You are on page 1of 10

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-12986 March 31, 1966

THE SPOUSES BERNABE AFR CA a!" SOLE#A# C. AFR CA, a!" $h% HE RS OF #OM NGA ONG, petitioners-appellants, vs. CALTE& 'PH L.(, NC., MATEO BO)U REN a!" THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents-appellees. Ross, Selph, Carrascoso and Janda for the respondents. Bernabe Africa, etc. for the petitioners. MA*AL NTAL., J.: This case is before us on a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals, which affir ed that of the Court of !irst "nstance of Manila dis issin# petitioners$ second a ended co plaint a#ainst respondents. The action is for da a#es under Articles %&'( and %&') of the old Civil Code. "t appears that in the afternoon of March %*, %&+* a fire bro,e out at the Calte- service station at the corner of Antipolo street and Ri.al Avenue, Manila. "t started while #asoline was bein# hosed fro a tan, truc, into the under#round stora#e, ri#ht at the openin# of the receivin# tan, where the no..le of the hose was inserted. The fire spread to and burned several nei#hborin# houses, includin# the personal properties and effects inside the . Their owners, a on# the petitioners here, sued respondents Calte- /Phil.0, "nc. and Mateo Bo1uiren, the first as alle#ed owner of the station and the second as its a#ent in char#e of operation. Ne#li#ence on the part of both of the was attributed as the cause of the fire. The trial court and the Court of Appeals found that petitioners failed to prove ne#li#ence and that respondents had e-ercised due care in the pre ises and with respect to the supervision of their e plo2ees. The first 1uestion before 3s refers to the ad issibilit2 of certain reports on the fire prepared b2 the Manila Police and !ire 4epart ents and b2 a certain Captain Tinio of the Ar ed !orces of the Philippines. Portions of the first two reports are as follows5 %. Police 4epart ent report5 6 "nvesti#ation disclosed that at about +5'' P.M. March %*, %&+*, while 7eandro !lores was transferrin# #asoline fro a tan, truc,, plate No. T-

in the court$s resolution onl2 E-hibits E. carried no such e-planation. "t burned the truc. (. includin# the disputed ones.. All he said was that he was one of those who investi#ated ?the location of the fire and.? the latter was presented as witness but respondents waived their ri#ht to cross-e-a ine hi althou#h the2 had the opportunit2 to do so@ and thirdl2. if possible. this Cit2.al Avenue and Antipolo :treet. therefore. i aterial and i pertinent. "t is contended5 first. installed between the #asoline pu ps and the under#round tan. near the ain valve of the said under#round tan. action of 7eandro !lores in pullin# off the #asoline hose connectin# the truc.8(&( into the under#round tan.? "ndeed. The !ire 4epart ent report5 6 "n connection with their alle#ation that the pre ises was /sic0 subleased for the installation of a coca-cola and ci#arette stand. 4ue to the #asoline fu es. as to which he did not testif2.nown !ilipino li#hted a ci#arette and threw the burnin# atch stic. =n the second point.en durin# the fire and which is sub itted herewith. There was nothin#. and the followin# accessorias and residences. F. when offered as evidence.uic. fire suddenl2 bla. were ob>ected to b2 counsel for each of respondents on the #round that the2 were hearsa2 and that the2 were ?irrelevant. and that he brou#ht the report with hi . .s. <owever.ed. prevented a terrific e-plosion. that said reports were ad itted b2 the trial court without ob>ection on the part of respondents@ secondl2. that in an2 event the said reports are ad issible as an e-ception to the hearsa2 rule under section )8 of Rule %(). The transcript of the hearin# of :epte ber %C. F-8 and G-D were ad itted without objection@ the ad ission of the others. of the Calte. This rulin# is now assi#ned as error. %&8) /pp. now Rule %)'. althou#h 4etective Capacillo did ta. The fore#oin# reports were ruled out as ?double hearsa2? b2 the Court of Appeals and hence inad issible. on which he need be crosse-a ined@ and the contents of the report.e the witness stand. the co plainants furnished this =ffice a cop2 of a photo#raph ta.9asoline :tation located at the corner of Ri. which accordin# to infor ation #athered in the nei#hborhood contained ci#arettes and atches. that with respect to the police report /E-hibit A-Africa0 which appears si#ned b2 a 4etective Bapanta alle#edl2 ?for :alvador Capacillo. with the under#round tan. The first contention is not borne out b2 the record. an un. the fla es scattered due to the hose fro which the #asoline was spoutin#. he was not e-a ined and he did not testif2 as to the facts entioned in his alle#ed report /si#ned b2 4etective Bapanta0. #ather witnesses as to the occurrence. it appears in this picture that there are in the pre ises a coca-cola cooler and a rac. %DC-%C'0 shows that the reports in 1uestion. did not thereb2 . The report of Captain Tinio reproduced infor ation #iven b2 a certain Benito Morales re#ardin# the histor2 of the #asoline station and what the chief of the fire depart ent had told hi on the sa e sub>ect.

And even if he had testified. the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should appl2 so as to presu e ne#li#ence on the part of appellees. Both the trial court and the appellate court refused to appl2 the doctrine in the instant case on the #rounds that ?as to /its0 applicabilit2 . driver of the tan.nowled#e of the officers who conducted the investi#ation. Co ents on the Rules of Court. however. we find no practical use for such doctrine. fall within the scope of section )8. accordin# to E-hibit A-Africa.? and that while the rules do not prohibit its adoption in appropriate cases. there see s to he nothin# definite. however. not havin# been #iven b2 the infor ants pursuant to an2 dut2 to do so. truc. or b2 such other person in the perfor ance of a dut2 speciall2 en>oined b2 law@ and /c0 that the public officer or other person had sufficient . ?in the case at bar. wherein the decision of the Court of Appeals was penned b2 Mr. that is. ac1uired b2 the throu#h official infor ationK As to so e facts the sources thereof are not even identified. The doctrine has actuall2 been applied in this >urisdiction.% The reports in 1uestion do not constitute an e-ception to the hearsa2 rule@ the facts stated therein were not ac1uired b2 the reportin# officers throu#h official infor ation.. or b2 a person in the perfor ance of a dut2 speciall2 en>oined b2 law.nowled#e of such facts. or b2 another person speciall2 en>oined b2 law to do so@ /b0 that it was ade b2 the public officer in the perfor ance of his duties. without proof as to the cause and ori#in of the fire. Eustice E. Rule %(). Aol. however. are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Re2es now a e ber of the :upre e Court.? There are three re1uisites for ad issibilit2 under the rule >ust entioned5 /a0 that the entr2 was ade b2 a public officer. ) H%&8CI p. that the reports in the selves.? The 1uestion deserves ore than such su ar2 dis issal.nowled#e of the facts b2 hi stated. without further testi onial evidence on their contents.beco e co petent evidence. hilippine ower and !evelopment Co. =thers are attributed to 7eopoldo Medina.. No. Jas .B. . his testi on2 would still have been ob>ectionable as far as infor ation #athered b2 hi fro third persons was concerned.nowled#e of the facts stated but ust have the dut2 to #ive such state ents for record. To 1ualif2 their state ents as ?official infor ation? ac1uired b2 the officers who prepared the reports.7. %&+&0. :epte ber ('. /CA-9. =f the three re1uisites >ust stated. =bviousl2 the aterial facts recited in the reports as to the cause and circu stances of the fire were not within the personal . which provides that ?entries in official records ade in the perfor ance of his dut2 b2 a public officer of the Philippines. the persons who ade the state ents not onl2 ust have personal . The ne-t 1uestion is whether or not. )(+'-R. )&*0. in the Philippines. #ive an2 reason as to the ori#in of the fire.R. in the case of Espiritu vs. referred to as an e plo2ee at the #as station were the fire occurred@ to 7eandro !lores. which ust have been ac1uired b2 hi personall2 or throu#h official infor ation /Moran. of the station@ and to respondent Mateo Bo1uiren. fro which #asoline was bein# transferred at the ti e to the under#round tan. Petitioners aintain. who could not. onl2 the last need be considered here.

