Torts and Damages

Cangco vs Manila Railroad Co. 30 Phil 768 Torts and Damages – Distinction of Liability of Employers Under Article 2180 and Their Liability for Breach of Contract On January 20, 1915, Cangco was riding the train of Manila Railroad Co (MRC). He was an employee of the latter and he was given a pass so that he could ride the train for free. When he was nearing his destination at about 7pm, he arose from his seat even though the train was not at full stop. When he was about to alight from the train (which was still slightly moving) he accidentally stepped on a sack of watermelons which he failed to notice due to the fact that it was dim. This caused him to lose his balance at the door and he fell and his arm was crushed by the train and he suffered other serious injuries. He was dragged a few meters more as the train slowed down. It was established that the employees of MRC were negligent in piling the sacks of watermelons. MRC raised as a defense the fact that Cangco was also negligent as he failed to exercise diligence in alighting from the train as he did not wait for it to stop. ISSUE: Whether or not Manila Railroad Co is liable for damages. HELD: Yes. Alighting from a moving train while it is slowing down is a common practice and a lot of people are doing so every day without suffering injury. Cangco has the vigor and agility of young manhood, and it was by no means so risky for him to get off while the train was yet moving as the same act would have been in an aged or feeble person. He was also ignorant of the fact that sacks of watermelons were there as there were no appropriate warnings and the place was dimly lit. The Court also elucidated on the distinction between the liability of employers under Article 2180 and their liability for breach of contract [of carriage]: Liability for Breach of Contract Ex Contractu (culpa contractual) Liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code Extra Contractual (culpa aquiliana) The legal viewpoint is that employer has a presumptive responsibility for the negligence of its servants which can be rebutted by proof of the exercise of due care in their selection and supervision Substantive and independent, which of itself constitutes the source of an obligation between persons not formerly connected by any legal tie Based upon the principle that employer is liable for negligent acts of its employees (can be rebutted) It is the wrongful or negligent act or omission itself which creates the vinculum juris Page 1

Liability is direct and immediate Considered as an accident in the performance of an obligation already existing Based upon the civil law principle that whoever causes damage to another shall make good the damage caused. The vinculum exists independently of the breach of the voluntary duty assumed by the parties when entering into the contractual relation www.uberdigests.info

if the damage done by the servant does not amount to a breach of the contract between the master and the person injured. separate and distinct from that of its stockholders and from that of its officers who manage and run its affairs. concentric. Vasquez is not party to the contract as it was NVSD Co which De Borja contracted with. Vasquez vs De Borja 74 Phil 560 Torts and Damages – Distinction of Liability of Employers Under Article 2180 and Their Liability for Breach of Contract In January 1932. has caused damage to another. On behalf of the company.10 per cavan. Inc. HELD: No. Vinculum Juris: (def) It means "an obligation of law". the contract was executed by Vasquez as the company’s acting president. whatever done within the scope of his employment or not.Torts and Damages It is not necessary to prove negligence. but by mere negligence or inattention. without willful intent. figuratively speaking. by them for an in its behalf. NVSD Co was insolvent). that is to say. or for an act lawfully performed.000 cavans of rice valued at Php2. NVSD Co. he is not liable for the acts of the latter.info Page 2 . if the master has not been guilty of any negligence whatever in the selection and direction of the servant. the mere fact that a person is bound to another by contract does not relieve him from extra-contractual liability to such person. These two fields. It is well known that a corporation is an artificial being invested by law with a personality of its own.uberdigests. or the right of the obligee to enforce a civil matter in a court of law. The mere fact that its personality is owing to a legal fiction and that it necessarily has to act thru its agents. only delivered 2.. what is needed is to prove the existence of a contractual obligation and that the same has been broken Negligence has to be proven for the plaintiff's action is based on it NOTES: But. www. Manresa: Whether negligence occurs an incident in the course of the performance of a contractual undertaking or in itself the source of an extra-contractual undertaking obligation. The liability arising from extra-contractual culpa is always based upon a voluntary act or omission which. The subject of the sale was 4.488 cavans and failed and refused despite demand to deliver the rest hence De Borja incurred damages (apparently. He then sue Vasquez for payment of damages. When such a contractual relation exists the obligor may break the contract under such conditions that the same act which constitutes the source of an extra-contractual obligation had no contract existed between the parties. ISSUE: Whether or not Vasquez is liable for damages. De Borja entered into a contract of sale with the NVSD Co. its essential characteristics are identical. does not make the latter personally liable on a contract duly entered into.

either in the selection or supervision of his driver.info Page 3 . and with full knowledge of the then insolvent status of his company. NVSD Co was soon thereafter dissolved. MT Monfort found a headband and she jokingly shouted it as an earthworm and thereafter www. Mendoza then filed a new suit against LMBC this time under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 103 of the RPC makes an employer subsidiarily liable for damages caused by his negligent employee who is convicted from a previous criminal suit.Torts and Damages The fact that the corporation. HELD: No.uberdigests. was guilty of negligence in the fulfillment of the contract did not make Vazquez principally or even subsidiarily liable for such negligence. the civil case was dismissed by reason of prescription as the case was filed 6 years after the collision.000 cavans of palay. Inc. The bus driver was subsequently convicted of the crime charged. Mendoza sued the bus driver for damage to property thru reckless imprudence. JUSTICE PARAS Dissenting : Vasquez as president of NVSD Co is liable for damages. While they were doing so. Article 2180 of the CC is predicated upon the employer’s own negligence while Article 103 of the RPC is predicated upon the crime committed by an employee of the employer. Civil action based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code and the civil action based on Article 103 of the RPC are two independent and separate actions based on distinct causes of actions therefore res judicata can not lie. their teacher assigned them to weed the school premises. as acting president and manager of Natividad-Vazquez Sabani Development Co. the freight truck owned by Mendoza was bumped by a bus owned by La Mallorca Bus Company. acting thru Vazquez as its manager. Mendoza vs La Mallorca Bus Co 82 SCRA 245 Torts and Damages – Distinction of Liability of Employers Under Article 2180 and Their Liability Under the Revised Penal Code In April 1950. Since it was the corporation's contract. Cuadra vs Monfort 35 SCRA 160 Torts and Damages – Liability of Parents Maria Teresa Cuadra and Maria Teresa Monfort were both classmates in Mabini Elementary School Bacolod City. Mendoza then filed a civil case based on Article 2180 against LMBC as the employer of the bus driver. its non fulfillment. LMBC argued that the dismissal of the civil case is a bar for filing another case under Article 103 of the RPC by reason of res judicata. Further. In other words.. agreed to sell to De Borja 4. In July 1962. Vasquez. made the corporation and not its agent liable. Article 2180 of the Civil Code makes an employer primarily and directly liable for reason of his own negligence. Mendoza reserved his right to file a separate civil action. The lower court as well as the Court of Appeals agreed with LMBC. ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of the civil case based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code is a bar for filing another action based on Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. However.. whether due to negligence or fault or to any other cause.

the mother reserved her right to file a separate civil action which she subsequently filed against Dante and his dad. MT Cuadra’s eye got infected. MT Cuadra’s parents sued Alfonso Monfort (MT Monfort’s dad) based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code. HELD: No. This is the clear and logical inference that may be drawn from the last paragraph of Article 2180. Pending the criminal action.uberdigests. There is nothing in the record that would indicate that he had properly advised his daughter to behave properly and not to play dangerous jokes on her classmate and playmates. as in fact. as the father of Dante is liable for damages. it was an innocent prank not unusual among children at play and which no parent. she was hurt.Liability of Parents Dante Capuno was a 15 year old boy who was a pupil of Balintawak Elementary School. he can be liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. or indeed any trait in the child's character which would reflect unfavorably on her upbringing and for which the blame could be attributed to her parents. where it was his duty to send her and where she was. ISSUE: Whether or not Delfin Capuno. Isidoro Caperina and one other." it was likely that something would happen to her friend. Nor did it reveal any mischievous propensity. in case of his incapacity or death. Article 2180 provides that the father. While they were inside a jeep. MT Monfort is already 13 years old and should have known that by jokingly saying "aloud that she had found an earthworm and. JUSTICE BARREDO Dissenting. evidently to frighten the Cuadra girl. The lower court ruled that Monfort should pay for actual damages (cost of hospitalization). The presumption is merely prima facie and may therefore be rebutted. On the contrary. her eyes were attempted to be surgically repaired but she nevertheless got blind in her right eye. which states "that the responsibility treated of in this Article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. which is presumed from that which accompanied the causative act or omission. or the act which caused it. Delfin Capuno. he took control of the wheels which he later lost control of causing the jeep to go turtle thereby killing two other students. And as far as the act which caused the injury was concerned. Exconde vs Capuno 101 Phil 843 Torts and Damages . however careful. tossed the object at her. Isidoro’s mother sued Dante Capuno for the death of her son. In March 1949. or that he was in any way remiss in the exercise of his parental authority in failing to foresee such damage. his child was at school. ISSUE: Whether or not Monfort is liable under Article 2180. moral damages and attorney’s fees.info Page 4 . There is nothing in the record to show that he had done anything at all to even try to minimize the damage caused upon by his child. the mother.Torts and Damages tossed it to MT Cuadra who was hit in her eye. although primary. Jose Rizal. is responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. he attended a boy scout parade for Dr." In the case at bar there is nothing from which it may be inferred that Alfonso Monfort could have prevented the damage by the observance of due care. would have any special reason to anticipate much less guard against. as he had the right to expect her to be. liability is fault or negligence. She was brought to the hospital. The basis of this vicarious. under the care and supervision of the teacher. www.

HELD: No. "teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable for any damages caused by their pupils or apprentices while they are under their custody". and. It is true that under the law. the mother. so long as they are in a position to exercise authority and supervision over the pupil. or create any cause of action in his favor. concerns the proper supervision and vigilance over their pupils? It cannot be seriously contended that an academic teacher is exempt from the duty of watching do not commit a tort to the detriment of third persons. On the other hand.Torts and Damages HELD: Yes. One day. while he was riding his motorcycle along Calle Padre Faura. It does not thereby concede its liability to plaintiff. keeping them in their company. in case of his death or incapacity. Meritt vs Government of the Philippine Islands 34 Phil 311 Torts and Damages – Liability of the State for acts of special agents The facts of the case took place in the 1910’s. ISSUE: Whether or not the government is liable for the negligent act of the driver of the ambulance. REYES Dissenting: Delfin Capuno should be relieved from liability. The civil liability which the law imposes upon the father. the school is not liable. In order for Meritt to recover damages.B.info Page 5 . is obvious. The driver of the ambulance was proven to have been negligent. but this provision only applies to an institution of arts and trades and not to any academic educational institution. on the other hand. educating them and instructing them in proportion to their means". Meritt was a constructor who was excellent at his work. or extend its liability to any cause not previously recognized. There is no sound reason for limiting the liability to teachers of arts and trades and not to academic ones. for any damages that may be caused by the minor children who live with them.L. Merritt to bring suit against the Government of the Philippine Islands and authorizing the Attorney-General of said Islands to appear in said suit).uberdigests. The only way by which they can relieve themselves of this liability is if they prove that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage which Delfin failed to prove. The lower court then determined the amount of damages and ordered the government to pay the same. Meritt was hospitalized and he was severely injured beyond rehabilitation so much so that he could never perform his job the way he used to and that he cannot even earn at least half of what he used to earn. gives them the "right to correct and punish them in moderation". while. he was bumped by a government ambulance. JUSTICE J. What substantial difference is there between them in so far as. It merely gives a remedy to enforce a preexisting liability and www. he sought to sue the government which later authorized Meritt to sue the government by virtue of Act 2457 enacted by the legislature (An Act authorizing E. Because of the incident. By consenting to be sued a state simply waives its immunity from suit. This is necessary consequence of the parental authority they exercise over them which imposes upon the parents the "duty of supporting them.

