You are on page 1of 2


Antonio Vazquez Issue: WON plaintiff. Borja entered into a contract with Vazquez in his
Vs personal capacity or as manager of the NVSD Co. Inc. NO.
Francisco de Borja • The Sc said that the CA itself admitted that accdg. to preponderance of
evidence said that Vazquez acted as acting manger of the NVSD co. Inc.,
Antonio Vazquez, petitioner vs. Francisco de Borja, respondent GR 48930 when he sold 4,000 cavans of palay.
2/23/44 • Then instead of remanding the case, the CA should have dismissed the
Francisco de Borja, petitioner vs. Antonio Vazquez, respondent GR 48931 complaint because the real party which is the company is not included in the
2/23/44 case.
• Even the plaintiff’s argument that it was Vazquez contracted and who
Facts: received the money from Borja was invalid and insufficient that the
• Borja instituted this claim to recover 4,702.7 from 3 alleged causes from president of the corporation was personally liable.
Vazquez(co. acting president and manager) and Fernando Busuego(co. Even if the corporation was an artificial being by law, the mere fact that it is
treasurer). a legal fiction and only able to act through its agents, doesn’t make these
• Jan, 1932 Vazquez and Busuego obligated themselves to sell to Borja 4,000 agents liable.
cavans of palay at P2.10/cavan. And they were able to receive the full, • The RTC and CA held Vazquez negligent, but they are wrong. They have
paymkent of P8400 from Borja. neglected to distinguish a contractual from an extra-contractual obligation.
• Vazquez and Busuego were only able to deliver 2,488 cavans, equivalent to • The fault under Art. 1101-1104 of the CC are those incidental to the
P5,224. fulfillment or nonfulfillment of contractual obligation. While the fault or
• Borja cited 3 causes of action from his losses.: negligence referred to in Art. 1902 is the culpa aquiliana of the civil law, w/c
1st :They then refused to deliver the balance of 1,512 cavans or P3,175.2 of the gives rise to obligation independent of any contract.
money , after repeated demands from Borja.
2nd :Borja suffered damages of P1,000 from theiur refusal.
• The fact that the corporation acting thru Vazquez even if he is negligent will
3rd : Borja had an additional P150 damages when Vazquez and Busuego refused not make him liable whether principally or subsidiarily. SINCE IT WAS THE
to return 1,510 of the unused sacks consigned to them for the 4,000 CORPORATION’S CONTRACT, THEN IT IS LIABLE.
cavans)since only 2,488 was delivered and used). • So, if outsidew of the contract, Vazquez by a negligent act caused damage
• Vazquez denied the contract entered either with or without Busuego. He to Borja, then he would be liable under Art.1902 CC. And Borja’s cause of
alleges that the agreement was between Natividad-Vazquez Sabani Dev’t action must be culpa aquiliana and not contract. By then, Vazquez would
(NVSD)Co. Inc. He was only an acting manager. He further claims his own have been principally liable.
damages of P1000. • As this was not alleged then the RTC could not have this in its jurisdiction.

• RTC ruled that Vazquez should pay Borja(plaintiff) P3,175.2 plus sum of WON the lower court’s refusal to entertain Vazuez’ s counterclaim for damagesin
P377.5 and legal interest. Busuego was then absolved. the lower courts against Borja was wrong NO
• CA modified to reduce damages to come up with a total of P3,314.78 with Since the lower courts decided for Borja then naturally they wouldn’t grant
legal interest and cost. Vazquez’s counterclaim fro damages for bringing this suit to court. The court
• Then the defendant Vazquez filed for an MFR. found no sufficient reason to grant the claim. It didn’t warrant to his claim that
the suit was malicious and tortuous against him,
• CA ruled to set aside its decision and to remand the case.
And although, from the legal point of view he wasn’t liable, the court said that it
was in his moral duty to at least see the contract through.
• Vazquez filed for certiorari to review and reverse the CA.
• Borja filed for certiorari for CA to maintain decision. PAras, J. Dissenting
• SC denied Borja’s filing for certiorari because the remanding was for his It was his refusal to deliver the remaining obligations that warrant his
benefit, to allow him opportunity to refute Vazquez’s contention. negligence. But it was also his fault that his own negligence prevented the
• Anyway, the SC said this was an action on a contract. CA was wrong in the fulfillment of the obligation. And when he made the sale, he knew the
case analysis. corporation to be insolvent, and now dissolved. Since he owned a considerable
part of the corporation, then if he isn’t punished, then he will profit from his own
• The SC then found the CA’s decision of remanding the case wrong. Since wrong.
they had no justification for ordering a new trial. The parties themselves
didn’t demand it. U.S. v. Barias [23 SCRA 434 (1912)]
• And the issue in the CA of WON the company had sufficient stock at the  Segundo Barias, motorman of Pasay Cervantes lines of Manila Electric Railroad & Light
time the appellant sold 1,500 cavans to another buyer(Kwong ah Poy) is Co., was convicted of homicide resulting from reckless negligence.
 Barias started his car from a standstill without looking over the track immediately in
irrelevant to the real issue.
front of the car to satisfy himself that it was clear and in so doing, he ran over and
killed a 2 year old girl, Fermina Jose.

 TC found the defendant guilty of imprudencia temeraria (reckless negligence)

Issue: WON evidence shows such carelessness or want of ordinary care on the part of
the defendant as to amount to reckless negligence (imprudencia temeraria)
 Negligence - failure to observe, for the protection of the interests of another person,
that degree of care, precaution & vigilance which the circumstances justly demand,
whereby such other person suffers injury.
 Reckless negligence – failure to take such precautions or advance measures in the
performance of an act as the most common prudence would suggest whereby injury is
cause to persons or to property.
 Negligencia and imprudencia – he who has done everything on his part to prevent his
action from causig damage to another, although he has not succeeded in doing so,
notwithstanding his efforts, is the victim of an accident and cannot be responsible
 Temerario is one who omits with regard to his actions, which are liable to cause injury
to another, that care and diligence, that attention, which can be required of the least
careful, attentive, or diligent
 Negligence – want of the care required by the circumstances. It is a relative or
comparative (not absolute) term, & its application depends upon the situation if the
parties & the degree of care & vigilance which circumstances reasonably require.
 Thus, the question becomes, whether, under all the circumstances, and having in mind
the situation of the defendant when he put his car in motion and ran it over the child,
he was guilty of a failure to takes such precautions or advance measures as common
prudence would suggest.
 In the case at bar, given that the incident occurred in a public street in a densely
populated section of the city at a time (6am) when residents begin to move about, a
motorman of an electric street car was clearly charged with a high degree of diligence
in the performance of his duties. Thus, Barias did NOT exercise the degree of diligence
required of him. He failed to do his duty of satisfying himself that the track was clear,
and for that purpose, to look and to see the track just in front of his car before setting
his car again in motion.