You are on page 1of 66

Filamer Case

Daniel Funtecha was a working student of Filamer. He was assigned as the school janitor to
clean the school 2 hours every morning. Allan Masa was the son of the school president and at
the same time he was the schools jeepney service driver. n cto!er 2"# $%&& at a!out
'()"pm# after driving the students to their homes# Masa returned to the school to report and
thereafter have to go home with the jeep so that he could fetch the students early in the
morning. Masa and Funtecha live in the same place so they usually go home together.
Funtecha had a student drivers license so Masa let him take the drivers seat. *hile Funtecha
was driving# he accidentally hit an elderly +apunan which led to his hospitali,ation for 2" days.
+apunan filed a criminal case and an independent civil action !ased on Article 2$-" against
ISSUE: *hether or not Filamer should !e held su!sidiarily lia!le.
HELD: .es. /his time# the 01 ruled in favor of +apunan 2actually his heirs cause !y this time
+apunan was already dead3. /he provisions of 0ection $4# 5ule 6# 7ook 888 of the 9a!or 1ode
855 was only meant to provide guidelines as compliance with la!or provisions on working
conditions# rest periods# and wages is concerned. /his does not in any way affect the provisions
of any other laws like the civil code. /he 855 cannot defeat the provisions of the 1ivil 1ode. 8n
other words# 5ule 6 is merely a guide to the enforcement of the su!stantive law on la!or. /here
is a distinction hence 0ection $4# 5ule 6# 7ook 888 of the 5ules is not the decisive law in a civil
suit for damages instituted !y an injured person during a vehicular accident against a working
student of a school and against the school itself.
/he present case does not deal with a la!or dispute on conditions of employment !etween an
alleged employee and an alleged employer. 8t invokes a claim !rought !y one for damages for
injury caused !y the patently negligent acts of a person# against !oth doer:employee and his
employer. Hence# the reliance on the implementing rule on la!or to disregard the primary lia!ility
of an employer under Article 2$-" of the 1ivil 1ode is misplaced. An implementing rule on la!or
cannot !e used !y an employer as a shield to void lia!ility under the su!stantive provisions of
the 1ivil 1ode.
Funtecha is an employee of Filamer. He need not have an official appointment for a drivers
position in order that Filamer may !e held responsi!le for his grossly negligent act# it !eing
sufficient that the act of driving at the time of the incident was for the !enefit of Filamer 2the act
of driving the jeep from the school to Masas house is !eneficial to the school !ecause this
ena!les Masa to do a timely school transportation service in the morning3. Hence# the fact that
Funtecha was not the school driver or was not acting with the scope of his janitorial duties does
not relieve Filamer of the !urden of re!utting the presumption juris tantum that there was
negligence on its part either in the selection of a servant or employee# or in the supervision over
him. Filamer has failed to show proof of its having e;ercised the re<uired diligence of a good
father of a family over its employees Funtecha and Allan.
Rakes Case
5akes was a !lack man working as a la!orer for Atlantic =ulf in the early $%""s. ne day# they
were working in the companys yard and they were transporting heavy rails using two cars
2karitons?3> each car carrying the opposite ends of the rails. /he cars were pulled !y rope from
the front and other workers are pushing the cars from !ehind. /here were no side guards
installed on the sides of the cars !ut the rails were secured !y ropes. /he track where the cars
move were also weakened !y a previous typhoon. 8t was alleged that Atlantics foreman was
notified of said damage in the tracks !ut the same were left unrepaired. *hile the cars were
!eing moved and when it reached the depressed portion of the track# and while 5akes was
!eside one of the cars# the ropes gave in and the rails slipped there!y crushing his leg and
causing it to !e amputated. 5akes sued Atlantic =ulf and he won> he was awarded ?#""" pesos
for damages 2@2#?""3.
ISSUE: *hether or not Atlantic is civilly lia!le.
HELD: .es. 5akes as per the evidence could not have known of the damage in the track as it
was another employee who swore he notified the foreman a!out said damage. Further# his lack
of caution in continuing to work is not of a gross nature as to constitute negligence on his part.
n the other hand though# 5akes contri!utory negligence can !e inferred from the fact that he
was on the side of the cars when in fact there were orders from the company !arring workers
from standing near the side of the cars. His diso!edient to this order does not !ar his recovery
of damages though> the 0upreme 1ourt instead reduced the award of damages from ?#"""
pesos to 2#?"" pesos.
8n this case# the 01 also elucidated the two kinds of culpa which are(
$. 1ulpa as substantive and independent# which on account of its origin arises in an
o!ligation !etween two persons not formerly !ound !y any other o!ligation> may !e also
considered as a real source of an independent o!ligation 2e;tra:contractual or culpa
2. 1ulpa as an incident in the performance of an obligation which cannot !e presumed to
e;ist without the other# and which increases the lia!ility arising from the already e;isting
o!ligation 2contractual or culpa contractual3.
Elcano Case
5eginald Hill# a minor# caused the death of Agapito 2son of Alcano3. Alcano filed a criminal case
against 5eginald !ut 5eginald was ac<uitted for Black of intent coupled with mistake.C Alcano
then filed a civil action against 5eginald and his dad 2Marvin Hill3 for damages !ased on Article
2$-" of the 1ivil 1ode. Hill argued that the civil action is !arred !y his sons ac<uittal in the
criminal case> and that if ever# his civil lia!ility as a parent has !een e;tinguished !y the fact that
his son is already an emancipated minor !y reason of his marriage.
ISSUE: *hether or not Marvin Hill may !e held civilly lia!le under Article 2$-".
HELD: .es. /he ac<uittal of 5eginald in the criminal case does not !ar the filing of a separate
civil action. A separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act# whether or not he is
criminally prosecuted and found guilty or ac<uitted# provided that the offended party is not
allowed# if accused is actually charged also criminally# to recover damages on !oth scores# and
would !e entitled in such eventuality only to the !igger award of the two# assuming the awards
made in the two cases vary. 8n other words# the e;tinction of civil lia!ility referred to in Dar. 2e3 of
0ection )# 5ule $$$# refers e;clusively to civil lia!ility founded on Article $"" of the 5evised
Denal 1ode# whereas the civil lia!ility for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not
as a crime is not e;tinguished even !y a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act
charged has not happened or has not !een committed !y the accused. 7riefly stated# culpa
aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may !e punisha!le !y law.
*hile it is true that parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of the child 2Article )2&#
1ivil 1ode3# and under Article )%&# emancipation takes place B!y the marriage of the minor
childC# it is# however# also clear that pursuant to Article )%%# emancipation !y marriage of the
minor is not really full or a!solute. /hus BAmancipation !y marriage or !y voluntary concession
shall terminate parental authority over the childs person. 8t shall ena!le the minor to administer
his property as though he were of age# !ut he cannot !orrow money or alienate or encum!er
real property without the consent of his father or mother# or guardian. He can sue and !e sued
in court only with the assistance of his father# mother or guardian.C /herefore# Article 2$-" is
applica!le to Marvin Hill E the 01 however ruled since at the time of the decision# 5eginald is
already of age# Marvins lia!ility should !e su!sidiary only E as a matter of e<uity.
Cangco Case
n Fanuary 2"# $%$?# 1angco was riding the train of Manila 5ailroad 1o 2M513. He was an
employee of the latter and he was given a pass so that he could ride the train for free. *hen he
was nearing his destination at a!out &pm# he arose from his seat even though the train was not
at full stop. *hen he was a!out to alight from the train 2which was still slightly moving3 he
accidentally stepped on a sack of watermelons which he failed to notice due to the fact that it
was dim. /his caused him to lose his !alance at the door and he fell and his arm was crushed
!y the train and he suffered other serious injuries. He was dragged a few meters more as the
train slowed down.#8t was esta!lished that the employees of M51 were negligent in piling the
sacks of watermelons.
ISSUE: *hether or not Manila 5ailroad 1o is lia!le for damages.
HELD: .es. Alighting from a moving train while it is slowing down is a common practice and a
lot of people are doing so every day without suffering injury. 1angco has the vigor and agility of
young manhood# and it was !y no means so risky for him to get off while the train was yet
moving as the same act would have !een in an aged or fee!le person. He was also ignorant of
the fact that sacks of watermelons were there as there were no appropriate warnings and the
place was dimly lit.
Ong Case
n Fuly ?# $%?2# Dominador ng 2$4 years old3 and his two !rothers went to the swimming pool
operated !y Metropolitan *ater District 2M*D3. After paying the entrance fee# the three
proceeded to the small pool.
/he swimming pools of M*D are provided with a ring !uoy# toy roof# towing line# o;ygen
resuscitator and a first aid medicine kit. /he !ottom of the pools is painted with !lack colors so
as to insure clear visi!ility. /here is on display in a conspicuous place within the area certain
rules and regulations governing the use of the pools. M*D employs si; lifeguards who are all
trained as they had taken a course for that purpose and were issued certificates of proficiency.
/hese lifeguards work on schedule prepared !y their chief and arranged in such a way as to
have two guards at a time on duty to look after the safety of the !athers. /here is a male nurse
and a sanitary inspector with a clinic provided with o;ygen resuscitator. And there are security
guards who are availa!le always in case of emergency.
9ater# Dominador told his !rothers that hell just !e going to the locker room to drink a !ottle of
1oke. Go one saw him returned. 9ater# the elder ng noticed someone at the !ottom of the !ig
pool and notified the lifeguard in attendant 2A!aHo3# who immediately dove into the water. /he
!ody was later identified as Dominadors. He was attempted to !e revived multiple times !ut of
no avail.
/he parents of ng sued M*D averring that M*D was negligent in selecting its employees.
During trial# the elder !rother of ng and one other testified that A!aHo was reading a maga,ine
and was chatting with a security guard when the incident happened and that he was called a
third time !efore he responded. Dlaintiff further alleged that even assuming that there was no
negligence on the part of M*D# it is still lia!le under the doctrine of B9ast 1lear 1hanceC for
having the last opportunity to save the Dominador# its employees failed to do so.
ISSUE: *hether or not M*D is lia!le for the death of Dominador ng.
HELD: Go. As esta!lished !y the facts# M*D was not negligent in selecting its employees as all
of them were duly certified. M*D was not negligent in managing the pools as there were proper
safety measures and precautionsIregulations that were placed all over the pools. Hence# due
diligence is appreciated as a complete and proper defense in this case. Further# the testimony in
court !y the elder ng and the other witness was !elied !y the statements they have given to
the investigators when they said that the lifeguard immediately dove into the water when he was
called a!out the !oy at the !ottom of the pool.
/he doctrine of B9ast 1lear 1hanceC is of no application here. 8t was not esta!lished as to how
Dominador was a!le to go to the !ig pool. He went to the locker and thereafter no one saw him
returned not until his !ody was retrieved from the !ottom of the !ig pool. /he last clear chance
doctrine can never apply where the party charged is re<uired to act instantaneously 2how can
the lifeguard act instantaneously in dissuading Dominador from going to the !ig pool if he did
not see him go there3# and if the injury cannot !e avoided !y the application of all means at
hand after the peril is or should have !een discovered> at least in cases in which any previous
negligence of the party charged cannot !e said to have contri!uted to the injury.
Picart Case
8n Decem!er $%$2# Dicart was riding his horse and while they were on a &? meter long !ridge#
he saw 0miths car approaching. 0mith !lew his horn thrice while he was still at a distance away
!ecause Dicart and his horse were on 0miths lane. 7ut Dicart did not move his horse to the
other lane# instead he moved his horse closer to the railing. 0mith continued driving towards
Dicart without slowing down and when he was already so near the horse he swerved to the
other lane. 7ut the horse got scared so it turned its !ody across the !ridge> the horse struck the
car and its lim! got !roken. Dicart suffered injuries which re<uired several days of medical
attention while the horse eventually died.
ISSUE: *hether or not 0mith is negligent.
HELD: .es. And so was Dicart for planting himself on the wrong side of the road. 7ut 0miths
negligence succeeded that of Dicart. 0mith saw at a distance when he !lew his horn that Dicart
and his horse did not move to the other lane so he should have steered his car to the other lane
at that point instead of swerving at the last minute. He therefore had the last clear chance to
avoid the unfortunate incident. *hen 0miths car has approached the horse at such pro;imity it
left no chance for Dicart e;tricate himself and vigilance on his part will not avert injury. Dicart
can therefore recover damages from 0mith !ut such should !e proportioned !y reason of his
contri!utory negligence.
Bataclan Case
After one midnight in 0eptem!er $%?2# Fuan 7ataclan rode a !us owned !y Medina from 1avite
to Dasay. *hile on its way# the driver of the !us was speeding through and when he applied the
!rakes it cause the !us to !e overturned. /he driver# the conductor# and some passengers were
a!le to free themselves from the !us e;cept 7ataclan and ) others. /he passengers called the
help of the villagers and as it was dark# the villagers !rought torch with them. /he driver and the
conductor failed to warn the would:!e helpers of the fact that gasoline has spilled from the
overturned !us so a huge fire ensued which engulfed the !us there!y killing the 4 passengers
trapped inside. 8t was also found later in trial that the tires of the !us were old.
ISSUE: *hether or not the pro;imate cause of the death of 7ataclan et al was their !urning !y
reason of the torches which ignited the gasoline.
HELD: Go. /he pro;imate cause was the overturning of the !us which was caused !y the
negligence of the driver !ecause he was speeding and also he was already advised !y Medina
to change the tires yet he did not. 0uch negligence resulted to the overturning of the !us. /he
torches carried !y the would:!e helpers are not to !e !lamed. 8t is just !ut natural for the
villagers to respond to the call for help from the passengers and since it is a rural area which did
not have flashlights# torches are the natural source of lighting. Further# the smell of gas could
have !een all over the place yet the driver and the conductor failed to provide warning a!out
said fact to the villagers.
Corliss Case
Facts( DlaintiffJs hus!and was driving a jeep close to midnight at the railroad crossing in
7alo!ago# Angeles# Dampanga on Fe!ruary 2$# $%?&. DefendantJs train was passing !y and
!lew itJs siren. DlaintiffJs hus!and slowed down his jeep !ut did not make a full stop. /he jeep
collided with the locomotive engine of the train. DlaintiffJs hus!and was injured and died asa a
result of such injuries. Dlaintiff !rought an action for damages for the death of her hus!and.
8ssue( *G the plaintiff can recover damages.
5uling(1omplaintDismissed 5atio( K A person in control of an automo!ile who crosses a
railroad# even at a regular road crossing# and who does not e;ercise that precaution and that
control over it as to !e a!le to stop the same almost immediately upon the apperance of a train#
is guilty of crominal negligence# providing a collission occurs and injury results.K /he accident
was caused !y the negligence of plaintiffJs hus!and and she was not allowed to recover.
Nakpil Case
/he private respondent hired the services of the petitioner to make the plans and
specifications for the construction of their office !uilding. /he !uilding was completed !y
the contractor !ut su!se<uently# an earth<uake struck causing its partial collapse and
Issue: Is the petitioner liable for damages in this case?
HA9D( .es. /he petitioner made su!stantial deviations from the plans and
specifications and failed to o!serve re<uisite workmanship standards in the construction
of the !uilding while their architect drew plans that contain defects and other
inade<uacies. 7oth the contractor and the architect cannot escape lia!ility for damages
when the !uilding collapsed due to an earth<uake. ther !uildings in the area withstood
the tremor. /he lower court also found that the spirals in one of the columns in the
ground floor has !een cut. ne who creates a dangerous condition cannot escape
lia!ility even if an act of =od may have intervened as in this case. As such# the lia!ility
of the contractor 2herein petitioner3 and the architect for the collapse of the !uilding is
Espiritu s! P"ilippine Po#er an$ Deelopment Co!
8n the afternoon of May ?# $%4'while the plaintiff:appellee and other companions were
loading grass#an electric transmission wire# installed and maintained !y the defendant
Dhilippine Dower andDevelopment 1o.# 8nc.# alongside the road suddenly parted# and
one of the !roken ends hit the head of the plaintiff as he was a!out to !oard the truck.
As a result# plaintiff received the full shock of 4#4""volts of the wire. /he electric charge
coursed through his !ody and caused e;tensive and seriousmultiple !urns from skull to
eyes# leaving the !one e;posed in some parts and causing intense pain andwounds
that were not completely healed when the case was tried on Fune $-# $%4&# over one
year afterthe incident. Defendant disclaimed such lia!ility on the ground that the plaintiff
had failed to show anyspecific act of negligence.
/he appellate court# in overruling this defense# held( B*hile it is the rule# as contended
!y the appellant# that in case of non:contractual negligence# or culpa a<uiliana# the
!urden of proof is on the plaintiff toesta!lish that the pro;imate cause of injury was the
negligence of the defendant# it is also a recogni,ed principle that Lwhere the thing that
causes injury# without fault of the injured person# is under the e;clusive control of the
defendant and the injury is such as in the ordinary course of things does notoccur as if
he having such control used proper care# it affords reasona!le evidence# in the a!sence
of the e;planation# that the injury arose from the defendants want of care. And the
!urden of evidence is shifted to him to esta!lish that he had o!served due diligence and
care. /his rule is known !y the nameof res ipsa lo<uitur 2the thing or transaction speaks
for itself3# and is peculiarly applica!le to the case at!ar# where it is un<uestioned that
the plaintiff had every night to !e on the highway# and the electricwire was under the
sole control of the defendant company. 8n the ordinary course of events# electricwires do
not part suddenly in fair weather and injure people# unless they are su!ject to unusual
strainand stress or there are defects in their installation# maintenance and supervision#
just as !arrels do notordinarily roll out of the warehouse windows to injure passers:!y#
unless someone is negligent 2which isadmittedly not present3# the fact that the wire
snapped suffices to raise a reasona!le presumption of negligence in its installation#
care and maintenance. /hereafter# as o!served !y 1hief 7aron Dollock Bif there are any
facts inconsistent with negligence# it is for the defendant to prove.
%ictorias Plantation ! %ictorias &illers '!R! No! L())*+, -. /ul0 12..Facts:
/he petitioners Mictorias Dlanters Association# 8nc. and GorthGegros Dlanters
Association# 8nc. are non:stock corporations and arecomposed of sugar cane planters
having !een esta!lished as therepresentative entities of the numerous sugar cane
planters in thedistricts of Mictorias# Manapla and 1adi,. /he sugar cane
productionswere milled !y the respondent corporation. Detitioners are the ones
incharge of taking up with the respondent corporation pro!lems whichmay come up. At
various dates# the sugarcane planters e;ecutedidentical milling contracts setting forth
the terms and conditions whichthe sugar central BGorth Gegros 0ugar 1o. 8nc.C would
mill the sugar produced !y the sugar cane planters.7ecause of the Fapanese
occupation# the Gorth Gegros 0ugar 1o.# 8nc. did not reconstruct its destroyed central
and it had madearrangements with the respondent Mictorias Milling 1o.# 8nc. for
saidrespondent corporation to mill the sugarcane produced !y the plantersof Manapla
and 1adi, holding milling contracts with it. *hen theplanters:mem!ers of the Gorth
Gegros Dlanters Association# 8nc.considered that the stipulated )":year period of their
milling contractshad already e;pired and terminated and the planters:mem!ers of
theMictorias Dlanters Association# 8nc. likewise considered the stipulated)":year period
of their milling contracts as having likewise e;pired andterminated.5espondent has
refused to accept the fact that the )":year period has e;pired. /hey contend that the )"
years stipulated in thecontracts referred to )" years of milling E not )" years in time.
/heycontend that as there was no milling during 4 years of the recent war and 2 years
of reconstruction# ' years of service still has to !erendered !y petitioners.
Issues: *hether or not respondent is correct.
Hel$: /he trial court rendered judgment# which the 0upreme 1ourtaffirmed.B*herefore#
the 1ourt renders judgment in favor of thepetitioners and against the respondent and
declares that the millingcontracts e;ecuted !etween the sugar cane planters of
Mictorias#Manapla and 1adi,# Gegros ccidental# and the respondentcorporation or its
predecessors:in:interest# the Gorth Gegros 0ugar 1o.# 8nc.# e;pired and terminated
upon the lapse of the thereinstipulated )":year period# and that respondent corporation
is notentitled to claim any e;tension.C
Ratio: /he reason the planters failed to deliver the sugar cane wasthe war or a
fortuitious event. /he appellant ceased to run its mill dueto the same cause.Fortuitious
event relieves the o!ligor from fulfilling acontractual o!ligation. /he fact that the
contracts make reference toNfirst millingN does not make the period of thirty years one of
thirtymilling years./he seventh paragraph of Anne; N1N# not found in the
earlier contracts 2Anne;es NAN# N7N# and N7:$N3# <uoted !y the appellant in its!rief# where
the parties stipulated that in the event of flood# typhoon#earth<uake# or other force
majeure # war# insurrection# civil commotion#organi,ed strike# etc.# the contract shall !e
deemed suspended duringsaid period# does not mean that the happening of any of
those eventsstops the running of the period agreed upon. 8t only relieves theparties from
the fulfillment of their respective o!ligations during thattime./o re<uire the planters to
deliver the sugar cane which theyfailed to deliver during the four years of the Fapanese
occupation andthe two years after li!eration when the mill was !eing re!uilt is todemand
from the o!ligors the fulfillment of an o!ligation which wasimpossi!le of performance at
the time it !ecame due.
Da0#alt s! La Corporation $e los Pa$res 3gustinos Recoletos 43rt 151*6
Held( B/he most that can !e said with reference to the conduct of /eodorica Andencia is
that she refused to carry out a contract for the sale of certain land and resisted to the
last an action for specific performance in court. /he result was that the plaintiff was
prevented during a period of several years from e;erting that control over the property
which he was entitled to e;ert and was meanwhile una!le to dispose of the property
advantageously. B/he e;tent of the lia!ility for the !reach of a contract must !e
determined in the light of the situation in e;istence at the time the contract is made> and
the damages ordinarily recovera!le in all events limited to such as might !e reasona!ly
foreseen in the light of the facts then known to the contracting parties. *here the
purchaser desires to protect himself# in the contingency of the failure of the vendor
promptly to give possession# from the possi!ility of incurring other damages than such
as are incident to the normal value of the use and occupation# he should cause to !e
inserted in the contract a clause providing for stipulated amount to !e paid upon failure
of the vendor to give possession> and no case has !een called to our attention where# in
the a!sence of such a stipulation# damages have !een held to !e recovera!le !y the
purchase in e;cess of the normal value of use and occupation.
/he damages recovera!le in case of the !reach of a contract are two sorts# namely# 2$3
the ordinary# natural# and in a sense# necessary damage> and 223 special damages.
