CASE ASSIGNMENTS – SUMMARY – JULY 3, 2023

A. RONQUILLO, ET AL. VS. SINGSON CA, L-22612-R, APRIL, 1959

FACTS: A man ordered a ten-year-old boy, Jose Ronquillo, to climb a high and rather
slippery santol tree, with a promise to give him part of the fruits. The boy was killed in
the act of climbing.

ISSUE: Is the person who ordered him liable?

HELD: Yes, in view of his negligent act in making the order. He did not take due care
to avoid a reasonably foreseeable injury to the ten-year-old boy. The tree was a
treacherous one, a veritable trap. His act was clearly a departure from the standard of
conduct required of a prudent man. He should have desisted from making the order.
Since he failed to appreciate the predictable danger and aggravated such negligence by
offering part of the fruits as a reward, it is clear that he should be made to respond in
damages for the actionable wrong committed by him.

B. GUTIERREZ REPIDE v. ALZELIUS 39 Phil. 190

Mere pecuniary inability to pay does not discharge an obligation to pay, nor does it
constitute any defense to a decree for specific performance. The stability of commercial
transactions requires that the rights of the seller be protected just as effectively as the
rights of the buyer.