TORTS SCAM

DELA LLANA VS REBECCA

- Dr. lalana brother was driving a Toyota corolla in QC then stopped near veterans memorial hospital and was
eventually bumped by a dump truck that was driven by Primero The dump truck was owned by Biong as part of her
pngkay trading business and the glass that shattered in the car went all over llana and suffered minor wounds Days
later she felt weak. And lost all motion in her left arm she consulted with a doctor and that she suffered from
whiplash injury and requested her to go thru therapy She went thru an operation and it has incapacitated her from
her profession so she seud Biong for the damages in RTC. Rebecca contends that no reasonabke connection w/injury
and accident
- SHE ALSO ASSERTS DDSS and that she made Primero get many clearance and also passing a drivers exam.

- RTC: IN FAVOR OF LLANA prox cause was thr accident

- CA: REVERSED no reasonle connection w/ the injury and the accident

HELD

- The driving was not the proximate cause of the injury of lalana.
- She must first prove the 3 elmtns of QD which is 1. Damagge 2. Neglingence 3. Connection of cause and effect
between then negligence and the damages
- It is only after laying the foundation of the QD can the assumption arise of lack of DDSS on the part of Rebecca.
- Burden of proof to show the causal connection is with the doctor llana and that the the accident is the natural cont
seq unbroken by any Ef inter cause produced the whiplash injury.
- The presentation of the picture, med cert and the her own testimony did not enough she did not adduce the factum
probans to prove the factum probanum.
- The medical certificate only Dr Mila had the pers knowledge about it and the med ceert does not chronicle how the
accident was the proximate cause of the injury only the med history lang
- Her owne personal opinon is of no probative value she was the only dr withness in the whole case and that she was
only an ordinary wit but court cannot give the testimony weight b/c vio of evid rules.
- An ordinary wit testifies as to the person, mental sanity , handwriting or emotion and disposition, while a exp wit
gives an opinon about technical mumbo jumbo
- The pet did not present any shred of testimonial or documentary evid that shows the causal connection.
SAFEGUARD SECURITY

- Evangeline went ot the ecology bank in katip to renew her time deopisits, at the time she wa arrying a gun, and this
gun was in her bag and she also had a permit to carry. Security gurad parajillo was stationed outside the bank. Evang
pulled out her gun and wanted to be kept for safekeeping then bigla shinotgun siya by parajillo. Husband filed crim
case and a civil case
- Deef of Safegurad is DDSS and that the guard ONLY shot her in self defense
- RTC: guilty the plaintiffs and the agency + parajilllo is ordered to pay
o Rejected the defense of self- defense theory that she was scouting the area should have acted w/prudence
on his part
o Employer is joint and severally liable b/c of the lack of DDSS they only showed that he attended training and
seminar but no published RULES and reg
- CA ALSO LAIB BUT SUBS LANG KAY SAFEGUARD BASED ON ART 103 rpc

W/N negligent and safeguard solidary liab?

- The liab of safeguard is not subsidiary but it is solidary b/c family reserved their right to do a separate civil action
- An act or ommison may give rise to civil liab ex delicto and also independent civil liab like intentional torts and QD
- QD not just covers negligence but also for intentional acts seen in Elcano vs Hill QD also cover not only acts not
punishable by law but also acts that are crim in charac which would mean there is a civil action lies against a person
in acrim act SUBJECT to NO double recov
- The action filed currently is not based on the civil liab in the crim act based on art 100 but it is based on the QD
cause of action which is separate and distict
- In cases og negligence the injured party or his heirs has the choice net to enforce civil liab thru art 100 or 2176-2194,
the fact that the appellants reserved their rights in the crim case to file independent civ case did not preclude
from choosing action based on QD
- The facts allged in the complaintshows that the case was clearly for QD not for the civil damage that arose from
delict
- And hence 2180 there is an assumption that the employer is neg in DDSS or in his supervision over him
- The guard said that he was 1 meter away when evanj pointed the gun, and that he stepped back and loaded his shit
but duh dami na movements di yan kaya, and he saw her roam but he never reported the supposed sus activity
- Evid must be in con=sooance with common human experience under the circum
- Evanj just wanted to deposit the gun but it is true that pulling out a gu can be deemed as a thetening act,, the act of
self defense is unfounded b/c there was no unlawful aggression and it was all in his head really had no basis
- Safe guard tried to claim contrib neg on Evangeline ffor trying to pull the gun and point the nozzle
- Due dilkigence insupervision incldes formulation of rules and guidelines and issuance of proper instructions for the
protection of persons and impostion of proper diciplinary actions if there is breach
- In the cross exam of their director of ops they established that there were proper guidelines that were issued like
marksmanship plan and weapons training BUT parajillo was not aware of this LOL
- Records also failed to show that after his Toyota training that he received new training for banks which are a
sensitive area and very diff from factories his act speaks for it self that he did not know what to do NO RECORD of
the supposed daily inspections.
REYES VS DOCTOLERO

- Reyes recounbts the facts that, when he was in MCS he was approaching the entrqance of basemwnt parking of
MCS and from there the traffic was being directed by doctolero and told reyesy to STOP and GO multiople times and
it almost cause an accident with an opposite car, he got mad at doctolero, then the guard said fuck u, then he went
down from his car and saw doctolero pull put gun, then tried to tackle him pero he pulled the trigger and he got his
in the left leg and then his friend Mervin tried to rescue him but was shot at but missed then he could not control his
speed and then entered MCS where he was shot In the stomach by AVILA. Failed a case against the guards and the
agency Grandeur and also IMPLEADED MCS
- RTC: FOUND DOCTOLERO AND AVILA GUILTY AND ALSO SOLIDARY LIAB W/GRANDEUR BUT MR RELEIVED GRAND
- CA: AFFIRM THR MR

W/N grandeur is vicariously liab? NO

- Pet isnsits that MCS is laib b/c the event happened in their premises and also they were the ones who hired the
grandeur and thus laible for their acts and as joint torfeasors BUT MCS NOT LIAB
- There is vicarious liab for the acts of the employee. The amployer may be held liable for the tort committed by his
employees by way of 218- on the basis for failure to exer due care and vigilance on the acts of subordinates BUT
only applicable when there is an EER and if the act committed was done within scope of his assigned tasks only then
can employer be held liab. MCS and guards have no EER.
- But 2180 may be used against Grandeur as the guards were its employees and there is a juris tantum presumption
that the employer is negligent to rebut there must be showing that there is DDSS.
- Supervision talks about the formulation of rules. Reg, guidance of employees and the issuance of special instructions
intended for protection of public and persons to whom he has a relationship and the imposition of diciplinary
measures in cases of breach. And also actual implementation and monitoringof consistent compliance with the said
rules.
- Testimonial evid juris has said with out more is not suff to prove the DDSS as there are biases with testimonial evid
- As t3sitified by the HRD head Ungui that they GFOF in selection b/c they ask for multiple docs and NBi clearance
bragy clearance HS diploma or college court clearance and also clearance from prev employment
o There is alsp vigoruous training and pre tianing, drug test and neuro psychiratrc tests and a lot of interviews
o A lot oj OJT as well for 7 days
- They showed documentary evid that the people were able to comply with the said requirements
- For the question of supervision they all attend seminars and are also commended for good work and also showd
them various reprimands as well for violkation of company policies. Presnted oral and documentary evid to prove
this
Philippine RABBIT

- A TRUCK OWNED by Phil American was bring wrecklessly driven by pineda and hit the BUS owned by phil rabbit and
cause injuries to the Pangalan and to the bus and the bus was not able to operate so the owner and drive rof the
BUS sued Phil American but was dismissed and Balingit as the manager is not liable to Pineda as oineda was not his
employee

HELD

- The legal issue at hand is wheter terms employer and owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise
embrace a manager of a corporation owning a truck and the reckless operation of which resulted in the vehicular
accident
- We are of the opinon that those terms do not include manager of a corporation, term amanger is used in the sense
of employer
- Hence the action of 2180 cannot lie against the corp manager b/c he himself may be considered an employee of
Phil-american
- Pet argue that the business is a mere conduit of balingint warranting the perice of the corporate veil they allged this
new thing in the appellants breief not in their complaint
- Court cannot act on this argument b/c it was raised only for the first time on appeal to this coaurt and thus not in
the lower courts they can only ventilate in appeals which was already raised in alower court
JAYME VS APOSTOL

- Mayor Miguel of Korondral was being driven by a driver that was assigned to him by the municipality and this driver
is Lozano and was driving a izuzu pick up truck owned by apostol but was in the poss of Simbulan, the trip was
meant to bring the mayor to Buayan airport for a flight to MNL but on the way he hit Marvin a minor and the impact
sent him 50 meters awasy and eventually died of his injuries his parents filed for a case of damages and prayed that
all the repondents be held solidarily liable for the negligent driving of Lozano.
- Apostol and Simbulan claim that hetook the pick up w/o their consent and that it was the boys sudden dart that
caused tha aciident
- RTC: in favor of Jayme and ordered Lozano, apostol and mayor to be solidarily liab
- CA REVERSED and said that Mayor migeul was not the employer of Lozano because his true employer was the
municipality

w/n vicarious liab applies? NO

- 3 reqs for vicarious Liab

o Employee was chosen by the employer personally thru another
o Service to be rendered in accord with order which the employer has the authroty to give at all times
o Illicit act was done on occasion or by reason of the functions entrusted to him
- Next to make the employee liab it must be first shown that he comttted tort while in the performance of his
functions
- EER CANNOT BE ASSUMED, IT MUST BE PROVEN BY THE ONE ALLEGING IT. And if the defendant just denies it it
already may be enough b/c defendant is under no duty to prove a negative averment each party must prove his own
affirmative allegations.
- Appying the 4 fold test it is clear that Lozano is the employee of the municipality and it doesn’t matter that he was
assigned to Mayorb/c municipalty still haD FULL CONTROL over him even when he was assigned.
- The court said even assuming arguendo that mayor had the authority to give instructions not liab pa. The fact that
you may be able to give instructions does not make you their employer and thus liable for their wronf ul acts.
- Thus the driver neg shuld not imputed to a fellow employee who only happens to be the occupant of the vehicle.
- For negligence that the neg of subordinate employees cannot be imputed against the superior employee ir agent
but only o the master principal the only EXCEPMTION TO THIS is when they cooperate or direct or encourage it
- The fault of the passenger for failing to warn the driver is not his job and thus cannot be held liab to the neg acts of
the driver
- Drivers job cannot be delegated to many others.
- Since municipal corp can be sud but here they were exer their governmental capacity and hence cannot be sued
they are immune they can only be sued if acting in their proprietary capacity .
- Regiatered owner and direct employer are those that are liable.
FILAMER VS SUPLICO

IN
UNIVERSAL AQUARIUS VS QC HR

- Universal is engaged in the manufacture of chem products, Marman is engsaged in distritbution of chem products
and they were adjoining with each other Resurce supplied workers to Universal, cayocan claiming to be the
president of their union gave a letter of strike towards universal as head of the union. Reasurces said that Orbero
union is their employee and not the employees of Universal, so obero barricaded and obsturtucted entry and
intercepted delivery trucks which then disrupting ops and also Marmans biz, Universal and tan filed a complain5t
agains the strike also against reasources in RTC, then universal struck a deal with Obrero and filed a notice of
dismissal for the strikers, Resources also filrd a MTD
- RTC DENIED MTD
- CA REVERSED STATING THERE WA NO COA

W/N CA erred in dismissing he case?

- The essential elemnts of A coa is that there is 1 RIGHT 2OBLIGATION 3 BREACH GIVING RISE TO DAMAGES
- DOESN’T MATTER IF THE facts in the complaint are true for aMTD based on no COA the movant verily admits that
the facts are true but those allegations are insufficient fot he court to render valid judgement
- The complaint does not havbe to establish or allege facts proiving the exisitence of thr a COA at the outset but must
be done on trial, to sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action the claim must be defectively stated or is
ambugous.
- There is a claim for the part of Universal based on abreach of contract of employment by supplying ill adjested
people to them, but no COA with marman b/c for the employer to be vivariously liable, the employee must be acting
with in heir scpe of their employment and in this case they were not when they were doing the strike and thus there
is no imputable negligence on the side of resoruces
FILCAR

