You are on page 1of 13

ALBENSON v CA Albenson Enterprises v.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 88694, 11 January 1993
FACTS: Albenson Ent. delivered mild steel plates to Guaranteed Industries Inc. A Pacific FACTS: Petitioner Albenson Enterprises Corporation delivered to Guaranteed Industries,
Banking Corporation Check was paid and drawn against the account of EL Woodworks. Inc. at Baltao Building mild steel plates which the latter ordered and as part of the
Check was later dishonored for the reason Account Closed. Company traced source of payment, a bouncing check was issued by one Eugenio Baltao.
check and later discovered that the signature belonged to one Eugenio Baltao. Albenson
made an extrajudical demand upon Baltao but latter denied that he issued the check or Petitioner, in a sincere attempt to collect the sum of money due them, filed a criminal
that the signature was his. Company filed a complaint against Baltao for violation of BP complaint against private respondent Eugenio S. Baltao after the latter refused to make
22. It was later discovered that private respondent had son: Eugene Baltao III, who good the amount of the bouncing check despite demand. However, there was a mistake
manages the business establishment, EL Woodworks. No effort from the father to inform of identity as there were two Eugenio Baltaos conducting business in the same building
Albenson of such information. Rather the father filed complaint for damages against Eugenio S. Baltao and his son, Eugenio Baltao III.
It was found that the signature of the check was not of Eugenio S. Baltao and because of
the alleged unjust filing of a criminal case against him, respondent Baltao filed a
ISSUE: Whether there is indeed cause for the damages against Albenson Enterprise. complaint for damages anchored on Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code against
RATIO: Based on Art 19, 20, 21 of the civil code, petitioners didnt have the intent to
cause damage to the respondent or enrich themselves but just to collect what was due to ISSUE: Whether or not the principle of abuse of rights (Article 19) has been violated,
them. There was no abuse of right on the part of Albenson on accusing Baltao of BP 22. resulting in damages under Articles 20 and 21 or other applicable provision of law.

Albenson Corp. honestly believed that it was private respondent who issued RULING: No, petitioners could not be said to have violated the principle of abuse
check based on ff inquiries: of rights. What prompted petitioners to file the case for violation of Batas Pambansa
Bilang 22 against private respondent was their failure to collect the amount of P2,575.00
SEC records showed that president to Guaranteed was Eugene Baltao due on a bounced check which they honestly believed was issued to them by private
Bank said signature belonged to EB respondent. Petitioners had conducted inquiries regarding the origin of the check. Private
respondent, however, did nothing to clarify the case of mistaken identity at first hand.
EB did not do his part in clarifying that there were in fact 3 Ebs, Jr., Sr. and the III. Instead, private respondent waited in ambush and thereafter pounced on the hapless
petitioners at a time he thought was propitious by filing an action for damages.
There was no malicious prosecution on the part of Albenson: there must be proof
that: the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person The elements of an abuse of right under Article 19 are the following: (1) There is a legal
and that damages was initiated deliberately by defendant knowing that his charges were right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or
false and groundless injuring another. Article 20 speaks of the general sanction for all other provisions of law
which do not especially provide for their own sanction. Thus, anyone who, whether
Elements of abuse of right under Article 19: willfully or negligently, in the exercise of his legal right or duty, causes damage to
there is a legal right or duty exercised in bad faith for the sole intent of prejudicing or another, shall indemnify his victim for injuries suffered thereby. Article 21 deals with acts
injuring another contra bonus mores, and has the following elements: 1) There is an act which is legal; 2)
but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; 3) and it is
Elements under Article 21: contra bonus mores: done with intent to injure.
there is an act which is legal but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order
or public policy it is done with intent to injure There is no proof or showing that petitioners acted maliciously or in bad faith in the filing
of the case against private respondent. Consequently, in the absence of proof of fraud
A person who has not been paid an obligation owed to him will naturally seek ways to and bad faith committed by petitioners, they cannot be held liable for damages.
compel the debtor to pay him. It was normal for petitioners to find means to make the
issuer of the check pay the amount thereof. In the absence of a wrongful act or omission
or of fraud or bad faith, moral damages cannot be awarded and that the adverse result of
an action does not per se make the action wrongful and subject the actor to the payment
of damages, for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.
G.R. C.V. No. 14948 dated May 13, 1989, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Costs
against respondent Baltao.
Elcano vs Hill G.R. No. L-24803 [May 26, 1977]

77 SCRA 100 May 26, 1977 PEDRO ELCANO and PATRICIA ELCANO, in their capacity as Ascendants of
Torts and Damages Civil Liability from Quasi Delicts vs Civil Liability from AgapitoElcano, deceased,plaintiffs-appellants, vs. REGINALD HILL, minor, and
Crimes MARVIN HILL, as father and Natural Guardian of said minor, defendants-
FACTS: Reginald Hill, a minor, caused the death of Agapito (son of Elcano). Elcano filed a
criminal case against Reginald but Reginald was acquitted for lack of intent coupled with
Facts of the Case: Respondent Reginald Hill killed the son of the plaintiffs
mistake. Elcano then filed a civil action against Reginald and his dad (Marvin Hill) for
named Agapito Elcano. A criminal complaint was instituted against him but he was
damages based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Hill argued that the civil action is barred
acquitted on the ground that his act was not criminal, because of lack of intent to kill,
by his sons acquittal in the criminal case; and that if ever, his civil liability as a parent
couple with mistake. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a complaint for recovery of damages
has been extinguished by the fact that his son is already an emancipated minor by reason
against defendant Reginald Hill, a minor, married at the time of the occurrence, and his
of his marriage.
father, the defendant Marvin Hill, with who he was living and getting subsistence, for the
ISSUE: Whether or not Marvin Hill may be held civilly liable under Article 2180. same killing. A motion to dismiss was filed by the defendants. The Court of First Instance
of Quezon City denied the motion. Nevertheless, the civil case was
HELD: Yes. The acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case does not bar the filing of a finally dismissed upon motion for reconsideration.
separate civil action. A separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act,
whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that
the offended party is not allowed, if accused is actually charged also criminally, to recover Issues: 1. WON the present civil action for damages is barred by the acquittal of
damages on both scores, and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger Reginald in the criminal case. 2. WON Article 2180 (2nd and last paragraphs) of
award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. In other words, the the Civil Code may be applied against Atty. Hill, notwithstanding the undisputed fact that
extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule 111, refers exclusively at the time of the occurrence complained of. Reginald, though a minor, living with and
to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas the civil liability getting subsistence from his father, was already legally married.
for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished
even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened Ruling of the Court:
or has not been committed by the accused. Briefly stated, culpa aquiliana includes
voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law.
1. No, the present civil action for damages is not barred by the acquittal of Reginald in
While it is true that parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of the child the criminal case. Firstly, there is a distinction as regards the proof required in a criminal
(Article 327, Civil Code), and under Article 397, emancipation takes place by the case and a civil case. To find the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt beyond
marriage of the minor child, it is, however, also clear that pursuant to Article 399, reasonable doubt is required, while in a civil case, preponderance of evidence is sufficient
emancipation by marriage of the minor is not really full or absolute. Thus Emancipation to make the defendant pay in damages. Furthermore, a civil case for damages on the
by marriage or by voluntary concession shall terminate parental authority over the childs basis of quasi-delict does is independently instituted from a criminal act. As such the
person. It shall enable the minor to administer his property as though he were of age, but acquittal of Reginald Hill in the criminal case has not extinguished his liability for quasi-
he cannot borrow money or alienate or encumber real property without the consent of his delict, hence that acquittal is not a bar to the instant action against him.
father or mother, or guardian. He can sue and be sued in court only with the assistance of
his father, mother or guardian. Therefore, Article 2180 is applicable to Marvin Hill the
SC however ruled since at the time of the decision, Reginald is already of age, Marvins 2. Yes, the above mentioned provision may still be applied against Atty Marvin Hill.
liability should be subsidiary only as a matter of equity Although parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of the
child, emancipation by marriage is not absolute, i.e. he can sue and be sued in court only
with the assistance of his father, mother or guardian. As in the present case, killing
someone else contemplated judicial litigation, thus, making Article 2180 apply to Atty.
Hill.However, inasmuch as it is evident that Reginald is now of age, as a matter of equity,
the liability of Atty. Hill has become milling, subsidiary to that of his son.
Safeguard Security Agency Inc. and Admer Pajarillo vs. Lauro Tangco, 2. Yes, Safeguard Security Agency Inc. should be held solidarily liable for the damages
G.R. No. 165732, 14 December 2006 awarded to the respondents. The nature of the respondents cause of action is
Nature: Petition for review on certiorari determined in the complaint itself, its allegations and prayer for relief. In the complaint,
Ponente: Austria-Martinez, J. the respondents are invoking their right to recover damages against Safeguard for their
indirect responsibility for the injury caused by Pajarillos act of shooting and killing
FACTS: On 3 November 1997, at about 2:50 p.m., Evangeline Tangco went to Ecology Evangeline under Article 2176. Thus, the civil action filed by respondents was not derived
Bank, Katipunan Branch in Quezon City to renew her time deposit. Evangeline, a duly from the criminal liability of Pajarillo but one based on culpa aquiliana or quasi delict
licensed firearm holder with corresponding permit to carry the same outside of her which is a separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from crime.
residence, approached Pajarillo, security guard of Ecology Bank to deposit the firearm for
safekeeping, suddenly, Pajarillo shot Evangeline with his service shotgun hitting her in the As the employer of Pajarillo, Safeguard is primarily and solidarily liable for the quasi-delict
abdomen instantly causing her death. committed by Pajarillo and is presumed to be negligent in the selection and supervision of
his employee by operation of law. The Court agrees with the RTCs finding that
Evangelines husband, Lauro, together with his six minor children filed with the RTC of QC Safeguard had exercised diligence in the selection of Pajarillo since records show that he
a criminal case against Pajarillo, where they likewise reserved their right to file a separate underwent psychological and neuropsychiatric evaluation, pre-licensing training course for
civil action on the said criminal case. Pajarillo was subsequently convicted of homicide in security guards, as well as police and NBI clearances. However, Safeguard was not
19 January 2000 by the RTC and the CA upheld the decision with modification on the diligent in providing trainings, classroom instructions and continuous evaluation of the
penalty on 31 July 2000. security guards performance. Thus, the SC affirms with modification that the civil
liability of Safeguard Security Agency Inc. is solidary and primary under Article 2180 of
On 14 January 1998, respondents filed with the RTC of Marikina City a complaint for the Civil Code.
damages against Pajarillo for negligently shooting Evangeline and against Safeguard
Security Agency Inc. for failing to observe the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent the damage committed by its security guard. The respondents prayed for actual,
moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees. Gashem Shookat Baksh vs Court of Appeals

