1) RAKES v ATLANTIC [G.R. No. 1719. January 23, 1907.] M. H.

, RAKES,
plaintiff-appellee, vs. THE ATLANTIC, GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY,
defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
he plaintiff, one of a gang of eight negro laborers in the employment of the
defendant, was at work transporting iron rails from a barge in the harbor to the
company's yard near the malecon in Manila. Plaintiff claims that but one hand car
was used in this work. The defendant has proved that there were two immediately
following one another, upon which were piled lengthwise seven rails, each
weighing 560 pounds, so that the ends of the rails lay upon two crosspieces or sills
secured to the cars, but without side pieces or guards to prevent them from slipping
off. According to the testimony of the plaintiff, the men were either in the rear of
the car or at its sides. According to that defendant, some of them were also in front,
hauling by a rope. At a certain spot at or near the water's edge the track sagged, the
tie broke, the car either canted or upset, the rails slid off and caught the plaintiff,
breaking his leg, which was afterwards amputated at about the knee.

2)GILCHRIST V CUDDY February 18, 1915 G.R. No. L-9356 C. S. GILCHRIST,

plaintiff-appellee, vs. E. A. CUDDY, ET AL., defendants. JOSE FERNANDEZ
ESPEJO and MARIANO ZALDARRIAGA, appellants.

FACTS:
One Cuddy, the owner of a cinematographic film “Zigomar”, let it under a rental
contract to the plaintiff Gilchrist, the owner of a cinematograph theater in Iloilo,
for a specified period of time or for a number of days beginning May 26. In
violation of the terms of this agreement, Cuddy proceeded to turn over the film
also under a rental contract, to the defendants Espejo and Zaldarriaga 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. Gilchrist thereupon restored to the Court of
First Instance

3) Wright vs. Manila Electric 28 Phil. 122

Facts: Defendant was operating an electric street railway in the City of Manila and
its suburbs, including the municipality of Caloocan. Plaintiff’s residence in
Caloocan fronted the street along which defendant’s tracks ran, so that to enter
his premises from the street plaintiff was obliged to cross defendant’s tracks.
On the night of August 8, 1909 plaintiff drove home in a calesa and in crossing the
tracks to enter his premises the horse stumbled, leaped forward, and fell causing
the vehicle to strike one of the rails with great force. The fall of the horse and the
collision of the vehicle with the rails, resulting in a sudden stop, threw plaintiff
from the vehicle and caused the injuries complained of. It was found that at the
point where plaintiff crossed the tracks on the right in question not only the rails
were above-ground, but that the ties upon which the rails rested projected from
one-third to one-half of their depth out of the ground, thus making the tops of the
rails rise some 5 to6 inches or more above the level of the street.

4) Samson vs. Dionisio

Facts: Samson, the owner and possessor of a fish pond in Panasahan has written a
complaint, stating that the spouses Paulino Dionisio and Honorata Fabian, less than
a year ago, constructed a dam in substitution of a former one, thereby closing the
southern end of the Magos Creek which empties into the Bocaue River. In
consequence during the rainy season, the water rose for lack of an outlet, and the
neighboring lands, including the plaintiff’s fish pond, became flooded, and fish to
the number of about two thousand, valued at P100, escaped; that the new dike
prevents the emptying of the estero and effects considerable damage during the
rainy season by raising the level of the water, for which reason the value of his fish
pond is reduced, its banks and supports weakened, and it is impossible to keep it in
good order. He further alleges that the said creek is a tributary of the Bocaue River
and is of public domain and for the common use of all the owners of the
neighboring estates, among which latter is the plaintiff’s fish pond; therefore, he
asked that judgment be entered in his favor, that the defendants be ordered to
reopen at their expense and for public use the mouth of the Magos Creek emptying
into the Bocaue River, to pay P100 as indemnity for damages, and costs.

5) Uy Piacoco v. Osmena, 9 Phil 299

Facts:
On the 7th of September, 1906, Uy Piaoco, a Chinaman, filed a complaint against
the sheriff of the Court
of First Instance of Cebu, Sergio Osmena. Alleging that on or about the 24th of
August of said year the
judge of First Instance of said province issued a writ of preliminary attachment
upon request of Martina
Rodriguez, against the property of the Chinaman Dy-Siongco and Uy Chiam-
Liong, by reason of a certain
amount due by the latter and on the same date the sheriff levied an attachment on
the property
belonging to Uy Piaoco. The Sheriff without authority from any court and without
any just reason
therefor, closed the aforesaid store owned by Uy Piaoco and placed under custody
the goods therein
contained. Uy Piaoco claimed that Dy-Siongco and Uy Chiam-Liong no longer
owns the property but him.

6) Bernal v. Enverso

FACTS: 1. On the evening of April 10, 1925, the procession of HolyFriday was
held in Tacloban, Leyte. Fortunata Enverso with her daughter Purificacion Bernal
came from another municipality to attend the religious celebration.2. After the
procession was over, the woman and her daughter, passed along a public street
named Gran Capitan.3. The little girl was allowed to get a short distance in
advance of her mother and her friends.4. When in front of the offices of the
Tacloban Electric & IcePlant, Ltd., and automobile appeared from the opposite
direction which so frightened the child that she turned to run, with the result that
she fell into the street gutter.5. At that time there was hot water in this gutter or
ditch coming from the Electric Ice Plant of J.V. House. When the mother and her
companions reached the child, they found her face downward in the hot water.6.
The girl was taken to the provincial hospital. There she was attended by the
resident physician, Dr. Victoriano A. Benitez.Despite his efforts, the child died that
same night at 11:40o'clock.7. Dr. Benitez certified that the cause of death was
"Burns, 3rdDegree, whole Body", and that the contributory causes
were"Congestion of the Brain and visceras of the chest &abdomen.

7) Barredo v. Garcia and Almario

A head-on collision between a taxicab owned by Barredo and a carretela occurred.
The carretela was overturned and one of its passengers, a 16-year old boy, the son
of Garcia and Almario, died as a result of the injuries which he received. The
driver of the taxicab, an employee of Barredo, was prosecuted for the crime and
was convicted. When the criminal case was instituted, Garcia and Almario reserved
their right to institute a separate civil action for damages. Subsequently, Garcia and
Almario instituted a civil action for damages against Barredo, the employer of the
taxicab driver.

8) Virata vs. Ochoa

FACTS: On September 24, 1975, one Arsenio Virata died as a result of having
been bumped while walking along Taft Ave. Pasay City by a passenger jeepney
driven by Maximon Borlla (employee driver of Ochoa) which is registered in the
name of Victoriano Ochoa. A criminal action for homicide through reckless
imprudence was instituted the next day against Borilla in the CFI of Rizal. At the
hearing, Atty. Francisco, private prosecutor, made a reservation to file a separate
civil action for damages against the driver on his criminal liablity but later on
withdrew such reservation. Thereafter, the private prosecutor actively participated
in the trial and presented evidence on the damages. On June 29, 1976, the heirs of
Arsenio Virata again reserved their right to institute a separate civil action. The
following year, the heir commenced Civil Case No. B-134 in the CFI Cavite for
damages based on quasi-delcit against Borilla and Ochoa. Defendants filed a MTD
on the ground that there is noather action (Criminal Case) pending between the
same parties for the same cause.

9) Batangas Laguna Tayaba Bus Co v. CA

This is a case based on quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana filed against BLTB Co.
andhis driver for the vehicular accident which resulted to death and damage to
properties.

Facts:On the morning of February 18, 1963, Andres I. Ilagan drove the passenger
bus owned by BLTB Co. along Manila South Super Highway on its way to
Lemery, Batangaswhile Ricardo de los Reyes with his Chevrolet car left Calamba,
Laguna with Eduardo delos Reyes, Jean Elizondo, Eufrocina Alcalde Cardema, and
Ursula Bayan, and bound for Manila. In the ensuing event, both vehicles collided
with each other.The tragic accident occurred when the bus driven by Ilagan
overtook a big cargo truck. The bus took the left or the lane on which the car
driven by de los Reyes was traveling. The latter being in the best position to see the
fast approaching bus tried to swerve to the right to avoid the bus but was too late
and hit in the left front side up to the driver's door.Both de los Reyes and Elizondo
were rushed to the Phil. General Hospital but were pronounced dead upon arrival
at the hospital while the rest of the fatalities were brought to Manila Rail Road
Hospital for treatment.Subsequently, a criminal case was filed against Ilagan for
reckless imprudence and the injured parties sought for payment of their hospital
bills and other expenses from the petitioners but the latter refuse, thus, two civil
cases were filed in the Court of FirstInstance of Laguna for recovery of damages.
The lower court decided in favor of the plaintiffs and award damages.

10) Ferrer vs. Ericta

FACTS:Mr. And Mrs. Franis Pfleider were the owners or operators of a Ford pick-
up car. At about 5pm of December 31, 1970, their son, defendant Dennis, who was
only 16 at the time, without proper official authority, drove the ford, without due
regard to traffic rules and regulations, and without taking the necessary precaution
to prevent injury to persons or damage to property. The pick up car was overturned,
causing physical injuries to plaintiff Annette Ferrer, who was then a passenger,
which injuries paralyzed her and require medical treatment an confinement at
different hospitals for more than two year. As a result of the physical injuries
sustained by P, she suffered unimaginable physical pain, mental anguish, and her
parents also suffered mental anguish, moral shock, and spent a considerable sum of
money for her treatment. Complaint was only filed on January 5, 1975 Pretrial
(May 12, 1975), only Ferrer and counsel were present. As such, the Pfleiders were
declared in default and the court rendered judgment against them.