You are on page 1of 12


Barredo vs Garcia and Almario (his driver’s negligence) but rather for his own automobile passed in such close proximity to the
negligence in selecting his employee (Article animal that it became frightened and turned its
July 17, 2011 1903). body across the bridge, got hit by the car and the
At about 1:30am on May 3, 1936, Fontanilla’s taxi limb was broken. The horse fell and its rider was
2. PICART vs. SMITH, JR. thrown off with some violenceAs a result of its
collided with a “kalesa” thereby killing the 16 year
old Faustino Garcia. Faustino’s parents filed a FACTS: On the Carlatan Bridge in La Union. Picart injuries the horse died. The plaintiff received
criminal suit against Fontanilla and reserved their was riding on his pony over said bridge. Before he contusions which caused temporary
right to file a separate civil suit. Fontanilla was had gotten half way across, Smith approached unconsciousness and required medical attention
eventually convicted. After the criminal suit, from the opposite direction in an automobile. As for several days.
Garcia filed a civil suit against Barredo – the the defendant neared the bridge he saw a
owner of the taxi (employer of Fontanilla). The horseman on it and blew his horn to give warning
suit was based on Article 1903 of the civil code of his approach. He continued his course and after From a judgment of the CFI of La Union absolving
(negligence of employers in the selection of their he had taken the bridge he gave two more Smith from liability Picart has appealed.
employees). Barredo assailed the suit arguing that successive blasts, as it appeared to him that the
his liability is only subsidiary and that the man on horseback before him was not observing
separate civil suit should have been filed against the rule of the road. ISSUE: WON Smith was guilty of negligence such
Fontanilla primarily and not him. as gives rise to a civil obligation to repair the
damage done
Picart saw the automobile coming and heard the
ISSUE: Whether or not Barredo is just subsidiarily warning signals. However, being perturbed by the
liable. novelty of the apparition or the rapidity of the HELD: the judgment of the lower court must be
approach, he pulled the pony closely up against reversed, and judgment is here rendered that the
the railing on the right side of the bridge instead Picart recover of Smith damages
HELD: No. He is primarily liable under Article of going to the left. He says that the reason he did
1903 which is a separate civil action against this was that he thought he did not have sufficient
negligent employers. Garcia is well within his time to get over to the other side. As the
rights in suing Barredo. He reserved his right to automobile approached, Smith guided it toward
file a separate civil action and this is more his left, that being the proper side of the road for
expeditious because by the time of the SC the machine. In so doing the defendant assumed
that the horseman would move to the other side. The test by which to determine the existence of
judgment Fontanilla is already serving his
Seeing that the pony was apparently quiet, the negligence in a particular case may be stated as
sentence and has no property. It was also proven
defendant, instead of veering to the right while yet follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged
that Barredo is negligent in hiring his employees
some distance away or slowing down, continued negligent act use that person would have used in
because it was shown that Fontanilla had had
to approach directly toward the horse without the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of
multiple traffic infractions already before he hired
diminution of speed. When he had gotten quite negligence. The existence of negligence in a given
him – something he failed to overcome during
near, there being then no possibility of the horse case is not determined by reference to the
hearing. Had Garcia not reserved his right to file a
getting across to the other side, the defendant personal judgment of the actor in the situation
separate civil action, Barredo would have only
quickly turned his car sufficiently to the right to before him. The law considers what would be
been subsidiarily liable. Further, Barredo is not
escape hitting the horse; but in so doing the reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of
being sued for damages arising from a criminal act
ordinary intelligence and prudence and
determines liability by that. The question as to antecedent negligence in planting himself on the required by section 56(a) of Act 3992 (Motor
what would constitute the conduct of a prudent wrong side of the road. But as we have already Vehicle Law), he could have seen and heard the
man in a given situation must of course be always stated, Smith was also negligent; and in such case approach of the train, and thus, there would have
determined in the light of human experience and the problem always is to discover which agent is been no collision.
in view of the facts involved in the particular case. immediately and directly responsible. It will be
noted that the negligent acts of the two parties ISSUES: W/N Victorino Cusi was negligent and
were not contemporaneous, since the negligence such was the proximate cause of the collision
Could a prudent man, in the case under of the defendant succeeded the negligence of the
consideration, foresee harm as a result of the plaintiff by an appreciable interval. Under these Ruling:
course actually pursued? If so, it was the duty of circumstances the law is that the person who has
the actor to take precautions to guard against that the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm No.
harm. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by and fails to do so is chargeable with the
ignoring of the suggestion born of this prevision, is consequences, without reference to the prior
• Negligence has been defined by Judge Cooley in
always necessary before negligence can be held to negligence of the other party.
his work on Torts as "the failure to observe for the
exist. Stated in these terms, the proper criterion 3. Cusi v. PNR| Guerrero J.G.R. No. L- protection of the interests of another person that
for determining the existence of negligence in a 29889 May 31, 1979 degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the
given case is this: Conduct is said to be negligent circumstances justly demand, whereby such other
when a prudent man in the position of the person suffers injury."
tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect
harmful to another was sufficiently probable to • All that the law requires is that it is always
• Spouses Cusi attended a birthday party in
warrant his foregoing conduct or guarding against incumbent upon a person to use that care and
Paranaque, Rizal. After the party which broke up
its consequences. diligence expected of reasonable men under
at about 11 o'clock that evening, the spouses
proceeded home in their Vauxhall car with similar circumstances.
