Tamayo vs. Aquino et al & Rayos - G.R. Nos.
L-12634 and L-12720 May 29, 1959 Facts: Epifania Gonzales (wife of Aquino) boarded a truck owned by Tamayo, holder of a certificate of public convenience to operate. Allegedly, while Epifania was making a trip aboard the truck, it bumped against a culvert on the side of the road, causing her death. Aquino et al filed an action for damages against Tamayo. Tamayo answered alleging that the truck is owned by Rayos, so he filed a 3rd party complaint against him (Rayos). The CFI ruled that Tamayo is the registered owner, under a public convenience certificate but such truck was sold to Rayos one month after the accident, but he (Tamayo) did not inform the Public Service Commission of the sale. CFI held Tamayo and Rayos jointly and severally liable to Aquino. CA affirmed, holding that, both the registered owner (Tamayo) and the actual owner and operator (Rayos) should be considered as joint tortfeasors and should be made liable in accordance with Article 2194 of the Civil Code (solidary). Issue: WON Art 2194 (solidary liability) is applicable; and, if NOT, how should Tamayo (holder of the cert. of public convenience) participate with Rayos (transferee/operator) in the damages recoverable. Held: No, Art 2194 is not applicable. The action instituted in this case is one for breach of contract, for failure of the defendant to carry safety the deceased for her destination. The liability for which he is made responsible, i.e., for the death of the passenger, may not be considered as arising from a quasi-delict. As the registered owner Tamayo and his transferee Rayos may not be held guilty of tort or a quasidelict; their responsibility is NOT SOLIDARY. As Tamayo is the registered owner of the truck, his responsibility to the public or to any passenger riding in the vehicle or truck must be direct. If the policy of the law is to be enforced and carried out, the registered owner should not be allowed to prove that a third person or another has become the owner, so that he may thereby be relieved of the responsibility to the injured. But as the transferee, who operated the vehicle when the passenger died, is the one directly responsible for the accident and death he should in turn be made responsible to the registered owner for what the latter may have been adjudged to pay. In operating the truck without transfer thereof having been approved by the Public Service Commission, the transferee acted merely as agent of the registered owner and should be responsible to him (the registered owner), for any damages that he may cause the latter by his negligence.
Yakult Phils. v. CA, G.R. No. 91856, October 5, 1990 Gancayco, J. Facts: In 1982, five-year old Roy Camaso, while standing on the sidewalk of M. de la FuenteStreet, Sampaloc, Manila, was sideswiped by motorcycle owned by Yakult Philippines anddriven by its employee, Larry Salvado. The latter was charged with the crime of recklessimprudence resulting to slight physical injuries in an information that was filed with the thenCity Court of Manila. In 1984, a complaint for damages was filed by Roy Camaso representedby his father, David Camaso, against Yakult and Salvado in RTC Manila. A decision wasrendered in the civil case ordering defendants Yakult and Salvado to pay jointly andseverally the plaintiff sums for actual expenses for medical services and hospital bills,attorney’s fees and the costs of the suit. Issue: whether or not a civil action instituted after the criminal action was filed prosper evenif there was no reservation to file a separate civil action Held: Yes. Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure provides as follows: SEC. 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. — When a criminal action isinstituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedlyinstituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civilaction, reserves his right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil actionprior to the criminal action. xxx The reservation of the right to institute the separate civil actions shall bemade before the prosecution starts to present its evidence and undercircumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to makesuch reservation. The civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with thecriminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right toinstitute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. It is alsoprovided that the reservation of the right to institute the separate civil action shall be madebefore the prosecution starts to present its evidence and under circumstances affording theoffended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation. In this case, the offendedparty has not waived the civil action, nor reserved the right to institute it separately. Neitherhas the offended party instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action. However, thecivil action in this case was filed in court before the presentation of the evidence for theprosecution in the
criminal action of which the judge presiding on the criminal case was dulyinformed, so that in the disposition of the criminal action no damages was awarded.
Light Railway Transit Authority vs. Marjorie Navidad (G.R. No. 145804, Feb. 6, 2003)
FACTS: At seven in the morning, Nicanor Navidad, under the influence of alcohol, purchased a ticket to ride the LRT and entered into an argument with one of its security guards, Junelito Escartin. They got into a fight leading Navidad to fall in the railroad tracks when a train, driven by Rodolfo Roman was fast approaching. He died instantaneously. ISSUE: Whether or not LRTA and Prudent (security agency of Escartin) should be liable with the death of Nicanor Navidad HELD: As to the liability of LRTA- The LRTA is liable. Once a passenger purchases a token or a ticket, the contract of carriage begins, with the responsibility of delivering their said passengers from one place to another, exercising extraordinary diligence. As to the liability of Prudent Security- The Security Agency may not be held liable. There is nothing to link Prudent to the death of Nicanor for the reason of negligence of employee. As to the liability of Roman- He cannot be liable. The contractual relationship between Roman and LRTA does not itself say that a juridical relationship is made between the Navidad and Roman, thus he can only be liable for his own fault or negligence.