Full Text of Torts & Damages Cases

Reference: Torts and Damages by Aquino

3G ( !" # !"3$

2
MR. AND MRS. AMADOR C. ONG %& METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT G&R& 'o& (#)**+&August ,- ",./ 0A1T23TA A'G4(5- J.: 6laintiffs s7ouses see8 to reco%er from defendant- a go%ernment#o9ned cor7oration- t:e sum of 6.!-!!! as damages- 6.-!!! as funeral ex7enses- and 6""-!!! as attorneys; fees- for t:e deat: of t:eir son Dominador 5ng in one of t:e s9imming 7ools o7erated by defendant& Defendant admits t:e fact t:at 7laintiffs; son 9as dro9ned in one of its s9imming 7ools but a%ers t:at :is deat: 9as caused by :is o9n negligence or by una%oidable accident& Defendant also a%ers t:at it :ad exercised due diligence in t:e selection of- and su7er%ision o%er- its em7loyees and t:at it :ad obser%ed t:e diligence required by la9 under t:e circumstances& After trial- t:e lo9er court found t:at t:e action of 7laintiffs is untenable and dismissed t:e com7laint 9it:out 7ronouncement as to costs& 6laintiffs too8 t:e case on a77eal directly to t:is Court because t:e amount in%ol%ed exceeds t:e sum of 6.!-!!!& Defendant o9ns and o7erates t:ree recreational s9imming 7ools at its 0alara filters- Diliman- <ue=on City- to 9:ic: 7eo7le are in%ited and for 9:ic: a nominal fee of 6!&.! for adults and 6!& ! for c:ildren is c:arged& T:e main 7ool it bet9een t9o small 7ools of o%al s:a7e 8no9n as t:e >?ading 7ool> and t:e >0eginners 6ool&> T:ere are di%ing boards in t:e big 7ools and t:e de7t:s of t:e 9ater at different 7arts are indicated by a77ro7riate mar8s on t:e 9all& T:e care and su7er%ision of t:e 7ools and t:e users t:ereof is entrusted to a recreational section com7osed of 3imeon C:ongco as c:ief- Armando Rule- a male nurse- and six lifeguards 9:o :ad ta8en t:e life#sa%ing course gi%en by t:e 6:ili77ine Red Cross at t:e @ACA in Aanila& For t:e safety of its 7atrons- defendant :as 7ro%ided t:e 7ools 9it: a ring buoy- toy roof- to9ing line- sa%ing 8it and a resuscitator& T:ere is also a sanitary ins7ector 9:o is in c:arge of a clinic establis:ed for t:e benefit of t:e 7atrons& Defendant :as also on dis7lay in a cons7icuous 7lace certain rules and regulations go%erning t:e use of t:e 7ools- one of 9:ic: 7ro:ibits t:e s9imming in t:e 7ool alone or 9it:out any attendant& Alt:oug: defendant does not maintain a full# time 7:ysician in t:e s9imming 7ool com7ound- it :as :o9e%er a nurse and a sanitary ins7ector ready to administer inBections or o7erate t:e oxygen resuscitator if t:e need s:ould arise& 2n t:e afternoon of Culy .- ",. - at about ":!! o;cloc8- Dominador 5ng- a "+#year old :ig: sc:ool student and boy scout- and :is brot:ers Ruben and 4usebio- 9ent to defendant;s s9imming 7ools& T:is 9as not t:e first time t:at t:e t:ree brot:ers :ad gone to said natatorium for t:ey :ad already been t:ere four or fi%e times before& T:ey arri%ed at t:e natatorium at about ":+. 7&m& After 7aying t:e requisite admission fee- t:ey immediately 9ent to one of t:e small 7ools 9:ere t:e 9ater 9as s:allo9& At about +:3. 7&m&- Dominador 5ng told :is brot:ers t:at :e 9as going to t:e loc8er room in an adBoining building to drin8 a bottle of co8e& 17on :earing t:is- Ruben and 4usebio 9ent to t:e bigger 7ool lea%ing Dominador in t:e small 7ool and so t:ey did not see t:e latter 9:en :e left t:e 7ool to get a bottle of co8e& 2n t:at afternoon- t:ere 9ere t9o lifeguards on duty in t:e 7ool com7ound- namelyAanuel AbaDo and Aario Eillanue%a& T:e tour of duty of AbaDo 9as from /:!! to " :!! in t:e morning and from :!! to *:!! in t:e afternoon- and of Eillanue%a from ):3! to "":3! a&m& and from " :3! to +:3! 7&m& 0et9een +:!! to .:!! t:at afternoon- t:ere 9ere about t9enty bat:ers inside t:e 7ool area and Aanuel AbaDo 9as going around t:e 7ools to obser%e t:e bat:ers in com7liance 9it: t:e instructions of :is c:ief& 0et9een +:+! to +:+. 7&m&- some boys 9:o 9ere in t:e 7ool area informed a bat:er by t:e name of Andres Fagad- Cr&- t:at somebody 9as s9imming under 9ater for quite a long time& Anot:er boy informed lifeguard Aanuel AbaDo of t:e same :a77ening and AbaDo immediately Bum7ed into t:e big s9imming 7ool and retrie%ed t:e a77arently lifeless body of Dominador 5ng from t:e bottom& T:e body 9as 7laced at t:e edge of t:e 7ool and AbaDo immediately a77lied manual artificial res7iration& 3oon after- male nurse Armando Rule came to render assistance- follo9ed by sanitary ins7ector 2luminado Eicente 9:o- after being called by 7:one from t:e clinic by one of t:e security guardsboarded a Bee7 carrying 9it: :im t:e resuscitator and a medicine 8it- and u7on arri%ing :e inBected t:e boy 9it: cam7:orated oil& After t:e inBection- Eicente left on a Bee7 in order to fetc: Dr& Ayuyao from

3
t:e 1ni%ersity of t:e 6:ili77ines& Aean9:ile- AbaDo continued t:e artificial manual res7iration- and 9:en t:is failed to re%i%e :im- t:ey a77lied t:e resuscitator until t:e t9o oxygen tan8s 9ere ex:austed& 'ot long t:ereafter- Dr& Ayuyao arri%ed 9it: anot:er resuscitator- but t:e same became of no use because :e found t:e boy already dead& T:e doctor ordered t:at t:e body be ta8en to t:e clinic& 2n t:e e%ening of t:e same day- Culy .- ",. - t:e incident 9as in%estigated by t:e 6olice De7artment of <ue=on City and in t:e in%estigation boys Ruben 5ng and Andres Fagad- Cr& ga%e 9ritten statements& 5n t:e follo9ing day- Culy *- ",. - an auto7sy 9as 7erformed by Dr& 4nrique E& de los 3antos- C:ief- Aedico (egal Di%ision- 'ational 0ureau of 2n%estigation- 9:o found in t:e body of t:e deceased t:e follo9ing: an abrasion on t:e rig:t elbo9 lateral as7ectG contusion on t:e rig:t fore:eadG :ematoma on t:e scal7- frontal region- rig:t sideG a congestion in t:e brain 9it: 7etec:ial subcortical :emorr:age- frontal lobeG cyanosis on t:e face and on t:e nailsG t:e lung 9as soggy 9it: fine frot: in t:e bronc:iolesG dar8 fluid blood in t:e :eartG congestion in t:e %isceral organs- and bro9nis: fluid in t:e stomac:& T:e deat: 9as due to as7:yxia by submersion in 9ater& T:e issue 7osed in t:is a77eal is 9:et:er t:e deat: of minor Dominador 5ng can be attributed to t:e negligence of defendant andHor its em7loyees so as to entitle 7laintiffs to reco%er damages& T:e 7resent action is go%erned by Article ")* in relation to Article !/! of t:e ne9 Ci%il Code& T:e first article 7ro%ides t:at >9:oe%er by act or omission causes damage to anot:er- t:ere being fault or negligence- is obliged to 7ay for t:e damages done&> 3uc: fault or negligence is called quasi#delict& 1nder t:e second article- t:is obligation is demandable not only for one;s o9n acts or omissions but also for t:ose of 7ersons for 9:om one is res7onsible& 2n addition- 9e may quote t:e follo9ing aut:orities cited in t:e decision of t:e trial court: >T:e rule is 9ell settled t:at t:e o9ners of resorts to 9:ic: 7eo7le generally are ex7ressly or by im7lication in%ited are legally bound to exercise ordinary care and 7rudence in t:e management and maintenance of suc: resorts- to t:e end of ma8ing t:em reasonably safe for %isitors> ((ar8in %s& 3altair 0eac: Co&- 3! 1ta: /*- /3 6ac& */*$& >Alt:oug: t:e 7ro7rietor of a natatorium is liable for inBuries to a 7atron- resulting from lac8 of ordinary care in 7ro%iding for :is safety- 9it:out t:e fault of t:e 7atron- :e is not- :o9e%er- in any sense deemed to be t:e insurer of t:e safety of 7atrons& And t:e deat: of a 7atron 9it:in :is 7remises does not cast u7on :im t:e burden of excusing :imself from any 7resum7tion of negligence> (0ertalot vs& Iinnare& ) 2ll& A77& . A& (& R& *3.G Flora vs& 0imini ?ater Co&"*" Cal& +,.- "", 6ac& **"$& T:us in Bertalot vs. Kinnare, supra- it 9as :eld t:at t:ere could be no reco%ery for t:e deat: by dro9ning of a fifteen#year boy in defendant;s natatorium- 9:ere it a77eared merely t:at :e 9as lastly seen ali%e in 9ater at t:e s:allo9 end of t:e 7ool- and some ten or fifteen minutes later 9as disco%ered unconscious- and 7er:a7s lifeless- at t:e bottom of t:e 7ool- all efforts to resuscitate :im being 9it:out a%ail& 3ince t:e 7resent action is one for damages founded on cul7able negligence- t:e 7rinci7le to be obser%ed is t:at t:e 7erson claiming damages :as t:e burden of 7ro%ing t:at t:e damage is caused by t:e fault or negligence of t:e 7erson from 9:om t:e damage is claimed- or of one of :is em7loyees (?alter A& 3mit: & Co& vs& Cad9allader Gibson (umber Co&- .. 6:il&- .")$& T:e question t:en t:at arises is: Fa%e a77ellants establis:ed by sufficient e%idence t:e existence of fault or negligence on t:e 7art of a77ellee so as to render it liable for damages for t:e deat: of Dominador 5ngJ T:ere is no question t:at a77ellants :ad stri%en to 7ro%e t:at a77ellee failed to ta8e t:e necessary 7recaution to 7rotect t:e li%es of its 7atrons by not 7lacing at t:e s9imming 7ools efficient and com7etent em7loyees 9:o may render :el7 at a moment;s notice- and t:ey ascribed suc: negligence to a77ellee because t:e lifeguard it :ad on t:e occasion minor 5ng 9as dro9ning 9as not a%ailable or 9as attending to somet:ing else 9it: t:e result t:at :is :el7 came late& T:us- a77ellants tried to 7ro%e t:roug: t:e testimony of Andres Fagad- Cr& and Ruben 5ng t:at 9:en 4usebio 5ng and Fagad- Cr& detected t:at t:ere 9as a dro9ning 7erson in t:e bottom of t:e big s9imming 7ool and s:outed to t:e lifeguard for :el7- lifeguard Aanuel AbaDo did not immediately res7ond to t:e alarm and it 9as only u7on t:e t:ird call t:at :e t:re9 a9ay t:e maga=ine :e 9as reading and allo9ed t:ree or four minutes

4
to ela7se before retrie%ing t:e body from t:e 9ater& T:is negligence of AbaDo- t:ey contend- is attributable to a77ellee& 0ut t:e claim of t:ese t9o 9itnesses not only 9as %e:emently denied by lifeguard AbaDo- but is belied by t:e 9ritten statements gi%en by t:em in t:e in%estigation conducted by t:e 6olice De7artment of <ue=on City a77roximately t:ree :ours after t:e :a77ening of t:e accident& T:us- t:ese t9o boys admitted in t:e in%estigation t:at t:ey narrated in t:eir statements e%eryt:ing t:ey 8ne9 of t:e accident- but- as found by t:e trial- no9:ere in said statements do t:ey state t:at t:e lifeguard 9as c:atting 9it: t:e security guard at t:e gate of t:e s9imming 7ool or 9as reading a comic maga=ine 9:en t:e alarm 9as gi%en for 9:ic: reason :e failed to immediately res7ond to t:e alarm& 5n t:e contrary- 9:at Ruben 5ng 7articularly em7:asi=ed t:erein 9as t:at after t:e lifeguard :eard t:e s:outs for :el7- the latter immediately dived into the pool to retrie%e t:e 7erson under 9ater 9:o turned out to be :is brot:er& For t:is reason- t:e trial court made t:is conclusion: >T:e testimony of Ruben 5ng and Andres Fagad- Cr& as to t:e alleged failure of t:e lifeguard AbaDo to immediately res7ond to t:eir callmay therefore be disregarded because t:ey are belied by t:eir 9ritten statements& (4m7:asis su77lied&$ 5n t:e ot:er :and- t:ere is sufficient e%idence to s:o9 t:at a77ellee :as ta8en all necessary 7recautions to a%oid danger to t:e li%es of its 7atrons or 7re%ent accident 9:ic: may cause t:eir deat:& T:us- it :as been s:o9n t:at t:e s9imming 7ools of a77ellee are 7ro%ided 9it: a ring buoy- toy roof- to9ing line- oxygen resuscitator and a first aid medicine 8it& T:e bottom of t:e 7ools is 7ainted 9it: blac8 colors so as to insure clear %isibility& T:ere is on dis7lay in a cons7icuous 7lace 9it:in t:e area certain rules and regulations go%erning t:e use of t:e 7ools& A77ellee em7loys six lifeguards 9:o are all trained as t:ey :ad ta8en a course for t:at 7ur7ose and 9ere issued certificates of 7roficiency& T:ese lifeguards 9or8 on sc:edule 7re7ared by t:eir c:ief and arranged in suc: a 9ay as to :a%e t9o guards at a time on duty to loo8 after t:e safety of t:e bat:ers& T:ere is a male nurse and a sanitary ins7ector 9it: a clinic 7ro%ided 9it: oxygen resuscitator& And t:ere are security guards 9:o are a%ailable al9ays in case of emergency& T:e record also s:o9s t:at 9:en t:e body of minor 5ng 9as retrie%ed from t:e bottom of t:e 7ool- t:e em7loyees of a77ellee did e%eryt:ing 7ossible to bring :im bac8 to life& T:us- after :e 9as 7laced at t:e edge of t:e 7ool- lifeguard AbaDo immediately ga%e :im manual artificial res7iration& 3oon t:ereafter- nurse Armando Rule arri%ed- follo9ed by sanitary ins7ector 2luminado Eicente 9:o broug:t 9it: :im an oxygen resuscitator& ?:en t:ey found t:at t:e 7ulse of t:e boy 9as abnormal- t:e ins7ector immediately inBected :im 9it: cam7:orated oil& ?:en t:e manual artificial res7iration 7ro%ed ineffecti%e t:ey a77lied t:e oxygen resuscitator until its contents 9ere ex:austed& And 9:ile all t:ese efforts 9ere being made- t:ey sent for Dr& Ayuyao from t:e 1ni%ersity of t:e 6:ili77ines 9:o :o9e%er came late because u7on examining t:e body :e found :im to be already dead& All of t:e foregoing s:o9s t:at a77ellee :as done 9:at is :umanly 7ossible under t:e circumstances to restore life to minor 5ng and for t:at reason it is unfair to :old it liable for :is deat:& 3ensing t:at t:eir former t:eory as regards t:e liability of a77ellee may not be of muc: :el7a77ellants no9 s9itc: to t:e t:eory t:at e%en if it be assumed t:at t:e deceased is 7artly to be blamed for t:e unfortunate incident- still a77ellee may be :eld liable under t:e doctrine of >last clear c:ance> for t:e reason t:at- :a%ing t:e last o77ortunity to sa%e t:e %ictim- it failed to do so& ?e do not see :o9 t:is doctrine may a77ly considering t:at t:e record does not s:o9 :o9 minor 5ng came into t:e big s9imming 7ool& T:e only t:ing t:e record discloses is t:at minor 5ng informed :is elder brot:ers t:at :e 9as going to t:e loc8er room to drin8 a bottle of co8e but t:at from t:at time on nobody 8ne9 9:at :a77ened to :im until :is lifeless body 9as retrie%ed& T:e doctrine of last clear c:ance sim7ly means t:at t:e negligence of a claimant does not 7reclude a reco%ery for t:e negligence of defendant 9:ere it a77ears t:at t:e latter- by exercising reasonable care and 7rudencemig:t :a%e a%oided inBurious consequences to claimant not9it:standing :is negligence& 5r- >As t:e doctrine usually is stated- a 7erson 9:o :as t:e last clear c:ance or o77ortunity of a%oiding an accident- not9it:standing t:e negligent acts of :is o77onent or t:e negligence of a t:ird 7erson 9:ic:

5
is im7uted to :is o77onent- is considered in la9 solely res7onsible for t:e consequences of t:e accident&> (3/ Am& Cur& 77& ,!!#,! $ 2t goes 9it:out saying t:at t:e 7laintiff :imself 9as not free from fault- for :e 9as guilty of antecedent negligence in 7lanting :imself in t:e 9rong side of t:e road& 0ut as 9e :a%e already stated- t:e defendant 9as also negligentG and in suc: case t:e 7roblem al9ays is to disco%er 9:ic: agent is immediately and directly res7onsible& 2t 9ill be noted t:at t:e negligent acts of t:e t9o 7arties 9ere not contem7oraneous- since t:e negligence of t:e defendant succeeded t:e negligence of t:e 7laintiff by an a77reciable inter%al& 1nder t:ese circumstances- t:e la9 is t:at a 7erson 9:o :as t:e last clear c:ance to a%oid t:e im7ending :arm and fails to do so is c:argeable 9it: t:e consequences- 9it:out reference to t:e 7rior negligence of t:e ot:er 7arty& (6icart %s& 3mit:- 3) 6:il&- /!,$ 3ince it is not 8no9n :o9 minor 5ng came into t:e big s9imming 7ool and it being a77arent t:at :e 9ent t:ere 9it:out any com7anion in %iolation of one of t:e regulations of a77ellee as regards t:e use of t:e 7ools- and it a77earing t:at lifeguard AbaKLKo res7onded to t:e call for :el7 as soon as :is attention 9as called to it and immediately after retrie%ing t:e body all efforts at t:e dis7osal of a77ellee :ad been 7ut into 7lay in order to bring :im bac8 to life- it is clear t:at t:ere is no room for t:e a77lication of t:e doctrine no9 in%o8ed by a77ellants to im7ute liability to a77ellee&& T:e last clear c:ance doctrine can ne%er a77ly 9:ere t:e 7arty c:arged is required to act instantaneously- and if t:e inBury cannot be a%oided by t:e a77lication of all means at :and after t:e 7eril is or s:ould :a%e been disco%eredG at least in cases in 9:ic: any 7re%ious negligence of t:e 7arty c:arged cannot be said to :a%e contributed to t:e inBury& O'Mally vs. Eagan- )) A(R ./ - +3 ?yo& 33- 3.!- - 6 d "!*3& (A&(&R& Digest- Eol& /- 77& ,..#,.*$ 0efore closing- 9e 9is: to quote t:e follo9ing obser%ation of t:e trial court- 9:ic: 9e find su77orted by t:e e%idence: >T:ere is (also$ a strong suggestion coming from t:e ex7ert e%idence 7resented by bot: 7arties t:at Dominador 5ng mig:t :a%e di%ed 9:ere t:e 9ater 9as only .&. feet dee7- and in so doing :e mig:t :a%e :it or bum7ed :is fore:ead against t:e bottom of t:e 7ool- as a consequence of 9:ic: :e 9as stunned- and 9:ic: to :is dro9ning& As a boy scout :e must :a%e recei%ed instructions in s9imming& Fe 8ne9- or :a%e 8no9n t:at it 9as dangerous for :im to di%e in t:at 7art of t:e 7ool&> ?:erefore- t:e decision a77ealed from being in accordance 9it: la9 and t:e e%idence- 9e :ereby affirm t:e same- 9it:out 7ronouncement as to costs&

CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION %& COURT OF APPEALS and ERNEST E. SIMKE G&R& 'o& (#."/!* 'o%ember /- ",// C5RT43- J.: Assailed in t:is 7etition for re%ie9 on certiorari is t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals affirming t:e trial court decision 9:ic: reads as follo9s: ?F4R4F5R4- Budgment is :ereby rendered ordering defendant to 7ay 7laintiff t:e amount of 6".-./,&.. as full reimbursement of :is actual medical and :os7ital ex7enses- 9it: interest at t:e legal rate from t:e commencement of t:e suitG t:e amount of 6 !- !!&!! as consequential damagesG t:e amount of 63!-!!!&!! as moral damagesG t:e amount of 6+!-!!!&!! as exem7lary damagesG t:e furt:er amount of 6 !-!!!&!! as attorney;s fees and t:e costs MRollo- 7& +N& T:e facts of t:e case are as follo9s: 6ri%ate res7ondent is a naturali=ed Fili7ino citi=en and at t:e time of t:e incident 9as t:e Fonorary Consul Geileral of 2srael in t:e 6:ili77ines&

6
2n t:e afternoon of December "3- ",*/- 7ri%ate res7ondent 9it: se%eral ot:er 7ersons 9ent to t:e Aanila 2nternational Air7ort to meet :is future son#in#la9& 2n order to get a better %ie9 of t:e incoming 7assengers- :e and :is grou7 7roceeded to t:e %ie9ing dec8 or terrace of t:e air7ort& ?:ile 9al8ing on t:e terrace- t:en filled 9it: ot:er 7eo7le- 7ri%ate res7ondent sli77ed o%er an ele%ation about four (+$ inc:es :ig: at t:e far end of t:e terrace& As a result- 7ri%ate res7ondent fell on :is bac8 and bro8e :is t:ig: bone& T:e next day- December "+- ",*/- 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as o7erated on for about t:ree :ours& 6ri%ate res7ondent t:en filed an action for damages based on quasi#delict 9it: t:e Court of First 2nstance of Ri=al- 0ranc: E22 against 7etitioner Ci%il Aeronautics Administration or CAA as t:e entity em7o9ered >to administer- o7erate- manage- control- maintain and de%elo7 t:e Aanila 2nternational Air7ort &&& &> M3ec& 3 ( +$- R&A& ))*N& 3aid claim for damages included- aside from t:e medical and :os7ital bills- consequential damages for t:e ex7enses of t9o la9yers 9:o :ad to go abroad in 7ri%ate res7ondent;s stead to finali=e certain business transactions and for t:e 7ublication of notices announcing t:e 7ost7onement of 7ri%ate res7ondent;s daug:ter;s 9edding 9:ic: :ad to be cancelled because of :is accident MRecord on A77eal- 7& .N& Cudgment 9as rendered in 7ri%ate res7ondent;s fa%or 7rom7ting 7etitioner to a77eal to t:e Court of A77eals& T:e latter affirmed t:e trial court;s decision& 6etitioner t:en filed 9it: t:e same court a Aotion for- Reconsideration but t:is 9as denied& 6etitioner no9 comes before t:is Court raising t:e follo9ing assignment of errors: "& T:e Court of A77eals gra%ely erred in not :olding t:at t:e 7resent t:e CAA is really a suit against t:e Re7ublic of t:e 6:ili77ines 9:ic: cannot be sued 9it:out its consent9:ic: 9as not gi%en in t:is case& & T:e Court of A77eals gra%ely erred in finding t:at t:e inBuries of res7ondent 4rnest 4& 3im8e 9ere due to 7etitioner;s negligence O alt:oug: t:ere 9as no substantial e%idence to su77ort suc: findingG and t:at t:e inference t:at t:e :um7 or ele%ation t:e surface of t:e floor area of t:e terrace of t:e fold$ A2A building is dangerous Bust because said res7ondent tri77ed o%er it is manifestly mista8en O circumstances t:at Bustify a re%ie9 by t:is Fonorable Court of t:e said finding of fact of res7ondent a77ellate court (Garcia %& Court of A77eals- 33 3CRA * G Ramos %& CA- *3 3CRA 33"&$ 3& T:e Court of A77eals gra%ely erred in ordering 7etitioner to 7ay actualconsequential- moral and exem7lary damages- as 9ell as attorney;s fees to res7ondent 3im8e O alt:oug: t:ere 9as no substantial and com7etent 7roof to su77ort said a9ards 2 Rollo- 77& ,3#,+ "& 2 2n%o8ing t:e rule t:at t:e 3tate cannot be sued 9it:out its consent- 7etitioner contends t:at being an agency of t:e go%ernment- it cannot be made a 7arty#defendant in t:is case& T:is Court :as already :eld ot:er9ise in t:e case of National irports !orporation v. "eodoro, #r & M," 6:il& !3 (",. $N& 6etitioner contends t:at t:e said ruling does not a77ly in t:is case because: First- in t:e Teodoro case- t:e CAA 9as sued only in a substituted ca7acity- t:e 'ational Air7orts Cor7oration being t:e original 7arty& 3econd- in t:e Teodoro case- t:e cause of action 9as contractual in nature 9:ile :ere- t:e cause of action is based on a quasi#delict& T:ird- t:ere is no s7ecific 7ro%ision in Re7ublic Act 'o& ))*- t:e la9 go%erning t:e CAA- 9:ic: 9ould Bustify t:e conclusion t:at 7etitioner 9as organi=ed for business and not for go%ernmental 7ur7oses& MRollo- 77& ,+#,)N& 3uc: arguments are untenable&

7
$irst- t:e "eodoro case- far from stressing t:e 7oint t:at t:e CAA 9as only substituted for t:e 'ational Air7orts Cor7oration- in fact treated t:e CAA as t:e real 7arty in interest 9:en it stated t:at: xxx xxx xxx &&& To all legal intents and 7ractical 7ur7oses- t:e 'ational Air7orts Cor7oration is dead and t:e Ci%il Aeronautics Administration is its :eir or legal re7resentati%e- acting by t:e la9 of its creation u7on its o9n rig:ts and in its o9n name& T:e better 7ractice t:ere s:ould :a%e been to ma8e t:e Ci%il Aeronautics Administration t:e t:ird 7arty defendant instead of t:e 'ational Air7orts Cor7oration& M'ational Air7orts Cor7& %& Teodoro- su7ra7& !/&N xxx xxx xxx #e%ond- t:e Teodoro case did not ma8e any qualification or limitation as to 9:et:er or not t:e CAA;s 7o9er to sue and be sued a77lies only to contractual obligations& T:e Court in t:e Teodoro case ruled t:at 3ections 3 and + of 4xecuti%e 5rder 3*. confer u7on t:e CAA- 9it:out any qualification- t:e 7o9er to sue and be sued- albeit only by im7lication& Accordingly- t:is Court;s 7ronouncement t:at 9:ere suc: 7o9er to sue and be sued :as been granted 9it:out any qualification- it can include a claim based on tort or quasi#delict MRayo %& Court of First 2nstance of 0ulacan- G&R& 'os& .. )3#/3December ",-",/"- " " ! 3CRA +.*" finds rele%ance and a77licability to t:e 7resent case& "hird- it :as already been settled in t:e Teodoro case t:at t:e CAA as an agency is not immune from suit- it being engaged in functions 7ertaining to a 7ri%ate entity& xxx xxx xxx T:e Ci%il Aeronautics Administration comes under t:e category of a 7ri%ate entity& Alt:oug: not a body cor7orate it 9as created- li8e t:e 'ational Air7orts Cor7oration- not to maintain a necessary function of go%ernment- but to run 9:at is essentially a business- e%en if re%enues be not its 7rime obBecti%e but rat:er t:e 7romotion of tra%el and t:e con%enience of t:e tra%elling 7ublic& 2t is engaged in an enter7rise 9:ic:- far from being t:e exclusi%e 7rerogati%e of state- may- more t:an t:e construction of 7ublic roads- be underta8en by 7ri%ate concerns& M'ational Air7orts Cor7& %& Teodoro- su7ra- 7& !)&N xxx xxx xxx True- t:e la9 7re%ailing in ",. 9:en t:e Teodoro case 9as 7romulgated 9as 4xec& 5rder 3*. (Reorgani=ing t:e Ci%il Aeronautics Administration and Abolis:ing t:e 'ational Air7orts Cor7oration$& Re7ublic Act 'o& ))* (Ci%il Aeronautics Act of t:e 6:ili77ines$- subsequently enacted on Cune !",. - did not alter t:e c:aracter of t:e CAA;s obBecti%es under 4xec- 5rder 3*.& T:e 7ertinent 7ro%isions cited in t:e Teodoro case- 7articularly 3ecs& 3 and + of 4xec& 5rder 3*.- 9:ic: led t:e Court to consider t:e CAA in t:e category of a 7ri%ate entity 9ere retained substantially in Re7ublic Act ))*- 3ec& 3 ( +$ and ( .$&PQreRRanST"U9V 3aid Act 7ro%ides: 3ec& 3 & &o'ers and (uties of the dministrator& 3ubBect to t:e general O control and su7er%ision of t:e De7artment Fead- t:e Administrator s:all :a%e among ot:ers- t:e follo9ing 7o9ers and duties: xxx xxx xxx ( +$ To administer- o7erate- manage- control- maintain and de%elo7 t:e Aanila 2nternational Air7ort and all go%ernment#o9ned aerodromes exce7t t:ose controlled or o7erated by t:e Armed Forces of t:e 6:ili77ines including suc: 7o9ers and duties as: (a$ to 7lan- design- construct- equi7- ex7and- im7ro%e- re7air or alter aerodromes or suc: structures- im7ro%ement or air na%igation facilitiesG (b$ to enter into- ma8e and execute contracts of any 8ind 9it: any 7erson- firm- or 7ublic or 7ri%ate cor7oration or entityG &&& &

8
( .$ To determine- fix- im7ose- collect and recei%e landing fees- 7ar8ing s7ace feesroyalties on sales or deli%eries- direct or indirect- to any aircraft for its use of a%iation gasoline- oil and lubricants- s7are 7arts- accessories and su77lies- tools- ot:er royaltiesfees or rentals for t:e use of any of t:e 7ro7erty under its management and control& xxx xxx xxx From t:e foregoing- it can be seen t:at t:e CAA is tas8ed 9it: 7ri%ate or non#go%ernmental functions 9:ic: o7erate to remo%e it from t:e 7ur%ie9 of t:e rule on 3tate immunity from suit& For t:e correct rule as set fort: in t:e Tedoro case states: xxx xxx xxx 'ot all go%ernment entities- 9:et:er cor7orate or non#cor7orate- are immune from suits& )mmunity fun%tions suits is determined by the %hara%ter of the ob*e%ts for 'hi%h the entity 'as organi+ed& T:e rule is t:us stated in Cor7us Curis: 3uits against 3tate agencies 9it: relation to matters in 9:ic: t:ey :a%e assumed to act in 7ri%ate or non#go%ernmental ca7acity- and %arious suits against certain cor7orations created by t:e state for 7ublic 7ur7oses- but to engage in matters 7arta8ing more of t:e nature of ordinary business rat:er t:an functions of a go%ernmental or 7olitical c:aracter- are not regarded as suits against t:e state& T:e latter is truealt:oug: t:e state may o9n stoc8 or 7ro7erty of suc: a cor7oration for by engaging in business o7erations t:roug: a cor7oration- t:e state di%ests itself so far of its so%ereign c:aracter- and by im7lication consents to suits against t:e cor7oration& (., C&C&- 3"3$ M'ational Air7ort Cor7oration %& Teodoro- su7ra- 77& !*# !)G 4m7:asis su77lied&N T:is doctrine :as been reaffirmed in t:e recent case of Malong v. &hilippine National ,ail'ays MG&R& 'o& (#+,,3!- August )- ",/.- "3/ 3CRA *3"- 9:ere it 9as :eld t:at t:e 6:ili77ine 'ational Rail9aysalt:oug: o9ned and o7erated by t:e go%ernment- 9as not immune from suit as it does not exercise so%ereign but 7urely 7ro7rietary and business functions& Accordingly- as t:e CAA 9as created to underta8e t:e management of air7ort o7erations 9:ic: 7rimarily in%ol%e 7ro7rietary functions- it cannot a%ail of t:e immunity from suit accorded to go%ernment agencies 7erforming strictly go%ernmental functions& 22 6etitioner tries to esca7e liability on t:e ground t:at t:ere 9as no basis for a finding of negligence& T:ere can be no negligence on its 7art- it alleged- because t:e ele%ation in question >:ad a legitimate 7ur7ose for being on t:e terrace and 9as ne%er intended to tri7 do9n 7eo7le and inBure t:em& 2t 9as t:ere for no ot:er 7ur7ose but to drain 9ater on t:e floor area of t:e terrace> MRollo- 6& ,,N& To determine 9:et:er or not t:e construction of t:e ele%ation 9as done in a negligent manner- t:e trial court conducted an ocular ins7ection of t:e 7remises& xxx xxx xxx &&& T:is Court after its ocular ins7ection found t:e ele%ation s:o9n in 4x:s& A or *#A 9:ere 7laintiff sli77ed to be a ste7- a dangerous sliding ste7- and t:e 7roximate cause of 7laintiffs inBury&&& xxx xxx xxx T:is Court during its ocular ins7ection also obser%ed t:e dangerous and defecti%e condition of t:e o7en terrace 9:ic: :as remained unre7aired t:roug: t:e years& 2t :as obser%ed t:e lac8 of maintenance and u78ee7 of t:e A2A terrace- ty7ical of many go%ernment buildings and offices& Aside from t:e litter allo9ed to accumulate in t:e terrace- 7ot :oles cause by missing tiles remained unre7aired and unattented& T:e

9
se%eral ele%ations s:o9n in t:e ex:ibits 7resented 9ere %erified by t:is Court during t:e ocular ins7ection it undertoo8& Among t:ese ele%ations is t:e one (4x:& A$ 9:ere 7laintiff sli77ed& T:is Court also obser%ed t:e ot:er :a=ard- t:e slanting or sliding ste7 (4x:& 0$ as one 7asses t:e entrance door leading to t:e terrace MRecord on A77eal1&3&- 77& .* and .,G 4m7:asis su77lied&N T:e Court of A77eals furt:er noted t:at: T:e inclination itself is an arc:itectural anomaly for as stated by t:e said 9itness- it is neit:er a ram7 because a ram7 is an inclined surface in suc: a 9ay t:at it 9ill 7re%ent 7eo7le or 7edestrians from sliding& 0ut if- it is a ste7 t:en it 9ill not ser%e its 7ur7ose- for 7edestrian 7ur7oses& (tsn- 7& 3.- 2d&$ Mrollo- 7& ,&N T:ese factual findings are binding and conclusi%e u7on t:is Court& Fence- t:e CAA cannot disclaim its liability for t:e negligent construction of t:e ele%ation since under Re7ublic Act 'o& ))*- it 9as c:arged 9it: t:e duty of 7lanning- designing- constructing- equi77ing- ex7anding- im7ro%ing- re7airing or altering aerodromes or suc: structures- im7ro%ements or air na%igation facilities M3ection 3 - supraR&A& ))*N& 2n t:e disc:arge of t:is obligation- t:e CAA is duty#bound to exercise due diligence in o%erseeing t:e construction and maintenance of t:e %ie9ing dec8 or terrace of t:e air7ort& 2t must be borne in mind t:at 7ursuant to Article "")3 of t:e Ci%il Code- >(t$:e fault or negligence of t:e obligor consists in t:e omission of t:at diligence 9:ic: is required by t:e nature of t:e obligation and corres7onds 9it: t:e circumstances of t:e 7erson- of t:e time and of t:e 7lace&> Fere- t:e obligation of t:e CAA in maintaining t:e %ie9ing dec8- a facility o7en to t:e 7ublic- requires t:at CAA insure t:e safety of t:e %ie9ers using it& As t:ese 7eo7le come to t:e %ie9ing dec8 to 9atc: t:e 7lanes and 7assengers- t:eir tendency 9ould be to loo8 to 9:ere t:e 7lanes and t:e incoming 7assengers are and not to loo8 do9n on t:e floor or 7a%ement of t:e %ie9ing dec8& T:e CAA s:ould :a%e t:us made sure t:at no dangerous obstructions or ele%ations exist on t:e floor of t:e dec8 to 7re%ent any undue :arm to t:e 7ublic& T:e legal foundation of CAA;s liability for quasi#delict can be found in Article ")* of t:e Ci%il Code 9:ic: 7ro%ides t:at >(9$:oe%er by act or omission causes damage to anot:er- t:ere being fault or negligence- is obliged to 7ay for t:e damage done&&& As t:e CAA 8ne9 of t:e existence of t:e dangerous ele%ation 9:ic: it claims t:oug:- 9as made 7recisely in accordance 9it: t:e 7lans and s7ecifications of t:e building for 7ro7er drainage of t:e o7en terrace M3ee Record on A77eal- 77& "3 and .)G Rollo- 7& 3,"- its failure to :a%e it re7aired or altered in order to eliminate t:e existing :a=ard constitutes suc: negligence as to 9arrant a finding of liability based on quasi#delict u7on CAA& T:e Court finds t:e contention t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as- at t:e %ery least- guilty of contributory negligence- t:us reducing t:e damages t:at 7laintiff may reco%er- unmeritorious& Contributory negligence under Article "), of t:e Ci%il Code contem7lates a negligent act or omission on t:e 7art of t:e 7laintiff- 9:ic: alt:oug: not t:e 7roximate cause of :is inBury- %ontributed to :is o9n damaget:e 7roximate cause of t:e 7laintiffs o9n inBury being t:e defendant;s lac8 of due care& 2n t:e instant case- no contributory negligence can be im7uted to t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent- considering t:e follo9ing test formulated in t:e early case of &i%art v. #mith- 3) 6:il& /!, (","/$: T:e test by 9:ic: to determine t:e existence of negligence in a 7articular case may be stated as follo9s: (id the defendant in doing the alleged negligent a%t use that reasonable %are and %aution 'hi%h an ordinarily prudent man 'ould have used in the same situationJ 2f not- t:en :e is guilty of negligence& T:e la9 :ere in effect ado7ts t:e standard su77osed to be su77lied by t:e imaginary conduct of t:e discreet paterfamilias of t:e Roman la9& T:e existence of t:e negligence in a gi%en case is not determined by reference to t:e 7ersonal Budgment of t:e actor in t:e situation before :im& T:e la9 considers 9:at 9ould be rec8less- blame9ort:y- or negligent in t:e man of ordinary intelligence and 7rudence and determines liability by t:at&

10
T:e question as to 9:at 9ould constitute t:e conduct of a 7rudent man in a gi%en situation must of course be al9ays determined in t:e lig:t of :uman ex7erience and in %ie9 of t:e facts in%ol%ed in t:e 7articular case& Abstract s7eculations cannot be :ere of muc: %alue but t:is muc: can be 7rofitably said: Reasonable men#o%ern t:eir conduct by t:e circumstances 9:ic: are before t:em or 8no9n to t:em& T:ey are not- and are not su77osed to be omniscient of t:e future& -en%e they %an be e.pe%ted to ta/e %are only 'hen there is something before them to suggest or 'arn of danger & Could a 7rudent man- in t:e case under consideration- foresee :arm as a result of t:e course actually 7ursued; 2f so- it 9as t:e duty of t:e actor to ta8e 7recautions to guard against t:at :arm& Reasonable foresig:t of :arm- follo9ed by t:e ignoring of t:e suggestion born of t:is 7re%ision- is al9ays necessary before negligence can be :eld to exist&&&& M6icart %& 3mit:- supra- 7& /"3G 4m7:asis su77lied&N T:e 7ri%ate res7ondent- 9:o 9as t:e 7laintiff in t:e case before t:e lo9er court- could not :a%e reasonably foreseen t:e :arm t:at 9ould befall :im- considering t:e attendant factual circumstances& 4%en if t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent :ad been loo8ing 9:ere :e 9as going- t:e ste7 in question could not easily be noticed because of its construction& As t:e trial court found: 2n connection 9it: t:e incident testified to- a s8etc:- 4x:ibit 5- s:o9s a section of t:e floorings oil 9:ic: 7laintiff :ad tri77ed- T:is s8etc: re%eals t9o 7a%ements adBoining eac: ot:er- one being ele%ated by four and one#fourt: inc:es t:an t:e ot:er& From t:e arc:itectural stand7oint t:e :ig:er- 7a%ement is a ste7& Fo9e%er- unli8e a ste7 commonly seen around- t:e edge of t:e ele%ated 7a%ement slanted out9ard as one 9al8s to one interior of t:e terrace& T:e lengt: of t:e inclination bet9een t:e edges of t:e t9o 7a%ements is t:ree inc:es& 5b%iously- 7laintiff :ad ste77ed on t:e inclination because :ad :is foot landed on t:e lo9er 7a%ement :e 9ould not :a%e lost :is balance& T:e same s8etc: s:o9s t:at bot: 7a%ements including t:e inclined 7ortion are tiled in red cement- and as s:o9n by t:e 7:otogra7: 4x:ibit A- t:e lines of t:e tilings are continuous& 2t 9ould t:erefore be difficult for a 7edestrian to see t:e inclination es7ecially 9:ere t:ere are 7lenty of 7ersons in t:e terrace as 9as t:e situation 9:en 7laintiff fell do9n& T:ere 9as no 9arning sign to direct one;s attention to t:e c:ange in t:e ele%ation of t:e floorings& MRollo- 77& / ,&N 222 Finally- 7etitioner a77eals to t:is Court t:e a9ard of damages to 7ri%ate res7ondent& T:e liability of CAA to ans9er for damages- 9:et:er actual- moral or exem7lary- cannot be seriously doubted in %ie9 of one conferment of t:e 7o9er to sue and be sued u7on it- 9:ic:- as :eld in t:e case of ,ayo v. !ourt of $irst )nstan%e, supra- includes liability on a claim for quasi#dilict& 2n t:e aforestated case- t:e liability of t:e 'ational 6o9er Cor7oration to ans9er for damages resulting from its act of sudden7reci7itate and simultaneous o7ening of t:e Angat Dam- 9:ic: caused t:e deat: of se%eral residents of t:e area and t:e destruction of 7ro7erties- 9as u7:eld since t:e o-rant of t:e 7o9er to sue and be sued u7on it necessarily im7lies t:at it can be :eld ans9erable for its tortious acts or any 9rongful act for t:at matter& ?it: res7ect to actual or com7ensatory damages- t:e la9 mandates t:at t:e same be 7ro%en& Art& ",,& 4xce7t as 7ro%ided by la9 or by sti7ulation- one are entitled to an adequate com7ensation only for suc: 7ecuniary loss suffered by :im as :e :as duly 7ro%ed& 3uc: com7ensation is referred to as actual on com7ensatory damages M'e9 Ci%il CodeN& 6ri%ate res7ondent claims 6".-./,&.. re7resenting medical and :os7itali=ation bills& T:is Court finds t:e same to :a%e been duly 7ro%en t:roug: t:e testimony of Dr& Ambrosio Tangco- t:e 7:ysician 9:o attended to 7ri%ate res7ondent (Rollo- 7& *$ and 9:o 2dentified 4x:& >F> 9:ic: 9as :is bill for 7rofessional ser%ices MRollo- 7& 3"N&

11
Concerning t:e 6 !- !!&!! alleged to :a%e been s7ent for ot:er ex7enses suc: as t:e trans7ortation of t:e t9o la9yers 9:o :ad to re7resent 7ri%ate res7ondent abroad and t:e 7ublication of t:e 7ost7onement notices of t:e 9edding- t:e Court :olds t:at t:e same :ad also been duly 7ro%en& 6ri%ate res7ondent :ad adequately s:o9n t:e existence of suc: losses and t:e amount t:ereof in t:e testimonies before t:e trial court MCA decision- 7& /"& At any rate- t:e findings of t:e Court of A77eals 9it: res7ect to t:is are findings of facts M5ne Feart 37orting Club- 2nc& %& Court of A77eals- G&R& 'os& .3),!.3,) - 5ct& 3- ",/"- "!/ 3CRA +"*" 9:ic:- as :ad been :eld time and again- are- as a general rule- conclusi%e before t:is Court M3ese %& 2ntermediate A77ellate Court- G&R& 'o& **"/*- Culy 3"- ",/)-". 3CRA ./.N& ?it: res7ect to t:e 63!-!!!&!! a9arded as moral damages- t:e Court :olds 7ri%ate res7ondent entitled t:ereto because of t:e 7:ysical suffering and 7:ysical inBuries caused by t:e negligence of t:e CAA MArts& ") and ", ( $- 'e9 Ci%il CodeN& ?it: res7ect to t:e a9ard of exem7lary damages- t:e Ci%il Code ex7licitly- states: Art& ,& 4xem7lary or correcti%e damages- are im7osed- by 9ay of exam7le or correction for t:e 7ublic good- in addition to t:e moral- liquidated or com7ensatory Art& 3"& 2n quasi#delicts- exem7lary damages may be granted if t:e defendant acted 9it: gross negligence& Gross negligence 9:ic:- according to t:e Court- is equi%alent to t:e term >notorious negligence> and consists in t:e failure to exercise e%en slig:t care MCaunan %& Com7ania General de Tabacos- .* 6:il& .+ (",3 $N can be attributed to t:e CAA for its failure to remedy t:e dangerous condition of t:e questioned ele%ation or to e%en 7ost a 9arning sign directing t:e attention of t:e %ie9ers to t:e c:ange in t:e ele%ation of t:e floorings not9it:standing its 8no9ledge of t:e :a=ard 7osed by suc: ele%ation MRollo- 77& /# ,G Record oil A77eal- 7& .)N& T:e 9anton disregard by t:e CAA of t:e safety of t:e 7eo7le using t:e %ie9ing dec8- 9:o are c:arged an admission fee- including t:e 7etitioner 9:o 7aid t:e entrance fees to get inside t:e %antage 7lace MCA decision- 7& G Rollo- 7& .N and aret:erefore- entitled to ex7ect a facility t:at is 7ro7erly and safely maintained O Bustifies t:e a9ard of exem7lary damages against t:e CAA- as a deterrent and by 9ay of exam7le or correction for t:e 7ublic good& T:e a9ard of 6+!-!!!&!! by t:e trial court as exem7lary damages a77ro7riately underscores t:e 7oint t:at as an entity c:anged 9it: 7ro%iding ser%ice to t:e 7ublic- t:e CAA& li8e all ot:er entities ser%ing t:e 7ublic& :as t:e obligation to 7ro%ide t:e 7ublic 9it: reasonably safe ser%ice& Finally- t:e a9ard of attorney;s fees is also u7:eld considering t:at under Art& !/ ("$ of t:e Ci%il Code- t:e same may be a9arded 9:ene%er exem7lary damages are a9arded- as in t:is case- and-at any rate- under Art& !/ (""$- t:e Court :as t:e discretion to grant t:e same 9:en it is Bust and equitable& Fo9e%er- since t:e Aanila 2nternational Air7ort Aut:ority (A2AA$ :as ta8en o%er t:e management and o7erations of t:e Aanila 2nternational Air7ort Mrenamed 'inoy Aquino 2nternational Air7ort under Re7ublic Act 'o& **3,N 7ursuant to 4xecuti%e 5rder 'o& ))/ as amended by executi%e 5rders 'os& ,!3 (",/3$- ,!, (",/3$ and ,/ (",/)$ and under 3ection + of t:e said 4xec& 5rder ))/- t:e A2AA :as assumed all t:e debts- liabilities and obligations of t:e no9 defunct Ci%il Aeronautics Administration (CAA$- t:e liabilities of t:e CAA :a%e no9 been transferred to t:e A2AA& ?F4R4F5R4- finding no re%ersible error- t:e 6etition for re%ie9 on certiorari is D4'24D and t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals in CA#G&R& 'o& ."") #R is AFF2RA4D&

MA. LOURDES VALENZUELA, %& COURT OF APPEALS, RICHARD LI and ALEXANDER COMMERCIAL, INC. G&R& 'o& "".! +&February )- ",,*

12
RICHARD LI %& COURT OF APPEALS and LOURDES VALENZUELA G&R& 'o& ""),++&February )- ",,* IA61'A'- J&: T:ese t9o 7etitions for re%ie9 on %ertiorari under Rule +. of t:e Re%ised Rules of Court stem from an action to reco%er damages by 7etitioner (ourdes Ealen=uela in t:e Regional Trial Court of <ue=on City for inBuries sustained by :er in a %e:icular accident in t:e early morning of Cune +- ",,!& T:e facts found by t:e trial court are succinctly summari=ed by t:e Court of A77eals belo9: T:is is an action to reco%er damages based on quasi#delict- for serious 7:ysical inBuries sustained in a %e:icular accident& 6laintiff;s %ersion of t:e accident is as follo9s: At around :!! in t:e morning of Cune +- ",,!7laintiff Aa& (ourdes Ealen=uela 9as dri%ing a blue Aitsubis:i lancer 9it: 6late 'o& FF1 .+ from :er restaurant at Aarcos :ig:9ay to :er :ome at 6alan=a 3treet- Araneta A%enue& 3:e 9as tra%elling along Aurora 0l%d& 9it: a com7anion- Cecilia Ramon- :eading to9ards t:e direction of Aanila& 0efore reac:ing A& (a8e 3treet- s:e noticed somet:ing 9rong 9it: :er tiresG s:e sto77ed at a lig:ted 7lace 9:ere t:ere 9ere 7eo7le- to %erify 9:et:er s:e :ad a flat tire and to solicit :el7 if needed& Fa%ing been told by t:e 7eo7le 7resent t:at :er rear rig:t tire 9as flat and t:at s:e cannot reac: :er :ome in t:at car;s condition- s:e 7ar8ed along t:e side9al8about "#"H feet a9ay- 7ut on :er emergency lig:ts- alig:ted from t:e car- and 9ent to t:e rear to o7en t:e trun8& 3:e 9as standing at t:e left side of t:e rear of :er car 7ointing to t:e tools to a man 9:o 9ill :el7 :er fix t:e tire 9:en s:e 9as suddenly bum7ed by a ",/) Aitsubis:i (ancer dri%en by defendant Ric:ard (i and registered in t:e name of defendant Alexander Commercial- 2nc& 0ecause of t:e im7act 7laintiff 9as t:ro9n against t:e 9inds:ield of t:e car of t:e defendant- 9:ic: 9as destroyed- and t:en fell to t:e ground& 3:e 9as 7ulled out from under defendant;s car& 6laintiff;s left leg 9as se%ered u7 to t:e middle of :er t:ig:- 9it: only some s8in and sucle connected to t:e rest of t:e body& 3:e 9as broug:t to t:e 14RA Aedical Aemorial Center 9:ere s:e 9as found to :a%e a >traumatic am7utation- leg- left u7 to distal t:ig: (abo%e 8nee$>& 3:e 9as confined in t:e :os7ital for t9enty ( !$ days and 9as e%entually fitted 9it: an artificial leg& T:e ex7enses for t:e :os7ital confinement (6" !-!!!&!!$ and t:e cost of t:e artificial leg (6 )-!!!&!!$ 9ere 7aid by defendants from t:e car insurance& 2n :er com7laint- 7laintiff 7rayed for moral damages in t:e amount of 6" million- exem7lary damages in t:e amount of 6"!!-!!!&!! and ot:er medical and related ex7enses amounting to a total of 6"/!-!!!&!!- including loss of ex7ected earnings& Defendant Ric:ard (i denied t:at :e 9as negligent& Fe 9as on :is 9ay :ome- tra%elling at .. 87:G considering t:at it 9as raining- %isibility 9as affected and t:e road 9as 9et& Traffic 9as lig:t& Fe testified t:at :e 9as dri%ing along t:e inner 7ortion of t:e rig:t lane of Aurora 0l%d& to9ards t:e direction of Araneta A%enue- 9:en :e 9as suddenly confronted- in t:e %icinity of A& (a8e 3treet- 3an Cuan- 9it: a car coming from t:e o77osite direction- tra%elling at /! 87:- 9it: >full brig:t lig:ts>& Tem7orarily blinded- :e instincti%ely s9er%ed to t:e rig:t to a%oid colliding 9it: t:e oncoming %e:icle- and bum7ed 7laintiff;s car- 9:ic: :e did not see because it 9as midnig:t blue in color- 9it: no 7ar8ing lig:ts or early 9arning de%ice- and t:e area 9as 7oorly lig:ted& Fe alleged in :is defense t:at t:e left rear 7ortion of 7laintiff;s car 9as 7rotruding as it 9as t:en >at a standstill diagonally> on t:e outer 7ortion of t:e rig:t lane to9ards Araneta A%enue (7ar& "/- Ans9er$& Fe confirmed t:e testimony of 7laintiff;s 9itness t:at after being bum7ed t:e car of t:e 7laintiff s9er%ed to t:e rig:t and :it anot:er car 7ar8ed on t:e side9al8& Defendants counterclaimed for damages- alleging t:at 7laintiff 9as rec8less or negligent- as s:e 9as not a licensed dri%er& T:e 7olice in%estigator- 6fc& Felic Ramos- 9:o 7re7ared t:e %e:icular accident re7ort and t:e s8etc: of t:e t:ree cars in%ol%ed in t:e accident- testified t:at t:e 7laintiff;s car 9as >near t:e side9al8>G t:is 9itness did not remember 9:et:er t:e :a=ard lig:ts of 7laintiff;s car 9ere onand did not notice if t:ere 9as an early 9arning de%iceG t:ere 9as a street lig:t at t:e corner of

13
Aurora 0l%d& and F& Roman- about "!! meters a9ay& 2t 9as not mostly dar8- i&e& >t:ings can be seen> (7& "*- tsn- 5ct& /- ",,"$& A 9itness for t:e 7laintiff- Rogelio Rodrigue=- testified t:at after 7laintiff alig:ted from :er car and o7ened t:e trun8 com7artment- defendant;s car came a77roac:ing %ery fast ten meters from t:e sceneG t:e car 9as >=ig=agging>& T:e rear left side of 7laintiff;s car 9as bum7ed by t:e front rig:t 7ortion of defendant;s carG as a consequence- t:e 7laintiff;s car s9er%ed to t:e rig:t and :it t:e 7ar8ed car on t:e side9al8& 6laintiff 9as t:ro9n to t:e 9inds:ield of defendant;s car- 9:ic: 9as destroyed- and landed under t:e car& Fe stated t:at defendant 9as under t:e influence of liquor as :e could >smell it %ery 9ell> (77& +3- ),- tsn- Cune ")- ",,"$& After trial- t:e lo9er court sustained t:e 7laintiff;s submissions and found defendant Ric:ard (i guilty of gross negligence and liable for damages under Article ")* of t:e Ci%il Code& T:e trial court li8e9ise :eld Alexander Commercial- 2nc&- (i;s em7loyer- Bointly and se%erally liable for damages 7ursuant to Article "/!& 2t ordered t:e defendants to Bointly and se%erally 7ay t:e follo9ing amounts: "& 6+"-/+!&!!- as actual damages- re7resenting t:e miscellaneous ex7enses of t:e 7laintiff as a result of :er se%ered left legG & T:e sums of (a$ 63)-.!!&!!- for t:e unreali=ed 7rofits because of t:e sto77age of 7laintiff;s 0istro (a Conga restaurant t:ree (3$ 9ee8s after t:e accident on Cune +- ",,!G (b$ 6 !-!!!&!!- a mont:- as unreali=ed 7rofits of t:e 7laintiff in :er 0istro (a Conga restaurantfrom August- ",,! until t:e date of t:is Budgment and (c$ 63!-!!!&!!- a mont: for unreali=ed 7rofits in 7laintiff;s t9o ( $ beauty salons from Culy- ",,! until t:e date of t:is decisionG 3& 6"-!!!-!!!&!!- in moral damagesG +& 6.!-!!!&!!- as exem7lary damagesG .& 6*!-!!!&!!- as reasonable attorney;s feesG and *& Costs& As a result of t:e trial court;s decision- defendants filed an 5mnibus Aotion for 'e9 Trial and for Reconsideration- citing testimony in Criminal Case 5&C& 'o& /!+3*) (6eo7le %s& Ric:ard (i$- tending to s:o9 t:at t:e 7oint of im7act- as de7icted by t:e 7ieces of glassHdebris from t:e 7arties; carsa77eared to be at t:e center of t:e rig:t lane of Aurora 0l%d& T:e trial court denied t:e motion& Defendants fort:9it: filed an a77eal 9it: t:e res7ondent Court of A77eals& 2n a Decision rendered Aarc: 3!- ",,+- t:e Court of A77eals found t:at t:ere 9as >am7le basis from t:e e%idence of record for t:e trial court;s finding t:at t:e 7laintiff;s car 9as 7ro7erly 7ar8ed at t:e rig:t- beside t:e side9al8 9:en it 9as bum7ed by defendant;s car&>" Dismissing t:e defendants; argument t:at t:e 7laintiff;s car 9as im7ro7erly 7ar8ed- almost at t:e center of t:e road- t:e res7ondent court noted t:at e%idence 9:ic: 9as su77osed to 7ro%e t:at t:e car 9as at or near center of t:e rig:t lane 9as ne%er 7resented during t:e trial of t:e case& T:e res7ondent court furt:ermore obser%ed t:at: Defendant (i;s testimony t:at :e 9as dri%ing at a safe s7eed of .. 8m&H:our is self ser%ingG it 9as not corroborated& 2t 9as in fact contradicted by eye9itness Rodrigue= 9:o stated t:at :e 9as outside :is beer:ouse located at Aurora 0oule%ard after A& (a8e 3treet- at or about :!! a&m& of Cune +- ",,! 9:en :is attention 9as caug:t by a beautiful lady (referring to t:e 7laintiff$ alig:ting from :er car and o7ening t:e trun8 com7artmentG :e noticed t:e car of Ric:ard (i >a77roac:ing %ery fast ten ("!$ meters a9ay from t:e scene>G defendant;s car 9as =ig=agging>- alt:oug: t:ere 9ere no :oles and :a=ards on t:e street- and >bum7ed t:e leg of t:e 7laintiff> 9:o 9as t:ro9n against t:e 9inds:ield of defendant;s care- causing its destruction& Fe came to t:e rescue of t:e 7laintiff- 9:o 9as 7ulled out from under defendant;s car and 9as able to say >:urting 9ords> to Ric:ard (i because :e noticed t:at t:e latter 9as under t:e influence of liquor- because :e >could smell it %ery 9ell> (7& 3*- et& se0&- tsn- Cune ")",,"$& Fe 8ne9 t:at 7laintiff o9ned a beer:ouse in 3ta& Aesa in t:e ",)!;s- but did not 8no9 eit:er 7laintiff or defendant (i before t:e accident&

14
2n agreeing 9it: t:e trial court t:at t:e defendant (i 9as liable for t:e inBuries sustained by t:e 7laintifft:e Court of A77eals- in its decision- :o9e%er- absol%ed t:e (i;s em7loyer- Alexander Commercial- 2nc& from any liability to9ards 7etitioner (ourdes Ealen=uela and reduced t:e amount of moral damages to 6.!!-!!!&!!& Finding Bustification for exem7lary damages- t:e res7ondent court allo9ed an a9ard of 6.!-!!!&!! for t:e same- in addition to costs- attorney;s fees and t:e ot:er damages& T:e Court of A77eals- li8e9ise- dismissed t:e defendants; counterclaims&3 Consequently- bot: 7arties assail t:e res7ondent court;s decision by filing t9o se7arate 7etitions before t:is Court& Ric:ard (i- in G&R& 'o& ""),++- contends t:at :e s:ould not be :eld liable for damages because t:e 7roximate cause of t:e accident 9as Aa& (ourdes Ealen=uela;s o9n negligence& Alternati%ely- :e argues t:at in t:e e%ent t:at t:is Court finds :im negligent- suc: negligence oug:t to be mitigated by t:e contributory negligence of Ealen=uela& 5n t:e ot:er :and- in G&R& 'o& "".! +- Aa& (ourdes Ealen=uela assails t:e res7ondent court;s decision insofar as it absol%es Alexander Commercial- 2nc& from liability as t:e o9ner of t:e car dri%en by Ric:ard (i and insofar as it reduces t:e amount of t:e actual and moral damages a9arded by t:e trial court&+ As t:e issues are intimately related- bot: 7etitions are :ereby consolidated& 2t is 7lainly e%ident t:at t:e 7etition for re%ie9 in G&R& 'o& ""),++ raises no substantial questions of la9& ?:at it- in effect- attem7ts to :a%e t:is Court re%ie9 are factual findings of t:e trial court- as sustained by t:e Court of A77eals finding Ric:ard (i grossly negligent in dri%ing t:e Aitsubis:i (ancer 7ro%ided by :is com7any in t:e early morning :ours of Cune +- ",,!& T:is 9e 9ill not do& As a general rule- findings of fact of t:e Court of A77eals are binding and conclusi%e u7on us- and t:is Court 9ill not normally disturb suc: factual findings unless t:e findings of fact of t:e said court are 7al7ably unsu77orted by t:e e%idence on record or unless t:e Budgment itself is based on a misa77re:ension of facts& 2n t:e first 7lace- Ealen=uela;s %ersion of t:e incident 9as fully corroborated by an uninterested 9itness- Rogelio Rodrigue=- t:e o9ner#o7erator of an establis:ment located Bust across t:e scene of t:e accident& 5n trial- :e testified t:at :e obser%ed a car being dri%en at a >%ery fast> s7eed- racing to9ards t:e general direction of Araneta A%enue& Rodrigue= furt:er added t:at :e 9as standing in front of :is establis:ment- Bust ten to t9enty feet a9ay from t:e scene of t:e accident- 9:en :e sa9 t:e car :it Ealen=uela- :urtling :er against t:e 9inds:ield of t:e defendant;s Aitsubis:i (ancer- from 9:ere s:e e%entually fell under t:e defendant;s car& 37ontaneously reacting to t:e incident- :e crossed t:e street- noting t:at a man ree8ing 9it: t:e smell of liquor :ad alig:ted from t:e offending %e:icle in order to sur%ey t:e incident& 4qually im7ortant- Rodrigue= declared t:at :e obser%ed Ealen=uela;s car 7ar8ed 7arallel and %ery near t:e side9al8- contrary to (i;s allegation t:at Ealen=uela;s car 9as close to t:e center of t:e rig:t lane& ?e agree t:at as bet9een (i;s >self#ser%ing> asse%erations and t:e obser%ations of a 9itness 9:o did not e%en 8no9 t:e accident %ictim 7ersonally and 9:o immediately ga%e a statement of t:e incident similar to :is testimony to t:e in%estigator immediately after t:e incident- t:e latter;s testimony deser%es greater 9eig:t& As t:e court em7:asi=ed: T:e issue is one of credibility and from 5ur o9n examination of t:e transcri7t- ?e are not 7re7ared to set aside t:e trial court;s reliance on t:e testimony of Rodrigue= negating defendant;s assertion t:at :e 9as dri%ing at a safe s7eed& ?:ile Rodrigue= dri%es only a motorcycle- :is 7erce7tion of s7eed is not necessarily im7aired& Fe 9as subBected to cross# examination and no attem7t 9as made to question &:is com7etence or t:e accuracy of :is statement t:at defendant 9as dri%ing >%ery fast>& T:is 9as t:e same statement :e ga%e to t:e 7olice in%estigator after t:e incident- as told to a ne9s7a7er re7ort (4x:& >6>$& ?e see no com7elling basis for disregarding :is testimony& T:e alleged inconsistencies in Rodrigue=; testimony are not borne out by an examination of t:e testimony& Rodrigue= testified t:at t:e scene of t:e accident 9as across t:e street 9:ere :is beer:ouse is located about ten to t9enty feet a9ay (77& 3.#3*- tsn- Cune ")- ",,"$& Fe did not

15
state t:at t:e accident trans7ired immediately in front of :is establis:ment& T:e o9ners:i7 of t:e (ambingan se Iambingan is not materialG t:e business is registered in t:e name of :is mot:er- but :e ex7lained t:at :e o9ns t:e establis:ment (7& .- tsn- Cune !- ",,"$& Aoreo%ert:e testimony t:at t:e streetlig:ts on :is side of Aurora 0oule%ard 9ere on t:e nig:t t:e accident trans7ired (7& /$ is not necessarily contradictory to t:e testimony of 6fc& Ramos t:at t:ere 9as a streetlig:t at t:e corner of Aurora 0oule%ard and F& Roman 3treet (7& +.- tsn- 5ct& !- ",,"$& ?it: res7ect to t:e 9eat:er condition- Rodrigue= testified t:at t:ere 9as only a dri==le- not a :ea%y rain and t:e rain :as sto77ed and :e 9as outside :is establis:ment at t:e time t:e accident trans7ired (77& *+#*.- tsn- Cune ")- ",,"$& T:is 9as consistent 9it: 7laintiff;s testimony t:at it 9as no longer raining 9:en s:e left 0istro (a Conga (77& "!#""- tsn- A7ril ,",,"$& 2t 9as defendant (i 9:o stated t:at it 9as raining all t:e 9ay in an attem7t to ex7lain 9:y :e 9as tra%elling at only .!#.. 87:& (7& ""- tsn- 5ct& "+- ",,"$& As to t:e testimony of 6fc& Ramos t:at it 9as raining- :e arri%ed at t:e scene only in res7onse to a tele7:one call after t:e accident :ad trans7ired (77& ,#"!- tsn- 5ct& /- ",,"$& ?e find no substantial inconsistencies in Rodrigue=;s testimony t:at 9ould im7air t:e essential integrity of :is testimony or reflect on :is :onesty& ?e are com7elled to affirm t:e trial court;s acce7tance of t:e testimony of said eye9itness& Against t:e unassailable testimony of 9itness Rodrigue= 9e note t:at (i;s testimony 9as 7e77ered 9it: so many inconsistencies leading us to conclude t:at :is %ersion of t:e accident 9as merely adroitly crafted to 7ro%ide a %ersion- ob%iously self#ser%ing- 9:ic: 9ould excul7ate :im from any and all liability in t:e incident& Against Ealen=uela;s corroborated claims- :is allegations 9ere neit:er bac8ed u7 by ot:er 9itnesses nor by t:e circumstances 7ro%en in t:e course of trial& Fe claimed t:at :e 9as dri%ing merely at a s7eed of .. 87:& 9:en >out of no9:ere :e sa9 a dar8 maroon lancer rig:t in front of :im- 9:ic: 9as (t:e$ 7laintiff;s car>& Fe alleged t:at u7on seeing t:is sudden >a77arition> :e 7ut on :is bra8es to no a%ail as t:e road 9as sli77ery& 5ne 9ill :a%e to sus7end disbelief in order to gi%e credence to (i;s disingenuous and 7atently self# ser%ing asse%erations& T:e a%erage motorist alert to road %onditions 9ill :a%e no difficulty a77lying t:e bra8es to a car tra%eling at t:e s7eed claimed by (i& Gi%en a lig:t rainfall- t:e %isibility of t:e streetand t:e road conditions on a 7rinci7al metro7olitan t:oroug:fare li8e Aurora 0oule%ard- (i 9ould :a%e :ad am7le time to react to t:e c:anging conditions of t:e road if :e 9ere alert # as e%ery dri%er s:ould be # to t:ose conditions& Dri%ing exacts a more t:an usual toll on t:e senses& 6:ysiological >fig:t or flig:t> mec:anisms are at 9or8- 7ro%ided suc: mec:anisms 9ere not dulled by drugs- alco:olex:austion- dro9siness- etc& (i;s failure to react in a manner 9:ic: 9ould :a%e a%oided t:e accident could t:erefore :a%e been only due to eit:er or bot: of t:e t9o factors: "$ t:at :e 9as dri%ing at a >%ery fast> s7eed as testified by Rodrigue=G and $ t:at :e 9as under t:e influence of alco:ol& 4it:er factor 9or8ing inde7endently 9ould :a%e diminis:ed :is res7onsi%eness to road conditions- since normally :e 9ould :a%e slo9ed do9n 7rior to reac:ing Ealen=uela;s car- rat:er t:an be in a situation forcing :im to suddenly a77ly :is bra8es& As t:e trial court noted (quoted 9it: a77ro%al by res7ondent court$: 3econdly- as narrated by defendant Ric:ard (i to t:e 3an Cuan 6olice immediately after t:e incident- :e said t:at 9:ile dri%ing along Aurora 0l%d&- out of no9:ere :e sa9 a dar8 maroon lancer rig:t in front of :im 9:ic: 9as 7laintiff;s car- indicating- again- t:ereby t:at- indeed- :e 9as dri%ing %ery fast- obli%ious of :is surroundings and t:e road a:ead of :im- because if :e 9as not- t:en :e could not :a%e missed noticing at a still far distance t:e 7ar8ed car of t:e 7laintiff at t:e rig:t side near t:e side9al8 9:ic: :ad its emergency lig:ts on- t:ereby a%oiding forcefully bum7ing at t:e 7laintiff 9:o 9as t:en standing at t:e left rear edge of :er car& 3ince- according to :im- in :is narration to t:e 3an Cuan 6olice- :e 7ut on :is bra8es 9:en :e sa9 t:e 7laintiff;s car in front of :im- but t:at it failed as t:e road 9as 9et and sli77ery- t:is goes to s:o9 again- t:at- contrary to :is claim- :e 9as- indeed- running %ery fast& For- 9ere it ot:er9ise- :e could :a%e easily com7letely sto77ed :is car- t:ereby a%oiding t:e bum7ing of

16
t:e 7laintiff- not9it:standing t:at t:e road 9as 9et and sli77ery& Eerily- since- if- indeed- :e 9as running slo9- as :e claimed- at only about .. 8ilometers 7er :our- t:en- ins7ite of t:e 9et and sli77ery road- :e could :a%e a%oided :itting t:e 7laintiff by t:e mere ex7edient or a77lying :is bra8es at t:e 7ro7er time and distance& 2t could not be true- t:erefore- as :e no9 claims during :is testimony- 9:ic: is contrary to 9:at :e told t:e 7olice immediately after t:e accident and is- t:erefore- more belie%able- t:at :e did not actually ste7 on :is bra8es but sim7ly s9er%ed a little to t:e rig:t 9:en :e sa9 t:e on# coming car 9it: glaring :eadlig:ts- from t:e o77osite direction- in order to a%oid it& For- :ad t:is been 9:at :e did- :e 9ould not :a%e bum7ed t:e car of t:e 7laintiff 9:ic: 9as 7ro7erly 7ar8ed at t:e rig:t beside t:e side9al8& And- it 9as not e%en necessary for :im to s9er%e a little to t:e rig:t in order to safely a%oid a collision 9it: t:e on#coming car- considering t:at Aurora 0l%d& is a double lane a%enue se7arated at t:e center by a dotted 9:ite 7aint- and t:ere is 7lenty of s7ace for bot: cars- since :er car 9as running at t:e rig:t lane going to9ards Aanila on t:e on#coming car 9as also on its rig:t lane going to Cubao& Fa%ing come to t:e conclusion t:at (i 9as negligent in dri%ing :is com7any#issued Aitsubis:i (ancert:e next question for us to determine is 9:et:er or not Ealen=uela 9as li8e9ise guilty of contributory negligence in 7ar8ing :er car alongside Aurora 0oule%ard- 9:ic: entire area (i 7oints out- is a no 7ar8ing =one& ?e agree 9it: t:e res7ondent court t:at Ealen=uela 9as not guilty of contributory negligence& Contributory negligence is conduct on t:e 7art of t:e inBured 7arty- contributing as a legal cause to t:e :arm :e :as suffered- 9:ic: falls belo9 t:e standard to 9:ic: :e is required to conform for :is o9n 7rotection& 0ased on t:e foregoing definition- t:e standard or act to 9:ic:- according to 7etitioner (iEalen=uela oug:t to :a%e conformed for :er o9n 7rotection 9as not to 7ar8 at all at any 7oint of Aurora 0oule%ard- a no 7ar8ing =one& ?e cannot agree& Courts :a%e traditionally been com7elled to recogni=e t:at an actor 9:o is confronted 9it: an emergency is not to be :eld u7 to t:e standard of conduct normally a77lied to an indi%idual 9:o is in no suc: situation& T:e la9 ta8es stoc8 of im7ulses of :umanity 9:en 7laced in t:reatening or dangerous situations and does not require t:e same standard of t:oug:tful and reflecti%e care from 7ersons confronted by unusual and oftentimes t:reatening conditions& 1nder t:e >emergency rule> ado7ted by t:is Court in 1an vs& !ourt of ppeals- an indi%idual 9:o suddenly finds :imself in a situation of danger and is required to act 9it:out muc: time to consider t:e best means t:at may be ado7ted to a%oid t:e im7ending danger- is not guilty of negligence if :e fails to underta8e 9:at subsequently and u7on reflection may a77ear to be a better solution- unless t:e emergency 9as broug:t by :is o9n negligence& A77lying t:is 7rinci7le to a case in 9:ic: t:e %ictims in a %e:icular accident s9er%ed to t:e 9rong lane to a%oid :itting t9o c:ildren suddenly darting into t:e street- 9e :eld- in M% Kee vs& )ntermediate ppellate !ourt- t:at t:e dri%er t:erein- Cose Io:- >ado7ted t:e best means 7ossible in t:e gi%en situation> to a%oid :itting t:e c:ildren& 1sing t:e >emergency rule> t:e Court concluded t:at Io:- in s7ite of t:e fact t:at :e 9as in t:e 9rong lane 9:en t:e collision 9it: an oncoming truc8 occurred- 9as not guilty of negligence& ?:ile t:e emergency rule a77lies to t:ose cases in 9:ic: reflecti%e t:oug:t- or t:e o77ortunity to adequately 9eig: a t:reatening situation is absent- t:e conduct 9:ic: is required of an indi%idual in suc: cases is dictated not exclusi%ely by t:e suddenness of t:e e%ent 9:ic: absolutely negates t:oroug:ful care- but by t:e o%er#all nature of t:e circumstances& A 9oman dri%ing a %e:icle suddenly cri77led by a flat tire on a rainy nig:t 9ill not be faulted for sto77ing at a 7oint 9:ic: is bot: con%enient for :er to do so and 9:ic: is not a :a=ard to ot:er motorists& 3:e is not ex7ected to run t:e entire boule%ard in searc: for a 7ar8ing =one or turn on a dar8 street or alley 9:ere s:e 9ould li8ely find no one to :el7 :er& 2t 9ould be :a=ardous for :er not to sto7 and assess t:e emergency (sim7ly because t:e entire lengt: of Aurora 0oule%ard is a no#7ar8ing =one$ because t:e :obbling %e:icle 9ould be

17
bot: a t:reat to :er safety and to ot:er motorists& 2n t:e instant case- Ealen=uela- u7on reac:ing t:at 7ortion of Aurora 0oule%ard close to A& (a8e 3t&- noticed t:at s:e :ad a flat tire& To a%oid 7utting :erself and ot:er motorists in danger- s:e did 9:at 9as best under t:e situation& As narrated by res7ondent court: >3:e sto77ed at a lig:ted 7lace 9:ere t:ere 9ere 7eo7le- to %erify 9:et:er s:e :ad a flat tire and to solicit :el7 if needed& Fa%ing been told by t:e 7eo7le 7resent t:at :er rear rig:t tire 9as flat and t:at s:e cannot reac: :er :ome s:e 7ar8ed along t:e side9al8- about " "H feet a9aybe:ind a Toyota Corona Car&> 2n fact- res7ondent court noted- 6fc& Felix Ramos- t:e in%estigator on t:e scene of t:e accident confirmed t:at Ealen=uela;s car 9as 7ar8ed %ery close to t:e side9al8& T:e s8etc: 9:ic: :e 7re7ared after t:e incident s:o9ed Ealen=uela;s car 7artly straddling t:e side9al8clear and at a con%enient distance from motorists 7assing t:e rig:t lane of Aurora 0oule%ard& T:is fact 9as itself corroborated by t:e testimony of 9itness Rodrigue=& 1nder t:e circumstances described- Ealen=uela did exercise t:e standard reasonably dictated by t:e emergency and could not be considered to :a%e contributed to t:e unfortunate circumstances 9:ic: e%entually led to t:e am7utation of one of :er lo9er extremities& T:e emergency 9:ic: led :er to 7ar8 :er car on a side9al8 in Aurora 0oule%ard 9as not of :er o9n ma8ing- and it 9as e%ident t:at s:e :ad ta8en all reasonable 7recautions& 5b%iously in t:e case at benc:- t:e only negligence ascribable 9as t:e negligence of (i on t:e nig:t of t:e accident& >'egligence- as it is commonly understood is conduct 9:ic: creates an undue ris8 of :arm to ot:ers&> 2t is t:e failure to obser%e t:at degree of care- 7recaution- and %igilance 9:ic: t:e circumstances Bustly demand- 9:ereby suc: ot:er 7erson suffers inBury& ?e stressed- in !orliss vs& Manila ,ailroad !ompany- t:at negligence is t:e 9ant of care required by t:e circumstances& T:e circumstances establis:ed by t:e e%idence adduced in t:e court belo9 7lainly demonstrate t:at (i 9as grossly negligent in dri%ing :is Aitsubis:i (ancer& 2t bears em7:asis t:at :e 9as dri%ing at a fast s7eed at about :!! A&A& after a :ea%y do9n7our :ad settled into a dri==le rendering t:e street sli77ery& T:ere is am7le testimonial e%idence on record to s:o9 t:at :e 9as under t:e influence of liquor& 1nder t:ese conditions- :is c:ances of effecti%ely dealing 9it: c:anging conditions on t:e road 9ere significantly lessened& As 6resser and Ieaton em7:asi=e: M1Nnder 7resent day traffic conditions- any dri%er of an automobile must be 7re7ared for t:e sudden a77earance of obstacles and 7ersons on t:e :ig:9ay- and of ot:er %e:icles at intersections- suc: as one 9:o sees a c:ild on t:e curb may be required to antici7ate its sudden das: into t:e street- and :is failure to act 7ro7erly 9:en t:ey a77ear may be found to amount to negligence& (i;s ob%ious un7re7aredness to co7e 9it: t:e situation confronting :im on t:e nig:t of t:e accident 9as clearly of :is o9n ma8ing& ?e no9 come to t:e question of t:e liability of Alexander Commercial- 2nc& (i;s em7loyer& 2n denying liability on t:e 7art of Alexander Commercial- t:e res7ondent court :eld t:at: T:ere is no e%idence- not e%en defendant (i;s testimony- t:at t:e %isit 9as in connection 9it: official matters& Fis functions as assistant manager sometimes required :im to 7erform 9or8 outside t:e office as :e :as to %isit buyers and com7any clients- but :e admitted t:at on t:e nig:t of t:e accident :e came from 0F Fomes 6aranaque :e did not :a%e >business from t:e com7any> (77& .# *- ten- 3e7t& 3- ",,"$& T:e use of t:e com7any car 9as 7artly required by t:e nature of :is 9or8- but t:e 7ri%ilege of using it for non#official business is a >benefit>a77arently referring to t:e fringe benefits attac:ing to :is 7osition& 1nder t:e ci%il la9- an em7loyer is liable for t:e negligence of :is em7loyees in t:e disc:arge of t:eir res7ecti%e duties- t:e basis of 9:ic: liability is not respondeat superior- but t:e relations:i7 of pater familias- 9:ic: t:eory bases t:e liability of t:e master ultimately on :is o9n negligence and not on t:at of :is ser%ant (Cuison %& 'orton and Farrison Co&- .. 6:il& "/$& 0efore an em7loyer may be :eld liable for t:e negligence of :is em7loyee- t:e act or omission 9:ic: caused damage must :a%e occurred 9:ile an em7loyee 9as in t:e actual 7erformance

18
of :is assigned tas8s or duties (Francis Fig: 3c:ool %s& Court of A77eals- ",+ 3CRA 3+"$& 2n defining an em7loyer;s liability for t:e acts done 9it:in t:e sco7e of t:e em7loyee;s assigned tas8s- t:e 3u7reme Court :as :eld t:at t:is includes any act done by an em7loyee- in furt:erance of t:e interests of t:e em7loyer or for t:e account of t:e em7loyer at t:e time of t:e infliction of t:e inBury or damage (Filamer C:ristian 2nstitute %s& 2ntermediate A77ellate Court" 3CRA *3)$& An em7loyer is ex7ected to im7ose u7on its em7loyees t:e necessary disci7line called for in t:e 7erformance of any act >indis7ensable to t:e business and beneficial to t:eir em7loyer> (at 7& *+.$& 2n lig:t of t:e foregoing- ?e are unable to sustain t:e trial court;s finding t:at since defendant (i 9as aut:ori=ed by t:e com7any to use t:e com7any car >eit:er officially or socially or e%en bring it :ome>- :e can be considered as using t:e com7any car in t:e ser%ice of :is em7loyer or on t:e occasion of :is functions& Dri%ing t:e com7any car 9as not among :is functions as assistant managerG using it for non#official 7ur7oses 9ould a77ear to be a fringe benefit- one of t:e 7er8s attac:ed to :is 7osition& 0ut to im7ose liability u7on t:e em7loyer under Article "/! of t:e Ci%il Code- earlier quoted- t:ere must be a s:o9ing t:at t:e damage 9as caused by t:eir em7loyees in t:e ser%ice of t:e em7loyer or on t:e occasion of t:eir functions& T:ere is no e%idence t:at Ric:ard (i 9as at t:e time of t:e accident 7erforming any act in furt:erance of t:e com7any;s business or its interests- or at least for its benefit& T:e im7osition of solidary liability against defendant Alexander Commercial Cor7oration must t:erefore fail& ?e agree 9it: t:e res7ondent court t:at t:e relations:i7 in question is not based on t:e 7rinci7le of respondeat superior- 9:ic: :olds t:e master liable for acts of t:e ser%ant- but t:at of pater familiasin 9:ic: t:e liability ultimately falls u7on t:e em7loyer- for :is failure to exercise t:e diligence of a good fat:er of t:e family in t:e selection and su7er%ision of :is em7loyees& 2t is u7 to t:is 7oint:o9e%er- t:at our agreement 9it: t:e res7ondent court ends& 1tili=ing t:e bonus pater familias standard ex7ressed in Article "/! of t:e Ci%il Code- 9e are of t:e o7inion t:at (i;s em7loyerAlexander Commercial- 2nc& is Bointly and solidarily liable for t:e damage caused by t:e accident of Cune +- ",,!& First- t:e case of #t& $ran%is -igh #%hool vs& !ourt of ppeals u7on 9:ic: res7ondent court :as 7laced undue reliance- dealt 9it: t:e subBect of a sc:ool and its teac:er;s su7er%ision of students during an extracurricular acti%ity& T:ese cases no9 fall under t:e 7ro%ision on s7ecial 7arental aut:ority found in Art& "/ of t:e Family Code 9:ic: generally encom7asses all aut:ori=ed sc:ool acti%ities- 9:et:er inside or outside sc:ool 7remises& 3econd- t:e em7loyer;s 7rimary liability under t:e conce7t of pater familias embodied by Art "/! (in relation to Art& ")*$ of t:e Ci%il Code is quasi#delictual or tortious in c:aracter& Fis liability is relie%ed on a s:o9ing t:at :e exercised t:e diligence of a good fat:er of t:e family in t:e selection and su7er%ision of its em7loyees& 5nce e%idence is introduced s:o9ing t:at t:e em7loyer exercised t:e required amount of %are in selecting its em7loyees- :alf of t:e em7loyer;s burden is o%ercome& T:e question of diligent supervision- :o9e%er- de7ends on t:e circumstances of em7loyment& 5rdinarily- e%idence demonstrating t:at t:e em7loyer :as exercised diligent su7er%ision of its em7loyee during t:e 7erformance of t:e latter;s assigned tas8s 9ould be enoug: to relie%e :im of t:e liability im7osed by Article "/! in relation to Article ")* of t:e Ci%il Code& T:e em7loyer is not ex7ected to exercise su7er%ision o%er eit:er t:e em7loyee;s 7ri%ate acti%ities or during t:e 7erformance of tas8s eit:er unsanctioned by t:e former or unrelated to t:e em7loyee;s tas8s& T:e case at benc: 7resents a situation of a different c:aracter- in%ol%ing a 7ractice utili=ed by large com7anies 9it: eit:er t:eir em7loyees of managerial ran8 or t:eir re7resentati%es& 2t is customary for large com7anies to 7ro%ide certain classes of t:eir em7loyees 9it: courtesy %e:icles& T:ese com7any cars are eit:er 9:olly o9ned and maintained by t:e com7any itself or are subBect to %arious 7lans t:roug: 9:ic: em7loyees e%entually acquire t:eir %e:icles after a gi%en 7eriod of ser%ice- or after 7aying a to8en amount& Aany com7anies 7ro%ide liberal >car 7lans> to

19
enable t:eir managerial or ot:er em7loyees of ran8 to 7urc:ase cars- 9:ic:- gi%en t:e cost of %e:icles t:ese days- t:ey 9ould not ot:er9ise be able to 7urc:ase on t:eir o9n& 1nder t:e first exam7le- t:e com7any actually o9ns and maintains t:e car u7 to t:e 7oint of turno%er of o9ners:i7 to t:e em7loyeeG in t:e second exam7le- t:e car is really o9ned and maintained by t:e em7loyee :imself& 2n furnis:ing %e:icles to suc: em7loyees- are com7anies totally absol%ed of res7onsibility 9:en an accident in%ol%ing a com7any#issued car occurs during 7ri%ate use after normal office :oursJ Aost 7:armaceutical com7anies- for instance- 9:ic: 7ro%ide cars under t:e first 7lan- require rigorous tests of road 9ort:iness from t:eir agents 7rior to turning o%er t:e car (subBect of com7any maintenance$ to t:eir re7resentati%es& 2n ot:er 9ords- li8e a good fat:er of a family- t:ey entrust t:e com7any %e:icle only after t:ey are satisfied t:at t:e em7loyee to 9:om t:e car :as been gi%en full use of t:e said com7any car for com7any or 7ri%ate 7ur7oses 9ill not be a t:reat or menace to :imself- t:e com7any or to ot:ers& ?:en a com7any gi%es full use and enBoyment of a com7any car to its em7loyee- it in effect guarantees t:at it is- li8e e%ery good fat:er- satisfied t:at its em7loyee 9ill use t:e 7ri%ilege reasonably and res7onsi%ely& 2n t:e ordinary course of business- not all com7any em7loyees are gi%en t:e 7ri%ilege of using a com7any#issued car& For large com7anies ot:er t:an t:ose cited in t:e exam7le of t:e 7receding 7aragra7:- t:e 7ri%ilege ser%es im7ortant business 7ur7oses eit:er related to t:e image of success an entity intends to 7resent to its clients and to t:e 7ublic in general- or # for 7ractical and utilitarian reasons # to enable its managerial and ot:er em7loyees of ran8 or its sales agents to reac: clients con%eniently& 2n most cases- 7ro%iding a com7any car ser%es bot: 7ur7oses& 3ince im7ortant business transactions and decisions may occur at all :ours in all sorts of situations and under all 8inds of guises- t:e 7ro%ision for t:e unlimited use of a com7any car t:erefore prin%ipally ser%es t:e business and good9ill of a com7any and only in%identally t:e 7ri%ate 7ur7oses of t:e indi%idual 9:o actually uses t:e car- t:e managerial em7loyee or com7any sales agent& As suc:- in 7ro%iding for a com7any car for business use andHor for t:e 7ur7ose of furt:ering t:e com7any;s image- a com7any o9es a res7onsibility to t:e 7ublic to see to it t:at t:e managerial or ot:er em7loyees to 9:om it entrusts %irtually unlimited use of a com7any issued car are able to use t:e com7any issue ca7ably and res7onsibly& 2n t:e instant case- (i 9as an Assistant Aanager of Alexander Commercial- 2nc& 2n :is testimony before t:e trial court- :e admitted t:at :is functions as Assistant Aanager did not require :im to scru7ulously 8ee7 normal office :ours as :e 9as required quite often to 7erform 9or8 outside t:e office- %isiting 7ros7ecti%e buyers and contacting and meeting 9it: com7any clients& T:ese meetingsclearly- 9ere not strictly confined to routine :ours because- as a managerial em7loyee tas8ed 9it: t:e Bob of re7resenting :is com7any 9it: its clients- meetings 9it: clients 9ere bot: social as 9ell as 9or8# related functions& T:e ser%ice car assigned to (i by Alexander Commercial- 2nc& t:erefore enabled bot: (i # as 9ell as t:e cor7oration # to 7ut u7 t:e front of a :ig:ly successful entity- increasing t:e latter;s good9ill before its clientele& 2t also facilitated meeting bet9een (i and its clients by 7ro%iding t:e former 9it: a con%enient mode of tra%el& Aoreo%er- (i;s claim t:at :e :a77ened to be on t:e road on t:e nig:t of t:e accident because :e 9as coming from a social %isit 9it: an officemate in 6aranaque 9as a bare allegation 9:ic: 9as ne%er corroborated in t:e court belo9& 2t 9as ob%iously self#ser%ing& Assuming :e really came from :is officemate;s 7lace- t:e same could gi%e rise to s7eculation t:at :e and :is officemate :ad Bust been from a 9or8#related function- or t:ey 9ere toget:er to discuss sales and ot:er 9or8 related strategies& 2n fine- Alexander Commercial- inc& :as not demonstrated- to our satisfaction- t:at it exercised t:e care and diligence of a good fat:er of t:e family in entrusting its com7any car to (i& 'o allegations 9ere made as to 9:et:er or not t:e com7any too8 t:e ste7s necessary to determine or ascertain t:e dri%ing 7roficiency and :istory of (i- to 9:om it ga%e full and unlimited use of a com7any car& 'ot :a%ing been able to o%ercome t:e burden of demonstrating t:at it s:ould be absol%ed of liability for entrusting its com7any car to (i- said com7any- based on t:e 7rinci7le of bonus pater familias- oug:t to be Bointly

20
and se%erally liable 9it: t:e former for t:e inBuries sustained by Aa& (ourdes Ealen=uela during t:e accident& Finally- 9e find no reason to o%erturn t:e amount of damages a9arded by t:e res7ondent courtexce7t as to t:e amount of moral damages& 2n t:e case of moral damages- 9:ile t:e said damages are not intended to enric: t:e 7laintiff at t:e ex7ense of a defendant- t:e a9ard s:ould nonet:eless be commensurate to t:e suffering inflicted& 2n t:e instant case 9e are of t:e o7inion t:at t:e reduction in moral damages from an amount of 6"-!!!-!!!&!! to 6/!!-!!!-!! by t:e Court of A77eals 9as not Bustified considering t:e nature of t:e resulting damage and t:e 7redictable se0uelae of t:e inBury& As a result of t:e accident- Aa& (ourdes Ealen=uela under9ent a traumatic am7utation of :er left lo9er extremity at t:e distal left t:ig: Bust abo%e t:e 8nee& 0ecause of t:is- Ealen=uela 9ill fore%er be de7ri%ed of t:e full ambulatory functions of :er left extremity- e%en 9it: t:e use of state of t:e art 7rost:etic tec:nology& ?ell beyond t:e 7eriod of :os7itali=ation (9:ic: 9as 7aid for by (i$- s:e 9ill be required to undergo adBustments in :er 7rost:etic de%ise due to t:e s:rin8age of t:e stum7 from t:e 7rocess of :ealing& T:ese adBustments entail costs- 7rost:etic re7lacements and mont:s of 7:ysical and occu7ational re:abilitation and t:era7y& During :er lifetime- t:e 7rost:etic de%ise 9ill :a%e to be re7laced and re# adBusted to c:anges in t:e si=e of :er lo9er limb effected by t:e biological c:anges of middle#agemeno7ause and aging& Assuming s:e reac:es meno7ause- for exam7le- t:e 7rost:etic 9ill :a%e to be adBusted to res7ond to t:e c:anges in bone resulting from a 7reci7itate decrease in calcium le%els obser%ed in t:e bones of all 7ost#meno7ausal 9omen& 2n ot:er 9ords- t:e damage done to :er 9ould not only be 7ermanent and lasting- it 9ould also be 7ermanently c:anging and adBusting to t:e 7:ysiologic c:anges 9:ic: :er body 9ould normally undergo t:roug: t:e years& T:e re7lacementsc:anges- and adBustments 9ill require corres7onding adBusti%e 7:ysical and occu7ational t:era7y& All of t:ese adBustments- it :as been documented- are 7ainful& T:e foregoing discussion does not e%en scratc: t:e surface of t:e nature of t:e resulting damage because it 9ould be :ig:ly s7eculati%e to estimate t:e amount of 7syc:ological 7ain- damage and inBury 9:ic: goes 9it: t:e sudden se%ering of a %ital 7ortion of t:e :uman body& A 7rost:etic de%ice:o9e%er tec:nologically ad%anced- 9ill only allo9 a reasonable amount of functional restoration of t:e motor functions of t:e lo9er limb& T:e sensory functions are fore%er lost& T:e resultant anxietyslee7lessness- 7syc:ological inBury- mental and 7:ysical 7ain are inestimable& As t:e amount of moral damages are subBect to t:is Court;s discretion- 9e are of t:e o7inion t:at t:e amount of 6"-!!!-!!!&!! granted by t:e trial court is in greater accord 9it: t:e extent and nature of t:e inBury # 7:ysical and 7syc:ological # suffered by Ealen=uela as a result of (i;s grossly negligent dri%ing of :is Aitsubis:i (ancer in t:e early morning :ours of t:e accident& ?F4R4F5R4- 6R4A2343 C5'32D4R4D- t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals is modified 9it: t:e effect of R42'3TAT2'G t:e Budgment of t:e Regional Trial Court&

JULIAN DEL ROSARIO %& MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY G&R& 'o& (#3. /3&'o%ember .- ",3 3TR44T- J.: T:is action 9as instituted by Culian del Rosario for t:e 7ur7ose of reco%ering damages from t:e Aanila 4lectric Com7any for t:e deat: of :is son- Alberto del Rosario- resulting from a s:oc8 from a 9ire used by t:e defendant for t:e transmission of electricity& T:e accident occurred on Dimas#Alang 3treet- in t:e munici7ality of Caloocan- 6ro%ince of Ri=al& Damages are claimed in t:e com7laint in t:e amount of 63!-!!!& 17on :earing t:e cause t:e trial court absol%ed t:e defendant- and t:e 7laintiff a77ealed&

21
3:ortly after o;cloc8 on t:e afternoon of August +- ",3!- trouble de%elo7ed in a 9ire used by t:e defendant on Dimas#Alang 3treet for t:e 7ur7ose of conducting electricity used in lig:ting t:e City of Aanila and its suburbs& Cose 'oguera- 9:o :ad c:arge of a tienda nearby- first noticed t:at t:e 9ire 9as burning and its connections smo8ing& 2n a s:ort 9:ile t:e 9ire 7arted and one of t:e ends of t:e 9ire fell to t:e ground among some s:rubbery close to t:e 9ay& As soon as 'oguera too8 cogni=ance of t:e trouble- :e ste77ed into a garage 9:ic: 9as located nearby and as8ed Cose 3oco- t:e time8ee7er- to tele7:one t:e Aalabon station of t:e Aanila 4lectric Com7any t:at an electrical 9ire 9as burning at t:at 7lace& 3oco transmitted t:e message at & . 7&m& and recei%ed ans9er from t:e station to t:e effect t:at t:ey 9ould send an ins7ector& From t:e testimony of t:e t9o 9itnesses mentioned 9e are Bustified in t:e conclusion t:at information to t:e effect t:at t:e electric 9ire at t:e 7oint mentioned :ad de%elo7ed trouble 9as recei%ed by t:e com7any;s ser%ant at t:e time stated& At t:e time t:at message 9as sent t:e 9ire :ad not yet 7arted- but from t:e testimony of Demetrio 0ingao- one of t:e 9itnesses for t:e defense- it is clear t:at t:e end of t:e 9ire 9as on t:e ground s:ortly after 3 7&m& At + 7& m& t:e neig:bor:ood sc:ool 9as dismissed and t:e c:ildren 9ent :ome& Among t:ese 9as Alberto del Rosario- of t:e age of , years- 9:o 9as a fe9 7aces a:ead of t9o ot:er boys- all members of t:e second grade in t:e 7ublic sc:ool& T:ese ot:er t9o boys 9ere Cose 3al%ador- of t:e age of /- and 3aturnino 4ndrina- of t:e age of "!& As t:e t:ree neared t:e 7lace 9:ere t:e 9ire 9as do9n- 3aturnino made a motion as if it touc: it& Fis com7anion- Cose 3al%ador- :a77ened to be t:e son of an electrician and :is fat:er :ad cautioned :im ne%er to touc: a bro8en electrical 9ire- as it mig:t :a%e a current& Cose t:erefore sto77ed 3aturnino- telling :im t:at t:e 9ire mig:t be c:arged& 3aturnino yielded to t:is admonition and desisted from :is design- but Alberto del Rosario- 9:o 9as some9:at a:ead- said- 2 :a%e for some time been in t:e :abit of touc:ing 9ires (>@o desde :ace tiem7o coBo alambres>$& Cose 3al%ador reBoined t:at :e s:ould into touc: 9ires as t:ey carry a currentbut Alberto- no doubt feeling t:at :e 9as c:allenged in t:e matter- 7ut out :is index finger and touc: t:e 9ire& Fe immediately fell face do9n9ards- exclaiming >AyW madre>& T:e end of t:e 9ire remained in contact 9it: :is body 9:ic: fell near t:e 7ost& A cro9d soon collected- and some one cut t:e 9ire and disengaged t:e body& 17on being ta8en to 3t& (u8e;s Fos7ital t:e c:ild 9as 7ronounced dead& T:e 9ire 9as an ordinary number * tri7le braid 9eat:er 7roof 9ire- suc: as is commonly used by t:e defendant com7any for t:e 7ur7ose of conducting electricity for lig:ting& T:e 9ire 9as cased in t:e usual co%ering- but t:is :ad been burned off for some distance from t:e 7oint 9:ere t:e 9ire 7arted& T:e engineer of t:e com7any says t:at it 9as customary for t:e com7any to ma8e a s7ecial ins7ection of t:ese 9ires at least once in six mont:s- and t:at all of t:e com7any;s ins7ectors 9ere required in t:eir daily rounds to 8ee7 a loo8out for trouble of t:is 8ind& T:ere is not:ing in t:e record indicating any 7articular cause for t:e 7arting of t:e 9ire&la97:il&net ?e are of t:e o7inion t:at t:e 7resum7tion of negligence on t:e 7art of t:e com7any from t:e brea8age of t:is 9ire :as not been o%ercome- and t:e defendant is in our o7inion res7onsible for t:e accident& Furt:ermore- 9:en notice 9as recei%ed at t:e Aalabon station at & . 7& m&- somebody s:ould :a%e been dis7atc:ed to t:e scene of t:e trouble at once- or ot:er measures ta8en to guard t:e 7oint of dangerG but more t:an an :our and a :alf 7assed before anyone re7resenting t:e com7any a77eared on t:e scene- and in t:e meantime t:is c:ild :ad been claimed as a %ictim& 2t is doubtful 9:et:er contributory negligence can 7ro7erly be im7uted to t:e deceased- o9ing to :is immature years and t:e natural curiosity 9:ic: a c:ild 9ould feel to do somet:ing out of t:e ordinary- and t:e mere fact t:at t:e deceased ignored t:e caution of a com7anion of t:e age of / years does not- in our o7inion- alter t:e case& 0ut e%en su77osing t:at contributory negligence could in some measure be 7ro7erly im7uted to t:e deceased- O a 7ro7osition u7on 9:ic: t:e members of t:e court do not all agree- O yet suc: negligence 9ould not be 9:olly fatal to t:e rig:t of action in t:is case- not :a%ing been t:e determining cause of t:e accident& (Ra8es %s& Atlantic- Gulf and 6acific Co&) 6:il&- 3.,&$ ?it: res7ect to t:e amount of damages reco%erable t:e maBority of t:e members of t:is court are of t:e o7inion t:at t:e 7laintiff is entitled to reco%er 6 .! for ex7enses incurred in connection 9it:

22
t:e deat: and burial of t:e boy& For t:e rest- in accordance 9it: t:e 7recedents cited in Astudillo %s& Aanila 4lectric Com7any (.. 6:il&- + )$- t:e maBority of t:e court are of t:e o7inion t:at t:e 7laintiff s:ould reco%er t:e sum of 6"-!!! as general damages for loss of ser%ice& T:e Budgment a77ealed from is t:erefore re%ersed and t:e 7laintiff 9ill reco%er of t:e defendant t:e sum of 6"- .!- 9it: costs of bot: instances& 3o ordered&

DAVID TAYLOR %& THE MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY G&R& 'o& (#+,))&Aarc: - ","! CAR35'- J.: An action to reco%er damages for t:e loss of an eye and ot:er inBuries- instituted by Da%id Taylor- a minor- by :is fat:er- :is nearest relati%e& T:e defendant is a foreign cor7oration engaged in t:e o7eration of a street rail9ay and an electric lig:t system in t:e city of Aanila& 2ts 7o9er 7lant is situated at t:e eastern end of a small island in t:e 6asig Ri%er 9it:in t:e city of Aanila- 8no9n as t:e 2sla del 6ro%isor& T:e 7o9er 7lant may be reac:ed by boat or by crossing a footbridge- im7assable for %e:icles- at t:e 9esterly end of t:e island& T:e 7laintiff- Da%id Taylor- 9as at t:e time 9:en :e recei%ed t:e inBuries com7lained of- ". years of age- t:e son of a mec:anical engineer- more mature t:an t:e a%erage boy of :is age- and :a%ing considerable a7titude and training in mec:anics& 5n t:e 3!t: of 3e7tember- ",!.- 7laintiff- 9it: a boy named Aanuel Cla7arols- about " years of agecrossed t:e footbridge to t:e 2sla del 6ro%isor- for t:e 7ur7ose of %isiting one Aur7:y- an em7loyee of t:e defendant- 9:o and 7romised to ma8e t:em a cylinder for a miniature engine& Finding on inquiry t:at Ar& Aur7:y 9as not in :is quarters- t:e boys- im7elled a77arently by yout:ful curiosity and 7er:a7s by t:e unusual interest 9:ic: bot: seem to :a%e ta8en in mac:inery- s7ent some time in 9andering about t:e com7any;s 7remises& T:e %isit 9as made on a 3unday afternoon- and it does not a77ear t:at t:ey sa9 or s7o8e to anyone after lea%ing t:e 7o9er :ouse 9:ere t:ey :ad as8ed for Ar& Aur7:y& After 9atc:ing t:e o7eration of t:e tra%elling crane used in :andling t:e defendant;s coal- t:ey 9al8ed across t:e o7en s7ace in t:e neig:bor:ood of t:e 7lace 9:ere t:e com7any dum7ed in t:e cinders and as:es from its furnaces& Fere t:ey found some t9enty or t:irty brass fulminating ca7s scattered on t:e ground& T:ese ca7s are a77roximately of t:e si=e and a77earance of small 7istol cartridges and eac: :as attac:ed to it t9o long t:in 9ires by means of 9:ic: it may be disc:arged by t:e use of electricity& T:ey are intended for use in t:e ex7losion of blasting c:arges of dynamite- and :a%e in t:emsel%es a considerable ex7losi%e 7o9er& After some discussion as to t:e o9ners:i7 of t:e ca7sand t:eir rig:t to ta8e t:em- t:e boys 7ic8ed u7 all t:ey could find- :ung t:em on stic8- of 9:ic: eac: too8 end- and carried t:em :ome& After crossing t:e footbridge- t:ey met a little girl named Cessie Adrian- less t:an , years old- and all t:ree 9ent to t:e :ome of t:e boy Aanuel& T:e boys t:en made a series of ex7eriments 9it: t:e ca7s& T:ey trust t:e ends of t:e 9ires into an electric lig:t soc8et and obtained no result& T:ey next tried to brea8 t:e ca7 9it: a stone and failed& Aanuel loo8ed for a :ammer- but could not find one& T:en t:ey o7ened one of t:e ca7s 9it: a 8nife- and finding t:at it 9as filled 9it: a yello9is: substance t:ey got matc:es- and Da%id :eld t:e ca7 9:ile Aanuel a77lied a lig:ted matc: to t:e contents& An ex7losion follo9ed- causing more or less serious inBuries to all t:ree& Cessie- 9:o 9:en t:e boys 7ro7osed 7utting a matc: to t:e contents of t:e ca7- became frig:tened and started to run a9ay- recei%ed a slig:t cut in t:e nec8& Aanuel :ad :is :and burned and 9oundedand Da%id 9as struc8 in t:e face by se%eral 7articles of t:e metal ca7sule- one of 9:ic: inBured :is rig:t eye to suc: an extent as to t:e necessitate its remo%al by t:e surgeons 9:o 9ere called in to care for :is 9ounds&

23
T:e e%idence does definitely and conclusi%ely disclose :o9 t:e ca7s came to be on t:e defendant;s 7remises- nor :o9 long t:ey :ad been t:ere 9:en t:e boys found t:em& 2t a77ears- :o9e%er- t:at some mont:s before t:e accident- during t:e construction of t:e defendant;s 7lant- detonating ca7s of t:e same si=e and 8ind as t:ose found by t:e boys 9ere used in sin8ing a 9ell at t:e 7o9er 7lant near t:e 7lace 9:ere t:e ca7s 9ere foundG and it also a77ears t:at at or about t:e time 9:en t:ese ca7s 9ere found- similarly ca7s 9ere in use in t:e construction of an extension of defendant;s street car line to Fort ?illiam AcIinley& T:e ca7s 9:en found a77eared to t:e boys 9:o 7ic8ed t:em u7 to :a%e been lying for a considerable time- and from t:e 7lace 9:ere t:ey 9ere found 9ould seem to :a%e been discarded as detecti%e or 9ort:less and fit only to be t:ro9n u7on t:e rubbis: :ea7& 'o measures seems to :a%e been ado7ted by t:e defendant com7any to 7ro:ibit or 7re%ent %isitors from entering and 9al8ing about its 7remises unattended- 9:en t:ey felt dis7osed so to do& As admitted in defendant counsel;s brief- >it is undoubtedly true t:at c:ildren in t:eir 7lay sometimes crossed t:e foot bridge to t:e islandsG> and- 9e may add- roamed about at 9ill on t:e uninclosed 7remises of t:e defendant- in t:e neig:bor:ood of t:e 7lace 9:ere t:e ca7s 9ere found& T:ere is e%idence t:at any effort e%er 9as made to forbid t:ese c:ildren from %isiting t:e defendant com7any;s 7remises- alt:oug: it must be assumed t:at t:e com7any or its em7loyees 9ere a9are of t:e fact t:at t:ey not infrequently did so& T9o years before t:e accident- 7laintiff s7ent four mont:s at sea- as a cabin boy on one of t:e interisland trans7orts& (ater :e too8 u7 9or8 in :is fat:er;s office- learning mec:anical dra9ing and mec:anical engineering& About a mont: after :is accident :e obtained em7loyment as a mec:anical draftsman and continued in t:at em7loyment for six mont:s at a salary of 6 &.! a dayG and it a77ears t:at :e 9as a boy of more t:an a%erage intelligence- taller and more mature bot: mentally and 7:ysically t:an most boys of fifteen& T:e facts set out in t:e foregoing statement are to our mind fully and conclusi%ely establis:ed by t:e e%idence of record- and are substantially admitted by counsel& T:e only questions of fact 9:ic: are seriously dis7uted are 7laintiff;s allegations t:at t:e ca7s 9:ic: 9ere found by 7laintiff on defendant com7any;s 7remises 9ere t:e 7ro7erty of t:e defendant- or t:at t:ey :ad come from its 7ossession and control- and t:at t:e com7any or some of its em7loyees left t:em ex7osed on its 7remises at t:e 7oint 9:ere t:ey 9ere found& T:e e%idence in su77ort of t:ese allegations is meager- and t:e defendant com7any- a77arently relying on t:e rule of la9 9:ic: 7laces t:e burden of 7roof of suc: allegations u7on t:e 7laintiffoffered no e%idence in rebuttal- and insists t:at 7laintiff failed in :is 7roof& ?e t:in8- :o9e%er- t:at 7laintiff;s e%idence is sufficient to sustain a finding in accord 9it: :is allegations in t:is regard& 2t 9as 7ro%en t:at ca7s- similar to t:ose found by 7laintiff- 9ere used- more or less extensi%ely- on t:e AcIinley extension of t:e defendant com7any;s trac8G t:at some of t:ese ca7s 9ere used in blasting a 9ell on t:e com7any;s 7remises a fe9 mont:s before t:e accidentG t:at not far from t:e 7lace 9:ere t:e ca7s 9ere found t:e com7any :as a store:ouse for t:e materials- su77lies and so fort:- used by it in its o7erations as a street rail9ay and a 7ur%eyor of electric lig:tG and t:at t:e 7lace- in t:e neig:bor:ood of 9:ic: t:e ca7s 9ere found- 9as being used by t:e com7any as a sort of dum7ing ground for as:es and cinders& Fulminating ca7s or detonators for t:e disc:arge by electricity of blasting c:arges by dynamite are not articles in common use by t:e a%erage citi=en- and under all t:e circumstances- and in t:e absence of all e%idence to t:e contrary- 9e t:in8 t:at t:e disco%ery of t9enty or t:irty of t:ese ca7s at t:e 7lace 9:ere t:ey 9ere found by t:e 7laintiff on defendant;s 7remises fairly Bustifies t:e inference t:at t:e defendant com7any 9as eit:er t:e o9ner of t:e ca7s in question or :ad t:e ca7s under its 7ossession and control& ?e t:in8 also t:at t:e e%idence tends to disclose t:at t:ese ca7s or detonators 9ere 9illfully and 8no9ingly t:ro9n by t:e com7any or its em7loyees at t:e s7ot 9:ere t:ey 9ere found- 9it: t:e ex7ectation t:at t:ey 9ould be buried out of t:e sig:t by t:e as:es 9:ic: it 9as engaged in dum7ing in t:at neig:bor:ood- t:ey being old and 7er:a7s defecti%eG and- :o9e%er t:is may be- 9e are satisfied t:at t:e e%idence is sufficient to sustain a finding t:at t:e com7any or some of its em7loyees eit:er 9illfully or t:roug: an o%ersig:t left t:em ex7osed at a 7oint on its 7remises 9:ic: t:e general 7ublic- including c:ildren at 7lay- 9:ere not 7ro:ibited from %isiting-

24
and o%er 9:ic: t:e com7any 8ne9 or oug:t to :a%e 8no9n t:at young boys 9ere li8ely to roam about in 7astime or in 7lay& Counsel for a77ellant endea%ors to 9ea8en or destroy t:e 7robati%e %alue of t:e facts on 9:ic: t:ese conclusions are based by intimidating or rat:er assuming t:at t:e blasting 9or8 on t:e com7any;s 9ell and on its AcIinley extension 9as done by contractors& 2t 9as conclusi%ely 7ro%en- :o9e%er- t:at 9:ile t:e 9or8man em7loyed in blasting t:e 9ell 9as regularly em7loyed by C& G& ?:ite and Co&- a firm of contractors- :e did t:e 9or8 on t:e 9ell directly and immediately under t:e su7er%ision and control of one of defendant com7any;s foremen- and t:ere is no 7roof 9:ate%er in t:e record t:at t:e blasting on t:e AcIinley extension 9as done by independent %ontra%tors& 5nly one 9itness testified u7on t:is 7oint- and 9:ile :e stated t:at :e understood t:at a 7art of t:is 9or8 9as done by contract:e could not say so of :is o9n 8no9ledge- and 8ne9 not:ing of t:e terms and conditions of t:e alleged contract- or of t:e relations of t:e alleged contractor to t:e defendant com7any& T:e fact :a%ing been 7ro%en t:at detonating ca7s 9ere more or less extensi%ely em7loyed on 9or8 done by t:e defendant com7any;s directions and on its be:alf- 9e t:in8 t:at t:e com7any s:ould :a%e introduced t:e necessary e%idence to su77ort its contention if it 9is:ed to a%oid t:e not unreasonable inference t:at it 9as t:e o9ner of t:e material used in t:ese o7erations and t:at it 9as res7onsible for tortious or negligent acts of t:e agents em7loyed t:erein- on t:e ground t:at t:is 9or8 :ad been intrusted to independent %ontra%tors as to 9:ose acts t:e maxim respondent superior s:ould not be a77lied& 2f t:e com7any did not in fact o9n or ma8e use of ca7s suc: as t:ose found on its 7remisesas intimated by counsel- it 9as a %ery sim7le matter for it to 7ro%e t:at fact- and in t:e absence of suc: 7roof 9e t:in8 t:at t:e ot:er e%idence in t:e record sufficiently establis:es t:e contrary- and Bustifies t:e court in dra9ing t:e reasonable inference t:at t:e ca7s found on its 7remises 9ere its 7ro7ertyand 9ere left 9:ere t:ey 9ere found by t:e com7any or some of its em7loyees& 6laintiff a77ears to :a%e rested :is case- as did t:e trial Budge :is decision in 7laintiff;s fa%or- u7on t:e 7ro%isions of article "!/, of t:e Ci%il Code read toget:er 9it: articles ",! - ",!3- and ",!/ of t:at code& ART& "!/, 5bligations are created by la9- by contracts- by quasi#contracts- and illicit acts and omissions or by t:ose in 9:ic: any 8ind of fault or negligence occurs& ART& ",! A 7erson 9:o by an act or omission causes damage to anot:er 9:en t:ere is fault or negligence s:all be obliged to re7air t:e damage so done& ART& ",!3 T:e obligation im7osed by t:e 7receding article is demandable- not only for 7ersonal acts and omissions- but also for t:ose of t:e 7ersons for 9:om t:ey s:ould be res7onsible& T:e fat:er- and on :is deat: or inca7acity t:e mot:er- is liable for t:e damages caused by t:e minors 9:o li%e 9it: t:em& xxx xxx xxx 59ners or directors of an establis:ment or enter7rise are equally liable for damages caused by t:eir em7loyees in t:e ser%ice of t:e branc:es in 9:ic: t:e latter may be em7loyed or on account of t:eir duties& xxx xxx xxx T:e liability referred to in t:is article s:all cease 9:en t:e 7ersons mentioned t:erein 7ro%e t:at t:ey em7loyed all t:e diligence of a good fat:er of a family to a%oid t:e damage& ART& ",!/ T:e o9ners s:all also be liable for t:e damage caused O " 0y t:e ex7losion of mac:ines 9:ic: may not :a%e been cared for 9it: due diligence- and for 8indling of ex7losi%e substances 9:ic: may not :a%e been 7laced in a safe and 7ro7er 7lace& Counsel for t:e defendant and a77ellant rests :is a77eal strictly u7on :is contention t:at t:e facts 7ro%en at t:e trial do not establis:ed t:e liability of t:e defendant com7any under t:e 7ro%isions of