Brdinary damages is found in all !reaches of contract where there are no special
circumstances to distinguish the case especially from other contracts. /he consideration
paid for an unperformed promise is an instance of this sort of damage. 8n all such cases
the damages recovera!le are such as naturally and generally would result from such a
!reach# Baccording to the usual course of thingsC. 8n cases involving only ordinary
damage# it is conclusively presumed from the immediateness and inevita!leness of the
damage# and the recovery of such damage follows as a necessary legal conse<uence
of the !reach. rdinary damage is assumed as a matter of law to !e within the
contemplation of the parties. B0pecial damage# on the other hand# is such as follows
less directly from the !reach than ordinary damage. 8t is only found in cases where
some e;ternal condition# apart from the actual terms of the contract e;ists or intervenes#
as it were# to give a turn to affairs and to increase damage in a way that the promissor#
without actual notice of the e;ternal condition# could not reasona!ly !e e;pected to
Dlaintiffs right chiefly as against /eodorica Andencia> and what has !een said suffices
in our opinion to demonstrate that the damages laid under the second cause of action in
the complaint could not !e recovered from her# first# !ecause the damages in <uestion
are special damages which were not within contemplation of the parties when the
contract was made# and secondly# !ecause said damages are too remote to !e su!ject
of recovery. /his conclusion is also necessarily fatal to the right of the plaintiff to recover
such damages from the defendant corporation for# as already suggested# !y advising
/eodorica Andencia not to perform the contract# said corporation could in no event
render itself more e;tensively lia!le than the principal in the contract. Bur conclusion is
that the judgment of the trial court should !e affirmed# and it is so ordered# with costs
against the appellant.C
Facts( /eodorica Andencia o!ligated herself to sell a parcel of land to the plaintiff. 8t was
agreed that the final deed of sale will !e e;ecuted when the land was registered in
Andencias name. 0u!se<uently# the /orrens /itle for the land was issued in her favor
!ut in the course of the proceedings for registration it was found that the land involved in
the sale contained a greater area than what Andencia originally thought and she
!ecame reluctant to consummate the sale of the land to the plaintiff. /his reluctance
was due to the advice of the defendant which e;ercised a great moral influence over
her. However# in advising Andencia that she was not !ound !y her contract with the
plaintiff# the defendant was not actuated with improper motives !ut did so in good faith
!elieving that# under the circumstances# Andencia was not really !ound !y her contract
with the plaintiff. 8n view of Andencias refusal to make the conveyance# the plaintiff
instituted a complaint for specific performance against her and# upon appeal# the
0upreme 1ourt held that she was !ound !y the contract and she was ordered to make
the conveyance of the land in <uestion to the plaintiff. /he plaintiff then instituted an
action against the defendant to recover the following damages( 2a3 /he amount of
Desos 24#"""."" for the use and occupation of the land in <uestion !y reason of the
pasturing of cattle therein during the period that the land was not conveyed !y Andencia
to the plaintiff> 2!3 /he amount of Desos ?""#"""."" for plaintiffs failure to sell the land
in <uestion to a sugar growing and milling enterprise# the successful launching of which
depended on the a!ility of Daywalt to get possession of the land and the /orrens /itle.
/I&ENE7 CI89 OF &3NIL3
FA1/0( Fimene, !ought !agoong at the 0anta Ana pu!lic market at the time that it was
flooded withankle:deep water. As he turned around to go home# he stepped on an
uncovered opening wIc could not!e seen !ecause of dirty rainwater.A dirty and rusty 4:
inch nail# stuck inside the uncovered opening# pierced his left leg to a depth of $O
inches. His left leg swelled and he developed fever. He was confined for 2" days#
walked wIcrutchesfor $? days and could not operate his school !uses.He sued 1ity of
Manila and Asiatic 8ntegrated 1orp under whose administration the 0ta. Ana had!een
placed !y virtue of Management and perating 1ontract./1 found for respondent. 1A
reversed and held Asiatec lia!le and a!solved 1ity of Manila. 800PA( *G 1ity of
Manila should !e jointly and solidarily lia!le with AsiatecHA9D( .A05A/8( 8n the 1ity
of Manila v /eotico case# it was held that Art $# 0ec 4 of 5A 4"%# which 1ity of Manilais
invoking in this case# esta!lishes a general rule regulating the lia!ility of 1ity f Manila
while Art 2$-%11 governs the lia!ility due to Bdefective streets# pu!lic !uildings and
other pu!lic worksC in particular andis therefore decisive in this case.8t was also held
that for lia!ility under 2$-% to attach# control and superision !y the province#city or
municipality over the defective pu!lic !uilding in <uestion is enough. 8t is not necessary
that such!elongs to such province# city or municipality.8n the case at !ar# there is no
<uestion that 0ta. Ana pu!lic market remained under the control of the 1ity as
evidenced !y($.the contract !et Asiatec and 1ity which e;plicitly states that Bprior
approvalC of the 1ity is stillneeded in the operations.
8t is thus the duty of the 1ity to e;ercise reasona!le care to keep the pu!lic market
reasona!lysafe for people fre<uenting the place for their marketing needs. rdinary
precautions could have !eentaken during good weather to minimi,e danger to life and
lim!. /he drainage hole could have !een placedunder the stalls rather than the
passageways. /he 1ity should have seen to it that the openings werecovered.8t was
evident that the certain opening was already uncovered# and ? months after this incident
itwas still uncovered. /here were also findings that during floods# vendors would remove
the iron grills tohasten the flow of water. 0uch acts were not prohi!ited nor penali,ed !y
the 1ity. Go warning sign of impending danger was evident.Detitioner had the right to
assume there were no openings in the middle of the passageways andif any# that they
were ade<uately covered. Had it !een covered# petitioner would not have fallen into
it./hus the negligence of the 1ity is the pro;imate cause of the injury suffered.Asiatec
and 1ityy are joint tortfeasors and are solidarily lia!le
CUS8ODIO % C3 4Heirs O: &a;asa6 2?) 015A 4-)
/he plaintiff:appellee Ma!asa owns a parcel of land with a two:door apartment erected
thereon situated at 8nterior D. 7urgos 0t.# Dalingon# /ipas# /agig# Metro Manila. As
access to D. 7urgos 0treet from plaintiffQs property# there are 2 possi!le passageways.
/he first passageway is appro;imately one meter wide and is a!out 2"m distant from
Ma!asaQs residence to D. 7urgos 0t. 0uch path is passing in !etween the row of houses
of defendants. /he second passageway is a!out )m in width. 8n passing thru said
passageway# a less than a meter wide path through the septic tank and with ?:'m in
length# has to !e traversed. - When said property was purchased by Mabasa, therewere
tenants occupying the premises and who wereacknowledged by plaintiff Mabasa as
tenants. However,sometime in February, !"#, one of said tenantsvacated the
apartment and when plaintiff Mabasa wentto see the premises, he saw that there had
been builtan adobe fence in the first passageway making itnarrower in width. 0aid
ado!e fence was first constructed !y defendants 0antoses along theirproperty which is
also along the first passageway. Defendant Morato constructed her ado!e fence and
even e;tended said fence in such a way that the entirepassageway was enclosed. $nd
it was then that the remaining tenants of said apartment vacated the area.Defendant
1ristina 0antos testified that sheconstructed said fence !ecause there was an incident
when her daughter was dragged !y a !icycle pedaled !y a son of one of the tenants in
said apartment along the first passageway. 0he also mentioned some other
inconveniences of having at the front of her house a pathway such as when some of the
tenants were drunk and would !ang their doors and windows. 0ome of their footwear
were even lost. E
ISSUES $. *G the grant of right of way to herein private respondents is proper 2.
*G 1A erred in awarding damages to plaintiffappellee Ma!asa
HELD $. Ratio *henever an appeal is taken in a civil case# an appellee who has not
himself appealed may not o!tain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other
than what was granted in the decision of the lower court
Reasoning - Detitioners are already !arred from raising the same. Detitioners did not
appeal from the decision of the court a quo granting private respondents the right of
way# hence they are presumed to !e satisfied with the adjudication therein. *ith the
finality of the judgment of the trial court as to petitioners# the issue of propriety of the
grant of right of way has already !een laid to rest.
2. .A0 Ratio /here is no cause of action for acts done !y one person 2in this case#
upon his own property3 in a lawful and proper manner# although such acts incidentally
cause damage or an unavoida!le loss to another# as such damage or loss is damnum
absque in%uria.
Reasoning [1] /o warrant the recovery of damages# there must !e !oth a right of action
for a legal wrong inflicted !y the defendant# and damage resulting to the plaintiff
therefrom. [2] &biter' /here is a material distinction !etween damages and injury. (n%ury
is the illegal invasion of a legal right> damage is the loss# hurt# or harm which results
from the injury> and damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the
damage suffered. /hus# there can !e damage without injury in those instances in which
the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. /hese situations are
often called damnum absque in%uria. [3] 8n order that the law will give redress for an act
causing damage# that act must !e not only hurtful# !ut wrongful. /here must !e
damnum et in%uria. /he injury must result from a !reach of duty or a legal wrong. [4] 8n
this case# although there was damage# there was no legal injury. 1ontrary to the claim
of private respondents# petitioners could not !e said to have violated the principle of
a!use of right )$rt*# ++, [5] /he act of petitioners in constructing a fence within their
lot is a valid e;ercise of their right as owners# hence not contrary to morals# good
customs or pu!lic policy. /he law recogni,es in the owner the right to enjoy and dispose
of a thing# without other limitations than those esta!lished !y law. 8t is within the right of
petitioners# as owners# to enclose and fence their property 2-ee $rt*./0 ++3.
3ND3&O % I3C 4&issionaries O: OurLa$0 O: La Salette, Inc6 $%$ 015A $%?
Detitioner spouses Ammanuel and Gatividad Andamo are the owners of a parcel of land
situated in 7iga 27iluso3 0ilang# 1avite which is adjacent to that of private respondent#
Missionaries of ur 9ady of 9a 0alette# 8nc.# a religious corporation. : *ithin the land of
respondent corporation# waterpaths and contrivances# including an artificial lake# were
constructed# which allegedly inundated and eroded petitionersQ land# caused a young
man to drown# damaged petitionersQ crops and plants# washed awaycostly fences#
endangered the lives of petitioners andtheir la!orers during rainy and stormy seasons#
ande;posed plants and other improvements to destruction.: 8n Fuly $%-2# petitioners
instituted a criminal actionagainst Afren Musngi# rlando 0apuay and 5utilloMallillin#
officers and directors of respondentcorporation# for destruction !y means of
inundationunder Article )24 of the 5evised Denal 1ode.
: n Fe!ruary 22# $%-)# petitioners filed a civil case fordamages with prayer for the
issuance of a writ ofpreliminary injunction against respondent corporation.Hearings
were conducted including ocular inspectionson the land.: n April 2'# $%-4# the trial
court issued an ordersuspending further hearings in the civil case until afterjudgment in
the related 1riminal 1ase. And later ondismissed the 1ivil 1ase for lack of jurisdiction#
as thecriminal case which was instituted ahead of the civilcase was still unresolved./he
decision was !ased on0ection ) 2a3# 5ule 888 of the 5ules of 1ourt whichprovides that
Ncriminal and civil actions arising from thesame offense may !e instituted separately# !ut
afterthe criminal action has !een commenced the civilaction cannot !e instituted until
final judgment has!een rendered in the criminal action.N
ISSUE *G a corporation# which has !uilt through its agents#waterpaths# water
conductors and contrivances withinits land# there!y causing inundation and damage to
anadjacent land# can !e held civilly lia!le for damagesunder Articles 2$&' and 2$&& of
the 1ivil 1ode on<uasi:delicts such that the resulting civil case canproceed
independently of the criminal case
HELD Ratio .A0. As held in 8n A,ucena vs. Dotenciano# in<uasi:delicts# N2t3he civil
action is entirely independentof the criminal case according to Articles )) and 2$&&of
the 1ivil 1ode. /here can !e no logical conclusionthan this# for to su!ordinate the civil
actioncontemplated in the said articles to the result of thecriminal prosecution R
whether it !e conviction orac<uittal R would render meaningless the
independentcharacter of the civil action and the clear injunction inArticle )$# that his
action may proceed independentlyof the criminal proceedings and regardless of the
resultof the latter.N
Reasoning ( A careful e;amination of the complaint shows that thecivil action is one
under Articles 2$&' and 2$&& of the1ivil 1ode on <uasi:delicts. All the elements of a
<uasidelictare present# to wit( 2a3 damages suffered !y theplaintiff# 2!3 fault or
negligence of the defendant# orsome other person for whose acts he must respond>and
2c3 the connection of cause and effect !etween thefault or negligence of the defendant
and the damagesincurred !y the plaintiff.: /he waterpaths and contrivances !uilt !y
respondentcorporation are alleged to have inundated the land ofpetitioners. /here is
therefore# an assertion of a causalconnection !etween the act of !uilding
thesewaterpaths and the damage sustained !y petitioners.0uch action if proven
constitutes fault or negligencewhich may !e the !asis for the recovery of damages.: 8n
the case of 0amson vs. Dionisio# the 1ourt appliedArticle $%"2# now Article 2$&' of the
1ivil 1ode andheld that Nany person who without due authorityconstructs a !ank or dike#
stopping the flow orcommunication !etween a creek or a lake and a river#there!y
causing loss and damages to a third party who#like the rest of the residents# is entitled
to the use andenjoyment of the stream or lake# shall !e lia!le to thepayment of an
indemnity for loss and damages to theinjured party.: *hile the property involved in the
cited case !elongedto the pu!lic domain and the property su!ject of theinstant case is
privately owned# the fact remains thatpetitionersQ complaint sufficiently alleges
thatpetitioners have sustained and will continue to sustaindamage due to the
waterpaths and contrivances !uilt!y respondent corporation. 8ndeed# the recitals of
thecomplaint# the alleged presence of damage to thepetitioners# the act or omission of
respondentcorporation supposedly constituting fault or negligence#and the causal
connection !etween the act and thedamage# with no pre:e;isting contractual
o!ligation!etween the parties make a clear case of a <uasi delictor culpa a<uiliana.: 8t
must !e stressed that the use of oneQs property isnot without limitations. Article 4)$ of
the 1ivil 1odeprovides that Nthe owner of a thing cannot make usethereof in such a
manner as to injure the rights of athird person.N 081 P/A5A /P P/ A98AGPM
GG9AADA0. Moreover# adjoining landowners have mutualand reciprocal duties which
re<uire that each must usehis own land in a reasona!le manner so as not toinfringe
upon the rights and interests of others.Although we recogni,e the right of an owner to
!uildstructures on his land# such structures must !e soconstructed and maintained
using all reasona!le careso that they cannot !e dangerous to adjoininglandowners and
can withstand the usual and e;pectedforces of nature. 8f the structures cause injury
ordamage to an adjoining landowner or a third person#the latter can claim
indemnification for the injury ordamage suffered.
: Article 2$&' $of the 1ivil 1ode imposes a civil lia!ilityon a person for damage caused
!y his act or omissionconstituting fault or negligence.: Article 2$&'# whenever it refers to
Nfault ornegligenceN# covers not only acts Nnot punisha!le !ylawN !ut also acts criminal
in character# whetherintentional and voluntary or negligent. 1onse<uently# aseparate
civil action lies against the offender in acriminal act# whether or not he is criminally
prosecutedand found guilty or ac<uitted# provided that theoffended party is not allowed#
2if the tortfeasor isactually charged also criminally3# to recover damageson !oth scores#
and would !e entitled in sucheventuality only to the !igger award of the two#assuming
the awards made in the two cases vary.: /he distinctness of <uasi:delicta is shown in
2$&&2 of the 1ivil 1ode. According to the 5eport of the1ode 1ommission Nthe foregoing
provision though atfirst sight startling# is not so novel or e;traordinarywhen we consider
the e;act nature of criminal and civilnegligence. /he former is a violation of the
criminallaw# while the latter is a distinct and independentnegligence# which is a Nculpa
a<uilianaN or <uasi:delict#of ancient origin# having always had its own foundationand
individuality# separate from criminal negligence. 0uch distinction !etween criminal
negligence andNculpa e;tra:contractualN or Ncuasi:delitoN has !eensustained !y
decisions of the 0upreme 1ourt of 0pain ...8n the case of 1astillo vs. 1ourt of Appeals#
this 1ourtheld that a <uasi:delict or culpa a<uiliana is a separatelegal institution under
the 1ivil 1ode with asu!stantivity all its own# and individuality that isentirely apart and
independent from a delict or crime Ra distinction e;ists !etween the civil lia!ility
arisingfrom a crime and the responsi!ility for <uasi:delicts orculpa e;tra:contractual.
/he same negligence causingdamages may produce civil lia!ility arising from a
crimeunder the Denal 1ode# or create an action for <uasidelictsor culpa e;tra:
contractual under the 1ivil 1ode./herefore# the ac<uittal or conviction in the
criminalcase is entirely irrelevant in the civil case# unless# ofcourse# in the event of an
ac<uittal where the court hasdeclared that the fact from which the civil action arosedid
not e;ist# in which case the e;tinction of thecriminal lia!ility would carry with it the
e;tinction of thecivil lia!ility.
3IR FR3NCE % C3 4Carrascoso, Et! 3l6$- 015A $??
F3C8S: : 1arrascoso# a civil engineer# left Manila for 9ourdes wI4- other Filipino
pilgrims. Air France# through DA9#issued plaintiff a Bfirst classC round trip airplane
ticketfrom Manila to 5ome. From Manila to 7angkok#1arrascoso traveled in Bfirst classC
!ut at 7angkok# theManager of the defendant airline forced plaintiff tovacate the Qfirst
classQ seat that he was occupying!ecause# in the words of the witness Arnesto =.
1uento#t"ere #as a <#"ite man<, #"o, t"e &anagerallege$, "a$ a <;etter rig"t< to
t"e seat! ="enaske$ to acate "is <:irst class< seat, t"e plainti::,as #as to ;e
e>pecte$, re:use$, an$ tol$$e:en$ant<s &anager t"at "is seat #oul$ ;etaken oer
"is $ea$ ;o$0? a commotion ensued#and# according to said Arnesto =. 1uento# many
of theFilipino passengers got nervous in the tourist class>when they found out that Mr.
1arrascoso was having ahot discussion with the white man SmanagerT# theycame all
across to Mr. 1arrascoso and pacified Mr.1arrascoso to give his seat to the Qwhite man>
andplaintiff reluctantly gave his Qfirst classQ seat in theplane.N:
ISSUES: rocedural
$. *G the 1A failed to make a complete findings of fact on all the issues properly laid
!efore it# and if such#*G the 1ourt could review the <uestions of fact
!ubstanti"e 2. *G 1arrascoso was entitled to the Bfirst classC seathe claims# as
proved !y written documents 2ticketsU3 ). *G 1arrascoso was entitled to moral
damages#when his action is planted upon !reach of contract andthus# there must !e an
averment of fraud or !ad faithwhich the 1A allegedly failed to find 4. *G moral
damages could !e recovered from AirFrance# granted that their employee was accused
of thetortuous act ?. *G damages are proper in a !reach contract '. *G the
transcri!ed testimony of 1arrascosoregarding the account made !y the air:carriers
purseris admissi!le in evidence as hearsay &. *G 1arrascoso was entitled to
e;emplary damages -. *G 1arrascoso was entitled to attorneys fees %. *G the
amounts awarded to 1arrascoso wase;cessive
HELD: $. G# G Ratio A decision is not to !e so clogged with detailssuch that
proli;ity# if not confusion# may result. 0o longas the decision of the 1ourt of Appeals#
contains thenecessary facts to warrant its conclusions# it. is no errorfor said court to
withhold therefrom Nany specificfinding of facts with respect to the evidence for
thedefenseN.N/he mere failure to specify 2in the decision3the contentions of the appellant
and the reasons forrefusing to !elieve them is not sufficient to hold thesame contrary to
the re<uirements of the provisions oflaw and the 1onstitutionN> Nonly <uestions of law
may!e raisedN in an appeal !y certiorari from a judgment ofthe 1ourt of Appeals.
#biter$ - 1onstitution mandates that a @u$gment$etermining t"e merits o: t"e case
s"all stateAclearl0 an$ $istinctl0 t"e :acts an$ t"e la# on#"ic" it is ;ase$A and
that AEer0 $ecision o: t"eCourt o: 3ppeals s"all contain complete :in$ingso: :act
on all issues properl0 raise$ ;e:oreA.;;;/he law# however# solely insists that a
decision statethe Nessential ultimate factsN upon which the courtQsconclusion is drawn. :
F8GD8G=0 F FA1/( Nthe written statement of the ultimate facts as found !y the court
and essential tosupport the decision and judgment renderedthereonN.$' /hey consist of
the courtQs Nconclusionswith respect to the determinative facts in issueN: VPA0/8G F
9A*( one which does not call for ane;amination of the pro!ative value of the
evidencepresented !y the parties
2. .A0# the plaintiff was issued# and paid for# a firstclass ticket without any reservation
whatever.Ratio .A written document speaks a uniform language>that spoken word could
!e notoriously unrelia!le. 8fonly to achieve sta!ility in the relations !etweenpassenger
and air carrier# adherence to the ticket soissued is desira!le.
Reasoning - Detitioner asserts that said ticket did not representthe true and complete
intent and agreement of theparties> that said respondent knew that he did not
haveconfirmed reservations for first class on any specificflight# although he had tourist
class protection> that#accordingly# the issuance of a first class ticket was noguarantee
that he would have a first class ride# !ut thatsuch would depend upon the availa!ility of
first classseats. However# 1A held that Air France should knowwhether or not the
tickets it issues are to !e honored ornot. /he trial court also accepted as evidence
thewritten documents su!mitted !y 1arrasco and even thetestimony of the air:carriers
employees attested thatindeed# 1arrasco was issued a Bfirst class ticketC.: 8f# as
petitioner underscores# a first:class:ticket holderis not entitled to a first class seat#
notwithstanding thefact that seat availa!ility in specific flights is thereinconfirmed# then
an air passenger is placed in the hollowof the hands of an airline.:Also# when
1arrascoso was asked to confirm his seat in7angkok# he was granted the Bfirst classC
seat. 8f therehad !een no seat# and if the Bwhite manC had a !etterright to the seat# then
why did they confirm 1arrascohis seatW
). .A0. Ratio! 8t is 2therefore3 unnecessary to in<uire as towhether or not there is
sufficient averment in thecomplaint to justify an award for moral damages.Deficiency in
the complaint# if any# was cured !y theevidence. An amendment thereof to conform to
theevidence is not even re<uired. Reasoning- /here was a contract to furnish plaintiff a
first classpassage covering# amongst others# the 7angkok:/eheran leg> 0econd# said
contract was !reached whenpetitioner failed to furnish first class transportation
at7angkok> and /hird# there was !ad faith whenpetitionerQs employee compelled
1arrascoso to leavehis first class accommodation !erth Nafter he wasalready seatedN
and to take a seat in the tourist class#!y reason of which he suffered
inconvenience#em!arrassments and humiliations# there!y causing himmental anguish#
serious an;iety# wounded feelings andsocial humiliation# resulting in moral damages.:
Air France did not present evidence that the BwhitemanC made a prior reservation# nor
proved that theBwhite manC had B!etter rightC over the seat> also# ifthe managers actions
could !e justified# they shouldhave presented the manager to testify in court E !utthey
did not do so: 1he manager not only prevented +arrascoso fromen%oying his right to a
first class seat2 worse, heimposed his arbitrary will2 he forcibly e%ected him fromhis seat,
made him suffer the humiliation of having togo to the tourist class compartment-%ust to
give way toanother passenger whose right thereto has not beenestablished* +ertainly,
this is bad faith* 3nless, ofcourse, bad faith has assumed a meaning differentfrom what
is understood in law* For, 4bad faith4contemplates a 4state of mind affirmatively
operatingwith furtive design or with some motive of self-interestor ill will or for ulterior
4. .A0 : /he responsi!ility of an employer for the tortious actof its employees need not.
!e essayed. For the willfulmalevolent act of petitionerQs manager# petitioner#
hisemployer# must answer.
