CASE DOCTRINES

TORTS AND DAMAGES | SUNDAY | 1:00PM-3:00PM

ATTY. NICO VALDERRAMA

NAME: SANTIAGO, SARA ANDREA NINA P.

STUDENT NUMBER: 2017-0064
CASE DOCTRINES
CASE # 28: TISON vs. SPS. POMASIN, et al.

QUESTION:
May the driving without a proper license be presumed as the negligent act of the driver and may be
held liable thereof?

ANSWER:
The rule on negligence per se must admit qualifications that may arise from the logical
consequences of the facts leading to the mishap. The doctrine (and Article 2185, for that matter) is
undeniably useful as a judicial guide in adjudging liability, for it seeks to impute culpability arising
from the failure of the actor to perform up to a standard established by a legal fiat. But the doctrine
should not be rendered inflexible so as to deny relief when in fact there is no causal relation
between the statutory violation and the injury sustained. Presumptions in law, while convenient,
are not intractable so as to forbid rebuttal rooted in fact. After all, tort law is remunerative in spirit,
aiming to provide compensation for the harm suffered by those whose interests have been invaded
owing to the conduct of other.

Driving without a proper license is a violation of traffic regulation. Under Article 2185 of the Civil
Code, the legal presumption of negligence arises if at the time of the mishap, a person was
violating any traffic regulation. However, in Sanitary Steam Laundry, Inc. v. CA, we held that a
causal connection must exist between the injury received and the violation of the traffic regulation.
It must be proven that the violation of the traffic regulation was the proximate or legal cause of the
injury or that it substantially contributed thereto. Negligence, consisting in whole or in part, of
violation of law, like any other negligence, is without legal consequence unless it is a contributing
cause of the injury. Likewise controlling is our ruling in Añonuevo v. CA where we reiterated that
negligence per se, arising from the mere violation of a traffic statute, need not be sufficient in itself
in establishing liability for damages.
CASE # 29: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. vs. NATIVIDAD and ENRIQUE AGANA

QUESTION:
What is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur?

ANSWER:
Res ipsa loquitur means "the thing speaks for itself." It is the rule that the fact of the occurrence of
an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a
presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiff’s prima facie case, and present a question of fact
for defendant to meet with an explanation. Stated differently, where the thing which caused the
injury, without the fault of the injured, is under the exclusive control of the defendant and the
injury is such that it should not have occurred if he, having such control used proper care, it affords
reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation that the injury arose from the defendant’s want
of care, and the burden of proof is shifted to him to establish that he has observed due care and

1
 CASE DOCTRINES
TORTS AND DAMAGES | SUNDAY | 1:00PM-3:00PM
ATTY. NICO VALDERRAMA

diligence.

The requisites for the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur are: (1) the occurrence of an
injury; (2) the thing which caused the injury was under the control and management of the
defendant; (3) the occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of things, would not have
happened if those who had control or management used proper care; and (4) the absence of
explanation by the defendant. Of the foregoing requisites, the most instrumental is the "control and
management of the thing which caused the injury."
CASE # 30: BJDC CONSTRUCTION vs. LANUZO, et al.

QUESTION:
How can the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor be applied vis-à-vis proximate cause?

ANSWER:
Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase that literally means "the thing or the transaction speaks for
itself." It is a maxim for the rule that the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the
surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make
out a plaintiff's prima facie case, and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an
explanation. Where the thing that caused the injury complained of is shown to be under the
management of the defendant or his servants; and the accident, in the ordinary course of things,
would not happen if those who had management or control used proper care, it affords reasonable
evidence — in the absence of a sufficient, reasonable and logical explanation by defendant — that
the accident arose from or was caused by the defendant's want of care. This rule is grounded on the
superior logic of ordinary human experience, and it is on the basis of such experience or common
knowledge that negligence may be deduced from the mere occurrence of the accident itself. Hence,
the rule is applied in conjunction with the doctrine of common knowledge.

For the doctrine to apply, the following requirements must be shown to exist, namely: (a) the
accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (b) it is
caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants; and (c)
the possibility of contributing conduct that would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated.
CASE # 31: COLLEGE ASSURANCE PLAN vs. BELFRANLT DEVELOPMENT INC.

