Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1
Marinduqe vs. Workmen’s, 99 Phil 48
2.1. Ordinary prudent person
B. Proof of Negligence
Sangco, pp. 7-8
1. Burden of proof
2.2 Special Cases
Rule 131, Rules of Court (“ROC”)
Children
2. Presumption
Article 12, RPC & Comprehensive Juvenile Justice Law
Articles 2184-2185, 2188, 1734-1735, CC
Taylor vs. Manila Railroad, 16 Phil 8
Jarco Marketing vs. CA, GR No. 129792 3. Res ipsa loquitur
Del Rosario vs. Manila, 57 Phil 478
Ylarde vs. Aquino, 163 SCRA 697 Layugan vs. IAC, 167 SCRA 363
II Sangco, pp. 7-8 Ramos vs. CA, 321 SCRA 584
Batiquin vs. CA, 258 SCRA 334
DM Consunji vs. CA, 357 SCRA 249
Experts/Professionals
2
3. Fortuitous Event Bataclan vs. Medina, 102 Phil 181(L-10126) (1957)
Fernando vs. CA, 208 SCRA 714 (92087) (1992)
Article 1174, CC Urbano vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 1 (L-72964) (1988)
Juntilla vs. Funtanar, 136 SCRA 624 Phoenix Construction vs. IAC, 148 SCA 353 (L-652095) (1987)
Hernandez vs. COA, 179 SCRA 39 Pilipinas Bank vs. CA, 234 SCRA 435 (105410) (1994)
Gotesco Investment vs. Chatto, 210 SCRA 18 Quezon City vs. Dacara, (150304) (June 15, 2005)
Servando vs. Phil Steam, 117 SCRA 832
National Power vs. CA, GR Nos. 103442-45 (1993)
Southeastern College vs. CA, GR No. 126389, 292
2. Distinguished from other kinds
SCRA 422 (July 10, 1998)
Remote
4. Assumption of Risk
Gabeto vs. Araneta, 42 Phil 252 (15674) (1921)
Afialda vs. Hisole, 85 Phil 67
Urbano vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 1 (L-72964) (1988)
Ilocos Norte vs. CA, 179 SCRA 5
5. Due diligence
Concurrent
Ramos vs. Pepsi, 19 SCRA 289
Far East Shipping vs. CA, 297 SCRA 30 (130068)
Metro Manila vs. CA, 223 SCRA 521
(1998)
Sabido vs. Custodio, L-21512 (Aug 31, 1966)
6. Prescription
3. Tests
Kramer vs. CA, 178 SCRA 518
Allied Banking vs. CA, 178 SCRA 526
“But for”
7. Double recovery
Bataclan vs. Medina, 102 Phil 181
Article 2177, CC
Substantial Factor
IV. CAUSATION
Philippine Rabbit vs. IAC, 189 SCRA 158 (66102-04)
(1990)
A. Proximate Cause
Cause v. Condition
1. Definition
3
Phoenix vs. IAC, supra Vestil vs. IAC, 179 SCRA 47
Manila Electric vs. Remoquillo, 99 Phil 117 (L-8328) (1956)
Rodrigueza vs. Manila Railroad, (15688) (November 19, B. Things thrown or falling from a building
1921)
Article 2193, CC
B. Efficient Intervening Cause Dingcong vs. Kanaan, 72 Phil 14
McKee vs. IAC, 211 SCRA 517 (68102) (1992) C. Death/Injuries in the course of employment
Manila Electric vs. Remoquillo, 99 Phil 117 (L-8328) (1956
Teague vs. Fernandez, 51 SCRA 181 (L-29745) (1973) Article 1711, CC cf 1712
Urbano vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 1 (L-72964) (1988) Afable vs. Singer Sewing Machine, 58 Phil 39
4
3. Teachers and Heads of Institutions
VI. PERSONS LIABLE
Articles 218-219, FC
A. The Tortfeasor Article 2180, CC
Mercado vs. CA, (L-14342) 108 Phil 414 (1960)
Articles 2176, 2181, 2194, CC Palisoc vs. Brillantes, (L-29025) 41 SCRA 548 (1971)
Worcester vs. Ocampo, (5932) 22 Phil 42 (1912) Amadora vs. CA, L-47745 (April 15, 1988)
Article 2184, CC Pasco vs.CFI, (L-54357) 160 SCRA 785 (1988)
Chapman vs. Underwood, (9010) 27 Phil 374 (1914) Ylarde vs. Aquino, (L-33722) 163 SCRA 697 (1988)
Caedo vs. Yu Khe Thai, G.R. No. L-20392 (Dec 18 1968) Salvosa vs. IAC, (L-70458) 166 SCRA 274 (1988)
Rodriguez Luna vs. IAC, 135 SCRA 242 (1995) St Francis vs. CA, (82465) 194 SCRA 340 (1991)
PSBA vs. CA, 205 (84698) 205 SCRA 729 (1992)
B. Vicarious Liability Soliman vs. Tuazon, (66207) 209 SCRA 47 (1992)
Quasi-tort – Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, p.1489 St. Mary’s Academy vs. Carpitanos, (143363) (Feb 6
2002)
Article 58 PD No. 603
Articles 216, 218- 219, 221, 236, FC 4. Owners and Managers of Establishments
Articles 101-103, RPC
Sec. 6, RA 9344 Philippine Rabbit vs. Phil American, (L-25142) 63
Articles 2180 – 2182, CC SCRA 231 (1975)
1. Parents 5. Employers
Exconde vs. Capuno, (L-10134) 101 Phil 843 (1957) Philtranco vs. CA, (120553) 273 SCRA 562 (1997)
Salen vs. Balce, (L-14414) 107 Phil 748 (1960) Castilex vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 132266 (Dec 211999)
Fuellas vs. Cadano, (L-14409) 3 SCRA 361 (1961) Filamer vs. IAC, (75112) 212 SCRA 637 (1992)
Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez, (34840) 56 Phil 177 (1931) NPC vs. CA, (119121) 294 SCRA 209 (1998)
Rodriguez-Luna vs. IAC, (L-62988) 135 SCRA 242 Light Rail Transit vs. Navidad, (145804) 397 SCRA
(1985) 75(2003)
Libi vs. IAC, (70890) 214 SCRA 16 (1990) Mckee vs. IAC, (68102) 211 SCRA 517 (1992)
Tamargo vs. CA, (85044) 209 SCRA 518 (1992) Valenzuela vs. CA, (115024) 253 SCRA 303 (1996)
Cuadra vs. Monfort, 35 SCRA 160 (1970)
6. State
2. Guardians
Merrit vs. Government, (11154) 34 Phil 311 (1916)
Articles 216 and 218, Family Code Rosete vs. Auditor General, (L-1120) 81 Phil 453
Articles 2180-2181, CC (1948)
5
Mendoza vs. De Leon, (9596) 33 Phil 508 (1916) Delfin Lim vs. Ponce de Leon, G.R. No. L-22554 (1975)
Fontanilla vs. Maliaman, (55963) 194 SCRA 486 (1991) Aberca vs. Ver, G.R. No. L-69866 (1988)
Article 2189, CC MHP Garments vs. CA, 236 SCRA 227
City of Manila vs. Teotico, (L-23052) 22 SCRA 267
(1968) B. Defamation, Fraud, Physical Injuries
Republic vs. Palacio, 23 SCRA 899
Article 33, CC
A. Others Articles 353-359, RPC
Marcia vs. CA, 205 Phil 147
Article 1723, CC Madeja vs. Caro, 211 Phil 469
Arafiles vs. Phil Journalists, GR No 135306 (2004)
1. Proprietors of Buildings
1. Defamation
Articles 2190- 2192, CC
MVRS vs. Islamic, GR No 135306, 396 SCRA 210
2. Employees (January 28, 2003)
Araneta vs. Joya, (L-25172) 57 SCRA 59 (1974)
2. Fraud
3. Engineer/Architect
Salta vs. De Veyra, 202 Phil 527
B. Nature of Liability: Joint or Solidary?
3. Physical Injuries
Lanuzo vs. Ping and Mendoza, 100 SCRA 205 (1980)
Malipol vs. Tan, 55 SCRA 202 (1974) Capuno vs. Pepsi Cola, G.R. No. L-19331 (1965)
Viluan vs. CA, 17 SCRA 742 Corpus vs. Paje, G.R. No. L-26737 (1969)
Madeja vs. Caro, supra
Dulay vs. CA, GR No 108017 (1995)
VII. TORTS WITH INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION
C. Neglect of Duty
A. Violation of Civil and Political Rights
Article 34, CC
Article 32, CC
1 Sangco, pp. 228-255 (1993) D. Action for damages where no in independent civil action
is provided
6
Constantino vs. Medez, GR No 5722 (1992)
Article 35, CC Quimiguing vs. Icao, 34 SCRA 132
Pe vs. Pe, GR No. L-17396 (1962)
d. Unjust Dismissal
B. Acts contra bonus mores
Singapore Airlines vs. Paño, 122 SCRA 671
Article 21, CC (1983)
Medina vs. Castro-Bartolome, G.R. No. L-
1. Elements 59825 (1982) 116 SCRA 597
7
C. Violation of Human Dignity and Privacy b. Extent
PNOC vs. CA, 297 SCRA 402 Articles 2203-2204, 2214, 2215
Integrated Packing vs. CA, 333 SCRA 170
8
Cerrano vs. Tan, 38 Phil 392
People vs. Pirame, 327 SCRA (2000)
2. Moral Carlos Arcona y Moban vs. CA, GR No
134784, 393 SCRA 524 (Dec. 9, 2002)
a. Concept
d. Factors in determining amount
Article 2217, CC
Kierulf vs. CA, 269 SCRA 433 PNB vs. CA, 266 SCRA 136
Fule vs. CA, 286 SCRA 698
b. Proof and Proximate Cause Philippine Airlines vs. CA, 275 SCRA 621
Valenzuela vs. CA, supra
Miranda-Ribaya vs. Carbonell, 95 SCRA 672 Sumalpong vs. CA, 268 SCRA 764
Del Rosario vs. CA, 267 SCRA 58 Lopez vs. Pan American, 16 SCRA 431
Raagas vs. Traya, 22 SCRA 839 Producer’s Bank vs. CA, GR No 111584, 365
Enervida vs. dela Torre, 55 SCRA 339 SCRA 326 (Sept.17, 2001)
People vs. Bagayong, GR. No 126518, 299
SCRA 528 (Dec. 2, 1998) e. Who may recover
9
People vs. Plazo, 350 SCRA 433, 161 SCRA 208 (May
9, 1988)
5. Liquidated
Articles 2226-2228, CC
6. Exemplary or Corrective
Articles 2229-2235, CC
PNB vs. CA, 256 SCRA 44
Del Rosario vs. CA, 267 SCRA 158
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
10