?. .A0 : DetitionerQs contract with 1arrascoso# is one attendedwith pu!lic duty. /he
stress of 1arrascosoQs. action aswe have said# is placed upon his wrongful
e;pulsion./his is a violation of pu!lic duty !y the petitioner:aircarrier:a case of <uasi:
delict. Damages are proper.2note( it was held that it was a case of <uasi:delict
eventhough it was a !reach of contract3 Ratio A contract to transport passengers is
<uitedifferent in kind and degree from any other contractualrelation.4) And is# !ecause
of the relation which an aircarriersustains with the pu!lic. 8ts !usiness is mainlywith the
travelling pu!lic. 8t invites people to avail ofthe comforts and 8 advantages it offers. /he
contract ofair carriage# therefore# generates a relation attendedwith a pu!lic duty.
Geglect or malfeasance of thecarrierQs employees# naturally# could give ground for
anaction for damages.
Reasoning - Dassengers do not contract merely for transportation./hey have a right to
!e treated !y the carrierQsemployees with kindness# respect# courtesy and
dueconsideration. /hey are entitled to !e protected againstpersonal misconduct#
injurious language# indignitiesand a!uses from such employees. 0o it is# that anyrude or
discourteous conduct on the part of employeestowards a passenger gives the latter an
action fordamages against the carrier.'. .A0# if forms part of the res gestae
Ratio$ /estimony of the entry does not come within theproscription of the !est evidence
rule. 0uch testimonyis admissi!le.- alsoUFrom a reading of the transcript just
<uoted#when the dialogue happened# the impact of thestartling occurrence was still
fresh and continued to !efelt. /he e;citement had not as yet died down.0tatements
then# in this environment# are admissi!le aspart of the res gestae. For# they grow Nout of
thenervous e;citement and mental and physical conditionof the declarantN.
Reasoning - 1arrascoso testified that the purser of the air:carriermade an entry in his
note!ooks reading NFirst class. passenger was forced to go to the tourist class
againsthis will# and that the captain refused to interveneN. /hepetitioner contents that it
should not !e admitted asevidence# as it was only hearsay. However# the su!jectof
in<uiry is not the entry# !ut the ouster incident. Also#the said entry was made outside the
Dhilippines and !yan employee of petitioner. 8t would have !een easy forAir France to
contradict 1arrascosos testimony if theyhad presented the purser.
&. .A0 Ratio /he 1ivil 1ode gives the 1ourt ample power togrant e;emplary damages:
in contracts and <uasicontracts./he only condition is that defendant shouldhave Nacted
in a wanton# fraudulent# reckless#oppressive# or malevolent mannerN.
Reasoning- /he manner of ejectment of respondent 1arrascosofrom his first class seat
fits into this legal precept
-. .A0 Ratio$ /he grant of e;emplary damages justifies asimilar Fudgment for
attorneysQ fees. /he least that can!e said is that the courts !elow felt that it is !ut
justand e<uita!le that attorneysQ fees !e given.
%. G Ratio* /he task of fi;ing these amounts is primarily with the trial court. /he
dictates of good sense suggestthat we give our imprimatur thereto. 7ecause# the
factsand circumstances point to the reasona!leness thereof.
PSB3 % Ca Fe!ruary 4# $%%2
A sta!!ing incident on August )"# $%-? which causedthe death of 1arlitos 7autista on
the premises of theDhilippine 0chool of 7usiness Administration 2D07A3prompted the
parents of the deceased to file suit in theManila 5/1. 8t was esta!lished that his
assailants werenot mem!ers of the schools academic community !utwere outsiders.:
/he suit impleaded D07A# 8tsought to adjudge them lia!le for the victims deathdue to
their alleged negligence# recklessness and lackof security precautions.: Detitioners
sought to have the suitdismissed alleging that since they are presuma!ly suedunder Art.
2$-" of the 1ivil 1ode# the complaint statesno cause of action against them since
academicinstitutions# like D07A# are !eyond the am!it of thatrule.
ISSUE *G respondent court is correct in denying dismissal of the case
HELD: Ratio Although a school may not !e lia!le under Art.2$-" on <uasi:delicts# it
may still !e lia!le under thelaw on contracts. Reasoning - /he case should !e tried on
its merits. 7ut respondentcourts premise is incorrect. 8t is e;pressly mentioned inArt.
2$-" that the lia!ility arises from acts done !ypupils or students of the institution. 8n this
sense# D07Ais not lia!le. 7ut when an academic institution acceptsstudents for
enrollment# the school makes itselfresponsi!le in providing their students with
anatmosphere that is conducive for learning. 1ertainly# nostudent can a!sor! the
intricacies of physics or e;plorethe realm of arts when !ullets are flying or where
therelooms around the school premises a constant threat tolife and lim!.
S9BUI3 % C3 4&la &emorial Park6 2$& 015A '24
Fuan 0.VP8A# father of the deceased Micente 0y<uia#authori,ed and instructed the
defendant to inter theremains of deceased.: After a!out a month# preparatory to
transferring theremains to a newly purchased family plot also at thesame cemetery, the
concrete vault encasing the coffinof the deceased was removed from its
nicheunderground. As the concrete vault was !eing raised tothe surface# the 0y<uias
discovered that the vault had ahole appro; ) in. in diameter near the !ottom and
itappeared that water drained out of the hole.: Dursuant to an authority granted !y the
Municipal1ourt of DaraHa<ue# they caused the opening of theconcrete vault and
discovered that(2a3 the interior walls showed evidence of total flooding>2!3 coffin was
entirely damaged by water, filth and siltcausing the wooden parts to separate and to
crack theviewing glass panel located directly a!ove the headand torso of the deceased>
2c3 entire lining of coffin# clothing of the deceased# andthe e;posed parts of the
deceasedQs remains weredamaged and soiled.
0.VP8A0 !ase their claim for damages against MlaMemorial on either( 2$3 ;reac" o:
its o;ligation todeliver a defect:free concrete vault>223 gross negligence in failing to
seal the concretevault 2Art. 2$&'3: *hatever kind of negligence it has committed#
M9AMAM58A9 is deemed to !e lia!le for desecrating thegrave of the dead.
ISSUES: $. *G Mla Memorial !reached its contract withpetitioners#or alternatively 2.
*G it can !e lia!le for culpa a<uiliana
HELD: $. G. Ratio Darties are !ound !y the terms of their contract#which is the law
!etween them. A contracting partycannot incur a lia!ility more than what is
e;presslyspecified in his undertaking. (t cannot be e5tended byimplication, beyond the
terms of the contract* )6+7+ v- /hey entered into a contract entitled NDeed of 0aleand
1ertificate of Derpetual 1are.N Mla Memorial !ounditself to provide the concrete !o; to
!e sent in theinterment.: 5ule $& of the 5ules and 5egulations of M9AMAM58A9
provides that( B8very earth interment shallbe made enclosed in a concrete bo5, or in an
outer wallof stone, brick or concrete, the actual installment ofwhich shall be made by
the employees of the$ssociation.C Dursuant to this# a concrete vault wasinstalled and
after the !urial# the vault was covered !ya cement lid.: 0y<uias claim that there was a
!reach of contract!ecause it was stated in the !rochures that Blot mayhold single or
dou!le internment underground in sealedconcrete vault.N: N0ealedN meant Nclosed.N
0tandard dictionaries defineseal as any of various closures or fastenings thatcannot !e
opened without rupture and that serve as acheck against tampering or unauthori,ed
opening.: N0ealedN cannot !e e<uated with NwaterproofN. *henthe terms of the contract
are clear and leave no dou!tas to the intention of the contracting parties# then theliteral
meaning of the stipulation shall control.
2. G. Ratio Gegligence is defined !y law as the Nomission ofthat diligence which is
re<uired !y the nature of theo!ligation and corresponds with the circumstances ofthe
persons# of the time and of the place.N 8n thea!sence of stipulation or legal provision
providing thecontrary# the diligence to !e o!served in theperformance of the o!ligation
is that which is e5pectedof a good father of a family.
Reasoning: : Although a pre:e;isting contractual relation !etweenthe parties does not
preclude the e;istence of a culpaaquiliana# circumstances of the case do not
shownegligence. /he reason for the !oring of the hole wase;plained !y Henry Flores#
8nterment Foreman# whosaid that( B*hen the vault was placed on the grave ahole was
placed on the vault so that water could comeinto the vault !ecause it was raining
heavily then!ecause the vault has no hole the vault will float andthe grave would !e
filled with water.C: Drivate respondent has e;ercised the diligence of agood father of a
family in preventing the accumulationof water inside the vault which would have resulted
inthe caving in of earth around the grave. Finding noevidence of negligence# there is no
reason to awarddamages.
P"oeni> Construction ! I3C
At a!out $()" a.m. on Govem!er $?# $%&?# private respondent 9eonardo Dionisio was on his
way home from cocktails and dinner meeting with his !oss. He was proceeding down =eneral
9acuna 0treet when he saw a Ford dump truck parked askew# partly !locking the way of
oncoming traffic# with no lights or early warning reflector devices. /he truck was driven earlier !y
Armando 1ar!onel# a regular driver of the petitioner company. Dionisio tried to swerve his car to
the left# !ut it was too late. He suffered some physical injuries and nervous !reakdown.
Dionision filed an action for damages against 1ar!onel and Dhoeni; 8nsurance. Detitioners
countered the claim !y imputing the accident to respondents own negligence in driving at high
speed without curfew pass and headlights# and while into;icated. /he trial court and the 1ourt of
Appeals ruled in favor of private respondent.
8ssue( *hether the collision was !rought a!out !y the way the truck was parked# or !y
respondents own negligence
Held( *e find that private respondent Dionisio was una!le to prove possession of a valid curfew
pass during the night of the accident and that the preponderance of evidence shows that he did
not have such a pass during that night. 8t is the petitionersQ contention that Dionisio purposely
shut off his headlights even !efore he reached the intersection so as not to !e detected !y the
police in the police precinct which he 2!eing a resident in the area3 knew was not far away from
the intersection. *e !elieve that the petitionersQ theory is a more credi!le e;planation than that
offered !y private respondent Dionisio# i.e.# that he had his headlights on !ut that# at the crucial
moment# these had in some mysterious if convenient way malfunctioned and gone off# although
he succeeded in switching his lights on again at N!rightN split seconds !efore contact with the
dump truck. *e do not !elieve that this evidence is sufficient to show that Dionisio was so
heavily under the influence of li<uor as to constitute his driving a motor vehicle per se an act of
reckless imprudence. /he conclusion we draw from the factual circumstances outlined a!ove is
that private respondent Dionisio was negligent the night of the accident. He was hurrying home
that night and driving faster than he should have !een. *orse# he e;tinguished his headlights at
or near the intersection of =eneral 9acuna and =eneral 0antos 0treets and thus did not see the
dump truck that was parked askew and sticking out onto the road lane.
Gonetheless# we agree with the 1ourt of First 8nstance and the 8ntermediate Appellate 1ourt
that the legal and pro;imate cause of the accident and of DionisioQs injuries was the wrongful or
negligent manner in which the dump truck was parked in other words# the negligence of
petitioner 1ar!onel. /he collision of DionisioQs car with the dump truck was a natural and
foreseea!le conse<uence of the truck driverQs negligence.
/he distinctions !etween NcauseN and NconditionN which the Qpetitioners would have us adopt
have already !een Nalmost entirely discredited. 8f the defendant has created only a passive
static condition which made the damage possi!le# the defendant is said not to !e lia!le. 7ut so
far as the fact of causation is concerned# in the sense of necessary antecedents which have
played an important part in producing the result it is <uite impossi!le to distinguish !etween
active forces and passive situations# particularly since# as is invaria!ly the case# the latter are
the result of other active forces which have gone !efore. Aven the lapse of a considera!le time
during which the NconditionN remains static will not necessarily affect lia!ility. N1auseN and
NconditionN still find occasional mention in the decisions> !ut the distinction is now almost entirely
discredited. 0o far as it has any validity at all# it must refer to the type of case where the forces
set in operation !y the defendant have come to rest in a position of apparent safety# and some
new force intervenes. 7ut even in such cases# it is not the distinction !etween NcauseN and
NconditionN which is important !ut the nature of the risk and the character of the intervening
*e !elieve# secondly# that the truck driverQs negligence far from !eing a Npassive and static
conditionN was rather an indispensa!le and efficient cause. /he improper parking of the dump
truck created an unreasona!le risk of injury for anyone driving down =eneral 9acuna 0treet and
for having so created this risk# the truck driver must !e held responsi!le. 8n our view# DionisioQs
negligence# although later in point of time than the truck driverQs negligence and therefore closer
to the accident# was not an efficient intervening or independent cause.
/he defendant cannot !e relieved from lia!ility !y the fact that the risk or a su!stantial and
important part of the risk# to which the defendant has su!jected the plaintiff has indeed come to
pass. Foreseea!le intervening forces are within the scope original risk# and hence of the
defendantQs negligence. /he courts are <uite generally agreed that intervening causes which fall
fairly in this category will not supersede the defendantQs responsi!ility. /hus# a defendant who
!locks the sidewalk and forces the plaintiff to walk in a street where the plaintiff will !e e;posed
to the risks of heavy traffic !ecomes lia!le when the plaintiff is run down !y a car# even though
the car is negligently driven> and one who parks an automo!ile on the highway without lights at
night is not relieved of responsi!ility when another negligently drives into it. *e hold that private
respondent DionisioQs negligence was Nonly contri!utory#N that the Nimmediate and pro;imate
causeN of the injury remained the truck driverQs Nlack of due careN and that conse<uently
respondent Dionisio may recover damages though such damages are su!ject to mitigation !y
the courts.
*e !elieve that the demands of su!stantial justice are satisfied !y allocating most of the
damages on a 2":-" ratio. /hus# 2"X of the damages awarded !y the respondent appellate
court# e;cept the award of D$"#"""."" as e;emplary damages and D4#?""."" as attorneyQs fees
and costs# shall !e !orne !y private respondent Dionisio> only the !alance of -"X needs to !e
paid !y petitioners 1ar!onel and Dhoeni; who shall !e solidarity lia!le therefor to the former.
/he award of e;emplary damages and attorneyQs fees and costs shall !e !orne e;clusively !y
the petitioners. Dhoeni; is of course entitled to reim!ursement from 1ar!onel. $- *e see no
sufficient reason for distur!ing the reduced award of damages made !y the respondent
appellate court.
SCR3 1.+
F3C8S( : /his case is for recovery of damages for the ) jeepney passengers who died
as a result of the collision!etween the Dhil. 5a!!its !us driven !y /omas delos5eyes
and the jeepney driven !y /ran<uilino Manalo.: ther passengers of the jeepney
sustained physicalinjuries.: 8t was said that upon reaching a certain !arrio# thejeepneys
right rear wheel detached which caused it torun in an un!alanced position.:Manalo
stepped on the !rake# as a result of which# thejeepney which was then running on the
eastern lane2its right of way3 made a P:turn# invading andeventually stopping on the
western lane of the road insuch a manner that the jeepneyQs front faced the south2from
where it came3 and its rear faced the north2towards where it was going3. :/he jeepney
practically occupied and !locked thegreater portion of the western lane# which is the
right of way of vehicles coming from the north# among whichwas 7us Go. &?) of 5a!!it:
Almost at the time when the jeepney made a suddenP:turn and encroached on the
western lane of thehighway# or after stopping for a couple of minutes# the!us !umped
from !ehind the right rear portion of thejeepney which resulted in the said deaths and
injuries.: At the time and in the vicinity of the accident# therewere no vehicles following
the jeepney# neither werethere oncoming vehicles e;cept the !us. /he weathercondition
of that day was fair.: A criminal complaint against the two drivers forMultiple Homicide.:
Manalo was eventually convicted and was imprisoned./he case against delos 5eyes
was dismissed for lack ofsufficient evidence.YYY$s regards the damages*: /hree cases
were filed and in all ) the spouses2owners of the jeepney3 Mangune and 1arreon#
2jeepney driver3Manalo# 5a!!it and 25a!!itsdriver3delos 5eyes were all impleaded as
defendants.: Dlaintiffs anchored their suits against spousesMangune and 1arreon and
Manalo on their contractuallia!ility.: As against 5a!!it and delos 5eyes# plaintiffs
!asedtheir suits on their culpa!ility for a <uasi:delict.: Filriters =uaranty Assurance
1orporation# 8nc. 2theinsurer of the jeepney3 was also impleaded asadditional defendant
in the civil case filed !y theDascuas.: Damages sought to !e claimed in the ) cases
were formedical e;penses# !urial e;penses# loss of wages# fore;emplary damages#
moral damages and attorneyQsfees and e;penses of litigation.: 5a!!it filed a cross:claim
for attorneyQs fees ande;penses of litigation.: n the other hand# spouses Mangune and
1arreonfiled a cross:claim for the repair of the jeepney and forits non:use during the
period of repairs.: /1( found the couple and Manalo to !e GA=98=AG/and held that
there was a !reach of the contract ofcarriage with their passengers> ordered them to
paythe damages. Filriters was jointly and severally lia!le asit was the jeepneys insurer.
5a!!it was to !e paid !ythe jeepney party for actual damages.: 8A1 reversed this ruling
in the sense that it founddelos 5eyes to !e negligent> ordered to pay jointly andseverally
with 5a!!it the plaintiffs> Applied primarily 2$3the doctrine of last clear chance# 223 the
presumptionthat drivers who !ump the rear of another vehicleguilty and the cause of the
accident unless contradicted!y other evidence# and 2)3 the su!stantial factor test
toconclude that delos 5eyes was negligent.
ISSUE( *G /HA FAADGA. *GA50 AGD 8/0 D58MA5A5A 98A79A F5 /HA
HELD( .A0. 7P/ G9. /HA 0DP0A0 AGD F8958/A50A5A 98A79A.
RE3SONIN'(/1 *A0 155A1/ 8G ADD5A18A/8G= /HA FF FA1/01G1A5G8G=
MAGA90 GA=98=AG1A.2$3 /hat the unre!utted testimony of his passenger1aridad
Dascua that the Mangune jeepney was NrunningfastN that his passengers cautioned
driver Manalo toslow down !ut did not heed the warning223 /he likewise unre!utted
testimony of Dolice8nvestigator /acpal of the 0an Manuel 2/arlac3 Dolicewho found that
the tracks of the jeepney ran on theAastern shoulder 2outside the concrete paved
road3until it returned to the concrete road at a sharp angle#crossing the Aastern lane
and the 2imaginary3 centerline and encroaching fully into the western lane wherethe
collision took place as evidenced !y the point ofimpact>2)3 /he o!servation of witness
Dolice 1orporal 1acaldaalso of the 0an Manuel Dolice that the path of thejeepney they
found on the road Zwas shown !y skidmarks which he descri!ed as Nscratches on the
roadcaused !y the iron of the jeep# after its wheel wasremoved>N243 His conviction for
the crime of Multiple Homicideand Multiple 0erious Dhysical 8njuries with Damage
toDroperty thru 5eckless 8mprudence !y the 1F8 of /arlac#as a result of the collision#
and his commitment toprison and service of his sentence2?3 /he application of the
doctrine of res-ipsa loquitarattesting to the circumstance that the collision occuredon the
right of way of the Dhil. 5a!!it 7us.
:SC: 8"e pro>imate cause o: t"e acci$ent #as t"e negligence o: &analo an$
spouses &angune an$Carreon! 8"e0 all :aile$ to e>ercise t"eprecautions t"at are
nee$e$ precisel0 pro hac"ice$: 8n culpa contractua l # the moment a passenger dies
oris injured# the carrier is presumed to have !een at faultor to have acted negligently#
and this disputa!lepresumption may only !e overcome !y evidence thathe had
o!served e;tra:ordinary diligence as prescri!edin Articles $&))# $&?? and $&?' of the
Gew 1ivil 1ode -or that the death or injury of the passenger was due toa fortuitous
event 5 29asam v. 0mith# Fr.# 4? Dhil. '?&3 .: /o escape lia!ility# defendants Mangune
and 1arreonoffered to show thru their witness Gatalio Gavarro# analleged mechanic#
that he periodically checks andmaintains the jeepney of said defendants# the last
onDec. 2)# the day !efore the collision# which includedthe tightening of the !olts. /his
notwithstanding theright rear wheel of the vehicle was detached while intransit. As to the
cause thereof no evidence wasoffered. 0aid defendant did not even attempt toe;plain#
much less esta!lish# it to !e one caused !y acaso fortuito. . . .:8n any event# NSiTn an
action for damages against thecarrier for his failure to safely carry his passenger to
hisdestination# an accident caused either !y defects in theautomo!ile or through the
negligence of its driver# isnot a caso fortuito which would avoid the carrierslia!ility for
damages 20on v. 1e!u Auto!us 1ompany#%4 Dhil. -%2 citing 9asam# et al. v. 0mith# Fr.#
4? Dhil.'?&> Gecesito# etc. v. Daras# et al.# $"4 Dhil. &?3.
%%%#n the sole liabilit& of the 'eepne& #(ners)e*cluding +analo,:the contract of
carriage is !etween the carrier and thepassenger# and in the event of contractual
lia!ility# thecarrier is e;clusively responsi!le therefore to thepassenger# even if such
!reach !e due to thenegligence of his driver 2Miluan v. 1A# et al.# April 2%#$%''# $'
015A &423.: if the driver is to !e held jointly and severally lia!lewith the carrier# that
would make the carrierQs lia!ilitypersonal# contradictory to the e;plicit provision of A2$-$
of the G11.
F3C8S: 5odrigue,a et al seek damages fr fire kindled !y sparksfr a locomotive engine.
/he fire was communicated tofour houses near!y. All of these houses were of
lightconstruction# e;cept that of 5odrigue,a which was ofstrong materials. Dlaintiffs say
that the company failedto supervise their employees properly and wasnegligent in
allowing locomotive to operate withoutsmokestack protection for arresting sparks. /hey
alsosay that the sparks were produced !y an inferior fuelused !y the company E 7ataan
coal.Defense said 5odigue,as house stood partly withinlimits of land owned !y
company. 5odrigue,a didntmind the warnings from the company. His housesmaterials
included nipa and cogon# this indicatescontri!utory negligence on his part.
ISSUE *G damage was caused !y 5odrigue,as contri!utorynegligence
HELD .es. : Manila 5ailroads defense is not a !ar to recovery !ythe other plaintiffs.:
/here was no proof that 5odrigue,a unlawfullyintruded upon companys property. His
house wasthere !efore the railroad companys property. He may!e at risk for fire# !ut
should not !ear loss if the fireresulted from the companys negligence.: /he
D568MA/A AGD G9. 1AP0A of the damage wasthe negligent act of the company.
/hat 5odrigue,ashouse was near was an AG/A1ADAG/ 1GD8/8G !utthat cant !e
imputed to him as 1G/587P/5.GA=98=AG1A !ecause that condition was not
created !yhimself and !ecause his house remained !y thetoleration and consent of
company and !ecause even ifthe house was improperly there# company had no rightto
negligently destroy it. /he company could haveremoved the house through its power of
F3C8S : Angineer rlando /. 1ali!o# Agripino 5oranes# andMa;imo Datos were on the
jeep owned !y the 7acnotan1onsolidated 8ndustries# 8nc.# with 1ali!o at the wheel#as it
approached from the 0outh 9i,ada 7ridge goingtowards the direction of Davao 1ity at
a!out $(4? in theafternoon of Fuly 4#$%&%. At a!out that time# the cargotrack# loaded
with cement !ags# =8 sheets# plywood#driven !y defendant Daul [acarias y 8nfants#
comingfrom the opposite direction of Davao 1ity and !ound for=lan# 0outh 1ota!ato#
had just crossed said !ridge. Ata!out ?% yards after crossing the !ridge# the cargotruck
and the jeep collided as a conse<uence of whichAngineer 1ali!o died while 5oranes
and Datossustained physical injuries. [acarias was unhurt. As aresult of the impact# the
left side of the truck wasslightly damaged while the left side of the jeep#including its
fender and hood# was e;tensivelydamaged. After the impact# the jeep fell and rested
onits right side on the asphalted road a few meters to therear of the truck# while the
truck stopped on its wheelson the road.: n Govem!er 2&# $%&%# the instant case for
damageswas filed !y the surviving spouse and children of thelate Angineer 1ali!o who
are residents of /ag!ilaran1ity against the driver and owners of the cargo truck.:
ISSUES *G respondent court is correct in reversing thedecision of trial court.
