Lasam vs.

Smith
Facts:
 The plaintiffs Honrion Lasam and his wife brought an action to recover damages from the defendant for
physical injuries they sustained in an automobile accident.
 Defendant, Frank Smith, is engaged in the business of carrying passengers for hire from one point to
another (La Union and the surrounding provinces) and he undertook to convey the plaintiffs from San
Fernando to Ilocos Norte in an automobile.
 The automobile boarded by the plaintiff was driven by a licensed chauffeur but in between the routes,
the driver was substituted by the chauffeur’s assistant.
 Defects developed in the steering gear that subsequently resulted in the accident suffered by the
plaintiffs. However, the defendant claimed that there was no defect in the steering gear.
Issue:
Whether defendant Smith can be liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs brought the automobile
incident.
Ruling:
Yes, the defendant can be liable for damages as per the contractual basis is concerned. Defendant’s
liability arises from the contract of carriage. He bound himself to carry the plaintiff safely and securely to their
destination and failing to do so caused him to be liable for damages unless he shows that the failure to fulfill
his obligation was due to causes mentioned in article 1105 of the Civil Code. "No one shall be liable for events
which could not be foreseen or which, even if foreseen, were inevitable, with the exception of the cases in
which the law expressly provides otherwise and those in which the obligation itself imposes such liability."
Or in Spanish term caso fortuito. In a legal sense and, consequently, also in relation to contracts, a caso
fortuito presents the following essential characteristics:
(1) The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his
obligation, must be independent of the human will.
(2) It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it
must be impossible to avoid.
(3) The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal
manner. And
(4) the obligor (debtor) must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the
creditor."
The automobile incident that happened to the plaintiffs is not caso fortuito but rather caused by either the
defects in the automobile or else through the negligence of its driver.

Elcano Vs. Hill

Facts:
Plaintiff Pedro and Patricia Elcano filed an appeal for the recovery of damages from Reginald Hill, a minor but
married, and from his father defendant Atty. Marvin Hill, for the killing of Reginald on the son of the plaintiffs,
named Agapito Elcano. The defendant was acquitted in the criminal case on the ground of lack of intent to kill
coupled with mistake. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action for recovery of damages of the plaintiffs,
contending that it was already barred by the prior judgment of acquittal. The court granted defendant’s claim,
hence, this petition for appeal of the plaintiffs.
Issue:
Whether the present civil action for damages is barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case wherein
the action for civil liability was not reversed.
Whether the father defendant, Atty. Marvin Hill can be liable for damages for the crime committed by his son,
notwithstanding that Reginald was already married at the occurrence of the crime.
Ruling:
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay
for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no preexisting contractual relation between the parties, is
called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)

"ART. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct
from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages
twice for the same act or omission of the defendant."||| 
No, the defendant is still liable for damages, notwithstanding that he was acquitted on the criminal aspect.
Under article 2177, Acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence, whether on reasonable doubt or not,
shall not be bar to a subsequent civil action, not for civil liability arising from criminal negligence, but for
damages due to a quasi-delict or ‘culpa aquillana’.

The Court ruled in favor of Petitioners. An application of the case of Barredo v. Garcia finds that the
present case falls under Article 2176 (formerly Art. 1903) of the Civil Code whereby fault
or negligencia covers not only acts “not punishable by law” but also acts criminal in character,
whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. Consequently, a separate civil action lies against the
offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted,
provided that the offended party is not allowed to recover damages on both scores, and would be
entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the
two cases vary.

The extinction of liability under Rule 111 of the Rules of Court refers only to civil liability arising
from criminal offense, but the civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not
as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act
charged has not happened or has not been committed by the accused. Culpa aquiliana  involves
voluntary or intentional acts which may be punishable by law.

Consequently, a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is
criminally... prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if he
is actually charged also criminally, to recover damages on both scores, and would be entitled in such
eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the... two cases vary.
culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law.
acquittal of Reginald Hill in the criminal case has not extinguished his liability for quasi-delict, hence that
acquittal is not a bar to the instant action against him.
Atty. Hill is already free from... responsibility cannot be upheld.
"(E)mancipation by marriage or by voluntary concession shall terminate parental authority over the child's
person.  It shall enable the minor to administer... his property as though he were of age, but he cannot
borrow money or alienate or encumber real property without the consent of his father or mother, or
guardian.  He can sue and be sued in court only with the assistance of his father, mother or... guardian."
Now, under Article 2180, "(T)he 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.
In the instant case, it is not controverted that Reginald, although married, was living with his father and
getting subsistence from him at the time of the occurrence in... question.  Factually, therefore, Reginald
was still subservient to and dependent on his father, a situation which is not unusual.
Accordingly, in Our considered view, Article 2180 applies to Atty. Hill notwithstanding the emancipation
by marriage of Reginald.  However, inasmuch as it is evident that Reginald is now of age, as a matter of
equity, the liability of Atty. Hill... has become merely subsidiary to that of his son.

Virata vs. Ochoa

Facts:

Arsenio Virata died as a result of having been bumped while walking along the street by a passenger
jeepney driven by Maximo Borilla, of which the jeepney was owned and named to Victorio Ochoa. A
civil action for damages based on quasi-delict was filed by the heirs of Virata, separate from the
criminal action initially filed.

Issue:

Whether petitioners, heirs of the deceased Arsenio Virata, can prosecute an action for damages
based on quasi-delict against defendant Maximo Borilla and Victorio Ochoa, driver and owner,
respectively.

Ruling:

Yes, the petitioners can file a civil action of damages based on quasi-delict. It is settled that in
negligence cases the aggrieved parties may choose between an action under the Revised Penal Code
or for quais-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. What is prohibited by
article 2177 of the Civil Code of the Philippines is to recover twice for the same negligent act.

The Supreme Court has held that: "According to the Code Commission: 'The foregoing provision (Article 2177)
though at first sight startling, is not so novel or extraordinary when we consider the exact nature of criminal and
civil negligence. The former is a violation of the criminal law, while the latter is a 'culpa aquiliana' or quasi-
delict, of ancient origin, having always had its own foundation and individuality, separate from criminal
negligence. Such distinction between criminal negligence and 'culpa extra-contractual' or 'quasi-delito' has been
sustained by decision of the Supreme Court of Spain and maintained as clear, sound and perfectly tenable by
Maura, an outstanding Spanish jurist. Therefore, under the proposed Article 2177, acquittal from an accusation
of criminal negligence, whether on reasonable doubt or not, shall not be a bar to a subsequent civil action, not
for civil liability arising from criminal negligence, but for damages due to a quasi-delict or 'culpa aquiliana'. But
said article forestalls a double recovery." (Report of the Code Commission, p. 162.)

The petitioners are not seeking to recover twice for the same negligent act. Before Criminal Case No. 3162-P
was decided, they manifested in said criminal case that they were filing a separate civil action for damages
against the owner and driver of the passenger jeepney based on quasi-delict. This acquittal of the driver,
Maximo Borilla, of the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 3162-P is not a bar to the prosecution of Civil Case
No. B-134 for damages based on quasidelict. The source of the obligation sought to be enforced in Civil Case
No. B134 is quasi-delict, not an act or omission punishable by law. Under Article 1157 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, quasi-delict and an act or omission punishable by law are two different sources of obligation.
Moreover, for the petitioners to prevail in the action for damages, Civil Case No. B-134, they have only to
establish their cause of action by preponderance of the evidence.