Mangao, Mayola, Metrillo

CASE NUMBER 1: Strict Liability, Emergency Rule, Alternative Course Of

Action, Social Value Doctrine, Child as injured party and Negligence per se

Alfonso Agot v. Bernard Batoy

FACTS:

Mr. Alfonso Agot is an employee of Manila Electric And Disconnection Services.

Mr. Alfonso Agot, a single and doting father to his 4 year old daughter brought his
daughter to work on January 1, 2021. On that day, he and his daughter entered
the premises of Mr. Bernard Batoy when he was trying to get a reading of the
electricity bills of the house. The house of Mr. Bernard Batoy has no concrete
fences. Shortly after he entered the premises, he heard a loud bark that startled
him. He was so fear-stricken that he jumped and lost grip over his daughter who
mocked the barking dog. Prompted by fear, he ran near a tree not knowing that
there was another massive dog near such tree. There he was bitten in the leg by
a big Rottweiler dog. Due to the adrenaline rush, he was able to kick the dog away.
However, the dog then proceeded to bite the neck of his daughter. It turns out that
the big dog was owned by Mr. Bernard Batoy and that the dog was temporarily
outside its enclosure. Mr. Alfonso Agot sustained massive injuries in his leg and
due to the immense blood loss was hospitalized for three weeks. His 4 year old
daughter was not so lucky, as she died within hours after sustaining massive
injuries in the neck. Mr. Alfonso Agot now sues Mr. Bernard Batoy for the injuries
he had sustained due to the dog bite and for the tragic death of her beloved
daughter. Mr. Alfonso Agot argues that under the Strict Liability rule, Mr. B should
be held liable as the owner of the dog, irrespective of whether there was negligence
or not on his part. Furthermore, Mr. Alfonso Agot also argues that the social value
doctrine works in his favor because he was conducting a reading of electricity and
that public utility services are of great social value to the society. Mr. Bernard
Batoy, on the other hand, argues that Mr. Alfonso Agot should not have entered
the premises without first informing the household personnel. Furthermore, Mr.
Bernard Batoy argues that there was a sufficient warning of the presence of a dog
given that there was a dog picture in the gate. That under the alternative course of
action rule, if only Mr. Alfonso Agot waited for the housemaid to see him first before
entering, he would not have been bitten by the dog. Also, Mr. Alfonso Agot should
not have run to the tree where the dog was. Mr. Alfonso Agot, on the other hand,
argued that he only ran to the tree because he was thinking of climbing it due to
his fear of the dog. The court held Mr. Bernard Batoy liable for the damages
suffered by Mr. Alfonso Agot and the death of her daughter. Now, the case is
elevated on appeal.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Mr. Bernard Batoy is liable under the Strict Liability
Rule?
2. Whether or not the alternative course of action applies against Mr.
Alfonso Agot?
3. Whether or not Mr. Batoy’s liability is mitigated by the fact that Mr.
Agot’s 4 year old daughter aggravated or triggered the dog?
4. Whether or not Mr. Agot’s action of inadvertently running to the dog
affects his cause of action.

RULING:
1. Yes, Mr. Bernard Batoy is liable under the strict liability rule as provided by
the New Civil Code and prevailing jurisprudence. The law provides that
when an animal bites or injures other persons, the possessor of such animal
will be liable. The only instance when such possessor of animal becomes
no longer liable is in circumstances of force majeure or when the injury is
solely on the fault of the person suffering from injury. In the present case,
Mr. Batoy as a responsible dog owner of a breed known to be very territorial
and aggressive should have taken necessary steps to avoid incidents
wherein mailmen and meter readers get bitten in the line of their duties. The
dog was not even tied in the tree, it was free from any leash or enclosure.
Under the strict liability rule, Mr. Batoy shall be held liable for the injuries of
Mr. Alfonso Agot and for the death of Mr. Agot’s daughter.

2. No, the alternative course of action principle will not lie in favor of Mr.
Bernard Batoy. The argument that Mr. Alfonso Agot should have not entered the
premises is not tenable because the premises of Mr. Batoy was not even fenced.
In short, the alternative of standing around and waiting for a resident to appear is
equally, if not even more, dangerous than finishing his task immediately of getting
a quick reading of the meter.

3. No, the fact that Mr. Agot’s daughter triggered or aggravated the dog is
immaterial due to the application of the strict liability rule. Furthermore, the child
was merely 4 years old. She cannot be held liable for her actions since she is a
child, an injured party who happens to be a child. Jurisprudence provides that the
standard of diligence afforded to adults cannot be expected from a 4 year old child
who did not even realize she was in mortal danger. Neither is Mr. Alfonso Agot as
a parent to be held liable for the death of his child because even he sustained
injuries from the dog attack and was barely able to survive.
4. No, the act of Mr. Agot running to the dog is one that is done in an
emergency. Under the emergency rule or sudden peril doctrine, a person is not to
be held negligent for actions done in situations of peril or danger. Here, even
though the act of running away blindly into the dog could be considered negligent
in normal circumstances, the same cannot be said in the present circumstances.
Mr. Agot ran to the tree because he thought that was the best way to save himself
and his daughter from a dog he cannot see.

