You are on page 1of 12

GASHEEM SHOOKAT v.

CA

In August 1986, while working as a waitress in Dagupan City, Pangasinan, Marilou Gonzales, then 21 years old, met Gashem Shookat
Baksh, a 29 year old exchange student from Iran who was studying medicine in Dagupan. The two got really close and intimate. On
Marilou’s account, she said that Gashem later offered to marry her at the end of the semester. Marilou then introduced Gashem to her
parents where they expressed their intention to get married. Marilou’s parents then started inviting sponsors and relatives to the wedding.
They even started looking for animals to slaughter for the occasion.

Meanwhile, Marilou started living with Gashem in his apartment where they had sexual intercourse. But in no time, their relationship
went sour as Gashem began maltreating Marilou. Gashem eventually revoked his promise of marrying Marilou and he told her that he is
already married to someone in Bacolod City. So Marilou went home and later sued Gashem for damages.

The trial court ruled in favor of Marilou and awarded her P20k in moral damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial
court.

On appeal, Gashem averred that 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 customs and traditions.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals is correct.

HELD: Yes. Gashem is liable to pay for damages in favor of Marilou not really because of his breach of promise to marry her but based
on Article 21 of the Civil Code which 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.

Breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong per se. In this case, it is the deceit and fraud employed by Gashem that constitutes
a violation of Article 21 of the Civil Code. His promise of marrying Marilou was a deceitful scheme to lure her into sexual congress. As
found by the trial court, Marilou was not a woman of loose morals. She was a virgin before she met Gashem. She would not have
surrendered herself to Gashem had Gashem not promised to marry her. Gashem’s 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 of the opportunity to study here he is expected to respect our traditions. Any act contrary 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 torts and quasi delict. It is meant to cover
situations such as this case where the breach complained of is not strictly covered by existing laws. It was meant as a legal remedy for the
untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in the statute books – such
as the absence of a law penalizing a the breach of promise to marry.

The Supreme Court however agreed with legal luminaries that if the promise to marry was made and there was carnal knowledge because
of it, then moral damages may be recovered (presence of moral or criminal seduction), Except if there was mutual lust; or if expenses
were made because of the promise (expenses for the wedding), then actual damages may be recovered.

Exxon vs Baker

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Punitive damage awards in maritime cases shall be capped at a 1:1 ratio measured against compensatory
damage awards.

Facts. This case stems from the infamous Exxon Valdez oil spill off the coast of Alaska. Plaintiffs living in Prince William Sound, the
location of the spill, sued Exxon for consequential economic losses that resulted from the spill, as such plaintiffs depended on the Sound
for their economic livelihood. Fault was found because the captain left the bridge just before the accident, despite being the only officer
capable of navigating the difficult passage. In addition, a blood alcohol test was conducted and found that the captain had been drinking
the day of the accident, but it was unclear whether Defendant Exxon knew of the captain’s alcoholism. The District Court calculated total
relevant compensatory damages to be $507.5 million, to go along with the $2.5 billion punitive damage award. The Supreme Court sits as
a common law court under its admiralty jurisdiction.

Issue. Whether under maritime law, an award of $2.5 billion in punitive damages is unreasonable when coupled with a compensatory
damage award of only $507.5 million?

Held. Yes, a punitive award shall be limited to an amount equal to the compensatory damage award (one-to-one ratio).

Discussion. Justice Souter] Typically, a jury determines a punitive damage award, which may be reviewed by a court to ensure its
reasonableness. Given that such awards are unpredictable, and courts must be concerned with overall fairness and consistency, a standard
must be developed to reach the optimal level of penalty and deterrence in these cases. Citing dicta in State Farm (538 U.S. 408, 425), the

