Case digests obli ISSUE
Can the defendant company be held liable to pay rentals from
Sagrada orden v National coco corp
Facts:
Plaintiff Sagrada Orden owned a piece of real property in
Pandacan, Manila. During the Japanese occupation, the land was
acquired by a Japanese corporation Taiwan Tekkoshho. After the
liberation, the Alien Property Custodian of the United States took
possession, control, and custody of the real property. During the year
1946, the property was occupied by the Copra Export Management
Company under the custodianship agreement with United States Alien
Property Custodian, and when it vacated, the property  the property from the plaintiff-appellee by the use of duress, such that the
occupied by defendant National Coconut Corporation. Sagrada Orden
made claim to the property before the Alien Property Custodian of
the United States but was denied. So plaintiff brought an action in
court to annul the sale of property of Taiwan Tekkosho, and recover
its possession. The case did not come for trial because the parties
presented a joint petition in which it is claimed by Sagrada Orden that
the sale in favor of Taiwan Tekkosho was null and void because it
was executed under threats, duress, and intimidation, and that the title
be re-issued to Sagrada Orden. The court rendered judgment releasing
the defendant from liability, but reversing to the plaintiff the right to
recover from the defendant reasonable rentals for the use and
occupation of the premises. The present action to recover the
reasonable rentals from August 1946, the date when defendant began
to occupy, to the date it vacated it. The defendant did not contest its
liability for the rentals at the rate of P3, 000 per month from February
28, 1949, but resisted the claim therefore prior to that date. Defendant
contends that it occupied the property in good faith, under no
obligation to pay rentals for the use and occupation. Judgment
rendered for the plaintiff to recover from the defendant the sum of P3,
000 a month, from August, 1946, to the date the defendant vacates the
premises. Thus this appeal made by defendant.
August 1946 to the date it vacated?
RULING
No. If defendant-appellant is liable at all, its obligations, must arise
from any of the four sources of obligations, namely, law, contract or quasi-
contract, crime, or negligence. Defendant-appellant is not guilty of any
offense at all, because it entered the premises and occupied it with the
permission of the entity which had the legal control and administration
thereof, the Alien Property Administration. Neither was there any
negligence on its part. There was also no privity between the Alien Property
Custodian and the Taiwan Tekkosho, which had secured the possession of
Alien Property Custodian or its permittee (defendant-appellant) may be held
responsible for the supposed illegality of the occupation of the property by
the said Taiwan Tekkosho. The Alien Property Administration had the
control and administration of the property not as successor to the interests
of the enemy holder of the title, the Taiwan Tekkosho. Neither is it a trustee
of the former owner, the plaintiff-appellee herein, but a trustee of then
Government of the United States, in its own right, to the exclusion of, and
against the claim or title of, the enemy owner. From August, 1946, when
defendant-appellant took possession, to the late of judgment on February
28, 1948, Alien Property Administration had the absolute control of the
property as trustee of the Government of the United States, with power to
dispose of it by sale or otherwise, as though it were the absolute owner.
Therefore, even if defendant-appellant were liable to the Alien Property
Administration for rentals, these would not accrue to the benefit of the
plaintiff-appellee, the owner, but to the United States Government.
 PNB V CA
Facts:
Bp Mata is a corporation engaged in providing goods for shipping
companies such as crew to star kits. Mata sends bill to star kits then kits
pays through transfer. SEPAC bank of LA had agency agreement with pnb
bank. It transmitted to pnb to pat 14k USD to mata per order of star kits.
Pnb noticed error and sent notice to SEPAC that amount should be 1.4k not
14k. A check was issued for 1.4 k to mata from attar kits but it also sent the
14k payment purporting to be another disbursement. 6 years later pnb
requested mapa to refund 14k. it filed case based on constructive trust.
Because they cannot claim solution indebiti since it has prescribed.
Petitioner wants constructive trust since it prescribes in 10 years.
Issue:
W/N PNB may recover the 14k
Rule:
No, solution indebiti prescribes in 6 years. It was already 7 years when
petitioner filed the case. In solution indebiti, when something is received
when there is no right to demand it, and it was delivered through mistake, it
must be returned. Even if constructive trust is possible, it is barred by
laches.