Victorino Cusi at the wheel. Upon reaching the
Applying this test to the conduct of the defendant railroad tracks, finding that the level crossing bar • In this case, the warning devices installed at the
in the present case we think that negligence is was raised and seeing that there was no flashing railroad crossing were manually operated; there
clearly established. A prudent man, placed in the red light, and hearing no whistle from any coming were only 2 shifts of guards provided for the
position of the defendant, would in our opinion, train, Cusi proceeded to cross the tracks. At the operation thereof — one, the 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.
have recognized that the course which he was same time, a train bound for Lucena traversed the M. shift, and the other, the3:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M.
pursuing was fraught with risk, and would crossing, resulting in a collision between the two. shift. On the night of the accident, the train for
therefore have foreseen harm to the horse and the Lucena was on an unscheduled trip after 11:00
rider as reasonable consequence of that course. P.M. During that precise hour, the warning devices
• This accident caused the spouses to suffer
Under these circumstances the law imposed on were not operating for no one attended to them.
deformities and to lose the earnings they used to
the Smith the duty to guard against the threatened
enjoy as successful career people.
harm. Also, as observed by the lower court, the
• The defense is centered on the proposition that locomotive driver did not blow his whistle, thus:
the gross negligence of Victorino Cusi was the "... he simply sped on without taking an extra
It goes without saying that the plaintiff himself proximate cause of the collision; that had he made precaution of blowing his whistle.
was not free from fault, for he was guilty of a full stop before traversing the crossing as
That the train was running at full speed is attested PETITIONER: Leonardo Kong, Jose Tiope & Elsa of the establishment as it was not nailed and
to by the fact that notwithstanding the application Panelo, being the branch manager, operations shaky, which was then also corroborated by the
of the emergency brakes, the train did not stop
manager & supervisor, respectively, under Jarco witnesses who used to work at the establishment.
until it reached a distance of around 100 meters."
Marketing That negligence being imputed to the mother was
• Victorino Cusi had exercised all the necessary RESPONDENT: Criselda & Conrado Aguilar not reasonable for she was at that moment was
precautions required of him as to avoid injury to - (Parents of Zhienith) signing the credit card slip.
himself and to others. We find no need for him to NATURE OF PETITION: Complaint for Damages SUPREME COURT DECISION: Petition for
have made a full stop; relying on his faculties of PREVIOUS DECISIONS: Petitioners was ordered by DISMISSAL was DENIED. And the previous
sight and hearing, Victorino Cusi had no reason to the respondents, the reimbursement of the
anticipate the impending danger judgment was AFFIRMED, imposing penalty, viz:
hospitalization, medical bills, and wake and
 P50, 000.00 compensatory damage
funeral expenses used for the deceased, Zheinith
• The record shows that the spouses Cusi for the death of Zhienith, with legal
previously knew of the existence of the railroad Aguilar.
interest of 6% per annum from April
crossing, having stopped at the guardhouse to ask FACTS: Zheinith, a 6 year old child, died due to 27, 1984
for directions before proceeding to the party. At multiple injuries she sustained during the collapse
the crossing, they found the level bar raised, no  P99,420.86 as reimbursement for
of the counter at the business establishment
warning lights flashing nor warning bells ringing, hospitalization expenses incurred,
owned by the petitioners. That in the afternoon of
nor whistle from an oncoming train. They safely with legal interest of 6% per annum
traversed the crossing. May 9, 1983, Criselda and Zheinith was at the 2 nd
from April 27, 1984
floor of the Syvel’s Department Store in Makati
On their return home, the situation at the crossing City, Criselda was signing her credit card slip at  P100, 000.00 as moral and exemplary
did not in the least change, except for the absence the payment and verification counter when she damages
of the guard or flagman. Hence, on the same felt a loud thud. And when she looked behind her,  P20, 000.00 in the concept of
impression that the crossing was safe for passage beheld her daughter on the floor, pinned by bulk attorney’s fees
as before, Victorino Cusi merely slackened his
of the store’s gift-wrapping counter/structure.
speed and proceeded to cross the tracks, driving REASONS: Petitioner Panelo and other store
at the proper rate of speed for going over railroad CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER: They should supervisor were personally informed by the
crossings not be held liable for the death of Zheinith, as the witnesses while they were still working at the said
counter that befell her was caused by the establishment that the counter was unstable for
negligence of both Criselda and Zheinith. Being the the reason that it was not nailed on the floor. Yet,
4. JARCO MARKETING v. COURT OF mother, she must assure the safety of her child. neither initiated any concrete action to remedy
APPEALS Criselda attributed negligence when she let go of the situation.
Zheinith which allowed her to come near the
CRIME: Even if the court attributes contributory
negligence to ZHIENETH and assume that she
TOPIC: Art. 12 – Exempting Circumstances CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT: The fall of
climbed over the counter, no injury should have
(Accident) the counter being the proximate cause of death of
occurred if the counter was stable and sturdy.
