You are on page 1of 21

MINDANAO TERMINAL AND BROKERAGE the M/V Mistrau under the direction and supervision

SERVICE, INC. of the ship’s officers, who would not have accepted
- versus - the cargoes on board the vessel and signed the
PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW foreman’s report unless they were properly arranged
YORK/MCGEE & CO., INC and tightly secured to withstand voyage across the
G.R. No. 162467 May 8, 2009 open seas. Accordingly, Mindanao Terminal cannot be
Tinga, J.: held liable for whatever happened to the cargoes after
it had loaded and stowed them. Moreover, citing the
FACTS: survey report, it was found by the RTC that the
Del Monte Philippines, Inc. contracted cargoes were damaged on account of a typhoon
petitioner Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Service, which M/V Mistrau had encountered during the
Inc., a stevedoring company, to load and stow a voyage. It was further held that Phoenix and McGee
shipment of 146,288 cartons of fresh green Philippine had no cause of action against Mindanao Terminal
bananas and 15,202 cartons of fresh pineapples because the latter, whose services were contracted by
belonging to Del Monte Fresh Produce International, Del Monte, a distinct corporation from Del Monte
Inc. into the cargo hold of the vessel M/V Mistrau. The Produce, had no contract with the assured Del Monte
vessel was docked at the port of Davao City and the Produce. The RTC dismissed the complaint and
goods were to be transported by it to the port of awarded the counterclaim of Mindanao Terminal in
Inchon, Korea in favor of consignee Taegu Industries, the amount of P83,945.80 as actual damages and
Inc. Del Monte Produce insured the shipment under P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
an "open cargo policy" with private respondent
Phoenix Assurance Company of New York , a non-life ISSUE:
insurance company, and private respondent McGee & Whether or not Phoenix and McGee have a
Co. Inc. (McGee), the underwriting manager/agent of cause of action and whether Mindanao Terminal is
Phoenix. liable for not having exercised extraordinary diligence
in the transport and storage of the cargo.
The vessel set sail from the port of Davao City and
arrived at the port of Inchon, Korea. It was then RULING:
discovered upon discharge that some of the cargo was No, in the present case, Mindanao Terminal,
in bad condition. The Marine Cargo Damage as a stevedore, was only charged with the loading and
Surveyor of Incok Loss and Average Adjuster of stowing of the cargoes from the pier to the ship’s
Korea, through its representative Byeong Yong Ahn cargo hold; it was never the custodian of the shipment
(Byeong), surveyed the extent of the damage of the of Del Monte Produce. A stevedore is not a common
shipment. In a survey report, it was stated that 16,069 carrier for it does not transport goods or passengers; it
cartons of the banana shipment and 2,185 cartons of is not akin to a warehouseman for it does not store
the pineapple shipment were so damaged that they goods for profit.
no longer had commercial value.
**Phoenix and McGee appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Mindanao Terminal loaded and stowed the cargoes The appellate court reversed and set aside the decision The
aboard the M/V Mistrau. The vessel set sail from the same court ordered Mindanao Terminal to pay Phoenix
port of Davao City and arrived at the port of Inchon, and McGee "the total amount of $210,265.45 plus legal
Korea. It was then discovered upon discharge that interest from the filing of the complaint until fully paid and
some of the cargo was in bad condition. attorney’s fees of 20% of the claim." It sustained Phoenix’s
and McGee’s argument that the damage in the cargoes was
Del Monte Produce filed a claim under the open cargo the result of improper stowage by Mindanao Terminal.
policy for the damages to its shipment. McGee’s
Marine Claims Insurance Adjuster evaluated the
** Mindanao Terminal filed a motion for reconsideration,
claim and recommended that payment in the amount
which the Court of Appeals denied in its 26 February 2004
of $210,266.43 be made. Phoenix and McGee
resolution. Hence, the present petition for review.
instituted an action for damages against Mindanao
After trial, the RTC held that the only participation of - versus -
Mindanao Terminal was to load the cargoes on board
RAFAEL CARRASCOSO and the HONORABLE berth "after he was already, seated" and to take a seat in
COURT OF APPEALS, the tourist class, by reason of which he suffered
G.R. No. L-21438 September 28, 1966 inconvenience, embarrassments and humiliations,
Sanchez, J.: thereby causing him mental anguish, serious anxiety,
wounded feelings and social humiliation, resulting in
FACTS: moral damages. It is true that there is no specific
On March 28, 1958, the defendant, Air mention of the term bad faith in the complaint. But, the
France, through its authorized agent, Philippine Air inference of bad faith is there, it may be drawn from
Lines, Inc., issued to plaintiff a "first class" round trip the facts and circumstances set forth therein. 34 The
airplane ticket from Manila to Rome. Rafael contract was averred to establish the relation between
Carrascoso was one of the 48 Filipino pilgrims who the parties. But the stress of the action is put on
left Manila for Lourdes. However, at Bangkok, the wrongful expulsion.
Manager of the defendant airline forced plaintiff to
vacate the "first class" seat that he was occupying ** Passengers do not contract merely for
because, in the words of the witness Ernesto G. transportation. They have a right to be treated by the
Cuento, there was a "white man", who, the Manager carrier's employees with kindness, respect, courtesy
alleged, had a "better right" to the seat. When asked to and due consideration. They are entitled to be
vacate his "first class" seat, the plaintiff, as was to be protected against personal misconduct, injurious
expected, refused, and told defendant's Manager that language, indignities and abuses from such
his seat would be taken over his dead body; a employees. So it is, that any rule or discourteous
commotion ensued, and, according to said Ernesto G. conduct on the part of employees towards a
Cuento, "many of the Filipino passengers got nervous passenger gives the latter an action for damages
in the tourist class; when they found out that Mr. against the carrier. 44
Carrascoso was having a hot discussion with the
white man [manager], they came all across to Mr.
Carrascoso and pacified Mr. Carrascoso to give his
seat to the white man". ALFREDO P. PACIS and CLEOPATRA D. PACIS
- versus -
Whether or not damages may be recovered G.R. No. 169467 February 25, 2010
on the basis of the expulsion CARPIO, J.:
Yes, the contract of air carriage generates a
relation attended with public duty. Passengers should On January 19, 1991, Alfred Dennis
be Pacis, then 17 years old and a first year student at the
protected and insured a pleasant trip. Thus, the Baguio Colleges Foundation taking up BS Computer
wrongful expulsion is a violation of public duty by Science, died due to a gunshot wound in the head
the air carrier- a quasi delict. Damages are proper. which he sustained while he was at the Top Gun
Firearm[s] and Ammunition[s] Store located at Upper
** If, as petitioner underscores, a first-class-ticket Mabini Street, Baguio City. The gun store was owned
holder is not entitled to a first class seat, and operated by defendant Jerome Jovanne Morales.
notwithstanding the fact that seat availability in The bullet which killed Alfred Dennis Pacis was fired
specific flights is therein confirmed, then an air from a gun brought in by a customer of the gun store
passenger is placed in the hollow of the hands of an for repair. With Alfred Pacis at the time of the
airline. What security then can a passenger have? The shooting were Aristedes Matibag and Jason
foregoing, in our opinion, substantially aver: First, Herbolario. They were sales agents of the defendant,
That there was a contract to furnish plaintiff a first and at that particular time, the caretakers of the gun
class passage covering, amongst others, the Bangkok- store.
Teheran leg; Second, That said contract was breached
when petitioner failed to furnish first class It appears that Matibag and Herbolario later
transportation at Bangkok; and Third, that there was brought out the gun from the drawer and placed it on
bad faith when petitioner's employee compelled top of the table. Attracted by the sight of the gun, the
Carrascoso to leave his first class accommodation young Alfred Dennis Pacis got hold of the same.
Matibag asked Alfred Dennis Pacis to return the gun. was not shown in this case whether respondent had a
The latter followed and handed the gun to Matibag. It License to Repair which authorizes him to repair
went off, the bullet hitting the young Alfred in the defective firearms to restore its original composition
head. or enhance or upgrade firearms.

