You are on page 1of 22

Naguiat v.

NLRC (1997) / Panganiban - Manalo


Facts CFTI [Sergio as President; Antolin as VP] held a concessionaire's contract with AAFES for the operation of taxi ser ices in Clar! Air "ase# $espondents were pre io%sl& e'plo&ed (& CFTI as taxi dri ers# )owe er* AAFES was dissol ed as a res%lt of the +S 'ilitar& (ases phase,o%t# -%ring the negotiations (etween AAFES Taxi -ri ers Association and CFTI re. separation (ene/ts* it was agreed that separated dri ers will (e gi en P0112&ear of ser ice# 3ther dri ers accepted the a'o%nt* (%t respondents ref%sed to accept it# The respondents* thro%gh 4356* /led a co'plaint against S# 4ag%iat 74E8* AAFES* and AAFES T-A# The& alleged that the& were hired (& CFTI and then assigned to 4E which 'anaged* controlled* and s%per ised their e'plo&'ent# The& a erred that the& were entitled to separation pa& (ased on their earnings of 9:0 for wor!ing :; da&s2'onth# CFTI's defense that the cessation of (%siness was d%e to /nancial losses and lost (%siness opport%nit&# <a(or Ar(iter r%led in fa or of the respondents* ordering CFTI to pa& respondents P:*=112&ear of ser ice for h%'anitarian consideration# 4<$C a>r'ed <A's decision with 'odi/cation (& granting separation pa& 9:=12&ear of ser ice* and held that 4ag%iat Enterprises* S# 4ag%iat* and A# 4ag%iat are ?ointl& and se erall& lia(le with CFTI# 4<$C iss%ed a second resol%tion den&ing the 6f$ of the petitioners# Issues and olding

o o o D#

S# 4ag%iat was pres%'ed to (e 'anaging and controlling taxi (%siness on (ehalf of 4E; S# 4ag%iat* in s%per ising taxi dri ers* was carr&ing o%t his responsi(ilities as CFTI 4E is a separate corporation co'pletel& 7trading (%siness8; it is neither respondents' indirect e'plo&er nor la(or,onl& contractor Constit%tion of CFTI,AAFES T-A pro ided that 'e'(ers are CFTI e'plo&ees and that for collecti e (argaining p%r, poses* the de/nite e'plo&er is CFTI

CFTI president solidaril& lia(le [S# 4ag%iat]

A.C. Ransom Labor Union-CCLU v. NLRC , fa'il&,owned cor, poration /led application for clearance to cease operations# "ac!wages were co'p%ted; howe er* none of the 'otions for exec%tion co%ld (e i'ple'ented for fail%re to /nd le i, a(le assets# <A granted %nion's pra&er that o>cers and agents (e personall& held lia(le for pa&'ent of (ac!wages# 4<$C howe er said that o>cers of a corporation are not personall& lia(le for o>cial acts %nless the& exceeded scope of a%thorit&# SC howe er re ersed 4<$C and %pheld <A* sa&ing that if the polic& of the law were otherwise* the e'plo&er can ha e wa&s for e ading pa&'ent of (ac!, wages# E'plo&er , an& person acting in the interest of an e', plo&er* directl& or indirectl& 7<C =:=c8 Appl&ing the r%ling on A.C. Ransom* S# 4ag%iat falls within the 'eaning of Ee'plo&erE who 'a& (e held ?ointl& and se erall& lia(le for the o(ligations of the corporation to the dis'issed e'plo&ees "oth CFTI and 4E were close fa'il& corporations 7Corp# Code Sec# :11* par# 08 [To the extent that the stoc!holders are acti el& engaged in the 'anage'ent or operation of the (%siness [###] Said stoc!holders shall (e personall& li, a(le for corporate torts %nless the corporation has o(, tained reasona(l& adeF%ate lia(ilit& ins%rance] cf# MAM Realty Development v. NLRC. director 2 o>cer 'a& still (e held solidaril& lia(le with a corporation (& a speci/c pro ision of law 534 there was corporate tort# GES T3$T , iolation of a right gi en or the o'ission of a d%t& i'posed (& law; (reach of legal d%t&

:#

o o

A'o%nt of separation pa&

<a(or Ar(iter correctl& fo%nd that CFTI stopped the taxi (%siness (eca%se of the phase,o%t of the +S 'ilitar& (ases* and 43T d%e to great /nancial loss as the (%siness was earning pro/ta(l& at the ti'e of clos%re# <C =@A. separation pa& B : 'onth pa& or at least :2= 'onth pa&2&ear of ser ice* whiche er is higher 4<$C did not co''it CA- in r%ling that respondents were entitled to separation pa& of 9:=1 7half of 9=D1 'onthl& pa&8 per &ear of ser ice

o o =# A#

<ia(ilit& of 4E* CFTI and o>cers 4E not lia(le

o :# =#

<A fo%nd that respondents were e'plo&ees of CFTI as the& recei ed salar& fro' said o>ce* etc# 7%pheld (& SC8

o 0#

S# 4ag%iat is solidaril& lia(le for corporate tort (eca%se he acti el& engaged in CFTI's 'anage'ent or operation

@#

CFTI VP not personall& lia(le [A# 4ag%iat]

o o ;#

5as not shown that he acted in the capacit& of a C6 4o e idence on the extent of his participation in the 'an, age'ent* operation of (%siness

4356's personalit& to represent respondents

Fort%ne /led a petition for re iew with Co%rt of Tax Appeals L in, ?%nction iss%ed against "I$ N# A%g%st :1* :NND L In?%nction 'ade per'anent when CTA* CA and SC r%led that iss%ance was defecti e* in alid and %nenforcea(le# :1# April :1* :NNH L Fort%ne /led a co'plaint for da'ages against petitioner in her pri ate capacit&# Petitioner of co%rse /led 'otion to dis'iss# a# Fort%ne.

i#

o H#

Petitioners held in estoppel for not raising iss%e (efore <A or 4<$C

4o denial of d%e process since the 4ag%iats a ailed of the chance to present positions (efore <A

(# i# ii# ::#

VinRons sho%ld (e held lia(le for da'ages %nder Article A= of the Ci il Code considering that the iss%ance of $6C AH,NA iolated its constit%tional right against depri ation of propert& witho%t d%e process of law and the right to eF%al protection of the laws# VinRons. $espondent has no ca%se of action against her (eca%se she iss%ed $6C AH,NA in the perfor'ance of her o>cial f%nction and within the scope of her a%thorit&# 4o ca%se of action for lac! of allegation of 'alice or (ad faith#

Li!a"!a" #in$ons-C%ato v. Fo&tune 'obacco Co&(o&ation (Millena) )na&es-*antiago+ ,. -..7


4at%re. Petition for Certiorari assailing the decision of CA which a>r'ed the denial of the $TC of the petitionerIs 'otion to dis'iss# Facts. :# )ope* 6ore and Cha'pion are classi/ed as local (rands s%(?ected to an ad alore' tax at the rate of =1,D0J# Kad alore' tax L tax (ased on the al%e of the thing =# M%ne :1* :NNA L $A H;0D was enacted which pro ided that Olocall& 'an%fact%red cigarettes (earing a foreign (randP wo%ld (e taxed at 00J ad alore' tax 7Sec# :D=8# EQecti it&. M+<G A* :NNA A# M%l& : L VinRons as "I$ Co''issioner iss%ed $6C AH,N reclassf&ing Cha'ipon* 6ore and )ope as locall& 'an%fact%red cigarettes (ear, ing a foreign (rand# 7eQect. it will ha e to (e s%(?ected to the 00J ad alore' tax once the law (eco'es eQecti e8# D# M%l& =* :NNA at a(o%t 0.01 p#'# L "I$ -ep%t& Co'' -eoferio sent ia telefax a cop& of $6C HA,NA to Fort%ne To(acco (%t addressed to no one in partic%lar# 0# M%l& :0* :NNA L Fort%ne To(acco recei ed* (& ordinar& 'ail* a certi, /ed xerox cop& of $6C AH,NA ;# M%l& =1* :NNA L Fort%ne /led an 6$ reF%esting recall of the is, s%ance# H# $eF%est was denied and in the sa'e letter assessed Fort%ne for ad alore' tax de/cienc& a'o%nting to PN#06# Pa&'ent was de, 'anded within :1 da&s#

$TC denied* CA and $TC a>r'ed denial of 'otion to dis, 'iss* and order the $TC to proceed with trial# :=# )ence* this petition#

ISS+ES. 7:8 6a& a p%(lic o>cer (e alidl& s%ed in his2her pri ate capacit& for acts done in connection with the discharge of the f%nctions of his2her o>ceS 7=8 5hich as (etween Article A= of the Ci il Code and Section A@* "oo! I of the Ad'inistrati e Code sho%ld go ern in deter'ining whether the instant co'plaint states a ca%se of actionS )E<-.

1.

GES# The r%le in this ?%risdiction is that a p%(lic o>cer 'a& (e alidl& s%ed in his2her pri ate capacit& for acts done in the co%rse of the perfor'ance of the f%nctions of the o>ce* where said p%(lic o>cer. 7:8 acted with 'alice* (ad faith* or negligence [(ased on Sec A@ of the Ad'inistrati e Code]; or 7=8 where the p%(lic o>cer

iolated a constit%tional right of the plaintiQ [(ased on Section A= of the Ci il Code#

:0#

2.

Article A=# "eing a special law* it sho%ld pre ail o er a general law 7the Ad'inistrati e Code8# Article A= was patterned after the OtortP in A'erican law# A tort is a wrong* a tortio%s act which has (een de/ned as the co''ission or o'ission of an act (& one* witho%t right* where(& another recei es so'e in?%r&* directl& or indirectl&* in person* propert& or rep%tation# There are cases in which it has (een stated that ci il lia(ilit& in tort is deter'ined (& the cond%ct and not (& the 'ental state of the tortfeasor* and there are circ%'stances %nder which the 'oti e of the defendant has (een rendered i''aterial# The reason so'eti'es gi en for the r%le is that otherwise* the 'ental attit%de of the alleged wrongdoer* and not the act itself* wo%ld deter'ine whether the act was wrongf%l# Presence of good 'oti e* or rather* the a(sence of an e il 'oti e* does not render lawf%l an act which is otherwise an in asion of anotherIs legal right; that is* lia(ilit& in tort in not precl%ded (& the fact that defendant acted witho%t e il intent# The clear intention therefore of the legislat%re was to create a distinct ca%se of action in the nat%re of tort for iolation of constit%tional rights* irrespecti e of the 'oti e or intent of the defendant#A: This is a f%nda'ental inno ation in the Ci il Code* and in enacting the Ad'inistrati e Code p%rs%ant to the exercise of legislati e powers* then President CoraRon C# AF%ino* co%ld not ha e intended to o(literate this constit%tional protection on ci il li(erties#

M%l& : L VinRons as "I$ Co''issioner iss%ed $6C AH,N re, classf&ing Cha'ipon* 6ore and )ope as locall& 'an%fact%red ciga, rettes (earing a foreign (rand# 7eQect. it will ha e to (e s%(?ected to the 00J ad alore' tax once the law (eco'es eQecti e8# :;# M%l& =* :NNA at a(o%t 0.01 p#'# L "I$ -ep%t& Co'' -eofe, rio sent ia telefax a cop& of $6C HA,NA to Fort%ne To(acco (%t ad, dressed to no one in partic%lar# :H# M%l& :0* :NNA L Fort%ne To(acco recei ed* (& ordinar& 'ail* a certi/ed xerox cop& of $6C AH,NA :@# M%l& =1* :NNA L Fort%ne /led an 6$ reF%esting recall of the iss%ance# :N# $eF%est was denied and in the sa'e letter assessed For, t%ne for ad alore' tax de/cienc& a'o%nting to PN#06# Pa&'ent was de'anded within :1 da&s# =1# Fort%ne /led a petition for re iew with Co%rt of Tax Appeals L in?%nction iss%ed against "I$ =:# A%g%st :1* :NND L In?%nction 'ade per'anent when CTA* CA and SC r%led that iss%ance was defecti e* in alid and %nen, forcea(le# ==# April :1* :NNH L Fort%ne /led a co'plaint for da'ages against petitioner in her pri ate capacit&# Petitioner of co%rse /led 'otion to dis'iss# c# Fort%ne.

ii#

Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune Millena


Nachura, J. 2008 (MR) 4at%re. 6otion for $econsideration of the M%ne :N* =11H decision den&ing the 'otion to dis'iss of the petitioner# Facts

:A#

)ope* 6ore and Cha'pion 7'ga naging &osi ng tata& !o8 are classi/ed as local (rands s%(?ected to an ad alore' tax at the rate of =1,D0J# Kad alore' tax L tax (ased on the al%e of the thing :D# M%ne :1* :NNA L $A H;0D was enacted which pro ided that Olocall& 'an%fact%red cigarettes (earing a foreign (randP wo%ld (e taxed at 00J ad alore' tax 7Sec# :D=8# EQecti it&. M+<G A* :NNA

$espondent has no ca%se of action against her (eca%se she iss%ed $6C AH,NA in the perfor'ance of her o>cial f%nction and within the scope of her a%thorit&# i # 4o ca%se of action for lac! of allegation of 'alice or (ad faith# =A# $TC denied* CA and $TC a>r'ed denial of 'otion to dis, 'iss* and order the $TC to proceed with trial# =D# M%ne :N* =11H L Petitioner 'o ed for reconsideration# Co%rt denied 'otion with /nalit&# =0# +nda%nted* Petitioner /led a 6otion to $efer the Case to the Co%rt En "anc contending that the petition raises a legal F%es, tion that is no el and is of para'o%nt i'portance L decision 'ight send a chilling eQect to p%(lic o>cers as it will ca%se P3s to refrain fro' perfor'ing o>cial d%ties for fear of prosec%tion in their pri, ate capacit&#

d# iii#

VinRons sho%ld (e held lia(le for da'ages %nder Article A= of the Ci il Code considering that the iss%ance of $6C AH,NA iolated its constit%tional right against depri ation of propert& witho%t d%e process of law and the right to eF%al protection of the laws# VinRons.

