Sie sind auf Seite 1von 20

Gashem Baksh v CA constitute as an actionable wrong? The answer is no.

But one can


sue for recovery of actual damages, like wedding expenses.
Facts: In August 1986, while working as a waitress in Dagupan City,
Pangasinan, Marilou Gonzales, then 21 years old, met Gashem The act of marrying is a personal obligation, therefore
Shookat Baksh, a 29 year old exchange student from Iran who was legally; a demand for specific performance is simply out of the
studying medicine in Dagupan. The two got really close and question—being tantamount to involuntary servitude. Our laws do
intimate. On Marilou’s account, she said that Gashem later offered not provide specific reliefs for cases arising purely from a breach of
to marry her at the end of the semester. Marilou then introduced one’s promise to marry another. Although, there was supposed to
Gashem to her parents where they expressed their intention to get be a chapter on breach of promise to marry proposed by the Code
married. Marilou’s parents then started inviting sponsors and Commission but it was deleted by Congress in enacting the Civil Code
relatives to the wedding. They even started looking for animals to apparently because of lessons from other countries, that the action
slaughter for the occasion. readily lends itself to abuse by designing women and unscrupulous
men (Congressional Record, vol. IV, No. 79, 14 May 1949, 2352).
Meanwhile, Marilou started living with Gashem in his apartment
where they had sexual intercourse. But in no time, their relationship However, the Court has allowed moral or exemplary
went sour as Gashem began maltreating Marilou. Gashem damages not so much on the breach of promise but of the fraud or
eventually revoked his promise of marrying Marilou and he told her deceit and the consequent pain and humiliation suffered. This is
that he is already married to someone in Bacolod City. So Marilou pursuant to Article 21 of the New Civil Code which provides that
went home and later sued Gashem for damages. “any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner
that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall
The trial court ruled in favor of Marilou and awarded her P20k in compensate the latter for the damage.”
moral damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the
trial court. In Baksh vs. CA (219 SCRA 115), it was held -

On appeal, Gashem averred that he never proposed marriage to “[T]hat where a man’s promise to marry is in
Marilou and that he cannot be adjudged to have violated Filipino fact the proximate cause of the acceptance of
customs and traditions since he, being an Iranian, was not familiar his love by a woman and his representation to
with Filipino customs and traditions. fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the
proximate cause of the giving of herself unto
Issue: him in a sexual congress, proof that he had, in
Is a breach of promise to marry an actionable wrong? reality, no intention of marrying her and that
Is Article 21 of the Civil Code applicable in the case? the promise was only a subtle scheme or
deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to
Held: accept him and to obtain her consent to the
[I]The existing rule is that breach of promise to marry per se is not sexual act, could justify the award of damages
an actionable wrong. Congress deliberately eliminated from the pursuant to Article 21 not because of such
draft of the New Civil Code the provisions that would have made it promise to marry but because of the fraud and
so. deceit behind it and the willful injury to her
honor and reputation which followed
This notwithstanding, the said Code contains a provision, Article 21, thereafter. It is essential, however, that such
which is designed to expand the concept of torts or quasi-delicts in injury should have been committed in a
this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold manner contrary to morals, good customs, or
number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to public policy.”
specifically enumerate and punish in the statute books.
Exxon vs Baker
Where a man's promise to marry is in fact the proximate cause of
the acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to Facts: In 1989, petitioners’ (collectively, Exxon) supertanker
fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the grounded on a reef off Alaska, spilling millions of gallons of crude oil
giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress, proof that he had, in into Prince William Sound. The accident occurred after the tanker’s
reality, no intention of marrying her and that the promise was only a captain, Joseph Hazelwood—who had a history of alcohol abuse and
subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept whose blood still had a high alcohol level 11 hours after the spill—
his and to obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the inexplicably exited the bridge, leaving a tricky course correction to
award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because of such unlicensed subordinates. Exxon spent some $2.1 billion in cleanup
promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and efforts, pleaded guilty to criminal violations occasioning fines,
the willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed settled a civil action by the United States and Alaska for at least $900
thereafter. It is essential however, that such injury should have been million, and paid another $303 million in voluntary payments to
committed in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public private parties. Other civil cases were consolidated into this one,
policy. brought against Exxon, Hazelwood, and others to recover economic
losses suffered by respondents (hereinafter Baker), who depend on
Now, if someone promises or agrees to marry his or her Prince William Sound for their livelihoods. At Phase I of the trial, the
lover, and at the last minute backs out on the promise, will it jury found Exxon and Hazelwood reckless (and thus potentially liable
for punitive damages) under instructions providing that a
1
corporation is responsible for the reckless acts of employees acting ratio of punitive to compensatory damages, or, frequently, some
in a managerial capacity in the scope of their employment. In Phase combination of the two. Pp. 21–23.
II, the jury awarded $287 million in compensatory damages to some
of the plaintiffs; others had settled their compensatory claims for (d) American punitive damages have come under criticism in
$22.6 million. In Phase III, the jury awarded $5,000 in punitive recent decades, but the most recent studies tend to undercut much
damages against Hazelwood and $5 billion against Exxon. The Ninth of it. Although some studies show the dollar amounts of awards
Circuit upheld the Phase I jury instruction on corporate liability and growing over time, even in real terms, most accounts show that the
ultimately remitted the punitive damages award against Exxon to median ratio of punitive to compensatory awards remains less than
$2.5 billion. 1:1. Nor do the data show a marked increase in the percentage of
cases with punitive awards. The real problem is the stark
Issue: unpredictability of punitive awards. Courts are concerned with
Held: 1. Because the Court is equally divided on whether maritime fairness as consistency, and the available data suggest that the
law allows corporate liability for punitive damages based on the acts spread between high and low individual awards is unacceptable. The
of managerial agents, it leaves the Ninth Circuit’s opinion spread in state civil trials is great, and the outlier cases subject
undisturbed in this respect. Of course, this disposition is not defendants to punitive damages that dwarf the corresponding
precedential on the derivative liability question. See, e.g., Neil v. compensatories. The distribution of judge-assessed awards is
Biggers, 409 U. S. 188 . Pp. 7–10. narrower, but still remarkable. These ranges might be acceptable if
they resulted from efforts to reach a generally accepted optimal
2. The Clean Water Act’s water pollution penalties, 33 U. S. C. level of penalty and deterrence in cases involving a wide range of
§1321, do not preempt punitive-damages awards in maritime spill circumstances, but anecdotal evidence suggests that is not the case,
cases. Section 1321(b) protects “navigable waters … , adjoining see, e.g., Gore, supra, at 565, n. 8. Pp. 24–27.
shorelines, … [and] natural resources,” subject to a saving clause
reserving “obligations … under any … law for damages to any … (e) This Court’s response to outlier punitive damages awards
privately owned property resulting from [an oil] discharge,” has thus far been confined by claims that state-court awards
§1321(o). Exxon’s admission that the CWA does not displace violated due process. See, e.g., State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.
compensatory remedies for the consequences of water pollution, v. Campbell, 538 U. S. 408 . In contrast, today’s enquiry arises under
even those for economic harms, leaves the company with the federal maritime jurisdiction and requires review of a jury award at
untenable claim that the CWA somehow preempts punitive the level of judge-made federal common law that precedes and
damages, but not compensatory damages, for economic loss. should obviate any application of the constitutional standard. In this
Nothing in the statute points to that result, and the Court has context, the unpredictability of high punitive awards is in tension
rejected similar attempts to sever remedies from their causes of with their punitive function because of the implication of unfairness
action, see Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U. S. 238 . There is no that an eccentrically high punitive verdict carries. A penalty should
clear indication of congressional intent to occupy the entire field of be reasonably predictable in its severity, so that even Holmes’s “bad
pollution remedies, nor is it likely that punitive damages for private man” can look ahead with some ability to know what the stakes are
harms will have any frustrating effect on the CWA’s remedial in choosing one course of action or another. And a penalty scheme
scheme. Pp. 10–15. ought to threaten defendants with a fair probability of suffering in
like degree for like damage. Cf. Koon v. United States, 518 U. S. 81 .
3. The punitive damages award against Exxon was excessive as a Pp. 28–29.
matter of maritime common law. In the circumstances of this case,
the award should be limited to an amount equal to compensatory (f) The Court considers three approaches, one verbal and two
damages. Pp. 15–42. quantitative, to arrive at a standard for assessing maritime punitive
damages. Pp. 29–42.
(a) Although legal codes from ancient times through the Middle
Ages called for multiple damages for certain especially harmful acts, (i) The Court is skeptical that verbal formulations are the best
modern Anglo-American punitive damages have their roots in 18th- insurance against unpredictable outlier punitive awards, in light of
century English law and became widely accepted in American courts its experience with attempts to produce consistency in the
by the mid-19th century. See, e.g., Day v. Woodworth, 13 How. 363, analogous business of criminal sentencing. Pp. 29–32.
371. Pp. 16–17.
(ii) Thus, the Court looks to quantified limits. The option of
(b) The prevailing American rule limits punitive damages to setting a hard-dollar punitive cap, however, is rejected because
cases of “enormity,” Day v. Woodworth, 13 How. 363, 371, in which there is no “standard” tort or contract injury, making it difficult to
a defendant’s conduct is outrageous, owing to gross negligence, settle upon a particular dollar figure as appropriate across the
willful, wanton, and reckless indifference for others’ rights, or even board; and because a judicially selected dollar cap would carry the
more deplorable behavior. The consensus today is that punitive serious drawback that the issue might not return to the docket
damages are aimed at retribution and deterring harmful conduct. before there was a need to revisit the figure selected. Pp. 32–39.
Pp. 17–21.
(iii) The more promising alternative is to peg punitive awards
(c) State regulation of punitive damages varies. A few States to compensatory damages using a ratio or maximum multiple. This is
award them rarely, or not at all, and others permit them only when the model in many States and in analogous federal statutes allowing
authorized by statute. Many States have imposed statutory limits on multiple damages. The question is what ratio is most appropriate.
punitive awards, in the form of absolute monetary caps, a maximum An acceptable standard can be found in the studies showing the
2
median ratio of punitive to compensatory awards. Those studies Yes. A careful examination of the aforequoted complaint shows that
reflect the judgments of juries and judges in thousands of cases as to the civil action is one under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code
what punitive awards were appropriate in circumstances reflecting on quasi-delicts. All the elements of a quasi-delict are present, to
the most down to the least blameworthy conduct, from malice and wit: (a) damages suffered by the plaintiff, (b) fault or negligence of
avarice to recklessness to gross negligence. The data in question put the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must
the median ratio for the entire gamut at less than 1:1, meaning that respond; and (c) the connection of cause and effect between the
the compensatory award exceeds the punitive award in most cases. fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by
In a well-functioning system, awards at or below the median would the plaintiff.
roughly express jurors’ sense of reasonable penalties in cases like Clearly, from petitioner's complaint, the waterpaths and
this one that have no earmarks of exceptional blameworthiness. contrivances built by respondent corporation are alleged to have
Accordingly, the Court finds that a 1:1 ratio is a fair upper limit in inundated the land of petitioners. There is therefore, an assertion of
such maritime cases. Pp. 39–42. a causal connection between the act of building these waterpaths
and the damage sustained by petitioners. Such action if proven
(iv) Applying this standard to the present case, the Court constitutes fault or negligence which may be the basis for the
takes for granted the District Court’s calculation of the total relevant recovery of damages.
compensatory damages at $507.5 million. A punitive-to-
compensatory ratio of 1:1 thus yields maximum punitive damages in In the case of Samson vs. Dionisio, 12 the Court applied Article 1902,
that amount. P. 42. now Article 2176 of the Civil Code and held that "any person who
without due authority constructs a bank or dike, stopping the flow
or communication between a creek or a lake and a river, thereby
472 F. 3d 600 and 490 F. 3d 1066, vacated and remanded. causing loss and damages to a third party who, like the rest of the
residents, is entitled to the use and enjoyment of the stream or lake,
ANDAMO VS IAC shall be liable to the payment of an indemnity for loss and damages
to the injured party. While the property involved in the cited case
Quasi-delicts; Elements of quasi-delict.—A careful examination of belonged to the public domain and the property subject of the
the aforequoted complaint shows that the civil action is one under instant case is privately owned, the fact remains that petitioners'
Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. All the complaint sufficiently alleges that petitioners have sustained and
elements of a quasi-delict are present, to wit: (a) damages suffered will continue to sustain damage due to the water paths and
by the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some contrivances built by respondent corporation.
other person for whose acts he must respond; and (c) the
connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of Indeed, the recitals of the complaint, the alleged presence of
the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff. damage to the petitioners, the act or omission of respondent
corporation supposedly constituting fault or negligence, and the
causal connection between the act and the damage, with no pre-
Facts: Petitioner spouses Emmanuel and Natividad Andamo are the
existing contractual obligation between the parties make a clear
owners of a parcel of land situated in Biga (Biluso) Silang, Cavite
case of a quasi delict or culpa aquiliana. It must be stressed that the
which is adjacent to that of private respondent, Missionaries of Our
use of one's property is not without limitations. Article 431 of the
Lady of La Salette, Inc., a religious corporation. Within the land of
Civil Code provides that "the owner of a thing cannot make use
respondent corporation, waterpaths and contrivances, including an
thereof in such a manner as to injure the rights of a third person."
artificial lake, were constructed, which allegedly inundated and
SIC UTERE TUO UT ALIENUM NON LAEDAS.
eroded petitioners' land, caused a young man to drown, damaged
petitioners' crops and plants, washed away costly fences, Moreover, adjoining landowners have mutual and reciprocal duties
endangered the lives of petitioners and their laborers during rainy which require that each must use his own land in a reasonable
and stormy seasons, and exposed plants and other improvements to manner so as not to infringe upon the rights and interests of others.
destruction. Although we recognize the right of an owner to build structures on
his land, such structures must be so constructed and maintained
In July 1982, petitioners instituted a criminal action, docketed as using all reasonable care so that they cannot be dangerous to
Criminal Case No. TG-907-82, before the Regional Trial Court of adjoining landowners and can withstand the usual and expected
Cavite, Branch 4 (Tagaytay City), against Efren Musngi, Orlando forces of nature. If the structures cause injury or damage to an
Sapuay and Rutillo Mallillin, officers and directors of herein adjoining landowner or a third person, the latter can claim
respondent corporation, for destruction by means of inundation indemnification for the injury or damage suffered. Article 2176 of
under Article 324 of the Revised Penal Code. Subsequently, on the Civil Code imposes a civil liability on a person for damage caused
February 22, 1983, petitioners filed another action against by his act or omission constituting fault or negligence, thus:
respondent corporation, this time a civil case, docketed as Civil Case
No. TG-748, for damages with prayer for the issuance of a writ of Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,
preliminary injunction before the same court. there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
Issue: relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed
Whether petitioner spouses Andamo can claim damages for destruction by the provisions of this chapter.
caused by respondent’s water paths and contrivances on the basis of
Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. Article 2176, whenever it refers to "fault or negligence", covers not
only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts criminal in character,
Held: whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. Consequently, a

