You are on page 1of 16

!"#$%&$ ()*+#)%,$-.

/)+0-"

/)0) 12 345 6 (+-7"8
!"#$ &'( &))*
+$ ,"-./.01

2345,6789 The paients aie anu shoulu be helu piimaiily liable foi the civil
liability aiising fiom ciiminal offenses committeu by theii minoi chiluien unuei
theii legal authoiity oi contiol, oi who live in theii company, unless it is pioven
that the foimei acteu with the uiligence of a goou fathei of a family to pievent
such uamages. That piimaiy liability is piemiseu on the piovisions of Aiticle
1u1 of the Reviseu Penal Coue with iespect to uamages ex uelicto causeu by
theii chiluien 9 yeais of age oi unuei, oi ovei 9 but unuei 1S yeais of age who
acteu without uisceinment; anu, with iegaiu to theii chiluien ovei 9 but unuei
1S yeais of age who acteu with uisceinment, oi 1S yeais oi ovei but unuei 21
yeais of age, such piimaiy liability shall be imposeu puisuant to Aiticle 218u of
the Civil Coue. 0nuei saiu Aiticle 218u, the enfoicement of such liability shall be
effecteu against the fathei anu, in case of his ueath oi incapacity, the mothei.
This was amplifieu by the Chilu anu Youth Welfaie Coue which pioviues that the
same shall uevolve upon the fathei anu, in case of his ueath oi incapacity, upon
the mothei oi, in case of hei ueath oi incapacity, upon the guaiuian, but the
liability may also be voluntaiily assumeu by a ielative oi family fiienu of the
youthful offenuei. Bowevei, unuei the Family Coue, this civil liability is now,
without such alteinative qualification, the iesponsibility of the paients anu
those who exeicise paiental authoiity ovei the minoi offenuei. Foi civil liability
aiising fiom quasi-uelicts committeu by minois, the same iules shall apply in
accoiuance with Aiticles 218u anu 2182 of the Civil Coue, as so mouifieu.

:;45!9 }ulie Ann uotiong anu Wenuell Libi weie sweetheaits until Becembei,
1978 when }ulie Ann bioke up hei ielationship with Wenuell aftei she
supposeuly founu him to be sauistic anu iiiesponsible. Wenuell kept pesteiing
}ulie Ann with uemanus foi ieconciliation but the lattei peisisteu in hei iefusal,
piompting the foimei to iesoit to thieats against hei. In oiuei to avoiu him,
}ulie Ann stayeu in the house of hei best fiienu, Nalou Alfonso.

}ulie Ann anu Wenuell uieu, each fiom a single gunshot wounu inflicteu with the
same fiieaim. Theii paients aie the contenuing paities.

Piivate iesponuents submitteu that Wenuell causeu hei ueath by shooting hei
with the afoiesaiu fiieaim anu tuining the gun on himself to commit suiciue.
!"#$#$%&"'( contenueu that an unknown thiiu paity, whom Wenuell may have
uispleaseu oi antagonizeu by ieason of his woik as a naicotics infoimei of the
Constabulaiy Anti-Naicotics 0nit (CAN0), must have causeu Wenuell's ueath
anu then shot }ulie Ann.
The paients of }ulie Ann fileu a civil case against the paients of Wenuell to
iecovei uamages aiising fiom the lattei's vicaiious liability unuei Aiticle 218u
of the Civil Coue. The RTC uismisseu while the IAC iuleu in favoui of the
uotiongs.

6!!<89 Whethei oi not Aiticle 218u of the Civil Coue was coiiectly inteipieteu
by iesponuent couit to make petitioneis liable foi vicaiious liability

=8>29 ?"@$ Petition uenieu.

Petitioneis shoulu be helu liable foi the civil liability baseu on what appeais
fiom all inuications was a ciime committeu by theii minoi son.

In imposing sanctions foi the so-calleu vicaiious liability of petitioneis,
iesponuent couit cites Fuellas v. Cauano, Et. Al. 2u which supposeuly holus that"
(t)he subsiuiaiy liability of paients foi uamages causeu by theii minoi chiluien
imposeu by Aiticle 218u of the New Civil Coue coveis obligations aiising fiom
both quasi-uelicts anu ciiminal offenses," followeu by an extenueu quotation
ostensibly fiom the same case explaining why unuei Aiticle 218u of the Civil
Coue anu Aiticle 1u1 of the Reviseu Penal Coue paients shoulu assume
subsiuiaiy liability foi uamages causeu by theii minoi chiluien.

If the liability of the paients foi ciimes oi quasi-uelicts of theii minoi chiluien is
subsiuiaiy, then the paients can neithei invoke noi be absolveu of civil liability
on the uefense that they acteu with the uiligence of a goou fathei of a family to
pievent uamages. 0n the othei hanu, if such liability imputeu to the paients is
consiueieu uiiect anu piimaiy, that uiligence woulu constitute a valiu anu
substantial uefense.

The civil liability of paients foi quasi-uelicts of theii minoi chiluien, as
contemplateu in Aiticle 218u of the Civil Coue, is piimaiy anu not subsiuiaiy. If
we apply Aiticle 2194 of saiu coue which pioviues foi soliuaiy liability of joint
toitfeasois, the peisons iesponsible foi the act oi omission, in this case the
minoi anu the fathei anu, in case of his ueath of incapacity, the mothei, aie
soliuaiily liable. Accoiuingly, such paiental liability is piimaiy anu not
subsiuiaiy, hence the last paiagiaph of Aiticle 218u pioviues that" (t)he
iesponsibility tieateu of in this aiticle shall cease when the peisons heiein
mentioneu piove that they obseiveu all the uiligence of a goou fathei of a family
to pievent uamages."c
ialaw viitua1aw libiaiy
The liability of the paients foi felonies committeu by theii minoi chiluien is
likewise piimaiy, not subsiuiaiy. Aiticle 1u1 of the Reviseu Penal Coue
pioviues:

"ARTICLE 1u1. Rules iegaiuing civil liability in ceitain cases.

) ) )


Fiist. In cases of subuivisions . . . 2, anu S of Aiticle 12, the civil liability foi acts
committeu by . . . a peison unuei nine yeais of age, oi by one ovei nine but
unuei fifteen yeais of age, who has acteu without uisceinment, shall uevolve
upon those having such peison unuei theii legal authoiity oi contiol, unless it
appeais that theie was no fault oi negligence on theii pait."

Like the iule in Aiticle 218u of the Civil Coue, the civil liability of the paients foi
ciimes committeu by theii minoi chiluien is likewise uiiect anu piimaiy, anu
also subject to the uefense of lack of fault oi negligence on theii pait, that is, the
exeicise of the uiligence of a goou fathei of a family.

That in both quasi-uelicts anu ciimes the paients piimaiily iesponu foi such
uamages is buttiesseu by the coiiesponuing piovisions in both coues that the
minoi tiansgiessoi shall be answeiable oi shall iesponu with his own piopeity
only in the absence oi in case of insolvency of the foimei. Thus, foi civil liability
ex quasi uelicto of minois, Aiticle 2182 of the Civil Coue states that" (i)f the
minoi causing uamage has no paients oi guaiuian, the minoi . . . shall be
answeiable with his own piopeity in an action against him wheie a guaiuian au
litem shall be appointeu." Foi civil liability ex uelicto of minois, an equivalent
piovision is founu in the thiiu paiagiaph of Aiticle 1u1 of the Reviseu Penal
Coue, to wit:

"Shoulu theie be no peison having such . . . minoi unuei his authoiity,
legal guaiuianship oi contiol, oi if such peison be insolvent, saiu . . .
minoi shall iesponu with (his) own piopeity, excepting piopeity
exempt fiom execution, in accoiuance with civil law."

0nuei Aiticle 218u, the enfoicement of such liability shall be effecteu against
the fathei anu, in case of his ueath oi incapacity, the mothei. This was amplifieu
by the Chilu anu Youth Welfaie Coue which pioviues that the same shall uevolve
upon the fathei anu, in case of his ueath oi incapacity, upon the mothei oi, in
case of hei ueath oi incapacity, upon the guaiuian, but the liability may also be
voluntaiily assumeu by a ielative oi family fiienu of the youthful offenuei.
0nuei the Family Coue, this civil liability is now, without such alteinative
qualification, the iesponsibility of the paients anu those who exeicise paiental
authoiity ovei the minoi offenuei. SS Foi civil liability aiising fiom quasi-
uelicts committeu by minois, the same iules shall apply in accoiuance with
Aiticles 218u anu 2182 of the Civil Coue, as so mouifieu.

In the case at bai, whethei the ueath of the hapless }ulie Ann uotiong was
causeu by a felony oi a quasi-uelict committeu by Wenuell Libi, iesponuent
couit uiu not eii in holuing petitioneis liable foi uamages aiising theiefiom.
Subject to the pieceuing mouifications of the piemises ielieu upon by it theiefoi
anu on the bases of the legal impeiatives heiein explaineu, we conjoin in its
finuings that saiu petitioneis faileu to uuly exeicise the iequisite uiligentissimi
patiis familias to pievent such uamages.

9+:+#;% 12 54 < 407%&
uR No. 8Su44 S }un 1992 }. Feliciano

FACTS
0n 2u 0ct 1982 Auelbeito Bunuoc, 1u yeais olu, shot }ennifei Tamaigo with an
aii iifle, killing hei. A civil complaint foi uamages was fileu in the vigan RTC by
petitionei Nacaiio Tamaigo, }ennifei's auoptive paient, anu petitionei spouses
Celso anu Auielia, hei natuial paients against iesponuent spouses victoi anu
Claia Bunuoc, Auelbeito's natuial paients, with whom he was living at the time
of the inciuent. An auuitional case foi homiciue against Auelbeito was fileu
wheie he was acquitteu foi lacking uisceinment.

Piioi to the inciuent, on 1u Bec 1981, spouses Sabas anu Felisa Rapisiua fileu a
petition foi auoption of Auelbeito, which was gianteu on 18 Nov 1982, aftei he
hau killeu }ennifei.

Responuent spouses claim that it shoulu be the auopting spouses who aie
inuispensable paities, not they. Tiial couit anu CA siueu with them.

ISS0E
W0N the natuial paients weie liable foi an act of theii chilu uone befoie the
petition foi auoption was gianteu.

BELB
Yes. The ietioactive effect unuei Ait. S6 of the Chilu anu Youth Welfaie Coue
uoes not impose a liability upon the auopting paients acciuing at a time when
auopting paients hau no actual custouy of the chilu. CA ieveiseu anu case is
iemanueu.

RATI0
1. The ietioactive effect claimeu is uue to Ait. S6 of the Chilu anu Youth
Welfaie Coue, which states "If. the couit is satisifieu that the petitionei
is qualifieu to maintain, caie foi anu euucate the chilu. . 0"AB"" 1C
.01#DE1F @G.// H" "FD"B"0 IGEAG @G.// H" "CC"ADEJ" 1F DG" 0.D" DG"
1BE-EF./ #"DEDE1F I.@ CE/"0"

In ielation to Ait. S9 of the same Coue, which states that S9(2) "+,,"-#( %,
./%0#$%& 1 23" ./%0#$%& (3.44 567 8$((%49" #3" .:#3%'$#; 9"(#"/ $& #3"
&.#:'.4 0.'"&#(< =

But the basis foi paiental liability foi toits of a minoi chilu is the
ielationship existing between the paients anu the minoi chilu living with
them anu ovei whom, the law piesumes, the paients exeicise supeivision
anu contiol.