Zheinith was because of negligence of the owner


respondents. The respondents proceeded their injured. Petitioners are clearly answerable for
appeal to the Court of Appeals who affirmed the failure to see to it that the doors of their school
OTHER LEGAL CONCEPTS DISCUSSED: A child trial court’s ruling in toto. toilets are at all times in working condition. The
under nine (9) years of age must be conclusively fact that a student had to go through the window,
incapable of contributory negligence, provided ISSUE: instead of the door, shows that something was
Whether or not the school was negligent for the wrong with the door. As to the absence of grills on
under Article 12, par. 2-3 of the Revised Penal
boy’s accidental fall. the window, petitioners contend that there was no
Code. such requirement under the Building Code.
RULING: Nevertheless, the fact is that such window, as
YES. In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of petitioners themselves point out, was
5. CHILD LEARNING CENTER, INC. and the Civil Code, plaintiff has to prove by a approximately 1.5 meters from the floor, so that it
SPOUSES EDGARDO L. LIMON and SYLVIA S. preponderance of evidence: (1) the damages was within reach of a student who finds the
LIMON, vs. suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the fault or negligence regular exit, the door, not functioning.
TIMOTHY TAGARIO, assisted by his parents of the defendant or some other person for whose
BASILIO TAGORIO and HERMINIA TAGORIO act he must respond; and (3) the connection of Petitioners, with the due diligence of a good father
GR No. 150920, November 25, 2005 cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the family, should have anticipated that a
and the damages incurred. student, locked in the toilet by a non-working
FACTS: door, would attempt to use the window to call for
Timothy Tagoria was a grade IV student at In this tort case, respondents contend that CLC help or even to get out. Considering all the
Marymount School, an academic institution failed to provide precautionary measures to avoid circumstances, therefore, there is sufficient basis
operated and maintained by Child Learning harm and injury to its students in two instances: to sustain a finding of liability on petitioners’ part.
Center, Inc. (CLC). One afternoon, he found himself (1) failure to fix a defective door knob despite
locked inside the boy’s comfort room in having been notified of the problem; and (2) Petitioners’ argument that CLC exercised the due
Marymount. He started to panic so he banged and failure to install safety grills on the window where diligence of a good father of a family in the
kicked the door and yelled for help. No help Timothy fell from. During trial, it was found that selection and supervision of its employees is not
arrived. He then decided to open the window to the lock was defective. The architect witness decisive. Due diligence in the selection and
call for help. As he opened the window, Timothy testified that he did not verify if the doorknob at supervision of employees is applicable where the
went right through and fell down three stories. the comfort room was actually put in place. employer is being held responsible for the acts or
Timothy was hospitalized and given medical Further, the fact that Timothy fell out through the omissions of others under Article 2180 of the Civil
treatment for serious multiple physical injuries. window shows that the door could not be opened Code. In this case, CLC’s liability is under Article
He, assisted by his parents, filed a civil action from the inside. That sufficiently points to the fact 2176 of the Civil Code, premised on the fact of its
against the CLC, the members of its Board of that something was wrong with the door, if not own negligence in not ensuring that all its doors
Directors which includes the Spouses Limon. They the door knob, under the principle of res ipsa are properly maintained. The Court’s
claim that the school was negligent for not loquitor. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor applies pronouncement that Timothy climbed out of the
installing iron grills at the window of the boy’s where (1) the accident was of such character as to window because he could not get out using the
comfort room. CLC, in its defense, maintained that warrant an inference that it would not have door, negates petitioners’ other contention that
there was nothing defective about the locking happened except for the defendant’s negligence; the proximate cause of the accident was Timothy’s
mechanism of the door and that the fall of (2) the accident must have been caused by an own negligence. The injuries he sustained from
Timothy was not due to its fault or negligence. CLC agency or instrumentality within the exclusive the fall were the product of a natural and
further maintained that it had exercised the due management or control of the person charged continuous sequence, unbroken by any
care and diligence of a good father of a family to with the negligence complained of; and (3) the intervening cause, that originated from CLC’s own
ensure the safety, well-being and convenience of accident must not have been due to any voluntary negligence.
its students. The trial court ruled in favor of the action or contribution on the part of the person


6. CONCEPCION ILAO-ORETA v. SPOUSES Marie actual damages but ruled that the failure of G.R. No. 159617, August 8, 2007
EVA MARIE and BENEDICTO NOEL the doctor to arrive on time was not intentional. It
RONQUILLO, et al. found no adequate proof that Noel had been FACTS: On different dates, Lulu Jorge pawned
deprived of any job contract while attending to his several pieces of jewelry with Agencia de R. C.
Respondent spouses Eva Marie Ronquillo wife in the hospital. The spouses appealed to Sicam located in Parañaque to secure a loan.
and Noel Benedicto Ronquillo had not been the Court of Appeals and found that Dr. Ilao-Oreta
grossly negligent. On October 19, 1987, two armed men entered the
blessed with a child despite several years of
pawnshop and took away whatever cash and
marriage. They thus consulted petitioner
Dr. Concepcion Ilao-Oreta, an obstetrician- ISSUE: jewelry were found inside the pawnshop vault.
