Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
From: Group 1
Key Facts:
Issue/s:
Brief Answers:
1. No, the mother was not negligent in attending her child, the
proximate cause was due to the respondent not properly
holding the child.
2. Yes, the respondent is guilty of negligence for not exercising
proper supervision of their employees.
Discussion
1
Corliss v. Manila Railroad Co., G.R. No. L-21291, March 28, 1969.
2
G.R. No. 129792, December 21, 1999
CRISELDA too, should be absolved from any contributory
negligence. Initially, ZHIENETH held on to CRISELDA's waist,
later to the latter's hand. CRISELDA momentarily released the
child's hand from her clutch when she signed her credit card
slip. At this precise moment, it was reasonable and usual for
CRISELDA to let go of her child. Further, at the time
ZHIENETH was pinned down by the counter, she was just a
foot away from her mother; and the gift-wrapping counter was
just four meters away from CRISELDA. The time and distance
were both significant. (emphasis supplied)
3
Supreme Court of British Columbia, 2013 BSC 1248, July 12, 2013.
In the present case, we cannot be impressed that the mother did
not exercise due diligence when she let go of her hold of the child. As
it is beyond reason for a mother to let go of her child without
ensuring the child’s safety.
Clearly, the mother herein would have not foregone of her hold
if she was not sure that her child was safely secured by the mascot.
Similar to the case of Jarco Marketing v. Court of Appeals , at that
moment it was reasonable and usual for the mother, the petitioner
herein, to let go of her child as they were about to take a picture. The
time and distance of the mother from her child in this case is also
significant. As she did not let go until she was sure that the child was
secured and not a second before the picture was supposedly to be
taken.
In the case, Mary Ann exercised precaution and due care when
she tapped the mascot on the side and informed the same that she’ll
take a picture. Although she did not perceive any reply because
Lomibao was clearly restrained to respond due to the costume, yet,
the mascot faced her to indicate that he had noticed Mary Ann. 5
5
TSN, October 23, 2007, p. 21.
6
Id. at 21-22
(emphasis supplied)
XXX
As discussed in the first issue, we find that the mother was not
negligent in attending her child. It was in the part of respondent that
there was a negligent act.
7
Sps. Latonio vs. Mcgeorge Food Inc., G.R. 206184. December 6, 2017
The question is: how does an employer prove that he had
indeed exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of his employee? The case of Metro Manila
Transit Corporation vs. Court of Appeals8 states that:
Having the mascot during the birthday party was without fault,
however, it in the performance of Lomibao’s work that exists the
fault that led to the unfortunate incident that happened to the
petitioner’s child.
8
Metro Manila Transit Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 495 [1998]
guidelines for their employees and especially to those using the
mascot costume.
10
Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital v. Spouses Capanzana, G.R. No. 189218, March 22, 2017
In the present case, the respondent company has the burden of
proof on showing that there was due diligence on the supervision of
their employees. We cannot impute negligence on the mother
because of the lack of diligence made by the respondent company as
there was no proof that they exercised the proper diligence during
the time of the incident.
Conclusion/Recommendations:
1. Mary Ann Latonio is not negligent nor her acts were the
proximate cause of the incident. She exercised due diligence
before she let go of her child by tapping the mascot and
ascertained the hand of the mascot was in contact with her
child.
2. The employer company was guilty of negligence under Arts.
2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code by not supervising properly
their employees; by using a mascot that diminishes the
fundamental senses of the one inside, which may result to
incidents like the one that happened in the present case.