in the absence of the e-planation.en ends hit the head of the plaintiff as he was about to board the truc. ( < L Co.s for itself0.0 This rule is . care and aintenance. over one 2ear after the ishap.? . suddenl2 parted. Conse1uentl2. D*'. %&+C. the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish that the pro-i ate cause of his in>ur2 was the ne#li#ence of the defendant...? And the burden of evidence is shifted to hi to establish that he has observed due care and dili#ence. v. electric wires do not part suddenl2 in fair weather and in>ure people. but the appellate court overruled the defense under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. that in case of noncontractual ne#li#ence. ?if there are an2 facts inconsistent with ne#li#ence. the leadin# case that established that rule0.ed unconscious to the #round. it affords reasonable evidence. Reprint (&&. with clear weather and without an2 wind blowin#. 3.noc. C((@ %8& En#. it is for the defendant to prove. and the electric wire was under the sole control of defendant co pan2. and one of the bro. as contended b2 the appellant. Jhile it is the rule. %&+D. aintenance and supervision@ >ust as barrels do not ordinaril2 roll out of the warehouse windows to in>ure passersb2. while the plaintiff-appellee and other co panions were loadin# #rass between the unicipalities of Ba2 and Calauan.nown b2 the na e of res ipsa loquitur /the transaction spea. an electric trans ission wire. The defendant therein disclai ed liabilit2 on the #round that the plaintiff had failed to show an2 specific act of ne#li#ence. installed and aintained b2 the defendant Philippine Power and 4evelop ent Co. "nc. without fault of the in>ured person. ed.+'' volts carried b2 the wire and was .. (++. as observed b2 Chief Baron Polloc. in the province of 7a#una. where it is un1uestioned that the plaintiff had ever2 ri#ht to be on the hi#hwa2.The facts of that case are stated in the decision as follows5 "n the afternoon of Ma2 8. Re1uena. unless the2 are sub>ected to unusual strain and stress or there are defects in their installation. Boadle. "n the ordinar2 course of events.:. The electric char#e coursed throu#h his bod2 and caused e-tensive and serious ultiple burns fro s. leavin# the bone e-posed in so e parts and causin# intense pain and wounds that were not co pletel2 healed when the case was tried on Eune %*. is under the e-clusive control of the defendant and the in>ur2 is such as in the ordinar2 course of thin#s does not occur if he havin# such control use proper care. Thereafter. of +. in the absence of contributor2 ne#li#ence /which is ad ittedl2 not present0. unless so e one was ne#li#ent. As a result. /:an Euan 7i#ht L Transit Co.ed principal that ?where the thin# which caused in>ur2. that the in>ur2 arose fro defendant$s want of care. alon#side the road. plaintiff received the full shoc. 8D 7.ull to le#s. /B2rne v. The court said5 The first point is directed a#ainst the sufficienc2 of plaintiff$s evidence to place appellant on its defense. and is peculiarl2 applicable to the case at bar. or culpa aquiliana. the fact that the wire snapped suffices to raise a reasonable presu ption of ne#li#ence in its installation. *&. it is also a reco#ni.

The Court of Appeals for the !irst Circuit reversed this >ud# ent.in#l2 si ilar to the one before 3s is Eones vs.ed the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Je further find fro the uncontradicted testi on2 of plaintiff$s witnesses that fire started in the under#round tan.&8.. while #asoline was bein# transferred fro the tan. %C% :o. no witnesses were placed on the stand b2 the defendant. =n the other hand. plaintiff has evo. durin# the ter of the lease. but we do not consider this a reason for not appl2in# the particular doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in the case at bar."#wph$". Eones is the owner of a buildin# in the cit2 of <a on which in the 2ear %&)+ was leased to the :hell Petroleu Corporation for a #asoline fillin# station. tan. of . =n =ctober *. truc. Predicated on these circu stances and the further circu stance of defendant$s failure to e-plain the cause of the fire or to show its lac. %&)+. and the truc."t is true of course that decisions of the Court of Appeals do not la2 down doctrines bindin# on the :upre e Court. e-tended to the hose and tan. and the case is now before us for decision. Alle#in# that the da a#es to his buildin# a ounted to M8%D. fire is not considered a fortuitous event. There are an2 cases . of the station. Ta. truc. and was co unicated fro the burnin# hose. were under the control of the defendant and operated b2 its a#ents or e plo2ees. wa#on. :hell Petroleu Corporation.*(. the :upre e Court of 7ouisiana held5 Plaintiff$s petition contains two distinct char#es of ne#li#ence 6 one relatin# to the cause of the fire and the other relatin# to the spreadin# of the #asoline about the fillin# station.nowled#e of the cause.. The >ud#e of the district court. Plaintiff applied to this Court for a Jrit of Review which was #ranted. and while both the tan. and escapin# #asoline to the buildin# owned b2 the plaintiff. a fire started with resultin# da a#es to the buildin# owned b2 Eones. in the stora#e and sale of which e-tre e care ust be ta. Eones sued the :hell Petroleu Corporation for the recover2 of that a ount.%&t "n resolvin# the issue of ne#li#ence. concluded that plaintiff was entitled to a recover2 and rendered >ud# ent in his favor for M+(C. were in char#e of and bein# operated b2 the a#ents or e plo2ees of the defendant.in# up plaintiff$s char#e of ne#li#ence relatin# to the cause of the fire. et al. truc. as it arises al ost invariabl2 fro so e act of an.. 9asoline is a hi#hl2 co bustible aterial. attached to the fillin# station while it was bein# filled fro the tan. =ther than an e-pert to assess the da a#es caused plaintiff$s buildin# b2 the fire. truc. A case stri. ++C5 Arthur =. we find it established b2 the record that the fillin# station and the tan. to the under#round tan.en. also operated b2 the :hell Petroleu Corporation. after hearin# the testi on2. on the #round the testi on2 failed to show with reasonable certaint2 an2 ne#li#ence on the part of the :hell Petroleu Corporation or an2 of its a#ents or e plo2ees.

with all its appliances. it affords reasonable evidence. %%8 7a. R. Broderic. Ann..9asoline :tation co plained of occupies a lot appro-i atel2 %' . %'%.en b2 its operator the concrete walls south and west ad>oinin# the nei#hborhood are onl2 (-%O( eters hi#h at ost and cannot avoid the fla es fro leapin# over it in case of fire. aside fro precautions alread2 ta.R. Pa#e. was under the control of appellees. in absence of e-planation b2 defendant. %%&)0.A. a2 be successfull2 invo.new or could have .. Co... G-% Africa0 the followin# appears5 "nvesti#ation of the basic co plaint disclosed that the Calte. C)%. Aic. )* :o. )8 :o. A fire occurred therein and spread to and burned the nei#hborin# houses. D).in which the doctrine the . is one of Jhere the thin# which caused the in>ur2 co plained of is shown to be under the ana#e ent of defendant or his servants and the accident is such as in the ordinar2 course of thin#s does not happen if those who have its ana#e ent or control use proper care. 8% 7a. 7a. Co. 8'8@ Jillis v. The location is within a ver2 bus2 business district near the =brero Mar.nown how the fire started were appellees and their e plo2ees. %%% 7a. (8 :o.%' at the southwest corner of Ri. we thin. that the accident arose fro want of care.al Avenue and Antipolo.. "t is a fair and reasonable inference that the incident happened because of want of care. :o e of the cases in this >urisdiction in which the doctrine has been applied are the followin#. The principle enunciated in the afore1uoted case applies with e1ual force here.e Charles "ce.ard to its operation which in turn endan#ers the entire nei#hborhood to confla#ration. a railroad crossin# and ver2 thic. The #asoline station. %'' A . NCD*. e1uip ent and e plo2ees.E.sbur#. !urther ore. 8&&. 8D'. *&(@ Bents v. This state ent of the rule of res ipsa loquitur has been widel2 approved and adopted b2 the courts of last resort. %%8). 8((. etc.et. "n the report sub itted b2 Captain 7eoncio Mariano of the Manila Police 4epart ent /E-h. vi'. Rep.ed and this. p. )& :o. but the2 #ave no e-planation thereof whatsoever. /+8 C. %%8 7a. etc. D+ 7. ..5 Maus v. :t. The persons who .l2 populated nei#hborhood where a #reat nu ber of people ill around t until #asoline tever be theJact>vities of these peopleor li#htin# a ci#arette cannot be e-cluded and this constitute a secondar2 ha. &CC@ <ebert v. Records show that there have been two cases of fire which caused not onl2 aterial da a#es but desperation and also panic in the nei#hborhood.

is not sufficient to relieve a wron#doer fro conse1uences of ne#li#ence. was not onl2 with respect to the cause of the fire but also with respect to the spread thereof to the nei#hborin# houses. passed throu#h the #asoline station and ne#li#entl2 threw a li#hted atch in the pre ises. but assu in# the alle#ation to be true 6 certainl2 an2 unfavorable inference fro the ad ission a2 be ta. was al ost filled he went to the tan. descriptive of the location and ob>ective circu stances surroundin# the operation of the #asoline station in 1uestion. stren#then the presu ption of ne#li#ence under the doctrine of res ipsa lo1uitur. na el2.. These facts. %%*+. havin# been sub itted b2 a police officer in the perfor ance of his duties on the basis of his own personal observation of the facts reported. was transferrin# the contents thereof into the under#round stora#e when the fire bro.. (. vol. to close the valve.? <e added that when the tan. to the possible outbrea. There is an ad ission on the part of Bo1uiren in his a ended answer to the second a ended co plaint that ?the fire was caused throu#h the acts of a stran#er who.. of fire at this alread2 s all but crowded #asoline station. truc. ?"t is the rule that those who distribute a dan#erous article or a#ent.? Even then the fire possibl2 would not have spread to the nei#hborin# houses were it not for another ne#li#ent o ission on the part of defendants. The fore#oin# report. since on their face the2 called for ore strin#ent easures of caution than those which would satisf2 the standard of due dili#ence under ordinar2 circu stances. does not protect the actor fro liabilit2. states the rule which we find acceptable here. turned to the ? anhole? he. !lores was the driver of the #asoline tan. ?The intention of an unforeseen and une-pected cause.en a#ainst Bo1uiren 6 it does not e-tenuate his ne#li#ence. N+)&0. their failure to provide a concrete wall hi#h enou#h to prevent the fla es fro leapin# over it.e out. which would predictabl2 cru ple and elt when sub>ected to intense heat. A decision of the :upre e Court of Te-as. 4efendants$ ne#li#ence. <e said5 ?Before loadin# the under#round tan.s stand had been eli inated. we thin. owe a de#ree of protection to the public proportionate to and co ensurate with a dan#er involved . it is the #enerall2 accepted rule as applied to torts that $if the effects of the actor$s ne#li#ent conduct activel2 and continuousl2 operate to brin# about har to another.ed iron sheets. this #asoline service station is also used b2 its operator as a #ara#e and repair shop for his fleet of ta-icabs nu berin# ten or ore. and while he had his bac. coca-cola /at the coca-cola stand0 which is about a eter fro the hole leadin# to the under#round tan. a2 properl2 be considered as an e-ception to the hearsa2 rule. As it was the concrete wall was onl2 (-%O( eters hi#h. tortious or cri inal act is also a substantial factor in brin#in# about the har . if such ne#li#ence directl2 and . without authorit2. and be2ond that hei#ht it consisted erel2 of #alvani. there were people who went to drin. or per ission of answerin# defendant. the fact that the active and substantiall2 si ultaneous operation of the effects of a third person$s innocent. upon facts analo#ous to those of the present case. There is no ore elo1uent de onstration of this than the state ent of 7eandro !lores before the police investi#ator. there were no people.Althou#h the soft drin.? No evidence on this point was adduced. heard so eone shout ?fire.$ /Restate ent of the 7aw of Torts. :tated in another wa2. p. alone and without assistance. addin# another ris. wa#on who. therefore. but while the loadin# was #oin# on.

of Calte-. A otion to dis iss on this #round is dee ed to be an ad ission of the facts alle#ed in the co plaint. as held b2 the Court of Appeals. andOor the owners of the #asoline station.did not present an2 contract with Bo1uiren that would reveal the nature of their relationship at the ti e of the fire. This retroactivit2 provision is 1uite si#nificant. "nstead.'' for the use of the pre ises and all the e1uip ent therein. Bo1uiren can hardl2 be considered an independent contractor. %&+*. in the li#ht of the facts not controverted. or an a#ent of Calte-. Maintenance of the station and its e1uip ent was sub>ect to the approval.0 The ne-t issue is whether Calte. 3nder that a#ree ent Bo1uiren would pa2 Calte. This 1uestion. Bo1uiren could not assi#n or transfer his . used in deliverin# #asoline to the station had the na e of CA7TEG painted on it@ and /80 the license to store #asoline at the station was in the na e of Calte-. as shown b2 the clause that Calte?shall not be liable for an2 in>ur2 to person or propert2 while in the propert2 herein licensed. But then a#ain.the purel2 no inal su of P%. vs. %&+*.0 "nc. "n Bo1uiren$s a ended answer to the second a ended co plaint. if one there was.J. These facts are5 /%0 Bo1uiren ade an ad ission that he was an a#ent of Calte-@ /(0 at the ti e of the fire Calte.owned the #asoline station and all the e1uip ent therein@ /)0 Calte.ad its that it owned the #asoline station as well as the e1uip ent therein. in his otion to dis iss appellants$ second a ended co plaint the #round alle#ed was that it stated no cause of action since under the alle#ations thereof he was erel2 actin# as a#ent of Calte-.Products. he denied that he directed one of his drivers to re ove #asoline fro the truc.fro an2 responsibilit2 with respect to the fire. <e could sell onl2 Calte.? /MacAfee. March %*./Phil. There ust have been one in e-istence at that ti e.e-ercised control over Bo1uiren in the ana#e ent of the state@ /+0 the deliver2 truc.? But even if the license a#ree ent were to #overn. and alle#ed that the ?alle#ed driver. and that a on# the chan#es was one to the effect that he was not actin# as a#ent of Calte-. the driver bein# an e plo2ee of the Calte. This issue depends on whether Bo1uiren was an independent contractor. This so-called license a#ree ent /E-hibit 8-Calte-0 was e-ecuted on Nove ber (&. /E-hibit T-Africa@ E-hibit 3-Africa@ E-hibit G-8 Africa@ E-hibit G-D Africa@ E-hibit P-Africa0. representative or a#ent of 7"CEN:=R /Calte-0. which paid the license fees. na el2. and #ives rise to the conclusion that it was desi#ned precisel2 to free Calte. since it was entered into shortl2 before the e-piration of the one-2ear period it was intended to operate. (nd ++(.? "t is true that Bo1uiren later on a ended his answer. such that he could not have incurred personal liabilit2. %8) :. into the tan. But Calte.pro-i atel2 cooperates with the independent cause in the resultin# in>ur2. et al. Traver$s 9as Corporation. in other words control. it bein# understood and a#reed that 7"CEN:EE /Bo1uiren0 is not an e plo2ee. what was presented was a license a#ree ent anifestl2 tailored for purposes of this case.should be held liable for the da a#es caused to appellants. but ade effective as of Eanuar2 %. %&+* so as to cover the date of the fire. was not in his e plo2. but clai s that the business conducted at the service station in 1uestion was owned and operated b2 Bo1uiren. Calte. is one of law and hence a2 be passed upon b2 this Court.

. and should such perfor ance conflict with the na e or title #iven the contract b2 the parties. the findin# of the Court of Appeals that the operator was an a#ent of the co pan2 and not an independent contractor should not be disturbed. 8C :. it retained the eans of co pellin# sub ission to its orders. !ire ens$ "nsurance Co pan2 of Newar. and thereafter until ter inated b2 Calteupon two da2s prior written notice. should thereb2 a controvers2 as to what the2 reall2 had intended to enter into. C8C0. it ust be held liable for the ne#li#ence of those perfor in# service under its direction. Ro#ers. Ta. 7td.J. /9ulf Refinin# Co pan2 v. The evidence shows that it i ediatel2 assu ed control. %&+*. /:hell Co pan2 of the Philippines. . and of avoidin# liabilit2 for the ne#li#ence of the e plo2ees about the station@ but the co pan2 was not satisfied to allow such relationship to e-ist. Calte. New Eerse2. These provisions of the contract show the e-tent of the control of Calte.products. The written contract was apparentl2 drawn for the purpose of creatin# the apparent relationship of e plo2er and independent contractor. Je thin. vs.in# into consideration the fact that the operator owed his position to the co pan2 and the latter could re ove hi or ter inate his services at will@ that the service station belon#ed to the co pan2 and bore its tradena e and the operator sold onl2 the products of the co pan2@ that the e1uip ent used b2 the operator belon#ed to the co pan2 and were >ust loaned to the operator and the co pan2 too. %'' Phil.but not to Bo1uiren. the for er ust prevail over the latter. <avin# elected to assu e control and to direct the eans and ethods b2 which the wor. or did not conduct the business with due dili#ence. (d. %*)0. the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict of the >ur2. B2 reservin# the ri#ht to ter inate the contract at will. To deter ine the nature of a contract courts do not have or are not bound to rel2 upon the na e or title #iven it b2 the contractin# parties. and proceeded to direct the ethod b2 which the wor. contracted for should be perfor ed. char#e of their repair and aintenance@ that an e plo2ee of the co pan2 supervised the operator and conducted periodic inspection of the co pan2$s #asoline and service station@ that the price of the products sold b2 the operator was fi-ed b2 the co pan2 and not b2 the operator@ and that the receipts si#ned b2 the operator indicated that he was a ere a#ent.could at an2 ti e cancel and ter inate the a#ree ent in case Bo1uiren ceased to sell Calte. Ter ination of the contract was therefore a ri#ht #ranted onl2 to Calte. %&+* to 4ece ber )%. The control was such that the latter was virtuall2 an e plo2ee of the for er. has to be perfor ed.over Bo1uiren. but the wa2 the contractin# parties do or perfor their respective obli#ations stipulated or a#reed upon a2 be shown and in1uired into. The license a#ree ent was supposed to be fro Eanuar2 %.ri#hts as licensee without the consent of Calte-. in the >ud# ent of Calte-.

too.'''. Bautista An(elo. otherwise the principle prohibitin# un>ust enrich ent would be violated. !i'on. The >ustice of the peace has no personal .e arria#es to send a cop2 of each arria#e contract sole ni.further ar#ues that the #asoline stored in the station belon#ed to Bo1uiren. the ta. but it was reported to hi b2 a priest whose dut2 it was. As found b2 the trial court the Africas sustained a loss of P&.0 .nowled#e thereof b2 virtue of a statutor2 dut2 on the part of those authori. J.'''. <owever.e the report for record purposes. :o also are entries of arria#es ade b2 a unicipal treasurer in his official record. JJ.''. Jherefore. The deduction is now challen#ed as erroneous on the #round that Article (('C of the New Civil Code. disre#ardin# the testi on2 of one of the =n# children that said propert2 was worth P+. after deductin# the a ount of P(. because he ac1uires .nowled#e of the arria#e.. the a ount that should be recovered be easured b2 the da a#es actuall2 suffered. Je a#ree that the court erred. re#ardless of the silence of the law on this point at that ti e.*. Aol. .. J.'' collected b2 the on the insurance of the house.ed b2 the to the local civil re#istrar. for instance. which provides for the subro#ation of the insurer to the ri#hts of the insured.. But no cash invoices were presented to show that Bo1uiren had bou#ht said #asoline fro Calte-.'''. place. with interest fro the filin# of the co plaint.*' and P%'. respectivel2. C. The heirs of =n# are therefore entitled to P%'.''. was not 2et in effect when the loss too.records of a provincial assessor are ad issible even if the assess ents were ade b2 subordinates.''8. the decision appealed fro is reversed and respondents-appellees are held liable solidaril2 to appellants.''..ed to sole ni. Barrera. +aldivar and Sanche'. Ben('on.B. to a.*'. and ordered to pa2 the the aforesaid su of P&. Re)es..''.J. concur. since it is of co on .'' was ad>ud#ed b2 the lower court on the basis of the assessed value of the propert2 destro2ed.nowled#e that the assess ent for ta-ation purposes is not an accurate #au#e of fair ar. Co ents on the Rules of Court. na el2. Jith respect to the clai of the heirs of =n# PC. /:ee Moran. and costs.'''. Foo$!o$%+ % Thus.et value. :i ilarl2. Ben('on. Concepcion. under the law.Calte. ) H%&8CI pp.8''. no part. and in this case should not prevail over positive evidence of such value.''8. P%. Re(ala. J. )*&-)&8. the record of a >ustice of the peace of arria#e certificates trans itted to hi b2 the correspondin# priest is ad issible. Neither was there a sales contract to prove the sa e.8''.