Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
IAC
Facts:
At about 1:30 a.m. on November 15, 1975, private respondent Leonardo
Dionisio was on his way home from cocktails and dinner meeting with his
boss. He was proceeding down General Lacuna Street when he saw a Ford
dump truck parked askew, partly blocking the way of oncoming traffic, with
no lights or early warning reflector devices. The truck was driven earlier by
Armando Carbonel, a regular driver of the petitioner company. Dionisio tried
to swerve his car to the left, but it was too late. He suffered some physical
injuries and nervous breakdown. Dionision filed an action for damages
against Carbonel and Phoenix Insurance. Petitioners countered the claim by
imputing the accident to respondents own negligence in driving at high
speed without curfew pass and headlights, and while intoxicated. The trial
court and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of private respondent.
Issue:
Whether the collision was brought about by the way the truck was parked, or
by respondents own negligence
Held:
We find that private respondent Dionisio was unable to prove possession of a
valid curfew pass during the night of the accident and that the
preponderance of evidence shows that he did not have such a pass during
that night. It is the petitioners' contention that Dionisio purposely shut off his
headlights even before he reached the intersection so as not to be detected
by the police in the police precinct which he (being a resident in the area)
knew was not far away from the intersection. We believe that the petitioners'
theory is a more credible explanation than that offered by private respondent
Dionisio, i.e., that he had his headlights on but that, at the crucial moment,
these had in some mysterious if convenient way malfunctioned and gone off,
although he succeeded in switching his lights on again at "bright" split
seconds before contact with the dump truck. We do not believe that this
evidence is sufficient to show that Dionisio was so heavily under the influence
of liquor as to constitute his driving a motor vehicle per se an act of reckless
imprudence. The conclusion we draw from the factual circumstances outlined
above is that private respondent Dionisio was negligent the night of the
accident. He was hurrying home that night and driving faster than he should
have been. Worse, he extinguished his headlights at or near the intersection
of General Lacuna and General Santos Streets and thus did not see the dump
truck that was parked askew and sticking out onto the road lane.
Nonetheless, we agree with the Court of First Instance and the Intermediate
Appellate Court that the legal and proximate cause of the accident and of
Dionisio's injuries was the wrongful or negligent manner in which the dump
truck was parked in other words, the negligence of petitioner Carbonel. The
collision of Dionisio's car with the dump truck was a natural and foreseeable
consequence of the truck driver's negligence.
The distinctions between "cause" and "condition" which the 'petitioners would
have us adopt have already been "almost entirely discredited. If the
defendant has created only a passive static condition which made the
damage possible, the defendant is said not to be liable. But so far as the fact
of causation is concerned, in the sense of necessary antecedents which have
played an important part in producing the result it is quite impossible to
distinguish between active forces and passive situations, particularly since,
as is invariably the case, the latter are the result of other active forces which
have gone before. Even the lapse of a considerable time during which the
"condition" remains static will not necessarily affect liability. "Cause" and
"condition" still find occasional mention in the decisions; but the distinction is
now almost entirely discredited. So far as it has any validity at all, it must
refer to the type of case where the forces set in operation by the defendant
have come to rest in a position of apparent safety, and some new force
intervenes. But even in such cases, it is not the distinction between "cause"
and "condition" which is important but the nature of the risk and the
character of the intervening cause.
We believe, secondly, that the truck driver's negligence far from being a
"passive and static condition" was rather an indispensable and efficient
cause. The improper parking of the dump truck created an unreasonable risk
of injury for anyone driving down General Lacuna Street and for having so
created this risk, the truck driver must be held responsible. In our view,
Dionisio's negligence, although later in point of time than the truck driver's
negligence and therefore closer to the accident, was not an efficient
intervening or independent cause.
The defendant cannot be relieved from liability by the fact that the risk or a
substantial and important part of the risk, to which the defendant has
subjected the plaintiff has indeed come to pass. Foreseeable intervening
forces are within the scope original risk, and hence of the defendant's
negligence. The courts are quite generally agreed that intervening causes
which fall fairly in this category will not supersede the defendant's
responsibility. Thus, a defendant who blocks the sidewalk and forces the
plaintiff to walk in a street where the plaintiff will be exposed to the risks of
heavy traffic becomes liable when the plaintiff is run down by a car, even
though the car is negligently driven; and one who parks an automobile on the
highway without lights at night is not relieved of responsibility when another
negligently drives into it. We hold that private respondent Dionisio's
negligence was "only contributory," that the "immediate and proximate
cause" of the injury remained the truck driver's "lack of due care" and that
consequently respondent Dionisio may recover damages though such
damages are subject to mitigation by the courts.
Petitioners also ask us to apply what they refer to as the "last clear chance"
doctrine. The common law notion of last clear chance permitted courts to
grant recovery to a plaintiff who had also been negligent provided that the
defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the casualty and failed to do so.
Accordingly, it is difficult to see what role, if any, the common law last clear
chance doctrine has to play in a jurisdiction where the common law concept
of contributory negligence as an absolute bar to recovery by the plaintiff, has
itself been rejected, as it has been in Article 2179 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines. Under Article 2179, the task of a court, in technical terms, is to
determine whose negligence - the plaintiff's or the defendant's - was the legal
or proximate cause of the injury. The relative location in the continuum of
time of the plaintiff's and the defendant's negligent acts or omissions, is only
one of the relevant factors that may be taken into account. Of more
fundamental importance are the nature of the negligent act or omission of
each party and the character and gravity of the risks created by such act or
omission for the rest of the community. Our law on quasi-delicts seeks to
reduce the risks and burdens of living in society and to allocate them among
the members of society. To accept the petitioners' pro-position must tend to
weaken the very bonds of society.
We believe that the demands of substantial justice are satisfied by allocating
most of the damages on a 20-80 ratio. Thus, 20% of the damages awarded by
the respondent appellate court, except the award of P10,000.00 as exemplary
damages and P4,500.00 as attorney's fees and costs, shall be borne by
private respondent Dionisio; only the balance of 80% needs to be paid by
petitioners Carbonel and Phoenix who shall be solidarity liable therefor to the
former. The award of exemplary damages and attorney's fees and costs shall
be borne exclusively by the petitioners. Phoenix is of course entitled to
reimbursement from Carbonel. 18 We see no sufficient reason for disturbing
the reduced award of damages made by the respondent appellate court
PLDT v. CA
PLDT v. CA and Sps. Antonio and Gloria Esteban
1989 / Regalado / Petition for review on certiorari of CA resolution
Defenses against charge of negligence > Plaintiffs negligence is proximate
cause
FACTS
Sps. Esteban were riding their jeep along the inside lane of Lacson Street
where they resided [at 25km/hr as Antonio Esteban claimed; CA said jeep ran
fast; if the jeep braked at that speed, the spouses would not have been
thrown against the windshield]. The jeep abruptly swerved from the inside
lane, then it ran over a mound of earth and fell into an open trench, an
excavation allegedly undertaken by PLDT for the installation of its
underground conduit system. Antonio failed to notice the open trench which
was left uncovered because of the darkness and the lack of any warning light
or signs. The spouses were thrown against the windshield. Gloria Esteban
allegedly sustained injuries on her arms, legs and face, leaving a permanent
scar on her cheek, while Antonio suffered cut lips. The jeeps windshield was
also shattered.
FACTS:
Private respondents Philippine Bar Association (PBA) a non-profit
organization formed under the corporation law decided to put up a building in
Intramuros, Manila. Hired to plan the specifications of the building were Juan
Nakpil & Sons, while United Construction was hired to construct it. The
proposal was approved by the Board of Directors and signed by the President,
Ramon Ozaeta. The building was completed in 1966.
In 1968, there was an unusually strong earthquake which caused the building
heavy damage, which led the building to tilt forward, leading the tenants to
vacate the premises. United Construction took remedial measures to sustain
the building.
PBA filed a suit for damages against United Construction, but United
Construction subsequently filed a suit against Nakpil and Sons, alleging
defects in the plans and specifications.
Technical Issues in the case were referred to Mr. Hizon, as a court appointed
Commissioner. PBA moved for the demolition of the building, but was
opposed. PBA eventually paid for the demolition after the building suffered
more damages in 1970 due to previous earthquakes. The Commissioner
found that there were deviations in the specifications and plans, as well as
defects in the construction of the building.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an act of God (fortuitous event) exempts from liability parties
who would otherwise be due to negligence?
HELD:
Art. 1723 dictates that the engineer/architect and contractor are liable for
damages should the building collapse within 15 years from completion.
Art. 1174 of the NCC, however, states that no person shall be responsible for
events, which could not be foreseen. But to be exempt from liability due to an
act of God, the ff must occur:
In the case at bar, although the damage was ultimately caused by the
earthquake which was an act of God, the defects in the construction, as well
as the deviations in the specifications and plans aggravated the damage, and
lessened the preventive measures that the building would otherwise have
had.
Facts: The Philippine Bar Association wanted to erect a building in its lot in
Intramuros. They were able to obtain a contract with the United Construction
Company Inc for the construction of the building and the design was obtained
from Juan M. Nakpil & Sons and Juan F. Nakpil. The Building was completed in
June 1966. On August 2, 1968 a massive earthquake hit Manila with an
intensity of about 7.3. This earthquake caused damage to the building and
caused it to lean forward dangerously which led to the vacation of the
building. United Construction Company in turn shored up the building and
incurred 13,661.28 php as costs. The PBA then instituted a case against UCC
for damages due to its negligence regarding the construction of the said
building thru its failure to follow the designs coming from the architects. UCC
then filed a complint against the archetechts (Nakpil & Sons) alleging that it
was the designs that are flawed and that caused the buildings inability to
(1) Whether the petitioner can be held liable even though the coming of the
typhoon is a fortuitous event
(2) Whether a notice was sent to the residents
(3) Whether the damage suffered by respondents is one of damnum absque
injuria
Held:
(1) The obligor cannot escape liability, if upon the happening of a fortuitous
event or an act of God, a corresponding fraud, negligence, delay or violation
or contravention in any manner of the tenor of the obligation as provided in
Article 1170 of the Civil Code which results in loss or damage. Even if there
was no contractual relation between themselves and private respondents,
they are still liable under the law on quasi-delict. Article 2176 of the Civil
Code explicitly provides "whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another there being fault or negligence is obliged to pay for the damage
done." Act of God or force majeure, by definition, are extraordinary events
not foreseeable or avoidable, events that could not be foreseen, or which,
though foreseen, are inevitable. It is therefore not enough that the event
should not have been foreseen or anticipated, as is commonly believed, but it
must be one impossible to foresee or to avoid. The principle embodied in the
act of God doctrine strictly requires that the act must be occasioned solely by
the violence of nature. Human intervention is to be excluded from creating or
entering into the cause of the mischief. When the effect is found to be in part
the result of the participation of man, whether due to his active intervention
or neglect or failure to act, the whole occurrence is then humanized and
removed from the rules applicable to the acts of God. In the case at bar,
although the typhoon "Kading" was an act of God, petitioners can not escape
liability because their negligence was the proximate cause of the loss and
damage.
(2) The letter itself, addressed merely "TO ALL CONCERNED", would not strike
one to be of serious importance, sufficient enough to set alarm and cause
people to take precautions for their safety's sake. The notices were not
delivered, or even addressed to responsible officials of the municipalities
concerned who could have disseminated the warning properly. They were
delivered to ordinary employees and policemen. As it happened, the said
notices do not appear to have reached the people concerned, which are the
residents beside the Angat River. The plaintiffs in this case definitely did not
receive any such warning. Indeed, the methods by which the defendants
allegedly sent the notice or warning was so ineffectual that they cannot
claim, as they do in their second assignment of error, that the sending of said
notice has absolved them from liability.
(3) We cannot give credence to petitioners' third assignment of error that the
damage caused by the opening of the dam was in the nature ofdamnum
absque injuria, which presupposes that although there was physical damage,
there was no legal injury in view of the fortuitous events. There is no question
that petitioners have the right, duty and obligation to operate, maintain and
preserve the facilities of Angat Dam, but their negligence cannot be
countenanced, however noble their intention may be. The end does not
justify the means, particularly because they could have done otherwise than
simultaneously opening the spillways to such extent. Needless to say,
petitioners are not entitled to counterclaim.
causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain
immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause
which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for
the first event should, as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have
reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an
injury to some person might probably result therefrom.
FACTS: Pass-midnight in September 1952, Juan Bataclan rode a bus owned
by Mariano Medina from Cavite to Pasay. While on its way, the driver of the
bus was driving fast and when he applied the brakes it cause the bus to be
overturned. The driver, the conductor, and some passengers were able to
free themselves from the bus except Bataclan and 3 others. The passengers
called the help of the villagers and as it was dark, the villagers brought torch
with them. The driver and the conductor failed to warn the would-be helpers
of the fact that gasoline has spilled from the overturned bus so a huge fire
ensued which engulfed the bus thereby killing the 4 passengers trapped
inside. It was also found later in trial that the tires of the bus were old.
ISSUE: Whether or not the proximate cause of the death of Bataclan et al
was their burning by reason of the torches which ignited the gasoline.
HELD: No. The proximate cause was the overturning of the bus which was
caused by the negligence of the driver because he was speeding and also he
was already advised by Medina to change the tires yet he did not. Such
negligence resulted to the overturning of the bus. The torches carried by the
would-be helpers are not to be blamed. It is just but natural for the villagers
to respond to the call for help from the passengers and since it is a rural area
which did not have flashlights, torches are the natural source of lighting.
Further, the smell of gas could have been all over the place yet the driver and
the conductor failed to provide warning about said fact to the villagers.
WHAT IS PROXIMATE CAUSE?
Proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without
which the result would not have occurred.
And more comprehensively, the proximate legal cause is that acting first and
producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion,
all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close
causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain
immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause
which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for
the first event should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have
reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an
injury to some person might probably result therefrom.
contrary, we think that the discovery of twenty or thirty of these caps at the
place where they were found by the plaintiff on defendant's premises fairly
justifies the inference that the defendant company was either the owner of
the caps in question or had the caps under its possession and control. We
think also that the evidence tends to disclose that these caps or detonators
were willfully and knowingly thrown by the company or its employees at the
spot where they were found, with the expectation that they would be buried
out of the sight by the ashes which it was engaged in dumping in that
neighborhood, they being old and perhaps defective; and, however this may
be, we are satisfied that the evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding that the
company or some of its employees either willfully or through an oversight left
them exposed at a point on its premises which the general public, including
children at play, where not prohibited from visiting, and over which the
company knew or ought to have known that young boys were likely to roam
about in pastime or in play.
It is clear that the accident could not have happened and not the fulminating
caps been left exposed at the point where they were found, or if their owner
had exercised due care in keeping them in an appropriate place; but it is
equally clear that plaintiff would not have been injured had he not, for his
own pleasure and convenience, entered upon the defendant's premises, and
strolled around thereon without the express permission of the defendant, and
had he not picked up and carried away the property of the defendant which
he found on its premises, and had he not thereafter deliberately cut open one
of the caps and applied a match to its contents.
Children are actuated by similar childish instincts and impulses. Drawn by
curiosity and impelled by the restless spirit of youth, boys here as well as
there will usually be found whenever the public is permitted to congregate.
The movement of machinery, and indeed anything which arouses the
attention of the young and inquiring mind, will draw them to the
neighborhood as inevitably as does the magnet draw the iron which comes
within the range of its magnetic influence. The owners of premises, therefore,
whereon things attractive to children are exposed, or upon which the public
are expressly or impliedly permitted to enter or upon which the owner knows
or ought to know children are likely to roam about for pastime and in play,
"must calculate upon this, and take precautions accordingly." In such cases
the owner of the premises can not be heard to say that because the child has
entered upon his premises without his express permission he is a trespasser
to whom the owner owes no duty or obligation whatever. The owner's failure
to take reasonable precautions to prevent the child from entering his
premises at a place where he knows or ought to know that children are
accustomed to roam about of to which their childish instincts and impulses
are likely to attract them is at least equivalent to an implied license to enter,
and where the child does enter under such conditions the owner's failure to
take reasonable precautions to guard the child against injury from unknown
or unseen dangers, placed upon such premises by the owner, is clearly a
breach of duty, responsible, if the child is actually injured, without other fault
on its part than that it had entered on the premises of a stranger without his
express invitation or permission. To hold otherwise would be expose all the
David Taylor was a 15 year old boy who spent time as a cabin boy at sea; he
was also able to learn some principles of mechanical engineering and
mechanical drawing from his dads office (his dad was a mechanical
engineer); he was also employed as a mechanical draftsman earning P2.50 a
day all said, Taylor was mature well beyond his age.
One day in 1905, he and another boy entered into the premises of Manila
Electric power plant where they found 20-30 blasting caps which they took
home. In an effort to explode the said caps, Taylor experimented until he
succeeded in opening the caps and then he lighted it using a match which
resulted to the explosion of the caps causing severe injuries to his companion
and to Taylor losing one eye.
Taylor sued Manila Electric alleging that because the company left the caps
exposed to children, they are liable for damages due to the companys
negligence.
ISSUE: Whether or not Manila Electric is liable for damages.
HELD: No. The SC reiterated the elements of quasi delict as follows:
(1) Damages to the plaintiff.
(2) Negligence by act or omission of which defendant personally, or some
person for whose acts it must respond, was guilty.
(3) The connection of cause and effect between the negligence and the
damage.
In the case at bar, it is true that Manila Electric has been negligent in
disposing off the caps which they used for the power plant, and that said
caps caused damages to Taylor. However, the causal connection between the
companys negligence and the injuries sustained by Taylor is absent. It is in
fact the direct acts of Taylor which led to the explosion of the caps as he
even, in various experiments and in multiple attempts, tried to explode the
caps. It is from said acts that led to the explosion and hence the injuries.
Taylor at the time of the accident was well-grown youth of 15, more mature
both mentally and physically than the average boy of his age; he had been to
sea as a cabin boy; was able to earn P2.50 a day as a mechanical draftsman
thirty days after the injury was incurred; and the record discloses throughout
that he was exceptionally well qualified to take care. The evidence of record
leaves no room for doubt that he well knew the explosive character of the
cap with which he was amusing himself. The series of experiments made by
him in his attempt to produce an explosion admit of no other explanation. His
attempt to discharge the cap by the use of electricity, followed by his efforts
to explode it with a stone or a hammer, and the final success of his
endeavors brought about by the applications of a match to the contents of
the cap, show clearly that he knew what he was about. Nor can there be any
reasonable doubt that he had reason to anticipate that the explosion might
be dangerous.
The just thing is that a man should suffer the damage which comes to him
through his own fault, and that he cannot demand reparation therefor from
another.
FACTS:
January 12, 1958 noon: passenger jeepney owned by Pedro Gahol and
1/2 of its width (the left wheels) was on the asphalted pavement of the
road and the other half, on the right shoulder of the road
suits were instituted by the representatives of the dead and of the
injured, to recover consequently damages against the driver and the
owners of the truck and also against the driver and the owners of the
jeepney
CFI: absolving the driver of the jeepney and its owners, but it required
the truck driver and the owners to make compensation
CA: Affirmed exoneration of the jeepney
ISSUE: W/N the doctrine of last clear chance can apply so that truck driver
guilty of greater negligence which was the efficient cause of the collision will
be solely liable
HELD: NO. The three defendants last mentioned are required to pay solidarily
with the other defendants-respondents the amounts fixed by the appealed
decision.
New Civil Code requires "utmost diligence" from the carriers (Art. 1755)
and he subsequently died. It was only after the electrocution that the broken
wire was fixed.
Issues: (1) WON the proximate cause of the boy's death is due to a fortuitous
event- storm; (2) WON boys parents negligence exempts petitioner from
liability.
Ruling: Decision affirmed.
(1) A careful examination of the records convinces the SC that a series of
negligence on the part of defendants' employees in the AEP resulted in the
death of the victim by electrocution. With ordinary foresight, the employees
of the petitioner could have easily seen that even in case of moderate winds
the electric line would be endangered by banana plants being blown down.
(2) Art. 2179 CC provides that if the negligence of the plaintiff (parents of the
victim in this case) was only contributory, the immediate and proximate
cause of the injury being the defendants' (petitioners) lack of due care, the
plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to
be awarded. This law may be availed of by the petitioner but does not
exempt him from liability. Petitioner's liability for injury caused by his
employees negligence is well defined in par. 4, of Article 2180 of the Civil
Code.