Coca Cola Bottlers vs. Meñez, Nov.

22, WHEREFORE, the appeal is ingested was minimal and did not have
hereby GRANTED. The decision in Civil Case severe physical effects on his body
2017
No. 11316 is REVERSED. Defendant-Appellee
Facts: Ernani Guingona Meñez [Meñez] was a
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines Inc. is 2. Evidently, the CA's reasoning is not in
frequent customer of Rosante Bar and
ORDERED to pay the following with six [per accord with the gross negligence
Restaurant [Rosante] of Dumaguete City. He
cent] (6%) interest per annum reckoned from requirement for an award of exemplary
ordered two (2) bottles of beer. Thereafter, he
May 5, 1995: damages in a quasi-delict case. Meñez
ordered pizza and a bottle of "Sprite". Meñez
1. Moral damages in the amount of two hundred has failed to establish that CCBPI acted
then took a bite of pizza and drank from the
thousand pesos (₱200,000.00); with gross negligence RTC's finding that
straw the contents of the Sprite [b]ottle. He
2. Exemplary [d]amages in the amount of two there was failure on the part of Meñez to
noticed that the taste of the softdrink was not
hundred thousand pesos (₱200,000.00); categorically establish the chain of
one of Sprite but of a different substance
3. Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) as custody of the "Sprite" bottle which was
repulsive to taste. The substance smelled of
attorney's fees and cost of suit. the very core of the evidence in his
kerosene. He then felt a burning sensation in his
complaint for damages and that,
throat and stomach and could not control the
Issue: considering that the "Sprite" bottle
urge to vomit. Meñez] had to be confined in the
Whether the CA erred in awarding moral allegedly contained pure kerosene, it
hospital for three (3) days.
damages to Meñez. was quite surprising why the employees
The incident was reported to the police and
Whether the CA erred in awarding exemplary of Rosante did not notice its distinct,
recorded in the Police Blotter. The bottle of
damages to Meñez. characteristic smell. Thus, Meñez is not
Sprite was examined by Prof. Chester
Whether the CA erred in awarding attorney's entitled to exemplary damages absent
Dumancas, a licensed chemist of Silliman
fees to Meñez. the required evidence. The only
University. The analysis identified the contents
Ruling: evidence presented by Meñez is the
of the liquid inside the bottle as pure kerosene.
1. CA erred in ruling that Meñez is entitled opened "Sprite" bottle containing pure
[Meñez] filed a complaint against [CCBPI and
to moral damages, exemplary damages kerosene. Nothing more.
Rosante]
and attorney's fees. 3. In all cases, the attorney's fees and
The RTC Ruling
expenses of litigation must be
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the
ART. 2219. Moral damages may be reasonable. The CA Decision did not
complaint for insufficiency of evidence. It
recovered in the following and even provide the basis for the award of
declared that there was failure of [Meñez] to
analogous cases: (2) Quasi-delicts ₱50,000.00 as attorney's fees and cost
categorically establish the chain of custody of
causing physical injuries; of suit. The award is found only in the
the "Sprite" bottle which was the very core of the
Unfortunately, Meñez has not presented dispositive portion and, unlike the award
evidence in his complaint for damages. The
competent, credible and preponderant of moral and exemplary damages, there
Court noted that from the time of the incident,
evidence to prove that he suffered was no explanation provided in the body
thirty-six (36) hours have lapsed before the
physical injuries when he allegedly of the Decision. It can only be surmised
"Sprite" bottle was submitted for laboratory
ingested kerosene from the "Sprite" that the CA awarded attorney's fees only
examination. During such time, the "Sprite"
bottle in question. Nowhere in the CA because it awarded exemplary
bottle changed hands several times. The RTC
Decision is the physical injury of Meñez damages.
then ruled that the scanty evidence presented by
discussed. The RTC Decision states the In any event, based on Article 2208 of
[Meñez] concerning the chain of custody of the
diagnosis of the medical condition of the Civil Code, Meñez is not entitled to
said "Sprite" bottle and [his] unexplained failure
Meñez in the medical abstract prepared attorney's fees and expenses of litigation
x x x to present several vital witnesses to prove
by Dr. Abel Hilario Gomez, who was not because, as with his claim for exemplary
such fact indeed casts a serious doubt on the
presented as a witness,18 and signed by damages, he has not established any
veracity of his allegations.
