DELOVIAR, ANDREA B.

JD-2
TORTS AND DAMAGES CASE DIGEST
July 21, 2017

Bustamante v. CA
G.R. No. 89880 February 6, 1991

Petitioners: EMMA ADRIANO BUSTAMANTE, et al

Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS, FEDERICO DEL PILAR AND EDILBERTO MONTESIANO

FACTS:
On April 20, 1983, at 6:30 am, a collision occurred between a 1947 model gravel and sand truck driven by Edilberto
Montesiano which owned by Fedirico Del Pilar and a Mazda passenger bus driven by Susulin along the national road
at Calibuyo, Tanza, Cavite. The front left side portion (barandilla) of the body of the truck sideswiped the left side wall
of the passenger bus, ripping off the wall from the driver's seat to the last rear seat. Due to impact, several
passengers of the bus were thrown out and died as a result of the injuries they sustained. Among those killed were
the husband, daughters and sons of the plaintiffs.

The bus was registered in the name of Novelo but was owned and/or operated as a passenger bus jointly Magtibay
and Serrado. Before the collision, the cargo truck and the passenger bus were approaching each other, coming from
the opposite directions of the highway. While the truck was still about 30 meters away, Susulin, the bus driver, saw
the front wheels of the vehicle wiggling. He also observed that the truck was heading towards his lane. Not minding
this circumstance due to his belief that the driver of the truck was merely joking, Susulin shifted from fourth to third
gear in order to give more power and speed to the bus, which was ascending the inclined part of the road, in order to
overtake or pass a Kubota hand tractor being pushed by a person along the shoulder of the highway. Thus, the two
vehicles sideswiped each other at each other's left side causing the impact. After which, the truck skidded towards
the other side of the road and landed on a nearby residential lot, hitting a coconut tree causing it to fall.

The RTC ruled that the liability of the two drivers for their negligence must be jointly and severally together with the
owners of the said vehicles. The respondent Court of Appeals granted the appealed and dismissed the complaint
against the owner and driver of the sand and gravel truck.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the last clear chance can apply making the bus negligent in failing to avoid the collision and the act of
the driver in proceeding to overtake the hand tractor was the proximate cause of the collision making him solely
liable.

RULING:
The Court ruled that the respondent Court committed an error of law in applying the doctrine of last clear chance as
between the defendants. The case at bar is not a suit between the owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles but a
suit brought by the heirs of the deceased passengers against both owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles.
Therefore, the respondent court erred in absolving the owner and driver of the cargo truck from liability.

The doctrine of last clear chance means that even though a person's own acts may have placed him in a position of
peril, and an injury results, the injured person is entitled to recovery. This applies in the suit between the owners and
drivers of colliding vehicles. It does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its
contractual obligations.

Lastly, the Court was convinced that the cargo truck was running fast. Despite that the road was descending, this is
one of the one of the factors disregarded by the cargo truck driver along with the fact that he was driving an old 1947
cargo truck whose front wheels are already wiggling and the fact that there is a passenger bus approaching it. In
DELOVIAR, ANDREA B. JD-2
TORTS AND DAMAGES CASE DIGEST
July 21, 2017
holding that the driver of the cargo truck was negligent, the trial court certainly took into account all these factors so it
was incorrect for the respondent court to disturb the factual findings of the trial court.

Ilocos Electric Company vs CA

G.R. No. 53401 November 6, 1989

Petitioners: THE ILOCOS NORTE ELECTRIC COMPANY

Respondents: HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, (First Division) LILIAN JUAN LUIS, JANE JUAN
YABES, VIRGINIA JUAN CID, GLORIA JUAN CARAG, and PURISIMA JUAN

FACTS:
A typhoon hit the province of Ilocos Norte bringing heavy rains and flood. When the typhoon abated and flood water
begin to recede, Nana Belen went to her grocery store together with two assistants following her to check on her
merchandise. After a few meters away Nana Belen screamed then sank into the flood water. The two girls following
her noticed an electric wire dangling, Nana Belen was electrocuted.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Ilocos Norte Electric Company is to be held liable.

RULING:
Petitioner was negligent in seeing to it that no harm is done to the general public considering that electricity is an
agency, subtle and deadly, the measure of care required of electric companies must be commensurate with or
proportionate to the danger. The duty of exercising this high degree of diligence and care extends to every place
where persons have a right to be. (Astudillo vs. Manila Electric, 55 Phil. 427)

The negligence of petitioner having been shown, it may not now absolve itself from liability by arguing that the
victim's death was solely due to a fortuitous event. "When an act of God combines or concurs with the negligence of
the defendant to produce an injury, the defendant is liable if the injury would not have resulted but for his own
negligent conduct or omission".
DELOVIAR, ANDREA B. JD-2
TORTS AND DAMAGES CASE DIGEST
July 21, 2017

People vs. Ritter

G.R. No. 88582 March 5, 1991

Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines

Accused-appellant: Heinrich Stefan Ritter

FACTS:
On or about October 10, 1986, accused Ritter brought Jessie Ramirez and Rosario Baluyot inside his hotel room in
Olongapo City. Inside the hotel room, the accused told them to take a bath. When Rosario came out of the bathroom,
she was told to remove her clothes by the accused and to join him in bed. At that time, Jessie was already asleep but
Rosario touched him to call his attention. When he looked, he saw the accused placing his penis against the vagina
of Rosario and that he was trying to penetrate but it would not fit. The following morning the accused left after paying
the children. Rosario then told Jessie that the accused inserted something in her vagina. Sometime the following day,
Jessie saw Rosario and he asked her whether the object was already removed from her body and Rosario said
"Yes". However, Jessie claimed that on the evening of that same date, he saw Rosario and she was complaining of
pain in her vagina and when he asked her, she said that the foreign object was not yet removed.

Seven months later, Rosario was brought to the hospital with bloodied skirt, unconscious and foul smelling. After 6
days, Rosario got serious and was pronounced dead subsequent to her operation with a portion of a sexual vibrator
extracted from her vagina.

A case for Rape with Homicide was filed against Ritter. The Regional Trial Court of Olongapo rendered a decision
declaring him guilty beyond reasonable doubt citing the rationale of Art 4 of the Revised Penal He who is the cause of
the cause is the cause of the evil caused. The Supreme Court however, reversed the judgment of the lower court and
acquitted Ritter.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the acquittal of the accused in a criminal case also releases him from civil liability.

RULING:
It does not necessarily follow that the appellant is also free from civil liability which is impliedly instituted with the
criminal action (Rule III, Section 1). The well-settled doctrine is that a person while not criminally liable may still be
civilly liable. While the guilt of the accused in a criminal prosecution must be established beyond reasonable doubt,
only a preponderance of evidence is required in a civil action for damages (Article 29, Civil Code). The judgment of
acquittal extinguishes the civil liability of the accused only when it includes a declaration that the facts from which the
civil liability might arise did not exist. (Padilla v. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 559)