gynecologist-consultant and chief of the On the same date, Sicam sent Lulu a letter
Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Whether or not Dr. Ilao-Oreta is guilty of gross informing her of the loss of her jewelry due to the
Section at the St. Luke‘s Medical Center. Dr. Ilao- negligence for her failure to arrive at the robbery incident in the pawnshop. Respondent
Oreta advised Eva Marie to undergo a scheduled time for the procedure
laparoscopic procedure whereby a laparascope Lulu then wroteback expressing disbelief, then
would be inserted through the requested Sicam to prepare the pawned jewelry
HELD: for withdrawal on November 6, but Sicam failed to
patient‘s abdominal wall to get a direct viewof her
internal reproductive organ in order to determine return the jewelry.
the real cause of her infertility. It bears noting that when she was scheduling the
date of her performance of the procedure, Dr. Ilao- Lulu, joined by her husband Cesar, filed a
Oreta had just gotten married and was preparing complaint against Sicam with the RTC of Makati
The procedure was scheduled on April 5, for her honeymoon, and it is of common human
1999 at 2:00 p.m. to be performed by Dr. Ilao- seeking indemnification for the loss of pawned
knowledge that excitement attends its jewelry and payment of AD, MD and ED as well as
Oreta. Eva Marie, accompanied by Noel, checked in preparations. Her negligence could then be partly
at the St. Luke‘s Medical Center and underwent AF.
attributed to human frailty which rules out
pre-operative procedures including the its characterization as gross. The RTC rendered its Decision dismissing
administration of intravenous fluid and enema.
However, Dr. Ilao-Oreta did not arrive at the respondents’ complaint as well as petitioners’
scheduled time for the procedure and no prior Dr. Ilao-Oreta‘s negligence not being gross, counterclaim. Respondents appealed the RTC
notice of its cancellation was received. It turned Ronquillo spouses are not entitled to recover Decision to the CA which reversed the RTC,
out that the doctor was on a return flight from moral damages. Neither are the spouses entitled ordering the appellees to pay appellants the actual
Hawaii to, and arrived at 10:00 p.m. of April 5, to recover exemplary damages in the absence of a value of the lost jewelry and AF. Petitioners MR
1999 in, Manila. showing that Dr. Ilao-Oreta acted in a wanton, denied, hence the instant petition for review on
fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent
manner, nor to award of attorney‘s fees as,
The Ronquillo spouses filed a complaint contrary to the finding of the CA that the spouses
against Dr. Ilao-Oreta and the St. Luke‘s Medical ISSUE: are the petitioners liable for the loss of the
“were compelled to litigate and incur expenses to pawned articles in their possession? (Petitioners
Center for breach of professional and service protect their interest,” the records show that they
contract and for damages before the Regional insist that they are not liable since robbery is a
did not exert enough efforts to settle the matter
Trial Court of Batangas City. They prayed for the fortuitous event and they are not negligent at all.)
before going to court.
award of actual damages including alleged loss of
income of Noel while accompanying his wife to the HELD: The Decision of the CA is AFFIRMED.
hospital, moral damages, exemplary damages, 7. Amado vs Rio, 95 Phil 33
costs of litigation, attorney‘s fees, and other
available reliefs and remedies. The RTC decided in R.C. SICAM, INC. vs. SPOUSES JORGE
Article 1174 of the Civil Code provides:
favor of Ronquillo spouses and awarded Eva
Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by Sicam had testified that there was a security guard delay, and those who in any manner contravene
the law, or when it is otherwise declared by in their pawnshop at the time of the robbery. He the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.
stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation likewise testified that when he started the
requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be pawnshop business in 1983, he thought of
responsible for those events which could not be opening a vault with the nearby bank for the **
foreseen or which, though foreseen, were purpose of safekeeping the valuables but was
inevitable. discouraged by the Central Bank since pawned Article 2123 of the Civil Code provides that with
articles should only be stored in a vault inside the regard to pawnshops and other establishments
Fortuitous events by definition are extraordinary pawnshop. The very measures which petitioners which are engaged in making loans secured by
events not foreseeable or avoidable. It is therefore, had allegedly adopted show that to them the pledges, the special laws and regulations
not enough that the event should not have been possibility of robbery was not only foreseeable, concerning them shall be observed, and
foreseen or anticipated, as is commonly believed but actually foreseen and anticipated. Sicam’s subsidiarily, the provisions on pledge, mortgage
but it must be one impossible to foresee or to testimony, in effect, contradicts petitioners’ and antichresis.
avoid. The mere difficulty to foresee the defense of fortuitous event.
happening is not impossibility to foresee the same.
Moreover, petitioners failed to show that they
To constitute a fortuitous event, the following The provision on pledge, particularly Article 2099
were free from any negligence by which the loss of
elements must concur: of the Civil Code, provides that the creditor shall
the pawned jewelry may have been occasioned.
take care of the thing pledged with the diligence of
(a) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected a good father of a family. This means that
occurrence or of the failure of the debtor to petitioners must take care of the pawns the way a
comply with obligations must be independent of Robbery per se, just like carnapping, is not a prudent person would as to his own property.
human will; fortuitous event. It does not foreclose the
possibility of negligence on the part of herein
(b) it must be impossible to foresee the event that petitioners.
constitutes the caso fortuito or, if it can be In this connection, Article 1173 of the Civil Code
foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid; further provides:

(c) the occurrence must be such as to render it Petitioners merely presented the police report of Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor
impossible for the debtor to fulfill obligations in a the Parañaque Police Station on the robbery consists in the omission of that diligence which is
normal manner; and, committed based on the report of petitioners’ required by the nature of the obligation and
employees which is not sufficient to establish corresponds with the circumstances of the
(d) the obligor must be free from any participation robbery. Such report also does not prove that persons, of time and of the place. When negligence
in the aggravation of the injury or loss. petitioners were not at fault. On the contrary, by shows bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171
The burden of proving that the loss was due to a the very evidence of petitioners, the CA did not err and 2201, paragraph 2 shall apply.
fortuitous event rests on him who invokes it. And, in finding that petitioners are guilty of concurrent
in order for a fortuitous event to exempt one from or contributory negligence as provided in Article
liability, it is necessary that one has committed no 1170 of the Civil Code, to wit: If the law or contract does not state the diligence
negligence or misconduct that may have which is to be observed in the performance, that
occasioned the loss. which is expected of a good father of a family shall
Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of their be required.
obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or
Furthermore, petitioner Sicam’s admission that considered it not feasible to require insurance of
the vault was open at the time of robbery is clearly pawned articles against burglary.
We expounded in Cruz v. Gangan that negligence a proof of petitioners’ failure to observe the care,
is the omission to do something which a precaution and vigilance that the circumstances
reasonable man, guided by those considerations justly demanded.
which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human The robbery in the pawnshop happened in 1987,
affairs, would do; or the doing of something which The robbery in this case happened in petitioners’ and considering the above-quoted amendment,
a prudent and reasonable man would not do. It is pawnshop and they were negligent in not there is no statutory duty imposed on petitioners
want of care required by the circumstances. exercising the precautions justly demanded of a to insure the pawned jewelry in which case it was
pawnshop. error for the CA to consider it as a factor in
concluding that petitioners were negligent.
A review of the records clearly shows that
petitioners failed to exercise reasonable care and We, however, do not agree with the CA when it
caution that an ordinarily prudent person would found petitioners negligent for not taking steps to Nevertheless, the preponderance of evidence
have used in the same situation. Petitioners were insure themselves against loss of the pawned shows that petitioners failed to exercise the
guilty of negligence in the operation of their jewelries. diligence required of them under the Civil Code.
pawnshop business. Sicam’s testimony revealed 9. Corinthian Gardens vs Sps.
that there were no security measures adopted by Under Section 17 of Central Bank Circular No. 374,
Tanjuangco, GR 160795, June 27, 2008
petitioners in the operation of the pawnshop. Rules and Regulations for Pawnshops, which took
effect on July 13, 1973, and which was issued FACTS:
Evidently, no sufficient precaution and vigilance
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 114, Reynaldo and Maria Luisa Tanjangco own
were adopted by petitioners to protect the Lots 68 and 69 located at Corinthian Gardens
pawnshop from unlawful intrusion. There was no Pawnshop Regulation Act, it is provided that
pawns pledged must be insured, to wit: Subdivision, Quezon City, which is managed
clear showing that there was any security guard at by petitioner Corinthian Gardens Association,
all. Or if there was one, that he had sufficient Sec. 17. Insurance of Office Building and Pawns- Inc. ). On the other hand, Frank and Teresita
training in securing a pawnshop. Further, there is The place of business of a pawnshop and the Cuaso own Lot 65 which is adjacent to the
no showing that the alleged security guard pawns pledged to it must be insured against fire Tanjangcos' lots.
exercised all that was necessary to prevent any and against burglary as well as for the latter(sic), Before the Cuasos constructed their
untoward incident or to ensure that no suspicious house on Lot 65, a relocation survey was
by an insurance company accredited by the
individuals were allowed to enter the premises. In necessary. As Geodetic Engineer Democrito
Insurance Commissioner.
fact, it is even doubtful that there was a security De Dios conducted all the previous surveys for
However, this Section was subsequently amended the subdivision's developer, Corinthian
guard, since it is quite impossible that he would
by CB Circular No. 764 which took effect on referred Engr. De Dios to the Cuasos. Before,
not have noticed that the robbers were armed
during and after the construction of the said
with caliber .45 pistols each, which were allegedly October 1, 1980, to wit:
house, Corinthian conducted periodic ocular
poked at the employees. Significantly, the alleged inspections in order to determine compliance
Sec. 17 Insurance of Office Building and Pawns –
security guard was not presented at all to with the approved plans pursuant to the
The office building/premises and pawns of a
corroborate petitioner Sicam’s claim; not one of Manual of Rules and Regulations of
pawnshop must be insured against fire. (emphasis
petitioners’ employees who were present during Corinthian. Unfortunately, after the Cuasos
the robbery incident testified in court. constructed their house employing the
where the requirement that insurance against services of C.B. Paraz Construction Co., Inc.
burglary was deleted. Obviously, the Central Bank
build their perimeter fence encroached on the and, at the very least, contributed to the injury left leg, so he brought Albayda to PH Air Force
Tanjangcos' Lot 69 by 87 square meters. suffered by the Tanjangcos. General Hospital. Completo asserted that he was
No amicable settlement was reached an experienced driver, and that he already
between the parties. Thus, the Tanjangcos 10. Hrs. of Completo vs Albayada, GR reduced his speed to 20km even before reaching
demanded that the Cuasos demolish the 172200, July 6, 2010 the intersection. In contrast, Albayda rode his
perimeter fence but the latter failed and bicycle at high speed, causing him to lose control
refused, prompting the Tanjangcos to file with Facts of the bicycle. Completo said that Albayda had no
the RTC a suit against the Cuasos for Recovery Albayda is a Master Sergeant of the PH Air Force, cause of action.
of Possession with Damages. and Completo was the taxi driver of a Toyota Several people testified for each side, but here
** The Cuasos ascribed negligence to C.B. Corolla which was owned by Abiad. Albayda was are some notes on the testimony of the owner of
Paraz for its failure to ascertain the proper riding a bike on his way to the office, when the taxi driver, Abiad. Abiad said that aside from
specifications of their house, and to Engr. De Completo’s taxi bumped and sideswept him, being a soldier, he also held franchises of taxicabs
Dios for his failure to undertake an accurate causing serious physical injuries. He [Albayda] and passenger jeepneys, and being a taxicab
relocation survey, thereby, exposing them to was brought to the PH Air Force General Hospital, operator, he would wake up early to personally
litigation. The Cuasos also faulted Corinthian but he was transferred to the AFP Medical Center check the taxicabs. When Completo applied as a
for approving their relocation survey and because he sustained a fracture and there was no taxicab driver, Abiad required him to show his
building plans without verifying their orthopedic doctor available in the first hospital. bio-data, NBI clearance, and driver’s license.
accuracy and in making representations as to He was confined from 27 Aug 1997 to 11 Feb Completo never figured in a vehicular accident
Engr. De Dios' integrity and competence. The 1998, and again in 23 Feb to 22 Mar 1998 [approx. since he was employed, and according to Abiad, he
Cuasos alleged that had Corinthian exercised 7 months]. [Completo] was a good driver and good man.
diligence in performing its duty, they would Conciliation before the barangay failed, so RTC rendered judgment in favor of Albayda,
not have been involved in a boundary dispute Albayda filed a complaint for physical injuries and the defendants are ordered to pay actual
with the Tanjangcos. Thus, the Cuasos opined through reckless imprudence against Completo [46k] and moral [400k] damages, and attorney’s
that Corinthian should also be held before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay. fees [25k]. Upon appeal at the CA, the court
answerable for any damages that they might Completo filed a counter-charge of damage to affirmed RTC’s decision with modifications [no
incur as a result of such construction. property through reckless imprudence against more actual damages; awarded temperate
Albayda. The Office of the City Prosecutor damages [40k]; moral damages only 200k;
ISSUE: recommended the filing of an information for Completo and Abiad are solidarily liable to pay
Whether or not the Corinthian Garden’s Albayda’s complaint, and Completo’s complaint Albayda; added legal interest].
Association is liable for negligence, in [against Albayda] was dismissed. Albayda Issues and Holding
approving the building plan and whether or manifested his reservation to file a separate civil 1. WON CA erred in finding that Completo was
not it acted in good faith in doing so. action for damages against Completo and Abiad. the one who caused the collision. NO
Albayda alleged that Completo’s negligence is 2. WON Abiad failed to prove that he observed
HELD: the proximate cause of the incident. He demanded the diligence of a good father of the family.
the following damages and their respective YES
YES, Corinthian cannot and should not be amounts: Actual damages – 276,550; Moral
allowed to justify or excuse its negligence by 3. WON the award of moral and temperate
damages – 600,000; Exemplary damages – damages and attorney’s fees for Albayda had
claiming that its approval of the Cuasos' 200,000; Attorney’s fees – 25,000 + 1,000
building plans was only limited to a so-called no basis. NO / NO / YES
per court appearance. Ratio
"table inspection and not actual site On the other hand, Completo alleged that he
measurement. Corinthian's failure to prevent On Negligence
was carefully driving the taxicab when he heard a It is a rule in negligence suits that the plaintiff has
the encroachment of the Cuasos' perimeter strange sound from the taxicab’s rear right side.
wall into Tanjangcos' property - despite the the burden of proving by a preponderance of
He found Albayda lying on the road, holding his evidence the motorist’s breach in his duty of care
inspection conducted - constitutes negligence
owed to the plaintiff, that the motorist was measures for breaches. To establish these factors Morales for repairs, which he placed
negligent in failing to exercise the diligence in a trial involving the issue of vicarious inside a drawer. Since Morales would be
required to avoid injury to the plaintiff, and that [secondary] liability, employers must submit going to Manila, he left the keys to the
such negligence was the proximate cause of the concrete proof, including documentary evidence. store with the caretakers. It appears that
injury suffered. NCC 2176 quoted, and said that ABIAD’S EVIDENCE CONSISTED ENTIRELY OF the caretakers took the gun from the
the question of the motorist’s negligence is a TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE, AND THIS IS drawer and placed it on top of a table.
question of fact. Usually, more will be required of INSUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE LEGAL Attracted by the sight of the gun, the
a motorist [25mi/hr = 37ft/sec] than a bicyclist PRESUMPTION THAT HE WAS NEGLIGENT IN young Alfred got hold of the same.
[10mi/hr = 15ft/sec] in discharging the duty of THE SELECTION AND SUPERVISION OF Matibag asked Alfred to return the gun.
care because of the physical advantages the COMPLETO. The latter followed and handed the gun to
former has over the latter. On Damages Matibag. It went off, the bullet hitting the
It was proven by a preponderance of evidence that CA rightfully deleted the award of actual damages young Alfred in the head.
Completo failed to exercise reasonable diligence. because Albayda failed to present documentary
 He was overspeeding at the time he hit evidence to establish the amount incurred. A criminal case for homicide was filed
Albayda’s bicycle; he did not slow down even Temperate damages may be recovered when the against Matibag. Matibag, however, was
when he approached the intersection court finds that some pecuniary loss has been acquitted of the charge against him
 Such negligence was the sole and proximate suffered but its amount cannot be proved with because of the exempting circumstance of
cause of the injuries sustained by Albayda certainty. Moral damages are awarded in QDs “accident” under Art. 12, par. 4 of the RPC.
 It was proven that Albayda had the right of way causing physical injuries, so the award is proper.
since he reached the intersection ahead of The award of attorney’s fees is deleted for failure By agreement of the parties, the evidence
Completo to prove that petitioners acted in bad faith in adduced in the criminal case for homicide
NCC 2180 cited – obligation imposed by NCC 2176 refusing to satisfy respondent’s just and valid against Matibag was reproduced and
is demandable also for those persons for whom claim. adopted by them as part of their evidence
one is responsible. Employers are liable for in the instant case.
damage caused by employees, but the 11. Pacis vs Morales, GR 169467, Feb. 25,
responsibility ceases upon proof that employers 2010 The trial court rendered its decision in
observed the diligence of the good father of the FACTS: petitioners filed with the trial favor of petitioners, ordering the
family in the selection and supervision of court a civil case for damages against defendant to pay plaintiffs indemnity for
employees. The burden of proof is on the respondent Morales. the death of Alfred, actual damages for
employer. The responsibility of two or more the hospitalization and burial, expenses
persons who are liable for QD is solidary. The Petitioners are the parents of Alfred Pacis, incurred by the plaintiffs, compensatory
employer’s civil liability for his employee’s a 17-year old student who died in a damages, MD and AF.
negligent acts is also primary and direct, owing to shooting incident inside the Top Gun Respondent appealed to the CA, which
his own negligence in selecting and supervising Firearms and Ammunitions Store in reversed the trial court’s Decision and
them, and this liability attaches even if the Baguio City. Morales is the owner of the absolved respondent from civil liability
employer is not in the vehicle at the time of gun store. under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. MR
collision. denied, hence this petition.
In the selection of employees, employers are On the fateful day, Alfred was in the gun
required to examine them as to their store, with Matibag and Herbolario as ISSUE: Was Morales negligent?
qualifications, experience, and service sales agents and caretakers of the store
records. With respect to supervision, employers while owner Morales was in Manila. The HELD: Petition granted. The CA decision
should formulate SOPs and monitor their gun which killed Alfred is a gun owned by is set aside and the trial court’s Decision
implementation, and impose disciplinary a store customer which was left with reinstated.


Dealership/Repair,” a person who is in gun should have been stored in a vault.
YES the business of purchasing and selling of Before accepting the defective gun for
firearms and ammunition must maintain repair, respondent should have made
This case for damages arose out of the basic security and safety requirements of sure that it was not loaded to prevent any
accidental shooting of petitioners’ son. a gun dealer, otherwise his License to untoward accident. Indeed, respondent
Under Article 1161 of the Civil Code, Operate Dealership will be suspended or should never accept a firearm from
petitioners may enforce their claim for canceled. another person, until the cylinder or
damages based on the civil liability action is open and he has personally
arising from the crime under Article 100 Indeed, a higher degree of care is checked that the weapon is completely
of the RPC or they may opt to file an required of someone who has in his unloaded. For failing to insure that the
independent civil action for damages possession or under his control an gun was not loaded, respondent himself
under the Civil Code. In this case, instead instrumentality extremely dangerous in was negligent. Furthermore, it was not
of enforcing their claim for damages in character, such as dangerous weapons or shown in this case whether respondent
the homicide case filed against Matibag, substances. Such person in possession or had a License to Repair which authorizes
petitioners opted to file an independent control of dangerous instrumentalities him to repair defective firearms to restore
civil action for damages against has the duty to take exceptional its original composition or enhance or
respondent whom they alleged was precautions to prevent any injury being upgrade firearms.
Matibag’s employer. Petitioners based done thereby. Unlike the ordinary affairs
their claim for damages under Articles of life or business which involve little or Clearly, respondent did not exercise the
2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. no risk, a business dealing with degree of care and diligence required of a
dangerous weapons requires the exercise good father of a family, much less the
** of a higher degree of care. degree of care required of someone
Unlike the subsidiary liability of the dealing with dangerous weapons, as
employer under Article 103 of the RPC, As a gun store owner, respondent is would exempt him from liability in this
the liability of the employer, or any presumed to be knowledgeable about case.
person for that matter, under Article 2176 firearms safety and should have known 12. Taylor vs Manila Railroad, 16 Phil 8
of the Civil Code is primary and direct, never to keep a loaded weapon in his David Taylor was a 15 year old boy who
based on a person’s own negligence. store to avoid unreasonable risk of harm spent time as a cabin boy at sea; he was
Article 2176 states: or injury to others. Respondent has the also able to learn some principles of
duty to ensure that all the guns in his mechanical engineering and mechanical
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission store are not loaded. Firearms should be drawing from his dad’s office (his dad was
causes damage to another, there being stored unloaded and separate from a mechanical engineer); he was also
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for ammunition when the firearms are not employed as a mechanical draftsman
the damage done. Such fault or needed for ready-access defensive use. earning P2.50 a day – all said, Taylor was
negligence, if there is no pre-existing With more reason, guns accepted by the mature well beyond his age.
contractual relation between the parties, store for repair should not be loaded
is called quasi-delict and is governed by precisely because they are defective and One day in 1905, he and another boy
the provisions of this Chapter. may cause an accidental discharge such as entered into the premises of Manila
what happened in this case. Respondent Electric power plant where they found
This case involves the accidental was clearly negligent when he accepted 20-30 blasting caps which they took
discharge of a firearm inside a gun store. the gun for repair and placed it inside the home. In an effort to explode the said
Under PNP Circular No. 9, entitled the drawer without ensuring first that it was caps, Taylor experimented until he
“Policy on Firearms and Ammunition not loaded. In the first place, the defective succeeded in opening the caps and then


he lighted it using a match which resulted both mentally and physically than the that a carburetor needed to be installed. In the
to the explosion of the caps causing average boy of his age; he had been to sea course of the work, it was observed that the
severe injuries to his companion and to as a cabin boy; was able to earn P2.50 a carburetor was flooding and that the gasoline and
Taylor losing one eye. day as a mechanical draftsman thirty days other fuel was trickling freely to the floor but this
after the injury was incurred; and the concern was dismissed by Quest. During the boat’s
Taylor sued Manila Electric alleging that record discloses throughout that he was trial run, the engine stopped and upon being
because the company left the caps exceptionally well qualified to take care.
started, a back fire occurred which then instantly
exposed to children, they are liable for The evidence of record leaves no room for
spread and finally engulfed Gwendoline. The crew
damages due to the company’s doubt that he well knew the explosive
negligence. character of the cap with which he was members safely escaped but Gwendoline was
amusing himself. The series of destroyed. Culion Ice moved for the recovery of
ISSUE: Whether or not Manila Electric is experiments made by him in his attempt the damages against Philippine Motors. The trial
liable for damages. to produce an explosion admit of no other court ruled for Culion Ice. Philippine Motor asserts
explanation. His attempt to discharge the that the accident was not due to the fault of Quest.
HELD: No. The SC reiterated the elements cap by the use of electricity, followed by
of quasi delict as follows: his efforts to explode it with a stone or a
hammer, and the final success of his
(1) Damages to the plaintiff. endeavors brought about by the
applications of a match to the contents of
(2) Negligence by act or omission of the cap, show clearly that he knew what
which defendant personally, or some he was about. Nor can there be any Whether or not Quest was negligent.
person for whose acts it must respond, reasonable doubt that he had reason to
was guilty. anticipate that the explosion might be
Ruling: YES.
(3) The connection of cause and effect
between the negligence and the damage. “The just thing is that a man should suffer
the damage which comes to him through
In the case at bar, it is true that Manila his own fault, and that he cannot demand When a person holds himself out as being
Electric has been negligent in disposing reparation therefor from another.” competent to do things requiring professional
off the caps which they used for the 13. Jarco Mktg. vs CA, 321 SCRA 377 skill, he will be held liable for negligence if he fails
power plant, and that said caps caused 14. Culion vs Philippines, 55 Phil 129 to exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily
damages to Taylor. However, the causal Facts: skilled in the particular work which he attempts to
connection between the company’s
do. The proof shows that Quest had had ample
negligence and the injuries sustained by Culion Ice and Fish was the registered owner of experience in fixing the engines of automobiles
Taylor is absent. It is in fact the direct acts the motor schooner, Gwendoline, which it uses for
of Taylor which led to the explosion of the and tractors, but it does not appear that he was
its fishing trade. In order to save costs in running experienced in the doing of similar work on boats.
caps as he even, in various experiments the boat, Culion Ice decided to have the engine
and in multiple attempts, tried to explode For this reason, possibly the dripping of the
changed from gasoline consumer to a crude oil mixture form the tank on deck and the flooding of
the caps. It is from said acts that led to the
burner. Quest, general manager of Philippine the carburetor did not convey to his mind an
explosion and hence the injuries.
Motors, a domestic corporation engaged in adequate impression of the danger of fire. But a
Taylor at the time of the accident was machinery engines and motors, agreed to do the person skilled in that particular sort of work
well-grown youth of 15, more mature job. Upon inspection, Quest came to conclusion would, we think have been sufficiently warned
from those circumstances (risks) to cause him to
take greater and adequate precautions against the
danger. In other words Quest did not use the skill
that would have been exhibited by one ordinarily
expert in repairing gasoline engines on boats.
There was here, in our opinion, on the part of
Quest, a blameworthy antecedent inadvertence to
possible harm, and this constitutes negligence.
The burning of the Gwendoline may be said to
have resulted from accident, but this accident was
in no sense an unavoidable accident. It would not
have occurred but for Quest’s carelessness or lack
of skill. The test of liability is not whether the
injury was accidental in a sense, but whether
Quest was free from blame.