as well as the CA.Torts and Damages submits itself to the jurisdiction of the court. Judge Palacio of CFI Camarines Sur ruled in favor of Palacio so did the Court of Appeals. Palisoc vs Brillantes et al 41 SCRA 548 Torts and Damages – Liability of teachers/heads of establishments of arts and trades In March 1966. It is actually just to replenish the funds used in purchasing said irrigation pumps (the original funds were from FTA from US). The lower court. This caused Palisoc to slightly slap the face of Daffon and a fistfight ensued between the two. ISSUE: Whether or not such deposits may be garnished. is not responsible for the damages suffered by private individuals in consequence of acts performed by its employees in the discharge of the functions pertaining to their office. he executes the trust confided to him. There is also no showing that the ISU’s alleged inducement of Handong is authorized by the State hence the government cannot be liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. hence it waived its immunity from suit and had also ordered the garnishment of ISU’s deposits in PNB. The CA also ordered the issuance of the order of garnishment against the deposit/trust funds in ISU’s account in the PNB (such fund were generated from the installment payments ISU received). the instructor (Santiago Quibulue). ISU’s activity of selling irrigation pumps is not intended to earn profit or financial gain. The parents of Palisoc sued Daffon. as based in Meritt vs Insular Government. subject to its right to interpose any lawful defense. without the consent of Ortiz. by virtue of such provisions of law. the ambulance driver was not a special agent nor was a government officer acting as a special agent hence. which would be subversive of the public interest. though created by the government. and Brillantes was Article 2180 of the Civil Code. foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office if he is a special official) so that in representation of the state and being bound to act as an agent thereof. Quibulue. It follows therefrom that the state. But then again. to do so. encroached upon his land by allegedly inducing Handong Irrigation Assoc. and Brillantes are not liable because under Article 2180. the waiver of said immunity does not make the government liable. The CA ruled that ISU.uberdigests. since that would involve it in all its operations in endless embarrassments. while Dominador Palisoc (16 years old) was watching Virgilio Daffon and Desiderio Cruz work on a machine in their laboratory class in the Manila Technical Institute (a school of arts and trades). This would only lead to a disbursement of fund without any proper appropriation as required by law. the school president (Teodosio Valenton). in the sense in which these words are employed." Republic vs Palacio 38 SCRA 899 Torts and Damages - Liability of the State for acts of special agents In April 1960. there can be no liability from the government. The basis of the suit was that ISU. Quibulue. "The Government does not undertake to guarantee to any person the fidelity of the officers or agents whom it employs. because neither fault nor even negligence can be presumed on the part of the state in the organization of branches of public service and in the appointment of its agents. Daffon delivered blows that eventually killed Palisoc. is engaged in private business (selling of irrigation pumps/construction materials in installment) and being such has opened itself to suit thereby waiving immunity from suit. a certain Ortiz sued the Irrigation Service Unit which was under the Department of Public Works because ISU. HELD: No. is one who receives a definite and fixed order or commission. ruled that only Daffon is liable for damages and that Valenton.info Page 6 . The State can only be liable if it acts through a special agent (and a special agent. by selling irrigation pumps is engaged in private business. Daffon scolded Palisoc for just standing around like a foreman. The basis of the suit against Valenton. and the owner (Antonio Brillantes). In the case at bar. difficulties and losses. they are only liable “so long as they www.

HELD: No. The SC abandoned the ruling in the Mercado Case as well as the ruling in the Exconde Case as they adopted Justice JBL Reyes’ dissenting opinion in the latter case. HELD: No. Apparently. This liability shall cease only in case. by "(proving) that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. Afialda vs Hisole et al 85 Phil 67 Torts and Damages – Liability of possessors or users of animals Afialda was a caretaker of the carabaos owned by Hisole. It would have been different had Afialda been a stranger. without any fault from Afialda or any force majeure. The law uses the term “possessor and user of the animal”. the damage should arise from force majeure or from the fault of the person who may have suffered it. Valenton and Quibulue as president and teacher-in-charge of the school must be held jointly and severally liable for the quasi-delict of Daffon. is the possessor and the user of the carabao and therefore he is the one who had custody and control of the animal and was in a position to prevent the animal from causing damage. Chapman visited a friend in Santa Ana and while he was about to ride a vehicle to take him home he was struck by a car owned by Underwood and driven by his chauffeur. it was the caretaker's business to try to prevent the animal from causing injury or damage to anyone. The SC reiterated that there is nothing in the law which prescribes that a student must be living and boarding with his teacher or in the school before heads and teachers of the school may be held liable for the tortious acts of their students. is liable for any damages it may cause. Civil Code. that teachers or heads of establishments are only liable for the tortious acts of their students if the students are living and boarding with the teacher or other officials of the school – which