TORTS CASES

NEGLIGENCE

A. DEFINITION AND TEST OF NEGLIGENCE

PLDT vs. CA, GR No. 57079, September 29, 1989

PROXIMATE CAUSE

FACTS:

A jeep driven by private respondent Esteban fell into an open trench, the
excavation was due to the installation of an underground conduit system by
PLDT, the said open trench was without cover and any warning signs. As a
result the private respondent and his wife sustained injuries, and their vehicle
was also damaged.PLDT in its defense, imputes the injuries to the private
respondents own negligence. Also, italleges that L.R. Barte and company
acting as an independent contractor, should be responsible for the excavation
was performed by them. As for Barte, they alleged that they have complied
with the due standards in performing their work, and that it was not aware of
the accident involving the Estebans.The Court of Appeals held that
respondent Esteban spouses were negligent and consequently absolved
petitioner PLDT from the claim for damages. Upon respondent’s second
motion to reconsideration, CA reversed its decision, following he decision of
Trial Court and held PLDT liable for damages.

ISSUE:Whether or not PLDT is liable.

HELD:

NO. We find no error in the findings of the respondent court in its original
decision that the accident which befell private respondents was due to the
lack of diligence of respondent Antonio Esteban and was not imputable to
negligent omission on the part of petitioner PLDT.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.
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. 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 every day 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.A person claiming damages for the negligence of another has the
burden of proving the existence of such fault or negligence causative thereof.
The facts constitutive of negligence must be affirmatively established by
competent evidence.Whosoever relies on negligence for his cause of action
has the burden in the first instance of proving the existence of the same if
contested, otherwise his action must fail.

Ilocos Norte Electric Company vs. CA, GR No. 53401, November 6, 1989

FACTS

 Typhoon “Gening” buffeted the province of Ilocos Norte, bringing heavy

rains and consequent flooding in its wake.

 After the typhoon had abated and when the floodwaters were beginning to
recede, the deceased, Isabel Lao Juan, ventured out, and proceeded to the
Five Sisters Emporium, of which she was the owner and proprietress, to look
after the merchandise that might have been damaged.

 Wading in waist-deep flood, Isabel was followed by 2 of her employees.

Suddenly, the deceased screamed “Ay” and quickly sank into the water. The
two girls attempted to help, but failed. There was an electric wire dangling
from a post and moving in snake-like fashion in the water.

 Upon their shouts for help, Ernesto dela Cruz came out of the house of
Antonio Yabes. Ernesto tried to go to the deceased, but at four meters away
from her he turned back shouting that the water was grounded.

 When Antonio Yabes was informed by Ernesto that his mother-in- law had
been electrocuted, they requested the police to ask the people of INELCO to
cut off the electric current.

 The body of the deceased was recovered about two meters from an electric
post. Upon the request of the relatives of the deceased, Dr. Castro examined
the body. The skin was grayish or, in medical parlance, cyanotic, which
indicated death by electrocution. On the left palm, the doctor found an
“electrically charged wound” or a first degree burn. About the base of the
thumb on the left hand was a burned wound. The certificate of death prepared
by Dr. Castro stated the cause of death as “circulatory shock electrocution”

 In defense and exculpation, defendant presented the testimonies of its

officers and employees, and sought to prove that on and even before the day
of Isabel Lao Juan’s death, the electric service system of the INELCO in the
whole franchise area, did not suffer from any defect that might constitute a
hazard to life and property. The service lines, devices and other INELCO
equipment had been newly-installed prior to the date in question. As a public
service operator and in line with its business of supplying electric current to
the public, defendant had installed safety devices to prevent and avoid injuries
to persons and damage to property in case of natural calamities such as
floods, typhoons, fire and others.

 An action for damages in the aggregate amount of P250000 was instituted

by the heirs of the deceased with the CFI.

 INELCO, however, theorizes that the deceased could have died simply by
either drowning or by electrocution due to negligence attributable only to
herself. it was pointed out that the deceased, without petitioner’s knowledge,
caused the installation of a burglar deterrent by connecting a wire from the
main house to theiron gate and fence of steel matting, thus, charging the latter
with electric current whenever the switch is on. This might have caused the
electrocution.The CFI ruled in favor of INELCO and dismissed the complaint
but awarded P25000 in moral damages and attorney’s fees of P45000.The
CA set aside the CFI decision and ordered INELCO to pay actual damages of
P30229.45, compensatory damages of P50000, exemplary damages of
P10000, attorney’s fees of P3000, plus the cost of the suit.

ISSUE

W/N INELCO is liable for damages since typhoons and floods are fortuitous
events – NO

RATIO

 While it is true that typhoons and floods are considered Acts of God for
which no person may be held responsible, it was not said eventuality which
directly caused the victim’s death. It was through the intervention of
petitioner’s negligence that death took place.

 Engr. Juan from the NAPOCOR stated that when he set out that morning
for an inspection, there was no INELCO line man attending to the grounded
and disconnected electric lines. The INELCO Office was likewise closed
around the time of the electrocution.

 At the INELCO, irregularities in the flow of electric current were noted

because “amperes of the switch volts were moving”. And yet, despite these
danger signals, INELCO had to wait for Engr. Juan to request that defendant’s
switch be cut off— but the harm was done. Asked why the delay, Loreto
Abijero, one of INELCO’s linemen answered that he “was not the machine
tender of the electric plant to switch off the current.”

 In times of calamities, extraordinary diligence requires a supplier of

electricity to be in constant vigil to prevent or avoid any probable incident that
might imperil life or limb. The evidence does not show that defendant did that.
On the contrary, evidence discloses that there were no men (linemen or
otherwise) policing the area, nor even manning its office.
 The negligence of petitioner having been shown, it may not now absolve
itself from liability by arguing that the victim’s death was solely due to a
fortuitous event.

 “When an act of God combines or concurs with the negligence of the

defendant to produce an injury, the defendant is liable if the injury would not
have resulted but for his own negligent conduct or omission”

 A person is excused from the force of the rule, that when he voluntarily
assents to a known danger he must abide by the consequences, if an
emergency is found to exist or if the life or property of another is in peril or
when he seeks to rescue his endangered property. Clearly, an emergency
was at hand as the deceased’s property, a source of her livelihood, was faced
with an impending loss.

RULING

CA Decision affirmed with modification, increasing actual damages to P48229.

AMADO PICART v. FRANK SMITH, JR. G.R. No. L-12219, 15 March 1918
STREET, J.:

FACTS:

On 12 December 1912, on the Carlatan Bridge, at San Fernando, La Union,

Amado Picart was riding on his pony over said bridge. Before he had gotten
half way across, Frank Smith Jr. approached from the opposite direction in an
automobile, going at the rate of about 10 or 12 miles per hour. As Smith
neared the bridge he saw a horseman on it and blew his horn to give warning
of his approach. He continued his course and after he had taken the bridge he
gave two more successive blasts, as it appeared to him that the man on
horseback before him was not observing the rule of the road. Picart saw the
automobile coming and heard the warning signals. However, being perturbed
by the novelty of the apparition or the rapidity of the approach, he pulled the
pony closely up against the railing on the right side of the bridge instead of
going to the left. As the automobile approached, Smith guided it toward his
left, that being the proper side of the road for the machine. In so doing Smith
assumed that the horseman would move to the other side. The pony had not
as yet exhibited fright, and the rider had made no sign for the automobile to
stop. Seeing that the pony was apparently quiet, Smith, instead of veering to
the right while yet some distance away or slowing down, continued to
approach directly toward the horse without diminution of speed. When he had
gotten quite near, there being then no possibility of the horse getting across to
the other side, Smith quickly turned his car sufficiently to the right to escape
hitting the horse alongside of the railing where it was then standing; but in so
doing the automobile passed in such close proximity to the animal that it
became frightened and turned its body across the bridge with its head toward
the railing. In so doing, it was struck on the hock of the left hind leg by the
flange of the car and the limb was broken. The horse fell and its rider was
thrown off with some violence. As a result of its injuries the horse died. Picart
received contusions which caused temporary unconsciousness and required
medical attention for several days.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Smith is guilty of negligence.

RULING:

Yes. Smith, in maneuvering his car in the manner described, was guilty of
negligence such as gives rise to a civil obligation to repair the damage done.
In the nature of things the control of the situation had passed entirely to Smith,
and it was his duty either to bring his car to an immediate stop or, seeing that
there were no other persons on the bridge, to take the other side and pass
sufficiently far away from the horse to avoid the danger of collision. Instead of
doing this, Smith ran straight on until he was almost upon the horse. When
Smith exposed the horse and rider to this danger he was negligent in the eye
of the law.The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a
particular case may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing the
alleged negligent act use that person would have used in the same situation?
If not, then he is guilty of negligence.What would constitute the conduct of a
prudent man in a given situation must of course be always determined in the
light of human experience and in view of thefacts involved in the particular
case. Abstract speculation cannot be of much value; as reasonable men
govern their conduct by the circumstances which are before them or known to
them, and hence they can be expected to take care only when there is
something before them to suggest or warn of danger. Reasonable foresight of
harm is always necessary before negligence can be held to exist. In fine, the
proper criterion for determining the existence of negligence in a given case is
this: Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of the
tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect harmful to another was
sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing the conduct or guarding against
its consequences.

People vs Glenn De los Santos 355 SCRA 415 (2001)

Facts:

In the early morning of October 5, 1995, at the Maitum Highway in Cagayan

de Oro City, a team of PNP members who were undergoing a Special Training
Course, wearing black T-shirts and black short pants, were performing an
“Endurance Run” of 35 km coming from their camp in Manolo Fortich,
Bukidnon and heading to Regional Training Headquarters in Camp Alagar,
Cagayan de Oro City, running in a column of three with a distance of two feet
or less from one another. The group was jogging on the right side of the lane.

The accused, Glenn de los Santos, driving an Isuzu Elf, hit and killed
members of the jogging PNP team. As a result, some PNP members were
killed on the spot while another trainee died a few days after the incident.
Eleven (11) other trainees were seriously wounded and some sustained minor
injuries. The accused escaped after the incident, leaving behind the victims
helpless.The trial court convicted Glenn de los Santos of the crime of multiple
murder, multiple frustrated murder, and multiple attempted murder, with use of
motor vehicle as the qualifying circumstance.

Issue:

Whether or not there was an intent to kill or injure the jogging the trainees or
was itreckless imprudence.

Held:

The conclusion of the trial court and the OSG that the accused intentionally
rammed and hit the jogging trainees was premised on the assumption that
despite the first bumping thuds, he continued to accelerate his vehicle instead
of applying his brakes, as shown by the absence of brake marks or skid
marks along the traffic scenes.The defense, meanwhile, attributed the
continuous movement of the vehicle to the reason that the Isuzu Elf truck, a
huge vehicle, was moving fast that even if the brakes were applied, the truck
would have still proceeded further on account of its own momentum, albeit at
a reduced speed, and would have stopped only after a certain distance.It is a
well-entrenched rule that if the inculpatory facts are capable of two or more
explanations – one consistent with the innocence or lesser degree of liability
of theaccused, and the other consistent with his guilt or graver responsibility –
the Court should adopt the explanation which is more favorable to the
accused.

The Court was convinced that the incident, tragic though it was in light of the
number of persons killed and seriously injured, was an accident and not an
intentional felony. It is significant to note that there is no shred of evidence
that Glenn de los Santos had anything against the police trainees that would
drive him into deliberately hitting them with intent to kill. Although proof of
motive is not indispensable to a conviction especially where the assailant is
positively identified, such proof is important in determining which of two
conflicting theories of the incident is more likely to be true.Considering that the
incident was not a product of a malicious intent but rather the result of a single
act of reckless driving, the accused should be guilty of the complex crime of
reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide with serious physical
injuries and less serious physical injuries.

Evelyn Acuna vs. Rodolfo A. Alventara, Sheriff IV, RTC, Br.50, Villasis,
Pangasinan (A.M. No. 01-1463, March 20, 2001)

In a verified letter-complaint, dated 27 October 1998, complainant Evelyn

Acuña charged Rodolfo A. Alcantara, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court of
Villasis, Pangasinan, Branch 50, with negligence and manifest partiality
relative to his conduct in Civil Case No. V-0413 ("Mrs. Gloria R. Ocampo vs.
Mrs. Evelyn Acuña") for "recovery of sum of money with prayer for preliminary
attachment." The trial court, on 23 December 1997, granted the preliminary
attachment prayed for by plaintiff Ocampo. The writ was thereupon issued on
the two flatboats of herein complainant Acuña.

Complainant averred that, in implementing the writ, respondent sheriff had

failed to take the necessary precautions in protecting the attached property.
Respondent entrusted the flatboats to a relative of plaintiff Ocampo under
whose care one of the flatboats submerged. Later, the flatboats were turned
over by respondent to the Philippine Coast Guard of Sual, Pangasinan, in
which custody the flatboats were totally damaged due to several typhoons
that visited the area.

Respondent explained, when required to comment, that when he

implemented the writ of attachment, the flatboats were not seaworthy. Initially,
he sought the assistance of the Philippine Coast Guard of Sual, Pangasinan,
in safekeeping the flatboats but the Coast Guard refused to accept such
custody without a court order. Meanwhile, respondent was constrained to
dock the flatboats at the Sual port, tied them to a bamboo post and entrusted
them to a son of plaintiff Ocampo although the keys were kept by the latter.
Sometime in May, 1998, after being informed that one of the flatboats had
sunk, he asked for a court order to have the Philippine Coast Guard take
possession of the flatboats. The court directed accordingly. Respondent
implemented the order of the trial court, dated 05 June 1998, by hiring men at
his own expense to lift the submerged flatboat and by depositing the two
flatboats with the Philippine Coast Guard in Sual, Pangasinan. On 18
September 1998, respondent received a request from the Philippine Coast
Guard to transfer the flatboats to a safer place to prevent them from further
deteriorating. Before he could act on the request, however, typhoons
"Gading,""Illiang" and "Loleng" struck the place and destroyed the flatboats.

Respondent admitted having initially turned over the custody of the boats to
the son of the plaintiff but that he did so only because the Philippine Coast
Guard had then refused to render assistance to him; otherwise, he contended,
he had taken all the necessary measures to protect the attached property.

The case was referred by the Court to the Office of the Court Administrator
("OCA") for evaluation, report and recommendation. Eventually, the OCA
came out with its evaluation, report and recommendation; it said:

"The complaint is partly meritorious.

"In Tantingco vs. Aguilar (81 SCRA 599, 604) this Court held
that:
 "`Having taken possession of the property under
the writ of attachment, it was respondent's duty to
protect the property from damages or loss. The
respondent was bound to exercise ordinary and
reasonable care for the preservation of the
properties.'

"More to the point is the case of National Bureau of Investigation

vs. Tuliao (270 SCRA 351, 356). In this case, this Court citing
the case of Walker vs. McMicking (14 Phil. 688, 673) said:

"`xxx A verbal declaration of seizure or service of a

writ of attachment is not sufficient. There must be
an actual taking of possession and placing of the
attached property under the control of the officer or
someone representing him. (Hallester vs. Goodale,
8 Cann., 332, 21 Am. Dec., 674; Jones vs. Hoard,
99 Ga., 451, 59 Am. St. Rep., 231)

`We believe that xxx to constitute a valid levy or

attachment, the officer levying it must take actual
possession of the property attached as far as xxx
practicable (under the circumstances). He must
put himself in a position to, and must assert and, in
fact, enforce a dominion over the property adverse
to and exclusive of the attachment debtor and
such property must be in his substantial presence
and possession (Corniff vs. Cock, 95 Ga., 61, 51
Am. St. Rep. 55, 61) Of course, this does not
mean that the attaching officer may not, under an
arrangement satisfactory to himself, put anyone in
possession of the property for the purpose of
guarding it, but he can not in any way relieve
himself from liability to the parties interested in
said attachment.'

"Applying the above-quoted principle to the instant case, it is

apparent that respondent was negligent in taking care of the
boats because he turned over possession thereof to the son of
 the plaintiff. His reason that the Coast Guard did not accept the
boats because he had no court order can not exonerate him. In
view of the Coast Guard's refusal, what respondent should have
done under the circumstances was to assign a disinterested
party, at the expense of the plaintiff, to take care of the boats.
Even then, this error could have been rectified if respondent
immediately asked the court for an order to transfer custody of
the boats to the Coast Guard. Respondent did this only when
one of the boats had already sunk. We, however, believe that
this is the only extent of respondent's liability. Respondent was
able to eventually transfer the possession of the boats to the
Coast Guard in whose custody the boats were totally destroyed
by storms. The loss of the boats cannot thus be blamed entirely
on respondent but it can not be denied that his initial action may
have contributed to the deterioration of the sea-worthiness of the
boats."

