Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Gilchrist vs Cuddy
An appeal by the defendants, Jose Fernandez Espejo and Mariano Zaldarriaga,
from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, dismissing their cross-
complaint upon the merits for damages against the plaintiff for the alleged
wrongful issuance of a mandatory and a preliminary injunction.
Cuddy was the owner of the film Zigomar and that on the 24th of April he rented
it to C. S. Gilchrist for a week for P125, and it was to be delivered on the 26th of
May, the week beginning that day. A few days prior to this Cuddy sent the money
back to Gilchrist, which he had forwarded to him in Manila, saying that he had
made other arrangements with his film. The other arrangements was the rental to
these defendants Espejo and his partner for P350 for the week and the injunction
was asked by Gilchrist against these parties from showing it for the week
beginning the 26th of May.
It appears from the testimony in this case, conclusively, that Cuddy willfully
violated his contract, he being the owner of the picture, with Gilchrist because the
defendants had offered him more for the same period.
Mr. Espejo admitted that he knew that Cuddy was the owner of the film. He was
trying to get it through his agents Pathe Brothers in Manila. He is the agent of the
same concern in Iloilo. the Pathe Brothers in Manila advised this man on two
different occasions not to contend for this film Zigomar because the rental price
was prohibitive and assured him also that he could not get the film for about six
weeks. the agent in Manila could not get it, but he made Cuddy an offer himself
and Cuddy accepted it because he was paying about three times as much as he
had contracted with Gilchrist for.
…
Cuddy, a resident of Manila, was the owner of the "Zigomar;" that Gilchrist was
the owner of a cinematograph theater in Iloilo; that in accordance with the terms
of the contract entered into between Cuddy and Gilchrist the former leased to the
latter the "Zigomar" for exhibition in his (Gilchrist's) theater for the week
beginning May 26, 1913; and that Cuddy willfully violate his contract in order that
he might accept the appellant's offer of P350 for the film for the same period. Did
the appellants know that they were inducing Cuddy to violate his contract with a
third party when they induced him to accept the P350? Espejo admitted that he
knew that Cuddy was the owner of the film. He received a letter from his agents in
Manila dated April 26, assuring him that he could not get the film for about six
weeks. The arrangement between Cuddy and the appellants for the exhibition of
the film by the latter on the 26th of May were perfected after April 26, so that the
six weeks would include and extend beyond May 26. The appellants must
necessarily have known at the time they made their offer to Cuddy that the latter
had booked or contracted the film for six weeks from April 26. Therefore, the
inevitable conclusion is that the appellants knowingly induced Cuddy to violate his
contract with another person. But there is no specific finding that the appellants
knew the identity of the other party. So we must assume that they did not know
that Gilchrist was the person who had contracted for the film.
The appellants take the position that if the preliminary injunction had not been
issued against them they could have exhibited the film in their theater for a
number of days beginning May 26, and could have also subleased it to other
theater owners in the nearby towns and, by so doing, could have cleared, during
the life of their contract with Cuddy, the amount claimed as damages.
The right on the part of Gilchrist to enter into a contract with Cuddy for the lease
of the film must be fully recognized and admitted by all. That Cuddy was liable in
an action for damages for the breach of that contract, there can be no doubt.
Were the appellants likewise liable for interfering with the contract between
Gilchrist and Cuddy, they not knowing at the time the identity of one of the
contracting parties? The appellants claim that they had a right to do what they
did. The ground upon which the appellants base this contention is, that there was
no valid and binding contract between Cuddy and Gilchrist and that, therefore,
they had a right to compete with Gilchrist for the lease of the film, the right to
compete being a justification for their acts. If there had been no contract between
Cuddy and Gilchrist this defense would be tenable, but the mere right to compete
could not justify the appellants in intentionally inducing Cuddy to take away the
appellee's contractual rights.
Chief Justice Wells in Walker vs. Cronin (107 Mass., 555), said: "Everyone has a
right to enjoy the fruits and advantages of his own enterprise, industry, skill and
credit. He has no right to be free from malicious and wanton interference,
disturbance or annoyance. If disturbance or loss come as a result of competition,
or the exercise of like rights by others, it is damnum absque injuria, unless some
superior right by contract or otherwise is interfered with."
It is said that the ground on which the liability of a third party for interfering with
a contract between others rests, is that the interference was malicious.
In the case at bar the only motive for the interference with the Gilchrist — Cuddy
contract on the part of the appellants was a desire to make a profit by exhibiting
the film in their theater. There was no malice beyond this desire; but this fact does
not relieve them of the legal liability for interfering with that contract and causing
its breach. It is, therefore, clear, under the above authorities, that they were liable
to Gilchrist for the damages caused by their acts, unless they are relieved from
such liability by reason of the fact that they did not know at the time the identity
of the original lessee (Gilchrist) of the film.
The liability of the appellants arises from unlawful acts and not from contractual
obligations, as they were under no such obligations to induce Cuddy to violate his
contract with Gilchrist. So that if the action of Gilchrist had been one for damages,
it would be governed by chapter 2, title 16, book 4 of the Civil Code. Article 1902
of that code provides that a person who, by act or omission, causes damages to
another when there is fault or negligence, shall be obliged to repair the damage
do done. There is nothing in this article which requires as a condition precedent
to the liability of a tort-feasor that he must know the identity of a person to
whom he causes damages. In fact, the chapter wherein this article is found clearly
shows that no such knowledge is required in order that the injured party may
recover for the damage suffered.
Does the fact that the appellants did not know at the time the identity of the
original lessee of the film militate against Gilchrist's right to a preliminary
injunction, although the appellant's incurred civil liability for damages for such
interference?
There is nothing in section 164 of the Code of Civil Procedure which indicates,
even remotely, that before an injunction may issue restraining the wrongful
interference with contrast by strangers, the strangers must know the identity of
both parties.
The case at bar is somewhat novel, as the only contract which was broken was
that between Cuddy and Gilchrist, and the profits of the appellee depended upon
the patronage of the public, for which it is conceded the appellants were at liberty
to compete, the novelty of the facts does not deter the application of equitable
principles.
it is quite common for the proprietor of the theater to secure an especially
attractive exhibit as his "feature film" and advertise it as such in order to attract
the public. failure to exhibit the feature film will reduce the receipts of the theater.
Hence, Gilchrist was facing the immediate prospect of diminished profits by
reason of the fact that the appellants had induced Cuddy to rent to them the film
Gilchrist had counted upon as his feature film.
If he allowed the appellants to exhibit the film in Iloilo, it would be useless for him
to exhibit it again, as the desire of the public to witness the production would
have been already satisfied. In this extremity, the appellee applied for and was
granted, as we have indicated, a mandatory injunction against Cuddy requiring
him to deliver the Zigomar to Gilchrist, and a preliminary injunction against the
appellants restraining them from exhibiting that film in their theater during the
weeks he (Gilchrist) had a right to exhibit it. These injunction saved the plaintiff
harmless from damages due to the unwarranted interference of the defendants
In the case of the Nashville R. R. Co. vs. McConnell (82 Fed., 65), the court, among
other things, said: "One who wrongfully interferes in a contract between others,
and, for the purpose of gain to himself induces one of the parties to break it, is
liable to the party injured thereby; and his continued interference may be ground
for an injunction where the injuries resulting will be irreparable."
In Beekman vs. Marsters (195 Mass., 205 The defendant induced the hotel
corporation to break their contract with the plaintiff in order to allow him to act
also as their agent in the New England States. The court held that an action for
damages would not have afforded the plaintiff adequate relief, and that an
injunction was proper compelling the defendant to desist from further
interference with the plaintiff's exclusive contract with the hotel company.
In 3 Elliot on Contracts, section 2511, it is said: "Injunction is the proper remedy to
prevent a wrongful interference with contract by strangers to such contracts
where the legal remedy is insufficient and the resulting injury is irreparable.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment is affirmed, with costs, against the
appellants.
The respondent court (CA) adopted the doctrine of "last clear chance." The
doctrine, stated broadly, is that the negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a
recovery for the negligence of the defendant where it appears that the defendant,
by exercising reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided injurious
consequences to the plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiff's negligence. In other
words, the doctrine of last clear chance means that even though a person's own
acts may have placed him in a position of peril, and an injury results, the injured
person is entitled to recovery. As the doctrine is usually stated, a person who has
the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the
negligent acts of his opponent or that of a third person imputed to the opponent
is considered in law solely responsible for the consequences of the accident.
(Sangco, Torts and Damages, 4th Ed., 1986, p. 165).
The practical import of the doctrine is that a negligent defendant is held liable to a
negligent plaintiff, or even to a plaintiff who has been grossly negligent in placing
himself in peril, if he, aware of the plaintiffs peril, or according to some
authorities, should have been aware of it in the reasonable exercise of due case,
had in fact an opportunity later than that of the plaintiff to avoid an accident (57
Am. Jur., 2d, pp. 798-799).
In the recent case of Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate
Court, et al. (G.R. Nos. 66102-04, August 30, 1990), the Court citing the landmark
decision held in the case of Anuran, et al. v. Buno, et al. (123 Phil. 1073) ruled that
the principle of "last clear chance" applies "in a suit between the owners and
drivers of colliding vehicles. It does not arise where a passenger demands
responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations. For it would
be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of the jeepney and its owners on
the ground that the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence."
Furthermore, "as between defendants: The doctrine cannot be extended into the
field of joint tortfeasors as a test of whether only one of them should be held
liable to the injured person by reason of his discovery of the latter's peril, and it
cannot be invoked as between defendants concurrently negligent. As against third
persons, a negligent actor cannot defend by pleading that another had negligently
failed to take action which could have avoided the injury." (57 Am. Jur. 2d, pp.
806-807).
All premises considered, the Court is convinced that the respondent Court
committed an error of law in applying the doctrine of last clear chance as between
the defendants, since the case at bar is not a suit between the owners and drivers
of the colliding vehicles but a suit brought by the heirs of the deceased passengers
against both owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles. Therefore, the
respondent court erred in absolving the owner and driver of the cargo truck from
liability.
Pursuant to the new policy of this Court to grant an increased death indemnity to
the heirs of the deceased, their respective awards of P30,000.00 are hereby
increased to P50,000.00.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED; the appealed judgment and resolution of
the Court of Appeals are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the judgment of
the lower court is REINSTATED with the modification on the indemnity for death of
each of the victims which is hereby increased to P50,000.00 each. No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Ruling:
1st issue -no curfew pass was found on the person of Dionisio immediately after
the accident nor was any found in his car.
The relevance of possession or non-possession of a curfew pass that night lies in
the light it tends to shed on the other related issues: whether Dionisio was
speeding home and whether he had indeed purposely put out his headlights
before the accident, in order to avoid detection and possibly arrest by the police
in the nearby police station for travelling after the onset of curfew without a valid
curfew pass.
Issue
Ruling:
Petitioners also ask us to apply what they refer to as the "last clear chance"
doctrine. The theory here of petitioners is that while the petitioner truck driver
was negligent, private respondent Dionisio had the "last clear chance" of avoiding
the accident and hence his injuries, and that Dionisio having failed to take that
"last clear chance" must bear his own injuries alone. The last clear chance
doctrine of the common law was imported into our jurisdiction by Picart vs. Smith
11 but it is a matter for debate whether, or to what extent, it has found its way
into the Civil Code of the Philippines. The historical function of that doctrine in the
common law was to mitigate the harshness of another common law doctrine or
rule that of contributory negligence. 12 The common law rule of contributory
negligence prevented any recovery at all by a plaintiff who was also negligent,
even if the plaintiff's negligence was relatively minor as compared with the
wrongful act or omission of the defendant. 13 The common law notion of last
clear chance permitted courts to grant recovery to a plaintiff who had also been
negligent provided that the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the
casualty and failed to do so. 14 Accordingly, it is difficult to see what role, if any,
the common law last clear chance doctrine has to play in a jurisdiction where the
common law concept of contributory negligence as an absolute bar to recovery by
the plaintiff, has itself been rejected, as it has been in Article 2179 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines. 15
Is there perhaps a general concept of "last clear chance" that may be extracted
from its common law matrix and utilized as a general rule in negligence cases in a
civil law jurisdiction like ours? We do not believe so. Under Article 2179, the task
of a court, in technical terms, is to determine whose negligence — the plaintiff's
or the defendant's — was the legal or proximate cause of the injury. That task is
not simply or even primarily an exercise in chronology or physics, as the
petitioners seem to imply by the use of terms like "last" or "intervening" or
"immediate." The relative location in the continuum of time of the plaintiff's and
the defendant's negligent acts or omissions, is only one of the relevant factors
that may be taken into account. Of more fundamental importance are the nature
of the negligent act or omission of each party and the character and gravity of the
risks created by such act or omission for the rest of the community. The
petitioners urge that the truck driver (and therefore his employer) should be
absolved from responsibility for his own prior negligence because the unfortunate
plaintiff failed to act with that increased diligence which had become necessary to
avoid the peril precisely created by the truck driver's own wrongful act or
omission. To accept this proposition is to come too close to wiping out the
fundamental principle of law that a man must respond for the forseeable
consequences of his own negligent act or omission. Our law on quasi-delicts seeks
to reduce the risks and burdens of living in society and to allocate them among
the members of society. To accept the petitioners' pro-position must tend to
weaken the very bonds of society.
Petitioner Carbonel's proven negligence creates a presumption of negligence on
the part of his employer Phoenix 16 in supervising its employees properly and
adequately. The respondent appellate court in effect found, correctly in our
opinion, that Phoenix was not able to overcome this presumption of negligence.
The circumstance that Phoenix had allowed its truck driver to bring the dump
truck to his home whenever there was work to be done early the following
morning, when coupled with the failure to show any effort on the part of Phoenix
to supervise the manner in which the dump truck is parked when away from
company premises, is an affirmative showing of culpa in vigilando on the part of
Phoenix.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent appellate court is modified by
reducing the aggregate amount of compensatory damages, loss of expected
income and moral damages private respondent Dionisio is entitled to by 20% of
such amount. Costs against the petitioners.
Pantranco vs baesa
Facts:
1. CIVIL LAW; DAMAGES; LAST CLEAR CHANCE DOCTRINE; WHEN APPLICABLE. —
The doctrine of last clear chance applies only in a situation where the defendant,
having the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so,
becomes liable for all the consequences of the accident notwithstanding the prior
negligence of the plaintiff.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; CONDITION TO MAKE DOCTRINE APPLICABLE. — In order that the
doctrine of last clear chance may be applied, it must be shown that the person
who allegedly had the last opportunity to avert the accident was aware of the
existence of the peril or with exercise of due care should have been aware of it.
At about 7:00 o’clock in the morning of June 12, 1981, the spouses Ceasar and
Marilyn Baesa and their children Harold Jim, Marcelino and Maricar, together with
spouses David Ico and Fe O. Ico with their son Erwin Ico and seven other persons,
were aboard a passenger jeepney on their way to a picnic at Malalam River,
Ilagan, Isabela, to celebrate the fifth wedding anniversary of Ceasar and Marilyn
Baesa.
Upon reaching the highway, the jeepney turned right and proceeded to Malalam
River at a speed of about 20 kph. While they were proceeding towards Malalam
River, a speeding PANTRANCO bus from Aparri, on its regular route to Manila,
encroached on the jeepney’s lane while negotiating a curve, and collided with it.
Deaths+in juries. Ramirez has never been seen and has apparently remained in
hiding.
Maricar Baesa through her guardian Francisca O. Bascos and Fe O. Ico for herself
and for her minor children, filed separate actions for damages arising from quasi-
delict against PANTRANCO, respectively docketed as Civil Case No. 561-R and 589-
R of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan.
In its answer, PANTRANCO, aside from pointing to the late David Ico’s alleged
negligence as the proximate cause of the accident, invoked the defense of due
diligence in the selection and supervision of its driver, Ambrosio
Ramirez.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Petitioner faults the Court of Appeals for not applying the doctrine of the "last
clear chance" against the jeepney driver. Petitioner claims that under the
circumstances of the case, it was the driver of the passenger jeepney who had the
last clear chance to avoid the collision and was therefore negligent in failing to
utilize with reasonable care and competence his then existing opportunity to
avoid the harm.
To avoid liability for the negligence of its driver, petitioner claims that the original
negligence of its driver was not the proximate cause of the accident and that the
sole proximate cause was the supervening negligence of the jeepney driver David
Ico in failing to avoid the accident. It is petitioner’s position that even assuming
arguendo, that the bus encroached into the lane of the jeepney, the driver of the
latter could have swerved the jeepney towards the spacious dirt shoulder on his
right without danger to himself or his passengers.
Issue:
Ruling:
The above contention of petitioner is manifestly devoid of merit.
Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the doctrine of "last clear chance" finds
no application in this case. For the doctrine to be applicable, it is necessary to
show that the person who allegedly had the last opportunity to avert the accident
was aware of the existence of the peril or should, with exercise of due care, have
been aware of it. One cannot be expected to avoid an accident or injury if he does
not know or could not have known the existence of the peril. In this case, there is
nothing to show that the jeepney driver David Ico knew of the impending danger.
When he saw at a distance that the approaching bus was encroaching on his lane,
he did not immediately swerve the jeepney to the dirt shoulder on his right since
he must have assumed that the bus driver will return the bus to its own lane upon
seeing the jeepney approaching from the opposite direction. As held by this Court
in the case of Vda. De Bonifacio v. BLTB, G.R. No. L-26810, August 31, 1970, 34
SCRA 618, a motorist who is properly proceeding on his own side of the highway is
generally entitled to assume that an approaching vehicle coming towards him on
the wrong side, will return to his proper lane of traffic. There was nothing to
indicate to David Ico that the bus could not return to its own lane or was
prevented from returning to the proper lane by anything beyond the control of its
driver. Leo Marantan, an alternate driver of the Pantranco bus who was seated
beside the driver Ramirez at the time of the accident, testified that Ramirez had
no choice but to swerve the steering wheel to the left and encroach on the
jeepney’s lane because there was a steep precipice on the right [CA Decision, p. 2;
Rollo, p. 45]. However, this is belied by the evidence on record which clearly
shows that there was enough space to swerve the bus back to its own lane
without any danger [CA Decision, p. 7; Rollo, p. 50].
Moreover, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that at the time of
the accident the Pantranco bus was speeding towards Manila [CA Decision, p. 2;
Rollo, p. 45]. By the time David Ico must have realized that the bus was not
returning to its own lane, it was already too late to swerve the jeepney to his right
to prevent an accident. The speed at which the approaching bus was running
prevented David Ico from swerving the jeepney to the right shoulder of the road
in time to avoid the collision. Thus, even assuming that the jeepney driver
perceived the danger a few seconds before the actual collision, he had no
opportunity to avoid it. This Court has held that the last clear chance doctrine
"can never apply where the party charged is required to act instantaneously, and if
the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all means at hand after the peril
is or should have been discovered"
Moreover, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that at the time of
the accident the Pantranco bus was speeding towards Manila [CA Decision, p. 2;
Rollo, p. 45]. By the time David Ico must have realized that the bus was not
returning to its own lane, it was already too late to swerve the jeepney to his right
to prevent an accident. The speed at which the approaching bus was running
prevented David Ico from swerving the jeepney to the right shoulder of the road
in time to avoid the collision. Thus, even assuming that the jeepney driver
perceived the danger a few seconds before the actual collision, he had no
opportunity to avoid it. This Court has held that the last clear chance doctrine
"can never apply where the party charged is required to act instantaneously, and if
the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all means at hand after the peril
is or should have been discovered" [Ong v. Metropolitan Water District,
supra].chanrobles.com : virtual law library
Petitioner likewise insists that David Ico was negligent in failing to observe Section
43 (c), Article III Chapter IV of Republic Act No. 4136 * which provides that the
driver of a vehicle entering a through highway or a stop intersection shall yield the
right of way to all vehicles approaching in either direction on such through
highway.
Considering the foregoing, the Court finds that the negligence of petitioner’s
driver in encroaching into the lane of the incoming jeepney and in failing to return
the bus to its own lane immediately upon seeing the jeepney coming from the
opposite direction was the sole and proximate cause of the accident without
which the collision would not have occurred. There was no supervening or
intervening negligence on the part of the jeepney driver which would have made
the prior negligence of petitioner’s driver a mere remote cause of the accident.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED, and the decision of
respondent Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that the
amount of compensatory damages for the death of Harold Jim Baesa and
Marcelino Baesa are increased to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) each.
NPC vs CA
Facts
Issue
Ruling