Daffon was not. coming from the opposite direction and was driving straight ahead and when the automobile about to be boarded by Chapman was in front of him.Torts and Damages [the students] remain in their custody. He. And being injured by the animal under those circumstances was one of the risks of the occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the consequences. This action could have been more appropriately raised in court under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act as the risk involve was one of occupational hazards. Obviously.info Page 7 . even if such animal should escape from him or stray away. or the one who uses the same. Afialda’s sister sued Hisole arguing that under the Civil Code. as per Mercado vs Court of Appeals. the chauffeur." In the light of the factual findings of the lower court's decision.” ISSUE: Whether or not Hisole is liable in the case at bar as owner of the carabao which killed Afialda. Chapman vs Underwood 27 Phil 374 Torts and Damages – Liability of owners of motor vehicles The facts of the case took place in the 1910’s. said defendants failed to prove such exemption from liability. including himself. at the time of the goring. the law holds them liable unless they relieve themselves of such liability.uberdigests. Afialda was the caretaker of the animal and he was tasked and paid to tend for the carabaos. one of the carabaos gored him thereby causing his death. ISSUE: Whether or not the ruling in the Mercado Case still applies. Underwood was riding in the car when the incident happened. he [the www. “The possessor of an animal. At any rate. Chapman was on the correct lane. The unfortunate death resulting from the fight between the students could have been avoided. whether at the hands of fellow students or other parties. in compliance with the last paragraph of Article 2180. had said defendants but complied with their duty of providing adequate supervision over the activities of the students in the school premises to protect their students from harm. In March 1947.” And that this means.

This caused injuries upon him. ISSUE: Whether or not Underwood is liable for the negligent act of his chauffeur. The general rule is that an owner who sits in his automobile. provincial. ISSUE: Whether or not the City of Manila is liable in the case at bar. Thereafter he sued for damages under Article 2189 of the Civil Code the City of Manila. if the driver. Burgos. by a sudden act of negligence. becomes himself responsible for such acts. that the charter of Manila is a special law and that the Civil Code is a general law. the owner of the automobile. that the charter is a special law and shall prevail over the Civil Code which is a general law. HELD: No. at about 8pm. and permits his driver to continue in a violation of the law by the performance of negligent acts. Manila when he fell into an uncovered manhole. On the other hand. There is no particular exemption but merely a general exemption.uberdigests. Teotico was about to board a jeepney in P. Burgos included. the law contemplates that regardless if whether or not the road is national. However. The act complained of must be continued in the presence of the owner for such a length a time that the owner. and without the owner having a reasonable opportunity to prevent the acts or its continuance.info Page 8 . makes his driver's act his own. the city health officer. city. even though it is a national highway. The City of Manila assailed the decision of the CA on the ground that the charter of Manila states that it shall not be liable for damages caused by the negligence of the city officers in enforcing the charter. therefor. a special law prevails over a general law. or municipal. although present therein at the time the act was committed. Article 2189 of the Civil Code provides a particular prescription to the effect that it makes provinces. ruled that the City of Manila should pay damages to Teotico. the city engineer. and that the accident happened in national highway. HELD: Yes. It is true that in case of conflict. bridges. hence it cannot be given due weight. City of Manila vs Teotico 22 SCRA 267 Torts and Damages – Liability of municipal corporations in certain cases In January 1958. looking at the particular provisions of each law concerned. and municipalities liable for the damages caused to a certain person by reason of the “…defective condition of roads. and the chief of police. or other vehicle. it was not shown that there was a sufficient period for Underwood to dissuade the chauffeur from the negligent act as the swerving of the vehicle by the chauffeur was sudden. P. injures a person or violates the criminal law. the City admitted they have control and supervision over the road where Teotico fell when the City alleged that it has been doing constant and regular inspection of the city’s roads. on appeal. On the other hand. is not responsible. In the case at bar. public buildings. so long as it is under the City’s control and supervision. At any rate. cities. The CA." The allegation that the incident happened in a national highway was only raised for the first time in the City’s motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals. the provision of the Manila Charter exempting it from liability caused by the negligence of its officers is a general law in the sense that it exempts the city from negligence of its officers in general. the city treasurer. after he has had a reasonable opportunity to observe them and to direct that the driver cease therefrom. by his acquiescence. Dingcong vs Kanaan www. In the case at bar. CFI Manila ruled against Teotico. and other-public works under their control or supervision. either civilly or criminally. streets. the mayor. it shall be responsible for damages by reason of the defective conditions thereof.Torts and Damages chauffeur] instead of swerving left he suddenly swerved right to the direction of Chapman thereby hitting and running over him.

Apparently. Wright was driving his calesa going home. The room he rented was immediately above the store occupied by Kanaan brothers who are also tenants of the hotel. JUSTICE CARSON dissenting: The records of the case were incomplete. the bus had a tire blow out which resulted to the accident. ISSUE: Whether or not Dingcong is liable to pay for the damages caused by Echevarria. ISSUE: Whether or not Wright’s intoxication is the primary cause of his injuries. One night. and no greater degree of care is required than by a sober one. The lower court rendered www. and as even ruled by the lower court. In 1933. It is the general rule that it is immaterial whether a man is drunk or sober if no want of ordinary care or prudence can be imputed to him. The pipe should have been repaired prior and Echevarria should have been provided with a container to catch the drip. Manila Electric.Torts and Damages 72 Phil 14 Torts and Damages – Liability of proprietors Dingcong was the owner of a hotel in Iloilo. Therefore. Lolita de Jesus was riding a bus owned by La Mallorca which had a head on collision against a freight truck.uberdigests. HELD: No. Because of this. It should have been given due credence. Echevarria carelessly left his faucet open thereby flooding his room and it caused water to drip from his room to the store below. La Mallorca vs De Jesus 17 SCRA 22 Torts and Damages – Negligence In October 1959. The lower court found that Wright and Manila Electric were both negligent and as per the ruling in Rakes vs Atlantic Gulf the lower court apportioned the damage awarded to Wright. HELD: Yes. argued that had Wright been sober. Apparently also. And since the SC did not require such missing records to be submitted.info Page 9 . If one's conduct is characterized by a proper degree of care and prudence. And while the calesa was crossing the tracks. a certain Echevarria rented a room in the upper floor of the hotel. Dingcong is liable to pay for damages by reason of his negligence. it is immaterial whether he is drunk or sober. the horse tripped and the whole calesa fell down and Wright was thrown off it. the water pipes supposed to drain the water from Echevarria’s room was defective hence the flooding and the dripping. he would have not been thrown off the calesa. the SC should not have disturbed the finding of facts by the trial court. the articles being sold by Kanaan were damaged. The lower court so found that Wright was negligent and there is nothing that warrants the disturbance of such findings of facts. Before he could be home. It was not shown that Dingcong exercised the diligence of a good father in preventing the damage caused. Lolita died and so her father filed a civil case for damages against La Mallorca. There were two trials in the lower court and only records of the 1st trial were submitted. Dingcong as proprietor is liable for the negligent act of the guest of his hotel (Echevarria). Intoxication is not negligence per se. He had drunk more wine than he customarily does. he would have to cross the railroad tracks by Manila Electric. This is mere guesswork and is not given credence by the SC because it’s just a presumption that a sober man could have avoided such accident. The tracks were left unmaintained by Manila Electric so much so that their elevation above the ground is quite high. Wright vs Manila Electric Co 28 Phil 122 Torts and Damages – Negligence In August 1909.

ISSUE: Whether or not the proximate cause of the death of Bataclan et al was their burning by reason of the torches which ignited the gasoline. the conductor. which. and without which the result would not have occurred. the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury. It was also found later in trial that the tires of the bus were old. Picart vs Smith 37 Phil 809 www. either immediately or by setting other events in motion. as provided in Article 1764. in natural and continuous sequence. While on its way. And more comprehensively. in relation to Article 2206. the smell of gas could have been all over the place yet the driver and the conductor failed to provide warning about said fact to the villagers. The SC also emphasized in this case that moral damages are recoverable by reason of the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract of a common carrier. Juan Bataclan rode a bus owned by Medina from Cavite to Pasay. De Bataclan vs Medina 102 Phil 181 Torts and Damages – Proximate Cause After one midnight in September 1952. and moral damages including counsel fees. The tire blow out in this case was due to the fact that the inner circle of the wheel of the bus was pressed so closely to the rim which caused it to eventually explode. HELD: Yes. of the Civil Code. Such negligence resulted to the overturning of the bus. have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom. the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted.info Page 10 . Vda. each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor. produces the injury. Further. It is just but natural for the villagers to respond to the call for help from the passengers and since it is a rural area which did not have flashlights. The passengers called the help of the villagers and as it was dark. The torches carried by the would-be helpers are not to be blamed. all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events. under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should.Torts and Damages judgment in favor of De Jesus and ordered La Mallorca to pay for actual. This mechanical defect in the installation of the wheel could have been easily discovered had the bus been subjected to a thorough check up before it was allowed to hit the road.uberdigests. HELD: No. This decision was affirmed by the CA. and some passengers were able to free themselves from the bus except Bataclan and 3 others. WHAT IS “PROXIMATE CAUSE”? Proximate cause is that cause. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. the villagers brought torch with them. The driver and the conductor failed to warn the would-be helpers of the fact that gasoline has spilled from the overturned bus so a huge fire ensued which engulfed the bus thereby killing the 4 passengers trapped inside. The driver. The proximate cause was the overturning of the bus which was caused by the negligence of the driver because he was speeding and also he was already advised by Medina to change the tires yet he did not. torches are the natural source of lighting. the driver of the bus was speeding through and when he applied the brakes it cause the bus to be overturned. compensatory. La Mallorca assailed the decision as it argued that a tire blow out is a fortuitous event and should not be taken as negligence. La Mallorca is therefore negligent and the tire explosion is not a fortuitous event for it could have been avoided had the bus been properly maintained. as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person. ISSUE: Whether or not La Mallorca is liable.

uberdigests. is under the exclusive control of the defendant and the injury is such as in the ordinary course of things does not occur if he having such control use proper care. Smith saw at a distance when he blew his horn that Picart and his horse did not move to the other lane so he should have steered his car to the other lane at that point instead of swerving at the last minute. Smith continued driving towards Picart without slowing down and when he was already so near the horse he swerved to the other lane. he who charges negligence shall prove it. However.Torts and Damages Torts and Damages – Doctrine of Last Clear Chance In December 1912. ISSUE: Whether or not Caltex and Boquiren are liable to pay for damages. Note that ordinarily. Caltex and their employees. but they gave no explanation thereof whatsoever. HELD: Yes. It is a fair and reasonable inference that the incident happened because of want of care. someone (a passerby) threw a cigarette while gasoline was being transferred which caused the fire. In that meeting. But the horse got scared so it turned its body across the bridge. in Rizal Avenue. Commercial Airlines (CALI) owed P170k (abt. He therefore had the last clear chance to avoid the unfortunate incident. CALI was going bankrupt so it called upon an informal meeting of its creditors. But there was no evidence presented to prove this theory and no other explanation can be had as to the real reason for the fire. But Smith’s negligence succeeded that of Picart. HELD: Yes. And so was Picart for planting himself on the wrong side of the road. Allegedly. Boquiren and the Court of Appeals 16 SCRA 448 Torts and Damages – Res Ipsa Loquitur In March 1948. the horse struck the car and its limb got broken. without fault of the injured person. a tank truck was hosing gasoline into the underground storage of Caltex. the creditors agreed to appoint www. The persons who knew or could have known how the fire started were Boquiren. Spouses Africa et al vs Caltex Philippines. Picart was riding his horse and while they were on a 75 meter long bridge. it affords reasonable evidence. A fire occurred therein and spread to and burned the neighboring houses. But Picart did not move his horse to the other lane. ISSUE: Whether or not Smith is negligent. Apparently also. that the injury arose from defendant's want of care. This is pursuant to the application on the principle of res ipsa loquitur (“the transaction speaks for itself”) which states: "where the thing which caused injury. with all its appliances. In 1948 however. When Smith’s car has approached the horse at such proximity it left no chance for Picart extricate himself and vigilance on his part will not avert injury. res ipsa loquitur is the exception because the burden of proof is shifted to the party charged of negligence as the latter is the one who had exclusive control of the thing that caused the injury complained of. Apparently. Alfredo Velayo vs Shell Company 100 Phil 168 Torts and Damages – Obligations arising from human relations Prior to 1948.info Page 11 . he saw Smith’s car approaching. Picart can therefore recover damages from Smith but such should be proportioned by reason of his contributory negligence. Picart suffered injuries which required several days of medical attention while the horse eventually died. Caltex and the branch owner (Boquiren) failed to install a concrete firewall to contain fire if in case one happens. Smith blew his horn thrice while he was still at a distance away because Picart and his horse were on Smith’s lane. Manila. was under the control of Caltex and Boquiren." The gasoline station. in the absence of the explanation. equipment and employees. instead he moved his horse closer to the railing. $79k) to Shell and CAL offered its C-54 plane as payment to Shell Company (the plane was in California) but Shell at that time declined as it thought CALI had sufficient money to pay its debt. a fire broke out from the gasoline station and the fire spread and burned several houses including the house of Africa.

