CASE DIGEST 1N OBL.TGATIONS AND CONTRACTS hy 9) CABUBNA, Mckinley P. cast Tru People ¥- Bayotas CaTariqy; @X.N0.182700 2 Seplember 904 Pear; Romere, J. ers: “The accused, who was chorged wth rape, died bepuré the decision op Ms appeal poreanniekon is rendered. THe Supreme Court hereby dismissed He Criminal aspect o He appeancense quently. The Solietter General argue hat cle ioblity asing From He oprease coromited by the accused 8 not extinguished by ht death Hower, {re counsel of the aeused eppesea the Solicitor General's statement saying that death while judgrent i peeing “extinguishes boty ormial and eivit liability. IS9UR/Ss Whetheror not Beath extinguishes ct Labi tty su: Yes, death of the accused peacling appeal cop his conection oc wile wating Forte Fn Judgment extinguishes both cami ntl and ability, based en the éxiewe Committed which is rape. Civ (ability can only survivetp the, Seurce of ebligaten 15 other than ime or aetict-CCASE DIGEST TN OBLTGATTONS. AND CONTRACTS Fi9) CABUENA, Maintey P. cist TITE:Vder De Pawan v.Seeris ——rosit/s: IS there sHill@ need to Inshhute ct Separate cin ackion For the eopercement CrTATION:@:RNe,U-37632 BOLMy M82 OF tenployer’s Subsidiary Vabulity 7 powite: Guerrero, J. Pars: muna A person Fell proma cargo tuck No.Underthe Cint Code, when & exirmoal owned by Mindance Lumber Co..dieh atten is inshtuted, thecival action For He caused his death."The drivee pleaded guily recovery oF aval ability 15 deere insti~ ‘and was sentenced toimpisonmeat ar) fukel as wel, not unless here ts awalver or Payroent Fer damages on the wictinds heirs, reservation of righty upon the ofrendedl However, duete the Insolvency of Heacused, party to Inshtule it Separately. tan execution on Subsidiary Wabilty Was As per the dekemination op the subst Filed against He tropeyer, But the trapeyercliary Liability ep tre epleyer, the cour argued that they were not notified that Me [3 yek fo conduct adeltional proceeclings ‘said employee was Criminally charged nd 4p Impose it- “the Viena! betes must pile separate cv ‘action aginst them.CASE DIGEST TW OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS 1) \\ CABUENA, Molciniey P. Ase TITLe; Villegas v. Court o- Appeds crTArTew: 6682562 Apo! 1997 rawr; Rerere, J. Pars A bbe suit was piled aiganst es Certain public official bu dita duaing he pendency ep the case, Terepore, the court dlaenissed the Criminal aspecter the cage but reserved the right or theres Hon ofits cil aspect. The oprended par 44y iterated his ight-9 claim For domages agaist the heisop toe deceased despite his death roams: Whether ornok death oF the accused before Firal elgment extinguished bis ‘vil abilty,and Ip the offended! party cam claim For damages From the legal hele oF Me accused RULING Yes, civil Wal iity is ectinguishedupon He death oF Hae accused berore Final judgment oF the oF rease Coramitled. Also, Hhe optaded party can Claien For damages From the legal thers oF the aocused 45 the executers/admis- raters oF his properties by inshhehng Ose parate ci action agaist them‘CASE DIGEST IN OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS Hus) CABUENA, Mekimley P CASE TTT letrsop He Lae Tedore Guang sss: Whelineror nok se judgment 1m she ¥- Court of Appeals minal cae extinguished the chi ently CITATION6Rweteraas erMarchint7 oF HE accused ron: Mendoza, J. rors me. A vehicular accident indving o No. The Supreme Court nied thet In spite busond a privatecorhappeaed anc oF Ihe Acquilfal of the accused m the criminal Ksliea the drive’ op the said car. Herein case, the Civil case Fordlaraages was not barrel Pebhioners braightaciwl ackon FOF “smnee tHe causeor action was based on quasi-ddih- damages based on quasi-detict ad 7 i rgue thor terelgnegigenceontne _We,thectnl Habvilyisoteetingushed by Partor tie bus driver. Howeres, the CA Arquital basedon reasonable deubr because rendered a decision acquithing heb Prependerence epevidence Sonly required liver of the criminal case hich rondowd in ei cases. ‘he civ case untenable. The acquittal was based on rosenaible doubt. The Peltioners contended that theacqui to) or the accuse in he criminal case does not bar the praseeution Fer damages based on quasi-deict.(CASE DIGEST IN OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS V0) CABUENA, Mckinley P. CASH TITLE: Agular ¥.Covmrsecial Sings ‘Baal CITATION-G-R Mo 26765 2a June 2001 PoneTe; Quisunbing, J. acts ‘Aor registered under Comercial Savings Bonk bit a pedestian and died Herein petioner piled a complaint For damages against the chiver who Fated to spond during Hoe blemerstary period, hewas declared dereute. Duting the “tal respondent bank claieed is ewner= Ship to said vehicle ard in Fact Me diver was the assistant vice President of the bank at the-trme of the incident. The, Frtc hela that negligeace ep se employee is presumed that op the employer ard Liabutity is direct amd primary, How= ever, theCA reversed the tal court's decision and argued Hoot liabty wll ‘only arise when the employee acta by reasen oy the Functions eninsied te bum by his employer atthe hme of the Inddent Issit/5: Whether or nok the owner op He vehige i Hae gor damages ‘Yes, tne bonk is Walle For damages by merely owning the said vebvce, egpedess or emplayer= employee relationship. Existence or dbseate oF employer ployee relationship beta te bonk Gnd He cliver is immatendl in this case PPrthe regisherd owner ofamotorvehile is legaty abe fordamages incurred by 4hied peezons For injuries sustalard the operation oH sit ei Fors Teng as the espondent bane fans Me Fegistered cunt ofthe car Invcved tn the vector accident, ll sll bell peredily Webte Pocthe death o— the Pebtoner's fon.cas 1 \) CARUENA, Mekinity P. case rrnug:Lasam v. Smith crariov rene IRE 02 FeDwary 24 vote Otand, J crs: ‘Avehice was bred by bescin Petitioners na long-distnce evel rth wuthan acident dhe engine rralpunetion one mealgeace of ae aver causing them iniues They brought an acton¥e recor ckmager ooninst te owne op the enicle Far he injusiescustaned in the ehielor accidents The nol court ruled Hea he couse of action 13 Dastl on He defendant's breach OF the coatract op enriage, whi isnot based on orkitous even, Peepoe, ted Pendent Is Vable per damages E DIGEST TN OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS ssw: 15 the owner of the vehrcle Vabie4e the Injuries caused by #6 accideot ? sau Yes, his Wabilityiscontra cal. The “source op Wabulity ise contrac OF ‘carriage that by Entenng tno He contrac, be bound hieselpto Carry Hoe posteagers aptly anetsecurely tothern destination. Failure to secure their sarety as his Contractual obligation vl make lim Uiabje Foe damages.(CASE DIGEST TN OBLIGATTONS AND CONTRACTS \\ CABUEWA, Mckiniey P. case rin. Servende v. Philipps sas: Whether or nok the cargo Steam Navigation Co- vessel company ts Kable For dorages. CITATION:GHHO.L-BoHEL 28 OCtee 1982 Pownrre; Escotin, J nc mune [A Fire of woknona cause razed No, Philippe State Newigation Co., the Bureau of Cushirns warehouse 85 obliges is exempk prom liabkiby ‘wnere the cargots eF hervin pebtioners Foon eerere Feren-perpormance becouse the were located. The sald cargets W Pe a aanaiaey Joaded onboarel Inthe vessel owned by ee diesel Phitippree Steam Nowigalien e:8°3 ang provimate cause op betes, 15 & ‘was successpully discharged in the Fortuitous event or Force majeure aid warehouse They wire eshoyed hot 1s UnForseeable. Thereret, the inthe Fire which prompled the petitions Cargovessel Company (5 not Wable for +o ple For the recovery of damages damages. chargeable agsinst te Cargo resi coropory, +‘CASE DIGEST TN OBLTGATTONS AND CONTRACTS 0) \1 CABUE WA, Mokinley P. CASE TITLE: Austra v.Courd of Appees ISSR: Whether or nop they Shou! be lobe For the loss of the peadach. CITATION:G-RNO.A-296H0 10Juoe 197 roware: Reyes, 6, 2 acts: re A pendant withottamonds was No, they are not Wobte, feceived by a woman who was éntus- The Supreme Court sustained the ted byberan pelieneto slit For CIS nllng whe dedared Haat hey «certain commission. However, the sare nok rtsponsibte forthe les op the, Gewelaywa allegedly snatched prom Jewelry onaount ora Fortuttous her whicn suite Filing of com- even and reveved them From Lnbilty Plevniagainst certain persens. Die —_Fordlamages 40 the owner +o the Failure op Hee woman to return, ‘the Jewelry or Yo payits equivalent value, the Petitiones Filed an action ‘against her ond her husband pur the é Fecovey oF the sid pendent, is value, and For clamdyes, The-hral court mult ‘har her negligence caused Hreless oF Phe said yewelry mating ber lable for clamages. The CA, however held that the las Is due toa Fortuitous event, Hhereore, extinguishing tele cit obligation:CASE DIGEST IN OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS | CABUENA, Mckinley P. Case TITLH: Overseas Bank or Mace ¥ Court op APpeals COTATIGn Gren. t-¥49353. MU Juner¥#l rowne: Narvaga, J crs Basedon the comract op sae bemecn NAWASAand 4 certain Suppher oF mareerals it wos agreed that the payment Fortreservice reodeted shea be placed on a ¥me deposit with the Overseas Rawk oF Mania. Honever, the Sard bank Faitea te remit the Payment upon natty of erheve deposit. AS {esult, res pendent pied a complaint agains the bank forthe recovery &F {hs deposis and damages. The ta owt rendered decision in Faver ep NAWASA,tthich he CA has appirme. sts: Whether or nok the bemk IS rable 40 pay Fer iokeres op the deposit and For the demages mune No, theoligation te pay interes ‘on the deposit Stopped when entrau Bowk Suspended tre bank's ¢ hus the Ualoiity to pay por Wheto is extinguished. Hower He : II competed 4 pay For damages 1 ag tea asin dlorey Tgnoaing respendent's requests FOr payment A‘CASE DIGEST TN OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS Suis CABUENA, Mokintey Ast TITLE Sweet Lines Ine. v. Cour or Appeals CITATION: GR. No. L430 2 Apo! 1982 rewayre: Melenete-Henrera, J. Pacts: Herein tspondents boarded on a vessel enroute te Catbolegan, Samar butdueto eagine trouble, rey od net reac thei inkendeel destination. Ths has prompled Hen +o fate case For breach of contact of carriage and covey eF damages against the Shipping cnagzmy Thechral court arel appoetcke cour ar pied respondunks‘clavn ancl direced the company to pay For Gard damages. Hence, tis petbon. Tas: Whether or not the ship ping Company Is Uable For damages: mune: Yes, they are lable For damages 45 theres a breach of contract. FIs ‘the duty op the said shipping company 4o comply with is cmrbaotal ebliganon +o deliver the passengers to theie ia tended destinction and feakne-odo so il constihetcto a breach ind consequatly, making them dilly lable For damages. We or 10