!""#$ 534 Petitioner can (e held lia(le for da'ages arising fro' the perfor'ance of her o>cial f%nction as a p%(lic o>cer# %el& 4o# The respondent does not ha e a partic%lar or special in?%r& s%stained# The petitioner too! nothing fro' the respondent as the latter did not pa& a single centa o on the tax assess'ent# 5ith no Opartic%lar in?%r&P alleged in the co'plaint* there is* therefore* no delict or wrongf%l act or o'ission attri(%ta(le to the petitioner that wo%ld iolate the pri'ar& rights of the respondent# Cenerall&* when what is in ol ed is a Od%t& owing to the p%(lic in generalP* an indi id%al cannot ha e a ca%se of action for da'ages against the p%(lic o>cer* e en tho%gh he 'a& ha e (een in?%red (& the action or inaction of the o>cer# Exception is when the co'plaining indi id%al s%Qers a particular or special injury on acco%nt of the p%(lic o>cerIs i'proper perfor'ance or non,perfor'ance of his p%(lic d%t&# M%xtaposed with Article A= of the Ci il Code* the principle 'a& now translate into the r%le that an individual can hold a public officer personally liable or dama!es on account o an act or omission that violates a constitutional ri!ht onl" i/ it &esults in a (a&ticula& !&ong o& in0u&" to t%e /o&1e&. 2,ust see a&ticle 3-. Note4 In t%e -..7 decision o&de&ing t%e dis1issal o/ t%e case+ t%e Cou&t %eld t%at unde& 5&ticle 3- o/ t%e Civil Code+ t%e liabilit" o/ t%e (ublic o6ce& 1a" acc&ue even i/ %e/s%e acted in good /ait% as long as t%e&e is a violation o/ constitutional &ig%ts. '%is case does not i1(ute bad /ait% %ence+ /o& 5&ticle 3- to o(e&ate+ it 1ust be t%at t%e&e !as a violation o/ a constitutional &ig%t. Cou&t %e&e said t%at t%e &uling in Co11issione& o/ Inte&nal Revenue v. C5 did not decla&e RMC No. 37-93 unconstitutional but 7%ad /allen s%o&t o/ a valid and e8ective ad1inist&ative issuance.9 'is(ositive PetitionerIs 'otion for reconsideration of the M%ne :N* =11H decision granted#

indicated a E4egati eE# Sal ador ga e the res%lts to the Exec%ti e 3>cer of <i'a& who reF%ested another test# C-C cond%cted another test which indicated E4egati eE# C-CIs 6ed,Tech 3>cer,in,Charge iss%ed a Certi/cation correcting the initial res%lt# Co'pan& rehired Sal ador# $anida and $a'on /led a co'plaint for da'ages* clai'ing that* (& reason of the erroneo%s interpretation of res%lts* she lost her ?o( and s%Qered serio%s 'ental anxiet&* tra%'a and sleepless nights* while $a'on was hospitaliRed and lost (%siness opport%nities# TC dis'issed for fail%re to present s%>cient e idence to pro e the lia(ilit& of Carcia# CA re ersed and fo%nd Carcia lia(le for da'ages for negligentl& iss%ing an erroneo%s res%lt# )*N CA correctl& fo%nd petitioner lia(le for da'ages 4egligence is the fail%re to o(ser e for the protection of the interest of another person that degree of care* preca%tion and igilance which the circ%'stances ?%stl& de'and* where(& s%ch other person s%Qers in?%r&# The ele'ents of an actiona(le cond%ct are. :8 d%t&* =8 (reach* A8 in?%r&* and D8 proxi'ate ca%sation# +ll the ele,ents are (resent in the case at -ar. Clinical la(orator& owners and operators ha e the &ut. to co'pl& with stat%tes* r%les* and reg%lations pro'%lgated to protect and pro'ote the health of the people# Their (%siness is i'pressed with p%(lic interest# Violation of a stat%tor& d%t& is negligence# 5here the law i'poses %pon a person the d%t& to do so'ething* his o'ission or non,perfor'ance will render hi' lia(le to whoe er 'a& (e in?%red there(&# Fro' the "he Clinical Laboratory La# and "he $hilippine Medical "echnolo!y Act o %&'& * it is clear that a clinical la(orator& '%st (e ad'inistered* directed and s%per ised (& a licensed ph&sician a%thoriRed (& the Secretar& of )ealth* li!e a pathologist who is speciall& trained in 'ethods of la(orator& 'edicine; that the 'edical technologist '%st (e %nder the s%per ision of the pathologist or a licensed ph&sician; and that the res%lts of an& exa'ination 'a& (e released onl& to the reF%esting ph&sician or his a%thoriRed representati e %pon the direction of the la(orator& pathologist# /arcia 0aile& to co,(l. 1ith these stan&ar&s. C-C is not ad'inistered* directed and s%per ised (& a licensed ph&sician as reF%ired (& law# Carcia cond%cted the test witho%t the s%per ision of a pathologist# The test res%lt was released to $anida witho%t the a%thoriRation of a pathologist# Carcia 'a& not ha e intended to ca%se the conseF%ences which followed after the release of the )"sAC test res%lt# )owe er* his fail%re to co'pl& with the laws and r%les pro'%lgated and iss%ed for the protection of p%(lic safet& and interest is fail%re to o(ser e that care which a reasona(l& pr%dent health care pro ider wo%ld o(ser e# Th%s* his act or o'ission constit%tes a (reach of d%t&# Ind%(ita(l&* $anida s%Qered in?%r& as a direct conseF%ence of CarciaIs fail%re to co'pl&#

:a&cia v. *alvado& ; Mon/o&t


Gnares,Santiago T =1 6A$ 1H T Ard $anida Sal ador %nderwent a 'edical exa' at the Co''%nit& -iagnostic Center 7C-C8 as prereF%isite to reg%lar e'plo&'ent at <i'a&# 6edTech Carcia cond%cted the )epatitis " S%rface Antigen test# C-C iss%ed the res%lt that $anida was E)"s Ag. $eacti e#E The co'pan& ph&sician said that she is s%Qering fro' )epatitis "# <i'a& then ter'inated her e'plo&'ent# 5hen she infor'ed her father $a'on* the latter s%Qered a heart attac!# $anida %nderwent another test at the hospital which indicated that she is non,reacti e# She infor'ed the co'pan& ph&sician (%t was told that C-C was 'ore relia(le (eca%se it %sed the 6icro,Elisa 6ethod# $anida went (ac! to C-C for con/r'ator& testing and it now

Co%rt cited 4CC =1# Co%rt fo%nd the CA award of da'ages reasona(le#

!ssue 524 the e idence on record is ins%>cient to esta(lish petitionerIs entitle'ent to the pa&'ent of da'ages# %el& Ges* the e idence on record is ins%>cient to esta(lish the clai' for da'ages of the petitioners# The& failed to present an expert witness th%s failing to esta(lish the standard of care reF%ired which -r# T%ano ha e s%pposedl& iolated# F%rther'ore* Petioners ha e also failed to esta(lish the ca%sal connection of the s%pposed negligence to the da'age the& s%stained# Ratio In cases in ol ing 'edical negligence patients2heirs are reF%ired to pro e (& preponderance of e idence that the ph&sician failed to exercise that degree of s!ill* care* and learning possessed (& others in the sa'e profession; and that as a proxi'ate res%lt of s%ch fail%re* the patient2heirs s%Qered da'age# Clai's (ased on 'edical negligence are al'ost alwa&s anchored as a iolation of Art# =:H;:# In s%ch cases* 2 essential ele,ents, na,el. &ut., -reach, in3ur. an& (ro4i,ate causation, ,ust -e esta-lishe& -. the (lainti56s. +ll 2 ele,ents ,ust co-e4ist in or&er to 7n& the (h.sician ne8li8ent an&, thus, lia-le 0or &a,a8es. 5hen a patient,doctor relationship is esta(lished* the ph&sician has the d%t& to %se at least the sa'e le el of care that an& other reasona(l& co'petent ph&sician wo%ld %se to treat the condition %nder si'ilar circ%'stances# This standard le el of care* s!ill and diligence is a 'atter (est addressed (& expert 'edical testi'on&* (eca%se the standard of care in a 'edical 'alpractice case is a 'atter pec%liarl& within the !nowledge of experts in the /eld 7technical8# There is b&eac% of d%t& of care* s!ill and diligence* or the i'proper perfor'ance of s%ch d%t&* (& the attending ph&sician when the (atient is in0u&ed in (od& or in health constit%ting an actiona(le 'alpractice# Proof of s%ch (reach '%st rest %pon the testi'on& of an expert witness that the treat'ent accorded to the patient failed to 'eet the standard le el of care* s!ill and diligence which ph&sicians in the sa'e general neigh(orhood and in the sa'e general line of practice ordinaril& possess and exercise in li!e cases# F%rther* in order that there 'a& (e a reco er& for an in?%r&* it '%st (e shown that the Oin?%r& for which reco er& is so%ght '%st (e the legiti'ate conseF%ence of the wrong done; the connection (etween the negligence and the in?%r& '%st (e a direct and nat%ral seF%ence of e ents* %n(ro!en (& inter ening e>cient ca%sesP

Lucas v. 'ua<o - Na1ingit


=: April =11N M# Chico,4aRario Facts

This is a case see!ing da'ages for 'edical 'alpractice# Petitioners* Peter <%cas* his wife Fati'a* and children A((e&gail and Cillian* /led a co'plaint against -r# Prospero T%aUo see!ing the award of =6 as co'pensation for i'paired ision* A11! as act%al da'ages* :6 as 'oral da'ages* 011! as exe'plar& da'ages* and =11! as attorne&Is fees# Their clai' of da'ages is (ased on gro%nd that -r# T%aUo ignored the standard 'edical proced%re for ophthal'ologist* ad'inistered 'edication with rec!lessness and exhi(ited an a(sence of co'petence and s!ills expected fro' hi'# The& clai'ed s%Qering and pain (ro%ght a(o%t (& -r# T%anoIs negligence in prescri(ing to Peter 6axistrol for A 'os witho%t 'onitoring PeterIs I3P and notwithstanding PeterIs constant co'plains of intense pain while %sing the sa'e# So'eti'e in A%g%st :N@@* Peter contracted Osore e&esP in his right e&e# Phila'care referred hi' to -r# T%aUo* an ophthal'ologist at St# <%!eIs for cons%ltation# According to -r# T%aUo* he perfor'ed Ooc%lar ro%tine exa'inationP on PeterIs e&es# 3n that partic%lar cons%ltation* -r# T%aUo diagnosed that Peter was s%Qering fro' conjunctivitis or Osore e&es#P )e prescri(ed an e&e drop for this and as!ed hi' to co'e (ac! for follow %p chec! %p# The Osore e&esP cleared %p in the follow %p chec!,%p# )owe er* Peter contracted se eral s%(seF%ent e&e infections and he isited -r# T%aUo se eral ti'es for chec!,%p# Vario%s 'edicines were also prescri(ed# Peter went to see another ophthal'ologist* -r# $a'on T# "at%ng(acal who allegedl& cond%cted a co'plete ophthal'ological exa'ination of PeterIs e&es# )is diagnosis was (laucoma and reco''ended Laser "rabeculoplasty for PeterIs right e&e# )e contin%ed to isit -r# T%aUo# Peter was prodded (& his friends to see! a second 'edical opinion# )e cons%lted -r# 6ario V# AF%ino* another ophthal'ologist who specialiRes in the treat'ent of gla%co'a# )e also con/r'ed -r# T%aUoIs diagnosis of t%(%lar ision in PeterIs right e&e# Peter clai'ed that -r# AF%ino essentiall& told Peter that the latterIs condition wo%ld reF%ire lifeti'e 'edication and follow,%ps# Peter %nderwent two 7=8 proced%res of laser tra(ec%loplast& to atte'pt to control the high I3P of his right e&e# 4ow* Peter clai's to ha e steroid-induced !laucoma and (la'es -r# T%aUoIs negligence for the sa'e#

Art 2176: RT. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to ay for the damage done. !uch fault or negligence, if there is no re"e#isting contractual relation bet$een the arties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the rovisions of this %ha ter

In this case* the petitioners 'erel& 'ade (are clai's# The& failed to present an expert witness th%s failing to esta(lish the standard of care reF%ired which -r# T%ano ha e s%pposedl& iolated# F%rther'ore* petitioners ha e also failed to esta(lish the ca%sal connection of the s%pposed negligence to the da'age the& s%stained#

,SC. clai' for da'ages (ased on torts 7 -oo9. per 4CC Art# =18# Ele'ents of torts are.

:8 =8 A8

d%t& (reach in?%r& and proxi'ate ca%sation

=cean >uilde&s. *(s. Cubacub ; =gena


!ssue

Petitioner 3cean "%ilders e'plo&er of "ladi'ir C%(ac%( 7'aintenance 'an8* son of $espondent spo%ses "ladi'ir aVicted w2 chic!en pox and was ad ised (& petitioner )ao* pet'r co'pan&'s general 'anager* to rest in co'pan& (arrac!s= for A da&s# after A da&s* "ladi'ir was (ac! at wor! 7'anning the gates and cleaning co'pan& ehicles8# In the afternoon* "ladi'ir as!ed a co,wor!er to acco'pan& hi' to his ho%se so that he can rest# co,wor!er infor'ed )ao* the latter ga e the for'er P:*111 and ordered hi' to acco'pan& "ladi'ir to Ca&(iga Co''%nit& )ospital "ladi'ir was s%(seF%entl& transferred (& his parents* respondent spo%ses* to the intensi e care %nit of W%eRon Cit& Ceneral )ospital 7WCC)8# "ladi'ir dies in WCC)# WCC) death certi/cate identi/es i''ediate ca%se of death as cardio,respirator& arrest and the antecedent ca%se as pne%'onia# 3n the other hand* the death certi/cate iss%ed (& -r# Frias 7a friend of the respondents8 recorded the ca%ses of death as cardiac arrest* '%ltiple organ s&ste' fail%re* septice'ia and chic!en pox co'plaint for da'ages /led against petitioners* alleging negligence on )ao's part that led to deterioration of "ladi'ir's condition and his s%(seF%ent death TC. co'plaint dis'issed* )ao not negligent CA. re ersed TC decision# )aoIs fail%re to (ring "ladi'ir to a (etter,eF%ipped hospital was in iolation of Article :;: of the <a(or CodeA

,petitioner e'plo&er had a d%t& to pro ide adeF%ate and i''ediate 'edical assistance to sic! and in?%red e'plo&ees per Article :;: of the <a(or Code# ,petitioner )aoIs ad ice for "ladi'ir to ta!e a A,da& rest and to later ha e hi' (ro%ght to the nearest hospital constit%ted OadeF%ate and i''ediate 'edicalP attendance that he is 'andated* %nder Art# :;: ,Chic!en pox is self,li'iting# )ao does not appear to ha e a 'edical (ac!gro%nd# )e 'a& not (e th%s expected to ha e !nown that "ladi'ir needed to (e (ro%ght to a hospital with (etter facilities than the Ca&(iga )ospital ,alleged negligence of )ao also cannot (e considered as the proxi'ate ca%se of the death of "ladi'ir# -issent's /nding that "ladi'ir contracted chic!en pox fro' a co,wor!er and that )ao was negligent in not (ringing that co,wor!er to the nearest ph&sician 7or isolating hi' as well8 is not s%pported (& the records of the case# 'issent ,death was wrongf%l (& reason of the e'plo&ersI fail%re.

7a8 7(8 7c8

to isolate the co,wor!er to pre ent the spread of chic!en pox; to pro ide to hi' the legall& 'andated /rst aid treat'ent; and to extend adeF%ate 'edical and other assistance for his aViction with chic!en pox and the expected co'plications of the aViction 7li!e letting hi' oQ fro' wor! in order to ha e co'plete rest8#

,in relation to a8. )aoIs testi'on& shows that he well !new that "ladi'ir had contracted his chic!en pox fro' a co,wor!er ,in relation to (8. i'ple'enting r%les of the <A(or Code Section D7a8* $%le : of the I'ple'enting $%les of "oo! IVKKK D i'poses a legal o(ligation on 3"CC to e'plo& at least a grad%ate /rst,aider with i''ediate access to the /rst,aid 'edicines* eF%ip'ent* and facilities# 3"CC had no s%ch e'plo&ee#

534 petitioners are lia(le for da'ages d%e to negligence that led to "ladi'ir's death %el& 4o

= A

&ersamin dissent described it as a 'small, cram ed, and guardhouse"li(e structure constructed of $ood and ly$ood that even raised the chances for chic(en o# to s read' that $as 'unsuitable for any em loyee afflicted $ith chic(en o# to have the re)uisite com lete rest'. Art. 161. Assistance of em loyer. * +t shall be the duty of any em loyer to rovide all the necessary assistance to ensure the ade)uate and immediate medical and dental attendance and treatment to an in,ured or sic( em loyee in case of emergency.