LIM V PING
Facts:
Cement corp issued several withdrawal authorities for Fil-cement and
tigerblt. It states the number of bags dealers paid and can get from the plant.
It is valid for months unless revoked. Fil-cement sold the withdrawal
authorities to Charlie Co for 3M. Co then sold it to Liliy lim for 3.2M. Lim
withdrew the bags in a staggered basis. Cement corp did not allow her to
withdraw remaining bags since there was a price increase and she would
have to pay the difference. Lim filed estafa v Co. RTC acquitted Co
criminally and civilly. Lim then filed specific performance at RTC of
manila due to breach of contract and abuse of right. Co claims it is forum
shopping since it is a identical case.
Issue:
W/N there was Forum shopping when a criminal case was filed then a
independent civil action for specific performance
Ruling:
No, Forum shopping is filling multiple suits with the same party and same
cause. a single act or omission that causes damage may give rise to two
separate civil liabilities: (1) civil liability ex delicto , arising from the
criminal offence, (2) independent civil liability, pursued independently from
criminal proceeding
 Supreme transport and felix ruz v San Andres
Facts:
Belchez was driving a mabel bus owned by Antonio san Andres along
maharlika highway. It hit a Toyota it was overtaking and hit a supreme bus
owned by supreme transport and driven by felix ruz. San Andres took his
bus to be repaired and was quoted 144k. San Andres filed damages against
petitioner for non-use of the bus till it was repaired. Petitioner claimed no
case of action since Belchez was driving recklessly. Petitioner filed a
counter claim of negligence. Petitioners counterclaim was dismissed
following Sec.1 , Rule 111 since petitioner did not reserve the right to
institute a separate civil action
Issue:
W/N the counterclaim was correctly denied
Rule:
It was not , a counterclaim is possible since it is a independent civil action.
Capusanan v Laroya
Facts:
Two vehicles driven by laroya and Capitulo, and Casupananhad a accident.
Laroya filed a crim case for reckless imprudence while Casupanan filed a
civil case for quasi-delict. When the civil case was filed, the criminal case
already began. Laroya filed a motion to dismiss civil case considering
pendency of criminal case on ground of forum shopping. Casupanan
insisted that civil case is a independent civil action . MTC denied.
Issue:
W/N accused in a criminal case may file a independent civil action
Ruling:
Yes, no forum shopping exists, Sec 1, Rule 111 states that : no cross claim,
counter claim, and 3rd party claim cannot be instituted by accused in the
criminal case. But the same may be instituted in a separate civil action.
 People v Lipata
Facts:
Gerry Lipata killed ronaldo cueno by stabing him with a bladed weapon, on
arraignment he said not guilty. There where 2 witnesses to the act. In his
defense, Lipata said he acted in self defense. Lower court ruled against self
defense since there was no unlawful aggression. PAO appealed and records
elevated to the SC. The Accused Lipata died prior to the final judgement of
the CA. SC required PAO a substitute representative for his death. Relatives
of the deceased did not communicate, because of this, PAO insisted that his
death extinguishes Civil and criminal liability.
Issue:
W/N Accused death prior to promulgation extinguished the civil and
criminal liability
Ruling:
 1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his
criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As
opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, “the death of the accused prior to
final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability
directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, x x x 2.
Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death
of [the] accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of
obligation other than delict. x x x”
The criminal and civil liability ex delicto are extinguished but a civil
liability arising from other sources of obligation may push through
Lumantas v Calapiz
Facts:
SPS. Calapiz brought their son to misamis hospital for an emergency. He
was attended by Doc. Lumantas who suggested he be circumcised. The next
day after the operation he was diagnosed by a damaged uretha, but it
cannot be fully repaired. His parents filed a criminal case vs Lumantas for
reckless imprudence . case was dismissed at the lower court but made him
liable for damages. CA upheld damages. Calapiz argued that since criminal
case was dismissed, the civil liability must be dismissed.
Issue:
W/N The civil case ex delicto should be dismissed since the criminal
liability was dismissed.
Ruling:
No, Every person criminally liable is civilly liable.