On 8 April 1998, the trial court rendered its ________________________________________________

decision in favour Spouses Alfredo P. Pacis and _________________________________________
Cleopatra D. Pacis. Respondent appealed to the Court
of Appeals. In its Decision dated 11 May 2005, the DR. MILAGROS L. CANTRE,
Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s Decision - versus –
and absolved respondent from civil liability under SPS. JOHN DAVID Z. GO and NORA S. GO,
Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Petitioners filed a G.R. No. 160889 April 27, 2007
motion for reconsideration, which the Court of QUISUMBING, J.:
Appeals denied in its Resolution dated 19 August
2005. FACTS:
Dr. Milagros L. Cantre is a specialist in
ISSUE: Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Dr. Jesus Delgado
Whether or not Jerome Jovanne Morales Is Memorial Hospital. She was the attending physician
guilty of negligence and lack of due care as he failed of respondent Nora S. Go, who was admitted at the
to observe the diligence of a good father of a family. said hospital on April 19, 1992. At 1:30 a.m. of April
HELD: 20, 1992, Nora gave birth to her fourth child, a baby
Yes, as a gun store owner indeed, a higher boy. However, at around 3:30 a.m., Nora suffered
degree of care is required of someone who has in his profuse bleeding inside her womb due to some parts
possession or under his control an instrumentality of the placenta which were not completely expelled
extremely dangerous in character, such as dangerous from her womb after delivery. Consequently, Dr.
weapons or substances. Such person in possession or Milagros L. Cantre performed various medical
control of dangerous instrumentalities has the duty procedures to stop the bleeding and to restore Nora’s
to take exceptional precautions to prevent any injury blood pressure.
being done thereby. Unlike the ordinary affairs of life
or business which involve little or no risk, a business While massaging Nora’s uterus for it to
dealing with dangerous weapons requires the exercise contract and stop bleeding, she ordered a droplight to
of a higher degree of care. warm Nora and her baby. Nora remained
Morales is presumed to be knowledgeable about unconscious until she recovered. While in the
firearms safety and should have known never to keep recovery room, her husband, respondent John David
a loaded weapon in his store to avoid unreasonable Z. Go noticed a fresh gaping wound two and a half (2
risk of harm or injury to others. He has the duty to ½) by three and a half (3 ½) inches in the inner
ensure that all the guns in his store are not loaded. portion of her left arm, close to the armpit. 5 He asked
Firearms should be stored unloaded and separate the nurses what caused the injury. He was informed it
from ammunition when the firearms are not needed was a burn. Forthwith, on April 22, 1992, John David
for ready-access defensive use. With more reason, filed a request for investigation.
guns accepted by the store for repair should not be
loaded precisely because they are defective and may On May 7, 1992, John David brought Nora to the
cause an accidental discharge such as what happened National Bureau of Investigation for a physical
in this case. examination, The medico-legal officer later testified
He were clearly negligent when he accepted that Nora’s injury appeared to be a burn and that a
the gun for repair and placed it inside the drawer droplight when placed near the skin for about 10
without ensuring first that it was not loaded. In the minutes could cause such burn He dismissed the
first place, the defective gun should have been stored likelihood that the wound was caused by a blood
in a vault. Before accepting the defective gun for pressure cuff as the scar was not around the arm, but
repair, respondent should have made sure that it was just on one side of the arm. The costs of the skin
not loaded to prevent any untoward accident. For grafting and the scar revision were shouldered by the
failing to insure that the gun was not loaded, hospital.
respondent himself was negligent. Furthermore, it
Unfortunately, Nora’s arm would never be the same 3. The possibility of contributing conduct
Aside from the unsightly mark, the pain in her left which would make the plaintiff responsible is
arm remains. When sleeping, she has to cradle her eliminated.
wounded arm. Her movements now are also
restricted. Her children cannot play with the left side PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.,
of her body as they might accidentally bump the - versus -
injured arm, which aches at the slightest touch. Thus, NATIVIDAD and ENRIQUE AGANA,
on June 21, 1993, respondent spouses filed a G.R. No. 126297 January 31, 2007
complaint for damages against Dr. Cantre, Dr. Abad, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
and the hospital.
NATIVIDAD (Substituted by her children
In view of the foregoing consideration, judgment was
rendered in favor of Sps. John and Nora GO. Dr.
Cantre, Dr. Abad, and the hospital all appealed to the
Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modification
- versus -
the trial court decision, the motion for reconsideration
was denied by the Court of Appeals. Hence, the
G.R. No. 126467 January 31, 2007
instant petition.