QUESTION:
Can a lessee be absolved from liability on the ground that the alleged negligent act is a fortuitous
event?

ANSWER:
Article 1667 of the Civil Code, which provides:

The lessee is responsible for the deterioration or loss of the thing leased, unless he proves that it
took place without his fault. This burden of proof on the lessee does not apply when the destruction
is due to earthquake, flood, storm or other natural calamity.

creates the presumption that the lessee is liable for the deterioration or loss of a thing leased. To
overcome such legal presumption, the lessee must prove that the deterioration or loss was due to a

2
 CASE DOCTRINES
TORTS AND DAMAGES | SUNDAY | 1:00PM-3:00PM
ATTY. NICO VALDERRAMA

fortuitous event which took place without his fault or negligence.

Article 1174 of the Civil Code defines a fortuitous event as that which could not be foreseen, or
which, though foreseen, was inevitable. Whether an act of god or an act of man, to constitute a
fortuitous event, it must be shown that: a) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence
or of the failure of the obligor to comply with its obligations was independent of human will; b) it
was impossible to foresee the event or, if it could have been foreseen, to avoid it; c) the occurrence
rendered it impossible for the obligor to fulfill its obligations in a normal manner; and d) said
obligor was free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury or loss. If the negligence or
fault of the obligor coincided with the occurrence of the fortuitous event, and caused the loss or
damage or the aggravation thereof, the fortuitous event cannot shield the obligor from liability for
his negligence.
CASE # 32: D. M. CONSUNJI, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MARIA J. JUEGO

QUESTION:
What is the effect on the party who makes an election between inconsistent remedies?

ANSWER:
When a party having knowledge of the facts makes an election between inconsistent remedies, the
election is final and bars any action, suit, or proceeding inconsistent with the elected remedy, in the
absence of fraud by the other party. The first act of election acts as a bar. Equitable in nature, the
doctrine of election of remedies is designed to mitigate possible unfairness to both parties. It rests
on the moral premise that it is fair to hold people responsible for their choices. The purpose of the
doctrine is not to prevent any recourse to any remedy, but to prevent a double redress for a single
wrong.

The choice of a party between inconsistent remedies results in a waiver by election. Hence, the rule
in Floresca that a claimant cannot simultaneously pursue recovery under the Labor Code and
prosecute an ordinary course of action under the Civil Code. The claimant, by his choice of one
remedy, is deemed to have waived the other. Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known
right. That lack of knowledge of a fact that nullifies the election of a remedy is the basis for the
exception in Floresca.
CASE # 33: ROSIT vs. DAVAO DOCTORS HOSPITAL AND DR. GESTUVO

QUESTION:
Is an expert witness necessary should the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor be applicable in this case?

ANSWER:
An expert witness is not necessary as the res ipsa loquitur doctrine is applicable.

To establish medical negligence, this Court has held that an expert testimony is generally required
to define the standard of behavior by which the court may determine whether the physician has
properly performed the requisite duty toward the patient. This is so considering that the requisite
degree of skill and care in the treatment of a patient is usually a matter of expert opinion.

Solidum v. People of the Philippines provides an exception. There, the Court explained that where
the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur is warranted, an expert testimony may be

3
 CASE DOCTRINES
TORTS AND DAMAGES | SUNDAY | 1:00PM-3:00PM
ATTY. NICO VALDERRAMA

dispensed with in medical negligence cases:

Although generally, expert medical testimony is relied upon in malpractice suits to prove that a
physician has done a negligent act or that he has deviated from the standard medical procedure,
when the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is availed by the plaintiff, the need for expert medical
testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself provides the proof of negligence. The reason
is that the general rule on the necessity of expert testimony applies only to such matters clearly
within the domain of medical science, and not to matters that are within the common knowledge of
mankind which may be testified to by anyone familiar with the facts.
CASE # 34: PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO., INC. vs. CA and
SPOUSES ESTEBAN

QUESTION:
How can the omission of a duty be the proximate cause in sustaining an injury?

ANSWER:
As opined in some quarters, the omission to perform a duty, such as the placing of warning signs
on the site of the excavation, constitutes the proximate cause only when the doing of the said
omitted act would have prevented the injury.

In this case, the presence of warning signs could not have completely prevented the accident; the
only purpose of said signs was to inform and warn the public of the presence of excavations on the
site. The private respondents already knew of the presence of said excavations. It was not the lack
of knowledge of these excavations which caused the jeep of respondents to fall into the excavation
but the unexplained sudden swerving of the jeep from the inside lane towards the accident mound.
It is basic that private respondents cannot charge PLDT for their injuries where their own failure to
exercise due and reasonable care was the cause thereof. It is both a societal norm and necessity that
one should exercise a reasonable degree of caution for his own protection. Furthermore, respondent
Antonio Esteban had the last clear chance or opportunity to avoid the accident, notwithstanding the
negligence he imputes to petitioner PLDT. As a resident of Lacson Street, he passed on that street
almost everyday and had knowledge of the presence and location of the excavations there. It was
his negligence that exposed him and his wife to danger, hence he is solely responsible for the
consequences of his imprudence.
CASE # 35: CAGAYAN II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. vs. RAPANAN

QUESTION:
How can quasi-delict be established?

ANSWER:
Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interest of another person
that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby
such other person suffers injury.

Article 2176 of the Civil Code 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 a quasi-delict."

4
 CASE DOCTRINES
TORTS AND DAMAGES | SUNDAY | 1:00PM-3:00PM
ATTY. NICO VALDERRAMA

Under this provision, the elements necessary to establish a quasi-delict case are:
(1) damages to the plaintiff;
(2) negligence, by act or omission, of the defendant or by some person for whose acts the
defendant must respond, was guilty; and
(3) the connection of cause and effect between such negligence and the damages.
CASE # 36: NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION vs. HEIRS OF NOBLE CASIONAN

QUESTION:
What is the concept of contributory negligence?

ANSWER:
Negligence is the failure to observe, for the protection of the interest of another person, that degree
of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other
person suffers injury. On the other hand, contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the
injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the
standard which he is required to conform for his own protection. There is contributory negligence
when the party’s act showed lack of ordinary care and foresight that such act could cause him harm
or put his life in danger. It is an act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care on the part of
the person injured which, concurring with the defendant’s negligence, is the proximate cause of the
injury.

The underlying precept on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for
his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the consequences of
his own negligence. If indeed there was contributory negligence on the part of the victim, then it is
proper to reduce the award for damages. This is in consonance with the Civil Code provision that
liability will be mitigated in consideration of the contributory negligence of the injured party.
Article 2179 of the Civil Code is explicit on this score:

When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate
cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but
the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
CASE # 37: LAMBERT vs. HEIRS OF RAY CASTILLON

QUESTION:
What is the concept and definition of proximate cause?

ANSWER:
Proximate cause is defined as that which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient, intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have
occurred. The cause of the collision is traceable to the negligent act of Reynaldo for, as the trial
court correctly held, without that left turn executed with no precaution, the mishap in all
probability would not have happened.

Article 2179 reads as follows:

5
 CASE DOCTRINES
TORTS AND DAMAGES | SUNDAY | 1:00PM-3:00PM
ATTY. NICO VALDERRAMA

When the plaintiff’s negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot
recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause
of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the
courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
CASE # 38: JUNTILLA vs. FONTANAR

QUESTION:
What is the doctrine on the contingency of mechanical defects?

ANSWER:
Relative to the contingency of mechanical defects, the preponderance of authority is in favor of the
doctrine that a passenger is entitled to recover damages from a carrier for an injury resulting from a
defect in an appliance purchased from a manufacturer, whenever it appears that the defect would
have been discovered by the carrier if it had exercised the degree of care which under the
circumstances was incumbent upon it, with regard to inspection and application of the necessary
tests. For the purposes of this doctrine, the manufacturer is considered as being in law the agent or
servant of the carrier, as far as regards the work of constructing the appliance. According to this
theory, the good repute of the manufacturer will not relieve the carrier from liability.

The rationale of the carrier's liability is the fact that the passenger has neither choice nor control
over the carrier in the selection and use of the equipment and appliances in use by the carrier.
Having no privity whatever with the manufacturer or vendor of the defective equipment, the
passenger has no remedy against him, while the carrier usually has. It is but logical, therefore, that
the carrier, while not an insurer of the safety of his passengers, should nevertheless be held to
answer for the flaws of his equipment if such flaws were at all discoverable.
CASE # 39: NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN vs. REYES, a.k.a. "AMAY BISAYA

QUESTION:
What is the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria in relation to Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code?

