Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12



Facts: On 17 March 1994, petitioner Ma. Belen B.
Mangonon filed, in behalf of her then minor children RESPONDENT COURT IGNORED EVIDENCE ON
Rica and Rina, a Petition for Declaration of Legitimacy RECORD OF THE FINANCIAL INCAPACITY OF
and Support, with application for support pendente lite RICA AND RINA'S PARENTS IN DEFAULT OF
with the RTC Makati. 3 In said petition, it was alleged
that on 16 February 1975, petitioner and respondent
Federico Delgado were civilly married by then City DEVOLVES ON THE GRANDFATHER.
Court Judge Eleuterio Agudo in Legaspi City, Albay. At
that time, petitioner was only 21 years old while IT BEING ESTABLISHED THAT THE PERSON
respondent Federico was only 19 years old. As the OBLIGED TO GIVE SUPPORT
marriage was solemnized without the required consent
per Article 85 of the New Civil Code, 4 it was annulled GRANDFATHER DON PACO IS
on 11 August 1975 by the Quezon City Juvenile and UNDOUBTEDLY CAPABLE OF GIVING THE
Unsatisfied with the Order of the trial court, petitioner
brought the case to the Court of Appeals via Petition for RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE
Certiorari. The Court of Appeals affirmed the holding of ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FIXING AN AMOUNT
the trial court and disposed the petition. OF SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE THAT IS
Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied
through the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 16 EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE
May 1996. Petitioner is now before this Court claiming RECIPIENTS
that the Decision of the Court of Appeals was tainted
with errors Ruling: The petition is meritorious

Francisco, be judicially declared pursuant to Article 173 As a preliminary matter, we deem it necessary to briefly
of the Family Code. As legitimate children and discuss the essence of support pendente lite. The
grandchildren, Rica and Rina are entitled to general and pertinent portion of the Rules of Court on the matter
educational support under Articles 174 11 and 195(b) 12 provides:
in relation to Articles 194(1 and 2) 13 and 199(c) 14 of
the Family Code. Petitioner alleged that under these Rule 61 SUPPORT 'PENDENTE LITE
provisions, in case of default on the part of the parents,
the obligation to provide support falls upon the Under this provision, a court may temporarily grant
grandparents of the children; thus, respondent Federico, support pendente lite( during litigation) prior to the
or in his default, respondent Francisco should be ordered rendition of judgment or final order. Because of its
to provide general and educational support for Rica and
provisional nature, a court does not need to delve fully
Rina in the amount of US$50,000.00, more or less, per
year. into the merits of the case before it can settle an
application for this relief. All that a court is tasked to do
Petitioner also maintains that as respondent Francisco is determine the kind and amount of evidence which
has the financial resources to help defray the cost of Rica may suffice to enable it to justly resolve the application.
and Rina's schooling, the Court of Appeals then erred in It is enough that the facts be established by affidavits or
sustaining the trial court's Order directing respondent other documentary evidence appearing in the record.
Federico to pay Rica and Rina the amount of award
After the hearings conducted on this matter as well as
P5,000.00 each as monthly support pendente lite
the evidence presented, we find that petitioner was able
Issue: to establish, by prima facie proof, the filiation of her
twin daughters to private respondents and the twins'
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN entitlement to support pendente lite.
NOT COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN Having addressed the issue of the propriety of the trial
FIXING THE AMOUNT OF MONTHLY SUPPORT court's grant of support pendent lite in favor of Rica and
Rina, the next question is who should be made liable for enough indication that she did not have enough money
said award to enable her to send her daughters to college by herself.
Moreover, even Rica and Rina themselves were forced
The pertinent provision of the Family Code on this by the circumstances they found themselves in to secure
subject states: loans under their names so as not to delay their entrance
to college.
ART. 199. Whenever two or more persons are obliged to
give support, the liability shall devolve upon the There being prima facie evidence showing that petitioner
and respondent Federico are the parents of Rica and
following persons in the order herein provided:
Rina, petitioner and respondent Federico are primarily
(1) The spouse; charged to support their children's college education. In
view however of their incapacities, the obligation to
(2) The descendants in the nearest degree; furnish said support should be borne by respondent
Francisco. Under Article 199 of the Family Code,
(3) The ascendants in the nearest degree; and respondent Francisco, as the next immediate relative of
Rica and Rina, is tasked to give support to his
(4) The brothers and sisters. granddaughters in default of their parents

An eminent author on the subject explains that the Anent respondent Francisco and Federico's claim that
obligation to give support rests principally on those more they have the option under the law as to how they could
closely related to the recipient. However, the more perform their obligation to support Rica and Rina,
remote relatives may be held to shoulder the respondent Francisco insists that Rica and Rina should
responsibility should the claimant prove that those who move here to the Philippines to study in any of the local
are called upon to provide support do not have the means universities. After all, the quality of education here,
to do so. according to him, is at par with that offered in the USA

The trial court gave full credence to respondent Art. 204. The person obliged to give support shall
Federico's allegation in his Answer 36 and his testimony have the option to fulfill the obligation either by
37 as to the amount of his income. We have, however, paying the allowance fixed, or by receiving and
reviewed the records of this case and found them bereft maintaining in the family dwelling the person who
of evidence to support his assertions regarding his has a right to receive support. The latter alternative
employment and his earning. Notably, he was even
required by petitioner's counsel to present to the court cannot be availed of in case there is a moral or legal
his income tax return and yet the records of this case do obstacle thereto.
not bear a copy of said document. This, to our mind,
severely undermines the truthfulness of respondent Under the abovecited provision, the obligor is given the
Federico's assertion with respect to his financial status choice as to how he could dispense his obligation to give
and capacity to provide support to Rica and Rina. support. Thus, he may give the determined amount of
support to the claimant or he may allow the latter to stay
Meanwhile, respondent Francisco asserts that petitioner in the family dwelling. The second option cannot be
possessed the capacity to give support to her twin availed of in case there are circumstances, legal or
daughters as she has gainful employment in the USA. He moral, which should be considered
even went as far as to state that petitioner's income
abroad, when converted to Philippine peso, was much In this case, this Court believes that respondent
higher than that received by a trial court judge here in Francisco could not avail himself of the second option.
the Philippines. In addition, he claims that as she From the records, we gleaned that prior to the
qualified for the federal parent loan program, she could commencement of this action, the relationship between
very well support the college studies of her daughters. respondent Francisco, on one hand, and petitioner and
We are unconvinced. Respondent Francisco's assertion her twin daughters, on the other, was indeed quite
that petitioner had the means to support her daughters' pleasant. The correspondences exchanged among them
education is belied by the fact that petitioner was even expressed profound feelings of thoughtfulness and
forced by her financial status in the USA to secure the concern for one another's well-being. The photographs
loan from the federal government. If petitioner were presented by petitioner as part of her exhibits presented a
really making enough money abroad, she certainly seemingly typical family celebrating kinship. All of
would not have felt the need to apply for said loan. The these, however, are now things of the past. With the
fact that petitioner was compelled to take out a loan is filing of this case, and the allegations hurled at one
another by the parties, the relationships among the While we agree with the respondent appellate court that
parties had certainly been affected. the motion to dismiss the complaint was correctly denied
and the complaint should be tried on the merits, we do
Particularly difficult for Rica and Rina must be the fact not however agree with the premises of the appellate
that those who they had considered and claimed as court's ruling.
family denied having any familial relationship with
them. Given all these, we could not see Rica and Rina Article 2180, in conjunction with Article 2176 of the
moving back here in the Philippines in the company of Civil Code, establishes the rule of in loco parentis. This
those who have disowned them. Court discussed this doctrine in the afore-cited cases of
Exconde, Mendoza, Palisoc and, more recently, in
As to the amount of support pendente lite, we take our Amadora vs. Court of Appeals. In all such cases,
bearings from the provision of the law mandating the It had been stressed that the law (Article 2180) plainly
amount of support to be proportionate to the resources or provides that the damage should have been caused or
means of the giver and to the necessities of the recipient. inflicted by pupils or students of the educational
42 Guided by this principle, we hold respondent institution sought to be held liable for the acts of its
Francisco liable for half of the amount of school pupils or students while in its custody. However, this
expenses incurred by Rica and Rina as support pendente material situation does not exist in the present case for,
lite. As established by petitioner, respondent Francisco as earlier indicated, the assailants of Carlitos were not
has the financial resources to pay this amount given his students of the PSBA, for whose acts the school could be
various business endeavors. made liable.

Considering, however, that the twin sisters may have However, does the appellate court's failure to
already been done with their education by the time of the consider such material facts mean the exculpation of
promulgation of this decision, we deem it proper to the petitioners from liability? It does not necessarily
award support pendente lite in arrears 43 to be computed
from the time they entered college until they had
finished their respective studies. When an academic institution accepts students for
enrollment, there is established a contract between them,
The issue of the applicability of Article 15 of the Civil
Code on petitioner and her twin daughters raised by resulting in bilateral obligations which both parties are
respondent Francisco is best left for the resolution of the bound to comply with. For its part, the school undertakes
trial court. to provide the student with an education that would
presumably suffice to equip him with the necessary tools
After all, in case it would be resolved that Rica and Rina and skills to pursue higher education or a profession. On
are not entitled to support pendente lite, the court shall the other hand, the student covenants to abide by the
then order the return of the amounts already paid with
legal interest from the dates of actual payment school's academic requirements and observe its rules and
Institutions of learning must also meet the implicit or
Facts: A stabbing incident on 30 August 1985 which "built-in" obligation of providing their students with an
caused the death of Carlitos Bautista while on the atmosphere that promotes or assists in attaining its
second-floor premises of the Philippine School of primary undertaking of imparting knowledge. Certainly,
Business Administration (PSBA) prompted the parents no student can absorb the intricacies of physics or higher
of the deceased to file suit in the Regional Trial Court of
mathematics or explore the realm of the arts and other
Manila (Branch 47) presided over by Judge (now Court
of Appeals justice) Regina Ordoez- Benitez, for sciences when bullets are flying or grenades exploding
damages against the said PSBA and its corporate in the air or where there looms around the school
officers. At the time of his death, Carlitos was enrolled premises a constant threat to life and limb. Necessarily,
in the third year commerce course at the PSBA. It was the school must ensure that adequate steps are taken to
established that his assailants were not members of the maintain peace and order within the campus premises
schools academic community but were elements from and to prevent the breakdown thereof.
outside the school.
Because the circumstances of the present case evince a
Ruling: The petition is denied contractual relation between the PSBA and Carlitos
Bautista, the rules on quasi-delict do not really govern
QUASI-DELICTS; OBLIGATIONS ARISING equitable to expect of schools to anticipate all types of
FROM QUASI-DELICTS OR TORTS ARISE violent trespass upon their premises, for notwithstanding
ONLY BETWEEN PARTIES NOT BOUND BY the security measures installed, the same may still fail
CONTRACT. Because the circumstances of the against an individual or group determined to carry out a
present case evince a contractual relation between the nefarious deed inside school premises and environs.
PSBA and Carlitos Bautista, the rules on quasi-delict do Should this be the case, the school may still avoid
not really govern. A perusal of Article 2176 shows that liability by proving that the breach of its contractual
obligations arising from quasi-delicts or tort, also known obligation to the students was not due to its negligence.
as extra-contractual obligations, arise only between
parties not otherwise bound by contract, whether express NEGLIGENCE; DEFINED. Negligence is
or implied. statutorily defined to be the omission of that degree of
diligence which is required by the nature of the
VIEW THAT LIABILITY FROM TORT MAY obligation and corresponding to the circumstances of
EXIST EVEN IF THERE IS A CONTRACT. In persons, time and place.
Air France vs. Carroscoso (124 Phil. 722), the private
respondent was awarded damages for his unwarranted YHT Realty Corporation v CA
expulsion from a first-class seat aboard the petitioner
airline. It is noted, however, that the Court referred to the
petitioner-airline's liability as one arising from tort, not Before this Court is a Rule 45 petition for review of the
one arising from a contract of carriage. In effect, Air Decision 1 dated 19 October 1995 of the Court of
France is authority for the view that liability from tort Appeals which affirmed the Decision 2 dated 16
may exist even if there is a contract, for the act that December 1991 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 13, of Manila, finding YHT Realty Corporation,
breaks the contract may be also a tort. (Austro-America
Brunhilda Mata-Tan (Tan), Erlinda Lainez (Lainez) and
S.S. Co. vs. Thomas, 248 Fed. 231). Anicia Payam (Payam) jointly and solidarily liable for
damages in an action filed by Maurice McLoughlin
In the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, (McLoughlin) for the loss of his American and
however, there is, as yet, no finding that the contract Australian dollars deposited in the safety deposit box of
between the school and Bautista had been breached Tropicana Copacabana Apartment Hotel, owned and
thru the former's negligence in providing proper operated by YHT Realty Corporation.
security measures. This would be for the trial court to
determine. And, even if there be a finding of Thereafter the trial court rule in favor of the
negligence, the same could give rise generally to a McLoughlinUnperturbed, YHT Realty Corporation,
Lainez and Payam went to this Court in this appeal by
breach of contractual obligation only. Using the test of
Cangco, supra, the negligence of the school would not
be relevant absent a contract. In fact, that negligence Petitioners submit for resolution by this Court the
becomes material only because of the contractual following issues:
relation between PSBA and Bautista. In other words, a
contractual relation is a condition sine qua non to the (a) whether the appellate court's conclusion on the
school's liability. The negligence of the school cannot alleged prior existence and subsequent loss of the subject
exist independently on the contract, unless the money and jewelry is supported by the evidence on
negligence occurs under the circumstances set out in record;
Article 21 of the Civil Code.
(b) whether the finding of gross negligence on the part of
SCHOOL MAY STILL AVOID LIABILITY BY petitioners in the performance of their duties as
PROVING THAT THE BREACH OF innkeepers is supported by the evidence on record;
(c) whether the "Undertaking For The Use of Safety
Deposit Box" admittedly executed by private respondent
Conceptually a school, like a common carrier, cannot be is null and void; and
an insurer of its students against all risks. It would not be
(d) whether the damages awarded to private respondent, and security to their persons and belongings. The twin
as well as the amounts thereof, are proper under the duty constitutes the essence of the business. The law in
circumstances turn does not allow such duty to the public to be negated
or diluted by any contrary stipulation in so-called
Issue: It is whether a hotel may evade liability for the "undertakings" that ordinarily appear in prepared forms
loss of items left with it for safekeeping by its guests, by imposed by hotel keepers on guests for their signature.
having these guests execute written waivers holding the
establishment or its employees free from blame for such Paragraphs (2) and (4) of the "undertaking" manifestly
loss in light of Article 2003 of the Civil Code which contravene Article 2003 of the New Civil Code for they
voids such waivers? allow Tropicana to be released from liability arising
from any loss in the contents and/or use of the safety
Ruling: The petition is denied deposit box for any cause whatsoever. 40 Evidently, the
undertaking was intended to bar any claim against
*Under Article 1170 of the New Civil Code, those who, Tropicana for any loss of the contents of the safety
in the performance of their obligations, are guilty of deposit box whether or not negligence was incurred by
negligence, are liable for damages. As to who shall bear Tropicana or its employees. The New Civil Code is
the burden of paying damages, Article 2180, paragraph explicit that the responsibility of the hotel-keeper shall
(4) of the same Code provides that the owners and extend to loss of, or injury to, the personal property of
managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise the guests even if caused by servants or employees of the
responsible for damages caused by their employees in keepers of hotels or inns as well as by strangers, except
the service of the branches in which the latter are as it may proceed from any force majeure. 41 It is the
employed or on the occasion of their functions. Also, loss through force majeure that may spare the hotel-
this Court has ruled that if an employee is found keeper from liability. In the case at bar, there is no
negligent, it is presumed that the employer was negligent showing that the act of the thief or robber was done with
in selecting and/or supervising him for it is hard for the the use of arms or through an irresistible force to qualify
victim to prove the negligence of such employer. Thus, the same as force majeure.
given the fact that the loss of McLoughlin's money was
consummated through the negligence of Tropicana's Petitioners likewise anchor their defense on Article 2002
employees in allowing Tan to open the safety deposit 43 which exempts the hotelkeeper from liability if the
box without the guest's consent, both the assisting loss is due to the acts of his guest, his family, or visitors.
employees and YHT Realty Corporation itself, as owner Even a cursory reading of the provision would lead us to
and operator of Tropicana, should be held solidarily reject petitioners' contention. The justification they raise
liable pursuant to Article 2193 would render nugatory the public interest sought to be
protected by the provision. What if the negligence of the
*The issue of whether the "Undertaking For The Use of employer or its employees facilitated the consummation
Safety Deposit Box" executed by McLoughlin is tainted of a crime committed by the registered guest's relatives
with nullity presents a legal question appropriate for or visitor? Should the law exculpate the hotel from
resolution in this petition. Notably, both the trial court liability since the loss was due to the act of the visitor of
and the appellate court found the same to be null and the registered guest of the hotel? Hence, this provision
void. We find no reason to reverse their common presupposes that the hotel-keeper is not guilty of
conclusion. Article 2003 is controlling, thus: concurrent negligence or has not contributed in any
degree to the occurrence of the loss. A depositary is
Art. 2003. The hotel-keeper cannot free himself from not responsible for the loss of goods by theft, unless
responsibility by posting notices to the effect that he is his actionable negligence contributes to the loss.
not liable for the articles brought by the guest. Any
stipulation between the hotel-keeper and the guest In the case at bar, the responsibility of securing the
whereby the responsibility of the former as set forth in safety deposit box was shared not only by the guest
Articles 1998 to 2001 37 is suppressed or diminished himself but also by the management since two keys are
shall be void. necessary to open the safety deposit box. Without the
assistance of hotel employees, the loss would not have
Article 2003 was incorporated in the New Civil Code as occurred. Thus, Tropicana was guilty of concurrent
an expression of public policy precisely to apply to negligence in allowing Tan, who was not the registered
situations such as that presented in this case. The hotel guest, to open the safety deposit box of McLoughlin,
business like the common carrier's business is imbued even assuming that the latter was also guilty of
with public interest. Catering to the public, hotelkeepers negligence in allowing another person to use his key. To
are bound to provide not only lodging for hotel guests rule otherwise would result in undermining the safety of
the safety deposit boxes in hotels for the management RESPONDENT ON HOW THE ACCIDENT
will be given imprimatur to allow any person, under the SUPPOSEDLY OCCURRED.
pretense of being a family member or a visitor of the
guest, to have access to the safety deposit box without *THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A
fear of any liability that will attach thereafter in case QUESTION OF LAW IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL
such person turns out to be a complete stranger. This COURT'S UNFAIR DISREGARD OF HEREIN
will allow the hotel to evade responsibility for any
liability incurred by its employees in conspiracy with the
guest's relatives and visitors DUE DILIGENCE IN THE SELECTION AND
Petitioners contend that McLoughlin's case was mounted
on the theory of contract, but the trial court and the *THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A
appellate court upheld the grant of the claims of the QUESTION OF LAW IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL
latter on the basis of tort. 45 There is nothing anomalous COURT'S QUESTIONABLE AWARD OF DAMAGES
in how the lower courts decided the controversy for this AND ATTORNEY'S FEE.
Court has pronounced a jurisprudential rule that tort
liability can exist even if there are already contractual Ruling: Petition is denied
relations. The act that breaks the contract may also be
tort. On the second assigned error, petitioners contend that
the version of petitioner Manliclic as to how the accident
Manliclic V Calaunan occurred is more credible than respondent's version.
They anchor their contention on the fact that petitioner
Facts: Manliclic was acquitted by the Court of Appeals of the
The vehicles involved in this case are: (1) Philippine charge of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to
Rabbit Bus No. 353 with plate number CVD-478, owned Property with Physical Injuries. To be resolved by the
by petitioner PRBLI and driven by petitioner Mauricio Court is the effect of petitioner Manliclic's acquittal in
Manliclic; the civil case

(2) owner-type jeep with plate number PER-290, owned From the complaint, it can be gathered that the civil case
by respondent Modesto Calaunan and driven by Marcelo for damages was one arising from, or based on, quasi-
Mendoza. delict. 30 Petitioner Manliclic was sued for his
negligence or reckless imprudence in causing the
The disagreement arises from the question: Who is to be collision, while petitioner PRBLI was sued for its failure
held liable for the collision? to exercise the diligence of a good father in the selection
and supervision of its employees, particularly petitioner
Respondent insists it was petitioner Manliclic who Manliclic
should be liable while the latter is resolute in saying it
was the former who caused the smash up. The versions Can Manliclic still be held liable for the collision and be
of the parties are summarized by the trial court. found negligent notwithstanding the declaration of the
The trial court rendered its decision in favor of
Court of Appeals that there was an absence of
respondent Calaunan and against petitioners Manliclic
and PRBLI. negligence on his part?

From the foregoing declaration of the Court of Appeals,

it appears that petitioner Manliclic was acquitted not on
*THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A reasonable doubt, but on the ground that he is not the
author of the act complained of which is based on
Section 2 (b) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal
DOCUMENTS PRESENTED IN THE CRIMINAL (b) Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it
CASE. extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds
from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from
*THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A which the civil might arise did not exist.
COURT'S RELIANCE ON THE VERSION OF THE In spite of said ruling, petitioner Manliclic can still be
held liable for the mishap. The aforequoted section
applies only to a civil action arising from crime or ex Petitioners ask us to give credence to their version of
delicto and not to a civil action arising from quasi-delict how the collision occurred and to disregard that of
or culpa aquiliana. The extinction of civil liability respondent's. Petitioners insist that while the PRBLI bus
referred to in Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule 111 [now was in the process of overtaking respondent's jeep, the
Section 2 (b) of Rule 111], refers exclusively to civil latter, without warning, suddenly swerved to the left
liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal (fast) lane in order to overtake another jeep ahead of it,
Code, whereas the civil liability for the same act thus causing the collision.
considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is
not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal As a general rule, questions of fact may not be raised in
case that the criminal act charged has not happened or a petition for review. The factual findings of the trial
has not been committed by the accused. court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court,
are binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court. 38
A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal Not being a trier of facts, this Court will not allow a
institution under the Civil Code with a substantivity all review thereof unless
its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and
independent from a delict or crime a distinction exists After going over the evidence on record, we do not find
between the civil liability arising from a crime and the any of the exceptions that would warrant our departure
responsibility for quasi-delicts or culpa extra- from the general rule. We fully agree in the finding of
contractual. The same negligence causing damages may the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that
produce civil liability arising from a crime under the it was petitioner Manliclic who was negligent in driving
Penal Code, or create an action for quasi-delicts or culpa the PRBLI bus which was the cause of the collision
extra-contractual under the Civil Code. It is now settled
that acquittal of the accused, even if based on a finding Having ruled that it was petitioner Manliclic's
that he is not guilty, does not carry with it the extinction negligence that caused the smash up, there arises the
of the civil liability based on quasi delict. juris tantum presumption that the employer is negligent,
rebuttable only by proof of observance of the diligence
In other words, if an accused is acquitted based on of a good father of a family. 41 Under Article 2180 42 of
reasonable doubt on his guilt, his civil liability arising the New Civil Code, when an injury is caused by the
from the crime may be proved by preponderance of negligence of the employee, there instantly arises a
evidence only. presumption of law that there was negligence on the part
of the master or employer either in the selection of the
However, if an accused is acquitted on the basis that he servant or employee, or in supervision over him after
was not the author of the act or omission complained of selection or both. The liability of the employer under
(or that there is declaration in a final judgment that the Article 2180 is direct and immediate; it is not
fact from which the civil might arise did not exist), said conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent
acquittal closes the door to civil liability based on the employee and a prior showing of the insolvency of such
crime or ex delicto. In this second instance, there being employee. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the private
no crime or delict to speak of, civil liability based respondents to prove that they exercised the diligence of
thereon or ex delicto is not possible. In this case, a civil a good father of a family in the selection and supervision
action, if any, may be instituted on grounds other than of their employee.
the delict complained of.
In the case at bar, petitioner PRBLI maintains that it had
As regards civil liability arising from quasi-delict or shown that it exercised the required diligence in the
culpa aquiliana, same will not be extinguished by an selection and supervision of its employees, particularly
acquittal, whether it be on ground of reasonable doubt or petitioner Manliclic. In the matter of selection, it showed
that accused was not the author of the act or omission the screening process that petitioner Manliclic
complained of (or that there is declaration in a final underwent before he became a regular driver. As to the
judgment that the fact from which the civil liability exercise of due diligence in the supervision of its
might arise did not exist). The responsibility arising employees, it argues that presence of ready investigators
from fault or negligence in a quasi-delict is entirely (Ganiban and Cabading) is sufficient proof that it
separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from exercised the required due diligence in the supervision of
negligence under the Penal Code. An acquittal or its employees
conviction in the criminal case is entirely irrelevant in
the civil case 37 based on quasi- delict or culpa aquiliana The trial court found that petitioner PRBLI
exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in
the selection but not in the supervision of its - CFI and CA awarded damages bec Fontanillas
employees. negligence apparent as he was driving on the wrong side
of the road and at a high speed
We agree. The presence of ready investigators after the
occurrence of the accident is not enough to exempt > no proof he exercised diligence of a good father of the
petitioner PRBLI from liability arising from the family as Barredo is careless in employing (selection and
negligence of petitioner Manliclic. Same does not supervision) Fontanilla who had been caught several
comply with the guidelines set forth in the cases times for violation of Automobile Law and speeding
> CA applied A1903CC that makes inapplicable civil
The presence of the investigators after the accident is not liability arising from crime bec this is under obligations
enough supervision. arising from wrongful act or negligent acts or omissions
punishable by law
Regular supervision of employees, that is, prior to any
accident, should have been shown and established. This, - Barredos defense is that his liability rests on RPC TF
petitioner failed to do. The lack of supervision can liability only subsidiary and bec no civil action against
further be seen by the fact that there is only one set of Fontanilla TF he too cannot be held responsible
manual containing the rules and regulations for all the
drivers of PRBLI. 46 How then can all the drivers of ISSUE
petitioner PRBLI know and be continually informed of WON parents of Garcia may bring separate civil action
the rules and regulations when only one manual is being against Barredo making him primarily liable and directly
lent to all the drivers? responsible under A1903CC as employer of Fontanilla
For failure to adduce proof that it exercised the diligence
of a good father of a family in the selection and
supervision of its employees, petitioner PRBLI is held First. That the conductor was not sued in a civil case,
solidarily responsible for the damages caused by either separately or with the street car company. This is
petitioner Manliclic's negligence. precisely what happens in the present case: the driver,
Fontanilla, has not been sued in a civil action, either
Barredo v Garcia alone or with his employer.
NATURE Second. That the conductor had been acquitted of grave
Petition for review on certiorari criminal negligence, but the Supreme Tribunal of Spain
said that this did not exclude the co-existence of fault or
FACTS negligence, which is not qualified, on the part of the
conductor, under article 1902 of the Civil Code. In the
- from CA, holding Fausto Barredo liable for damages present case, the taxi driver was found guilty of criminal
for death pf Faustino Garcia caused by negligence of negligence, so that if he had even sued for his civil
Pedro Fontanilla, a taxi driver employed by Fausto responsibility arising from the crime, he would have
Barredo been held primarily liable for civil damages, and Barredo
- May 3, 1936 in road between Malabon and Navotas, would have been held subsidiarily liable for the same.
head-on collision between taxi of Malate Taxicab and But the plaintiffs are directly suing Barredo, on his
carretela guided by Pedro Dimapilis thereby causing primary responsibility because of his own presumed
overturning of the carretela and the eventual death of negligence which he did not overcome under
Garcia, 16-yo boy and one of the passengers article 1903. Thus, there were two liabilities of Barredo:

- Fontanilla convicted in CFI and affirmed by CA and First, the subsidiary one because of the civil liability of
separate civil action is reserved the taxi driver arising from the latter's criminal
negligence; and, second, Barredo's primary liability as
- Parents of Garcia filed action against Barredo as sole an employer under article 1903. The plaintiffs were free
proprietor of Malate Taxicab as employer of Fontanilla to choose which course to take, and they preferred the
second remedy. In so doing, they were acting within 2) presumption is juris tantum 7) not juris et de jure (It is
their rights. It might be observed in passing, that the a presumption of law that cannot be rebutted by evidence
plaintiffs chose the more expeditious and effective and should be taken to be the case no matter any
method of relief, because Fontanilla was either in prison, evidence to the contrary.) TF may be rebutted by
or had just been released, and besides, he was probably proving exercise of diligence of a good father of the
without property which might be seized in enforcing any family
judgment against him for damages.
- basis of civil law liability: not respondent superior but
Yes. There are two actions available for parents of the relationship of pater familias
Garcia. One is under the A100RPC wherein the
employer is only subsidiarily liable for the damages - motor accidents need of stressing and accentuating
arising from the crime thereby first exhausting the the responsibility of owners of motor vehicles
properties of Fontanilla. The other action is under
A1903CC (quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana) wherein as MENDOZA V. ARRIETA
the negligent employer of Fontanilla, Barredo is held MELENCIOHERRERA, J. / 1979
primarily liable subject to proving that he exercising
diligence of a good father of the family. NATURE: Petition for Certiorari
The parents simply took the action under the Civil Code FACTS:
as it is more practical to get damages from the employer
A 3-way vehicular accident happened along
bec he has more money to give than Fontanilla who is Mac-Arthur Highway, Bulacan involving a
yet to serve his sentence. Mercedes Benz (Mendozas ), a private jeep
(Salazars), and a truck (driven by Montoya,
Obiter owned by Timbol). Two separate Informations
for Reckless Imprudence Causing Damage to
Difference bet Crime and Quasi-delict Property were filed against (1) Rodolfo Salazar
by Mendoza and (2) Freddie Montoya by
1) crimes public interest; quasi-delict only private Salazar.
The 1st case was against the jeep for colliding
2) Penal code punishes or corrects criminal acts; Civil with the Mercedes Benz. The 2nd was against the
Code by means of indemnification merely repairs the truck that hit the rear part of the jeep.
damage Mendoza testified, and adopted by truck-driver
Montoya, that jeep-owner Salazar overtook the
3) delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts; crimes are truck driven by Montoya, swerved left going
only punished if there is a penal law; quasi-delicts towards the poblacion of Marilao, and hit his car
include any kind of fault or negligence intervenes which was bound for Manila. Petitioner
(Mendoza) further testified that before the
NOTE: Not all violations of penal law produce civil impact, Salazar had jumped from the jeep and
responsibility that he was not aware that Salazars jeep was
bumped from behind by the Montoyas truck.
e.g. contravention of ordinances, violation of game Salazar, on the other hand, stated that, after
laws, infraction of rules of traffic when nobody is overtaking the truck, he flashed a signal
hurt indicating his intention to turn left towards the
poblacion of Marilao but was stopped at the
4) crime guilt beyond reasonable doubt; civil mere intersection by a policeman who was directing
preponderance of evidence traffic; that while he was at a stop position, his
jeep was bumped at the rear by Montoyas truck
- Presumptions: causing him to be thrown out, which then
swerved to the left and hit petitioners car, which
1) injury is caused by servant or employee, there was coming from the opposite direction.
instantly arises presumption of negligence of master or
CFI acquitted Salazar from the criminal offense
employer in selection, in supervision or both charged whereas truck-driver Montoya was
found guilty and civilly liable, ordered to
indemnify Salazar. However, no indemnification arising from criminal negligence whereas this present
was awarded to Mendoza since he was not a civil case is based on quasi-delict. Therefore, such
complainant against the truck-driver but only petition is not barred.
against Salazar.
Also, as to the ground that petitioner did not present a
Later, Mendoza filed a civil case against Salazar
cause of action, the two factors consisting of a cause of
and, this time, Timbol, the owner of the truck.
Both Salazar and Timbol were joined as action, that of (1) plaintiffs summary right being the
defendants, either in the alternative or in owner of the Mercedes Benz and (2) the defendants
solidum, allegedly for the reason that petitioner wrongful act or omission which violated plaintiffs
was uncertain as to whether he was entitled to primary right (negligence in driving of either defendant),
relief against both or only one of them. were alleged in the Complaint.
Timbol motioned to dismiss the case on the (2) Against Salazar
ground that the Complaint is barred by a prior
judgment in the criminal cases and that it fails to As in the above ratio, petitioner can opt to go for
state a cause of action. Respondent judge enforcement of civil liability based on culpa criminal or
dismissed the case as well as its review stating just an action of recovery based on culpa aquiliana.
that while it is true that an independent civil
Based on petitioners previous criminal case (initial case
action for liability under Article 2177 CC could
be prosecuted independently of the criminal against Salazar), he based his action on culpa criminal
action for the offense from which it arose, the also as evidenced by his active participation and
New RoC requires an express reservaqtion of the intervention in the prosecution of the criminal suit
civil action to be made in the criminal action, against said Salazar. Since Salazars civil liability
otherwise, the same would be barred. continued throughout the criminal case, there was no
The case was then raised to this Court. need for petitioner to file a separate civil action, it being
deemed impliedly instituted in said criminal case. Under
the facts, the Trial Courts pronouncement was that
(1) WoN truck-owner Timbols civil case is barred by Salazar cannot be held liable for the damages. Hence, no
the fact that Mendoza failed to reserve, in the criminal civil liability attaches to Salazar.
action, his right to file an individual civil action based on
DECISION: Dismissal of civil case against Timbol is
set aside and ordered to continue whereas that of
(2) WoN jeep-owner-driver Salazar is civilly liable for dismissing the civil case against Salazar is upheld.
the offense even when he was already acquitted.
CRUZ, J. / APRIL 15, 1988
(1) No.
(2) No.
PARTIES: Jose S. Amadora, et. al ,Petitioners Vs.Honorable Court
RATIO: Of Appeals, Colegio De San Jose-Recoletos, Victor Lluch Sergio P.
(1) Against Timbol Dlmaso Jr., Celestino Dicon, Aniano Abellana, Pablito Daffon thru his
parents and natural guardians, Mr. And Mrs. Nicanor Gumban, And
The rule that for a prior judgment to constitute a bar to a Rolando Valencia, thru his guardian, A. Francisco Alonso,
subsequent case is when the following requisites concur: Respondents.
(a) final judgment; (b) must be rendered by a Court
having jurisdiction over the matter and the parties; (c) FACTS:
must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) in the 1st and Pablito Damon, fired a gun that killed the 17yo Alfredo
2nd actions, there must be identity of parties, of subject Amadora while the latter was in the auditorium of their
matter, and of cause of action. Only the 1st three school Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos to deliver his
requisites are met. But as to the last, it is quite different. physics project.
it was already sembreak ; the teacher-in-charge wasnt in
For one thing, petitioner wasnt even a complainant school
against Timbol. For the other, the cause of action for the Daffon was convicted of homicide thru reckless
criminal cases was the enforcement of the civil liability imprudence
alfredos parents filed a civil action for damages under Theyre only exercising general authority over the student
Article 2180 of the Civil Code against the school and its body, not direct control and influence
officials like the rector, the high school principal, the dean
of boys, and the physics teacher, together with Daffon. b.) dean of boys= since there is no teacher-in-charge, it is
probably the dean of boys who should be held liable bec.
Art 2180 Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts He was negligent in not taking disciplinary action over the
and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils boy who owns the unlicensed gun which he had earlier
and students or apprentices so long as they remain in their confiscated; he returned it to the boy afterwards. He didnt
custody. even report it to the authorities

The CFI of Cebu held the defendants civilly liable. But it does not link him to the shooting because there is no proof
On appeal, CA absolved the defendants of the liability that the confiscated and returned pistol was the gun that killed
because: Alfredo
o Article 2180 was not applicable as the Colegio de
San Jose-Recoletos was not a school of arts and c.) the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos = is not directly liable
trades but an academic institution of learning. under the article because the rector, the high school
o the students were not in the custody of the principal and the dean of boys didnt have custody of the
school at the time of the incident as the semester offending student during the shooting or remiss in the
had already ended discharge of their duties. school cant be made to answer
o fatal gun not clearly identified for them
o respondents exercised due diligence
Decision: the petition is DENIED.
1. School should not be held liable because it is an academic
institution NO DIFF. BETWEEN ACADEMIC SCHOOL CRUZ; April 15, 1988
2. School still responsible even though end of school term? NATURE
3. Teacher in charge has been negligent/ no proof of this Petition for certiorari to review the decision of Court of Appeals.
4. ho should be liable for the tort? School? Dean of boys?
Principal? Rector? The dean of boys of boys has been FACTS
negligent but none of those mentioned above is liable
- A few days before high school graduation, while in the auditorium of
REASON: his school (Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos), a classmate, Pablito
Daffon, fired a gun that mortally hit and killed Alfredo Amadora.
1. no difference between the academic and the non-academic
schools. The same vigilance is expected from the teacher - The victims parents filed a civil action for damages under Article
over the students under his control and supervision, 2180 of the Civil Code against the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos,
whatever the nature of the school where he is teaching. its rector, the high school principal, the dean of boys, and the physics
2. It doesnt matter whether Alfredo was in the school teacher (the victim was in school to finish his physics experiment a
auditorium to finish his physics experiment or merely to prerequisite to graduation), together with Daffon and two other
submit his physics report-what is important is that he was students, through their respective parents.
there for a legitimate purpose. even the mere savoring of
the company of his friends in the premises of the school is - The pertinent provision reads:
a legitimate purpose that would have also brought him in
the custody of the school authorities. Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades
shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or
the teacher-in-charge must answer for his students' torts
apprentices so long as they remain in their custody.

3. At any rate, assuming that he was the teacher-in-charge,

no proof that Dicon was negligent in enforcing discipline
upon Daffon. He was not required to report to school on ISSUE
that day
4. WON respondents are liable under Art. 2180

a.) The rector, the high school principal and the dean of
boys= cannot be held liable because:
They are not the teacher-in-charge as previously defined.
Ratio Those liable under the related provision of Art. 2180 shall be
taken to mean as teacher(s)-in-charge for academic institutions and
heads for schools of arts and trades.

Reasoning The difference between academic and arts and trades

institutions lie in history. Back in the times of artisan guilds, heads of
academic institutions were already focused on administrative work
and it is only the teachers who interact closely with students. Heads
of schools of arts and trades, on the other hand, because of the
technical nature of their craft, interact directly with the appentices.

Although the same may not be said for schools of arts and trades at
present, it is what is written. And only a re-writing of the law can
abolish the intended difference.

In the case at bar, none of the respondents were liable. The school is
not liable under Art. 2180; the rector, the principal and the dean of
boys only exercised general authority; the mere fact that Amadora
was in school to finish his physics experiment did not make the
physics teacher in-charge; and even if he were in-charge, there was
no showing that it was his negligence in disciplining Daffon that made
Daffon shoot Amadora; and the other respondents didnt have
custody of the offender.

Disposition WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, without any

pronouncements as to costs.

Voting Yap, Narvasa, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Bidin, Sarmiento,

Cortes and Grino-Aquino, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, C.J., did not participate in deliberations.

Fernan and Padilla, JJ., no part, formerly counsel for Colegio de San

Gutierrez, Jr., J., concur but please see additional statement.

Herrera, J., with separate concurring and dissenting opinion.