- versus -
Whether or not Dr. Cantre is responsible for
the injury sustained by Nora S. Go.
G.R. No. 127590 January 31, 2007
Yes, the gaping wound on Nora’s left arm,
by its very nature and considering her condition,
On April 4, 1984, Natividad Agana was rushed to the
could only be caused by something external to her
Medical City General Hospital because of difficulty of
and outside her control as she was unconscious while
bowel movement and bloody anal discharge. After a
in hypovolemic shock.
series of medical examinations, Dr. Miguel Ampil,
Whether the injury was caused by the droplight or by
petitioner in G.R. No. 127590, diagnosed her to be
the blood pressure cuff is of no moment. Both
suffering from "cancer of the sigmoid."
instruments are deemed within the exclusive control
On April 11, 1984, Dr. Ampil, assisted by the
of the physician in charge under the "captain of the
medical staff of the Medical City Hospital, performed
ship" doctrine. This doctrine holds the surgeon in
an anterior resection surgery on Natividad. He found
charge of an operation liable for the negligence of his
that the malignancy in her sigmoid area had spread
assistants during the time when those assistants are
on her left ovary, necessitating the removal of certain
under the surgeon’s control.
portions of it. Thus, Dr. Ampil obtained the consent of
Natividad’s husband, Enrique Agana, to permit Dr.
** In cases involving medical negligence, the doctrine
Juan Fuentes, respondent in G.R. No. 126467, to
of res ipsa loquitur allows the mere existence of an
perform hysterectomy on her.
injury to justify a presumption of negligence on the
After Dr. Fuentes had completed the
part of the person who controls the instrument
hysterectomy, Dr. Ampil took over, completed the
causing the injury, provided that the following
operation and closed the incision. However, the
requisites concur:
operation appeared to be flawed, because in the
1. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily
corresponding Record of Operation dated April 11,
does not occur in the absence of someone’s
1984, the attending nurses entered the remarks:
"sponge count lacking 2” "announced to surgeon
2. It is caused by an instrumentality within
search done but to no avail continue for closure."
the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants;
Natividad Agana was discharged on April
24, 1984 and payed hospital bills amounting to 60,000
After a couple of days, Natividad complained of jurisdiction over Dr. Ampil who was then in the
excruciating pain in her anal region. She consulted United States. On February 16, 1986, pending the
both Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes about it. They told outcome of the above cases, Natividad died and was
her that the pain was the natural consequence of the duly substituted by her above-named children. On
surgery. Dr. Ampil then recommended that she March 17, 1993, the RTC rendered its Decision in
consult an oncologist to examine the cancerous nodes favor of the Aganas.
which were not removed during the operation.
On May 9, 1984, Natividad, accompanied by her
husband, went to the United States to seek further G.R. No. 126297 – Whether or not of
treatment. After four months of consultations and Professional ServicesInc. is solidarily for the
laboratory examinations, Natividad was told she was negligence of Dr. Ampil.
free of cancer. Hence, she was advised to return to the
Philippines. G.R. No. 126467 – Whether or not Dr.
Fuentes is guilty of negligence or medical
On August 31, 1984, Natividad flew back to the malpractice, invoking the doctrine of res ipsa
Philippines, still suffering from pains. Two weeks loquitur, that the pieces of gauze are prima
thereafter, her daughter found a piece of gauze facie proofs that the operating surgeons have
protruding from her vagina. Upon being informed been negligent.
about it, Dr. Ampil proceeded to her house where he
managed to extract by hand a piece of gauze G.R. No. 127590 – Whether or not Dr. Ampil
measuring 1.5 inches in width. He then assured her is liable for negligence and malpractice sans
that the pains would soon vanish. evidence that he left the two pieces of gauze
in Natividad’s vagina.
Dr. Ampil’s assurance did not come true. Instead, the
pains intensified, prompting Natividad to seek HELD:
treatment at the Polymedic General Hospital. While
confined there, Dr. Ramon Gutierrez detected the G.R. No. 126297 – YES, the owners and managers of
presence of another foreign object in her vagina -- a an establishment or enterprise are likewise
foul-smelling gauze measuring 1.5 inches in width responsible for damages caused by their employees in
which badly infected her vaginal vault. A recto- the service of the branches in which the latter are
vaginal fistula had formed in her reproductive organs employed or on the occasion of their functions.
which forced stool to excrete through the vagina. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by
Another surgical operation was needed to remedy the their employees and household helpers acting within
damage. Thus, in October 1984, Natividad underwent the scope of their assigned tasks even though the
another surgery. former are not engaged in any business or industry.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease
On November 12, 1984, Natividad and her husband when the persons herein mentioned prove that they
filed with the RTC, Branch 96, Quezon City a observed all the diligence of a good father of a family
complaint for damages against the Professional to prevent damage.
Services, Inc. (PSI), owner of the Medical City
Hospital, Dr. Ampil, and Dr. Fuentes . They alleged Private hospitals, hire, fire and exercise real control
that the latter are liable for negligence for leaving two over their attending and visiting ‘consultant’ staff.
pieces of gauze inside Natividad’s body and While ‘consultants’ are not, technically employees ,
malpractice for concealing their acts of negligence. the control exercised, the hiring, and the right to
terminate consultants all fulfill the important
Meanwhile, Enrique Agana also filed with the hallmarks of an employer-employee relationship,
Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) an with the exception of the payment of wages.
administrative complaint for gross negligence and
malpractice against Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes. The "The principal is bound by the acts of his agent with
PRC Board of Medicine heard the case only with the apparent authority which he knowingly permits
respect to Dr. Fuentes because it failed to acquire
the agent to assume, or which he holds the agent out nurses informed him that two pieces of gauze were
to the public as possessing. missing. A "diligent search" was conducted, but the
misplaced gauzes were not found. Dr. Ampil then
In this case, PSI publicly displays in the lobby of the directed that the incision be closed. During this entire
Medical City Hospital the names and specializations period, Dr. Fuentes was no longer in the operating
of the physicians associated or accredited by it, room and had, in fact, left the hospital.
including those of Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes. "it is
now estopped from passing all the blame to the Under the "Captain of the Ship" rule, the operating
physicians whose names it proudly paraded in the surgeon is the person in complete charge of the
public directory leading the public to believe that it surgery room and all personnel connected with the
vouched for their skill and competence." By operation. Dr. Ampil was the lead surgeon. In other
accrediting Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes and publicly words, he was the "Captain of the Ship."
advertising their qualifications, the hospital created
the impression that they were its agents, authorized to
perform medical or surgical services for its patients.
As expected, these patients, Natividad being one of
G.R. No. 127590 – YES, he is liable despite pointing to
them, accepted the services on the reasonable belief
that such were being rendered by the hospital or its other probable causes, such as: (1) it was Dr. Fuentes
who used gauzes in performing the hysterectomy; (2)
employees, agents, or servants.
the attending nurses’ failure to properly count the
gauzes used during surgery; and (3) the medical
intervention of the American doctors who examined
G.R. No. 126467 – NO, the requisites for the Natividad in the United States of America.
applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur are:
(1) the occurrence of an injury; The removal of all sponges used is part of a
(2) the thing which caused the injury was under the surgical operation, and when a physician or surgeon
control and management of the defendant; fails to remove a sponge he has placed in his patient’s
(3) the occurrence was such that in the ordinary body that should be removed as part of the operation,
course of things, would not have happened if those he thereby leaves his operation uncompleted and
who had control or management used proper care; creates a new condition which imposes upon him the
and legal duty of calling the new condition to his patient’s
(4) the absence of explanation by the defendant. Of attention, and endeavoring with the means he has at
the foregoing requisites, the most instrumental is the hand to minimize and avoid untoward results likely
"control and management of the thing which caused to ensue therefrom.
the injury."
Here, Dr. Ampil did not inform Natividad about the
We find the element of "control and management of missing two pieces of gauze. Worse, he even misled
the thing which caused the injury" to be wanting. her that the pain she was experiencing was the
Hence, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur will not lie. ordinary consequence of her operation. Had he been
more candid, Natividad could have taken the
It was duly established that Dr. Ampil was the lead immediate and appropriate medical remedy to
surgeon during the operation of Natividad. He remove the gauzes from her body. To our mind, what
requested the assistance of Dr. Fuentes only to was initially an act of negligence by Dr. Ampil has
perform hysterectomy when Dr. Ampil found that the ripened into a deliberate wrongful act of deceiving his
malignancy in her sigmoid area had spread to her left patient.
ovary. Dr. Fuentes performed the surgery and
thereafter reported and showed his work to Dr. This is a clear case of medical malpractice or more
Ampil. The latter examined it and finding everything appropriately, medical negligence. To successfully
to be in order, allowed Dr. Fuentes to leave the pursue this kind of case, a patient must only prove
operating room. that a health care provider either failed to do
something which a reasonably prudent health care
Dr. Ampil then resumed operating on Natividad. He provider would have done, or that he did something
was about to finish the procedure when the attending that a reasonably prudent provider would not have
done; and that failure or action caused injury to the vice, under the principle of corporate negligence for its
patient. failure to perform its duties as a hospital.
While in theory a hospital as a juridical entity cannot
February 2, 2010 RESOLUTION of practice medicine, in reality it utilizes doctors,
surgeons and medical practitioners in the conduct of
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. vs. NATIVIDAD its business of facilitating medical and surgical
and ENRIQUE AGANA, treatment.
G.R. No. 126297 January 31, 2007 **Where an employment relationship exists, the
hospital may be held vicariously liable under Article
NATIVIDAD (Substituted by her children 2176 in relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Code or the
MARCELINO AGANA III, ENRIQUE AGANA, JR., principle of respondeat superior. Even when no
EMMA AGANA ANDAYA, JESUS AGANA, and employment relationship exists but it is shown that
RAYMUND AGANA) and ENRIQUE AGANA, the hospital holds out to the patient that the doctor is
vs. its agent, the hospital may still be vicariously liable
JUAN FUENTES, under Article 2176 in relation to Article 1431 and
G.R. No. 126467 January 31, 2007 Article 1869 of the Civil Code or the principle of
And apparent authority. Moreover, regardless of its
relationship with the doctor, the hospital may be
MIGUEL AMPIL, held directly liable to the patient for its own
vs. negligence or failure to follow established standard of
NATIVIDAD AGANA and ENRIQUE AGANA, conduct to which it should conform as a corporation.
G.R. No. 127590 January 31, 2007
CORONA, J.: **Under the "control test", an employment
relationship exists between a physician and a hospital
FACTS: if the hospital controls both the means and the details
Professional Services, Inc. (PSI) filed a of the process by which the physician is to accomplish
second motion for reconsideration urging referral his task.
thereof to the Court en banc and seeking modification As priorly stated, private respondents
of the decision dated January 31, 2007 and resolution maintained specific work-schedules, as determined by
dated February 11, 2008 which affirmed its vicarious petitioner through its medical director, which
and direct liability for damages to respondents consisted of 24-hour shifts totaling forty-eight hours
Enrique Agana and the heirs of Natividad Agana each week and which were strictly to be observed
(Aganas). Manila Medical Services, Inc. (MMSI), under pain of administrative sanctions.
Asian Hospital, Inc. (AHI), and Private Hospital
Association of the Philippines (PHAP) all sought to
intervene in these cases invoking the common **That petitioner exercised control over respondents
ground that, unless modified, the assailed decision gains light from the undisputed fact that in the
and resolution will jeopardize the financial viability of emergency room, the operating room, or any
private hospitals and jack up the cost of health care. department or ward for that matter, respondents'
work is monitored through its nursing supervisors,
ISSUE: charge nurses and orderlies. Without the approval or
Whether or not Professional Services Inc. has consent of petitioner or its medical director, no
been erred to be held liable for the Negligence of Dr. operations can be undertaken in those areas. For
Miguel Ampil. control test to apply, it is not essential for the
employer to actually supervise the performance of
HELD: duties of the employee, it being enough that it has
YES, after gathering its thoughts on the the right to wield the power.
issues, this Court holds that PSI is liable to the
Aganas, not under the principle of respondeat superior LAMBERT S. RAMOS,
for lack of evidence of an employment relationship - versus -
with Dr. Ampil but under the principle of ostensible C.O.L. REALTY CORPORATION,
agency for the negligence of Dr. Ampil and, pro hac G.R. No. 184905 August 28, 2009
Ynares-Santiago, J.:
Expedition at high speed along a busy intersection.
FACTS: We cannot exculpate Rodel from liability.
On or about 10:40 o’clock in the morning of 8
March 2004, along Katipunan Avenue, Quezon City, a Having thus settled the contributory negligence of
vehicular accident took place between a Toyota Altis Rodel, this created a presumption of negligence on
Sedan bearing Plate Number XDN 210 (owned by the part of Ramos. For the employer to avoid the
C.O.L. Realty Corporation and driven by Aquilino solidary liability for a tort committed by his
Larin) and a Ford Expedition bearing Plate Number employee, an employer must rebut the presumption
LSR 917 (owned by Lambert Ramos and driven by by presenting adequate and convincing proof that in
Rodel Ilustrisimo). A passenger of the sedan, one the selection and supervision of his employee, he or
Estela Maliwat sustained injuries, she was she exercises the care and diligence of a good father of
immediately rushed to the hospital for treatment. a family. Ramos’ driver was texting with his
C.O.L. Realty averred that its driver, cellphone while running at a high speed and that the
Aquilino, was slowly driving the Toyota Altis car at a latter did not slow down albeit he knew that
speed of five to ten kilometers per hour along Rajah Katipunan Avenue was then undergoing repairs and
Matanda Street and has just crossed the center lane of that the road was barricaded with barriers. As the
Katipunan Avenue when (Ramos’) Ford Espedition employer of Rodel, Ramos is solidarily liable for the
violently rammed against the car’s right rear door and quasi-delict committed by the former.
Upon investigation, the Office of the City ** This finds support in Article 2185 of the Civil Code:
Prosecutor of Quezon City found probable cause to “Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed
indict Rodel, the driver of the Ford Expedition, for that a person driving a motor vehicle has been
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating
Property. any traffic regulation.” Accordingly, there ought to be
demanded from respondent reimbursement for the no question on (C.O.L. Realty’s) negligence which
expenses incurred in the repair of its car and the resulted in the vehicular mishap.
hospitalization of Estela in the aggregate amount of
P103,989.60. The demand fell on deaf ears prompting DY TEBAN TRADING, INC.,
(C.O.L. Realty) to file a Complaint for Damages based - versus -
on quasi-delict before the Metropolitan Trial Court of JOSE CHING AND/OR LIBERTY FOREST, INC.
Metro Manila (MeTC), Quezon City. Ramos and CRESILITO M. LIMBAGA,
denied liability for damages insisting that it was the [G.R. No. 161803, February 04, 2008]
negligence of Aquilino, (C.O.L. Realty’s) driver, which REYES, R.T., J.:
was the proximate cause of the accident. Ramos
asserted the sedan car crossed Katipunan Avenue FACTS:
from Rajah Matanda Street despite the concrete On July 4, 1995, at around 4:45 a.m., Rogelio
barriers placed thereon prohibiting vehicles to pass Ortiz, with helper Romeo Catamora, was driving a
through the intersection. The MeTC rendered the Nissan van owned by petitioner Dy Teban Trading,
Decision dated 1 March 2006 exculpating (Ramos) Inc. along the National Highway in Barangay
from liability. Sumilihon, Butuan City, going to Surigao City. They
were delivering commercial while a Joana Paula
ISSUE: passenger bus was cruising on the opposite lane
Whether or not Ramos is solidarily liable for towards the van. In between the two vehicles was a
the negligence of Rodel Ilustrisimo. parked prime mover with a trailer, owned by private
HELD: respondent Liberty Forest, Inc. as the trailer suffered a
YES, What is clear to Us is that Aquilino tire blowout the night before. The driver Cresilito
recklessly ignored these barricades and drove Limbaga, parked the prime mover askew occupying a
through it. Without doubt, his negligence is substantial portion of the national highway, on the
established by the fact that he violated a traffic lane of the passenger bus. The prime mover was not
regulation. equipped with triangular, collapsible reflectorized
plates, the early warning device as substitute,
However, it also declared Ramos liable vicariously for Limbaga placed a banana trunk with leaves on the
Rodel’s contributory negligence in driving the Ford front and the rear portion of the prime mover to warn
incoming motorists. It is alleged that Limbaga mover.
likewise placed kerosene lighted tin cans on the front
and rear of the trailer. Limbaga was negligent in parking the prime
mover on the national highway. Liberty Forest, Inc.
To avoid hitting the parked prime mover , was also negligent in failing to supervise Limbaga
the incoming passenger bus swerved to the right, onto and in ensuring that the prime mover was in proper
the lane of the approaching Nissan van. Ortiz saw condition.
two bright and glaring headlights and the
approaching passenger bus. He pumped his break ** Facts of the case reveal that when Ortiz, the driver
slowly, swerved to the left to avoid the oncoming bus of the truck, failed to give the Joana Paula bus the
but the van hit the front of the stationary prime space on the road it needed, the latter vehicle scraped
mover. The passenger bus hit the rear of the prime its rear right side on the protruded bulldozer blade
mover. Ortiz and Catamora only suffered minor and the impact threw the bus directly on the path of
injuries. The Nissan van, however, became inoperable the oncoming truck. This made plaintiffs-
as a result of the incident. appellants/appellees conclude that the Joana Paula
bus occupied its lane which forced Ortiz, the driver of
On October 31, 1995, petitioner Nissan van
the truck, to swerve to its left and ram the front of the
owner filed a complaint for damages against prime
parked trailer.
mover owner and driver with the RTC in Butuan City.
** To sustain a claim based on quasi-delict, the
The Joana Paula passenger bus was not impleaded as
following requisites must concur: (a) damage suffered
defendant in the complaint.
by plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of defendant; and
ISSUE: (c) connection of cause and effect between the fault or
Whether or not PrimeMover is liable for the negligence of defendant and the damage incurred by
damages suffered by the Nissan Van plaintiff.
HELD: **The two (2) flat tires suffered by the trailer and these
YES, Defendant Liberty Forest, Inc. did not two (2) tires were attached to one of the two (2) I-
exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in beams or axles attached to the rear of the trailer which
managing and running its business. The evidence on axle is very near but behind the other axle and with
record shows that it failed to provide its prime mover the location , it would have the other beam suffer the
and trailer with the required early warning devices flat tires as it has to bear the brunt of weight of the D-
with reflectors and it did not keep proper 8 bulldozer.
maintenance and condition of the prime mover and
the trailer. The circumstances show that the trailer PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION, INC. and
were provided with wornout tires and with only one ARMANDO U. CARBONEL,
(1) piece of spare tire. - versus -
We find that Limbaga was utterly negligent LEONARDO DIONISIO
in parking the prime mover askew on the right side of G.R. No. L-65295 March 10, 1987
the national highway. The vehicle occupied a FELICIANO, J:
substantial portion of the national road on the lane of
the passenger bus. It is common sense that the FACTS:
skewed parking of the prime mover on the national In the early morning of 15 November 1975 -
road posed a serious risk to oncoming motorists. It at about 1:30 a.m. Leonardo Dionisio was on his way
was incumbent upon Limbaga to take some measures home from a cocktails-and-dinner meeting with his
to prevent that risk, or at least minimize it. boss, the general manager of a marketing corporation.
We find that private respondent Liberty Dionisio was driving his Volkswagen car and was
Forest, Inc. was utterly negligent in allowing a novice proceeding down General Lacuna Street, when his car
driver, like Limbaga, to operate a vehicle, such as a headlights (in his allegation) suddenly failed. He
truck loaded with a bulldozer, which required highly switched his headlights on "bright" and thereupon he
specialized driving skills. The employer clearly failed saw a Ford dump truck looming some 2-1/2 meters
to properly supervise Limbaga in driving the prime away from his car. The dump truck, owned by and
registered in the name of petitioner Phoenix
Construction Inc. was parked on the right hand side
of General Lacuna Street facing the oncoming traffic. foreseeable consequence of the truck driver's
in such a manner as to stick out onto the street, partly negligence.
blocking the way of oncoming traffic. There were no
lights nor any so-called "early warning" reflector The truck driver's negligence was rather an
devices set anywhere near the dump truck, front or indispensable and efficient cause. The collision
rear. between the dump truck and the private respondent's
The dump truck was parked askew, car would in any probability not have occurred had
Dionisio claimed that he tried to avoid a collision by the dump truck not been parked askew without any
swerving his car to the left but it was too late and his warning lights or reflector devices. The improper
car smashed into the dump truck. As a result of the parking of the dump truck created an unreasonable
collision, Dionisio suffered some physical injuries risk of injury for anyone driving. In our view,
including some permanent facial scars, a "nervous Dionisio's negligence, although later in point of time
breakdown" and loss of two gold bridge dentures. than the truck driver's negligence and therefore closer
The dump truck had earlier that evening been driven to the accident, was not an efficient intervening or
home by petitioner Armando U. Carbonel, its regular independent cause.
driver, with the permission of his employer Phoenix,
in view of work scheduled to be carried out early the We hold that private respondent Dionisio's
following morning. negligence was "only contributory," that the
Dionisio commenced an action for damages "immediate and proximate cause" of the injury
in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga (which remained the truck driver's "lack of due care" and that
rendered judgment in favor of Dionisio and against consequently respondent Dionisio may recover
Phoenix and Carbonel) basically claiming that the damages though such damages are subject to
legal and proximate cause of his injuries was the mitigation by the courts
negligent manner in which Carbonel had parked the
dump truck entrusted to him by his employer
** There are four factual issues that need to be looked
ISSUE: into: (a) whether or not private respondent Dionisio
Whether or not Phoenix was liable for the had a curfew pass valid and effective for that eventful
mishap that ensued. night; (b) whether Dionisio was driving fast or
speeding just before the collision with the dump
HELD: truck; (c) whether Dionisio had purposely turned off
his car's headlights before contact with the dump
YES, Dionisio was negligent the night of the truck or whether those headlights accidentally
accident. He was hurrying home that night and malfunctioned moments before the collision; and (d)
driving faster than he should have been. Worse, he whether Dionisio was intoxicated at the time of the
extinguished his headlights at or near the intersection accident.
of General Lacuna and General Santos Streets and **"last clear chance" doctrine – The historical function
thus did not see the dump truck that was parked of that doctrine in the common law was to mitigate
askew and sticking out onto the road lane.chanrobles the harshness of another common law doctrine or rule
virtual law library that of contributory negligence. The common law rule
of contributory negligence prevented any recovery at
all by a plaintiff who was also negligent, even if the
Nonetheless, we agree with the Court of First Instance
plaintiff's negligence was relatively minor as
and the Intermediate Appellate Court that the legal
compared with the wrongful act or omission of the
and proximate cause of the accident and of Dionisio's
injuries was the wrongful - or negligent manner in
which the dump truck was parked in other words, the It permitted courts to grant recovery to a plaintiff who
negligence of petitioner Carbonel. That there was a had also been negligent provided that the defendant
reasonable relationship between petitioner Carbonel's had the last clear chance to avoid the casualty and
negligence on the one hand and the accident and failed to do so. Accordingly, it is difficult to see what
respondent's injuries on the other hand, is quite clear. role, if any, the common law last clear chance doctrine
Put in a slightly different manner, the collision of has to play in a jurisdiction where the common law
Dionisio's car with the dump truck was a natural and
concept of contributory negligence as an absolute bar respondent Stephen Huang. Del Rosario failed to do
to recovery by the plaintiff, has itself been rejected, as what a reasonable and prudent man would have done
it has been in Article 2179 of the Civil Code of the under the circumstances, and it is highly improbable
Philippines. that the car swerved since it would not have leaped
across the other lane if that would have occurred.
MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION and We now come to the liability of petitioner
ROLANDO J. DEL ROSARIO Mercury Drug as employer of Del Rosario. In the case
- versus - of petitioner Del Rosario, however he took the
SPOUSES RICHARD HUANG and CARMEN driving tests and psychological examination when he
HUANG, and STEPHEN HUANG, applied for the position of Delivery Man, but not
G.R. No. 172122 June 22, 2007 when he applied for the position of Truck Man.
Further, no tests were conducted on the motor skills
FACTS: development, perceptual speed, visual attention,
Mercury Drug Corporation is the registered depth visualization, eye and hand coordination and
owner of a six-wheeler 1990 Mitsubishi Truck with steadiness of petitioner Del Rosario. No NBI and
plate number PRE 641. It has in its employ petitioner police clearances were also presented. Lastly,
Rolando J. del Rosario as driver. Richard and Carmen petitioner Del Rosario attended only three driving
Huang are the parents of respondent Stephen Huang seminars . In effect, the only seminar he attended
and own the red 1991 Toyota Corolla GLI Sedan with before the accident which occurred in 1996 was held
plate number PTT 775. These two vehicles figured in a twelve years ago in 1984.
road accident on December 20, 1996 at around 10:30
Petitioner Mercury Drug likewise failed to
p.m. within the municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila.
show that it exercised due diligence on the
Both were traversing the C-5 Highway, north bound, supervision and discipline over its employees. In fact,
coming from the general direction of Alabang going on the day of the accident, petitioner Del Rosario was
to Pasig City. The car was on the left innermost lane driving without a license.
while the truck was on the next lane to its right, when
**He was holding a TVR for reckless driving. He
the truck suddenly swerved to its left and slammed
testified that he reported the incident to his superior,
into the front right side of the car. The collision
but nothing was done about it. He was not
hurled the car over the island where it hit a lamppost,
suspended or reprimanded. No disciplinary action
spun around and landed on the opposite lane. At the
whatsoever was taken against petitioner Del Rosario.
time of the accident, petitioner Del Rosario only had a
We therefore affirm the finding that petitioner
Traffic Violation Receipt, his driver’s license had been
Mercury Drug has failed to discharge its burden of
confiscated because he had been previously
proving that it exercised due diligence in the selection
apprehended for reckless driving.
and supervision of its employee, petitioner Del
The car, valued at P300,000.00, was a total Rosario.
wreck. Respondent Stephen Huang sustained
** It also appears that petitioner Mercury Drug does
massive injuries to his spinal cord, head, face, and
not provide for a back-up driver for long trips. At the
lung. Despite a series of operations, respondent
time of the accident, petitioner Del Rosario has been
Stephen Huang is paralyzed for life from his chest
out on the road for more than thirteen hours, without
down and requires continuous medical and
any alternate.
rehabilitation treatment.

Whether or not Del Rosario is liable for the JOSEPH SALUDAGA,
lifetime paralysis of Stephen Huang and if Mercury - versus -
Drug is solidarily liable for the same. FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY and EDILBERTO C.
DE JESUS in his capacity as President of FEU,
HELD: [G.R. No. 179337, April 30, 2008]
YES, Del Rosario’s negligence as the direct YNARES-SATIAGO, J.:
and proximate cause of the injuries suffered by
Joseph Saludaga was a sophomore law find that respondents failed to discharge the burden
student of respondent Far Eastern University when he of proving that they exercised due diligence in
was shot by Alejandro Rosete, one of the security providing a safe learning environment for their
guards on duty at the school premises on August 18, students. They failed to prove that they ensured that
1996. He was rushed to FEU-Dr. Nicanor Reyes the guards assigned in the campus met the
Medical Foundation (FEU-NRMF) due to the wound requirements stipulated in the Security Service
he sustained. Meanwhile, Rosete was brought to the Agreement. also failed to show that they undertook
police station where he explained that the shooting steps to ascertain and confirm that the security guards
was accidental. He was eventually released assigned to them actually possess the qualifications
considering that no formal complaint was filed required in the Security Service Agreement.
against him. Salduga thereafter filed a complaint for
damages against respondents on the ground that they Consequently, respondents' defense of force majeure
breached their obligation to provide students with a must fail. In order for force majeure to be considered,
safe and secure environment and an atmosphere respondents must show that no negligence or
conducive to learning. misconduct was committed that may have occasioned
the loss. An act of God cannot be invoked to protect a
Far Eastern University and Edilberto De person who has failed to take steps to forestall the
Jesus(as president) in turn, filed a Third-Party possible adverse consequences of such a loss. One's
Complaint against Galaxy Development and negligence may have concurred with an act of God in
Management Corporation, the agency contracted by producing damage and injury to another.
respondent FEU to provide security services within
its premises and Mariano D. Imperial (Galaxy's AMADO PICART,
President,) to indemnify them. On the other hand, - versus -
Galaxy and Imperial filed a Fourth-Party Complaint FRANK SMITH, JR.,
against AFP General Insurance. [G.R. No. L-12219, March 15, 1918]
On November 10, 2004, the trial court
rendered a decision in favor of petitioner, FACTS:
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals which On December 12, 1912, on the Carlatan
rendered the assailed Decision. Petitioner filed a Bridge, at San Fernando, La Union. It appears that
Motion for Reconsideration which was denied hence, Amado Picart was riding on his pony over said
the instant petition. bridge. Before he had gotten half way across, Frank
Smith, jr. approached from the opposite direction in
an automobile, going at the rate of about ten or twelve
1. Whether or not the school is liable for breach of
miles per hour. As the defendant neared the bridge he
saw a horseman on it and blew his horn to give
2. Whether or not Far Eastern University is liable
warning of his approach. He continued his course and
after he had taken the bridge he gave two more
1. YES, It is settled that in culpa contractual, the mere
successive blasts, as it appeared to him that the man
proof of the existence of the contract and the failure of
on horseback before him was not observing the rule of
its compliance justify, prima facie, a corresponding
the road.
right of relief. In the instant case, we find that, when
Being perturbed by the novelty of the apparition or
petitioner was shot inside the campus by no less the
the rapidity of the approach, Picart pulled the pony
security guard who was hired to maintain peace and
closely up against the railing on the right side of the
secure the premises, there is a prima facie showing
bridge instead of going to the left.
that respondents failed to comply with its obligation
He says that the reason he did this was that
to provide a safe and secure environment to its
he thought he did not have sufficient time to get over
to the other side. The bridge is shown to have a length
of about 75 meters and a width of 4.80 meters. As the
automobile approached, the Smith guided it toward
his left, that being the proper side of the road for the
machine. In so doing the Smith assumed that the
2. YES, the defense of Caso Fortuito cannot be
horseman would move to the other side. The pony
sustained. After a thorough review of the records, we
had not as yet exhibited fright, and the rider had avert the injury, his negligence in reaching that
made no sign for the automobile to stop. position becomes the condition and not the proximate
Seeing that the pony was apparently quiet, cause of the injury and will not preclude a recovery.
the defendant, instead of veering to the right while
yet some distance away or slowing down, continued GLAN PEOPLE'S LUMBER AND HARDWARE,
to approach directly toward the horse without GEORGE LIM, FABIO S. AGAD, FELIX LIM and
diminution of speed. When Smith had gotten quite PAUL ZACARIAS y INFANTE,
near, there being then no possibility of the horse - versus -
getting across to the other side, the defendant quickly INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, CECILIA
turned his car sufficiently to the right to escape hitting ALFEREZ VDA. DE CALIBO, Minors ROYCE
the horse alongside of the railing where it as then STEPHEN, JOYCE JOAN, JANISE MARIE,
standing; but in so doing the automobile passed in JACQUELINE BRIGITTE JOCELINE CORAZON,
such close proximity to the animal that it became JULIET GERALDINE, JENNIFER JILL, all surnamed
frightened and turned its body across the bridge with CALIBO, represented by their mother, CECILIA A.
its head toward the railing. In so doing, it as struck on VDA. DE CALIBO,
the hock of the left hind leg by the flange of the car [G.R. No. 70493, May 18, 1989]
and the limb was broken. The horse fell and its rider NARVASA, J.:
was thrown off with some violence.
ISSUE: At about 1:45 in the afternoon of July 4,1979
Whether or not Frank Smith is liable for Engineer Orlando T. Calibo, Roranes and Patos were
negligence causing the injuries to Amado Picart. on the jeep owned by the Bacnotan Consolidated
HELD: Industries, Inc., with Calibo at the wheel, as it
YES, a prudent man, placed in the position approached from the South Lizada Bridge going
of the defendant, would in our opinion, have towards the direction of Davao City. At about that
recognized that the course which he was pursuing time, the cargo track, loaded with cement bags, GI
was fraught with risk, and would therefore have sheets, plywood, driven by defendant Paul Zacarias
foreseen harm to the horse and the rider as reasonable bound for Glan, South Cotabato, had just crossed said
consequence of that course. bridge.
It will be noted that the negligent acts of the At about 59 yards after crossing the bridge,
two parties were not contemporaneous, since the the cargo truck and the jeep collided as a consequence
negligence of the defendant succeeded the negligence of which Engineer Calibo died while Roranes and
of the plaintiff by an appreciable interval. Under these Patos sustained physical injuries. Zacarias was
circumstances the law is that the person who has the unhurt. On November 27, 1979, the instant case for
last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and fails damages was filed by the surviving spouse and
to do so is chargeable with the consequences, without children of the late Engineer Calibo who are residents
reference to the prior negligence of the other party. of Tagbilaran City against Paul Zacarias(the driver)
and Felix S. Agad, George Lim and Felix Lim who are
** The test by which to determine the existence of the co-owners of the Glan People's Lumber and
negligence in a particular case may be stated as Hardware which owns of the cargo truck.
follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged For failure to file its answer to the third party
negligent act use that person would have used in the complaint, third party defendant, which insured the
same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. cargo truck involved, was declared in default.
**The "last clear chance" rule of the law of negligence
cannot be invoked where the negligence of the ISSUE:
plaintiff is concurrent with that of the defendant. Whether or not the driver of Glan was
Again, if a traveler when he reaches the point of negligent in veering the truck thus holding Glan
collision is in a situation to extricate himself and peoples lumber liable for the injuries.
avoid injury, his negligence at that point will prevent HELD:
a recovery. NO, driver of the jeep had the last clear
chance to avoid the accident, while still at that
when a traveler has reached a point where he cannot distance of thirty meters from the truck, by stopping
extricate himself and vigilance on his part will not in his turn or swerving his jeep away from the truck,
either of which he had sufficient time to do while collided with the truck. The collision occurred in the
running at a speed of only thirty kilometers per hour. lane of the truck, which was the opposite lane, on the
In those circumstances, his duty was to seize that said bridge.]
opportunity of avoidance, not merely rely on a **On 1 March 1977, an Information charging Ruben
supposed right to expect, the truck to swerve and Galang with the crime of "Reckless Imprudence
leave him a clear path. Resulting to Multiple Homicide and Physical Injuries
and Damage to Property" was filed with the trial
**Paulino Zacarias was well within his own lane and court. On 1 October 1980, Judge Capulong rendered a
had no duty to swerve out of the jeep's way decision against the accused Ruben Galang .
**Calibo had been drinking shortly before the accident **Accused Ruben Galang appealed the judgment of
his negligence that was the proximate cause of the conviction to the Court of Appeals. On 4 October
accident. 1982, the respondent Court promulgated its decision
affirming the conviction of Galang.
**motion for reconsideration of the decision was
denied by the respondent Court was filed with this
Court; said petition was subsequently denied. A
motion for its reconsideration was denied with
finality in the Resolution of 20 April 1983.
**On 29 November 1983, the Intermediate Appellate
Court reversed and set aside the decision.