!ection -. .mergency medical and dental services. * Any em loyer covered by this Rule shall rovide his em loyees medical and dental services and facilities in the follo$ing cases and manner:

/a0 When the number of $or(ers is from 11 to 21 in a $or( lace, the services of a graduate first"aider shall be rovided $ho may be one of the $or(ers in the $or( lace and $ho has immediate access to the first"aid medicines rescribed in !ection 3 of this Rule.

,)ao willf%ll& disregarded "ladi'irIs deteriorating condition and pre ented hi' fro' ta!ing ti'e oQ fro' his ?o( to ha e the '%ch needed co'plete rest# )aoIs attit%de ena(led co'plications of chic!en pox* li!e pne%'onia* to set in# "& the ti'e )ao acted and had "ladi'ir (ro%ght to the co''%nit& hospital* the co'plications of the disease were alread& irre ersi(le# ,petitioners did not %se that reasona(le care and ca%tion that an ordinaril& pr%dent person wo%ld ha e %sed in the sa'e sit%ation# All of the afore'entioned circ%'stances de'onstrates e'plo&er's gross neglect of their e'plo&eeIs plight which led to or ca%sed the e'plo&ee's wrongf%l death# :oo9 ,Main decision. characteriRed action as (ased on torts 7per 4CC Art# =18 ,Dissent. characteriRed action as (ased on F%asi,delict pre'ised on )ao's negligence ,)pouses Cubacub. /led co'plaint alleging negligence 7F%asi,delict8 ,"C. dis'issed co'plaint /nding no negligence 7F%asi,delict8 ,CA. r%led there was a iolation of <a(or Code :;: ,*ao. defense in SC pre'ised on exercise of d%e diligence ,essentiall&* negligence is not a necessar& ele'ent to 'a!e 3"CC lia(le for da'ages %nder torts 7i#e# d%t&* (reach* in?%r& X proxi'ate ca%sation8# ,negligent iolation of said legal pro ision is irrele ant in deter'ining lia(ilit& for da'ages %nder torts# ,negligence is onl& rele ant for actions (ased on F%asi,delict#

!ssue 5hether or not "arredo* as e'plo&er is ci ill& lia(le for the acts of Fontanilla* his e'plo&ee# %el& "arredo was held lia(le for da'ages#

W%asi,delict or c%lpa acF%iliana is a separate legal instit%tion %nder the Ci il Code of the Philippines is entirel& distinct and independent fro' a delict or cri'e %nder the $e ised Penal Code# In this ?%ris, diction* the sa'e negligent act ca%sing da'age 'a& prod%ce ci il lia(ilit& 7s%(sidiar&8 arising fro' a cri'e %nder Article :1A of the $e ised Penal Code of the Philippines; or create an action for F%asi, delicto or c%lpa aF%iliana %nder Articles =:HN and =:@1 of the Ci il Code and the parties are free to choose which co%rse to ta!e# And in the instant case* the negligent act of Fontanilla prod%ces two 7=8 lia(ilities of "arredo. First* a s%(sidiar& one (eca%se of the ci il lia, (ilit& of Fontanilla arising fro' the latterIs cri'inal negligence %n, der Article :1A of the $e ised Penal Code* and second* "arredoIs pri'ar& and direct responsi(ilit& arising fro' his pres%'ed negli, gence as an e'plo&er %nder Article =:@1 of the Ci il Code# Since the plaintiQs are free to choose what re'ed& to ta!e* the& pre, ferred the second* which is within their rights# This is the 'ore ex, pedio%s and eQecti e 'ethod of relief# 5hen an in?%r& is ca%sed (& the negligence of a ser ant or e' , plo&ee there instantl& arises a pres%'ption of law that there was negligence on the part of the e'plo&er either in the selection of the ser ant or e'plo&ee* or in s%per ision o er hi' after the selec, tion* or (oth; and that pres%'ption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure* and conseF%entl&* 'a& (e re(%tted# It follows necessaril& that if the e'plo&er shows to the satisfaction of the co%rt that in selection and s%per ision he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a fa'il&* the pres%'ption is o erco'e and he is relie e fro' lia(ilit&# )owe er there is no proof that "arredo exer, cised the diligence of a good father of a fa'il& to pre ent da'age# In fact it is shown he was careless in e'plo&ing Fontanilla who had (een ca%ght se eral ti'es for iolation of the A%to'o(ile <aw and speeding Y iolation which appeared in the records of the "%rea% of P%(lic 5or!s a aila(le to (e p%(lic and to hi'self#

>a&&edo v. :a&cia ; Pascual


Facts 3n 6a& A* :NA;* there was a head,on collision (etween a taxi of the 6alate taxica( dri en (& Fontanilla and a carretela g%ided (& -i'apilis# The carretela was o er,t%rned* and a passenger* a :;,&ear old (o&* Carcia* s%Qered in?%ries fro' which he died# A cri'inal action was /led against Fontanilla* and he was con icted# The co%rt in the cri'inal case granted the petition to reser e the ci il action# Carcia and Al'ario* parents of the deceased* on 6arch H* :NAN* /led a ci il action against "arredo* the proprietor of the 6alate Taxica( and e'plo&er of Fontanilla* 'a!ing hi' pri'aril& and directl& responsi(le %nder c%lpa acF%iliana of Article =:@1 of the Ci il Code of the Philippines# It is %ndisp%ted that FontanillaIs negligence was the ca%se of the accident* as he was dri ing on the wrong side of the road at high speed* and there was no showing that "arredo exercised the diligence of a good father of a fa'il&* a defense to Article =:@1 of the said Code# "arredoIs theor& of defense is that FontanillaIs negligence (eing p%nished (& the $e ised Penal Code* his lia(ilit& as e'plo&er is onl& s%(sidiar&#

Cangco v. Manila Rail&oad - 'an"a Mia Pe&e$


3cto(er :D* :N:@ Fisher* M# Facts

:#

Cangco is a cler! of 6anila $ailroad# )e goes to wor! (& riding the co'pan&Is train#

=# A# D# 0# ;# H#

3n the side of the train where passengers alight* there is a ce'ent platfor' which (egins to rise with a 'oderate gradient# Cangco* a(o%t to alight the coach he was riding* too! his position %pon its steps# As the train slowed down* another passenger got oQ the sa'e coach* alighting safel&# 5hen the train proceeded a little farther* Cangco stepped oQ (%t one or (oth of his feet ca'e in contact with a sac! of water'elons# )e fell on the platfor'# )is (od& rolled fro' the platfor' and was drawn %nder the 'o ing car* where his right ar' was (adl& cr%shed and lacerated# The accident occ%rred (etween H,@.11 on a dar! night* and as the station was lighted di'l& (& a single light* o(?ects on the platfor' where the accident occ%rred were di>c%lt to discern# The explanation of the presence of a sac! of 'elons is fo%nd in the fact that it was the c%sto'ar& season for har esting these 'elons#

ser ants* i'posed (& Art# :N1A which relates onl& to c%lpa aF%iliana and not to c%lpa contract%al# ;he lia-ilit. arisin8 0ro, e4tra-contractual cul(a +culpa a,uiliana- is al1a.s -ase& u(on a voluntar. act or o,ission 1hich, 1ithout 1ill0ul intent, -ut -. ,ere ne8li8ence or inattention, has cause& &a,a8e to another# A 'aster who exercises all possi(le care in the selection of his ser ant* ta!ing into consideration the F%ali/cations the& sho%ld possess for the discharge of the d%ties which it is his p%rpose to con/de to the'* and directs the' with eF%al diligence* there(& perfor's his d%t& to third persons to who' he is (o%nd by no contractual ties* and he inc%rs no lia(ilit& whate er if* (& reason of the negligence of his ser ants* e en within the scope of their e'plo&'ent* s%ch third person s%Qer da'age# !.$.C.a Cul(a aDuiliana an& cul(a contractual - "ource E er& legal o(ligation '%st of necessit& (e extra,contract%al or contract%al# Extra,contract%al o(ligation has its so%rce in the (reach or o'ission of those '%t%al d%ties which ci iliRed societ& i'poses %pon it 'e'(ers* or which arise fro' these relations* other than contractual. !.$.C.- Cul(a aDuiliana an& cul(a contractual :ur&en o0 (roo0 As a general r%le # # # it is logical that in case o e.tra-contractual culpa* a s%ing creditor sho%ld ass%'e the (%rden of proof of its existence* as the onl& fact %pon which his action is (ased; while on the contrar&* in a case of negligence which pres%pposes the e.istence o a contractual obli!ation* if the creditor shows that it exists and that it has (een (ro!en* it is not necessar& for hi' to pro e negligence# I#E#= Cul(a aDuiliana intersectionE an& cul(a contractual !s there an

!ssues6%el&

:# =#
Ratio

534 the co'pan& is pri'aril& lia(le# GES 534 reco er& (& Cangco is (arred (& his own contri(%tor& negli, gence# 43

:#

=#

;he 0oun&ation o0 the le8al lia-ilit. o0 the &e0en&ant is the contract o0 carria8e* and the o(ligation to respond for the da', age which Cangco has s%Qered arises fro' the (reach of contract (& reason of the co'pan& to exercise d%e care in its perfor'ance . !ts lia-ilit. is &irect an& i,,e&iate 7c%lpa contract%al8* diQer, ing essentiall& fro' that pres%'pti e responsi(ilit& for the negli, gence of its ser ants 7c%lpa aF%iliana8# The train was (arel& 'o ing when Cangco alighted# Tho%sands of person alight fro' trains %nder these conditions e er& da&* and s%stain no in?%r& where the co'pan& has !ept its platfor' free fro' dangero%s o(str%ctions# ;he (lace 1as (er0ectl. 0a,iliar to Can8co as it 1as his &ail. custo, to 8et on an& o5 the train at that station # There co%ld therefore (e no %ncertaint& in his 'ind with regard either to the length of the step which he was reF%ired to ta!e or the character of the platfor' where he was alighting# ;he con&uct o0 Can8co in un&erta9in8 to ali8ht 1hile the train 1as sli8htl. un&er 1as not characterize& -. i,(ru&ence.

These two /elds* /g%rati el& spea!ing* concentric; that is to sa&* the 'ere fact that a person is (o%nd to another (& contract does not relie e hi' fro' extra,contract%al lia(ilit& to s%ch person# 5hen s%ch a contract%al relation exists the o(ligor 'a& (rea! the contract %nder s%ch conditions that the sa'e act which constit%tes the so%rce of an extra,contract%al o(ligation had no contract existed (etween the parties#

P?@R= ?LC5N= and P5'RICI5 ?LC5N= v R?:IN5L@ ILL+ and M5R#IN ILL - *iang
C#$# 4o# <,=D@1A# 6a& =;* :NHH Facts The !illing of the son* Agapito* of the Elcano spo%ses* (& $eginald )ill was prosec%ted cri'inall& in the CFI of W%eRon Cit&# After d%e trial* he was acF%itted on the gro%nd that his act was not cri'inal (eca%se of Olac! of intent to !ill* co%pled with 'ista!e#P The Elcanos instit%ted a ci il case for reco er& of da'ages against $eginald )ill and his father 6ar in )ill# $eginald )ill is a 'arried 'inor (%t is li ing with 6ar in and getting s%(sistence fro' hi'# The )ills /led a 'otion to dis'iss on the Q gro%nds.

R$<$V+N; =R!NC!=<$" +CC*R'!N/ ;* ;*=!C" <!";$' !N ;%$ "><<+:#" !.:.?.a @uasi-&elict - A!ntentionalB acts The co'pan&Is lia(ilit& is direct and i''ediate* diQering essentiall& fro' that pres%'pti e responsi(ilit& for the negligence of its

:# The ci il action is not onl& against (%t a iolation of section :* $%le :1H* which is now $%le III* of the $e ised $%les of Co%rt; =# The action is (arred (& a prior ?%dg'ent which is now /nal and or in res,ad?%dicata; A# The co'plaint had no ca%se of action against defendant 6ar in )ill* (eca%se he was relie ed as g%ardian of the other defendant thro%gh e'ancipation (& 'arriage# The appellants /led for a 'otion for reconsideration and was granted (& the CFI# !ssues

524 the present ci il action for da'ages is (arred (& the acF%ittal of $eginald in the cri'inal case exting%ishedS

524 6ar in* the father* co%ld (e held lia(le despite $eginald (eing 'arried alread&S %ol&in8 !ssue FC N* The /rst iss%e presents no 'ore pro(le' than the need for a reiteration and f%rther clari/cation of the d%al character* cri'inal and ci il* of fa%lt or negligence as a so%rce of o(ligation# The co%rt cited "arredo s Carcia and said that OZthe sa'e act can co'e %nder (oth the Penal Code and the Ci il Code# The separate indi id%alit& of a c%asi,delito or c%lpa aF%iliana* %nder the Ci il Code has (een f%ll& and clearl& recogniRed* e en with regard to a negligent act for which the wrongdoer co%ld ha e (een prosec%ted and con icted in a cri'inal case#P It res%lts* therefore* that the acF%ittal of $eginal )ill in the cri'inal case has not exting%ished his lia(ilit& for F%asi,delict* hence that acF%ittal is not a (ar to the instant action against hi'# Re8ar&in8 intentional acts* according to the co%rt* an i''ediate reading of "arredo 'ight s%ggest that c%lpa aF%iliana onl& co ers negligent acts# -eeper re[ection wo%ld re eal that the thr%st of the prono%nce'ents therein is not so li'ited and also co ers intentional ol%ntar& acts# Article :1NA of the 7old8 Ci il Code %sed in "arredo* pro ided that o(ligations Ewhich are deri ed fro' acts or o'issions in which fa%lt or negligence* not p%nisha(le (& law* inter ene shall (e the s%(?ect of Chapter II* Title \V of this (oo! 7which refers to F%asi,delicts#8E The new ci il code* when it adopted Art :1NA of the old Ci il Code* re'o es the phrase Onot p%nisha(le (& lawP# The eF%i alent of Art :1NA in the new ci il code is Article ::;= which si'pl& sa&s* E3(ligations deri ed fro' F%asi,delicto shall (e go erned (& the pro isions of Chapter =* Title \VII of this "oo!* 7on F%asi,delicts8 starting in Article =:H; +rt. 2CGH. 5hoe er (& act or o'ission ca%ses da'age to another* there (eing fa%lt or negligence* is o(liged to pa& for the da'age done# S%ch fa%lt or negligence* if there is no pre,existing contract%al relation (etween the parties* is called a F%asi,delict and is go erned (& the pro isions of this Chapter# 7:N1=a8

Article =:H;* where it refers to Efa%lt or negligence co ers not onl& acts Enot p%nisha(le (& lawE (%t also acts cri'inal in character* whether intentional and ol%ntar& or negligent# !ssue F2 >$" 5hile it is tr%e that parental a%thorit& is ter'inated %pon e'ancipation of the child 7Article A=H* Ci il Code8* and %nder Article ANH* e'ancipation ta!es place E(& the 'arriage of the 'inor 7child8E* it is* howe er* also clear that p%rs%ant to Article ANN* e'ancipation (& 'arriage of the 'inor is not reall& f%ll or a(sol%te# E'ancipation (& 'arriage shall ter'inate parental a%thorit& o er the child's person# It shall ena(le the 'inor to ad'inister his propert& as tho%gh he were of age* (%t he cannot (orrow 'one& or alienate or enc%'(er real propert& witho%t the consent of his father or 'other* or g%ardian# )e can s%e and (e s%ed in co%rt onl& with the assistance of his father* 'other or g%ardian#E It '%st (e (orne in 'ind that* according to 6anresa* the reason (ehind the ?oint and solidar& lia(ilit& of pres%ncion with their oQending child %nder Article =:@1 is that it is the o(ligation of the parent to s%per ise their 'inor children in order to pre ent the' fro' ca%sing da'age to third persons# Article =:@1 applies to Att&# )ill notwithstanding the e'ancipation (& 'arriage of $eginald# 'is(osition CFI ordered to proceed with the ci il case# Since $eginald is no longer a 'inor at the ti'e of the decision* the lia(ilit& of Att&# )ill has (eco'e 'illing* s%(sidiar& to that of his son#

5N@5M= v. I5C (199.) - 'e0ano / 5bdon


F+C;" Petitioner spo%ses Anda'o owned a parcel of land sit%ated in "iga Silang* Ca ite which is ad?acent to that of pri ate respondent corporation* 6issionaries of 3%r lad& of <a Salette* Inc# 5ithin the land of the latter* waterpaths and contri ances* incl%ding an arti/cial la!e* were constr%cted* which allegedl& in%ndated and eroded petitionerIs land* ca%sed a &o%ng 'an to drown* da'agaed petitionerIs crops and plants* washed awa& costl& fences* endangered the li esofthepetitioners and their la(orers and so'e other destr%ctions# This pro'pted petitioner spo%ses to /le a cri'inal action for destr%ction (& 'eans of in%ndation %nder Article A=D of the $PC and a ci il action for da'ages# !""#$ 534 petitioner spo%ses Anda'o can clai' da'ages for destr%ction ca%sed (& respondentIs waterpaths and contri ances on the (asis of Articles =:H; and =:HH of the Ci il Code on F%asi,delicts# %$<' Ges#

A caref%l exa'ination of the aforeF%oted co'plaint shows that the ci il action is one %nder Articles =:H; and =:HH of the Ci il Code on F%asi,delicts# All the ele'ents of a F%asi,delict are present* to wit. 7a8 da'ages s%Qered (& the plaintiQ* 7(8 fa%lt or negligence of the defendant* or so'e other person for whose acts he '%st respond; and 7c8 the connection of ca%se and eQect (etween the fa%lt or negligence of the defendant and the da'ages inc%rred (& the plaintiQ# Clearl&* fro' petitionerIs co'plaint* the waterpaths and contri ances (%ilt (& respondent corporation are alleged to ha e in%ndated the land of petitioners# There is therefore* an assertion of a ca%sal connection (etween the act of (%ilding these waterpaths and the da'age s%stained (& petitioners# S%ch action if pro en constit%tes fa%lt or negligence which 'a& (e the (asis for the reco er& of da'ages# It '%st (e stressed that the %se of oneIs propert& is not witho%t li'itations# Article DA: of the Ci il Code pro ides that Othe owner of a thing cannot 'a!e %se thereof in s%ch a 'anner as to in?%re the rights of a third person#P SIC +TE$E T+3 +T A<IE4+6 434 <AE-AS# 6oreo er* ad?oining landowners ha e '%t%al and reciprocal d%ties which reF%ire that each '%st %se his own land in a reasona(le 'anner so as not to infringe %pon the rights and interests of others# Altho%gh we recogniRe the right of an owner to (%ild str%ct%res on his land* s%ch str%ct%res '%st (e so constr%cted and 'aintained %sing all reasona(le care so that the& cannot (e dangero%s to ad?oining landowners and can withstand the %s%al and expected forces of nat%re# If the str%ct%res ca%se in?%r& or da'age to an ad?oining landowner or a third person* the latter can clai' inde'ni/cation for the in?%r& or da'age s%Qered#

'altreaed hi'# Also his 6osle' %p(ringing allegedl& 'ade all this exc%sa(le# $TC. "a!sh to pa& =1! 'oral da'ages* A! attorne&s fees* and litigation expenses# $easoning. the& were lo ers* and the girl was not of loose 'orals# "a!sh %sed 'achinations* deceit and false pretense of pro'ise to 'arr& heer to sed%ce her# 534 da'ages 'a& (e reco ered %nder Art =: of the CC (ased on a (reach of pro'ise to 'arr&S '=R'* issue4 B=N Cuasi delicts include !ill/ul o& negligent acts. '=R'* I**D?4 No+ -17E o& Cuasi delicts is li1ited to negligent acts o& o1iissons and eFcluds t%e notion o/ !ill/ulness o& intent. '%e (%ili((ine sc%e1e as envisioned b" t%e Code Co11ission %as t%ese &e1edies /o& va&ious t"(es o/ in0u&ies4 RPC ; /o& intentional and 1alicious acts NCC -17E ; /o& negligent acts and o11issions NCC -1 ; /o& ot%e& in0u&ies Guasi delicts is a civil la! conce(t+ and is distinct /&o1 to&ts !%ic% is a co11on la! conce(t. 'o&ts is b&oade&. Ges# The 'ere (rach of pro'ise to 'arr& 7O)eart (al' s%itsP8 is not actiona(le per se# This notwithstanding the code has in art# =: expanded the concept of torts or F%asi delicts in this ?%risdiction (& granting adeF%ate legal re'ed& for the %ntold n%'(er of 'oral wrongs which is i'possi(le for h%'an foresight to speci/call& en%'erate and p%nish in stat%te (oo!s# Also applica(le is Art# =A which allows da'ages to (e gi en (& the part& which ca%ses another loss or in?%r& in a 'naner that is contrar& to 'orals* good c%sto's* or p%(lic polic&# SC held that torts is '%ch (roader than c%lpa aF%iliana 7art# =:H;8(eca%se it incl%des not onl& negligence* (%t intentional cri'inal act as well s%ch as ass%alt and (atter* false i'prison'ent* deceit# It is e en post%lated that together with arts :N and =1* art =: has greatl& (roadened the scope of the law on ci il wrongs# Th%s* the SC held that when a 'an's pro'ise to 'arr& is in fact the proxi'ate ca%se of the acceptance of his lo e (& awo'an and his represention to f%ll/ll that pro'ise (eco'es the proxi'ate c%ase of ht gi ing of herself %nto hi' in sex when he reall& had no intention to 'arr& her* is a s%(tle decepti e sche'e %nder art# =:#

Iss%e )eld

>aAs% v. C5 - 'iongco
-a ide* :NNA Facts 6artilo% ConRales is a twent& two &ear old single Filipino girl who 'et an Iranian citiRen residing at the <oRano apart'ents in -ag%pan* na'ed Cashe' Shoo!at "a!sh# )e was an exchange st%dent st%d&ing a 'edical co%rse at the <&ce%' 4orthwestern Colleges# )e allegedl& co%rted her and as!ed her to 'arr& hi'* e ent%all& forcing her to coha(it with hi'# "efore "a!sh* she was a irgin# 4ot an&'ore# )e also allegdl& 'altreated her# She e ent%all& got pregnant and was as!ed (& "a!sh to a(ort the fet%s# She was also allegedl& dr%gged# 5hen her parents* the tanod* and her law&er as!ed "a!sh to f%ll/ll his pro'ise to 'arr& her* he said that he was alread& 'arried# At this point* her father* a tric&cle dri er* was alread& as!ing aro%nd for sponsors for her wedding# Petitioner's arg%'ent. That Art# =: does not appl& (eca%se he had not co''ited an& 'oral wrong or an&thing contar& to c%sto' or p%(lic polic&# )e has not proposed 'arriage* and he ne er

Cinco v. Canono" ; #alde$


J. Melencio-%errera

:1

Ma. IC, CJGJ F+C;" Por/rio Cinco /led a co'plaint in 6anda%e Cit&* Ce(%* for the reco er& of da'ages on acco%nt of a ehic%lar accident in ol ing his a%to'o(ile and a ?eepne& dri en (& $o'eo )ilot and operated (& Valeriana Pepito and Carlos Pepito# A cri'inal case was /led against the dri er arising fro' the sa'e accident# At the pre,trial* co%nsel for pri ate respondents 7)ilot* Pepitos8 'o ed to s%spend the ci il action pending the /nal deter'ination of the cri'inal s%it* in o!ing $%le :::* Sec# A7(8 of the $3C [7(8 After a cri'inal action has (een co''enced* no ci il action arising fro' the sa'e oQense can (e prosec%ted* and the sa'e shall (e s%spended* in whate er stage it 'a& (e fo%nd* %ntil /nal ?%dg'ent in the cri'inal proceeding has (een rendered]# The Cit& Co%rt of 6anda%e ordered the s%spension of the Ci il Case# Petitioners /led a petition for certiorari alleged that the Cit& M%dge acted with gra e a(%se of discretion in s%spending the ci il action for (eing contrar& to law and ?%rispr%dence# $espondent M%dge dis'issed the petition (eca%se there was no gra e a(%se of discretion* as da'age to propert& is not one of the instances when an independent ci il action is proper# Canono& interposed that petitioner co%ld still clai' for da'ages in the cri'inal case# !""#$ 5hether or not there can (e an independent ci il action for da'age to propert& d%ring the pendenc& of the cri'inal action %$<' GES* there can (e an independent ci il action for da'age to propert& d%ring the pendenc& of the cri'inal action

(# =#

$espondents* in their answer* contended that the& o(, ser ed d%e diligence in the selection and s%per ision of her e'plo&ees* partic%larl& of the dri er

Accdg to 4CC =:HH* the case 'a& proceed as a separate and inde, pendent ci il action* the lia(ilit& (eing predicated on F%asi,delict# "& irt%e of =:HH* responsi(ilit& for fa%lt or negligence %nder the preceding article is entirel& separate and distinct fro' ci il lia(ilit& arising fro' negligence %nder the $PC* (%t the plaintiQ cannot re, co er da'ages twice for the sa'e act or o'ission of the defen, dant* /arredo v. (arcia0 7II' sorr& I 'ight (e wrong* !indl& edit instead if wrong* friends ] 8

A#

Cri,inal Ne8li8ence P%nishes rec!less i'pr%dence i'pr%dence of and g%ilt si'ple (e&ond

@uasi-&elict

P%nishes si'ple i'pr%dence

In a cri'inal case* proof reasona(le do%(t is reF%ired

Preponderance of e idenc defendant pa& in da'ages

Allows onl& for the exha%stion of defendantIs 7dri erIs8 lia(ilit& Allowed onl& for da'ages (& responsi(ilit& arising fro' cri'e irt%e of ci il

Allows plaintiQ to reco er ia the latterIs pri'ar& an %nder 3CC :N1A

$elies on Arts :N1=,:N:1; it for an independent ci il ac the iss%es* stations* and prosec%tion* and entirel& wronged* and is 'ore li!e and e>cacio%s redress

:#

4at%re and character of the action was F%asi,delict%al* predicated on =:H; cf# =:@1# =:@1 pro ides that OE'plo&ers shall (e lia(le for the da'ages ca%sed (& their e'plo&ees and ho%sehold helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tas!s* e en tho%gh the for'er are not engaged in an& (%siness or ind%str&###the responsi, (ilit& treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein 'entioned pro e that the& all o(ser ed the diligence of a good fa, ther of a fa'il& to pre ent da'ageP

D#

Sec# = $%le ::: $3C allows for a separate and independent ci il action for F%asi,delict. O###pro ided the right is reser ed as reF%ired in the preceding section# S%ch ci il action shall proceed indepen, dentl& of the cri'inal prosec%tion* and shall reF%ire onl& a prepon, derance of e idenceP# "& irt%e of =:HH and Sec# = $%le ::: of the $3C* the Cit& Co%rt* erred in placing reliance on Sec# A7(8 of $%le ::: of the $3C 7Oother ci il actions arising fro' cases not incl%ded in the section ?%st citedP instead of Sec# = $%le ::: 4CC A:. 5hen the ci il action is (ased on an o(ligation not arising fro' the act or o'ission co'plained of as a felon&* s%ch ci il ac, tion 'a& proceed independentl& of the cri'inal proceedings and regardless of the res%lt of the latter

0#

a#

PlaintiQ 'ade essential a er'ents that it was the dri erIs fa%lt or negligence which ca%sed the collision (etween their ehicles* and that the da'ages were s%stained (e, ca%se of the collision# The co'plaint esta(lished a direct ca%sal connection (etween the da'ages he s%Qered and the fa%lt and negligence of pri ate respondents#

;#

::

a#

M%ral concept of W- is that of an independent so%rce of o(ligation Onot arising fro' the act2o'ission co'plained of as a felon&; s%ch concl%sion is (olstered (& 4C ::0H where in it states that o(ligations arise fro' F%asi,delicts PetitionerIs ca%se of action is (ased on F%asi,delict* and the concept is so (road that it incl%des not onl& in?%ries to persons (%t also da'age to propert&; no distinction (e, tween da'age to persons and da'age to propert&

!""#$ 534 the ca%se of action is fo%nded on Art :1A of $PC or deri ed fro' Art =:@1 of the Ci il Code# %$<' Ci il Case NN,:1@D0 is a negligence s%it (ro%ght %nder Art =:H; L to reco er da'ages pri'aril& for' the Petitioners as e'plo&ers responsi(le for their negligent dri er p%rs%ant to Art =:@1 of the Ci il Code# The o(ligation i'posed (& Art =:H; is de'anda(le not onl& for oneIs own acts (%t also for those of persons for who' one is responsi(le# Th%s the e'plo&er is responsi(le for da'ages ca%sed (& his e'plo&ees and ho%sehold helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tas!s# It was clear fro' the allegations of the co'plaint that F%asi,delict was their choice of re'ed& against petitioners* (& alleging gross fa%lt and negligence on the part of petitioners* as e'plo&ers* to exercise d%e diligence in the selection and s%per ision of their e'plo&ees# The& also alleged that petitioners are ci ill& lia(le for the negligence2i'pr%dence of their dri er since the& failed to exercise the necessar& diligence reF%ired of a good father of a fa'il& in the selection and s%per ision of their e'plo&ees* which* if exercised* co%ld ha e pre ented the ehic%lar accident that res%lted in the death of their H,&ear old son# Sec = $%le = of the :NNH $%les of Ci il Proced%re de/nes ca%se of action as the Oact or o'ission (& which a part& iolates the right of another#P S%ch act or o'ission gi es rise to an o(ligation which 'a& co'e fro' law* contracts* F%asi,contracts* delicts or F%asi,delicts# Corollaril&* an act or o'ission ca%sing da'age to another 'a& gi e rise to = separate lia(ilities on the part of the oQender# i#e#* :8 ci il lia(ilit& ex delicto* and =8 independent ci il lia(ilities* s%ch as those a8 not arising fro' an act or o 'ission co'plained of as a felon& 7e#g#* c%lpa contract%al or o(ligations arising fro' the law* the intentional torts* and c%lpa aF%iliana8* or (8 where the in?%red part& is granted a right to /le an action independent and distinct fro' the cri'inal action# Stated otherwise* icti's or negligence or their heirs ha e a choice (etween an action to enforce the ci il lia(ilit& arising fro' the c%lpa cri'inal %nder Art :11 of the $PC and an action for F%asi,delict %nder Arts =:H;,=:ND of the Ci il Code# Article ::;: of the Ci il Code pro ides that ci il o(ligation arising fro' cri'inal oQenses shall (e go erned (& penal laws s%(?ect to the pro ision of Article =:HH and of the pertinent pro ision of Chapter =* Preli'inar& Title on )%'an $elation* and of Title \VIII of this "oo!* reg%lating da'ages# Plainl&* Article =:HH pro ides for the alternati e re'edies the plaintiQ 'a& choose fro' in case the o(ligation has the possi(ilit& of arising indirectl& fro' the delict2cri'e or directl& fro' ,uasi,delict2tort# The choice is with the plaintiQ who 'a!es !nown his ca%se of action in his initiator& pleading or co'plaint* and not with the defendant who cannot as! for the dis'issal of the plaintiQIs ca%se of action or lac! of it (ased on the defendantIs perception that the plaintiQ sho%ld ha e opted to /le a clai' %nder Article

(#

L. :. F==@* C=RP=R5'I=N P5:5P5N:-5:R5#I5@=R - >uenaventu&a


C#$# 4o# :0@NN0 Sept =;* =11; -igest (& "+E4AVE4T+$A* 6V F+C;"

#*

=; Fe( :NN; L Charles Valle?era* H,&r old son of spo%ses Florentino and Theresa Valle?era* was hit (& a Ford Fiera an owned (& <# C# Foods Corporation and dri en (& their e'plo&ee Vincent 4or'an GeneRa# Charles died as a res%lt# A4 Infor'ation for rec!less I'pr%dence was /led against the dri er (%t (efore the trial co%ld (e concl%ded* he co''itted s%icide# =A M%ne :NNN L spo%ses Valle?era /led a co'plaint for da'ages against Petitioner as e'plo&ers of the deceased dri er* alleging that the& failed to exercise d%e diligence in the selection and s%per ision of their e'plo&ees# The Petitioners answered that the& exercised d%e diligence in the section and s%per ision of their e'plo&ees* incl%ding the deceased dri er# The& pra&ed for dis'issal of co'plaint for lac! of ca%se of action# The co%rt reF%ired the' to /le a 'e'orand%' of a%thorities s%pporti e of their position# Instead the& /les a 6otion to -is'iss* arg%ing that the clai' is for s%(sidiar& lia(ilit& against an e'plo&er %nder Art :1A of the $PC# The& contended that a ?%dge'ent of con iction against the dri er was a condition sine F%a non to hold the' lia(le# The& arg%ed that since the PlaintiQ did not 'a!e a reser ation to instit%te a separate action for da'ages when the cri'inal case was /led* the da'age s%it was dee'ed instit%ted with the cri'inal action which was alread& dis'issed# The Trial Co%rt denied the 'otion to dis'iss# The Petitioners then went to the Co%rt of Appeals which %pheld the trial co%rt# It said. OZthe co'plaint neither represents nor i'plies that the responsi(ilit& charged was the petitionerIs s%(sidiar& lia(ilit& %nder Art :1A of the $PCZ Ci il case NN,:1@D0 exacts responsi(ilit& for fa%lt or negligence %nder Art =:H; of the ci il code* which is entirel& separate and distinct fro' the ci il lia(ilit& arising fro' negligence %nder the $PCZ the lia(ilit& %nder Art =:@1 of the Ci il Code is direct and i''ediate* and not conditioned %pon prior reco%rse against the negligent e'plo&ee or prior showing of the latterIs insol enc&#P

:=

:1A of the $e ised Penal Code# )ad the respondent spo%ses elected to s%e the petitioners (ased on Article :1A of the $e ised Penal Code* the& wo%ld ha e alleged that the g%ilt of the dri er had (een pro en (e&ond reasona(le do%(t; that s%ch acc%sed dri er is insol ent; that it is the s%(sidiar& lia(ilit& of the defendant petitioners as e'plo&ers to pa& for the da'age done (& their e'plo&ee 7dri er8 (ased on the principle that e er& person cri'inall& lia(le is also ci ill& lia(le# Since there was no con iction in the cri'inal case against the dri er* precisel& (eca%se death inter ened prior to the ter'ination of the cri'inal proceedings* the spo%sesI reco%rse was* therefore* to s%e the petitioners for their direct and pri'ar& lia(ilit& (ased on ,uasi,delict#

=#

534 CP Sar'iento* either as a co''on carrier or a pri ate carrier* 'a& (e pres%'ed to ha e (een negligent when the goods it %ndertoo! to transport safel& were s%(seF%entl& da'aged while in its protecti e c%stod& and possession 534 the doctrine of res ipsa lo,uitur is applica(le in this case#

A# :#

%el&6Ratio The SC /nds the concl%sion of the $TC and the CA to (e a'pl& ?%sti/ed# CP Sar'iento* (eing an excl%si e contractor and ha%ler of Concepcion Ind%stries* Inc#* rendering or oQering its ser ices to no other indi id%al or entit&* cannot (e considered a co''on carrier# Co''on carriers are persons* corporations* /r's or associations engaged in the (%siness of carr&ing or transporting passengers or goods or (oth* (& land* water* or air* for hire or co'pensation* oQering their ser ices to the p%(lic* whether to the p%(lic in general or to a li'ited clientele in partic%lar* (%t ne er on an excl%si e (asis# The tr%e test of a co''on carrier is the carriage of passengers or goods* pro iding space for those who opt to a ail the'sel es of its transportation ser ice for a fee# Ci en accepted standards* CP Sar'iento scarcel& falls within the ter' Oco''on carrier#P CP Sar'iento cannot escape fro' lia(ilit&# In c%lpa contract%al* the 'ere proof of the existence of the contract and the fail%re of its co'pliance ?%stif&* pri'a facie* a corresponding right of relief# The law will not per'it a part& to (e set free fro' lia(ilit& for an& !ind of 'isperfor'ance of the contract%al %nderta!ing or a contra ention of the tenor thereof# A (reach %pon the contract confers %pon the in?%red part& a alid ca%se for reco ering that which 'a& ha e (een lost2s%Qered# The re'ed& ser es to preser e the interests of the pro'isee that 'a& incl%de his.

F:D Insu&ance v. *a&1iento - >u%angin


Facts

:# =#

CP Sar'iento Tr%c!ing Corp# %ndertoo! to deli er A1 %nits of Cond%ra refrigerators a(oard an Is%R% tr%c!* dri en (& one <a'(ert Eroles# 5hile tra ersing along 6cArth%r )ighwa& in "g&# An%pol* "a'(an* Tarlac on its wa& to its deli er& point in -ag%pan* Pangasinan* it collided with an %nidenti/ed tr%c!* ca%sing the for'er to fall into a deep canal* res%lting in da'age to its cargo# FC+ Ins%rance* the ins%rer of the ship'ent* paid to Concepcion Ind%stries* Inc# 7'a!ers of Cond%ra aircon8 the al%e of the co ered cargo in the s%' of Php=1D*D01# FC+* as s%(rogee of Concepcion Ind%stries* so%ght rei'(%rse'ent of the sa'e a'o%nt fro' CP Sar'iento# CP Sar'iento did not pa&* there(& pro'pting FC+ Ins%rance to /le a co'plaint for da'ages and (reach of contract of carriage fro' against CP Sar'iento and its dri er* Eroles# CP Sar'iento responded* a erring that it is the excl%si e ha%ler onl& of Concepcion Ind%stries* Inc# and it was not engaged in (%siness as a co''on carrier# In addition* it arg%ed that the ca%se of the da'age to the cargo was p%rel& accidental# FC+ Ins%rance presented its e idence while CP Sar'iento /led a 'otion to dis'iss (& wa& of de'%rrer of e idence on the gro%nd that petitioner failed to pro e that it was a co''on carrier# The trial co%rt r%led in fa or of CP Sar'iento# 3n appeal* the CA li!ewise r%led in fa or of CP Sar'iento#

A#

=#

D# 0#

a# (#

Expectation interest L interest in ha ing the (ene/t of his (argain (& (eing p%t in as good a position as he wo%ld ha e (een in had the contract (een perfor'ed; $eliance interest L interest in (eing rei'(%rsed for loss ca%sed (& reliance on the contract (& (eing p%t in as good a position as he wo%ld ha e (een in had the contract not (een 'ade; $estit%tion interest L interest in ha ing restored to hi' an& (ene/t that he has conferred on the other part&#

;#

c#

!ssues

:#

534 CP Sar'iento 'a& (e considered a co''on carrier as de/ned %nder the law and existing ?%rispr%dence#

Agree'ents can acco'plish little %nless the& are 'ade the (asis for action# The eQect of e er& infraction is to create a new d%t&* or to 'a!e reco'pense to the one who has (een in?%red (& the fail%re of another to o(ser e his contract%al o(ligation %nless he can show exten%ating circ%'stances* li!e proof of his exercise of

:A

d%e diligence 7nor'all& that of the diligence of a good father of a fa'il& or* exceptionall& (& stip%lation or (& law s%ch as in the case of co''on carriers* that of extraordinar& diligence8 or of the attendance of fort%ito%s e ent* to exc%se hi' fro' his ens%ing lia(ilit&# A defa%lt on* or fail%re of co'pliance with* the o(ligation gi es rise to a pres%'ption of lac! of care ^ corresponding lia(ilit& on the part of the contract%al o(ligor the (%rden (eing on hi' to esta(lish otherwise# CPS has failed to do so# Eroles* on the other hand* 'a& not (e ordered to pa& petitioner witho%t concrete proof of his negligence or fa%lt# The dri er* not (eing a part& to the contract of carriage (etween petitionerIs principal and defendant* 'a& not (e held lia(le %nder the agree'ent# A contract can onl& (ind the parties who ha e entered into it or their s%ccessors who ha e ass%'ed their personalit& or ?%ridical position# Consonantl& with the axio' res inter alios acta aliis ne,ue nocet prodest* s%ch contract can neither fa or nor pre?%dice a third person# PetitionerIs ci il action against the dri er can onl& (e (ased on culpa a,uiliana* which wo%ld reF%ire the clai'ant for da'ages to pro e the defendantIs negligence2fa%lt#

Res ipsa lo,uitur generall& /nds rele ance whether or not a contract%al relationship exists (etween the plaintiQ and the defendant* for the inference of negligence arises fro' the circ%'stances and nat%re of the occ%rrence and not fro' the nat%re of the relation of the parties# 4e ertheless* for the doctrine to appl&* the reF%ire'ent that responsi(le ca%ses 7other than those d%e to defendantIs cond%ct8 '%st /rst (e eli'inated sho%ld (e %nderstood as (eing con/ned onl& to cases of p%re 7non,contract%al8 tort since o( io%sl& the pres%'ption of negligence in c%lpa contract%al i''ediatel& attaches (& a fail%re of the co enant or its tenor# 3n the other hand* while the tr%c! dri er* whose ci il lia(ilit& is predicated on c%lpa aF%iliana* can (e said to ha e (een in control and 'anage'ent of the ehicle* it is not eF%all& shown that the accident has (een excl%si el& d%e to his negligence# If it were so* the negligence co%ld allow res ipsa lo,uitur to properl& wor! against hi'# )owe er* clearl& this is not the case#

Calalas v. C5 - Celeb&ado
=nd -i ision T C#$# 4o# :==1AN T 6a& A:* =111 T 6endoRa* 1# F+C;" $liza Ju3eurche /. "un8a* a fresh'an at Sili'an +ni ersit&* too! a ?eepne& owned2operated (& petitioner Vicente Calalas# As the ?eepne& was /lled to capacit& of a(o%t =D passengers* S%nga was gi en an Oextension seat*P a wooden stool at the (ac! of the door at the rear end of the ehicle# The ?eepne& stopped to let a passenger oQ# S%nga ga e wa& to the o%tgoing passenger# Then* an Is%R% tr%c! dri en (& !8lecerio Verena and owned (& Francisco "alva (%'ped the left rear portion of the ?eepne&# As a res%lt* S%nga was in?%red# She s%stained a leg fract%re# -r# -anilo V# 3ligario* an orthopedic s%rgeon* certi/ed she wo%ld re'ain on a cast for a period of three 'onths and wo%ld ha e to a'(%late in cr%tches d%ring said period# S%nga /led a co'plaint for da'ages against Calalas* alleging violation o the contract o carria!e (& the for'er in failing to exercise the diligence reF%ired of hi' as a co''on carrier# Calalas* on the other hand* 2led a third-party complaint against Francisco Sal a* the owner of the Is%R% tr%c!# -%'ag%ete $TC rendered ?%dg'ent against Sal a as third,part& defendant and a(sol ed Calalas of lia(ilit&* holding that it was the dri er of the Is%R% tr%c! who was responsi(le for the accident# Then* it too! cogniRance of another case 7CC 4o# ADN18 /led (& Calalas against Sal a and Verena* for ,uasi-delict* in which it held Sal a and his dri er Verena ?ointl& lia(le to Calalas for the da'age to his ?eepne&# CA re ersed $TC on the gro%nd that S%ngaIs ca%se of action was (ased on a contract of carriage* not F%asi,delict* and that the co''on carrier failed to exercise the diligence reF%ired %nder the Ci il Code# The appellate co%rt dis'issed the third,part& co'plaint against Sal a and ad?%dged Calalas lia(le for da'ages to S%nga#

A#

Res ipsa lo,uitur holds a defendant lia(le where the thing which ca%sed the in?%r& co'plained of is shown to (e %nder the latterIs 'anage'ent and the accident is s%ch that* in the ordinar& co%rse of things* cannot (e expected to happen if those who ha e its 'anage'ent2control %se proper care# In the a(sence of the defendantIs explanation* it aQords reasona(le e idence that the accident arose fro' want of care# It is not a r%le of s%(stanti e law and does not create an independent gro%nd of lia(ilit&# Instead* it is regarded as a 'ode of proof* or a 'ere proced%ral con enience since it f%rnishes a s%(stit%te for* and relie es the plaintiQ of* the (%rden of prod%cing speci/c proof of negligence# The 'axi' si'pl& places the (%rden of going forward with the proof on the defendant# )owe er* resort to the doctrine 'a& onl& (e allowed when.

7a8 the e ent is of a !ind which does not ordinaril& occ%r in the a(sence of negligence; 7(8 other responsi(le ca%ses are s%>cientl& eli'inated (& the e idence 7incl%des the cond%ct of the plaintiQ and third persons8; and 7c8 the indicated negligence is within the scope of the defendantIs d%t& to the plaintiQ# Th%s* it is not applica(le when an %nexplained accident 'a& (e attri(%ta(le to one of se eral ca%ses* for so'e of which the defendant co%ld not (e responsi(le#

:D

!""#$ 534 the negligence of Verena (eing the proxi'ate ca%se of the accident negates CalalasI lia(ilit&# %$<' No. The iss%e in Ci il Case 4o# ADN1 was whether Sal a and his dri er Verena were lia(le for F%asi,delict for the da'age ca%sed to petitionerIs ?eepne&# 3n the other hand* the iss%e in this case is whether petitioner is lia(le on his contract of carriage# The /rst* F%asi,delict* also !nown as culpa a,uiliana or culpa e.tra contractual * has as its so%rce the negligence of the tortfeasor# The second* (reach of contract or culpa contractual* is pre'ised %pon the negligence in the perfor'ance of a contract%al o(ligation# In Cuasi-delict* the negligence or fa%lt sho%ld (e clearl& esta(lished (eca%se it is the (asis of the action* whereas in b&eac% o/ cont&act* the action can (e prosec%ted 'erel& (& pro ing the existence of the contract and the fact that the o(ligor* in this case the co''on carrier* failed to transport his passenger safel& to his destination# In case of death or in?%ries to passengers* Art# :H0; 4CC pro ides that co''on carriers are pres%'ed to ha e (een at fa%lt or to ha e acted negligentl& unless they prove that they observed e.traordinary dili!ence as de/ned in Arts# :HAA and :H00 4CC# This pro ision necessaril& shifts to the co''on carrier the (%rden of proof# It is i,,aterial that the pro.imate cause of the collision (etween the ?eepne& and the tr%c! was the negligence of the tr%c! dri er# The doctrine o pro.imate cause is applica(le onl& in actions for F%asi,delict* 43T in actions in ol ing (reach of contract# The doctrine is a de ice for imputin! liability to a person #here there is no relation bet#een him and another party# In s%ch a case* the o(ligation is created by la# itself# "%t* where there is a pre,existing contractual relation (etween the parties* it is the parties the'sel es #ho create the obli!ation* and the f%nction of the law is merely to re!ulate the relation th%s created# Insofar as contracts of carriage are concerned* so'e aspects reg%lated (& the Ci il Code are those respecting the diligence reF%ired of co''on carriers with regard to the safet& of passengers as well as the pres%'ption of negligence in cases of death or in?%r& to passengers# +pon the happening of the accident* the pres%'ption of negligence at once arose* and it (eca'e CalalasI d%t& to pro e that he had to o(ser e extraordinar& diligence in the care of his passengers# Calalas did 43T carr& S%nga Osafel& as far as h%'an care and foresight co%ld pro ide* %sing the %t'ost diligence of er& ca%tio%s persons* with d%e regard for all the circ%'stancesP as reF%ired (& Art# :H00# First* the ?eepne& was not properl& par!ed* its rear portion (eing exposed a(o%t two 'eters fro' the (road sho%lders of the highwa&* and facing the 'iddle of the highwa& in a diagonal angle in iolation of the $#A# 4o# D:A;* as a'ended* or the <and Transportation and Tra>c Code# Second* it is %ndisp%ted that petitionerIs dri er too! in 'ore passengers than the allowed seating capacit& of the ?eepne&* a iolation of _A=7a8 of the sa'e

law# The fact that S%nga was seated in an Oextension seatP placed her in a peril greater than that to which the other passengers were exposed# Therefore* not onl& was petitioner %na(le to o erco'e the pres%'ption of negligence i'posed on hi' for the in?%r& s%stained (& S%nga* (%t also* the e idence shows he was act%all& negligent in transporting passengers# )ome dis,uisitions beyond the assi!ned topic Y It is 43T tr%e that the ?eepne& (eing (%'ped while it was i'properl& par!ed constit%tes caso ortuito# A caso ortuito is an e ent which co%ld not (e foreseen* or which* tho%gh foreseen* was ine ita(le# This reF%ires that the following re,uirements (e present. 7a8 the ca%se of the (reach is independent of the de(torIs will; 7(8 the e ent is %nforeseea(le or %na oida(le; 7c8 the e ent is s%ch as to render it i'possi(le for the de(tor to f%l/ll his o(ligation in a nor'al 'anner* and 7d8 the de(tor did not ta!e part in ca%sing the in?%r& to the creditor# Petitioner sho%ld ha e foreseen the danger of par!ing his ?eepne& with its (od& protr%ding two 'eters into the highwa&# Finall&* there is 43 legal (asis for awarding 'oral da'ages since there was no fact%al /nding that Calalas acted in bad aith in the perfor'ance of the contract of carriage# S%ngaIs contention that CalalasI ad'ission that the dri er of the ?eepne& failed to assist her in going to a near(& hospital CA443T (e constr%ed as an ad'ission of (ad faith# The fact that it was the dri er of the Is%R% tr%c! who too! her to the hospital does 43T i'pl& that petitioner was %tterl& indiQerent to the plight of his in?%red passenger#

Fo&es v. Mi&anda ; @eslate


$espondent Ireneo 6iranda was a(oard a ?eep dri en (& E%genio <%ga when the latter lost control of it as it was speeding down Sta# 6esa (ridge# The ehicle swer ed and hit the (ridge wall* in?%ring passengers incl%ding respondent* who had to %ndergo A operations. :8 to wind wire loops aro%nd his (ro!en (ones* =8 to insert a 'etal splint* A8 to re'o e said splint# The ?eep was owned (& PaR Fores* (eing registered in her na'e and ha ing the na'e E-ona PaRE painted (elow its windshield# ISS+E. w2n an action for the (reach of contract e'(odies an action on tort )E<-. 43# The diQerence in conditions* defenses and proof* as well as the codal concept of F%asi,delict as essentiall& extra contract%al negligence* co'pel %s to diQerentiate (etween action ex contract% 7action arising fro' a contract8* and actions F%asi ex delicto 7F%asi,delict8* and pre ent %s fro' iewing the action for (reach of contract as si'%ltaneo%sl& e'(od&ing an action on tort# Th%s* the 'oral da'ages ordered to (e paid to respondent '%st (e discarded* as s%ch are not reco era(le in da'age actions predicted on a (reach of contract of transportation# The ter' Eanalogo%s casesE in Art ==:N does not incl%de F%asi,delicts (eca%se the de/nition of F%asi,delict in Art# =:H; of the Code expressl& excl%des the cases where there is a

:0

Epreexisting contract%al relation (etween the parties*E while Art# ===1 reF%ires (ad faith in the contract%al (reach for da'ages to (e reco era(le# APP<ICA"<E P$3VISI34S Art# ==:N# 6oral da'ages 'a& (e reco ered in the following and analo8ous cases. 7:8 A cri'inal oQense res%lting in ph&sical in?%ries; 7=8 W%asi,delicts ca%sing ph&sical in?%ries; Art# ===1# 5illf%l in?%r& to propert& 'a& (e a legal gro%nd for awarding 'oral da'ages if the co%rt sho%ld /nd that* %nder circ%'stances* s%ch da'ages are ?%stif& d%e# The sa'e r%le applies to (reaches of contract where the defendant acted fra%d%lentl& or in (ad faith# Art# =:H;# 5hoe er (& act or o'ission ca%ses da'age to another* there (eing fa%lt or negligence* is o(liged to pa& for the da'age do'e# S%ch fa%lt or negligence* if there is no pre,existing contract%al relation (etween the parties* is called a F%asi,delict and is go erned (& the pro isions of this Chapter#

C=N*=LI@5'?@ >5NH #*. ' ? C=N*=LI@5'?@ >5NH and 'RD*' C=RP=R5'I=N vs. C=DR' =F 5PP?5L* and L.C. @I5I and C=MP5N)+ CP5Js - @o1ingo
Facts

and presented to Teller 4o# ; the deposit slip and chec!# The teller sta'ped the words O-+P<ICATEP and OSAVI4C TE<<E$ ; S3<I-"A4` )EA- 3FFICEP on the d%plicate cop& of the deposit slip# 5hen 6acara&a as!ed for the pass(oo!* Teller 4o# ; told 6acara&a that so'eone got the pass(oo! (%t she co%ld not re'e'(er to who' she ga e the pass(oo!# 5hen 6acara&a as!ed Teller 4o# ; if Calapre got the pass(oo!* Teller 4o# ; answered that so'eone shorter than Calapre got the pass(oo!# Calapre was then standing (eside 6acara&a# The following da& <#C# -iaR learned of the %na%thoriRed withdrawal the da& (efore 7:D A%g%st :NN:8 of PA11*111 fro' its sa ings acco%nt# The withdrawal slip for the PA11*111 (ore the signat%res of the a%thoriRed signatories of <#C# -iaR* na'el& -iaR and $%stico <# 6%rillo# The signatories* howe er* denied signing the withdrawal slip# A certain 4oel Ta'a&o recei ed the PA11*111# <#C# -iaR de'anded fro' Solid(an! the ret%rn of its 'one&# Solid(an! ref%sed# <#C# -iaR /led a Co'plaint for $eco er& of a S%' of 6one& against Solid(an!# The trial co%rt a(sol ed Solid(an!# <#C# -iaR appealed to the CA# CA re ersed the ecision of the trial co%rt# CA denied the 'otion for reconsideration of Solid(an!# "%t it 'odi/ed its decision (& deleting the award of exe'plar& da'ages and attorne&Is fees# )ence this petition#

!ssue

,
Petitioner Solid(an! is a do'estic (an!ing corporation organiRed and existing %nder Philippine laws# Pri ate respondent <#C# -iaR and Co'pan&* CPAIs* is a professional partnership engaged in the practice of acco%nting# In 6arch :NH;* <#C# -iaR opened a sa ings acco%nt with Solid(an!# 3n :D A%g%st :NN:* <#C# -iaR thro%gh its cashier* 6ercedes 6acara&a* /lled %p a sa ings 7cash8 deposit slip for PNN1 and a sa ings 7chec!s8 deposit slip for P01# 6acara&a instr%cted the 'essenger of <#C# -iaR* Is'ael Calapre* to deposit the 'one& with Solid(an!# 6acara&a also ga e Calapre the Solid(an! pass(oo!# Calapre went to Solid(an! and presented to Teller 4o# ; the two deposit slips and the pass(oo!# The teller ac!nowledged the receipt of the deposit (& ret%rning to Calapre the d%plicate copies of the two deposit slips# Teller 4o# ; sta'ped the deposit slips with the words O-+P<ICATEP and OSAVI4C TE<<E$ ; S3<I-"A4` )EA3FFICE#P Since the transaction too! ti'e and Calapre had to 'a!e another deposit for <#C# -iaR with Allied "an!* he left the pass(oo! with Solid(an!# Calapre then went to Allied "an!# 5hen Calapre ret%rned to Solid(an! to retrie e the pass(oo!* Teller 4o# ; infor'ed hi' that Oso'e(od& got the pass(oo!#P Calapre went (ac! to <#C# -iaR and reported the incident to 6acara&a# 6acara&a i''ediatel& prepared a deposit slip in d%plicate copies with a chec! of P=11*111# 6acara&a and Calapre went to Solid(an! %el&

534 petitioner Solid(an! is lia(le#

Ges# Solid(an! is lia(le for (reach of contract d%e to negligence* or c%lpa contract%al#

The contract (etween the (an! and its depositor is go erned (& the pro isions of the Ci il Code on si'ple loan# Article :N@1 of the Ci il Code expressl& pro ides that Ox xx sa ings x xx deposits of 'one& in (an!s and si'ilar instit%tions shall (e go erned (& the pro isions concerning si'ple loan#P There is a de(tor,creditor relationship (etween the (an! and its depositor# The (an! is the de(tor and the depositor is the creditor# The depositor lends the (an! 'one& and the (an! agrees to pa& the depositor on de'and# The sa ings deposit agree'ent (etween the (an! and the depositor is the contract that deter'ines the rights and o(ligations of the parties# The law i'poses on (an!s high standards in iew of the /d%ciar& nat%re of (an!ing# The (an! is %nder o(ligation to treat the acco%nts of its depositors with 'etic%lo%s care* alwa&s ha ing in 'ind the /d%ciar& nat%re of their relationship# This /d%ciar& relationship 'eans that the (an!Is o(ligation to o(ser e Ohigh standards of integrit& and perfor'anceP is dee'ed written into e er& deposit agree'ent (etween a (an! and its depositor# The /d%ciar& nat%re of (an!ing reF%ires (an!s to ass%'e a degree of diligence higher than that

:;

of a good father of a fa'il&# Article ::H= of the Ci il Code states that the degree of diligence reF%ired of an o(ligor is that prescri(ed (& law or contract* and a(sent s%ch stip%lation then the diligence of a good father of a fa'il&# Section = of $A @HN: prescri(es the stat%tor& diligence reF%ired fro' (an!s L that (an!s '%st o(ser e Ohigh standards of integrit& and perfor'anceP in ser icing their depositors# )owe er* the /d%ciar& nat%re of a (an!,depositor relationship does not con ert the contract (etween the (an! and its depositors fro' a si'ple loan to a tr%st agree'ent* whether express or i'plied# Fail%re (& the (an! to pa& the depositor is fail%re to pa& a si'ple loan* and not a (reach of tr%st# The law si'pl& i'poses on the (an! a higher standard of integrit& and perfor'ance in co'pl&ing with its o(ligations %nder the contract of si'ple loan* (e&ond those reF%ired of non,(an! de(tors %nder a si'ilar contract of si'ple loan# The /d%ciar& nat%re of (an!ing does not con ert a si'ple loan into a tr%st agree'ent (eca%se (an!s do not accept deposits to enrich depositors (%t to earn 'one& for the'sel es# "oli&-an9Ks :reach o0 its Contractual *-li8ation Article ::H= of the Ci il Code pro ides that Oresponsi(ilit& arising fro' negligence in the perfor'ance of e er& !ind of o(ligation is de'anda(le#P For (reach of the sa ings deposit agree'ent d%e to negligence* or c%lpa contract%al* the (an! is lia(le to its depositor# Calapre left the pass(oo! with Solid(an! (eca%se the Otransaction too! ti'eP and he had to go to Allied "an! for another transaction# The pass(oo! was still in the hands of the e'plo&ees of Solid(an! for the processing of the deposit when Calapre left Solid(an!# 5hen the pass(oo! is in the possession of Solid(an!Is tellers d%ring withdrawals* the law i'poses on Solid(an! and its tellers an e en higher degree of diligence in safeg%arding the pass(oo!# Solid(an!Is tellers '%st exercise a high degree of diligence in ins%ring that the& ret%rn the pass(oo! onl& to the depositor or his a%thoriRed representati e# For failing to ret%rn the pass(oo! to Calapre* the a%thoriRed representati e of <#C# -iaR* Solid(an! and Teller 4o# ; pres%'pti el& failed to o(ser e s%ch high degree of diligence in safeg%arding the pass(oo!* and in ins%ring its ret%rn to the part& a%thoriRed to recei e the sa'e# In c%lpa contract%al* once the plaintiQ pro es a (reach of contract* there is a pres%'ption that the defendant was at fa%lt or negligent# The (%rden is on the defendant to pro e that he was not at fa%lt or negligent# In contrast* in c%lpa aF%iliana the plaintiQ has the (%rden of pro ing that the defendant was negligent# In the present case* <#C# -iaR has esta(lished that Solid(an! (reached its contract%al o(ligation to ret%rn the pass(oo! onl& to the a%thoriRed representati e of <#C# -iaR# There is th%s a pres%'ption that Solid(an! was at fa%lt and its teller was negligent in not ret%rning the pass(oo! to Calapre# The (%rden was on Solid(an! to pro e that there was no negligence on its part or its e'plo&ees# "%t Solid(an! failed to discharge its (%rden# Solid(an! did not present to the trial co%rt Teller 4o#