25
t:ese articles- and since 9e agree 9it: t:is %ie9 of t:e case- it is not necessary for us to consider t:e %arious questions as to form and t:e rig:t of action (analogous to t:ose raised in t:e case of Ra8es vs& Atlantic- Gulf and 6acific Co&- ) 6:il& Re7&- 3.,$- 9:ic: 9ould- 7er:a7s- be in%ol%ed in a decision affirming t:e Budgment of t:e court belo9& ?e agree 9it: counsel for a77ellant t:at under t:e Ci%il Code- as under t:e generally acce7ted doctrine in t:e 1nited 3tates- t:e 7laintiff in an action suc: as t:at under consideration- in order to establis: :is rig:t to a reco%ery- must establis: by com7etent e%idence: ("$ Damages to t:e 7laintiff& ( $ 'egligence by act or omission of 9:ic: defendant 7ersonally- or some 7erson for 9:ose acts it must res7ond- 9as guilty& (3$ T:e connection of cause and effect bet9een t:e negligence and t:e damage& T:ese 7ro7osition are- of course- elementary- and do not admit of discussion- t:e real difficulty arising in t:e a77lication of t:ese 7rinci7les to t:e 7articular facts de%elo7ed in t:e case under consideration& 2t is clear t:at t:e accident could not :a%e :a77ened and not t:e fulminating ca7s been left ex7osed at t:e 7oint 9:ere t:ey 9ere found- or if t:eir o9ner :ad exercised due care in 8ee7ing t:em in an a77ro7riate 7laceG but it is equally clear t:at 7laintiff 9ould not :a%e been inBured :ad :e not- for :is o9n 7leasure and con%enience- entered u7on t:e defendant;s 7remises- and strolled around t:ereon 9it:out t:e ex7ress 7ermission of t:e defendant- and :ad :e not 7ic8ed u7 and carried a9ay t:e 7ro7erty of t:e defendant 9:ic: :e found on its 7remises- and :ad :e not t:ereafter deliberately cut o7en one of t:e ca7s and a77lied a matc: to its contents& 0ut counsel for 7laintiff contends t:at because of 7laintiff;s yout: and inex7erience- :is entry u7on defendant com7any;s 7remises- and t:e inter%ention of :is action bet9een t:e negligent act of defendant in lea%ing t:e ca7s ex7osed on its 7remises and t:e accident 9:ic: resulted in :is inBury s:ould not be :eld to :a%e contributed in any 9ise to t:e accident- 9:ic: s:ould be deemed to be t:e direct result of defendant;s negligence in lea%ing t:e ca7s ex7osed at t:e 7lace 9:ere t:ey 9ere found by t:e 7laintiff- and t:is latter t:e 7roximate cause of t:e accident 9:ic: occasioned t:e inBuries sustained by :im& 2n su77ort of :is contention- counsel for 7laintiff relies on t:e doctrine laid do9n in many of t:e courts of last resort in t:e 1nited 3tates in t:e cases 8no9n as t:e >Tor7edo> and >Turntable> cases- and t:e cases based t:ereon& 2n a ty7ical cases- t:e question in%ol%ed :as been 9:et:er a railroad com7any is liable for an inBury recei%ed by an infant of tender years- 9:o from mere idle curiosity- or for t:e 7ur7oses of amusemententers u7on t:e railroad com7any;s 7remises- at a 7lace 9:ere t:e railroad com7any 8ne9- or :ad good reason to su77ose- c:ildren 9ould be li8ely to come- and t:ere found ex7losi%e signal tor7edoes left unex7osed by t:e railroad com7any;s em7loyees- one of 9:ic: 9:en carried a9ay by t:e %isitorex7loded and inBured :imG or 9:ere suc: infant found u7on t:e 7remises a dangerous mac:ine- suc: as a turntable- left in suc: condition as to ma8e it 7robable t:at c:ildren in 7laying 9it: it 9ould be ex7osed to accident or inBury t:erefrom and 9:ere t:e infant did in fact suffer inBury in 7laying 9it: suc: mac:ine& 2n t:ese- and in great %ariety of similar cases- t:e great 9eig:t of aut:ority :olds t:e o9ner of t:e 7remises liable& As laid do9n in ,ailroad !o. vs. #tout (") ?all& (/+ 1& 3&$- *.)$- 9:erein t:e 7rinci7al question 9as 9:et:er a railroad com7any 9as liable for in inBury recei%ed by an infant 9:ile u7on its 7remises- from idle curiosity- or for 7ur7oses of amusement- if suc: inBury 9as- under circumstances- attributable to t:e negligence of t:e com7any$- t:e 7rinci7les on 9:ic: t:ese cases turn are t:at >9:ile a railroad com7any is not bound to t:e same degree of care in regard to mere strangers 9:o are unla9fully u7on its 7remises t:at it o9es to 7assengers con%eyed by it- it is not exem7t from res7onsibility to suc: strangers for inBuries arising from its negligence or from its tortious actsG> and t:at >t:e conduct of

26
an infant of tender years is not to be Budged by t:e same rule 9:ic: go%erns t:at of adult& ?:ile it is t:e general rule in regard to an adult t:at to entitle :im to reco%er damages for an inBury resulting from t:e fault or negligence of anot:er :e must :imself :a%e been free from fault- suc: is not t:e rule in regard to an infant of tender years& T:e care and caution required of a c:ild is according to :is maturity and ca7acity only- and t:is is to be determined in eac: case by t:e circumstances of t:e case&> T:e doctrine of t:e case of ,ailroad !ompany vs. #tout 9as %igorously contro%erted and s:ar7ly critici=ed in se%eral state courts- and t:e su7reme court of Aic:igan in t:e case of ,yan vs. "o'ar (" / Aic:&- +*3$ formally re7udiated and disa77ro%ed t:e doctrine of t:e Turntable caseses7ecially t:at laid do9n in ,ailroad !ompany vs. #tout- in a %ery able decision 9:erein it :eld- in t:e language of t:e syllabus: ("$ T:at t:e o9ner of t:e land is not liable to tres7assers t:ereon for inBuries sustained by t:em- not due to :is 9anton or 9illful actsG ( $ t:at no exce7tion to t:is rule exists in fa%or of c:ildren 9:o are inBured by dangerous mac:inery naturally calculated to attract t:em to t:e 7remisesG (3$ t:at an in%itation or license to cross t:e 7remises of anot:er can not be 7redicated on t:e mere fact t:at no ste7s :a%e been ta8en to interfere 9it: suc: 7racticeG (+$ t:at t:ere is no difference bet9een c:ildren and adults as to t:e circumstances t:at 9ill 9arrant t:e inference of an in%itation or a license to enter u7on anot:er;s 7remises& 3imilar criticisms of t:e o7inion in t:e case of ,ailroad !ompany vs. #tout 9ere indulged in by t:e courts in Connecticut and Aassac:usetts& ('olan vs& Railroad Co&- .3 Conn&- +*"G ".+ Aass&- 3+,$& And t:e doctrine :as been questioned in ?isconsin- 6ennsyl%ania- 'e9 Fam7s:ire- and 7er:a7s in ot:er 3tates& 5n t:e ot:er :and- many if not most of t:e courts of last resort in t:e 1nited 3tates- citing and a77ro%ing t:e doctrine laid do9n in 4ngland in t:e leading case of 2yn%h vs. Nurding (" <& 0&- ,- 3.3*$- lay do9n t:e rule in t:ese cases in accord 9it: t:at announced in t:e ,ailroad !ompany vs. #tout (supra$- and t:e 3u7reme Court of t:e 1nited 3tates- in a unanimous o7inion deli%ered by Custice Farlan in t:e case of 3nion &a%ifi% ,ail'ay !o. vs. M%(onal and reconsidered t:e doctrine laid do9n in Railroad Co& %s& 3tout- and after an ex:austi%e and critical analysis and re%ie9 of many of t:e adBudged cases- bot: 4nglis: and American- formally declared t:at it ad:ered >to t:e 7rinci7les announced in t:e case of ,ailroad !o. vs. #tout&> 2n t:e case of 3nion &a%ifi% ,ail'ay !o. vs. Ma%(onald (supra$ t:e facts 9ere as follo9s: T:e 7laintiffa boy " years of age- out of curiosity and for :is o9n 7leasure- entered u7on and %isited t:e defendant;s 7remises- 9it:out defendant;s ex7ress 7ermission or in%itation- and 9:ile t:ere- 9as by accident inBured by falling into a burning slac8 7ile of 9:ose existence :e :ad no 8no9ledge- but 9:ic: :ad been left by defendant on its 7remises 9it:out any fence around it or anyt:ing to gi%e 9arning of its dangerous condition- alt:oug: defendant 8ne9 or :ad reason t:e interest or curiosity of 7assers#by& 5n t:ese facts t:e court :eld t:at t:e 7laintiff could not be regarded as a mere tres7asser- for 9:ose safety and 7rotection 9:ile on t:e 7remises in question- against t:e unseen danger referred to- t:e defendant 9as under no obligation to ma8e 7ro%ision& ?e quote at lengt: from t:e discussion by t:e court of t:e a77lication of t:e 7rinci7les in%ol%ed to t:e facts in t:at case- because 9:at is said t:ere is stri8ingly a77licable in t:e case at bar- and 9ould seem to dis7ose of defendant;s contention t:at- t:e 7laintiff in t:is case being a tres7asser- t:e defendant com7any o9ed :im no duty- and in no case could be :eld liable for inBuries 9:ic: 9ould not :a%e resulted but for t:e entry of 7laintiff on defendant;s 7remises& ?e ad:ere to t:e 7rinci7les announced in ,ailroad !o. vs. #tout (supra$& A77lied to t:e case no9 before us- t:ey require us to :old t:at t:e defendant 9as guilty of negligence in lea%ing unguarded t:e slac8 7ile- made by it in t:e %icinity of its de7ot building& 2t could :a%e forbidden all 7ersons from coming to its coal mine for 7ur7oses merely of curiosity and 7leasure& 0ut it did not do so& 5n t:e contrary- it 7ermitted all- 9it:out regard to age- to %isit its mine- and 9itness its o7eration& 2t 8ne9 t:at t:e usual a77roac: to t:e mine 9as by a narro9 7at: s8irting its slac8 7it- close to its de7ot building- at 9:ic: t:e 7eo7le of t:e %illage- old and young- 9ould

27
often assemble& 2t 8ne9 t:at c:ildren 9ere in t:e :abit of frequenting t:at locality and 7laying around t:e s:aft :ouse in t:e immediate %icinity of t:e slac8 7it& T:e slig:test regard for t:e safety of t:ese c:ildren 9ould :a%e suggested t:at t:ey 9ere in danger from being so near a 7it- beneat: t:e surface of 9:ic: 9as concealed (exce7t 9:en sno9- 9ind- or rain 7re%ailed$ a mass of burning coals into 9:ic: a c:ild mig:t accidentally fall and be burned to deat:& 1nder all t:e circumstances- t:e railroad com7any oug:t not to be :eard to say t:at t:e 7laintiff- a mere lad- mo%ed by curiosity to see t:e mine- in t:e %icinity of t:e slac8 7it- 9as a tres7asserto 9:om it o9ed no duty- or for 9:ose 7rotection it 9as under no obligation to ma8e 7ro%isions& 2n "o'nsend vs. 4athen (, 4ast- ))- /"$ it 9as :eld t:at if a man dangerous tra7s- baited 9it: fles:- in :is o9n ground- so near to a :ig:9ay- or to t:e 7remises of anot:er- t:at dogs 7assing along t:e :ig:9ay- or 8e7t in :is neig:bors 7remises- 9ould 7robably be attracted by t:eir instinct into t:e tra7s- and in consequence of suc: act :is neig:bor;s dogs be so attracted and t:ereby inBured- an action on t:e case 9ould lie& >?:at difference-> said (ord 4llenboroug:- C&C&- >is t:ere in reason bet9een dra9ing t:e animal into t:e tra7 by means of :is instinct 9:ic: :e can not resist- and 7utting :im t:ere by manual forceJ> ?:at difference- in reason 9e may obser%e in t:is case- is t:ere bet9een an ex7ress license to t:e c:ildren of t:is %illage to %isit t:e defendant;s coal mine- in t:e %icinity of its slac8 7ile- and an im7lied licenseresulting from t:e :abit of t:e defendant to 7ermit t:em- 9it:out obBection or 9arning- to do so at 9ill- for 7ur7oses of curiosity or 7leasureJ Referring it t:e case of "o'nsend vs. 4athen, Judge "hompson- in :is 9or8 on t:e (a9 of 'egligence- %olume "- 7age 3!.- note- 9ell says: >2t 9ould be a barbarous rule of la9 t:at 9ould ma8e t:e o9ner of land liable for setting a tra7 t:ereon- baited 9it: stin8ing meat- so t:at :is neig:bor;s dog attracted by :is natural instinctmig:t run into it and be 8illed- and 9:ic: 9ould exem7t :im from liability for t:e consequence of lea%ing ex7osed and unguarded on :is land a dangerous mac:ine- so t:at :is neig:bor;s c:ild attracted to it and tem7ted to intermeddle 9it: it by instincts equally strong- mig:t t:ereby be 8illed or maimed for life&> C:ief Custice Cooley- %oicing t:e o7inion of t:e su7reme court of Aic:igan- in t:e case of &o'ers vs. -arlo' (.3 Aic:&- .!)$- said t:at (7& .".$: C:ildren- 9:ere%er t:ey go- must be ex7ected to act u7on c:ildli8e instincts and im7ulsesG and ot:ers 9:o are c:argeable 9it: a duty of care and caution to9ard t:em must calculate u7on t:is- and ta8e 7recautions accordingly& 2f t:ey lea%e ex7osed to t:e obser%ation of c:ildren anyt:ing 9:ic: 9ould be tem7ting to t:em- and 9:ic: t:ey in t:eir immature Budgment mig:t naturally su77ose t:ey 9ere at liberty to :andle or 7lay 9it:- t:ey s:ould ex7ect t:at liberty to be ta8en& And t:e same eminent Burist in :is treatise or torts- alluding to t:e doctrine of im7lied in%itation to %isit t:e 7remises of anot:er- says: 2n t:e case of young c:ildren- and ot:er 7ersons not fully sui *uris- an im7lied license mig:t sometimes arise 9:en it 9ould not on be:alf of ot:ers& T:us lea%ing a tem7ting t:ing for c:ildren to 7lay 9it: ex7osed- 9:ere t:ey 9ould be li8ely to gat:er for t:at 7ur7ose- may be equi%alent to an in%itation to t:em to ma8e use of itG and- 7er:a7s- if one 9ere to t:ro9 a9ay u7on :is 7remises- near t:e common 9ay- t:ings tem7ting to c:ildren- t:e same im7lication s:ould arise& (C:a7& "!- 7& 3!3&$ T:e reasoning 9:ic: led t:e 3u7reme Court of t:e 1nited 3tates to its conclusion in t:e cases of ,ailroad !o. vs. #tout (supra$ and 3nion &a%ifi% ,ailroad !o. vs. M%(onald (supra$ is not less cogent and con%incing in t:is Burisdiction t:an in t:at 9:erein t:ose cases originated& C:ildren :ere are actuated by similar c:ildis: instincts and im7ulses& Dra9n by curiosity and im7elled by t:e restless s7irit of yout:- boys :ere as 9ell as t:ere 9ill usually be found 9:ene%er t:e 7ublic is 7ermitted to congregate& T:e mo%ement of mac:inery- and indeed anyt:ing 9:ic: arouses t:e attention of t:e young and inquiring mind- 9ill dra9 t:em to t:e neig:bor:ood as ine%itably as does t:e magnet dra9 t:e iron 9:ic: comes 9it:in t:e range of its magnetic influence& T:e o9ners of 7remises- t:erefore-

28
9:ereon t:ings attracti%e to c:ildren are ex7osed- or u7on 9:ic: t:e 7ublic are ex7ressly or im7liedly 7ermitted to enter or u7on 9:ic: t:e o9ner 8no9s or oug:t to 8no9 c:ildren are li8ely to roam about for 7astime and in 7lay- > must calculate u7on t:is- and ta8e 7recautions accordingly&> 2n suc: cases t:e o9ner of t:e 7remises can not be :eard to say t:at because t:e c:ild :as entered u7on :is 7remises 9it:out :is ex7ress 7ermission :e is a tres7asser to 9:om t:e o9ner o9es no duty or obligation 9:ate%er& T:e o9ner;s failure to ta8e reasonable 7recautions to 7re%ent t:e c:ild from entering :is 7remises at a 7lace 9:ere :e 8no9s or oug:t to 8no9 t:at c:ildren are accustomed to roam about of to 9:ic: t:eir c:ildis: instincts and im7ulses are li8ely to attract t:em is at least equi%alent to an im7lied license to enter- and 9:ere t:e c:ild does enter under suc: conditions t:e o9ner;s failure to ta8e reasonable 7recautions to guard t:e c:ild against inBury from un8no9n or unseen dangers- 7laced u7on suc: 7remises by t:e o9ner- is clearly a breac: of duty- res7onsible- if t:e c:ild is actually inBured- 9it:out ot:er fault on its 7art t:an t:at it :ad entered on t:e 7remises of a stranger 9it:out :is ex7ress in%itation or 7ermission& To :old ot:er9ise 9ould be ex7ose all t:e c:ildren in t:e community to un8no9n 7erils and unnecessary danger at t:e 9:im of t:e o9ners or occu7ants of land u7on 9:ic: t:ey mig:t naturally and reasonably be ex7ected to enter& T:is conclusion is founded on reason- Bustice- and necessity- and neit:er is contention t:at a man :as a rig:t to do 9:at 9ill 9it: :is o9n 7ro7erty or t:at c:ildren s:ould be 8e7t under t:e care of t:eir 7arents or guardians- so as to 7re%ent t:eir entering on t:e 7remises of ot:ers is of sufficient 9eig:t to 7ut in doubt& 2n t:is Burisdiction as 9ell as in t:e 1nited 3tates all 7ri%ate 7ro7erty is acquired and :eld under t:e tacit condition t:at it s:all not be so used as to inBure t:e equal rig:ts and interests of t:e community (see 1& 3& vs& Toribio-" 'o& .!*!- decided Canuary *- ","!$- and exce7t as to infants of %ery tender years it 9ould be absurd and unreasonable in a community organi=ed as is t:at in 9:ic: 9e li%ed to :old t:at 7arents or guardian are guilty of negligence or im7rudence in e%ery case 9:erein t:ey 7ermit gro9ing boys and girls to lea%e t:e 7arental roof unattended- e%en if in t:e e%ent of accident to t:e c:ild t:e negligence of t:e 7arent could in any e%ent be im7uted to t:e c:ild so as to de7ri%e it a rig:t to reco%er in suc: cases O a 7oint 9:ic: 9e neit:er discuss nor decide& 0ut 9:ile 9e :old t:at t:e entry of t:e 7laintiff u7on defendant;s 7ro7erty 9it:out defendant;s ex7ress in%itation or 7ermission 9ould not :a%e relie%ed defendant from res7onsibility for inBuries incurred t:ere by 7laintiff- 9it:out ot:er fault on :is 7art- if suc: inBury 9ere attributable to t:e negligence of t:e defendant- 9e are of o7inion t:at under all t:e circumstances of t:is case t:e negligence of t:e defendant in lea%ing t:e ca7s ex7osed on its 7remises 9as not t:e 7roximate cause of t:e inBury recei%ed by t:e 7laintiff- 9:ic: t:erefore 9as not- 7ro7erly s7ea8ing- >attributable to t:e negligence of t:e defendant-> and- on t:e ot:er :and- 9e are satisfied t:at 7laintiffs action in cutting o7en t:e detonating ca7 and 7utting matc: to its contents 9as t:e 7roximate cause of t:e ex7losion and of t:e resultant inBuries inflicted u7on t:e 7laintiff- and t:at t:e defendant- t:erefore is not ci%illy res7onsible for t:e inBuries t:us incurred& 6laintiff contends- u7on t:e aut:ority of t:e Turntable and Tor7edo cases- t:at because of 7laintiff;s yout: t:e inter%ention of :is action bet9een t:e negligent act of t:e defendant in lea%ing t:e ca7s ex7osed on its 7remises and t:e ex7losion 9:ic: resulted in :is inBury s:ould not be :eld to :a%e contributed in any 9ise to t:e accidentG and it is because 9e can not agree 9it: t:is 7ro7ositionalt:oug: 9e acce7t t:e doctrine of t:e Turntable and Tor7edo cases- t:at 9e :a%e t:oug:t 7ro7er to discuss and to consider t:at doctrine at lengt: in t:is decision& As 9as said in case of ,ailroad !o. vs. #tout (supra$- >?:ile it is t:e general rule in regard to an adult t:at to entitle :im to reco%er damages for an inBury resulting from t:e fault or negligence of anot:er :e must :imself :a%e been free from fault- suc: is not t:e rule in regard to an infant of tender years& T:e care and caution required of a c:ild is according to :is maturity and ca7acity only- and this is to be determined in ea%h %ase by the %ir%umstan%es of the %ase&> As 9e t:in8 9e :a%e s:o9n- under t:e reasoning on 9:ic: rests t:e doctrine of t:e Turntable and Tor7edo cases- no fault 9:ic: 9ould relie%e defendant of res7onsibility for inBuries resulting from its negligence can be attributed to t:e 7laintiff- a 9ell#gro9n boy of ". years of age- because of :is entry u7on defendant;s uninclosed 7remises 9it:out ex7ress 7ermission or in%itation; but it is 9:olly different question 9:et:er suc: yout: can be said to :a%e been free from fault 9:en :e 9illfully and deliberately cut o7en t:e detonating ca7- and 7laced a matc: to t:e

29
contents- 8no9ing- as :e undoubtedly did- t:at :is action 9ould result in an ex7losion& 5n t:is 7oint9:ic: must be determined by >t:e 7articular circumstances of t:is case-> t:e doctrine laid do9n in t:e Turntable and Tor7edo cases lends us no direct aid- alt:oug: it is 9ort:y of obser%ation t:at in all of t:e >Tor7edo> and analogous cases 9:ic: our attention :as been directed- t:e record discloses t:at t:e 7laintiffs- in 9:ose fa%or Budgments :a%e been affirmed- 9ere of suc: tender years t:at t:ey 9ere :eld not to :a%e t:e ca7acity to understand t:e nature or c:aracter of t:e ex7losi%e instruments 9:ic: fell into t:eir :ands& 2n t:e case at bar- 7laintiff at t:e time of t:e accident 9as a 9ell#gro9n yout: of ".- more mature bot: mentally and 7:ysically t:an t:e a%erage boy of :is ageG :e :ad been to sea as a cabin boyG 9as able to earn 6 &.! a day as a mec:anical draftsman t:irty days after t:e inBury 9as incurredG and t:e record discloses t:roug:out t:at :e 9as exce7tionally 9ell qualified to ta8e care of :imself& T:e e%idence of record lea%es no room for doubt t:at- des7ite :is denials on t:e 9itness stand- :e 9ell 8ne9 t:e ex7losi%e c:aracter of t:e ca7 9it: 9:ic: :e 9as amusing :imself& T:e series of ex7eriments made by :im in :is attem7t to 7roduce an ex7losion- as described by t:e little girl 9:o 9as 7resent- admit of no ot:er ex7lanation& Fis attem7t to disc:arge t:e ca7 by t:e use of electricityfollo9ed by :is efforts to ex7lode it 9it: a stone or a :ammer- and t:e final success of :is endea%ors broug:t about by t:e a77lication of a matc: to t:e contents of t:e ca7s- s:o9 clearly t:at :e 8ne9 9:at :e 9as about& 'or can t:ere be any reasonable doubt t:at :e :ad reason to antici7ate t:at t:e ex7losion mig:t be dangerous- in %ie9 of t:e fact t:at t:e little girl- , years of age- 9:o 9as 9it:in :im at t:e time 9:en :e 7ut t:e matc: to t:e contents of t:e ca7- became frig:tened and ran a9ay& True- :e may not :a%e 8no9n and 7robably did not 8no9 t:e 7recise nature of t:e ex7losion 9:ic: mig:t be ex7ected from t:e ignition of t:e contents of t:e ca7- and of course :e did not antici7ate t:e resultant inBuries 9:ic: :e incurredG but :e 9ell 8ne9 t:at a more or less dangerous ex7losion mig:t be ex7ected from :is act- and yet :e 9illfully- rec8lessly- and 8no9ingly 7roduced t:e ex7losion& 2t 9ould be going far to say t:at >according to :is maturity and ca7acity> :e exercised suc: and >care and caution> as mig:t reasonably be required of :im- or t:at defendant or anyone else s:ould be :eld ci%illy res7onsible for inBuries incurred by :im under suc: circumstances& T:e la9 fixes no arbitrary age at 9:ic: a minor can be said to :a%e t:e necessary ca7acity to understand and a77reciate t:e nature and consequences of :is o9n acts- so as to ma8e it negligence on :is 7art to fail to exercise due care and 7recaution in t:e commission of suc: actsG and indeed it 9ould be im7racticable and 7er:a7s im7ossible so to do- for in t:e %ery nature of t:ings t:e question of negligence necessarily de7ends on t:e ability of t:e minor to understand t:e c:aracter of :is o9n acts and t:eir consequencesG and t:e age at 9:ic: a minor can be said to :a%e suc: ability 9ill necessarily de7ends of :is o9n acts and t:eir consequencesG and at t:e age at 9:ic: a minor can be said to :a%e suc: ability 9ill necessarily %ary in accordance 9it: t:e %arying nature of t:e infinite %ariety of acts 9:ic: may be done by :im& 0ut some idea of t:e 7resumed ca7acity of infants under t:e la9s in force in t:ese 2slands may be gat:ered from an examination of t:e %arying ages fixed by our la9s at 9:ic: minors are conclusi%ely 7resumed to be ca7able of exercising certain rig:ts and incurring certain res7onsibilities- t:oug: it can not be said t:at t:ese 7ro%isions of la9 are of muc: 7ractical assistance in cases suc: as t:at at bar- exce7t so far as t:ey illustrate t:e rule t:at t:e ca7acity of a minor to become res7onsible for :is o9n acts %aries 9it: t:e %arying circumstances of eac: case& 1nder t:e 7ro%isions of t:e 6enal Code a minor o%er fifteen years of age is 7resumed to be ca7able of committing a crime and is to :eld criminally res7onsible t:erefore- alt:oug: t:e fact t:at :e is less t:an eig:teen years of age 9ill be ta8en into consideration as an extenuating circumstance (6enal Code- arts& / and ,$& At "! years of age a c:ild may- under certain circumstances- c:oose 9:ic: 7arent it 7refers to li%e 9it: (Code of Ci%il 6rocedure- sec& ))"$& At "+ may 7etition for t:e a77ointment of a guardian ()d&- sec& .."$- and may consent or refuse to be ado7ted ( )d&- sec& )*.$& And males of "+ and females of " are ca7able of contracting a legal marriage (Ci%il Code- art& /3G G& 5&- 'o& */- sec& "$& ?e are satisfied t:at t:e 7laintiff in t:is case :ad sufficient ca7acity and understanding to be sensible of t:e danger to 9:ic: :e ex7osed :imself 9:en :e 7ut t:e matc: to t:e contents of t:e ca7G t:at :e

30
9as sui *uris in t:e sense t:at :is age and :is ex7erience qualified :im to understand and a77reciate t:e necessity for t:e exercise of t:at degree of caution 9:ic: 9ould :a%e a%oided t:e inBury 9:ic: resulted from :is o9n deliberate actG and t:at t:e inBury incurred by :im must be :eld to :a%e been t:e direct and immediate result of :is o9n 9illful and rec8less act- so t:at 9:ile it may be true t:at t:ese inBuries 9ould not :a%e been incurred but for t:e negligence act of t:e defendant in lea%ing t:e ca7s ex7osed on its 7remises- ne%ert:eless 7laintiff;s o9n act 9as t:e 7roximate and 7rinci7al cause of t:e accident 9:ic: inflicted t:e inBury& T:e rule of t:e Roman la9 9as: 5uod 0uis e. %ulpa sua damnum sentit, non intelligitur sentire& (Digest- boo8 .!- tit& ") rule !3&$ T:e &atidas contain t:e follo9ing 7ro%isions: T:e Bust t:ing is t:at a man s:ould suffer t:e damage 9:ic: comes to :im t:roug: :is o9n fault- and t:at :e can not demand re7aration t:erefor from anot:er& ((a9 .- tit& .- &artida 3&$ And t:ey e%en said t:at 9:en a man recei%ed an inBury t:roug: :is o9n acts t:e grie%ance s:ould be against :imself and not against anot:er& ((a9 - tit& )- &artida &$ According to ancient sages- 9:en a man recei%ed an inBury t:roug: :is o9n acts t:e grie%ance s:ould be against :imself and not against anot:er& ((a9 - tit& ) &artida &$ And 9:ile t:ere does not a77ear to be anyt:ing in t:e Ci%il Code 9:ic: ex7ressly lays do9n t:e la9 touc:ing contributory negligence in t:is Burisdiction- ne%ert:eless- t:e inter7retation 7laced u7on its 7ro%isions by t:e su7reme court of 37ain- and by t:is court in t:e case of ,a/es vs. tlanti%, 1ulf and &a%ifi% !o. () 6:il& Re7&- 3.,$- clearly deny to t:e 7laintiff in t:e case at bar t:e rig:t to reco%er damages from t:e defendant- in 9:ole or in 7art- for t:e inBuries sustained by :im& T:e Budgment of t:e su7reme court of 37ain of t:e )t: of Aarc:- ",! (,3 Jurispruden%ia !ivil- 3,"$is directly in 7oint& 2n t:at case t:e court said: According to t:e doctrine ex7ressed in article ",! of t:e Ci%il Code- fault or negligence is a source of obligation 9:en bet9een suc: negligence and t:e inBury t:ere exists t:e relation of cause and effectG but if t:e inBury 7roduced s:ould not be t:e result of acts or omissions of a t:ird 7arty- t:e latter :as no obligation to re7air t:e same- alt:oug: suc: acts or omission 9ere im7rudent or unla9ful- and muc: less 9:en it is s:o9n t:at t:e immediate cause of t:e inBury 9as t:e negligence of t:e inBured 7arty :imself& T:e same court- in its decision of Cune " - ",!!- said t:at >t:e existence of t:e alleged fault or negligence is not sufficient 9it:out 7roof t:at it- and no ot:er cause- ga%e rise to t:e damage&> 3ee also Budgment of 5ctober "- ",!3& To similar effect 3cae%ola- t:e learned 37anis: 9riter- 9riting under t:at title in :is Jurispruden%ia del !odigo !ivil (",! Anuario- 7& +..$- commenting on t:e decision of Aarc: )- ",! of t:e Ci%il Code- fault or negligence gi%es rise to an obligation 9:en bet9een it and t:e damage t:ere exists t:e relation of cause and effectG but if t:e damage caused does not arise from t:e acts or omissions of a t:ird 7erson- t:ere is no obligation to ma8e good u7on t:e latter- e%en t:oug: suc: acts or omissions be im7rudent or illegal- and muc: less so 9:en it is s:o9n t:at t:e immediate cause of t:e damage :as been t:e rec8lessness of t:e inBured 7arty :imself& And again O 2n accordance 9it: t:e fundamental 7rinci7le of 7roof- t:at t:e burden t:ereof is u7on t:e 7laintiff- it is a77arent t:at it is duty of :im 9:o s:all claim damages to establis: t:eir existence& T:e decisions of A7ril ,- "/,*- and Aarc: "/- Culy- and 3e7tember )- "/,/- :a%e es7ecially su77orted t:e 7rinci7le- t:e first setting fort: in detail t:e necessary 7oints of t:e 7roof- 9:ic: are t9o: n a%t or omission on t:e 7art of t:e 7erson 9:o is to be c:arged 9it: t:e liability- and t:e 7roduction of t:e damage by said act or omission&

31
T:is includes- by inference- t:e establis:ment of a relation of cause or effect bet9een t:e act or omission and t:e damageG t:e latter must be t:e direct result of one of t:e first t9o& As t:e decision of Aarc: - "//"- said- it is necessary t:at t:e damages result immediately and directly from an act 7erformed cul7ably and 9rongfullyG >necessarily 7resu77osing a legal ground for im7utability&> (Decision of 5ctober ,- "//)&$ 'egligence is not 7resumed- but must be 7ro%en by (3ca%oela- Jurispruden%ia del !odigo !ivil, %ol& *- 77& .."#.. &$ :im 9:o alleges it&

(Cf& decisions of su7reme court of 37ain of Cune " - ",!!- and Cune 3- ",!!&$ Finally 9e t:in8 t:e doctrine in t:is Burisdiction a77licable to t:e case at bar 9as definitely settled in t:is court in t:e maturely considered case of ,a/es vs. tlanti%, 1ulf and &a%ifi% !o. (supra$- 9:erein 9e :eld t:at 9:ile >T:ere are many cases (7ersonal inBury cases$ 9as exonerated-> on t:e ground t:at >t:e negligence of t:e 7laintiff 9as t:e immediate cause of t:e casualty> (decisions of t:e ".t: of Canuary- t:e ",t: of February- and t:e )t: of Aarc:- ",! - stated in Alcubilla;s 2ndex of t:at year$G none of t:e cases decided by t:e su7reme court of 37ain >define t:e effect to be gi%en t:e negligence of its causes- t:oug: not t:e 7rinci7al one- and 9e are left to see8 t:e t:eory of t:e ci%il la9 in t:e 7ractice of ot:er countriesG> and in suc: cases 9e declared t:at la9 in t:is Burisdiction to require t:e a77lication of >t:e 7rinci7le of 7ro7ortional damages-> but ex7ressly and definitely denied t:e rig:t of reco%ery 9:en t:e acts of t:e inBured 7arty 9ere t:e immediate causes of t:e accident& T:e doctrine as laid do9n in t:at case is as follo9s: Difficulty seems to be a77re:ended in deciding 9:ic: acts of t:e inBured 7arty s:all be considered immediate causes of t:e accident& T:e test is sim7le& Distinction must be made bet9een t:e accident and t:e inBury- bet9een t:e e%ent itself- 9it:out 9:ic: t:ere could :a%e been no accident- and t:ose acts of t:e %ictim not entering into it- inde7endent of it- but contributing to :is o9n 7ro7er :urt& For instance- t:e cause of t:e accident under re%ie9 9as t:e dis7lacement of t:e cross7iece or t:e failure to re7lace it& T:is 7roduces t:e e%ent gi%ing occasion for damagesOt:at is- t:e sin8ing of t:e trac8 and t:e sliding of t:e iron rails& To t:is e%ent- t:e act of t:e 7laintiff in 9al8ing by t:e side of t:e car did not contribute- alt:oug: it 9as an element of t:e damage 9:ic: came to :imself& Fad t:e cross7iece been out of 7lace 9:olly or 7artly t:roug: :is act or omission of duty- t:at 9ould :a%e been one of t:e determining causes of t:e e%ent or accident- for 9:ic: :e 9ould :a%e been res7onsible& ?:ere :e contributes to t:e 7rinci7al occurrence- as one of its determining factors- :e can not reco%er& ?:ere- in conBunction 9it: t:e occurrence- :e contributes only to :is o9n inBury- :e may reco%er t:e amount t:at t:e defendant res7onsible for t:e e%ent s:ould 7ay for suc: inBury- less a sum deemed a suitable equi%alent for :is o9n im7rudence& ?e t:in8 it is quite clear t:at under t:e doctrine t:us stated- t:e immediate cause of t:e ex7losion- t:e accident 9:ic: resulted in 7laintiff;s inBury- 9as in :is o9n act in 7utting a matc: to t:e contents of t:e ca7- and t:at :a%ing >contributed to t:e 7rinci7al occurrence- as one of its determining factors- :e can not reco%er&> ?e :a%e not deemed it necessary to examine t:e effect of 7laintiff;s action in 7ic8ing u7 u7on defendant;s 7remises t:e detonating ca7s- t:e 7ro7erty of defendant- and carrying t:e relation of cause and effect bet9een t:e negligent act or omission of t:e defendant in lea%ing t:e ca7s ex7osed on its 7remises and t:e inBuries inflicted u7on t:e 7laintiff by t:e ex7losion of one of t:ese ca7s& 1nder t:e doctrine of t:e Tor7edo cases- suc: action on t:e 7art of an infant of %ery tender years 9ould :a%e no effect in relie%ing defendant of res7onsibility- but 9:et:er in %ie9 of t:e 9ell#8no9n fact admitted in defendant;s brief t:at >boys are sna77ers#u7 of unconsidered trifles-> a yout: of t:e age and maturity of 7laintiff s:ould be deemed 9it:out fault in 7ic8ing u7 t:e ca7s in question under all t:e circumstances of t:is case- 9e neit:er discuss nor decide& T9enty days after t:e date of t:is decision let Budgment be entered re%ersing t:e Budgment of t:e court belo9- 9it:out costs to eit:er 7arty in t:is instance- and ten days t:ereafter let t:e record be returned

32
to t:e court 9:erein it originated- 9:ere t:e Budgment 9ill be entered in fa%or of t:e defendant for t:e costs in first instance and t:e com7laint dismissed 9it:out day& 3o ordered&

FEDERICO YLARDE and ADELAIDA DORONIO %& EDGARDO AQUINO, MAURO SORIANO and COURT OF APPEALS G&R& 'o& (#33) &Culy ,- ",// GA'CA@C5- J.: 2n t:is 7etition for re%ie9 on certiorari see8ing t:e re%ersal of t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals in CA#G&R& 'o& 3*3,!#R entitled >Federico @larde- et al& %s& 4dgardo Aquino- et al&-> a case 9:ic: originated from t:e Court of First 2nstance of 6angasinan- ?e are again caned u7on determine t:e res7onsibility of t:e 7rinci7als and teac:ers to9ards t:eir students or 7u7ils& 2n ",*3- 7ri%ate res7ondent Aariano 3oriano 9as t:e 7rinci7al of t:e Gabaldon 6rimary 3c:ool- a 7ublic educational institution located in Tayug- 6angasinan#6ri%ate res7ondent 4dgardo Aquino 9as a teac:er t:erein& At t:at time- t:e sc:ool 9as fittered 9it: se%eral concrete bloc8s 9:ic: 9ere remnants of t:e old sc:ool s:o7 t:at 9as destroyed in ?orld ?ar 22& Reali=ing t:at t:e :uge stones 9ere serious :a=ards to t:e sc:oolc:ildren- anot:er teac:er by t:e name of 3ergio 0ane= started burying t:em one by one as early as ",* & 2n fact- :e 9as able to bury ten of t:ese bloc8s all by :imself& Deciding to :el7 :is colleague- 7ri%ate res7ondent 4dgardo Aquino gat:ered eig:teen of :is male 7u7ils- aged ten to ele%en- after class dismissal on 5ctober )- ",*3& 0eing t:eir teac:er#in#c:arge- :e ordered t:em to dig beside a one#ton concrete bloc8 in order to ma8e a :ole 9:erein t:e stone can be buried& T:e 9or8 9as left unfinis:ed& T:e follo9ing day- also after classes- 7ri%ate res7ondent Aquino called four of t:e original eig:teen 7u7ils to continue t:e digging& T:ese four 7u7ils O Reynaldo Alonso- Francisco Alcantara- 2smael Abaga and 'o%elito @larde- dug until t:e exca%ation 9as one meter and forty centimeters dee7& At t:is 7oint- 7ri%ate res7ondent Aquino alone continued digging 9:ile t:e 7u7ils remained inside t:e 7it t:ro9ing out t:e loose soil t:at 9as broug:t about by t:e digging& ?:en t:e de7t: 9as rig:t enoug: to accommodate t:e concrete bloc8- 7ri%ate res7ondent Aquino and :is four 7u7ils got out of t:e :ole& T:en- said 7ri%ate res7ondent left t:e c:ildren to le%el t:e loose soil around t:e o7en :ole 9:ile :e 9ent to see 0ane= 9:o 9as about t:irty meters a9ay& 6ri%ate res7ondent 9anted to borro9 from 0ane= t:e 8ey to t:e sc:ool 9or8room 9:ere :e could get some ro7e& 0efore lea%ing& - 7ri%ate res7ondent Aquino allegedly told t:e c:ildren >not to touc: t:e stone&> A fe9 minutes after 7ri%ate res7ondent Aquino left- t:ree of t:e four 8ids- Alonso- Alcantara and @larde- 7layfully Bum7ed into t:e 7it& T:en- 9it:out any 9arning at all- t:e remaining Abaga Bum7ed on to7 of t:e concrete bloc8 causing it to slide do9n to9ards t:e o7ening& Alonso and Alcantara 9ere able to scramble out of t:e exca%ation on time but unfortunately fo @larde- t:e concrete bloc8 caug:t :im before :e could get out- 7inning :im to t:e 9all in a standing 7osition& As a result t:ereof- @larde sustained t:e follo9ing inBuries: "& Contusion 9it: :ematoma- left inguinal region and su7ra7ubic region& & Contusion 9it: ecc:ymosis entire scrotal region& 3& (acerated 9ound- left lateral as7ect of 7enile s8in 9it: 7:imosis +& Abrasion- gluteal region- bilateral& .& 2ntra7eritoneal and extra7ertitoneal extra%asation of blood and urine about *& Fracture- sim7le- sym7:esis 7ubis liters&

33
)& Ru7tured (macerated$ urinary bladder 9it: body of bladder almost entirely se7arated from its nec8& R4AARI3: "& Abo%e 9ere incurred by crus:ing inBury& & 6rognosis %ery 7oor& (3gd&$ A4(<12AD43 0RAE5 6:ysician on Duty& T:ree days later- 'o%elito @larde died& @larde;s 7arents- 7etitioners in t:is case- filed a suit for damages against bot: 7ri%ate res7ondents Aquino and 3oriano& T:e lo9er court dismissed t:e com7laint on t:e follo9ing grounds: ("$ t:at t:e digging done by t:e 7u7ils is in line 9it: t:eir course called ?or8 4ducationG ( $ t:at Aquino exercised t:e utmost diligence of a %ery cautious 7ersonG and (3$ t:at t:e demise of @larde 9as due to :is o9n rec8less im7rudence& 5n a77eal- t:e Court of A77eals affirmed t:e Decision of t:e lo9er court& 6etitioners base t:eir action against 7ri%ate res7ondent Aquino on Article ")* of t:e Ci%il Code for :is alleged negligence t:at caused t:eir son;s deat: 9:ile t:e com7laint against res7ondent 3oriano as t:e :ead of sc:ool is founded on Article "/! of t:e same Code& Article ")* of t:e Ci%il Code 7ro%ides: Art& ")*& ?:oe%er by act or omission causes damage to anot:er- t:ere being fault or negligence- is obliged to 7ay for t:e damage done& 3uc: fault or negligence- if t:ere is no 7re# existing contractual relation bet9een t:e 7arties- is called a quasi#delict and is go%erned by t:e 7ro%isions of t:is C:a7ter& 5n t:e ot:er :and- t:e a77licable 7ro%ision of Article "/! states: Art& "/!& x x x xxx xxx xxx (astly- teac:ers or :eads of establis:ments of arts and trades s:all be liable for damages caused by t:eir 7u7ils and students or a77rentices- so long as t:ey remain in t:eir custody& T:e issue to be resol%ed is 9:et:er or not under t:e cited 7ro%isions- bot: 7ri%ate res7ondents can be :eld liable for damages& As regards t:e 7rinci7al- ?e :old t:at :e cannot be made res7onsible for t:e deat: of t:e c:ild @larde:e being t:e :ead of an academic sc:ool and not a sc:ool of arts and trades& T:is is in line 9it: 5ur ruling in madora vs. !ourt of ppeals- 9:erein t:is Court t:oroug:ly discussed t:e doctrine t:at under Article "/! of t:e Ci%il Code- it is only t:e teac:er and not t:e :ead of an academic sc:ool 9:o s:ould be ans9erable for torts committed by t:eir students& T:is Court 9ent on to say t:at in a sc:ool of arts and trades- it is only t:e :ead of t:e sc:ool 9:o can be :eld liable& 2n t:e same case- ?e ex7lained: After an ex:austi%e examination of t:e 7roblem- t:e Court :as come to t:e conclusion t:at t:e 7ro%ision in question s:ould a77ly to all sc:ools- academic as 9ell as non# academic& ?:ere t:e sc:ool is academic rat:er t:an tec:nical or %ocational in natureres7onsibility for t:e tort committed by t:e student 9ill attac: to t:e teac:er in c:arge of suc: student- follo9ing t:e first 7art of t:e 7ro%ision& T:is is t:e general rule& 2n t:e case of establis:ments of arts and trades- it is t:e :ead t:ereof- and only :e- 9:o s:all be :eld liable as an exce7tion to t:e general rule& 2n ot:er 9ords- teac:ers in general s:all A&

34
be liable for t:e acts of t:eir students exce7t 9:ere t:e sc:ool is tec:nical in nature- in 9:ic: case it is t:e :ead t:ereof 9:o s:all be ans9erable& Follo9ing t:e canon of reddendo singula sin0uilis ;teac:ers; s:ould a77ly to t:e 9ords >7u7ils and students; and ;:eads of establis:ments of arts and trades to t:e 9ord >a77rentices&> Fence- a77lying t:e said doctrine to t:is case- ?e rule t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent 3oriano- as 7rinci7alcannot be :eld liable for t:e reason t:at t:e sc:ool :e :eads is an academic sc:ool and not a sc:ool of arts and trades& 0esides- as clearly admitted by 7ri%ate res7ondent Aquino- 7ri%ate res7ondent 3oriano did not gi%e any instruction regarding t:e digging& From t:e foregoing- it can be easily seen t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent Aquino can be :eld liable under Article "/! of t:e Ci%il Code as t:e teac:er#in#c:arge of t:e c:ildren for being negligent in :is su7er%ision o%er t:em and :is failure to ta8e t:e necessary 7recautions to 7re%ent any inBury on t:eir 7ersons& Fo9e%er- as earlier 7ointed out- 7etitioners base t:e alleged liability of 7ri%ate res7ondent Aquino on Article ")* 9:ic: is se7arate and distinct from t:at 7ro%ided for in Article "/!& ?it: t:is in mind- t:e question ?e need to ans9er is t:is: ?ere t:ere acts and omissions on t:e 7art of 7ri%ate res7ondent Aquino amounting to fault or negligence 9:ic: :a%e direct causal relation to t:e deat: of :is 7u7il @lardeJ 5ur ans9er is in t:e affirmati%e& Fe is liable for damages& From a re%ie9 of t:e record of t:is case- it is %ery clear t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent Aquino acted 9it: fault and gross negligence 9:en :e: ("$ failed to a%ail :imself of ser%ices of adult manual laborers and instead utili=ed :is 7u7ils aged ten to ele%en to ma8e an exca%ation near t:e one#ton concrete stone 9:ic: :e 8ne9 to be a %ery :a=ardous tas8G ( $ required t:e c:ildren to remain inside t:e 7it e%en after t:ey :ad finis:ed digging- 8no9ing t:at t:e :uge bloc8 9as lying nearby and could be easily 7us:ed or 8ic8ed aside by any 7u7il 9:o by c:ance may go to t:e 7erilous areaG (3$ ordered t:em to le%el t:e soil around t:e exca%ation 9:en it 9as so a77arent t:at t:e :uge stone 9as at t:e brin8 of fallingG (+$ 9ent to a 7lace 9:ere :e 9ould not be able to c:ec8 on t:e c:ildren;s safetyG and (.$ left t:e c:ildren close to t:e exca%ation- an ob%iously attracti%e nuisance& T:e negligent act of 7ri%ate res7ondent Aquino in lea%ing :is 7u7ils in suc: a dangerous site :as a direct causal connection to t:e deat: of t:e c:ild @larde& (eft by t:emsel%es- it 9as but natural for t:e c:ildren to 7lay around& Tired from t:e strenuous digging- t:ey Bust :ad to amuse t:emsel%es 9it: 9:ate%er t:ey found& Dri%en by t:eir 7layful and ad%enturous instincts and not 8no9ing t:e ris8 t:ey 9ere facing t:ree of t:em Bum7ed into t:e :ole 9:ile t:e ot:er one Bum7ed on t:e stone& 3ince t:e stone 9as so :ea%y and t:e soil 9as loose from t:e digging- it 9as also a natural consequence t:at t:e stone 9ould fall into t:e :ole beside it- causing inBury on t:e unfortunate c:ild caug:t by its :ea%y 9eig:t& 4%eryt:ing t:at occurred 9as t:e natural and 7robable effect of t:e negligent acts of 7ri%ate res7ondent Aquino& 'eedless to say- t:e c:ild @larde 9ould not :a%e died 9ere it not for t:e unsafe situation created by 7ri%ate res7ondent Aquino 9:ic: ex7osed t:e li%es of all t:e 7u7ils concerned to real danger& ?e cannot agree 9it: t:e finding of t:e lo9er court t:at t:e inBuries 9:ic: resulted in t:e deat: of t:e c:ild @larde 9ere caused by :is o9n rec8less im7rudence- 2t s:ould be remembered t:at :e 9as only ten years old at t:e time of t:e incident- As suc:- :e is ex7ected to be 7layful and daring& Fis actuations 9ere natural to a boy :is age& Going bac8 to t:e facts- it 9as not only :im but t:e t:ree of t:em 9:o Bum7ed into t:e :ole 9:ile t:e remaining boy Bum7ed on t:e bloc8& From t:is- it is clear t:at :e only did 9:at any ot:er ten#year old c:ild 9ould do in t:e same situation& 2n ruling t:at t:e c:ild @larde 9as im7rudent- it is e%ident t:at t:e lo9er court did not consider :is age and maturity& T:is s:ould not be t:e case& T:e degree of care required to be exercised must %ary 9it: t:e ca7acity of t:e 7erson endangered to care for :imself& A minor s:ould not be :eld to t:e same degree of care as an adult- but :is conduct s:ould be Budged according to t:e a%erage conduct of 7ersons of :is age and ex7erience& T:e standard of conduct to 9:ic: a c:ild must conform for :is o9n 7rotection is t:at degree of care ordinarily exercised by c:ildren of t:e same age- ca7acitydiscretion- 8no9ledge and ex7erience under t:e same or similar circumstances& 0earing t:is in mind?e cannot c:arge t:e c:ild @larde 9it: rec8less im7rudence&

35
T:e court is not 7ersuaded t:at t:e digging done by t:e 7u7ils can 7ass as 7art of t:eir ?or8 4ducation& A single glance at t:e 7icture s:o9ing t:e exca%ation and t:e :uge concrete bloc8 9ould re%eal a dangerous site requiring t:e attendance of strong- mature laborers and not ten#year old grade#four 7u7ils& ?e cannot com7re:end 9:y t:e lo9er court sa9 it ot:er9ise 9:en 7ri%ate res7ondent Aquino :imself admitted t:at t:ere 9ere no instructions from t:e 7rinci7al requiring 9:at t:e 7u7ils 9ere told to do& 'or 9as t:ere any s:o9ing t:at it 9as included in t:e lesson 7lan for t:eir ?or8 4ducation& 4%en t:e Court of A77eals made mention of t:e fact t:at res7ondent Aquino decided all by :imself to :el7 :is co#teac:er 0ane= bury t:e concrete remnants of t:e old sc:ool s:o7& Furt:ermore- t:e exca%ation s:ould not be 7laced in t:e category of sc:ool gardening- 7lanting trees- and t:e li8e as t:ese underta8ings do not ex7ose t:e c:ildren to any ris8 t:at could result in deat: or 7:ysical inBuries& T:e contention t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent Aquino exercised t:e utmost diligence of a %ery cautious 7erson is certainly 9it:out cogent basis& A reasonably 7rudent 7erson 9ould :a%e foreseen t:at bringing c:ildren to an exca%ation site- and more so- lea%ing t:em t:ere all by t:emsel%es- may result in an accident& An ordinarily careful :uman being 9ould not assume t:at a sim7le 9arning >not to touc: t:e stone> is sufficient to cast a9ay all t:e serious danger t:at a :uge concrete bloc8 adBacent to an exca%ation 9ould 7resent to t:e c:ildren& Aoreo%er- a teac:er 9:o stands in lo%o parentis to :is 7u7ils 9ould :a%e made sure t:at t:e c:ildren are 7rotected from all :arm in :is com7any& ?e close by categorically stating t:at a truly careful and cautious 7erson 9ould :a%e acted in all contrast to t:e 9ay 7ri%ate res7ondent Aquino did& ?ere it not for :is gross negligence- t:e unfortunate incident 9ould not :a%e occurred and t:e c:ild @larde 9ould 7robably be ali%e today- a gro9n# man of t:irty#fi%e& Due to :is failure to ta8e t:e necessary 7recautions to a%oid t:e :a=ard@larde;s 7arents suffered great anguis: all t:ese years& ?F4R4F5R4- in %ie9 of t:e foregoing- t:e 7etition is :ereby GRA'T4D and t:e questioned Budgment of t:e res7ondent court is R4E4R34D and 34T A32D4 and anot:er Budgment is :ereby rendered ordering 7ri%ate res7ondent 4dagardo Aquino to 7ay 7etitioners t:e follo9ing: ("$ 2ndemnity for t:e deat: of C:ild @larde 63!-!!!&!! ( $ 4xem7lary damages "!-!!!&!! (3$ Aoral damages !-!!!&!!

R !"#$% &. S$a$" ' L ()%)ana Court of A77eals of (ouisiana- ",/" 3,* 3o& d .** Facts 0urson- a .yo blind man- left t:e concession stand :e o7erated in a 13 6ost 5ffice building to go to t:e menXs bat:room& As :e 9al8ed do9n t:e :all- :e bum7ed into Roberts- a ).yo man six inc:es and *. 7ounds smaller t:an 0urson- 9:o fell and inBured :is :i7& 0urson 9as not using :is cane at t:e time- as :e says :e relies on :is facial sense 9:ic: :e feels is adequate for s:ort tri7s inside t:e familiar building& Roberts filed suit to reco%er for t:e inBuries against t:e 3tate of (ouisiana t:roug: t:e (ousiana Fealt: and Fuman Resources Administration under res7ondeat su7erior and negligent failure by t:e 3tate to 7ro7erly su7er%ise and o%ersee t:e safe o7eration of t:e concession stand& Arguments Roberts: 0urson failed to use :is cane- e%en t:oug: it 9as at a concession stand- 9:ic: is a negligent act RobertsX ex7ert: ?it:out :a%ing examined 0urson or familiarity 9it: t:e 3tateXs %ending 7rogram- said

36
t:at a blind indi%idual s:ould use a cane in an unfamiliar en%ironment or 9:ere familiar en%ironments c:ange- suc: as 9:en 7eo7le mo%e t:roug: t:at en%ironment Aar=loff- director of Di% of 0lind 3er%ices: it is not uncommon for blind 7eo7le to use ot:er tec:niques besides a cane 9:en mo%ing t:roug: a familiar en%ironment& A cane can e%en be a :a=ard in busy areas 6rocedural Fistory Trial court dismissed 2ssues Are blind 7eo7le :eld to a :ig:er standard t:an a reasonable 7ersonJ Foldings & Court 5rder 'o- affirmed dismissal Reasoning A :andica77ed indi%idual must ta8e t:e 7recautions t:at an ordinary reasonable man 9ould if :e 9ere :andica77ed& 0urson acted as a reasonably 7rudent blind 7erson 9ould under t:e circumstances& 0urson :ad s7ecial mobility training and re7orts indicate :e :ad good mobility s8ills& Fe ex7lained :is use of facial sense t:at is con%incing t:at it 9as a reasoned decision& Furt:ermore- t:ere is no e%idence t:at :e 9as acting negligently (9al8ing fast- not 7aying attention etc$& 3ince 0urson isnXt negligent- t:e state isnXt liable&

CULION ICE, FISH AND ELECTRIC CO., INC., %& PHILIPPINE MOTORS CORPORATION G&R& 'o& (#3 *""&'o%ember 3- ",3! 3TR44T- J.: T:is action 9as instituted in t:e Court of First 2nstance of Aanila by t:e Culion 2ce- Fis: & 4lectric Co&- 2nc&- for t:e 7ur7ose of reco%ering from t:e 6:ili77ine Aotors Cor7oration t:e sum of 6""-3.!- 9it: interest and costs& 17on :earing t:e cause t:e trial court ga%e Budgment in fa%or of t:e 7laintiff to reco%er of t:e defendant t:e sum of 6,-/.!- 9it: interest at * 7er centum 7er annum from Aarc: +-", )- t:e date of t:e filing of t:e com7laint- until satisfaction of t:e Budgment- 9it: costs& From t:is Budgment t:e defendant a77ealed& T:e 7laintiff and defendant are domestic cor7orationsG and at t:e time of t:e incident 9it: 9:ic: 9e are :ere concerned- F&D& Cranston 9as t:e re7resentati%e of t:e 7laintiff in t:e City of Aanila& At t:e same time t:e 7laintiff 9as t:e registered o9ner of t:e motor sc:ooner 1'endoline- 9:ic: 9as used in t:e fis:ing trade in t:e 6:ili77ine 2slands& 2n Canuary- ", .- Cranston decided- if 7racticable- to :a%e t:e engine on t:e 1'endoline c:anged from a gasoline consumer to a crude oil burnerex7ecting t:ereby to effect economy in t:e cost of running t:e boat& Fe t:erefore made 8no9n :is desire to Ac(eod & Co&- a firm dealing in tractors- and 9as told by Ac Iellar- of said com7any- t:at :e mig:t ma8e inquiries of t:e 6:ili77ine Aotors Cor7orations- 9:ic: :ad its office on 5ng7in 3treet- in t:e City of Aanila& Cranston accordingly re7aired to t:e office of t:e 6:ili77ine Aotors Cor7oration and :ad a conference 9it: C&4& <uest- its manager- 9:o agreed to do t:e Bob- 9it: t:e understanding t:at 7ayment s:ould be made u7on com7letion of t:e 9or8& T:e 6:ili77ine Aotors Cor7oration 9as at t:is time engaged in business as an automobile agency- but- under its c:arter- it :ad aut:ority to deal in all sorts of mac:inery engines and motors- as 9ell as to build- o7erate- buy and sell t:e same and t:e equi7ment t:erof& <uest- as general manager:ad full c:arge of t:e cor7orations in all its branc:es&

37
As a result of t:e aforesaid inter%ie9- <uest- in com7any 9it: Cranston- %isited t:e 1'endoline 9:ile it lay at anc:or in t:e 6asig Ri%er- and t:e 9or8 of effecting t:e c:ange in t:e engine 9as begun and conducted under t:e su7er%ision of <uest- c:iefly by a mec:anic 9:om <uest too8 9it: :im to t:e boat& 2n t:is 9or8 <uest :ad t:e assistance of t:e members of t:e cre9 of t:e 1'endoline- 9:o :ad been directed by Cranston to 7lace t:emsel%es under <uest;s directions& 17on 7reliminary ins7ection of t:e engine- <uest came to t:e conclusion t:at t:e 7rinci7al t:ing necessary to accom7lis: t:e end in %ie9 9as to install a ne9 carburetor- and a Yenit: carburetor 9as c:osen as t:e one most ada7ted to t:e 7ur7ose& After t:is a77liance :ad been installed- t:e engine 9as tried 9it: gasoline as a fuel- su77lied from t:e tan8 already in use& T:e result of t:is ex7eriment 9as satisfactory& T:e next 7roblem 9as to introduce into t:e carburetor t:e baser fuel- consisting of a lo9 grade of oil mixed 9it: distillate& For t:is 7ur7ose a tem7orary tan8 to contain t:e mixture 9as 7laced on dec8 abo%e and at a s:ort distance from t:e com7artment co%ering t:e engine& T:is tan8 9as connected 9it: t:e carburetor by a 7iece of tubing- 9:ic: 9as a77arently not 9ell fitted at t:e 7oint 9:ere it 9as connected 9it: t:e tan8& 59ing to t:is fact t:e fuel mixture lea8ed from t:e tan8 and dri77ed so9n into t:e engine com7artment& T:e ne9 fuel line and t:at already in use bet9een t:e gasoline tan8 and carburetor 9ere so fixed t:at it 9as 7ossible to c:ange from t:e gasoline fuel to t:e mixed fuel& T:e 7ur7ose of t:is arrangement 9as to enable t:e o7erator to start t:e engine on gasoline and t:en- after t:e engine :ad been o7erating for a fe9 moments- to s9itc: to t:e ne9 fuel su77ly& la97:il&net 2n t:e course of t:e 7reliminary 9or8 u7on t:e carburetor and its connections- it 9as obser%ed t:at t:e carburetor 9as flooding- and t:at t:e gasoline- or ot:er fuel- 9as tric8ling freely from t:e lo9er 7art to t:e carburetor to t:e floor& T:is fact 9as called to <uest;s attention- but :e a77eared to t:in8 lig:tly of t:e matter and said t:at- 9:en t:e engine :ad gotten to running 9ell- t:e flooding 9ould disa77ear& After 7reliminary ex7eriments and adBustments :ad been made t:e boat 9as ta8en out into t:e bay for a trial run at about . 7&m& or a little later- on t:e e%ening of Canuary 3!-", .& T:e first 7art of t:e course 9as co%ered 9it:out any unto9ard de%elo7ment- ot:er t:an :e fact t:at t:e engine sto77ed a fe9 times- o9ing no doubt to t:e use of an im7ro7er mixture of fuel& 2n t:e course of t:e trial <uest remained outside of t:e engine com7artment and occu7ied :imself 9it: ma8ing distillate- 9it: a %ie9 to ascertaining 9:at 7ro7ortion of t:e t9o elements 9ould gi%e best results in t:e engine& As t:e boat 9as coming in from t:is run- at about ):3! 7&m& and 9:en 7assing near Ca%ite- t:e engine sto77ed- and connection again :ad to be made 9it: t:e gasoline line to get a ne9 start& After t:is :ad been done t:e mec:anic- or engineer- s9itc:ed to t:e tube connecting 9it: t:e ne9 mixture& A moment later a bac8 fire occurred in t:e cylinder c:amber& T:is caused a flame to s:oot bac8 into t:e carburetor- and instantly t:e carburetor and adBacent 7arts 9ere co%ered 9it: a mass of flames9:ic: t:e members of t:e cre9 9ere unable to subdue& T:ey 9ere t:erefore com7elled- as t:e fire s7read- to ta8e to a boat- and t:eir esca7e 9as safely effected- but t:e 1'endoline 9as reduced to a mere :ul8& T:e sal%age from- t:e 9rec8- 9:en sold- broug:t only t:e sum of 6".!& T:e %alue of t:e boat- before t:e accident occured- as t:e court found- 9as 6"!-!!!& A study of t:e testimony lead us to t:e conclusion t:at t:e loss of t:is boat 9as c:argeable to t:e negligence and lac8 of s8ill of <uest& T:e tem7orary tan8 in 9:ic: t:e mixture 9as 7re7ared 9as a77arently at too great an ele%ation from t:e carburetor- 9it: t:e result t:at 9:en t:e fuel line 9as o7ened- t:e :ydrostatic 7ressure in t:e carburetor 9as greater t:an t:e delicate 7arts of t:e carburetor could sustain& T:is 9as no doubt t:e cause of t:e flooding of t:e carburetorG and t:e result 9as t:atG 9:en t:e bac8 fire occurred- t:e external 7arts of t:e carburetor- already saturated 9it: gasoline- burst into flames- 9:ence t:e fire 9as quic8ly communicated to t:e :ig:ly inflammable material near#by& 5rdinarily a bac8 fire from an engine 9ould not be follo9ed by any disaster- but in t:is case t:e lea8 along t:e 7i7e line and t:e flooding of t:e carburetor :ad created a dangerous situation- 9:ic: a 7rudent mec:anic- %ersed in re7airs of t:is nature- 9ould :a%e ta8en 7recautions to a%oid& T:e bac8 fire may :a%e been due eit:er to t:e fact t:at t:e s7ar8 9as too ad%anced or t:e fuel im7ro7erly mixed&

38
2n t:is connection it must be remembered t:at 9:en a 7erson :olds :imself out as being com7etent to do t:ings requiring 7rofessional s8ill- :e 9ill be :eld liable for negligence if :e fails to ex:ibit t:e care and s8ill of one ordinarily s8illed in t:e 7articular 9or8 9:ic: :e attem7ts to do& T:e 7roof s:o9s t:at <uest :ad :ad am7le ex7erience in fixing t:e engines of automobiles and tractorsbut it does not a77ear t:at :e 9as ex7erienced in t:e doing of similar 9or8 on boats& For t:is reason7ossibly t:e dri77ing of t:e mixture form t:e tan8 on dec8 and t:e flooding of t:e carburetor did not con%ey to :is mind an adequate im7ression of t:e danger of fire& 0ut a 7erson s8illed in t:at 7articular sort of 9or8 9ould- 9e t:in8 :a%e been sufficiently 9arned from t:ose circumstances to cause :im to ta8e greater and adequate 7recautions against t:e danger& 2n ot:er 9ords <uest did not use t:e s8ill t:at 9ould :a%e been ex:ibited by one ordinarily ex7ert in re7airing gasoline engines on boats& T:ere 9as :ere- in our o7inion- on t:e 7art of <uest- a blame9ort:y antecedent inad%ertence to 7ossible :arm- and t:is constitutes negligence& T:e burning of t:e 1'endoline may be said to :a%e resulted from accident- but t:is accident 9as in no sense an una%oidable accident& 2t 9ould not :a%e occured but for <uest;s carelessness or lac8 of s8ill& T:e test of liability is not 9:et:er t:e inBury 9as accidental in a sense- but 9:et:er <uest 9as free from blame& ?e t:erefore see no esca7e from t:e conclusion t:at t:is accident is c:argeable to lac8 of s8ill or negligence in effecting t:e c:anges 9:ic: <uest undertoo8 to accom7lis:G and e%en su77osing t:at our t:eory as to t:e exact manner in 9:ic: t:e accident occurred mig:t a77ear to be in some res7ects incorrect- yet t:e origin of t:e fire in not so inscrutable as to enable us to say t:at it 9as %asus fortuitus. T:e trial Budge seems to :a%e 7roceeded on t:e idea t:at- inasmuc: as <uest :ad control of t:e1'endoline during t:e ex7erimental run- t:e defendant cor7oration 9as in t:e 7osition of a bailee and t:at- as a consequence- t:e burden of 7roof 9as on t:e defendant to excul7ate itself from res7onsibility by 7ro%ing t:at t:e accident 9as not due to t:e fault of <uest& ?e are unable to accede to t:is 7oint of %ie9& Certainly- <uest 9as not in c:arge of t:e na%igation of t:e boat on t:is trial run& Fis em7loyment contem7lated t:e installation of ne9 7arts in t:e engine only- and it seems rat:er strained to :old t:at t:e defendant cor7oration :ad t:ereby become bailee of t:e boat& As a rule 9or8men 9:o ma8e re7airs on a s:i7 in its o9ner;s yard- or a mec:anic 9:o re7airs a coac: 9it:out ta8ing it to :is s:o7- are not bailees- and t:eir rig:ts and liabilities are determined by t:e general rules of la9- under t:eir contract& T:e true bailee acquires 7ossession and 9:at is usually s7o8en of as s7ecial 7ro7erty in t:e c:attel bailed& As a consequence of suc: 7ossession and s7ecial 7ro7erty- t:e bailee is gi%en a lien for :is com7ensation& T:ese ideas seem to be incom7atible 9it: t:e situation no9 under consideration& 0ut t:oug: defendant cannot be :eld liable in t:e su77osition t:at t:e burden of 7roof :ad not been sustained by it in dis7ro%ing t:e negligence of its manager- 9e are ne%ert:eless of t:e o7inion t:at t:e 7roof s:o9s by a clear 7re7onderance t:at t:e accident to t:e 1'endoline and t:e damages resulting t:erefrom are c:argeable to t:e negligence or lac8 of s8ill of <uest& T:is action 9as instituted about t9o years after t:e accident in question :ad occured- and after <uest :ad ceased to be manager of t:e defendant cor7oration and :ad gone bac8 to t:e 1nited 3tates& 17on t:ese facts- t:e defendant bases t:e contention t:at t:e action s:ould be considered stale& 2t is sufficient re7ly to say t:at t:e action 9as broug:t 9it:in t:e 7eriod limited by t:e statute of limitations and t:e situation is not one 9:ere t:e defense of lac:es can be 7ro7erly in%o8ed& 2t results t:at t:e Budgment a77ealed from- a9arding damages to t:e 7laintiff in t:e amount of 6,-/.!- 9it: interest- must be affirmedG and it is so ordered- 9it: costs against t:e a77ellant&

E. M. WRIGHT %& MANILA ELECTRIC R.R. * LIGHT CO. G&R& 'o& (#))*!&5ctober "- ","+ A5R4(A'D- J.:

39
T:is is an action broug:t to reco%er damages for inBuries sustained in an accident 9:ic: occurred in Caloocan on t:e nig:t of August /- ",!,& T:e defendant is a cor7oration engaged in o7erating an electric street rail9ay in t:e city of Aanila and its suburbs- including t:e munici7ality of Caloocan& T:e 7laintiff;s residence in Caloocan fronts on t:e street along 9:ic: defendant;s trac8s run- so t:at to enter :is 7remises from t:e street 7laintiff is obliged to cross defendant;s trac8s& 5n t:e nig:t mentioned 7laintiff dro%e :ome in a calesa and in crossing t:e trac8s to enter :is 7remises t:e :orse stumbled- lea7ed for9ard- and fell- causing t:e %e:icle 9it: t:e rails- resulting in a sudden sto7- t:re9 7laintiff from t:e %e:icle and caused t:e inBuries com7lained of& 2t is undis7uted t:at at t:e 7oint 9:ere 7laintiff crossed t:e trac8s on t:e nig:t in question not only t:e rails 9ere abo%e#ground- but t:at t:e ties u7on 9:ic: t:e rails rested 7roBected from one#t:ird to one#:alf of t:eir de7t: out of t:e ground- t:us ma8ing t:e to7s of t:e rails some . or * inc:es or more abo%e t:e le%el of t:e street& 2t is admitted t:at t:e defendant 9as negligent in maintaining its trac8s as described- but it is contended t:at t:e 7laintiff 9as also negligent in t:at :e 9as intoxicated to suc: an extent at t:e time of t:e accident t:at :e 9as unable to ta8e care of :imself 7ro7erly and t:at suc: intoxication 9as t:e 7rimary cause of t:e accident& T:e trial court :eld t:at bot: 7arties 9ere negligent- but t:at t:e 7laintiff;s negligence 9as not as great as defendant;s and under t:e aut:ority of t:e case of ,a/es vs. . 1. 6 &. !o. () 6:il& Re7&- 3.,$ a77ortioned t:e damages and a9arded 7laintiff a Budgment of 6"-!!!& T:e question before us is stated by t:e defendant t:us: >Acce7ting t:e findings of t:e trial court t:at bot: 7laintiff and defendant 9ere guilty of negligence- t:e only question to be considered is 9:et:er t:e negligence of 7laintiff contributed t t:e ;7rinci7al occurrence; or ;only to :is o9n inBury&; 2f t:e former- :e cannot reco%erG if t:e latter- t:e trial court 9as correct in a77ortioning t:e damages&> T:e questioned as stated by 7laintiff is as follo9s: >T:e main question at issue is 9:et:er or not t:e 7laintiff 9as negligent- and- if so- to 9:at extent& 2f t:e negligence of t:e 7laintiff 9as t:e 7rimary cause of t:e accident t:en- of course- :e cannot reco%erG if :is negligence :ad not:ing to do 9it: t:e accident but contributed to :is inBury- t:en t:e court 9as rig:t in a77ortioning t:e damages- but if t:ere 9as no negligence on t:e 7art of t:e 7laintiff- t:en :e s:ould be a9arded damages adequates to t:e inBury sustained&> 2n su77ort of t:e defendant;s contention counsel says: >Defendant;s negligence 9as its failure 7ro7erly to maintain t:e trac8G 7laintiff;s negligence 9as :is intoxicationG t:e ;7rinci7al occurrence; 9as 7laintiff;s fall from :is calesa& 2t seems clear t:at 7laintiff;s intoxication contributed to t:e fallG if :e :ad been sober- it can :ardly be doubted t:at :e 9ould :a%e crossed t:e trac8 safely- as :e :ad done a :undred times before&> ?:ile bot: 7arties a77ealed from t:e decision- t:e defendant on t:e ground t:at it 9as not liable and t:e 7laintiff on t:e ground t:at t:e damages 9ere insufficient according to t:e e%idence- and 9:ile t:e 7laintiff made a motion for a ne9 trial u7on t:e statutory grounds and too8 7ro7er exce7tion to t:e denial t:ereof- t:us conferring u7on t:is court Burisdiction to determine t:e question of factne%ert:eless- not all of t:e testimony ta8en on t:e trial- so far as can be gat:ered from t:e record- :as been broug:t to t:is court& T:ere seems to :a%e been t9o :earings- one on t:e 3"st of August and t:e ot:er on t:e /t: of 3e7tember& T:e e%idence ta8en on t:e first :earing is :ereG t:at ta8en on t:e second is not& 'ot all t:e e%idence ta8en on t:e :earings being before t:e court- 9e must refuseunder our rules- to consider e%en t:at e%idence 9:ic: is :ereG and- in t:e decision of t:is case- 9e aret:erefore- relegated to t:e facts stated in t:e o7inion of t:e court and t:e 7leadings filed& A careful reading of t:e decision of t:e trial court leads us to t:e conclusion t:at t:ere is not:ing in t:e o7inion 9:ic: sustains t:e conclusion of t:e court t:at t:e 7laintiff 9as negligent 9it: reference to t:e accident 9:ic: is t:e basis of t:is action& Aere intoxication establis: a 9ant of ordinary care& 2t is but a circumstance to be considered 9it: t:e ot:er e%idence tending to 7ro%e negligence& 2t is t:e

40
general rule t:at it is immaterial 9:et:er a man is drun8 or sober if no 9ant of ordinary care or 7rudence can be im7uted to :im- and no greater degree of care is required t:an by a sober one& 2f one;s conduct is c:aracteri=ed by a 7ro7er degree of care and 7rudence- it is immaterial 9:et:er :e is drun8 or sober& (?ard vs& C:icago etc&- R& R& Co&- /. ?is&- *!"G F & T& C& R& Co& vs& Reason- *" Tex&*"3G Alger vs& (o9ell- 3 Allen- Aass&- +! G Central R& R& Co& vs& 6:ina=ee- ,3 Ga&- +//G Aaguire vs& Aiddlesex R& R& Co&- "". Aass&- 3,G Aeyer vs& 6acific R& R& Co&- +! Ao&- "."&- C:icago & '& ?& R& R& Co& vs& Dra8e- 33 2ll& A77&- ""+&$ 2f intoxication is not in itself negligence- 9:at are t:e facts found by t:e trial court and stated in its o7inion u7on 9:ic: may be 7redicated t:e finding t:at t:e 7laintiff did not use ordinary care and 7rudence and t:at t:e intoxication contributed to t:e inBury com7lained ofJ After s:o9ing clearly and forcibly t:e negligence of t:e defendant in lea%ing its trac8s in t:e condition in 9:ic: t:ey 9ere on t:e nig:t of t:e inBury- t:e court :as t:e follo9ing to say- and it is all t:at can be found in its o7inion- 9it: reference to t:e negligence of t:e 7laintiff: >?it: res7ect to t:e condition in 9:ic: Ar& ?rig:t 9as on returning to :is :ouse on t:e nig:t in question- t:e testimony of Doctor Ineedler- 9:o 9as t:e 7:ysician 9:o attended :im an :our after t:e accident- demonstrates t:at :e 9as intoxicated& & & & & 2f t:e defendant or its em7loyees 9ere negligent by reason of :a%ing left t:e rails and a 7art of t:e ties unco%ered in a street 9:ere t:ere is a large amount of tra%el- t:e 7laintiff 9as no less negligent- :e not :a%ing abstained from :is custom of ta8ing more 9ine t:an :e could carry 9it:out disturbing :is Budgment and :is self#control- :e 8no9ing t:at :e :ad to dri%e a :orse and 9agon and to cross railroad trac8s 9:ic: 9ere to a certain extent dangerous by reason of t:e rails being ele%ated abo%e t:e le%el of t:e street& 2f t:e 7laintiff :ad been 7rudent on t:e nig:t in question and :ad not attem7ted to dri%e :is con%eyance 9:ile in a drun8en condition- :e 9ould certainly :a%e a%oided t:e damages 9:ic: :e recei%ed- alt:oug: t:e com7any- on its 7art- 9as negligent in maintaining its trac8s in a bad condition for tra%el& 0ot: 7arties- t:erefore- 9ere negligent and bot: contributed to t:e damages resulting to t:e 7laintiff- alt:oug: t:e 7laintiff- in t:e Budgment of t:e court- contributed in greater 7ro7ortion to t:e damages t:at did t:e defendant& As is clear from reading t:e o7inion- no facts are stated t:erein 9:ic: 9arrant t:e conclusion t:at t:e 7laintiff 9as negligent& T:e conclusion t:at if :e :ad been sober :e 9ould not :a%e been inBured is not 9arranted by t:e facts as found& 2t is im7ossible to say t:at a sober man 9ould not :a%e fallen from t:e %e:icle under t:e conditions described& A :orse crossing t:e railroad trac8s 9it: not only t:e rails but a 7ortion of t:e ties t:emsel%es abo%eground- stumbling by reason of t:e unsure footing and falling- t:e %e:icle cras:ing against t:e rails 9it: suc: force as to brea8 a 9:eel- t:is mig:t be sufficient to t:ro9 a 7erson from t:e %e:icle no matter 9:at :is conditionG and to conclude t:atunder suc: circumstances- a sober man 9ould not :a%e fallen 9:ile a drun8en man did- is to dra9 a conclusion 9:ic: enters t:e realm of s7eculation and guess9or8& 2t :a%ing been found t:at t:e 7laintiff 9as not negligent- it is unnecessary to discuss t:e question 7resented by t:e a77ellant com7any 9it: reference to t:e a77licability of t:e case of ,a/es vs. . 1. 6 &. !o., abo%eG and 9e do not find facts in t:e o7inion of t:e court belo9 9:ic: Bustify a larger %erdict t:an t:e one found&

+a,$)- #" * O.) R. C . &. G Case 3ummary

d-an, /01 US 22 345/06.

41
Facts: Goodman 9as struc8 and 8illed by one of 0altimore & 5:io railroadXs (D$ trains as :e 9as dri%ing across a railroad crossing& GoodmanXs %ie9 of t:e crossing 9as bloc8ed and :e did not sto7loo8- or listen for a77roac:ing trains& GoodmanXs 9ido9 (6$ sued and t:e railroad mo%ed for a directed %erdict on t:e grounds t:at GoodmanXs deat: 9as t:e consequence of :is o9n negligence& T:e trial court entered Budgment in fa%or of Goodman- t:e court of a77eals affirmed- and D a77ealed& 2ssues: "$ Can a 7arty 7re%ail on a negligence claim if t:e e%idence s:o9s t:at t:at 7arty failed to ta8e reasonable 7recautions to guard against a ris8 t:at :e 9as a9are ofJ $ 2n an action for negligence- is t:e question of due care a matter for t:e finder of fact to decide 9:en it can be resol%ed by a clear standard of conductJ Folding and Rule: "$ 'o& A directed %erdict s:ould be entered against a 7arty 9:o :as suffered inBury because :e failed to ta8e reasonable 7recautions to guard against a 8no9n ris8& T:e court :eld t:at Goodman 9as contributorily negligent for not sto77ing and loo8ing& 'o reasonable Bury could :a%e found in fa%or of 6 under t:ese facts& $ 'ormally t:e question of due care is left to t:e finder of fact but 9:en t:e standard of conduct is clear it s:ould be laid by t:e courts& Dis7osition: Re%ersed& 'otes: T:e basis of t:e courtXs decision :ere is contributory negligence& T:e finder of fact normally determines t:e a77licable standard of care unless t:e standard is clear& 1nder t:e old common la9 contributory negligence 9as a com7lete bar to reco%ery& Contributory negligence is conduct t:at falls belo9 t:e standards establis:ed by la9 for self 7rotection&

42
P 7 #a &. Wa!a%. R8. C ., /5/ U.S. 59, 1: S.C$. 19;, 09 L.Ed. 44:5 345<:6. Case 3ummary Facts: 6o8ora (6$ a77roac:ed a ?abas: (D$ railroad crossing in :is truc8& 6o8ora sto77ed and loo8ed and listened as 9ell as :e could& 6 :eard no bell or 9:istle and dro%e slo9ly a:ead and 9as struc8 by a 7assenger train& 6 sued ?abas: for :is inBuries and t:e trial court granted a directed %erdict in fa%or of D on t:e grounds t:at 6 9as contributorily negligent as a matter of la9& T:e ruling 9as affirmed by t:e court of a77eals and D a77ealed to t:e 1nited 3tates 3u7reme Court& 2ssues: "$ ?:at is t:e duty im7osed on a 7arty 9:en crossing a railroad trac8J $ ?:at criteria must courts of la9 use in establis:ing a standard of 7rudent conduct as a rule of la9J Folding and Rule: "$ T:ere is a duty before crossing a railroad trac8 to sto7- loo8- listen- and to get out of t:e %e:icle and reconnoiter if t:e %ie9 is obstructed and one cannot ot:er9ise be sure t:at a train is not dangerously near Z 7ro%ided t:at sig:t and :earing become inadequate for a tra%elerXs 7rotection& $ A standard of 7rudent conduct declared by courts as a rule of la9 must be ta8en o%er from t:e facts of life- and must be suc: t:at a failure to conform to it is negligence so ob%ious and certain t:at rational and candid minds could not deem it ot:er9ise& T:e circumstances of t:e situation dictate t:e duty t:at is due and t:e duty to sto7 and loo8 is 7redicated on circumstances 9:ere sig:t and sound alone ma8e it dangerous to a reasonable 7erson& 2t is u7 to t:e Bury to decide 9:et:er a 7articular course of action 9as 7rudent under t:e circumstances& Dis7osition: Re%ersed and remanded& 'otes: T:e standard for measuring negligence is conduct t:at falls belo9 t:e standard establis:ed by la9 for t:e 7rotection of ot:ers against an unreasonable ris8 of :arm& T:at standard must be determined by t:e fact finder on a case by case basis& T:e negligence standard ne%er c:angesG it is only t:e circumstances t:at c:ange and :o9 a reasonable 7erson acts under t:em&

PRECIOLITA V. CORLISS %& THE MANILA RAILROAD CO. G&R& 'o& (# " ,"&Aarc: /- ",*, F4R'A'D5- J.: @out:- t:e t:res:old of life- is in%ariably accom7anied by t:at eu7:oric sense of 9ell#being- and 9it: reason& T:e future- brig:t 9it: 7romise- looms a:ead& 5ne;s 7o9ers are still to be tested- but one feels ready for 9:ate%er c:allenge may come :is 9ay& T:ere is t:at :eady atmos7:ere of self# confidence- at times carried to excess& T:e tem7tation to ta8e ris8s is t:ere- e%er so often- difficult- if not im7ossible- to resist& T:ere could be t:en a lessening of 7rudence and foresig:t- qualities usually associated 9it: age& For deat: seems so remote and contingent an e%ent& 3uc: is not al9ays t:e case t:oug:- and a sli7 may be attended 9it: consequences at times unfortunate- e%en fatal& 3ome suc: t:oug:t a77arently 9as in t:e mind of t:e lo9er court 9:en it dismissed t:e com7laint for reco%ery of damages filed by 7laintiff#a77ellant- 6reciolita E& Corliss 9:ose :usband- t:e late Ral7: ?& Corliss- 9as- at t:e tender age of t9enty#one- t:e %ictim of a grim tragedy- 9:en t:e Bee7 :e 9as dri%ing collided 9it: a locomoti%e of defendant#a77ellee Aanila Railroad Com7any- close to midnig:t on t:e e%ening of Feb "- ",.)- at t:e railroad crossing in 0alibago- Angeles- 6am7anga- in front of t:e Clar8 Air Force 0ase& 2n t:e decision a77ealed from- t:e lo9er court- after summari=ing t:e e%idence- concluded t:at t:e deceased >in :is eagerness to beat- so to s7ea8- t:e oncoming

43
locomoti%e- too8 t:e ris8 and attem7ted to reac: t:e ot:er side- but unfortunately :e became t:e %ictim of :is o9n miscalculation&> T:e negligence im7uted to defendant#a77ellee 9as t:us ruled out by t:e lo9er courtsatisfactory 7roof to t:at effect- in its o7inion- being lac8ing& Fence t:is a77eal direct to us- t:e amount soug:t in t:e conce7t of damages reac:ing t:e sum of 6 / -!*.&+!& An examination of t:e e%idence of record fails to yield a basis for a re%ersal of t:e decision a77ealed from& ?e affirm& According to t:e decision a77ealed from- t:ere is no dis7ute as to t:e follo9ing: >2n December ",.*- 7laintiff- ", years of age- married Ral7: ?& Corliss Cr&- " years of age- &&&G t:at Corliss Cr& 9as an air 7olice of t:e Clar8 Air Force 0aseG t:at at t:e time of t:e accident- :e 9as dri%ing t:e fatal Bee7G t:at :e 9as t:en returning in said Bee7- toget:er 9it: a 6&C& soldier- to t:e 0aseG and t:at Corliss Cr& died of serious burns at t:e 0ase Fos7ital t:e next day- 9:ile t:e soldier sustained serious 7:ysical inBuries and burns&> T:en came a summary of t:e testimony of t9o of t:e 9itnesses for 7laintiff#a77ellant& T:us: >Ronald C& 4nnis- a 9itness of t:e 7laintiff- substantially declared in :is de7osition- &&&- t:at at t:e time of t:e accident- :e also a9aiting trans7ortation at t:e entrance of Clar8 Field- 9:ic: 9as about +! to .! yards a9ay from t:e trac8s and t:at 9:ile t:ere :e sa9 t:e Bee7 coming to9ards t:e 0ase& Fe said t:at said Bee7 slo9ed do9n before reac:ing t:e crossing- t:at it made a brief sto7 but t:at it did not sto7 O dead sto7& 4laborating- :e declared t:at 9:ile it 9as slo9ing do9n- Corliss Cr& s:ifted into first gear and t:at 9as 9:at :e meant by a brief sto7& Fe also testified t:at :e could see t:e train coming from t:e direction of 3an Fernando and t:at :e :eard a 9arning but t:at it 9as not sufficient enoug: to a%oid t:e accident&> Also: >Eirgilio de la 6a=- anot:er 9itness of t:e 7laintiff- testified t:at on t:e nig:t of February "- ",.)- :e 9as at t:e 0alibago c:ec87oint and sa9 t:e train coming from Angeles and a Bee7 going to9ards t:e direction of Clar8 Field& Fe stated t:at :e :eard t:e 9:istle of t:e locomoti%e and sa9 t:e collision& T:e Bee7- 9:ic: caug:t fire- 9as 7us:ed for9ard& Fe :el7ed t:e 6&C& soldier& Fe stated t:at :e sa9 t:e Bee7 running fast and :eard t:e tooting of t:e :orn& 2t did not sto7 at t:e railroad crossing- according to :im&> After 9:ic: reference 9as made to t:e testimony of t:e main 9itness for defendant#a77elleeTeodorico Ca7ili- >9:o 9as at t:e engine at t:e time of t:e mis:a7-> and 9:o >testified t:at before t:e locomoti%e- 9:ic: :ad been 7re%iously ins7ected and found to be in good condition a77roac:ed- t:e crossing- t:at is- about 3!! meters a9ay- :e ble9 t:e siren and re7eated it in com7liance 9it: t:e regulations until :e sa9 t:e Bee7 suddenly s7urt and t:at alt:oug: t:e locomoti%e 9as running bet9een ! and . 8ilometers an :our and alt:oug: :e :ad a77lied t:e bra8es- t:e Bee7 9as caug:t in t:e middle of t:e trac8s&> "& T:e abo%e finding as to t:e non#existence of negligence attributable to defendant#a77ellee Aanila Railroad Com7any comes to us encased in t:e armor of 9:at admittedly a77ears to be a careful Budicial a77raisal and scrutiny of t:e e%idence of record& 2t is t:us 7roof against any attac8 unless sustained and o%er9:elming& 'ot t:at it is in%ulnerable- but it is li8ely to stand firm in t:e face of e%en t:e most formidable barrage& 2n t:e more traditional terminology- t:e lo9er court Budgment :as in its fa%or t:e 7resum7tion of correctness& 2t is entitled to great res7ect& After all- t:e lo9er court :ad t:e o77ortunity of 9eig:ing carefully 9:at 9as testified to and a77arently did not neglect it& T:ere is no affront to Bustice t:en if its finding be accorded acce7tance subBect of course t:e contingency of re%ersal if error or errorssubstantial in c:aracter- be s:o9n in t:e conclusion t:us arri%ed at& 2t is a fair statement of t:e go%erning- 7rinci7le to say t:at t:e a77ellate function is ex:austed 9:en t:ere is found to be a rational basis for t:e result reac:ed by t:e trial court& As 9as :eld in a ",*" decision: >?e :a%e already ruled- t:at 9:en t:e credibility of 9itnesses is t:e one at issue- t:e trial court;s Budgment as to t:eir degree of credence deser%es serious consideration by t:is Court&> An earlier ex7ression of t:e same %ie9 is found in Jai7 lai !orporation v. !hing Kiat: >After going o%er t:e record- 9e find no reason for reBecting t:e findings of t:e court belo9& T:e questions raised :inge on credibility and it is 9ell#settled t:at in t:e absence of com7elling

44
reasons- its determination is best left to t:e trial Budge 9:y :ad t:e ad%antage of :earing t:e 7arties testify and obser%ing t:eir demeanor on t:e 9itness stand&> 2n a ",*+ o7inion- 9e ad:ered to suc: an a77roac:& T:us: >;'ot:ing in t:e record suggests any arbitrary or abusi%e conduct on t:e 7art of t:e trial Budge in t:e formulation of t:e ruling& Fis conclusion on t:e matter is sufficiently borne out by t:e e%idence 7resented& ?e are denied- t:ereforet:e 7rerogati%e to disturb t:at finding- consonant to t:e time :onored tradition of t:e Tribunal to :old trial Budges better situated to ma8e conclusions on questions of fact;&> 5n t:is ground alone 9e can rest t:e affirmance of t:e Budgment a77ealed from&l[97:i"&Det & 'or is t:e result different e%en if no suc: 7resum7tion 9ere indulged in and t:e matter examined as if 9e 9ere exercising original and not a77ellate Burisdiction& T:e sad and de7lorable situation in 9:ic: 7laintiff#a77ellant no9 finds :erself- to t:e contrary not9it:standing 9e find no reason for re%ersing t:e Budgment of t:e lo9er court& T:is action is 7redicated on negligence- t:e Ci%il Code ma8ing clear t:at 9:oe%er by act or omission causes damage to anot:er- t:ere being negligence- is under obligation to 7ay for t:e damage done& 1nless it could be satisfactorily s:o9n- t:erefore- t:at defendant#a77ellee 9as guilty of negligence t:en it could not be :eld liable& T:e crucial question- t:erefore- is t:e existence of negligence& T:e abo%e Ci%il Code 7ro%ision- 9:ic: is a reiteration of t:at found in t:e Ci%il Code of 37ainformerly a77licable in t:is Burisdiction- :ad been inter7reted in earlier decisions& T:us- in 3mit: %& Cad9allader Gibson (umber Co&- Aanresa 9as cited to t:e follo9ing effect >;Among t:e questions most frequently raised and u7on 9:ic: t:e maBority of cases :a%e been decided 9it: res7ect to t:e a77lication of t:is liability- are t:ose referring to t:e determination of t:e damage or 7reBudice- and to t:e fault or negligence of t:e 7erson res7onsible t:erefor& T:ese are t:e t9o indis7ensable factors in t:e obligations under discussion- for 9it:out damage or 7reBudice t:ere can be no liability- and alt:oug: t:is element is 7resent no indemnity can be a9arded unless arising from some 7erson;s fault or negligence;&> 'egligence 9as defined by us in t9o "," decisions- 1nited 3tates %& Cuanillo and 1nited 3tates %& 0arias& Cooley; formulation 9as quoted 9it: a77ro%al in bot: t:e Cuanillo and 0arias decisions& T:us: >Cudge Cooley in :is 9or8 on Torts (3d ed&$- 3ec& "3 +- defines negligence to be: >T:e failure to obser%e for t:e 7rotection of t:e interests of anot:er 7erson t:at degree of care7recaution and %igilance 9:ic: t:e circumstance Bustly demand 9:ereby suc: ot:er 7erson suffers inBury&> T:ere 9as li8e9ise a reliance on A:ern %& 5regon Tele7:one Co& T:us: >'egligence is 9ant of t:e care required by t:e circumstances& 2t is a relati%e or com7arati%e- not an absolute term and its a77lication de7ends u7on t:e situation of t:e 7arties and t:e degree of care and %igilance 9:ic: t:e circumstances reasonably require& ?:ere t:e danger is great- a :ig: degree of care is necessary- and t:e failure to obser%e it is a 9ant of ordinary care under t:e circumstances&> To re7eat- by suc: a test- no negligence could be im7uted to defendant#a77ellee- and t:e action of 7laintiff#a77ellee must necessary fail& T:e facts being 9:at t:ey are- com7el t:e conclusion t:at t:e liability soug:t to be fastened on defendant#a77ellee :ad not arisen& 3& 6laintiff#a77ellant- in :er brief- :o9e%er- 9ould see8 a re%ersal of t:e Budgment a77ealed from on t:e ground t:at t:ere 9as a failure to a77reciate t:e true situation& T:us t:e first t:ree assigned errors are factual in c:aracter& T:e t:ird assigned error could be summarily dis7osed of& 2t 9ould go against t:e e%idence to maintain t:e %ie9 t:at t:e 9:istle 9as not sounded and t:e bra8es not a77lied at a distance of 3!! meters before reac:ing t:e crossing& T:e first t9o assigned errors 9ould ma8e muc: of t:e failure of t:e lo9er court to :old t:at t:e crossing bars not :a%ing been 7ut do9n and t:ere being no guard at t:e gate#:ouse- t:ere still 9as a duty on t:e 7art of Corliss to sto7 :is Bee7 to a%oid a collision and t:at Teodorico Ca7ili- 9:o dro%e t:e engine- 9as not qualified to do so at t:e time of t:e accident& For one cannot Bust single out circumstance and t:en confidently assign to it decisi%e 9eig:t and significance& Considered

45
se7arately- neit:er of t:e t9o abo%e errors assigned 9ould call for a Budgment different in c:aracter& 'or 9ould a combination of acts allegedly im7ressed 9it: negligence suffice to alter t:e result& T:e quantum of 7roof required still not been met& T:e alleged errors fail of t:eir said effect& T:e case for 7laintiff#a77ellant- suc: as it :ad not been im7ro%ed& T:ere is no Bustification for re%ersing t:e Budgment of t:e lo9er court& 2t cannot be stressed too muc: t:at t:e decisi%e considerations are too %ariable- too de7endent in t:e lid analysis u7on a common sense estimate of t:e situation as it 7resented itself to t:e 7arties for us to be able to say t:at t:is or t:at element :a%ing been isolated- negligence is s:o9n& T:e factors t:at enter t:e Budgment are too many and di%erse for us to im7rison t:em in a formula sufficient of itself to yield t:e correct ans9er to t:e multi#faceted 7roblems t:e question of negligence 7oses& 4%ery case must be de7endent on its facts& T:e circumstances indicati%e of lac8 of due care must be Budged in t:e lig:t of 9:at could reasonably be ex7ected of t:e 7arties& 2f t:e obBecti%e standard of 7rudence be met- t:en negligence is ruled out& 2n t:is 7articular case- it 9ould be to s:o9 less t:an fidelity to t:e controlling facts to im7ute negligence to defendant#a77ellee& T:e first t:ree errors assigned certainly do not call for t:at conclusion& +& T:e fourt: assigned error is deser%ing of a more extended treatment& 6laintiff#a77ellant a77arently :ad in mind t:is 7ortion of t:e o7inion of t:e lo9er court: >T:e 9eig:t of aut:orities is to t:e effect t:at a railroad trac8 is in itself a 9arning or a signal of danger to t:ose 9:o go u7on it- and t:at t:ose 9:o- for reasons of t:eir o9n- ignore suc: 9arning- do so at t:eir o9n ris8 and res7onsibility& Corliss Cr&- 9:o undoubtedly :ad crossed t:e c:ec87oint frequently- if not daily- must :a%e 8no9n t:at locomoti%e engines and trains usually 7ass at t:at 7articular crossing 9:ere t:e accident :ad ta8en 7lace&> Fer assignment of error- :o9e%er- 9ould single out not t:e abo%e excer7t from t:e decision a77ealed from but 9:at to :er is t:e a77arent reliance of t:e lo9er court on Mestres v. Manila Ele%tri% ,ailroad 6 2ight !o& and 1nited 3tates %& Aanlabat & 6asibi& 2n t:e Aanabat case- t:e doctrine announced by t:is Court follo9s: >A 7erson in control of an automobile 9:o crosses a railroad- e%en at a regular road crossing- and 9:o does not exercise t:at 7recaution and t:at control o%er it as to be able to sto7 t:e same almost immediately u7on t:e a77earance of a train- is guilty of criminal negligence- 7ro%iding a collision occurs and inBury results& Considering t:e 7ur7oses and t:e general met:ods ado7ted for t:e management of railroads and railroad trains- 9e t:in8 it is incumbent u7on one a77roac:ing a railroad crossing to use all of :is faculties of seeing and :earing& Fe s:ould a77roac: a railroad crossing cautiously and carefully& Fe s:ould loo8 and listen and do e%eryt:ing t:at a reasonably 7rudent man 9ould do before :e attem7ts to cross t:e trac8&> T:e Aestres doctrine in a suit arising from a collision bet9een an automobile and a street car is substantially similar& T:us: >2t may be said- :o9e%er- t:at- 9:ere a 7erson is nearing a street crossing to9ard 9:ic: a car is a77roac:ing- t:e duty is on t:e 7arty to sto7 and a%oid a collision 9:o can most readily adBust :imself to t:e exigencies of t:e case- and 9:ere suc: 7erson can do so more readily- t:e motorman :as a rig:t to 7resume t:at suc: duty 9ill be 7erformed&> 2t is true- as 7laintiff#a77ellant 9ould no9 allege t:at t:ere :as been a drift a9ay from t:e a77arent rigid and inflexible doctrine t:us set fort: in t:e t9o abo%e cases e%idenced by 2ilius v. Manila ,ailroad !o&- t:e controlling facts of 9:ic:- :o9e%er- are easily distinguis:able from 9:at :ad been correctly ascertained in t:e 7resent case& 3uc: a de%iation from t:e earlier 7rinci7le announced is not only true of t:is Burisdiction but also of t:e 1nited 3tates& T:is is made clear by 6rosser& 37ea8ing of a ", ) decision by Custice Folmes- :e :ad t:e follo9ing to say: >4s7ecially note9ort:y in t:is res7ect is t:e attem7t Ar& Custice Folmes- in 0altimore & 5:io Rail9ay %& Goodman- to ;lay do9n a standard once for all-; 9:ic: 9ould require an automobile dri%er a77roac:ing a railroad crossing 9it: an obstructed %ie9 to sto7- loo8 and listen- and if :e cannot be sure ot:er9ise t:at no train is coming to get out of t:e car& T:e basic idea be:ind t:is is sound enoug:: it is by no means 7ro7er care to cross a railroad trac8 9it:out ta8ing reasonable 7recautions

46
against a train- and normally suc: 7recautions 9ill require loo8ing- :earing- and a sto7- or at least slo9 s7eed- 9:ere t:e %ie9 is obstructed&> T:en- barely se%en years later- in ",3+- came &a/ora v. 4abash ,ail'ay- 9:ere- according to 6rosser- it being s:o9n t:at >t:e only effecti%e sto7 must be made u7on t:e rail9ay trac8s t:emsel%esin a 7osition of obligation danger- t:e court disregarded any suc: uniform rule- reBecting t:e ;get out of t:e car; requirement as ;an uncommon 7recaution- li8ely to be futile and sometimes e%en dangerous-; and saying t:at t:e dri%er need not al9ays sto7& ;2llustrations suc: as t:ese-; said Ar& Custice Cardo=o ;bear 9itness to t:e need for caution in framing standards of be:a%ior t:at amount to rules of la9&&&& 4xtraordinary situations may not 9isely or fairly be subBected to tests or regulations t:at are fitting for t:e common7lace or normal&> ?:at Custice Cardo=o announced 9ould merely em7:asi=e 9:at 9as set fort: earlier t:at eac: and e%ery- case on questions of negligence is to be decided in accordance 9it: t:e 7eculiar circumstances t:at 7resent t:emsel%es& T:ere can be no :ard and fast rule& T:ere must be t:at obser%ance of t:at degree of care- 7recaution- and %igilance 9:ic: t:e situation demands& T:us defendant#a77ellee acted& 2t is undeniable t:en t:at no negligence can rig:tfully be im7uted to it& ?:at commends itself for acce7tance is t:is conclusion arri%ed at by t:e lo9er court: >6redicated on t:e testimonies of t:e 7laintiff;s 9itnesses- on t:e 8no9ledge of t:e deceased and :is familiarity 9it: t:e setu7 of t:e c:ec87oint- t:e existence of t:e trac8sG and on t:e furt:er fact t:at t:e locomoti%e :ad blo9n its siren or 9:istle- 9:ic: 9as :eard by said 9itnesses- it is clear t:at Corliss Cr& 9as so sufficiently 9arned in ad%ance of t:e oncoming train t:at it 9as incumbent u7on :im to a%oid a 7ossible accident O and t:is consisted sim7ly in sto77ing :is %e:icle before t:e crossing and allo9ing t:e train to mo%e on& A 7rudent man under similar circumstances 9ould :a%e acted in t:is manner& T:is- unfortunately- Corliss- Cr& failed to do&> ?F4R4F5R4- t:e decision of t:e lo9er court of 'o%ember ,- ",* dismissing t:e com7laintis affirmed& ?it:out 7ronouncement as to costs&

VICTORINO CUSI and PILAR PO+RE %& PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS G&R& 'o& (# ,//, Aay 3"- ",), G14RR4R5- J.: Direct a77eal from t:e decision of t:e Court of First 2nstance of Ri=al ordering defendant#a77ellant to indemnify t:e 7laintiffs# a77ellees in t:e total amount of T9o Fundred T:irty#'ine T:ousand and 3ix Fundred Forty#4ig:t 6esos- and 3e%enty#T9o Centa%os (6 3,-*+/&) $ for inBuries recei%ed in a collision caused by t:e gross negligence of defendant#a77ellant- 7lus Ten T:ousand 6esos (6"!-!!!&!!$ as attorney;s fees and ex7enses of litigation& 17on t:e amended and su77lemental com7laints for damages filed by 7laintiffs#a77ellees- t:e s7ouses Eictorino Cusi and 6ilar 6obre before t:e Court of First 2nstance of Ri=al against t:e Aanila Railroad Com7any- no9 t:e 6:ili77ine 'ational Rail9ays and duly ans9ered by t:e latter and after due :earing& t:e follo9ing facts a77ear as undis7uted: 5n t:e nig:t of 5ctober .- ",*3- 7laintiffs# a77ellees attended a birt:day 7arty inside t:e 1nited Fousing 3ubdi%ision in 6aranaque- Ri=al& After t:e 7arty 9:ic: bro8e u7 at about "" o;cloc8 t:at e%ening- t:e 7laintiffs#a77ellees 7roceeded :ome in t:eir Eaux:all car 9it: Eictorino Cusi at t:e 9:eel& 17on reac:ing t:e railroad trac8s- finding t:at t:e le%el crossing bar 9as raised and seeing t:at t:ere 9as no flas:ing red lig:t- and :earing no 9:istle from any coming train- Cusi merely slac8 ened :is s7eed and 7roceeded to cross t:e trac8s& At t:e same time- a train bound for (ucena tra%ersed t:e crossing- resulting in a collision bet9een t:e t9o& T:e im7act t:re9 t:e 7laintiffs#a77ellees out of t:eir car 9:ic: 9as smas:ed& 5ne 0enBamin Franco9:o came from t:e same 7arty and 9as dri%ing a %e:icle rig:t be:ind t:em- rus:ed to t:eir aid and broug:t t:em& to 3an Cuan de Dios Fos7ital for emergency treatment& (ater- t:e 7laintiffs#a77ellees

47
9ere transferred to t:e 6:ili77ine General Fos7ital& A 9ee8 later- Ars& Cusi transferred to t:e Aanila Doctors Fos7ital 9:ere Dr& Aanuel Ri%era- :ead of t:e 5rt:o7edic and Fracture 3er%ice of t:e 6:ili77ine General Fos7ital 7erformed on :er a second o7eration and continued to treat :er until :er disc:arge from t:e :os7ital on 'o%ember - ",*3& T:ereafter- Dr& Ri%era treated :er as an out#7atient until t:e end of February- ",*+ alt:oug: by t:at time t:e fractured bones :ad not yet :ealed& Ars& Cusi 9as also o7erated on by Dr& Francisco Aguilar- Director of t:e 'ational 5rt:o7edic Fos7ital- in Aay",*+ and in August- ",*.- after anot:er o7eration in :er u77er body from t:e c:est to t:e abdomens:e 9as 7laced in cast for some t:ree (3$ mont:s and :er rig:t arm immobili=ed by reason of t:e 7ast As enumerated in t:e Aedical Certificate (4x:& >C>$- Ars& Cusi suffered t:e follo9ing: ("$ Fracture o7en middle t:ird :umerus rig:t ( $ Fracture mandible rig:t 7aramedian (3$ Fracture fibula left distal (+$ Concussion- cerebral (.$ Abrasions- multi7le (face- :ead- lumbosacral and extremities$ (*$ (acerations ( $ rig:t tem7oral ()$ Contusions 9it: :ematoma left fore:ead and 7arieto occi7ital rig:t& For t:ese inBuries- s:e under9ent a total of four surgical o7era& 7etitions in a 7eriod of t9o years& As a result of t:e fracture on :er rig:t arm- t:ere 9as a s:ortening of about " cm& of t:at arm& 3:e lost t:e flexibility of :er 9rist- elbo9 and s:oulder& 17 to t:e time s:e too8 t:e 9itness stand in August- ",**s:e still :ad an intermedullary nail in t:e bone of :er rig:t arm (i8e9ise- Eictorino Cusi suffered brain inBuries 9:ic: affected :is s7eec:- memory- sense of :earing and nec8 mo%ement& For a long 7eriod:e also felt 7ain all o%er :is body& Eictorino Cusi claimed t:at 7rior to t:e accident :e 9as a successful businessman O t:e 37ecial Assistant to t:e Dolor (o7e= 4nter7rises- t:e managing 7artner of Cusi and Ri%era 6artners:i7- t:e manager of :is ricemill- and 9it: substantial in%estments in ot:er business enter7rises& As a result of :is inBuries- :e 9as unable to 7ro7erly attend to :is %arious business underta8ings& 5n t:e ot:er :and:is 9ife- 6ilar- 9as a s8illed music and 7iano teac:er& After t:e accident- s:e lost t:e dexterity of :er fingers forcing :er to quit :er 7rofession& 3:e also bore ugly scars on se%eral 7arts of :er body- and s:e suffered anxiety of a 7ossible miscarriage being t:en fi%e (.$ mont:s 7regnant at t:e time of t:e accident& T:e defense is centered on t:e 7ro7osition t:at t:e gross negligence of Eictorino Cusi 9as t:e 7roximate cause of t:e collisionG t:at :ad :e made a full sto7 before tra%ersing t:e crossing as required by section .*(a$ of Act 3,, (Aotor Ee:icle (a9$- :e could :a%e seen and :eard t:e a77roac: of t:e train- and t:us- t:ere 9ould :a%e been no collision& After a 7rotracted trial- t:e lo9er court rendered t:e decision no9 subBect of t:e a77eal& Defendant# a77ellant see8s t:e re%ersal of said decisionG but s:ould 9e affirm t:e same- t:at t:e a9ard be reduced to a reasonable amount& As t:e action is 7redicated on negligence- t:e 'e9 Ci%il Code ma8ing clear t:at >9:oe%er by act or omission causes damage to anot:er- t:ere being fault or negligence- is obliged to 7ay for t:e damage done t:e crucial question 7osed in t:e 7etition at bar is t:e existence of negligence on t:e 7art of defendant#a77ellant as found by t:e lo9er court& "& T:e question of negligence being one of fact- t:e lo9er court;s finding of negligence on t:e 7art of t:e defendant#a77ellant deser%es serious consideration by t:e Court& 2t commands great res7ect and 9eig:t- t:e reason being t:at t:e trial Budge- :a%ing t:e ad%antage of :earing t:e 7arties testify and of obser%ing t:eir demeanor on t:e 9itness stand- is better situated to ma8e conclusions of facts& T:us- it :as been t:e standing 7ractice of a77ellate courts to accord lo9er court;s Budgments t:e 7resum7tion of correctness& And unless it can be s:o9n t:at error or errors- substantial in c:aracter- be s:o9n in

48
t:e conclusion arri%ed at- or t:at t:ere 9as abuse in Budicial scrutiny- ?e are bound by t:eir Budgments& 5n t:is ground alone ?e can rest t:e affirmance of t:e Budgment a77ealed from& & 'or is t:e result different e%en if no suc: 7resum7tion 9ere indulged in- t:at is- e%en if ?e 9ere to resol%e 9:et:er or not t:ere exist com7elling reasons for an ultimate re%ersal& T:e Budicial 7ronouncement belo9 t:at t:e gross negligence of defendant#a77ellant 9as t:e 7roximate cause of t:e collision :as been t:oroug:ly re%ie9ed by t:is Court and 9e fully affirm t:e same& 'egligence :as been defined by Cudge Cooley in :is 9or8 on Torts 3d ed sec& "3 + as >t:e failure to obser%e for t:e 7rotection of t:e interests of anot:er 7erson t:at degree of care- 7recaution- and %igilance 9:ic: t:e circumstances Bustly demand- 9:ereby suc: ot:er 7erson suffers inBury&> 0y suc: a test- it can readily be seen t:at t:ere is no :ard and fast rule 9:ereby suc: degree of care and %igilance is measured- it is de7endent u7on t:e circumstances in 9:ic: a 7erson finds :imself so situated& All t:at t:e la9 requires is t:at it is al9ays incumbent u7on a 7erson to use t:at care and diligence ex7ected of reasonable men under similar circumstances& T:ese are t:e circumstances attendant to t:e collision& 1ndis7utably- t:e 9arning de%ices installed at t:e railroad crossing 9ere manually o7eratedG t:ere 9ere only s:ifts of guards 7ro%ided for t:e o7eration t:ereof O one- t:e ):!! A&A& to 3:!! 6& A& s:ift- and t:e ot:er- t:e 3:!! 6&A& to "":!! 6&A& s:ift& 5n t:e nig:t of t:e accident- t:e train for (ucena 9as on an unsc:eduled tri7 after "":!! 6&A& During t:at 7recise :our- t:e 9arning de%ices 9ere not o7erating for no one attended to t:em& Also- as obser%ed by t:e lo9er court- t:e locomoti%e dri%er did not blo9 :is 9:istle- t:us: >&&& :e sim7ly s7ed on 9it:out ta8ing an extra 7recaution of blo9ing :is 9:istle from a distance of .! to "! meters from t:e crossing& T:at t:e train 9as running at full s7eed is attested to by t:e fact t:at not9it:standing t:e a77lication of t:e emergency bra8es- t:e train did not sto7 until it reac:ed a distance of around "!! meters&> T:ese facts assessed toget:er s:o9 t:e inadequacy- nay- t:e absence- of 7recautions ta8en by t:e defendant#a77ellant to 9arn t:e tra%elling 7ublic of t:e im7ending danger& 2t is clear to 1s t:at as t:e signal de%ices 9ere 9:olly manually#o7erated- t:ere 9as an urgent need for a flagman or guard to man t:e crossing at all times& As it 9as- t:e crossing 9as left unattended to after ele%en o;cloc8 e%ery nig:t and on t:e nig:t of t:e accident& ?e cannot in all reason Bustify or condone t:e act of t:e defendant#a77ellant allo9ing t:e subBect locomoti%e to tra%el t:roug: t:e unattended crossing 9it: ino7erati%e signal de%ices- but 9it:out sending any of its em7loyees to o7erate said signal de%ices so as to 9arn oncoming motorists of t:e a77roac: of one of its locomoti%es& 2t is not sur7rising t:erefore t:at t:e in o7eration of t:e 9arning de%ices created a situation 9:ic: 9as misunderstood by t:e riding 7ublic to mean safe 7assage& Curis7rudence recogni=es t:at if 9arning de%ices are installed in railroad crossings- t:e tra%elling 7ublic :as t:e rig:t to rely on suc: 9arning de%ices to 7ut t:em on t:eir guard and ta8e t:e necessary 7recautions before crossing t:e trac8s& A need- t:erefore- exists for t:e railroad com7any to use reasonable care to 8ee7 suc: de%ices in good condition and in 9or8ing orderor to gi%e notice t:at t:ey are not o7erating- since if suc: a signal is misunderstood it is a menace& T:us- it :as been :eld t:at if a railroad com7any maintains a signalling de%ice at a crossing to gi%e 9arning of t:e a77roac: of a train- t:e failure of t:e de%ice to o7erate is generally :eld to be e%idence of negligence- 9:ic: maybe considered 9it: all t:e circumstances of t:e case in determining 9:et:er t:e railroad com7any 9as negligent as a matter of fact& T:e set of circumstances surrounding t:e collision subBect of t:is case is %ery muc: similar to t:at of 2ilius v. Manila ,ailroad !ompany, ., 6:il& )./ (",3+$- 9:ere t:is Court u7:eld t:e lo9er court;s finding of negligence on t:e 7art of defendant locomoti%e com7any u7on t:e follo9ing facts O &&& on t:e 7art of t:e defendant com7any- for not :a%ing :ad on t:at occasion any sema7:ore at t:e crossing at Daya7 to ser%e as a 9arning to 7assersby of its existence in order t:at t:ey mig:t ta8e t:e necessary 7recautions before crossing t:e railroadG and- on t:e 7art of its em7loyees O t:e flagman and s9itc:man- for not :a%ing remained at :is 7ost at t:e crossing in question to 9arn 7assersby of t:e a77roac:ing trainG t:e station master- for failure to send t:e said flagman and s9itc:man to :is 7ost

49
on timeG and t:e engineer- for not :a%ing ta8en t:e necessary 7recautions to a%oid an accident- in %ie9 of t:e absence of said flagman and s9itc:man- by slac8ening :is s7eed and continuously ringing t:e bell and blo9ing t:e 9:istle before arri%ing at t:e crossing& Defendant#a77ellant rests its defense mainly on 3ection .*(a$ of t:e Aotor Ee:icle (a9& T:us: 3ection .*(a$ O Tra%ersing t:roug: streets and railroad crossing- etc- O All %e:icles mo%ing on t:e 7ublic :ig:9ays s:all be broug:t to a full sto7 before tra%ersing any ;t:roug: street; or railroad crossing& ?:ene%er any suc: ;t:roug: street; or crossing is so designated and sign7osted- it s:all be unla9ful for t:e dri%er of any %e:icle to fail to sto7 9it:in t9enty meters but not less t:an t9o and one#:alf meters from suc: t:roug: street or railroad crossing& T:e defense 7resu77oses t:at t:e failure of 7laintiffs#a77ellees to sto7 before 7roceeding to tra%erse t:e crossing constitutes contributory negligence- t:ereby 7recluding t:em from reco%ering indemnity for t:eir inBuries and damages& T:e candor of defendant#a77ellant in inter7osing suc: a defense is doubtful& As seemingly obser%ed by t:e lo9er court- t:e defense- t:roug: inad%ertence or deliberateness- did not 7ursue furt:er t:e exce7ting clause of t:e same section t:us to go on: 6ro%ided- :o9e%er- t:at t:e dri%er of a 7assenger automobile or motorcycle may instead of %oming to a full stop- slo9 do9n to not more t:an ten 8ilometers 7er :our 9:ene%er it is a77arent t:at no :a=ard exists& After a t:oroug: 7erusal of t:e facts attendant to t:e case- t:is Court is in fun accord 9it: t:e lo9er court& 6laintiff#a77ellee Eictorino Cusi :ad exercised all t:e necessary 7recautions required of :im as to a%oid inBury to #:imself and to ot:ers& ?e find no need for :im to :a%e made a full sto7G relying on :is faculties of sig:t and :earing- Eictorino Cusi :ad no reason to antici7ate t:e im7ending danger& T:e record s:o9s t:at t:e s7ouses Cusi 7re%iously 8ne9 of t:e existence of t:e railroad crossing:a%ing sto77ed at t:e guard:ouse to as8 for directions before 7roceeding to t:e 7arty& At t:e crossingt:ey found t:e le%el bar raised- no 9arning lig:ts flas:ing nor 9arning bells ringing- nor 9:istle from an oncoming train& T:ey safely tra%ersed t:e crossing& 5n t:eir return :ome- t:e situation at t:e crossing did not in t:e least c:ange- exce7t for t:e absence of t:e guard or flagman& Fence- on t:e same im7ression t:at t:e crossing 9as safe for 7assage as before- 7laintiff#a77ellee Eictorino Cusi merely slac8ened :is s7eed and 7roceeded to cross t:e trac8s- dri%ing at t:e 7ro7er rate of s7eed for going o%er railroad crossings& Fad defendant#a77ellant been successful in establis:ing t:at its locomoti%e dri%er ble9 :is 9:istle to 9arn motorists of :is a77roac: to com7ensate for t:e absence of t:e 9arning signals- and t:at Eictorino Cusi- instead of sto77ing or slac8ening :is s7eed- 7roceeded 9it: rec8less s7eed and regardless of 7ossible or t:reatened danger- t:en ?e 9ould :a%e been 7ut in doubt as to t:e degree of 7rudence exercised by :im and 9ould :a%e- in all 7robability- declared :im negligent& 0ut as t:e contrary 9as establis:ed- 9e remain con%inced t:at Eictorino Cusi :ad nott:roug: :is o9n negligence- contributed to t:e accident so as to deny :im damages from t:e defendant#a77ellant& T:e only question t:at no9 remains to be resol%ed is t:e reasonableness of t:e amount a9arded as damages to t:e 7laintiffs# a77ellees& T:e follo9ing actual ex7enses and losses are fully substantiated: (a$ Fos7ital bills of Ars& Cusi from 5ctober- ",*3 to Aay- ",*+ in t:e amount of T:irteen T:ousand Fi%e Fundred Fifty 6esos and Fi%e Centa%os (6"3-..!&!.$G (b$ Anot:er :os7ital bill of Ars& Cusi in ",*. in t:e amount of T:ree T:ousand and 5ne 6esos and 'inety Centa%os (63-!!"&,!$G (c$ Doctor;s fees for t9o surgical o7erations 7erformed on Ars& Cusi by one Dr& Aanuel Ri%era in t:e amount of 5ne T:ousand and Fi%e Fundred 6esos (6l-.!!&!!$G

