TORTS Article 2176 Jarco Marketing Co. v. CA Facts: Petitioner is the owner of Syvel's Department Store, Makati City.

Petitioners Leonardo Kong, Jose iope and !lisa Panelo are the store's "ran#h manager, operations manager, and s$pervisor, respe#tively. Private respondents Conrado and Criselda %g$ilar are spo$ses and the parents of &hieneth %g$ilar. 'n May (, )(*+, Criselda and &hieneth were at the department store. Criselda was signing her #redit #ard slip when she heard a lo$d th$d. She looked "ehind her and "eheld her da$ghter pinned "eneath the gift,wrapping #o$nter str$#t$re. She was #rying and sho$ting for help. -e was "ro$ght to Makati Medi#al Center, where she died after ). days. She was / years old. Private respondents demanded $pon petitioners the reim"$rsement of the hospitali0ation, medi#al "ills and wake and f$neral e1penses whi#h they had in#$rred. Petitioners ref$sed to pay. Conse2$ently, private respondents filed a #omplaint for damages wherein they so$ght the payment of P)34,355.*/ for a#t$al damages, P+66,666 for moral damages, P56,666 for attorney's fees and an $nspe#ified amo$nt for loss of in#ome and e1emplary damages. he trial #o$rt dismissed the #omplaint, r$ling that the pro1imate #a$se of the fall of the #o$nter was &hieneth7s a#t of #linging to it. he Co$rt of %ppeals reversed the de#ision of the trial #o$rt. 8t fo$nd that petitioners were negligent in maintaining a str$#t$rally dangero$s #o$nter. he #o$nter was defe#tive, $nsta"le and dangero$s. 8t also r$led that the #hild was a"sol$tely in#apa"le of negligen#e or tort. Petitioners now seek for the reversal of this de#ision. Issues: 9): ;hether the death of &-8!<! - was a##idental or attri"$ta"le to negligen#e 95: 8n #ase of a finding of negligen#e, whether the same was attri"$ta"le to private respondents for maintaining a defe#tive #o$nter or to C=8S!LD% and &-8!<! - for failing to e1er#ise d$e and reasona"le #are while inside the store premises el!: 9): %n a##ident pertains to an $nforeseen event in whi#h no fa$lt or negligen#e atta#hes to the defendant. 8t is >a fort$ito$s #ir#$mstan#e, event or happening? an event happening witho$t any h$man agen#y, or if happening wholly or partly thro$gh h$man agen#y, an event whi#h $nder the #ir#$mstan#es is $n$s$al or $ne1pe#ted "y the person to whom it happens.> 'n the other hand, negligen#e is the omission to do something whi#h a reasona"le man, g$ided "y those #onsiderations whi#h ordinarily reg$late the #ond$#t of h$man affairs, wo$ld do, or the doing of something whi#h a pr$dent and reasona"le man wo$ld not do. <egligen#e is >the fail$re to o"serve, for the prote#tion of the interest of another person, that degree of #are, pre#a$tion and
)

vigilan#e whi#h the #ir#$mstan#es @$stly demand, where"y s$#h other person s$ffers in@$ry.> he test in determining the e1isten#e of negligen#e isA Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent a#t $se that reasona"le #are and #a$tion whi#h an ordinarily pr$dent person wo$ld have $sed in the same sit$ationB 8f not, then he is g$ilty of negligen#e. ;e r$le that the tragedy whi#h "efell &-8!<! - was no a##ident and that &-8!<! -'s death #o$ld only "e attri"$ted to negligen#e. 95: 8t is a1iomati# that matters relating to de#larations of pain or s$ffering and statements made to a physi#ian are generally #onsidered de#larations and admissions. %ll that is re2$ired for their admissi"ility as part of the res gestae is that they "e made or $ttered $nder the infl$en#e of a startling event "efore the de#larant had the time to think and #on#o#t a falsehood as witnessed "y the person who testified in #o$rt. Cnder the #ir#$mstan#es th$s des#ri"ed, it is $nthinka"le for &-8!<! -, a #hild of s$#h tender age and in e1treme pain, to have lied to a do#tor whom she tr$sted with her life. ;e therefore a##ord #reden#e to Don0ales' testimony on the matter, i.e., &-8!<! - performed no a#t that fa#ilitated her tragi# death. Sadly, petitioners did, thro$gh their negligen#e or omission to se#$re or make sta"le the #o$nter's "ase. ;itho$t do$"t, petitioner Panelo and another store s$pervisor were personally informed of the danger posed "y the $nsta"le #o$nter. Eet, neither initiated any #on#rete a#tion to remedy the sit$ation nor ens$re the safety of the store's employees and patrons as a reasona"le and ordinary pr$dent man wo$ld have done. h$s, as #onfronted "y the sit$ation petitioners misera"ly failed to dis#harge the d$e diligen#e re2$ired of a good father of a family. %nent the negligen#e imp$ted to &-8!<! -, we apply the #on#l$sive pres$mption that favors #hildren "elow nine 9(: years old in that they are in#apa"le of #ontri"$tory negligen#e. !ven if we attri"$te #ontri"$tory negligen#e to &-8!<! - and ass$me that she #lim"ed over the #o$nter, no in@$ry sho$ld have o##$rred if we a##ept petitioners' theory that the #o$nter was sta"le and st$rdy. For if that was the tr$th, a frail si1,year old #o$ld not have #a$sed the #o$nter to #ollapse. he physi#al analysis of the #o$nter "y "oth the trial #o$rt and Co$rt of %ppeals and a s#r$tiny of the eviden#e on re#ord reveal otherwise, i.e., it was not d$ra"le after all. Shaped like an inverted >L,> the #o$nter was heavy, h$ge, and its top laden with formi#a. 8t protr$ded towards the #$stomer waiting area and its "ase was not se#$red. C=8S!LD% too, sho$ld "e a"solved from any #ontri"$tory negligen#e. 8nitially, &-8!<! - held on to C=8S!LD%'s waist, later to the latter's hand. C=8S!LD% momentarily released the #hild's hand from her #l$t#h when she signed her #redit #ard slip. %t this pre#ise moment, it was reasona"le and $s$al for C=8S!LD% to let go of her #hild. F$rther, at the time &-8!<! - was pinned down "y the #o$nter, she was @$st a foot away from her mother? and the gift,wrapping #o$nter was @$st fo$r meters away from C=8S!LD%. he time and distan#e were "oth signifi#ant. &-8!<! - was near her mother and did not loiter as petitioners wo$ld want to impress $pon $s. She even admitted to the do#tor who treated her at the hospital that she did not do anything? the #o$nter @$st fell on her. Pi#art v. Smith Facts: Plaintiff %mado Pi#art was riding on his pony on the Carlatan Gridge in San Fernando, La Cnion when the defendant, riding on his #ar, approa#hed. Defendant "lew his horn to give warning. Plaintiff moved the horse to the right instead of moving to the left, reasoning that he had no s$ffi#ient time to move to the right dire#tion. Defendant
5

#ontin$ed to approa#h, and when he had gotten 2$ite near, he 2$i#kly t$rned to the left. he horse was frightened that it t$rned his "ody a#ross the "ridge. -is lim" was "roken and the rider was thrown off and got in@$red. he horse died. %n a#tion for damages was filed against the defendant. Issue: ;hether or not the defendant in mane$vering his #ar in the manner a"ove des#ri"ed was g$ilty of negligen#e s$#h as gives rise to a #ivil o"ligation to repair the damage done el!: %s the defendant started a#ross the "ridge, he had the right to ass$me that the horse and rider wo$ld pass over to the proper side? "$t as he moved toward the #enter of the "ridge it was demonstrated to his eyes that this wo$ld not "e done? and he m$st in a moment have per#eived that it was too late for the horse to #ross with safety in front of the moving vehi#le. 8n the nat$re of things this #hange of sit$ation o##$rred while the a$tomo"ile was yet some distan#e away? and from this moment it was not longer within the power of the plaintiff to es#ape "eing r$n down "y going to a pla#e of greater safety. he #ontrol of the sit$ation had then passed entirely to the defendant. he test "y whi#h to determine the e1isten#e of negligen#e in a parti#$lar #ase may "e stated as followsA Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent a#t $se that reasona"le #are and #a$tion whi#h an ordinarily pr$dent person wo$ld have $sed in the same sit$ationB 8f not, then he is g$ilty of negligen#e. Cond$#t is said to "e negligent when a pr$dent man in the position of the tortfeasor wo$ld have foreseen that an effe#t harmf$l to another was s$ffi#iently pro"a"le to warrant his foregoing the #ond$#t or g$arding against its #onse2$en#es. 8t goes witho$t saying that the plaintiff himself was not free from fa$lt, for he was g$ilty of ante#edent negligen#e in planting himself on the wrong side of the road. G$t as we have already stated, the defendant was also negligent? and in s$#h #ase the pro"lem always is to dis#over whi#h agent is immediately and dire#tly responsi"le. 8t will "e noted that the negligent a#ts of the two parties were not #ontemporaneo$s, sin#e the negligen#e of the defendant s$##eeded the negligen#e of the plaintiff "y an appre#ia"le interval. Cnder these #ir#$mstan#es the law is that the person who has the last fair #han#e to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is #hargea"le with the #onse2$en#es, witho$t referen#e to the prior negligen#e of the other party.

An!a"o vs. Inter"e!iate A##ellate Court $.R. %o. 7&761 %ove"'er 6( 1))* Fernan, C.J. +octrine: 8t m$st "e stressed that the $se of one7s property is not witho$t limitations. %rti#le .+) of the Civil Code provides that Hthe owner of a thing #annot make $se thereof in s$#h a manner as to in@$re the rights of a third person.I S8C C !=! C' C %L8!<CM <'< L%!D%S.

Facts: Petitioner spo$ses %ndamo owned a par#el of land sit$ated in Giga Silang, Cavite whi#h is ad@a#ent to that of private respondent #orporation, Missionaries of '$r lady of La Salette, 8n#. ;ithin the land of the latter, waterpaths and #ontrivan#es, in#l$ding an artifi#ial lake, were #onstr$#ted, whi#h allegedly in$ndated and eroded petitioner7s land, #a$sed a yo$ng man to drown, damagaed petitioner7s #rops and plants, washed away #ostly fen#es, endangered the livesofthepetitioners and their la"orers and some other destr$#tions. his prompted petitioner spo$ses to file a #riminal a#tion for destr$#tion "y means of in$ndation $nder %rti#le +5. of the =PC and a #ivil a#tion for damages. Issue: ;hether petitioner spo$ses %ndamo #an #laim damages for destr$#tion #a$sed "y respondent7s waterpaths and #ontrivan#es on the "asis of %rti#les 5)4/ and 5)44 of the Civil Code on 2$asi,deli#ts. el!: Ees. % #aref$l e1amination of the afore2$oted #omplaint shows that the #ivil a#tion is one $nder %rti#les 5)4/ and 5)44 of the Civil Code on 2$asi,deli#ts. %ll the elements of a 2$asi,deli#t are present, to witA 9a: damages s$ffered "y the plaintiff, 9": fa$lt or negligen#e of the defendant, or some other person for whose a#ts he m$st respond? and 9#: the #onne#tion of #a$se and effe#t "etween the fa$lt or negligen#e of the defendant and the damages in#$rred "y the plaintiff. )) Clearly, from petitioner7s #omplaint, the waterpaths and #ontrivan#es "$ilt "y respondent #orporation are alleged to have in$ndated the land of petitioners. here is therefore, an assertion of a #a$sal #onne#tion "etween the a#t of "$ilding these waterpaths and the damage s$stained "y petitioners. S$#h a#tion if proven #onstit$tes fa$lt or negligen#e whi#h may "e the "asis for the re#overy of damages. 8t m$st "e stressed that the $se of one7s property is not witho$t limitations. %rti#le .+) of the Civil Code provides that Hthe owner of a thing #annot make $se thereof in s$#h a manner as to in@$re the rights of a third person.I S8C C !=! C' C %L8!<CM <'< L%!D%S. Moreover, ad@oining landowners have m$t$al and re#ipro#al d$ties whi#h re2$ire that ea#h m$st $se his own land in a reasona"le manner so as not to infringe $pon the rights and interests of others. %ltho$gh we re#ogni0e the right of an owner to "$ild str$#t$res on his land, s$#h str$#t$res m$st "e so #onstr$#ted and maintained $sing all reasona"le #are so that they #annot "e dangero$s to ad@oining landowners and #an withstand the $s$al and e1pe#ted for#es of nat$re. 8f the str$#t$res #a$se in@$ry or damage to an ad@oining landowner or a third person, the latter #an #laim indemnifi#ation for the in@$ry or damage s$ffered. Caveat: An,one -.o clai"s t.is !igest as .is o-n -it.out #ro#er aut.orit, s.all 'e .el! lia'le un!er t.e la- o/ 0ar"a.

Case <otes 9 orts andDamages: ed$#ation or a profession. 'n the other hand, the st$dent #ovenants to a"ide "y the s#hool'sa#ademi# re2$irements and o"serve its r$les and reg$lations.8nstit$tions of learning m$st also meet the impli#it or >"$ilt,in> o"ligation of providing their st$dentswith
.

an atmosphere that promotes or assists in attaining its primary $ndertaking of impartingknowledge. Certainly, no st$dent #an a"sor" the intri#a#ies of physi#s or higher mathemati#s ore1plore the realm of the arts and other s#ien#es when "$llets are flying or grenades e1ploding inthe air or where there looms aro$nd the s#hool premises a #onstant threat to life and lim".<e#essarily, the s#hool m$st ens$re that ade2$ate steps are taken to maintain pea#e and orderwithin the #amp$s premises and to prevent the "reakdown thereof. 1ecause t.e circu"stances o/ t.e #resent case evince a contractual relation 'et-eent.e 2S1A an! Carlitos 1autista( t.e rules on 3uasi4!elict !o not reall, govern .% per$salof %rti#le 5)4/ shows that o"ligations arising from 2$asi,deli#ts or tort, also known as e1tra,#ontra#t$al o"ligations, arise only "etween parties not otherwise "o$nd "y #ontra#t, whethere1press or implied. -owever, this impression has not prevented this Co$rt from determining thee1isten#e of a tort even when there o"tains a #ontra#t. 8n %ir Fran#e vs. Carros#oso 9)5. Phil. 455:,the private respondent was awarded damages for his $nwarranted e1p$lsion from a first,#lass seata"oard the petitioner airline. 8t is noted, however, that the Co$rt referred to the petitioner, airline'slia"ility as one arising from tort, not one arising from a #ontra#t of #arriage. 8n effe#t, %ir Fran#e isa$thority for the view that lia"ility from tort may e1ist even if there is a #ontra#t, for the a#t that"reaks the #ontra#t may "e also a tort. 9%$stro,%meri#a S.S. Co. vs. homas, 5.* Fed. 5+):. Air /rance vs. Carasscoso 51)666 FACTS: Carass#oso is a #ivil engineer. -e was one of the .* Filipino pilgrims who left from Manila toLo$rdes in Mar#h +6, )(3*. -e was iss$ed a Hfirst #lassI ro$ndtrip ti#ket from Manila to =ome. FromManila to Gangkok he o##$pied the first #lass seat, however, in Gangkok he was for#ed to va#atesaid seat "y the manager of %ir Fran#e on the gro$nd that there was a Hwhite manI who has a"etter right to the seat.= C de#isionA in favor of Carass#oso.C% de#isionA affirmed the = C with slight modifi#ation on the amo$nt of award. ISS78 A ;'< %ir Fran#e is lia"le for damages. R79I%$: Ees. he responsi"ility of an employer for the tort$o$s a#t of its employees,need not "e essayed. 8t iswell settled in law. .) For the willf$l malevolent a#t of petitioner's manager, petitioner's hisemployer, m$st answer. %rti#le 5) of the Civil Code saysA>%rt. 5).%ny person who willf$lly #a$ses loss or in@$ry to another in a manner that is #ontraryto morals, good #$stoms or p$"li# poli#y shall #ompensate the latter for the damage.>8n parallel #ir#$mstan#es, we applied the foregoing legal pre#ept? and, we held that $pon theprovisions of %rti#le 55)( 9)6:, Civil Code, moral damages are re#overa"le. .5/.% #ontra#t to transport passengers is 2$ite different in kind and degree from any other#ontra#t$al relation. .+ %nd this, "e#a$se of the relation whi#h an air,#arrier s$stains with thep$"li#. 8ts "$siness is mainly with the travelling p$"li#. 8t invites people
3

to avail of the #omforts andadvantages it offers. he #ontra#t of air #arriage, therefore, generates a relation attended with ap$"li# d$ty.<egle#t or malfeasan#e of the #arrier's employees, nat$rally, #o$ld give gro$nd for ana#tion for damages.Passengers do not #ontra#t merely for transportation. hey have a right to "e treated "y the#arrier's employees with kindness, respe#t, #o$rtesy and d$e #onsideration. hey are entitled to "eprote#ted against personal mis#ond$#t, in@$rio$s lang$age, indignities and a"$ses fro m s$#hemployees. So it is, that any r$de or dis#o$rteo$s #ond$#t on the part of employees towards apassenger gives the latter an a#tion for damages against the #arrier... h$s, >;here a steamship #ompany .3 had a##epted a passenger's #he#k, it was a "rea#h of #ontra#t and a tort, giving a right of a#tion for its agent in the presen#e of third persons to falselynotify her that the #he#k was worthless and demand payment $nder threat of e@e#tion, tho$gh thelang$age $sed was not ins$lting and she was not e@e#ted. ./ %nd this, "e#a$se, alt.oug. t.erelation o/ #assenger an! carrier is :contractual 'ot. in origin an! nature: nevert.eless:t.e act t.at 'reaks t.e contract "a, 'e also a tort: . .4 %nd in another #ase, >;here apassenger on a railroad train, when the #ond$#tor #ame to #olle#t his fare, tendered him the #ashfare to a point where the train was s#hed$led not to stop, and told him that as soon as the trainrea#hed s$#h point he wo$ld pay the #ash fare from that point to destination, there was nothing inthe #ond$#t of the passenger whi#h @$stified the #ond$#tor in $sing ins$lting lang$age to him, as "y#alling him a l$nati#,> .* and the S$preme Co$rt of So$th Carolina there held the #arrier lia"le forthe mental s$ffering of said passenger.Petitioner's #ontra#t with Carras#oso is one attended with p$"li# d$ty. he stress of Carras#oso'sa#tion as we have said, is pla#ed $pon his wrongf$l e1p$lsion. his is a violation of p$"li# d$ty "ythe petitioner,air #arrier J a #ase of 2$asi,deli#t. Damages are proper.

Kda. da Gata#lan v. Medina Facts: he de#eased J$an Gata#lan was among the passengers of Medina ransportation, driven "y Conrado Saylon and operated "y Mariano Medina. 'n its way from Cavite to Pasay, the front tires "$rst and the vehi#le fell into a #anal. Some passengers were a"le to es#ape "y themselves or with some help, while there were ., in#l$ding Gata#lan, who #o$ld not get o$t. heir #ries were heard in the neigh"o$rhood. hen there #ame a"o$t )6 men, one of them #arrying a tor#h. %s they approa#hed the "$s, it #a$ght fire and the passengers died. he fire was d$e to gasoline leak and the tor#h. Sal$d Killan$eva Kda. de Gata#lan, in her name and on "ehalf of her 3 minor #hildren, so$ght to #laim damages from the "$s #ompany. he CF8 favored the plaintiff, and the Co$rt of %ppeals forwarded the #ase to the S$preme Co$rt d$e to the amo$nt involved. Issue: ;hat was the pro1imate #a$se of the death of J$an and the other passengersB el!: ;e agree with the trial #o$rt that the #ase involves a "rea#h of #ontra#t of transportation for hire, the Medina ransportation having $ndertaken to #arry Gata#lan safely to his
/

destination, Pasay City. ;e also agree with the trial #o$rt that there was negligen#e on the part of the defendant, thro$gh his agent, the driver Saylon. here is eviden#e to show that at the time of the "low o$t, the "$s was speeding, as testified to "y one of the passengers, and as shown "y the fa#t that a##ording to the testimony of the witnesses, in#l$ding that of the defense, from the point where one of the front tires "$rst $p to the #anal where the "$s overt$rned after 0ig,0aging, there was a distan#e of a"o$t )36 meters. he #ha$ffe$r, after the "low,o$t, m$st have applied the "rakes in order to stop the "$s, "$t "e#a$se of the velo#ity at whi#h the "$s m$st have "een r$nning, its moment$m #arried it over a distan#e of )36 meters "efore it fell into the #anal and t$rned t$rtle. here is no 2$estion that $nder the #ir#$mstan#es, the defendant #arrier is lia"le. he only 2$estion is to what degree. % satisfa#tory definition of pro1imate #a$se is fo$nd in Kol$me +*, pages /(3,/(/ of %meri#an @$rispr$den#e, #ited "y plaintiffs,appellants in their "rief. 8t is as followsA . . . 'that #a$se, whi#h, in nat$ral and #ontin$o$s se2$en#e, $n"roken "y any effi#ient intervening #a$se, prod$#es the in@$ry, and witho$t whi#h the res$lt wo$ld not have o##$rred.' %nd more #omprehensively, 'the pro1imate legal #a$se is that a#ting first and prod$#ing the in@$ry, either immediately or "y setting other events in motion, all #onstit$ting a nat$ral and #ontin$o$s #hain of events, ea#h having a #lose #a$sal #onne#tion with its immediate prede#essor, the final event in the #hain immediately effe#ting the in@$ry as a nat$ral and pro"a"le res$lt of the #a$se whi#h first a#ted, $nder s$#h #ir#$mstan#es that the person responsi"le for the first event sho$ld, as an ordinary pr$dent and intelligent person, have reasona"le gro$nd to e1pe#t at the moment of his a#t or defa$lt that an in@$ry to some person might pro"a"ly res$lt therefrom. 8n the present #ase $nder the #ir#$mstan#es o"taining in the same, we do not hesitate to hold that the pro1imate #a$se was the overt$rning of the "$s, this for the reason that when the vehi#le t$rned not only on its side "$t #ompletely on its "a#k, the leaking of the gasoline from the tank was not $nnat$ral or $ne1pe#ted? that the #oming of the men with a lighted tor#h was in response to the #all for help, made not only "y the passengers, "$t most pro"a"ly, "y the driver and the #ond$#tor themselves, and that "e#a$se it was dark 9a"o$t 5A+6 in the morning:, the res#$ers had to #arry a light with them, and #oming as they did from a r$ral area where lanterns and flashlights were not availa"le? and what was more nat$ral than that said res#$ers sho$ld inno#ently approa#h the vehi#le to e1tend the aid and effe#t the res#$e re2$ested from them. 8n other words, the #oming of the men with a tor#h was to "e e1pe#ted and was a nat$ral se2$en#e of the overt$rning of the "$s, the trapping of some of its passengers and the #all for o$tside help. ;hat is more, the "$rning of the "$s #an also in part "e attri"$ted to the negligen#e of the #arrier, thro$gh is driver and its #ond$#tor. %##ording to the witness, the driver and the #ond$#tor were on the road walking "a#k and forth. hey, or at least, the driver sho$ld and m$st have known that in the position in whi#h the overt$rned "$s was, gasoline #o$ld and m$st have leaked from the gasoline tank and soaked the area in and aro$nd the "$s, this aside from the fa#t that gasoline when spilled, spe#ially over a large area, #an "e smelt and dire#ted even from a distan#e, and yet neither the driver nor the #ond$#tor wo$ld appear to have #a$tioned or taken steps to warn the res#$ers not to "ring the lighted tor#h too near the "$s. 2ro/essional Services Inc. 52SI6 v. %ativi!a! an! 8nri3ue Agana
4

%ativi!a! an! 8nri3ue Agana v. Juan Fuentes Miguel A"#il v. %ativi!a! an! 8nri3ue Agana 5664 L Sandoval,D$tierre0 L Petition for review on #ertiorari of C% de#isions Standard of conduct > Experts > Medical professionals

FACTS <atividad %gana was r$shed to Medi#al City "e#a$se of diffi#$lty of "owel movement and "loody anal dis#harge. Dr. %mpil diagnosed her to "e s$ffering from cancer o/ t.e sig"oi!. Dr. %mpil performed an anterior resection surger, on her, and finding that the malignan#y spread on her left ovary, he o"tained the #onsent of her h$s"and, !nri2$e, to permit Dr. F$entes to perform .,sterecto", on her. %fter the hystere#tomy, Dr. F$entes showed his work to Dr. %mpil, who e1amined it and fo$nd it in order, so he allowed Dr. F$entes to leave the operating room. Dr. %mpil was a"o$t to #omplete the pro#ed$re when the attending n$rses made some remarks on the =e#ord of 'perationA >sponge count lacking 2; announced to surgeon search done but to no avail continue for closure> 9two pie#es of ga$0e were missing:. % >diligent sear#h> was #ond$#ted "$t they #o$ld not "e fo$nd. Dr. %mpil then dire#ted that the in#ision "e #losed. % #o$ple of days after, she #omplained of pain in her anal region, "$t the do#tors told her that it was @$st a nat$ral #onse2$en#e of the s$rgery. Dr. %mpil re#ommended that she #ons$lt an on#ologist to e1amine the #an#ero$s nodes whi#h were not removed d$ring the operation. %fter months of #ons$ltations and e1aminations in the CS, she was told that she was free of #an#er. ;eeks after #oming "a#k, her da$ghter fo$nd a pie#e of ga$0e 9).3 in: protr$ding from her vagina, so Dr. %mpil man$ally e1tra#ted this, ass$ring <atividad that the pains will go away. -owever, the pain worsened, so she so$ght treatment at a hospital, where another ).3 in pie#e of ga$0e was fo$nd in her vagina. She $nderwent another s$rgery. Sps. %gana filed a co"#laint /or !a"ages against PS8 9owner of Medi#al City:, Dr. %mpil, and Dr. F$entes, alleging that the latter are lia"le for negligence for leaving 5 pie#es of ga$0e in <atividad's "ody, and "al#ractice for #on#ealing their a#ts of negligen#e. !nri2$e %gana also filed an a!"inistrative co"#laint for gross negligen#e and malpra#ti#e against the two do#tors with the P=C 9altho$gh only the #ase against Dr. F$entes was heard sin#e Dr. %mpil was a"road:. Pending the o$t#ome of the #ases, %ativi!a! !ie! 9now s$"stit$ted "y her #hildren:. RTC /oun! 2SI an! t.e t-o !octors lia'le /or negligence an! "al#ractice. 2RC !is"isse! t.e case against +r. Fuentes. CA !is"isse! onl, t.e case against Fuentes.

ISS78 A%+

O9+I%$

). ;'< C% erred in holding Dr. %mpil lia"le for negligen#e and malpra#ti#e. %O; +R. AM2I9 IS $7I9T< 5. ;'< C% erred in a"solving Dr. F$entes of any lia"ility. %O
*

+. ;'< PS8 may "e held solidarily lia"le for Dr. %mpil's negligen#e. <8S RATIO DR. AMPIL IS LIA L! "#R $!%LI%!$&! A$D MALPRA&'I&! -is arg$ments are witho$t "asis Mdid not prove that the %meri#an do#tors were the ones who p$t L left the ga$0es? did not s$"mit eviden#e to re"$t the #orre#tness of the operation re#ord 9reA n$m"er of ga$0es $sed:? reA Dr. F$entes' alleged negligen#e, Dr. %mpil e1amined his work and fo$nd it in orderN. 9eaving /oreign su'stances in t.e -oun! a/ter incision .as 'een close! is at least pri(a facie negligence ', t.e o#erating surgeon. !ven if it has "een shown that a s$rgeon was re2$ired to leave a sponge in his patient's a"domen "e#a$se of the dangers attendant $pon delay, still, it is his legal duty to inform his patient within a reasonable time by ad ising her of what he had been compelled to do , so she #an seek relief from the effe#ts of the foreign o"@e#t left in her "ody as her #ondition might permit. ;hat's worse in this #ase is that he misled her "y saying that the pain was an ordinary #onse2$en#e of her operation.

Medical negligence; standard of diligence o s$##essf$lly p$rs$e this #ase of medi#al negligen#e, a patient m$st only prove that a health #are provider either failed to do something Mor did somethingN whi#h a reasona"ly pr$dent health #are provider wo$ld have done Mor wo$ldn't have doneN, and that the fail$re or a#tion #a$sed in@$ry to the patient.

!uty , to remove all foreign o"@e#ts from the "ody "efore #los$re of the in#ision? if he fails to do so, it was his d$ty to inform the patient a"o$t it "reach # failed to remove foreign o"@e#ts? failed to inform patient $n%ury , s$ffered pain that ne#essitated e1amination and another s$rgery &roximate Causation , "rea#h #a$sed this in@$ry? #o$ld "e tra#ed from his a#t of #losing the in#ision despite information given "y the attendant n$rses that 5 pie#es of ga$0e were still missing? what esta"lished #a$sal linkA ga$0e pie#es later e1tra#ted from patient's vagina

DR. ")!$'!S $#' LIA L! he res ipsa lo'uitur Mthing speaks for itselfN arg$ment of the %ganas' does not #onvin#e the #o$rt. Mere invo#ation and appli#ation of this do#trine does not dispense with the re2$irement of proof of negligen#e.

Re3uisites /or t.e a##lica'ilit, o/ res ipsa lo*uitur ). '##$rren#e of in@$ry 5. hing whi#h #a$sed in@$ry was $nder the control an! "anage"ent o/ t.e !e/en!ant =+R. F78%T8S> ,, ()C*$+, S$+CE C-.(/M,- 0)S 0$-1 !.. )M&$(
(

+. '##$rren#e was s$#h that in the ordinary #o$rse of things, wo$ld not have happened if those who had #ontrol or management $sed proper #are .. %"sen#e of e1planation "y defendant Cnder the &aptain of the Ship r$le, the operating s$rgeon is the person in #omplete #harge of the s$rgery room and all personnel #onne#ted with the operation. hat Dr. %mpil dis#harged s$#h role is evident from the followingA

-e #alled Dr. F$entes to perform a hystere#tomy -e e1amined Dr. F$entes' work and fo$nd it in order -e granted Dr. F$entes permission to leave -e ordered the #los$re of the in#ision

+#SPI'AL #,$!R PSI S#LIDARIL- LIA L! ,I'+ DR. AMPIL .$&& 2/0123 A$D DIR!&'L- LIA L! '# SPS. A%A$AS .$&& 2/452 Previo$sly, employers #annot "e held lia"le for the fa$lt or negligen#e of its professionals. -owever, this do#trine has weakened sin#e #o$rts #ame to reali0e that modern hospitals are taking a more a#tive role in s$pplying and reg$lating medi#al #are to its patients, "y employing staff of physi#ians, among others. -en#e, there is no reason to e1empt hospitals from the $niversal r$le of respondeat superior. -ere are the Co$rt's "ases for s$staining PS8's lia"ilityA

.amos . C) do#trine on !,! relationship

For p$rposes of apportioning responsi"ility in medi#al negligen#e #ases, an employer,employee relationship in effe#t e1ists "etween hospitals and their attending and visiting physi#ians. ML%G'= L!SS'<A power to hire, fire, power of #ontrolN

%gen#y prin#iple of apparent a$thority L agen#y "y estoppel

8mposes lia"ility "e#a$se of the a#tions of a prin#ipal or employer in somehow misleading the p$"li# into "elieving that the relationship or the a$thority e1ists Msee <CC )*/(N PS8 p$"li#ly displays in the Medi#al City lo""y the names and spe#iali0ations of their physi#ians. -en#e, PS8 is now estopped from passing all the "lame to the physi#ians whose names it pro$dly paraded in the p$"li# dire#tory, leading the p$"li# to "elieve that it vo$#hed for their skill and #ompeten#e.

8f do#tors do well, hospital profits finan#ially, so when negligen#e mars the 2$ality of its servi#es, the hospital sho$ld not "e allowed to es#ape lia"ility for its agents' a#ts.
)6

Do#trine of #orporate negligen#e L #orporate responsi"ility

his is the @$di#ial answer to the pro"lem of allo#ating hospital's lia"ility for the negligent a#ts of health pra#titioners, a"sent fa#ts to s$pport the appli#ation of respondeat superior. his provides for the d$ties e1pe#ted Mfrom hospitalsN. 8n this #ase, PS8 failed to perform the d$ty of e1er#ising reasona"le #are to prote#t from harm all patients admitted into its fa#ility for medi#al treatment. 2SI /aile! to con!uct an investigation o/ t.e "atter re#orte! in t.e note o/ t.e count nurse( an! t.is esta'lis.e! 2SI?s #art in t.e !ark cons#irac, o/ silence an! conceal"ent a'out t.e gau@es.

PS8 has a#t$al L #onstr$#tive knowledge of the matter, thro$gh the report of the attending n$rses O the fa#t that the operation was #arried on with the assistan#e of vario$s hospital staff

8t also "rea#hed its d$ties to oversee or s$pervise all persons who pra#ti#e medi#ine within its walls and take an a#tive step in fi1ing the negligen#e #ommitted

PS8 also lia"le $nder <CC 5)*6

8t failed to add$#e eviden#e to show that it e1er#ised the diligen#e of a good father of the family in the a##reditation and s$pervision of Dr. %mpil

=amos v. C% Facts: !rlinda =amos, a .4,year old ro"$st woman, was normal e1#ept for her e1perien#ing o##asional pain d$e to the presen#e of stone in her gall "ladder. She was advised to $ndergo an operation for its removal. he res$lts in the e1aminations she $nderwent indi#ate that she was fit for the operation. She and her h$s"and =ogelio met Dr. -osaka, one of the defendants, who advised that she sho$ld $ndergo #hole#yste#tomy. Dr. -osaka ass$red them that he will get a good anaesthesiologist. %t 4A+6 a.m. on the day of the operation at Delos Santos Medi#al Center, -erminda Cr$0, !rlinda7s sister,in, law and the dean of the College of <$rsing in Capitol Medi#al Center, was there to provide moral s$pport. Dr. Perfe#ta D$tierre0 was to administer the anaesthesia. Dr. -osaka arrived only at )5A)3 p. m. -erminda saw Dr. D$tierre0 int$"ating the patient, and heard the latter say H%ng hirap ma,int$"ate nito, mali yata ang pagkakapasok. ', l$malaki ang tiyan.I -erminda saw "l$ish dis#oloration of the nail"eds of the patient. She heard Dr. -osaka iss$e an order for someone to #all Dr. Calderon. he do#tor arrived and pla#ed the patient in trendelen"$rg position, wherein the head of the patient is positioned lower than the feet, whi#h indi#ates a de#rease of "lood s$pply in the "rain. -erminda knew and told =ogelio that something wrong was happening. Dr.
))

Calderon was a"le to int$"ate the patient. !rlinda was taken to the 8CC and "e#ame #omatose. =ogelio filed a #ivil #ase for damages. he trial #o$rt r$led in his favor, finding Dr. D$tierre0, Dr. -osaka, and the hospital, g$ilty of negligen#e, "$t the Co$rt of %ppeals reversed the de#ision. -en#e, petitioner filed a Motion for =e#onsideration, whi#h the Co$rt of %ppeals denied for having "een filed "eyond the reglementary period. -owever, it was fo$nd that the noti#e of the de#ision was never sent to the petitioner7s #o$nsel. =ather, it was sent to the petitioner, addressing him as %tty. =ogelio =amos, as if he was the legal #o$nsel. he petitioner filed the instant petition for #ertiorari. 'n the pro#ed$ral iss$e, the S$preme Co$rt r$les that sin#e the noti#e did not rea#h the petitioner7s then legal #o$nsel, the motion was filed on time. Issue: ;hether a s$rgeon, an anaesthesiologist, and a hospital, sho$ld "e made lia"le for the $nfort$nate #omatose #ondition of a patient s#hed$led for #hole#yste#tomy el!: .es $psa (o'uitor .es ipsa lo'uitur is a Latin phrase whi#h literally means >the thing or the transa#tion speaks for itself.> he phrase >res ipsa lo'uitur'' is a ma1im for the r$le that the fa#t of the o##$rren#e of an in@$ry, taken with the s$rro$nding #ir#$mstan#es, may permit an inferen#e or raise a pres$mption of negligen#e, or make o$t a plaintiff's prima facie #ase, and present a 2$estion of fa#t for defendant to meet with an e1planation. ;here the thing whi#h #a$sed the in@$ry #omplained of is shown to "e $nder the management of the defendant or his servants and the a##ident is s$#h as in ordinary #o$rse of things does not happen if those who have its management or #ontrol $se proper #are, it affords reasona"le eviden#e, in the a"sen#e of e1planation "y the defendant, that the a##ident arose from or was #a$sed "y the defendant's want of #are. 8t is gro$nded in the s$perior logi# of ordinary h$man e1perien#e and on the "asis of s$#h e1perien#e or #ommon knowledge, negligen#e may "e ded$#ed from the mere o##$rren#e of the a##ident itself. -owever, m$#h has "een said that res ipsa lo'uitur is not a r$le of s$"stantive law and, as s$#h, does not #reate or #onstit$te an independent or separate gro$nd of lia"ility. Mere invo#ation and appli#ation of the do#trine does not dispense with the re2$irement of proof of negligen#e. 8t is simply a step in the pro#ess of s$#h proof, permitting the plaintiff to present along with the proof of the a##ident, eno$gh of the attending #ir#$mstan#es to invoke the do#trine, #reating an inferen#e or pres$mption of negligen#e, and to there"y pla#e on the defendant the "$rden of going forward with the proof. Still, "efore resort to the do#trine may "e allowed, the following re2$isites m$st "e satisfa#torily shown. 9): he a##ident is of a kind whi#h ordinarily does not o##$r in the a"sen#e of someone's negligen#e? 95: 8t is #a$sed "y an instr$mentality within the e1#l$sive #ontrol of the defendant or defendants? and 9+: he possi"ility of #ontri"$ting #ond$#t whi#h wo$ld make the plaintiff responsi"le is eliminated.
)5

Medi#al malpra#ti#e #ases do not es#ape the appli#ation of this do#trine. h$s, res ipsa lo'uitur has "een applied when the #ir#$mstan#es attendant $pon the harm are themselves of s$#h a #hara#ter as to @$stify an inferen#e of negligen#e as the #a$se of that harm. %ltho$gh generally, e1pert medi#al testimony is relied $pon in malpra#ti#e s$its to prove that a physi#ian has done a negligent a#t or that he has deviated from the standard medi#al pro#ed$re, when the do#trine of res ipsa lo'uitur is availed "y the plaintiff, the need for e1pert medi#al testimony is dispensed with "e#a$se the in@$ry itself provides the proof of negligen#e. -en#e, in #ases where the res ipsa lo'uitur is appli#a"le, the #o$rt is permitted to find a physi#ian negligent $pon proper proof of in@$ry to the patient, witho$t the aid of e1pert testimony, where the #o$rt from its f$nd of #ommon knowledge #an determine the proper standard of #are. ;hen the do#trine is appropriate, all that the patient m$st do is prove a ne1$s "etween the parti#$lar a#t or omission #omplained of and the in@$ry s$stained while $nder the #$stody and management of the defendant witho$t need to prod$#e e1pert medi#al testimony to esta"lish the standard of #are. =esort to res ipsa lo'uitur is allowed "e#a$se there is no other way, $nder $s$al and ordinary #onditions, "y whi#h the patient #an o"tain redress for in@$ry s$ffered "y him. .es ipsa lo'uitur is not a rigid or ordinary do#trine to "e perf$n#torily $sed "$t a r$le to "e #a$tio$sly applied, depending $pon the #ir#$mstan#es of ea#h #ase. % distin#tion m$st "e made "etween the fail$re to se#$re res$lts, and the o##$rren#e of something more $n$s$al and not ordinarily fo$nd if the servi#e or treatment rendered followed the $s$al pro#ed$re of those skilled in that parti#$lar pra#ti#e. he real 2$estion, therefore, is whether or not in the pro#ess of the operation any e1traordinary in#ident or $n$s$al event o$tside of the ro$tine performan#e o##$rred whi#h is "eyond the reg$lar s#ope of #$stomary professional a#tivity in s$#h operations, whi#h, if $ne1plained wo$ld themselves reasona"ly speak to the average man as the negligent #a$se or #a$ses of the $ntoward #onse2$en#e. ;e find the do#trine of res ipsa lo'uitur appropriate in the #ase at "ar. !rlinda s$"mitted herself for #hole#yste#tomy and e1pe#ted a ro$tine general s$rgery to "e performed on her gall "ladder. 'n that fatef$l day she delivered her person over to the #are, #$stody and #ontrol of private respondents who e1er#ised #omplete and e1#l$sive #ontrol over her. %t the time of s$"mission, !rlinda was ne$rologi#ally so$nd and, e1#ept for a few minor dis#omforts, was likewise physi#ally fit in mind and "ody. -owever, d$ring the administration of anesthesia and prior to the performan#e of #hole#yste#tomy she s$ffered irrepara"le damage to her "rain. h$s, witho$t $ndergoing s$rgery, she went o$t of the operating room already de#ere"rate and totally in#apa#itated. '"vio$sly, "rain damage, whi#h !rlinda s$stained, is an in@$ry whi#h does not normally o##$r in the pro#ess of a gall "ladder operation. 8n fa#t, this kind of sit$ation does not in the a"sen#e of negligen#e of someone in the administration of anesthesia and in the $se of endotra#heal t$"e. F$rthermore, the instr$ments $sed in the administration of anesthesia, in#l$ding the endotra#heal t$"e, were all $nder the e1#l$sive #ontrol of private respondents, who are the physi#ians,in,#harge. Likewise, petitioner !rlinda #o$ld not have "een g$ilty of #ontri"$tory negligen#e "e#a$se she was $nder the infl$en#e of anestheti#s whi#h rendered her $n#ons#io$s. +egligence of the )naesthesiologist he pre,operative eval$ation of a patient prior to the administration of anesthesia is $niversally o"served to lessen the possi"ility of anestheti# a##idents. =espondent Dra.
)+

D$tierre0' a#t of seeing her patient for the first time only an ho$r "efore the s#hed$led operative pro#ed$re was, therefore, an a#t of e1#eptional negligen#e and professional irresponsi"ility. -er fail$re to follow this medi#al pro#ed$re is, therefore, a #lear indicia of her negligen#e. !rlinda's #ase was ele#tive and this was known to respondent Dra. D$tierre0. h$s, she had all the time to make a thoro$gh eval$ation of !rlinda's #ase prior to the operation and prepare her for anesthesia. -owever, she never saw the patient at the "edside. She herself admitted that she had seen petitioner only in the operating room, and only on the a#t$al date of the #hole#yste#tomy. She negligently failed to take advantage of this important opport$nity. %s s$#h, her attempt to e1#$lpate herself m$st fail. 2pinion of Expert 0itness %n anestheti# a##ident #a$sed "y a rare dr$g,ind$#ed "ron#hospasm properly falls within the fields of anesthesia, internal medi#ine,allergy, and #lini#al pharma#ology. he res$lting ano1i# en#ephalopathy "elongs to the field of ne$rology. ;hile admittedly, many "ron#hospasti#,mediated p$lmonary diseases are within the e1pertise of p$lmonary medi#ine, Dr. Jamora's field, the anestheti# dr$g,ind$#ed, allergi# mediated "ron#hospasm alleged in this #ase is within the dis#iplines of anesthesiology, allergology and pharma#ology. 'n the "asis of the foregoing trans#ript, in whi#h the p$lmonologist himself admitted that he #o$ld not testify a"o$t the dr$g with medi#al a$thority, it is #lear that the appellate #o$rt erred in giving weight to Dr. Jamora's testimony as an e1pert in the administration of hiopental Sodi$m. Denerally, to 2$alify as an e1pert witness, one m$st have a#2$ired spe#ial knowledge of the s$"@e#t matter a"o$t whi#h he or she is to testify, either "y the st$dy of re#ogni0ed a$thorities on the s$"@e#t or "y pra#ti#al e1perien#e. Clearly, Dr. Jamora does not 2$alify as an e1pert witness "ased on the a"ove standard sin#e he la#ks the ne#essary knowledge, skill, and training in the field of anesthesiology. 'ddly, apart from s$"mitting testimony from a spe#ialist in the wrong field, private respondents' intentionally avoided providing testimony "y #ompetent and independent e1perts in the proper areas. &roximate Cause Pro1imate #a$se has "een defined as that whi#h, in nat$ral and #ontin$o$s se2$en#e, $n"roken "y any effi#ient intervening #a$se, prod$#es in@$ry, and witho$t whi#h the res$lt wo$ld not have o##$rred. %n in@$ry or damage is pro1imately #a$sed "y an a#t or a fail$re to a#t, whenever it appears from the eviden#e in the #ase, that the a#t or omission played a s$"stantial part in "ringing a"o$t or a#t$ally #a$sing the in@$ry or damage? and that the in@$ry or damage was either a dire#t res$lt or a reasona"ly pro"a"le #onse2$en#e of the a#t or omission. 8nstead of the intended endotra#heal int$"ation what a#t$ally took pla#e was an esophageal int$"ation. D$ring int$"ation, s$#h distention indi#ates that air has entered the gastrointestinal tra#t thro$gh the esophag$s instead of the l$ngs thro$gh the tra#hea. !ntry into the esophag$s wo$ld #ertainly #a$se some delay in o1ygen delivery into the l$ngs as the t$"e whi#h #arries o1ygen is in the wrong pla#e. hat a"dominal distention had "een o"served d$ring the first int$"ation s$ggests that the length of time $tili0ed in inserting the endotra#heal t$"e 9$p to the time the t$"e was withdrawn for the se#ond attempt: was fairly signifi#ant. D$e to the delay in the delivery of o1ygen in her l$ngs !rlinda showed signs of #yanosis. .esponsibility of the Surgeon
).

%s the so,#alled >#aptain of the ship,> it is the s$rgeon's responsi"ility to see to it that those $nder him perform their task in the proper manner. =espondent Dr. -osaka's negligen#e #an "e fo$nd in his fail$re to e1er#ise the proper a$thority in not determining if his anesthesiologist o"served proper anesthesia proto#ols. 8n fa#t, no eviden#e on re#ord e1ists to show that respondent Dr. -osaka verified if respondent Dra. D$tierre0 properly int$"ated the patient. F$rthermore, it does not es#ape $s that respondent Dr. -osaka had s#hed$led another pro#ed$re in a different hospital at the same time as !rlinda's #hole#yste#tomy, and was in fa#t over three ho$rs late for the latter's operation. Ge#a$se of this, he had little or no time to #onfer with his anesthesiologist regarding the anesthesia delivery. his indi#ates that he was remiss in his professional d$ties towards his patient. h$s, he shares e2$al responsi"ility for the events whi#h res$lted in !rlinda's #ondition. .esponsibility of the 1ospital -ospitals hire, fire and e1er#ise real #ontrol over their attending and visiting >#ons$ltant> staff. ;hile >#ons$ltants> are not, te#hni#ally employees, a point whi#h respondent hospital asserts in denying all responsi"ility for the patient's #ondition, the #ontrol e1er#ised, the hiring, and the right to terminate #ons$ltants all f$lfill the important hallmarks of an employer,employee relationship, with the e1#eption of the payment of wages. 8n assessing whether s$#h a relationship in fa#t e1ists, the #ontrol test is determining. %##ordingly, on the "asis of the foregoing, we r$le that for the p$rpose of allo#ating responsi"ility in medi#al negligen#e #ases, an employer,employee relationship in effe#t e1ists "etween hospitals and their attending and visiting physi#ians. he "asis for holding an employer solidarily responsi"le for the negligen#e of its employee is fo$nd in %rti#le 5)*6 of the Civil Code whi#h #onsiders a person a##o$nta"le not only for his own a#ts "$t also for those of others "ased on the former's responsi"ility $nder a relationship of patria potestas. S$#h responsi"ility #eases when the persons or entity #on#erned prove that they have o"served the diligen#e of a good father of the family to prevent damage. 8n the instant #ase, respondent hospital, apart from a general denial of its responsi"ility over respondent physi#ians, failed to add$#e eviden#e showing that it e1er#ised the diligen#e of a good father of a family in the hiring and s$pervision of the latter. 8t failed to add$#e eviden#e with regard to the degree of s$pervision whi#h it e1er#ised over its physi#ians. 8n negle#ting to offer s$#h proof, or proof of a similar nat$re, respondent hospital there"y failed to dis#harge its "$rden $nder the last paragraph of %rti#le 5)*6. -aving failed to do this, respondent hospital is #onse2$ently solidarily responsi"le with its physi#ians for !rlinda's #ondition. !amages %t #$rrent levels, the P*666Lmonthly amo$nt esta"lished "y the trial #o$rt at the time of its de#ision wo$ld "e grossly inade2$ate to #over the a#t$al #osts of home,"ased #are for a #omatose individ$al. he #al#$lated amo$nt was not even arrived at "y looking at the a#t$al #ost of proper hospi#e #are for the patient. ;hat it refle#ted were the a#t$al e1penses in#$rred and proved "y the petitioners after they were for#ed to "ring home the patient to avoid mo$nting hospital "ills. %nd yet ideally, a #omatose patient sho$ld remain in a hospital or "e transferred to a hospi#e spe#iali0ing in the #are of the #hroni#ally ill for the p$rpose of providing a proper milie$ ade2$ate to meet minim$m standards of #are. Diven these #onsiderations, the amo$nt of a#t$al damages
)3

re#overa"le in s$its arising from negligen#e sho$ld at least refle#t the #orre#t minim$m #ost of proper #are, not the #ost of the #are the family is $s$ally #ompelled to $ndertake at home to avoid "ankr$pt#y. '$r r$les on a#t$al or #ompensatory damages generally ass$me that at the time of litigation, the in@$ry s$ffered as a #onse2$en#e of an a#t of negligen#e has "een #ompleted and that the #ost #an "e li2$idated. -owever, these provisions negle#t to take into a##o$nt those sit$ations, as in this #ase, where the res$lting in@$ry might "e #ontin$ing and possi"le f$t$re #ompli#ations dire#tly arising from the in@$ry, while #ertain to o##$r, are diffi#$lt to predi#t. emperate damages #an and sho$ld "e awarded on top of a#t$al or #ompensatory damages in instan#es where the in@$ry is #hroni# and #ontin$ing. %nd "e#a$se of the $ni2$e nat$re of s$#h #ases, no in#ompati"ility arises when "oth a#t$al and temperate damages are provided for. he reason is that these damages #over two distin#t phases. %s it wo$ld not "e e2$ita"le , and #ertainly not in the "est interests of the administration of @$sti#e , for the vi#tim in s$#h #ases to #onstantly #ome "efore the #o$rts and invoke their aid in seeking ad@$stments to the #ompensatory damages previo$sly awarded , temperate damages are appropriate. he amo$nt given as temperate damages, tho$gh to a #ertain e1tent spe#$lative, sho$ld take into a##o$nt the #ost of proper #are. 8n the instant #ase, petitioners were a"le to provide only home,"ased n$rsing #are for a #omatose patient who has remained in that #ondition for over a de#ade. -aving premised o$r award for #ompensatory damages on the amo$nt provided "y petitioners at the onset of litigation, it wo$ld "e now m$#h more in step with the interests of @$sti#e if the val$e awarded for temperate damages wo$ld allow petitioners to provide optimal #are for their loved one in a fa#ility whi#h generally spe#iali0es in s$#h #are. hey sho$ld not "e #ompelled "y dire #ir#$mstan#es to provide s$"standard #are at home witho$t the aid of professionals, for anything less wo$ld "e grossly inade2$ate. Cnder the #ir#$mstan#es, an award of P),366,666.66 in temperate damages wo$ld therefore "e reasona"le. Petitioner !rlinda =amos was in her mid,forties when the in#ident o##$rred. She has "een in a #omatose state for over fo$rteen years now. he "$rden of #are has so far "een heroi#ally sho$ldered "y her h$s"and and #hildren, who, in the intervening years have "een deprived of the love of a wife and a mother. Meanwhile, the a#t$al physi#al, emotional and finan#ial #ost of the #are of petitioner wo$ld "e virt$ally impossi"le to 2$antify. !ven the temperate damages herein awarded wo$ld "e inade2$ate if petitioner's #ondition remains $n#hanged for the ne1t ten years. he h$s"and and the #hildren, all petitioners in this #ase, will have to live with the day to day $n#ertainty of the patient's illness, knowing any hope of re#overy is #lose to nil. hey have fashioned their daily lives aro$nd the n$rsing #are of petitioner, altering their long term goals to take into a##o$nt their life with a #omatose patient. hey, not the respondents, are #harged with the moral responsi"ility of the #are of the vi#tim. he family's moral in@$ry and s$ffering in this #ase is #learly a real one. For the foregoing reasons, an award of P5,666,666.66 in moral damages wo$ld "e appropriate. Finally, "y way of e1ample, e1emplary damages in the amo$nt of P)66,666.66 are here"y awarded. Considering the length and nat$re of the instant s$it we are of the opinion that attorney's fees val$ed at P)66,666.66 are likewise proper. ;-!=!F'=!, the de#ision and resol$tion of the appellate #o$rt appealed from are here"y modified so as to award in favor of petitioners, and solidarily against private respondents the followingA ): P),+35,666.66 as a#t$al damages #omp$ted as of the
)/

date of prom$lgation of this de#ision pl$s a monthly payment of P*,666.66 $p to the time that petitioner !rlinda =amos e1pires or mira#$lo$sly s$rvives? 5: P5,666,666.66 as moral damages, +: P),366,666.66 as temperate damages? .: P)66,666.66 ea#h as e1emplary damages and attorney's fees? and, 3: the #osts of the s$it. $arcia( Jr. v. Salva!or 95664: L Enares,Santiago

"acts =anida Salvador started working as a trainee in LG- . She $nderwent a medi#al e1am P CDC with Dar#ia 9medte#h: #ond$#ting the -Gs %g test. -er res$lt was =!%C 8K!. he #ompany physi#ian 9Sto. Domingo: told her she is s$ffering from -epaG, and "ased on the medi#al report SD s$"mitted, LG- terminated her employment. =anida told her father =amon a"o$t her #ondition, then the latter s$ffered a heart atta#k and was #onfined at Gataan Do#tors -ospital. =anida took another -Gs %g test in GD-, and the res$lt was <'<,=!%C 8K!. She told Dr. SD a"o$t it "$t the latter said the CDC test was more relia"le, so she took another test at CDC again, and the res$lt this time was <'<,=!%C 8K!. She took the same test $sed in CDC P GD- and the res$lt was <'<,=!%C 8K! 9fo$r testsQ:. She s$"mitted the res$lts to the LG- !1e#'ff who re2$ested her to $ndergo $nder test 9; FQ: , res$lt is <!D% 8K! 93th test, haha:, so LG- rehired her. =anida and =amon filed a #omplaint for damages against medte#h Dar#ia O pathologist Castro, #laiming that the erroneo$s interpretation led her to lose her @o", s$ffer mental an1iety, while =amon was hospitali0ed O lost "$siness opport$nities. Dar#ia denied the allegations of gross negligen#e and in#ompeten#e? e1plained >false positive.> Castro said he did not e1amine =anida, and that the res$lts "ore only his stamped signat$re. = C dismissed the Salvadors' #omplaint for fail$re to present s$ffi#ient eviden#e. C% reversed this and ordered Dar#ia to pay moral damages 936k:, e1emplary damages 936k:, and atty's fees 953k:. Castro was e1onerated.

Issue and +olding ;'< C% #orre#tly fo$nd Dar#ia lia"le for damages. <8S ). ;'< a person is negligent is a 2$estion of fa#t ,, petition for review on #ertiorari limited to reviewing errors of law ). <egligen#e , fail$re to o"serve for the prote#tion of another's interest that degree of #are, pre#a$tion and vigilan#e whi#h #ir# demand, where"y the other s$ffers in@$ry ). %LL !L!M!< S 'F %< %C 8'<%GL! C'<DCC %=! P=!S!< 8< -8S C%S! ). D$ty 5. Grea#h
)4

+. 8n@$ry .. Pro1imate #a$sation 5. <egligen#e is a violation of stat$tory d$ty ,, so many laws were "rokenQ ). CDC is not administered, dire#ted, s$pervised "y li#ensed physi#ian "$t "y a li#ensed medte#h ). Castro's infre2$ent visit "arely 2$alifies as an admin s$pervision and #ontrol 5. Dar#ia #ond$#ted -Gs %g test of =anida witho$t Castro's s$pervision +. -Gs %g test res$lt released to =anida witho$t Castro's a$thori0ation +. Dar#ia's fail$re to #omply with laws, r$les prom$lgated for the prote#tion of p$"li# safety and interest is fail$re to o"serve the #are whi#h a reasona"ly pr$dent health #are provider wo$ld o"serve ,,R G=!%C- 'F DC EQ .. 8n@$ries s$ffered "y =anida #o$ld have "een avoided had proper safeg$ards "een followed 3. <CC 56 is the legal "asis for award of damages to one who s$ffers whenever another #ommits an a#t in violation of some legal provision Damages, fees $pheld. Dar#ia g$ilty of gross negligen#e.

9$ Foo!s v. Agravia!or 52**66 T.e Case =eview on #ertiorari of a de#ision of the C% on 53 %pril 566+ affirming an order of Ga#olod = C, whi#h in t$rn denied the petitioners7 motion to dismiss an a#tion for damages arising from a vehi#$lar a##ident instit$ted "y the Kalle@era spo$ses. T.e Facts 'n Fe"r$ary 5/, )((/, Charles Kallere@a, a 4,year old son of the Kalle@era spo$ses, was hit "y a Ford Fiera vanowned "y LD Foods Corporation 9LD Foods: and driven "y their employee, Kin#ent <orman Eene0a y Ferrer.Charles died as a res$lt of the a##ident.%n information for re#kless impr$den#e res$lting to homi#ide was filed against the driver "efore the Ga#olodM CC. Gefore the trial #o$ld "e #on#l$ded, however, the a##$sed driver #ommitted s$i#ide. he #ase was thendismissed.'n J$ne 5+, )(((, the spo$ses Kalle@era filed a #omplaint for damages against LD Foods alleging that asemployers, they failed to e1er#ise d$e diligen#e in the sele#tion and s$pervision of their employees.8n their defense, LD Foods denied lia"ility "y #laiming to have e1er#ised s$#h diligen#e and prayed for dismissal forla#k of #a$se of a#tion. %lso in their motion to
)*

dismiss, they arg$ed that the #omplaint was a #laim for s$"sidiarylia"ility against an employer $nder %)6+3, =PC and, as s$#h, there m$st first "e a @$dgment of #onvi#tion againsttheir driver to hold them lia"le. Sin#e s$#h #ondition was not f$lfilled d$e to the latter7s death, they arg$ed, the spo$ses had no #a$se of a#tion. he trial #o$rt denied the motion for la#k of merit. %lso, it denied the motion for re#onsideration of the matter. LDFoods then went on #ertiorari to the C% alleging grave a"$se of dis#retion of the part of the trial @$dge. he C%, however, affirmed the = C de#ision r$ling that the #omplaint "y the spo$ses does not p$rport to "e "asedon s$"sidiary lia"ility sin#e the "asi# elements of s$#h lia"ility, s$#h as #onvi#tion and insolven#y of the a##$sedemployee, were not even alleged in said #omplaint. 8t then said that the #omplaint p$rports to e1a#t responsi"ilityfor fa$lt or negligen#e $nder %5)4/, CC, whi#h is entirely separate and distin#t from #ivil lia"ility arising fromnegligen#e $nder the %)6+, =PC. Lia"ility $nder %5)*6, CC is dire#t and immediate, and not #onditioned $pon priorre#o$rse against the negligent employee or showing of insolven#y. T.e Issue ;hether the #a$se of a#tion of the Kalle@era spo$ses is fo$nded on CC or =PC. T.e Ruling he #ase is a negligen#e s$it "ro$ght $nder %5)4/, CC to re#over damages primarily from LD Foods as employersresponsi"le for their negligent driver p$rs$ant to %5)*6, CC. he o"ligation imposed "y %5)4/ is demanda"le notonly for one's own a#ts or omissions, "$t also for those of persons for whom one is responsi"le. h$s, theemployer is lia"le for damages #a$sed "y his employees. T.e Ratio First. <othing in the allegations in the #omplaint s$ggests that the LD Foods are "eing made to a##o$nt for theirs$"sidiary lia"ility $nder %rti#le )6+ of the =evised Penal Code. Pl$s, the #omplaint did not even aver the "asi#elements for the s$"sidiary lia"ility of an employer $nder said provision.

)(