1983: spouses filed a civil case for damages CA affirmed trial court issued an order suspending further hearings in Civil Case until after judgment in the related Criminal Case spouses contend that the trial court and the Appellate Court erred in dismissing Civil Case since it is predicated on a quasi-delict ISSUE: W/N there is quasi-delict even if done in private propety HELD: YES. Because there are no standard “torts” or “injury”.. Andamo v. perhaps only equal to compensatory damages. the Supreme Court finds that a 1:1 ratio is a fair upper limit in maritime cases. It remains to be seen how the Court may apply the standards set forth in this case to punitive damage appeals in the future. water conductors and contrivances including an artificial lake within its land inundated and eroded the spouses Emmanuel and Natividad Andamo's land. IAC Lessons Applicable: Elements of Quasi-Delict (Torts and Damages) FACTS: Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette. because the Supreme Court was sitting as a common law court in its admiralty jurisdiction.” This decision is not a constitutional ruling.65:1 probably marks the line near which cases like this one largely should be grouped. so that even Justice Holmes’s “bad man” can look ahead with some ability to know what the stakes are in choosing one course of action or another. especially because a court will not have the power to revisit and modify the figure routinely. will satisfy due process…when compensatory damages are substantial. Because courts are focused on fairness and eccentrically high punitive verdicts may be deemed unfair.e. washed away costly fences. built through its agents. REVERSED and SET ASIDE  All the elements of a quasi-delict are present. and exposed plants and other improvements to destruction July 1982:spouses instituted a criminal action February 22. waterpaths. Note in dictum: “A median ratio of punitive to compensatory damages of about 0. putting a max cap on punitive awards is untenable. Noting a ratio as the preferable alternative. and finding that the median ratio is less than 1:1 (i. then a lesser ratio. endangered the lives of petitioners and their laborers during rainy and stormy seasons.” The Supreme Court also analogizes to the criminal sentencing system. damaged petitioners' crops and plants. or some other person for whose acts he must respond  (c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff  While the property involved in the cited case belonged to the public domain and the property subject of the instant case is privately owned. “few awards exceeding a single digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages. Inc. caused a young man to drown. a religious corporation.Supreme Court notes that despite rejecting a simple mathematical formula as the constitutional line. noting that it is instructive to note that upon discovery that defendants were serving widely disparate sentences. The Supreme Court wishes to do the same here. to wit:  (a) damages suffered by the plaintiff  (b) fault or negligence of the defendant. the fact remains that petitioners' complaint sufficiently alleges that petitioners . “[a] penalty should be reasonably predictable in its severity. to a significant degree. sentencing reform was enacting to provide detailed guidelines.. so the holding is limited to maritime cases. compensatory damages exceed punitive damages). can reach the outermost limit of the due process guarantee” (ellipses added).

Inc.In this tort case.  Article 2177. No help arrived. As he opened the window. Petitioner then saw a phone at the lifeguard counter but while slowly walking towards the phone.  whether it be conviction or acquittal would render meaningless the independent character of the civil action and the clear injunction in Article 31. Timothywent right through and fell down three stories. RULING:YES. The respondents proceeded their appeal to the Court of Appeals who affirmed the trial court’s ruling in toto.Further. Moreover. At around 7:00 p. They then proceeded to the main door but it was locked. PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS Facts: On June 11. fell on petitioner’s head that knocked her down almost unconscious. TAGORIO FACTS:Timothy Tagoria was a grade IV student at Marymount School. well-being and convenience of its students. have sustained and will continue to sustain damage due to the waterpaths and contrivances built by respondent corporation  It must be stressed that the use of one's property is not without limitations. that his action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter CHILD LEARNING v.. and (2) failure to install safety grills on the window where Timothy fell from. filed a civil action against the CLC. Delia then looked for the phone so the petitioner followed. (CLC). it was found that the lock was defective." SIC UTERE TUO UT ALIENUM NON LAEDAS. He then decided to open the window to call for help. One afternoon. During trial. 1995. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. respondents contend that CLC failed to provide precautionary measures to avoid harm and injury to its students in two instances: (1) failure to fix a defective door knob despite having been notified of the problem. the entire swimming pool area was already pitch black and nobody else was around but the two of them. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. adjoining landowners have mutual and reciprocal duties which require that each must use his own land in a reasonable manner so as not to infringe upon the rights and interests of others. The hotel staff arrived but it took them 20-30 mins to arrive. (2) the fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person for whose act he must respond. maintained that there was nothing defective about the locking mechanism of the door and that the fall of Timothy was not due to its fault or negligence.CLC. Although we recognize the right of an owner to build structures on his land.In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. ISSUE: Whether or not the school was negligent for the boy’s accidental fall. Article 431 of the Civil Code provides that "the owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such a manner as to injure the rights of a third person. such structures must be so constructed and maintained using all reasonable care so that they cannot be dangerous to adjoining landowners and can withstand the usual and expected forces of nature. the members of its Board of Directors which includes the Spouses Limon. plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of evidence: (1) the damages suffered by the plaintiff. Three hotel chambermaids . The architect witness testified that he did not verify if the doorknob at the comfort room was actually put in place. the factthat Timothy fell out through the window shows that the doorcould not be opened from the inside. HUANG v. a hard and heavy object. He started to panic so he banged and kicked the doorand yelled for help.CLC further maintained that it had exercised the due care and diligence of a good father of a family to ensure the safety.m.The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents. They claim that the school was negligent for not installing iron grills at the window of the boy’s comfort room. He. The two proceeded to the shower and dressed up but when they came out. Delia and Huang went for a swim at the Dusit hotel. the hotel’s swimming pool attendant informed them that the swimming pool area was about to be closed. the latter can claim indemnification for the injury or damage suffered. If the structures cause injury or damage to an adjoining landowner or a third person. and (3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the damages incurred. which later turned out to be the folding wooden counter top.Timothy was hospitalized and given medical treatment for serious multiple physicalinjuries. he found himself locked inside the boy’s comfort room in Marymount. assisted by his parents. Delia got a hold of the house phone and notified the operator of the incident. in its defense. an academic institution operated and maintained by Child Learning Center.