If the accused is not the author of the act – No civil liability
If by reasonable doubt – Civil liability is possible through preponderance of
evidence
 Mendoza v SPS. Gomez
Facts:
A Isuzu truck owned by gmez and driven by perez was hit by a bus driven
by Mendoza and owned by lim. A case for reckless imprudence was filed vs
Mendoza. Mendoza alluded arrest. Respondents then filed separate
complaint for damages v Mendoza and Lim seeking damage compensation
for lost income. Issue & Ruling
Issue:
WON Lim as the registered owner is deemed vicariously liable with
Mendoza the driver). YES.
 Rule:
The registered owner is deemed the employer of the negligent driver, and
is thus vicariously liable underArticle 2176, in relation to Article 2180, of
the Civil Code. The registered owner of the motor vehicle is theemployer of
the negligent driver, and the actual employer is considered merely as an
agent of such owner.Thus, whether there is an employer-employee
relationship between the registered owner and the driver isirrelevant in
determining the liability of the registered owner who the law holds
primarily and directlyresponsible for any accident, injury or death caused by
the operation of the vehicle in the streets andhighways
Generally, when an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or
employee, there instantly arises apresumption of law that there was
negligence on the part of the master or employer either in the selection ofthe
servant or employee (culpa in eligiendo) or in the supervision over him after
the selection (culpavigilando), or both.
The presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure; consequently, it
may be rebutted. Accordingly, thegeneral rule is that if the employer shows
to the satisfaction of the court that in the selection andsupervision of his
employee he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a
family, thepresumption is overcome and he is relieved of liability.
However, with the enactment of the motor vehicle registration law, the
defenses available under Article2180 of the Civil Code -that the employee
acts beyond the scope of his assigned task or that it exercisedthe due
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage
 are no longer available to the registeredowner of the motor vehicle, because
the motor vehicle registration law, to a certain extent, modified Article2180

This does not mean, however, that Lim is left without any recourse against
Enriquez and Mendoza. Under thecivil law principle of unjust enrichment,
the registered owner of the motor vehicle has a right to beindemnified by
the actual employer of the driver; and under Article 2181 of the Civil Code,
whoever pays forthe damage caused by his dependents or employees may
recover from the latter what he has paid ordelivered in satisfaction of the
claim.

 
 Carpio v Doroja

Facts:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Fuso truck driven by Ramirez and owned by toribio bumped dionisio
carpio when he was crossing the street. A information for reckless Amadora v CA
imprudence was filed vs Ramirez. He pleaded guilty for a lesser offence. A
writ of execution was filed but accused Ramirez was insolvent.. They Alfredo Amadora, while in the auditorium of the school, was mortally hit
moved for subsidiary liability for toribio. by a gun by Pablito Daffon resulting to the former’s death.  Daffon was
convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence.  The victim’s parents,
Issue: herein petitioners, filed a civil action for damages against Colegio de San
Jose-Recoletos, its rectors, high school principal, dean of boys, the physics
W/N subsidiary liability may be attached to toribio
teacher together with Daffon and 2 other students.  Complaints against the
Ruling: students were dropped.  Respondent Court absolved the defendants
completely and reversed CFI Cebu’s decision for the following reasons: 1.
The requisites of subsidiary liability are: Since the school was an academic institution of learning and not a school of
arts and trades 2. That students were not in the custody of the school since
(1) employer engaged in business
the semester has already ended 3. There was no clear identification of the
(2) employee performed a crime in performance of duty fatal gun, and 4. In any event, defendants exercised the necessary diligence
through enforcement of the school regulations in maintaining discipline. 
(3) insolvent Petitioners on othe other hand claimed their son was under school custody
because he went to school to comply with a requirement for graduation
Civil Criminal
- Vicarious Liability - Subsidiary liability’ (submission of Physics reports).
- Employer need not be in (1) employer engaged in business
ISSUE: WON Collegio de San Jose-Recoletos should be held liable.
any industry (2) employee performed a crime in
- Diligence in the selection performance of duty HELD:
and the supervision of (3) insolvent
employees The time Alfredo was fatally shot, he was in the custody of the authorities
of the school notwithstanding classes had formally ended when the incident
happened.  It was immaterial if he was in the school auditorium to finish his
physics requirement.  What was important is that he was there for a
legitimate purpose.  On the other hand, the rector, high school principal and
the dean of boys cannot be held liable because none of them was the
teacher-in-charge as defined in the provision.  Each was exercising only a
general authority over the students and not direct control and influence
exerted by the teacher placed in-charge of particular classes. 
In the absence of a teacher- in charge, dean of boys should probably be held
liable considering that he had earlier confiscated an unlicensed gun from a
student and later returned to him without taking disciplinary action or
reporting the matter to the higher authorities.  Though it was clear
negligence on his part, no proof was shown to necessarily link this gun with
the shooting incident.
Collegio San Jose-Recoletos cannot directly be held liable under the
provision because only the teacher of the head of school of arts and trade is
made responsible for the damage caused by the student.  Hence, under the
facts disclosed, none of the respondents were held liable for the injury
inflicted with Alfredo resulting to his death.
Petition was denied.
Philippine school v CA
Facts:
Private respondents sought to adjudge petitioner PSBA and its officers
liable for the death of Carlitos Bautista, a third year commerce student who
was stabbed while on the premises of PSBA by elements from outside the
school. Private respondents are suing under the law on quasi-delicts alleging
the school and its officers’ negligence, recklessness and lack of safety
precautions before, during, and after the attack on the victim. Petitioners
moved to dismiss the suit but were denied by the trial court. CA affirmed.
Issue:
Whether or not PSBA may be held liable under quasi-delicts.
Ruling: NO.
Because the circumstances of the present case evince a contractual relation
between the PSBA and Carlitos Bautista, the rules on quasi-delict do not
really govern. A perusal of Article 2176 shows that obligations arising from
quasi-delicts or tort, also known as extra-contractual obligations, arise only
between parties not otherwise bound by contract, whether express or
implied.
When an academic institution accepts students for enrollment, there is
established a contract between them, resulting in bilateral obligations
which both parties are bound to comply with. For its part, the school
undertakes to provide the student with an education that would presumably
suffice to equip him with the necessary tools and skills to pursue higher
education or a profession. On the other hand, the student covenants to abide
by the school’s academic requirements and observe its rules and
regulations. Necessarily, the school must ensure that adequate steps are
taken to maintain peace and order within the campus premises and to
prevent the breakdown thereof.
In the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, however, there is, as yet,
no finding that the contract between the school and Bautista had been
breached thru the former’s negligence in providing proper security
measures. This would be for the trial court to determine. And, even if there
be a finding of negligence, the same could give rise generally to a breach of
contractual obligation only.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chaves v Gonzales
Contravention of tenor , Art 110
Facts:
Cheves delivered to Gonzales, a typewriter repairer, a portable typewriter
for cleaning and servicing. Gonzales did not finish the job even after
repeated reminders. When it was returned to him, it was in
shambles.Chaves sent letter to Gonzales demanding the missing parts .
Chaves sent typewriter to friexas to repair it for 90 pesos. Chaves filed a
case against Gonzales demanding the 90 php. Gonzales said that the invoice
should not be fully paid by him since the missing parts only cost 40 php.
Chaves said Gonzales should pay everything pursuant to art 1167
Issue:
W/N Gonzales should pay the whole 90 php
Rule:
Article 1167. If a person obliged to do something fails to do it, the same
shall be executed at his cost.
This same rule shall be observed if he does it in contravention of the tenor
of the obligation. Furthermore, it may be decreed that what has been poorly
done be undone. (1098)
Delay
Pantaleon v Amex
Pantaleon bought several jewelries for 15k USD, it took several hours
before the purchase was approved. In the first case, the SC ruled that the
amex was in delay for not approving it immediately, hence the motion for
reconsideration
Issue:
W/N Amex is guilty of delay
Ruling:
No, Simply put, every credit card transaction involves three contracts,
namely: (a) the sales contract between the credit card holder and the
merchant or the business establishment which accepted the credit card; (b)
the loan agreement between the credit card issuer and the credit card holder;
and lastly, (c) the promise to pay between the credit card issuer and the
merchant or business establishment.
As previously established, the use of a credit card to pay for a
purchase is only an offer to the credit card company to enter a loan
agreement with the credit card holder. Before the credit card issuer
accepts this offer, no obligation relating to the loan agreement
exists between them. On the other hand, a demand is defined as the
"assertion of a legal right; xxx an asking with authority, claiming or
challenging as due."27 A demand presupposes the existence of an
obligation between the parties.
Thus, every time that Pantaleon used his AMEX credit card to pay for
his purchases, what the stores transmitted to AMEX were his offers to
execute loan contracts. These obviously could not be classified as the
demand required by law to make the debtor in default, given that no
obligation could arise on the part of AMEX until after AMEX
transmitted its acceptance of Pantaleon’s offers. Pantaleon’s act of
"insisting on and waiting for the charge purchases to be approved by
AMEX"28 is not the demand contemplated by Article 1169 of the Civil
Code.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delay
Solar harvest v Davao corrugated
Facts: \
Solar harvest had unwritten contract with davao corrugated for purchase of
carton boxes. Solar deposited 40k Usd to respondents Westmont bank
account but they did not receive any boxes. Davao said boxes were ready
and that solar did not pick them up, they demanded a storage fee. Solar filed
damages v Davao.
Issue:
W/N there was delay on the part of davao
Ruling:
No, there was lack of demand by petitioner upon the respondent. A demand
is required not a follow up. Article 1169. Those obliged to deliver or to do
something incur in delay from the time the obligee judicially or
extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of their obligation. x x x.
The three requisites for a finding of default are: (a) that the obligation is
demandable and liquidated; (b) the debtor delays performance; and (c) the
creditor judicially or extrajudicially requires the debtor’s performance.26
Fraud= Dolo incidente , dolo causante
Tankeh v DBP
Facts: Ruperto Tankeh, is president of sterling shipping lines engaged in
foreign trade, he applied for a loan from DBP for a shipping vessel.
Alejandro tankeh was lured into signing the promissory note with the
condition that he would be a director. Alejandro filed a case v DBP and
Ruperto praying he be absolved from the promissory note. He claims that
there was fraud since he never invested money and he was never made a
board member.
Issue:
W/N there was fraud
Rule:
No, There are two types of fraud:
(1) dolo incidente 0 incidental fraud,- fraud in the performance of the
contract, not serious enough, the party would still agree to the contract , its
effects are damages.
(2) dolo causante- fraud serious enough to render contract voidable, use
insidious words and machinations, fraud without which the other party
would not have entered into the contract, its effects are nullity of the
contract and damages
In this case, The civil code provides that the usual exaggerations in trade
when the other party had a opportunity to know the facts do not constitute
fraud. He could have known more give his experience as a doctor and
businessman.
 Negligence, Culpa aquilana, Culpa criminal, Culpa contractual
Francisco v CBCI
Facts:
Francisco was a owner of a Caltex station. 4 alleged employees of CBCI
offered to sell diesel fuel. He agreed provided there was a invoice from
petron. CBCI filed a case v Fransisco since the petron gas sold to them by
petron went to Francisco. Francisco claimed he was blind and asked his son
to verify the employees. The receipt was only in a bond paper without any
letterhead.
Issue:
W/N Francisco is liable
Ruling
Yes, standard of conduct for a blind person becomes that of a reasonable
person who is blind, he failed since he only relied on identification card and
no background checkes, he did not verify with CBCI on the authority of the
alleged employees, and the receipt was only in bond paper.
Negligence, Culpa aquilana, Culpa criminal, Culpa contractual
Sarmiento v SPS cAbrido
Facts:
Sarmiento was requested by a friend to find someone who can reset a
diamond earring to a gold ring. It was sent to Dingdingg jewelry b SPS
cabrido who accepted the job for 400 php. While resetting the jewelry,
Santos the worker only used pliers for the job and therefore the diamond
was broken. Sarmiento filed a case. Santos claimed not to be an employee
of SPS CABRIDO
Issue:
W/N santos was negligent
Ruling:
Yes, Santos was negligent in dismounting the diamond by using only pliers
since there is a special instrument needed to remove the diamond. The shop
failed to perform its obligation with ordinary diligence. Proponderance of
evidence shows that they are employed by Sps. Cabrido
 Negligence, Culpa aquilana, Culpa criminal, Culpa contractual
Crisostomo v CA , Caravan Travels
Facts:
Crisostomo contracted services of caravan traven tours for 74k. the ticketing
manager told crisostomo to be at NAIA at Saturday. Without checking
ticketshe went to naia on sat but her flight was a day before. She filed a case
of breach of contract since it was the fault of the manager that she missed
her flight.
Issue:
W/N Caravan travels is liable
Ruling:
Contention of petitioner has no merit. A contract of carriage or
transportation is one whereby a certain person or association of persons
obligate themselves to transport persons, things, or news from one place to
another for a fixed price. Such person or association of persons are regarded
as carriers and are classified as private or special carriers and common or
public carriers. Respondent is not an entity engaged in the business of
transporting either passengers or goods and is therefore, neither a private
nor a common carrier. Respondent did not undertake to transport petitioner
from one place to another since its covenant with its customers is simply to
make travel arrangements in their behalf. Respondent’s services as a travel
agency include procuring tickets and facilitating travel permits or visas as
well as booking customers for tours.
. It is in this sense that the contract between the parties in this case was an
ordinary one for services and not one of carriage. Since the contract
between the parties is an ordinary one for services, the standard of care
required of respondent is that of a good father of a family under Article
1173 of the Civil Code. The evidence on record shows that respondent
exercised due diligence in performing its obligations under the contract
Negligence, Culpa aquilana, Culpa criminal, Culpa contractual
Metromanila transit v CA, CUSTODIO
Facts: Custodio boarded a jeep driven by cabelag owned by lamayo going
to work as a machine operator. It collided with a bus and she suffered
injuries and was brought to the hospital and confined for 3 months. When
petitioners where unable to pay medical expenses , she filed a case for
damages. At the pre-trial, the bus and jeep blamed each other. The trial
coured ruled concurrent negligence of drivers but absolved Metromanila
transit showed diligence in selection and supervision. . CA reversed since it
did not show the result of these seminars, trainings, etc
Issue:
W/N Metromanila Transit may claim diligence in selection and supervision
without showing concrete evidence
Ruling:
No, preponderance of evidence is needed that there was diligence in
selection and supervisions, such as the certificates of trainings , etc.They
did not show proof of such. The presumption of negligence was not
overturned.
 Negligence, Culpa aquilana, Culpa criminal, Culpa contractual
Perena v Zarate
Facts:
Perenas were engaged in transporting students to school and back. Zarate
contacted Perenas to transport their son. As the van was running late, it
went on a shortcut. It was hit by the PNR. The son died and the Perenas
filed a case v the drivers, Perenas, and PNR.
Issue:
W/N The perenas were public or private carriers
Ruling:
A carrier is a person who undertakes transport of people or goods to a place
for a price.
Private carrier – Requires ordinary diligence, they are not ready to act for
all who may desire its service, select few only
Public Carrier- Extraordinary diligence, for the public
The perenas are a public carrier since even if their clientel is limited. They
held themselves out to the public as their occupation
Negligence, Culpa aquilana, Culpa criminal, Culpa contractual
Gregorio Reyes v Ca
Facts:
The Philippine Racing club sent 4 delegates to the asian racing conference.
They requested from the far east bank for a forex demand draft in
Austrailian dollars. FEB, rejected since they have no dollar account, but
suggested that they would ask westpak bank to for a way. Upon
presentment of the draft it was dishonored. Petitioners claim they
experienced shame and damage when the draft was not accepted in
Australia. They paid in cash instead. Upon returning home, they filed a
case.
Issue:
W/N extraordinary diligence was required in this case
Ruling:
NO, banks are only required to exhibit extraordinary diligence when there is
a depositor-bank relationship, or a fiduciary relationship. There was no
fiduciary relationship in this case since it was only a request for a draft.
 Negligence, Culpa aquilana, Culpa criminal, Culpa contractual
Radio communications v Verchez
Respondent Grace Verchez-Infante (Grace) hired the services of Radio
Communications of the Philippines, Inc. (RCPI) to send a telegram to her
sister respondent Zenaida Verchez-Catibog (Zenaida), asking her to send
money for their mother Editha Verchez (Editha) who at that time was
confined in a hospital in Sorsogon. But it took 25 days before such message
was conveyed to Zenaida.
When Editha died, her husband, respondent Alfonso Verchez (Alfonso),
along with his daughters Grace and Zenaida and their respective spouses,
filed an action for damages against RCPI before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Sorsogon. They alleged that the delay in the delivery of the
message contributed to the early death of Editha. RCPI argues that there is
no privity of contract between other respondents except with Grace, also
the delay in the delivery is caused by force majeure, maintaining further that
they exercised due diligence in choosing their employees; hence they must
be released from any liability. The RTC rendered judgement against RCPI.
