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 1 st class accommodations. They took flight under protest ‘cause Senator had scheduled meeting and wife had check-up at Mayo clinic Damages claimed > breach of contract in bad faith Issue: WON they can recover moral damages HELD: Yes, bad faith existed Ratio: 1) 2220: moral damages are recoverable in breach of contracts where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith 2) Badges of Bad Faith a) Employee Herranz cancelled reservationof Lopez’ together with that of the Rufinos only the Rufinos cancelled b) Despite knowledge that reserv ations have been cancelled, when lopez party called in to confirm, they assured them of 1st class accommodations 3) Such willful non-disclosure of the cancellation or pretense that the reservations of the plaintiffs stood is the factor to which is attributable the breach of the resulting contract 4) It is humiliating to be compelled to travel as such, contrary to what is rightfully to be expected from the contractual undertaking Moral damages sustained by Senator: - social humiliation, wounded feelings, mental anguish -senator siya ek ek -P 100, 000 Wife: discomfort sustained in tourist class for 13 hours =physical suffering P50, 000 daughter/husband: P25, 000 for social humiliation lose of prestige? 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) 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 NPC NPC bought stuff from International Commodities thru rep, NATL merchandising Corp.
the corresponding filing fees need not be paid and shall simply constitute a 1 st lien on a judgment. NPC suffered: no production of fertilized coz sulfur not delivered Singson 1.gross negligence/ careless constitute wanton misconduct—justifies award People vs escano 4 separate crim actions for estafa were filed. is alleged in he complaint/info that corresponding filing fees shall be paid by OP upon filing thereof in court for trial 7. D allegations were not included in info so co-accused raised issue of non-payment of docket fees.are to be paid only if other items of damages are alleged in the complaint/info or if they are not so alleged. 23 SCRA 1117 Nature: Appeal from Judgment of the CFI. Accepted order but did not tell plaintiff: no more appropriate social envelopes ED may be awarded to aggrieved party. LD awarded 1. court served a writ of garnishment upon BPI-insofar as Villa-Abrille’s credits against bank were concerned.when amount of damages is not alleged. Manila Facts: Singson was on the defendants in a civil case that ordered them to pay the sum of 105. Filing fees not required. Quasi-delictual liability where there are contract relations Singson vs BPI.56 to Philippine Milling Co. 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. except in award for actual damages. brought axn to recover actual/compens dams plus certain amount of atty’s fees. . seized delivery trucks of SM which were levied against due to failure to pay tax. Bank included Singson’s account and latter discovered this when BM Glass Service told him that the check he issued was
.only when the amt of damages. .Where civil axn is instituted together with crim axn. other than actual. . . merely incidental or dependent upon AD/CD San Miguel Francisco Magno. 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. 1.Contract: nonpayment---LD at a rate of 2/5 of 1% of full contract price for 1 st 30 days of default and 4/5 of 1% for every day thereafter Supplier failed to deliver due to inability to secure shipping space. City Treasurer. the AD claimed are not included in the computation of filing fees. respo judge ordered clerk to require payment of filing fees. Conso for joint trial Upon finding that offended parties seek to enforce civl liabilities by way of AD. No need for docket fees. shall constitute a first lien on judgment General Info for libel alleged 100M worth of AME damages. amount need not be proved becoz its determination depends upon CD that may be awarded 2. ED also claimed but amt not specified. ED awarded even if not alleged.539. if agreed upon the same should be enforced instead of awarding only nominal dams 2. As soon as the judgment became final and executory.
city officials ordered the exhumation and removal of the remains of sr. as they were under no such obligations to induce Cuddy to violate his contract with Gilchrist
. Lower court decided that plaintiffs cannot recover upon basis of quasi-delict because relation between parties was contractual. North Cemetery is a patrimonial property created by resolution of Municipal Board. He had a first class round trip ticket from Manila to Rome. However. Issue: WON existence of contract bars commission of tort by one against the other and the consequent recovery of damages therefor. owner of the film. the Manager forced him to vacate his first class seat because a white man had a better right to the seat. to rent the film for a week at 125. starting May 26. allegedly in accordance with Admin Order No. Sr. Damages are proper. 29 Phil 542 Nature: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI. However.exercise of proprietary functions. resulting in the temporary freeing of the account of the plaintiff. city may then sue and be sued • City is liable for the tortuous act committed by its agents to verify and check the duration of contract of lease. entered into a contract with Gilchrist. 2021) on a land in the North Cemetery. 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.not honored by bank becoz it had been garnished. 1971-June 6. Singson filed action: for damages in consequence of said illegal freezing of account.a quasi delict. Bank immediately rectified mistake. in 1975. Passengers should be protected and insured a pleasant trip. Cuddy returned money to Gilchrist and told him that Espejo and his partner would rent film for 350. • doubt WON ticket was confirmed as first class is immaterial as claim is based on the wrongful expulsion itself City of Manila vs IAC. Owned therefor in its proprietary or private character • City entered into contract of lease. 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. 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. 5. from said lot and said lot was leased to another family. was buried in said lot. Air France vs Carrascoso. when the plane was in Bangkok. 179 SCRA 428 Nature: Petition for certiorari to review the decision and the resolution of the CA. Before said date. Iloilo Facts: Cuddy. Series of 1975. Issue: WON damages may be recovered on the basis of the expulsion Held: Yes Ratio: • The contract of air carriage generates a relation attended with public duty. Interference with Contracts Gilchrist vs Cuddy. Carrascoso filed complaint for damages. Zigomar. 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. • Wrongful expulsion is a violation of public duty by the air carrier. was granted a lease for a duration of 50 years (June 6. Facts: Wife of deceased Vivencio Sto Domingo Sr. 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.
regulated by 1101 (Old CC) this contract binds employer to provide safe appliances for use of employees Cangco vs Manila Railroad Co. Locomotive No. (malamang!) Issue: WON Manila Railroad is liable for damages due to breach of legal duty Held: YES. 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. B. 33 Phil 8 Nature: Appeal from 3 judgments of the CFI. plaintiff saw an autoruck parked on left side of road with people alighting from it. 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. Rakes vs AG&P Co. Liability of Employer to Worker arises out of contractual relations between them. Manila. Manila Facts: Plaintiff’s leg was broken and was eventually amputated because of an incident at the company’s yard. • 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. Basic elements of quasi-delictual liability 1. Such fault or negligence. 713 struck their car right in the center. 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. At about 7-8 meters from crossing. Manila Facts: Plaintiff was driving their Studebaker at 19-25 mi/hr to go sightseeing in Pagsanjan. Facts:
. there being fault or negligence. rails slid off and caught plaintiff (or somethin’ like that). 59 Phil 758 Nature: Appeal from a judgment of CFI. Laguna. JJ. Crossfield and Del Rosario. Cause: dislodging of the crosspiece or piling under the stringer by the water of the bay raised by recent typhoon. He sounded his horn for the people to get out of the way. 7 Phil 359 Nature: Appeal from a judgment of CFI. With him were his wife and 4-year-old daughter. All of them got injured. The act or omission in the breach of a legal duty Article 2176. 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. trees and shrubs. is obliged to pay for the damage done. 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. Manila Railroad. supra Lilius vs Manila Railroad.. The handcar’s track sagged. inspecting and repairing it. for its negligence and the negligence of its employees Ratio: The diligence of a good father of a family.. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another. tie broke.1314. which the law requires in order to avoid damage. CC: Any 3rd person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party.
Manila Facts: Jose Noguera noticed that an electric wire in Dimas-Alang Street was burning and its connections smoking. umamin pa ang gago) Del Rosario vs Manila Electric Co. 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. Premature acceleration of car was breach of this duty. Astudillo vs Manila Electric CO. and died upon reaching St. Plaintiff’s negligence in attempting o board moving car was not the proximate cause of the injury. At 4 pm. wire still wasn’t fixed and Alberto del Rosario. He was running across the street to catch the car but before his position had become secure. unless they here ‘the signal of the car’ (syemps.. 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. Duty of carrier extends to persons boarding the cars as well as alighting therefrom. 57 Phil 478 Nature: Appeal from a judgment of CFI. owing to the child’s immature years and natural curiosity to do something out of the ordinary Del Prado vs Manila Electric Company. and even before his raised right foot had reached the platform. He asked one Jose Soco to report the situation to the Malabon station of the Manila Electric Company. where necessary. 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. touched the wire. Intramuros. Msg was transmitted at 2:25 pm. Manila Facts: Juan Astudillo met his death through electrocution. got electrocuted. 9 years old. 52 Phil 900 Nature: Appeal from judgment of the CFI. Manila Facts: Ignacio del Prado’s right foot was caught and crushed by car no. 74 and had to be amputated the following day. municipality of Cavite Viejo. 55 Phil 427 Nature: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI. Issue: WON there was breach of legal duty Held: YES Ratio:
. Issue: WON there was breach of legal duty Held: Yes Ratio: Although motorman was not bound to stop to let the plaintiff on. the automobile was struck by a train and the plaintiffs injured. when he placed his right hand on a wire connected with an electric pole situated near Santa Lucia Gate. 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 • 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. while crossing the tracks of defendant railroad in San Juan.Plaintiffs amd 3 other companions hired a taxicab from Bachrach Garage and Taxicab Co for a trip to Cavite Viejo. On their way back. Plaintiff’s foot slipped and his hand was jerked loose from the handpost and he fell to the ground. the motorman applied the power and the car gave a slight lurch forward. Direct and proximate cause was the premature acceleration. no matter of what nature. Luke’s.
Any waiver of an action for future fraud is void. The fulfillment of the conditions does not render unnecessary other precautions required by ordinary care. 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. Plaintiff was thrown from the vehicle and caused the injuries complained of. by reaching his arm out the full length. it is immaterial whether he is drunk or sober. that which is expected of a good father of the family shall be required. shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which I to be observed in the performance. J. par 2.
.. causing vehicle to strike one of the rails with great force. Wire was cut. When negligence shows bad faith. leaped forward and fell. The crossing bars were not put down and no guard was at the gatehouse when the accident happened. the transmission line of the Alcala Electric Plant were blown down and fell on the electric wire. In case of fraud. While crossing the tracks to enter his premises. malice or wanton attitude. Corliss vs Manila Railroad Company Nature: Direct Appeal from a decision of the CFI. the provision of Article 1171 and 2201. who drove the engine. 1171. Wright vs Manila Electric Co. The jeep collided with a locomotive of Manila Railroad Company. Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all obligations. par 2. Plaintiff was sufficiently warned (locomotive had blown its siren or whistle)
Umali vs Bacani. Jr. Pampanga Facts: Ralph Corliss. Pangasinan.
Pole was located close enough to public place so that a person. 28 Phil 122 Nature: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI. Plaintiff was drunk during that time. would be able to take hold of one of the wires City Engineer: even if wire was triple braid weather proof type. plaintiff still had the duty to stop his jeep to avoid collision and that the main witness of the defendant-appellee. Issue: WON there was negligence Held: Yes. Bacani. Facts: During a storm. on plaintiff’s part Ratio: Negligence is want of care required by the circumstances. Fault or negligence 1173. 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. was not qualified to do so at the time of the accident. the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation. the horse stumbled. if touched by a person. was driving a jeep on his way back to Clark Air Force Base. Manila Facts: Plaintiff drove home in a calesa. would endanger life of that person by electrocution Compliance with a franchise. 69 SCRA 263 Nature: Petitioner for certiorari to review the decision of the CFI. of the time and of the place.. or a statute is not conclusive proof that there was no negligence. Even if crossbars were not put down and that there was no guard. 2201. one end of which was left hanging on the post and other fell to the ground under the fallen banana plants. bad faith.
2. ordinance. 21.
jumped around and was killed by the passing car. Issue: WON there was negligence Held: Yes. He then turned to the right but passed so closely to the horse that the latter being frightened. While he was proceeding down the general Lacuna Street. the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care. He also saw Cirpriano Baldomero. 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. Picart was thrown off the horse and suffered contusions. But if his negligence was only contributory. the plaintiff may recover damages. 3 years and 8 months old. or Seeing that there were no other persons on the bridge. 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). and got electrocuted and subsequently died. 37 Phil 809 Nature: Facts: Plaintiff Picart was riding a pony on a bridge. Seeing an automobile ahead. When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury. he cannot recover damages. Contributory negligence 2179. Issue: WON there was negligence Held: Yes • primary for Phoenix • Contributory for car driver
. 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. Issue: WON there was negligence Held: Yes. supra Last Clear Chance Picart vs. 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. he swerved his car to the left but it was too late and his car smashed into the dump truck.The following morning. he saw a Ford dump truck parked on the right hand side of the street. 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. Control of situation had passed to defendant and it was his duty to bring his car to an immediate stop. chanced upon the place. he improperly pulled his horse over to the railing on the right. and told latter about the wire but Baldomero said he could not do it. Rakes vs AG&P Co. laborer at the plant. Phoenix Construction vs IAC. Instead. of their functions. touched the wire. Smith. but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. Dumptruck was parked askew and no lights or any so-called early warning reflector devices were set anywhere near the truck. barrio captain saw broken wire and warned people not to go near wire. Later. he claimed that his headlights suddenly failed and when he switched them to bright. The driver of the automobile. he was going to look for a lineman to do it. 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. Manuel Saynes. however guided his car toward the plaintiff without diminution of speed until he was only a few feet away. To avoid collision.
a cargo truck from the opposite direction collided with the jeep. Inc. Thinking that truck driver was just joking. bus driver saw the truck’s front wheels wiggling and he also observed that truck was heading towards his lane.was running fast . Facts: Engineer Calibo was driving jeep owned by Bacnotan Consolidated Industries.vehicle was an old 1947 cargo truck whose front wheels were already wiggling • Court also found bus driver negligent: . has itself been rejected. as it has been in 2179 of CC. 211 SCRA 517 Nature: Petition for review from the resolution of the then IAC Facts: Cargo truck Ford escort Driver Ruben Galang Jose Koh Owner Tayag and Manalo
. With him were Roranes and Patos. Glan People’s Lumber and Hardware vs NLRC Nature: Petition for certiorari to review the judgment of the CA. bus driver shifted from 4 th to 3rd gear so he could overtake a Kubota hand tractor. ripping off the said wall from the driver’s sear to the last rear seat. 193 SCRA 603 Nature: Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the CA Facts: Gravel and sand truck Mazda passenger bus Driver Montesiano Susulin Owner Del Pilar Magtibay and Serrado
Truck and bus collided.
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. Calibo was killed while his companions sustained injuries. At about 59 yards after crossing the bridge. The front left side portion of the body of the truck sideswiped the left sidewall of the passenger bus. Witnesses: jeep was zigzagging because driver was drunk. Truck’s driver was unhurt. truck was within its own lane and driver had already applied brakes) Bustamante vs CA. Jeep driver’s duty was to seize the opportunity of avoidance. by stopping in his turn or swerving his jeep away from the truck. wither of which he had sufficient time to do while running at a speed of only 30 km/hr.should have stopped bus pr swerved it to the side of the road even down to its shoulder McKee vs IAC. (also. the 2 vehicles sideswiped each other.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. While in the process of overtaking tractor.
While truck was about 30 meters away. not merely to expect truck to swerve and leave him a clear path.road was descending . Several passengers of the bus were thrown out and died as a result of their injuries. • Court found truck driver negligent: . Issue: WON Calibo had the last clear chance to avoid the accident Held: Yes Ratio: While still 30 meters away from truck.
5 meters in width. Jose Koh. the provisions of Article 2180 are applicable.
. a person driving a vehicle is presumed negligent if at the time of the mishap. and is required to act without tie to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger. are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them. 1955. of about 1.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. Although no part of the Gil-Armi building caught fire. from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy. could have. who was in the vehicle. by the use of due diligence. 51 SCRA 181 Nature: Appeal from decision of CA Facts: The Realistic Institute was a vocational school for hair and beauty culture. swerved to the left and entered the lane of the truck. Section 491 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila provided that for a building such as the one where the institute was. If the owner was not on the motor vehicle. if he had been found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding 2 moths. He attempted to return to his lane but before he could do so. Jose Koh blew the horn of his car. common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. In case of death of or injuries to passengers. 1733. 1756. the owner is solidarily liable with his driver. 2180. On Oct 24. such as firearms and poison. 4 students were found dead and several others injured on account of the panic which ensued and the subsequent stampede. and 1745 nos.2185. emergency rule applies Ratio: emergency rule: one who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger. Common carriers. in not guilty of negligence. Fernandez. it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap. 2185. The 2nd floor of the building had only 1 stairway. -Truck and Ford collided in Pulong Pulo Bridge along MacArthur Highway.Issue: WON Koh was negligent Held: NO. 7 while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in 1755 and 1756.