petitioner when to the US and consulted Dr. which may have been the cause of the recurring symptoms of head injury she is experiencing at present.a permanent one. where she disclosed that she had a stroke at age 18 due to mitral valve disease. she consulted Dr. Quasi delict governs because she was only a guest of Delia. missing all her important appointments with her patients. Petitioner refused to do so. In 1996. a ophthalmologist for her poor eyesight who stated that she has a permanent and serious detached eye. or some other person for whose acts he must respond. Thereafter. therefore. petitioner Peter Paul Patrick Lucas contracted "sore eyes" in his right eye. quasi-delict. The doctor opined that such injuries resulted from the events that occurred on June 11. Her condition did not get better. exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. a neurologist from Makati Medical Center and revealed that the MRI showed that her head was bruised and that petitioner has a very serious brain injury.assisted petitioner by placing an ice pack and applying some ointment on her head. Dr. Pardo. Firstly. Absent. loss of income. hence. Thereafter. (b) fault or negligence of the defendant. must all fail. the findings of Dr. Adapon who required an EEG that showed that she has a serious condition. She also began experiencing "on" and "off" severe headaches that caused her three (3) sleepless nights. Peter narrated that it has been 9 days since the problem with his right eye began. which lasted until the following day. Petitioner also consulted Dr. Teresita Sanchez’s (Dr. her testimony thereon was hearsay. She then started to feel extraordinary dizziness accompanied by an uncomfortable feeling in her stomach. thus. Held: The trial court similarly observed that the records revealed no indication that the head injury complained of by petitioner was the result of the alleged 11 June 1995 accident. thus. Petitioner was constrained to stay at home. 2176 of the Civil Code which states: "Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another. of any proof establishing the causal relation between the injury she allegedly suffered on 11 June 1995 and the head pains she now suffers. Upon consultation with Dr. her claim for actual or compensatory damages. is obliged to pay for the damage done. Even assuming that petitioner suffered head injury as a consequence of the 11 June 1995 accident. the hotel management will not render any assistance. Diokson from Mount Sinai Hospital who both found that she has "post traumatic-post concussion/contusion cephalgias-vascular and neuralgia. Dalumpines arrived but instead of immediately providing medical assistance. Dr. there being fault or negligence. and that he was already taking Maxitrol to address the eye . Cerebral Concussion and Contusion 2. Post-traumatic Epilepsy 3. Out of frustration. Petitioner then sent a demand letter seeking payment of 100. he pertinent provision of Art. Secondly. and (c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff. they cannot be given probative value. Perez himself testified that the symptoms being experienced by petitioner might have been due to factors other than the head trauma she allegedly suffered. she developed the following injuries: 1. petitioner had a past medical history which might have been the cause of her recurring brain injury. After petitioner had slightly recovered. Cervical Sprain. the medical reports/evaluations/certifications issued by myriads of doctors whom petitioner sought for examination or treatment were neither identified nor testified to by those who issued them. Such fault or negligence. Minimal Brain Dysfunction 5. Perez did not prove a causal relation between the 11 June 1995 accident and the brain damage suffered by petitioner. she consulted another doctor. TUANO Sometime in 1988. Dr.56 For petitioner’s failure to prove that her serious and permanent injury was the result of the 11 June 1995 accident. Post-concussional Syndrome 4. she requested that a waiver be signed otherwise.000 representing loss of earnings on her remaining life span but the letter was unheeded. 1995. and (c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff. she decided to consult Dr. Pardo showed that. Thirdly. the petitioner after eating dinner left the hotel. the following requisites must concur: (a) damages suffered by the plaintiff. It bears stressing that petitioner had been suffering from different kinds of brain problems since she was 18 years old. if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. chronic recurrent." quasi-delict.000. Ergo. Tuano. moral damages. Later on. the following requisites must concur: (a) damages suffered by the plaintiff. The diagnosis of Dr. is called quasi-delict. Petitioner demanded the services of the hotel physician. she consulted a neurosurgeon. her claim must fail. or some other person for whose acts he must respond. LUCAS v. She returned to the Philippines and the doctors advised her to just relax and take her medications and take a therapy for her neck pain. Being deemed as hearsay. Noble. (b) fault or negligence of the defendant. she cannot blame anyone but herself for staying at the hotel’s swimming pool area beyond its closing hours and for lifting the folding wooden counter top that eventually hit her head. Sanchez) testimony cannot be relied upon since she testified on the findings and conclusions of persons who were never presented in court. Fourthly. Sibayan who required an X-ray who likewise found the same results as the previous doctors. Lopez. she requested to be assisted to the hotel’s coffee shop to have some rest. Even Dr. Dr. Steinberg and Dr.

the latter's testimony is hearsay. Dr. Peter's visual acuity were taken. and 5. On that particular consultation. However. In rebutting petitioner's claim. Petitioner's position in sum is that Peter's glaucoma is the direct result of Dr. Dr. Dr.. He then prescribed Spersacet C-eye drops for Peter and told the latter to return for follow-up after one week. Hence. Issue: Did the petitioners failed to prove by preponderance of evidence their claim for damages against Dr. He also required Peter to go for a daily check-up in order for the former to closely monitor the pressure of the latter' eyes. In their complaint. this appeal. a viral infection. the veracity of which can best be passed upon after a full-blown trial for it is virtually impossible to ascertain the merits of a medical negligence case without extensive investigation. he referred Peter to Dr. As instructed. Tuano then ordered him to immediately discontinue the use of Maxitrol and prescribed to the latter Diamox and Normoglaucon instead. EKC. Under Rule 130. the ophthalmoscopy on Peter's eyes was used. Court of Appeals Ruling The CA faulted petitioners because they failed to present any medical expert to testify that Dr. he suffered from steroid-induced glaucoma which caused the elevation of his intra-ocular pressure. The trial court reasoned hat the recognized standards of the medical community has not been established in thiss case. Since the tension was way over the normal IOP which only ranged from 10. despite Peter's discovery of the inscribed warning written in its label. Tuano's negligence in his improper administration of the . he performed "ocular routine examination" on Peter's eyes. During the trial in CA. During one of Peter's regular follow-ups. Tuano was negligent in his treatment of Peter's condition. for a dosage of 6 times a day. another opthalmologist specializing in glaucoma treatment.problem. in claiming to have "steroid-induced glaucoma" and blaming Dr. 3. Manuel Agulto. petitioners averred that as the direct consequence of Peter's prolonged use of Maxitrol. Dr. a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of and his own personal knowledge. Peter. M. He further explained that 'drug-induced glaucoma is temporary and curable. Dr. research. The said issue constitutes a question of fact. absence of any medical evidence to the contrary.0 Hg to 21. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied by resolution. Tuano liable. Tuano's prescription of Maxitrol and Blephamide for the treatment of EKC on petiitioner's right eye was not proper and that his palpation of Peter's right eye was not enough to detect adverse reaction to steroid. Steroids are prescribed to treat Epidemic Kerato Conjunctivitis or EKC which is an infiltration of the cornea as a result of conjunctivitis or sore eyes'. Peter testified that Dr. Dr. such as the circumstance when the finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence. filed a civil complaint for damages against Dr. Tuano? Court Ruling: Only questions of law may be raised under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court as this court is not a trier of facts. To address the problem. Tuano noted the hardness in Peter's right eye and discovered that the tension in Peter's right eye was 39. RTC Ruling The RTC dismissed the Civil Case for insufficiency of evidence.0 Hg.0 Hg. Familiar and fundamental is the rule that hearsay testimony is inadmissible as evidence. Tuano diagnosed that Peter was suffering from conjunctivitis or sore eyes. Upon examination. and 2. opining that petitioners failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that Dr. the mortility of Peter's eyes were observed. However. According to Dr. the RTC ruled that it cannot accept petitioner's claim that the use of steroid is the proximate cause of the damage sustained by Peter's eye. Tuano discovered that the right eye developed Epidemic Kerato Conjunctivitis. wherein: 1. evaluation and consultation with the medical experts. the steroid treatment of Peter's EKC caused the steroid-induced glaucoma. steroids have the side effect of increasing intraocular pressure. the EKC was getting worse yet Dr. Tuano still continued on advising the use of Maxittrol. which caused the impairment of his vision which may lead to total blindness. Eventually. While this general rule admits of certain exceptions. but is contradicted by the evidence on record. The fact of want of competence or diligence is evidentiary in nature. as EKC iss only a viral infection which will cure in tself. Agulto was not presented by petitioners as a witness to confirm what he allegedly told Peter and therefore. Tuano. Tuano prescribed Maxitrol. Tuano noted the recurrence of EKC in Peter's right eye. Tuano for the same. Dr. Tuano. Manuel Agulto told him that he should not have used steroid for the treatment of EKC or that he should have used it only for two weeks. 4. as the Supreme Court is asked to revisit anew the factual findings of the RTC and the CA. Peter returned and Dr. Further. Tuano asserted that the treatment made by him more than three years ago has no causal connection to Peter's glaucoma. hence. much less has causation been established to render Dr. Section 36 of the Rules of Court.D. a cross examination Peter's eyes and their surrounding area was made. Thus. Peter's eyes were palpated to check the intraocular pressure of each.

