Bar Questions

Torts and Damages

1975 to 2018
1975

The award of moral damages in favor of the husband against the wife is assailed on the ground
that her refusal to perform her wifely duties, her denial of consortium and desertion of her
husband are not included in the enumeration of cases where moral damage may lie. Is the
contention meritorious? Why?

Suggested Answer:

No, the contention is not meritorious. The right of the aggrieved husband to recover moral
damages would fall under Article 2219 itself, granting moral damages in the cases enumerated
therein which includes Article 21 and analogous cases. (Tenchavez v. Escano, 15 SCRA 3557)

In the case of Tenchavez v. Escano, the husband was allowed to recover moral damages from his
wife on the ground of desertion.

1976

A sells his 1976 Colt Lancer Sedan to B, a compadre and leaves it to B to determine the price.

If B refuses to fix a price and simply takes the car, is he still obliged to pay the price? Explain.

Suggested Answer:

Yes, B is bound to pay the reasonable value thereof on the basis of quasi-contract.

Article 1474 of the Civil Code provides that where the price has not been fixed by the parties and
the thing or any part thereof has been delivered to an appropriate buyer, he must pay a reasonable
price therefore. What is a reasonable price is a question of fact dependent on the circumstances
of each particular case.

Hence, B is bound to pay the reasonable value of the car.

II

X, a customer, drinks a bottle of soft drink in a restaurant and is hospitalized due to harmful
substances in the beverage.
May the customer sue the manufacturer for damages, although there is no contractual relation
between the customer and the manufacturers?

Suggested Answer:
Yes, the manufacturer is liable, its liability is based on tort.

Article 2187 of the Civil Code provides that manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks,
toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any noxious or
harmful substances used, although no contractual relation exists between them and the
consumers. Hence, the manufacturer is liable.

1977
I

Taxi driver D, driving recklessly, killed pedestrian P and his passenger Y. Discuss the source of
the obligation of D and of his employer to P and to Y, and the defenses available to the
employer.

A: There are three interrelated and overlapping sources of the obligation of D and of his
employer. They are:
1. Under the Revised Penal Code: The heirs of P and Y may proceed against D and his
employer. In this case, the source of the liability of D and of his employer is the crime
committed by D (culpa contractual). The liability of D is direct and primary (Art. 100,
RPC); the liability of his employer is subsidiary (Art. 103, RPC). The latter cannot
relieve himself of liability by proving due diligence of a good father of a family. This is
so because of the nature of the obligation itself.

2. Under the Civil Code: The heirs of the pedestrian P may proceed against both D and his
employer, or against the latter only. In this case, the source of the liability of D and his
employer is the quasi-delict (culpa aquilana) committed by D (Arts. 2176, 2180, Civil
Code). The liability of both is direct and primary. D's employer can relieve himself of
liability by proving due diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and
supervision of his drivers (Art. 2180, Civil Code).

3. On the other hand, the heirs of Y may proceed against D's employer only. The source of
the liability of D's employer, in this case, is the breach of his contract of carriage with Y
(culpa contractual). His liability is direct and primary. He cannot relieve himself of
liability by proving due diligence of a good father of a family (Art. 1759, Civil Code).
This is so because there is always an implied duty of common carriers to carry the
passenger safely to his place of destination.
II

Mention four (4) acts in human relations though they may not constitute a criminal offense shall
produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief.

A: The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense; shall
produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief;
1. Prying into the privacy of another's residence;
 2. Meddling with or distributing the private life or family relations of another;
3. Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends; and
4. Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life,
place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition. (Art. 26, NCC)
1980

"C", a Filipino resident of the U.S., sent to his father "D" in Manila 1500 through "X" Bank
which had a branch in Manila. Due to mistake of the employees of the Bank, "D" was paid
$5,000 instead of $500.00. Upon discovery of the mistake, the Bank demanded from "D" the
return of the $4,500.00. "D" refused and the Bank sued him. Is the Bank entitled to recover from
"D"?

Suggested Answer:

Yes, the Bank is entitled to recover the $4,500 from "D".

Solutio indebiti arises whenever a person unduly delivers a thing through mistake to another who
has no right to demand it (Art 2154, Civil Code). Its requisites are:
1. There must be a payment or delivery made by one person to another;
2. The person who made the payment or delivery was under no obligation to do so; and
3. The payment or delivery was made by reason of mistake.

Here, the above requisites are present in the instant case. “C” sent money to “D” through the
bank and the bank made a mistake in the amount paid.

II

"KK" sued "LL" for damages for breach of contract. At the trial "KK" proved the breach of
contract while "LL" proved that he acted in good faith. Give the law governing the damages
which "KK" is entitled to recover. If "KK" proved that "LL" acted in bad faith, give the law
governing the damages which "KK" is entitled to recover.

Suggested Answer:

If "LL" acted in good faith, "KK" is entitled to recover from him as compensatory damages those
consequences which are natural, probable and which the parties had foreseen at the time when
the obligation was constituted.

However, if "LL" acted in bad faith, "KK" is entitled to recover from him as compensatory
damages those consequences which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the
obligation. Additionally, he may even be entitled to recover moral damages, exemplary damages
and attorney's fees,

III
"MM", driver of "X" Bus Co. drove the bus recklessly and injured "NN", a pedestrian, "NN"
sued "X" Bus Co. for damages. The bus company is liable to "NN" either under the Revised
Penal Code or under the Civil Code.

Explain and distinguish the liability of the bus company under the Revised Penal Code and under
the Civil Code with respect to the nature of such liability and the defense/s that may be
interposed.

Suggested Answer:
Under the Revised Penal Code, the bus company is merely subsidiarily liable to "NN". The
latter, therefore, must proceed against "MM" criminally. He may allow the civil action to be
impliedly instituted in the criminal case or he may reserve his right to institute a civil action
separately. If "MM" is convicted but is insolvent, the bus company is subsidiarily liable. May the
company relieve itself of liability by proving due diligence of a good father of family in the
selection and supervision of its drivers? It cannot. The reason is the very nature of the obligation
itself.

Under the Civil Code, however, the bus company is directly and primarily liable to "NN" The
reason is this. The negligence of "MM" is disputably presumed to be the negligence of the
company. "NN", therefore, may proceed against the company alone. The basis will be a quasi-
delict or culpa aquiliana. May the company relieve itself of liability by proving due diligence in
the selection and supervision of its drivers. According to the Civil Code, it may, in such a case,
the presumption of negligence on the part of the company has been overcome.

1981

I
"S", a fourth year medical student, having failed to pay rent for the room he occupied for three
months, despite repeated demands of "0", the house owner, was warned that unless he paid not
later than 6:00 P.M. that day, he would be locked out of the house. "S" said that the money from
the province had not yet arrived and asked for an extension of ten days, as the semester was
ending and it was examination time. "O" refused.

When "S" got back from school at 9:00 P.M.. the house was locked and all his clothes,
toothbrush, etc., were outside the house, but his books and notes were kept by "O" until he could
pay his rent. "S" became angry and started banging the door and called "O" and his mother ugly
names, which was heard by the neighbors. "S" was so upset that he failed in the examinations.

a) "S" sued "0" for damages. Can he recover? Reasons,

b) Suppose that "O" hired you as his lawyer, what defense would you invoke for him, if any?
Explain.

A:
a) Yes, "S" can recover damages. There is a clear abuse of rights on the part of "O". He did not
act with justice, he did not give "S" his due and he did not observe honesty and good faith.
His act is also willful thus causing injury to "S" in a manner that is contrary to morals, good
customs and public policy. "S" had already explained to him that money from the province
was forthcoming. He, therefore, asked for an extension of ten days within which to pay his
rent. He also explained that it was the end of the semester and it was examination time.
Despite this explanation and plea, his room was locked, his personal belongings were placed
outside the house, and worst of all, his books and notes were kept by "O" until he could pay
his rent. As a result, he failed in the examinations. Under the Civil Code, "O" is clearly liable
for damages.
b) I would invoke as defenses the oral defamation committed by "S" against both "0" and the
latter's mother as well as "S's" contributory fault. It must be observed that "S", in anger,
called "O" and his mother ugly names, which was heard by the neighbors. There is a clear
case of oral defamation, at least, as far as "O's" mother is concerned. She is absolutely
innocent. It must also be observed that there was contributory fault in the part of "S". He
failed to pay his rent for three months despite repeated demands of "O". Under the law on
quasi-delicts and under the law on damages, the amount of damages recoverable should be
reduced.

