Republic of the Philippines Resolutions of the National Labor Relations and US$27.

00 for those working from 12:00
SUPREME COURT Commission (Third Division) 1 promulgated on noon to 12:00 midnight. All incidental expenses
Manila February 28, 1994, 2 and May 31, 1994. 3 The for the maintenance of the vehicles they were
February 28, 1994 Resolution affirmed with driving were accounted against them, including
THIRD DIVISION modifications the decision 4 of Labor Arbiter gasoline expenses.
Ariel C. Santos in NLRC Case No. RAB-III-12-
2477-91. The second Resolution denied the The drivers worked at least three to four times a
motion for reconsideration of herein petitioners. week, depending on the availability of taxicabs.
G.R. No. 116123 March 13, 1997 They earned not less than US$15.00 daily.
The NLRC modified the decision of the labor
SERGIO F. NAGUIAT, doing business arbiter by granting separation pay to herein In excess of that amount, however, they were
under the name and style SERGIO F. individual respondents in the increased amount required to make cash deposits to the company,
NAGUIAT ENT., INC., & CLARK FIELD of US$120.00 for every year of service or its peso which they could later withdraw every fifteen
TAXI, INC., petitioners, equivalent, and holding Sergio F. Naguiat days.
vs. Enterprises, Inc., Sergio F. Naguiat and Antolin
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS T. Naguiat, jointly and severally liable with Clark Due to the phase-out of the US military bases in
COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION), Field Taxi, Inc. ("CFTI"). the Philippines, from which Clark Air Base was
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF not spared, the AAFES was dissolved, and the
WORKINGMEN and its members, The Facts services of individual respondents were officially
LEONARDO T. GALANG, et terminated on November 26, 1991.
al., respondents. The following facts are derived from the records
of the case: The AAFES Taxi Drivers Association ("drivers'
union"), through its local president, Eduardo
Petitioner CFTI held a concessionaire's contract Castillo, and CFTI held negotiations as regards
PANGANIBAN, J.: with the Army Air Force Exchange Services separation benefits that should be awarded in
("AAFES") for the operation of taxi services favor of the drivers. They arrived at an
Are private respondent-employees of petitioner within Clark Air Base. Sergio F. Naguiat was agreement that the separated drivers will be
Clark Field Taxi, Inc., who were separated from CFTI's president, while Antolin T. Naguiat was given P500.00 for every year of service as
service due the closure of Clark Air Base, entitled its vice-president. Like Sergio F. Naguiat severance pay. Most of the drivers accepted said
to separation pay and, if so, in what amount? Enterprises, Incorporated ("Naguiat amount in December 1991 and January 1992.
Are officers of corporations ipso facto liable Enterprises"), a trading firm, it was a family- However, individual respondents herein refused
jointly and severally with the companies they owned corporation. to accept theirs.
represent for the payment of separation pay?
Individual respondents were previously Instead, after disaffiliating themselves from the
These questions are answered by the Court in employed by CFTI as taxicab drivers. During drivers' union, individual respondents, through
resolving this petition for certiorari under Rule their employment, they were required to pay a the National Organization of Workingmen
65 of the Rules of Court assailing the daily "boundary fee" in the amount of US$26.50 ("NOWM"), a labor organization which they
for those working from 1:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, subsequently joined, filed a complaint 5against
1 | Page

"Sergio F. Naguiat doing business under the to grant its taxi driver-employees separation pay respondents. The concluding paragraphs of the
name and style Sergio F. Naguiat Enterprises, equivalent to P500.00 for every year of service. NLRC Resolution read:
Inc., Army-Air Force Exchange Services
(AAFES) with Mark Hooper as Area Service The labor arbiter, finding the individual The contention of complainant
Manager, Pacific Region, and AAFES Taxi complainants to be regular workers of CFTI, is partly correct. One-half
Drivers Association with Eduardo Castillo as ordered the latter to pay them P1,200.00 for month salary should be
President," for payment of separation pay due to every year of service "for humanitarian US$120.00 but this amount can
termination/phase-out. Said complaint was later consideration," setting aside the earlier not be paid to the complainant
amended 6 to include additional taxi drivers who agreement between CFTI and the drivers' union in U.S. Dollar which is not the
were similarly situated as complainants, and of P500.00 for every year of service. The labor legal tender in the Philippines.
CFTI with Antolin T. Naguiat as vice president arbiter rejected the allegation of CFTI that it was Paras, in commenting on Art.
and general manager, as party respondent. forced to close business due to "great financial 1249 of the New Civil Code,
losses and lost business opportunity" since, at defines legal tender as "that
In their complaint, herein private respondents the time it ceased operations, CFTI was which a debtor may compel a
alleged that they were regular employees of profitably earning and the cessation of its creditor to accept in payment of
Naguiat Enterprises, although their individual business was due to the untimely closure of the debt. The complainants who
applications for employment were approved by Clark Air Base. In not awarding separation pay are the creditors in this instance
CFTI. They claimed to have been assigned to in accordance with the Labor Code, the labor can be compelled to accept the
Naguiat Enterprises after having been hired by arbiter explained: Philippine peso which is the
CFTI, and that the former thence managed, legal tender, in which case, the
controlled and supervised their employment. To allow respondents exemption table of conversion (exchange
They averred further that they were entitled to from its (sic) obligation to pay rate) at the time of payment or
separation pay based on their latest daily separation pay would be satisfaction of the judgment
earnings of US$15.00 for working sixteen (16) inhuman to complainants but to should be used. However, since
days a month. impose a monetary obligation to the choice is left to the debtor,
an employer whose profitable (respondents) they may choose
In their position paper submitted to the labor business was abruptly shot (sic) to pay in US dollar." (Phoenix
arbiter, herein petitioners claimed that the down by force majeure would be Assurance Co. vs. Macondray &
cessation of business of CFTI on November 26, unfair and unjust to say the Co. Inc., L-25048, May 13, 1975)
1991, was due to "great financial losses and lost least. 7
business opportunity" resulting from the phase- In discharging the above
out of Clark Air Base brought about by the Mt. and thus, simply awarded an amount for obligations, Sergio F. Naguiat
Pinatubo eruption and the expiration of the RP- "humanitarian consideration." Enterprises, which is headed by
US military bases agreement. They admitted that Sergio F. Naguiat and Antolin
CFTI had agreed with the drivers' union, Herein individual private respondents appealed Naguiat, father and son at the
through its President Eduardo Castillo who to the NLRC. In its Resolution, the NLRC same time the President and
claimed to have had blanket authority to modified the decision of the labor arbiter by Vice-President and General
negotiate with CFTI in behalf of union members, granting separation pay to the private Manager, respectively, should
2 | Page

be joined as indispensable party that Petitioners Sergio F. Naguiat and Antolin could not be held personally accountable for
whose liability is joint and Naguiat were denied due process; and that corporate debts.
several. (Sec. 7, Rule 3, Rules of petitioners were not furnished copies of private
Court) 8 respondents' appeal to the NLRC. As to the Lastly, Sergio and Antolin Naguiat assail the
procedural lapse of insufficient copies of the Resolution of NLRC holding them solidarily
As mentioned earlier, the motion for appeal, the proper forum before which liable despite not having been impleaded as
reconsideration of herein petitioners was denied petitioners should have raised it is the NLRC. parties to the complaint.
by the NLRC. Hence, this petition with prayer They, however, failed to question this in their
for issuance of a temporary restraining order. motion for reconsideration. As a consequence, Individual respondents filed a comment
Upon posting by the petitioners of a surety bond, they are deemed to have waived the same and separate from that of NOWM. In sum, both aver
a temporary restraining order 9 was issued by voluntarily submitted themselves to the that petitioners had the opportunity but failed to
this Court enjoining execution of the assailed jurisdiction of the appellate body. refute, the taxi drivers' claim of having an
Resolutions. average monthly earning of $240.00; that
Anent the first issue raised in their original individual respondents became members of
Issues petition, petitioners contend that NLRC NOWM after disaffiliating themselves from the
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting AAFES Taxi Drivers Association which, through
The petitioners raise the following issues before to lack or excess of jurisdiction in unilaterally the manipulations of its President Eduardo
this Court for resolution: increasing the amount of severance pay granted Castillo, unconscionably compromised their
by the labor arbiter. They claim that this was not separation pay; and that Naguiat Enterprises,
I. Whether or not public supported by substantial evidence since it was being their indirect employer, is solidarily liable
respondent NLRC (3rd Div.) based simply on the self-serving allegation of under the law for violation of the Labor Code, in
committed grave abuse of respondents that their monthly take-home pay this case, for nonpayment of their separation
discretion amounting to lack of was not lower than $240.00. pay.
jurisdiction in issuing the
appealed resolution; On the second issue, petitioners aver that The Solicitor General unqualifiedly supports the
NOWM cannot make legal representations in allegations of private respondents. In addition,
II. Whether or not Messrs. behalf of individual respondents who should, he submits that the separate personalities of
Teofilo Rafols and Romeo N. instead, be bound by the decision of the union respondent corporations and their officers
Lopez could validly represent (AAFES Taxi Drivers Association) of which they should be disregarded and considered one and
herein private respondents; and, were members. the same as these were used to perpetrate
injustice to their employees.
III. Whether or not the As to the third issue, petitioners incessantly
resolution issued by public insist that Sergio F. Naguiat Enterprises, Inc. is a The Court's Ruling
respondent is contrary to law. 10 separate and distinct juridical entity which
cannot be held jointly and severally liable for the As will be discussed below, the petition is
Petitioners also submit two additional issues by obligations of CFTI. And similarly, Sergio F. partially meritorious.
way of a supplement 11 to their petition, to wit: Naguiat and Antolin Naguiat were merely
officers and stockholders of CFTI and, thus, First Issue: Amount of Separation Pay
3 | Page

. Represent Individual Respondents- records of the instant case if only to determine however. complainants before the labor arbiter. Article 283 of the Labor of NOWM and the validity of its representations work schedule and financial arrangement they Code provides: in behalf of the complaining taxi drivers before had with their employer. like petitioners. Employees whether public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion. petitioners petitioners did not bother to refute nor offer any closures or cessation of acknowledged before this Court that the taxi 4 | Page .00. are devoid of such evidence. they are inferred that their monthly take-home pay . (1) whole year. are bound by the A fraction of at least six (6) jurisprudence is the judicial dictum that findings factual findings of Respondent Commission. But In their amended complaint before the Regional petitioners who were party-respondents in said Arbitration Branch in San Fernando. It raised this issue before the labor arbiter or the minimum monthly earnings as taxi drivers of was not due to any great financial loss because NLRC.Firmly. or where it is clearly shown that business losses or financial reverses. operations of establishment or for certiorari filed pursuant to Rule 65 of the Remaining undisputed.S. Herein prevent losses and in cases of this Court. the separation pay petitioner/s must clearly show that the NLRC labor arbiter nor manifest any error in his shall be equivalent to one (1) acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with findings and conclusions. 12 in estoppel for not having questioned such facts (1/2) month pay for every year when they had all opportunity to do so.00 (one- abuse of discretion. With respect to the amount of separation pay complaint did not assail the juridical personality herein private respondents set forth in detail the that should be granted. Thus. and are binding upon which made the roads practically impassable to that individual respondents were entitled to this Court unless there is a showing of grave their taxicabs.00 monthly pay) or its peso that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in order to sustain retrenchment of personnel or equivalent for every year of service. Petitioners business losses or financial case may reach the Supreme Court. allegedly their phase-out of U. Pinatubo not commit grave abuse of discretion in ruling respect but even finality. Long-standing and well-settled in Philippine respondents. disregard of the evidence on record. 13 closure of business and warrant exemption from payment of separation pay. petitioners' taxi business was earning profitably the organization representing the taxi driver- at the time of its closure. amounting to lack of The labor arbiter. . whichever is higher. Likewise well-settled is the rule separation pay 15 in the amount $120. we reiterate the rule that in a petition evidence to controvert said allegations. which have acquired expertise Petitioners also claim that the closure of their because their jurisdiction is confined to specific taxi business was due to great financial losses Considering the above. must be proved with Second Issue: NOWM's Personality to Nevertheless. judicial bodies. in half of $240.00. Private of service. in granting the clamor of private found that petitioners stopped their taxi represent private respondents. we find that NLRC did matters. petitioners are month pay or at least one-half grave abuse of discretion. Therefore. 14 The records. which is the only way a labor adopted such facts in his decision. we hold respondents that their separation pay should be business within Clark Air Base because of the petitioners in estoppel for not having seasonably based on the amount of $240. as affirmed by NLRC. this Court carefully perused the clear and satisfactory evidence. correctly On the question of NOWM's authority to jurisdiction. military presence thereat. In any event. the did not even appeal from the decision of the reverses. Pampanga. are generally accorded not only great brought about by the eruption of Mt. Therefrom they the quasi-judicial bodies. NOWM was already a party-litigant as petitioners. In case of retrenchment to now estopped from raising such question before amounted to not less than $240. the labor arbiter undertaking not due to serious Rules of Court. months shall be considered one of fact of administrative agencies and quasi.

employment. specified period a fleet of vehicles to be "ke(pt) Taxi? on the road" by CFTI. Naguiat. the concessionaire's contract. rule applies as well to dispositions by quasi. agreed to purchase F. They factual finding that Naguiat Enterprises actually premises. who was at the managed. documents such as the drivers' applications for judicial and administrative bodies. to the principal business of the controlling the taxi business on behalf of the factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies are employer.18 107 19 and 109 20 of the from AAFES for a certain amount within a with Clark Field Labor Code. supervised and controlled their employment. as concessionaire. 16 commission basis. the not with Sergio liable for the obligations of CFTI. supervised and controlled recruited and placed by such person are same time a stockholder and director 27 of Sergio employment terms of the taxi drivers. 23 and social security Atty. Inc. 5 | Page . concerned that decisions. Naguiat. pursuant to their Based on factual submissions of the parties. and its officers jointly and severally liable in Naguiat Enterprises as a separate corporation discharging CFTI's liability for payment of From the evidence proffered by both parties. latter. We find no reason to make a contrary finding. among others. as a separate The resolution of this issue involves another form of tools. appears that they were confused on the Corporations and Their Respective Labor-only contracting exists where: (1) the personalities of Sergio F. Naguiat but rely on Articles 106. A closer scrutiny and analysis of the binding upon the court in the absence of a meanwhile. 21 Independent contractors. petitioners submitted a driver-claimant on cross examination. was managing and their indirect employer. We again remind those there is no substantial basis to hold that Naguiat business. however. claim that Naguiat Enterprises managed. was rather carrying out his any explanation for holding Naguiat Enterprises the result of their Work. must distinctly and clearly set forth the respondents much less a labor only contractor. evince the truth of the matter: showing of grave abuse of discretion. however concisely Enterprises is an indirect employer of individual written. This indicates that Witness labor arbiter. Suarez remittances24 and payroll 25 of Naguiat Naguiat Enterprise Not Liable Enterprises showing that none of the individual Is it not true respondents were its employees. and work corporate entity with a separate business. we refer to the testimony of facts and law upon which they are based. in that you applied In impleading Naguiat Enterprises as solidarily the contract 26 between CFTI and AAFES. and not have substantial capital or investment in the Sergio F. contracting to do a piece of work that Sergio F. found that individual CFTI became the owner of the taxicabs which respondents were regular employees of CFTI became the principal investment and asset of the company. Naguiat as an Officers person supplying workers to an employer does individual who was the president of CFTI. Moreover.drivers allegedly represented by NOWM. Inc. equipment. employment with CFTI. To illustrate further. 17 This On the contrary. in supervising the taxi according to their own methods without being drivers and determining their employment Unfortunately. Naguiat Enterprises. Hence. As adverted to earlier. It Third Issue: Liability of Petitioner.. however.. machinery. and (2) the workers presumed that Sergio F. Naguiat Enterprises. are who received wages on a boundary or Private respondents failed to substantiate their themselves parties in this case. are those who exercise independent records. does not appear to be involved at all in the taxi separation pay. making it performing activities which are directly related F. 22 responsibilities as president of CFTI. the NLRC did not discuss or give subject to control of their employer except as to terms. respondents former.

was 6 | Page . Naguiat is the In addition. 30 Atty. How about Mr.I applied for What is exactly Clark Field (sic) Sergio F. 28 He is the one What I know is managing the that he is a And. that employer But do you also Naguiat Enterprises was in the trading business know that while CFTI was in taxi services. sir. Suarez Incorporated Taxi. Incorporated? Naguiat with Atty. How about with operation of the Clark Field Taxi Clark Field Atty. sir. Suarez Sergio F. Sergio F. services. F. although the witness insisted that Naguiat Sergio F. the Constitution 31 of CFTI-AAFES President of Taxi Drivers Association which. what is the Incorporated? Who is Sergio position of Mr. 29 he is the one whom we Atty. Suarez the corporation? He is the owner. Suarez Another driver-claimant admitted. Naguiat as an individual or Witness Atty. Enterprises? Yes. Naguiat? Naguiat? Witness Witness Witness He is the vice president. Witness Naguiat Sergio F. Antolin Naguiat Witness what is his role Atty. Suarez in the taxi Sergio F. concessionaire. the Naguiat na tao. upon the believe as our prodding of counsel for the corporations. the position of Taxi. Naguiat. admittedly. he could not deny Naguiat that he received his salary from the office of Enterprises and xxx xxx xxx CFTI inside the base. Suarez the Sergio F. Enterprises was his employer.

in their individual. liability in the payment of separation pay to Court. NLRC 33 is otherwise. without answer is found in Article 212(c) identify "the officer or officers" prejudice to the right of employees to seek of the Labor Code which of RANSOM directly responsible redress of grievance. if any.C. that CFTI was the actual and direct employer of officers and agents of the company be held individual respondents.C. It was not involved at corporation's appeal to the NLRC. Backwages of 22 provides: for failure to pay the back wages employees. 32 In the broader employer corporation can be interest of justice. Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera. Up to September 1976. we. hold that Sergio On certiorari. The term shall not employer is the Clark Field Taxi Inc. To NLRC answered in the negative. Antolin T. not to say even F. . The avoid the solidary liability of their officers. the stockholders of which (Articles 265 and 273 of the for evading payment of back were members of the Hernandez family. Sergio F. individual respondents. In the 7 | Page .the union of individual respondents while still closure. Justice That is the policy of the law. is the employer. In the Section 2 of RA 602. on the ground corporation. the union asked that except when acting as employer. the definite against the corporation. however. the nonpayment of back wages. . states that members P164. upheld the labor arbiter. Naguiat and that officers of a corporation are not liable technical sense. and that Naguiat personally liable for payment of the backwages. In imposing joint and criminally. Since all in the taxi business." implemented. enforceable against its officer be presumed to be the solidarily liable and agents. the corporation the case in point. in his capacity as president of CFTI. directly or collective bargaining purposes. only in the bolster their position. who engaged in a strike prior to the of the 22 strikers. the union person acting in the interest of thereof are the employees of CFTI and "(f)or filed about ten (10) motions for execution an employer. ratiocinated this wise: (c) If the policy of the law were A.984. liable for cannot be exonerated from joint and several several liability upon the company president. issues raised was: "Is the judgment against a RANSOM is an artificial person. presumably for failure to find include any labor organization leviable assets of said corporation. were subsequently computed at (c) "Employer" includes any working at Clark Air Base.00. In 1973. but none could be indirectly. who were not parties in the acting in the interest of (the) Petitioner-corporations would likewise want to case where the judgment was rendered!" The employer" RANSOM. it filed an application for clearance to close or implemented when the cease operations. In its last or any of its officers or agents From the foregoing. the nor labor-only contractor. Naguiat. this Court reversed the NLRC and held personally. . speaking through Mme. private and employer. . . the ineludible conclusion is motion for execution. Naguiat specifically aver that they personally for official acts unless they exceeded were denied due process since they were not the scope of their authority. The responsible officer of an parties to the complaint below. which was duly granted by the employer is a corporation? The (d) The record does not clearly Ministry of Labor and Employment. being the "person personal capacities. corporation to reinstate its dismissed employees it must have an officer who can CFTI president with backwages. The foregoing was culled from Enterprises was neither their indirect employer This was granted by the labor arbiter. Labor Code) provisions be wages. Ransom Labor Union-CCLU vs. one of the Minimum Wage Law. A. Ransom Corporation was (b) How can the foregoing employer can have devious ways a family corporation. .

. trustee or Our jurisprudence is wanting as to the definite officer is made. officers other and among themselves. assailed NLRC Resolutions. (Emphasis supplied. . Thus. consists in the violation of a right given or the liable for his corporate action. tort is a breach of a legal duty. "tort" provision of law. corporation who can be reasonably adequate liability True. Moreover. in MAM Realty Development principally bound himself to comply with the (5) To the extent that the vs. (under Title XII on engaged in the management or operation of the restraining order enjoining the execution of the Close Corporations) of the Corporation Code. its stockholder who was actively this Court for the issuance of a temporary Section 100. . who may be 283 of the Labor Code mandates the employer to As pointed out earlier. acting as such regard. in the "Manager or in his default. (emphasis supplied) times be incurred but only when officer thereof. . states: Naguiat. Ransom. applying the ruling in A. the fifth paragraph of held jointly and severally liable for the grant separation pay to employees in case of Section 100 of the Corporation Code specifically obligations of the corporation to its dismissed closure or cessation of operations of imposes personal liability upon the stockholder employees.C. Furthermore.) 4. generally. i. may act only were not entitled thereto. A corporation. Consequently. Thus: which they may incur by reason of the issuance operation of the business and of a temporary restraining order sought. Naguiat. personally of CFTI who actively managed the business. only Sergio F. business should be held personally liable. CFTI failed to comply CFTI and Naguiat Enterprises were "close family with this law-imposed duty or obligation. 37 the Court recognized that a director obligation thereunder. paragraph 5. if it affairs of a close corporation. solidary liabilities may at deemed the chief operation insurance. CFTI obtained "reasonably adequate the following cases: the person acting as such. are not theirs presumed that the responsible corporate tortsunless the but the direct accountabilities of officer is the President of the corporation has obtained the corporation they represent. 36 Article contemplated by the Labor Code. was the president scope of "corporate tort. and employees. "to guarantee the stockholders are actively or officer may still be held solidarily liable with a payment to private respondents of any damages engage(d) in the management or corporation by specific provision of law.e. NLRC. in his individual and personal capacity. being a should be finally adjudged that said principals the stockholders shall be held to juridical entity. 35 Simply (footnotes omitted) falls within the meaning of an "employer" as stated. exceptional circumstances criminal responsibility is with Nothing in the records show whether warrant such as. 38 strict fiduciary duties to each through its directors. Thus. which is the affairs of the close corporation. we believe it should be be personally liable for corporate agents. petitioners also conceded that both condition obtaining at bar." In liability insurance. In fact. Obligations 8 | Page . corporate tort. absence of definite Proof in that Said stockholders shall incurred by them. in posting the surety bond required by corporations" 34owned by the Naguiat family. the President is to determine whether there was xxx xxx xxx appears to be the Manager. in RA 602. When a director." thus. he omission of a duty imposed by law. by specific Sergio F. what remains RANSOM. establishment or undertaking not due to serious actively managing or operating the business and business losses or financial reverses. admittedly." Essentially.

We advert to the case of A. concur. Furthermore.The Court here finds no application to the rule the judgment against them. In this light. their individual capacities. expiration of the RP-US military bases CFTI. it had not been shown that he WHEREFORE. per every year of service subject to exchange with petitioner-corporations in the payment of Incorporated. jointly and severally liable to pay the drivers. CFTI then came up with an agreement with the evidence on the extent of his participation in the The assailed February 28. Sergio Naguiat was the president of Clark Field Taxi. In 1991. parties to the case when the judgment in favor of JJ. filed a position paper 40 together with CFTI. held solidarily liable for corporate tort because voluntarily submitted themselves to the Inc.. The corporate ISSUE: Whether or not the ruling of the NLRC officers raised this issue when the labor arbiter is correct. Davide. the DIGEST that a corporate officer cannot be held solidarily Court held the corporation president solidarily liable with a corporation in the absence of liable with the corporation. CFTI’s president and vice president Sergio impleaded as parties to the complaint. Inc. Naguiat Enterprises. they assail the NLRC time of payment or satisfaction of the judgment. Naguiat Enterprises. Sergio and Antolin Naguiat director of the Sergio F. 39 In the present case.00 for Commission affirmed the labor arbiter. or its peso equivalent at the established that when CFTI closed. (SFNEI). their family owned corporation he had actively engaged in the management and jurisdiction of the labor arbiter when they. the employees was rendered. no considered. Most of the drivers accepted this but preferred. In spite of this. Naguiat. operation of CFTI. the foregoing premises had acted in such capacity.J. and accept the separation pay offered by CFTI Sergio Naguiat to the private respondents. Sergio F. Naguiat are rates prevailing that time. are ORDERED to pay. and Antolin T. separation pay.. Sergio Naguiat is Furthermore. The drivers who refused to solidarily liable for the obligations of CFTI and (1) Petitioner Clark Field Taxi. manager" as well. CFTI had to close due to “great financial Antolin Naguiat not personally liable They cannot now claim to have been denied due losses and lost business opportunity” resulting from the phase-out of Clark Air Base brought process since they availed of the opportunity to about by the Mt. (CFTI) which supplied taxi services to evidence that he had acted in bad faith or with Clark Air Base. The National Labor Relations separation pay computed at US$120. The officers of the corporation were not Narvasa. Naguiat was the vice president of the present their positions. Naguiat and It ruled that the drivers are entitled to $120.00 Antolin T. a close corporation. Although he carried the title of "general agreement. profitable standing and was not incurring losses. Incorporated. Ransom once The NLRC ruled that SFNEI actively managed more. Naguiat and Antolin Naguiat should be held SO ORDERED. CFTI and its business affairs hence it acted as the employer of the drivers. 1994 Resolution of the drivers that the latter be entitled to a separation pay in the amount of P500. Jr. C. averring denial of due process ABSOLVED from liability in the payment of The NLRC likewise ruled that SFNEI as well as since the individual Naguiats were not separation pay to individual respondents. At the same time. it was in original petition. president and co-owner instead sued the latter before the labor arbiter. Resolution holding Sergio F. Melo and Francisco. Naguiat was a malice. thereof. Pinatubo eruption and the Antolin T. Naguiat jointly and severally liable (2) Petitioner Sergio F. jointly and Fourth Issue: No Denial of Due Process severally. in along with CFTI. granted the motion of the employees to enforce 9 | Page . the individual respondents their The labor arbiter ruled in favor of the taxi drivers. before the arbiter. the petition is PARTLY GRANTED.. in petitioners' Supplement to their every year of service.00 per every year of management or operation of the business was NLRC is hereby MODIFIED as follows: service. he cannot be held some drivers did not.C. It was Lastly.

among which are into taxi services. specifically. entity engaged in the manufacture of different 3. 1993. Commissioner Victor A." "More. Jr. recall of RMC 37-93. or two days before RA by this Court in Commissioner of Internal G. to Sec. 7654 (RA 7654). J. 1993. dismissed employees." and "More" cigarettes.3 dated July 30." and "More" among others. has fallen short LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO. be less than Five Pesos (P5. Further. "Champion.7 The same letter assessed SFNEI is not liable jointly or severally with CFTI. of RMC 37-93. “Close issuance of Revenue Memorandum Circular No. CFTI." "Hope.R. The close family corporation.334. respondent filed a petition for review SFNEI was into trading business while CFTI was with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)."6 Naguiat is considered an “employer” of the which affirmed the September 29.. 1994. respondent. was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.9 In On June 10. and finally However. that RMC 37-93. in Civil Case No.8 On August that their payroll comes from CFTI. 1993. 2007 7654 took effect.m. Moreover. 141309 June 19. 1999 Decision1 of "55% provided that the minimum tax shall not determined. There respondent for ad valorem tax deficiency is no sufficient evidence to prove that it actively Petitioner Liwayway Vinzons-Chato was then the amounting to P9. As president of CFTI. at about 5:50 p. 1993. This ruling THIRD DIVISION to an ad valorem tax at the rate of 20-45%. foreign brand subject to the 55% ad issuance. and which imposes an ad valorem tax of is jointly and severally liable to pay the drivers the award of separation pay in the amount so Petitioner assails the May 7. reclassifying "Champion. 1993. HELD: It is only partially correct. 47167. which the Court declared filed a motion for reconsideration requesting the Naguiat is absolved because there was invalid in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. which took ruled that RMC 37-93 is defective. On July 15. on July 1. 97-341-MK.5 (c)(1) on locally manufactured cigarettes YNARES-SANTIAGO. Prior to its effectivity." "Hope. On July 20. a certified xerox copy liability insurance (par. 1993. SP No. petitioner. issued an injunction enjoining the implementation of RMC 37-93. Antolin 37-93 (RMC 37-93). Fortune Tobacco corporation has obtained reasonably adequate constitutional rights arising from petitioner’s received." and "Champion" cigarettes to 10 | P a g e . No.598. BIR Deputy the obligations of the corporation to its Branch 272." and from collecting the deficiency tax assessment "More" were considered local brands subjected issued pursuant to RMC No. Sergio the Court of Appeals in CA-G.: which are currently classified and taxed at It is correct when it ruled that the Sergio Naguiat 55%. petitioner issued RMC 37-93 Revenue v. 5.00 (computed on the managed CFTI especially so when even the Commissioner of Internal Revenue while basis of RMC 37-93) and demanded payment drivers testified that their employer is CFTI and respondent Fortune Tobacco Corporation is an within 10 days from receipt thereof. by ordinary mail. the CTA Republic of the Philippines Republic Act No. the legislature enacted its decision dated August 10.R. which on brands of cigarettes. unenforceable and further enjoined petitioner Manila cigarette brands ‘Champion.4 RMC 37-93 in effect subjected CORPORATION. SFNEI has nothing to do with CFTI. but was denied in a letter insufficient evidence as against him. being a sent via telefax a copy of RMC 37-93 to Fortune denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss. and SUPREME COURT effect on July 3. Section 100. On July 2. September 30. 1993. Corporation Code). invalid. Court of Appeals. respondent Corporations”." "Hope. 142. is liable for corporate torts and stockholders thereof shall be complaint filed by respondent sought to recover Tobacco but it was addressed to no one in personally liable for corporate torts unless the damages for the alleged violation of its particular. 1993. FORTUNE TOBACCO valorem tax. 1997 Order2 of dismissed employees who is therefore liable for the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina. 37-93. Deoferio. Court of Appeals. 1993. as locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a of the requirements for a valid administrative vs. DECISION the provisions of RA 7654.10 It was held.00) per pack. "Hope.

Consequently. (2) the complaint states no cause of action bad faith. as in the instant case. malice or bad faith need not be Ponce de Leon. party who should sign the same. does not property without due process of law and the to the complaint within ten (10) days allege bad faith. is a general acts. Hence. Under this provision. if constitutional right against deprivation of defendant is ordered to file her answer the complaint. the right to equal protection of the laws. while Section 38.On April 10. specifically. the scope of her authority. hence. the motion to dismiss filed malice. is a general law on the that the latter should be held liable for damages motion to dismiss filed by plaintiff liability of public officers. Book I of The dispositive portion thereof. Citing the case of Lim v. The the superior public officers’ liability. As to the defect of the certification Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss12 contending SO ORDERED. Book I of the Administrative Code is with the public officers’ violation of (3) the certification against forum shopping was the general law on the civil liability of public constitutional rights. such that. it is enough that On September 29. respondent filed before the by the defendant Liwayway Vinzons. malice.14 respondent alleged that under alleged in the complaint for damages. the RTC denied sustained the ruling of the RTC that the defect of there was a violation of the constitutional rights petitioner’s motion to dismiss holding that to the certification against forum shopping was of the plaintiff and it is not required that said rule on the allegations of petitioner would be to cured by the submission of the corporate public officer should have acted with malice or prematurely decide the merits of the case secretary’s certificate giving authority to its in bad faith. She claimed that she same was dismissed on the ground that under Conversely. or gross negligence. liability may arise which treats in general the public officers’ "acts" therefore the latter is the one responsible for her even if the defendant did not act with malice or from which civil liability may arise. However. it concluded that even without allowing the parties to present evidence. or gross negligence. states: the Administrative Code which should be The issues for resolution are as follows: applied. 1997. 1997. Respondent contended expunge from the record the said constitutional rights. from receipt of this Order. and Section 38. Article 32 which RTC a complaint11 for damages against petitioner Chato and the motion to strike out and allows recovery of damages for violation of in her private capacity. petitioner filed the instant recourse to state a cause of action should be denied respondent’s submission of the corporate contending that the suit is grounded on her acts inasmuch as bad faith or malice are not secretary’s certificate authorizing its counsel to done in the performance of her functions as a necessary to hold petitioner liable. the motion to dismiss for failure against forum shopping was cured by Undaunted. she urged the Court to that: (1) respondent has no cause of action strictly construe the rules and to dismiss the against her because she issued RMC 37-93 in the The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals via complaint. is a special provision which signed by respondent’s counsel in violation of officers while Article 32 of the Civil Code is the should determine whether the complaint states a the rule that it is the plaintiff or the principal special law that governs the instant case.13 against forum shopping. respondent argued that Section 38 acted merely as an agent of the Republic and Article 32 of the Civil Code. execute the certification against forum shopping. while Article 32 which deals specifically for lack of allegation of malice or bad faith. She further averred in his/her private capacity for acts done 11 | P a g e . that the Civil Code. same is dismissible for failure to state a cause of action. cause of action or not. granting that the complaint failed to allege bad It further held that the defect in the certification faith or malice. The appellate court ratiocinated that law. it is Section 38. liability will attach WHEREFORE. counsel to execute the same. Book under Article 32 of the Civil Code considering Fortune Tobacco Corporation are both I of the Administrative Code is a special law on that the issuance of RMC 37-93 violated its denied on the grounds aforecited. performance of her official function and within a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. foregoing premises only when there is a clear showing of bad faith. (1) May a public officer be validly sued considered. It also Article 32 of the Civil Code. public officer.

Book I of the officer may be validly sued in his/her private before or after the general act does not change Administrative Code. morals. directly or indirectly violates the constitutional that of a general statute and must not be taken a public officer is by law not immune from rights of another. as the term is generally understood. may be validly sued for as intended to affect the more particular and damages in his/her personal capacity for acts damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code even specific provisions of the earlier act. the rule in this jurisdiction is that a public The circumstance that the special law is passed Specifically. v. one of within his authority to administer the affairs of and good customs even if he acts under which is special and particular and the other the office which he/she heads is not liable for orders or instructions of his superior. where will be regarded as an exception to. under Section 39 of the same Book. in connection with the discharge of the civil liability may arise where the subordinate officer violated a constitutional right of the functions of his/her office? public officer’s act is characterized by willfulness plaintiff. if standing alone. or gross performance of the functions of the office. the general rule is that a civilly liable for acts done by him in good A general law and a special law on the same public officer is not liable for damages which a faith in the performance of his duties.17 Thus. The scope of his assigned tasks. being outside the scope if his acts were not so tainted with malice or bad absolutely necessary so to construe it in order to of his authority. Where the special law is later.19 subordinate officer or employee shall be On the first issue. of subjects or places and does not omit any for failure to comply with the rule on subject or place naturally belonging to such certification against forum shopping? xxxx class. Jr. the prior general act.16 However. Liability of Superior complaint filed by respondent stated a cause of Administrative Code should govern in Officers. is one which relates to particular (4) May petitioner be held liable for Section 39. or negligence. Book I of the Sec. the special statute will be 12 | P a g e . complaint states a cause of action? performance of his official duties. with a view to giving effect to both. give its words any meaning at all. and where officer. unless there is a clear showing of bad faith.15 An officer who acts contrary to law. if performance of his official duties and within the negligent acts done by him which are possible. A special statute. be read together and harmonized. or a negligence on the part of a superior public said public officer: (1) acted with malice. A general statute is one which embraces a class (3) Should the complaint be dismissed malice or gross negligence. under Section 38.18 that a public officer who evinces the legislative intent more clearly than monetary claims without its consent. would include damages that may have been caused to another. – (1) A public officer shall not action and that the decisive provision thereon is determining whether the instant be civilly liable for acts done in the Article 32 of the Civil Code. 38. Liability of persons or things of a class or to a particular damages? Subordinate Officers. public policy rule is that where there are two acts. or (2) where the public the general act is later. person may suffer arising from the just However. are no longer protected by the faith. subject are statutes in pari materia and should. the special law must prevail since it Republic. the Court held in Cojuangco. civil liability may arise capacity for acts done in the course of the the principle. the same matter and thus conflict with the as it would virtually be a charge against the In addition. – No portion or section of the state only. Thus – (2) Which as between Article 32 of the Anent the second issue. which is not amenable to judgment for Court of Appeals. he shall be liable for willful or accordingly. it where there is bad faith. And. bad qualification of. malice. or negligence. special act. faith. general which. unless it is done in bad faith which.20 mantle of immunity for official actions. we hold that the Civil Code and Section 38.

but. special provision and should prevail over Section constitutes a particular prescription Blackstone defines general law as a 4 of Republic Act No. which the general law. in general. and other repealed by a subsequent general law. the Charter of making "provinces. Article 2189 is decisive thereon. Ramirez. Under said Charter. said general statute treats in particular." In other words. said general creates a presumption that the the Court: section 4 refers to liability arising special is to be considered as remaining from negligence. as enactment and after approval. The Court of Appeals. whereas.24 the issue Section 17 of the Revised Charter the Civil Code. any relating to particular persons or things shall not be held for damages or injuries arising person by reason" — specifically — "of of a class. therefore. Philippines. correctly. As explained by supervision. applied In the case of Bagatsing v. Section 4 of "ordinances levying or imposing taxes. or the Tax Code. 409 is a special law and the Civil and which requires their publication before scope thereof. the City Charter of Manila. which deals in particular with "ordinances levying or imposing provisions above quoted. . or ordinance. In holding that it is the Tax ordinances in general. an exception of the general. insofar as its territorial tax ordinance. and. one as a Manila maintains that the former regardless of the object thereof. we think. or from negligence while enforcing or public works under their control or The fact that one is special and the other attempting to enforce the same. law.22 the Court or ordinance.construed as remaining an exception to its Manila for "damages or injury to Code which should prevail. or injury suffered by. In regard." rule readily yields to a situation law. that a prior special law is not ordinarily the provision of the charter. cities. the city the death of. or from negligence" of the Charter of the City of Manila is a special held that Article 2189 of the Civil Code which city "Mayor. Municipal Board. fees or taxes.21 failure of" city officers "to enforce the provisions of" said Act "or any other law There is no question that the Revised Thus. was which law should govern the publication of a of the City of Manila speaks of It is true that. whereas the Civil Code is a action is based upon the alleged a subject in general. i. application is concerned. cities and universal rule affecting the entire Manila. And the rule commonly said is from the failure of the local officials to enforce the defective condition of roads. Teotico. fees or other charges" in Republic Act 409 establishes a general other charges. Republic Act special act which treats ordinances in general irrespective of the nature and No. However. the Court elucidated terms. public buildings. Since the present where the special statute refers to Manila. however.e. or other act since it relates only to the City of holds provinces." and which demands publication particular. general law of the land. intended exclusively for the City of in particular. 409. in determining the liability for defective municipalities . to rule regulating the liability of the City of only after approval. whereas Article 2189 governs law of a particular case. a of the Local Tax Code relates to regards the subject matter of the general law. the other as the provision should prevail over the latter. the because Republic Act 409 is a special liability due to "defective streets. and municipalities civilly officers while enforcing or attempting to Manila. Article 2189 of the Civil Code universally to all local governments. a "ordinance" in general. applicable to the entire defective condition of a road. Section 43 Code a general legislation.. bridges. in City of Manila v. . is a hand.23 Th[is] exactly is the circumstance obtaining in the case at bar. the Revised 13 | P a g e ." Upon the other general law because it applies conditions of roads and other public works. whereas the Local Tax Code is a liable for death or injuries by reason of defective enforce said provisions. liable for damages for community and special law as one street conditions. streets. unless repealed expressly or by necessary persons or property arising from the that: implication.

individual rights. fees or other charges" in individual rights. that official is liable. Attorney Cirilo justified on a plea of desire to enforce particular. but. another person shall be liable to the protection of individual rights. Article 32 was patterned after the "tort" in American law.28 There are cases in which it has made the article so strong and so been stated that civil liability in tort is comprehensive that it concludes an determined by the conduct and not by the abuse of individual rights even if done in mental state of the tortfeasor. opening object of the article is to put an The Code Commission opposes this end to abuses which are justified by a Let us examine the provisions involved in the suggestion for these reasons: plea of good faith."25 ART. a amended as to make a public official so. if we should limit the scope of this general provision must give way to a liable for violation of another person’s article. Public It is not necessary that the defendant under this latter for damages: officials in the past have abused their Article should have acted with malice or bad powers on the pretext of justifiable faith. property. a tortious act (8) The right to the equal protection of "Mr. Charter of the City of Manila is The rationale for its enactment was explained by good faith. Precisely. or malice or bad faith. otherwise. To make such a hold not only public officers but also private in any manner impedes or impairs any requisite would defeat the main purpose individuals civilly liable for violation of the of the following rights and liberties of of Article 32 which is the effective rights enumerated in Article 32 of the Civil Code. who directly or necessary therefore that there should be The Code Commission deemed it necessary to indirectly obstructs. or if a public official is abusing and we reputation. And Code controls. that Dean Bocobo of the Code Commission. Article 32 of the Civil Code provides: the plea of officials abusing individual "The very nature of Article 32 is that the rights. There. Any public officer or employee. Article 32. regarding the citizens. as matter of fact. In the United States this remedy is xxxx in the nature of a tort. the governs. Here. It suffices that there is a (6) The right against deprivation of the object of the Article is to put an end violation of the constitutional right of the property without due process of law. without right. It is not or any private individual.26 faith. directly xxxx democracy.27 A tort is a wrong. Chairman. wrong may be civil or criminal. to official abuse by the plea of good plaintiff. that would practically nullify the particular provision. and there are 14 | P a g e . as always. of the fundamental articles introduced omission of an act by one. which is the effective protection of performance of their duties. the Local Tax Paredes proposes that Article 32 be so the law to comply with one’s duty. In most cases. Special provision constitutional rights only if the public object of the article. which is in most cases case at bar. 32. violates. in person. defeats. official acted maliciously or in bad faith. it would defeat its main xxxx motives or good faith in the purpose. this article is firmly one which has been defined as the commission or the laws. in the New Civil Code to implement whereby another receives some injury. Precisely. As a doubtless dominant. There is no real democracy or indirectly. the abuse is taxes. we know that there are dominant force loses its continuity follows: very few public officials who openly and when it approaches the realm of definitely abuse the individual rights of "ordinances levying or imposing "DEAN BOCOBO.

Article 32 of the Civil Code specifies submission of the secretary’s certificate accountability of public officials under the in clear and unequivocal terms a particular authorizing the counsel to sign and execute the Constitution acquires added meaning and specie of an "act" that may give rise to an action certification against forum shopping cured the assumes a larger dimension. could not have intended to obliterate performance of official duties. specifically. it should nonetheless be Administrative Code.31 This is a fundamental innovation in that will make them liable for damages. Book I of without evil intent. Anent the issue on non-compliance with the rule In Aberca v. and not the act itself. 1999 which affirmed the propelled people power in February 1986 was Civil Code.29 Presence of good motive. responsible for the Code is the specific provision which must be lawful an act which is otherwise an invasion of transgression. the action or omission that may give rise to a civil suit against the official concerned. Considering The clear intention therefore of the legislature public officers for acts done in the performance that bad faith and malice are not necessary in an was to create a distinct cause of action in the of their duties.30 the Administrative Code. defect of respondent’s complaint. if not actually Chapter is a special and specific provision that dismiss. would facing damage suits. the widely held perception that the government Relations is a general law. or rather. the against the constitutionally protected rights and of public officers are governed by Sections 38 petition is DENIED. thereof is general. then President Corazon C. "acts" done in the complaint avers a violation of a constitutional Aquino.circumstances under which the motive of the responsible for. denying petitioner’s motion to was callous or indifferent to. in view of the foregoing. The human rights. the presence of bad failure to specifically allege the same will not rights. not precluded by the fact that defendant acted On the other hand. merits of the instant case justify the liberal his duty to supervise his subordinates. Ver. joint tortfeasors. For both superior and action based on Article 32 of the Civil Code. the Chapter on Human Order of the Regional Trial Court of Marikina. While it would certainly be too redress from a particular class of wrongful acts reason sometimes given for the rule is that naive to expect that violators of human rights that may be committed by public officers. since it is enough that the legislative powers. Article 32 of the Civil the absence of an evil motive. this constitutional protection on civil liberties. does not render directly. the subsequent enactment of Article 32. Article 32 of the same Branch 272. laid down the rule on The complaint in the instant case was brought the civil liability of superior and subordinate under Article 32 of the Civil Code. Sections 38 and 39. Note courts below therefore correctly denied the the Civil Code. All other actionable acts WHEREFORE. of the Civil Code makes the persons who are performance of duties. and in enacting the that while said provisions deal in particular with motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to Administrative Code pursuant to the exercise of the liability of government officials. the principle of Contrarily.33 the thought that he does not have to answer for deals specifically with violation of constitutional the transgressions committed by the latter rights by public officers. and that is. as well as indirectly. secure in Indeed. liability in tort is damages for violation of constitutional rights. applied in the instant case precisely filed to seek another’s legal right. Article 32 is the special provision that application of the rules. without specifying right of the plaintiff.e. The Decision of the Court liberties of the citizen. that is. and negligence are vital elements amount to failure to state a cause of action. irrespective of the motive or intent of the faith. the rampant violations of holds a public officer liable for and allows defendant has been rendered immaterial. Part of the factors that and 39 of the Administrative Code.32 it was held that with the against forum shopping. is AFFIRMED. The Presiding Judge. the nature of tort for violation of constitutional subordinate public officers. otherwise. While the of Appeals dated May 7. the subject state a cause of action. the superior official relax his vigilance or abdicate a tort for impairment of rights and liberties. The defendant. No longer may a for damages against a public officer. the mental attitude of the alleged would easily be deterred by the prospect of Compared thus with Section 38 of the wrongdoer. 15 | P a g e .. Besides. malice. i. which broadly deals with determine whether the act was made clear in no uncertain terms that Article 32 civil liability arising from errors in the wrongful.

which is not amenable to judgment for to dismiss that respondent has no cause of dispatch. and within the scope of her authority. Specifically. And. not be less than Five Pesos per pack. 7654. the complaint states no cause of action for lack Austria-Martinez. being outside the scope SO ORDERED. where reclassifying “Champion. public officer is not liable for damages which a person may suffer arising from the just On the second issue.Regional Trial Court of Marikina. 39 of the same Book. Book I. In Cojuangco. the legislature enacted RA may be validly sued in his/her private malice or bad faith. or negligence. civil liability may arise where the subordinate public officer’s act is characterized by willfulness FACTS: Hence this appeal. The order denying the motion to dismiss was Administrative Code. 38. civil liability may arise elevated to the CA.. these cigarette brands were already covered. She damages in his/her personal capacity for acts claimed that she acted merely as an agent of the done in bad faith which. a public This is a case for damages under Article 32 of the ISSUES: officer who directly or indirectly violates the Civil Code filed by Fortune against Liwayway as constitutional rights of another. concur.” “Hope. damages that may have been caused to another. 1993. under Sec. Fortune contended that the issuance of the rule scope of his assigned tasks. the general rule is that a plaintiff. herebyDIRECTED to continue with the as it would virtually be a charge against the proceedings in Civil Case No. the rule in this jurisdiction is that a public taxed at 55% shall be charged an ad valorem tax office of “55% provided that the maximum tax shall officer may be validly sued in his/her private o Whether or not Article 32.” and “More” said public officer: (1) acted with malice. 38. Branch 272. An officer who acts which prevails over a general law (the violated its constitutional right against within his authority to administer the affairs of Administrative Code). sued for damages under Article 32 of the Civil o Whether or not a public officer Code even if his acts were not so tainted with On June 10. deprivation of property without due process of the office which he/she heads is not liable for 16 | P a g e . or (2) where the public manufactured cigarettes bearing foreign brand officer violated a constitutional right of the subject to the 55% ad valorem tax. JJ. who dismissed the case on where there is bad faith. performance of his official duties and within the provision is Article 32. may be validly CIR. V. under Sec. Chico-Nazario. of allegation of malice or bad faith. She also contended that mantle of immunity for official actions. Liwayway contended in her motion Republic. liability may negligence on the part of a superior public arise even if the defendant did not act with officer. Jr. which provided that locally manufactured capacity for acts done in connection with cigarettes which are currently classified and the discharge of the functions of his/her Thus. Administrative Code performance of the functions of the office. SC ruled that the decisive In a case filed against Liwayway with the RTC. is law and the right to equal protection of the laws. Thus. RA 7654 was passed. or gross the ground that under Article 32. when On the first issue.” Prior to should be applied instead of Sec. Liwayway issued a rule. bad (all manufactured by Fortune) as locally HELD: faith. I. a action against her because she issued RMC 37- 93 in the performance of her official function public officer is by law not immune from With costs. NCC. or negligence. monetary claims without its consent. malice. Republic and therefore the latter is the one of his authority. are no longer protected by the responsible for her acts. Book capacity for acts done in the course of the effectivity of RA 7654. 97-341-MK with For her part. However. DIGEST malice or bad faith. CA. Nachura. it being a special law.

CDC issued the test Calderon. 1993. 2004 testing. As a prerequisite Doctors Hospital and CDC to the Executive for regular employment. CDC medical technologist. J. Salvador started working as a trainee in the Accounting Department of Limay Bulk Handling Ranida submitted the test results from Bataan Terminal. the Bataan Doctors Hospital using the Micro- the fact that defendant acted without evil intent. about her ailment. vs. 168512 March 20.7 omission of an act by one. 58668 finding petitioner Orlando D. Elisa Method. JR. GARCIA. property or reputation. liability in tort in not precluded by reconsideration. the Company rehired Ranida. development but was told that the test The reason sometimes given for the rule is that conducted by CDC was more reliable because it YNARES-SANTIAGO. the absence Decision3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. Ramon. conducted the HBs Ag conducted another HBs Ag test on Ranida which (Hepatitis B Surface Antigen) test and on indicated a "Negative" result. Garcia who is a employment would be considered. Ruby G. respondent Ranida D. does not render lawful an act liable for gross negligence. without right. attack and was confined at the Bataan Doctors There are cases in which it has been stated that RANIDA D. result5 indicating that Ranida was "HBs Ag: issued a Certification correcting the initial result Reactive.12 Republic of the Philippines When Ranida submitted the test result to Dr. directly COMMUNITY DIAGNOSTIC CENTER and When Ranida informed her father. During Ramon’s confinement. the Company terminated American law. Rules of Court assailing the February 27. otherwise. CV conducted on her indicated a "Negative" result. The result indicated that she was non-reactive. and hospital and the result8 indicated that she is there are circumstances under which the motive DECISION non-reactive. Ranida and Ramon filed a is suffering from Hepatitis B. SUPREME COURT Sto. SALVADOR and RAMON Hospital.11 Ma.: used the Micro-Elisa Method. and its June 16.R. complaint13 for damages against petitioner THIRD DIVISION Thus. business under the name and style whereby another receives some injury. a tortious act Ranida’s employment for failing the physical which has been defined as the commission or ORLANDO D. BU CASTRO. Thereafter. Domingo of this of the defendant has been rendered immaterial. 2005 which is otherwise an invasion of another’s legal Resolution4 denying petitioner’s motion for Ranida also underwent another HBs Ag test at right. 2007 Sto. Garcia of an evil motive. the Company physician. that is. Med-Tech Officer-in-Charge of CDC. based on the medical report6submitted by Garcia and a purportedly unknown pathologist 17 | P a g e . the latter suffered a heart or indirectly. a liver disease. would This is a petition for review2 under Rule 45 of the Thus.Article 32 was patterned after the “tort” in G.10 On October 1. reaction as positive or reactive. in person. the mental attitude of the alleged wrongdoer. the Anti-HBs test Presence of good motive. 1994. Domingo." The result bore the name and and explaining that the examining medical signature of Garcia as examiner and the rubber technologist (Garcia) interpreted the delayed stamp signature of Castro as pathologist. 1993. Respondents. A tort is a wrong.9 No. October 22. Ranida went back to CDC for confirmatory determine whether the act was wrongful.1 Petitioners. she underwent a Officer of the Company who requested her to medical examination at the Community undergo another similar test before her re- Diagnostic Center (CDC).. Thus. the latter Manila apprised her that the findings indicated that she On July 25. No. (the Company). and this time. doing examination. and not the act itself.R. Ranida civil liability in tort is determined by the conduct SALVADOR. Inc. or rather. Domingo. underwent another HBs Ag test at the said and not by the mental state of the tortfeasor. She informed Sto.

1993 letter After the denial of his motion for to the respondents. Cruz and Co.00. impartial we found the owner of a furniture shop liable for issued by CDC. or that he or she sleepless nights. she lost her job and amount of P50. and 4) proximate Garcia denied the allegations of gross negligence Castro for lack of participation in the issuance of causation. trial court. 1994. and that the test results bore only his rubber. high standards of liable for damages. we stated that where or not is a question of fact which we cannot pass the very injury which was intended to be upon in a petition for review on certiorari which Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals prevented by the ordinance has happened. thus not the complaint for failure of the respondents to public interest. It held that respondents as dictated by his training and experience.17 In Teague v. non- is limited to reviewing errors of law. care provider would not have done. respondents amended yes.23 protection of the interest of another person that WHEREFORE.00 and attorney’s fees in care provider would have done.18 failure or action caused injury to the patient. while Ramon was hospitalized the amount of P25. damages to the respondents for issuing an improperly managed and inadequately stamp signature. Domingo because he that he did everything within his professional In F." damages for negligently issuing an erroneous Thus. did something that a reasonably prudent health and lost business opportunities. For health care 18 | P a g e . the test of the existence of negligence erroneous interpretation of the results of Ranida D. claiming that. to pay plaintiff-appellant providers. then he is guilty of negligence. first HBs Ag test in his December 7. but also the proximate cause of Negligence is the failure to observe for the the death. Garcia. 1997. as well as For his part. the compliance with the ordinance was not only an dispositive portion of which states: act of negligence. because he followed the present sufficient evidence to prove the liability performance are expected from them. and should have presented Sto. respondents should and impersonal result. purposely promulgated to he rarely went to CDC and only when a case was Court of Appeals. incorrect HBsAG test result. and that SO ORDERED.of CDC. The main issue for resolution is whether the rules and regulations. Fernandez.000. correctly found petitioner liable for preventing the operation of substandard. violation of a statutory duty is the circumstances justly demand. appropriate laboratory measures and procedures of Garcia and Castro. and incompetence and reiterated the scientific the results.15 reconsideration. supported clinical laboratories and by improving the quality of performance of clinical laboratory On September 1. Owners and operators of clinical laboratories have the duty to comply with statutes.16 the trial court dismissed examinations. the elements of an actionable conduct are: HBs Ag result. 2) breach. precaution and vigilance which REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another one In fine.. in reversing the decision of the protect and promote the health of the people by referred to him. was the one who interpreted the test result competence to arrive at an objective. that he did not examine Ranida. Garcia filed the instant petition. Salvador moral damages in the is: did the health care provider either fail to do Ranida’s examination.F. by reason of the Orlando D.000. the decision appealed from is degree of care.21 if On September 26. the destruction of the plaintiff’s house in a fire have presented a medical expert to refute the which started in his establishment in view of his testimonies of Garcia and Castro regarding the failure to comply with an ordinance which At the outset. Castro claimed that as pathologist. On the other hand.19 which reversed the trial court’s findings. Court of Appeals.22 Their business is impressed with Garcia maintains he is not negligent. Jr. Whether a person is negligent results on Ranida. it exonerated 1) duty. explanation for the "false positive" result of the All the elements are present in the case at bar. Where the law imposes upon a such other person suffers injury. factual in nature.20 whereby entered ORDERING defendant-appellee negligence. Likewise. as such. 3) injury. Inc. exemplary damages in something which a reasonably prudent health suffered serious mental anxiety. trauma and the amount of P50. we note that the issues raised are medical explanation behind the conflicting test required the construction of a firewall. v.00. their complaint14 by naming Castro as the The appellate court found Garcia liable for "unknown pathologist.000.

11. Penal Provisions. Violations: a clinical laboratory must be administered. who shall practice medical provided for in the preceding paragraph. or bear the name of the pathologist or his associate.) No.1 Head of the Clinical Laboratory: The head is Regulation upon violation of R. 5527. representative except in emergencies when the technology in the Philippines without the results may be released as authorized by the necessary supervision of a qualified pathologist pathologist. otherwise known as the Revised xxxx Rules and Regulations Governing the From the foregoing laws and rules. the laboratory pathologist. No. 4688. 9. that the medical 9. as requesting physician or his authorized registered. Corollarily. as professionally in-charge of a registered clinical be considered as consultations between the amended relating to illegal practice of Medicine. reads: Law. like a Sec. be construed as consultation report and shall than six months nor more than two years. it is clear that Registration. Sections 9(9.person the duty to do something.1)(1) or physician authorized by the Department of of the DOH Administrative Order No. category hospital laboratories and for all secondary category hospital laboratories located And Section 29(b) of R. 25.Without prejudice Sec. Operation and Maintenance of Sec. orally or in writing.1 The license to operate a clinical laboratory authorized by the Secretary of Health. direction or his authorized associate and only to the (b) Any medical technologist. As such all laboratory reports on less than two thousand pesos nor more than five by the Secretary of Health.A. 11 and 25(25. all tertiary as a medical technologist in such a position. or imprisonment for not less be renewed annually. known as The Philippine Medical Technology otherwise known as The Clinical Laboratory Act of 1969. and that administrative supervision and control of the thereto or the commission of the following acts the results of any examination may be released activities in the laboratory. whoever may be injured thereby. It shall be unlawful for any person to be Sec. 49-B Health. laboratory unless he is a licensed physician duly requesting physician and pathologist of the the following shall be punished by a fine of not qualified in laboratory medicine and authorized laboratory. read: directed and supervised by a licensed physician 25.A. whole portions xxxx maintenance of a clinical laboratory unless such thereof without a directive from the pathologist laboratory is under the administration. the head shall be a licensed physician certified by the Philippine Board of Pathology in either (1) Operation of a Clinical Laboratory without a These rules are intended for the protection of the Anatomic or Clinical Pathology or both provided certified pathologist or qualified licensed public by preventing performance of that: physician authorized by the Undersecretary of substandard clinical examinations by Health or without employing a registered laboratories whose personnel are not properly 19 | P a g e . in the discretion of the court: No license shall be granted or renewed by the No person in clinical laboratory shall issue a Secretary of Health for the operation and report. such authorization to various examinations of human specimens shall thousand pesos. Management of the Clinical Laboratory: may be suspended or revoked by the pathologist who is specially trained in methods Undersecretary of Health for Standards and of laboratory medicine. For all categories of clinical laboratories. 2.A. otherwise Section 2 of Republic Act (R.1)(1).. his omission or (1) This shall be mandatory for all categories of medical technologist or a person not registered non-performance will render him liable to free-standing clinical laboratories. Clinical Laboratories in the Philippines. provides: xxxx Section 29. Reporting: All laboratory requests shall to the provision of the Medical Act of 1959. 4688 or the technologist must be under the supervision of that person who assumes technical and rules and regulations issued in pursuance the pathologist or a licensed physician. even if duly and supervision of an authorized physician. both. by the persons owning or operating a clinical only to the requesting physician or his laboratory and the persons under their authorized representative upon the direction of authority. in areas with sufficient available pathologist. Series of 1988.

and has never known or damage whenever one commits an act in Community Diagnostic Center nor an employee met. Its employees are licensed signature would have appeared in the result and provision. Thus.31 under the Medical Technology Law (Republic not merely stamped as shown in Annex "B" of Act No. Undersecretary for Health Facilities.25 However. Standards and Regulation. defendant pathologist further avers and plead as respondent Ranida without the supervision of follows: defendant-appellee Castro. Calderon. Castro was named as the head of restrain the commission of acts. contrary to law. the plaintiff-patient even up to this time violation of some legal provision. Every person who. Exemplary for purposes of complying with the rules and comply with the laws and rules promulgated and damages are imposed. 20. Defendant pathologist does not interest is failure to observe that care which a laboratory examinations through compliance stay that long period of time at the Community reasonably prudent health care provider would with the quality standards set by laws and Diagnostic Center but only periodically or observe. in his Answer with revise or modify acts and decisions of Counterclaim. Garcia conducted the HBsAG test of another. Defendant pathologist does not We find that petitioner Garcia failed to comply appoint or select the employees of the laboratory Indubitably. directed and She was terminated from the service for failing supervised by a licensed physician as required by Castro’s infrequent visit to the clinical laboratory the physical examination. "Supervision and control" means the been avoided had the proper safeguards been 1993 and 1996 issued by Dr. Ruby C. whenever a case is referred to him by the breach of duty. defendant-appellee subordinate.supervised. his failure to damages and attorney’s fees.28 We find the Court of Appeals’ award of moral registered with. willfully or negligently causes damage to 3.29 afflicted by Hepatitis B.. However. making her "unfit or conducting laboratory examinations and are unsafe for any type of employment.27 Art. and the Amended Complaint. direct the performance of duty. the Professional Regulation damages reasonable under the circumstances Commission after having passed their Board Last. and all consequences which followed after the release of no reason to disturb the award of exemplary pathologists in general. a licensed barely qualifies as an effective administrative because of the diagnosis. approve.D. CDC is not administered. First. nor has he personally examined any specimen. and was compelled to Medical Technologist.24 In the License to Open supervision and control over the activities in the undergo several more tests. Juan R. the disputed HBsAG test result was bearing in mind the mental trauma suffered by Examinations. nor does he arrange or approve their schedules consequence of Garcia’s failure to comply with of duty. urine or any other tissue. function is entrusted by law or regulation to a examination and releasing the clinical report. suffered anxiety law. but by Ma. we see laboratory. They are competent within the released to respondent Ranida without the respondent Ranida who thought she was sphere of their own profession in so far as authorization of defendant-appellee Castro.30 This was of the same nor the employer of its employees."32 Having allowed to sign for and in behalf of the clinical Garcia may not have intended to cause the established her right to moral damages. By way of affirmative and special defenses. laboratory. All these could have and Operate a Clinical Laboratory for the years laboratory. Article 20 of the New Civil Code provides: CDC. shall indemnify the latter for the same. who admitted that: The foregoing provision provides the legal basis for the award of damages to a party who suffers Defendant pathologist is not the owner of the [He] does not know. are hired by laboratories the HBsAG test result. his act or omission constitutes a regulations. The defendant pathologist. from the provide relief to a person who suffers damage Diagnostic Center when and where a problem is plaintiff-patient otherwise his own handwritten because another has violated some legal referred to him. by way of example or regulations and orders issued by the Department 20 | P a g e . Nañagas. authority to act directly whenever a specific scrupulously followed in conducting the clinical M.26 the mandate of the laws and rules aforequoted. Second. review. Ranida suffered injury as a direct with these standards. he stated: subordinate officials or units. 5527) and are certified by. incorporated by the Code Commission to Defendant pathologist comes to the Community blood. The public demands no less than an of Health through the Bureau of Research and issued for the protection of public safety and effective and efficient performance of clinical Laboratories.

a liver disease. case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of Castro claimed that as pathologist. Third Division suffered a heard attack and was confined at damages. she lost her job and and signature of Garcia as examiner and the suffered serious mental anxiety. HBs Ag (Hepatitis B Surface Antigen) test and unknown pathologist of CDC.000. the company first HBs Ag tests in a letter to the respondents. went to CDC and only when a case was referred 21 | P a g e . 2004 finding petitioner Orlando D. NACHURA rubber stamp signature of Bu Castro as sleepless nights. guilty of gross negligence and liable Attestation.00 as moral conclusions in the above Decision were reached Negative result. he rarely the Court’s Division. liquidated or compensatory Associate Justice Chairperson. Pursuant to Section 13.000. Based on the explanation for the “false positive” result of the the doctor’s medical report. The result indicated that she is non-reactive. it is hereby certified that the and the Anti-HBs test conducted on her had a to pay to respondents P50. She also had another test at the damages. exemplary damages confinement. She informed Sto. In an amended complaint. SR. PUNO She submitted both results to the Executive SO ORDERED. The company rehired Ranida.correction for the public good. she had another HBs Ag test at the are awarded. and lost business opportunities. the latter told her Garcia denied the allegations of gross negligence that the result indicated that she is suffering and incompetence and reiterated the scientific ATTESTATION from Hepatitis B. as in the instant case. CHICO-NAZARIO issued the test result indicating that Ranida was because of the erroneous interpretation of the Associate Justice Asscociate Justice “HBs Ag: Reactive. ANTONIO EDUARDO B. When Ranida submitted the result to company physician Dr. in consultation before the case was assigned to hospital using the Micro-Elisa Method and the and P25. The Med-Tech OIC of CDC WE CONCUR: issued a certification correcting the initial result Ranida Salvador worked as a trainee in the and explaining that the examining med tech accounting department of Limay Bulk Handling Garcia interpreted the delayed reaction as MA. She claimed that CALLEJO. REYNATO S.33 and attorney’s fees may be recovered Bataan Doctors Hospital. is the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. he moral. Chief Justice Officer of the company who requested her to undergo another similar test before her re- CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO employment would be considered.000.” The result bore the name results of the examination. Domingo. 58668 dated reliable because it used the Mirco-Elisa Method.00 as exemplary damages. result indicated that she was non-reactive. During her father’s when. she named Castro as the pathologist. temperate. Associate Justice employment. Sto. she underwent a medical exam at the Community Diagnostic Center (CDC). MINITA V. Article VIII of the February 27. a medical technologies conducted the complaint for damages against Garcia and an ROMEO J. the Decision of the Court of was told that the test by the CDC was more Appeals in CA-G. in addition to CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO When she informed her father Ramon. CV No. while Ramon was hospitalized Associate Justice pathologist.34 same hospital. She then filed a Garcia. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Terminal. P50. As a prerequisite for regular positive or negative.00 as attorney’s fees. I attest that the conclusions in the above terminated Ranida’s employment for failing the decision were reached in consultation before the physical exam. Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s She went back to CDC for confirmatory testing Garcia. Jr. AFFIRMED. Domingo but CERTIFICATION WHEREFORE.R. The CDC Associate Justice conducted another test which indicated a DIGEST Negative result. trauma.

to him. In fine. Their business is impressed with Third: The HBs Ag test result was released to reversed the RTC’s ruling and found Garcial public interest. did something that a reasonably prudent health These rules are intended for the protection of the care provider would not have done. SUPREME COURT have the duty to comply with statutes. CA examinations. laboratories whose personnel are not properly whenever one commits an act in violation of supervised. duty. 3) injury. YES. that the medical the mandate of the laws and rules aforequoted. Ranida suffered injury as a direct Negligence is the failure to observe for the pathologist who is specially trained in methods consequence of Garcia’s failure to comply with protection of the interest of another person that of laboratory medicine. that he did not examine Ranida. otherwise known as prudent health care provider would observe. law. then he is guilty of negligence. All these could have is: did the health care provider either fail to do authorized representative upon the direction of been avoided had the proper safeguards been something which a reasonably prudent health the laboratory pathologist. The appellate court exonerated Castro for lack of participation. suffered anxiety other person suffers injury. We find that petitioner Garcia failed to comply Republic of the Philippines Owners and operators of clinical laboratories with these standards. the elements of actionable conduct are: 1) effective and efficient performance of clinical the Code Commission to provide relief to a duty. with the quality standards set by laws and has violated some legal provision. of Health. The public demands no less than an some legal provision. preventing the operation of substandard. erroneous HBs Ag result. as well as Manila 22 | P a g e . or that he or she examination and releasing the clinical report. and that rules and regulations. if substandard clinical examinations by award of damages to a party who suffers damage yes. Where the law imposes upon a consequence which followed after the release of ISSUE: person the duty to do something. 2) breach. purposely promulgated to First: CDC is not administered. scrupulously followed in conducting the clinical care provider would have done. and that public by preventing performance of Art. 20. HELD: the The Clinical Laboratory Law. his act or omission constitutes a breach of clinical laboratory must be administered. his failure to comply non-performance will render him liable to with the laws and rules promulgated and issued Whether Castro has been negligent in issuing the whoever may be injured thereby. degree of care. for the protection of public safety and interest is test result and thus liable for damages failure to observe that care which a reasonably From provisions RA 4688. his omission or the test result. to prove the liability of Garcia and Castro. This was incorporated by Thus. like a Indubitably. appellee Castro. regulations. NCC provides the legal basis for the failure or action caused injury to the patient. improperly managed and inadequately Second: Garcia conducted the HBs Ag test of RTC dismissed the complaint because the supported clinical laboratories and by improving respondent Ranida without the supervision of respondent failed to present sufficient evidence the quality of performance of clinical laboratory defendant-appellee Castro. All the elements are present in the case at bar. and that the physical examination. the test of the existence of negligence only to the requesting physician or his undergo several more tests. whereby such the pathologist or licensed physician. precaution and vigilance which technologist must be under the supervision of She was terminated from the service for failing the circumstance justly demand. and 4) proximate laboratory examinations through compliance person who suffers damages because another causation. and was compelled to providers. high standards of Ranida without the authorization of defendant- liable for damages for negligently issuing an performance are expected from them. violation of a statutory duty is Garcia may not have intended to cause the negligence. directed and the test results bore only his rubber-stamp protect and promote the health of the people by supervised by a licensed physician as required by signature. directed and supervised by a licensed physician authorized by the Sec. For health care the results of any examination may be released because of the diagnosis. However. as such. it is clear that a Thus.

Dr. Tuaño examination showed that only the periphery of factual antecedents of the present petition are: prescribed to the former a steroid-based eye Peter’s right eye was positive for EKC. Branch 150. (Philamcare). Sometime in August 1988. Tuaño’s From the record of the case. Tuaño told Peter to resume the Gladys Lucas. Tuaño. Peter went back to Dr. alleging Court of Appeals affirmed the 14 July 2000 week. DR. Peter made use of his a follow-up consultation. on 18 October 1988.: problem in his eye. Tuaño." Dr. instead. complaining of a red right On 21 September 1988. Makati City. Tuaño DECISION problem with his right eye began. Tuaño specifically cautioned Peter that. C. wherein: (1) a gross examination of Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. M. Tuaño at his clinic. an being a steroid. Edwin the EKC in his right eye had already resolved.R. Consequently. C. Tuaño saw Peter once more at the former’s (EKC). Maxitrol had to be withdrawn AND GILLIAN LUCAS. Abbeygail Lucas and Gillian Lucas diagnosed that Peter was suffering from for five (5) days. Tuaño on 9 Tuaño examined Peter’s eyes and discovered complaint filed by petitioners in a civil case September 1988. Dr. an eye consult. Dr. Luke’s Medical Center. Gladys Lucas. he Tuaño instructed Peter to resume the use of performed "ocular routine examination" on Maxitrol at six (6) drops per day. To address the new clinic on 4 November 1988. because consult. Dr. 2009 health care insurance issued by Philamcare of Peter’s eyes." a headache and blurred vision. ophthalmoscopy4 on Peter’s eyes was used. Dr. the same Case No. Peter in his eyes. Dr. Peter’s eyes and their surrounding area was On his way home. as it was out of stock. Peter had already been using Patrick Lucas (Peter) contracted "sore eyes" in Maxitrol prior to his consult with Dr. CHICO-NAZARIO. the told the latter to return for follow-up after one went to see Dr. entitled. Dr. 178763 April 21. and then just once a day.R.8 a dosage of six (6) drops Tuaño prescribed a lower dosage of Blephamide. v. ABBEYGAIL LUCAS Prospero Ma.. (Dr.11 vs. otherwise. Tuaño for eye and swollen eyelid. as substitute for the Court of Appeals in CA-G. (4) the motility of Blephamide12 another steroid-based medication." conjunctivitis5 or "sore eyes. hence. THIRD DIVISION On 2 September 1988. Complaining of feeling as if there was something Upon consultation with Dr. the EKC might recur. Inc.9 To recall. Respondent. PETER PAUL PATRICK LUCAS. GLADYS LUCAS. FATIMA Oca. Tuaño that the EKC was again present in his right eye.13 v. Dr. Tuaño. Prospero Ma. Fatima made. Dr. Dr. Peter In the questioned decision and resolution. 68666. Fatima told Peter that the "sore eyes" in the latter’s right As a result. Peter saw Dr. Decision2 and 3 July 2007 Resolution. seek the reversal of the 27 September 2006 intraocular pressure of each. Upon examination. Prospero Ma. Tuano to take." docketed as Civil discontinue the Spersacet-C. Abbeygail Lucas and Gillian Lucas eye had already cleared up and he could maximum dosage of Blephamide. and that he examined Peter’s eyes and found that the right was already taking Maxitrol to address the eye had once more developed EKC.3 both of Peter’s eyes was observed. Tuaño. for a possible to taper down10 the dosage of Maxitrol. to be used three (3) entitled "Peter Paul Patrick Lucas. In this petition for review on certiorari1 under Peter’s eyes. feeling as if his eyes were about Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Tuaño. According to Dr.D. "Peter Paul Patrick Lucas. (3) of Maxitrol. On the unavailable Maxitrol. for gradually. PROSPERO MA. M. petitioner Peter Paul per day. C. (2) Peter’s visual acuity were taken. However. C. referred Peter to respondent. the established problem with Peter’s right eye. CV No. drop called Maxitrol. severe eye pain. Tuaño times a day for five (5) days. After examining both G. 23 | P a g e . Tuaño).Petitioners. Peter returned to Dr. The Philamcare Coordinator.7 a viral infection. No. ophthalmologist at St. his right eye. 92-2482. Abbeygail Lucas and Gillian Lucas Peter’s eyes were palpated to check the Peter was told by Dr. Tuaño. Peter was unable to get a hold petitioners Peter Paul Patrick Lucas. and (5) the but with a lower concentration. Dr. two (2) times a day Gladys Lucas. So. Fatima that particular consultation. TUAÑO. eye developed Epidemic Kerato Conjunctivitis Dr. Tuaño for narrated that it had been nine (9) days since the another check-up on 6 October 1988. Dr. Dr. Tuaño then prescribed Spersacet-C6 eye drops for Peter and Several days later. to "pop-out. Tuaño instructed the former Health Systems.D. J. dismissing the As instructed.

But upon Peter’s complaint of the above-quoted warning against the prolonged "stomach pains and tingling sensation in his use of steroids.28 the tonometer measured the 1988.0 Hg. WARNING: Upon examination. which merely ranged infractions. Tuaño noted the Secondary infection: The development of hardness of Peter’s right eye.0 Hg to 21.19 Dr. made mention to Dr. i. Peter’s spouse. in those diseases causing thinning of corneal ulceration where steroid treatment has from 10. Hence. may mask infection or enhance existing suppression of host responses also occurs. on 21 Adverse reactions have occurred with December 1988. and posterior. Tuaño.22 Dr. Fatima presence of the anti-infective ingredients are IOP of Peter’s right eye to be 41.D.0 Hg. Thus. Fungal pressure17 (IOP) of Peter’s eyes. Peter returned to Dr. Dr. Tuaño on 23 Reactions occurring most often from the December 1988.18 Since the tension in Peter’s right eye was increase the hazard of secondary ocular invasion must be considered in any persistent way over the normal IOP. reported to Dr. Tuaño told treatment of herpes simplex requires great Maxitrol. or the combination. Dr. Peter can be attributed to the steroid component. Tuaño during said visit of Normoglaucon. the tonometer reading of the whole of Peter’s right eye yet again. Glaucoma25 O. routinely monitored even though it may be Tuaño’s clinic. observed that Peter’s right eye appeared to be allergic sensitizations. Peter had no vision in his right eye. intraocular pressure should be pressure of the latter’s eyes. read the frequency are elevation of intra-ocular pressure Fatima rushed to the clinic of Dr. denominator of treated patients is available. Dr. Tuaño addressed the 24 | P a g e . Petitioners averred that Peter already Peter to continue using Diamox and caution. with secondary has occurred after use of combination tonometer16 to verify the exact intraocular damage to the optic nerve.e. and becoming more frequent. 21. Diamox. instead. If these products are used for 10 days up in order for the former to closely monitor the or longer. Tuaño that he had been suffering therein the following warning against the infrequent optic nerve damage. Batungbacal’s diagnosis was continued to suffer pain in his right eye. which anti-infective component.15 Thus. defects in visual containing steroids and antimicrobials. Dr. Tuaño. complaining of "feeling difficult in children and uncooperative patients."23 Dr. but Dr. use of Maxitrol and prescribed to the latter In acute purulent conditions of the eye. Peter went to see another ophthalmologist. and delayed blurring of vision.0 Hg. steroids Secondary bacterial ocular infection following Diamox21 and Normoglaucon. Dr.. Tuaño discontinued Peter’s use of xxxx brushed aside Peter’s concern as mere paranoia."14 It appeared that the EKC had spread to On 15 December 1988. Tuaño also required Peter to go for daily check- infection. spouses Peter and Lucas (Fatima).0 Hg. infections of the correa are particularly prone to discovered that the tension in Peter’s right eye subcapsular cataract formation. The reactions due to the way above normal." with the ache intensifying Exact incidence figures are not available since no Trabeculoplasty27 for Peter’s right eye. Ramon T. Peter accompanying literature of Maxitrol and found (IOP) with possible development of glaucoma.29 again. Tuaño supposedly fingers. With the use of a Prolonged use may result in glaucoma. the Peter’s eyes. who allegedly conducted a Petitioners further alleged that after Peter’s 26 steroid/anti-infective combination drugs which complete ophthalmological examination of November 1988 visit to Dr. worse. On 26 November 1988. Tuaño acuity and fields of vision. Batungbacal). posterior from constant headache in the afternoon and prolonged use of such steroids: subcapsular cataract formation. Batungbacal (Dr.It was also about this time that Fatima Gladys steroid component in decreasing order to bloody and swollen. Upon waking in the morning of 13 December When Peter returned to Dr. Peter’s right eye yielded a high normal Employment of steroid medication in the Tuaño instructed Peter to resume the use of level. Dr.24 even assuring him that the former was taking ADVERSE REACTIONS: care of him (Peter). perforations have been been used.0 may suppress the host response and thus applications of steroid. Tuaño the cornea or sclera. wound healing. ordered20 him to immediately discontinue the known to occur with the use of topical steroids. Dr. The possibility of fungal Hg.26 He recommended Laser seemed to "progress. Prolonged use develop coincidentally with long-term was39. while that of his left was 17.

I’m in atrophy. There was On 4 January 1989.32 Peter went to see Dr. OD. so Peter could stayed in bed most of the time and was not able letter containing the following findings and immediately start using said medication. revealed that the latter had tubular vision44 in same eye. Tuaño on the to lowest possible levels. as the glaucoma. in the meantime that Timolol B. while that of his left eye remained Manuel B. another Funduscopy34 showed vertical cup disc of 0.31 Dr. we may try sake of the EKC. Tuaño.40 elevated. Dr. I feel that Peter Lucas has really sustained regular check-up so his IOP could be monitored. Dr. an ophthalmologist. I continued the steroids for the the IOP is still inadequate.41 the long term care of Peter’s eyes. M. then who. thus. Considering. Lapuz. The EKC was recurrent after stopping Obediently. conducted thereat to evaluate the extent of respectively.I. 2. on 2 January 1989. Peter went to see Dr. Aquino).36 OD. Jaime has (sic) been treating him medically. I stopped the steroids immediately and On 13 January 1989. Tuaño a prescription for Timolol B. On examination Diamox and Normoglaucon in the meantime. I suggest that we resolved and he developed EKC for which I gave do a baseline visual fields and push medication Maxitrol.0 Hg. I noted iris In the interregnum.0 of Peter’s eyes. 13th. The visual field study43 of Peter’s eyes. On 28 December 1988. (Dr.D.85 R normal.0 Hg. the EKC has ophthalmologist who specializes in the recurred and I’m in a fix whether to resume the I trust that this approach will prove reasonable treatment of glaucoma and who could undertake steroid or not considering that the IOP is still for you and Peter.D. Referring to you Mr. Agulto wrote Dr. 1988 because of conjunctivitis. M. Timolol B. Tuaño noted the recurrence 6h po. so I took the IOP and it was definitely by his friends to seek a second medical opinion. Tuaño. (Dr.I. & possible management. Mario V. Again. A month ago. Peter supposedly Peter’s condition. Dr. Agulto’s aforementioned 25 | P a g e . the doctor Tension curve 19 R and 15 L at 1210 H while on Just two days later. Dr. Dr. he noted blurring of vision & pain on check-up and IOP monitoring. letter. It seems that the IOP can be controlled only with Aquino. which EKC vis-à-vis the presence of glaucoma in the lenses were clear.D. Tuaño still gave him a During the Christmas holidays. to celebrate the season with his family because recommendations: Regrettably.30 Dr. I initially saw him Sept. Agulto. referred Peter to Dr.42 as he had been without Diamox for the of EKC in Peter’s right eye. regular follow-ups with Dr. Dr. Agulto). If fields show further loss in say – 3 mos. Tuaño directed Peter to religiously ophthalmologist specializing in the treatment of and 0. bearing Dr. The latter significant glaucoma damage. favor of retaining Diamox or similar CAI. Tuaño instructed Peter to just continue using Thanks for sending Peter Lucas. Around 1 month of steroid 7th. I think we should prescribe treatment. Tuaño advised Peter to come for Rolly. use the Diamox and Normoglaucon. past three (3) days. however. uncontrolled. Lapuz). M. Though Peter’s right and left eyes then Diamox along with Normoglaucon. If I may suggest steroid drops. however.6 L with temporal slope R>L. Several tests were had normal IOP of 21. and both eyes with occasional PAS. 16th and 20th of January 1989 for further. tension of the latter’s right eye went up even Agulto stated that: further to 41. Dr. Peter went to see Dr. and at the moment.problem by advising Peter to resume taking On 29 December 1988. (Dr. Agulto at the latter’s clinic. Tuaño’s letter of referral to Dr.0 Hg and 17. his right eye. Tuaño conducted a loss as to how to balance the treatment of Peter’s circumferential peripheral iris atrophy. Peter Lucas for evaluation D’epifrin were still not available in the market. referred Peter to Dr. Peter was prodded D’epifrin39 BID OD (despite low PAS). in turn. Dr. If the R. that the IOP of Peter’s right eye was Slit lamp evaluation33 disclosed subepithelial still quite high at 41. Tuaño on 31 December 1988. the IOP conducted another ocular routine examination Normoglaucon BID OD & Diamox ½ tab every of Peter’s right eye remained elevated at 21. Tuaño was at a corneal defect outer OD. another oral Diamox.I. however. we should consider trabeculoplasty. Hg. during one of Peter’s conducted vision was 20/25 R and 20/20L.D. Peter consulted Dr. so of the debilitating effects of Diamox. Timolol37 BID38 OD in lieu of Normoglaucon. was out of stock.D.D.0 Hg in just a matter of two (2) Zeiss gonioscopy35 revealed basically open angles days.

Tuaño told Peter that the latter’s condition would sensitive. Peter underwent children had been deprived of the opportunity condition. Branch 150. The amount of P1.00 as and But granting for the sake of argument that the supervision forever.. with the possibility that steroid induced glaucoma. a civil complaint for damages the medicine Maxitrol for a period of three (3) prescribe the drug Maxitrol which contained against Dr. dizziness. Tuaño explained that "[d]rug- two (2) procedures of laser trabeculoplasty to for a better life and educational prospects. Aquino essentially his condition made him highly irritable and In rebutting petitioners’ complaint. Because of his present condition. without monitoring Peter’s IOP. rashes. Steroids are prescribed to Claiming to have steroid-induced treat Epidemic Kerato Conjunctivitis or EKC glaucoma45 and blaming Dr. Tuaño."59 Dr. Aquino also confirmed Dr. nausea. suffered. and notwithstanding Peter’s constant soon as EKC disappeared and was resumed only complaint of intense eye pain while using the when EKC reappeared"58. Tuaño also Abbeygail."49 2.00 to could be detected. Fatima. that: his career in sports casting had suffered and was 26 | P a g e . a possible side right eye] caused the impairment of his vision compensation for his impaired vision. the said doctor informed Peter that his eyes "limited" capacity. his spouse. after Dr. induced glaucoma is temporary and curable. Tuaño’s sinusitis. [he] suffered from steroid induced glaucoma which caused the the eyeballs. though the right one "headaches. which meant that there was elevation of the intra-ocular pressure of [Peter’s plaintiff Peter Lucas as and by way of no increase in the tension or IOP. The amount of P500. Dr. petitioners sought pecuniary award which is an infiltration of the cornea as a result Peter. instituted on 1 grossly negligent conduct in prescribing to Peter fallacious claim.52 and his two connection to [Peter’s] present glaucoma or In May 1990 and June 1991. The case was docketed as Civil Case required in cases of prolonged use of said truth was the Maxitrol was discontinued x x x as No. Aquino continuing to suffer.00 as and sometimes manifested maximum borderline palpitations. Dr. he "continually monitored In their Complaint.000. Peter’s relationships with his suit."55 Dr. Collectively. Tuaño’s clarified that (1) "[c]ontrary to [petitioners’] legitimate child48 with Fatima. became the more than three years ago has no causal breadwinner in the family. "steroid treatment of [Peter’s] EKC caused the two (2) laser surgeries.54 diagnosis of tubular vision in Peter’s right eye. 92-2482." and no hardening of the same elevation of his intra-ocular pressure. his natural child47. Tuaño argued more surgeries were still needed in the future. In the end. eyes. the IOP of the right eye had an elevated value. reaction to the use of steroid medications. his mobility and social life had asserted that the "treatment made by [him] require lifetime medication and follow-ups. heart 5.000. before the RTC. as Petitioners claimed that Dr. (2) for their supposed pain and suffering. and which impairment is not curable and may even (3) it was only on 13 December 1988 that Peter lead to total blindness. months. his spouse46.00 to complained of a headache and blurred vision in spouses Lucas as and by way of actual his right eye.000. and upon measuring the IOP of damages plus such additional amounts said eye. The amount of P2."56 Dr. impairment of Peter’s right eye caused him and his family so much grief.50 his anticipated income 4. he continually suffered from were relatively normal.000."51 etc. The amount of P200. petitioners specifically Tuaño be adjudged liable for the following the intraocular pressure of [Peter’s eyes] by averred that as the "direct consequence of amounts: palpating the eyes and by putting pressure on [Peter’s] prolonged use of Maxitrol. chronic rhinitis.000. Petitioners particularly prayed that Dr. [he] did NOT continually September 1992. his were ultimately brought about by Dr. (2) the entire time he same. and (3) Gillian. medicine.000.According to petitioners.000. it was determined for the first time that Petitioners additionally alleged that the visual that may be proven during trial. attempt to control the high IOP of his right eye. by way of attorney’s fees plus costs of tension. spouse and children continued to be strained. was treating Peter.00 as and conducted an extensive evaluation of Peter’s had been greatly reduced as a result of his by way of exemplary damages. he had already undergone by way of moral damages. Peter now needed close medical 3. as steroids for any prolonged period"57 and "[t]he Quezon City. Tuaño for the same. petitioners lived in constant fear of steroids have the side effect of increasing Peter becoming completely blind. The amount of P300. The 1. which of conjunctivitis or sore eyes.53 intraocular pressure. joined by: (1) Fatima.

Tuaño of WHEREFORE. or more current examination of [Peter]. [Peter’s] [Petitioners] failed to establish the duty required glaucoma can only be due to other causes not of a medical practitioner against which Peter On 27 September 2006.. the steroid treatment was in fact medical practitioner who departed thereof beneficial to [Peter] as it revealed the incipient breaches his duty and commits negligence [D]id not present any medical expert to testify open angle glaucoma of [Peter] to allow earlier rendering him liable. plaintiff’s the medical community has not been established Exhibit ‘S’ even tends to support them. 68666 attributable to [his] treatment of more than with. certainly not Paul’s treatment by defendant can be compared rendered a decision in CA-G. as revealed by required of a physician treating a patient. the court is at a Blephamide for the treatment of EKC on Peter’s loss as to what is then the established norm of right eye was not proper and that his palpation duty of a physician against which defendant’s of Peter’s right eye was not enough to detect In a Decision dated 14 July 2000. Tuaño’s medical judgment. automatically is reduced. the Decision appealed from is glaucoma can only be long standing glaucoma. standard because once it is established. was bereft of any evidence to establish that the that the steroid treatment actually unmasked the Like the RTC. Thus. even a medical doctor to convince and expertly appealed RTC Decision.e. because of the large C:D or his non-discovery of the glaucoma in the ratio. The trial of the glaucoma. Section 36 of the Rules of Correspondingly. They did not present any medical expert or denying petitioners’ recourse and affirming the three years ago x x x. the record of the case no elevation of the eye pressure is manifested. x x x.62 Under Rule 130. premises considered. the latter’s whether the non taking (sic) by Dr. as prescribed condition that resulted in the earlier treatment weight to Dr. Familiar and fundamental is the rule that was negligent in his treatment of Peter’s meaning. the Court of Appeals gave great steroid medication and its dosage. as EKC is only a viral infection which will Wherefore. a Hence. Tuaño. The counter claim (sic) is likewise steroid is the proximate cause of the damage confirm what he allegedly told Peter and. 68666."65 therefore. The steroids provoked the latest glaucoma course of treatment constitutes negligence. on the part of plaintiff in filing the suit.[S]uch condition. It is The Court of Appeals faulted petitioners because to be revealed earlier as [Peter] remained important and indispensable to establish such a they – asymptomatic prior to steroid application. dismissed in the absence of bad faith or malice sustained by [Peter’s] eye. optic nerve damage was happening but hearsay testimony is inadmissible as evidence. petitioners appealed the foregoing pressure. by Dr. Dr. this court cure by itself. In fact.66 open angle glaucoma. the intraocular pressure appeal was docketed as CA-G. However.64 Dr. 92-2482 "for negligence. In particular. As soon as the intake of liable."61The decretal part of have used steroid for the treatment of EKC or said Decision reads: that he should have used it only for two (2) The RTC added that in the absence of "any weeks.67 condition. Peter Paul’s pressure a deviation from the norm AFFIRMED. Peter testified that dismissed Civil Case No.R." [W]hen a doctor sees a patient. Their steroids is discontinued. The fallo of the explain to the court the established norm or duty judgment of the appellate court states: From a medical point of view."63 According to the RTC: RTC decision to the Court of Appeals. the RTC conduct can be compared with to determine adverse reaction to steroid. Without such testimony or that Dr. elevated intraocular established to render [Tuaño] Undaunted. Tuaño’s Court. the RTC accepted Dr. much less has causation been determine whether or not the latter would react 27 | P a g e . is temporary. Agulto was not complaint is dismissed for insufficiency of cannot accept [petitioners’] claim that the use of presented by [petitioners] as a witness to evidence. Tuano’s prescription of Maxitrol and treatment of the same. he cannot in this case. CV No. the instant medical evidence to the contrary. the Court of Appeals attributable to steroids. by preponderance of evidence that Dr. Manuel Agulto told him that he should not insufficiency of evidence. There is nothing in the record specifically the latter’s explanation that: court reasoned that the "recognized standards of to contradict such testimony. a witness can testify only to those facts The RTC opined that petitioners failed to prove medical opinion that "Peter Paul must have been which he knows of his own personal knowledge.R. Tuaño suffering from normal tension glaucoma.60 enlightenment from an expert. the latter’s testimony is hearsay. caused Peter’s glaucoma. CV No. i.

They insist that Dr. In any case. Hence.zw+ Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration was in its Decision and Resolution would reveal that denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution petitioners are fundamentally assailing the Petitioners contend. including the on December 13. however.70 Court of Appeals. when Peter complained PETITIONERS’ FOR ACTUAL. Tuaño was grossly negligent in the INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. COSTS OF SUIT. finding of the Court of Appeals that the evidence findings of the Honorable Court of Appeals. This question clearly involves a presented by the petitioners. simple case of cause and effect. it Tuaño ignored the standard medical procedure under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court could be said that the sole issue for our for ophthalmologists.1avvphi1. the determination of which is readily be held liable for damages even without GRAVE REVERSIBLE ERROR IN DISMISSING not within the ambit of this Court’s power of any expert testimony. in their Evidently. Tuaño] – Dr. that "[d]espite [Dr. but is contradicted by the Peter was elevated. PROVE THEIR CLAIM FOR MEDICAL a trier of facts. administered medication premised on the following assignment of errors: resolution in the Petition at bar is whether the with recklessness. AS A absence of evidence. petitioners failed to prove. that "[c]ontrary to the dated 3 July 2007. [Emphasis supplied. THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT Tuaño’s treatment of Peter. only errors of law are generally Tuaño himself. this Petition for Review on Certiorari entitlement to any kind of damage.73 i. reviewed in petitions for review on certiorari AND criticizing decisions of the Court of Appeals."72Petitioners reject the necessity of I. it may be population who reacts adversely to steroids. 68 A reading of the afore-quoted reversible errors gleaned from their allegations and arguments in supposedly committed by the Court of Appeals the instant Petition. Although petitioners may suspected that Peter belongs to the 5% of the not explicitly invoke said exception. GRAVE REVERSIBLE ERROR IN AFFIRMING and (2) whether or not negligence attended Dr. Tuaño’s negligence in his treatment of Peter’s documentary evidence and based on the facts eye condition. on record is insufficient to establish petitioners’ [they] were more than able to establish that: Dr. In effect. and exhibited an absence of Court of Appeals committed reversible error in competence and skills expected from affirming the judgment of the RTC that him.. by preponderance of presenting expert and/or medical testimony to evidence. as amended. and it was only then that he RESULT OF HIS GROSS NEGLIGENCE. MORAL AND circumstance when the finding of fact of the for the first time of headache and blurred vision EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. petitioners would have us sift That Dr. 1989. Therefore.71 sufficient evidence to establish his gross III. negligence that ultimately caused the Nonetheless. and THE PETITIONERS’ COMPLAINT FOR review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules Civil contrary to the finding of the trial court and the DAMAGES AGAINST THE RESPONDENT ON Procedure. With mere II. as well as of the RESPONDENT ON THE GROUND OF RTC. the general rule that only questions impairment of the vision of Peter’s right THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED of law may be raised on appeal in a petition for eye.] NEGLIGENCE AGAINST THE RESPONDENT. as we are asked to revisit anew the factual COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AGAINST THE findings of the Court of Appeals. said issue constitutes a question of DISMISSING THE PETITIONERS’ words – fact.adversely to the use of steroids. through the evidence on record and pass upon treatment of Peter’s simple eye ailment is a whether there is sufficient basis to establish Dr. because. that it was only FINDING THE RESPONDENT LIABLE TO THE admits of certain exceptions. treatment of the disorder affecting Peter’s eye. ASIDE FROM Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed that he observed that the pressure of the eye of ATTORNEY’S FEES. Tuaño’s] GRAVE REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court knowledge that 5% of the population reacts 28 | P a g e . establish (1) the standard of care respecting the THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED Tuaño.e. respondent can THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED factual inquiry. their claim for damages against Dr.69 evidence on record. Tuaño himself gave Questions of fact are not entertained. there was a medical expert THE GROUND THAT NO MEDICAL EXPERT presented by the petitioner showing the WAS PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO Elementary is the principle that this Court is not recklessness committed by [Dr.

79 knowledge beyond the ken of the average ART. the recovery for an injury. [the almost always anchored on the alleged violation This standard level of care. for there must be a causal connection between said breach Petitioners’ position. All the four (4) elements must co- accordingly bound by the findings of fact made exist in order to find the physician negligent Even so. the cases. and without which the that as a proximate result of such failure. in order that there may be a negligence in his improper administration of the generated. skill and proximate cause of an injury is that cause."75 Clearly. because the standard of care in a professional negligence caused [the patient’s] medical malpractice case is a matter peculiarly injury is generally one for specialized expert within the knowledge of experts in the field. using the specialized knowledge and damage to another. and learning possessed neighborhood and in the same general line of unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. by the attending physician when the likelihood that [the physician’s] alleged existing contractual relation between the parties. there being fault or There is breach of duty of care. skill and training of his field. And the is required to prove by preponderance of former] to exercise that degree of care. and (4) proximate line of practice ordinarily possess and exercise in the Court of Appeals and the RTC are in accord causation. the negligence must be suit. And in accepting a case. the physician has the result would not have occurred. "thus. if there is no pre- duty. The judgments of both breach. the expert’s role is to negligence. thus. patient.81 that is. and we are plaintiff/s.e. Tuaño’s physician. Such fault or negligence. by other persons in the same profession.76 must be established by the like cases. 2176. the patient or his heirs. (sic) Peter belongs to the 5%. liable for damages. (3) injury. and. cause [of the injury] by a preponderance of the of negligence committed by members of the medical profession. for all intents and purposes.77 Thus. which states a matter best addressed by expert medical because the question of whether the alleged that: testimony. or the improper performance of such present to the [court] a realistic assessment of done. and that he will injury must be a direct and natural sequence of negligence case against a physician based on the employ such training. this] constitutes the actionable malpractice. and practice ordinarily possess and exercise in like produces the injury.adversely to Maxitrol. skill and diligence is patient] must similarly use expert testimony. [the latter] should be liable physician. in treating his causes". skill and diligence which physicians in the same four essential (4) elements i. care. such claim for damages is evidence in a medical malpractice action. is that Peter’s When a patient engages the services of a and the resulting injury sustained by the patient. the present skill possessed by physicians and surgeons connection between the negligence and the controversy is a classic illustration of a medical practicing in the same field. with the evidence on record. it must be shown that the drug Maxitrol."74 But just like any other proceeding for damages.. "injury for which recovery is sought must be the for all the damages suffered and to be suffered represents that he has the needed training and legitimate consequence of the wrong done. that degree of skill. duty to use at least the same level of care that any other reasonably competent physician would Just as with the elements of duty and breach of use to treat the condition under similar the same. patient failed to meet the standard level of care. care. the by [petitioners]. (1) duty. in the natural and continuous sequence. evidence that the physician failed to exercise diligence which physicians in the same general which. unbroken by intervening efficient latter’s professional negligence. the patient is injured in body or in health [and negligence caused [the patient’s] injury.83 is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. [he] had no qualms In medical negligence cases. in order to prevail. In this type of treatment of the patient. proof of breach of duty on the part of therein.82 patient or his heirs suffered damages. a physician is under a duty to [the the proximate cause of the injury. of Article 2176 of the Civil Code. in order to establish the proximate For lack of a specific law geared towards the type circumstances. also called medical likewise rest upon the testimony of an expert whatsoever in prescribing said steroid to Peter malpractice suits. (2) general neighborhood and in the same general We are not convinced.80 Proof of such breach must 29 | P a g e . the attending physician is insufficient. glaucoma is the direct result of Dr. is obliged to pay for the damage diligence.78 Stated otherwise. and skill in the events. Whoever by act or omission causes layperson. in sum. there exist a physician-patient witness that the treatment accorded to the without first determining whether or not the relationship between the doctor and the victim. a physician-patient relationship is Put in another way.

in this case. It must be remembered that prescribed Maxitrol when Peter developed and Absent a definitive standard of care or diligence a physician is not an insurer of the good result of had recurrent EKC. Dr. Tuaño was able to clearly explain condition as Peter’s under similar regular conduct of examinations and tests to that what is only required of ophthalmologists.89 The result is not determinative of the topical application. Tuaño should have determined September 1988 and had exhibited no previous prescribed and administered medication with first whether Peter was a "steroid untoward reaction to that particular drug.e. thus.84 hence. Tuaño under the circumstances. Tuaño on 2 physicians ignored standard medical procedure. Dr."87 Yet again. expert testimonies. Dr. Petitioners’ failure to prove the first ophthalmoscopy on the patient’s eye – and he unusual technical skills which laymen in most element alone is already fatal to their cause. which.90 glaucoma. that Dr.85 It is the drug which yardstick upon which to evaluate or weigh the performance [of the physician] and he is not petitioners claim to have caused Peter’s attendant facts of this case to be able to state required to be infallible. is the conduct of 30 | P a g e . Tuaño failed to and/or check-up. taking of the visual acuity of the patient. seeking a ophthalmologists prescribe steroid medications doctor can do is map out a course of treatment consult for the treatment of his sore eyes. i. should Moreover. medical profession. all the to see the doctor on 2 September 1988. what is determine immediately whether the latter would between Dr. Maxitrol. petitioners did not competence and skills expected of general present any convincing proof that such Also. checking the motility of the eyes. treatment. his glaucoma. a fact competent physicians in treating the same which petitioners failed to rebut. deference of courts to the expert opinion of to Peter’s right eye. Maxitrol or required of Dr. absolute failure on the part of petitioners to should unerringly follow prior to prescribing Tuaño testified that he palpated Peter’s eyes present any expert testimony to establish: (1) the steroid medications. admittedly. Dr. Maxitrol to Peter was justified by the fact that of Appeals. indeed. in his treatment of ascertain the state of Peter’s eyes negate the very in cases such as Peter’s. there is no question that a actually the required procedure in situations that when a doctor sees a patient. did all those tests/procedures every time Peter instances are incapable of intelligently went to see him for follow-up consultation evaluating. it is apparent that medical Peter. and (3) that the injury or damage area. Tuaño’s assertion In the case at bar. as prescribed by Dr. Tuaño failed in his duty to exercise standard tests/procedures known as "ocular negligence cases are best proved by opinions of said standard of care that any other competent routine examination. and using the former’s realization that the latter possess Tuaño. This Court has no care. Tuaño. was the checking the intraocular pressure of the patient. The mere fact that the patient does neomycin/polymyxin B sulfates/dexamethasone we have no means to determine whether he was not get well or that a bad result occurs does not ophthalmic ointment is a multiple-dose anti. Tuaño saw it fit to prescribe However. there was operating procedure which ophthalmologists Peter’s eyes while the latter was on Maxitrol. an ophthalmologist. follow in Peter’s case the required procedure for the prolonged use of Maxitrol. able to comply with the same in his diagnosis in itself indicate failure to exercise due infective steroid combination in sterile form for and treatment of Peter. constituted negligence and."88 composed of five (5) expert witnesses belonging in the same general physician would use in treating the same tests/procedures – specifically. "[t]he onus probandi was on the the latter was already using the same medication patient to establish before the trial court that the Petitioners assert that prior to prescribing when he first came to see Dr.. as correctly pointed out by the Court be the subject of pecuniary reparation. Dr. But what is We cannot but agree with Dr. Dr. Tuaño’s In contrast. carry some modicum of risk? recognized as correct by the standards of the Admittedly. circumstances. with confidence that the acts complained of. Tuaño categorically denied petitioners’ practitioners similarly determination is actually part of the standard claim that he never monitored the tension of situated. (2) that. he cannot physician-patient relationship developed such as in the case at bar? To be precise. every time the latter came for a check-up as part standard of care to be implemented by of the doctor’s ocular routine examination. 91 recklessness and exhibited an absence of the responder. gross neighborhood and in the same general line of condition as Peter’s under similar examination of the eyes and the surrounding practice as defendant physician or surgeon. Dr.From the foregoing. The circumstances. qualified physicians [or surgeons] stems from result of his use of Maxitrol. Tuaño and Peter when Peter went the standard operating procedure when react adversely to the use of steroids."86 Unfortunately. the indispensability of Petitioners maintain that Dr.

standing x x x because of the large C:D97 ratio. Dr. Luke’s made. he was the Chair of the gave an undertaking to the RTC judge that Dr. Tuaño has the necessary training and opinions. for Dr. Tuaño’s so-called The causation between the physician’s that he is a Diplomate of the Philippine Board of negligence. petitioners’ bare assertions of defendant has been at fault. there is an inevitable like circumstances.92 The plaintiff must plead In contrast. Professor at the University of the Philippines. to defendant to controvert plaintiff’s prima facie speculative. to palpate Peter’s eyes every time the latter went Association. negligence which the evidence established and vis-à-vis the attendant risks of using the same? the plaintiff’s injuries.95Visual acuity remains good until late in the instant case. Philippine Journal of Ophthalmology.basis of petitioners’ complaint for damages. Tuaño does not deny that the use of Maxitrol Medical Center. the causal connection between prior to steroid application. and he employed the and clinching factor in a medical negligence case better position to determine and evaluate the best of his knowledge and skill earned from is proof of the causal connection between the necessity of using Maxitrol to cure Peter’s EKC years of training and practice. deserve scant credit." knowledge and skill in attending to his clients. Tuaño’s supposed negligence and Peter’s Peter’s eyes to monitor their IOP every time the injury still needed to be established.1avvphi1 Dr. here and abroad. In an assortment of positions in numerous medical The plaintiff in a civil case has the burden of fact. malpractice action cannot be based on qualifications – that he has been a physician for speculation or conjecture.100 The concept of open-angle glaucoma. that he has had various medical have been vastly different had petitioners based upon competent expert testimony. Peter was diagnosed with open. in the course of trial in a civil case. theory respecting Dr. as in the standard of care and diligence required in vision. otherwise. Tuaño’s actuations conformed to been a sudden increase in the intraocular qualifications of a physician are admitted. which resulted defendant’s fault caused the injury. Alas. Tuaño’s supposed negligent conduct. Causation must be close to a decade and a half at the time Peter first Our disposition of the present controversy might proven within a reasonable medical probability came to see him.99 The party having the burden characterized by an almost complete absence of Professors. that he occupies various that petitioners’ counsel recognized the necessity established by the presentation of proof that teaching posts (at the time of the filing of the of presenting such evidence. that he has authored numerous papers presented a medical expert to establish their in the field of ophthalmology. et al. Aquino would be presented. This kind of glaucoma is Association of Philippine Ophthalmology favor of plaintiff. Tuaño Peter’s condition. Tuaño is in a latter went for a check-up.94 In preponderance of evidence. a verdict must be returned in angle glaucoma.93 training." took the necessary precaution by palpating Dr. halos around lights and "preponderance of evidence" refers to evidence 31 | P a g e . The critical Who between petitioners and Dr. Philippine Academy of However. Once more. petitioners failed in this regard. without supporting expert medical and prove not only that he has been injured and That Dr. negligence on Dr. Tuaño presumption that in proper cases. the duty or the burden of evidence shifts conclusively caused Peter’s glaucoma is purely Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Tuaño glaucoma to be revealed earlier" was a blessing established.96 Hence. this was the reason why he made it a point organizations like the Philippine Medical proof as he alleges the affirmative of the issue. Philippine Society of favor. to see him -. it is presumed to have so the course of the disease.so he could monitor the tension of Ophthalmology. insidious course. Petitioners even Peter’s glaucoma would not have occurred but present complaint. respectively). Philippine Board of once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his Peter’s eyes. In fact.98 In making the judgment call of committed negligent acts in his treatment of in disguise "as [Peter] remained asymptomatic treating Peter’s EKC with Maxitrol. the record of the case reveals negligence and the patient’s injury may only be Ophthalmology. and that he held involves the risk of increasing a patient’s IOP. Tuaño’s in Peter’s glaucoma. of proof must establish his case by a symptoms and a chronic. he takes the conformed in the absence of evidence to the claims that Peter’s glaucoma "can only be long necessary precaution and employs the best of his contrary. Department of Ophthalmology and an Associate Agulto or Dr. Tuaño’s part. case. Dr. but also that the skill to practice his chosen field is beyond cavil. But to say that said medication Ophthalmology. A verdict in a Petitioners do not dispute Dr. As blurring of vision do not occur unless there has It must be remembered that when the to whether Dr. and that "[t]he steroids provoked the latest unless the contrary is sufficiently Even if we are to assume that Dr. no follow-through on said undertaking was Philippine General Hospital and St.

where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies the court All told. to WHEREFORE. CHICO-NAZARIO witness before the RTC – concerning the REYNATO S. It is evidence which is more convincing to standard is established through expert medical MA.R. Tuaño’s testimony. and the purported comment of Dr. thus: expected to determine on its own what medical DIOSDADO M. In reality. could not be evidence. it is hereby certified that the for damages is merely anchored on a statement conclusions in the above Decision were reached in the literature of Maxitrol identifying the risks in consultation before the case was assigned to SO ORDERED. we are hard pressed to find Dr. Tuaño failed to exercise reasonable case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the nature of the facts to which they testify. Tuaño ATTESTATION may consider all the facts and circumstances of liable for any medical negligence or malpractice the case. the care. the burden of proof was clearly upon petitioners. ALICIA ANTONIO the court as worthy of belief than that which is witnesses. in the nature of I attest that the conclusions in the above their intelligence. The court unrefuted. the RTC and the Court CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO may also consider the number of witnesses. are Constitution. 68666. The evidence showing a reasonable connection assailed Decision dated 27 September 2006 between Dr. to establish that in treating Decision were reached in consultation before the of knowing the facts to which they are testifying. proof must establish his case by a the courts would be dangerously engaging in preponderance of evidence. premises considered. EDUARDO B.102 Rule 133. probability or improbability of their testimony. Peter.101 in the last analysis. The RTC and Court Associate Justice Associate Justice the guidelines for determining preponderance of of Appeals. CV No. Absent expert medical opinion. Dr. where there is no evidence. medical practice. the CERTIFICATION establish their case by a preponderance of instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Agulto – another doctor not presented as MINITA V. the witnesses’ manner of testifying. it means probability of should have been presented to experts. petitioners’ complaint hereby AFFIRMED. No cost. the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. Court of Appeals in CA-G. Section 13 of the the damage sustained by Peter’s right eye. WE CONCUR: 32 | P a g e . and even this Court. the various damages prayed for in their Complaint. In determining speculations. that his their interest or want of interest. offered in opposition thereto. This. as plaintiffs in the lower court. Third Division with the greater number. the party having the burden of disease or injury. which to gauge the basic issue of breach thereof MARTINEZ NACHURA Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court provides by the physician or surgeon. and also their treatment of Peter conformed in all respects to personal credibility so far as the same standard medical practice in this locality. of its use. If no Chairperson truth. and the Division Chairman’s they did not do. diligence and skill generally required in the Court’s Division. their means and opportunity expert testimony. Tuaño’s alleged breach of duty and and Resolution dated 3 July 2007. of Appeals correctly held that they had no basis Associate Justice though the preponderance is not necessarily at all to rule that petitioners were deserving of Chairperson. stands legitimately appear upon the trial. Herein. Dr.which is of greater weight or more convincing It seems basic that what constitutes proper CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO than that which is offered in opposition to medical treatment is a medical question that Associate Justice it. PERALTA technique should have been utilized for a certain Associate Justice In civil cases. Consequently. PUNO Associate Justice prolonged use of Maxitrol for the treatment of Chief Justice EKC. both of the Pursuant to Article VIII. then courts have no standard by AUSTRIA. Attestation.

respondent for medical malpractice. There is breach of duty of care. thus. four essential (4) elements i. and that one of the adverse effects of prolonged use peculiarly within the knowledge of experts in the learning possessed by other persons in the same of steroid-based eye drops could possibly be field. 2011 for the respondent’s second finding wherein the latter said that his condition had progressed to pecuniary reparation. Hence. is required to prove by medicine Maxitrol. thus. (2) breach. liable for right eye. read in a medical malpractice case is a matter failed to exercise that degree of skill. a viral OCEAN BUILDERS CONSTRUCTION infection. by the attending physician when the diligence.. such failure. because the standard of care preponderance of evidence that the physician petitioners herein and Peter Lucas’ wife. said standard level of care. The same is outside the ken of the average profession.e. nausea and blindness on this the physician negligent and. indeed. The No. SPOUSES ANTONIO and ANICIA obediently complied with all the prescriptions But just like any other proceeding for damages. However. should be the subject of G. skill and diligence. The malpractice suits.: eyeball. Absent a definitive standard of care or SUPREME COURT respondent. Fatima.R. after a series of examinations. DECISION Four months later and after the petitioner must be established by the plaintiff/s. 150898 April 13. petitioner’s condition worsened overtime. Peter. Petitioners. (1) duty. CUBACUB. the performance of his duty as petitioner Peter negligence of the physician must be the FACTS: Lucas’ physician. All the suffered from significant swelling of his right four (4) elements must co-exist in order to find CARPIO MORALES. patient is injured in body or in health constitutes Whether or not the petitioners amply proved proof of breach of duty on the part of the the actionable malpractice. Tuaño. Fatima. found diligence required of Dr. Aquino found that the DIGEST petitioner had been suffering from glaucoma and As the physician has the duty to use at least the needed to undergo laser surgery. there exist a physician-patient vs. one of the medical testimony. use of Maxitrol. after the petitioner’s at hand to be able to state with confidence that condition seemed to have worsened. No. doctor. a steroid-based eye drop. Dr. care. skill and duty. also called medical CORP. constituted negligence and. in order to prevail. and their two children layperson. Aquino. the patient or his heirs suffered instituted a civil case for damages against herein damages. and (4) proximate causation. J. yet he relationship between the doctor and the victim. he sought the acts complained of. Peter Lucas. and orders of the respondent. Dr. Tuaño under the Baguio City that the former was suffering from conjunctivitis circumstances. skill In a medical negligence suit. lest he might same level of care as that of any other reasonably DOCTRINES: suffer from total blindness. that Dr. The respondent then prescribed the In medical negligence cases. competent physician would use in the treatment of his patient. Rather. the patient or his After reading the literature on the use of the and diligence must likewise be proven by expert heirs. proximate cause of the injury. and that as a proximate result of glaucoma. by the attending physician when the constitutes the actionable malpractice. and/or DENNIS HAO. on a complaint of Republic of the Philippines soreness and redness on his right eye. he sought for the opinion of another damages. headaches. Dr.. or the improper performance of such ISSUE: patient is injured in body or in health [and this] duty. Herein petitioner. Epidemic Kerato Conjunctivitis (EKC). 33 | P a g e . (3) injury. first consulted RULING: respondent. Tuaño failed to exercise diligence in the attending physician is insufficient. the Court has no yardstick upon or “sore eyes” and prescribed the use of the which to evaluate the attendant facts of the case THIRD DIVISION Spersacet-C. or the improper performance of such There is breach of duty of care. Respondents.

respondent spouses Cubacub. Hermes Frias (Dr. The next day. Bladimir’s parents. the decision of the Regional Trial Caloocan City. the the company’s "barracks" where he lives free of death certificate issued by Dr. April 14. with their friend Dr. Cost of suit. P6. Three days later or on April 12. Tarlac. Rosario Memorial keeping watch over him. on Silangga’s request. Along with co-workers Narding and Tito holding that Hao was not negligent. 1995. at its office in was placed in the intensive care unit and died WHEREFORE. their co-workers court’s decision. by that they needed to talk to Bladimir’s parents. to rest for three days which he did at cause as pneumonia.000. P18. P50. Bladimir 2. complications due to lack of adequate facilities The hospital did not allow Bladimir to leave the at the hospital. He was thus advised by petitioner recorded Bladimir’s immediate cause of death as rendered holding the defendants solidarily liable Dennis Hao (Hao). It went on to state that Hao should have foreseen that 9. P584. Hao gave his death. Park covered by Exhibit "J". hence. 1997 is hereby On April 9.Bladimir Cubacub (Bladimir) was employed as Caybiga Hospital and transferred Bladimir to the Thus the appellate court disposed: maintenance man by petitioner company Ocean Quezon City General Hospital (QCGH) where he Builders Construction Corp. On the other hand. P4.75 as reimbursement of By Decision of April 14. causes of death as cardiac arrest.00 as moral damages.60 as reimbursement of however. multiple organ Cubacub. with Narding Hao. and 5. Bladimir P1. the same cannot be attributed to 6. Bladimir was afflicted with The death certificate issued by the QCGH REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one chicken pox. 2001.00 for loss of Bladimir’s went about his usual chores of manning the gate Bladimir’s parents-herein respondents later filed earning capacity. 1995.00 for the life of Bladimir charge. 1995.834. alleging that Hao expenses incurred at Quezon City (Silangga). 1997. from chicken pox and.00 as exemplary damages. 10. he 8. P30. Informed by deterioration of Bladimir’s condition leading to Exhibits "E" to "E-14" inclusive. the company’s general cardio-respiratory arrest and the antecedent to plaintiffs-appellants for the following: manager. It ruled that Vergado. P15.000.700. Branch 66 in Civil Case No.1 Branch 66 of the expenses for the 5-day wake covered by Tarlac RTC at Capas dismissed the complaint.630. the following day. Trial Court (RTC) at Capas a complaint for 3. SO ORDERED. Ignacio Silangga damages against petitioners. violated Article 161 of the Labor Code.00 as attorney’s fees and At about 8 o’clock in the evening of the same Bladimir. Silangga of Bladimir’s intention. arrived at the Philippine General Hospital and the like. Later in the afternoon. holding that by Hao’s failure to June Matias and Joel Edrene fetched Bladimir’s bring Bladimir to a better-equipped hospital. Frias recorded the 1. reversed the trial 7. April 13. Decision of June 22. parents from Tarlac. Exhibits "F" to "F-17". Silangga thus brought Bladimir to the Hao was not under any obligation to bring Caybiga Community Hospital (Caybiga Bladimir to better tertiary hospitals. an adult. P20. could suffer complications day.000. P50. Luke’s. 349 dated April 14. Tarlac so he could rest. had he been brought to hospitals like St. April 13. a doctor of the hospital informed Narding On respondents’ appeal. 1995. the Court of Appeals.000. of the company premises and even cleaned the on August 17.00 and ordered Silangga to instead bring Bladimir to the nearest hospital. memorial lot at Sto.000. system failure.2 34 | P a g e . 4.107. aggravated by pneumonia or some other Exhibit "I". He was then confined. 1995 before the Tarlac Regional company vehicles. to accompany him to his house in was guilty of negligence which resulted in the General Hospital as evidenced by Capas.00 as funeral expenses at Hospital).00 for acquisition of hospital. he asked a co-worker.000. 1995. Capitol Medical Center. Bladimir could have been saved. septicemia and chicken pox. Frias). a primary-care hospital around one assuming that Bladimir died of chicken pox Prudential Funeral Homes covered by kilometer away from the office of the company. Court of Capas.

under Art. Bladimir needed to be brought to a hospital with ART. take a 3-day rest and to later have him present. case is one for damages based on torts. Assistance of employer." It would thus appear employees exceeds three hundred (300). Emergency Medical and Dental believed.6 the company has. except when a full-time registered part in bringing about or actually causing the nurse or physician are available on-site as In the present case. the necessary assistance to ensure the adequate hundred (200) but not more than three and immediate medical and dental attendance hundred (300). The assailed decision of the services that shall be required where "adequate and immediate medical" attendance the appellate court held that it was the duty of the number of employees does not that he is mandated. the of a graduate first-aider shall be employer-employee relationship being merely provided for the protection of workers. the services under Art. . specifically the company premises are hazardous. 161. the duty of any employer to provide all number of employees exceeds two contrary to appellate court’s ruling. the result enlighten what the phrase "adequate and one bed capacity for every one hundred would not have occurred. to furnish his employees in any locality with free short of the minimum 50 workers that an medical and dental attendance and establishment must have for it to be required to Petitioners maintain that Hao exercised the facilities consisting of: have a full-time registered nurse. (a) The services of a full-time registered The Court can thus only determine whether the nurse when the number of employees actions taken by petitioners when Bladimir The petition is meritorious. as well as a dental clinic and an unbroken by an efficient intervening cause. hence. Hao does not Art. Neither is was either a direct result or a reasonably Art. and that the injury or damage required. petitioner Hao’s advice for Bladimir to. relation to an "emergency. records. – It shall be and an emergency clinic. there is no allegation that injury or damage. whenever it appears from the evidence in the that the determination of what it means is left to (emphasis and underscoring supplied) case that the act or omission played a substantial the employer. exceeds fifty (50) but not more than two became ill amounted to the "necessary hundred (200) except when the assistance" to ensure "adequate and immediate employer does not maintain hazardous medical . 157 which provides: there any allegation on the number of employees probable consequence of the act or omission. If Hao’s testimony4 would be 35 | P a g e . diligence more than what the law requires. in natural and continuous sequence. workplaces for purposes of this Article. 161 of the appropriate order. 2001. 161 of the Labor Code. Proximate cause is that supplied) dentist and a full-time registered nurse which.5 An injury or damage immediate" medical attendance means in (100) employees when the number of is proximately caused by an act or failure to act. The Implementing Rules of the Code do not infirmary or emergency hospital with produces injury. hazardous Labor Code. the company had only seven regular Resolution3 of November 26.The motion for reconsideration was denied by Article 157. also under the Labor Code. the alleged negligence of Hao case of emergency. Chicken pox is self-limiting. failing which a breach is committed. the death of Bladimir. ─ It shall be the duty of every employer employees and 20 contractual employees ─ still petition. to provide petitioners to provide adequate medical exceed fifty (50) and shall determine by to a sick employee in an emergency. He may (b) The services of a full-time registered not be thus expected to have known that nurse. the Court notes that the present workplaces. they are not liable for damages. As found by the trial court and borne by the incidental. assistance to the employees under Art. and without which. when the better facilities than the Caybiga Hospital. in which case. To successfully prosecute an action where no registered nurse is available. hence this Services. attendance" to Bladimir as required At the onset. and and treatment to an injured or sick employee in AT ALL EVENTS. brought to the nearest hospital constituted proximate causation. 161. (emphasis and underscoring cannot be considered as the proximate cause of (c) The services of a full-time physician. . a part-time physician and dentist. anchored on torts. 161 of the Labor Code provides: appear to have a medical background. three elements must be The Secretary of Labor and Employment as he did. viz: (1) duty (2) breach (3) injury and shall provide by appropriate regulations.

at its office in considered as Bladimir’s attending physician. Frias’. He was thus advised QCGH after seeing him at the Caybiga Hospital. Its credibility. and the Division Chairperson’s is taken of the fact that he was not around at the worker. The dissent. Nowhere in the appellate court’s or positive evidence establishing otherwise. more than that issued pox was when Hao testified that he knew it to Pursuant to Section 13.9 Decision were reached in consultation before the appellate court’s findings. petitioner company and its co. the same. or isolating him the entries therein are presumed correct. Dr. the petition is GRANTED. septicemia and chicken pox per Dr. REVERSED. to rest for three days which he did at at QCGH. the only allusion the certificate shown by positive evidence to be to another employee being afflicted with chicken inaccurate. I certify that the conclusions in the time of death. as Attestation. afflicted with chicken pox. and the complaint is hereby DIGEST DISMISSED. ATTESTATION examination. Bladimir was MARTIN S. Facts: Associate Justice respiratory arrest due to complications ─ from pneumonia per QCGH." holds that the certificate which he Chief Justice WHEREFORE. CORONA "last illness. This finding is not. Hao was negligent in not bringing that co. the company’s general He thereafter left Bladimir to the care of doctors Associate Justice Associate Justice manager. In fact. LOURDES P. Not only was CERTIFICATION pox from a co-worker. Frias. JR. charge. unless CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES as well. SERENO by petitioner Dennis Hao. certificate is considered a public document and worker to the nearest physician.10 The Chairperson even the trial court’s decision is there any such QCGH death certificate was received by the City definite finding that Bladimir contracted chicken Civil Registrar on April 17. Frias attended to Bladimir during his RENATO C. At best. returning to Capas. As he himself testified upon cross. the dissent. however.8 Bladimir Cubacub was employed as BRION BERSAMIN maintenance man by petitioner company Ocean Associate Justice Associate Justice Be that as it may. 1995. to when it happened. however. Frias admitted WE CONCUR: that the causes of death in both certificates were ARTURO D.7 above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the IN FINE. 1995. becomes more pronounced as note heal within three days as was the case of another Constitution. apart from adopting the the ICU at QCGH. borne by the party who contests its accuracy can produce Associate Justice the records. Tarlac at 4 o’clock the company’s barrack’s where he lives free of the following morning or eight hours after seeing Bladimir. There appears. noting negligence.Verily. MARIA having merely ordered Bladimir’s transfer to the VILLARAMA. Article VIII of the by Dr. the issue in this case is essentially factual Bladimir anymore once the latter was brought to I attest that the conclusions in the above in nature.1avvphil that Dr. without reference. opinion of the Court’s Division. to be no conflict in the two death certificates on the immediate cause of CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Bladimir’s death since both cite cardio. finds that Bladimir case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of contracted chicken pox from a co-worker and It bears emphasis that a duly-registered death the Court’s Division. Frias could not be Builders Construction Corp. he Caloocan City. On April 9. Dr. LUCAS P. A. he did not personally attend to 36 | P a g e . On the issue of which of the two death petitioner manager Dennis Hao are not guilty of certificates is more credible. however. The issued ─ citing chicken pox as antecedent cause challenged Decision of the Court of Appeals is ─ deserves more credence.

on the road between Malabon and 37 | P a g e . the alleged negligence of Hao Fausto Barredo. nearest hospital constituted “adequate and Celedonio P. under Art. on August 17.Later in the afternoon. and that the injury or damage Hao gave Bladimir P1. Bladimir’s parents-herein respondents later filed mandated.00 and ordered was either a direct result or a reasonably Silangga to instead bring Bladimir to the nearest Held: probable consequence of the act or omission. arrived at the ART. L-48006 July 8. vs. alleging that Hao was guilty of Chicken pox is self-limiting. case of emergency. injury or damage. take a 3. 1936. Trial Court a complaint for damages against BOCOBO. Assistance of employer. Advincula for respondents. Fausto Bladimir needed to be brought to a hospital with Barredo. Bladimir was brought to the Caybiga Community Hospital. Manila day. to proximately caused by an act or failure to act. to accompany him to on Article 161 of the Labor Code. Ignacio Silangga.R. who SUPREME COURT At about 8 o’clock in the evening of the same later died. Gloria and Antonio Barredo for immediate medical” attendance that he is petitioner. to a better hospital. and treatment to an injured or sick employee in FAUSTO BARREDO.000. cannot be considered as the proximate cause of Whether the manager was guilty of negligence the death of Bladimir. respondents. he asked a co. The death certificate issued by the QCGH SEVERINO GARCIA and TIMOTEA recorded Bladimir’s immediate cause of death as Hao’s advice for Bladimir to. and hence liable for torts based whenever it appears from the evidence in the worker. liable in damages for the death of Issue: better facilities than the Caybiga Hospital. April 13. was not guilty of Republic of the Philippines kilometer away from the office of the company. as he did. Faustino Garcia caused by the negligence of Pedro Fontanilla. a primary-care hospital around one No. 1942 placed in the intencive care unit and died the and immediate medical and dental attendance following day. 161. J. Hao does not negligence which resulted in the deterioration of appear to have a medical background. negligence for not bringing his employee. to provide to a sick Jose G. 161. Bladimir’s parents- respondent spouses Cubacub.: petitioners. a better hospital. – It shall be EN BANC Caybiga Hospital and transferred Bladimir to the the duty of any employer to provide all Quezon City General Hospital where he was the necessary assistance to ensure the adequate G. 1995 before the Tarlac Regional employee in an emergency. Hao. petitioner. part in bringing about or actually causing the Informed by Silangga of Bladimir’s intention. however. a taxi driver employed by said At all events. Tarlac so he could rest. No. ALMARIO. cardio-respiratory arrest and the antecedent day rest and to later have him brought to the cause as pneumonia. who later died. He may This case comes up from the Court of Appeals Bladimir’s condition leading to his death. 1995. hospital. An injury or damage is At about half past one in the morning of May 3. the manager. case that the act or omission played a substantial his house in Capas. for not bringing his employee. not be thus expected to have known that which held the petitioner herein.

thus making him employer of Pedro Fontanilla.Navotas. The defendant maintains that plus legal interest from the date of the supervision of Pedro Fontanilla to Fontanilla's negligence being punishable by the complaint. civil obligation arising from a felony or a year and one day to two years of prision misdemeanor (the crime of Pedro correccional. there was a head-on shown he was careless in employing arising from wrongful or negligent acts collision between a taxi of the Malate Taxicab Fontanilla who had been caught several or commission not punishable by law. the person criminally employee. civil action and his property has not been Fontanilla 's negligence was the cause of the Article 1903 of the Civil Code is found in exhausted. brought an action in the Court of case. suffered injuries from of the Bureau of Public Works available which he died two days later. The Court employer is only subsidiary.) In fact it is our inquiry by the luminous presentation of the 38 | P a g e . but an obligation imposed granted the petition that the right to bring a liability of Fausto Barredo is governed by the in article 1903 of the Civil Code by separate civil action be reserved. The Court of Appeals holds that the against Fausto Barredo.. Fortunately. petitioner is being sued for his failure to primarily and directly. There is proof Code. because justice may be lost in a that he exercised the diligence of a good 1903 of the Civil Code itself. driven by Pedro Fontanilla and a carretela times for violation of the Automobile guided by Pedro Dimapalis. applicable only to "those (obligations) distinctly envisaged. As to Barredo's Code.. Province of Rizal. This decision was modified by the prevent damages suffered by the Penal Code. his liability is only reason of his negligence in the selection Appeals affirmed the sentence of the lower court subsidiary. The liability sought to be Instance of Rizal. 1939. 16-year. Barredo cannot be held responsible in the March 7.. we are aided in (See p. The petitioner's brief states on page 10: The pivotal question in this case is whether the First Instance of Manila against Fausto Barredo plaintiffs may bring this separate civil action as the sole proprietor of the Malate Taxicab and . A criminal action to be public and to himself. and as there has been no civil action or supervision of his servant or in the criminal case. parents of the deceased on liable. his (defendant's) liability as an Court of Appeals by reducing the damages to respondents. but Fontanilla has not been sued in a action was instituted. .. according to said P1.. The court in the criminal case The main theory of the defense is that the Fontanilla. This Fontanilla's employer. and one of its passengers. Timotea Almario. The carretela was Law and speeding (Exhibit A) — The gist of the decision of the Court of Appeals is overturned. unless principles and remedies are father of a family to prevent damage. Severino Garcia and against Pedro Fontanilla. To decide the main issue.). This fact makes said article to a many confused and jumbled responsibility. responsible under article the Court of First Instance of Manila awarded exercise all the diligence of a good father 1903 of the Civil Code as an employer of Pedro damages in favor of the plaintiffs for P2. as he was driving on the wrong side of Chapter II. in the precise words of article should be done.000 of a family in the selection and Fontanilla. and he was convicted and provisions of article 1903 of the Civil imposed upon him in this action is not a sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of one Code. appellant's brief. hence. On July 8. Therefore. It is admitted that defendant is II of Title 16 of Book IV of the Civil under articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. is labyrinth. or crimes the case at bar simply because Chapter under the Penal Code and fault or negligence . 22.. the Court of Appeals found: civil liability arising from a crime as in together delitos and cuasi delitos. 1939. We cannot agree to the defendant's was filed against Fontanilla in the Court of First he must indemnify plaintiffs under the contention. Book IV of the Civil cut through the tangle that has. Title 16. In other words. we must mishap. and at high speed. It is undisputed that case article 1903 of the Civil Code. in the minds of the road. violation which appeared in the records expressed thus: old boy Faustino Garcia.000 with legal interest from the time the of Appeals insists on applying in the Penal code. The Court of Revised Penal Code.

by their pupils or apprentices while they entirely apart and independent from delict or are under their custody. xxx xxx xxx of the next preceding article shall be applicable. but civil liability. ART. 2. in which case the provisions Supreme Tribunal of Spain. but also for those of persons therein prove that they are exercised all for whom another is responsible. omissions. 3. Those which are derived and in subdivision 4 of article 11 of this from acts or omissions in which fault or The State is subject to the same liability Code does not include exemption from negligence. when it acts through a special agent. — Every person xxx xxx xxx Owners or directors of an establishment criminally liable for a felony is also or business are equally liable for any civilly liable. Revised Penal Code are as follows: The father and in. are liable for any ART. Authorities support the proposition that a quasi. the mother. — The exemption from Code. ART 1902. recover from the latter what he may ART. have paid. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. 1093. them. Rules regarding civil liability governed by the provisions of the Penal service in which employed. subdivisions 1. Upon this principle and on the wording ART. Any person who pays for CIVIL CODE damages caused by the minor children damage caused by his employees may who live with them. or on in certain cases.perplexing subject by renown jurists and we are intervenes shall be subject to the not if the damage shall have been caused likewise guided by the decisions of this Court in provisions of Chapter II. 101. 1903. 1904. Title XVI of by the official upon whom properly previous cases as well as by the solemn clarity of this book. which shall be enforced to the following rules: 39 | P a g e . teachers or directors of arts institution under the Civil Code with a his fault or negligence shall be liable for trades are liable for any damages caused substantivity all its own. 1089 Obligations arise from law. ART. and 6 of article 12 ART. not punishable by law. devolved the duty of doing the act the consideration in several sentences of the performed. and individuality that is the damage so done. 100. the the next preceding article is enforcible. Civil obligations arising from damages caused by their employees felonies or misdemeanors shall be while engaged in the branch of the ART. occasion of the performance of their criminal liability established in duties. Any person who by an act or delict or "culpa aquiliana " is a separate legal omission causes damage to another by Finally. 5. The obligation imposed by and spirit article 1903 of the Civil Code. crime. the diligence of a good father of a family The pertinent provisions of the Civil Code and to prevent the damage. and Guardians are liable for damages done from acts and omissions which are by minors or incapacitated persons REVISED PENAL CODE unlawful or in which any kind of fault or subject to their authority and living with negligence intervenes. The liability imposed by this article shall primary and direct responsibility of employers not only for personal acts and cease in case the persons mentioned may be safely anchored. case of his death or incapacity. 1092. from contracts and quasi-contracts.

would subdivision 4 of article 11. whenever the damage has been representative may have given them less serious felony. unless it those doing the act shall be liable. First. that such guests shall have notified in Any person who. No liability shall attach of article 12 the civil liability for acts the manner prescribed by special laws or in case of robbery with violence against committed by any imbecile or insane regulations. In cases of subdivision. 102. penalty of arresto mayor in its prevented shall be civilly liable in maximum period to prision correccional proportion to the benefit which they Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable in its minimum period. directions which such innkeeper or his periods. under fifteen years of age. from execution. proprietors of establishment. and any xxx xxx xxx with their own property. who has acted 6 of article 12. and shall felony. — The subsidiary liability legal authority or control. excepting other persons or corporation shall be property exempt from execution. had it been intentional. In cases falling within some general or special police regulation which. or the person. 365. imbecile or minor under his innkeepers. or employees in authority. or if such person be insolvent. Subsidiary civil liability of committed by their servants. accordance with the civil law. by reckless violation of municipal ordinances or imprudence. or for the and medium periods shall be imposed. if it would have constituted a in all events. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and innkeeper's employees. or when the of such goods within the inn. the persons using violence or without discernment shall devolve upon causing the fear shall be primarily liable and ART. in civilly liable for crimes committed in ART. persons. for the restitution of goods taken by constituted a less grave felony. their establishments. indemnification shall be made in over such goods. provided each one shall be liable. of the deposit would otherwise constitute a grave determined. tavern keepers and workmen. — In the discharge of their duties. 103. and. in all cases where a — Any person who. other persons. or minor shall respond innkeepers. insane. even approximately. negligence on their part. pupils. shall suffer the penalty of arresto liability also attaches to the Government. Imprudence and negligence. in their sound lodging therein. insane. tavern keepers. discretion. or. the penalty caused with the consent of the authorities or with respect to the care of and vigilance 40 | P a g e . shall commit any act Second. or by one over nine but Third. imbecile. if there be no such persons. shall suffer the whose benefit the harm has been their employees. shall commit an act which When the respective shares can not be equitably person representing him. or control. the person for shall have been committed by them or constitute a grave felony. legal guardianship. and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies Should there be no person having such ART. by simple imprudence advance the innkeeper himself. Subsidiary civil liability of those having such person under their secondarily. the robbery or theft within their houses penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum The courts shall determine. saving always established in the next preceding article appears that there was no fault or to the latter that part of their property exempt shall also apply to employers. and by a person under nine of persons unless committed by the years of age. 1. or the or negligence. said default of persons criminally liable. if it would have may have received. teachers. or intimidation against or intimidation person. 2 and 3 their agents. the proportionate amount for which payment of the value thereof. or to furthermore have followed the mayor in its medium and maximum the majority of the inhabitants of the town. apprentices.

" However." Then Dorado Montero in his essay on of the Revised Penal Code punishes not only article 1093 provides that this kind of obligation "Responsibilidad" in the "Enciclopedia Juridica reckless but even simple imprudence or shall be governed by Chapter II of Title XVI of Española" (Vol. of arresto mayor in its minimum period fizo a sabiendas en daño al otro. p. la responsabilidad civil abarca diversos the "confusion worse confounded. while the Civil Code. (See Colin and Capitant. porque. The Partidas also However. says: "Tenudo es de of ordinances. this responsibility is often referred "any king of fault or negligence intervenes. pero acaescio hurt. That crimes affect the public interest. en que intervenga punishable by law. . An employee of the latter had been fazer emienda." de Derecho Civil. speaking. Asi. properly damage. existe una scope in regard to negligent acts does not the Penal Code and the culpa responsabilidad civil propiamente dicha. Thus. which is a necessary consequence of the legal institution is of ancient lineage. 3. "Curso Elemental shall be imposed." por su culpa. include all acts in which terminology." Roman Law. responsibility. 728. and another contractual looms clear and unmistakable. for instance." Vol. Title 15. in which the 41 | P a g e . there Code. such as begging in contravention Ferrocarril Cantabrico and the Ferrocarril del Law 6. That delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts. The que es consecuencia indeclinable de la same negligent act causing damages may 1. by means of indemnification. the Penal Code punishes responsibility has various aspects and contractual under articles 1902-1910 of the Civil or corrects the criminal act. In fact. meaning articles 1902-0910. This 1902 of the Civil Code has apparently been portion of the Civil Code is exclusively devoted El concepto juridico de crowded out. the fault or negligence under article Book IV. one the separate existence of quasi-delicts and the enough to cover the driver's negligence in the of the five sources of obligations is this legal employer's primary and direct liability under instant case. which in no case carries with it The individuality of cuasi-delito or culpa extra. p. como quier que el non infraction of the rules of traffic when nobody is prosecuted in a criminal case. . article 1903 of the Civil Code. article 100 of the Revised Penal Code. XXVII. while the or misdemeanor. or create The juridical concept of civil an action for cuasi-delito or culpa extra. destroy the distinction between the civil liability aquiliana or cuasi-delito under the Civil Code que en ningun casl lleva aparejada arising from a crime and the responsibility for are: responsabilidad criminal alguna. it should be noted that not all on the following case: There had been a collision contributed to the genealogy of the present fault violations of the penal law produce civil between two trains belonging respectively to the or negligence under the Civil Code. According to article 1089. Norte. limits cuasi-delitos to acts or omissions "not contractual: "los actos . It is this overlapping that makes to the legal institution of culpa aquiliana. violation of the game laws. merely repairs the is a civil responsibility. This 3." produce civil liability arising from a crime under while cuasi-delitos are only of private concern. y otra cuasi-delitos or culpa extra-contractual. an outstanding authority. a aspectos y comprende a diferentes closer study shows that such a concurrence of Some of the differences between crimes under personas. of Partida 7. nevertheless article 1093 institution of cuasi-delito or culpa extra. That. in Spanish legal latter. comprises different persons. one of its because the former are punished only if there is penal liability as a result of every felony early ancestors being the Lex Aquilia in the a penal law clearly covering them. any criminal responsibility. 414) says: negligence. was consulted to as culpa aquiliana. consequently.) It will thus be seen that while the terms of The distinctive nature of cuasi-delitos survives Let us now ascertain what some jurists say on articles 1902 of the Civil Code seem to be broad in the Civil Code." Maura. penal que nace de todo delito o falta. cuasi-delitos." But inasmuch as article 365 cualquier genero de culpa o negligencia. 2.

rodeada de notas agravatorias que del Corpus Juris. The employee had civiles para pedir indemnizacion. Dictamenes. causante de daños o perjuicios. personas en la enumeracion de las Es trivial que acciones semejantes son cuales figuran los dependientes y Quedando las cosas asi. quebrantos y menoscabos inferidos por y a los fines sociales y politicos del despues de intervenir en las causas el choque de los trenes. La obligacion que whether the Ferrocarril Cantabrico could still vendrian a cuento y que tiene otro impone el articulo anterior es exigible. sea por actos del servicio. de suerte que misma atañen al orden publico. entre los que añadidura. 511-513): en que intervenga culpa o negligencia. pp. sea el cual sea. las hacen extensivas a Cantabrico. cotidianamente. 6. que cual la pena que en el tal paralelo se notarian. omision. y se observa en la obligacion civil de indemnizar los 128 del Codigo Penal. atentos al espiritu jurisprudencia. y claro es despues de distribuir a su modo las modos de proceder. mas o paralelo entre aquellas ordenaciones. de Los articulos 20 y 21 del Codigo Penal. civiles nacidas de delito. abstenido de asistir al juicio quebrantos y menoscabos. o sea. No employer. por que si por esta via se enmiendan los responsabilidades civiles. pero esta eventual las empresas y los establecimientos al acciones. Vol. el agraviado sean por diversos conceptos culpables criminal la Compañia del Ferrocarril excusa procurar el ya conseguido del delito o falta. desenvuelven y ordenan la criminales con el caracter subsidiario de se funda la accion para demandar el materia de responsabilidades su responsabilidad civil por razon del resarcimiento. en defecto de los que sean been acquitted in the criminal case. de toda accion u propios. distintos cuerpos legales. La lesion causada por la de la obligacion de indemnizar a titulo esta obligacion. en terminos delito. por tal tienen unos y otros normas de fondo en motivo vienen encomendadas. no puede confundirse civiles nacidas de delito. dimanan. bring a civil action for damages against the regimen). y diferentes ordinario. had also Estas. sino por los de aquellas affirmative. Por esto exista cosa juzgada acerca de la asuntos. y formando verdadero delito o falta en los derechos civiles. tribunales de lo civil. literal. Maura's opinion was in the 1902 del Codigo Civil. personas de quienes se debe responder. habiendose. no estuvo sub 42 | P a g e . ante los en este. Los articulos 18 al 21 y 121 al acontece. cuyo been exonerated. segun el texto responsible in civil damages. The question asked was de culpas contractuales. siquiera exista la culpa que se denomina aquiliana. parece innegable que la de coincidencia de los efectos. sin que la Justicia empresas. segun el articulo no solo por los actos y omisiones Ferrocarril del Norte. stating in part (Maura. and the responsables criminalmente. pero con caracter que le irrogo el choque. que se reservo ejercitar sus desagravio. reparaciones o necesaria una de las diferenciaciones separacion entre justicia punitiva y indemnizaciones. una culpa alusion a precedentes legislativos tribunales civiles. diverso el titulo de menos severas.company had been made a party as subsidiarily diversidad originaria de las acciones subsidiario. the Ferrocarril del Norte. que no articulo 1903. son demandadas y con las responsabilidades separados del regimen por ley comun de condenadas directa y aisladamente. no borra la servicio de los cuales estan los indemnizacion por los daños y perjuicios delincuentes. sea todavia menos parece sostenible que punitiva tenga que mezclarse en los con ocasion de sus funciones. y Siendo como se ve. El titulo en que mismo. al Ministerio Fiscal. dice. que las empresas. para el caso actual (prescindiendo coincide en ello el Codigo Civil. de culpa civil. a proposito de la ejercitadas ante los Tribunales de lo civil empleados de los establecimientos o realidad pura y neta de los hechos. Seria intempestivo un motivan sanciones penales. pero viene al caso y es postulado de nuestro regimen judicial la requiere restituciones. por cuando se trata de la obligacion.

but with mas arriba. before the civil aggravating aspects which give rise to former provisions and that regarding the courts. it seems and 121 to 128 of the Penal Code. are sued and there exists in the latter. apropos of the reality interfering therewith. dimanada de delito. Aun cuando el veredicto no relief. system. It would be unwarranted to make sentenced directly and separately with nature. the injured or misdemeanor. after taking part in the for reparation is based cannot be common law. ni fue is clear that if by this means the losses for different reasons. subsidiary character. actions are every day filed before the responsible." Among the persons civil courts without the criminal courts enumerated are the subordinates and As things are. reparations. In this regard. whatever each Juris. que tal accion quedaba civil actions to ask for indemnity. not only for personal acts mas y mas que la accion para pedir su damages in which culpa or negligence and omissions. 43 | P a g e . according to article 1903 says: "The obligation juzgadores. ni responsabilidad (without referring to contractual faults criminally responsible. enterprises. decisions. intervenes. It is for this reason that it obligation for damages on account of the develop and regulate the matter of civil happens. and it civil responsibilities among those who. office of the prosecuting attorney. in accordance with subsidiary civil responsibility by reason responsibilities born of a crime. y se patentiza act or omission causing losses and demandable. because legislative precedent of the Corpus of the crime. affect public order. Articles 20 and 21 of the Penal Code. make such civil intacta. from every imposed by the next preceding article is obligacion civil ex lege. so that they have different they are ordinarily entrusted to the after distriburing in their own way the fundamental norms in different codes. but also for those of cumplimiento permanece incolume. The title upon which the action separately from the regime under enterprises. punitive justice and the civil courts indemnifications which. but this coincidence of effects and establishments for which the guilty hubiese sido de inculpabilidad. penal measures that are more or less obligation to indemnify on account of severe. se redobla el motivo para la article 1902 of the Civil Code. either for acts during their less tenable that there should beres bearing in mind the spirit and the social service or on the occasion of their judicata with regard to the civil and political purposes of that Code. like the penalty being a true postulate of our judicial itself. sino que permanecio and damages are repaired. functions. It is unimportant that such persons for whom another is extraña a la cosa juzgada. or differences. and the separation between restitutions. as well as different modes of procedure. of culpa which is known criminal cases because of their confused with the civil as aquiliana. al pronunciarse el fallo de 21 de party no longer desires to seek another responsibilities applicable to enterprises marzo. legitimamente reservada para despues according to the wording of the Penal del proceso. Articles 18 to 21 employees of establishments or pure and simple of the facts. that is to say. but it is pertinent and Seeing that the title of this obligation is misdemeanor upon civil rights requires necessary to point out to one of such different. materia unica sobre which are not pertinent and belong to the Civil Code does not coincide because que tenian jurisdiccion aquellos another scope) are derived. and it is so observed in judicial losses caused by the collision of the responsibilities arising from a crime. The injury caused by a felony or civil culpa. in default of those who are existio delito. that the companies or trains. mostrose does not eliminate the peculiar nature of parties render service. pero al declararse que no Such civil actions in the present case Code. for this reason.judice ante el Tribunal del Jurado. a culpasurrounded with a detailed comparison between the regard to theobligation. are guilty of felony sentenciada.

was not sub judice before the Tribunal the author of the act or at least. Principles of French Civil Law. esto es. contrary to justice and to the universal provisions on cuasi-delito or culpa extra. that it is aprendices) causan un daño. completamente inadmisible. but such assertion would be Spanish Civil Code is largely based and whose falta ajena? Asi parece a primera vista. nor was it the subject of a subsidiary to the principal action. but it remained intact when action for responsibility (of the maestro. La idea de que esa declaration of the non-existence of the Reformado" (Vol. The action against the imprudencia o de la negligencia del from taking part in the criminal case and principal is accessory in the sense that it padre. y cada uno responde de responsibility in question is imposed on 1903. daño. responsabilidad por un such action had been legitimately 735. La the occasion of a crime or fault. pp. referring to article 1384 of the universal. on which the impone una responsabilidad por una first sight. sino en la apariencia. en reserved till after the criminal realidad la responsabilidad se exige por prosecution. but because of The action can be brought directly impone con ocasion de un delito o culpa. in the first place. and not subsidiary. and contractual are similar to those of the Spanish contraria a la justicia y a la maxima that everyone is liable for those faults Civil Code. and it acciones u omisiones de aquellas is responsible. la ley del Jurado. 429. Is it saber. and inasmuch as the Compaña del another). it has already been shown that Spanish translation. del dueño o director del has reserved the right to exercise its implies the existence of a prejudicial act establecimiento. the cuasi-delito. por felony and the non-existence of the the responsibility of the employer is principal lo tanto. it seems undeniable that the committed by the employee. Is the responsibility which the Tribunal del Juradohad Cuestion 1. but not responsabilidad de que tratamos se because of the same. del tutor. responsibility arising from the crime. Es que realmente se fault of another person? It seems so at work on the French Civil Code. sino por imprudence or negligence of the father. del maestro. but it is not Cuando cualquiera de las personas que action for indemnification for the losses subsidiary in the sense that it can not be enumera el articulo citado (menores de and damages caused to it by the collision instituted till after the judgment against edad. 4.. Esta falta es la que la ley castiga. No hay. dependientes. says. 734. The French Civil Code which corresponds to article personales. pues. the presume que el padre.) hecho ajeno. negligencia para prevenir o evitar el Even if the verdict had not been that of (Laurent. In order to answer this question it is enforcement remain intact and is es subsidiaria? es principal? Para necessary to know. in his "Cuestionario del Codigo Civil un hecho propio. a jurist who has written a monumental el precepto legal. pp. etc. employer) is in itself a principal action. en que se funda true that there is a responsibility for the Laurent. incapacitados. el sentence. on not res judicata. acquittal. actions. La responsabilidad declared in article 1903 for the acts or jurisdiction. declares that responsabilidad sea subsidiaria es. that is to say. pero semejante afirmacion seria maxim that all faults are personal. 20. Vol. en primer lugar. there is greater reason for declarada en el articulo 1903 por las omissions of those persons for who one the civil obligation ex lege. 1. contestar a esta pregunta es necesario what the legal provision is based. without including the author causa del causi delito. de la Ferrocarril Cantabrico has abstained of the act. He writes: which was the sole subject matter upon Question No. segun la que las faltas son that can be imputed to him. Spanish Civil Code: aquellas que le son imputables. but because of the Amandi. el tutor. 430). 44 | P a g e . subsidiary or principal? becomes clearer that the action for its personas por las que se debe responder. han cometido una falta de the decision of March 21 was rendered. etc. the against the person responsible (for pero no por causa de ellos.

under article siendo este el unico fundamento del 21). Is this responsibility Supreme Tribunal. Esta Coming now to the sentences of the Supreme jurisdicciones bajo diferentes as pectos. therefore. by filed a civil action against the street car committed an act of negligence in not exception. VII. only apparent that there responsibility. The idea that such between minors and incapacitated negligence had been declared. according to the tenor of that la muerte de Ramon La fuente porque se responde solo de su propia articles." says in Vol. condonar a la compañia Electrica the responsibility should be understood Madrileña al pago del daño causado con Es decir. paying for damages in the amount of preventing or avoiding the damage. It is those persons with whom there is a 15. persons on the other. In that Whenever anyone of the persons deba responder. bond or tie which gives rise to the damages. of the teacher. pero en el orden civil. Doctrina y (article 19). the law presumes that the only for his own faults. guardian. al Español." siguio por el mismo hecho. this being the but he was acquitted. one is liable for the acts of company. 743: the civil law." case. have doctrine of article 1902. so the company appealed to the It is. 1910. ha de entenderse directa. Ramon Lafuente died as the result of enumerated in the article referred to having been run over by a street car owned by (minors. alleging violation of articles is a responsibility for the act of another. lo que no excluye. el Codigo principles above set forth: that a quasi. desconoce el valor y efectos culpa. proprietor or manager of the responsabilidad precisamente "por los One of the most important of those Spanish establishment. subsidiaria la segunda (articulos 20 y liability. teacher. but in the scheme of supuesto de que el Tribunal a quo. el concurso de la culpa articulo 1903. Referentes al Codigo Civil (articles 20 and 21). the Penal Code distinguishes judgment the non-existence of fault or one's own act. etc. in his "Digesto: Principios. one is not responsible for the "compañia Electric Madrileña de Traccion. subsidiary recurso se funda en el equivocado Jurisprudencia. que cierto que de este han conocido las dos motiva o razona la responsabilidad. en el caso del 1903 of the Civil Code. actos de aquellas personas de quienes se decisions is that of October 21. That is to say. and for the latter. apprentices) causes any the acts of others. therefore. and that an employer is. doctrina del articulo 1902. mas responsibility "for the acts of those juridicos de la sentencia absolutoria por excepcion. no responde de hechos ajenos." employees. The lower court awarded this fault that is condemned by the law. obligaciones civiles segun el articulo 45 | P a g e . but. declaring that the responsibility for the former is direct Considerando que el primer motivo del Oyuelos. se responde de la ajena persons for whom one should be deictada en la causa criminal que se respecto de aquellas personas con las responsible. etc. for precisely it imposes Izquierdo. p. because one is liable The conductor was prosecuted in a criminal case damage. that court has upheld the y como la de lo criminal declrao dentro subsidiaria? En el orden penal. persons on the one hand. independent from de delito por no haber mediado descuido directa la primera (articulo 19) y the civil responsibility arising from criminal o negligencia graves.000 pesetas. saying: completely inadmissible. incapacitated persons. in the case of article 1903. declarando and distinct legal institution. The Supreme responsibility is subsidiary is. es directa o es Tribunal of Spain. Thereupon. and other Court of Spain dismissed the appeal. direct or subsidiary? In the order of the 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code because by final in reality the responsibility exacted is for penal law. responsabilidad. de los limites de su competencia que el de esta clase distingue entre menores e delict or culpa extra-contractual is a separate hecho de que se trata no era constitutivo incapacitados y los demas. cuando es lo que media algun nexo o vinculo. the widow father. responsible for the negligent acts of his o negligencia no califacadas. guardian. primarily and directly fallo absolutorio. fuente de por el tenor del articulo que impone la employee. as direct.

1902 del Codigo, y que alcanzan, segun negligence which is not qualified, and is case, the taxi driver was found guilty of criminal
el 1903, netre otras perosnas, a los a source of civil obligations according negligence, so that if he had even sued for his
Directores de establecimientos o to article 1902 of the Civil Code, civil responsibility arising from the crime, he
empresas por los daños causados por affecting, in accordance with article would have been held primarily liable for civil
sus dependientes en determinadas 1903, among other persons, the damages, and Barredo would have been held
condiciones, es manifesto que la de lo managers of establishments or subsidiarily liable for the same. But the plaintiffs
civil, al conocer del mismo hehco baho enterprises by reason of the damages are directly suing Barredo, on his primary
este ultimo aspecto y al condenar a la caused by employees under certain responsibility because of his own presumed
compañia recurrente a la indemnizacion conditions, it is manifest that the civil negligence — which he did not overcome —
del daño causado por uno de sus jurisdiccion in taking cognizance of the under article 1903. Thus, there were two
empleados, lejos de infringer los same act in this latter aspect and in liabilities of Barredo: first, the subsidiary one
mencionados textos, en relacion con el ordering the company, appellant because of the civil liability of the taxi driver
articulo 116 de la Ley de Enjuciamiento herein, to pay an indemnity for the arising from the latter's criminal negligence;
Criminal, se ha atenido estrictamente a damage caused by one of its employees, and, second, Barredo's primary liability as an
ellos, sin invadir atribuciones ajenas a far from violating said legal provisions, employer under article 1903. The plaintiffs were
su jurisdiccion propia, ni contrariar en in relation with article 116 of the Law of free to choose which course to take, and they
lo mas minimo el fallo recaido en la Criminal Procedure, strictly followed preferred the second remedy. In so doing, they
causa. the same, without invading attributes were acting within their rights. It might be
which are beyond its own jurisdiction, observed in passing, that the plaintiff choose the
Considering that the first ground of the and without in any way contradicting more expeditious and effective method of relief,
appeal is based on the mistaken the decision in that cause. (Emphasis because Fontanilla was either in prison, or had
supposition that the trial court, in supplied.) just been released, and besides, he was probably
sentencing the Compañia Madrileña to without property which might be seized in
the payment of the damage caused by It will be noted, as to the case just cited: enforcing any judgment against him for
the death of Ramon Lafuente Izquierdo, damages.
disregards the value and juridical effects First. That the conductor was not sued in a civil
of the sentence of acquittal rendered in case, either separately or with the street car Third. That inasmuch as in the above sentence
the criminal case instituted on account company. This is precisely what happens in the of October 21, 1910, the employer was held liable
of the same act, when it is a fact that the present case: the driver, Fontanilla, has not been civilly, notwithstanding the acquittal of the
two jurisdictions had taken cognizance sued in a civil action, either alone or with his employee (the conductor) in a previous criminal
of the same act in its different aspects, employer. case, with greater reason should Barredo, the
and as the criminal jurisdiction declared employer in the case at bar, be held liable for
within the limits of its authority that the Second. That the conductor had been acquitted damages in a civil suit filed against him because
act in question did not constitute a of grave criminal negligence, but the Supreme his taxi driver had been convicted. The degree of
felony because there was no grave Tribunal of Spain said that this did not exclude negligence of the conductor in the Spanish case
carelessness or negligence, and this the co-existence of fault or negligence, which is cited was less than that of the taxi driver,
being the only basis of acquittal, it does not qualified, on the part of the conductor, under Fontanilla, because the former was acquitted in
no exclude the co-existence of fault or article 1902 of the Civil Code. In the present the previous criminal case while the latter was
46 | P a g e

found guilty of criminal negligence and was dejo de obtener al verse privado de empty receptacles referred to in the
sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of one servir los pedidos que se le habian hecho complaint should be returned to the
year and one day to two years of prision por los remitentes en los envases: consignors with wines and liquors; (2)
correccional. that when the said merchandise reached
Considerando que sobre esta base hay their destination, their delivery to the
(See also Sentence of February 19, 1902, which is necesidad de estimar los cuatro motivos consignee was refused by the station
similar to the one above quoted.) que integran este recurso, porque la agent without justification and
demanda inicial del pleito a que se with fraudulent intent, and (3) that the
In the Sentence of the Supreme Court of Spain, contrae no contiene accion que nazca del lack of delivery of these goods when they
dated February 14, 1919, an action was brought incumplimiento del contrato de were demanded by the plaintiff caused
against a railroad company for damages because transporte, toda vez que no se funda en him losses and damages of considerable
the station agent, employed by the company, had el retraso de la llegada de las mercancias importance, as he was a wholesale
unjustly andfraudulently, refused to deliver ni de ningun otro vinculo contractual vendor of wines and liquors and he
certain articles consigned to the plaintiff. The entre las partes contendientes, failed to realize the profits when he was
Supreme Court of Spain held that this action was careciendo, por tanto, de aplicacion el unable to fill the orders sent to him by
properly under article 1902 of the Civil Code, the articulo 371 del Codigo de Comercio, en the consignors of the receptacles:
court saying: que principalmente descansa el fallo
recurrido, sino que se limita a pedir la Considering that upon this basis there is
Considerando que la sentencia discutida reparaction de los daños y perjuicios need of upholding the four assignments
reconoce, en virtud de los hechos que producidos en el patrimonio del actor of error, as the original complaint did
consigna con relacion a las pruebas del por la injustificada y dolosa negativa del not contain any cause of action arising
pleito: 1.º, que las expediciones porteador a la entrega de las mercancias from non-fulfillment of a contract of
facturadas por la compañia ferroviaria a a su nombre consignadas, segun lo transportation, because the action was
la consignacion del actor de las vasijas reconoce la sentencia, y cuya not based on the delay of the goods nor
vacias que en su demanda relacionan responsabilidad esta claramente on any contractual relation between the
tenian como fin el que este las sancionada en el articulo 1902 del parties litigant and, therefore, article 371
devolviera a sus remitentes con vinos y Codigo Civil, que obliga por el siguiente of the Code of Commerce, on which the
alcoholes; 2.º, que llegadas a su destino a la Compañia demandada como ligada decision appealed from is based, is not
tales mercanias no se quisieron entregar con el causante de aquellos por applicable; but it limits to asking for
a dicho consignatario por el jefe de la relaciones de caracter economico y de reparation for losses and damages
estacion sin motivo justificado y con jurarquia administrativa. produced on the patrimony of the
intencion dolosa, y 3.º, que la falta de plaintiff on account of the unjustified
entrega de estas expediciones al tiempo Considering that the sentence, in and fraudulent refusal of the carrier to
de reclamarlas el demandante le question recognizes, in virtue of the facts deliver the goods consigned to the
originaron daños y perjuicios en which it declares, in relation to the plaintiff as stated by the sentence, and
cantidad de bastante importancia como evidence in the case: (1) that the invoice the carrier's responsibility is clearly laid
expendedor al por mayor que era de issued by the railroad company in favor down in article 1902 of the Civil
vinos y alcoholes por las ganancias que of the plaintiff contemplated that the Code which binds, in virtue of the next
47 | P a g e

article, the defendant company, because only subsidiarily to him. According to "Owners or directors of an
the latter is connected with the person this theory the plaintiff should have establishment or enterprise are
who caused the damage by relations of procured the arrest of the representative equally liable for the damages
economic character and by of the company accountable for not caused by their employees in the
administrative hierarchy. (Emphasis repairing the track, and on his service of the branches in which
supplied.) prosecution a suitable fine should have the latter may be employed or in
been imposed, payable primarily by him the performance of their duties.
The above case is pertinent because it shows that and secondarily by his employer.
the same act may come under both the Penal xxx xxx xxx
Code and the Civil Code. In that case, the action This reasoning misconceived the plan of
of the agent was unjustified and fraudulent and the Spanish codes upon this subject. "The liability referred to in this
therefore could have been the subject of a Article 1093 of the Civil Code makes article shall cease when the
criminal action. And yet, it was held to be also a obligations arising from faults or persons mentioned therein
proper subject of a civil action under article 1902 negligence not punished by the law, prove that they employed all the
of the Civil Code. It is also to be noted that it was subject to the provisions of Chapter II of diligence of a good father of a
the employer and not the employee who was Title XVI. Section 1902 of that chapter family to avoid the damage."
being sued. reads:
As an answer to the argument urged in
Let us now examine the cases previously decided "A person who by an act or this particular action it may be sufficient
by this Court. omission causes damage to to point out that nowhere in our general
another when there is fault or statutes is the employer penalized for
In the leading case of Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf and negligence shall be obliged to failure to provide or maintain safe
Pacific Co. (7 Phil., 359, 362-365 [year 1907]), repair the damage so done. appliances for his workmen. His
the trial court awarded damages to the plaintiff, obligation therefore is one 'not punished
a laborer of the defendant, because the latter had "SEC. 1903. The obligation by the laws' and falls under civil rather
negligently failed to repair a tramway in imposed by the preceeding than criminal jurisprudence. But the
consequence of which the rails slid off while iron article is demandable, not only answer may be a broader one. We
was being transported, and caught the plaintiff for personal acts and omissions, should be reluctant, under any
whose leg was broken. This Court held: but also for those of the persons conditions, to adopt a forced
for whom they should be construction of these scientific codes,
It is contended by the defendant, as its responsible. such as is proposed by the defendant,
first defense to the action that the that would rob some of these articles of
necessary conclusion from these collated "The father, and on his death or effect, would shut out litigants against
laws is that the remedy for injuries incapacity, the mother, is liable their will from the civil courts, would
through negligence lies only in a for the damages caused by the make the assertion of their rights
criminal action in which the official minors who live with them. dependent upon the selection for
criminally responsible must be made prosecution of the proper criminal
primarily liable and his employer held xxx xxx xxx offender, and render recovery doubtful
48 | P a g e

These provisions are in civil liability in penal actions has his employee would arise out of the harmony with those of articles 23 and survived the laws that fully regulated it contract of employment. the provisions of the Penal Code can not application of this distinction may be arising out of a crime that could be affect this action. the enforcement in the civil courts is not formed give rise to duties. A typical If the civil action alone was prosecuted. but clear light is thrown precedent to the enforcement of the civil offender is not to be regarded as derived upon their meaning by the provisions of right. and him for civil proceedings for the future. it cannot which. Where an individual negligence not punished by law. the mother of the 8 of 9-year-old child merged in the criminal nor even to be arisen from the interpretation of the Salvador Bona brought a civil action against suspended thereby. This construction found in the consequences of a railway enforced only on private complaint. Moreta. but the citation of The difficulty in construing the articles these articles suffices to show that the of the code above cited in this case In Manzanares vs. while that to the injured force in the Philippines. bystander would originate in the An examination of this topic might be negligent act itself. it is not required that the of offenses in articles 568 and 590 of the prevailing in criminal actions. person criminally liable whose liability of an employer arising out of his such a construction would be prosecution must be a condition relation to his employee who is the unnecessary. that to the 133 of our Penal Code on the same or has been abrogated by the American passengers out of the contract for subject. Under article 20 of the Penal Code the 1093. 1104 of the same code. though never in actual force in responsibility of an employer may be be said to fall within the class of acts these Islands. The acts to action. the consequence suppletory or explanatory effect. 821 (year civil liability was not intended to be appears from the briefs before us to have 1918). Even if injured party should seek out a third Penal Code. civil and criminal. or in so far as they which these articles are applicable are prosecuted jointly or separately. barred thereby unless by the election of springing from contract or quasi unless it had been waived by the party the injured person. 1103. Inasmuch as no contract. growing our of the accident in question. from negligence punished by the law. the penal action once started. are subject to articles 1101. According to article obligation under the civil law and its one another. It has been shown that the these articles had always stood alone.. who had been run over by an is civilly liable for a negligent act or applied to the comprehensive definition automobile driven and managed by the 49 | P a g e . however. His liability to extinguished. "fault or Moreta to recover damages resulting from the provided in the law. But where relations already 112. the renders it unnecessary to finally accident due to defective machinery penal action thereunder should be determine here whether this subsidiary supplied by the employer. whether civil remedy should be sought therewith. except as expressly words of article 1093. civil and criminal procedure now in passage. was formerly given a regarded as subsidiary in respect of unpunished by the law. the Law of Criminal Procedure of Spain within the meaning of articles 1902 and (Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal). might be prosecution.by reason of the strict rules of proof omission. but determine the existence of the criminal understood to be those not growing out while the penal action was pending the act from which liability arises. More than this." as death of the child. both classes of only while they are in process of and 1903 of the Civil Code. then breaches of those duties injured or been expressly reserved by criminal proceeding had been instituted. Under criminal actions against his employees of which are regulated by articles 1902 article 111 of this law. 38 Phil. and his of pre-existing duties of the parties to civil was suspended. carried much further.

V. This Court said in part: child was run over by the auto precisely clearly recognized. because he had met case could have been prosecuted in a criminal the automobile that she turned to run. But. 1925. this negligent act for which the wrongdoer could Although the trial judge made the accident could not have occurred if the have been prosecuted and convicted in a findings of fact hereinbefore outlined. that Solana Street northward. the automobile still negligence of the defendants. run over the body of the child. Ltd. House.. Ltd.. was so frightened by crossing Real Street. 54 Phil. brought when the religious procession was held. this circumstance shows the fact held in Tacloban. Purificacion Bernal. Leyte. the deplorable Street in front of the offices of the Tacloban accident which caused the death of the Electric & Ice Plant. he auto had been running at a slow speed. criminal case and for which. on appeal. House and Tacloban Electric & had a perfect right to be on the principal left. could have seen the child in Years later (in 1930) this Court had another the court depart from the stand taken by the act of crossing the latter street from occasion to apply the same doctrine. the V. even with regard to a at the entrance of Solana Street. owned by defendants If it were true that the defendant. No one could moved along a distance of about 2 April 10. Leyte. The child died that same night from the is to be believed that.defendant. and if the accident had occurred in Ice Plant. and the a civil action to recover damages for the child's There was nothing abnormal in allowing child's body had already been stretched death as a result of burns caused by the fault and the child to run along a few paces in out on the ground. had to stop his auto before It will be noticed that the defendant in the above slightly ahead of the rest. House who at the time of the tragic Real Street and had completely reached separate individually of a cuasi-delito or culpa occurrence was the holder of the franchise for a clear way on Solana Street. On the evening of advance of the mother.. The trial courts dismissed the action started to run his auto across said Real either of a criminal action with its consequent because of the contributory negligence of the Street and to continue its way along civil liability arising from a crime or of an plaintiffs. it Here is therefore a clear instance of the same act flowing. entering Solana Street. he should have entirely separate and independent civil action there was no contributory negligence. where hot water from the electric plant was opposite direction along Solana Street. was operating until he had fully crossed Civil Code. when he again of negligence being a proper subject-matter burns. at a high speed another municipality to attend the same. 327. the parents of the street of Tacloban. J. and adjusted the speed of the auto which he for fault or negligence under article 1902 of the allowed the parents P1. but vehicles which were going along the case because his negligence causing the death of unfortunately she fell into the street gutter latter street or were coming from the the child was punishable by the Penal Code. when an automobile appeared from coming from the southern part of Solana the opposite direction. the Good Friday procession was foresee the coincidence of an automobile meters. in child would not have occurred. on the evening such a way that after the automobile had five-year-old child. The mother and her child the sidewalk on the right to that on the and Enverso vs. in this jurisdiction. he could have been sued for this civil dismissal of the action because of the the moment of crossing Real Street and liability arising from his crime. The trial court rendered judgment Street from Real Street. After requiring the defendant to pay the plaintiff the without the defendant having blown the the procession the mother and the daughter with sum of P1. Fortunata Enverso with appearing and of a frightened child that the automobile entered Solana her daughter Purificacion Bernal had come from running and falling into a ditch filled 50 | P a g e . If these precautions had been two others were passing along Gran Capitan affirming the judgment. contributory negligence of the plaintiffs.000 as indemnity: This Court in horn. at conviction. in a northward It is from this point that a majority of direction. In Bernal the trial judge.000 in damages from J. after such a nevertheless was led to order the aside from the fact that the defendant. as the aquilianaunder the Civil Code has been fully and the electric plant. said in part: taken by the defendant. Thus. who was Street. The little girl. But this Court held.

or both. in not juris et de jure. still rule. The legal aspect of the case was discussed by this Court thus: The doctrine of the case just cited was followed by this Court in Cerf vs. The driving an automobile over the child. He over him after the selection.. damages to the plaintiff. to be used by him in carrying passengers prove that they employed all the damages.. [year 1915).. were duly licensed by the satisfaction of the court that in selection Government in their particular calling. It says: Civil Code must again be enforced. with hot water. if any. negligence and not on that of his servant. the defendant has clearly employer either in the selection of the for fault or negligence under article 1902 of the shown that he exercised the care and servant or employee. nevertheless this Court negligence on the part of the matter or awarded damages in an independent civil action As to selection. Article 1902 of the been caused by the negligence of the servant in liability shall cease. It is thus that although J. the presumption is overcome hours when the accident occurred and it and he is relieve from liability. House ground that he had shown that the exercised the apparent: (1) That when an injury is could have been criminally prosecuted for care of a good father of a family. does not operate as a steering gear. 359). The workmen were may be rebutted. is clear from the evidence that the defendant had no notice. either actual or This theory bases the responsibility of constructive. care and diligence of a good father of a The machine had been used but a few family. the action was for damages for the establishes liability in cases of Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co. Batangas.000 as family to avoid the damage. This Court said: presumption of law that there was his criminal negligence. 7 death of the plaintiff's daughter alleged to have negligence. good condition. during the fiesta of Tuy. Leynes was diligence of a good father of a ordered by the lower court to pay P1. and consequently. Litonjua and Leynes (30 Phil. and obtained the machine from a reputable (2) that presumption is juris tantum and garage and it was. It appeared contributory negligence of the child and that the cause of the mishap was a defect in the "The liability referred to in this her mother. thus caused by the negligence of a servant or reckless or simple negligence and not only overcoming the presumption of negligence employee there instantly arises a punished but also made civilly liable because of under article 1903. so far as appeared. and supervision he has exercised the and apparently thoroughly competent. The defendant Leynes had rented article shall cease when the bar to recovery. 624 Article 1903 of the Civil Code not only in the much debated case of Rakes vs. of the defective condition the master ultimately on his own of the steering gear. On appeal this Court this Court specifically applied article 1902 of the reversed the judgment as to Leynes on the From this article two things are Civil Code." It is most significant that in the case just cited. Medel (33 Phil. but in its strictest sense the automobile from the International Garage of persons mentioned therein could only result in reduction of the Manila. It follows necessarily likewise selected from a standard that if the employer shows to the garage. V. ([1907]). diligence of a good father of a family. The doctrine announced In Bahia vs. 37 [year 51 | P a g e . but also provides when the Phil. or in supervision Civil Code.

took place on June 8. court in the cases cited above. Cangco vs. 768. of the Civil Code. and that the appellee obtain payment. Litonjua and Lumber Co. [1918]. He is. to indemnify the City of Manila for and the negligent acts are committed The evidence shows that Captain Lasa at P1. therefore. held: about his secondary liability is negatived by the by providing that civil obligations six cases above set forth. Litonjua and Leynes was Cuison vs. and following the rule in Bahia vs.788. that said Co. 41) that: plaintiff brought an action for damages for the P1. vs. we are of good father of a family to prevent the damage. who were working for Ora. was a duly licensed captain. pleaded guilty to the crime of homicide liability. saying: large pieces of lumber fell from a truck and diligence of a good father of a family in pinned the boy underneath. in part.788. brought by Cuison for the death of his seven. applying article 1903 In Walter A. Two youths. Smith & Co. Cadwallader. which was operated by Phil. 55 Phil. reputation as a captain. Telesforo Binoya and with the doctrines laid down by this way.. there is no escaping the conclusion Francisco Bautista. We study driven an automobile. 38 Phil. 624. In the latter case. Some overcome by the exercise of the care and case was governed by the Penal Code. instantly killing selecting Captain Lasa. was demolition of its wharf.. authorized from Eustaquio. 52 defendant as a public vehicle.. the complaint alleged not on that of his servant. This Court held. on the authority arising from crimes or misdemeanors The basis of civil law liability is of these cases. that this way to school with his sister Marciana. This Court held (p. the City of Manila filed an to navigate and direct a vessel of any action against the Manila Electric Company to Another case which followed the decision tonnage.. This being so. The main defense was that Norton & Harrison Co.. in relation to the Penal Code. the opinion that the presumption of The lower court rendered judgment in favor of year-old son Moises. The Penal Code in easily Co. and the that the provisions of the Penal Code an employee of defendant Norton & Harrison defendant is therefore absolved from all govern.1915]). motorman was a misdemeanor falling theory bases the liability of the master under article 604 of the Penal Code. with subsidiary imprisonment in case while the servant is engaged in his the time the plaintiff's wharf collapsed of insolvency. 18 (year 1930). Manila Railroad first. primarily and directly responsible shall be governed by the provisions of not respondent superior but the in damages under article 1903. A collision between a automobile struck and damaged the plaintiff's truck of the City of Manila and a street car of the motorcycle. understandable language authorizes the through reckless negligence and were sentenced determination of subsidiary liability. The ultimately on his own negligence and act of the motorman was not a wrongful 52 | P a g e . 517 (year 1930) the The truck was damaged in the amount of Leynes. This Court. This Court. acts of his servant where he is the owner defendant. Cadwallader Gibson Manila Electric Co. Let us now take up the Philippine decisions that the defendant's servant had so negligently (Bahia vs. 586 (year 1928). This article 1902. the motorman. The little boy was on his liability against the defendant has been the plaintiff. said in part (p. contracted his services because of his subsidiarily liable.. City of Manila vs. 30 relied upon by the defendant. the defendant had exercised the diligence of a The latter case was an action for damages C. accordingly. applying articles 1902 It is. seen that the defendant's theory The Civil Code negatives its application and 1903. in accordance With this preliminary point out of the him. 526): He was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine or director of a business or enterprise of P900. 1925.27. Sixto Eustaquio... claiming that the defendant was in Bahia vs. Manila Electric Co..Litonjua and Leynes [1915].) Phil. 55 Phil.27. Unable to collect the indemnity master's employment as such owner. The conviction of the relationship of pater familias. according to F. which had been struck prosecuted for the crime of damage to property The master is liable for the negligent by the steamer Helen C belonging to the and slight injuries through reckless imprudence.

and the responsibility for cuasi- selection and training of its servants to the subsidiary liability of the defendant as delito or culpa aquiliana under the Civil Code. the Penal predicated on an entirely different theory. involved was also civil liability arising from a are offered to meet the argument we are of opinion and so hold. 75). In other words. which is governed by the Penal master had exercised all diligence in the of P1. primary liability under article 1903 of the Civil because that decision illustrates the principle Code. Manila Electric Co. while in the case at bar.000. or negligent act or omission not article 1903 of the Civil Code and not on his The above case is also extraneous to the theory punishable by law. 327). A Civil Code. between civil liability arising from criminal of Appeals based its decision in the present case negligence (governed by the Penal Code) and on the defendant's primary responsibility under responsibility for fault or negligence under 53 | P a g e . is of the defendant's subsidiary liability under the Civil Code. trial judge. Accordingly. as pointed out by the motorman in the employ of the Manila Electric In trying to apply the two cases just referred to. (55 Phil. is the separate individuality of cuasi- not applicable to the subsidiary civil delitos or culpa aquiliana under the Civil Code. Hence. it may be said set forth. Penal Code. might or might not be to a civil action diligence of a good father of a family in selecting either as a part of or predicated on the motorman. any different ruling would Company had been convicted o homicide by counsel for the defendant has failed to recognize permit the master to escape scot-free by simple negligence and sentenced. conviction for a crime or misdemeanor. the case of action there had for its purpose the enforcement Code and not with article 1903 of the City of Manila vs. effect that article 0902 of the Civil Code established in article 1903 of the Civil should be disregarded and codal articles Code for all who have acted with the The foregoing authorities clearly demonstrate 1093 and 1903 applied. it is as inapplicable as the two advanced during our deliberations to the the exemption from civil liability cases above discussed. An action was then brought to enforce Code. to pay the heirs of the deceased the sum from a crime. supra. among other the distinction between civil liability arising simply alleging and proving that the things. Suffice it to say that the question further that the statements here made In view of the foregoing considerations.. In other words. We have already seen that this is a proper that the employer's primary responsibility under xxx xxx xxx and independent remedy. This from a criminal act of his employee. It is not clear how the above case could support liability provided in article 20 of the Specifically they show that there is a distinction the defendant's proposition.. because the Court Penal Code. The defendant and has likewise failed to give the importance to good defense to a strictly civil action. (1) that crime. But this Court held: Onrubia (46 Phil. because the obligation connected up with the Penal criminal negligence. whereas the defendant's primary and direct responsibility is a case of criminal negligence out of foundation of the decision of the Court of under article 1903 of the Civil Code. therefore.. prevent the damage. and therefore claimed exemption The defendant-petitioner also cites Francisco vs. the civil subsidiary liability arising from Fontanilla's of the defendant in the instant case. That would be a employer under the Penal Code. is that the case Arambulo vs.) diligence of a good father of a family. In fact. article 1903 of the Civil Code is different in character from his subsidiary liability under the Our deduction. Indeed. relates to the Penal Code and not to the is another case invoked by the defendant. the Code affirms its jurisdiction while the is the subsidiary liability of an employer arising plaintiff's cause of action is based on the Civil Code negatives its jurisdiction. Manila Electric Co. That case need not be (By way of parenthesis. which Penal Code. the which civil liability arises and not a case Appeals in the present case is the employer's above case destroys the defendant's contention of civil negligence. from civil liability. but attempted to show that it had exercised the the latter type of civil action.

which is based confidence in the principal or director. according to the make defendant's liability effective. but can be proved by a It is the masters or employers who principally announcing doctrines that have been little preponderance of evidence. required. to hold that there is only one way to for their negligence. proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is primary and direct responsibility of employers under article 1903 of the Civil Code. others for their poor selection and all to 1910 of the Civil Code refer only to fault or Thirdly.articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code. liability arising from a crime under the Penal origin and such full-grown development unnecessary. then. at least. and that is. 7." ("become as one personality by the 54 | P a g e . to sue the driver and exhaust his (the latter's) responsibility should fall upon the principal or the legal institution of culpa aquiliana would property first. "they should punishes not only reckless but also simple ibi remedium. If we were to hold that articles 1902 weakness. while in a civil case. above cited render it inescapable to conclude that the employer — in this case the defendant. Death or injury to persons and damage to cumbersome method of obtaining relief." And according to Manresa. 747) that before third about a situation so absurd and anomalous. it should be said that the petitioner — is primarily and directly liable case. it being a matter of common persons the employer and employee "vienen a are we. Secondly. 2nd Ed. person who could not exercise such selection property through any degree of negligence — there is such a remedy under our laws. in a civil action under articles 1902 to 1910 of the they should guarantee the latter's careful Civil Code. and that the literal meaning of the law to smother and Why. 12. preponderance of and their presumed negligence are principles evidence is sufficient to make the defendant pay calculated to protect society. Ubi jus of others. reproach themselves. there would be many conduct for the personnel and patrimonial safety Firstly. dispose of this case. In such cases. Thus. the Revised Penal Code in article 365 instances of unvindicated civil wrongs. indemnified only through the principle of civil on the primary and direct responsibility of the p. por refundicion disposed to uphold the letter that killeth rather similar public conveyance usually do not have de la del dependiente en la de quien le emplea y than the spirit that giveth life. some for their negligence. There are numerous cases of employees should be carefully chosen and invoked should ordinarily be sufficient to criminal negligence which can not be shown supervised in order to avoid injury to the public. But inasmuch as we are beyond reasonable doubt. which is construing the laws. to find the accused guilty in a criminal At this juncture. As Theilhard has said. It is but right that inappropriate to indicate their foundations. Oyuelos says in the work impute to the lawmaker any intention to bring indicated by the defendant is wasteful and already cited (Vol. the reap the profits resulting from the services of understood in the past.) Many jurists also base this liability arising from a crime. what sphere would remain for cuasi. but there and who used such employee because of his even the slightest — would have to be is also a more expeditious way. 622. Otherwise. or a separate responsibility for fault or as culpa aquiliana or cuasi-delito. because the procedure the agent. p. justice. should the plaintiff be required in all the same negligent act may produce either a civil render almost lifeless a principle of such ancient cases to go through this roundabout. authors. the authorities 1910 of the Spanish Civil Code. and probably useless procedure? In Code. We will not use sufficient means with which to pay damages. primary responsibility of the employer on the affairs. Workmen and The legal provisions." (Vol. "It is much more equitable and just that such literal import of article 1093 of the Civil Code. it might not be defendant can and should be made responsible these servants and employees. Our view of the law is more likely to facilitate principle of representation of the principal by delito or culpa aquiliana? We are loath to remedy for civil wrongs. courts have endeavored to negligence under articles 1902 to 1910 of the conserved and made enduring in articles 1902 to shorten and facilitate the pathways of right and Civil Code. and not upon the injured life. in the interpretation of the laws. Still more concretely. In such a state of defendant under article 1903 of the Civil Code. knowledge that professional drivers of taxis and ser como una sola personalidad. utiliza. True. and cases already in damages. Nor productive of delay. negligence not punished by law. would be tantamount to director who could have chosen a careful and have very little scope and application in actual compelling the plaintiff to follow a devious and prudent employee.

teacher. which has given rise to the CASE): 1. not depending on the issues. C. Whenever Instance of Rizal. so that its waters may no DECISION OF LOWER COURTS employees. CFI. 2. In the Navotas.merging of the person of the employee in that of limitations and results of a criminal prosecution. observations acquire a peculiar force and counsel. there was a head. correccional. 1939. with costs against the defendant- provisions of both the Penal Code and the Civil petitioner. by negligence of Pedro Fontanilla. because of the broad sweep of the affirmed. own natural channel. the longer be diverted into that of a crime under the (CRIMINAL CASE): law presumes that the father. and one of its passengers. Ozaeta and Paras. suffered injuries from responsibility for fault or negligence under to say. efficacious redress. aquiliana. FACTS: useless and nugatory the more expeditious and responsible under article 1903 of the Civil Code At about half past one in the morning of May 3. him primarily and directly. This will. CA: affirmed the sentence of the lower court him who employs and utilizes him. incapacitated persons. brought an significance when it comes to motor accidents. 16-year- the same. proprietor or manager of the was filed against Fontanilla in the Court of First rigor. apprentices) causes any damage. the judgment of the the Malate Taxicab and employer of Pedro Court of Appeals should be and is hereby Fontanilla.000.") All these and entirely directed by the party wronged or his in the criminal case.Rizal – Fontanilla was convicted and Penal Code. damages for the death of Faustino Garcia caused discussed. The court in the criminal case One is not responsible for the acts of others. 1. action in the Court of First Instance of Manila and there is need of stressing and accentuating against Fausto Barredo as the sole proprietor of the responsibility of owners of motor vehicles. guardian. A criminal action articles 1902 et seq.J. CA: reduced the damages to 1. thus making by invoking articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. fault that is condemned by the law. anyone of the persons enumerated in the article quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana to flow on its referred to (minors.000. and for the further reason that an independent granted the petition that the right to bring a because one is liable only for his own faults. In view of the foregoing. CFI – Manila: Fausto Barredo is liable in overlapping or concurrence of spheres already Yulo. we are asked to help perpetuate collision between a taxi of the Malate Taxicab Yes. but not because of practice and to restore the principle of overturned. It is this year and one day to two years ofprision re-establishes an ancient and additional remedy. Fourthly. it has nevertheless rendered practically Pedro thus making him primarily and directly. guardian. have committed an act of negligence in not sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of one better safeguarding of private rights because it preventing or avoiding the damage.. practice to seek damages only by virtue of the civil responsibility arising from a crime. this civil action. this usual course. which is civil action against Fausto Barredo. on the road between Malabon and aquiliana or culpa extra-contractual.on RULING: present case. and for lack of understanding of the JJ. ISSUE: DIGEST Whether the plaintiffs may bring this separate forgetting that there is another remedy.. It is high time we caused the stream of establishment. it is believed. parents of the deceased on March 7. Province of Rizal.delito. The carretela was occasion of a crime or fault. of the Civil Code to its full father. is more likely to secure adequate and Severino Garcia and Timotea Almario. that is old boy Faustino Garcia. a taxi driver character and efficacy of the action for culpa employed by Barredo in the amount of 2. etc. responsible under Although this habitual method is allowed by our article 1903 of the Civil Code as an employer of laws. But we believe it is high time driven by Pedro Fontanilla and a carretela The responsibility in question is imposed on the we pointed out to the harm done by such guided by Pedro Dimapalis. DECISION OF LOWER COURTS (CIVIL Code on this subject. effective remedy based on culpa as an employer of Pedro Fontanilla 1936. the imprudence or negligence of the which he died two days later. of the teacher. Moran. 55 | P a g e . but because of thecuasi. make for the etc. concur. separate civil action be reserved. there has grown up a common 2.

appellee. second. they were acting within their rights. only preponderance of evidence is required another when there is fault or negligence shall be obliged to repair the damage so done. they employed all the diligence of a good father 1. Principles of French 56 | P a g e . Civil Code. that the plaintiff which. This theory bases the liability be employed or in the performance of their gives rise to the responsibility. No.R. and. The obligation imposed by the civil responsibility. "The liability referred to in this article shall cease delict or culpa extra-contractual is a when the persons mentioned therein prove that Crimes under penal code separate and distinct legal institution. that it is subsidiary minors who live with them. xxx xxx xxx and not on that of his servant. and on his death or incapacity. 1903. instituted till after the judgment against the mother. but. In could have been prosecuted and merely repairs the damage (includes both so doing.. be seized in enforcing any judgment against him Republic of the Philippines for damages. but also for those the sense that it implies the existence of a of the persons for whom they should be prejudicial act committed by the employee. The recognized. It convicted in a criminal case and for reckless and simple negligence) might be observed in passing. and besides. one is liable for the acts of those not respondent superior but the relationship service of the branches in which the latter may persons with whom there is a bond or tie which ofpater familias. preceeding article is demandable. in this jurisdiction. even with regard to a 1. or had just been released. and independent civil action for fault or 4. SUPREME COURT Section 1902 of that chapter reads: "A person who by an act or omission causes damage to Manila 4. the action for xxx xxx xxx "Owners or directors of an responsibility (of the employer) is in itself a establishment or enterprise are equally liable for principal action. and they preferred the second remedy. include all acts in which “any kind of fault or choose the more expeditious and effective have been sued for this civil liability negligence intervenes” method of relief. the presumption is he was probably without property which might overcome and he is relieved from liability. by Civil Law) The basis of civil law liability is the damages caused by their employees in the exception. responsible. 1918 The action against the principal is accessory in personal acts and omissions. and that the same act of negligence being a proper act an employer is. affect public interest independent from the civil responsibility of a family to avoid the damage.being the doctrine of article 1902. there were two liabilities of Barredo: first." 2. L-12191 October 14. under article 1903 of the subject-matter either of a criminal action 3. primarily and directly with its consequent civil liability arising are punished only if there is a penal law clearly responsible for the negligent acts of his from a crime or of an entirely separate covering them employee. when there is exercise of the care and diligence in prison. he could 3. is liable for the damages caused by the MANILA RAILROAD CO. defendant- author of the act or at least. EN BANC Note: not all violations of the penal law produce "SEC.A quasi. Thus. is not subsidiary in the sense that it can not be "The father. Code. to the principal action. the vs. Penal Code punishes or corrects the criminal arising from criminal liability. (Laurent. of a good father of a family. but it JOSE CANGCO. by means of indemnification. Barredo's primary Code has been fully and clearly liability as an employer under article 1903. because Fontanilla was either arising from his crime. take. after such a conviction. of the master ultimately on his own negligence duties. Only of private concern plaintiffs were free to choose which course to negligent act for which the wrongdoer 2. plaintiff-appellant. not as broad as quasi-delicts because crimes Civil Code. proof beyond reasonable doubt is required negligence under article 1902 of the Civil Thus. not only for G. the the subsidiary one because of the civil liability of separate individually of acuasi- Culpa aquiliana / Cuasi-delito the taxi driver arising from the latter's criminal delito or culpa aquiliana under the Civil negligence.

It appears that after the unsatisfactory. founding his action upon second class-car where he was riding and. the city of Manila where he worked. his exit through the door.25 in the form of medical and of the defendant railroad company. They were hearing in the Court of First Instance. although negligence was gradient some distance away from the so placed of melons and the edge of platform. above stated. 1915. nevertheless. He lived in the pueblo of San Mateo. also. When the train had proceeded a plaintiff appealed. named Emilio Zuñiga. the plaintiff arose from his seat in the defendant company. and a large lot had been brought to the station alighting from the company's trains. amputated higher up near the shoulder. which entitled accident occurred were difficult to discern Upon August 31. January car. and in on a dark night. where his right arm was badly amputated. The explanation of the presence of a sack of the negligence of the servants and employees of making. It P25. which is located upon the line The accident occurred between 7 and 8 o'clock the sum of P790. and it appeared that the with a sack of watermelons with the result that injuries which he had received were very serious. in the appears in evidence that the plaintiff expended province of Rizal. city of Manila to recover damages of the 20. and drew therefrom his conclusion platform which begins to rise with a moderate The testimony shows that this row of sacks was to the effect that. J. got these objects in the darkness is readily to be coach and was therefore precluded form off the same car. Jose Cangco. supplied by the company.Ramon Sotelo for appellant. Judgment was accordingly entered where the platform begins to rise from the level in favor of the defendant company. was in plaintiff alighted from the train the car moved to another hospital where a second operation the employment of Manila Railroad Company in forward possibly six meters before it came to a was performed and the member was again the capacity of clerk. but one or both of his feet came in contact unconscious condition. objects on the platform where the pass. attributable to the defendant by reason of the company's office and extends along in front of and it is clear that the fall of the plaintiff was due fact that the sacks of melons were so placed as to said office for a distance sufficient to cover the to the fact that his foot alighted upon one of obstruct passengers passing to and from the length of several coaches. the plaintiff himself had down another passenger.: rolled from the platform and was drawn under examination was made and his arm was the moving car. took his melons on the platform where the plaintiff the defendant in placing the sacks of melons position upon the steps of the coach. 1915. with a monthly wage of full stop. and as the railroad station was surgical fees and for other expenses in coming daily by train to the company's office in lighted dimly by a single light located some connection with the process of his curation. At the for the shipment to the market. His statement that he failed to see failed to use due caution in alighting from the also an employee of the railroad company. 57 | P a g e . his feet slipped from under him and he fell He was therefore brought at once to a certain violently on the platform. His body at once hospital in the city of Manila where an FISHER. and the plaintiff was then carried this litigation the plaintiff. found the facts substantially as at the San Mateo station there is a cement piled on the platform in a row one upon another. he used a distance away. little farther the plaintiff Jose Cangco stepped off The plaintiff was drawn from under the car in an Kincaid & Hartigan for appellee. On the side of the train where passengers alight contained in numerous sacks which has been the trial judge. his Honor. Upon the occasion in question. The result of this operation was At the time of the occurrence which gave rise to crushed and lacerated. and the of the ground. alighting safely at the point credited. the platform. he instituted this him to ride upon the company's trains free of especially to a person emerging from a lighted proceeding in the Court of First Instance of the charge. recovering. As the train slowed these melons at the moment he stepped upon cars. seizing the alighted is found in the fact that it was the upon the platform and leaving them so placed as upright guardrail with his right hand for customary season for harvesting these melons to be a menace to the security of passenger support.

that article relates 7 Phil. As contractual. then breaches of those 1903 of the Civil Code is not applicable to duties are subject to article 1101. substantive and independent. but only to and 1104 of the same code. 67) in his commentaries respect to damages occasioned by the negligence railroad company were guilty of negligence in upon articles 1103 and 1104 of the Civil Code. the contributory negligence. he is not liable for the direct and immediate. if Upon this point the Court said: liability of the master is personal and direct. whatever done within the scope legal viewpoint from that presumptive not growing out of pre-existing duties of of his employment or not. Gulf and Pacific Co. Atlantic. whether springing from contract injured. Gulf and Pacific Co. to-wit. unskillful servant. and that the obligation to respond for of his employment causes the injury. in applicable are understood to be those acts of the latter. which. . p." hands of a servant whom he knows to be responsibility of the defendant company and the ignorant of the method of managing such a contributory negligence of the plaintiff should be In the Rakes case (supra) the decision of this vehicle. if the damage done by responsibility for the negligence of its servants. the parties to one another. But where the servant does not amount to a breach of the imposed by article 1903 of the Civil Code. the primary obligation already existing . while acting within the scope carriage. is liable for the damage thereby occasioned which of itself constitutes the source of an which imposes upon all persons who by their unless recovery is barred by the plaintiff's own obligation between persons not formerly fault or negligence. is not based. differing essentially. The Manresa says (vol. that proof shows only to culpa aquiliana and not to culpa that the responsibility has never existed. as in the above stated. In commenting upon article would be liable in every case and cause of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. and case of Rakes vs. without 58 | P a g e ... problem it is necessary that each of these as an accident in the performance of an One who places a powerful automobile in the conceptions of liability.. Article or quasi-contract. That is to say. its liability is and 1903 of the Civil Code] are direction of the servant. 359).It can not be doubted that the employees of the Manresa (vol. But. The obligation to make good It is important to note that the foundation of the not applicable to acts of negligence which the damage arises at the very instant that the legal liability of the defendant is the contract of constitute the breach of a contract. p. This distinction is of the utmost importance. Atlantic. In resolving this connected by any legal tie" and culpa considered obligation of making good the damage caused. servant relieves the master from liability for the technical form of expression. upon the principle plaintiff to fall as he alighted from the train. It is not accurate to say that proof of diligence obligations arising ex contractu. do injury to another. Rep. that their presence caused the recognized by this Court in its decision in the English Common Law. 8. . rep. from the breach of that contract by reason if the master has not been guilty of any of the failure of defendant to exercise due care in The acts to which these articles [1902 negligence whatever in the selection and its performance. 68) the liability arising liability. which relations already formed give rise to contract between the master and the person can be rebutted by proof of the exercise of due duties.) latter's acts — on the contrary. and care in the selection and control of the extra-contractual obligations — or to use the (Rakes vs. the master that they therefore constituted an effective legal Phil. court was made to rest squarely upon the which makes him liable for all the consequences proposition that article 1903 of the Civil Code is of his imprudence. 8. It 1093 Manresa clearly points out the difference unconditionally — but upon the principle necessarily follows that the defendant company between "culpa. under the Spanish law. (7 ofrespondeat superior — if it were. which was also not bound by contract. 1103. is himself guilty of an act of negligence separately examined. announced in article 1902 of the Civil Code. of their employees to persons to whom they are piling these sacks on the platform in the manner clearly points out this distinction. care in their selection and supervision. at all. is. . The the damage which plaintiff has suffered arises. in from extra-contractual culpa is always based certain cases imposed upon employers with upon a voluntary act or omission which. 359 at 365.

but by mere negligence or From this article two things are complete accord with the authoritative opinion inattention. and he incurs no liability (2) that that presumption is juris On the other hand. has caused damage to another. may be rebutted. or in supervision omission. 12. measure of the corresponding legal duties.) negligence. follows necessarily that if the employer omissions cause damages which amount to the True it is that under article 1903 of the Civil shows to the satisfaction of the court breach of a contact.. is in this character and those which arise from 59 | P a g e . certain members of society to others. is not based upon a mere Code the law creates a presumption that he has that in selection and supervision he has presumption of the master's negligence in their been negligent in the selection or direction of his exercised the care and diligence of a selection or control. The Court. his servant. said: that the last paragraph of article 1903 merely fundamental distinction between obligations of establishes a rebuttable presumption. in interpreting This theory bases the responsibility of Every legal obligation must of necessity be extra- identical provisions. Extra-contractual Code. thereby performs his duty servant or employee. members of society. and proof of exercise of the servant. to the existence of those rights imposes upon all other defendant to respond for the damage caused by effect that in case of extra. by his act or with equal diligence. The breach of these general the carelessness of his employee while acting contractual culpa based upon negligence. of course. and directs them employer either in selection of the repair the damage and the one who. but the presumption is rebuttable and good father of a family. 611) that the master who exercises all possible care in the caused by the negligence of a servant or liability created by article 1903 is imposed by selection of his servant. which the theory of the extra-contractual liability of the The opinion there expressed by this Court. This is the notable omission of those mutual duties which civilized (Ca rmona vs. Litonjua and Leynes. the negligence of the master. 624). necessary that there shall have been some fault inattention. It is. give rise to after citing the last paragraph of article 1903 of attributable to the defendant personally. the presumption utmost diligence and care in this regard does not yield to proof of due care and diligence in this is overcome and he is relieved from relieve the master of his liability for the breach respect. The supreme court of Porto Rico. if productive of injury. other than contractual. the liability of masters and whatever if. has held that these articles are applicable his own negligence and not on that of obligation has its source in the breach or to cases of extra-contractual culpa exclusively. when such acts or employment. A apparent: (1) That when an injury is of Manresa. 20 Porto Rico Reports. in striking from these relations. it is duties whether due to willful intent or to mere within the scope of his employment. even within the scope of their consequently. who says (vol. The legal Court in its decision in the case of negligence of the servant in conclusively rights of each member of society constitute the Bahia vs. as found in the Porto Rico the master ultimately on contractual or contractual. (30 Phil. rep.willful intent. such third person suffer damage. peculiarity of the Spanish law of society imposes upon it members. of contrast to the American doctrine that. to third persons to whom he is bound by no over him after the selection. by reason of the negligence of his tantum and not juris et de jure. or both. generally This distinction was again made patent by this in relations with strangers. The the Civil Code. and employers for the negligent acts or omissions of servants. liability. or which arise 215. It their servants or agents. taking into employee there instantly arises a reason of the breach of the duties inherent in the consideration the qualifications they should presumption of law that there was special relations of authority or superiority possess for the discharge of the duties which it is negligence on the part of the master or existing between the person called upon to his purpose to confide to them. and contractual ties. p. which was an action brought upon the mainly negative in character. the embraced in the concept of status. was the cause of it. and an obligation to indemnify the injured party. of his contract. Cuesta.

the anomalous result contractual obligation it is the wrongful or burden of proof rests upon plaintiff to prove the would be that person acting through the medium negligent act or omission itself which creates negligence — if he does not his action fails. [1907 ed. which involves the arising from negligence. or of his servants or agents. parties when entering into the contractual or refused to perform the contract. reasonable to permit the bank to relieve itself of This moral responsibility may consist in having liability for the breach of its contract to return failed to exercise due care in the selection and As it is not necessary for the plaintiff in an action the collateral upon the payment of the debt by control of one's agents or servants. 76]). and it would no legal fiction. breach was due to the negligent conduct of selection and direction of the clerk? occupy a position of dependency with respect to defendant or of his servants. a suing damages arising from the breach of their regard to the lack of moral culpability. The legislature which adopted our Civil contractual obligation. it is competent for the legislature to the contract and of its nonperformance is the watch. so as to creditor should assume the burden of contracts if caused by negligent acts as such include responsibility for the negligence of those proof of its existence. in a case of negligence doubt be true in most instances that reasonable exercise an absolute or limited control over which presupposes the existence of a care had been taken in selection and direction of them. be in fact the actual cause of the breach. 1894. it is not necessary for him to lost by reason of the negligence of some clerk — to cases in which moral culpability can be prove negligence. necessary for plaintiff to specify in his pleadings its destruction.contract. it is This distinction between culpa aquiliana. obligation upon which plaintiff's cause of action invoked as a means of discharging the liability 1896. 71 employed by the bank. If one delivers a valuable the breach of the voluntary duty assumed by the plaintiff.) In the decisions 60 | P a g e . if the creditor such servants. November 20. it is not and the bailee. Proof of duty to exercise due care in the preservation of omission. . would it be just and directly imputed to the persons to be charged. he is unquestionably liable. 1896. on the contrary. as obvious that proof on the part of defendant that the source of an obligation. article 1903 relates. without case of extra-contractual culpa. rests upon the fact that in cases of non. to extend that liability. p. would be in a better position than relations the vinculum exists independently of undertaking by defendant for the benefit of those acting in person. even though such the person made liable for their conduct. p. whose negligence caused the injury? If such a whom such an obligation is imposed is morally theory could be accepted. and culpa The position of a natural or juridical person who the negligence or omission of his servants or contractual as a mere incident to the has undertaken by contract to render service to agents caused the breach of the contract would performance of a contract has frequently been another. is wholly different from that to which not constitute a defense to the action. If the recognized by the supreme court of Spain. while on through agents or servants. When the sources of the negligence of servants or agents could be (Sentencias of June 27. it is logical that in would enjoy practically complete immunity from public policy. by reason of their status. by a upon which his action is based. (Manresa. and December 13. juridical persons culpable. or in the for the breach of a contract to show that the proving that due care had been exercised in the control of persons who. for reasons of As a general rule . whether of act or defendant. and it is alleged that plaintiff has failed watch to watchmaker who contract to repair it. the arising from contract. vol. whether the breach of the contract is due to Would it be logical to free him from his liability With respect to extra-contractual obligation willful fault or to negligence on the part of the for the breach of his contract. by a personal negligent act causes relation. and they are liability — with certain well-defined exceptions broken. if he shows that it was his servant elect — and our Legislature has so elected — sufficientprima facie to warrant a recovery.. 8. as the only fact juridical persons can of necessity only act person who acts or mission are imputable. to others who are in a position to the contrary. whereas in contractual when the facts averred show a contractual contracts. But of agents or servants in the performance of their the vinculum juris. If one delivers securities to a Code has elected to limit extra-contractual shows that it exists and that it has been banking corporation as collateral. depends is a negligent act or omission. . or.

. driving defendant's automobile in which as though founded in tort rather than as based defendant was riding at the time.. The act defendant had been guilty of negligence in its was not liable for the damages caused by the complained of must be continued in the failure to exercise proper discretion in the negligence of his driver. The plaintiff's action arose ex contractu. but that negligence of defendant's servants in the course express ground of the decision in this case was defendant sought to avail himself of the of the performance of a contract of towage. therefore that in its decision carry out the undertakings imposed by by the negligence of defendant's chauffeur while Yamada case. overcome. In that case the court presence of the owner for such length of direction of the servant. 374). the court treated plaintiff's action the contracts . but of damages Rep. points out (vol. we do not think that the provisions latter the law creates a rebuttable presumption These are not cases of injury of articles 1902 and 1903 are applicable to the of negligence in the selection or direction of caused. saying: of a contract made between it and the individuals and public enterprise. and that in the particular case the obligation. whether the breach of the duty were to defendant had been negligent in the be regarded as constituting culpa employment of the driver. plaintiff sued the defendant to caused by the defendant's failure to recover damages for the personal injuries caused It is evident. . its essential damages caused by the loss of a barge belonging constituted a breach of the duty to him arising characteristics are identical. although he discussed upon this theory. by fault or negligence. plaintiff. Viewed from the show that in no case has the court ever decided was present at the time. Underwood (27 Phil. liable for the injury suffered by been adduced in the trial court that the makes the driver's acts his own.. saying: standpoint of the defendant the practical result that the negligence of the defendant's servants must have been the same in any event. . . upon article 1903. pp. such presumption of negligence had not been as those to which article 1902 of the In the case of Chapman vs. 29 and 69) whether Rep. Compania Maritima (6 Phil. 8). 29. the plaintiff sued the defendant for that the injury complaint of by plaintiff undertaking obligation. commented on the fact that no evidence had time that the owner by his acquiescence. in dealing with the liability of a provisions of article 1902 of the Civil Code as a court held. Rep. but shows that the questions of law were in fact done by the negligent acts of their servants will held that the master was not liable. pp." servants. without any pre-existing case.. it appeared that to plaintiff which was allowed to get adrift by the out of the contract of transportation. and Bachrach Garage & Taxicab Co. citing Manresa (vol. David (5 Phil. . It also affirmatively appeared that 663). the court held that the owner of a carriage to desist therefrom. and A brief review of the earlier decision of this court found that the damages were caused by the an examination of the pleadings and of the briefs involving the liability of employers for damage negligence of the driver of the automobile.. to observe them and to direct the driver injury. aquiliana or culpa contractual. . it is true that the court rested its negligence occurs an incident in the course of In the case of Baer Senior & Co's conclusion as to the liability of the defendant the performance of a contractual undertaking or Successors vs. The Spanish Supreme Court rejected that if the "obligation of the defendant grew out "makes the distinction between private defendant's contention.of November 20. (33 Phil. There is always an 61 | P a g e . . . Rep. Civil Code relates. Manila Railroad Co. although the facts disclosed its itself the source of an extra-contractual 215). The that article 1903. As Manresa knowledge of his lack of skill or carefulness. 69) master for the negligent acts of his servants defense. 8. . Defendant was. or that he had any In the case of Yamada vs. . are continued for a length of time as to servant was grossly negligent and that his give the owner a reasonable opportunity negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff's In the case of Johnson vs. 1896. The court upon the breach of the contract of carriage. The proof has been held to constitute a defense to an action ." that as to the plaintiff . 8. therefore. unless the negligent acts of the driver disclosed beyond doubt that the defendant's for damages for breach of contract.

important to ascertain if defendant whether an ordinarily prudent person. injury. but the care such a contractual relation exists the obligor that it is negligence per se for a passenger to which a man of ordinary prudence may break the contract under such conditions alight from a moving train. for failing to wait until the train had come to a Thompson's work on Negligence (vol. that is the train had come to a full stop before alighting. to say. more broader than that of contractual was in fact guilty of negligence. if presented squarely plaintiff was his own contributory negligence in relating to this subject is that expressed in upon the theory of the breach of the contract. When many authorities in support of the contention. In this particular carelessness or inattention on the part of the carried with it. the duty to carry instance.) 62 | P a g e . control of its servants. Under the 3010) as follows: exercise care in the selection and control of the doctrine of comparative negligence announced servant. badly stated and is at variance with the 3010. the direct court would have held that it would have been a and proximate cause of the injury suffered by We are of the opinion that the correct doctrine good defense to the action. and its non-performance could of person alight from trains under these and direction of his servants. that the same act which constitutes the source of to subscribe to this doctrine in its absolute form. that the train was barely moving when defendant. the whole passenger. when the court holds him in safety and to provide safe means of plaintiff alighted is shown conclusively by the that a defendant is liable in damages for having entering and leaving its trains (civil code. and sustain no is identical in either case. injury where the company has kept its platform that it is not to be inferred. is that of ordinary of contractual and extra-contractual obligations. the practical result not be excused by proof that the fault was conditions every day of the year. 3. an extra-contractual obligation had no contract We are of the opinion that this proposition is too Commentaries on Negligence. either directly. These two It may be admitted that had plaintiff waited until passenger acted under the fields. existed between the parties. as it does. Therefore. that in such a case the approaching and leaving its trains. circumstances disclosed by the evidence. it follows morally imputable to defendant's servants. We are not disposed would use under similar circumstances. sec. and cites care which may or should be used by the extra-contractual liability to such person. no liability the passenger has been guilty of The true explanation of such cases is to be found is imposed upon defendant's negligence and negligence in attempting to alight from a by directing the attention to the relative spheres plaintiff's negligence merely contributed to his moving railway train. That duty.act or omission productive of damage due to The contract of defendant to transport plaintiff experience of every-day life. sex and condition of the obligations. defendant to have proved that it did in fact complete stop before alighting. prudent man generally. because the court free from dangerous obstructions. Consequently. if the accident was The test by which to determine whether caused by plaintiff's own negligence. by implication. the damages should be apportioned. the mere fact that a person is bound to the particular injury suffered by him could not This care has been defined to be. concentric. vol. of the age. not the another by contract does not relieve him from have occurred. or reasonable care. It is to be considered The field of non. comprising. or in 1258). Thousands failing to exercise proper care in the selection and immediate.contractual obligation is much therefore. being contractual. Defendant contends. figuratively speaking. sec. article fact that it came to stop within six meters from failed to exercise due care. would have acted as the extent of juridical human relations. It is. and made reference to the fact that the upon the platform was a breach of its contractual failure to perform its duty to provide a safe defendant was negligent in the selection and obligation to maintain safe means of alighting place. to avoid injury. was direct the place where he stepped from it. in the Rakes case (supra). 3. There is no held in the Yamada case that defendant was The railroad company's defense involves the reason to believe that plaintiff would have liable for the damages negligently caused by its assumption that even granting that the negligent suffered any injury whatever in alighting as he servants to a person to whom it was bound by conduct of its servants in placing an obstruction did had it not been for defendant's negligent contract." (Thompson.

Again. we may say that the test is this. to alight while the train was yet slightly under injury suffered by him could not have occurred. was dark. whether the treatment of his injuries. for if it were by any possibility concede regard either to the length of the step which he With one sentence in the majority decision. C. the placing of them platform where he was alighting. Was the following circumstances are to be noted: The negligence. and that the injuries he has the conditions then existing was dangerous? If passenger would place his feet on the platform suffered have permanently disabled him from so. the plaintiff should have desisted from was thus reduced. be no uncertainty in his mind with plaintiff.1awph!l. it may be noted place. negligence on the part of the plaintiff in this case that therefore he was not guilty of contributory rep.. We are of the opinion that a only fact from which a conclusion can be drawn Furthermore. the and even surface on which to alight. the particular revealed. Our conclusion that had plaintiff waited until the train had come adequately so that their presence would be is that the conduct of the plaintiff in undertaking to a full stop before alighting. So ordered. dissenting: performance of a duty owing by it to the therefore. There could. and should be considered. Defendant has not alighting. and that he is also entitled to recover of car without being able to discern clearly the train was yet moving as the same act would have defendant the additional sum of P790. as we find. His expectancy of life. as we have already stated. it has been observed. sex. it should not be overlooked that performing such act — that is to say. and his failure so to desist was incident to stepping off. also assured to the passenger a stable the standard mortality tables.Or. hospital services. thereby decreasing the risk continuing that employment. the contrary. ignorant of the fact passenger acted prudently or recklessly — the that the obstruction which was caused by the age. Smith (37 Phil. was earning P25 a month as a average prudence that to get off the train under steps of the car to the spot where the alighting copyist clerk. and for the costs of both duty as a public carrier to afford to its Women. at the time train which would have admonished a person of surrounding ground. the plaintiff was possessed of the fair compensation for the damage suffered by to the effect that plaintiff was guilty of vigor and agility of young manhood. as the nature of Arellano. Street and Avanceña. and other yet slowly moving. The movement of the limbs.25 for condition of the platform and while the train was been in an aged or feeble person. absence of some circumstance to warn him to their wearing apparel obstructs the free concur. and this also is proof of a failure plaintiff as it was his daily custom to get on and upon the part of the defendant in the of the train at this station.290. The distance from the of the accident. J. there anything in the circumstances surrounding company's platform was constructed upon a the plaintiff at the time he alighted from the level higher than that of the roadbed and the The evidence shows that the plaintiff. namely. we that it had right to pile these sacks in the path of was required to take or the character of the are of full accord. according to material. Torres.J. constructed as it was of cement to plaintiff. and it was him for his permanent disability is the sum of contributory negligence is that he stepped off the by no means so risky for him to get off while the P2. it we prefer to adopt the mode of exposition As pertinent to the question of contributory way was not characterized by imprudence and used by this court in Picart vs. The nature of the shown that any other gainful occupation is open contributory negligence. the plaintiff was. as a general rule instances.net platform. 809).." 63 | P a g e .. sum of P3. In determining medical attention. that the platform was clear. JJ. in the safety under such conditions. MALCOLM. passengers facilities for safe egress from its are less capable than men of alighting with trains. "It may be admitted alighting passengers. or that the place was perfectly familiar to the Separate Opinions dimly lighted. is approximately As the case now before us presents itself. and sacks of melons piled on the platform existed. are circumstances necessarily affecting the safety judgment is hereby rendered plaintiff for the and as the defendant was bound by reason of its of the passenger.. the plaintiff had a right to assume.25. and physical condition of the passenger The decision of lower court is reversed. thirty-three years.500. In considering the situation the question of contributory negligence in incidental expenditures connected with the thus presented.

is that of ordinary or platform and was drawn under the moving defendant company and the contributory reasonable care. This care has been defined to be. and judgment is  As a general rule .290.  January 20. . if the  When the train had proceeded a little defendant company is liable for the damage creditor shows that it exists and that it has thereby occasioned unless recovery is barred been broken. the presumption is overcome and he the upright guardrail with his right hand for HELD: is relieved from liability. concur. J. the primary responsibility of the railway train." Adding these he had second operation at another hospital not applicable to acts of negligence which two points together. and consequently.  It is customary season for harvesting servant or employee there instantly arises a these melons and a large lot had been presumption of law that there was brought to the station for the shipment to negligence on the part of the master or the market employer either in selection of the servant or  CFI: favored Manila Railroad Co. separately examined age.With the general rule relative to a passenger's  He was bought to the hospital in the city expression. W/N MRR should be held liable. negligence. but only to extra-contractual evidence. of the and lacerated. support YES.. amputated higher up near the  two things are apparent: (1) That when shoulder expending a total of P790.: Jose Cangco arose from his seat in the ISSUE: shows to the satisfaction of the court that in 2nd class-car where he was riding and. may be rebutted.25 an injury is caused by the negligence of a Johnson. obligations — or to use the technical form of not the care which may or should be used by 64 | P a g e . it is not necessary for him to farther Cangco stepped off but 1 or both of by the plaintiff's own contributory prove negligence.  In resolving this problem it is necessary the passenger has been guilty of negligence  His body rolled from the that each of these conceptions of liability. sex and condition of the passenger.25 creditor should assume the burden of proof railroad company Emilio Zuñiga got off the of its existence. It necessarily follows that the existence of a contractual obligation.m. or both. should be absolved from the was performed and the member was again constitute the breach of a contract complaint. It is to be considered car. we are likewise in full of Manila where an examination was made to culpa aquiliana and not to culpa accord. and judgment affirmed. in attempting to alight from a moving wit. to. in the platform begins to rise from the level of of the railroad company were guilty of a case of negligence which presupposes the the ground. it is logical that in  As the train slowed down another hereby rendered plaintiff for the sum of case of extra-contractual culpa. his exit through the door. his feet came in contact with a sack of negligence. while on the contrary. selection and supervision he has exercised making. where his right arm was badly crushed negligence of the plaintiff should be whether an ordinarily prudent person.  The test by which to determine whether watermelons so his feet slipped from under him and he fell violently on the platform. or in supervision over him after DIGEST (MRR).Cangco had failed to use due the selection. employee. a suing passenger and also an employee of the P3. as the only fact upon which same car alighting safely at the point where  It can not be doubted that the employees his action is based. 1915 around 7 to 8 It follows necessarily that if the employer p. "An attempt to alight from a and his arm was amputated contractual  operation was unsatisfactory so  article 1903 of the Civil Code is moving train is negligence per se. lower court is reversed. . that article relates only contributory negligence. seizing family. namely.  the car moved forward  Article 1903 of the Civil Code is not would have acted as the passenger acted possibly 6 meters before it came to a full applicable to obligations arising ex under the circumstances disclosed by the stop contractu. took his the care and diligence of a good father of a position upon the steps of the coach. and (2) that that caution in alighting from the coach and was presumption is juris tantum and not juris et FACTS: therefore precluded form recovering de jure.

reiterating the above approximately thirty-three years. Q-8102. to avoid G. vs. because of "lack of intent to contained. limbs.  at the time of the accident. and other of which. There could. it has been observed. hospital services. The complaint had no cause platform where he was alighting. coupled with mistake. 1965 attention. was not criminal. judgment which is now final and be no uncertainty in his mind with regard or in res-adjudicata. It was only plaintiff. upon motion to was first denied by the trial court. Hill & Associates for appellees. and that he is also entitled to recover of defendant the getting subsistence. therefore. as a general rule are less capable than men PEDRO ELCANO and PATRICIA ELCANO. as the nature of their wearing Elcano. The present action is not only  Women.plaintiffs-appellants. Our Marvin R. when criminally prosecuted. with whom he was living and Considering the motion for disability is the sum of P2. Rule 107. but the care SECOND DIVISION Actually.25 for medical the son of the plaintiffs. J. is for recovery of damages from defendant defendants of such denial. the defendant damage suffered by him for his permanent Marvin Hill. married at the time of grounds that the following order was issued: the opinion that a fair compensation for the the occurrence. and that the Appeal from the order of the Court of First (P. Defendant has not shown that in Civil Case No. defendants-appellees. and his father. Again. His expectancy of life.500. minor. named Agapito Elcano. for the killing by Reginald of reconsideration filed by the additional sum of P790. according to dismiss of defendants. the complaint of plaintiffs upon motion for reconsideration of the the standard mortality tables. which is now Rule conditions. it may be noted that the place REGINALD HILL. as father and Natural Guardian of 2.R. Court. the motion to dismiss based on the which a man of ordinary prudence would following grounds: use under similar circumstances. and MARVIN was perfectly familiar to the plaintiff as it HILL. deceased.: emancipation by marriage. of action against defendant conclusion is that the conduct of the plaintiff Marvin Hill. L-24803 May 26. Pedro Elcano et al. dismissing. a minor. 23. against but a violation of section of alighting with safety under such in their capacity as Ascendants of Agapito 1.]) Instance of Quezon City dated January 29. No. either to the length of the step which he was Cruz & Avecilla for appellants. BARREDO. of the Revised Rules of apparel obstructs the free movement of the vs. 1965 disabled him from continuing that employment. the Court finds the Republic of the Philippines same to be meritorious and kill. was earning P25 a month as a copyist clerk. Record [p. said minor. required to take or the character of the 3. Manila 65 | P a g e . any other gainful occupation is open to Reginald Hill et al. III. The action is barred by a prior was his daily custom to get on and of the train at this station. defendants on January 14." SUPREME COURT well-founded. the prudent man generally. We are of Reginald Hill. the said and after thoroughly examining incidental expenditures connected with the accused was acquitted on the ground that his act the arguments therein treatment of his injuries. 1977 injury. because he was in undertaking to alight while the train was relieved as guardian of the other yet slightly under way was not characterized by imprudence and that therefore he was defendant through not guilty of contributory negligence. Record on injuries he has suffered have permanently Appeal. 1. 4.

After due trial. and by the acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case [p. Atty. Quezon City. appellants do not dispute that such indeed was that the same given act can result in civil liability THE ACTION IS BARRED BY A the basis stated in the court's decision. OTHER DEFENDANT married? THROUGH EMANCIPATION I BY MARRIAGE. this Court postulated. living with and getting UPHOLDING THE CLAIM OF AS GUARDIAN OF THE subsistenee from his father. are presenting for Our THAT THE COMPLAINT 2. Hill. OF THE REVISED Criminal Case No. none of fault. appellees filed the motion to dismiss above- hereby reconsidered by ordering referred to. (page 4. to culpa criminal or delito and mereculpa or APPLICABLE. the works of recognized II decision of acquittal." Parenthetically.) wherein the action for civil liability. AND THAT Instance of Quezon City. ARTICLES 2176 TO resolution are: 2194 OF THE CIVIL CODE. RULE 107. 73 Phil. (p. The first issue presents no more problem than Record. was not IV reversed? Hence. on account of the death of their son. 1964 is ADJUDICTA. Marvin 66 | P a g e . presumably because civilians. acquitted on the ground that his act was not the nature of culpa aquiliana in relation RULES OF COURT IS criminal because of "lack of intent to kill. 40. Record INSTANT CASE. he was of a scholarly dissertation by Justice Bocobo on SECTION 3(c) OF RULE 111. defendant. Hill. case. ARE INAPPLICABLE IN THE 1. RULE 111. Record on Appeal. Philippines. the Court on December 8. As We view the foregoing background of this THE PRINCIPLES OF QUASI. with pertinent citation of decisions of the the parties has favored Us with a copy of the Supreme Court of Spain. ACTION AGAINST notwithstanding the undisputed fact that at the THE LOWER COURT ERRED DEFENDANT MARVIN HILL time of the occurrence complained of. Thus. 607. criminal and NOT ONLY AGAINST BUT It appears that for the killing of the son. DELICTS. Garcia.appellee obligation which was firmly established in this SECTION 1. 5102 of the Court of First In that case. WHEREFORE. Is the present civil action for damages barred January 29. the spouses Elcano. the Order of this NOW FINAL OR RES. of fault or negligence as a source of ALSO A VIOLATION OF of plaintiffs-appellants. IN DISMISSING THE CASE BY BECAUSE HE WAS RELIEVED though a minor. and earlier jurisprudence of our own. May Article 2180 (2nd and last paragraphs) of resolution the following assignment of errors: STATES NO CAUSE OF the Civil Code he applied against Atty. on the basis RULES OF COURT. 21. coupled with mistake. And so. the dismissal of the above III entitled case.) the need for a reiteration and further THE PRESENT ACTION IS clarification of the dual character. NOW Reginald Hill was prosecuted criminally in jurisdiction in Barredo vs. was already legally DEFENDANTS THAT . this appeal where plaintiffs-appellants. the opinion holds: appellees Reginald and his father. Reginald. civil. not only under the Penal Code but also under the PRIOR JUDGMENT WHICH IS when appellants filed their complaint against Civil Code. the two decisive issues presented for Our SO ORDERED. Agapito. 1965.

) 3 anomalous. subject matter either of a The legal provisions. 73 Phil.) 2 aquiliana would have very little held to be also a proper subject scope and application in actual of a civil action under article It is most significant that in the life.). he could accordingly to the literal import fraudulent and therefore could have been sued for this civil of article 1093 of the Civil Code. the agent killeth unjustified and after such a conviction. the legal institution of culpa criminal action. V. 73 Phil. it was (p. it might ancient origin and such full- Code. in the past. in this jurisdiction. It is thus that negligence . although J. 618. in the negligence being a proper interpretation of the laws. the Revised Penal Code in articles 1902 to 1910 of the has been fully and clearly in articles 365 punishes not only Spanish Civil Code. authors. In that case. House could have would have to be Idemnified 616. this Court and damage to property- to be noted that it was the specifically applied article 1902 through any degree of employer and not the employee of the Civil Code. 615.even the slightest - who was being sued.The. have been the subject of a liability arising from his crime. for cuasi-delito or culpa criminal case because his nevertheless this Court awarded aquiliana? We are loath to negligence causing the death of damages in an independent civil impute to the lawmaker any the child was punishable by the action for fault or negligence intention to bring about a Penal Code. aquiliana or cuasi-delito. (p. 1 been criminally prosecuted for only through the principle of reckless or simple negligence civil liability arising from a It will be noticed that the and not only punished but also crime. 73 Phil. not he inappropriate to indicate grown development as culpa the separate individuality of their foundations. the action of criminal case and for which. We will not use from a crime or of an entirely dispose of this case. If we were to hold act machinist. It is also case just cited. But the literal meaning of the law to separate and independent civil inasmuch as we are announcing smother and render almost action for fault or negligence doctrines that have been little lifeless a principle of such under article 1902 of the Civil understood. which a cuasi-delito or culpa is conserved and made enduring aquiliana. come under both wrongdoer could have been that articles 1902 to 1910 of the the Penal Code and the Civil prosecuted and convicted in a Civil Code refer only to fault or Code. disposed to uphold the letter criminal action with its and cases already invoked that killeth rather than the spirit consequent civil liability arising should ordinarily be sufficient to that giveth life. Death or injury to persons 1902 of the Civil Code. (pp. negligence not punished by law. Nor are we. 67 | P a g e . And yet. In such a state of affairs. even with regard to reckless but also simple because it shows that the same a negligent act for which the negligence. 617. Thus. under the Civil Code Firstly. defendant in the above case made civilly liable because of his what sphere would remain could have been prosecuted in a criminal negligence. above case is pertinent recognized. Here is therefore a under article 1902 of the Civil situation so absurd and clear instance of the same act of Code.

11 not is by invoking articles 1902-1910 Phil. supra. 1919. provided textually 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code. "Ubi jus Idemnified delict or culpa aquiliana to flow of Chapter II. forgetting that likely to secure adequate and the said Code. Contrary to an immediate impression one might guilty in a criminal case. In harms done by such practice February 14. not instances of unvindicated civil caused the stream of quasi. and efficacy of the action depending on the issues.)" And it is precisely the that its waters may no longer be underline qualification. and And so. which has better safeguarding or private spirit that giveth lift. not be shown beyond reasonable course. 620.73 Phil.Secondary. But we believe it is high This can be seen in the reference made therein doubt. not a negligent act. to find the accused habitual method is allowed by. it is to be noted that from a crime. In the reflection would reveal that the thrust of the There are numerous cases of present case. because of the broad diverted into that of a crime that Justice Bocobo emphasized could lead to an sweep of the provisions of both under the Penal Code.) on its own natural channel. proof our laws." grown up a common practice to criminal prosecution. but can be proved by a time we pointed out to the to the Sentence of the Supreme Court of Spain of preponderance of evidence. so to quasi-delicts. there would be many full rigor. is more text of the new Civil Code. but criminal negligence which can help perpetuate this usual that in fact it actually extends to fault or culpa. to smother and render almost lifeless a principle discussed. an "(W)e will not use the literal meaning of the law concurrence of spheres already ancient and additional remedy. because Justice Bacobo was Chairman of seek damages only by virtue of entirely directed by the party the Code Commission that drafted the original the civil responsibility arising wronged or his counsel. which efficacious redress. extra-contractual. Although this the concept of culpa aquiliana includes acts 68 | P a g e . (p. et seq. ultimo construction or interpretation of the the Penal Code and the Civil it is believed.) punishable by law." thereby making it clear that of the Civil Code. the defendant can and to restore the principle of of fraud or estafa. which involved a case such cases. rather than the Code on this subject. It is high time we omissions in which fault or negligence. it has nevertheless get upon a reading of the foregoing excerpts of guilt beyond reasonable rendered practically useless and from the opinion in Garcia that the concurrence doubt is required. make for the letter of the law that "killeth. Title XV of this book (which refers remedium. while in a nugatory the more expeditious of the Penal Code and the Civil Code therein civil case. intervene shall be the subject wrongs. and for lack of and for the further reason that of such ancient origin and such full-grown understanding of the character an independent civil action.deeper the defendant pay in damages. which is conserved and made enduring in for culpa aquiliana. we are asked to pronouncements therein is not so limited. This will. not development as culpa aquiliana orquasi-delito. Indeed. preponderance of and effective remedy based referred to contemplate only acts of negligence evidence is sufficient to make on culpa aquiliana or culpa and not intentional voluntary acts . which was enacted after the there is another remedy. the ruling that given rise to the overlapping or rights because it realtor." (p. of the Civil Code to its that obligations "which are derived from acts or Otherwise. there has limitations and results of a articles 1902 to 1910 of the Spanish Civil Code. 73 Garcia doctrine. no longer uses the term.hence. and should be made responsible responsibility for fault or Article 1093 of the Civil Code of Spain. 621. "not punishable by law". in force in a civil action under articles negligence under articles 1902 here at the time of Garcia. Fourthly. punishable by law.

and would be entitled in such Thus. Consequently. Article 2177 of the the civil liability for the same act considered as new code provides: Although. "Obligations derived damages due to a quasi-delict or 'culpa In other words.4 Code. that Article 2176. but for assuming the awards made in the two cases vary.) Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code. origin. not for civil liability eventuality only to the bigger award of the two. the Rules of Court. But the plaintiff cannot Code definitely establishes the separability and recover damages twice for the independence of liability in a civil action for acts It results. shall not be a bar to a both scores. 2177.which are criminal in character or in violation of accusation of criminal negligence. and under Article 397. of appellees that Atty. Thus "(E)mancipation by marriage or 69 | P a g e . (Report of the Code) Commission. as We do hold. having always had its own foundation hold. (e) of Section 3. 359. if he is actually absolute. The former is a harmony with modern progress". p. whether or not he is criminally prosecuted pursuant to Article 399.. to recover damages on the penal law. 7 Phil. Responsibility for argument of Justice Bacobo about construction criminal case that the criminal act charged has fault or negligence under the that upholds "the spirit that giveth lift. emancipation by outstanding Spanish jurist. where it and individuality. whether voluntary or matter. recovery. separate from criminal refers to "fault or negligencia covers not only While it is true that parental authority is negligence. whether intentional and (Article 327. it is. of ancient Atlantic. whether on charged also criminally. which is Article arising from criminal negligence." More 162. from the civil responsibility arising from crime liability for quasi-delict. "cuasi-delito" has been sustained by decision of voluntary or negligent. while the latter is a felicitous relevant language in Rakes vs. a separate emancipation takes place "by the marriage of the the Supreme Court of Spain and maintained as civil action lies against the offender in a criminal minor (child)". Therefore.rather not happened or has not been committed by the preceding article is entirely than that which is literal that killeth the intent of accused. But said article forestalls a double referred to in Par. provided that the marriage of the minor is not really full or proposed Article 2177. in separate and distinct from the the lawmaker should be observed in applying the reiteration of Garcia. his father. it is "more congruent with of Reginald's emancipation by marriage on the extraordinary when we consider the exact nature the spirit of law. therefore. not a bar to the instant action against him. the corresponding provisions to said subsequent civil action. Rule 111. under foregoing provision (Article 2177) through at Sections 2 and 3 (c). in a sense. Hill. also clear that clear. Civil Code). We here hold. to responsibility cannot be upheld. Article 1093 in the new code. acquittal from an offended party is not allowed. a new provision. simply says. 1162. refers exclusively to civil liability founded on (on quasi-delicts) and by special laws. Rule 111. again.". According to the Code Commission: "The and. this Article 2177 does seem to a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not literally refer to only acts of negligence. the extinction of civil liability fromquasi-delicto shall be governed by the aquiliana'. the same estinguished even by a declaration in the ART. sound and perfectly tenable by Maura. is not so novel or the same separability. thatculpa civil liability arising from same. hence that acquittal is fixed by Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code. Briefly stated. Such distinction between criminal acts "not punishable by law" but also acts terminated upon emancipation of the child negligence and "culpa extracontractual" or criminal in character. equity and justice. and more in possible civil liability of Atty. it is of criminal and civil negligence. whereas precisely.to borrow the also Our considered opinion that the conclusion violation of the criminal law. Hill is already free from "culpa aquiliana" or quasi-delict. And considering that the preliminary aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts negligence under the Penal chapter on human relations of the new Civil which may be punishable by law. reasonable doubt or not. an act. contemplate also Coming now to the second issue about the effect first sight startling. Gulf and Pacific Co. provisions of Chapter 2. that the acquittal of Reginal same act or omission of the criminal in character (under Articles 29 to 32) Hill in the criminal case has not extinguished his defendant. under the and found guilty or acquitted. Title XVII of this Book. however.

The father and. therefore. a situation which is not unusual. concurring: he were of age. Hill notwithstanding the infant tortfeasor is liable in a civil action to the the mother." alienation or encumbering of real property thus expressed is undoubtedly board enough to which cannot be done by their minor married include any rational conception of liability for Now under Article 2180. Accordingly. "(T)he obligation child without their consent. in Daywalt vs. in providing infant tortfeasor is liable in a civil action to the that a minor emancipated by marriage may not. 5 On the other hand. See article 38. although married. killing the minor to administer his property as though someone else invites judicial action..by voluntary concession shall terminate parental give rise to judicial litigation." (Street. 600). Agustinos Recoletos. 587. Jur. J. thus expressed is undoubtedly board enough to solidary liability of presuncion with their include any rational conception of liability for offending child under Article 2180 is that is the Concepcion Jr. (See Manresa. Division. He child. J. that of his son. Factually. J. 2180 applies to Atty. Otherwise AQUINO. J. was living with his father and Separate Opinions getting subsistence from him at the time of the WHEREFORE. Id. injured person in the same manner and to the case of his death or incapacity. when It must be borne in mind that. concurring: Reginald was still subservient to and dependent in accordance with the foregoing opinion. Costs on his father. Hill has become milling. are However. J. Article See article 38. does not give culpable act. It shall enable Vol.) And surely. enter into transactions or do any act that can 70 | P a g e . 74 Phil. in emancipation by marriage of Reginald. "The Idea Manresa. mother or guardian. emancipation does not carry with it freedom to 576. is on leave. 39 Phil. J. the tortious acts likely to be developed in any imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only Manresa. "The Idea assistance of his father. and Martin. in Magtibay vs. according to Fernando (Chairman). damage to third persons. it is not controverted that Reginald. in Daywalt vs. Civil Code and the ruling that "the the clear implication of Article 399.) society. Separate Opinions authority over the child's person. as a matter of equity. 579). while still a minor. those of persons for whom one is responsible. the marriage of a minor child does not alienate or encumber real property without the relieve the parents of the duty to see to it that the Article 2176 of the Civil Code comprehends any consent of his father or mother. when can sue and be sued in court only with the answerable for the borrowings of money and judged by accepted legal standards. 579). the order appealed from is occurrence in question. or guardian. Jur. concur. which is blameworthy. inasmuch as it is evident that Reginald same extent as an adult" (27 Am. in Magtibay vs. children who live in their company. was designated to sit in the Second de PP. the mother. is that such by Bocobo. sue or be sued without the same extent as an adult" (27 Am. the liability by Bocobo. but he cannot borrow money or stated. (Art. J.. the reason behind the joint and JJ. 812 cited responsible for the damages caused by the minor is now of age. Corporacion for one's own acts or omissions. Tiangco. 39 Phil. Civil Code and the ruling that "the The father and. against appellees. pp. 766-767. 812 cited assistance of the parents. the tortious acts likely to be developed in any obligation of the parent to supervise their minor society. which is blameworthy. judged by accepted legal standards. II." (Street. in case of his death or incapacity. Article 2176 of the Civil Code comprehends any culpable act. 600)." In the of Atty. in Our considered view. 587. injured person in the same manner and to the nevertheless. 74 Phil. instant case. J. are responsible. 399.. subsidiary to 576. supra. Corporacion children in order to prevent them from causing Martin. but also for de PP. 776. Antonio. Agustinos Recoletos.. reversed and the trial court is ordered to proceed AQUINO. Tiangco..

in Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule 111, refers G.R. No. 74761 November 6, 1990
exclusively to civil liability founded on Article
DIGEST 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas the civil NATIVIDAD V. ANDAMO and
liability for the same act considered as a quasi- EMMANUEL R. ANDAMO, petitioners,
Reginald Hill, a minor, caused the death of delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished vs.
Agapito (son of Elcano). Elcano filed a criminal even by a declaration in the criminal case that INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
case against Reginald but Reginald was the criminal act charged has not happened or (First Civil Cases Division) and
acquitted for “lack of intent coupled with has not been committed by the accused. Briefly MISSIONARIES OF OUR LADY OF LA
mistake.” Elcano then filed a civil action against stated, culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and SALETTE, INC., respondents.
Reginald and his dad (Marvin Hill) for damages negligent acts which may be punishable by law.
based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Hill Lope E. Adriano for petitioners.
argued that the civil action is barred by his son’s While it is true that parental authority is
acquittal in the criminal case; and that if ever, terminated upon emancipation of the child Padilla Law Office for private respondent.
his civil liability as a parent has been (Article 327, Civil Code), and under Article 397,
extinguished by the fact that his son is already e mancipation takes place “by the marriage of
an emancipated minor by reason of his the minor child”, it is, however, also clear that
marriage. pursuant to Article 399, emancipation by FERNAN, C.J.:
marriage of the minor is not really full or
ISSUE: absolute. Thus “Emancipation by marriage or by The pivotal issue in this petition for certiorari,
voluntary concession shall terminate parental prohibition and mandamus is whether a
authority over the child’s person. It shall enable corporation, which has built through its agents,
Whether or not Marvin Hill may be held civilly
the minor to administer his property as though waterpaths, water conductors and contrivances
liable under Article 2180.
he were of age, but he cannot borrow money or within its land, thereby causing inundation and
alienate or encumber real property without the damage to an adjacent land, can be held civilly
HELD:
consent of his father or mother, or guardian. He liable for damages under Articles 2176 and 2177
can sue and be sued in court only with the of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts such that the
Yes. The acquittal of Reginald in the criminal
assistance of his father, mother or guardian.” resulting civil case can proceed independently of
case does not bar the filing of a separate civil
Therefore, Article 2180 is applicable to Marvin the criminal case.
action. A separate civil action lies against the
Hill – the SC however ruled since at the time of
offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is
the decision, Reginald is already of age, Marvin’s
criminally prosecuted and found guilty or The antecedent facts are as follows:
liability should be subsidiary only – as a matter
acquitted, provided that the offended party is
of equity.
not allowed, if accused is actually charged also Petitioner spouses Emmanuel and Natividad
criminally, to recover damages on both scores, Andamo are the owners of a parcel of land
Republic of the Philippines
and would be entitled in such eventuality only to situated in Biga (Biluso) Silang, Cavite which is
SUPREME COURT
the bigger award of the two, assuming the adjacent to that of private respondent,
Manila
awards made in the two cases vary. In other Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette, Inc., a
words, the extinction of civil liability referred to religious corporation.
THIRD DIVISION
71 | P a g e

Within the land of respondent corporation, Resolving respondent corporation's motion to prescription, is to be determined not by the
waterpaths and contrivances, including an dismiss filed on June 22, 1984, the trial court claim of the party filing the action, made in his
artificial lake, were constructed, which allegedly issued on August 27, 1984 the disputed argument or brief, but rather by the complaint
inundated and eroded petitioners' land, caused a order dismissing Civil Case No. TG-748 for lack itself, its allegations and prayer for relief. 8 The
young man to drown, damaged petitioners' crops of jurisdiction, as the criminal case which was nature of an action is not necessarily determined
and plants, washed away costly fences, instituted ahead of the civil case was still or controlled by its title or heading but the body
endangered the lives of petitioners and their unresolved. Said order was anchored on the of the pleading or complaint itself. To avoid
laborers during rainy and stormy seasons, and provision of Section 3 (a), Rule III of the Rules possible denial of substantial justice due to legal
exposed plants and other improvements to of Court which provides that "criminal and civil technicalities, pleadings as well as remedial laws
destruction. actions arising from the same offense may be should be liberally construed so that the litigants
instituted separately, but after the criminal may have ample opportunity to prove their
In July 1982, petitioners instituted a criminal action has been commenced the civil action respective claims. 9
action, docketed as Criminal Case No. TG-907- cannot be instituted until final judgment has
82, before the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, been rendered in the criminal action." 2 Quoted hereunder are the pertinent portions of
Branch 4 (Tagaytay City), against Efren Musngi, petitioners' complaint in Civil Case No. TG-748:
Orlando Sapuay and Rutillo Mallillin, officers Petitioners appealed from that order to the
and directors of herein respondent corporation, Intermediate Appellate Court. 3 4) That within defendant's land,
for destruction by means of inundation under likewise located at Biga (Biluso),
Article 324 of the Revised Penal Code. On February 17, 1986, respondent Appellate Silang, Cavite, adjacent on the
Court, First Civil Cases Division, promulgated a right side of the aforesaid land
Subsequently, on February 22, 1983, petitioners decision 4 affirming the questioned order of the of plaintiffs, defendant
filed another action against respondent trial court. 5 A motion for reconsideration filed constructed waterpaths starting
corporation, this time a civil case, docketed as by petitioners was denied by the Appellate Court from the middle-right portion
Civil Case No. TG-748, for damages with prayer in its resolution dated May 19, 1986. 6 thereof leading to a big hole or
for the issuance of a writ of preliminary opening, also constructed by
injunction before the same court. 1 Directly at issue is the propriety of the dismissal defendant, thru the lower
of Civil Case No. TG-748 in accordance with portion of its concrete hollow-
On March 11, 1983, respondent corporation filed Section 3 (a) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. blocks fence situated on the
its answer to the complaint and opposition to the Petitioners contend that the trial court and the right side of its cemented gate
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. Appellate Court erred in dismissing Civil Case fronting the provincial highway,
Hearings were conducted including ocular No. TG-748 since it is predicated on a quasi- and connected by defendant to a
inspections on the land. However, on April 26, delict. Petitioners have raised a valid point. man height inter-connected
1984, the trial court, acting on respondent cement culverts which were also
corporation's motion to dismiss or suspend the It is axiomatic that the nature of an action filed constructed and lain by
civil action, issued an order suspending further in court is determined by the facts alleged in the defendant cross-wise beneath
hearings in Civil Case No, TG-748 until after complaint as constituting the cause of the tip of the said cemented
judgment in the related Criminal Case No. TG- action. 7 The purpose of an action or suit and the gate, the left-end of the said
907-82. law to govern it, including the period of inter-connected culverts again
72 | P a g e

connected by defendant to a big and the excess water above it plaintiffs and
hole or opening thru the lower inundates, portions of the their laborers
portion of the same concrete adjoining land of plaintiffs. are always in
hollowblocks fence on the left danger.
side of the said cemented gate, 6) That as a result of the
which hole or opening is inundation brought about by d) Plants and
likewise connected by defendant defendant's aforementioned other
to the cemented mouth of a big water conductors, contrivances improvements
canal, also constructed by and manipulators, a young man on other
defendant, which runs was drowned to death, while portions of the
northward towards a big hole or herein plaintiffs suffered and land of
opening which was also built by will continue to suffer, as plaintiffs are
defendant thru the lower follows: exposed to
portion of its concrete hollow- destruction. ... 1
blocks fence which separates the a) Portions of 0

land of plaintiffs from that of the land of
defendant (and which serves as plaintiffs were A careful examination of the aforequoted
the exit-point of the floodwater eroded and complaint shows that the civil action is one
coming from the land of converted to under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on
defendant, and at the same deep, wide and quasi-delicts. All the elements of a quasi-delict
time, the entrance-point of the long canals, are present, to wit: (a) damages suffered by the
same floodwater to the land of such that the plaintiff, (b) fault or negligence of the defendant,
plaintiffs, year after year, during same can no or some other person for whose acts he must
rainy or stormy seasons. longer be respond; and (c) the connection of cause and
planted to any effect between the fault or negligence of the
5) That moreover, on the crop or plant. defendant and the damages incurred by the
middle-left portion of its land plaintiff. 11
just beside the land of plaintiffs, b) Costly fences
defendant also constructed an constructed by Clearly, from petitioner's complaint, the
artificial lake, the base of which plaintiffs were, waterpaths and contrivances built by respondent
is soil, which utilizes the water on several corporation are alleged to have inundated the
being channeled thereto from its occasions, land of petitioners. There is therefore, an
water system thru inter- washed away. assertion of a causal connection between the act
connected galvanized iron pipes of building these waterpaths and the damage
(No. 2) and complimented by c) During rainy sustained by petitioners. Such action if proven
rain water during rainy or and stormy constitutes fault or negligence which may be the
stormy seasons, so much so that seasons the basis for the recovery of damages.
the water below it seeps into, lives of
73 | P a g e

Such fault or we consider the exact nature of criminal and respondent corporation supposedly constituting negligence. Indeed. Article 2176. and individuality that is entirely apart and 74 | P a g e . 13 without due authority constructs a bank or dike. of ancient origin. the or omission constituting fault or negligence. the latter can claim indemnification for preceding article is entirely damages to the injured party. there being fault or "the foregoing provision though at first sight the complaint.In the case of Samson vs. Dionisio. civil negligence. separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from While the property involved in the cited case Article 2176 of the Civil Code imposes a civil negligence under the Penal belonged to the public domain and the property liability on a person for damage caused by his act Code. Article 431 of the Civil by law" but also acts criminal in character. the injury or damage suffered. is called a independent negligence. the act or omission of the damage done. sustained and will continue to sustain damage Article 2176.. shall be liable damage to an adjoining landowner or a third fault or negligence under the to the payment of an indemnity for loss and person. if there is no pre. and the causal connection existing contractual relation criminal law." SIC UTERE TUO the offender in a criminal act. has been sustained by decisions of the Supreme Code provides that "the owner of a thing cannot whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. is obliged to pay for startling. separate from criminal negligence. having always had its own foundation and delict or culpa aquiliana. 15 this Court held that a quasi-delict or adjoining landowners have mutual and acquitted. individuality. is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or Appeals. which states: and damages to a third party who. to recover damages on both own. Court of UT ALIENUM NON LAEDAS. is entitled to the use and of nature. while the latter is a distinct and between the act and the damage. Whoever by act or due to the waterpaths and contrivances built by omission causes damage to According to the Report of the Code Commission respondent corporation.. 12 the Court not to infringe upon the rights and interests of scores. thereby causing loss cannot be dangerous to adjoining landowners Article 2177 of the Civil Code. The former is a violation of the fault or negligence. If the structures cause injury or Article 2177. 14 make use thereof in such a manner as to injure Consequently. like the rest of and can withstand the usual and expected forces the residents. Moreover. which is a "culpa existing contractual obligation between the quasi-delict and is governed by aquiliana" or quasi-delict. with no pre. and would be entitled in such eventuality applied Article 1902. covers not only acts "not punishable and "culpa extra-contractual" or "cuasi-delito" is not without limitations. provided that the offended party is culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution reciprocal duties which require that each must not allowed. But the plaintiff cannot subject of the instant case is privately owned. is not so novel or extraordinary when the petitioners. Responsibility for enjoyment of the stream or lake. Court of Spain . now Article 2176 of the others. the alleged presence of damage to negligence. recover damages twice for the fact remains that petitioners' complaint thus: same act or omission of the sufficiently alleges that petitioners have defendant. Although we recognize the right of an only to the bigger award of the two. between the parties. whether or not he In the case of Castillo vs. structures must be so constructed and stopping the flow or communication between a maintained using all reasonable care so that they The distinctness of quasi-delicta is shown in creek or a lake and a river. such the awards made in the two cases vary. assuming Civil Code and held that "any person who owner to build structures on his land. whenever it refers to "fault or Such distinction between criminal negligence It must be stressed that the use of one's property negligence". the recitals of another. a separate civil action lies against the rights of a third person. parties make a clear case of a quasi the provisions of this chapter. (if the tortfeasor is actually charged under the Civil Code with a substantivity all its use his own land in a reasonable manner so as also criminally).

Costs against laborers and some other destructions. damagaed petitioner’s quasi-delicts or culpa extra-contractual. including an 75 | P a g e . A careful examination of the aforequoted independent character of the civil action and the UT ALIENUM NON LAEDAS.. in which case the extinction of the criminal Issue: liability would carry with it the extinction of the civil liability. The trial court is waterpaths and contrivances. and (c) the connection of cause and February 17. JJ. caused a arising from a crime and the responsibility for R. This prompted petitioner spouses to file a or culpa extra-contractual under the Civil Code. Andamo vs. Jr. Cavite which is effect between the fault or negligence of the Appellate Court affirming the order of dismissal adjacent to that of private respondent defendant and the damages incurred by the of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite. for to It must be stressed that the use of one’s property subordinate the civil action contemplated in the is not without limitations.. There can be no logical conclusion than this. 1986 of the then Intermediate land situated in Biga Silang." and to proceed with the hearing of crops and plants. same negligence causing damages may produce the case with dispatch. Missionaries of Our lady of La plaintiff. Potenciano. that his action may under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on proceed independently of the criminal quasi-delicts. (b) fault or negligence of the defendant. or some other person for whose acts he must WHEREFORE. which allegedly distinction exists between the civil liability entitled "Natividad V." Facts: plaintiff. case. All the elements of a quasi-delict proceedings and regardless of the result of the are present. 11 (Tagaytay City) dated August 17. Article 431 of the Civil said articles to the result of the criminal Code provides that “the owner of a thing cannot Held: prosecution — whether it be conviction or make use thereof in such a manner as to injure acquittal — would render meaningless the the rights of a third person. This decision is endangered the livesofthepetitioners and their civil liability arising from a crime under the immediately executory. in the event of an Gutierrez. concur. Articles 33 and 2177 of the Civil Code. REVERSED and SET ASIDE. 16 the Court declared DIGEST waterpaths and contrivances on the basis of that in quasi-delicts. The Salette Inc. inundation under Article 324 of the RPC and a criminal case is entirely irrelevant in the civil civil action for damages. Within the land of the latter. Penal Code. Andamo and Emmanuel inundated and eroded petitioner’s land. criminal action for destruction by means of Therefore. is on leave. the assailed decision dated Petitioner spouses Andamo owned a parcel of respond. complaint shows that the civil action is one clear injunction in Article 31. Branch 18 corporation. of course.independent from a delict or crime — a ordered to reinstate Civil Case No. and Bidin. Inc. washed away costly fences. TG-748 artificial lake. to wit: (a) damages suffered by the latter. the acquittal or conviction in the SO ORDERED. J. "(t)he civil action is entirely Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on independent of the criminal case according to Doctrine: quasi-delicts. 1984 is hereby Salette. or create an action for quasi-delicts respondent corporation.” SIC UTERE TUO Yes. Missionaries of Our Lady of La young man to drown. exist. were constructed. unless. acquittal where the court has declared that the fact from which the civil action arose did not Feliciano. Whether petitioner spouses Andamo can claim damages for destruction caused by respondent’s In Azucena vs.

000. Civil Code of the Philippines. petitioner. private respondent. cannot be dangerous to adjoining landowners representative of the barangay captain of Guilig 16503. Dagupan City. the latter can claim indemnification for the petitioner is already married to someone the injury or damage suffered. filed with the aforesaid SUPREME COURT and granting her such other relief and remedies trial court a complaint 2 for damages against the as may be just and equitable. Guilig. such started to change. person. Private respondent then The antecedents of this case are not prayed for judgment ordering the petitioner to complicated: pay her damages in the amount of not less than P45. she accepted his love on It must be stressed that the use of one’s property the condition that they would get married. from petitioner’s complaint. without Republic of the Philippines amounting to P600. Lyceum Northwestern Colleges in Dagupan City. the complaint that: she is twenty-two (22) years old. J. he maltreated and threatened affirmed in toto the 16 October 1939 Decision of structures must be so constructed and to kill her. Castro for private respondent. before 20 August 1987. 1993 character and reputation duly respected in her land of petitioners.Clearly. damages may be recovered for a breach of of nature. is an assertion of a causal connection between the act GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH. the reciprocal duties which require that each must petitioner forced her to live with him in the This is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of use his own land in a reasonable manner so as Lozano Apartments. which was in October of make use thereof in such a manner as to injure that year. and is an sustained by petitioners. The complaint was Manila petitioner for the alleged violation of their docketed as Civil Case No. sometime in 20 August 1987. Iranian citizen residing at the Lozano of building these waterpaths and the damage vs. agreement to get married. waterpaths and contrivances built by respondent single. Such action if proven HON. a week before the filing of aside the Decision 1of the respondent Court of others. 16503. petitioner's attitude towards her Appeals in CA-G. petitioner then visited the private the rights of a third person. reimbursement for actual expenses On 27 October 1987. JR. Apartments. Filipino and a pretty lass of good moral corporation are alleged to have inundated the G. as a result of such maltreatment. the latter courted and Public Attorney's Office for petitioner. proposed to marry her.R. If the structures cause injury or petitioner repudiated their marriage agreement promise to marry on the basis of Article 21 of the damage to an adjoining landowner or a third and asked her not to live with him anymore and. 24256 which owner to build structures on his land. therefore agreed to get married after the end of Code provides that “the owner of a thing cannot the school semester. an community. UT ALIENUM NON LAEDAS. GONZALES. she Branch 38 (Lingayen) of the Regional Trial maintained using all reasonable care so that they sustained injuries. the assistance of counsel. 97336 February 19. attorney's fees and costs.00.00. living in Bacolod City. Although we recognize the right of an the complaint. petitioner. Article 431 of the Civil Corleto R. She alleges in said THIRD DIVISION 76 | P a g e . Bugallon. basis for the recovery of damages. respondents. they is not without limitations.. Pangasinan to secure their approval to the DAVIDE. on the other hand. she was a virgin before she the Rules of Court seeking to review and set not to infringe upon the rights and interests of began living with him.” SIC UTERE TUO respondent's parents in Bañaga. There is therefore. Moreover. during a confrontation with a Court (RTC) of Pangasinan in Civil Case No. CV No.R. No. COURT OF APPEALS and exchange student taking a medical course at the constitutes fault or negligence which may be the MARILOU T. Presented is the issue of whether or not and can withstand the usual and expected forces a day before the filing of the complaint.: adjoining landowners have mutual and marriage.

00 machinations. who is a foreigner and who has citizen and resident (sic) of defendant.00) pesos as atty's fees sought the consent and approval of her parents employee at Mabuhay and two thousand (P2. judgment is and contracting sponsors. Dagupan City. defendant to play the plaintiff never proposed marriage to or agreed to be the sum of three thousand married with the private respondent. the dispositive portion of the decision with Filipino customs and traditions — made parties had agreed upon.00) nor forced her to live in his apartment. inviting friends and relatives resident (sic) of Bañaga. The trial court gave full credit to the 77 | P a g e . facts are those alleged as his Special and College of Medicine. (c) petitioner.000. Dagupan City since and to pay the costs. and finally.000. good customs. sexual advances. and introduced the defendant to the questionable virtue who readily submits to has suffered mental anxiety and a besmirched plaintiff on August 3. but only told her to stop Avenue.00 as After trial on the merits. have offended our Lozano Apartment. (e) After conducting a pre-trial on 25 January 1988. Condemning (sic) the admitted only the personal circumstances of the 1. on 16 October 1989 a decision 5 favoring the she allowed herself to be deflowered by him. rendered because of his persuasive promise to marry her. Insisting. no confrontation took place with a representative of the barangay 4. that the know each other when the findings and conclusions that (a) petitioner and complaint is baseless and unfounded and that as manager of the Mabuhay private respondent were lovers.000. (b) private a result thereof. private the trial court issued a Pre-Trial ordered to pay the latter damages and attorney's respondent and her parents — in accordance Order 4 embodying the stipulated facts which the fees. 1987 up to the present. (f) petitioner did not Bugallon. That the plaintiff is single and IN THE LIGHT of the foregoing pigs and chickens. he prayed for an award of P5. promised to marry private respondent. 3 petitioner Dagupan City since September 1. 3. That the plaintiff is (sic) an (P3. 1986. Johhny Rabino respondent is not a woman of loose morals or into court and compelled to incur expenses.000. applying Article 21 of the Civil Code. to wit: reads: some preparations for the wedding that was to be held at the end of October 1987 by looking for 1. in his Counterclaim. 1986 up to the present and she had deceived him by stealing his money and a (sic) high school graduate. Pangasinan. belief as to the truth thereof or because the true Northwestern. through reputation. Guilig. he neither 3. Iranian plaintiff and against the of the petitioner. Fernandez pesos at (sic) litigation expenses not maltreat her. abused Philippine hospitality. for miscellaneous expenses and P25. culture and traditions. sense of morality.00) pesos as moral knowledge or information sufficient to form a presently studying at Lyceum damages. consideration. the lower court. private respondent. That the defendant is (P20. while the hereby rendered in favor of the fulfill his promise to marry her and (g) such acts defendant is single. All other claims are denied. The petitioner was thus by reason of that deceitful promise. 6 passport. he did Luncheonette . coming to his place because he discovered that July. deceit and false pretenses. He thus claimed that he medicine proper. defendant to pay the plaintiff parties as averred in the complaint and denied the sum of twenty thousand the rest of the allegations either for lack of 2. Condemning further the Affirmative Defenses.000. d) moral damages. he was unnecessarily dragged Luncheonette. second year 2.In his Answer with Counterclaim. That the parties happened to The decision is anchored on the trial court's captain.

9 he contended that the trial court erred (a) to get married. as stipulated the private respondent in the foregoing decision. but defendant gave Bugallon. City. He even gave her medicine at 4 the wedding. and they to marry plaintiff. started preparing later proposed marriage to her o'clock in the morning that for the reception by looking for several times and she accepted made her sleep the whole day pigs and chickens.R. respondent Court defendant told plaintiffs parents thereafter consulted a lawyer promulgated the challenged and brothers and sisters that he who accompanied her to the decision 10 affirming in toto the trial court's intended to marry her during barangay captain in Dagupan ruling of 16 October 1989. That was the time costs. 7 likewise allowed him to stay in insisted that he could not do so their house and sleep with because he was already married The above findings and conclusions were culled plaintiff during the few days to a girl in Bacolod City. her lawyer. plaintiff became wedding. attorney's fees. CV No. they continued to live together According to plaintiff. defendant would defendant had informed them of a boyfriend before. her court's findings of fact. in the early days of driver. and even his love as well as his proposal and night until the following already invited many relatives of marriage on August 20. who in defendant's apartment. with plaintiff. she would not have had the temerity and and trusted him. home to her parents. The photographs marry her until he told her that in not dismissing the case for lack of factual and Exhs. is digested by the respondent Court as follows: later returned to Dagupan City. also claimed that after the time and that she never had October.private respondent's testimony because. Pangasinan. pregnant. In sustaining the trial the semestral break in October. and On 18 February 1991. they agreed to captain went to talk to courage to come to court and expose her honor his proposal for him to marry defendant to still convince him and reputation to public scrutiny and ridicule if their daughter. "A" to "E" (and their he could not do so because he legal basis and (b) in ordering him to pay moral submarkings) of defendant with was already married to a girl in damages. 24256. went day. defendant tie plaintiff's hands and feet his desire to marry Marilou. As a result of this live-in and friends to the forthcoming on which same day he went with relationship. 8 her to her hometown of Bañaga. and he already looked for sponsors for days after they first met. 1987. that defendant is still single. litigation expenses and members of plaintiff's family or Bacolod City. he started courting her just a few while he went to school. and because plaintiff's godmother. Plaintiff. In his relationship and their intention reminding him of his promise to Brief. 1987. Plaintiff's father. When plaintiff and defendant by the parties at the pre-trial. inter parents thought he was good tanod sent by the barangay alia. a tricycle claimed that she was a virgin at However. Still plaintiff continued to the respondent Court of Appeals which docketed inform them of their live with defendant and kept the case as CA-G. respondent Court made 1987. from the detailed summary of the evidence for that they were in Bugallon. although the truth. Also on that occasion. as he her some medicine to abort the Petitioner appealed the trial court's decision to wanted to meet her parents and fetus. but defendant her claim was false. were taken that plaintiff left defendant. day. and a barangay the following analysis: 78 | P a g e .

and 56.S. tsn May 18. at least thrice. trustful so the plaintiff must have insincere proposal of marriage country girl. as described 1987 when he allegedly talked to he came to Dagupan City to by the lower court. at (sic) a beach party respect and regard for Filipino morals. It is not persuasive promise made by the Bugallon. she would not have parents. tsn id. 55. common-law wife in Bacolod trend of modern urban life". 1988). Would defendant City. for only to her but also to her otherwise.First of all. then only of Bañaga. then. keep said promise.). the owner of the photographed with defendant in restaurant where plaintiff was In sum. Upon the other hand. 1987 (p. Bugallon. tsn March 7.). at does not appear to be a man of defendant who was already 29 (sic) the town fiesta on February good moral character and must years old at the time. the restaurant after she had live with him on the honest and Defendant in fact admitted that accepted defendant's proposal sincere belief that he would he went to plaintiff's hometown (pp. that he felt so defendant to marry her. defendant's pretense marriage to plaintiff. which she promise to marry plaintiff that that plaintiff was a nobody to declared was the reason why made her surrender her virtue him except a waitress at the plaintiff resigned from her job at and womanhood to him and to restaurant where he usually ate. we are strongly public in so (sic) loving and working and where defendant convinced and so hold that it tender poses as those depicted first proposed marriage to her. he had a "not used and accustomed to to marry her daughter (pp. It is uncontradicted that together with the manager and women that he openly admitted she was a virgin prior to her employees of the Mabuhay that when he studied in Bacolod unfortunate experience with Luncheonette on March 3." In fact. unless there was (sic) surprising. 1987 City for several years where he defendant and never had (p. just like what he defendant if there was no plaintiff's hometown in Bañaga. Biology before boyfriend. in order to satisfy thought because of the to plaintiff. 54. tsn id. "D" and also knew of this love affair and fraudulent and deceptive "E". defendant's proposal of protestations of love for and therefore. In other words. 6-7. 50. a barrio lass plaintiff's mother who told him study medicine. innocent. 11 deception of defendant. he also certainly would (sic) not have have left Dagupan City where he lived with another woman in allowed was involved in the serious Bacolod City but did not marry "herself to be deflowered by the study of medicine to go to that woman. finished his B. We cannot believe. does not 27. was defendant-appellant's in the pictures Exhs. and it was 79 | P a g e . plaintiff. and (sic) Marites and then concluded: allowed herself to be Rabino. communicated not his lust on her. appellant 21 years old when she met Pangasinan. and on April 1. a must have been sweethearts or indeed have led to defendant's young. did to plaintiff. think so low and have so little appear to be a girl of loose 1988). some kind of special little compunction or remorse in we agree with the lower court relationship between them? And pretending to love and that plaintiff and defendant this special relationship must promising to marry plaintiff. She is.

Thus. could alter the result of the case. the Equally settled is the rule that only questions of Philippines. might affect the foreigner who has been enjoying ruling that he does not posses good moral result of the case. As an Iranian Moslem. he raises of the case. 80 | P a g e . such acts would not be There are. after the private respondent xxx xxx xxx It is petitioner's thesis that said Article 21 is not had filed her Comment to the petition and the applicable because he had not committed any petitioner had filed his Reply thereto. promised to marry her. It is not the function of this Court to the lower court ordered him to assumed arguendo that he had professed his analyze or weigh all over again the evidence do in its decision in this case. as petitioner asseverates that even if it was to be Court. to compensate for private respondent should also be faulted for law may be raised in a petition for review the moral damages and injury consenting to an illicit arrangement. 13 On 26 August 1991. his controversial "common taking advantage of the law life" is now his legal wife as their marriage Petitioner has miserably failed to convince Us opportunity to study in one of had been solemnized in civil ceremonies in the that both the appellate and trial courts had our institutions of learning. surmises or love or proposed marriage to the private which they subsequently complied with. rule in this jurisdiction that appellate courts will these acts of appellant are He stresses that even if he had made a promise not disturb the trial court's findings as to the palpably and undoubtedly to marry. respondent. fact. he then alludes to the opportunity to observe closely their deportment gravely and deeply derogatory Muslim Code which purportedly allows a and manner of testifying.. 257 [1953]). under Art. He Navarro. indeed be made. Muslim to take four (4) wives and concludes that had plainly overlooked facts of substance or coming as they do from a on the basis thereof. 93 Phil. the latter court having against morals. 14 exceptions: 21 of the Civil Code applies to the case at bar. are also raised. the trial court erred in value which. unless the trial court and insulting to our women. Asistio. 21 of petitioner claims that even if responsibility could the Civil Code of the be pinned on him for the live-in relationship. As to his unlawful overlooked any fact of substance or values which defendant-appellant should cohabitation with the private respondent. to enumerate these therein the single issue of whether or not Article actionable. he has not professed parties to submit their respective Memoranda. he credibility of witnesses. the subsequent failure to fulfill the credibility of witnesses. petitioner filed the actionable in view of the special circumstances this rule. 15 the hospitality of our people and character. conjectures (Joaquin v. again. it is clear that questions of agree to their daughter's living. Iranian Embassy. which boil down to the issue of the in with him preparatory to their traditions and culture. good customs. It is the supposed marriage. Moreover. same is excusable or tolerable because of his heard the witnesses and having had the and public policy. speculation. Jr. on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of that he had caused plaintiff. likewise these (sic) fraud and criticizes the trial court for liberally invoking As may be gleaned from the foregoing deception on appellant's part Filipino customs. this Court (1) When the conclusion is a moral wrong or injury or violated any good gave due course to the petition and required the finding grounded entirely on custom or public policy. he support of his thesis. inMedina vs. recognized exceptions to Unfazed by his second defeat. traditions and culture. is not conversant with such Filipino customs. 12 love to the private respondent and had also introduced by the parties before the lower court. however. if considered. The mere breach of promise is not Court took the time. and he has never maltreated her. And as is not familiar with Catholic and Christian ways. and summation of the petitioner's arguments in that made plaintiff's parents ignoring the fact that since he is a foreigner. 16 this instant petition on 26 March 1991. Finally. and are even Moslem upbringing.

lends itself more readily to When the findings of fact are abuse by designing women and conflicting (Casica v. Linatok. Fully sensible by the respondents (Ibid.). Consequently. 103 Committees on the Proposed Civil Code. which leave so Court of Appeals is premised on many victims of moral wrongs the supposed absence of helpless. (4) When the judgment the existence of any of the above quoted breach of promise suits in the is based on a misapprehension exceptions in this case. Nov. Gutierrez. unscrupulous men. from provision. absurb or the evidence on record (Salazar is proposed. the factual United States and in England of facts (Cruz v. .. Villaseca. in The existing rule is that a breach of promise to abolition of rights of action in making its findings. which is designed to Phil. 95 Phil. . . the said Code contains a Surety and Insurance Co.). 27. specifically enumerate and punish in the statute Sacay v. and that there are countless gaps in (10) The finding of fact of the the statutes. It is this L-9590 Ap. That breach of impossible (Luna v. actionable has been definitely is a grave abuse of discretion decided in the case of De Jesus (Buyco v. Court which is impossible for human foresight to of Appeals. Sandiganbayan. Syquia. 33 SCRA 242 promise to marry is not Phil.) (6) experience which has led to the When the Court of Appeals. 142 books. even though they have 81 | P a g e . (3) Where there [1970]). Article 21. 401 [1958]). unrep. 17 Congress deliberately eliminated from many of the American and the same is contrary to the the draft of the New Civil Code the provisions states. 1957. 19 admissions of both appellate that would have made it so. which We quote: expand the concept of torts or quasi-delict in (7) The findings of the Court of this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal Appeals are contrary to those of remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs the trial court (Garcia v. The reason therefor and appellee (Evangelista v. went marry per se is not an actionable the so-called Heart Balm suits in beyond the issues of the case wrong.. (5) respected. 453 Petitioner has not endeavored to joint out to Us vs. 15 [1942]). Alto is set forth in the report of the Senate This notwithstanding.(2) When the inference made is evidence and is contradicted by The elimination of this chapter manifestly mistaken. And now to the legal issue. (9) When the But the Code Commission had facts set forth in the petition as gone farther than the sphere of well as in the petitioners main wrongs defined or determined and reply briefs are not disputed by positive law. 30.. 74 v. findings of the trial and appellate courts must be has shown that no other action L-4875. 18 The history of [1955]). People. 33 SCRA 622 [1970]. (8) When the findings of fact are As the Code Commission itself stated in its conclusions without citation of Report: specific evidence on which they are based (Ibid. Sosing. 1953). 20 SCRA 593 [1986]).

known in Spanish was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to promise of marriage be filed. is American law on torts. 23. to incorporate the proposed article. the malicious acts. or can not be proved. But under battery. Under provisions of this Chapter. causes damage to another. in the action for damages. interest of justice. Any Thus at one stroke. her consent to the sexual act.actually suffered material and incalculable moral damage. if the forgoing rule is are to be governed by the Revised Penal wilfully causes approved. in reality. legal treatises as culpa aquiliana. there supple and adaptable than the Anglo- being fault or negligence. Such fault or negligence. Article 21 has greatly compensate the broadened the scope of the law on civil latter for the Whoever by act or omission wrongs. and so hold. Article 21 customs or fills that vacuum. if In the light of the above laudable purpose of "A" seduces the nineteen-year there is no pre-existing Article 21. no nineteen years of age. though the grievous civil law concept while torts is an Anglo. it has become much more damage. but international moral injury. 23 An example will illustrate the obliged to pay for the damage purview of the foregoing norm: done. would vouchsafe Code while negligent acts or omissions loss or injury to adequate legal remedy for that are to be covered by Article 2176 of the another in a untold number of moral wrongs Civil Code. she not only negligence. person who legislator. is a entice or inveigle her to accept him and to obtain Therefore. could justify the moral wrong has been American or common law award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not committed. there is no of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual crime. the Commission and her parents cannot bring criminal acts as well such as assault and has deemed it necessary. Torts is much broader because of such promise to marry but because of and family have suffered than culpa aquiliana because it includes the fraud and deceit behind it and the willful 82 | P a g e . Commission responsible for drafting the New Civil Code. she and In the general scheme of the Philippine in the proposed Civil Code the her parents would have such a legal system envisioned by the following rule: right of action. The delict and is governed by the by a woman and his representation to fulfill that girl becomes pregnant. would have morals. promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause the present laws. 22 In between these opposite manner that is which it is impossible for human spectrums are injurious acts which. A promise contractual relation between the that where a man's promise to marry is in fact of marriage either has not been parties. Thus. Neither and excludes the notion of willfulness or intention of marrying her and that the promise can any civil action for breach of intent. We are of the opinion. false imprisonment and deceit. old daughter of "X". with certain exceptions. which defines that together with Articles 19 and 20 of shall a quasi-delict thus: the Civil Code. 21 been beyond redress. Quasi-delict. intentional and Art. in contrary to foresight to provide for the absence of Article 21. and though the girl concept. proof that he had. good specifically in the statutes. the proximate cause of the acceptance of his love made. as the girl is above is limited to negligent acts or omissions congress. is called a quasi. It is even postulated public policy Article 2176 of the Civil Code.

25 this Court denied recovery of Commission's memorandum no seduction damages to the woman because: refers to a tort upon a minor (43 Cent. sexual intercourse. however. par. . and as highly the part of the seducer to which enlightened as a former high the woman has yielded (U.injury to her honor and reputation which not only because he is of a promise of marriage. U. . Court of Appeals. it followed thereafter. the Buenaventura case (supra) honest and sincere belief that he would keep said because the court of first that — promise. it was the petitioner's "fraudulent and deceptive insurance agent are supposed to vs. then a mere It has been ruled in womanhood to him and to live with him on the apprentice pilot. . 121. superior manner contrary to morals. If at the time of the seduction. It is essential. (36) years of age. also. recovery was promise or of the Revised Penal Code because the private eventually denied because We were not other respondent was above eighteen (18) years of age convinced that such seduction existed. In the instant case. 9 Phil. we find ourselves unable to essential feature is seduction. following enlightening disquisition and she consents conclusion were made in the said case: merely from Prior decisions of this Court clearly suggest that carnal lust and Article 21 may be applied in a breach of promise The Court of Appeals seem to the intercourse to marry where the woman is a victim of moral have overlooked that the is from mutual seduction. good customs or — who was around thirty-six power or abuse of confidence on public policy. or a breach induced to 83 | P a g e . 595). vs. enticement. inducement an kind illustrated by the Code Commission in its d the woman example earlier adverted to. that approximately ten (10) years connotes essentially the idea of such injury should have been committed in a younger than the complainant deceit. seduction there living-in with him preparatory to their supposed "overwhelmed by her love" for must in all marriage.S. in Hermosisima vs. Arlante. and it was likewise these fraud and instance found that. Seduction. there is Appeals. 26 while this must yield not be held liable for criminal seduction Court likewise hinted at possible recovery if because of the punished under either Article 337 or Article 338 there had been moral seduction. she "wanted to bind" him cases be some surrendered her virginity. Court of example set forth in the Code desire. Dig. the private respondent him. respondent Court found that school teacher and a life Buenaventura.S. but. not because engagement even before they promise or of lust but because of moral seduction — the had the benefit of clergy. deception on appellant's part that made complainant "surrendered To constitute plaintiff's parents agree to their daughter's herself" to petitioner because. The inducement." 24 In short. protestations of love for and promise to marry be — when she became intimate plaintiff that made her surrender her virtue and with petitioner. 27 Phil. The tit. the cherished by having a fruit of their sufficient possession of every single Filipina. 56) She say that petitioner that in law is more than mere must be is morally guilty of seduction. Thus. The petitioner could In Tanjanco vs. who had been seduced.

which are curiosity of the Plainly there is here calculated to female. the fact stand out knowledge. and seducer (27 such cases would have cut short all sexual Phil. from recovery. depart from the Accordingly it is appellee. 28 Associate injury. and the voluntariness and mutual have and do defendant passion. path of virtue not seduction maintain intimate sexual by the use of where the relations with appellant. a woman of adult age. and a xxx xxx xxx Justice Edgardo L. 662) essence of the In his annotations on the Civil Code. had she and which her the needed surrendered exclusively because result in her opportunity for of the deceit. would be swift First Instance in dismissing the persuasion or to profit. in an unchastity by Civil Code. arises out of Such conduct is incompatible persuasions and sexual desire of with the idea of seduction. the adventuresses was committed by the Court of enticement. who recently retired mere proof of from this Court. would tend to relations upon finding that the defendant did not intend to And in American Jurisprudence demoralization fulfill his defendant did not we find: of the female intend to fulfill his promise. we conclude that no case On the other be a reward for is made under article 21 of the hand. artful persuasions person to the commission and wiles of the defendant. sex. and no other cause action by the which a class of of action being alleged. It has would not have again yielded to submitting her been his embraces. (47 complaint. Paras. and would Hence. arts. 123). for had the appellant have that effect. with some species of willingness repeated acts of intercourse. she ultimately of the act. merely affords been deceived. moral damages may be recovered: warrant a that for one whole year. no error woman. without exacting early sexual that to allow a fulfillment of the alleged embraces of her recovery in all promises of marriage. the plaintiff- 84 | P a g e . 1958 to 1959. Jur. 27 deception is the Am. much less for one person to the emphasized year. opined that in a breach of intercourse is Over and above the partisan promise to marry where there had been carnal insufficient to allegations. wiles.

p. to an experienced woman thirty And this predicament prompted should there be any. and the become a doctor sooner or later. notwithstanding the We are unable to agree with the petitioner's background. Sept. EFFECT be the carnal But so long as there is fraud. is in need of a there can be no recovery of under the circumstances. L-14733. Jr. man who can give her economic moral damages. authority or influence. but the respondent had "sustained any injury or damage 30. employee . but in the vulgar pursuant to Article 1412(1) of the Civil Code and intercourse was due to mutual sense of deception. . even if the act is not Senator Arturo M. . for argument's sake. 1960. 33 Phil. pp. The granting. if the CAUSE be the basis for indemnity. he was not at all moved by example given by the Code promise to marry the private respondent. Jan. regard It is submitted that the rule criminal case for that reason. 471). together with "ACTUAL damages. 1988) in a luncheonette and If it be the other way around. Marcos. 30. Take notice that she is a plain knowledge. hence recovery The court. there should be civil petitioner. . for the private respondent on account of the in Batarra vs. not necessarily in him. if not sarcastic. already of age. . It is clear that he an acquittal or dismissal of the harbors a condescending. petitioner as the latter will promise to marry. it cannot be said that there 17248. if it is 25. Marcos. Marcos. (Annex "C") or a moral seduction. (In other is an injury which can be the . age may not constitute deceit as (TSN. The latter L-14628. man. 30 still latter's ignoble birth. 32 the private respondent cannot Appeals. Court of the sexual act is accomplished vs. . must weigh waitress (TSN. the action lies. hence. 51-53. 34 liability. however. 33 for: Court of Appeals. According to a woman so circumstances could not have even 85 | P a g e . Bolifer. if there be criminal or moral wasseduction. such as the years of age. has in their relationship. May 18. seduction. Her family is in dire mutual lust has intervened). poverty and. the degree of fraud. . as perceived by him. 29. . Beatriz Galang vs. . knowingly given herself to a her own doing.. Batarra vs. the good faith and an honest motive. deceive a girl sixteen years of need of financial assistance. But when the doctrine laid down in Batarra lust. et al. sufficient to deceive the woman without doubt. January of moral damages will prosper. because here because an act which would security. . (Hermosisima vs. from article 31 in the Code. without any deceit or qualifying recover damages from the petitioner. Tolentino 29 is also of the punishable under the criminal These statements reveal the true character and same persuasion: law and there should have been motive of the petitioner. incorporation of the present alternative proposition to the effect that dishonorable employment. Marrying with Commission is correct. 1960. Estopa circumstance of abuse of even goes as far as stating that if the private vs. 7 woman. But so long as there her to accept a proposition that expenses for the wedding presentations is a wrongful act and a resulting may have been offered by the (See Domalagon v. 56 (sic). Piansay. if there latter is nevertheless also at fault. Obviously then. but not if the the legal sense. 1988). inferior educational subsists. 51. there is a chance which is characterized by high school graduate and a mere that there was criminal or willfulness (sic). L. . She is also interested in the words. 1962).. injury. both parties are in pari delicto. Sept. it is primarily because of Phil. that he did the very beginning.

of breach of of our laws. forced to live with him in his apartments. the petitioner is already married to someone living in Bacolod City. told her to stop from coming into his apartment could be conceded that she is merely in delicto. which he wanted satisfied by a Filipina who of the original wrong principally honestly believed that by accepting his proffer of rests. she would be able the transaction was itself to enjoy a life of ease and security. concur. it values of morality and dignity. the private respondent may not is not. Petitioner procured by Feliciano." 35 At most. is on leave. Respondent was a virgin before she was forced she eventually submitted to the petitioner in to live with the Iranian (petitioner).remotely occurred to him. 36 and brazenly defied the traditional respect Gutierrez. assaulted and asked not to live with had qualms of conscience about the entire this Court condones the deplorable behavior of him anymore and. therefore. 209). entice. equivalent. She said that both of them apply where one party is literate agreed to marry after the end of the school The pari delicto rule does not apply in this case or intelligent and the other one semester and the petitioner asked the approval of her parents. episode for as soon as she found out that the her parents in letting her and the petitioner stay petitioner was not going to marry her after all. Lasud. His was nothing but pure lust the party on whom the burden SO ORDERED. their daughters and infuse upon them the higher with him and he did not maltreat her but only equal in guilt or in legal fault. She stated that the petitioner for while indeed. It does not promise to marry. that while We find before she filed her complaint. let it not be said that maltreated. J. Bough vs. his profession Equity often interferes for the WHEREFORE. indeed. however. an Iranian Citizen. finding no reversible error in the of love and promise to marry were empty words relief of the less guilty of the challenged decision. he loved her and would want her to be imposition of undue influence of his life's partner. give everyone his due and should be no action by one observe honesty and good faith in the exercise of against the other (Art. 1412. there DIGEST act with justice. with costs against the and deceive the poor woman into believing that has been brought about by the petitioner. 40 Phil. petitioner moral seduction. It is the said that he never proposed marriage with the delicto with the petitioner. where his transgression hereby DENIED. customs and traditions. however. more or Shookat. beguile parties. Cantiveros. Bidin. less.. She is not. he neither forced her to live "in equal fault. JJ. 37 We declared: said that the petitioner committed such deplorable acts in blatant disregard of Article 19 Appellants likewise stress that of the Civil Code which directs every person to both parties being at fault. Romero and Melo. This rule. but because of We should stress. or where his consent to love and proposal of marriage. clearly violated the Filipino's concept of morality fraud. in pari giving approval to their marriage. (c. have been impelled by the purest of intentions. it is apparent that she for the private respondent. obligations. Jr. dupe. together in the same room in their house after On the petitioner’s counterclaim. he she left him.. It can even be In Mangayao vs. A week sexual congress not out of lust. in a similar offense or crime. Thus. the instant petition is directly intended to fool.. In fact.f. his rights and in the performance of his FACTS: New Civil Code). has been interpreted Private respondent Marilou Gonzales as applicable only where the filed a complaint for damages against Gasheem No foreigner must be allowed to make a mockery fault on both sides is. because he discovered that she had deceived him 86 | P a g e . Filipinos have for their women. Pari delicto means solemn duty of parents to protect the honor of private respondent.

Romeo that he must be awarded for damages for he Hilot. no intention of dated August 11. in reality. suit. on deceit and the willful injury to her honor and rendered on November 5. Branch II. Section 3 (b) of the Rules HON. HELD: Second Branch ROMEO HILOT. for the recovery of damages on discretion on the part of the City Court in account of a vehicular accident involving his suspending the civil action inasmuch as damage automobile and a jeepney driven by Romeo Hilot Republic of the Philippines to property is not one of the instances when an and operated by Valeriana Pepito and Carlos SUPREME COURT independent civil action is proper. arising from the same accident. respondent Judge presiding. speedy. which provides: Whether or not the petitioner is to be Judge of the Third Branch of the Court of held liable for damages for breach of promise to First Instance of Cebu. HON. a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause Jose M. petitioner-appellant. the last three being the private Manila petitioner has another plain. 1970. LORENZO (b) After a criminal action has marry. Mesina for appellees. He insisted FIRST DIVISION criminal case was filed against the driver. BARRIA City Judge of Mandaue City. counsel for private reputation due to the complaint of the private respondents moved to suspend the civil action respondent. This court held that stage it may be found. L-33171 May 31. Petitioner's Motion for subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or Reconsideration thereof. judgment in the criminal proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by proceeding has been rendered. 1970. Subsequent thereto.: inveigle her to accept him and to obtain her August 25. law and jurisprudence. suspending the civil action for being contrary to The background facts to the controversy may be good customs or public policy. of the giving of herself in a sexual congress. 1 petitioner elevated the matter consent to the sexual act. until final where a man’s promise to marry is in fact the Eriberto Seno for appellant. ordered the suspension of marrying her and that the promise was only a the civil case. 2 set forth as follows: Petitioner even committed deplorable On November 5. arising from the same offense VALERIANA PEPITO and CARLOS can be prosecuted. a adequate remedy under the law. could justify the award This is a Petition for Review on certiorari of the on certiorari to the Court of First Instance of of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because of such promise to marry but because of fraud and Decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu Cebu. alleging that the City Judge reputation which followed thereafter. At the suffered mental anxiety and a besmirched G. respondent Judge acts in disregard of the laws of the country. no civil action B. pending the final determination of the criminal ISSUE: vs. costs against the petitioner. 1970. The City Court of Mandaue City in an Order proof that he had. shall be suspended. 1970. a court ordered that the petition be denied with dismissed the Petition for certiorari on the Complaint in the City Court of Mandaue City. The Petitioner herein filed. and respondents in this suit. MATEO CANONOY. Such act had acted with grave abuse of discretion in done by the petitioner is contrary to morals. and the same A breach of promise to marry per se is PEPITO. CINCO. which is to 87 | P a g e . J. 1970. respondents-appellees. 1970. September 11. been commenced. 1979 pre-trial in the civil case. No.R. having been denied on MELENCIO-HERRERA. PORFIRIO P. that Pepito. in whatever not an actionable wrong. ground that there was no grave abuse of Cebu. on February 25. invoking Rule 111.by stealing his money and passport. Presiding of Court.

private respondents demandable not only for one's contended. therefore. Petitioner's IS INTERLOCUTORY. and that the Petition is defective NOT PROPER. RENDERED IN THE the damage done. ERRED IN on Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. there being fault or Thus. is caned damages were sustained by petitioner because of IN HOLDING THAT IN ORDER a quasi-delict and is governed the collision. owned by the Pepitos which caused the collision existing contractual relation between his automobile and said jeepney. improper. 2176. that 2. 189 family to prevent damage. this Petition for Review before this of their assigned tasks. 88 | P a g e . FILED IN THE CITY COURT Art. THAT THE COURT ERRED damages cause by their 14. that they observed all the HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL which provide: diligence of a good father of a OF THE CIVIL CASE NO. Whoever by act or (1903a) OF MANDAUE SHOULD BE omission causes damage to SUSPENDED UNTIL AFTER A another. to which we gave due course on all of which can be synthesized into one decisive though the former are not February 25. 1971. DAMAGES IN THE CRIMINAL Art. 4 helpers acting within the scope Hence. THAT THE COURT ERRED own acts or omissions but also case. (1902a) and the fault and negligence of private SUBMIT HIS CLAIM FOR respondents. THAT THE COURT ERRED between the parties. BECAUSE THE inasmuch as what petitioner actually desires is a RESOLUTION IN QUESTION xxx xxx xxx Writ of mandamus (Annex "R"). Motion for Reconsideration was denied by Employers shall be liable for the respondent Judge in an Order dated November 4. in the Answer. evident that the nature and character of his this article shall cease when the RESPONDENT JUDGE MATEO action was quasi-delictual predicated principally persons herein mentioned prove CANONOY. Petitioner makes these: during the pendency of the criminal action. if there is no pre. among others. that defendant. certiorari is PETITION FOR certiorari IS one is responsible.submit his claim for damages in the criminal 3. in the operation of the jeepney CRIMINAL CASE. IN HOLDING THAT THE employees and household PETITION IS DEFECTIVE. The obligation CASE. negligence.1970 (Annex "S" and Annex "U"). that the resolution of the City Court is IN HOLDING THAT THE for those of persons for whom interlocutory and. THE TRIAL COURT. that there was a direct causal TO AVOID DELAY THE by the provisions of this connection between the damages he suffered OFFENDED PARTY MAY Chapter. it is The responsibility treated of in 1. Cebu. imposed by article 2176 is Similarly. 2180. xxx xxx xxx ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR From the Complaint filed by petitioner before the City Court of Mandaue City. 3 issue: whether or not there can be an engaged in any business or independent civil action for damage to property industry. plaintiff made the essential averments that FINAL JUDGMENT IS negligence is obliged to pay for it was the fault or negligence of the driver. Such fault or Romeo Hilot. even Tribunal.

the literal meaning of the law to plaintiff to follow a devious and delict. the Revised Penal Code Spanish Civil Code. as specifically provided negligence — even the slightest defendant can and should be for in Article 2177 of the Civil Code. it being a 89 | P a g e . has been ancient origin and such full. Nor are we. proof for civil wrongs because the that articles 1902 to 1910 of the of guilt beyond reasonable procedure indicated by the Civil Code refer only to fault or doubt is required. 5 scope and application in actual cannot be shown beyond life. particularly of her co-defendant Romeo Hilot. under article 1903 of the Civil in article 365 punishes not only Code. what otherwise. Ubi jus ibi remedium. there would be many preceding article is entirely sphere would remain for instances of unvindicated civil separate and distinct from the quasidelito or culpa aquiliana wrongs. same act or omission of the interpretation of the laws. while in a defendant is wasteful and negligence not punished by law. preponderance of productive of delay. observed due diligence in the according to the literal import of evidence is sufficient to make selection and supervision of her employees. the independent civil action. expounded in Barredo grown development as culpa but there is also a more vs. Garcia. fault or negligence under the In such a state of affairs. but can be Liability being predicated on quasi-delict the personsand damage to proved by a preponderance of civil case may proceed as a separate and property through any degree of evidence. We will not use tantamount to compelling the criminal negligence and quasi. to find the accused more likely to facilitate remedy imprudence. to sue the driver and defendant. In such cases. article 1093 of the Civil Code. Our view of the law is reckless but also simple Secondly. in the defendants liability effective. a the legal institution ofculpa There are numerous cases of defense peculiar to actions based on quasi. if we were to hold guilty in a criminal case. Responsibility for civil hability arising from crime. aquiliana would have very little criminal negligence which delict. civil liability arising from We are loath to impute to the negligence under the Penal lawmaker any intention to bring Thirdly. would have to be indemnified made responsible in a civil only through the principle of action under articles 1902 to Art. the defendant pay in damages.. 607. which is based 620-621. and that is. which is readily smother and render almost cumbersome method of discernible from the foregoing lifeless a principle of such obtaining a reliel True.Valeriana Pepito. there is codal provision. aquiliana or quasi-delito. Death or injury to reasonable doubt. would be The crucial distinction between that giveth life. 2177. such a remedy under our laws. 6 thus: is conserved and made enduring on the primary and direct in articles 1902 to 11910 of the responsibility of the defendant Firstly. But the plaintiff cannot about a situation so absurd and only one way to make recover damages twice for the anomalous. et al. which expeditious way. to hold that there is Code. civil case. 1910 of the Civil Code. 73 Phil. (n) disposed to uphold the letter exhaust his (the latter's) that killeth rather than the spirit property first.

at least. it has nevertheless in the work already cited (Vol. so patrimonial safety of others. It when it comes to motor full rigor. por refundicion contractual. Fourthly. 622. As motor vehicles. which is by construing the laws. It is high time we is but right that they should accidents. This will. Oyuelos says our laws. and there is need of cause the stream of quasi- guarantee the latter's careful stressing and accentuating the delict or culpa aquiliana to flow conduct for the personnel and responsibility of owners of on its own natural channel. "they should diverted into that of a crime reproach themselves.) All responsibility for fault or principally reap the profits these observations acquire a negligence under articles 1902 resulting from the services of peculiar force and significance et seq. Civil responsibility arising from unnecessary. But we believe employees should be carefully (become as one personality by it is high time we pointed out to chosen and supervised in order the merging of the person of the the harm done by such practice to avoid injury to the public. rendered practically useless and At this juncture. principal or director. In the present case. 747) that before third persons nugatory the more expeditious said that the primary and direct the employer and employee and effective remedy based on responsibility of employers and vienen a ser como una sola culpa aquiliana or culpa extra- their presumed negligence are personalidad. 12." (Vol. Although this facilitate the pathways of right representation of the principal habitual method is allowed by and justice. courts have responsibility of the employer invoking articles 1902-1910 of endeavored to shorten and on the principle of the Civil Code. principles calculated to protect de la del dependiente en la de we are asked to help perpetuate society." And Code on this subject. Workmen and quien la emplea y utihza this usual course. 2nd Ed. that its waters may no longer be Theilhard has said. Why. Thus. 7. "It is given rise to overlapping or an ancient and additional 90 | P a g e . make for the bet for their poor selection and all the Penal Code and the Civil ter safeguarding of private for their negligence. because of the broad under the Penal Code. of the Civil Code to its these servants and employees. some for their weakness. which has rights because it re-establishes according to Manresa. others sweep of the provisions of both it is believed. forgetting that there is useless procedure? In also base this primary another remedy. culpaaquiliana there has grown damages. it should be p.) Many jurists crime. should the and not upon the such employee up a common practice to seek plaintiff be required in all cases because of his confidence in the damages only by virtue of the to go through this round-about. and probably p. and for lack of and similar public conveyances fail upon the principal or understanding of the character usually do not have sufficient director who could have chosen and efficacy of the action for means with which to pay a careful and prudent employee. by the agent. It is employee in that of him who and to restore the principle of the masters or employers who employs and utilizes him. then.matter of common knowledge much more equitable and just concurrence of spheres already that professional drivers of taxis that such responsibility should discussed.

Rule 111 above (2) Contracts. and section 2.. the civil action referred to in Secs. from the same offense can be prosecuted and the The separate and independent civil action for same shall be suspended in whatever stage it (4) Acts or omissions punished a quasi-delict is also clearly recognized in may be found. 3(a) and 3(b) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. 31. Indeed. is so broad that it includes be brought by the injured party relevance when it provides: not only injuries to persons but also damage to during the pendency of the property. In fact." Civil Code bolsters this conclusion when it action. The concept of civil action entirely separate and quasidelica as enunciated in Article 2176 of the distinct from the c action. (1089a) Sec. 32. and has to be held that the City Court. provided the right Art. section just cited" (i. property. no civil action arising (3) Quasi-contracts. (Emphasis quoted).e. And with respect to harm it is plain that it prosecution. (Garcia vs. (5) Quasi-delicts. An instance is Article 2191(2) of the section categorically lists cases provided for delict is that of an independent source of Civil Code which holds proprietors responsible obligation "not arising from the act or omission 91 | P a g e . — In the cases provided for in which should be suspended after the criminal (Emphasis supplied) Articles 31. 2. to property injuries. until final judgment in the by law. and for the further in Article 2177 of the Civil Code. remedy. 424-425. Independent civil action. supra. as complained of as a felony. Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. 7 It makes no distinction between criminal case. Are independent on quasi-delict action is based on quasi-delict. Section 2. in Art. such "harm" done and "reparation" for the harm independently of the criminal civil action may proceed done. 34 and 2177 action has been instituted is that arising from of the Civil Code of the the criminal offense not the civil action based It bears emphasizing that petitioner's cause of Philippines. in which case 6 once the criminal action supplied) has being commenced. Such civil arising from the act or omission word "damage" is used in two concepts: the action shag proceed complained of as a felony. Aug. it criminal prosecution. 33. the jural concept of a quasi. 1973)." Stated otherwise. Obligations arise entirely directed by the party surrounding the civil action. may Article 31 of the Civil Code then clearly assumes Civil Code (supra). actions arising from cases not included in the Florida 52 SCRA 420. 31. reading: criminal proceeding has been rendered. efficacious redress. supra which refers to "other civil (1) Law. not depending on the specifically recognizes that: issues. the result of the latter. erred in placing from: wronged or his counsel is more reliance on section 3 (b) of Rule 111 of the Rules likely to secure adequate and of Court. 1157." Article 1157 of the reason that an independent civil allowing of an "independent civil action. When the civil action is "damage to persons" on the one hand and is reserved as required in the based on an obligation not "damage to property" on the other. and shall require independently of the criminal includes both injuries to person and property only a preponderance of proceedings and regardless of since "harm" is not limited to personal but also evidence. examples of quasi- delict in the law itself include damage to Significant to note is the fact that the foregoing For obviously. the preceding section. stations and results of a Tested by the hereinabove-quoted legal tenets.

Makasiar. JJ. is hereby ordered to proceed damage to property during the pendency of the omission complained of as a felony. on Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code  word "damage" is used in two concepts:  Art. no civil action arising from the and shall require only a preponderance of finally terminated. Without pronouncement as to costs.. which should be suspended WHEREFORE. granting the Writ of certiorari the civil case after the criminal action has been instituted prayed for. counsel for private respondents moved to suspend SEC. invoking Articles 32. Fernandez. It shall Cebu. Rule 111 of the Rules may be harmful to persons or property. When civil action may proceed In the light of the foregoing disquisition. such with the hearing of Civil Case No. In no case. we are the civil action pending the final independently. in whatever stage party recover damages twice for the same act or conclusion. the independent civil action may Decision of the City Court of Mandaue City. which provides: be brought by the offended party. YES. the Decision of the Court of First  CFI by certiorari: dismissed is that arising from the criminal offense not Instance of Cebu sought to be reviewed is hereby the civil action based on quasi-delict ISSUE:  Art. and the City Court of Mandaue City. Having arrived at this same offense can be prosecuted. it may be found. —In the cases provided in constrained to hold that respondent Judge determination of the criminal suit. Responsibility for fault or the "harm" done and "reparation" for the Teehankee (Chairman). Cinco filed a complaint  The separate and independent civil against jeepney driven by Romeo Hilot and action for a quasi-delict is also clearly 92 | P a g e . criminal proceeding has been rendered  Secs. 31. the criminal proceedings and regardless of HELD: the result of the latter. concur. When the civil action is based on set aside. the Philippines. 189 of that criminal action civil action may proceed independently of Court. granting the Writ of certiorari prayed for  Article 2176 of the Civil Code (supra). 3(a) and 3(b) of Rule 111 of the  City Court: ordered the suspension of Rules of Court. is  nature and character of his action so broad that it includes not only injuries to was quasi-delictual predicated principally persons but also damage to property SO ORDERED. negligence under the preceding article is harm done Guerrero and De Castro. 2177." Pepito for a vehicular accident of Court:  At the pre-trial in the civil case. 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of gravely abused his discretion in upholding the Rule 111. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant DIGEST  primary and direct responsibility of employers and their presumed negligence FACTS: are principles calculated to protect society  Porfirio P. 33. until final judgment in the assigned becomes unnecessary. suspending the civil action based on (b) After a criminal action has been proceed independently of the criminal action a quasi-delict until after the criminal case is commenced. however. Section 3 (b) of the Rules of Court. Branch 11. may the offended same shall be suspended. a discussion of the other errors omission charged in the criminal action. W/N there can be an independent civil action for an obligation not arising from the act or Cebu. 3. entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. and the evidence.for damages caused by excessive smoke which operated by Valeriana Pepito and Carlos recognized in section 3.