he went to the plane’s pantry where he was approached by a plane purser who told him that he noted in the plane’s journal the following: First-class passenger was forced to go to the tourist class against his will. Criminal Law. Just as with the elements of duty and breach of the same. is obliged to pay for the damage done. which is the natural and continuous sequence. because the question of whether the alleged professional negligence caused the patient's injury is generally one for specialized expert knowledge beyond the ken of the average layperson. Civil procedure. checking the intraocular pressure of the patient. such claim for damages is almost always anchored on the alleged violation of Article 2176 of the Civil Code which states that "whoever by act or omission. If no standard is established through expert medical witnesses. proximate cause. could not be expected to determine on its own what medical technique should have been utilized for a certain disease or injury. Rafael Carrascoso and several other Filipinos were tourists en route to Rome from Manila. In this case. and that the captain refused to intervene The said testimony was admitted in favor of Carrascoso. is there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties is called quasi-delict. the present controversy is a classic illustration of a medical negligence case against a physician based on the latter's professional negligence. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. care and learning possessed by other persons in the same profession. The party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence or "evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing that that which is offered in opposition to it. he sued Air France for damages for the embarrassment he suffered during his trip. in order to prevail. he was asked by the plane manager of Air France to vacate his seat because a white man allegedly has a “better right” than him. In this type of suit. in the last analysis. the four essential elements are the following: 1. is required to prove by is required to prove by preponderance of evidence that the physician failed to exercise that degree of skill. the connection between the negligence and the injury must be a direct and natural sequence of events. The RTC. The critical and clinching factor in a medical negligence case is proof of the causal connection between the negligence which the evidence established and the plaintiff's injuries. using the specialized knowledge and training of his field. For lack of a specific law geared towards the type of negligence committed by members of the medical profession. the patient or his heirs suffered damages. unbroken by intervening efficient causes. burden of proof: In civil cases. That is. AIR FRANCE vs CARRASCO In March 1958. It seems basic that what constitutes proper medical treatment is a medical question that should have been presented to experts. and without which the result would not have occurred. Tuano was able to clearly explain what is only required of ophthalmologists. checking the motility of the eyes--and he did all those tests every time Peter went to see him for follow-up consultation and/or check-up. duty 2. breach 3. The trial court eventually awarded damages in favor of Carrascoso. and that as a proximate result of such faiure. In court. Tuano's supposed negligence and Peter's injury still needed to be established. the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. Air France is assailing the decision of the trial court and the CA. After their tourist trip when Carrascoso was already in the Philippines. In medical negligence cases. Tuano committed negligent acts in his treatment of Peter's condition. produces the injury. in order to establish the proximate cause by preponderance of evidence. the negligence must be the proximate cause of the injury. causes damage to another. in cases such as Peter's is the conduct of standard tests/ procedures known as "ocular routine examination" composed of five (5) test procedures. Carrascoso testified. In order that there may be a recovery for an injury. Dr. Such fault or negligence. specifically: gross examination of the eyes and the surrounding area. Court of Appeals and even the Supreme Court. it means the probability of truth. Carrascoso was issued a first class round trip ticket by Air France. Carrascoso gave up his seat and was transferred to the plane’s tourist class. Clearly. it must be shown that the injury for which the recovery is sought must be the legitimate consequence of the wrong done. or evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. the patient or his heirs. injury 4. then courts have no standard by which to gauge the basic issue of breach by the physician or surgeon. It avers that the issuance of a first class ticket to Carrascoso was not an . which must be established by the plaintiffs. the patient must similarly use expert testimony.Proximate cause: It is the cause. Carrascoso protested but when things got heated and upon advise of other Filipinos on board. Absent expert medical opinion. among others. the courts would be dangerously engaging in speculations. But during a stop-over in Bangkok. Even if we are to assume that Dr. taking of the visual acuity of the patient. the causal connection between Dr. that he when he was forced to take the tourist class. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. there being no fault or negligence.drug Maxitrol. the expert's role is to present to the court a realistic assessment of the likelihood that the physician's alleged negligence caused the patient's injury.

That said contract was breached when Air France failed to furnish first class transportation at Bangkok. are admissible as part of the res gestae. Such claim is simply incredible. seated” and to take a seat in the tourist class. The subject of inquiry is not the entry. courtesy and due consideration. Second. during and after the attack on the victim. The parents of Carlitos filed a civil action against the school authorities. Air France’s contract with Carrascoso is one attended with public duty. The utterance of the purser regarding his entry in the notebook was spontaneous. injurious language. They are entitled to be protected against personal misconduct. Article 2180. HELD 1: Yes. Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have a right to be treated by the carrier’s employees with kindness. the impact of the startling occurrence was still fresh and continued to be felt. Such testimony is admissible. wounded feelings and social humiliation. The testimony of Carrascoso must be admitted based on res gestae. It appears that Air France’s liability is based on culpa-contractual and on culpa aquiliana. Hence. Culpa Contractual There exists a contract of carriage between Air France and Carrascoso. and related to the circumstances of the ouster incident. The appellate court found in their favor. Testimony on the entry does not come within the proscription of the best evidence rule. It forms part of the res gestae. Jan. PSBA vs CA G. The assailants were not members of the schools’ academic community but were elements from outside the school. thereby causing him mental anguish. HELD: 2: Yes. means and methods before. ISSUE: Whether or not the appellate court was correct in deciding the case based on Article 2180 (in loco parentis) Whether or not the application of the law on quasi-delict is proper when there is a pre-existing contract HELD: The SC did not agree with the premises of the CA’s ruling. in this environment. that was not the true intent between the parties. a third-year commerce student of PSBA. by reason of which he suffered inconvenience. the SC ruled. The excitement had not as yet died down. indignities and abuses from such employees. It had been stressed that the law (Article 2180) plainly provides that the damage should have . serious anxiety. but the ouster incident. Damages are proper. even though there is a contract of carriage between Air France and Carrascoso. 4. 84698. No. reckless and with failure to take security precautions.assurance that he will be seated in first class because allegedly in truth and in fact. not by an outsider General rule on the application of quasi-delict: no pre-existing contract between the parties FACTS: Carlitos Bautista. So it is. and Third. the petition. alleging them negligent. ISSUE 1: Whether or not Air France is liable for damages and on what basis. that any rule or discourteous conduct on the part of employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the carrier. The Supreme Court did not give credence to Air France’s claim that the issuance of a first class ticket to a passenger is not an assurance that he will be given a first class seat. primarily anchoring its decision on the law of quasi-delicts. It thus escapes the operation of the hearsay rule. embarrassments and humiliations. that there was bad faith when Air France’s employee compelled Carrascoso to leave his first class accommodation berth “after he was already. There was a contract to furnish Carrasocoso a first class passage. was stabbed to death while on the second-floor premises of the school. in conjunction with Article 2176 of the Civil Code. Its trustworthiness has been guaranteed. ISSUE 2: Whether or not the testimony of Carrasoso regarding the note which was not presented in court is admissible in evidence. respect. 1992 School's responsibility in loco parentis over its own students: the harm or negligent act must be committed by its students against another student. establishes the rule in in loco parentis. This is a violation of public duty by the Air France — a case of quasi-delict. Air France also questioned the admissibility of Carrascoso’s testimony regarding the note made by the purser because the said note was never presented in court. Statements then. when the dialogue between Carrascoso and the purser happened.R. The stress of Carrascoso’s action is placed upon his wrongful expulsion. Culpa Aquiliana Here. resulting in moral damages. Besides. there is also a tortuous act based on culpa aquiliana.

IS PSBA EXCULPATED FROM LIABILITY? It does not necessarily follow. Moreover. The same can be said with respect to the liability of Atlantic Company upon its contract with the Steamship Company. 21 of the Civil Code comes to mind. Atlantic company sent out its floating crane under the charge of one Leyden. Atlantic Company claimed that it was not liable. regardless . who had undertaken to discharge the boilers had become responsible for the damage. The school must ensure that adequate steps are taken to maintain peace and order within the campus premises and to prevent the breakdown thereof. the boiler could not be brought out because the sling was not properly placed and the head of the boiler was caught under the edge of the hatch. Because the circumstances of the present case evince a contractual relation between PSBA and Carlitos. COMPANIA TRANSATLANTICA 38 Phil 875 FACTS: SS/Alicante. Said argument was not tenable. resulting in bilateral obligations which both parties are bound to comply with.been caused or inflicted by pupils or students of the educational institution sought to be held liable for the acts of its pupils or students while in its custody. Was Atlantic Company liable to the Steamship Company for the amount it may be required to pay the plaintiff? Was Atlantic Company directly liable to plaintiff as held by the trial court? RULING: There was a contractual relation between the Steamship Company and Manila Railroad. Atlantic Company wasis liable to the Steamship Company for the damage brought upon the latter by the failure of Atlantic Company to use due care in discharging the boiler. When the first boiler was being hoisted out of the ship’s hold.343. The Steamship Company cannot escape liability simply because it employed a competent independent contractor to discharge the boiler. as earlier indicated. Manila Railroad appealed from the decision because the Steamship Company was not held liable also. the mere fact that a person is bound to another by contract does not relieve him from extra-contractual liability to such person.29. because said defense was not applicable to negligence arising in the course of the performance of a contractual obligation. The weight on the crane was increased by a strain estimated at 15 tons with the result that the cable of the sling broke and the boiler fell to the bottom of the ship’s hold. When an academic institution accepts students for enrollment. this material situation does not exist in the present case for. there is established a contract between them. Art. which had the best equipment to lift the boilers out of the ship’s hold. then there is a cause to view the act as constituting a quasi-delict. There was also a contractual relation between the Steamship Company and Atlantic. There was a distinction between negligence in the performance of a contractual obligation (culpa contractual) and negligence considered as an independent source of obligation (culpa aquiliana). There was no question that the Steamship Company was liable to Manila Railroad as it had the obligation to transport the boiler in a proper manner safe and securely under the circumstances required by law and customs. for whose acts the school could have been made liable. Manila Railroad then filed an action against the Streamship Company to recover said damages. the rules on quasi-delict do not really govern. 21. there is no finding that the contract between the school and Carlitos had been breached thru the former’s negligence in providing proper security measures.. Compania Transatlantica contracted the services of Atlantic gulf and Pacific Co. When Alicante arrived in Manila. The boiler was so badly damaged that it had to be shipped back to England to be rebuilt. The sling was again adjusted and the boiler was again lifted but as it was being brought up the bolt at the end of the derrick broke and the boiler fell again. belonging to Compania Transatlantica de Barcelona was transporting two locomotive boilers for the Manila Railroad Company. But there was no contractual relation between the Railroad Company and Atlantic Company. However. The equipment of the ship for discharging the heavy cargo was not strong enough to handle the boilers. Atlantic Company also appealed from the judgment against it. there is that “built-in” obligation to provide students with an atmosphere that promotes or assists in attaining its primary undertaking of imparting knowledge. because it had employed all the diligence of a good father of a family and proper care in the selection of Leyden. In the present case. The damages suffered by Manila Railroad amounted to P23. The Court of First Instance decided in favor of Manila Railroad. the plaintiff. Was the Steamship Company liable to Manila Railroad for delivering the boiler in a damaged condition? 2. The Steamship Company caused Atlantic Company to be brought as co-defendant arguing that Atlantic Company as an independent contractor. However. against Atlantic Company and absolved the Steamship Company. VS. the assailants of Carlitos were not students of PSBA. MANILA RAILROAD CO. When such a contractual relation exists the obligor may break the contract under such conditions that the same act which constitutes a breach of the contract would have constituted the source of an extra-contractual obligation had no contract existed between the parties. so that should the act which breaches a contract be done in bad faith and violative of Art. ISSUES: 1.

