You are on page 1of 11

CASE DOCTRINES TORTS AND DAMAGES

the negligence complained of; and


the accident must not have been due to any
voluntary action or contribution on the part of the
person injured.
Petitioners are clearly answerable for failure to see to it
that the doors of their school toilets are at all times in
working condition. The fact that a student had to go
through the window, instead of the door, shows that
something was wrong with the door.
The contention that CLC exercised diligence of a good
father of a family in selection of its employees is no
decisive.
Due diligence in the selection and supervision of
employees is applicable where the employer is being held
responsible for the acts or omissions of others under
Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
o CLCs negligence is premised on the fact of its own
negligence.
The injuries Timothy sustained from the fall were the
product of a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken
by any intervening cause, that originated from CLCs
own negligence.
o

CASE #1 CLC v. TAGORIO

In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of the Civil


Code, plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of
evidence:
o the damages suffered by the plaintiff;
o the fault or negligence of the defendant or some
other person for whose act he must respond; and
o the connection of cause and effect between the
fault or negligence and the damages incurred.
FAULT in general, signifies a voluntary act or omission
which causes damage to the right of another giving rise
to an obligation on the part of the actor to repair such
damage.
o Requires execution of a positive act which causes
damage to another.
NEGLIGENCE failure to observe for the protection of the
interest of another person that degree of care, precaution
and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand.
o Consists of omission to do acts which result in
damage to another.
As to the contention of the respondents that CLC failed to
provide precautionary measures to avoid harm and injury
to its students because of [1] its failure to fix a defective
door knob despite having notified of the problem; and [2]
failure to install safety grills on the windows where
timothy fell from.
TC found that the lock was defective. The fact, however,
that Timothy fell out through the window shows that the
door could not be opened from the inside. That
sufficiently points to the fact that something was wrong
with the door, if not the doorknob, under the principle of
res ipsa loquitor.
RES IPSA LOQUITOR applies where:
o The accident was of such character as to warrant
an inference that it would not have happened
except for the defendants negligence;
o The accident must have been caused by an
agency or instrumentality within the exclusive
management or control of the person charged with

CASE #2 - VALENZUELA V. CA
LIABILITY OF THE TORTFEASOR

The average motorist alert to road conditions will have no


difficulty applying the brakes to a car traveling at the
speed claimed by Li.
o Given a light rainfall, the visibility of the street,
and the road conditions on a principal metropolitan
thorough fare like Aurora Boulevard, Li would have
had ample time to react to the changing
conditions of the road if he were alert as every
driver should be- to those conditions.
Driving exacts a more than usual toll on the senses.
Physiological fight or flight mechanisms are at work,
provided such mechanisms were not dulled by drugs,
alcohol, exhaustion, drowsiness, etc.
Lis failure to react in a manner which would have

avoided the accident could therefore have been only due


to either or both of the two factors: 1. That he was driving
at a very fast speed as testified by Rodriguez; and 2.
That he was under the influence of alcohol.
Either factor working independently would have
diminished his responsiveness to road conditions, since
normally he would have slowed down prior to reaching
Valenzuelas car, rather than be in a situation forcing him
to suddenly apply his brakes.
Contributory negligence - conduct on the part of the
injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm
he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which
he is required to conform for his own protection.
Based on the foregoing definition, the standard or act to
which, according to petitioner Li, Valenzuela ought to
have conformed for her own protection was not to park at
all at any point of Aurora Boulevard, a no parking zone.
We cannot agree.
Courts have traditionally been compelled to recognize
that an actor who is confronted with an emergency is not
to be held up to the standard of conduct normally applied
to an individual who is in no such situation.
The law takes stock of impulses of humanity when placed
in threatening or dangerous situations and does not
require the same standard of thoughtful and reflective
care from persons confronted by unusual and oftentimes
threatening conditions.
EMERGENCY RULE - an individual who suddenly finds
himself in a situation of danger and is required to act
without much time to consider the best means that may
be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty
of negligence if he fails to undertake what subsequently
and upon reflection may appear to be a better solution,
unless the emergency was brought by his own
negligence. [Gan v. CA]
A woman driving a vehicle suddenly crippled by a flat tire
on a rainy night will not be faulted for stopping at a point
which is both convenient for her to do so and which is not
a hazard to other motorists.
She is not expected to run the entire boulevard in search
for a parking zone or turn on a dark street or alley where
she would likely find no one to help her. It would be
hazardous for her not to stop and assess the emergency

(simply because the entire length of Aurora Boulevard is


a no- parking zone) because the hobbling vehicle would
be both a threat to her safety and to other motorists.
In the case at bench, the only negligence ascribable was
the negligence of Li on the night of the accident.
Negligence - as it is commonly understood, is conduct
which creates an undue risk of harm to others. It is the
failure to observe that degree of care, precaution, and
vigilance which the circumstances justly demand,
whereby such other person suffers injury.

AS TO LIABILITY OF THE EMPLOYER FROM ACTS OR OMISSION OF


THE EMPLOYEE [TORTFEASOR]

The relationship between Li and his employer Alexander


Commercial Inc is not based on the principle of
respondeat superior, which holds the master liable for
acts of the servant, but that of pater familias, in which
the liability ultimately falls upon the employer, for his
failure to exercise the diligence of a good father of the
family in the selection and supervision of his employees.
The employers primary liability under the concept of
pater familias embodied by Art. 2180 (in relation to Art.
2176) of the Civil Code is quasi-delictual or tortious in
character.
His liability is relieved on a showing that he exercised the
diligence of a good father of the family in the selection
and supervision of its employees.
Ordinarily, evidence demonstrating that the employer
has exercised diligent supervision of its employee during
the performance of the latters assigned tasks would be
enough to relieve him of the liability imposed by Article
2180 in relation to Article 2176 of the Civil Code.
The employer is not expected to exercise supervision
over either the employees private activities or during the
performance of tasks either unsanctioned by the former
or unrelated to the employees tasks.
The case at bench presents a situation of a different
character, involving a practice utilized by large
companies with either their employees of managerial
rank or their representatives.
When a company gives full use and enjoyment of a
company car to its employee, it in effect guarantees that

it is, like every good father, satisfied that its employee


will use the privilege reasonably and responsively.
A company owes a responsibility to the public to see to it
that the managerial or other employees to whom it
entrusts virtually unlimited use of a company issued car
are able to use the company issue capably and
responsibly.
Since important business transactions and decisions may
occur at all hours in all sorts of situations and under all
kinds of guises, the provision for the unlimited use of a
company car therefore principally serves the business
and goodwill of a company and only incidentally the
private purposes of the individual who actually uses the
car, the managerial employee or company sales agent.
Alexander Commercial, Inc. has not demonstrated, that it
exercised the care and diligence of a good father of the
family in entrusting its company car to Li.
No allegations were made as to whether or not the
company took the steps necessary to determine or
ascertain the driving proficiency and history of Li, to
whom it gave full and unlimited use of a company car.
Not having been able to overcome the burden of
demonstrating that it should be absolved of liability for
entrusting its company car to Li, said company, based on
the principle of bonus pater familias, ought to be jointly
and severally liable with the former for the injuries
sustained by Ma. Lourdes Valenzuela during the accident.

CASE # 3 DY TEBAN v. CHING


1. Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides that whoever by
act or omission causes damage to another, there being
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is called a
quasi-delict.
2. Requisites to claim based on quasi-delict:
a. damage suffered by plaintiff;
b. fault or negligence of defendant; and
c. connection of cause and effect between the fault
or negligence of defendant and the damage
incurred by plaintiff.

3. Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the


protection of the interests of another person that degree
of
care,
precaution,
and
vigilance
which
the
circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person
suffers injury.
4. The test by which to determine the existence or
negligence in a particular case may be stated as follows:
a. Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent
act use that reasonable care and caution which an
ordinary person would have used in the same
situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.
5. The skewed parking of the prime mover was the
proximate cause of the collision.
6. Proximate cause is defined as:
a. that 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.
7. More comprehensively:
a. proximate cause is that cause acting first and
producing the injury, either immediately or by
setting other events in motion, all constituting a
natural and continuous chain of events, each
having a close causal connection with its
immediate predecessor, the final event in the
chain immediately effecting the injury as natural
and probable result of the cause which first acted,
under such circumstances that the person
responsible for the first event should, as an
ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have
reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his
act or default that an injury to some person might
probably result therefrom.
8. Plaintiff must, establish a sufficient link between the act
or omission and the damage or injury. That link must not
be remote or far-fetched; otherwise, no liability will
attach. The damage or injury must be a natural and
probable result of the act or omission.
CASE # 4 MEXICO v. CORDERO

In order that an obligation based on quasi-delict may


arise, there must be no pre-existing contractual relation

between the parties. But there are exceptions. There may


be an action for quasi-delict notwithstanding that there is
a subsisting contract between the parties.
A liability for tort may arise even under a contract, where
tort is that which breaches the contract. Stated
differently, when an act which constitutes a breach of
contract would have itself constituted the source of a
quasi-delictual liability, the contract can be said to have
been breached by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort
to apply.
to constitute quasi-delict, the fault or negligence must be
the proximate cause of the damage or injury suffered by
the plaintiff.
PROXIMATE CAUSE is that 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.
o Determined by the facts of each case upon mixed
considerations of logic, common sense, polcy and
precedent.

CASE # 5 PACIS v. MORALES


Unlike the subsidiary liability of the employer under
Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, the liability of the
employer, or any person for that matter, under Article
2176 of the Civil Code is primary and direct, based on a
persons own negligence.
Article 2176 states:
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.
Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is called
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of
this Chapter.
Respondent was clearly negligent when he accepted the
gun for repair and placed it inside the drawer without
ensuring first that it was not loaded. In the first place, the
defective gun should have been stored in a vault.
Before accepting the defective gun for repair, respondent
should have made sure that it was not loaded to prevent
any untoward accident. Indeed, respondent should never
accept a firearm from another person, until the cylinder

or action is open and he has personally checked that the


weapon is completely unloaded. For failing to insure that
the gun was not loaded, respondent himself was
negligent.
Furthermore, it was not shown in this case whether
respondent had a License to Repair which authorizes him
to repair defective firearms to restore its original
composition or enhance or upgrade firearms.

CASE # 7 - PESTAO v. SPS. SUMAYANG


1. Under Articles 2180 and 2176 of the Civil Code, owners
and managers are responsible for damages caused by
their employees. When an injury is caused by the
negligence of a servant or an employee, the master or
employer is presumed to be negligent either in the
selection or in the supervision of that employee.
2. This presumption may be overcome only by satisfactorily
showing that the employer exercised the care and the
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and
the supervision of its employee.
3. The indemnity for death caused by a quasi-delict used to
be pegged at 3,000 based on Art. 2206. However the
amount was increased gradually due to the declining
value of currency. At present, it is now 50,000
4. The court computes the loss of earning capacity based on
the life expectancy of the deceased, and not of the heir.
5. The award for loss of earning capacity is based on two
factors:
a. The number of years on which the computation of
damages is based and
i. Refers to the life expectancy, which takes
into consideration the nature of the victims
work, lifestyle, age and state of health prior
to the accident.
b. The rate at which the loss sustained by the heirs is
fixed.
i. Refers to the victims earning capacity
minus the necessary living expenses.
CASE #8 SPS. FERNANDO v. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES INC.

1. SC mentioned that an examination of its pronouncements


in China Air Lines, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, et al. will
reveal that an airline company is not completely
exonerated from any liability for the tort committed by its
agents employees. A prior determination of the nature of
the passengers cause of action is necessary.
2. If the passengers cause of action against the airline
company is premised on culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict
for a tort committed by the employee of the airline
companys agent:
a. There must be an independent showing that the
airline company was at fault or negligent or has
contributed to the negligence or tortuous conduct
committed by the employee of its agent.
b. The mere fact that the employee of the airline
companys agent has committed a tort is not
sufficient to hold the airline company liable. There
is no vinculum juris (bond of law) between the
airline company and its agents employees and the
contractual relationship between the airline
company and its agent does not operate to create
a juridical tie between the airline company and its
agents employees.

common carrier was at fault or was negligent. All that he


has to prove is the existence of the contract and the fact
of its non-performance by the carrier." [CHINA AIRLINES
CASE]

CASE #9 PNB v. F. F. CRUZ

1. Banking business is impressed with public trust. A higher


degree of diligence is imposed on banks relative to the
handling of their affairs than that of an ordinary business
enterprise. Thus, the degree of responsibility, care and
trustworthiness expected of their officials and employees
is far greater than those of ordinary officers and
employees in other enterprises.
2. Where the banks negligence is the proximate cause of
the loss and the depositor is guilty of contributory
negligence, we allocated the damages between the bank
and the depositor on a 60-40 ratio.
CASE # 10 LADECO v. ANGALA

c. Article 2180 of the Civil Code does not make the


principal vicariously liable for the tort committed
by its agents employees and the principal-agency
relationship per se does not make the principal a
party to such tort; hence, the need to prove the
principals own fault or negligence.
3. IF the passengers cause of action for damages against
the airline company is based on contractual breach or
culpa contractual.
a. It is not necessary that there be evidence of the
airline companys fault or negligence.
4. "in an action based on a breach of contract of carriage,
the aggrieved party does not have to prove that the

Since both parties are at fault in this case, the doctrine of


last clear chance applies. The doctrine of last clear
chance states that 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.
In this case, Deocampo had the last clear chance to avoid
the collision. Since Deocampo was driving the rear
vehicle, he had full control of the situation since he was
in a position to observe the vehicle in front of him.
Deocampo had the responsibility of avoiding bumping the
vehicle in front of him.
LADECO alleges that it should not be held jointly and
severally liable with Deocampo because it exercised due
diligence in the supervision and selection of its
employees. Aside from this statement, LADECO did not

proffer any proof to show how it exercised due diligence


in the supervision and selection of its employees.
LADECO did not show its policy in hiring its drivers, or the
manner in which it supervised its drivers. LADECO failed
to substantiate its allegation that it exercised due
diligence in the supervision and selection of its
employees. LADECO solidarily liable
CASE #12 - MERCURY DRUG v. BAKING
1. To sustain a claim based on the above provision, the
following requisites must concur: (a) damage suffered by
the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of the defendant; and,
(c) connection of cause and effect between the fault or
negligence of the defendant and the damage incurred by
the plaintiff.
2. It is generally recognized that the drugstore business is
imbued with public interest. The health and safety of the
people will be put into jeopardy if drugstore employees
will not exercise the highest degree of care and diligence
in selling medicine
3. petitioners employee was grossly negligent in selling to
respondent Dormicum, instead of the prescribed
Diamicron.Considering that a fatal mistake could be a
matter of life and death for a buying patient, the said
employee should have been very cautious in dispensing
medicines. She should have verified whether the
medicine she gave respondent was indeed the one
prescribed by his physician. The care required must be
commensurate with the danger involved, and the skill
employed must correspond with the superior knowledge
of the business which the law demands.
4. Petitioner contends that the proximate cause of the
accident was respondents negligence in driving his car:
a. Proximate cause is defined as any cause that
produces injury in a natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening
cause, such that the result would not have
occurred otherwise.
b. the vehicular accident could not have occurred
had petitioners employee been careful in reading
Dr. Sys prescription.Without the potent effects of
Dormicum, a sleeping tablet, it was unlikely that

5.
6.

7.

8.

respondent would fall asleep while driving his car,


resulting in a collision.
c. the employer of a negligent employee is liable for
the damages caused by the latter. When an injury
is caused by the negligence of an employee, there
instantly arises a presumption of the law that
there has been negligence on the part of the
employer, either in the selection of his employee
or in the supervision over him
Petitioner failed to proved that it exercised the due
diligence of a father. They are therefore, solidarily liable.
Moral damages may be awarded whenever the
defendants wrongful act or omission is the proximate
cause of the plaintiffs physical suffering, mental anguish,
fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar
injury in the cases specified or analogous to those
provided in Article 2219.
Respondent has adequately established the factual basis
for the award of moral damages when he testified that he
suffered mental anguish and anxiety as a result of the
accident caused by the negligence of petitioners
employee.
Article 2229 allows the grant of exemplary damages by
way of example or correction for the public good. As
mentioned earlier, the drugstore business is affected with
public interest. Hence, the court allowed it.

CASE #13 MERCURY DRUG v. HUANG


1. The liability of the employer under Art. 2180 of the Civil
Code is direct or immediate. It is not conditioned on a
prior recourse against the negligent employee, or a prior
showing of insolvency of such employee. It is also joint
and solidary with the employee.
2. To be relieved of liability, petitioner as an employer
should show that it:
a. exercised the diligence of a good father of a
family, both in the selection of the employee and
in the supervision of the performance of his duties.
b. examined them as to their qualifications,
experience, and service records.

c. formulated
standard
operating
procedures,
monitor their implementation, and impose
disciplinary measures for their breach
d. submit concrete proof of compliance.
3. Petitioner Mercury Drug likewise failed to show that it
exercised due diligence on the supervision and discipline
over its employees. In fact, on the day of the accident,
petitioner Del Rosario was driving without a license. He
was holding a TVR for reckless driving. He testified that
he reported the incident to his superior, but nothing was
done about it. He was not suspended or reprimanded. No
disciplinary action whatsoever was taken against
petitioner Del Rosario.
CASE #14 - SALUDAGA v. FEU
- It is settled that in culpa contractual, the mere proof of the
existence of the contract and the failure of its compliance
justify, prima facie, a corresponding right of relief.
- Saludaga was shot inside the campus by no less the security
guard who was hired to maintain peace and secure the
premises, there is a prima facie showing that respondents
failed to comply with its obligation to provide a safe and
secure environment to it's students.
- FEU failed to show that it undertook steps to ascertain and
confirm that the security guards assigned to them actually
possess the qualifications required in the security service
agreement. It was not proven that they examined the
clearances, psychiatric results, 201 files, and other documents
enumerated in its contract with Galaxy.
- Total reliance on security agency about these matters or
failure to check the papers stating the qualifications of the
guards is negligence on the part of the respondents.
- A learning institution should be allowed to completely
relinquish or abdicate security matters in its premises to
the security agency it hired. To do so would result to
contracting away its inherent obligation to ensure a safe
learning environment for its students
FORCE MAJEURE
- FEU's defense of force majeure must fail. In order for force
majeure to be considered, respondents must show that no
negligence or misconduct was committed that may have
occasioned the loss.

- An act of God cannot be invoked to protect a person who has


failed to take steps to forestall the possible adverse
consequences of such a loss.
- One's negligence may have concurred with an act of god in
producing damage and injury to another; nonetheless
showing that the immediate or proximate cause of the
damage or injury was a fortuitous event would not exempt
one from liability.
- When the effect is found to be partly the result of a person's
participation- whether by active intervention, neglect or
failure to act- the whole occurrence is humanized and
removed from the rules applicable to acts of god.
- Article 1170 of the Civil Code provides that those who are
negligent in the performance of their obligations are liable for
damages. Accordingly, for breach of contract due to
negligence in providing a safe learning environment,
respondent FEU is liable to petitioner for damages. It is
essential in the award of damages that the claimant must
have satisfactorily proven during the trial the existence of the
factual basis of the damages and its causal connection to
defendants acts.
DAMAGES AND INTEREST
- There is no hard and fast rule in the determination of what
would be a fair amount of moral damages since each case
must be governed by its own peculiar circumstances.
- The testimony of petitioner about his physical suffering,
mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, and moral shock
resulting from the shooting incident justify the award of moral
damages.
- However, moral damages are in the category of an award
designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury
suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer. The
award is not meant to enrich the complainant at the expense
of the defendant, but to enable the injured party to obtain
means, diversion, or amusements that will serve to obviate
the moral suffering he has undergone.
- Trial courts must then guard against the award of exorbitant
damages; they should exercise balanced restrained and
measured objectivity to avoid suspicion that it was due to
passion, prejudice, or corruption on the part of the trial court.
100K moral damage.

CASE #15 MENDOZA v. SORIANO

What remains undisputed is that he did not report the


accident to a police officer, nor did he summon a doctor.
Under Article 2185 of the Civil Code, a person driving a
motor vehicle is presumed negligent if at the time of the
mishap, he was violating traffic regulations.
While respondents could recover damages from
Macasasa in a criminal case and petitioner could become
subsidiarily liable, still petitioner, as owner and employer,
is directly and separately civilly liable for her failure to
exercise due diligence in supervising Macasasa. We must
emphasize that this damage suit is for the quasi-delict of
petitioner, as owner and employer, and not for the delict
of Macasasa, as driver and employee.
Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers are liable
for the damages caused by their employees acting within
the scope of their assigned tasks. The liability arises due
to the presumed negligence of the employers in
supervising their employees unless they prove that they
observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent the damage.

CASE #16 CERENO v. CA


1. Medical negligence is a type of claim which a victim has
available to him or her to redress a wrong committed by a
medical professional which has caused bodily harm.
2. Also, patient must prove:
a) that the health care provider, either by his act or
omission, had been negligent, and
b) that such act or omission proximately caused the
injury complained of
3. The best way to prove these is through the opinions of
expert witnesses belonging in the same neighborhood and in
the same general line of practice as defendant physician or
surgeon.
4. Causation Not Proven in medical negligence cases, the
complainant has the burden of establishing breach of duty
on the part of the doctors or surgeons Raymonds parents
failed in this respect.
5. Dr. Cruz v. CA, it was held that "[d]octors are protected by a
special law. They are not guarantors of care. They do not

even warrant a good result. They are not insurers against


mishaps or unusual consequences. Furthermore, they are not
liable for honest mistake of judgment"
CASE #17 REGINO v. PCST
1. Exhaustion doctrine admits of exceptions, one of which
arises when the issue is purely legal and well within the
jurisdiction of the trial court. Petitioners action for
damages inevitably calls for the application and the
interpretation of the Civil Code, a function that falls within
the jurisdiction of the courts.
2. There is a contractual relationship between the school
and the student for the duration of the entire period the
student is expected to complete it.
3. The school-student relationship is also reciprocal. Thus, it
has consequences appurtenant to and inherent in all
contracts of such kind -- it gives rise to bilateral or
reciprocal rights and obligations. The school undertakes
to provide students with education sufficient to enable
them to pursue higher education or a profession. On the
other hand, the students agree to abide by the academic
requirements of the school and to observe its rules and
regulation
4. Their failure to pay their financial obligation is regarded
as a valid ground for the school to deny them the
opportunity to take these examinations.
5. An institution of higher learning has a contractual
obligation
to
afford
its
students
a fair
opportunity to complete the course they seek to
pursue.
6. school-student contract is imbued with public interest,
considering the high priority given by the Constitution to
education and the grant to the State of supervisory and
regulatory powers over all educational institution
7. As a result of such punishment, she was allegedly unable
to finish any of her subjects for the second semester of
that school year and had to lag behind in her studies by a
full year. The acts of respondents supposedly caused her
extreme humiliation, mental agony and demoralization of
unimaginable proportions in violation of Articles 19, 21
and 26 of the Civil Code
8. Generally, liability for tort arises only between parties not
otherwise bound by a contract. An academic institution,

however, may be held liable for tort even if it has an


existing contract with its students, since the act that
violated the contract may also be a tort.

caused the latter while the vehicle was being driven on


the highways or streets.
CASE #20 SCHOOL OF THE HOLY SPIRIT V. TAGUIAM

#18 ST. MARYS ACADEMY v. CARPITANOS


1. In order that St. Mary be liable, there must be a finding
that the act or omission considered as negligent was the
proximate cause of the injury caused because the
negligence must have a causal connection to the
accident.
a. In order that there may be a recovery for an
injury, however, it must be shown that the injury
for which recovery is sought must be the
legitimate consequence of the wrong done; the
connection between the negligence and the injury
must be a direct and natural sequence of events,
unbroken by intervening efficient causes.
b. In other words, the negligence must be the
proximate cause of the injury. For, negligence, no
matter in what it consists, cannot create a right of
action unless it is the proximate cause of the injury
complained of. And the proximate cause of an
injury is that 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.
2. Hence, liability for the accident, whether caused by the
negligence of the minor driver or mechanical detachment
of the steering wheel guide of the jeep, must be pinned
on the minors parents primarily.
3. The negligence of petitioner St. Marys Academy was only
a remote cause of the accident. Between the remote
cause and the injury, there intervened the negligence of
the minors parents or the detachment of the steering
wheel guide of the jeep.
4. Incidentally, there was no question that the registered
owner of the vehicle was respondent Villanueva. He
never denied and in fact admitted this fact.
5. SC have held that the registered owner of any vehicle,
even if not used for public service, would primarily be
responsible to the public or to third persons for injuries

Under Article 282 of the Labor Code, gross and habitual


neglect of duties is a valid ground for an employer to
terminate an employee. Gross negligence implies a want
or absence of or a failure to exercise slight care or
diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a
thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting
any effort to avoid them. Habitual neglect implies
repeated failure to perform ones duties for a period of
time, depending upon the circumstances.
Our perusal of the records leads us to conclude that
respondent had been grossly negligent. First, it is
undisputed that Chiara Maes permit form was unsigned.
Yet, respondent allowed her to join the activity because
she assumed that Chiara Maes mother has allowed her to
join it by personally bringing her to the school with her
packed lunch and swimsuit.
The purpose of a permit form is precisely to ensure that
the parents have allowed their child to join the school
activity involved. Respondent cannot simply ignore this
by resorting to assumptions. Respondent admitted that
she was around when Chiara Mae and her mother
arrived. She could have requested the mother to sign the
permit form before she left the school or at least called
her up to obtain her conformity.
As a teacher who stands in loco parentis to her pupils,
respondent should have made sure that the children were
protected from all harm while in her company.
Respondent should have known that leaving the pupils in
the swimming pool area all by themselves may result in
an accident. A simple reminder not to go to the deepest
part of the pool was insufficient to cast away all the
serious dangers that the situation presented to the
children, especially when respondent knew that Chiara
Mae cannot swim. Dismally, respondent created an
unsafe situation which exposed the lives of all the pupils
concerned to real danger. This is a clear violation not only
of the trust and confidence reposed on her by the parents
of the pupils but of the school itself.

ADDITIONAL CASES:

PICART V. SMITH

The test for determining whether a person is negligent in


doing an act whereby injury or damage results to the
person or property of another is this: Would a prudent
man, in the position of the person to whom negligence is
attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a
reasonable consequence of the course about to be
pursued. If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to
refrain from that course or to take precaution against its
mischievous results, and the failure to do so constitutes
negligence. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by
the ignoring of the admonition born of this prevision, is
the constitutive fact in negligence.
Where both parties are guilty of negligence, but the
negligent act of one succeeds that of the other by an
appreciable interval of time, the one who has the last
reasonable opportunity 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.
The plaintiff was riding a pony on a bridge, Seeing an
automobile ahead he improperly pulled his horse over to
the railing on the right. The driver of the automobile,
however, guided his car toward the plaintiff without
diminution of speed until he was only a few feet away. He
then turned to the right but passed so closely to the
horse that the latter being frightened, jumped around
and was killed by the passing car. Held: That although the
plaintiff was guilty of negligence in being on the wrong
side of the bridge, the defendant was nevertheless civilly
liable for the legal damages resulting from the collision,
as he had a fair opportunity to avoid the accident af ter
he realized the situation created by the negligence of the
plaintiff and failed to avail himself of that opportunity;
while the plaintiff could by no means then place himself
in a position of greater safety.

BATACLAN v. MEDINA

"The proximate legal cause is that acting first and


producing the injury, either immediately or by setting
other events in motion, all constituting a natural and
continuous chain of events, each having a close causal
connection with its immediate predecessor, the final
event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a
natural and probable result of the cause which first acted,
under such circumstances that the person responsible for
the first event should, as an ordinarily prudent and
intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at
the moment of his act or default that an injury to some
person might probably result therefrom."
When a vehicle turned not only on its side but completely
on its back, the leaking of the gasoline from the tank was
not unnatural or unexpected; that the coming of the men
with lighted torch was in response to the call for help,
made not only by the passenger, but most probably by
the driver and the conductor themselves, and that
because it was very dark (about 2:30 in the morning), the
rescuers had to carry a light with them; and coming as
they did from a rural area where lanterns and flashlights
were not available, they had to use a torch the most
handy and available; and what was more natural, than
that said rescuers should innocently approach the
overturned vehicle to extend the aid and effect the
rescue requested from them, Held: That the proximate
cause of the death of B was the overturning of the vehicle
thru the negligence of defendant and his agent.
The burning of the bus wherein some of the passengers
were trapped can also be attributed to the negligence of
the carrier, through the driver and conductor who were
on the road walking back and forth. They should and
must have known that in the position in which the
overturned bus was, gasoline could and must have
leaked from the gasoline tank and soaked the area in and
around the bus, this aside from the fact that gasoline
when spilled, specially over a large area, can be smelt
and detected even from a distance, Held: That the failure
of the driver and the conductor to have cautioned or
taken steps to warn the rescuers not to bring the lighted
torch too near the bus, constitutes negligence on the part
of the agents of the carrier under the provisions of the
Civil Code, particularly, Article 1733, 1759 and 1763

thereof.