Teague vs. 5. Such extraordinary diligence is vigilance over the goods further expressed in 1734. 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. IN motor vehicle mishaps. a fire broke out in a store for surplus materials located 10 meters away from institute. prevented the misfortune. truck driver did not reduce its speed before the actual impact of collision. 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. he already collided with the cargo truck. if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method. using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons. if the former. 1735. 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 . A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide.To avoid hitting 2 boys who suddenly darted from the right side of the road and into the lane of the car. 6. 1755. he was violating any traffic regulation Presumed negligence 2184. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent. at least 2 unobstructed stairways of not less than 1 meter and 20 cm in width should be constructed. with a due regard for all the circumstances. 3 people in the Ford escort died including the driver. across the street. according to all the circumstances of each case. unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought by his own negligence . except when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business. 2188. unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in 1733 and 1755. It was owned and operated by Mercedes Teague. Unless there is proof to the contrary. he was violating any traffic regulation.
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. Issue: WON doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to the case at bar Held: Yes Ratio: The unusual event that the barge. In the ordinary course of events. that the accident arose from want of care.F.’ Barge rammed against one of the wooden piles of the Nagtahan bailey bridge. aside from the fact that the defendant did not have a permit to use building as a schoolhouse. failure to conform to such standard is negligence. Manila Facts: (oblicon case ‘to.. 21 SCRA 279 Nature: Appeal from a decision of the CFI. F. in the absence of explanation by the defendant. 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. exclusively controlled by appellant. Fire broke out. varnish and fuel and lubricants
. Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) Africa vs Caltex. paint. 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. • station was located in a very busy district near the Obrero market where it is common to see people smoking or lighting a cigarette • concrete walls (fire wall) were only 2 ½ meters high and could not avoid flames from leaping over it in case of fire • station also housed a garage and repair shop-overcrowding Republic vs Luzon Stevedoring Co. an immovable and stationary object. including personal properties and effects inside them. Incident happened because of want of care on Caltex’ part. an unknown person lighted a cigarette and threw the burning match stick near the main valve of the underground tank. Fire broke out in petitioner’s shop and both shop and house were razed to the ground. sawdust. negligence per se or negligence in and of itself. River at the time was swollen and current swift on account of a heavy downpour. such a thing does not happen if proper care is used. 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.Issue: WON negligence could be presumed in the case at bar Held: YES Ratio: when the standard of care is fixed by law. 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. 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. in the absence of a legal excuse. 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. spread to and burned several neighboring houses. Request fell on deaf ears. smashing posts and causing bridge to list. Cruz vs CA. it affords reasonable evidence.
Veloso. under the circumstance involved. 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 Afialda vs Hisole Nature: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI. Ratio: doctrine can be invoked when and only when.
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. Defendant’s truck bumped the plaintiff and latter was injured and hospitalized. is liable for any damages it may cause. Facts: Plaintiff and companion wee repairing the tire of their cargo truck which was parked along the right side of the National Highway. or the one who uses the same. direct evidence is absent and not readily available Evidence on record discloses that: • 3 or 4 meters from rear of parked truck. Iloilo Facts: Afialda was employed as caretaker of defendant spouses’ carabaos.
. Plaintiff seeks to hold defendants liable under 1905: The possessor of an animal. even if such animal should escapre from him or stray away. 167 SCRA 363 Nature: Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the then IAC.
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. 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. While tending the animals. J. This liability shall cease only in case the damage should arise from force majeure or from fault of the person who may have suffered it. he was gored by one of them and later died as a consequence of his injuries.
for the purpose of transporting the latter’s lumber 4. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution xxx Order of dismissal of lower court revoked. stopped the truck for the purpose of rearranging it. that the lumber was owned by Norton & Harrison Co. CUISON v NORTON & HARRISON CO. filed a complaint for damages against Estanda’s employer. upon noticing that the lumber had become loosened. defendant Echarri. Having in view the above provisions of law. However. a civil action for damages entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action. The child’s father. a complaint for damages was filed. all 3 of them are below 18). causing physical injuries to the latter. Likewise. 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. the provisions of Article 2180 applies. 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. Consequently. some large pieces of lumber fell from the truck and pinned beneath it a 7-year old boy who was passing by. ISSUE: Won Norton & Harrison should be held responsible HELD: YES
. Article 2184 provides that If the owner was not in the motor vehicle. as capataz (foreman) and that it was his duty as such employee to direct the loading and transportation of lumber 5. Estanda struck a child. 1957 FACTS: While driving his employer’s car. 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. plaintiff Ortaliz. Subsequently. October 14. The driver and his companion in the truck were charged with the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence to which they pleaded guilty. a criminal case for Slight Physical Injuries Through Reckless Imprudence was filed against Estanda. that Ora was also employed by Norton & Harrison Co. before it could be rearranged.•
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. The boy died instantly. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was subsequently convicted. the truck in question was owned by Antonio Ora 2. even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. the complaint of Ortaliz’s contained a sufficient cause of action. 3. may be brought by the injured party. that Ora had regularly rented out his truck to Norton & Harrison Co. The driver. 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. who was with two other people (Binoya and Bautista. the contention of Echarri that plaintiff should have reserved the civil action is untenable in view of Article 33: In cases of physical injuries.” 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. that the driver of the truck and his companions were also in the employ of Norton & Harrison. SC would later confirm from testimony that: 1.
MA. WF and SN. The PAL employees then made appropriate arrangements so that he could take the PAL’s flight to Taipei the ff day. CAL was exonerated. In its defense. PAL. departing from Manila for Taipei. thereby warranting award for moral damages. that China Airlines did not inform the issuing PAL branch of the revised timetable of CAL flights PAL asserted a cross-claim against CAL. defendant Norton & Harrison Co. thus making them his employees in such work. including PAL. 1902 & 1903. It is evident that Ora was a contractor and employee at the same time of Norton & Harrison Co. When Pagisibigan showed up at the airport an hour before the supposed scheduled time of departure. It did not award moral damages. as an employer of Ora. 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. and consequently the employees of Norton and Harrison through him. Norton & Harrison are therefore civilly liable for the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence committed by these 2 employees. 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. he used the services of Bautista and Binoya for the loading and unloading of said lumber. CHINA AIRLINES LTD v COURT OF APPEALS May 18. as a result of which he suffered besmirched reputation. China Airlines. Ora was charged with the duty of directing the loading and transportation of the lumber. As an employee of Norton. issued to Pagsibigan the plane ticket which showed that the latter had been booked at the June 10. TC found PAL and Roberto Espiritu jointly and severally liable by way of exemplary damages. For his negligence. Such distinction is important because Norton & Harrison Co. that all airlines. A few months after. 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. were informed of the revised schedule of flights 2. Pagsibigan took the re-scheduled flight. 1968 5:20 PM flight of China Airlines. he filed a complaint for moral damages and attorney’s fees against PAL. that notices of these revised sked were furnished to all sales agent 3. ISSUE: Who should be held liable
. through its ticketing agent Roberto Espiritu. As such foreman. he was informed that the CAL plane he was supposed to take for Taipei had left at 10:20 AM that day. the departure time indicated on Pagsibigan’s plane ticket was furnished and confirmed by China Airlines 2. The said agency contacted Philippine Airlines which at that time was a sales and ticketing agent of China Airlines. and sufficient allegation in the present action that Bautista and Binoya committed the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence. Judgment reversed. he is not an independent contractor. embarrasment. averred 1. 1990 FACTS: Jose Pagsibigan purchased a plane ticket for a Manila-Taipei-Hongkong-Manila flight from the Transaire Travel Agency. It awarded nominal damages. He alleged that Espiritu had been grossly negligent in his duties. is also responsible for the death. In the performance of his duties as foreman. for its part. (mejo mahirap intindihin ang syllogism ng decision) Villareal. PAL alleged that: 1. Ora was the agent or employee of Norton & Harrison. And it was the negligence in loading the lumber and the use of minors on the truck which caused the death of the boy. retained the power of directing and controlling his work. CA ruled out claim for moral and exemplary damages. and not by Art. Since there was a criminal complaint filed. However.
they bumped a pedestrian walking in his lane. to enforce the civil liability of CAL for breach of contract and. Upon swerving. however. who already had a student’s driver’s license. a perusal of the complaint of Pagisbigan will disclose that the allegations therein make out a case for a quasi-delict. . PAL failed to overcome such presumption. there are admitted exceptions. all that is required is that the employee. he could have sued CAL alone considering that PAL is not a real party to the contract. However. 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. to recover from PAL and Espiritu for tort or culpa aquiliana. . after negotiating a sharp dangerous curb. IN an action premised on the employee’s negligence. Espiritu is primarily liable to Pagisbigan under Article 2176 of the CC. PAL was duly informed of CAL’s revised sked. Under Article 2180. As a general proposition. However. It is thus evident that when Pagsibigan sensed that he cannot hold CAL liable on a quasi-delict. Funtecha. Had Pagisibigan intended to maintain an action based on breach of contract. and this suffices to hold the employer primarily and solidarily liable for the tortious act of the employee. what is sought to be imposed is the direct and primary liability of PAL as an employer. Masa stopped the vehicle he was driving and allowed Funtecha to take over behind the wheel. as in this case where the agent is being sued for damages arising from a tort committed by his employee. For the failure of PAL to rebut the legal presumption of negligence. PAL. According to SC. by claiming that his action against CAL is based on breach of contract of carriage. that is. 1992 FACTS: Funtecha was a working student. likewise.
. As found by CA. SC noted that Pagsibigan has opted to seek redress by pursuing two remedies at the same time. 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. This presumption. In view of the proscription against double recovery. there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the employer. PAL had been issuing and selling ticket based on said revised time sked. Funtecha came upon a fast moving truck so that he had to swerve to the right to avoid a collision. requested Masa. CA exonerated CAL of any liability for fault or negligence. But there is no basis to hold CAL liable on a quasi-delict. ISSUE: Won Filamer Christian Institute should be held liable HELD: YES First it should be noted that driving the vehicle to and from the house of the school president were both Allan and Funtecha reside is an act in furtherance of the interest of the petitioner-school. the school driver and son of the school president. Decision modified. PAL’s main defense is that is only an agent. and in fact. When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee. it is also primarily liable under Article 2180 of CC. Assenting to the request. an agent who duly acts as such is not personally liable to 3rd persons. . can demand from Espiritu reimbursement of the amount which it will have to pay the offended party’s claim. One day. FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE v IAC August 17. With respect to PAL and Espiritu . . 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. he made a detour on appeal. to allow him to drive the school vehicle. The pedestrian died due to the accident. For his negligence. by his negligene. 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. committed a quasi-delict which caused damage to another.HELD: PAL With respect to CAL . however. SC deemed it wise to determine the true nature of the action instituted by Pagsibigan.
Thus, in learning how to drive while taking the vehicle home in the direction of Allan’s home, Funtecha definitely was not having a joy ride or for enjoyment, but ultimately, for the service for which the jeep was intended by the petitioner school. (School president had knowledge of Funtecha’s desire to learn how to drive.) 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 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. It is sufficient that the act of driving at the time of the incident was for the benefit of the school. Petitioner school has failed to show that it exercised diligence of a good father of a family. 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. Furthermore, 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. Thus, 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. The liability of the employer, under Article 2180, is primary and solidary. However, the employer shall have recourse against the negligent employee for whatever damages are paid to the heirs of the plaintiff. 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, includes any act done by an employee, 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, the employee driving the vehicle derived some benefit from the act, 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. Rule X, which provides for the exclusion of working scholars in the employment coverage and on which the petitioner is anchoring its defense, is merely a guide to the enforcement of the substantive law on labor. 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. Present case does not involve a labor dispute. An implementing rule on labor cannot be used by an employer s a shield to avoid liability under the substantive provisions of the CC. Motion granted.
DUAVIT v COURT OF APPEALS May 18, 1989 FACTS: The jeep being driven by defendant Sabiniano collided with another jeep, which had then 2 passengers on it. 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. A case was filed against Sabiniano as driver and against Duavit as owner of the jeep. Duavit admitted ownership of the jeep but denied that Sabiniano was his employee. Sabiniano himself admitted that he took Duavit’s jeep from the garage without consent or authority of the owner. He testified further that Duavit even filed charges against him for theft of the jeep, 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 employeremployee relationship between them, and that former took the vehicle without consent or authority of the latter. CA held the two of them jointly and severally liable. 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.
HELD: NO In Duquillo v Bayot (1939), 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. This ruling is still relevant and applicable, and hence, must be upheld. CA’s reliance on the cases of Erezo v Jepte and Vargas v Langcay is misplaced and cannot be sustained. In Erezo v Jepte case, 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 was thus estopped from later on denying such representation. In Vargas, Vargas sold her jeepney to a 3rd person, but she did not surrender to the Motor Vehicles Office the corresponding AC plates. So when the jeepney later on figured in an accident, she was held liable by the court. holding that the operator of record continues to be the operator of vehicle in contemplation of law, as regards the public and 3rd persons. The circumstances of the above cases are entirely different from those in the present case. Herein petitioner does not deny ownership of vehicle but denies having employed or authorized the driver Sabiniano. The jeep was virtually stolen from the petitioner’s garage. Decision and resolution annulled and set aside. DULAY v COURT OF APPEALS April 3, 1995 FACTS: While Benigno Torzuela was on duty as security guard of “Big Bang sa Alabang”, he shot and killed Atty. Napoleon Dulay after an altercation occurred between them in the premises of said establishment. The heirs of Dulay filed a complaint for damages under Article 2176 against Torzuela and Safeguard Investigation and Secuirty Co., Inc. and/or Superguard Security Corp, alleged employers of defendant Torzuela. In the complaint, Safeguard and Superguard were impleaded as alternative defedants for, while Safeguard appears to be the employer of Torzuela, Superguard impliedly acknowledged responsibility for his acts by extending sympathies to the plaintiffs. Meanwhile, an Information charging Torzuela with homicide was filed with RTC Makati. 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. They alleged that Torzuela’s act of shooting was committed with deliberate intent (dolo), and he acted beyond the scope of his duty. Upon motion, 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. 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. Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that Section 1. When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal 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. This is precisely what the petitioners opted to do in this case. However, 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. What is then the nature of petitioner’s action? Contrary to the theory of private respondents, there is no justification for limiting the scope of Article 2176 of the CC to acts or omissions resulting from negligence. Well-entrenched is the doctrine that Article 2176 covers not only acts committed with negligence, but also acts which are voluntary and intentional (See Elcano v Hill & Andamo v IAC) And, as argued by petitioners, 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, as in the instant case. It having been established that the instant action is not ex-delicto, petitioners may proceed directly against Torzuela and the private respondents. Because of the principle of vicarious responsibility, 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. The petitioner’s complaint sufficiently alleged an actionable breach on the part of Torzuela and Superguard and/or Safeguard. BUT WON the shooting was attended by negligence or actually done within the scope of Torzuela’s duties; WON Superguard and/or Safeguard failed to exercise due diligence are matters that should be resolved after trial on merits. Case remanded to RTC for trial on merits. DE LEON BROKERAGE CO INC v CA February 28, 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, Luna. Luna had been prosecuted and convicted of the crime of homicide with physical injuries thru reckless imprudence. The driver of the passenger jeepney was acquitted. In this criminal action, Luna reserved her right to file a separate civil action. She eventually filed an action for recovery of moral and exemplary damages against Luna and De Leon Brokerage. To prove Luna’s negligence, she presented the judgment of conviction TC held the 2 solidarily liable. CA affirmed. At the appellate court, De Leon claimed that: 1. complaint is not clear whether she was suing for damages resulting from quasi-delict or for civil liability arising from crime, since the averments are more characteristic of an action of the latter nature 2. judgment of conviction inadmissible as evidence of a quasi-delict 3. Luna was not in the discharge of his duties at the time of the accident 4. it cannot be held solidarily liable with Luna ISSUE: What is the nature of Steen’s cause of action: quasi-delict or delict HELD: Quasi-delict Steen’s complaint is based on quasi-delict. 1. She alleged that she suffered injuries because of Luna’s carelessness and imprudence 2. She averred that there exists an employer-employee relationship between Luna and De Leon Since there is the averment in No. 2, there is a clear statement of a right of action under Article 2180 of the CC. Complaint does not, and did not have to allege that De Leon did not exercise due diligence in choosing and supervising Luna, because this is a matter of defense. At any rate, whatever doubts as to the nature of Steen’s action are resolved by her prayer that the 2 be held solidarily liable. Notwithstanding the presentation of the judgment of conviction, it is clear that Steen did not base her suit on criminal conviction. The mention of criminal conviction merely tended to support her claim that Luna had been recklessly negligent in driving the truck, which caused her injuries. 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. She waited for the results of the criminal action because she wanted to be sure which driver and respective employer she could rightly sue, since both Luna and the driver of the jeep were prosecuted. And she reserved because otherwise, the court in the criminal proceeding would have awarded her indemnity, since the civil action for recovery of civil liability is deemed instituted with the criminal action. The reservation in the criminal action does not preclude a subsequent action based on a quasi-delict. It cannot be inferred therefrom that Steen had chosen to file the very civil action she had reserved. At any rate, 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 - a defense available only to employer being sued under a quasi-delict.
and apparently thoroughly competent. make her responsible for the results of the accident. Although the mother purchased the automobile. Reason for his return to Manila is not clear. 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. 1912 FACTS: Fausta Litonjua purchased an automobile and later turned it over to International garage.