Whether or not Jose Koh was negligent in
GEORGE MCKEE and ARACELI KOH swerving to the lane of the truck which may have
MCKEE[parents of Jose Koh], petitioners, contributed to the collision of the vehicles.
- versus -
TAYAG and ROSALINDA MANALO, respondents. NO, any reasonable and ordinary prudent
[G.R. No. L-68103, July 16, 1992] man would have tried to avoid running over the two
DAVIDE, JR., J.: boys by swerving the car away from where they were
even if this would mean entering the opposite lane.
FACTS: Avoiding such immediate peril would be the natural
In the morning of 8 January 1977, in Pulong course to take particularly where the vehicle in the
Pulo Bridge along MacArthur Highway, a head-on- opposite lane would be several meters away and
collision took place between an International cargo could very well slow down, move to the side of the
truck, Loadstar (owned by JAIME TAYAG and road and give way to the oncoming car. Moreover,
ROSALINDA MANALO) and driven by Ruben under what is known as the emergency rule, "one
Galang and a Ford Escort car driven by Jose Koh. who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and
The collision resulted in the deaths of Jose Koh, Kim is required to act without time to consider the best
Koh McKee and Loida Bondoc, and physical injuries means that may be adopted to avoid the impending
to George Koh McKee, Christopher Koh McKee and danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt
Araceli Koh McKee, all passengers of the Ford Escort. what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to
have been a better method, unless the emergency in
**[When the northbound car was about (10) meters which he finds himself is brought about by his own
away from the southern approach of the bridge, two negligence.
(2) boys suddenly darted from the right side of the
road and into the lane of the car. The boys were
moving back and forth, unsure of whether to cross all PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
the way to the other side or turn back. Jose Koh blew ADMINISTRATION, JUAN D. LIM, BENJAMIN P.
the horn of the car, swerved to the left and entered the PAULINO, ANTONIO M. MAGTALAS, COL.
lane of the truck; he then switched on the headlights PEDRO SACRO and LT. M. SORIANO,
of the car, applied the brakes and thereafter attempted - versus -
to return to his lane. Before he could do so, his car
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. REGINA ORDOÑEZ- ** Institutions of learning must also meet the implicit
BENITEZ, as Presiding Judge of Branch 47, Regional or "built-in" obligation of providing their students
Trial Court, Manila, SEGUNDA R. BAUTISTA and with an atmosphere that promotes or assists in
ARSENIA D. BAUTISTA, attaining its primary undertaking of imparting
[ G.R. No. 84698, February 4, 1992] knowledge. Certainly, no student can absorb the
PADILLA, J.: intricacies of physics or higher mathematics or
explore the realm of the arts and other sciences when
FACTS: bullets are flying or grenades exploding in the air or
On 30 August 1985, a stabbing incident where there looms around the school premises a
caused the death of Carlitos Bautista while on the constant threat to life and limb. Necessarily, the
second-floor premises of the Philippine School of school must ensure that adequate steps are taken to
Business Administration (PSBA) prompted the maintain peace and order within the campus
parents of the deceased to file suit for damages premises and to prevent the breakdown thereof.
against the said PSBA and its corporate officers. At the
time of his death, Carlitos was enrolled in the third
year commerce course at the PSBA. It was established SALDUGA **take from 1st part
that his assailants were not members of the school's
academic community but were elements from outside
the school.

Whether or not PSBA is liable for the
untimely demise of Carlitos Bautista due to their FERNANDO LOPEZ, ET AL.,
alleged negligence, recklessness and lack of security - versus -
precautions, means and methods before, during and PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS,
after the attack on the victim. [G.R. No. L-22415, March 30, 1966]

YES, For its part, the school undertakes to Then Senator Fernando Lopez made
provide the student with an education that would reservations for first class accommodations from
presumably suffice to equip him with the necessary Tokyo to San Francisco on May 24, 1960 with PAN-
tools and skills to pursue higher education or a AM through “Your Travel Guide agency” specifically
profession. When an academic institution accepts by Delfin Faustino for his wife Maria his son-in-law
students for enrollment, there is established and his daughter Milagros which the head office
a contract between them, resulting in bilateral confirmed reservations on March, 31 1960.
obligations which both parties are bound to comply As soon as they arrived in Tokyo Senator
with. Lopez requested Minister Busuego of the Philippine
Embassy to contact PAN-AM's Tokyo office regarding
** the school may still avoid liability by proving that
their first class accommodations for that evening's
the breach of its contractual obligation to the students
flight. For the given reason that the first class seats
was not due to its negligence, here statutorily defined
therein were all booked up, however, PAN-AM's
to be the omission of that degree of diligence which is
Tokyo office informed Minister Busuego that PAN-
required by the nature of the obligation and
AM could not accommodate Senator Lopez and party
corresponding to the circumstances of persons, time
in that trip as first class passengers.
and place.
Due to pressing engagements awaiting
** Article 2176 shows that obligations arising from Senator Lopez and his wife, in the United States
quasi-delicts or tort, also known as extra-contractual **[he had to attend a business conference in San
obligations, arise only between parties not otherwise Francisco the next day and she had to undergo a
bound by contract, whether express or implied. medical check-up in Mayo Clinic, Rochester,
Minnesota, on May 28, 1960 and needed three days
rest before that in San Francisco]
They were constrained to take PAN-AM's flight from forgot the matter and told no one about it.
Tokyo to San Francisco as tourist passengers. Senator Subsequently, on April 27, 1960, Armando Davila,
Lopez however made it clear, that they did so "under PAN-AM's reservations employee working in the
protest" and without prejudice to further action same Escolta office as Herranz, phoned PAN-AM's
against the airline. ticket sellers at its other office in the Manila Hotel,
and confirmed the reservations of Senator Lopez and
ISSUE: party.
Whether or not Pan American Airlines is
liable for breach of contract and is thus amenable for
damages caused.

HELD: ** Jalbuena bought a first class ticket from PAN-AM

YES, through its agents Pan American on April 13, 1960; he confirmed it on April 15, 1960 as
Airlines cancelled the First class reservations by to the Tokyo-Hongkong flight of April 20, 1960; PAN-
mistake and thereafter deliberately and intentionally AM similarly confirmed it on April 20, 1960. At the
withheld from plaintiffs or their travel agent the fact airport he and another Oriental — Mr. Tung — were
of said cancellation, letting them go on believing that asked to step aside while other passengers - including
their first class reservations stood valid and "white" passengers — boarded PAN-AM's plane.
confirmed. In so misleading plaintiffs into purchasing Then PAN-AM officials told them that one of them
first class tickets in the conviction that they had had to stay behind. Since Mr. Tung was going all the
confirmed reservations for the same, when in fact they way to London, Jalbuena was chosen to be left behind.
had none, defendant wilfully and knowingly placed PAN-AM's officials could only explain by saying there
itself into the position of having to breach its a was "some mistake". Jalbuena thereafter wrote PAN-
foresaid contracts with plaintiffs should there be no AM to protest the incident
last-minute cancellation by other passengers before
flight time, as it turned out in this case. Such actuation
of defendant may indeed have been prompted by
nothing more than the promotion of its self-interest in
holding on to Senator Lopez and party as passengers YHT REALTY CORPORATION, ERLINDA LAINEZ
in its flight and foreclosing on their chances to seek and ANICIA PAYAM,
the services of other airlines that may have been able - versus -
to afford them first class accommodations. All the THE COURT OF APPEALS and MAURICE
time, in legal contemplation such conduct already McLOUGHLIN,
amounts to action in bad faith. For bad faith means a [G.R. No. 126780, February 17, 2005]
breach of a known duty through some motive of TINGA, J.:
interest or ill-will
**The first class reservations of Senator Lopez and FACTS:
party were made on March 29, 1960 however, McLoughlin, an Australian businessman-
Mariano Herranz [PAN-AM's reservations employee] philanthropist, used to stay at Sheraton Hotel during
mistakenly cancelled all the seats that had been his trips to the Philippines prior to 1984 when he met
reserved, including those of Senator Lopez and party. Tan. Tan befriended McLoughlin by showing him
April 1960 Herranz discovered his mistake, around, introducing him to important people,
upon seeing the reservation card newly prepared by accompanying him in visiting impoverished street
his co-employee Pedro Asensi for Sen. Lopez and children and assisting him in buying gifts for the
partyIt was then that Herranz sent another telex wire children and in distributing the same to charitable
to the San Francisco head office, stating his error and institutions for poor children. Tan convinced
asking for the reinstatement of the four (4) first class McLoughlin to transfer from Sheraton Hotel to
seats reserved for Senator Lopez and party ). San Tropicana where Lainez, Payam and Danilo Lopez
Francisco head office replied on April 22, 1960 that were employed. Lopez served as manager of the
Senator Lopez and party are waitlisted and that said hotel while Lainez and Payam had custody of the
office is unable to reinstate them. Since the flight keys for the safety deposit boxes of Tropicana. Tan
involved was still more than a month away and took care of McLoughlin’s booking at the Tropicana
confident that reinstatement would be made, Herranz
where he started staying during his trips to the YES, Payam and Lainez, who were
Philippines from December 1984 to September 1987. employees of Tropicana, had custody of the master
key of the management when the loss took place. In
On 30 October 1987, McLoughlin arrived from fact, they even admitted that they assisted Tan on
Australia and registered with Tropicana. He rented a three separate occasions in opening McLoughlin’s
safety deposit box as it was his practice to rent a safety deposit box.
safety deposit box every time he registered at
Tropicana in previous trips. On 12 December 1987, Tropicana had prior knowledge that a person aside
before leaving for a brief trip to Hongkong, from the registered guest had access to the safety
McLoughlin opened his safety deposit box with his deposit box. Yet the management failed to notify
key and with the key of the management and took McLoughlin of the incident and waited for him to
therefrom the envelope containing Five Thousand US discover the taking before it disclosed the matter to
Dollars, the envelope containing Ten Thousand him. Therefore, Tropicana should be held responsible
Australian Dollars and his passports and his credit for the damage suffered by McLoughlin by reason of
cards. the negligence of its employees.
The management should have guarded against the
When he arrived in Hongkong, he opened the occurrence of this incident considering that Payam
envelope which contained Five Thousand US Dollars admitted in open court that she assisted Tan three
(US$5,000.00) and discovered upon counting that only times in opening the safety deposit box of
Three Thousand US Dollars were enclosed. McLoughlin while he was still asleep.
Under Article 1170 of the New Civil Code, those who,
After returning to Manila, he checked out of in the performance of their obligations, are guilty of
Tropicana on 18 December 1987 and left for Australia. negligence, are liable for damages. Art Article 2180
When he arrived in Australia, he discovered that the states that owners and managers of an establishment
envelope with Ten Thousand US Dollars was short of or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages
Five Thousand US Dollars. He also noticed that the caused by their employees in the service of the
jewelry which he bought in Hongkong and stored in branches in which the latter are employed or on the
the safety deposit box upon his return to Tropicana occasion of their functions.
was likewise missing, except for a diamond bracelet.

When McLoughlin came back to the Philippines on 4 **The issue of whether the “Undertaking For The Use of
April 1988, he asked Lainez if some money and/or Safety Deposit Box” executed by McLoughlin is tainted
jewelry which he had lost were found and returned to with nullity presents a legal question appropriate for
her or to the management. However, Lainez told him resolution in this petition. Notably the same is null
that no one in the hotel found such things and none and void. Art. 2003. The hotel-keeper cannot free
were turned over to the management. He again himself from responsibility by posting notices to the
registered at Tropicana and rented a safety deposit effect that he is not liable for the articles brought by
box. the guest. Any stipulation between the hotel-keeper
and the guest whereby the responsibility of the
The same incident happened, when McLoughlin
former as set forth in Articles 1998 to 2001 is
discovered the loss, he immediately confronted
suppressed or diminished shall be void.
Lainez and Payam who admitted that Tan opened the
safety deposit box with the key assigned to him. Tan
admitted that she had stolen McLoughlin’s key and
was able to open the safety deposit box with the
assistance of Lopez, Payam and Lainez. Lopez also
told McLoughlin that Tan stole the key assigned to
McLoughlin while the latter was asleep.

Whether or not YHT corporation is liable for
the malfeasance which caused injury to McLoughlin.

and do everything that a reasonably prudent man
would do before he attempts to cross the track.

- versus -
[G.R. No. L-21291, March 28, 1969]

Ralph W. Corliss, was an air police of the
Clark Air Force Base; that at the time of the accident,
he was driving the fatal jeep was then returning in
said jeep, together with a P.C. soldier, to the Base.
That at the time of the accident, the jeep coming
towards the Base slowed down before reaching the
crossing, that it made a brief stop but that it did not
stop completely. The train coming from the direction
of San Fernando and that he heard a warning but that
it was not sufficient enough to avoid the accident. The
jeep Ralph Corliss was driving collided with the MACARIO TAMARGO, CELSO TAMARGO and
locomotive of Manila Railroad Company, close to AURELIA TAMARGO,
midnight on the evening of Feb 21, 1957, at the - versus -
railroad crossing in Balibago, Angeles, Pampanga, in HON. COURT OF APPEALS, THE HON. ARISTON
front of the Clark Air Force Base. L. RUBIO, RTC Judge, Branch 20, Vigan, Ilocos Sur;
At the time crossing bars have not been put VICTOR BUNDOC; and CLARA BUNDOC,
down and there was no guard at the gate-house, and respondents.
that Teodorico Capili, who drove the engine, was not [ G.R. No. 85044, June 3, 1992]
qualified to do so at the time of the accident. FELICIANO, J.:

Whether or not Manila Railroad Company is On 20 October 1982, Adelberto Bundoc, then
liable for the damages caused in the mishap. a minor of 10 years of age, shot Jennifer Tamargo with
an air rifle causing injuries which resulted in her
HELD: death. Accordingly, a civil complaint for damages was
NO, Ralph Corliss was so sufficiently filed with the Regional Trial Court, Vigan, Ilocos Sur,
warned in advance of the oncoming train that it was by Macario Tamargo, Jennifer's adopting parent, and
incumbent upon him to avoid a possible accident — petitioner spouses Celso and Aurelia Tamargo,
and this consisted simply in stopping his vehicle Jennifer's natural parents against spouses Victor and
before the crossing and allowing the train to move on. Clara Bundoc, Adelberto's natural parents with whom
He was knowledgeable and familiar with the location he was living at the time of the tragic incident.
and nature of the rail tracks that it cannot be imputed
to Manila Railroad despite the lack of warnings
Corliss must have been more cautious. ISSUE:
Whether or not Adelberto Bundoc's
** Considering the purposes and the general methods voluntary act of shooting Jennifer Tamargo gave rise
adopted for the management of railroads and railroad to liability on quasi-delict against him. as Article 2176
trains, we think it is incumbent upon one approaching of the Civil Code provides.
a railroad crossing to use all of his faculties of seeing
and hearing. He should approach a railroad crossing HELD:
cautiously and carefully. He should look and listen YES, provided that the civil liability upon the
father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the
mother, for any damages that may be caused by a leading to the Orchard Golf Course, Bedania
minor child who lives with them according to Article negotiated a U-turn. When the truck entered the
2180 of the Civil Code. The shooting of Jennifer by opposite lane of the highway, Genaro’s car hit the
Adelberto with an air rifle occured when parental right portion of the truck. The truck dragged
authority was still lodged in respondent Bundoc Genaro’s car some five meters to the right of the road.
spouses, the natural parents of the minor Adelberto.
As a consequence, all the passengers of the car
were rushed to the De La Salle University Medical
Center in Dasmariñas, Cavite for treatment. Because
of severe injuries, Antero was later transferred to the
Philippine General Hospital. However, on 3
November 1994, Antero died due to the injuries he
sustained from the collision. The car was a total wreck
while the truck sustained minor damage. On 24 April
1995, petitioners Genaro, Llanillo, Dignadice, and the
heirs of Antero instituted a complaint for damages
based on quasi-delict against respondents Bedania
and de Silva.