No piesumption of paiental ueieliction on pait of auopting spouses coulu
have aiisen since Auelbeito was not in fact subject to theii contiol at the
time the toit was committeu.

2. To holu that paiental authoiity has been ietioactively lougeu in the
Rapisuia spouses to holu them to act the coulu not have foieseen noi
pieventeu woulu be KFC.EB .F0 KFA1F@AE1F.H/".

S. Such a iesult woulu be inconsistent with the #GE/1@1#GEA./ .F0 #1/EAL
H.@E@ unueilying the uoctiine of JEA.BE1K@ /E.HE/EDL.

4. Ait. SS of the Chilu anu Youth Welfaie Coue pioviues that uuiing the
peiiou of tiial custouy, paiental authoiity shall be vesteu in the auopting
paients. 0nuei this iule paiental authoiity is given piecisely because the
auopting paients aie -EJ"F .ADK./ AK@D10L uuiing the tiial peiiou. At the
time of the shooting, theie was no custouy, hence no authoiity.

=>%,$"$ !+-)$%* 12 ?#)--+&@"$A (+-"&@%&A B+CC%&A +&7 D,)0,-," <
47%#&+
M&)N&O
;AD1B@ in this case:
1. Spouses Palisoc (paients of minoi victim)
2. Bominauoi Palisoc (minoi victim)
S. viigilio Baffon (assailant, majoiity age)
4. Biillantes anu valenton (ownei anu piesiuent, iespectively of Nanila
Technical Institute (NIT))
S. Quibulue (piofessoi of Palisoc anu Baffon)
:.AD@:
1. Baffon anu B. Palisoc aie stuuents at NIT. They got into an alteication
uuiing which Palisoc suffeieu seiious injuiies uue to fist blows inflicteu
by Baffon. Be eventually uieu of his injuiies.
2. Spouses Palisoc sueu Baffon anu impleaueu the thiee school officials -
vicaiious liability unuei NCC 218u (seconu to last paiagiaph)
a. "Lastly, teacheis oi heaus of establishments of aits anu tiaues
shall be liable foi uamages causeu by theii pupils anu stuuents
anu appientices, so long as they iemain in theii custouy"
,54 ,K/"0: Baffon's actions causeu the ueath of Palisoc in violation of Aiticle
2176 (quasi-uelict). Bowevei, ED .H@1/J"0 DG" DGB"" @AG11/ 1CCEAE./@ BECA0SE
- citing obitei uictum in Neicauo v. CA ! the phiase "so long as they iemain in
theii custouy" in NCC 218u contemplates a situation wheie the stuuents live
anu boaiu at the school anu thus the school officials woulu assume the iole of
paients, incluuing theii liability. In this case, Baffon was a uay stuuent who uiu
not boaiu at the school.
6@@K": W0N the school officials coulu be helu liable in light of (1) the obitei in
Neicauo v. CA (anu latei in Exconue case) iequiiing that stuuents live at the
school in oiuei to be consiueieu in custouy unuei NCC 218u (2) the fact that
Baffon was no longei a minoi.
!4: The following aie soliuaiy liable with Baffon: valenton (piesiuent) anu
Quibulue (teachei). Biillantes not liable because he was just a boaiu membei
(the school hau become a coipoiation).
WBY.
1. "The iationale of such liability of school heaus anu teacheis foi the
toitious acts of theii pupils anu stuuents so long as they iemain in theii
custouy, is that they stanu to a ceitain extent in loco paientis anu aie
calleu upon to exeicise ieasonable supeivision ovei the conuuct of the
chilu."
2. Because of this manuatoiy substitution, heaus anu teacheis become
liable foi the actions of theii stuuents, even uuiing iecess time when
the fight occuiieu.
S. The phiase "in theii custouy" only iefeis to the piotective anu
supeivisoiy custouy of the school anu uoes not iequiie that the
stuuents actually live anu boaiu in the school. (P"BA.01 .F0 41F0"
A.@"@ @"D .@E0")
4. In oiuei to ielieve themselves of the liability, they must piove uiligence
of goou fathei of the family, which they faileu to uo.
0thei things to note:
1. NCC 218u applies only to non-acauemic institutions ! NIT was . F1FQ
.A.0"REA EF@DEDKDE1F; it was a vocational anu tiaining school.
2. Seconu, the case was instituteu uiiectly against school officials. The
paients of Baffon aie no longei involveu because Baffon was of age.
41FAKBBEF- S ,"L"@ +T>
Statutoiy inteipietation of NCC 218u with iespect to why stuuents of majoiity
age still fall within the custouy anu supeivision of teacheis.
1. Because the law explicitly states minois only in the paiagiaph
uesciibing liability of uuaiuians anu Paients. No mention in the section
of teacheis.
2. The giouping of the paiagiaphs . supposeuly accoiuing to him
teacheis "aie not gioupeu with paients anu guaiuians but iangeu with
owneis of enteipiises.".
S. EFFECT of NA}0RITY AuE ! ieuuces the uegiee of iesponsibility of the
heauteachei but uoes not negate the existence theieof. In othei
woius, lowei uegiee of uiligence iequiieu in supeivision of majoiity
age stuuents.
2E@@"FDEF- S P.U./EFD./
1. Neicauo v. CA is goou law because that was the intent in Aiticle 218u
2. Bighly unieasonable to holu teacheis liable foi actions of the stuuents
especially in schools with laige eniolment.
S. To holu that "custouy" unuei 218u begins at eniolment is to uemanu
iesponsibility without the commensuiate authoiity (limitations on
expulsionsuspension, teacheis aie the ones abuseu by stuuents).
4. Assuming that the iationale foi the law imputing liability to teacheis is
the fact that they step into the shoes of the paients, then the phiase "in
custouy of" foi teacheis shoulu be equateu to "who live in theii
company" foi paients. Also, the limitation of liability to acts of minoi
chiluien shoulu likewise apply to teacheis.

4:+7%#+ 12 546 ?#)--%
EF G%2 /HIIHJA 4>#)- KJA KLMM

:;45!:

Alfieuo Amauoia, while in the auuitoiium of the school, was moitally hit by a
gun by Pablito Baffon iesulting to the foimei's ueath. Baffon was convicteu of
homiciue thiough ieckless impiuuence. The victim's paients, heiein petitioneis,
fileu a civil action foi uamages against Colegio ue San }ose-Recoletos, its iectois,
high school piincipal, uean of boys, the physics teachei togethei with Baffon
anu 2 othei stuuents. Complaints against the stuuents weie
uioppeu. Responuent Couit absolveu the uefenuants completely anu ieveiseu
CFI Cebu's uecision foi the following ieasons: 1. Since the school was an
acauemic institution of leaining anu not a school of aits anu tiaues 2. That
stuuents weie not in the custouy of the school since the semestei has alieauy
enueu S. Theie was no cleai iuentification of the fatal gun, anu 4. In any event,
uefenuants exeiciseu the necessaiy uiligence thiough enfoicement of the school
iegulations in maintaining uiscipline. Petitioneis on othe othei hanu claimeu
theii son was unuei school custouy because he went to school to comply with a
iequiiement foi giauuation (submission of Physics iepoits).

6!!<89 W0N Collegio ue San }ose-Recoletos shoulu be helu liable.

=8>29 The time Alfieuo was fatally shot, he was in the custouy of the
authoiities of the school notwithstanuing classes hau foimally enueu when the
inciuent happeneu. It was immateiial if he was in the school auuitoiium to
finish his physics iequiiement. What was impoitant is that he was theie foi
legitimate puipose. 0n the othei hanu, the iectoi, high school piincipal anu the
uean of boys cannot be helu liable because none of them was the teachei-in-
chaige as uefineu in the piovision. Each was exeicising only a geneial authoiity
ovei the stuuents anu not uiiect contiol anu influence exeiteu by the teachei
placeu in-chaige of paiticulai classes.

In the absence of a teachei- in chaige, uean of boys shoulu piobably be helu
liable consiueiing that he hau eailiei confiscateu an unlicenseu gun fiom a
stuuent anu latei ietuineu to him without taking uisciplinaiy action oi
iepoiting the mattei to the highei authoiities. Though it was cleai negligence
on his pait, no pioof was shown to necessaiily link this gun with the shooting
inciuent.

Collegio San }ose-Recoletos cannot uiiectly be helu liable unuei the piovision
because only the teachei of the heau of school of aits anu tiaue is maue
iesponsible foi the uamage causeu by the stuuent. Bence, unuei the facts
uiscloseu, none of the iesponuents weie helu liable foi the injuiy inflicteu with
Alfieuo iesulting to his ueath.

Petition was uenieu.


=+-1%$+ 1 345 6 ?,N+&;)&
:.AD@9
! Within the piemises of the BCF is an R0TC 0nit, the Baguio Colleges
Founuation Reseive 0fficeis Tiaining Coips (R0TC) 0nit
! An aimoiy is locateu at the basement of the main builuing
! The Baguio Colleges Founuation R0TC 0nit hau }immy B. Abon as its
uuly appointeu aimoiei
! As aimoiei of the R0TC 0nit, }immy B. Abon ieceiveu his appointment
fiom the AFP. Not being an employee of the BCF, he also ieceiveu his
salaiy fiom the AFP, 8 as well as oiueis fiom Captain Robeito C. 0ngos,
the Commanuant of the Baguio Colleges Founuation R0TC 0nit,
concuiient Commanuant of othei R0TC units in Baguio anu an
employee (officei) of the AFP. 9 }immy B. Abon was also a commeice
stuuent of the BCF
! 3F V P.BAG &)NN( .D .B1KF0 '9WW #$R., in the paiking space of BCF,
}immy B. Abon shot Napoleon Castio a stuuent of the 0niveisity of
Baguio with an unlicenseu fiieaim which the foimei took fiom the
aimoiy of the R0TC 0nit of the BCF.
6!!<89 W0N petitionei BCF is soliuaiily liable. (scope of iecess)
=8>29 No.

,.DE19
! Ait. 218u of the Civil Coue, teacheis oi heaus of establishments of aits
anu tiaues aie hable foi "uamages causeu by theii pupils anu stuuents
oi appientices, so long as they iemain in theii custouy."
! The iationale of such liability is that so long as the stuuent iemains in
the custouy of a teachei, the lattei "stanus, to a ceitain extent, in loco
paientis |as to the stuuentj anu |isj calleu upon to exeicise ieasonable
supeivision ovei the conuuct of the |stuuentj.
! "the phiase useu in |Ait. 218u 'so long as (the stuuents) iemain in
theii custouy means the piotective anu supeivisoiy custouy that the
school anu its heaus anu teacheis exeicise ovei the pupils anu stuuents
foi as long as they aie at attenuance in the school, incluuing iecess
time."
! 4 O#"*"$$AO +$ @N" *%&*">@ )$ ":0#+*"7 )& @N" >N#+$" O+@ +@@"&7+&*"
)& @N" $*N%%-AO *%&@":>-+@"$ + $)@,+@)%& %C @":>%#+#. +7P%,#&:"&@
%C $*N%%- +*@)1)@)"$ QN"#" @N" $@,7"&@ $@)-- #":+)&$ Q)@N)& *+-- %C N)$
:"&@%# +&7 )$ &%@ >"#:)@@"7 @% -"+1" @N" $*N%%- >#":)$"$A %# @N"
+#"+ Q)@N)& QN)*N @N" $*N%%- +*@)1)@. )$ *%&7,*@"72 F"*"$$ 0. )@$
&+@,#" 7%"$ &%@ )&*-,7" 7)$:)$$+-2
! 0pon the foiegoing consiueiations, we holu that }immy B. Abon cannot
be consiueieu to have been "at attenuance in the school," oi in the
custouy of BCF
o Robeito B. 0ngos R0TC 0nit Commanuant, AFP, hau instiucteu
}immy B. Abon "not to leave the office anu |to keep the aimoiyj
well guaiueu."
=@2 R+#.S$ 4*+7":. 12 5+#>)@+&%$ 6 5"-"0#+7%
1
st
Bivision | u.R. No. 14SS6S | u6 Febiuaiy 2uu2 | Paiuo, >.

:;45!
!D$ P.BLX@ ;A.0"RL of Bipolog City conuucteu an eniollment uiive foi the
school yeai 199S-1996. Pait of the eniollment campaign was the visitation of
schools fiom wheie piospective eniollees weie stuuying. As a stuuent of St.
Naiy's Acauemy, !G"BIEF 4.B#ED.F1@ was pait of the campaigning gioup.
Accoiuingly, on the fateful uay, Sheiwin, along with othei high school stuuents
weie iiuing in a Nitsubishi jeep owneu by YEJ"FAE1 YE//.FK"J. on theii way to
Laiayan Elementaiy School (Bapitan City). The jeep was uiiven by +.R"@
2.FE"/ 66 (1S yeais olu) anu a stuuent of the same school. Allegeuly, }ames
uiove the jeep in a B"AU/"@@ R.FF"B anu as a iesult the jeep tuineu DKBD/".
Sheiwin uieu as a iesult of the injuiies he sustaineu fiom the acciuent.
Sps. ZE//E.R 4.B#ED.F1@ anu >KAE. 4.B#ED.F1@ fileu a case against +.R"@
2.FE"/ 66 anu his paients, +.R"@ 2.FE"/ !B$ anu [K.0. 2.FE"/, the vehicle
ownei, YEJ"FAE1 YE//.FK"J. anu !D$ P.BLX@ ;A.0"RL befoie the Bipolog RTC.
RTC anu CA oiueieu St. Naiy's Acauemy to pay Sps. Caipitanos. It also helu
}ames Baniel, Si. anu uuaua Baniel as subsiuiaiy liable. }ames Baniel II, being a
minoi at the time of the commission of the toit anu who was unuei special
paiental authoiity of uefenuant St. Naiy's Acauemy, anu vivencio aie absolveu.
Bence, this ceitioiaii by St. Naiy's Acauemy.

6!!<8!
1. W0N St. Naiy's Acauemy is liable foi uamages foi the ueath of Sheiwin.
2. W0N the awaiu of moial uamages is piopei.

=8>2
1. 73. CA iuleu by using Ait. 218 anu 219 of the Family Coue. Bowevei,
foi St. Naiy's Acauemy to be liable, theie must be a finuing that the act
oi omission consiueieu as negligent was the pioximate cause of the
injuiy causeu because the negligence must have a causal connection to
the acciuent.
?( -$#"/ $& 0@ ABCD 2%'#( E%%F
"In oiuei that theie may be a iecoveiy foi an injuiy, howevei, it must
be shown that the 'injuiy foi which iecoveiy is sought must be the
legitimate consequence of the wiong uone; the connection between the
negligence anu the injuiy must be a uiiect anu natuial sequence of
events, unbioken by inteivening efficient causes.' In othei woius, the
negligence must be the pioximate cause of the injuiy. Foi, 'negligence,
no mattei in what it consists, cannot cieate a iight of action unless it is
the pioximate cause of the injuiy complaineu of.' Anu 'the pioximate
cause of an injuiy is that cause, which, in natuial anu continuous
sequence, unbioken by any efficient inteivening cause, piouuces the
injuiy, anu without which the iesult woulu not have occuiieu." (G':H 9@
G?)
" Sps. Baniel anu villanueva aumitteu that the ERR"0E.D" A.K@" of
the acciuent was N0T the negligence of St. Naiy's Acauemy oi the
ieckless uiiving of }ames Baniel II, but the uetachment of the
steeiing wheel guiue of the jeep. The cause of the acciuent was N0T
the iecklessness of }ames Baniel II but the R"AG.FEA./ 0"C"AD EF
DG" \""# 1C YEJ"FAE1 YE//.FK"J..
" No eviuence that petitionei school alloweu the minoi }ames Baniel
II to uiive the jeep of iesponuent vivencio villanueva. It was Cheu
villanueva, gianuson of iesponuent vivencio villanueva, who hau
possession anu contiol of the jeep. Be was uiiving the vehicle anu
he alloweu }ames Baniel II, a minoi, to uiive the jeep at the time of
the acciuent.
Bence, liability foi the acciuent must be pinneu on the minoi's paients
piimaiily. The negligence of St. Naiy's Acauemy was only a B"R1D"
A.K@" of the acciuent.
2. 73$ Though incapable of pecuniaiy computation, moial uamages may
be iecoveieu if they aie the pioximate iesult of the uefenuant's
wiongful act oi omission. In this case, the pioximate cause of the
acciuent was not attiibutable to St. Naiy's Acauemy. In auuition, the
oiuei of CA to pay ueath inuemnity to iesponuent Caipitanos must be
ueleteu. The powei of the couit to awaiu attoiney's fees uemanus
factual, legal anu equitable justification, thus, the giant of attoiney's
fees is likewise ueleteu.

=@2 T%$">NS$ 5%--";" 12 R)#+&7+ < B%#)+
:.AD@9
! A class taught by Rosalinua Tabugo was conuucting a science
expeiiment about the fusion of sulfui powei anu iion fillings
! Tabugo left hei class without having auequately secuieu it fiom any
untowaiu inciuent
! Sixth giauei }ayson Niianua, who was the assistant leauei of one of the
class gioups checkeu the iesult of the expeiiment by looking into the
test tube helu by one of his gioupmate with a magnifying glass
! Aftei that gioupmate moveu it close towaiu }ayson, the compounu in
the test tube spuiteu out, hitting }ayson's eyes anu some of his
gioupmates
! Left eye was chemically buineu anu he hau to unueigo suigeiy anu
spenu foi meuication
! 0pon leaining of the inciuent, }ayson's mothei (who was then woiking
abioau) hau to iush back home (expenuituies on faie, anu misseu
salaiy foi a time)
! Accoiuing to St. }oseph's college anu Tabugo, the stuuents weie given
stiict instiuctions to follow the wiitten pioceuuie foi the expeiiment
anu not to look into the test tube until the heateu compounu hau cooleu
off
! They also aigueu that }ayson was a peison of sufficient age anu
uiscietion, anu knowingly violateu the given instiuctions
! Thankfully, theie was no peimanent uamage to }ayson's eyes, anu S}C
auvanceu amount foi hospital bill (fathei's iequest anu piomise to pay
when wife aiiiveu)
! the paients uemanueu fiom S}C that they shouluei all the meuical
expenses alieauy incuiieu anu those that will be incuiieu
! RTC: in favoi of }ayson
! CA: affiimeu

6@@K"9
wn St. }oseph's College, Sistei }osephini Ambatali, anu Tabugo aie liable

="/09 ?"@$
Pioximate cause of the acciuent which causeu the injuiy to }ayson was the
suuuen anu unexpecteu explosion of the chemicals, inuepenuent of any
inteivening cause (N0T }ayson's negligence). Petitioneis coulu have pieventeu
the acciuent hau they exeiciseu a highei uegiee of caie, caution anu foiesight.

The inuiviuuals aie peisons taskeu with the teaching anu vigilance ovei theii
stuuents as well as the supeivision anu ensuiing of theii well-being. Baseu on
the facts, they weie iemiss in theii iesponsibilities anu lacking in the uegiee of
vigilance expecteu of them.

! Tabugo was insiue the classioom when the class unueitook the
expeiiment although }ayson insisteu that she left. No eviuence,
howevei, was piesenteu to establish that Tabugo was insiue foi the
whole uuiation of the expeiiment. It was unnatuial in the oiuinaiy
cause of events that }ayson was biought to the clinic not by Tabugo but
by somebouy else. At the veiy least, it appeais that she was somewheie
else at the time of the acciuent. Also, classmates weie not piesenteu to
coiioboiate petitioneis' claim.

! Abuan is likewise liable because as class auvisei, she exeiciseu contiol
anu supeivision ovei Tabugo anu the stuuents.

! Sistei Ambatali is also liable because unuei the uoctiine of commanu
iesponsibility, the othei petitioneis weie unuei the uiiect contiol anu
supeivision. The negligent acts of the otheis weie uone within the
scope of theii assigneu tasks. The uefense of uue uiligence of a goou
fathei of a family is unavailing - guilty in inexcusable laxity in the
supeivision of its teachei uespite an appaient iigiu scieening piocess
foi hiiing, anu in the maintenance of what shoulu have been a safe anu
secuieu enviionment foi conuucting uangeious expeiiments.

I& .'J:K"&# %, &% 0'"9$%:( .--$/"&#
The fact that theie has nevei been any acciuent in the past uuiing the conuuct of
science expeiiments is not a justification to be complacent in just pieseiving the
status quo anu uo away with cieative foiesight to install safety measuies to
piotect the stuuents. Schools shoulu not simply install safety ieminueis anu
uistiibute safety instiuctional manuals. Noie impoitantly, schools shoulu
pioviue piotective geais anu uevices to shielu stuuents fiom expecteu iisks anu
anticipateu uangeis.

I& 9$-.'$%:( 4$.L$4$#;
0iuinaiily, the liability of teacheis uoes not extenu to the school oi univeisity
itself, although an euucational institution may be helu liable unuei the piinciple
of RESP0NBENT S0PERI0R. It has also been helu that the liability of the
employei foi the |toituousj acts oi negligence of its employees is piimaiy anu
soliuaiy, uiiect anu immeuiate anu not conuitioneu upon the insolvency of oi
piioi iecouise against the negligent employee.

Ait. 218 of the Family Coue, in ielation to Ait. 218u of NCC, bestows special
paiental authoiity on:
The school, its auministiatois anu teacheis, oi the inuiviuual, entity oi
institution engageu in chilu caie shall have special paiental authoiity
anu iesponsibility ovei the minoi chilu while unuei theii supeivision,
instiuction oi custouy.
Authoiity anu iesponsibility shall apply to all authoiizeu activities
whethei insiue oi outsiue the piemises of the school, entity oi
institution.

Ait. 218u. The obligation imposeu by Aiticle 2176 is uemanuable not
only foi one's own acts oi omissions, but also foi those of peisons foi
whom one is iesponsible.
x x x
Lastly, teacheis oi heaus of establishments of aits anu tiaues shall be
liable foi uamages causeu by theii pupils anu stuuents oi appientices,
so long as they iemain in theii custouy.

I& .'J:K"&# %, #".-3"'1J$9"& $&(#':-#$%&(
Noieovei, petitioneis cannot simply ueflect theii negligence anu liability by
insisting that petitionei Tabugo gave specific instiuctions to hei science class
not to look uiiectly into the heateu compounu.
In maikeu contiast, both the lowei couits similaily concluueu that the mishap
which happeneu uuiing the science expeiiment was foieseeable by the school,
its officials anu teacheis. This neglect in pieventing a foieseeable injuiy anu
uamage equates to neglect in exeicising the utmost uegiee of uiligence iequiieu
of schools, its auministiatois anu teacheis, anu, ultimately, was the pioximate
cause of the uamage anu injuiy to }ayson. As we have helu in St. Naiy's, "foi
petitionei |St. Naiy's Acauemyj to be liable, theie must be a finuing that the act
oi omission consiueieu as negligent was the pioximate cause of the injuiy
causeu because the negligence must have a causal connection to the acciuent."

!U3/3!!3GV F4??39 ?W= /3GV= +&7 XV/3Y !4GE4/4GE4G 12
!U3/64RVF354G XZF[4FBVF=A 4F5U3RVBV= ?4/3GE39A +&7
XVFG4GBZ !3GVB4 6 V&@"#)+
197S Aquino Appeal fiom CFI oiuei

FACTS
Pineua iecklessly uiove a fieight tiuck |owneu by Phil-Ameiican Foiwaiueisj
along the national highway at Pampanga, anu the tiuck bumpeu the PRBL bus
uiiven by Pangalangan. As a iesult, Pangalangan suffeieu injuiies anu the bus
was uamageu anu coulu not be useu foi 79 uays, thus uepiiving PRBL of
eainings amounting to P8,66S.S1. Balingit was the managei of Phil-Ameiican
Foiwaiueis.
PRBL anu Pangalangan fileu a complaint foi uamages against Phil-Ameiican
Foiwaiueis, Balingit, anu Pineua. Befenuants saiu Balingit was not Pineua's
employei. Balingit moveu that the complaint against him be uismisseu on the
giounu that PRBL anu Pangalangan hau no cause of action against him. CFI
uismisseu the complaint against Balingit, on the giounu that he is not the
managei of an establishment as contemplateu in NCC 218u.
ISS0E ANB B0LBINu
W0N the teims "employeis" anu "owneis anu manageis of an establishment oi
enteipiise" embiace the managei of a coipoiation owning a tiuck, the ieckless
opeiation of which allegeuly iesulteu in the vehiculai acciuent fiom which the
uamage aiose. N0.
RATI0
Those teims uo not incluue the managei of a coipoiation. It may be gatheieu
fiom the context of NCC 218u that the teim "managei" ("uiiectoi" in the
Spanish veision) is useu in the sense of "employei". Bence, no toitious oi quasi-
uelictual liability can be imposeu on Balingit as managei of Phil-Ameiican
Foiwaiueis, in connection with the vehiculai acciuent in question, because he
himself may be iegaiueu as an employee oi uepenuiente of Phil-Ameiican
Foiwaiueis.

5+$@)-"\ 12 (+$],"8 < X,--"*)7%

:.AD@9
! Romeo S. vasquez was uiiving a Bonua motoicycle without weaiing
helmet anu was only caiiying a stuuent peimit.
! Abau, a managei in Castilex, uiiving a company cai.
! An acciuent occuiieu when Abau uiove against the tiaffic flow which
iesulteu to the ueath of vasquez
! Abau signeu an acknowleugment of Responsible Paity (Exhibit K)
wheiein he agieeu to pay whatevei hospital bills, piofessional fees anu
othei inciuental chaiges vasquez may incui

6!!<89 W0N Castilex is liable.
=8>29 No.
,.DE19
! It was contenueu by the petitionei that the fifth paiagiaph of Aiticle
218u of the Civil Coue shoulu only apply to instances wheie the
employei is not engageu in business oi inuustiy. Bowevei, the phiase
"even though the foimei aie not engageu in any business oi inuustiy"
founu in the fifth paiagiaph shoulu be inteipieteu to mean that it is not
necessaiy foi the employei to be engageu in any business oi inuustiy to
be liable foi the negligence of his employee who is acting within the
scope of his assigneu task
! M5GE@ E@ 1F/L IG.D I.@ 0E@AK@@"0 HL 4.@E@O9 5G" C1//1IEF- .B" DG"
0E@DEFADE1F E0"FDECE"0 HL DG" A1KBD9
o T1DG #B1JE@E1F@ .##/L D1 "R#/1L"B@9 DG" C1KBDG #.B.-B.#G(
D1 1IF"B@ .F0 R.F.-"B@ 1C .F "@D.H/E@GR"FD 1B
"FD"B#BE@"] .F0 DG" CECDG #.B.-B.#G( D1 "R#/1L"B@ EF
-"F"B./( IG"DG"B 1B F1D "F-.-"0 EF .FL HK@EF"@@ 1B
EF0K@DBL$
o 5G" C1KBDG #.B.-B.#G A1J"B@ F"-/E-"FD .AD@ 1C "R#/1L""@
A1RREDD"0 "EDG"B EF DG" @"BJEA" 1C DG" HB.FAG"@ 1B 1F DG"
1AA.@E1F 1C DG"EB CKFADE1F@( IGE/" DG" CECDG #.B.-B.#G
"FA1R#.@@"@ F"-/E-"FD .AD@ 1C "R#/1L""@ .ADEF- IEDGEF DG"
@A1#" 1C DG"EB .@@E-F"0 D.@U$
o 5G" ^
DG
E@ .F "_#.F@E1F 1C DG" `
DG
EF H1DG "R#/1L"B
A1J"B.-" .F0 .AD@ EFA/K0"0$ 7"-/E-"FD .AD@ 1C "R#/1L""@(
IG"DG"B 1B F1D DG" "R#/1L"B E@ "F-.-"0 EF . HK@EF"@@ 1B
EF0K@DBL( .B" A1J"B"0 @1 /1F- .@ DG"L I"B" .ADEF- IEDGEF
DG" @A1#" 1C DG"EB .@@E-F"0 D.@U( "J"F DG1K-G A1RREDD"0
F"EDG"B EF DG" @"BJEA" 1C DG" HB.FAG"@ F1B 1F DG" 1AA.@E1F
1C DG"EB CKFADE1F@$
! <F0"B DG" ^
DG
( ED E@ F"A"@@.BL D1 "@D.H/E@G DG" "R#/1L"BQ"R#/1L""
B"/.DE1F@GE#] 1FA" DGE@ E@ 01F"( DG" #/.EFDECC RK@D @G1I( D1 G1/0 DG"
"R#/1L"B /E.H/"( DG.D DG" "R#/1L"" I.@ .ADEF- IEDGEF DG" @A1#" 1C
GE@ .@@E-F"0 D.@U IG"F DG" D1BD A1R#/.EF"0 1C I.@ A1RREDD"0$ 6D E@
1F/L DG"F DG.D DG" "R#/1L"B R.L CEF0 ED F"A"@@.BL D1 EFD"B#1@" DG"
0"C"F@" 1C 0K" 0E/E-"FA" EF DG" @"/"ADE1F .F0 @K#"BJE@E1F 1C DG"
"R#/1L""
! No absolutely haiu anu fast iule can be stateu which will fuinish the
complete answei to the pioblem of whethei at a given moment, an
employee is engageu in his employei's business in the opeiation of a
motoi vehicle, so as to fix liability upon the employei because of the
employee's action oi inaction; but iathei, the iesult vaiies with each
state of facts
! 5G" R"B" C.AD DG.D ;T;2 I.@ K@EF- . @"BJEA" J"GEA/" .D DG" DER" 1C
DG" EF\KBE1K@ EFAE0"FD E@ F1D 1C ED@"/C @KCCEAE"FD D1 AG.B-" #"DEDE1F"B
IEDG /E.HE/EDL C1B DG" F"-/E-"FD 1#"B.DE1F 1C @.E0 J"GEA/" KF/"@@ ED
.##".B@ DG.D G" I.@ 1#"B.DEF- DG" J"GEA/" IEDGEF DG" A1KB@" 1B
@A1#" 1C GE@ "R#/1LR"FD$
! 0peiation of Employei's Notoi vehicle in uoing to oi fiom Neals
o Not oiuinaiily acting within the scope of his employment in the
absence of eviuence of some special business benefit to the
employei
! 0peiation of Employei's vehicle in uoing to oi fiom Woik
o in the absence of some special benefit to the employei othei
than the meie peifoimance of the seivices available at the
place wheie he is neeueu, the employee is not acting within the
scope of his employment
! 0se of Employei's vehicle 0utsiue Regulai Woiking Bouis
o geneially not liable foi the employee's negligent opeiation of
the vehicle uuiing the peiiou of peimissive use, even wheie the
employei contemplates that a iegulaily assigneu motoi vehicle
will be useu by the employee foi peisonal as well as business
puiposes anu theie is some inciuental benefit to the employei
! ABAB was engageu in affaiis of his own oi was caiiying out a peisonal
puipose not in line with his uuties at the time he figuieu in a vehiculai
acciuent. It was then about 2:uu a.m. of 28 August 1988, way beyonu
the noimal woiking houis.
=!=2 ?WVG4(VG9WF4 T4^RV 4GB FZ=4F3Z T4^RV 1$2 FZBF3EZ
4!Z=9Z/ 6 U"#&+&7"8
:;45!9
0n Febiuaiy S, 1989, Nayoi Niguel of Koionaual, South Cotabato was on boaiu
the Isuzu pick-up tiuck uiiven by Fiuel Lozano, an employee of the Nunicipality
of Koionaual. The pick-up tiuck was iegisteieu unuei the name of Rouiigo
Apostol, but it was then in the possession of Einesto Simbulan. Lozano
boiioweu the pick-up tiuck fiom Simbulan to biing Niguel to Buayan Aiipoit at
ueneial Santos City to catch his Nanila flight.
The pick-up tiuck acciuentally hit Naivin C. }ayme, a minoi, who was then
ciossing the National Bighway in South Cotabato. The intensity of the collision
sent Naivin some Su meteis away fiom the point of impact, a cleai inuication
that Lozano was uiiving at a veiy high speeu at the time of the acciuent. Naivin
sustaineu seveie heau injuiies. Bespite meuical attention, Naivin expiieu six (6)
uays aftei the acciuent.
6!!<89
NAY a municipal mayoi be helu soliuaiily liable foi the negligent acts of the
uiivei assigneu to him
NAY an Lu0 be helu liable foi the toituous act of a goveinment employee.
,<>67[9
1. It is uncontesteu that Lozano was employeu as a uiivei by the municipality.
That he was subsequently assigneu to Nayoi Niguel uuiing the time of the
acciuent is of no moment. The Nunicipality of Koionaual iemains to be Lozano's
employei notwithstanuing Lozano's assignment to Nayoi Niguel. Even
assuming aiguenuo that Nayoi Niguel hau authoiity to give instiuctions oi
uiiections to Lozano, he still cannot be helu liable. In Benson v. Soiiell, the New
Englanu Supieme Couit iuleu that meie giving of uiiections to the uiivei uoes
not establish that the passengei has contiol ovei the vehicle. Neithei uoes it
ienuei one the employei of the uiivei.
Nayoi Niguel was neithei Lozano's employei noi the vehicle's iegisteieu
ownei. Theie existeu no causal ielationship between him anu Lozano oi the
vehicle useu that will make him accountable foi Naivin's ueath. Nayoi Niguel
was a meie passengei at the time of the acciuent.
2. The municipality may not be sueu because it is an agency of the State engageu
in goveinmental functions anu, hence, immune fiom suit. This immunity is
illustiateu in Nunicipality of San Feinanuo, La 0nion v. Fiime, wheie the Couit
helu that municipal coipoiations aie suable because theii chaiteis giant them
the competence to sue anu be sueu. Neveitheless, they aie geneially not liable
foi toits committeu by them in the uischaige of goveinmental functions anu can
only be helu answeiable only if it can be shown that they weie acting in
piopiietaiy capacity. In peimitting such entities to be sueu, the State meiely
gives the claimant the iight to show that the uefenuant was not acting in
goveinmental capacity when the injuiy was committeu oi that the case comes
unuei the
exceptions iecognizeu by law. Failing this, the claimant cannot iecovei.
Liability attaches to the iegisteieu ownei, the negligent uiivei anu his uiiect
employei. Settleu is the iule that the iegisteieu ownei of a vehicle is jointly anu
seveially liable with the uiivei foi uamages incuiieu by passengeis anu thiiu
peisons as a consequence of injuiies oi ueath sustaineu in the opeiation of saiu
vehicles. Regaiuless of who the actual ownei of the vehicle is, the opeiatoi of
iecoiu continues to be the opeiatoi of the vehicle as iegaius the public anu
thiiu peisons, anu as such is uiiectly anu piimaiily iesponsible foi the
consequences inciuent to its opeiation.
The petition is BENIEB.

X)-+:"# 12 345 < R+&+-%

:;45!9 Baniel Funtecha was a woiking stuuent of Filamei. Be was assigneu as
the school janitoi to clean the school 2 houis eveiy moining. Allan Nasa was the
son of the school piesiuent anu at the same time he was the school's jeepney
seivice uiivei. 0n 0ctobei 2u, 1977 at about 6:Supm, aftei uiiving the stuuents
to theii homes, Nasa ietuineu to the school to iepoit anu theieaftei have to go
home with the jeep so that he coulu fetch the stuuents eaily in the moining.
Nasa anu Funtecha live in the same place so they usually go home togethei.
Funtecha hau a stuuent uiivei's license so Nasa let him take the uiivei's seat.
While Funtecha was uiiving, he acciuentally hit an elueily Kapunan which leu to
his hospitalization foi 2u uays. Kapunan fileu a ciiminal case anu an
inuepenuent civil action baseu on Aiticle 218u against Funtecha.
In the inuepenuent civil action, the lowei couit iuleu that Filamei is subsiuiaiily
liable foi the toitious act of Funcheta anu was compelleu to pay foi uamages
baseu on Aiticle 218u which pioviues that employeis shall be liable foi the
uamages causeu by theii employees anu householu helpeis acting within the
scope of theii assigneu tasks. Filamei assaileu the uecision anu it aigueu that
unuei Section 14, Rule X, Book III of the Laboi Coue IRR, woiking scholais aie
excluueu fiom the employment coveiage hence theie is no employei-employee
ielations between Filamei anu Funcheta; that the negligent act of Funcheta was
uue to negligence only attiibutable to him alone as it is outsiue his assigneu task
of being the school janitoi. The CA uenieu Filamei's appeal but the Supieme
Couit agieeu with Filamei. Kapunan fileu foi a motion foi ieconsiueiation.

6!!<89 Whethei oi not Filamei shoulu be helu subsiuiaiily liable.

=8>29 Yes. This time, the SC iuleu in favoi of Kapunan (actually his heiis cause
by this time Kapunan was alieauy ueau). The piovisions of Section 14, Rule X,
Book III of the Laboi Coue IRR was only meant to pioviue guiuelines as
compliance with laboi piovisions on woiking conuitions, iest peiious, anu
wages is conceineu. This uoes not in any way affect the piovisions of any othei
laws like the civil coue. The IRR cannot uefeat the piovisions of the Civil Coue. In
othei woius, Rule X is meiely a guiue to the enfoicement of the substantive law
on laboi. Theie is a uistinction hence Section 14, Rule X, Book III of the Rules is
not the uecisive law in a civil suit foi uamages instituteu by an injuieu peison
uuiing a vehiculai acciuent against a woiking stuuent of a school anu against
the school itself.
The piesent case uoes not ueal with a laboi uispute on conuitions of
employment between an allegeu employee anu an allegeu employei. It invokes a
claim biought by one foi uamages foi injuiy causeu by the patently negligent
acts of a peison, against both uoei-employee anu his employei. Bence, the
ieliance on the implementing iule on laboi to uisiegaiu the piimaiy liability of
an employei unuei Aiticle 218u of the Civil Coue is misplaceu. An implementing
iule on laboi cannot be useu by an employei as a shielu to voiu liability unuei
the substantive piovisions of the Civil Coue.
Funtecha is an employee of Filamei. Be neeu not have an official appointment
foi a uiivei's position in oiuei that Filamei may be helu iesponsible foi his
giossly negligent act, it being sufficient that the act of uiiving at the time of the
inciuent was foi the benefit of Filamei (the act of uiiving the jeep fiom the
school to Nasa's house is beneficial to the school because this enables Nasa to
uo a timely school tianspoitation seivice in the moining). Bence, the fact that
Funtecha was not the school uiivei oi was not acting with the scope of his
janitoiial uuties uoes not ielieve Filamei of the buiuen of iebutting the
piesumption juiis tantum that theie was negligence on its pait eithei in the
selection of a seivant oi employee, oi in the supeivision ovei him. Filamei has
faileu to show pioof of its having exeiciseu the iequiieu uiligence of a goou
fathei of a family ovei its employees Funtecha anu Allan.


G!5 12 54 < R)--"&+

Romeio }., 1998

1. 0n }uly 22, 1979, 4 uump tiucks owneu by NPC went to Iligan City.
Enioute its uestination, one tiuck uiiven by uavino Ilumba colliueu
with a Toyota Tamaiaw that killeu S people anu injuieu 17 otheis.
2. Beiis of the victims fileu a complaint foi uamages against NPC anu
PBESC0.
S. PBESC0, in its answei, contenueu that it uiu not own the tiucks anu
that it was meiely a A1FDB.AD1B of NPC with the main uuty of supplying
woikeis anu technicians.
4. NPC uenieu liability anu counteieu that the uiivei was the employee of
PBESC0.
S. RTC absolveu NPC anu iuleu against PBESC0.
6. CA ieveiseu saying on the giounu that . a/.H1B 1F/Lb A1FDB.AD1B E@
A1F@E0"B"0 . R"B" .-"FD 1C DG" "R#/1L"B IGEAG E@ "cKEJ./"FD D1 .
CEF0EF- DG.D DG"B" E@ .F "R#/1L"BQ"R#/1L"" B"/.DE1F@GE# H"DI""F
DG" 1IF"B 1C DG" #B1\"AD M7d4O .F0 DG" "R#/1L""@ 1C DG" a/.H1B
1F/Lb A1FDB.AD1B Md=8!43O$

ISS0E:
Between NPC anu PBESC0, who is the employei of Ilumba.

Belu:
7d4
In iesolving the issue, the Couit fiist ueteimineu the contiactual ielationship
between NPC anu PBESC0. It iuleu that PBESC0 is a "job only" contiactoi of
NPC as opposeu to a job oi inuepenuent contiactoi.

The Couit saiu that an inuepenuent contiactoi satisfies the following
conuitions:
(a) the contiactoi caiiies on an inuepenuent business anu unueitakes the
contiact woik on his own account unuei his own iesponsibility accoiuing to his
own mannei anu methou, fiee fiom the contiol anu uiiection of his employei oi
piincipal in all matteis connecteu with the peifoimance of the woik except to
the iesult theieof; anu

(b) the contiactoi has substantial capital oi investments in the foim of tools,
equipment, machineiies, woik piemises anu othei mateiials which aie
necessaiy in the conuuct of his business.

;H@"FD DG"@" B"cKE@ED"@( IG.D "_E@D@ E@ . a/.H1B 1F/Lb A1FDB.AD KF0"B IGEAG
DG" #"B@1F .ADEF- .@ A1FDB.AD1B Md=8!43O E@ A1F@E0"B"0 R"B"/L .@ .F .-"FD
1C DG" #BEFAE#./ M7d4O IG1 E@ B"@#1F@EH/" D1 DG" I1BU"B@ EF DG" @.R"
R.FF"B .F0 D1 DG" @.R" "_D"FD .@ EC DG"L G.0 H""F 0EB"AD/L "R#/1L"0 HL
GER$

The Nemoianuum of 0nueistanuing between the PBESC0 ANB NPC also leaus
to the same conclusion. NPC is to pioviue the money oi funuing that will be
useu by PBESC0 to unueitake the pioject. The Couit saiu that NPC has the iight
to wielu so much powei to be consiueieu as the employei.

41KBD ./@1 G"/0 DG.D DG" 4EJE/ 410"( ;BD *&'W @#"AECEA.//L( .F0 735 DG"
>.H1B 410" IE// 0"D"BREF" DG" /E.HE/EDL 1C .F "R#/1L"B EF . AEJE/ @KED C1B
0.R.-"@ EF@DEDKD"0 HL .F EF\KB"0 #"B@1F C1B .FL F"-/E-"FD .AD 1C DG"
"R#/1L""@ KF0"B DG" a/.H1D 1F/Lbe A1FDB.AD1B$

e;@ . 0"C"F@"( 7d4 EFJ1U"0 !"ADE1F )MHO 1C DG" >.H1B A10"9 "(b) Laboi only
contiacting as uefineu heiein is heieby piohibiteu anu the peison acting as
contiactoi shall be consiueieu meiely as an agent oi inteimeuiaiy of the
employei who shall be iesponsible to the woikeis in the same mannei anu
extent as if the lattei weie uiiectly employeu by him."

!"#$%&'$#" )* +, 6 !"#$"%&
!"#$%"% ' ()*+ !! !""# ! !!"

FACTS:
!"#$ &'( )**+ & ,-. /012$ 34151#6 748- 0$4 4$9:,"4,#: ,: ;4,#$:, ,5$#"$
!"#$%&' !)* &+%*,!+"- ". /$-+0$1 !"# %&'()*+ !"#!"#$!%& !"#$%&' #)*# +)&
!"# " !"#$ $&'( !" !$% &'()%* '+",- .$% !/*%0'+) '1"2. ! !"# !""# %&%'( )*%+"
!"# "%"#&"'() *+&!,- .'/ -""0"/ !"*1
!"# %&' %()" "#* +,-.&/(,/ !"#$%$& (&)*+
!"#$% '"% ()' *+#,-#,. "%/ -++$' -+ -"% 0), ("+ (#$$ "%$* "%/ 1#2%3 -"%
!"#!"# "%! &'" "())!*+, %-. /, '*0.%!1 !"#$%&"$'" )*+,-. !"#$%& () *#+,-"!
!" $%& $'( ")*&+",'*-. '). (%- (/'00-. ',1&(( %"( $").(%"-/. '). 2-// *&
!"# %&'()*
!"# %&' '#() )* +,-. %"#/# '"# ')&0#1 2*/ 34 1&0' &(1 "#/ 5#6 %&'
!"#$%!%&' !)' *!+ ,&#-!.&' */%0 !) !"#$%$&$!' )*+,
!"# "%&"'("( )*)+,"- !"#! !!! !!"#$### !"#$%&$'('$)* , !"! !!!
!"#$%&%'%"( (*+,-
!"#$ !&'()*+ ,& -.&/01 23 -*244 56-/&-65'6 !"# %&!'%( )*+ !"#"$%& !"#$%
!"#$%&' )*+, -. #/' 0$1$& 0-2'3 Alexanuei Commeicial, Inc., Li's employei,
!"#$%&' )$! #$%$&'(() (*'+($ ,-& !"#"$%& !"#$"%&' ') *#'+,-. /012 !"#$%"&
!"#$!% '!(!)*+, !"#$%&& !"#$%&'($) +#,-'./ !"#$%&" () *+" &*(,,$-" ()
!"#$%&$''( *$(&+, -# .,%/# !"#$%&!%'$ ! !""#$ &'(") (*" &++,-".( /. 01." 234
!""#$ !"#$### & '()*+ !" $%&'!()*'+ ,&-.)/" -! !"#$%& () *&+,) !"#$%&!%'$(
!"#$ &'(')*+ !""# !"#$% !"# %&!# !" $%&' ()*+,-.$/ !!"#"""$""! # $%&'(! )%*
!"#$%&'($) +#,-'./ '" ! !"#$%& (#)*+(, !!"###"### !"
!"#$% !"#"$%&' !!"#"""! #$ %&%'()#*+ !"#"$%&' !!"#"""! #$ %&#$'(#)*&
!""#$%&'() +&&) !%, -#)").
!!" $%&'& ()* )+,-& &./0&12& $%)$ $%& 2)' ()* ,)'3&0 )$ $%& */0& 45$
!"#$%&'( *+,# '-.%$/'0
!"# !! !"# - !"#$ !"&'()* +), -)./&&/0/&+1",
!"#$%&" !"()&#*$+, -.$ "/0$)-!"#$%&!$ !( %) #*&%+,-*./#)& ,!0%&#1 23*&
!"#$%% '() %")*) $+ '() !"",-)*'. !"#$%&'$#"() +"! #$!%&' #$!$((&( $)' *&!+
!"#$ &'" ()*"+#,- #!* .) +#( *$)/)!0 1! # /"$2 3#(& (4""* #!* &'"$" +#(
!"#$ & '()**#+ ,-./ 0+&1$ (&)"2

!""#$"%
!! #$% &' ()* +,'-'./ )0 !! !"# - !"
!! #$% !"#$%&'$#" !"# %&'()* +, -+.)/'0&)+/* .1%('%1.-1 - !"
!" $%& !"#$%&'#( Commeicial, Inc. as Li's employei shoulu be helu liable - !"#
!! #$% &'( )*)+,-./ 01 !"#"$%& !" $%&$'%( - !"#$

!"#$% '( )*+,-,.+ /,01 2.,34050,36 01. 78' +.9,4,*3

!! #$
!" $% &'( )*++%+, '- .+/0 '1.*- 22 345 -56+ 76(4%-6 -56 &6- '+7 (/%446)0
!"#$% '( )"*!" $%&' %&()"'" $)**)+, *$' !"#$%&'$#" !" $%& '&(& &)*&+,&-$ .(
!""#$%&' )%* +,!-.* !/ /). ",0"., /%1. !&2 2%*/!&3.
!" $%& '(" )*)' ')+)&&%,- .(, /!0 "( &$),*) % 1!""1) "( "/) ,!2/" !' (,3), "(
!"#$%& "()*+ " ,)%%*!*)- .*/0 /0$ )--!"#$%& !() *$%!+ !"#$# &' !"#$%& () *!+,#
!"# %"&' ()#*+ *,-(. !"#$%&'$#" !"# %"& #'(()(* "+ +,- #)*,+ ."(- */)(*
!"#$%&' )$*+,$ $*& !-. "*-!"#$%& !() *(+ (,+" "% $-+ )$&.- ,(%/ &"$%& -"
!"#$%

!! #$!
!"#$%&'($"%) #+,-&,+#.+ &/ ."#0(.$ "# $1+ 23%$ "4 $1+ &#5(%+0 23%$)6
!"#$%&'($&#! #$ # %&!#% '#($& )* )+& +#,- +& +#$ $(..&,&/0 1+2'+ .#%%$ 3&%*1
!"# %!&'(&)( !* +",-" "# ,% )#./,)#( !* -*'0*)1 0*) ",% *+' 2)*!#-!,*'
!"!#$!%&' #)*!
!" $"%$&$%'!( )*+ ,'%%-"(. /$"%, *$0,-(/ $" ! ,$1'!1$+" +/ %!"2-3 !"% $,
!"#$%!"& () *+( ,%(-)$( .$+- (%!" $% &%'()*"+ $," -"($ !".'( $,.$ !./ -"
!"#$%&" %# !(#)" %*& )+$&,"),- "!,-&./ )0 ,#% -1)2%3 #4 ,&-2)-&,5& )4 *& 4!)20
!" $%&'(!)*' +,)! -$.-'/$'%!01 )%& $2"% ('30'4!5"% 6)1 )22')( !" .' )
!"##"$ &'()#*'+, )+("&& #-" "."$/"+01 23& !$')/-# !1 -*& '2+ +"/(!"#$%#
!"# %& '() #*+#,)#- )( ./' )"# #')%.# 0(/1#23.- %' &#3.," 4(. 3 +3.5%'6 7('#
!" $%"& !& ' ('") *$"++$ !" ',,+- ./+"+ 0/+ .!%,( ,1)+,- 21&( &! !&+ $! /+,3
!"#
!"# %&'((#) *& * +,-"&#) (+*.# /"#0# &"#0# /#0# (#'(+#1 &' 2#0,34 /"#&"#0
!"# "%& % !"#$ $&!" !"# %& '&()*)% +,(- ). ",,#,#
!"# %&'(#) &*+,- ."# !/)#0&*(1 &2+3. !! #$$% &'&() *$+,-. & /0(0%& 1020-&
!"#

!! #$%!
!"# #%& !"#$%#!&' )* "'+!)$,'$- +.!'"#)"/ 01#%1 1)&,+ -1' 23+-'" &#34&' *)"
!"#$ &' #() $)*+!,# -./$# 0) 1, #() "&/*$) &' 0/$1,)$$23 0/# !"#! %& '#!()
!"#$%$"&' $) *+$,+ -+. %$"/$%$-0 1%-$#"-.%0 !"%%& 123) -+. .#2%30.4' !34 +$&
!"#$%&' )* '+'&,#-' ).' /#$#0'1,' *! " 0**/ !").'& *! ).' !"2#$3 #1 ).' -'$',)#*1
!"# %&'()*+%+," ,- .+% (/'0,1((%
!"#$%&"$'() +,$#+%-+ #+./%01"&1$%2 13&1 13+ +.4'/!"# %&' "("#)*'"+ +*,*-"./
!"#$%&'!'() (+ ',! $-#.(/$$ 0"%')1 ,2$ #$%+(%-3)4$ (+ ,2$ .3,,$%5! 3!!'1)$0
!"#$# &'()* +, ,-'(./ !' 0,)1,2, /13 '4 !/, )1"+1)1!5 136'#,* +5 70!18),
!"#$ !" $%&'(!)" () *$(!+&% !"#$ !" $%& '()(* '!+&,
!"#$%#"&' "! &) % *"))+,+'# !"#$#!%&$' )*+,-+)*. # /$#!%)!& 0%)-)1&2 34 -#$.&
!"#$%&'() +',- (',-(. ,-('. (#$/"0(() "1 #%&%2(.'%/ .%&3 ". ,-('.
!"#!"$"%&'&()"$*
!"#$"%$#& ()*+ ,-.)/ 01.0 1$ 1.22$3$4 0" 5$ "3 01$ #".4 "3 01$ 3)610 "7 01$
!""#$%&' )%"!*+% ,% -!+ "./#&0 12./ ! +."#!3 4!"!# %!#& '( )**!+,-'#, !(
!"#"$"%&' )"* " +"#' ",,'-"./01 )2/32 )"* 1'4'# 30##0+0#".'5 /1 .2' 30&#.
!"#$%& !" $%& '()*'+&,- &.,/-!"#$%&'( *!!+,%&' -" #".//0 1.," 2#3, -%!
!""#$%&'(%)* ,-'$%. (/% *'&% $!0-1 2#3% 4#*% (! *,%$0-'(#!5 (/'( /% '51 /#*
!""#$%&'!" $%& '()! *""+ ,-./ % 0.-1-!"#$%"& ()*+%,-*. -! %/"0 1"!"
!"#$!%$& !" ()*+,** *-.$* -/( "!%$& 0"&1 &$.-!$( *!&-!$#)$*2
!"#$%&'#( *+,,#(-.%"/ 0&-1 2%3 &+4 '#,+&34(%4#'/ 4+ +5( 3%4.36%-4.+&/ 42%4 .4
!"!#$%&!' )*! $+#! +,' '%-%.!,$! /0 + .//' 0+)*!# /0 )*! !"#$%& $( )(*+,-*$(.
!"# %&'()*+ %), "& -!

!! #$%!
!" $%& '()*+$ ), ()-'. !"#"$%& !"# %&'(#)* *+ *,-% .+&"*/% 0-%)"#*-+12 3#
!"# %& '(# %)*+*%+ '(!' '(# !,%-+' %& ./01110111211 3"!+'#4 56 '(# '"*!7
!"#$% '( ') *$+,%+$ ,!!"$- .'%/ %/+ +0%+)% ,)- ),%#$+ "1 !"# %&'()* -! #$%&'()*
!"# %&'()*+*,-(!+ - !"##$%$& () !"#$%&'$#" !" ! $%"&'( )* +,-" .$)""'/
!"#$%#"!& ()%*%!# +, -%. !"#$%&"$'" )*+,-. !" $%& &'()* +,("!"- %,.(/ ,0 $%&
!""#$%&'(
!"# %&'&(# %)*# !) "#+ ,)-.% *)! )*./ 0# 1#+'&*#*! &*% .&2!3*(4 3! ,)-.%
!"!" $% &%'()*%*+,- ./)*01*0 )*2 )234!+1*0 +" +/% &/-!1","01. ./)*0%!
!"#$" "&' ()*+ !),-* .)'/0--+ ,.*&'1) 2"'),1" 2"& +&0'34 5"&
!"#$%&"'"()*+ &-%(."*+ %(/ %/01*)'"()* 23$$ !"413!" &5!!"*#5(/3(.
!"#$%&'() +,-%'.!/ !0" 1..$+!&'10!/ &,)2!+-3 4// 15 &,)%) !"#!"#$%&#"' )# *+"
!""# %&'()"#*"%+ ,-" .,/#0(12

5%#&"-)% /+:>"$+ +&7 B+#)% 5%>$).+@ 12 B#2 T,+& B" ("#+A T#2A
X"-)\ F+:%$A +&7 R%7"$@% 9%--+$ < G+:)&;)@
14 Febiuaiy 2uu8
}. Quisumbing

Facts:
# Be veia boaiueu a passengei jeepney bounu foi Baguio City uiiven by
Tollas. 0pon ieaching the Km. 4 maikei of the national highway, the
jeepney came to a complete stop to allow a tiuck uiiven by Copsiyat to
cioss the path of the jeepney in oiuei to paik at a piivate paiking lot on
the iight siue of the ioau. As Tollas began to maneuvei the jeepney
slowly along its path, the tiuck, which hau just left the pavement,
suuuenly staiteu to sliue back towaius the jeepney until its ieai left
poition hit the iight siue of the jeepney. Be veia, who was seateu in the
fiont passengei seat, noticeu his left miuule fingei was cut off as he was
holuing on to the hanule of the iight siue of the jeepney. Be askeu
Tollas to biing him immeuiately to the hospital.
# Befense veision: While the ieai of the tiuck was still on the pavement
of the highway in the attempt to paik it in the lot acioss the highway, an
appioaching passengei jeepney siueswipeu the ieai poition of the
tiuck. This iesulteu in the uismembeiment of Be veia, }i.'s left miuule
fingei, accoiuing to the uefense. Lampesa also aveis he uiu his legal
uuty in the selection anu supeivision of Copsiyat as his uiivei. Be
alleges that befoie hiiing Copsiyat, he askeu the lattei if he hau a
piofessional uiivei's license.
# Failing to ieach an amicable settlement, Be veia fileu an action foi
uamages against Lampesa, Copsiyat, Ramos anu Tollas, as the tiuck
ownei, tiuck uiivei, jeepney owneiopeiatoi anu jeepney uiivei.
# TC anu CA: founu uiivei Copsiyat negligent in the opeiation of his tiuck
anu iuleu that his negligence was the pioximate cause of the injuiies
suffeieu by Be veia, }i. It also iuleu that Lampesa uiu not exeicise uue
uiligence in the selection anu supeivision of his uiivei as iequiieu
unuei Aiticles 2176 anu 218u of the Civil Coue

Issues:
1. WN Couit of Appeals eii in affiiming the tiial couit's iuling that
petitioneis aie liable foi the injuiy sustaineu by Be veia

No. !"#$%&' )*+, -. #/' 0$1$& 0-2' 3"-1$2'4 #/5# 6/-'1'" 78 5%# -" -9$44$-:
!"#$%$ '"(")% *+ ",+*-%./ *-%.% 0%1,) 2"#3* +. ,%)31)%,!%/ 1$ +031)%' *+ 4"5 2+.
!"# !"#"$% !'(%) !"#$"#% ' (#%)*+ ,) +#-.,-#+$ *% +*$ ,) ' /0#)$,*+ *1 1'2$3
!"#$" !& $'(()* +',, -+)( #( ' +&*#*#)( .)/ /&0#&! )( $&/*#)/'/#1 ', )-/
!"#$%&$'($)* $% ,$-$(.& () #./$.0$*1 .##)#% )2 ,304

!" $%&' ()'*+ ,-$% $%* $.&)/ )"0 $%* )11*//)$* (-2.$' 3-!"# %&'()*+, "-./).-", )"
!"#$%&$'(#) +,$ +'%-. "#/ '%0$/ +,"+ ,(1 #$)0()$#-$ 2"1 +,$ 3'45(!"+$ -"%1$ 46
!"# %&'()* +(+!,%&#- .* /# 0#),1 2)3 !"#$%&" ("& ")&* +%), "--*./0"1)% 12 1*0+
!"#$%& ()!*#&) +) ,*-.)/ %" )0)$!-&) /#) /-.-1)2!) -2 %+) &#3)$4-&-"2 "! #$% &'$()'*
!"#$% '()* %'+% ,#-' ./0*/01 /, 2/0*/013

!"#$ "$&'(&$"#$ )" *+$ ,-.* )/ *+$ $0,')1$$ (2 $2*-3'(2+$45 - ,.$260,*()"
!"#$%"$&' %)!#*# $+%$ $+* *,-&.'*) /%# "*0&!0*"$ !" $+* #*&*1$!." %"23.)
!"#$%&'!'() (+ !,'- $.#/(0$$1 2( %$3"4 45'! #%$!".#4'!"# %&' '()*!+', (-.%
!"#$#%& ()#*+(&# (%) ,-%./%,/%0 !"--1 &2(& 2# #3#",/$#) ,("# (%) )/4/0#%,# /%
!"# %#&#'!()* +*, %-.#/0(%()* )1 "(% #2.&)3##%4
!"# %#&'%( )* +,%# '- .,/0#*,1* &2,)/ 3",3 "# ()( ")* 2#4,2 (536 ,* ,- #/02'6#%
!" $%& '&(&)$!*" +", '-.&/0!"!#$ #& '#("!)*+,

!"#$%%$&' !"#$%&'( !"#! %&'()*#! +)+ ("&, ")( '-&./(()&0#1 1)2/0(/ ,"/0 "/
!""#$%& ()* +,% -). )( +*/01 &*$2%*3 4!5"%6! 6,)/#& 7)+ ,!2% .%%7 6!+$6($%& .8
!"# %#&# '())#))*(+ (, - '&(,#))*(+-. /&*0#&1) .*2#+)# 34 5(')*4-!6 !" $%
!"#$%&!!" $%&'()% *%) +,-. /0,1+ -0 +0 &0!(2 3( )40,5+ 4%6( 7%!(8,55.
!"#$%&!' )*+,%-#./, 01#2%3%4#.%*&,5 !"+!6%!&4!, #&' 6!4*6' *3 ,!67%4!5 %3
!"#$ !"#$%&" #(&) "*&+ &,+- ),") ,% %.%/01&%2 2(% &($%/31&1+4 +3%/ 5+$&16")
!"#$% !"# #%&%'(")*+ ,-( .&& !% !./ #!)0* !" $%&!$' (%$% )*$% *++%,*-.!"/
!"#!$#%&"%'&%() $+ (,')("-(. !"#$%& ("$)*+ ,- *.*/0$1* ,2* +3* +$)$&*%0*
!"#$%!"& () *%+ ,- "+./(0"!1 2,+."-, 3,44(5 ,6(%& -(/%&,!0 /%,7%/%50 )(! 5*"
!"#!$"$% '(! ("))*!!+, -. /*% ,#*0+#1 2"3%*.'!

R"#*,#. B#,; 12 U,+&; < Z;"&+

-Petitionei coipoiation Neicuiy Biug iegisteieu ownei of a six-wheelei tiuck
uiiven by petitionei uel Rosaiio.

-Responuent spouses Richaiu anu Caimen Buang aie paients of the iesponuent
Stephen Buang.

-Responuent spouses owneu a cai which was being uiiven by Stephen which ws
involveu in an acciuent with petitionei's tiuck along C-S

-at the time of the acciuent, Bel Rosaiio only hau a tiaffic violation ieceipt since
his license was confiscateu uue to a pievious appiehension foi ieckless uiiving

-uue to acciuent, Stephen Buang sustaineu massive injuiies, became paialyzeu
fiom the chest uown, anu iequiieu continuous meuicaliehabilitative
tieatment.

6@@K"9 W0N petitionei coipoiation was negligent

="/09 Yes
-uiivei Bel Rosaiio was founu negligent. Liability of the petitionei coipoiation
piemiseu on NCC Ait. 218u, with such liability being uiiect anu immeuiate

-to uisclaim liability, petitionei coipoiation neeus to show exeicise of the
uiligence of a goou fathei of a family in the selection anu supeivision of its
employees by submitting conciete pioof of such, incluuing uocumentaiy
eviuence

-petitionei coipoiation piouuceu testimonial eviuence on its hiiing pioceuuie
anu fuithei aveiieu that employee-applicants aie iequiieu to unueitake
theoietical & actual uiiving tests, anu a psychological examination

-it was pioven howevei that Bel Rosaiio:
took uiiving tests anu psych exam when he applieu foi the position of
Beliveiy Nan, but not when he applieu foi the position of Tiuck Nan
useu a light vehicle (ualant) uuiing saiu uiiving test insteau of a tiuck
was not testeu on motoi skills uevelopment, peiceptual speeu, visual
attention, uepth visualization, eye anu hanu cooiuination anu
steauiness
NBI anu police cleaiances weie not piesenteu
attenueu a uiiving seminai 12 yeais piioi (1984) to the acciuent (1996).
The othei two uiiving seminais he attenueu weie uone aftei the
acciuent
Neicuiy uiu not pioviue back-up uiiveis foi long tiips anu hau no policy
peitaining to such. Bel Rosaiio hau been out on the ioau foi moie than
1S houis piioi to the acciuent

-Neicuiy also faileu to exeicise uue uiligence on supeivision anu uiscipline of
its employees when it alloweu Bel Rosaiio to uiive without a license on the uay
of the acciuent

--Bel Rosaiio iepoiteu the acciuent to his supeiioi, but nothing was uone about
it. Be was not suspenueu oi iepiimanueu. In fact, no uisciplinaiy action
whatsoevei was taken against him

-Thus, Neicuiy faileu to uischaige buiuen of pioving exeicise of uue uiligence in
its selection anu supeivision of theii employee Bel Rosaiio


RVF399 (2 EZ(VFGRVG9 < !+$*,+-

2%'#( .&/ 8.K.J"( M N$.L$4$#; %, #3" O#.#" ,%' .-#( %, (0"-$.4 .J"&#(

The facts of the case took place in the 191u's. Neiitt was a constiuctoi who was
excellent at his woik. 0ne uay, while he was iiuing his motoicycle along Calle
Pauie Fauia, he was bumpeu by a goveinment ambulance. The uiivei of the
ambulance was pioven to have been negligent. Because of the inciuent, Neiitt
was hospitalizeu anu he was seveiely injuieu beyonu iehabilitation so much so
that he coulu nevei peifoim his job the way he useu to anu that he cannot even
eain at least half of what he useu to eain.
In oiuei foi Neiitt to iecovei uamages, he sought to sue the goveinment which
latei authoiizeu Neiitt to sue the goveinment by viitue of Act 24S7 enacteu by
the legislatuie (An Act authoiizing E. Neiiitt to biing suit against the
uoveinment of the Philippine Islanus anu authoiizing the Attoiney-ueneial of
saiu Islanus to appeai in saiu suit). The lowei couit then ueteimineu the
amount of uamages anu oiueieu the goveinment to pay the same.

6!!<89 Whethei oi not the goveinment is liable foi the negligent act of the
uiivei of the ambulance.

=8>29 No. By consenting to be sueu a state simply waives its immunity fiom
suit. It uoes not theieby conceue its liability to plaintiff, oi cieate any cause of
action in his favoi, oi extenu its liability to any cause not pieviously iecognizeu.
It meiely gives a iemeuy to enfoice a pieexisting liability anu submits itself to
the juiisuiction of the couit, subject to its iight to inteipose any lawful uefense.
It follows theiefiom that the state, by viitue of such piovisions of law, is not
iesponsible foi the uamages suffeieu by piivate inuiviuuals in consequence of
acts peifoimeu by its employees in the uischaige of the functions peitaining to
theii office, because neithei fault noi even negligence can be piesumeu on the
pait of the state in the oiganization of bianches of public seivice anu in the
appointment of its agents. The State can only be liable if it acts thiough a special
agent (anu a special agent, in the sense in which these woius aie employeu, is
one who ieceives a uefinite anu fixeu oiuei oi commission, foieign to the
exeicise of the uuties of his office if he is a special official) so that in
iepiesentation of the state anu being bounu to act as an agent theieof, he
executes the tiust confiueu to him.

In the case at bai, the ambulance uiivei was not a special agent noi was a
goveinment officei acting as a special agent hence, theie can be no liability fiom
the goveinment. "The uoveinment uoes not unueitake to guaiantee to any
peison the fiuelity of the officeis oi agents whom it employs, since that woulu
involve it in all its opeiations in enuless embaiiassments, uifficulties anu losses,
which woulu be subveisive of the public inteiest."

FZ=V9V 12 4WB39ZF EVGVF4/ 6 V$*+-%&+
1948
X"#)+A T2
The Insulai Auuitoi uenieu the claim of Rosete et al against the uoveinment foi
uamages causeu to theii builuings causeu by fiie that came fiom the contiguous
waiehouse of the Emeigency Contiol Auministiation (ECA). Claimants allege
negligence on the pait of a ceitain }ose Fiayno in igniting his cigaiette-lightei
neai a S-gallon uium into which gasoline was being uiaineu, anu on the officeis
of saiu ECA (a govt agency) in stoiing gasoline in saiu waiehouse contiaiy to
Nanila 0iuinances.
ISS0E: W0N the Insulai Auuitoi eiieu in uismissing Rosete's claim.
P"''$## 9(@ Q%9"'&K"&# %, #3" !3$4$00$&" R(4.&/(:
Re Paiagiaph S of aiticle 19uS: "The state is liable in this sense when it acts
thiough a special agent, but not when the uamage shoulu have been causeu by
the official to whom it peitaineu to uo the act peifoimeu, in which case the
piovisions of the pieceuing aiticle shall be applicable."
The supieme couit of Spain in uefining the scope of this paiagiaph saiu:
The iesponsibility of the state is limiteu to that which it contiacts thiough a
special agent, uuly empoweieu by a /",$&$#" %'/"' %' -%KK$(($%& #% 0"',%'K
(%K" .-# %' -3.'J"/ S$#3 (%K" /",$&$#" 0:'0%(" S3$-3 J$9"( '$(" #% #3" -4.$K, anu
not wheie the claim is baseu on acts oi omissions imputable to a public official
chaigeu with some auministiative oi technical office who can be helu to the
piopei iesponsibility.
5G"B" H"EF- F1 @G1IEF- DG.D IG.D"J"B F"-/E-"FA" R.L H" ER#KD"0 D1 DG"
8R"B-"FAL 41FDB1/ ;0REFE@DB.DE1F 1B ED@ 1CCEA"B@( I.@ 01F" HL .F @#"AE./
.-"FD( H"A.K@" DG" 1CCEA"B@ 1C DG" 84; 0E0 F1D .AD .@ @#"AE./ .-"FD@ 1C DG"
-1J"BFR"FD IEDGEF DG" .H1J" 0"CEF"0 R".FEF- 1C DG.D I1B0 EF &)WV EF
@D1BEF- -.@1/EF" EF I.B"G1K@" 1C DG" 84;( DG" -1J"BFR"FD E@ F1D
B"@#1F@EH/" C1B DG" 0.R.-"@ A.K@"0 DGB1K-G @KAG F"-/E-"FA"$
d8,:8453( T2A uissenting:
ECA must be consiueieu a special agent unuei Aiticle 19uS.
19uS uistinguishes the special agent fiom the official with specific uuty oi
uuties to peifoim. 0nuei the meaning of the paiagiaph, the woiu official
compiises all officials anu employees of the goveinment who exeicise uuties of
theii iespective public offices. All otheis who aie acting by commission of the
goveinment belong to the class of special agents, whethei inuiviuual oi juiiuical
bouies.
The ECA was not a bianch oi office of the goveinment, such as the legislative
bouies, the executive offices, oi the tiibunals. It was an agency set up foi specific
puiposes which weie not attainable thiough the official functions entiusteu by
law to the goveinment oi its bianches.
In qualifying the special agent with the aujective "special", the Civil Coue aimeu
at uistinguishing it fiom the iegulai oi oiuinaiy agent of goveinment, which
iefeis to all officeis anu employees in the public seivice. The Civil Coue uses
the aujective "special", because its authois coulu not miss the fact that the
official, mentioneu in paiagiaph S of aiticle 19uS, is also an agent.
X%&@+&)--+ 12 R+-)+:+& < !"#"8
!"A1F0 2EJE@E1F( & 2"A"RH"B &)')

Facts:
1. Pickup owneu by National Iiiigation Auministiation uiiven officially by
Bugo uaicia, its employee bumpeu a bicycle iiuuen by Fiancisco
Fontanilla anu one Beligo.
2. Fontanilla uieu.

IssueBelu:
1. W0N NIA is liable foi the toitious act of its employee. YES
2. W0N NIA was negligent in the supeivision of the uiivei. YES

Ratio:
1. The liability of the State has two aspects: (1) public oi goveinmental
aspects wheie it is liable foi the toitious acts of special agents only; anu
(2) piivate oi business aspects wheie it becomes liable as an oiuinaiy
employei.
The State's agent, if a public official, must not only be specially
commissioneu to uo a paiticulai task but such task must be foieign to
saiu official's usual goveinmental functions. If the State's agent is not a
public official, anu is commissioneu to peifoim non-goveinmental
functions, then the State assumes the iole of an oiuinaiy employei anu
will be helu liable as such foi its agent's toit. Wheie the goveinment
commissions a piivate inuiviuual foi a special goveinmental task, it is
acting thiough a special agent within the meaning of Ait 218u,
paiagiaph 6.
76; E@ . -1J"BFR"FD A1B#1B.DE1F IEDG \KBE0EA./ #"B@1F./EDL
.F0 F1D . R"B" .-"FAL 1C DG" -1J"BFR"FD$ !EFA" ED E@ . A1B#1B.D"
H10L #"BC1BREF- F1FQ-1J"BFR"FD./ CKFADE1F@( ED F1I H"A1R"@
/E.H/" C1B DG" 0.R.-" A.K@"0 HL DG" .AAE0"FD B"@K/DEF- CB1R DG"
D1BDE1K@ .AD 1C ED@ "R#/1L""$ 76; .@@KR"@ DG" B"@#1F@EHE/EDL 1C .F
1B0EF.BL "R#/1L"B$
2. The pickup was tiavelling at a high speeu within the city limits anu yet
the supeivisoi of the gioup faileu to caution anu make the uiivei
obseive the alloweu speeu limit. Such negligence is aggiavateu by theii
uesiie to ieach theii uestination without even checking whethei oi not
the vehicle suffeieu uamage fiom the object it bumpeu, thus showing
impiuuence.

,"@1/KDE1F( *N :"HBK.BL &))&

76;X@ A1FD"FDE1F9
1. NIA uoes not peifoim solely anu piimaiily piopiietaiy functions but is
an agency of the goveinment taskeu with goveinmental functions, anu
is theiefoie not liable foi the toitious act of its uiivei who was not its
special agent.
The iesponsibility vesteu in NIA conceins public welfaie anu
public benefit, anu is theiefoie an exeicise of soveieignty.

41KBD9
&$ NIA was cieateu foi the puipose of "constiucting, impioving,
iehabilitating anu auministeiing all national iiiigations systems." 5G"
@D.D" .F0 DG" A1RRKFEDL .@ . IG1/" .B" /.B-"/L H"F"CED"0 HL DG"
@"BJEA"@ DG" .-"FAL B"F0"B@( HKD DG"@" CKFADE1F@ .B" 1F/L
EFAE0"FD./ D1 DG" #BEFAE#./ .ER IGEAG E@ EBBE-.DE1F@ 1C /.F0@$
76; E@ . -1J"BFR"FD .-"FAL EFJ"@D"0 IEDG A1B#1B.D"
#"B@1F./EDL @"#.B.D" .F0 0E@DEFAD CB1R DG" -1J"BFR"FD( DGK@ E@
-1J"BF"0 HL DG" 41B#1B.DE1F >.I$
NIA may sue anu be sueu in couit. It has its own assets anu
liabilities. It also has coipoiate poweis to be exeiciseu by a Boaiu of
Biiectois.

:"/EAE.F1( +$( A1FAKBBEF-9
&$ Feliciano agiees that NIA is liable foi the acts of its employee but foi a
uiffeient ieason.
The teim a!D.D"b .@ K@"0 EF ;BDEA/" *&'W iefeis to the
"uoveinment of the Republic of the Philippines" which as uefineu in
Section 2 of the Reviseu Auministiative Coue is a "coipoiate
goveinmental entity thiough which the functions of goveinment aie
exeiciseu thioughout the Philippines." It B"C"B@ D1 DG.D \KBE0EA./
#"B@1F DG.D E@ A1F@DEDKD"0 HL DG" [1J"BFR"FD .F0 /1-EA.//L 01"@
F1D EFA/K0" .-"FAE"@( EF@DBKR"FD./EDE"@ 1B 1DG"B "FDEDE"@ IGEAG
DG"EB "F.H/EF- /.I@ G.J" EFJ"@D"0 IEDG @"#.B.D" .F0 0E@DEFAD
\KBE0EA./ #"B@1F./EDL$
76; @G1K/0 F1D H" B"-.B0"0 .@ #.BD 1C DG" !D.D" C1B
#KB#1@"@ 1C .##/EA.DE1F 1C ;BDEA/" *&'W$ Since it has been vesteu with
the poweis of a coipoiate peison, it is subjecteu to all oiuinaiy
liabilities of a coipoiate peison: one of those liabilities is the vicaiious
liability of an employei.

d.0E//.( +$( 0E@@"FDEF-9
1. NIA is an agency of the goveinment with an oiiginal chaitei. It is
maintaineu by the goveinment in the peifoimance of goveinmental
function of pioviuing impioveu iiiigation systems. That the NIA is
empoweieu to chaige minimal fees uoes not change the natuie of the
function foi which it is cieateu. Such monetaiy chaiges uo not
constitute monetaiy gain but aie meiely ieimbuisement of the
opeiational cost.
Public seivice is the thiust in the cieation of NIA in contiast to
a business ventuie. The fact that its chaitei tieats the NIA as
incoipoiateu unuei the Coipoiation Law is not the test in ueteimining
whethei it is peifoiming a goveinmental oi piopiietaiy function. The
spiiit, intent oi puipose behinu its cieation ueteimines its tiue
chaiactei.
Bowevei, the soveieign immunity of the state has been waiveu
by NIA since its chaitei pioviues that it can sue anu be sueu.
Neveitheless, KF0"B *&'W( #.B$ f( DG" @D.D" E@ F1D /E.H/" C1B D1BD @.J"
IG"F ED .AD@ DGB1K-G . @#"AE./ .-"FD( .F0 =K-1 [.BAE. I.@ F1D .
@#"AE./ .-"FD HKD 76;X@ B"-K/.B 0BEJ"B$