RCPI appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the decision
of the RTC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the award of moral damages is proper despite the fact that
there was no direct connection between the injury and the alleged negligent
acts
HELD:
RCPI‘s stand fails. It bears noting that its liability is anchored on culpa
contractual or breach of contract with regard to Grace, and on tort with
regard to her co-plaintiffs-herein-co-respondents. Article 1170 of the Civil
Code provides that those who in the performance of their obligations are
guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner
contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.
In the case at bar, RCPI bound itself to deliver the telegram within the
shortest possible time. It took 25 days, however, for RCPI to deliver it.
RCPI invokes force majeure, specifically, the alleged radio noise and
interferences which adversely affected the transmission and/or reception of
the telegraphic message. Additionally, its messenger claimed he could
not locate the address of Zenaida and it was only on the third attempt that he
was able to deliver the telegram.
For the defense of force majeure to prosper, it is necessary that one has
committed no negligence or misconduct that may have occasioned the loss.
An act of God cannot be invoked to protect a person who has failed to take
steps to forestall the possible adverse consequences of such a loss. One‘s
negligence may have concurred with an act of God in producing damage
and injury to another; nonetheless, showing that the immediate or proximate
cause of the damage or injury was a fortuitous event would not exempt one
from liability. When the effect is found to be partly the result of a person‘s
participation – whether by active intervention, neglect or failure to act – the
whole occurrence is humanized and removed from the rules applicable to
acts of God.
Assuming arguendo that fortuitous circumstances prevented RCPI from
delivering the telegram at the soonest possible time, it should have at least
informed Grace of the non-transmission and the non-delivery s that she
could have taken steps to remedy the situation. But it did not. There lies the
fault or negligence.
And for quasi-delict, RCPI is liable to Grace‘s co-respondents following
Article 2176 of the Civil Code which provides that whoever by act or
omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no
pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict
and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
RCPI‘s liability as an employer could of course be avoided if it could prove
that it observed the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage
provided in Article 2180 of the Civil Code. RCPI failed, however, to prove
that it observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
damage.
Usurious trasactions
De la paz v l and J Development
Facts:
De la paz lent 350 k without a written contract to l and j company without a
maturity date, 6% monthly interest, the debt totaled 500k . L and J failed to
pay despite demands and de la paz filed a case for collection of sum of
money
Issue:
W/N The interest is valid
Ruling”
No, There can be no interest if it is not reduced into writing, The SC has
ruled in cases that a interest rate of more that 3% monthly is against public
policy
See NACAR AND LARAS GIST CASE
Remedies of creditors
Khe hong checg v Ca
Facts:
Cheng is the owner of a shipping line, the Philippine agricultural trading
corp shipped bags of copra on a ship owned by cheng. The shipment was
covered by insurance by American home. The ship sank and American
home paid 350k to consignee. American home filed a case to recover
money paid to consignee for breach of contract of carriage. When the case
was pending, Cheng donated land in favor of his children. A writ of
execution was filed but there was no more properties to levy. They filed for
the accion pauliana of the donation but cheng claims it has prescribed since
it has already been 4 years
Issue:
W/N accion pauliana is possible
Ruling:
Yes, A accion pauliana must be the last resort. It accrues only when it is
discovered that he has no other remedy The requisites of a accion pauliana
are:
1. HAS CREDIT PRIOR TO ALIENATION
2. DEBTOR MADE A SUBSEQUENT CONTRACT CONVEYING
benefit to 3rd party
3. Creditor has no other legal remedy
4. the act impugned is fraudulent
5. 3rd person who received property was a accomplice
 Remedies of creditors

Siguan v Lim

Facts:

Lim issued two checks, upon presentment by siguan, they were dishonored.
Siguan filed a case for BP 22 vs Lim. Prior to this lim executed a deed of
donation for a parcel of land to her children. Siguan filed accion pauliana v
lim to rescind the donation.

Issue:

W/N the accion pauliana was proper

Ruling:

No, a accion pauliana is a last resort, first there must be levying, accion
subrogatoria, the pauliana. The donation happened prior to the existence of
the debt. It fail the first requisite of accion pauliana that there there must be
credit existing prior to the celebration of the contract.