;* the teller with who' Calapre left the pass(oo! and who was s%pposed to ret%rn the pass(oo! to hi'# Solid(an! also failed to add%ce in e idence its standard proced%re in erif&ing the identit& of the person retrie ing the pass(oo!* if there is s%ch a proced%re* and that Teller 4o# ; i'ple'ented this proced%re in the present case# Solid(an! is (o%nd (& the negligence of its e'plo&ees %nder the principle of respondeat s%perior or co''and responsi(ilit&# The defense of exercising the reF%ired diligence in the selection and s%per ision of e'plo&ees is not a co'plete defense in c%lpa contract%al* %nli!e in c%lpa aF%iliana# The (an! '%st not onl& exercise Ohigh standards of integrit& and perfor'ance*P it '%st also ins%re that its e'plo&ees do li!ewise (eca%se this is the onl& wa& to ins%re that the (an! will co'pl& with its /d%ciar& d%t& =ro4i,ate Cause o0 the #nauthorize& )ith&ra1al Proxi'ate ca%se is that ca%se which* in nat%ral and contin%o%s seF%ence* %n(ro!en (& an& e>cient inter ening ca%se* prod%ces the in?%r& and witho%t which the res%lt wo%ld not ha e occ%rred# Proxi'ate ca%se is deter'ined (& the facts of each case %pon 'ixed considerations of logic* co''on sense* polic& and precedent# <#C# -iaR was not at fa%lt that the pass(oo! landed in the hands of the i'postor# Solid(an! was in possession of the pass(oo! while it was processing the deposit# After co'pletion of the transaction* Solid(an! had the contract%al o(ligation to ret%rn the pass(oo! onl& to Calapre* the a%thoriRed representati e of <#C# -iaR# Solid(an! failed to f%l/ll its contract%al o(ligation (eca%se it ga e the pass(oo! to another person# )ad the pass(oo! not fallen into the hands of the i'postor* the loss of PA11*111 wo%ld not ha e happened# Th%s* the proxi'ate ca%se of the %na%thoriRed withdrawal was Solid(an!Is negligence in not ret%rning the pass(oo! to Calapre# 'octrine o0 <ast Clear Chance The doctrine of last clear chance states that where (oth parties are negligent (%t the negligent act of one is apprecia(l& later than that of the other* or where it is i'possi(le to deter'ine whose fa%lt or negligence ca%sed the loss* the one who had the last clear opport%nit& to a oid the loss (%t failed to do so* is chargea(le with the loss# The antecedent negligence of the plaintiQ does not precl%de hi' fro' reco ering da'ages ca%sed (& the s%per ening negligence of the defendant* who had the last fair chance to pre ent the i'pending har' (& the exercise of d%e diligence# 5e do not appl& the doctrine of last clear chance to the present case# This is a case of c%lpa contract%al* where neither the contri(%tor& negligence of the plaintiQ nor his last clear chance to a oid the loss* wo%ld exonerate the defendant fro' lia(ilit&# S%ch contri(%tor& negligence or last clear chance (& the plaintiQ 'erel& ser es to red%ce the reco er& of da'ages (& the plaintiQ (%t does not exc%lpate the defendant fro' his (reach of contract#

:H

+ir France v. Carrascoso - 'oria


Facts

, , , , ,
!ssue

ci il engr $afael Carrascoso was with a gro%p of Filipino pilgri's lea ing for <o%rdes* France Air France* thro%gh PA<* iss%ed to Carrascoso a /rst class ro%nd trip tic!et Fro' 6anila to "ang!o!* he tra elled in /rst class* (%t at "ang!o!* the 'anager of Air France forced hi' to acate his seat (eca%se a Owhite 'anP had a O(etter rightP to it )e ref%sed and e en had a heated disc%ssion with the 'anager (%t after (eing paci/ed and con inced (& his fellow passengers* he rel%ctantl& ga e %p the disp%ted seat Air France asserts that the tic!et does not represent the tr%e and co'plete intent and agree'ent of the parties* and that the iss%ance of a /rst class tic!et did not g%arantee a /rst class ride

If* as petitioner %nderscores* a /rst,class,tic!et holder is not entitled to a /rst class seat* notwithstanding the fact that seat a aila(ilit& in speci/c [ights is therein con/r'ed* then an air passenger is placed in the hollow of the hands of an airline# 5hat sec%rit& then can a passenger ha eS It will alwa&s (e an eas& 'atter for an airline aided (& its e'plo&ees* to stri!e o%t the er& stip%lations in the tic!et* and sa& that there was a er(al agree'ent to the contrar&# 5hat if the passenger had a sched%le to f%l/llS 5e ha e long learned that* as a r%le* a written doc%'ent spea!s a %nifor' lang%age; that spo!en word co%ld (e notorio%sl& %nrelia(le# If onl& to achie e sta(ilit& in the relations (etween passenger and air carrier* adherence to the tic!et so iss%ed is desira(le# A# &es* for the willf%l 'ale olent act of petitioner's 'anager* petitioner* his e'plo&er* '%st answer and that is well,settled in law# 7the co%rt did not linger on this iss%e and 'erel& referred to Art# =: of 4CC* (%t see (elow8# *N ;%$ C%+R+C;$R *F +N +!R C+RR!+/$ C*N;R+C; A contract to transport passengers is i'pressed with p%(lic d%t&# Its (%siness is 'ainl& with the tra elling p%(lic# It in ites people to a ail of the co'forts and ad antages it oQers# 4eglect or 'alfeasance of the carrier's e'plo&ees* nat%rall&* co%ld gi e gro%nd for an action for da'ages# Passengers ha e a right to (e treated (& the carrier's e'plo&ees with !indness* respect* co%rtes& and d%e consideration# The& are entitled to (e protected against personal 'iscond%ct* in?%rio%s lang%age* indignities and a(%ses fro' s%ch e'plo&ees# An& disco%rteo%s cond%ct on the part of e'plo&ees towards a passenger gi es the latter an action for da'ages against the carrier# Altho%gh the relation of passenger and carrier is Econtract%al (oth in origin and nat%reE ne ertheless Ethe act that (rea!s the contract 'a& (e also a tortE# Petitioner's contract with Carrascoso is one attended with p%(lic d%t&# The stress of Carrascoso's action as we ha e said* is placed %pon his wrongf%l exp%lsion# This is a iolation of p%(lic d%t& (& the petitioner air carrier Y a case of F%asi,delict# -a'ages are proper# D# 6oral da'ages are proper (eca%se altho%gh the action is (ased on (reach of contract* and there was no speci/c 'ention of (ad faith in the facts and circ%'stances* the de/cienc& in the co'plaint* if an&* was c%red (& e idence# Also* the stress of the action is p%t on wrongf%l exp%lsion# Exe'plar& da'ages are warranted (eca%se the Ci il Code gi es the co%rt a'ple power to grant the' in contracts and F%asi,contracts# The onl& condition* which is f%ll& s%pported (& e idence* is that Air France and2or its e'plo&ees acted in a wanton* fra%d%lent* rec!less* oppressi e* or 'ale olent 'anner# $ight to attorne&Is fees is f%ll& esta(lished# Crant of exe'plar& ?%sti/es a si'ilar ?%dg'ent for this aspect#


%el&

w2n decision failed to 'a!e co'plete /ndings of fact on all the iss%es properl& laid (efore it w2n Carrascoso was entitled to the /rst class seat he clai's w2n Air France* as e'plo&er* is lia(le for the tortio%s act of its e'plo&ees w2n the award of the da'ages were proper

:# no* the law onl& reF%ires that a decision state the Oessential %lti'ate factsP and co%rts are not hide(o%nd to write in its decision e er& (it and piece of e idence presented (& one part& and the other %pon the iss%es raised# 4either are the& to (e (%rdened with the o(ligation to specif& in the sentence the facts which a part& Econsidered as pro edE# The 'ere fail%re to specif& 7in the decision8 the contentions of the appellant and the reasons for ref%sing to (elie e the' is not s%>cient to hold the sa'e contrar& to the reF%ire'ents of the pro isions of law and the Constit%tion# =# &es* he is entitled to it# )e paid to and recei ed fro' petitioner a /rst class tic!et# 5e cannot %nderstand how a rep%ta(le /r' li!e defendant airplane co'pan& co%ld ha e the indiscretion to gi e o%t tic!ets it ne er 'eant to honor at all# It recei ed the corresponding a'o%nt in pa&'ent of /rst,class tic!ets and &et it allowed the passenger to (e at the 'erc& of its e'plo&ees# It is 'ore in !eeping with the ordinar& co%rse of (%siness that the co'pan& sho%ld !now whether or not the tic!ets it iss%es are to (e honored or not# The oral testi'on& of Air FranceIs witnesses that CarrascosoIs /rst class tic!et was s%(?ect to con/r'ation in )ong!ong cannot pre ail o er the written e idence that the tic!et was iss%ed witho%t an& reser ation whatsoe er#

Fa& ?ast v. C5 ; ?nte&ia


VIT+C; Fe(r%ar& =A* :NN0

:@

F+C;"

In 3cto(er :N@;* <%is A# <%na applied for* and was accorded* a FA$EASTCA$- iss%ed (& petitioner Far East "an! and Tr%st Co', pan& 7EFE"TCE8 at its Pasig "ranch# +pon his reF%est* the (an! also iss%ed a s%pple'ental card to Clarita S# <%na# In A%g%st :N@@* Clarita lost her credit card# FE"TC was infor'ed of this# 3n 1; 3cto(er :N@@* <%is tendered a despedida l%nch for a close friend* a Fil,A'* and another g%est at the "ahia $ooftop $esta%, rant of the )otel Intercon 6anila# To pa& for the l%nch* <%is pre, sented his FA$EASTCA$- to the attending waiter who pro'ptl& had it eri/ed thro%gh a telephone call to the (an!'s Credit Card -epart'ent# Since the card was not honored* <%is was forced to pa& in cash the (ill a'o%nting to P0@@#:A# <%is felt e'(arrassed (& this incident# In a letter* dated :: 3ct# :N@@* <%is <%na* thro%gh co%nsel* de, 'anded fro' FE"TC the pa&'ent of da'ages# Adrian V# Feste?o* a VP of the (an!* expressed the (an!'s apologies to <%is in his letter which stated that. In cases when a card is reported to o%r o>ce as lost* FA$EASTCA$- %nderta!es the necessar& action to a ert its %na%thoriRed %se to protect its cardholders# In cases of this nat%re* the (an!'s internal sec%rit& proced%res and polic& wo%ld appear to (e, to 'eanwhile so record the lost card* along with the principal card* as a E)ot CardE or ECancelled CardE in its 'aster /le# FE"TC ad'itted that it had failed to infor' hi' a(o%t its sec%rit& polic&# F%rther'ore* an o erRealo%s e'plo&ee of the "an!'s Credit Card -epart'ent did not consider the possi(ilit& that it 'a& ha e (een hi' who was presenting the card at that ti'e 7for which rea, son* the %nfort%nate incident occ%rred8# Feste?o also sent a letter to the 6anager of the "ahia $ooftop $esta%rant to ass%re the latter that <%is was a E er& al%ed clientsE of FE"TC# 5illia' Anthon& `ing* F^" 6anager of the Inter, con* wrote (ac! to sa& that the credi(ilit& of <%is had ne er (een Ein F%estion#E A cop& of this repl& was sent to <%is (& Feste?o# <%is still /led a co'plaint for da'ages with the $TC of Pasig against FE"TC# $TC, FE"TC was ordered to the <%nas 7a8 PA11*111#11 'oral da', ages; 7(8 P01*111#11 exe'plar& da'ages; and 7c8 P=1*111#11 at, torne&'s fees# CA, a>r'ed the decision of the trial co%rt#

43# Co%rt instead r%led that the <%nas are onl& entitled to no'inal da'ages (eca%se FE"TCIs negligence is not so gross as to a'o%nt to (ad faith or 'alice# The test 7whether a F%asi,delict can (e dee'ed to %nderlie the (reach of a contract8 can (e stated th%sl&. 5here* witho%t a pre, existing contract (etween two parties* an act or o'ission can nonetheless a'o%nt to an actiona(le tort (& itself* the fact that the parties are contract%all& (o%nd is no (ar to the application of F%asi,delict pro isions to the case# %ere, the &a,a8e clai, is (re&icate& solel. on their contractual relationshi(L 1ithout such a8ree,ent, the act or o,ission co,(laine& o0 cannot -. itsel0 -e hel& to stan& as a se(arate cause o0 action or as an in&e(en&ent actiona-le tort. In culpa contractual* 'oral da'ages 'a& (e reco ered where the defendant is shown to ha e acted in (ad faith or with 'alice in the (reach of the contract# The Ci il Code pro ides. +rt. 2220. 5illf%l in?%r& to propert& 'a& (e a legal gro%nd for awarding 'oral da'ages if the co%rt sho%ld /nd that* %nder the circ%'stances* s%ch da'ages are ?%stl& d%e# "he same rule applies to breaches o contract #here the de endant acted raudulently or in bad aith. "ad faith* in this context* incl%des !ross* (%t not si'ple* negli, gence# Exceptionall&* in a contract of carria!e* 'oral da'ages are also allowed in case of death of a passenger attri(%ta(le to the fa%lt 7which is pres%'ed 8 of the co''on carrier# Concededl&* the (an! was re'iss in indeed neglecting to person, all& infor' <%is of his own card's cancellation# 4othing in the /nd, ings of the trial co%rt and the appellate co%rt* howe er* can s%>, cientl& indicate an& deli(erate intent on the part of FE"TC to ca%se har' to pri ate respondents# 4either co%ld FE"TC's negligence in failing to gi e personal notice to <%is (e considered so gross as to a'o%nt to 'alice or (ad faith# 6alice or (ad faith i'plies a conscio%s and intentional design to do a wrongf%l act for a dishonest p%rpose or 'oral o(liF%it&; it is dif, ferent fro' the negati e idea of negligence in that 'alice or (ad faith conte'plates a state of 'ind a>r'ati el& operating with f%rti e design or ill will# Article =: states. +rt. 2C. An& person who willf%ll& ca%ses loss or in?%r& to another in a 'anner that is contrar& to 'orals* good c%sto's or p%(lic polic& shall co'pensate the latter for the da'age# Article =: conte'plates a conscio%s act to ca%se har'# Th%s* e en if we are to ass%'e that the pro ision co%ld properl& relate to a (reach of contract* its application can (e warranted onl& when the defendant's disregard of his contract%al o(ligation is so deli(erate as to approxi'ate a degree of 'iscond%ct certainl& no less worse than fra%d or (ad faith# 6ost i'portantl&* Article =: is a 'ere dec,

!""#$ 534 the petitioner is entitled to 'oral and exe'plar& da'ages %$<'

:N

laration of a general principle in h%'an relations that clearl& '%st* in an& case* gi e wa& to the speci/c pro ision of Article ===1 of the Ci il Code a%thoriRing the grant of 'oral da'ages in culpa contractual solel& when the (reach is d%e to fra%d or (ad faith# 3ores vs# Miranda explained with great clarit& the predo'inance that we sho%ld gi e to Article ===1 in contract%al relations; we F%ote. Anent the 'oral da'ages ordered to (e paid to the respon, dent* the sa'e '%st (e discarded# 5e ha e repeatedl& r%led that 'oral da'ages are not reco era(le in da'age actions predicated on a (reach of the contract of transportation* in iew of Articles ==:N and ===1 of the new Ci il Code* which pro ide as follows. Art. 44%&. Moral dama!es may be recovered in the ollo#in! and analo!ous cases0 +%- A criminal o5ense resultin! in physical injuries6 +4- 7uasi-delicts causin! physical injuries6 ... ... ... Art. 4448. 9il ul injury to property may be a le!al !round or a#ardin! moral dama!es i the court should 2nd that: under the circumstances: such dama!es are justly due. "he same rule applies to breaches o contract #here the de endant acted raudulently or in bad aith.

carrier's dri er does not per se constit%te or ?%stif& an inference of 'alice or (ad faith on the part of the carrier; and in the case at (ar there is no other e idence of s%ch 'alice to s%pport the award of 'oral da'ages (& the Co%rt of Appeals# To award 'oral da', ages for (reach of contract* therefore* witho%t proof of (ad faith or 'alice on the part of the defendant* as reF%ired (& Art# ===1* wo%ld (e to iolate the clear pro isions of the law* and constit%te %nwarranted ?%dicial legislation# xxx xxx xxx The distinction (etween fra%d* (ad faith or 'alice in the sense of deli(erate or wanton wrong doing and negligence 7as 'ere care, lessness8 is too f%nda'ental in o%r law to (e ignored 7Arts# ::H1,::H=8; their conseF%ences (eing clearl& diQerentiated (& the Code# - Art. 448%. <n contracts and ,uasi-contracts: the dama!es or #hich the obli!or #ho acted in !ood aithis liable shall be those that are the natural and probable conse,uences o the breach o the obli!ation: and #hich the parties have oreseen or could have reasonably oreseen at the time the obli!ation #as constituted.