if the forgoing rule is approved (as it was approved). even if it does not constitute a violation of a statute law. 2217) may be recovered (Art. Catipon subsequently disposed of the onions by selling them.info Page 12 . the act is contrary to morals. Shell Company argued it is not liable for damages because there is nothing in the law which prohibits a company from assigning its credit. www. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. the legislator. They also agreed not to file suit against CALI but CALI did reserve that it will file insolvency proceedings should its assets be not enough to pay them up. the liability for damages arises from a willful or negligent act contrary to law. Moral damages (Art.uberdigests.Torts and Damages representatives to a working committee that would determine the order of preference as to how each creditor should be paid. the working committee convened to discuss how CALI’s asset should be divided amongst the creditors but while such was pending. PNB sued him for estafa for misappropriating the merchandise (onions). Catipon at that time had no knowledge or intention to be bound by the trust receipt but he signed it anyway so that he could get the onions he already paid for. in the absence of law. the other creditors learned of the assignment made by Shell. Now PNB filed an action for recovery against Catipon. Later. In September 1948. Meanwhile. HELD: Yes. it filed for a writ of injunction against Shell Philippines in order for the latter to restrain Shell USA from proceeding with the attachment and in the alternative that judgment be awarded in favor of CALI for damages double the amount of the C-54 plane. In this article. A moral wrong or injury. the stockholders of CALI were unaware of the assignment of credit made by Shell Philippines to Shell USA and they went on to approve the sale of CALI’s asset to the Philippine Airlines. The C-54 plane was not recovered. Ramirez later became insolvent and the trust receipt went unpaid and since it was in Catipon’s name. Fitzgerald sent a telegraph message to Shell USA advising the latter that Shell Philippines is assigning its credit to Shell USA in the amount of $79k. it being a common practice. should be compensated by damages. The son of Ramirez told Catipon that the only way he could get the onions is for him to sign a trust receipt from PNB. ISSUE: Whether or not Shell is liable for damages considering that it did not violate any law. In order for him to recover the C-54 plane in California. Shell USA got wind of the fact that CALI has a C-54 plane is California and so Shell USA petitioned before a California court to have the plane be the subject of a writ of attachment which was granted. Velayo’s appointment as CALI’s assignee was approved in lieu of the insolvency proceeding. good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage”. In Article 20. Catipon assailed the civil suit and he argues that PNB did not reserve its right to file a separate civil action. would vouchsafe adequate legal remedy for that untold numbers of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to provide for specifically in the statutes. PNB vs Catipon 98 Phil 27 Torts and Damages – Effect of Acquittal Catipon bought onions from Ramirez in 1951. 21. is Article 21 of the Civil Code which states: “Art. 2219). ISSUE: Whether or not Catipon is still liable regardless of his acquittal in the criminal case. Thus at one stroke. CALI then filed for insolvency proceedings to protect its assets in the Philippines from being attached. The basis of such liability. This prompted these other creditors to file their own complaint of attachment against CALI’s assets. The lower court acquitted Catipon because his guilt was not satisfactorily established. thereby effectively collecting almost all if not the entire indebtedness of CALI to Shell Philippines. Shell Company was represented by a certain Fitzgerald to the three man working committee. good customs or public policy.

Torts and Damages HELD: Yes.info Page 13 . The acquittal was because of the fact that his guilt was not satisfactorily established hence his acquittal was based on reasonable doubt and under the law. www. Catipon is ordered to pay PNB without prejudice to Catipon’s rights against Ramirez. under Article 29 of the new Civil Code. such acquittal does not preclude a suit to enforce the civil liability for the same act or omission.uberdigests. This is even if there was no prior reservation by PNB to file a civil suit.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful