You are on page 1of 16

Cangco'vs.

'Manila'Railroad'
GR#12191,#14#October#1918#
#
Facts:##
Jose# Cangco,# was# in# the# employment# of# the# Manila#
Railroad# Company# in# the# capacity# of# clerk,# with# a#
monthly# wage# of# P25.# He# lived# in# the# pueblo# of# San#
Mateo,# Rizal,# which# is# located# upon# the# line# of# the#
Manila# Railroad# Company;# and# in# coming# daily# by# train#
to# the# companys# office# in# the# city# of# Manila# where# he#
worked,# he# used# a# pass,# supplied# by# the# company,#
which# entitled# him# to# ride# upon# the# companys# trains#
free#of#charge.##
#
On#20#January#1915,#Cangco#was#returning#home#by#rail#
from# his# daily# labors;# and# as# the# train# drew# up# to# the#
station#in#San#Mateo,#Cangco#arose#from#his#seat#in#the#
second# classMcar# where# he# was# riding# and,# making# his#
exit#through#the#door,#took#his#position#upon#the#steps#
of#the#coach,#seizing#the#upright#guardrail#with#his#right#
hand# for# support.# On# the# side# of# the# train# where#
passengers# alight# at# the# San# Mateo# station# there# is# a#
cement# platform# which# begins# to# rise# with# a# moderate#
gradient#some#distance#away#from#the#companys#office#
and# extends# along# in# front# of# said# office# for# a# distance#
sufficient#to#cover#the#length#of#several#coaches.#As#the#
train# slowed# down# another# passenger,# named# Emilio#
Zuniga,# also# an# employee# of# the# railroad# company,# got#
off#the#same#car,#alighting#safely#at#the#point#where#the#
platform# begins# to# rise# from# the# level# of# the# ground.#
When# the# train# had# proceeded# a# little# farther,# Cangco#
stepped# off# also,# but# one' or' both' of' his' feet' came' in'
contact' with' a' sack' of' watermelons' with' the' result'
that' his' feet' slipped' from' under' him' and' he' fell'
violently'on'the'platform.#His#body#at#once#rolled#from#
the# platform# and# was# drawn# under# the# moving# car,#
where'his'right'arm'was'badly'crushed'and'lacerated.#
It#appears#that#after#Cangco#alighted#from#the#train#the#
car#moved#forward#possibly#6#meters#before#it#came#to#
a#full#stop.##
#
The#accident#occurred#between#7#and#8#p.m.,#and#as#the#
railroad# station# was# lighted# dimly# by# a# single# light#
located# some# distance# away,# objects# on# the# platform#
where# the# accident# occurred# were# difficult# to# discern,#
especially# to# a# person# emerging# from# a# lighted# car.#
Cangco' was' drawn' from' under' the' car' in' an'
unconscious' condition,' and' it' appeared' that' the'
injuries' which' he' had' received' were' very' serious.# He#
was# therefore# brought# at# once# to# a# certain# hospital# in#
the#city#of#Manila#where'an'examination'was'made'and'
his' arm' was' amputated.# The# result# of# this# operation#
was# unsatisfactory,# and# Cangco# was# then# carried# to#

another# hospital# where# a# second# operation# was#


performed# and# the# member# was# again# amputated#
higher#up#near#the#shoulder.#Cangco#expended#the#sum#
of#P790.25#in#the#form#of#medical#and#surgical#fees#and#
for#other#expenses#in#connection#with#the#process#of#his#
curation.#
#
On#31#August#1915,#Cangco#instituted#the#proceeding#in#
the# Court# of# First# Instance# of# Manila' to' recover'
damages' of' the' Manila' Railroad,' founding' his' action'
upon'the'negligence'of'the'servants'and'employees'of'
Manila' Railroad' in' placing' the' sacks' of' melons' upon'
the'platform'and'in'leaving'them'so'placed'as'to'be'a'
menace'to'the'security'of'passenger'alighting'from'the'
companys' trains.' Judgment# was# entered# in# favor# of#
Manila#Railroad,#and#Cangco#appealed.#
#
Issue:#
Whether# or# not# Cangco# was# guilty# of# contributory#
negligence.#
#
Held:#
Our# conclusion# is# that# the# conduct# of# the# plaintiff# in#
undertaking# to# alight# while# the# train# was# yet# slightly#
under# way# was# not# characterized# by# imprudence# and#
that# therefore# he' was' not' guilty' of' contributory'
negligence.'
#
As#expressed#in#Thompsons#work#on#Negligence#(vol.#3,#
sec.# 3010),# the' test' by' which' to' determine' whether'
the' passenger' has' been' guilty' of' negligence' in'
attempting' to' alight' from' a' moving' railway' train,# is#
that' of' ordinary' or' reasonable' care.# It# is# to# be#
considered# whether# an# ordinarily# prudent# person,# of#
the#age,#sex#and#condition#of#the#passenger,#would#have#
acted# as# the# passenger# acted# under# the# circumstances#
disclosed#by#the#evidence.#This#care#has#been#defined#to#
be,# not# the# care# which# may# or# should# be# used# by# the#
prudent# man# generally,# but# the' care' which' a' man' of'
ordinary' prudence' would' use' under' similar'
circumstances,' to' avoid' injury.# (Thompson,#
Commentaries#on#Negligence,#vol.#3,#sec.#3010.)#
#
If# the# Court# would# prefer# to# adopt# the# mode# of#
exposition#used#by#this#court#in#Picart#vs.#Smith#(37#Phil.#
Rep.,# 809),# it# may# say# that# the# test# is# this;' Was' there'
anything'in'the'circumstances'surrounding'the'plaintiff'
at' the' time' he' alighted' from' the' train' which' would'
have' admonished' a' person' of' average' prudence' that'
to'get'off'the'train'under'the'conditions'then'existing'
was'dangerous'?#If#so,#the#plaintiff#should#have#desisted#
from# alighting;# and# his# failure# so# to# desist# was#
contributory#negligence.#

#
As#pertinent#to#the#question#of#contributory#negligence#
on# the# part# of# the# plaintiff# in# this# case# the# following#
circumstances#are#to#be#noted:#The'companys'platform'
was' constructed' upon' a' level' higher' than' that' of' the'
roadbed' and' the' surrounding' ground.# The' distance'
from' the' steps' of' the' car' to' the' spot' where' the'
alighting' passenger' would' place' his' feet' on' the'
platform' was' thus' reduced,' thereby' decreasing' the'
risk' incident' to' stepping' off.# The# nature# of# the#
platform,#constructed#as#it#was#of#cement#material,#also#
assured# to# the# passenger# a# stable# and# even# surface# on#
which# to# alight.# Furthermore,# the# plaintiff# was#
possessed# of# the# vigor# and# agility# of# young# manhood,#
and#it#was#by#no#means#so#risky#for#him#to#get#off#while#
the# train# was# yet# moving# as# the# same# act# would# have#
been# in# an# aged# or# feeble# person.# In# determining# the#
question#of#contributory#negligence#in#performing#such#
act# # that# is# to# say,' whether' the' passenger' acted'
prudently' or' recklessly' ' the' age,' sex,' and' physical'
condition' of' the' passenger' are' circumstances'
necessarily' affecting' the' safety' of' the' passenger,' and'
should'be'considered.#Women,#it#has#been#observed,#as#
a# general# rule,# are# less# capable# than# men# of# alighting#
with#safety#under#such#conditions,#as#the#nature#of#their#
wearing# apparel# obstructs# the# free# movement# of# the#
limbs.# Again,# it' may' be' noted' that' the' place' was'
perfectly'familiar'to'Cangco,'as'it'was'his'daily'custom'
to'get'on'and'off'the'train'at'this'station.#There#could,#
therefore,# be# no# uncertainty# in# his# mind# with# regard#
either# to# the# length# of# the# step# which# he# was# required#
to# take# or# the# character# of# the# platform# where# he# was#
alighting.' Cangcos' conduct,' in' undertaking' to' alight'
while' the' train' was' yet' slightly' under' way,' was' not'
characterized' by' imprudence' and' that' therefore' he'
was'not'guilty'of'contributory'negligence.'
#
ISSUE:#Whether'or'not'Manila'Railroad'Co'is'liable'for'
damages.#
HELD:# Yes.# 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.#Cangco#
has#the#vigor#and#agility#of#young#manhood,#and#it#was#
by# no# means# so# risky# for# him# to# get# off# while# the# train#
was#yet#moving#as#the#same#act#would#have#been#in#an#
aged#or#feeble#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.#
The# Court# also# elucidated# on# the# distinction# between#
the# liability# of# employers# under# Article# 2180# and# their#
liability#for#breach#of#contract#[of#carriage]:#
#
#

#
#
#

NOTES:# But,# if# the# master# has# not# been# guilty# of# any#
negligence# whatever# in# the# selection# and# direction# of#
the# servant,# he# is# not# liable# for# the# acts# of# the# latter,#
whatever# done# within# the# scope# of# his# employment# or#
not,# if# the# damage# done# by# the# servant# does# not#
amount#to#a#breach#of#the#contract#between#the#master#
and#the#person#injured.#
The' liability' arising' from' extraIcontractual' culpa' is'
always'based'upon'a'voluntary'act'or'omission'which,'
without' willful' intent,' but' by' mere' negligence' or'
inattention,'has'caused'damage'to'another.'
These# two# fields,# figuratively# speaking,# concentric;# that#
is# to# say,# the# mere# fact# that# a# person# is# bound# to#
another# by# contract# does# not# relieve# him# from# extraM
contractual# liability# to# such# person.# When# such# a#
contractual# relation# exists# the# obligor# may# break# the#
contract#under#such#conditions#that#the#same#act#which#
constitutes#the#source#of#an#extraMcontractual#obligation#
had#no#contract#existed#between#the#parties.#
Manresa:#Whether#negligence#occurs#an#incident#in#the#
course#of#the#performance#of#a#contractual#undertaking#
or# in# itself# the# source# of# an# extraMcontractual#
undertaking# obligation,# its# essential# characteristics# are#
identical.#
Vinculum'Juris:#(def)#It#means#an#obligation#of#law,#or#
the# right# of# the# obligee# to# enforce# a# civil# matter# in# a#
court#of#law.#