BAHIA v LITONJUA AND LEYNES March 30. While she may have been in one sense the owner of the machine. The automobile crushed the child to death. Ramirez also supplied Leynes a chauffeur and a machinist for the purpose of conveying to and from Balayan and Tuy. the chauffeur who was driving the auto was a servant of Leynes. in as much as the profits derived from the trips of the auto belonged to him and the auto was operated under his direction. As a consequence. Ramirez was not made a party. SC found that defendant had exercised due diligence when he obtained the machine from a reputable garage. which is owned and managed by his son Ramon Ramirez.” Judgment affirmed. As part of the daily operations of his business. Ramirez rented the automobile donated by his mother to Mariano Leynes. Ramirez. 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. she turned it over to the garage of her son for use therein. ISSUE: Who should be held responsible HELD: SC opined that the action as to Fausta was properly dismissed. and Leynes. presumption of negligence on the part of the employer whenever there is an injury caused by the negligence employee 2. 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. under the other facts of the case. In the absence of determinative proof that there was a cessation or suspension of his service. the automobile refused to obey the direction of the driver in turning a corner due to a defect in the steering gear. the evidence shows that the
. 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. it rammed into the wall of a house against which the daughter of plaintiff Bahia was leaning at the time. 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. While is may be said that.under who was directing and controlling the operation of the automobile at the time of the accident. presumption is juris tantum and may be rebutted. Under Article 1903 of the CC (now Article 2176). at the time of the accident. De Leon must still be held liable since it failed to prove exercise of due diligence. As to selection. 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. It appears that Fausta was not aware of the contract with Leynes. which so far as appeared in good condition. The workmen were likewise selected from a standard garage. The establishment belonged to the son. but it does not appear that he was on errand of his own. Bahia then filed an action against the Fausta (donor of auto). and he had the full management and control of it and received all the profits therefrom. this fact is not conclusive in making him responsible for the negligence of the chauffeur or for the defects in the auto itself. that fact does not. either actual or constructive of the defective condition of the steering gear. TC found Leynes liable but dismissed complait against Fausta. In the instant case. 2180 as “owners of an establishment or enterprise. were duly licensed. The judgment against Leynes must be reversed and the complaint against him must be dismissed. 2 things are apparent: 1. nevertheless. While in Balayan.
Hence. Assisted by her parents. In the instant case. MMTC should have presented other evidence. As held in Gutierrez v Gutierrez. It was caused by a defect in the machine as to which the defendant has shown himself free from responsibility. by seeing to it that its employees were in proper uniforms. then driven by Calebag and owned by Lamayo. As joint tortfeasors. both drivers. At the trial court. she filed a complaint for damages against the drivers of the automobiles and their respective employers. MMTC presented its training officer and its transport supervisor who respectively testified that: 1. Judgment of CA affirmed. 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. Such party must present all available evidence at his disposal in the manner that may be necessary to buttress his claim. that it checked its employees to determine WON they were positive for alcohol and d. and evidence as to the alleged written guidelines of the company. when it collided with a bus driven by Leonardo and owned by the Metro Manila Transit Corp (MMTC). As a result of the collision. inasmuch as the witnesses’ (training supervisor and transport supervisor) dwelt on mere generalities. the drivers and owners of the said vehicles shall be primarily. 1976 FACTS: Benigno Gutierrez was awarded by the Bureau of Public Works the contract to construct a drainage in Manila. a. MMTC solidarily liable. that they followed other rules and regulations of the Bureau of Land Transportation and of the company. object or documentary. METRO MANILA TRANSIT CORP v CA June 21. CA modified TC’s decision by holding MMTC solidarily liable with the other defendants on the ground that the testimonies of the training officer and transport supervisor were not enough to overcome the presumption of negligence. briefed in traffic rules and regulations before the start of duty. they were not able to present any evidence that its driver has complied with all the clearances and trainings. ISSUE: Did MMTC exercise due diligence. directly and solidarily liable for damages and it is immaterial that one action is based on quasi-delict and the other on culpa contractual. as well as Lamayo (owner of the jeepney) were held solidarily liable for damages sustained by Custodio. 2. they cannot be considered as sufficiently persuasive proof that MMTC observed due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees. but was also strict and diligent in supervising its employees.
. MMTC fell short of the required evidentiary quantum as would convincingly and undoubtedly prove its diligence. since she was still a minor. MMTC was absolved on the ground that it exercised diligence of a good father of a family in selecting and supervising its employees. 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. b.death of the child was not caused by a failure to promulgate rules and regulations. Custodio suffered physical injuries. and c. He engaged Domingo Balisala as project engineer. to buttress an apparently biased testimony. where the injury is due to the concurrent negligence of the drivers of the colliding vehicles. Declarations are not enough. 1993 FACTS: Nenita Custodio was a paying passenger of a public utility jeepney. the case is undoubtedly based on a quasi-delict under Article 2180. TC found both drivers concurrently negligent. 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. It is procedurally required for each party in case to prove his own affirmative assertion by the degree of evidence required by law. it was not only careful and diligent in choosing and screening applicants for job openings.
GUTIERREZ v CA November 29.
Miguel Lasa struck the wharf of Walter Smith at the port of Olutanga. She was buried underneath and eventually died. 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"
. Under the supervision of Balisalisa. 1903: "Owners or directors of any establishment or business are in the same way liable for any damages caused by their employees while engaged in the branch of the service in which employed or on the occasion of the performance of their duties. ISSUE: Are defendants liable for moral and exemplary damages. in the course of its maneuvers. The wharf was old. 30. 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. More so with respect to Gutierrez so that other contractors similarly situated will be more careful. actual expenses. if not intelligence. therefore. Mabini Elementary School along the street. the contract between the government and Gutierrez stipulated that the contractor would furnish himself his own labor plant. 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. When the pile of earth and mud reached the height of the fence. ISSUE: WON Cadwallader as owner of the steamship is liable for the damages caused by said steamship HELD: No. steamer Helen C. The parents of the child filed a suit for actual. moral and exemplary damages against Gutierrez and Balisalisa. which was fragile. RATIO: This case deals with an obligation arising from culpa aquiliana or negligence and must be decided in accordance with Art 1902-1903. TC ordered the 2 jointly and severally to pay the parents of the deceased moral and exemplary damages. The earth and the mud dig up were scooped by the crane and dumped against the exterior side of the adobe stone of A. could be reasonably expected by any person of ordinary prudence. 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. 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. The collapse. commanded by Capt. was hit and pinned down by the falling debris of the wall. the crane’s steel scooper was used to press them down. owned by Cadwallader. being made only of adobe held together by mortar and w/out reinforcements. Negligence of defendants has been clearly established by evidence. When an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or employee. attorney’s fees and costs of suit. CA affirmed judgment. Two things are apparent from Art 1903: 1. The wharf was partially demolished and the timber piled on it were thrown into the water. Zamboanga. 2. WALTER SMITH & CO vs CADWALLADER FACTS: On Aug. When the adobe wall collapsed. SC quoted with approval the basis of TC’s award for moral and exemplary damages. 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. the workers of Gutierrez dug up a street by means of crane.1926. TC however did not make any definite findings on the negligence of the captain. they should be held responsible for moral and exemplary damages. Because of the heavy stress thus placed on the fence. 2. In Art. HELD: YES Employer-employee relationship existed between the them and the crane operators: 1. defense of alleged non-existence of such relationship cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. For this omission on their part. The steamship slightly struck the wharf but not with such force since it was difficult for her to strike it with such force. a school child who was then playing inside the school grounds. They should have foreseen the danger but they failed to take the necessary precautions. Judgment affirmed. no evidence is necessary to show that defendants were negligent in the performance of their obligation. a portion of it gave way and collapsed. Indeed.
Ferdinand died as a result. Such picnic had no permit from the school head or the principal since it was not a school sanctioned activity. The employees of MWD also did everything possible to bring the boy to life. A male nurse and sanitary inspector were employed. Cadwallader proved that the Capt. RATIO: Before the employer may be held liable for the negligence of his employee under Art 2180. 2176 is applicable to the case at bar HELD: No. the nurse and sanitary inspector injected camphorated oil and applied oxygen resuscitator. Swimming pools are equipped with ring buoy. 2. QC. 3. Cadwallader is thus absolved from all liability. 4. They exerted efforts to revive him but the boy died. The parents filed complaint against the school and the teachers contending that the death of their son was due to the failure of petitioners to exercise proper diligence of a good father of the family. 14. principal and one teacher.E. 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. Lasa and all officers of Helen C were duly licensed to hold their positions when the wharf collapsed. 6 trained and proficient lifeguards were employed and are on duty two at a time. Francis High School joined a picnic of 1-B and 1-C at Talaan Beach Sariaya Quezon. there is sufficient evidence to show that MWD had taken all necessary precautions: 1. toy roof. It was also not an extra-curricular activity. The class adviser of 1-C did her best and exercised diligence of a good father of a family to prevent any untoward incident or damage to all students who joined the picnic as evidenced by: 1. Lasa. ST. There is a clinic provided with oxygen resuscitator. oxygen resuscitator and first aid medicine kit. On female teacher was apparently drowning and some students came to her rescue. In addition. ISSUE: WON Art 2180 in relation to Art. the teachers /petitioners were not in the performance of their actual task. I-C of St.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. 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. and they were chosen for their reputed skill in directing and navigating the Helen C safely. inviting 2 P. 2. a doctor was sent for. 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.
. The incident happened not within school premises. towing line. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL vs CA FACTS: Ferdinand Castillo.E. 1952. 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. CA found school and principal liable with the teachers. the act or omission which caused the damage must have occurred while the employee was in the performance of his assigned task. Both P. Security guards are always available. Lastly. Between 4:40-4:45. life savers were especially brought by the teachers in case of emergency. went with his bros to the pool. 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. some boys noticed him swimming underwater for a long time. The lifeguard Manuel Abaño was then informed and he immediately jumped and retrieved the apparently lifeless body of Ong from the bottom. In the case at bar. 6. Abaño gave him manual artificial respirator. 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 negligence attributed to the teachers was not proven. carefully and efficiently. Bottom of pool is painted w/ black colors to insure clear visibility. 7. 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.In this case. TC found 6 teachers liable but dismissed the case against the school. 5. In July 5. teachers did all what is humanely possible to save the child. Dominador Ong. Rules and regulations governing use of pools are on display at conspicuous places. teachers and scout masters who have knowledge first aid application and swimming. its employees and that it had observed the diligence required by law under the circumstances . not on a school day and while the teachers and students were holding a purely private affair. In this case. 3. ONG vs METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT FACTS: Metropolitan Water District owns and operates 3 swimming pools in Balara.
this does not exempt the employees from personal liability. Then the plaintiff must show. collided with an ambulance of the General Hospital which turned suddenly and unexpectedly without having sounded any whistle or horn Merrit was severely injured. BELIZAR vs BRAZAS FACTS: Pedro Balizar. His silence and negligence in performing his role as principal head of the school must be construed as an implied consent of the activity. par 5 of Old CC states that:
. riding on a motorcycle at a speed of 10-12 mi/hr. or if there is proof of the existence of negligence on their part. 2180 CC provides for the liability of an employer for the tortious acts of his employees. he did some overtime work at petitioner’s office. to hold emplyer liable. Vasquez parents commenced an action for damages against Abad and Castilex. TC held that Gov’t is liable for damages sustained by plaintiff even if the collision was due to the negligence of chauffeur. although he may sue as joint defendants such author and the person responsible for him. pimps. Ratio: Although Art. But it is necessary to first establish the employee-employer rel’nship. 5. It was 2 am and way beyond normal working hours. Thereafter he went to a restaurant at a place known as a “haven for prostitutes. Since there is a paucity (scarcity. TC dismissed the complaint. His condition had undergone depreciation and his efficiency as a contractor was affected. Principal should have taken appropriate measures to ensure the safety of his students. Abad signed an acknowledgement of Responsible party wherein he would pay all the expenses. In the case at bar. He claims that due to their gross negligence in not providing the ferryboat with safety devices. CASTILEX INDUSTRIAL CORP vs VASQUEZ FACTS: On Aug. around 1:30-2 am. ISSUE: WON dismissal of case was correct HELD: No. Padilla agrees with CA that no proof was presented to absolve the manager/principal. CA affirmed but held that the liability of Castilex is only vicarious and not solidary. ISSUE: WON Gov’t may be held liable in this case HELD: NO RATIO: Art 1903. Brazas filed motion to dismmiss claiming that the plaintiff has no cause of action against them because they are being sued in their official capacities and therefor the claim for damages should be directed against the State. one of his autotrucks while being transported. especially as the present action is not one against the government. et al. insufficiency) of evidence that Abad was acting within the scope of the functions entrusted to him. it is undisputed that Abad was production manager of Castilex. fell into the river and was submerged for 30 hrs. His overtime had ended. So the injured party can bring an action directly against the author of the negligent act or omission. The fact that the duties and positions of defendants were indicated does not mean that they are being sued in their official capacities. Vasquez died at the hospital on Sept.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. It is only then that the employer can interpose the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employee. ISLAND FACTS: Merrit. Thus. filed a complaint against Forencio Brazas. TC held that both must pay jointly and solidarily. justice and equity require that Castilex be relieved of vicarious liability for the consequences of the negligence of Abad in driving its vehicle. especially if there are no persons having direct supervision over them. an employer is liable for the torts committed by emplyees within the scope of his assigned tasks. but did nothing about it. ISSUE: WON an employer may be held vicariously (subsidiarily) liable for the death resulting from the negligent operation by a managerial employee of a company-issued vehicle HELD: NO RATIO: Art 2180 par 5 says that WON engaged in any business or industry. 28. State MERRIT vs GOV’T OF PHIL. The defendants were being sued in their capacity as employees of Bureau of Public Highways. he suffered actual and moral damages. operator of Samar Express Transit. 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. As a consequence. At the night of the incident. 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. that the employee was acting within the scope of his assigned task when the tort complained of was committed. 1988.In this case. 1988. was in fact invited. the principal knew of the picnic.
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. 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 . Thus. ISSUE: WON Prov’l Gov’t is liable HELD: NO RATIO: To attach liability to the state. DISSENT: Perfecto. Mendoza held that if the negligent employee was engaged in the performance of governmental duties as distinguished from proprietary or business functions. Special agent is one who receives a definite and fixed order or commission. foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office if he is a special official. 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. The storing of gasoline and other combustible materials requires the securing of license and permit and ECA was not granted such permit. A fire erupted burning the bodega as well as neighboring houses including the house and personal property of Rosete. in which case the provisions of the preceding article shall be applicable” Thus. he ran over Proceto Palafox killing him. 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. 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. Art. an agency under the Dept. the government is not liable. are special agents. Thus the Gov’t is not liable. as illustrated in Mendoza case concerning liability of municipal corporations for negligent acts of its employees. The heirs of Palafox invoked the doctrine of respondeat superior. a declaration must be made that Torralba was a special agent within the scope of Art 1903 par 5. the government is liable for the damages caused by ECA. But this principle applies only to the Insular Gov’t as distinguished from prov’l or municipal gov’ts. The chauffeur of the ambulance of the General Hospital was not a special agent thus the Gov’t is not liable. 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. in representing the state and being bound to act as an agent thereof. of Public Works and Communications. Heirs bagan proceedings for damages against provincial gov’t.“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. executes the trust confided to him.CA upheld on the basis that ISU is engaged in the private business of purchase and sale of irrigation pumps. 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. Hence. Palafox was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence. ISSUE: WON State or its fund can be made liable for damages
. Jose Frayno ignited his cigarette-lighter near a 5-gallon drum into which gasoline was being drained. that the master shall answer. the responsibility of the State is limited by Art 1903 to the case wherein it acts through a special agent who. While driving his truck in compliance with his duties. 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. 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. ROSETE V AUDITOR GENERAL FACTS: Inside the building used by Emergency Control Administration as a bodega in which oil and gasoline were stored. Gov’t is not liable. The construction or maintenance of roads in which the driver worked at the time of the accident is admittedly governmental activities.
citing the ruling in Mercado v CA. CA holds Ciriaco. Thus execution cannot issue on a judgment against the state. without the father’s fault. last par: Lastly. relying on PD 552 and Angat River Irrigation System. The latter retaliated with a barrage of blows causing Palisoc to retreat. thus is governed by the Corporation Law. PD 552. and influence of the latter supersedes that of the parents. Issue: Whether teachers or head of the school can be held liable under Art 2180 Held: NO Art 2180. and Augusto quarreled over a pitogo. such that the control. While retreating. 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. so long as they remain in their custody. There being no proof that the making of the tortuous inducement was authorized. but these functions are only incidental to the principal aim of the agency. Palisoc stumbled on an engine block and fell unconscious.” The state and the community as a whole are largely benefited by the services the agency renders. “So long as they remain in their custody. Petitioner argues that the teacher or head of the school should be held liable because the incident took place in a Catholic School. this petition. It is authorized to exercise the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law. who was not its special agent. the state is at liberty to determine for itself whether to pay the judgment or not.HELD : NO RATIO: The ISU liability in inducing HIA to invade and occupy land of Ortiz arose from torts and not from contract. and not to any academic educational institution (Exconde v Capuno). NIA is a government agency vested with a corporate personality separate and distinct from the government (Sec 1. Augusto was the aggressor. The liability for tortuous acts of the student passes from the parent to the teacher. Other issues: Even if the liability of the state had been judicially ascertained. insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the NIA charter. He died thereafter. hence the parents were not liable under Art 2180. 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. on the right cheek with a piece of razor. and administering all national irrigation systems in the Philippines. NIA is allowed to collect fees and other charges as may be necessary to cover the cost of operation.” seems to contemplate a situation where a pupil lives and boards with the teacher. maintenance. teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices.” Daffon was of legal age at the time of the incident. etc. The incident occurred in Lourdes Catholic School. argues that NIA does not perform solely proprietary functions but is an agency of government tasked with governmental functions.petitioner not liable for moral damages Palisoc v Brillantes (41 SCRA 548) Facts: Palisoc and Daffon were classmates at the Manila Technical Institute (MTI). The trial court found Daffon guilty for quasi-delict (Why not a felony?). Jr. Augusto wounded Manuel. which is the irrigation of lands. Hence. et al v Angat River workers’ Union. NIA may also sue and be sued in court. liable for moral damages and expenses for the injury inflicted by his son. improving. RA 3601). where both were classmates. The provision only applies to an institution of arts and trades. he remarked that Palisoc was acting like a foreman. Under Sec 2. and is therefore not liable for the tortious act of Garcia. Decision reversed . but absolved the defendants-officials of MTI. SolGen. Augusto’s father and herein petitioner. 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. rehabilitating. Fontanilla v Maliaman (194 SCRA 486) Facts: NIA driver Garcia bumped a bicycle ridden by petitioners’ son and Deligo. Such a situation does not exist in the case at bar since the students go home to their parents after class. While Daffon was working on a machine at the school’s laboratory. direction. The son dies because of injuries sustained from the accident. Palisoc slightly slapped Daffon in the face. a non-academic institution. Jr. including all communal and pump irrigation projects. and insurance and to recover the cost of construction. The cause of death was internal injuries “probably caused by strong fist blows.
. RECON DENIED WITH FINALITY Mercado v CA (108 Phil 414) Facts: Manuel. this motion for reconsideration. As a result. Hence. neither the state nor its funds can be made liable.
In this case. none of the private respondents were held liable. Judgment modified . in general. 3) there was no clear identification of the gun. As long as it can be shown that the student is in the school in the pursuit of a legitimate student objective. its rector. The restrictive interpretation of Art 2180 in Mercado should be maintained. contend that Alfredo went to school to submit his physics experiment. School may be held liable as an employer for damages caused by their employees under Art 2180. together with Pabling and two other students. Custody. should be the one responsible for the tortuous act of the child. dean of boys. The basis of the presumption of negligence in Art 2180 is some culpa in vigilando that the parents. Moreover. Where the parent places the child under the custody of the teacher. Since the basis of liability of teachers and school heads is in loco parentis.e. including recess time. 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. Alfredo’s parents filed a civil action to recover damages against CSJ. hence.
. hence. School heads and teachers. Amadora v CA (160 scra 315) Facts: Pabling Daffon shot classmate Alfredo Amadora in the auditorium of Colegio de San Jose. the high school principal. he was no longer under their custody since the semester had already ended. are supposed to have incurred in the exercise of their authority. to a certain extent. The CFI found the school officials liable for damages. the dean of boys. teachers. i. “so long as they remain in their custody” should be equated with “who live in their company. regardless of the nature of the school where he is teaching. The teacher-in-charge is liable for his students’ torts as he is designated to exercise supervision over them. In this petition for certiorari. 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. “teachers” should apply to the words “pupils and students” and “heads of establishments of arts and trades” to the word “apprentices. academic as well as non-academic. and 4) the defendants had exercised the necessary diligence in preventing the injury. and not the parent. however. in the exercise of a legitimate student right. etc. parents are responsible for the tortious acts of their minor children who live in their company. the latter. The injury subject of liability is caused by the student and not by the school or any of its personnel and equipment. Valenton. petitioners contend that Alfredo went to school to finish his physics experiment as a prerequisite for graduation. and the physics teacher.sorry na lang PARTIAL DISSENT (Melencio-Herrera) Restrictive meaning given to “teacher” as “teacher-in-charge” contravenes the concept of substitute parental authority. unless the latter can prove due diligence. Teachers. Following the cannon of reddendo singula singulis. He was convicted of homicide thru reckless imprudence. It may be inflicted by any student regardless of the school where he is registered. the responsibility of the school continues. 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. The rector. reversed the CFI decision because: 1) Art 2180 was not applicable since CSJ was not a school of arts and trades. and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student privilege. and school heads and teachers should not be responsible for damages caused by children who are no longer minors. 2) the students were not in the custody of the school at the time of the incident since the semester had already ended. The CA. PETITION DENIED . stand in loco parentis to students who remain in their custody. 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. Brillantes is not liable as being a member of the school’s board of directors.Daffon. The private respondents.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. and high school principal cannot be held liable because they were not teachers-in-charge. the teacher is liable regardless of the student’s age. he was under the custody of the private respondents. The school cannot be held directly liable since Art 2180 only speaks of teacher or head of the school of arts and trades. Under Art 2180. on the other hand. The physics teacher was not negligent. shall be liable for the acts of their students except where the school is technical in nature. as used in Art 2180. whether the semester has already begun or has already ended.” 2) NO The same vigilance is expected from the teacher over his students. the said provision should be applied by analogy. in which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable.
He left the boys to level the soil around the hole.NO Soriano is not liable since he is the head of an academic institution. Edgardo Aquino to help dig a hole beside a one-ton concrete block where the said block may be buried. Soriano . He went to an area where he would not be able to check on the children’s safety. REVERSED . prompting his parents to file an action for damages against PSBA. The IAC affirmed the decision with modification. Abon cannot be considered to have been at attendance in the school . as embraced in the phrase at attendance in the school. Castro died and Abon was convicted of homicide. 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. The lower court denied their motion to dismiss. and 3) Ylarde’s death was due to his own reckless imprudence. and was therefore within the “recess time” referred to in Palisoc v Brillantes. PSBA files a motion to dismiss arguing that it is beyond the ambit of Art 2180 since it is an academic institution. the petitioners cannot be held solidarily liable with Abon for damages under Art 2180. IAC ruled that the shooting incident occurred at about dismissal time. as contemplated in the law. who died as a result of injuries suffered after being crushed by a huge boulder.Salvosa v IAC (166 SCRA 274) Facts: Jimmy Abon was the duly appointed armorer of the Baguio Colleges Foundation ROTC. The academic institution undertakes to provide the student with education. PETITION GRANTED . BCF. BCF. and Soriano (the school principal) as head of school under Art 2180 Held: Aquino . and its officers for damages. 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. this petition. this petition.Aquino pays damages PSBA v CA (205 SCRA 729) Facts: Carlitos Bautista. A few minutes after he left. petitioner was clearly negligent in his duty. requested by their teacher. Castro’s heirs sue Abon. Recess. He dies. an obviously attractive nuisance. Petitioners’ suit was dismissed by the lower court for the ff reasons: 1) digging was in line with WorkEd. Issue: Whether respondents are liable for damages: Aquino for negligence under Art 2176. aged ten to eleven. herein private respondent. Aquino went to see Banez who was about 30m away. On that fateful night of 3 March 1977.YES. Novelito was among 18 students. a student of PSBA. Aquino’s negligent act of leaving his students in such a dangerous site is the proximate cause of Ylarde’s death. or the area within which the school activity is conducted. 2) Aquino exercised utmost diligence. was stabbed in the school’s premises by outsiders. Hence. There is a contractual relation that exists between academic institutions and students enrolled therein. or in the custody of BCF. including recess time. The CA affirmed the lower court’s decision. Only heads of schools of arts and trades are liable for torts committed by their students (Amadora v CA). when he shot Castro. 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. 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. The concrete block pinned Ylarde before he could get out. 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. He received his appointment from the AFP. and left the children close to the excavation. In this case. and allegedly told them not to touch the stone. the boys jumped into the pit. 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.petitioners are not solidarily liable Ylarde v Aquino (163 scra 697) Facts: Petitioners in this case are the parents of Novelito Ylarde. One of them jumped on top of the concrete block causing it to slide towards the pit’s opening. Abon shot fellow student Napoleon Castro in BCF’s parking space. and Ben Salvosa (BCF Pres) liable for damages. When the hole was deep enough to accommodate the block. By its nature. for whose acts the school could be made liable. Hence. Their motion for recon was also denied. this petition. Therefore. who also pays his salary and gives him orders. 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. He was also a commerce student of the same school. The trial court held Abon. it does not include dismissal. There is also an implicit obligation of providing
Petition granted . RCC filed a motion to dismiss arguing that it cannot be held liable because: 1) it is not the employer of Solomon. Prohibition Facts:
. i. then this amounts to a reservation of the right to have the civil liability litigated and determined in a separate action. in the ordinary course of events. this petition. Jr. was shot in the premises of RCC by security guard Jimmy Solomon. then the causative act or omission becomes divested of its penal element and becomes in effect a quasi-delict.. and denied petitioner’s motion for recon. unless the negligence occurs in bad faith. provide the proper security measures. Judge should have allowed petitioner to prove acts that constitute a breach of obligation ex contractu or ex lege on the part of RCC. 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. . Instructions given by the client to the guard are no more than requests commonly envisaged in the contract of services with the agency. Hence. As a general rule. Upon motion of the defendant. a client or customer of a security agency has no hand in selecting the guards that will be assigned to it. 29. Respondent judge was in serious error when he dismissed the action on the grounds that Soliman’s only cause of action was Art 2180. favorable or unfavorable. Jarantilla vs CA PETITION to review decision of CA Facts: Jose Kuan Sing sideswiped by a Volkswagen Beetle driven by Jarantilla. Pre-judicial questions which must be decided before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed. 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. Writ prayed for Denied. People vs. a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.the allegations of the complaint by Kuan Sing supports and is constitutive of a case for quasi-delict.case remanded to RTC for further proceedings 2. Petition denied Soliman. 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. Because of this contractual obligation. the rules on quasi-delict do not really govern. prejudicial questions Art. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence. A contractual relation is a condition sine qua on to the school’s liability for negligence. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Jr v Tuason (209 scra 47) Facts: Maximo Soliman. and 2) Art 2180 does not apply because Solomon is not a student of RCC.students with an atmosphere conducive to learning. The duty to observe due diligence in selecting the guards cannot. 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. RL security Agency. Petitioner Jarantilla acquitted on “reasonable doubt” Subsequently. -. The RTC granted the motion to dismiss. 36. If there is an acquittal.e. as to the civil liability of the accused. Zapanta vs Montesa ORIGINAL ACTION in the SC. Ritter 3. Another relevant doctrine given by jurisprudence: If the court fails to make any pronouncement. be demanded from the client. Sing filed Civil Case for damages involving the same subject matter and act in previous crim case. 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. and Solomon.It is allowed under Article 29 of the Civil Code. 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. a student of Republic Central Colleges. effect of acquittal Art. He filed a civil complaint for damages against RCC.
As seen in the rule. Also.her relatives forced. Held: Yes If there arises an issue/question in a case. The civil action does not decide that defendant-appellant Aragon did not enter the marriage against his will and consent. for the annulment of their marriage on the ground of duress. filed this action in SC. threatened. the annulment case was filed in Pampanga. Mtion denied. a marriage would be illegal and void. A decision thereon is not essential to the determination of the criminal charge. alleging that: . Held: Yes.. then there is a prejudicial question. w/o need for a marriage license. 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. and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. Petition granted. 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. But the question of invalidity can not be decided in the criminal action for Bigamy but in a civil action for annulment. 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. Trial court denied. Sept 1958: Zapanta filed motion in crim case of Bigamy to suspend proceedings therein on the ground that the determination of the issue involved in civil case was a prejudicial question. Aragon can not use his own malfeasance to defeat the action based on his criminal act. because the complaint does not allege that he was the victim of force and intimidation. Issue: WON action to annul marriage is a prejudicial question in a prosecution to Bigamy.May 1958: Olimpia Yco filed in CFI of Bulacan crim case of Bigamy against Zapanta. After pleading not guilty in crim case. it does not determine the existence of any of the elements of the charge of Bigamy. Certiorari with prohibition. Merced filed motion hold trial of crim case Motion Denied. Issue: WON such constitutes a prejudicial question. determination of force will prove that his act of contracting a second marriage while there was a subsisting one was involuntary. the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein. Merced vs Diez ORIGINAL Action in the Supreme Court. that this affidavit was used in securing their marriage of exceptional character. it is not a prejudicial question. Held: No. force and intimidation. Thus. 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. If there arises an issue/question in a case. and intimidation of bodily harm. 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. then there is a prejudicial question. June 1958: Zapanta filed in CFI of Pampanga a civil case against Yco. 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. There is a prejudicial question in the case at bar. Writ prayed for granted. 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. On the second element. as he contracted marriage with her when he was still validly married to a certain Estrella Guarin. dapat nag-motion for recon muna si Aragon Order appealed from affirmed. the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein. as he was previously married to a Eufrocina Tan.immediately left Liz after marriage and never lived with her . and Mtion for Recon denied. 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. Issue: WON crim case should be suspended / WON there was a prejudicial question. threats. While case pending. Here. Facts: Jan 1958: Abundio Merced filed a complaint for annulment of his second marriage with Elizabeth Ceasar. Without the element of consent. that he was forced into marrying Liz before Municipal Judge (lucky guy ) .he was asked to return to Cebu but refused. and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. scared he might be forced to live with Liz Feb 1958: Elizabeth Ceasar filed crim complaint for bigamy against Merced.
. Yco filed motion to dismiss but denied.
Damages awarded: P5. 19. P5. Sometime in April. The affair continued nonetheless. but then married Romanita Perez.. Every person must. 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. Basic principles. in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties. and P500 as attorney’s fees. CFI ordered payment of P 4. 20. even increasing the actual and moral damages. brothers and sisters of one Lolita Pe. 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. Plaintiffs are the parents.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. Every person who. succeeded in winning the affection and love of Lolita to the extent of having illicit relations with her. seduced the latter to the extent of making her fall in love with him. He was forbidden to see Lolita. Defense: granting that the facts alleged were true. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. Lolita was staying with her parents in the same town. exclusive of attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. to which Kiko was apprentice pilot). 21. Sometime in 1952. exemplary and corrective damages in the amount of P94. a collateral relative of Lolita's father. Defendant was an adopted son of a Chinaman named Pe Beco. as well as (2) for support of said child and (3) damages for breach of promise.500. Because of such fact and the similarity in their family name.000. shall indemnify the latter for the same. he has committed an injury to Lolita's family in a manner contrary to morals.
Hermosisima vs CA PETITION for review by certiorari Facts: Soledad Cabigas an Francisco Hermosisima were sweeathearts before.000. trial court: Complaint not actionable-. defendant became close to the plaintiffs who regarded him as a member of their family. "In the absence of proof on this point. forbidden to see each other. Pe vs Pe Plaintiffs brought this action before the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover moral. Even filed deportation proceedings against defendant.500 for actual and compensatory damages. On April 14. Art. 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. act with justice. The wrong he has caused her and her family is indeed immeasurable considering the fact that he is a married man.00. He stayed in the town of Gasan. good customs and public policy as contemplated in Article 21 of the new Civil Code. 1957. Soledad Cabigas filed with CFI of Cebu a complaint for (1) the acknowledgement of her child. contrary to law. 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. Indeed. but through a clever strategy.00 as damages and P2. Art.00 as attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. aside from support to child (P30 / month). 24 years old and unmarried Defendant Alfonso Pe is a married man and works as agent of La Perla Cigar and Cigarette Factory. in connection with occupation.Rule 111 (see ROC) HUMAN RELATIONS A. Kiko impregnated Soledad in a boat cabin (M/V Escaño. Found : note on a crumpled piece of paper inside Lolita's aparador -. but nevertheless proceded with the love affair. Lolita was staying with her brothers and sisters at their residence at 54-B España Extension. and observe honesty and good faith. give everyone his due. compensatory. CA affirmed. Verily. Francisco admitted paternity and willingness to support. Quezon City. 1957. thru an ingenious scheme or trickery. abuse of right Art. good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. BUT denied ever promising Soledad marriage. There was seduction and therefore liable for moral damages.000 as moral damages. Issue: WON moral damages are recoverable for breach of promise to marry. wilfully or negligently causes damage to another. Marinduque. Lolita disappeared from said house. they do not constitute a valid cause of action.failed to prove that defendant deliberately and in bad faith tried to win Lolita's affection. Started their clandestine love affair. no other conclusion can be drawn from this chain of events than that defendant not only deliberately. promised to marry her. Rumors reached Lolita’s parents. Held: No
68. Am leaving on the Convair today. moral damages are recoverable Article 2219 (10): moral damages are recoverable in the cases mentioned in Article 21 4. petitioner forced her to live with him. CALI's fuel needs are supplied by the defendant. Salamat mel!! Facts: • The Commercial Air Lines.Syquia case: Action for breach of promise to marry has no standing in the civil law. Inc (CALI) is a Philippine corporation engaged in the air transportation business. The next day. good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. SC does not find Kiko morally guilty of seduction because the CFI itself found that complainant “surrendered herself” to petitioner because.
Issue: WON there could be an action for damages Held: Yes. based on Article 21 Ratio: 1. the creditors agreed on the ff:
. oppressive. 2. etc vs Shell see Mel’s digest.CALI organized a luncheon meeting to inform all its creditors that the company was in a state of insolvency and had to stop operation. • CALI's Board of Directors explained that there was a proposed sale of CALI's assets in favor of Philippine Air Lines. petitioner began maltreating her and during a confrontation before the barangay captain of Guilig. Fitzgerald represented the defendant in such meeting. Article 21 provides: Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. he sent her the ff. the basis for the award was the fraud and deceit behind the promise to marry and the willful injury to her honor and reputation she had sex with him not because of lust but because of moral seduction “man’s promise to marry is the proximate cause of the acceptance of his love his representation to fulfill that promise Is the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress” 3. The balance sheet included a C-54 plane in the United States. • 08/06/48 . exemplary damages based on 2232: defendant acted in wanton. “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”. has broadened the scope of the law on civil wrongs 2. Wassmer vs Valdez Facts: Franciso Velez and Beatriz Wassmer decided to get married on September 4. Francisco left a note for his bride-to-be: Will have to postpone wedding-My mother opposes it.641. apart from the right to recover money or property advanced upon the faith of such promise. Petitioner visited her parents to secure their approval to the marriage. Article 21. cannot be held liable for criminal seduction because girl was above 18 Velayo. CALI's total indebtedness to the defendant at that time was P152. fraudulent. 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. • In the same meeting. reckless. CALI's balance sheet was also presented to the creditors. petitioner repudiated their marriage agreement and told her that he was married to someone in Bacolod City. Subsequently. Petitioner denied all allegation and even alleged that Gonzales had deceived him by stealing his money and passport. but based on Article 21 Ratio: 1. Damages: invitations were printed and distributed dresses bought matrimonial bed! Bridal showers and gifts received 3. Later. Two days before the wedding. The Shell Company of the Philippine Islands (defendant) is a corporation organized in England and licensed to do business here. Issue: WON an action for damages exists Held: Yes. 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. together with Articles 19 and 20. 1954.
he is chargeable therewith." • Hence. an American Corporation. Art.440. only then can insolvency proceedings be filed. the value shall be determined in the lower court. Held: YES Ratio: • It is obvious that defendant effected the transfer of its credit upon learning of the precarious economic situation of CALI. embezzles or disposes of any money. the proceeds of the eventual sale of the plane would pertain exclusively to Shell Oil. The next day. the provisions of the new civil code would still apply pursuant to Art. which is an American corp. He immediately sought a writ of injunction to restrain defendant from prosecuting the complaint filed in California. 2) That all of the creditors present should avoid presenting its claim before an insolvency court.. Velayo now confines his action to the recovery of damages against the defendant. The order of insolvency was issued by the court. • The court denied the petition for issuance of a writ of injunction because a Phil. 37 of the insolvency Law. the defendant company assigned its credit against CALI in favor of Shell Oil Company. the credit was increased to $85081. goods." 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. outside of the jurisdiction of the Phils. so it filed its own complaint with attachment before the CFI of Manila. it shall be effective at once. another creditor of CALI) learned of the action in the US. • Velayo was appointed assignee of CALI in the insolvency proceedings.The working committee met for the first time to study the way of making a fair division of the assets. having notice of the commencement of proceedings in insolvency. In case the creditors do not come to an agreement. which states that: "If any person. 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.
• 08/09/48 . (a sum equal to the value of the plane as compensatory damages. Hence. A writ of attachment was applied for and issued against the C-54 plane. The lower court dismissed the complaint for damages. (As a result of this writ.Shell Oil Company filed a complaint against CALI before the Superior Court of California for the collection of the assigned credit. or having reason to believe that insolvency proceedings are about to be commenced. • 10/07/48 . for $79. 2253 which states that: "But if a right should be declared for the first time in this Code. (In other words. good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. 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.Upon learning of the action in the US. the Nat'l Airports Corporation (NAC. chattels or effects of the insolvent. • Note: Even if the new civil code only took effect in 1950 and the acts complained of took place in 1948. before the assignment is made. provided said new right does not prejudice or impair any vested or acquired right of the same origin. court would not be in a position to enforce its orders against Shell Oil Company. Since there is no clear proof on record about the real value of the plane. On the very same day. 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. this appeal.
• Shortly thereafter. so the complaint of NAC was directed to the insolvency court. Issue: WON there was a betrayal of trust and confidence on the part of defendant company which can be made the basis for damages. • This is a clear violation of Sec. the stockholders of CALI decided to effect the sale of CALI's properties to PAL. even though the act or event which may give rise thereto may have been done or may have occurred under the prior legislation." • In addition. • 08/12/48 . • Having failed to restrain the progress of the attachment suit in California. 21 of the Civil Code provides that: "Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. and liable to an action by the assignee for double the value of the property sought to be embezzled or disposed of. • Fitzgerald was appointed to represent the creditors in the working committee..29. and the same amount as exemplary damages). instead of all the creditors) • Meanwhile.
. 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. CALI filed a petition for voluntary insolvency.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.
Every person must. Albenson made an extrajudical demand upon Baltao but latter denied that he issued the check or that the signature was his. in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties. they abused the right that they invoke. Issue: WON petitioner is liable for damages
. and initials. 20. 37 of Insolvency Law since what the defendant disposed of was actually his own credit and not any property of the insolvent company. However. It is clear that the other creditors were prejudiced. who manages the biz establishment. Such check was later dishonored for the reason “Account Closed. 1. Every person who. and to leave the office keys. Tobias was also told that a hundred more suits can be field against him. (Exemplary damages were reduced to P25000 after the motion for recon was filed)
Globe vs Mckay Facts: Restituto Tobias was employed by petitioner as purchasing agent and admin assistant to the engineering operations manager. Father filed complaint for damages. shall indemnify the latter for the same. All were dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. Tobias reported anomalies in company: fictitious purchases and other fraudulent transactions for which it lost several thousands of pesos. Even if they claimed that it was their right to dismiss Tobias. EL Woodworks. Sometime in 1972. Hendry wrote company stating that Globe Mackay dismissed Tobias due to dishonesty. Tobias passed lie detector test. Judgment reversed. contrary to law. Issue: WON petitioners are liable for damages to private respondent Held: Yes. act with justice. 5 for estafa thru falsification of commercial documents and 1 for discovering secrets thru seizure of correspondence. the SC belied this claim by explaining that if no attachment of the plane was made. However. 45% of their claims and not just 30%. Article 19 and remedied by Article 20. Hendry called him a crook and a swindler. 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. However. He was also ordered to take a lie detector test and to submit specimens of his handwriting. 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. willfully or negligently causes damage to another. it was argued that the other creditors were not prejudiced at all by the transfer of the credit. the effect as to the amount of damages awarded is the same. and observe honesty and good faith. 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. It was later discovered that private respondent had son: Eugene Baltao III. 2. Herbert Hendrry. to leave his table drawers open.” Company traced source of check and later discovered that the signature belonged to one Eugenio Baltao. give everyone his due.Note: The Court did not strictly apply Sec. When he reported back to work. 19. Ratio: Art. causing damage to Tobias and for which latter must be indemnified. 3. Company filed a complaint against Baltao for violation of BP 22. When Tobias sought employment with RETELCO. signature. Art. the other creditors would receive approx. • NOTE: In the motion for recon filed by defendant. Company still filed 6 criminal cases. 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. not to communicate with the office. A Pacific Banking Corporation Check was given and drawn against the account of EL Woodworks.
no abuse of right 2. When one of the parties is unable to read. the person enforcing the contract must show that the terms thereof have been fully explained to the former. personality. 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. Pursuant to this. it is done with intent to injure B. tender age or other handicap. Issue: WON the production and filming of picture constituted an unlawful intrusion upon his right to privacy
. exercised in bad faith 3. but which is contrary to morals. other govt agencies. the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited. In all contractual. 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. Ayer vs Capulong Facts: MTRCB. when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence. privacy and peace of ind of another Art. there is a legal right or duty 2.. 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. Even when an act or event causing damage to another's property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant. or other personal condition. for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another Elements under Article 21: contra bonus mores: 1. and the III. Ostentatious display of wealth Art. mental weakness. Every person who through an act of performance by another. 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. (4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs. (n) D. property or other relations. or any other means. 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. Sr. there is an act which is legal 2. 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. indigence. Protection of disadvantaged Art. 25. or if the contract is in a language not understood by him. though they may not constitute a criminal offense. the obligation to return it arises. and it was unduly delivered through mistake. E. Unjust enrichment Art. Ayer Productions wrote Enrile about film and enclosed a synopsis. 23. privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. (3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends. If something is received when there is no right to demand it. shall return the same to him. 24. the courts must be vigilant for his protection. and Pres Ramos approved the making of a film entitled The Four day Revolution. public order or public policy 3. good custom. place of birth. 1332.Held: NO Ratio: 1. and mistake or fraud is alleged. lowly station in life. ignorance. 26. Art. acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground. 22. shall produce a cause of action for damages. (1895) C. Respect for dignity. The following and similar acts. physical defect. Every person shall respect the dignity. Jr. personality. 3. Art. 2154.
Her parents asked the advice of one Father Reynes and subsequently agreed to recelebrate the marriage. Because of that incident. Parents: for having dissuaded and discouraged Vicenta from joining her husband and alienating her affections Vs. Pacita Noel had an amorous relationship. The right of privacy of a public figure is narrower than that of an ordinary citizen. and his character has become a public personage. by his accomplishments. no proof of malice 2. 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. acquired a foreign divorce and married an American. intrusion is limited to what it necessary to keep film a truthful historical account 4.000 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. without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken. Vicenta appeared to have acted independently and being of age. without just cause. Russel Leo Moran in Nevada. PUBLIC FIGURE: A person who. Case is based on article 21 and/or 27. Info was then filed.Held: NO Ratio: 1. also. However. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects. The elopement did not materialize because Vicenta’s mother discovered such marriage. fame. 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. Free Press. Vicenta left for the States. Dereliction of duty Art. film was about EDSA revolution and does not relate to the individual life and certainly not to the private life of Enrile 3. However. Subsequently. City Mayor advised appellee to investigate crime. 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. film was not yet completed. F. or mode of living. his affairs. thus no clear and present danger of any violation of any right to privacy existed 2. Vicenta refused to proceed with the ceremony because a letter from the students of san Carlos College disclosed that Pastor and their matchmaker. they went to the office of the chief of police but the latter harassed and terrorized them. 27. Issue: WON chief of police was guilty of dereliction of duty Held: Yes Ratio: 1. 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. 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. or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in hi s doings. and her denial of consortium and her desertion of husband constitute in law a wrong caused through her fault. Tenchavez vs Escaño Facts: Vicenta Escaño and Pastor Tenchavez secretly got married before a Catholic chaplain and planned to elope. for which the husband is entitled to the corresponding indemnity (2176) 45.
Amaro vs Samanguit Facts: Jose Amaro was assaulted and shot near the city government building of Silay. lawsuits having become a common occurrence in present society. Husband field complaint: Vs. parents themselves suggested that the marriage be celebrated again 3. Issue: Won there was dereliction of duty Held: NO Ratio:
Had it been covered. Thus the negligence of the City is the proximate cause of the injury suffered. and 5 months after this incident it was still uncovered. CA reversed and held Asiatec liable and absolved City of Manila. FACTORY ETC. walked w/crutches for 15 days and could not operate his school buses. It was also held that for liability under 2189 to attach. The City should have seen to it that the openings were covered. It was evident that the certain opening was already uncovered. that they were adequately covered. administration and control over public markets…” It is thus the duty of the City to exercise reasonable care to keep the public market reasonably safe for people frequenting the place for their marketing needs. Petitioner had the right to assume there were no openings in the middle of the passageways and if any. TC found for respondent. Sec 4 of RA 409. Perez Blvd is a National Road under the control and supervision of City of Dagupan. No warning sign of impending danger was evident. there is no question that Sta. He was confined for 20 days. the contract bet Asiatec and City which explicitly states that “prior approval” of the City is still needed in the operations.
. public buildings and other public works” in particular and is therefore decisive in this case. Mayor Bagatsing of Manila admitted such control and supervision in his letter to Finance Sec. 2. city or municipality over the defective public building in question is enough. city or municipality. Ana had been placed by virtue of Management and Operating Contract. Asiatec and Cityy are joint tortfeasors and are solidarily liable. Virata (“The City retains the power of supervision and control over its public markets…) 3. He sued City of Manila and Asiatic Integrated Corp under whose administration the Sta. pierced his left leg to a depth of 1½ inches. In the case at bar. A dirty and rusty 4-inch nail. The drainage hole could have been placed under the stalls rather than the passageways. Such acts were not prohibited nor penalized by the City. ISSUE: WON City of Manila should be jointly and solidarily liable with Asiatec HELD: YES RATIO: In the City of Manila v Teotico case. It is not necessary that such belongs to such province. There were also findings that during floods. Ana public market remained under the control of the City as evidenced by: 1. control and supervision by the province. Ordinary precautions could have been taken during good weather to minimize danger to life and limb. refusal to prosecute because of insufficient evidence is not refusal without just cause to perform an official duty 2.1. (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. which City of Manila is invoking in this case. PROPRIETORS OF BUILDING. stuck inside the uncovered opening. As he turned around to go home. vendors would remove the iron grills to hasten the flow of water. it was held that Art 1. establishes a general rule regulating the liability of City Of Manila while Art 2189 CC governs the liability due to “defective streets. 30 of Tax Code “The treasurer shall exercise direct and immediate supervision. His left leg swelled and he developed fever. 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. he stepped on an uncovered opening w/c could not be seen because of dirty rainwater. Ana public Market whose primary duty is to take direct supervision and control of that particular public market 4. Fiscal is also under the duty not to prosecute if there are insufficient evidence to support a case
PROVINCES. City employed a market master for the Sta. petitioner would not have fallen into it. Such manhole is partially covered by a flowerpot leaving a gaping hole about 2 ft long and 1½ feet wide. CITIES. GUILATCO v CITY OF DAGUPAN FACTS: Gilatco. Sec.