The RTC of Marikina rendered judgment in favor of Lauro Tangco et. al. ordering Pajarillo 219 SCRA 115 Civil Law Torts and Damages Breach of promise to Marry Article 21
and Safeguard Security agency Inc. ,jointly and severally, to pay: of the Civil Code
157,430.00 as actual damages; FACTS: In August 1986, while working as a waitress in Dagupan City, Pangasinan,
50,000 as death indemnity; Marilou Gonzales, then 21 years old, met Gashem Shookat Baksh, a 29 year old exchange
1million pesos as moral damages; student from Iran who was studying medicine in Dagupan. The two got really close and
300,000.00 as exemplary damages; intimate. On Marilous account, she said that Gashem later offered to marry her at the
30,000.00 as attorneys fees; and costs of suit. end of the semester. Marilou then introduced Gashem to her parents where they
expressed their intention to get married. Marilous parents then started inviting sponsors
The RTC ruled that Pajarillo did not act in self-defense; giving no weight to his claim that and relatives to the wedding. They even started looking for animals to slaughter for the
Evangeline was seen roaming around the area prior to the incident given that Pajarillo occasion.
had not made any such reports to the head office and the police authorities. Pajarillo Meanwhile, Marilou started living with Gashem in his apartment where they had sexual
should have exercised proper prudence and necessary care in ascertaining the matter intercourse. But in no time, their relationship went sour as Gashem began maltreating
instead of shooting her instantly. The RTC likewise found Safeguard to be jointly and Marilou. Gashem eventually revoked his promise of marrying Marilou and he told her that
severally liable with Pajarillo since there was no sufficient evidence to show that he is already married to someone in Bacolod City. So Marilou went home and later sued
Safeguard exercised the diligence of a good father by simply showing that it required its Gashem for damages.
guards to attend trainings and seminars which is not the supervision as contemplated The trial court ruled in favor of Marilou and awarded her P20k in moral damages. The
under the law. It includes the duty to see to it that such regulations and instructions are Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. On appeal, Gashem averred that
faithfully complied with. he never proposed marriage to Marilou and that he cannot be adjudged to have violated
Filipino customs and traditions since he, being an Iranian, was not familiar with Filipino
The CA modified that decision of the RTC saying that Safeguard Security Agency Inc. is customs and traditions.
only subsidiarily liable. A motion for reconsideration was subsequently filed and denied by
the CA, hence this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals is correct.

ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the Pajarillo is guilty of negligence in shooting Evangeline HELD: Yes. Gashem is liable to pay for damages in favor of Marilou not really because of
2. Whether or not Safeguard Security Agency Inc. should be held solidarily liable his breach of promise to marry her but based on Article 21 of the Civil Code which
for the damages awarded to respondents in relation to Article 2176 of the Civil Code. provides:
Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to
morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
RULING: 1. Yes, Pajarillo is guilty of negligence in shooting Evangeline as Breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong per se. In this case, it is the deceit
upheld by both the RTC and CA in separate decisions. The SC affirms these decisions and fraud employed by Gashem that constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Civil Code.
since based on the evidence presented, Pajarillo failed to substantiate his claims that His promise of marrying Marilou was a deceitful scheme to lure her into sexual congress.
Evangeline was seen roaming outside the vicinity of the bank and acting suspiciously As found by the trial court, Marilou was not a woman of loose morals. She was a virgin
which Pajarillo mistook as a bank robbery which led him to draw his service firearm and before she met Gashem. She would not have surrendered herself to Gashem had Gashem
shot Evangeline. not promised to marry her. Gashems blatant disregard of Filipino traditions on marriage
and on the reputation of Filipinas is contrary to morals, good customs, and public policy.
As a foreigner who is enjoying the hospitality of our country and even taking advantage MAKATI STOCK EXCHANGE, INC. VS MIGUEL CAMPOS G.R. NO. 138814, APRIL
of the opportunity to study here he is expected to respect our traditions. Any act contrary 26, 2009
will render him liable under Article 21 of the Civil Code.
The Supreme Court also elucidated that Article 21 was meant to expand the concepts of FACTS: SEC Case No. 02-94-4678 was instituted on 10 February 1994 by respondent
torts and quasi delict. It is meant to cover situations such as this case where the breach Miguel V. Campos with the Securities, Investigation and Clearing Department (SICD) of
complained of is not strictly covered by existing laws. It was meant as a legal remedy for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), a Petition against herein petitioners
the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to specifically Makati Stock Exchange, Inc. (MKSE). The Petition, sought: (1) the nullification of the
enumerate and punish in the statute books such as the absence of a law penalizing a Resolution dated 3 June 1993 of the MKSE Board of Directors, which allegedly deprived
the breach of promise to marry. him of his right to participate equally in the allocation of Initial Public Offerings (IPO) of
The Supreme Court however agreed with legal luminaries that if the promise to marry corporations registered with MKSE; (2) the delivery of the IPO shares he was allegedly
was made and there was carnal knowledge because of it, then moral damages may be deprived of, for which he would pay IPO prices; and (3) the payment of P2 million as
recovered (presence of moral or criminal seduction), Except if there was mutual lust; or if moral damages, P1 million as exemplary damages, and P500,000.00 as attorneys fees
expenses were made because of the promise (expenses for the wedding), then actual and litigation expenses. The SICD issued an Order granting respondents prayer for the
damages may be recovered. issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin petitioners from implementing or
enforcing the Resolution of the MKSE Board of Directors. Subsequently issued another
Order on 10 March 1994 granting respondents application for a Writ of Preliminary
Gasheem Shookat Baksh vs. CA Injunction, to continuously enjoin, during the pendency of SEC Case No. 02-94-4678, the
CITATION: 219 SCRA 115 implementation or enforcement of the MKSE Board Resolution in question.