To conclude, in instances of injuries caused by dog bites or other animals,

no other circumstances aside from force majeure and sole negligence of the
plaintiff absolves the possessor of such animal from the strict liability
imposed by law under the New Civil Code.
CASE NUMBER 2: Attractive Nuisance, Contributory Negligence, State of
Necessity Rule.

Spouses Urquia vs Chris Tope Cruz

January 14, 2017

FACTS:

On the day of December of 2015, Spouses Urquia was having a Christmas party
out on their lawn. It was an intimate party inviting only a few friends with their own
families. To count, there were 3 families joining that barbeque party. There was a
place in their house, like a little garden, where all their children can play. In total,
there were 5 children, 2 of which are the children of spouses Urquia with the age
4 and 3 years old.

At around 8 pm after the families had dinner, they placed again their children on
that little garden to play. At around 10:30 pm, after 6 bottles of wines, Brent Urquia
noticed that their 4 year old son was missing from the little garden which they were
supposed to and apparently the door wasn’t fully closed when he went in so their
4-year-old son had gone out. 1 house after the house of the spouses Urquia was
the house of Chris Tope Cruz, where there were party lights. The morning before,
Chris Tope Cruz had a heartbreak and got drunk on his premises during the night
time. The 4 year old son went inside the house of Mr. Cruz, and pushed the gate
back, unknowingly, where it was then locked. There was a trampoline, the son
used the trampoline. However, disaster struck and the 4 year old tripped out of the
trampoline and fell, causing the child to have a broken shoulder and hip from the
fall.

Realizing that he lost his child, the father, Brent Urquia went out to find his child
where he saw the party lights coming from the house of Mr. Cruz. He went there
and then he heard a child crying. He was peeking on the gate but all he can see
was Mr. Cruz drunk and asleep. After several tries, he saw his child crying from
pain, he then called his wife to prepare the car. Because of panic, intoxication and
the fear that he might lose his child, he kicked and violently rampaged the gate to
get his child, causing huge damage in the house of Mr.Cruz, and brought his child
to the hospital.

Spouses Urquia then filed this case for negligence against Mr. Cruz for maintaining
an attractive nuisance on his premises.

Mr. Cruz then denying any fault, he then also alleged that the fault falls with the
spouses Urquia for leaving their child unattended and also for trespassing and for
breaking his whole gate when he could only have kicked and destroyed the smaller
gate or even climbed the gate instead, the damage to his property would not
amount to 30, 000 pesos.

Issues;

1.Whether or not Mr. Cruz could be held liable for maintaining an attractive
nuisance on his premises

2. Whether or not the State of Necessity would apply in the case of the Spouses
Urquia for trespassing and breaking the gate.

Ruling:

1. The court held that Mr. Cruz could be held liable for maintaining an attractive
nuisance on his premises.

Under the rule on attractive nuisance, an owner is liable if he maintains in his

premises dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of character likely to lure
children in play and he fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent children of tender
age from playing therewith. Having the party lights and leaving his small gate open
while being drunk makes him liable for not exercising ordinary diligence required.
Any person could have entered on his premises and God-knows-what could have
happened either to him or with his property.

However, based on the facts there is also Contributory negligence on the part of
the spouses Urquia for not making sure that their child could not go out and they
were just having fun drinking and talking. 2 hrs and 30 minutes of leaving your child
unattended and being in the influence of alcohol could make the parents negligent
on their part.

2. On the issue of whether or not the state of necessity would apply, the court held
on the affirmative. There can be no trespassing on the part of Mr.Urquia for he was
just trying to save his son. Breaking the gate to save his child with the chance that
he might lose his child is a proper defense that the court would acknowledge.
However, Brent Urquias intoxication with alcohol and deciding to break the whole
gate directly without thinking of any other possible and efficient way to get in also
makes him accountable for the damage he made.

Wherefore, considering the facts, Mr. Chris Tope Cruz is guilty of maintaining
attractive nuisance for failing to exercise ordinary diligence required. However,
mitigated because of the contributory negligence on the part of the Spouses
Urquia.
CASE NUMBER 3:

1.) Medical Malpractice: Captain of the Ship

2. Liability of Schools and Teachers
3. Liability for Negligence of Selected Business Organizations: Common
Carriers
4. Defenses: Assumption of Risk, Contributory Negligence
5. Effect of Prescription: Relation Back Doctrine

FACTS:
In 2015, a group of 15 grade 5 students and Mr. Newton, from A Academy, accompanied
by their science teacher Mr. Newton, were brought to a marine wildlife resort located
70km form their school campus. This was part of their field trip for their science subject.
For their transportation to the wildlife resort, A Academy tapped the services of Formula
One Transport Services. Formula One provided a jeepney with a driver. On the same day
of the field trip, the school made all the students sign a waiver that in case any untoward
accident will happen in relation to the trip, the students have no cause of action against
the school because they understand the risks of the trip and they voluntarily assume such
risk. While on their way to the resort, the jeepney, while travelling at a speed of 90kph
going through a sharp curve, suddenly tipped over causing injuries to the students and
their science teacher. Mr. Newton, who was hanging by the rear end of the jeepney before
the accident suffered far more serious injuries. He was tossed away from the jeepney and
hit his head on a big rock. The students and Mr. Newton were immediately rushed to the
emergency room of St. John’s Hospital. Upon arrival at the emergency room, there were
2 resident physicians, 5 nurses, and 2 attending physicians who were also general
surgeons. Bimby, one of the children, had to be operated immediately because a metal
object pierced through his left leg. Inside the operating room were 2 nurses, one the 2
resident doctors, and the general surgeon. While doing the operation, the general
surgeon asked the resident doctor to make the incision on the leg, by mistake, the resident
doctor severed the femoral artery of Bimby which caused rapid blood loss and the death
of Bimby.

The parents of Bimby filed a case against A Academy, Formula One Transport Services
and the head surgeon for medical malpractice.

After a few 5 years, Mr. Newton filed for damages against Formula One after having
discovered that he has a blood clot in his brain which was not discovered at the time of
the accident.

A Academy argued that it cannot be held liable because it was the science teacher who
was in direct supervision and care of the students during their field trip and the waiver
signed by the students constituted an assumption of risk which relieves them of any
liability.
Formula One argued that it cannot be sued by the parents of Bimby because it had no
contractual relationship with them for the transport of their child, Bimby. The contract of
carriage was between the A Academy and Formula one. And according to them, a
contractual relation must exist between the plaintiff and the defendant in cases of
common carriers because online then do common carriers have the duty of extra ordinary
diligence.

Formula One also argued the act of Mr. Newton of hanging by the rear end of the jeepney
was contributory negligence on his part and that such act was the cause of the injury
suffered by Mr. Newton. It also argued that the cause of action of Mr. Newton has
prescribed already because the prescriptive period of actions based on quasi-delict is
only four years.

The general surgeon argued that he cannot be made liable for the acts of his subordinates
in the hospital during the conduct of an operation

ISSUES:

1) w/n A Academy is liable for the injuries suffered by the students

2) w/n the waiver signed the students was a waiver which constitutes and assumption of
risk on the part of the students
3)w/n Formula One cannot be liable to the parents of Bimby having no contractual relation
with the children
4) w/n the act of Mr. Newton of hanging by the rear end of the jeepney relives Formula
One of any liability
5) w/n the cause of action of Mr. Newton has already prescribed
6) w/n the doctor is liable for medical malpractice

RULING:

1. Whether or not the school was negligent in hiring the negligent science teacher, the
school is still liable as an entity under the Doctrine of Corporate Responsibility. The school
cannot conveniently pass on the liability to its teacher because it will always be
responsible as an entity without prejudice to the liability of the teacher.

A school also has a special parental authority over its students and for which it has the
duty to ensure the safety of its students.

Also, it cannot evade liability by arguing that it was the teacher who was negligent.
Between the school and the student, there is a contract and by virtue of such contract,
the school has the duty to provide an environment which is safe and secure for its
students.

2. The waiver of the students was not a valid waiver that constitutes an assumption of risk
on their part. For there to be an assumption of risk, the injured party must have been able
to understand and nature of the danger or risk involved in the activity. In this case, a minor
like a grade 5 student could not have been able to appreciate or understand such danger
or risk. At their young age, their experience and understanding of things are not sufficient
for them to understand risks or dangers in certain activities. The waiver is void and even
against public police.

3. Whether or not a contract exists between a common carrier and a passenger is

immaterial in determining the liability of the common carrier based on quasi-delict in case
the passenger suffers an injury caused by the negligence of the common carrier. A cause
of action based on quasi-delict does not depend on the existence of a contract between
the common carrier and the injured passenger.

4. The act of Mr. Newton was contributory negligence for the injuries suffered. He ought
to have protected himself to the obvious danger of hanging by the rear end. However, this
does not relieve Formula One of their liability towards him because contributory
negligence only mitigates liability and does not extinguish it.

5. The cause of action of Mr. Newton has not prescribed. The Doctrine of Relations
provide that when the discovery of the injury by the injury party is beyond the prescriptive
period, this does not bar him from recovery against the defendant. The discovery of the
injury relates back to the occurrence of the accident which caused it.

6. Yes, the doctor is liable of medical malpractice. Under the Captain of the Ship Doctrine,
a surgeon in charge of the operations of his subordinates in a specific activity under his
direction is liable for a negligence committed by such subordinates. As the captain of the
ship, the negligence of the people under him are automatically attributed to him because
such subordinates acts under his control and supervision.