Thus. Hence. This implied warranty has given rise to the rule that:
. the judgment of Firme is reversed. Expressed consent may be embodied in a general such as Act No. streets. Heirs of Baniña instituted a complaint for damages against jeepney owner and driver. 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. a governmental function. operated on and confined. was also Ex Officio Highway Engineer. In the case at bar. Pandemonium ensued in the darkness of the theater but the two women were able to crawl their way out and walked to nearby FEU hospital. She had been deprived of income. any person by reason of the defective conditions of roads. they are detailed with the City of Dagupan and hence receive instruction and supervision from the city through the City Engineer. owned by Gotesco Investment Corp. of San Fernando and driver of dump truck. they are not liable for the torts committed by them in the discharge of governmental functions. died and 4 were injured. went to see a movie “Mother Dear” at Superama I. or special law such as in the Merritt case. under their control and supervision. She sued for damages. or injuries. RATIO: It is settled that the owner or proprietor of a place of public amusement impliedly warrants that the premises. cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of. ISSUE: WON Gotesco is liable HELD: Yes. appliances and amusement devices are safe for the purpose for which they are designed. Nevertheless. bridges. who aside from his official capacity as City Engineer. 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. Ex Officio City Engineer of Bureau of Public Works. MUNICIPALITY OF SAN FERNANDO v FIRME FACTS: A collision occurs involving a passenger jeepney driven by Balagot and owned by Nieverras. 3038 which provides for the standing consent of the State to be sued in cases of money claims. may be legislated by the Municipal Board. avenues and alleys and sidewalks. and regulation of the use thereof. suffered by. Lina. The municipality cannot be held liable for the torts committed by its regular employee who was then engaged in the discharge of governmental functions. Firme rendered Mun. it is not even necessary that such defective road or street belongs to the City. GOTESCO INVESTMENT CORP v CHATTO FACTS: Gloria Chatto and her 15-yr old daughter. Hardly 10 mins after entering the theater. Municipal Corp. 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. Although these two officials are employees of the Nat’l Gov’t. and other public works. The function of supervision over streets. the control and supervision of the national road exists and is provided for in the charter of Dagupan. the case was transferred to Branch presided by Firme. public buildings. Such control and supervision is exercised through the City Engineer Tangco. Plenty of people were watching the film so they could not find seats at the balcony level. The complaint was amended to implead Mun. Both were treated for physical injuries which would incapacitate them for a period of 2-4 weeks. Hence the City is liable. Consent can be implied or expressed. public buildings and public works. and Building Official and received compensation for these functions. negligence of owner and driver of the jeepney as the proximate cause of collision. of San Fernando and dump truck driver as defendants who raised the defenses of lack of cause of action. It provided that the laying out. Subsequently. La Union. 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. the State may not be sued without its consent. Several passengers including Baniña. of San Fernando and dump truck driver liable jointly and severally. construction and improvement of streets. The owner and driver of jeepney filed 3rd Party complaint against Mun. RATIO: Art 2189 says : Provinces. nonsuability of the State. and a dump truck driven by Bislig and owned by the municipality of San Fernando. pertaining through the City Engineer is coursed through a Maintenance Foreman and a Maintenance Engineer. In the case at bar. are suable because their charters grant them the competence to sue and be sued. ISSUE: WON Control or supervision over a national road by the City of Dagupan exists which makes City liable under Art 2189 HELD: Yes. a gravel and sand truck driven by Manandeg and owned by Velasquez.She was hospitalized. the ceiling of its balcony collapsed. And can be held answerable if it is shown that they were acting in proprietary capacity.
there was no adequate inspection of the premises before the date of the accident.
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. rationalizing that:
. 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. • The defendants sought the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that there was no reservation for the filing thereof in the City Court. At this stage. presumed that the guest Echivarria would use the faucet. and the thing that caused the injury is wholly and exclusively under the control and management of the defendants. 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. The court found that the collapse was due to the construction defects and not force majeure as Gotesco claimed. 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. the alleged employer of Abellana was included as defendant. this does not prove at all that there was no defects in the construction. Such defects could have been easily discovered if only Gotesco exercised due diligence and care in keeping and maintaining the premises. This presumption was not overcome by Gotesco. • CFI judge denied the motion to dismiss. • A criminal case for physical injuries through reckless imprudence was filed with the City Court of Ozamis City against Abellana. As disclosed by the testimony. In such complaint for damages. They argued that it was not allowable at this stage where the criminal case was already on appeal at the CFI. Echivarria. but only provided a bucket to deal with the problem of the leaks Judgment Affirmed
ABELLANA v MARAVE May 29. its occurrence raises a presumption or permits of an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant. And assuming that the cause of the collapse was due to force majeure. Even if the structural designs were approved and permitted by the City engineer. • Abellana appealed the decision with the CFI. 1974 NATURE: Petition for certiorari from an order of the CFI of Misamis Occidental FACTS: • A cargo truck driven by Francisco Abellana had a collision with a motorized pedicab resulting in injuries to its passengers.Where a patron of a theater or other place of public amusement is injured. and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of events would not have happened if proper care had been exercised. Gotesco would still be liable because it was guilty of negligence. 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. He was found guilty as charged with award of damages in favor of the offended parties.
He is not to fall prey to the vice of literalness. • May 26. These. 1989 – RTC rendered decision in the civil case ordering defendants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiff. 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. sideswiped a 5 year old boy who was then standing on a sidewalk. 1984 – A complaint for damages was filed by offended party against Yakult and Salvado in the RTC of Manila. • Defendants filed a petition for certiorari in the CA challenging the jurisdiction of the RTC over said civil case. Trial de novo will be conducted. • Hence. 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. Andres v Wolfe. 1983 -.1. 6. Crisostomo v Dir. • Lastly. (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). 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.” This rule is supported by a number of cases: People v Carreon. they did. Judgment of the City Court on the criminal case was vacated on appeal. Petition dismissed.Salvado was charged with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries in an information filed with the City Court of Manila. any counsel must not ignore the basic purpose of litigation. such as that provided for in Article 33. YAKULT v CA October 5. 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. • Oct. Motion for recon denied. 19. a civil action for damages cannot be filed independently of the criminal action under Art 33. • The grant of power to this Court under the Constitution does not extend to any diminution. employee of same company. In view of the above and since the court (CFI) has not yet begun the trial (de novo). Larry Salvado. the criminal negligence being without malice 2. Section 1 Rule 111 with Section 7 Rule 123. 2. People v Jamisola
• 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. Court should avoid construing a statute or legal norm in such a manner as would give rise to a constitutional doubt. Section 1 Rule 111 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure (n. a separate civil action may not be filed unless reservation thereof is expressly made • CA dismissed the petition. a civil action for damages entirely separate and independent from the criminal action may be brought by injured party.b.: 1985 RCP being procedural may apply retrospectively to the present case) RATIO:
. of Prisons. increase or modification of substantive right.. They contended that: 1. 1990 Nature: Petition for review of the decision of the CA FACTS: • While driving a motorcycle owned by Yakult Phils. • Jan. 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. this petition. which is to assure parties justice accdg to law.
among other damages. the offended party has not waived the civil action. assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two. waterpaths. a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act.
• August 27. Neither has the offended party instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action. ANDAMO v IAC November 6. All the elements of a quasi-delict are present: damages suffered. (See Castillo v CA)
• As held by the SC in Azucena v Potenciano. provided that the offended party is not allowed. 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. • July 1982 -. 1984 – Upon motion of corporation. whenever it refers to “fault or negligence”. • 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. prohibition and mandamus to review the decision of the then IAC FACTS: • The Missionaries of Our Lady of Law Salette. through its agents. ISSUE: WON a corporation. 1983 – Petitioners filed a civil for damages against same corporation. • 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. said constructions allegedly inundated an adjacent land owned by petitioner spouses Andamo. water conductors and contrivances within its land. through its agents. endangered the lives of petitioners and their laborers. • 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. built. waterpaths and contrivances including an artificial lake. damaged petitioners’ crops and plants. Inc. whether intentional and voluntary or negligence. fault or negligence of defendant and causal connection between the two. which has built. such that if proven would make a clear case of a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana.• In this case. Petition denied. 1990 NATURE: Petition for certiorari. for destruction by means of inundation under Art 325 of RPC. washed away costly fences. Motion for recon denied.. Consequently.
. • However. as the criminal
case which was instituted ahead of the civil case was still unresolved. covers not only acts “not punishable by law” but also acts criminal in character. nor reserved the right to institute it separately. 1984 -. • Article 2176. The inundation allegedly caused a young man to drown.Upon corporation’s motion to dismiss or suspend the civil action. RATIO: • Dismissal of the civil case is erroneous considering that it is predicated on a quasi-delict. whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted. so that in the disposition of the criminal action no damages was awarded. • However. on a parcel of land which it owned.
• April 26. (if the tortfeasor is actually charged also criminally). a religious corporation. in quasi-delicts the civil action is entirely independent of the criminal case
accdg to Articles 33 and 2177. trial court dismissed the civil case for lack of jurisdiction. 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.Petitioners then instituted a criminal action before the RTC of Cavite against the officers and directros of the corporatio. • IAC affirmed decision of TC. thereby causing inundation and damage to an adjacent land. as in this case. • February 22. trial court issued an order suspending
further hearings in the civil case until after judgment in the related criminal case. to recover damages on both scores.
1960. Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be awarded in accordance with Title XVIII of this Book. 380 loss of earnings Petitioners prayed that CA’s original decision be affirmed in toto. Padilla’s mother. 477thou: expected income 2.100 – 9200 living expenses= 13. plus exemplary damages and 60thou as attorney’s fees. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos. 10thou: moral damages 3. whichever is shorter. had no earning capacity at the time of his death. As to the award of damages. 10thou: attorney’s fees 4. 1764 and 2206: award of damages for death is computed on the basis of the life expectancy of the deceased Art. Art. unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant. 2. 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. Decision reversed and set aside. his only heir. may demand support from the person causing the death.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. and to pay costs PAL invoked US law and claimed that in determining loss of earnings arising from death. the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent’s inheritance by the law of testate or intestate succession. 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. 1969 Facts: Bustos killed Castro and was found guilty of homicide by lower court. such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court. Issue: WON the deceased’s life expectancy should be made the basis in determining loss of earnings. Inc. Trial court based its award on the life expectancy of the deceased and awarded the ff: 1. Article 2206 shall also apply to the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier. 1990 Facts: Nicanor Padilla was one of the 33 persons who died while on board PAL plane that crashed on Mt. the heirs are entitled to the ff damages: 1. that his action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.
PAL. filed a complaint demanding 600thou as actual and compensatory damages. for a period not exceeding five years. • resort to foreign jurisprudence is proper only when there is no law or decision available locally to settle controversy Ratio: 1. 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. Baco. (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of Article 291. Held: YES. the exact duration to be fixed by the court. 1764. 2206. the basis should be the life expectancy of the deceased OR the beneficiary. the CA amended its decision and deleted: 6thou moral damages 13. In addition: (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased. legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. indemnity for the death of the victim at least 3 thou
. even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. (3) The spouse. concerning Damages. Mindoro on November 23. and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter. 1973 Heirs of Castro vs Bustos. vs CA.
B.000 moral damages: SC said that TC lumped the ff monetary obligations under ‘moral damages’ loss of earning capacity: 114. Art. 250. The principles of the general law on damages are hereby adopted insofar as they are not inconsistent with this Code. 2195. 100. moral damages loss of earning capacity are recoverable separately from the indemnity for death] Capistrano concurs: duty of fiscal to demand payment. Art. Except as provided by law or by stipulation. (2) Moral. The provisions of this Title shall be respectively applicable to all obligations mentioned in Article 1157. 445: AFFIRMED: brother was able to present receipts of expenses 2. (4) Temperate or moderate.
even if there are mitigating circumstances
2. 2197. Actual and compensatory damages Art. He was further sentenced to indeminify heirs: 100 thou for death 26. his mother suffered a mild stroke
A.000: gross earnings – living expenses educational support for sisters: 10thou mental anguish suffered: 20thou awarded. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages. or (6) Exemplary or corrective. exemplary damages fixed by court considered separate from fines when crime is attended by one or more aggravating circumstances 4. actual damages of 26. General Provisions Art. interests in proper cases 7. (5) Liquidated. one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. 445 for actual damages for burial and related expenses 250. Damages may be: (1) Actual or compensatory. Compensation for workmen and other employees in case of death. Art. Component elements:
. 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. 2198. indemnity for loss of earning capacity plus amount for support if deceased was obliged to give any to any person 3. Rules governing damages laid down in other laws shall be observed insofar as they are not in conflict with this Code. 1992 Facts: Quilation killed the officer-in-charge of PROFEM and was found guilty of murder. 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. award should be made individually People vs Quilaton. 2196.000 indemnity for death: REDUCED to 50thou based on prevailing jurisprudence 3. injury or illness is regulated by special laws. 2199. (3) Nominal.
to the Japanese buyer.b. b) issuance of any prohibitive or restrictive order. Govt. The latter. However. (1106) Art. 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. and c) any other cause not within the control of the party making relief from any of the requirements of the contract. 1951. GE ceased to earn any commission. however. • The logs were to be loaded on the Kanatsu Maru over a two-day period.e. When LB failed to deliver the logs beginning January 1960. • Terms of the agreement holding CT liable for damages it may cause BL are merely declaratory of the obligation assumed ⇒ Not demandable upon breach. 2205. Hence. which clearly indicated that it failed to earn its commissions it should during this period of time. 1959. The court ruled in its favor awarding P400k as actual damages. Hence. • The CFI awarded BL additional demurrage and dead freight expenses amounting to ≈ $9k. Had LB continued to deliver the logs as it was bound pursuant to the agreement. There is no proof that BL had already paid EAC said damages or that it had already been required to pay the same. GE. 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. • Over a five month period beginning June 1959.o. through the East Asiatic Company (EAC). but upon proof of actual damage suffered DECISION AFFIRMED
. 1959. it filed an action for breach of contract and recovery of damages with the CFI. Cagayan Timber (CT) agreed to deliver 740k brd ft of exportable logs to Basilan Lumber (BL) by September 1. P100k as exemplary damages.01 commission per brd ft). not merely speculative • Actual damage was caused to EAC who already paid demurrage and dead freight expenses. Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered. DECISION MODIFIED Basilan Lumber v Cagayan Timber (2 SCRA 766) Facts: • In the amended terms of their contract. this appeal. the ship stayed in port for a total of eight days due to insufficient logs and poor stevedoring service. which is approximately P400k (17 months remaining in contract X 2M brd ft per month X P0. GE sold over 7M brd ft of logs to Korea and earned P79k in commissions. LB gave a total of five notices to GE stating various reasons for non-performance of its obligation to supply the logs. 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. as evidenced by receipts. or malevolent manner. 2200. LB mentioned that it had an excess of ≥ 1M logs per month. and P40k as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. Damages may be recovered: (1) For loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury. Moreover. reminded LB to fulfill its obligations under the contract as otherwise it would be held liable for breach. • GE’s reminder was left unheeded. value of the logs exported. Hence. Mathematical genius not required! • P100k as exemplary damages is oppressive considering that LB did not act in a wanton (noodles). Issue: WON actual and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees are justified Held: YES (actual and attorney’s fees). 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. but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain. among which are: a) the enactment of national or local law or ordinance. oppressive. On October 27. • The contract was to remain effective for two years beginning June 1. 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.Art. this appeal. 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. It also agreed to supply 200M brd ft of logs to Japanese buyers over a five year period. Within a four-month period. on the other hand. In reversing the CFI decision. the CA held that no damages may be recovered without satisfactory proof of the real existence of such damages (Arts 2200 and 2201 CC). GE is entitled to 13% of the gross f. P50k is sufficient for its reprehensible act of resorting to half-truths in order to justify its desistance from the contract. • Attorney’s fees justified considering the importance of the litigation and the amount of time and effort involved. sold the logs to a Japanese buyer. ⇒ Par 8(b) of their agreement gives the valid causes for suspension of the contract. (2) For injury to the plaintiff's business standing or commercial credit.
1917 FACTS: • • • Songco and Sellner owned contiguous properties where a considerable quantity of sugar cane were planted. Sellner wanted to mill his cane to a nearby sugar cane central. the central were not sure that they could mill his cane and would not promise to take it. 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. Hence. as it turned out. • 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. Hence. so that he could run his own cane in at the same time Songco’s cane should be milled by the Central 2. Songco filed an action to recover the 3rd PN. However. The engine was installed in one of his trucks. Two of these notes were paid. P7. plaintiffs sued out an attachment against the defendant. • Y was engaged in the trucking business.GA Machineries v Yaptinchay (126 SCRA 78) Facts: • Yaptinchay (Y) bought a Fordson engine from GA Machineries (GAMI) for P7. • Within a week from delivery. Incidentally. release bearing hub and trunion bolt. he bought Songco’s sugar cane as it stood. clutch disc. He executed 3 promissory notes for the purchase price.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. It then awarded damages to the defendant equivalent to the amount actually paid out by him in procuring the dissolution of the attachment. produced 2. CA affirms the decision. Sellner then conceived the idea of buying the cane of Songco. the engine started to have malfunctions which necessitated successive trips to GAMI’s repair shop. Such damages. • Award of actual damages is unwarranted under best evidence test. ⇒ oil leak.000 piculs of sugar but the crop. In his defense. the ff were discovered: 1) Worn-out screw courtesy of Y’s mechanic 2) Tampered original motor number courtesy of Capt. ⇒ “Projected profit” prepared by a Mr. the award of P7. Issue: WON award of damages is justified Held: YES (reimbursement). Trial Court orders GAMI to pay Y P54k in actual damages. • ART 2200 CC entitles Y to recover compensatory damages for actual loss suffered and prospective profits while Art 2201 entitles him to recover all damages which may be attributed to non-performance of the obligation. Hence. Sellner alleged that Songco falsely represented that the cane would produce 3. 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. however.590 as reimbursement for the purchase price of the engine. propeller shaft…LEMON! LEMON! LEMON! • Upon investigation. Macasieb (P369. he is entitled to recover. have to be proven. upon the ground that he was dispossessing of his property in fraud of his creditors. this petition. The misrepresentation of the quality of the engine is tantamount to fraud or bad faith.
• • •
. at the time of the institution of the suit. TC rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff.560. Motives: 1.590 is justified. He relied on the representations of the latter’s representative that the engine was brand-new. this appeal. so that Sellner could get a right of way over Songco’s land for conveying his own sugar tot he central •
Accordingly. NO (actual) • GAMI committed a breach of contract of sale. which was going to be milled by the Sugar Central.017 piculs only. and P2k in attorney’s fees.
4. much less the amount of P2. and as in the Yaptinchay case.: P182k – value of 100 cartons of denim jeans lost. v Yaptinchay.A. but the customers. of the 294 cartons supposed to be delivered by GTI to South Harbor. SC held that in order for damages under Article 2200 of the CC to be recovered. 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.
Judgment affirmed. the orders were completely cancelled. GTI filed a case for a sum of money and damages. Inc. Inc. the best evidence obtainable by the injured party must be presented. SEAVAN CARRIER. as such damages were remote and speculative. 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. 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. 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. 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. 2.. Mapa.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. GTI Sportswear Corp. plus the legal rate of interest P160K – Tariff and Customs duties paid by plaintiffs on the lost items P2. It could hardly be foreseen as a probable consequence of the suing out of his attachment that the creditors might withheld their credit. 3. Machineries. In G. Lower court ordered Seavan to pay plaintiff the ff.) contracted the services of Seavan Carrier. It would appear later that the 100 cartons were diverted by the driver of Seavan’s delivery van.
. In the instant case. contending that the lower court erred in refusing to award him further damages for the injury done to his credit. Port Area. INC. (formerly GTI Garments Corp.•
Defendant appealed. upon learning of the attachment. A confession to this effect was signed by the driver. No document or written instrument was presented to prove that there were really orders of that volume for the year 1978.4M – 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. September 28. Bare assertion of loss would not suffice. to warehouse in V.000 pieces of cotton jeans per month for the year 1978. 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. The evidence cannot warrant the award of damages for the loss of anticipated profits. 100 cartons were lost en route to the pier. after having learned the loss. 5. 1984 FACTS: • • • • 1. for the transport of cartons of denim jeans for export. v GTI SPORTSWEAR CORP. However. in connivance with other persons. He alleged that one of his creditors. Plaintiff certainly cannot be held accountable for the complications of defendant’s affairs which made possible the damage which in fact resulted.4M.4M.
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.
from liability 2. The car suffered damages in the amount of P42K. then the insurer. the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract. PAN MALAYAN INSURANCE CORP. 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. 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.Award of damages of P2. Subrogation: Art. obtained from PanMalay an insurance for its Mitsubishi Colt Lancer .
. Panmalay filed a complaint for damages with the RTC of Makati against Fabie and the driver. If the amount paid by the insurance company does not fully cover the injury or loss.
AS TO LC RULING: When Panmalay utilized the phrase “own damage”-. the aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the deficiency from the person causing the loss or injury.4m deleted. but to no avail.a pharase which. Applying the ejusdem generis rule. RTC dismissed Panmalay’s complaint. CA affirmed. Panmalay defrayed the cost of repair of the insured car. Both tribunals concluded that Panmalay could not now invoke Art 2207 and claim reimbursement. If the insured property is destroyed or damages through the fault or negligence of a party other than the assured. 2207 of the CC. It then demanded reimbursement from Fabie and her driver of said amount. 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. Indemnification under said article is on the assumption that there was no wrongdoer or no 3rd party at fault. 2207. albeit on a somewhat different ground. 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. While the policy was still in effect. it simply meant that it had assumed to reimburse the costs for repairing the damage to the insured vehicle. 1990 FACTS: • • • •
Canlubang Automotive Resources Corp. 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.
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. 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. The right of subrogation is not dependent upon any privity of contract or upon written assignment of claim. is not found in the insurance policy—to define the basis for its settlement.
There are exceptions to this rule: if the assured by his won act releases the wrongdoer or 3rd party liable for the loss or damage. 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. v CA April 3. the insured car was hit by a pick-up owned by Erlinda Fabie but driven by another person. CA held that Section III-I of the pplicy. It accrues simply upon payment of the insurance claim by the insurer. did not cover damage arising from collision or overturning due to the negligence of 3rd parties as one of the insurable risks. 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. incidentally. which was the basis for the settlement of the claim against insurance. •
1. upon payment to the assured. If the plaintiff's property has been insured. Panmalay averred that the damages caused to the insured car was settled under the “own damage” coverage of the insurance policy.
Attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation Art. In this case. SC held that Panmalay. 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. except: (1) When exemplary damages are awarded. The amount and character of the services rendered.
. Not only is it an erroneous interpretation of the provisions of the section.•
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 3 rd party. 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. the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable. Also. (3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff. In all cases.
Thus. 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. ISSUE: WON attorneys’ fees were exorbitant and unconscionable HELD: No. Blanco had converted such rawhide into leather and sold it. liquidated damages whether intended as an indemnity or a penalty shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or unconscionable. the 25% rate of AF is not iniquitous and unconscionable. In fact. (5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid. just and demandable claim. (8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws. (9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime. RATIO: Under Art 2227. (6) In actions for legal support. In any case. filed four causes of action against Victoria Blanco to recover the purchase price of rawhide it delivered to the latter. (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. 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. attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. has no merit. 2208. In the absence of stipulation. laborers and skilled workers. 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. TC found for Polytrade and Blanco was ordered to pay the purchase price + interest. (10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded. the continued maintenance of Blanco of this suit is plainly intended for delay. were not shown to be in disagreement regarding the meaning and coverage of Section III-I. as subrogee. other than judicial costs.63 or 25% of the total principal indebtedness exclusive of interest was awarded. Hence. Defendant contends that this is exorbitant and unconscionable. Polytrade’s lawyers are of high standing. has no legal obstacle from filing the complaint for damages against the 3rd parties responsible for the damage to the car. the very parties to the policy. POLYTRADE CORP v BLANCO FACTS: Polytrade Corp. (4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff. (7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers. this case should not have gone to court if Blanco had complied w/ his obligations.961. Hence. (11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered. Canlubang and Panmalay. cannot be recovered.
(1108) Art. goods or credit.
RCPI v RODRIGUEZ FACTS: Rufus Rodriguez. 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. (1109a) Art.B. they filed an action for recovery of damages for injury to persons and loss of property. and the debtor incurs in delay. Plana Concurring and Dissenting: Under Sec 1 a of Act 2655 as amended by PD 116. in a proper case. 2213. 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. and in the absence of stipulation. and in the absence of stipulation. the same must be disallowed on appeal. the award of AF as part of its liability should be allowed. be allowed upon damages awarded for breach of contract. 2211. RR sued for damages and was awarded P20. It turned out that the message was delivered to the address on the message but the addressee was no longer staying there. the indemnity for damages there being no stipulation to the contrary shall be the payment of interest agreed upon. interest as a part of the damages may. goods or credit. Only the legislature can change the laws. He further rendered that by legal interest meant 6% as provided for by Art 2209 CC. 2210. the award of F was stated only once. In this case. it is strictly binding upon defendants. although the obligation may be silent upon this point. 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. In crimes and quasi-delicts. ISSUE: WON the legal interest is 6% HELD: YES RATIO: C. which is six per cent per annum. As long as such stipulation is not contrary to law. be adjudicated in the discretion of the court. Interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims or damages. Judge Tomol. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money. REFORMINA v TOMOL. The TC failed to justify the payment of AF by RCPI. RCPI contends that that the award of AF was improper because there was no allegation in the complaint with AF. goods or credit and court judgments. in the discretion of the court.
. Reforminas contend that it should be 12% by virtue of Central Bank Circular No. because of the non-receipt of the cablegram. 416. 2209. Art.. shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon. the authority of CB is to fix a maximum rate of interest on loans and not to prescribe a fixed interest rate. The cablegrams were sent through RCPI which were in turn relayed to Globe for transmission for their foreign destinations. the AF here is in the nature of liquidated damages and the stipulation therefore is aptly termed a penal clause. Interest may. RR also did not present any evidence to prove AF and the lower court’s decision failed to explain why AF was being awarded. This fact wasn’t reported to RR in Manila. ISSUE: WON RCPI is liable for attorney’s fees? HELD: No. therefore. JR FACTS: A fire occurred burning the boat FB Pacita III and fishing gear of the Reforminas. Taha was not able to meet him in Sudan and the preparations for the int’l WALS conference had to be cancelled. there being no stipulation to the contrary. Interest Art.000 attorney’s fees among others. However. Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. the legal interest which is 6% per annum. Jr awarded the Reforminas damages with legal interest from the filing of the complaint until paid. Such court judgment refers only to judgments in litigations involving loans or forbearance of any money. morals or public order. and another to Merger in US advising her of the sched of int’l WALS conference. RATIO: In the recent case of Stronghold Insurance Company Inc. Consequently. just below the dispositive portion of the decision. the indemnity for damages. 2212. In this case. Circular 416 which took effect July 29. Any other kind of monetary judgment does not fall under the coverage of said law for it is not within the ambit of authority granted to the central Bank. the legal interest.Rather. Such AF as damages are awarded in favor of litigant who is the judgment creditor entitled to enforce the judgment and not his counsel. sent a cablegram to Taha in Sudan. 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. advising him of RR’s arrival in Sudan. except when the demand can be established with reasonably certainty. Art.
Padilla’s mother. Article 2206 shall also apply to the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier. 10thou: attorney’s fees 8. vs CA. may demand support from the person causing the death. In addition: (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased. the basis should be the life expectancy of the deceased OR the beneficiary. legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. quasi-contracts. and to pay costs PAL invoked US law and claimed that in determining loss of earnings arising from death. that the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel. 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. In case of fraud. 1764. Held: YES. malice or wanton attitude. such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court. and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter. (3) The spouse. Issue: WON the deceased’s life expectancy should be made the basis in determining loss of earnings. Art. bad faith. concerning Damages. the exact duration to be fixed by the court. (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of Article 291. (4) That the loss would have resulted in any event. 1990 Facts: Nicanor Padilla was one of the 33 persons who died while on board PAL plane that crashed on Mt. 477thou: expected income 6. In contracts and quasi-contracts. 4. Extent and scope of actual damages 1. 2215. Cases: PAL. even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. 1960.Such authority given to CB is absolute and unqualified and therefore the delegation of power to it is void. the defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiff's loss or injury. as in the following instances: (1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract. the court may equitably mitigate the damages under circumstances other than the case referred to in the preceding article. (3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded. the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation. 2201. had no earning capacity at the time of his death. Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be awarded in accordance with Title XVIII of this Book. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos. • resort to foreign jurisprudence is proper only when there is no law or decision available locally to settle controversy Ratio: 3. whichever is shorter. his only heir. unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant. (2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the contract. 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
. (5) That since the filing of the action. In contracts. 1764 and 2206: award of damages for death is computed on the basis of the life expectancy of the deceased Art. and quasi-delicts. plus exemplary damages and 60thou as attorney’s fees. 10thou: moral damages 7. (1107a) Art. Mindoro on November 23. the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent’s inheritance by the law of testate or intestate succession. Trial court based its award on the life expectancy of the deceased and awarded the ff: 5. and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted. 2206. filed a complaint demanding 600thou as actual and compensatory damages. Inc. Baco. for a period not exceeding five years. contracts and quasi-contracts Art.
Art. crimes and quasi-delicts Art. the defendant shall be liable for all damages. exemplary damages fixed by court considered separate from fines when crime is attended by one or more aggravating circumstances 11. In contracts. In quasi-delicts. indemnity for loss of earning capacity plus amount for support if deceased was obliged to give any to any person 10. the exact duration to be fixed by the court. and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter. 1969 Facts: Bustos killed Castro and was found guilty of homicide by lower court. even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court. (3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded. (3) The spouse. the court may equitably mitigate the damages under circumstances other than the case referred to in the preceding article. as in the following instances: (1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract. Issue: What are the items of damages recoverable in cases of death? Held: moral damages and loss of earnings awarded Ratio: When death occurs as a result of crime. indemnity for the death of the victim at least 3 thou even if there are mitigating circumstances 9. In crimes and quasi-delicts. the heirs are entitled to the ff damages: 8. (5) That since the filing of the action. 2202. 2204. Art. the CA amended its decision and deleted: 6thou moral damages 13. 3. 2206. crimes and quasi-delicts resulting in death 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 amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos. It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant. 2203. 2215. As to the award of damages. the damages to be adjudicated may be respectively increased or lessened according to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances. the defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiff's loss or injury. quasi-contracts. for a period not exceeding five years. that the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel. In crimes. the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent’s inheritance by the law of testate or intestate succession. moral damages for mental anguish fixed by court recoverable by descendants 12. (4) That the loss would have resulted in any event. 380 loss of earnings Petitioners prayed that CA’s original decision be affirmed in toto.100 – 9200 living expenses= 13. Art. unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant. 1973 2. legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. gross annual income of 23. In addition: (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased. the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover. 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. 2214. had no earning capacity at the time of his death. and quasi-delicts. attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation actual amount
. may demand support from the person causing the death. Cases: Heirs of Castro vs Bustos. which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of Article 291. Art. (2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the contract.
28. commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force. 1992 Facts: Quilation killed the officer-in-charge of PROFEM and was found guilty of murder. 445 for actual damages for burial and related expenses 250. his mother suffered a mild stroke
G. Separate civil actions 1. intimidation. (8) The right to the equal protection of the laws. actual damages of 26. 32. (9) The right to be secure in one's person. He was further sentenced to indeminify heirs: 100 thou for death 26. (5) Freedom of suffrage. 000 moral damages Issue: correctness of damages Held: 4. (4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention. (14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form.000: gross earnings – living expenses educational support for sisters: 10thou mental anguish suffered: 20thou awarded. (2) Freedom of speech. (13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances. (7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use. (6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law. award should be made individually People vs Quilaton. papers. oppressive or highhanded method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers damage. H.
. (11) The privacy of communication and correspondence. 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. house. (10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same. Any public officer or employee. who directly or indirectly obstructs. Violation of civil rights Art.000 moral damages: SC said that TC lumped the ff monetary obligations under ‘moral damages’ loss of earning capacity: 114. defeats. 100. 445: AFFIRMED: brother was able to present receipts of expenses 5. (3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication. interests in proper cases 14. only when separate civil action has been filed or when exemplary damges are awarded 13. (12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law. machination or any other unjust. deceit. or any private individual. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. 250. Unfair Competition Art.000 indemnity for death: REDUCED to 50thou based on prevailing jurisprudence 6. moral damages loss of earning capacity are recoverable separately from the indemnity for death] Capistrano concurs: duty of fiscal to demand payment. Unfair competition in agricultural.
should De Leon and Maddela be both held liable for dmgs? HELD: Yes. Cases: LIM v PONCE DE LEON August 29. he wrote the Provincial Commander to impound and take custody of the motor launch. The 1935 constitution vested the power to issue a search warrant in a judge and in no other officer. whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense. and mat be proved by a preponderance of evidence. 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. ISSUE: WON there was a violation of a constitutional right? If so. • 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. moral and exemplary damages.
• He reiterated his request the 2nd time. What RA 732 did was to broaden the power of provincial fiscals to conduct preliminary investigation. • 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. or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted). at the time the act complained of was committed. • 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. unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional. In any of the cases referred to in this article. alleging that the seizure of the motor launch was without a search warrant and was against Lim’s will. For the alleged violation of their constitutional rights. (18) Freedom from excessive fines. Maddela. but they were in vain. Lim and Jikil prayed for actual. and (19) Freedom of access to the courts. except when the person confessing becomes a State witness.(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail. Orlando Maddela was the one who carried out the order and accordingly seized the motor launch from Delfin Lim. Fiscal Francisco De Leon filed with the CFI an information for Robbery with Force and Intimidation upon Persons against Jikil. to meet the witnesses face to face. (16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel. the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages. It was only then that the Provincial Commander issued an order to seize and
impound the motor launch. and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf. or from being forced to confess guilt. (17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self.
. much less to order without warrant the seizure of a personal property even if it is the corpus delicti of a crime. They then filed a complaint for damages against Fiscal De Leon and Detachment Cmmdr. and for other relief. 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. • When Fiscal De Leon learned that the motor launch was in the town of Balabac. exerted efforts to recover the seized motor launch. • After conducting a preliminary investigation. A year later. there was no law or rule that recognized the authority of Provincial Fiscals to issue a search warrant. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated. Only De Leon.
• Delfin Lim. • Also. to have a speedy and public trial. together with Jikil Taha. or cruel and unusual punishment. The indemnity shall include moral damages. 1975 FACTS: • Jikil Taha sold to Alberto Timbangcaya a motor launch. to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
• Plaintiffs filed a civil action for actual/compensatory. 2. and such warrant may be issued by the judge alone after determination of probable cause. Plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the order. 2. 1988 FACTS: • Geb.• In addition. Decision reversed. a person whose constitutional rights have been violated is entitled to actual. Jikil is not entitled to recover any damages. to conduct preemptive strikes against known communist-terrorist (CT) underground houses in view of increasing reports about CT plans to sow disturbances in MM. complaint states no cause of action. RTC Judge Fortun dismissed the case.
• Argument that there is lack of time to procure a search warrant is untenable. There is also no basis for apprehension that the m. • Pursuant to said order. • But only Delfin Lim should be awarded. moral. defendants are immune from liability for acts done in the performance of their official duties 3. assuming that courts can entertain the present action. 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. and is not requied that defendants should have acted in bad faith. 4. stock and barrel the arguments of the defendants. elements of the TFM were alleged to have done the ff. While a subordinate officer may be held liable for executing unlawful orders of his superior officer. • Because their prayer went unheeded. 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
. Faced with a possible disciplinary action from his commander. Fabian Ver ordered various intelligence units of the AFP. 5.: 1. Maddela was left with no alternative but to seize the vessel. 6. Legality of seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby. declared the Order as final. 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. He was reluctant to impoun the m. • Later. • Upon motion. tortures and other forms of violence on them in order to obtain indiscriminatory information or confessions and in order to punish them. • Pursuant to the provisions of Art 32 and 2219. exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. all violations of plaintiff’s constitutional rights were part of a concerted plan to terrorize them. 3. 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. grounds: 1. there are certain circumstances which would warrant Maddela’s exculpation from liability: 1. raided several places. the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended 2. ABERCA v VER April 15. they filed this instant petition for certiorari. • A motion to dismiss was filed by defendants (thru counsel Estelito Mendoza) on the ff. Judge Fortun inhibited himself from the proceeding. and that said plans are known to and sanctioned by defendants. adopting lock. Rule 122 of RoC states that in the seizure of a stolen property warrant is still necessary. will supply the place of such warrant. known as Task Force Makabansa. • It is impt. and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by 3rd parties. launch will be moved out of Balabac because it had no engine. plaintiffs may not cause a judicial inquiry into the circumstances of their detention in the guise of a damage suit because as to them. whatever its source.
• US v Delos Reyes: No amount of incriminating evidence.launch despite repeated orders. without acting on the motion to set aside Fortun’s order. 7. Judge Lising took over and. • Only Fiscal De Leon may be held liable and not Maddela because he impounded the motor launch upon the order of his superior officer. moral damages and exemplary damages from the public officer or employee responsible therefor.
• Doctrine of respondeat superior inapplicable in the instant case. the respondents filed a civil case against petitioners for sums of money and damages. where it is not the actor alone who must answer for damages. The suspension of the privilege does nor render valid an otherwise illegal arrest or detention. • Subsequently. an exclusive franchise to sell and distribute official boy Scout uniforms. The doctrine has been generally limited in its application to principal and agent or to master and servant (i. their superiors may be held liable as well • Repsondents’ invocation of the doctrine of state immunity from suit totally misplaced.Neither can it be said that only those shown to have participated “directly” should be held liable. • De Guzman and 3 constabulary men went to the stores of respondents and seized Scout uniforms without warrant. 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. it was erroneous on the TC for holding that defendants cannot be held responsible for the wrongful acts of their subordinates because: 1. 2. • 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. it may be true that they were merely responding to their duty. 32 encompasses those directly. Art. badges and insignias. TC ordered petitioners to pay. • 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. 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.It is wrong to limit the plaintiff’s action for damages to “acts of alleged physical violence” which constituted delict or wrong.WHO can be held liable: military personnel directly involved and/or their superiors as well HELD: No. INC v CA September 2. 2054. NO such relationship exists between superior officers of the military and their subordinates. 2. Fiscal dismissed the complaint and ordered the return of the seized articles. the decisive factor in this case is the language of Article 32. MHP tasked its employee. • Accordingly. • Moreover. • Be that as it may. Hence. 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. MHP GARMENTS. 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). Only judges are excluded from liability under the said article. CA affirmed. 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. provided their acts or omissions do not constitute a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute. causing commotion and embarassment to respondents. no probable cause for the seizure
. supplies. 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. It was also given authority to undertake the prosecution in court of all illegal sources of scout uniforms and other scouting supplies. employer and employee) relationship. Concededly.e. say in accordance with Marcos’ Proclamation No. • Thereafter. 1994 FACTS: • MHP Garments was granted by the Boy Scouts of the Phils. 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. Art. a criminal complaint for unfair competition was filed against respondents. as well as indirectly responsible for its violation. Petition granted.
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.” 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.• The members of the PC raiding team should have been included in the complaint for violation of the respondents’ constitutional rights.
Judgment affirmed with modification. MHP Garments and De Guzman were indirectly involved in
transgressing the right of respondents against unreasonable searches and seizures. entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action. 2. he was liable to the same extent as the officers themselves. but in their generic sense. As motion for recon was denied. fraud. and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. By standing by and apparently assenting thereto. Writ granted. • Valentons filed a motion to suspend the trial of the civil case. as they are understood under American Law. HELD: No • Article 33 uses the words “defamation”. So with the MHP Garments which even received for safekeeping the goods unreasonably seized by the PC raiding team and De Guzman. or any physical injury or bodily injury. MARCIA V CA FACTS: Bus of Victory Liner driven by Felardo Paje collided with jeep driven by Clement Marcia. Hence. Still. and refused to surrender them for quite a time despite the dismissal of its complaint against respondents. the civil action should lie whether the offense committed is that of physical injuries. not the crime of physical injuries. • In any case.
• TC was correct in granting damages to respondents. Judge ruled that the trial of the civil case must await the result of the criminal case on appeal. 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. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution. this petition was filed. fraud. 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.
If petitioners did not have a hand in the raid. guilty of the crime of frustrated homicide committed against the person of Cesar Carandang. so that these two terms must have used not tom impart any technical meaning. Raid was conducted with the active participation of employee De Guzman. They did not. In cases of defamation. and physical injuries Art. they should have filed a 3 rd party complaint against the raiding team for contribution or any other relief.
. • Pending said appeal. or attempted homicide. • In other words. or even death. Cases: CARANDANG v SANTIAGO AND VALENTON May 29. 1953.
1. the omission will not exculpate MHP Garments and De Guzman. 33. • Hence. CFI of Batangas found Tomas Valenton Jr. or frustrated homicide. Marcia died and two others were injured. “fraud” and “physical injuries. He did not lift a finger to stop the seizure of the boy and girl scout items. pending the termination of the criminal case in the CA. 3. and physical injuries a civil action for damages. the term “physical injuries” should be understood to mean any bodily injury. Defamation. 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. may be brought by the injured party.
3. 1955 FACTS: • On September 1. Carandang appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. whether inflicted with intent to kill or not. because the terms used with the latter are general terms.
when no independent civil action is provided Art. fraud and physical injuries. Such civil action may be supported by a preponderance of evidence. or (4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street. no independent civil action for damages may be instituted in connection therewith. While civil case was in progress. Rule 111 ROC. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings. Definition Art. 34.Information for homicide and serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence was filed. Civil action for damages was subsequently filed. They were not inflicted with malice. Kinds 1. Per se or per accidens Cases: ILOIOLO COLD STORAGE CO VS MUNICIPAL COUNCIL FACTS: Iloilo Cold Storage Co. omission. Nonfeasance of police Art. or anything else which: (1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others. Council appointed committee to investigate and report upon the matters in the complaint. or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings. When a person. Hence. but the justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed. or (5) Hinders or impairs the use of property. Hence this appeal. the civil action shall be suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings. then the extinction of criminal liability will carry with it the extinction of civil liability. charges another with the same. B. ISSUE: WON action for damages for physical injuries resulting from negligence is an independent. 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. separate and distinct from criminal action in Art 33 HELD: No. 694. defies or disregards decency or morality. if the act from which the civil liability arises is declared to be non-existent in the final judgment. constructed an ice and cold storage plant in Iloilo City. a civil action for damages. condition of property. and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action. claiming to be injured by a criminal offense. 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. Nuisance is either public or private. 3. 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. the complaint may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender. A public nuisance affects a community or neighborhood or any considerable number of persons. Part 3: nuisance A. and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. “ In cases of defamation. for which no independent civil action is granted in this Code or any special law. such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages. the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious. danger or damage upon individuals may be unequal. nearby residents made complaints to the Municipal Council that the smoke from the plant was very injurious to their health and comfort.” The injuries suffered by petitioners were alleged to be the result of the criminal negligence . RATIO: Reckless imprudence or criminal negligence is not one of the three crimes mentioned in Art 33. an information should be presented by the prosecuting attorney. 695. Upon the defendant's motion. A private nuisance is one that is not included in the foregoing definition. Council passed a resolution giving Company 1 month to elevate their smokestacks or else their operations will be stopped or suspended. or (3) Shocks. 35. 2. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution and shall require only preponderance of ecivence. Sometime after the plant was completed and in operation. entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action may be brought by the injured party. Public or private Art. establishment. Furthermore. business.
. or any body of water. or (2) Annoys or offends the senses. although the extent of the annoyance. If during the pendency of the civil action. A nuisance is any act. 4. Sec 3.
CFI dismissed but CA reversed. 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. 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. inconvenience or damage (Blackstone) Two classes are: a. RATIO: Art 694 CC provides that a nuisance is any act. RAMCAR V MILLAR FACTS: RAMCAR has been engaged in auto-repair and body-building since 1938 in Ermita Manila. The zoning ordinance of the city prohibits also its body-building operations. ISSUE: WON there can be damages from nuisance HELD: YES
. repairing and servicing motor vehicles. 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. it is a public nuisance. Sec 1122 of the Revised Ordinance of the City of Manila explicitly authorizes the city engineer to remove. 2830 of Manila such body-building shop is not within the purview of garage. In this case. Nuisance per se – nuisances under any and all circumstances. 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. The company is entitled to a fair and impartial hearing before a judicial tribunal. the plant is not a nuisance per se. However to abate this. ISSUE: WON Such houses are public nuisances and who may abate them HELD: Yes. These things must be determined in the ordinary courts of law. However. whenever the owner or person responsible therefor shall. If it were in fact a nuisance due to the manner of its operation. and even on Sundays and holidays. 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. Art 695 states that a public nuisance affects a community or neighborhood. which means a shop for storing. The provisions in Art 700 and 702 CC being general provisions must yield to special provision specifically designed from the City of Manila. refuse or neglect to remove the same. commission. it is not necessary to remove all buildings and structures built in the place where it is presently located.
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. RATIO: RAMCAR was granted a license to operate a garage and under Ordinance No. after official notice. b. It is a legitimate industry beneficial to the people and conducive to their health and comfort.ISSUE: WON a municipal corporation can declare the company’s plant a nuisance as operated and prescribe method of abating it HELD: No. establishment. 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. 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. business. RATIO: Nuisance is anything that work hurt. ISSUE: WON RAMCAR’s auto-repair and body-building shop is a nuisance HELD: YES. at the owner’s expenses. Such houses were constructed on public streets and some on portions of riverbed. The business of RAMCAR is not a nuisance per se but in the account of its location. or those parts which may be utilized for pursuits that are not forbidden by law or ordinance such as auto-repair. unauthorized obstructions. that question cannot be determined by a mere resolution of the board.
without committing a breach of the peace. Art. The remedies against a public nuisance are: (1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance: or (2) A civil action. club. and (4) That the value of the destruction does not exceed three thousand pesos. without judicial proceedings. Art 2196: The rules under this title are without prejudice to special provisions on damages formulated elsewhere in this code. The remedies against a private nuisance are: (1) A civil action. If a civil action is brought by reason of the maintenance of a public nuisance. DE AYALA V BARRETTO FACTS: De Ayala proposed the erection of a combined brewery and ice plant on Calle General Solano. 702. must submit to the ordinary annoyances and discomforts which are incidental to the reasonable and general conduct of such business. 705. 700. C. 696. or doing unnecessary injury. The district health officer shall take care that one or all of the remedies against a public nuisance are availed of. Art. 697. 703. RATIO: The locality in question is gradually being transformed from a fashionable residence area into an industrial center. (3) That the abatement be approved by the district health officer and executed with the assistance of the local police. Art. Art. Any private person may abate a public nuisance which is specially injurious to him by removing. There is now a coal yard. The injunction will only be granted when there’s a pressing necessity and not just a trifling discomfort.RATIO: Art 697: The abatement of a nuisance does not preclude the right of any person injured to recover damages for its past existence. The abatement of a nuisance does not preclude the right of any person injured to recover damages for its past existence. Abatement Art. 22 residents and property owners on the same street filed a suit or injunction against it on the ground that it’s a nuisance. 704. sawmills and powerplant. 701. Art. (2) That such demand has been rejected. public school. such action shall be commenced by the city or municipal mayor. Pasig River is in it immediate the vicinity. by destroying the thing which constitutes the same. 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. or (2) Abatement. Art. a fashionable residence street with large expensive houses. if it is specially injurious to himself. The district health officer shall determine whether or not abatement.
. But it is necessary: (1) That demand be first made upon the owner or possessor of the property to abate the nuisance. without judicial proceedings. A private person may file an action on account of a public nuisance. whether public or private. Art. Lapse of time cannot legalize any nuisance. especially beneficial for transportation purposes. ISSUE: WON such brewery and ice plant is a nuisance HELD: No. 699. or (3) Abatement. or if necessary. One who settles in a district which has a natural watercourse. is the best remedy against a public nuisance. lumberyards. 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. Art. In addition. In addition. without judicial proceedings. Art. 698. 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. warehouse .
Subject to zoning.Art. Art. offensive odor. police and other laws and regulations. Art. A private person or a public official extrajudicially abating a nuisance shall be liable for damages: (1) If he causes unnecessary injury. Every building or piece of land is subject to the easement which prohibits the proprietor or possessor from committing nuisance through noise. glare and other causes. smoke. Cases: D. 706. health. heat. dust. factories and shops may be maintained
. 707. without committing a breach of the peace or doing unnecessary injury. However. 682. Easement against nuisance Art. by destroying the thing which constitutes the nuisance. or (2) If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be not a real nuisance. it is indispensable that the procedure for extrajudicial abatement of a public nuisance by a private person be followed. water. jarring. or if necessary. 683. Any person injured by a private nuisance may abate it by removing.