HELD G. Ratio /he doctrine of the last clear chance provides asvalid and complete a
defense to accident lia!ility.2Dicart v 0mith3Reasoning 7oth drivers# as the Appellate
1ourt found#had had a full view of each otherQs vehicle from adistance of one hundred
fifty meters. 7oth vehicleswere travelling at a speed of appro;imately thirtykilometers
per hour. /he private respondents haveadmitted that the truck was already at a full stop
whenthe jeep plowed into it. And they have not seen fit todeny or impugn petitionersQ
imputation that they alsoadmitted the truck had !een !rought to a stop whilethe jeep
was still thirty meters away. From these factst"e logical conclusion emerges t"at t"e
$rier o:t"e @eep "a$ #"at @u$icial $octrine "asappropriatel0 calle$ t"e last clear
c"ance toaoi$ t"e acci$ent, #"ile still at t"at $istance o:t"irt0 meters :rom t"e
truck# !y stopping in his turnor swerving his jeep away from the truck# either ofwhich he
had sufficient time to do while running at aspeed of only thirty kilometers per hour. 8n
thosecircumstances# his duty was to sei,e that opportunity ofavoidance# not merely rely
on a supposed right toe;pect# as the Appellate 1ourt would have it# the truckto swerve
and leave him a clear path.:
Dingcong ! Eanaan F- P"il! 1*? '!R! No! L(*FG55
F3C8S /he !rothers 9oreto and Fose Dingcong rented thehouse of Amilia 0aen, 2in
Fose Ma. 7asa 0treet of the1ity of 8loilo3 and esta!lished the 1entral Hotel. Amongthe
hotelQs guests is Francisco Achevarria# paying D)" amonth# and occupying room no. $"
of said hotel.+anaan# on the other hand# occupies the ground floor ofthe hotel and
esta!lished his NAmerican 7a,aarNdedicated to the purchase and sale of articles
andmerchandise.:Around $$pm of $% 0eptem!er $%))# Achevarria# whenretiring to !ed#
carelessly left the faucet open that withonly an ordinary !asin without drainage. /hat
time# thepipes of the hotel were under repair> the water run offthe pipes and spilled to
the ground# wetting the articlesand merchandise of the NAmerican 7a,aar#N causing
aloss which the 1F8 sets at D$#"-%.'$.:/he +anaans 2Halim# Gasri and Michael3#
representingthe esta!lishment NAmerican 7a,aar#N thereafter filedthis complaint for
damages against 9oreto Dingcong#Fose Dingcong and Francisco Achevarria.:1F8 held
Francisco Achevarria lia!le# and ac<uitted FoseDingcong. 1A reversed and declared
Fose Dingcongresponsi!le# sentencing him to pay the plaintiffsdamages.
ISSUE *G Fose Dingcong and Francisco Achevarria are lia!lefor damages
HELD .A0. :Francisco Achevarria# the hotel guest# is lia!le for!eing the one who
directly# !y his negligence in leavingopen the faucet# caused the water to spill to
theground and wet the articles and merchandise of theplaintiffs.:Fose Dingcong# !eing a
co:renter and manager of thehotel# with complete possession of the house# must also!e
responsi!le for the damages caused. He failed toe;ercise the diligence of a good father
of the family toprevent these damages# despite his power andauthority to cause the
repair of the pipes.
F3C8S : 9ydia =eronimo was engaged in the !usiness ofselling food and drinks to
children in the +indergarten*onderland 1anteen located in Dagupan.: August $2# $%-%
: A group of parents complained thatthey found fi!rous material in the !ottles of 1oke
and0prite that their children !ought from =eronimos store.=eronimo e;amined her
stock of softdrinks and foundthat there were indeed fi!rous materials in theunopened
soda !ottles. 0he !rought the !ottles to theDepartment of Health office in their region
and wasinformed that the soda samples she sent wereadulterated.: 7ecause of this#
=eronimos sales plummeted with herregular sales of $" cases day dwindling to a!out 2
or )cases. Her losses amounted to D2"" to D)"" a daywhich later on forced her to
close down her !usiness onDecem!er $2# $%-%.: 0he demanded payment of damages
from plaintiff1oca:1ola !ut the latter did not accede to herdemands.: etitioners2
3laim: : 1oca:1ola moved to dismiss the complaint on thegrounds of failure to e;haust
administrative remediesand prescription.: 0ince the complaint is for !reach of warranty
2underA$?'$# 113# it should have !een !rought within 'months from the delivery of the
ISSUE *G the complaint is founded on a <uasi:delict andpursuant to A$$4'2$23# 11#
the action prescri!es in 4years
HELD .A0 Reasoning: /he vendees remedies against a vendor with respectto the
warranties against hidden defects orencum!rances upon the thing sold are not limited
tothose prescri!ed in A$?'&. /he vendee may also askfor the annulment of the contract
upon proof of error orfraud in which case the ordinary rule on o!ligationsshall !e
applica!le.: Pnder American law# the lia!ilities of themanufacturer or seller of injury:
causing products may!e !ased on negligence# !reach of warranty# tort orother grounds.
Ro$rigueH ! I3C $)? 015A 242
F3C8S( 5o!erto 9una# a !usinessman# was killed in a vehicular collision 2!etween
9una# driving a gokart# and 9uis dela 5osa# $) years old# driving a /oyota car without a
license3 at a gokart practice area. Heirs of 9una !rought a suit for damages against
9uisand his father# which the 1F8 ruled in favor of the9unas# awarding D$#'?"#""" as
unearned net earningsof 9una# D$2#""" compensatory damages# and D?"#"""for loss
of his companionship 2come on\\3# with legalinterest from date of the decision# and
attorneys feesof D?"#""" 2no interest mentioned3. 2Gote( father andson solidarily lia!le
for damages.3
ISSUES( $. *G the 1A erred in reducing the unearned income 2. *G the award for
attys fees should have legalinterest
HELD( $. .A0 Ratio( /he reduction of the award of net unearnedearnings had no !asis#
thus is void.Reasoning( the 5/1 !ased its computation of the netunearned earnings on
2 factors( life e;pectancy of thedeceased of another )" years# and an annual netincome
of D??#""" 2D&?#""" gross income less D2"#"""personal e;penses3.8n coming out with
the life e;pectancy# 5/1 consideredthe age and health of the deceased. However# the
1Amodified this !y factoring in the Bengagement of 9unain car racing#C thus lowering the
life e;pectancy to only$" years.*5/ to the gross income# 5/1 considered the
variouspositions the deceased held at the time of his death#and the trend of his earnings
over the span of his lastfew years# thus coming up with a potential grossincome of
D&?#""". However# the 1A increased theannual personal e;penses to D)"#"""# due to
theescalating gasoline e;penses# thus lowering the netannual unearned income to
D4?#""".1A erred in ruling that the engagement with car racingreduced the life
e;pectancy. /here is nothing on recordthat supports the claim that the car racing was
adangerous and risky activity tending to shorten his lifee;pectancy. B/hat 9una was
engaged in go:kart racingis the correct statement !ut then go:kart racing cannot!e
categori,ed as a dangerous sport for go:karts aree;tremely low slung# low powered
vehicles# onlyslightly larger than foot:pedaled four wheeledconveyances. 8t was error on
the part of the 1A to havedistur!ed the determination of the 5/1 which it hadpreviously
affirmed.CAlso# it was an error to increase the e;penses withoutincreasing the gross
income. B8t stands to reason that ifhis annual personal e;penses should increase
!ecauseof the Lescalating price of gas which is a keye;penditure in 5o!erto 5. 9unaQs
social standing Sastatement which lacks complete !asisT# it would not !eunreasona!le
to suppose that his income would alsoincrease considering the manifold sources
2. .A0 Ratio( /he attorneyQs fees were awarded in the conceptof damages in a <uasi:
delict case and under thecircumstances# interest as part thereof may !eadjudicated at
the discretion of the court.2/he attys fees should accrue interest from the date offiling of
the compliant.3
3&3DOR3 %S C3 4COLLE'IO DE S3N /OSE(RECOLLE8OS6 $'" 015A )$?
Facts: 8t was summer of $%&2 Alfredo Amadora a!out tograduate at the 1olegio de
0an Fose:5ecoletes. Alfredowent to the school to su!mit his B5eport in DhysicC.*hile
they were in the auditorium of their school#hewas shot to death !y his classmate Da!lito
ISSUE: *G Art 2$-" is applica!le.
Hel$: .es. Art 2$-" G11 applies to all schools# academic ornon:academic. /eachers
are lia!le for acts of theirstudent e;cept where the school is technical in nature2arts and
trade esta!lishment3 in which case the headthereof shall !e answera!le.B/here is really
no su!stantial difference distinction!etween the academic and non:academic schools in
sofar as torts committed !y their students are concerned./he same vigilance is
e;pected from the teacher overthe student under their control and supervision#whatever
the nature of the school where he isteachingC. B; ; ; ; /he distinction no longer o!tains
atpresent. ; ; ; B/he student is in the custody of the school authoritiesas long as he is
under the control and influence of theschool and within its premises# whether the
semesterhas not ended# or has ended or has not yet !egun. /heterm BcustodyC signifies
that the student is within thecontrol and influence of the school authorities. /heteacher
in charge is the one designated !y the dean#principal# or other administrative superior to
e;ercisesupervision over the pupils or students in the specificclasses or sections to
which they are assigned. 8t is notnecessary that at the time of the injury# the teacher
isphysically present and in a position to prevent it./hus# for injuries caused !y the
student# the teacherand not the parent shall !e held responsi!le if the tortwas
committed within the premises of the school at anytime when its authority could !e
validly e;ercised overhim.8n any event# the school may !e held to answer for theacts of
its teacher or the head thereof under thegeneral principle of respondent superior# !ut it
maye;culpate itself from lia!ility !y proof that it hade;ercised the diligence of a !onus
paterfamilias. 0uchdefense they had taken necessary precautions toprevent the injury
complained of and thus !ee;onerated from lia!ility imposed !y Art 2$-".7asis of
teachers vicarious lia!ility is# as such# theyacting in 9oco Darentis 2in place of parents3.
Howeverteachers are not e;pected to have the same measureof responsi!ility as that
imposed on parent for theirinfluence over the child is not e<ual in degree. ; ; ;/he
parent can instill more lasting discipline morelasting disciple on the child than the
teacher and soshould !e held to a greater accounta!ility than theteacher or the head for
the tort committed !y the child.As the teacher was not shown to have !een negligentnor
the school remised in the discharged of their duties#they were e;onerated of lia!ility.
2Gote E the court view on increasing students activismlikely causing violence resulting to
injuries# in or out ofthe school premises E F. =uttiere,# Fr concurringly saidmany student
; ; ; view some teachers as part of the!ourgeois and or reactionary group whose
advice on!ehavior deportment and other non:academic mattersis not only resented !ut
actively rejected. 8t seemsmost unfair to hold teacher lia!le on a presumptionjuris
tantum of negligence for acts of students evenunder circumstances where strictly
speaking therecould !e no in loco parentis relationship./he provision of Art 2$-" G11
involved in this case hasoutlived its purpose. /he court cannot make law# it canonly
apply the law with its imperfections. However thecourt can suggest that such a law
should !e amendedor repealed.
P"il Ra;;it ! For#ar$ers ') 015A 2)$
F3C8S : DH89 5A778/ 7us 9ines# 8nc. and Feli; DAG=A9AG=AGfiled a complaint for
damages in an action !ased on<uasi:delict or culpa aquiliana against DH89:
AMA581AGF5*A5DA50# 8nc.# its manager 7A98G=8/ and thedriver# D8GADA.: 8t
was alleged that Dineda drove recklessly a freight/5P1+# owned !y Dhil:Am# along the
natl highway at0to. /omas# Dampanga. /he truck !umped the 7P0driven !y
Dangalangan# owned !y Dhil 5a!!it.Dangalangan suffered injuries and the !us
wasdamaged and could not !e used for &% days. /hisdeprived the company of earnings
of a!out D-#'"".: Among the defenses interposed !y the defendantswas that 7alingit
was not DinedaQs employer. 7alingitmoved that the complaint against him !e dismissed
onthe ground that the !us company and the !us driverhad no cause of action against
him.: 1F8 dismissed their complaint against 7A98G=8/ on theground that he was not the
manager of anesta!lishment contemplated in Art.2$-" 11.: 8n the appeal# the !us
company also argued that Dhil:Am is merely a !usiness conduit of 7alingit !ecause
outof its capital stock with a par value of D4$#2""# 7alingitand his wife had su!scri!ed
D4"/. /his implied that theveil of corporate fiction should !e pierced and that Dhil:Am
and 7alingit and his wife should !e treated as oneand the same civil personality. 7ut
this was not allegedin their complaint.Y
ISSUE *G the terms NemployersN and Nowners andmanagers of an esta!lishment or
enterpriseN used inArt. 2$-" G11 2Art.$%") 113 em!race the manager ofa
corporation owning a truck)this is a novel and unprecedented legal issue9,
HELD G %icarious Lia;ilit0 o: O#ners an$ &anagers o:Esta;lis"ments: 3rt!-1+G
uses t"e termmanagerA 4A$irectorA in t"e Spanis" ersion6 tomean Aemplo0er!C:
Hence# under the allegations of the complaint# notortious or <uasi:delictual lia!ility can
!e fastened on7alingit as manager of Dhil:American Forwarders# 8nc.#in connection with
the vehicular accident !ecause hehimself may !e regarded as an employee
ordependiente of his employer# Dhil:American Forwarders #8nc.Y /his issue was not
raised in the lower court so itwould !e unfair to allow them to do so now. /he casehas
to !e decided on the !asis of the pleadings filed inthe trial court where it was assumed
that Dhil:Am has apersonality separate and distinct from that of the7alingit spouses.
DUL39 % C3 4S3FE'U3RD, SUPER'U3RD6 24) 015A 22"
F3C8S : 7enigno /or,uela# # a security guard on duty at theN7ig 7ang sa Ala!ang#N and
Atty. Gapoleon Dulay hadan altercation. /or,uela shot and killed Atty. Dulay.: Maria
7enita Dulay# widow of Dulay# filed an action fordamages against /or,uela and
0afeguard 8nvestigationand 0ecurity 1o.# 8nc.# 20AFA=PA5D3 andIor
0uperguard0ecurity 1orp. 20PDA5=PA5D3# alleged employers ofdefendant /or,uela.
ISSUE *G civil action can proceed independently of thecriminal action
HELD .A0 : 5ule $$$ of the 5ules on 1riminal Drocedure provides(N0ec $. 8nstitution of
criminal and civil actions.*hen a criminal action is instituted# t"e ciil action:or t"e
recoer0 o: ciil lia;ilit0 is implie$l0institute$ #it" t"e criminal action# unless
theoffended party waives the civil action# reserves hisright to institute it separately# or
institutes the civilaction prior to the criminal action.0uch civil action includes recovery of
indemnityunder the 5evised Denal 1ode# and damages underArticles )2# ))# )4# and
2$&' of the 1ivil 1ode of theDhilippines arising from the same act or omission ofthe
accused.N: 8t is well:settled that the filing of an independent civilaction !efore the
prosecution in the criminal actionpresents evidence is even far !etter than a
compliancewith the re<uirement of an e;press reservation. /his isprecisely what the
petitioners opted to do in this case.: /he term Ap"0sical in@uriesA in 3rticle 55
hasalready !een construed to inclu$e ;o$il0 in@uriescausing $eat" 21apuno v.
Depsi:1ola 7ottling 1o>1arandang v. 0antiago3. 8t is not the crime of physicalinjuries
defined in the 5evised Denal 1ode. It inclu$esnot onl0 p"0sical in@uries ;ut also
consummate$,:rustrate$, an$ attempte$ "omici$e 2Madeja v.1aro3.: Although in the
Marcia case# it was held that noindependent civil action may !e filed under Article
))where the crime is the result of criminal negligence# itmust !e noted however# that
/or,uela# the accused inthe case at !ar# is charged with homicide# not withreckless
imprudence# whereas the defendant in Marciawas charged with reckless imprudence.
8"ere:ore, int"is case, a ciil action ;ase$ on 3rticle 55 lies!
=.5. Go. $$-$4$ 0eptem!er ?# $%%& '3RCI3(RUED3 s! P3SC3SIO
FA1/0( Florencio M. 5ueda# hus!and of petitioner 9eonila =arcia:5ueda# underwent
surgicaloperation at the P0/ hospital for the removal of a stone !locking his ureter. He
was attended !yDr. Domingo Antonio# Fr. who was the surgeon# while Dr. Arlinda
wastheanaesthesiologist. 0i; hours after the surgery# however# Florencio died of compli
cations ofNunknown cause#N according to officials of the P0/ Hospital.Got satisfied with
the findings of the hospital# petitioner re<uested the Gational 7ureau of8nvestigation
2G783 to conduct an autopsy on her hus!andQs !ody. 1onse<uently# the G78 ruled
thatFlorencioQs death was due to lack of care !y the attending physician in administering
anaesthesia.Dursuant to its findings# the G78 recommended that Dr. Domingo Antonio
and Dr. Arlinda 7alat!at:5eyes !e charged for Homicide through 5eckless 8mprudence
!efore the ffice of the 1ityDrosecutor.
.800PA(*hether or not e;pert testimony is necessary to prove the negligent act of the
5P98G=(8n accepting a case# a doctor in effect represents that# "aing t"e nee$e$
training an$skill possesse$ ;0 p"0sicians an$ surgeons practicing in t"e same
:iel$, "e #ill emplo0 suc" training, care an$ skill in t"e treatment o: "is patients!
He t"ere:ore "as a $ut0 to use atleast t"e same leel o: care t"at an0 ot"er
reasona;l0 competent $octor #oul$ use to treat acon$ition un$er t"e same
8t is in this aspect of medical malpractice that e;perttestimony is essential to esta!lish
not only the standard of care of the profession !ut also that thephysicianQs conduct in
the treatment and care falls !elow such standard. Further# inasmuch as thecauses of
the injuries involved in malpractice actions are determina!le only in the light of
scientificknowledge# it has !een recogni,ed that e>pert testimon0 is usuall0
necessar0 to support t"econclusion as to causation!
8mmediately apparent from a review of the records of this case is the a!sence of
anye;pert testimony on the matter of the standard of care employed !y other physicians
of goodstanding in the conduct of similar operations. /he prosecutionQs e;pert witnesses
in the persons ofDr. Floresto Ari,ala and Dr. Gieto 0alvador# Fr. of the Gational 7ureau
of 8nvestigation 2G783 onlytestified as to the possi!le cause of death !ut did not venture
to illuminate the court on the matterof the standard of care that petitioner should have
e;ercised./he !etter and more logical remedy under the circumstances would have
!een to appeal theresolution of the 1ity Drosecutors dismissing the criminal complaint
to the 0ecretary of Fusticeunder the Department of FusticeQs rder Go. 22)# otherwise
known as the N$%%) 5evised 5ules onAppeals From 5esolutions 8n Dreliminary
8nvestigationsI5einvestigations#N as amended !yDepartment rder Go. )?%# 0ection
$ of which provides(0ec. $. *hat May 7e Appealed . R nly resolutions of the
1hief0tateDrosecutorI5egional 0tate DrosecutorIDrovincial or 1ity Drosecutor dismissin
g acriminal complaint may !e the su!ject of an appeal to the 0ecretary of Fusticee;cept
as otherwise provided in 0ection 4 hereof.*hat action may the 0ecretary of Fustice take
on the appealW 0ection % of rder Go. 22)states( N/he 0ecretary of Fustice may
reverse# affirm or modify the appealed resolution.N n theother hand# NHe may motu
proprio or on motion of the appellee# dismiss outright the appeal onspecified grounds.N8n
e;ercising his discretion under the circumstances# the m!udsman acted within
hispower and authority in dismissing the complaint against the Drosecutors and this
1ourt will notinterfere with the same.
'!R! No! L(F-.. Octo;er 5, 121- 8HE UNI8ED S838ES, v. 8EODORO
Donciano 9eal was killed on the pu!lic highway while going from the town of Davia to
0anta 7ar!ara# Drovince of 8loilo# at a!out 4 oQclock on the afternoon of April 2)# $%$$#
!y !eing struck !y an automo!ile# of which the appellant was the chauffeur.
/here is no dispute that the deceased was struck on or near the left hip !y the lamp or
fender over the left front wheel of the automo!ile> that the !low knocked him to the side
of the machine> that the machine did not pass over his !ody> and that as a direct result
of the !low the deceased died very soon thereafter on the same day.
Gow# do these facts constitute a violation of article ?'- of the Denal 1odeW /his article
A5/. ?'-. Any person who !y reckless imprudence shall commit any act which# had it
!een intentional# would constitute a grave felony shall suffer a penalty ranging from
arresto mayor in its ma;imum degree to prision correccional in its minimum degree> if it
would have constituted a less grave felony# the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum
and medium degree shall !e imposed.
8t 2the automo!ile3 has no right to run at a greater speed along the pu!lic highway in
passing people afoot or in vehicles that it can stop when danger arises. A footman has
the right of way in pu!lic highways and people in vehicles have no right to ride him
8t is generally held that the rights and duties of pedestrians and vehicles are e<ual. Aach
may use the highway# and each must e;ercise such care and prudence as the
circumstances demand. 22" 9. 5. A.# n. s.# )2 S2)2T# Gote.3 wners of automo!iles have
the same rights in the streets and highways that pedestrians and drivers of horses have.
Automo!ile drivers or the drivers of animals are not to use the means of locomotion
without regard to the rights of others having occassion to travel on the highway. *hile
an automo!ile is a lawful means of conveyance and has e<ual rights upon the roads
with pedestrians# horses# and carriages# its use cannot !e lawfully countenanced unless
accompanied with that degree of prudence in management and consideration for the
rights of others which is consistent with safety.
Fudge 1ooley# in his work on /orts 2)d ed.3# $)24# defines negligence to !e(
/he failure to o!serve for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of
care# precaution# and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand# where!y such
other person suffers injury.
Gegligence is want of care re<uired !y the circumstances. 8t is a relative or comparative#
not an a!solute term# and its application depends upon the situation of the parties# and
the degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasona!ly impose. *here
the danger is great a high degree of care is necessary# and the failure to o!serve it is a
want of ordinary care under the circumstances. 2Ahern vs. regon /el. 1o.# 24 re.
2&'.3 /he operator of an automo!ile is !ound to e;ercise care in proportion to the
varying danger and risks of the highway and commensurate with the dangers naturally
incident to the use of such vehicle. He is o!liged to take notice of the conditions !efore
him# and if it is apparent that !y any particular method of proceeding he is lia!le to work
an injury# it is his duty to adopt some other or safer method if within reasona!le care
and prudence he can do so. 8n determining the degree of care an operator of an
automo!ile should use# when on the highway# it is proper to take into consideration the
place# presence or a!sence of other travelers# the speed of the automo!ile# its si,e#
appearance# manner of movement# and the amount of noise it makes# and anything that
indicates unusual or peculiar danger.
Pnder such conditions appellant !eing in charge of the powerful machine# capa!le of
doing great damage if not skillfully manipulated# was !ound to use a high degree of care
to avoid injuring these native farmers# who had a common right to the highway. A driver
of an automo!ile# under such circumstances# is re<uired to use a greater degree of care
than drivers of animals# for the reason that the machine is capa!le of greater
destruction# and furthermore# it is a!solutely under the power and control of the driver>
whereas# a horse or other animal can and does to some e;tent aid in averting an
accident. 8t is not pleasant to !e o!liged to slow down automo!iles to accommodate
persons riding# driving# or walking. 8t is pro!a!ly more agreea!le to send the machine
along and let the horse or person get out of the way in the !est manner possi!le> !ut it
is well to understand# if this course is adopted and an accident occurs# that the
automo!ile driver will !e called upon to account for his acts. an automo!ile driver must
at all times use all the care and caution which a careful and prudent driver would have
e;ercised under the circumstances. /he appellant was aware of and is chargea!le with
the knowledge that the deceased and his companions were simple country people and
were lacking in the capacity to appreciate and to guard against the dangers of an
automo!ile driven at a high rate of speed# and he was !ound to enlarge to a
commensurate e;tent the degree of vigilance and care necessary to avoid injuries
which the use of his machine made more imminent.
/he negligence of the defendant in the case at !ar consisted in his failure to recogni,e
the great injury that would accrue to the deceased from the collision. He had no right# it
seems to us# after he saw the deceased and his companions walking in the road ahead
of him to continue at so great a speed# at the eminent ha,ard of colliding with the
deceased. =reat care was due from him !y reason of the deadliness of the machine he
was propelling along the highway. *hen one comes through the highways with a
machine of such power as an automo!ile# it is incum!ent upon the driver to use great
care not to drive against or over pedestrians. An automo!ile is much more dangerous
than a street car or even a railway car. /hese are propelled along the fi;ed rails and all
the traveling pu!lic has to do to !e safe is to keep off the track. 7ut the automo!ile can
!e turned as easily as an individual# and for this reason is far more dangerous to the
traveling pu!lic than either the street car or the railway train. *e do not feel at li!erty#
under the evidence# to say that this defendant was free from reckless negligence. 8n
failing to so check the speed of his machine when he saw the deceased in front of him
to give him sufficient control to avert the injury or to stop it entirely# when he knew that if
he continued at the same speed at which he was going he would collide with the
deceased# not only shows negligence !ut reckless negligence in a marked degree.
He$0'an0 9u s C3
No! L(**-)*! 12 Sept 12++!
Facts( 8n the morning of 4 Fuly $%&2# the accused Hedy =an was driving along Gorth
7ay 7oulevard# /ondo# Manila. /here were two vehicles parked on one side of the road#
one following the other. As the car driven !y =an approached the place where the two
vehicles were parked# there was a vehicle coming from the opposite direction# followed
!y another which tried to overtake the one in front of it there!y encroaching the lane of
the car driven !y =an. /o avoid a head:on collision# =an swerved to the right and as a
conse<uence# hit an old man who was a!out to cross the street# pinning him against the
rear of one of the parked vehicles. /he force of the impact caused the parked vehicle to
move forward hitting the other parked vehicle in front of it. /he pedestrian was injured#
=anQs car and the two parked vehicle suffered damages. /he pedestrian was
pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital.
=an was convicted of Homicide thru reckless imprudence. n appeal# 1A modified the
trial courtQs decision convicting =an of Homicide thru simple imprudence.
(ssue( *G 1A erred in convicting petitioner =an for Homicide thru simple imprudence.
6uling( 01 reversed 1AQs decision# ac<uitting petitioner.
Pnder the emergency rule# one who suddenly fonds himself in a place of danger# and is
re<uired to act wIo tme to consider the !est means that may !e adopted to avoid the
impending danger# is not guilty of negligence# if he fails to adopt what su!se<uently and
upon reflection may appear to have !een a !etter method# unless the emergency in
which he finds himself is !rought a!out !y his own negligence.
Applying the a!ove test to the case at !ar# the 01 finds the petitioner not guilty of the
crime of simple imprudence resulting in Homicide.
Tamargo vs CA
GR No. 85044, June 3, 1992
In October 1982, Adelberto Bundoc, minor, 10 years of age, shot Jennifer Tamargo ith an air
rifle causing in!uries that resulted in her death" The #etitioners, natural #arents of Tamargo, filed
a com#laint for damages against the natural #arents of Adelberto ith hom he as li$ing the
time of the tragic incident"
In %ecember 1981, the s#ouses &a#isura filed a #etition to ado#t Adelberto Bundoc" 'uch
#etition as granted on (o$ember 1982 after the tragic incident"
ISSUE: )O( #arental authority concerned may be gi$en retroacti$e effect so as to ma*e
ado#ting #arents the indis#ensable #arties in a damage case filed against the ado#ted child here
actual custody as lodged ith the biological #arents"
+arental liability is a natural or logical conse,uence of duties and res#onsibilities of #arents, their
#arental authority hich includes instructing, controlling and disci#lining the child" In the case
at bar, during the shooting incident, #arental authority o$er Adelberto as still lodged ith the
natural #arents" It follos that they are the indis#ensable #arties to the suit for damages"
-+arents and guardians are res#onsible for the damage caused by the child under their #arental
authority in accordance ith the ci$il code."
'/ did not consider that retroacti$e effect may be gi$en to the decree of ado#tion so as to im#ose
a liability u#on the ado#ting #arents accruing at the time hen they had no actual or #hysical
custody o$er the ado#ted child" &etroacti$ity may be essential if it #ermits accrual of some
benefit or ad$antage in fa$or of the ado#ted child" 0nder Article 12 of the /hild and 3outh
)elfare /ode, #arental authority is #ro$isionally $ested in the ado#ting #arents during the #eriod
of trial custody hoe$er in this case, trial custody #eriod either had not yet begin nor had been
com#leted at the time of the shooting incident" 4ence, actual custody as then ith the natural
#arents of Adelberto"
People vs. Aragon 100 P!l 1033
FACTS: +roceso &osima contracted marriage ith 5orrea" )hile his marriage ith the latter
subsist, he contracted a canonical marriage ith 6aicol" 5orrea is staying in /ebu hile 6aicol
is in Iloilo" 4e as a tra$eling salesman thus, he commuted beteen Iloilo and /ebu" )hen
5orrea died, he brought 6aicol to /ebu here the latter or*ed as teacher7nurse" 'he later on
suffered in!uries in her eyes caused by #hysical maltreatment of &osima and as sent to Iloilo to
undergo treatment" )hile she as in Iloilo, &osima contracted a third marriage ith
8aglasang" /6I7/ebu found him guilty of bigamy"
ISSUE: )hether or not the third marriage is null and $oid"
HELD: The action as instituted u#on the com#laint of the second ife hose marriage ith
&osima as not reneed after the death of the first ife and before the third marriage as
entered into" 4ence, the last marriage as a $alid one and #rosecution against &osima for
contracting marriage cannot #ros#er"
/UD'&EN8 OF 3CBUI883L:
8t is an esta!lished rule in criminal procedure that a judgment of ac<uittal shall state
whether the evidence of the prosecution a!solutely failed to prove the guilt of the
accused or merely failed to prove his guilt !eyond reasona!le dou!t. 8n either case# the
judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil lia!ility might arise
did not e;ist.28d.3 *hen the e;oneration is merely due to the failure to prove the guilt of
the accused !eyond reasona!le dou!t# the court should award the civil lia!ility in favor
of the offended party in the same criminal action. 28d.3 8n other words# the 4e*tinction
of the penal action does not carr& (ith it the e*tinction of ci"il liabilit& unless the
e*tinction proceeds from a declaration in a final 5udgment that the fact from
(hich the ci"il [liabilit&] might arise did not e*ist$6 )+alalang v* (ntermediate
$ppellate +ourt, :*6* ;o* <.=/, February #<, !!, !. -+6$ >., >#/->#.*, 8n
7anal "$ 8adeo9 'r*# 24" Dhil. )2'# ))$ 2$%-&3# the 0upreme 1ourt elucidated on the
civil lia!ility of the accused despite his e;oneration in this wise(
While an act or omission is felonious because it is punishable by law, it gives rise to civil
liability not so much because it is a crime but because it caused damage to another*
?iewing things pragmatically, we can readily see that what gives rise to the civil liability
is really the obligation and moral duty of everyone to repair or make whole the damage
caused to another by reason of his own act or omission, done intentionally or
negligently, whether or not the same be punishable by law* 5 5 5
0imply stated# ciil lia;ilit0 arises #"en one, ;0 reason o: "is o#n act or omission,
$one intentionall0 or negligentl0, causes $amage to anot"er. Hence# for petitioner
to !e civilly lia!le to spouses Alonto# it must !e proven that the acts he committed had
caused damage to the spouses. )F8@(A7861& $* $78@@$;$ ?-* B8&B@8 &F 1H8
BH(@-* 81 $@*, :*6* ;&* <.=>., $3:3-1 <, #0, C8@ +$-1(@@&, D*,*
3l;enson Enterprises Corp! s! Court o: 3ppeals -1F SCR3 1) 412256
F3C8S: Al!enson Anterprises 1orporation 2AA13 delivered to =uaranteed 8ndustries#
8nc. 2=883 mild steel plates and as part payment thereof# AA1 was given a check drawn
against the account of A.9. *oodworks. /he check !ounced. Ppon in<uiry with the
0A1# AA1 discovered that the Dresident of =88 was one ]Augenio 0. 7altao. Ppon
further in<uiry# AA1 learned that A.9. *oodworks was registered in the name of one
]Augenio 7altao. 8n addition# upon verification with Dacific 7anking 1orp.# AA1 was
advised that the signature appearing on the !ounced check !elonged to one ]Augenio
7altao. /hereafter# AA1 made an e;trajudicial demand upon 7altao for the
paymentIreplacement of the dishonoured check. 7altao denied issuing the check and
further claimed that =uaranteed was a defunct entity and could not have transacted
!usiness with AA1. Hence# AA1 filed a complaint against 7altao for violation of 7D 22.
8t turned out# however# that 7altao has a namesake# in the person of his son# Augenio
7altao 888# who manages A.9. *oodworks. 8n the meantime# the Assistant Fiscal of 5i,al
filed the information against 7altao. 7altao immediately filed a motion for reinvestigation
with the Drovincial Fiscal of 5i,al# who reversed the finding of the Assistant Fiscal.
7ecause of the alleged unjust filing of the criminal case against him for a measly
amount of D2#?&?# 7altao filed !efore the 5/1 of Vue,on 1ity a complaint for damages
against AA1# its owner and one of its employees. AA1 contended that the civil case
against them was one for malicious prosecution. /hey asserted that the a!sence of
malice on their part a!solved them from any lia!ility for malicious prosecution. 7altao#
on the other hand# anchored his complaint for damages on Articles $%# 2" and 2$ of the
1ivil 1ode. 1an 7altao recover damages !ased on Articles $%# 2" and2$ of the 1ivil
G. AA1# et. al. could not !e said to have violated the principle of a!use of rights for the
following reasons($. *hat prompted AA1 to file the case for violation of 7.D. 7lg.22
against Augenio 0. 7altao was their failure to collect the amount of D2#?&? due on a
!ounced check which they honestly !elieved was issued to them !y Augenio 0.
7altao.2. *hen AA1 made an e;trajudicial demand upon Augenio 0.7altao# the latter
did nothing to clarify the case of mistaken identity at first hand. 8nstead# he waited in
am!ush and thereafter pounced on the hapless AA1 at a time he thought was
propitious !y filing an action for damages.). /he criminal complaint filed against
Augenio 0. 7altao was a sincere attempt on the part of AA1 to find the !est possi!le
means to collect the sum due to it.4. 1onsidering that =88# which received the goods
in payment of which the !ouncing check was issued is owned 7altao# AA1 acted in
good faith in filing the complaint !efore the provincial fiscal.?. A civil action for damages
for malicious prosecution is allowed under the Gew 1ivil 1ode# more specifically
Articles$%# 2"# 2'# 2%# )2# ))# )? and 22$%2-3 thereof. 8n order that such can prosper#
however# the following elements must !e present# to wit( a. the fact of the
prosecution and the further fact that the defendant was himself the prosecutor# and that
the action was finally terminated with an ac<uittal> !. /hat in !ringing
the action# the prosecutor acted without pro!a!le cause>
c. /he prosecutor was actuated or impelled !y legal malice. 8n the case at !ar# the
second and third elements were not shown to e;ist. /he presence of pro!a!le cause
signifies# as a legal conse<uence# the a!sence of malice. 8n the instant case# it is
evidence that AA1# et. al .# were not motivated !y malicious intent or !y sinister design
to unduly harass Augenio 0. 7alao# !ut only !y a well:founded an;iety to protect their
rights when they filed the criminal complaint against Augenio 0. 7altao. 8n the case at
!ar# there is no proof of a sinister design on the part of AA1 to ve; or humiliate Augenio
0. 7altao !y instituting the criminal case against him. *hile AA1 may have !een
negligent to some e;tent in determining the lia!ility of Augenio 0. 7altao for the
dishonoured check# the same is not so gross as to amount to !ad faith in warranting an
award for damages. '. /heir error in proceeding against the wrong individual was
o!viously in the nature of an innocent mistake# and cannot !e characteri,ed as having
!een committed in !ad faith. /hus# an award of damages and attorneyLs fees is
unwarranted wherethe action was filed in good faith. 8f damage results from a personLs
e;ercising his legal rights# it is damnum a!s<ue injuria. 8n the final analysis# there is no
proof or showing that AA1 et. al acted maliciously or in !ad faith in the filing of the case
against Augenio 0. 7altao. 1onse<uently# in the a!sence of proof of fraud and !ad
faith committed !y AA1 et. al # they cannot !e held lia!le for damages. Go damages
can !e awarded in the instant case# whether !ased on the principle of a!use of rights#
or for malicious prosecution
'arciano s! Court o: 3ppeals-1- SCR3 *5) 4122-6F3C8S:
=arciano was hired !y 8mmaculate 1oncepcion 8nstitute to teach during the $%-$:-2
school year. n Fanuary $)# $%-2# or !efore the school year ended# she applied for an
indefinite leave of a!sence !ecause her daughter was taking her to Austria. /he
Dresident of the school approved the application. n Fune $# $%-2# the school advised
her# thru her hus!and# that her services were !eing terminated since there was no
written contract of employment !etween her and the school. Ppon her return from
Austria and upon her in<uiries as to her status# the 7oard of Directors of the school
reinstated her and the 7oard likewise declared the notice of termination as null and
void. 8nstead of reporting !ack for work# =arciano filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
against some of the school officials and faculty mem!ers for discrimination and unjust
and illegal dismissal.
/he 0upreme 1ourt ruled that she was not entitled to damages. /he 1ourt e;plained(
]=arcianoLs discontinuance from teaching was her own choice. *hile some school
officials and faculty mem!ers wanted her services terminated# they actually did nothing
to physically prevent her from reassuming her post. /hat the school principal disagreed
with the !oard of DirectorLs decision to retain her# and some teachers allegedly
threatened to resign en masse# even if true# did not make them lia!le to her for
damages. /hey were simply e;ercising their right of free speech or their right to dissent
from the 7oardLs decision. /heir acts were not contrary to law# morals# good customs or
pu!lic policy. /hey did not illegally dismissL her for the 7oardLs decision to retain
her prevailed. 0he was ordered to report for work on Fuly ?# $%-2# !ut she did not
comply with that order. 1onse<uently# whatever loss she may have incurred in the form
of lost earning was self:inflicted. Molenti non fit injuria .
*ith respect to =arcianoLs claim for moral damages# the right to recover them under
Article 2$ is !ased on e<uity# and he who comes to court to demand e<uity# must come
with clean hands. Article2$ should !e construed as granting the right to recover
damages to injured persons who are not themselves at fault. Moral damages are
recovera!le only if the case falls under Article 22$% in relation to Article 2$. 8n the case
at !ar# =arciano is not without fault. Firstly# she went on indefinite leave of a!sence and
failed to report !ack in time for the regular opening of classes. 0econdly# for reasons
known to herself alone# she refused to sign a written contract of employment. 9astly#
she ignored the !Ds order for her to report on Fuly ?# $%-2.
%ela0o s! S"ell Co! o: t"e P"il!1GG P"il! 1+) 412.)6F3C8S:
/he 1ommercial Air 9ines# 8nc. 21A983# on the verge of !ankruptcy# met with all his
creditors. 8t was agreed that 1A98Ls assets# including a 1:?4plane that was still in
1alifornia# would !e sold and the proceeds distri!uted to the creditors. 5ight after the
meeting# 0hell 1o. shrewdly made a telegraphic assignment of its credit to a sister
corporation in the P0# which immediately secured attachment and sale of 1A98Ls plane
in 1alifornia# the proceeds of which were totally applied to the satisfaction of its claim.
1an the 0hell 1o. in the Dhilippines !e madeto pay for damages to the other creditors of
RULIN': /he case at !ar falls s<uarely within the purview of the principle of a!use of
rights em!odied in Art. $% of the 1ivil 1ode. /rue# this article contains essentially a
mere declaration of principles# yet such declaration is implemented !y Art. 2$# a
se<uent of Art. $%# which declares that ]any person who wilfully causes loss or injury
to another in a manner that is contrary to morals# good customs or pu!lic policy shall
compensate the latter for damages. 0hell 1o. is lia!le for damages !ecause it did not
show good faith and honesty
'lo;e &acka0 Ca;le C Ra$io Corp! s! C31F) SCR3 FF+ 412+26F3C8S:
5estituto /o!ias was employed !y =lo!e Mackay as purchasing agent and
administrative assistant the engineering operations manager. Fictitious purchases and
other fraudulent transactions were discovered and the same were attri!uted to /o!ias#
who ironically was the one who actually discovered and reported the anomalies. ne
day after /o!ias made the report# Her!ert Hendry# the AMD and =M of =lo!e#
confronted him !y stating that he was the num!er one suspect and ordered him to take
a one week forced leave# not to communicate with the office# to leave his ta!le drawers
open# and to leave the office keys. *hen /o!ias returned to work after his forced leave#
Hendry again went to him and called him a ]crook and a ]swindler. He was then
ordered to take a lie detector test. He was also instructed to su!mit specimen
signatures of his handwriting# signature and initials for e;amination !y the police
investigators to determine his complicity in the anomalies. /he Manila police
investigators su!mitted a la!oratory crime report clearing /o!ias of participation in the
anomalies. Got satisfied with the police report# Hendry hired a private investigator who
su!mitted a report finding /o!ias guilty. /his report however e;pressly stated that
further investigation was still to !e conducted. Gevertheless# Hendry issued a memo
suspending /o!ias from work preparatory to the filing of criminal charges against him.
/hereafter# the Metro Manila Dolice 1hief Document A;aminer# after investigating other
documents# reiterated his previous finding that the handwritings# signatures and initials
appearing in the checks and other documents involved in the fraudulent transactions
were not those of /o!ias. /he lie detector test conducted on /o!ias also yielded
negative results. Gotwithstanding the two police reports e;culpating /o!ias# Hendry filed
several complaints of estafa against /o!ias# all of which were dismissed. 8n the
meantime# /o!ias received a notice from =lo!e Mackay that his employment has !een
terminated. /o!ias filed a complaint for illegal dismissal# which case was settled
amica!ly. Pnemployed# /o!ias sought employment with 5epu!lic /elephone 1ompany
25A/A913. However# Hendry without !eing asked !y 5etelco# wrote a letter to the
latter stating that /o!ias was dismissed !y =lo!e Mackay due to dishonesty. /o!ias
filed a civil case for damages against =lo!e Mackay and Hendry 2Detitioners for short3.
Detitioners contend that they could not !e made lia!le for damages in the lawful
e;ercise of their right to dismiss /o!ias. /o!ias# on the other hand# contends that
!ecause of DetitionersL a!usive manner in dismissing him as well as for the inhuman
treatment he got from them# the petitioners must indemnify him for the damage that he
had suffered.
ISSUE: *hether or not petitioners are lia!le for damages.
RULIN': Detitioners have indeed a!used the right that they invoke# causing damage to
/o!ias and for which the latter must !e indemnified. Aven granting that petitioners might
have had the right to dismiss /o!ias from work# the a!usive manner in which that right
was e;ercised amounted to a legal wrong for which petitioners must now !e held lia!le.
Moreover# the damage incurred !y /o!ias was not only in connection with the a!usive
manner in which he was dismissed !ut was also the result of several other <uasi:
delictual acts committed !y petitioners. /he following reasons convinced the court to
awarddamages($. Ppon reporting for work# /o!ias was confronted !y Hendry who said
]/o!!y# you are a crook and a swindler in the company. 1onsidering that the first
report made !y the police investigators was yet to !e su!mitted# the statement made !y
Hendry was !aseless. /he imputation of guilt without !asis and the pattern of
harassment during the investigations of /o!ias transgress the standards of human
conduct set forth in Article $% of the 1ivil 1ode. /he 1ourt has already ruled that the
right of the employer to dismiss an employee should not !e confused with the manner in
which the right is e;ercised and the effects flowing therefrom. 8f the dismissal is done
a!usively# then the employer is lia!le for damages to the employee. Pnder the
circumstances of this case# the petitioners clearly failed to e;ercise in a legitimate
manner their right to dismiss /o!ias# giving the latter the right to recover damages
under Article $% in relation to Article 2$ of the 1ivil 1ode.2. 0everal other tortuous
acts were committed !y petitioners against /o!ias after the latterLs termination from
work. After the filing of the criminal complaints# /o!ias talked to Hendry to protest the
actions taken against him. 8n response# Hendry cut short /o!iasL protestations !y telling
him to just confess or else the company would file a hundred more cases against him
until he landed in jail. Hendry added# ].ou Filipinos cannot !e trusted. /he threat
unmasked petitionerLs !ad faith in the various actions taken against /o!ias. n the
other hand# the scornful remark a!out Filipinos as well as HendryLs earlier statements
a!out /o!ias !eing a ]crook and ]swindler are clear violations of /o!iasL
personal dignity. 2see Art. 2'# 1ivil 1ode3
). /he ne;t tortious act committed !y petitioners was the writing of a letter to
5A/A91 stating that /o!ias had !een dismissed !y =lo!e Mackay due to
dishonesty. 7ecause of the letter# /o!ias failed to gain employment with 5etelco
and as result of which# /o!ias remained unemployed for a longer period of time.
For this further damage suffered !y /o!ias# petitioners must likewise !e held
lia!le for damages consistent with Article 2$&'of the 1ivil 1ode. 243 Finally# there
is the matter of the filing !y petitioners of si; criminal complaints against /o!ias.
8n the instant case# the petitioners acted in !ad faith in filing the criminal
complaints. 1onsidering the haste in which the criminal complaints were filed# the
fact that they were filed during the pendency of the illegal dismissal case against
petitioners# the threat made !y Hendry the fact that the cases were filed
notwithstanding the two police reports e;culpating /o!ias from involvement in the
anomalies committed against =lo!e Mackay# coupled !y the eventual dismissal
of all the cases# the 1ourt is led into no other conclusion than that petitioners
were motivated !y malicious intent in filing the si; criminal complaints against
'as"em S"ookat Baks" s! Court o: 3ppeals 2$% 015A $$? 2$%%)3
F3C8S: =ashem is an 8ranian citi,en and an e;change student taking a medical course
at 9yceum Gorthwestern 1olleges in Dagupan 1ity. 0ometime in $%-&# =ashem courted
Marilou =on,ales and proposed to marry her. Marilou accepted his love on the
condition that they would get married and they agreed to get married after the end of the
school semester# which was in cto!er $%-&.=ashem then visited MarilouLs parents in
7aHaga# 7ugallon# Dangasinan to secure their approval to the marriage. 0ometime in
August $%-&# =ashem forced Marilou to live with him in the 9o,ano Apartments. 0he
was a virgin !efore she !egan living with him. 0oon# =ashemLs attitude towards Marilou
started to change. He maltreated and threatened to kill her and as a result of such
maltreatment# she sustained injuries. At the confrontation !efore the representative
of the !arangay captain of =uilig# =ashem repudiated their marriage agreement
!ecause he was already married to someone living in 7acolod.
RULIN': =ashem is lia!le for damages. /he 0upreme 1ourt ruled that where a manLs
promise to marry is in fact the pro;imate cause of the acceptance of his love !y a
woman and his representation to fulfil that promise thereafter !ecomes the pro;imate
cause of the giving of herself unto him in a se;ual congress# proof that he had# in reality#
no intention of marrying her and that the promise was only a su!tle scheme or
deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and to o!tain her consent to the
se;ual act# could justify the award of damages pursuant to Article 2$ not !ecause of
such promise to marry !ut !ecause of the fraud and deceit !ehind it and the wilful injury
to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter. 8t is essential however# that such
injury should have !een committed in a manner contrary to morals# good customs or
pu!lic policy. 8n the instant case# it was =ashemLs ]fraudulent and deceptive
protestations of love for and promise to marry Marilou that made her surrender her
virtue andwomanhood to him and to live with him on the honest and sincere !elief that
he would keep said promise# and it was likewise these fraud and deception on
=ashemLs part that made MarilouLs parents agree to their daughterLs living:in with him
preparatory to their supposed marriage. 8n short# Marilou surrendered her virginity#
the cherished possession of every single Filipina# not !ecause of lust !ut !ecause of
moral seduction.
=assmer s! %eleH $2 015A '4- 2$%'43
F3C8S: Francisco Meles and 7eatri, *assmer# following their mutual promise of love#
decided to get married and set 0eptem!er 4# $%?4 as the !igday. n 0eptem!er 2#
$%?4# Mele, left a note for his !ride:to:!e# which reads(
]Dear 7et#*e will have to postpone wedding My mother opposes it. Am leaving on
the 1onvair today. ]Dlease do not ask too many people a!out the reason why. /hat
would only create a scandal.
/hereafter# Mele, did not appear nor was he heard from again. *assmer sued Mele, for
damages. Mele, contended that ]there is no provision of the 1ivil 1ode authori,ing
an action for !reach of Dromise to marry. /he records reveal# however# that on August
2)# $%?4 *assmer and Mele, applied for marriage license# which was su!se<uently
issued. /heir wedding was set for 0eptem!er 4# $%?4.8nvitations were printed and
distri!uted to relatives# friends and ac<uaintances. /he !ride:to:!eLs trousseau# party
dresses and other apparel for the important occasion were purchased. Dresses for the
maid of honor and the flower girl were prepared. A matrimonial !ed #with accessories
was !ought. And then# with !ut two days !efore the wedding# Mele, simply called off the
wedding# went to Mindanao and never returned and was never heard from again.
RULIN': /his is not a case of mere !reach of promise to marry. Mere !reach of
promise to marry is not an actiona!le wrong. 7ut to formally set a wedding and go
through all the a!ove:descri!ed preparation and pu!lication# only to walk out of it when
the matrimony is a!out to !e solemni,ed is <uite different. /his is palpa!ly and
unjustifia!ly contrary to good customs for which defendant must !e held answera!le in
damages in accordance with Article 2$ of the 1ivil 1ode
St! Louis Realt0 Corporation s! Court o: 3ppeals155 SCR3 1F2 412+*6F3C8S:
0t. 9ouis 5ealty 1orporation 209513 pu!lished an advertisement in the 0unday /imes
of Decem!er $?# $%'-# with a heading ]*HA5A /HA HAA5/ 80# where!y the
residence of a doctor was erroneously depicted as the residence of a family 2different
from that of the doctorLs3 that had recently moved into the 7rookside Hills community.
Goticing the mistake# the doctor called the attention of the advertiser whose officer
su!se<uently offered his apologies !ut without however rectifying the pu!lished item.
However# when the lawyer of the doctor demanded actual# moral and e;emplary
damages from the advertiser on account of the erroneous pu!lication# the advertiser
pu!lished a new advertisement# in the Manila /imes of March $-# $%'%# wherein the
same family as in the original advertisement was depicted with its real house !ut no
apology to the doctor or an e;planation of the error in the original advertisement was
made. Moreover# after the doctor had filed a complaint for damages# the advertiser
pu!lished a ]Gotice of 5ectification in a space 4 !y ) inches# claiming that its print
ad ]*herethe Heart 8s which appeared in the Manila /imes issue of March $-#$%'%
was a rectification of the same ad that appeared in the Manila /imes 20unday /imes3
issue of Decem!er $?# $%'- and Fanuary ?#$%'%# wherein a photo of the house of
another 7rookside homeowner was mistakenly used as a !ackground for the featured
homeowner. 8n the lower court# the judge ruled that the advertiser committed a mistake
which violated the complainantLs right to privacy and should have immediately pu!lished
a rectification and apology# !ut !ecause of its mistake and utter lack of sincerity#
defendant had caused complainant to suffer mental anguish in addition to actual
damages resulting from reduced income.
RULIN': *hen the matter was elevated to the 0upreme 1ourt after the appellate court
had affirmed the lower courtLs decision# the 0upreme 1ourt declared that the 0t. 9ouis
5ealtyLs employee was grossly negligent in mi;ing up the residences in a widely
circulated pu!lication like the 0unday /imes and it never made any written apology and
e;planation of the mi;:up !ut just contended itself with a cavalier ]rectification. As a
result of the mi;:up# the private life of complainant was mistakenly and unnecessarily
e;posed causing him to suffer diminution of income and mental anguish. According to
the 1ourt# the acts and omissions of 0t. 9ouis 5ealty fall under Article 2'
Le$esma s! Court o: 3ppeals1)G SCR3 **2 412++6F3C8S:
0ome students of a state college formed an organi,ation named 0tudent 9eadership
1lu!. Delmo was elected treasurer. 8n that capacity# she e;tended loans from the clu!
funds to some students. /he college president# claiming that e;tending loans was
against school rules# wrote Delmo informing her that she was !eing dropped from the
mem!ership of the clu! and that she would not !e a candidate for any award from the
school. Delmo appealed to the 7ureau of Du!lic 0chools. /he 7ureau directed the
college president ot to deprive Delmo of any award if she is entitled to it. n April
2&#$%''# the Dresident received the DirectorLs decision. n the same day he received a
telegram ]airmail records Delmo missent that office. /he 7ureau Director asked for
the return only of the records !ut the Dresident allegedly mistook the telegram as
ordering him to also send the decision !ack. 0o he returned !y mail all the records plus
the decision to the Director. /he ne;t day the Dresident received from the 7ureau
Director a telegram telling him to give a copy of the decision to Delmo. /he Dresident in
turn sent a telegram to the 7ureau Director telling him that he had returned the decision
and that he had not retained a copy. n May )# the day of graduation# the Dresident
again received another telegram from the Director ordering him not to deprive Delmo of
any honors due her. As it was impossi!le !y this time to include DelmoLs name in the
program as one of the honor students# the Dresident let her graduate as a plain student
instead of !eing awarded the latin honor magna cum laude.
RULIN': /he Dresident of the state college was held lia!le for damages unde rArticle
2& of the 1ivil 1ode for failure to graduate a student with honors# on account of said
officialLs neglect of duty and callousness. Pndou!tedly# Delmo went through a painful
ordeal !rought a!out !y the presidentLs neglect of duty and callousness. /hus# moral
and e;emplary damages under Article 2& of the 1ivil 1ode are !ut proper.
Llorente s! San$igan;a0an-G- SCR3 5G2 412216
F3C8S: As a result of a massive reorgani,ation in $%-$# hundreds of D1A employees
resigned. Among them were 1urio# Dere,# A,ucena and Favier. /hey were all re<uired
to apply for D1A clearances in support of their gratuity !enefits. 1ondition 2a3 of the
clearance provided( ]/he clearance shall !e signed !y the D1A officers concerned
only when there is no item appearing under ]Dending Accounta!ility or after every
item previously entered there under is fully settled. 0ettlement thereof shall !e written in
red. Gotwithstanding 1ondition 2a3 just <uoted# the clearances of Dere, and A,ucena
were favora!ly acted upon !y the D1A officers concerned# including Atty. 9lorente. /he
clearance of Favier was likewise favora!ly acted upon. 7ut with respect to the clearance
of 1urio# Atty. 9lorente refused to approve it !ecause 1urio had accounta!ilities. /o
justify his stand# Atty. 9lorente invoked 1ondition 2a3 of the clearance which he said was
]very stringent and could not !e interpreted in any other way. 7etween Decem!er
$%-$and Decem!er $%-'# 1urio failed to get gainful employment !ecause he had no
clearance yet. /hus# 1urio filed a complaint against Atty.9lorente for violation of 0ection
)2e3 of the Anti:=raft and 1orrupt Dractices Act. /he 0andigan!ayan# however#
ac<uitted Atty. 9lorente in the a!sence of any evidence that he acted in !ad faith !ut
held him civilly lia!le. Atty. 9lorente <uestioned the decision of the 0andigan!ayan
holding him civilly lia!le in spite of an ac<uittal.
RULIN': 8n justifying the award of civil lia!ility# the 0upreme 1ourt declared EEPnder
the $%-? 5ules of 1riminal procedure# amending 5ules $$" through $2& of the 5ules of
1ourt# the judgment of the court shall include# in case of ac<uittal# and unless there is a
clear showing that the act from which the civil lia!ility might arise did not e;ist# ]a
finding on the civil lia!ility of the accused in favor of the offended party. /he rule is
!ased on the provisions of su!stantive law# that 8f ac<uittal proceeds from reasona!le
dou!t# a civil action lies nonetheless. /he challenged judgment found that the petition# in
refusing to issue a certificate of clearance in favor of the private offended party#
Herminigildo 1urio# did not act with ]evident !ad faith# one of the elements of
0ection )2e3 of 5epu!lic Act Go. )-$%. *e agree with the judgment# insofar as it found
lack of evident !ad faith !y the petitioner# for the reasons cited therein# !asically#
!ecause the petitioner was acting within the !ounds of law in refusing to clear 1urio
although ]the practice was that the clearance was nevertheless approved# and then
the amount of the unsettled o!ligation was deducted from the gratuity !enefits of the
*e also agree with the 0andigan!ayan that although the petitioner did not act with
evident !ad faith# he acted with !ad faith nevertheless# for which he should respond for
9ap s! Paras,-G. SCR3 )-. 4122-6
F3C8S: n ct. )$# $%&$# according to .ap# Daras sold to her his share in the intestate
estate of their parents for D)""."". /he sale was evidenced !y a private document.
Gineteen years later# Daras sold the same property to 0antiago 0aya:ang for
D?#"""."". /his was evidenced !y a notari,ed Deed of A!solute 0ale. *hen .ap
learned of the second sale# she filed a complaint for estafa against Daras and 0aya:ang
with the ffice of the Drovincial Drosecutor of =eneral 0antos 1ity. n thes ame date#
she filed a complaint for the nullification of the said sale with the 5/1 of =eneral 0antos
1ity. /he criminal case was eventually filed in court. 7efore arraignment# the trial judge
motu proprio issued an order dismissing the criminal case on the ground that there is a
prejudicial <uestion# citing the case of 5as vs. 5asul # $"" 015A $2?..ap elevated the
matter to the 0upreme 1ourt.
RULIN': 8n the 5as case# there was a motion to suspend the criminal action on the
ground that the defense in the civil case EEforgery of his signature in the first deed of
sale EE had to !e threshed out first. 5esolution of that <uestion would necessarily
resolve the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. 7y contracts# there
was no motion for suspension in the case at !ar> and no less importantly# the
respondent judge had not !een informed of the defense Daras was raising in the civil
action. 8t is worth remarking that not every defense raised in the civil action will raise a
prejudicial <uestion to justify suspension of the criminal action. /he defense must
involve an issue similar or intimately related to the same issue raised in the criminal
action and its resolution should determine whether or not the latter action may proceed
3BERC3 % %ER =.5. Go. 9:'%-'' April $?# $%--
F3C8S: /his case stems from alleged illegal searches and sei,ures and other
violations of the rights and li!erties of plaintiffs !y various intelligence units of the Armed
Forces of the Dhilippines# known as /ask Force Maka!ansa 2/FM3 ordered !y =eneral
Fa!ian Mer Nto conduct pre:emptive strikes against known communist terrorist 21/3
underground houses in view of increasing reports a!out 1/ plans to sow distur!ances
in Metro Manila#N
laintiffs2 allegations: /hat complying with said order of Mer# elements of the /FM
raided several places# employing in most cases defectively issued judicial search
warrants> that during these raids# certain mem!ers of the raiding party confiscated a
num!er of purely personal items !elonging to plaintiffs> that plaintiffs were arrested
without proper warrants issued !y the courts> that for some period after their arrest# they
were denied visits of relatives and lawyers> that plaintiffs were interrogated in violation
of their rights to silence and counsel> that military men who interrogated them employed
threats# tortures and other forms of violence on them in order to o!tain incriminatory
information or confessions and in order to punish them> that all violations of plaintiffs
constitutional rights were part of a concerted and deli!erate plan to forci!ly e;tract
information and incriminatory statements from plaintiffs and to terrori,e# harass and
punish them# said plans !eing previously known to and sanctioned !y defendants.
Respondents2 contentions: A motion to dismiss was filed !y defendants# through their
counsel# then 0ol: =en. Astelito Mendo,a# alleging that 2$3 plaintiffs may not cause a
judicial in<uiry into the circumstances of their detention in the guise of a damage suit
!ecause the privilege of the writ of ha!eas corpus is suspended> 223 assuming that the
courts can entertain the present action# defendants are immune from lia!ility for acts
done in the performance of their official duties> and 2)3 the complaint states no cause of
action against the defendants.
ISSUES *G a superior officer under the notion of respondent superior !e answera!le
for damages# jointly and severally with his su!ordinates# to the person whose
constitutional rights and li!erties have !een violated.
HELD G Ratio: Although the doctrine of respondent superior is applica!le to the case#
as contended !y respondents# the decisive factor in this case is the language of Art. )2
11. /he law speaks of an officer or employee or person EdirectlyE or 4indirectly4
responsi!le for the violation of the constitutional rights and li!erties of another. /hus# it
is not the actor alone 2i.e. the one directly responsi!le3 who must answer for damages
under Art. )2> the person indirectly responsi!le has also to answer for the damages or
injury caused to the aggrieved party Reasoning: [a] /he doctrine of respondent
superior has !een generally limited in its application to principal and agent or to master
and servant 2i.e. employer and employee3 relationship. Go such relationship e;ists
!etween superior officers of the military and their su!ordinates. 7ut in this case# Art. )2
governs. [b] 7y this provision# the principle of accounta!ility of pu!lic officials under the
1onstitution ac<uires added meaning and ac<uires a larger dimension. A superior have
to answer for the transgressions of his su!ordinates against the constitutionally
protected rights and li!erties of the citi,en. Hence# Art. )2 of 11 makes the persons
who are directly# as well as indirectly# responsi!le for the transgression joint tortfeasors.
[c] /o determine the sufficiency of the cause of action# only the facts alleged in the
complaint# and no others# should !e considered. For this purpose# the motion to dismiss
must hypothetically admit the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint. [d] 0o# under
the a!ove principles# it is difficult to justify the /1s dismissal for lack of cause of action
the complaint against all the defendants# e;cept Maj.Aguinaldo and M0gt. 7ala!a. /he
complaint contained allegations against all the defendants which# if admitted
hypothetically# would !e sufficient to esta!lish a cause or causes of action against all of
them under Art. )2 of 11.
Banal s! 8a$eo
Facts: Detitioner herein is one of the complainants in the criminal cases filed against
5osario 1laudio. 1laudio is charged with $? separate information for violation of 7D22.
1laudio pleaded not guilty# thus trial ensued. Detitioner moved to intervene through
private prosecutor !ut it was rejected !y respondent judge on the ground that the
charge is for the violation of 7atas Dam!ansa 7lg. 22 which does not provide for any
civil lia!ility or indemnity and hence# Bit is not a crime against property !ut pu!lic order.C
Detitioner filed a motion for reconsideration !ut was denied !y the respondent judge.
Hence this appeal.
Issue: *hether or not a private prosecutor may intervene in the prosecution for
violation of 7D 22 which does not provide for civil lia!ility.
Hel$: .es. Pnder Art. $"" of the 5D1# Levery person criminally lia!le for a felony is also
civilly lia!le. /hus a person committing a felony offends namely 2$3 the society in which
he lives in or the political entity called the 0tate whose law he had violated> and 223 the
individual mem!er of that society whose person# right# honor# chastity or property was
actually or directly injured or damaged !y the same punisha!le actor omission. *hile an
act or omission is felonious !ecause it is punisha!le !y law# it gives rise to civil lia!ility
not so much !ecause it is a crime !ut !ecause it caused damage to another. Miewing
things pragmatically# we can readily see that what gives rise to the civil lia!ility is really
the o!ligation and the moral duty of everyone to repair or make whole the damage
caused to another !y reason of his own act or omission #done intentionally or
negligently# whether or not the same !e punisha!le !y law. 8n other words# criminal
lia!ility will give rise to civil lia!ility only if the same
feloniousact or omission results in damage or injury to another and is the direct andpro;i
mate cause thereof. Damage or injury to another is evidently the foundation of the civil
action. 0uch is not the case in criminal actions for# to !e criminally lia!le#
itis enough that the act or omission complained of is punisha!le# regardless of whether
or not it also causes material damage to another. Article 2" of the Gew 1ivil 1ode
provides(BAvery person who# contrary to law# wilfully or negligently causes damage to
another# shall indemnify the latter for the
same.C5egardless# therefore# of whether or not a special law so provides#indemnificatio
n of the offended party may !e had on account of the damage# loss or injury directly
suffered as a conse<uence of the wrongful act of another.
An appeal !y certiorari# on cto!er 4# $%?4# 0oledad 1agigas# hereinafter referred to as
complainant# filed with the said 1F8 a complaint for the acknowledgment of her child#
1hris Hermosisima# as a natural child of said petitioner# as well as for support of said
child and moral damages for alleged !reach of promise to marry. Detitioner admitted the
paternity of the child and e;pressed willingness to support the latter# !ut denied having
ever promised to marry complainant. 1omplainant 0oledad 1agigas# was !orn in Fuly
$%$&# since $%?"# 0oledad then a teacher and petitioner who was almost ten years
younger than her used to go around together and were regarded as engaged# although
he made no promise of marriage thereto. 8n $%?$# she gave up teaching and !ecame a
life insurance underwriter where intimacy developed !etween her and petitioner# since
one evening in $%?) when after coming from the movies# they had se;ual intercourse in
his ca!in on !oard MM Ascano to which he was then attached as apprentice pilot. 8n
Fe!ruary $%?4# 0oledad advised petitioner that she was pregnant# whereupon he
promised to marry her. However# su!se<uently# or on Fuly 24# $%?4# defendant married
one 5omanita Dere,.
ISSUE: *hether or not moral damages are recovera!le under our laws for !reach of
promise to marry.
HELD: 8t appearing that !ecause of the defendant:appellants seductive prowess#
plaintiff:appellee overwhelmed !y her love for him yielded to his se;ual desires in spite
of her age and self:control. 8n the present case# the court is una!le to say that petitioner
is morally guilty of seduction# not only !ecause he is appro;imately ten years younger
!ut also !ecause the 1F8 found that complainant surrendered herself to the petitioner
!ecause overwhelmed !y her love for him she wanted to !ind him !y having a fruit of
their engagement even !efore they had the !enefit of clergy.
8enc"aeH ! Escano
8n Fe!ruary $%4-# /enchave, and AscaHo secretly married each other and of course
without the knowledge of AscaHos parents who were of prominent social status. /he
marriage was cele!rated !y a military chaplain. *hen AscaHos parents learned of this#
they insisted a church wedding to !e held !ut AscaHo withdrew from having a
recele!ration !ecause she heard that /enchave, was having an affair with another
woman. Aventually# their relationship went sour> 2 years later# AscaHo went to the P0
where she ac<uired a decree of a!solute divorce and she su!se<uently !ecame an
American citi,en and also married an American.
8n $%??# /enchave, initiated a case for legal separation and further alleged that
AscaHos parents dissuaded their daughter to go a!road and causing her to !e
estranged from him hence hes asking for damages in the amount of D$#"""#"""."".
/he lower court did not grant the legal separation !eing sought for and at the same time
awarded a D4?#"""."" worth of counter:claim !y the AscaHos.
800PA( *hether or not damages should !e awarded to either party in the case at !ar
HA9D( .es. n the part of /enchave,(
His marriage with AscaHo was a secret one and the failure of said marriage did not
result to pu!lic humiliation> that they never lived together and he even consented to
annulling the marriage earlier 2!ecause AscaHo filed for annulment !efore she left for
the P0 !ut the same was dismissed due to her non:appearance in court3> that he failed
to prove that AscaHos parents dissuaded their daughter to leave /enchave, and as
such his D$#"""#"""."" claim cannot !e awarded. H*AMA5# !y reason of the fact
that AscaHo left without the knowledge of /enchave, and !eing a!le to ac<uire a
divorce decree> and /enchave, !eing una!le to remarry# the 01 awarded D2?#""".""
only !y way of moral damages and attorneys fees to !e paid !y AscaHo and not her
n the part of AscaHos parents(
8t is true that the D$#"""#"""."" for damages suit !y /enchave, against the AscaHos is
unfounded and the same must have wounded their feelings and caused them an;iety#
the same could in no way have seriously injured their reputation# or otherwise
prejudiced them# lawsuits having !ecome a common occurrence in present society.
*hat is important# and has !een correctly esta!lished in the decision of the lower court#
is that they were not guilty of any improper conduct in the whole deplora!le affair. /he
01 reduced the damages awarded from D4?#"""."" to D?#"""."" only.
'!R! No! L(1*.5* Fe;ruar0 -+, 12)- 73P3N83, ! &ontesa
Ppon complaint filed !y respondent limpia A. .co on May 2"# $%?-# an information for
7igamy was filed !y respondent Drovincial Fiscal against petitioner in the 1ourt of First
8nstance of 7ulacan 21riminal 1ase Go. )4"?3# alleging that the latter# having previously
married one Astrella =uarin# and without said marriage having !een dissolved#
contracted a second marriage with said complainant.
n Fune $'# $%?-# petitioner filed in the 1ourt of First 8nstance of Dampanga 1ivil 1ase
Go. $44' against respondent limpia A. .co for the annulment of their marriage on the
ground of duress# force and intimidation. n the )"th of the same month respondent
.co# as defendant in said case# filed a motion to dismiss the complaint upon the ground
that it stated no cause of action# !ut the same was denied on Fuly & of the same year.
n 0eptem!er 2# $%?-# petitioner# in turn# filed a motion in 1riminal 1ase Go. )4"? to
suspend proceedings therein# on the ground that the determination of the issue involved
in 1ivil 1ase Go. $44' of the 1ourt of First 8nstance of Dampanga was a prejudicial
<uestion. 5espondent judge denied the motion on 0eptem!er 2"# $%?- as well as
petitionerQs motion for reconsideration# and ordered his arraignment. After entering a
plea of not guilty# petitioner filed the present action.
RULIN'( *e have heretofore defined a prejudicial <uestion as that which arises in a
case# the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein# and
the cogni,ance of which pertains to another tri!unal 2Deople vs. Aragon# =.5. Go. 9:
?%)"# Fe!ruary $&# $%?43. /he prejudicial <uestion R we further said R must !e
determinative of the case !efore the court# and jurisdiction to try the same must !e
lodged in another court 2Deople vs. Aragon# supra3. /hese re<uisites are present in the
case at !ar. 0hould the <uestion for annulment of the second marriage pending in the
1ourt of First 8nstance of Dampanga prosper on the ground that# according to the
evidence# petitionerQs consent thereto was o!tained !y means of duress# force and
intimidation# it is o!vious that his act was involuntary and can not !e the !asis of his
conviction for the crime of !igamy with which he was charged in the 1ourt of First
8nstance of 7ulacan. /hus# the issue involved in the action for the annulment of the
second marriage is determinative of petitionerQs guilt or innocence of the crime of
!igamy. n the other hand# there can !e no <uestion that the annulment of petitionerQs
marriage with respondent .co on the grounds relied upon in the complaint filed in the
1ourt of First 8nstance of Dampanga is within the jurisdiction of said court.
8n the Aragon case already mentioned 2supra3 we held that if the defendant in a case for
!igamy claims that the first marriage is void and the right to decide such validity is
vested in another court# the civil action for annulment must first !e decided !efore the
action for !igamy can proceed. /here is no reason not to apply the same rule when the
contention of the accused is that the second marriage is void on the ground that he
entered into it !ecause of duress# force and intimidation.
'!R! No! 1+-5F1 Septem;er *, -G15 HEIRS OF 9U C &38U3L3'3 v. 1A
n May 24# $%&2# the spouses Melencio .u and /alinanap Matualaga filed 1ivil 1ase
Go. $2%$ against Fohn [. 0ycip 2who died during the pendency of the case and was
su!stituted !y his heirs# namely( Gatividad D.0ycip# Fose 0ycip# Fohn 0ycip# Fr.# Alfonso
0ycip 88# and 5ose Marie Gatividad D. 0ycip3 for the declaration of nullity of documents
and recovery of possession of real property with a prayer for a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction 2*DM83 and damages. /he su!ject matter of the case was 9ot Go.
2# Dsu:$)?&4":Amd# the same lot !eing contested herein. /he trial court initially
dismissed the case on the ground of prescription# !ut the 1A set aside the order of
dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings
During the pendency of 1ivil 1ase Go. $2%$# s<uatters entered the su!ject lot.
1onse<uently# when a writ of e;ecution and an order of demolition were issued !y the
trial court# a group of s<uatters known as .ard Pr!an Homeowners Association# 8nc.
2.PHA83 filed a complaint for injunction with damages and prayer for writ of preliminary
injunction 2*D83or temporary restraining order 2/53. 8t was docketed as 1ivil 1ase
Go.4'4& and raffled !efore the =eneral 0antos 1ity 5egional /rial 1ourt 25/13# 7ranch
22. 8n time# the trial court ruled in favor of petitioners. /he 1A affirmed the decision on
August 2-# $%%- in 1A:=.5. 1M Go. ?4"").
Arguing in main that there was no complete demolition and no proper turn:over of the
contested lot on Decem!er $)# 2""&# private respondents filed a motion for
reconsideration with very urgent prayer for immediate issuance of *D8 and *DM8.
April )# 2""-# the 1A resolved to grant the prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction.
n the same day# the writ was issued !y respondent 5osemarie D. Anacan:Di,on.
/he petition is granted.
8n the case at !ar# the different issues raised !y petitioners and countered !y private
respondents ultimately !oil down to the propriety of the issuance of the writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction# which# aside from the need to urgently resolve in view
of the peculiar facts involved# is an issue that is purely a <uestion of law.
*e e;plain.
A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior
to the judgment or final order# re<uiring a party or a court# agency or a person to refrain
from a particular act or acts. 8t may also re<uire the performance of a particular act or
acts# in which case it shall !e known as a preliminary mandatory injunction. )- /o justify
the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction# it must !e shown that( 2$3 the
complainant has a clear legal right> 223 such right has !een violated and the invasion !y
the other party is material and su!stantial> and 2)3 there is an urgent and permanent
necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.
An injunction will not issue to protect
a right not in esse# or a right which is merely contingent and may never arise since# to
!e protected !y injunction# the alleged right must !e clearly founded on or granted !y
law or is enforcea!le as a matter of law.
As this 1ourt opined in Dela 5osa v. Heirs of
Fuan Malde, (
A preliminary mandatory injunction is more cautiously regarded than a mere prohi!itive
injunction since# more than its function of preserving the status <uo !etween the parties#
it also commands the performance of an act. Accordingly# the issuance of a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction is justified only in a clear case# free from dou!t or
dispute. *hen the complainantQs right is dou!tful or disputed# he does not have a clear
legal right and# therefore# the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction is
improper. *hile it is not re<uired that the right claimed !y applicant# as !asis for seeking
injunctive relief# !e conclusively esta!lished# it is still necessary to show# at least
tentatively# that the right e;ists and is not vitiated !y any su!stantial challenge or
/hus# a preliminary mandatory injunction should only !e granted Nincases of e;treme
urgency> where the right is very clear> where considerations of relative inconvenience
!ear strongly in complainantQs favor> where there is a willful and unlawful invasion of
plaintiffQs right against his protest and remonstrance# the injury !eing a continuing one>
and where the effect of the mandatory injunction is rather to re:esta!lish and maintain a
pre:e;isting continuing relation !etween the parties# recently and ar!itrarily interrupted
!y the defendant# than to esta!lish a new relation.N
8n this case# there is dou!t on private respondents entitlement to a preliminary
mandatory injunction since the evidence presented !efore the respondent 1A in support
thereof appears to !e weak and inconclusive# and the alleged right sought to !e
protected is vehemently disputed. /he documentary evidence presented !y private
respondents does not suffice to prove their ownership and possession of the contested
lot. Gota!ly# !oth the Vuitclaim Deed
allegedly e;ecuted on April $'# $%?& !y the
spouses Melencio .u and /alinanap Matualaga in favor of Alfonso Aguinaldo Gon and
the /ransfer of Free Datent 5ights
allegedly e;ecuted on May 2-# $%?& !y Melencio
.u in favor of 1oncepcion Gon Andres were among those documents already declared
null and void !y the trial court in 1ivil 1ase Go.$2%$ on the grounds that( 2a3 the
spouses never received any consideration for said conveyances> 2!3 the documents
were falsified> 2c3 the instruments were not approved !y the Drovincial =overnor or his
duly:authori,ed representative pursuant to 0ections $4? and $4' of the 5evised
Administrative 1ode of Mindanao and 0ulu> 2d3 all transactions were restricted !y the
law governing free patent> and 2e3 9ot Go. 2# Dsu:$)?&4":Amd is a paraphernal
property of /alinanap Matualaga and was sold without her consent.
/he trial courts
decision was affirmed in Heirs of Fohn [.0ycip v. 1ourt of Appeals#
wherein this 1ourt
8t is not disputed that the private respondents are Muslims who !elong to the cultural
minority or non:1hristian Filipinos as mem!ers of the Maguindanao /ri!e. Any
transaction# involving real property with them is governed !y the provisions of 0ections
$4? and $4' of the 5evised Administrative 1ode of Mindanao and 0ulu# 0ection $2" of
the Du!lic 9and Act 21ommonwealth Act Go. $4$3# as amended# and 5epu!lic Act Go.
)-&2# further amending the Du!lic 9and Act.
Finall0, granting t"at t"ere is strong ei$ence to proe priate respon$entsD
o#ners"ip an$ possession o: t"e $ispute$ lot, still, t"e0 are not entitle$ to t"e
grant o: preliminar0 man$ator0 in@unction! 3s t"e $amages allege$ ;0 t"em can
;e Iuanti:ie$, it cannot ;e consi$ere$ as Agrae an$ irrepara;le in@ur0A as
un$erstoo$ in la#:
8t is settled that a writ of preliminary injunction should !e issued only to prevent grave
and irrepara!le injury# that is# injury that is actual# su!stantial# and demonstra!le. Here#
there is no Nirrepara!le injuryN as understood in law. 5ather# the damages alleged !y the
petitioner# namely#N immense loss in profit and possi!le damage claims from clientsN
and the cost of the !ill!oard which is Na considera!le amount of moneyN is easily
<uantifia!le# and certainly does not fall within the concept of irrepara!le damage or
injury as descri!ed in 0ocial 0ecurity 1ommission v. 7ayona(
Damages are irrepara;le #it"in t"e meaning o: t"e rule relatie to t"e issuance o:
in@unction #"ere t"ere is no stan$ar$ ;0 #"ic" t"eir amount can ;e measure$
#it" reasona;le accurac0 ! A3n irrepara;le in@ur0 #"ic" a court o: eIuit0 #ill
en@oin inclu$es t"at $egree o: #rong o: a repeate$ an$ continuing kin$ #"ic"
pro$uce "urt, inconenience, or $amage t"at can ;e estimate$ onl0 ;0
con@ecture, an$ not ;0 an0 accurate stan$ar$ o: measurement!A 3n irrepara;le
in@ur0 to aut"oriHe an in@unction consists o: a serious c"arge o:, or is $estructie
to, t"e propert0 it a::ects, eit"er p"0sicall0 or in t"e c"aracter in #"ic" it "as ;een
"el$ an$ en@oine$, or #"en t"e propert0 "as some peculiar Iualit0 or use, so t"at
its pecuniar0 alue #ill not :airl0 recompense t"e o#ner o: t"e loss t"ereo:!
4Emp"asis supplie$6
Here# any damage petitioner may suffer is easily su!ject to mathematical computation
and# if proven# is fully compensa!le !y damages. /hus# a preliminary injunction is not
warranted. As previously held in =olding v. 7alat!at # the writ of injunction E should
never issue when an action for damages would ade<uately compensate the injuries
caused. /he very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue the writ rests in the pro!a!ility of
irrepara!le injury# the inade<uacy of pecuniary compensation# and the prevention of the
multiplicity of suits# and where facts are not shown to !ring the case within these
conditions# the relief of injunction should !e refused.
/hus# in case of dou!t# respondent 1A should have denied private respondentsQ prayer
as it appeared that although they may !e entitled to the injunction# they could still !e
fully compensated for the damages they may suffer !y simply re<uiring petitioners to file
a !ond to answer for all damages that may !e suffered !y such denial.
%elasco ! &eralco
FA1/0( Melasco was the owner of ) adjoining lots. He then sold two of these to Meralco
who later constructed a su!station. 8t was only separated from the house of petitioner !y
a wire fence.
HA9D( =eneral rule is that everyone is !ound to !ear the ha!itual or customary
inconveniences that result from the pro;imity of others# and so long as this level is not
surpassed# he may not complain against them. 7ut if the prejudice e;ceeds the
inconveniences that such pro;imity ha!itually !rings# the neigh!or who causes such
distur!ance is held responsi!le for the resulting damage# !eing guilty of causing
/he test is whether the rights of property# of health or of comfort are so injuriously
affected !y the noise in <uestion that the sufferer is su!jected to a loss which goes
!eyond the reasona!le limit imposed upon him !y the condition of living# or of holding
property# in a particular locality in fact devoted to uses which involve the emission of
noise although ordinary care is taken to confine it within reasona!le !ounds.
FA1/0( An ice factory was constructed in the premises. Got long after# there had !een
numerous complaints regarding the health ha,ards that the factory !rings to the areas
residents. /here was then an order for the factory to raise its smokestacks# otherwise# it
will !e ordered to close down.
HA9D( 8f no compelling necessity re<uires the summary a!atement of a nuisance# the
municipal authorities under their power to declare and a!ate nuisances# dont have the
right to compel the a!atement of a particular thing or act as a nuisance without
reasona!le notice to the person alleged to !e maintaining or doing the same of the time
and place of hearing !efore a tri!unal authority to decide whether the thing is a
nuisance or not.
DE 393L3 % B3RRE88O
FA1/0( De Ayala proposed the erection of a com!ined !rewery and ice plant on 1alle
=eneral 0olano# afashiona!le residence street with large e;pensive houses. 22
residents and property owners on the samestreet filed a suit or injunction against it on
the ground that its a nuisance.800PA( *G such !rewery and ice plant is a
nuisanceHA9D( Go.5A/8( /he locality in <uestion is gradually !eing transformed from
a fashiona!le residence area into anindustrial center./here is now a coal
yard# warehouse # pu!lic school# clu!# lum!eryards# sawmills and powerplant#electrical
railroad and light co. 8n addition# Dasig 5iver is in it immediate the who settles in a district which has a natural watercourse# especially !enefici
al for transportation purposes# or one who remains there in the light of the fact of its
transformation into atrading or manufacturing center# must su!mit to the ordinary
annoyances and discomforts which areincidental to the reasona!le and general conduct
of such !usiness.8n addition# the locality surrounding the site of the proposed plant has
not sufficiently shown thatthe plant will !e incongruous with it since another !rewery is
already in e;istence in the vicinity./he injunction will only !e granted when theres a
pressing necessity and not just a triflingdiscomfort.
9U ! C3
FA1/0( Detitioner# the e;clusive distri!utor of the House of Mayfair wallcovering
products in the Dhilippines# cried foul when his former dealer of the same goods# herein
private respondent# purchased the merchandise from the House of Mayfair in Angland
through FGF /rading in *est =ermany and sold said merchandise in the Dhilippines.
7oth the court of origin and the appellate court rejected petitionerQs thesis that private
respondent was engaged in a sinister form of unfair competition within the conte;t of
Article 2- of the Gew 1ivil 1ode 2pp. 2) and '4# 6ollo3. Hence# the petition at !ar.
/here is no dispute that petitioner has had an e;clusive sales agency agreement with
the House of Mayfair since $%-& to promote and procure orders for Mayfair wallcovering
products from customers in the Dhilippines. Aven as petitioner was such e;clusive
distri!utor# private respondent# which was then petitionerQs dealer# imported the some
goods via the FGF /rading which eventually sold the merchandise in the domestic
market. 8n the suit for injunction which petitioner filed !efore the 5egional /rial 1ourt of
the Gational 1apital Fudicial 5egion stationed at Manila# petitioner pressed the idea that
he was practically !y:passed and that private respondent acted in concert with the FGF
/rading in misleading Mayfair into !elieving that the goods ordered !y the trading firm
were intended for shipment to Gigeria although they were actually shipped to and sold
in the Dhilippines. Drivate respondent professed ignorance of the e;clusive contract in
favor of petitioner. Aven then# private respondent responded !y asserting that
petitionerQs understanding with Mayfair is !inding only !etween the parties thereto.
800PA( Did respondent appellate court correctly agree with the lower court in
disallowing the writ solicited !y herein petitionerW
/hat the e;clusive sales contract which links petitioner and the House of Mayfair is
solely the concern of the privies thereto and cannot thus e;tend its chain as to !ind
private respondent herein is# *e !elieve# !eside the point. Merily# injunction is the
appropriate remedy to prevent a wrongful interference with contracts !y strangers to
such contracts where the legal remedy is insufficient and the resulting injury is
irrepara!le 2=ilchrist vs. 1uddy# 2% Dhil. ?42 S$%$?T> 4:A Badilla# 1ivil 1ode Annotated#
$%-- Ad.# p. %"3. /he lia!ility of private respondent# if any# does not emanate from the
four corners of the contract for undou!tedly# Pnisia Merchandising 1o.# 8nc. is not a
party thereto !ut its accounta!ility is Nan independent act generative of civil lia!ilityN
2Daywalt vs. 1orporacion de DD. Agustinos 5ecoletos# )% Dhil. ?-& S$%$%T> 4 Baras#
1ivil 1ode of the Dhilippines Annotated# $%-$ $"th Ad.# p. 4)%> 4 1olentino#
1ommentaries and Furisprudence on the 1ivil 1ode# $%-' Ad.#
p. 4)%3. /hese o!servations# however# do not in the least convey the message that *e
have placed the cart ahead of the horse# so to speak# !y pronouncing private
respondentQs lia!ility at this stage in view of the pendency of the main suit for injunction
!elow. *e are simply rectifying certain misperceptions entertained !y the appellate
court as regards the feasi!ility of re<uesting a preliminary injunction to enjoin a stranger
to an agreement.
/o ur mind# the right to perform an e;clusive distri!utorship agreement and to reap the
profits resulting from such performance are proprietary rights which a party may protect
2)" $m* Dur* -ection !# pp. &$:&2( Durado# 1omments and Furisprudence on
&bligations and +ontracts# $%-) -th 5ev. Ad.# p. ))'3 which may otherwise not !e
diminished# nay# rendered illusory !y the e;pedient act of utili,ing or interposing a
person or firm to o!tain goods from the supplier to defeat the very purpose for which the
e;clusive distri!utorship was conceptuali,ed# at the e;pense of the sole authori,ed
distri!utor 24) +*D*-. ?%&3.
Another circumstance which respondent court overlooked was petitionerQs suggestion#
which was not disputed !y herein private respondent in its comment# that the House of
Mayfair in Angland was duped into !elieving that the goods ordered through the FGF
/rading were to !e shipped to Gigeria only# !ut the goods were actually sent to and sold
in the Dhilippines. A ploy of this character is akin to the scenario of a third person who
induces a party to renege on or violate his undertaking under a contract# there!y
entitling the other contracting party to relief therefrom 2$rticle /.# Gew 1ivil 1ode3.
/he !reach caused !y private respondent was even aggravated !y the conse<uent
diversion of trade from the !usiness of petitioner to that of private respondent caused !y
the latterQs species of unfair competition as demonstrated no less !y the sales effected
inspite of this 1ourtQs restraining order. /his !rings Ps to the irrepara!le mischief which
respondent court misappreciated when it refused to grant the relief simply !ecause of
the o!servation that petitioner can !e fully compensated for the damage. A contrario#
the injury is irrepara!le where it is continuous and repeated since from its constant and
fre<uent recurrence# no fair and reasona!le redress can !e had therefor !y petitioner
insofar as his goodwill and !usiness reputation as sole distri!utor are concerned.
*ithal# to e;pect petitioner to file a complaint for every sale effected !y private
respondent will certainly court multiplicity of suits 2) Francisco# 5evised 5ules of 1ourt#
$%-? Adition# p. 2'$3.
'ILCHRIS8 CUDD9 2% Dhil ?42
F3C8S: :1uddy was the owner of the film B[igomarC. =ilchrist was the owner of a
theatre in 8loilo. /hey entered into a contract where!y 1uddy leased to =ilchrist the
[igomarC for e;hi!ition in his theatre for a week for D$2?. : 1uddy returned the money
already paid !y =ilchrist days !efore the delivery date so that he can lease the film to
Aspejo and [aldarriaga instead and receive D)?" for the film for the same period.
: =ilchrist filed a case for specific performance against 1uddy# Aspejo and [aldarriaga.
He also prayed for damages against Aspejo and [aldarriaga for interfering with the
contract !etween =ilchrist and 1uddy.
ISSUE: *G Aspejo and [aldarriaga is lia!le for interfering with the contract !etween
=ilchrist and 1uddy# they not knowing at the time the identity of the parties
: Appellants have the legal lia!ility for interfering with the contract and causing its
!reach. /his lia!ility arises from unlawful acts and not from contractual o!ligations to
induce 1uddy to violate his contract with =ilchrist. - Article $%"2 of the 1ivil 1ode
provides that a person who# !y act or omission causes damage to another when there is
fault or negligence# shall !e o!liged to pay for the damage done. /here is nothing in this
article which re<uires as a condition precedent to the lia!ility of the tortfeasor that he
must know the identity of a person to whom he causes damage. Go such knowledge is
re<uired in order that the injured party may recover for the damages suffered.
ON'SI3EO, E8! 3L! s! ON'SI3EO, E8! 3L!'RJ L(F.1G&arc" 5G, 12.FF3C8S:
/here are ) causes of action filed in this case. ne of which is the o!struction of
thedikes constructed !y the defendants in $%)&. 0uch dikes o!structed the natural flow
of e;cesswater from the plaintiffs higher tenement. 8t was alleged that from time
immemorial !efore the partition of the Hacienda Asperan,a# the water coming from the
portion of the estate assigned to plaintiffs had !een flowing regularly and without
artificial o!struction towards the other areas of that same hacienda su!se<uently
assigned to the defendants# as a result of the partition in $%2%./he 1F8 granted the
Motion to Dismiss filed !y the defendant on the ground of prescription.
May the dikes !e demolishedW
/he 01 affirmed the rder appealed from.1onsidering that the action was filed in $%?$#
the legal easement sought to !e enforcedhad !een e;tinguished !y non:user and the
action is therefore !arred !y prescription.
Banal s! 8a$eo
Facts: Detitioner herein is one of the complainants in the criminal cases filed
against5osario 1laudio. 1laudio is charged with $? separate information for violation of
7D22. 1laudio pleaded not guilty# thus trial ensued. Detitioner moved to
intervenethrough private prosecutor !ut it was rejected !y respondent judge on the
groundthat the charge is for the violation of 7atas Dam!ansa 7lg. 22 which does
notprovide for any civil lia!ility or indemnity and hence# Bit is not a crime againstproperty
!ut pu!lic order.C Detitioner filed a motion for reconsideration !ut wasdenied !y the
respondent judge. Hence this appeal.
Issue: *hether or not a private prosecutor may intervene in the prosecution forviolation
of 7D 22 which does not provide for civil lia!ility.
Hel$: .es. Pnder Art. $"" of the 5D1# Levery person criminally lia!le for a felony isalso
civilly lia!le. /hus a person committing a felony offends namely 2$3 the societyin which
he lives in or the political entity called the 0tate whose law he had violated>and 223 the
individual mem!er of that society whose person# right# honor# chastityor property was
actually or directly injured or damaged !y the same punisha!le actor omission.*hile an
act or omission is felonious !ecause it is punisha!le !y law# it givesrise to civil lia!ility
not so much !ecause it is a crime !ut !ecause it caused damageto another. Miewing
things pragmatically# we can readily see that what gives rise tothe civil lia!ility is really
the o!ligation and the moral duty of everyone to repair ormake whole the damage
caused to another !y reason of his own act or omission#done intentionally or
negligently# whether or not the same !e punisha!le !y law. 8nother words# criminal
lia!ility will give rise to civil lia!ility only if the same
feloniousact or omission results in damage or injury to another and is the direct andpro;i
mate cause thereof. Damage or injury to another is evidently the foundation of the civil
action. 0uch is not the case in criminal actions for# to !e criminally lia!le#
itis enough that the act or omission complained of is punisha!le# regardless of whether
or not it also causes material damage to another.Article 2" of the Gew 1ivil 1ode
provides(BAvery person who# contrary to law# wilfully or negligently causes damage
toanother# shall indemnify the latter for the
same.C5egardless# therefore# of whether or not a special law so provides#indemnificatio
n of the offended party may !e had on account of the damage# loss orinjury directly
suffered as a conse<uence of the wrongful act of another.
Facts( At a!out &()" in the evening of cto!er $-# $%&4# Macario .uro swerved the
north!ound Franco 7us with Dlate Go. 6.)2":DP7 he was driving to the left to avoid
hitting a truck with a trailer parked facing north along the cemented pavement of the
MacArthur Highway at 7arrio /alaga# 1apas /arlac# there!y taking the lane of an
incoming 8su,u Mini 7us !earing Dlate Go. .9:&)? !eing driven !y one Magdaleno
9ugue and making a collision !etween the two 223 vehicles an unavoida!le and
disastrous eventuality.
1onse<uently# Antonio 5eyes# the registered owner of the 8su,u Mini 7us# Mrs. 0usan
1huay# the wife of victim Fernando 1huay# and Mrs. 9olita 9ugue# the wife of driver:
victim Magdaleno 9ugue# filed an action for damages through reckless imprudence
against Mr. ^ Mrs. Federico Franco# the owners and operators of the Franco
/ransportation 1ompany.
Issues( $. whether the action for recovery of damages instituted !y herein private
respondents was predicated upon crime or <uasi:delict>
2. whether respondent appellate court in an appeal filed !y the defeated parties#
herein petitioners# may properly increase the award of damages in favor of the private
respondents 1huay and 9ugue# prevailing parties in the lower court# who did not appeal
said courtQs decision.
Ruling: $. *e find merit in this contention. Distinction should !e made !etween the
su!sidiary lia!ility of the employer under the 5evised Denal 1ode and the employerQs
primary lia!ility under the 1ivil 1ode which is <uasi:delictual or tortious in character. /he
first type of lia!ility is governed !y Articles $"2 and $") of the 5evised Denal 1ode
which provide as follows(
Art. $"2. -ubsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavern-keepers and proprietors of
establishments. R 8n default of the persons criminally lia!le# innkeepers# tavern:
keepers# and any other persons or corporations shall !e civilly lia!le for crimes
committed in their esta!lishments# in all cases where a violation of municipal ordinances
or some general or special police regulations shall have !een committed !y them or
their employees.
8nnkeepers are also su!sidiarily lia!le for the restitution of goods taken !y ro!!ery or
theft within their houses from guests lodging therein# or for the payment of the value
thereof# provided that such guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper himself#
or the person representing him# of the deposits of such goods within the inn> and shall
furthermore have followed the directions which such innkeeper or his representative
may have given them with respect to the care and vigilance over such goods. Go lia!ility
shall attach in case of ro!!ery with violence against or intimidation of persons unless
committed !y the innkeeperQs employees.
Art. $"). -ubsidiary civil liability of other persons. R /he su!sidiary lia!ility esta!lished
in the ne;t preceding article shall also apply to employers# teachers# persons# and
corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed !y the servants#
pupils# workmen# apprentices# or employees in the discharge of their duties> while the
second kind is governed !y the of the 1ivil 1ode as stated in Articles 2$&' :2$&& and
;;; ;;; ;;;
8mployers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household
helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not
engaged in any business or industry,
;;; ;;; ;;;
/he responsi!ility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein
mentioned prove that they o!served all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage.
8n the case at !ar# no criminal action was instituted !ecause the person who should
stand as the accused and the party supposed to !e primarily lia!le for the damages
suffered !y private respondents as a conse<uence of the vehicular mishap died. /hus#
petitionersQ su!sidiary lia!ility has no leg to stand on considering that their lia!ility is
merely secondary to their employeeQs primary lia!ility. 9ogically therefore# recourse
under this remedy is not possi!le.
n the other hand# under Articles 2$&' and 2$-" of the 1ivil 1ode# lia!ility is !ased on
culpa aquiliana which holds the employer primarily lia!le for tortious acts of its
employees su!ject# however# to the defense that the former e;ercised all the diligence
of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employees.
/he 1ourt in the aforecited M.D. /ransit case went further to say that there can !e no
automatic su!sidiary lia!ility of defendant employer under Article $") of the 5evised
Denal 1ode where his employee has not !een previously criminally convicted.
Having thus esta!lished that 1ivil 1ase Go. 2$?4 is a civil action to impose the primary
lia!ility of the employer as a result of the tortious act of its alleged reckless driver# we
confront ourselves with the plausi!ility of defendants:petitionersQ defense that they
o!served due diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of
their employees.
n the second legal issue raised in the instant petition# we agree with petitionersQ
contention that the 8ntermediate Appellate 1ourt is without jurisdiction to increase the
amount of damages awarded to private respondents 1huay and 9ugue# neither of whom
appealed the decision of the lower court. *hile an appellee who is not also an appellant
may assign error in his !rief if his purpose is to maintain the judgment on other grounds#
he cannot ask for modification or reversal of the judgment or affirmative relief unless he
has also appealed.
For failure of plaintiffs:appellees# herein private respondents# to
appeal the lower courtQs judgment# the amount of actual damages cannot e;ceed that
awarded !y it.
Furthermore# the records
show that plaintiffs:private respondents limited their claim
for actual and compensatory damages to the supposed average income for a period of
one 2$3 year of D'#"""."" for the driver Magdaleno 9ugue and D$2#"""."" for the
1hinese !usinessman Fernando 1huay. *e feel that our award should not e;ceed the
said amounts .

However# the increase in awards for indemnity arising from death to D)"#"""."" each
remains# the same having !een made in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence
decreeing such increase in view of the depreciated Dhilippine currency.

L3'37ON ! Re0es
Facts: n April $# $%&2# a passenger:type jeepney driven !y Moises 0an Angel collided
with a motori,ed tricycle driven !y plaintiff:appellant# rlando 9aga,on# at 0an =a!riel#
Maca!e!e# Dampanga. As a result thereof# the tricycle was damaged and 9aga,on
suffered injuries.
n April 2?#$%&2# 9aga,on filed a criminal complaint for damage to property and serious
physical injuries thru reckless imprudence against 0an Angel.
n Fanuary $$# $%&)# 9aga,on filed a civil complaint against the defendant:appellee#
Misia D. 5eyes# for damages alleging that 5eyes was the lawful and registered owner of
that vehicle driven !y Moises 0an Angel on April $# $%&2> that 5eyes was the employer
of 0an Angel> that on the aforesaid date# 0an Angel drove his vehicle in a reckless and
imprudent manner which resulted in damage to his 9aga,on tricycle and injuries to his
person> that as a conse<uence thereof# he filed a criminal> and that on Fune )"# $%&2#
0an Angel pleaded guilty to the offense charged and was sentenced to suffer
imprisonment of two 223 months of arresto mayor and to pay a fine of D'"4."".
At the initial hearing of the aforesaid civil case# counsel for 9aga,on announced to the
trial court that the complaint was filed against 5eyes for the latterQs lia!ility under Article
$") of the 5evised Denal 1ode !ased upon the conviction of 0an Angel in the criminal
case filed with the Municipal 1ourt of Maca!e!e# Dampanga# upon a plea of guilty.
Issue( whether or not it was still necessary to sue the employee# 0an Angel# with his
employer# 5eyes# Q for the latterQs su!sidiary lia!ility under Article $") of the 5evised
Denal 1ode.
A person criminally lia!le is also civilly lia!le. Ppon the institution of the criminal action#
the civil action for the recovery of the civil lia!ility arising from the crime is also impliedly
instituted unless waived# or the filing of the separate action therefor is reserved. Pnder
Article $") of the 5evised Denal 1ode# the employer is su!sidiarily lia!le for the
adjudicated civil lia!ility of his employee in the event of the latterQs insolvency. /he
decision convicting an employee in a criminal case is !inding and conclusive upon the
defendant employer in a civil case filed to enforce the latterQs su!sidiary lia!ility under
the said article not only with regard to the formerQs 2employee3 civil lia!ility !ut also with
regard to its amount !ecause the lia!ility of an employer cannot !e separated !ut
follows that of his employee 2Miranda vs. Malate =arage and /a;ica!# %% Dhil. '&"3.
However# !efore the employer may !e held su!sidiarily lia!le for the adjudicated civil
lia!ility of his employee# certain facts must !e proved# such as evidence esta!lishing
that 2$3 he is indeed the employer of the convict 223 that he is engaged in some kind of
industry> 2)3 the crime was committed !y the employee in the discharge of his duties>
and 243 e;ecution against the employee is unsatisfied. /he determination of these
issues need not !e done in a separate civil action. 7ut a determination there must !e#
on the !asis of evidence that the offended party and the employer may fully and freely
present> and this may !e done in the same criminal action at which the employeeQs
lia!ility# criminal and civil# has !een pronounced. 8t may !e done at a hearing set for that
precise purpose# with due notice to the employer# as part of the proceeding for the
e;ecution of the judgment.
8n the instant case# plaintiff:appellant# 9aga,on# reserved his right to institute a separate
civil action while the criminal case filed against the employee# 0an Angel# was still
pending !efore the Municipal 1ourt of Maca!e!e# Dampanga. Accordingly# no civil
lia!ility was adjudged against 0an Angel after he pleaded guilty to the offense charged.
8t is very clear# therefore# that when plaintiff:appellant# 9aga,on# filed his complaint
against the defendant:appellee# 5eyes# on Fanuary $$# $%&)# there was still no
adjudicated civil lia!ility of the latterQs employee# 0an Angel. /here is no ipso facto
su!sidiary lia!ility of an employer under Article $") where his employee has not !een
previously convicted of the offense charged and adjudged civilly lia!le. 8f the plaintiff:
appellant desired to recover directly from the defendant:appellee in view of the apparent
insolvency of the latterQs employee# he should have included this employee in that
complaint filed !y him as a party defendant. 7y that process# the trial court could then
render judgment holding the employee civilly lia!le in an amount previously determined
!y it and ordering the defendant:appellee# 5eyes# to pay su!sidiarily such amount in the
event that the former is insolvent or is una!le to satisfy the judgment 2.umul vs. Fuliano#
&2 Dhil. %43.
9aga,on contends that instead of dismissing the complaint# the trial court should have
ordered that 0an Angel !e impleaded as a party defendant if it !elieved all along that
the latter was an indispensa!le party in the civil action to enforce the su!sidiary lia!ility
of 5eyes under Article $") of the 5evised Denal 1ode. /his contention is impressed
with merit. /he court a quo should have ordered that 0an Angel !e impleaded as a
party defendant in accordance with 5ule )# 0ection $$# of the 5ules of 1ourt# which
0ec. $$. Misjoinder and non:joinder of parties.RMisjoinder of parties is not ground for
dismissal of an action. Darties may !e dropped or added !y order of the court on motion
of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are
just. Any claim against a party may !e severed and proceeded with separately.
/he aim of the rule is that all persons materially interested# either legally or !eneficially#
in the su!ject:matter of the suit# should !e made parties to it in order that the whole
matter in dispute may !e determined once and for all in one litigation# thus avoiding
multiplicity of suits 2'& 1.F.0. %)%:%4"3.
rdinarily# the instant case should !e remanded to the court a quo for further
proceedings. However# such action is no longer necessary considering that a decision
in 1ivil 1ase Go. &):?%:M entitled# N&rlando @agaJon, Blaintiff, versus Moises -an
$ngel, Cefendant,4 was already rendered on Fune $4# $%&?# finding 0an Angel civilly
lia!le to 9aga,on and ordering the former to pay the latter an amount !y way of
damages. 8n this connection# if 9aga,on# !y virtue of the said decision# had already
recovered from 0an Angel the entire amount adjudged as the latterQs civil lia!ility# there
would !e no su!sidiary lia!ility on the part of 5eyes to speak of. However# if there was
no such recovery or where the recovery was only for a partial amount due to the
insolvency of 0an Angel# and 9aga,on desires to enforce 5eyes su!sidiary lia!ility for
the entire amount or the remaining unpaid amount# as the case may !e# he may take
the proper steps towards that end !y proving the re<uirements outlined in &Joa vs* Ce
Madula, et al*, supra, with the decision in 1ivil 1ase Go. &):?%:M as the !asis therefor.
9usa0 ! 3$il
Facts: n ? 0eptem!er $%&%# a cargo truck or log loader driven !y 5odolfo =uillen
figured in a traffic mishap in Faro# 8loilo 1ity with another cargo truck owned !y 8gmedio
/hereafter# =uillen was charged in a criminal case for less serious
physical injuries and damage to property through reckless imprudence. Accused was
found guilty and was eventually given a sentence. A writ of e;ecution was issued
against the accused. 8t was returned unsatisfied on the ground of accusedQs insolvency.
8gmedio 0um!anon then filed a motion for e;ecution of ownerI employerQs su!sidiary
civil lia!ility. n 24 cto!er $%-"# the respondent court issued an order granting the
motion and forthwith ordered the issuance of a writ of su!sidiary e;ecution against the
spouses Mr. and Mrs. Aliseo .usay
As stated in said order# Aliseo 7. .usay received a
copy of the motion !ut did not file any o!jection thereto. His wife# Aida ". .usay#
received a copy of the order and the aforesaid writ of su!sidiary e;ecution in the
evening of 24 cto!er $%-".
Issue: *hether or not the .usay 0pouses are su!sidiarily lia!le.
Ruling: 0ince MartineJ v* 7arredo# the rule has !een that a judgment of conviction
sentencing the defendant:employee to pay indemnity is conclusive in an action against
his employer for the enforcement of the latterQs su!sidiary lia!ility under Articles $"2 and
$") of the 5evised Denal 1ode.
8n Ba%arito v* -eneriso
the case relied upon !y the respondent court# !ut assailed !y
petitioners herein as not applica!le in the case at !ar# this 1ourt stated(
Dursuant to Article $")# in relation to Article $"2# of the 5evised Denal 1ode# an
employer may !e su!sidiary 2sic3 lia!le for the employeeQs civil lia!ility in a criminal
action when( 2$3 the employer is engaged in any kind of industry> 223 the employee
committed the offense in the discharge of his duties> and 2)3 he is insolvent and has not
satisfied his civil lia!ility. /he su!sidiary civil lia!ility of the employer# however# arises
only after conviction of the employee in the criminal case. 8n Martine, v. 7arredo# this
1ourt ruled that a judgment of conviction sentencing a defendant employee to pay an
indemnity# in the a!sence of any collusion !etween the defendant and the offended
party# is conclusive upon the employer in an action for the enforcement of the latterQs
su!sidiary lia!ility.

/he 1ourt# in Miranda v* Malate :arage and 1a5icab, (nc. ruled that the decision
convicting the employee is !inding and conclusive upon the employer Nnot only with
regard to its civil lia!ility !ut also with regard to its amount !ecause the lia!ility of an
employer cannot !e separated !ut follows that of his employee. /hat is why the law
says that his lia!ility is su!sidiary 2Art. $")# 5evised Denal 1ode3. /o allow an employer
to dispute the civil lia!ility fi;ed in the criminal case would !e to amend# nullify or defeat
a final judgment rendered !y a competent court.N

8n the instant case# the spouses .usay do not deny that# while the cargo truck in
<uestion was not registered in their names !ut in the name of the 1alinog:9am!unao
0ugarmill# 8nc. !y virtue of a contract to sell !etween the spouses# as vendees# and the
latter# as vendor# with reservation of ownership on the part of the vendor until final
payment has !een made# yet the contract provides that responsi!ility for any and all
damages arising from the operation of the vehicle is for the account of the petitioners#
the spouses .usay. /he latter cannot# therefore# escape su!sidiary lia!ility under the
As stated in MartineJ vs* 7arredo'
/he employer cannot !e said to have !een deprived of his day in court# !ecause the
situation !efore us is not one wherein the employer is sued for a primary lia!ility under
article $%") of the 1ivil 1ode# !ut one in which enforcement is sought of a su!sidiary
civil lia!ility incident to and dependent upon his driverQs criminal negligence which is a
proper issue to !e tried and decided only in a criminal action. 8n other words# the
employer !ecomes ipso facto su!sidiarily lia!le upon his driverQs conviction and upon
proof of the latterQs insolvency# in the same way that ac<uittal wipes out not only the
employeeQs primary civil lia!ility !ut also his employerQs su!sidiary lia!ility for such
criminal negligence 2Almeida et al.# vs. A!aroa# - Dhil.# $&-# affirmed in 2$- P.0.# 4&'>
?4 9aw ed.# $$$'> *ise ^ 1o. vs. 9arion 4? Dhil. )$4# )2"> Francisco vs. nru!ia# 4'
Dhil.# )2&> Drovince of 8locos 0ur vs. /olentino# =.5. Go. )4$-'# ?' Dhil.# -2%> Moran#
1omments on the 5ules of 1ourt# Mol. 88# p. 4").3

/he employer is# in su!stance and in effect# a party to the criminal case against his
employee# considering the su!sidiary lia!ility imposed upon him !y law. /hus(
8t is true that an employer# strictly speaking# is not a party to the criminal case instituted
against his employee !ut in su!stance and in effect he is considering the su!sidiary
lia!ility imposed upon him !y law. 8t is his concern# as well as of his employee# to see to
it that his interest !e protected in the criminal case !y taking virtual participation in the
defense of his employee. He cannot leave him to his own fate !ecause his failure is also
his. And if !ecause of his indifference or inaction the employee is convicted and
damages are awarded against him# he cannot later !e heard to complain# if !rought to
court for the enforcement of his su!sidiary lia!ility# that he was not given his day in
court. 8t was not without purpose that this 1ourt sounded the following stern warning(
8t is high time that the employer e;ercised the greatest care in selecting his employees#
taking real and deep interest in their welfare> intervening in any criminal action !rought
against them !y reason of or as a result of the performance of their duties# if only in the
way of giving them !enefit of counsel> and conse<uently doing away with the practices
of leaving them to their fates. 8f these !e done# the American rule re<uiring notice on the
part of the employer shall have !een satisfied 2Martine, vs. 7arredo# supra.3.

Carpio ! Doro@a
:acts: 0ometime on cto!er 2)# $%-?# accused:respondent Adwin 5amire,# while
driving a passenger Fuso Fitney owned and operated !y Aduardo /ori!io# !umped
Dionisio 1arpio# a pedestrian crossing the street# as a conse<uence of which the latter
suffered from a fractured left clavicle as reflected in the medico:legal certificate and
sustained injuries which re<uired medical attention for a period of 2)3 three months.
An information for 5eckless 8mprudence 5esulting to 0erious Dhysical 8njuries was filed
against Adwin 5amire, with the Municipal /rial 1ourt of [am!oanga 1ity# 7ranch 8M. n
Fanuary $4# $%-&# the accused voluntarily pleaded guilty to a lesser offense and was
accordingly convicted for 5eckless 8mprudence 5esulting to 9ess 0erious Dhysical
8njuries under an amended information punisha!le under Article )'? of the 5evised
Denal 1ode. /hereafter# the accused filed an application for pro!ation.
At the early stage of the trial# the private prosecutor manifested his desire to present
evidence to esta!lish the civil lia!ility of either the accused driver or the owner:operator
of the vehicle. AccusedQs counsel moved that the court summon the owner of the
vehicle to afford the latter a day in court# on the ground that the accused is not only
indigent !ut also jo!less and thus cannot answer any civil lia!ility that may !e imposed
upon him !y the court. /he private prosecutor# however# did not move for the
appearance of Aduardo /ori!io.
/he civil aspect of the a!ove:<uoted decision was appealed !y the private prosecutor to
the 5egional /rial 1ourt 7ranch 6M8# appellant praying for moral damages in the
amount of D $"#""".""# compensatory damages at D'#$-'.4"# and attorneyQs fees of D
?#"""."". /he appellate court# on Fanuary 2"# $%--# modified the trial courtQs decision#
granting the appellant moral damages in the amount of Five /housand Desos 2D
?#""".""3# while affirming all other civil lia!ilities.
Issue( *hether or not petitioner is su!sidiarily lia!le.
Ruling: 8n order that an employer may !e held su!sidiarily lia!le for the employeeQs civil
lia!ility in the criminal action# it should !e shown 2$3 that the employer# etc. is engaged
in any kind of industry# 223 that the employee committed the offense in the discharge of
his duties and 2)3 that he is insolvent 27asa Marketing 1orp. v. 7olinao# $$& 015A
$?'3. /he su!sidiary lia!ility of the employer# however# arises only after conviction of the
employee in the criminal action. All these re<uisites present# the employer !ecomes
ipso facto su!sidiarily lia!le upon the employeeQs conviction and upon proof of the
latterQs insolvency. Geedless to say# the case at !ar satisfies all these re<uirements.
Furthermore# we are not convinced that the owner:operator has !een deprived of his
day in court# !ecause the case !efore us is not one wherein the operator is sued for a
primary lia!ility under the 1ivil 1ode !ut one in which the su!sidiary civil lia!ility incident
to and dependent upon his employeeQs criminal negligence is sought to !e enforced.
1onsidering the su!sidiary lia!ility imposed upon the employer !y law# he is in
su!stance and in effect a party to the criminal case. Argo# the employerQs su!sidiary
lia!ility may !e determined and enforced in the criminal case as part of the e;ecution
proceedings against the employee. /his 1ourt held in the earlier case of Ba%arito v*
-eneris# supra# that N/he proceeding for the enforcement of the su!sidiary civil lia!ility
may !e considered as part of the proceeding for the e;ecution of the judgment. A case
in which an e;ecution has !een issued is regarded as still pending so that all
proceedings on the e;ecution are proceedings in the suit. /here is no <uestion that the
court which rendered the judgment has a general supervisory control over its process of
e;ecution# and this power carries with it the right to determine every <uestion of fact and
law which may !e involved in the e;ecution.N
/he argument that the owner:operator cannot !e held su!sidiarily lia!le !ecause the
matter of su!sidiary lia!ility was not raised on appeal and in like manner# the appellate
courtQs decision made no mention of such su!sidiary lia!ility is of no moment. As
already discussed# the filing of a separate complaint against the operator for recovery of
su!sidiary lia!ility is not necessary since his lia!ility is clear from the decision against
the accused. 0uch !eing the case# it is not indispensa!le for the <uestion of su!sidiary
lia!ility to !e passed upon !y the appellate court. 0uch su!sidiary lia!ility is already
implied from the appellate courtQs decision. 8n the recent case of ?da* de Baman v*
-eneris# $$? 015A &"%# this 1ourt reiterated the following pronouncement( NA judgment
of conviction sentencing a defendant employer to pay an indemnity in the a!sence of
any collusion !etween the defendant and the offended party# is conclusive upon the
employer in an action for the enforcement of the latterQs su!sidiary lia!ility not only with
regard to the civil lia!ility# !ut also with regard to its amount.N /his !eing the case# this
1ourt stated in 6otea v* Halili# $"% Dhil. 4%?# Nthat the court has no other function than
to render decision !ased upon the indemnity awarded in the criminal case and has no
power to amend or modify it even if in its opinion an error has !een committed in the
decision. A separate and independent action is# therefore# unnecessary and would only
unduly prolong the agony of the heirs of the victim.N
Finally# the position taken !y the respondent appellate court that to grant the motion for
su!sidiary writ of e;ecution would in effect !e to amend its decision which has already
!ecome final and e;ecutory cannot !e sustained. 1ompelling the owner:operator to pay
on the !asis of his su!sidiary lia!ility does not constitute an amendment of the judgment
!ecause in an action under Art. $") of the 5evised Denal 1ode# once all the re<uisites
as earlier discussed are met# the employer !ecomes ipso facto su!sidiarily lia!le#
without need of a separate action. 0uch !eing the case# the su!sidiary lia!ility can !e
enforced in the same case where the award was given# and this does not constitute an
act of amending the decision. 8t !ecomes incum!ent upon the court to grant a motion for
su!sidiary writ of e;ecution 2!ut only after the employer has !een heard3# upon
conviction of the employee and after e;ecution is returned unsatisfied due to the
employeeQs insolvency.