obligation may be silent upon this point. 2201. Jr awarded the Reforminas damages with legal interest from the filing of the complaint until paid. 2215. as in the following instances: . the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation. Such court judgment refers only to judgments in litigations involving loans or forbearance of any money. and in the absence of stipulation. 2211. the legal interest which is 6% per annum. In crimes and quasi-delicts. bad faith. goods or credit and court judgments. In this case. malice or wanton attitude. In contracts and quasi-contracts. Consequently. interest as a part of the damages may. 2213. 2212. goods or credit. (1109a) Art. 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. contracts and quasi-contracts Art. in a proper case. In case of fraud. ISSUE: WON the legal interest is 6% HELD: YES RATIO: C.

Mindoro on November 23. Art. for a period not exceeding five years. 1960. Held: YES. 1764. (4) That the loss would have resulted in any event. (3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded. Padilla’s mother. • resort to foreign jurisprudence is proper only when there is no law or decision available locally to settle controversy Ratio: 3. unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant. such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court. Inc. 1764 and 2206: award of damages for death is computed on the basis of the life expectancy of the deceased Art. may demand support from the person causing the death. 10thou: moral damages 7.(1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract. (2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the contract. filed a complaint demanding 600thou as actual and compensatory damages. the basis should be the life expectancy of the deceased OR the beneficiary. Trial court based its award on the life expectancy of the deceased and awarded the ff: 5. vs CA. that the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel. and to pay costs PAL invoked US law and claimed that in determining loss of earnings arising from death. Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be awarded in accordance with Title XVIII of this Book. (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of Article 291. 477thou: expected income 6. Cases: PAL. 1990 Facts: Nicanor Padilla was one of the 33 persons who died while on board PAL plane that crashed on Mt. (5) That since the filing of the action. Baco. and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter. Issue: WON the deceased’s life expectancy should be made the basis in determining loss of earnings. the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent’s inheritance by the law of testate or intestate succession. . even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. whichever is shorter. plus exemplary damages and 60thou as attorney’s fees. his only heir. the defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiff's loss or injury. 10thou: attorney’s fees 8. concerning Damages. the exact duration to be fixed by the court. Article 2206 shall also apply to the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier. In addition: (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased. 2206. had no earning capacity at the time of his death. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos.

Art. 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. the defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiff's loss or injury. such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court. It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant. In addition: (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased. (2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the contract. . the exact duration to be fixed by the court. 3. quasi-contracts. unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant. as in the following instances: (1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract. the defendant shall be liable for all damages. 2203. 2206. legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter. may demand support from the person causing the death. which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. 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 23.100 – 9200 living expenses= 13. 2202. had no earning capacity at the time of his death. In crimes and quasi-delicts. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos. 2204. that the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel. and quasi-delicts. crimes and quasi-delicts resulting in death Art. the damages to be adjudicated may be respectively increased or lessened according to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances. 1973 2. In crimes. In contracts. the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent’s inheritance by the law of testate or intestate succession. (4) That the loss would have resulted in any event. (5) That since the filing of the action. 2215. 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. crimes and quasi-delicts Art. (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of Article 291. Art.(3) The spouse. Art. 4. 2214. Art. (3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded. even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. the court may equitably mitigate the damages under circumstances other than the case referred to in the preceding article. In quasi-delicts. for a period not exceeding five years. the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover.

interests in proper cases 14. the CA amended its decision and deleted:  6thou moral damages  13. 445 for actual damages for burial and related expenses  250. 250. Cases: Heirs of Castro vs Bustos. indemnity for the death of the victim  at least 3 thou  even if there are mitigating circumstances 9.000 moral damages: SC said that TC lumped the ff monetary obligations under ‘moral damages’  loss of earning capacity: 114. actual damages of 26.000: gross earnings – living expenses . the heirs are entitled to the ff damages: 8.000 indemnity for death: REDUCED to 50thou based on prevailing jurisprudence 6. As to the award of damages. 380 loss of earnings Petitioners prayed that CA’s original decision be affirmed in toto. legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation  actual amount  only when separate civil action has been filed or when exemplary damges are awarded 13.(3) The spouse. moral damages  for mental anguish  fixed by court  recoverable by descendants 12. indemnity for loss of earning capacity plus amount for support if deceased was obliged to give any to any person 10. He was further sentenced to indeminify heirs:  100 thou for death  26. exemplary damages  fixed by court  considered separate from fines  when crime is attended by one or more aggravating circumstances 11. 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 5. 1969 Facts: Bustos killed Castro and was found guilty of homicide by lower court. moral damages loss of earning capacity are recoverable separately from the indemnity for death] Capistrano concurs: duty of fiscal to demand payment. 000 moral damages Issue: correctness of damages Held: 4. award should be made individually People vs Quilaton. 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. 100.

(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use. Any public officer or employee. (12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law. . (4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention. Unfair competition in agricultural. (2) Freedom of speech. house. (3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication. 28. oppressive or highhanded method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers damage. (11) The privacy of communication and correspondence. educational support for sisters: 10thou mental anguish suffered: 20thou awarded. deceit. Unfair Competition Art. 32. who directly or indirectly obstructs. (5) Freedom of suffrage. H. (9) The right to be secure in one's person. his mother suffered a mild stroke G. (6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law. Separate civil actions 1. commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force. 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. machination or any other unjust. papers. (8) The right to the equal protection of the laws. (10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same. (14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. (13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances. or any private individual. defeats. intimidation. Violation of civil rights Art.

or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession. or from being forced to confess guilt. Fiscal Francisco De Leon filed with the CFI an information for Robbery with Force and Intimidation upon Persons against Jikil. or cruel and unusual punishment. but they were in vain. When Fiscal De Leon learned that the motor launch was in the town of Balabac. They then filed a complaint for damages against Fiscal De Leon and Detachment Cmmdr. Maddela. unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted). Orlando Maddela was the one who carried out the order and accordingly seized the motor launch from Delfin Lim. to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. A year later. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated. whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense. Delfin Lim. the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages. moral and exemplary damages. Lim and Jikil prayed for actual. The indemnity shall include moral damages. and (19) Freedom of access to the courts. and for other relief. (18) Freedom from excessive fines. alleging that the seizure of the motor launch was without a search warrant and was against Lim’s will. In any of the cases referred to in this article. and mat be proved by a preponderance of evidence. 1975 FACTS: • Jikil Taha sold to Alberto Timbangcaya a motor launch. It was only then that the Provincial Commander issued an order to seize and impound the motor launch. 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. After conducting a preliminary investigation. (16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel. For the alleged violation of their constitutional rights. 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.(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail. exerted efforts to recover the seized motor launch. • • • • . he wrote the Provincial Commander to impound and take custody of the motor launch. (17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self. together with Jikil Taha. to meet the witnesses face to face. to have a speedy and public trial. and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf. Cases: LIM v PONCE DE LEON August 29. except when the person confessing becomes a State witness. He reiterated his request the 2nd time.

Argument that there is lack of time to procure a search warrant is untenable. moral damages and exemplary damages from the public officer or employee responsible therefor. Legality of seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby. 2. at the time the act complained of was committed. and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by 3 rd parties. and is not requied that defendants should have acted in bad faith. He was reluctant to impoun the m. ISSUE: WON there was a violation of a constitutional right? If so. and such warrant may be issued by the judge alone after determination of probable cause. there are certain circumstances which would warrant Maddela’s exculpation from liability: 1.launch despite repeated orders.• 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. 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. Also. Maddela was left with no alternative but to seize the vessel. launch will be moved out of Balabac because it had no engine. Rule 122 of RoC states that in the seizure of a stolen property warrant is still necessary. • • • • • It is impt. should De Leon and Maddela be both held liable for dmgs? HELD: Yes. Only De Leon. much less to order without warrant the seizure of a personal property even if it is the corpus delicti of a crime. Only Fiscal De Leon may be held liable and not Maddela because he impounded the motor launch upon the order of his superior officer. will supply the place of such warrant. Pursuant to the provisions of Art 32 and 2219. But only Delfin Lim should be awarded. a person whose constitutional rights have been violated is entitled to actual. whatever its source. • • • In addition. . Jikil is not entitled to recover any damages. US v Delos Reyes: No amount of incriminating evidence. While a subordinate officer may be held liable for executing unlawful orders of his superior officer. There is also no basis for apprehension that the m. • • 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. Faced with a possible disciplinary action from his commander. there was no law or rule that recognized the authority of Provincial Fiscals to issue a search warrant. What RA 732 did was to broaden the power of provincial fiscals to conduct preliminary investigation. 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. The 1935 constitution vested the power to issue a search warrant in a judge and in no other officer.

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. elements of the TFM were alleged to have done the ff. without acting on the motion to set aside Fortun’s order. Plaintiffs filed a civil action for actual/compensatory. 1988 FACTS: • Geb. Pursuant to said order. Because their prayer went unheeded. • • • Upon motion. defendants are immune from liability for acts done in the performance of their official duties 3. 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. RTC Judge Fortun dismissed the case. their superiors may be held liable as well • Repsondents’ invocation of the doctrine of state immunity from suit totally misplaced. the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended 2. 5. 6. plaintiffs may not cause a judicial inquiry into the circumstances of their detention in the guise of a damage suit because as to them. stock and barrel the arguments of the defendants. exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. say in accordance with Marcos’ Proclamation No. 7. and that said plans are known to and sanctioned by defendants. moral. it may be true that they were merely responding to their duty. 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. 2. • • raided several places. Judge Lising took over and. 4. A motion to dismiss was filed by defendants (thru counsel Estelito Mendoza) on the ff. grounds: 1. assuming that courts can entertain the present action.Decision reversed. Later. declared the Order as final. Judge Fortun inhibited himself from the proceeding. Fabian Ver ordered various intelligence units of the AFP. adopting lock. • 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. Concededly. they filed this instant petition for certiorari. known as Task Force Makabansa. complaint states no cause of action.: 1. ABERCA v VER April 15. all violations of plaintiff’s constitutional rights were part of a concerted plan to terrorize them. . 2054. 3. Plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the order. 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. tortures and other forms of violence on them in order to obtain indiscriminatory information or confessions and in order to punish them.

Art. MHP GARMENTS. Accordingly. Fiscal dismissed the complaint and ordered the return of the seized articles. Only judges are excluded from liability under the said article.• 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. Hence. 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. badges and insignias. 32 encompasses those directly. It is wrong to limit the plaintiff’s action for damages to “acts of alleged physical violence” which constituted delict or wrong. NO such relationship exists between superior officers of the military and their subordinates. 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. supplies. Subsequently. as well as indirectly responsible for its violation. 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. De Guzman and 3 constabulary men went to the stores of respondents and seized Scout uniforms without warrant. MHP tasked its employee. Doctrine of respondeat superior inapplicable in the instant case. an exclusive franchise to sell and distribute official boy Scout uniforms. • Petition granted. causing commotion and embarassment to respondents. The doctrine has been generally limited in its application to principal and agent or to master and servant (i. It was also given authority to undertake the prosecution in court of all illegal sources of scout uniforms and other scouting supplies. 1994 FACTS: • MHP Garments was granted by the Boy Scouts of the Phils. a criminal complaint for unfair competition was filed against respondents. • 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. • • • . The suspension of the privilege does nor render valid an otherwise illegal arrest or detention. Art. Neither can it be said that only those shown to have participated “directly” should be held liable. employer and employee) relationship.e. 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). where it is not the actor alone who must answer for damages. Be that as it may. INC v CA September 2. the decisive factor in this case is the language of Article 32. 2. it was erroneous on the TC for holding that defendants cannot be held responsible for the wrongful acts of their subordinates because: 1. provided their acts or omissions do not constitute a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.

and physical injuries a civil action for damages. Cases: CARANDANG v SANTIAGO AND VALENTON May 29. TC ordered petitioners to pay. MHP Garments and De Guzman were indirectly involved in transgressing the right of respondents against unreasonable searches and seizures. CA affirmed. Pending said appeal. • . may be brought by the injured party. guilty of the crime of frustrated homicide committed against the person of Cesar Carandang. the omission will not exculpate MHP Garments and De Guzman. By standing by and apparently assenting thereto. 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. 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 shall require only a preponderance of evidence. 2. fraud. 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. 33. In cases of defamation. 1955 FACTS: • On September 1. • If petitioners did not have a hand in the raid. 2. and refused to surrender them for quite a time despite the dismissal of its complaint against respondents. They did not. 1953. he was liable to the same extent as the officers themselves. Judgment affirmed with modification.• Thereafter. So with the MHP Garments which even received for safekeeping the goods unreasonably seized by the PC raiding team and De Guzman. 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. Defamation. 3. 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. CFI of Batangas found Tomas Valenton Jr. TC was correct in granting damages to respondents. they should have filed a 3rd party complaint against the raiding team for contribution or any other relief. Carandang appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action. Raid was conducted with the active participation of employee De Guzman. Still. 1. the respondents filed a civil case against petitioners for sums of money and damages. and physical injuries Art. 3. fraud.

or frustrated homicide. entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action may be brought by the injured party. In other words. fraud and physical injuries. “fraud” and “physical injuries. this petition was filed. Judge ruled that the trial of the civil case must await the result of the criminal case on appeal.” 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. MARCIA V CA FACTS: Bus of Victory Liner driven by Felardo Paje collided with jeep driven by Clement Marcia. pending the termination of the criminal case in the CA. whether inflicted with intent to kill or not. HELD: No • Article 33 uses the words “defamation”. Hence. 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. as they are understood under American Law. the civil action should lie whether the offense committed is that of physical injuries. “ In cases of defamation. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution and shall require only preponderance of ecivence. or any physical injury or bodily injury. Information for homicide and serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence was filed. Writ granted. RATIO: Reckless imprudence or criminal negligence is not one of the three crimes mentioned in Art 33. While civil case was in progress. or even death.• Valentons filed a motion to suspend the trial of the civil case. Hence. In any case. so that these two terms must have used not tom impart any technical meaning. but in their generic sense. Marcia died and two others were injured. Civil action for damages was subsequently filed. ISSUE: WON action for damages for physical injuries resulting from negligence is an independent. 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. or attempted homicide. not the crime of physical injuries.” • • • . separate and distinct from criminal action in Art 33 HELD: No. the term “physical injuries” should be understood to mean any bodily injury. Hence this appeal. As motion for recon was denied. a civil action for damages. 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. 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. 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. because the terms used with the latter are general terms.

A nuisance is any act. an information should be presented by the prosecuting attorney. When a person. although the extent of the annoyance. or (4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street. if the act from which the civil liability arises is declared to be non-existent in the final judgment. Sec 3. danger or damage upon individuals may be unequal. Nuisance is either public or private. 2. A public nuisance affects a community or neighborhood or any considerable number of persons. Kinds 1. and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages. condition of property. omission. 695. business. 694. no independent civil action for damages may be instituted in connection therewith. and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action. Furthermore. for which no independent civil action is granted in this Code or any special law. or (3) Shocks. defies or disregards decency or morality. Nonfeasance of police Art. Per se or per accidens Cases: ILOIOLO COLD STORAGE CO VS MUNICIPAL COUNCIL . Upon the defendant's motion. or anything else which: (1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others.The injuries suffered by petitioners were alleged to be the result of the criminal negligence . Rule 111 ROC. Part 3: nuisance A. Hence. B. establishment. charges another with the same. the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious. 4. or (5) Hinders or impairs the use of property. when no independent civil action is provided Art. 35. or any body of water. or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings. or (2) Annoys or offends the senses. Public or private Art. If during the pendency of the civil action. 34. Definition Art. the civil action shall be suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings. but the justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed. claiming to be injured by a criminal offense. 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. Such civil action may be supported by a preponderance of evidence. They were not inflicted with malice. 3. the complaint may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender. then the extinction of criminal liability will carry with it the extinction of civil liability. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings. A private nuisance is one that is not included in the foregoing definition.

business. Nuisance per se – nuisances under any and all circumstances.FACTS: Iloilo Cold Storage Co. . Council appointed committee to investigate and report upon the matters in the complaint. Such houses were constructed on public streets and some on portions of riverbed. In this case. 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. commission. Sometime after the plant was completed and in operation. ISSUE: WON Such houses are public nuisances and who may abate them HELD: Yes. nearby residents made complaints to the Municipal Council that the smoke from the plant was very injurious to their health and comfort. RATIO: Art 694 CC provides that a nuisance is any act. the plant is not a nuisance per se. However. 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. 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. These things must be determined in the ordinary courts of law. If it were in fact a nuisance due to the manner of its operation. 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. establishment. RATIO: Nuisance is anything that work hurt. The provisions in Art 700 and 702 CC being general provisions must yield to special provision specifically designed from the City of Manila. It is a legitimate industry beneficial to the people and conducive to their health and comfort. The company is entitled to a fair and impartial hearing before a judicial tribunal. inconvenience or damage (Blackstone) Two classes are: a. b. 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. Council passed a resolution giving Company 1 month to elevate their smokestacks or else their operations will be stopped or suspended. 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. constructed an ice and cold storage plant in Iloilo City. ISSUE: WON a municipal corporation can declare the company’s plant a nuisance as operated and prescribe method of abating it HELD: No. that question cannot be determined by a mere resolution of the board. Art 695 states that a public nuisance affects a community or neighborhood. 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.