Whether or not Bedania was grossly
negligent for recklessly maneuvering the truck by
making a sudden U-turn in the highway without due
regard to traffic rules and the safety of other

YES, there is a presumption that a person
driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the
LIBI time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic
regulation. In this case, the trial court found that the
Traffic Accident Investigation Report showed that the
truck committed a traffic violation by executing a U-
turn without signal lights. . The trial court added that
Bedania violated another traffic rule when he
abandoned the victims after the collision. Bedania was
grossly negligent in his driving and held him liable
SOFIA M. GUILLANG, for damages.
- versus - Clearly, Bedania’s negligence was the
RODOLFO BEDANIA proximate cause of the collision which claimed the life
and RODOLFO DE of Antero and his companions. The cause of the
SILVA, collision is traceable to the negligent act of Bedania for
[G.R. No. 162987, May 21, 2009] if the U-turn was executed with the proper
CARPIO, J.: precaution, the mishap in all probability would not
have happened. The sudden U-turn of the truck
FACTS: without signal lights posed a serious risk to oncoming
On 25 October 1994, at about 5:45 in the motorists. Bedania failed to prevent or minimize that
afternoon, Genaro M. Guillang was driving his brand risk. The truck’s sudden U-turn triggered a series of
new Toyota Corolla GLI sedan along Emilio events that led to the collision and, ultimately, to the
Aguinaldo Highway in Cavite. Rodolfo A. Bedania death of Antero and the injuries of petitioners.
was driving a ten-wheeler Isuzu cargo truck towards CORINTHIAN GARDENS ASSOCIATION,
Tagaytay City. The truck was owned by respondent INC.,PETITIONER,
Rodolfo de Silva. Along the highway and the road - versus -
SPOUSES REYNALDO AND MARIA LUISA building plan and whether or not it acted in good
[G.R. No. 160795, June 27, 2008] HELD:
NACHURA, J.: YES, Corinthian cannot and should not be
allowed to justify or excuse its negligence by claiming
FACTS: that its approval of the Cuasos' building plans was
Reynaldo and Maria Luisa Tanjangco own only limited to a so-called "table inspection and not
Lots 68 and 69 located at Corinthian Gardens actual site measurement. Corinthian's failure to
Subdivision, Quezon City, which is managed by prevent the encroachment of the Cuasos' perimeter
petitioner Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. ). On wall into Tanjangcos' property - despite the inspection
the other hand, Frank and Teresita Cuaso own Lot 65 conducted - constitutes negligence and, at the very
which is adjacent to the Tanjangcos' lots. least, contributed to the injury suffered by the
Before the Cuasos constructed their house on Tanjangcos.
Lot 65, a relocation survey was necessary. As Geodetic
Engineer Democrito De Dios conducted all the
previous surveys for the subdivision's developer,
Corinthian referred Engr. De Dios to the Cuasos.
Before, during and after the construction of the said
house, Corinthian conducted periodic ocular
inspections in order to determine compliance with the
approved plans pursuant to the Manual of Rules and
Regulations of Corinthian. Unfortunately, after the
Cuasos constructed their house employing the
services of C.B. Paraz Construction Co., Inc. build MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION AND AURMELA
their perimeter fence encroached on the Tanjangcos' GANZON,
Lot 69 by 87 square meters. - versus -
No amicable settlement was reached RAUL DE LEON,
between the parties. Thus, the Tanjangcos demanded [G.R. No. 165622, October 17, 2008]
that the Cuasos demolish the perimeter fence but the REYES, R.T., J.:
latter failed and refused, prompting the Tanjangcos to
file with the RTC a suit against the Cuasos for FACTS:
Recovery of Possession with Damages. On October 17, 1999, Raul T. De Leon noticed
** The Cuasos ascribed negligence to C.B. Paraz for its that his left eye was reddish. He also had difficulty
failure to ascertain the proper specifications of their reading. On the same evening, he met a friend for
house, and to Engr. De Dios for his failure to dinner at the Foohyui Restaurant. The same friend
undertake an accurate relocation survey, thereby, happened to be a doctor, Dr. Charles Milla, and had
exposing them to litigation. The Cuasos also faulted just arrived from abroad De Leon consulted Dr. Milla
Corinthian for approving their relocation survey and about his irritated left eye. Dr. Milla prescribed the
building plans without verifying their accuracy and in drugs "Cortisporin Opthalmic" and "Ceftin" to relieve
making representations as to Engr. De Dios' integrity his eye problems. Before heading to work the
and competence. The Cuasos alleged that had following morning, De Leon went to the Betterliving,
Corinthian exercised diligence in performing its duty, Paranaque branch of Mercury Drug Store Corporation
they would not have been involved in a boundary to buy the prescribed medicines. He showed his
dispute with the Tanjangcos. Thus, the Cuasos opined prescription to petitioner Aurmela Ganzon, a
that Corinthian should also be held answerable for pharmacist assistant. Subsequently, he paid for and
any damages that they might incur as a result of such took the medicine handed over by Ganzon.
construction. Instead of relieving his irritation, respondent
felt searing pain. He immediately rinsed the affected
ISSUE: eye with water, but the pain did not subside, only
Whether or not the Corinthian Garden’s then did he discover that he was given the wrong
Association is liable for negligence, in approving the medicine, "Cortisporin Otic Solution.” De Leon
returned to the same Mercury Drug branch, with his
left eye still red and teary. When he confronted On November 25, 1993, Sebastian M. Baking,
Ganzon why he was given ear drops, instead of the went to the clinic of Dr. Cesar Sy for a medical check-
prescribed eye drops, she did not apologize and up. On the following day, after undergoing an ECG,
instead brazenly replied that she was unable to fully blood, and hematology examinations and urinalysis,
read the prescription. De Leon wrote Mercury Drug, Dr. Sy found that respondent’s blood sugar and
through its president, Ms. Vivian K. Askuna, about triglyceride were above normal levels. Dr. Sy then
the day's incident which did not merit any response. gave respondent two medical prescriptions –
Instead, two sales persons went to his office and Diamicron for his blood sugar and Benalize tablets for
informed him that their supervisor was busy with his triglyceride.
other matters. Having been denied his simple desire Sebastian Baking went to the Alabang branch
for a written apology and explanation, De Leon filed a of Mercury Drug and presented his prescription for
complaint for damages against Mercury Drug. Diamicron, which the pharmacist misread as
ISSUE: Dormicum. Baking was given a potent sleeping tablet,
Whether or not Mercury Drug is liable for instead of medicines to stabilize his blood sugar.
the injuries suffered by Raul De Leon. Unaware that what was given to him was the wrong
HELD: medicine, took one pill of Dormicum on three
YES, The proximate cause of the ill fate of De consecutive days. On the third day of taking the
Leon was defendant Aurmela Ganzon's negligent wrong medicine, Baking figured in a vehicular
exercise of said discretion. She gave a prescription accident as he fell asleep while driving.
drug to a customer who did not have the proper form
of prescription, she did not take a good look at said ISSUE:
prescription, she merely presumed because it was the Whether or not Mercury Drug is liable for
only one available in the market and she further negligence in providing/selling drugs to Sebastian
presumed that by merely putting the drug by the Baking.
counter wherein plaintiff looked at it, paid and took
the drug without any objection meant “he understood HELD:
what he was buying.” Mercury Drug and Ganzon can YES, Considering that a fatal mistake could
not exculpate themselves from any liability. As active be a matter of life and death for a buying patient, the
players in the field of dispensing medicines to the said employee should have been very cautious in
public, the highest degree of care and diligence is dispensing medicines. She should have verified
expected of them. whether the medicine she gave respondent was
In cases where an injury is caused by the indeed the one prescribed by his physician. The care
negligence of an employee, there instantly arises a required must be commensurate with the danger
presumption of law that there has been negligence on involved, and the skill employed must correspond
the part of the employer, either in the selection or with the superior knowledge of the business which
supervision of one's employees. Mercury Drug and the law demands.
Ganzon have similarly failed to live up to high ** In cases where an injury is caused by the negligence
standard of diligence expected of them as pharmacy of an employee, there instantly arises a presumption
professionals. They were grossly negligent in of law that there has been negligence on the part of
dispensing ear drops instead of the prescribed eye the employer, either in the selection or supervision of
drops to De Leon. Worse, they have once again one's employees.
attempted to shift the blame to their victim by
underscoring his own failure to read the label.


- versus -
[G.R. No. 156037, May 28, 2007]