- AT AROUND 6;30 the espinas was dricving along leon Guinto street and then was going to the intersection of Guinto
and quiriono and when the light turned green he was able to turn and was hit at the intersection by a car and later
on the car was registered to FILCAR and it was assigned to Flor the corp secretary so he damended payment in the
MTC for 97k, filcar denied liab b/c the driver of the car was driven by floresca the driver of flor and then flor raised
the defense of DDSS
- METC: filcar, carmen flor solidary liab
- RTC AFFIRM
- Ca said carmen flor was not liab to espinas n her personal capacity. B.c the corp has a personality seprate and
distinct from that of carmen but affirmed the liab of filcar to pay under the registered owner rule they relied on the
case of erezo that regis owwners are the ones to be held liable and that is the reason behind the registration to
trace laib to 1 person EER is of no moment

W/N FIlcar is liabale? YES

- FILCAR is as regis owner deemed the employer if the driver floresca and thus vicar liab under 2176 in relation to
20180 of the NCC
- The underlying theory behind the iablity of the employer is that of GFOF for failure to exer due care in the vigilance
over the acts of a subordinate to prevent damage to another.
- In the case of motor vehicle mishaps it is the registered owner of the vehicle is considered as the employer of the
tortfeasor driver and this was also, in the case of equitable vs suyom it was theregitered owner of the vehcle that
was held laible for the negliegent acts of the driver. And the actual employer is merely and agent to the regis owner
- The reason for this rule is that to hold someone liable and can be fixed to a definite individual, the registered owner
numerous ehicles running on public highways cause accidnts w/o positive id of the prrson it is to be able to identify
for public convence to make someone laiable
- THE presence of EER is of no moment b/c the owner will be the one to be held Liable ofr the acts
- When pub pol is involved like in motor vehicle regis it afford rotection to people to seek redress for damages they
may sustain in accidents and to hold the regis owners as primarily and directly repsonsibe
- This is also used to prevent a situation where the registered owners try to avoid luab by blaming another who don’t
have the emans to pay the victims and thus causing injustice
- The agreement to assign a car does not bind espinas at all who has no knowledge of the agreement
- FILCAR alsocannot use the defences avaible in 2180 the motor vehicle regis law midofied 2180 and thus no defense
avalaiable to it
CASTILEX

- In 1988 in the early morning Romeo was driving a Honda Motor and then was navigating thr rotunda in a conter
clock way as supposed to be and he was carrying a students permit, then Abad the manager of castilex then was
driving a hilux owned by castilex and tried to counterflow and hit Vasquez, and Abad drove him to cebu doctors and
also signed the sheet saying that he is the party responsible and thus agred to pay for any bills, parents of Vasquez
sued for damages and cebu doctors intervened for the unpaid balance
- RTC; IN FAVOR OF PARENTS, ABAD AND CASTILEX ARE LIABLE SOLIDARILY
- SEPRATELY APPEALED THE DECISION
- CA AFFIRM BUT HELD THAT CATILEX IS ONLY VICARIOUS AND NOT SOLIDARY
o CASTILEX claim that the CA erred inapplying 5 th par and instead of the 4th and as the managerial employee
ABAD is always considred to be prforming within his assigned task b/c he was using the car assigned to him
and ruling that pretioner employee was not ascting within the scope
o VASQUEZ argue that the negligence of the employee was th cause of the dath od the petitioners employee
on hi way home from over time work and even arguing the 5 th or 4th paragraph it would not matter
o CEBU doctors also maintain the vicarious liab of castilex

W/N

- Neg of abad is not at issu with this case, castilex presumes that neg but claims that it is not vicariously laiab
- Pet contends that the fifth paragraph only applies when empoyer is not enaged in business or industry since it has a
biz of manufacturing and selling furniture 4 th paragrqaph should apply.
- Court held that the phrase not engaged in trade or industry should be interpreted to mean that it is not necessary
for the employer to be engaged in business or industry to be liable for neg of the employee who is acting within his
assigned scope
- BOTH apply to employers
o 4th pargarph is applied to Managers of an establishment or enterprise
 Cover negligent acts of employees committed in the sercive of branches or on the occasion of other
functions
th
o 5 is for empoyers in general w/n engagedin business or trade
 Encompasses negliegnet acts acting within the scorpe of their tasks, this is an expassion of the
former negligent acts of empkoyees w/n not engaged in business is included if acting within their
assigned task even though not in the service of branches nor on occasion of their functions