II

Q: (a) True or false? -- In cases of defamation, a civil action for civil liability can be commenced
and prosper even while a criminal case is pending.

A: (a) True. The civil action for civil liability is an independent civil action under the Civil Code.
(Art. 33).

1983
I

After an altercation with B, A hit B’s car with a piece of wood, breaking the windshield. When C
came along and tried to pacify A, the latter stabbed the former, causing injuries which would
have been fatal were it not for timely medical attention.

A was charged with frustrated homicide and malicious mischief. Two separate civil actions for
damages were also filed against him, one by B and the other by C.

A moved for the suspension of the civil actions until after the termination of the criminal cases.
Resolve with reasons.

ANSWER

It should be denied in so far as the civil action for damages arising from B’s injuries is
concerned. in cases of physical injuries, which have been held to include homicide, whether
consummated or frustrated, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the
criminal action may be brought by the injured party and shall proceed independently of the
criminal proceeding.

It should, however, be sustained as to the civil action to recover indemnity for the damage to the
taxi, it not being one of the cases specified in the Code in which an independent civil action may
be maintained. For this reason, it must be held in abeyance until the termination of the criminal
action.

1984

A entered into a twenty-year lease contract with 6 for the use of B’s warehouse in connection
with his business. After 10 years, A’s business had so prospered that he needed to move to a
larger place. Upon learning of A’s intention to transfer his business elsewhere, B offered to
terminate the lease contract, as the rental rate for the warehouse had by then tripled the stipulated
rental.

A, whose relationship with B had soured over the years, refused the offer so as to prevent B from
leasing the premises to another party. A padlocked the warehouse after he had transferred his
business to another place, although he continued paying B the stipulated rent.

Under the circumstances, does B have any cause of action against A?

Suggested answer:

Yes, B has a cause of action against A. B can file an action for damages against B for abuse of
rights under Article 19 of the New Civil Code. Under Article 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.

Here, A abused his rights as lessee, when he padlocked the property as to prevent B from leasing
the premises to another party. Thus, he may be liable for damages.

1986

Mrs. Napintas, five months pregnant, had to undergo an emergency appendectomy but, in the
course of the surgery, through the negligence of the surgeon, she suffered an abortion.
Mr. Napintas, as father, filed a suit for damages against the bungling surgeon for the loss of the
child. Will the suit prosper? Is it possible for Mr, Napintas to get damages of some sort? Explain.

Suggested Answer:
The action for damages for loss of the child (fetus) will not prosper because as held by the Court
in the case of Geluz v. C.A., the fetus is not a person. But moral damages may be recovered for
mental anguish for loss of parental expectancy. Perhaps, even exemplary damages may be
recovered.

1987

A to was the registered owner of a passenger jeepney, which was involved in a collision accident
with a vegetable truck, resulting in the death of four passengers and injuries to three. At the time
of the accident, Ato was legally married to Maria but was cohabiting with Tonia in a relationship
akin to that of husband and wife.

Could the heirs of the dead passengers and the injured persons recover damages from: (a) Ato?
(b) Maria? (c) Tonia? Explain each case.

Suggested Answer:

a. Ato - Yes. Insofar as the dead passengers are concerned, the heirs can recover damages
on the basis of culpa contractual. If the injured persons are also passengers, Ato is
likewise liable on the same basis of culpa contractual. However, if the injured persons are
not passengers, then the liability for damages of Ato will be on the basis of a quasi-delict.

b. Maria - In view of the ruling in Juaniza v. Jose (89 SCRA 306) that the passenger jeepney
acquired by the husband during an illicit cohabitation with the paramour is conjugal
property, Maria is liable to the same extent as Ato insofar as the conjugal property in the
marriage between Ato and Maria could be answerable. But as regards her paraphernal
property, Maria cannot be held answerable.

c. Tonia - No, in Juaniza v. Jose the paramour of the owner of the passenger jeepney that
figured in an accident was held to be not a co-owner, and therefore not liable for
damages. Article 144 is inapplicable.

II

The X Electric Cooperative services a small town where the roads are lined with lush acacia
trees- Normally these trees are pruned before the onset of the rainy season by the cooperative
itself since the power lines of the cooperative are not infrequently affected by falling branches.
This year, for financial reasons, the electric cooperative omitted the pruning in spite of reminders
from the townspeople. In August this year a strong typhoon hit the town and live wires fell to the
ground. While the cooperative made a preliminary survey of the damages, it did not immediately
take precautionary measures against possible harm. Thus, the attention of one of its employees
was called to the fallen wire in the center of the town. Before the cooperative could make the
necessary repairs, a four-year old boy crossed the street and was electrocuted by the live wire.
His parents sued the electric cooperative for damages:

(a) If you were counsel for the parents, what arguments would you advance to support your
claim for damages and how much damages would you demand?
(b) If you were counsel for the electric cooperative, what defenses would you offer?
(c) If you were judge, how would you decide the case?

Suggested Answer:

a. The damages that can be claimed by the parents are the following:

1. civil indemnity for death - P30,000.00 [People of the Philippines v. Traya, L-

48065, Jan. 29, 1987]
2. actual and compensatory damages;
3. moral damages for mental anguish;
4. exemplary or corrective damages.

b. As counsel for the electric cooperative, I would offer the defense of "fortuitous event,"
because the strong typhoon could not be foreseen and even if foreseen, could not be
avoided.

c. As judge, I would rule for the parents. The attention of the cooperative through its
employee was called to the fallen live wire. If there had been care and diligence, the
death could have been avoided. The cooperative could have made the necessary repairs
before the 4 year old boy crossed the street and was electrocuted by the live wire. It failed
to do so, hence it is liable.

1988

What are the requisites in order that the defendant can be held liable for damages in a quasi-
delict case?

A: In actions based on quasi-delicts, before the person injured can recover damages from the
defendant, it is necessary that he must be able to prove the following facts:
1. The fault or negligence of the defendant;
2. The damages suffered or incurred by the plaintiff; and
3. The relation of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the
damage incurred by the plaintiff. (Taylor vs. Manila Electric Co., 16 Phil. 8.)
1989
1990
1991

I
On her third month of pregnancy, Rosemarie, married to Boy, for reasons known only to her, and
without informing Boy, went to the clinic of X, a known abortionist, who for a fee, removed and
expelled the fetus from her womb, Boy learned of the abortion six (6) months later.
Availing of that portion of Section 12 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution which reads;
The State x xx shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from
conception, "xxx" which he claims confers a civil personality on the unborn from the moment of
conception. Boy filed a case for damages against the abortionist, praying therein that the latter be
ordered to pay him: (a) P30,000.00 as indemnity for the death of the fetus, (b) P100.000.00 as
moral damages for the mental anguish and anxiety he suffered, (c) P50,OOO.OO as exemplary
damages, (d) P20,000.00 as nominal damages, and (e) P25,000.00 as attorney's fees. May actual
damages be also recovered? If so, what facts should be alleged and proved?

Suggested Answer:
Yes, actual damages may be recovered. Provided that the pecuniary loss suffered should be
substantiated and duly proved.

II

Romano was bumped by a minivan owned by the Solomon School of Practical Arts (SSPA). The
minivan was driven by Peter, a student assistant whose assignment was to clean the school
passageways dally one hour before and one hour after regular classes, in exchange for free
tuition. Peter was able to drive the school vehicle after persuading the regular driver, Paul, to
turn over the wheel to him (Peter). Romano suffered serious physical Injuries. The accident
happened at night when only one headlight of the vehicle was functioning, and Peter only had a
student driver's permit.
As a consequence, Peter was convicted in the criminal case. Thereafter, Romano sued for
damages against Peter and SSPA.
(a) Will the action for damages against Peter and SSPA prosper?
(b) Will your answer be the same if, Paul, the regular driver, was impleaded as party defendant
for allowing Peter to drive the minivan without a regular driver's license.
(c) Is the exercise of due diligence in the selection and supervision of Peter and Paul a material
issue to be resolved in this case?

Suggested Answer:

A. Yes, it will prosper because at the time he drove the vehicle, he was not performing his
assigned tasks as provided for by Art. 2180. With respect to SSPA, it is not liable for the acts of
Peter because the latter was not an employee. Peter belongs to a special category of students who
render service to the school in exchange for free tuition fees.

B. I would maintain the same answer because the incident did not occur while the employee was
in the performance of his duty as such employee. The incident occurred at night time and in any
case, there was no indication in the problem that he was performing his duties as a driver.
C. In the case of Peter, if he were to be considered as employee, the exercise of due diligence in
the selection and supervision of peter would not be a material issue since the conviction of Peter
would result in a subsidiary liability where the defense would not be available by the employer.

In the case of Paul, since the basis of subsidiary liability is the pater familias rule under Art.
2180, the defense of selection and supervision of the employee would be a valid defense.

1992

As the result of a collision between a public service passenger bus and a cargo truck owned by
D, X sustained physical injuries and V died. Both X and Y were passengers of the bus. Both
drivers were at fault, and so X and Z, the only heir and legitimate child of the deceased Y, sued
the owners of both vehicles.
a) May the owner of the bus raise the defense of having exercised the diligence of a good father
of a family?
b)  May D raise the same defense?
c)  May X claim moral damages from both defendants?
d) May Z claim moral damages from both defendants? Give reasons for all your answers.

A:
(a) No. The owner of the bus cannot raise the defense because the carrier's liability is based on
breach of contract
(b) Yes. D can raise the defense because his liability is based on a quasi- delict.
(c) Because X suffered physical Injuries, X can claim moral damages against D, But as against
the owner of the bus. X can claim moral damages only if X proves reckless negligence of the
carrier amounting to fraud.
(d) Z can claim moral damages against both defendants because the rules on damages arising
from death due to a quasi-delict are also applicable to death of a passenger caused by breach of
contract by a common carrier (Arts. 1755. 1756, 1764, 2206 and 2219. Civil Code).

1993
1994

Johnny Maton's conviction for homicide was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and in addition,
although the prosecution had not appealed at all. The appellate court increased the indemnity for
death from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00. On his appeal to the Supreme Court, among the other
things Johnny Maton brought to the high court's attention, was the increase of indemnity
imposed by the Court of Appeals despite the clear fact that the People had not appealed from the
appellate court's judgment. Is Johnny Maton correct?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) In Abejam v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court said that even if the issue of damages were
not raised by the appellant in the Court of Appeals but the Court of Appeals in its findings
increased the damages, the Supreme Court will not disturb the findings of the Court of Appeals.

b) No, the contention of the accused is not correct because upon appeal to the Appellate Court,
the court acquired jurisdiction over the entire case, criminal as well as civil. Since the conviction
of homicide had been appealed, there is no finality in the amount of indemnity because the civil
liability arising from the crime and the judgment on the crime has not yet become final

c) Yes. Since the civil indemnity is an award in the civil action arising from the criminal offense,
the rule that a party cannot be granted affirmative relief unless he himself has appealed should
apply. Therefore, it was error for the Court of Appeals to have expanded the indemnity since the
judgment on the civil liability had become final.

d) No. Courts can review matters not assigned as errors. (Hydro Resource vs. CA, 204 SCRA
309).

II

On January 5, 1992, Nonoy obtained a loan of Pl,000,000.00 from his friend Raffy. The
promissory note did not stipulate any payment for Interest. The note was due on January 5, 1993
but before this date the two became political enemies. Nonoy, out of spite, deliberately defaulted
in paying the note, thus forcing Raffy to sue him. 1) What actual damages can Raffy recover? 2)
Can Raffy ask for moral damages from Nonoy? 3) Can Raffy ask for nominal damages? 4) Can
Raffy ask for temperate damages? 5) Can Raffy ask for attorney's fees?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1) Raffy may recover the amount of the promissory note of P1 million, together with interest at
the legal rate from the date of judicial or extrajudicial demand. In addition, however, inasmuch
as the debtor is in bad faith, he is liable for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to
the non-performance of the obligation. (Art. 2201(2). NCC).

2) Yes, under Article 2220, NCC moral damages are recoverable in case of breach of contract
where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.

3) Nominal damages may not be recoverable in this case because Raffy may already be
indemnified of his losses with the award of actual and compensatory damages. NOMINAL
DAMAGES are adjudicated only in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or
invaded by the defendant may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. (Article 2231. Civil Code)

4) Raffy may ask for, but would most likely not be awarded temperate damages, for the reason
that his actual damages may already be compensated upon proof thereof with the promissory
note. TEMPERATE DAMAGES may be awarded only when the court finds that some pecuniary
loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with
certainty. (Article 2224, Civil Code)

5) Yes, under paragraph 2, Article 2208 of the Civil Code, considering that Nonoy's act or
omission has compelled Raffy to litigate to protect his interests. Furthermore. attorneys' fees may
be awarded by the court when it is just and equitable. (Article 2208 (110) Civil Code).

1996

Rosa was leasing an apartment in the city. Because of the Rent Control Law, her landlord could
not increase the rend as much as he wanted to, nor terminate her lease as long as she was paying
her rent. In order to force her to leave the premises, the landlord stopped making repairs on the
apartment, and caused the water and electricity services to be disconnected. The difficulty of
living without electricity and running water resulted in Rosa’s suffering of a nervous breakdown.
She sued the landlord for actual and moral damages.
Will the action prosper? Explain

Suggested Answer:
Yes, the action will prosper.
Under the New Civil Code provisions on Human Relations, the willful acts of landlord are an
abuse of right. The disconnection of the utilities was done to compel Rosa to terminate the lease
or vacate the premises.
Article 2217 of the New Civil Code provides that moral damages include mental anguish, fright,
and serious anxiety, which is present in this case when Rosa suffered a nervous breakdown due
to difficult living conditions. Moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of
the defendant's wrongful act for omission, which in this case, Rosa’s breakdown was caused by
the landlords disconnection of the utilities without just cause.

II

Marcial, who does not know how to drive, has always been driven by Ben, his driver of ten years
whom he had chosen carefully and has never figured in a vehicular mishap. One day, Marcial
was riding at the back of his Mercedes Benz bring driven along EDSA by Ben. Absorbed in
reading a book, Marcial did not notice that they were approaching the corner of Quezon Avenue,
when the traffic light had just turned yellow. Ben suddenly stepped on the gas to cross the
intersection before the traffic light could turn red. But, too late. Midway in the intersection the
traffic light changed, and a jeepney full of passengers suddenly crossed the car’s path. A
collision between the two vehicles was inevitable. As a result, several jeepney passengers were
seriously injured. A suit for damages based on culpa acquiliana was filed against Marcial and
Ben, seeking to hold them jointly and severally liable for such injuries.
May Marcial be held liable? Explain.

Suggested Answer:
No, Marcial may not be held liable.
Under Article 2184 of the New Civil Code, in motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily
liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due
diligence, prevented the misfortune. The law does not require the owner to supervise the driver
every minute.
Here, Marcial was reading a book, and was not in any position to supervise Ben at the time of the
collision. The law does not compel the owner to monitor every action the driver takes. There is
no showing that Marcial’s act of reading was a lack of exercise of due diligence.

1997

(a) When would an employer's liability for damage, caused by an employee in the performance
of his assigned tasks, be primary and when would it be subsidiary in nature?

(b) Would the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee be
available to the employer in both instances?

Suggested Answer:

(a) The employer's liability for damage based on culpa aquiliana under Art, 2176 and 2180 of the
Civil Code is primary; while that under Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code is subsidiary.

(b) The defense of diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee under Article 2180
of the Civil Code is available only to those primarily liable thereunder, but not to those
subsidiarily liable under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code (Yumul vs. Juliano, 72 Phil. 94).

1998

A Gallant driven by John and owned by Art, and a Corolla driven by its owner, Gina, collided
somewhere along Adriatico Street. As a result of the accident, Gina had a concussion.
Subsequently. Gina brought an action for damages against John and Art. There is no doubt that
the collision is due to John's negligence.

Can Art, who was in the vehicle at the time of the accident, be held solidarily liable with his
driver, John?

Suggested Answer:

Yes. Art may be held solidary liable with John, if it was proven that the former could have
prevented the misfortune with the use of due diligence.

Article 2184 of the Civil Code states: "In motor mishaps, the owner is solidary liable with his
driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of due diligence, prevented
the misfortune, x x x"

Hence, Art may be held solidarily liable with John.

2000

I
Ortillo contracts Fabricato, Inc. to supply and install tile materials in a building he is donating to
his province. Ortillo pays 50% of the contract price as per agreement. It is also agreed that the
balance would be payable periodically after every 10% performance until completed. After
performing about 93% of the contract, for which it has been paid an additional 40% as per
agreement, Fabricato, Inc. did not complete the project due to its sudden cessation of operations.
Instead, Fabricato, Inc. demands payment of the last 10% of the contract despite its non-
completion of the project. Ortillo refuses to pay, invoking the stipulation that payment of the last
amount 10% shall be upon completion. Fabricato, Inc. brings suit for the entire 10% plus
damages, Ortillo counters with claims for (a) moral damages for Fabricato, Inc.’s unfounded suit
which has damaged his reputation as a philanthropist and respect businessman in his community,
and (b) attorney’s fees.
A. Does Ortillo have a legal basis for his claim for moral damages? (2%)
B. How about his claim for attorney’s fees, having hired a lawyer to defend him? (3%)
Suggested Answer:

A. There is no legal basis to Ortillo’s claim for moral damages. It does not fall under the
coverage of Article 2219 of the New Civil Code.
B. Ortillo is entitled to attorney’s fees because Fabricato’s complaint is a case of malicious
prosecution or a clearly unfounded civil action.

II

A van owned by Orlando and driven by Diego, while negotiating a downhill slope of a city road,
suddenly gained speed, obviously beyond the authorized limit in the are, and bumped a car in
front of it, causing severed damage to the care and serious injuries to its passengers. Orlando was
not in the car at the time of the incident. The car owner and the injured passengers sued Orlando
and Diego for damages caused by Diego’s negligence. In their defense, Diego claims that the
downhill slope caused the van to gain speed and that, as he stepped on the brakes to check the
acceleration, the brakes locked, causing the van to go even faster and eventually to hit the car in
front of it. Orlando and Diego contend that the sudden malfunction of the van’s brake system is a
fortuitous even and that, therefore, they are exempt from any liability.
a. Is this contention tenable? Explain. (2%)

Suggested Answer:

No. Mechanical defects of a motor vehicle do not constitute fortuitous event, since the presence
of such defects would have been readily detected by diligent maintenance check. The failure to
maintain the vehicle in safe running condition constitutes negligence.

B. Does the presence of the owner inside the vehicle causing damage to a third party affect
his liability for his driver’s negligence? Explain (2%)

Suggested Answer:
In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is made solidarily liable with his driver if the owner was in
the vehicle and could have, by the use of due diligence, prevented the mishap. However, this
question has no factual basis in the problem given, in view of the express given fact that
“Orlando was not in the car at the time of the incident.”

III

Explain the concept of vicarious liability in quasi-delicts.

Suggested Answer:

The doctrine of vicarious liability is that which renders a person liable for the negligence of
others for whose acts or omission the law makes him responsible on the theory that they are
under his control and supervision.

2003

If a pregnant woman passenger of a but were to suffer an abortion following a vehicular accident
due to the gross negligence of the bus driver, may she and her husband claim damages from the
bus company for the death of their unborn child? Explain. 5%

A: No, the spouses cannot recover actual damages in the form of indemnity for the loss of life of
the unborn child. This is because the unborn child is not yet considered a person and the law
allows indemnity only for loss of life of person. The mother, however may recover damages for
the bodily injury she suffered from the loss of the fetus which is considered part of her internal
organ. The parents may also recover damages for injuries that are inflicted directly upon them,
e.g., moral damages for mental anguish that attended the loss of the unborn child. Since there is
gross negligence, exemplary damages can also be recovered. (Gelus v. CA, 2 SCRA 801 [1961])

II

Q: As a result of a collision between the taxicab owned by A and another taxicab owned by B,
X, a passenger of the first taxicab, was seriously injured. X later filed a criminal action against
both drivers.
(b) May both taxicab owners raise the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision
of their drivers to be absolved from liability for damages to X? Reason. 5%

A: (b) It depends. If the civil action is based on a quasi-delict the taxicab owners may raise the
defense of diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of the driver; if
the action against them is based on culpa contractual or civil liability arising from a crime, they
cannot raise the defense.
2004

I
DT and MT were prominent members of the frequent travelers’ club of FX Airlines. In
HongKong, the couple were assigned seats in Business Class for which they had bought tickets.
On checking in, however, they were told they were upgraded by computer top First Class for the
flight to Manila because the Business Section was overbooked.
Both refused to transfer despite better seats, food beverage and other services in First Class.
They said they had guests in Business Class they should attend to. They felt humiliated,
embarrassed and vexed, however, when the stewardess allegedly threatened to offload them if
they did not avail of the upgrade. They thus gave in, but during the transfer of luggage DT
suffered pain in his arm and wrist. After arrival in Manila, they demanded an apology from FX’s
management as well as indemnity payment. When none was forthcoming,they sued the airline
for a million pesos in damages.
Is the airline liable for actual and moral damages? Why or why not? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
FX Airlines committed breach of contract when it upgraded DT and MT, over their objections, to
First Class because they had contracted for Business Class passage. However, although there is a
breach of contract, DT and MT are entitled to actual damages only for such pecuniary losses
suffered by them as a result of such rbeach. There seems to be no showing that they incurred
such pecuniary loss. There is no showing that the pain in DT’s arm and wrist resulted directly
from the carrier’s act complained of. Hence, they are not entitled to actual damages. Moreover,
DT could have avoided the alleged injury by requesting the airline staff to do the luggage
transfer as a matter of duty on their part. There is also no basis to award moral damages for such
breach of contract because ethe facts of the problem do not show bad fath or fraud on the part of
the airline. (Cathay Pacific v. Vazquez, 399 SCRA 201 [2003]). However, they may recover
moral damages if the cause of action is based on Art. 21 of the Civil Code for the humiliation
and embarrassment they felt when the stewardess threatened to offload them if they did not avail
of the upgrade.

II
OJ was employed as professional driver of MM Transit bus owned by Mr. BT. In the course of
his work, OJ hit a pedestriam who was seriously injured and later died in the hospital as a result
of the accident. The victim’s heirs sued the driver and the owner of the bus for damages.
Is there a presumption in this case that Mr. BT, the owner, had been negligent? If so, is the
presumption absolute or not? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, there is a presumption of negligence on the part of the employer. However, such
presumption is rebuttable. The liability of the employer shall cease when they prove that they
observed the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage (Article 2180, Civil Code).
When the employee causes damage due to his own negligence while performing his own duties,
there arises the juris tantum presumption that the employer is negligent, rebuttable only by proof
of observance of the diligence of a good father of a family (Metro Manila Transit v. Ca, 223
SCRA 521 [1993]; Delsan Transport Liunes v. C&TA Construction, 412 SCRA 524 2003).
2005

Dr. and Mrs. Almeda are prominent citizens of the country and are frequent travelers abroad. In
1996, they booked round-trip business class tickets for the Manila-Hong Kong-Manila route of
the Pinoy Airlines, where they are holders of Gold Mabalos Class Frequent Flier cards. On their
return flight, Pinoy Airlines upgraded their tickets to first class without their consent and, inspite
of their protestations to be allowed to remain in the business class so that they could be with their
friends, they were told that the business class was already fully booked, and that they were given
priority in upgrading because they are elite members/holders of Gold Mabalos Class cards. Since
they were embarrassed at the discussions with the flight attendants, they were forced to take the
flight at the first class section apart from their friends who were in the business class. Upon their
return to Manila, they demanded a written apology from Pinoy Airlines. When it went unheeded,
the couple sued Pinoy Airlines for breach of contract claiming moral and exemplary damages, as
well as attorney's fees. Will the action prosper? Give reasons. (5%)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Yes, the action will prosper. Article 2201 of the Civil Code entitles the person to recover
damages, which may be attributed to non-performance of an obligation. In Alitalia Airways v.
Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 77011, July 24, 1990), when an airline issues ticket to a passenger
confirmed on a particular flight, a contract of carriage arises and the passenger expects that he
would fly on that day. When the airline deliberately overbooked, it took the risk of having to
deprive some passengers of their seat in case all of them would show up. For the indignity and
inconvenience of being refused the confirmed seat, said passenger is entitled to moral damages.

In the given problem, spouses Almeda had a booked roundtrip business class ticket with Pinoy
Airlines. When their tickets were upgraded to first class without their consent, Pinoy Airlines
breached the contract. As ruled in Zulueta v. Pan American (G.R. No. L-28589, January 8,
1973), in case of overbooking, airline is in bad faith. Therefore, spouses Almeda are entitled to
damages.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The action may or may not prosper. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish,
fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation, and similar injury. Although incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages
may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission.
Moral damages predicated upon a breach of contract of carriage are recoverable only in instances
where the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith or where the mishap resulted in the death of a
passenger. (Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 60501, March 5, 1993)
Where there is no showing that the airline acted fraudulently or in bad faith, liability for damages
is limited to the natural and probable consequences of the breach of the contract of carriage
which the parties had foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen. In such a case the liability
does not include moral and exemplary damages.
In the instant case, if the involuntary upgrading of the Almedas' seat accommodation was not
attended by fraud or bad faith, the award of moral damages has no leg to stand on.

Thus, spouses would not also be entitled to exemplary damages. It is a requisite in the grant of
exemplary damages that the act of the offender must be accompanied by bad faith or done in
wanton, fraudulent or malevolent manner. (Morris v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127957,
February 21, 2001) Moreover, to be entitled thereto, the claimant must first establish his right to
moral, temperate, or compensatory damages. (Art. 2234, Civil Code) Since the Almedas are not
entitled to any of these damages, the award for exemplary damages has no legal basis. Where the
awards for moral and exemplary damages are eliminated, so must the award for attorney's fees be
eliminated. (Orosa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111080, April 5, 2000; Morris v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 127957, February 21, 2001) The most that can be adjudged in their favor for
Pinoy Airlines' breach of contract is an award for nominal damages under Article 2221 of the
Civil Code. (Cathay Pacific Airways v. Sps. Daniel & Maria Luisa Vasquez, G.R. No. 150843,
March 14, 2003)

However, if spouses Almeda could prove that there was bad faith on the part of Pinoy Airlines
when it breached the contract of carriage, it could be liable for moral, exemplary as well as
attorney's fees.

II

Under the law on quasi-delict, aside from the persons who caused injury to persons, who else are
liable under the following circumstances:

a) When a 7-year old boy injures his playmate while playing with his father's rifle. Explain. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The parents of the 7-year old boy who caused injury to his playmate are liable under Article 219
of the Family Code, in relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Code since they exercise parental
authority over the person of the boy. (Tamargo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85044, June 3,
1992; Elcano v. Hill, G.R. No. L-24803, May 26, 1977)

b) When a domestic helper, while haggling for a lower price with a fish vendor in the course of
buying foodstuffs for her employer's family, slaps the fish vendor, causing her to fall and sustain
injuries. Explain. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Employer of the domestic helper who slapped a fish vendor. Under Article 2180, par. 5 of the
Civil Code, "employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household
helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in
any business or industry."

c) A carpenter in a construction company accidentally hits the right foot of his co-worker with a
hammer. Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The owner of the construction company. Article 2180, paragraph 4 states that "the owners and
managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their
employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of
their functions."

d) A 15-year old high school student stabs his classmate who is his rival for a girl while they
were going out of the classroom after their last class. Explain. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The school, teacher and administrator as they exercise special parental authority. (Art. 2180, par.
7 in relation to Art. 218 and Art. 219 of the Family Code)

e) What defense, if any, is available to them? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The defense that might be available to them is the observance of a good father of the family to
prevent the damage. (Last par., Art. 2180, Civil Code)

2006

Under Article 2219 of the Civil Code, moral damages may be recovered in the cases specified
therein several of which are enumerated below.

Choose the case wherein you cannot recover moral damages. Explain. (2.5%)
a) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries
b) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries
c) Immorality or dishonesty
d) Illegal search
e) Malicious prosecution

Suggested answer:
Immorality and dishonesty, per se, are not among those cases enumerated in Article 2219 which
can be the basis of an action for moral damages. The law specifically mentions adultery or
concubinage, etc. but not any and every immoral act.

2. Tony bought a Ford Expedition from a car dealer in Muntinlupa City. As payment, Tony
issued a check drawn against his current account with Premium Bank. Since he has a good
reputation, the car dealer allowed him to immediately drive home the vehicle merely on his
assurance that his check is sufficiently funded. When the car dealer deposited the check, it was
dishonored on the ground of "Account Closed." After an investigation, it was found that an
employee of the bank misplaced Tony's account ledger. Thus, the bank erroneously assumed that
his account no longer exists. Later it turned out that Tony's account has more than sufficient
funds to cover the check. The dealer however, immediately filed an action for recovery of
possession of the vehicle against Tony for which he was terribly humiliated and embarrassed.
Does Tony have a cause of action against Premium Bank? Explain. (5%)

Suggested answer:
Yes, Tony may file an action against Premium Bank for damages under Art. 2176.

Even if there exists a contractual relationship between Tony and Premium Bank, an action for
quasi-delict may nevertheless prosper. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the act that
breaks the contract may also be a tort. There is a fiduciary relationship between the bank and the
depositor, imposing utmost diligence in managing the accounts of the depositor.

The dishonor of the check adversely affected the credit standing of Tony, hence, he is entitled to
damages.(Singson v. BPI G.R. No. L-24932, June 27, 1968; American Express International,
Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. 72383, November 9, 1988; Consolidated Bank and Trust v. CA, G.R. No.
L-70766 November 9,1998).

3. Arturo sold his Pajero to Benjamin for P1 Million. Benjamin took the vehicle but did not
register the sale with the Land Transportation Office. He allowed his son Carlos, a minor who
did not have a driver's license, to drive the car to buy pan de sal in a bakery. On the way, Carlos
driving in a reckless manner, sideswiped Dennis, then riding a bicycle. As a result, he suffered
serious physical injuries. Dennis filed a criminal complaint against Carlos for reckless
imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries.

A. Can Dennis file an independent civil action against Carlos and his father Benjamin for
damages based on quasi-delict? Explain. (2.5%)

Suggested answer:
Yes, Dennis can file an independent civil action against Carlos and his father for damages based
on quasi-delict there being an act or omission causing damage to another without contractual
obligation. Under Section 1 of Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, what is
deemed instituted with the criminal action is only the action to recover civil liability arising from
the act or omission punished by law. An action based on quasi-delict is no longer deemed
instituted and may be filed separately [Section 3, Rule 111, Rules of Criminal Procedure].

B. 2. Assuming Dennis' action is tenable, can Benjamin raise the defense that he is not liable
because the vehicle is not registered in his name? Explain. (2.5%)

Suggested Answer:
No. Benjamin cannot raise the defense that the vehicle is not registered in his name. His liability
is vicarious in character under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code. This is because he is the
father of a minor who caused damage due to negligence.

While the suit will prosper against the registered owner, it is the actual owner of the private
vehicle who is ultimately liable (See Duavit v. CA, G.R. No. L-29759, May 18, 1989). The
purpose of car registration is to reduce difficulty in identifying the party liable in case of
accidents.
2007

Explain the following concepts and doctrines and give an example of each:

a. doctrine of discovered peril (last clear chance) (5%)

Suggested Answer:

The doctrine of last clear chance provides that where both parties are negligent but the negligent
act of one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the other, or where it is impossible to
determine whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident, the one who
had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with
the consequence arising therefrom (Greenstar Express Inc. and Sayson Jr. vs Universal Robina
Corp. and Nissin Universal Robina Corp. GR 205090, Oct. 17, 2016).

An example is when a car on the highway attempts to overtake a van, and a truck from the
opposite lane sees the car attempt to overtake. The truck has the last clear chance to avoid a high
speed collision by slowing down, despite having the right of way. Should it collide with the car,
the truck driver would still be held liable.

2009

Rommel’s private car, while being driven by the regular family driver, Amado, hits a pedestrian
causing the latter’s death. Rommel is not in the car when the incident happened.

a. Is Rommel liable for damages to the heirs of the deceased? Explain.

b. Would your answer be the same if Rommel was in the car at the time of the accident?
Explain.

Suggested Answer:

a. Yes, Rommel may be held liable for damages if he fails to prove that he exercised the
diligence of a good father of a family (Art. 2180, par 5, NCC) in selecting and
supervising his family driver.

The owner is presumed liable unless he proves the defense of diligence. If the driver was
performing his assigned task when the accident happened, Rommel shall be solidarily
liable with the driver. In case the driver is convicted of reckless imprudence and cannot
pay the civil liability, Rommel is subsidiarily liable for the damage awarded against the
driver and the defense of diligence is not available.

b. Yes, my answer would be the same.

 Rommel, who was in the car, shall be liable for damages if he could have prevented the
misfortune by the use of due diligence in supervising his driver but failed to exercise it
(Art. 2184, NCC). In such case, his liability is solidary with his driver.

II

Rodolfo, married to Sharon, had an illicit affair with his secretary, Nanette, a 19-year old girl,
and begot a baby girl, Rona. Nanette sued Rodolfo for damages: actual, for hospital and other
medical expenses in delivering the child by caesarean section; moral, claiming that Rodolfo
promised to marry her, representing that he was single when, in fact, he was not; and exemplary,
to teach a lesson to like-minded Lotharios.

If you were the judge, would you award all the claims of Nanette? Explain.

Suggested Answer:

It depends.

If Rodolfo's marriage could not have been possibly known to Nanette or there is no gross
negligence on the part of Nanette, Rodolfo could be held liable for moral damages.

If there is gross negligence in a suit for quasi-delict, exemplary could be awarded.

2010

Primo owns a pet iguana which he keeps in a man-made pond enclosed by a fence situated in his
residential lot. A typhoon knocked down the fence of the pond and the iguana crawled out of the
gate of Primo’s residence. N, a neighbor who was passing by, started throwing stones at the
iguana, drawing the iguana to move toward him. N panicked and ran but tripped on something
and suffered a broken leg. Is anyone liable for N’s injuries? Explain.

A: No one is liable. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is
responsible for the damage it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility
shall cease only in case the damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the
person who has suffered damage (Art 2183, NCC).

II

No.XII: On May 5, 1989, 16-year old Rozanno, who was issued a student permit, drove to school
a car, a gift from his parents. On even date, as his class was scheduled to go on a field trip, his
teacher requested him to accommodate in his car, as he did, four (4) of his classmates because
the van rented by the school was too crowded. On the way to a museum which the students were
scheduled to visit, Rozanno made a wrong maneuver, causing a collision with a jeepney. One of
his classmates died. He and the three (3) others were badly injured.
(A). Who is liable for the death of Rozanno’s classmate and the injuries suffered by Rozanno and
his 3 other classmates? Explain.

A: At the time the incident occurred in May 1989, Rozanno was still a minor. Being a minor, Art
218 of the Family Code applies. Pursuant to Art 218, the school, its administrators and teachers
shall be liable for the acts of minor Rozanno because of the special parental authority and
responsibility that they exercise over him. The authority applies to all authorized activities,
whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution.

The field trip on which occasion Rozanno drove the car was an authorized activity, thus covered
by the provision. Furthermore, the parents of Rozanno are subsidiarily liable pursuant to Art 219
of the FC, and principally liable under Art 221 of the FC, if they are negligent.

(B). How about the damage to the jeepney? Explain.

A: With respect to the damages caused to the jeepney, only Rozanno should be held liable
because his negligence or tortuous act was the sole, proximate and immediate cause thereof.

(C). Under the same facts, except the date of occurrence of the incident, this time in mid-1994,
what would be your answer? Explain.
A: Rozanno was 16 years old in 1989—if the incident happened sometime in the middle of 1994,
Rozanno have been 21 years old at the time. Hence, he was already of legal age, as the law
reducing the age of majority to 18 years took effect in December 1989.
Being of legal age, articles 218, 219, and 221 of the Family Code are no longer applicable. In
such case, only Rozanno will be personally responsible for all the consequences of his act unless
his school or his parents were themselves also negligent and such negligence contributed to the
happening of the incident. In that event, the school or his parents are not liable under Art 218,
218 or 221 of the Family Code, but will be liable under the general provision of the Civil Code
on quasi-delict.

III

Define quasi tort. Who are the persons liable under quasi torts and what are the defenses
available to them?

A: Quasi-tort is a legal concept upholding the doctrine that some legal duty exists that cannot be
classified strictly as a personal duty (thus resulting in a tort), nor as a contractual duty, but rather
some other kind of duty recognizable by the law. “Tort” or “Quasi-tort” is an Anglo-American or
Common Law concept, while “Delict” or “Quasi-Delict“ is a Civil Law concept.

2013

A collision occurred at an intersection involving a bicycle and a taxicab. Both the bicycle rider (a
businessman then doing his morning exercise) and the taxi driver claimed that the other was at
fault. Based on the police report, the bicycle crossed the intersection first but the taxicab,
crossing at a fast clip from the bicycle's left, could not brake in time and hit the bicycle's rear
wheel, toppling it and throwing the bicycle rider into the sidewalk 5 meters away.

The bicycle rider suffered a fractured right knee, sustained when he fell on his right side on the
concrete side walk. He was hospitalized and was subsequently operated on, rendering him
immobile for 3 weeks and requiring physical rehabilitation for another 3 months. In his
complaint for damages, the rider prayed for the award ofP1,000,000 actual damages, P200,000
moral damages, P200,000 exemplary damages, P1 00,000 nominal damages and P50,000
attorney's fees.

Assuming the police report to be correct and as the lawyer for the bicycle rider, what evidence
(documentary and testimonial) and legal arguments will you present in court to justify the
damages that your client claims? (8%)

Suggested Answer:

As lawyer for the bicycle rider, I will present in addition to the police report, the medical abstract
as to the injuries sustained by my client as well as copies of receipts of expenses incurred in
connection with the treatment of his injuries. I will also present the testimony of my client and
perhaps a bystander who witnessed the incident as to the circumstances surrounding the accident.

As for the legal argument, I will rebut the claim of negligence on my client’s part by presenting
evidence that my client has actually crossed the intersection ahead of the taxicab and it was the
taxicab driver who rapidly cut the path of the bicycle which caused the collision. Also, even
assuming that there was contributory negligence on the part of my client, I will argue that it will
not preclude the recovery of damages but may only mitigate the damages to which he is entitled.

2014

A pedestrian, who was four (4) months pregnant, was hit by a bus driver while crossing the
street. Although the pedestrian survived, the fetus inside her womb was aborted. Can the
pedestrian recover damages on account of the death of the fetus? (1%)
(A) Yes, because of Article 2206 of the Civil Code which allows the surviving heirs to demand
damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.
(B) Yes, for as long as the pedestrian can prove that she was not at fault and the bus driver was
the one negligent.
(C) No, because a fetus is not a natural person.
(D) No, if the fetus did not comply with the requirements under Article 41 of the Civil Code.

A: D – Article 41 of the Civil Code requires that to be considered a person, a fetus with an
intrauterine life of less than seven months must survive for the full twenty-four hours from
complete separation from the mother’s womb.
 II

Mabuhay Elementary School organized a field trip for its Grade VI students in Fort Santiago,
Manila Zoo, and Star City. To be able to join, the parents of the students had to sign a piece of
paper that reads as follows:
"I allow my child (name of student), Grade – Section, to join the school’s field trip on February
14, 2014.
I will not file any claim against the school, administrator or teacher in case something happens to
my child during the trip."
Joey, a 7-year-old student of Mabuhay Elementary School was bitten by a snake while the group
was touring Manila Zoo. The parents of Joey sued the school for damages. The school, as a
defense, presented the waiver signed by Joey’s parents.
Was there a valid waiver of right to sue the school? Why? (4%)

A: No, there was no valid waiver of the right to sue the school. A waiver to be valid must have
three requisites 1) existence of the right; 2) legal capacity of the person waiving the right and 3)
the waiver must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy or
prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. In the case presented, the waiver
may be considered contrary to public policy as it exonerates the school from liability for future
negligence. The waiver in effect allows the school to not exercise even ordinary diligence.