FACTS: On 11 March 1994, petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss respondents Petition based on
Private respondent, Marilou Gonzales, filed a complaint dated October 27, 1987 for the following grounds: (1) the Petition became moot due to the cancellation of the license
damages against the petitioner for the alleged breach of their agreement to get of MKSE; (2) the SICD had no jurisdiction over the Petition; and (3) the Petition failed to
married. She met the petitioner in Dagupan where the latter was an Iranian medical state a cause of action. The SICD denied petitioners Motion to Dismiss. Petitioners again
exchange student who later courted her and proposed marriage. The petitioner even challenged Order of SICD before the SEC en banc through another Petition for Certiorari.
went to Marilous house to secure approval of her parents. The petitioner then forced the The SEC en banc nullified the Order of SICD granting a Writ of Preliminary Injunction in
respondent to leave with him in his apartment. Marilou was a virgin before she lived with favour of respondent. SEC en banc annulled the Order of SICD in SEC Case No. 02-94-
him. After a week, she filed a complaint because the petitioner started maltreating and 4678 denying petitioners Motion to Dismiss, and accordingly ordered the dismissal of
threatening her. He even tied the respondent in the apartment while he was in school respondents Petition before the SICD. Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari with the
and drugged her. Marilou at one time became pregnant but the petitioner administered a Court of Appeals. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied by the
drug to abort the baby. Court of Appeals.

Petitioner repudiated the marriage agreement and told Marilou to not live with him since ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.
he is already married to someone in Bacolod. He claimed that he never proposed
marriage or agreed to be married neither sought consent and approval of Marlious RULING: The petition filled by the respondent, Miguel Campos should be dismissed for
parents. He claimed that he asked Marilou to stay out of his apartment since the latter failure to state a cause of action. A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party
deceived him by stealing money and his passport. The private respondent prayed for violates a right of another.
damages and reimbursements of actual expenses.
A complaint states a cause of action where it contains three essential elements of a cause
ISSUE: Whether breach of promise to marry can give rise to cause for damages. of action, namely: (1) the legal right of the plaintiff, (2) the correlative obligation of the
defendant, and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right. If
HELD: these elements are absent, the complaint becomes vulnerable to dismissal on the ground
of failure to state a cause of action. However, the terms right and obligation are not
The existing rule is that breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable magic words that would automatically lead to the conclusion that such Petition sufficiently
wrong. The court held that when a man uses his promise of marriage to deceive a states a cause of action. Right and obligation are legal terms with specific legal
woman to consent to his malicious desires, he commits fraud and willfully injures the meaning. A right is a claim or title to an interest in anything whatsoever that is
woman. In that instance, the court found that petitioners deceptive promise to marry led enforceable by law while an obligation is defined in the Civil Code as a juridical necessity
Marilou to surrender her virtue and womanhood. to give, to do or not to do. Justice J.B.L. Reyes offers the definition given by Arias Ramos
as a more complete definition: An obligation is a juridical relation whereby a person
Moral damages can be claimed when such promise to marry was a deceptive ploy to have (called the creditor) may demand from another (called the debtor) the observance of a
carnal knowledge with the woman and actual damages should be paid for the wedding determinative conduct (the giving, doing or not doing), and in case of breach, may
preparation expenses. Petitioner even committed deplorable acts in disregard of the laws demand satisfaction from the assets of the latter. Art. 1157 of the Civil Code provides
of the country. that Obligations arise from (1) Law; (2) Contracts; (3) Quasi-contracts; (4) Acts or
omissions punished by law; and (5) Quasi-delicts. The mere assertion of a right and claim
Therefore, SC set aside the decision of CA awarding damages to the respondent. of an obligation in an initiatory pleading, whether a Complaint or Petition, without
identifying the basis or source thereof, is merely a conclusion of fact and law. (In the case
at bar, although the Petition in SEC Case No. 02-94-4678 does allege respondents
right to subscribe to the IPOs of corporations listed in the stock market at their offering
prices, and petitioners obligation to continue respecting and observing such right, the
Petition utterly failed to lay down the source or basis of respondents right and/or RATIO:
petitioners obligation.) The legal and proximate cause of the accident and of Dionisio's injuries was the
wrongful or negligent manner in which the dumptruck was parked in other words, the
Respondent merely quoted in his Petition the MKSE Board Resolution, passed sometime in negligence of petitioner Carbonel. The collision of Dionisio's car with the dump truck was
1989, granting him the position of Chairman Emeritus of MKSE for life. However, there is anatural and foreseeable consequence of the truck driver's negligence.
nothing in the said Petition from which the Court can deduce that respondent, by virtue of
his position as Chairman Emeritus of MKSE, was granted by law, contract, or any other The defendant cannot be relieved from liability by the fact that the risk or a
legal source, the right to subscribe to the IPOs of corporations listed in the stock market substantial and important part of the risk, to which thedefendant has subjected the
at their offering prices. (allocation of IPO shares was merely alleged to have been done in plaintiff has indeed come to pass. Foreseeable intervening forces are within the scope
accord with a practice normally observed by the members of the stock exchange) original risk, andhence of the defendant's negligence. The courts are quite generally
A practice or custom is, as a general rule, not a source of a legally demandable or agreed that intervening causes which fall fairly in this category will not supersede the
enforceable right. defendant's responsibility. Thus, a defendant who blocks the sidewalk and forces the
plaintiff to walk in a street where the plaintiff will be exposed to the risks of heavy traffic
becomes liable when the plaintiff is run down by a car, even though the car is negligently
PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION, INC. and ARMANDO U.CARBONEL, petitioners, vs. driven; and one who parks an automobile on the highway without lights at night is not
relieved of responsibility when another negligently drives into it.
DIONISIO,respondents.[G.R. No. L-65295 March 10, 1987]TOPIC:PONENTE: We hold that private respondent Dionisio's negligence was "only contributory,"
FELICIANO, J.AUTHOR:NOTES: (if applicable)FACTS: that the "immediate and proximate cause" of the injury remained the truck driver's "lack
of due care" and that consequently respondent Dionisio may recover damages though
such damages are subject to mitigation by the courts.
In the early morning of 15 November 1975, at about 1:30am, private respondent
Leonardo Dionisio was on his way home from a cocktails-and-dinner meeting with his The Last Clear Chance doctrine of the Common Law was imported into our
boss, the general manager of a marketing corporation, where he had taken "a shot or jurisdiction by Picart vs. Smith but it is still a matter of debate whether, or to what
two" of liquor. extent, it has found its way into the Civil Code of the Philippines. The doctrine was applied
by Common Law because they had a rule that contributory negligence prevented any
He had just crossed an intersection and while driving down the street, his headlights were recovery at all by a negligent plaintiff. But in the Philippines we have Article 2179 of the
turned off. When he switched on his Civil Code which rejects the Common Law doctrine of contributory negligence. Thus, the
headlights to bright, he suddenly saw a Ford dump truck some 2 meters away from court in this case stated that it does not believe so that the general concept of Last Clear
his Volkswagen car. It was later found out that he did not a curfew pass that night. Chance has been utilized in
our jurisdiction. Article 2179 on contributory negligence is not an exercise in chronology o
The dump truck belonged to co-petitioner Phoenix, and was parked there by the r physics but what is important is thenegligent act or omission of each party and the
company driver, co-petitioner Carbonel. It was parked on the right hand side of the lane character and gravity of the risks created by such act or omission for the rest of the
that Dionisio was driving on, but it was parked facing the oncoming traffic. It was parked community. To say that Phoenix should be absolved from liability would come close to
a skew so it was sticking out onto the street, partly blocking the way of oncoming traffic. wiping out the fundamental law that a man must. respond for the foreseeable
There were no lights nor were there any early warning reflector devices set anywhere consequences of his own negligent act or omission. Thus, the Last Clear Chance Doctrine
near the truck, front or rear was not applied because the court thinks that it is not applicable in our jurisdiction.

Phoenix permitted Carbonel to take home the truck, which was scheduled to be used the
next morning.

Dionisio, upon seeing the truck, tried to avoid a collision by swerving to the left, but it
was too late. His car smashed into the truck. Dionisio suffered physical injuries, including
permanent facial scars, a nervous breakdown and loss of two gold bridge dentures.
Dionisio filed an action for damages against Carbonel and Phoenix.

Petitioners countered the claim by imputing the accident to respondents own negligence
in driving at a high speed without curfew pass and headlights, and while intoxicated. It
invoked the Last Clear Chance Doctrine: Dionisio had the Last Clear Chance of avoiding
the accident and so Dionisio, having failed to take the last clear chance, must bear his
own injuries alone.

The trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of private respondent.

ISSUE(S): Whether the collision was brought by respondents own negligence.

HELD: No. Dionisio is guilty of contributory negligent but the legal and proximate cause
of the collision was brought about by theway the truck was parked.
ZENAIDA R. GREGORIO vs. COURT OF APPEALS In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff has to prove by a
G.R. No. 179799 preponderance of evidence: (1) the damages suffered by him; (2) the fault or negligence
of the defendant or some other person to whose act he must respond; (3) the connection
FACTS: The case arose from the filing of an Affidavit of Complaint for violation of B.P. 22 of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the damages incurred; and (4)
by Emma J. Datuin (Datuin), as Officer-in-Charge of the Accounts Receivables that there must be no preexisting contractual relation between the parties.
Department, and upon authority of Sansio Philippines, Inc. (Sansio), against Zenaida R. On the other hand, Article 26 of the Civil Code grants a cause of action for damages,
Gregorio (Gregorio) and one Vito Belarmino, as proprietors of Alvi Marketing, allegedly for prevention, and other relief in cases of breach, though not necessarily constituting a
delivering insufficiently funded bank checks as payment for the numerous appliances criminal offense, of the following rights: (1) right to personal dignity; (2) right to personal
bought by Alvi Marketing from Sansio. As the address stated in the complaint was security; (3) right to family relations; (4) right to social intercourse; (5) right to privacy;
incorrect, Gregorio was unable to controvert the charges against her. Consequently, she and (6) right to peace of mind.
was indicted for three (3) counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
A scrutiny of Gregorios civil complaint reveals that the averments thereof, taken
The MeTC issued a warrant for her arrest, and it was served upon her by the armed together, fulfill the elements of Article 2176, in relation to Article 26 of the Civil Code. It
operatives of the Public Assistance and Reaction Against Crime (PARAC) of the appears that Gregorios rights to personal dignity, personal security, privacy, and peace
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) on October 17, 1997, Friday, at of mind were infringed by Sansio and Datuin when they failed to exercise the requisite
around 9:30 a.m. in Quezon City while she was visiting her husband and their two (2) diligence in determining the identity of the person they should rightfully accuse of
daughters at their city residence. Gregorio was brought to the PARAC-DILG Office where tendering insufficiently funded checks. This fault was compounded when they failed to
she was subjected to fingerprinting and mug shots, and was detained. She was released ascertain the correct address of petitioner, thus depriving her of the opportunity to
in the afternoon of the same day when her husband posted a bond for her temporary controvert the charges, because she was not given proper notice. Because she was not
liberty. able to refute the charges against her, petitioner was falsely indicted for three (3) counts
of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Although she was never found at No. 76 Pearanda St.,
On December 5, 1997, Gregorio filed before the MeTC a Motion for Deferment of Legaspi City, the office address of Alvi Marketing as stated in the criminal complaint,
Arraignment and Reinvestigation, alleging that she could not have issued the bounced Gregorio was conveniently arrested by armed operatives of the PARAC-DILG at her city
checks, since she did not even have a checking account with the bank on which the residence at 78 K-2 St., Kamuning, Quezon City, while visiting her family. She suffered
checks were drawn, as certified by the branch manager of the Philippine National Bank, embarrassment and humiliation over her sudden arrest and detention and she had to
Sorsogon Branch. She also alleged that her signature was patently and radically different spend time, effort, and money to clear her tarnished name and reputation, considering
from the signatures appearing on the bounced checks. that she had held several honorable positions in different organizations and offices in the
public service, particularly her being a Kagawad in Oas, Albay at the time of her arrest.
The MeTC granted the Motion and a reinvestigation was conducted. In the course of the There exists no contractual relation between Gregorio and Sansio. On the other hand,
reinvestigation, Datuin submitted an Affidavit of Desistance stating, among others, that Gregorio is prosecuting Sansio, under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, for its vicarious
Gregorio was not one of the signatories of the bounced checks subject of prosecution. liability, as employer, arising from the act or omission of its employee Datuin.

On August 18, 2000, Gregorio filed a complaint for damages against Sansio and Datuin These allegations, assuming them to be true, sufficiently constituted a cause of action
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Ligao, Albay. Sansio and Datuin filed a against Sansio and Datuin. Thus, the RTC was correct when it denied respondents motion
Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the complaint, being one for damages arising from to dismiss
malicious prosecution, failed to state a cause of action, as the ultimate facts constituting
the elements thereof were not alleged in the complaint.
American Express International, Inc. vs. Noel Cordero
ISSUE: Whether the complaint, a civil suit filed by Gregorio, is based on quasi-delict or G.R. No. 138550 [October 14, 2005]
malicious prosecution.
FACTS: American Express International was a foreign corporation that
HELD: A perusal of the allegations of Gregorios complaint for damages readily shows issued charge cards used to purchase goods and services at accredited merchants
that she filed a civil suit against Sansio and Datuin for filing against her criminal charges worldwide to its customers. Nilda Cordero, wife of respondent Noel Cordero, was issued
for violation of B.P. Blg. 22; that respondents did not exercise diligent efforts to ascertain an American Express charge card. An extension charge card, was likewise issued
the true identity of the person who delivered to them insufficiently funded checks as to respondent Noel Cordero which he also signed. Respondent, together with his family
payment for the various appliances purchased; and that respondents never gave her the went on a three-day holiday trip to Hong Kong. The group went to the Watsons Chemist
opportunity to controvert the charges against her, because they stated an incorrect Shop. While there, Noel picked up chocolate candies and handed his American Express
address in the criminal complaint. Gregorio claimed damages for the embarrassment and extension charge card to the sales clerk to pay for his purchases. Susan Chong, the store
humiliation she suffered when she was suddenly arrested at her city residence in Quezon manager, informed respondent that she had to confiscate the card. Thereupon, she cut
City while visiting her family. She was, at the time of her arrest, a respected Kagawad in respondents American Express card in half with a pair of scissors. This, according to
Oas, Albay. Gregorio anchored her civil complaint on Articles 26, 2176, and 2180 of the respondent, caused him embarrassment and humiliation. Hence, Nilda had to pay for the
Civil Code. Noticeably, despite alleging either fault or negligence on the part of Sansio purchases using her own American Express charge card.
and Datuin, Gregorio never imputed to them any bad faith in her complaint.
The card was placed in the Inspect Airwarn Support System, a system utilized
Basic is the legal principle that the nature of an action is determined by the material by petitioner as a protection both for the company and the cardholders against the
averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought. Undeniably, Gregorios fraudulent use of their charge cards. Once a card suspected of unauthorized use is placed
civil complaint, read in its entirety, is a complaint based on quasi-delict under Article in the system, the person to whom the card is tendered must verify the identity of the
2176, in relation to Article 26 of the Civil Code, rather than on malicious prosecution. holder. If the true identity of the card owner is established, the card is honored and the
charges are approved. Otherwise, the card is revoked or confiscated.
Respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court a complaint for damages against
petitioner. He prayed for the award of moral damages and exemplary damages, as well
as attorneys fees as a result of the humiliation he suffered. According to the trial court,
petitioner should have informed respondent that on November 1, 1991, a person in Hong
Kong attempted to use a charge card bearing similar number to that of respondents card
and that petitioners inexcusable failure to do so is the proximate cause of the
confiscation and cutting of respondents extension card which exposed the latter to
public humiliation for which the petitioner should be held liable. Upon appeal, the Court
of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision.

ISSUE: Whether the lower courts gravely erred in awarding moral damages, exemplary
damages and attorneys fees to Cordero.

RULING: YES. The Court ruled that petitioner can revoke respondents card
without notice, as was done. The subject card would not have been confiscated and cut
had respondent talked to petitioners representative and identified himself as the
genuine cardholder. As explained by respondent himself, he could have used his card
upon verification by the sales clerk of Watson that indeed he is the authorized cardholder.
That could have been accomplished had respondent talked to petitioners representative,
enabling the latter to determine that respondent was indeed the true holder of the card.
Clearly, no negligence which breached the contract could have been attributed to
petitioner. If at all, the cause of respondents humiliation and embarrassment was his
refusal to talk to petitioners representative. It was thus safe to conclude that there was
no negligence on the part of petitioner and that, therefore, it cannot be held liable to
respondent for damages. The petition was granted.

Jose Cangco vs Manila Railroad Co.

30 Phil 768 Civil Law Torts and Damages Distinction of Liability of Employers Under
NOTES: But, if the master has not been guilty of any negligence whatever in the
Article 2180 and Their Liability for Breach of Contract
selection and direction of the servant, he is not liable for the acts of the latter, whatever
done within the scope of his employment or not, if the damage done by the servant does
Facts: On January 20, 1915, Cangco was riding the train of Manila Railroad Co (MRC). He
not amount to a breach of the contract between the master and the person injured.
was an employee of the latter and he was given a pass so that he could ride the train for
The liability arising from extra-contractual culpa is always based upon a voluntary act or
free. When he was nearing his destination at about 7pm, he arose from his seat even
omission which, without willful intent, but by mere negligence or inattention, has caused
though the train was not at full stop. When he was about to alight from the train (which
damage to another.
was still slightly moving) he accidentally stepped on a sack of watermelons which he
failed to notice due to the fact that it was dim. This caused him to lose his balance at the
These two fields, figuratively speaking, concentric; that is to say, the mere fact that a
door and he fell and his arm was crushed by the train and he suffered other serious
person is bound to another by contract does not relieve him from extra-contractual
injuries. He was dragged a few meters more as the train slowed down.
liability to such person. When such a contractual relation exists the obligor may break the
It was established that the employees of MRC were negligent in piling the sacks of
contract under such conditions that the same act which constitutes the source of an
watermelons. MRC raised as a defense the fact that Cangco was also negligent as he
extra-contractual obligation had no contract existed between the parties.
failed to exercise diligence in alighting from the train as he did not wait for it to stop.
Manresa: Whether negligence occurs an incident in the course of the performance of a
Issue: Whether or not Manila Railroad Co is liable for damages.
contractual undertaking or in itself the source of an extra-contractual undertaking
obligation, its essential characteristics are identical.
Held: Yes. Alighting from a moving train while it is slowing down is a common practice
and a lot of people are doing so every day without suffering injury. Cangco has the vigor
Vinculum Juris: (def) It means an obligation of law, or the right of the obligee to
and agility of young manhood, and it was by no means so risky for him to get off while
enforce a civil matter in a court of law.
the train was yet moving as the same act would have been in an aged or feeble person.
He was also ignorant of the fact that sacks of watermelons were there as there were no
appropriate warnings and the place was dimly lit.
The Court also elucidated on the distinction between the liability of employers under
Article 2180 and their liability for breach of contract [of carriage]:
CANGCO VS MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY G.R. L-12191 OCTOBER 14, 1918 class because allegedly in truth and in fact, that was not the true intent between the
Air France also questioned the admissibility of Carrascosos testimony regarding the note
FACTS: On January 20, 1915, Jose Cangco was riding the train of Manila Railroad made by the purser because the said note was never presented in court.
Company where he was an employee. As the train drew near to his destination, he arose
from his seat. When he was about to alight from the train, Cangco accidentally stepped ISSUE: 1. Whether or not Air France is liable for damages and on what basis.
on a sack of watermelons which he failed to notice because it was already 7:00pm and it 2. Whether or not the testimony of Carrasoso regarding the note which was not
was dim when it happened. As a result, he slipped and fell violently on the platform. His presented in court is admissible in evidence.
right arm was badly crushed and lacerated which was eventually amputated.
Cangco sued Manila Railroad Company on the ground of negligence of its employees 1. Yes. It appears that Air Frances liability is based on culpa-contractual and on
placing the sacks of melons upon the platform and in leaving them so placed as to be a culpa aquiliana.
menace to the security of passenger alighting from the companys trains.
Culpa Contractual
The companys defense was that granting that its employees were negligent in placing an There exists a contract of carriage between Air France and Carrascoso. There was a
obstruction upon the platform, the direct and proximate cause of the injury suffered by contract to furnish Carrasocoso a first class passage; Second, That said contract was
plaintiff was his own contributing negligence. breached when Air France failed to furnish first class transportation at Bangkok;
and Third, that there was bad faith when Air Frances employee compelled Carrascoso to
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a contributing negligence on the part of the plaintiff. leave his first class accommodation berth after he was already, seated and to take a
seat in the tourist class, by reason of which he suffered inconvenience, embarrassments
HELD: In determining the question of contributory negligence in performing such act and humiliations, thereby causing him mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings
that is to say, whether the passenger acted prudently or recklessly the age, sex, and and social humiliation, resulting in moral damages.
physical condition of the passenger are circumstances necessarily affecting the safety of The Supreme Court did not give credence to Air Frances claim that the issuance of a first
the passenger, and should be considered. class ticket to a passenger is not an assurance that he will be given a first class seat.
Such claim is simply incredible.

The place was perfectly familiar to the plaintiff as it was his daily custom to get on and off Culpa Aquiliana
the train at the station. There could, therefore, be no uncertainty in his mind with regard Here, the SC ruled, even though there is a contract of carriage between Air France and
either to the length of the step which he was required to take or the character of the Carrascoso, there is also a tortuous act based on culpa aquiliana. Passengers do not
platform where he was alighting. The Supreme Courts conclusion was that the conduct of contract merely for transportation. They have a right to be treated by the carriers
the plaintiff in undertaking to alight while the train was yet slightly under way was not employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to
characterized by imprudence and that therefore he was not guilty of contributory be protected against personal misconduct, injurious language, indignities and abuses
negligence. from such employees. So it is, that any rule or discourteous conduct on the part of
employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the
carrier. Air Frances contract with Carrascoso is one attended with public duty. The stress
AIR FRANCE VS RAFAEL CARRASCOSO of Carrascosos action is placed upon his wrongful expulsion. This is a violation of public
duty by the Air France a case of quasi-delict. Damages are proper.
Civil Law Torts and Damages Negligence Malfeasance Quasi-Delict
Remedial Law Evidence Hearsay Rule Res Gestae Startling Event 2.Yes. The testimony of Carrascoso must be admitted based on res gestae. The
subject of inquiry is not the entry, but the ouster incident. Testimony on the entry does
FACTS: In March 1958, Rafael Carrascoso and several other Filipinos were tourists en not come within the proscription of the best evidence rule. Such testimony is
route to Rome from Manila. Carrascoso was issued a first class round trip ticket by Air admissible. Besides, when the dialogue between Carrascoso and the purser happened, the
France. But during a stop-over in Bangkok, he was asked by the plane manager of Air impact of the startling occurrence was still fresh and continued to be felt. The excitement
France to vacate his seat because a white man allegedly has a better right than him. had not as yet died down. Statements then, in this environment, are admissible as part of
Carrascoso protested but when things got heated and upon advise of other Filipinos on the res gestae. The utterance of the purser regarding his entry in the notebook was
board, Carrascoso gave up his seat and was transferred to the planes tourist class. spontaneous, and related to the circumstances of the ouster incident. Its trustworthiness
After their tourist trip when Carrascoso was already in the Philippines, he sued Air France has been guaranteed. It thus escapes the operation of the hearsay rule. It forms part of
for damages for the embarrassment he suffered during his trip. In court, Carrascoso the res gestae
testified, among others, that he when he was forced to take the tourist class, he went to
the planes pantry where he was approached by a plane purser who told him that he
noted in the planes journal the following:

First-class passenger was forced to go to the tourist class against his will, and that the
captain refused to intervene

The said testimony was admitted in favor of Carrascoso. The trial court eventually
awarded damages in favor of Carrascoso. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Air France is assailing the decision of the trial court and the CA. It avers that the issuance
of a first class ticket to Carrascoso was not an assurance that he will be seated in first
# Garcia vs. Salvador
AIR FRANCE V CARRASCOSO September 28, 1966 AIR FRANCE, petitioner, Mar. 20, 2007
vs. RAFAEL CARRASCOSO and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. J. Ynares-Santiago

FACTS: Plaintiff, a civil engineer, was a member of a group of 48 Filipino pilgrims that Facts: Ranida D. Salvador started working as a trainee in the Accounting Department
left Manila for Lourdes on March 30, 1958. of Limay Bulk Handling Terminal, Inc. As a prerequisite for regular employment, she
On March 28, 1958, the defendant, Air France, through its authorized agent, Philippine Air underwent a medical examination at the Community Diagnostic Center (CDC). Garcia who
Lines, Inc., issued to plaintiff a "first class" round trip airplane ticket from Manila to is a medical technologist, conducted the HBs Ag (Hepatitis B Surface Antigen) test and on
Rome. From Manila to Bangkok, plaintiff travelled in "first class", but at Bangkok, the October 22,1993, CDC issued the test result indicating that Ranida was "HBs Ag:
Manager of the defendant airline forced plaintiff to vacate the "first class" seat that he Reactive." The result bore the name and signature of Garcia as examiner and the rubber
was occupying because, in the words of the witness Ernesto G. Cuento, there was a stamp signature of Castro as pathologist. When Ranida submitted the test result to Dr.
"white man", who, the Manager alleged, had a "better right" to the seat. When asked to Sto. Domingo, the Company physician, the latter apprised her that the findings indicated
vacate his "first class" seat, the plaintiff, as was to be expected, refused, and told that she is suffering from Hepatitis B, a liver disease. Thus, based on the medical
defendant's Manager that his seat would be taken over his dead body. After some report submitted by Sto. Domingo, the Company terminated Ranidas employment for
commotion, plaintiff reluctantly gave his "first class" seat in the plane. failing the physical examination. When Ranida informed her father, Ramon, about her
ailment, the latter suffered a heart attack and was confined at the Bataan Doctors
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS: Hospital. During Ramons confinement, Ranida underwent another HBs Ag test at the said
1. CFI Manila: sentenced petitioner to pay respondent Rafael Carrascoso P25,000.00 by hospital and the result indicated that she is non-reactive. She informed Sto. Domingo of
way of moral damages; P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; P393.20 representing the this development but was told that the test conducted by CDC was more reliable because
difference in fare between first class and tourist class for the portion of the trip Bangkok- it used the Micro-Elisa Method. Ranida went back to CDC for confirmatory testing, and
Rome, these various amounts with interest at the legal rate, from the date of the filing of this time, the Anti-HBs test conducted on her indicated a "Negative" result. Ranida also
the complaint until paid; plus P3,000.00 for attorneys' fees; and the costs of suit. underwent another HBs Ag test at the Bataan Doctors Hospital using the Micro-Elisa
2. CA: slightly reduced the amount of refund on Carrascoso's plane ticket from P393.20 Method. Result: non-reactive Ranida submitted the test results from Bataan Doctors
to P383.10, and voted to affirm the appealed decision "in all other respects", with costs Hospital and CDC to the Executive Officer of the Company who requested her to undergo
against petitioner. another similar test before her re-employment would be considered. Thus, CDC
Air France contends that respondent knew that he did not have confirmed reservations for conducted another HBs Ag test on Ranida which indicated a "Negative" result.
first class on any specific flight, although he had tourist class protection; that,
accordingly, the issuance of a first class ticket was no guarantee that he would have a Ma. Ruby G. Calderon, Med-Tech Officer-in-Charge of CDC, issued a Certification
first class ride, but that such would depend upon the availability of first class seats. correcting the initial result and explaining that the examining medical technologist
(Garcia) interpreted the delayed reaction as positive or reactive.Company rehired
ISSUE: Is Carrascoso entitled to damages? RanidaJuly 25, 1994 - Ranida and Ramon filed a complaint for damages against petitioner
Garcia and a purportedly unknown pathologist of CDC, claiming that, by reason of the
RULING: Yes. The manager not only prevented Carrascoso from enjoying his erroneous interpretation of the results of Ranidas examination, she lost her job and
right to a first class seat; worse, he imposed his arbitrary will; he forcibly ejected him suffered serious mental anxiety, trauma and sleepless nights, while Ramon was
from his seat, made him suffer the humiliation of having to go to the tourist class hospitalized and lost business opportunities. Castro was named as the pathologist Garcia
compartment - just to give way to another passenger whose right thereto has not been denied the allegations of gross negligence and incompetence and reiterated the scientific
established. Certainly, this is bad faith. Unless, of course, bad faith has assumed a explanation for the "false positive" result of the first HBs Ag test in his December 7,1993
meaning different from what is understood in law. For, "bad faith" contemplates a letter to the respondents Castro claimed that as pathologist, he rarely went to CDC and
"state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive only when a case was referred to him; that he did not examine Ranida; and that the test
of self-interest or will or for ulterior purpose." results bore only his rubber-stamp signature.

For the willful malevolent act of petitioner's manager, petitioner, his employer, Trial Court dismissed complaint respondents should have presented Sto.
must answer. Article 21 of the Civil Code says: Domingo and medicalexpert to testify on the explanation given by GarciaCA reversed TC
ART. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner decision Garcia maintains he is not negligent, thus not liable for damages, because he
that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the followed the appropriate laboratory measures and procedures as dictated by his training
latter for the damage. and experience; and that he did everything within his professional competence to arrive
at an objective, impartial and impersonal result.
The contract of air carriage, therefore, generates a relation attended with a public duty.
Neglect or malfeasance of the carrier's employees, naturally, could give ground for an Issue: WON CDC is liable
action for damages.
Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have a right to be treated by Held: Yes, CDC is liable. Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of the
the carrier's employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration. interest of another person that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the
circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. For health care
Although the relation of passenger and carrier is "contractual both in origin and providers, the test of the existence of negligence is: did the health care provider either
nature" nevertheless "the act that breaks the contract may be also a tort". The fail to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done, or
stress of Carrascoso's action as we have said, is placed upon his wrongful expulsion. This that he or she did something that a reasonably prudent health care provider would not
is a violation of public duty by the petitioner air carrier a case ofquasi-delict. have done; and that failure or action caused injury to the patient; if yes, then he is guilty
Damages are proper. of negligence.
Elements of an actionable conduct: suffer mental anxiety, while Ramon was hospitalized + lost business opportunities. Garcia
denied the allegations of gross negligence and incompetence; explained "false positive."
1) Duty 2) Breach 3) Injury 4) Proximate causation Castro said he did not examine Ranida, and that the results bore only his stamped
Duty: Owners and operators of clinical laboratories have the duty to comply with statutes, RTC dismissed the Salvadors' complaint for failure to present sufficient evidence.
as well as rules and regulations, purposely promulgated to protect and promote the CA reversed this and ordered Garcia to pay moral damages (50k), exemplary damages
health of the people by preventing the operation of substandard, improperly managed (50k), and atty's fees (25k). Castro was exonerated.
and inadequately supported clinical laboratories and by improving the quality of
performance of clinical laboratory examinations. Their business is impressed with public Issue and Holding
interest, as such, high standards of performance are expected from them. Violation of a WON CA correctly found Garcia liable for damages. YES
statutory duty is negligence. Where the law imposes upon a person the duty to do 1. WON a person is negligent is a question of fact -- petition for review on
something, his omission or non-performance will render him liable to whoever may be certiorari limited to reviewing errors of law
injured thereby. 1. Negligence - failure to observe for the protection of another's interest
that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which circ demand, whereby
Violations of RA 4688 (The Clinical Laboratory Law) committed by CDC: the other suffers injury
1)CDC is not administered, directed and supervised by a licensed physician as required
bylaw, but by Ma. Ruby C. Calderon, a licensed Medical Technologist. Castro was named 1. ALL ELEMENTS OF AN ACTIONABLE CONDUCT ARE PRESENT
as head of CDC, but his infrequent visits to the clinical laboratory barely qualifies as an IN THIS CASE
effective administrative supervision and control over the activities in the laboratory. 1. Duty
2) Garcia conducted the HBsAG test of respondent Ranida without the supervision of 2. Breach
Castro, who admitted that he does not know and has never met her.
3) Disputed HBsAG test result was released to respondent Ranida without the 3. Injury
authorization of Castro. Garcia may not have intended to cause the consequences which 4. Proximate causation
followed after the release of the HBsAG test result. However, his failure to comply with 2. Negligence is a violation of statutory duty -- so many laws were
the laws and rules promulgated and issued for the protection of public safety and interest broken!
is failure to observe that care which a reasonably prudent health care provider would
observe. Thus, his act or omission constitutes a breach of duty. 1. CDC is not administered, directed, supervised by licensed
physician but by a licensed medtech
Injury: Indubitably, Ranida suffered injury as a direct consequence of Garcias failure to 1. Castro's infrequent visit barely qualifies as an
comply with the mandate of the laws and rules aforequoted. She was terminated from the admin supervision and control
service for failing the physical examination; suffered anxiety because of the diagnosis; 2. Garcia conducted HBs Ag test of Ranida without Castro's
and was compelled to undergo several more tests. All these could have been avoided had supervision
the proper safeguards been scrupulously followed in conducting the clinical examination
and releasing the clinical report. 3. HBs Ag test result released to Ranida without Castro's
Art. 20 provides legal basis for the award of damages to a party who suffers damage 3. Garcia's failure to comply with laws, rules promulgated for the
whenever one commits an act in violation of some legal provision. protection of public safety and interest is failure to observe the care which
a reasonably prudent health care provider would observe --> BREACH OF
Art. 20: Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to DUTY!
another,shall indemnify the latter for the same. Orlando Garcia guilty of gross negligence. 4. Injuries suffered by Ranida could have been avoided had proper
safeguards been followed
5. NCC 20 is the legal basis for award of damages to one who suffers
Garcia, Jr. v. Salvador (2007) / Ynares-Santiago whenever another commits an act in violation of some legal provision
Damages, fees upheld. Garcia guilty of gross negligence.
Facts: Ranida Salvador started working as a trainee in LBHT. She underwent a medical
exam @ CDC with Garcia (medtech) conducting the HBs Ag test. Her result was
REACTIVE. The company physician (Sto. Domingo) told her she is suffering from HepaB,
and based on the medical report SD submitted, LBHT terminated her employment. Ranida
told her father Ramon about her condition, then the latter suffered a heart attack and was
confined at Bataan Doctors Hospital. Ranida took another HBs Ag test in BDH, and the
result was NON-REACTIVE. She told Dr. SD about it but the latter said the CDC test was
more reliable, so she took another test at CDC again, and the result this time was NON-
REACTIVE. She took the same test used in CDC @ BDH and the result was NON-
REACTIVE (four tests!). She submitted the results to the LBHT ExecOff who requested her
to undergo under test (WTF!) - result is NEGATIVE (5th test, haha), so LBHT rehired her.

Ranida and Ramon filed a complaint for damages against medtech Garcia +
pathologist Castro, claiming that the erroneous interpretation led her to lose her job,
G.R. No.179446: January 10, 2011




FACTS: Columbia Wire and Cable Corporation (Columbia) insured a cargo of copper cathodes
through R&B Insurance Corporation (R&B). Columbia also engaged the services of Glodel
Brokerage Corporation (Glodel) for the transport of the cargo to Columbia facilities. Glodel then
engaged the services of Loadmasters Customs Services (Loadmasters) for the delivery of said
cargo to Columbia. Out of 12 trucks, owned by Loadmasters, used to deliver the cargo of
Columbia, only 11 made it to their respective destinations. /span>Columbia claimed the amount
of loss from R&B, which sued both Glodel and Loadmasters. The RTC ruled in favor of R&B, but
did not hold Loadmasters liable. Both R&B and Glodelappealed the judgement. The Court of
Appeals modified the decision of the RTC and ruled that Loadmasters, being the agent of Glodel,
is liable to Glodel for all the damages it might be required to pay.

ISSUES: Whether or not Loadmasters is an agent of Glodel, and whether or not it may be held
liable under the transaction between Glodel and Columbia.

HELD: Petition is partly meritorious

Civil Law: Glodel and Loadmasters are both common carriers, as they hold out their carriage
services to the public. As such, under the Civil Code, they are mandated to show extraordinary
diligence in the conduct of transport. In the case at bar, both Glodel and Loadmasters were
negligent as the cargo failed to reach its destination. Loadmasters failed to ensure that its
employees would not tamper with the cargo. Glodel failed to ensure that Loadmasters is
sufficiently capable of completing the delivery. Glodel and Loadmasters are therefore joint
tortfeasors and are solidarily liable to R&B Insurance.

Loadmasters cannot be considered an agent of Glodel. Loadmasters in no way represented itself

as such, and in the transfer of cargo, did not represent itself as doing such in behalf of Glodel.
In fact, Loadmasters is not privy to the agreement between Glodel and Columbia. It cannot be
considered an agent of Glodel, and cannot be held liable to Glodel.

Remedial Law: Though Glodel has, admittedly, a cause of action against Loadmasters, it has
effectively waived it by failing to raise the cross-claim. The rules of procedure states that
compulsory counterclaims and cross-claims not pleaded are deemed waived. They cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal.