the passenger is relieved of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the carrier or of its employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure. (2) Fault was not established. on the one hand. In case of such death or injury. a carrier is presumed to have been at fault or been negligent. . The rights of Manila Railroad can only be made effective through the Steamship Company with whom the contract of affreightment was made. It is an established rule that nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory damages. Stated differently. duly chose with due care. Liability will be based on Tort under Art. when an act which constitutes a breach of ontract would have itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability had no contract existed between the parties. This obligation exists not only during the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises where they ought to be in pursuance to then contract of carriage. 145804. a liability for tort may arise even under a contract. the employer. the train driver. be described? It would be solidary. 1759 and 1763 of the New Civil Code A common carrier is required by these above statutory provisions to use utmost diligence in carrying passengers with due regard for all circumstances. 1763 renders a common carrier liable for death of or injury to passengers (a) through the negligence or wilful acts of its employees or (b) on account of willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers if the common carrier’s employees through theexercise of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. Since there was no contract between the Railroad Company and Atlantic Company. 1755. one resulting in culpa contractual and the other in culpa aquiliana. February 6.of the fact that the damage was caused by the negligence of an employee who was qualified for the work. Railroad Company can had no right of action to recover damages from Atlantic Company for the wrongful act which constituted the violation of the contract. They had a fistfight and Navidad fell onto the tracks and was killed when a train came and ran over him. it would be for a tort under Art. RATIO: Liability of LRTA – Read Arts. Art. In fine. He got into an altercation with the SG Escartin. and by simple proof of injury. The CA also blamed LRTA for not having presented expert evidence showing that the emergency brakes could not have stopped the train on time. and an independent contractor.R. (3) Whether or not nominal damages may coexist with compensatory damages. would be held liable on the presumption that it did not exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of its employees. HELD: (1) Yes. The Heirs of Navidad filed a complaint for damages against Escartin. LRT vs. Relationship between contractual and non-contractual breach – How then must the liability of the common carrier. the contract can be said to have been breached by tort. A contractual obligation can be breached by tort and when the same act or omission causes the injury. on the other hand. Prudent. No. The CA exonerated Prudent and instead held the LRTA and the train driver Romero jointly and severally liable as well as removing the award for compensatory damages and replacing it with nominal damages. 2176 in conjunction with Art. NAVIDAD G. Article 2194 of the Civil Code can well apply. Liability of Security Agency – If Prudent is to be held liable. The foundation of LRTA's liability is the contract of carriage and its obligation to indemnify the victim arising from the breach of that contract by reason of its failure to exercise the high diligence required of a common carrier.1756. 2180. The trial court found Prudent and Escartin jointly and severally liable for damages to the heirs. (3) No. ISSUES: (1) Whether or not LRTA and/or Roman is liable for the death. The reasoning of the CA was that a contract of carriage already existed between Navidad and LRTA (by virtue of his havA ing purchased train tickets and the liability was caused by the mere fact of Navidad's death after being hit by the train being managed by the LRTA and operated by Roman. (Roman) the LRTA. the Metro Transit Organization and Prudent Security Agency (Prudent). (2) Whether or not Escartin and/or Prudent are liable. where tort is that which breaches the contract. Once the fault of the employee Escartin is established. 2176 of the New Civil Code. 2003 FACTS: Navidad was drunk when he entered the boarding platform of the LRT. thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.

or guardian. it is. It was also proven that Barredo is negligent in hiring his employees because it was shown that Fontanilla had had multiple traffic infractions already before he hired him – something he failed to overcome during hearing. After the criminal suit. 1936.The award of nominal damages in addition to actual damages is untenable. . Elcano filed a criminal case against Reginald but Reginald was acquitted for “lack of intent coupled with mistake. BARREDO vs GARCIA Torts and Damages – Civil Liability from Quasi Delicts vs Civil Liability from Crimes At about 1:30am on May 3. the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff. however. 1994. ELCANO vs HILL Torts and Damages – Civil Liability from Quasi Delicts vs Civil Liability from Crimes Reginald Hill. He is primarily liable under Article 1903 which is a separate civil action against negligent employers. Reginald is already of age. if accused is actually charged also criminally. It shall enable the minor to administer his property as though he were of age. Manila. Tutor was charged with and later convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide and multiple physical injuries. Had Garcia not reserved his right to file a separate civil action. mother or guardian. but he cannot borrow money or alienate or encumber real property without the consent of his father or mother. Barredo would have only been subsidiarily liable. emancipation takes place “by the marriage of the minor child”. He reserved his right to file a separate civil action and this is more expeditious because by the time of the SC judgment Fontanilla is already serving his sentence and has no property. culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law. Hill argued that the civil action is barred by his son’s acquittal in the criminal case. Barredo assailed the suit arguing that his liability is only subsidiary and that the separate civil suit should have been filed against Fontanilla primarily and not him. HELD: Yes. Fontanilla’s taxi collided with a “kalesa” thereby killing the 16 year old Faustino Garcia. Rule 111. and under Article 397. assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. Further. emancipation by marriage of the minor is not really full or absolute. HELD: No. whereas the civil liability 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 or has not been committed by the accused. The award was deleted. and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two. may be vindicated or recognized. and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. A portion of the house was destroyed which caused death and injury. whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted. (e) of Section 3. While it is true that parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of the child (Article 327. ISSUE: Whether or not Barredo is just subsidiarily liable. Garcia filed a civil suit against Barredo – the owner of the taxi (employer of Fontanilla). It is an established rule that nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory damages. provided that the offended party is not allowed. Equitable Leasing Corporation vs Suyom 388 SCRA 445 (2002) Facts: On July 17. which has been violated or invaded by the defendant. Fontanilla was eventually convicted. The suit was based on Article 1903 of the civil code (negligence of employers in the selection of their employees). and that if ever. also clear that pursuant to Article 399.” Therefore. Marvin’s liability should be subsidiary only – as a matter of equity. his civil liability as a parent has been extinguished by the fact that his son is already an emancipated minor by reason of his marriage. A separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act. Garcia is well within his rights in suing Barredo. refers exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code. ISSUE: Whether or not Marvin Hill may be held civilly liable under Article 2180. Faustino’s parents filed a criminal suit against Fontanilla and reserved their right to file a separate civil suit. In other words. caused the death of Agapito (son of Elcano). Briefly stated.” Elcano then filed a civil action against Reginald and his dad (Marvin Hill) for damages based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code. a Fuso Road Tractor driven by Raul Tutor rammed into the house cum store of Myrna Tamayo in Tondo. Civil Code). He can sue and be sued in court only with the assistance of his father. to recover damages on both scores. Thus “Emancipation by marriage or by voluntary concession shall terminate parental authority over the child’s person. Barredo is not being sued for damages arising from a criminal act (his driver’s negligence) but rather for his own negligence in selecting his employee (Article 1903). a minor. Article 2180 is applicable to Marvin Hill – the SC however ruled since at the time of the decision. The acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case does not bar the filing of a separate civil action.Nominal Damages .

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner was liable for damages based on quasi delict for the negligent acts. . regardless of sales made of a motor vehicle. Ownership of the subject tractor was to be registered in the name of petitioner. Lim completed the payments to cover the full price of the tractor. until the value of the vehicle has been fully paid by Edwin Lim. Held: The Lease Agreement between petitioner and Edwin Lim stipulated that it is the intention of the parties to enter into a finance lease agreement. It also claimed that Tutor was an employee. a Deed of Sale over the tractor was executed by petitioner in favor of Ecatine represented by Edwin Lim.The Court has consistently ruled that. it could not escape primary liability for the deaths and the injuries arising from the negligence of the driver. The petitioner alleged that the vehicle had already been sold to Ecatine and that the former was no longer in possession and control thereof at the time of the incident. the Deed was not registered with the LTO. Petitioner is liable for the deaths and the injuries complained of. 1995. but of Ecatine. it was known that the registered owner of the tractor was Equitable Leasing Corporation/leased to Edwin Lim. Since Equitable remained the registered owner of the tractor. However. On April 15. the registered owner is the lawful operator insofar as the public and third persons are concerned. Thus. because it was the registered owner of the tractor at the time of the accident. respondents filed against Raul Tutor. not of Equitable. Ecatine Corporation (Ecatine) and Equitable Leasing Corporation (Equitable) a Complaint for damages.Upon verification with the Land Transportation Office.