2015

I
X, a dressmaker, accepted clothing materials from Karla to make two dresses for her. On
the day X was supposed to deliver Karla’s dresses, X called up Karla to say that she had
an urgent matter to attend to and will deliver them the next day. That night, however, a
robber broke into her shop and took everything including Karla’s two dresses. X claims
she is not liable to deliver Karla’s dresses to pay for the clothing materials considering
she herself was a victim of the robbery which was a fortuitous event and over which she
had no control. Do you agree? Why? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, I do not agree with the contention of X. The law provides that except when it is
otherwise declared by stipulation or when the law provides or the nature of the
obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be liable for those events
which could not be foreseen or which though foreseen were inevitable. (Article 1174,
Civil Code). In the case presented, X cannot invoke fortuitous event as a defense because
she had already incurred in delay at the time of the occurrence of the loss. (Article 1165,
Civil Code).

II
A driver of a bus owned by company Z ran over a boy who died instantly. A criminal case
for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide was filed against the driver. He was
convicted and was ordered to pay P2 million in actual and moral damages to the parents
of the boywho was an honor student and had a bright future. Without even trying to find
out if the driver had assets or means to pay the award of damages, the parents of the boy
filed a civil action against the bus company to make it directly liable for the damages.
 A.) Will their action prosper? (4%)
B.) If the parents of the boy do not wish to file a separate civil action against the bus
company, can they still make the bus company liable if the driver cannot pay the
award for damages? If so, what is the nature of the employer’s liability and how
may civil damages be satisfied? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
a.) Yes. The action will prosper. The liability of the employer in this case may be
based on quasi-delict and is included within the coverage of the independent civil
action. It is not necessary to enforce the civil liability based on cupa aquiliana
that the driver or employee be proven to be insolvent since the liability of the
employer for the quasi-delicts committed by their employees is direct and
primary subject to the defense of due diligence on their part. (Article 2176; Article
2180)
b.) Yes, the parents of the boy can enforce the subsidiary liability of the employer in
the criminal case against the driver. The conviction of the driver is a condition
sine qua non for the subsidiary liability of the employer to attach. Proof must be
shown that the driver is insolvent. (Article 103, Revised Penal Code)
2016

Peter, a resident of Cebu City, sent through Reliable Pera Padala (RPP) the amount of P20,
000.00 to his daughter, Paula, for the payment of her tuition fee. Paula went to an RPP branch
but was informed that there was no money remitted to her name. Peter inquired from RPP and
was informed that there was a computer glitch and the money was credited to another person.
Peter and Paula sued RPP for actual damages, moral damages and exemplary damages. The trial
court ruled that there was no proof of pecuniary loss to the plaintiffs but awarded moral damages
of P20, 000.00 and exemplary damages of P5, 000.00. On appeal, RPP questioned the award of
moral and exemplary damages. Is the trial court correct in awarding moral and exemplary
damages? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the trial court is not correct in awarding moral and exemplary damages. The damages in this
case are prayed for based on the breach of contract committed by RPP in failing to deliver the
sum of money to Paula. Under the provisions of the Civil Code, in breach of contract, moral
damages may be recovered when the defendant acted in bad faith or was guilty of gross
negligence (amounting to bad faith) or in wanton disregard of his contractual obligation. In the
same fashion, to warrant the award of exemplary damages, the wrongful act must be
accomplished by bad faith, and an award of damages would be allowed only if the guilty party
acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless or malevolent manner (Article 2232 of the Civil Code).

Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence. It imports a dishonest purpose or
some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty through some
motive or interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud. In this case, however, RPP's
breach was due to a computer glitch, which at most can be considered as negligence on its part,
but definitely does not constitute bad faith or fraud as would warrant the award of moral and
exemplary damages.

II

Dr. Jack, a surgeon, holds clinic at the St. Vincent's Hospital and pays rent to the hospital. The
fees of Dr. Jack are paid directly to him by the patient or through the cashier of the hospital. The
hospital publicly displays in the lobby the names and specializations of the doctors associated or
accredited by it, including that of Dr. Jack. Marta engaged the services of Dr. Jack because of
recurring stomach pain. It was diagnosed that she is suffering from cancer and had to be operated
on. Before the operation, she was asked to sign a "consent for hospital care," which reads:
"Permission is hereby given to the medical, nursing and laboratory staff of the St. Vincent's
Hospital to perform such procedures and to administer such medications and treatments as may
be deemed necessary or advisable by the physicians of this hospital for and during the
confinement."
After the surgery, the attending nurses reported that two (2) sponges were missing. Later, Marta
died due to complications brought about by the sponges that were left in her stomach. The
husband of Marta sued the hospital and Dr. Jack for damages arising from negligence in the
medical procedure. The hospital raised the defense that Dr. Jack is not its employee as it did not
hire Dr. Jack nor pay him any salary or compensation. It has absolutely no control over the
medical services and treatment being provided by Dr. Jack. Dr. Jack even signed an agreement
that he holds the hospital free and harmless from any liability arising from his medical practice in
the hospital.
Is St. Vincent's Hospital liable for the negligence of Dr. Jack? Explain your answer. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, St. Vincent's Hospital is liable. In the case of Professional Services v. Agana (513 SCRA
478 [2007J), the Supreme Court held that the hospital is liable to the Aganas, not under the
principle of respondeat superior for lack of evidence of an employer-employee relationship with
Dr. Ampil but under the principle of ostensible agency for the negligence of Dr. Ampil and, pro
hac vice, under the principle of corporate negligence for its failure to perform its duties as a
hospital.
While it is true that there was insufficient evidence that St. Vincent's Hospital exercised the
power of control or wielded such power over the means and the details of the specific process by
which Dr. Jack applied his skills in Marta's treatment, there is ample evidence that St. Vincent's
Hospital held
out to the patient, Marta, that Dr. Jack was its agent (principle of ostensible agency). The two
factors that determine apparent authority are present: (1) the hospital's implied manifestation to
the patient which led the latter to conclude that the doctor was the hospital's agent; and (2) the
patient's reliance upon the conduct of the hospital and the doctor, consistent with ordinary care
and prudence.
The corporate negligence ascribed to St. Vincent's Hospital is different form the medical
negligence attributed to Dr. Jack. The duties of the hospital are distinct from those of the doctor-
consultant practicing within its premises in relation to the patient; hence, the failure of St.
Vincent's Hospital to fulfill its duties as a hospital corporation gave rise to a direct liability to
Marta distinct from that of Dr. Jack.

2017

Jovencio operated a school bus to ferry his two sons and five of their schoolmates from their
houses to their school, and back. The parents of the five schoolmates paid for the service. One
morning, Porfirio, the driver, took a short cut on the way to school because he was running late,
and drove across an unmanned railway crossing. At the time, Porfirio was wearing earphones
because he loved to hear loud music while driving. As he crossed the railway tracks, a speeding
PNR train loudly blared its horn to warn Porfirio, but the latter did not hear the horn because of
the loud music. The train inevitably rammed into the school bus. The strong impact of the
collision between the school bus and the train resulted in the instant death of one of the
classmates of Jovencio’s younger son.

The parents of the fatality sued Jovencio for damages based on culpa contractual alleging that
Jovencio was a common carrier; Porfirio for being negligent; and the PNR for damages based on
culpa aquiliana.

Jovencio denied being a common carrier. He insisted that he had exercised the diligence of a
good father of a family in supervising Porfirio, claiming that the latter had had no history of
negligence or recklessness before the fatal accident.

(a) Did his operation of the school bus service for a limited clientele render Jovencio a common
carrier? Explain your answer. (3%)

Suggested answer:

Yes, because a common carrier is one who is engaged in the business of carrying or transporting
passengers or goods or both, or one who holds himself or itself out to the public as being
engaged in said business.

In Perena v. Zarate [679 SCRA 208 (2012)], the Court definitively ruled that the operators of a
school bus service are common carriers even if they are catering to a limited clientele because of
the following reasons: (1) they are engaged in transporting passengers generally as a business,
not just as a casual occupation; (2) they are undertaking to carry passengers over established
roads by the method by which the business was conducted; and (3) they are transporting students
for a fee.

The Court additionally explained that despite catering to a limited clientèle, they operate as
common carriers because they held themselves out as a ready transportation indiscriminately to
the students of a particular school living within or near where they operated the service and for a
fee. [Discussed and posted on my FB wall as early as October 23, 2017]

(b) In accordance with your answer to the preceding question, state the degree of diligence to be
observed by Jovencio, and the consequences thereof. Explain your answer. (3%)
Suggested answer:

Being a common carrier, Jovencio is required to observe extraordinary diligence, and is

presumed to be at fault or to have acted negligently in case of the loss of the effects of
passengers, or the death or injuries to passengers.

In this case, Jovencio is liable for the death of the student because, acting as a common carrier,
he is already presumed to be negligent at the time of the accident because death had occurred to
the passenger. Here, Jovencio failed to fend off liability because he failed to prove that he
observed extraordinary diligence in ensuring the safety of the passengers. [Basis: Perena v.
Zarate, 679 SCRA 208 (2012); discussed and posted on my FB wall as early as October 23,
2017]

(c) Assuming that the fatality was a minor of only 15 years of age who had no earning capacity
at the time of his death because he was still a student in high school, and the trial court is minded
to award indemnity, what may possibly be the legal and factual justifications for the award of
loss of earning capacity? Explain your answer. (4%)

Suggested answer:

The basis for the computation of the deceased’s earning capacity should be the minimum wage
in effect at the time of his death, pursuant to the ruling of the Court in Perena v. Zarate [679
SCRA 208 (2012)]. In the same case, the Court also ruled that the computation of the victim’s
life expectancy rate should not be reckoned from his age of 15 years at the time of his death, but
on 21 years, his age when he would have graduated from college.

In the same case, the Court justified the indemnification of the victim’s loss of earning capacity
despite him having been unemployed because compensation of this nature is awarded not for loss
of time or earnings but for loss of the deceased’s power or ability to earn money.

2018

Newlyweds Sam and Sienna had contracted with Sangria Hotel for their wedding reception. The
couple was so unhappy with the service, claiming, among other things, that there was an
unreasonable delay in the service of dinner and that certain items promised were unavailable.
The hotel claims that, while there was a delay in the service of the meals, the same was
occasioned by the sudden increase of guests to 450 from the guaranteed expected number of 350,
as stated in the Banquet and Meeting Services Contract. In the action for damages for breach of
contract instituted by the couple, they claimed that the Banquet and Meeting Services Contract
was a contract of adhesion since they only provided the number of guests and chose the menu.
On the other hand, the hotel's defense was that the proximate cause of the complainant's injury
was the unexpected increase in their guests, and this was what set the chain of events that
resulted in the alleged inconveniences.
 (a) Does the doctrine of proximate cause apply in this case? (2.5%)

(b) Was the Banquet and Meeting Services Contract a contract of adhesion? If yes, is the
contract void? (2.5%)

Suggested Answers:
(a) No. The doctrine of proximate case is applicable only in actions for quasi-delict, not in
actions for breach of contract.
The Supreme Court has held in the case of Spouses Guanio vs Makati Shangri-La (2011)
that the doctrine is a device for imputing liability to a person where there is no relation
between him and another party.
Here, since the action filed by the couple was for breach of contract, hence, the doctrine
of proximate cause is inapplicable.
b. Yes, the contract was a contract of adhesion. A contract of adhesion is a contract wherein
one party imposes a ready-made form of contract on the other, is not strictly against the
law. A contract of adhesion is as binding as ordinary contracts, the reason being that the
party who adheres to the contract is free to reject it entirely.
The contract is not void since it was freely entered into by the parties, with Sangria Hotel
providing terms and conditions which the newlyweds consented to. It is only in cases
where the terms of the contract are so oppressive or clearly unequal that the Courts would
render such adhesive contracts void. No circumstances exist in this case.

II

Shasha purchased an airline ticket from Sea Airlines (SAL) covering Manila-Bangkok- Hanoi-
Manila. The ticket was exclusively endorsable to Siam Airlines (SMA). The contract of air
transportation was between Shasha and SAL, with the latter endorsing to SMA the Hanoi-Manila
segment of the journey. All her flights were confirmed by SAL before she left Manila. Shasha
took the flight from Manila to Bangkok on board SAL using the ticket. When she arrived in
Bangkok, she went to the SAL ticket counter and confirmed her return trip from Hanoi to Manila
on board SMA Flight No. SA 888. On the date of her return trip, she checked in for SMA Flight
No. SA 888, boarded the plane, and before she could even settle in on her assigned seat, she was
off-loaded and treated rudely by the crew. She lost her luggage and missed an important business
meeting. She thereafter filed a complaint solely against SAL and argued that it was solidarily
liable with SMA for the damages she suffered since the latter was only an agent of the former.

(a) Should either, or both, SAL and SMA be held liable for damages that Shasha
suffered? (2.5%)

(b) Assuming that one is an agent of the other, is the agency coupled with interest?
(2.5%)

Suggested Answers:

a) Both SAL and SMA should be held liable for damages.

 The Supreme Court in the case of China Airlines vs. Chiok (2003) held that Carriage to
be performed by several successive carriers under one ticket, or under a ticket and any
conjunction ticket issued therewith, is regarded as a single operation, as based on Article
15 of IATA-Recommended Practices.

Here, SMA was the carrying agent of SAL. The obligation of the ticket-issuing airline
remained and did not cease, regardless of the fact that another airline had undertaken to
carry the passengers to one of their destinations.

Hence both SAL and SMA are liable for damages.

b) Yes, the agency is coupled with an interest.

There is an agency coupled with an interest, when there is agency that is created for the
mutual interest of the agent and the principal. Under Article 1930 of the New Civil Code,
The agency shall remain in full force and effect if it has been constituted in the common
interest of the latter and of the agent, or in the interest of a third person who has accepted
the stipulation in his favor.

Here, both SAL and SMA have a mutual interest in the arrangement of ticket sales and
endorsement for the carriage of passengers. Hence, the agency is coupled with an interest.

III

Simeon was returning to Manila after spending a weekend with his parents in Sariaya, Quezon.
He boarded a bus operated by the Sabbit Bus Line (SBL) on August 30, 2013. In the middle of
the journey, the bus collided with a truck coming from the opposite direction, which was
overtaking the vehicle in front of the truck. Though the driver of the SBL bus tried to avoid the
truck, a mishap occurred as the truck hit the left side of the bus. As a result of the accident,
Simeon suffered a fractured leg and was unable to report for work for one week. He sued SBL
for actual and moral damages. SBL raised the defense that it was the driver of the truck who was
at fault, and that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and
supervision of its driver.

(a) Is SBL liable for actual damages? Moral damages? (2.5%)

(b) Will SBL be liable to pay interest if it is required to pay damages, and delays in the
payment of the judgment award? What is the rate of interest, and from when should the
interest start running? (2.5%)

Suggested Answers:
a) SBL is not liable for both actual damages and moral damages.
The Supreme Court has held that as a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to
substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. Under Article 2205 of the
New Civil Code, damages may be recovered for loss or impairment of earning capacity in
cases of temporary or permanent personal injury.
 Here, Simeon was unable to substantiate his claim for lost income and medical treatment
expenses to warrant an award of actual damages.
As for moral damages, Simeon is not entitled to moral damages since his cause of action
arose from a Contract of Carriage.
Under Article 2219 of the Civil Code, a breach of contract is not one of the enumerated
instances where a person is entitled to moral damages. Simeon did not present any
evidence to show bad faith or fraud on the part of SBL to induce him into a Contract of
Carriage, or that there was ill will in the method of transporting him.
Hence, SBL is not liable for both actual damages and moral damages.
b) Yes, SBL will be liable to pay interest if it delays in the payment of the judgment award.
The Supreme Court has held in the case of Nacar vs. Gallery Frames (2013) that The
amounts of damages awarded are declared subject to legal interest of 6% per annum from
the finality of this Decision until full satisfaction.