The OCA recommended that respondent be FINED in the amount of

P5,000.00 for negligence in the performance of his duties.

The Court adopts the recommendation of the Office of the Court

Administrator.

The OCA did not err in holding that respondent sheriff was guilty of
negligence. The refusal of the Philippine Coast guard to initially take custody
of the flatboats should have prompted him to forthwith ask the trial court for an
order to have the custody of the flatboats transferred to the Philippine Coast
Guard. He delayed in seeking for such a court order. But while respondent
failed to thusly implement the writ of preliminary attachment and to safekeep
the property in his custody,[1] it would appear that he exerted efforts to protect
the flatboats. The eventual deterioration and loss of the boats had, in fact,
been caused by calamities beyond his control. Given the circumstances, by
and large extant from the records of the case, the Court deems it appropriate
to impose on respondent a fine but on the reduced amount of from P5,000.00
recommended by the OCA to P3,000.00.

WHEREFORE, the Court, finding Rodolfo A. Alcantara, Sheriff IV of the

Regional Trial Court of Villasis, Pangasinan, Branch 50, guilty of simple
negligence, hereby imposes upon him a FINE of THREE THOUSAND
(P3,000.00) PESOS but warns that a repetition of the same or like infraction
will be dealt with severely.

SO ORDERED.

Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping M.V., et.al. vs. Phil. Insurance

Co., In., GR No. 14133, June 5, 2002

Proof of the delivery of goods in good order to a common carrier and of their
arrival in bad order at their destination constitutes prima facie fault or
negligence on the part of the carrier. If no adequate explanation is given as to
how the loss, the destruction or the deterioration of the goods happened, the
carrier shall be held liable therefor.

Facts: On June 13, 1990, CMC Trading A.G. shipped on board the M/V
'Anangel Sky' at Hamburg, Germany 242 coils of various Prime Cold Rolled
Steel sheets for transportation to Manila consigned to the Philippine Steel
Trading Corporation. On July 28, 1990, M/V Anangel Sky arrived at the port of
Manila and, within the subsequent days, discharged the subject cargo. Four
(4) coils were found to be in bad order. Finding the four (4) coils in their
damaged state to be unfit for the intended purpose, the consignee Philippine
Steel Trading Corporation declared the same as total loss.

Petitioners refused to submit to the consignee's claim. Consequently,

respondent paid the consignee and was subrogated to the latter's rights.
Subsequently, respondent instituted this complaint for recovery of the amount
paid by them, to the consignee as insured.

Petitioners imputed that the damage and/or loss was due to pre-shipment
damage. In addition thereto, they argued that their liability, if there be any,
should not exceed the limitations of liability provided for in the bill of lading
and other pertinent laws. Finally, they averred that, in any event, they
exercised due diligence and foresight required by law to prevent any
damage/loss to said shipment.
RTC dismissed the Complaint because respondent had failed to prove its
claims. In reversing the trial court, the CA ruled that petitioners were liable for
the loss or the damage of the goods shipped, because they had failed to
overcome the presumption of negligence imposed on common carriers.

Issue #1: Whether or not a notation in the bill of lading at the time of loading is
sufficient to show pre- shipment damage and to exempt herein defendants
from liability.

Held: NO. Mere proof of delivery of the goods in good order to a common
carrier and of their arrival in bad order at their destination constitutes a prima
facie case of fault or negligence against the carrier. If no adequate
explanation is given as to how the deterioration, the loss or the destruction of
the goods happened, the transporter shall be held responsible. Petitioners
failed to rebut the prima facie presumption of negligence in the case at bar.
True, the words "metal envelopes rust stained and slightly dented" were noted
on the Bill of Lading; however, there is no showing that petitioners exercised
due diligence to forestall or lessen the loss. Having failed to discharge the
burden of proving that they have exercised the extraordinary diligence
required by law, petitioners cannot escape liability for the damage to the four
coils.

Issue #2: Whether or not the consignee/plaintiff filed the required notice of
loss within the time required by law.

Held: YES. Pursuant to Section 3, paragraph 6 of the Carriage of Goods by

Sea Act (COGSA), a failure to file a notice of claim within three days will not
bar recovery if it is nonetheless filed within one year. This one- year
prescriptive period also applies to the shipper, the consignee, the insurer of
the goods or any legal holder of the bill of lading. In the present case, the
cargo was discharged on July 31, 1990, while the Complaint was filed by
respondent on July 25, 1991, within the one-year prescriptive period.

Issue #3: Whether or not the "PACKAGE LIMITATION" of liability under

Section 4 (5) of COGSA is applicable.

Held: YES. In the case before us, there was no stipulation in the Bill of Lading
limiting the carrier's liability. Neither did the shipper declare a higher valuation
of the goods to be shipped. This fact notwithstanding, the insertion of the
words "L/C No. 90/02447 cannot be the basis for petitioners' liability.

A notation in the Bill of Lading which indicated the amount of the Letter of
Credit obtained by the shipper for the importation of steel sheets did not effect
a declaration of the value of the goods as required by the bill. In the light of
the foregoing, petitioners' liability should be computed based on US$500 per
package and not on the per metric ton price declared in the Letter of Credit.

B. UNREASONABLE OR UNDUE RISKS & FORESEEABILITY

Phoenix Construction vs. IAC, 148 SCRA 353 (1987)

FACTS:

1. In the early morning of 15 November 1975, at about 1:30am, private

respondent Leonardo Dionisio was on his way home from a cocktails-and-
dinner meeting with his boss, the general manager of a marketing corporation,
where he had taken "a shot or two" of liquor.

2. He had just crossed an intersection and while driving down the street, his
headlights were turned off. When he switched on his headlights to “bright”, he
suddenly saw a Ford dump truck some 2 1⁄2 meters away from his
Volkswagen car. It was later found out that he did not a curfew pass that night.

3. The dump truck belonged to co-petitioner Phoenix, and was parked there
by the company’ driver, co-petitioner Carbonel. It was parked on the right
hand side of the lane that Dionisio was driving on, but it was parked facing the
oncoming traffic. It was parked askew so it was sticking out onto the street,
partly blocking the way of oncoming traffic. There were no lights nor were
there any “early warning” reflector devices set anywhere near the truck, front
or rear.

4. Phoenix permitted Carbonel to take home the truck, which was scheduled
to be used the next morning.

5. Dionisio, upon seeing the truck, tried to avoid a collision by swerving to the
left, but it was too late. His car smashed into the truck.
6. Dionisio suffered physical injuries, including permanent facial scars, “a
nervous breakdown” and loss of two gold bridge dentures.

7. Dionision filed an action for damages against Carbonel and Phoenix.

8. Petitioners countered the claim by imputing the accident to respondent’s

own negligence in driving at a high speed without curfew

pass and headlights, and while intoxicated. It invoked the Last Clear Chance
Doctrine: Dionisio had the Last Clear Chance of

avoiding theaccident and so Dionisio, having failed to take the last clear
chance, must bear his own injuries alone

9. The trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of private respondent.

ISSUE(S): Whether the collision was brought by respondent’s own

negligence.

HELD: No. Dionisio is guilty of contributory negligent but the legal and
proximate cause of the collision was brought about by the way the truck was
parked.

RATIO:

 The legal and proximate cause of the accident and of Dionisio's injuries was
the wrongful or negligent manner in which the dump truck was parked in other
words, the negligence of petitioner Carbonel. The collision of Dionisio's car
with the dump truck was a natural and foreseeable consequence of the truck
driver's negligence.

 The defendant cannot be relieved from liability by the fact that the risk or a
substantial and important part of the risk, to which the defendant has
subjected the plaintiff has indeed come to pass. Foreseeable intervening
forces are within the scope original risk, and hence of the defendant's
negligence. The courts are quite generally agreed that intervening causes
which fall fairly in this category will not supersede the defendant's
responsibility. Thus, a defendant who blocks the sidewalk and forces the
plaintiff to walk in a street where the plaintiff will be exposed to the risks of
heavy traffic becomes liable when the plaintiff is run down by a car, even
though the car is negligently driven; and one who parks an automobile on the
highway without lights at night is not relieved of responsibility when another
negligently drives into it.

 We hold that private respondent Dionisio's negligence was "only

contributory," that the "immediate and proximate cause" of the injury remained
the truck driver's "lack of due care" and that consequently respondent Dionisio
may recover damages though such damages are subject to mitigation by the
courts.

 The Last Clear Chance doctrine of the Common Law was imported into our
jurisdiction by Picart vs. Smith but it is still a matter of debate whether, or to
what extent, it has found its way into the Civil Code of the Philippines. The
doctrine was applied by Common Law because they had a rule that
contributory negligence prevented any recovery at all by a negligent plaintiff.
But in the Philippines we have Article 2179 of the Civil Code which rejects the
Common Law doctrine of contributory negligence. Thus, the court in this case
stated that it does not believe so that the general concept of Last Clear
Chance has been utilized in our jurisdiction. Article 2179 on contributory
negligence is not an exercise in chronology or physics but what is important is
the negligent act or omission of each party and the character and gravity of
the risks created by such act or omission for the rest of the community. To say
that Phoenix should be absolved from liability would come close to wiping out
the fundamental law that a man must. respond for the foreseeable
consequences of his own negligent act or omission. Thus, the Last Clear
Chance Doctrine was not applied because the court thinks that it is not
applicable in our jurisdiction.

Ong vs. Metropolitan Water District

(104 Phil 398)

Facts: Plaintiff spouses seek to recover from defendant, damages, funeral

expenses and attorney’s fees for the death of their son, Dominador Ong. After
trial, the lower court found that the action of plaintiffs is untenable and
dismissed the complaint without pronouncement as to costs. Plaintiffs took the
case on appeal directly to this Court because the amount involved exceeds
the sum of P50,000.
Dominador Ong, 14-year old son of plaintiffs, in company with two of his
brothers went to swim at the defendant’s swimming pool. After paying the
admission fee they went to one of the small pools where the water was
shallow. Later Dominador told his brothers that he was going to the locker
room in an adjoining building to drink a bottle of coke. Upon hearing this, his
two brothers went to the bigger pool. Later another boy in the swimming pool
informed a lifeguard employed by the defendant that somebody was
swimming underwater for quite a long time. The lifeguard immediately jumped
into the big swimming pool and retrieved te apparently lifeless body of
Dominador Ong from the bottom. Artificial respiration and a resuscitator were
applied by employees of the defendant upon Dominador for the purpose of
reviving him. A doctor was summoned by employees of the defendant to
revive the boy but all to no avail. This action was instituted by the parents of
the boy to recover damages from the defendant for the death of their son.

Issue: (1) Whether or not plaintiffs have clearly established the

fault/negligence of the defendants so as to make it liable for the damages
sought? (2) Whether or not the Doctrine of Last Clear Chance applies in the
case at bench.

Ruling: The record shows that when the body of minor Ong was retrieved
from the bottom of the pool, the employees of appellee did everything
possible to bring him back to life. Thus, after he was placed at the edge of the
pool, lifeguard Abaño immediately gave him manual artificial respiration. Soon
thereafter, nurse Armando Rule arrived, followed by sanitary inspector
Iluminado Vicente who brought with him an oxygen resuscitator. When they
found that the pulse of the boy was abnormal, the inspector immediately
injected him with camphorated oil. When the manual artificial respiration
proved ineffective they applied the oxygen resuscitator until its contents were
exhausted. And while all these efforts were being made, they sent for Dr.
Ayuyao from the University of the Philippines who however came late
because upon examining the body he found him to be already dead. All of the
foregoing shows that appellee has done what is humanly possible under the
circumstances to restore life to minor Ong and for that reason it is unfair to
hold it liable for his death.

With regard to the application of doctrine of last clear chance, since it is not
known how minor Ong came into the big swimming pool and it being apparent
that he went there without any companion in violation of one of the regulations
of appellee as regards the use of the pools, and it appearing that lifeguard
Abaño responded to the call for help as soon as his attention was called to it
and immediately after retrieving the body all efforts at the disposal of appellee
had been put into play in order to bring him back to life, it is clear that there is
no room for the application of the doctrine now invoked by appellants to
impute liability to appellee..

The last clear chance doctrine can never apply where the party charged is
required to act instantaneously, and if the injury cannot be avoided by the
application of all means at hand after the peril is or should have been
discovered; at least in cases in which any previous negligence of the party
charged cannot be said to have contributed to the injury. O'Mally vs. Eagan,
77 ALR 582, 43 Wyo. 233, 350, 2, P2d 1063. (A.L.R. Digest, Vol. 8, pp. 955-
956)

Wherefore, the decision appealed from being in accordance with law and the
evidence, is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

G.R. No. L-51806 November 8, 1988

CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION, petitioner,

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and ERNEST E. SIMKE, respondents.

The Solicitor General for petitioner.

Ledesma, Guytingco, Veleasco & Associates for respondent Ernest E.

Simke.

Facts:

In the afternoon of December 13, 1968, private respondent with several other
persons went to the Manila International Airport to meet his future son-in-law.
In order to get a better view of the incoming passengers, he and his group
proceeded to the viewing deck or terrace of the airport. While walking on the
terrace, then filled with other people, private respondent slipped over an
elevation about four (4) inches high at the far end of the terrace. As a result,
private respondent fell on his back and broke his thigh bone. The next day,
December 14, 1968, private respondent was operated on for about three
hours.

Private respondent then filed an action for damages based on quasi-delict

against petitioner Civil Aeronautics Administration or CAA as the entity
empowered "to administer, operate, manage, control, maintain and develop
the Manila International Airport. 3.

Said claim for damages included, aside from the medical and hospital bills,
consequential damages for the expenses of two lawyers who had to go
abroad in private respondent's stead to finalize certain business transactions
and for the publication of notices announcing the postponement of private
respondent's daughter's wedding which had to be cancelled because of his
accident .

Trial court ruled in favor of private respondent, the court of appeals affirmed
the lower court’s decision

Judgment was rendered in private respondent's favor prompting petitioner to

appeal to the Court of Appeals. The latter affirmed the trial court's decision.
Petitioner then filed with the same court a Motion for, Reconsideration but this
was denied.

Petitioner now comes before this Court raising the following assignment of
errors:

1. The Court of Appeals gravely erred in not holding that the present the CAA
is really a suit against the Republic of the Philippines which cannot be sued
without its consent, which was not given in this case. 2. The Court of Appeals
gravely erred in finding that the injuries of respondent Ernest E. Simke were
due to petitioner's negligence — although there was no substantial evidence
to support such finding; and that the inference that the hump or elevation the
surface of the floor area of the terrace of the fold) MIA building is dangerous
just because said respondent tripped over it is manifestly mistaken —
circumstances that justify a review by this Honorable Court of the said finding
of fact of respondent appellate court (Garcia v. Court of Appeals, 33 SCRA
622; Ramos v. CA, 63 SCRA 331.)

3. The Court of Appeals gravely erred in ordering petitioner to pay actual,

consequential, moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees to
respondent Simke — although there was no substantial and competent proof
to support said awards I Rollo, pp. 93-94 1.

ISSUE: W/N Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) was negligent as the

entity empowered "to administer, operate, manage, control, maintain and
develop the Manila International Airport

HELD: YES.

National Airports Corporation is dead and the Civil Aeronautics Administration

is its heir or legal representative, acting by the law of its creation upon its own
rights and in its own name. The better practice there should have been to
make the Civil Aeronautics Administration the third party defendant instead of
the National Airports Corporation.

CAA as an agency is not immune from suit, it being engaged in functions

pertaining to a private entity This Court during its ocular inspection also
observed the dangerous and defective condition of the open terrace which
has remained unrepaired through the years. It has observed the lack of
maintenance and upkeep of the MIA terrace, typical of many government
buildings and offices. Aside from the litter allowed to accumulate in the
terrace, pot holes cause by missing tiles remained unrepaired and
unattended. The inclination itself is an architectural anomaly for as stated by
the said witness, it is neither a ramp because a ramp is an inclined surface in
such a way that it will prevent people or pedestrians from sliding.

Article 1173 of the Civil Code, "(t)he fault or negligence of the obligor consists
in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the
obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the person, of the time
and of the place."

It must be borne in mind that pursuant to Article 1173 of the Civil Code, "(t)he
fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence
which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the
circumstances of the person, of the time and of the place." Here, the
obligation of the CAA in maintaining the viewing deck, a facility open to the
public, requires that CAA insure the safety of the viewers using it.

Contributory negligence under Article 2179 of the Civil Code contemplates a

negligent act or omission on the part of the plaintiff, which although not the
proximate cause of his injury, contributed to his own damage, the proximate
cause of the plaintiffs own injury being the defendant's lack of due care .

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error, the Petition for review on certiorari

is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 51172-R
is AFFIRMED.

C. PROBABILITY

A.Y. 2018-2019

FAR EASTERN SHIPPING CO. VS. CA 297 SCRA 30

EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY

FACTS:

On June 20, 1980, the M/V PAVLODAR, flying under the flagship of the
USSR, owned and operated by the Far Eastern Shipping Company (FESC),
arrived at the Port of Manila from Vancouver, British Columbia at about 7:00
o'clock in the morning. The vessel was assigned Berth 4 of the Manila
International Port, as its berthing space. Captain Roberto Abellana was tasked
by the Philippine Port Authority to supervise the berthing of the vessel.
Appellant Senen Gavino was assigned by the Appellant Manila Pilots'
Association (MPA) to conduct docking maneuvers for the safe berthing of the
vessel to Berth No. 4.

Gavino boarded the vessel at the quarantine anchorage and stationed himself
in the bridge, with the master of the vessel, Victor Kavankov, beside him. After
a briefing of Gavino by Kavankov of the particulars of the vessel and its cargo,
the vessel lifted anchor from the quarantine anchorage and proceeded to the
Manila International Port. The sea was calm and the wind was ideal for
docking maneuvers. - When the vessel reached the landmark (the big church
by the Tondo North Harbor) one- half mile from the pier, Gavino ordered the
engine stopped. When the vessel was already about 2,000 feet from the pier,
Gavino ordered the anchor dropped. Kavankov relayed the orders to the crew
of the vessel on the bow. The left anchors, with 2 shackles, were dropped.
However, the anchor did not take hold as expected. The speed of the vessel
did not slacken. A commotion ensued between the crew members. A brief
conference ensued between Kavankov and the crew members. When Gavino
inquired what all the commotion was about, Kavankov assured Gavino that
there was nothing to it. - After Gavino noticed that the anchor did not take
hold, he ordered the engines half-astern. Abellana, who was then on the pier
apron noticed that the vessel was approaching the pier fast. Kavankov
likewise noticed that the anchor did not take hold. Gavino thereafter gave the
"full-astern" code. Before the right anchor and additional shackles could be
dropped, the bow of the vessel rammed into the apron of the pier causing
considerable damage to the pier. The vessel sustained damage too.
Kavankov filed his sea protest. Gavino submitted his report to the Chief Pilot
who referred the report to the Philippine Ports Authority. Abellana likewise
submitted his report of the incident. - The rehabilitation of the damaged pier
cost the Philippine Ports Authority the amount of P1,126,132.25.

ISSUE:

WON both the pilot and the master were negligent

HELD:

The SC started by saying that in a collision between a stationary object and a

moving object, there is a presumption of fault against the moving object
(based on common sense and logic). It then went on to determine who
between the pilot and the master was negligent.

PILOT

A pilot, in maritime law, is a person duly qualified, and licensed, to conduct a

vessel into or out of ports, or in certain waters. He is an expert who’s
supposed to know the seabed, etc. that a master of a ship may not know
because the pilot is familiar with the port. He is charged to perform his duties
with extraordinary care because the safety of people and property on the
vessel and on the dock are at stake.

Capt. Gavino

anchor not holding ground and the vessel still going too fast was too slow. As
an expert he should’ve been reacting quickly to any such happenings.

MASTER
In compulsory pilotage, the pilot momentarily becomes the master of the
vessel. The master, however may intervene or countermand the pilot if he
deems there is danger to the vessel because of the incompetence of the pilot
or if the pilot is drunk. - Based on Capt. Kavankov’s testimony, he never
sensed the any danger even when the anchor didn’t hold and they were
approaching the dock too fast. He blindly trusted the pilot. This is negligence
on his part. He was right beside the pilot during the docking, so he could see
and hear everything that the pilot was seeing and hearing. The master’s
negligence translates to unseaworthiness of the vessel, and in turn means
negligence on the part of FESC.

CONCURRENT TORTFEASORS

As a general rule, that negligence in order to render a person liable need not
be the sole cause of an injury. It is sufficient that his negligence, concurring
with one or more efficient causes other than plaintiff's, is the proximate cause
of the injury. Accordingly, where several causes combine to produce injuries,
person is not relieved from liability because he is responsible for only one of
them, it being sufficient that the negligence of the person charged with injury
is an efficient cause without which the injury would not have resulted to as
great an extent, and that such cause is not attributable to the person injured. It
is no defense to one of the concurrent tortfeasors that the injury would not
have resulted from his negligence alone, without the negligence or wrongful
acts of the other concurrent tortfeasor. Where several causes producing an
injury are concurrent and each is an efficient cause without which the injury
would not have happened, the injury may be attributed to all or any of the
causes and recovery may be had against any or all of the responsible persons
although under the circumstances of the case, it may appear that one of them
was more culpable, and that the duty owed by them to the injured person was
not the same. No actor's negligence ceases to be a proximate cause merely
because it does not exceed the negligence of other actors. Each wrongdoer is
responsible for the entire result and is liable as though his acts were the sole
cause of the injury. - There is no contribution between joint tortfeasors whose
liability is solidary since both of them are liable for the total damage. Where
the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omissions of two or more
persons, although acting independently, are in combination the direct and
proximate cause of a single injury to a third person, it is impossible to
determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury and either of them
is responsible for the whole injury. Where their concurring negligence resulted
in injury or damage to a third party, they become joint tortfeasors and are
solidarily liable for the resulting damage under Article 2194 of the Civil Code.

D. CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAY AFFECT THE DETERMINATION OF

NEGLIGENCE:

Facts:

On a Sunday afternoon, David Taylor, 15 years old, the son of a mechanical

engineer, more mature than the average boy of his age, and having
considerable aptitude and training in mechanics, together with Manuel
Claparolsabout 12 years of age, crossed the footbridge to the Isla del
Provisor, for the purpose of visiting one Murphy, an employee of the
defendant, who and promised to make them a cylinder for a miniature engine.
They walked across the open space in where the company dumped in the
cinders and ashes from its furnaces. They found some twenty or thirty brass
fulminating caps scattered on the ground. These caps are approximately of
the size and appearance of small pistol cartridges and each has attached to it
2 long thin wires by means of which it may be discharged by the use of
electricity and were intended for use in the explosion of blasting charges of
dynamite, and have in themselves a considerable explosive power. The boys
picked up all they could find, hung them on stick, of which each took end, and
carried them home.

After crossing the footbridge, they met a little girl named Jessie Adrian, less
than 9 years old, and all three went to the home of the boy Manuel. The boys
then made a series of experiments with the caps. They trust the ends of the
wires into an electric light socket and obtained no result. They next tried to
break the cap with a stone and failed. Manuel looked for a hammer, but could
not find one. Then they opened one of the caps with a knife, and finding that it
was filled with a yellowish substance they got matches, and David held the
cap while Manuel applied a lighted match to the contents. An explosion
followed, causing more or less serious injuries to all three. Jessie, who when
the boys proposed putting a match to the contents of the cap, became
frightened and started to run away, received a slight cut in the neck. Manuel
had his hand burned and wounded, and David was struck in the face by
several particles of the metal capsule, one of which injured his right eye to
such an extent as to the necessitate its removal by the surgeons who were
called in to care for his wounds.

An action to recover damages for the loss of an eye and other injuries,
instituted by David Taylor, a minor, by his father, his nearest relative. The trial
court held Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company liable.

Issue:Is the Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company liable for damages
incurred by a minor within its company premises.Ruling:

No. In order to establish his right to a recovery, must establish by competent

evidence:

1. Damages to the plaintiff

2. Negligence by act or omission of which defendant personally, or some

person for

whose acts it must respond, was guilty.

3. The connection of cause and effect between the negligence and the
damage.

It is clear that the accident could not have happened and not the fulminating
caps been left exposed at the point where they were found, or if their owner
had exercised due care in keeping them in an appropriate place; but it is
equally clear that plaintiff would not have been injured had he not, for his own
pleasure and convenience, entered upon the defendant's premises, and
strolled around thereon without the express permission of the defendant, and
had he not picked up and carried away the property of the defendant which he
found on its premises, and had he not thereafter deliberately cut open one of
the caps and applied a match to its contents.

As a rule, the owners of premises, whereon things attractive to children are

exposed, or upon which the public are expressly or impliedly permitted to
enter or upon which the owner knows or ought to know children are likely to
roam about for pastime and in play, "must calculate upon this, and take
precautions accordingly." In such cases the owner of the premises cannot be
heard to say that because the child has entered upon his premises without his
express permission he is a trespasser to whom the owner owes no duty or
obligation whatever. The owner's failure to take reasonable precautions to
prevent the child from entering his premises at a place where he knows or
ought to know that children are accustomed to roam about of to which their
childish instincts and impulses are likely to attract them is at least equivalent
to an implied license to enter, and where the child does enter under such
conditions the owner's failure to take reasonable precautions to guard the
child against injury from unknown or unseen dangers, placed upon such
premises by the owner, is clearly a breach of duty, responsible, if the child is
actually injured, without other fault on its part than that it had entered on the
premises of a stranger without his express invitation or permission.

However, the plaintiff in this case had sufficient capacity and understanding to
be sensible of the danger to which he exposed himself when he put the match
to the contents of the cap; that he was sui juris in the sense that his age and
his experience qualified him to understand and appreciate the necessity for
the exercise of that degree of caution which would have avoided the injury
which resulted from his own deliberate act; and that the injury incurred by him
must be held to have been the direct and immediate result of his own willful
and reckless act, so that while it may be true that these injuries wouldnot have
been incurred but for the negligence act of the defendant in leaving the caps
exposed on its premises, nevertheless plaintiff's own act was the proximate
and principal cause of the accident which inflicted the injury.

Applying the Roman Lawquod quis ex culpa suadamnumsentit, non

intelligitursentire, or “the just thing is that a man should suffer the damage
which comes to him through his own fault, and that he cannot demand
reparation therefor from another”, the plaintiff cannot now recover damages
for his own fault.

US vs. Bonifacio

GR No. L-10563 March 2, 1916 Carson, J:

Facts:

Bonifacio was an engineer and was conducting the heavy freight train one
morning in Batangas. The train had just rounded a curve when Bonifacio saw
a man (Eligio Castillo) walking along the railroad track. The former
immediately blew his whistle twice; unknown to him, Castillo was a deaf-mute.
Noticing that Castillo did not step aside from the track, Bonifacio tried to slow
down the engine, but did not succeed in stopping in time to avoid running
down the pedestrian, who, about that time, turned and attempted to cross the
track.

Bonifacio was charged in the trial court with homicide committed with reckless
negligence and he was convicted of homicide committed with simple
negligence.

Issue:

Whether or not Bonifacio is liable for the death of Castillo. Held:

He is not liable.

There is no obligation on an engine driver to stop, or even to slow down his

engine, when he sees an adult pedestrian standing or walking on or near the
track, unless there is something in the appearance or conduct of the person
on foot which would cause a prudent man to anticipate the possibility that
such person could not, or would not avoid the possibility of danger by
stepping aside. Ordinarily, all that may properly be required of an engine
driver under such circumstances is that he give warning of his approach, by
blowing his whistle or ringing his bell until he is assured that the attention of
the pedestrian has been attracted to the oncoming train.

An engine driver may fairly assume that all persons walking or standing on or
near the railroad track, except children of tender years, are aware of the
danger to which they are exposed; and that they will take reasonable
precautions to avoid accident, by looking and listening for the approach of
trains, and stepping out of the way of danger when their attention is directed
to an oncoming train. Any other rule would render it impracticable to operate
railroads so as to secure the expeditious transportation of passengers and
freight which the public interest demands.

Bonifacio was without fault; and that the accident must be attributed wholly to
the reckless negligence of the deaf-mute, in walking on the track without
taking the necessary precautions to avoid danger from a train approaching
him from behind.

Ma. Lourdes Valenzuela

Versus
Court of Appeals, Richard Li and Alexander Commercial, Inc.

G.R. No. 115024 February 7, 1996

Facts: Ma. Lourdes Valenzuela was driving a blue Mitsubishi lancer from her
restaurant at Marcos highway to her home in Araneta Avenue. She was with a
companion. While driving she noticed something was wrong with her tires.
She stopped at a lighted place and verified it to ask help if needed. She was
told by the people present that her tire was flat and decided to park her car
and turned on the emergency lights. She alighted from her car and assisted
the man who will be fixing her tire when suddenly she was bumped by a 1987
Mitsubishi Lancer driven by Richard Li and registered under Alexander
Commercial, Inc. This accident resulted to her confinement for 20 days and
amputation of her knee. The expenses for the hospital amounted to Php
120,000 and the cost of the artificial leg was

Php 27,000 which were paid by defendants from the car insurance.
Valenzuela asked for Php 1M for moral damages, Php 100,000 for exemplary
damages and Php 180,000 for other medical and related expenses.

Richard Li denied the allegation that he was negligent. He claimed that

Valenzuela’s car was improperly parked and the area was poor lighted. He
also counterclaimed for damages for Valenzuela was negligent for driving
without a license.

A witness testified that Li’s car was approaching the scene very fast. He
stated that Li was under the influence of alcohol since he could smell it.

The trial court found Li guilty of gross negligence and liable for damages
under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. It also held Alexander Commercial, Inc.
Li’s employer jointly and severally liable for the damages under Article 2180.
The Court of Appeals sustained that Li was liable for the damages but
absolved Alexander Commercial Inc., Li’s employer, from any liability against
Valenzuela. It dismissed the defendants’ counterclaims.

Issues: 1.) Whether or not Li shall be held liable for the damages?

2.) Whether or not Valenzuela was also negligent on her part?

3.) Whether or not Alexander Commercial, Inc., Li’s employer, shall be jointly
and severally liable for the damages?
Ruling: 1. Yes. Negligence is commonly understood as the conduct which
creates an undue risk of harm to others. It is the failure to observe that degree
of care, precaution and vigilance which circumstances justly demand,
whereby such other person suffers injury. The circumstances established by
the evidence showed that Li was grossly negligent in driving the Mitsubishi
Lancer. It was emphasized that he was driving at a fast speed at 2:00 AM
after a heavy downpour which made the street slippery. There was also ample
evidence showing that he was under the influence of liquor.

2. No. Contributory negligence is the conduct on the part of the injured party,
contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below
the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection.
Valenzuela did exercise standard reasonably dictated by emergence. It could
not be considered as contributory to the accident that happened to her. The
emergency that led her to park her car on a sidewalk of Aurora Boulevard was
not her fault. It was evident that she took all the reasonable precautions.

3. Yes. Under the civil law, an employer is liable for the negligence of his
employees in the discharge of their respective duties, the basis of which
liability is not respondeat superior but the relationship of paterfamilias which
theory bases the liability of the master ultimately on his own negligence and
not on that of his servant. Alexander Commercial, Inc. did not demonstrate
that it exercised the care and diligence of a good father of the family in
entrusting its company car to Li. It was not shown that the company took the
necessary steps in determining the driving proficiency and history of Li.

Fallo: Wherefore, premises considered, the decision of the Court of Appeals is

modified with the effect of reinstating the judgment of the Regional Trial Court.

So ordered.

JULIAN DEL ROSARIO, vs. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY G.R. No. L-

35283; November 5, 1932

FACTS:

At around 2 o’clock in the afternoon, on August 4, 1930, trouble developed in

a wire used by the defendant on Dimas-Alang Street for the purpose of
conducting electricity used in lighting the City of Manila and its suburbs. Jose
Noguera, who had charge of a tienda nearby, first noticed that the wire was
burning and its connections smoking. In a short while the wire parted and one
of the ends of the wire fell to the ground among some shrubbery close to the
way. Noguera then stepped into a garage which was located nearby and
asked Jose Soco, the timekeeper, to telephone the Malabon station of the
Manila Electric Company that an electrical wire was burning at that place.
Soco transmitted the message at 2.25 p. m. and received answer from the
station to the effect that they would send an inspector. At the time that
message was sent the wire had not yet parted, but from the testimony of one
of the witnesses, it is clear that the end of the

wire was on the ground shortly after 3 p. m.

At around 4 p.m., the neighborhood school was dismissed and the children
went home. When they passed by the hanging wire, Saturnino Endrina, one of
the school kids, made a motion as if it touch the wire. Jose Salvador,
happened to be the son of an electrician and his father had cautioned him
never to touch a broken electrical wire, as it might have a current. However,
Alberto del Rosario said that "I have for some time been in the habit of
touching wires" and so feeling challenged put out his index finger and touch
the wire. He immediately fell face downwards, exclaiming "Ay! madre". The
end of the wire remained in contact with his body which fell near the post. A
crowd soon collected, and someone cut the wire and disengaged the body.
Upon being taken at St. Luke's Hospital he was pronounced dead.

ISSUE/S:

1. Whether or not, Manila Electric Company should be held liable for

negligence that caused the death of Alberto del Rosario?

HELD:

1. YES. Manila Electric Company should be held liable for negligence that
caused the death of Alberto. When notice was received at the Malabon station
at 2.25 p. m., somebody should have been dispatched to the scene of the
trouble at once, or other measures taken to guard the point of danger; but
more than an hour and a half passed before anyone representing the
company appeared on the scene, and in the meantime this child had been
claimed as a victim.

It is doubtful whether contributory negligence can properly be imputed to the

deceased, owing to his immature years and the natural curiosity which a child
would feel to do something out of the ordinary, and the mere fact that the
deceased ignored the caution of a companion of the age of 8 years does not,
in our opinion, alter the case. But even supposing that contributory negligence
could in some measure be properly imputed to the deceased, a proposition
upon which the members of the court do not all agree,

yet such negligence would not be wholly fatal to the right of action in this
case, not having been the

determining cause of the accident. (Rakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co., 7
Phil., 359.)

With respect to the amount of damages recoverable the majority of the

members of this court are of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover
P250 for expenses incurred in connection with the death and burial of the boy.
For the rest, in accordance with the precedents cited in Astudillo vs. Manila
Electric Company (55 Phil., 427), the majority of the court are of the opinion
that the plaintiff should recover the sum of P1,000 as general damages for
loss of service.

The judgment appealed from is therefore reversed and the plaintiff will recover
of the defendant the sum of P1,250, with costs of both instances.

E. STANDARD OF CONDUCT: GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY

FEDERICO YLARDE v. EDGARDO AQUINO, GR No. L-33722, 1988-07-29

Facts:

In 1963, private respondent Mariano Soriano was the principal of the

Gabaldon Primary School, a public educational institution located in Tayug,
Pangasinan. Private respondent Edgardo Aquino was a teacher therein. At
that time, the school was littered with several concrete... blocks which were
remnants of the old school shop that was destroyed in World War II.

Realizing that the huge stones were serious hazards to the schoolchildren,
another teacher by the name of Sergio Banez started burying them one by
one as early as 1962. In fact, he was able to... bury ten of these blocks all by
himself.

Deciding to help his colleague, private respondent Edgardo Aquino gathered

eighteen of his male pupils, aged ten to eleven, after class dismissal on
October 7, 1963. Being their teacher-in-charge, he ordered them to dig beside
a one-ton concrete block in order to make a hole... wherein the stone can be
buried.

The following day, also after classes, private respondent Aquino called four of
the original eighteen pupils to continue the digging. These four pupils --
Reynaldo Alonso, Francisco Alcantara, Ismael Abaga and

Novelito Ylarde, dug until the excavation was one meter and forty centimeters
deep. At this point, private respondent Aquino alone continued digging while
the pupils remained inside the pit throwing out the loose soil that was brought
about by the digging.

Private respondent wanted to borrow from Banez the key to the school
workroom where he could get some rope. Before leaving, private respondent
Aquino allegedly told the children "not to touch the stone."

A few minutes after private respondent Aquino left, three of the four kids,
Alonso, Alcantara and Ylarde, playfully jumped into the pit. Then, without any
warning at all, the remaining Abaga jumped on top of the concrete block
causing it to slide down towards the opening. Alonso... and Alcantara were
able to scramble out of the excavation on time but unfortunately for Ylarde,
the concrete block caught him before he could get out, pinning him to the wall
in a standing position.

Three days later, Novelito Ylarde died.

Ylarde's parents, petitioners in this case, filed a suit for damages against both
private respondents Aquino and Soriano. The lower court dismissed the
complaint on the following grounds: (1) that the digging done by the pupils is
in line with their course called Work Education;

(2) that Aquino exercised the utmost diligence of a very cautious person; and
(3) that the demise of Ylarde was due to his own reckless imprudence.[2]
Petitioners base their action against private respondent Aquino on Article
2176 of the Civil Code for his alleged negligence that caused their son's death
while the complaint against respondent Soriano as the head of school is
founded on Article 2180 of the same Code.

Issues:

The issue to be resolved is whether or not under the cited provisions, both
private respondents can be held liable for damages.

Were there acts and omissions on the part of private respondent Aquino
amounting to fault or negligence which have direct causal relation to the death
of pupil Ylarde? Our answer is in the affirmative. He is liable for... damages.

Ruling:

As regards the principal, We hold that he cannot be made responsible for the
death of the child Ylarde, he being the head of an academic school and not a
school of arts and trades. This is in line with Our ruling in Amadora vs. Court
of Appeals,[4]... wherein this Court thoroughly discussed the doctrine that
under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, it is only the teacher and not the head of
an academic school who should be answerable for torts committed by their
students. This Court went on to say that in a school of arts and... trades, it is
only the head of the school who can be held liable.

"After an exhaustive examination of the problem, the Court has come to the
conclusion that the provision in question should apply to all schools, academic
as well as non-academic. Where the school is academic rather than technical
or vocational in nature,... responsibility for the tort committed by the student
will attach to the teacher in charge of such student, following the first part of
the provision. This is the general rule. In the case of establishments of arts
and trades, it is the head thereof, and only he, who shall be... held liable as an
exception to the general rule. In other words, teachers in general shall be
liable for the acts of their students except where the school is technical in
nature, in which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable.
Following the canon of reddendo... singula sinquilis, 'teachers' should apply to
the words 'pupils and students' and 'heads of establishments of arts and
trades' to the word 'apprentices.'"
Hence, applying the said doctrine to this case, We rule that private
respondent Soriano, as principal, cannot be held liable for the reason that the
school he heads is an academic school and not a school of arts and trades.

From the foregoing, it can be easily seen that private respondent Aquino can
be held liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code as the teacher-in-charge of
the children for being negligent in his supervision over them and his failure to
take the necessary precautions to prevent... any injury on their persons.

However, as earlier pointed out, petitioners base the alleged liability of private
respondent Aquino on Article 2176 which is separate and distinct from that
provided for in Article 2180.

From a review of the record of this case, it is very clear that private
respondent Aquino acted with fault and gross negligence when he: (1) failed
to avail himself of services of adult manual laborers and instead utilized his
pupils aged ten to eleven to make an excavation near... the one-ton concrete
stone which he knew to be a very hazardous task; (2) required the children to
remain inside the pit even after they had finished digging, knowing that the
huge block was lying nearby and could be easily pushed or kicked aside by
any pupil who by chance may... go to the perilous area; (3) ordered them to
level the soil around the excavation when it was so apparent that the huge
stone was at the brink of falling; (4) went to a place where he would not be
able to check on the children's safety; and (5) left the children close to the...
excavation, an obviously attractive nuisance.

The negligent act of private respondent Aquino in leaving his pupils in such a
dangerous site has a direct causal connection to the death of the child Ylarde.
Left by themselves, it was but natural for the children to play around. Tired
from the strenuous digging, they just had... to amuse themselves with
whatever they found. Driven by their playful and adventurous instincts and not
knowing the risks they were facing

Everything that occurred was the natural and probable effect of the negligent
acts of private respondent Aquino.

Needless to say, the child Ylarde would not have died were it not for the
unsafe situation created by private respondent Aquino which exposed the
lives of all the pupils concerned to real danger.
We cannot agree with the finding of the lower court that the injuries which
resulted in the death of the child Ylarde were caused by his own reckless
imprudence. It should be remembered that he was only ten years old at the
time of the incident. As such, he is expected to be... playful and daring.

In ruling that the child Ylarde was imprudent, it is evident that the lower court
did not consider his age and maturity

The court is not persuaded that the digging done by the pupils can pass as
part of their Work Education.

The contention that private respondent Aquino exercised the utmost diligence
of a very cautious person is certainly without cogent basis. A reasonably
prudent person would have foreseen that bringing children to an excavation
site, and more so, leaving them there all by... themselves, may result in an
accident.

We close by categorically stating that a truly careful and cautious person

would have acted in all contrast to the way private respondent Aquino did.
Were it not for his gross negligence, the unfortunate incident would not have
occurred and the child Ylarde would probably be... alive today a grown man of
thirty-five. Due to his failure to take the necessary precautions to avoid the
hazard, Ylarde's parents suffered great anguish all these years.

Culion Ice, Fish and Electric Co., Inc., vs Philippine Motors Corporation

Facts:

Both parties are domestic corporations. Culion ice was the registered owner
of the motor schooner Gwendoline, used in the fishing trades in the Philippine
Islands. H.D. Cranston (representative of Culion ice in Manila) contracted
defendant Philippine Motors, under the supervision and directions of C.E.
Quest (general manager in charge of corporations in all its branches) to
change the engine of Gwendoline from a gasoline consumer to a crude oil
burner to lessen the costs of running the boat.

Quest decided to install a new carburetor. The said appliance was installed,
the engine was tried with gasoline supplied from the tank already in use. This
being successful, they introduced a baser fuel comprised of low grade of
mixed oil with distillate through a temporary tank which was placed on deck
above and at a short distance from the compartment covering the engine,
connected to the carburetor by a piece of tubing not well fitted to the tank.
This caused the fuel mixture to leak from the tank and drip down to the engine
compartment. During the course of the preliminary work upon the carburetor it
was observed that the carburetor was flooding, that the fuel dripped from the
carburetor to the floor. This was called to Quest’s attention but be brushed it
aside and said that the flooding would disappear when the engine had gotten
to running well.

When the boat was taken out for a trial after preliminary experiments and
adjustments, the engine stopped a few times due to the improper mixture of
fuel. As the boat was passing near Cavite, its engine stopped, and the
connection was made with the gasoline to get a new start. A backfire occurred
and the carburetor, and subsequently Gwendoline, was engulfed in flames.

CFI: Ruled in favor of Culion ice to recover damages plus interest, Phil motors
appealed.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT QUEST CAN BE HELD LIABLE NEGLIGENCE

HELD: YES. When a person holds himself out as being competent to do

things requiring professional skill, he will be held liable for negligence if he
fails to exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in the particular work
which he attempts to do.

Quest did not use the skill that would have been exhibited by one
ordinarily expert in repairing gasoline engines on boats : Quest had had
ample experience in fixing the engines of automobiles and tractors, but it does
not appear that he was experienced in the doing of similar work on boats. For
this reason, possibly the dripping of the mixture form the tank on deck and the
flooding of the carburetor did not convey to his mind an adequate impression
of the danger of fire. There was a blameworthy antecedent inadvertence to
possible harm constituting negligence.

This accident is chargeable to lack of skill or negligence in effecting the

changes which Quest undertook toaccomplish;
The burning of the Gwendoline may be said to have resulted from accident,
but this accident was in no sense an unavoidable accident. It would not have
occurred but for Quest's carelessness or lack of skill. The test of liability is not
whether the injury was accidental in a sense, but whether Quest was free
from blame. (fire not casus fortuitous as the origin of the same is not so
inscrutable).

Cruz vs Court of Appeals

GR No. 122445 November 18, 1997

Facts: On March 22, 1991, prosecution witness, Rowena Umali de Ocampo,

accompanied her mother to the Perpetual Help Clinic and General Hospital
situated in Balagtas Street, San Pablo City, Laguna. They arrived at the said
hospital at around 4:30 in the afternoon of the same day. Prior to March 22,
1991, Lydia was examined by the petitioner who found a “Myoma” in her
uterus, and scheduled her for a hysterectomy operation on March 23, 1991.
Rowena and her mother slept in the clinic on the evening of March 22, 1991
as the latter was to be operated on the next day at 1pm. According to
Rowena, she noticed that the clinic was untidy and the windows and the floor
were very dusty prompting her to ask the attendant fora rag to wipe the
window and floor with. Prior to the operation, Rowena tried to convince her
mother to not proceed with the operation and even asked petitioner for it to be
postponed, however it still pushed through after the petitioner told Lydia that
operation must be done as scheduled. During the operation, the assisting
doctor of the petitioner, Dr. Ercillo went out of the operating room and asked
that tagmet ampules be bought which was followed by another instruction to
buy a bag of blood. After the operation, when Lydia came out of the OR,
another bag of blood was requested to be bought, however, the same was not
bought due to unavailability of type A from the blood bank. Thereafter a
person arrived to donate blood which was later transferred to Lydia. Rowena
then noticed her mother, who was attached to an oxygen tank, gasping for
breathe apparently, the oxygen tank is empty, so her husband and petitioner’s
driver bought an oxygen. Later, without the knowledge of Lydia’s relatives,she
was decided by the doctors to be transferred to San Pablo District Hospital
were she was supposed to be re-operated. After Lydia experienced shocks,
she died. 

Issue: Whether or not petitioner has been negligent which caused the death
of Lydia Umali.
Held: Yes. Whether or not a physician has committed an “inexcusable lack of
precaution” in the treatment of his patient to be determined according to the
standard of care observed by other members of the profession in good
standing under similar circumstances bearing in mind the advanced state of
the profession at the time of treatment or the present state of medical science.
A doctor in effect represents that, having the needed training and skill
possessed by physicians and surgeons practicing in the same field, he will
employ such training, care and skill in the treatment of his patients. He
therefore has a duty to use at least the same level of care that any other
reasonably competent doctor would use to treat a condition under the same
circumstances. It is in this aspect of medical malpractice that expert testimony
is essential to establish not only the standard of care of the profession but
also that the physician’s conduct in the treatment and care falls below such
standard. Further, in as much as the causes of the injuries involved in
malpractice actions are determinable only in the light of scientific knowledge,
it has been recognized that expert testimony is usually necessary to the
conclusion as to causation. 

In litigations involving medical negligence, the plaintiff has the burden of

establishing appellant’s negligence and for a reasonable conclusion of
negligence, there must be proof of breach of duty on the part of the surgeon
as well as  causal connection of such breach and the resulting death of his
patient.

In order that there may be recovery for an injury, however, it must be shown
that the injury for which recovery is sought must be legitimate consequence of
the wrong done; the connection between the negligence and the injury must
be a direct and natural reference of events, unbroken by intervening efficient
causes. In other words, the negligence must be the proximate cause of the
injury. For negligence, no matter what it consists, cannot create a right of
action unless it is the proximate cause of the injury complained of and the
proximate cause of an injury is that cause, which in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury
and without which the result would have occurred.

The elements of reckless imprudence are:

1. That the offender does or fails to do an act;

2. That the doing or the failure to do that act is voluntary;
 3. That it be without malice;
4. That material damage results from the reckless imprudence; and
5. That there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the
offender, taking into consideration his employment or occupation,
degree of intelligence, physical condition, and other circumstances
regarding persons, time, and place.

The possible causes of hemorrhage during an operation are: 1.) the failure of
the surgeon to tie or suture a cut blood vessel; 2.) allowing a cut blood vessel
to get out of control; 3.) the subsequent loosening of the tie or suture applied
to a cut blood vessel; and 4.)and a clotting defect known as DIC.

F. STANDARD IN DECIDING NEGLIGENCE CASES

Preciolita V. Corliss vs. The Manila Railroad Co., 27 SCRA 674 (1969)

Facts:

The instant case is an appeal on the decision of the lower court dismissing
Preciolita Corliss’ complaint for recovery of damages against Manila Railroad
Co.

On the evening of February 21, 1957, at the railroad crossing in Balibago,

Pampanga in front of Clark Air Force Base, the husband of Preciolia, Ralph
Corliss, an air police, was driving a jeep, together with a P.C. soldier, to the
Clark base to return said jeep. Said jeep Ralph was driving collided with a
locomotive of Manila Railroad. Ralph died of serious burns in the base
hospital the next day.

Preciolita filed a complaint for recovery of damages against Manila Railroad.

The lower court, however, ruled in favor of Manila Railroad. The lower court
opined that Ralph was a victim of his own wrongdoing and miscalculation
when he took the risk and attempted to beat the oncoming locomotive and
aiming to reach the other side of the railroad crossing before said locomotive
could pass the jeep by. Hence, the present case.

ISSUE
Whether or not there is negligence on the part of Manila Railroad and
therefore, should be held liable for damages - NO

HELD

The Court ruled that the present action is predicated on negligence, the Civil
Code making clear that whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being negligence, is under obligation to pay for the damage
done.

The Court cited the cases of U.S. v. Juanillo and U.S. v. Barias in defining
what is negligence: “The failure to observe for the protection of the interests of
another person that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the
circumstance justly demand whereby such other person suffers injury.”

Also cited was case of Ahern v. Oregon Telephone Co. which defined
Negligence as: “want of the care required by the circumstances. It is a relative
or comparative, not an absolute term and its application depends upon the
situation of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the
circumstances reasonably require. Where the danger is great, a high degree
of care is necessary, and the failure to observe it is a want of ordinary care
under the circumstances.”

In determining the presence of negligence, the court explained that every

case must be dependent on its facts. The circumstances indicative of lack of
due care must be judged in the light of what could reasonably be expected of
the parties. If the objective standard of prudence be met, then negligence is
ruled out.

In the present case, it is improper to impute negligence on Manila Railroad

since material facts show that it is clear that Ralph Corliss was so sufficiently
warned in advance (the lower court pointed out that moments before the
collision, Teodorico Capili who was manning the locomotive which was then
300 meters away from exact point of accident, blew the siren and repeated it
in compliance with the regulation) of the oncoming train that it was incumbent
upon him to avoid a possible accident — and this consisted simply in stopping
his vehicle before the crossing and allowing the train to move on.

A prudent man under similar circumstances would have acted in such a

manner, but unfortunately, Ralph had failed to do so despite him having been
crossing the checkpoint frequently, if not daily and must have been aware that
locomotive engines and trains usually pass at that particular crossing where
the accident had taken place.

In addition, the Court reiterated the ruling the case of U.S. v. Manabat &
Pasibi: “...we think it is incumbent upon one approaching a railroad crossing to
use all of his faculties of seeing and hearing. He should approach a railroad
crossing cautiously and carefully. He should look and listen and do everything
that a reasonably prudent man would do before he attempts to cross the
track."

G. PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE

MA-AO SUGAR CENTRAL CO., INC. vs. CA G.R. No. 83491 | August 27,
1990 | Cruz, J.

FACTS:

On March 22, 1980, Famoso was riding with a co-employee in the caboose
or "carbonera" of Plymouth No. 12, a cargo train of the petitioner, when the
locomotive was suddenly derailed. He and his companion jumped off to
escape injury, but the train fell on its side, caught his legs by its wheels and
pinned him down. He was declared dead on the spot.

The claims for death and other benefits having been denied by the petitioner,
the herein private respondent filed suit in the Regional Trial Court of Bago
City. Judge Marietta Hobilla-Alinio ruled private respondent’s favor but
deducted from the total damages awarded 25% thereof for the decedent's
contributory negligence and the total pension of P41,367.60 private
respondent and her children would be receiving from the SSS for the next five
years.

The widow appealed, claiming that the deductions were illegal. The petitioner
also appealed, but on the ground that it was not negligent and therefore not
liable at all.
The CA sustained the rulings of the trial court except as to the contributory
negligence of the deceased and disallowed the deductions protested by the
private respondent.

ISSUES:

1. WON the petitioner is guilty of negligence notwithstanding its defense of

due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees.

2. WON Famoso is guilty of contributory negligence.

3. WON the CA is correct in disallowing the deductions made by the trial

court.

HELD:

1. YES.

Investigation of the accident revealed that the derailment of the locomotive

was caused by protruding rails which had come loose because they were not
connected and fixed in place by fish plates. Fish plates are described as strips
of iron 8" to 12" long and 3 1/2" thick which are attached to the rails by 4 bolts,
two on each side, to keep the rails aligned. The fish plates that should have
kept the rails aligned could not be found at the scene of the accident.

There is no question that the maintenance of the rails, for the purpose inter
alia of preventing derailments, was the responsibility of the petitioner, and that
this responsibility was not discharged. According to Jose Treyes, its own
witness, who was in charge of the control andsupervision of its train
operations, cases of derailment in the milling district were frequent and there
were even times when such derailments were reported every hour. The
petitioner should therefore have taken more prudent steps to prevent such
accidents instead of waiting until a life was finally lost because of its
negligence.

At any rate, the absence of the fish plates—whatever the cause or reason—is
by itself—alone proof of the negligence of the petitioner. Res ipsa loquitur.
The doctrine was described recently in Layugan v. Intermediate Appellate
Court, thus: Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the
management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary
course of things does not happen if those who have the management use
proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation
by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care.

The petitioner also disclaims liability on the ground of Article 2176 of the Civil
Code, contending it has exercised due diligence in the selection and
supervision of its employees. The Court cannot agree. The record shows it
was in fact lax in requiring them to exercise the necessary vigilance in
maintaining the rails in good condition to prevent the derailments that
sometimes happened "every hour." Obviously, merely ordering the brakemen
and conductors to fill out prescribed forms reporting derailments - which
reports have not been acted upon as shown by the hourly derailments - is not
the kind of supervision envisioned by the Civil Code.

2. NO.

Contributory negligence has been defined as “the 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.” It has
been held that “to hold a person as having contributed to his injuries, it must
be shown that he performed an act that brought about his injuries in disregard
of warnings or signs of an impending danger to health and body.” There is no
showing that the caboose where Famoso was riding was a dangerous place
and that he recklessly dared to stay there despite warnings or signs of
impending danger.

3. YES.

The petitioner argued the deduction from the total damages awarded the
private respondent of the amount of P41, 367.60, representing the pension to
be received by the private respondent from the Social Security System for a
period of five years was quite proper because of Art. 173 of the Labor Code,
as amended. This article provides that any amount received by the heirs of a
deceased employee from the Employees Compensation Commission, whose
funds are administered by the SSS, shall be exclusive of all other amounts
that may otherwise be claimed under the Civil Code and other pertinent
laws.As observed by Justice J.B.L. Reyes in the case of Valencia v. Manila
Yacht Club, which is still controlling: x x x By their nature and purpose, the
sickness or disability benefits to which a member of the System may be
entitled under the Social Security law (Rep. Act No. 1161, as amended by
Rep. Acts Nos. 1792 and 2658) are not the same as the compensation that
may be claimed against the employer under the Workmen’s Compensation
Act or the Civil Code, so that payment to the member employee of social
security benefits would not wipe out or extinguish the employer’s liability for
the injury or illness contracted by his employee in the course of or during the
employment. It must be realized that, under the Workmen’s Compensation
Act (or the Civil Code, in a proper case), the employer is required to
compensate the employee for the sickness or injury arising in the course of
the employment because the industry is supposed to be responsible
therefore; whereas, under the Social Security Act, payment is being made
because the hazard specifically covered by the membership, and for which
the employee had put up his own money, had taken place.

FAR EASTERN SHIPPING CO. VS. CA 297 SCRA 30

EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY

FACTS:

On June 20, 1980, the M/V PAVLODAR, flying under the flagship of the
USSR, owned and operated by the Far Eastern Shipping Company (FESC),
arrived at the Port of Manila from Vancouver, British Columbia at about 7:00
o'clock in the morning. The vessel was assigned Berth 4 of the Manila
International Port, as its berthing space. Captain Roberto Abellana was
tasked by the Philippine Port Authority to supervise the berthing of the vessel.
Appellant Senen Gavino was assigned by the Appellant Manila Pilots'
Association (MPA) to conduct docking maneuvers for the safe berthing of the
vessel to Berth No. 4.

Gavino boarded the vessel at the quarantine anchorage and stationed himself
in the bridge, with the master of the vessel, Victor Kavankov, beside him. After
a briefing of Gavino by Kavankov of the particulars of the vessel and its cargo,
the vessel lifted anchor from the quarantine anchorage and proceeded to the
Manila International Port. The sea was calm and the wind was ideal for
docking maneuvers. - When the vessel reached the landmark (the big church
by the Tondo North Harbor) one- half mile from the pier, Gavino ordered the
engine stopped. When the vessel was already about 2,000 feet from the pier,
Gavino ordered the anchor dropped. Kavankov relayed the orders to the crew
of the vessel on the bow. The left anchors, with 2 shackles, were dropped.
However, the anchor did not take hold as expected. The speed of the vessel
did not slacken. A commotion ensued between the crew members. A brief
conference ensued between Kavankov and the crew members. When Gavino
inquired what all the commotion was about, Kavankov assured Gavino that
there was nothing to it. - After Gavino noticed that the anchor did not take
hold, he ordered the engines half-astern. Abellana, who was then on the pier
apron noticed that the vessel was approaching the pier fast. Kavankov
likewise noticed that the anchor did not take hold. Gavino thereafter gave the
"full-astern" code. Before the right anchor and additional shackles could be
dropped, the bow of the vessel rammed into the apron of the pier causing
considerable damage to the pier. The vessel sustained damage too.
Kavankov filed his sea protest. Gavino submitted his report to the Chief Pilot
who referred the report to the Philippine Ports Authority. Abellana likewise
submitted his report of the incident. - The rehabilitation of the damaged pier
cost the Philippine Ports Authority the amount of P1,126,132.25.

ISSUE:

WON both the pilot and the master were negligent

HELD:

The SC started by saying that in a collision between a stationary object and a

moving object, there is a presumption of fault against the moving object
(based on common sense and logic). It then went on to determine who
between the pilot and the master was negligent.

PILOT

A pilot, in maritime law, is a person duly qualified, and licensed, to conduct a

vessel into or out of ports, or in certain waters. He is an expert who’s
supposed to know the seabed, etc. that a master of a ship may not know
because the pilot is familiar with the port. He is charged to perform his duties
with extraordinary care because the safety of people and property on the
vessel and on the dock are at stake.
Capt. Gavino

anchor not holding ground and the vessel still going too fast was too slow. As
an expert he should’ve been reacting quickly to any such happenings.

MASTER

In compulsory pilotage, the pilot momentarily becomes the master of the

vessel. The master, however may intervene or countermand the pilot if he
deems there is danger to the vessel because of the incompetence of the pilot
or if the pilot is drunk. - Based on Capt. Kavankov’s testimony, he never
sensed the any danger even when the anchor didn’t hold and they were
approaching the dock too fast. He blindly trusted the pilot. This is negligence
on his part. He was right beside the pilot during the docking, so he could see
and hear everything that the pilot was seeing and hearing. The master’s
negligence translates to unseaworthiness of the vessel, and in turn means
negligence on the part of FESC.

CONCURRENT TORTFEASORS

As a general rule, that negligence in order to render a person liable need not
be the sole cause of an injury. It is sufficient that his negligence, concurring
with one or more efficient causes other than plaintiff's, is the proximate cause
of the injury. Accordingly, where several causes combine to produce injuries,
person is not relieved from liability because he is responsible for only one of
them, it being sufficient that the negligence of the person charged with injury
is an efficient cause without which the injury would not have resulted to as
great an extent, and that such cause is not attributable to the person injured. It
is no defense to one of the concurrent tortfeasors that the injury would not
have resulted from his negligence alone, without the negligence or wrongful
acts of the other concurrent tortfeasor. Where several causes producing an
injury are concurrent and each is an efficient cause without which the injury
would not have happened, the injury may be attributed to all or any of the
causes and recovery may be had against any or all of the responsible persons
although under the circumstances of the case, it may appear that one of them
was more culpable, and that the duty owed by them to the injured person was
not the same. No actor's negligence ceases to be a proximate cause merely
because it does not exceed the negligence of other actors. Each wrongdoer is
responsible for the entire result and is liable as though his acts were the sole
cause of the injury. - There is no contribution between joint tortfeasors whose
liability is solidary since both of them are liable for the total damage. Where
the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omissions of two or more
persons, although acting independently, are in combination the direct and
proximate cause of a single injury to a third person, it is impossible to
determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury and either of them
is responsible for the whole injury. Where their concurring negligence resulted
in injury or damage to a third party, they become joint tortfeasors and are
solidarily liable for the resulting damage under Article 2194 of the Civil Code.

Radio Communications of the Phils., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,

G.R. No. L-4478, August 29, 1986

Facts:

 Loreto Dionela, private respondent, received a telegram sent through RCPI,

Manila containing defamatory

words, to wit: “Sa iyo walang pakinabang dumating ka diyan-wala-kang-

padala dito kahit BULBUL mo.”

 Loreto alleges that these words not only wounded his feelings but also
caused him undue harassment and

affected adversely his business as well because other people have come to
know thereof.

 RCPI alleges that the additional words in Tagalog was a private joke
between their operators and not addressed

to Loreto and that the Tagalog words are not defamatory.

 The trial court, in finding for Loreto, ruled that the additional words in
Tagalog are libelous and there was

sufficient publication of such, thus, RCPI should be held liable for damages for
violating Articles 19, 20 and 33 of
the Civil Code.

 On appeal, the CA confirmed the findings of the lower court but reduced the
awarded damages. It held that:

 RCPI was negligent when it failed to take necessary or precautionary steps

to avoid the occurrence of the humiliating incident resulting in injury to Loreto;
and

 the fact that a carbon copy of the telegram was filed among other telegrams
and left to hang for the public to see, open for inspection by a third party is
sufficient publication.

 MR was denied by CA, hence, this petition to SC.

Issue:

Held: YES, RCPI is liable.

The cause of action of the private respondent is based on Arts. 19 and 20 of

the New Civil Code as well as on respondent's breach of contract thru the
negligence of its own employees.

Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of receiving and

transmitting messages. Everytime a person transmits a message through the
facilities of the petitioner, a contract is entered into. Upon receipt of the rate or
fee fixed, the petitioner undertakes to transmit the message accurately.

Here, libelous matters were included in the message transmitted, without the
consent or knowledge of the sender. There is a clear case of breach of
contract by the petitioner in adding extraneous and libelous matters in the
message sent to the private respondent. As a corporation, the petitioner can
act only through its employees. Hence the acts of its employees in receiving
and transmitting messages are the acts of the petitioner. To hold that the
petitioner is not liable directly for the acts of its employees in the pursuit of
petitioner's business is to deprive the general public availing of the services of
the petitioner of an effective and adequate remedy. In most cases, negligence
must be proved in order that plaintiff may recover. However, since negligence
may be hard to substantiate in some cases, we may apply the doctrine of
RES IPSA LOQUITUR (the thing speaks for itself), by considering the
presence of facts or circumstances surrounding the injury.

IV. DEFENSES IN NEGLIGENCE CASES

TEH LE KIM vs. PHILIPPINE AERIAL TAXI CO., INC.

G.R. No. L-39309 November 24, 1933

Facts:

On the Morning of September 4, 1931, the plaintiff herein bought, in Manila, a

passenger ticket for a flight to Iloilo in one of the defendant company's
hydroplanes starting from Madrigal Field in Pasay. Inasmuch as the engine of
the plane Mabuhay, in which he was to take the flight, was not working
satisfactorily, the said plaintiff had to wait for some time. While the engine was
being tested, the plaintiff saw how it was started by turning the propeller
repeatedly and how the man who did it ran away from it each time in order not
to be caught by the said propeller. Before the plane Mabuhay was put in
condition for the flight, the plane Taal arrived and it was decided to have the
plaintiff make the flight therein. The plaintiff and his companion were carefully
carried from the beach to the plane, entering the same by the rear or tail end,
and were placed in their seats to which they were strapped. Later, they were
shown how the straps could be tightened or loosened in case of accident and
were instructed further not to touch anything in the plane. After an uneventful
flight, the plane landed on the waters of Guimaras Strait, in front of Iloilo, and
taxied toward the beach until its pontoons struck bottom, when the plane
stopped. the pilot shut off the gasoline feed pipe, permitting the engine,
however, to continue to function until all the gasoline was drained from the
feed pipe and carburetor. This operation was necessary in accordance with
the established practice of aviation in order to avoid danger of fire which
would exist if the pipes and carburetor remained full of gasoline, and to
prevent the sudden cooling of the engine which might cause serious damage,
especially to the valves. What really happened was that at the moment the
pontoons touched bottom and while the pilot was signalling to the banca, the
plaintiff unfastened the straps around him and, not even waiting to put on his
hat, climbed over the door to the lower wing, went down the ladder to the
pontoon and walked along the pontoon toward the revolving propeller. The
propeller first grazed his forehead and, as he threw up his arm, it was caught
by the revolving blades thereof and so injured that it had be amputated.

Issue: Whether or not the defendant acted with negligence

Held:

No, defendants were not negligent

By sheer common sense, the plaintiff ought to know that a propeller, be it that
of a ship or of an aeroplane, is dangerous while in motion and that to
approach it is to run the risk of being caught and injured thereby. Under such
circumstances, it is not difficult to understand that the plaintiff-appellant acted
with reckless negligence in approaching the propeller while it was still in
motion, and when the banca was not yet in a position to take him. That the
plaintiff-appellant's negligence alone was the direct cause of the accident, is
so clear that it is not necessary to cite authoritative opinions to support the
conclusion that the injury to his right arm and the subsequent amputation
thereof were due entirely and exclusively to his own imprudence and not to
the slightest negligence attributable to the defendant entity or to its agents.
Therefore, he alone should suffer the consequences of his act

B. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION, INC. and ARMANDO U. CARBONEL vs. THE

INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and LEONARDO DIONISIO, G.R.
No. L-65295, March 10, 1987

FACTS:

At about 1:30 a.m., private respondent Leonardo Dionisio was on his way
home in Makati — from a cocktails-and-dinner meeting with his boss, the
general manager of a marketing corporation. During the cocktails phase of the
evening, Dionisio had taken "a shot or two" of liquor. Dionisio was driving his
Volkswagen car and had just crossed an intersection, not far from his home,
and was proceeding down a street when his car headlights (in his allegation)
suddenly failed. He switched his headlights on "bright" and thereupon he saw
a Ford dump truck looming some 2-1/2 meters away from his car.

Petitioner Phoenix Construction Inc. owned the dump truck. It was parked on
the right hand side of the street (i.e., on the right hand side of a person facing
in the same direction toward which Dionisio's car was proceeding), facing the
oncoming traffic. The dump truck was parked askew (not parallel to the street
curb) in such a manner as to stick out onto the street, partly blocking the way
of

oncoming traffic. There were no lights nor any so-called "early warning"
reflector devices set anywhere near the dump truck, front or rear. It was
parked by its driver Armando U. Carbonel with the permission of his employer.
Dionisio claimed that he tried to avoid a collision by swerving his car to the left
but it was too late and his car smashed into the dump truck. As a result of the
collision, Dionisio suffered some physical injuries including some permanent
facial scars, a "nervous breakdown" and loss of two gold bridge dentures.

Dionisio commenced an action for damages in the Court of First Instance of

Pampanga basically claiming that the legal and proximate cause of his injuries
was the negligent manner in which Carbonel had parked the dump truck
entrusted to him by his employer Phoenix. Phoenix and Carbonel, on the
other hand, countered that the proximate cause of Dionisio's injuries was his
own recklessness in driving fast at the time of the accident, while under the
influence of liquor, without his headlights on and without a curfew pass.
Phoenix also sought to establish that it had exercised due rare in the selection
and supervision of the dump truck driver.

The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Dionisio and against Phoenix and
Carbonel.

Phoenix and Carbonel appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court. That

court affirmed the decision of the trial court but modified the award of
damages.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Dionisio was negligent.

2. Whether the proximate cause of the accident is Dionisio’s negligence or

Phoenix’s.

3. Whether or not the Doctrine of Last Clear Chance is applicable in the case.
RULING:

1. YES. Dionisio was negligent.

No curfew pass was found on the person of Dionisio immediately after the
accident nor was any found in his car. Dionisio's car was "moving fast" and did
not have its headlights on. he had his headlights on but that, at the crucial
moment, these had in some mysterious if convenient way malfunctioned and
gone off, although he succeeded in switching his lights on again at "bright"
split seconds before contact with the dump truck to avoid the police. private
respondent Dionisio smelled of liquor at the time he was taken from his
smashed car and brought to the Makati Medical Center in an unconscious
condition.

The conclusion we draw from the factual circumstances outlined above is that
private respondent Dionisio was negligent the night of the accident. He was
hurrying home that night and driving faster than he should have been. Worse,
he extinguished his headlights at or near theintersection of General Lacuna
and General Santos Streets and thus did not see the dump truck that was
parked askew and sticking out onto the road lane.

private respondent Dionisio's negligence was "only contributory," that the

"immediate and proximate cause" of the injury remained the truck driver's
"lack of due care" and that consequently respondent Dionisio may recover
damages though such damages are subject to mitigation by the courts (Article
2179, Civil Code of the Philippines).

2. The legal and proximate cause of the accident and of Dionisio's injuries
was the wrongful — or negligent manner in which the dump truck was parked
in other words, the negligence of petitioner Carbonel.

That there was a reasonable relationship between petitioner Carbonel's

negligence on the one hand and the accident and respondent's injuries on the
other hand, is quite clear. Put in a slightly different manner, the collision of
Dionisio's car with the dump truck was a natural and foreseeable
consequence of the truck driver's negligence.
the truck driver's negligence far from being a "passive and static condition"
was rather an indispensable and efficient cause. The collision between the
dump truck and the private respondent's car would in an probability not have
occurred had the dump truck not been parked askew without any warning
lights or reflector devices. The improper parking of the dump truck created an
unreasonable risk of injury for anyone driving down General Lacuna Street
and for having so created this risk, the truck driver must be held responsible.
In our view, Dionisio's negligence, although later in point of time than the truck
driver's negligence and therefore closer to the accident, was not an efficient
intervening or independent cause. What the Petitioners describe as an
"intervening cause" was no more than a foreseeable consequent manner
which the truck driver had parked the dump truck. In other words, the
petitioner truck driver owed a duty to private respondent Dionisio and others
similarly situated not to impose upon them the very risk the truck driver had
created. Dionisio's negligence was not of an independent and overpowering
nature as to cut, as it were, the chain of causation in fact between the
improper parking of the dumptruck and the accident, nor to sever the juris
vinculum of liability.

3. NO. The Doctrine of Last Clear Chance is not applicable in the case.

To accept this proposition is to come too close to wiping out the fundamental
principle of law that a man must respond for the forseeable consequences of
his own negligent act or omission. Our law on quasi-delicts seeks to reduce
the risks and burdens of living in society and to allocate them among the
members of society. To accept the petitioners' pro-position must tend to
weaken the very bonds of society

C. FORTUITOUS EVENT

SOUTHEASTERN COLLEGE, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al., G.R.

No. 126389, July 10, 1998

Facts:

 Petitioner: during typhoon “Saling” the roof of its building was partly ripped
off and blown away,

landing on and destroying portions of the roofing of private respondents’

house. After the typhoon had passed, an ocular inspection of the destroyed
buildings was conducted by a team of engineers.

 One of the reasons of the roof incident was because of improper anchorage
of the said trusses to

the roof beams. It then recommended that the fourth floor building of the
school be declared as

“structural hazard.”

 Respondents: alleged that the damage to their house rendered the same
uninhabitable, forcing them

to stay temporarily in other’s houses. Praying for P117,116.00, as actual

damages, P1M as moral

damages, P300K as exemplary damages and P100K for attorney’s fees; plus
costs.

 Petitioner: claimed that it was not remiss in its responsibility of maintaining

the school and that

typhoon “Saling” was an act of God; ergo, not responsible for damages.

 RTC: ruled in favor of the respondents; giving credence to the ocular

inspection report to the effect

that subject school building had a “defective roofing structure,” found that,
while typhoon “Saling” was accompanied by strong winds, the damage to
private respondents’ house “could have been avoided if the construction of the
roof of petitioner’s building was not faulty.”

 CA: affirmed with modification the trial court’s disposition by reducing the
award of moral damages from P1M to P200K.

Issue: Whether the damage on private respondents’ roof was due to fortuitous
event Held: YES

Ratio:

 At the outset, it bears emphasizing that a person claiming damages for the
negligence of another has the burden of proving the existence of fault or
negligence causative of his injury or loss. The facts constitutive of negligence
must be affirmatively established by competent evidence, not merely by
presumptions and conclusions without basis in fact. Private respondents, in
establishing the culpability of petitioner, merely relied on the aforementioned
report submitted by a team which made an ocular inspection of petitioner’s
school building after the typhoon. As the term imparts, an ocular inspection is
one by means of actual sight or viewing. What is visual to the eye though, is
not always reflective of the real cause behind. For instance, one who hears a
gunshot and then sees a wounded person, cannot always definitely conclude
that a third person shot the victim. It could have been self-inflicted or caused
accidentally by a stray bullet. The relationship of cause and effect must be
clearly shown.

 Having obtained both building permit and certificate of occupancy, these

are, at the very least, prima facie evidence of the regular and proper
construction of a building.

 The antecedent of fortuitous event or caso fortuito is found in the Partidas

which defines it as “an event which takes place by accident and could not
have been foreseen.”

 An act of God cannot be invoked for the protection of a person who has
been guilty of gross negligence in not trying to forestall its possible adverse
consequences.

 There is no question that a typhoon or storm is a fortuitous event, a natural

occurrence which may be foreseen but is unavoidable despite any amount of
foresight, diligence or care.

 It is a matter of judicial notice that typhoons are common occurrences in

this country. If subject school building’s roofing was not firmly anchored to its
trusses, obviously, it could not have withstood long years and several
typhoons even stronger than “Saling.”

 It is not enough that the damage be capable of proof but must be actually
proved with a reasonable degree of certainty, pointing out specific facts that
afford a basis for measuring whatever compensatory damages are borne.

V. CAUSATION
 VILUAN V CA

(G.R. Nos. L-21477-81, April 29, 1966)

Seven persons were killed and thirteen others were injured in Bangar, La
Union when a passenger bus on which they were riding caught fire after
hitting a post and crashing against a tree. The bus, owned by petitioner and
driven by Hermenegildo Aquino, came from San Fernando, La Union and was
on its way to Candon, Ilocos Sur.

It appears that, as the bus neared the gate of the Gabaldon school building in
the municipality of Bangar, another passenger bus owned by Patricio Hufana
and driven by Gregorio Hufana tried to overtake it but that instead of giving
way, Aquino increased the speed of his bus and raced with the overtaking
bus. Aquino lost control of his bus as a result of which it hit a post, crashed
against a tree and then burst into flames.

The heirs of those who died sued petitioner and the latter's driver, Aquino, for
damages for breach of contract of carriage. Carolina Sabado, one of those
injured, also sued petitioner and the driver for damages.

Petitioner and her driver blamed respondent Gregorio Hufana for the accident.
With leave of court, they filed third party complaints against Hufana and the
latter's employer, Patricio Hufana.

ISSUE: W/N petitioner and respondent should have been held equally liable in
the damage suits since the proximate cause of the accident was found to be
the concurrent negligence of the drivers of the two buses

HELD: YES. The fact that the respondents were not sued as principals but
were brought into the cases as third party defendants should not preclude a
finding of their liability.

In this case the third party complaints filed by petitioner and her driver
charged respondents with direct liability to the plaintiffs. It was contended that
the accident was due "to the fault, negligence, carelessness and imprudence
of the third party defendant Gregorio Hufana". It should make no difference
therefore whether the respondents were brought in as principal defendants or
as third- party defendants. Nor should it make any difference that the liability
of petitioner springs from contract while that of respondents arises from quasi-
delict.

In case of injury to a passenger due to the negligence of the driver of the bus
on which he was riding and of the driver of another vehicle, the drivers as well
as the owners of the two vehicles are jointly and severally liable for damages.
Some members of the Court, though, are of the view that under the
circumstances they are liable on quasi-delict.

G.R. No. L-29745 June 4, 1973

MERCEDES M. TEAGUE, petitioner,

vs.

ELENA FERNANDEZ, et al., respondent.

Jose W. Diokno for petitioner.

Jose G. Gatchalian for respondents.

EN BANC

A a fire broke out in a store for surplus materials located about ten meters
away from the Realistic Institute. Studentsinside the institute panicked. Four
instructresses and six assistant instructress of the Institute were present and
they,together with the registrar, tried to calm down the students. However, the
panic could not be subdued and the students,with the exception of the few
who made use of fire-escapes kept on rushing and pushing their way through
the stairs, thereby causing stampede therein. No part of the building caught
fire. But after the panic was over, four students,including Lourdes Fernandez,
a sister of plaintiffs-appellants, were found dead and several others injured on
account ofthe stampede. The deceased's five brothers and sisters filed an
action for damages against Mercedes M. Teague as owner and operatorof
Realistic Institute. The decision of the appellate court declared that the
defendant, hereinafter to be referred to as the petitioner, wasnegligent and
that such negligence was the proximate cause of the death of Lourdes
Fernandez. This finding ofnegligence is based primarily on the fact that the
provision of Section 491 Of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila had
not been complied with in connection with the construction and use of the Gil-
Armi building where thepetitioner's vocational school was housed The alleged
violation of the ordinance consisted in the fact that the second storey of the
Gil-Armi building had only onestairway, 1.5 meters wide, instead of two of at
least 1.2 meters each, although at the time of the fire the owner of thebuilding
had a second stairway under construction.

ISSUE: W/N petitioner is liable.

RULING: Decision affirmed.

RATIO: Petitioner was negligent and that such negligence was the proximate
cause of the death of Lourdes Fernandez. Thisfinding of negligence is based
primarily on the fact that the provision of Section 491 Of the Revised
Ordinances of the City of Manila had not been complied with in connection
with the construction and use of the Gil-Armi building where the
petitioner'svocational school was housed. The mere fact of violation of a
statute is not sufficient basis for an inference that such violation

was the proximate cause of the injury complained. However, if the very injury
has happened which was intended to beprevented by the statute, it has been
held that violation of the statute will be deemed to be proximate cause of the
injury.

GLAN PEOPLE'S LUMBER AND HARDWARE v. INTERMEDIATE

APPELLATE COURT G.R. No. 70493, 18 May 1989

NARVASA, J.:

FACTS:

Engineer Orlando Calibo, Agripino Roranes, and Maximo Patos were on the
with Calibo at the wheel, as it approached from the South Lizada Bridge going
towards the direction of Davao City. At about that time, a cargo track driven by
Paul Zacarias, coming from the opposite direction of Davao City had just
crossed said bridge. At about 59 yards after crossing the bridge, the cargo
truck and the jeep collided as a consequence of which Engineer Calibo died
while Roranes and Patos sustained physical injuries. Zacarias was unhurt.
The instant case for damages was filed by the surviving spouse and children
of the late Engineer Calibo against the driver and owners of the cargo truck.
The court dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. Accordingly,
moments before its collission with the truck being operated by Zacarias, the
jeep of the deceased Calibo was zigzagging. Further, that there were skid
marks left by the truck's tires at the scene, and none by the jeep,
demonstrates that the driver of the truck had applied the brakes and the jeep's
driver had not, and that the jeep had on impact fallen on its right side is
indication that it was running at high speed. Under the circumstances, given
the curvature of the road and the descending grade of the jeep's lane, it was
negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep for not reducing his speed
upon sight of the truck and failing to apply the brakes as he got within collision
range with the truck. And even if it be considered that there was some
antecedent negligence on the part of Zacarias shortly before the collision in
that he had caused his truck to run some 25 centimeters to the left of the
center of the road, Engr. Calibo had the last clear chance of avoiding the
accident because he still had ample room in his own lane to steer clear of the
truck, or he could simply have braked to a full stop.

The Court of Appeals however reversed the trial court, stating that the truck
driven by defendant Zacarias occupied the lane of the jeep when the collision
occurred, and although Zacarias saw the jeep from a distance of about 150
meters, he did not drive his truck back to his lane in order to avoid collision
with the oncoming jeep.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Zacarias is guilty of negligence.

RULING:

No. The finding that the truck driven by Zacarias occupied the lane of the jeep
when the collision occurred is a loose one. It ignores the fact that by the
uncontradicted evidence, the actual center line of the road was not that
indicated by the painted stripe but, according to measurements made and
testified by Patrolman Dimaano, correctly lay thirty-six (36) centimeters farther
to the left of the truck's side of said stripe. Thus, although it was not disputed
that the truck overrode the painted stripe by twenty-five (25) centimeters, it
was still at least eleven (11) centimeters away from its side of the true center
line of the road and well inside its own lane when the accident occurred. Since
it was unquestionably the jeep that rammed into the stopped truck, it may also
be deduced that the jeep was at the time travelling beyond its own lane and
intruding into the lane of the truck by atleast the same 11- centimeter width of
space.The evidence not only acquits Zacarias of any negligence in the matter;
there are also quite a few significant indicators that it was rather Calibo's
negligence that was the proximate cause of the accident. There is more than
a suggestion that Calibo had been drinking shortly before the accident.

Moreover, both drivers had had a full view of each other's vehicle from a
distance of one hundred fifty meters and were travelling at a speed of
approximately thirty kilometers per hour. It was admitted that the truck was
already at a full stop when the jeep plowed into it. From these facts the logical
conclusion emerges that the driver of the jeep had what judicial doctrine has
appropriately called the last clear chance to avoid the accident by stopping in
his turn or swerving his jeep away from the truck, either of which he had
sufficient time to do while running at a speed of only thirty kilometers per hour.
In those circumstances, his duty was to seize that opportunity of avoidance,
not merely rely on a supposed right to expect the truck to swerve and leave
him a clear path.

D. HUMAN RELATIONS: INTENTIONAL TORTS

GLOBE MACKAY CABLE v. CA, GR No. 81262, 1989-08-25

Facts:

Private respondent Restituto M. Tobias was employed by petitioner Globe

Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation (GLOBE MACKAY) in a dual capacity
as a purchasing agent and administrative assistant to the engineering
operations manager.

In 1972, GLOBE MACKAY... discovered fictitious purchases and other

fraudulent transactions for which it lost several thousands of pesos.

According to private respondent it was he who actually discovered the

anomalies and reported them on November 10, 1972 to his immediate
superior Eduardo T. Ferraren and to petitioner Herbert C. Hendry who was
then the Executive Vice-President and General Manager of GLOBE
MACKAY.

On November 11, 1972, one day after private respondent Tobias made the
report, petitioner Hendry confronted him by stating that he was the number
one suspect, and ordered him to take a one week forced leave, not to
communicate with the office, to leave his table drawers open,... and to leave
the office keys.

On November 20, 1972, when private respondent Tobias returned to work

after the forced leave, petitioner Hendry went up to him and called him a
"crook" and a "swindler." Tobias was then ordered to take a lie detector test.
He was also instructed to submit specimen of his... handwriting, signature,
and initials for examination by the police investigators to determine his
complicity in the anomalies.

On December 6, 1972, the Manila police investigators submitted a laboratory

crime report (Exh. "A") clearing private respondent of participation in the
anomalies.

Not satisfied with the police report, petitioners hired a private investigator,
retired Col. Jose G. Fernandez, who on December 10, 1972, submitted a
report (Exh. "2") finding Tobias guilty. This report however expressly stated
that further investigation was still to be... conducted.

Nevertheless, on December 12, 1972, petitioner Hendry issued a

memorandum suspending Tobias from work preparatory to the filing of
criminal charges against him.

In the meantime, on January 17, 1973, Tobias received a notice (Exh. "F")
from petitioners that his employment has been terminated effective December
13, 1972.

Unemployed, Tobias sought employment with the Republic Telephone

Company (RETELCO). However, petitioner Hendry, without being asked by
RETELCO, wrote a letter to the latter stating that Tobias was dismissed by
GLOBE MACKAY due to dishonesty.

Private respondent Tobias filed a civil case for damages anchored on alleged
unlawful, malicious, oppressive, and abusive acts of petitioners.
Issues:

The main issue in this case is whether or not petitioners are liable for
damages to private respondent.

Ruling:

One of the more notable innovations of the New Civil Code is the codification
of "some basic principles that are to be observed for the rightful relationship
between human beings and for the stability of the social order.

The framers of the Code, seeking to remedy the defect of the old Code which
merely stated the effects of the law, but failed to draw out its spirit,
incorporated certain fundamental precepts which were "designed to indicate
certain norms that... spring from the fountain of good conscience" and which
were also meant to serve as "guides for human conduct [that] should run as
golden threads through society, to the end that law may approach its supreme
ideal, which is the sway and dominance of justice"

Foremost among... these principles is that pronounced in Article 19 which

provides:

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 law, therefore, recognizes a primordial limitation on all rights; that in their
exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be
observed.

A right, though by itself legal because... recognized or granted by law as such,

may nevertheless become the source of some illegality.

But while Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the government of human
relations and for the maintenance of social order, it does not provide a remedy
for its violation.

Generally, an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article

21 would be proper.
Art. 20. Every person who contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes
damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

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.

This article, adopted to remedy the "countless gaps in the statutes, which
leave so many victims of moral wrongs helpless, even though they have
actually suffered material and moral injury" [Id.] should "vouchsafe adequate
legal remedy for that untold number of moral... wrongs which it is impossible
for human foresight to provide for specifically in the statutes"

In determining whether or not the principle of abuse of rights may be invoked,

there is no rigid test which can be applied.

While the Court has not hesitated to apply Article 19 whether the legal and
factual circumstances called for its application... he question of whether or not
the principle of abuse of rights has been violated resulting in damages under
Article 20 or Article 21 or other applicable... provision of law, depends on the
circumstances of each case.

And in the instant case, the Court, after examining the record and considering
certain significant circumstances, finds that petitioners have indeed abused
the right that they invoke, causing damage to private... respondent and for
which the latter must now be indemnified.

The trial court made a finding that notwithstanding the fact that it was private
respondent Tobias who reported the possible existence of anomalous
transactions, petitioner Hendry "showed belligerence and told plaintiff (private
respondent herein) that he was the number one... suspect and to take a one
week vacation leave, not to communicate with the office, to leave his table
drawers open, and to leave his keys to said defendant

But petitioners were not content with just dismissing Tobias. Several other
tortious acts were committed by petitioners against Tobias after the latter's
termination from work.
The next tortious act committed by petitioners was the writing of a letter to
RETELCO sometime in October 1974, stating that Tobias had been
dismissed by GLOBE MACKAY due to dishonesty.

Finally, there is the matter of the filing by petitioners of six criminal complaints
against Tobias.

HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, BIENVENIDO M. ARAGON, ROBERT

E. PARNELL, CARLOS K. CATOLICO and THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., respondents.

Facts: Petitioner Valenzuela is a General Agent of private respondent

Philamgen since 1965. As such, he was authorized to solicit and sell in behalf
of Philamgen all kinds of non-life insurance, and in consideration of services
rendered was entitled to receive the full agent's commission of 32.5%.

Valenzuela solicited marine insurance from one of his clients, the Delta
Motors, Inc. in the amount of P4.4 Million from which he was entitled to a
commission of 32% . However, Valenzuela did not receive his full commission
which amounted to P1.6 Million from the P4.4 Million insurance coverage of
the Delta Motors. During the period 1976 to 1978, premium payments
amounting to P1,946,886.00 were paid directly to Philamgen and Valenzuela's
commission to which he is entitled amounted to P632,737.00.

In 1977, Philamgen started to become interested in and expressed its intent to

share in the commission due Valenzuela on a fifty-fifty basis. However,
Valenzuela refused.

Because of the refusal of Valenzuela, Philamgen and its officers took drastic
action against Valenzuela. They: (a) reversed the commission due him by not
crediting in his account the commission earned from the Delta Motors, Inc.
insurance; (b) placed agency transactions on a cash and carry basis; (c)
threatened the cancellation of policies issued by his agency. All of these acts
resulted in the decline of his business as insurance agent. Then on December
27, 1978, Philamgen terminated the General Agency Agreement of
Valenzuela.

The petitioners sought relief by filing a complaint against the private

respondents.
Issue: whether or not Philamgen and/or its officers can be held liable for
damages due to the termination of the General Agency Agreement it entered
into with the petitioners.

Ruling: Yes.

The private respondents by the simple expedient of terminating the General

Agency Agreement appropriated the entire insurance business of Valenzuela.
With the termination of the General Agency Agreement, Valenzuela would no
longer be entitled to commission on the renewal of insurance policies of
clients sourced from his agency. Worse, despite the termination of the agency,
Philamgen continued to hold Valenzuela jointly and severally liable with the
insured for unpaid premiums. Under these circumstances, it is clear that
Valenzuela had an interest in the continuation of the agency when it was
unceremoniously terminated notonly because of the commissions he should
continue to receive from the insurance business he has solicited and procured
but also for the fact that by the very acts of the respondents, he was made
liable to Philamgen in the event the insured fail to pay the premiums due.

Furthermore, there is an exception to the principle that an agency is revocable

at will and that is when the agency has been given not only for the interest of
the principal but for the interest of third persons or for the mutual interest of
the principal and the agent.

For the pivotal factor rendering Philamgen and the other private respondents
liable in damages is that the termination by them of the General Agency
Agreement was tainted with bad faith. Hence, if a principal acts in bad faith
and with abuse of right in terminating the agency, then he is liable in
damages. This is in accordance with the precepts in Human Relations
enshrined in our Civil Code that "every person must in the exercise of his
rights and in the performance of his duties act with justice, give every one his
due, and observe honesty and good faith: (Art. 19, Civil Code), and every
person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damages to
another, shall indemnify the latter for the same (Art. 20, id). "Any person who
wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner contrary to morals, good
customs and public policy shall compensate the latter for the damages" (Art.
21, id.).

HUMAN DIGNITY
 CASE: Tenchavez vs. Escano, G.R. No. L-19671

29 November 1965

Legal Separation

FACTS: Vicenta Escaño, 27, exchanged marriage vows with Pastor

Tenchavez, 32, on February 24, 1948, before a Catholic chaplain. The
marriage was duly registered with the local civil registrar. However, the two
were unable to live together after the marriage and as of June 1948, they
were already estranged. Vicenta left for the United Stated in 1950. On the
same year she filed a verified complaint for divorce against Tenchavez in the
State of Nevada on the ground of “Extreme cruelty, entirely mental in
character.” A decree of divorce, “final and absolute” was issued in open court
by the said tribunal. She married an American, lived with him in California, had
several children with him and, on 1958, acquired American Citizenship.

On 30 July 1955, Tenchavez filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of

Cebu, and amended on 31 May 1956, against Vicenta F. Escaño, her parents,
Mamerto and Mena Escaño whom he charged with having dissuaded and
discouraged Vicenta from joining her husband, and alienating her affections,
and against the Roman Catholic Church, for having, through its Diocesan
Tribunal, decreed the annulment of the marriage, and asked for legal
separation and one million pesos in damages. Vicenta’s parents denied that
they had in any way influenced their daughter’s acts, and counterclaimed for
moral damages.

ISSUE/s: Whether or not the divorce sought by Vicenta Escaño is valid and
binding upon courts of the Philippines.

Whether or not the parents of Vicenta alienated the affections of their

daughter and influenced her conduct toward her husband.

Whether or not Tenchavez is entitled to legal separation and to moral

damages.

RULING: No. Vicenta Escaño and Pastor Tenchavez’ marriage remain

existent and undissolved under the Philippine Law.

Pursuant to Article 15 of the Civil Code, laws relating to family rights and
duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding
upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.

Escaño’s divorce and second marriage cannot be deemed valid under the
Philippine Law to which Escaño was bound since in the time the divorce
decree was issued, Escaño, like her husband, was still a Filipino citizen. The
acts of the wife in not complying with her wifely duties, deserting her husband
without any justifiable cause, leaving for the United States in order to secure a
decree of absolute divorce, and finally getting married again are acts which
constitute a willful infliction of injury upon the husband’s feelings in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy, thus entitling Tenchavez to
a decree of legal separation under our law on the basis of adultery.

No. There is no evidence that the parents of Vicenta, out of improper motives,
aided and abetted her original suit for annulment, or her subsequent divorce.

A portion of Section 529 reads: The law distinguishes between the right of a
parent to interest himself in the marital affairs of his child and the absence of
rights to intermeddle in such affairs. A parent is liable for alienation of
affections resulting from his own malicious conduct, as where he wrongfully
entices his son or daughter to leave his or her spouse, but he is not liable
unless he acts maliciously, without justification and from unworthy motives.

Therefore, her parents, in respecting Vicenta’s independent decisions,

certainly cannot be charged with alienation of affections in the absence of
malice or unworthy motives.

Yes. The Court ruled that it can be gleaned from the facts and considerations
that Tenchavez is entitled to a decree of legal separation on the basis of
adultery as provided under Art. 333 of the Revised Penal Code. Since our
jurisdiction does not recognize Vicenta’s divorce and second marriage as
valid, her marriage and cohabitation with the American is technically
“intercourse with a person not her husband” from the standpoint of Philippine
Law. Her refusal to perform her wifely duties, and her denial of consortium
and her desertion of her husband also constitute in law a wrong for which the
husband is entitled to the corresponding indemnity. Thus, the latter is entitled
to a decree of legal separation conformably to Philippine law.

As to moral damages the Court assessed Tenchavez’s claim for a million

pesos as unreasonable, taking into account some considerations. First, the
marriage was celebrated in secret, and its failure was not characterized by
publicity or undue humiliation on his part. Second, the parties never lived
together. Third, there is evidence that Tenchavez had originally agreed to the
annulment of the marriage, although such a promise was legally invalid, being
against public policy. Fourth, the fact that Tenchavez is unable to remarry
under our law is a consequence of the indissoluble character of the union that
he entered into voluntarily and with open eyes. Therefore, he should recover
P25,000.00 only by way of moral damages and attorney’s fees.

F. TORTS WITH INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION

G.R. No. L-69866 April 15, 1988

vs.

Facts:

ROGELIO ABERCA, et. al.,

petitioners,

MAJ. GEN. FABIAN VER, et. al.,

respondents.

General Fabian Ver ordered the various intelligence units of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines knownas Task Force Makabansa (TFM) to conduct
pre-emptive strikes against known communist-terrorist(CT) underground
houses in view of increasing reports about CT plans to sow disturbances in
MetroManila. TFM raided several houses, employing in most cases
defectively judicial search warrants,arrested people without warrant of arrest,
denied visitation rights, and interrogated them with the useof threats and
tortures. A motion to dismiss was filed by defendants, stating that 1) plaintiffs
may notcause a judicial inquiry about their detention because the writ of
habeas corpus was suspended; 2)defendants are immune from liability for
acts done in their official duties; 3) there was no cause ofaction. On Nov 8,
1983, Judge Fortun granted the motion to dismiss, which prompted plaintiffs
to file a MR on Nov 18, 1983. He later inhibited himself and was replaced
Judge Lising, who denied the MR for being filed out of time. Another MR was
filed, and was only modified to include Maj. Aguinaldo and MSgt. Balaba for
officers accountable in the said complaint.
 Issue: Whether or not the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus does not destroy

petitioners' right and cause of action for damages for illegal arrest and
detention and otherviolations oftheir constitutional rights.

Held:

Yes. The suspension does not render valid an otherwise illegal arrest or
detention. What issuspended is merely the right of the individual to seek
release from detention through the writ of habeascorpus as a speedy means
of obtaining his liberty. even assuming that the suspension of the privilege
ofthe writ of habeas corpus suspends petitioners' right of action for damages
for illegal arrest and detention,it does not and cannot suspend their rights and
causes of action for injuries suffered becauseof respondents' confiscation of
their private belongings, the violation of their right to remain silent and to
counsel and their right to protection against unreasonable searches and
seizures and against torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment. The
complaint in this litigation alleges facts showing with abundant clarity and
details, how plaintiffs' constitutional rights and liberties mentioned in Article 32
of the Civil Code were violated and impaired by defendants.

searches made without search warrants or based on irregularly issued or

substantially defective

The complaint speaks of, among others, warrants; seizures and confiscation,
without proper receipts, of cash and personal effects belonging to plaintiffs
and other items of property which were not subversive and illegal nor covered
by the search warrants; arrest and detention of plaintiffs without warrant or
under irregular, improper and illegal circumstances;detention of plaintiffs at
several undisclosed places of 'safehouses" where they were kept
incommunicado and subjected to physical and psychological torture and other
inhuman, degrading and brutal treatment for the purpose of extracting
incriminatory statements.

G. CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM DELICT

ANITA TANvs.STANDARD VACUUM OIL CO., JULITO STO DOMINGO,

 IGMIDIO RICO, and RURAL TRANSIT CO.

G.R. No. L-4160 July 29, 1952

Facts:

On May 3, 1949, the Standard Vacuum Oil Company ordered the delivery of
1, 925 gallons of gasoline to the Rural Transit Company. The truck containing
the ordered gasoline was driven by JulitoSto. Domingo, who was helped
Igmidio Rico. While the gasoline was being discharged to the underground
tank, it caught fire, whereupon JulitoSto. Domingo drove the truck across the
Rizal Avenue Extension and upon reaching the middle of the street he
abandoned the truck with continued moving to the opposite side of the first
street causing the buildings on that side to be burned and destroyed. The
house of Anita Tan was among those destroyed and for its repair she spent
P12,000.

Anita Tan then brought the action against the Standard Vacuum Oil Company
and the Rural Transit Company; including the two employees, seeking to
recover the damages she has suffered for the destruction of her house.
Respondents filed separate motions to dismiss alleging in substance that (a)
plaintiff's action is barred by prior judgment (since Rico and Sto. Domingo had
been acquitted in a previous criminal charge of arson through reckless
imprudence before CFI Manila) and (b) plaintiff's complaint states no cause of
action; and this motion having been sustained, plaintiff elevated the case to
this Court.

Issue: whether or not Anita Tan may recover damages from respondents

Held:

Yes, she can recover damages against the two companies but not to the two
accused (Rico and Sto.

Domingo).

The rule is that the acquittal of the accused from the criminal charge will not
necessarily extinguish the civil

liability unless the court declares in the judgment that the fact from which the
civil liability might arise did not exist. Here it is true that JulitoSto. Domingo
and Igmidio Rico were acquitted, the court holding that they were not
responsible for the fire that destroyed the house of the plaintiff,—which as a
rule will not necessarily extinguish their civil liability,—but the court went
further by stating that the evidence throws no light on the cause of fire and
that it was an unfortunate accident for which the accused cannot be held
responsible. In our opinion, this declaration fits well into the exception of the
rule which exempts the two accused from civil liability. When the court
acquitted the accused because the fire was due to an unfortunate accident it
actually said that the fire was due to a fortuitous event for which the accused
are not to blame. It actually exonerated them from civil liability.

But the case takes a different aspect with respect to the other defendants. For
one thing, the principle of res judicatacannot apply to them for the simple
reason that they were not included as co-accused in the criminal case.

Liability of Standard Vacuum Oil Co.

This company is sued not precisely because of supposed negligent acts of its
two employees JulitoSto. Domingo and Igmidio Rico but because of acts of its
own which might have contributed to the fire that destroyed the house of the
plaintiff. The complaint contains definite allegations of negligent acts properly
attributable to the company which proven and not refuted may serve as basis
of its civil liability. It is expressly alleged that this company, through its
employees, failed to take the necessary precautions or measures to insure
safety and avoid harm to person and damage to property as well as to
observe that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the
circumstances justly demanded, thereby causing the gasoline they were
unloading to catch fire. There is no need for the plaintiff to make a reservation
of her right to file a separate civil action, for as this court already held in a
number of cases, such reservation is not necessary when the civil action
contemplated is not derived from the criminal liability but one based on culpa
aquiliana under the Old Civil Code (articles 1902 to 1910). These two acts are
separate and distinct and should not be confused one with the other. Plaintiff
can choose either.

Liability of Rural Transit Co.

The case of the Rural Transit Co. is even more different as it is predicated on
a special provisions of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, article 101, Rule 2, of
said Code provides:

Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. — The exemption from
criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of article 12 and in
subdivision 4 of article 11 of this Code does not include exemption from civil
liability, which shall be enforced to the following rules:

x xx x xx x xx

Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of article 11, the persons for
whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion
to the benefit which they have received.

The cause of action against the Rural Transit Company can hardly be
disputed, it appearing that the damage caused to the plaintiff was brought
about mainly because of the desire of driver JulitoSto. Domingo to avoid
greater evil or harm, which would have been the case had he not brought the
tank-truck trailer to the middle of the street, for then the fire would have
caused the explosion of the gasoline deposit of the company which would
have resulted in a conflagration of much greater proportion and
consequences to the houses nearby or surrounding it. It cannot be denied that
this company is one of those for whose benefit a greater harm has been
prevented, and as such it comes within the purview of said penal provision.
The acquittal of the accused cannot, therefore, be deemed a bar to a
civilaction against this company because its civil liability is completely
divorced from the criminal liability of the accused. The rule regarding
reservation of the right to file a separate civil action does not apply to it.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ROGELIO BAYOTAS Y CORDOVA

236 SCRA 239, September 2, 1994

Rogelio Bayotas was charged with Rape and eventually convicted thereof.
Pending appeal of his conviction, Bayotas died. Consequently, the Supreme
Court dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal. However, it required the
Solicitor General to file its comment with regard to the civil liability arising from
his commission of the offense charged.

In his comment, the Solicitor General expressed his view that the death of
Bayotas did not extinguish his civil liability as a result of his commission of the
offense charged. The Solicitor General insists that the appeal should still be
resolved for the purpose of reviewing his conviction by the lower court on
which the civil liability is based.
Counsel of the accused-appellant opposed the view of the Solicitor General
arguing that the death of the accused while judgement of conviction is
pending appeal extinguishes both his criminal and civil penalties.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction
extinguishes his civil liability.

HELD:

Yes. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his
criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by
Justice Regalado, in this regard, “the death of the accused prior to final
judgement terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly
arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex
delicto in senso strictiore.”

Corollary, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of the
accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other
than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of
obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or
omission: Law, Contracts, Quasi- contracts, Delicts..., Quasi-delicts.

Where the civil liability survives, an action for recovery therefore may be
pursued but only by way of separate civil action and may be enforced either
against theexecutor/administrator of the estate of the accused, depending on
the source of obligation aside from delicts.

Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file
separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of
the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private offended party
instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case, the statute of
limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of
the criminal case, conformably with the provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil
Code, that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of
right by prescription.

In the case at bar, the death of Bayotas extinguished his criminal and civil
liability based solely on the act of rape. Hence, his civil liability also
extinguished together with his criminal liability upon his death.
H. THE DEFENDANTS

Maria Teresa Cuadra

(minor, represented by her father Ulises) v. Alfonso Monfort G.R. No. L-

24101 September 30, 1970

Laws Applicable: Art. 2176 and Article 2180 of the Civil Code Lessons
Applicable: Quasi-delict (Torts and Damages)

This is an action for damages based on quasi-delict, decided both by the CFI
and the CA favorably in behalf of the plaintiff.

Maria Teresa Cuadra, 12, and Maria Teresa Monfort, 13, were classmates in
Grade 6 at the Mabini Elementary School in Bacolod City, and where the latter
– as a practical joke – threw a plastic object (headband) at the former saying
there was a worm in it, hitting her in the right eye.

She subsequently rubbed it, treated it with powder, and the eye thereafter got
worse and was swollen. Such condition further deteriorated, necessitating two
operations, but to no avail because Maria Teresa eventually still lost use of
her right eye.

The legal issue posed in this appeal is the liability of a parent for an act of his
minor child which causes damage to another under the specific facts related
above and the applicable provisions of the Civil Code, particularly Articles
2176 and 2180 thereof, which reads:

ART. 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 and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

ART. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for
one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible. The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are
responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their
company.
X X X The responsibility treated of in this Article shall cease when the persons
herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of
a family to prevent damage.

ISSUE:

W/N Alfonso Monfort (Maria Teresa’s father) is liable for the action of her
daughter that caused damage to her classmate (causing blindness in one
eye)? [NO]

HELD:

The SC ruled that there was nothing from which it may be inferred that the
defendant could have prevented the damage by the observance of due care,
or that he was in any way remiss in the exercise of his parental authority in
failing to foresee such damage, or the act which caused it.

If the defendant is at all obligated to compensate her (Ms. Cuadra’s) suffering,

the obligation has no legal sanction enforceable in court, but only the moral
compulsion of good conscience.

The decision appealed from is reversed, and the complaint is dismissed,

without pronouncement as to costs.

RATIO:

The underlying basis of the liability imposed by Article 2176 is the fault or
negligence accompanying the act or the omission, there being no willfulness
or intent to cause damage thereby. When the act or omission is that of one
person for whom another is responsible, the latter then becomes himself liable
under Article 2180, such as that of the father or the mother under the
circumstances above quoted.

The basis of this vicarious, although primary, liability is, as in Article 2176,
fault or negligence, which is presumed from that which accompanied the
causative act or omission. The presumption is merely prima facie and may
therefore be rebutted. This is the clear and logical inference that may be
drawn from the last paragraph of Article 2180, which states "that the
responsibility treated of in this Article shall cease when the persons herein
mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a
family to prevent damage."
 AMADORA VS COURT OF APPEALS

(GR. No. L-47745, April 15, 1988)

Pablito Daffon, a student of Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos fired a gun while

he was at the auditorium of the school with some of the students. The stray
bullet hit Alfredo Amadora which caused immediately death of Alfredo. The
parents of the deceased filed a petition against Daffon before the RTC. The
trial court convicted the accused for reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide. The parents also sued the school for damages under Article 2180 of
the Civil Code because of the school’s negligence. The RTC ruled in favor of
Amadora, wherein, the principal, the dean of boys and the teacher-in-charge
are all civilly liable.

The Institution appealed and claimed that when the incident happened the
school year has already ended. Amadora argued that even though the
semester has already ended, his son was there in school to complete a
school requirement in his Physics subject. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor
of the school on the basis that under the last paragraph of Article 2180, only
schools of arts and trades (vocational schools) are liable not academic
schools like Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos can be held civilly liable for
the negligence which caused to the death of Amadora

RULING:

No. The Court ruled that all schools may not be held directly liable. Its liability
is only subsidiary. Moreover, for non-academic schools, it would be the
principal or head of school who should be directly liable for the tortuous act of
its students. For academic schools, it would be the teacher-in-charge who
would be directly liable for the tortuous act of the students and not the dean or
the head of school. It also ruled that such liability does not cease when the
school year ends or when the semester ends. Liability applies whenever the
student is in the custody of the school authorities as long as he is under the
control and influence of the school and within its premises. Indeed, even if the
student should be doing nothing more than relaxing in the campus in the
company of his classmates and friends enjoying the ambience and
atmosphere of the school, he is still within the custody and subject to the
discipline of the school authorities under the provisions of Article 2180.
However, a teacher can avoid direct liability, and for the school, to avoid
subsidiary liability, is to show proof that he, the teacher, exercised the
necessary precautions to prevent the injury complained of, and the school
exercised the diligence of a bonus pater familias. In this case, the Physics
teacher in charge was not properly named and there was no sufficient
evidence presented to make the said teacher-in-charge liable and the school.
Therefore, Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos cannot be held subsidiarily liable.

I. STRICT LIABILITY

PURITA MIRANDA VESTIL and AGUSTIN VESTIL, petitioners, vs.

INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, DAVID UY and TERESITA UY,

respondents.

G.R. No. 74431 November 6, 1989

FACTS:

On July 29, 1915, Theness was bitten by a dog while she wasplaying with a
child of the petitioners in the house of the late Vicente Miranda, the father of
Purita Vestil, at F. Ramos Street in Cebu City. She was rushed to the Cebu
General Hospital, where she was treated for "multiple lacerated wounds on
theforehead"1and administered an anti-rabies vaccine by Dr. Antonio Tautjo.
She was discharged after nine days but was readmitted one week later due to
"vomiting of saliva." following day, on August 15, 1975, the child died. The
cause of death was certified as broncho-pneumonia.

Trial Court: Dismissed the complaint.Court of Appeal: Theness had died due
to the dog bites. Under Article 2183 of the Civil Code., the Vestils are liable for
damages as possessor of the property and the dog.Defense: The dog was
tame and had merely been provoked, although no one had seen it bite
Theness. Additionally, she had died of broncho-pneumonia, which had no
correlation to dog bites.Anyway, she (Purita) could not be held liable because
the dog does not belong to her but to Vicente Miranda, her father. She is not
the sole owner of the unpartitioned property, there are other heirs. There are
also other occupants of the house that maintain themselves out of a common
fund, they do not pay rent because of their relation to her father but do occupy
the property.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Vestils liable for damages. Yes.

HELD:

The cause of Theness’ death was the dog bites. She developed hydrophobia,
a symptom of rabies, and had died due to broncho-pneumonia, a complication
of rabies.Liability is due to the possession of the dog, regardless of the
ownership of the dog or property. Under Article 2183, regardless if the animal
was tame or vicious or if it had been lost and removed from the control of the
Vestils, liability still attach because one who possesses an animal for utility,
pleasure or service must answer for the damage which the animal may had
caused.

Article 2183The possessor of an animal or whoever may makeuse of the

same is responsible for the damage which it maycause, although it may
escape or be lost. 'This responsibilityshall cease only in case the damages
should come from force majeure from the fault of the person who has suffered
damage. The Vestils are liable for damages for Theness’ death as possessor
of Andoy, the dog. Theness is just 3 years old and could not be faulted for any
of actions of alleged provocations. Notably, the Vestils had offered to assist in
the hospitalization expense, even if they declared the Uys to merely be their
casual acquaintances only.While it is true that she is not really the owner of
the house,which was still part of Vicente Miranda's estate, there is no doubt
that she and her husband were its possessors at the time of the incident in
question. She was the only heir residing in Cebu City and the most logical
person to take care of the property, which was only six kilometers from her
own house. Moreover, there is evidence showing that she and herfamily
regularly went to the house, once or twice weekly, according to at least one
witness,and used it virtually as a second house. Interestingly, her own
daughter was playing in the house with Theness when the little girl was bitten
by the dog. The dog itself remained in the house even after the death of
Vicente Miranda in 1973 and until 1975, when the incident in question
occurred. It is also noteworthy that the petitioners offered to assist the Uys
with their hospitalization expenses although Purita said she knew them only
casually.

VELASCO VS MANILA ELECTRIC CO.

[GR No. L-18390 | Aug 6, 1971 | J. JBL Reyes | Raissa]

PROVISIONS CITED:

Art 694 of CC – A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business

condition of property or anything else which:

1. Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or

2. Annoys or offends the senses; xxx xxx xxx

FACTS:

Velasco appealed this case from a decision of the CFI of Rizal, absolving DEF
from a complaint for the abatement of the sub-station as a nuisance and for
damages to his health and business.

1948 – Velasco bought from People’s Homesite and Housing Corp 3 adjoining
lots in Diliman, QC

 lots were within an area zoned out as a “first residence” district by City
Council of QC

 he sold 2 lots to Meralco but retained the 3rd lot where he built his house

1953 – Meralco started construction of the sub-station in question a finished it

two months later, all without prior building permit or authority from the Public
Service Commission

 the substation is used to reduce high voltage electricity to a current suitable

for consumers

 it was constructed at a distance of 10-20 meters from Velasco’s house

 Meralco built a stone and cement wall at the sides along the streets, but
along the side adjoining the Velasco’s property it put up a sawale wall but later
changed it to an interlink wire fence
A sound unceasingly emanates from the substation. Velasco filed an action
with CFI Rizal claiming that:

 the sound constitutes an actionable nuisance under Art 694 of the CC

 he had been subjected to the sound since 1954 and such sound disturbed
his sleep and concentration, leading to impaired health and lowered property
value

CFI: dismissed Velasco’s claim, finding that the sound of the substation was
unavoidable and didn’t constitute nuisance; that it could not have caused the
diseases of anxiety, neurosis, pyelonephritis, ureteritis,lumbago and anemia;
and that the items of damage claimed by PLF were not adequately proved.

ISSUE: W/N the sound constitutes and actionable nuisance.

DOCTRINES:

 General rule – everyone is bound to bear the habitual or

customary inconveniences that result from the proximity of others. So long as

this level is not surpassed, he may not complain against them.

 Exception – if the prejudice exceeds the inconveniences that such proximity

habitually brings, the neighbor who causes such disturbance is held
responsible for the resulting damage, being guilty of causing
nuisancePhilippine law of nuisances is of American origin – review of
authorities clearly indicates the rule that the causing or maintenance of
disturbing noise or sound may constitute an actionable nuisance

 Tortorella vs Traiser – noise may constitute actionable nuisance if it is a

noise which affects injuriously the health or comfort of ordinary people in the
vicinity to an unreasonable extent

o Injury to a particular person in a peculiar position or of specially sensitive

characteristics will NOT render the noise an actionable nuisance

o Noise becomes actionable only when it passes the limits of reasonable

adjustment to the conditions of the locality and of the needs of the maker to
the needs of the listener

o Depends upon the circumstances of the particular case

APPLICATION:
 In the instant case, what must be inquired is the character and

intensity of the noise generated by the particular substation of Meralco

o Can’t rely on testimonial evidence, since this is much too subjective (ergo,
sobrang OA nila)

 Velasco – the noise is “fearful hazardous noise and clangor are produced...
approximating a noise of a reactivated about-to-explode volcano”

 Chief Building Inspector – “like a high pitch note”

 Army Captain visiting Velasco – “like a c-47 airplane

being started”

 Businessman neighbor ni V – “disturbs our

concentration of mind”

o Have to rely on quantitative measurements – sound

samples were taken by Dr. Almonte using sound levelmeter and other
instruments. Ambient sounds were also taken and minus the sound of the
substation, ambient sound was 28-32 decibels (db)

 At the loudest, near the kitchen, it was 79-80 db (yung substation)

Contrary to finding of TC, the noise continuously emitted, day and night,
constitutes an actionable nuisance for which Velasco is entitled relief

 requiring the appellee company to adopt the necessary measures to

deaden or reduce the sound at the plaintiff's house, by replacing the interlink
wire fence with a partition made of sound absorbent material, since the
relocation of the substation is manifestly impracticable and would be
prejudicial to the customers of the Electric Company who are being serviced
from the substation.

In the bedroom, it was 64-65 db, contrary to Meralco’s assertion that it was
only 46-47 db and that Velasco had no ground to complain

 because of such high frequency, the medical evidence is to the effect that
the basic root of Velasco’s ailments is his inability to sleep due to the
incessant noise with constant irritation  weakening his constitution  making
him easy prey to pathogens
Other Arguments:

Appellee company argues that the plaintiff should not be heard to complain
because the sound level at the North General Hospital, where silence is
observed, is even higher than at his residence.

 This comparison lacks basis because it has not been established that the
hospital is located in surroundings similar to the residential zone where the
plaintiff lived or that the sound at the hospital is similarly monotonous and
ceaseless as the sound emitted by the sub-station.

Constancio Soria testified that "The way the transformers are built, the
humming sound cannot be avoided".

 On this testimony, the company emphasizes that the substation was

constructed for public convenience. Admitting that the sound cannot be
eliminated, there is no proof that it cannot be reduced. That the sub-station
is needed for the Meralco to be able to serve well its customers is no reason,
however, why it should be operated to the detriment and discomfort of others.

The fact that the Meralco had received no complaint although it had been
operating hereabouts for the past 50 years with substations similar to the one
in controversy is not a valid argument.

 The absence of suit neither lessens the company's liability under the law
nor weakens the right of others against it to demand their just due.

RULING: Appealed decision reversed – Meralco ordered to transfer its

substation or take measures to reduce its noise at the property line.