:. contrastin8 the (rovisions o0 these t1o articles it i,,e&iatel. -eco,es a((arent that (a) !n case o0 -reach o0 contract (inclu&in8 one o0 trans(ortation) (roo0 o0 -a& 0aith or 0rau& (dolus), i.e., 1anton or &eli-eratel. in3urious con&uct, is essential to 3usti0. an a1ar& o0 ,oral &a,a8esL an& (-) ;hat a -reach o0 contract cannot -e consi&ere& inclu&e& in the &escri(tive ter, Manalo8ous casesM use& in +rt. 22CJL not onl. -ecause +rt. 2220 s(eci7call. (rovi&es 0or the &a,a8es that are cause& contractual -reach, -ut -ecause the &e7nition o0 Duasi&elict in +rt. 2CGH o0 the Co&e e4(ressl. e4clu&es the cases 1here there is a M(ree4isitn8 contractual relations -et1een the (arties.M Art. 4%;'. 9hoever by act or omission causes dama!e to another: there bein! ault or ne!li!ence: is obli!ed to pay or the dama!e done. )uch ault or ne!li!ence: i there is no pre-e.istin! contractual relation bet#een the parties: is called a ,uasi-delict and is !overned by the provisions o this Chapter. The exception to the (asic r%le of da'ages now %nder considera, tion is a 'ishap res%lting in the death of a passenger* in which case Article :H;D 'a!es the co''on carrier expressl& s%(?ect to the r%le of Art# ==1;* that entitles the spo%se* descendants and as, cendants of the deceased passenger to Ede'and 'oral da'ages for 'ental ang%ish (& reason of the death of the deceased# "%t the exceptional r%le of Art# :H;D 'a!es it all the 'ore e ident that where the in?%red passenger does not die* 'oral da'ages are not reco era(le %nless it is pro ed that the carrier was g%ilt& of 'alice or (ad faith# 5e thin! it is clear that then 'ere carelessness of the

In case of fra%d* (ad faith* 'alice or wanton attit%de* the o(ligor shall (e responsi(le for all da'ages which 'a& (e reasona(l& at, tri(%ted to the non,perfor'ance of the o(ligation# It is to (e pre, s%'ed* in the a(sence of stat%tor& pro ision to the contrar&* that this diQerence was in the 'ind of the law'a!ers when in Art# ===1 the& li'ited reco er& of 'oral da'ages to (reaches of contract in (ad faith# It is tr%e that negligence 'a& (e occasionall& so gross as to a'o%nt to 'alice; (%t the fact '%st (e shown in e idence* and a carrier's (ad faith is not to (e lightl& inferred fro' a 'ere /nding that the contract was (reached thro%gh negligence of the carrier's e'plo&ees# The Co%rt has not in the process o erloo!ed another r%le that a F%asi,delict can (e the ca%se for (reaching a contract that 'ight there(& per'it the application of applica(le principles on tort e en where there is a pre,existing contract (etween the plaintiQ and the defendant This doctrine* %nfort%natel&* cannot i'pro e pri ate re, spondents' case for it can aptl& go ern onl& where the act or o'is, sion co'plained of wo%ld constit%te an actiona(le tort indepen, dentl& of the contract# $4e,(lar. or corrective &a,a8es, in t%rn* are intended to ser e as an exa'ple or as correction for the p%(lic good in addi, tion to 'oral* te'perate* liF%idated or co'pensator& da'ages 7Art# ===N* Ci il Code# In criminal o5enses* exe'plar& da'ages are i'posed when the cri'e is co''itted with one or 'ore aggra, ating circ%'stances 7Art# ==A1* Ci il Code8# In ,uasi-delicts* s%ch da'ages are granted if the defendant is shown to ha e (een so g%ilt& of gross negligence as to approxi'ate 'alice# In contracts and ,uasi-contracts* the co%rt 'a& award exe'plar& da'ages if

=1

the defendant is fo%nd to ha e acted in a wanton* fra%d%lent* rec!, less* oppressi e* or 'ale olent 'anner 7Art# ==A=* Ci il Code8#

A#
199- P*>5 v C5 - ?scalona

St%dent

Carlitos non,st%dents#

"a%tista

was

sta((ed

in

PS"A

pre'ises

(&

D# 0# ;#

a%lt encasing the co>n of the deceased was re'o ed fro' its niche %ndergro%nd# +pon lifting* it was disco ered that the concrete a%lt had a hole approxi'atel& A inches in dia'eter and water drained o%t of the hole# The re'ains of the deceased were [ooded with water# -%e to the alleged %nlawf%l and 'alicio%s (reach (& the defendantappellee of its o(ligation A case was /led in confor'it& with Article =:H;# The TC dis'issed the case (eca%se the contract did not g%arantee that the ce'ent a%lt wo%ld (e waterproof and that there is no F%asi,delict and the defendant was not g%ilt& of fa%lt or negligence# The TC noted that it was the father itself that instr%cted that water (e sprin!led constantl& so that the grass (e !ept green# CA a>r'ed the decision#

)is parents s%ed PS"AIs o>cers* alleging negligence# PS"A o>cers /led 'otion to dis'iss* sa&ing $TC denied 'otion to dis'iss; CA a>r'ed
SC.

that (ased ?%rispr%dence* acade'ic instit%tions are (e&ond the a'(it of =:@1#

on

H# @#
!ssue

3ld

doctrines in =.conde v Capuno and Mercado v CA are now a(andoned and we adopt the r%ling in $alisoc that =:@1 sho%ld appl& to ed%cational instit%tions# CA correct to den& 'otion to dis'iss (%t sho%ldnIt (ase it on =:@1# =.conde: et al , =:@1 reF%ires that da'age sho%ldI e (een ca%sed (& students o the school# a school accepts st%dents for enroll'ent* a contract is esta(lished (etween the' which gi es rise to reciprocal o(ligations to ed%cate* on the part of the school* and to a(ide (& r%les and reF%ire'ents* on the part of the st%dent# inces a contract%al relation* r%les on ,uasi-delict do not reall& go ern# "%t there co%ld still (e tort despite existence of a contract* as held in o 5i& F&ance v Ca&&ascoso Llia(ilit& fro' tort 'a& exist e en if there is a contract* for the act that (rea!s the contract 'a& (e also a tort o Cangco vs. Manila Rail&oad L the sa'e act which constit%tes a (reach of the contract wo%ld ha e constit%ted the so%rce of an extra,contract%al o(ligation had no contract existed (etween the parties PS"A is lia(le %nder contract or for tort 7sa& Art =:8 will (e (est deter'ined (& the TC#

534 the defendant was g%ilt& of a tort %el&. 4o Ratio

5hen

"eca%se the case e

In relation to c%lpa aF%iliana* the Co%rt of Appeals fo%nd no negligent act on the part of pri ate respondent to ?%stif& an award of da'ages against it# Altho%gh a pre,existing contract%al relation (etween the parties does not precl%de the existence of a c%lpa aF%iliana* 5e /nd no reason to disregard the respondent's Co%rt /nding that there was no negligence Art# =:H;# 5hoe er (& act or o'ission ca%ses da'age to another* there (eing fa%lt or negligence* is o(liged to pa& for the da'age done# S%ch fa%lt or negligence* if there is no pre,existing contract%al relation (etween the parties* is called a F%asi,delict # As there is an existing contract* then act%al negligence sho%ld (e (ased on c%lpa contract%al and not c%lpa aF%ilana# $%le :H of the $%les and $eg%lation pro ides that # E er& earth inter'ent shall (e 'ade enclosed in a concrete (ox* or in an o%ter wall of stone* (ric! or concrete* the act%al install'ent of which shall (e 'ade (& the e'plo&ees of the Association# )owe er* this cannot (e %sed as (asis of the clai' as there is no g%rantee that the a%lt will (e waterproof# If e er* the defendant cannot (e lia(le (& as there were negligence# irt%e of c%lpa aF%ilana

534

, ,

PETITI34 -E4IE-# $TC is ordered to contin%e proceedings#

*"Cuia vs C5 - Fullecido
Facts

:# =#

P%rs%ant to a deed of sale* Vincent M%an S&F%ia 7Father of the deceased8 a%thoriRed and instr%cted the defendants to inter the re'ains of the deceased in 6anila 6e'orial Par! Ce'eter&# In preparation to transferring the re'ains of the deceased to a newl& p%rchased fa'il& plot in 6anila 6e'orial Par!* the concrete

, ,

=:

, ,

The law de/nes negligence as the Eo'ission of that diligence which is reF%ired (& the nat%re of the o(ligation and corresponds with the circ%'stances of the persons* of the ti'e and of the place#E The reason for the hole is the fact that d%ring the ti'e the a%lt is to (e placed on the a%lt* it was raining hea il& then (eca%se the a%lt has no hole the a%lt will [oat and the gra e wo%ld (e /lled with water and the digging wo%ld ca ed

LI: ' R5IL 'R5N*I' 5D' =RI') vs. N5#I@5@ (-..3) :alang
VIT+C* M#. F+C;". 3n :D 3cto(er :NNA* a(o%t H.A1p'* 4icanor 4a idad* then dr%n!* entered the E-SA <$T station after p%rchasing a Eto!enE# 5hile 4a idad was standing on the platfor' near the <$T trac!s* M%nelito Escartin* the sec%rit& g%ard assigned to the area approached 4a idad# A 'is%nderstanding or an altercation (etween the two apparentl& ens%ed that led to a /st /ght# 4o e idence* howe er* was add%ced to indicate how the /ght started or who* (etween the two* deli ered the /rst (low or how 4a idad later fell on the <$T trac!s# At the exact 'o'ent that 4a idad fell* an <$T train* operated (& petitioner $odolfo $o'an* was co'ing in# 4a idad was str%c! (& the 'o ing train* and he was !illed instantaneo%sl&# 3n 1@ -ece'(er :NND* the widow of 4icanor* herein respondent 6ar?orie 4a idad* along with her children* /led a co'plaint for da'ages against M%nelito Escartin* $odolfo $o'an* the <$TA* the 6etro Transit 3rganiRation* Inc# 76etro Transit8* and Pr%dent for the death of her h%s(and# <$TA and $o'an /led a co%nterclai' against 4a idad and a cross,clai' against Escartin and Pr%dent# Pr%dent* in its answer* denied lia(ilit& and a erred that it had exercised d%e diligence in the selection and s%per ision of its sec%rit& g%ards# 3n :: A%g%st :NN@* the trial co%rt rendered decision in fa or of the 4a idad ordering Pr%dent Sec%rit& and M%nelito Escartin to pa& ?ointl& and se erall& da'ages to 4a idad# Pr%dent appealed to the Co%rt of Appeals# 3n =H A%g%st =111* the appellate co%rt pro'%lgated its decision exonerating Pr%dent fro' an& lia(ilit& for the death of 4icanor 4a idad and* instead* holding the <$TA and $o'an ?ointl& and se erall& lia(le# !""#$. 534 Pr%dent is lia(le for the death of 4icanor 4a idad# %$<'. 43# CA decision AFFI$6E- with 63-IFICATI34 (%t onl& in that 7a8 the award of no'inal da'ages is -E<ETE- and 7(8 petitioner $odolfo $o'an is a(sol ed fro' lia(ilit&# R+;!*.

Sho%ld Pr%dent (e 'ade li!ewise lia(leS If at all* that lia(ilit& co%ld onl& (e for tort %nder the pro isions of Article =:H; and related pro isions* in con?%nction with Article =:@1 of the Ci il Code# The pre'ise* howe er* for the e'plo&erIs lia(ilit& is negligence or fa%lt on the part of the e'plo&ee# 3nce s%ch fa%lt is esta(lished* the e'plo&er can then (e 'ade lia(le on the (asis of the pres%'ption ?%ris tant%' that the e'plo&er failed to exercise diligentissi'i patris fa'ilies in the selection and s%per ision of its e'plo&ees# The lia(ilit& is pri'ar& and can onl& (e negated (& showing d%e diligence in the selection and s%per ision of the e'plo&ee* a fact%al 'atter that has not (een shown# A(sent s%ch a showing* one 'ight as! f%rther* how then '%st the lia(ilit& of the co''on carrier* on the one hand* and an independent contractor* on the other hand* (e descri(edS It wo%ld (e solidar&# A contract%al o(ligation can (e (reached (& tort and when the sa'e act or o'ission ca%ses the in?%r&* one res%lting in c%lpa contract%al and the other in c%lpa aF%iliana* Article =:ND of the Ci il Code can well appl&# In /ne* a lia(ilit& for tort 'a& arise e en %nder a contract* where tort is that which (reaches the contract# Stated diQerentl&* when an act which constit%tes a (reach of contract wo%ld ha e itself constit%ted the so%rce of a F%asi,delict%al lia(ilit& had no contract existed (etween the parties* the contract can (e said to ha e (een (reached (& tort* there(& allowing the r%les on tort to appl&# $egretta(l& for <$T* as well as perhaps the s%r i ing spo%se and heirs of the late 4icanor 4a idad* this Co%rt is concl%ded (& the fact%al /nding of the Co%rt of Appeals that Ethere is nothing to lin! 7Pr%dent8 to the death of 4icanor 74a idad8* for the reason that the negligence of its e'plo&ee* Escartin* has not (een d%l& pro en# There (eing* si'ilarl&* no showing that petitioner $odolfo $o'an hi'self is g%ilt& of an& c%lpa(le act or o'ission* he '%st also (e a(sol ed fro' lia(ilit&# 4eedless to sa&* the contract%al tie (etween the <$T and 4a idad is not itself a ?%ridical relation (etween the latter and $o'an; th%s* $o'an can (e 'ade lia(le onl& for his own fa%lt or negligence# The award of no'inal da'ages in addition to act%al da'ages is %ntena(le# 4o'inal da'ages are ad?%dicated in order that a right of the plaintiQ* which has (een iolated or in aded (& the defendant* 'a& (e indicated or recogniRed* and not for the p%rpose of inde'nif&ing the plaintiQ for an& loss s%Qered (& hi'# It is an esta(lished r%le that no'inal da'ages cannot co,exist with co'pensator& da'ages#

==