a fashionable residence street with large expensive houses. One who settles in a district which has a natural watercourse. especially beneficial for transportation purposes. after official notice. unauthorized obstructions. RAMCAR V MILLAR FACTS: RAMCAR has been engaged in auto-repair and body-building since 1938 in Ermita Manila. CFI dismissed but CA reversed. However to abate this. must submit to the ordinary annoyances and discomforts which are incidental to the reasonable and general conduct of such business. In addition. which means a shop for storing. The business of RAMCAR is not a nuisance per se but in the account of its location. Art 2196: The rules under this title are without prejudice to special provisions on damages formulated elsewhere in this code. RATIO: RAMCAR was granted a license to operate a garage and under Ordinance No. it is not necessary to remove all buildings and structures built in the place where it is presently located. There is now a coal yard. . or those parts which may be utilized for pursuits that are not forbidden by law or ordinance such as auto-repair. lumberyards. and even on Sundays and holidays. ISSUE: WON RAMCAR’s auto-repair and body-building shop is a nuisance HELD: YES. 2830 of Manila such body-building shop is not within the purview of garage. warehouse . public school. 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. 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. 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. Pasig River is in it immediate the vicinity.Sec 1122 of the Revised Ordinance of the City of Manila explicitly authorizes the city engineer to remove. RATIO: The locality in question is gradually being transformed from a fashionable residence area into an industrial center. sawmills and powerplant. it is a public nuisance. club. refuse or neglect to remove the same. In addition. ISSUE: WON such brewery and ice plant is a nuisance HELD: No. 22 residents and property owners on the same street filed a suit or injunction against it on the ground that it’s a 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. electrical railroad and light co. or one who remains there in the light of the fact of its transformation into a trading or manufacturing center. whenever the owner or person responsible therefor shall. The zoning ordinance of the city prohibits also its body-building operations. at the owner’s expenses.

Art. without judicial proceedings. 705. (3) That the abatement be approved by the district health officer and executed with the assistance of the local police. such action shall be commenced by the city or municipal mayor. whether public or private. C. 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. 696. Art. or doing unnecessary injury. Any private person may abate a public nuisance which is specially injurious to him by removing. The remedies against a private nuisance are: (1) A civil action. or . by destroying the thing which constitutes the same. Art. (2) That such demand has been rejected. Art. But it is necessary: (1) That demand be first made upon the owner or possessor of the property to abate the nuisance.The injunction will only be granted when there’s a pressing necessity and not just a trifling discomfort. Art. or (3) Abatement. The district health officer shall determine whether or not abatement. Abatement Art. 697. if it is specially injurious to himself. Art. without committing a breach of the peace. Lapse of time cannot legalize any nuisance. A private person may file an action on account of a public nuisance. The remedies against a public nuisance are: (1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance: or (2) A civil action. 698. 699. 700. The abatement of a nuisance does not preclude the right of any person injured to recover damages for its past existence. or if necessary. 701. without judicial proceedings. Art. and (4) That the value of the destruction does not exceed three thousand pesos. Art. 702. 704. The district health officer shall take care that one or all of the remedies against a public nuisance are availed of. is the best remedy against a public nuisance. Art. If a civil action is brought by reason of the maintenance of a public nuisance. 703.

(2) Abatement. health. offensive odor. dust. Every building or piece of land is subject to the easement which prohibits the proprietor or possessor from committing nuisance through noise. 706. or if necessary. factories and shops may be maintained provided the least possible annoyance is caused to the neighborhood. Cases: D. without judicial proceedings. water. it is indispensable that the procedure for extrajudicial abatement of a public nuisance by a private person be followed. by destroying the thing which constitutes the nuisance. Easement against nuisance Art. A private person or a public official extrajudicially abating a nuisance shall be liable for damages: (1) If he causes unnecessary injury. 682. Art. 683. without committing a breach of the peace or doing unnecessary injury. Art. However. smoke. jarring. glare and other causes. 707. Art. Cases: . Subject to zoning. police and other laws and regulations. heat. or (2) If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be not a real nuisance. Any person injured by a private nuisance may abate it by removing.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful