Topic: Arts.

11-12 Presumption and Applicability of Custom

Martinez vs. Van Buskirk, 18 Phil. 79

FACTS:

1. On the 11th day of September, 1908, Carmen Ong de Martinez, was riding a carromata in
Ermita, Manila when a delivery wagon owned by the defendant (used for the transportation
of fodder and to which two horses are attached), came from the opposite direction, while
their carromata went close to the sidewalk in order to let the delivery wagon pass by.
However, instead of merely passing by, the horses ran into the carromata occupied by the
plaintiff with her child and overturned it, causing a serious cut upon the plaintiffs head.

3. The defendant Van Buskirk contends that the cochero, who was driving his delivery wagon at
the time of the accident, was actually a good servant and was considered a safe and reliable
cochero. He also claims that the cochero was tasked to deliver some forage at Calle Herran,
and for that purpose the defendants employee tied the driving lines of the horses to the front
end of the delivery wagon for the purpose of unloading the forage to be delivered. However,
a vehicle passed by the driver and made noises that frightened the horses causing them to run.
The employee failed to stop the horses since he was thrown upon the ground. (Note: the
defendant, Van Buskirk was not present the incident happened)

4. From the stated facts, the Trial Court ruled that the defendant was guilty of negligence.
The court specifically cited a paragraph of Article 1903 of the Civil Code. Hence, this is
appeal to reverse such decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not the employer, who has furnished a gentle and tractable team (of
horses) and a trusty and capable driver, is liable for the negligence of such driver.

HELD:

NO. The cochero of the defendant was not negligent in leaving the horses in the manner
described by the evidence in this case. Acts the performance of which, has not proved
destructive or injurious and which have, therefore, been acquiesced in by society for so
long a time that they have ripened into custom, can not be held to be themselves
unreasonable or imprudent. Indeed the very reason why they have been permitted by
society is that they beneficial rather than prejudicial. Accidents sometimes happen and
injuries result from the most ordinary acts of life. But such are not their natural or
customary results.

One could not easily hold someone negligent because of some act that led to an injury or
accident. It would be unfair therefore to render the cochero negligent because of such
circumstances. Doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur merely raises a prima facie case that is destroyed
by the absence of proof of the circumstances under which the act complained of was
performed.

The court further held that it is a universal practice of merchants during that time to deliver
products through horse-drawn vehicles; and it is also considered universal practice to leave
the horses in the manner in which they were left during the accident. It has been practiced for
a long time and generally has not been the cause of accidents or injuries the judgment is
therefore reversed.

Ruling: Judgment reversed. Defendant is not liable

Topic: Arts. 32-35 Authority to file independent civil actions which include action for
damages, for violation of civil and political rights, defamation, fraud, physical injuries and
neglect of public officers

Madeja vs. Caro, 126 SCRA 293

FACTS:

1.) Cleto Madeja underwent an appendectomy operation that was done by respondent Dr. Eva
A. Japzon

2.) Cleto Madeja subsequently died thereafter.

3.) His wife, petitioner Carmen Madeja blamed the respondent for the death of the husband
and thus a criminal case of homicide through reckless imprudence was filed against the said
respondent

4.) The criminal case still pending, petitioner filed for damages in Civil Case No. 141 of the
same court. She alleged that her husband died because of the gross negligence of respondent.

5.) The judge Hon. Felix T. Caro, granted the motion of the respondent in dismissing the civil
case citing sec. 3(a) of Rule 111 of the RoC stating the instant civil action may be instituted
only after final judgment has been rendered in the criminal action.

ISSUE : W/N the dismissal of the separate civil case is proper

HELD:

NO. Section 2, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court in relation to Article 33 of the Civil Code is
the applicable provision.

Sec. 2. Independent civil action. In the cases provided for in Articles 31,32,
33, 34 and 2177 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, an independent civil
action entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought
by the injured party during the pendency of the criminal case, provided the
right is reserved as required in the preceding section. Such civil action shall
proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence." (Rule 111, Rules of Court.)

Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for
damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be
brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of
 the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
(Civil Code,)

The civil action for damages which it allows to be instituted is ex-delicto (meaning arising
from a wrong). The Code Commission stated that a citizen must enforce his rights in a
private action brought by him, regardless of the action of the State attorney and that he should
be permitted to demand reparation for the wrong which peculiarly affects him.

Tolentino further added that when the offense arises from defamation, fraud, or
physical injuries, even without reservation to file a separate civil action is made by the
injured party; the law itself in this article (Art. 33) makes such reservation.

Lastly, the term physical injuries in Art. 33 is a general term same with the words
defamation and fraud and not the same as the specific crime in the RPC. This
simply means that it may include not only physical injuries but consummated,
frustrated and attempted homicide. The Supreme Court applying the doctrine of
ejusdem generis

*****Just in case itanong ni Atty: Corpus vs. Paje, L-26737, July 31, 1969, 28 SCRA 1062,
which states that reckless imprudence or criminal negligence is not included in Article 33 of
the Civil Code is not authoritative. Of eleven justices only nine took part in the decision and
four of them merely concurred in the result.