Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
His name was still on the tentative list of candidates for graduation.
Likewise, his named appeared in the invitation for the commencement
exercises, which was held on April 16, 1988. When he learnt of his
deficiency, he dropped from his Bar Review classes thereby made him
ineligible to take the bar exam.
He filed a civil suit against UE for damages because he suffered moral
shock, mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings, and sleepless nights due to UEs negligence. The
petitioner denied liability arguing that it never led respondent to
believe that he completed the requirements for an LlB degree when his
name was included in the tentative list of graduating students. The
court ruled in favor of the respondent.
ISSUE: Whether or not UE be held liable for damages to the
respondent.
HELD: The petition lacks merit.
The court ruled that the petitioners liability arose from its failure to
promptly inform the result of the examination and in misleading
respondent into believing that the latter had satisfied all the
requirements for graduation. However, while petitioner was guilty of
negligence and thus liable to respondent for the latters actual
damages, we hold that respondent should not have been awarded
moral damages. As a senior law student respondent should have been
responsible enough to ensure that all his affairs, specifically those
pertaining to his academic achievement, are in order.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of CA is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Petitioner is ordered to pay the sum of Php 35, 470
with legal interest of 6% per annum computed from the date of filing of
the complaint until fully paid; the amount of Php 5000 as attorneys
fees and the cost of the suit. The award of moral damages is deleted.
SO ORDERED.
RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES vs COURT OF
APPEALS
43 SCRA 657 Civil Law Torts and Damages Human Relations
Article 19 and 20 of the Civil Code Negligence
Loreto Dionela received a telegram via the Radio Communications of
the Philippines, Inc. (RCPI). However, at the end of the telegram were
the following:
The said portion of the telegram was not intended for Loreto. Loreto
sued RCPI for damages based on Article 19 and 20 of the Civil Code,
which provides:
ART. 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.
ART. 20.-Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently
causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
Facts:
In its defense, RCPI averred that there was no intention to malign
Loreto and that the attached message was an insider joke between
RCPI employees, which was not meant to be attached. RCPI also
disclaimed liability as it insisted it should be held liable for the libelous
acts of its employees.
Loreto however averred that his employees read the said message and
it affected greatly his business reputation. The trial court ruled in favor
of Loreto. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the
liability of RCPI is predicated under Article 19 and 20 of the Civil Code.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate
court. The cause of action of private respondent is based on Articles 19
and 20 of the new Civil Code as well as respondents breach of contract
thru negligence of its own employees. RCPI is not being sued for its
subsidiary liability.
RCPI was negligent as it failed to take the necessary or precautionary
steps to avoid the occurrence of the humiliating incident now
complained of. The company had not imposed any safeguard against
such eventualities and this void in its operating procedure does not
speak well of its concern for their clienteles interests. Negligence here
is very patent. This negligence is imputable to appellant and not to its
employees. RCPI should be held liable for the acts of its employees. As
a corporation, RCPI acts and conducts its business through its
employees. It cannot now disclaim liability for the acts of its
employees. To hold that the RCPI is not liable directly for the acts of its
employees in the pursuit of its business is to deprive the general public
availing of the services of RCPI of an effective and adequate remedy.
BEATRIZ P. WASSMER, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO X.
VELEZ, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
In 1954, Beatriz Wassmer and Francisco Velez arranged their marriage
to be held on September 4 of the same year. The bride-to-be has been
devoted with all the preparations for their wedding. However, two days
before their marriage, Paking left a note that they must postpone the
marriage for his mother was against it. A day before their wedding,
Paking wrote again that the wedding shall push through. Worse, Paking