Collapse of Structures; Last Clear Chance (1990) assigned seats in 8usiness lass or which they had bought

tic!ets. 9n chec!ing in, however, they were told they were

Mr and Mrs R own a burned-out building, the frewall o  upgraded by computer to 1irst lass or the :ight to Manila
which collapsed and destroyed the shop occupied by the because the 8usiness Section was overboo!ed.
amily o Mr and Mrs S, which resulted in injuries to said 8oth reused to transer despite better seats, ood, beverage
couple and the death o their daughter. Mr and Mrs S had and other services in 1irst lass. hey said they had guests in
been warned by Mr & Mrs R to vacate the shop in view o its 8usiness lass they should attend to. hey elt humiliated,
proimity to the wea!ened wall but the ormer ailed to do embarrassed and veed, however, when the stewardess
so. Mr & Mrs S fled against Mr and Mrs R an action or allegedly threatened to o;oad them i they did not avail o 
recovery o damages the ormer su"ered as a result o the the upgrade. hus they gave in, but during the transer o 
collapse o the frewall. #n deense, Mr and Mrs R rely on the luggage 4 su"ered pain in his arm and wrist. (ter arrival in
doctrine o last clear chance alleging that Mr and Mrs S had Manila, they demanded an apology rom 16$s management as
the last clear chance to avoid the accident i only they heeded well as indemnity payment. <hen none was orthcoming,
the ormer$s warning to vacate the shop, and thereore Mr they sued the airline or a million pesos in damages. #s the
and Mrs R$s prior negligence should be disregarded. # you airline liable or actual and moral damages% <hy or why not%
were the judge, how would you decide the case% State your =plain brie:y. '>?
reasons. SUGGESTED ANSWE!
16 (irlines committed breach o contract when it upgraded
SUGGESTED ANSWE! 4 and M, over their objections, to 1irst lass because they
# would decide in avor o Mr & Mrs S. he proprietor o a had contracted or 8usiness lass passage. 7owever,
building or structure is responsible or the damages resulting although there is a breach o contract, 4 and M are
rom its total or partial collapse, i it should be due to the lac! entitled to actual damages only or such pecuniary losses
o necessary repairs '(rt )*+ ivil ode su"ered by them as a result o such breach. here seems to
(s regards the deense o /last clear cha nce,0 the same is not be no showing that they incurred such pe cuniary loss. here
tenable because according to the S in one case (De o" # CA is no showing that the pain in 4@s arm and wrist resulted
L$%0&1%' an 9' 19%%' 1*& S &*&) the doctrine o last clear directly rom the carrier@s acts complained o. 7ence, they
chance is not applicable to instances covered by (rt )*+ o  are not entitled to actual damages. Moreover, 4 could have
the ivil ode. avoided the alleged injury by re5uesting the airline sta" to do
the luggage transer as a matter o duty on their part. here is
1urther,
1urther, in +hoen,- Construct,on' .nc/ #/ .ntere,ate (vailing also no basis to award moral damages or such breach o 
o that portion o Section *) o (rticle ## o the contract because the acts o the problem do not show bad
Appellate Court (G// L$2*9*' 3arch 10' 19%&/ 14% SCA aith or raud on the part o the airline. (Catha" +ac,c #/
5*5) :a<ue' 599 SCA 0& =005>)/ 7owever, they
the Supreme ourt held that the role o the common law 2last may recover moral damages i the cause o action is based he
clear chance2 doctrine in relation to (rticle )*3+ o the ivil action may or may not prosper.
prosper. Moral damages include
ode is merely to mitigate damages within the contet o  on (rticle )* o the ivil ode or the humiliation and
contributory negligence. embarrassment they elt when the stewardess threatened to
o;oad them i they did not avail o the upgrade.
L,a6
L,a6,l
,l,t
,t";
"; A,rl
A,rl,n
,ne
e Cop
Copan
an";
"; Non$
Non$+e
+erf
rfor
ora
anc
nce
e of an
76l,8at,on L,a6
L,a6,l
,l,t
,t";
"; A,rl
A,rl,n
,ne
e Cop
Copan
an";
"; Non$
Non$+e
+erf
rfor
ora
anc
nce
e of an
(004) 76l,8at,on
(00*)
4 and M were prominent members o the re5uent
travelers$ club o 16 (irlines. #n 7ong!ong, the couple were 4r. and Mrs. (lmeda are prominent citiAens o the country
*
and are re5uent travelers abroad. #n *++B, they boo!ed
round-trip business class tic!ets or the Manila-7ong
Cong-Manila route o the Dinoy (irlines, where they are
holders o Eold Mabalos lass 1re5uent 1lier cards. 9n their
return :ight, Dinoy (irlines upgraded their tic!ets to frst class
without their consent and, inspite o their protestations to be
allowed to remain in the business class so that they could be
with their riends, they were told that the business class was
already ully boo!ed, and that they were given priority in
upgrading because they are elite membersFholders o Eold
Mabalos lass cards. Since they were embarrassed at the
discussions with the :ight attendants, they were orced to ta!e
the :ight at the frst class section apart rom their riends who
were in the business class. Gpon their return to Manila, they
demanded a written apology rom Dinoy (irlines. <hen it
went unheeded, the couple sued Dinoy (irlines or breach o  such injuries. May Marcial be held liable% =plain.
contract claiming moral and eemplary damages, as well as
attorney@s ees. <ill the action prosper% Eive reasons. '>?
L,a6,l,t"; Eplo"er; Daa8e cause 6" Eplo"ees (199&)
a <hen would an employer@s liability or damage, caused
by an employee in the per ormance o his assigned
tas!s, be primary and when would it be subsidiary in
nature% b <ould the deense o due diligence in the
selection and
supervision o the employee be available to the
employer in both instances%
SUGGESTED ANSWE!H
'a he employer@s liability or damage based on culpa
a5uiliana under (rt, )*3B and )*I o the ivil ode is
primaryJ while that under (r t. *K o the Revised Denal ode
is subsidiary.
CIVIL LAW Answers to the BAR as Arranged by Topics (Year 1990-
2006)
'b he deense o diligence in the selection and the vehicle at the
time o the accident, be held solidarily
supervision o the employee under (rticle )*I o the ivil
ode is available only to those primarily liable the reunder,
but not to those subsidiarily liable under (rticle *K o the
Revised Denal ode (?uul #s/ ul,ano' & +h,l/ 94)/
L,a6,l,t"; o@ner @ho @as ,n the #eh,cle (1992)
Marcial, who does not !now how to drive, has always been
driven by 8en, his driver o ten years whom he had chosen
careully and has never fgured in a vehicular mishap. 9ne
day, Marcial was riding at the bac! seat o his Mercedes 8enA
being driven along =4S( by 8en. (bsorbed in reading a
boo!, Marcial did not notice that they were approaching the
corner o LueAon (venue, when the trac light had just
turned yellow. 8en suddenly stepped on the gas to cross the
intersection beore the trac light could turn red. 8ut, too
late. Midway in the intersection, the trac light changed, and
a Neepney ull o passengers suddenly crossed the car @s path. (
collision between the two vehicles was inevitable. (s a result,
several jeepney passengers were seriously injured. ( suit or
damages based on culpa a5uiliana was fled against Marcial
and 8en, see!ing to hold them jointly and severally liable or
SUGGESTED ANSWE!
Marcial may not be liable because under (rt. )*IO, P, the
owner who is in the vehicle is not liable with the driver i by
the eercise o due diligence he could have prevented the
injury. he law does not re5uire the owner to supervise the
driver every minute that he was driving. 9nly when through
his negligence, the owner has lost an opportunity to prevent
the accident would he be liable 'Caeo #/ ?tt he Tha,' 2
SCA 410 c,t,n8 Chapan #/ Uner@oo an 3anlan8,t #/
3auler' *0 SCA *20)/ #n this case, the act that the owner
was absorbed in reading a boo! does not conclusively show
that he lost the opportunity to prevent the accident through
his negligence.
L,a6,l,t"; o@ner @ho @as ,n the #eh,cle (199%)
( Eallant driven by Nohn and owned by (rt, and a orolla driven
by its owner, Eina, collided somewhere along (driatico Street. (s
a result o the accident, Eina had a concussion. Subse5uently.
Eina brought an action or damages against Nohn and (rt. here
is no doubt that the collision is due to Nohn@s negligence. an (rt,
who was in
liable with his driver, Nohn% '>?
SUGGESTED ANSWE!
 Qes. (rt may be held solidary liable with Nohn, i it was proven
that the ormer could have prevented the misortune with the
use o due diligence. (rticle )*IO o the ivil ode statesH 2#n
motor mishaps, the owner is solidary liable with his driver, i 
)
the ormer, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use o 
due diligence, prevented the misortune,   2
L,a6,l,t"; o@ner @ho @as ,n the #eh,cle (00)
4oes the presence o the owner inside the vehicle causing
damage to a third party a"ect his liability or his driver$s
negligence% =plain ')?
SUGGESTED ANSWE!
#n motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is made solidarily liable
with his driver i he 'the owner was in the vehicle and could
have, by the use o due diligence, prevented the mishap.
(Caeo #/ ?u he Tha,' 2 SCA 410 =192%>)/
3oral Daa8es B Att" ees (00)
9rtillo contracts 1abricato, #nc. to supply and install tile
materials in a building he is donating to his province. 9rtillo
pays >? o the contract price as per agreement. #t is also
agreed that the balance would be payable periodically ater
every *? perormance until completed. (ter perorming
about +K? o the contract, or which it has been paid an
additional O? as per agreement, 1abricato, #nc. did not
complete the project due to its sudden cessation o  damages rom both deendants% d May T claim moral
operations. #nstead, 1abricato, #nc. demands payment o the
last *? o the contract despite its non-completion o the
project. 9rtillo reuses to pay, invo!ing the stipulation that
payment o the last amount *? shall be upon completion.
1abricato, #nc. brings suit or the entire *?. Dlus damages,
9rtillo counters with claims or 'a moral damages or
1abricato, #nc.$s unounded suit which has damaged his
reputation as a philanthropist and respect businessman in his
community, and 'b attorney$s ees.
(. 4oes 9rtillo have a legal basis or his claim or moral
damages% ')?
8. 7ow about his claim or attorney$s ees, having hired a
lawyer to deend him% 'K?
SUGGESTED ANSWE!
(. here is no legal basis to 9rtillo$s claim or moral
damages. #t does not all under the coverage o (rticle ))*+
o the Pew ivil ode.
8. 9rtillo is entitled to attorney$s ees because 1abricato$s
complaint is a case o malicious p rosecution or a clearly
unounded civil action. '(rt. ))I O and **, P.
3oral Daa8es; Non$eco#er" Thereof (002)
Gnder (rticle ))*+ o the ivil ode, moral damages may be
recovered in the cases specifed therein several o which are
enumerated below. hoose the case wherein you cannot
recover moral damages. =plain. ').>? a ( criminal o"ense
resulting in physical injuries b Luasi-delicts causing physical
injuries c #mmorality or dishonesty d #llegal search e
Malicious prosecution SUGGESTED ANSWE! #mmorality and
dishonesty, per se, are not among those cases enumerated in
(rticle ))*+ which can be the basis o an action or moral
damages. he law specifcally mentions adultery or
concubinage, etc. but not any and every immoral act.
uas,$Del,ct (199)
(s the result o a collision between a public service passenger
bus and a cargo truc! owned by 4, 6 sustained physical
injuries and Q died. 8oth 6 and Q were passengers o the bus.
8oth drivers were at ault, and so 6 and T, the only heir and
legitimate child o the deceased Q, sued the owners o both
vehicles. a May the owner o the bus raise the deense o 
having eercised the diligence o a good ather o a amily% b
May 4 raise the same deense% c May 6 claim moral
damages rom both deendants% Eive reasons or all your
answers,
SUGGESTED ANSWE!
'a Po. he owner o the bus cannot raise the deense
because the carrier@s liability is based on breach o contract
'b Qes. 4 can raise the de ense because his liability is based
on a 5uasi-delict.
'c 8ecause 6 su"ered physical injuries, 6 c an claim moral
damages against 4, but as against the owner o the bus. 6 can
claim moral damages only i 6 p roves rec!less negligence o 
the carrier amounting to raud.
'd T can claim moral damages against both deendants
because the rules on damages arising rom death due to a
5uasi-delict are also applicable to death o a passenger caused
by breach o contract by a common carrier '(rts. *3>>. *3>B,
*3BO, ))B and ))*+. ivil ode.
uas,$Del,ct (00*)
Gnder the law on 5uasi-delict, aside rom the persons who
caused injury to persons, who else are liable under the
ollowing circumstancesH
K
 a) When a &$"ear ol 6o" ,nures h,s pla"ate @h,le
pla",n8 @,th h,s fatherFs r,e/ E-pla,n/ (H)
SUGGESTED ANSWE!
 he parents o the 3-year old boy who caused injury to his
playmate are liable under (rticle )*+ o the 1amily ode, in
relation to (rticle )*I o t he ivil ode since they eercise
parental authority over the person o the boy. (Taar8o #/
Court of Appeals' G// No/ %*044' une 5' 199; Elcano #/
I,ll'
G// No/ L$4%05' 3a" 2' 19&&)
6) When a oest,c helper' @h,le ha88l,n8 for a lo@er
pr,ce @,th a sh #enor ,n the course of 6u",n8 foostuJs
for her eplo"erFs fa,l"' slaps the sh #enor' caus,n8
her to fall an susta,n ,nur,es/ E-pla,n/ (H)
SUGGESTED ANSWE!
=mployer o the domestic helper who slapped a fsh vendor.
Gnder (rticle )*I, par. > o the ivil ode, 2em ployers shall
be liable or the damages caused by their employees and
household helpers acting within the scope o their assigned
tas!s, even though the ormer are not engaged in any business
or industry.2
c) A carpenter ,n a construct,on copan" acc,entall"
h,ts the r,8ht foot of h,s co$@orKer @,th a haer/
E-pla,n/ (H)
SUGGESTED ANSWE!
 he owner o the construction company. (rticle )*I,
paragraph O states that 2the owners and managers o an
establishment or enterprise are li!ewise responsible or
damages caused by their employees in the service o the
branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion
o their unctions.2
) A 1*$"ear ol h,8h school stuent sta6s h,s classate
@ho ,s h,s r,#al for a 8,rl @h,le the" @ere 8o,n8 out of t he
classroo after the,r last class/ E-pla,n/ (H)
SUGGESTED ANSWE!
 he school, teacher and administrator as they eercise special
parental authority. '(rt. )*I, par. 3 in relation to (rt. )*I
and (rt. )*+ o the 1amily ode
e) What efense' ,f an"' ,s a#a,la6le to the (H)
SUGGESTED ANSWE!
 he deense that might be available to them is the observance
o a good ather o the amily to prevent the damage. 'Uast
par., (rt. )*I, ivil ode
uas,$Del,ct; Acts contrar" to orals (1992)
Rosa was leasing an apartment in the city. 8ecause o the Rent
ontrol Uaw, her landlord could not increase the rental as
much as he wanted to, nor terminate her lease as long as she
was paying her rent. #n order to orce her to leave the
premises, the landlord stopped ma!ing repairs on the
apartment, and caused the water and electricity services to be
disconnected. he diculty o living without electricity and
running water resulted in Rosa@s su"ering a nervous
brea!down. She sued the landlord or actual and moral
damages. <ill the action prosper% =plain.
SUGGESTED ANSWE!
CIVIL LAW Answers to the BAR as Arranged by Topics (Year 1990-
2006)
 Qes, based on 5uasi-delict under the human relations or 5uasi-
delict may nonetheless p rosper. he Supreme
provisions o the Pew ivil ode '(rticles *+, ) and )*
because the act committed by the lessor is contrary to morals.
Moral damages are recoverable under (rticle ))*+
'* in relation to (rticle )*. (lthough the action is based on
5uasi-delict and not on contract, actual damages may be
recovered i the lessee is able to prove the losses and
epenses she su"ered.
uas,$Del,ct; 3,sana8eent of Depos,torMs Account
(002)
 ony bought a 1ord =pedition rom a car dealer in
Muntinlupa ity. (s payment, ony issued a chec! drawn
against his current account with Dremium 8an!. Since he has
a good reputation, the car dealer allowed him to immediately
drive home the vehicle merely on his assurance that his chec!
is suciently unded. <hen the car dealer deposited the
chec!, it was dishonored on the ground o 2(ccount losed.2
(ter an investigation, it was ound that an employee o the
ban! misplaced ony@s account ledger. hus, the ban!
erroneously assumed that his account no longer eists. Uater it
turned out that ony@s account has more than sucient unds
to cover the chec!. he dealer however, immediately fled an
action or recovery o possession o the vehicle against ony
or which he was terribly humiliated and embarrassed. 4oes
 ony have a cause o action against Dremium 8an!% =plain.
'>?
SUGGESTED ANSWE!
O
panic!ed and ran but tripped on something and su"ered a bro!en present in court to justiy the damages that your client claims%
leg. #s anyone liable or P$s injuries% =plain. 'O ? 'I?

SUGGESTED ANSWE! Po one is liable. he possessor o an
animal or whoever may ma!e use o the same is responsible or the
damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. his
responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come
rom orce majeure or rom the ault o the person who has su"ered
damage '(rt. )*IK, P.
SUGGESTED ANSWE! # will base the claim o my client on 5uasi-
delict under (rticle )*3B o the ivil ode o the Dhilippines. he
re5uisites or a claim under 5uasi-delict to prosper are as ollowsH
*. (ct or omission, there being ault and negligenceJ
). 4amage or injuryJ and
K. ausal connection between the damage and the act or omission.

uas,$el,ct; Act,on for Daa8es (015)  he case clearly involves a 5uasi-delict where my client, the bicycle
( collision occurred at an intersection involving a bic ycle and a rider, su"ered injury as a result o the negligence o the over-
taicab. 8oth the bicycle rider 'a businessman then doing his speeding tai driver, without ault on my client$s part. o prove
morning eercise and the tai driver claimed that t he other was at actual damages, aside rom the testimony o my client, # will
ault. 8ased on the police report, the bicycle crossed the present his hospital and medical bills. Receipts o the ees paid on
intersection frst but the taicab, crossing at a ast clip rom the the rehabilitation will also be presented. he sentence in red
bicycle@s let, could not bra!e in time and hit the bicycle@s rear should be replaced with the ollowing sentence because he is a
You're Reading a Preview
wheel, toppling it and throwing the bicycle rider into the sidewal! > business man and not an employee. 1urthermore, # will present
meters away. he bicycle rider su"ered a ractured right !nee, income ta returns, contracts and other documents to prove
sustained when he ell on his right side on the concrete side wal!. unrealiAed profts as a result o his temporary injury. # will also call
7e was hospitaliAed and was subse5uently operated Upload your documents
on, rendering theto download.
attending physician to testiy as to the etent o the injuries
him immobile or K wee!s and re5uiring physical rehabilitation or su"ered by my client, and to corroborate the contents o the
another K months. #n his complaint or damages, the rider prayed
or the award oD*,, actual damages,D), moral
OR medical documents. 8ased on (rticle ))), in 5uasi-delicts, the
deendant shall be liable or all damages which are the natural and
damages, D), eemplary damages, D* , nominal probable conse5uences o the act or omission complained o. #t is
damages and D>, attorney@s ees. (ssuming Become a Scribd
the police reportmembernotfor necessary
full access. Your
that such damages have been oreseen or could
to be correct and as the lawyer or the bicycle rider, what evidence have been oreseen by the deendant.
'documentary and testimonial and legal arguments will you first 30 days are free.

Continue for Free