AIR'FRANCE'v.'CARRASCOSO'
FACTS:'
In# March# 1958,# Rafael# Carrascoso# and# several# other#
Filipinos# were# tourists# en# route# to# Rome# from# Manila.#
Carrascoso# was# issued# a# first# class# round# trip# ticket# by#
Air# France.# But# during# a# stopMover# in# Bangkok,# he# was#
asked#by#the#plane#manager#of#Air#France#to#vacate#his#
seat#because#a#white#man#allegedly#has#a#better#right#
than# him.# Carrascoso# protested# but# when# things# got#
heated# and# upon# advise# of# other# Filipinos# on# board,#
Carrascoso#gave#up#his#seat#and#was#transferred#to#the#
planes#tourist#class.#
After# their# tourist# trip# when# Carrascoso# was# already# in#
the#Philippines,#he'sued'Air'France'for'damages'for'the'
embarrassment' he' suffered' during' his' trip.# In# court,#
Carrascoso# testified,# among# others,# that# he# when# he#
was# forced# to# take# the# tourist# class,# he# went# to# the#
planes# pantry# where# he# was# approached# by# a# plane#
purser#who#told#him#that#he#noted#in#the#planes#journal#
the#following:#
First&class* passenger* was* forced* to* go* to* the* tourist*
class* against* his* will,* and* that* the* captain* refused* to*
intervene*
The#said#testimony#was#admitted#in#favor#of#Carrascoso.#
The#trial#court#eventually#awarded#damages#in#favor#of#
Carrascoso.#This#was#affirmed#by#the#Court#of#Appeals.#
Air#France#is#assailing#the#decision#of#the#trial#court#and#
the#CA.#It#avers#that#the#issuance#of#a#first#class#ticket#to#
Carrascoso#was#not#an#assurance#that#he#will#be#seated#
in#first#class#because#allegedly##in#truth#and#in#fact,#that#
was#not#the#true#intent#between#the#parties.#
Air# France# also# questioned# the# admissibility# of#
Carrascosos#testimony#regarding#the#note#made#by#the#
purser# because# the# said# note# was# never# presented# in#
court.#
ISSUE#1:#Whether#or#not#Air#France#is#liable#for#damages#
and#on#what#basis.#
ISSUE# 2:# Whether# or# not# the# testimony# of# Carrasoso#
regarding#the#note#which#was#not#presented#in#court#is#
admissible#in#evidence.#
HELD# 1:# Yes.# It# appears# that# Air' Frances' liability' is'
based'on'culpaIcontractual'and#on#culpa#aquiliana.#
Culpa'Contractual'
There#exists#a#contract'of'carriage'between'Air'France'
and' Carrascoso.# There# was# a# contract' to' furnish'
Carrasocoso' a' first' class' passage;# Second,# That' said'
contract' was' breached' when' Air' France' failed' to'
furnish'first'class'transportation'at'Bangkok;#and#Third,'
that' there' was' bad' faith' when' Air' Frances' employee'
compelled' Carrascoso' to' leave' his' first' class'
accommodation' berth' after' he' was' already,' seated'
and' to' take' a' seat' in' the' tourist' class,# by# reason# of#
which# he# suffered# inconvenience,# embarrassments# and#

humiliations,# thereby# causing# him# mental# anguish,#


serious# anxiety,# wounded# feelings# and# social#
humiliation,#resulting#in#moral#damages.#
The' Supreme' Court' did' not' give' credence' to' Air'
Frances'claim'that'the'issuance'of'a'first'class'ticket'to'
a'passenger'is'not'an'assurance'that'he'will'be'given'a'
first'class'seat.'Such'claim'is'simply'incredible.'
Culpa#Aquiliana#
Here,# the# SC# ruled,# even# though# there# is# a# contract# of#
carriage# between# Air# France# and# Carrascoso,# there' is'
also' a' tortuous' act' based' on' culpa' aquiliana.#
Passengers# do# not# contract# merely# for# transportation.#
They' have' a' right' to' be' treated' by' the' carriers'
employees' with' kindness,' respect,' courtesy' and' due'
consideration.'They#are#entitled#to#be#protected#against#
personal#misconduct,#injurious#language,#indignities#and#
abuses# from# such# employees.# So' it' is,' that' any' rule' or'
discourteous' conduct' on' the' part' of' employees'
towards' a' passenger' gives' the' latter' an' action' for'
damages'against'the'carrier.#Air'Frances'contract'with'
Carrascoso'is'one'attended'with'public'duty.#The#stress#
of# Carrascosos# action# is# placed# upon# his# wrongful#
expulsion.# This' is' a' violation' of' public' duty' by' the' Air'
France''a'case'of'quasiIdelict.##
#
Damages#are#proper.#
HELD:# 2:# Yes.# The# testimony# of# Carrascoso# must# be#
admitted#based#on#res#gestae.#The#subject#of#inquiry#is#
not#the#entry,#but#the#ouster#incident.#Testimony#on#the#
entry#does#not#come#within#the#proscription#of#the#best#
evidence# rule.# Such# testimony# is# admissible.# Besides,#
when# the# dialogue# between# Carrascoso# and# the# purser#
happened,# the# impact# of# the# startling# occurrence# was#
still#fresh#and#continued#to#be#felt.#The#excitement#had#
not# as# yet# died# down.# Statements# then,# in# this#
environment,# are# admissible# as# part# of# the# res# gestae.#
The# utterance# of# the# purser# regarding# his# entry# in# the#
notebook# was# spontaneous,# and# related# to# the#
circumstances#of#the#ouster#incident.#Its#trustworthiness#
has# been# guaranteed.# It# thus# escapes# the# operation# of#
the#hearsay#rule.#It#forms#part#of#the#res#gestae.#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

II.# QuasiIdelict# B.# No# double# recovery# rule# G.R.# No.# LM


24837#June#27,#1968#
##
JULIAN'C.'SINGSON'and'RAMONA'DEL'CASTILLO'
'vs.'
BANK' OF' THE' PHILIPPINE' ISLANDS' and' SANTIAGO'
FREIXAS,'in'his'capacity'as'President'of'the'said'Bank''
#
'FACTS:# Singson,# was# one# of# the# defendants# in# a# civil#
case# in# which# judgment# had# been# rendered# sentencing#
him# and# his# coMdefendants# therein,# namely,# Celso#
Lobregat#and#VillaMAbrille#&#Co.,#to#pay#a#certain#sum#to#
the# plaintiff.# Philippine# Milling# Co.,# Singson# and#
Lobregat#had#seasonably#appealed#from#said#judgment,#
but# not# VillaMAbrille# &# Co.,# as# against# which# said#
judgment,#accordingly,#became#final#and#executory.##
#
###In# due# course,# a# writ' of' garnishment' was'
subsequently' served' upon' the' Bank' of' the' Philippine'
Islands# in# which# the# Singsons# had# a# current# account#
insofar# as# VillaMAbrille's# credits# against# the# Bank# were#
concerned.# Upon# receipt# of# the# said# Writ# of#
Garnishment,# a' clerk' of' the' bank' upon' reading' the'
name' of' the' Singson' in' the' title' of' the' Writ' of'
Garnishment' as' a' party' defendants,' without' further'
reading' the' body' of' the' said' garnishment' prepared' a'
letter' for' the' signature' of' the' President' of' the' Bank'
informing' the' plaintiff' Julian' C.' Singson' of' the'
garnishment' of' his' deposits' by' the' plaintiff' in' that'
case.##
'
Subsequently,' two' checks' were' issued' by' the' plaintiff'
Julian' C.' Singson,' one' in' favor' of' B.' M.' Glass' Service'
and' another' in' favor' of' the' Lega' Corporation,# and#
drawn#against#the#said#Bank,#were#deposited#by#the#said#
drawers.'The'checks'were,'however,'dishonored'by'the'
bank' on' the' belief' that' Singson' has' no' more' control'
over' the' same.# The# said# B.# M.# Glass# Service# closed#
Singsons# credit# account# with# them.# In# view# thereof,#
plaintiff' Julian' C.' Singson' wrote' the' defendant' ' bank'
claiming'that'his'name'was'not'included'in'the'Writ'of'
Garnishment.##
#
##The# President# of# the# bank# took# steps# to# verify# this#
information# and# after# having# confirmed# the# same,#
apologized# to# the# plaintiff# and# told# that# the# action# of#
garnishment# from# his# account# had# already# been#
removed.# Thus,# the# defendants# lost# no# time# to# rectify#
the# mistake# that# had# been# inadvertently# committed,#
resulting' in' the' temporary' freezing' of' the' account' of'
the' plaintiff' with' the' said' bank' for' a' short' time.'With#
this,' Singson' commenced' the' present' action' against'
the' Bank' and' its' president,' Santiago' Freixas,' for'

damages' in' consequence' of' said' illegal' freezing' of'


plaintiffs'' account.# The# CFI# of# Manila# rendered#
judgment# dismissing# the# complaint# upon# the# ground#
that#plaintiffs#cannot#recover#from#the#defendants#upon#
the# # basis# of# a# quasiMdelict,# because# the# relation#
between#the#parties#is#contractual#in#nature.#The#lower#
court# held# that# plaintiffs'# claim# for# damages# cannot# be#
based#upon#a#tort#or#quasiMdelict,#their#relation#with#the#
defendants# being# contractual# in# nature.# From# this#
decision,#the#plaintiff#appealed#directly#to#the#SC.'
'ISSUE:#Whether#or#not#is#entitled#to#damages?#
#
HELD:# The# SC# held# that# the# existence# of# a# contract#
between# the# parties# does# not# bar# the# commission# of# a#
tort# by# the# one# against# the# order# and# the# consequent#
recovery# of# damages# therefor.# However,' considering'
the'facts'and'circumstances'in'the'case'at'bar,'that'the'
wrong' done' to' the' plaintiff' was' remedied' as' soon' as'
the'President'of'the'bank'realized'the'mistake'he'and'
his'subordinate'employee'had'committed,#the#SC#only#
awarded#nominal#damages.#In#addition,#
since# damages# has# already# been# awarded# under# quasiM
delict,#Singson'cannot'recover'other'damages'based'on'
the' contract,# otherwise,# it# would# be# against# the# rule#
prohibiting#double#recovery.#
#
So' Ping' Bun,' petitioner' v.' CA' ,' Tek' Hua' Enterprising'
Corp.'and'Manuel'c.'Tiong,'respondents'
314#SCRA#751#(1999)#
Facts:'
Tek# Hua# Trading# Co# (THTC)# through# its# managing#
partner,#So#Pek#Giok,#entered#into#lease#agreements#of#
4# lots# in# Binondo# with# lessor# DCCSI.# Tek# Hua# used# the#
areas#to#store#its#textiles.#When'the'contracts'expired,'
parties'did'not'renew'contracts'but'Tek'Hua'continued'
to' occupy' the' premises.# In# 1976,# THTC' was' dissolved'
and' replaced' by' Tek' Hua' Enterprising' Corp' (THEC)'
owned'by'original'members'of'THTC.#So#Pek#Giok#died#
in#1986#and#was#replaced#by#his#grandson,#petitioner'So'
Ping' Bun' who# occupied# the# warehouse# for# his# own#
textile#business,#Trendsetter#Marketing.##
#
Soon#however,#THEC# through# Manuel#Tiong,#requested#
petitioner# to# vacate# his# business# from# the# warehouse#
for#the#company#will#use#it.#Petitioner'refused'to'vacate'
and'requested'formal'contracts'of'lease'with'DCCSI'in'
favor'of'his'business.#He#claimed#that#after#the#death#of#
his#grandfather#he#had#been#occupying#the#premises#for#
his# textile# business# and# religiously# paid# rent.# DCCSI'
acceded'to'petitioner's'request.#The#lease#contracts#in#
favor# of# Trendsetter# were# executed.# In# the# suit# for#
injunction,# private# respondents# pressed# for# the#

nullification# of# the# lease# contracts# between# DCCSI# and#


petitioner.#They#also#claimed#for#damages.#
Issue' :# Whether# or# not# damages# are# to# be# awarded# in#
this#case.#
Held'
:Damage# is# the# loss,# hurt,# or# harm# which# results# from#
injury,# and# damages# are# the# recompense# or#
compensation# awarded# for# the# damage# suffered.# The#
elements' of' tort' interference# are:# (1)# existence# of# a#
valid# contract;# (2)# knowledge# on# the# part# of# the# third#
person#of#the#existence#of#contract;#and#(3)#interference#
of# the# third# person# is# without# legal# justification# or#
excuse.# This# may# pertain# to# a# situation# where# a# third#
person# induces# a# party# to# renege# on# or# violate# his#
undertaking# under# a# contract.# In# the# case# before# us,#
petitioner's' Trendsetter' Marketing' asked' DCCSI' to'
execute' lease' contracts' in' its' favor,' and' as' a' result'
petitioner' deprived' respondent' corporation' of' the'
latter's'property'right#.#
#
#Petitioner# argues# that# damage# is# an# essential# element#
of# tort# interference,# and# since# the# trial# court# and# the#
appellate#court#ruled#that#private#respondents#were#not#
entitled# to# actual,# moral# or# exemplary# damages,# it#
follows# that# he# ought# to# be# absolved# of# any# liability,#
including#attorney's#fees.#It#is#true#that#the#lower#courts#
did#not#award#damages,#but'this'was'only'because'the'
extent'of'damages'was'not'quantifiable.##
#
We# had# a# similar# situation# in# Gilchrist# # ,# where# it# was#
difficult* or* impossible* to* determine* the* extent* of*
damage* and* there* was* nothing* on* record* to* serve* as*
basis* thereof.# In# that# case# we# refrained# from# awarding#
damages.# We# believe# the# same# conclusion# applies# in#
this#case#and#petitioner'is'guilty'of'tort'interference'as'
all'the'said'requisites'are'present.##
#
While# we# do# not# encourage# tort# interferers# seeking#
their# economic# interest# to# intrude# into# existing#
contracts# at# the# expense# of# others,# however,# we# find#
that# the# conduct# herein# complained# of# did# not#
transcend#the#limits#forbidding#an#obligatory#award#for#
damages# in# the# absence# of# any# malice.# Lack' of' malice'
precludes'damages.##
#
But#it#does#not#relieve#petitioner#of#the#legal#liability#for#
entering# into# contracts# and# causing# breach# of# existing#
ones.# The# respondent' appellate' court' correctly'
confirmed' the' permanent' injunction' and' nullification'
of'the'lease'contracts'between'DCCSI'and'Trendsetter'
Marketing,' without' awarding' damages.# The# injunction#
saved# the# respondents# from# further# damage# or# injury#
caused#by#petitioner's#interference.##

LIGHT'RAIL'TRANSIT'AUTHORITY'vs.'Navidad'
'
FACTS:'
#
Nicanor# Navidad,# then# drunk,# entered# the# EDSA# LRT#
station# after# purchasing# a# token# (representing#
payment# of# the# fare).# While# Navidad# was# standing# on#
the# platform# near# the# LRT# tracks,# Junelito# Escartin,# the#
security# guard# assigned# to# the# area# approached# him.# A#
misunderstanding# or# an# altercation# between# the# two#
apparently#ensued#that#led#to#a#fist'fight.##
#
No# evidence,# however,# was# adduced# to# indicate# how#
the# fight# started# or# who,# between# the# two,# delivered#
the# first# blow# or# how# Navidad# later# fell# on# the# LRT#
tracks.# At# the# exact# moment# that# Navidad# fell,# an# LRT#
train,# operated# by# petitioner# Rodolfo# Roman,# was#
coming# in.# # Navidad' was' struck' by' the' moving' train,'
and' he' was' killed' instantaneously.# The# widow# of#
Nicanor,#Marjorie#Navidad,#along#with#her#children,#filed#
a# complaint# for# damages# against# Junelito# Escartin,#
Rodolfo# Roman,# the# LRTA,# the# Metro# Transit#
Organization,# Inc.# (Metro# Transit),# and# Prudent# for# the#
death#of#her#husband.##
#
Trial#court#ruled#in#favor#Navidads#wife#and#against#the#
defendants# Prudent# Security# and# Junelito# Escartin# .#
LRTA# and# Rodolfo# Roman# were# dismissed# for# lack# of#
merit.# CA# held# LRTA# and# Roman# liable,# hence# the#
petition.#
#
ISSUE:#Who#can#be#held#liable?#
HELD:##
#
A# common# carrier,# both# from# the# nature# of# its#
business# and# for# reasons# of# public# policy,# is# burdened#
with#the#duty#of#exercising#utmost#diligence#in#ensuring#
the#safety#of#passengers.##
#
The# law# requires# common# carriers# to# carry#
passengers# safely# using# the# utmost# diligence# of# very#
cautious#persons#with#due#regard#for#all#circumstances.#
Such#duty#of#a#common#carrier#to'provide'safety'to'its'
passengers'so'obligates'it'not'only'during'the'course'of'
the'trip'but'for'so'long'as'the'passengers'are'within'its'
premises'and'where'they'ought'to'be'in'pursuance'to'
the' contract' of' carriage.# The# statutory# provisions#
render#a#common#carrier#liable#for#death#of#or#injury#to#
passengers:#
(a)# through# the# negligence# or# wilful# acts# of# its#
employees#or##
(b)# on# account# of# wilful# acts# or# negligence# of# other#
passengers# or# of# strangers# if# the# common# carriers#
employees# through# the# exercise# of# due# diligence# could#
have#prevented#or#stopped#the#act#or#omission.##

In#case#of#such#death#or#injury,#a#carrier#is#presumed#to#
have# been# at# fault# or# been# negligent,# and# by# simple#
proof#of#injury,#the#passenger#is#relieved#of#the#duty#to#
still#establish#the#fault#or#negligence#of#the#carrier#or#of#
its#employees#and#the#burden#shifts#upon#the#carrier#to#
prove# that# the# injury# is# due# to# an# unforeseen# event# or#
to#force#majeure.#
#
Once#such#fault#is#established,#the#employer#can#
then# be# made# liable# on# the# basis# of# the# presumption#
juris# tantum# that# the# employer# failed# to# exercise#
diligentissimi# patris# families' in' the' selection' and'
supervision' of' its' employees.# The# liability# is# primary#
and# can# only# be# negated# by# showing# due# diligence# in#
the#selection#and#supervision#of#the#employee,#a#factual#
matter#that#has#not#been#shown.##
#
When# an# act# which# constitutes# a# breach# of#
contract# would# have# itself# constituted# the# source# of# a#
quasiMdelictual#liability#had#no#contract#existed#between#
the# parties,# the# contract# can# be# said# to# have# been#
breached# by# tort,# thereby# allowing# the# rules# on# tort# to#
apply.# #
#
Consolidated'Bank'and'Trust'Corp.'v.'CA'+'L.C.'Diaz'and'
Company'(2003)'/'Carpio'
#
Facts'
LC# Diaz# [professional# partnership# engaged# in#
accounting]# opened# a# savings# account# with# Solidbank.#
LC# Diaz's# cashier,# Macaraya,# filled# up# two# savings#
deposit# slips,# and# she# gave# them# +# passbook# to#
messenger# Calapre# and# instructed# him# to# deposit# the#
money# with# Solidbank.# Calapre# presented# the# deposit#
slips# and# passbook# to# the# teller.# He# left# the# passbook#
with#Solidbank#first#as#he#had#to#make#another#deposit#
at#Allied#Bank,#but#when#he#returned,#he#was#informed#
that#somebody#got#the#passbook.#Calapre#reported#this#
to# Macaraya.# Macaraya# +# Calapre# went# back# to#
Solidbank# with# a# deposit# slip# [P200k# check].# When#
Macaraya#asked#about#the#passbook,#the#teller#said#that#
someone# shorter# than# Calapre# got# it.# Macaraya#
reported#this#matter.##
#####The#following#day,#CEO#Diaz#called#Solidbank#to#stop#
any# transaction# using# the# passbook# until# the# company#
could# open# a# new# account.# It# was# found# out# that#
learned# that# P300k# was# withdrawn# from# the# account#
the# previous# day.# The# withdrawal# slip# bore# the#
signatures# of# two# authorized# signatories# of# LC# Diaz# but#
they# denied# signing# it.# Noel# Tamayo# received# this# sum#
of#money.#
#####An# information# for# Estafa# through# Falsification# of#
Commercial# Document# was# filed# against# one# of# their#
messengers# (Ilagan)# and# one# Roscoe# Verdazola# (first#
time#they#appeared#in#the#case#discussion),#but#the#RTC#

dismissed# the# criminal# case.# LC# Diaz# demanded# the#


return# of# their# money# from# Solidbank,# but# the# latter#
refused#and#a#complaint#for#recovery#of#a#sum#of#money#
was# filed# against# them.# However,# Solidbank# was#
absolved.#
####RTC# applied# rules# on# savings# account# written# on# the#
passbook# ["Possession# of# this# book# shall# raise# the#
presumption# of# ownership# and# any# payment# or#
payments#made#by#the#bank#upon#the#production#of#the#
said# book# and# entry# therein# of# the# withdrawal# shall#
have# the# same# effect# as# if# made# to# the# depositor#
personally."]# RTC# said# that# the# burden# of# proof# shifted#
to# LC# Diaz# to# prove# that# the# signatures# are# not# forged.#
Also,# they# applied# the# rule# that# the# holder# of# the#
passport#is#presumed#to#be#the#owner.#It#was#also#held#
that# Solidbank# did# not# have# any# participation# in# the#
custody#and#care#of#the#passbook#and#as#such,#their#act#
of#allowing#the#withdrawal#was#not#the#proximate#cause#
of# the# loss.# The# proximate# cause# was# LC# Diaz#
negligence.# As# regards# the# contention# that# LC# Diaz# and#
Solidbank# had# precautionary# procedures# (like# a# secret#
handshake# of# sorts)# whenever# the# former# withdrew# a#
large#sum,#RTC#pointed#out#that#LC#Diaz#disregarded#this#
in#the#past#withdrawal.#
#####CA,#on#the#other#hand,#said#that#the#proximate#cause#
of# the# unauthorized# withdrawal# is# Solidbank's#
negligence,#applying#NCC#2176.#CA#said#the#3#elements#
of# QD# are# present# [damages;# fault# or# negligence;#
connection# of# cause# and# effect].# The# teller# could# have#
called# up# LC# Diaz# since# the# amount# being# drawn# was#
significant.# Proximate# cause# is# teller's# failure# to# call# LC#
Diaz.# CA# ruled# that# while# LC# Diaz# was# negligent# in#
entrusting# its# deposits# to# its# messenger# and# its#
messenger# in# leaving# the# passbook# with# the# teller,#
Solidbank# could# not# escape# liability# because# of# the#
doctrine# of# last# clear# chance.# Solidbank# could# have#
averted#the#injury#had#it#called#up#LC#Diaz#to#verify#the#
withdrawal.#
Issue:#Whether#or#not#petitioner#bank#is#liable#solely#for#
the#amount#withdrawn#by#the#impostor.##
RATIO'
On'Solidbank's'fiduciary'duty'under'the'law'
SC# says# that# Solidbank# is# liable# for# breach# of# contract#
due#to#negligence#[culpa#contractual].#K#[savings#deposit#
agreement]# between# bank# and# depositor# governed# by#
provisions# on# simple# loan;# bank# is# the# debtor# and#
depositor#is#the#creditor.#Banks#are#under#obligation#to#
treat# accounts# of# depositors# with# meticulous# care#
[higher# than# diligence# of# a# good# father# of# a# family#
standard],#bearing#in#mind#the#fiduciary#nature#of#their#
relationship.# The# bank's# obligation# to# observe# high#
standards# of# integrity# and# performance# is# deemed#
written# in# every# deposit# agreement.# However,# this#

nature#does#not#convert#K#from#a#simple#loan#to#a#trust#
agreement#(failure#by#bank#to#pay#depositor#is#failure#to#
pay#a#simple#loan#only).#
'
Solidbank's'breach'of'contractual'obligation'
For# breach# of# the# savings# deposit# agreement# due# to#
negligence,#or#culpa#contractual,#the#bank#is#liable#to#its#
depositor.# When# the# passbook# is# in# the# possession# of#
Solidbanks#tellers#during#withdrawals,#the#law#imposes#
an# even# higher# degree# of# diligence.# Likewise,# tellers#
must#exercise#a#high#degree#of#diligence#in#insuring#that#
they# return# the# passbook# only# to# the# depositor# or#
authorized#representative.#
'''''In' culpa' contractual,' once' the' plaintiff' proves' a'
breach' of' contract,' there' is' a' presumption' that' the'
defendant' was' at' fault' or' negligent.# The# burden# is# on#
the# defendant# to# prove# that# he# was# not# at# fault# or#
negligent.' In' culpa' aquiliana,' the' plaintiff' has' the'
burden' of' proof.# Solidbank# failed# to# discharge# this#
burden,# after# LC# Diaz# establishing# the# breach# of#
contractual# obligation.# Hence,# Solidbank' is' bound' by'
the' negligence' of' its' employees.' The' defense' of'
exercising' required' diligence' in' selecting,' supervising'
employees' is' NOT' a' complete' defense' in' culpa'
contractual,#unlike#in#culpa#aquiliana.#
'
Proximate'cause'of'unauthorized'withdrawal'
Solidbanks*negligence*in*not*returning*the*passbook*to*
Calapre* was* the* proximate* cause.# [Definition:# cause#
which,# in# natural# and# continuous# sequence,# unbroken#
by# any# efficient# intervening# cause,# produces# the# injury#
and#without#which#the#result#would#not#have#occurred.]#
#####RTC#said#that#LC#Diaz#negligence#was#the#proximate#
cause.# However,# SC' says' LC' Diaz' was' not' at' fault' that'
the' passbook' landed' in' the' hands' of' the' impostor.' In'
fact,' it' was' in' the' possession' of' the' bank' while' the'
deposit' was' being' processed.# CA# said# that# teller's#
failure#to#call#LC#Diaz#was#the#proximate#cause.#SC#says#
the#bank#did#not#have#the#duty#to#call#LC#Diaz#to#confirm#
withdrawal.#
#
Doctrine'of'last'clear'chance'
"Where#both#parties#are#negligent#but#the#negligent#act#
of# one# is# appreciably# later# than# that# of# the# other,# or#
where# it# is# impossible# to# determine# whose# fault# or#
negligence# caused# the# loss,# the# one# who# had# the# last#
clear#opportunity#to#avoid#the#loss#but#failed#to#do#so,#is#
chargeable#with#the#loss."#
#####SC# DOES# NOT# APPLY# IT# HERE.# Solidbank' is' liable' for'
breach' of' contract' due' to' negligence' in' the'
performance' of' its' contractual' obligation' to' LC' Diaz.#
This# is# a# case# of# culpa# contractual,# where# neither# the#
contributory#negligence#of#the#plaintiff#nor#his#last#clear#

chance# to# avoid# the# loss,# would# exonerate# the#


defendant# from# liability.# Since# LC# Diaz# was# guilty# of#
contributory# negligence,# Solidbank's# liability# should# be#
reduced.#
SHORT'VERSION'RULING'
No.#Solidbank'is'liable'for'the'loss'of'the'P300k'but'its'
liability'is'grounded'on'culpa'contractual.#
The# contract# between# the# bank# and# its# depositor# is#
governed# by# the# provisions# of# the# Civil# Code# on# simple#
loan#(Article#1980,#Civil#Code).#There#is#a#debtorMcreditor#
relationship# between# the# bank# and# its# depositor.# # The#
bank# is# the# debtor# and# the# depositor# is# the# creditor.##
The# depositor# lends# the# bank# money# and# the# bank#
agrees# to# pay# the# depositor# on# demand.# # The# savings#
deposit#agreement#between#the#bank#and#the#depositor#
is# the# contract# that# determines# the# rights# and#
obligations#of#the#parties.#
Under#their#contract,#it#is#the#duty#of#LC#Diaz#to#secure#
its# passbook.# However,# this# duty# is# also# applicable# to#
Solidbank# when# it# gains# possession# of# said# passbook#
which# it# did# when# the# messenger# left# it# to# the# banks#
possession# through# the# banks# teller.# The' act' of' the'
teller' returning' the' passbook' to' someone' else' other'
than' Calapre,' the' firms' authorized' messenger,' is' a'
clear' breach' of' contract.# Such# negligence# binds# the#
bank# under# the# principle# of# respondeat# superior# or#
command#responsibility.#
No'contract'of'trust'between'bank'and'depositor'
The# Supreme# Court# emphasized# that# the# contractual#
relation#between#the#bank#and#the#depositor#is#that#of#a#
simple#loan.#This#is#despite#the#wording#of#Section#2#of#
Republic# Act# 8791# (The# General# Banking# Law# of# 2000)#
which# states# that# the# State# recognizes# the# fiduciary#
nature# of# banking# that# requires# high# standards# of#
integrity# and# performance.# That# the# bank# is# under#
obligation# to# treat# the# accounts# of# its# depositors# with##
meticulous# care,# always# having# in# mind# the# fiduciary#
nature#of#their#relationship.#
This# fiduciary# relationship# means# that# the# banks#
obligation# to# observe# high# standards# of# integrity# and#
performance# is# deemed# written# into# every# deposit#
agreement# between# a# bank# and# its# depositor.# The#
fiduciary#nature#of#banking#requires#banks#to#assume#a#
degree#of#diligence#higher#than#that#of#a#good#father#of#
a#family.#
However,# the# fiduciary# nature# of# a# bankMdepositor#
relationship#does#not#convert#the#contract#between#the#
bank# and# its# depositors# from# a# simple# loan# to# a# trust#
agreement,#whether#express#or#implied.##Failure#by#the#
bank#to#pay#the#depositor#is#failure#to#pay#a#simple#loan,#
and#not#a#breach#of#trust.#
In#short,#the#General#Banking#Act#simply#imposes#on#the#
bank#a#higher#standard#of#integrity#and#performance#in#

complying# with# its# obligations# under# the# contract# of#


simple# loan,# beyond# those# required# of# nonMbank#
debtors# under# a# similar# contract# of# simple# loan.# The#
General#Banking#Law#in#no#way#modified#Article#1980#of#
the#Civil#Code.#
#
CRISOSTOMO'v.'Court'of'Appeals'
#
FACTS'
:# A# travel# agency# is# not# an# entity# engaged# in# the#
business#of#transporting#either#passengers#or#goods#and#
is# therefore,# neither# a# private# nor# a# common# carrier.#
Respondent# did# not# undertake# to# transport# petitioner#
from# one# place# to# another# since# its# covenant' with' its'
customers' is' simply' to' make' travel' arrangements' in'
their' behalf.# Respondents' services' as' a' travel' agency'
include'procuring'tickets'and'facilitating'travel'permits'
or'visas'as'well'as'booking'customers'for'tours.#It#is#in#
this#sense#that#the#contract#between#the#parties#in#this#
case# was# an' ordinary' one' for' services# and# not# one# of#
carriage.##
#
Petitioner# Estela# L.# Crisostomo# contracted# the# services#
of# respondent# Caravan# Travel# and# Tours# International,#
Inc.#to#arrange#and#facilitate#her#booking,#ticketing,#and#
accommodation#in#a#tour#dubbed#Jewels'of'Europe.#A#
5%# discount# on# the# total# cost# of# P74,322.70# which#
included# the# airfare# was# given# to# the# petitioner.# The#
booking#fee#was#also#waived#because#petitioners#niece,#
Meriam#Menor,#was#respondents#ticketing#manager.#
##
On#June#12,#1991,#Menor#went#to#her#aunts#residence#
to# deliver# petitioners# travel# documents# and# plane#
tickets.# In# return,# petitioner# gave# the# full# payment# for#
the# package# tour.# Menor' then' told' her' to' be' at' the'
NAIA'on'Saturday,'June'15,'1991,'two'hours'before'her'
flight' on' board' British' Airways.# Without# checking# her#
travel# documents,# petitioner# went# to# NAIA# and# to# her#
dismay,# she' discovered' that' the' flight' she' was'
supposed' to' take' had' already' departed' the' previous'
day.#She#learned#that#her#plane#ticket#was#for#the#flight#
scheduled# on# June# 14,# 1991.# She# called# up# Menor# to#
complain#and#Menor#suggested#upon#petitioner#to#take#
another# tour# British# Pageant.# Petitioner# was# asked#
Anew# to# pay# US$785.00.# Petitioner# gave#
respondentUS$300#as#partial#payment#and#commenced#
the#trip.#
ISSUE:''WON##respondent#Caravan#did#not#observe#the#
standard#of#care#required#of#a#common#carrier#when#it#
informed#the#petitioner#wrongly#of#the#flight#schedule.'
HELD:'
The# petition# was# denied# for# lack# of# merit.# The# decision#
of#the#Court#of#Appeals#was#affirmed.#A#common#carrier#

is# defined# under# Article# 1732# of# the# # # Civil# Code# as#
persons,#corporations,#firms#or#associations#engaged#in#
the# business# of# carrying# or# transporting# passengers# or#
goods#or#both,#by#land,#water#or#air,#for#compensation,#
affecting#their#services#to#the#public.# It# is# obvious# from#
the# above# definition# that# respondent# is# not# an# entity#
engaged# in# the# business# of# transporting# either#
passengers#or#goods#and#is#therefore,#neither#a#private#
nor#a#common#carrier.#Respondent#did#not#undertake#to#
transport#petitioner#from#one#place#to#another#since#its#
covenant#with#its#customers#is#simply#to#make#travel#
arrangements#in#their#behalf.##
#
Respondents# services# as# a# travel# agency# include#
procuring#tickets#and#facilitating#travel#permits#or#visas#
as#well#as#booking#customers#for#tours.#It#is#in#this#sense#
that# the# contract# between# the# parties# in# this# case# was#
an# ordinary# one# for# services# and# not# one# of# carriage.#
The'standard'of'care'required'of'respondent'is'that'of'
a'good'father'of'a'family'under'Article'1173'of'the'Civil'
Code.# This# connotes# reasonable# care# consistent# with#
that# which# an# ordinarily# prudent# person# would# have#
observed#when#confronted#with#a#similar#situation.##
#
It# is# clear# that# respondent' performed' its' prestation'
under'the'contract'as'well'as'everything'else'that'was'
essential' to' book' petitioner' for' the' tour.' Had#
petitioner#exercised#due#diligence#in#the#conduct#of#her#
affairs,#there#would#have#been#no#reason#for#her#to#miss#
the#flight.#Needless#to#say,#after'the'travel'papers'were'
delivered' to' petitioners,' it' became' incumbent' upon'
her' to' take' ordinary' care' of' her' concerns.# This'
undoubtedly' would' require' that' she' at' least' read' the'
documents'in'order'to'assure'herself'of'the'important'
details'regarding'the'trip.'
'
'
Philippine'Airlines'v.'Savillo'
Facts:'
Savillo#was#a#judge#of#the#RTC#of#Iloilo.#He#was#invited#
to# participate# in# the# 1993# ASEAN# Seniors# Annual# Golf#
Tournament# in# Jakarta# Indonesia.# So,# in# order# to# take#
part#in#such#event,#he#purchased#a#ticket#from#PAL#with#
the# following# itinerary:# ManilaMSingaporeMJakartaM
SingaporeMManila.#PAL#would#take#them#from#Manila#to#
Signapore,# while# Singapore# Airlines# would# take# them#
from#Singapore#to#Jakarta.#
When# they# arrived# in# Singapore,# Singapore# Airlines#
rejected# the# tickets# of# Savillo# because# they# were# not#
endorsed# by# PAL.# It# was# explained# that# if# Singapore#
Airlines# honoured# the# tickets# without# PALS#
endorsement,#PAL#would#not#pay#Singapore#Airlines#for#
their#passage.#

Savillo# demanded# compensation# from# both# PAL# and#


Singapore# Airlines,# but# his# efforts# were# futile.# He# then#
sued#PAL#after#3#years,#demanding#moral#damages.#
PAL#,#in#its#MTD,#claimed#that#the#cause#of#action#has#
already# prescribed# invoking# the# Warsaw# Convention#
(providing# for# a# 2# year# prescriptive# period).# Both# RTC#
and#CA#ruled#against#PAL.#
Issues:'
What# is# the# applicable# law,# the# Civil# Code# or# the#
Warsaw#Convention?#Has#the#action#prescribed?#
Held:'
The' Civil' Code' is' applicable.# Therefore# the# action# has#
not#yet#prescribed#for#the#prescription#period#is#4#years.#
If#cause#of#action#claims#moral#damages,#not#covered#by#
Warsaw# Convention.# Article# 19# of# the# Warsaw#
Convention#provides#for#liability#on#the#part#of#a#carrier#
for#damages#occasioned#by#delay#in#the#transportation#
by# air# of# passengers,# baggage# or# goods.# Article# 24#
excludes# other# remedies# by# further# providing# that# (1)#
in# the# cases# covered# by# articles# 18# and# 19,# any# action#
for# damages,# however# founded,# can# only# be# brought#
subject# to# the# conditions# and# limits# set# out# in# this#
convention.# Therefore,# a# claim' covered' by' the'
Warsaw'Convention'can'no'longer'be'recovered'under'
local' law,' if' the' statue' of' limitations' of' two' years' has'
elapsed.#
Nevertheless,#this#Court#notes#that#jurisprudence#in#the#
Philippines# and# the# United# States# also# recognizes# that#
the# Warsaw' Convention' does' not' exclusively'
regulate' the' relationship' between' passenger' and'
carrier'on'an'international'flight.#
In# U.S.# v.# Uy,# this# Court# distinguished# between# the# (1)#
damage#to#the#passengers#baggage#and#(2)#humiliation#
he#suffered#at#the#hands#of#the#airlines#employees.#The#
First# cause# of# action# was# covered# by# the# Warsaw#
Convention# which# prescribes# in# two# years,# while# the#
second#was#covered#by#the#provisions#of#the#Civil#Code#
on#torts,#which#prescribes#in#four#years.#
In# Mahaney# v.# Air# France# (US# case),# the# court# therein#
ruled# that# if# the# plaintiff# were# to# claim# damages# based#
solely# on# the# delay# she# experiencedM# for# instance,# the#
costs#of#renting#a#van,#which#she#had#to#arrange#on#her#
own#as#a#consequence#of#the#delay#the#complaint#would#
be# barred# by# the# twoyear# statute# of# limitations.#
However,# where# the# plaintiff# alleged# that# the# airlines#
subjected# her# to# unjust# discrimination# or# undue# or#
unreasonable# preference# or# disadvantage,# an# act#
punishable# under# the# US# law,# then# the# plaintiff# may#
claim# purely# nominal# compensatory# damages# for#
humiliation# and# hurt# feelings,# which# are# not# provided#
for#by#the#Warsaw#Convention.#
In# the# Petition# at# bar,# Savillos# Complaint# alleged# that#
both# PAL# and# Singapore# Airlines# were# guilty# of# gross#

negligence,# which# resulted# in# his# being# subjected# to#


humiliation,# embarrassment,# mental# anguish,# serious#
anxiety,# fear# and# distress# therefore# this# case# is# not#
covered#by#the#Warsaw#Convention.#
#
When' the' negligence' happened' before' the'
performance' of' the' contract' of' carriage,' not' covered'
by' the' Warsaw' Convention.# Also,# this# case# is#
comparable#to#Lathigra#v.#British#Airways.#In#that#case,#it#
was#held#that#the#airlines#negligent#act#of#reconfirming#
the# passengers# reservation# days# before# departure# and#
failing# to# inform# the# latter# that# the# flight# had# already#
been#discontinued#is#not#among#the#acts#covered#by#the#
Warsaw# Convention,# since# the# alleged# negligence# did#
not# occur# during# the# performance# of# the# contract# of#
carriage#but,#rather,#days#before#the#scheduled#flight.#
#
In# the# case# at# hand,# Singapore# Airlines# barred# Savillo#
from#boarding#the#Singapore#Airlines#flight#because#PAL#
allegedly# failed# to# endorse# the# tickets# of# private#
respondent# and# his# companions,# despite# PALs#
assurances#to#Savillo#that#Singapore#Airlines#had#already#
confirmed# their# passage.# While' this' fact' still' needs' to'
heard' and' established' by' adequate' proof' before' the'
RTC,' an' action' based' on' these' allegations' will' not' fall'
under' the' Warsaw' Convention,# since' the' purported'
negligence'on'the'party'of'PAL'did'not'occur'during'the'
performance' of' the' contract' of' carriage' but' days'
before' the' scheduled' flight.# Thus,# the# present# action#
cannot#be#dismissed#based#on#the#Statue#of#Limitations#
provided#under#Article#29#of#the#Warsaw#Convention.#
#
HEIRS' OF' JOSE' MARCIAL' OCHOA' v.' G' &' S' Transport'
Corporation'
#
FACTS:'
#
Jose# Ochoa# boarded# a# taxicab# driven# by# Padilla# owned#
by#Axis#Coupon#Taxi#corporation.#Due#to#overspeeding,#
and# trying# to# overtake# a# ten# wheeler# truck# forcing# him#
to# served# on# the# left# # taxicab# ram# the# railing# throwing#
itself# to# the# flyover# and# fell# on# the# middle# surface# of#
EDSA#below.##As#such#Ochoa#died.#
#
Ruby# Ochoa# wife# and# two# children# of# Ochoa# filed# a#
complaint#for#damages#before#the#RTC#alleging#that#G#&#
S# as# a# common# carrier# failed# to# exercise# extraordinary#
diligence# in# transporting# its# passengers# to# their#
destination#safely#and#securely#thereby#liable#for#breach#
of#contract#of#common#carriage.#As#an#alternative#cause#
of#action#they#alleged#G#&S#liable#for#damages#based#on#
quasiM# delict# under# Art.# 2180# in# relation# to# Art.# 2176#
thereby#praying#for#actual,#moral,#exemplary#damages.##

#
In#its#answer,#G#&#S#alleged#that#proximate#cause#of#the#
death# of# Ochoa# is# a# fortuitous# event# # and/# or# fault# or#
negligence# of# the# driver# of# delivery# van# that# hit# the#
taxicab.# They# further# claim# it# exercise# diligence# of# a#
good#father#of#a#family#in#the#selection#and#supervision#
of#employees##including#Padilla.#
#
RTC#ruled#accident#not#a#fortuitous#event#but#caused#by#
the#negligence#of#Padilla.#It#declared#G#&#S#civilly#liable#
to#the#heirs#but#not#actual#damages#due#to#lack#of#proof#
and# receipts.# RTC# later# on# ruled# that# heirs# are# also#
entitled#to#moral#and#exemplary#damages#based#on#Art.#
1764#in#relation#to#Art.#2206#of#the#CC.#and#also#based#
on#Art.#2232.#CA#ruled#in#favor#of#the#heirs#contending#
that# Padilla# failed# to# exercise# reasonable# care# and#
foresight# and# diligence# needed# to# exempt# G# &# S# from#
liability.# Court# also# noted# the# pertinent# provision# of#
MTC#decision#convicting#Padilla#of#Reckless#Imprudence#
resulting# in# homicide# to# negate# G# &# S# claim# that# the#
proximate# cause# of# the# accident# was# the# fault# of# the#
driver#of#the#delivery#van.#
#
ISSUE:#WON#G#&#S#is#liable?#
HELD:''YES.'They'are'liable'as'a'common'carrier.''
Common# carrier;# breach# of# contract# of# carriage.# There#
existed# a# contract# of# carriage# between# G# &# S,# as# the#
owner# and# operator# of# the# Avis# taxicab,# and# Jose#
Marcial,#as#the#passenger#of#said#vehicle.###As#a#common#
carrier,#G#&#S#is#bound#to#carry#[Jose#Marcial]#safely#as#
far#as#human#care#and#foresight#can#provide,#using#the#
utmost# diligence# of# very# cautious# persons,# with# due#
regard#for#all#the#circumstances.###
However,# Jose# Marcial# was# not# able# to# reach# his#
destination# safely# as# he# died# during# the# course# of# the#
travel.#In#a#contract#of#carriage,#it#is#presumed#that#the#
common# carrier# is# at# fault# or# is# negligent# when# a#
passenger# dies# or# is# injured.# # In# fact,# there# is# even# no#
need#for#the#court#to#make#an#express#finding#of#fault#or#
negligence# on# the# part# of# the# common# carrier.# This#
statutory# presumption# may# only# be# overcome# by#
evidence# that# the# carrier# exercised# extraordinary#
diligence.# # Unfortunately,# G# &# S# miserably# failed# to#
overcome# this# presumption.# # Both# the# trial# court# and#
the# CA# found# that# the# accident# which# led# to# Jose#
Marcials# death# was# due# to# the# reckless# driving# and#
gross# negligence# of# G# &# S# driver,# Padilla,# thereby#
holding# G# &# S# liable# to# the# heirs# of# Jose# Marcial# for#
breach#of#contract#of#carriage.#
#
That# the# driver# was# acquitted# in# the# criminal# case# for#
reckless#imprudence#is#immaterial.#Article#31#of#the#Civil#
Code#provides,#viz:#

#
When# the# civil# action# is# based# on# an# obligation# not#
arising# from# the# act# or# omission# complained# of# as# a#
felony,# such# civil# action# may# proceed# independently# of#
the#criminal#proceedings#and#regardless#of#the#result#of#
the#latter.#
#
In#this#case,#the'action'filed'by'the'heirs'is'primarily'for'
the' recovery' of' damages' arising' from' breach# of#
contract# of# carriage# allegedly# committed# by# G# &# S.##
Clearly,# it# is# an# independent# civil# action# arising# from#
contract# which# is# separate# and# distinct# from# the#
criminal# action# for# reckless# imprudence# resulting# in#
homicide#filed#by#the#heirs#against#Padilla#by#reason#of#
the# same# incident.# # Hence,# regardless# of# Padillas#
acquittal# or# conviction# in# said# criminal# case,# same# has#
no#bearing#in#the#resolution#of#the#present#case.#
#
PICART'v.'SMITH'
FACTS:'
December# 12,# 1912:# Amado# Picart# was# riding# on# his#
pony#over#Carlatan#Bridge,#at#San#Fernando,#La#Union#
Before# he# had# gotten# half# way# across,# the# Frank# Smith#
driving#an#automobile#came#from#the#opposite#direction#
at#the#rate#of#about#10M12#miles/hour#
####As#Frank#Smith#neared#the#bridge#he#saw#a#horseman#
on#it#and#blew#his#horn#to#give#warning#of#his#approach.##
He# continued# his# course# and# after# he# had# taken# the#
bridge# he# gave# two# more# successive# blasts,# as# it#
appeared#to#him#that#the#man#on#horseback#before#him#
was#not#observing#the#rule#of#the#road.##
#
#####Amado# saw# the# automobile# coming# and# heard# the#
warning# signals# being# perturbed# by# the# novelty# of# the#
apparition#or#the#rapidity#of#the#approach,#he'pulled'the'
pony'closely'up'against'the'railing'on'the'right'side'of'
the' bridge' instead' of' going' to' the' left' because' he'
thought'he'did'not'have'sufficient'time'to'get'over'to'
the'other'side.'
###The#pony#had#not#as#yet#exhibited#fright,#and#the#rider#
had#made#no#sign#for#the#automobile#to#stop#When#he#
had#gotten#quite#near,#there#being#then#no#possibility#of#
the#horse#getting#across#to#the#other#side,#Frank#quickly#
turned#his#car#sufficiently#to#the#right#to#escape#hitting#
the# horse# alongside# of# the# railing# but# because# it# got#
close#the#horse#became#frightened#and#turned#its#body#
across#the#bridge#with#its#head#toward#the#railing#
####The#left#hind#leg#was#hit#by#the#flange#of#the#car#and#
the# limb# was# broken.# The# horse# fell# and# its# rider# was#
thrown#off#with#some#violence.#As#a#result#of#its#injuries#
the# horse# died.# Amado' received' contusions' which'
caused' temporary' unconsciousness' and' required'
medical'attention'for'several'days.#

ISSUE:# W/N# Frank# was# negligent# in# accordance# to#


negligence#tests#
#
HELD:#YES.#lower#court#must#be#reversed,#and#judgment#
is# her# rendered# that# the# plaintiff# recover# of# the#
defendant# the# sum# of# two# hundred# pesos# (P200),# with#
costs# of# other# instances.# The# sum# here# awarded# is#
estimated# to# include# the# value# of# the# horse,# medical#
expenses#of#the#plaintiff,#the#loss#or#damage#occasioned#
to# articles# of# his# apparel,# and# lawful# interest# on# the#
whole#to#the#date#of#this#recovery.#The#other#damages#
claimed#by#the#plaintiff#are#remote#or#otherwise#of#such#
character#as#not#to#be#recoverable.#
#
Did#the#defendant#in#doing#the#alleged#negligent#act#use#
that# person# would# have# used# in# the# same# situation?# If#
not,#then#he#is#guilty#of#negligence#
The# existence# of# negligence# in# a# given# case# is# not#
determined# by# reference# to# the# personal# judgment# of#
the#actor#in#the#situation#before#him.##
#
The# question# as# to# what# would# constitute# the# conduct#
of#a#prudent#man#in#a#given#situation#must#of#course#be#
always# determined# in# the# light# of# human# experience#
and#in#view#of#the#facts#involved#in#the#particular#case#
Could# a# prudent# man,# in# the# case# under# consideration,#
foresee#harm#as#a#result#of#the#course#actually#pursued?#
If#so,#it#was#the#duty#of#the#actor#to#take#precautions#to#
guard#against#that#harm#
#
Conduct#is#said#to#be#negligent#when#a#prudent#man#in#
the#position#of#the#tort#feasor#would#have#foreseen#that#
an# effect# harmful# to# another# was# sufficiently# probable#
to#warrant#his#foregoing#conduct#or#guarding#against#its#
consequences##
It# will# be# noted# that# the# negligent# acts# of# the# two#
parties# were# not# contemporaneous,# since# the#
negligence# of# the# defendant# succeeded# the# negligence#
of# the# plaintiff# (wrong# side# of# the# road)# by# an#
appreciable#interval.#
#
Under# these# circumstances# the# law# is# that# the# person#
who# has# the# last# fair# chance# to# avoid# the# impending#
harm# and# fails# to# do# so# is# chargeable# with# the#
consequences,# without# reference# to# the# prior#
negligence#of#the#other#party.#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

SMITH' BELL' DODWELL' SHIPPING' AGENCY'


CORPORATION'VS.CATALINO'BORJA',ET'AL.'
G.R.'NO.'143008;'JUNE'10,'2002''
FACTS:'
On# September# 23,# 1987,# Smith# BellMpetitioner# filed# a#
written# request# with# the# Bureau# of# Customs# for# the#
attendance# of# the# latter's# inspection# team# on# vessel#
M/T'King'Family#which#was#due#to#arrive#at#the#port#of#
Manila# on# September# 24,# 1987.Said# vessel# contained#
750metric# tons# of# alkyl# benzene# and# methyl#
methacrylate# monomer.# On# the# same# day,# Supervising'
Customs' Inspector' instructed' Respondent' Catalino'
Borja# to# board# said# vessel# and# perform# his# duties# as#
inspector#upon#the#vessel's#arrival#until#its#departure.#At#
about#11o'clock#
##
in#the#morning#on#September#24,#1987,#while#M/T#King#
Family#was#unloading#chemicals#unto'two'(2)'owned'by'
Respondent'ITTC,'a'sudden'explosion'occurred'setting'
the' vessels' afire.' Upon# hearing# the# explosion,# Borja,#
who#was#at#that#time#inside#the#cabin#preparing#reports,#
ran# outside# to# check# what# happened.# Again,# another#
explosion#was#heard.#Seeing'the'fire'and'fearing'for'his'
life,' Borja' hurriedly' jumped' over' board' to' save'
himself.# However,# the# water# was# likewise# on# fire# due#
mainly#to#the#spilled#chemicals.#Despite#the#tremendous#
heat,# Borja# swam# his# way# until# he# was# rescued# by# the#
people#living#in#the#squatters'#area#and#sent#to#San#Juan#
De# Dios# Hospital.# After' weeks' of' intensive' care' at' the'
hospital,'his'attending'physician'diagnosed'Borja'to'be'
permanently'disabled'due'to'the'incident.#Borja'made'
demands'against'Smith'Bell'and'ITTC'for'the'damages'
caused' by' the' explosion.' However,# both# denied#
liabilities#and#attributed#to#each#other#negligence.#
#
The# trial# court# ruled# in# favor# of# Respondent# Borja# and#
held# petitioner# liable# for# damages# and# loss# of# income.#
Affirming# the# trial# court,# the# CA# rejected# the# plea# of#
petitioner# that# it# be# exonerated# from# liability# for#
Respondent#Borja's#injuries.#Hence,#this#Petition#
Issues'
:# Whether# or# not,# petitioner# should# be# held# liable# for#
the#injuries#of#Catalino#Borja.#
Held:'
We# find# no# cogent# reason# to# overturn# these# factual#
findings.# Nothing# is# more# settled# in# jurisprudence# than#
that# this# Court# is# bound# by# the# factual# findings# of# the#
Court# of# Appeals# when# these# are# supported# by#
substantial# evidence# and# are# not# under# any# of# the#
exceptions#in#Fuentes#v.#Court#of#Appeals;#
12#
##

more# so,# when# such# findings# affirm# those# of# the# trial#
court.#
#
Verily,#this#Court#reviews#only#issues#of#law.#Negligence#
is#conduct#that#creates#undue#risk#of#harm#to#another.#It#
is#the#failure#to#observe#that#degree#of#care,#precaution#
and# vigilance# that# the# circumstances# justly# demand,#
whereby#that#other#person#suffers#injury.#
#
Petitioner's# vessel# was# carrying# chemical# cargoMM# alkyl#
benzene# and# methyl# methacrylate# monomer.# While#
knowing# that# their# vessel# was# carrying# dangerous#
inflammable# chemicals,# its# officers# and# crew# failed# to#
take# all# the# necessary# precautions# to# prevent# an#
accident.#Petitioner#was,#therefore,#negligent.#The#three#
elements# of# quasi# delict# # are:# (a)# damages# suffered# by#
the# plaintiff,# (b)# fault# or# negligence# of# the# defendant,#
and#(c)#the#connection#of#cause#and#effect#between#the#
fault# or# negligence# of# the# defendant# and# the# damages#
inflicted#on#the#plaintiff.#
#
All# these# elements# were# established# in# this# case.#
Knowing# fully# well# that# it# was# carrying# dangerous#
chemicals,#petitioner'was'negligent'in'not'taking'all'the'
necessary'precautions'in'transporting'the'cargo.'
'
'
DELSAN' TRANSPORTATIONVS.C' &' A' CONSTRUCTION,'
INC.G.R.'no.'156034'October'1,'2003Facts:'
'
C# &# A# construction,# construct# a# deflector# wall# at# the#
Vitas# reclamation# Area# in# Tondo,Manila# it# was# not#
formally#turnover#to#National#Housing#Authority#though#
it#was#completed#in1994.#On#12:00#midnight#of#October#
20,# 1994# Captain# Demetrio# T.# Jusep# of# M/V# Delsan#
Express#receive#a#report#that#that#a#typhoon#was#going#
to#hit#Manila#after#eight#(8)#hours.#At#8:35#a.m.#he#tried#
to# seek# shelter# but# it# was# already# congested.# At# 10:00#
a.m.#Capt.#Jusep#drop#the#anchor#at#the#vicinity#of#Vitas#
mouth,#the#waves#were#already#reaching#8#to#10#feet.##
#
The#ship#was#dragged#by#the#wind#toward#the#Napocor#
power# barge# Capt.# Jusep# ordered# a# full# stop# of# the#
vessel# to# avoid# the# collision# but# when# the# engine# was#
reMstarted,# it# hit# the# deflector# wall# # constructed# by# the#
respondent.# P456,198.24# was# the# damaged# cause# by#
the#incident.#C#&#A#construction#demanded#payment#of#
the#damages#from#Capt.#Jusep#but#the#latter#refused#to#
pay#due#to#the#cause#of#the#incident#was#by#a#fortuitous#
event.# The# trial# court# ruled# that# Captain# Jusep# was# not#
guilty#of#negligence#in#applying#the#emergency#rule#
because# it# had# taken# necessary# precautions# to# avoid#
accident.#The#Court#of#Appeals#reversed#&#set#aside#the#

decision# of# the# trial# court.# Captain# Jusep# was# found#


guilty# of# negligence# in# transferring# the# vessel# only# at#
8:35# a.m.# of# October# 21,1994# and# held# liable# for#
damages# in# waiting# until# 8:35# a.m.# before# transfering#
the#vessel#to#sought#shelter.#
#
Issues:(1)#Whether#or#not#Capt.#Jusep#was#negligent.(2)#
Whether# or# not# the# petitioner# is# solidarily# liable# under#
Art.#2180#of#the#Civil#Code#for#QuasiMDelict.#
#
Held:(1)# The# court# finds# Captain# Jusep# is# guilty# of#
negligence,# the# failure# to# take# immediate# and#
appropriate#action#under#the#circumstances,#despite#the#
knowledge#that#there#is#typhoon#but#he#waited#for#the#
lapse# of# eight# (8)# hours# instead.# Captain# Jusep# showed#
an# inexcusable# lack# of# care# and# caution# which# an#
ordinary# prudent# person# would# have# observed# in# the#
same# situation.# The# trial# court# erred# in# applying# the#
emergency# rule# because# the# danger# where# Captain#
Jusep# found# himself# was# caused# by# his# own#
negligence.(2)# The# court# finds# the# petitioner# liable# for#
the# negligent# act# of# Capt.# Jusep.# Whenever# an#
employees# negligence# causes# damage# to# another,# it#
instantly# arise# a# presumption# that# the# employer# failed#
to# exercise# the# care# and# diligence# of# supervision# of# his#
employee.##
#
In*Fabre*,jr.*v*Court*of*Appeals*
held# that# due# diligence# requires# consistent# compliance#
of# rules# &# regulation# for# the# guidance# and# actual#
implementation#of#rules.#But#the#petitioner#fails#to#give#
any#evidence#that#its#rule#are#strictly#implemented#and#
monitored# in# compliance# there# with# petitioner# is#
therefore#liable#for#the#negligent#act#of#Capt.#Jusep.#The#
amount# of# P# 456,# 198.27due# earn# 6%# interest# per#
annum# from# October# 3,# 1995# until# the# finality# of# the#
decision.#
#
#
Philippine'National'Construction'Corporation'vs.'CA'
467#SCRA#569#
Facts:' PASUDECO,# sugarcane# transporter,# requested#
permission# from# Toll# Regulatory# Board' (TRB)# to# pass#
through# NCLEX# as# the# national# bridges# along# AbacanM
Angeles# and# Sapang# Maragul# via# Magalang,# Pampanga#
were#heavily#damaged#by#the#eruption#of#Mt.#Pinatubo#
in# 1991.# PNCC,# franchisee# that# operates# and# maintains#
NCLEX,# was# furnished# with# the# copy# of# the# request# to#
comment# on.# Thereafter,# TRB# and# PASUDECO# entered#
into#a#Memorandum#Agreement#wherein#PNCC#was#also#
furnished# with# a# copy.# The# latter# was# allowed# to# enter#
and# pass# through# the# NLEX# provided# they# abide# to# the#
terms#and#conditions#agreed#upon.#At#around#2:30#a.m.#

on# January# 23,# 1993,# Alex# Sendin,# the# PNCC# security#


supervisor,#and#his#coMemployees#Eduardo#Ducusin#and#
Vicente# Pascual# were# patrolling# Km.# 72# going# north# of#
the# NLEX# and# saw# a# pile# of# sugarcane# in# the# middle#
portion.# Sundin,# Ducusin# and# Pascual# requested#
PASUDECO#to#clear#the#area#as#it#was#hazardous#for#the#
travelers.# However,# Engineer# Oscar# Mallari,#
PASUDECO's# equipment# supervisor# and# transportation#
superintendent,#told#them#that#no#equipment#operator#
was#available#as#it#was#still#very#early.#
#
Thereafter,# Sendin# and# company# went# back# to# Km.# 72#
and# manned# the# traffic.# At# around# 4:00# a.m.,# five'
(5)PASUDECO# men# arrived,# and# started# clearing# the#
highway# of# the# sugarcane.# They# stacked# the# sugarcane#
at# the# side# of# the# road# leaving# a# few# flattened#
sugarcanes# scattered# on# the# road.# As# the# bulk# of# the#
sugarcanes# had# been# piled# and# transferred# along# the#
roadside,#Sendin#thought#there#was#no#longer#a#need#to#
man#the#traffic.##
#
As#dawn#was#already#approaching,#Sendin#and#company#
removed# the# lighted# cans# and# lane# dividers.# Sendin#
went# to# his# office# in# Sta.# Rita,# Guiguinto,# Bulacan,# and#
made#the#necessary#report.#At#about#6:30#a.m.,#Rodrigo#
S.# Arnaiz# was# driving# his# twoMdoor# Toyota# Corolla# with#
plate# number# FAG# 961# along# the# NLEX# at# about# 65#
kilometers# per# hour.# He# was# with# his# sister# Regina#
Latagan,#and#his#friend#Ricardo#Generalao#on#their#way#
to# Baguio# to# attend# their# grandmother's# first# death#
anniversary.# As# the# vehicle# ran# over# the# scattered#
sugarcane,# it# flew# out# of# control# and# turned# turtle#
several#times.#The#accident#threw#the#car#about#fifteen#
paces# away# from# the# scattered# sugarcane.# Latagan#
sustained#injuries#and#Arnaiz#car#was#totally#wrecked.'
Issue:'
Whether#or#not#there#was#gross#negligence#on#the#part#
of#Pasudeco#and#PNCC#and#the#latter#be#made#topay#for#
damages.#
Held:'
Pasudeco# and# PNCC# are# jointly# and# solidarily# liable.#
There#are#three#elements#of#a#quasiMdelict:#
(a)#damages#suffered#by#the#plaintiff;#
(b)#fault#or#negligence#of#the#defendant,#or#some#other#
person#for#whose#acts#he#must#respond;#and#
(# c)# the# connection# of# cause# and# effect# between# the#
fault# or# negligence# of# the# defendant# and# the# damages#
incurred# by# the# plaintiff.[31]Article# 2176# of# the# New#
Civil'Code'provides:#
'Art.'2176.#Whoever##by#act#or#omission#causes#damage#
to# another,# there# b# eing# fault# or# negligence,# is# obliged#
to#pay##for#the#damage#done.#Such#fault#or#negligence,#if#

there# is# no# preMexisting# contractual# relation# between#


the#parties#is#called#a#quasiMdelict#and#is#governed##
By#the#provisions#of#this#Chapter.#
Negligence# is# the# omission# to# do# something# which# a#
reasonable# man,# guided# by# those# considerations# which#
ordinarily#regulate#the#conduct#of#human#affairs,#would#
do,# or# the# doing# of# something# which# a# prudent# and#
reasonable# man# would# do.[32]It# also# refers# to# the#
conduct# which# creates# undue# risk# of# harm# to# another,#
the# failure# to# observe# that# degree# of# care,# precaution#
and# vigilance# that# the# circumstance# justly# demand,#
whereby# that# other# person# suffers# injury.The# Court#
declared# the# test# by# which# to# determine# the# existence#
of#negligence#in#Picart'v.'Smith'
#
:In#the#case#at#bar,#it#is#clear#that#the#petitioner#failed#to#
exercise#the#requisite#diligence#in#maintaining#the#NLEXs#
afe# for# motorists.# The# petitioner# should# have# foreseen#
that#the#wet#condition#of#the#highway#would#endanger#
motorists#passing#by#at#night#or#in#the#wee#hours#of#the#
morning.# The# petitioner# cannot# escape# liability# under#
the# MOA# between# PASUDECO# and# TRB,# since#
respondent#Latagan#was#not#a#party#thereto.#We#agree#
with#the#following#ruling#of#the#CA:#
#
Both# defendants,# appellant# PASUDECO# and# appellee#
PNCC,# should# be# held# liable.# PNCC,# in# charge# of# the#
maintenance# of# the# expressway,# has# been# negligent# in#
the# performance# of# its# duties.# The# obligation# of# PNCC#
should# not# be# relegated# to,# by# virtue# of# a# private#
agreement,#to#other#parties.####
#
PNCC# declared# the# area# free# from# obstruction# since#
there# were# no# piles# of# sugarcane,# but# evidence# shows#
there#were#still#pieces#of#sugarcane#stalks#left#flattened#
by# motorists.# There# must# be# an# observance# of# that#
degree# of# care,# precaution,# and# vigilance# which# the#
situation# demands.# There# should# have# been# sufficient#
warning# devices# considering# that# there# were# scattered#
sugarcane#stalks#still#left#along#the#toll#way.#The#records#
show,# and# as# admitted# by# the# parties,# that# Arnaiz's# car#
ran# over# scattered# sugarcanes# spilled# from# a# hauler#
truck.# Moreover,# the# MOA# refers# to# accidents# or#
damages#to#the#toll#facilities.#It#does#not#cover#damages#
to#property#or#injuries#caused#to#motorists#on#the#NLEX#
who# are# not# privies# to# the# MOA# .PASUDECO's#
negligence# in# transporting# sugarcanes# without# proper#
harness/straps,# and# that# of# PNCC# in# removing# the#
emergency# warning# devices,# were# two# successive#
negligent# acts# which# were# the# direct# and# proximate#
cause# of# Latagan's# injuries.# As# such,# PASUDECO# and#
PNCC#are#jointly#and#severally#liable.#
#

Philippine'National'Railways'(PNR)'vs.CA'(GR'LI55347,'
4'October'1985)'
#
Facts:'
On# 10# September# 1972,# at# about# 9:00# p.m.,Winifredo#
Tupang,#husband#of#Rosario#Tupang,#boarded#Train#516#
of# the# Philippine# National# Railways# at# Libmanan,#
Camarines#Sur,#as#a#paying#passenger#bound#for#Manila.#
Due# to# some# mechanical# defect,# the# train# stopped# at#
Sipocot,# Camarines# Sur,# for# repairs,# taking# some# two#
hours# before# the# train# could# resume# its# trip# to# Manila.#
Unfortunately,# upon# passing# Iyam# Bridge# at# Lucena,#
Quezon,#Winifredo#Tupang#fell#off#the#train#resulting#in#
his# death.# The# train# did# not# stop# despite# the# alarm#
raised#by#the#other#passengers#that#somebody#fell#from#
the# train.# Instead,# the# train# conductor,# Perfecto#
Abrazado,# called# the# station# agent# at# Candelaria,#
Quezon,# and# requested# forv# erification# of# the#
information.##
#
Police#authorities#of#Lucena#City#were#dispatched#to#the#
Iyam# Bridge# where# they# found# the# lifeless# body# of#
Winifredo# Tupang.# As# shown# by# the# autopsy# report,#
Winifredo#Tupang#died#of#cardioMrespiratory#failure#due#
to# massive# cerebral# hemorrhage# due# to# traumatic#
injury.# Tupang# was# later# buried# in# the# public# cemetery#
of#Lucena#City#by#the#local#police#authorities.##
#
Upon#complaint#filed#by#the#deceaseds#widow,#Rosario#
Tupang,# the# then# CFI# Rizal,# after# trial,# held# the# PNR#
liable#for#damages#for#breach#of#contract#of#carriage#and#
ordered#it#to#pay#Rosario#Tupang#the#sum#of#P12,000.00#
for#the#death#of#Winifredo#Tupang,#plus#P20,000.00#for#
loss# of# his# earning# capacity,# and# the# further# sum# of#
P10,000.00# as# moral# damages,# andP2,000.00# as#
attorneys#fees,#and#cost.##
#
On#appeal,#the#Appellate#Court#sustained#the#holding#of#
the#trial#court#that#the#PNR#did#not#exercise#the#utmost#
diligence#required#bylaw#of#a#common#carrier.#It#further#
increased# the# amount# adjudicated# by# the# trial# court# by#
ordering# PNR# to# pay# the# Rosario# Tupang# an# additional#
sum# of# P5,000,00# as# exemplary# damages.# Moving# for#
reconsideration# of# the# above# decision,# the# PNR# raised#
for# the# first# time,# as# a# defense,# the# doctrine# of# state#
immunity#from#suit.#The#motion#was#denied.#Hence#the#
petition#for#review.#
#
Issue:' WON# there# was# contributory# negligence# on# the#
part#of#Tupang.#
#
#
'

Held:'
PNR# has# the# obligation# to# transport# its# passengers# to#
their# destinations# and# to# observe# extraordinary#
diligence# in# doing# so.# Death# or# any# injury# suffered# by#
any#of#its#passengers#gives#rise#to#the#presumption#that#
it# was# negligent# in# the# performance# of# its# obligation#
under#the#contract#of#carriage.##
#
PNR# failed# to# overthrow# such# presumption# of#
negligence# with# clear# and# convincing# evidence,#
inasmuch# as# PNR# does# not# deny,(1)# that# the# train#
boarded# by# the# deceased# Winifredo# Tupang# was# so#
overcrowded# that# the# and# many# other# passengers# had#
no#choice#but#to#sit#on#the#open#platforms#between#the#
coaches#of#the#train,##
(2)# that# the# train# did# not# even# slow# down# when# it#
approached#the#Iyam#Bridge#which#was#under#repair#at#
the#time,#and##
(3)# that# neither# did# the# train# stop,# despite# the# alarm#
raised#by#other#passengers#that#a#person#had#fallen#off#
the#train#at#Iyam#Bridge.##
#
While# PNR# failed# to# exercise# extraordinary# diligence# as#
required# by# law,# it# appears# that# the# deceased# was#
chargeable# with# contributory# negligence.# Since# he#
opted#to#sit#on#the#open#platform#between#the#coaches#
of#the#train,#he#should#have#held#tightly#and#tenaciously#
on# the# upright# metal# bar# found# at# the# side# of# said#
platform#to#avoid#falling#off#from#the#speeding#train.#
#
Such# contributory# negligence,# while# not# exempting# the#
PNR#from#liability,#nevertheless#justified#the#deletion#of#
the# amount# adjudicated# as# moral# damages.# The#
Supreme# Court# modified# the# decision# of# the# appellate#
court# by# eliminating# there# from# the# amounts# of#
P10,000.00# and# P5,000.00# adjudicated# as# moral# and#
exemplary#damages,#respectively;#without#costs.#
#
#
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'

Guillang'vs'Bedania'
#
Facts:'
One#afternoon#of#October#1994,#Guillang#was#driving#his#
Corolla#along#Aguinaldo#Highway#in#Cavite#when#it#was#
hit# by# a# turning# 10Mwheeler# truck# driven# by# Rodolfo#
Bedania#and#owned#by#Rodolfo#de#Silva.#The#passengers#
of# the# car# were# rushed# to# the# Medical# Center# in#
Dasmarias,# Cavite# for# treatment.# Because# of# severe#
injuries,# Antero,# one# of# the# passengers,# was# later#
transferred# to# the# Philippine# General# Hospital.#
However,#on#3#November1994,#Antero#died#due#to#the#
injuries# he# sustained# from# the# collision.# The# car# was# a#
total#wreck#while#the#truck#sustained#minor#damage.##
On# 24# April# 1995,# petitioners# Genaro,# Llanillo,#
Dignadice,# and# the# heirs# of# Antero# instituted# a#
complaint# for# damages# based# on# quasiMdelict# against#
respondents#Bedania#and#de#Silva.#
On# 5# December# 2000,# the# trial# court# rendered# a#
decision# in# favor# of# petitioners.# The# trial# court# found#
Bedania# grossly# negligent# for# recklessly# maneuvering#
the# truck# by# making# a# sudden# UMturn# in# the# highway#
without# due# regard# to# traffic# rules# and# the# safety# of#
other# motorists.# The# trial# court# also# declared# de# Silva#
grossly#negligent#in#the#selection#and#supervision#of#his#
driver,#Bedania.#On#appeal,#the#CA#reversed#the#decision#
of# the# lower# court# and# dismissed# the# civil# case# for# lack#
of# merit.# Petitioners# then# filed# a# MR# but# to# no# avail.#
Hence,#this#case.#
Issue:' Who# is# liable# for# the# damages# suffered# by#
petitioners?'
Held:'
#The# trial# court# held# Bedania# and# de# Silva,# as# Bedanias#
employer,# liable# because# the# proximate# cause# of# the#
collision# was# the# sudden# UMturn# executed# by# Bedania#
without#any#signal#lights.#On#the#other#hand,#the#Court#
of# Appeals# reversed# the# trial# courts# decision# and# held#
Genaro# liable# because# the# proximate# cause# of# the#
collision# was# Genaros# failure# to# stop# the# car# despite#
seeing#that#Bedania#was#making#a#UMturn.#
#
Negligence# is# defined# as# the# failure# to# observe# for# the#
protection#of#the#interest#of#another#person#that#degree#
of# care,# precaution,# and# vigilance# which# the#
circumstances# justly# demand,# whereby# such# other#
person#suffers#injury.#In#Picart#v.#Smith,#we#held#that#the#
test#of#negligence#is#whether#the#defendant#in#doing#the#
alleged# negligent# act# used# that# reasonable# care# and#
caution# which# an# ordinary# person# would# have# used# in#
the#same#situation.#
#
#The#conclusion#of#the#Court#of#Appeals#that#Genaro#was#
negligent# is# not# supported# by# the# evidence# on# record.#

Videnas# testimony# was# inconsistent# with# the# police#


records# and# report# that# he# made# on# the# day# of# the#
collision.#First,#Videna#testified#that#the#car#was#running#
fast#and#overtook#another#vehicle#that#already#gave#way#
to#the#truck.##
#
But# this# was# not# indicated# in# either# the# report# or# the#
police#records.#Moreover,#if#the#car#was#speeding,#there#
should#have#been#skid#marks#on#the#road#when#Genaro#
stepped# on# the# brakes# to# avoid# the# collision.# But# the#
sketch# of# the# accident# showed# no# skid# marks# made# by#
the#car.##
#
Second,#Videna#testified#that#the#petitioners#came#from#
a# drinking# spree# because# he# was# able# to# smell# liquor.#
But#in#the#report,#Videna#indicated#that#the#condition#of#
Genaro# was# "normal."# Videna# did# not# indicate# in# the#
report# that# Genaro# "had# been# drinking# liquor"# or# that#
Genaro# "was# obviously# drunk."# Third,# Videna# testified#
that# when# he# arrived# at# the# scene,# Bedania# was# inside#
his# truck.# This# contradicts# the# police# records# where#
Videna# stated# that# after# the# collision# Bedania# escaped#
and#abandoned#the#victims.##
#
The# police# records# also# showed# that# Bedania# was#
arrested# by# the# police# at# his# barracks# in# Anabu,# Imus,#
Cavite# and# was# turned# over# to# the# police# only# on# 26#
October# 1994.Under# Article# 2185# of# the# Civil# Code,#
unless#there#is#proof#to#the#contrary,#a#person#driving#a#
vehicle# is# presumed# negligent# if# at# the# time# of# the#
mishap,#he#was#violating#any#traffic#regulation#.#
#
In# this# case,# the# report# showed# that# the# truck,# while#
making#the#UMturn,#failed#to#signal,#a#violation#of#traffic#
rules.# The# police# records# also# stated# that,# after# the#
collision,# Bedania# escaped# and# abandoned# the#
petitioners# and# his# truck.# This# is# another# violation# of# a#
traffic# regulation.# Therefore,# the# presumption# arises#
that#Bedania#was#negligent#at#the#time#of#the#mishap.##
#
The# evidence# presented# in# this# case# also# does# not#
support#the#conclusion#of#the#Court#of#Appeals#that#the#
truck# had# already# executed# the# UMturn# before# the#
impact#occurred.#If#the#truck#had#fully#made#the#UMturn,#
it# should# have# been# hit# on# its# rear# .If# the# truck# had#
already# negotiated# even# half# of# the# turn# and# is# almost#
on#the#other#side#of#the#highway,#then#the#truck#should#
have# been# hit# in# the# middle# portion# of# the# trailer# or#
cargo#compartment.##
#
But# the# evidence# clearly# shows,# and# the# Court# of#
Appeals# even# declared,# that# the# car# hit# the# trucks# gas#
tank,#located#at#the#trucks#right#middle#portion,#which#

disproves# the# conclusion# of# the# Court# of# Appeals# that#


the#truck#had#already#executed#the#UMturn#when#it#was#
hit#by#the#car.#
#
Contrary#to#the#conclusion#of#the#Court#of#Appeals,#the#
sheer#size#of#the#truck#does#not#make#it#improbable#for#
the# truck# to# execute# a# sudden# UMturn.# The# trial# courts#
decision# did# not# state# that# the# truck# was# traveling# at# a#
fast#speed#when#it#made#the#UMturn.#The#trial#court#said#
the#truck#made#a#"sudden"#UMturn,#meaning#the#UMturn#
was#made#unexpectedly#and#with#no#warning,#as#shown#
by#the#fact#that#the#trucks#signal#lights#were#not#turned#
on.##
#
Clearly,# Bedanias# negligence# was# the# proximate# cause#
of# the# collision# which# claimed# the# life# of# Antero# and#
injured# the# petitioners.# Proximate# cause# is# that# which,#
in# the# natural# and# continuous# sequence,# unbroken# by#
any# efficient,# intervening# cause,# produces# the# injury,#
and#without#which#the#result#would#not#have#occurred.#
The# cause# of# the# collision# is# traceable# to# the# negligent#
act# of# Bedania# for# if# the# UMturn# was# executed# with# the#
proper# precaution,# the# mishap# in# all# probability# would#
not# have# happened.# The# sudden# UMturn# of# the# truck#
without# signal# lights# posed# a# serious# risk# to# oncoming#
motorists.# Bedania# failed# to# prevent# or# minimize# that#
risk.# The# trucks# sudden# UMturn# triggered# as# series# of#
events# that# led# to# the# collision# and,# ultimately,# to# the#
death#of#Antero#and#the#injuries#of#petitioners.#
##
We#agree#with#the#trial#court#that#de#Silva,#as#Bedanias#
employer,# is# also# # liable# for# the# damages# suffered# by#
petitioners.#De#Silva#failed#to#prove#that#he#exercised#all#
the#diligence#of#a#good#father#of#a#family#in#the#selection#
and# supervision# of# his# employees.# The# Decision# was#
reversed# and# it# ordered# Rodolfo# Bedania# and# Rodolfo#
de# Silva,# jointly# and# severally,# to# pay# the# Funeral# and#
Burial#expenses#of#Antero,#hospitalization#expenses#and#
moral#damages#to#the#other#passengers.#