ANSWER:
The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria or "to which a person assents is not esteemed in law as
injury" refers to self-inflicted injury or to the consent to injury which precludes the recovery of
damages by one who has knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger, even if he is not
negligent in doing so.

Article 19, known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights, is not
a panacea for all human hurts and social grievances. Article 19 states:

Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act
with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

The Court explained that when "a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the
norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed
for which the wrongdoer must be responsible." The object of this article is to set certain standards
which must be observed not only in the exercise of one’s rights but also in the performance of

6
 CASE DOCTRINES
TORTS AND DAMAGES | SUNDAY | 1:00PM-3:00PM
ATTY. NICO VALDERRAMA

one’s duties. These standards are the following: act with justice, give everyone his due and observe
honesty and good faith.
Its antithesis, necessarily, is any act evincing bad faith or intent to injure. Its elements are the
following: (1) There is a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole
intent of prejudicing or injuring another.63 When Article 19 is violated, an action for damages is
proper under Articles 20 or 21 of the Civil Code.

Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to
morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

Article 21 refers to acts contra bonus mores and has the following elements: (1) There is an act
which is legal; (2) but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; and
(3) it is done with intent to injure.
CASE # 40: PANTALEON vs. AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

QUESTION:
What is the principle of mora solvendi vis-à-vis mora accipiendi?

ANSWER:
Under mora solvendi, the three requisites for a finding of default are that
(1) the obligation is demandable and liquidated;
(2) the debtor delays performance; and
(3) the creditor judicially or extrajudicially requires the debtor’s performance.

Whilst under the principle of mora accipiendi, it relates to delay on the part of the obligee in
accepting the performance of the obligation by the obligor. The requisites of mora accipiendi are:
(1) an offer of performance by the debtor who has the required capacity;
(2) the offer must be to comply with the prestation as it should be performed; and
(3) the creditor refuses the performance without just cause.

In this case, if there was delay on the part of respondent in its normal role as creditor to the
cardholder, such delay would not have been in the acceptance of the performance of the debtor’s
obligation (i.e., the repayment of the debt), but it would be delay in the extension of the credit in
the first place. Such delay would not fall under mora accipiendi, which contemplates that the
obligation of the debtor, such as the actual purchases on credit, has already been constituted.
Herein, the establishment of the debt itself (purchases on credit of the jewelry) had not yet been
perfected, as it remained pending the approval or consent of the respondent credit card company.
CASE # 41: KRAMER, JR. vs. CA and TRANS-ASIA SHIPPING LINES, INC.

QUESTION:
What is the reckoning period for the four-year prescriptive period under Art. 1146 of the Civil
Code should begin to run?

ANSWER:
Under Article 1146 of the Civil Code, an action based upon a quasi-delict must be instituted within
four (4) years. The prescriptive period begins from the day the quasi-delict is committed. In

7
 CASE DOCTRINES
TORTS AND DAMAGES | SUNDAY | 1:00PM-3:00PM
ATTY. NICO VALDERRAMA

Paulan vs. Sarabia, this Court ruled that in an action for damages arising from the collision of two
(2) trucks, the action being based on a quasi-delict, the four (4) year prescriptive period must be
counted from the day of the collision.

In Espanol vs. Chairman, Philippine Veterans Administration, this Court held as follows-

The right of action accrues when there exists a cause of action, which consists of 3 elements,
namely: a) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or
is created; b) an obligation on the part of defendant to respect such right; and c) an act or
omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff ... It is only when the
last element occurs or takes place that it can be said in law that a cause of action has arisen.

From the foregoing ruling, it is clear that the prescriptive period must be counted when the last
element occurs or takes place, that is, the time of the commission of an act or omission violative of
the right of the plaintiff, which is the time when the cause of action arises.

It is therefore clear that in this action for damages arising from the collision of two (2) vessels the
four (4) year prescriptive period must be counted from the day of the collision. The aggrieved party
need not wait for a determination by an administrative body like a Board of Marine Inquiry, that
the collision was caused by the fault or negligence of the other party before he can file an action for
damages.