Dr. Magbanua, Jr. (Exhibit "R"): "the other ground that would justify this
degree of poisoning on the plaintiff award.
CA Ruling
[Meñez] was mild, since the amount
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision
states:

ROMULO ABROGAR and ERLINDA
ABROGAR vs COSMOS BOTTLING
COMPANY and
INTERGAMES, INC.
G.R. No. 164749, March 15, 2017, Bersamin, J.
A higher degree of diligence was required given that
practically all of the participants were children or
minors and that the law imposes a duty of care
towards children and minors even if ordinarily there
was no such duty under the same circumstances had
the persons involved been adults of sufficient
discretion.
FACTS:
To promote the sales of Pop Cola, Cosmos, jointly
with Intergames, organized the Pop Cola Junior
Marathon. Plaintiff’s son, Rommel, joined and ran
the course plotted by the defendants. Rommel
was bumped by a jeepney that was then running
along the route of the marathon and in spite of
medical treatment given to him, he died later that
same day due to severe head injuries.
Plaintiffs sued the respondents in the CFI to
recover various damages for the untimely death of
Rommel.
ISSUES:
1) W/N the defendants were negligent.
2) W/N the negligence of Intergames was the
proximate cause of the death.
3) W/N the doctrine of assumption of risks
applies.
RULING:
1) Only Intergames was negligent. The
sponsorship of Cosmos was limited to financing
the
race. Negligence is the failure to observe that
degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the
circumstances justly demand, whereby another based on voluntary consent, express or implied, to
person suffers injury. The safety and accept danger of a known and appreciated risk;
precautionary but one does not ordinarily assume risk of any
measures undertaken by Intergames were short of negligence which he does not know and
the diligence demanded by the circumstances of appreciate.
persons, time and place under consideration. Rommel would not have joined the marathon if he
Hence, Intergames as the organizer was guilty of had known of or appreciated the risk of harm or
negligence. even death from vehicular accident while running
 In staging the event, Intergames had no in the organized running event. Without
employees of its own to man the race, and relied question, a marathon route safe and free from
only on the "cooperating agencies" and volunteers foreseeable risks was the reasonable expectation
who had worked with it in previous of
races. It held no briefings of any kind on the actual every runner participating in an organized
duties to be performed by each group of running event. Neither was the waiver of liability
volunteers It did not instruct the volunteers on signed
how to minimize, if not avert, the risks of the by Rommel, then a minor, an effective form of
race. Since the marathon would be run alongside express or implied consent in the context of the
moving vehicular traffic, at the very least, doctrine of assumption of risk.
Intergames ought to have seen to the constant and
closer coordination among the personnel
manning the route to prevent the foreseen risks
from befalling the participants.
 Intergames further conceded that the marathon
could have been staged on a blocked-off
route where runners could run against the flow of
vehicular traffic. Intergames had the
option to hold the race in a route where such risks
could be minimized, if not eliminated.
2) YES. To be considered the proximate cause of
the injury, the negligence need not be the event
closest in time to the injury; a cause is still
proximate, although farther in time in relation to
the
injury, if the happening of it set other foreseeable
events into motion resulting ultimately in the
damage. The negligence of the jeepney driver,
albeit an intervening cause, was not efficient
enough
to break the chain of connection between the
negligence of Intergames and the injurious
consequence suffered by Rommel.
3) NO. The doctrine of assumption of risk means
that one who voluntarily exposes himself to an
obvious, known and appreciated danger assumes
the risk of injury that may result therefrom. It is

Naguiat vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 116123. March
13, 1997
Facts:
Army Air Force Exchange Services had a
concessionaire's contract CFTI, for the operation
of taxi services within Clark Air Base. Sergio F.
Naguiat was CFTI's president, while Antolin T.
Naguiat was its vice-president. Like Sergio F.
Naguiat Enterprises, Incorporated ("Naguiat
Enterprises"), a trading firm, it was a family-
owned corporation. Individual respondents were
previously employed by CFTI as taxicab drivers.
Due to the phase-out of the US military bases in
the Philippines, from which Clark Air Base was
not spared, the AAFES was dissolved, and the
services of individual respondents were officially
terminated. CFTI held negotiations as regards
separation benefits that should be awarded in
favor of the drivers.
Respondents refused to accept their separation
fee of 500 instead joined National Organization
of Workingmen ("NOWM"), a labor organization
and filed a complaint5 against "Sergio F. Naguiat
doing business under the name and style Sergio
F. Naguiat Enterprises, Inc., Army-Air Force
Exchange Services (AAFES) before the Labor the corporation has obtained reasonably
and The labor arbiter, finding the individual adequate liability insurance.
complainants to be regular workers of CFTI,
ordered the latter to pay them P1,200.00 for CFTI failed to comply with this law-imposed duty
every year of service "for humanitarian or obligation. Consequently, its stockholder who
consideration," setting aside the earlier was actively engaged in the management or
agreement between CFTI and the drivers' union operation of the business should be held
of P500.00 for every year of service. personally liable.
Respondents filed an appeal to NLRC were
decision was made granting separation pay to In the present case, Sergio Naguiat is held
the private respondents, US$120.00 but this solidarily liable for corporate tort because he had
amount cannot be paid to the complainant in actively engaged in the management and
U.S. Dollar which is not the legal tender in the operation of CFTI, a close corporation.
Philippines.
(1) Petitioner Clark Field Taxi, Incorporated,
Issue: and Sergio F. Naguiat, president and co-
W/N CFTI committed Corporate Tort? owner thereof, are ORDERED to pay,
jointly and severally, the individual
Ruling: respondents their separation pay
Yes. CFTI failed to comply with this law-imposed computed at US$120.00 for every year
duty or obligation. of service, or its peso equivalent at the
time of payment or satisfaction of the
Essentially, "tort" consists in the violation of a judgment;
right given or the omission of a duty imposed by
law. 35 
Simply stated, tort is a breach of a legal duty. 36 
Article 283 of the Labor Code mandates the
employer to grant separation pay to employees
in case of closure or cessation of operations of
establishment or undertaking not due to serious
business losses or financial reverses, which is
the condition obtaining at bar.
Section 100, paragraph 5, (under Title XII on
Close Corporations) of the Corporation Code,
states:
(5) To the extent that the stockholders are
actively engage(d) in the management or
operation of the business and affairs of a close
corporation, the stockholders shall be held to
strict fiduciary duties to each other and among
themselves. Said stockholders shall
be  personally liable for corporate torts unless

Andamo vs. IAC, G.R. No. 74761,
November 6, 1990
Facts:
Spouses Emmanuel and Natividad Andamo are
the owners of a parcel of land situated in Biga
(Biluso) Silang, Cavite which is adjacent to that
of private respondent, Missionaries of Our Lady
of La Salette, Inc., a religious corporation.
respondent corporation, waterpaths and
contrivances, including an artificial lake, were
constructed, which allegedly inundated and
eroded petitioners' land, caused a young man to
drown, damaged petitioners' crops and plants,
washed away costly fences, endangered the
lives of petitioners and their laborers during rainy
and stormy seasons, and exposed plants and
other improvements to destruction.
ISSUE:
W/N the respondents committed quasi delict?
Ruling:
YES. Respondent has committed quasi delict.
The elements of a quasi-delict are present, to
wit: (a) damages suffered by the plaintiff, (b)
fault or negligence of the defendant, or some
other person for whose acts he must respond;
and (c) the connection of cause and effect
between the fault or negligence of the defendant
and the damages incurred by the plaintiff. 
Clearly, from petitioner's complaint, the
waterpaths and contrivances built by respondent
corporation are alleged to have inundated the
land of petitioners. There is therefore, an
assertion of a causal connection between the act
of building these waterpaths and the damage
sustained by petitioners.
Article 2176. 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.
Thus, in petitioners' complaint it showed that
they have sustained and will continue to sustain
damage due to the waterpaths and contrivances
built by respondent corporation. Such alleged
presence of damage to the petitioners, the act or
omission of respondent corporation supposedly
constituting fault or negligence, and the causal
connection between the act and the damage,
with no pre-existing contractual obligation
between the parties constitute clearly a case of
a quasi delict or culpa aquiliana.