3
separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, Timothy fell out through the window shows that the door could not
whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or be opened from the inside. That sufficiently points to the fact that
acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, (if the something was wrong with the door, if not the door knob, under the
tortfeasor is actually charged also criminally), to recover damages on principle of res ipsa loquitor. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor
both scores, and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the applies where (1) the accident was of such character as to warrant
bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two an inference that it would not have happened except for the
cases vary. 13 The distinctness of quasi-delicta is shown in Article defendant’s negligence; (2) the accident must have been caused by
2177 of the Civil Code, which states: an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive management or
control of the person charged with the negligence complained of;
Article 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the and (3) the accident must not have been due to any voluntary action
preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil or contribution on the part of the person injured. Petitioners are
liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the clearly answerable for failure to see to it that the doors of their
plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission school toilets are at all times in working condition. The fact that a
of the defendant. student had to go through the window, instead of the door, shows
that something was wrong with the door.
CHILD LEARNING CENTER, INC. and SPOUSES EDGARDO L. LIMON
and SYLVIA S. LIMON, vs. TIMOTHY TAGARIO, assisted by his As to the absence of grills on the window, petitioners contend that
parents BASILIO TAGORIO and HERMINIA TAGORIO, there was no such requirement under the Building
Code. Nevertheless, the fact is that such window, as petitioners
themselves point out, was approximately 1.5 meters from the floor,
FACTS: Timothy Tagoria was a grade IV student at Marymount School, an academic
so that it was within reach of a student who finds the regular exit,
institution operated and maintained by Child Learning Center, Inc. (CLC). One afternoon,
the door, not functioning. Petitioners, with the due diligence of a
he found himself locked inside the boy’s comfort room in Marymount. He started to
good father of the family, should have anticipated that a student,
panic so he banged and kicked the door and yelled for help. No help arrived. He then
locked in the toilet by a non-working door, would attempt to use the
decided to open the window to call for help. As he opened the window, Timothy went
window to call for help or even to get out. Considering all the
right through and fell down three stories. Timothy was hospitalized and given medical
circumstances, therefore, there is sufficient basis to sustain a finding
treatment for serious multiple physical injuries.
of liability on petitioners’ part.

He, assisted by his parents, filed a civil action against the CLC, the Petitioners’ argument that CLC exercised the due diligence of a good
members of its Board of Directors which includes the Spouses father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees is
Limon. They claim that the school was negligent for not installing not decisive. Due diligence in the selection and supervision of
iron grills at the window of the boy’s comfort room. CLC, in its employees is applicable where the employer is being held
defense, maintained that there was nothing defective about the responsible for the acts or omissions of others under Article 2180 of
locking mechanism of the door and that the fall of Timothy was not the Civil Code. In this case, CLC’s liability is under Article 2176 of the
due to its fault or negligence. CLC further maintained that it had Civil Code, premised on the fact of its own negligence in not
exercised the due care and diligence of a good father of a family to ensuring that all its doors are properly maintained.
ensure the safety, well-being and convenience of its students.
The Court’s pronouncement that Timothy climbed out of the
The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents. The respondents window because he could not get out using the door, negates
proceeded their appeal to the Court of Appeals who affirmed the petitioners’ other contention that the proximate cause of the
trial court’s ruling in toto. accident was Timothy’s own negligence. The injuries he sustained
from the fall were the product of a natural and continuous
ISSUE: Whether or not the school was negligent for the boy’s sequence, unbroken by any intervening cause, that originated from
accidental fall. CLC’s own negligence.
PETITION DENIED.
RULING: YES.
HUANG VS PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS
In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, plaintiff
has to prove by a preponderance of evidence: (1) the damages Facts: On June 11, 1995, Delia and Huang went for a swim at the
suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the fault or negligence of the defendant Dusit hotel. At around 7:00 p.m., the hotel’s swimming pool
or some other person for whose act he must respond; and (3) the attendant informed them that the swimming pool area was about to
connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and be closed. The two proceeded to the shower and dressed up but
the damages incurred. when they came out, the entire swimming pool area was already
pitch black and nobody else was around but the two of them. They
In this tort case, respondents contend that CLC failed to provide then proceeded to the main door but it was locked. Delia then
precautionary measures to avoid harm and injury to its students in looked for the phone so the petitioner followed. Petitioner then saw
two instances: (1) failure to fix a defective door knob despite having a phone at the lifeguard counter but while slowly walking towards
been notified of the problem; and (2) failure to install safety grills on the phone, a hard and heavy object, which later turned out to be the
the window where Timothy fell from. folding wooden counter top, fell on petitioner’s head that knocked
her down almost unconscious.
During trial, it was found that the lock was defective. The architect
witness testified that he did not verify if the doorknob at the
Delia got a hold of the house phone and notified the
comfort room was actually put in place. Further, the fact that
4
operator of the incident. The hotel staff arrived but it took them 20- result of the alleged 11 June 1995 accident.
30 mins to arrive. Three hotel chambermaids assisted petitioner by
placing an ice pack and applying some ointment on her head. After Firstly, petitioner had a past medical history which might have been
petitioner had slightly recovered, she requested to be assisted to the the cause of her recurring brain injury.
hotel’s coffee shop to have some rest. Petitioner demanded the
services of the hotel physician.
Secondly, the findings of Dr. Perez did not prove a causal relation
between the 11 June 1995 accident and the brain damage suffered
Dr. Dalumpines arrived but instead of immediately by petitioner. Even Dr. Perez himself testified that the symptoms
providing medical assistance, she requested that a waiver be signed being experienced by petitioner might have been due to factors
otherwise, the hotel management will not render any assistance. other than the head trauma she allegedly suffered. It bears stressing
Petitioner refused to do so. Thereafter, the petitioner after eating that petitioner had been suffering from different kinds of brain
dinner left the hotel. She then started to feel extraordinary dizziness problems since she was 18 years old, which may have been the
accompanied by an uncomfortable feeling in her stomach, which cause of the recurring symptoms of head injury she is experiencing
lasted until the following day. Petitioner was constrained to stay at at present. Absent, therefore, of any proof establishing the causal
home, thus, missing all her important appointments with her relation between the injury she allegedly suffered on 11 June 1995
patients. She also began experiencing "on" and "off" severe and the head pains she now suffers, her claim must fail.
headaches that caused her three (3) sleepless nights. Thereafter, she
decided to consult Dr. Noble, a neurologist from Makati Medical
Thirdly, Dr. Teresita Sanchez’s (Dr. Sanchez) testimony cannot be
Center and revealed that the MRI showed that her head was bruised
relied upon since she testified on the findings and conclusions of
and that petitioner has a very serious brain injury. Petitioner also
persons who were never presented in court. Ergo, her testimony
consulted Dr. Adapon who required an EEG that showed that she
thereon was hearsay.
has a serious condition- a permanent one. Her condition did not get
better; hence, she consulted a neurosurgeon, Dr. Sibayan who
required an X-ray who likewise found the same results as the Fourthly, the medical reports/evaluations/certifications issued by
previous doctors. myriads of doctors whom petitioner sought for examination or
treatment were neither identified nor testified to by those who
issued them. Being deemed as hearsay, they cannot be given
Petitioner then sent a demand letter seeking payment of
probative value. Even assuming that petitioner suffered head injury
100,000,000 representing loss of earnings on her remaining life span
as a consequence of the 11 June 1995 accident, she cannot blame
but the letter was unheeded. Later on, petitioner when to the US
anyone but herself for staying at the hotel’s swimming pool area
and consulted Dr. Steinberg and Dr. Diokson from Mount Sinai
beyond its closing hours and for lifting the folding wooden counter
Hospital who both found that she has "post traumatic-post
top that eventually hit her head.56
concussion/contusion cephalgias-vascular and neuralgia. She
returned to the Philippines and the doctors advised her to just relax
and take her medications and take a therapy for her neck pain. In For petitioner’s failure to prove that her serious and permanent
1996, she consulted Dr. Lopez, a ophthalmologist for her poor injury was the result of the 11 June 1995 accident, thus, her claim
eyesight who stated that she has a permanent and serious detached for actual or compensatory damages, loss of income, moral
eye. Out of frustration, she consulted another doctor, Dr. Pardo, damages, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, must all fail.
where she disclosed that she had a stroke at age 18 due to mitral
valve disease. Quasi delict governs because she was only a guest of Delia. the
pertinent provision of Art. 2176 of the Civil Code which states:
The diagnosis of Dr. Pardo showed that, she developed the following "Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being
injuries: 1. Cerebral Concussion and Contusion 2. Post-traumatic fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault
Epilepsy 3. Post-concussional Syndrome 4. Minimal Brain Dysfunction or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation
5. Cervical Sprain, chronic recurrent. The doctor opined that such between the parties, is called quasi-delict."
injuries resulted from the events that occurred on June 11, 1995.
Quasi-delict, the following requisites must concur: (a) damages
ISSUE: suffered by the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of the defendant, or
1.Whether or not the complaint is one for violation of an Implied some other person for whose acts he must respond; and (c) the
Contract so that res ipsa loquitur is applicable in this case? connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of
the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff. quasi-
delict, the following requisites must concur: (a) damages suffered by
2. Whether or not respondents are liable for the injury sustained by
the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other
the petitioner based on the theory of quasi-delict?
person for whose acts he must respond; and (c) the connection of
cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant
Held: 1. No. The allegations in Huang’s Complaint constitute a cause and the damages incurred by the plaintiff.
of action for quasi-delict, which under the New Civil Code is defined
as an act, or omission which causes damage to another, there being
PETER PAUL PATRICK LUCAS, et al. vs. DR. PROSPERO MA. C.
fault or negligence.
TUAÑO

2.Huang utterly failed to prove the alleged negligence of Dusit Hotel. DOCTRINES:
The trial court similarly observed that the records revealed no
indication that the head injury complained of by petitioner was the
5
In a medical negligence suit, the patient or his heirs, in order to treatment of his patient, said standard level of care, skill and
prevail, is required to prove by preponderance of evidence that the diligence must likewise be proven by expert medical testimony,
physician failed to exercise that degree of skill, care, and learning because the standard of care in a medical malpractice case is a
possessed by other persons in the same profession; and that as a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of experts in the field. The
proximate result of such failure, the patient or his heirs suffered same is outside the ken of the average layperson.
damages.
There is breach of duty of care, skill and diligence, or the improper
There is breach of duty of care, skill and diligence, or the improper performance of such duty, by the attending physician when the
performance of such duty, by the attending physician when the patient is injured in body or in health [and this] constitutes the
patient is injured in body or in health constitutes the actionable actionable malpractice. Hence, proof of breach of duty on the part
malpractice. of the attending physician is insufficient. Rather, the negligence of
the physician must be the proximate cause of the injury.
FACTS: Herein petitioner, Peter Lucas, first consulted respondent,
Dr. Tuaño, on a complaint of soreness and redness on his right eye. Air France v Carrascoso
The respondent, after a series of examinations, found that the
former was suffering from conjunctivitis or “sore eyes” and
Facts: Air France issued to Carrascoso, a civil engineer, a 1st class
prescribed the use of the Spersacet-C. However, after the
round trip ticket from Manila - Rome. During the stopover at
petitioner’s condition seemed to have worsened, he sought for the
Bangkok, the Manager of Air France forced plaintiff to vacate the 1st
respondent’s second finding wherein the latter said that his
class seat because there was a "white man" who had better right to
condition had progressed to Epidemic Kerato Conjunctivitis (EKC), a
the seat. As a result, he filed a suit against Air France where the CFI
viral infection. The respondent then prescribed the use of Maxitrol,
Manila granted him moral and exemplary damages.
a steroid-based eye drop. The petitioner’s condition worsened
overtime, yet he obediently complied with all the prescriptions and
Issue:
orders of the respondent.
Whether or not Carrascoso was entitled to the 1st class seat and
consequently
Four months later and after the petitioner suffered from significant
Whether or not he was entitled to the damages awarded.
swelling of his right eyeball, headaches, nausea and blindness on this
right eye, he sought for the opinion of another doctor, Dr. Aquino.
Held:
Dr. Aquino found that the petitioner had been suffering from
Yes to both.
glaucoma and needed to undergo laser surgery, lest he might suffer
To achieve stability in the relation between passenger and air
from total blindness.
carrier, adherence to the ticket issued is desirable. Quoting the
court, "We cannot understand how a reputable firm like Air France
After reading the literature on the use of the medicine Maxitrol,
could have the indiscretion to give out tickets it never meant to
Fatima, one of the petitioners herein and Peter Lucas’ wife, read
honor at all. It received the corresponding amount in payment of the
that one of the adverse effects of prolonged use of steroid-based
tickets and yet it allowed the passenger to be at the mercy of its
eye drops could possibly be glaucoma. Peter, Fatima, and their two
employees. It is more in keeping with the ordinary course of
children instituted a civil case for damages against herein
business that the company should know whether or not the tickets it
respondent for medical malpractice.
issues are to be honored or not."

Evidence of bad faith was presented without objection on the part


ISSUE:
of the Carrascoso. In the case, it could have been easy for Air France
Whether or not the petitioners amply proved that Dr. Tuaño failed
to present its manager to testify at the trial or secure his deposition
to exercise diligence in the performance of his duty as petitioner
but defendant did neither. There is also no evidence as to whether
Peter Lucas’ physician.
or not a prior reservation was made by the white man.
Held:
The manager not only prevented Carrascoso from enjoying his right
No. Absent a definitive standard of care or diligence required of Dr.
to a 1st class seat, worse he imposed his arbitrary will. He forcibly
Tuaño under the circumstances, the Court has no yardstick upon
ejected him from his seat, made him suffer the humiliation of having
which to evaluate the attendant facts of the case at hand to be able
to go to tourist class just to give way to another passenger whose
to state with confidence that the acts complained of, indeed,
right was not established. Certainly, this is bad faith.
constituted negligence and, thus, should be the subject of pecuniary
reparation.
Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have a
right to be treated by the carrier's employees with kindness, respect,
In medical negligence cases, also called medical malpractice suits,
courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to be protected
there exist a physician-patient relationship between the doctor and
against personal is conduct, injurious language, indignities and
the victim. But just like any other proceeding for damages, four
abuse from such employees. Any discourteous conduct on the part
essential (4) elements i.e., (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) injury; and (4)
of employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for
proximate causation, must be established by the plaintiff/s. All the
damages against the carrier.
four (4) elements must co-exist in order to find the physician
negligent and, thus, liable for damages.
Exemplary damages were also awarded. The manner of ejectment
fits into the condition for exemplary damages that defendant acted
As the physician has the duty to use at least the same level of care as
in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.
that of any other reasonably competent physician would use in the
6
adequate steps are taken to maintain peace and order within the
*Bad Faith - state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design campus premises and to prevent the breakdown thereof.
or with some motive of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purpose
Because the circumstances of the present case evince a contractual
PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, JUAN D. LIM, relation between the PSBA and Carlitos Bautista, the rules on quasi-
BENJAMIN P. PAULINO, ANTONIO M. MAGTALAS, COL. PEDRO delict do not really govern. A perusal of Article 2176 shows that
SACRO and LT. M. SORIANO, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, obligations arising from quasi-delicts or tort, also known as extra-
contractual obligations, arise only between parties not otherwise
FACTS: A stabbing incident on 30 August 1985 which caused the bound by contract, whether express or implied. However, this
death of Carlitos Bautista while on the second-floor premises of the impression has not prevented this Court from determining the
Philippine School of Business Administration (PSBA) prompted the existence of a tort even when there obtains a contract.
parents of the deceased to file suit in the Regional Trial Court of
Manila (Branch 47) presided over by Judge Regina Ordoñez-Benitez, Non-applicability of Article 2180 and 2176
for damages against the said PSBA and its corporate officers. At the
time of his death, Carlitos was enrolled in the third year commerce Article 2180, in conjunction with Article 2176 of the Civil Code,
course at the PSBA. It was established that his assailants were not establishes the rule of in loco parentis. Article 2180 plainly provides
members of the school's academic community but were elements that the damage should have been caused or inflicted by pupils or
from outside the school. students of the educational institution sought to be held liable for
the acts of its pupils or students while in its custody. However, this
Specifically, the suit impleaded the PSBA and several school material situation does not exist in the present case for, as earlier
authorities, including the chief of security and his assistant chief. indicated, the assailants of Carlitos were not students of the PSBA,
for whose acts the school could be made liable.
The private respondents sought to adjudge them liable for their
son’s death due to the their negligence, reckless and lack of security In comparison with Air France vs Carrascoso
precautions, means and methods before, during and after the attack
on the victim. In Air France vs. Carrascoso (124 Phil. 722), the private respondent
was awarded damages for his unwarranted expulsion from a first-
The petitioners alleged that the complaint against them has no class seat aboard the petitioner airline. It is noted, however, that the
cause of action given that PSBA is an academic institution. And Court referred to the petitioner-airline's liability as one arising from
academic institution is beyond the ambit of rule as provided by tort, not one arising from a contract of carriage. In effect, Air France
Article 2180 of the Civil Code. is authority for the view that liability from tort may exist even if
there is a contract, for the act that breaks the contract may be also a
The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents and on appeal, the tort.
appellate court ruled the same.
This view was not all that revolutionary, for even as early as 1918,
ISSUE: Whether or not the liability of the school and the authorities this Court was already of a similar mind. In Cangco vs. Manila
is based on quasi-delict. Railroad (38 Phil. 780), Mr. Justice Fisher elucidated thus:

RULING: NO. The liability is based on the students and the school’s The field of non-contractual obligation is much
contractual relations. broader than that of contractual obligation,
comprising, as it does, the whole extent of
juridical human relations. These two fields,
Contractual Relations of students and the school
figuratively speaking, concentric; that is to say,
the mere fact that a person is bound to another
When an academic institution accepts students for enrollment, by contract does not relieve him from extra-
there is established a contract between them, resulting in bilateral contractual liability to such person. When such a
obligations which both parties are bound to comply with. For its contractual relation exists the obligor may break
part, the school undertakes to provide the student with an the contract under such conditions that the
education that would presumably suffice to equip him with the same act which constitutes a breach of the
necessary tools and skills to pursue higher education or a profession. contract would have constituted the source of an
On the other hand, the student covenants to abide by the school's extra-contractual obligation had no contract
academic requirements and observe its rules and regulations. existed between the parties.

Institutions of learning must also meet the implicit or "built-in" Immediately what comes to mind is the chapter of the Civil Code on
obligation of providing their students with an atmosphere that Human Relations, particularly Article 21, which provides:
promotes or assists in attaining its primary undertaking of imparting
knowledge. Certainly, no student can absorb the intricacies of
Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to
physics or higher mathematics or explore the realm of the arts and
another in a manner that is contrary to morals,
other sciences when bullets are flying or grenades exploding in the
good custom or public policy shall compensate
air or where there looms around the school premises a constant
the latter for the damage. (emphasis supplied).
threat to life and limb. Necessarily, the school must ensure that
7
Air France penalized the racist policy of the airline which The boiler was so badly damaged that it had to be shipped back to
emboldened the petitioner's employee to forcibly oust the private England to be rebuilt. The damages suffered by Manila Railroad
respondent to cater to the comfort of a white man who allegedly amounted to P23,343.29. Manila Railroad then filed an action
"had a better right to the seat." against the Streamship Company to recover said damages. The
Steamship Company caused Atlantic Company to be brought as co-
Breach of Contract not yet proven in the present case defendant arguing that Atlantic Company as an independent
contractor, who had undertaken to discharge the boilers had
become responsible for the damage.
In the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, however, there is,
as yet, no finding that the contract between the school and Bautista
The Court of First Instance decided in favor of Manila Railroad,
had been breached thru the former's negligence in providing proper
the plaintiff, against Atlantic Company and absolved the Steamship
security measures. This would be for the trial court to determine.
Company. Manila Railroad appealed from the decision because the
And, even if there be a finding of negligence, the same could give
Steamship Company was not held liable also. Atlantic Company also
rise generally to a breach of contractual obligation only. Using the
appealed from the judgment against it.
test of Cangco, supra, the negligence of the school would not be
relevant absent a contract. In fact, that negligence becomes material
ISSUES:
only because of the contractual relation between PSBA and Bautista.
In other words, a contractual relation is a condition sine qua non to
1. Was the Steamship Company liable to Manila Railroad for
the school's liability. The negligence of the school cannot exist
delivering the boiler in a damaged condition?
independently of the contract, unless the negligence occurs under
the circumstances set out in Article 21 of the Civil Code.
2. Was Atlantic Company liable to the Steamship Company for the
amount it may be required to pay the plaintiff?
This Court is not unmindful of the attendant difficulties posed by the
obligation of schools, above-mentioned, for conceptually a school,
1. Was Atlantic Company directly liable to plaintiff
like a common carrier, cannot be an insurer of its students against
as held by the trial court?
all risks. This is specially true in the populous student communities
of the so-called "university belt" in Manila where there have been
reported several incidents ranging from gang wars to other forms of RULING:
hooliganism. It would not be equitable to expect of schools to There was a contractual relation between the Steamship
anticipate all types of violent trespass upon their premises, for Company and Manila Railroad. There was also a contractual relation
notwithstanding the security measures installed, the same may still between the Steamship Company and Atlantic. But there was no
fail against an individual or group determined to carry out a contractual relation between the Railroad Company and Atlantic
nefarious deed inside school premises and environs. Should this be Company.
the case, the school may still avoid liability by proving that the
breach of its contractual obligation to the students was not due to There was no question that the Steamship Company was liable to
its negligence, here statutorily defined to be the omission of that Manila Railroad as it had the obligation to transport the boiler in a
degree of diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation proper manner safe and securely under the circumstances required
and corresponding to the circumstances of persons, time and place. by law and customs. The Steamship Company cannot escape liability
simply because it employed a competent independent contractor to
discharge the boiler.
PETITION DENIED. The case is reverted back to the trial court for
further proceedings.
Atlantic Company claimed that it was not liable, because it had
MANILA RAILROAD CO. VS. COMPANIA TRANSATLANTICA employed all the diligence of a good father of a family and proper
care in the selection of Leyden. Said argument was not tenable,
FACTS: because said defense was not applicable to negligence arising in the
SS/Alicante, belonging to Compania Transatlantica de Barcelona course of the performance of a contractual obligation. The same
was transporting two locomotive boilers for the Manila Railroad can be said with respect to the liability of Atlantic Company upon its
Company. The equipment of the ship for discharging the heavy contract with the Steamship Company. There was a distinction
cargo was not strong enough to handle the boilers. Compania between negligence in the performance of a contractual obligation
Transatlantica contracted the services of Atlantic gulf and Pacific Co., (culpa contractual) and negligence considered as an independent
which had the best equipment to lift the boilers out of the ship’s source of obligation (culpa aquiliana). Atlantic Company wasis liable
hold. When Alicante arrived in Manila, Atlantic company sent out its to the Steamship Company for the damage brought upon the latter
floating crane under the charge of one Leyden. by the failure of Atlantic Company to use due care in discharging the
boiler, regardless of the fact that the damage was caused by the
When the first boiler was being hoisted out of the ship’s hold, the negligence of an employee who was qualified for the work, duly
boiler could not be brought out because the sling was not properly chose with due care.
placed and the head of the boiler was caught under the edge of the
hatch. The weight on the crane was increased by a strain estimated Since there was no contract between the Railroad Company and
at 15 tons with the result that the cable of the sling broke and the Atlantic Company, Railroad Company can had no right of action to
boiler fell to the bottom of the ship’s hold. The sling was again recover damages from Atlantic Company for the wrongful act which
adjusted and the boiler was again lifted but as it was being brought constituted the violation of the contract. The rights of Manila
up the bolt at the end of the derrick broke and the boiler fell again.

8
Railroad can only be made effective through the Steamship have been at fault or to have acted negligently,
Company with whom the contract of affreightment was made. unless they prove that they observed
extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles
Light Rail Transit Authority vs Navidad 1733 and 1755
o Art. 1759. Common carriers are liable for the
death of or injuries to passengers through the
FACTS:
negligence or wilful acts of the former’s
employees, although such employees may have
 October 14, 1993, 7:30 p.m. : Drunk Nicanor Navidad acted beyond the scope of their authority or in
(Nicanor) entered the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a violation of the orders of the common carriers
“token”.
o While Nicanor was standing at the platform near This liability of the common carriers does NOT cease upon
the LRT tracks, the guard Junelito Escartin proof that they
approached him. Exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in
o Due to misunderstanding, they had a fist fight the selection and supervision of their employees
 Nicanor fell on the tracks and killed
instantaneously upon being hit by a
moving train operated by Rodolfo
o Art. 1763. A common carrier is responsible for
injuries suffered by a passenger on account of
Roman
the wilful acts or negligence of other passengers
 December 8, 1994: The widow of Nicanor, along with her
or of strangers, if the common carrier’s
children, filed a complaint for damages against Escartin,
employees through the exercise of the diligence
Roman, LRTA, Metro Transit Org. Inc. and Prudent (agency
of a good father of a family could have
of security guards) for the death of her husband.
prevented or stopped the act or omission.
o LRTA and Roman filed a counter-claim against
Nicanor and a cross-claim against Escartin and
 Carriers presumed to be at fault or been negligent and by
simple proof of injury, the passenger is relieaved of the
Prudent
duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the carrier
 Prudent: denied liability – averred that
or of its employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier
it had exercised due diligence in the
to prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen event or
selection and surpervision of its
to force majeure
security guards
 LRTA and Roman: presented evidence  Where it hires its own employees or avail itself of the
services of an outsider or an independent firm to
 Prudent and Escartin: demurrer
undertake the task, the common carrier is NOT relieved of
contending that Navidad had failed to
its responsibilities under the contract of carriage
prove that Escartin was negligent in his
assigned task  GR: Prudent can be liable only for tort under Art. 2176 and
related provisions in conjunction with Art. 2180 of the Civil
 RTC: In favour of widow and against Prudent and Escartin,
Code. (Tort may arise even under a contract, where tort
complaint against LRT and Roman were dismissed for lack
[quasi-delict liability] is that which breaches the contract)
of merit
o EX: if employer’s liability is negligence or fault on
 CA: reversed by exonerating Prudent and held LRTA and
the part of the employee, employer can be
Roman liable
made liable on the basis of the presumption juris
tantum that the employer failed to exercise
diligentissimi patris families in the selection and
ISSUE: W/N LRTA and Roman should be liable according to the supervision of its employees.
contract of carriage o EX to the EX: Upon showing due diligence in the
selection and supervision of the employee
HELD: NO. Affirmed with Modification: (a) nominal damages is  Factual finding of the CA: NO link bet. Prudent and the
DELETED (CANNOT co-exist w/ compensatory damages) (b) Roman is death of Nicanor for the reason that the negligence of
absolved. Escartin was NOT proven
 NO showing that Roman himself is guilty of any culpable
 Law and jurisprudence dictate that a common carrier, both act or omission, he must also be absolved from liability
from the nature of its business and for reasons of public o Contractual tie bet. LRT and Nicanor is NOT itself
policy, is burdened with the duty off exercising utmost a juridical relation bet. Nicanor and Roman
diligence in ensuring the safety of passengers  Roman can be liable only for his own
 Civil Code: fault or negligence
o Art. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry
the passengers safely as far as human care and BARREDO VS GARCIA AND ALMARIO
foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence
of very cautious persons, with a due regard for
FACTS: On May 3, 1936, there was a head-on collision between a
all the circumstances
taxi of the Malate taxicab driven by Fontanilla and a carretela guided
o Art. 1756. In case of death or injuries to
by Dimapilis. The carretela was over-turned, and a passenger, a 16-
passengers, common carriers are presumed to

9
year old boy, Garcia, suffered injuries from which he died. A criminal filed a civil action against Reginald and his dad (Marvin Hill) for
action was filed against Fontanilla, and he was convicted. damages based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Hill argued that the
civil action is barred by his son’s acquittal in the criminal case; and
The court in the criminal case granted the petition to reserve the that if ever, his civil liability as a parent has been extinguished by the
civil action. Garcia and Almario, parents of the deceased, on March fact that his son is already an emancipated minor by reason of his
7, 1939, filed a civil action against Barredo, the proprietor of the marriage.
Malate Taxicab and employer of Fontanilla, making him primarily
and directly responsible under culpa acquiliana of Article 2180 of the ISSUE: Whether or not Marvin Hill may be held civilly liable under
Civil Code of the Philippines. Article 2180.

It is undisputed that Fontanilla’s negligence was the cause of the HELD: Yes. The acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case does not
accident, as he was driving on the wrong side of the road at high bar the filing of a separate civil action. A separate civil action lies
speed, and there was no showing that Barredo exercised the against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally
diligence of a good father of a family, a defense to Article 2180 of prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the
the said Code. Barredo’s theory of defense is that Fontanilla’s offended party is not allowed, if accused is actually charged also
negligence being punished by the Revised Penal Code, his liability as criminally, to recover damages on both scores, and would be
employer is only subsidiary, but Fontanilla, was not sued for civil entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two,
liability. Hence, Barredo claims that he cannot be held liable. assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. In other words,
the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule
ISSUE: Whether or not Barredo is just subsidiarily liable. 111, refers exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the
Revised Penal Code, whereas the civil liability for the same act
HELD: No. He is primarily liable under Article 1903 which is a considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not
separate civil action against negligent employers. Garcia is well extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the
within his rights in suing Barredo. He reserved his right to file a criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed
separate civil action and this is more expeditious because by the by the accused. Briefly stated, culpa aquiliana includes voluntary
time of the SC judgment Fontanilla is already serving his sentence and negligent acts which may be punishable by law.
and has no property. It was also proven that Barredo is negligent in
hiring his employees because it was shown that Fontanilla had had While it is true that parental authority is terminated upon
multiple traffic infractions already before he hired him – something emancipation of the child (Article 327, Civil Code), and under Article
he failed to overcome during hearing. Had Garcia not reserved his 397, emancipation takes place “by the marriage of the minor child”,
right to file a separate civil action, Barredo would have only been it is, however, also clear that pursuant to Article 399, emancipation
subsidiarily liable. Further, Barredo is not being sued for damages by marriage of the minor is not really full or absolute. Thus
arising from a criminal act (his driver’s negligence) but rather for his “Emancipation by marriage or by voluntary concession shall
own negligence in selecting his employee (Article 1903). terminate parental authority over the child’s person. It shall enable
the minor to administer his property as though he were of age, but
Quasi-delict or culpa acquiliana is a separate legal institution under he cannot borrow money or alienate or encumber real property
the Civil Code of the Philippines is entirely distinct and independent without the consent of his father or mother, or guardian. He can sue
from a delict or crime under the Revised Penal Code. In this and be sued in court only with the assistance of his father, mother
jurisdiction, the same negligent act causing damage may produce or guardian.” Therefore, Article 2180 is applicable to Marvin Hill –
civil liability (subsidiary) arising from a crime under Article 103 of the the SC however ruled since at the time of the decision, Reginald is
Revised Penal Code of the Philippines; or create an action for quasi- already of age, Marvin’s liability should be subsidiary only – as a
delicto or culpa aquiliana under Articles 2179 and 2180 of the Civil matter of equity.
Code and the parties are free to choose which course to take.
EQUITABLE LEASING CORP VS SUYOM
And in the instant case, the negligent act of Fontanilla produces two
(2) liabilities of Barredo: First, a subsidiary one because of the civil Facts:
liability of Fontanilla arising from the latter’s criminal negligence On July 17, 1994, a Fuso Road Tractor driven by Raul Tutor rammed
under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, and second, Barredo’s into the house cum store of Myrna Tamayo in Tondo, Manila. A
primary and direct responsibility arising from his presumed portion of the house was destroyed which caused death and
negligence as an employer under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. injury. Tutor was charged with and later convicted of reckless
Since the plaintiffs are free to choose what remedy to take, they imprudence resulting in multiple homicide and multiple physical
preferred the second, which is within their rights. This is the more injuries.
expedious and effective method of relief because Fontanilla was
either in prison or just been released or had no property. Barredo Upon verification with the Land Transportation Office, it was known
was held liable for damages. that the registered owner of the tractor was Equitable Leasing
Corporation/leased to Edwin Lim. On April 15, 1995, respondents
ELCANO VS HILL filed against Raul Tutor, Ecatine Corporation (Ecatine) and Equitable
Leasing Corporation (Equitable) a Complaint for damages.
FACTS: Reginald Hill, a minor, caused the death of Agapito (son of
The petitioner alleged that the vehicle had already been sold to
Elcano). Elcano filed a criminal case against Reginald but Reginald
Ecatine and that the former was no longer in possession and control
was acquitted for “lack of intent coupled with mistake.” Elcano then
10
thereof at the time of the incident. It also claimed that Tutor was an case. On April 19, 2005 Lim filed a complaint for specific
employee, not of Equitable, but of Ecatine. performance and damages before the RTC.

Issue: ISSUE: Whether or not there is no forum shopping for a private


Whether or not the petitioner was liable for damages based on quasi complainant to pursue a civil complaint for specific performance and
delict for the negligent acts. damages while appealing the judgment on the civil aspect of a
criminal case for estafa?
Held:
The Lease Agreement between petitioner and Edwin Lim HELD: A single act or omission that cause damage to an offended
stipulated that it is the intention of the parties to enter into a party may gave rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the
finance lease agreement. Ownership of the subject tractor was to be offender –(1)civil liability ex delicto, that is, civil liability arising from
registered in the name of petitioner, until the value of the vehicle the criminal offense under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code and
has been fully paid by Edwin Lim. (2) independent civil liability, that is civil liability that may be
pursued independently of the criminal proceedings. The
Lim completed the payments to cover the full price of the independent civil liability may be based on “an obligation not arising
tractor. Thus, a Deed of Sale over the tractor was executed by from the act or omission complained of as felony”. It may also be
petitioner in favor of Ecatine represented by Edwin Lim. However, based on an act or omission that may constitute felony but,
the Deed was not registered with the LTO. nevertheless, treated independently from the criminal action by
specific provision of the Article 33 of the Civil Code. Because of the
Petitioner is liable for the deaths and the injuries complained of, distinct and independent nature of the two kinds of civil liabilities,
because it was the registered owner of the tractor at the time of the jurisprudence holds that the offended party may pursue two types
accident.The Court has consistently ruled that, regardless of sales of civil liabilities simultaneously or cumulatively, without offending
made of a motor vehicle, the registered owner is the lawful operator the rules on forum shopping, litis pendentia or res judicata. The
insofar as the public and third persons are concerned. criminal cases of estafa are based on culpa criminal while the civil
action for collection is anchored on culpa contractual. The first
Since Equitable remained the registered owner of the tractor, it action is clearly a civil action ex delicto, it having been instituted
could not escape primary liability for the deaths and the injuries together with criminal action. On the other hand, the second action,
arising from the negligence of the driver. judging by the allegations contained in the complaint, is a civil action
arising from contractual obligation and fortuitous conduct. The Civil
LIM VS PING Case involves only the obligation arising from contract and from tort,
whereas the appeal in the estafa case involves only the civil
obligations of Co arising from the offense charged.
Principle: A single act or omission that cause damage to an offended
party may gave rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the
offender –(1)civil liability ex delicto, that is, civil liability arising from PICART VS SMITH
the criminal offense under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code and
(2) independent civil liability, that is civil liability that may be FACTS: On the Carlatan Bridge in La Union. Picart was riding on his
pursued independently of the criminal proceedings. The pony over said bridge. Before he had gotten half way across, Smith
independent civil liability may be based on “an obligation not arising approached from the opposite direction in an automobile. As the
from the act or omission complained of as felony”. It may also be defendant neared the bridge he saw a horseman on it and blew his
based on an act or omission that may constitute felony but, horn to give warning of his approach. He continued his course and
nevertheless, treated independently from the criminal action by after he had taken the bridge he gave two more successive blasts, as
specific provision of the Article 33 of the Civil Code. it appeared to him that the man on horseback before him was not
observing the rule of the road.
FACTS: FR Cement Corporation issued several withdrawal authorities
for the account of cement dealers and traders, Fil-Cement and Tiger Picart saw the automobile coming and heard the warning signals.
bilt. Each withdrawal authority contained provision that it is valid for However, being perturbed by the novelty of the apparition or the
six months from its date of issuance, unless revoked by FRCC rapidity of the approach, he pulled the pony closely up against the
Marketing Department .Filcement and Tigerbilt sold their railing on the right side of the bridge instead of going to the left. He
withdrawal authorities to Co. On February Co then sold these says that the reason he did this was that he thought he did not have
withdrawal authorities to Lim. Using the withdrawal authorities Lim sufficient time to get over to the other side. As the automobile
withdrew cement bags from FRCC on a staggered basis. Sometime in approached, Smith guided it toward his left, that being the proper
April 1999, FRCC did not allow Lim to withdraw the remaining bags side of the road for the machine. In so doing the defendant assumed
covered by the withdrawal authorities. Lim clarified the matter with that the horseman would move to the other side.
Co and administrative manager of Fil-Cement, who explained that
the plant implemented a price increase and would only release the
Seeing that the pony was apparently quiet, the defendant, instead of
goods once Lim pays the price difference or agrees to receive lesser
veering to the right while yet some distance away or slowing down,
quantity of cement. Lim filed case of Estafa through
continued to approach directly toward the horse without diminution
Misappropriation or Conversion against Co. The Regional Trial Court
of speed.
acquitted Co. After the trial on the civil aspect of the criminal case
the court also found Co not civilly liable. Lim sought a
reconsideration which the regional trial Court denied. On March 14, When he had gotten quite near, there being then no possibility of
2005 Lim filed her notice of appeal on the civil aspect of the criminal the horse getting across to the other side, the defendant quickly

11
turned his car sufficiently to the right to escape hitting the horse; chance to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable
but in so doing the automobile passed in such close proximity to the with the consequences, without reference to the prior negligence of
animal that it became frightened and turned its body across the the other party.
bridge, got hit by the car and the limb was broken. The horse fell and
its rider was thrown off with some violenceAs a result of its injuries PRECIOLITA V. CORLISS vs. THE MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY
the horse died. The plaintiff received contusions which caused
temporary unconsciousness and required medical attention for
FACTS: Ralph Corliss Jr. was an air police of the Clark Air Force Base.
several days.
The jeep he was driving while accompanied with a P.C. soldier,
collided with a locomotive of Manila Railroad Company (MRC) close
From a judgment of the CFI of La Union absolving Smith from liability to midnight at the railroad crossing in Balibago, Angeles, Pampanga,
Picart has appealed. in front of the Clark Air Force Base. Corliss Jr. died of serious burns at
the hospital the next day, while the soldier sustained serious
ISSUE: WON Smith was guilty of negligence such as gives rise to a physical injuries and burns.
civil obligation to repair the damage done
In the decision appealed from, the lower court, after summarizing
HELD: the judgment of the lower court must be reversed, and the evidence, concluded that the deceased “in his eagerness to beat,
judgment is here rendered that the Picart recover of Smith damages so to speak, the oncoming locomotive, took the risk and attempted
to reach the other side, but unfortunately he became the victim of
The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a his own miscalculation.
particular case may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing
the alleged negligent act use that person would have used in the The negligence imputed to MRC was thus ruled out by the lower
same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The existence court, satisfactory proof to that effect, in its opinion, being lacking.
of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the Hence this appeal direct to us, the amount sought in the concept of
personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The law damages reaching the sum of P282,065.40.
considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the
man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability ISSUE: WON the lower court’s decision is erroneous
by that. The question as to what would constitute the conduct of a
prudent man in a given situation must of course be always
HELD: The decision of the lower court dismissing the complaint, is
determined in the light of human experience and in view of the facts
affirmed.
involved in the particular case.

The lower court judgment has in its favor the presumption of


Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration, foresee harm
correctness. It is entitled to great respect. In the absence of
as a result of the course actually pursued? If so, it was the duty of
compelling reasons, [the factual] determination is best left to the
the actor to take precautions to guard against that harm.
trial judge why had the advantage of hearing the parties testify and
Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by ignoring of the
observing their demeanor on the witness stand.”
suggestion born of this prevision, is always necessary before
negligence can be held to exist. Stated in these terms, the proper
criterion for determining the existence of negligence in a given case But more importantly, this action is predicated on negligence, the
is this: Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the Civil Code making clear that whoever by act or omission causes
position of the tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect damage to another, there being negligence, is under obligation to
harmful to another was sufficiently probable to warrant his pay for the damage done. Unless it could be satisfactorily shown,
foregoing conduct or guarding against its consequences. therefore, that MRC was guilty of negligence then it could not be
held liable. The crucial question, therefore, is the existence of
negligence.
Applying this test to the conduct of the defendant in the present
case we think that negligence is clearly established. A prudent man,
placed in the position of the defendant, would in our opinion, have Negligence was defined by us in two 1912 decisions, United States v.
recognized that the course which he was pursuing was fraught with Juanillo and United States v. Barias. Cooley’ formulation was quoted
risk, and would therefore have foreseen harm to the horse and the with approval in both the Juanillo and Barias decisions. Thus: “Judge
rider as reasonable consequence of that course. Under these Cooley in his work on Torts (3d ed.), Sec. 1324, defines negligence to
circumstances the law imposed on the Smith the duty to guard be:
against the threatened harm.
“The failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another
It goes without saying that the plaintiff himself was not free from person that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the
fault, for he was guilty of antecedent negligence in planting himself circumstance justly demand whereby such other person suffers
on the wrong side of the road. But as we have already stated, Smith injury.”
was also negligent; and in such case the problem always is to
discover which agent is immediately and directly responsible. It will There was likewise a reliance on Ahern v. Oregon Telephone Co.
be noted that the negligent acts of the two parties were not Thus: ”
contemporaneous, since the negligence of the defendant succeeded
the negligence of the plaintiff by an appreciable interval. Under
these circumstances the law is that the person who has the last fair
12
“Negligence is want of the care required by the circumstances. It is a Negligence has been defined as the failure to observe for the
relative or comparative, not an absolute term and its application protection of the interests of another person that degree of care,
depends upon the situation of the parties and the degree of care precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand,
and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably require. Where whereby such other person suffers injury.
the danger is great, a high degree of care is necessary, and the The elements of simple negligence:(1) that there is lack of
failure to observe it is a want of ordinary care under the precaution on the part of the offender; and(2) that the damage
circumstances.” impending to be caused is not immediate or the danger is not clearly
manifest. The standard test in determining whether a person is
To repeat, by such a test, no negligence could be imputed to MRC negligent in doing an act whereby injury or damage results to the
and the action of Corliss must necessarily fail. The facts being what person or property of another is this: could a prudent man, in the
they are, compel the conclusion that the liability sought to be position of the person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee
fastened on MRC had not arisen. harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the
course actually pursued?
If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to refrain from that course
Finally, each and every case on questions of negligence is to be
or to take precautions to guard against its mischievous results, and
decided in accordance with the peculiar circumstances that present
the failure to do so constitutes negligence. Reasonable foresight of
themselves. There can be no hard and fast rule. There must be that
harm, followed by the ignoring of the admonition born of this
observance of that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which
provision, is always necessary before negligence can be held to exist.
the situation demands.

Norman Gaid vs People of the Philippines PACIS v MORALES


(Simple Negligence) Topic: Owners and managers of establishments and enterprises

FACTS: Norman Gaid was charged with reckless imprudence DOCTRINE: A higher degree of care is required of someone who has
resulting to homicide driving a passenger jeep and running over and in his possession or under his control an instrumentality extremely
killing MichaelDayata. dangerous in character, such as dangerous weapons or substances.
Gaid was driving his jeep along a 2-lane road near theLaguindingan Such person in possession or control of dangerous instrumentalities
National HS, and students were coming out of it. Dayata was siting has the duty to take exceptional precautions to prevent any injury
near a store on the left side of the road, and hailed Gaid’s jeep. being done thereby. Unlike the ordinary affairs of life or business
Neither the driver nor the conductor see anybody hail the jeep. which involve little or no risk, a business dealing with dangerous
Next thing the witness saw, Dayata’s feet were pinned to the rear weapons requires the exercise of a higher degree of care.
wheel of the jeep, lying down on the ground. The first hospital
where he wasrushed was closed; the second pronounced him dead FACTS: Alfredo Pacis and Cleopatra Pacis filed a civil case for
on arrival. damages against Jerome Jovanne Morales. Spouses Paceis are the
parents of Alfred, 17 y.o. who died in a shooting incident inside the
ISSUE: W/N Gaid is liable Top Gun Firearms and Ammunitions Store (gun store) in Baguio City.
Morales is the owner.
HELD:
NOT LIABLE. The prosecution was not able to establish that the Alfred died due to a gunshot wound in the head which he sustained
proximate cause of the victim’s death was petitioner’s alleged while he was at gunstore. The bullet which killed Alfred was fired
negligence. In this case, the courts below zeroed in on the fact that from a gun brought in by a customer of the gun store for repair. The
petitioner did not stop the jeepney when he felt the bouncing of his gun, was left by Morales in a drawer of a table located inside the
vehicle, a circumstance which the appellate court equates with gun store.
negligence. Petitioner contends that he did not immediately stop
because he did not see anybody go near his vehicle at the time of Morales as in Manila at the time. His employee Armando Jarnague,
the incident. In an American case, who was the regular caretaker of the gun store was also not around.
Hernandez v. Lukas, a motorist traveling within thes peed limit and Jarnague entrusted to Matibag and Herbolario a bunch of keys
did all was possible to avoid striking a child who was then six years which included the key to the drawer where the gun was kept. It
old only. The place of the incident was a neighborhood where appears that Matibag and Herbolario later brought out the gun from
children were playing in the parkways on prior occasions. The court the drawer and palced it in top of the table. Attacted by it, Alfred got
ruled that it must be still proven that the driver did not exercise due hold of it. Matibag asked Alfred to return the gun. Alfred followed
care. The evidence showed that the driver was proceeding in lawful but it went off the bullet hitting Alfred.
manner within the speed limit when the child ran into the street and
was struck by the driver’s vehicle. Clearly, this was an emergency The trial court held Morales civilly liable for the death of Alftred
situation thrust upon the driver too suddenly to avoid. under A2180 in relation to A2176, ruling that the accidental shooting
of Alfred which caused his death was partyl due to the negligence of
If at all again, petitioner’s failure to render assistance to the victim Morales’ emplyee – Matibag. CA reversed, ruling that there was no
would constitute abandonment of one’s victim punishable under employee-employer relationship because Matibag was not under
Article 275 of the Revised Penal Code. However, the omission is not the control of Morales with respect to the means and methods in
covered by the information. Thus, to hold petitioner criminally liable the performance of his worK, thus A2180 cannot apply. And even if
under the provision would be tantamount to a denial of due process Matibag was an employee, Morales still cannot be held civilly liable
simple negligence. because there is no negligence can be attributed to Morales because
he kept the gun.
13
Article 100 of the RPC or they may opt to file an independent civil
ISSUE: WON Morales is civilly liable? action for damages under the Civil Code.

RULING: YES. Respondent was clearly negligent when he accepted In this case, instead of enforcing their claim for damages in the
the gun for repair and placed it inside the drawer without ensuring homicide case filed against Matibag, petitioners opted to file an
first that it was not loaded. For failing to insure that the gun was not independent civil action for damages against respondent whom they
loaded, Morales himself was negligent. alleged was Matibag’s employer. Petitioners based their claim for
damages under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code.
Under PNP Circular No. 9, entitled the “Policy on Firearms and DISPOSITIVE: Morales is civilly liable to petitioners because he was
Ammunition Dealership/Repair,” a person who is in the business of negligent.
purchasing and selling of firearms and ammunition must maintain
basic security and safety requirements of a gun dealer, otherwise his Civil Aeronautics Administration v. Court of Appeals
License to Operate Dealership will be suspended or canceled.
FACTS: Ernest E. Simke, a naturalized Filipino citizen, was Honorary
As a gun store owner, Morales is presumed to be knowledgeable Consul General of Israel in the Philippines. He went to Manila
about firearms safety and should have known never to keep a International Airport to meet his future son-in-law. As the plane was
loaded weapon in his store to avoid unreasonable risk of harm or landing, he and his companions went to the viewing deck to watch
injury to others. Morales has the duty to ensure that all the guns in the arrival of the plane. While walking, Simke slipped on an
his store are not loaded. Firearms should be stored unloaded and elevation 4 inches high and fell on his back, breaking his thigh bone
separate from ammunition when the firearms are not needed for in the process. He underwent a 3-hour operation and after recovery
ready access defensive use. he filed a claim for damages against the Civil Aeronautics
Administration (CAA), which was the government entity in charge of
In the first place, the defective gun should have been stored in a the airport.
vault. Before accepting the defective gun for repair, Morales should
have made sure that it was not loaded to prevent any untoward ISSUE: Whether or not CAA was negligent
accident. Indeed, Morales should never accept a firearm from
another person, until the cylinder or action is open and he has
HELD:
personally checked that the weapon is completely unloaded
CAA contended that the elevation in question "had a legitimate
purpose for being on the terrace and was never intended to trip
Clearly, Morales did not exercise the degree of care and diligence
down people and injure them. It was there for no other purpose but
required of a good father of a family, much less the The bullet which
to drain water on the floor area of the terrace."
killed Alfred was fired from a gun brought in by a customer of the
gun store for repair.
But upon ocular inspection by the trial court, it was found that the
terrace was in poor condition. Under RA 776, the CAA is charged
This case for damages arose out of the accidental shooting of with the duty of planning, designing, constructing, equipping,
petitioners’ son. Under Article 1161 of the Civil Code, petitioners expanding, maintenance...etc. of the Manila International Airport.
may enforce their claim for damages based on the civil liability
arising from the crime under Article 100 of the RPC or they may opt Responsibility of CAA
to file an independent civil action for damages under the Civil Code.
In this case, instead of enforcing their claim for damages in the
The SC held that pursuant to Art. 1173, "the fault or negligence of
homicide case filed against Matibag, petitioners opted to file an
the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is
independent civil action for damages against respondent whom they
required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the
alleged was Matibag’s employer. Petitioners based their claim for
circumstances of the person, of the time, and of the place." Here,
damages under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code.
the obligation of the CAA in maintaining the viewing deck, a facility
open to the public, requires that CAA insure the safety of the
viewers using it. As these people come to look to where the planes
Unlike the subsidiary liability of the employer under Article 103 of and the incoming passengers are and not to look down on the floor
the RPC, the liability of the employer, or any person for that matter, or pavement of the viewing deck, the CAA should have thus made
under Article 2176 of the Civil Code is primary and direct, based on a sure that no dangerous obstructions or elevations exist on the floor
person’s own negligence. Article 2176 states: of the deck to prevent any undue harm to the public.

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, Contributory Negligence
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual Under Art. 2179, contributory negligence contemplates a negligent
relation between the parties, is called quasi-delict and is governed act or omission on the part of the plaintiff, which although not the
by the provisions of this Chapter. proximate cause of his injury, CONTRIBUTED to his own damage. The
Court found no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff,
Choice of claim of petitioners considering the following test formulated in the early case of Picart
This case for damages arouse out of the accidental shoting of Alfred. v. Smith, 37 Phil. 809 (1918):
Under A1161 of the Civil Code petitioners may enforce their claim
for damages based on the civil liability arising from the crime under

14
The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a several documents which were all kept in Norway. The documents
particular case may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing had been authenticated by the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign
the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which Affairs and also bore the official seal of the Ministry and signature of
an ordinarily prudent man would have used in the same situation? If one, Tanja Sorlie. The documents were also accompanied by an
not, then he is guilty of negligence. The law here in effect adopts the Authentication by the Consul, Embassy of the Republic of the
standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the Philippines in Stockholm, Sweden to the effect that, Tanja Sorlie was
discreet paterfamilias of the Roman law. The existence of the duly authorized to legalize official documents for the Ministry.
negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the
personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The law The RTC ruled in favor of Christian Harpers heirs and found the hotel
considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the negligent. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC.
man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability
by that. Issue:
Whether or not Makati Shangri-La Hotel is liable to pay damages?
The question as to what would constitute the conduct of a prudent
man in a given situation must of course be always determined in the
light of human experience and in view of the facts involved in the Held: Petitioner was liable due to its own negligence.
particular case. Abstract speculations cannot be here of much value
but this much can be profitably said: Reasonable men-overn their Makati Shangri-La Hotel, to stress, is a five-star hotel. The
conduct by the circumstances which are before them or known to "reasonable care" that it must exercise for the safety and comfort of
them. They are not, and are not supposed to be omniscient of the its guests should be commensurate with the grade and quality of the
future. Hence they can be expected to take care only when there is accommodation it offers. If there is such a thing as "five-star hotel
something before them to suggest or warn of danger. Could a security", the guests at Makati Shangri-La surely deserves just that.
prudent man, in the case under consideration, foresee harm as a When one registers (as) a guest of a hotel, he makes the
result of the course actually pursued' If so, it was the duty of the establishment the guardian of his life and his personal belongings
actor to take precautions to guard against that harm. Reasonable during his stay. It is a standard procedure of the management of the
foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the suggestion born of hotel to screen visitors who call on their guests at their rooms. The
this prevision, is always necessary before negligence can be held to murder of Harper could have been avoided had the security guards
exist.... [Picart v. Smith, supra, p. 813] of the Shangri-La Hotel in Makati dutifully observed this standard
procedure."
The private respondent, who was the plaintiff in the case before the
lower court, could not have reasonably foreseen the harm that It could be gleaned from findings of the trial court that its conclusion
would befall him, considering the attendant factual circumstances. of negligence on the part of defendant-appellant is grounded mainly
Even if the private respondent had been looking where he was on the latter's inadequate hotel security, more particularly on the
going, the step in question could not easily be noticed because of its failure to deploy sufficient security personnel or roving guards at the
construction. time the ghastly incident happened.

"WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error, the Petition for review on A review of the testimony of Col. De Guzman reveals that on direct
certiorari is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA- examination he testified that at the time he assumed his position as
G.R. No. 51172-R is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED." Chief Security Officer of defendant-appellant, during the early part
of 1999 to the early part of 2000, he noticed that some of the floors
of the hotel were being guarded by a few guards, for instance, 3 or 4
MAKATI SHANGRI-LA VS HARPER floors by one guard only on a roving manner. He then made a
recommendation that the ideal-set up for an effective security
FACTS: In the first week of November 1999, Christian Harper should be one guard for every floor, considering that the hotel is L-
(Harper) came to Manila on a business trip. He checked in at the shaped and the ends of the hallways cannot be seen. At the time he
Makati Shangri-La Hotel and was billeted at Room 1428. He was due made the recommendation, the same was denied, but it was later
to check out on November 6, 1999. In the early morning of that on considered and approved on December 1999 because of the
date, however, he was murdered inside his hotel room by still Centennial Celebration.
unidentified malefactors.
It could be inferred from the foregoing declarations of the former
Thus, the heirs of Christian Harper sued the hotel for damages. Col. Chief Security Officer of defendant-appellant that the latter was
Rodrigo de Guzman, the hotels Security Manager, testified that the negligent in providing adequate security due its guests. With
management practice prior to the murder of Harper had been to confidence, it was repeatedly claimed by defendant-appellant that it
deploy only one security or roving guard for every three or four is a five-star hotel. Unfortunately, the record failed to show that at
floors of the building; that such ratio had not been enough the time of the death of Christian Harper, it was exercising
considering the L-shape configuration of the hotel that rendered the reasonable care to protect its guests from harm and danger by
hallways not visible from one or the other end; and that he had providing sufficient security commensurate to it being one of the
recommended to management to post a guard for each floor, but finest hotels in the country. In so concluding, WE are reminded of
his recommendation had been disapproved because the hotel "was the Supreme Court's enunciation that the hotel business like the
not doing well" at that particular time. common carrier's business is imbued with public interest. Catering
to the public, hotelkeepers are bound to provide not only lodging for
And to prove heirship of the plaintiffs-appellees, they presented

15
hotel guests but also security to their persons and belongings. The vehicle occupied a substantial portion of the national road on the
twin duty constitutes the essence of the business. lane of the passenger bus. It is common sense that the skewed
parking of the prime mover on the national road posed a serious risk
DY TEBAN TRADING, INC., v. JOSE CHING to oncoming motorists. It was incumbent upon the driver to take
some measures to prevent that risk, or at least minimize it.
FACTS: A Nissan van owned by petitioner Dy Teban Trading, Inc. was
traversing along the National Highway in Butuan City, going to b. The skewed parking of the prime mover was the proximate
Surigao City. A Joana Paula passenger bus was cruising on the cause of the collision.
opposite lane towards the van.
Proximate cause is defined as that cause, which, in natural and
In between the two vehicles was a parked prime mover continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause,
with a trailer, owned by private respondent Liberty Forest, Inc. The produces the injury, and without which the result would not have
parked prime mover suffered a tire blowout the night before, so its occurred. More comprehensively, proximate cause is that cause
driver parked the vehicle askew occupying a substantial portion of acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by
the national highway. However, the parked prime mover was not setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and
equipped with triangular, collapsible reflectorized plates as required continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection
by the law, instead a banana trunk was placed as substitute. with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain
immediately effecting the injury as natural and probable result of
To avoid hitting the parked prime mover occupying its the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the
lane, the incoming bus swerved to the right, onto the lane of the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinarily
approaching Nissan van. When the Nissan van driver saw this, he prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at
swerved to the left to avoid the oncoming bus but the van instead the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person
hit the front of the stationary prime mover. The passenger bus hit might probably result therefrom.
the rear of the prime mover.
Petitioner Nissan van owner filed a complaint for damages against Plaintiff must, establish a sufficient link between the act or
private respondents prime mover owner and driver. omission and the damage or injury. That link must not be remote or
far-fetched; otherwise, no liability will attach. The damage or injury
ISSUE: must be a natural and probable result of the act or omission.
1. Whether or not the prime mover is liable for the damages
suffered by the Nissan van YES Private respondents Liberty Forest, Inc. and Limbaga are liable for all
a. Whether or not prime mover driver was damages that resulted from the skewed parking of the prime mover.
negligent in parking the vehicle YES Their liability includes those damages resulting from precautionary
b. Whether or not his negligence was the measures taken by other motorist in trying to avoid collision with
proximate cause of the damage to the Nissan the parked prime mover. The skewed parking is the proximate cause
van YES of the damage to the Nissan van.

HELD:
ASSOCIATED BANK (Now WESTMONT BANK) vs TAN
Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides that whoever by act
or omission causes damage to another, there being fault
FACTS: Respondent Tan is a businessman and a regular depositor-
or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such
creditor of the petitioner, Associated Bank. Sometime in September
fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
1990, he deposited a postdated check with the petitioner in the
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict.
amount of P101,000 issued to him by a certain Willy Cheng from
Tarlac.
Requisites to claim based on quasi-delict:
(a) damage suffered by plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of defendant;
The check was duly entered in his bank record. Allegedly, upon
and (c) connection of cause and effect between the fault or
advice and instruction of petitioner that theP101,000 check was
negligence of defendant and the damage incurred by plaintiff.
already cleared and backed up by sufficient funds, respondent, on
the same date, withdrew the sum of P240,000 from his account
a. Prime mover driver was negligent in parking the prime
leaving a balance of P57,793.45. A day after, TAN deposited the
mover on the national highway; he failed to prevent or
amount of P50,000 making his existing balance in the amount
minimize the risk to oncoming motorists.
of P107,793.45, because he has issued sever al checks to
his business partners. However, his suppliers and
Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of
business partners went back to him alleging that the
the interests of another person that degree of care, precaution, and
checks he issued bounced for insufficiency of funds.
vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such
other person suffers injury. The test by which to determine the
Thereafter, respondent informed petitioner to take
existence or negligence in a particular case may be stated as follows:
positive steps regarding the matte r for he has adequate
Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that
and sufficient funds to pay the amount of the subject
reasonable care and caution which an ordinary person would have
checks. Nonetheless, petitioner did not bother nor offer any apology
used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.
regarding the incident. Respondent Tan filed a Complaint for
Damages on December 19, 1990, with the RTC against
We find that the prime mover driver was negligent in parking the
petitioner. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of
prime mover askew on the right side of the national highway. The
16
respondent and ordered petitioner to pay damages and attorney’s purchaser of property which has been s t o l e n f r o m t h e
fees. owner has been held to acquire no title to it
Appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision. CA e v e n t h o u g h h e purchased for value and in good faith. In this
ruled that the bank should not have authorized the case, it is clear that Bacsa was not the owner of the diesel fuel.
withdrawal of the value of the deposited check prior to Francisco was aware of this but he claimed that Bacsa was
its clearing. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review before the authorized by CBCI to sell the diesel fuel. However,
Supreme Court. Francisco’s claim that Bacsa was authorized is not supported by any
evidence except his self-serving testimony.
ISSUE:
W/N petitioner has the right to debit the amount of the dishonored First, Francisco did not even confirm with CBCI if it was indeed
check from the account of respondent on the ground that the check selling its diesel fuel since it is not one of the oil
was withdrawn by respondent prior to its clearing companies known in the market to be selling petroleum products.
This fact alone should have put Francisco on guard.
HELD: Second, it does not appear that CBCI, by some direct and equivocal
The Petition has no merit. act, has clothed Bacsa with the indicia of ownership or apparent
The real issue here is not so much the right of petitioner authority to sell CBCIs diesel fuel. Francisco did not state if the
to debit respondent’s account but, rather, the manner in identification card presented by Bacsa indicated that he was CBCIs
which it exercised such right. Banks are granted by law agent or a mere employee.
the right to debit the value of a dishonored check from a Third, the receipt issued by Bacsa was typewritten on a half sheet of
depositor’s account but they must do so with the highest degree of plain bond paper. !here was no letterhead or any indication
care, so as not to prejudice the depositor unduly. The degree of that it came from CBCI. We agree with the Court
diligence required of banks is more than that of a good father of a of Appeals that this was a personal receipt issued by Bacsa and not
family where the fiduciary nature of their relationship with their an official receipt i s s u e d b y C B C I .
depositors is concerned. In this case, petitioner did not treat
respondent’s account with the highest degree of care. Respondent Consequently, CBCI is not precluded
withdrew his money upon the advice of petitioner that his money b y i t s c o n d u c t f r o m denying Bacsa’s authority
was already cleared. It is petitioner’s premature authorization to sell. CBCI did not hold out Bacsa or allow Bacsa to
of the withdrawal that caused the respondent’s account appear as the owner or one with apparent authority to dispose of
balance the diesel fuel.
The degree of diligence required of banks is more than that of a
good father of the family where the fiduciary nature of their PHIL HAWK CORP V. VIVIAN TAN LEE
relationship with their depositors is concerned.
FACTS: On March 15, 2005, respondent Vivian Tan Lee filed a case
Did petitioner treat respondent’s account with the highest degree of for Damages based on QD arising from vehicular accident between a
care? From all indications, it did not. motorcycle and bus of Phil Hawk. The accident resulted in the death
It is undisputed – nay, even admitted – that purportedly as an act of of respondent’s husband, Silvino Tan, and caused respondent
accommodation to a valued client, the petitioner allowed the physical injuries. Before the answer, respondent filed an amended
withdrawal of the face value of the deposited check prior to its complaint, adding additional damages and reliefs.
clearing. That act certainly disregarded the clearance requirement of The trial court held petitioner bus company liable for
the banking system. Such a practice is unusual, because a check is failing to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the
not legal tender or money; and its value can properly be transferred selection and supervision of Avila, having failed to sufficiently
to depositor’s account only after the check has been cleared by the inculcate in him discipline and correct behavior on the road.
drawee bank.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of
FRANCISCO VS CHEMICAL BULK CARRIERS the trial court with modification in the award of damages.
FACTS:
Francisco bought diesel fuel from a certain Bacsa who ISSUES:
allegedly was the ag ent of Chemical Bulk Carriers. Deliveries
were then made. Later on, Chemical Bulk Carriers wrote a (1) Whether or not negligence may be attributed to petitioner’s
demand letter to Francisco demanding the latter driver, and whether negligence on his part was the proximate cause
payment for the diesel fuels it delivered. Francisco refused to of the accident, resulting in the death of Silvino Tan and causing
pay alleging that it already paid to Bacsa as e v i d e n c e d b y physical injuries to respondent;
the invoice issued by CBCI and a receipt
w i t h n o l e t t e r h e a d whatsoever issued by Bacsa to him. (2) Whether or not petitioner is liable to respondent for damages;
and
ISSUE:
(3) Whether or not the damages awarded by respondent Court of
Whether or not CBCI gave Bacsa the authority to sell its
Appeals are proper.
fuel thus precluding the former from denying the transactions
made by the latter.
HELD: In this case, the bus driver, who was driving on the right side
of the road, already saw the motorcycle on the left side of the road
HELD:
before the collision. However, he did not take the necessary
The owner of the goods who has been unlawfully deprived of it may
precaution to slow down, but drove on and bumped the motorcycle,
recover it even from a purchaser in good faith. Thus, the
17
and also the passenger jeep parked on the left side of the road, respondent in addition to the damages granted by the trial court to
showing that the bus was negligent in veering to the left lane, respondent. The trial court overlooked awarding the additional
causing it to hit the motorcycle and the passenger jeep. damages, which were prayed for by respondent in her Amended
Complaint. The appellate court is clothed with ample authority to
Whenever an employee’s negligence causes damage or review matters, even if they are not assigned as errors in the appeal,
injury to another, there instantly arises a presumption that the if it finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just
employer failed to exercise the due diligence of a good father of the decision of the case.
family in the selection or supervision of its employees. To avoid
liability for a quasi-delict committed by his employee, an employer DR. RUBI LI v. SPOUSES REYNALDO and LINA SOLIMAN, as
must overcome the presumption by presenting convincing proof parents/heirs of deceased Angelica Soliman
that he exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family
in the selection and supervision of his employee. FACTS: On July 7, 1993, respondents 11-year old daughter,
Angelica Soliman, underwent a biopsy of the mass located in her
The Court upholds the finding of the trial court and the lower extremity at the St. Lukes Medical Center (SLMC).Results
Court of Appeals that petitioner is liable to respondent, since it showed that Angelica was suffering from osteosarcoma ,osteoblastic
failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the type,a high-grade (highly malignant) cancer of the bone which
selection and supervision of its bus driver, Margarito Avila, for usually afflicts teenage children. Following this diagnosis and as
having failed to sufficiently inculcate in him discipline and correct primary intervention, Angelicas right leg was amputated by Dr.
behavior on the road. Indeed, petitioner’s tests were concentrated Jaime Tamayo in order to remove the tumor. As adjuvant treatment
on the ability to drive and physical fitness to do so. It also did not to eliminate any remaining cancer cells, and hence minimize the
know that Avila had been previously involved in sideswiping chances of recurrence and prevent the disease from spreading to
incidents. other parts of the patients body (metastasis), chemotherapy was
suggested by Dr. Tamayo. Dr. Tamayo referred Angelica to another
The indemnity for loss of earning capacity of the deceased doctor at SLMC, herein petitioner Dr. Rubi Li, a medical oncologist.
is provided for by Article 2206 of the Civil Code. Compensation of
this nature is awarded not for loss of earnings, but for loss of On August 18, 1993, Angelica was admitted to SLMC. However, she
capacity to earn money.As a rule, documentary evidence should be died on September 1, 1993, just eleven (11) days after the
presented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning (intravenous) administration of the first cycle of the chemotherapy
capacity. By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity regimen. Because SLMC refused to release a death certificate
may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence without full payment of their hospital bill, respondents brought the
when: (1) the deceased is self-employed and earning less than the cadaver of Angelica to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime
minimum wage under current labor laws, in which case, judicial Laboratory at Camp Crame for post-mortem examination. The
notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line of work Medico-Legal Report issued by said institution indicated the cause of
no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is death as "Hypovolemic shock secondary to multiple organ
employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum hemorrhages and Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation."
wage under current labor laws.
On February 21, 1994, respondents filed a damage suit against
In this case, the records show that respondent’s husband petitioner, Dr. Leo Marbella, Mr. Jose Ledesma, a certain Dr. Arriete
was leasing and operating a Caltex gasoline station in Gumaca, and SLMC. Respondents charged them with negligence and
Quezon. Respondent testified that her husband earned an annual disregard of Angelicas safety, health and welfare by their careless
income of one million pesos. Respondent presented in evidence a administration of the chemotherapy drugs, their failure to observe
Certificate of Creditable Income Tax Withheld at Source for the Year the essential precautions in detecting early the symptoms of fatal
1990, which showed that respondent’s husband earned a gross blood platelet decrease and stopping early on the chemotherapy,
income of P950,988.43 in 1990. It is reasonable to use the Certificate which bleeding led to hypovolemic shock that caused Angelicas
and respondent’s testimony as bases for fixing the gross annual untimely demise.
income of the deceased at one million pesos before respondent’s
husband died on March 17, 1999. However, no documentary On her part, Dr. Balmaceda declared that it is the physicians duty to
evidence was presented regarding the income derived from their inform and explain to the patient or his relatives every known side
copra business; hence, the testimony of respondent as regards such effect of the procedure or therapeutic agents to be administered,
income cannot be considered. before securing the consent of the patient or his relatives to such
procedure or therapy. The physician thus bases his assurance to the
In the computation of loss of earning capacity, only net patient on his personal assessment of the patients condition and his
earnings, not gross earnings, are to be considered; that is, the total knowledge of the general effects of the agents or procedure that will
of the earnings less expenses necessary for the creation of such be allowed on the patient.Dr. Balmaceda stressed that the patient or
earnings or income, less living and other incidental expenses. In the relatives must be informed of all known side effects based on
absence of documentary evidence, it is reasonable to peg necessary studies and observations, even if such will aggravate the patients
expenses for the lease and operation of the gasoline station at 80 condition.
percent of the gross income, and peg living expenses at 50 percent
of the net income (gross income less necessary expenses). In dismissing the complaint, the trial court held that petitioner was
not liable for damages as she observed the best known procedures
In fine, the Court of Appeals correctly awarded civil and employed her highest skill and knowledge in the administration
indemnity for the death of respondent’s husband, temperate of chemotherapy drugs on Angelica but despite all efforts said
damages, and moral damages for the physical injuries sustained by patient died.
18
CALVO vs. UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO.,INC.
ISSUE: Whether the petitioner can be held liable for failure to fully
disclose serious side effects to the parents of the child patient who FACTS:
died while undergoing chemotherapy, despite the absence of finding
that petitioner was negligent in administering the said treatment  Petitioner Virgines Calvo is the owner of Transorient
Container Terminal Services, Inc. (TCTSI), a sole
HELD: No. There are four essential elements a plaintiff must prove in proprietorship customs broker.
a malpractice action based upon the doctrine of informed consent:  Petitioner entered into a contract with San Miguel
"(1) the physician had a duty to disclose material risks; (2) he failed Corporation (SMC) for the transfer of 114 reels of semi-
to disclose or inadequately disclosed those risks; (3) as a direct and chemical fluting paper and 124 reels of kraft liner board
proximate result of the failure to disclose, the patient consented to from the Port Area in Manila to SMC's warehouse at the
treatment she otherwise would not have consented to; and (4) Tabacalera Compound, Romualdez St., Ermita, Manila. The
plaintiff was injured by the proposed treatment." The gravamen in cargo was insured by respondent UCPB General Insurance
an informed consent case requires the plaintiff to "point to Co., Inc.
significant undisclosed information relating to the treatment which  The shipment arrived in Manila on board "M/V Hayakawa
would have altered her decision to undergo it. Maru" and, after 24 hours, were unloaded from the vessel
to the custody of the arrastre operator, Manila Port
Examining the evidence on record, we hold that there was adequate Services, Inc. From July 23 to July 25, 1990, petitioner
disclosure of material risks inherent in the chemotherapy procedure withdrew the cargo from the arrastre operator and
performed with the consent of Angelicas parents. Respondents delivered it to SMC's warehouse in Ermita, Manila. On July
could not have been unaware in the course of initial treatment and 25, 1990, the goods were inspected by Marine Cargo
amputation of Angelicas lower extremity, that her immune system Surveyors, who found that 15 reels of the semi-chemical
was already weak on account of the malignant tumor in her knee. fluting paper were "wet/stained/torn" and 3 reels of kraft
liner board were likewise torn. The damage was placed
When petitioner informed the respondents beforehand of at P93,112.00.
the side effects of chemotherapy which includes lowered counts of  SMC collected payment from respondent UCPB under its
white and red blood cells, decrease in blood platelets, possible insurance contract. In turn, respondent, as subrogee of
kidney or heart damage and skin darkening, there is reasonable SMC, brought suit against petitioner.
expectation on the part of the doctor that the respondents  Petitioner contends that she is not a common carrier but a
understood very well that the severity of these side effects will not private carrier because, as a customs broker and
be the same for all patients undergoing the procedure. In other warehouseman, she does not indiscriminately hold her
words, by the nature of the disease itself, each patients reaction to services out to the public but only offers the same to
the chemical agents even with pre-treatment laboratory tests select parties with whom she may contract in the conduct
cannot be precisely determined by the physician. of her business.
ISSUE:
That death can possibly result from complications of the
treatment or the underlying cancer itself, immediately or sometime 1) Whether or not Calvo is a common carrier.
after the administration of chemotherapy drugs, is a risk that cannot 2) Whether or not Calvo is liable.
be ruled out, as with most other major medical procedures, but such HELD & RATIO:
conclusion can be reasonably drawn from the general side effects of
chemotherapy already disclosed. 1) YES.
 Applicable Provision:
As a physician, petitioner can reasonably expect the “Article 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations,
respondents to have considered the variables in the recommended firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or
treatment for their daughter afflicted with a life-threatening illness. transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water,
On the other hand, it is difficult to give credence to respondents or air for compensation, offering their services to the
claim that petitioner told them of 95% chance of recovery for their public.”
daughter, as it was unlikely for doctors like petitioner who were
dealing with grave conditions such as cancer to have falsely assured  The abovementioned provision did not make any
patients of chemotherapy’s success rate. Besides, informed consent distinction:
laws in other countries generally require only a reasonable o between one whose principal business activity is
explanation of potential harms, so specific disclosures such as the carrying of persons or goods or both, and
statistical data, may not be legally necessary. one who does such carrying only as
an ancillary activity.
The element of ethical duty to disclose material risks in the o between a person or enterprise offering
proposed medical treatment cannot thus be reduced to one transportation service on aregular or scheduled
simplistic formula applicable in all instances. Further, in a medical basis and one offering such service on
malpractice action based on lack of informed consent, "the plaintiff an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis.
must prove both the duty and the breach of that duty through o between a carrier offering its services to the
expert testimony. Such expert testimony must show the customary "general public," i.e., the general community or
standard of care of physicians in the same practice as that of the population, and one who offers services or
defendant doctor. PETITION DENIED. solicits business only from a narrowsegment of
the general population. We think that Article
19
1732 deliberately refrained from making such
distinctions.
 The concept of "common carrier" under Article 1732 may
be seen to coincide neatly with the notion of "public
service," under the Public Service Act (Commonwealth Act
No. 1416, as amended) which at least partially
supplements the law on common carriers set forth in the
Civil Code.
 There is greater reason for holding petitioner to be a
common carrier because the transportation of goods is an
integral part of her business. To uphold petitioner's
contention would be to deprive those with whom she
contracts the protection which the law affords them
notwithstanding the fact that the obligation to carry goods
for her customers, as already noted, is part and parcel of
petitioner's business.

2) YES.
 Applicable Provision:
“Art. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their
business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to
observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the
goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by
them, according to all the circumstances of each case. . . .”

 Petitioner’s Contention: She denies liability for the


damage to the cargo and claims that the "spoilage or
wettage" took place while the goods were in the custody
of either the carrying vessel "M/V Hayakawa Maru," which
transported the cargo to Manila, or the arrastre operator,
to whom the goods were unloaded and who allegedly kept
them in open air for nine days from July 14 to July 23, 1998
notwithstanding the fact that some of the containers were
deformed, cracked, or otherwise damaged.
 To prove the exercise of extraordinary diligence, petitioner
must do more than merely show the possibility that some
other party could be responsible for the damage. It must
prove that it used "all reasonable means to ascertain the
nature and characteristic of goods tendered for [transport]
and that [it] exercise[d] due care in the handling
[thereof]." Petitioner failed to do this.

 Another contention: She denies liability by invoking Art.


1734 (4) which provides that: “Common carriers are
responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of
the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following
causes only: . . . .
(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or
in the containers.
 For this provision to apply, the rule is that if the improper
packing or, in this case, the defect/s in the container,
is/are known to the carrier or his employees or apparent
upon ordinary observation, but he nevertheless accepts
the same without protest or exception notwithstanding
such condition, he is not relieved of liability for damage
resulting therefrom. In this case, petitioner accepted the
cargo without exception despite the apparent defects in
some of the container vans. Hence, for failure of petitioner
to prove that she exercised extraordinary diligence in the
carriage of goods in this case or that she is exempt from
liability, the presumption of negligence as provided under
Art. 1735 holds.

20

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen