[G.R. No. L-15692. May 31, 1961.

]
ENGRACIA ALARCON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JUAN ALARCON, Defendant-Appellee.
Flaviano T. Dalisay and Briones, Briones & Bongon, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Blancaflor, San Andres & San Andres, for Defendant-Appellee. CONCEPCION J.
FACTS: On June 3, 1955 the defendant hired Urzino Azaa and his brother to dig a well on
his land in Caramoan, Camarines Sur. After the days work the two had dug a hole about
five feet meters deep without striking water.
"On the next day Urzino resumed his work with one Generoso Zulueta as co-worker.
Generoso was also hired by the defendant in place of Urzinos brother who did not return to
work.
"Urzino and Generoso started their work early in the morning. Urzino was lowered into the
hole with a rope to dig deeper. On reaching the bottom he quickly remarked that he was not
feeling well. Generoso told him to get ready to be pulled up, but a moment later Urzino
fainted and slumped helplessly into a sitting position.
"Generoso quickly called for help. A policeman and other persons immediately responded.
After their arrival Generoso lowered a ladder and proceeded to descend into the hole. After
having gone down about two meters, he felt a current of hot air with an obnoxious odor
around him. He soon realized that he was not feeling well. Accordingly, he desisted from
descending farther and instead he climbed up out of the hole. One of the men then
volunteered to go down in his place, but he too could not reach the bottom for the same
reason.
"Realizing that it was not safe to go into the hole, Generoso, and others thought of another
method to get out Urzino. With a rope tied into a loop on one end, they caught one of his
legs and pulled up his body. They next put him on bed while someone summoned a doctor.
In less than five minutes the municipal health officer arrived. He quickly attempted to revive
Urzino, but his efforts proved unavailing because he was already dead. He certified that
Urzino died of asphyxia (Exhibit A).
"On the day of his death Urzino was single, 20 years old, and living with his mother who is
the plaintiff. She filed this action to recover compensation for her sons death under the
provision of Art. 1711 of the Civil Code
the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur rendered judgment dismissing the complaint
upon the ground that, "not being owner of enterprises or employer of laborers in industry or
business", defendant herein is not liable under Article 1711 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines to pay compensation for the death of Urzino Azaa, the same being purely
accidental in nature
ISSUE: WON CFI correct? YES
HELD: the employment of Urzino Azaa by defendant herein was "purely casual" and was
not "for the purposes of the occupation or business" of said defendant, it is clear to us that
Urzino Azaa is not covered by the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act. Neither
may plaintiff herein avail of the benefits of the Employers Liability Act (Act No. 1874), which
she does not invoke, for it is not claimed that Urzinos death was due to "a defect in the
condition of the ways, works or machinery connected with or used in the business of the

employer", or to "the negligence of a person in the service of the employer." Hence, there is
no means by which defendant herein may be held liable for Azaas death, due to an
accidental cause or fortuitous event
Defendant herein does not own any enterprise. He is merely a school teacher who needed
a well. Neither does he fall under the category of "other employers" mentioned in said
Article 1711. Under the principle of ejusdem generis, said "other employers" must be
construed to refer to persons who belong to a class analogous to "owners of enterprises",
such as those operating a business or engaged in a particular industry or trade, requiring its
managers to contract the services of laborers, workers and/or employees. (SEE 1711 NCC)
"Laborer is used as a synonym of Employee and means every person who has entered
the employment of, or works under a service or apprenticeship contract for an employer. It
does not include a person whose employment is purely casual and is not for the purposes
of the occupation or business of the employer.

Article 1902 of that code provides that a person who, by act or omission, causes
damages to another when there is fault or negligence, shall be obliged to repair the
damage do done
G.R. No. L-9356

February 18, 1915

TRENT, J.:

C. S. GILCHRIST, plaintiff-appellee, vs. E. A. CUDDY, ET AL., defendants.

Lessons Applicable: Interference with Contractual Relations (Torts and Damages)
Laws Applicable: Article 1902 (old law)
FACTS: Cuddy was the owner of the film Zigomar
April 24: He rented it to C. S. Gilchrist for a week for P125
A few days to the date of delivery, Cuddy sent the money back to Gilchrist
Cuddy rented the film to Espejo and his partner Zaldarriaga P350 for the week knowing
that it was rented to someone else and that Cuddy accepted it because he was paying
about three times as much as he had contracted with Gilchrist but they didn't know the
identity of the other party
Gilchrist filed for injunction against these parties
Trial Court and CA: granted - there is a contract between Gilchrist and Cuddy
ISSUE: W/N Espejo and his partner Zaldarriaga should be liable for damages though they
do not know the identity of Gilchrist
HELD: YES. judgment is affirmed
That Cuddy was liable in an action for damages for the breach of that contract, there can
be no doubt.
the mere right to compete could not justify the appellants in intentionally inducing Cuddy
to take away the appellee's contractual rights
Everyone has a right to enjoy the fruits and advantages of his own enterprise, industry,
skill and credit. He has no right to be free from malicious and wanton interference,
disturbance or annoyance. If disturbance or loss come as a result of competition, or the
exercise of like rights by others, it is damnum absque injuria(loss without injury), unless
some superior right by contract or otherwise is interfered with
Cuddy contract on the part of the appellants was a desire to make a profit by exhibiting
the film in their theater. There was no malice beyond this desire; but this fact does not
relieve them of the legal liability for interfering with that contract and causing its breach.
liability of the appellants arises from unlawful acts and not from contractual obligations,
as they were under no such obligations to induce Cuddy to violate his contract with Gilchrist
So that if the action of Gilchrist had been one for damages, it would be governed by
chapter 2, title 16, book 4 of the Civil Code.

There is nothing in this article which requires as a condition precedent to the liability of
a tort-feasor that he must know the identity of a person to whom he causes damages
An injunction is a "special remedy" which was there issued by the authority and under the
seal of a court of equity, and limited, as in order cases where equitable relief is sought, to
cases where there is no "plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law," which "will not be
granted while the rights between the parties are undetermined, except in extraordinary
cases where material and irreparable injury will be done," which cannot be compensated in
damages, and where there will be no adequate remedy, and which will not, as a rule, be
granted, to take property out of the possession of one party and put it into that of another
whose title has not been established by law
irreparable injury
not meant such injury as is beyond the possibility of repair, or beyond possible
compensation in damages, nor necessarily great injury or great damage, but that species of
injury, whether great or small, that ought not to be submitted to on the one hand or inflicted
on the other; and, because it is so large on the one hand, or so small on the other, is of
such constant and frequent recurrence that no fair or reasonable redress can be had
therefor in a court of law
Gilchrist was facing the immediate prospect of diminished profits by reason of the fact
that the appellants had induced Cuddy to rent to them the film Gilchrist had counted upon
as his feature film
It is quite apparent that to estimate with any decree of accuracy the damages which
Gilchrist would likely suffer from such an event would be quite difficult if not impossible
So far as the preliminary injunction issued against the appellants is concerned, which
prohibited them from exhibiting the Zigomar during the week which Gilchrist desired to
exhibit it, we are of the opinion that the circumstances justified the issuance of that
injunction in the discretion of the court
the remedy by injunction cannot be used to restrain a legitimate competition, though such
competition would involve the violation of a contract

Separate Opinion:
MORELAND, J., concurring:
The court seems to be of the opinion that the action is one for a permanent injunction;
whereas, under my view of the case, it is one for specific performance.
The very nature of the case demonstrates that a permanent injunction is out of the
question. The only thing that plaintiff desired was to be permitted to use the film for the
week beginning the 26th of May. With the termination of that week his rights expired. After
that time Cuddy was perfectly free to turn the film over to the defendants Espejo and
Zaldarriaga for exhibition at any time.

No damages are claimed by reason of the issuance of the mandatory injunction under
which the film was delivered to plaintiff and used by him during the week beginning the 26th
of May.