Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
NOTES: But, if the master has not been guilty of any negligence whatever in the selection and direction of the servant, he is not liable for the acts of the latter, whatever done within the scope of his employment or not, if the damage done by the servant does not amount to a breach of the contract between the master and the person injured. The liability arising from extra-contractual culpa is always based upon a voluntary act or omission which, without willful intent, but by mere negligence or inattention, has caused damage to another. These two fields, figuratively speaking, concentric; that is to say, the mere fact that a person is bound to another by contract does not relieve him from extra-contractual liability to such person. 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. 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, its essential characteristics are identical. Vinculum Juris: (def) It means "an obligation of law", or the right of the obligee to enforce a civil matter in a court of law. 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, De Borja entered into a contract of sale with the NVSD Co., Inc. The subject of the sale was 4,000 cavans of rice valued at Php2.10 per cavan. On behalf of the company, the contract was executed by Vasquez as the companys acting president. NVSD Co. only delivered 2,488 cavans and failed and refused despite demand to deliver the rest hence De Borja incurred damages (apparently, NVSD Co was insolvent). He then sue Vasquez for payment of damages. ISSUE: Whether or not Vasquez is liable for damages. HELD: No. Vasquez is not party to the contract as it was NVSD Co which De Borja contracted with. It is well known that a corporation is an artificial being invested by law with a personality of its own, separate and distinct from that of its stockholders and from that of its officers who manage and run its affairs. The mere fact that its personality is owing to a legal fiction and that it necessarily has to act thru its agents, does not make the latter personally liable on a contract duly entered into, or for an act lawfully performed, by them for an in its behalf. www.uberdigests.info Page 2
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. In July 1962, their teacher assigned them to weed the school premises. While they were doing so, MT Monfort found a headband and she jokingly shouted it as an earthworm and thereafter www.uberdigests.info Page 3
JUSTICE BARREDO Dissenting; MT Monfort is already 13 years old and should have known that by jokingly saying "aloud that she had
found an earthworm and, evidently to frighten the Cuadra girl, tossed the object at her," it was likely that something would happen to her friend, as in fact, she was hurt. 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, he can be liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. 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.
Exconde vs Capuno 101 Phil 843 Torts and Damages - Liability of Parents Dante Capuno was a 15 year old boy who was a pupil of Balintawak Elementary School. In March 1949, he attended a boy scout parade for Dr. Jose Rizal. While they were inside a jeep, he took control of the wheels which he later lost control of causing the jeep to go turtle thereby killing two other students, Isidoro Caperina and one other. Isidoros mother sued Dante Capuno for the death of her son. Pending the criminal action, the mother reserved her right to file a separate civil action which she subsequently filed against Dante and his dad, Delfin Capuno. ISSUE: Whether or not Delfin Capuno, as the father of Dante is liable for damages. www.uberdigests.info Page 4
JUSTICE J.B.L. REYES Dissenting: Delfin Capuno should be relieved from liability. There is no sound reason for limiting the liability to
teachers of arts and trades and not to academic ones. What substantial difference is there between them in so far as, 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, so long as they are in a position to exercise authority and supervision over the pupil.
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 1910s. Meritt was a constructor who was excellent at his work. One day, while he was riding his motorcycle along Calle Padre Faura, he was bumped by a government ambulance. The driver of the ambulance was proven to have been negligent. Because of the incident, 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. In order for Meritt to recover damages, 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. Merritt to
bring suit against the Government of the Philippine Islands and authorizing the Attorney-General of said Islands to appear in said suit). The lower court then determined the amount of damages and ordered the government to pay the same. ISSUE: Whether or not the government is liable for the negligent act of the driver of the ambulance. HELD: No. By consenting to be sued a state simply waives its immunity from suit. It does not thereby concede its liability to plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his favor, or extend its liability to any cause not previously recognized. It merely gives a remedy to enforce a preexisting liability and
www.uberdigests.info
Page 5
In April 1960, a certain Ortiz sued the Irrigation Service Unit which was under the Department of Public Works because ISU, without the consent of Ortiz, encroached upon his land by allegedly inducing Handong Irrigation Assoc. to do so. The basis of the suit was that ISU, though created by the government, 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. Judge Palacio of CFI Camarines Sur ruled in favor of Palacio so did the Court of Appeals. The CA also ordered the issuance of the order of garnishment against the deposit/trust funds in ISUs account in the PNB (such fund were generated from the installment payments ISU received). ISSUE: Whether or not such deposits may be garnished. HELD: No. ISUs activity of selling irrigation pumps is not intended to earn profit or financial gain. It is actually just to replenish the funds used in purchasing said irrigation pumps (the original funds were from FTA from US). The CA ruled that ISU, by selling irrigation pumps is engaged in private business, hence it waived its immunity from suit and had also ordered the garnishment of ISUs deposits in PNB. But then again, as based in Meritt vs Insular Government, the waiver of said immunity does not make the government liable. This would only lead to a disbursement of fund without any proper appropriation as required by law. There is also no showing that the ISUs alleged inducement of Handong is authorized by the State hence the government cannot be liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Palisoc vs Brillantes et al 41 SCRA 548 Torts and Damages Liability of teachers/heads of establishments of arts and trades In March 1966, 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), Daffon scolded Palisoc for just standing around like a foreman. This caused Palisoc to slightly slap the face of Daffon and a fistfight ensued between the two. Daffon delivered blows that eventually killed Palisoc. The parents of Palisoc sued Daffon, the school president (Teodosio Valenton), the instructor (Santiago Quibulue), and the owner (Antonio Brillantes). The basis of the suit against Valenton, Quibulue, and Brillantes was Article 2180 of the Civil Code. The lower court, as well as the CA, ruled that only Daffon is liable for damages and that Valenton, Quibulue, and Brillantes are not liable because under Article 2180, they are only liable so long as they
www.uberdigests.info
Page 6
www.uberdigests.info
Page 7
Dingcong vs Kanaan
www.uberdigests.info
Page 8
www.uberdigests.info
Page 9
www.uberdigests.info
Page 10
www.uberdigests.info
Page 11
PNB vs Catipon 98 Phil 27 Torts and Damages Effect of Acquittal Catipon bought onions from Ramirez in 1951. 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. 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. Catipon subsequently disposed of the onions by selling them. Ramirez later became insolvent and the trust receipt went unpaid and since it was in Catipons name, PNB sued him for estafa for misappropriating the merchandise (onions). The lower court acquitted Catipon because his guilt was not satisfactorily established. Now PNB filed an action for recovery against Catipon. Catipon assailed the civil suit and he argues that PNB did not reserve its right to file a separate civil action. ISSUE: Whether or not Catipon is still liable regardless of his acquittal in the criminal case. www.uberdigests.info Page 12
www.uberdigests.info
Page 13