R&B INSURANCE CORPORATION, / G.R. No. 179446 / January 10, 2011

FACTS: The case is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules
of Court assailing the August 24, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No.
On August 28, 2001, R&B Insurance issued Marine Policy No. MN-00105/2001 in favor
of Columbia to insure the shipment of 132 bundles of electric copper cathodes against All Risks.
On August 28, 2001, the cargoes were shipped on board the vessel "Richard Rey" from Isabela,
Leyte, to Pier 10, North Harbor, Manila. They arrived on the same date.
Columbia engaged the services of Glodel for the release and withdrawal of the cargoes
from the pier and the subsequent delivery to its warehouses/plants. Glodel, in turn, engaged the
services of Loadmasters for the use of its delivery trucks to transport the cargoes to Columbias
warehouses/plants in Bulacan and Valenzuela City.
The goods were loaded on board twelve (12) trucks owned by Loadmasters, driven by
its employed drivers and accompanied by its employed truck helpers. Of the six (6) trucks route
to Balagtas, Bulacan, only five (5) reached the destination. One (1) truck, loaded with 11
bundles or 232 pieces of copper cathodes, failed to deliver its cargo.
Later on, the said truck, was recovered but without the copper cathodes. Because of
this incident, Columbia filed with R&B Insurance a claim for insurance indemnity in the amount
ofP1,903,335.39. After the investigation, R&B Insurance paid Columbia the amount applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law or judicial rules of
ofP1,896,789.62 as insurance indemnity. procedure." The Court cannot be a lawyer and take the cudgels for a party who has been at
R&B Insurance, thereafter, filed a complaint for damages against both Loadmasters and fault or negligent.
Glodel before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Manila (RTC), It sought reimbursement of the
amount it had paid to Columbia for the loss of the subject cargo. It claimed that it had been
subrogated "to the right of the consignee to recover from the party/parties who may be held Equitable Leasing Corporation vs Suyom
legally liable for the loss."
388 SCRA 445 (2002)
On November 19, 2003, the RTC rendered a decision holding Glodel liable for damages
for the loss of the subject cargo and dismissing Loadmasters counterclaim for damages and
attorneys fees against R&B Insurance.
Both R&B Insurance and Glodel appealed the RTC decision to the CA. Facts: On July 17, 1994, a Fuso Road Tractor driven by Raul Tutor rammed into the
On August 24, 2007, the CA rendered that the appellee is an agent of appellant Glodel, house cum store of Myrna Tamayo in Tondo, Manila. A portion of the house was
whatever liability the latter owes to appellant R&B Insurance Corporation as insurance destroyed which caused death and injury. Tutor was charged with and later convicted of
indemnity must likewise be the amount it shall be paid by appellee Loadmasters. Hence, reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide and multiple physical injuries.
Loadmasters filed the present petition for review on certiorari.
Upon verification with the Land Transportation Office, it was known that the registered
ISSUE: Whether or not Loadmasters and Glodel are common carriers to determine their owner of the tractor was Equitable Leasing Corporation/leased to Edwin Lim. On April 15,
liability for the loss of the subject cargo. 1995, respondents filed against Raul Tutor, Ecatine Corporation (Ecatine) and Equitable
Leasing Corporation (Equitable) a Complaint for damages.
RULING: The petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Judgment is rendered declaring petitioner
Loadmasters Customs Services, Inc. and respondent Glodel Brokerage Corporation jointly and The petitioner alleged that the vehicle had already been sold to Ecatine and that the
severally liable to respondent
former was no longer in possession and control thereof at the time of the incident. It also
Under Article 1732 of the Civil Code, common carriers are persons, corporations, firms, or
claimed that Tutor was an employee, not of Equitable, but of Ecatine.
associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passenger or goods, or both by
land, water or air for compensation, offering their services to the public. Loadmasters is a
common carrier because it is engaged in the business of transporting goods by land, through its Issue:
trucking service. It is a common carrier as distinguished from a private carrier wherein the Whether or not the petitioner was liable for damages based on quasi delict for the
carriage is generally undertaken by special agreement and it does not hold itself out to carry negligent acts.
goods for the general public. Glodel is also considered a common carrier within the context of
Article 1732. For as stated and well provided in the case of Schmitz Transport & Brokerage Held:
Corporation v. Transport Venture, Inc., a customs broker is also regarded as a common carrier, The Lease Agreement between petitioner and Edwin Lim stipulated that it is the intention
the transportation of goods being an integral part of its business. of the parties to enter into a finance lease agreement. Ownership of the subject tractor
Loadmasters and Glodel, being both common carriers, are mandated from the nature of their was to be registered in the name of petitioner, until the value of the vehicle has been
business and for reasons of public policy, to observe the extraordinary diligence in the vigilance fully paid by Edwin Lim.
over the goods transported by them according to all the circumstances of such case, as required
by Article 1733 of the Civil Code. When the Court speaks of extraordinary diligence, it is that Lim completed the payments to cover the full price of the tractor. Thus, a Deed of
extreme measure of care and caution which persons of unusual prudence and circumspection
Sale over the tractor was executed by petitioner in favor of Ecatine represented by Edwin
observe for securing and preserving their own property or rights. With respect to the time frame
Lim. However, the Deed was not registered with the LTO.
of this extraordinary responsibility, the Civil Code provides that the exercise of extraordinary
diligence lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and
received by, the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or Petitioner is liable for the deaths and the injuries complained of, because it was the
constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them. registered owner of the tractor at the time of the accident.The Court has consistently
The Court is of the view that both Loadmasters and Glodel are jointly and severally liable to R & ruled that, regardless of sales made of a motor vehicle, the registered owner is the lawful
B Insurance for the loss of the subject cargo. Loadmasters claim that it was never privy to the operator insofar as the public and third persons are concerned.
contract entered into by Glodel with the consignee Columbia or R&B Insurance as subrogee, is
not a valid defense. Since Equitable remained the registered owner of the tractor, it could not escape primary
For under ART. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for ones liability for the deaths and the injuries arising from the negligence of the driver.
own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
xxxx #
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers
acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any
business or industry.
Equitable Leasing Corporation vs. Lucita Suyom, Marissa Enano, Myrna Tamayo and Felix
It is not disputed that the subject cargo was lost while in the custody of Loadmasters whose
employees (truck driver and helper) were instrumental in the hijacking or robbery of the
shipment. As employer, Loadmasters should be made answerable for the damages caused by its [G.R. No. 143360, 5 September 2002, 388 SCRA 445]
employees who acted within the scope of their assigned task of delivering the goods safely to Facts:
the warehouse. A tractor driven by Raul Tutor rammed into a hous
Glodel is also liable because of its failure to exercise extraordinary diligence. It failed to ensure e - c u m - s t o r e i n To nd o, Ma n ila . Pa rt o f th e ho use wa s d est ro yed. Tw o
that Loadmasters would fully comply with the undertaking to safely transport the subject cargo pe op le d ied a nd four we re injured .
to the designated destination. Glodel should, therefore, be held liable with Loadmasters. Its T u t o r w a s c o n v i c t e d o f r e c k l e s s i m p r u d e n c e resulting in
defense of force majeure is unavailing. multiple homicide and multiple physical injuries. Verification with the Land Transportation
For the consequence, Glodel has no one to blame but itself. The Court cannot come to its aid on Office revealed that the registered o wne r o f th e t ract o r was Eq u ita b le Leas ing
equitable grounds. "Equity, which has been aptly described as a justice outside legality, is Co rp o rat ion w ho lea sed it to Edwin Lim. The relatives of the victims filed a civil case
for damages. T h e R e g i o n a l T r i a l C o u r t r u l e d a g a i n s t E q u i t a b l
e a n d o r d e r e d i t t o p a y damages to the victims relatives. Up on
E qu itab le s appe a l, t he C ou rt o f Appea ls s us ta ined t he RTC. Eq u it ab le filed a
petition for review with the Supreme Court.

Whether Equitable Leasing is liable for damages

Yes, Equitable Leasing is liable. The petition is denied and the CA decision is affirmed. As
the registered owner of the tractor, Equitable Leasing is liable for the
actso f R a u l T u t o r e v e n i f h e w a s a c t u a l l y t h e e m p l o y e e o f
E q u i t a b l e s fo rme r les see, Eca t in e Co rpo ra t io n, wh o beca me t he a ct ua l
o wn er o f the tractor by virtue of a deed of sale not registered with the LTO.
Regardless of sales made of a motor vehicle, the registered
o w n e r i s t h e lawful operator insofar as the public and third persons are concerned;
consequently, it is directly and primarily responsible for the consequences of operation. In
the eyes of the law, the owner/operator of record is the employer of the driver, the actual
owner/operator being considered as merely the agent of the registered
o wn er/ope rat o r. The princ ip le app lies e ve n if t he reg is te red o wne r o f any
vehicle does not use it for public service. The main aim of motor vehicle registration is to
identify the owner so that if any accident happens, or any damage or injury is caused by
the vehicle, responsibility can be fixed on a definite individual, the registered owner.
F a ilu re to reg is te r t he deed o f s a le sh ou ld no t p re jud ice vic t ims , wh o ha ve
t he rig ht to re ly on th e princ ip le t hat t he reg is te red o wne r is liab le for
damages caused by the negligence of the driver. E q u ita b le Leas ing c an t h ide
be h ind the a lle gat ion tha t Tu to r wa s Eca t ine Corps employee, because it will
prevent victims from recovering their lo ss o n the ba s is o f Eq u it ab le s ina ct ion in
fa iling t o reg is te r t he sa le. The no n -re g ist rat io n is E qu itab le s fa u lt , w h ic h
s ho u ld face the lega l consequences thereof.