You are on page 1of 11

San Ildefenso lines v CA reservation was made in the said criminal case?

2) Can a subrogee of an offended party maintain


FACTS: At around 3:30 in the afternoon of June 24, an independent civil action during the pendency
1991, a Toyota Lite Ace Van being driven by its of a criminal action when no reservation of the
owner Annie U. Jao and a passenger bus of herein right to file an independent civil action was made
petitioner San Ildefonso Lines, Inc. (hereafter, SILI) in the criminal action and despite the fact that the
figured in a vehicular mishap at the intersection of private complainant is actively participating
Julia Vargas Avenue and Rodriguez Lanuza Avenue through a private prosecutor in the
in Pasig, Metro Manila, totally wrecking the Toyota aforementioned criminal case?
van and injuring Ms. Jao and her two (2)
passengers in the process. RULING: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
A criminal case was thereafter filed with the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated
Regional Trial Court of Pasig on September 18, February 24, 1995 and the Resolution dated April
1991 charging the driver of the bus, herein 3, 1995 denying the motion for reconsideration
petitioner Eduardo Javier, with reckless thereof are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
imprudence resulting in damage to property with "MANIFESTATION AND MOTION TO SUSPEND CIVIL
multiple physical injuries. PROCEEDINGS" filed by petitioners is GRANTED.
About four (4) months later, or on January 13,
1992, herein private respondent Pioneer Insurance RATIO: Now that the necessity of a prior
and Surety Corporation (PISC), as insurer of the reservation is the standing rule that shall govern
van and subrogee, filed a case for damages the institution of the independent civil actions
against petitioner SILI with the Regional Trial Court referred to in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, past
of Manila, seeking to recover the sums it paid the pronouncements that view the reservation
assured under a motor vehicle insurance policy as requirement as an "unauthorized amendment" to
well as other damages, totaling P564,500.00 substantive law - i.e., the Civil Code, should no
(P454,000.00 as actual/compensatory damages; longer be controlling. There must be a renewed
P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; P50,000.00 as adherence to the time-honored dictum that
attorney's fees; P10,000.00 as litigation expenses; procedural rules are designed, not to defeat, but
and P500.00 as appearance fees.) to safeguard the ends of substantial justice. And
for this noble reason, no less than the Constitution
ISSUEs: 1) If a criminal case was filed, can an itself has mandated this Court to promulgate rules
independent civil action based on quasi-delict concerning the enforcement of rights with the end
under Article 2176 of the Civil Code be filed if no in view of providing a simplified and inexpensive
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases made the surface of the road uneven because the
which should not diminish, increase or modify potholes were about five to six inches deep. The
substantive rights. Far from altering substantive left lane parallel to this damaged portion is
rights, the primary purpose of the reservation is, smooth. As narrated by Ferdinand Domingo,
to borrow the words of the Court in "Caos v. before approaching the potholes, he and Dunca
Peralta" saw the Nissan with its headlights on coming from
Clearly then, private respondent PISC, as the opposite direction. They used to evade this
subrogee under Article 2207 of the Civil Code, is damaged road by taking the left lance but at that
not exempt from the reservation requirement with particular moment, because of the incoming
respect to its damages suit based on quasi-delict vehicle, they had to run over it. This caused the
arising from the same act or omission of petitioner truck to bounce wildly. Dunca lost control of the
Javier complained of in the criminal case. As wheels and the truck swerved to the left invading
private respondent PISC merely stepped into the the lane of the Nissan. As a result, Duncas vehicle
shoes of Ms. Jao (as owner of the insured Toyota rammed the incoming Nissan dragging it to the
van), then it is bound to observe the procedural left shoulder of the road and climbed a ridge
requirements which Ms. Jao ought to follow had above said shoulder where it finally stopped. The
she herself instituted the civil case. Nissan was severely damaged and its two
passengers, namely, Feliciano Balcita and
2) Rafael Reyes vs. People, 329 SCRA 600 Francisco Dy, Jr. died instantly. On October 10,
By 1989, Provincial Prosecutor Durian filed with the
Facts: RTC an amended information charging Dunca with
In the early morning of June 20, 1989, the White reckless imprudence resulting in double homicide
Truck driven by Dunca left Tuguegarao, Cagayan and damage to property. On November 29, 1989,
bound to San Fernando, Pampanga loaded with the offended parties filed with the RTC a complaint
2,000 cases of empty beer Grande bottles. against petitioner Rafael Reyes Trucking
Seated at the front right seat beside him was Corporation, as employer of driver Dunca, based
Ferdinand Domingo, his truck helper. At around on quasi delict. Respondents opted to pursue the
4:00 oclock that same morning while the truck criminal action but did not withdraw the civil case
was descending at a slight downgrade along the quasi ex delicto they filed against petitioner. On
national road at Tagaran, Cauayan, Isabela, it December 15, 1989, respondents withdrew the
approached a damaged portion of the road reservation to file a separate civil action against
covering the full width of the trucks right lane the accused and manifested that they would
going south and about six meters in length. These prosecute the civil aspect ex delicto in the
criminal action. However, they did not withdraw double recovery.In other words, the same act or
the separate civil action based on quasi delict omission can create two kinds of liability on the
against petitioner as employer arising from the part of the offender, that is, civil liability ex
same act or omission of the accused driver. The delicto, and civil liability quasi delicto either of
RTC held that the driver was guilty. Respondents which may be enforced against the culprit,
moved for amendment of the dispositive portion subject to the caveat under Article 2177 of the
of the joint decision so as to hold petitioner Civil Code that the offended party can not recover
subsidiarily liable for the damages awarded to the damages under both types of liability. In the
private respondents in the event of insolvency of instant case, the offended parties elected to file a
the accused, which the lower court granted. separate civil action for damages against
Issues: petitioner as employer of the accused, based on
(1) Whether or not petitioner as owner of the truck quasi delict, under Article 2176 of the Civil Code
involved in the accident may be held subsidiarily of the Philippines. Petitioner, as employer of the
liable for the damages awarded to the offended accused who has been adjudged guilty in the
parties in the criminal action against the truck criminal case for reckless imprudence, cannot be
driver despite the filing of a separate civil action held subsidiarily liable because of the filing of the
by the offended parties against the employer of separate civil action based on quasi delict against
the truck driver; and it. In view of the reservation to file, and the
(2) Whether or not the Court may award damages subsequent filing of the civil action for recovery of
to the offended parties in the criminal case civil liability, the same was not instituted with the
despite the filing of a civil action against the criminal action. Such separate civil action was for
employer of the truck driver. recovery of damages under Article 2176 of the
Held: Civil Code, arising from the same act or omission
(1) No. In negligence cases, the aggrieved party of the accused.
has the choice between (1) an action to enforce (2) No. The award of damages in the criminal case
civil liability arising from crime under Article 100 was improper because the civil action for the
of the Revised Penal Code; and (2) a separate recovery of civil liability was waived in the
action for quasi delict under Article 2176 of the criminal action by the filing of a separate civil
Civil Code of the Philippines. Once the choice is action against the employer. The only issue
made, the injured party can not avail himself of brought before the trial court in the criminal
any other remedy because he may not recover action is whether accused Dunca is guilty of
damages twice for the same negligent act or reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and
omission of the accused. This is the rule against damage to property. The action for recovery of
civil liability is not included therein, but is covered The reasoning of the CA was that a contract of
by the separate civil action filed against the carriage already existed between Navidad and
petitioner as employer of the accused truck-driver. LRTA (by virtue of his havA ing purchased train
The policy against double recovery requires that tickets and the liability was caused by the mere
only one action be maintained for the same act or fact of Navidad's death after being hit by the train
omission whether the action is brought against being managed by the LRTA and operated by
the employee or against his employer. The injured Roman. The CA also blamed LRTA for not having
party must choose which of the available causes presented expert evidence showing that the
of action for damages he will bring. emergency brakes could not have stopped the
train on time.

3) LRT vs. NAVIDAD ISSUES:


G.R. No. 145804. February 6, 2003
(1) Whether or not LRTA and/or Roman is liable for
the death.
FACTS: (2) Whether or not Escartin and/or Prudent are
Navidad was drunk when he entered the boarding liable.
platform of the LRT. He got into an altercation with (3) Whether or not nominal damages may coexist
the SG Escartin. They had a fistfight and Navidad with compensatory damages.
fell onto the tracks and was killed when a train
came and ran over him. HELD:
(1) Yes. The foundation of LRTA's liability is the
The Heirs of Navidad filed a complaint for contract of carriage and its obligation to indemnify
damages against Escartin, the train driver, the victim arising from the breach of that contract
(Roman) the LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization by reason of its failure to exercise the high
and Prudent Security Agency (Prudent). The trial diligence required of a common carrier.
court found Prudent and Escartin jointly and (2) Fault was not established. Liability will be
severally liable for damages to the heirs. The CA based on Tort under Art. 2176 of the New Civil
exonerated Prudent and instead held the LRTA and Code.
the train driver Romero jointly and severally liable (3) No. It is an established rule that nominal
as well as removing the award for compensatory damages cannot co-exist with compensatory
damages and replacing it with nominal damages. damages.
RATIO: employee Escartin is established, the employer,
Prudent, would be held liable on the presumption
Liability of LRTA Read Arts. 1755,1756, 1759 and that it did not exercise the diligence of a good
1763 of the New Civil Code father of the family in the selection and
supervision of its employees.
A common carrier is required by these above
statutory provisions to use utmost diligence in
carrying passengers with due regard for all Relationship between contractual and non-
circumstances. This obligation exists not only contractual breach How then must the liability of
during the course of the trip but for so long as the the common carrier, on the one hand, and an
passengers are within its premises where they independent contractor, on the other hand, be
ought to be in pursuance to then contract of described? It would be solidary. A contractual
carriage. obligation can be breached by tort and when the
same act or omission causes the injury, one
Art. 1763 renders a common carrier liable for resulting in culpa contractual and the other
death of or injury to passengers (a) through in culpa aquiliana, Article 2194 of the Civil Code
the negligence or wilful acts of its employees or can well apply. In fine, a liability for tort may arise
(b) on account of willful acts or negligence of even under a contract, where tort is that which
other passengers or of strangers if the common breaches the contract. Stated differently, when an
carriers employees through theexercise of due act which constitutes a breach of ontract would
diligence could have prevented or stopped the act have itself constituted the source of a quasi-
or omission. In case of such death or injury, a delictual liability had no contract existed between
carrier is presumed to have been at fault or been the parties, the contract can be said to have been
negligent, and by simple proof of injury, the breached by tort, thereby allowing the rules on
passenger is relieved of the duty to still establish tort to apply.
the fault or negligence of the carrier or of its
employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier Nominal Damages - The award of nominal
to prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen damages in addition to actual damages
event or to force majeure. is untenable. Nominal damages are adjudicated in
order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been
Liability of Security Agency If Prudent is to be violated or invaded by the defendant, may be
held liable, it would be for a tort under Art. 2176 vindicated or recognized, and not for the
in conjunction with Art. 2180. Once the fault of the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss
suffered by him. It is an established rule that WON Liga should pay to Ortigas back rentals
nominal damages cannot co-exist with covering theperiod 1 January 2001 to 31 August
compensatory damages. The award was 2001? NO2. WON Liga should pay to Allegro back
deleted/\. rentals in the amountof P40K a month starting
from 1 September 2001 until suchtime as she
4) LIGA vs. ALLEGRO vacates the leased property? YES3. WON Liga
1) LIGA vs. ALLEGRO RESOURCES575 SCRA 310 should pay to Allegro the amount of P20K
(Art. 1159)Facts: Ortigas & Company, Limited asattorney's fees and the costs of suit? YESHeld:1.
Partnership entered into a (1) Ortigas is not a party to this case, whether as
leaseagreement with La Paz Investment & Realty plaintiff or otherwise. It is basic that no relief can
Corporationwherein the former leased to the latter be extended in a judgment to a stranger or one
its parcel of land who is not a party to a case. (2)Allegro cannot
locatedin San Juan. La Paz constructed the Greenh justify the award as a legal representative
ills ShoppingArcade and divided it into several byvirtue of a provision in its lease agreement with
stalls and subleased them toother people. One of Ortigas. Allegrodid not aver in its complaint that it
the sub-lessees was Edsel Liga (Liga),who was acting as Ortigas's legalrepresentative and
obtained the leasehold right to Unit No. 26, Level seeking the back rentals due Ortigas. (3)There is
A of theGSA. As the lease expired, the no allegation or prayer in the complaint that
stallholders made several attemptsto have their Allegrowas seeking the collection of the
leasehold rights extended. Allegro Resources back rentals due Ortigas.2. The Court cannot
became the new lessee. As the newlessee, Allegro countenance the obstinate refusal of
offered to sublease Unit No. 26, Level A Ligato pay P40K a month to Allegro since she had
toLiga. They entered into a lease agreement alreadyacquiesced to pay such rental rate
dubbed RentalInformation in which Liga agreed to when she signed the
pay rental of P40Kmonthly. She also agreed to pay RentalInformation. It is fundamental that a contrac
the back rentals due Ortigas.Liga also gave P40K t is the lawbetween the parties. Obligations
as one month advance rental arising from contracts havethe force of law
and another P40K as one month security deposit a between the contracting parties and should
s provided in theagreement. Liga failed to pay the becomplied with in good faith.It is a general
subsequent due rent. Despite repeateddemands principle of law that no one may be permitted
from Allegro, Liga had failed to pay her rentals for tochange his mind or disavow and go back upon
thesubleased property, as well as the back rentals his own acts, or to proceed contrary thereto, to
from Januaryto August 2001 due Ortigas.Issues:1. the prejudice of the other party.Likewise, it is
settled that if the terms of the contract Offerings (IPO) of corporations registered with
clearlyexpress the intention of the contracting par MKSE; (2) the delivery of the IPO shares he was
ties, the literalmeaning of the stipulations would allegedly deprived of, for which he would pay IPO
be controlling.3. Law and jurisprudence support prices;.
the award of attorney's feesand costs of suit in
favor of Allegro. Attorney's fees and costsof SICD granted the issuance of a Temporary
litigation are awarded in instances where "the Restraining Order to enjoin petitioners from
defendantacted in gross and evident bad faith in implementing or enforcing the resolution of the
refusing to satisfy theplaintiff's plainly valid, just MKSE. they also issued a writ of preliminary
and demandable claim." Havingdelivered injunction for the implementation or enforcement
possession over the leased property to Liga, of the MKSE Board Resolution in question.
Allegrohad already performed its obligation under
the leaseagreement. Liga should have exercised On March 11,1994, petitioners filed a motion
fairness and to dismiss on the following grounds: (1) Petition
good judgment in dealing with Allegro by religiousl became moot due to the cancellation of the
y paying theagreed monthly rental of P40,000.00 license of the MKSE (2) The SICD had no
jurisdiction over the petition and (3) the petition
5) MAKATI STOCK EXCHANGE, INC., vs. MIGUEL V. failed to state a cause of action. However, the
CAMPOS, SICD denied petitioners motion to dismiss.
G.R. No. 138814 , April 16, 2009
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petition failed to state a
FACTS: cause of action.

Respondent Miguel V. Campos filed a HELD:


petition with the Securities, Investigation and The petition filed by respondent Miguel
Clearing Department (SICD) of the Securities and Campos should be dismissed for failure to state a
Exchange Commission (SEC) against the cause of action.
petitioners Makati Stock Exchange, Inc. (MKSE)
The petition sought: (1) to nullify the Resolution A cause of action is the act or omission by
dated 3 June 1993 of the MKSE Board of Directors, which a party violates a right of another.
which allegedly deprived him of his right to
participate equally in the allocation of Initial Public
It contains three essential elements: 1) the Court can deduce that respondent, by virtue of his
legal right of the plaintiff 2) the correlative position as Chairman Emeritus of MKSE, was
obligation of the defendant and 3) the act or granted by law, contract, or any other legal
omission of the defendant in violation of said legal source, the right to subscribe to the IPOs of
right. If these elements are absent, the complaint corporations listed in the stock market at their
will be dismissed on the ground of failure to state offering prices.
a cause of action. Furthermore, the petition filed
by respondent failed to lay down the source or 6)
basis of respondents right and/or petitioners Diesel Construction Co., Inc V. UPSI Property
obligation. Holdings, Inc.
G.R. No. 154885, March 24, 2008
Article 1157 of the Civil Code, provides that UPSI Property Holdings, Inc., V. Diesel Construction
Obligations arise from: law, Contracts, Quasi Co., Inc. and FGU Insurance Corp.,
Contracts, Acts or omissions punished by law and G.R. No. 154937, March 24, 2008
quasi delicts. Therefore an obligation imposed on Facts:
a person and the corresponding right granted to On August 26, 1995, Diesel, as contractor,
another, must be rooted in at least one of these and UPSI, as Owner, entered into a
five sources. Construction Agreement for the interior
architectural construction works for the 14
The mere assertion of a right and claim of th
an obligation in an initiatory pleading, whether a to the 16
Complaint or Petition, without identifying the basis th
or source thereof, is merely a conclusion of fact floors of the UPSI Building 3 Meditel/Condotel
and law. A pleading should state the ultimate facts Project located on Gen. Luna St., Ermita,
essential to the rights of action or defense Manila. Under the Agreement, as amended,
asserted, as distinguished from mere conclusions Diesel, for PHP 12,739,099, agreed to undertake
of fact or conclusions of law. the
Project, payable by progress billing. As stipulated,
The Respondent merely quoted in his Diesel posted, through FGU Insurance corp.
Petition the MKSE Board Resolution, passed (FGU), a performance bond in favor of UPSI.
sometime in 1989, granting him the position of The Agreement contained provisions and contract
Chairman Emeritus of MKSE for life. However, provisions on contract works and
there is nothing in the said Petition from which the
Project completing, extensions of contract period, Agreement. On March 16, 2000, Diesel sent a
change/extra work orders, delays and damages letter notice to UPSI stating that the Project has
for negative slippage. Under the Agreement, the been completed as of the date. UPSI, however,
Project Prosecution proper was to run for a disregarded the notice, and refused to accept
period of 90 days from August 2, 1999 to delivery of the contracted premises, claiming that
November 8, 1999. They later agreed to move the Diesel abandoned the Project unfinished
commencement date to August 21, 1999 and the Diesel then filed a complaint compelling to pay
completion was moved to November 20, 1999. the unpaid balance of UPSI of the contract price,
Also this includes the section obliging the plus damages and attorneys fees. UPSI denied
contractor, in case of unjustifiable delay, to pay liability.
the ISSUE:
owner liquidated damages in the amount Whether or not Diesel can be entitled to full
equivalent to one-fifth (1/5) of one (1) percent of payment of the contract amount.
the HELD:
total Project cost for each calendar day of delay. As evidenced, by UPSIs Progress Report No. 19 for
During the course of Project implantation, change the period ending March 22, 2000,
orders were effective and extensive Diesels scope of work , as of that date, was
sought. Diesel requested for extension owing to already 97.56% complete. Such level of work
the following causes or delaying factors: (1) accomplishment would, by any natural norm,
manual hauling of materials from the 14 be considered as substantial to warrant full
th payment of the contract amount, less actual
to 16 damages suffered by UPSI. Article 1234 of the
th Civil
floors; (2) delayed supply of marble; (3) various Code says as much, If the obligation had
change orders; and (4) delayed in the installation substantially performed in good faith, the obligor
of shower assembly. UPSI disapproved the may
desired extensions on the basis of the foregoing recover as though there had been and complete
causes, thus putting Diesel in default for a given fulfillment, less damages suffered by the obligee.
contract of work. Furthermore, for every default
situation, UPSI assessed Diesel for liquidated 7) Chaves vs. Gonzales, 32 SCRA 547, No. 27454,
damages in the form of deductions from April 30, 1970
Diesels progress payments, as stipulated in Chavez vs. Gonzales
the March 25, 2016
Case Digest made no denials of the facts narrated above,
G.R. No. L-27454 April 30, 1970 except the claim of the plaintiff that the cost of
Rosendo O. Chavez, plaintiff-appellant the repair made by Freixas Business Machines be
vs. fully chargeable against him.
Fructuoso Gonzales, defendant-appellee Issue: Whether or not the defendant is liable for
REYES, J.B.L., J.: the total cost of the repair made by Freixas
Business Machines with the plaintiff typewriter?
Facts: On July 1963, Rosendo Chavez brought his Ruling: No, he is not liable for the total cost of the
typewriter to Fructuoso Gonzales a typewriter repair made by Freixas Business Machines instead
repairman for the cleaning and servicing of the he is only liable for the cost of the missing parts
said typewriter but the latter was not able to finish and screws. The defendant contravened the tenor
the job. During October 1963, the plaintiff gave of his obligation in repairing the typewriter of the
the amount of P6.00 to the defendant which the plaintiff that he fails to repair it and returned it
latter asked from the plaintiff for the purchase of with the missing parts, he is liable under ART.
spare parts, because of the delay of the repair the 1167. If a person obliged to do something fails to
plaintiff decided to recover the typewriter to the do it, the same shall be executed at his cost.
defendant which he wrapped it like a package. This same rule shall be observed if he does it in
When the plaintiff reached their home he opened contravention of the tenor of the obligation.
it and examined that some parts and screws was Furthermore it may be decreed that what has
lost. That on October 29, 1963 the plaintiff sent a been poorly done he undone.
letter to the defendant for the return of the
missing parts, the interior cover and the sum of
P6.00 (Exhibit D). The following day, the 8) Pantaleon vs American Express International
defendant returned to the plaintiff some of the Polo Pantaleon vs American Express International
missing parts, the interior cover and the P6.00. Inc. G.R. No. 174269 May 8, 2009 Tinga, J.: Facts:
The plaintiff brought his typewriter to Freixas Polo Pantaleon went on a tour with his family in
Business Machines and the repair cost the amount Europe. While they were in Amsterdam, Mrs.
of P89.85. He commenced this action on August Pantaleon decided to purchase some diamond
23, 1965 in the City Court of Manila, demanding pieces. Mr. Pantaleon used his AMEX credit card to
from the defendant the payment of P90.00 as pay for the said diamonds. It took AMEX a total of
actual and compensatory damages, P100.00 for 78 minutes to approve the purchase and to
temperate damages, P500.00 for moral damages, transmit the approval to the jewelry store. The
and P500.00 as attorneys fees. The defendant travel companions of the Pantaleon family got
irritated because they had to cancel the city tour promptly informed petitioner the reason for the
due to the delay in the purchase of the diamonds. delay, and duly advised him that resolving the
The same thing also happened when the family same could take some time. Fallo: Wherefore, the
was in the US. Issue: Whether or not AMEX has petition is granted. The assailed decision of the
committed a breach of its obligation to Pantaleon. Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside. The
Ruling: Yes, AMEX committed a breach of its decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati
obligation. It is the obligation of the respondent, Branch 145 is hereby reinstated. Costs against the
as a debtor/obligor, to act on the purchase of the respondent.
petitioner with timely dispatch. The culpable
failure of the respondent herein is not the failure
to timely act on the same but the failure to