50
(d$ (oss of Eictorino;s 9rist 9atc: %alued at T9o Fundred and Fifty 6esos (6 .!&!!$G (e$ (oss of 6ilar;s :alf of :er 7air of demand earrings(l#\carrats$ %alued at T9o T:ousand 3e%en Fundred and Fifty 6esos (6 -).!-!!$G (f$ Re7air of t:e damaged Eaux:all car in t:e amount of T9o T:ousand 4ig:t Fundred and 'inety Four 6esos and 3e%enty# 3e%en Centa%os (6 -/,+&))$& T:e total a9ard of actual damages in t:e amount of T9enty T:ree T:ousand 'ine Fundred Forty#3ix 6esos and 3e%enty#T9o Centa%os (6 3-,+*&) $ is- t:erefore- correct& T:e lo9er court a9arded T9enty#5ne T:ousand 3ix Fundred 6esos (6 "-*!!&!!$ to Ars& Cusi for loss of income for t:e t:ree years t:at s:e 9as under constant medical treatment- and Fourteen T:ousand 6esos (6"+-!!!&!!$ for im7airment of :er earning ca7acityG and Forty T:ousand 6esos (6 +!-!!!&!!$ to Ar& Cusi for loss of income for t:e eig:t mont:s t:at :e 9as disabled and im7airment of :is earning ca7acity& ?e find t:e a9ard reasonable& T:e records s:o9 t:at Ars& Cusi- 7re%iously a s8illed 7iano teac:er a%eraging a mont:ly income of 3ix Fundred 6esos (6*!!&!!$- cannot no9 teac: nor 7lay t:e 7iano since t:e accident 9:ic: resulted in t:e loss of t:e dexterity of :er fingersG li8e9iseAr& Cusi cannot no9 %igorously attend to :is businesses 9:ic: 7re%iously netted :im a mont:ly a%erage income of Fi%e T:ousand 6esos (6.-!!!&!!$& As regards t:e a9ard of T9enty T:ousand 6esos (6 !-!!!&!!$ for 7rofits 9:ic: Eictorino Cusi failed to reali=e from a certain real estate transaction 9it: t:e Dolor (o7e= 4nter7rises- 9e affirm t:e same as t:e defendant#a77ellant :as failed to 7resent an iota of e%idence to o%ercome 7laintiffs#a77ellees; e%idence credited by t:e lo9er court as to t:e certainty of t:e materiali=ation of t:e stated transaction& T:e a9ard of 3e%enty T:ousand 6esos (6)!-!!!&!!$ to Ars& Cusi and Fifty T:ousand 6esos (6.!-!!!&!!$ to Eictorino Cusi as moral damages is not excessi%e& 2n t:eir o9n res7ecti%e fields of endea%or- bot: 9ere successful& 'o9 t:ey :a%e to bear t:roug:out t:eir 9:ole lifetime t:e :umiliation 9roug:t by t:eir 7:ysical deformities 9:ic: no doubt affected- and 9ill continue to do so- t:eir social li%es- t:eir financial underta8ings- and e%en t:eir mental attitudes& (i8e9ise- t:e amount of Ten T:ousand 6esos (6"!-!!!&!!$ gi%en as attorney;s fees and ex7enses of litigation is not unreasonable& T:e total amount of damages a9arded by t:e trial court s:ould bear legal interest at *] from t:e rendition of t:e B Budgment- 9:ic: 9as on Aarc: *- ",*/& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e Budgment of t:e lo9er court is :ereby AFF2RA4D 9it: t:e modification t:at t:e total amount of damages s:all bear legal interest at six 7er cent (*]$ from t:e rendition of t:e decision dated Aarc: *- ",*/&

HONORIA DELGADO VDA. DE GREGORIO, ET AL., %& GO CHONG +ING G&R& 'o& ))*3&December - ",.) (A0RAD5R- J.: A77eal from a Budgment of t:e Court of First 2nstance of Da%ao absol%ing defendant from liability for t:e accidental deat: of <uirico Gregorio& 2t came to t:is Court as t:e amount demanded in t:e com7laint is more t:an 6.!-!!!& 5n or before Cune - ",. - defendant 9as t:e o9ner of a truc8& Fe :ad a dri%er and a cargador or dri%er;s :el7er by t:e name of Francisco Romera& 2n t:e afternoon of Cune - ",. - defendant ordered Romera to dri%e :is truc8- 9it: instructions to follo9 anot:er trac8 dri%en by :is dri%er and :el7 t:e latter in crossing 3umlog ri%er 9:ic: 9as t:en flooded- s:ould it be unable to cross t:e ri%er because of t:e flood& Romera at t:at time 9as not a licensed dri%er& Fe only :ad a student;s 7ermit- issued to :im on Aarc: 3"- ",. (4x:ibit >">$& T:e truc8 started from t:e to9n of (u7on at about .:3! o;cloc8 in t:e afternoon- dri%en by Romera& 3ome 7ersons boarded t:e truc8 and among t:em 9as one

51
7oliceman by t:e name of Eenancio 5rfanel& ?:ile t:e truc8 9as on t:e 9ay- it made a sto7 and t:en 5rfanel too8 t:e 9:eel from Romera- 9:ile t:e latter stayed on t:e dri%er;s left- reclined on a s7are tire inside of t:e truc8& As to t:e circumstances under 9:ic: 5rfanel 9as able to ta8e :old of and dri%e t:e truc8- t:ere is some dis7ute and t:is matter 9ill be ta8en u7 later in t:e decision& ?:ile t:e truc8 9as being dri%en by 5rfanel- 9it: anot:er truc8 a:ead of it dri%en by defendant;s dri%er it so :a77ened t:at t:ey came to a truc8 t:at 9as trying to 7ar8 on t:e left side of t:e road& Romera suggested to 5rfanel t:at :e s:ift to lo9 gear and 5rfanel did so& 0ut as t:ey a77roac:ed t:e 7ar8ing truc8- and in order to a%oid colliding 9it: it- 5rfanel s9er%ed t:e truc8 to9ards t:e rig:t& 2t so :a77ened t:at at t:at time t9o 7edestrians 9ere on t:e rig:t side of t:e road- As t:e truc8 :ad s9er%ed to t:e rig:t and 9as 7roceeding to :it t:e said 7edestrians- Romera told 5rfanel to a77ly t:e bra8e- but 5rfanel instead of doing so 7ut :is foot on t:e gasoline and t:e truc8 did not sto7 but 9ent on and :it and run o%er one of t:e 7edestrians- by t:e name of <uirico Gregorio& T:e 7laintiffs a77ellants; in t:is action are Gregorio;s 9ido9 and :is c:ildren and of t:e accident- 5rfanel 9as 7rosecuted for :omicide 9it: rec8less im7rudence& Fe 7leaded guilty to t:e c:arge and 9as sentenced accordingly& As :inted abo%e- an im7ortant issue in t:e case :as relation to t:e circumstances under 9:ic: 5rfanel 9as able to ta8e :old of t:e 9:eel and dri%e t:e truc8& To sustain t:e t:eory t:at defendant;s cargador Francisco Romera 9as negligent- 7laintiffs introduced one Ca%ier A& Dayo as a 9itness& According to t:is 9itness t:e truc8 9as s7eeding at t:e rate of ! miles an :our& According to :im also- 9:ile t:e truc8 9as about 7ass by t:e :ouse of one (ucio- running at a s7eed 7er :our- :e :eard Romera s:outing >:and bra8eW :and bra8eW>G t:at bot: 5rfanel and Romera tried to turn t:e dri%er;s 9:eel to t:e left and direct t:e truc8 to9ards also t:e left to a%oid t:e collision& According to :is 9itness alsoRomera ga%e t:e 9:eel to 5rfanel %oluntarily u7on t:e request of t:e latter& 6laintiffs also soug:t to 7ro%e t:at Romera ga%e t:e truc8 %oluntarily to t:e 7oliceman by 7resenting t:e affida%it of Romera made on Cune 3- ",. (4x:ibit >">$& T:is affida%it- :o9e%er- is inadmissible as e%idence against t:e defendant because it is :earsay 9it: res7ect- to :im& 2t may not be considered as 7art of t:e res gestae eit:er- because t:e affida%it 9as ta8en one day after t:e incident&la97:i"&net Against t:e abo%e e%idence- t:e defendant testified t:at :e ga%e 7ositi%e instructions to Romera not to allo9 anybody to dri%e t:e truc8- and Romera :imself testified t:at :e :ad 9arned 5rfanel t:at :is master 7ro:ibited :im from allo9ing anybody to dri%e t:e truc8- but t:at as 5rfanel 9as a uniformed 7oliceman and insisted t:at :e dri%e t:e truc8- and t:at as :e belie%ed t:at t:e 7oliceman 8ne9 :o9 to dri%e- :e let :im dri%e t:e truc8& ?e are of t:e belief t:at defendant;s claim t:at Romera ga%e t:e 9:eel to t:e 7oliceman for fear of- or out of res7ect for- t:e latter- :as been 7ro%ed by a 7re7onderance of t:e e%idence& T:e testimony of 9itness Dayo is not corroborated by any ot:er testimony& As :e testified t:at :e 9as t9o meters be:ind Romera- :e could not :a%e noticed 9it: exactness t:e circumstances under 9:ic: t:e 7oliceman 9as able to get :old of t:e 9:eel and dri%e t:e truc8 and :is testimony in t:at res7ect cannot be belie%ed& ?e are- t:erefore- forced to t:e conclusion t:at t:e defendant;s %argador- or Francisco Romera ga%e t:e 9:eel to 5rfanel out of res7ect for t:e latter- 9:o 9as a uniformed 7oliceman and because :e belie%ed t:at t:e latter :ad bot: t:e ability and t:e aut:ority to dri%e t:e truc8- es7ecially as :e :imself :ad only a student;s 7ermit and not a dri%er;s license& T:e court a 0uo dismissed t:e action on t:e ground t:at as t:e deat: or accident 9as caused by an act or omission of a 7erson 9:o is not in any 9ay related to t:e defendant- and as suc: act or omission 9as 7unis:able by la9- and as a matter of fact :e :ad already been 7unis:ed t:erefor- no ci%il liability s:ould be im7osed u7on t:e defendant& Against t:is decision t:e 7laintiffs :a%e a77ealed to t:is Court- contending t:at 9:en defendant 7ermitted :is %argador- 9:o 9as not 7ro%ided 9it: a dri%er;s license- to dri%e t:e truc8- :e t:ereby %iolated t:e 7ro%isions of t:e Re%ised Aotor Ee:icle (a9 (section /&- Act 'o& 3,, $- and t:at t:is constitutes negligence 7er se& (6eo7le %s& 3antos- et al&- CA# G&R& 'o& "!//#"!/,R&$ 0ut admitting for t:e sa8e of argument t:at t:e defendant :ad so %iolated t:e la9- or may be deemed negligent in entrusting t:e truc8 to one 9:o is not 7ro%ided 9it: a dri%er;s

52
license- it is clear t:at :e may not be declared liable for t:e accident because :is negligence 9as not t:e direct and 7roximate cause t:ereof& T:e leading case in t:is Burisdiction on negligence is t:at of Taylor %s& Aanila 4lectric Railroad and (ig:t Com7any- "* 6:il& /& 'egligence as a source of obligation bot: under t:e ci%il la9 and in American cases 9as carefully considered and it 9as :eld: ?e agree 9it: counsel for a77ellant t:at under t:e Ci%il Code- as under t:e generally acce7ted doctrine in t:e 1nited 3tates- t:e 7laintiff in an action suc: as t:at under consideration- in order to establis: :is rig:t to a reco%ery- must establis: by com7etent e%idence: ("$ Damages to t:e 7laintiff& ( $ 'egligence by act or omission of 9:ic: defendant 7ersonally- or some 7erson for 9:ose acts it must res7ond- 9as guilty& (3$ T:e connection of cause and effect bet9een t:e negligence and t:e damage& (Taylor %s& Aanila 4lectric Railroad and (ig:t Co&- supra& 7&".$ 2n accordance 9it: t:e decision of t:e 3u7reme Court of 37ain- in order t:at a 7erson may be :eld guilty for damage t:roug: negligence- it is necessary t:at t:ere be an act or omission on t:e 7art of t:e 7erson 9:o is to be c:arged 9it: t:e liability and t:at damage is 7roduced by t:e said act or omission& 2n accordance 9it: t:e fundamental 7rinci7le of 7roof- t:at t:e burden t:ereof is u7on t:e 7laintiff- it is a77arent t:at it is t:e duty of :im 9:o s:all claim damages to establis: t:eir existence& T:e decisions of A7ril ,- "/,*- and Aarc: "/- Culy *- and 3e7tember )- "/,/- :a%e es7ecially su77orted t:e 7rinci7le- t:e first setting fort: in detail t:e necessary 7oints of t:e 7roof- 9:ic: are t9o: An Act or omission on t:e 7art of t:e 7erson 9:o is to be c:arged 9it: t:e liability- and t:e 7roduction of t:e damage by said act or omission& T:is includes- by inference- t:e establis:ment of a relation of cause or effect bet9een t:e act or t:e omission and t:e damageG t:e latter must be t:e direct result of one of t:e first t9o& As t:e decision of Aarc: - "//"- said- it is necessary t:at t:e damages result immediately and directly from an act 7erformed cul7ably and 9rongfullyG ;necessarily 7resu77osing- a legal ground for im7utability& (Taylor %s& Aanila 4lectric Railroad and (ig:t Co&- supra- 7& /&$& 2t is e%ident t:at t:e 7roximate- immediate and direct cause of t:e deat: of t:e 7laintiffs; intestate 9as t:e negligence of 5rfanel- a uniformed 7oliceman- 9:o too8 t:e 9:eel of t:e truc8 from defendant;s %argador- in s7ite of t:e 7rotest of t:e latter& T:e reason for absol%ing t:e defendant t:erefor is not because t:e one res7onsible for t:e accident :ad already recei%ed indemnification for t:e accident- but because t:ere is no direct and 7roximate causal connection bet9een t:e negligence or %iolation of t:e la9 by t:e defendant to t:e deat: of t:e 7laintiff;s intestate& For t:e foregoing considerations- t:e Budgment a77ealed from is :ereby affirmed- 9it:out costs&

S. D. MARTINEZ and .)% =)'", CARMEN ONG DE MARTINEZ %& WILLIAM VAN +USKIRK G&R& 'o& (#.*,"&December )- ","! A5R4(A'D- J.: T:e facts found by t:e trial court are undis7uted by eit:er 7arty in t:is case& T:ey are O T:at on t:e ""t: day of 3e7tember- ",!/- t:e 7laintiff- Carmen 5ng de Aartine=- 9as riding in a carromata on Calle Real- district of 4rmita- city of Aanila- 6&2&- along t:e left#:and side of t:e street as s:e 9as going- 9:en a deli%ery 9agon belonging to t:e defendant used for t:e 7ur7ose of trans7ortation of fodder by t:e defendant- and to 9:ic: 9as attac:ed a 7air of :orses- came along t:e street in t:e o77osite direction to t:at t:e in 9:ic: said 7laintiff 9as 7roceeding- and t:at t:ereu7on t:e dri%er of t:e said 7laintiff;s carromata- obser%ing t:at t:e

53
deli%ery 9agon of t:e defendant 9as coming at great s7eed- cro9ded close to t:e side9al8 on t:e left#:and side of t:e street and sto77ed- in order to gi%e defendant;s deli%ery 9agon an o77ortunity to 7ass by- but t:at instead of 7assing by t:e defendant;s 9agon and :orses ran into t:e carromata occu7ied by said 7laintiff 9it: :er c:ild and o%erturned it- se%erely 9ounding said 7laintiff by ma8ing a serious cut u7on :er :ead- and also inBuring t:e carromata itself and t:e :arness u7on t:e :orse 9:ic: 9as dra9ing it& T:ese facts are not dis7ute- but t:e defendant 7resented e%idence to t:e effect t:at t:e coc:ero- 9:o 9as dri%ing :is deli%ery 9agon at t:e time t:e accident occurred- 9as a good ser%ant and 9as considered a safe and reliable coc:eroG t:at t:e deli%ery 9agon :ad sent to deli%er some forage at 6aco (i%ery 3table on Calle Ferran- and t:at for t:e 7ur7ose of deli%ery t:ereof t:e coc:ero dri%ing t:e team as defendant;s em7loyee tied t:e dri%ing lines of t:e :orses to t:e front end of t:e deli%ery 9agon and t:en 9ent bac8 inside of t:e 9agon for t:e 7ur7ose of unloading t:e forage to be deli%eredG t:at 9:ile unloading t:e forage and in t:e act of carrying some of it out- anot:er %e:icle dro%e by- t:e dri%er of 9:ic: crac8ed a 9:i7 and made some ot:er noises- 9:ic: frig:tened t:e :orses attac:ed to t:e deli%ery 9agon and t:ey ran a9ay- and t:e dri%er 9as t:ro9n from t:e inside of t:e 9agon out t:roug: t:e rear u7on t:e ground and 9as unable to sto7 t:e :orsesG t:at t:e :orses t:en ran u7 and on 9:ic: street t:ey came into collision 9it: t:e carromata in 9:ic: t:e 7laintiff- Carmen 5ng de Aartine=- 9as riding& T:e defendant :imself 9as not 9it: t:e %e:icle on t:e day in question& 17on t:ese facts t:e court belo9 found t:e defendant guilty of negligence and ga%e Budgment against :im for 6++ &.!- 9it: interest t:ereon at t:e rate of * 7er cent 7er annum from t:e ")t: day of 5ctober- ",!/- and for t:e costs of t:e action& T:e case is before us on an a77eal from t:at Budgment& T:ere is no general la9 of negligence in t:e 6:ili77ine 2slands exce7t t:at embodied in t:e Ci%il Code& T:e 7ro%isions of t:at code 7ertinent to t:is case are O Art& ",! & A 7erson 9:o by an act or omission causes damage to anot:er 9:en t:ere is fault or negligence s:all be obliged to re7air t:e damage so done& Art& ",!3& T:e obligation im7osed by 7receding article is demandable- not only for 7ersonal acts and omissions- but also for t:ose of t:e 7ersons for 9:om t:ey s:ould be res7onsible& T:e fat:er- and on :is deat: or inca7acity t:e mot:er- is liable for t:e damages caused by t:e minors 9:o li%e 9it: t:em& Guardians are liable for t:e damages caused by minors or inca7acitated 7ersons 9:o are under t:eir aut:ority and li%e 9it: t:em& 59ners of directors of an establis:ment or enter7rise are equally liable for t:e damages caused by t:e em7loyees in t:e ser%ice of t:e branc:es in 9:ic: t:e latter may be em7loyed or on account of t:eir duties& T:e 3tate is liable in t:is sense 9:en it acts t:roug: a s7ecial agent- but not 9:en t:e damages s:ould :a%e been caused by t:e official to 9:om 7ro7erly it 7ertained to do t:e act 7erformed- in 9:ic: case t:e 7ro%isions of t:e 7receding article s:all be a77licable& Finally- masters or directors of arts and trades are liable for t:e damages caused by t:eir 7u7ils or a77rentices 9:ile t:ey are under t:eir custody& T:e liability referred to in t:is article s:all cease 9:en t:e 7ersons mentioned t:erein 7ro%e t:at t:ey em7loyed all t:e diligence of a good fat:er of a family to a%oid t:e damage& 6assing t:e question 9:et:er or not an em7loyer 9:o :as furnis:ed a gentle and tractable team and a trusty and ca7able dri%er is- under t:e last 7aragra7: of t:e abo%e 7ro%isions- liable for t:e negligence

54
of suc: dri%er in :andling t:e team- 9e are of t:e o7inion t:at t:e Budgment must be re%ersed u7on t:e ground t:at t:e e%idence does not disclose t:at t:e coc:ero 9as negligent& ?:ile t:e la9 relating to negligence in t:is Burisdiction may 7ossibly be some 9:at different from t:at in Anglo#3axon countries- a question 9e do not no9 discuss- t:e rules under 9:ic: t:e fact of negligence is determined are- ne%ert:eless- generally t:e same& T:at is to say- 9:ile t:e la9 designating t:e person res7onsible for a negligent act may not be t:e same :ere as in many Burisdictions- t:e la9 determining 9:at is a negligent act is t:e same :ere- generally s7ea8ing- as else9:ere& (3u7reme court of 37ain- + December- ",!3G "* Aay- "/,3G ) Cune- "/,+G , A7ril- "/,*G "+ Aarc:- ",!"G Aarc:- ",!+G ) February- ",!.G "* Cune- ",!.G 3 Cune- ",!.G "3 A7ril- ",!3G ) Aarc:- ",! G " Cune- ",!!G Aarc:- ",!)G "/ Aarc:- "/,/G 3 Cune- ",!"&$ 2t a77ears from t:e undis7uted e%idence t:at t:e :orses 9:ic: caused t:e damage 9ere gentle and tractableG t:at t:e coc:ero 9as ex7erienced and ca7ableG t:at :e :ad dri%en one of t:e :orses se%eral years and t:e ot:er fi%e or six mont:sG t:at :e :ad been in t:e :abit- during all t:at time- of lea%ing t:em in t:e condition in 9:ic: t:ey 9ere left on t:e day of t:e accidentG t:at t:ey :ad ne%er run a9ay u7 to t:at time and t:ere :ad been- t:erefore- no accident due to suc: 7racticeG t:at to lea%e t:e :orses and assist in unloading t:e merc:andise in t:e manner described on t:e day of t:e accident 9as t:e custom of all coc:ero 9:o deli%ered merc:andise of t:e c:aracter of t:at 9:ic: 9as being deli%ered by t:e coc:ero of t:e defendant on t:e day in question- 9:ic: custom 9as sanctioned by t:eir em7loyers& 2n our Budgment- t:e coc:ero of t:e defendant 9as not negligent in lea%ing t:e :orses in t:e manner described by t:e e%idence in t:is case- eit:er under 37anis: or American Buris7rudence& ((ync: vs. 'urdin- " <& 0&- + G Rumsey vs. 'elson- ./ Et&- .,!G Dra8e vs. Aount- 33 '& C& (&- ++ G Fobo8en (and and 2m7ro%ement Co& vs. (ally- +/ '& C& (&- *!+G ?asmer vs. D& (& & ?& R& R& Co&- /! '& @&- " &$ la97:i"&net 2n t:e case of -ayman vs. Fe9itt (6ea8e '& 6& Cas&- 7t& - 7& ")!$- (ord Ienyon said: Fe 9as 7erforming :is duty 9:ile remo%ing t:e goods into t:e :ouse- and- if e%ery 7erson 9:o suffered a cart to remain in t:e street 9:ile :e too8 goods out of it 9as obliged to em7loy anot:er to loo8 after t:e :orses- it 9ould be im7ossible for t:e business of t:e metro7olis to go on& 2n t:e case of 1riggs vs. $le%/enstein ("+ Ainn&- /"$- t:e court said: T:e degree of care required of t:e 7laintiff- or t:ose in c:arged of :is :orse- at t:e time of t:e inBury- is t:at 9:ic: 9ould be exercised by a 7erson of ordinary care and 7rudence under li8e circumstances& 2t can not be said t:at t:e fact of lea%ing t:e :orse un:itc:ed is in itself negligence& ?:et:er it is negligence to lea%e a :orse un:itc:ed must be de7end u7on t:e dis7osition of t:e :orseG 9:et:er :e 9as under t:e obser%ation and control of some 7erson all t:e time- and many ot:er circumstancesG and is a question to be determined by t:e Bury from t:e facts of eac: case& 2n t:e case of Belles vs. Kellner (*) '& C& (&- ..$- it 9as :eld t:at it 9as error on t:e 7art of t:e trial court to refuse to c:arge t:at >it is not negligence for t:e dri%er of a quite- gentle :orse to lea%e :im un:itc:ed and ot:er9ise unattended on t:e side of a 7ublic :ig:9ays 9:ile t:e dri%er is u7on t:e side9al8 loading goods on t:e 9agon&> T:e said court closed its o7inion 9it: t:ese 9ords: T:ere 9as e%idence 9:ic: could :a%e fully Bustified t:e Bury in finding t:at t:e :orse 9as quite and gentle- and t:at t:e dri%er 9as u7on t:e side9al8 loading goods on t:e 9agon- at time of t:e alleged inBury- and t:at t:e :orse :ad been used for years in t:at 9ay 9it:out accident& T:e refusal of t:e trial court to c:arge as requested left t:e Bury free to find 9as %erdict against t:e defendant- alt:oug: t:e Bury 9as con%inced t:at t:ese facts 9ere 7ro%en&la97:il&net 2n t:e case of #outh'orth vs. ,y. !o. ("!. Aass&- 3+ $- it 9as :eld:

55
T:at e%idence t:at a ser%ant- 9:om traders em7loyed to deli%er goods- u7on sto77ing 9it: :is :orse and 9agon to deli%er a 7arcel at a :ouse from fifty to a :undred rods from a railroad crossing- left t:e :orse unfastened for four or fi%e minutes 9:ile :e 9as in t:e :ouse- 8no9ing t:at it 9as not afraid of cars- and :a%ing used it for t:ree or four mont:s 9it:out e%er :itc:ing it or 8no9ing it to start- is not conclusi%e- as a matter of la9- of a 9ant of due care on :is 7art& T:e duty- a %iolation of 9:ic: is claimed to be negligence in t:e res7ect in question- is to exercise reasonable care and 7rudence& ?:ere reasonable care is em7loyed in doing an act not itself illegal or in:erently li8ely to 7roduce damage to ot:ers- t:ere 9ill be no liability- alt:oug: damage in fact ensues& (Ail9au8ee Ry& Co& vs. Arms- ," 1& 3&- +/,G 6arrott vs. ?ells- ". ?all&- . +G 0ro9n vs. Iendall- * Cus:ing- , G Cac8son Arc:itectural 2ron ?or8s vs.Furlbut- "./ '& @&- 3+ ?esterfield vs. (e%is- +3 (a& An&- *3G 'iosi vs. 4m7ire 3team (aundry- "") Cal&- .)&$ T:e act of defendant;s dri%er in lea%ing t:e :orses in t:e manner 7ro%ed 9as not unreasonable or im7rudent& Acts t:e 7erformance of 9:ic: :as not 7ro%ed destructi%e or inBurious and 9:ic: :a%et:erefore- been acquiesced in by society for so long a time t:at t:ey :a%e ri7ened into custom- can not be :eld to be t:emsel%es unreasonable or im7rudent& 2ndeed t:e %ery reason 9:y t:ey :a%e been 7ermitted by society is t:at t:ey beneficial rat:er t:an 7reBudicial&itc#alf Accidents sometimes :a77en and inBuries result from t:e most ordinary acts of life& 0ut suc: are not t:eir natural or customary results& To :old t:at- because suc: an act once resulted in accident or inBury- t:e actor is necessarily negligent- is to go far& T:e fact t:at t:e doctrine of res ipsa lo0uitur is sometimes successfully in%o8ed in suc: a case- does not in any sense militate against t:e reasoning 7resented& T:at maxim at most only creates a prima fa%ie case- and t:at only in t:e absence of 7roof of t:e circumstances under 9:ic: t:e act com7lained of 9as 7erformed& 2t is somet:ing in%o8ed in fa%or of t:e 7laintiff before defendant;s case s:o9ing t:e conditions and circumstances under 9:ic: t:e inBury occurred- t:e creati%e reason for t:e doctrine of res ipsa lo0uitur disa77ears& T:is is demonstrated by t:e case of )nland and #eaboard !osting !o. vs. "olson ("3, 1&3&- .."$- 9:ere t:e court said (7& ..+$: & & & T:e 9:ole effect of t:e instruction in question- as a77lied to t:e case before t:e Bury- 9as t:at if t:e steamboat- on a calm day and in smoot: 9ater- 9as t:ro9n 9it: suc: force against a 9:arf 7ro7erly built- as to tear u7 some of t:e 7lan8s of t:e flooring- t:is 9ould be prima fa%ie e%idence of negligence on t:e 7art of t:e defendant;s agent in ma8ing t:e landing- unless u7on t:e 9:ole e%idence in t:e case t:is prima fa%iee%idence 9as rebutted& As suc: damage to a 9:arf is not ordinarily done by a steamboat under control of :er officers and carefully managed by t:em- e%idence t:at suc: damage 9as done in t:is case 9as prima fa%ie, and- if unex7lained- sufficient e%idence of negligence on t:eir 7art- and t:e Bury mig:t 7ro7erly be so instructed& T:ere 9as 7resented in t:is case- and by t:e 7laintiffs t:emsel%es- not only t:e fact of t:e run9ay and t:e accident resulting t:erefrom- but also t:e conditions under 9:ic: t:e runa9ay occurred& T:ose conditions s:o9ing of t:emsel%es t:at t:e defendant;s coc:ero 9as not negligent in t:e management of t:e :orse- t:e prima fa%iecase in 7laintiffs; fa%or- if any- 9as destroyed as soon as made& 2t is a matter of common 8no9ledge as 9ell as 7roof t:at it is t:e uni%ersal 7ractice of merc:ants to deli%er merc:andise of t:e 8ind of t:at being deli%ered at t:e time of t:e inBury- in t:e manner in 9:ic: t:at 9as t:en being deli%eredG and t:at it is t:e uni%ersal 7ractice to lea%e t:e :orses in t:e manner in 9:ic: t:ey 9ere left at t:e time of t:e accident& T:is is t:e custom in all cities& 2t :as not been 7roducti%e of accidents or inBuries& T:e 7ublic- finding itself un7reBudiced by suc: 7ractice- :as acquiesced for years 9it:out obBection& 5ug:t t:e 7ublic no9- t:roug: t:e courts- 9it:out 7rior obBection or notice- to be 7ermitted to re%erse t:e 7ractice of decades and t:ereby ma8e cul7able and guilty one 9:o :ad e%ery reason and assurance to belie%e t:at :e 9as acting under t:e sanction of t:e strongest of all ci%il forces- t:e custom of a 7eo7leJ ?e t:in8 not& T:e Budgement is re%ersed- 9it:out s7ecial finding as to costs& 3o ordered&

56
NEGROS NAVIGATION CO., INC., %& THE COURT OF APPEALS, RAMON MIRANDA, SPS. RICARDO and VIRGINIA DE LA VICTORIA G&R& 'o& ""!3,/&'o%ember )- ",,) A4'D5YA- J.: T:is is a 7etition for re%ie9 on %ertiorari of t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals affirming 9it: modification t:e Regional Trial Court;s a9ard of damages to 7ri%ate res7ondents for t:e deat: of relati%es as a result of t:e sin8ing of 7etitioner;s %essel& 2n A7ril of ",/!- 7ri%ate res7ondent Ramon Airanda 7urc:ased from t:e 'egros 'a%igation Co&- 2nc& four s7ecial cabin tic8ets (^)++""- )++" - )++"3 and )++"+$ for :is 9ife- daug:ter- son and niece 9:o 9ere going to 0acolod City to attend a family reunion& T:e tic8ets 9ere for Eoyage 'o& +.)#A of t:e AHE (on Juan- lea%ing Aanila at ":!! 7&m& on A7ril - ",/!& T:e s:i7 sailed from t:e 7ort of Aanila on sc:edule& At about "!:3! in t:e e%ening of A7ril - ",/!- t:e (on Juan collided off t:e Tablas 3trait in Aindoro9it: t:e AHT "a%loban !ity- an oil tan8er o9ned by t:e 6:ili77ine 'ational 5il Com7any (6'5C$ and t:e 6'5C 3:i77ing and Trans7ort Cor7oration (6'5CH3TC$& As a result- t:e AHE (on Juan san8& 3e%eral of :er 7assengers 7eris:ed in t:e sea tragedy& T:e bodies of some of t:e %ictims 9ere found and broug:t to s:ore- but t:e four members of 7ri%ate res7ondents; families 9ere ne%er found& 6ri%ate res7ondents filed a com7laint on Culy "*- ",/! in t:e Regional Trial Court of Aanila- 0ranc: 3+- against t:e 'egros 'a%igation- t:e 6:ili77ine 'ational 5il Com7any (6'5C$- and t:e 6'5C 3:i77ing and Trans7ort Cor7oration (6'5CH3TC$- see8ing damages for t:e deat: of Ardita de la Eictoria Airanda- +/- Rosario E& Airanda- ",- Ramon E& Airanda- Cr&- "*- and 4lfreda de la Eictoria- *& 2n its ans9er- 7etitioner admitted t:at 7ri%ate res7ondents 7urc:ased tic8et numbers )++""- )++" )++"3 and )++"+G t:at t:e tic8et numbers 9ere listed in t:e 7assenger manifestG and t:at t:e (on Juan left 6ier - 'ort: Farbor- Aanila on A7ril - ",/! and san8 t:at nig:t after being rammed by t:e oil tan8er AHT "a%loban !ity- and t:at- as a result of t:e collision- some of t:e 7assengers of t:e AHE (on Juan died& 6etitioner- :o9e%er- denied t:at t:e four relati%es of 7ri%ate res7ondents actually boarded t:e %essel as s:o9n by t:e fact t:at t:eir bodies 9ere ne%er reco%ered& 6etitioner furt:er a%erred t:at t:e (on Juan 9as sea9ort:y and manned by a full and com7etent cre9- and t:at t:e collision 9as entirely due to t:e fault of t:e cre9 of t:e AHT "a%loban !ity& 5n Canuary !- ",/*- t:e 6'5C and 7etitioner 'egros 'a%igation Co&- 2nc& entered into a com7romise agreement 9:ereby 7etitioner assumed full res7onsibility for t:e 7ayment and satisfaction of all claims arising out of or in connection 9it: t:e collision and releasing t:e 6'5C and t:e 6'5CH3TC from any liability to it& T:e agreement 9as subsequently :eld by t:e trial court to be binding u7on 7etitioner- 6'5C and 6'5CH3TC& 6ri%ate res7ondents did not Boin in t:e agreement& After trial- t:e court rendered Budgment on February "- ",,"- t:e dis7ositi%e 7ortion of 9:ic: leads as follo9s: ?F4R4F5R4- in %ie9 of t:e foregoing- Budgment is :ereby rendered in fa%or of t:e 7laintiffsordering all t:e defendants to 7ay Bointly and se%erally to t:e 7laintiffs damages as follo9s: To Ramon Airanda: 6+ -! .&!! for actual damagesG 6". -*.+&.. as com7ensatory damages for loss of earning ca7acity of :is 9ifeG 6,!-!!!&!! as com7ensatory damages for 9rongful deat: of t:ree (3$ %ictimsG

57
63!!-!!!&!! as moral damagesG 6.!-!!!&!! as exem7lary damages- all in t:e total amount of 6*3+-*),&..G and 6+!-!!!&!! as attorney;s fees& To 37ouses Ricardo and Eirginia de la Eictoria: 6" -!!!&!! for actual damagesG 6"./-/,,&!! as com7ensatory damages for loss of earning ca7acityG 63!-!!!&!! as com7ensatory damages for 9rongful deat:G 6"!!-!!!&!! as moral damagesG 6 !-!!!&!! as exem7lary damages- all in t:e total amount of 63 !-/,,&!!G and 6".-!!!&!! as attorney;s fees& 5n a77eal- t:e Court of A77eals affirmed t:e decision of t:e Regional Trial Court 9it: modification O "& 5rdering and sentencing defendants#a77ellants- Bointly and se%erally- to 7ay 7laintiff# a77ellee Ramon Airanda t:e amount of 6 3-!).&!! as actual damages instead of 6+ -! .&!!G & 5rdering and sentencing defendants#a77ellants- Bointly and se%erally- to 7ay 7laintiff# a77ellee Ramon Airanda t:e amount of 6".!-!!!&!!- instead of 6,!-!!!&!!- as com7ensatory damages for t:e deat: of :is 9ife and t9o c:ildrenG 3& 5rdering and sentencing defendants#a77ellants- Bointly and se%erally- to 7ay 7laintiffs# a77ellees Dela Eictoria s7ouses t:e amount of 6.!-!!!&!!- instead of 63!-!!!&!!- as com7ensatory damages for t:e deat: of t:eir daug:ter 4lfreda Dela EictoriaG Fence t:is 7etition- raising t:e follo9ing issues: ("$ 9:et:er t:e members of 7ri%ate res7ondents; families 9ere actually 7assengers of t:e Don CuanG ( $ 9:et:er t:e ruling in Me%enas v& !ourt of ppeals- finding t:e cre9 members of 7etitioner to be grossly negligent in t:e 7erformance of t:eir duties- is binding in t:is caseG (3$ 9:et:er t:e total loss of t:e AHE (on Juan extinguis:ed 7etitioner;s liabilityG and (+$ 9:et:er t:e damages a9arded by t:e a77ellate court are excessi%e- unreasonable and un9arranted& $irst& T:e trial court :eld t:at t:e fact t:at t:e %ictims 9ere 7assengers of t:e AHE (on Juan 9as sufficiently 7ro%en by 7ri%ate res7ondent Ramon Airanda- 9:o testified t:at :e 7urc:ased tic8ets numbered )++""- )++" - )++"3- and )++"+ at 6"3"&3! eac: from t:e Aa8ati office of 7etitioner for Eoyage 'o& +)#A of t:e AHE (on Juan- 9:ic: 9as lea%ing Aanila on A7ril - ",/!& T:is 9as corroborated by t:e 7assenger manifest (4x:& 4$ on 9:ic: t:e numbers of t:e tic8ets and t:e names of Ardita Airanda and :er c:ildren and 4lfreda de la Eictoria a77ear& 6etitioner contends t:at t:e 7urc:ase of t:e tic8ets does not necessarily mean t:at t:e alleged %ictims actually too8 t:e tri7& 6etitioner asserts t:at it is common 8no9ledge t:at 7assengers 7urc:ase tic8ets in ad%ance but do not actually use t:em& Fence- 7ri%ate res7ondent s:ould also 7ro%e t:e 7resence of t:e %ictims on t:e s:i7& T:e 9itnesses 9:o affirmed t:at t:e %ictims 9ere on t:e s:i7 9ere biased and unreliable& T:is contention is 9it:out merit& 6ri%ate res7ondent Ramon Airanda testified t:at :e 7ersonally too8 :is family and :is niece to t:e %essel on t:e day of t:e %oyage and stayed 9it: t:em on t:e s:i7 until it

58
9as time for it to lea%e& T:ere is no reason :e s:ould claim members of :is family to :a%e 7eris:ed in t:e accident Bust to maintain an action& 6eo7le do not normally lie about so gra%e a matter as t:e loss of dear ones& 2t 9ould be more difficult for 7ri%ate res7ondents to 8ee7 t:e existence of t:eir relati%es if indeed t:ey are ali%e t:an it is for 7etitioner to s:o9 t:e contrary& 6etitioner;s only 7roof is t:at t:e bodies of t:e su77osed %ictims 9ere not among t:ose reco%ered from t:e site of t:e mis:a7& 0ut so 9ere t:e bodies of t:e ot:er 7assengers re7orted missing not reco%ered- as t:is Court noted in t:e Me%enas case& 6ri%ate res7ondent Airanda;s testimony 9as corroborated by 4dgardo Ramire=& Ramire= 9as a seminarian and one of t:e sur%i%ors of t:e collision& Fe testified t:at :e sa9 Ars& Airanda and 4lfreda de la Eictoria on t:e s:i7 and t:at :e tal8ed 9it: t:em& Fe 8ne9 Ars& Airanda 9:o 9as :is teac:er in t:e grade sc:ool& Fe also 8ne9 4lfreda 9:o 9as :is c:ild:ood friend and to9nmate& Ramire= said :e 9as 9it: Ars& Airanda and :er c:ildren and niece from ):!! 7&m& until "!:!! 7&m& 9:en t:e collision :a77ened and t:at :e in fact :ad dinner 9it: t:em& Ramire= said :e and 4lfreda stayed on t:e dec8 after dinner and it 9as t:ere 9:ere t:ey 9ere Bolted by t:e collision of t:e t9o %essels& Recounting t:e moments after t:e collision- Ramire= testified t:at 4lfreda ran to fetc: Ars& Airanda& Fe escorted :er to t:e room and t:en tried to go bac8 to t:e dec8 9:en t:e lig:ts 9ent out& Fe tried to return to t:e cabin but 9as not able to do so because it 9as dar8 and t:ere 9as a stam7ede of 7assengers from t:e dec8& 6etitioner casts doubt on Ramire=; testimony- claiming t:at Ramire= could not :a%e tal8ed 9it: t:e %ictims for about t:ree :ours and not run out of stories to tell- unless Ramire= :ad a >store:ouse> of stories& 0ut 9:at is incredible about acquaintances t:ro9n toget:er on a long Bourney staying toget:er for :ours on end- in idle con%ersation 7recisely to 9:ile t:e :ours a9ayJ 6etitioner also 7oints out t:at it too8 Ramire= t:ree (3$ days before :e finally contacted 7ri%ate res7ondent Ramon Airanda to tell :im about t:e fate of :is family& 0ut it is not im7robable t:at it too8 Ramire= t:ree days before calling on 7ri%ate res7ondent Airanda to tell :im about t:e last :ours of Ars& Airanda and :er c:ildren and niece- in %ie9 of t:e confusion in t:e days follo9ing t:e collision as rescue teams and relati%es searc:ed for sur%i%ors& 2ndeed- gi%en t:e facts of t:is case- it is im7ro7er for 7etitioner to e%en suggest t:at 7ri%ate res7ondents; relati%es did not board t:e ill#fated %essel and 7eris: in t:e accident sim7ly because t:eir bodies 9ere not reco%ered& #e%ond& 2n finding 7etitioner guilty of negligence and in failing to exercise t:e extraordinary diligence required of it in t:e carriage of 7assengers- bot: t:e trial court and t:e a77ellate court relied on t:e findings of t:is Court in Me%enas v& )ntermediate ppellate !ourt- 9:ic: case 9as broug:t for t:e deat: of ot:er 7assengers& 2n t:at case it 9as found t:at alt:oug: t:e 7roximate cause of t:e mis:a7 9as t:e negligence of t:e cre9 of t:e AHT "a%loban !ity- t:e cre9 of t:e (on Juan 9as equally negligent as it found t:at t:e latter;s master- Ca7t& Rogelio 3antisteban- 9as 7laying ma:Bong at t:e time of collision- and t:e officer on 9atc:- 3enior T:ird Aate Rogelio De Eera- admitted t:at :e failed to call t:e attention of 3antisteban to t:e imminent danger facing t:em& T:is Court found t:at Ca7t& 3antisteban and t:e cre9 of t:e AHE (on Juan failed to ta8e ste7s to 7re%ent t:e collision or at least delay t:e sin8ing of t:e s:i7 and su7er%ise t:e abandoning of t:e s:i7& 6etitioner 'egros 'a%igation 9as found equally negligent in tolerating t:e 7laying of ma:Bong by t:e s:i7 ca7tain and ot:er cre9 members 9:ile on board t:e s:i7 and failing to 8ee7 t:e AHE (on Juan sea9ort:y so muc: so t:at t:e s:i7 san8 9it:in "! to ". minutes of its im7act 9it: t:e AHT "a%loban !ity& 2n addition- t:e Court found t:at t:e (on Juan 9as o%erloaded& T:e Certificate of 2ns7ection- dated August )- ",),- issued by t:e 6:ili77ine Coast Guard Commander at 2loilo City stated t:at t:e total number of 7ersons allo9ed on t:e s:i7 9as /*+- of 9:om /"! are 7assengers- but t:ere 9ere actually "-!!+ on board t:e %essel 9:en it san8- "+! 7ersons more t:an t:e maximum number t:at could be safely carried by it&

59
Ta8ing t:ese circumstances toget:er- and t:e fact t:at t:e AHE (on Juan- as t:e faster and better# equi77ed %essel- could :a%e a%oided a collision 9it: t:e 6'5C tan8er- t:is Court :eld t:at e%en if t:e "a%loban !ity :ad been at fault for failing to obser%e an internationally#recogni=ed rule of na%igation- t:e (on Juan 9as guilty of contributory negligence& T:roug: Custice Feliciano- t:is Court :eld: T:e grossness of t:e negligence of t:e >Don Cuan> is underscored 9:en one considers t:e foregoing circumstances in t:e context of t:e follo9ing facts: Firstly- t:e >Don Cuan> 9as more t:an t9ice as fast as t:e >Tacloban City&> T:e >Don Cuan;s> to7 s7eed 9as ") 8notsG 9:ile t:at of t:e >Tacloban City> 9as *&3& 8nots& 3econdly- t:e >Don Cuan> carried t:e full com7lement of officers and cre9 members s7ecified for a 7assenger %essel of :er class& T:irdly- t:e >Don Cuan> 9as equi77ed 9it: radar 9:ic: 9as functioning t:at nig:t& Fourt:ly- t:e >Don Cuan;s officer on#9atc: :ad sig:ted t:e >Tacloban City> on :is radar screen 9:ile t:e latter 9as still four (+$ nautical miles a9ay& Eisual confirmation of radar contact 9as establis:ed by t:e >Don Cuan> 9:ile t:e >Tacloban City> 9as still &) miles a9ay& 2n t:e total set of circumstances 9:ic: existed in t:e instant case- t:e >Don Cuan-> :ad it ta8en seriously its duty of extraordinary diligence- could :a%e easily a%oided t:e collision 9it: t:e >Tacloban City&> 2ndeed- t:e >Don Cuan> mig:t 9ell :a%e a%oided t:e collision e%en if it :ad exercised ordinary diligence merely& 2t is true t:at t:e >Tacloban City> failed to follo9 Rule "/ of t:e 2nternational Rules of t:e Road 9:ic: requires t9o ( $ 7o9er#dri%en %essels meeting end on or nearly end on eac: to alter :er course to starboard (rig:t$ so t:at eac: %essel may 7ass on t:e 7ort side (left$ of t:e ot:er& T:e >Tacloban City-> 9:en t:e t9o ( $ %essels 9ere only t:ree#tent:s (!&3$ of a mile a7art- turned (for t:e second time$ "._ to 7ort side 9:ile t:e >Don Cuan> %eered :ard to starboard& & & & M0utN >route obser%ance> of t:e 2nternational Rules of t:e Road 9ill not relie%e a %essel from res7onsibility if t:e collision could :a%e been a%oided by 7ro7er care and s8ill on :er 7art or e%en by a de7arture from t:e rules& 2n t:e 7etition at bar- t:e >Don Cuan> :a%ing sig:ted t:e >Tacloban City> 9:en it 9as still a long 9ay off 9as negligent in failing to ta8e early 7re%enti%e action and in allo9ing t:e t9o ( $ %essels to come to suc: close quarters as to render t:e collision ine%itable 9:en t:ere 9as no necessity for 7assing so near to t:e >Tacloban City> as to create t:at :a=ard or ine%itability- for t:e >Don Cuan> could c:oose its o9n distance& 2t is note9ort:y t:at t:e >Tacloban City-> u7on turning :ard to 7ort s:ortly before t:e moment of collision- signalled its intention to do so by gi%ing t9o ( $ s:ort blasts 9it: its :orn& T:e >Don Cuan> ga%e no ans9ering :orn blast to signal its o9n intention and 7roceeded to turn :ard to starboard& ?e conclude t:at Ca7t& 3antisteban and 'egros 'a%igation are 7ro7erly :eld liable for gross negligence in connection 9it: t:e collision of t:e >Don Cuan> and >Tacloban City> and t:e sin8ing of t:e >Don Cuan> leading to t:e deat: of :undreds of 7assengers& & & & 6etitioner critici=es t:e lo9er court;s reliance on t:e Me%enas case- arguing t:at- alt:oug: t:is case arose out of t:e same incident as t:at in%ol%ed in Me%enas- t:e 7arties are different and trial 9as conducted se7arately& 6etitioner contends t:at t:e decision in t:is case s:ould be based on t:e allegations and defenses 7leaded and e%idence adduced in it or- in s:ort- on t:e record of t:is case& T:e contention is 9it:out merit& ?:at 7etitioner contends may be true 9it: res7ect to t:e merits of t:e indi%idual claims against 7etitioner but not as to t:e cause of t:e sin8ing of its s:i7 on A7ril - ",/! and its liability for suc: accident- of 9:ic: t:ere can only be one trut:& 5t:er9ise- one 9ould be subscribing to t:e so7:istry: trut: on one side of t:e 6yrenees- false:ood on t:e ot:erW Ad:erence to t:e Me%enas case is dictated by t:is Court;s 7olicy of maintaining stability in Buris7rudence in accordance 9it: t:e legal maxim 8stare de%isis et non 0uieta movere8 (Follo9 7ast 7recedents and do not disturb 9:at :as been settled&$ ?:ere- as in t:is case- t:e same questions relating to t:e same e%ent :a%e been 7ut for9ard by 7arties similarly situated as in a 7re%ious case litigated and decided by a com7etent court- t:e rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attem7t to relitigate t:e same issue& 2n 4oulfe v& sso%iated ,ealties !orporation- $:e 3u7reme Court of 'e9 Cersey :eld

60
t:at 9:ere substantially similar cases to t:e 7ending case 9ere 7resented and a77licable 7rinci7les declared in 7rior decisions- t:e court 9as bound by t:e 7rinci7le of stare decisis& 3imilarly- in #tate e. rel& "ollinger v& 1ill- it 9as :eld t:at under t:e doctrine of stare decisis a ruling is final e%en as to 7arties 9:o are strangers to t:e original 7roceeding and not bound by t:e Budgment under t:e res Budicata doctrine& T:e 6:iladel7:ia court ex7ressed itself in t:is 9ise: >3tare decisis sim7ly declares t:at- for t:e sa8e of certainty- a conclusion reac:ed in one case s:ould be a77lied to t:ose 9:ic: follo9- if t:e facts are substantially t:e same- e%en t:oug: t:e 7arties may be different&> T:usin J&M& "uason v& Mariano- supra- t:is Court relied on its rulings in ot:er cases in%ol%ing different 7arties in sustaining t:e %alidity of a land title on t:e 7rinci7le of8stare de%isis et non 0uieta movere&8 2ndeed- t:e e%idence 7resented in t:is case 9as t:e same as t:ose 7resented in t:e Me%enas caseto 9it: (o%ument Me%enas %ase "his %ase Decision of Commandant- 4x:& "! 4x:& ""#0#''H` 6:il& Coast Guard in 0A2 Case 'o& +".#/! dated 3H *H/" Decision of t:e Ainister 4x:& "" 4x:& YY of 'ational Defense dated 3H" H/ Resolution on t:e 4x:& "3 4x:& AAA motion for reconsideration (7ri%ate of t:e decision of t:e res7ondents$ Ainister of 'ational defense dated )H )H/+ Certificate of 4x:& "#A 4x:& ",#'' ins7ection dated /H )H), Certificate of 3tability 4x:& *#A 4x:& ",#D#'' dated " H"*H)* 'or is it true t:at t:e trial court merely based its decision on t:e Me%enas case& T:e trial court made its o9n inde7endent findings on t:e basis of t:e testimonies of 9itnesses- suc: as 3enior T:ird Aate Rogelio de Eera- 9:o incidentally ga%e substantially t:e same testimony on 7etitioner;s be:alf before t:e 0oard of Aarine 2nquiry& T:e trial court agreed 9it: t:e conclusions of t:e t:en Ainister of 'ational Defense finding bot: %essels to be negligent& "hird& T:e next issue is 9:et:er 7etitioner is liable to 7ay damages not9it:standing t:e total loss of its s:i7& T:e issue is not one of first im7ression& T:e rule is 9ell#entrenc:ed in our Buris7rudence t:at a s:i7o9ner may be :eld liable for inBuries to 7assengers not9it:standing t:e exclusi%ely real and :y7ot:ecary nature of maritime la9 if fault can be attributed to t:e s:i7o9ner& 2n Me%enas- t:is Court found 7etitioner guilty of negligence in ("$ allo9ing or tolerating t:e s:i7 ca7tain and cre9 members in 7laying ma:Bong during t:e %oyage- ( $ in failing to maintain t:e %essel sea9ort:y and (3$ in allo9ing t:e s:i7 to carry more 7assengers t:an it 9as allo9ed to carry& 6etitioner is- t:erefore- clearly liable for damages to t:e full extent& $ourth& 6etitioner contends t:at- assuming t:at t:e Me%enas case a77lies- 7ri%ate res7ondents s:ould be allo9ed to claim only 6+3-/.)&"+ eac: as moral damages because in t:e Me%enas case- t:e amount of 63!)-.!!&!! 9as a9arded to t:e se%en c:ildren of t:e Aecenas cou7le& 1nder 7etitioner;s formula- Ramon Airanda s:ould recei%e 6+3-/.)&"+- 9:ile t:e De la Eictoria s7ouses s:ould recei%e 6,)-)"+& /&

61
Fere is 9:ere t:e 7rinci7le of stare decisis does not a77ly in %ie9 of differences in t:e 7ersonal circumstances of t:e %ictims& For t:at matter- differentiation 9ould be Bustified e%en if 7ri%ate res7ondents :ad Boined t:e 7ri%ate res7ondents in t:e Me%enas case& T:e doctrine of stare decisis 9or8s as a bar only against issues litigated in a 7re%ious case& ?:ere t:e issue in%ol%ed 9as not raised nor 7resented to t:e court and not 7assed u7on by t:e court in t:e 7re%ious case- t:e decision in t:e 7re%ious case is not stare decisis of t:e question 7resently 7resented& T:e decision in t:e Me%enas case relates to damages for 9:ic: 7etitioner 9as liable to t:e claimants in t:at case& 2n t:e case at bar- t:e a9ard of 63!!-!!!&!! for moral damages is reasonable considering t:e grief 7etitioner Ramon Airanda suffered as a result of t:e loss of :is entire family& As a matter of fact- t:ree mont:s after t:e collision- :e de%elo7ed a :eart condition undoubtedly caused by t:e strain of t:e loss of :is family& T:e 6"!!-!!!&!! gi%en to Ar& and Ars& de la Eictoria is li8e9ise reasonable and s:ould be affirmed& As for t:e amount of ci%il indemnity a9arded to 7ri%ate res7ondents- t:e a77ellate court;s a9ard of 6.!-!!!&!! 7er %ictim s:ould be sustained& T:e amount of 63!-!!!&!! formerly set in (e 2ima v& 2aguna "ayabas !o&- -eirs of mparo delos #antos v& !ourt of ppeals, and &hilippine ,abbit Bus 2ines, )n%& v& )ntermediate ppellate !ourt as benc:mar8 9as subsequently increased to 6.!-!!!&!! in t:e case of #ulpi%io 2ines, )n%& v& !ourt of ppeals- 9:ic: in%ol%ed t:e sin8ing of anot:er interisland s:i7 on 5ctober +- ",//& ?e no9 turn to t:e determination of t:e earning ca7acity of t:e %ictims& ?it: res7ect to Ardita Airanda- t:e trial court a9arded damages com7uted as follo9s: 2n t:e case of %ictim Ardita E& Airanda 9:ose age at t:e time of t:e accident 9as +/ years- :er life ex7ectancy 9as com7uted to be "&33 years- and t:erefore- s:e could :a%e li%ed u7 to almost )! years old& Fer gross earnings for "&33 years based on 6"!- +&!! per annum9ould be 6 "/-!))&, & Deducting t:erefrom 3!] as :er li%ing ex7enses- :er net earnings 9ould be 6". -*.+&..- to 9:ic: 7laintiff Ramon Airanda is entitled to com7ensatory damages for t:e loss of earning ca7acity of :is 9ife& 2n considering 3!] as t:e li%ing ex7enses of Ardita Airanda- t:e Court ta8es into account t:e fact t:at 7laintiff and :is 9ife 9ere su77orting t:eir daug:ter and son 9:o 9ere bot: college students ta8ing Aedicine and (a9 res7ecti%ely& 2n accordance 9it: t:e ruling in 9illa7,ey "ransit, )n%& v& !ourt of ppeals- 9e t:in8 t:e life ex7ectancy of Ardita Airanda 9as correctly determined to be "&33 years- or u7 to age *,& 6etitioner contends:o9e%er- t:at Ars& Airanda 9ould :a%e retired from :er Bob as a 7ublic sc:ool teac:er at *.- :ence :er loss of earning ca7acity s:ould be rec8oned u7 to ")&33 years only& T:e acce7ted formula for determining life ex7ectancy is H3 multi7lied by (/! minus t:e age of t:e deceased$& 2t may be t:at in t:e 6:ili77ines t:e age of retirement generally is *. but- in calculating t:e life ex7ectancy of indi%iduals for t:e 7ur7ose of determining loss of earning ca7acity under Art& !*("$ of t:e Ci%il Code- it is assumed t:at t:e deceased 9ould :a%e earned income e%en after retirement from a 7articular Bob& 2n t:is case- t:e trial court too8 into account t:e fact t:at Ars& Airanda :ad a master;s degree and a good 7ros7ect of becoming 7rinci7al of t:e sc:ool in 9:ic: s:e 9as teac:ing& T:ere 9as reason to belie%e t:at :er income 9ould :a%e increased t:roug: t:e years and s:e could still earn more after :er retirement- e&g&- by becoming a consultant- :ad s:e not died& T:e gross earnings 9:ic: Ars& Airanda could reasonably be ex7ected to earn 9ere it not for :er untimely deat: 9as- t:erefore- correctly com7uted by t:e trial court to be 6 "/-!))&, (gi%en a gross annual income of 6"!- +&!! and life ex7ectancy of "&33 years$& 6etitioner contends t:at from t:e amount of gross earnings- *!] s:ould be deducted as necessary li%ing ex7enses- not merely 3!] as t:e trial court allo9ed& 6etitioner contends t:at 3!] is unrealisticconsidering t:at Ars& Airanda;s earnings 9ould :a%e been subBect to taxes- social security deductions and inflation& ?e agree 9it: t:is contention& 2n 9illa7,ey "ransit, )n%& v& !ourt of ppeals- t:e Court allo9ed a deduction of 6"-"/+&!! for li%ing ex7enses from t:e 6 -"/+&!! annual salary of t:e %ictim- 9:ic: is

62
roug:ly .+& ] t:ereof& T:e deceased 9as , years old and a training assistant in t:e 0acnotan Cement 2ndustries& 2n &eople v& 5uilation- t:e deceased 9as a *#year old laborer earning a daily 9age& T:e court allo9ed a deduction of 6" !-!!!&!! 9:ic: 9as ."&3] of :is annual gross earnings of 6 3+-!!!&!!& 2n &eople v& "eehan/ee- t:e court allo9ed a deduction of 6",-/!!&!!- roug:ly + &+] t:ereof from t:e deceased;s annual salary of 6+*-*.,& "& T:e deceased- Aaureen Fultman- 9as ") years old and :ad Bust recei%ed :er first 7ayc:ec8 as a secretary& 2n t:e case at bar- 9e :old t:at a deduction of .!] from Ars& Airanda;s gross earnings (6 "/-!))&, $ 9ould be reasonable- so t:at :er net earning ca7acity s:ould be 6"!,-!3/&,*& T:ere is no basis for su77osing t:at :er li%ing ex7enses constituted a smaller 7ercentage of :er gross income t:an t:e li%ing ex7enses in t:e decided cases& To :old t:at s:e 9ould :a%e used only a small 7art of :er income for :erself- a larger 7art going to t:e su77ort of :er c:ildren 9ould be conBectural and unreasonable& As for 4lfreda de la Eictoria- t:e trial court found t:at- at t:e time of :er deat:- s:e 9as * years old- a teac:er in a 7ri%ate sc:ool in Aalolos- 0ulacan- earning 6*-", &!! 7er annum& Alt:oug: a 7robationary em7loyee- s:e :ad already been 9or8ing in t:e sc:ool for t9o years at t:e time of :er deat: and s:e :ad a general efficiency rating of , &/.] and it can be 7resumed t:at- if not for :er untimely deat:- s:e 9ould :a%e become a regular teac:er& Fence- :er loss of earning ca7acity is 6"""-+.*&!!- com7uted as follo9s: net earning a life x gross less reasonable ca7acity (x$ ex7ectancy annual & necessary income li%ing ex7enses (.!]$ x a M (/!# *$N x M6*-", &!! # 63-!,*&!!N OOOO 3 a 3* x 3-!,*&!! a 6"""-+.*&!! 5n t:e ot:er :and- t:e a9ard of actual damages in t:e amount of 6 3-!).&!! 9as determined by t:e Court of A77eals on t:e basis recei7ts submitted by 7ri%ate res7ondents& T:is amount is reasonable considering t:e ex7enses incurred by 7ri%ate res7ondent Airanda in organi=ing t:ree searc: teams to loo8 for :is family- s7ending for trans7ortation in going to 7laces suc: as 0atangas City and 2loilo9:ere sur%i%ors and t:e bodies of ot:er %ictims 9ere found- ma8ing long distance calls- erecting a monument in :onor of t:e four %ictims- s7ending for obituaries in t:e Bulletin "oday and for foodmasses and no%enas& 6etitioner;s contention t:at t:e ex7enses for t:e erection of a monument and ot:er ex7enses for memorial ser%ices for t:e %ictims s:ould be considered included in t:e indemnity for deat: a9arded to 7ri%ate res7ondents is 9it:out merit& 2ndemnity for deat: is gi%en to com7ensate for %iolation of t:e rig:ts of t:e deceased- i&e&- :is rig:t to life and 7:ysical integrity& 5n t:e ot:er :and- damages incidental to or arising out of suc: deat: are for 7ecuniary losses of t:e beneficiaries of t:e deceased& As for t:e a9ard of attorney;s fees- 9e agree 9it: t:e Court of A77eals t:at t:e amount of 6+!-!!!&!! for 7ri%ate res7ondent Ramon Airanda and 6".-!!!&!! for t:e de la Eictoria s7ouses is Bustified& T:e a77ellate court correctly :eld: T:e Aecenas case cannot be made t:e basis for determining t:e a9ard for attorney;s fees& T:e a9ard 9ould naturally %ary or differ in eac: case& ?:ile it is admitted t:at 7laintiff#a77ellee Ramon Airanda 9:o is :imself a la9yer- re7resented also 7laintiffs#a77ellees Dela Eictoria s7ouses- 9e note t:at se7arate testimonial e%idence 9ere adduced by 7laintiff#a77ellee Ramon Airanda (T3'- February *- ",/ - 7& *$ and 7laintiffs#a77ellees s7ouses Dela Eictoria (T3'- August "3- ",/"- 7& +3$& Considering t:e amount of 9or8 and effort 7ut into t:e case as

63
indicated by t:e %oluminous transcri7ts of stenogra7:ic notes- 9e find no reason to disturb t:e a9ard of 6+!-!!!&!! for 7laintiff#a77ellee Ramon Airanda and 6".-!!!&!! for 7laintiffs# a77ellees Dela Eictoria s7ouses& T:e a9ard of exem7lary damages s:ould be increased to 63!!-!!!&!! for Ramon Airanda and 6"!!-!!!&!! for t:e de la Eictoria s7ouses in accordance 9it: our ruling in t:e Me%enas case: 4xem7lary damages are designed by our ci%il la9 to 7ermit t:e courts to res:a7e be:a%iour t:at is socially deleterious in its consequence by creating negati%e incenti%es or deterrents against suc: be:a%iour& 2n requiring com7liance 9it: t:e standard of extraordinary diligence- a standard 9:ic: is in fact t:at of t:e :ig:est 7ossible degree of diligence- from common carriers and in creating a 7resum7tion of negligence against t:em- t:e la9 see8s to com7el t:em to control t:eir em7loyees- to tame t:eir rec8less instincts and to force t:em to ta8e adequate care of :uman beings and t:eir 7ro7erty& T:e Court 9ill ta8e Budicial notice of t:e dreadful regularity 9it: 9:ic: grie%ous maritime disasters occur in our 9aters 9it: massi%e loss of life& T:e bul8 of our 7o7ulation is too 7oor to afford domestic air trans7ortation& 3o it is t:at not9it:standing t:e frequent sin8ing of 7assenger %essels in our 9aters- cro9ds of 7eo7le continue to tra%el by sea& T:is Court is 7re7ared to use t:e instruments gi%en to it by t:e la9 for securing t:e ends of la9 and 7ublic 7olicy& 5ne of t:ose instruments is t:e institution of exem7lary damagesG one of t:ose ends- of s7ecial im7ortance in an arc:i7elagic state li8e t:e 6:ili77ines- is t:e safe and reliable carriage of 7eo7le and goods by sea& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals is AFF2RA4D 9it: modification and 7etitioner is 5RD4R4D to 7ay 7ri%ate res7ondents damages as follo9s: To 7ri%ate res7ondent Ramon Airanda: 6 3-!).&!! for actual damagesG 6"!,-!3/&,* as com7ensatory damages for loss of earning ca7acity of :is 9ifeG 6".!-!!!&!! as com7ensatory damages for 9rongful deat: of t:ree (3$ %ictimsG 63!!-!!!&!! as moral damagesG 63!!-!!!&!! as exem7lary damages- all in the total amount of &::;,<<=&>?G and 6+!-!!!&!! as attorney;s fees& To 7ri%ate res7ondents 37ouses Ricardo and Eirginia de la Eictoria: 6" -!!!&!! for actual damagesG 6"""-+.*&!! as com7ensatory damages for loss of earning ca7acityG 6.!-!!!&!! as com7ensatory damages for 9rongful deat:G 6"!!-!!!&!! as moral damagesG 6"!!-!!!&!! as exem7lary damages- all in the total amount of &=@=,AB?&CCG and 6".-!!!&!! as attorney;s fees& 6etitioners are furt:er ordered to 7ay costs of suit& 2n t:e e%ent t:e 6:ili77ine 'ational 5il Com7any andHor t:e 6'5C 3:i77ing and Trans7ort Cor7oration 7ay or are required to 7ay all or a 7ortion of t:e amounts adBudged- 7etitioner 'egros

64
'a%igation Co&- 2nc& s:all reimburse eit:er of t:em suc: amount or amounts as eit:er may :a%e 7aidand in t:e e%ent of failure of 'egros 'a%igation Co&- 2nc&- to ma8e t:e necessary reimbursement6'5C andHor 6'5CH3TC s:all be entitled to a 9rit of execution 9it:out need of filing anot:er action&

+ENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., %& COURT OF APPEALS, CARIDAD O. +ERNARDO a% G(a#d)an Ad Litem ' # M)n #% JOJO, JEFFREY and JO>AN, a,, %(#na-"d +ERNARDO, and GUILLERMO CANAVE, JR. G&R& 'o& " )3 *&December 3- ",,, 04((532((5- J.: T:is case in%ol%es a re%ie9 on %ertiorari of t:e Decision of t:e Court of A77eals affirming 9it: modification t:e decision of t:e Regional Trial Court of 0aguio City- and ordering 7etitioner 0enguet 4lectric Coo7erati%e 2nc& (04'4C5$ to 7ay Caridad 5& 0ernardo- as guardian ad litem of t:e t:ree (3$ minor c:ildren of t:e late Cose 0ernardo 6.!-!!!&!! as indemnity for :is deat:- 9it: interest t:ereon at t:e legal rate from February *- ",/.- t:e date of t:e filing of t:e com7laint- until fully 7aid6"!!-!!!&!! for moral damages- 6 !-!!!&!! for exem7lary damages- anot:er 6 !-!!!&!! for attorney;s fees- 6/*+-!!!&!! for net income loss for t:e remaining t:irty (3!$ years of t:e life ex7ectancy of t:e deceased- and to 7ay t:e costs of suit& T:e a77ellate court dismissed for lac8 of merit t:e counterclaim of 04'4C5 against t:e 0ernardos and its t:ird 7arty com7laint against Guillermo Cana%e- Cr&- as 9ell as t:e latter;s counterclaim& For fi%e (.$ years u7 to t:e time of :is deat:- Cose 0ernardo managed a stall at t:e 0aguio City meat mar8et& 5n "+ Canuary ",/. at around ):.! in t:e morning- Cose toget:er 9it: ot:er meat %endors 9ent out of t:eir stalls to meet a Bee7ney loaded 9it: slaug:tered 7igs in order to select t:e meat t:ey 9ould sell for t:e day& Cose 9as t:e %ery first to reac: t:e 7ar8ed Bee7ney& Gras7ing t:e :andlebars at t:e rear entrance of t:e %e:icle- and as :e 9as about to raise :is rig:t foot to get inside- Cose suddenly stiffened and trembled as t:oug: suffering from an e7ile7tic sei=ure& Romeo 6imienta 9:o sa9 Cose t:oug:t :e 9as merely Bo8ing but noticed almost in disbelief t:at :e 9as already turning blac8& 2n no time t:e ot:er %endors rus:ed to Cose and t:ey disco%ered t:at t:e antenna of t:e Bee7ney bearing t:e 7igs :ad gotten entangled 9it: an o7en electric 9ire at t:e to7 of t:e roof of a meat stall& 6imienta quic8ly got :old of a broom and 7ried t:e antenna loose from t:e o7en 9ire& 0ut s:ortly after- Cose released :is :old on t:e :andlebars of t:e Bee7 only to slum7 to t:e ground& Fe died s:ortly in t:e :os7ital& Cause of :is deat: 9as >cardio#res7iratory arrest secondary to massi%e brain congestion 9it: 7et:eccial :emorr:age- brain bilateral 7ulmonary edema and congestion and endocardial 7etecc:ial :emorr:age and dilation (:istory of electrocution$&> 5n * February ",/. Caridad 5& 0ernardo- 9ido9 of Cose 0ernardo- and t:eir minor c:ildren- CoBoCeffrey and Co#an- all surnamed 0ernardo- filed a com7laint against 04'4C5 before t:e Regional Trial Court of 0aguio City for a sum of money and damages arising from t:e electrocution of Cose 0ernardo& 2n t:e same ci%il action- 04'4C5 filed a t:ird#7arty com7laint against Guillermo Cana%eCr&- t:e Bee7ney o9ner& 2n its decision dated ". August ",,+- t:e trial court ruled in fa%or of t:e 0ernardos and ordered 04'4C5 to 7ay t:em damages& 0ot: 7etitioner and 7ri%ate res7ondents :erein a77ealed to t:e Court of A77eals& 5n . 'o%ember ",,* t:e a77ellate court 7romulgated its Decision 9:ic: 04'4C5 no9 assails contending inter alia t:at t:e a77ellate court gra%ely erred in ordering 04'4C5 to 7ay damages in lig:t of t:e clear e%idence t:at it 9as t:ird#7arty defendant Cana%e;s fault or negligence 9:ic: 9as t:e 7roximate and sole cause- or at least t:e 7rinci7al cause- of t:e electrocution and deat: of Cose 0ernardo& $irst- 04'4C5 questions t:e a9ard of damages by res7ondent court not9it:standing a clear s:o9ing t:at t:e electrocution and deat: of Cose 0ernardo 9ere directly attributable to t:e fault and negligence of Bee7ney o9ner Guillermo Cana%e- Cr&

65
T:e records of t:e case s:o9 t:at res7ondent court did not commit any re%ersible error in affirming t:e findings of t:e trial court t:at 04'4C5 9as solely res7onsible for t:e untimely deat: of Cose 0ernardo t:roug: accidental electrocution& According to t:e trial court- 9:ic: 9e find substantiated by t:e records O T:roug: Eirgilio Cere=o- a registered master electrician and 7resently t:e C:ief 4lectrical 0uilding 2ns7ector of t:e General 3er%ices Di%ision of t:e City of 0aguio- 9:o 9as tas8ed to in%estigate t:e electrocution of 0ernardo- t:e 7laintiffs adduced 7roof tending to s:o9 t:at t:e defendant 04'4C5 installed a 'o& :ig: %oltage main 9ire distribution line and a 'o& * ser%ice line to 7ro%ide 7o9er at t:e tem7orary meat mar8et on Fillto7 Road& 2t 7ut u7 a t:ree#inc: G&2& 7i7e 7ole to 9:ic: t:e 'o& main line 9as strung on to7 of a stall 9:ere a ser%ice dro7 line 9as connected& T:e :eig:t of t:e electrical connection from t:e 'o& line to t:e ser%ice line 9as barely eig:t (/$ to nine (,$ feet (4x:ibit >4>G 3ee 4x:ibit >D#">$ 9:ic: is in %iolation of t:e 6:ili77ine 4lectrical Code 9:ic: requires a minimum %ertical clearance of fourteen ("+$ feet from t:e le%el of t:e ground since t:e 9iring crosses a 7ublic street& Anot:er %iolation according to Cere=o- is t:at t:e main line connected to t:e ser%ice line 9as not of rigid conduit 9iring but totally ex7osed 9it:out any safety 7rotection ( )bid$& ?orse- t:e o7en 9ire connections 9ere not insulated ()bid$G 3ee 4x:ibits >D#*>- >D#*#A>- >D#)>$& T:e Bee7;s antenna 9:ic: 9as more t:an eig:t (/$ feet :ig: (4x:ibit >D#,>$ from t:e ground (2t is about six to se%en feet long and mounted on t:e left fender 9:ic: is about t:ree feet abo%e t:e ground$ got entangled 9it: t:e o7en 9ire connections (4x:ibit >D#/>$- t:ereby electrically c:arging its :andlebars 9:ic: 0ernardo :eld on to enter t:e %e:icle resulting in :is electrocution& ?:ile Eedasto Augusto- an electrical engineer and t:e line su7erintendent in t:e electrical de7artment of t:e defendant 04'4C5- admitted t:at t:e allo9able %ertical clearance of t:e ser%ice dro7 line is e%en ". feet from t:e ground le%el and not only "+ feet- :e and Cose Angeles- t:en an instrument man or sur%eyor of t:e 04'4C5insisted t:at 04'4C5 installed (t:ey do not 8no9 by 9:om in 7articular$ from t:e A7ollo 0uilding nearby a ser%ice dro7 line carrying ! %olts 9:ic: 9as attac:ed to a G&2& 7i7e 7ole (4x:ibits >"> and >"#A>$& T:e %ertical clearance of t:e 7oint of attac:ment of t:e ser%ice dro7 line on t:e G&2& 7ost to t:e ground is ".&. feet (4x:ibit >"#0>$- 9:ic: is more t:an t:e allo9able ".#foot clearance& To t:is ser%ice dro7 line 9as connected t:e ser%ice entrance conductor (4x:ibit >"#D>$ to su77ly 7o9er inside t:e 7remises to be ser%iced t:roug: an electric meter& At t:e lo9er 7ortion of t:e s7licing or connecting 7oint bet9een t:e ser%ice dro7 line and t:e ser%ice entrance conductor is a t:ree to four#inc: bare 9ire to ser%e as a ground& T:ey sa9 t:e bare 9ire because t:e s7licing 7oint 9as ex7osed as it 9as not co%ered 9it: ta7e (4x:ibit >"#4>$& T:e antenna of t:e Bee7 9:ic: electrocuted 0ernardo got entangled 9it: t:is ex7osed s7licing 7oint& Augusto claimed t:at it 9as not 04'4C5;s Bob to s7lice or connect t:e ser%ice entrance conductor to t:e ser%ice dro7 line but rat:er t:e o9ner of t:e 7remises to be ser%iced 9:ose identity t:ey did not- :o9e%er- determine& 3ignificantly- on cross#examination- Augusto admitted t:at t:e ser%ice dro7 line t:at 04'4C5 installed did not end at t:e 7oint to 9:ic: it is attac:ed to t:e G&2& 7ost& Rat:er- it 7assed t:roug: a s7ool insulator t:at is attac:ed to t:e 7ost (4x:ibit >"#F>$ and extended do9n to 9:ere t:e ser%ice entrance conductor is s7liced 9it: t:e result t:at t:e ex7osed s7licing 7oint (4x:ibit >"#4>$ is only about eig:t (/$ feet from t:e ground le%el& T:ere is no question t:at as an electric coo7erati%e :olding t:e exclusi%e franc:ise in su77lying electric 7o9er to t:e to9ns of 0enguet 7ro%ince- its 7rimordial concern is not only to distribute electricity to its subscribers but also to ensure t:e safety of t:e 7ublic by t:e 7ro7er maintenance and u78ee7 of its facilities& 2t is clear to us t:en t:at 04'4C5 9as grossly negligent in lea%ing un7rotected

66
and uninsulated t:e s7licing 7oint bet9een t:e ser%ice dro7 line and t:e ser%ice entrance conductor9:ic: connection 9as only eig:t (/$ feet from t:e ground le%el- in %iolation of t:e 6:ili77ine 4lectrical Code& 04'4C5;s contention t:at t:e accident :a77ened only on Canuary "+- ",/.- around se%en ()$ years after t:e o7en 9ire 9as found existing in ",)/- far from mitigating its cul7ability- betrays its gross neglect in 7erforming its duty to t:e 7ublic& 0y lea%ing an o7en li%e 9ire unattended for years04'4C5 demonstrated its utter disregard for t:e safety of t:e 7ublic& 2ndeed- Cose 0ernardo;s deat: 9as an accident t:at 9as bound to :a77en in %ie9 of t:e gross negligence of 04'4C5& 04'4C5 t:eori=es in its defense t:at t:e deat: of Cose 0ernardo could be attributed to t:e negligence of Cana%e- Cr&- in 7ar8ing :is Bee7ney so close to t:e mar8et stall 9:ic: 9as neit:er a 7ar8ing area nor a loading area- 9it: :is antenna so :ig: as to get entangled 9it: an o7en 9ire abo%e t:e Dimasu7il store& 0ut t:is line of defense must be discarded& Cana%e;s act of 7ar8ing in an area not customarily used for t:at 7ur7ose 9as by no means t:e inde7endent negligent act ad%erted to by 04'4C5 in citing Manila Ele%tri% !o&v& ,on0uillo& Cana%e 9as 9ell 9it:in :is rig:t to 7ar8 t:e %e:icle in t:e said area 9:ere t:ere 9as no s:o9ing t:at any munici7al la9 or ordinance 9as %iolated nor t:at t:ere 9as any foreseeable danger 7osed by :is act& 5ne t:ing :o9e%er is sure- no accident 9ould :a%e :a77ened :ad 04'4C5 installed t:e connections in accordance 9it: t:e 7rescribed %ertical clearance of fifteen (".$ feet& #e%ond& 04'4C5 a%ers t:at t:e Court of A77eals gra%ely erred in a9arding 6/*+-!!!&!! as net income loss for t:e t:irty (3!$ years remaining of t:e life ex7ectancy of t:e deceased Cose 0ernardoalbeit t:e trial court found no firm basis for a9arding t:is item of damages& ?e recall t:at t:e trial court disallo9ed t:e a9ard for net loss income in %ie9 of t:e alleged contradictory and untrust9ort:y testimony of t:e deceased;s sur%i%ing s7ouse Caridad 0ernardo& T:us O As to lost earnings& T:e court finds t:e allegations of t:e 7laintiffs- 7articularly Caridad 0ernardo contradictory and untrust9ort:y& ?:ile in t:e com7laint- 9:ic: s:e :erself %erified- s:e asse%erated t:at at t:e time of :is deat: on Canuary "+- ",/.- :er late :usband 9as earning no less t:an 6".!&!! daily after deducting 7ersonal ex7enses and :ouse:old and ot:er family obligationsG at t:e trial s:e bloated t:is u7 to 63-!!!&!! gross daily or 63!!&!! 7rofit a day or a net income of 6 !!&!! daily after deducting 7ersonal and :ouse:old ex7enses& 0ut inex7licably s:e could not 7resent t:e income tax return of :er :usband for ",/3 and ",/+ alt:oug: s:e stated t:at :e :ad been filing suc: returns& ?:at s:e submitted are :is income tax returns for ",/" and ",/ s:o9ing a muc: lo9er annual gross income of 6" -,*!&!! and 6"*-" !&!!res7ecti%ely& T:e Court- t:erefore- finds no firm basis for a9arding t:is item of damages& 2n modifying t:e decision of t:e trial court- t:e Court of A77eals relied on t:e testimony of Rosita 'oefe- sister of t:e deceased- t:at :er brot:er started as :er :el7er in t:e se%eral meat stalls s:e o7erated until ",/ 9:en s:e allo9ed Cose to o7erate one of :er stalls as :is o9n and ga%e :im an initial ca7ital of 6".-!!!&!! to add to :is o9n& 3:e ex7lained t:at :er brot:er sold from "!! to ".! 8ilos of 7or8 and 3! to .! 8ilos of meat a day earning an income of about 6".!&!! to 6 !!&!! 7esos daily& After deducting :is 7ersonal ex7enses and family obligations- Cose earned a daily net income bet9een 6)!&!! and 6/!&!!& Cose 0ernardo died of electrocution at t:e age of t:irty#t:ree (33$& Follo9ing t:e ruling in 9illa ,ey "ransit v& !ourt of ppeals and (avila v& & 2 :is life ex7ectancy 9ould allo9 :im t:irty and one t:ird (3!#"H3$ years more& Assuming on t:e basis of :is 6/!&!! daily net income translated to 6 -+!!&!! mont:ly or 6 /-/!!&!! yearly- t:e net income loss for t:e t:irty (3!$ years remaining of :is life ex7ectancy 9ould amount to 6/*+-!!!&!!& ?:ile 9e are of t:e o7inion t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent 0ernardo is entitled to indemnity for loss of earning ca7acity of :er deceased :usband 9e :o9e%er find t:at a modification is in order& T:e amount corres7onding to t:e loss of earning ca7acity is based mainly on t9o factors: (a$ t:e number of years

67
on t:e basis of 9:ic: t:e damages s:all be com7utedG and- (b$ t:e rate at 9:ic: t:e losses sustained by t:e 9ido9 and :er c:ildren s:ould be fixed& ?e consider t:at t:e deceased 9as married 9it: t:ree (3$ c:ildren and t:irty#t:ree (33$ years old at t:e time of :is deat:& 0y a77lying t:e formula: H3 x (/! # 33$ a (ife 4x7ectancy- t:e normal life ex7ectancy of t:e deceased 9ould be t:irty#one and one#t:ird (3"#"H3$ years and not t:irty (3!$ as found by t:e res7ondent court& 0y ta8ing into account t:e nature and quality of life of a meat %endor- it is :ard to concei%e t:at Cose 9ould still be 9or8ing for t:e full stretc: of t:e remaining t:irty#one (3"$ years of :is lifeG and t:erefore it is but reasonable to ma8e allo9ances and reduce :is life ex7ectancy to t9enty#fi%e ( .$ years& Anent t:e second factor- 9e are of t:e %ie9 t:at t:e Court of A77eals 9as correct in relying on t:e unrebutted testimony of Rosita 'oefe concerning t:e income of Cose- t:us 7ro%iding a basis for fixing t:e rate of damages incurred by t:e :eirs of t:e deceased& Rosita clarified as follo9s: <: 'o9 you said t:at you brot:er;s stall is Bust %ery near- about + to . meters a9ay from your stall& Do you 8no9 more or less :o9 your brot:er 9as earning by 9ay of income because t:e stall belongs also to you and your :usbandJ A: @es- sir (em7:asis su77lied$& <: Fo9 muc: more or less 9ould you say :is daily income from t:e stallif you 8no9J A: 6".! to 6 !! more- sometimes more t:an 6 !!& <: ?:at is t:isJ Aont:ly- daily- or 9:atJ A: Daily sir& <: 'o9- 9:en you said t:at :e earns sometimes ".! or !! in a day can (si%$ you tell t:is court more or less :o9 many in terms of net or in terms of 8ilos t:at :e can sell 9it: t:at amount dailyJ A: Aore t:an one :undred ("!!$ 8ilos- sir- or one :undred fifty 8ilos (".!$& <: 0y t:e 9ay 9:at 9as your brot:er selling also in t:at meat stallJ A: 6or8 and beef- sir& <: 2n terms of :o9 many slaug:ter(ed$ 7igs 9ould t:at be if you 8no9J "!! to ".! 8ilo A: T9o ( $ 7igs- sir& <: 2s t:is & & & Fo9 about meat- 2 mean aside from 7igsJ A: About t:irty (3!$ to fifty (.!$ 8ilos for beef& <: 'o9- 9ill you tell t:is court 9:y you 8no9 more or less t:at t:is is :is daily incomeJ A: 2 8no9 it because 2 ex7erienced it and 2 only transferred t:is stall to :im& <: And :is income- you said- of ".! daily to !! for t:e sale of 7or8 and meat 9ill you 8no9 9:at are :is family ex7enses being your brot:er and is li%ing 9it: you in t:e same 7lace at t:e slaug:ter :ouseJ A: About 6)!&!! to 6/!&!! a day& <: And 9:at are t:e ot:er income t:at your brot:er deri%e (si%$ aside from t:e meat stall after s7ending t:ese daily ex7ensesJ

68
A: 'one- sir& Contrary to t:e assertion of 04'4C5- t:ere is am7le basis for t:e fixing of damages incurred by t:e :eirs of t:e deceased& 'ot9it:standing t:e failure of 7ri%ate res7ondent 0ernardo to 7resent documentary e%idence to su77ort :er claim- t:e unrebutted testimony of Rosita 'oefe su77lied t:is deficiency& 2ndeed- t:ere is no reason to doubt t:e %eracity of Rosita;s testimony considering t:at s:e o9ned t:e %ery same stall t:at Cose 9as o7erating and managing before :is deat:& Fer testimony on t:e earning ca7acity of Cose is enoug: to establis: t:e rationale for t:e a9ard& T:e discre7ancy bet9een 7ri%ate res7ondent 0ernardo;s claims regarding :er :usband;s income as contained in t:e com7laint- 9:ere s:e alleged t:at Cose 9as earning no less t:an 6".!&!! a day- and :er testimony during trial t:at :e earned 63!!&!! daily- could not ob%iate t:e fact t:at at t:e time of :is deat: Cose 9as earning a li%ing as a meat %endor& 1ndoubtedly- :is untimely deat: de7ri%ed :is family of :is 7otential earnings& T:e allegation in t:e com7laint fixing :is income at 6".!&!! a day 9as corroborated by t:e unqualified declaration of Rosita 'oefe t:at :e 9as earning 6".!&!! to 6 !!&!! a day& 5b%iously t:e bloated figure of 63!!&!! gi%en by 7ri%ate res7ondent 0ernardo 9as an aftert:oug:t 7er:a7s im7elled by t:e 7ros7ect of being a9arded a greater sum& ?e no9 fix Cose;s daily gross income at 6".!&!! or :is annual gross income at 6.+-!!!&!!& After deducting 7ersonal ex7enses- :ouse:old and ot:er family obligations- 9e can safely assume t:at :is annual net income at t:e time of deat: 9as 6 )-!!!&!! or .!] of :is yearly gross earnings of 6.+-!!!&!!& Accordingly- determining t:e indemnity for t:e loss of earning ca7acity- 9e multi7ly t:e life ex7ectancy of t:e deceased as reduced to t9enty#fi%e ( .$ years by t:e annual net income of 6 )-!!!&!! 9:ic: gi%es us 6*).-!!!&!!& T:erefore- 9e deduce t:at :is net earning ca7acity is 6*).-!!!&!! com7uted as follo9s: 'et 4arning Ca7acity a (ife 4x7ectancy x Gross Annual 2ncome # 'ecessary (i%ing 4x7enses& Reduced to sim7ler form: 'et 4arning a (ife x Gross Annual O 'ecessary Ca7acity 4x7ectancy 2ncome (i%ing 4x7enses a 3 a 3"#"H3 (reduced to .$ x )-!!! a *).-!!!&!! a 6*).-!!!&!! '4T 2'C5A4 (533 (as reduced$ "hird& 04'4C5 contends t:at exem7lary damages s:ould not be a9arded as t:e amount claimed 9as not s7ecified in t:e body nor in t:e 7rayer of t:e com7laint- in contra%ention of t:e mandate in Rule "" of t:e 2nterim Rules and Guidelines im7lementing 06 " , 9:ic: requires t:e amount of damages to be s7ecifically alleged a77arently for t:e 7ur7ose of com7uting t:e doc8et fees& 04'4C5;s contention deser%es no merit& T:e amount of exem7lary damages need not be 7leaded in t:e com7laint because t:e same cannot be 7redetermined& 5ne can merely as8 t:at it be fixed by t:e court as t:e e%idence may 9arrant and be a9arded at its o9n discretion& 2n fact- t:e amount of exem7lary damages need not be 7ro%ed because its determination is contingent u7on or incidental to t:e amount of com7ensatory damages t:at may be a9arded to t:e claimant& Aoreo%er- t:is Court in a number of occasions ruled t:at t:e amount of doc8et fees to be 7aid s:ould be com7uted on t:e basis of t:e amount of t:e damages stated in t:e com7laint& ?:ere subsequently :o9e%er t:e Budgment a9arded a claim not s7ecified in t:e 7leading- or if s7ecified- t:e same 9as left for t:e determination of t:e court- an additional filing fee t:erefor may be assessed and considered to constitute a lien on t:e Budgment& (/! # 33$ x (6.+-!!! O )-!!!$ OOOO

69
?e are not una9are of t:e 7rinci7le laid do9n in "a%ay v& ,egional "rial !ourt of "agum 9:ere t:e trial court 9as ordered to eit:er ex7unge t:e uns7ecified claim for exem7lary damages or allo9 t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent to amend t:e com7laint 9it:in a reasonable time and s7ecify t:e amount corres7onding doc8et fees& Fo9e%er- 9e 7refer not to ex7unge t:e claim for exem7lary damages and 7ursue t:e "a%ay lead- for to delete t:e claim for exem7lary damages 9ould be to gi%e 7remium to 04'4C5;s gross negligence 9:ile to order t:e amendment of t:e com7laint 9ould be to unBustly delay t:e 7roceedings and 7rolong furt:er t:e almost fifteen#year agony of t:e intended beneficiaries& 4xem7lary damages are im7osed by 9ay of exam7le or correction for t:e 7ublic good- in addition to moral- tem7erate- liquidated or com7ensatory damages& 2t is a9arded as a deterrent to socially deleterious actions& 2n0uasi7deli%t- exem7lary damages are a9arded 9:en t:e act or omission 9:ic: caused inBury is attended by gross negligence& Gross negligence :as been defined as negligence c:aracteri=ed by t:e 9ant of e%en slig:t care- acting or omitting to act in a situation 9:ere t:ere is duty to act- not inad%ertently but 9illfully and intentionally- 9it: a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as ot:er 7ersons may be affected& 2n t:e instant case- t:ere is a clear s:o9ing of 04'4C5;s gross negligence 9:en it failed to detectmuc: less to re7air- for an inexcusably long 7eriod of ()$ years t:e uninsulated connection 9:ic: caused t:e deat: of Cose 0ernardo& T:e gra%ity of its ine7titude 9as com7ounded 9:en it installed t:e ser%ice dro7 line 9ay belo9 t:e 7rescribed minimum %ertical clearance of fifteen (".$ feet& Again7recautionary measures 9ere not ta8en in 9anton disregard of t:e 7ossible consequences& 1nder t:ese circumstances- 9e find no reason to disturb t:e finding of res7ondent court a9arding exem7lary damages to 7ri%ate res7ondent 0ernardo in t:e amount of 6 !-!!!&!!& Finally- 04'4C5 questions t:e grant of moral damages and attorney;s fees on t:e same ground of non#cul7ability& 2t is settled t:at moral damages are not intended to enric: t:e com7lainant but to ser%e to ob%iate :isH:er s7iritual suffering by reason of t:e cul7able action of t:e defendant& 2ts a9ard is aimed at t:e restoration of t:e s7iritualstatus 0uo ante- and it must be commensurate to t:e suffering inflicted& As a result of t:e accidental deat: of Cose- :is 9ido9 Caridad and t:eir t:ree (3$ minor c:ildren :ad to scrounge for a li%ing in order to 8ee7 t:eir :eads abo%e 9ater& Caridad :ad to de7end on t:e generosity of :er relati%es 9:ic: came intermittently and far bet9een and augment 9:ate%er s:e recei%ed from t:em 9it: :er meager income from :er small business& 3:e must :a%e agoni=ed o%er t:e 7ros7ect of raising :er t:ree (3$ small c:ildren all by :erself gi%en :er unstable financial condition& For t:e foregoing reasons- 9e sustain t:e a9ard of moral damages by res7ondent court exce7t as to t:e amount t:ereof& 2n t:e instant case- 9e are of t:e o7inion t:at moral damages in t:e amount of 6.!-!!!&!! are more in accord 9it: t:e inBury suffered by 7ri%ate res7ondent and :er c:ildren& As for attorney;s fees- 9e find no legal nor factual basis to o%erturn t:e ruling of res7ondent court on t:e matterG accordingly- t:e grant of 6 !-!!!&!! attorney;s fees to 7ri%ate res7ondent 0ernardo is ado7ted& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e assailed Decision of t:e Court of A77eals dated . 'o%ember ",,* ordering 7etitioner 0enguet 4lectric Coo7erati%e- 2nc&- to 7ay 7ri%ate res7ondent Caridad 5& 0ernardo as guardian ad litem for t:e minors CoBo- Ceffrey and Co#an- all surnamed 0ernardo- 6 !-!!!&!! as exem7lary damages- anot:er 6 !-!!!&!! for attorney;s fees- and 6.!-!!!&!! as indemnity for t:e deat: of Cose 0ernardo- is AFF2RA4D 9it: t:e A5D2F2CAT25' t:at t:e 6/*+-!!!&!! as net income loss is reduced to 6*).-!!!&!! and t:e 6"!!-!!!&!! as moral damages is also reduced to 6.!-!!!&!!&

E%?)#)$( &. P.),)??)n" P ="# and D"&", ?-"n$ C . (CA#G&R& 'o& 3 +!#R- 3e7tember !- ",+,$ Reyes- C0(:

70
2n t:e afternoon of Aay .- ",+*9:ile t:e 7laintiff#a77ellee and ot:er com7anions 9ere loading grassan electric transmission 9ire- installed and maintained by t:e defendant 6:ili77ine 6o9er and De%elo7ment Co&- 2nc&- alongside t:e road suddenly 7arted- and one of t:e bro8en ends :it t:e :ead of t:e 7laintiff as :e 9as about to board t:e truc8& As a result- 7laintiff recei%ed t:e full s:oc8 of +-+!! %olts of t:e 9ire& T:e electric c:arge coursed t:roug: :is body and caused extensi%e and serious multi7le burns from s8ull to eyes- lea%ing t:e bone ex7osed in some 7arts and causing intense 7ain and 9ounds t:at 9ere not com7letely :ealed 9:en t:e case 9as tried on Cune "/- ",+)- o%er one year after t:e incident& Defendant disclaimed suc: liability on t:e ground t:at t:e 7laintiff :ad failed to s:o9 any s7ecific act of negligence& T:e a77ellate court- in o%erruling t:is defense- :eld: b?:ile it is t:e rule- as contended by t:e a77ellant- t:at in case of non#contractual negligence- or cul7a aquiliana- t:e burden of 7roof is on t:e 7laintiff to establis: t:at t:e 7roximate cause of inBury 9as t:e negligence of t:e defendant- it is also a recogni=ed 7rinci7le t:at c9:ere t:e t:ing t:at causes inBury- 9it:out fault of t:e inBured 7erson- is under t:e exclusi%e control of t:e defendant and t:e inBury is suc: as in t:e ordinary course of t:ings does not occur as if :e :a%ing suc: control used 7ro7er care- it affords reasonable e%idence- in t:e absence of t:e ex7lanation- t:at t:e inBury arose from t:e defendantXs 9ant of care&X And t:e burden of e%idence is s:ifted to :im to establis: t:at :e :ad obser%ed due diligence and care& T:is rule is 8no9n by t:e name of res i7sa loquitur (t:e t:ing or transaction s7ea8s for itself$- and is 7eculiarly a77licable to t:e case at bar- 9:ere it is unquestioned t:at t:e 7laintiff :ad e%ery nig:t to be on t:e :ig:9ay- and t:e electric 9ire 9as under t:e sole control of t:e defendant com7any& 2n t:e ordinary course of e%ents- electric 9ires do not 7art suddenly in fair 9eat:er and inBure 7eo7le- unless t:ey are subBect to unusual strain and stress or t:ere are defects in t:eir installation- maintenance and su7er%ision- Bust as barrels do not ordinarily roll out of t:e 9are:ouse 9indo9s to inBure 7assers#by- unless someone is negligent (9:ic: is admittedly not 7resent$- t:e fact t:at t:e 9ire sna77ed suffices to raise a reasonable 7resum7tion of negligence in its installation- care and maintenance& T:ereafter- as obser%ed by C:ief 0aron 6olloc8 bif t:ere are any facts inconsistent 9it: negligence- it is for t:e defendant to 7ro%e&d

RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILS., INC. 3RCPI6. %& COURT OF APPEALS and LORETO DIONELA G&R& 'o& (#++)+/&August ,- ",/* 6ARA3- J.: 0efore 1s- is a 6etition for Re%ie9 by certiorari of t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals- modifying t:e decision of t:e trial court in a ci%il case for reco%ery of damages against 7etitioner cor7oration by reducing t:e a9ard to 7ri%ate res7ondent (oreto Dionela of moral damages from 6+!-!!! to 6l.-!!!and attorney;s fees from 63-!!! to 6 -!!!& T:e basis of t:e com7laint against t:e defendant cor7oration is a telegram sent t:roug: its Aanila 5ffice to t:e offended 7arty- (oreto Dionela- reading as follo9s: ")* A3 CR " ".6A , 6A2D AA'DA(1@5'G C1( CA0A'GA' (4GA362 C2T@ #** (5R4T5 D25'4(A

71
?2R4 ARR2EA( 5F CF4CI F4R (5R4T5 D25'4(A#CA0A'GA'#?2R4 ARR2EA( 5F CF4CI#64R "". 6A 3A 2@5 ?A(A'G 6AI2'A0A'G D1AAT2'G IA D2@A'#?A(A#IA'G 6ADA(A D2T5 IAF2T 01(01( A5 (7& ",- Annex >A>$ 6laintiff#res7ondent (oreto Dionela alleges t:at t:e defamatory 9ords on t:e telegram sent to :im not only 9ounded :is feelings but also caused :im undue embarrassment and affected ad%ersely :is business as 9ell because ot:er 7eo7le :a%e come to 8no9 of said defamatory 9ords& Defendant cor7oration as a defense- alleges t:at t:e additional 9ords in Tagalog 9as a 7ri%ate Bo8e bet9een t:e sending and recei%ing o7erators and t:at t:ey 9ere not addressed to or intended for 7laintiff and t:erefore did not form 7art of t:e telegram and t:at t:e Tagalog 9ords are not defamatory& T:e telegram sent t:roug: its facilities 9as recei%ed in its station at (egas7i City& 'obody ot:er t:an t:e o7erator manned t:e telety7e mac:ine 9:ic: automatically recei%es telegrams being transmitted& T:e said telegram 9as detac:ed from t:e mac:ine and 7laced inside a sealed en%elo7e and deli%ered to 7laintiff- ob%iously as is& T:e additional 9ords in Tagalog 9ere ne%er noticed and 9ere included in t:e telegram 9:en deli%ered& T:e trial court in finding for t:e 7laintiff ruled as follo9s: T:ere is no question t:at t:e additional 9ords in Tagalog are libelous& T:ey clearly im7ute a %ice or defect of t:e 7laintiff& ?:et:er or not t:ey 9ere intended for t:e 7laintiff- t:e effect on t:e 7laintiff is t:e same& Any 7erson reading t:e additional 9ords in Tagalog 9ill naturally t:in8 t:at t:ey refer to t:e addressee- t:e 7laintiff& T:ere is no indication from t:e face of t:e telegram t:at t:e additional 9ords in Tagalog 9ere sent as a 7ri%ate Bo8e bet9een t:e o7erators of t:e defendant& T:e defendant is sued directly not as an em7loyer& T:e business of t:e defendant is to transmit telegrams& 2t 9ill o7en t:e door to frauds and allo9 t:e defendant to act 9it: im7unity if it can esca7e liability by t:e sim7le ex7edient of s:o9ing t:at its em7loyees acted beyond t:e sco7e of t:eir assigned tas8s& T:e liability of t:e defendant is 7redicated not only on Article 33 of t:e Ci%il Code of t:e 6:ili77ines but on t:e follo9ing articles of said Code: ART& ",&# 4%ery 7erson must- in t:e exercise of :is rig:ts and in t:e 7erformance of :is duties- act 9it: Bustice- gi%e e%eryone :is due- and obser%e :onesty and good fait:& ART& !&#4%ery 7erson 9:o- contrary to la9- 9ilfully or negligently causes damage to anot:er- s:all indemnify t:e latter for t:e same& T:ere is sufficient 7ublication of t:e libelous Tagalog 9ords& T:e office file of t:e defendant containing co7ies of telegrams recei%ed are o7en and :eld toget:er only by a metal fastener& Aoreo%er- t:ey are o7en to %ie9 and ins7ection by t:ird 7arties& 2t follo9s t:at t:e 7laintiff is entitled to damages and attorney;s fees& T:e 7laintiff is a businessman& T:e libelous Tagalog 9ords must :a%e affected :is business and social standing in t:e community& T:e Court fixes t:e amount of 6+!-!!!&!! as t:e reasonable amount of moral damages and t:e amount of 63-!!!&!! as attorney;s fee 9:ic: t:e defendant s:ould 7ay t:e 7laintiff& (77& ".#"*- Record on A77eal$ T:e res7ondent a77ellate court in its assailed decision confirming t:e aforegoing findings of t:e lo9er court stated: T:e 7roximate cause- t:erefore- resulting in inBury to a77ellee- 9as t:e failure of t:e a77ellant to ta8e t:e necessary or 7recautionary ste7s to a%oid t:e occurrence of t:e

72
:umiliating incident no9 com7lained of& T:e com7any :ad not im7osed any safeguard against suc: e%entualities and t:is %oid in its o7erating 7rocedure does not s7ea8 9ell of its concern for t:eir clientele;s interests& 'egligence :ere is %ery 7atent& T:is negligence is im7utable to a77ellant and not to its em7loyees& T:e claim t:at t:ere 9as no 7ublication of t:e libelous 9ords in Tagalog is also 9it:out merit& T:e fact t:at a carbon co7y of t:e telegram 9as filed among ot:er telegrams and left to :ang for t:e 7ublic to see- o7en for ins7ection by a t:ird 7arty is sufficient 7ublication& 2t 9ould :a%e been ot:er9ise 7er:a7s :ad t:e telegram been 7laced and 8e7t in a secured 7lace 9:ere no one may :a%e :ad a c:ance to read it 9it:out a77ellee;s 7ermission& T:e additional Tagalog 9ords at t:e bottom of t:e telegram are- as correctly found by t:e lo9er court- libelous 7er se- and from 9:ic: malice may be 7resumed in t:e absence of any s:o9ing of good intention and Bustifiable moti%e on t:e 7art of t:e a77ellant& T:e la9 im7lies damages in t:is instance (<uemel %s& Court of A77eals- (# ),+- Canuary "*- ",*/G 3CRA ++$& T:e a9ard of 6+!-!!!&!! as moral damages is :ereby reduced to 6".-!!!&!! and for attorney;s fees t:e amount of 6 -!!!&!! is a9arded& (77& # 3- record$ After a motion for reconsideration 9as denied by t:e a77ellate court- 7etitioner came to 1s 9it: t:e follo9ing: A332G'A4'T 5F 4RR5R3 2 T:e Fonorable Court of A77eals erred in :olding t:at 6etitioner#em7loyer s:ould ans9er directly and 7rimarily for t:e ci%il liability arising from t:e criminal act of its em7loyee& 22 T:e Fonorable Court of A77eals erred in :olding t:at t:ere 9as sufficient 7ublication of t:e alleged libelous telegram in question- as contem7lated by la9 on libel& 222 T:e Fonorable Court of A77eals erred in :olding t:at t:e liability of 7etitioner#com7any# em7loyer is 7redicated on Articles ", and ! of t:e Ci%il Code- Articles on Fuman Relations& 2E T:e Fonorable Court of A77eals erred in a9arding Atty;s& fees& (7& +- Record$ 6etitioner;s contentions do not merit our consideration& T:e action for damages 9as filed in t:e lo9er court directly against res7ondent cor7oration not as an em7loyer subsidiarily liable under t:e 7ro%isions of Article ""*" of t:e 'e9 Ci%il Code in relation to Art& "!3 of t:e Re%ised 6enal Code& T:e cause of action of t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent is based on Arts& ", and ! of t:e 'e9 Ci%il Code (su7ra$& As 9ell as on res7ondent;s breac: of contract t:ru t:e negligence of its o9n em7loyees& 4 6etitioner is a domestic cor7oration engaged in t:e business of recei%ing and transmitting messages& 4%erytime a 7erson transmits a message t:roug: t:e facilities of t:e 7etitioner- a contract is entered into& 17on recei7t of t:e rate or fee fixed- t:e 7etitioner underta8es to transmit t:e message accurately& T:ere is no question t:at in t:e case at bar- libelous matters 9ere included in t:e message transmitted- 9it:out t:e consent or 8no9ledge of t:e sender& T:ere is a clear case of breac: of contract by t:e 7etitioner in adding extraneous and libelous matters in t:e message sent to t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent& As a cor7oration- t:e 7etitioner can act only t:roug: its em7loyees& Fence t:e acts of its em7loyees in recei%ing and transmitting messages are t:e acts of t:e 7etitioner& To :old t:at t:e

73
7etitioner is not liable directly for t:e acts of its em7loyees in t:e 7ursuit of 7etitioner;s business is to de7ri%e t:e general 7ublic a%ailing of t:e ser%ices of t:e 7etitioner of an effecti%e and adequate remedy& 2n most cases- negligence must be 7ro%ed in order t:at 7laintiff may reco%er& Fo9e%er- since negligence may be :ard to substantiate in some cases- 9e may a77ly t:e doctrine of R43 263A (5<12T1R (t:e t:ing s7ea8s for itself$- by considering t:e 7resence of facts or circumstances surrounding t:e inBury& ?F4R4F5R4- 7remises considered- t:e Budgment of t:e a77ellate court is :ereby AFF2RA4D&

HIDALGO ENTERPRISES, INC. %& GUILLERMO +ALANDAN, ANSELMA ANILA and THE COURT OF APPEALS G&R& 'o& (#3+ &Cune "3- ",. 04'GY5'- J.: T:is is an a77eal by %ertiorari- from a decision of t:e Court of A77eals requiring Fidalgo 4nter7rises2nc& to 7ay Guillermo 0alandan and :is 9ife- damages in t:e sum of 6 -!!! for t:e deat: of t:eir son Aario& 2t a77ears t:at t:e 7etitioner Fidalgo 4nter7rises- 2nc& >9as t:e o9ner of an ice#7lant factory in t:e City of 3an 6ablo- (aguna- in 9:ose 7remises 9ere installed t9o tan8s full of 9ater- nine feet dee7- for cooling 7ur7oses of its engine& ?:ile t:e factory com7ound 9as surrounded 9it: fence- t:e tan8s t:emsel%es 9ere not 7ro%ided 9it: any 8ind of fence or to7 co%ers& T:e edges of t:e tan8s 9ere barely a foot :ig: from t:e surface of t:e ground& T:roug: t:e 9ide gate entrance- 9:ic: is continually o7en- motor %e:icles :auling ice and 7ersons buying said commodity 7assed- and any one could easily enter t:e said factory- as :e 7leased& T:ere 9as no guard assigned on t:e gate& At about noon of A7ril "*- ",+/- 7laintiff;s son- Aario 0alandan- a boy barely / years old- 9:ile 7laying 9it: and in com7any of ot:er boys of :is age entered t:e factory 7remises t:roug: t:e gate- to ta8e a bat: in one of said tan8sG and 9:ile t:us bat:ing- Aario san8 to t:e bottom of t:e tan8- only to be fis:ed out lateralready a cada%er- :a%ing been died of >as7:yxia secondary to dro9ning&> T:e Court of A77eals- and t:e Court of First 2nstance of (aguna- too8 t:e %ie9 t:at t:e 7etitioner maintained an attracti%e nuisance (t:e tan8s$- and neglected to ado7t t:e necessary 7recautions to a%oid accidents to 7ersons entering its 7remises& 2t a77lied t:e doctrine of attracti%e nuisance- of American origin- recogni=ed in t:is Curisdiction in "aylor vs. Manila Ele%tri% "* 6:il&- /& T:e doctrine may be stated- in s:ort- as follo9s: 5ne 9:o maintains on :is 7remises dangerous instrumentalities or a77liances of a c:aracter li8ely to attract c:ildren in 7lay- and 9:o fails to exercise ordinary care to 7re%ent c:ildren from 7laying t:ere9it: or resorting t:ereto- is liable to a c:ild of tender years 9:o is inBured t:ereby- e%en if t:e c:ild is tec:nically a tres7asser in t:e 7remises& (#ee *. C&C&3&- 7& +..&$ T:e 7rinci7le reason for t:e doctrine is t:at t:e condition or a77liance in question alt:oug: its danger is a77arent to t:ose of age- is so enticing or alluring to c:ildren of tender years as to induce t:em to a77roac:- get on or use it- and t:is attracti%eness is an im7lied in%itation to suc: c:ildren (*. C&C&3&- 7& +./$& 'o9- is a s9imming 7ool or 9ater tan8 an instrumentality or a77liance li8ely to attract t:e little c:ildren in 7layJ 2n ot:er 9ords is t:e body of 9ater an attracti%e nuisanceJ T:e great maBority of American decisions say no& T:e attracti%e nuisance doctrine generally is not a77licable to bodies of 9ater- artificial as 9ell as natural- in t:e absence of some unusual condition or artificial feature ot:er t:an t:e mere 9ater and its location&

74
T:ere are numerous cases in 9:ic: t:e attracti%e nuisance doctrine :as not been :eld not to be a77licable to 7onds or reser%oirs- 7ools of 9ater- streams- canals- dams- ditc:es- cul%ertsdrains- cess7ools or se9er 7ools- & & & (*. C&C&3&- 7& +)* et seg& citing decisions of CaliforniaGeorgia- 2da:o- 2llinois- Iansas- 2o9a- (ouisiana- Aiss&- Aissouri- Aontana- 58la:oma6ennsyl%ania- Tennessee- Texas- 'ebras8a- ?isconsin&$ 2n fairness to t:e Court of A77eals it s:ould be stated t:at t:e abo%e %olume of Cor7us Curis 3ecundum 9as 7ublis:ed in ",.!- 9:ereas its decision 9as 7romulgated on 3e7tember 3!- ",+,& T:e reason 9:y a s9imming 7ool or 7ond or reser%oir of 9ater is not considered an attracti%e nuisance 9as lucidly ex7lained by t:e 2ndiana A77ellate Court as follo9s: 'ature :as created streams- la8es and 7ools 9:ic: attract c:ildren& (ur8ing in t:eir 9aters is al9ays t:e danger of dro9ning& Against t:is danger c:ildren are early instructed so t:at t:ey are sufficiently 7resumed to 8no9 t:e dangerG and if t:e o9ner of 7ri%ate 7ro7erty creates an artificial 7ool on :is o9n 7ro7erty- merely du7licating t:e 9or8 of nature 9it:out adding any ne9 danger- & & & (:e$ is not liable because of :a%ing created an >attracti%e nuisance&> Anderson %s& Reit:#Riley Const& Co&- '& 4&- nd- "/+- "/.G "" 2nd& A77&- ")!& T:erefore- as 7etitioner;s tan8s are not classified as attracti%e nuisance- t:e question 9:et:er t:e 7etitioner :ad ta8en reasonable 7recautions becomes immaterial& And t:e ot:er issue submitted by 7etitioner O t:at t:e 7arents of t:e boy 9ere guilty of contributory negligence 7recluding reco%erybecause t:ey left for Aanila on t:at unluc8y day lea%ing t:eir son under t:e care of no res7onsible indi%idual O needs no furt:er discussion& T:e a77ealed decision is re%ersed and t:e Fidalgo 4nter7rises- 2nc& is absol%ed from liability& 'o costs& MA>AO SUGAR CENTRAL CO., INC. and GUILLERMO ARANETA %& HON. COURT OF APPEALS and HERMINIA FAMOSO G&R& 'o& /3+,"&August )- ",,! CR1Y- J.: To say t:e least- t:e Court %ie9s 9it: regret t:e adamant refusal of 7etitioner Aa#ao 3ugar Central to recom7ense t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent for t:e deat: of Culio Famoso- t:eir main source of su77ort- 9:o 9as 8illed in line of duty 9:ile in its em7loy& 2t is not only a matter of la9 but also of com7assion on 9:ic: 9e are called u7on to rule today& ?e s:all state at t:e outset t:at on bot: counts t:e 7etition must fail& 5n Aarc: - ",/!- Famoso 9as riding 9it: a co#em7loyee in t:e caboose or >carbonera> of 6lymout: 'o& " - a cargo train of t:e 7etitioner- 9:en t:e locomoti%e 9as suddenly derailed& Fe and :is com7anion Bum7ed off to esca7e inBury- but t:e train fell on its side- caug:t :is legs by its 9:eels and 7inned :im do9n& Fe 9as declared dead on t:e s7ot& T:e claims for deat: and ot:er benefits :a%ing been denied by t:e 7etitioner- t:e :erein 7ri%ate res7ondent filed suit in t:e Regional Trial Court of 0ago City& Cudge Aarietta Fobilla#Alinio ruled in :er fa%or but deducted from t:e total damages a9arded .] t:ereof for t:e decedent;s contributory negligence and t:e total 7ension of 6+"-3*)&*! 7ri%ate res7ondent and :er c:ildren 9ould be recei%ing from t:e 333 for t:e next fi%e years& T:e dis7ositi%e 7ortion of t:e decision read: ?F4R4F5R4- in %ie9 of t:e foregoing facts and circumstances 7resent in t:is caset:e Court order- as it does :ereby order t:e defendant Aa#ao 3ugar Central t:ru its Aanager Ar& Guillermo @& Araneta to 7ay 7laintiff t:e follo9ing amount: 63!-!!!&!! O for t:e deat: of 7laintiff;s :usband- t:e late Culio Famoso

75
63!-!!!&!! O for actual- exem7lary and moral damages 6"!-!!!&!! O loss of earnings for t9enty ( !$ years 63-!!!&!! O funeral ex7enses OOOOO 6)3-!!!&!! O Total Damages (ess: 6"/- .!&!! O .] for t:e deceased;s contributory negligence (ess: 6+"-3*)&*! O 7ension 7laintiff and :er minor c:ildren 9ould OOOOO be recei%ing for fi%e (.$ years from t:e 333 6l3-3/ &+! 6lus: 63-!!!&!! O Attorney;s fees and cost of t:is suit OOOOO 6l*-3/ &+! O Total amount 7ayable to t:e 7laintiff& OOOOO 35 5RD4R4D& T:e 9ido9 a77ealed- claiming t:at t:e deductions 9ere illegal& 3o did t:e 7etitioner- but on t:e ground t:at it 9as not negligent and t:erefore not liable at all& 2n its o9n decision- t:e Court of A77eals sustained t:e rulings of t:e trial court exce7t as to t:e contributory negligence of t:e deceased and disallo9ed t:e deductions 7rotested by t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent& T:us- t:e res7ondent court declared: ?F4R4F5R4- t:e decision a77ealed from is A5D2F24D by ordering t:e defendant# a77ellant to 7ay t:e 7laintiff#a77ellee t:e follo9ing amounts: 63!-!!!&!!- for t:e deat: of Culio Famoso 63!-!!!&!!- for actual- exem7lary and moral damages 6"!-!!!&!!- for loss of earnings for t9enty ( !$ years 63-!!!&!!- for funeral ex7enses 63-!!!&!!- for attorney;s fees OOOO 6)*-!!!&!! Total Amount aaaaaaaa 2n t:is 7etition- t:e res7ondent court is faulted for finding t:e 7etitioner guilty of negligence not9it:standing its defense of due diligence under Article ")* of t:e Ci%il Code and for disallo9ing t:e deductions made by t:e trial court& 2n%estigation of t:e accident re%ealed t:at t:e derailment of t:e locomoti%e 9as caused by 7rotruding rails 9:ic: :ad come loose because t:ey 9ere not connected and fixed in 7lace by fis: 7lates& Fis: 7lates are described as stri7s of iron /> to " > long and 3 "H > t:ic8 9:ic: are attac:ed to t:e rails by + bolts- t9o on eac: side- to 8ee7 t:e rails aligned& Alt:oug: t:ey could be remo%ed only 9it: s7ecial equi7ment- t:e fis: 7lates t:at s:ould :a%e 8e7t t:e rails aligned could not be found at t:e scene of t:e accident&

76
T:ere is no question t:at t:e maintenance of t:e rails- for t:e 7ur7ose inter alia of 7re%enting derailments- 9as t:e res7onsibility of t:e 7etitioner- and t:at t:is res7onsibility 9as not disc:arged& According to Cose Treyes- its o9n 9itness- 9:o 9as in c:arge of t:e control and su7er%ision of its train o7erations- cases of derailment in t:e milling district 9ere frequent and t:ere 9ere e%en times 9:en suc: derailments 9ere re7orted e%ery :our& T:e 7etitioner s:ould t:erefore :a%e ta8en more 7rudent ste7s to 7re%ent suc: accidents instead of 9aiting until a life 9as finally lost because of its negligence& T:e argument t:at no one :ad been :urt before because of suc: derailments is of course not acce7table& And neit:er are 9e im7ressed by t:e claim t:at t:e bra8emen and t:e conductors 9ere required to re7ort any defect in t:e condition of t:e rail9ays and to fill out 7rescribed forms for t:e 7ur7ose& For 9:at is im7ortant is t:at t:e 7etitioner s:ould act on t:ese re7orts and not merely recei%e and file t:em& T:e fact t:at it is not easy to detect if t:e fis: 7lates are missing is no excuse eit:er& 2ndeed- it s:ould stress all t:e more t:e need for t:e res7onsible em7loyees of t:e 7etitioner to ma8e 7eriodic c:ec8s and actually go do9n to t:e railroad trac8s and see if t:e fis: 7lates 9ere in 7lace& 2t is argued t:at t:e locomoti%e t:at 9as derailed 9as on its 9ay bac8 and t:at it :ad 7assed t:e same rails earlier 9it:out accident& T:e suggestion is t:at t:e rails 9ere 7ro7erly aligned t:en- but t:at does not necessarily mean t:ey 9ere still aligned after9ards& 2t is 7ossible t:at t:e fis: 7lates 9ere loosened and detac:ed during its first tri7 and t:e rails 9ere as a result already mis#aligned during t:e return tri7& 0ut t:e Court feels t:at e%en t:is 9as unli8ely- for- as earlier noted- t:e fis: 7lates 9ere su77osed to :a%e been bolted to t:e rails and could be remo%ed only 9it: s7ecial tools& T:e fact t:at t:e fis: 7lates 9ere not found later at t:e scene of t:e mis:a7 may s:o9 t:ey 9ere ne%er t:ere at all to begin 9it: or :ad been remo%ed long before& At any rate- t:e absence of t:e fis: 7lates Z 9:ate%er t:e cause or reason Z is by itself alone 7roof of t:e negligence of t:e 7etitioner& ,es ipsa lo0uitur& T:e doctrine 9as described recently in 2ayugan v. )ntermediate ppellate Court- t:us: ?:ere t:e t:ing 9:ic: causes inBury is s:o9n to be under t:e management of t:e defendant- and t:e accident is suc: as in t:e ordinary course of t:ings does not :a77en if t:ose 9:o :a%e t:e management use 7ro7er care- it affords reasonable e%idence- in t:e absence of an ex7lanation by t:e defendant- t:at t:e accident arose from 9ant of care& T:e 7etitioner also disclaims liability on t:e ground of Article ")* of t:e Ci%il Code- contending it :as exercised due diligence in t:e selection and su7er%ision of its em7loyees& T:e Court cannot agree& T:e record s:o9s it 9as in fact lax in requiring t:em to exercise t:e necessary %igilance in maintaining t:e rails in good condition to 7re%ent t:e derailments t:at sometimes :a77ened >e%ery :our&> 5b%iously- merely ordering t:e bra8emen and conductors to fill out 7rescribed forms re7orting derailments#9:ic: re7orts :a%e not been acted u7on as s:o9n by t:e :ourly derailments is#not t:e 8ind of su7er%ision en%isioned by t:e Ci%il Code& ?e also do not see :o9 t:e decedent can be :eld guilty of contributory negligence from t:e mere fact t:at :e 9as not at :is assigned station 9:en t:e train 9as derailed& T:at mig:t :a%e been a %iolation of com7any rules but could not :a%e directly contributed to :is inBury- as t:e 7etitioner suggests& 2t is 7ure s7eculation to su77ose t:at :e 9ould not :a%e been inBured if :e :ad stayed in t:e front car rat:er t:an at t:e bac8 and t:at :e :ad been 8illed because :e c:ose to ride in t:e caboose& Contributory negligence :as been defined as >t:e act or omission amounting to 9ant of ordinary care on t:e 7art of t:e 7erson inBured 9:ic:- concurring 9it: t:e defendant;s negligence- is t:e 7roximate cause of t:e inBury&> 2t :as been :eld t:at >to :old a 7erson as :a%ing contributed to :is inBuries- it must be s:o9n t:at :e 7erformed an act t:at broug:t about :is inBuries in disregard of 9arnings or signs of an im7ending danger to :ealt: and body&> T:ere is no s:o9ing t:at t:e caboose 9:ere Famoso 9as riding 9as a dangerous 7lace and t:at :e rec8lessly dared to stay t:ere des7ite 9arnings or signs of im7ending danger&

77
T:e last 7oint raised by t:e 7etitioner is easily resol%ed& Citing t:e case of Floresca %& 6:ilex Aining Cor7oration- it argues t:at t:e res7ondent court erred in disaut:ori=ing t:e deduction from t:e total damages a9arded t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent of t:e amount of 6+"-3*)&*!- re7resenting t:e 7ension to be recei%ed by t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent from t:e 3ocial 3ecurity 3ystem for a 7eriod of fi%e years& T:e argument is t:at suc: deduction 9as quite 7ro7er because of Art& ")3 of t:e (abor Code- as amended& T:is article 7ro%ides t:at any amount recei%ed by t:e :eirs of a deceased em7loyee from t:e 4m7loyees Com7ensation Commission- 9:ose funds are administered by t:e 333- s:all be exclusi%e of all ot:er amounts t:at may ot:er9ise be claimed under t:e Ci%il Code and ot:er 7ertinent la9s& T:e amount to be 7aid by t:e 333 re7resents t:e usual 7ension recei%ed by t:e :eirs of a deceased em7loyee 9:o 9as a member of t:e 333 at t:e time of :is deat: and :ad regularly contributed :is 7remiums as required by t:e 3ystem& T:e 7ension is t:e benefit deri%able from suc: contributions& 2t does not re7resent t:e deat: benefits 7ayable under t:e ?or8men;s Com7ensation Act to an em7loyee 9:o dies as a result of a 9or8#connected inBury& 2ndeed- t:e certification from t:e 333 submitted by t:e 7etitioner is sim7ly to t:e effect t:at: T5 ?F5A 2T AA@ C5'C4R': T:is is to certify t:at Ars& Ferminia Eda& de Famoso is a reci7ient of a mont:ly 7ension from t:e 3ocial 3ecurity 3ystem arising from t:e deat: of :er late :usband- Culio Famoso- an ### member 'ith ### No. C@7C<:<@=7<. T:is certification is issued to Aa#ao 3ugar Central for 9:ate%er legal 7ur7ose it may ser%e best& 2ssued t:is /t: day of A7ril ",/3 in 0acolod City- 6:ili77ines& G5D5FR4D5 3& 3235' Regional Aanager 0y: (3GD&$ C53A4 <& 04RA45- CR& C:ief- 0enefits 0ranc: 2t does not indicate t:at t:e 7ension is to be ta8en from t:e funds of t:e 4CC& T:e certification 9ould :a%e said so if t:e 7ension re7resented t:e deat: benefits accruing to t:e :eirs under t:e ?or8men;s Com7ensation Act& T:is conclusion is su77orted by t:e ex7ress 7ro%ision of Art& ")3 as amended- 9:ic: categorically states t:at: Art& ")3& E.%lusiveness of liability& O 1nless ot:er9ise 7ro%ided- t:e liability of t:e 3tate 2nsurance Fund under t:is Title s:all be exclusi%e and in 7lace of all ot:er liabilities of t:e em7loyer to t:e em7loyee- :is de7endents or anyone ot:er9ise entitled to recei%e damages on be:alf of t:e em7loyee or :is de7endents& T:e 7ayment of com7ensation under t:is Title shall not bar the re%overy of benefits as provided for in 3ection *,, of t:e Re%ised Administrati%e Code- ,epubli% %t Numbered Eleven hundred si.ty7one, as amended, Common9ealt: Act 'umbered 5ne :undred eig:ty# six- as amended- Re7ublic Act 'umbered 3ix :undred ten- as amended- Re7ublic Act 'umbered Forty#eig:t :undred sixty#four- as amended and ot:er la9s 9:ose benefits are administered by t:e 3ystem or by ot:er agencies of t:e go%ernment& (4m7:asis su77lied$& Re7& Act 'o& ""*"- as amended- is t:e 3ocial 3ecurity (a9& As obser%ed by Custice C&0&(& Reyes in t:e case of 9alen%ia v. Manila Da%ht !lub- 9:ic: is still controlling:

78
& & & 0y t:eir nature and 7ur7ose- t:e sic8ness or disability benefits to 9:ic: a member of t:e 3ystem may be entitled under t:e 3ocial 3ecurity la9 (Re7& Act 'o& ""*"- as amended by Re7& Acts 'os& "), and *./$ are not t:e same as t:e com7ensation t:at may be claimed against t:e em7loyer under t:e ?or8men;s Com7ensation Act or t:e Ci%il Code- so t:at 7ayment to t:e member em7loyee of social security benefits 9ould not 9i7e out or extinguis: t:e em7loyer;s liability for t:e inBury or illness contracted by :is em7loyee in t:e course of or during t:e em7loyment& 2t must be reali=ed t:at- under t:e ?or8men;s Com7ensation Act (or t:e Ci%il Code- in a 7ro7er case$- t:e em7loyer is required to com7ensate t:e em7loyee for t:e sic8ness or inBury arising in t:e course of t:e em7loyment because t:e industry is su77osed to be res7onsible t:ereforeG 9:ereas- under t:e 3ocial 3ecurity Act- 7ayment is being made because t:e :a=ard s7ecifically co%ered by t:e members:i7- and for 9:ic: t:e em7loyee :ad 7ut u7 :is o9n money- :ad ta8en 7lace& As t:is Court :ad said: & & & To deny 7ayment of social security benefits because t:e deat: or inBury or confinement is com7ensable under t:e ?or8men;s Com7ensation Act 9ould be to de7ri%e t:e em7loyees members of t:e 3ystem of t:e statutory benefits boug:t and 7aid for by t:em- since t:ey contributed t:eir money to t:e general common fund out of 9:ic: benefits are 7aid& 2n ot:er 9ords- t:e benefits 7ro%ided for in t:e ?or8men;s Com7ensation Act accrues to t:e em7loyees concerned due to t:e :a=ards in%ol%ed in t:eir em7loyment and is made a burden on t:e em7loyment itself Fo9e%er- social security benefits are 7aid to t:e 3ystem;s members- by reason of t:eir members:i7 t:erein for 9:ic: t:ey contribute t:eir money to a general common fund & & & & 2t may be added t:at 9:ereas social security benefits are intended to 7ro%ide insurance or 7rotection against t:e :a=ards or ris8s for 9:ic: t:ey are establis:ed- e&g&- disability- sic8ness- old age or deat:irres7ecti%e of 9:et:er t:ey arose from or in t:e course of t:e em7loyment or not- t:e com7ensation recei%able under t:e ?or8men;s Com7ensation la9 is in t:e nature of indemnity for t:e inBury or damage suffered by t:e em7loyee or :is de7endents on account of t:e em7loyment& (Rural Transit 4m7loyees Asso& %s& 0ac:rac: Trans& Co&" 3CRA " *3 M",*)"N$ And according to Custice Cesus G& 0arrera in Benguet !onsolidated, )n%. v. #o%ial #e%urity #ystem:> T:e 7:iloso7:y underlying t:e ?or8men;s Com7ensation Act is to ma8e t:e 7ayment of t:e benefits 7ro%ided for t:erein as a res7onsibility of t:e industry- on t:e ground t:at it is industry 9:ic: s:ould bear t:e resulting deat: or inBury to em7loyees engaged in t:e said industry& 5n t:e ot:er :and- social security sic8ness benefits are not 7aid as a burden on t:e industry- but are 7aid to t:e members of t:e 3ystem as a matter of rig:t9:ene%er t:e :a=ards 7ro%ided for in t:e la9 occurs& To deny 7ayment of social security benefits because t:e deat: or inBury or confinement is com7ensable under t:e ?or8men;s Com7ensation Act 9ould be to de7ri%e t:e em7loyees#members of t:e 3ystem of t:e statutory benefits boug:t and 7aid for by t:em- since t:ey contribute t:eir money to t:e general common fund out of 9:ic: benefits are 7aid& 2n ot:er 9ords- t:e benefits 7ro%ided for in t:e ?or8men;s Com7ensation Act accrues to t:e em7loyees concerned- due to t:e :a=ards in%ol%ed in t:eir em7loyment and is made a burden on t:e em7loyment itself Fo9e%er- social security benefits are 7aid to t:e 3ystem;s members- by reason of t:eir members:i7 t:erein for 9:ic: t:ey contributed t:eir money to a general common fund& Famoso;s 9ido9 and nine minor c:ildren :a%e since :is deat: soug:t to reco%er t:e Bust recom7ense t:ey need for t:eir su77ort& 2nstead of lending a sym7at:etic :and- t:e 7etitioner :as soug:t to

79
frustrate t:eir efforts and :as e%en come to t:is Court to see8 our assistance in defeating t:eir claim& T:at relief#and 9e are :a77y to say t:is must be 9it::eld& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e a77ealed decision is AFF2RA4D in toto& T:e 7etition is D4'24D- 9it: costs against t:e 7etitioner&

PHILIPPINE +ANK OF COMMERCE, n = a!% #!"d !8 PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL +ANK, ROGELIO LACSON, DIGNA DE LEON, MARIA ANGELITA PASCUAL, "$ a,., %& THE COURT OF APPEALS, ROMMEL@S MARKETING CORP., #"?#"%"n$"d !8 ROMEO LIPANA, )$% P#"%)d"n$ * G"n"#a, ManaA"# G&R& 'o& ,)* * Aarc: "+- ",,) F4RA53232AA- CR&- J.: C:allenged in t:is 7etition for re%ie9 is t:e Decision dated February /- ",," rendered by 7ublic res7ondent Court of A77eals 9:ic: affirmed t:e Decision dated 'o%ember ".- ",/. of t:e Regional Trial Court- 'ational Ca7ital Cudicial Region- 0ranc: C(` ("*!$- 6asig City- in Ci%il Case 'o& ) // entitled >Rommel;s Aar8eting Cor7oration- etc& %& 6:ili77ine 0an8 of Commerce- no9 absorbed by 6:ili77ine Commercial and 2ndustrial 0an8&> T:e case stemmed from a com7laint filed by t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent Rommel;s Aar8eting Cor7oration (RAC for bre%ity$- re7resented by its 6resident and General Aanager Romeo (i7ana- to reco%er from t:e former 6:ili77ine 0an8 of Commerce (60C for bre%ity$- no9 absorbed by t:e 6:ili77ine Commercial 2nternational 0an8- t:e sum of 63!+-,),&)+ re7resenting %arious de7osits it :ad made in its current account 9it: said ban8 but 9:ic: 9ere not credited to its account- and 9ere instead de7osited to t:e account of one 0ien%enido Cotas- allegedly due to t:e gross and inexcusable negligence of t:e 7etitioner ban8& RAC maintained t9o ( $ se7arate current accounts- Current Account 'os& .3#!",/!#3 and .3#!")+/# )- 9it: t:e 6asig 0ranc: of 60C in connection 9it: its business of selling a77liances& 2n t:e ordinary and usual course of ban8ing o7erations- current account de7osits are acce7ted by t:e ban8 on t:e basis of de7osit sli7s 7re7ared and signed by t:e de7ositor- or t:e latter;s agent or re7resentati%e- 9:o indicates t:erein t:e current account number to 9:ic: t:e de7osit is to be credited- t:e name of t:e de7ositor or current account :older- t:e date of t:e de7osit- and t:e amount of t:e de7osit eit:er in cas: or c:ec8s& T:e de7osit sli7 :as an u77er 7ortion or stub- 9:ic: is detac:ed and gi%en to t:e de7ositor or :is agentG t:e lo9er 7ortion is retained by t:e ban8& 2n some instances- :o9e%er- t:e de7osit sli7s are 7re7ared in du7licate by t:e de7ositor& T:e original of t:e de7osit sli7 is retained by t:e ban8- 9:ile t:e du7licate co7y is returned or gi%en to t:e de7ositor& From Aay .- ",). to Culy "*- ",)*- 7etitioner Romeo (i7ana claims to :a%e entrusted RAC funds in t:e form of cas: totalling 63!+-,),&)+ to :is secretary- 2rene @abut- for t:e 7ur7ose of de7ositing said funds in t:e current accounts of RAC 9it: 60C& 2t turned out- :o9e%er- t:at t:ese de7osits- on all occasions- 9ere not credited to RAC;s account but 9ere instead de7osited to Account 'o& .3#!")3+#) of @abut;s :usband- 0ien%enido Cotas 9:o li8e9ise maintains an account 9it: t:e same ban8& During t:is 7eriod- 7etitioner ban8 :ad- :o9e%er- been regularly furnis:ing 7ri%ate res7ondent 9it: mont:ly statements s:o9ing its current accounts balances& 1nfortunately- it :ad ne%er been t:e 7ractice of Romeo (i7ana to c:ec8 t:ese mont:ly statements of account re7osing com7lete trust and confidence on 7etitioner ban8& 2rene @abut;s modus operandi is far from com7licated& 3:e 9ould accom7lis: t9o ( $ co7ies of t:e de7osit sli7- an original and a du7licate& T:e original s:o9ed t:e name of :er :usband as de7ositor and :is current account number& 5n t:e du7licate co7y 9as 9ritten t:e account number of :er :usband but t:e name of t:e account :older 9as left blan8& 60C;s teller- A=ucena Aabayad- 9ould:o9e%er- %alidate and stam7 bot: t:e original and t:e du7licate of t:ese de7osit sli7s retaining only

80
t:e original co7y des7ite t:e lac8 of information on t:e du7licate sli7& T:e second co7y 9as 8e7t by 2rene @abut allegedly for record 7ur7oses& After %alidation- @abut 9ould t:en fill u7 t:e name of RAC in t:e s7ace left blan8 in t:e du7licate co7y and c:ange t:e account number 9ritten t:ereon- 9:ic: is t:at of :er :usband;s- and ma8e it a77ear to be RAC;s account number- i&e&- C&A& 'o& .3#!",/!#3& ?it: t:e daily remittance records also 7re7ared by As& @abut and submitted to 7ri%ate res7ondent RAC toget:er 9it: t:e %alidated du7licate sli7s 9it: t:e latter;s name and account number- s:e made :er com7any belie%e t:at all t:e 9:ile t:e amounts s:e de7osited 9ere being credited to its account 9:en- in trut: and in fact- t:ey 9ere being de7osited by :er and credited by t:e 7etitioner ban8 in t:e account of Cotas& T:is 9ent on in a s7an of more t:an one ("$ year 9it:out 7ri%ate res7ondent;s 8no9ledge& 17on disco%ery of t:e loss of its funds- RAC demanded from 7etitioner ban8 t:e return of its moneybut as its demand 9ent un:eeded- it filed a collection suit before t:e Regional Trial Court of 6asig0ranc: "*!& T:e trial court found 7etitioner ban8 negligent and ruled as follo9s: ?F4R4F5R4- Budgment is :ereby rendered sentencing defendant 6:ili77ine 0an8 of Commerce- no9 absorbed by defendant 6:ili77ine Commercial & 2ndustrial 0an8- and defendant A=ucena Aabayad to 7ay t:e 7laintiff- Bointly and se%erally- and 9it:out 7reBudice to any criminal action 9:ic: may be instituted if found 9arranted: "& T:e sum of 63!+-,),&) - re7resenting 7laintiffs lost de7osit- 7lus interest t:ereon at t:e legal rate from t:e filing of t:e com7laintG & A sum equi%alent to "+] t:ereof- as exem7lary damagesG 3& A sum equi%alent to .] of t:e total amount due- as and for attorney;s feesG and +& Costs& Defendants; counterclaim is :ereby dismissed for lac8 of merit& 5n a77eal- t:e a77ellate court affirmed t:e foregoing decision 9it: modifications- vi+: ?F4R4F5R4- t:e decision a77ealed from :erein is A5D2F24D in t:e sense t:at t:e a9ards of exem7lary damages and attorney;s fees s7ecified t:erein are eliminated and instead- a77ellants are ordered to 7ay 7laintiff- in addition to t:e 7rinci7al sum of 63!+-,),&)+ re7resenting 7laintiff;s lost de7osit 7lus legal interest t:ereon from t:e filing of t:e com7laint- 6 .-!!!&!! attorney;s fees and costs in t:e lo9er court as 9ell as in t:is Court& Fence- t:is 7etition anc:ored on t:e follo9ing grounds: "$ T:e 7roximate cause of t:e loss is t:e negligence of res7ondent Rommel Aar8eting Cor7oration and Romeo (i7ana in entrusting cas: to a dis:onest em7loyee& $ T:e failure of res7ondent Rommel Aar8eting Cor7oration to cross#c:ec8 t:e ban8;s statements of account 9it: its o9n records during t:e entire 7eriod of more t:an one ("$ year is t:e 7roximate cause of t:e commission of subsequent frauds and misa77ro7riation committed by As& 2rene @abut& 3$ T:e du7licate co7ies of t:e de7osit sli7s 7resented by res7ondent Rommel Aar8eting Cor7oration are falsified and are not 7roof t:at t:e amounts a77earing t:ereon 9ere de7osited to res7ondent Rommel Aar8eting Cor7oration;s account 9it: t:e ban8+$ T:e du7licate co7ies of t:e de7osit sli7s 9ere used by As& 2rene @abut to co%er u7 :er fraudulent acts against res7ondent Rommel Aar8eting Cor7oration- and not as records of de7osits s:e made 9it: t:e ban8& T:e 7etition :as no merit&

81
3im7ly 7ut- t:e main issue 7osited before us is: ?:at is t:e 7roximate cause of t:e loss- to t:e tune of 63!+-,),&)+- suffered by t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent RAC O 7etitioner ban8;s negligence or t:at of 7ri%ate res7ondent;sJ 6etitioners submit t:at t:e 7roximate cause of t:e loss is t:e negligence of res7ondent RAC and Romeo (i7ana in entrusting cas: to a dis:onest em7loyee in t:e 7erson of As& 2rene @abut& According to t:em- it 9as im7ossible for t:e ban8 to 8no9 t:at t:e money de7osited by As& 2rene @abut belong to RACG neit:er 9as t:e ban8 fore9arned by RAC t:at @abut 9ill be de7ositing cas: to its account& T:us- it 9as im7ossible for t:e ban8 to 8no9 t:e fraudulent design of @abut considering t:at :er :usband- 0ien%enido Cotas- also maintained an account 9it: t:e ban8& For t:e ban8 to inquire into t:e o9ners:i7 of t:e cas: de7osited by As& 2rene @abut 9ould be irregular& 5t:er9ise stated- it 9as RAC;s negligence in entrusting cas: to a dis:onest em7loyee 9:ic: 7ro%ided As& 2rene @abut t:e o77ortunity to defraud RAC& 6ri%ate res7ondent- on t:e ot:er :and- maintains t:at t:e 7roximate cause of t:e loss 9as t:e negligent act of t:e ban8- t:ru its teller As& A=ucena Aabayad- in %alidating t:e de7osit sli7s- bot: original and du7licate- 7resented by As& @abut to As& Aabayad- not9it:standing t:e fact t:at one of t:e de7osit sli7s 9as not com7letely accom7lis:ed& ?e sustain t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent& 5ur la9 on quasi#delicts states: Art& ")*& ?:oe%er by act or omission causes damage to anot:er- t:ere being fault or negligence- is obliged to 7ay for t:e damage done& 3uc: fault or negligence- if t:ere is no 7re#existing contractual relation bet9een t:e 7arties- is called a 0uasi7deli%t and is go%erned by t:e 7ro%isions of t:is C:a7ter& T:ere are t:ree elements of a quasi#delict: (a$ damages suffered by t:e 7laintiffG (b$ fault or negligence of t:e defendant- or some ot:er 7erson for 9:ose acts :e must res7ondG and (c$ t:e connection of cause and effect bet9een t:e fault or negligence of t:e defendant and t:e damages incurred by t:e 7laintiff& 2n t:e case at benc:- t:ere is no dis7ute as to t:e damage suffered by t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent (7laintiff in t:e trial court$ RAC in t:e amount of 63!+-,),&)+& 2t is in ascribing fault or negligence 9:ic: caused t:e damage 9:ere t:e 7arties 7oint to eac: ot:er as t:e cul7rit& 'egligence is t:e omission to do somet:ing 9:ic: a reasonable man- guided by t:ose considerations 9:ic: ordinarily regulate t:e conduct of :uman affairs- 9ould do- or t:e doing of somet:ing 9:ic: a 7rudent and reasonable man 9ould do& T:e se%enty#eig:t ()/$#year#old- yet still rele%ant- case of &i%art v& #mith- 7ro%ides t:e test by 9:ic: to determine t:e existence of negligence in a 7articular case 9:ic: may be stated as follo9s: Did t:e defendant in doing t:e alleged negligent act use t:at reasonable care and caution 9:ic: an ordinarily 7rudent 7erson 9ould :a%e used in t:e same situationJ 2f not- t:en :e is guilty of negligence& T:e la9 :ere in effect ado7ts t:e standard su77osed to be su77lied by t:e imaginary conduct of t:e discreet paterfamilias of t:e Roman la9& T:e existence of negligence in a gi%en case is not determined by reference to t:e 7ersonal Budgment of t:e actor in t:e situation before :im& T:e la9 considers 9:at 9ould be rec8less- blame9ort:y- or negligent in t:e man of ordinary intelligence and 7rudence and determines liability by t:at& A77lying t:e abo%e test- it a77ears t:at t:e ban8;s teller- As& A=ucena Aabayad- 9as negligent in %alidating- officially stam7ing and signing all t:e de7osit sli7s 7re7ared and 7resented by As& @abutdes7ite t:e glaring fact t:at t:e du7licate co7y 9as not com7letely accom7lis:ed contrary to t:e self# im7osed 7rocedure of t:e ban8 9it: res7ect to t:e 7ro7er %alidation of de7osit sli7s- original or du7licate- as testified to by As& Aabayad :erself- t:us: <: 'o9- as teller of 6C20- 6asig 0ranc:- 9ill you 7lease tell us Ars& Aabayad your im7ortant duties and functionsJ

82
A: 2 acce7t current and sa%ings de7osits from de7ositors and encas:ments& <: 'o9 in t:e :andling of current account de7osits of ban8 clients- could you tell us t:e 7rocedure you follo9J A: "he %lient or depositor or the authori+ed representative prepares a deposit slip by filling up the deposit slip 'ith the name, the a%%ount number, the date, the %ash brea/do'n, if it is deposited for %ash, and the %he%/ number, the amount and then he signs the deposit slip& <: 'o9- :o9 many de7osit sli7s do you normally require in accom7lis:ing current account de7osit- Ars& AabayadJ A: "he ban/ re0uires only one %opy of the deposit although some of our %lients prepare the deposit slip in dupli%ate& <: 'o9 in accom7lis:ing current account de7osits from your clients- 9:at do you issue to t:e de7ositor to e%idence t:e de7osit madeJ A: ?e issue or 9e gi%e to t:e clients t:e de7ositor;s stub as a recei7t of t:e de7osit& <: And 9:o 7re7ares t:e de7osit sli7J A: T:e de7ositor or t:e aut:ori=ed re7resentati%e sirJ <: ?:ere does t:e de7ositor;s stub comes (si%$ from Ars& Aabayad- is it 9it: t:e de7osit sli7J A: T:e de7ositor;s stub is connected 9it: t:e de7osit sli7 or t:e ban8;s co7y& 2n a de7osit sli7- t:e u77er 7ortion is t:e de7ositor;s stub and t:e lo9er 7ortion is t:e ban8;s co7y- and you can detac: t:e ban8;s co7y from t:e de7ositor;s stub by tearing it sir& <: 'o9 9:at do you do u7on 7resentment of t:e de7osit sli7 by t:e de7ositor or t:e de7ositor;s aut:ori=ed re7resentati%eJ A: 4e see to it that the deposit slip is properly a%%omplished and then 'e %ount the money and then 'e tally it 'ith the deposit slip sir& <: No' is the depositor's stub 'hi%h you issued to your %lients validatedE A: Des, sir& M4m7:asis oursN Clearly- As& Aabayad failed to obser%e t:is %ery im7ortant 7rocedure& T:e fact t:at t:e du7licate sli7 9as not com7ulsorily required by t:e ban8 in acce7ting de7osits s:ould not relie%e t:e 7etitioner ban8 of res7onsibility& T:e odd circumstance alone t:at suc: du7licate co7y lac8ed one %ital information O t:at of t:e name of t:e account :older O s:ould :a%e already 7ut As& Aabayad on guard& Rat:er t:an readily %alidating t:e incom7lete du7licate co7y- s:e s:ould :a%e 7roceeded more cautiously by being more 7robing as to t:e true reason 9:y t:e name of t:e account :older in t:e du7licate sli7 9as left blan8 9:ile t:at in t:e original 9as filled u7& 3:e s:ould not :a%e been so nai%e in acce7ting :oo8- line and sin8er t:e too s:allo9 excuse of As& 2rene @abut to t:e effect t:at since t:e du7licate co7y 9as only for :er 7ersonal record- s:e 9ould sim7ly fill u7 t:e blan8 s7ace later on& A >reasonable man of ordinary 7rudence> 9ould not :a%e gi%en credence to suc: ex7lanation and 9ould :a%e insisted t:at t:e s7ace left blan8 be filled u7 as a condition for %alidation& 1nfortunately- t:is 9as not :o9 ban8 teller Aabayad 7roceeded t:us resulting in :uge losses to t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent&

83
'egligence :ere lies not only on t:e 7art of As& Aabayad but also on t:e 7art of t:e ban8 itself in its lac8adaisical selection and su7er%ision of As& Aabayad& T:is 9as exem7lified in t:e testimony of Ar& Romeo 0onifacio- t:en Aanager of t:e 6asig 0ranc: of t:e 7etitioner ban8 and no9 its Eice# 6resident- to t:e effect t:at- 9:ile :e ordered t:e in%estigation of t:e incident- :e ne%er came to 8no9 t:at blan8 de7osit sli7s 9ere %alidated in total disregard of t:e ban8;s %alidation 7rocedures- vi+: <: Did :e e%er tell you t:at one of your cas:iers affixed t:e stam7 mar8 of t:e ban8 on t:e de7osit sli7s and t:ey %alidated t:e same 9it: t:e mac:ine- t:e fact t:at t:ose de7osit sli7s 9ere unfilled u7- is t:ere any re7ort similar to t:atJ A: 'o- it 9as not t:e cas:ier but t:e teller& <: T:e teller %alidated t:e blan8 de7osit sli7J A: 'o it 9as not re7orted& <: Dou did not /no' that any one in the ban/ tellers or %ashiers validated the blan/ deposit slipJ A: ) am not a'are of that& <: )t is only no' that you are a'are of thatJ A: Des, sir& 6rescinding from t:e abo%e- 7ublic res7ondent Court of A77eals a7tly obser%ed: xxx xxx xxx 2t 9as in fact only 9:en :e testified in t:is case in February- ",/3- or after t:e la7se of more t:an se%en ()$ years counted from t:e 7eriod 9:en t:e funds in question 9ere de7osited in 7laintiff;s accounts (Aay- ",). to Culy- ",)*$ t:at ban8 manager 0onifacio admittedly became a9are of t:e 7ractice of :is teller Aabayad of %alidating blan8 de7osit sli7s& 1ndoubtedly- t:is is gross- 9anton- and inexcusable negligence in t:e a77ellant ban8;s su7er%ision of its em7loyees& 2t 9as t:is negligence of As& A=ucena Aabayad- cou7led by t:e negligence of t:e 7etitioner ban8 in t:e selection and su7er%ision of its ban8 teller- 9:ic: 9as t:e 7roximate cause of t:e loss suffered by t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent- and not t:e latter;s act of entrusting cas: to a dis:onest em7loyee- as insisted by t:e 7etitioners& 6roximate cause is determined on t:e facts of eac: case u7on mixed considerations of logic- common sense- 7olicy and 7recedent& Eda& de 0ataclan %& Aedina- reiterated in t:e case of Ban/ of the &hil& )slands v& !ourt of ppeals- defines 7roximate cause as >t:at cause- 9:ic:- in natural and continuous sequence- unbro8en by any efficient inter%ening cause- 7roduces t:e inBury- and 9it:out 9:ic: t:e result 9ould not :a%e occurred& & & &> 2n t:is case- absent t:e act of As& Aabayad in negligently %alidating t:e incom7lete du7licate co7y of t:e de7osit sli7- As& 2rene @abut 9ould not :a%e t:e facility 9it: 9:ic: to 7er7etrate :er fraudulent sc:eme 9it: im7unity& A7ro7os- once again- is t:e 7ronouncement made by t:e res7ondent a77ellate court- to 9it: & & & & 4%en if @abut :ad t:e fraudulent intention to misa77ro7riate t:e funds entrusted to :er by 7laintiff- s:e 9ould not :a%e been able to de7osit t:ose funds in :er :usband;s current account- and t:en ma8e 7laintiff belie%e t:at it 9as in t:e latter;s accounts 9:erein s:e :ad de7osited t:em- :ad it not been for ban8 teller Aabayad;s aforesaid gross and rec8less negligence& T:e latter;s negligence 9as t:us t:e 7roximateimmediate and efficient cause t:at broug:t about t:e loss claimed by 7laintiff in t:is case- and t:e failure of 7laintiff to disco%er t:e same soon enoug: by failing to scrutini=e t:e mont:ly statements of account being sent to it by a77ellant ban8 could not :a%e 7re%ented t:e fraud and misa77ro7riation 9:ic: 2rene @abut :ad already

84
com7leted 9:en s:e de7osited 7laintiff;s money to t:e account of :er :usband instead of to t:e latter;s accounts& Furt:ermore- under t:e doctrine of >last clear c:ance> (also referred to- at times as >su7er%ening negligence> or as >disco%ered 7eril>$- 7etitioner ban8 9as indeed t:e cul7able 7arty& T:is doctrine- in essence- states t:at 9:ere bot: 7arties are negligent- but t:e negligent act of one is a77reciably later in time t:an t:at of t:e ot:er- or 9:en it is im7ossible to determine 9:ose fault or negligence s:ould be attributed to t:e incident- t:e one 9:o :ad t:e last clear o77ortunity to a%oid t:e im7ending :arm and failed to do so is c:argeable 9it: t:e consequences t:ereof& 3tated differently- t:e rule 9ould also mean t:at an antecedent negligence of a 7erson does not 7reclude t:e reco%ery of damages for t:e su7er%ening negligence of- or bar a defense against liability soug:t by anot:er- if t:e latter- 9:o :ad t:e last fair %han%e- could :a%e a%oided t:e im7ending :arm by t:e exercise of due diligence& Fereassuming t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent RAC 9as negligent in entrusting cas: to a dis:onest em7loyeet:us 7ro%iding t:e latter 9it: t:e o77ortunity to defraud t:e com7any- as ad%anced by t:e 7etitioneryet it cannot be denied t:at t:e 7etitioner ban8- t:ru its teller- :ad t:e last clear o77ortunity to a%ert t:e inBury incurred by its client- sim7ly by fait:fully obser%ing t:eir self#im7osed %alidation 7rocedure& At t:is Buncture- it is 9ort: to discuss t:e degree of diligence oug:t to be exercised by ban8s in dealing 9it: t:eir clients& T:e 'e9 Ci%il Code 7ro%ides: Art& "")3& T:e fault or negligence of t:e obligor consists in t:e omission of t:at diligence 9:ic: is required by t:e nature of t:e obligation and corres7onds 9it: t:e circumstances of t:e 7ersons- of t:e time and of t:e 7lace& ?:en negligence s:o9s bad fait:- t:e 7ro%isions of articles "")" and !"- 7aragra7: - s:all a77ly& 2f t:e la9 or contract does not state t:e diligence 9:ic: is to be obser%ed in t:e 7erformance- t:at 9:ic: is ex7ected of a good father of a family s:all be required& (""!+a$ 2n t:e case of ban8s- :o9e%er- t:e degree of diligence required is more t:an t:at of a good father of a family& Considering t:e fiduciary nature of t:eir relations:i7 9it: t:eir de7ositors- ban8s are duty bound to treat t:e accounts of t:eir clients 9it: t:e highest degree of %are& As elucidated in #ime. )nternational FManilaG, )n%& v& !ourt of ppeals- in e%ery case- t:e de7ositor ex7ects t:e ban8 to treat :is account 9it: t:e utmost fidelity- 9:et:er suc: account consists only of a fe9 :undred 7esos or of millions& T:e ban8 must record e%ery single transaction accurately- do9n to t:e last centa%o- and as 7rom7tly as 7ossible& T:is :as to be done if t:e account is to reflect at any gi%en time t:e amount of money t:e de7ositor can dis7ose as :e sees fit- confident t:at t:e ban8 9ill deli%er it as and to 9:ome%er :e directs& A blunder on t:e 7art of t:e ban8- suc: as t:e failure to duly credit :im :is de7osits as soon as t:ey are made- can cause t:e de7ositor not a little embarrassment if not financial loss and 7er:a7s e%en ci%il and criminal litigation& T:e 7oint is t:at as a business affected 9it: 7ublic interest and because of t:e nature of its functionst:e ban8 is under obligation to treat t:e accounts of its de7ositors 9it: meticulous care- al9ays :a%ing in mind t:e fiduciary nature of t:eir relations:i7& 2n t:e case before us- it is a77arent t:at t:e 7etitioner ban8 9as remiss in t:at duty and %iolated t:at relations:i7& 6etitioners ne%ert:eless a%er t:at t:e failure of res7ondent RAC to cross#c:ec8 t:e ban8;s statements of account 9it: its o9n records during t:e entire 7eriod of more t:an one ("$ year is t:e 7roximate cause of t:e commission of subsequent frauds and misa77ro7riation committed by As& 2rene @abut& ?e do not agree& ?:ile it is true t:at :ad 7ri%ate res7ondent c:ec8ed t:e mont:ly statements of account sent by t:e 7etitioner ban8 to RAC- t:e latter 9ould :a%e disco%ered t:e loss early on- suc: cannot be used by t:e 7etitioners to esca7e liability& T:is omission on t:e 7art of t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent does not c:ange t:e fact t:at 9ere it not for t:e 9anton and rec8less negligence of t:e 7etitioners; em7loyee in

85
%alidating t:e incom7lete du7licate de7osit sli7s 7resented by As& 2rene @abut- t:e loss 9ould not :a%e occurred& Considering- :o9e%er- t:at t:e fraud 9as committed in a s7an of more t:an one ("$ year co%ering %arious de7osits- common :uman ex7erience dictates t:at t:e same 9ould not :a%e been 7ossible 9it:out any form of collusion bet9een As& @abut and ban8 teller Aabayad& As& Aabayad 9as negligent in t:e 7erformance of :er duties as ban8 teller nonet:eless& T:us- t:e 7etitioners are entitled to claim reimbursement from :er for 9:ate%er t:ey s:all be ordered to 7ay in t:is case& T:e foregoing not9it:standing- it cannot be denied t:at- indeed- 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as li8e9ise negligent in not c:ec8ing its mont:ly statements of account& Fad it done so- t:e com7any 9ould :a%e been alerted to t:e series of frauds being committed against RAC by its secretary& T:e damage 9ould definitely not :a%e ballooned to suc: an amount if only RAC- 7articularly Romeo (i7ana- :ad exercised e%en a little %igilance in t:eir financial affairs& T:is omission by RAC amounts to contributory negligence 9:ic: s:all mitigate t:e damages t:at may be a9arded to t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent under Article "), of t:e 'e9 Ci%il Code- to 9it: & & & ?:en t:e 7laintiff;s o9n negligence 9as t:e immediate and 7roximate cause of :is inBury- :e cannot reco%er damages& 0ut if :is negligence 9as only contributory- t:e immediate and 7roximate cause of t:e inBury being t:e defendant;s lac8 of due care- t:e 7laintiff may reco%er damages- but t:e courts s:all mitigate t:e damages to be a9arded& 2n %ie9 of t:is- 9e belie%e t:at t:e demands of substantial Bustice are satisfied by allocating t:e damage on a *!#+! ratio& T:us- +!] of t:e damage a9arded by t:e res7ondent a77ellate court- exce7t t:e a9ard of 6 .-!!!&!! attorney;s fees- s:all be borne by 7ri%ate res7ondent RACG only t:e balance of *!] needs to be 7aid by t:e 7etitioners& T:e a9ard of attorney;s fees s:all be borne exclusi%ely by t:e 7etitioners& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e decision of t:e res7ondent Court of A77eals is modified by reducing t:e amount of actual damages 7ri%ate res7ondent is entitled to by +!]& 6etitioners may reco%er from As& A=ucena Aabayad t:e amount t:ey 9ould 7ay t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent& 6ri%ate res7ondent s:all :a%e recourse against As& 2rene @abut& 2n all ot:er res7ects- t:e a77ellate court;s decision is AFF2RA4D& 6ro7ortionate costs&

DR. NINEVETCH CRUZ %& COURT OF APPEALS and LYDIA UMALI G&R& 'o& " ++.&'o%ember "/- ",,) FRA'C23C5- J.: Doctors are 7rotected by a s7ecial rule of la9& T:ey are not guarantors of care& T:ey do not e%en 9arrant a good result& T:ey are not insurers against mis:a7s or unusual consequences& Furt:ermore t:ey are not liable for :onest mista8es of Budgment & & & T:e 7resent case against 7etitioner is in t:e nature of a medical mal7ractice suit- 9:ic: in sim7lest terms is t:e ty7e of claim 9:ic: a %ictim :as a%ailable to :im or :er to redress a 9rong committed by a medical 7rofessional 9:ic: :as caused bodily :arm& 2n t:is Burisdiction- :o9e%er- suc: claims are most often broug:t as a ci%il action for damages under Article ")* of t:e Ci%il Code- and in some instances- as a criminal case under Article 3*. of t:e Re%ised 6enal Code 9it: 9:ic: t:e ci%il action for damages is im7liedly instituted& 2t is via t:e latter ty7e of action t:at t:e :eirs of t:e deceased soug:t redress for t:e 7etitioner;s alleged im7rudence and negligence in treating t:e deceased t:ereby causing :er deat:& T:e 7etitioner and one Dr& (ina 4rcillo 9:o 9as t:e attending anaest:esiologist during t:e o7eration of t:e deceased 9ere c:arged 9it: >rec8less im7rudence and negligence resulting to (si%$ :omicide> in an information 9:ic: reads:

86
T:at on or about Aarc: 3- ",,"- in t:e City of 3an 6ablo- Re7ublic of t:e 6:ili77ines and 9it:in t:e Burisdiction of t:is Fonorable Court- t:e accused abo%e named- being t:en t:e attending anaest:esiologist and surgeon- res7ecti%ely- did t:en and t:ere- in a negligence (si%$- careless- im7rudent- and incom7etent manner- and failing to su77ly or store sufficient 7ro%isions and facilities necessary to meet any and all exigencies a7t to arise before- during andHor after a surgical o7eration causing by suc: negligencecarelessness- im7rudence- and incom7etence- and causing by suc: failure- including t:e lac8 of 7re7aration and foresig:t needed to a%ert a tragedy- t:e untimely deat: of said (ydia 1mali on t:e day follo9ing said surgical o7eration& Trial ensued after bot: t:e 7etitioner and Dr& (ina 4rcillo 7leaded not guilty to t:e abo%e#mentioned c:arge& 5n Aarc: +- ",,+- t:e Aunici7al Trial Court in Cities (ATCC$ of 3an 6ablo City rendered a decision- t:e dis7ositi%e 7ortion of 9:ic: is :ereunder quoted as follo9s: ?F4R4F5R4- t:e court finds t:e accused Dra& (ina 4rcillo not guilty of t:e offense c:arged for insufficiency of e%idence 9:ile :er co#accused Dra& 'ine%etc: Cru= is :ereby :eld res7onsible for t:e deat: of (ydia 1mali on Aarc: +- ",,"- and t:erefore guilty under Art& 3*. of t:e Re%ised 6enal Code- and s:e is :ereby sentenced to suffer t:e 7enalty of mont:s and " day im7risonment of arresto mayor 9it: costs& T:e 7etitioner a77ealed :er con%iction to t:e Regional Trial Court (RTC$ 9:ic: affirmed in toto t:e decision of t:e ATCC 7rom7ting t:e 7etitioner to file a 7etition for re%ie9 9it: t:e Court of A77eals but to no a%ail& Fence t:is 7etition for re%ie9 on %ertiorari assailing t:e decision 7romulgated by t:e Court of A77eals on 5ctober +- ",,. affirming 7etitioner;s con%iction 9it: modification t:at s:e is furt:er directed to 7ay t:e :eirs of (ydia 1mali 6.!-!!!&!! as indemnity for :er deat:& 2n substance- t:e 7etition broug:t before t:is Court raises t:e issue of 9:et:er or not 7etitioner;s con%iction of t:e crime of rec8less im7rudence resulting in :omicide- arising from an alleged medical mal7ractice- is su77orted by t:e e%idence on record& First t:e antecedent facts& 5n Aarc: - ",,"- 7rosecution 9itness- Ro9ena 1mali De 5cam7o- accom7anied :er mot:er to t:e 6er7etual Fel7 Clinic and General Fos7ital situated in 0alagtas 3treet- 3an 6ablo City- (aguna& T:ey arri%ed at t:e said :os7ital at around +:3! in t:e afternoon of t:e same day& 6rior to Aarc: - ",,"- (ydia 9as examined by t:e 7etitioner 9:o found a >myoma> in :er uterus- and sc:eduled :er for a :ysterectomy o7eration on Aarc: 3",,"& Ro9ena and :er mot:er sle7t in t:e clinic on t:e e%ening of Aarc: - ",," as t:e latter 9as to be o7erated on t:e next day at ":!! o;cloc8 in t:e afternoon& According to Ro9ena- s:e noticed t:at t:e clinic 9as untidy and t:e 9indo9 and t:e floor 9ere %ery dusty 7rom7ting :er to as8 t:e attendant for a rag to 9i7e t:e 9indo9 and t:e floor 9it:& 0ecause of t:e untidy state of t:e clinic- Ro9ena tried to 7ersuade :er mot:er not to 7roceed 9it: t:e o7eration& T:e follo9ing day- before :er mot:er 9as 9:eeled into t:e o7erating room- Ro9ena as8ed t:e 7etitioner if t:e o7eration could be 7ost7oned& T:e 7etitioner called (ydia into :er office and t:e t9o :ad a con%ersation& (ydia t:en informed Ro9ena t:at t:e 7etitioner told :er t:at s:e must be o7erated on as sc:eduled& Ro9ena and :er ot:er relati%es- namely :er :usband- :er sister and t9o aunts 9aited outside t:e o7erating room 9:ile (ydia under9ent o7eration& ?:ile t:ey 9ere 9aiting- Dr& 4rcillo 9ent out of t:e o7erating room and instructed t:em to buy tagamet am7ules 9:ic: Ro9ena;s sister immediately boug:t& About one :our :ad 7assed 9:en Dr& 4rcillo came out again t:is time to as8 t:em to buy blood for (ydia& T:ey boug:t ty7e >A> blood from t:e 3t& Gerald 0lood 0an8 and t:e same 9as broug:t by t:e attendant into t:e o7erating room& After t:e la7se of a fe9 :ours- t:e 7etitioner informed t:em t:at t:e o7eration 9as finis:ed& T:e o7erating staff t:en 9ent inside t:e 7etitioner;s clinic to ta8e t:eir snac8s& 3ome t:irty minutes after- (ydia 9as broug:t out of t:e o7erating room in a stretc:er and t:e 7etitioner as8ed Ro9ena and t:e ot:er relati%es to buy additional blood for (ydia& 1nfortunately- t:ey 9ere not able to com7ly 9it: 7etitioner;s order as t:ere 9as no more ty7e >A>

87
blood a%ailable in t:e blood ban8& T:ereafter- a 7erson arri%ed to donate blood 9:ic: 9as later transfused to (ydia& Ro9ena t:en noticed :er mot:er- 9:o 9as attac:ed to an oxygen tan8- gas7ing for breat:& A77arently t:e oxygen su77ly :ad run out and Ro9ena;s :usband toget:er 9it: t:e dri%er of t:e accused :ad to go to t:e 3an 6ablo District Fos7ital to get oxygen& (ydia 9as gi%en t:e fres: su77ly of oxygen as soon as it arri%ed& 0ut at around "!:!! o;cloc8 6&A& s:e 9ent into s:oc8 and :er blood 7ressure dro77ed to *!H.!& (ydia;s unstable condition necessitated :er transfer to t:e 3an 6ablo District Fos7ital so s:e could be connected to a res7irator and furt:er examined& T:e transfer to t:e 3an 6ablo District Fos7ital 9as 9it:out t:e 7rior consent of Ro9ena nor of t:e ot:er relati%es 7resent 9:o found out about t:e intended transfer only 9:en an ambulance arri%ed to ta8e (ydia to t:e 3an 6ablo District Fos7ital& Ro9ena and :er ot:er relati%es t:en boarded a tricycle and follo9ed t:e ambulance& 17on (ydia;s arri%al at t:e 3an 6ablo District Fos7ital- s:e 9as 9:eeled into t:e o7erating room and t:e 7etitioner and Dr& 4rcillo re#o7erated on :er because t:ere 9as blood oo=ing from t:e abdominal incision& T:e attending 7:ysicians summoned Dr& 0artolome Angeles- :ead of t:e 5bstetrics and Gynecology De7artment of t:e 3an 6ablo District Fos7ital& Fo9e%er- 9:en Dr& Angeles arri%ed- (ydia 9as already in s:oc8 and 7ossibly dead as :er blood 7ressure 9as already !H!& Dr& Angeles t:en informed 7etitioner and Dr& 4rcillo t:at t:ere 9as not:ing :e could do to :el7 sa%e t:e 7atient& ?:ile t:e 7etitioner 9as closing t:e abdominal 9all- t:e 7atient died& T:us- on Aarc: +- ",,"- at 3:!! o;cloc8 in t:e morning- (ydia 1mali 9as 7ronounced dead& Fer deat: certificate states >s:oc8> as t:e immediate cause of deat: and >Disseminated 2ntra%ascular Coagulation (D2C$> as t:e antecedent cause& 2n con%icting t:e 7etitioner- t:e ATCC found t:e follo9ing circumstances as sufficient basis to conclude t:at s:e 9as indeed negligent in t:e 7erformance of t:e o7eration: & & & - t:e clinic 9as untidy- t:ere 9as lac8 of 7ro%ision li8e blood and oxygen to 7re7are for any contingency t:at mig:t :a77en during t:e o7eration& T:e manner and t:e fact t:at t:e 7atient 9as broug:t to t:e 3an 6ablo District Fos7ital for reo7eration indicates t:at t:ere 9as somet:ing 9rong in t:e manner in 9:ic: Dra& Cru= conducted t:e o7eration& T:ere 9as no s:o9ing t:at before t:e o7eration- accused Dra& Cru= :ad conducted a cardio 7ulmonary clearance or any ty7ing of t:e blood of t:e 7atient& 2t 9as (si%$ said in medical 7arlance t:at t:e >t:e abdomen of t:e 7erson is a tem7le of sur7rises> because you do not 8no9 t:e 9:ole t:ing t:e moment it 9as o7en ( si%$ and surgeon must be 7re7ared for any e%entuality t:ereof& T:e 7atient (si%$ c:art 9:ic: is a 7ublic document 9as not 7resented because it is only t:ere t:at 9e could determine t:e condition of t:e 7atient before t:e surgery& T:e court also noticed in 4x:& >F#"> t:at t:e sister of t:e deceased 9is:ed to 7ost7one t:e o7eration but t:e 7atient 9as 7re%ailed u7on by Dra& Cru= to 7roceed 9it: t:e surgery& T:e court finds t:at (ydia 1mali died because of t:e negligence and carelessness of t:e surgeon Dra& 'ine%etc: Cru= because of loss of blood during t:e o7eration of t:e deceased for e%ident un7re7aredness and for lac8 of s8ill- t:e reason 9:y t:e 7atient 9as broug:t for o7eration at t:e 3an 6ablo City District Fos7ital& As suc:- t:e surgeon s:ould ans9er for suc: negligence& ?it: res7ect to Dra& (ina 4rcillo- t:e anaest:esiologist- t:ere is no e%idence to indicate t:at s:e s:ould be :eld Bointly liable 9it: Dra& Cru= 9:o actually did t:e o7eration& T:e RTC reiterated t:e abo%ementioned findings of t:e ATCC and u7:eld t:e latter;s declaration of >incom7etency- negligence and lac8 of foresig:t and s8ill of a77ellant (:erein 7etitioner$ in :andling t:e subBect 7atient before and after t:e o7eration&> And li8e9ise affirming t:e 7etitioner;s con%iction- t:e Court of A77eals ec:oed similar obser%ations- t:us: & & & ?:ile 9e may grant t:at t:e untidiness and filt:iness of t:e clinic may not by itself indicate negligence- it ne%ert:eless s:o9s t:e absence of due care and su7er%ision o%er :er subordinate em7loyees& Did t:is unsanitary condition 7ermeate t:e o7erating roomJ ?ere t:e surgical instruments 7ro7erly sterili=edJ Could t:e conditions in t:e 5R

88
:a%e contributed to t:e infection of t:e 7atientJ 5nly t:e 7etitioner could ans9er t:esebut s:e o7ted not to testify& T:is could only gi%e rise to t:e 7resum7tion t:at s:e :as not:ing good to testify on :er defense& Any9ay- t:e alleged >un%erified statement of t:e 7rosecution 9itness> remains unc:allenged and unrebutted& (i8e9ise undis7uted is t:e 7rosecution;s %ersion indicating t:e follo9ing facts: t:at t:e accused as8ed t:e 7atient;s relati%es to buy Tagamet ca7sules 9:ile t:e o7eration 9as already in 7rogressG t:at after an :our- t:ey 9ere also as8ed to buy ty7e >A> blood for t:e 7atientG t:at after t:e surgery- t:ey 9ere again as8ed to 7rocure more ty7e >A> blood- but suc: 9as not anymore a%ailable from t:e sourceG t:at t:e oxygen gi%en to t:e 7atient 9as em7tyG and t:at t:e son#in#la9 of t:e 7atient- toget:er 9it: a dri%er of t:e 7etitioner- :ad to rus: to t:e 3an 6ablo City District Fos7ital to get t:e muc:# needed oxygen& All t:ese conclusi%ely s:o9 t:at t:e 7etitioner :ad not 7re7ared for any unforeseen circumstances before going into t:e first surgery- 9:ic: 9as not emergency in nature- but 9as electi%e or 7re#sc:eduledG s:e :ad no ready antibiotics- no 7re7ared blood- 7ro7erly ty7ed and cross#matc:ed- and no sufficient oxygen su77ly& Aoreo%er- t:ere are a lot of questions t:at 8ee7 nagging 1s& ?as t:e 7atient gi%en any cardio#7ulmonary clearance- or at least a clearance by an internist- 9:ic: are standard requirements before a 7atient is subBected to surgery& Did t:e 7etitioner determine as 7art of t:e 7re#o7erati%e e%aluation- t:e bleeding 7arameters of t:e 7atient- suc: as bleeding time and clotting timeJ T:ere is no s:o9ing t:at t:ese 9ere done& T:e 7etitioner Bust a77ears to :a%e been in a :urry to 7erform t:e o7eration- e%en as t:e family 9anted a 7ost7onement to A7ril *- ",,"& 5b%iously- s:e did not 7re7are t:e 7atientG neit:er did s:e get t:e family;s consent to t:e o7eration& Aoreo%er- s:e did not 7re7are a medical c:art 9it: instructions for t:e 7atient;s care& 2f s:e did all t:ese- 7roof t:ereof s:ould :a%e been offered& 0ut t:ere is none& 2ndeed- t:ese are o%er9:elming e%idence of rec8lessness and im7rudence& T:is Court- :o9e%er- :olds differently and finds t:e foregoing circumstances insufficient to sustain a Budgment of con%iction against t:e 7etitioner for t:e crime of rec8less im7rudence resulting in :omicide& T:e elements of rec8less im7rudence are: ("$ t:at t:e offender does or fails to do an actG ( $ t:at t:e doing or t:e failure to do t:at act is %oluntaryG (3$ t:at it be 9it:out maliceG (+$ t:at material damage results from t:e rec8less im7rudenceG and (.$ t:at t:ere is inexcusable lac8 of 7recaution on t:e 7art of t:e offender- ta8ing into consideration :is em7loyment or occu7ation- degree of intelligence7:ysical condition- and ot:er circumstances regarding 7ersons- time and 7lace& ?:et:er or not a 7:ysician :as committed an >inexcusable lac8 of 7recaution> in t:e treatment of :is 7atient is to be determined according to t:e standard of care obser%ed by ot:er members of t:e 7rofession in good standing under similar circumstances bearing in mind t:e ad%anced state of t:e 7rofession at t:e time of treatment or t:e 7resent state of medical science& 2n t:e recent case of 2eonila 1ar%ia7,ueda v& 4ilfred 2& &as%asio, et al&- t:is Court stated t:at in acce7ting a case- a doctor in effect re7resents t:at- :a%ing t:e needed training and s8ill 7ossessed by 7:ysicians and surgeons 7racticing in t:e same field- :e 9ill em7loy suc: training- care and s8ill in t:e treatment of :is 7atients& Fe t:erefore :as a duty to use at least t:e same le%el of care t:at any ot:er reasonably com7etent doctor 9ould use to treat a condition under t:e same circumstances& 2t is in t:is as7ect of medical mal7ractice t:at ex7ert testimony is essential to establis: not only t:e standard of care of t:e 7rofession but also t:at t:e 7:ysician;s conduct in t:e treatment and care falls belo9 suc: standard& Furt:er- inasmuc: as t:e causes of t:e inBuries in%ol%ed in mal7ractice actions are determinable only in t:e lig:t of scientific 8no9ledge- it :as been recogni=ed t:at ex7ert testimony is usually necessary to su77ort t:e conclusion as to causation& 2mmediately a77arent from a re%ie9 of t:e records of t:is case is t:e absence of any ex7ert testimony on t:e matter of t:e standard of care em7loyed by ot:er 7:ysicians of good standing in t:e conduct of similar o7erations& T:e 7rosecution;s ex7ert 9itnesses in t:e 7ersons of Dr& Floresto Ari=ala and Dr& 'ieto 3al%ador- Cr& of t:e 'ational 0ureau of 2n%estigation ('02$ only testified as to t:e 7ossible cause

89
of deat: but did not %enture to illuminate t:e court on t:e matter of t:e standard of care t:at 7etitioner s:ould :a%e exercised& All t:ree courts belo9 be9ail t:e inadequacy of t:e facilities of t:e clinic and its untidinessG t:e lac8 of 7ro%isions suc: as blood- oxygen- and certain medicinesG t:e failure to subBect t:e 7atient to a cardio# 7ulmonary test 7rior to t:e o7erationG t:e omission of any form of blood ty7ing before transfusionG and e%en t:e subsequent transfer of (ydia to t:e 3an 6ablo Fos7ital and t:e reo7eration 7erformed on :er by t:e 7etitioner& 0ut 9:ile it may be true t:at t:e circumstances 7ointed out by t:e courts belo9 seemed beyond ca%il to constitute rec8less im7rudence on t:e 7art of t:e surgeon- t:is conclusion is still best arri%ed at not t:roug: t:e educated surmises nor conBectures of laymen- including Budges- but by t:e unquestionable 8no9ledge of ex7ert 9itnesses& For 9:et:er a 7:ysician or surgeon :as exercised t:e requisite degree of s8ill and care in t:e treatment of :is 7atient is- in t:e generality of cases- a matter of ex7ert o7inion& T:e deference of courts to t:e ex7ert o7inion of qualified 7:ysicians stems from its reali=ation t:at t:e latter 7ossess unusual tec:nical s8ills 9:ic: laymen in most instances are inca7able of intelligently e%aluating& 4x7ert testimony s:ould :a%e been offered to 7ro%e t:at t:e circumstances cited by t:e courts belo9 are constituti%e of conduct falling belo9 t:e standard of care em7loyed by ot:er 7:ysicians in good standing 9:en 7erforming t:e same o7eration& 2t must be remembered t:at 9:en t:e qualifications of a 7:ysician are admitted- as in t:e instant case- t:ere is an ine%itable 7resum7tion t:at in 7ro7er cases :e ta8es t:e necessary 7recaution and em7loys t:e best of :is 8no9ledge and s8ill in attending to :is clients- unless t:e contrary is sufficiently establis:ed& T:is 7resum7tion is rebuttable by ex7ert o7inion 9:ic: is so sadly lac8ing in t:e case at benc:& 4%en granting arguendo t:at t:e inadequacy of t:e facilities and untidiness of t:e clinicG t:e lac8 of 7ro%isionsG t:e failure to conduct 7re#o7eration tests on t:e 7atientG and t:e subsequent transfer of (ydia to t:e 3an 6ablo Fos7ital and t:e reo7eration 7erformed on :er by t:e 7etitioner do indicatee%en 9it:out ex7ert testimony- t:at 7etitioner 9as rec8lessly im7rudent in t:e exercise of :er duties as a surgeon- no cogent 7roof exists t:at any of t:ese circumstances caused 7etitioner;s deat:& T:us- t:e absence of t:e fourt: element of rec8less im7rudence: t:at t:e inBury to t:e 7erson or 7ro7erty 9as a consequence of t:e rec8less im7rudence& 2n litigations in%ol%ing medical negligence- t:e 7laintiff :as t:e burden of establis:ing a77ellant;s negligence and for a reasonable conclusion of negligence- t:ere must be 7roof of breac: of duty on t:e 7art of t:e surgeon as 'ell as a %ausal %onne%tion of su%h brea%h and the resulting death of his patient& 2n !han 2ugay v& #t& 2u/e's -ospital, )n%&- 9:ere t:e attending 7:ysician 9as absol%ed of liability for t:e deat: of t:e com7lainant;s 9ife and ne9born baby- t:is Court :eld t:at: 2n order t:at t:ere may be a reco%ery for an inBury- :o9e%er- it must be s:o9n t:at t:e >inBury for 9:ic: reco%ery is soug:t must be t:e legitimate consequence of t:e 9rong doneG t:e connection bet9een t:e negligence and t:e inBury must be a direct and natural sequence of e%ents- unbro8en by inter%ening efficient causes&> )n other 'ords, the negligen%e must be the pro.imate %ause of the in*ury & $or- >negligen%e, no matter in 'hat it %onsists, %annot %reate a right of a%tion unless it is the pro.imate %ause of the in*ury %omplained of &> And >t:e 7roximate cause of an inBury is t:at cause- 9:ic:- in natural and continuous sequence- unbro8en by any efficient inter%ening cause7roduces t:e inBury- and 9it:out 9:ic: t:e result 9ould not :a%e occurred&> (4m7:asis su77lied&$ Dr& Ari=ala 9:o conducted an auto7sy on t:e body of t:e deceased summari=ed :is findings as follo9s: Atty& Cac:ero: <& @ou mentioned about your Auto7sy Re7ort 9:ic: :as been mar8ed as 4x:& >A#"#b>& T:ere a77ears :ere a signature abo%e t:e ty7e9ritten name Floresto Ari=ala- Cr&- 9:ose signature is t:atJ

90
A& T:at is my signature- sir& <& Do you affirm t:e trut: of all t:e contents of 4x:& >A#"#b>J A& 5nly as to t:e auto7sy re7ort no& ,"#!,- t:e time and 7lace and e%eryt:ing after t:e 7ost mortem findings- sir& <& @ou mentioned on your >6ost Aortem Findings> about surgical incision- "+:! cm&- infraumbilical area- anterior abdominal area- midline9ill you 7lease ex7lain t:at in your o9n languageJ A& T:ere 9as incision 9ound (si%$ t:e area Bust belo9 t:e na%el- sir& <& And t:e last 7aragra7: of t:e 7ostmortem findings 9:ic: 2 read: 1terus- 7ear#s:a7ed and 7ale measuring )&. x .&. x .&! cm& 9it: some surface nodulation of t:e fundic area 7osteriorly& Cut#section s:o9s diffusely 7ale myometrium 9it: areas of strea8 induration& T:e o%aries and adnexal structures are missing 9it: t:e ra9 surfaces 7atc:ed 9it: clotted blood& 3urgical sutures 9ere noted on t:e o7erati%e site& 2ntestines and mesenteries are 7ale 9it: blood clots noted bet9een t:e mesentric folds& Femo7eritoneum: 3!! s&s&rig:t 7aracolic gutter.! c&c&- left 7aracolic gutter !! c&c&- mesentric area"!! c&c&- rig:t 7el%ic gutter stomac: em7ty& 5t:er %isceral organs- 7ale&9ill you 7lease ex7lain t:at on (si%$ your o9n language or in ordinary& & & & & & & & & & & & A& T:ere 9as a uterus 9:ic: 9as not attac:ed to t:e adnexal structures namely o%aries 9:ic: 9ere not 7resent and also sign of 7re%ious surgical o7eration and t:ere 9ere (si%$ clotted blood- sir& <& Fo9 about t:e o%aries and adnexal structuresJ A& T:ey are missing- sir& <& @ou mean to say t:ere are no o%ariesJ A& During t:at time t:ere are no o%aries- sir& <& And t:ere 9ere li8e9ise sign of surgical suturesJ A& @es- sir& <& Fo9 about t:e intestines and mesenteries are 7lace ( si%$ 9it: blood clots noted bet9een t:e mesenteric folds- 9ill you 7lease ex7lain on ( si%$ t:isJ A& 2n t:e 7eritoneal ca%ity- t:ey are mostly 7erritonial blood & & & & & & & & <& And 9:at could :a%e caused t:is bloodJ A& ?ell- ordinarily blood is found inside t:e blood %essel& 0lood 9ere ( si%$ outside as a result of t:e inBuries 9:ic: destroyed t:e integrity of t:e %essel allo9ing blood to si7 (si%$ out- sir& <& By the nature of the postmortem findings indi%ated in E.h & 7<7B, %an you tell the %ourt the %ause of deathJ

91
A& Des, sir& "he %ause of death is: 1ross findings are %ompatible 'ith hemorrhagi% sho%/& <& !an you tell the us 'hat %ould have %aused this hemorrhagi% sho%/J A& 4ell hemorrhagi% sho%/ is the result of blood loss& <& 4hat %ould have the effe%t of that loss of bloodJ A& 3nattended hemorrhage, sir& (4m7:asis su77lied&$ T:e foregoing 9as corroborated by Dr& 'ieto 3al%ador: <& And 9ere you able to determine t:e cause of deat: by %irtue of t:e examination of t:e s7ecimen submitted by Dr& Ari=alaJ A& ?it:out 8no9ledge of t:e auto7sy findings it 9ould be difficult for me to determine t:e cause of deat:- sir& <& Fa%e you also examined t:e 7ost mortem of Dr& Ari=alaJ A& @es- sir- and by %irtue of t:e auto7sy re7ort in connection 9it: your 7at:ology re7ort& <& 4hat %ould have %aused the death of the vi%timJ A& "his pathologi% e.amination are Fsi%G %ompatible 'ith the person 'ho died, sir& <& 4ill you e.plain to us the meaning of hemorrhagi% %ompatibleJ A& )t means that a person died of blood loss& Meaning a person died of non7repla%ement of blood and so the vi%tim before she died there 'as sho%/ of diminish of blood of the %ir%ulation & #he died most probably before the a%tual %omplete blood loss, sir& Court: )s it possible do%tor that the loss of the blood 'as due on Fsi%G operationJ A& Based on my pathologist finding, sir& <& 4hat %ould have %aused this loss of bloodJ A& Many, sir& patient 'ho have undergone surgery& nother may be a blood vessel may be %ut 'hile on operation and this %ause Fsi%G bleeding, or may be set in the %ourse of operation, or may be Fsi%G he died after the operation& Of %ourse there are other %ause Fsi%G& Atty& Cac:ero: <& Espe%ially so do%tor 'hen there 'as no blood repla%ementJ A& @es- sir& (4m7:asis su77lied&$ T:e testimonies of bot: doctors establis: :emorr:age or :emorr:agic s:oc8 as t:e cause of deat:& Fo9e%er- as li8e9ise testified to by t:e ex7ert 9itnesses in o7en court- :emorr:age or :emorr:agic s:oc8 during surgery may be caused by se%eral different factors& T:us- Dr& 3al%ador;s elaboration on t:e matter: Atty& 6ascual: <& Doctor- among t:e causes of :emorr:age t:at you mentioned you said t:at it could be at t:e moment of o7eration 9:en one losses ( si%$ control of t:e 7resence- is t:at correctJ During t:e o7eration t:ere is lost (si%$ of control of t:e cut %esselJ

92
A& @es- sir& <& 5r t:ere is a failure to ligate a %essel of considerable si=eJ A& @es- sir& <& 5r e%en if t:e %essel 9ere ligated t:e 8not may :a%e sli77ed later onJ A& @es- sir& <& nd you also mentioned that it may be possible also to some %lotting defe%t, is that %orre%tJ A& May be Fsi%G& (4m7:asis su77lied$& Defense 9itness- Dr& 0u C& Castro also ga%e t:e follo9ing ex7ert o7inion: <& (o%tor even a patient after an operations Fsi%G 'ould suffer hemorrage 'hat 'ould be the possible %auses of su%h hemorrage Fsi%GJ A& mong those 'ould be 'hat 'e %all )ntravas%ular !oagulation and this is the reason for the bleeding, sir, 'hi%h %annot be prevented by anyone, it 'ill happen to anyone, anytime and to any persons Fsi%G, sir& C51RT: ?:at do you t:in8 of t:e cause of t:e bleeding- t:e cutting or t:e o7erations done in t:e bodyJ A& 'ot related to t:is one- t:e bleeding :ere is not related to any cutting or o7eration t:at 2 (si%$ :a%e done& <& Aside from t:e D2C 9:at could anot:er causes ( si%$ t:at could be t:e cause for t:e :emorr:age or bleeding in a 7atient by an o7erations (si%$J A& 2n general sir- if t:ere 9as an o7erations (si%$ and it is 7ossible t:at t:e ligature in t:e suture 9as (si%$ become (si%$ loose- it is (si%$ becomes loose if 7ro%en&& xxx xxx xxx <& 2f t:e 7erson 9:o 7erformed an auto7sy does not find any untig:t (si%$ clot (si%$ blood %essel or any suture t:at become ( si%$ loose t:e cause of t:e bleeding could not be attributed to t:e fault of t:e subBectJ A& Definitely- sir& (4m7:asis su77lied&$ According to bot: doctors- t:e 7ossible causes of :emorr:age during an o7eration are: ("$ t:e failure of t:e surgeon to tie or suture a cut blood %esselG ( $ allo9ing a cut blood %essel to get out of controlG (3$ t:e subsequent loosening of t:e tie or suture a77lied to a cut blood %esselG and (+$ and a clotting defect 8no9n as D2C& 2t is significant to state at t:is Buncture t:at t:e auto7sy conducted by Dr& Ari=ala on t:e body of (ydia did not re%eal any untied or unsutured cut blood %essel nor 9as t:ere any indication t:at t:e tie or suture of a cut blood %essel :ad become loose t:ereby causing t:e :emorr:age& Fence t:e follo9ing 7ertinent 7ortion of Dr& Ari=ala;s testimony: <: Doctor- in examining t:ese structures did you 8no9 9:et:er t:ese 9ere sutured ligature or 7lain ligature A: (igature- sir& <: ?e 9ill ex7lain t:at later on& Did you recall if t:e cut structures 9ere tied by first suturing it and t:en tying a 8not or t:e tie 9as merely 7laced around t:e cut structure and tiedJ A: 2 cannot recall- sir&

93
<: As a matter of fact- you cannot recall because you did not e%en bot:ered (si%$ to examine- is t:at correctJ A: ?ell- 2 bot:ered enoug: to 8no9 t:at t:ey 9ere sutured- sir& <: 3o- t:erefore- Doctor- you 9ould not 8no9 9:et:er any of t:e cut structures 9ere not sutured or tied neit:er 9ere you able to determine 9:et:er any loose suture 9as found in t:e 7eritoneal ca%ityJ A: 2 could not recall any loose sutured (si%$- sir& 5n t:e ot:er :and- t:e findings of all t:ree doctors do not 7reclude t:e 7robability t:at D2C caused t:e :emorr:age and consequently- (ydia;s deat:& D2C 9:ic: is a clotting defect creates a serious bleeding tendency and 9:en massi%e D2C occurs as a com7lication of surgery lea%ing ra9 surface- maBor :emorr:age occurs& And as testified to by defense 9itness- Dr& 0u C& Castro- :emorr:age due to D2C >cannot be 7re%entedit 9ill :a77en to anyoneanytime&> Fe testified furt:er: <& 'o9- under t:at circumstance one of t:e 7ossibility as you mentioned in (si%$ D2CJ A& @es- sir& <& And you mentioned t:at t:is cannot be 7re%entedJ A& @es- sir& <& Can you e%en 7redict if it really :a77en (si%$J A& 6ossible- sir& <& Are t:ere any s7ecific findings of auto7sy t:at 9ill tell you 9:et:er t:is 7atient suffered among suc: t:ings as D2CJ A& ?ell- 2 did reser%e because of t:e condition of t:e 7atient& <& 'o9- Doctor you said t:at you 9ent t:roug: t:e record of t:e deceased (ydia 1mali loo8ing for t:e c:art- t:e o7erated ( si%$ recordst:e 7ost mortem findings on t:e :isto7:anic ( si%$ examination based on your examination of record- doctor- can you more or less says ( si%$ 9:at 7art are (si%$ concerned could :a%e been t:e caused (si%$ of deat: of t:is (ydia 1maliJ A& As far as t:e medical record is concern ( si%$ t:e caused (si%$ of deat: is dessimulated (si%$ 2ntra Eascular Coagulation or t:e D2C 9:ic: resulted to :emorr:age or bleedings- sir& <& Doctor based on your findings t:en t:ere is 8no9ing ( si%$ t:e doctor 9ould say 9:et:er t:e doctor :er (si%$ :as been (si%$ faultJ ATT@& AA(E4DA: ?e 9ill mo%ed (si%$ to stri8e out t:e (si%$ based on finding t:ey Bust read t:e c:art as 9ell as t:e ot:er record& ATT@& 6A3C1A(: 6recisely based on t:is examination& ATT@& AA(E4DA: 'ot finding- t:ere 9as no finding made& C51RT:

94
Fe is only reading t:e record& ATT@& 6A3C1A(: @es- sir& A& No- sir, there is no fault on the part of the surgeon, sir& T:is Court :as no recourse but to rely on t:e ex7ert testimonies rendered by bot: 7rosecution and defense 9itnesses t:at substantiate rat:er t:an contradict 7etitioner;s allegation t:at t:e cause of (ydia;s deat: 9as D2C 9:ic:- as attested to by an ex7ert 9itness- cannot be attributed to t:e 7etitioner;s fault or negligence& T:e 7robability t:at (ydia;s deat: 9as caused by D2C 9as unrebutted during trial and :as engendered in t:e mind of t:is Court a reasonable doubt as to t:e 7etitioner;s guilt& T:us- :er acquittal of t:e crime of rec8less im7rudence resulting in :omicide& ?:ile 9e condole 9it: t:e family of (ydia 1mali- our :ands are bound by t:e dictates of Bustice and fair dealing 9:ic: :old in%iolable t:e rig:t of an accused to be 7resumed innocent until 7ro%en guilty beyond reasonable doubt& 'e%ert:eless- t:is Court finds t:e 7etitioner ci%illy liable for t:e deat: of (ydia 1mali- for 9:ile a con%iction of a crime requires 7roof beyond reasonable doubt- only a 7re7onderance of e%idence is required to establis: ci%il liability& T:e 7etitioner is a doctor in 9:ose :ands a 7atient 7uts :is life and limb& For insufficiency of e%idence t:is Court 9as not able to render a sentence of con%iction but it is not blind to t:e rec8less and im7rudent manner in 9:ic: t:e 7etitioner carried out :er duties& A 7recious life :as been lost and t:e circumstances leading t:ereto exacerbated t:e grief of t:ose left be:ind& T:e :eirs of t:e deceased continue to feel t:e loss of t:eir mot:er u7 to t:e 7resent time and t:is Court is a9are t:at no amount of com7assion and commiseration nor 9ords of berea%ement can suffice to assuage t:e sorro9 felt for t:e loss of a lo%ed one& Certainly- t:e a9ard of moral and exem7lary damages in fa%or of t:e :eirs of (ydia 1mali are 7ro7er in t:e instant case& ?F4R4F5R4- 7remises considered- 7etitioner DR& '2'4E4TCF CR1Y is :ereby AC<12TT4D of t:e crime of rec8less im7rudence resulting in :omicide but is ordered to 7ay t:e :eirs of t:e deceased (ydia 1mali t:e amount of F2FT@ TF513A'D 64353 (6.!-!!!&!!$ as ci%il liability- 5'4 F1'DR4D TF513A'D 64353 (6"!!-!!!&!!$ as moral damages- and F2FT@ TF513A'D 64353 (6.!-!!!&!!$ as exem7lary damages& (et a co7y of t:is decision be furnis:ed to t:e 6rofessional Regulation Commission (6RC$ for a77ro7riate action&

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO., INC., %& COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES ANTONIO ESTE+AN and GLORIA ESTE+AN G&R& 'o& (#.)!),&3e7tember ,- ",/, R4GA(AD5- J.: T:is case :ad its ince7tion in an action for damages instituted in t:e former Court of First 2nstance of 'egros 5ccidental by 7ri%ate res7ondent s7ouses against 7etitioner 6:ili77ine (ong Distance Tele7:one Com7any (6(DT- for bre%ity$ for t:e inBuries t:ey sustained in t:e e%ening of Culy 3!- ",*/ 9:en t:eir Bee7 ran o%er a mound of eart: and fell into an o7en trenc:- an exca%ation allegedly underta8en by 6(DT for t:e installation of its underground conduit system& T:e com7laint alleged t:at res7ondent Antonio 4steban failed to notice t:e o7en trenc: 9:ic: 9as left unco%ered because of t:e cree7ing dar8ness and t:e lac8 of any 9arning lig:t or signs& As a result of t:e accident- res7ondent Gloria 4steban allegedly sustained inBuries on :er arms- legs and face- lea%ing a 7ermanent scar on :er c:ee8- 9:ile t:e res7ondent :usband suffered cut li7s& 2n addition- t:e 9inds:ield of t:e Bee7 9as s:attered&

95
6(DT- in its ans9er- denies liability on t:e contention t:at t:e inBuries sustained by res7ondent s7ouses 9ere t:e result of t:eir o9n negligence and t:at t:e entity 9:ic: s:ould be :eld res7onsibleif at all- is (&R& 0arte and Com7any (0arte- for s:ort$- an inde7endent contractor 9:ic: undertoo8 t:e construction of t:e man:ole and t:e conduit system& Accordingly- 6(DT filed a t:ird#7arty com7laint against 0arte alleging t:at- under t:e terms of t:eir agreement- 6(DT s:ould in no manner be ans9erable for any accident or inBuries arising from t:e negligence or carelessness of 0arte or any of its em7loyees& 2n ans9er t:ereto- 0arte claimed t:at it 9as not a9are nor 9as it notified of t:e accident in%ol%ing res7ondent s7ouses and t:at it :ad com7lied 9it: t:e terms of its contract 9it: 6(DT by installing t:e necessary and a77ro7riate standard signs in t:e %icinity of t:e 9or8 site- 9it: barricades at bot: ends of t:e exca%ation and 9it: red lig:ts at nig:t along t:e exca%ated area to 9arn t:e tra%eling 7ublic of t:e 7resence of exca%ations& 5n 5ctober "- ",)+- t:e trial court rendered a decision in fa%or of 7ri%ate res7ondents- t:e decretal 7art of 9:ic: reads: 2' E24? 5F TF4 F5R4G52'G considerations t:e defendant 6:ili77ine (ong Distance Tele7:one Com7any is :ereby ordered (A$ to 7ay t:e 7laintiff Gloria 4steban t:e sum of 6 !-!!!&!! as moral damages and 6.-!!!&!! exem7lary damagesG to 7laintiff Antonio 4steban t:e sum of 6 -!!!&!! as moral damages and 6.!!&!! as exem7lary damages9it: legal rate of interest from t:e date of t:e filing of t:e com7laint until fully 7aid& T:e defendant is :ereby ordered to 7ay t:e 7laintiff t:e sum of 63-!!!&!! as attorney;s fees& (0$ T:e t:ird#7arty defendant is :ereby ordered to reimburse 9:ate%er amount t:e defendant#t:ird 7arty 7laintiff :as 7aid to t:e 7laintiff& ?it: costs against t:e defendant& From t:is decision bot: 6(DT and 7ri%ate res7ondents a77ealed- t:e latter a77ealing only as to t:e amount of damages& T:ird#7arty defendant 0arte did not a77eal& 5n 3e7tember .- ",),- t:e 37ecial 3econd Di%ision of t:e Court of A77eals rendered a decision in said a77ealed case- 9it: Custice Cora=on Culiano Agra%a as ponente, re%ersing t:e decision of t:e lo9er court and dismissing t:e com7laint of res7ondent s7ouses& 2t :eld t:at res7ondent 4steban s7ouses 9ere negligent and consequently absol%ed 7etitioner 6(DT from t:e claim for damages& A co7y of t:is decision 9as recei%ed by 7ri%ate res7ondents on 5ctober "!- ",),& 5n 5ctober .",),- said res7ondents filed a motion for reconsideration dated 5ctober +- ",),& 5n Canuary +",/!- t:e 37ecial 'int: Di%ision of t:e Court of A77eals denied said motion for reconsideration& T:is resolution 9as recei%ed by res7ondent s7ouses on February - ",/!& 5n February ,- ",/!- res7ondent Court of A77eals recei%ed 7ri%ate res7ondents; motion for lea%e of court to file a second motion for reconsideration- dated February )- ",/!& 5n Aarc: ""- ",/!res7ondent court- in a resolution li8e9ise 7enned by Custice Agra%a- allo9ed res7ondents to file a second motion for reconsideration- 9it:in ten ("!$ days from notice t:ereof& 3aid resolution 9as recei%ed by 7ri%ate res7ondents on A7ril "- ",/! but 7rior t:ereto- 7ri%ate res7ondents :ad already filed t:eir second motion for reconsideration on Aarc: )- ",/!& 5n A7ril 3!-",/! 7etitioner 6(DT filed an o77osition to andHor motion to dismiss said second motion for reconsideration& T:e Court of A77eals- in %ie9 of t:e di%ergent o7inions on t:e resolution of t:e second motion for reconsideration- designated t9o additional Bustices to form a di%ision of fi%e& 5n 3e7tember 3- ",/!- said di%ision of fi%e 7romulgated its resolution- 7enned by Custice Aariano A& Yosa- setting aside t:e decision dated 3e7tember .- ",),- as 9ell as t:e resolution dated- Canuary +-",/!- and affirming in toto t:e decision of t:e lo9er court& 5n 3e7tember ",- ",/!- 7etitioner 6(DT filed a motion to set aside andHor for reconsideration of t:e resolution of 3e7tember 3- ",/!- contending t:at t:e second motion for reconsideration of 7ri%ate res7ondent s7ouses 9as filed out of time and t:at t:e decision of 3e7tember .- ",), 7enned by Custice Agra%a 9as already final& 2t furt:er submitted t:erein t:at t:e relations:i7 of 0arte and 7etitioner 6(DT s:ould be %ie9ed in t:e lig:t of t:e contract bet9een t:em and- under t:e inde7endent contractor rule- 6(DT is not liable for t:e acts of an inde7endent contractor& 5n Aay ""-

96
",/"- res7ondent Court of A77eals 7romulgated its resolution denying said motion to set aside andHor for reconsideration and affirming in toto t:e decision of t:e lo9er court dated 5ctober "- ",)+& Coming to t:is Court on a 7etition for re%ie9 on %ertiorari, 7etitioner assigns t:e follo9ing errors: "& Res7ondent Court of A77eals erred in not denying 7ri%ate res7ondents; second motion for reconsideration on t:e ground t:at t:e decision of t:e 37ecial 3econd Di%ision- dated 3e7tember .",),- and t:e resolution of t:e 37ecial 'int: Di%ision- dated Canuary +- ",/!- are already final- and on t:e additional ground t:at said second motion for reconsideration is pro forma. & Res7ondent court erred in re%ersing t:e aforesaid decision and resolution and in misa77lying t:e inde7endent contractor rule in :olding 6(DT liable to res7ondent 4steban s7ouses& A con%enient resume of t:e rele%ant 7roceedings in t:e res7ondent court- as s:o9n by t:e records and admitted by bot: 7arties- may be gra7:ically 7resented as follo9s: (a$ 3e7tember .- ",),- a decision 9as rendered by t:e Court of A77eals 9it: Custice Agra%a asponenteH (b$ 5ctober "!- ",),- a co7y of said decision 9as recei%ed by 7ri%ate res7ondentsG (c$ 5ctober .- ",),- a motion for reconsideration 9as filed by 7ri%ate res7ondentsG (d$ Canuary +- ",/!- a resolution 9as issued denying said motion for reconsiderationG (e$ February res7ondentsG - ",/!- a co7y of said denial resolution 9as recei%ed by 7ri%ate

(f$ February ,- ",/!- a motion for lea%e to file a second motion for reconsideration 9as filed by 7ri%ate res7ondents (g$ Aarc: )- ",/!- a second motion for reconsideration 9as filed by 7ri%ate res7ondentsG (:$ Aarc: ""- ",/!- a resolution 9as issued allo9ing res7ondents to file a second motion for reconsideration 9it:in ten ("!$ days from recei7tG and (i$ 3e7tember 3- ",/!- a resolution 9as issued- 7enned by Custice Yosa- re%ersing t:e original decision dated 3e7tember .- ",), and setting aside t:e resolution dated Canuary +- ",/!& From t:e foregoing c:ronology- 9e are con%inced t:at bot: t:e motion for lea%e to file a second motion for reconsideration and- consequently- said second motion for reconsideration itself 9ere filed out of time& 3ection "- Rule . of t:e Rules of Court- 9:ic: :ad 7rocedural go%ernance at t:e time- 7ro%ided t:at a second motion for reconsideration may be 7resented 9it:in fifteen (".$ days from notice of t:e order or Budgment deducting t:e time in 9:ic: t:e first motion :as been 7ending& 6ri%ate res7ondents :a%ing filed t:eir first motion for reconsideration on t:e last day of t:e reglementary 7eriod of fifteen (".$ days 9it:in 9:ic: to do so- t:ey :ad only one ("$ day from recei7t of t:e order denying said motion to file- 9it: lea%e of court- a second motion for reconsideration& 2n t:e 7resent case- after t:eir recei7t on February - ",/! of t:e resolution denying t:eir first motion for reconsideration- 7ri%ate res7ondents :ad t9o remedial o7tions& 5n February 3- ",/!- t:e remaining one ("$ day of t:e aforesaid reglementary 7eriod- t:ey could :a%e filed a motion for lea%e of court to file a second motion for reconsideration- concei%ably 9it: a 7rayer for t:e extension of t:e 7eriod 9it:in 9:ic: to do so& 5n t:e ot:er :and- t:ey could :a%e a77ealed t:roug: a 7etition for re%ie9 on certiorari to t:is Court 9it:in fifteen (".$ days from February 3- ",/!& 2nstead- t:ey filed a motion for lea%e to file a second motion ;for reconsideration on February ,- ",/!- and said second motion for reconsideration on Aarc: )",/!- bot: of 9:ic: motions 9ere by t:en time#barred& Consequently- after t:e ex7iration on February +- ",/! of t:e original fifteen (".$ day 7eriod- t:e running of 9:ic: 9as sus7ended during t:e 7endency of t:e first motion for reconsideration- t:e Court

97
of A77eals could no longer %alidly ta8e furt:er 7roceedings on t:e merits of t:e case- muc: less to alter- modify or reconsider its aforesaid decision andHor resolution& T:e filing of t:e motion for lea%e to file a second motion for reconsideration by :erein res7ondents on February ,- ",/! and t:e subsequent filing of t:e motion itself on Aarc: )- ",/!- after t:e ex7iration of t:e reglementary 7eriod to file t:e same- 7roduced no legal effects& 5nly a motion for re#:earing or reconsideration filed in time s:all stay t:e final order or Budgment soug:t to be re#examined& T:e consequential result is t:at t:e resolution of res7ondent court of Aarc: ""- ",/! granting 7ri%ate res7ondents; aforesaid motion for lea%e and- gi%ing t:em an extension of ten ("!$ days to file a second motion for reconsideration- is null and %oid& T:e 7eriod for filing a second motion for reconsideration :ad already ex7ired 9:en 7ri%ate res7ondents soug:t lea%e to file t:e same- and res7ondent court no longer :ad t:e 7o9er to entertain or grant t:e said motion& T:e aforesaid extension of ten ("!$ days for 7ri%ate res7ondents to file t:eir second motion for reconsideration 9as of no legal consequence since it 9as gi%en 9:en t:ere 9as no more 7eriod to extend& 2t is an elementary rule t:at an a77lication for extension of time must be filed 7rior to t:e ex7iration of t:e 7eriod soug:t to be extended& 'ecessarily- t:e discretion of res7ondent court to grant said extension for filing a second motion for reconsideration is conditioned u7on t:e timeliness of t:e motion see8ing t:e same& 'o a77eal :a%ing been ta8en seasonably- t:e res7ondent court;s decision- dated 3e7tember .- ",),became final and executory on Aarc: ,- ",/!& T:e subsequent resolutions of res7ondent court- dated Aarc: ""- ",/! and 3e7tember 3- ",/!- allo9ing 7ri%ate res7ondents to file a second motion for reconsideration and re%ersing t:e original decision are null and %oid and cannot disturb t:e finality of t:e Budgment nor restore Burisdiction to res7ondent court& T:is is but in line 9it: t:e acce7ted rule t:at once a decision :as become final and executory it is remo%ed from t:e 7o9er and Burisdiction of t:e court 9:ic: rendered it to furt:er alter or amend- muc: less re%o8e it& T:e decision rendered ane9 is null and %oid& T:e court;s in:erent 7o9er to correct its o9n errors s:ould be exercised before t:e finality of t:e decision or order soug:t to be corrected- ot:er9ise litigation 9ill be endless and no question could be considered finally settled& Alt:oug: t:e granting or denial of a motion for reconsideration in%ol%es t:e exercise of discretion- t:e same s:ould not be exercised 9:imsicallyca7riciously or arbitrarily- but 7rudently in conformity 9it: la9- Bustice- reason and equity& 6rescinding from t:e aforesaid 7rocedural la7ses into t:e substanti%e merits of t:e case- 9e find no error in t:e findings of t:e res7ondent court in its original decision t:at t:e accident 9:ic: befell 7ri%ate res7ondents 9as due to t:e lac8 of diligence of res7ondent Antonio 4steban and 9as not im7utable to negligent omission on t:e 7art of 7etitioner 6(DT& 3uc: findings 9ere reac:ed after an ex:austi%e assessment and e%aluation of t:e e%idence on record- as e%idenced by t:e res7ondent court;s resolution of Canuary +- ",/! 9:ic: 9e quote 9it: a77ro%al: $irst. 6laintiff;s Bee7 9as running along t:e inside lane of (acson 3treet& 2f it :ad remained on t:at inside lane- it 9ould not :a%e :it t:e ACC2D4'T A51'D& 4x:ibit 0 s:o9s- t:roug: t:e tiremar8s- t:at t:e ACC2D4'T A51'D 9as :it by t:e Bee7 s9er%ing from t:e left t:at is- s9er%ing from t:e inside lane& ?:at caused t:e s9er%ing is not disclosedG but- as t:e cause of t:e accident- defendant cannot be made liable for t:e damages suffered by 7laintiffs& T:e accident 9as not due to t:e absence of 9arning signs- but to t:e unex7lained abru7t s9er%ing of t:e Bee7 from t:e inside lane& T:at may ex7lain 7laintiff#:usband;s insistence t:at :e did not see t:e ACC2D4'T A51'D for 9:ic: reason :e ran into it& #e%ond. T:at 7laintiff;s Bee7 9as on t:e inside lane before it s9er%ed to :it t:e ACC2D4'T A51'D could :a%e been corroborated by a 7icture s:o9ing (acson 3treet to t:e sout: of t:e ACC2D4'T A51'D& 2t :as been stated t:at t:e ditc:es along (acson 3treet :ad already been co%ered exce7t t:e 3 or + meters 9:ere t:e ACC2D4'T A51'D 9as located& 4x:ibit 0#" s:o9s t:at t:e ditc:es on (acson 3treet nort: of t:e ACC2D4'T A51'D :ad already been co%ered- but not in suc: a 9ay as to allo9 t:e outer lane to be freely and con%eniently

98
7assable to %e:icles& T:e situation could :a%e been 9orse to t:e sout: of t:e ACC2D4'T A51'D for 9:ic: reason no 7icture of t:e ACC2D4'T A51'D facing sout: 9as ta8en& "hird. 6laintiff;s Bee7 9as not running at . 8ilometers an :our as 7laintiff#:usband claimed& At t:at s7eed- :e could :a%e bra8ed t:e %e:icle t:e moment it struc8 t:e ACC2D4'T A51'D& T:e Bee7 9ould not :a%e climbed t:e ACC2D4'T A51'D se%eral feet as indicated by t:e tiremar8s in 4x:ibit 0& T:e Bee7 must :a%e been running quite fast& 2f t:e Bee7 :ad been bra8ed at . 8ilometers an :our- 7laintiff;s 9ould not :a%e been t:ro9n against t:e 9inds:ield and t:ey 9ould not :a%e suffered t:eir inBuries& $ourth& 2f t:e accident did not :a77en because t:e Bee7 9as running quite fast on t:e inside lane and for some reason or ot:er it :ad to s9er%e suddenly to t:e rig:t and :ad to climb o%er t:e ACC2D4'T A51'D- t:en 7laintiff#:usband :ad not exercised t:e diligence of a good fat:er of a family to a%oid t:e accident& ?it: t:e dri==le- :e s:ould not :a%e run on dim lig:ts- but s:ould :a%e 7ut on :is regular lig:ts 9:ic: s:ould :a%e made :im see t:e ACC2D4'T A51'D in time& 2f :e 9as running on t:e outside lane at . 8ilometers an :our- e%en on dim lig:ts- :is failure to see t:e ACC2D4'T A51'D in time to bra8e t:e car 9as negligence on :is 7art& T:e ACC2D4'T A51'D 9as relati%ely big and %isible- being to 3 feet :ig: and "#"H feet 9ide& 2f :e did not see t:e ACC2D4'T A51'D in time- :e 9ould not :a%e seen any 9arning sign eit:er& Fe 8ne9 of t:e existence and location of t:e ACC2D4'T A51'D- :a%ing seen it many 7re%ious times& ?it: ordinary 7recaution- :e s:ould :a%e dri%en :is Bee7 on t:e nig:t of t:e accident so as to a%oid :itting t:e ACC2D4'T A51'D& T:e abo%e findings clearly s:o9 t:at t:e negligence of res7ondent Antonio 4steban 9as not only contributory to :is inBuries and t:ose of :is 9ife but goes to t:e %ery cause of t:e occurrence of t:e accident- as one of its determining factors- and t:ereby 7recludes t:eir rig:t to reco%er damages& T:e 7erils of t:e road 9ere 8no9n to- :ence a77reciated and assumed by- 7ri%ate res7ondents& 0y exercising reasonable care and 7rudence- res7ondent Antonio 4steban could :a%e a%oided t:e inBurious consequences of :is act- e%en assuming arguendot:at t:ere 9as some alleged negligence on t:e 7art of 7etitioner& T:e 7resence of 9arning signs could not :a%e com7letely 7re%ented t:e accidentG t:e only 7ur7ose of said signs 9as to inform and 9arn t:e 7ublic of t:e 7resence of exca%ations on t:e site& T:e 7ri%ate res7ondents already 8ne9 of t:e 7resence of said exca%ations& 2t 9as not t:e lac8 of 8no9ledge of t:ese exca%ations 9:ic: caused t:e Bee7 of res7ondents to fall into t:e exca%ation but t:e unex7lained sudden s9er%ing of t:e Bee7 from t:e inside lane to9ards t:e accident mound& As o7ined in some quarters- t:e omission to 7erform a duty- suc: as t:e 7lacing of 9arning signs on t:e site of t:e exca%ation- constitutes t:e 7roximate cause only 9:en t:e doing of t:e said omitted act 9ould :a%e 7re%ented t:e inBury& 2t is basic t:at 7ri%ate res7ondents cannot c:arge 6(DT for t:eir inBuries 9:ere t:eir o9n failure to exercise due and reasonable care 9as t:e cause t:ereof& 2t is bot: a societal norm and necessity t:at one s:ould exercise a reasonable degree of caution for :is o9n 7rotection& Furt:ermore- res7ondent Antonio 4steban :ad t:e last clear c:ance or o77ortunity to a%oid t:e accident- not9it:standing t:e negligence :e im7utes to 7etitioner 6(DT& As a resident of (acson 3treet- :e 7assed on t:at street almost e%eryday and :ad 8no9ledge of t:e 7resence and location of t:e exca%ations t:ere& 2t 9as :is negligence t:at ex7osed :im and :is 9ife to danger- :ence :e is solely res7onsible for t:e consequences of :is im7rudence& Aoreo%er- 9e also sustain t:e findings of res7ondent Court of A77eals in its original decision t:at t:ere 9as insufficient e%idence to 7ro%e any negligence on t:e 7art of 6(DT& ?e :a%e for consideration only t:e self#ser%ing testimony of res7ondent Antonio 4steban and t:e un%erified 7:otogra7: of merely a 7ortion of t:e scene of t:e accident& T:e absence of a 7olice re7ort of t:e incident and t:e non# submission of a medical re7ort from t:e :os7ital 9:ere 7ri%ate res7ondents 9ere allegedly treated :a%e not e%en been satisfactorily ex7lained&

99
As a7tly obser%ed by res7ondent court in its aforecited extended resolution of Canuary +- ",/! O (a$ T:ere 9as no t:ird 7arty eye9itness of t:e accident& As to :o9 t:e accident occurred- t:e Court can only rely on t:e testimonial e%idence of 7laintiffs t:emsel%esand suc: e%idence s:ould be %ery carefully e%aluated- 9it: defendant- as t:e 7arty being c:arged- being gi%en t:e benefit of any doubt& Definitely 9it:out ascribing t:e same moti%ation to 7laintiffs- anot:er 7erson could :a%e deliberately engineered a similar accident in t:e :o7e and ex7ectation t:at t:e Court can grant :im substantial moral and exem7lary damages from t:e big cor7oration t:at defendant is& T:e statement is made only to stress t:e disad%antageous 7osition of defendant 9:ic: 9ould :a%e extreme difficulty in contesting suc: 7erson;s claim& 2f t:ere 9ere no 9itness or record a%ailable from t:e 7olice de7artment of 0acolod- defendant 9ould not be able to determine for itself 9:ic: of t:e conflicting testimonies of 7laintiffs is correct as to t:e re7ort or non#re7ort of t:e accident to t:e 7olice de7artment& A 7erson claiming damages for t:e negligence of anot:er :as t:e burden of 7ro%ing t:e existence of suc: fault or negligence causati%e t:ereof& T:e facts constituti%e of negligence must be affirmati%ely establis:ed by com7etent e%idence& ?:osoe%er relies on negligence for :is cause of action :as t:e burden in t:e first instance of 7ro%ing t:e existence of t:e same if contested- ot:er9ise :is action must fail& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e resolutions of res7ondent Court of A77eals- dated Aarc: ""- ",/! and 3e7tember 3-",/!- are :ereby 34T A32D4& 2ts original decision- 7romulgated on 3e7tember .-",),- is :ereby R42'3TAT4D and AFF2RA4D&

TEH LE KIM %& PHILIPPINE AERIAL TAXI CO., INC., G&R& 'o& (#3,3!,&'o%ember +- ",33 E2((A#R4A(- J.: T:is is an a77eal ta8en by t:e 7laintiff Te: (e Iim from t:e Budgment rendered by t:e Court of First 2nstance of Aanila- absol%ing t:e defendant 6:ili77ine Aerial Taxi Co&- 2nc&- from t:e com7laint9:ic: 9as dismissed- 9it:out s7ecial 7ronouncement as to costs& 2n su77ort of :is a77eal- t:e a77ellant assigns fi%e alleged errors as committed by t:e trail court9:ic: 9e s:all discuss in t:e course of t:is decision& T:e follo9ing facts :a%e been 7ro%en by a 7re7onderance of e%idence 7resented during t:e trial- to 9it: 5n t:e Aorning of 3e7tember +- ",3"- t:e 7laintiff :erein boug:t- in Aanila- a 7assenger tic8et for a flig:t to 2loilo in one of t:e defendant com7any;s :ydro7lanes starting from Aadrigal Field in 6asay& 2nasmuc: as t:e engine of t:e 7lane Mabuhay- in 9:ic: :e 9as to ta8e t:e flig:t- 9as not 9or8ing satisfactorily- t:e said 7laintiff :ad to 9ait for some time& ?:ile t:e engine 9as being testedt:e 7laintiff sa9 :o9 it 9as started by turning t:e 7ro7eller re7eatedly and :o9 t:e man 9:o did it ran a9ay from it eac: time in order not to be caug:t by t:e said 7ro7eller& 0efore t:e 7lane Mabuhay 9as 7ut in condition for t:e flig:t- t:e 7lane "aal arri%ed and it 9as decided to :a%e t:e 7laintiff ma8e t:e flig:t t:erein& T:e 7laintiff and :is com7anion 9ere carefully carried from t:e beac: to t:e 7laneentering t:e same by t:e rear or tail end- and 9ere 7laced in t:eir seats to 9:ic: t:ey 9ere stra77ed& (ater- t:ey 9ere s:o9n :o9 t:e stra7s could be tig:tened or loosened in case of accident and 9ere instructed furt:er not to touc: anyt:ing in t:e 7lane& After an une%entful flig:t- t:e 7lane landed on t:e 9aters of Guimaras 3trait- in front of 2loilo- and taxied to9ard t:e beac: until its 7ontoons struc8 bottom- 9:en t:e 7lane sto77ed& t:e 7ilot s:ut off t:e gasoline feed 7i7e- 7ermitting t:e engine:o9e%er- to continue to function until all t:e gasoline 9as drained from t:e feed 7i7e and carburetor& T:is o7eration 9as necessary in accordance 9it: t:e establis:ed 7ractice of a%iation in order to a%oid

100
danger of fire 9:ic: 9ould exist if t:e 7i7es and carburetor remained full of gasoline- and to 7re%ent t:e sudden cooling of t:e engine 9:ic: mig:t cause serious damage- es7ecially to t:e %al%es& ?:en t:e 7ilot obser%ed t:at a ban%a 9as a77roac:ing ra7idly on t:e rig:t :and side of t:e 7lane- :e arose signalled and s:outed to t:e boatman to 8ee7 :is ban%a at a distance from t:e 7laneinasmuc: as t:ere 9ere 9a%es and quite a strong current- and :e feared t:at t:e ban%a- 9:ic: :ad a :ig: 7ro9- mig:t collide 9it: t:e 7lane and damage eit:er t:e 9ing or t:e 7ontoon t:ereof& ?:ile :e 9as doing t:is- :e :eard t:e 7ro7eller stri8e somet:ing& Fe immediately turned off t:e s9itc: andloo8ing on t:e ot:er side- :e sa9 0o:n 7ic8ing u7 t:e 7laintiff out of t:e 9ater& ?:at really :a77ened 9as t:at at t:e moment t:e 7ontoons touc:ed bottom and 9:ile t:e 7ilot 9as signalling to t:e ban%a- t:e 7laintiff unfastened t:e stra7s around :im and- not e%en 9aiting to 7ut on :is :at- climbed o%er t:e door to t:e lo9er 9ing- 9ent do9n t:e ladder to t:e 7ontoon and 9al8ed along t:e 7ontoon to9ard t:e re%ol%ing 7ro7eller& T:e 7ro7eller first gra=ed :is fore:ead and- as :e t:re9 u7 :is arm- it 9as caug:t by t:e re%ol%ing blades t:ereof and so inBured t:at it :ad be am7utated&la97:il&net 0o:n and Garrett of ?arner- 0arnes & Co&- consignees of t:e defendant in 2loilo- 9ere on t:e beac: to meet t:e 7lane and to ma8e arrangements for t:e disembar8ing of t:e 7assengers& 17on seeing t:e 7laintiff 9al8ing to9ard t:e 7ro7eller- t:ey s:outed frantically and motioned to :im to 8ee7 a9ay from it- but t:e said 7laintiff too8 no :eed of t:em& T:e usual 7rocedure in disc:arging 7assengers from a :ydro7lane is to 9ait until t:e 7ro7eller sto7s- t:en turn t:e 7lane around by :and so as to :a%e t:e rear or tail and t:ereof to9ards t:e beac:and t:en ta8e t:e 7assengers to s:ore in a ban%a& T:e 7ilot in c:arge of t:e 7lane :as :ad fourteen years ex7erience- :a%ing first learned to fly during t:e ?orld ?ar& Fe is duly licensed by t:e De7artment of Commerce of t:e 1nited 3tates and by t:e De7artment of Commerce and Communications of t:e Go%ernment of t:e 6:ili77ine 2slands& T:e only question to decide in t:is a77eal- 9:ic: is raised in t:e first assignment of error- is 9:et:er or not t:e defendant entity :as com7lied 9it: its contractual obligation to carry t:e 7laintiff# a77ellant Te: (e Iim safe and sound to :is destination& T:e contract entered into by t:e 7laintiff Te: (e Iim and t:e defendant entity 6:ili77ine Aerial Taxi Co&- 2nc&- 9as t:at u7on 7ayment of t:e 7rice of t:e 7assage- 9:ic: t:e carrier :ad recei%ed- t:e latter 9ould carry t:e former by air in one of its :ydro7lanes and 7ut :im- safe and sound- on t:e beac: at 2loilo& After an une%entful flig:t- t:e :ydro7lane- 9:ic: carried t:e 7laintiff and :is com7anionarri%ed at t:e 2loilo beac:- as usual- 9it: not:ing more left to do but to ta8e t:e 7laintiff and :is com7anion- safe and sound- as:ore& 2n order to do t:is- it 9as necessary to 9ait for t:e 7ro7eller to sto7- turn t:e rear or tail end of t:e 7lane to9ards t:e s:ore- ta8e t:e 7assengers out by t:e aforesaid rear or tail end t:ereof- 7lace t:em in a ban%a and ta8e t:em as:ore& 0y s:eer common sense- t:e 7laintiff oug:t to 8no9 t:at a 7ro7eller- be it t:at of a s:i7 or of an aero7lane- is dangerous 9:ile in motion and t:at to a77roac: it is to run t:e ris8 of being caug:t and inBured t:ereby& Fe oug:t to 8no9 furt:ermore t:at inasmuc: as t:e 7lane 9as on t:e 9ater- :e :ad to 9ait for a ban%a to ta8e :im as:ore& 'ot9it:standing t:e s:outs and 9arning signals gi%en :im from t:e s:ore by t:e re7resentati%es of t:e consignee firm- t:e 7laintiff :erein- not being a man of ordinary 7rudence:astily left t:e cabin of t:e 7lane- 9al8ed along one of t:e 7ontoons and directly into t:e re%ol%ing 7ro7eller- 9:ile t:e ban%a 9:ic: 9as to ta8e :im as:ore 9as still some distance a9ay and t:e 7ilot 9as instructing t:e boatman to 8ee7 it at a safe distance from t:e 7lane& 1nder suc: circumstances- it is not difficult to understand t:at t:e 7laintiff#a77ellant acted 9it: rec8less negligence in a77roac:ing t:e 7ro7eller 9:ile it 9as still in motion- and 9:en t:e ban%a 9as not yet in a 7osition to ta8e :im& T:at t:e 7laintiff#a77ellant;s negligence alone 9as t:e direct cause of t:e accident- is so clear t:at it is not necessary to cite aut:oritati%e o7inions to su77ort t:e conclusion t:at t:e inBury to :is rig:t arm and t:e subsequent am7utation t:ereof 9ere due entirely and exclusi%ely to :is o9n im7rudence and not to t:e slig:test negligence attributable to t:e defendant entity or to its agents& T:erefore- :e alone s:ould suffer t:e consequences of :is act&

101
?:erefore- not finding any error in t:e Budgment a77ealed from- it is :ereby affirmed in toto- 9it: t:e costs against t:e a77ellant& 3o ordered&

M. H., RAKES %& THE ATLANTIC, GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY G&R& 'o& ")",&Canuary 3- ",!) TRAC4@- J.: T:is is an action for damages& T:e 7laintiff- one of a gang of eig:t negro laborers in t:e em7loyment of t:e defendant- 9as at 9or8 trans7orting iron rails from a barge in t:e :arbor to t:e com7any;s yard near t:e malecon in Aanila& 6laintiff claims t:at but one :and car 9as used in t:is 9or8& T:e defendant :as 7ro%ed t:at t:ere 9ere t9o immediately follo9ing one anot:er- u7on 9:ic: 9ere 7iled lengt:9ise se%en rails- eac: 9eig:ing .*! 7ounds- so t:at t:e ends of t:e rails lay u7on t9o cross7ieces or sills secured to t:e cars- but 9it:out side 7ieces or guards to 7re%ent t:em from sli77ing off& According to t:e testimony of t:e 7laintiff- t:e men 9ere eit:er in t:e rear of t:e car or at its sides& According to t:at defendant- some of t:em 9ere also in front- :auling by a ro7e& At a certain s7ot at or near t:e 9ater;s edge t:e trac8 sagged- t:e tie bro8e- t:e car eit:er canted or u7set- t:e rails slid off and caug:t t:e 7laintiff- brea8ing :is leg- 9:ic: 9as after9ards am7utated at about t:e 8nee& T:is first 7oint for t:e 7laintiff to establis: 9as t:at t:e accident :a77ened t:roug: t:e negligence of t:e defendant& T:e detailed descri7tion by t:e defendant;s 9itnesses of t:e construction and quality of t:e trac8 7ro%es t:at if 9as u7 to t:e general stranded of tram9ays of t:at c:aracter- t:e foundation consisting on land of bloc8s or cross7ieces of 9ood- by / inc:es t:ic8 and from / to "! feet long laidon t:e surface of t:e ground- u7on 9:ic: at a rig:t angle rested stringers of t:e same t:ic8ness- but from + to 3! feet in lengt:& 5n t:e across t:e stringers t:e 7arallel 9it: t:e bloc8s 9ere t:e ties to 9:ic: t:e trac8s 9ere fastened& After t:e road reac:ed t:e 9ater;s edge- t:e bloc8s or cross7ieces 9ere re7laced 9it: 7illing- ca77ed by timbers extending from one side to t:e ot:er& T:e trac8s 9ere eac: about feet 9ide and t:e t9o inside rails of t:e 7arallel trac8s about "/ inc:es a7art& 2t 9as admitted t:at t:ere 9ere no side 7ieces or guards on t:e carG t:at 9:ere no ends of t:e rails of t:e trac8 met eac: ot:er and also 9:ere t:e stringers Boined- t:ere 9ere no fis: 7lates& t:e defendant :as not effectually o%ercome t:e 7laintiff;s 7roof t:at t:e Boints bet9een t:e rails 9ere immediately abo%e t:e Boints bet9een t:e underlying stringers& T:e cause of t:e sagging of t:e trac8s and t:e brea8ing of t:e tie- 9:ic: 9as t:e immediate occasion of t:e accident- is not clear in t:e e%idence- but is found by t:e trial court and is admitted in t:e briefs and in t:e argument to :a%e been t:e dislodging of t:e cross7iece or 7iling under t:e stringer by t:e 9ater of t:e bay raised by a recent ty7:oon& T:e su7erintendent of t:e com7any attributed it to t:e gi%ing 9ay of t:e bloc8 laid in t:e sand& 'o effort 9as made to re7air t:e inBury at t:e time of t:e occurrence& According to 7laintiffs 9itnesses- a de7ression of t:e trac8- %arying from one :alf inc: to one inc: and a :alf- 9as t:erafter a77arent to t:e eye- and a fello9 9or8man of t:e 7laintiff s9ears t:at t:e day before t:e accident :e called t:e attention of AcIenna- t:e foreman- to it and as8ed by sim7ly straig:tening out t:e cross7iece- resetting t:e bloc8 under t:e stringer and rene9ing t:e tie- but ot:er9ise lea%ing t:e %ery same timbers as before& 2t :as not 7ro%en t:at t:e com7any ins7ected t:e trac8 after t:e ty7:oon or :ad any 7ro7er system of ins7ection& 2n order to c:arge t:e defendant 9it: negligence- it 9as necessary to s:o9 a breac: of duty on its 7art in failing eit:er to 7ro7erly secure t:e load on iron to %e:icles trans7orting it- or to s8illfully build t:e tram9ay or to maintain it in 7ro7er condition- or to %igilantly ins7ect and re7air t:e road9ay as soon as t:e de7ression in it became %isible& 2t is u7on t:e failure of t:e defendant to re7air t:e 9ea8ened trac8after notice of its condition- t:at t:e Budge belo9 based :is Budgment& T:is case 7resents many im7ortant matters for our decision- and first among t:em is t:e standard of duty 9:ic: 9e s:all establis: in our Buris7rudence on t:e 7art of em7loyees to9ard em7loyees&

102
T:e lac8 or t:e :ars:ness of legal rules on t:is subBect :as led many countries to enact designed to 7ut t:ese relations on a fair basis in t:e form of com7ensation or liability la9s or t:e institution of insurance& 2n t:e absence of s7ecial legislation 9e find no difficulty in so a77lying t:e general 7rinci7les of our la9 as to 9or8 out a Bust result& Article "!, of t:e Ci%il Code 7ro%ides: Ci%il obligations- arising from crimes or misdemeanors- s:all be go%erned by t:e 7ro%isions of t:e 6enal Code& And article .*/ of t:e latter code 7ro%ides: Fe 9:o s:all execute t:roug: rec8less negligence an act t:at if done 9it: malice 9ould constitute a gra%e crime- s:all be 7unis:ed& And article .,! 7ro%ides t:at t:e follo9ing s:all be 7unis:ed: +& T:ose 9:o by sim7le im7rudence or negligence- 9it:out committing any infraction of regulations- s:all cause an inBury 9:ic:- :ad malice inter%ened- 9ould :a%e constituted a crime or misdemeanor& And finally by articles ", and !- t:e liability of o9ners and em7loyers for t:e faults of t:eir ser%ants and re7resentati%es is declared to be ci%il and subsidiary in its c:aracter& 2t is contented by t:e defendant- as its first defense to t:e action- t:at t:e necessary conclusion from t:ese collated la9s is t:at t:e remedy for inBuries t:roug: negligence lies only in a criminal action in 9:ic: t:e official criminally res7onsible must be made 7rimarily liable and :is em7loyer :eld only subsidiarily to :im& According to t:is t:eory t:e 7laintiff s:ould :a%e 7rocured t:e arrest of t:e re7resentati%e of t:e com7any accountable for not re7airing t:e tract- and on :is 7rosecution a suitable fine s:ould :a%e been im7osed- 7ayable 7rimarily by :im and secondarily by :is em7loyer& T:is reasoning misconcei%ed t:e 7lan of t:e 37anis: codes u7on t:is subBect& Article "!,3 of t:e Ci%il Code ma8es obligations arising from faults or negligence not punished by the la'- subBect to t:e 7ro%isions of C:a7ter "" of Title `E2& 3ection ",! of t:at c:a7ter reads: A 7erson 9:o by an act or omission causes damage to anot:er 9:en t:ere is fault or negligence s:all be obliged to re7air t:e damage so done& 34C& ",!3& T:e obligation im7osed by t:e 7receding article is demandable- not only for 7ersonal acts and omissions- but also for t:ose of t:e 7ersons for 9:om t:ey s:ould be res7onsible& T:e fat:er- and on :is deat: or inca7acity- t:e mot:er- is liable for t:e damages caused by t:e minors 9:o li%e 9it: t:em& xxx xxx xxx 59ners or directors of an establis:ment or enter7rise are equally liable for t:e damages caused by t:eir em7loyees in t:e ser%ice of t:e branc:es in 9:ic: t:e latter may be em7loyed or in t:e 7erformance of t:eir duties& xxx xxx xxx T:e liability referred to in t:is article s:all cease 9:en t:e 7ersons mentioned t:erein 7ro%e t:at t:ey em7loyed all t:e diligence of a good fat:er of a family to a%oid t:e damages& As an ans9er to t:e argument urged in t:is 7articular action it may be sufficient to 7oint out t:at no9:ere in our general statutes is t:e em7loyer 7enali=ed for failure to 7ro%ide or maintain safe a77liances for :is 9or8men& Fis obligation t:erefore is one >not 7unis:ed by t:e la9 > and falls under ci%il rat:er t:an criminal Buris7rudence& 0ut t:e ans9er may be a broader one& ?e s:ould be reluctantunder any conditions- to ado7t a forced construction of t:ese scientific codes- suc: as is 7ro7osed by t:e defendant- t:at 9ould rob some of t:ese articles of effect- 9ould s:ut out litigants t:eir 9ill from t:e

103
ci%il courts- 9ould ma8e t:e assertion of t:eir rig:ts de7endent u7on t:e selection for 7rosecution of t:e 7ro7er criminal offender- and render reco%ery doubtful by reason of t:e strict rules of 7roof 7re%ailing in criminal actions& 4%en if t:ese articles :ad al9ays stood alone- suc: a construction 9ould be unnecessary- but clear lig:t is t:ro9n u7on t:eir meaning by t:e 7ro%isions of t:e (a9 of Criminal 6rocedure of 37ain (2ey de En*ui%iamiento !riminal$- 9:ic:- t:oug: n e%er in actual force in t:ese 2slands- 9as formerly gi%en a su77letory or ex7lanatory effect& 1nder article """ of t:is la9- bot: classes of action- ci%il and criminal- mig:t be 7rosecuted Bointly or se7arately- but 9:ile t:e 7enal action 9as 7ending t:e ci%il 9as sus7ended& According to article "" - t:e 7enal action once startedt:e ci%il remedy s:ould be soug:t t:ere9it:- unless it :ad been 9ai%ed by t:e 7arty inBured or been ex7ressly reser%ed by :im for ci%il 7roceedings for t:e future& 2f t:e ci%il action alone 9as 7rosecutedarising out of a crime t:at could be enforced by only on 7ri%ate com7laint- t:e 7enal action t:ereunder s:ould be extinguis:ed& T:ese 7ro%isions are in :armony 9it: t:ose of articles 3 and "33 of our 6enal Code on t:e same subBect& An examination of t:is to7ic mig:t be carried muc: furt:er- but t:e citations of t:ese articles suffices to s:o9 t:at t:e ci%il liability 9as not intended to be merged in t:e criminal nor e%en to be sus7ended t:ereby- exce7t as ex7ressly 7ro%ided by la9& ?:ere an indi%idual is ci%illy liable for a negligent act or omission- it is not required t:at t:e inured 7arty s:ould see8 out a t:ird 7erson criminally liable 9:ose 7rosecution must be a condition 7recedent to t:e enforcement of t:e ci%il rig:t& 1nder article ! of t:e 6enal Code t:e res7onsibility of an em7loyer may be regarded as subsidiary in res7ect of criminal actions against :is em7loyees only 9:ile t:ey are 7rocess of 7rosecution- or in so far as t:ey determinate t:e existence of t:e criminal act from 9:ic: liability arises- and :is obligation under t:e ci%il la9 and its enforcement in t:e ci%il courts is not barred t:ereby unless by election of t:e inBured 7erson& 2nasmuc: as no criminal in question- t:e 7ro%isions of t:e 6enal Code can not affect t:is action& T:is construction renders it unnecessary to finally determine :ere 9:et:er t:is subsidiary ci%il liability in 7enal actions sur%i%ed t:e la9s t:at fully regulated it or :as been abrogated by t:e American ci%il and criminal 7rocedure no9 in force in t:e 6:ili77ines& T:e difficulty in construing t:e articles of t:e code abo%e cited in t:is case a77ears from t:e briefs before us to :a%e arisen from t:e inter7retation of t:e 9ords of article "!,3- >fault or negligence not 7unis:ed by la9-> as a77lied to t:e com7re:ensi%e definition of offenses in articles .*/ and .,! of t:e 6enal Code& 2t :as been s:o9n t:at t:e liability of an em7loyer arising out of :is relation to :is em7loyee 9:o is t:e offender is not to be regarded as deri%ed from negligence 7unis:ed by t:e la99it:in t:e meaning of articles "!, and "!,3& Aore t:an t:is- :o9e%er- it can not be said to fall 9it:in t:e class of acts un7unis:ed by t:e la9- t:e consequences of 9:ic: are regulated by articles ",! and ",!3 of t:e Ci%il Code& T:e acts to 9:ic: t:ese articles are a77licable are understood to be t:ose and gro9ing out of 7reexisting duties of t:e 7arties to one anot:er& 0ut 9ere relations already formed gi%e rise to duties- 9:et:er s7ringing from contract or quasi contract- t:en breac:es of t:ose duties are subBect to articles ""!"- ""!3- and ""!+- of t:e same code& A ty7ical a77lication of t:e distinction may be found in t:e consequences of a rail9ay accident due to defecti%e mac:inery su77lied by t:e em7loyer& Fis liability to :is em7loyee 9ould arise out of t:e contract of em7loyment- t:at to t:e 7assengers out of t:e contract for 7assage& 9:ile t:at to t:at inBured bystander 9ould originate in t:e negligent act itself& T:is distinction is t:us clearly set fort: by Aanresa in :is commentary on article "!,3& ?e are 9it: reference to suc: obligations- t:at %ulpa- or negligence- may be understood in t9o difference sensesG eit:er as %ulpa, substantive and independent- 9:ic: on account of its origin arises in an obligation bet9een t9o 7ersons not formerly bound by any ot:er obligationG or as an in%ident in t:e 7erformance of an obligationG or as already existed- 9:ic: can not be 7resumed to exist 9it:out t:e ot:er- and 9:ic: increases t:e liability arising from t:e already exiting obligation& 5f t:ese t9o s7ecies of %ulpa t:e first one mentioned- existing by itself- may be also considered as a real source of an inde7endent obligation- and- as c:a7ter - title "* of t:is boo8 of t:e code is de%oted to it- it is logical to 7resume t:at t:e reference contained in article

104
"!,3 is limited t:ereto and t:at it does not extend to t:ose 7ro%isions relating to t:e ot:er s7ecies of %ulpa (negligence$- t:e nature of 9:ic: 9e 9ill discuss later& (Eol& /- 7& ,&$ And in :is commentary on articles ""! and ""!+ :e says t:at t:ese t9o s7ecies of negligence may be some9:at inexactly described as contractual and extra#contractual- t:e letter being t:e %ulpa a0uiliana of t:e Roman la9 and not entailing so strict an obligation as t:e former& T:is terminology is unreser%edly acce7ted by 3anc:e=#Roman (Derec:o Ci%il- fourt: section- C:a7ter `2- Article 22- 'o& " $- and t:e 7rinci7le stated is su77orted be decisions of t:e su7reme court of 37ain- among t:em t:ose of 'o%ember !- "/,* (/! Curis7rudencia Ci%il- 'o& "."$- and Cune )- "/,+ (). Curis7rudencia Ci%il- 'o& "/ $& T:e contract is one for :ire and not one of mandate& (Aarc: "!- "/,)- /" Curis7rudencia Ci%il- 'o& "!)&$ 37anis: Curis7rudencia 7rior to t:e ado7tion of t:e ?or8ing Aen;s Accident (a9 of Canuary 3!- ",!!t:ro9s uncertain lig:t on t:e relation bet9een master and 9or8man& Ao%ed by t:e quic8 industrial de%elo7ment of t:eir 7eo7le- t:e courts of France early a77lied to t:e subBect t:e 7rinci7les common to t:e la9 of bot: countries- 9:ic: are lucidly discussed by t:e leading Frenc: commentators& T:e original Frenc: t:eory- resting t:e res7onsibility of o9ners of industrial enter7rises u7on articles "3/ - "3/3- and "3/+ of t:e Code 'a7oleon- corres7onding in sco7e to articles ",! and ",!3 of t:e 37anis: Code- soon yielded to t:e 7rinci7le t:at t:e true basis is t:e contractual obligation of t:e em7loyer and em7loyee& (3ee "/ Dallo=- ",*- Title "ravail, 33"&$ (ater t:e :ards:i7s resulting from s7ecial exem7tions inserted in contracts for em7loyment led to t:e disco%ery of a t:ird basis for liability in an article of :e Frenc: Code ma8ing t:e 7ossessor of any obBect ans9erable for damage done by it 9:ile in :is c:arge& 5ur la9 :a%ing no counter7art of t:is article- a77licable to e%ery 8ind of obBect- 9e need consider neit:er t:e t:eory gro9ing out of it nor t:at of >7rofessional ris8> more recently im7osed by ex7ress legislation- but rat:er ado7ting t:e inter7retation of our Ci%il Code abo%e gi%en- find a rule for t:is case in t:e contractual obligation& T:is contractual obligation- im7lied from t:e relation and 7er:a7s so in:erent in its nature to be in%ariable by t:e 7arties- binds t:e em7loyer to 7ro%ide safe a77liances for t:e use of t:e em7loyee- t:us closely corres7onding to 4nglis: and American (a9& 5n t:ese 7rinci7les it 9as t:e duty of t:e defendant to build and to maintain its trac8 in reasonably sound condition- so as to 7rotect its 9or8ingmen from unnecessary danger& 2t is 7lain t:at in one res7ect or t:e ot:er it failed in its duty- ot:er9ise t:e accident could not :a%e occurredG consequently t:e negligence of t:e defendant is establis:ed& Anot:er contention of t:e defense is t:at t:e inBury resulted to t:e 7laintiff as a ris8 incident to :is em7loyment and- as suc:- one assumed by :im& 2t is e%ident t:at t:is can not be t:e case if t:e occurrence 9as due to t:e failure to re7air t:e trac8 or to duly ins7ect- it for t:e em7loyee is not 7resumed to :a%e sti7ulated t:at t:e em7loyer mig:t neglect :is legal duty& 'or may it be excused u7on t:e ground t:at t:e negligence leading to t:e accident 9as t:at of a fello9#ser%ant of t:e inBured man& 2t is not a77arent to us t:at t:e inter%ention of a t:ird 7erson can relie%e t:e defendant from t:e 7erformance of its duty nor im7ose u7on t:e 7laintiff t:e consequences of an act or omission not :is o9n& #ua %ui0ue %ulpa no%et& T:is doctrine- 8no9n as >t:e fello9#ser%ant- rule-> 9e are not dis7osed to introduce into our Buris7rudence& Ado7ted in 4ngland by (ord Abinger in t:e case of 6rescottvs. Fo9ler (3 Aeeson & ?elsby- "$ in "/3)- it :as since been effectually abrogated by >t:e 4m7loyers; (iability Acts> and t:e >Com7ensation (a9&> T:e American 3tates 9:ic: a77lied it a77ear to be gradually getting rid of itG for instance- t:e 'e9 @or8 3tate legislature of ",!* did a9ay 9it: it in res7ect to railroad com7anies- and :ad in :and a sc:eme for its total abolition& 2t :as ne%er found 7lace in t:e ci%il la9 of continental 4uro7e& (Dallo=- %ol& 3,- "/./- Title Res7onsibilite- *3!- and %ol& ".- "/,.- same title- /!+& Also more recent instances in Fu=ier#Ferman- Title Res7onsibilite Ci%ile)"!&$ T:e Frenc: !our de !assation clearly laid do9n t:e contrary 7rinci7le in its Budgment of Cune "/+"- in t:e case of Reygasse- and :as since ad:ered to it& /-

105
T:e most contro%erted question in t:e case is t:at of t:e negligence of t:e 7laintiff- contributing to t:e accident- to 9:at extent it existed in fact and 9:at legal effect is to be gi%en it& 2n t9o 7articulars is :e c:arged 9it: carelessness: First& T:at :a%ing noticed t:e de7ression in t:e trac8 :e continued :is 9or8G and 3econd& T:at :e 9al8ed on t:e ends of t:e ties at t:e side of t:e car instead of along t:e boardseit:er before or be:ind it& As to t:e first 7oint- t:e de7ression in t:e trac8 nig:t indicate eit:er a serious or a ri%al difficulty& T:ere is not:ing in t:e e%idence to s:o9 t:at t:e 7laintiff did or could see t:e dis7laced timber underneat: t:e slee7er& T:e claim t:at :e must :a%e done so is a conclusion dra9n from 9:at is assumed to :a%e been a 7robable condition of t:ings not before us- rat:er t:an a fair inference from t:e testimony& ?:ile t:e met:od of construction may :a%e been 8no9n to t:e men 9:o :ad :el7ed build t:e road- it 9as ot:er9ise 9it: t:e 7laintiff 9:o :ad 9or8ed at t:is Bob less t:an t9o days& A man may easily 9al8 along a rail9ay 9it:out 7ercei%ing a dis7lacement of t:e underlying timbers& T:e foreman testified t:at :e 8ne9 t:e state of t:e trac8 on t:e day of t:e accident and t:at it 9as t:en in good condition- and one Danridge- a 9itness for t:e defendant- 9or8ing on t:e same Bob- s9ore t:at :e ne%er noticed t:e de7ression in t:e trac8 and ne%er sa9 any bad 7lace in it& T:e sagging of t:e trac8 t:is 7laintiff did 7ercei%e- but t:at 9as re7orted in :is :earing to t:e foreman 9:o neit:er 7romised nor refused to re7air it& Fis lac8 of caution in continuing at :is 9or8 after noticing t:e slig:t de7ression of t:e rail 9as not of so gross a nature as to constitute negligence- barring :is reco%ery under t:e se%ere American rule& 5n t:is 7oint 9e acce7t t:e conclusion of t:e trial Budge 9:o found as facts t:at >t:e 7laintiff did not 8no9 t:e cause of t:e one rail being lo9er t:an t:en ot:er> and >it does not a77ear in t:is case t:at t:e 7laintiff 8ne9 before t:e accident occurred t:at t:e stringers and rails Boined in t:e same 7lace&> ?ere 9e not dis7osed to agree 9it: t:ese findings t:ey 9ould- ne%ert:eless- be binding u7on usbecause not >7lainly and manifestly against t:e 9eig:t of e%idence-> as t:ose 9ords of section +,)7aragra7: 3 of t:e Code of Ci%il 6rocedure 9ere inter7reted by t:e 3u7reme Court of t:e 1nited 3tates in t:e De la Rama case ( !" 1& 3&- 3!3$& 2n res7ect of t:e second c:arge of negligence against t:e 7laintiff- t:e Budgment belo9 is not so s7ecific& ?:ile t:e Budge remar8s t:at t:e e%idence does not Bustify t:e finding t:at t:e car 9as 7ulled by means of a ro7e attac:ed to t:e front end or to t:e rails u7on it- and furt:er t:at t:e circumstances in e%idence ma8e it clear t:at t:e 7ersons necessary to o7erate t:e car could not 9al8 u7on t:e 7lan8 bet9een t:e rails and t:at- t:erefore- it 9as necessary for t:e em7loyees mo%ing it to get :old u7on it as best t:ey could- t:ere is no s7ecific finding u7on t:e instruction gi%en by t:e defendant to its em7loyees to 9al8 only u7on t:e 7lan8s- nor u7on t:e necessity of t:e 7laintiff 7utting :imself u7on t:e ties at t:e side in order to get :old u7on t:e car& T:erefore t:e findings of t:e Budge belo9 lea%e t:e conduct of t:e 7laintiff in 9al8ing along t:e side of t:e loaded car- u7on t:e o7en ties- o%er t:e de7ressed trac8- free to our inquiry& ?:ile t:e 7laintiff and :is 9itnesses s9ear t:at not only 9ere t:ey not forbidden to 7roceed in t:is 9aybut 9ere ex7ressly directed by t:e foreman to do so- bot: t:e officers of t:e com7any and t:ree of t:e 9or8men testify t:at t:ere 9as a general 7ro:ibition frequently made 8no9n to all t:e gang against 9al8ing by t:e side of t:e car- and t:e foreman s9ears t:at :e re7eated t:e 7ro:ibition before t:e starting of t:is 7articular load& 5n t:is contradiction of 7roof 9e t:in8 t:at t:e 7re7onderance is in fa%or of t:e defendant;s contention to t:e extent of t:e general order being made 8no9n to t:e 9or8men& 2f so- t:e disobedience of t:e 7laintiff in 7lacing :imself in danger contributed in some degree to t:e inBury as a 7roximate- alt:oug: not as its 7rimary cause& T:is conclusion 7resents s:ar7ly t:e question- ?:at effect is to be gi%en suc: an act of contributory negligenceJ Does it defeat a reco%eryaccording to t:e American rule- or is it to be ta8en only in reduction of damagesJ ?:ile a fe9 of t:e American 3tates :a%e ado7ted to a greater or less extent t:e doctrine of com7arati%e negligence- allo9ing a reco%ery by a 7laintiff 9:ose o9n act contributed to :is inBury7ro%ided :is negligence 9as slig:t as com7ared 9it: t:at of t:e defendant- and some ot:ers :a%e

106
acce7ted t:e t:eory of 7ro7ortional damages- reducing t:e a9ard to a 7laintiff in 7ro7ortion to :is res7onsibility for t:e accident- yet t:e o%er9:elming 9eig:t of adBudication establis:es t:e 7rinci7le in American Buris7rudence t:at any negligence- :o9e%er slig:t- on t:e 7art of t:e 7erson inBured 9:ic: is one of t:e causes 7roximately contributing to :is inBury- bars :is reco%ery& (4nglis: and American 4ncyclo7edia of la9- Titles >Com7arati%e 'egligence> and Contributory 'egligence&>$ 2n Grant Trun8 Rail9ay Com7any vs. 2%es ("++ 1& 3&- +!/- at 7age + ,$ t:e 3u7reme Court of t:e 1nited 3tates t:us aut:oritati%ely states t:e 7resent rule of la9: Alt:oug: t:e defendant;s; negligence may :a%e been t:e 7rimary cause of t:e inBury com7lained of- yet an action for suc: inBury can not be maintained if t:e 7roximate and immediate cause of t:e inBury can be traced to t:e 9ant of ordinary care and caution in t:e 7erson inBuredG subBect to t:is qualification- 9:ic: :as gro9n u7 in recent years (:a%ing been first enunciated in Da%ies vs. Aann- "! A& & ?&- .+*$ t:at t:e contributory negligence of t:e 7arty inBured 9ill not defeat t:e action if it be s:o9n t:at t:e defendant mig:t- by t:e exercise of reasonable care and 7rudence- :a%e a%oided t:e consequences of t:e inBured 7arty;s negligence& T:ere are may cases in t:e su7reme court of 37ain in 9:ic: t:e defendant 9as exonerated- but 9:en analy=ed t:ey 7ro%e to :a%e been decided eit:er u7on t:e 7oint t:at :e 9as not negligent or t:at t:e negligence of t:e 7laintiff 9as t:e immediate cause of t:e casualty or t:at t:e accident 9as due to %asus fortuitus& 5f t:e first class in t:e decision of Canuary *- "//) (3/ Jurispruden%ia !riminal'o& )!$- in 9:ic: a rail9ay em7loyee- standing on a car- 9as t:ro9n t:erefrom and 8illed by t:e s:oc8 follo9ing t:e bac8ing u7 of t:e engine& 2t 9as :eld t:at t:e management of t:e train and engine being in conformity 9it: 7ro7er rules of t:e com7any- s:o9ed no fault on its 7art& 5f t:e second class are t:e decision of t:e ".t: of Canuary- t:e ",t: of February- and t:e )t: of Aarc:- ",! - stated in Alcubilla;s 2ndex of t:at yearG and of t:e t:ird class t:e decision of t:e +t: of Cune- "/// (*+Jurispruden%ia !ivil- 'o& "$- in 9:ic: t:e brea8ing do9n of 7laintiff;s dam by t:e logs of t:e defendant im7elled against it by t:e TaBo Ri%er- 9as :eld due to a fres:et as a fortuitous cause& T:e decision of t:e )t: of Aarc:- ",! - on 9:ic: stress :as been laid- rested on t9o bases- one- t:at t:e defendant 9as not negligent- because ex7ressly relie%ed by royal order from t:e common obligation im7osed by t:e 7olice la9 of maintaining a guard at t:e road crossingG t:e ot:er- because t:e act of t:e deceased in dri%ing o%er le%el ground 9it: unobstructed %ie9 in front of a train running at s7eed- 9it: t:e engine 9:istle blo9ing 9as t:e determining cause of t:e accident& 2t is 7lain t:at t:e train 9as doing not:ing but 9:at it :ad a rig:t to do and t:at t:e only fault lay 9it: t:e inBured man& Fis negligence 9as not contributory- it 9as sole- and 9as of suc: an efficient nature t:at 9it:out it no catastro7:e could :a%e :a77ened& 5n t:e ot:er :and- t:ere are many cases re7orted in 9:ic: it seems 7lain t:at t:e 7laintiff sustaining damages 9as not free from contributory negligenceG for instance- t:e decision of t:e "+t: of December- "/,+ ()*Jurispruden%ia !ivil- 'o& "3+$- in 9:ic: t:e o9ner of a building 9as :eld liable for not furnis:ing 7rotection to 9or8men engaged in :anging out flags- 9:en t:e latter must :a%e 7ercei%ed before:and t:e danger attending t:e 9or8& 'one of t:ose cases define t:e effect to be gi%en t:e negligence of a 7laintiff 9:ic: contributed to :is inBury as one of its causes- t:oug: not t:e 7rinci7al one- and 9e are left to see8 t:e t:eory of t:e ci%il la9 in t:e 7ractice of ot:er countries& 2n France in t:e case of Aarquant- August !- "/),- t:e %our de %assation :eld t:at t:e carelessness of t:e %ictim did not ci%illy relie%e t:e 7erson 9it:out 9:ose fault t:e accident could not :a%e :a77ened- but t:at t:e contributory negligence of t:e inBured man :ad t:e effect only of reducing t:e damages& T:e same 7rinci7le 9as a77lied in t:e case of Recullet- 'o%ember "!- "///& and t:at of (augier of t:e ""t: of 'o%ember- "/,*& (Fu=ier#Ferman- Title ,esponsibilite !irile- +""- +" &$ 5f li8e tenor are citations in Dallo= (%ol& "/- "/!*- Title Trail- 3*3- 3*+- and %ol& ".- "/,.- "itle ,esponsibilite",3- ",/$&

107
2n t:e Canadian 6ro%ince of <uebee- 9:ic: :as retained for t:e most 7art t:e Frenc: Ci%il (a9- no9 embodied in a code follo9ing t:e Code 'a7oleon- a 7ractice in accord 9it: t:at of France is laid do9n in many cases collected in t:e annotations to article "!.3 of t:e code edited by 0eauc:am7s- ",!+& 5ne of t:ese is (uttrell vs. Trottier- re7orted in 2a ,evue de Jurispruden%e- %olume *- 7age ,!- in 9:ic: t:e court of Iings benc:- ot:er9ise 8no9n as t:e court of a77eals- t:e :ig:est aut:ority in t:e Dominion of Canada on 7oints of Frenc: la9- :eld t:at contributory negligence did not exonerate t:e defendants 9:ose fault :ad been t:e immediate cause of t:e accident- but entitled :im to a reduction of damages& 5t:er similar cases in t:e 7ro%incial courts :a%e been o%erruled by a77ellate tribunals made u7 of common la9 Budges dra9n from ot:er 7ro%inces- 9:o :a%e 7referred to im7ose uniformally t:roug:out t:e Dominion t:e 4nglis: t:eory of contributory negligence& 3uc: decisions t:ro9 no lig:t u7on t:e doctrines of t:e ci%il la9& 4lse9:ere 9e find t:is 7ractice embodied in legislationG for instance- section of article 3,/ of t:e Code of 6ortugal reads as follo9s: 2f in t:e case of damage t:ere 9as fault or negligence on t:e 7art of t:e 7erson inBured or in t:e 7art of some one else- t:e indemnification s:all be reduced in t:e first case- and in t:e second case it s:all be a77ro7riated in 7ro7ortion to suc: fault or negligence as 7ro%ided in 7aragra7:s " and of section 3) & And in article "3!+ of t:e Austrian Code 7ro%ides t:at t:e %ictim 9:o is 7artly c:angeable 9it: t:e accident s:all stand :is damages in 7ro7ortion to :is fault- but 9:en t:at 7ro7ortion is inca7able of ascertainment- :e s:all s:are t:e liability equally 9it: t:e 7erson 7rinci7ally res7onsible& T:e 7rinci7le of 7ro7ortional damages a77ears to be also ado7ted in article ." of t:e 39iss Code& 4%en in t:e 1nited 3tates in admirality Burisdictions- 9:ose 7rinci7les are deri%ed from t:e ci%il la9- common fault in cases of collision :a%e been dis7osed of not on t:e ground of contradictor negligence- but on t:at of equal loss- t:e fault of t:e one 7art being offset against t:at of t:e ot:er& (Ralli vs. Troo7- ".) 1& 3& 3/*G ,)&$ T:e damage of bot: being added toget:er and t:e sum equally di%ided- a decree is entered in fa%or of t:e %essel sustaining t:e greater loss against t:e ot:er for t:e excess of :er damages o%er one#:alf of t:e aggregate sum& (T:e Aanitoba- " 1& 3&- ,)$ 4xce7tional 7ractice a77ears to 7re%ail in maritime la9 in ot:er Burisdictions& T:e 37anis: Code of Commerce- article / )- ma8es eac: %essel for its o9n damage 9:en bot: are t:e faultG t:is 7ro%ision restricted to a single class of t:e maritime accidents- falls for s:ort of a recognition of t:e 7rinci7le of contributory negligence as understood in American (a9- 9it: 9:ic:- indeed- it :as little in common& T:is is a 7lain from ot:er articles of t:e same codeG for instance- article / ,- referring to articles / */ )- and / /- 9:ic: 7ro%ides: >2n t:e cases abo%e mentioned t:e ci%il action of t:e o9ner against t:e 7erson liable for t:e damage is reser%ed- as 9ell as t:e criminal liability 9:ic: may a77ear&> T:e rule of t:e common la9- a :ard and fast one- not adBustable 9it: res7ects of t:e faults of t:e 7arties- a77ears to :a%e gro9n out t:e original met:od of trial by Bury- 9:ic: rendered difficult a nice balancing of res7onsibilities and 9:ic: demanded an inflexible standard as a safeguard against too ready sym7:aty for t:e inBured& 2t 9as assumed t:at an exact measure of se%eral concurring faults 9as unattainable& T:e reason 9:y- in cases of mutual concurring negligence- neit:er 7arty can maintain an action against t:e ot:er- is- not t:e 9rong of t:e one is set off against t:e 9rong of t:e ot:erG it t:at t:e la9 can not measure :o9 muc: of t:e damage suffered is attributable to t:e 7laintiff;s o9n fault& 2f :e 9ere allo9ed to reco%er- it mig:t be t:at :e 9ould obtain from t:e ot:er 7arty com7ensation for :iss o9n misconduct& (Feil vs.Glanding- + 6enn& 3t& Re7&- +,3- +,,&$ T:e 7arties being mutually in fault- t:ere can be no a77ointment of damages& T:e la9 :as no scales to determine in suc: cases 9:ose 9rongdoing 9eig:ed most in t:e com7ound t:at occasioned t:e misc:ief& (Railroad vs. 'orton- + 6enn& 3t& .*.- +*,&$ 4x7erience 9it: Bury trials in negligence cases :as broug:t American courts to re%ie9 to relax t:e %igor of t:e rule by freely exercising t:e 7o9er of setting aside %erdicts deemed excessi%e- t:roug: t:e

108
de%ice of granting ne9 trials- unless reduced damages are sti7ulated for- amounting to a 7artial re%ision of damages by t:e courts& 2t a77ears to us t:at t:e control by t:e court of t:e subBect matter may be secured on a moral logical basis and its Budgment adBusted 9it: greater nicety to t:e merits of t:e litigants t:roug: t:e 7ractice of offsetting t:eir res7ecti%e res7onsibilities& 2n t:e ci%il la9 system t:e desirable end is not deemed beyond t:e ca7acity of its tribunals& ?:ate%er may 7ro%e to be t:e doctrine finally ado7ted in 37ain or in ot:er countries under t:e stress and counter stress of no%el sc:emers of legislation- 9e find t:e t:eory of damages laid do9n in t:e Budgment t:e most consistent 9it: t:e :istory and t:e 7rinci7als of our la9 in t:ese 2slands and 9it: its logical de%elo7ment& Difficulty seems to be a77re:ended in deciding 9:ic: acts of t:e inBured 7arty s:all be considered immediate causes of t:e accident& T:e test is sim7le& Distinction must be bet9een t:e accident and t:e inBury- bet9een t:e e%ent itself- 9it:out 9:ic: t:ere could :a%e been no accident- and t:ose acts of t:e %ictim not entering into it- inde7endent of it- but contributing under re%ie9 9as t:e dis7lacement of t:e cross7iece or t:e failure to re7lace it& t:is 7roduced t:e e%ent gi%ing occasion for damages O t:at is- t:e s:in8ing of t:e trac8 and t:e sliding of t:e iron rails& To t:is e%ent- t:e act of t:e 7laintiff in 9al8ing by t:e side of t:e car did not contribute- alt:oug: it 9as an element of t:e damage 9:ic: came to :imself& Fad t:e cross7iece been out of 7lace 9:olly or 7artly t:oroug: :is act of omission of duty- t:e last 9ould :a%e been one of t:e determining causes of t:e e%ent or accident- for 9:ic: :e 9ould :a%e been res7onsible& ?:ere :e contributes to t:e 7rinci7al occurrence- as one of its determining factors- :e can not reco%er& ?:ere- in conBunction 9it: t:e occurrence- :e contributes only to :is o9n inBury- :e may reco%er t:e amount t:at t:e defendant res7onsible for t:e e%ent s:ould 7ay for suc: inBury- less a sum deemed a suitable equi%alent for :is o9n im7rudence& Acce7ting- t:oug: 9it: some :esitation- t:e Budgment of t:e trial court- fixing t:e damage incurred by t:e 7laintiff at .-!!! 7esos- t:e equi%alent of -.!! dollars- 1nited 3tates money- 9e deduct t:erefrom -.!! 7esos- t:e amount fairly attributable to :is negligence- and direct Budgment to be entered in fa%or of t:e 7laintiff for t:e resulting sum of -.!! 7esos- 9it: cost of bot: instances- and ten days :ereafter let t:e case be remanded to t:e court belo9 for 7ro7er action& 3o ordered& PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION, INC. and ARMANDO U. CAR+ONEL %& THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and LEONARDO DIONISIO G&R& 'o& (#*. ,.&Aarc: "!- ",/) F4(2C2A'5- J: 2n t:e early morning of ". 'o%ember ",). O at about ":3! a&m& O 7ri%ate res7ondent (eonardo Dionisio 9as on :is 9ay :ome O :e li%ed in " "+#0 Yamora 3treet- 0ang8al- Aa8ati O from a coc8tails#and#dinner meeting 9it: :is boss- t:e general manager of a mar8eting cor7oration& During t:e coc8tails 7:ase of t:e e%ening- Dionisio :ad ta8en >a s:ot or t9o> of liquor& Dionisio 9as dri%ing :is Eol8s9agen car and :ad Bust crossed t:e intersection of General (acuna and General 3antos 3treets at 0ang8al- Aa8ati- not far from :is :ome- and 9as 7roceeding do9n General (acuna 3treet- 9:en :is car :eadlig:ts (in :is allegation$ suddenly failed& Fe s9itc:ed :is :eadlig:ts on >brig:t> and t:ereu7on :e sa9 a Ford dum7 truc8 looming some #"H meters a9ay from :is car& T:e dum7 truc8- o9ned by and registered in t:e name of 7etitioner 6:oenix Construction 2nc& (>6:oenix>$- 9as 7ar8ed on t:e rig:t :and side of General (acuna 3treet (i&e&- on t:e rig:t :and side of a 7erson facing in t:e same direction to9ard 9:ic: Dionisio;s car 9as 7roceeding$- facing t:e oncoming traffic& T:e dum7 truc8 9as 7ar8ed as8e9 (not 7arallel to t:e street curb$ in suc: a manner as to stic8 out onto t:e street7artly bloc8ing t:e 9ay of oncoming traffic& T:ere 9ere no lig:ts nor any so#called >early 9arning> reflector de%ices set any9:ere near t:e dum7 truc8- front or rear& T:e dum7 truc8 :ad earlier t:at e%ening been dri%en :ome by 7etitioner Armando 1& Carbonel- its regular dri%er- 9it: t:e 7ermission of :is em7loyer 6:oenix- in %ie9 of 9or8 sc:eduled to be carried out early t:e follo9ing morning- Dionisio claimed t:at :e tried to a%oid a collision by s9er%ing :is car to t:e left but it 9as too late and :is car

109
smas:ed into t:e dum7 truc8& As a result of t:e collision- Dionisio suffered some 7:ysical inBuries including some 7ermanent facial scars- a >ner%ous brea8do9n> and loss of t9o gold bridge dentures& Dionisio commenced an action for damages in t:e Court of First 2nstance of 6am7anga basically claiming t:at t:e legal and 7roximate cause of :is inBuries 9as t:e negligent manner in 9:ic: Carbonel :ad 7ar8ed t:e dum7 truc8 entrusted to :im by :is em7loyer 6:oenix& 6:oenix and Carbonel- on t:e ot:er :and- countered t:at t:e 7roximate cause of Dionisio;s inBuries 9as :is o9n rec8lessness in dri%ing fast at t:e time of t:e accident- 9:ile under t:e influence of liquor- 9it:out :is :eadlig:ts on and 9it:out a curfe9 7ass& 6:oenix also soug:t to establis: t:at it :ad exercised due rare in t:e selection and su7er%ision of t:e dum7 truc8 dri%er& T:e trial court rendered Budgment in fa%or of Dionisio and against 6:oenix and Carbonel and ordered t:e latter: ("$ To 7ay 7laintiff Bointly and se%erally t:e sum of 6 ".-!!!&!! for :os7ital bills and t:e re7lacement of t:e lost dentures of 7laintiffG ( $ To 7ay 7laintiff Bointly and se%erally t:e sum of 6 "-.!-!!!&#!! as loss of ex7ected income for 7laintiff broug:t about t:e accident in contro%ersy and 9:ic: is t:e result of t:e negligence of t:e defendantsG (3$ To 7ay t:e 7laintiff Bointly and se%erally t:e sum of 6 "!-!!!& as moral damages for t:e unex7ected and sudden 9it:dra9al of 7laintiff from :is lifetime career as a mar8eting manG mental anguis:- 9ounded feeling- serious anxiety- social :umiliationbesmirc:ed re7utation- feeling of economic insecurity- and t:e untold sorro9s and frustration in life ex7erienced by 7laintiff and :is family since t:e accident in contro%ersy u7 to t:e 7resent timeG (+$ To 7ay 7laintiff Bointly and se%erally t:e sum of 6 "!-!!!&!! as damages for t:e 9anton disregard of defendants to settle amicably t:is case 9it: t:e 7laintiff before t:e filing of t:is case in court for a smaller amount& (.$ To 7ay t:e 7laintiff Bointly and se%erally t:e sum of 6 +-.!!&!! due as and for attorney;s feesG and (*$ T:e cost of suit& (4m7:asis su77lied$ 6:oenix and Carbonel a77ealed to t:e 2ntermediate A77ellate Court& T:at court in CA#G&R& 'o& *.+)* affirmed t:e decision of t:e trial court but modified t:e a9ard of damages to t:e follo9ing extent: "& T:e a9ard of 6".-!!!&!! as com7ensatory damages 9as reduced to &?,A?C.@<, t:e latter being t:e only amount t:at t:e a77ellate court found t:e 7laintiff to :a%e 7ro%ed as actually sustained by :imG & T:e a9ard of 6".!-!!!&!! as loss of ex7ected income 9as reduced to &<CC,CCC.CC,basically because Dionisio :ad %oluntarily resigned :is Bob suc: t:at- in t:e o7inion of t:e a77ellate court- :is loss of income >9as not solely attributable to t:e accident in questionG> and 3& T:e a9ard of 6"!!-!!!&!! as moral damages 9as :eld by t:e a77ellate court as excessi%e and unconscionable and :ence reduced to &BC,CCC.CC. T:e a9ard of &<C,CCC.CC as exem7lary damages and &A,BCC.CC as attorney;s fees and costs remained untouc:ed& T:is decision of t:e 2ntermediate A77ellate Court is no9 before us on a 7etition for re%ie9& 0ot: t:e trial court and t:e a77ellate court :ad made fairly ex7licit findings of fact relating to t:e manner in 9:ic: t:e dum7 truc8 9as 7ar8ed along General (acuna 3treet on t:e basis of 9:ic: bot: courts dre9 t:e inference t:at t:ere 9as negligence on t:e 7art of Carbonel- t:e dum7 truc8 dri%er-

110
and t:at t:is negligence 9as t:e 7roximate cause of t:e accident and Dionisio;s inBuries& ?e note:o9e%er- t:at bot: courts failed to 7ass u7on t:e defense raised by Carbonel and 6:oenix t:at t:e true legal and 7roximate cause of t:e accident 9as not t:e 9ay in 9:ic: t:e dum7 truc8 :ad been 7ar8ed but rat:er t:e rec8less 9ay in 9:ic: Dionisio :ad dri%en :is car t:at nig:t 9:en :e smas:ed into t:e dum7 truc8& T:e 2ntermediate A77ellate Court in its questioned decision casually conceded t:at Dionisio 9as >in some 9ay- negligent> but a77arently failed to see t:e rele%ance of Dionisio;s negligence and made no furt:er mention of it& ?e :a%e examined t:e record bot: before t:e trial court and t:e 2ntermediate A77ellate Court and 9e find t:at bot: 7arties :ad 7laced into t:e record sufficient e%idence on t:e basis of 9:ic: t:e trial court and t:e a77ellate court could :a%e and s:ould :a%e made findings of fact relating to t:e alleged rec8less manner in 9:ic: Dionisio dro%e :is car t:at nig:t& T:e 7etitioners 6:oenix and Carbonel contend t:at if t:ere 9as negligence in t:e manner in 9:ic: t:e dum7 truc8 9as 7ar8ed- t:at negligence 9as merely a >7assi%e and static condition> and t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent Dionisio;s rec8lessness constituted an inter%ening- efficient cause determinati%e of t:e accident and t:e inBuries :e sustained& T:e need to administer substantial Bustice as bet9een t:e 7arties in t:is case- 9it:out :a%ing to remand it bac8 to t:e trial court after ele%en years- com7els us to address directly t:e contention 7ut for9ard by t:e 7etitioners and to examine for oursel%es t:e record 7ertaining to Dionisio;s alleged negligence 9:ic: must bear u7on t:e liability- or extent of liability- of 6:oenix and Carbonel& T:ere are four factual issues t:at need to be loo8ed into: (a$ 9:et:er or not 7ri%ate res7ondent Dionisio :ad a curfe9 7ass %alid and effecti%e for t:at e%entful nig:tG (b$ 9:et:er Dionisio 9as dri%ing fast or s7eeding Bust before t:e collision 9it: t:e dum7 truc8G (c$ 9:et:er Dionisio :ad 7ur7osely turned off :is car;s :eadlig:ts before contact 9it: t:e dum7 truc8 or 9:et:er t:ose :eadlig:ts accidentally malfunctioned moments before t:e collisionG and (d$ 9:et:er Dionisio 9as intoxicated at t:e time of t:e accident& As to t:e first issue relating to t:e curfe9 7ass- it is clear t:at no curfe9 7ass 9as found on t:e 7erson of Dionisio immediately after t:e accident nor 9as any found in :is car& 6:oenix;s e%idence :ere consisted of t:e testimony of 6atrolman Cuyno 9:o :ad ta8en Dionisio- unconscious- to t:e Aa8ati Aedical Center for emergency treatment immediately after t:e accident& At t:e Aa8ati Aedical Centera nurse too8 off Dionisio;s clot:es and examined t:em along 9it: t:e contents of 7oc8ets toget:er 9it: 6atrolman Cuyno& 6ri%ate res7ondent Dionisio 9as not able to 7roduce any curfe9 7ass during t:e trial& 2nstead- :e offered t:e ex7lanation t:at :is family may :a%e mis7laced :is curfe9 7ass& Fe also offered a certification (dated t9o years after t:e accident$ issued by one AaBor 0enBamin '& (ibarnes of t:e Yone 2ntegrated 6olice 2ntelligence 1nit of Cam7 5li%as- 3an Fernando- 6am7anga- 9:ic: 9as said to :a%e aut:ority to issue curfe9 7asses for 6am7anga and Aetro Aanila& T:is certification 9as to t:e effect t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent Dionisio :ad a %alid curfe9 7ass& T:is certification did not:o9e%er- s7ecify any 7ass serial number or date or 7eriod of effecti%ity of t:e su77osed curfe9 7ass& ?e find t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent Dionisio 9as unable to 7ro%e 7ossession of a %alid curfe9 7ass during t:e nig:t of t:e accident and t:at t:e 7re7onderance of e%idence s:o9s t:at :e did not :a%e suc: a 7ass during t:at nig:t& T:e rele%ance of 7ossession or non#7ossession of a curfe9 7ass t:at nig:t lies in t:e lig:t it tends to s:ed on t:e ot:er related issues: 9:et:er Dionisio 9as s7eeding :ome and 9:et:er :e :ad indeed 7ur7osely 7ut out :is :eadlig:ts before t:e accident- in order to a%oid detection and 7ossibly arrest by t:e 7olice in t:e nearby 7olice station for tra%elling after t:e onset of curfe9 9it:out a %alid curfe9 7ass& 5n t:e second issue O 9:et:er or not Dionisio 9as s7eeding :ome t:at nig:t O bot: t:e trial court and t:e a77ellate court 9ere com7letely silent& T:e defendants in t:e trial court introduced t:e testimony of 6atrolman Cuyno 9:o 9as at t:e scene of t:e accident almost immediately after it occurred- t:e 7olice station 9:ere :e 9as based being barely !! meters a9ay& 6atrolman Cuyno testified t:at 7eo7le 9:o :ad gat:ered at t:e scene of t:e accident told :im t:at Dionisio;s car 9as >mo%ing fast> and did not :a%e its :eadlig:ts on& Dionisio- on t:e ot:er :and- claimed t:at :e 9as tra%elling at a moderate s7eed at 3! 8ilometers 7er :our and :ad

111
Bust crossed t:e intersection of General 3antos and General (acuna 3treets and :ad started to accelerate 9:en :is :eadlig:ts failed Bust before t:e collision too8 7lace& 6ri%ate res7ondent Dionisio asserts t:at 6atrolman Cuyno;s testimony 9as :earsay and did not fag 9it:in any of t:e recogni=ed exce7tions to t:e :earsay rule since t:e facts :e testified to 9ere not acquired by :im t:roug: official information and :ad not been gi%en by t:e informants 7ursuant to any duty to do so& 6ri%ate res7ondent;s obBection fails to ta8e account of t:e fact t:at t:e testimony of 6atrolman Cuyno is admissible not under t:e official records exce7tion to t:e :earsay rule but rat:er as 7art of t:e res gestae& Testimonial e%idence under t:is exce7tion to t:e :earsay rule consists of excited utterances made on t:e occasion of an occurrence or e%ent sufficiently startling in nature so as to render ino7erati%e t:e normal reflecti%e t:oug:t 7rocesses of t:e obser%er and :ence made as a s7ontaneous reaction to t:e occurrence or e%ent- and not t:e result of reflecti%e t:oug:t& ?e t:in8 t:at an automobile s7eeding do9n a street and suddenly smas:ing into a stationary obBect in t:e dead of nig:t is a sufficiently startling e%ent as to e%o8e s7ontaneous- rat:er t:an reflecti%ereactions from obser%ers 9:o :a77ened to be around at t:at time& T:e testimony of 6atrolman Cuyno 9as t:erefore admissible as 7art of t:eres gestae and s:ould :a%e been considered by t:e trial court& Clearly- substantial 9eig:t s:ould :a%e been ascribed to suc: testimony- e%en t:oug: it did not- as it could not- :a%e 7ur7orted to describe quantitati%ely t:e 7recise %elocity at 9inc: Dionisio 9as tra%elling Bust before im7act 9it: t:e 6:oenix dum7 truc8& A t:ird related issue is 9:et:er Dionisio 7ur7osely turned off :is :eadlig:ts- or 9:et:er :is :eadlig:ts accidentally malfunctioned- Bust moments before t:e accident& T:e 2ntermediate A77ellate Court ex7ressly found t:at t:e :eadlig:ts of Dionisio;s car 9ent off as :e crossed t:e intersection but 9as non#committal as to 9:y t:ey did so& 2t is t:e 7etitioners; contention t:at Dionisio 7ur7osely s:ut off :is :eadlig:ts e%en before :e reac:ed t:e intersection so as not to be detected by t:e 7olice in t:e 7olice 7recinct 9:ic: :e (being a resident in t:e area$ 8ne9 9as not far a9ay from t:e intersection& ?e belie%e t:at t:e 7etitioners; t:eory is a more credible ex7lanation t:an t:at offered by 7ri%ate res7ondent Dionisio O i&e&- t:at :e :ad :is :eadlig:ts on but t:at- at t:e crucial moment- t:ese :ad in some mysterious if con%enient 9ay malfunctioned and gone off- alt:oug: :e succeeded in s9itc:ing :is lig:ts on again at >brig:t> s7lit seconds before contact 9it: t:e dum7 truc8& A fourt: and final issue relates to 9:et:er Dionisio 9as intoxicated at t:e time of t:e accident& T:e e%idence :ere consisted of t:e testimony of 6atrolman Cuyno to t:e effect t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent Dionisio smelled of liquor at t:e time :e 9as ta8en from :is smas:ed car and broug:t to t:e Aa8ati Aedical Center in an unconscious condition& T:is testimony :as to be ta8en in conBunction 9it: t:e admission of Dionisio t:at :e :ad ta8en >a s:ot or t9o> of liquor before dinner 9it: :is boss t:at nig:t& ?e do not belie%e t:at t:is e%idence is sufficient to s:o9 t:at Dionisio 9as so :ea%ily under t:e influence of liquor as to constitute :is dri%ing a motor %e:icle 7er se an act of rec8less im7rudence& T:ere sim7ly is not enoug: e%idence to s:o9 :o9 muc: liquor :e :ad in fact ta8en and t:e effects of t:at u7on :is 7:ysical faculties or u7on :is Budgment or mental alertness& ?e are also a9are t:at >one s:ot or t9o> of :ard liquor may affect different 7eo7le differently& T:e conclusion 9e dra9 from t:e factual circumstances outlined abo%e is t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent Dionisio 9as negligent t:e nig:t of t:e accident& Fe 9as :urrying :ome t:at nig:t and dri%ing faster t:an :e s:ould :a%e been& ?orse- :e extinguis:ed :is :eadlig:ts at or near t:e intersection of General (acuna and General 3antos 3treets and t:us did not see t:e dum7 truc8 t:at 9as 7ar8ed as8e9 and stic8ing out onto t:e road lane& 'onet:eless- 9e agree 9it: t:e Court of First 2nstance and t:e 2ntermediate A77ellate Court t:at t:e legal and 7roximate cause of t:e accident and of Dionisio;s inBuries 9as t:e 9rongful O or negligent manner in 9:ic: t:e dum7 truc8 9as 7ar8ed in ot:er 9ords- t:e negligence of 7etitioner Carbonel& T:at t:ere 9as a reasonable relations:i7 bet9een 7etitioner Carbonel;s negligence on t:e one :and and t:e accident and res7ondent;s inBuries on t:e ot:er :and- is quite clear& 6ut in a slig:tly different manner- t:e collision of Dionisio;s car 9it: t:e dum7 truc8 9as a natural and foreseeable consequence of t:e truc8 dri%er;s negligence&

112
T:e 7etitioners- :o9e%er- urge t:at t:e truc8 dri%er;s negligence 9as merely a >7assi%e and static condition> and t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent Dionisio;s negligence 9as an >efficient inter%ening cause and t:at consequently Dionisio;s negligence must be regarded as t:e legal and 7roximate cause of t:e accident rat:er t:an t:e earlier negligence of Carbonel& ?e note t:at t:e 7etitioners; arguments are dra9n from a reading of some of t:e older cases in %arious Burisdictions in t:e 1nited 3tates but 9e are unable to 7ersuade oursel%es t:at t:ese arguments :a%e any %alidity for our Burisdiction& ?e notefirstly- t:at e%en in t:e 1nited 3tates- t:e distinctions bet9een >cause> and >condition> 9:ic: t:e ;7etitioners 9ould :a%e us ado7t :a%e already been >almost entirely discredited&> 6rofessors and Ieeton ma8e t:is quite clear: !ause and %ondition. Aany courts :a%e soug:t to distinguis: bet9een t:e acti%e >cause> of t:e :arm and t:e existing >conditions> u7on 9:ic: t:at cause o7erated& 2f t:e defendant :as created only a 7assi%e static condition 9:ic: made t:e damage 7ossiblet:e defendant is said not to be liable& But so far as the fa%t of %ausation is %on%erned, in the sense of ne%essary ante%edents 'hi%h have played an important part in produ%ing the result it is 0uite impossible to distinguish bet'een a%tive for%es and passive situations, parti%ularly sin%e, as is invariably the %ase, the latter are the result of other a%tive for%es 'hi%h have gone before. T:e defendant 9:o s7ills gasoline about t:e 7remises creates a >condition-> but t:e act may be cul7able because of t:e danger of fire& ?:en a s7ar8 ignites t:e gasoline- t:e condition :as done quite as muc: to bring about t:e fire as t:e s7ar8G and since t:at is t:e %ery ris8 9:ic: t:e defendant :as created- t:e defendant 9ill not esca7e res7onsibility& Even the lapse of a %onsiderable time during 'hi%h the 8%ondition8 remains stati% 'ill not ne%essarily affe%t liabilityH one 9:o digs a trenc: in t:e :ig:9ay may still be liable to anot:er 9:o fans into it a mont: after9ard& 8!ause8 and 8%ondition8 still find o%%asional mention in the de%isionsH but the distin%tion is no' almost entirely dis%redited. 3o far as it :as any %alidity at all- it must refer to t:e ty7e of case 9:ere t:e forces set in o7eration by t:e defendant :a%e come to rest in a 7osition of a77arent safety- and some ne9 force inter%enes& But even in su%h %ases, it is not the distin%tion bet'een 8%ause8 and 8%ondition8 'hi%h is important but the nature of the ris/ and the %hara%ter of the intervening %ause& ?e belie%e- secondly- t:at t:e truc8 dri%er;s negligence far from being a >7assi%e and static condition> 9as rat:er an indis7ensable and efficient cause& T:e collision bet9een t:e dum7 truc8 and t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent;s car 9ould in an 7robability not :a%e occurred :ad t:e dum7 truc8 not been 7ar8ed as8e9 9it:out any 9arning lig:ts or reflector de%ices& T:e im7ro7er 7ar8ing of t:e dum7 truc8 created an unreasonable ris8 of inBury for anyone dri%ing do9n General (acuna 3treet and for :a%ing so created t:is ris8- t:e truc8 dri%er must be :eld res7onsible& 2n our %ie9- Dionisio;s negligence- alt:oug: later in 7oint of time t:an t:e truc8 dri%er;s negligence and t:erefore closer to t:e accident- 9as not an efficient inter%ening or inde7endent cause& ?:at t:e 6etitioners describe as an >inter%ening cause> 9as no more t:an a foreseeable consequent manner 9:ic: t:e truc8 dri%er :ad 7ar8ed t:e dum7 truc8& 2n ot:er 9ords- t:e 7etitioner truc8 dri%er o9ed a duty to 7ri%ate res7ondent Dionisio and ot:ers similarly situated not to im7ose u7on t:em t:e %ery ris8 t:e truc8 dri%er :ad created& Dionisio;s negligence 9as not of an inde7endent and o%er7o9ering nature as to cut- as it 9ere- t:e c:ain of causation in fact bet9een t:e im7ro7er 7ar8ing of t:e dum7 truc8 and t:e accident- nor to se%er t:e Buris %inculum of liability& 2t is :el7ful to quote once more from 6rofessor and Ieeton: $oreseeable )ntervening !auses. )f the intervening %ause is one 'hi%h in ordinary human e.perien%e is reasonably to be anti%ipated or one 'hi%h the defendant has reason to anti%ipate under the parti%ular %ir%umstan%es, the defendant may be negligen%e among other reasons, be%ause of failure to guard against itH or the defendant may be negligent only for that reason. T:us one 9:o sets a fire may be required to foresee t:at an ordinary- usual and customary 9ind arising later 9ig s7read it beyond t:e defendant;s o9n 7ro7erty- and t:erefore to ta8e 7recautions to 7re%ent t:at e%ent& T:e 7erson 9:o lea%es t:e combustible or ex7losi%e material ex7osed in a 7ublic 7lace may foresee t:e ris8 of fire from some inde7endent source& &&& )n all of

113
these %ases there is an intervening %ause %ombining 'ith the defendant's %ondu%t to produ%e the result and in ea%h %ase the defendant's negligen%e %onsists in failure to prote%t the plaintiff against that very ris/. Obviously the defendant %annot be relieved from liability by the fa%t that the ris/ or a substantial and important part of the ris/, to 'hi%h the defendant has sub*e%ted the plaintiff has indeed %ome to pass. $oreseeable intervening for%es are 'ithin the s%ope original ris/, and hen%e of the defendant's negligen%e. T:e courts are quite generally agreed t:at inter%ening causes 9:ic: fall fairly in t:is category 9ill not su7ersede t:e defendant;s res7onsibility& "hus it has been held t:at a defendant 9ill be required to antici7ate t:e usual 9eat:er of t:e %icinity- including all ordinary forces of nature suc: as usual 9ind or rain- or sno9 or frost or fog or e%en lig:tningG that one 'ho leaves an obstru%tion on the road or a railroad tra%/ should foresee that a vehi%le or a train 'ill run into itH &&& "he ris/ %reated by the defendant may in%lude the intervention of the foreseeable negligen%e of others. ... I"he standard of reasonable %ondu%t may re0uire the defendant to prote%t the plaintiff against 'that o%%asional negligen%e 'hi%h is one of the ordinary in%idents of human life, and therefore to be anti%ipated.' T:us- a defendant 9:o bloc8s t:e side9al8 and forces t:e 7laintiff to 9al8 in a street 9:ere t:e 7laintiff 9ill be ex7osed to t:e ris8s of :ea%y traffic becomes liable 9:en t:e 7laintiff is run do9n by a car- e%en t:oug: t:e car is negligently dri%enG and one 'ho par/s an automobile on the high'ay 'ithout lights at night is not relieved of responsibility 'hen another negligently drives into it. 777 ?e :old t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent Dionisio;s negligence 9as >only contributory-> t:at t:e >immediate and 7roximate cause> of t:e inBury remained t:e truc8 dri%er;s >lac8 of due care> and t:at consequently res7ondent Dionisio may reco%er damages t:oug: suc: damages are subBect to mitigation by t:e courts (Article "),- Ci%il Code of t:e 6:ili77ines$& 6etitioners also as8 us to a77ly 9:at t:ey refer to as t:e >last clear c:ance> doctrine& T:e t:eory :ere of 7etitioners is t:at 9:ile t:e 7etitioner truc8 dri%er 9as negligent- 7ri%ate res7ondent Dionisio :ad t:e >last clear c:ance> of a%oiding t:e accident and :ence :is inBuries- and t:at Dionisio :a%ing failed to ta8e t:at >last clear c:ance> must bear :is o9n inBuries alone& T:e last clear c:ance doctrine of t:e common la9 9as im7orted into our Burisdiction by &i%art vs. #mith but it is a matter for debate 9:et:er- or to 9:at extent- it :as found its 9ay into t:e Ci%il Code of t:e 6:ili77ines& T:e :istorical function of t:at doctrine in t:e common la9 9as to mitigate t:e :ars:ness of anot:er common la9 doctrine or rule t:at of contributory negligence& T:e common la9 rule of contributory negligence 7re%ented any reco%ery at all by a 7laintiff 9:o 9as also negligent- e%en if t:e 7laintiff;s negligence 9as relati%ely minor as com7ared 9it: t:e 9rongful act or omission of t:e defendant& T:e common la9 notion of last clear c:ance 7ermitted courts to grant reco%ery to a 7laintiff 9:o :ad also been negligent 7ro%ided t:at t:e defendant :ad t:e last clear c:ance to a%oid t:e casualty and failed to do so& Accordingly- it is difficult to see 9:at role- if any- t:e common la9 last clear c:ance doctrine :as to 7lay in a Burisdiction 9:ere t:e common la9 conce7t of contributory negligence as an absolute bar to reco%ery by t:e 7laintiff- :as itself been reBected- as it :as been in Article "), of t:e Ci%il Code of t:e 6:ili77ines& 2s t:ere 7er:a7s a general conce7t of >last clear c:ance> t:at may be extracted from its common la9 matrix and utili=ed as a general rule in negligence cases in a ci%il la9 Burisdiction li8e oursJ ?e do not belie%e so& 1nder Article "),- t:e tas8 of a court- in tec:nical terms- is to determine 9:ose negligence O t:e 7laintiff;s or t:e defendant;s O 9as t:e legal or 7roximate cause of t:e inBury& T:at tas8 is not sim7ly or e%en 7rimarily an exercise in c:ronology or 7:ysics- as t:e 7etitioners seem to im7ly by t:e use of terms li8e >last> or >inter%ening> or >immediate&> T:e relati%e location in t:e continuum of time of t:e 7laintiff;s and t:e defendant;s negligent acts or omissions- is only one of t:e rele%ant factors t:at may be ta8en into account& 5f more fundamental im7ortance are t:e nature of t:e

114
negligent act or omission of eac: 7arty and t:e c:aracter and gra%ity of t:e ris8s created by suc: act or omission for t:e rest of t:e community& T:e 7etitioners urge t:at t:e truc8 dri%er (and t:erefore :is em7loyer$ s:ould be absol%ed from res7onsibility for :is o9n 7rior negligence because t:e unfortunate 7laintiff failed to act 9it: t:at increased diligence 9:ic: :ad become necessary to a%oid t:e 7eril 7recisely created by t:e truc8 dri%er;s o9n 9rongful act or omission& To acce7t t:is 7ro7osition is to come too close to 9i7ing out t:e fundamental 7rinci7le of la9 t:at a man must res7ond for t:e forseeable consequences of :is o9n negligent act or omission& 5ur la9 on quasi#delicts see8s to reduce t:e ris8s and burdens of li%ing in society and to allocate t:em among t:e members of society& To acce7t t:e 7etitioners; 7ro#7osition must tend to 9ea8en t:e %ery bonds of society& 6etitioner Carbonel;s 7ro%en negligence creates a 7resum7tion of negligence on t:e 7art of :is em7loyer 6:oenix in su7er%ising its em7loyees 7ro7erly and adequately& T:e res7ondent a77ellate court in effect found- correctly in our o7inion- t:at 6:oenix 9as not able to o%ercome t:is 7resum7tion of negligence& T:e circumstance t:at 6:oenix :ad allo9ed its truc8 dri%er to bring t:e dum7 truc8 to :is :ome 9:ene%er t:ere 9as 9or8 to be done early t:e follo9ing morning- 9:en cou7led 9it: t:e failure to s:o9 any effort on t:e 7art of 6:oenix to su7er%ise t:e manner in 9:ic: t:e dum7 truc8 is 7ar8ed 9:en a9ay from com7any 7remises- is an affirmati%e s:o9ing of %ulpa in vigilando on t:e 7art of 6:oenix& Turning to t:e a9ard of damages and ta8ing into account t:e com7arati%e negligence of 7ri%ate res7ondent Dionisio on one :and and 7etitioners Carbonel and 6:oenix u7on t:e ot:er :and- 9e belie%e t:at t:e demands of substantial Bustice are satisfied by allocating most of t:e damages on a !#/! ratio& T:us- !] of t:e damages a9arded by t:e res7ondent a77ellate court- exce7t t:e a9ard of 6"!-!!!&!! as exem7lary damages and 6+-.!!&!! as attorney;s fees and costs- s:all be borne by 7ri%ate res7ondent DionisioG only t:e balance of /!] needs to be 7aid by 7etitioners Carbonel and 6:oenix 9:o s:all be solidarity liable t:erefor to t:e former& T:e a9ard of exem7lary damages and attorney;s fees and costs s:all be borne exclusi%ely by t:e 7etitioners& 6:oenix is of course entitled to reimbursement from Carbonel& ?e see no sufficient reason for disturbing t:e reduced a9ard of damages made by t:e res7ondent a77ellate court& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e decision of t:e res7ondent a77ellate court is modified by reducing t:e aggregate amount of com7ensatory damages- loss of ex7ected income and moral damages 7ri%ate res7ondent Dionisio is entitled to by !] of suc: amount& Costs against t:e 7etitioners&

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION %& HONORA+LE COURT OF APPEALS and ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. G&R& 'o& (#+)3),&Aay "*- ",// ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. %& COURT OF APPEALS and NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION G&R& 'o& (#+)+/"&Aay "*- ",// G1T24RR4Y- CR&- J.: T:ese consolidated 7etitions see8 to set aside t:e decision of t:e res7ondent Court of A77eals 9:ic: adBudged t:e 'ational 6o9er Cor7oration liable for damages against 4ngineering Construction- 2nc& T:e a77ellate court- :o9e%er- reduced t:e amount of damages a9arded by t:e trial court& Fence- bot: 7arties filed t:eir res7ecti%e 7etitions: t:e 'ational 6o9er Cor7oration ('6C$ in G&R& 'o& +)3),questioning t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals for :olding it liable for damages and t:e 4ngineering Construction- 2nc& (4C2$ in G&R& 'o& +)+/"- questioning t:e same decision for reducing t:e consequential damages and attorney;s fees and for eliminating t:e exem7lary damages& T:e facts are succinctly summari=ed by t:e res7ondent Court of A77eals- as follo9s:

115
5n August +- ",*+- 7laintiff 4ngineering Construction- 2nc&- being a successful bidderexecuted a contract in Aanila 9it: t:e 'ational ?ater9or8s and 3e9erage Aut:ority ('A?A3A$- 9:ereby t:e former undertoo8 to furnis: all tools- labor- equi7ment- and materials (not furnis:ed by 59ner$- and to construct t:e 7ro7osed nd l7o#0icti Tunnel2nta8e and 5utlet 3tructures- and A77urtenant 3tructures- and A77urtenant Features- at 'or=agaray- 0ulacan- and to com7lete said 9or8s 9it:in eig:t :undred (/!!$ calendar days from t:e date t:e Contractor recei%es t:e formal notice to 7roceed (4x:& A$& T:e 7roBect in%ol%ed t9o ( $ maBor 7:ases: t:e first 7:ase com7rising- t:e tunnel 9or8 co%ering a distance of se%en ()$ 8ilometers- 7assing t:roug: t:e mountain- from t:e 27o ri%er- a 7art of 'or=agaray- 0ulacan- 9:ere t:e 27o Dam of t:e defendant 'ational 6o9er Cor7oration is located- to 0ictiG t:e ot:er 7:ase consisting of t:e out9or8s at bot: ends of t:e tunnel& 0y 3e7tember ",*)- t:e 7laintiff cor7oration already :ad com7leted t:e first maBor 7:ase of t:e 9or8- namely- t:e tunnel exca%ation 9or8& 3ome 7ortions of t:e out9or8s at t:e 0icti site 9ere still under construction& As soon as t:e 7laintiff cor7oration :ad finis:ed t:e tunnel exca%ation 9or8 at t:e 0icti site- all t:e equi7ment no longer needed t:ere 9ere transferred to t:e 27o site 9:ere some 7roBects 9ere yet to be com7leted& T:e record s:o9s t:at on 'o%ember +-",*)- ty7:oon ;?elming; :it Central (u=on7assing t:roug: defendant;s Angat Fydro#electric 6roBect and Dam at l7o- 'or=agaray0ulacan& 3trong 9inds struc8 t:e 7roBect area- and :ea%y rains intermittently fell& Due to t:e :ea%y do9n7our- t:e 9ater in t:e reser%oir of t:e Angat Dam 9as rising 7erilously at t:e rate of sixty (*!$ centimeters 7er :our& To 7re%ent an o%erflo9 of 9ater from t:e dam- since t:e 9ater le%el :ad reac:ed t:e danger :eig:t of " meters abo%e sea le%el- t:e defendant cor7oration caused t:e o7ening of t:e s7ill9ay gates&> (77& +.#+*(#+)3),- Rollo$ T:e a77ellate court sustained t:e findings of t:e trial court t:at t:e e%idence 7re7onlderantly establis:ed t:e fact t:at due to t:e negligent manner 9it: 9:ic: t:e s7ill9ay gates of t:e Angat Dam 9ere o7ened- an extraordinary large %olume of 9ater rus:ed out of t:e gates- and :it t:e installations and construction 9or8s of 4C2 at t:e l7o site 9it: terrific im7act- as a result of 9:ic: t:e latter;s stoc87ile of materials and su77lies- cam7 facilities and 7ermanent structures and accessories eit:er 9as:ed a9ay- lost or destroyed& T:e a77ellate court furt:er found t:at: 2t cannot be 7retended t:at t:ere 9as no negligence or t:at t:e a77ellant exercised extraordinary care in t:e o7ening of t:e s7ill9ay gates of t:e Angat Dam& Aaintainers of t:e dam 8ne9 %ery 9ell t:at it 9as far more safe to o7en t:em gradually& 0ut t:e s7ill9ay gates 9ere o7ened only 9:en ty7:oon ?elming 9as already at its :eig:t- in a %ain effort to race against time and 7re%ent t:e o%erflo9 of 9ater from t:e dam as it ;9as rising dangerously at t:e rate of sixty centimeters 7er :our& ;Action could :a%e been ta8en as early as 'o%ember 3- ",*)- 9:en t:e 9ater in t:e reser%oir 9as still lo9& At t:at time- t:e gates of t:e dam could :a%e been o7ened in a regulated manner& (et it be stressed t:at t:e a77ellant 8ne9 of t:e coming of t:e ty7:oon four days before it actually :it t:e 7roBect area& (7& .3- (#+)3),- Rollo$ As to t:e a9ard of damages- t:e a77ellate court :eld: ?e come no9 to t:e a9ard of damages& T:e a77ellee submitted a list of estimated losses and damages to t:e tunnel 7roBect (27o side$ caused by t:e instant flooding of t:e Angat Ri%er (4x:& C#"$& T:e damages 9ere itemi=ed in four categories- to 9it: Cam7 Facilities 6..-)!!&!!G 4qui7ment- 6arts and 6lant O 63).-*.,&."G Aaterials 6"!)-").&/!G and 6ermanent 3tructures and accessories O 6"3)- .!&!!- 9it: an aggregate total amount of 6*).-)/.&3"& T:e list is su77orted by se%eral %ouc:ers 9:ic:

116
9ere all submitted as 4x:ibits I to A#3/ a- ' to 5- 6 to 1# and E to `# *!#a (Eide: Folders 'os& " to +$& T:e a77ellant did not submit 7roofs to tra%erse t:e aforementioned documentary e%idence& ?e :old t:at t:e lo9er court did not commit any error in a9arding 6 *).-)/.&3" as actual or com7ensatory damages& Fo9e%er- ?e cannot sustain t:e a9ard of 6333- !!&!! as consequential damages& T:is amount is bro8en do9n as follo9s: 6 "3- !!&!! as and for t:e rentals of a crane to tem7orarily re7lace t:e one >destroyed beyond re7air-> and 6" !-!!!&!! as one mont: bonus 9:ic: t:e a77ellee failed to reali=e in accordance 9it: t:e contract 9:ic: t:e a77ellee :ad 9it: 'A?A3A& 3aid rental of t:e crane allegedly co%ered t:e 7eriod of one year at t:e rate of 6+!&!! an :our for "* :ours a day& T:e e%idence- :o9e%ers:o9s t:at t:e a77ellee boug:t a crane also a cra9ler ty7e- on 'o%ember "!- ",*)- six (*$ days after t:e incident in question (4x: '$ And according to t:e lo9er court- 9:ic: finding 9as ne%er assailed- t:e a77ellee resumed its normal construction 9or8 on t:e 27o# 0icti 6roBect after a sto77age of only one mont:& T:ere is no e%idence 9:en t:e a77ellee recei%ed t:e crane from t:e seller- Asian 4nter7rise (imited& 0ut t:ere 9as an agreement t:at t:e s:i7ment of t:e goods 9ould be effected 9it:in *! days from t:e o7ening of t:e letter of credit (4x:& '$&PQreRRanST"U9V 2t a77earing t:at t:e contract of sale 9as consummated- ?e must conclude or at least assume t:at t:e crane 9as deli%ered to t:e a77ellee 9it:in *! days as sti7ulated& T:e a77ellee t:en could :a%e a%ailed of t:e ser%ices of anot:er crane for a 7eriod of only one mont: (after a 9or8 sto77age of one mont:$ at t:e rate of 6 +!&!! an :our for "* :ours a day or a total of 6 ",- !!&!! as rental& 0ut t:e %alue of t:e ne9 crane cannot be included as 7art of actual damages because t:e old 9as reacti%ated after it 9as re7aired& T:e cost of t:e re7air 9as 6 ))-!!!&!! as s:o9n in item 'o& " under t:e 4qui7ment- 6arts and 6lants category (4x:& C#"$- 9:ic: amount of re7air 9as already included in t:e actual or com7ensatory damages& (77& .+# .*- (#+)3),- Rollo$ T:e a77ellate court li8e9ise reBected t:e a9ard of unreali=ed bonus from 'A?A3A in t:e amount of 6" !-!!!&!! (com7uted at 6+-!!!&!! a day in case construction is finis:ed before t:e s7ecified timei&e&- 9it:in /!! calendar days$- considering t:at t:e incident occurred after more t:an t:ree (3$ years or one t:ousand one :undred se%enty ("-")!$ days& T:e court also eliminated t:e a9ard of exem7lary damages as t:ere 9as no gross negligence on t:e 7art of '6C and reduced t:e amount of attorney;s fees from 6.!-!!!&!! to 63!-!!!&!!& 2n t:ese consolidated 7etitions- '6C assails t:e a77ellate court;s decision as being erroneous on t:e ground t:at t:e destruction and loss of t:e 4C2;s equi7ment and facilities 9ere due to force maBeure& 2t argues t:at t:e ra7id rise of t:e 9ater le%el in t:e reser%oir of its Angat Dam due to :ea%y rains broug:t about by t:e ty7:oon 9as an extraordinary occurrence t:at could not :a%e been foreseenand t:us- t:e subsequent release of 9ater t:roug: t:e s7ill9ay gates and its resultant effect- if any- on 4C2;s equi7ment and facilities may rig:tly be attributed to force maBeure& 5n t:e ot:er :and- 4C2 assails t:e reduction of t:e consequential damages from 6333- !!&!! to 6",-!!!&!! on t:e grounds t:at t:e a77ellate court :ad no basis in concluding t:at 4C2 acquired a ne9 Cra9ler#ty7e crane and t:erefore- it only can claim rentals for t:e tem7orary use of t:e leased crane for a 7eriod of one mont:G and t:at t:e a9ard of 6+-!!!&!! a day or 6" !-!!!&!! a mont: bonus is Bustified since t:e 7eriod limitation on 4C2;s contract 9it: 'A?A3A :ad dual effects- i&e&bonus for earlier com7letion and liquidated damages for delayed 7erformanceG and in eit:er case at t:e rate of 6+-!!!&!! daily& T:us- since '6C;s negligence com7elled 9or8 sto77age for a 7eriod of one mont:- t:e said a9ard of 6" !-!!!&!! is Bustified& 4C2 furt:er assailes t:e reduction of attorney;s fees and t:e total elimination of exem7lary damages& 0ot: 7etitions are 9it:out merit&

117
2t is clear from t:e a77ellate court;s decision t:at based on its findings of fact and t:at of t:e trial court;s- 7etitioner '6C 9as undoubtedly negligent because it o7ened t:e s7ill9ay gates of t:e Angat Dam only at t:e :eig:t of ty7:oon >?elming> 9:en it 8ne9 %ery 9ell t:at it 9as safer to :a%e o7ened t:e same gradually and earlier- as it 9as also undeniable t:at '6C 8ne9 of t:e coming ty7:oon at least four days before it actually struc8& And e%en t:oug: t:e ty7:oon 9as an act of God or 9:at 9e may call force maBeure- '6C cannot esca7e liability because its negligence 9as t:e 7roximate cause of t:e loss and damage& As 9e :a%e ruled in Juan $. Na/pil 6 #ons v. !ourt of ppeals- ("++ 3CRA .,*- *!*#*!)$: T:us- if u7on t:e :a77ening of a fortuitous e%ent or an act of God- t:ere concurs a corres7onding fraud- negligence- delay or %iolation or contra%ention in any manner of t:e tenor of t:e obligation as 7ro%ided for in Article "")! of t:e Ci%il Code- 9:ic: results in loss or damage- t:e obligor cannot esca7e liability& T:e 7rinci7le embodied in t:e act of God doctrine strictly requires t:at t:e act must be one occasioned exclusi%ely by t:e %iolence of nature and :uman agencies are to be excluded from creating or entering into t:e cause of t:e misc:ief& ?:en t:e effect- t:e cause of 9:ic: is to be considered- is found to be in 7art t:e result of t:e 7artici7ation of man- 9:et:er it be from acti%e inter%ention or neglect- or failure to act- t:e 9:ole occurrence is t:ereby :umani=ed- as it 9as- and remo%ed from t:e rules a77licable to t:e acts of God& (" Cor7us Curis- 77& "")+#"").$& T:us- it :as been :eld t:at 9:en t:e negligence of a 7erson concurs 9it: an act of God in 7roducing a loss- suc: 7erson is not exem7t from liability by s:o9ing t:at t:e immediate cause of t:e damage 9as t:e act of God& To be exem7t from liability for loss because of an act of God- :e must be free from any 7re%ious negligence or misconduct by 9:ic: t:e loss or damage may :a%e been occasioned& (Fis: & 4lecti%e Co& %& 6:il& Aotors- .. 6:il& " ,G Tuc8er %& Ailan +, 5&G& +3),G (im7angco & 3ons %& @angco 3teams:i7 Co&- 3+ 6:il& .,+- *!+G (asam %& 3mit:- +. 6:il& *.)$& Furt:ermore- t:e question of 9:et:er or not t:ere 9as negligence on t:e 7art of '6C is a question of fact 9:ic: 7ro7erly falls 9it:in t:e Burisdiction of t:e Court of A77eals and 9ill not be disturbed by t:is Court unless t:e same is clearly unfounded& T:us- in "olentino v. !ourt of appeals- (".! 3CRA *- 3*$ 9e ruled: Aoreo%er- t:e findings of fact of t:e Court of A77eals are generally final and conclusi%e u7on t:e 3u7reme Court ((eonardo %& Court of A77eals- " ! 3CRA /,! M",/3N& 2n fact it is settled t:at t:e 3u7reme Court is not su77osed to 9eig: e%idence but only to determine its substantially ('uDe= %& 3andiganbayan- "!! 3CRA +33 M",/ N and 9ill generally not disturb said findings of fact 9:en su77orted by substantial e%idence (Aytona %& Court of A77eals- ""3 3CRA .). M",/.NG Collector of Customs of Aanila %& 2ntermediate A77ellate Court- "3) 3CRA 3 M",/.N& 5n t:e ot:er :and substantial e%idence is defined as suc: rele%ant e%idence as a reasonable mind mig:t acce7t as adequate to su77ort a conclusion (6:ili77ine Aetal 6roducts- 2nc& %& Court of 2ndustrial Relations- ,! 3CRA "3. M",),NG 6olice Commission %& (ood- " ) 3CRA ).) M",/+NG Canete %& ?CC- "3* 3CRA 3! M",/.N$ T:erefore- t:e res7ondent Court of A77eals did not err in :olding t:e '6C liable for damages& (i8e9ise- it did not err in reducing t:e consequential damages from 6333- !!&!! to 6",-!!!&!!& As s:o9n by t:e records- 9:ile t:ere 9as no categorical statement or admission on t:e 7art of 4C2 t:at it boug:t a ne9 crane to re7lace t:e damaged one- a sales contract 9as 7resented to t:e effect t:at t:e ne9 crane 9ould be deli%ered to it by Asian 4nter7rises 9it:in *! days from t:e o7ening of t:e letter of credit at t:e cost of 6"!*-33*&).& T:e offer 9as made by Asian 4nter7rises a fe9 days after t:e flood& As com7ared to t:e amount of 6"!*-33*&). for a brand ne9 crane and 7aying t:e alleged amount of 6+-!!!&!! a day as rental for t:e use of a tem7orary crane- 9:ic: use 7etitioner 4C2 alleged to :a%e lasted for a 7eriod of one year- t:us- totalling 6" !-!!!&!!- 7lus t:e fact t:at t:ere 9as already a sales

118
contract bet9een it and Asian 4nter7rises- t:ere is no reason 9:y 4C2 s:ould o7t to rent a tem7orary crane for a 7eriod of one year& T:e a77ellate court also found t:at t:e damaged crane 9as subsequently re7aired and reacti%ated and t:e cost of re7air 9as 6))-!!!&!!& T:erefore- it included t:e said amount in t:e a9ard of of com7ensatory damages- but not t:e %alue of t:e ne9 crane& ?e do not find anyt:ing erroneous in t:e decision of t:e a77ellate court t:at t:e consequential damages s:ould re7resent only t:e ser%ice of t:e tem7orary crane for one mont:& A contrary ruling 9ould result in t:e unBust enric:ment of 4C2& T:e 6" !-!!!&!! bonus 9as also 7ro7erly eliminated as t:e same 9as granted by t:e trial court on t:e 7remise t:at it re7resented 4C2;s lost o77ortunity >to earn t:e one mont: bonus from 'A?A3A &&& &> As stated earlier- t:e loss or damage to 4C2;s equi7ment and facilities occurred long after t:e sti7ulated deadline to finis: t:e construction& 'o bonus- t:erefore- could :a%e been 7ossibly earned by 4C2 at t:at 7oint in time& T:e su77osed liquidated damages for failure to finis: t:e 7roBect 9it:in t:e sti7ulated 7eriod or t:e o77osite of t:e claim for bonus is not clearly 7resented in t:e records of t:ese 7etitions& 2t is not s:o9n t:at 'A?A3A im7osed t:em& As to t:e question of exem7lary damages- 9e sustain t:e a77ellate court in eliminating t:e same since it found t:at t:ere 9as no bad fait: on t:e 7art of '6C and t:at neit:er can t:e latter;s negligence be considered gross& 2n (ee -ua 2iong Ele%tri%al E0uipment !orp. v. ,eyes- ("+. 3CRA )"3- )",$ 9e ruled: 'eit:er may 7ri%ate res7ondent reco%er exem7lary damages since :e is not entitled to moral or com7ensatory damages- and again because t:e 7etitioner is not s:o9n to :a%e acted in a 9anton- fraudulent- rec8less or o77ressi%e manner (Art& 3+- Ci%il CodeG @utu8 %& Aanila 4lectric Co&3CRA 3))G Francisco %& Go%ernment 3er%ice 2nsurance 3ystem- ) 3CRA .))G Gutierre= %& Eillegas- / 3CRA . )G Air France %& Carrascoso- "/ 3CRA "..G 6an 6acific (6:il&$ %& 6:il& Ad%ertising Cor7&- 3 3CRA ,))G Aarc:an %& Aendo=a- + 3CRA ///$& ?e also affirm t:e reduction of attorney;s fees from 6.!-!!!&!! to 63!-!!!&!!& T:ere are no com7elling reasons 9:y 9e s:ould set aside t:e a77ellate court;s finding t:at t:e latter amount suffices for t:e ser%ices rendered by 4C2;s counsel& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e 7etitions in G&R& 'o& +)3), and G&R& 'o& +)+/" are bot: D23A2334D for (ACI 5F A4R2T& T:e decision a77ealed from is AFF2RA4D&

SOUTHEASTERN COLLEGE INC. %& COURT OF APPEALS, JUANITA DE JESUS VDA. DE DIMAANO, EMERITA DIMAANO, REMEDIOS DIMAANO, CONSOLACION DIMAANO and MILAGROS DIMAANO G&R& 'o& " *3/,&Culy "!- ",,/ 61R232AA- J.: 6etition for re%ie9 under Rule +. of t:e Rules of Court see8ing to set aside t:e Decision 7romulgated on Culy 3"- ",,*- and Resolution dated 3e7tember " - ",,* of t:e Court of A77eals in CA#G&R& 'o& +"+ - entitled >Cuanita de Cesus %da& de Dimaano- et al& %s& 3out:eastern College- 2nc&>- 9:ic: reduced t:e moral damages a9arded belo9 from 6"-!!!-!!!&!! to 6 !!-!!!&!!& T:e Resolution under attac8 denied 7etitioner;s motion for reconsideration& 6ri%ate res7ondents are o9ners of a :ouse at 3 * College Road- 6asay City- 9:ile 7etitioner o9ns a four#storey sc:ool building along t:e same College Road& 5n 5ctober ""- ",/,- at about *:3! in t:e morning- a 7o9erful ty7:oon >3aling> :it Aetro Aanila& 0uffeted by %ery strong 9inds- t:e roof of 7etitioner;s building 9as 7artly ri77ed off and blo9n a9ay- landing on and destroying 7ortions of t:e roofing of 7ri%ate res7ondents; :ouse& After t:e ty7:oon :ad 7assed- an ocular ins7ection of t:e

119
destroyed building 9as conducted by a team of engineers :eaded by t:e city building official- 4ngr& Cesus (& Reyna& 6ertinent as7ects of t:e latter;s Re7ort dated 5ctober "/- ",/, stated- as follo9s: .& 5ne of t:e factors t:at may :a%e led to t:is calamitous e%ent is t:e formation of t:e building in t:e area and t:e general direction of t:e 9ind& 3ituated in t:e 7eri7:eral lot is an almost 1#s:a7ed formation of +#storey building& T:us- 9it: t:e strong 9inds :a%ing a 9esterly direction- t:e general formation of t:e building becomes a big funnel#li8e structure- t:e one situated along College Road- recei%ing t:e :ea%iest im7act of t:e strong 9inds& Fence- t:ere are 7ortions of t:e roofing- t:ose located on bot: ends of t:e building- 9:ic: remained intact after t:e storm& *& Anot:er factor and 7er:a7s t:e most li8ely reason for t:e dislodging of t:e roofing structural trusses is t:e im7ro7er anc:orage of t:e said trusses to t:e roof beams& T:e "H ; diameter steel bars embedded on t:e concrete roof beams 9:ic: ser%e as truss anc:orage are not bolted nor nailed to t:e trusses& 3till- t:ere are ot:er steel bars 9:ic: 9ere not e%en bent to t:e trusses- t:us- t:ose trusses are not anc:ored at all to t:e roof beams& 2t t:en recommended t:at >to a%oid any furt:er loss and damage to li%es- limbs and 7ro7erty of 7ersons li%ing in t:e %icinity-> t:e fourt: floor of subBect sc:ool building be declared as a >structural :a=ard&> 2n t:eir Com7laint before t:e Regional Trial Court of 6asay City- 0ranc: "")- for damages based on %ulpa a0uiliana- 7ri%ate res7ondents alleged t:at t:e damage to t:eir :ouse rendered t:e same unin:abitable- forcing t:em to stay tem7orarily in ot:ers; :ouses& And so t:ey soug:t to reco%er from 7etitioner 6"")-""*&!!- as actual damages- 6"-!!!-!!!&!!- as moral damages- 63!!-!!!&!!- as exem7lary damages and 6"!!-!!!&!!- for and as attorney;s feesG 7lus costs& 2n its Ans9er- 7etitioner a%erred t:at subBect sc:ool building :ad 9it:stood se%eral de%astating ty7:oons and ot:er calamities in t:e 7ast- 9it:out its roofing or any 7ortion t:ereof gi%ing 9ayG t:at it :as not been remiss in its res7onsibility to see to it t:at said sc:ool building- 9:ic: :ouses sc:ool c:ildren- faculty members- and em7loyees- is >in ti7#to7 condition>G and furt:ermore- ty7:oon >3aling> 9as >an act of God and t:erefore beyond :uman control> suc: t:at 7etitioner cannot be ans9erable for t:e damages 9roug:t t:ereby- absent any negligence on its 7art& T:e trial court- gi%ing credence to t:e ocular ins7ection re7ort to t:e effect t:at subBect sc:ool building :ad a >defecti%e roofing structure-> found t:at- 9:ile ty7:oon >3aling> 9as accom7anied by strong 9inds- t:e damage to 7ri%ate res7ondents; :ouses >could :a%e been a%oided if t:e construction of t:e roof of M7etitioner;sN building 9as not faulty&> T:e dis7ositi%e 7ortion of t:e lo9er court;s decision readst:us: ?F4R4F5R4- in %ie9 of t:e foregoing- t:e Court renders Budgment ( si%$ in fa%or of t:e 7laintiff (si%$ and against t:e defendants- (si%$ ordering t:e latter to 7ay Bointly and se%erally t:e former as follo9s: a$ 6"")-""*&!!- as actual damages- 7lus litigation ex7ensesG b$ 6"-!!!-!!!&!! as moral damagesG c$ 6"!!-!!!&!! as attorney;s feesG d$ Costs of t:e instant suit& T:e claim for exem7lary damages is denied for t:e reason t:at t:e defendants ( si%$ did in a 9anton fraudulent- rec8less- o77ressi%e or male%olent manner& 2n its a77eal to t:e Court of A77eals- 7etitioner assigned as errors- t:at: 2

120
TF4 TR2A( C51RT 4RR4D 2' F5(D2'G TFAT T@6F55' >3A(2'G>- A3 A' ACT 5F G5D- 23 '5T >TF4 35(4 A'D A035(1T4 R4A35'> F5R TF4 R2662'G#5FF 5F TF4 3AA(( 65RT25' 5F TF4 R55F 5F 351TF4A3T4R';3 F51R (+$ 3T5R4@ 3CF55( 012(D2'G& 22 TF4 TR2A( C51RT 4RR4D 2' F5(D2'G TFAT >TF4 C5'3TR1CT25' 5F TF4 R55F 5F D4F4'DA'T;3 3CF55( 012(D2'G ?A3 FA1(T@> '5T?2TF3TA'D2'G TF4 ADA23325' TFAT TF4R4 ?4R4 T@6F55'3 04F5R4 01T '5T A3 GRAE4 A3 T@6F55' >3A(2'G> ?F2CF 23 TF4 D2R4CT A'D 6R5`2AAT4 CA134 5F TF4 2'C2D4'T& 222 TF4 TR2A( C51RT 4RR4D 2' A?ARD2'G ACT1A( A'D A5RA( DAAAG43 A3 ?4(( A3 ATT5R'4@;3 F443 A'D (2T2GAT25' 4`64'343 A'D C53T3 5F 312T T5 D2AAA'53 ?F4' TF4@ FAE4 '5T 2'C1RR4D ACT1A( DAAAG43 AT A(( A3 D2AAA'53 FAE4 A(R4AD@ 35(D TF42R 6R564RT@- A' 2'T4RE4'2'G 4E4'T TFAT R4'D4R3 TF23 CA34 A55T A'D ACAD4A2C& 2E TF4 TR2A( C51RT 4RR4D 2' 5RD4R2'G TF4 2331A'C4 5F TF4 ?R2T 5F 4`4C1T25' 2'362T4 5F TF4 64RF4CT25' 5F 351TF4A3T4R';3 A664A( ?F4' TF4R4 23 '5 C5A64((2'G R4A35' F5R TF4 2331A'C4 TF4R4T5& As mentioned earlier- res7ondent Court of A77eals affirmed 9it: modification t:e trial court;s dis7osition by reducing t:e a9ard of moral damages from 6"-!!!-!!!&!! to 6 !!-!!!&!!& Fence7etitioner;s resort to t:is Court- raising for resolution t:e issues of: "& ?:et:er or not t:e a9ard of actual damages M si%N to res7ondent Dimaanos on t:e basis of s7eculation or conBecture- 9it:out 7roof or recei7ts of actual damage- M si%N legally feasible or Bustified& & ?:et:er or not t:e a9ard of moral damages to res7ondent Dimaanos- 9it: t:e latter :a%ing suffered- actual damage :as legal basis& 3& ?:et:er or not res7ondent Dimaanos 9:o are no longer t:e o9ner of t:e 7ro7ertysubBect matter of t:e case- during its 7endency- :as t:e rig:t to 7ursue t:eir com7laint against 7etitioner 9:en t:e case 9as already moot and academic by t:e sale of t:e 7ro7erty to t:ird 7arty& +& ?:et:er or not t:e a9ard of attorney;s fees 9:en t:e case 9as already moot academic Msi%N legally Bustified& .& ?:et:er or not 7etitioner is liable for damage caused to ot:ers by ty7:oon >3aling> being an act of God& *& ?:et:er or not t:e issuance of a 9rit of execution 7ending a77eal- e.7parte or 9it:out :earing- :as su77ort in la9& T:e 7i%ot of inquiry :ere- determinati%e of t:e ot:er issues- is 9:et:er t:e damage on t:e roof of t:e building of 7ri%ate res7ondents resulting from t:e im7act of t:e falling 7ortions of t:e sc:ool building;s roof ri77ed off by t:e strong 9inds of ty7:oon >3aling>- 9as- 9it:in legal contem7lation- due to fortuitous e%entJ 2f so- 7etitioner cannot be :eld liable for t:e damages suffered by t:e 7ri%ate res7ondents& T:is conclusion finds su77ort in Article "")+ of Ci%il Code- 9:ic: 7ro%ides: Art "")+& 4xce7t in cases ex7ressly s7ecified by t:e la9- or 9:en it is ot:er9ise declared by sti7ulation- or 9:en t:e nature of t:e obligation requires t:e assum7tion of

121
ris8- no 7erson s:all be res7onsible for t:ose e%ents 9:ic: could not be foreseen- or 9:ic:- t:oug: foreseen- 9ere ine%itable& T:e antecedent of fortuitous e%ent or %aso fortuito is found in t:e &artidas 9:ic: defines it as >an e%ent 9:ic: ta8es 7lace by accident and could not :a%e been foreseen&> 4scric:e elaborates it as >an unex7ected e%ent or act of God 9:ic: could neit:er be foreseen nor resisted&> Ci%ilist Arturo A& Tolentino adds t:at >MfNortuitous e%ents may be 7roduced by t9o general causes: ("$ by nature- suc: as eart:qua8es- storms- floods- e7idemics- fires- etc& and ( $ by t:e act of man- suc: as an armed in%asion- attac8 by bandits- go%ernmental 7ro:ibitions- robbery- etc&> 2n order t:at a fortuitous e%ent may exem7t a 7erson from liability- it is necessary t:at :e be free from any 7re%ious negligence or misconduct by reason of 9:ic: t:e loss may :a%e been occasioned& An act of God cannot be in%o8ed for t:e 7rotection of a 7erson 9:o :as been guilty of gross negligence in not trying to forestall its 7ossible ad%erse consequences& ?:en a 7erson;s negligence concurs 9it: an act of God in 7roducing damage or inBury to anot:er- suc: 7erson is not exem7t from liability by s:o9ing t:at t:e immediate or 7roximate cause of t:e damages or inBury 9as a fortuitous e%ent& ?:en t:e effect is found to be 7artly t:e result of t:e 7artici7ation of man O 9:et:er it be from acti%e inter%ention- or neglect- or failure to act O t:e 9:ole occurrence is :ereby :umani=ed- and remo%ed from t:e rules a77licable to acts of God& 2n t:e case under consideration- t:e lo9er court accorded full credence to t:e finding of t:e in%estigating team t:at subBect sc:ool building;s roofing :ad >no sufficient anc:orage to :old it in 7osition es7ecially 9:en battered by strong 9inds&> 0ased on suc: finding- t:e trial court im7uted negligence to 7etitioner and adBudged it liable for damages to 7ri%ate res7ondents& After a t:oroug: study and e%aluation of t:e e%idence on record- t:is Court belie%es ot:er9isenot9it:standing t:e general rule t:at factual findings by t:e trail court- es7ecially 9:en affirmed by t:e a77ellate court- are binding and conclusi%e u7on t:is Court& After a careful scrutiny of t:e records and t:e 7leadings submitted by t:e 7arties- 9e find exce7tion to t:is rule and :old t:at t:e lo9er courts misa77reciated t:e e%idence 7roffered& T:ere is no question t:at a ty7:oon or storm is a fortuitous e%ent- a natural occurrence 9:ic: may be foreseen but is una%oidable des7ite any amount of foresig:t- diligence or care& 2n order to be exem7t from liability arising from any ad%erse consequence engendered t:ereby- t:ere s:ould :a%e been no :uman 7artici7ation amounting to a negligent act& 2n ot:er 9ordsG t:e 7erson see8ing exoneration from liability must not be guilty of negligence& 'egligence- as commonly understood- is conduct 9:ic: naturally or reasonably creates undue ris8 or :arm to ot:ers& 2t may be t:e failure to obser%e t:at degree of care- 7recaution- and %igilance 9:ic: t:e circumstances Bustify demand- or t:e omission to do somet:ing 9:ic: a 7rudent and reasonable man- guided by considerations 9:ic: ordinarily regulate t:e conduct of :uman affairs9ould do& From t:ese 7remises- 9e 7roceed to determine 9:et:er 7etitioner 9as negligent- suc: t:at if it 9ere not- t:e damage caused to 7ri%ate res7ondents; :ouse could :a%e been a%oidedJ At t:e outset- it bears em7:asi=ing t:at a 7erson claiming damages for t:e negligence of anot:er :as t:e burden of 7ro%ing t:e existence of fault or negligence causati%e of :is inBury or loss& T:e facts constituti%e of negligence must be affirmati%ely establis:ed by com7etent e%idence- not merely by 7resum7tions and conclusions 9it:out basis in fact& 6ri%ate res7ondents- in establis:ing t:e cul7ability of 7etitioner- merely relied on t:e aforementioned re7ort submitted by a team 9:ic: made an o%ular ins7ection of 7etitioner;s sc:ool building after t:e ty7:oon& As t:e term im7artsan o%ular ins7ection is one by means of actual sig:t or %ie9ing& ?:at is %isual to t:e eye t:roug:- is not al9ays reflecti%e of t:e real cause be:ind& For instance- one 9:o :ears a guns:ot and t:en sees a 9ounded 7erson- cannot al9ays definitely conclude t:at a t:ird 7erson s:ot t:e %ictim& 2t could :a%e been self#inflicted or caused accidentally by a stray bullet& T:e relations:i7 of cause and effect must be clearly s:o9n& 2n t:e 7resent case- ot:er t:an t:e said ocular ins7ection- no in%estigation 9as conducted to determine t:e real cause of t:e 7artial unroofing of 7etitioner;s sc:ool building& 6ri%ate res7ondents

122
did not e%en s:o9 t:at t:e 7lans- s7ecifications and design of said sc:ool building 9ere deficient and defecti%e& 'eit:er did t:ey 7ro%e any substantial de%iation from t:e a77ro%ed 7lans and s7ecifications& 'or did t:ey conclusi%ely establis: t:at t:e construction of suc: building 9as basically fla9ed& 5n t:e ot:er :and- 7etitioner elicited from one of t:e 9itnesses of 7ri%ate res7ondents- city building official Cesus Reyna- t:at t:e original 7lans and design of 7etitioner;s sc:ool building 9ere a77ro%ed 7rior to its construction& 4ngr& Reyna admitted t:at it 9as a legal requirement before t:e construction of any building to obtain a 7ermit from t:e city building official (city engineer- 7rior to t:e 7assage of t:e 0uilding Act of ",))$& 2n li8e manner- after construction of t:e building- a certification must be secured from t:e same official attesting to t:e readiness for occu7ancy of t:e edifice& Fa%ing obtained bot: building 7ermit and certificate of occu7ancy- t:ese are- at t:e %ery least- prima fa%ie e%idence of t:e regular and 7ro7er construction of subBect sc:ool building& Furt:ermore- 9:en 7art of its roof needed re7airs of t:e damage inflicted by ty7:oon >3aling>- t:e same city official ga%e t:e go#signal for suc: re7airs O 9it:out any de%iation from t:e original design O and subsequently- aut:ori=ed t:e use of t:e entire fourt: floor of t:e same building& T:ese only 7ro%e t:at subBect building suffers from no structural defect- contrary to t:e re7ort t:at its >1#s:a7ed> form 9as >structurally defecti%e&> Fa%ing gi%en :is unqualified im7rimatur- t:e city building official is 7resumed to :a%e 7ro7erly 7erformed :is duties in connection t:ere9it:& 2n addition- 7etitioner 7resented its %ice 7resident for finance and administration 9:o testified t:at an annual maintenance ins7ection and re7air of subBect sc:ool building 9ere regularly underta8en& 6etitioner 9as e%en 9illing to 7resent its maintenance su7er%isor to attest to t:e extent of suc: regular ins7ection but 7ri%ate res7ondents agreed to dis7ense 9it: :is testimony and sim7ly sti7ulated t:at it 9ould be corroborati%e of t:e %ice 7resident;s narration& Aoreo%er- t:e city building official- 9:o :as been in t:e city go%ernment ser%ice since ",)+- admitted in o7en court t:at no com7laint regarding any defect on t:e same structure :as e%er been lodged before :is office 7rior to t:e institution of t:e case at benc:& 2t is a matter of Budicial notice t:at ty7:oons are common occurrences in t:is country& 2f subBect sc:ool building;s roofing 9as not firmly anc:ored to its trusses- ob%iously- it could not :a%e 9it:stood long years and se%eral ty7:oons e%en stronger t:an >3aling&> 2n lig:t of t:e foregoing- 9e find no clear and con%incing e%idence to sustain t:e Budgment of t:e a77ellate court& ?e t:us :old t:at 7etitioner :as not been s:o9n negligent or at fault regarding t:e construction and maintenance of its sc:ool building in question and t:at ty7:oon >3aling> 9as t:e 7roximate cause of t:e damage suffered by 7ri%ate res7ondents; :ouse& ?it: t:is dis7osition on t:e 7i%otal issue- 7ri%ate res7ondents; claim for actual and moral damages as 9ell as attorney;s fees must fail& 6etitioner cannot be made to ans9er for a 7urely fortuitous e%ent& Aore so because no bad fait: or 9illful act to cause damage 9as alleged and 7ro%en to 9arrant moral damages& 6ri%ate res7ondents failed to adduce adequate and com7etent 7roof of t:e 7ecuniary loss t:ey actually incurred& 2t is not enoug: t:at t:e damage be ca7able of 7roof but must be actually 7ro%ed 9it: a reasonable degree of certainty- 7ointing out s7ecific facts t:at afford a basis for measuring 9:ate%er com7ensatory damages are borne& 6ri%ate res7ondents merely submitted an estimated amount needed for t:e re7air of t:e roof t:eir subBect building& ?:at is more- 9:et:er t:e >necessary re7airs> 9ere caused 5'(@ by 7etitioner;s alleged negligence in t:e maintenance of its sc:ool building- or included t:e ordinary 9ear and tear of t:e :ouse itself- is an essential question t:at remains indeterminable& T:e Court deems unnecessary to resol%e t:e ot:er issues 7osed by 7etitioner& As regards t:e sixt: issue- :o9e%er- t:e 9rit of execution issued on A7ril "- ",,3 by t:e trial court is :ereby nullified and set aside& 6ri%ate res7ondents are ordered to reimburse any amount or return to 7etitioner any 7ro7erty 9:ic: t:ey may :a%e recei%ed by %irtue of t:e enforcement of said 9rit&

123
?F4R4F5R4- t:e 7etition is GRA'T4D and t:e c:allenged Decision is R4E4R34D& T:e com7laint of 7ri%ate res7ondents in Ci%il Case 'o& )3"+ before t:e trial court a 0uo is ordered D23A2334D and t:e 9rit of execution issued on A7ril "- ",,3 in said case is 34T A32D4& Accordingly- 7ri%ate res7ondents are 5RD4R4D to return to 7etitioner any amount or 7ro7erty recei%ed by t:em by %irtue of said 9rit& Costs against t:e 7ri%ate res7ondents&

FRANCISCO C. ROSALES, JR. %& MIGUEL H. MIJARES G&R& 'o& ".+!,.&'o%ember ")- !!+ CA((4C5- 3R&- J&: 0efore us is a 7etition for re%ie9 on certiorari of t:e Decision of t:e Court of A77eals (CA$ in CA#G&R& 36 'o& ..,!+ affirming Resolution 'o& ,," !/ of t:e Ci%il 3er%ice Commission (C3C$ granting t:e a77eal of t:e res7ondent :erein from t:e 5rder dated 3e7tember +- ",,/ dismissing t:e res7ondent as Aunici7al 4ngineer of Catarman- 'ort:ern 3amarG and Resolution 'o& ,, "3! denying t:e motion for reconsideration t:ereof& As culled by t:e a77ellate court from t:e records- t:e antecedents are as follo9s: 0eing t:e duly#elected mayor of Catarman- 'ort:ern 3amar- during t:e ",,/ local electionsFrancisco C& Rosales- Cr& (or >7etitioner>$ assumed office on Culy "- ",,,& 3:ortly t:ereafter7etitioner summoned t:e de7artment :eads for a conference- among 9:om 9as t:e munici7al engineer- Aiguel F& AiBares (or >res7ondent>$& During t:e meeting- 7etitioner told res7ondent to resign under 7ain of abolition of :is 7osition& 'ot 9is:ing to antagoni=e t:e mayor- res7ondent informed :im a 9ee8 later t:at :e 9as >o7en> to t:e 7ossibility of being transferred or detailed at t:e 6ro%incial 4ngineering 5ffice& T:en and t:ere- 7etitioner instructed res7ondent to 7re7are :is 7a7ers& 5n August 3- ",,/- 7etitioner indorsed res7ondent to t:e 7ro%incial go%ernor of 'ort:ern 3amar for consideration for t:e 7osition of Assistant 6ro%incial 4ngineer& 5n August " - ",,/- 7etitioner 9rote to res7ondent stating: @our request to transfer to t:e 6ro%incial 4ngineering 5ffice- Catarman- 'ort:ern 3amar- is granted for a 7eriod of t:irty (3!$ days from recei7t :ereof- subBect to t:e condition im7osed by Ci%il 3er%ice (a9- rules and regulations& Aean9:ile- res7ondent continued re7orting for 9or8 at t:e Aunici7al 4ngineer;s 5ffice& Fo9e%er- t:e 7ro%incial go%ernor did not act on 7etitioner;s endorsement& 5n 3e7tember se7aration- vi+: +- ",,/- 7etitioner again 9rote to res7ondent- t:is time informing :im of :is

T:e 3!#day 7eriod gi%en to you to transfer to t:e 6ro%incial 4ngineering 5ffice :as no9 ela7sed and- in as muc: as you did not see8 an extension of your 7ermit to transfer- you are considered resigned from t:is go%ernment unit as of 3e7tember "3- ",,*- 7ursuant to AC 'o& 3/- 3& ",,3 of t:e Ci%il 3er%ice Commission& 2n a letter dated 5ctober - ",,/- res7ondent requested 7etitioner to 9it:dra9 t:e abo%e#quoted se7aration letter& Fe 7ointed out t:at since t:e request for transfer to t:e 6ro%incial 4ngineer;s 5ffice 9as not acted u7on- t:e same ne%er became effecti%e and- t:erefore- :e did not cease to be an em7loyee of t:e munici7al go%ernment& 2n :is re7ly letter dated 5ctober ".- ",,/- 7etitioner ex7lained t:at res7ondent 9as not terminated and t:at :is se7aration from t:e ser%ice 9as by o7eration of la9- i&e&- Ci%il 3er%ice Commission (or >C3C>$

124
Aemorandum Circular (or >AC>$ 'o& 3/- 3& ",,3& 2n t:e same communication- 7etitioner offered to reinstate res7ondent& 5n 'o%ember " - ",,/- res7ondent filed a com7laint for illegal termination against 7etitioner before t:e C3C& Treating t:e com7laint as an a77eal- t:e Director of C3C Regional 5ffice 'o& / instructed Eictoria 4& Ealeriano (or >As& Ealeriano>$- Fead Ci%il 3er%ice Field 5fficer in Catarman- to conduct a fact#finding in%estigation on res7ondent;s case& 6ursuant to t:e directi%e- As& Ealeriano as8ed 7etitioner to submit t:e original of res7ondent;s request for transfer& 2n a letter dated Canuary ""- ",,/7etitioner informed As& Ealeriano t:at res7ondent;s request 9as merely %erbal& 2n an order dated A7ril "*- ",,,- t:e C3C 5ffice of (egal Affairs required 7etitioner to comment on t:e a77eal& Com7lying 9it: t:e directi%e- 7etitioner ex7lained t:at res7ondent;s se7aration 9as %alid and legal under C3C AC 'o& 3/- 3& ",,3- since t:e latter;s 7ermit to transfer to t:e 6ro%incial 4ngineer;s 5ffice ex7ired 9it:out :is transfer being effected& 2n su77ort of :is defense- 7etitioner a77ended :is documentary e%idence to :is comment- including t:e legal o7inions of t:e C3C Regional 5ffice and t:e 6ro%incial 6rosecutor u7:olding t:e %alidity of :is action& 5n Cune ")- ",,,- t:e C3C issued a resolution- t:e decretal 7ortion of 9:ic: resolution (sic$ reads: ?F4R4F5R4- t:e a77eal of Aiguel F& AiBares is :ereby granted& Accordingly- Aayor Francisco C& Rosales- Cr& is directed to immediately reinstate AiBares to :is former 7osition of Aunici7al 4ngineer and to cause t:e 7ayment of all :is salaries and ot:er benefits from t:e date of :is unla9ful se7aration from t:e ser%ice u7 to :is actual reinstatement& T:e C3C :eld t:at t:e res7ondent did not freely and %oluntarily see8 7ermission from t:e 7etitioner to transfer to anot:er office and t:at based on t:e record- t:e su77osed transfer of t:e res7ondent to t:e 5ffice of t:e 6ro%incial 4ngineer 9as a s:re9d mac:ination or cle%er 7loy resorted to by t:e 7etitioner to oust t:e res7ondent from :is 7osition as Aunici7al 4ngineerG :ence- suc: transfer 9as illegal& T:e C3C cited t:e rulings of t:is Court in 3ta& Aaria %& (o7e= and Di%inagracia- Cr& %& 3to& Tomas& T:e C3C also ruled t:at a request for transfer- under C3C Aemorandum Circular 'o& ,/#3/- must be in 9ritingG and t:at e%en assuming t:at a %erbal request for transfer may be made- t:e 7etitioner failed to adduce any 7roof t:at t:e res7ondent made suc: %erbal request- as 9ell as t:e date of t:e effecti%ity of t:e transfer& T:e C3C cited its ruling in C3C Resolution 'o& ,,#"*"* dated Culy !- ",,,& T:e C3C declared t:at t:e letter of t:e 7etitioner to t:e res7ondent dated August " - ",,/ 9as but a detail of t:e res7ondent to t:e 5ffice of t:e 6ro%incial 4ngineer& T:e 7etitioner;s motion for a reconsideration of t:e resolution 9as denied by t:e C3C 7er its Resolution 'o& ,, "3!& T:e 7etitioner- t:ereafter- filed a 7etition for re%ie9 9it: t:e CA assailing t:e resolutions of t:e C3C& 5n December !- !!"- t:e CA rendered a decision dismissing t:e 7etition and affirming t:e resolutions of t:e C3C& T:e a77ellate court affirmed in toto not only t:e finding of t:e C3C- but also its rulings on t:e issues raised by t:e 7etitioner& T:e CA also :eld t:at: ?ell#settled is t:e rule t:at in re%ie9ing administrati%e decisions- t:e findings of fact made t:erein must be res7ected as long as t:ey are su77orted by substantial e%idence ((o %s& Court of A77eals- 3 " 3CRA ",!$& ?e see no cogent reason to de7art from said 7rinci7le& 2t is also note9ort:y t:at t:e ground relied u7on to Bustify res7ondent;s remo%al- i&e&- ex7iration of :is 7ermit to transfer- is 7urely tec:nical and- t:erefore- too flimsy to o%erride t:e constitutional mandate u7:olding an em7loyee;s rig:t to security of tenure (Art& 2`#0- 3ec& 7ar& 3- ",/) Constitution$& As :eld in Di%inagracia- Cr& %s& 3to& Tomas ( ++ 3CRA .,.$- >t:e guarantee of security of tenure is an im7ortant obBect of t:e ci%il ser%ice system because it affords a fait:ful em7loyee 7ermanence of em7loyment- at least for t:e 7eriod 7rescribed by la9- and frees t:e em7loyee from t:e fear of 7olitical and 7ersonal 7reBudicial re7risal&> T:e 7etitioner;s motion for reconsideration of t:e decision 9as denied by t:e a77ellate court&

125
T:e 7etitioner filed :is 7etition for re%ie9 on certiorari 9it: t:is Court- contending t:at t:e CA erred as follo9s: 2& 2' 16F5(D2'G TF4 F2'D2'G3 5F TF4 C2E2( 34RE2C4 C5AA23325' ?F2CF 2A6R564R(@ 2'T4R6R4T4D TF4 6R5E2325'3 5F 6ART 22- 2T4A .(a$M+N 5F C3C AC '5& ,3#3/ A'D R1(2'G TFAT 64T2T25'4R 2((4GA((@ T4RA2'AT4D R4365'D4'T& 22& 2' F5(D2'G TFAT 64T2T25'4R ?A3 AFF5RD4D D14 6R5C433& 222& 2' D4C2D2'G TF4 CA34 2' FAE5R 5F R4365'D4'T D4362T4 TF4 4`23T4'C4 5F 5E4R?F4(A2'G 4E2D4'C4 T5 TF4 C5'TRAR@& 2E& 2' 5RD4R2'G 64T2T25'4R T5 6A@ TF4 C53T3& T:e 7etition :as no merit& T:e 7etitioner faults t:e C3C and t:e a77ellate court for ruling in fa%or of t:e res7ondent- contending t:at- as gleaned from t:e res7ondent;s 5ctober - ",,/ (etter- t:e latter requested for a transfer and 9as not coerced nor forced to do so& T:e 7etitioner asserts t:at no less t:an t:e res7ondent declared t:erein- as 9ell as on t:e ot:er documents on record- t:at :e requested to be transferred to t:e 5ffice of t:e 6ro%incial 4ngineer- and t:at :e secured 7:oto co7ies of :is ser%ice records and ot:er documents from t:e munici7ality in su77ort of :is 9ritten request for transfer- and :imself submitted suc: request to t:e 5ffice of t:e Go%ernor& T:e 7etitioner asserts t:at t:e 5ctober /- ",,/ 57inion of C3C Regional 5ffice 'o& / and of t:e 6ro%incial 6rosecutor dated 'o%ember " ",,/ frontally belie t:e findings of t:e C3C and t:e a77ellate court& According to t:e 7etitioner- :e s:ould not be faulted by t:e C3C for a77lying t:e letter and s7irit of C3C Aemorandum Circular 'o& ,3#3/& T:e 7etitioner furt:er alleges t:at t:e res7ondent did not e%en :ea%e a 9:im7er of 7rotest des7ite t:e recei7t of t:e (etter dated 3e7tember +- ",,/ informing :im of :is se7aration& T:e res7ondent is t:us esto77ed- t:e 7etitioner insists- from assailing t:e termination of :is ser%ice as Aunici7al 4ngineer of Catarman& T:e 7etitioner concedes t:at factual findings of quasi#Budicial bodies- suc: as t:e C3C- are conclusi%e if based on substantial e%idence& Fe- :o9e%er- contends t:at- in t:is caset:e C3C ignored and misunderstood t:e e%idence on record- t:ereby committing a gra%e inBustice& ?e do not agree 9it: t:e 7etitioner& C3C Aemorandum Circular 'o& ,3#3/ reads: Transfer Z is a mo%ement from one 7osition 9it:out brea8 in ser%ice in%ol%ing t:e issuance of an a77ointment& T:e transfer may be from one agency to anot:er or from one organi=ational unit to anot:er in t:e same agency& An em7loyee 9:o see8s transfer to anot:er office s:all first secure 7ermission from t:e :ead of t:e de7artment or agency 9:ere :e is em7loyed stating t:e effecti%e date of t:e transfer& 2f t:e request to transfer of an em7loyee is not granted by t:e :ead of t:e agency 9:ere :e is em7loyed- it s:all be deemed a77ro%ed after t:e la7se of 3! days from t:e date of notice to t:e agency :ead& )f, for 'hatever reason, the employee fails to transfer on the spe%ified date, he shall be %onsidered resigned and his reemployment in his former offi%e shall be at the dis%retion of his head& T:e C3C inter7reted its Aemorandum as requiring a 9ritten and not merely a %erbal request for an em7loyee to transfer to anot:er office& Aoreo%er- suc: request must be ex7ress and unequi%ocal- and cannot be merely im7lied or ambiguous& T:e request by an em7loyee to transfer to anot:er office must be suc: t:at :e intended to surrender :is 7ermanent office& Also- a transfer connotes an absolute relinquis:ment of an office in exc:ange for anot:er office& 3uc: request must be %oluntary on t:e 7art of t:e officer concerned and not %itiated by force- coercion- or intimidation or e%en deceit& 2ndeed- in 3ta& Aaria %& (o7e=- 9e :eld t:at:

126
A transfer t:at results in 7romotion or demotion- ad%ancement or reduction or a transfer t:at aims to >lure t:e em7loyee a9ay from :is 7ermanent 7osition-> cannot be done 9it:out t:e em7loyee;s consent& For t:at 9ould constitute remo%al from office& 2ndeed- no 7ermanent transfer can ta8e 7lace unless t:e officer or em7loyee is first remo%ed from t:e 7osition :eldand t:en a77ointed to anot:er 7osition& T:e Court also :eld t:at unconsented transfer is anat:ema to security of tenure& A transfer t:at aims by indirect met:od to terminate ser%ices or to force resignation constitutes remo%al& An em7loyee cannot be transferred unless for causes 7ro%ided for by la9 and after due 7rocess& Any attem7t to breac: t:e 7rotecti%e 9all built around t:e em7loyee;s rig:t to security of tenure s:ould be slain on sig:t& T:e rig:t of em7loyees to security of tenure s:ould ne%er be sacrificed merely at t:e 9:ims and 7leasure of some unscru7ulous and :eartless 7oliticians& As 9e :eld in 'emen=o %& 3abillano: T:ere are altoget:er too many cases of t:is nature- 9:erein local electi%e officials- u7on assum7tion of office- 9ield t:eir ne9#found 7o9er indiscriminately by re7lacing em7loyees 9it: t:eir o9n 7roteges- regardless of t:e la9s and regulations go%erning t:e ci%il ser%ice& Eictory at t:e 7olls s:ould not be ta8en as aut:ority for t:e commission of suc: illegal acts& 2n t:is case- t:e 7etitioner- 9:o 7ercei%ed t:at t:e res7ondent 9as a 9ell#8no9n su77orter of t:e 7olitical 7arty o77osed to :is candidacy- coerced t:e res7ondent into resigning and e%en t:reatened to :a%e :is 7osition as Aunici7al 4ngineer abolis:ed& T:is 9as c:ronicled by t:e res7ondent in :is letter to t:e 7etitioner dated 5ctober - ",,/: Fon& Francisco C& Rosales- Cr& Aunici7al Aayor Catarman- 'ort:ern 3amar Dear Aayor Rosales: 2n ans9er to your letter of + 3e7tember ",,/ terminating my ser%ices as Aunici7al 4ngineer of Catarman- effecti%e 3e7tember "3- ",,/- allegedly due to my failure to see8 an extension of my 7ermit to transfer to Mt:eN 6ro%incial 4ngineering 5ffice- 7lease be reminded of t:e follo9ing facts and e%ents& A fe9 days after you assumed office as ne9 Aayor of Catarman- or on Culy - ",,/- you called me to your office and told me to resign from my 7osition as Aunici7al 4ngineer because you did not li8e me to continue ser%ing under your administration- and if 2 did not resign- you 9ould abolis: my 7osition& @ou gi%e (sic$ me one 9ee8 to t:in8 about your 7ro7osal& As a 7ermanent em7loyee- 2 reali=ed t:at your 7ro7osal 9as 7olitical :arassment because 2 did not su77ort you during t:e last elections& T:e 7etitioner denied t:e allegation in :is letter to t:e res7ondent dated 5ctober ".- ",,/ t:at t:e C3C correctly disbelie%ed t:e 7etitioner;s bare denial& 0efore t:e 7etitioner 9as elected Aayor of Catarman and assumed office- t:ere 9as no reason for t:e res7ondent to abandon :is 7osition as Aunici7al 4ngineer and see8 a transfer to anot:er office& T:e res7ondent;s ordeal commenced after t:e 7etitioner assumed office as Aunici7al Aayor and coerced t:e res7ondent into resigning or transferring to anot:er 7osition& T:e res7ondent- in :is letter to t:e 7etitioner dated 5ctober - ",,/- admitted t:at during t:eir second meeting on August "!- ",,/- :e suggested t:at :e 9as >o7en> to a transfer to t:e 6ro%incial 4ngineering 5ffice or- at least to be detailed t:ereat- in lieu of resignation- to 9:ic: t:e 7etitioner agreedG and t:at u7on t:e 7etitioner;s orders- t:e res7ondent accom7lis:ed t:e requisite Form " secured co7ies of :is ser%ice records- and submitted t:e same to t:e 5ffice of t:e 6ro%incial Go%ernor for a 7ossible a77ointment as Assistant 6ro%incial 4ngineerG and t:at t:e 7etitioner endorsed and recommended t:e same to t:e 6ro%incial Go%ernor& Fo9e%er- ta8ing into consideration t:e entirety of t:e contents of t:e letter- and t:e facts and circumstances 9:ic: im7elled t:e res7ondent to 9rite t:e same- it cannot t:ereby be concluded t:at t:e res7ondent :ad %oluntarily and unequi%ocally

127
decided to transfer to t:e 5ffice of t:e 6ro%incial 4ngineer& 2n lig:t of t:e demands and t:reats of t:e 7etitioner- t:e res7ondent :ad only t:ree o7tions: to resign- to agree to transfer to anot:er office- or to remain as Aunici7al 4ngineer 9it: t:e t:reat of t:e 7etitioner to :a%e :is 7osition abolis:ed :anging o%er :is :ead& Admittedly- rat:er t:an resign as demanded by t:e 7etitioner- t:e res7ondent o7ted to ma8e :imself a%ailable for a77ointment by t:e 6ro%incial Go%ernor as Assistant 6ro%incial 4ngineer& Fo9e%er- t:e Form " submitted by t:e res7ondent to t:e 6ro%incial Go%ernor is not t:e 9ritten request en%isaged in C3C Aemorandum Circular 'o& ,3#3/ for t:e follo9ing reasons: (a$ t:e res7ondent continued re7orting and 7erforming :is duties as Aunici7al 4ngineer of Catarman and recei%ing :is salary as suc:G and (b$ t:e res7ondent did not send any 9ritten request to t:e 7etitioner for transfer to t:e 5ffice of t:e 6ro%incial 4ngineer& 4%idently- t:e res7ondent intended to request for 7ermission to transfer to t:e 7osition of Assistant 6ro%incial 4ngineer only after t:e Go%ernor :ad agreed t:ereto& T:e res7ondent did not 9ant to ris8 unem7loyment by ma8ing a 9ritten request for transfer 9it:out first being assured of :is a77ointment by t:e 6ro%incial Go%ernor to t:e 7osition of Assistant 6ro%incial 4ngineerG :ence- :e o7ted to 9ait for t:e 6ro%incial Go%ernor;s a77ro%al for :is a77ointment before submitting a 9ritten request for transfer to t:e 7etitioner& As it 9ere- t:e Go%ernor failed to act on t:e res7ondent;s a77lication& 2n :is obsession to do a9ay 9it: t:e res7ondent e%en before t:e Go%ernor could act on :is 7a7erst:e 7etitioner 9rote t:e res7ondent on August " - ",,/- informing t:e latter t:at :is request for transfer :ad been granted- 8no9ing fully 9ell t:at t:e res7ondent :ad not yet made suc: a 9ritten request for transfer& T:e letter of t:e 7etitioner reads: August " - ",,/ Aiguel F& AiBares Aunici7al 4ngineer Catarman- 'ort:ern 3amar 3ir: @our request to transfer to t:e 6ro%incial 4ngineering 5ffice- Catarman- 'ort:ern 3amar- is granted for a 7eriod of t:irty (3!$ days from recei7t :ereof- subBect to t:e condition im7osed by Ci%il 3er%ice (a9- Rules and Regulations& Eery truly yours3gd& FRA'C23C5 C& R53A(43- CR& Aunici7al Aayor ?e agree 9it: t:e ruling of t:e C3C t:at t:e letter of t:e 7etitioner to t:e res7ondent is merely a detail of t:e latter for a 7eriod of t:irty days to t:e 5ffice of t:e 6ro%incial 4ngineer: As already stated in t:e Resolution no9 being soug:t to be reconsidered- t:e 7ur7orted >7ermit to transfer> dated August " - ",,/ issued by mo%ant unmista8ably refers to a 7ersonnel action ot:er t:an a transfer& T:e said >7ermit to transfer> states t:at >(y$our request to transfer to t:e 6ro%incial 4ngineering 5ffice- Catarman- 'ort:ern 3amar is granted for a 7eriod of t:irty (3!$ days from recei7t :ereof e> T:is statement does not contem7late a transfer as defined under t:e Ci%il 3er%ice (a9 and Rules& Rat:er- suc: a 7ersonnel action is in reality a detail because

128
AiBares is to be tem7orarily mo%ed for a 7eriod of 3! days from :is em7loyer- t:e Aunici7al Go%ernment of Catarman- to t:e 6ro%incial 4ngineering 5ffice& T:e de7lorable mac:ination resorted to by t:e 7etitioner to remo%e t:e res7ondent from :is 7osition became more e%ident 9:en- on 3e7tember +- ",,/- :e 9rote t:e res7ondent- t:us: 3e7tember +- ",,/ 4ngr& Aiguel F& AiBares Aunici7al 4ngineer Catarman- 'ort:ern 3amar 4ngr& AiBares: T:e 3!#day 7eriod gi%en to you to transfer to t:e 6ro%incial 4ngineering 5ffice :as no9 ela7sed and in as muc: as you did not see8 an extension of your 7ermit to transfer- you are considered resigned from t:is go%ernment unit as of 3e7tember "3- ",,/- 7ursuant to AC 'o& 3/ 3 ",,3 of t:e Ci%il 3er%ice Commission& FRA'C23C5 C& R53A(43- CR& Aunici7al Aayor 0y :is 3e7tember +- ",,/ letter to t:e res7ondent- t:e 7etitioner made it a77ear t:at :e :ad granted t:e res7ondent 7ermission to transfer 9it:in t:irty days- and t:at t:e res7ondent failed to effect :is transfer& T:is 9as done by t:e 7etitioner des7ite t:e absence of any letter from t:e res7ondent requesting for suc: transfer& 0y :is August " - ",,/ letter- t:e 7etitioner merely detailed t:e res7ondent to t:e 5ffice of t:e 6ro%incial 4ngineer& 2t must be stressed t:at t:e only legal effect of a detail of an em7loyee- u7on t:e la7se of t:e 7eriod of suc: detail- is for t:at em7loyee to return to :is 7ermanent station& T:us- t:e res7ondent retained :is 7osition as Aunici7al 4ngineer des7ite :is detail to t:e 5ffice of t:e 6ro%incial 4ngineer& T:e 7etitioner ca77ed :is c:icanery by considering t:e res7ondent resigned as of 3e7tember "3",,/- or after t:e la7se of t:e 7eriod for detail of t:e res7ondent to t:e 5ffice of t:e 6ro%incial 4ngineer& ?e agree 9it: t:e ruling of t:e a77ellate court- 9:ic: affirmed t:at of t:e C3C- t:us: &&&MTNo sustain t:e argument ad%anced by M7etitionerN 9ould be setting a dangerous 7recedent& T:is 9ill lead to a situation 9:ere any :ead of an agency or local go%ernment unit 9:o- for 9:ate%er reason- 9ants to terminate a subordinate from :is em7loyment 9ould sim7ly inform t:e latter t:at :is %erbal request to transfer 9as acce7ted and- t:ereafter- exclude :is name from t:e 7ayroll- as 9:at :a77ened in t:e 7resent case- alt:oug: t:e em7loyee ne%er made any suc: request& T:is 9as ne%er t:e intention of t:e framers of said rule as it 9ould ma8e a moc8ery of t:e em7loyee;s rig:t to security of tenure& 0esides- t:e alleged request for transfer 9as not freely and %oluntarily made by res7ondentnot to mention t:at 7etitioner;s a77ro%al of t:e request is ambiguous& T:us- t:e C3C found: &&&t:e Commission :as noted t:at t:e 7ur7orted grant by Aayor Rosales of 7ermission to AiBares is utterly ambiguous& 2n :is letter dated August " - ",,/- Aayor Rosales stated t:at ;(y$our request to transfer to t:e 6ro%incial 4ngineering 5ffice- Catarman'ort:ern 3amar- is granted for a 7eriod of t:irty (3!$ days from recei7t :ereof- e&; T:is sim7ly means t:at t:e su77osed transfer of AiBares to t:e 6ro%incial 5ffice 9as granted by :is stay or ser%ice t:ereat is good only for a 7eriod of 3! days& T:e foregoing facts and circumstances duly su77orted by t:e e%idence on record con%inces t:e Commission t:at AiBares did not freely and %oluntarily see8 from Aayor

129
Rosales 7ermission to transfer to anot:er office& 5n t:e contrary- it is a77arent t:at t:e su77osed transfer 9as a s:re9d mac:ination or cle%er 7ly (sic$ resorted to oust AiBares from :is 7resent 7osition& T:is- t:e Commission 9ill ne%er tolerate muc: less countenance- as t:is 9ould infringe t:e rig:t to security of tenure of AiBares& ?ell#settled is t:e rule t:at in re%ie9ing administrati%e decisions- t:e findings of fact made t:erein must be res7ected as long as t:ey are su77orted by substantial e%idence ((o %s& Court of A77eals- 3 " 3CRA ",!$& ?e see no cogent reason to de7art from said 7rinci7le& 2t is also note9ort:y t:at t:e ground relied u7on to Bustify res7ondent;s remo%al- i&e&- ex7iration of :is 7ermit to transfer- is 7urely tec:nical and- t:erefore- too flimsy to o%erride t:e constitutional mandate u7:olding an em7loyee;s rig:t to security of tenure (Art& 2`#0- 3ec& 7ar& 3- ",/) Constitution$& As :eld in Di%inagracia- Cr& %s& 3to& Tomas ( ++ 3CRA .,.$- >t:e guarantee of security of tenure is an im7ortant obBect of t:e ci%il ser%ice system because it affords a fait:ful em7loyee 7ermanence of em7loyment- at least for t:e 7eriod 7rescribed by la9- and frees t:e em7loyee from t:e fear of 7olitical and 7ersonal 7reBudicial re7risal&> (i8e9ise- barren of merit is t:e 7etitioner;s contention t:at :e 9as de7ri%ed of due 7rocess because t:e C3C failed to consider t:e effect of t:e o7inion of t:e 6ro%incial 6rosecutor and t:e Regional Director of t:e C3C :olding t:at t:e 7etitioner :ad com7lied 9it: C3C Aemorandum Circular 'o& ,3# 3/- as 9ell as t:e ot:er documents a77ended to :is comment& T:e CA correctly ruled t:at: Finally- t:ere is no merit in 7etitioner;s insistence t:at :e 9as denied due 7rocess because t:e C3C did not consider t:e documentary e%idence attac:ed to :is comment& T:e C3C- in its resolution dated 3e7tember "- ",,,- stated t:at >t:e Commission recei%ed M7etitioner;s commentN including all its annexes on Aay "/- ",,,> and >(a$fter a careful e%aluation of t:e same- t:e Commission found not a s:red of e%idence to s:o9 t:at Mres7ondentN- indeedrequested for :is transfer&> (2talics su77lied$ 3ettled is t:e rule t:at t:e essence of due 7rocess is sim7ly an o77ortunity to be :eard or- as a77lied to administrati%e 7roceedings- an o77ortunity to ex7lain one;s side or an o77ortunity to see8 reconsideration of t:e action or ruling com7lained of& ?:at t:e la9 7ro:ibits is absolute absence of t:e o77ortunity to be :eardG :ence- a 7arty cannot feign denial of due 7rocess 9:ere :e :ad been afforded t:e o77ortunity to 7resent :is side (Audion 4lectric Co&- 2nc& %s& '(RC- 3!/ 3CRA 3+!$& T:e 7etitioner cannot find solace in t:e 5ctober /- ",,/ 57inion of Cudit: C:icano- Regional Director of Region / of t:e C3C- and t:e 'o%ember " - ",,/ letter#o7inion of t:e 6ro%incial 6rosecutor stating t:at t:e 7etitioner correctly a77lied C3C Aemorandum Circular 'o& ,3#3/& T:is is because: (a$ t:e 7etitioner falsely re7resented to t:e Regional Director and 6ro%incial 6rosecutor t:at t:e res7ondent :ad requested for a transfer to t:e 5ffice of t:e 6ro%incial 4ngineer 9:en- in trut: and in fact- t:e res7ondent :ad not done soG (b$ t:e Regional Director and t:e 6ro%incial 6rosecutor 9ere not e%en furnis:ed 9it: co7ies of t:e 5ctober - ",,/ (etter of t:e res7ondent to t:e 7etitionerG and (c$ t:e o7inion of t:e C3C Regional Director and 6ro%incial 6rosecutor 9ere not conclusi%e on t:e C3C- as t:e latter could still re%erse t:e said o7inion on a77eal& T:e records negate t:e contention of t:e 7etitioner t:at t:e res7ondent 8e7t a stoic silence e%en after recei%ing t:e 3e7tember +- ",,/ letter informing :im t:at :e 9as deemed resigned as of 3e7tember "3- ",,/& T:e fact of t:e matter is t:at t:e res7ondent a77ealed t:e letter to t:e Regional Director of t:e C3C- Region /- 9:ic: t:e res7ondent too8 cogni=ance of and acted u7on %ia :er endorsement of t:e letter to Aa& Eictoria 4& Ealeriano- Fead- Ci%il 3er%ice Fiscal 5fficer for a fact#finding in%estigation& 5n t:e contention of t:e 7etitioner t:at t:e a77eal of t:e res7ondent to t:e C3C 9as made beyond t:e 7eriod t:erefor under 3ection +,(a$ of t:e C3C Re%ised Rules of 6rocedure- t:e C3C correctly ruled t:at:

130
Ao%ant claims t:at AiBares; a77eal 9as filed 9ay beyond t:e reglementary 7eriod for filing a77eals& Fe- t:us- contends t:at t:e Commission s:ould not :a%e gi%en due course to said a77eal& T:e Commission need not del%e muc: on t:e dates 9:en AiBares 9as se7arated from t:e ser%ice and 9:en :e assailed :is se7aration& 3uffice it to state t:at t:e Commission found :is a77eal meritorious& T:is being t:e case- 7rocedural rules need not be strictly obser%ed& T:is 7rinci7le 9as ex7lained by in t:e case of Aauna %s& C3C- 3 3CRA 3//- 9:ere t:e 3u7reme Court ruled- to 9it: > ssuming for the sa/e of argument that the petitioner's appeal 'as filed out of time, it is 'ithin the po'er of this !ourt to temper rigid rules in favor of substantial *usti%e. 4hile it is desirable that the ,ules of !ourt be faithfully and even meti%ulously observed, %ourts should not be so stri%t about pro%edural lapses that do not really impair the proper administration of *usti%e. )f the rules are intended to ensure the orderly %ondu%t of litigation, it is be%ause of the higher ob*e%tive they see/ 'hi%h is the prote%tion of substantive rights of the parties. s held by the !ourt in a number of %ases: ;&&&Be%ause there is no vested right in te%hni%alities, in meritorious %ases, a liberal, not literal, interpretation of the rules be%omes imperative and te%hni%alities should not be resorted to in derogation of the intent and purpose of the rules 'hi%h is the proper and *ust determination of litigation. 2itigations, should as mu%h as possible, be de%ided on their merits and not on te%hni%ality. (ismissal of appeals purely on te%hni%al grounds is fro'ned upon, and the rules of pro%edure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, te%hni%al sense, for they are adopted to help se%ure, not override, substantial *usti%e, and thereby defeat their very aims. s has been the %onstant rulings of this !ourt, every party7litigant should be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and *ust disposition of his %ause, free from the %onstraints of te%hni%alities e;> 0esides- AiBares assailed :is se7aration from t:e ser%ice and asserted :is rig:t to :is office 9it:in one ("$ year from :is se7aration& T:is being so- t:e Commission correctly ga%e due course to :is a77eal (2sberto %s& Raqui=a- *) 3CRA ""*$& And 9:at is ironic is t:at it is only no9 t:at mo%ant raised t:e issue on timeliness of filing an a77eal& 'e%er did :e assail t:is matter in :is comment& T:e res7ondent ne%er relented in :is resistance to t:e 7etitioner;s sustained effort to oust :im from :is 7osition& T:e records s:o9 t:at after recei7t of t:e 7etitioner;s 3e7tember +- ",,/ letter- t:e res7ondent- t:ereafter- requested for its 9it:dra9al in a re7ly#letter dated 5ctober ",,/& 2n :is letter dated 5ctober ".- ",,/- t:e 7etitioner informed t:e res7ondent t:at :e 9as for9arding t:e latter;s 7ersonnel file to t:e C3C for its legal o7inion on t:e matter& T:e 7etitionert:roug: counsel- soug:t t:e o7inion of t:e C3C Regional Director on 5ctober !- ",,/& 5n 5ctober /- ",,/- t:e C3C Regional Director rendered :er o7inion in fa%or of t:e 7etitioner& T:e res7ondent t:en 9rote to t:e Regional Director on 'o%ember +- ",,/- anent t:e 3e7tember +- ",,/ letter of t:e 7etitioner& T:e Regional Director treated t:e said letter of t:e res7ondent as an >a77eal&> 2n :is comment on t:e a77eal of t:e res7ondent- t:e 7etitioner did not contest t:e timeliness of t:e said >a77eal> and o7ted to del%e into and discuss t:e merits of t:e case& 2t bears stressing t:at t:e case before t:e C3C in%ol%es t:e security of tenure of a 7ublic officer sacrosanctly 7rotected by t:e Constitution& 6ublic interest requires a resolution of t:e merits of t:e a77eal instead of dismissing t:e same based on a strained and inordinate a77lication of 3ection +,(a$ of t:e C3C Re%ised Rules of 6rocedure& 5n t:e last issue- 9e find t:at t:ere is no factual basis for directing t:e 7etitioner to 7ay t:e costs&

131
2' (2GFT 5F A(( TF4 F5R4G52'G- t:e 7etition is D4'24D for lac8 of merit& T:e decision of t:e a77ellate court is AFF2RA4D& Fo9e%er- t:e a9ard for costs is D4(4T4D&

132
M(#?.8 &. S$""?,"B.a%" A-(%"-"n$ C ., /1; N.Y. :05, 422 N.E. 40< 3N.Y. 45/56. Case 3ummary: Facts: 3tee7lec:ase Amusement (D$ o7erated an amusement 7ar8& A ride 8no9n as bT:e Flo77erd featured a mo%ing belt 9:ic:- 9:en ste77ed u7on- 9ould cause a customer eit:er to fall or to be 7us:ed u7 an incline& Aur7:y (6$ tried t:e ride after 9atc:ing ot:er customers enBoy it& Aur7:y 8ne9 t:at falling 9as a 7otential ris8& Aur7:y claimed t:at t:e belt Ber8ed 9:en :e got on- causing :im to fall and resulting in a fractured 8nee& 6 sued- claiming t:at t:e belt 9as dangerous and 9as not 7ro7erly equi77ed to 7re%ent inBuries& T:e trial court entered Budgment in fa%or of 6 and D a77ealed& T:e court of a77eals affirmed& 2ssue: 2s an amusement 7ar8 liable for damages to a 7erson 9:o sustains inBuries on t:e ride 9:en it is reasonably foreseeable t:at some danger is in%ol%edJ Folding and Rule: 'o& T:e amusement 7ar8 is not liable for any damages if a customer sees and understands t:e dangers of a ride because t:e customer :as assumed t:e ris8& Dis7osition: Re%ersed and Remanded&

CONSOLACION GA+ETO %& AGATON ARANETA, G&R& 'o& (#".*)+&5ctober ")- ", " 3TR44T- J.: T:is action 9as instituted in t:e Court of First 2nstance of 2loilo by Consolacion Gabeto- in :er o9n rig:t as 9ido9 of 6roceso Gayetano- and as guardian ad litem of t:e t:ree c:ildren- Conc:ita Gayetano- Rosita Gayetano- and Fermin Gayetano- for t:e 7ur7ose of reco%ering damages incurred by t:e 7laintiff as a result of t:e deat: of t:e said 6roceso Gayetano- su77osedly cause by t:e 9rongful act of t:e defendant Agaton Araneta& 17on :earing t:e e%idence- :is Fonor- Cudge (& A& 3out:9ort:- a9arded damages to t:e 7laintiff in t:e amount of 63-!!!- from 9:ic: Budgment t:e defendant a77ealed& 2t a77ears in e%idence t:at on August +- ","/& 0asilio 2lano and 6roceso Gayetano too8 a carromata near 6la=a Gay- in t:e City of 2loilo- 9it: a %ie9 to going to a coc87it on Calle (edesma in t:e same City& ?:en t:e dri%er of t:e carromata :ad turned :is :orse and started in t:e direction indicated- t:e defendant- Agaton Araneta- ste77ed out into t:e street- and laying :is :ands on t:e reins- sto77ed t:e :orse- at t:e same time 7rotesting to t:e dri%er t:at :e :imself :ad called t:is carromata first& T:e dri%er- one Culio 6agnaya- re7lied to t:e effect t:at :e :ad not :eard or seen t:e call of Araneta- and t:at :e :ad ta8en u7 t:e t9o 7assengers t:en in t:e carromata as t:e first 9:o :ad offered em7loyment& At or about t:e same time 6agnaya 7ulled on t:e reins of t:e bridle to free t:e :orse from t:e control of Agaton Araneta- in order t:at t:e %e:icle mig:t 7ass on& 59ing- :o9e%erto t:e looseness of t:e bridle on t:e :orse;s :ead or to t:e rottenness of t:e material of 9:ic: it 9as made- t:e bit came out of t:e :orse;s mout:G and it became necessary for t:e dri%er to get out- 9:ic: :e did- in order to find t:e bridle& T:e :orse 9as t:en 7ulled o%er to near t:e curb- by one or t:e ot:er O it ma8es no difference 9:ic: O and 6agnaya tried to fix t:e bridle& ?:ile :e 9as t:us engaged- t:e :orse- being free from t:e control of t:e bit- became disturbed and mo%ed for9ard- in doing 9:ic: :e 7ulled one of t:e 9:eels of t:e carromata u7 on t:e side9al8 and 7us:ed Culio 6agnaya o%er& After going a fe9 years furt:er t:e side of t:e carromata struc8 a 7olice tele7:one box 9:ic: 9as fixed to a 7ost on t:e side9al8- u7on 9:ic: t:e box came do9n 9it: a cras: and frig:tened t:e :orse to suc: an extent t:at :e set out at full s7eed u7 t:e street& Aean9:ile one of t:e 7assengers- to 9it& 0asilio 2lano- :ad alig:ted 9:ile t:e carromata 9as as yet alongside t:e side9al8G but t:e ot:er- 6roceso Gayetano- :ad unfortunately retained :is seat- and after t:e runa9ay :orse :ad 7roceeded u7 t:e street to a 7oint in front of t:e Aission Fos7ital- t:e said Gayetano Bum7ed or fell from t:e rig- and in so doing recei%ed inBuries from 9:ic: :e soon died&

133
As to t:e facts abo%e stated t:e e%idence cannot be said to be materially in conflictG but t:ere is decided conflict u7on t:e 7oint of t:e exact relation of t:e defendant Agaton Araneta- to t:e runa9ay& T:e e%idence for t:e 7laintiff on t:is 7oint consists c:iefly of t:e testimony of Culio 6agnaya and of 0asilio 2lano& T:ey bot: say t:at 9:ile yet in t:e middle of t:e street- t:e defendant Ber8ed t:e bridle9:ic: caused t:e bit to come out of t:e :orse;s mout:- and Culio says t:at at t:at Buncture t:e t:roat latc: of t:e bridle 9as bro8en& 0e t:is as it may- 9e are of t:e o7inion t:at t:e mere fact t:at t:e defendant interfered 9it: t:e carromata by sto77ing t:e :orse in t:e manner stated 9ould not ma8e :im liable for t:e deat: of 6roceso GayetanoG because it is admitted by Culio 6agnaya t:at :e after9ards got out of t:e carromata and 9ent to t:e :orse;s :ead to fix t:e bridle& T:e e%idence is furt:ermore con%incing to t:e effect t:at- after Culio 6agnaya alig:ted- t:e :orse 9as conducted to t:e curb and t:at an a77reciable inter%al of time ela7sed O same 9itnesses say se%eral minutes O before t:e :orse started on :is career u7 t:e street& "a97:Wl&net 2t is t:erefore e%ident t:at t:e sto77ing of t:e rig by Agaton Araneta in t:e middle of t:e street 9as too remote from t:e accident t:at 7resently ensued to be considered t:e legal or 7roximate cause t:ereof& Aoreo%er- by getting out and ta8ing :is 7ost at t:e :ead of t:e :orse- t:e dri%er 9as t:e 7erson 7rimarily res7onsible for t:e control of t:e animal- and t:e defendant cannot be c:arged 9it: liability for t:e accident resulting from t:e action of t:e :orse t:ereafter& Culio 6agnaya testifies to one fact 9:ic:- if it 9ere fully accredited- 9ould 7ossibly 7ut a different com7lexion on t:e caseG for :e says t:at 9:en t:e :orse 9as 7ulled o%er to t:e curb- t:e defendantby 9ay of em7:asi=ing :is %erbal denunciation of 6agnaya- gesticulated 9it: one of :is arms and incidentally broug:t :is :and do9n on t:e :orse;s nose& T:is- according to 6agnaya- is 9:at made t:e :orse run a9ay& T:ere is no ot:er 9itness 9:o testifies to t:isG and it is note9ort:y t:at 0asilio 2lano does not mention it& A decided 7re7onderance of t:e e%idence in our o7inion is against it& T:e e%idence indicates t:at t:e bridle 9as old- and t:e leat:er of 9:ic: it 9as made 9as 7robably so 9ea8 as to be easily bro8en& Culio 6agnaya :ad a natural interest in refuting t:is fact- as 9ell as in excul7ating :imself in ot:er res7ectsG and 9e are of t:e o7inion t:at t:e se%eral 9itnesses 9:o testified for t:e defendant ga%e a more credible account of t:e affair t:an t:e 9itnesses for t:e 7laintiff& According to t:e 9itnesses for t:e defendant- it 9as Culio 9:o Ber8ed t:e rein- t:ereby causing t:e bit it come out of t:e :orse;s mout:G and t:ey say t:at Culio- after alig:ting- led t:e :orse o%er to t:e curb- and 7roceeded to fix t:e bridleG and t:at in so doing t:e bridle 9as sli77ed entirely off- 9:en t:e :orse- feeling :imself free from control- started to go a9ay as 7re%iously stated& 17on t:e 9:ole 9e are constrained to :old t:at t:e defendant is not legally res7onsible for t:e deat: of 6roceso GayetanoG and t:oug: reluctant to interfere 9it: t:e findings of fact of a trial court 9:en t:ere is a conflict of testimony- t:e e%idence in t:is case so clearly 7re7onderates in fa%or of t:e defendant- t:at 9e :a%e no recourse but to re%erse t:e Budgment& T:e Budgment 9ill t:erefore be re%ersed- and t:e defendant 9ill be absol%ed from t:e com7laintG and it is so ordered- 9it:out ex7ress finding as to costs of eit:er instance& 3o ordered&

PROSPERO SA+IDO and ASER LAGUNDA %& CARLOS CUSTODIO, +ELEN MAKA+UHAY CUSTODIO and THE HONORA+LE COURT OF APPEALS G&R& 'o& (# "." &August 3"- ",** C5'C46C25'- !.J.: 6ros7ero 3abido and Aser (agunda see8 t:e re%ie9 by %ertiorari of a decision of t:e Court of A77ealsaffirming t:at of t:e Court of First 2nstance of (aguna- sentencing t:e (aguna#Tayabas 0us Co&'icasio Audales- and :erein 7etitioners& 6ros7ero 3abido and Aser (agunda- to Bointly and se%erally indemnify 0elen Aa8abu:ay Custodio and :er son- Agri7ino Custodio Cr&- in t:e sum of 6*-!!! and to 7ay t:e costs of t:e suit&

134
T:e facts are set fort: in t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals from 9:ic: 9e quote: 17on a careful study and Budicious examining of t:e e%idence on record- 9e are inclined to concur in t:e findings made by t:e trial court& Fere is :o9 t:e Court a 0uo analy=ed t:e facts of t:is case: >2n 0arrio Falang- Aunici7ality of (umban- 6ro%ince of (aguna- t9o truc8s- one dri%en by 'icasio Audales and belonging to (aguna#Tayabas 0us Com7any- and t:e ot:er dri%en by Aser (agunda and o9ned by 6ros7ero 3abido- going in o77osite directions met eac: ot:er in a road cur%e& Agri7ino Custodia a 7assenger of (T0 bus- 9:o 9as :anging on t:e left side as truc8 9as full of 7assengers 9as sides9i7ed by t:e trac8 dri%en by Aser (agunda& As a result- Agri7ino Custodio 9as inBured and died (4x:ibit A$& >2t a77ears clear from t:e e%idence t:at Agri7ino Custodio 9as :anging on t:e left side of t:e (T0 bus& 5t:er9ise- 9ere :e sitting inside t:e truc8- :e could not :a%e been struc8 by t:e six by six truc8 dri%en by Aser (agunda& T:is fact alone- of allo9ing Agri7ino Custodio to :ang on t:e side of t:e truc8- ma8es t:e defendant (aguna Tayabas 0us Com7any liable for damages& For certainly its em7loyees- 9:o are t:e dri%er and conductor 9ere negligent& T:ey s:ould not :a%e allo9ed Agri7ino Custodio to ride t:eir truc8 in t:at manner& >To a%oid any liability- Aser (agunda and 6ros7ero 3abido t:ro9 all t:e blame on 'icasio Audales& From t:e testimony- :o9e%er- of 0elen Aa8abu:ay- Agri7ino Custodio;s 9ido9- 9e can deduce t:at Aser (agunda 9as equally negligent as 'icasio Audales& 0elen testified t:at t:e * x * truc8 9as running fast 9:en it met t:e (T0 0us& And Aser (agunda :ad time and o77ortunity to a%oid t:e mis:a7 if :e :ad been sufficiently careful and cautious because t:e t9o truc8s ne%er collided 9it: eac: ot:er& 0y sim7ly s9er%ing to t:e rig:t side of t:e road- t:e * x * truc8 could :a%e a%oided :itting Agri7ino Custodio& 2t is incredible t:at t:e (T0 9as running on t:e middle of t:e road 9:en 7assing a cur%e& Fe 8no9s it is dangerous to do so& ?e are rat:er of t:e belief t:at bot: truc8s did not 8ee7 close to t:e rig:t side of t:e road so t:ey sides9i7ed eac: ot:er and t:us Agri7ino Custodio 9as inBured and died& 2n ot:er 9ords- bot: dri%ers must :a%e dri%e in t:eir truc8s not in t:e 7ro7er lane and are- t:erefore- bot: rec8less and negligent& >?e mig:t state by 9ay of additional obser%ations t:at t:e sides9i7ing of t:e deceased and :is t9o fello9 7assengers too8 7lace on broad daylig:t at about ,:3! in t:e morning of Cune ,",.. 9:en t:e (T0 bus 9it: full load to 7assengers 9as negotiating a s:ar7 cur%e of a bum7y and sliding do9n9ard a slo7e- 9:ereas t:e six by six truc8 9as climbing u7 9it: no cargoes or 7assengers on board but for t:ree :el7ers- o9ner 3abido and dri%er (agunda (tsn& 3!/#3!,Aendo=a$& 1nder t:e abo%e#stated condition- t:ere exists strong 7ersuasion to acce7t 9:at 0elen Aa8abu:ay and 3ofia Aesina- (T0 7assengers- :ad testified to t:e effect t:at t:e * x * cargo truc8 9as running at a fast rate of s7eed (tsn& ".- )+- "). Aendo=a$& From t:e li7s of no less t:an dri%er (agunda :imself come t:e testimonial admission t:at t:e 7resence of t:ree :anging 7assengers located at t:e left side of t:e bus 9as noted 9:en :is %e:icle 9as still at a distance of . or ) meters from t:e bus- and yet des7ite t:e existence of a s:allo9 canal on t:e rig:t side of t:e road 9:ic: :e could 7ass o%er 9it: ease- (agunda did not care to exercise 7rudence to a%ert t:e accident sim7ly because to use :is o9n language t:e canal >is not a 7assage of truc8s&> 0ased u7on t:ese facts- t:e Court of First 2nstance of (aguna and t:e Court of A77eals concluded t:at t:e (aguna#Tayabas 0us Co& O :ereinafter referred to as t:e carrier O and its dri%er 'icasio Audales (none of 9:om :as a77ealed$- :ad %iolated t:e contract of carriage 9it: Agri7ino Custodio- 9:ereas 7etitioners 3abido and (agunda 9ere guilty of a 0uasi deli%t- by reason of 9:ic: all of t:em 9ere :eld solidarity liable in t:e manner abo%e indicated&

135
6etitioners no9 maintain: ("$ t:at t:e deat: of Agri7ino Custodio 9as due exclusi%ely to t:e negligence of t:e carrier and its dri%erG ( $ t:at 7etitioners 9ere not guilty of negligence in connection 9it: t:e matter under considerationG (3$ t:at 7etitioners cannot be :eld solidarily liable 9it: t:e carrier and its dri%erG and (+$ t:at t:e com7laint against 7etitioners :erein s:ould be dismissed& ?it: res7ect to t:e first t9o ( $ 7oints- 9:ic: are interrelated- it is urged t:at t:e carrier and its dri%er 9ere clearly guilty of negligence for :a%ing allo9ed Agri7ino Custodio to ride on t:e running board of t:e bus- in %iolation of 3ection + of Act 'o& 3,, - and t:at t:is negligence 9as t:e 7roximate cause of Agri7ino;s deat:& 2t s:ould be noted- :o9e%er- t:at t:e lo9er court :ad- li8e9ise- found t:e 7etitioners guilty of contributory negligence- 9:ic: 9as as muc: a 7roximate cause of t:e accident as t:e carrier;s negligence- for 7etitioners; truc8 9as running at a considerable s7eed- des7ite t:e fact t:at it 9as negotiating a s:ar7 cur%e- and- instead of being close to its rig:t side of t:e road- said truc8 9as dri%en on its middle 7ortion and so near t:e 7assenger bus coming from t:e o77osite direction as to sides9i7e a 7assenger riding on its running board&"Q97:f"&Dgt T:e %ie9s of t:e Court of A77eals on t:e s7eed of t:e truc8 and its location at t:e time of t:e accident are in t:e nature of findings of fact- 9:ic: 9e cannot disturb in a 7etition for re%ie9 by %ertiorari- suc: as t:e one at bar& At any rate- t:e correctness of said findings is borne out by t:e %ery testimony of 7etitioner (agunda to t:e effect t:at :e sa9 t:e 7assengers riding on t:e running board of t:e bus 9:ile t:e same 9as still fi%e (.$ or se%en ()$ meters a9ay from t:e truc8 dri%en by :im& 2ndeed- t:e distance bet9een t:e t9o ( $ %e:icles 9as suc: t:at :e could :a%e a%oided sides9i7ing said 7assengers if :is truc8 9ere not running at a great s7eed& Alt:oug: t:e negligence of t:e carrier and its dri%er is inde7endent- in its execution- of t:e negligence of t:e truc8 dri%er and its o9ner- bot: acts of negligence are t:e 7roximate cause of t:e deat: of Agri7ino Custodio& 2n fact- t:e negligence of t:e first t9o ( $ 9ould not :a%e 7roduced t:is result 9it:out t:e negligence of 7etitioners; :erein& ?:at is more- 7etitioners; negligence 9as t:e last- in 7oint of time- for Custodio 9as on t:e running board of t:e carrier;s bus sometime before 7etitioners; truc8 came from t:e o77osite direction- so t:at- in t:is sense- 7etitioners; truc8 :ad t:e last clear c:ance& 6etitioners contend t:at t:ey s:ould not be :eld solidarily liable 9it: t:e carrier and its dri%er- because t:e latter;s liability arises from a breac: of contract- 9:ereas t:at of t:e former s7rings from a 0uasi deli%t& T:e rule is- :o9e%er- t:at According to t:e great 9eig:t of aut:ority- 9:ere t:e concurrent or successi%e negligent acts or omission of t9o or more 7ersons- alt:oug: acting inde7endently of eac: ot:er- are- in combination- t:e direct and 7roximate cause of a single inBury to a t:ird 7erson- and it is im7ossible to determine in 9:at 7ro7ortion eac: contributed to t:e inBury- eit:er is res7onsible for t:e 9:ole inBury- e%en t:oug: :is act alone mig:t not :a%e caused t:e entire inBury- or t:e same damage mig:t :a%e resulted from t:e acts of t:e ot:er tort#feasor &&& & (3/ Am& Cur& ,+*,+)&$ ?:erefore- t:e decision a77ealed from is :ereby affirmed- 9it: costs against t:e 7etitioners :erein& 2t is so ordered&

FRANCISCA VILUAN %& THE COURT OF APPEALS, PATRICIO HUFANA and GREGORIO HUFANA G&R& 'os& (# "+))#/"&A7ril ,- ",** R4GA(A- J.: 3e%en 7ersons 9ere 8illed and t:irteen ot:ers 9ere inBured in 0angar- (a 1nion- on February "*",./- 9:en a 7assenger bus on 9:ic: t:ey 9ere riding caug:t fire after :itting a 7ost and cras:ing against a tree& T:e bus- o9ned by 7etitioner and dri%en by Fermenegildo Aquino- came from 3an Fernando- (a 1nion and 9as on its 9ay to Candon- 2locos 3ur&

136
2t a77ears t:at- as t:e bus neared t:e gate of t:e Gabaldon sc:ool building in t:e munici7ality of 0angar- anot:er 7assenger bus o9ned by 6atricio Fufana and dri%en by Gregorio Fufana tried to o%erta8e it but t:at instead of gi%ing 9ay- Aquino increased t:e s7eed of :is bus and raced 9it: t:e o%erta8ing bus& Aquino lost control of :is bus as a result of 9:ic: it :it a 7ost- cras:ed against a tree and t:en burst into flames& Among t:ose 9:o 7eris:ed 9ere Timoteo Aa7anao- Francisca (acsamana- 'arcisa Aendo=a and Gregorio 3ibayan- 9:ose :eirs sued 7etitioner and t:e latter;s dri%er- Fermenegildo Aquino- for damages for breac: of contract of carriage& Carolina 3abado- one of t:ose inBured- also sued 7etitioner and t:e dri%er for damages& T:e com7laints 9ere filed in t:e Court of First 2nstance of (a 1nion& 2n t:eir ans9er- 7etitioner and :er dri%er blamed res7ondent Gregorio Fufana for t:e accident& ?it: lea%e of court- t:ey filed t:ird 7arty com7laints against Fufana and t:e latter;s em7loyer- 6atricio Fufana& After trial- t:e court found t:at t:e accident 9as due to t:e concurrent negligence of t:e dri%ers of t:e t9o buses and :eld bot:- toget:er 9it: t:eir res7ecti%e em7loyers- Bointly and se%erally liable for damages& T:e dis7ositi%e 7ortion of its decision reads: 2' E24? 5F A(( TF4 F5R4G52'G- Budgment is :ereby rendered- declaring t:e 7laintiff;s entitled to damages to be 7aid Bointly and se%erally by t:e defendants and t:ird#7arty defendants as follo9s: ("$ For 7laintiff Culiana C& Eda& de Aa7anao for t:e deat: of :er son Timoteo Aa7anao- t:e sum of 6.-!!!&!! for actual damages- 6"-!!!&!! as moral damages and 6 .!&!! as attorney;s feesG ( $ For 7laintiff (eon (acsamana for t:e deat: of :is daug:ter Francisca (acsamana- t:e sum of 6+-!!!&!! as actual damages- 6"-!!!&!! as moral damages and 6 .!&!! as attorney;s feesG (3$ For 7laintiffs Cuan Aendo=a and Aagdalena Aendo=a for t:e deat: of t:eir mot:er 'arcisa Aendo=a- t:e sum of 6+-!!!&!! for actual damages- 6"-!!!&!! for moral damages and 6 .!&!! as attorney;s feesG (+$ For 7laintiffs Agustina 3abado- <uintin 3ibayan- Culita 3ibayan- 6rimiti%o 3ibayan and A%elina 3ibayan- t:e sum of 6+-!!!&!! for actual damages- 6"-.!!&!! for moral damages and 6 .!&!! as attorney;s feesG (.$ For t:e inBured 7assenger Carolina 3abado- 6*+,&!! for actual damages- 6"-!!!&!! for moral damages and 6 .!&!! for attorney;s fees& All suc: amounts a9arded as damages s:all bear interest at t:e legal rate of six 7er cent (*]$ 7er annum from t:e date of t:is decision until t:e same s:all :a%e been duly 7aid in full& Defendants and t:ird#7arty defendants are furt:er ordered to 7ay 7ro7ortionate costs&> 0ot: 7etitioner and :er dri%er and t:e res7ondents :erein a77ealed to t:e Court of A77eals& ?:ile affirming t:e finding t:at t:e accident 9as due to t:e concurrent negligence of t:e dri%ers of bot: t:e Eiluan and t:e Fufana buses- t:e Court of A77eals differed 9it: t:e trial court in t:e assessment of liabilities of t:e 7arties& 2n its %ie9 only 7etitioner Francisca Eiluan- as o7erator of t:e bus- is liable for breac: of contract of carriage& T:e dri%er- Fermenegildo Aquino- cannot be made Bointly and se%erally liable 9it: 7etitioner because :e is merely t:e latter;s em7loyee and is in no 9ay a 7arty to t:e contract of carriage& T:e court added- :o9e%er O Fermenegildo Aquino is not entirely free from liability& Fe may be :eld liable- criminally and ci%illy- under t:e Re%ised 6enal Code (Articles "!! and "!3$- but not in a ci%il suit for damages 7redicated u7on a breac: of contract- suc: as t:is one (Aguas- et al& %s& Eargas- et al&- CA#

137
G&R& 'o& )"*"#R- Can& - ",*3$& Furt:ermore- t:e common carrier- Francisca Eiluan could reco%er from Aquino any damages t:at s:e mig:t :a%e suffered by reason of t:e latter;s negligence& 'eit:er may res7ondents 6atricio Fufana and Gregorio Fufana be :eld liable in t:e o7inion of t:e a77ellate court because t:e 7laintiffs did not amend com7laints in t:e main action so as to assert a claim against t:e res7ondents as t:ird 7arty defendants& T:e a77ellate court li8e9ise disallo9ed t:e a9ard of moral damages for 6"-!!!&!! to Carolina 3abado- t:ere being no s:o9ing t:at t:e common carrier 9as guilty of fraud or bad fait: in t:e 7erformance of :er obligation& Accordingly- it rendered Budgment as follo9s: 2' E24? 5F A(( TF4 F5R4G52'G- 9e :ereby find defendant#a77ellant Francisca Eiluan solely liable to t:e 7laintiffs#a77ellees for t:e damages and attorney;s fees a9arded to t:em by t:e court belo9 and furt:er declare null and %oid t:e lo9er court;s a9ard of moral damages in t:e amount of 6"-!!!&!! in fa%or of 7laintiff Carolina 3abado& T:us modified- t:e Budgment a77ealed from is affirmed in all ot:er res7ects- 9it: costs in t:is instance against defendant# a77ellant Francisca Eiluan& From t:is Budgment 7etitioner broug:t t:is a77eal& 2n brief- :er 7osition is t:at since t:e 7roximate cause of t:e accident 9as found to be t:e concurrent negligence of t:e dri%ers of t:e t9o buses- t:en s:e and res7ondent 6atricio and Gregorio Fufana s:ould :a%e been :eld equally liable to t:e 7laintiffs in t:e damage suits& T:e fact t:at t:e res7ondents 9ere not sued as 7rinci7al defendants but 9ere broug:t into t:e cases as t:ird 7arty defendants s:ould not 7reclude a finding of t:eir liability& ?e agree 9it: 7etitioner;s contention& To begin 9it:- t:e Court of A77eals; ruling is based on section . of Rule " of t:e former Rules of Court- 9:ic: 9as ado7ted from Rule "+#a of t:e Federal Rules of Ci%il 6rocedure& ?:ile t:e latter 7ro%ision :as indeed been :eld to 7reclude a Budgment in fa%or of a 7laintiff and against a t:ird 7arty defendant 9:ere t:e 7laintiff :as not amended :is com7laint to assert a claim against a t:ird 7arty defendant- yet- as :eld in subsequent decisions- t:is rule a77lies only to cases 9:ere t:e t:ird 7arty defendant is broug:t in on an allegation of liability to t:e defendants& T:e rule does not a77ly 9:ere a t:ird#7arty defendant is im7leaded on t:e ground of direct liability to t:e 7laintiffs- in 9:ic: case no amendment of t:e 7laintiffs com7laint is necessary& As ex7lained in t:e Atlantic Coast (ine R& Co& %s& 1& 3& Fidelity & Guaranty Co&- . F& 3u77& ")) (",+3$: From t:e sources of Rule "+ and t:e decisions :erein cited- it is clear t:at t:is rule- li8e t:e admiralty rule- >co%ers t9o distinct subBects- t:e addition of 7arties defendant to t:e main cause of action- and t:e bringing in of a t:ird 7arty for a defendant;s remedy o%er&> x x x 2f t:e t:ird 7arty com7laint alleges facts s:o9ing a t:ird 7arty;s direct liability to 7laintiff on t:e claim set out in 7laintiff;s 7etition- t:en t:ird 7arty >s:all> ma8e :is defenses as 7ro%ided in Rule " and :is counterclaims against 7laintiff as 7ro%ided in Rule "3& 2n t:e case of alleged direct liability- no amendment is necessary or required& T:e subBect#matter of t:e claim is contained in 7laintiff;s com7laint- t:e ground of t:ird 7arty;s liability on t:at claim is alleged in t:ird 7arty com7laint- and t:ird 7arty;s defense to set u7 in :is an to 7laintiff;s com7laint& At t:at 7oint and 9it:out amendment- t:e 7laintiff and t:ird 7arty are at issue as to t:eir rig:ts res7ecting t:e claim& T:e 7ro%ision in t:e rule t:at- >T:e t:ird#7arty defendant may assert any defenses 9:ic: t:e t:ird#7arty 7laintiff may assert to t:e 7laintiff;s claim-> a77lies to t:e ot:er subBect- namely- t:e alleged liability of t:ird 7arty defendant& T:e next sentence in t:e rule- >T:e t:ird#7arty defendant is bound by t:e adBudication of t:e t:ird 7arty 7laintiff;s liability to t:e 7laintiff- as 9ell as of :is o9n to t:e 7laintiff or to t:e t:ird#7arty 7laintiff-> a77lies to bot: subBects& 2f t:ird 7arty is broug:t in as liable only to defendant and Budgment is rendered adBudicating 7laintiff;s rig:t to reco%er against defendant and defendant;s rig:ts to reco%er against t:ird 7arty- :e is bound by bot: adBudications& T:at 7art of t:e sentence refers to t:e second subBect& 2f t:ird 7arty is broug:t in as liable to 7laintiff- t:en t:ird 7arty is bound by t:e adBudication as bet9een :im and

138
7laintiff& T:at refers to t:e first subBect& 2f t:ird 7arty is broug:t in as liable to 7laintiff and also o%er to defendant- t:en t:ird 7arty is bound by bot: adBudications& T:e next sentence in t:e rule- >T:e 7laintiff may amend :is 7leadings to assert against t:e t:ird#7arty defendant any claim 9:ic: t:e 7laintiff mig:t :a%e asserted against t:e t:ird#7arty defendant :ad :e been Boined originally as a defendant-> refers to t:e second subBect- t:at is- to bringing in t:ird 7arty as liable to defendant only- and does not a77ly to t:e alleged liability of t:ird 7arty directly to 7laintiff&> 2n t:is case t:e t:ird#7arty com7laints filed by 7etitioner and :er dri%er c:arged res7ondents 9it: direct liability to t:e 7laintiffs& 2t 9as contended t:at t:e accident 9as due >to t:e fault- negligencecarelessness and im7rudence of t:e t:ird 7arty defendant Gregorio Fufana> and- in 7etitioner;s motion for lea%e to file a t:ird 7arty com7laint- it 9as stated t:at >6atricio Fufana and Gregorio Fufana 9ere not made 7arties to t:is action- alt:oug: t:e defendants are entitled to indemnity andHor subrogation against t:em in res7ect of 7laintiff;s claim&> 2t s:ould ma8e no difference t:erefore 9:et:er t:e res7ondents 9ere broug:t in as 7rinci7al defendants or as t:ird#7arty defendants& As C:ief Custice Aoran 7oints out- since t:e liability of t:e t:ird#7arty defendant is already asserted in t:e t:ird#7arty com7laint- t:e amendment of t:e com7laint to assert suc: liability is merely a matter of form- to insist on 9:ic: 9ould not be in 8ee7ing 9it: t:e liberal s7irit of t:e Rules of Court& 'or s:ould it ma8e any difference t:at t:e liability of 7etitioner s7rings from contract 9:ile t:at of res7ondents arises from quasi#delict& As early as ","3- 9e already ruled in 1utierre+ vs. 1utierre+- .* 6:il& "))- t:at in case of inBury to a 7assenger due to t:e negligence of t:e dri%er of t:e bus on 9:ic: :e 9as riding and of t:e dri%er of anot:er %e:icle- t:e dri%ers as 9ell as t:e o9ners of t:e t9o %e:icles are Bointly and se%erally liable for damages& 3ome members of t:e Court- t:oug:- are of t:e %ie9 t:at under t:e circumstances t:ey are liable on quasi#delict& ?:erefore- t:e decision a77ealed from is :ereby modified in t:e sense t:at 7etitioner as 9ell as res7ondents 6atricio Fufana and Gregorio Fufana are Bointly and se%erally liable for t:e damages a9arded by t:e trial court& T:e disallo9ance of moral damages in t:e amount of 6"-!!!&!! is correct and s:ould be affirmed& 'o costs& PILIPINAS +ANK %& THE HONORA+LE COURT OF APPEALS, and LILIA R. ECHAUS G&R& 'o& ,)/)3&August " - ",,3 <12A35'- J.: T:is is a 7etition for %ertiorari under Rule +. of t:e Re%ised Rules of Court to re%ie9 t:e Resolution of t:e Court of A77eals in CA#G&R& CE 'o& !*!") 7romulgated on Aarc: "+- ",,"& T:e Resolution 9as rendered in res7onse to 7ri%ate res7ondent;s motion for clarification of t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals in CA#G&R& 'o& !*!")& T:e matters soug:t to be clarified arose in t:e course of t:e execution of t:e decision of t:e Regional Trial Court- 0ranc: )"- Anti7olo- Ri=al in Ci%il Case 'o& 3,#A- as modified by t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals in CA#G&R& CE 'o& !*!")& 2n Ci%il Case 'o& 3,#A- 7ri%ate res7ondent filed a com7laint against 7etitioner and its 7residentConstantino 0autista- for collection of a sum of money& T:e com7laint alleged: ("$ t:at 7etitioner and Greatland Realty Cor7oration (Greatland$ executed a >Dacion en 6ago-> 9:erein Greatland con%eyed to 7etitioner se%eral 7arcels of land in consideration of t:e sum of 6)-))*-33.&*,G ( $ t:at Greatland assigned 6 -3!!-!!!&!! out of t:e total consideration of t:e (a%ion en &ago- in fa%or of 7ri%ate res7ondentG and (3$ t:at not9it:standing :er demand for 7ayment- 7etitioner in bad fait:- refused and failed to 7ay t:e said amount assigned to :er& 6etitioner- 9:ile admitting t:e execution of t:e (a%ion en &ago- claimed: ("$ t:at its former 7resident :ad no aut:ority to enter into suc: agreementG ( $ t:at it ne%er ratified t:e sameG and (3$ t:at

139
assuming arguendo t:at t:e agreement 9as binding- t:e conditions sti7ulated t:erein 9ere ne%er fulfilled& Dismissing 7etitioner;s defense as unmeritorious- t:e trial court ruled in fa%or of 7ri%ate res7ondent& T:e trial court ordered 7etitioner and its co#defendant- Bointly and se%erally- to 7ay 7ri%ate res7ondent as follo9s: "$ 6 -3!!-!!!&!! t:e total amount assigned by Greatland in :er fa%or out of t:e 6 -3!!-!!!&!! liability of defendant 6ili7inas to Greatland 7lus legal interest from t:e dates of assignments until fully 7aidG $ 63- ")-)!)&!! re7resenting t:e total actual damages suffered by t:e 7laintiff 7lus legal interest until fully 7aidG 3$ 6"-!!!-!!!&!! in moral damages to 7artially assuage t:e extreme moral sufferings of 7laintiff inflicted u7on :er 7erson considering t:e bad fait: on t:e 7art of t:e defendants and t:eir failure to act 9it: Bustice- and to gi%e 9:at is la9fully due :er and obser%e :onesty and good fait:G +$ 6"!!-!!!&!! exem7lary and nominal damages to %indicate 7laintiff;s %iolated rig:tsG .$ Attorney;s fees equi%alent to ".] of t:e total a9ard in fa%or of t:e 7laintiffG *$ Costs of suit (,ollo- 7& )/$& 5n Aarc: - ",/.- 7etitioner a77ealed t:e decision of t:e trial court to t:e Court of A77eals- 9:ic: doc8eted t:e a77eal as CA#G&R& 'o& !*!")& 5n t:e same day- 7ri%ate res7ondent filed a motion for 2mmediate 4xecution 6ending A77eal& T:e trial court granted t:e motion for execution 7ending a77eal in an 5rder dated A7ril 3- ",/.& 6etitioner c:allenged t:e 5rder dated A7ril 3- ",/. before t:e Court of A77eals in CA#G&R& 'o& 36 'o& !.,!,& 5n 5ctober 3!- ",/*- t:e Court of A77eals modified t:e 5rder dated A7ril 3- ",/.- by limiting t:e execution 7ending a77eal against 7etitioner to 6.-.")&)!)&!! and deferring t:e execution of t:e a9ard for moral- exem7lary and nominal damages to a9ait t:e final Budgment of t:e main case in CA# G&R& 'o& !*!")& 5n Cune ")- ",/)- t:e 3u7reme Court in G&R& 'o& (#)*.!* affirmed t:e 5rder dated 5ctober 3!- ",/* of t:e Court of A77eals& 5n Culy "- ",//- t:e trial court granted t:e ne9 motion for execution 7ending a77eal filed by 7ri%ate res7ondent 7ursuant to t:e Resolution of t:e 3u7reme Court dated Cune ")- ",/)- u7on t:e filing of t:e required bond& 6etitioner com7lied 9it: t:e 9rit of execution 7ending a77eal by issuing t9o manager;s c:ec8s in t:e total amount of 6.-.")-)!)&!! (one for 6+-,*.-,3*&3! 7ayable to 7ri%ate res7ondent and anot:er for 6.."-))!&)! 7ayable to t:e Cler8 of Court- RTC- Anti7olo- Ri=al$& T:e c:ec8 7ayable to 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as encas:ed on Culy ".- ",//& 5n Cune /- ",,!- t:e Court of A77eals rendered a decision in CA#G&R& 'o& CE#!*!")- 9:ic: modified t:e Budgment of t:e trial court as follo9s: "& T:e defendant#a77ellant 6ili7inas 0an8- formerly 8no9n as Fili7inas Aanufacturers 0an8 is ordered to 7ay t:e 7laintiff#a77ellee t:e follo9ing: (a$ T:e sum of T9o Aillion T:ree Fundred T:ousand ( -3!!-!!!-!!$ 6esos- re7resenting t:e total amount assigned by Greatland to :er- 9it: interest at t:e legal rate starting Culy +- ",/"- date 9:en demand 9as first made (4x:& >F> and >G>$G (b$ T:e sum of 5ne Fundred T:ousand (6"!!-!!!&!!$ 6esos in moral damages- to assuage moral sufferings and embarrassment of 7laintiff# a77ellee as a consequence of a77ellant#ban8;s un9arranted actsG (c$ T:e sum of T9enty Fi%e T:ousand (6 .-!!!&!!$ 6esos- as exem7lary damages to ser%e as an exam7le or correction for t:e 7ublic goodG

140
(d$ T:e sum equi%alent to ten ("!$ 7ercent of t:e 7rinci7al claim a9ardedre7resenting attorney;s feesG and & Constantino 0autista is absol%ed of 7ersonal liability (,ollo- 77& 3"#3 $& 6etitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file a 6etition for Re%ie9 on !ertiorari 9it: t:e 3u7reme Court- 9:ic: :o9e%er 9as 9it:dra9n on Culy 3-",,!& 6ri%ate res7ondent- on :er 7art- filed a motion for reconsideration of t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals in CA#G&R& 'o& !*!")- 9:ic: li8e9ise 9as 9it:dra9n on August "3- ",,!& Fence- t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals rendered in CA#G&R& 'o& !*!") became final and executory& 5n 3e7tember +- ",,!- 7etitioner filed a motion in t:e trial court 7raying t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent and 3tandard 2nsurance Co& (9:ic: furnis:ed t:e bond required in t:e ad%ance execution of t:e decision of t:e trial court$ to refund to :er t:e excess 7ayment of 6"-/,/-* 3&*) 9it: interests at *] ( ,ollo- 77& /3#/+$& 2t must be recalled t:at 9:ile 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as able to collect 6.-.")-)!)&!! from 7etitioner 7ursuant to t:e 9rit of ad%ance execution allo9ed in CA#G&R& 'o& 36 'o& !.,!,- t:e final Budgment in t:e main case (CA#G&R& 'o& !*!")$ a9arded to 7ri%ate res7ondent damages in t:e total amount of only 6 -*..-!!!&!! (6 -3!!-!!!&!! re7resenting t:e amount assigned by Greatland to 7ri%ate res7ondent- 6"!!-!!!&!! as moral damagesG 6 .-!!!&!! as exem7lary damages and attorney;s fees equi%alent to "!] of t:e 6 -3!!-!!!&!!$- toget:er >9it: interest on t:e amount of 6 -3!!-!!!&!! at t:e legal rate starting Culy +- ",/"- date 9:en demand 9as first made (4x:& >F> and >G>$&> 6ri%ate res7ondent o77osed t:e motion of 7etitioner 9it: res7ect to t:e rate of interest to be c:arged on t:e amount of 6 -3!!-!!!&!!& According to 7ri%ate res7ondent- t:e legal interest on t:e 7rinci7al amount of 6 -3!!-!!!&!! due :er s:ould be " ] per annum 7ursuant to C0 Circular 'o& +"* and not *] per annum as com7uted by 7etitioner& 5n 5ctober " - ",,!- t:e trial court- 9:ile ordering t:e refund to 7etitioner of t:e excess 7aymentfixed t:e interest rate due on t:e amount of 6 -3!!&!!!&!! at " ] per annum as 7ro7osed by 7ri%ate res7ondent- instead of *] per annum as 7ro7osed by 7etitioner& 5n 5ctober "*- ",,!- 7etitioner mo%ed to reconsider t:e 5rder dated 5ctober " - ",,! of t:e trail court- 9:ic: :o9e%er could not be acted u7on because on 5ctober 3- ",,!- 7ri%ate res7ondent filed a Aotion for Clarification 9it: t:e Court of A77eals in CA#G&R& CE 'o& !*!")- regarding t:e follo9ing matters: a$ T:e >legal rate> of interest on t:e 7rinci7al a9ard of 6 -3!!-!!!&!! from Culy +",/" (as 7er decision$ u7 to Culy "+- ",// (date of actual 7ayment made by defendant# a77ellant to 7laintiff#a77ellee 7er execution 7ending a77eal$G b$ T:e im7osition of suc: >legal rate> of interest on t:e accrued interest; from Culy +",/" u7 to Culy "+- ",//G c$ T:e amount of t:e costs of suit 9ill include 7remium on surety bondG d$ T:e disc:arged of t:e surety bond 9:et:er total or 7artial- de7ending on t:e com7utation of t:e interestG e$ T:e a9ard of attorney;s fees equi%alent to "!] of t:e 7rinci7al a9ard- 9:et:er t:is s:ould totally go to 7laintiff#a77ellee;s former counsel or to be s:ared on t:e basis of 0uantum meruit 9it: t:e undersigned counselG and f$ Aside from t:is final a9ard of "!] attorney;s fees c:argeable against defendant# a77ellant- 9:et:er or not former counsel of 7laintiff#a77ellee can still collect from :er t:e balance of ".] out of t:e .] attorney;s fees under 4x:& >'> (,ollo- 7&3 $& 2n its Resolution 7romulgated on Aarc: "+- ",,"- t:e Court of A77eals clarified t:at:

141
a$ T:e legal rate of interest on t:e 7rinci7al a9ard of 6 -3!!-!!!&!! s:ould be " ] per annum in accordance 9it: Circular 'o& +"* dated Culy ,- ",)+ of t:e Central 0an8& b$ T:e com7utation of com7ounding interest annually :as no basis- t:erefore- not allo9ed in t:e instant caseG c$ T:e 7ayment of 7remium on t:e bond in t:e sum of 6 .,-/"3&.! as cost- being 9it:out legal and factual basis- is deniedG d$ T:e surety bond 7osted by 7laintiff#a77ellee may be released after satisfaction of t:e decisionG and e$ 6aymentHdistribution of attorney;s fees mayHs:all be litigated in a se7arate 7roceeding if t:e 7arties cannot settle t:eir differences amicably& 35 5RD4R4D (,ollo- 7& 3.#3*$& 2n t:is a77eal- 7etitioner claims t:at t:e Court of A77eals erred: ("$ 2n ruling t:at t:e legal rate of interest on t:e amount of 6 -3!!-!!!&!! adBudged to be 7aid by 7etitioner to 7ri%ate res7ondent is " ] per annum& ( $ 2n not :olding t:at t:e refund to 9:ic: 7etitioner is entitled s:ould earn interest at t:e rate of " ] per annum& (3$ 2n not :olding t:at t:e surety bond s:ould only be released after actual refund (,ollo- 7& "/$& T:e Court of A77eals 9as of t:e t:eory t:at t:e action in Ci%il Case 'o& 3,#A filed by 7ri%ate res7ondent against 7etitioner >in%ol%es forbearance of money- as t:e 7rinci7al a9ard to 7laintiff# a77ellee (7ri%ate res7ondent$ in t:e amount of 6 -3!!&!!!&!! 9as t:e o%erdue debt of defendant# a77ellant to :er since Culy ",/"& T:e case is- in effect- a sim7le collection of t:e money due to 7laintiff#a77ellee- as t:e un7aid creditor from t:e defendant ban8- t:e debtor> (Resolution- 7&3G ,ollo7& 33$& A77lying Central 0an8 Circular 'o& +"*- t:e Court of A77eals :eld t:at t:e a77licable rate of interest is " ] 7er annum& 6etitioner argues t:at t:e a77licable la9 is Article 'o& +"*& 3aid Article !, 7ro%ides: !, of t:e Ci%il Code- not t:e Central 0an8 Circular

Art& !,& 2f t:e obligation consists in t:e 7ayment of a sum of money- and t:e debtor incurs in delay- t:e indemnity for damages- t:ere being no sti7ulation to t:e contrarys:all be t:e 7ayment of t:e interest agreed u7on- and in t:e absence of sti7ulation- t:e legal interest- 9:ic: is six 7er cent 7er annum& 6residential Decree 'o& ""* aut:ori=ed t:e Aonetary 0oard to 7rescribe t:e maximum rate or rates of interest for t:e loan or rene9al t:ereof or t:e forbearance of any money- goods or credits and amended t:e 1sury (a9 (Act 'o& *..$ for t:at 7ur7ose& As amended- t:e 1sury (a9 no9 7ro%ides: 3ec& T:e rate of interest for t:e loan or forbearance of any money- goods- or credits and t:e rate allo9ed in Budgments- in t:e absence of ex7ress contract as to suc: rate of interest- s:all be six per %entum per annum or suc: rate as may be 7rescribed by t:e Aonetary 0oard of t:e Central 0an8 of t:e 6:ili77ines for t:at 7ur7ose in accordance 9it: t:e aut:ority :ereby granted& 3ec& "#a& T:e Aonetary 0oard is :ereby aut:ori=ed to 7rescribe t:e maximum rate or rates of interest for t:e loan or rene9al t:ereof or t:e forbearance of any money- goods or credits- and to c:arge suc: rate or rates 9:ene%er 9arranted by 7re%ailing economic and social conditions: &rovided- T:at suc: c:anges s:all not be made oftener t:at once e%ery t9el%e mont:s&

142
2n t:e exercise of t:e aut:ority :erein granted- t:e Aonetary 0oard may 7rescribe :ig:er maximum rates for consumer loans or rene9als t:ereof as 9ell as suc: loans made by 7a9ns:o7s- finance com7anies and ot:er similar credit institutions alt:oug: t:e rates 7rescribed for t:ese institutions need not necessarily be uniform& Acting on t:e aut:ority %ested on it by t:e 1sury (a9- as amended by 6&D& 'o& ""*- t:e Aonetary 0oard of Central 0an8 issued Central 0an8 Circular 'o& +"*- 9:ic: 7ro%ides: 0y %irtue of t:e aut:ority granted to it under 3ection " of Act *..- as amendedot:er9ise 8no9n as t:e >1sury (a9> t:e Aonetary 0oard in its Resolution 'o& "* dated Culy ,- ",)+- :as 7rescribed t:at t:e rate of interest for t:e loan, or forbearan%e of any money, goods, or %redits and t:e rate allo9ed in *udgments- in t:e absence of ex7ress contract as to suc: rate of interest- s:all be t9el%e (" ]$ 7er cent per annum& T:is Circular s:all ta8e effect immediately& (italics su77lied$ 'ote t:at Circular 'o& +"*- fixing t:e rate of interest at " ] 7er annum- deals 9it: ("$ loansG ( $ forbearance of any moneygoods or creditG and (3$ Budgments& 2n ,eformina v& "omol, Jr&, "3, 3CRA *! M",/.N- t:e Court :eld t:at t:e Budgments s7o8en of and referred to in Circular 'o& +"* are >Budgments in litigation in%ol%ing loans or forbearance of any moneygoods or credits& Any ot:er 8ind of monetary Budgment 9:ic: :as not:ing to do 9it: nor in%ol%ing loans or forbearance of any money- goods or credits does not fall 9it:in t:e co%erage of t:e said la9 for it is not- 9it:in t:e ambit of t:e aut:ority granted to t:e Central 0an8&> ,eformina 9as affirmed in &hilippines 9irginia "oba%%o dministration v& "ensuan- "// 3CRA * / M",,!N- 9:ic: em7:asi=ed t:at t:e >Budgments> contem7lated in Circular 'o& +") >are Budgments in%ol%ing said loans or forbearance only and not in Budgments in litigation t:at :a%e not:ing to do 9it: loans & & & &> ?e :eld t:at Circular 'o& +"* does not a77ly to Budgments in%ol%ing damages (Reformina v& TomolCr&- supraG 6:ili77ine Eirginia Tobacco Administration v& Tensuan- supra$ and com7ensation in ex7ro7riation 7roceedings ('ational 6o9er Cor7oration v& Angas- !/ 3CRA .+ M",, N$& ?e also :eld t:at 7ayment of unliquidated cas: ad%ances to an em7loyee by :is em7loyer (Eillarica %& Court of A77eals- " 3 3CRA ., M",/3N$ and t:e return of money 7aid by a buyer of a lease:old rig:t but 9:ic: contract 9as %oided due to t:e fault of t:e seller (0uisier %& Court of A77eals- ".+ 3CRA +3/ M",/)N$& ?:at t:en is t:e nature of t:e Budgment ordering 7etitioner to 7ay 7ri%ate res7ondent t:e amount of 6 -3!!-!!!&!!J T:e said amount 9as a 7ortion of t:e 6)-))*-33.&*, 9:ic: 7etitioner 9as obligated to 7ay Greatland as consideration for t:e sale of se%eral 7arcels of land by Greatland to 7etitioner& T:e amount of 6 -3!!-!!!&!! 9as assigned by Greatland in fa%or of 7ri%ate res7ondent& T:e said obligation t:erefore arose from a contract of 7urc:ase and sale and not from a contract of loan or mutuum& Fence- 9:at is a77licable is t:e rate of *] 7er annum as 7ro%ided in Article !, of t:e Ci%il Code of t:e 6:ili77ines and not t:e rate of " ] 7er annum as 7ro%ided in Circular 'o& +"*& 6etitioner next contends t:at- consistent 9it: its t:esis t:at Circular 'o& +"* a77lies only to Budgments in%ol%ing t:e 7ayment of loans or forbearance of money- goods and credit- t:e Court of A77eals s:ould :a%e ordered 7ri%ate res7ondent to 7ay interest at t:e rate of " ] on t:e o%er7ayment collected by :er 7ursuant to t:e ad%ance execution of t:e Budgment& Again- 9e sustain 7etitioner;s contention as correct& 6ri%ate res7ondent 9as 7aid in ad%ance t:e amount of 6.-.")-)!)&!! by 7etitioner to t:e order for t:e execution 7ending a77eal of t:e Budgment of t:e trial court& 5n a77eal- t:e Court of A77eals reduced t:e total damages to 63-*",-!/3&33- lea%ing a balance of 6"-/,/-* 3&*) to be refunded by 7ri%ate res7ondent to 7etitioner& 2n an execution 7ending a77eal- funds are ad%anced by t:e losing 7arty to

143
t:e 7re%ailing 7arty 9it: t:e im7lied obligation of t:e latter to re7ay former- in case t:e a77ellate court cancels or reduces t:e monetary a9ard& 1nder 3ection . of Rule 3, of t:e Re%ised Rules of Court 9:ere >t:e Budgment executed is re%ersed totally or 7artially on a77eal- t:e trial court- on motion- after t:e case is remanded to it- may issue suc: orders of restitution- as equity and Bustice may 9arrant under t:e circumstances&> 2t 9as to guarantee t:e restitution contem7lated by 3ection . of Rule 3, of t:e Re%ised Rules of Court t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as required by t:e trial court to 7ost a bond before t:e 9rit of ad%ance execution 9as issued& 2n t:e case before us- t:e excess amount ordered to refunded by 7ri%ate res7ondent falls 9it:in t:e ruling in9iloria and Buiser t:at Circular 'o& +"* a77lies to cases 9:ere money is transferred from one 7erson to anot:er and t:e obligation to return t:e same or a 7ortion t:ereof is subsequently adBudged& Finally- 7etitioner questions as %ague t:e ruling of t:e Court of A77eals t:at t:e surety bond gi%en to secure t:e ad%ance execution may be disc:arged >u7on t:e finality and satisfaction of t:e decision&> ?e belie%e t:at t:is ruling of t:e Court of A77eals is clear enoug: in ordering t:at t:e surety bond s:all be released only after 7ri%ate res7ondent :as fully refunded t:e o%er7ayment to 7etitioner& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e 7etition is GRA'T4D& T:e Resolution of t:e Court of A77eals a77ealed from is A5D2F24D in t:at ("$ t:e amount of 6 -3!!-!!!&!! adBudged to be 7aid by 7etitioner to 7ri%ate res7ondent s:all earn interest of *] per annum and ( $ t:e amount of 6"-/,/-* 3&*) to be refunded by 7ri%ate res7ondent to 7etitioner s:all earn interest of " ] 7er annum& Costs against 7ri%ate res7ondent&

REMIGIO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. %& THE MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY G&R& 'o& (#".*//&'o%ember ",- ", " 3TR44T- J.: T:is action 9as instituted Bointly by Remigio Rodrigue=a and t:ree ot:ers in t:e Court of First 2nstance of t:e 6ro%ince of Albay to reco%er a sum of money of t:e Aanila Railroad Com7any as damages resulting from a fire 8indled by s7ar8s from a locomoti%e engine under t:e circumstances set out belo9& 17on :earing t:e cause u7on t:e com7laint- ans9er and an agreed statement of facts- t:e trial Budge rendered Budgment against t:e defendant com7any in fa%or of t:e 7laintiffs and a9arded to t:em t:e follo9ing sums res7ecti%ely as damages- to 9it- ("$ to Remigio Rodrigue=a- 63-!!!G ( $ to Domingo Gon=aga- 6+!!G (3$ to Cristina (una- 63!!G and (+$ to 6erfecta (osantas- 6".!G all 9it: la9ful interest from Aarc: "- ",",& From t:is Budgment t:e defendant a77ealed& T:e facts as a77earing from t:e agreed statement- in relation 9it: t:e com7laint- are to t:e effect t:at t:e defendant Railroad Com7any o7erates a line t:roug: t:e district of Daraga in t:e munici7ality of AlbayG t:at on Canuary ,- ","/- as one of its trains 7assed o%er said line- a great quantity of s7ar8s 9ere emitted from t:e smo8estac8 of t:e locomoti%e- and fire 9as t:ereby communicated to four :ouses nearby belonging to t:e four 7laintiffs res7ecti%ely- and t:e same 9ere entirely consumed& All of t:ese :ouses 9ere of lig:t construction 9it: t:e exce7tion of t:e :ouse of Remigio Rodrigue=a- 9:ic: 9as of strong materials- t:oug: t:e roof 9as co%ered 9it: ni7a and cogon& T:e fire occurred immediately after t:e 7assage of t:e train- and a strong 9ind 9as blo9ing at t:e time& 2t does not a77ear eit:er in t:e com7laint or in t:e agreed statement 9:ose :ouse caug:t fire first- t:oug: it is stated in t:e a77ellant;s brief t:at t:e fire 9as first communicated to t:e :ouse of Remigio Rodrigue=a- from 9:ence it s7read to t:e ot:ers& 2n t:e fourt: 7aragra7: of t:e com7laint O 9:ic: is admitted to be true O it is alleged t:at t:e defendant Railroad Com7any 9as cons7icuously negligent in relation to t:e origin of said fire- in t:e follo9ing res7ects- namely- first- in failing to exercise 7ro7er su7er%ision o%er t:e em7loyees in c:arge of t:e locomoti%eG secondly- in allo9ing t:e locomoti%e 9:ic: emitted t:ese s7ar8s to be o7erated

144
9it:out :a%ing t:e smo8estac8 7rotected by some de%ice for arresting s7ar8sG t:irdly- in using in its locomoti%e u7on t:is occasion 0ataan coal- a fuel of 8no9n inferior quality 9:ic:- u7on combustion7roduces s7ar8s in great quantity& T:e sole ground u7on 9:ic: t:e defense is rested is t:at t:e :ouse of Remigio Rodrigue=a stood 7artly 9it:in t:e limits of t:e land o9ned by t:e defendant com7any- t:oug: exactly :o9 far a9ay from t:e com7any;s trac8 does not a77ear& 2t furt:er a77ears t:at- after t:e railroad trac8 9as laid- t:e com7any notified Rodrigue=a to get :is :ouse off t:e land of t:e com7any and to remo%e it from its ex7osed 7osition& Rodrigue=a did not com7ly 9it: t:is suggestion- t:oug: :e 7romised to 7ut an iron roof on :is :ouse- 9:ic: :e ne%er did& 2nstead- :e c:anged t:e materials of t:e main roof to ni7a- lea%ing t:e 8itc:en and media7aguas co%ered 9it: cogon& 17on t:is fact it is contended for t:e defense t:at t:ere 9as contributory negligence on t:e 7art of Remigio Rodrigue=a in :a%ing :is :ouse 7artly on t:e 7remises of t:e Railroad Com7any- and t:at for t:is reason t:e com7any is not liable& T:is 7osition is in our o7inion untenable for t:e reasons 9:ic: 9e s:all 7roceed to state& 2n t:e first 7lace- it 9ill be noted t:at t:e fact suggested as constituting a defense to t:is action could not in any %ie9 of t:e case o7erate as a bar to reco%ery by t:e t:ree 7laintiffs ot:er t:an Remigio Rodrigue=a- e%en assuming t:at t:e fire 9as first communicated to :is :ouseG for said t:ree 7laintiffs are in no9ise im7licated in t:e act 9:ic: su77osedly constitutes t:e defense& 2n t:is connection it 9ill be obser%ed t:at t:e rig:t of action of eac: of t:ese 7laintiffs is totally distinct from t:at of :is co#7laintiff- so muc: so t:at eac: mig:t :a%e sued se7arately- and t:e defendant if it :ad seen fit to do so- mig:t in t:is case :a%e demurred successfully to t:e com7laint for misBoinder of 7arties 7laintiff& T:e fact t:at t:e se%eral rig:ts of action of t:e different 7laintiffs arose simultaneously out of one act of t:e defendant is not sufficient of itself to require- or e%en 7ermit- t:e Boinder of suc: 7arties as co7laintiffs in a single action (3! Cyc&- ""+$ if obBection :ad been made t:ereto& Domingo Gon=aga- Cristina (una- and 6erfecta (osantas are t:erefore entitled to reco%er u7on t:e admitted fact t:at t:is fire originated in t:e negligent acts of t:e defendantG and t:e circumstance t:at t:e fire may :a%e been communicated to t:eir :ouses t:roug: t:e :ouse of Remegio Rodrigue=a- instead of :a%ing been directly communicated from t:e locomoti%e- is immaterial& (3ee 3/ Am& Dec&- *+- ))G " "" R& C& (&- ,*/#,)"G Iansas City- etc& Railroad Co& vs. 0la8er- *+ (& R& A&- /" 6ennsyl%ania Railroad Co& vs. Fo7e- /! 6a& 3t&- 3)3G " Am& Re7& "!!&$ ?it: res7ect to t:e case of Remegio Rodrigue=a it is to be inferred t:at :is :ouse stood u7on t:is ground before t:e Railroad Com7any laid its line o%er t:is courseG and at any rate t:ere is no 7roof t:at t:is 7laintiff :ad unla9fully intruded u7on t:e railroad;s 7ro7erty in t:e act of building :is :ouse& ?:at really occurred undoubtedly is t:at t:e com7any- u7on ma8ing t:is extension- :ad acquired t:e land only- lea%ing t:e o9ner of t:e :ouse free to remo%e it& Fence :e cannot be considered to :a%e been a tres7asser in t:e beginning& Rat:er- :e 9as t:ere at t:e sufferance of t:e defendant com7anyand so long as :is :ouse remained in t:is ex7osed 7osition- :e undoubtedly assumed t:e ris8 of any loss t:at mig:t :a%e resulted from fires occasioned by t:e defendant;s locomoti%es if o7erated and managed 9it: ordinary care& 0ut :e cannot be :eld to :a%e assumed t:e ris8 of any damage t:at mig:t result from t:e unla9ful negligence acts of t:e defendant& 'obody is bound to antici7ate and defend :imself against t:e 7ossible negligence of anot:er& Rat:er :e :as a rig:t to assume t:at t:e ot:er 9ill use t:e care of t:e ordinary 7rudent man& (6:iladel7:ia and Reading Railroad Co& vs. Fendric8son- /! 6a& 3t&- "/ G " Am& Re7&- ,)&$ 2n t:e situation no9 under consideration t:e 7roximate and only cause of t:e damage t:at occurred 9as t:e negligent act of t:e defendant in causing t:is fire& T:e circumstance t:at Remigio Rodrigue=a;s :ouse 9as 7artly on t:e 7ro7erty of t:e defendant com7any and t:erefore in dangerous 7roximity to 7assing locomoti%es 9as an antecedent condition t:at may in fact :a%e made t:e disaster 7ossible- but t:at circumstance cannot be im7uted to :im as contributory negligence destructi%e of :is rig:t of action- because- first- t:at condition 9as not created by :imselfG secondly- because :is :ouse remained on t:is ground by t:e toleration- and t:erefore 9it: t:e consent of t:e Railroad Com7anyG and t:irdly- because e%en su77osing t:e :ouse to be im7ro7erly t:ere- t:is fact 9ould not Bustify t:e

145
defendant in negligently destroying it& (Grand Trun8 Rail9ay of Canada vs. Ric:ardson- ," 1& 3&- +.+G 3 (& ed&- 3.*G 'orfol8 etc& Ry& Co& vs. 6erro9- "!" Ea&- 3+.- 3.!&$la97:il&net T:e circumstance t:at t:e defendant com7any- u7on 7lanting its line near Remigio Rodrigue=a;s :ouse- :ad requested or directed :im to remo%e it- did not con%ert :is occu7ancy into a tres7ass- or im7ose u7on :im any additional res7onsibility o%er and abo%e 9:at t:e la9 itself im7oses in suc: situation& 2n t:is connection it must be remembered t:at t:e com7any could at any time :a%e remo%ed said :ouse in t:e exercise of t:e 7o9er of eminent domain- but it elected not to do so& <uestions similar to t:at no9 before us :a%e been under t:e consideration of American courts many times- and t:eir decisions are found to be uniformly fa%orable to reco%ery 9:ere t:e 7ro7erty destroyed :as been 7laced in 9:ole or in 7art on t:e rig:t of 9ay of t:e railroad com7any 9it: its ex7ress or im7lied consent& ((& R& Aartin Timber Co& vs. Great 'ort:ern Rail9ay Co&- " 3 Ainn&- + 3G Ann& Cas&- ",".A- 7& +,*- noteG 0urroug:s vs.Fousatonic R&R& Co&- ". Conn&- " +G 3/ Am& Dec&- *+G )+G 3out:ern Ry& Co& vs. 6atterson- "!. Ea& *G / Ann& Cas&- ++&$ And t:e case for t:e 7laintiff is a77arently stronger 9:ere t:e com7any constructs its line in 7roximity to a :ouse already built and fails to condemn it and remo%e it from its rig:t of 9ay& From 9:at :as been said it is a77arent t:at t:e Budgment a77ealed from is in all res7ect in conformity 9it: t:e la9- and t:e same is accordingly affirmed- 9it: costs& 3o ordered&

SALUD VILLANUEVA VDA. DE +ATACLAN &. MARIANO MEDINA G&R& 'o& (#"!" *&5ctober - ",.) A5'T4AA@5R- J&: 3:ortly after midnig:t- on 3e7tember "3- ",. bus no& 3! of t:e Aedina Trans7ortation- o7erated by its o9ner defendant Aariano Aedina under a certificate of 7ublic con%enience- left t:e to9n of Amadeo- Ca%ite- on its 9ay to 6asay City- dri%en by its regular c:auffeur- Conrado 3aylon& T:ere 9ere about eig:teen 7assengers- including t:e dri%er and conductor& Among t:e 7assengers 9ere Cuan 0ataclan- seated beside and to t:e rig:t of t:e dri%er- Feli7e (ara- sated to t:e rig:t of 0ataclananot:er 7assenger a77arently from t:e Eisayan 2slands 9:om t:e 9itnesses Bust called Eisayaa77arently not 8no9ing :is name- seated in t:e left side of t:e dri%er- and a 9oman named 'atalia Eillanue%a- seated Bust be:ind t:e four last mentioned& At about :!! o;cloc8 t:at same morning- 9:ile t:e bus 9as running 9it:in t:e Burisdiction of 2mus- Ca%ite- one of t:e front tires burst and t:e %e:icle began to =ig#=ag until it fell into a canal or ditc: on t:e rig:t side of t:e road and turned turtle& 3ome of t:e 7assengers managed to lea%e t:e bus t:e best 9ay t:ey could- ot:ers :ad to be :el7ed or 7ulled out- 9:ile t:e t:ree 7assengers seated beside t:e dri%er- named 0ataclan- (ara and t:e Eisayan and t:e 9oman be:ind t:em named 'atalia Eillanue%a- could not get out of t:e o%erturned bus& 3ome of t:e 7assengers- after t:ey :ad clambered u7 to t:e road- :eard groans and moans from inside t:e bus- 7articularly- s:outs for :el7 from 0ataclan and (ara- 9:o said t:ey could not get out of t:e bus& T:ere is not:ing in t:e e%idence to s:o9 9:et:er or not t:e 7assengers already free from t:e 9rec8including t:e dri%er and t:e conductor- made any attem7t to 7ull out or extricate and rescue t:e four 7assengers tra77ed inside t:e %e:icle- but calls or s:outs for :el7 9ere made to t:e :ouses in t:e neig:bor:ood& After :alf an :our- came about ten men- one of t:em carrying a lig:ted torc: made of bamboo 9it: a 9ic8 on one end- e%idently fueled 9it: 7etroleum& T:ese men 7resumably a77roac: t:e o%erturned bus- and almost immediately- a fierce fire started- burning and all but consuming t:e bus- including t:e four 7assengers tra77ed inside it& 2t 9ould a77ear t:at as t:e bus o%erturnedgasoline began to lea8 and esca7e from t:e gasoline tan8 on t:e side of t:e c:assis- s7reading o%er and 7ermeating t:e body of t:e bus and t:e ground under and around it- and t:at t:e lig:ted torc: broug:t by one of t:e men 9:o ans9ered t:e call for :el7 set it on fire& T:at same day- t:e c:arred bodies of t:e four deemed 7assengers inside t:e bus 9ere remo%ed and duly identified t:at of Cuan 0ataclan& 0y reason of :is deat:- :is 9ido9- 3alud Eillanue%a- in :er name

146
and in be:alf of :er fi%e minor c:ildren- broug:t t:e 7resent suit to reco%er from Aariano Aedina com7ensatory- moral- and exem7lary damages and attorney;s fees in t:e total amount of 6/)-".!& After trial- t:e Court of First 2nstance of Ca%ite a9arded 6"-!!! to t:e 7laintiffs 7lus 6*!! as attorney;s fee- 7lus 6"!!- t:e %alue of t:e merc:andise being carried by 0ataclan to 6asay City for sale and 9:ic: 9as lost in t:e fire& T:e 7laintiffs and t:e defendants a77ealed t:e decision to t:e Court of A77eals- but t:e latter endorsed t:e a77eal to us because of t:e %alue in%ol%ed in t:e claim in t:e com7laint& 5ur ne9 Ci%il Code am7ly 7ro%ides for t:e res7onsibility of common carrier to its 7assengers and t:eir goods& For 7ur7oses of reference- 9e are re7roducing t:e 7ertinent codal 7ro%isions: ART& ")33& Common carriers- from t:e nature of t:eir business and for reasons of 7ublic 7olicyare bound to obser%e extraordinary diligence in t:e %igilance o%er t:e goods and for t:e safety of t:e 7assengers trans7orted by t:em- according to all t:e circumstances of eac: case& 3uc: extraordinary diligence in t:e %igilance o%er t:e goods is furt:er ex7ressed in articles ")3+- ")3.- and ")+.- 'os& .- *- and )- 9:ile t:e extra ordinary diligence for t:e safety of t:e 7assengers is furt:er set fort: in articles ").. and ").*& ART& ")..& A common carrier is bound to carry t:e 7assengers safely as far as :uman care and foresig:t can 7ro%ide- using t:e utmost diligence of %ery cautious 7ersons- 9it: a due regard for all t:e circumstances& ART& ").*& 2n case of deat: of or inBuries to 7assengers- common carriers are 7resumed to :a%e been at fault or to :a%e acted negligently- unless t:ey 7ro%e t:at t:ey obser%ed extraordinary diligence as 7rescribed in articles ")33 and ").. ART& ").,& Common carriers are liable for t:e deat: of or inBuries to 7assengers t:roug: t:e negligence or 9illful acts of t:e former;s em7loyees- alt:oug: suc: em7loyees may :a%e acted beyond t:e sco7e of t:eir aut:ority or in %iolation of t:e order of t:e common carriers& T:is liability of t:e common carriers does not cease u7on 7roof t:at t:ey exercised all t:e diligence of a good fat:er of a family in t:e selection and su7er%ision of t:eir em7loyees& ART& ")*3& A common carrier res7onsible for inBuries suffered by a 7assenger on account of t:e 9illful acts or negligence of ot:er 7assengers or of strangers- if t:e common carrier;s em7loyees t:roug: t:e exercise of t:e diligence of a good fat:er of a family could :a%e 7re%ented or sto77ed t:e act or omission& ?e agree 9it: t:e trial court t:at t:e case in%ol%es a breac: of contract of trans7ortation for :ire- t:e Aedina Trans7ortation :a%ing underta8en to carry 0ataclan safely to :is destination- 6asay City& ?e also agree 9it: t:e trial court t:at t:ere 9as negligence on t:e 7art of t:e defendant- t:roug: :is agent- t:e dri%er 3aylon& T:ere is e%idence to s:o9 t:at at t:e time of t:e blo9 out- t:e bus 9as s7eeding- as testified to by one of t:e 7assengers- and as s:o9n by t:e fact t:at according to t:e testimony of t:e 9itnesses- including t:at of t:e defense- from t:e 7oint 9:ere one of t:e front tires burst u7 to t:e canal 9:ere t:e bus o%erturned after =ig#=aging- t:ere 9as a distance of about ".! meters& T:e c:auffeur- after t:e blo9#out- must :a%e a77lied t:e bra8es in order to sto7 t:e bus- but because of t:e %elocity at 9:ic: t:e bus must :a%e been running- its momentum carried it o%er a distance of ".! meters before it fell into t:e canal and turned turtle& T:ere is no question t:at under t:e circumstances- t:e defendant carrier is liable& T:e only question is to 9:at degree& T:e trial court 9as of t:e o7inion t:at t:e 7roximate cause of t:e deat: of 0ataclan 9as not t:e o%erturning of t:e bus- but rat:er- t:e fire t:at burned t:e bus- including :imself and :is co#7assengers 9:o 9ere unable to lea%e itG t:at at t:e time t:e fire started- 0ataclan- t:oug: :e must :a%e suffered 7:ysical inBuries- 7er:a7s serious- 9as still ali%e- and so damages 9ere a9arded- not for :is deat:- but for t:e 7:ysical inBuries suffered by :im& ?e disagree& A satisfactory definition of 7roximate cause is found in Eolume 3/- 7ages *,.#*,* of American Buris7rudence- cited by 7laintiffs# a77ellants in t:eir brief& 2t is as follo9s:

147
& & & ;t:at cause- 9:ic:- in natural and continuous sequence- unbro8en by any efficient inter%ening cause- 7roduces t:e inBury- and 9it:out 9:ic: t:e result 9ould not :a%e occurred&; And more com7re:ensi%ely- ;t:e 7roximate legal cause is t:at acting first and 7roducing t:e inBury- eit:er immediately or by setting ot:er e%ents in motion- all constituting a natural and continuous c:ain of e%ents- eac: :a%ing a close causal connection 9it: its immediate 7redecessor- t:e final e%ent in t:e c:ain immediately effecting t:e inBury as a natural and 7robable result of t:e cause 9:ic: first acted- under suc: circumstances t:at t:e 7erson res7onsible for t:e first e%ent s:ould- as an ordinary 7rudent and intelligent 7erson- :a%e reasonable ground to ex7ect at t:e moment of :is act or default t:at an inBury to some 7erson mig:t 7robably result t:erefrom& 2t may be t:at ordinarily- 9:en a 7assenger bus o%erturns- and 7ins do9n a 7assenger- merely causing :im 7:ysical inBuries- if t:roug: some e%ent- unex7ected and extraordinary- t:e o%erturned bus is set on fire- say- by lig:tning- or if some :ig:9aymen after looting t:e %e:icle sets it on fire- and t:e 7assenger is burned to deat:- one mig:t still contend t:at t:e 7roximate cause of :is deat: 9as t:e fire and not t:e o%erturning of t:e %e:icle& 0ut in t:e 7resent case under t:e circumstances obtaining in t:e same- 9e do not :esitate to :old t:at t:e 7roximate cause 9as t:e o%erturning of t:e bus- t:is for t:e reason t:at 9:en t:e %e:icle turned not only on its side but com7letely on its bac8- t:e lea8ing of t:e gasoline from t:e tan8 9as not unnatural or unex7ectedG t:at t:e coming of t:e men 9it: a lig:ted torc: 9as in res7onse to t:e call for :el7- made not only by t:e 7assengers- but most 7robably- by t:e dri%er and t:e conductor t:emsel%es- and t:at because it 9as dar8 (about :3! in t:e morning$- t:e rescuers :ad to carry a lig:t 9it: t:em- and coming as t:ey did from a rural area 9:ere lanterns and flas:lig:ts 9ere not a%ailableG and 9:at 9as more natural t:an t:at said rescuers s:ould innocently a77roac: t:e %e:icle to extend t:e aid and effect t:e rescue requested from t:em& 2n ot:er 9ords- t:e coming of t:e men 9it: a torc: 9as to be ex7ected and 9as a natural sequence of t:e o%erturning of t:e bus- t:e tra77ing of some of its 7assengers and t:e call for outside :el7& ?:at is more- t:e burning of t:e bus can also in 7art be attributed to t:e negligence of t:e carrier- t:roug: is dri%er and its conductor& According to t:e 9itness- t:e dri%er and t:e conductor 9ere on t:e road 9al8ing bac8 and fort:& T:ey- or at least- t:e dri%er s:ould and must :a%e 8no9n t:at in t:e 7osition in 9:ic: t:e o%erturned bus 9as- gasoline could and must :a%e lea8ed from t:e gasoline tan8 and soa8ed t:e area in and around t:e bus- t:is aside from t:e fact t:at gasoline 9:en s7illed- s7ecially o%er a large area- can be smelt and directed e%en from a distance- and yet neit:er t:e dri%er nor t:e conductor 9ould a77ear to :a%e cautioned or ta8en ste7s to 9arn t:e rescuers not to bring t:e lig:ted torc: too near t:e bus& 3aid negligence on t:e 7art of t:e agents of t:e carrier come under t:e codal 7ro%isions abo%e#re7roduced- 7articularly- Articles ")33- ")., and ")*3& As regard t:e damages to 9:ic: 7laintiffs are entitled- considering t:e earning ca7acity of t:e deceased- as 9ell as t:e ot:er elements entering into a damage a9ard- 9e are satisfied t:at t:e amount of 32` TF513A'D (6*-!!!$ 64353 9ould constitute satisfactory com7ensation- t:is to include com7ensatory- moral- and ot:er damages& ?e also belie%e t:at 7laintiffs are entitled to attorney;s fees- and assessing t:e legal ser%ices rendered by 7laintiffs; attorneys not only in t:e trial court- but also in t:e course of t:e a77eal- and not losing sig:t of t:e able briefs 7re7ared by t:em- t:e attorney;s fees may 9ell be fixed at 42GFT F1'DR4D (6/!!$ 64353 for t:e loss of merc:andise carried by t:e deceased in t:e bus- is adequate and 9ill not be disturbed& T:ere is one 7:ase of t:is case 9:ic: disturbs if it does not s:oc8 us& According to t:e e%idence- one of t:e 7assengers 9:o- because of t:e inBuries suffered by :er- 9as :os7itali=ed- and 9:ile in t:e :os7ital- s:e 9as %isited by t:e defendant Aariano Aedina- and in t:e course of :is %isit- s:e o%er:eard :im s7ea8ing to one of :is bus ins7ectors- telling said ins7ector to :a%e t:e tires of t:e bus c:anged immediately because t:ey 9ere already old- and t:at as a matter of fact- :e :ad been telling t:e dri%er to c:ange t:e said tires- but t:at t:e dri%er did not follo9 :is instructions& 2f t:is be true- it goes to 7ro%e t:at t:e dri%er :ad not been diligent and :ad not ta8en t:e necessary 7recautions to insure t:e safety of :is 7assengers& Fad :e c:anged t:e tires- s7ecially t:ose in front- 9it: ne9 onesas :e :ad been instructed to do- 7robably- des7ite :is s7eeding- as 9e :a%e already stated- t:e blo9 out 9ould not :a%e occurred& All in all- t:ere is reason to belie%e t:at t:e dri%er o7erated and dro%e :is

148
%e:icle negligently- resulting in t:e deat: of four of :is 7assengers- 7:ysical inBuries to ot:ers- and t:e com7lete loss and destruction of t:eir goods- and yet t:e criminal case against :im- on motion of t:e fiscal and 9it: :is consent- 9as 7ro%isionally dismissed- because according to t:e fiscal- t:e 9itnesses on 9:ose testimony :e 9as ban8ing to su77ort t:e com7laint- eit:er failed or a77ear or 9ere reluctant to testify& 0ut t:e record of t:e case before us s:o9s t:e se%eral 9itnesses7assengers- in t:at bus- 9illingly and un:esitatingly testified in court to t:e effect of t:e said dri%er 9as negligent& 2n t:e 7ublic interest t:e 7rosecution of said erring dri%er s:ould be 7ursued- t:is- not only as a matter of Bustice- but for t:e 7romotion of t:e safety of 7assengers on 7ublic utility buses& (et a co7y of t:is decision be furnis:ed t:e De7artment of Custice and t:e 6ro%incial Fiscal of Ca%ite& 2n %ie9 of t:e foregoing- 9it: t:e modification t:at t:e damages a9arded by t:e trial court are increased from 5'4 TF513A'D (6"-!!!$ 64353 T5 32` TF513A'D (6*-!!!$ 64353- and from 32` F1'DR4D 64353 T5 42GFT F1'DR4D (6/!!$ 64353- for t:e deat: of 0ataclan and for t:e attorney;s fees- res7ecti%ely- t:e decision a77ealed is from :ereby affirmed- 9it: costs&

MERCEDES M. TEAGUE %& ELENA FERNANDEZ, "$ a,. G&R& 'o& (# ,)+.&Cune +- ",)3 AAIA(2'TA(- J.: T:e facts are stated in t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals as follo9s: T:e Realistic 2nstitute- admittedly o9ned and o7erated by defendant#a77ellee Aercedes A& Teague 9as a %ocational sc:ool for :air and beauty culture situated on t:e second floor of t:e Gil#Armi 0uilding- a t9o#storey- semi#concrete edifice (4x:s& >C>- >C# "> to >C#.> and >+>$ located at t:e corner of <ue=on 0oule%ard and 3oler 3treet<uia7o- Aanila& T:e said second floor 9as un7artitioned- :ad a total area of about +!! square meters- and alt:oug: it :ad only one stair9ay- of about "&.! meters in 9idt:- it :ad eig:t 9indo9s- eac: of 9:ic: 9as 7ro%ided 9it: t9o fire#esca7e ladders (4x:& >+>$and t:e 7resence of eac: of said fire#exits 9as indicated on t:e 9all (4x:& >.>$& At about four o;cloc8 in t:e afternoon of 5ctober +- ",..- a fire bro8e out in a store for sur7lus materials located about ten meters a9ay from t:e institute& 3oler 3treet lay bet9een t:at store and t:e institute& 17on seeing t:e fire- some of t:e students in t:e Realistic 2nstitute s:outed ;FireW FireW; and t:ereafter- a 7anic ensued& Four instructresses and six assistant instructress of t:e 2nstitute 9ere 7resent and t:eytoget:er 9it: t:e registrar- tried to calm do9n t:e students- 9:o numbered about "/! at t:e time- telling t:em not to be afraid because t:e Gil#Armi 0uilding 9ould not get burned as it is made of concrete- and t:at t:e fire 9as any9ay- across t:e street& T:ey told t:e students not to rus: out but Bust to go do9n t:e stair9ay t9o by t9o- or to use t:e fire#esca7es& Ars& Custitia 6rieto- one of t:e instructresses- too8 to t:e micro7:one so as to con%ey to t:e students t:e abo%e admonitions more effecti%ely- and s:e e%en sla77ed t:ree students in order to quiet t:em do9n& Aiss Frino Aeliton- t:e registrar9:ose des8 9as near t:e stair9ay- stood u7 and tried 9it: outstretc:ed arms to sto7 t:e students from rus:ing and 7us:ing t:eir 9ay to t:e stairs& T:e 7anic- :o9e%er- could not be subdued and t:e students- 9it: t:e exce7tion of t:e fe9 9:o made use of fire# esca7es 8e7t on rus:ing and 7us:ing t:eir 9ay t:roug: t:e stairs- t:ereby causing stam7ede t:erein& 2ndeed- no 7art of t:e Gil#Armi 0uilding caug:t fire& 0ut- after t:e 7anic 9as o%er- four students- including (ourdes Fernande=- a sister of 7laintiffs#a77ellants- 9ere found dead and se%eral ot:ers inBured on account of t:e stam7ede& xxx xxx xxx

149
T:e inBuries sustained by (ourdes Fernande= consisted of lacerations in bot: eyes and on t:e u77er li7- contused abrasions in different 7arts of t:e body- internal :emorr:age and fractures in t:e second and t:ird rig:t ribs& T:e cause of deat:- according to t:e auto7sy re7ort- 9as >3:oc8 due to traumatic fractures of t:e ribs 9it: 7erine7:ric :ematoma and lacerations of t:e conBuncti%a of bot: eyes&> T:e deceased;s fi%e brot:ers and sisters filed an action for damages against Aercedes A& Teague as o9ner and o7erator of Realistic 2nstitute& T:e Court of First 2nstance of Aanila found for t:e defendant and dismissed t:e case& T:e 7laintiffs t:ereu7on a77ealed to t:e Court of A77eals- 9:ic: by a di%ided %ote of 3 to (a s7ecial di%ision of fi%e members :a%ing been constituted$ rendered a Budgment of re%ersal and sentenced t:e defendant to 7ay damages to t:e 7laintiffs in t:e sum of 6""-!!!&!!- 7lus interest at t:e legal rate from t:e date t:e com7laint 9as filed& T:e case came u7 to t:is Court on a 7etition for re%ie9 filed by t:e defendant belo9& T:e decision of t:e a77ellate court declared t:at t:e defendant- :ereinafter to be referred to as t:e 7etitioner- 9as negligent and t:at suc: negligence 9as t:e 7roximate cause of t:e deat: of (ourdes Fernande=& T:is finding of negligence is based 7rimarily on t:e fact t:at t:e 7ro%ision of 3ection +," 5f t:e Re%ised 5rdinances of t:e City of Aanila :ad not been com7lied 9it: in connection 9it: t:e construction and use of t:e Gil#Armi building 9:ere t:e 7etitioner;s %ocational sc:ool 9as :oused& T:is 7ro%ision reads as follo9s: 3ec& +,"& $irepro of partitions, e.its and stair'ays& O &&& All buildings and se7arate sections of buildings or buildings ot:er9ise 8no9n as accessorias :a%ing less t:an t:ree stories- :a%ing one or more 7ersons domiciled t:erein eit:er tem7orarily or 7ermanently- and all 7ublic or quasi#7ublic buildings :a%ing less t:an t:ree stories- suc: as :os7itals- sanitarium- sc:ools- reformatories- 7laces of :uman detention- assembly :alls- clubs- restaurants or 7anciterias- and t:e li8e- s:all be 7ro%ided 9it: at least t9o unobstructed stair9ays of not less t:an one meter and t9enty centimeters in 9idt: and an inclination of not less t:an forty degrees from t:e 7er7endicular- in case of large buildings more t:an t9o stair9ays s:all li8e9ise be 7ro%ided 9:en required by t:e c:ief of t:e fire de7artment- said stair9ays s:all be 7laced as far a7art as 7ossible& T:e alleged %iolation of t:e ordinance abo%e#quoted consisted in t:e fact t:at t:e second storey of t:e Gil#Armi building :ad only one stair9ay- "&. meters 9ide- instead of t9o of at least "& meters eac:alt:oug: at t:e time of t:e fire t:e o9ner of t:e building :ad a second stair9ay under construction& 2n ruling t:at suc: non#com7liance 9it: t:e City 5rdinances 9as an act of negligence and t:at suc: negligence 9as t:e 7roximate cause of t:e deat: of (ourdes Fernande=- reliance is based on a number of aut:orities in t:e American Burisdiction- t:us: & T:e mere fact of %iolation of a statute is not sufficient basis for an inference t:at suc: %iolation 9as t:e 7roximate cause of t:e inBury com7lained& -o'ever, if the very in*ury has happened 'hi%h 'as intended to be prevented by the statute, it has been held that violation of the statute 'ill be deemed to be pro.imate %ause of the in*ury & (*. C&C&3& "".*$& T:e generally acce7ted %ie9 is t:at %iolation of a statutory duty constitutes negligencenegligence as a matter or la9- or- according to t:e decisions on t:e questionnegligence 7er se for t:e reason t:at non#obser%ance of 9:at t:e legislature :as 7rescribed as a suitable 7recaution is failure to obser%e t:at care 9:ic: an ordinarily 7rudent man 9ould obser%e- and- 9:en t:e state regards certain acts as so liable to inBure ot:ers as to Bustify t:eir absolute 7ro:ibition- doing t:e forbidden act is a breac: of duty 9it: res7ect to t:ose 9:o may be inBured t:erebyG or- as it :as been ot:er9ise ex7ressed- 9:en t:e standard of care is fixed by la9- failure to conform to suc: standard is negligence- negligence 7er se or negligence in and of itself- in t:e absence of a legal excuse& %%ording to this vie' it is immaterial, 'here a statute has been violated, 'hether the a%t or omission %onstituting su%h violation 'ould have been

150
regarded as negligen%e in the absen%e of any statute on the sub*e%t or 'hether there 'as, as a matter of fa%t, any reason to anti%ipate that in*ury 'ould result from su%h violation& &&&& (*. C&C&3& 77& * 3#* /$& 0ut t:e existence of an ordinance c:anges t:e situation& 2f a dri%er causes an accident by exceeding t:e s7eed limit- for exam7le- do not inquire 9:et:er :is 7ro:ibited conduct 9as unreasonably dangerous& 2t is enoug: t:at it 9as 7ro:ibited& Eiolation of an ordinance intended to 7romote safety is negligence& 2f by creating t:e :a=ard 9:ic: t:e ordinance 9as intended to a%oid it brings about t:e :arm 9:ic: t:e ordinance 9as intended to 7re%ent- it is a legal cause of t:e :arm& T:is comes only to saying t:at in suc: circumstances t:e la9 :as no reason to ignore t:e causal relation 9:ic: ob%iously exists in fact& T:e la9 :as excellent reason to recogni=e it- since it is t:e %ery relation 9:ic: t:e ma8ers of t:e ordinance antici7ated& T:is court :as a77lied t:ese 7rinci7les to s7eed limits and ot:er regulations of t:e manner of dri%ing& (Ross %s& Fartman- "3, Fed& d "+ at ".$& &&& Fo9e%er- t:e fact t:at ot:er :a77enings causing or contributing to9ard an inBury inter%ened bet9een t:e %iolation of a statute or ordinance and t:e inBury does not necessarily ma8e t:e result so remote t:at no action can be maintained& T:e test is to be found not in t:e number of inter%ening e%ents or agents- but in t:eir c:aracter and in t:e natural and 7robable connection bet9een t:e 9rong done and t:e inBurious consequence& T:e general 7rinci7le is t:at t:e %iolation of a statute or ordinance is not rendered remote as t:e cause of an inBury by t:e inter%ention of anot:er agency if t:e occurrence of t:e accident- in t:e manner in 9:ic: it :a77ened- 9as t:e %ery t:ing 9:ic: t:e statute or ordinance 9as intended to 6re%ent& (3/ Am Cur /+"$& T:e 7etitioner :as raised a number of issues& T:e first is t:at 3ection +," of t:e Re%ised 5rdinances of t:e City of Aanila refers to 7ublic buildings and :ence did not a77ly to t:e Gil#Armi building 9:ic: 9as of 7ri%ate o9ners:i7& 2t 9ill be noted from t:e text of t:e ordinance- :o9e%er- t:at it is not o9ners:i7 9:ic: determines t:e c:aracter of buildings subBect to its requirements- but rat:er t:e use or t:e 7ur7ose for 9:ic: a 7articular building is utili=ed& T:us t:e same may be 7ri%ately o9ned- but if it is de%oted to any one of t:e 7ur7oses mentioned in t:e ordinance O for instance as a sc:ool- 9:ic: t:e Realistic 2nstitute 7recisely 9as O t:en t:e building is 9it:in t:e co%erage of t:e ordinance& 2ndeed t:e requirement t:at suc: a building s:ould :a%e t9o ( $ se7arate stair9ays instead of only one ("$ :as no rele%ance or reasonable relation to t:e fact of o9ners:i7- but does :a%e suc: relation to t:e use or 7ur7ose for 9:ic: t:e building is de%oted& 2t is next contended t:at t:e obligation to com7ly 9it: t:e ordinance de%ol%ed u7on t:e o9ners of t:e building and t:erefore it is t:ey and not t:e 7etitioner :erein- 9:o is a mere lessee- 9:o s:ould be liable for t:e %iolation& T:e contention ignores t:e fact t:at it 9as t:e use of t:e building for sc:ool 7ur7oses 9:ic: broug:t t:e same 9it:in t:e co%erage of t:e ordinanceG and it 9as t:e 7etitioner and not t:e o9ners 9:o 9as res7onsible for suc: use& T:e next issue- indeed t:e basic one- raised by t:e 7etitioner is 9:et:er or not t:e failure to com7ly 9it: t:e requirement of t:e ordinance 9as t:e 7roximate cause of t:e deat: of (ourdes Fernande=& T:e case of 9illanueva 9da. de Bata%lan, et al. vs. Medina, G& R& 'o& (#"!" *- 5ctober - ",.)- is cited in su77ort of t:e contention t:at suc: failure 9as not t:e 7roximate cause& 2t is t:ere stated by t:is Court: T:e 7roximate legal cause is t:at acting first and 7roducing t:e inBury- eit:er immediately or by settling ot:er e%ents in motion- all constituting a natural and continuous c:ain of e%ents- eac: :a%ing a close causal connection 9it: its immediate 7redecessor- t:e final e%ent in t:e c:ain immediately affecting t:e inBury as a natural and 7robable result of t:e cause 9:ic: first acted- under suc: circumstances t:at t:e 7erson res7onsible for t:e first e%ent s:ould- as an ordinarily 7rudent and intelligent

151
7erson- :a%e reasonable ground to ex7ect at t:e moment of :is act or default t:at an inBury to some 7erson mig:t 7robably result t:erefrom& Fa%ing in %ie9 t:e decision Bust quoted- t:e 7etitioner relates t:e c:ain of e%ents t:at resulted in t:e deat: of (ourdes Fernande= as follo9s: ("$ %iolation of ordinanceG ( $ fire at a neig:boring 7laceG (3$ s:outs of >FireW- FireW>G (+$ 7anic in t:e 2nstituteG (.$ stam7edeG and (*$ inBuries and deat:& As t:us 7roBected t:e %iolation of t:e ordinance- it is argued- 9as only a remote cause- if at all- and cannot be t:e basis of liability since t:ere inter%ened a number of inde7endent causes 9:ic: 7roduced t:e inBury com7lained of& A statement of t:e doctrine relied u7on is found in Manila Ele%tri% !o. vs. ,emo0uillo, (#/3 /- Aay "/- ",.*- 9:erein t:is Court- citing !orpus Juris said: A 7rior and remote cause cannot be made t:e basis of an action if suc: remote cause did not:ing more t:an furnis: t:e condition or gi%e rise to t:e occasion by 9:ic: t:e inBury 9as made 7ossible- if t:ere inter%ened bet9een suc: 7rior or remote cause and t:e inBury a distinct- successi%e unrelated- and efficient cause of t:e inBury- e%en t:oug: suc: inBury 9ould not :a%e :a77ened but for suc: condition or occasion& 2f no danger existed in t:e condition exce7t because of t:e inde7endent cause- suc: condition 9as not t:e 7roximate cause& And if an inde7endent negligent act or defecti%e condition sets into o7eration t:e circumstances 9:ic: result in inBury because of t:e 7rior defecti%e condition- suc: subsequent act or condition is t:e 7roximate cause& (+. C&C& 7& ,3"&$ According to t:e 7etitioner >t:e e%ents of fire- 7anic and stam7ede 9ere inde7endent causes 9it: no causal connection at all 9it: t:e %iolation of t:e ordinance&> T:e 9ea8ness in t:e argument s7rings from a faulty Buxta7osition of t:e e%ents 9:ic: formed a c:ain and resulted in t:e inBury& 2t is true t:at t:e 7etitioner;s non#com7liance 9it: t:e ordinance in question 9as a:ead of and 7rior to t:e ot:er e%ents in 7oint of time- in t:e sense t:at it 9as coetaneous 9it: its occu7ancy of t:e building& 0ut t:e %iolation 9as a continuing one- since t:e ordinance 9as a measure of safety designed to 7re%ent a s7ecific situation 9:ic: 9ould 7ose a danger to t:e occu7ants of t:e building& T:at situation 9as undue o%ercro9ding in case it s:ould become necessary to e%acuate t:e building- 9:ic:- it could be reasonably foreseen- 9as bound to :a77en under emergency conditions if t:ere 9as only one stair9ay a%ailable& 2t is true t:at in t:is 7articular case t:ere 9ould :a%e been no o%ercro9ding in t:e single stair9ay if t:ere :ad not been a fire in t:e neig:bor:ood 9:ic: caused t:e students to 7anic and rus: :eadlong for t:e stairs in order to go do9n& 0ut it 9as 7recisely suc: contingencies or e%ent t:at t:e aut:ors of t:e ordinance :ad in mind- for under normal conditions one stair9ay 9ould be adequate for t:e occu7ants of t:e building& T:us- as stated in 3/ American Curis7rudence- 7age /+": >T:e general 7rinci7le is t:at t:e %iolation of a statute or ordinance is not rendered remote as t:e cause of an inBury by t:e inter%ention of anot:er agency if t:e occurrence of t:e accident- in t:e manner in 9:ic: it :a77ened- 9as t:e %ery t:ing 9:ic: t:e statute or ordinance 9as intended to 7re%ent&> To consider t:e %iolation of t:e ordinance as t:e 7roximate cause of t:e inBury does not 7ortray t:e situation in its true 7ers7ecti%eG it 9ould be more accurate to say t:at t:e o%ercro9ding at t:e stair9ay 9as t:e 7roximate cause and t:at it 9as 7recisely 9:at t:e ordinance intended to 7re%ent by requiring t:at t:ere be t9o stair9ays instead of only one& 1nder t:e doctrine of t:e cases cited by t:e res7ondents- t:e 7rinci7le of 7roximate cause a77lies to suc: %iolation& A 7rocedural 7oint mentioned by t:e 7etitioner is t:at t:e com7laint did not s7ecifically allege t:at t:e ordinance in question :ad been %iolated& T:e %iolation- :o9e%er- as an act of negligence 9:ic: ga%e rise to liability- 9as sufficiently com7re:ended 9it:in 7aragra7: ) of t:e com7laint- 9:ic: reads: & 6ar& )& T:at t:e deat: of (ourdes Fernande= 9as due to t:e gross negligence of t:e defendant 9:o failed to exercise due care and diligence for t:e safety of its students in not 7ro%iding t:e building 9it: adequate fire exits and in not 7racticing fire drill exercises to a%oid t:e stam7ede- aside from t:e fact t:at t:e defendant did not :a%e a 7ermit to use t:e building as a sc:ool#:ouse& T:e decision a77ealed from is affirmed- 9it: costs&

152
FILOMENO UR+ANO %& HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G&R& 'o& ) ,*+&Canuary )- ",// G1T24RR4Y- J,&- J.: T:is is a 7etition to re%ie9 t:e decision of t:e t:en 2ntermediate A77ellate Court 9:ic: affirmed t:e decision of t:e t:en Circuit Criminal Court of Dagu7an City finding 7etitioner Filomeno 1rban guilty beyond reasonable doubt of t:e crime of :omicide& T:e records disclose t:e follo9ing facts of t:e case& At about /:!! o;cloc8 in t:e morning of 5ctober 3- ",/!- 7etitioner Filomeno 1rbano 9ent to :is ricefield at 0arangay Anonang- 3an Fabian- 6angasinan located at about "!! meters from t:e tobacco seedbed of Aarcelo Ca%ier& Fe found t:e 7lace 9:ere :e stored :is 7alay flooded 9it: 9ater coming from t:e irrigation canal nearby 9:ic: :ad o%erflo9ed& 1rbano 9ent to t:e ele%ated 7ortion of t:e canal to see 9:at :a77ened and t:ere :e sa9 Aarcelo Ca%ier and 4milio 4rfe cutting grass& Fe as8ed t:em 9:o 9as res7onsible for t:e o7ening of t:e irrigation canal and Ca%ier admitted t:at :e 9as t:e one& 1rbano t:en got angry and demanded t:at Ca%ier 7ay for :is soa8ed 7alay& A quarrel bet9een t:em ensued& 1rbano uns:eat:ed :is bolo (about feet long- including t:e :andle- by inc:es 9ide$ and :ac8ed Ca%ier :itting :im on t:e rig:t 7alm of :is :and- 9:ic: 9as used in 7arrying t:e bolo :ac8& Ca%ier 9:o 9as t:en unarmed ran a9ay from 1rbano but 9as o%erta8en by 1rbano 9:o :ac8ed :im again :itting Ca%ier on t:e left leg 9it: t:e bac8 7ortion of said bolo- causing a s9elling on said leg& ?:en 1rbano tried to :ac8 and inflict furt:er inBury- :is daug:ter embraced and 7re%ented :im from :ac8ing Ca%ier& 2mmediately t:ereafter- Antonio 4rfe- 4milio 4rfe- and Feli7e 4rfe broug:t Ca%ier to :is :ouse about .! meters a9ay from 9:ere t:e incident :a77ened& 4milio t:en 9ent to t:e :ouse of 0arangay Ca7tain Aenardo 3oli%en but not finding :im t:ere- 4milio loo8ed for barrio councilman Feli7e 3olis instead& 17on t:e ad%ice of 3olis- t:e 4rfes toget:er 9it: Ca%ier 9ent to t:e 7olice station of 3an Fabian to re7ort t:e incident& As suggested by Cor7oral Torio- Ca%ier 9as broug:t to a 7:ysician& T:e grou7 9ent to Dr& Guillermo 6adilla- rural :ealt: 7:ysician of 3an Fabian- 9:o did not attend to Ca%ier but instead suggested t:at t:ey go to Dr& Aario Aeneses because 6adilla :ad no a%ailable medicine& After Ca%ier 9as treated by Dr& Aeneses- :e and :is com7anions returned to Dr& Guillermo 6adilla 9:o conducted a medico#legal examination& Dr& 6adilla issued a medico#legal certificate (4x:ibit >C> dated 3e7tember /- ",/"$ 9:ic: reads: T5 ?F5A 2T AA@ C5'C4R': T:is is to certify t:at 2 :a%e examined t:e 9ound of Aarcelo Ca%ier- ! years of agemarried- residing at 0arangay Anonang- 3an Fabian- 6angasinan on 5ctober 3- ",/! and found t:e follo9ing: " #2ncised 9ound 7rominence- rig:t& inc:es in lengt: at t:e u77er 7ortion of t:e lesser 7almar

As to my obser%ation t:e inca7acitation is from ()#,$ days 7eriod& T:is 9ound 9as 7resented to me only for medico#legal examination- as it 9as already treated by t:e ot:er doctor& (7& //- 5riginal Records$ 17on t:e intercession of Councilman 3olis- 1rbano and Ca%ier agreed to settle t:eir differences& 1rbano 7romised to 7ay 6)!!&!! for t:e medical ex7enses of Ca%ier& Fence- on 5ctober )- ",/!- t:e t9o accom7anied by 3olis a77eared before t:e 3an Fabian 6olice to formali=e t:eir amicable settlement& 6atrolman Torio recorded t:e e%ent in t:e 7olice blotter (4x:ibit A$- to 9it: xxx xxx xxx

153
4ntry 'r .,,H ) 5ct ;/!H"!35FH Re entry 'r ., on 7age .) bot: 7arties a77eared before t:is 3tation accom7anied by brgy& councilman Feli7e 3olis and settled t:eir case amicably- for t:ey are neig:bors and close relati%es to eac: ot:er& Aarcelo Ca%ier acce7ted and granted forgi%eness to Filomeno 1rbano 9:o s:oulder (sic$ all t:e ex7enses in :is medical treatment- and 7romising to :im and to t:is 5ffice t:at t:is 9ill ne%er be re7eated anymore and not to :arbour any grudge against eac: ot:er& (7& /)5riginal Records&$ 1rbano ad%anced 6+!!&!! to Ca%ier at t:e 7olice station& 5n 'o%ember 3- ",/!- t:e additional 63!!&!! 9as gi%en to Ca%ier at 1rbano;s :ouse in t:e 7resence of barangay ca7tain 3oli%en& At about ":3! a&m& on 'o%ember "+- ",/!- Ca%ier 9as rus:ed to t:e 'a=aret: General Fos7ital in a %ery serious condition& ?:en admitted to t:e :os7ital- Ca%ier :ad loc8Ba9 and 9as :a%ing con%ulsions& Dr& 4dmundo 4xconde 9:o 7ersonally attended to Ca%ier found t:at t:e latter;s serious condition 9as caused by tetanus toxin& Fe noticed t:e 7resence of a :ealing 9ound in Ca%ier;s 7alm 9:ic: could :a%e been infected by tetanus& 5n 'o%ember ".- ",/! at exactly +:"/ 7&m&- Ca%ier died in t:e :os7ital& T:e medical findings of Dr& 4xconde are as follo9s: Date Diagnosis ""#"+#/! ADA2TT4D due to trismus adm& at D` T4TA'13 ":3! AA 3till :a%ing frequent muscle s7asm& ?it: diffi# ^3.- + " culty o7ening :is mout:& Restless at times& Febrile ""#".#/! Referred& 'o%aldin " am7& inB& 2A& 3udden cessa# tion of res7iration and FR after muscular s7asm& ! in:alation resuscita# administered& Ambo bag

tion and cardiac massage done but to no a%ail& 6ronounced dead by Dra& Cabugao at +:"/ 6&A& 6AC done and cada%er broug:t :ome by rela# ti%es& (7& "!!- 5riginal Records$ 2n an information dated A7ril "!- ",/"- Filomeno 1rbano 9as c:arged 9it: t:e crime of :omicide before t:e t:en Circuit Criminal Court of Dagu7an City- T:ird Cudicial District& 17on arraignment- 1rbano 7leaded >not guilty&> After trial- t:e trial court found 1rbano guilty as c:arged& Fe 9as sentenced to suffer an indeterminate 7rison term of from T?4(E4 (" $ @4AR3 of prision mayor- as minimum to 34E4'T44' (")$ years- F51R (+$ A5'TF3 and 5'4 ("$ DA@ of re%lusion temporal- as maximum- toget:er 9it: t:e accessories of t:e la9- to indemnify t:e :eirs of t:e %ictim- Aarcelo Ca%ier- in t:e amount of 6" -!!!&!! 9it:out subsidiary im7risonment in case of insol%ency- and to 7ay t:e costs& Fe 9as ordered confined at t:e 'e9 0ilibid 6rison- in Auntinlu7aRi=al u7on finality of t:e decision- in %ie9 of t:e nature of :is 7enalty& T:e t:en 2ntermediate A77ellate Court affirmed t:e con%iction of 1rbano on a77eal but raised t:e a9ard of indemnity to t:e :eirs of t:e deceased to 63!-!!!&!! 9it: costs against t:e a77ellant&

154
T:e a77ellant filed a motion for reconsideration andHor ne9 trial& T:e motion for ne9 trial 9as based on an affida%it of 0arangay Ca7tain Aenardo 3oli%en (Annex >A>$ 9:ic: states: T:at in ",/!- 2 9as t:e barrio ca7tain of 0arrio Anonang- 3an Fabian- 6angasinan- and u7 to t:e 7resent :a%ing been re#elected to suc: 7osition in t:e last barangay elections on Aay ")- ",/ G T:at sometime in t:e first 9ee8 of 'o%ember- ",/!- t:ere 9as a ty7:oon t:at s9e7t 6angasinan and ot:er 7laces of Central (u=on including 3an Fabian- a to9n of said 7ro%inceG T:at during t:e ty7:oon- t:e sluice or control gates of t:e 0ued irrigation dam 9:ic: irrigates t:e ricefields of 3an Fabian 9ere closed andHor controlled so muc: so t:at 9ater and its flo9 to t:e canals and ditc:es 9ere regulated and reducedG T:at due to t:e loc8ing of t:e sluice or control gates of t:e dam leading to t:e canals and ditc:es 9:ic: 9ill bring 9ater to t:e ricefields- t:e 9ater in said canals and ditc:es became s:allo9 9:ic: 9as suitable for catc:ing mudfis:esG T:at after t:e storm- 2 conducted a 7ersonal sur%ey in t:e area affected- 9it: my secretary 6erfecto Cara%ataG T:at on 'o%ember .- ",/!- 9:ile 2 9as conducting sur%ey- 2 sa9 t:e late Aarcelo Ca%ier catc:ing fis: in t:e s:allo9 irrigation canals 9it: some com7anionsG T:at fe9 days t:ere after-or on 'o%ember l.- l,/!- 2 came to 8no9 t:at said Aarcelo Ca%ier died of tetanus& (7& 33- Rollo$ T:e motion 9as denied& Fence- t:is 7etition& 2n a resolution dated Culy "*- ",/*- 9e ga%e due course to t:e 7etition& T:e case in%ol%es t:e a77lication of Article + of t:e Re%ised 6enal Code 9:ic: 7ro%ides t:at >Criminal liability s:all be incurred: ("$ 0y any 7erson committing a felony (delito$ alt:oug: t:e 9rongful act done be different from t:at 9:ic: :e intended &&&> 6ursuant to t:is 7ro%ision >an accused is criminally res7onsible for acts committed by :im in %iolation of la9 and for all t:e natural and logical consequences resulting t:erefrom&> (6eo7le %& Cardenas- .* 3CRA *3"$& T:e record is clear t:at Aarcelo Ca%ier 9as :ac8ed by t:e 7etitioner 9:o used a bolo as a result of 9:ic: Ca%ier suffered a #inc: incised 9ound on :is rig:t 7almG t:at on 'o%ember "+- ",/" 9:ic: 9as t:e nd day after t:e incident- Ca%ier 9as rus:ed to t:e :os7ital in a %ery serious condition and t:at on t:e follo9ing day- 'o%ember ".- ",/"- :e died from tetanus& 1nder t:ese circumstances- t:e lo9er courts ruled t:at Ca%ier;s deat: 9as t:e natural and logical consequence of 1rbano;s unla9ful act& Fence- :e 9as declared res7onsible for Ca%ier;s deat:& T:ust:e a77ellate court said: T:e claim of a77ellant t:at t:ere 9as an efficient cause 9:ic: su7er%ened from t:e time t:e deceased 9as 9ounded to t:e time of :is deat:- 9:ic: co%ers a 7eriod of 3 days does not deser%e serious consideration& True- t:at t:e deceased did not die rig:t a9ay from :is 9ound- but t:e cause of :is deat: 9as due to said 9ound 9:ic: 9as inflicted by t:e a77ellant& 3aid 9ound 9:ic: 9as in t:e 7rocess of :ealing got infected 9it: tetanus 9:ic: ultimately caused :is deat:& Dr& 4dmundo 4xconde of t:e 'a=aret: General Fos7ital testified t:at t:e %ictim suffered loc8Ba9 because of t:e infection of t:e 9ound 9it: tetanus& And t:ere is no ot:er 9ay by 9:ic: :e could be infected 9it: tetanus exce7t t:roug: t:e 9ound in :is 7alm (tsn&7& )/- 5ct& .- ",/"$& Consequently- t:e 7roximate cause of t:e %ictim;s deat: 9as t:e 9ound 9:ic: got infected 9it: tetanus& And t:e settled rule in t:is Burisdiction is t:at an accused is liable for all t:e consequences of :is unla9ful act& (Article +- 7ar& "- R&6&C& 6eo7le %& Red- CA +3 5&G& .!) G 6eo7le %& Cornel )/ 6:il& +"/$&

155
A77ellant;s allegation t:at t:e 7roximate cause of t:e %ictim;s deat: 9as due to :is o9n negligence in going bac8 to 9or8 9it:out :is 9ound being 7ro7erly :ealed- and latelyt:at :e 9ent to catc: fis: in dirty irrigation canals in t:e first 9ee8 of 'o%ember- ",/!- is an aftert:oug:t- and a des7erate attem7t by a77ellant to 9iggle out of t:e 7redicament :e found :imself in& 2f t:e 9ound :ad not yet :ealed- it is im7ossible to concei%e t:at t:e deceased 9ould be rec8less enoug: to 9or8 9it: a disabled :and& (77& !# "Rollo$ T:e 7etitioner reiterates :is 7osition t:at t:e 7roximate cause of t:e deat: of Aarcelo Ca%ier 9as due to :is o9n negligence- t:at Dr& Aario Aeneses found no tetanus in t:e inBury- and t:at Ca%ier got infected 9it: tetanus 9:en after t9o 9ee8s :e returned to :is farm and tended :is tobacco 7lants 9it: :is bare :ands ex7osing t:e 9ound to :armful elements li8e tetanus germs& T:e e%idence on record does not clearly s:o9 t:at t:e 9ound inflicted by 1rbano 9as infected 9it: tetanus at t:e time of t:e infliction of t:e 9ound& T:e e%idence merely confirms t:at t:e 9ound- 9:ic: 9as already :ealing at t:e time Ca%ier suffered t:e sym7toms of t:e fatal ailment- some:o9 got infected 9it: tetanus Fo9e%er- as to 9:en t:e 9ound 9as infected is not clear from t:e record& 2n 9da. de Bata%lan, et al. v. Medina ("! 6:il& ""/"$- 9e ado7ted t:e follo9ing definition of 7roximate cause: xxx xxx xxx &&& A satisfactory definition of 7roximate cause is found in Eolume 3/- 7ages *,.#*,* of American Curis7rudence- cited by 7laintiffs#a77ellants in t:eir brief& 2t is as follo9s: &&& >t:at cause- 9:ic:- in natural and continuous sequence- unbro8en by any efficient inter%ening cause- 7roduces t:e inBury- and 9it:out 9:ic: t:e result 9ould not :a%e occurred&>And more com7re:ensi%ely- >t:e 7roximate legal cause is t:at acting first and 7roducing t:e inBury- eit:er immediately or by setting ot:er e%ents in motion- all constituting a natural and continuous c:ain of e%ents- eac: :a%ing a close causal connection 9it: its immediate 7redecessor- t:e final e%ent in t:e c:ain immediately effecting t:e inBury as a natural and 7robable result of t:e cause 9:ic: first acted- under suc: circumstances t:at t:e 7erson res7onsible for t:e first e%ent s:ould- as an ordinarily 7rudent and intelligent 7erson- :a%e reasonable ground to ex7ect at t:e moment of :is act or default t:at an inBury to some 7erson mig:t 7robably result t:erefrom&> (at 77& "/.#"/*$ T:e issue- t:erefore- :inges on 9:et:er or not t:ere 9as an efficient inter%ening cause from t:e time Ca%ier 9as 9ounded until :is deat: 9:ic: 9ould excul7ate 1rbano from any liability for Ca%ier;s deat:& ?e loo8 into t:e nature of tetanus# T:e in%ubation period of tetanus, i.e., the time bet'een in*ury and the appearan%e of unmista/able symptoms, ranges from ; to B? days. -o'ever, over :C per%ent of patients be%ome symptomati% 'ithin <A days. short in%ubation period indi%ates severe disease, and 'hen symptoms o%%ur 'ithin ; or = days of in*ury the mortality rate approa%hes <CC per%ent& 'on#s7ecific 7remonitory sym7toms suc: as restlessness- irritability- and :eadac:e are encountered occasionally- but t:e commonest 7resenting com7laints are 7ain and stiffness in t:e Ba9- abdomen- or bac8 and difficulty s9allo9ing& As t:e 7rogressesstiffness gi%es 9ay to rigidity- and 7atients often com7lain of difficulty o7ening t:eir mout:s& 2n fact- trismus in t:e commonest manifestation of tetanus and is res7onsible for t:e familiar descri7ti%e name of loc8Ba9& As more muscles are in%ol%ed- rigidity becomes generali=ed- and sustained contractions called risus sardonicus& T:e intensity and sequence of muscle in%ol%ement is quite %ariable& 2n a small 7ro7ortion of 7atientsonly local signs and sym7toms de%elo7 in t:e region of t:e inBury& 2n t:e %ast maBority-

156
:o9e%er- most muscles are in%ol%ed to some degree- and t:e signs and sym7toms encountered de7end u7on t:e maBor muscle grou7s affected& ,efle. spasm usually o%%ur 'ithin ;A to @; hours of the first symptom, an interval referred to as the onset time& As in t:e case of t:e incubation 7eriod- a s:ort onset time is associated 9it: a 7oor 7rognosis& 37asms are caused by sudden intensification of afferent stimuli arising in t:e 7eri7:ery- 9:ic: increases rigidity and causes simultaneous and excessi%e contraction of muscles and t:eir antagonists& 37asms may be bot: 7ainful and dangerous& As t:e disease 7rogresses- minimal or ina77arent stimuli 7roduce more intense and longer lasting s7asms 9it: increasing frequency& Res7iration may be im7aired by laryngos7asm or tonic contraction of res7iratory muscles 9:ic: 7re%ent adequate %entilation& Fy7oxia may t:en lead to irre%ersible central ner%ous system damage and deat:& Mild tetanus is %hara%teri+ed by an in%ubation period of at least <A days and an onset time of more than ? days. Trismus is usually 7resent- but dys7:agia is absent and generali=ed s7asms are brief and mild& Aoderately se%ere tetanus :as a some9:at s:orter incubation 7eriod and onset timeG trismus is mar8ed- dys7:agia and generali=ed rigidity are 7resent- but %entilation remains adequate e%en during s7asms& T:e criteria for se%ere tetanus include a s:ort incubation time- and an onset time of ) :rs&- or lessse%ere trismus- dys7:agia and rigidity and frequent 7rolonged- generali=ed con%ulsi%e s7asms& (Farrison;s 6rinci7le of 2nternal Aedicine- ",/3 4dition- 77& "!!+#"!!.G 4m7:asis su77lied$ T:erefore- medically s7ea8ing- t:e reaction to tetanus found inside a man;s body de7ends on t:e incubation 7eriod of t:e disease& 2n t:e case at bar- Ca%ier suffered a #inc: incised 9ound on :is rig:t 7alm 9:en :e 7arried t:e bolo 9:ic: 1rbano used in :ac8ing :im& T:is incident too8 7lace on 5ctober 3- ",/!& After days- or on 'o%ember "+- ",/!- :e suffered t:e sym7toms of tetanus- li8e loc8Ba9 and muscle s7asms& T:e follo9ing day- 'o%ember ".- ",/!- :e died& 2f- t:erefore- t:e 9ound of Ca%ier inflicted by t:e a77ellant 9as already infected by tetanus germs at t:e time- it is more medically 7robable t:at Ca%ier s:ould :a%e been infected 9it: only a mild cause of tetanus because t:e sym7toms of tetanus a77eared on t:e nd day after t:e :ac8ing incident or more than <A days after t:e infliction of t:e 9ound& T:erefore- t:e onset time should have been more than si. days& Ca%ier- :o9e%er- died on t:e second day from t:e onset time& T:e more credible conclusion is t:at at t:e time Ca%ier;s 9ound 9as inflicted by t:e a77ellant- t:e se%ere form of tetanus t:at 8illed :im 9as not yet 7resent& Consequently- Ca%ier;s 9ound could :a%e been infected 9it: tetanus after t:e :ac8ing incident& Considering t:e circumstance surrounding Ca%ier;s deat:- :is 9ound could :a%e been infected by tetanus or 3 or a fe9 but not ! to days before :e died& T:e rule is t:at t:e deat: of t:e %ictim must be t:e dire%t, natural, and logi%al %onse0uen%e of the 'ounds infli%ted upon him by the a%%used& (6eo7le %& Cardenas- su7ra$ And since 9e are dealing 9it: a criminal con%iction- t:e 7roof t:at t:e accused caused t:e %ictim;s deat: must con%ince a rational mind beyond reasonable doubt& T:e medical findings- :o9e%er- lead us to a distinct 7ossibility t:at t:e infection of t:e 9ound by tetanus 9as an efficient inter%ening cause later or bet9een t:e time Ca%ier 9as 9ounded to t:e time of :is deat:& T:e infection 9as- t:erefore- distinct and foreign to t:e crime& (6eo7le %& Rellin- )) 6:il& "!3/$& Doubts are 7resent& T:ere is a li8eli:ood t:at t:e 9ound 9as but t:e remote cause and its subsequent infection- for failure to ta8e necessary 7recautions- 9it: tetanus may :a%e been t:e pro.imate cause of Ca%ier;s deat: 9it: 9:ic: t:e 7etitioner :ad not:ing to do& As 9e ruled in Manila Ele%tri% !o. v. ,emo0uillo, et al& (,, 6:il& ""/$& >A 7rior and remote cause cannot be made t:e be of an action if suc: remote cause did not:ing more t:an furnis: t:e condition or gi%e rise to t:e occasion by 9:ic: t:e inBury

157
9as made 7ossible- if t:ere inter%ened bet9een suc: 7rior or remote cause and t:e inBury a distinct- successi%e- unrelated- and efficient cause of t:e inBury- e%en t:oug: suc: inBury 9ould not :a%e :a77ened but for suc: condition or occasion& 2f no danger existed in t:e condition exce7t because of t:e inde7endent cause- suc: condition 9as not t:e 7roximate cause& And if an inde7endent negligent act or defecti%e condition sets into o7eration t:e instances 9:ic: result in inBury because of t:e 7rior defecti%e condition- suc: subsequent act or condition is t:e 7roximate cause&> (+. C&C& 77& ,3"# ,3 $& (at 7& " .$ 2t strains t:e Budicial mind to allo9 a clear aggressor to go scot free of criminal liability& At t:e %ery least- t:e records s:o9 :e is guilty of inflicting slig:t 7:ysical inBuries& Fo9e%er- t:e 7etitioner;s criminal liability in t:is res7ect 9as 9i7ed out by t:e %ictim;s o9n act& After t:e :ac8ing incident1rbano and Ca%ier used t:e facilities of barangay mediators to effect a com7romise agreement 9:ere Ca%ier forga%e 1rbano 9:ile 1rbano defrayed t:e medical ex7enses of Ca%ier& T:is settlement of minor offenses is allo9ed under t:e ex7ress 7ro%isions of 6residential Decree G&R& 'o& ".!/- 3ection (3$& (3ee also 6eo7le %& Carunc:o- " ) 3CRA "*$& ?e must stress- :o9e%er- t:at our discussion of 7roximate cause and remote cause is limited to t:e criminal as7ects of t:is rat:er unusual case& 2t does not necessarily follo9 t:at t:e 7etitioner is also free of ci%il liability& T:e 9ell#settled doctrine is t:at a 7erson- 9:ile not criminally liable- may still be ci%illy liable& T:us- in t:e recent case of&eople v. ,ogelio 2igon y "ria, et al& (G&R& 'o& )+!+"- Culy ,",/)$- 9e said: xxx xxx xxx &&& ?:ile t:e guilt of t:e accused in a criminal 7rosecution must be establis:ed beyond reasonable doubt- only a 7re7onderance of e%idence is required in a ci%il action for damages& (Article ,- Ci%il Code$& T:e Budgment of acquittal extinguis:es t:e ci%il liability of t:e accused only 9:en it includes a declaration t:at t:e facts from 9:ic: t:e ci%il liability mig:t arise did not exist& (6adilla %& Court of A77eals- " , 3CRA ..,$& T:e reason for t:e 7ro%isions of article , of t:e Ci%il Code- 9:ic: 7ro%ides t:at t:e acquittal of t:e accused on t:e ground t:at :is guilt :as not been 7ro%ed beyond reasonable doubt does not necessarily exem7t :im from ci%il liability for t:e same act or omission- :as been ex7lained by t:e Code Commission as follo9s: T:e old rule t:at t:e acquittal of t:e accused in a criminal case also releases :im from ci%il liability is one of t:e most serious fla9s in t:e 6:ili77ine legal system& 2t :as gi%en use to numberless instances of miscarriage of Bustice- 9:ere t:e acquittal 9as due to a reasonable doubt in t:e mind of t:e court as to t:e guilt of t:e accused& T:e reasoning follo9ed is t:at inasmuc: as t:e ci%il res7onsibility is deri%ed from t:e criminal offense- 9:en t:e latter is not 7ro%ed- ci%il liability cannot be demanded& T:is is one of t:ose causes 9:ere confused t:in8ing leads to unfortunate and de7lorable consequences& 3uc: reasoning fails to dra9 a clear line of demarcation bet9een criminal liability and ci%il res7onsibility- and to determine t:e logical result of t:e distinction& T:e t9o liabilities are se7arate and distinct from eac: ot:er& 5ne affects t:e social order and t:e ot:er- 7ri%ate rig:ts& 5ne is for t:e 7unis:ment or correction of t:e offender 9:ile t:e ot:er is for re7aration of damages suffered by t:e aggrie%ed 7arty& T:e t9o res7onsibilities are so different from eac: ot:er t:at article "/"3 of t:e 7resent (37anis:$ Ci%il Code reads t:us: >T:ere may be a com7romise u7on t:e ci%il action arising from a crimeG but t:e 7ublic action for t:e im7osition of t:e legal 7enalty s:all not t:ereby be extinguis:ed&> 2t is Bust and 7ro7er t:at- for t:e 7ur7oses of t:e

158
im7risonment of or fine u7on t:e accused- t:e offense s:ould be 7ro%ed beyond reasonable doubt& 0ut for t:e 7ur7ose of indemnity t:e com7laining 7arty- 9:y s:ould t:e offense also be 7ro%ed beyond reasonable doubtJ 2s not t:e in%asion or %iolation of e%ery 7ri%ate rig:t to be 7ro%ed only by a 7re7onderance of e%idenceJ 2s t:e rig:t of t:e aggrie%ed 7erson any less 7ri%ate because t:e 9rongful act is also 7unis:able by t:e criminal la9J >For t:ese reasons- t:e Commission recommends t:e ado7tion of t:e reform under discussion& 2t 9ill correct a serious defect in our la9& 2t 9ill close u7 an inex:austible source of inBustice#a cause for disillusionment on t:e 7art of t:e innumerable 7ersons inBured or 9ronged&> T:e res7ondent court increased t:e 6" -!!!&!! indemnification im7osed by t:e trial court to 63!-!!!&!!& Fo9e%er- since t:e indemnification 9as based solely on t:e finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt in t:e :omicide case- t:e ci%il liability of t:e 7etitioner 9as not t:oroug:ly examined& T:is as7ect of t:e case calls for fuller de%elo7ment if t:e :eirs of t:e %ictim are so minded& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e instant 7etition is :ereby GRA'T4D& T:e questioned decision of t:e t:en 2ntermediate A77ellate Court- no9 Court of A77eals- is R4E4R34D and 34T A32D4& T:e 7etitioner is AC<12TT4D of t:e crime of :omicide& Costs de ofi%io.

GLAN PEOPLE@S LUM+ER AND HARDWARE %& INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT G&R& 'o& )!+,3&Aay "/- ",/, 'AREA3A- J.: T:ere is a t9o#fold message in t:is Budgment t:at bears stating at t:e outset& T:e first- an ob%ious one- is t:at it is t:e obBecti%e facts establis:ed by 7roofs 7resented in a contro%ersy t:at determine t:e %erdict- not t:e 7lig:t of t:e 7ersons in%ol%ed- no matter :o9 deser%ing of sym7at:y and commiseration because- for exam7le- an accident of 9:ic: t:ey are t:e innocent %ictims :as broug:t t:em to& reduced circumstances or ot:er9ise tragically altered t:eir li%es& T:e second is t:at t:e doctrine laid done many- many years ago in &i%art vs. #mith continues to be good la9 to t:is day& T:e facts gi%ing rise to t:e contro%ersy at bar are tersely and quite accurately recounted by t:e Trial Court as follo9s: 4ngineer 5rlando T& Calibo- Agri7ino Roranes- and Aaximo 6atos 9ere on t:e Bee7 o9ned by t:e 0acnotan Consolidated 2ndustries- 2nc&- 9it: Calibo at t:e 9:eel- as it a77roac:ed from t:e 3out: (i=ada 0ridge going to9ards t:e direction of Da%ao City at about ":+. in t:e afternoon of Culy +-",),& At about t:at time- t:e cargo trac8- loaded 9it: cement bags- G2 s:eets- 7ly9ood- dri%en by defendant 6aul Yacarias y 2nfantscoming from t:e o77osite direction of Da%ao City and bound for Glan- 3out: Cotabato:ad Bust crossed said bridge& At about ., yards after crossing t:e bridge- t:e cargo truc8 and t:e Bee7 collided as a consequence of 9:ic: 4ngineer Calibo died 9:ile Roranes and 6atos sustained 7:ysical inBuries& Yacarias 9as un:urt& As a result of t:e im7act- t:e left side of t:e truc8 9as slig:tly damaged 9:ile t:e left side of t:e Bee7including its fender and :ood- 9as extensi%ely damaged& After t:e im7act- t:e Bee7 fell and rested on its rig:t side on t:e as7:alted road a fe9 meters to t:e rear of t:e truc89:ile t:e truc8 sto77ed on its 9:eels on t:e road& 5n 'o%ember )- ",),- t:e instant case for damages 9as filed by t:e sur%i%ing s7ouse and c:ildren of t:e late 4ngineer Calibo 9:o are residents of Tagbilaran City against t:e dri%er and o9ners of t:e cargo truc8&

159
For failure to file its ans9er to t:e t:ird 7arty com7laint- t:ird 7arty defendant- 9:ic: insured t:e cargo truc8 in%ol%ed- 9as declared in default& T:e case filed by t:e :eirs of 4ngineer Calibo :is 9ido9 and minor c:ildren- 7ri%ate res7ondents :erein 9as doc8eted as Ci%il Case 'o& 3 /3 of t:e Court of First 2nstance of 0o:ol& 'amed defendants in t:e com7laint 9ere >Felix 3& Agad- George (im and Felix (im & & & (9:o$ a77ear to be t:e co#o9ners of t:e Glan 6eo7le;s (umber and Fard9are & & & (and$ 6aul Yacarias y 2nfante&> T:e defendants; ans9er :o9e%er alleged t:at t:e lumber and :ard9are business 9as exclusi%ely o9ned by George @& (im- t:is being e%idenced by t:e Certificate of Registration issued by t:e 0ureau of Domestic TradeG Fabio 3& Agad 9as not a co#o9ner t:ereof but >merely em7loyed by & & & George @& (im as boo88ee7er>G and Felix (im :ad no connection 9:ate%er 9it: said business- >:e being a c:ild only eig:t (/$ years of age&> >After (trial- and$ a careful e%aluation of t:e e%idence- bot: testimonial and documentary-> t:e Court reac:ed t:e conclusion >t:at t:e 7laintiffs failed to establis: by 7re7onderance of e%idence t:e negligence- and t:us t:e liability- of t:e defendants&> Accordingly- t:e Court dismissed t:e com7laint (and defendants; counterclaim$ >for insufficiency of e%idence&> (i8e9ise dismissed 9as t:ird#7arty com7laint 7resented by t:e defendants against t:e insurer of t:e truc8& T:e circumstances leading to t:e Court;s conclusion Bust mentioned- are detailed in t:e Court;s decision- as follo9s: "& Aoments before its collission 9it: t:e truc8 being o7erated by Yacarias- t:e Bee7 of t:e deceased Calibo 9as >=ig=agging&> & 1nli8e Yacarias 9:o readily submitted :imself to in%estigation by t:e 7olice- Calibo;s com7anions- Roranes (an accountant$- and 6atos- 9:o suffered inBuries on account of t:e collision- refused to be so in%estigated or gi%e statements to t:e 7olice officers& T:is7lus Roranes; 9ai%er of t:e rig:t to institute criminal 7roceedings against Yacarias- and t:e fact t:at indeed no criminal case 9as e%er instituted in Court against Yacarias- 9ere >telling indications t:at t:ey did not attribute t:e :a77ening to defendant Yacarias; negligence or fault&> 3& Roranes; testimony- gi%en in 7laintiffs; be:alf- 9as >not as clear and detailed as t:at of & & & Yacarias-> and 9as >uncertain and e%en contradicted by t:e 7:ysical facts and t:e 7olice in%estigators Dimaano and 4s7arcia&> +& T:at t:ere 9ere s8id mar8s left by t:e truc8;s tires at t:e scene- and none by t:e Bee7- demonstrates t:at t:e dri%er of t:e truc8 :ad a77lied t:e bra8es and t:e Bee7;s dri%er :ad notG and t:at t:e Bee7 :ad on im7act fallen on its rig:t side is indication t:at it 9as running at :ig: s7eed& 1nder t:e circumstances- according to t:e Court- gi%en >t:e cur%ature of t:e road and t:e descending grade of t:e Bee7;s lane- it 9as negligence on t:e 7art of t:e dri%er of t:e Bee7- 4ngr& Calibo- for not reducing :is s7eed u7on sig:t of t:e truc8 and failing to a77ly t:e bra8es as :e got 9it:in collision range 9it: t:e truc8&> .& 4%en if it be considered t:at t:ere 9as some antecedent negligence on t:e 7art of Yacarias s:ortly before t:e collision- in t:at :e :ad caused :is truc8 to run some . centimeters to t:e left of t:e center of t:e road- 4ngr& Calibo :ad t:e last clear c:ance of a%oiding t:e accident because :e still :ad am7le room in :is o9n lane to steer clear of t:e truc8- or :e could sim7ly :a%e bra8ed to a full sto7& T:e Court of A77eals sa9 t:ings differently& 2t rendered Budgment on t:e 7laintiffs; a77eal- re%ersing t:e decision of t:e Trial Court& 2t found Yacarias to be negligent on t:e basis of t:e follo9ing circumstances- to 9it: "$ >t:e truc8 dri%en by defendant Yacarias occu7ied t:e lane of t:e Bee7 9:en t:e collision occurred-; and alt:oug: Yacarias sa9 t:e Bee7 from a distance of about ".! meters- :e >did not dri%e :is truc8 bac8 to :is lane in order to a%oid collision 9it: t:e oncoming Bee7 & & &G> 9:at is 9orse- >t:e truc8 dri%er suddenly a77lied :is bra8es e%en

160
as :e 8ne9 t:at :e 9as still 9it:in t:e lane of t:e Bee7G> :ad bot: %e:icles stayed in t:eir res7ecti%e lanes- t:e collision 9ould ne%er :a%e occurred- t:ey 9ould :a%e 7assed >along side eac: ot:er safelyG> $ Yacarias :ad no license at t:e timeG 9:at :e :anded to 6fc& 4s7arcia- on t:e latter;s demand- 9as t:e ;dri%er;s license of :is co#dri%er (eonardo 0aricuatroG> 3$ t:e 9ai%er of t:e rig:t to file criminal c:arges against Yacarias s:ould not be ta8en against >7laintiffs> Roranes and 6atos 9:o :ad t:e rig:t- under t:e la9- to o7t merely to bring a ci%il suit& T:e A77ellate Court o7ined t:at Yacarias; negligence >ga%e rise to t:e 7resum7tion of negligence on t:e 7art of :is em7loyer- and t:eir liability is bot: 7rimary and solidary&> 2t t:erefore ordered >t:e defendants Bointly and solidarily to indemnify t:e 7laintiffs t:e follo9ing amounts: ("$ 63!-!!!&!! for t:e deat: of 5rlando CaliboG ( $ 63)/-!!!&!! for t:e loss of earning ca7acity of t:e deceased (3$ 6".-!!!&!! for attorney;s feesG (+$ Cost of suit& T:e defendants George (im- Felix (im- Fabio 3& Agad and 6aul Yacarias :a%e a77ealed to t:is Court on %ertiorariand 7ray for a re%ersal of t:e Budgment of t:e 2ntermediate A77ellate Court 9:ic:- it is claimed- ignored or ran counter to t:e establis:ed facts& A re%ie9 of t:e record confirms t:e merit of t:is assertion and 7ersuades t:is Court t:at said Budgment indeed disregarded facts clearly and undis7utably demonstrated by t:e 7roofs& T:e a77ealed Budgment- consequently- 9ill :a%e to be re%ersed& T:e finding t:at >t:e truc8 dri%en by defendant 6aul Yacarias occu7ied t:e lane of t:e Bee7 9:en t:e collision occurred> is a loose one- based on not:ing more t:an t:e s:o9ing t:at at t:e time of t:e accident- t:e truc8 dri%en by Yacarias :ad edged o%er t:e 7ainted center line of t:e road into t:e o77osite lane by a 9idt: of t9enty#fi%e ( .$ centimeters& 2t ignores t:e fact t:at by t:e uncontradicted e%idence- t:e actual center line of t:e road 9as not t:at indicated by t:e 7ainted stri7e but- according to measurements made and testified by 6atrolman Cuanita Dimaano- one of t:e t9o officers 9:o in%estigated t:e accident- correctly lay t:irty#six (3*$ centimeters fart:er to t:e left of t:e truc8;s side of said stri7e& T:e unim7ugned testimony of 6atrolman Dimaano- a 9itness for t:e 7ri%ate res7ondents- is to t:e effect t:at t:e Bee7;s lane 9as t:ree (3$ meters and se%enty#fi%e ().$ centimeters 9ide- and t:at of t:e truc8 t:ree (3$ meters and t:ree (3$ centimeters- measured from t:e center stri7e to t:e corres7onding side lines or outer edges of t:e road& T:e total 9idt: of t:e road being- t:erefore- six (*$ meters and se%enty#eig:t ()/$ centimeters- t:e true center line equidistant from bot: side lines 9ould di%ide t:e road into t9o lanes eac: t:ree (meters$ and t:irty#nine (3,$ centimeters 9ide& T:us- alt:oug: it 9as not dis7uted t:at t:e truc8 o%errode t:e 7ainted stri7e by t9enty#fi%e ( .$ centimeters- it 9as still at least ele%en (""$ centimeters a9ay from its side of t:e true center line of t:e road and 9ell inside its o9n lane 9:en t:e accident occurred& 0y t:is same rec8oning- since it 9as unquestionably t:e Bee7 t:at rammed into t:e sto77ed truc8- it may also be deduced t:at it (t:e Bee7$ 9as at t:e time tra%elling beyond its o9n lane and intruding into t:e lane of t:e truc8 by at least t:e same ""#centimeter 9idt: of s7ace& 'ot only 9as t:e truc8;s lane- measured from t:e incorrectly located center stri7e uncomfortably narro9- gi%en t:at %e:icle;s 9idt: of t9o ( $ meters and forty#six (+*$ centimetersG t:e adBacent road s:oulder 9as also %irtually im7assable- being about t:ree (3$ inc:es lo9er t:an t:e 7a%ed surface of t:e road and >soft##not firm enoug: to offer traction for safe 7assage O besides 9:ic:- it slo7ed gradually do9n to a t:ree foot#dee7 ra%ine 9it: a ri%er belo9& T:e truc8;s lane as erroneously demarcated by t:e center stri7e ga%e said %e:icle barely :alf a meter of clearance from t:e edge of t:e road and t:e dangerous s:oulder and little room for maneu%er- in case t:is 9as made necessary

161
by traffic contingencies or road conditions- if it al9ays 8e7t to said lane& 2t being also s:o9n t:at t:e accident :a77ened at or near t:e 7oint of t:e truc8;s a77roac: to a cur%e- 9:ic: called for extra 7recautions against dri%ing too near t:e s:oulder- it could :ardly be accounted negligent on t:e 7art of its dri%er to intrude tem7orarily- and by only as small as a t9enty#fi%e centimeter 9ide s7ace (less t:an ten inc:es$- into t:e o77osite lane in order to insure :is %e:icle;s safety& T:is- e%en su77osing t:at said maneu%er 9as in fact an intrusion into t:e o77osite lane- 9:ic: 9as not t:e case at all as Bust 7ointed out& 'or 9as t:e A77ellate Court correct in finding t:at 6aulino Yacarias :ad acted negligently in a77lying :is bra8es instead of getting bac8 inside :is lane u7on qqqes7ying t:e a77roac:ing Bee7& 0eing 9ell 9it:in :is o9n lane- as :as already been ex7lained- :e :ad no duty to s9er%e out of t:e Bee7;s 9ay as said Court 9ould :a%e :ad :im do& And e%en su77osing t:at :e 9as in fact 7artly inside t:e o77osite lane- coming to a full sto7 9it: t:e Bee7 still t:irty (3!$ meters a9ay cannot be considered an unsafe or im7rudent action- t:ere also being uncontradicted e%idence t:at t:e Bee7 9as >=ig=agging> and :ence no 9ay of telling in 9:ic: direction it 9ould go as it a77roac:ed t:e truc8& Also clearly erroneous is t:e finding of t:e 2ntermediate A77ellate Court t:at Yacarias :ad no dri%er;s license at t:e time& T:e traffic accident re7ort attests to t:e 7ro%en fact t:at Yacarias %oluntarily surrendered to t:e in%estigating officers :is dri%er;s license- %alid for ",),- t:at :ad been rene9ed Bust t:e day before t:e accident- on Culy 3- ",),& T:e Court 9as a77arently misled by t:e circumstance t:at 9:en said dri%er 9as first as8ed to s:o9 :is license by t:e in%estigators at t:e scene of t:e collision- :e :ad first inad%ertently 7roduced t:e license of a fello9 dri%er- (eonardo 0aricuatro- 9:o :ad left said license in Da%ao City and :ad as8ed Yacarias to bring it bac8 to :im in Glan- Cotabato& T:e e%idence not only acquits Yacarias of any negligence in t:e matterG t:ere are also quite a fe9 significant indicators t:at it 9as rat:er 4ngineer Calibo;s negligence t:at 9as t:e 7roximate cause of t:e accident& Yacarias :ad told 6atrolman Dimaano at t:e scene of t:e collision and later confirmed in :is 9ritten statement at t:e 7olice :eadquarters t:at t:e Bee7 :ad been >=ig=agging-> 9:ic: is to say t:at it 9as tra%elling or being dri%en erratically at t:e time& T:e ot:er in%estigator- 6atrolman Cose 4s7arcia- also testified t:at eye9itnesses to t:e accident :ad remar8ed on t:e Bee7;s >=ig=agging&> T:ere is moreo%er more t:an a suggestion t:at Calibo :ad been drin8ing s:ortly before t:e accident& T:e decision of t:e Trial Court ad%erts to furt:er testimony of 4s7arcia to t:e effect t:at t:ree of Calibo;s com7anions at t:e beac: 7arty :e 9as dri%ing :ome from 9:en t:e collision occurred- 9:o- :a%ing left a:ead of :im 9ent to t:e scene 9:en t:ey :eard about t:e accident- :ad said t:at t:ere :ad been a drin8ing s7ree at t:e 7arty and- referring to Calibo- :ad remar8ed: >3abi na :uag nang mag dri%e & & & & 7umi7ilit-> (loosely translated- >Fe 9as ad%ised not to dri%e- but :e insisted&>$ 2t 9as Calibo 9:ose dri%er;s license could not be found on :is 7erson at t:e scene of t:e accident- and 9as re7orted by :is com7anions in t:e Bee7 as :a%ing been lost 9it: :is 9allet at said sceneaccording to t:e traffic accident re7ort- 4x:ibit >C>& 3aid license unex7lainedly found its 9ay into t:e record some t9o years later& Reference :as already been made to t:e finding of t:e Trial Court t:at 9:ile Yacarias readily submitted to interrogation and ga%e a detailed statement to t:e 7olice in%estigators immediately after t:e accident- Calibo;s t9o com7anions in t:e Bee7 and su77osed eye9itnesses- Agri7ino Roranes and Aaximo 6atos- refused to gi%e any statements& Furt:ermore- Roranes 9:o- toget:er 9it: 6atos- :ad sustained inBuries as a result of t:e collision- 9ai%ed :is rig:t to file a criminal case against Yacarias& 4%en- :o9e%er- ignoring t:ese telltale indi%ia of negligence on t:e 7art of Calibo- and assuming some antecedent negligence on t:e 7art of Yacarias in failing to 8ee7 9it:in :is designated lane- incorrectly demarcated as it 9as- t:e 7:ysical facts- eit:er ex7ressly found by t:e 2ntermediate A77ellate Court or 9:ic: may be deemed conceded for lac8 of any dis7ute- 9ould still absol%e t:e latter of any actionable res7onsibility for t:e accident under t:e rule of t:e last clear c:ance& 0ot: dri%ers- as t:e A77ellate Court found- :ad :ad a full %ie9 of eac: ot:er;s %e:icle from a distance of one :undred fifty meters& 0ot: %e:icles 9ere tra%elling at a s7eed of a77roximately t:irty 8ilometers

162
7er :our& T:e 7ri%ate res7ondents :a%e admitted t:at t:e truc8 9as already at a full sto7 9:en t:e Bee7 7lo9ed into it& And t:ey :a%e not seen fit to deny or im7ugn 7etitioners; im7utation t:at t:ey also admitted t:e truc8 :ad been broug:t to a sto7 9:ile t:e Bee7 9as still t:irty meters a9ay& From t:ese facts t:e logical conclusion emerges t:at t:e dri%er of t:e Bee7 :ad 9:at Budicial doctrine :as a77ro7riately called t:e last clear c:ance to a%oid t:e accident- 9:ile still at t:at distance of t:irty meters from t:e truc8- by sto77ing in :is turn or s9er%ing :is Bee7 a9ay from t:e truc8- eit:er of 9:ic: :e :ad sufficient time to do 9:ile running at a s7eed of only t:irty 8ilometers 7er :our& 2n t:ose circumstances- :is duty 9as to sei=e t:at o77ortunity of a%oidance- not merely rely on a su77osed rig:t to ex7ect- as t:e A77ellate Court 9ould :a%e it- t:e truc8 to s9er%e and lea%e :im a clear 7at:& T:e doctrine of t:e last clear c:ance 7ro%ides as %alid and com7lete a defense to accident liability today as it did 9:en in%o8ed and a77lied in t:e ","/ case of &i%art vs. #mith, supra, 9:ic: in%ol%ed a similar state of facts& 5f t:ose facts- 9:ic: s:ould be familiar to e%ery student of la9- it is only necessary to recall t:e summary made in t:esyllabus of t:is Court;s decision t:at: (t$:e 7laintiff 9as riding a 7ony on a bridge& 3eeing an automobile a:ead :e im7ro7erly 7ulled :is :orse o%er to t:e railing on t:e rig:t& T:e dri%er of t:e automobile- :o9e%er guided :is car to9ard t:e 7laintiff 9it:out diminution of s7eed until :e 9as only fe9 feet a9ay& Fe t:en turned to t:e rig:t but 7assed so closely to t:e :orse t:at t:e latter being frig:tened- Bum7ed around and 9as 8illed by t:e 7assing car& & & & & 6laintiff 6icart 9as t:ro9n off :is :orse and suffered contusions 9:ic: required se%eral days of medical attention& Fe sued t:e defendant 3mit: for t:e %alue of :is animal- medical ex7enses and damage to :is a77arel and obtained Budgment from t:is Court 9:ic:- 9:ile finding t:at t:ere 9as negligence on t:e 7art of bot: 7arties- :eld t:at t:at of t:e defendant 9as t:e immediate and determining cause of t:e accident and t:at of t:e 7laintiff >& & & t:e more remote factor in t:e case>: 2t goes 9it:out saying t:at t:e 7laintiff :imself 9as not free from fault- for :e 9as guilty of antecedent negligence in 7lanting :imself on t:e 9rong side of t:e road& 0ut as 9e :a%e already stated- t:e defendant 9as also negligentG and in suc: case t:e 7roblem al9ays is to disco%er 9:ic: agent is immediately and directly res7onsible& 2t 9ill be noted t:at t:e negligent acts of t:e t9o 7arties 9ere not contem7oraneous- since t:e negligence of t:e defendant succeeded t:e negligence of t:e 7laintiff by an a77reciable inter%al& 1nder t:ese circumstances t:e la9 is t:at t:e 7erson 9:o :as t:e last fair c:ance to a%oid t:e im7ending :arm and fails to do so is c:argeable 9it: t:e consequences- 9it:out reference to t:e 7rior negligence of t:e ot:er 7arty& 3ince said ruling clearly a77lies to exonerate 7etitioner Yacarias and :is em7loyer (and co#7etitioner$ George (im- an inquiry into 9:et:er or not t:e e%idence su77orts t:e latter;s additional defense of due diligence in t:e selection and su7er%ision of said dri%er is no longer necessary and 9ig not be underta8en& T:e fact is t:at t:ere is suc: e%idence in t:e record 9:ic: :as not been contro%erted& 2t must be 7ointed out- :o9e%er- t:at t:e 2ntermediate A77ellate Court also seriously erred in :olding t:e 7etitioners 6ablo 3& Agad and Felix (im solidarily liable for t:e damages a9arded in its a77ealed decision- as alleged o9ners- 9it: 7etitioner George (im- of Glan 6eo7le;s (umber and Fard9areem7loyer of 7etitioner Yacarias& T:is manifestly disregarded- not only t:e certificate of registration issued by t:e 0ureau of Domestic Trade identifying Glan 6eo7le;s (umber and Fard9are as a business name registered by George (im- but also unim7ugned allegations into t:e 7etitioners; ans9er to t:e com7laint t:at 6ablo 3& Agad 9as only an em7loyee of George (im and t:at Felix (imt:en a c:ild of only eig:t (/$ years- 9as in no 9ay connected 9it: t:e business& 2n conclusion- it must also be stated t:at t:ere is no doubt of t:is Court;s 7o9er to re%ie9 t:e assailed decision of t:e 2ntermediate A77ellate Court under t:e aut:ority of 7recedents recogni=ing exce7tions to t:e familiar rule binding it to obser%e and res7ect t:e latter;s findings of fact& Aany of t:ose exce7tions may be cited to su77ort t:e re%ie9 :ere underta8en- but only t:e most ob%ious O t:at said findings directly conflict 9it: t:ose of t:e Trial Court O 9ill suffice& 2n t:e o7inion of t:is Court and after a careful re%ie9 of t:e record- t:e e%idence singularly fails to su77ort t:e findings of t:e

163
2ntermediate A77ellate Court 9:ic:- for all t:at a77ears- seem to :a%e been 7rom7ted rat:er by sym7at:y for t:e :eirs of t:e deceased 4ngineer Calibo t:an by an obBecti%e a77raisal of t:e 7roofs and a correct a77lication of t:e la9 to t:e establis:ed facts& Com7assion for t:e 7lig:t of t:ose 9:om an accident :as robbed of t:e lo%e and su77ort of a :usband and fat:er is an entirely natural and understandable sentiment& 2t s:ould not- :o9e%er- be allo9ed to stand in t:e 9ay of- muc: less to influence- a Bust %erdict in a suit at la9& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e a77ealed Budgment of t:e 2ntermediate A77ellate Court is :ereby R4E4R34D- and t:e com7laint against :erein 7etitioners in Ci%il Case 'o& 3 /3 of t:e Court of First 2nstance of 0o:ol0ranc: 2E- is D23A2334D& 'o 7ronouncement as to costs&

Pan$#anB N #$. EC?#"%% &. +a"%a G&R& 'os& ),!.!#."&'o%ember "+- ",/, Cortes&G T:e s7ouses 0aesa- t:eir four c:ildren- t:e 2co s7ouses- t:e latterXs son and ot:er 7eo7le boarded a 7assenger Bee7 to go to a 7icnic in 2sabela- to celebrate t:e 9edding anni%ersary of t:e 0aesa s7ouses& T:e Bee7 9as dri%en by Da%id 2co& 17on reac:ing t:e :ig:9ay- t:e Bee7 turned rig:t and 7roceeded to Aalalam Ri%er at a s7eed of about ! 87:& ?:ile t:ey 9ere 7roceeding to9ards Aalalam Ri%er- a s7eeding 6antranco bus from A7arri- on its regular route to Aanila- encroac:ed on t:e Bee7neyXs lane 9:ile negotiating a cur%e- and collided 9it: it& As a result- t:e entire 0aesa family- exce7t for one daug:ter- as 9ell as Da%id 2co- died- and t:e rest suffered from inBuries& Aaricar 0aesa- t:e sur%i%ing daug:ter- t:roug: :er guardian filed se7arate actions for damages arising from quasi#delict against 6antranco& 6antranco- aside from 7ointing to t:e late Da%id 2coXs (t:e dri%er$alleged negligence as a 7roximate cause of t:e accident- in%o8ed t:e defense of due diligence in t:e selection and su7er%ision of its dri%er& T:e RTC ruled in fa%or of 0aesa- 9:ic: 9as u7:eld by t:e CA T:e 7etitioner no9 contends t:at t:e CA erred in not a77lying t:e doctrine of t:e blast clear c:anced against t:e Bee7ney dri%er& 6etitioner contends t:at under t:e circumstances- it 9as t:e dri%er of t:e Bee7 9:o :ad t:e last clear c:ance to a%oid t:e collision and 9as t:erefore negligent in failing to utili=e 9it: reasonable care and com7etence :is t:en existing o77ortunity to a%oid t:e :arm& 233143 & ARG1A4'T3 Does t:e blast clear c:anced doctrine a77lyJ 'o& T:e doctrine a77lies only in a situation 9:ere t:e 7laintiff 9as guilty of a 7rior or antecedent negligence but t:e defendant- 9:o :ad t:e last fair c:ance to a%oid t:e im7ending :arm and failed to do so- is made liable for all t:e consequences Generally- t:e last clear c:ange doctrine is in%o8ed for t:e 7ur7ose of ma8ing a defendant liable to a 7laintiff 9:o 9as guilty of 7rior or antecedent negligence- alt:oug: it may also be raised as a defense to defeat claim for damages& 2t is t:e 7etitionerXs 7osition t:at e%en assuming arguendo- t:at t:e bus encroac:ed into t:e lane of t:e Bee7ney- t:e dri%er of t:e latter could :a%e s9er%ed t:e Bee7ney to9ards t:e s7acious dirt s:oulder on :is rig:t 9it:out tdanger to :imself or :is 7assengers& T:is is untenable

164
For t:e last clear c:ance doctrine to a77ly- it is necessary to s:o9 t:at t:e 7erson 9:o allegedly :as t:e last o77ortunity to a%ert t:e accident 9as a9are of t:e existence of t:e 7eril- or s:ould- 9it: exercise of due care- :a%e been a9are of it& 5ne cannot be ex7ected to a%oid an accident or inBury if :e does not 8no9 or could not :a%e 8no9n t:e existence of t:e 7eril& 2n t:is case- t:ere is not:ing to s:o9 t:at t:e Bee7ney dri%er Da%id 2co 8ne9 of t:e im7ending danger& ?:en :e sa9 at a distance t:at t:e a77roac:ing bus 9as encroac:ing on :is lane- :e did not immediately s9er%e t:e Bee7ney to t:e dirt s:oulder on :is rig:t since :e must :a%e assumed t:at t:e bus dri%er 9ill return t:e bus to its o9n lane u7on seeing t:e Bee7ney a77roac:ing form t:e o77osite direction& 4%en assuming t:at t:e Bee7ney dri%er 7ercei%ed t:e danger a fe9 seconds before t:e actual collision:e :ad no o77ortunity to a%oid it& T:e Court :as :eld t:at t:e last clear c:ance doctrine bcan ne%er a77ly 9:ere t:e 7arty c:arged is required to act instantaneously and if t:e inBury can not be a%oided by t:e a77lication of all means at :and after t:e 7eril is or s:ould :a%e been disco%ered&d

L+C AIR CARGO %& HON. COURT OF APPEALS G&R& 'o& "!"*/3&February 3- ",,. E2T1G- J.: 2n t:is 7etition for re%ie9- t:e a77lication of t:e doctrines of >7roximate cause> and >last clear c:ance> is- once again- being 7ut to test& T:e 7etition questions t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals- dated "/ Culy ",,"- 9:ic: :as re%ersed t:at of t:e trial court& T:e case arose from a %e:icular collision 9:ic: occurred at about "":3! in t:e morning of ". 'o%ember ",/)& Rogelio Aonterola- a licensed dri%er- 9as tra%eling on board :is 3u=u8i motorcycle to9ards Aangagoy on t:e rig:t lane along a dusty national road in 0islig- 3urigao del 3ur& At about t:e same time- a cargo %an of t:e (0C Air Cargo 2ncor7orated- dri%en by defendant Caime Tano- Cr&- 9as coming from t:e o77osite direction on its 9ay to t:e 0islig Air7ort& 5n board 9ere 7assengers Fernando @u- Aanager of (0C Air Cargo- and :is son 9:o 9as seated beside Tano& ?:en Tano 9as a77roac:ing t:e %icinity of t:e air7ort road entrance on :is left- :e sa9 t9o %e:icles racing against eac: ot:er from t:e o77osite direction& Tano sto77ed :is %e:icle and 9aited for t:e t9o racing %e:icles to 7ass by& T:e stirred cloud of dust made %isibility extremely bad& 2nstead of 9aiting for t:e dust to settled- Tano started to ma8e a s:ar7 left turn to9ards t:e air7ort road& ?:en :e 9as about to reac: t:e center of t:e rig:t lane- t:e motorcycle dri%en by Aonterola suddenly emerged from t:e dust and smas:ed :ead#on against t:e rig:t side of t:e (0C %an& Aonterola died from t:e se%ere inBuries :e sustained& A criminal case for >:omicide t:ru rec8less im7rudence> 9as filed against Tano& A ci%il suit 9as li8e9ise instituted by t:e :eirs of deceased Aonterola against Tano- along 9it: Fernando @u and (0C Air Cargo 2ncor7orated- for t:e reco%ery of damages& T:e t9o cases 9ere tried Bointly by t:e Regional Trial Court- 0ranc: ,- of 3urigao del 3ur& 5n , Culy ",,!- t:e trial court dismissed bot: cases on t:e ground t:at t:e 7roximate cause of t:e >accident> 9as t:e negligence of deceased Rogelio Aonterola& 6ri%ate res7ondent a77ealed t:e dismissal of t:e ci%il case to t:e Court of A77eals& 5n "/ Culy ",,"t:e a77ellate court re%ersed t:e court a 0uo& 2t :eld: ?F4R4F5R4- t:e Budgment a77ealed from is R4E4R34D- and anot:er one is :ereby rendered ordering t:e defendants Caime Tano and (0C Air Cargo- 2nc& to Bointly and se%erally 7ay t:e 7laintiff 6atrocinia Aonterola t:e follo9ing amounts: To 3F4R?2' A5'T4R5(A:

165
"& 2ndemnity for t:e deat: of Rogelio Aonterola 6.!-!!!&!! & For Aoral damages 6 !-!!!&!! To 6ATR5C2'2A GR5'D2A'5 @ A5'T4R5(A: 3& Actual Damages 6)-3*"&!! +& Fos7itals & 0urial 4x7enses ".-!!!&!! .& Attorneys; Fees and ex7enses of (itigation "!-!!!&!! 6lus t:e costs& Actual 7ayment of t:e aforementioned amounts s:ould :o9e%er be reduced to t9enty ( !]$ 7ercent& 4 2n t:e instant 7etition for re%ie9- 7etitioners contend t:at O "& T:e Court of A77eals erred in finding t:at Caime Tano- Cr& 9as negligent in t:e dri%ing of :is %e:icle and in failing to gi%e a signal to a77roac:ing %e:icles of :is intention to ma8e a left turn& & T:e Court of A77eals erred in not finding t:at t:e 7roximate cause of t:e accident 9as t:e %ictim;s negligence in t:e dri%ing of :is motorcycle in a %ery fast s7eed and t:us :itting t:e 7etitioner;s cargo %an& / T:e issues raised are t:us essentially factual& T:e intrinsic merit of- as 9ell as cogency in- t:e detailed analyses made by t:e Court of A77eals in arri%ing at its findings is at once a77arent& 3aid t:e a77ellate court: T:at %isibility 9as 7oor 9:en Caime Tano made a left turn 9as admitted by t:e latter& < ?:en t:ese t9o %e:icles 7assed by your 7ar8ed %e:icle- as you saidt:ere 9ere clouds of dust- did 2 get you rig:tJ A @es sir- t:e road 9as dusty& < 3o muc: so t:at you could no longer see t:e %e:icles from t:e o77osite direction follo9ing t:ese %e:iclesJ A 2t is not clear- sir- so 2 e%en turned on my left signal and t:e :eadlig:t& < ?:at do you mean by it 9as not clear- you could not see t:e incoming %e:iclesJ A 2 could not see because of t:e cloud of dust& < And it 9as at t:is Buncture- 9:en you 9ere to follo9 your t:eory- 9:en you started your (0C %an again and s9er%ed to t:e left leading to t:e 0islig air7ortJ A 2 did not enter immediately t:e air7ort- 2 9aited t:e dust to clear a little before 2 dro%e& xxx xxx xxx < 2n ot:er 9ords 9:en you said t:at it 9as slig:tly clear- you 9ould li8e to tell t:e Fonorable Court t:at you could only clearly see big %e:icles & & & but not small %e:icles li8e a motorcycleJ A 2 could see clearly big %e:icles but not small %e:icles li8e a motorcycle& < (i8e t:e motorcycle of Rogelio AonterolaJ

166
A @es- sir& 2 could not see clearly& (Tano- tsn- A7ril "/- ",/,- 77& *#3!$ (7& ".- A77ellant;s brief$& Tano s:ould not :a%e made a left turn under t:e conditions admitted by :im& 1nder t:e (and Trans7ortation and Traffic Code- t:e dri%er of any %e:icle u7on a :ig:9ay- before starting- sto77ing or turning from a direct line- is called u7on to first see t:at suc: mo%ement can be made in safety- and 9:ene%er t:e o7eration of any ot:er %e:icle a77roac:ing may be affected by suc: mo%ement- s:all gi%e a signal 7lainly %isible to t:e dri%er of suc: ot:er %e:icles of t:e intention to ma8e suc: mo%ement (3ec& ++- R&A& +"3*- as amended$& T:is means t:at before a dri%er turns from a direct line- in t:is case to t:e left- t:e dri%er must first see to it t:at t:ere are no a77roac:ing %e:icles and- if t:ere are- to ma8e t:e turn only if it can be made in safety- or at t:e %ery least gi%e a signal t:at is 7lainly %isible to t:e dri%er of suc: ot:er %e:icle& Tano did neit:er in t:is case- for :e rec8lessly made a left turn e%en as %isibility 9as still %ery 7oor- and t:us failed to see t:e a77roac:ing motorcycle and 9arn t:e latter- of :is intention to ma8e a left turn& T:is is 7lain and sim7le negligence& 2n t:us ma8ing t:e left turn- :e 7laced :is %e:icle directly at t:e 7at: of t:e motorcycle 9:ic:- una9are of Tano;s intention to ma8e a left turn- smas:ed at Tano;s %e:icle& 2t 9as Tano;s negligence t:at created t:e ris8 or t:e condition of danger t:at set into o7eration t:e e%ent t:at led to t:e smas:edu7 and untimely deat: of Rogelio Aonterola& Rogelio Aonterola;s motorcycle 9ould not :a%e :it t:e cargo %an :ad Tano- in o7erating it- not rec8lessly turned left 9:en %isibility 9as still 7oor- and instead obser%ed t:e direct line of t:e (and Trans7ortation Code t:at before doing so- :e s:ould first see to it t:at suc: mo%ement can be made in safety- and t:at 9:ene%er any ot:er %e:icle a77roac:ing may be affected by suc: mo%ement- s:ould gi%e a signal 7lainly %isible to t:e dri%er of suc: ot:er %e:icle of t:e intention to ma8e suc: mo%ement& T:at Rogelio Aonterola 9as running fast des7ite 7oor %isibility as e%idenced by t:e magnitude of t:e damage to t:e %e:icles is no defense& Fis negligence 9ould at most be contributory (Article "),- '&C&C&$& Fa%ing negligently created t:e condition of danger- defendants may not a%oid liability by 7ointing to t:e negligence of t:e former& xxx xxx xxx Tano;s 7ro%en negligence created a 7resum7tion of negligence on t:e 7art of :is em7loyer- t:e (0C Air Cargo Cor7oration- in su7er%ising its em7loyees 7ro7erly and adequately (6:oenix Construction- 2nc& %s& 2ntermediate A77ellate Court- supra$- 9:ic: may only be destroyed by 7roof of due diligence in t:e selection and su7er%ision of :is em7loyees to 7re%ent t:e damage (Article "/!- '&C&C&$& 'o suc: defense 9as inter7osed by defendants in t:eir ans9er& ?e- :o9e%er- fail to see Fernando @u;s liability as Aanager of (0C#Aangagoy 0ranc: 5ffice- t:ere being no em7loyer#em7loyee relations:i7 bet9een :im and Caime Tano 9:o is a dri%er of t:e (0C Air Cargo 2nc& 2t 9as :eld in &hilippine ,abbit Bus 2ines )n%& et al& vs& &hil& meri%an $or'arders- )n%&- *3 3CRA 3"- t:at t:e term >Aanager> in Article "/! is used in t:e sense of >em7loyer&> Fence- no tortuous or quasi#delictual liability can be fastened on Fernando @u as branc: manager of (0C Air Cargo 2nc& 'o9 for t:e amount of damages& Aside from t:e indemnity for deat: 9:ic: :as been 7egged at 6.!-!!!&!! (Resolution En Ban%- August 3!- ",,!- cited in 6eo7le %s& 3a=on- "/, 3CRA )!!$- t:e e%idence disclose t:at as a result of t:e accident- Rogelio Aonterola;s motorcycle 9as damaged- t:e re7air cost of 9:ic: amounted to 6)-3*"&!! (4x:& 4#"$- for :os7itali=ation- 9a8e and burial ex7enses- 7laintiff s7ent 6".-!!!&!!& T:ere is li8e9ise no question t:at by reason of Rogelio Aonterola;s untimely deat:- :is only c:ild "+ years old 3:er9in Aonterola- suffered mental anguis:- frig:t- serious

167
anxiety- 9ounded feelings and moral s:oc8 t:at entitles :im to moral damages 9:ic: 9e :ereby fix at 6 !-!!!&!!& 0ecause of defendants; refusal to indemnify t:e 7laintiff for :is fat:er;s deat:- t:e latter 9as com7elled to litigate and engage t:e ser%ices of counsel& Fe is t:erefore entitled to an additional amount of 6"!-!!!&!! for attorney;s fees and ex7enses of litigation& Considering- :o9e%er- t:e contributory negligence of Rogelio Aonterola in dri%ing at a fast cli7 des7ite t:e fact t:at t:e road 9as dusty- 9e reduce t:e aggregate amount of damages to 9:ic: t:e 7laintiff is entitled by t9enty 7er cent (6:oenix Construction 2nc& %s& 2ntermediate A77ellate Court- #upra$& < From e%ery indication- t:e 7roximate cause of t:e accident 9as t:e negligence of Tano 9:o- des7ite extremely 7oor %isibility- :astily executed a left turn (to9ards t:e 0islig air7ort road entrance$ 9it:out first 9aiting for t:e dust to settle& 2t 9as t:is negligent act of Tano- 9:ic: :ad 7laced :is %e:icle ((0C %an$ directly on t:e 7at: of t:e motorcycle coming from t:e o77osite direction- t:at almost instantaneously caused t:e collision to occur& 3im7le 7rudence required :im not to attem7t to cross t:e ot:er lane until after it 9ould :a%e been safe from and clear of any oncoming %e:icle& 6etitioners 7oorly in%o8e t:e doctrine of >last clear c:ance> (also referred to- at times- as >su7er%ening negligence> or as >disco%ered 7eril>$& T:e doctrine- in essence- is to t:e effect t:at 9:ere bot: 7arties are negligent- but t:e negligent act of one is appre%iably later in time t:an t:at of t:e ot:er- or 9:en it is im7ossible to determine 9:ose fault or negligence s:ould be attributed to t:e incident- t:e one 9:o :ad t:e last clear o77ortunity to a%oid t:e im7ending :arm and failed to do so is c:argeable 9it: t:e consequences t:ereof (see6icart %s& 3mit:- 3) 6:il& /!,$& 3tated differently- t:e rule 9ould also mean t:at an antecedent negligence of a 7erson does not 7reclude t:e reco%ery of damages for su7er%ening negligence of- or bar a defense against t:e liability soug:t by- anot:er if t:e latter- 9:o :ad t:e last fair %han%e- could :a%e a%oided t:e im7ending :arm by t:e exercise of due diligence (6antranco 'ort: 4x7ress- 2nc& %s& 0aesa- "), 3CRA 3/+G Glan 6eo7le;s (umber and Fard9are %s& 2ntermediate A77ellate Court- ")3 3CRA +*+$& 2n t:e case at benc:- t:e %ictim 9as tra%eling along t:e lane 9:ere :e 9as rig:tly su77osed to be& T:e incident occurred in an instant& 'o a77reciable time :ad ela7sed- from t:e moment Tano s9er%ed to :is left to t:e actual im7actG t:at could :a%e afforded t:e %ictim a last clear o77ortunity to a%oid t:e collision& 2t is true :o9e%er- t:at t:e deceased 9as not all t:at free from negligence in e%idently s7eeding too closely be:ind t:e %e:icle :e 9as follo9ing& ?e- t:erefore- agree 9it: t:e a77ellate court t:at t:ere indeed 9as contributory negligence on t:e %ictim;s 7art t:at could 9arrant a mitigation of 7etitioners liability for damages& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e a77ealed decision is AFF2RA4D& Costs against 7etitioners&

UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST %& ROMEO A. JADER G&R& 'o& "3 3++&February ")- !!! @'AR43#3A'T2AG5- J.: Aay an educational institution be :eld liable for damages for misleading a student into belie%ing t:at t:e latter :ad satisfied all t:e requirements for graduation 9:en suc: is not t:e caseJ T:is is t:e issue in t:e instant 7etition for re%ie9 7remised on t:e follo9ing undis7uted facts as summari=ed by t:e trial court and ado7ted by t:e Court of A77eals (CA$- to 9it: 6laintiff 9as enrolled in t:e defendants; College of (a9 from ",/+ u7 to ",//& 2n t:e first semester of :is last year (3c:ool year ",/)#",//$- :e failed to ta8e t:e regular final examination in 6ractice Court 2 for 9:ic: :e 9as gi%en an incom7lete grade (4x:ibits > >- also

168
4x:ibit >F>$& Fe enrolled for t:e second semester as fourt: year la9 student (4x:ibit >A>$ and on February "- ",// :e filed an a77lication for t:e remo%al of t:e incom7lete grade gi%en :im by 6rofessor Carlos 5rtega (4x:ibits >F# >- also 4x:ibit > >$ 9:ic: 9as a77ro%ed by Dean Celedonio Tiongson after 7ayment of t:e required fee& Fe too8 t:e examination on Aarc: /",//& 5n Aay 3!- ",//- 6rofessor Carlos 5rtega submitted :is grade& 2t 9as a grade of fi%e (.$& (4x:ibits >F#+>- also 4x:ibits > #(>- > #'>$&"[97:i"&nht 2n t:e meantime- t:e Dean and t:e Faculty Aembers of t:e College of (a9 met to deliberate on 9:o among t:e fourt: year students s:ould be allo9ed to graduate& T:e 7laintiff;s name a77eared in t:e Tentati%e (ist of Candidates for graduation for t:e Degree of 0ac:elor of (a9s (((&0$ as of 3econd 3emester (",/)#",//$ 9it: t:e follo9ing annotation: CAD4R R5A45 A& Def& Conflict of (a9s O x#"#/)#//- 6ractice Court 2 2nc&- "#/)#// C#" to submit transcri7t 9it: 3&5& (4x:ibits >3>- >3#C#">- >3#C# >$& T:e 3.t: 2n%estitures & Commencement Ceremonies for t:e candidates of 0ac:elor of (a9s 9as sc:eduled on t:e "*t: of A7ril ",// at 3:!! o;cloc8 in t:e afternoon- and in t:e in%itation for t:at occasion t:e name of t:e 7laintiff a77eared as one of t:e candidates& (4x:ibits >0>- >0# *>- >0#*#A>$& At t:e foot of t:e list of t:e names of t:e candidates t:ere a77eared :o9e%er t:e follo9ing annotation: T:is is a tentati%e list Degrees 9ill be conferred u7on t:ese candidates 9:o satisfactorily com7lete requirements as stated in t:e 1ni%ersity 0ulletin and as a77ro%ed of t:e De7artment of 4ducation- Culture and 37orts (4x:ibit >0#)#A>$& T:e 7laintiff attended t:e in%estiture ceremonies at F& dela Cru= <uadrangle- 1&4&- Recto Cam7us- during t:e 7rogram of 9:ic: :e 9ent u7 t:e stage 9:en :is name 9as calledescorted by :er (si%$ mot:er and :is eldest brot:er 9:o assisted in 7lacing t:e Food- and :is Tassel 9as turned from left to rig:t- and :e 9as t:ereafter :anded by Dean Celedonio a rolled 9:ite s:eet of 7a7er symbolical of t:e (a9 Di7loma& Fis relati%es too8 7ictures of t:e occasion (4x:ibits >C> to >C#*>- >D#3> to >D#"">$& Fe tendered a blo9#out t:at e%ening 9:ic: 9as attended by neig:bors- friends and relati%es 9:o 9is:ed :im good luc8 in t:e fort:coming bar examination& T:ere 9ere 7ictures ta8en too during t:e blo9#out (4x:ibits >D> to >D#">$& Fe t:ereafter 7re7ared :imself for t:e bar examination& Fe too8 a lea%e of absence 9it:out 7ay from :is Bob from A7ril !- ",// to 3e7tember 3!- ",// (4x:ibit >G>$ and enrolled at t:e 7re#bar re%ie9 class in Far 4astern 1ni%ersity& (4x:ibits >F> to >F# >$& Fa%ing learned of t:e deficiency :e dro77ed :is re%ie9 class and 9as not able to ta8e t:e bar examination& Consequently- res7ondent sued 7etitioner for damages alleging t:at :e suffered moral s:oc8- mental anguis:- serious anxiety- besmirc:ed re7utation- 9ounded feelings and slee7less nig:ts 9:en :e 9as not able to ta8e t:e ",// bar examinations arising from t:e latter;s negligence& Fe 7rayed for an a9ard of moral and exem7lary damages- unreali=ed income- attorney;s fees- and costs of suit& 2n its ans9er 9it: counterclaim- 7etitioner denied liability arguing mainly t:at it ne%er led res7ondent to belie%e t:at :e com7leted t:e requirements for a 0ac:elor of (a9s degree 9:en :is name 9as included in t:e tentati%e list of graduating students& After trial- t:e lo9er court rendered Budgment as follo9s: ?F4R4F5R4- in %ie9 of t:e foregoing Budgment is :ereby rendered in fa%or of t:e 7laintiff and against t:e defendant ordering t:e latter to 7ay 7laintiff t:e sum of TF2RT@ F2E4 TF513A'D F51R F1'DR4D 34E4'T@ 64353 (63.-+)!&!!$ 9it: legal rate of interest from t:e filing of t:e com7laint until fully 7aid- t:e amount of F2E4 TF513A'D 64353 (6.-!!!&!!$ as attorney;s fees and t:e cost of suit&

169
Defendant;s counterclaim is- for lac8 of merit- :ereby dismissed& 35 5RD4R4D& 9:ic: on a77eal by bot: 7arties 9as affirmed by t:e Court of A77eals (CA$ 9it: modification& T:e dis7ositi%e 7ortion of t:e CA decision reads: ?F4R4F5R4- in t:e lig:t of t:e foregoing- t:e lo9er Court;s Decision is :ereby AFF2RA4D 9it: t:e A5D2F2CAT25' t:at defendant#a77ellee- in addition to t:e sum adBudged by t:e lo9er court in fa%or of 7laintiff#a77ellant- is also 5RD4R4D to 7ay 7laintiff#a77ellant t:e amount of F2FT@ TF513A'D (6.!-!!!&!!$ 64353 for moral damages& Costs against defendant# a77ellee& 35 5RD4R4D& 17on t:e denial of its motion for reconsideration- 7etitioner 14 ele%ated t:e case to t:is Court on a 7etition for re%ie9 under Rule +. of t:e Rules of Court- arguing t:at it :as no liability to res7ondent Romeo A& Cader- considering t:at t:e 7roximate and immediate cause of t:e alleged damages incurred by t:e latter arose out of :is o9n negligence in not %erifying from t:e 7rofessor concerned t:e result of :is remo%al exam& T:e 7etition lac8s merit& ?:en a student is enrolled in any educational or learning institution- a contract of education is entered into bet9een said institution and t:e student& T:e 7rofessors- teac:ers or instructors :ired by t:e sc:ool are considered merely as agents and administrators tas8ed to 7erform t:e sc:ool;s commitment under t:e contract& 3ince t:e contracting 7arties are t:e sc:ool and t:e student- t:e latter is not duty#bound to deal 9it: t:e former;s agents- suc: as t:e 7rofessors 9it: res7ect to t:e status or result of :is grades- alt:oug: not:ing 7re%ents eit:er 7rofessors or students from s:aring 9it: eac: ot:er suc: information& T:e Court ta8es Budicial notice of t:e traditional 7ractice in educational institutions 9:erein t:e 7rofessor directly furnis:es :isH:er students t:eir grades& 2t is t:e contractual obligation of t:e sc:ool to timely inform and furnis: sufficient notice and information to eac: and e%ery student as to 9:et:er :e or s:e :ad already com7lied 9it: all t:e requirements for t:e conferment of a degree or 9:et:er t:ey 9ould be included among t:ose 9:o 9ill graduate& Alt:oug: commencement exercises are but a formal ceremony- it nonet:eless is not an ordinary occasion- since suc: ceremony is t:e educational institution;s 9ay of announcing to t:e 9:ole 9orld t:at t:e students included in t:e list of t:ose 9:o 9ill be conferred a degree during t:e baccalaureate ceremony :a%e satisfied all t:e requirements for suc: degree& 6rior or subsequent to t:e ceremony- t:e sc:ool :as t:e obligation to 7rom7tly inform t:e student of any 7roblem in%ol%ing t:e latter;s grades and 7erformance and also most im7ortantly- of t:e 7rocedures for remedying t:e same& 6etitioner- in belatedly informing res7ondent of t:e result of t:e remo%al examination- 7articularly at a time 9:en :e :ad already commenced 7re7aring for t:e bar exams- cannot be said to :a%e acted in good fait:& Absence of good fait: must be sufficiently establis:ed for a successful 7rosecution by t:e aggrie%ed 7arty in a suit for abuse of rig:t under Article ", of t:e Ci%il Code& Good fait: connotes an :onest intention to abstain from ta8ing undue ad%antage of anot:er- e%en t:oug: t:e forms and tec:nicalities of t:e la9- toget:er 9it: t:e absence of all information or belief of facts- 9ould render t:e transaction unconscientious& 2t is t:e sc:ool t:at :as access to t:ose information and it is only t:e sc:ool t:at can com7el its 7rofessors to act and com7ly 9it: its rules- regulations and 7olicies 9it: res7ect to t:e com7utation and t:e 7rom7t submission of grades& 3tudents do not exercise controlmuc: less influence- o%er t:e 9ay an educational institution s:ould run its affairs- 7articularly in disci7lining its 7rofessors and teac:ers and ensuring t:eir com7liance 9it: t:e sc:ool;s rules and orders& 0eing t:e 7arty t:at :ired t:em- it is t:e sc:ool t:at exercises general su7er%ision and exclusi%e control o%er t:e 7rofessors 9it: res7ect to t:e submission of re7orts in%ol%ing t:e students; standing& 4xclusi%e control means t:at no ot:er 7erson or entity :ad any control o%er t:e instrumentality 9:ic: caused t:e damage or inBury&*

170
T:e college dean is t:e senior officer res7onsible for t:e o7eration of an academic 7rogramenforcement of rules and regulations- and t:e su7er%ision of faculty and student ser%ices& Fe must see to it t:at :is o9n 7rofessors and teac:ers- regardless of t:eir status or 7osition outside of t:e uni%ersity- must com7ly 9it: t:e rules set by t:e latter& T:e negligent act of a 7rofessor 9:o fails to obser%e t:e rules of t:e sc:ool- for instance by not 7rom7tly submitting a student;s grade- is not only im7utable to t:e 7rofessor but is an act of t:e sc:ool- being :is em7loyer& Considering furt:er- t:at t:e institution of learning in%ol%ed :erein is a uni%ersity 9:ic: is engaged in legal education- it s:ould :a%e 7racticed 9:at it inculcates in its students- more s7ecifically t:e 7rinci7le of good dealings ens:rined in Articles ", and ! of t:e Ci%il Code 9:ic: states: Art& ",& 4%ery 7erson must- in t:e exercise of :is rig:ts and in t:e 7erformance of :is dutiesact 9it: Bustice- gi%e e%eryone :is due- and obser%e :onesty and good fait:& Art& !& 4%ery 7erson 9:o- contrary to la9- 9ilfully or negligently causes damage to anot:ers:all indemnify t:e latter for t:e same& Art& ", 9as intended to ex7and t:e conce7t of torts by granting adequate legal remedy for t:e untold number of moral 9rongs 9:ic: is im7ossible for :uman foresig:t to 7ro%ide s7ecifically in statutory la9& 2n ci%ili=ed society- men must be able to assume t:at ot:ers 9ill do t:em no intended inBury O t:at ot:ers 9ill commit no internal aggressions u7on t:emG t:at t:eir fello9men- 9:en t:ey act affirmati%ely 9ill do so 9it: due care 9:ic: t:e ordinary understanding and moral sense of t:e community exacts and t:at t:ose 9it: 9:om t:ey deal in t:e general course of society 9ill act in good fait:& T:e ultimate t:ing in t:e t:eory of liability is Bustifiable reliance under conditions of ci%ili=ed society& 3c:ools and 7rofessors cannot Bust ta8e students for granted and be indifferent to t:em- for 9it:out t:e latter- t:e former are useless& 4ducational institutions are duty#bound to inform t:e students of t:eir academic status and not 9ait for t:e latter to inquire from t:e former& T:e conscious indifference of a 7erson to t:e rig:ts or 9elfare of t:e 7ersonH7ersons 9:o may be affected by :is act or omission can su77ort a claim for damages&?ant of care to t:e conscious disregard of ci%il obligations cou7led 9it: a conscious 8no9ledge of t:e cause naturally calculated to 7roduce t:em 9ould ma8e t:e erring 7arty liable& 6etitioner oug:t to :a%e 8no9n t:at time 9as of t:e essence in t:e 7erformance of its obligation to inform res7ondent of :is grade& 2t cannot feign ignorance t:at res7ondent 9ill not 7re7are :imself for t:e bar exams since t:at is 7recisely t:e immediate concern after graduation of an ((&0& graduate& 2t failed to act seasonably& 6etitioner cannot Bust gi%e out its student;s grades at any time because a student :as to com7ly 9it: certain deadlines set by t:e 3u7reme Court on t:e submission of requirements for ta8ing t:e bar& 6etitioner;s liability arose from its failure to 7rom7tly inform res7ondent of t:e result of an examination and in misleading t:e latter into belie%ing t:at :e :ad satisfied all requirements for t:e course& ?ort: quoting is t:e follo9ing disquisition of t:e res7ondent court: 2t is a77arent from t:e testimony of Dean Tiongson t:at defendant#a77ellee 1ni%ersity :ad been informed during t:e deliberation t:at t:e 7rofessor in 6ractice Court 2 ga%e 7laintiff# a77ellant a failing grade& @et- defendant#a77ellee still did not inform 7laintiff#a77ellant of :is failure to com7lete t:e requirements for t:e degree nor did t:ey remo%e :is name from t:e tentati%e list of candidates for graduation& ?orse- defendant#a77ellee uni%ersity- des7ite t:e 8no9ledge t:at 7laintiff#a77ellant failed in 6ractice Court 2- again included 7laintiff#a77ellant;s name in t:e >tentati%e list of candidates for graduation 9:ic: 9as 7re7ared after t:e deliberation and 9:ic: became t:e basis for t:e commencement rites 7rogram& Dean Tiongson reasons out t:at 7laintiff#a77ellant;s name 9as allo9ed to remain in t:e tentati%e list of candidates for graduation in t:e :o7e t:at t:e latter 9ould still be able to remedy t:e situation in t:e remaining fe9 days before graduation day& Dean Tiongson- :o9e%er- did not ex7lain :o9 7laintiff a77ellant Cader could :a%e done somet:ing to com7lete :is deficiency if defendant# a77ellee uni%ersity did not exert any effort to inform 7laintiff#a77ellant of :is failing grade in 6ractice Court 2&

171
6etitioner cannot 7ass on its blame to t:e 7rofessors to Bustify its o9n negligence t:at led to t:e delayed relay of information to res7ondent& ?:en one of t9o innocent 7arties must suffer- :e t:roug: 9:ose agency t:e loss occurred must bear it& T:e modern tendency is to grant indemnity for damages in cases 9:ere t:ere is abuse of rig:t- e%en 9:en t:e act is not illicit& 2f mere fault or negligence in one;s acts can ma8e :im liable for damages for inBury caused t:ereby- 9it: more reason s:ould abuse or bad fait: ma8e :im liable& A 7erson s:ould be 7rotected only 9:en :e acts in t:e legitimate exercise of :is rig:t- t:at is- 9:en :e acts 9it: 7rudence and in good fait:- but not 9:en :e acts 9it: negligence or abuse& Fo9e%er- 9:ile 7etitioner 9as guilty of negligence and t:us liable to res7ondent for t:e latter;s actual damages- 9e :old t:at res7ondent s:ould not :a%e been a9arded moral damages& ?e do not agree 9it: t:e Court of A77eals; findings t:at res7ondent suffered s:oc8- trauma and 7ain 9:en :e 9as informed t:at :e could not graduate and 9ill not be allo9ed to ta8e t:e bar examinations& At t:e %ery least- it be:oo%ed on res7ondent to %erify for :imself 9:et:er :e :as com7leted all necessary requirements to be eligible for t:e bar examinations& As a senior la9 student- res7ondent s:ould :a%e been res7onsible enoug: to ensure t:at all :is affairs- s7ecifically t:ose 7ertaining to :is academic ac:ie%ement- are in order& Gi%en t:ese considerations- 9e fail to see :o9 res7ondent could :a%e suffered untold embarrassment in attending t:e graduation rites- enrolling in t:e bar re%ie9 classes and not being able to ta8e t:e bar exams& 2f res7ondent 9as indeed :umiliated by :is failure to ta8e t:e bar- :e broug:t t:is u7on :imself by not %erifying if :e :as satisfied all t:e requirements including :is sc:ool records- before 7re7aring :imself for t:e bar examination& Certainly- ta8ing t:e bar examinations does not only entail a mental 7re7aration on t:e subBects t:ereofG t:ere are also 7rerequisites of documentation and submission of requirements 9:ic: t:e 7ros7ecti%e examinee must meet& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e assailed decision of t:e Court of A77eals is AFF2RA4D 9it: A5D2F2CAT25'& 6etitioner is 5RD4R4D to 6A@ res7ondent t:e sum of T:irty#fi%e T:ousand Four Fundred 3e%enty 6esos (63.-+)!&!!$- 9it: legal interest of *] per annum com7uted from t:e date of filing of t:e com7laint until fully 7aidG t:e amount of Fi%e T:ousand 6esos (6.-!!!&!!$ as attorney;s feesG and t:e costs of t:e suit& T:e a9ard of moral damages is D4(4T4D& "[97:i"&nht ############### ARTURO P. VALENZUELA and HOSPITALITA N. VALENZUELA %& THE HONORA+LE COURT OF APPEALS, +IENVENIDO M. ARAGON, RO+ERT E. PARNELL, CARLOS K. CATOLICO and THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. G&R& 'o& /3" &5ctober ",- ",,! G1T24RR4Y- CR&- J.: T:is is a 7etition for re%ie9 of t:e Canuary ,- ",// decision of t:e Court of A77eals and t:e A7ril )",// resolution denying t:e 7etitioners; motion for reconsideration- 9:ic: decision and resolution re%ersed t:e decision dated Cune 3-",/* of t:e Court of First 2nstance of Aanila- 0ranc: 3+ in Ci%il Case 'o& " "" * u7:olding t:e 7etitioners; causes of action and granting all t:e reliefs 7rayed for in t:eir com7laint against 7ri%ate res7ondents& T:e antecedent facts of t:e case are as follo9s: 6etitioner Arturo 6& Ealen=uela (Ealen=uela for s:ort$ is a General Agent of 7ri%ate res7ondent 6:ili77ine American General 2nsurance Com7any- 2nc& (6:ilamgen for s:ort$ since ",*.& As suc:- :e 9as aut:ori=ed to solicit and sell in be:alf of 6:ilamgen all 8inds of non#life insurance- and in consideration of ser%ices rendered 9as entitled to recei%e t:e full agent;s commission of 3 &.] from 6:ilamgen under t:e sc:eduled commission rates (4x:ibits >A> and >">$& From ",)3 to ",).Ealen=uela solicited marine insurance from one of :is clients- t:e Delta Aotors- 2nc& (Di%ision of

172
4lectronics Airconditioning and Refrigeration$ in t:e amount of 6+&+ Aillion from 9:ic: :e 9as entitled to a commission of 3 ] (4x:ibit >0>$& Fo9e%er- Ealen=uela did not recei%e :is full commission 9:ic: amounted to 6"&* Aillion from t:e 6+&+ Aillion insurance co%erage of t:e Delta Aotors& During t:e 7eriod ",)* to ",)/- 7remium 7ayments amounting to 6"-,+*-//*&!! 9ere 7aid directly to 6:ilamgen and Ealen=uela;s commission to 9:ic: :e is entitled amounted to 6*3 -)3)&!!& 2n ",))- 6:ilamgen started to become interested in and ex7ressed its intent to s:are in t:e commission due Ealen=uela (4x:ibits >222> and >222#">$ on a fifty#fifty basis (4x:ibit >C>$& Ealen=uela refused (4x:ibit >D>$& 5n February /- ",)/ 6:ilamgen and its 6resident- 0ien%enido A& Aragon insisted on t:e s:aring of t:e commission 9it: Ealen=uela (4x:ibit 4$& T:is 9as follo9ed by anot:er s:aring 7ro7osal dated Cune "- ",)/& 5n Cune "*-",)/- Ealen=uela firmly reiterated :is obBection to t:e 7ro7osals of res7ondents stating t:at: >2t is 9it: great reluctance t:at 2 :a%e to decline u7on request to signify my conformity to your alternati%e 7ro7osal regarding t:e 7ayment of t:e commission due me& Fo9e%er- 2 :a%e no c:oice for to do ot:er9ise 9ould be %iolati%e of t:e Agency Agreement executed bet9een our goodsel%es&> (4x:ibit 0#"$ 0ecause of t:e refusal of Ealen=uela- 6:ilamgen and its officers- namely: 0ien%enido Aragon- Carlos Catolico and Robert 4& 6arnell too8 drastic action against Ealen=uela& T:ey: (a$ re%ersed t:e commission due :im by not crediting in :is account t:e commission earned from t:e Delta Aotors- 2nc& insurance (4x:ibit >C> and > >$G (b$ 7laced agency transactions on a cas: and carry basisG (c$ t:reatened t:e cancellation of 7olicies issued by :is agency (4x:ibits >F> to >F# >$G and (d$ started to lea8 out ne9s t:at Ealen=uela :as a substantial account 9it: 6:ilamgen& All of t:ese acts resulted in t:e decline of :is business as insurance agent (4x:ibits >'>- >5>- >I> and >I#/>$& T:en on December )- ",)/- 6:ilamgen terminated t:e General Agency Agreement of Ealen=uela (4x:ibit >C>- 77& "#3Decision Trial Court dated Cune 3- ",/*- Ci%il Case 'o& " "" *- Annex 2- 6etition$& T:e 7etitioners soug:t relief by filing t:e com7laint against t:e 7ri%ate res7ondents in t:e court a 0uo (Com7laint of Canuary +- ",),- Annex >F> 6etition$& After due 7roceedings- t:e trial court found: xxx xxx xxx Defendants tried to Bustify t:e termination of 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela as one of defendant 6F2(AAG4';s General Agent by ma8ing it a77ear t:at 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela :as a substantial account 9it: defendant 6F2(AAG4' 7articularly Delta Aotors- 2nc&;s Account- t:ereby 7reBudicing defendant 6F2(AAG4';s interest (4x:ibits *->"">->""# >" # A>and>"3#A>$& Defendants also in%o8ed t:e 7ro%isions of t:e Ci%il Code of t:e 6:ili77ines (Article "/*/$ and t:e 7ro%isions of t:e General Agency Agreement as t:eir basis for terminating 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela as one of t:eir General Agents& T:at defendants; 7osition could :a%e been Bustified :ad t:e termination of 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela 9as (sic$ based solely on t:e 7ro%isions of t:e Ci%il Code and t:e conditions of t:e General Agency Agreement& 0ut t:e records 9ill s:o9 t:at t:e 7rinci7al cause of t:e termination of t:e 7laintiff as General Agent of defendant 6F2(AAG4' 9as :is refusal to s:are :is Delta commission& T:at it s:ould be noted t:at t:ere 9ere se%eral attem7ts made by defendant 0ien%enido A& Aragon to s:are 9it: t:e Delta commission of 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela& Fe :ad 7ersistently 7ursued t:e s:aring sc:eme to t:e 7oint of terminating 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela- and to ma8e matters 9orse- defendants made it a77ear t:at 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela :ad substantial accounts 9it: defendant 6F2(AAG4'& 'ot only t:at- defendants :a%e also started (a$ to treat se7arately t:e Delta Commission of 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela- (b$ to re%erse t:e Delta commission due 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela by not crediting or a77lying said commission earned to t:e account of

173
7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela- (c$ 7laced 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela;s agency transactions on a >cas: and carry basis>- (d$ sending t:reats to cancel existing 7olicies issued by 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela;s agency- (e$ to di%ert 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela;s insurance business to ot:er agencies- and (f$ to s7read 9ild and malicious rumors t:at 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela :as substantial account 9it: defendant 6F2(AAG4' to force 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela into agreeing 9it: t:e s:aring of :is Delta commission&> (77& ,#"!- Decision- Annex "- 6etition$& xxx xxx xxx T:ese acts of :arrassment done by defendants on 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela to force :im to agree to t:e s:aring of :is Delta commission- 9:ic: culminated in t:e termination of 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela as one of defendant 6F2(AAG4';s General Agent- do not Bustify said termination of t:e General Agency Agreement entered into by defendant 6F2(AAG4' and 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela& T:at since defendants are not Bustified in t:e termination of 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela as one of t:eir General Agents- defendants s:all be liable for t:e resulting damage and loss of business of 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela& (Arts& ",,H !!- Ci%il Code of t:e 6:ili77ines$& (2bid- 7& ""$ T:e court accordingly rendered Budgment- t:e dis7ositi%e 7ortion of 9:ic: reads: ?F4R4F5R4- Budgment is :ereby rendered in fa%or of t:e 7laintiffs and against defendants ordering t:e latter to reinstate 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela as its General Agent- and to 7ay 7laintiffs- Bointly and se%erally- t:e follo9ing: "& T:e amount of fi%e :undred t9enty#one t:ousand nine :undred sixty four and "*H"!! 7esos (6. "-,*+&"*$ re7resenting 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela;s Delta Commission 9it: interest at t:e legal rate from t:e time of t:e filing of t:e com7laint- 9:ic: amount s:all be adBusted in accordance 9it: Article " .! of t:e Ci%il Code of t:e 6:ili77inesG & T:e amount of se%enty#fi%e t:ousand 7esos (6).-!!!&!!$ 7er mont: as com7ensatory damages from ",/! until suc: time t:at defendant 6:ilamgen s:all reinstate 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela as one of its general agentsG 3& T:e amount of t:ree :undred fifty t:ousand 7esos (63.!-!!!&!!$ for eac: 7laintiff as moral damagesG +& T:e amount of se%enty#fi%e t:ousand 7esos (6).-!!!&!!$ as and for attorney;s feesG .& Costs of t:e suit& (2bid&- 6& " $ From t:e aforesaid decision of t:e trial court- 0ien%enido Aragon- Robert 4& 6arnellCarlos I& Catolico and 6F2(AAG4' res7ondents :erein- and defendants#a77ellants belo9- inter7osed an a77eal on t:e follo9ing: A332G'A4'T 5F 4RR5R3 2 TF4 (5?4R C51RT 4RR4D 2' F5(D2'G TFAT 6(A2'T2FF ART1R5 6& EA(4'Y14(A FAD '5 51T3TA'D2'G ACC51'T ?2TF D4F4'DA'T 6F2(AAG4' AT TF4 T2A4 5F TF4 T4RA2'AT25' 5F TF4 AG4'C@& 22 TF4 (5?4R C51RT 4RR4D 2' F5(D2'G TFAT 6(A2'T2FF ART1R5 6& EA(4'Y14(A 23 4'T2T(4D T5 TF4 F1(( C5AA23325' 5F 3 &.] 5' TF4 D4(TA ACC51'T& 222

174
TF4 (5?4R C51RT 4RR4D 2' F5(D2'G TFAT TF4 T4RA2'AT25' 5F 6(A2'T2FF ART1R5 6& EA(4'Y14(A ?A3 '5T C13T2F24D A'D TFAT C5'34<14'T(@ D4F4'DA'T3 AR4 (2A0(4 F5R ACT1A( A'D A5RA( DAAAG43- ATT5R'4@3 F443 A'D C53T3& 2E A331A2'G ARG14'D5 TFAT TF4 A?ARD 5F DAAAG43 AGA2'3T D4F4'DA'T 6F2(AAG4' ?A3 6R564R- TF4 (5?4R C51RT 4RR4D 2' A?ARD2'G DAAAG43 4E4' AGA2'3T TF4 2'D2E2D1A( D4F4'DA'T3 ?F5 AR4 A4R4 C5R65RAT4 AG4'T3 ACT2'G ?2TF2' TF4 3C564 5F TF42R A1TF5R2T@& E A331A2'G ARG14'D5 TFAT TF4 A?ARD 5F DAAAG43 2' FAE5R 5F 6(A2'T2FF ART1R5 6& EA(4'Y14(A ?A3 6R564R- TF4 (5?4R C51RT 4RR4D 2' A?ARD2'G DAAAG43 2' FAE5R 5F F5362TA(2TA EA(4'Y14(A- ?F5- '5T 042'G TF4 R4A( 6ART@ 2' 2'T4R43T 23 '5T T5 50TA2' R4(24F& 5n Canuary ,- ",//- res7ondent Court of A77eals 7romulgated its decision in t:e a77ealed case& T:e dis7ositi%e 7ortion of t:e decision reads: ?F4R4F5R4- t:e decision a77ealed from is :ereby modified accordingly and Budgment is :ereby rendered ordering: "& 6laintiff#a77ellee Ealen=uela to 7ay defendant#a77ellant 6:ilamgen t:e sum of one million nine :undred t:irty t9o t:ousand fi%e :undred t:irty#t9o 7esos and se%enteen centa%os (6"-,! -.3 &")$- 9it: legal interest t:ereon from t:e date of finality of t:is Budgment until fully 7aid& & 0ot: 7laintiff#a77ellees to 7ay Bointly and se%erally defendants#a77ellants t:e sum of fifty t:ousand 7esos (6.!-!!!&!!$ as and by 9ay of attorney;s fees& 'o 7ronouncement is made as to costs& (7& ++- ,ollo$ T:ere is in t:is instance irreconcilable di%ergence in t:e findings and conclusions of t:e Court of A77eals- vis7a7vist:ose of t:e trial court 7articularly on t:e 7i%otal issue 9:et:er or not 6:ilamgen andHor its officers can be :eld liable for damages due to t:e termination of t:e General Agency Agreement it entered into 9it: t:e 7etitioners& 2n its questioned decision t:e Court of A77eals obser%ed t:at: 2n any e%ent t:e 7rinci7al;s 7o9er to re%o8e an agency at 9ill is so 7er%asi%e- t:at t:e 3u7reme Court :as consistently :eld t:at termination may be effected e%en if t:e 7rinci7al acts in bad fait:- subBect only to t:e 7rinci7al;s liability for damages (Danon %& Antonio A& 0rimo & Co&- + 6:il& "33G Reyes %& Aosqueda- .3 5&G& "./ and 2nfante E& Cunanan- ,3 6:il& *,"- cited in 6aras- Eol& E- Ci%il Code of t:e 6:ili77ines Annotated M",/*N *,*$& T:e lo9er court- :o9e%er- t:oug:t t:e termination of Ealen=uela as General Agent im7ro7er because t:e record 9ill s:o9 t:e 7rinci7al cause of t:e termination of t:e 7laintiff as General Agent of defendant 6:ilamgen 9as :is refusal to s:are :is Delta commission& (Decision- 7& ,G 7& "3- ,ollo- +"$ 0ecause of t:e conflicting conclusions- t:is Court deemed it necessary in t:e interest of substantial Bustice to scrutini=e t:e e%idence and records of t:e cases& ?:ile it is an establis:ed 7rinci7le t:at t:e factual findings of t:e Court of A77eals are final and may not be re%ie9ed on a77eal to t:is Courtt:ere are :o9e%er certain exce7tions to t:e rule 9:ic: t:is Court :as recogni=ed and acce7tedamong 9:ic:- are 9:en t:e Budgment is based on a misa77re:ension of facts and 9:en t:e findings of t:e a77ellate court- are contrary to t:ose of t:e trial court (Aanla7a= %& Court of A77eals- "+) 3CRA 3* M",/)N$G Guita %& Court of A77eals- "3, 3CRA .)* M",/*N$& ?:ere t:e findings of t:e Court of

175
A77eals and t:e trial court are contrary to eac: ot:er- t:is Court may scrutini=e t:e e%idence on record (Cru= %& Court of A77eals- " , 3CRA M",/+NG Aendo=a %& Court of A77eals- ".* 3CRA .,) M",/)NG Aaclan %& 3antos- ".* 3CRA .+ M",/)N$& ?:en t:e conclusion of t:e Court of A77eals is grounded entirely on s7eculation- surmises or conBectures- or 9:en t:e inference made is manifestly mista8enabsurd or im7ossible- or 9:en t:ere is gra%e abuse of discretion- or 9:en t:e Budgment is based on a misa77re:ension of facts- and 9:en t:e findings of facts are conflict t:e exce7tion also a77lies (Aalaysian Airline 3ystem 0ernad %& Court of A77eals- ".* 3CRA 3 " M",/)N$& After a 7ainsta8ing re%ie9 of t:e entire records of t:e case and t:e findings of facts of bot: t:e court a 0uo and res7ondent a77ellate court- 9e are constrained to affirm t:e trial court;s findings and rule for t:e 7etitioners& ?e agree 9it: t:e court a 0uo t:at t:e 7rinci7al cause of t:e termination of Ealen=uela as General Agent of 6:ilamgen arose from :is refusal to s:are :is Delta commission& T:e records sustain t:e conclusions of t:e trial court on t:e a77arent bad faith of t:e 7ri%ate res7ondents in terminating t:e General Agency Agreement of 7etitioners& 2t is axiomatic t:at t:e findings of fact of a trial Budge are entitled to great 9eig:t (6eo7le %& Atanacio- " / 3CRA M",/+N$ and s:ould not be disturbed on a77eal unless for strong and cogent reasons- because t:e trial court is in a better 7osition to examine t:e e%idence as 9ell as to obser%e t:e demeanor of t:e 9itnesses 9:ile testifying (C:ase %& 0uencamino- 3r&- "3* 3CRA 3*. M",/.NG 6eo7le %& 6imentel- "+) 3CRA . M",/)NG and 0ali9ag Trans&- 2nc& %& Court of A77eals- "+) 3CRA / M",/)N$& 2n t:e case at bar- t:e records s:o9 t:at t:e findings and conclusions of t:e trial court are su77orted by substantial e%idence and t:ere a77ears to be no cogent reason to disturb t:em (Aendo=a %& Court of A77eals& ".* 3CRA .,) M",/)N$& As early as 3e7tember 3!-",))- 6:ilamgen told t:e 7etitioners of its desire to s:are t:e Delta Commission 9it: t:em& 2t stated t:at s:ould Delta bac8 out from t:e agreement- t:e 7etitioners 9ould be c:arged interests t:roug: a reduced commission after full 7ayment by Delta& 5n Canuary 3- ",)/ 6:ilamgen 7ro7osed reducing t:e 7etitioners; commissions by .!] t:us gi%ing t:em an agent;s commission of "*& .]& 5n February /- ",)/- 6:ilamgen insisted on t:e reduction sc:eme follo9ed on Cune "- ",)/ by still anot:er insistence on reducing commissions and 7ro7osing t9o alternati%e sc:emes for reduction& T:ere 9ere ot:er 7ressures& Demands to settle accounts- to confer and t:res: out differences regarding t:e 7etitioners; income and t:e t:reat to terminate t:e agency follo9ed& T:e 7etitioners 9ere told t:at t:e Delta commissions 9ould not be credited to t:eir account (4x:ibit >C>$& T:ey 9ere informed t:at t:e Ealen=uela agency 9ould be 7laced on a cas: and carry basis t:us remo%ing t:e *!#day credit for 7remiums due& (T3'&- Aarc: *- ",),- 77& .+#.)$& 4xisting 7olicies 9ere t:reatened to be cancelled (4x:ibits >F> and >"+>G T3'&- Aarc: *- ",),- 77& ,#3!$& T:e Ealen=uela business 9as t:reatened 9it: di%ersion to ot:er agencies& (4x:ibit >'''>$& Rumors 9ere also s7read about alleged accounts of t:e Ealen=uela agency (T3'&- Canuary .- ",/!7& +"$& T:e 7etitioners consistently o77osed t:e 7ressures to :and o%er t:e agency or :alf of t:eir commissions and for a treatment of t:e Delta account distinct from ot:er accounts& T:e 7ressures and demands- :o9e%er- continued until t:e agency agreement itself 9as finally terminated& 2t is also e%ident from t:e records t:at t:e agency in%ol%ing 7etitioner and 7ri%ate res7ondent is one >cou7led 9it: an interest-> and- t:erefore- s:ould not be freely re%ocable at t:e unilateral 9ill of t:e latter& 2n t:e insurance business in t:e 6:ili77ines- t:e most difficult and frustrating 7eriod is t:e solicitation and 7ersuasion of t:e 7ros7ecti%e clients to buy insurance 7olicies& 'ormally- agents 9ould encounter muc: embarrassment- difficulties- and oftentimes frustrations in t:e solicitation and 7rocurement of t:e insurance 7olicies& To sell 7olicies- an agent exerts great effort- 7atience- 7erse%erance- ingenuitytact- imagination- time and money& 2n t:e case of Ealen=uela- :e 9as able to build u7 an Agency from scratc: in ",*. to a :ig:ly 7roducti%e enter7rise 9it: gross billings of about T9o Aillion Fi%e Fundred T:ousand 6esos (6 -.!!-!!!&!!$ 7remiums 7er annum& T:e records sustain t:e finding t:at t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent started to co%et a s:are of t:e insurance business t:at Ealen=uela :ad built u7de%elo7ed and nurtured to 7rofitability t:roug: o%er t:irteen ("3$ years of 7atient 9or8 and

176
7erse%erance& ?:en Ealen=uela refused to s:are :is commission in t:e Delta account- t:e boom suddenly fell on :im& T:e 7ri%ate res7ondents by t:e sim7le ex7edient of terminating t:e General Agency Agreement a77ro7riated t:e entire insurance business of Ealen=uela& ?it: t:e termination of t:e General Agency Agreement- Ealen=uela 9ould no longer be entitled to commission on t:e rene9al of insurance 7olicies of clients sourced from :is agency& ?orse- des7ite t:e termination of t:e agency- 6:ilamgen continued to :old Ealen=uela Bointly and se%erally liable 9it: t:e insured for un7aid 7remiums& 1nder t:ese circumstances- it is clear t:at Ealen=uela :ad an interest in t:e continuation of t:e agency 9:en it 9as unceremoniously terminated not only because of t:e commissions :e s:ould continue to recei%e from t:e insurance business :e :as solicited and 7rocured but also for t:e fact t:at by t:e %ery acts of t:e res7ondents- :e 9as made liable to 6:ilamgen in t:e e%ent t:e insured fail to 7ay t:e 7remiums due& T:ey are esto77ed by t:eir o9n 7ositi%e a%erments and claims for damages& T:erefore- t:e res7ondents cannot state t:at t:e agency relations:i7 bet9een Ealen=uela and 6:ilamgen is not cou7led 9it: interest& >T:ere may be cases in 9:ic: an agent :as been induced to assume a res7onsibility or incur a liability- in reliance u7on t:e continuance of t:e aut:ority under suc: circumstances t:at- if t:e aut:ority be 9it:dra9n- t:e agent 9ill be ex7osed to 7ersonal loss or liability> (3ee A4C .*, 7& +!*$& Furt:ermore- t:ere is an exce7tion to t:e 7rinci7le t:at an agency is re%ocable at 9ill and t:at is 9:en t:e agency :as been gi%en not only for t:e interest of t:e 7rinci7al but for t:e interest of t:ird 7ersons or for t:e mutual interest of t:e 7rinci7al and t:e agent& 2n t:ese cases- it is e%ident t:at t:e agency ceases to be freely re%ocable by t:e sole 9ill of t:e 7rinci7al (3ee 6adilla- Ci%il Code Annotated- .* ed&- Eol& 2E 7& 3.!$& T:e follo9ing citations are a7ro7os: T:e 7rinci7al may not defeat t:e agent;s rig:t to indemnification by a termination of t:e contract of agency (4rs8ine %& C:e%rolet Aotors Co& "/. 'C +),- "") 34 )!*- 3 A(R ",*$& ?:ere t:e 7rinci7al terminates or re7udiates t:e agent;s em7loyment in %iolation of t:e contract of em7loyment and 9it:out cause &&& t:e agent is entitled to recei%e eit:er t:e amount of net losses caused and gains 7re%ented by t:e breac:- or t:e reasonable %alue of t:e ser%ices rendered& T:us- t:e agent is entitled to 7ros7ecti%e 7rofits 9:ic: :e 9ould :a%e made exce7t for suc: 9rongful termination 7ro%ided t:at suc: 7rofits are not conBectural- or s7eculati%e but are ca7able of determination u7on some fairly reliable basis& And a 7rinci7al;s re%ocation of t:e agency agreement made to a%oid 7ayment of com7ensation for a result 9:ic: :e :as actually accom7lis:ed (Fildendorf %& Fague- ,3 '? d ) G 'e9:all %& Cournal 6rinting Co&- "!. Ainn ++-"") '? /G Gaylen Aac:inery Cor7& %& 6itman#Aoore Co& MC&A& '@N )3 F d 3+!$ 2f a 7rinci7al %iolates a contractual or quasi#contractual duty 9:ic: :e o9es :is agentt:e agent may as a rule bring an a77ro7riate action for t:e breac: of t:at duty& T:e agent may in a 7ro7er case maintain an action at la9 for com7ensation or damages &&& A 9rongfully disc:arged agent :as a rig:t of action for damages and in suc: action t:e measure and element of damages are controlled generally by t:e rules go%erning any ot:er action for t:e em7loyer;s breac: of an em7loyment contract& (Riggs %& (indsay- "" 13 .!!- 3( 4d +",G Tiffin Glass Co& %& 3toe:r- .+ 5:io ".)- +3 '4 ),/$ At any rate- t:e question of 9:et:er or not t:e agency agreement is cou7led 9it: interest is :el7ful to t:e 7etitioners; cause but is not t:e 7rimary and com7elling reason& For t:e 7i%otal factor rendering 6:ilamgen and t:e ot:er 7ri%ate res7ondents liable in damages is t:at t:e termination by t:em of t:e General Agency Agreement 9as tainted 9it: bad fait:& Fence- if a 7rinci7al acts in bad fait: and 9it: abuse of rig:t in terminating t:e agency- t:en :e is liable in damages& T:is is in accordance 9it: t:e 7rece7ts in Fuman Relations ens:rined in our Ci%il Code t:at >e%ery 7erson must in t:e exercise of :is rig:ts and in t:e 7erformance of :is duties act 9it: Bustice- gi%e e%ery one :is due- and obser%e :onesty and good fait:: (Art& ",- Ci%il Code$- and e%ery 7erson 9:o- contrary to la9- 9ilfully or

177
negligently causes damages to anot:er- s:all indemnify t:e latter for t:e same (Art& !- id$& >Any 7erson 9:o 9ilfully causes loss or inBury to anot:er in a manner contrary to morals- good customs and 7ublic 7olicy s:all com7ensate t:e latter for t:e damages> (Art& "- id&$& As to t:e issue of 9:et:er or not t:e 7etitioners are liable to 6:ilamgen for t:e un7aid and uncollected 7remiums 9:ic: t:e res7ondent court ordered Ealen=uela to 7ay 6:ilamgen t:e amount of 5ne Aillion 'ine Fundred T:irty#T9o T:ousand Fi%e Fundred T:irty#T9o and ")H"!! 6esos (6"-,3 -.3 -")$ 9it: legal interest t:ereon until fully 7aid (Decision#Canuary !- ",//- 7& "*G 6etition- Annex >A>$- 9e rule t:at t:e res7ondent court erred in :olding Ealen=uela liable& ?e find no factual and legal basis for t:e a9ard& 1nder 3ection )) of t:e 2nsurance Code- t:e remedy for t:e non#7ayment of 7remiums is to 7ut an end to and render t:e insurance 7olicy not binding O 3ec& )) &&& M'Not9it:standing any agreement to t:e contrary- no 7olicy or contract of insurance is %alid and binding unless and until t:e 7remiums t:ereof :a%e been 7aid exce7t in t:e case of a life or industrial life 7olicy 9:ene%er t:e grace 7eriod 7ro%ision a77lies (6&D& *" - as amended ot:er9ise 8no9n as t:e 2nsurance Code of ",)+$ 2n &hilippine &hoeni. #urety and )nsuran%e, )n%. v. 4ood'or/s, )n%. (, 3CRA +", M",),N$ 9e :eld t:at t:e non#7ayment of 7remium does not merely sus7end but 7uts an end to an insurance contract since t:e time of t:e 7ayment is 7eculiarly of t:e essence of t:e contract& And in r%e v. "he !apital )nsuran%e and #urety !o. )n%.("") 3CRA *3- M",/ N$- 9e reiterated t:e rule t:at unless 7remium is 7aid- an insurance contract does not ta8e effect& T:us: 2t is to be noted t:at Delgado (Ca7ital 2nsurance & 3urety Co&- 2nc& %& Delgado- , 3CRA ")) M",*3N 9as decided in t:e lig:t of t:e 2nsurance Act before 3ec& ) 9as amended by t:e underscored 7ortion& 3u7ra& 6rior to t:e Amendment- an insurance contract 9as effecti%e e%en if t:e 7remium :ad not been 7aid so t:at an insurer 9as obligated to 7ay indemnity in case of loss and correlati%ely :e :ad also t:e rig:t to sue for 7ayment of t:e 7remium& But the amendment to #e%. @; has radi%ally %hanged the legal regime in that unless the premium is paid there is no insuran%e. > (Arce %& Ca7itol 2nsurance and 3urety Co&- 2nc&- "") 3CRA **G 4m7:asis su77lied$ 2n &hilippine &hoeni. #urety %ase- 9e :eld: Aoreo%er- an insurer %annot treat a %ontra%t as valid for the purpose of %olle%ting premiums and invalid for the purpose of indemnity. (Citing 2nsurance (a9 and 6ractice by Co:n Alan A77leman- Eol& ".- 7& 33"G 4m7:asis su77lied$ T:e foregoing findings are buttressed by 3ection ))* of t:e insurance Code (6residential Decree 'o& *" - 7romulgated on December "/- ",)+$- 9:ic: no9 7ro%ides t:at no contract of 2nsurance by an insurance com7any is %alid and binding unless and until t:e 7remium t:ereof :as been 7aid- not9it:standing any agreement to t:e contrary ()bid&- , 3CRA + .$ 6erforce- since admittedly t:e 7remiums :a%e not been 7aid- t:e 7olicies issued :a%e la7sed& T:e insurance co%erage did not go into effect or did not continue and t:e obligation of 6:ilamgen as insurer ceased& Fence- for 6:ilamgen 9:ic: :ad no more liability under t:e la7sed and inexistent 7olicies to demand- muc: less sue Ealen=uela for t:e un7aid 7remiums 9ould be t:e :eig:t of inBustice and unfair dealing& 2n t:is instance- 9it: t:e la7sing of t:e 7olicies t:roug: t:e non7ayment of 7remiums by t:e insured t:ere 9ere no more insurance contracts to s7ea8 of& As t:is Court :eld in t:e &hilippine &hoeni. #urety case- supra >t:e non#7ayment of 7remiums does not merely sus7end but 7uts an end to an insurance contract since t:e time of t:e 7ayment is 7eculiarly of t:e essence of t:e contract&> T:e res7ondent a77ellate court also seriously erred in according undue reliance to t:e re7ort of 0anaria and 0anaria and Com7any- auditors- t:at as of December 3"- ",)/- Ealen=uela o9ed 6:ilamgen 6"-. /-*,/&+!& T:is audit re7ort of 0anaria 9as commissioned by 6:ilamgen after Ealen=uela 9as almost t:roug: 9it: t:e 7resentation of :is e%idence& 2n essence- t:e 0anaria re7ort

178
started 9it: an unconfirmed and unaudited beginning balance of account of 6"-)./-"/.&+3 as of August !- ",)*& 0ut e%en 9it: t:at unaudited and unconfirmed beginning balance of 6"-)./-"/.&+30anaria still came u7 9it: t:e amount of 63-/*.&+, as Ealen=uela;s balance as of December ",)/ 9it: 6:ilamgen (4x:& >3/#A#3>$& 2n fact- as of December 3"- ",)*- and December 3"- ",))Ealen=uela :ad no un7aid account 9it: 6:ilamgen (Ref: Annexes >D>- >D#">- >4>- 6etitioner;s Aemorandum$& 0ut e%en disregarding t:ese annexes 9:ic: are records of 6:ilamgen and addressed to Ealen=uela in due course of business- t:e facts s:o9 t:at as of Culy ",))- t:e beginning balance of Ealen=uela;s account 9it: 6:ilamgen amounted to 6)++-".,&/!& T:is 9as confirmed by 6:ilamgen itself not only once but four (+$ times on different occasions- as s:o9n by t:e records& 5n A7ril 3-",)/- 6:ilamgen sent Ealen=uela a statement of account 9it: a beginning balance of 6)++-".,#/! as of Culy ",))& 5n Aay 3- ",)/- anot:er statement of account 9it: exactly t:e same beginning balance 9as sent to Ealen=uela& 5n 'o%ember ")- ",)/- 6:ilamgen sent still anot:er statement of account 9it: 6)++-".,&/! as t:e beginning balance& And on December Ealen=uela& !- ",)/- a statement of account 9it: exactly t:e same figure 9as sent to

2t 9as only after t:e filing of t:e com7laint t:at a radically different statement of accounts surfaced in court& Certainly- 6:ilamgen;s o9n statements made by its o9n accountants o%er a long 7eriod of time and co%ering examinations made on four different occasions must 7re%ail o%er unconfirmed and unaudited statements made to su77ort a 7osition made in t:e course of defending against a la9suit& 2t is not correct to say t:at Ealen=uela s:ould :a%e 7resented its o9n records to refute t:e unconfirmed and unaudited finding of t:e 0anaria auditor& T:e records of 6:ilamgen itself are t:e best refutation against figures made as an aftert:oug:t in t:e course of litigation& Aoreo%er- Ealen=uela as8ed for a meeting 9:ere t:e figures 9ould be reconciled& 6:ilamgen refused to meet 9it: :im andinstead- terminated t:e agency agreement& After off#setting t:e amount of 6)++-".,&/!- beginning balance as of Culy ",))- by 9ay of credits re7resenting t:e commission due from Delta and ot:er accounts- Ealen=uela :ad o%er7aid 6:ilamgen t:e amount of 6.3!-!+!&3) as of 'o%ember 3!- ",)/& 6:ilamgen cannot later be :eard to com7lain t:at it committed a mista8e in its com7utation& T:e alleged error may be gi%en credence if committed only once& 0ut as earlier stated- t:e reconciliation of accounts 9as arri%ed at four (+$ times on different occasions 9:ere 6:ilamgen 9as duly re7resented by its account executi%es& 5n t:e basis of t:ese admissions and re7resentations- 6:ilamgen cannot later on assume a different 7osture and claim t:at it 9as mista8en in its re7resentation 9it: res7ect to t:e correct beginning balance as of Culy ",)) amounting to 6)++-".,&/!& T:e 0anaria audit re7ort commissioned by 6:ilamgen is unreliable since its results are admittedly based on an unconfirmed and unaudited beginning balance of 6"-)./-"/.&+3 as of August !-",)*& As so a7tly stated by t:e trial court in its decision: Defendants also conducted an audit of accounts of 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela after t:e contro%ersy :as started& 2n fact- after :earing 7laintiffs :a%e already rested t:eir case& T:e results of said audit 9ere 7resented in Court to s:o9 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela;s accountability to defendant 6F2(AAG4'& Fo9e%er- t:e auditor- 9:en 7resented as 9itness in t:is case testified t:at t:e beginning balance of t:eir audit re7ort 9as based on an unaudited amount of 6"-)./-"/.&+3 (4x:ibit +*#A$ as of August !- ",)*- 9:ic: 9as un%erified and merely su77lied by t:e officers of defendant 6F2(AAG4'& 4%en defendants %ery o9n 4x:ibit 3/# A#3- s:o9ed t:at 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela;s balance as of ",)/ amounted to only 63-/*.&.,- not 6/ *-" /&+* as stated in

179
defendant 0ien%enido A& Aragon;s letter dated December !-",)/ (4x:ibit "+$ or 6"-. /-*,/&+! as reflected in defendant;s 4x:ibit +* (Audit Re7ort of 0anaria dated December +- ",/!$& T:ese glaring discre7ancy (sic$ in t:e accountability of 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela to defendant 6F2(AAG4' only lends credence to t:e claim of 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela t:at :e :as no outstanding account 9it: defendant 6F2(AAG4' 9:en t:e latter- t:ru defendant 0ien%enido A& Aragon- terminated t:e General Agency Agreement entered into by 7laintiff (4x:ibit A$ effecti%e Canuary 3"- ",), (see 4x:ibits > > and > # A>$& 6laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela :as s:o9n t:at as of 5ctober 3"- ",)/- :e :as o%er7aid defendant 6F2(AAG4' in t:e amount of 6.3-!+!&3) (4x:ibit >444>- 9:ic: com7utation 9as based on defendant 6F2(AAG4';s balance of 6)++-".,&/! furnis:ed on se%eral occasions to 7laintiff Arturo 6& Ealen=uela by defendant 6F2(AAG4' (4x:ibits F#"- EE- EE#"- ??- ??#" - @@ - @@# - YY and - YY# $& 6rescinding from t:e foregoing- and considering t:at t:e 7ri%ate res7ondents terminated Ealen=uela 9it: e%identmala fide it necessarily follo9s t:at t:e former are liable in damages& Res7ondent 6:ilamgen :as been a77ro7riating for itself all t:ese years t:e gross billings and income t:at it unceremoniously too8 a9ay from t:e 7etitioners& T:e 7re7onderance of t:e aut:orities sustain t:e 7re7osition t:at a 7rinci7al can be :eld liable for damages in cases of unBust termination of agency& 2n (anon v. Brimo- + 6:il& "33 M", "N$- t:is Court ruled t:at 9:ere no time for t:e continuance of t:e contract is fixed by its terms- eit:er 7arty is at liberty to terminate it at 9ill- subBect only to t:e ordinary requirements of good faith& T:e rig:t of t:e 7rinci7al to terminate :is aut:ority is absolute and unrestricted- exce7t only t:at :e may not do so in bad faith& T:e trial court in its decision a9arded to Ealen=uela t:e amount of 3e%enty Fi%e T:ousand 6esos (6).-!!!-!!$ 7er mont: as com7ensatory damages from Cune ",/! until its decision becomes final and executory& T:is a9ard is Bustified in t:e lig:t of t:e e%idence extant on record (4x:ibits >'>- >'#"!>>!>- >!#">- >6> and >6#">$ s:o9ing t:at t:e a%erage gross 7remium collection mont:ly of Ealen=uela o%er a 7eriod of four (+$ mont:s from December ",)/ to February ",),- amounted to o%er 63!!-!!!&!! from 9:ic: :e is entitled to a commission of 6"!!-!!!&!! more or less 7er mont:& Aoreo%er- :is annual sales 7roduction amounted to 6 -.!!-!!!&!! from 9:ere :e 9as gi%en 3 &.] commissions& 1nder Article !! of t:e ne9 Ci%il Code- >indemnification for damages s:all com7re:end not only t:e %alue of t:e loss suffered- but also t:at of t:e 7rofits 9:ic: t:e obligee failed to obtain&> T:e circumstances of t:e case- :o9e%er- require t:at t:e contractual relations:i7 bet9een t:e 7arties s:all be terminated u7on t:e satisfaction of t:e Budgment& 'o more claims arising from or as a result of t:e agency s:all be entertained by t:e courts after t:at date& ACC5RD2'G(@- t:e 7etition is GRA'T4D& T:e im7ugned decision of Canuary ,- ",// and resolution of A7ril )- ",// of res7ondent court are :ereby 34T A32D4& T:e decision of t:e trial court dated Canuary 3- ",/* in Ci%il Case 'o& " "" * is R42'3TAT4D 9it: t:e A5D2F2CAT25'3 t:at t:e amount of F2E4 F1'DR4D T?4'T@ 5'4 TF513A'D '2'4 F1'DR4D 32`T@#F51R A'D "*H"!! 64353 (6. "-,*+&"*$ re7resenting t:e 7etitioners Delta commission s:all earn only legal interests 9it:out any adBustments under Article " .! of t:e Ci%il Code and t:at t:e contractual relations:i7 bet9een Arturo 6& Ealen=uela and 6:ili77ine American General 2nsurance Com7any s:all be deemed terminated u7on t:e satisfaction of t:e Budgment as modified&

APOLONIO TANJANCO %& HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ARACELI SANTOS G&R& 'o& (#"/*3!&December ")- ",** R4@43- C&0&(&- J.:

180
A77eal from a decision of t:e Court of A77eals (in its Case 'o& ) "!#R$ re%o8ing an order of t:e Court of First 2nstance of Ri=al (in Ci%il Case 'o& <#+),)$ dismissing a77ellant;s action for su77ort and damages& T:e essential allegations of t:e com7laint are to t:e effect t:at- from December- ",.)- t:e defendant (a77ellee :erein$- A7olonio TanBanco- courted t:e 7laintiff- Araceli 3antos- bot: being of adult ageG t:at >defendant ex7ressed and 7rofessed :is undying lo%e and affection for 7laintiff 9:o also in due time reci7rocated t:e tender feelings>G t:at in consideration of defendant;s 7romise of marriage 7laintiff consented and acceded to defendant;s 7leas for carnal 8no9ledgeG t:at regularly until December ",.,- t:roug: :is 7rotestations of lo%e and 7romises of marriage- defendant succeeded in :a%ing carnal access to 7laintiff- as a result of 9:ic: t:e latter concei%ed a c:ildG t:at due to :er 7regnant condition- to a%oid embarrassment and social :umiliation- 7laintiff :ad to resign :er Bob as secretary in 20A 6:ili77ines- 2nc&- 9:ere s:e 9as recei%ing 6 3!&!! a mont:G t:at t:ereby 7laintiff became unable to su77ort :erself and :er babyG t:at due to defendant;s refusal to marry 7laintiff- as 7romised- t:e latter suffered mental anguis:- besmirc:ed re7utation- 9ounded feelings- moral s:oc8- and social :umiliation& T:e 7rayer 9as for a decree com7elling t:e defendant to recogni=e t:e unborn c:ild t:at 7laintiff 9as bearingG to 7ay :er not less t:an 6+3!&!! a mont: for :er su77ort and t:at of :er baby7lus 6"!!-!!!&!! in moral and exem7lary damages- 7lus 6"!-!!!&!! attorney;s fees& 17on defendant;s motion to dismiss- t:e court of first instance dismissed t:e com7laint for failure to state a cause of action& 6laintiff 3antos duly a77ealed to t:e Court of A77eals- and t:e latter ultimately decided t:e case:olding 9it: t:e lo9er court t:at no cause of action 9as s:o9n to com7el recognition of a c:ild as yet unborn- nor for its su77ort- but decreed t:at t:e com7laint did state a cause of action for damages7remised on Article " of t:e Ci%il Code of t:e 6:ili77ines- 7rescribing as follo9s: ART& "& Any 7erson 9:o 9ilfully causes loss or inBury to anot:er in a manner t:at is contrary to morals- good customs or 7ublic 7olicy s:all com7ensate t:e latter for t:e damage& T:e Court of A77eals- t:erefore- entered Budgment setting aside t:e dismissal and directing t:e court of origin to 7roceed 9it: t:e case& Defendant- in turn- a77ealed to t:is Court- 7leading t:at actions for breac: of a 7romise to marry are not 7ermissible in t:is Burisdiction- and in%o8ing t:e rulings of t:is Court in Estopa vs. &iansay- (# "+)33- 3e7tember 3!- ",*!G -ermosisima vs. !ourt of ppeals- (#"+* /- Canuary ,- ",* G and (e Jesus vs. #y5uia- ./ 6:il& //*& ?e find t:is a77eal meritorious& 2n :olding t:at t:e com7laint stated a cause of action for damages- under Article " abo%e mentionedt:e Court of A77eals relied u7on and quoted from t:e memorandum submitted by t:e Code Commission to t:e (egislature in ",+, to su77ort t:e original draft of t:e Ci%il Code& Referring to Article 3 of t:e draft (no9 Article " of t:e Code$- t:e Commission stated: 0ut t:e Code Commission :as gone fart:er t:an t:e s7:ere of 9rongs defined or determined by 7ositi%e la9& Fully sensible t:at t:ere are countless ga7s in t:e statutes- 9:ic: lea%e so many %ictims of moral 9rongs :el7less- e%en t:oug: t:ey :a%e actually suffered material and moral inBury- t:e Commission :as deemed it necessary- in t:e interest of Bustice- to incor7orate in t:e 7ro7osed Ci%il Code t:e follo9ing rule: >ART& 3& Any 7erson 9:o 9ilfully causes loss or inBury to anot:er in a manner t:at is contrary to morals- good customs or 7ublic 7olicy s:all com7ensate t:e latter for t:e damage&> An exam7le 9ill illustrate t:e 7ur%ie9 of t:e foregoing norm: >A> seduces t:e nineteen#year old daug:ter of >`>& A 7romise of marriage eit:er :as not been made- or can not be 7ro%ed& T:e girl becomes 7regnant& 1nder t:e 7resent la9s- t:ere is no crime- as t:e girl is abo%e eig:teen years of age& 'eit:er can any ci%il action for breac: of 7romise of marriage be filed& T:erefore-

181
t:oug: t:e grie%ous moral 9rong :as been committed- and t:oug: t:e girl and :er family :a%e suffered incalculable moral damage- s:e and :er 7arents cannot bring any action for damages& 0ut under t:e 7ro7osed article- s:e and :er 7arents 9ould :a%e suc: a rig:t of action& T:e Court of A77eals seems to :a%e o%erloo8ed t:at t:e exam7le set fort: in t:e Code Commission;s memorandum refers to a tort u7on a minor 9:o :as been sedu%ed& T:e essential feature is seductiont:at in la9 is more t:an mere sexual intercourse- or a breac: of a 7romise of marriageG it connotes essentially t:e idea of deceit- enticement- su7erior 7o9er or abuse of confidence on t:e 7art of t:e seducer to 9:ic: t:e 9oman :as yielded (1&3& %s& 0uena%entura- ) 6:il& " "G 1&3& %s& Arlante- , 6:il& .,.$& 2t :as been ruled in t:e 0uena%entura case (supra$ t:at O To constitute seduction t:ere must in all cases be some sufficient 7romise or inducement and the 'oman must yield be%ause of the promise or other indu%ement & 2f s:e consents merely from carnal lust and t:e intercourse is from mutual desire- t:ere is no seduction (+3 Cent& Dig& tit& 3eduction- 7ar& .*$& 3:e must be induced to de7art from t:e 7at: of %irtue by t:e use of some s7ecies of arts- 7ersuasions and 9iles- 9:ic: are calculated to :a%e and do :a%e t:at effect- and 9:ic: result in :er ultimately submitting :er 7erson to t:e sexual embraces of :er seducer ( ) 6:il& " 3$& And in American Curis7rudence 9e find: 5n t:e ot:er :and- in an action by t:e 9oman- t:e enticement- 7ersuasion or dece7tion is t:e essence of t:e inBuryG and a mere 7roof of intercourse is insufficient to 9arrant a reco%er& Accordingly it is not seduction 9:ere t:e 9illingness arises out of sexual desire or curiosity of t:e female- and t:e defendant merely affords :er t:e needed o77ortunity for t:e commission of t:e act& 2t :as been em7:asi=ed t:at to allo9 a reco%ery in all suc: cases 9ould tend to t:e demorali=ation of t:e female sex- and 9ould be a re9ard for unc:astity by 9:ic: a class of ad%enturesses 9ould be s9ift to 7rofit&> (+) Am& Cur& ** $ 0earing t:ese 7rinci7les in mind- let us examine t:e com7laint& T:e material allegations t:ere are as follo9s: 2& T:at t:e 7laintiff is of legal age- single- and residing at .* 3out: 4& Diliman- <ue=on City9:ile defendant is also of legal age- single and residing at . . 6adre Faura- Aanila- 9:ere :e may be ser%ed 9it: summonsG 22& T:at t:e 7laintiff and t:e defendant became acquainted 9it: eac: ot:er sometime in December- ",.) and soon t:ereafter- t:e defendant started %isiting and courting t:e 7laintiffG 222& T:at t:e defendant;s %isits 9ere regular and frequent and in due time t:e defendant ex7ressed and 7rofessed :is undying lo%e and affection for t:e 7laintiff 9:o also in due time reci7rocated t:e tender feelingsG 2E& T:at in t:e course of t:eir engagement- t:e 7laintiff and t:e defendant as are 9ont of young 7eo7le in lo%e :ad frequent outings and dates- became %ery close and intimate to eac: ot:er and sometime in Culy- ",./- in consideration of t:e defendant;s 7romises of marriage- t:e 7laintiff consented and acceded to t:e former;s earnest and re7eated 7leas to :a%e carnal 8no9ledge 9it: :imG E& T:at subsequent t:ereto and regularly until about Culy- ",., exce7t for a s:ort 7eriod in December- ",./ 9:en t:e defendant 9as out of t:e country- t:e defendant t:roug: :is 7rotestations of lo%e and 7romises of marriage succeeded in :a%ing carnal 8no9ledge 9it: t:e 7laintiffG E2& T:at as a result of t:eir intimate relations:i7- t:e 7laintiff started concei%ing 9:ic: 9as confirmed by a doctor sometime in Culy- ",.,G

182
E22& T:at u7on being certain of :er 7regnant condition- t:e 7laintiff informed t:e defendant and 7leaded 9it: :im to ma8e good :is 7romises of marriage- but instead of :onoring :is 7romises and rig:ting :is 9rong- t:e defendant sto77ed and refrained from seeing t:e 7laintiff since about Culy- ",., :as not %isited t:e 7laintiff and to all intents and 7ur7oses :as bro8en t:eir engagement and :is 7romises& 5%er and abo%e t:e 7artisan allegations- t:e facts stand out t:at for one 9:ole year- from ",./ to ",.,- t:e 7laintiff#a77ellee- a 9oman of adult age- maintained intimate sexual relations 9it: a77ellant9it: re7eated acts of intercourse& 3uc: conduct is incom7atible 9it: t:e idea of seduction& 6lainly t:ere is :ere %oluntariness and mutual 7assionG for :ad t:e a77ellant been decei%ed- :ad s:e surrendered exclusi%ely because of t:e deceit- artful 7ersuasions and 9iles of t:e defendant- s:e 9ould not :a%e again yielded to :is embraces- muc: less for one year- 9it:out exacting early fulfillment of t:e alleged 7romises of marriage- and 9ould :a%e cut c:art all sexual relations u7on finding t:at defendant did not intend to fulfill :is 7romises& Fence- 9e conclude t:at no case is made under Article " of t:e Ci%il Code- and no ot:er cause of action being alleged- no error 9as committed by t:e Court of First 2nstance in dismissing t:e com7laint& 5f course- t:e dismissal must be understood as 9it:out 7reBudice to 9:ate%er actions may corres7ond to t:e c:ild of t:e 7laintiff against t:e defendant#a77ellant- if any& 5n t:at 7oint- t:is Court ma8es no 7ronouncement- since t:e c:ild;s o9n rig:ts are not :ere in%ol%ed& F5R TF4 F5R4G52'G R4A35'3- t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals is re%ersed- and t:at of t:e Court of First 2nstance is affirmed& 'o costs&

GASHEM SHOOKAT +AKSH %& HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MARILOU T. GONZALES G&R& 'o& ,)33*&February ",- ",,3 DAE2D4- CR&- J.: T:is is an a77eal by %ertiorari under Rule +. of t:e Rules of Court see8ing to re%ie9 and set aside t:e Decision of t:e res7ondent Court of A77eals in CA#G&R& CE 'o& + .* 9:ic: affirmed in toto t:e "* 5ctober ",3, Decision of 0ranc: 3/ ((ingayen$ of t:e Regional Trial Court (RTC$ of 6angasinan in Ci%il Case 'o& "*.!3& 6resented is t:e issue of 9:et:er or not damages may be reco%ered for a breac: of 7romise to marry on t:e basis of Article " of t:e Ci%il Code of t:e 6:ili77ines& T:e antecedents of t:is case are not com7licated: 5n ) 5ctober ",/)- 7ri%ate res7ondent- 9it:out t:e assistance of counsel- filed 9it: t:e aforesaid trial court a com7laint for damages against t:e 7etitioner for t:e alleged %iolation of t:eir agreement to get married& 3:e alleges in said com7laint t:at: s:e is t9enty#t9o ( $ years old- single- Fili7ino and a 7retty lass of good moral c:aracter and re7utation duly res7ected in :er communityG 7etitioner- on t:e ot:er :and- is an 2ranian citi=en residing at t:e (o=ano A7artments- Guilig- Dagu7an City- and is an exc:ange student ta8ing a medical course at t:e (yceum 'ort:9estern Colleges in Dagu7an CityG before ! August ",/)- t:e latter courted and 7ro7osed to marry :erG s:e acce7ted :is lo%e on t:e condition t:at t:ey 9ould get marriedG t:ey t:erefore agreed to get married after t:e end of t:e sc:ool semester- 9:ic: 9as in 5ctober of t:at yearG 7etitioner t:en %isited t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent;s 7arents in 0aDaga- 0ugallon- 6angasinan to secure t:eir a77ro%al to t:e marriageG sometime in ! August ",/)t:e 7etitioner forced :er to li%e 9it: :im in t:e (o=ano A7artmentsG s:e 9as a %irgin before s:e began li%ing 9it: :imG a 9ee8 before t:e filing of t:e com7laint- 7etitioner;s attitude to9ards :er started to c:angeG :e maltreated and t:reatened to 8ill :erG as a result of suc: maltreatment- s:e sustained inBuriesG during a confrontation 9it: a re7resentati%e of t:e barangay ca7tain of Guilig a day before t:e filing of t:e com7laint- 7etitioner re7udiated t:eir marriage agreement and as8ed :er not to li%e 9it: :im anymore andG t:e 7etitioner is already married to someone li%ing in 0acolod City& 6ri%ate res7ondent t:en 7rayed for Budgment ordering t:e 7etitioner to 7ay :er damages in t:e amount of not less t:an 6+.-!!!&!!- reimbursement for actual ex7enses amounting to 6*!!&!!- attorney;s fees and

183
costs- and granting :er suc: ot:er relief and remedies as may be Bust and equitable& T:e com7laint 9as doc8eted as Ci%il Case 'o& "*.!3& 2n :is Ans9er 9it: Counterclaim- 7etitioner admitted only t:e 7ersonal circumstances of t:e 7arties as a%erred in t:e com7laint and denied t:e rest of t:e allegations eit:er for lac8 of 8no9ledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to t:e trut: t:ereof or because t:e true facts are t:ose alleged as :is 37ecial and Affirmati%e Defenses& Fe t:us claimed t:at :e ne%er 7ro7osed marriage to or agreed to be married 9it: t:e 7ri%ate res7ondentG :e neit:er soug:t t:e consent and a77ro%al of :er 7arents nor forced :er to li%e in :is a7artmentG :e did not maltreat :er- but only told :er to sto7 coming to :is 7lace because :e disco%ered t:at s:e :ad decei%ed :im by stealing :is money and 7ass7ortG and finally- no confrontation too8 7lace 9it: a re7resentati%e of t:e barangay ca7tain& 2nsisting- in :is Counterclaim- t:at t:e com7laint is baseless and unfounded and t:at as a result t:ereof- :e 9as unnecessarily dragged into court and com7elled to incur ex7enses- and :as suffered mental anxiety and a besmirc:ed re7utation- :e 7rayed for an a9ard of 6.-!!!&!! for miscellaneous ex7enses and 6 .-!!!&!! as moral damages& After conducting a 7re#trial on . Canuary ",//- t:e trial court issued a 6re#Trial 5rder embodying t:e sti7ulated facts 9:ic: t:e 7arties :ad agreed u7on- to 9it: "& T:at t:e 7laintiff is single and resident ( si%$ of 0aDaga- 0ugallon- 6angasinan- 9:ile t:e defendant is single- 2ranian citi=en and resident ( si%$ of (o=ano A7artment- GuiligDagu7an City since 3e7tember "- ",/) u7 to t:e 7resentG & T:at t:e defendant is 7resently studying at (yceum 'ort:9estern- Dagu7an CityCollege of Aedicine- second year medicine 7ro7erG 3& T:at t:e 7laintiff is (si%$ an em7loyee at Aabu:ay (unc:eonette - Fernande= A%enueDagu7an City since Culy- ",/* u7 to t:e 7resent and a (si%$ :ig: sc:ool graduateG +& T:at t:e 7arties :a77ened to 8no9 eac: ot:er 9:en t:e manager of t:e Aabu:ay (unc:eonette- Co::ny Rabino introduced t:e defendant to t:e 7laintiff on August 3",/*& After trial on t:e merits- t:e lo9er court- a77lying Article " of t:e Ci%il Code- rendered on "* 5ctober ",/, a decision fa%oring t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent& T:e 7etitioner 9as t:us ordered to 7ay t:e latter damages and attorney;s feesG t:e dis7ositi%e 7ortion of t:e decision reads: 2' TF4 (2GFT of t:e foregoing consideration- Budgment is :ereby rendered in fa%or of t:e 7laintiff and against t:e defendant& "& Condemning (si%$ t:e defendant to 7ay t:e 7laintiff t:e sum of t9enty t:ousand (6 !-!!!&!!$ 7esos as moral damages& & Condemning furt:er t:e defendant to 7lay t:e 7laintiff t:e sum of t:ree t:ousand (63-!!!&!!$ 7esos as atty;s fees and t9o t:ousand (6 -!!!&!!$ 7esos at ( si%$ litigation ex7enses and to 7ay t:e costs& 3& All ot:er claims are denied& T:e decision is anc:ored on t:e trial court;s findings and conclusions t:at (a$ 7etitioner and 7ri%ate res7ondent 9ere lo%ers- (b$ 7ri%ate res7ondent is not a 9oman of loose morals or questionable %irtue 9:o readily submits to sexual ad%ances- (c$ 7etitioner- t:roug: mac:inations- deceit and false 7retenses- 7romised to marry 7ri%ate res7ondent- d$ because of :is 7ersuasi%e 7romise to marry :ers:e allo9ed :erself to be deflo9ered by :im- (e$ by reason of t:at deceitful 7romise- 7ri%ate res7ondent and :er 7arents O in accordance 9it: Fili7ino customs and traditions O made some 7re7arations for t:e 9edding t:at 9as to be :eld at t:e end of 5ctober ",/) by loo8ing for 7igs and c:ic8ens- in%iting friends and relati%es and contracting s7onsors- (f$ 7etitioner did not fulfill :is 7romise to marry :er and (g$ suc: acts of t:e 7etitioner- 9:o is a foreigner and 9:o :as abused 6:ili77ine :os7itality- :a%e offended our sense of morality- good customs- culture and traditions& T:e trial court

184
ga%e full credit to t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent;s testimony because- inter alia- s:e 9ould not :a%e :ad t:e temerity and courage to come to court and ex7ose :er :onor and re7utation to 7ublic scrutiny and ridicule if :er claim 9as false& T:e abo%e findings and conclusions 9ere culled from t:e detailed summary of t:e e%idence for t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent in t:e foregoing decision- digested by t:e res7ondent Court as follo9s: According to 7laintiff- 9:o claimed t:at s:e 9as a %irgin at t:e time and t:at s:e ne%er :ad a boyfriend before- defendant started courting :er Bust a fe9 days after t:ey first met& Fe later 7ro7osed marriage to :er se%eral times and s:e acce7ted :is lo%e as 9ell as :is 7ro7osal of marriage on August !- ",/)- on 9:ic: same day :e 9ent 9it: :er to :er :ometo9n of 0aDaga- 0ugallon- 6angasinan- as :e 9anted to meet :er 7arents and inform t:em of t:eir relations:i7 and t:eir intention to get married& T:e 7:otogra7:s 4x:s& >A> to >4> (and t:eir submar8ings$ of defendant 9it: members of 7laintiff;s family or 9it: 7laintiff- 9ere ta8en t:at day& Also on t:at occasion- defendant told 7laintiffs 7arents and brot:ers and sisters t:at :e intended to marry :er during t:e semestral brea8 in 5ctober- ",/)- and because 7laintiff;s 7arents t:oug:t :e 9as good and trusted :im- t:ey agreed to :is 7ro7osal for :im to marry t:eir daug:ter- and t:ey li8e9ise allo9ed :im to stay in t:eir :ouse and slee7 9it: 7laintiff during t:e fe9 days t:at t:ey 9ere in 0ugallon& ?:en 7laintiff and defendant later returned to Dagu7an Cityt:ey continued to li%e toget:er in defendant;s a7artment& Fo9e%er- in t:e early days of 5ctober- ",/)- defendant 9ould tie 7laintiff;s :ands and feet 9:ile :e 9ent to sc:ooland :e e%en ga%e :er medicine at + o;cloc8 in t:e morning t:at made :er slee7 t:e 9:ole day and nig:t until t:e follo9ing day& As a result of t:is li%e#in relations:i7- 7laintiff became 7regnant- but defendant ga%e :er some medicine to abort t:e fetus& 3till 7laintiff continued to li%e 9it: defendant and 8e7t reminding :im of :is 7romise to marry :er until :e told :er t:at :e could not do so because :e 9as already married to a girl in 0acolod City& T:at 9as t:e time 7laintiff left defendant- 9ent :ome to :er 7arents- and t:ereafter consulted a la9yer 9:o accom7anied :er to t:e barangay ca7tain in Dagu7an City& 6laintiff- :er la9yer- :er godmot:er- and a barangay tanod sent by t:e barangay ca7tain 9ent to tal8 to defendant to still con%ince :im to marry 7laintiff- but defendant insisted t:at :e could not do so because :e 9as already married to a girl in 0acolod City- alt:oug: t:e trut:- as sti7ulated by t:e 7arties at t:e 7re#trial- is t:at defendant is still single& 6laintiff;s fat:er- a tricycle dri%er- also claimed t:at after defendant :ad informed t:em of :is desire to marry Aarilou- :e already loo8ed for s7onsors for t:e 9edding- started 7re7aring for t:e rece7tion by loo8ing for 7igs and c:ic8ens- and e%en already in%ited many relati%es and friends to t:e fort:coming 9edding& 6etitioner a77ealed t:e trial court;s decision to t:e res7ondent Court of A77eals 9:ic: doc8eted t:e case as CA#G&R& CE 'o& + .*& 2n :is 0rief- :e contended t:at t:e trial court erred (a$ in not dismissing t:e case for lac8 of factual and legal basis and (b$ in ordering :im to 7ay moral damagesattorney;s fees- litigation ex7enses and costs& 5n "/ February ",,"- res7ondent Court 7romulgated t:e c:allenged decision affirming in toto t:e trial court;s ruling of "* 5ctober ",/,& 2n sustaining t:e trial court;s findings of fact- res7ondent Court made t:e follo9ing analysis: First of all- 7laintiff- t:en only " years old 9:en s:e met defendant 9:o 9as already , years old at t:e time- does not a77ear to be a girl of loose morals& 2t is uncontradicted t:at s:e 9as a %irgin 7rior to :er unfortunate ex7erience 9it: defendant and ne%er :ad boyfriend& 3:e is- as described by t:e lo9er court- a barrio lass >not used and accustomed to trend of modern urban life>- and certainly 9ould ( si%$ not :a%e allo9ed >:erself to be deflo9ered by t:e defendant if t:ere 9as no 7ersuasi%e 7romise made by t:e defendant to marry :er&> 2n fact- 9e agree 9it: t:e lo9er court t:at 7laintiff and

185
defendant must :a%e been s9eet:earts or so t:e 7laintiff must :a%e t:oug:t because of t:e dece7tion of defendant- for ot:er9ise- s:e 9ould not :a%e allo9ed :erself to be 7:otogra7:ed 9it: defendant in 7ublic in so (si%$ lo%ing and tender 7oses as t:ose de7icted in t:e 7ictures 4x:s& >D> and >4>& ?e cannot belie%e- t:erefore- defendant;s 7retense t:at 7laintiff 9as a nobody to :im exce7t a 9aitress at t:e restaurant 9:ere :e usually ate& Defendant in fact admitted t:at :e 9ent to 7laintiff;s :ometo9n of 0aDaga0ugallon- 6angasinan- at least t:riceG at (si%$ t:e to9n fiesta on February )- ",/) (7& .+- tsn Aay "/- ",//$- at (si%$ a beac: 7arty toget:er 9it: t:e manager and em7loyees of t:e Aabu:ay (unc:eonette on Aarc: 3- ",/) (7& .!- tsn id&$- and on A7ril "- ",/) 9:en :e allegedly tal8ed to 7laintiff;s mot:er 9:o told :im to marry :er daug:ter (77& ..#.*- tsn id&$& ?ould defendant :a%e left Dagu7an City 9:ere :e 9as in%ol%ed in t:e serious study of medicine to go to 7laintiff;s :ometo9n in 0aDaga- 0ugallon- unless t:ere 9as (si%$ some 8ind of s7ecial relations:i7 bet9een t:emJ And t:is s7ecial relations:i7 must indeed :a%e led to defendant;s insincere 7ro7osal of marriage to 7laintiff- communicated not only to :er but also to :er 7arents- and ( si%$ Aarites Rabinot:e o9ner of t:e restaurant 9:ere 7laintiff 9as 9or8ing and 9:ere defendant first 7ro7osed marriage to :er- also 8ne9 of t:is lo%e affair and defendant;s 7ro7osal of marriage to 7laintiff- 9:ic: s:e declared 9as t:e reason 9:y 7laintiff resigned from :er Bob at t:e restaurant after s:e :ad acce7ted defendant;s 7ro7osal (77& *#)- tsn Aarc: )",//$& 17on t:e ot:er :and- a77ellant does not a77ear to be a man of good moral c:aracter and must t:in8 so lo9 and :a%e so little res7ect and regard for Fili7ino 9omen t:at :e o7enly admitted t:at 9:en :e studied in 0acolod City for se%eral years 9:ere :e finis:ed :is 0&3& 0iology before :e came to Dagu7an City to study medicine- :e :ad a common#la9 9ife in 0acolod City& 2n ot:er 9ords- :e also li%ed 9it: anot:er 9oman in 0acolod City but did not marry t:at 9oman- Bust li8e 9:at :e did to 7laintiff& 2t is not sur7rising- t:en- t:at :e felt so little com7unction or remorse in 7retending to lo%e and 7romising to marry 7laintiff- a young- innocent- trustful country girl- in order to satisfy :is lust on :er& and t:en concluded: 2n sum- 9e are strongly con%inced and so :old t:at it 9as defendant#a77ellant;s fraudulent and dece7ti%e 7rotestations of lo%e for and 7romise to marry 7laintiff t:at made :er surrender :er %irtue and 9oman:ood to :im and to li%e 9it: :im on t:e :onest and sincere belief t:at :e 9ould 8ee7 said 7romise- and it 9as li8e9ise t:ese (si%$ fraud and dece7tion on a77ellant;s 7art t:at made 7laintiff;s 7arents agree to t:eir daug:ter;s li%ing#in 9it: :im 7re7aratory to t:eir su77osed marriage& And as t:ese acts of a77ellant are 7al7ably and undoubtedly against morals- good customs- and 7ublic 7olicy- and are e%en gra%ely and dee7ly derogatory and insulting to our 9omen- coming as t:ey do from a foreigner 9:o :as been enBoying t:e :os7itality of our 7eo7le and ta8ing ad%antage of t:e o77ortunity to study in one of our institutions of learningdefendant#a77ellant s:ould indeed be made- under Art& " of t:e Ci%il Code of t:e 6:ili77ines- to com7ensate for t:e moral damages and inBury t:at :e :ad caused 7laintiff- as t:e lo9er court ordered :im to do in its decision in t:is case& 1nfa=ed by :is second defeat- 7etitioner filed t:e instant 7etition on * Aarc: ",,"G :e raises t:erein t:e single issue of 9:et:er or not Article " of t:e Ci%il Code a77lies to t:e case at bar& 2t is 7etitioner;s t:esis t:at said Article " is not a77licable because :e :ad not committed any moral 9rong or inBury or %iolated any good custom or 7ublic 7olicyG :e :as not 7rofessed lo%e or 7ro7osed marriage to t:e 7ri%ate res7ondentG and :e :as ne%er maltreated :er& Fe critici=es t:e trial court for liberally in%o8ing Fili7ino customs- traditions and culture- and ignoring t:e fact t:at since :e is a foreigner- :e is not con%ersant 9it: suc: Fili7ino customs- traditions and culture& As an 2ranian Aoslem- :e is not familiar 9it: Cat:olic and C:ristian 9ays& Fe stresses t:at e%en if :e :ad made a

186
7romise to marry- t:e subsequent failure to fulfill t:e same is excusable or tolerable because of :is Aoslem u7bringingG :e t:en alludes to t:e Auslim Code 9:ic: 7ur7ortedly allo9s a Auslim to ta8e four (+$ 9i%es and concludes t:at on t:e basis t:ereof- t:e trial court erred in ruling t:at :e does not 7osses good moral c:aracter& Aoreo%er- :is contro%ersial >common la9 life> is no9 :is legal 9ife as t:eir marriage :ad been solemni=ed in ci%il ceremonies in t:e 2ranian 4mbassy& As to :is unla9ful co:abitation 9it: t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent- 7etitioner claims t:at e%en if res7onsibility could be 7inned on :im for t:e li%e#in relations:i7- t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent s:ould also be faulted for consenting to an illicit arrangement& Finally- 7etitioner asse%erates t:at e%en if it 9as to be assumed arguendo t:at :e :ad 7rofessed :is lo%e to t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent and :ad also 7romised to marry :er- suc: acts 9ould not be actionable in %ie9 of t:e s7ecial circumstances of t:e case& T:e mere breac: of 7romise is not actionable& 5n * August ",,"- after t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent :ad filed :er Comment to t:e 7etition and t:e 7etitioner :ad filed :is Re7ly t:ereto- t:is Court ga%e due course to t:e 7etition and required t:e 7arties to submit t:eir res7ecti%e Aemoranda- 9:ic: t:ey subsequently com7lied 9it:& As may be gleaned from t:e foregoing summation of t:e 7etitioner;s arguments in su77ort of :is t:esis- it is clear t:at questions of fact- 9:ic: boil do9n to t:e issue of t:e credibility of 9itnesses- are also raised& 2t is t:e rule in t:is Burisdiction t:at a77ellate courts 9ill not disturb t:e trial court;s findings as to t:e credibility of 9itnesses- t:e latter court :a%ing :eard t:e 9itnesses and :a%ing :ad t:e o77ortunity to obser%e closely t:eir de7ortment and manner of testifying- unless t:e trial court :ad 7lainly o%erloo8ed facts of substance or %alue 9:ic:- if considered- mig:t affect t:e result of t:e case& 6etitioner :as miserably failed to con%ince 1s t:at bot: t:e a77ellate and trial courts :ad o%erloo8ed any fact of substance or %alues 9:ic: could alter t:e result of t:e case& 4qually settled is t:e rule t:at only questions of la9 may be raised in a 7etition for re%ie9 on %ertiorari under Rule +. of t:e Rules of Court& 2t is not t:e function of t:is Court to analy=e or 9eig: all o%er again t:e e%idence introduced by t:e 7arties before t:e lo9er court& T:ere are- :o9e%errecogni=ed exce7tions to t:is rule& T:us- inMedina vs& sistio- Jr&- t:is Court too8 t:e time- again- to enumerate t:ese exce7tions: xxx xxx xxx ("$ ?:en t:e conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on s7eculation- surmises or conBectures (Coaquin %& 'a%arro- ,3 6:il& .) M",.3N$G ( $ ?:en t:e inference made is manifestly mista8en- absurb or im7ossible ((una %& (inato8- )+ 6:il& ". M",+ N$G (3$ ?:ere t:ere is a gra%e abuse of discretion (0uyco %& 6eo7le- ,. 6:il& +.3 M",..N$G (+$ ?:en t:e Budgment is based on a misa77re:ension of facts (Cru= %& 3osing(#+/).- 'o%& )- ",.3$G (.$ ?:en t:e findings of fact are conflicting (Casica %& Eillaseca(#,.,! A7& 3!- ",.)G unre7&$ (*$ ?:en t:e Court of A77eals- in ma8ing its findings9ent beyond t:e issues of t:e case and t:e same is contrary to t:e admissions of bot: a77ellate and a77ellee (4%angelista %& Alto 3urety and 2nsurance Co&- "!3 6:il& +!" M",./N$G ()$ T:e findings of t:e Court of A77eals are contrary to t:ose of t:e trial court (Garcia %& Court of A77eals- 33 3CRA * M",)!NG 3acay %& 3andiganbayan- "+ 3CRA .,3 M",/*N$G (/$ ?:en t:e findings of fact are conclusions 9it:out citation of s7ecific e%idence on 9:ic: t:ey are based ( )bid&-$G (,$ ?:en t:e facts set fort: in t:e 7etition as 9ell as in t:e 7etitioners main and re7ly briefs are not dis7uted by t:e res7ondents ()bid&-$G and ("!$ T:e finding of fact of t:e Court of A77eals is 7remised on t:e su77osed absence of e%idence and is contradicted by t:e e%idence on record (3ala=ar %& Gutierre=- 33 3CRA + M",)!N$& 6etitioner :as not endea%ored to Boint out to 1s t:e existence of any of t:e abo%e quoted exce7tions in t:is case& Consequently- t:e factual findings of t:e trial and a77ellate courts must be res7ected& And no9 to t:e legal issue&

187
T:e existing rule is t:at a breac: of 7romise to marry per se is not an actionable 9rong& Congress deliberately eliminated from t:e draft of t:e 'e9 Ci%il Code t:e 7ro%isions t:at 9ould :a%e made it so& T:e reason t:erefor is set fort: in t:e re7ort of t:e 3enate Committees on t:e 6ro7osed Ci%il Codefrom 9:ic: ?e quote: T:e elimination of t:is c:a7ter is 7ro7osed& T:at breac: of 7romise to marry is not actionable :as been definitely decided in t:e case of De Cesus %s& 3yquia& T:e :istory of breac: of 7romise suits in t:e 1nited 3tates and in 4ngland :as s:o9n t:at no ot:er action lends itself more readily to abuse by designing 9omen and unscru7ulous men& 2t is t:is ex7erience 9:ic: :as led to t:e abolition of rig:ts of action in t:e so#called Feart 0alm suits in many of t:e American states& & & & T:is not9it:standing- t:e said Code contains a 7ro%ision- Article "- 9:ic: is designed to ex7and t:e conce7t of torts or 0uasi7deli%t in t:is Burisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for t:e untold number of moral 9rongs 9:ic: is im7ossible for :uman foresig:t to s7ecifically enumerate and 7unis: in t:e statute boo8s& As t:e Code Commission itself stated in its Re7ort: 0ut t:e Code Commission :ad gone fart:er t:an t:e s7:ere of 9rongs defined or determined by 7ositi%e la9& Fully sensible t:at t:ere are countless ga7s in t:e statutes9:ic: lea%e so many %ictims of moral 9rongs :el7less- e%en t:oug: t:ey :a%e actually suffered material and moral inBury- t:e Commission :as deemed it necessary- in t:e interest of Bustice- to incor7orate in t:e 7ro7osed Ci%il Code t:e follo9ing rule: Art& 3& Any 7erson 9:o 9ilfully causes loss or inBury to anot:er in a manner t:at is contrary to morals- good customs or 7ublic 7olicy s:all com7ensate t:e latter for t:e damage& An exam7le 9ill illustrate t:e 7ur%ie9 of t:e foregoing norm: >A> seduces t:e nineteen# year old daug:ter of >`>& A 7romise of marriage eit:er :as not been made- or can not be 7ro%ed& T:e girl becomes 7regnant& 1nder t:e 7resent la9s- t:ere is no crime- as t:e girl is abo%e nineteen years of age& 'eit:er can any ci%il action for breac: of 7romise of marriage be filed& T:erefore- t:oug: t:e grie%ous moral 9rong :as been committedand t:oug: t:e girl and family :a%e suffered incalculable moral damage- s:e and :er 7arents cannot bring action for damages& 0ut under t:e 7ro7osed article- s:e and :er 7arents 9ould :a%e suc: a rig:t of action& T:us at one stro8e- t:e legislator- if t:e forgoing rule is a77ro%ed- 9ould %ouc:safe adequate legal remedy for t:at untold number of moral 9rongs 9:ic: it is im7ossible for :uman foresig:t to 7ro%ide for s7ecifically in t:e statutes& Article ")* of t:e Ci%il Code- 9:ic: defines a 0uasi7deli%t t:us: ?:oe%er by act or omission causes damage to anot:er- t:ere being fault or negligenceis obliged to 7ay for t:e damage done& 3uc: fault or negligence- if t:ere is no 7re# existing contractual relation bet9een t:e 7arties- is called a 0uasi7deli%t and is go%erned by t:e 7ro%isions of t:is C:a7ter& is limited to negligent acts or omissions and excludes t:e notion of 9illfulness or intent& 5uasi7 deli%t- 8no9n in 37anis: legal treatises as %ulpa a0uiliana- is a ci%il la9 conce7t 9:ile torts is an Anglo#American or common la9 conce7t& "orts is muc: broader t:an %ulpa a0uiliana because it includes not only negligence- but international criminal acts as 9ell suc: as assault and battery- false im7risonment and deceit& 2n t:e general sc:eme of t:e 6:ili77ine legal system en%isioned by t:e Commission res7onsible for drafting t:e 'e9 Ci%il Codeintentional and malicious acts- 9it: certain exce7tions- are to be go%erned by t:e Re%ised 6enal Code 9:ile negligent acts or omissions are to be co%ered by Article ")* of t:e Ci%il Code& 2n bet9een t:ese o77osite s7ectrums are inBurious acts 9:ic:- in t:e absence of Article

188
"- 9ould :a%e been beyond redress& T:us- Article " fills t:at %acuum& 2t is e%en 7ostulated t:at toget:er 9it: Articles ", and ! of t:e Ci%il Code- Article " :as greatly broadened t:e sco7e of t:e la9 on ci%il 9rongsG it :as become muc: more su77le and ada7table t:an t:e Anglo#American la9 on torts& 2n t:e lig:t of t:e abo%e laudable 7ur7ose of Article "- ?e are of t:e o7inion- and so :old- t:at 9:ere a man;s 7romise to marry is in fact t:e 7roximate cause of t:e acce7tance of :is lo%e by a 9oman and :is re7resentation to fulfill t:at 7romise t:ereafter becomes t:e 7roximate cause of t:e gi%ing of :erself unto :im in a sexual congress- 7roof t:at :e :ad- in reality- no intention of marrying :er and t:at t:e 7romise 9as only a subtle sc:eme or dece7ti%e de%ice to entice or in%eigle :er to acce7t :im and to obtain :er consent to t:e sexual act- could Bustify t:e a9ard of damages 7ursuant to Article " not because of suc: 7romise to marry but because of t:e fraud and deceit be:ind it and t:e 9illful inBury to :er :onor and re7utation 9:ic: follo9ed t:ereafter& 2t is essential- :o9e%er- t:at suc: inBury s:ould :a%e been committed in a manner contrary to morals- good customs or 7ublic 7olicy& 2n t:e instant case- res7ondent Court found t:at it 9as t:e 7etitioner;s >fraudulent and dece7ti%e 7rotestations of lo%e for and 7romise to marry 7laintiff t:at made :er surrender :er %irtue and 9oman:ood to :im and to li%e 9it: :im on t:e :onest and sincere belief t:at :e 9ould 8ee7 said 7romise- and it 9as li8e9ise t:ese fraud and dece7tion on a77ellant;s 7art t:at made 7laintiff;s 7arents agree to t:eir daug:ter;s li%ing#in 9it: :im 7re7aratory to t:eir su77osed marriage&> 2n s:ort- t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent surrendered :er %irginity- t:e c:eris:ed 7ossession of e%ery single Fili7ina- not because of lust but because of moral seduction O t:e 8ind illustrated by t:e Code Commission in its exam7le earlier ad%erted to& T:e 7etitioner could not be :eld liable for criminal seduction 7unis:ed under eit:er Article 33) or Article 33/ of t:e Re%ised 6enal Code because t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as abo%e eig:teen ("/$ years of age at t:e time of t:e seduction& 6rior decisions of t:is Court clearly suggest t:at Article " may be a77lied in a breac: of 7romise to marry 9:ere t:e 9oman is a %ictim of moral seduction& T:us- in -ermosisima vs& !ourt of ppeals- t:is Court denied reco%ery of damages to t:e 9oman because: & & & 9e find oursel%es unable to say t:at 7etitioner is morally guilty of seduction- not only because :e is a77roximately ten ("!$ years younger t:an t:e com7lainant O 9:o 9as around t:irty#six (3*$ years of age- and as :ig:ly enlig:tened as a former :ig: sc:ool teac:er and a life insurance agent are su77osed to be O 9:en s:e became intimate 9it: 7etitioner- t:en a mere a77rentice 7ilot- but- also- because t:e court of first instance found t:at- com7lainant >surrendered :erself> to 7etitioner because>o%er9:elmed by :er lo%e> for :im- s:e > 'anted to bind> him by having a fruit of their engagement even before they had the benefit of %lergy& 2n "an*an%o vs& !ourt of ppeals- 9:ile t:is Court li8e9ise :inted at 7ossible reco%ery if t:ere :ad been moral seduction- reco%ery 9as e%entually denied because ?e 9ere not con%inced t:at suc: seduction existed& T:e follo9ing enlig:tening disquisition and conclusion 9ere made in t:e said case: T:e Court of A77eals seem to :a%e o%erloo8ed t:at t:e exam7le set fort: in t:e Code Commission;s memorandum refers to a tort u7on a minor 9:o :ad been sedu%ed& T:e essential feature is seduction- t:at in la9 is more t:an mere sexual intercourse- or a breac: of a 7romise of marriageG it connotes essentially t:e idea of deceit- enticementsu7erior 7o9er or abuse of confidence on t:e 7art of t:e seducer to 9:ic: t:e 9oman :as yielded (1&3& %s& 0uena%entura- ) 6:il& " "G 1&3& %s& Arlante- , 6:il& .,.$& 2t :as been ruled in t:e Buenaventura case (supra$ t:at O To constitute seduction t:ere must in all cases be some sufficient 7romise or inducementand the 'oman must yield be%ause of the promise or other indu%ement& 2f s:e consents merely from carnal lust and t:e intercourse is from mutual desire- t:ere is no seduction (+3 Cent& Dig& tit& 3eduction- 7ar& .*$ 3:e must be induced to de7art from t:e 7at: of

189
%irtue by t:e use of some s7ecies of arts- 7ersuasions and 9iles- 9:ic: are calculated to :a%e and do :a%e t:at effect- and 9:ic: result in :er 7erson to ultimately submitting :er 7erson to t:e sexual embraces of :er seducer ( ) 6:il& " 3$& And in American Curis7rudence 9e find: 5n t:e ot:er :and- in an action by t:e 9oman- t:e enticement7ersuasion or dece7tion is t:e essence of t:e inBuryG and a mere 7roof of intercourse is insufficient to 9arrant a reco%ery& Accordingly it is not seduction 9:ere t:e 9illingness arises out of sexual desire of curiosity of t:e female- and t:e defendant merely affords :er t:e needed o77ortunity for t:e commission of t:e act& 2t :as been em7:asi=ed t:at to allo9 a reco%ery in all suc: cases 9ould tend to t:e demorali=ation of t:e female sex- and 9ould be a re9ard for unc:astity by 9:ic: a class of ad%enturesses 9ould be s9ift to 7rofit& (+) Am& Cur& ** $ xxx xxx xxx 5%er and abo%e t:e 7artisan allegations- t:e fact stand out t:at for one 9:ole year- from ",./ to ",.,- t:e 7laintiff#a77ellee- a 9oman of adult age- maintain intimate sexual relations 9it: a77ellant- 9it: re7eated acts of intercourse& 3uc: conduct is incom7atible 9it: t:e idea of seduction& 6lainly t:ere is :ere %oluntariness and mutual 7assionG for :ad t:e a77ellant been decei%ed- :ad s:e surrendered exclusi%ely because of t:e deceit- artful 7ersuasions and 9iles of t:e defendant- s:e 9ould not :a%e again yielded to :is embraces- muc: less for one year- 9it:out exacting early fulfillment of t:e alleged 7romises of marriage- and 9ould :a%e cut s:ort all sexual relations u7on finding t:at defendant did not intend to fulfill :is defendant did not intend to fulfill :is 7romise& Fence- 9e conclude t:at no case is made under article " of t:e Ci%il Code- and no ot:er cause of action being alleged- no error 9as committed by t:e Court of First 2nstance in dismissing t:e com7laint& 2n :is annotations on t:e Ci%il Code- Associate Custice 4dgardo (& 6aras- 9:o recently retired from t:is Court- o7ined t:at in a breac: of 7romise to marry 9:ere t:ere :ad been carnal 8no9ledge- moral damages may be reco%ered: & & & if t:ere be %riminal or moral sedu%tion- but not if t:e intercourse 9as due to mutual lust& (Fermosisima %s& Court of A77eals(#"+* /- 3e7t& 3!- ",*!G 4sto7a %s& 6iansay- Cr&- (#"+)33- 3e7t& 3!- ",*!G 0atarra %s& Aarcos- ) 6:il& .* (si%$G 0eatri= Galang %s& Court of A77eals- et al&- (#") +/- Can& ,",* $& (2n ot:er 9ords- if t:e CA134 be t:e 7romise to marry- and t:e 4FF4CT be t:e carnal 8no9ledge- t:ere is a c:ance t:at t:ere 9as %riminal or moral sedu%tion- :ence reco%ery of moral damages 9ill 7ros7er& 2f it be t:e ot:er 9ay around- t:ere can be no reco%ery of moral damages- because :ere mutual lust :as inter%ened$& & & & toget:er 9it: >ACT1A( damages- s:ould t:ere be any- suc: as t:e ex7enses for t:e 9edding 7resentations (3ee Domalagon %& 0olifer- 33 6:il& +)"$& 3enator Arturo A& Tolentino is also of t:e same 7ersuasion: 2t is submitted t:at t:e rule in Batarra vs& Mar%os, still subsists- not9it:standing t:e incor7oration of t:e 7resent article in t:e Code& T:e exam7le gi%en by t:e Code Commission is correct- if t:ere 9as sedu%tion- not necessarily in t:e legal sense- but in t:e %ulgar sense of dece7tion& 0ut 9:en t:e sexual act is accom7lis:ed 9it:out any deceit or qualifying circumstance of abuse of aut:ority or influence- but t:e 9oman-

190
already of age- :as 8no9ingly gi%en :erself to a man- it cannot be said t:at t:ere is an inBury 9:ic: can be t:e basis for indemnity& 0ut so long as t:ere is fraud- 9:ic: is c:aracteri=ed by 9illfulness ( si%$- t:e action lies& T:e court- :o9e%er- must 9eig: t:e degree of fraud- if it is sufficient to decei%e t:e 9oman under t:e circumstances- because an act 9:ic: 9ould decei%e a girl sixteen years of age may not constitute deceit as to an ex7erienced 9oman t:irty years of age& 0ut so long as t:ere is a 9rongful act and a resulting inBury- t:ere s:ould be ci%il liabilitye%en if t:e act is not 7unis:able under t:e criminal la9 and t:ere s:ould :a%e been an acquittal or dismissal of t:e criminal case for t:at reason& ?e are unable to agree 9it: t:e 7etitioner;s alternati%e 7ro7osition to t:e effect t:at granting- for argument;s sa8e- t:at :e did 7romise to marry t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent- t:e latter is ne%ert:eless also at fault& According to :im- bot: 7arties are in pari deli%toG :ence- 7ursuant to Article "+" ("$ of t:e Ci%il Code and t:e doctrine laid do9n in Batarra vs& Mar%os- t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent cannot reco%er damages from t:e 7etitioner& T:e latter e%en goes as far as stating t:at if t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent :ad >sustained any inBury or damage in t:eir relations:i7- it is 7rimarily because of :er o9n doing- for: & & & 3:e is also interested in t:e 7etitioner as t:e latter 9ill become a doctor sooner or later& Ta8e notice t:at s:e is a 7lain :ig: sc:ool graduate and a mere em7loyee & & & (Annex >C>$ or a 9aitress (T3'- 7& ."- Canuary .- ",//$ in a lunc:eonette and 9it:out doubt- is in need of a man 9:o can gi%e :er economic security& Fer family is in dire need of financial assistance& (T3'- 77& ."#.3- Aay "/- ",//$& And t:is 7redicament 7rom7ted :er to acce7t a 7ro7osition t:at may :a%e been offered by t:e 7etitioner& T:ese statements re%eal t:e true c:aracter and moti%e of t:e 7etitioner& 2t is clear t:at :e :arbors a condescending- if not sarcastic- regard for t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent on account of t:e latter;s ignoble birt:- inferior educational bac8ground- 7o%erty and- as 7ercei%ed by :im- dis:onorable em7loyment& 5b%iously t:en- from t:e %ery beginning- :e 9as not at all mo%ed by good fait: and an :onest moti%e& Aarrying 9it: a 9oman so circumstances could not :a%e e%en remotely occurred to :im& T:us- :is 7rofession of lo%e and 7romise to marry 9ere em7ty 9ords directly intended to fool- du7e- enticebeguile and decei%e t:e 7oor 9oman into belie%ing t:at indeed- :e lo%ed :er and 9ould 9ant :er to be :is life;s 7artner& Fis 9as not:ing but 7ure lust 9:ic: :e 9anted satisfied by a Fili7ina 9:o :onestly belie%ed t:at by acce7ting :is 7roffer of lo%e and 7ro7osal of marriage- s:e 9ould be able to enBoy a life of ease and security& 6etitioner clearly %iolated t:e Fili7ino;s conce7t of morality and bra=enly defied t:e traditional res7ect Fili7inos :a%e for t:eir 9omen& 2t can e%en be said t:at t:e 7etitioner committed suc: de7lorable acts in blatant disregard of Article ", of t:e Ci%il Code 9:ic: directs e%ery 7erson to act 9it: Bustice- gi%e e%eryone :is due and obser%e :onesty and good fait: in t:e exercise of :is rig:ts and in t:e 7erformance of :is obligations& 'o foreigner must be allo9ed to ma8e a moc8ery of our la9s- customs and traditions& T:e pari deli%to rule does not a77ly in t:is case for 9:ile indeed- t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent may not :a%e been im7elled by t:e 7urest of intentions- s:e e%entually submitted to t:e 7etitioner in sexual congress not out of lust- but because of moral seduction& 2n fact- it is a77arent t:at s:e :ad qualms of conscience about t:e entire e7isode for as soon as s:e found out t:at t:e 7etitioner 9as not going to marry :er after all- s:e left :im& 3:e is not- t:erefore- in pari deli%to 9it: t:e 7etitioner& &ari deli%to means >in equal faultG in a similar offense or crimeG equal in guilt or in legal fault&> At most- it could be conceded t:at s:e is merely in deli%to& 4quity often interferes for t:e relief of t:e less guilty of t:e 7arties- 9:ere :is transgression :as been broug:t about by t:e im7osition of undue influence of t:e 7arty on 9:om t:e burden of t:e original 9rong 7rinci7ally rests- or 9:ere :is consent to t:e transaction 9as itself 7rocured by fraud& 2n Mangayao vs& 2asud- ?e declared:

191
A77ellants li8e9ise stress t:at bot: 7arties being at fault- t:ere s:ould be no action by one against t:e ot:er (Art& "+" - 'e9 Ci%il Code$& T:is rule- :o9e%er- :as been inter7reted as a77licable only 9:ere t:e fault on bot: sides is- more or less- equi%alent& 2t does not a77ly 9:ere one 7arty is literate or intelligent and t:e ot:er one is not& (c&f& 0oug: %s& Canti%eros- +! 6:il& !,$& ?e s:ould stress- :o9e%er- t:at 9:ile ?e find for t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent- let it not be said t:at t:is Court condones t:e de7lorable be:a%ior of :er 7arents in letting :er and t:e 7etitioner stay toget:er in t:e same room in t:eir :ouse after gi%ing a77ro%al to t:eir marriage& 2t is t:e solemn duty of 7arents to 7rotect t:e :onor of t:eir daug:ters and infuse u7on t:em t:e :ig:er %alues of morality and dignity& ?F4R4F5R4- finding no re%ersible error in t:e c:allenged decision- t:e instant 7etition is :ereby D4'24D- 9it: costs against t:e 7etitioner&

C"B),) P", "$ a,. &. A,' n% P" G&R& 'o& (#")3,*&Aay 3!- ",* 0A1T23TA A'G4(5- J.: 6laintiffs broug:t t:is action before t:e Court of First 2nstance of Aanila to reco%er moralcom7ensatory- exem7lary and correcti%e damages in t:e amount of 6,+-!!!&!! exclusi%e of attorney;s fees and ex7enses of litigation& Defendant- after denying some allegations contained in t:e com7laint- set u7 as a defense t:at t:e facts alleged t:erein- e%en if true- do not constitute a %alid cause of action& After trial- t:e lo9er court- after finding t:at defendant :ad carried on a lo%e affair 9it: one (olita 6e- an unmarried 9oman- being a married man :imself- declared t:at defendant cannot be :eld liable for moral damages it a77earing t:at 7laintiffs failed to 7ro%e t:at defendant- being a9are of :is marital status- deliberately and in bad fait: tried to 9in (olita;s affection& 3o it rendered decision dismissing t:e com7laint&<J'phK<.LMt 6laintiffs broug:t t:is case on a77eal before t:is Court on t:e ground t:at t:e issues in%ol%ed are 7urely of la9& T:e facts as found by t:e trial court are: 6laintiffs are t:e 7arents- brot:ers and sisters of one (olita 6e& At t:e time of :er disa77earance on A7ril "+- ",.)- (olita 9as + years old and unmarried& Defendant is a married man and 9or8s as agent of t:e (a 6erla Cigar and Cigarette Factory& Fe used to stay in t:e to9n of Gasan- Aarinduque- in connection 9it: :is aforesaid occu7ation& (olita 9as staying 9it: :er 7arents in t:e same to9n& Defendant 9as an ado7ted son of a C:inaman named 6e 0eco- a collateral relati%e of (olita;s fat:er& 0ecause of suc: fact and t:e similarity in t:eir family namedefendant became close to t:e 7laintiffs 9:o regarded :im as a member of t:eir family& 3ometime in ",. - defendant frequented t:e :ouse of (olita on t:e 7retext t:at :e 9anted :er to teac: :im :o9 to 7ray t:e rosary& T:e t9o e%entually fell in lo%e 9it: eac: ot:er and conducted clandestine trysts not only in t:e to9n of Gasan but also in 0oac 9:ere (olita used to teac: in a barrio sc:ool& T:ey exc:anged lo%e notes 9it: eac: ot:er t:e contents of 9:ic: re%eal not only t:eir infatuation for eac: ot:er but also t:e extent to 9:ic: t:ey :ad carried t:eir relations:i7& T:e rumors about t:eir lo%e affairs reac:ed t:e ears of (olita;s 7arents sometime- in ",..- and since t:en defendant 9as forbidden from going to t:eir :ouse and from furt:er seeing (olita& T:e 7laintiffs e%en filed de7ortation 7roceedings against defendant 9:o is a C:inese national& T:e affair bet9een defendant and (olita continued nonet:eless& 3ometime in A7ril- ",.)- (olita 9as staying 9it: :er brot:ers and sisters at t:eir residence at .+#0 4s7aDa 4xtension- <ue=on City& 5n A7ril "+- ",.)- (olita disa77eared from said :ouse& After

192
s:e left- :er brot:ers and sisters c:ec8ed u7 :er t:ing and found t:at (olita;s clot:es 9ere gone& Fo9e%er- 7laintiffs found a note on a crum7led 7iece of 7a7er inside (olita;s aparador& 3aid note9ritten on a small sli7 of 7a7er a77roximately +> by 3> in si=e- 9as in a :and9riting recogni=ed to be t:at of defendant;s& 2n 4nglis: it reads: Foney- su77ose 2 lea%e :ere on 3unday nig:t- and t:at;s "3t: of t:is mont: and 9e 9ill :a%e a date on t:e "+t:- t:at;s Aonday morning at "! a&m& Re7ly (o%e T:e disa77earance of (olita 9as re7orted to t:e 7olice aut:orities and t:e '02 but u7 to t:e 7resent t:ere is no ne9s or trace of :er 9:ereabouts& T:e 7resent action is based on Article " of t:e 'e9 Ci%il Code 9:ic: 7ro%ides: Any 7erson 9:o 9ilfully causes loss or inBury to anot:er in a manner 9:ic: is contrary to morals- good customs or 7ublic 7olicy s:all com7ensate t:e latter for t:e damage& T:ere is no doubt t:at t:e claim of 7laintiffs for damages is based on t:e fact t:at defendantbeing a married man- carried on a lo%e affair 9it: (olita 6e t:ereby causing 7laintiffs inBury in a manner contrary to morals- good customs and 7ublic 7olicy& 0ut in s7ite of t:e fact t:at 7laintiffs :a%e clearly establis:ed t:at in illicit affair 9as carried on bet9een defendant and (olita 9:ic: caused great damage to t:e name and re7utation of 7laintiffs 9:o are :er 7arents- brot:ers and sisters- t:e trial court considered t:eir com7laint not actionable for t:e reason t:at t:ey failed to 7ro%e t:at defendant deliberately and in bad fait: tried to 9in (olita;s affection T:us- t:e trial court said: >2n t:e absence of 7roof on t:is 7oint- t:e court may not 7resume t:at it 9as t:e defendant 9:o deliberately induced suc: relations:i7& ?e cannot be unmindful of t:e uncertainties and sometimes inex7licable mysteries of t:e :uman emotions& 2t is a 7ossibility t:at t:e defendant and (olita sim7ly fell in lo%e 9it: eac: ot:er- not only 9it:out any desire on t:eir 7art- but also against t:eir better Budgment and in full consciousness of 9:at it 9ill bring to bot: of t:em& T:is is s7ecially so 9it: res7ect to (olita- being an unmarried 9omanfalling in lo%e 9it: defendant 9:o is a married man&> ?e disagree 9it: t:is %ie9& T:e circumstances under 9:ic: defendant tried to 9in (olita;s affection cannot lead- to any ot:er conclusion t:an t:at it 9as :e 9:o- t:ru an ingenious sc:eme or tric8ery- seduced t:e latter to t:e extent of ma8ing :er fall in lo%e 9it: :im& T:is is s:o9n by t:e fact t:at defendant frequented t:e :ouse of (olita on t:e 7retext t:at :e 9anted :er to teac: :im :o9 to 7ray t:e rosary& 0ecause of t:e frequency of :is %isits to t:e latter;s family 9:o 9as allo9ed free access because :e 9as a collateral relati%e and 9as considered as a member of :er family- t:e t9o e%entually fell in lo%e 9it: eac: ot:er and conducted clandestine lo%e affairs not only in Gasan but also in 0oac 9:ere (olita used to teac: in a barrio sc:ool& ?:en t:e rumors about t:eir illicit affairs reac:ed t:e 8no9ledge of :er 7arents- defendant 9as forbidden from going to t:eir :ouse and e%en from seeing (olita& 6laintiffs e%en filed de7ortation 7roceedings against defendant 9:o is a C:inese national& 'e%ert:eless- defendant continued :is lo%e affairs 9it: (olita until s:e disa77eared from t:e 7arental :ome& 2ndeed- no ot:er conclusion can be dra9n from t:is c:ain of e%ents t:an t:at defendant not only deliberately- but t:roug: a cle%er strategy- succeeded in 9inning t:e affection and lo%e of (olita to t:e extent of :a%ing illicit relations 9it: :er& T:e 9rong :e :as caused :er and :er family is indeed immeasurable considering t:e fact t:at :e is a married man& Eerily- :e :as committed an inBury to (olita;s family in a manner contrary to morals- good customs and 7ublic 7olicy as contem7lated in Article " of t:e ne9 Ci%il Code& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e decision a77ealed from is re%ersed& Defendant is :ereby sentenced to 7ay t:e 7laintiffs t:e sum of 6.-!!!&!! as damages and 6 -!!!&!! as attorney;s fees and ex7enses of litigations& Costs against a77ellee&

193
Man),a Ga% C #? #a$) n &. C (#$ ' A??"a,% and I%)d# M. OnA%)? G&R& 'o& (#++",!&5ctober 3!- ",/! AAIA32AR- J.: T:is 7etition for certiorari treated as a s7ecial ci%il action see8s to re%ie9 t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals in CA#G&R& 'o& .!,.*#R dated Culy *- ",)* affirming t:e decision of t:e Court of First 2nstance of Ri=al- 6asay City 0ranc: E22 in Ci%il Case 'o& 3!",#6 dated Aay -",) & Aanila Gas Cor7oration- t:e 7etitioner :erein- is a 7ublic utility com7any duly aut:ori=ed to conduct and o7erate t:e gainful business of ser%icing and su77lying gas in t:e City of Aanila and its suburbs for 7ublic necessity and con%enience 9:ile 7ri%ate res7ondent- 2sidro A& 5ngsi7- is a businessman :olding res7onsible 7ositions in a number of business firms and associations in t:e 6:ili77ines& 5n Aay !- ",*+- res7ondent 5ngsi7 a77lied for gas ser%ice connection 9it: 7etitioner Aanila Gas Cor7oration& A " x + burner gas 9as installed by 7etitioner;s em7loyees in res7ondent;s 8itc:en at :is residence at */. 6ar8 A%enue- 6asay City& 5n Culy )- ",*.- res7ondent 5ngsi7 requested 7etitioner to install additional a77liances as 9ell as additional gas ser%ice connections in :is +*#door Reyno A7artment located also in t:e same com7ound& 2n com7liance 9it: said request- 7etitioner installed t9o !#gallon ca7acity 9ater storage :eaters and t9o :ea%y#duty gas burners and re7laced t:e original gas meter 9it: a bigger .!#lig:t ca7acity gas meter& T:e installations and connections 9ere all done solely by 7etitioner;s em7loyees& T:ere 9as no significant c:ange in t:e meter reading des7ite additional installations& 2n Aay and Cune of ",** no gas consum7tion 9as registered in t:e meter- 7rom7ting 7etitioner to issue a ;meter order; 9it: instructions to c:ange t:e gas meter in res7ondent;s residence& 5n August ")- ",**- at around " o;cloc8 in t:e afternoon- 7etitioner;s em7loyee led by Aariano Coronal- t:e t:en C:ief of t:e Distribution De7artment- 9ent to 5ngsi7;s 7lace& After 2dentifying t:emsel%es to t:e :ouseboy t:erein t:at t:ey are from t:e Aanila Gas Cor7oration- but 9it:out notifying or informing res7ondent 5ngsi7- t:ey c:anged t:e gas meter and installed ne9 tube connections& At t:e time t:e 9or8 9as being underta8en- 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as ta8ing a na7 but :e 9as informed after9ards of 9:at :ad ta8en 7lace by :is :ouseboy& 5n t:at same afternoon- at about . o;cloc8- 7etitioner;s em7loyees returned 9it: a 7:otogra7:er 9:o too8 7ictures of t:e 7remises& Res7ondent 5ngsi7 inquired from Coronel 9:y t:ey 9ere ta8ing 7ictures but t:e latter sim7ly ga%e :im a calling card 9it: instructions to go to :is (Coronel;s$ office& T:ere- :e 9as informed about t:e existence of a by#7ass %al%e or >Bum7er> in t:e gas connection and t:at unless :e ga%e Coronel 63-!!!&!!- :e 9ould be de7orted& Res7ondent 5ngsi7 refused to gi%e t:e money- saying t:at :e 9as not afraid as :e :ad committed no 9rong and t:at :e could not be de7orted because :e is already a Fili7ino citi=en&0y t:e end of August- a reading 9as made on t:e ne9 meter and ex7ectedly- it registered a sudden increase in gas consum7tion& T:ereafter- in 5ctober- ",**- a com7laint for qualified t:eft 9as filed by 7etitioner against res7ondent 5ngsi7 in t:e 6asay City Fiscal;s 5ffice doc8eted as 2&3& 'o& ."++" (7& 3- Folder of 4x:ibits$ 2n February- ",*)- 7ending in%estigation of t:e criminal com7laint- 7etitioner disconnected res7ondent;s gas ser%ice for alleged failure andHor refusal to 7ay :is gas consum7tions from Culy- ",*. to Canuary- ",*) in %iolation of 7etitioner;s regulation agreed u7on in t:e ;A77lication for Gas 3er%ice; 9:ic: states t:at: xxx xxx xxx

194
(/$ T:e Cor7oration is aut:ori=ed to discontinue ser%ice to t:e customer for any of t:e follo9ing reasons: After ) :ours; notice in 9riting for a$ %iolation of t:e conditions :erein set fort:G b$ 'on#7ayment of bills o%erdueG xx xx (7& "- Folder of 4x:ibits$& 3ubsequently- t:e com7laint 9as dismissed by t:e city fiscal of 6asay City in a resolution dated Aay ,- ",*)- on t:e ground t:at O

& & t:ere is no e%idence to establis: t:e fact t:at t:ere is an illegal installation or Bum7er in t:e 7remises of 2sidro 5ngsi7 and t:is is sustained by t:e fact t:at t:e 7rosecution 9itnesses did not attem7t to exca%ate t:e 7remises of 2sidro 5ngsi7 in order to determine 9it: certainty t:at t:ere is an illegal installation& ?it:out exca%ating t:e 7remises of 2sidro 5ngsi7 it is im7ossible to conclude 9it: reasonable certainty t:at t:ere is a Bum7er or illegal installation because illegal installation or Bum7er must not only 7roceed from an assum7tion but must be based from actual facts as 7ro%ed (77& +# * Folder of 4x:ibits$& 5n Culy "+- ",*)- follo9ing t:e dismissal by t:e in%estigating fiscal of t:e com7laint for qualified t:eft and t:e disconnection by 7etitioner of :is gas ser%ice- res7ondent 5ngsi7 filed a com7laint 9it: t:e Court of First 2nstance of Ri=al- 6asay City 0ranc: E22 for moral and exem7lary damages against 7etitioner Aanila Gas Cor7oration based on t9o causes of action- firstly: t:e malicious- o77ressi%e and male%olent filing of t:e criminal com7laint as a result of 9:ic: >7laintiff :as suffered mental anguis:- serious anxiety- social :umiliation- ridicule- embarrassment and degradation in t:e eyes of :is business associates- friends- relati%es and t:e general 7ublic>G and- secondly: t:e illegal closure of res7ondent 5ngsi7;s gas ser%ice connection 9it:out court order and 9it:out notice of 9arning 7urely >to furt:er :arass- :umiliate and ridicule 7laintiff- t:ereby again ex7osing unBustlycruelly and o77ressi%ely t:e 7laintiff- as 9ell as :is family- to social :umiliation and degradation- to 7ublic contem7t and ridicule- to 7ersonal discredit and dis:onor and t:us causing t:e 7laintiff 7laintiff and t:e members of :is family irre7arable inBuries consisting of business and social :umiliation7ersonal dis:onor- mental anguis:- serious anxieties- 9ounded feelings and besmirc:ed re7utation>& 2n addition to attorney;s fees and costs of litigation- res7ondent 5ngsi7 li8e9ise 7rayed t:at >7ending final determination of t:e case t:at a 9rit of 7reliminary mandatory inBunction fort:9it: issuecommanding t:e defendant cor7oration- its agents and em7loyees to reconnect t:e gas ser%ice and su77ly at t:e residence and a7artment of 7laintiff at */. 6ar8 A%enue- 6asay City> (77& "#""- R5A$& 5n Culy ",- ",*)- 7etitioner filed a motion to dismiss alleging t:e com7laint states no %alid cause of action& Res7ondent 5ngsi7 filed an o77osition t:ereto (77& " # +- R5A$& 5n August ""- ",*)- t:e trial court issued an order denying 7etitioner;s motion to dismiss (77& +# .- R5A$& Consequently- on 3e7tember /- ",*)- 7etitioner filed its ans9er stating t:at t:e filing of t:e criminal com7laint in t:e 6asay City Fiscal;s 5ffice 9:ic: 9as made t:e basis of t:e first cause of action 9as 7reci7itated by t:e disco%ery of an illegal by#7as tube or >Bum7er> in t:e 8itc:en cabinet and immediately belo9 t:e gas burners in res7ondent;s residence& ?it: res7ect to t:e second cause of action- 7etitioner stated t:at t:e cutting#off or t:e disconnection of 7ri%ate res7ondent;s gas ser%ice 9as on account of t:e latter;s failure to settle and 7ay outstanding and due 7ayments re7resenting gas

195
consum7tions from Culy- ",*. to Canuary- ",*)& 2n bot: instances- according to 7etitioner- t:ere 9as no intent to t:reaten- ridicule- embarrass or :umiliate res7ondent 5ngsi7& A counterclaim for actual or com7ensatory damages and exem7lary damages 9as inter7osed t:erein (77& +#3"- R5A$& 2n t:e meantime- t:e court :ad issued an order dated 3e7tember *- ",*) granting t:e 9rit of 7reliminary mandatory inBunction as 7rayed for in t:e com7laint for damages u7on res7ondent 5ngsi7;s filing of a bond in t:e amount of 6"!-!!!&!! (77& 33#3+- R5A$& 5n Aay - ",) - t:e trial court rendered its decision (a$ 5rdering defendant to 7ay 7laintiff: ("$ 6.!-!!!&!! as moral damages in t:e F2R3T CA134 5F ACT25'G ( $ 6"!-!!!&!! as exem7lary damages in t:e F2R3T CA134 5F ACT25'G (3$ 63!-!!!&!! as moral damages in t:e 34C5'D CA134 5F ACT25'G (+$ 6.-!!!&!! as exem7lary damages in t:e 34C5'D CA134 5F ACT25'G (.$ 6"!-!!!&!! as attorney;s feesG and (*$ t:e costs of t:e suitG A'D (b$ Dismissing t:e defendant;s counterclaim M77& ++#)*- R5AN& ?it:in t:e reglementary 7eriod- 7etitioner a77ealed to t:e Court of A77eals assigning t9o errors- to 9it: T:e lo9er court erred in concluding t:at t:e filing of t:e criminal com7laint 9as moti%ated 7urely ;to :arass- t:reaten and ridicule; 7laintiff des7ite clear and con%incing e%idence s:o9ing t:e actual existence of a gas Bum7er by#7ass in 7laintiff;s establis:ment& T:e lo9er court erred in concluding 9it:out basis and findings of facts t:at t:e closure of 7laintiff;s gas ser%ice 9as arrogant and abusi%e des7ite 7ro%ision of a contract to t:e contrary (7& )- 0rief for Defendant#A77ellant$& 5n Culy *- ",)*- t:e said Court rendered its decision- 7ertinent 7ortions of 9:ic: are quoted :ereinbelo9: ?e are inclined to concur 9it: t:e court a 0uo t:at t:e existence of a ;Bum7er; 9as merely a 7resum7tion on t:e 7art of Coronel& 2ndeed t:e discre7ancy or fluctuation in t:e gas consum7tion in a77ellee;s 7lace could %ery 9ell be attributed to many factorssuc: as a defecti%e meter or a reduction in t:e use of t:e a77liances on t:e 7remises considering t:at t:e restaurantH:otel business is transient& 'eit:er can a77ellant attribute any defect in t:e installation of t:e a77liances to t:e a77ellee as t:e installation 9as underta8en by t:e former;s em7loyees (T&3&'& 77& " #"3- December ")",*/$& 3imilarly- t:e gas meter 9as installed by defendant cor7oration- so t:at 9:en a re7ort 9as made t:at t:e original meter 9as defecti%e- a ne9 one 9as installed (T&3&'&77& )# /- December "- ",)!$& Again- according to t:e testimony of Delfin Custodia- mec:anical engineer of defendant#a77ellant- t:e second meter t:at 9as installed on August ""- ",** 9as re7laced as being defecti%e because ;some of its 7arts 9ere 9orn out and t:at it 9as not 7ro7erly registering-; (T&3&'&- 77& "+#".- December - ",)!$& T:erefore- rat:er t:an

196
im7ute t:e fluctuation in gas consum7tion to a ;Bum7er; in t:e ser%ice connection- it 9ould be more in 8ee7ing 9it: t:e circumstance of t:e case to attribute t:is to t:e faulty meter installed by defendant#a77ellant& 2ndeed- from t:e e%idence for t:e a77ellant itself t:at t:e old installation 9as embedded in t:e cement 9all (9:ic: 9as later c:anged by a77ellant to ex7osed 7i7esG t&s&n& 7& ..- Aarc: 3- ",)"$& ?e are of t:e belief t:at it 9as unli8ely for t:e a77ellee to install a ;Bum7er; in t:e cement 9all- a conclusion 9:ic: bears su77ort in t:e re7ort of t:e City Fiscal- 6asay City t:at ;2sidro 5ngsi7 9as agreeable to :a%e :is 7lace exca%ated and demolis:ed 7ro%ided t:at if t:ere is no illegal installation or Bum7er found in t:e 7remises- t:e Aanila Gas Cor7oration s:ould ans9er for 9:ate%er damages t:at may be incurred in connection 9it: its exca%ation of t:e 7remises >9:ic: offer 9as declined by a77ellant- indicating t:at it 9as not certain as to t:e existence of suc: Bum7er (Resolution- 4x:ibit ;D;$& 2n t:e lig:t of t:e foregoing- a77ellant;s first assigmment of error must necessarily fail& Anent t:e second assignment of error- it a77ears t:at t:e gas ser%ice to a77ellee;s com7ound 9as disconnected on t:e basis of non#7ayment of t:ree#mont:s bills- 9:ic: 9ere admittedly com7uted only on t:e average consum7tion registered- 9it:out benefit of meter reading (T&s&n& 7& "3- A7ril 3!- ",)"$- and 9it:out 7re%ious notice of disconnection or reminder to 7ay (T&s&n& 77& ++#+.- 2d&- 7& 3!- Aay "/- ",)"$& Considering t:at t:e a%ailability of t:e gas ser%ice 9as of utmost im7ortance to a77ellee in t:e 7ursuit of :is business %enture (:otel#motel restaurant$- it is not difficult to foresee t:e losses t:at t:e business must :a%e incurred as a consequence of a77ellant;s un9arranted and arbitrary act& 2t may not be amiss to ta8e note at :is Buncture t:at in assessing t:e damages in fa%or of a77ellee- t:e courta 0uo did not a9ard :im actual damages- but merely moral and exem7lary damages 7lus attorney;s fees 7ursuant to Articles !/ 7aragra7:s ("$ and (""$G Articles ")- ", 7aragra7: (/$ and , of t:e 'e9 Ci%il Code& And- considering furt:er t:e 7ro%isions of Article "* of said Code: 'o 7roof of 7ecuniary loss is necessary in order t:at moral nominaltem7erate- liquidated or exem7lary damages may be adBudicated& T:eassessment of suc: damages- exce7t liquidated ones- is left to t:e discretion of t:e Court- according to t:e circumstances of eac: caseG 9:ic: is am7ly su77orted by t:e e%idence on record- ta8ing into consideration a77ellee;s standing in t:e community- ?4 find t:at t:e a9ard must be sustained& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e decision a77ealed from is :ereby affirmed in toto- it being in accordance 9it: t:e la9 and e%idence adduced during t:e trial& Costs against a77ellant (77& ).#/.- rec&$& Fence- on 3e7tember "- ",)*- Aanila Gas Cor7oration filed a 7etition for re%ie9 by 9ay of a77eal to t:is Court based on t:e follo9ing grounds- to 9it: 2& T:e derision is not su77orted by t:e facts and t:e e%idence& Rat:er- t:e decision is belied and rebu8ed by t:e clear and o%er9:elming e%idence& A& T:e finding t:at 9itness Aariano Coronel is an unreliable 9itness is totally unsu77orted by any e%idence& 0& T:e filing of t:e criminal com7laint against 5ngsi7 9as not actuated by malice on t:e 7art of 7etitioner&

197
C& T:e filing of t:e criminal com7laint against res7ondent 5ngsi7 9as based on 7robable cause& D& T:e closure of 5ngsi7;s gas ser%ice 9as made after due notice to 7ay :is bac8 accounts 9as gi%en and after a 9arning of disconnection& 22& T:e decision of res7ondent court is contrary to settled Buris7rudence enunciated by t:is Fonorable 3u7reme Court and is unsu77orted by any e%idence&

A& Ad%ice of counsel is a com7lete defense against a suit for malicious 7rosecution& 222& T:e decision of res7ondent court on t:e 3econd Cause of Action of res7ondent 5ngsi7 is based on a misa77re:ension of facts& 2E& 1nder t:e facts and t:e la9- 7etitioner is not liable for moral and exem7lary damages& E& Assuming arguendo t:at t:e 7etitioner is liable for moral and exem7lary damagest:e amount a9arded by t:e trial court and affirmed by t:e Court of A77eals are grosslyexorbitant as to call for a re%ie9 t:ereof> (77& # 3- rec&$& 5n December "3- ",)*- t:is Court- after considerating t:e allegations- issues and arguments adduced in t:e 7etition for re%ie9 on certiorari of t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals- 7ri%ate res7ondent;s comment t:ereon as 9ell as 7etitioner;s re7ly to said comment- resol%ed to G2E4 (2A2T4D D14 C51R34 to t:e 7etition as to 9:et:er or not t:e damages a9arded by t:e trial court as affirmed by t:e Court of A77eals 7er its decision of Culy *- ",)* are excessi%e and s:ould be reduced and to TR4AT t:e 7etition for re%ie9 as a s7ecial ci%il action& ?4 are t:us constricted to a single issue in t:is case: 9:et:er or not t:e amount of moral and exem7lary damages a9arded by t:e trial court and affirmed by t:e Court of a77eals is excessi%e& Article ") of t:e Ci%il Code states t:at >moral damages include 7:ysical suffering- mental anguis:- frig:t- serious anxiety- besmirc:ed re7utation- 9ounded feelings- moral s:oc8- social :umiliation- and similar inBury& T:oug: inca7able of 7ecuniary com7utation- moral damages may be reco%ered if t:ey are t:e 7roximate result of t:e defendant;s 9rongful act or omission&> 5n t:e ot:er :and- Article , 7ro%ides t:at >exem7lary or correcti%e damages are im7osed- by 9ay of exam7le or correction for t:e 7ublic good- in addition, to the moral, temperate, li0uidated or %ompensatory damages> (em7:asis su77lied$& T:e first cause of action- for 9:ic: res7ondent 5ngsi7 9as a9arded moral and exem7lary damages in t:e amount of 6.!-!!!&!! and 6"!-!!!&!!- res7ecti%ely- is 7redicated on Article ", of t:e Ci%il Code 9:ic: states t:at >moral damages may be reco%ered in t:e follo9ing and analogous cases: && & (/$ malicious 7rosecutionG && & To constitute malicious 7rosecution- t:ere must be 7roof t:at t:e 7rosecution 9as 7rom7ted by a siniter design to %ex and :umiliate a 7erson t:at it 9as initiated deliberately by t:e defendant 8no9ing t:at :is c:arges 9ere false and groundless& Concededly- t:e mere act of submitting a case to t:e aut:orities for 7rosecution does not ma8e one liable for malicious 7rosecution& (3alao %s& 3alao)! 3CRA *. MAarc: "*- ",)*NG Ramos %s& Ramos- *" 3CRA /+ MDecember 3- ",)+"NG 3olis & @arisantos %s& 3al%ador- "+ 3CRA //)N MAugust "+- ",*.NG 0uena%entura- et al& %s& 3to& Domingo- et al&- "!3 6:il& 3, M",./NG 0arreto %s& Are%alo- ,, 6:il& ))" M",.*N$&

198
2n t:e instant case- :o9e%er- t:ere is reason to belie%e t:at t:ere 9as malicious intent in t:e filing of t:e com7laint for qualified t:eft& T:is intent is traceable to t:at early afternoon of August ")",**- 9:en 7etitioner;s em7loyees- u7on being ordered- came to 7ri%ate res7ondent;s residence and c:anged t:e defecti%e gas meter and tube connections 9it:out notice& 2n ot:er 9ords- res7ondent 5ngsi7 :ad no o77ortunity to obser%e t:e 9or8s& 'onet:eless- if indeed :e :ad installed an illegal by# 7ass tube or Bum7er- :e could :a%e easily as8ed for its immediate remo%al soon after :is :ouseboy told :im 9:at 7etitioner;s em7loyees did& As establis:ed by t:e facts- :e :ad not e%en attem7ted to refuse entrance to 7etitioner;s em7loyees :eaded by Aariano Coronel nor to question t:eir aut:ority u7on t:eir return later t:at same afternoon 9it: a 7:otogra7:er& (ittle did :e reali=e t:at t:e 7ictures of t:e 7remises t:at 9ere being ta8en 9ould be used as e%idence against :im& 3ur7risingly- 9:en res7ondent 5ngsi7 as8ed Coronel 9:y t:ey 9ere ta8ing 7ictures- Coronel Bust ga%e :im a calling card and instructed :im to go to :is office& 2t 9as quite an unusual gesture& 5b%iously- Coronel :ad somet:ing in mind& As correctly obser%ed by t:e trial court in its decisionO A significant fact broug:t about by t:e testimony of Coronel :imself is t:e total absence of immediate accusation against 6laintiff rig:t at t:e %ery moment 9:en t:e by#7ass %al%e 9as allegedly disco%ered& Rig:t t:en and t:ere Coronel s:ould :a%e told 6laintiff t:at :e 9as using a by#7ass %al%e and in effect stealing gas from Defendant& T:ere 9ould :a%e been not:ing 9rong 9it: t:at& T:e circumstance 9as familiar to t:at of catc:ing a t:ief in flagrante deli%to& 0ut t:e trut: is t:at 9:en Coronel and :is men entered 6laintiff;s com7ound and made c:anges t:erein- 6laintiff 9as slee7ing& Fe :ad no 8no9ledge of 9:at 9as t:en going on& Coronel and :is men told t:e ;boy; of 6laintiff t:at t:e c:anges 9ere being made so t:at t:e consum7tion of gas could be decreased& 3o t:at 9:en 6laintiff 9o8e u7 at four o;cloc8 in t:e afternoon- Coronel and :is men :ad already made t:e c:anges and :ad already gone& T:ey returned :o9e%er at fi%e o;cloc8- t:is time 9it: a 7:otogra7:er& T:is 9as t:e time 9:en 6laintiff met Coronel& Fere 9as t:en t:e o77ortunity for Coronel to confront 6laintiff 9it: t:e allegedly disco%ered ;by#7ass %al%e; and bluntly- e%en brutally- tell :im t:at t:ere 9as t:ie%ery of gas& T:is- Coronel did not do& && && &> 2t bears noting t:at 9:en :e 9as informed as to t:e existence of a ;Bum7er; in :is gas connection- res7ondent 5ngsi7 did not s:o9 any sign of fear or remorse and did not yield to t:e t:reatening demand of Coronel& 4x7erience tells us t:at t:is is not t:e attitude of a guilty 7erson& 5n t:e contrary- t:is is t:e attitude of someone 9:o 8no9s :o9 to ta8e a firm stand 9:ere :is 7rinci7les and rig:ts are concerned& To 7ro%e :is innocence- :e 9as e%en 9illing to :a%e :is 7lace exca%ated but 7etitioner 9ould not dare ta8e t:e consequences& 0esides- Delfin Custodio- 7etitioner;s o9n mec:anical engineer- testified t:at t:e second gas meter 9as re7laced as being defecti%e because >some of its 7arts 9ere 9orn out and t:at it 9as not 7ro7erly registering&> 4%idently- 7etitioner Aanila Gas Cor7oration- in failing to reco%er its lost re%enue caused by t:e gas meter;s incorrect recording- soug:t to %indicate its financial loss by filing t:e com7laint for qualified t:eft against res7ondent 5ngsi7 8no9ing it to be false& 2t 9as actually intended to %ex and :umiliate 7ri%ate res7ondent and to blac8en :is re7utation not only as a businessman but also as a 7erson& <ualified t:eft is a serious offense indicating moral de7ra%ity in an indi%idual& To be accused of suc: crime 9it:out basis is s:oc8ing and libelous& 2t stigmati=ed 7ri%ate res7ondent causing :im emotional de7ression and social degradation& 6etitioner s:ould :a%e reali=ed t:at 9:at is belie%ed to be a %indication of a 7ro7rietary rig:t is no Bustification for subBecting one;s name to indignity and dis:onor& 5ne can t:us imagine t:e anguis:- anxiety- s:oc8 and :umiliation suffered by res7ondent 5ngsi7& T:e fact t:at t:e com7laint for qualified t:eft 9as dismissed by t:e 6asay City fiscal is no consolation& T:e damage :ad been done& 'ecessarily- indemnification :ad to be made& T:e trial court a9arded 6.!-!!!&!! as moral damages and 6"!-!!!&!! as exem7lary damages&

199
?4 gi%e due consideration to res7ondent 5ngsi7;s social and financial status as a businessman and t:e mental anguis: :e suffered as a result of t:e false im7utation& Fo9e%er- ?e also consider 7etitioner;s financial ca7ability& 6etitioner is a 7ublic utility cor7oration 9:ose 7rimary concern is ser%ice to t:e 7eo7le- t:e 7rofit moti%e being merely secondary& 1nder t:e circumstances?e are of t:e o7inion t:at t:e a9ard of moral and exem7lary damages s:ould be reduced to 6 .-!!!&!! and 6.-!!!&!!- res7ecti%ely& T:is a9ard is sanctioned by Article 3+ of t:e Ci%il Code 9:ic: states t:at: 4hen the amount of the e.emplary damages need not be proved, the plaintiff sho' that he is entitled to moral, temperate or %ompensatory damages before the %ourt may %onsider the 0uestion of 'hether or not e.emplary damages should be a'arded. 2n case liquidated damages :a%e been agreed u7on- alt:oug: no 7roof of loss is necessary in order t:at suc: liquidated damages may be reco%ered ne%ert:elessbefore t:e court may consider t:e question of granting exem7lary in addition to t:e liquidated damages- t:e 7laintiff must s:o9 t:at :e 9ould be entitled to moraltem7erate or com7ensatory damages 9ere it not for t:e sti7ulation for liquidated damages (em7:asis su77lied$& 5n t:e second cause of action 9:ic: is based on t:e illegal disconnection of res7ondent 5ngsi7;s gas ser%ice constituting breac: of contract- t:e trial court a9arded 63!-!!!&!! as moral damages and 6.-!!!&!! as exem7lary damages& 6etitioner contends t:at t:e disconnection 9as on account of res7ondent 5ngsi7;s failure to 7ay :is gas consum7tions for more t:an t:ree mont:s& ?:ile 7ri%ate res7ondent admits :a%ing accounts 9it: 7etitioner- :e denies :a%ing been notified t:ereof or :a%ing recei%ed any 9arning of t:e disconnection 2n determining t:e 7ro7riety of t:e a9ard- it is material to establis: t:at 7rior notice or 9arning :ad been gi%en to res7ondent 5ngsi7 before t:e gas ser%ice 9as disconnected- in accordance 9it: t:e terms of t:e contract& 2n t:is regard- ?e find t:e trial court;s obser%ation in its decision to be 9ell#founded- to quote: Defendant 9ould insist t:at t:e :ouse:old :el7ers inside 6laintiff;s 7remises refused to recei%e notices or to sign t:em& Defendant :as not gi%en t:e Court any 7lausible reason 9:y t:ese 7ersons 9ould refuse to recei%e- or sign for- notices of demands for 7ayments or 9arnings of t:reatened disconnection of t:e ser%ice& T:e %ery e%idence of Defendants indicates t:at 6laintiff :ad long been a customer of Defendant& 6laintiff :as been 7aying :is bills& 6laintiff :ad not suffered any financial re%erses& As a matter of fact- u7on t:e suggestion of t:e Court6laintiff readily made 7ayment of :is count 9it: Defendant& Fe made 7ayment not because t:e ser%ice 9ould be restored& ?:en :e made t:e 7ayment t:e Court :ad already issued a mandatory 7reliminary inBunction- ordering Defendant to restore gas ser%ice in t:e 7remises of 6laintiff& 6laintiff made t:e 7ayment to com7ly 9it: t:e suggestion of t:e Court because t:e Court rat:er t:an enforce its order- 9ould li8e t:e 7arties to settle t:e case amicably& ?:at is 7eculiar in t:e stand of Defendant is t:at 9:ile it 9ould insist on t:e gi%ing of notices and 9arnings- it did not :a%e any com7etent and sufficient e%idence to 7ro%e t:e 3ame& Demands in o7en 9ere made by 6laintiff counsel 9:et:er Defendant could s:o9 any 9ritten e%idence s:o9ing t:at notices and 9arnings 9ere sent to 6laintiff& 'ot a single 7iece of e%idence 9as 7roduced& 'ormally- if a notice is refused- t:en t:e original and its co7ies 9ould still be in t:e :ands of t:e 7ublic utility concerned& 2n t:e instant case- it :as to be re7eated- not a single co7y- original or du7licate- tri7licate- etc& of any notice to 7ay or 9arning of disconnection 9as 7roduced in court& T:e court cannot belie%e t:at Defendant- as 9:at t:e testimonies of its 9itnesses 9ould li8e to im7ress u7on t:is Court- conducts its business t:at 9ay& Defendant is a big business concern and it cannot be said t:at it treats its business as a Bo8e& 2ts 7ersonnel s:ould reali=e t:is- for only 9it: suc: an a9areness can t:ey res7ond

200
fait:fully to t:eir res7onsibilities as members of a big business enter7rise imbued 9it: 7ublic interest o%er 9:ic: t:e 6:ili77ine Go%ernment is concerned& <uite ob%iously- 7etitioner;s act in disconnecting res7ondent 5ngsi7;s gas ser%ice 9it:out 7rior notice constitutes breac: of contract amounting to an inde7endent tort& T:e 7rematurity of t:e action is indicati%e of an intent to cause additional mental and moral suffering to 7ri%ate res7ondent& T:is is a clear %iolation of Article " of t:e Ci%il Code 9:ic: 7ro%ides t:at >any 7erson 9:o 9ilfully causes loss or inBury to anot:er in a manner t:at is contrary to morals- good customs or 7ublic 7olicy s:all com7ensate t:e latter for damages&> T:is is reiterated by 7aragra7: "! of Article ", of t:e Code& Aoreo%er- t:e a9ard of moral damages is sanctioned by Article ! 9:ic: 7ro%ides t:at >9illful inBury to 7ro7erty may be a legal ground for a9arding moral damages if t:e court s:ould find t:at- under t:e circumstances- suc: damages are Bustly due& "he same rule applies to brea%hes of %ontra%t 'here the defendant a%ted fraudulently or in bad faith8 (em7:asis su7lied$& ?4 are not unmindful of t:e fact t:at at t:e time t:e gas ser%ice 9as disconnected- res7ondent 5ngsi7 admitted :a%ing been in default of at least t:ree mont:s; bills& ?4 :a%e establis:ed :o9e%er t:at no notice to t:at effect :as been ser%ed on :im& 2t must be 7ointed out t:at res7ondent 5ngsi7 is an old man in%ol%ed in a number of business and social underta8ings& 2t is quite natural and understandable t:at at times :e forgets some minor obligations and details of :is concern& T:is is t:e time 9:en reminders and friendly notices become indis7ensable& T:e rudiments of 7rocedural due 7roccess dictate t:at :e s:ould :a%e been notified of any bac8 accounts& 2n t:e 7ast- res7ondent 5ngsi7 :ad not been remiss in t:e 7ayment of :is bills& 6etitioner s:ould :a%e at least accorded :im t:e courtesy- if not t:e rig:t- as 7er contract- of being notified before effecting disconnection so t:at :e could ta8e ste7s or initiate measures to a%oid suc: embarrassment& A77arently- suc: misconduct or omission on t:e 7art of 7etitioner formed 7art of a male%olent sc:eme to :arass and :umiliate 7ri%ate res7ondent- ex7osing :im to furt:er ignominy and greater mental torture& Res7ondent 5ngsi7;s default in 7ayment cannot be utili=ed by 7etitioner to defeat or nullify t:e claim for damages& At most- t:is circumstance can be considered as a mitigating factor in ascertaining t:e amount of damages to 9:ic: res7ondent 5ngsi7 is entitled& 2n consequence t:ereof- ?e reduce t:e amount of moral damages to 6".-!!!&!! T:e a9ard of 6.-!!!&!! as exem7lary damages- on t:e ot:er :and- is sustained- being similarly 9arranted by Article 3+ of t:e Ci%il Code aforequoted as com7lemented by Article !& T:e a9ard of attorney;s fees in t:e amount of 6"!-!!!&!! is Bustified under t:e circumstances& ?F4R4F5R4- 64T2T25'4R AA'2(A GA3 C5R65RAT25' 23 F4R40@ D2R4CT4D T5 6A@ ("$ R4365'D4'T 232DR5 A& 5'G326 6 .-!!!&!! A3 A5RA( DAAAG43 A'D 6.-!!!&!! A3 4`4A6(AR@ DAAAG43 F5R TF4 F2R3T CA134 5F ACT25'- 6".-!!!&!! A3 A5RA( DAAAG43 A'D 6.-!!!&!! A3 4`4A6(AR@ DAAAG43 F5R TF4 34C5'D CA134 5F ACT25'- A'D 6"!-!!!&!! A3 ATT5R'4@;3 F443G A'D ( $ TF4 C53T3& A5D2F24D A3 A05E4 3TAT4D- TF4 D4C2325' 5F R4365'D4'T C51RT 5F A664A(3 23 F4R40@ AFF2RA4D 2' A(( 5TF4R R4364CT3& An$ n) G",(D &. T." H n. C (#$ ' A??"a,% and O%Ba# LaD G&R& 'o& (#"*+3,&Culy !- ",*" R4@43- C&0&(&- J&: T:is 7etition for %ertiorari brings u7 for re%ie9 question 9:et:er t:e :usband of a 9oman- 9:o %oluntarily 7rocured :er abortion- could reco%er damages from 7:ysician 9:o caused t:e same& T:e litigation 9as commenced in t:e Court of First 2nstance of Aanila by res7ondent 5scar (a=o- t:e of 'ita Eillanue%a- against 7etitioner Antonio Gelu=- a 7:ysician& Con%inced of t:e merits of

201
t:e com7laint u7on t:e e%idence adduced- t:e trial court rendered Budgment fa%or of 7laintiff (a=o and against defendant Gelu=- ordering t:e latter to 7ay 63-!!!&!! as damages- 6)!!&!! attorney;s fees and t:e costs of t:e suit& 5n a77eal- Court of A77eals- in a s7ecial di%ision of fi%e- sustained t:e a9ard by a maBority %ote of t:ree Bustices as against t9o- 9:o rendered a se7arate dissenting o7inion& T:e facts are set fort: in t:e maBority o7inion as follo9s: 'ita Eillanue%a came to 8no9 t:e defendant (Antonio Gelu=$ for t:e first time in ",+/ O t:roug: :er aunt 6aula @ambot& 2n ",.! s:e became 7regnant by :er 7resent :usband before t:ey 9ere legally married& Desiring to conceal :er 7regnancy from :er 7arent- and acting on t:e ad%ice of :er aunt- s:e :ad :erself aborted by t:e defendant& After :er marriage 9it: t:e 7laintiff- s:e again became 7regnant& As s:e 9as t:en em7loyed in t:e Commission on 4lections and :er 7regnancy 7ro%ed to be incon%enient- s:e :ad :erself aborted again by t:e defendant in 5ctober ",.3& (ess t:an t9o years later- s:e again became 7regnant& 5n February "- ",..- accom7anied by :er sister 6urificacion and t:e latter;s daug:ter (ucidas:e again re7aired to t:e defendant;s clinic on Carriedo and 6& Gome= streets in Aanila- 9:ere t:e t:ree met t:e defendant and :is 9ife& 'ita 9as again aborted- of a t9o#mont: old foetus- in consideration of t:e sum of fifty 7esos- 6:ili77ine currency& T:e 7laintiff 9as at t:is time in t:e 7ro%ince of Cagayan- cam7aigning for :is election to t:e 7ro%incial boardG :e did not 8no9 ofnor ga%e :is consent- to t:e abortion& 2t is t:e t:ird and last abortion t:at constitutes 7laintiff;s basis in filing t:is action and a9ard of damages& 17on a77lication of t:e defendant Gelu= 9e granted %ertiorari& T:e Court of A77eals and t:e trial court 7redicated t:e a9ard of damages in t:e sum of 63-!!!&!* u7on t:e 7ro%isions of t:e initial 7aragra7: of Article !* of t:e Ci%il Code of t:e 6:ili77ines& T:is 9e belie%e to be error- for t:e said article- in fixing a minimum a9ard of 63-!!!&!! for t:e deat: of a 7erson- does not co%er t:e case of an unborn foetus t:at is not endo9ed 9it: 7ersonality& 1nder t:e system of our Ci%il Code- >la criatura aborti%a no alcan=a la categoria de 7ersona natural y en consscuencia es un ser no nacido a la %ida del Derec:o> (Casso#Cer%era>Diccionario de Derec:o 6ri%ado>- Eol& "- 7& +,$- being inca7able of :a%ing rig:ts and obligations& 3ince an action for 7ecuniary damages on account of 7ersonal inBury or deat: 7ertains 7rimarily to t:e one inBured- it is easy to see t:at if no action for suc: damages could be instituted on be:alf of t:e unborn c:ild on account of t:e inBuries it recei%ed- no suc: rig:t of action could deri%ati%ely accrue to its 7arents or :eirs& 2n fact- e%en if a cause of action did accrue on be:alf of t:e unborn c:ild- t:e same 9as extinguis:ed by its 7re#natal deat:- since no transmission to anyone can ta8e 7lace from on t:at lac8ed Buridical 7ersonality (or Buridical ca7acity as distinguis:ed from ca7acity to act$& 2t is no ans9er to in%o8e t:e 7ro%isional 7ersonality of a concei%ed c:ild ( %on%eptus pro nato habetur$ under Article +! of t:e Ci%il Code- because t:at same article ex7ressly limits suc: 7ro%isional 7ersonality by im7osing t:e condition t:at t:e c:ild s:ould be subsequently born ali%e: >7ro%ided it be born later 9it: t:e condition s7ecified in t:e follo9ing article>& 2n t:e 7resent case- t:ere is no dis7ute t:at t:e c:ild 9as dead 9:en se7arated from its mot:er;s 9omb& T:e 7re%ailing American Buris7rudence is to t:e same effectG and it is generally :eld t:at reco%ery can not :ad for t:e deat: of an unborn c:ild (3tafford %s& Road9ay Transit Co&- )! F& 3u77& ...G Dietric: %s& 'ort:am7ton- . Am& Re7& + G and numerous cases collated in t:e editorial note- "! A(R- ( d$ *3,$& T:is is not to say t:at t:e 7arents are not entitled to collect any damages at all& 0ut suc: damages must be t:ose inflicted directly u7on t:em- as distinguis:ed from t:e inBury or %iolation of t:e rig:ts of t:e deceased- :is rig:t to life and 7:ysical integrity& 0ecause t:e 7arents can not ex7ect eit:er :el7- su77ort or ser%ices from an unborn c:ild- t:ey 9ould normally be limited to moral damages for t:e illegal arrest of t:e normal de%elo7ment of t:e spes hominis t:at 9as t:e foetus- i&e&- on account of distress and anguis: attendant to its loss- and t:e disa77ointment of t:eir 7arental

202
ex7ectations (Ci%& Code Art& ")$- as 9ell as to exem7lary damages- if t:e circumstances s:ould 9arrant t:em (Art& 3!$& 0ut in t:e case before us- bot: t:e trial court and t:e Court of A77eals :a%e not found any basis for an a9ard of moral damages- e%idently because t:e a77ellee;s indifference to t:e 7re%ious abortions of :is 9ife- also caused by t:e a77ellant :erein- clearly indicates t:at :e 9as unconcerned 9it: t:e frustration of :is 7arental :o7es and affections& T:e lo9er court ex7ressly foundand t:e maBority o7inion of t:e Court of A77eals did not contradict it- t:at t:e a77ellee 9as a9are of t:e second abortionG and t:e 7robabilities are t:at :e 9as li8e9ise a9are of t:e first& @et des7ite t:e sus7icious re7etition of t:e e%ent- :e a77eared to :a%e ta8en no ste7s to in%estigate or 7in7oint t:e causes t:ereof- and secure t:e 7unis:ment of t:e res7onsible 7ractitioner& 4%en after learning of t:e t:ird abortion- t:e a77ellee does not seem to :a%e ta8en interest in t:e administrati%e and criminal cases against t:e a77ellant& Fis only concern a77ears to :a%e been directed at obtaining from t:e doctor a large money 7ayment- since :e sued for 6.!-!!!&!! damages and 63-!!!&!! attorney;s feesan >indemnity> claim t:at- under t:e circumstances of record- 9as clearly exaggerated& T:e dissenting Custices of t:e Court of A77eals :a%e a7tly remar8ed t:at: 2t seems to us t:at t:e normal reaction of a :usband 9:o rig:teously feels outraged by t:e abortion 9:ic: :is 9ife :as deliberately soug:t at t:e :ands of a 7:ysician 9ould be :ig:minded rat:er t:an mercenaryG and t:at :is 7rimary concern 9ould be to see to it t:at t:e medical 7rofession 9as 7urged of an un9ort:y member rat:er t:an turn :is 9ife;s indiscretion to 7ersonal 7rofit- and 9it: t:at idea in mind to 7ress eit:er t:e administrati%e or t:e criminal cases :e :ad filed- or bot:- instead of abandoning t:em in fa%or of a ci%il action for damages of 9:ic: not only :e- but also :is 9ife- 9ould be t:e beneficiaries& 2t is unquestionable t:at t:e a77ellant;s act in 7ro%o8ing t:e abortion of a77ellee;s 9ife- 9it:out medical necessity to 9arrant it- 9as a criminal and morally re7re:ensible act- t:at can not be too se%erely condemnedG and t:e consent of t:e 9oman or t:at of :er :usband does not excuse it& 0ut t:e immorality or illegality of t:e act does not Bustify an a9ard of damage t:at- under t:e circumstances on record- :a%e no factual or legal basis& T:e decision a77ealed from is re%ersed- and t:e com7laint ordered dismissed& ?it:out costs& (et a co7y of t:is decision be furnis:ed to t:e De7artment of Custice and t:e 0oard of Aedical 4xaminers for t:eir information and suc: in%estigation and action against t:e a77ellee Antonio Gelu= as t:e facts may 9arrant&

F#an7,)n M. D#), n, A(#",) C. T#a-?", G#"A #) A. A#)Da,a, C"%a# M. S ,)% and F"#d)nand R. A!"%a-)% %& C (#$ ' A??"a,%, H n. G" #A" C. MaB,)>InA, In H)% Ca?aB)$8 a% P#"%)d)nA J(dA" ' +#anB. 4;; ' T." R"A) na, T#)a, C (#$ ' Q("D n C)$8, and H - ! n AdaDa G&R& 'o& "!)!",&Aarc: !- ",,) F4RA53232AA- CR&- J.: 6etitioners see8 t:e re%ersal of t:e Resolutions of res7ondent Court of A77eals in CA#G&R& 36 'o& .!/! dated Canuary 3"- ",, and 3e7tember - ",, affirming t:e 5rders- dated February /",," and Aay "+- ",,"- of res7ondent Cudge George C& Aacli#ing 9:ic: denied :erein 7etitioner;s Aotion to Dismiss t:e com7laint filed in Ci%il Case 'o& <#,!#*!)3 by res7ondent Fomobono Ada=a& T:e facts are not in dis7ute& 2n a letter#com7laint to t:en 3ecretary of Custice Fran8lin Drilon 4 dated Aarc: !- ",,!General Renato de Eilla-/ 9:o 9as t:en t:e C:ief of 3taff of t:e Armed Forces of t:e 6:ili77inesrequested t:e De7artment of Custice to order t:e in%estigation of se%eral indi%iduals named t:ereinincluding :erein 7ri%ate res7ondent Fomobono Ada=a- for t:eir alleged 7artici7ation in t:e failed December ",/, %oup d'etat& T:e letter#com7laint 9as based on t:e affida%it of 0rigadier General

203
AleBandro Galido- Ca7tain 5scarlito Aa7alo- Colonel Cuan Aamorno- Colonel Fernani Figueroa and AaBor 4duardo 3ebastian& Gen& de Eilla;s letter#com7laint 9it: its annexes 9as referred for 7reliminary inquiry to t:e 37ecial Com7osite Team of 6rosecutors created 7ursuant to De7artment of Custice 5rder 'o& . dated Canuary "!- ",,!& 6etitioner t:en Assistant C:ief 3tate 6rosecutor Aurelio Tram7e- < t:e Team (eaderfinding sufficient basis to continue t:e inquiry- issued a sub7oena to t:e indi%iduals named in t:e letter# com7laint- Ada=a included- and assigned t:e case for 7reliminary in%estigation to a 7anel of in%estigators com7osed of 7rosecutors George Ari=ala- as C:airman- and Ferdinand Abesamis and Cesar 3olis as members& T:e case 9as doc8eted as 2&3& 'o& D5C#3C#,!#!"3& 5n A7ril ")- ",,!- t:e 7anel released its findings- t:ru a Resolution- 9:ic: reads: 6R4A2343 C5'32D4R4D- 9e find and so :old t:at t:ere is 7robable cause to :old :erein res7ondents for trial for t:e crime of R404((25' ?2TF A1RD4R A'D FR13TRAT4D A1RD4R& Fence 9e res7ectfully recommend t:e filing of t:e corres7onding information against t:em in court& : T:e abo%e Resolution became t:e basis for t:e filing of an 2nformation- 1 dated A7ril "/- ",,!c:arging 7ri%ate res7ondent 9it: t:e crime of rebellion 9it: murder and frustrated murder before t:e Regional Trial Court of <ue=on City- 9it: no recommendation as to bail& 2 Feeling aggrie%ed by t:e institution of t:ese 7roceedings against :im- 7ri%ate res7ondent Ada=a filed a com7laint for damages- 0 dated Culy ""- ",,!- before 0ranc: "!! of t:e Regional Trial Court of <ue=on City& T:e com7laint 9as doc8eted as Ci%il Case 'o& <#,!#*!)3 entitled- > -omobono da+a, plaintiff versus $ran/lin (rilon, et al&-respondents&> 2n :is com7laint- Ada=a c:arged 7etitioners 9it: engaging in a deliberate- 9illful and malicious ex7erimentation by filing against :im a c:arge of rebellion com7lexed 9it: murder and frustrated murder 9:en 7etitioners- according to Ada=a- 9ere fully a9are of t:e non#existence of suc: crime in t:e statute boo8s& 5n 5ctober ".- ",,!- 7etitioners filed a Aotion to Dismiss Ada=a;s com7laint on t:e ground t:at said com7laint states no actionable 9rong constituting a %alid cause of action against 7etitioners& 5n February /- ",,"- 7ublic res7ondent Budge issued an 5rder 9 denying 7etitioners; Aotion to Dismiss& 2n t:e same 5rder- 7etitioners 9ere required to file t:eir ans9er to t:e com7laint 9it:in fifteen (".$ days from recei7t of t:e 5rder& 6etitioners mo%ed for a reconsideration of t:e 5rder of denial- but t:e same 9as li8e9ise denied by res7ondent Cudge in anot:er 5rder dated Aay "+- ",,"& 5 T:e subsequent 5rder reiterated t:at 7etitioners file t:eir res7onsi%e 7leading 9it:in t:e 7rescribed reglementary 7eriod& 2nstead of filing t:eir ans9er as ordered- 7etitioners filed on Cune .- ",," a 7etition for %ertiorari under Rule *. before t:e Court of A77eals- doc8eted as CA#G&R& 'o& .!/!- alleging gra%e abuse of discretion on t:e 7art of t:e res7ondent Cudge in ruling t:at sufficient cause of action exists to 9arrant a full#blo9n :earing of t:e case filed by Ada=a and t:us denying 7etitioners; Aotion to Dismiss& 2n its Resolution 7romulgated on Canuary 3"- ",, - t:e a77ellate court dismissed t:e 7etition for lac8 of merit and ordered res7ondent Cudge to 7roceed 9it: t:e trial of Ci%il Case 'o& <#,!# *!)3& 4; A Aotion for Reconsideration :a%ing been subsequently filed on February /- ",, - t:e court a 0uo denied t:e same in a Resolution dated 3e7tember - ",, & 44 Fence- t:is 7etition- dated 5ctober ,- ",, - 7leading t:is Court to exercise its 7o9er of re%ie9 under Rule +. of t:e Re%ised Rules of Court&

204
5n Canuary "3- ",,3- :o9e%er- t:is Court- t:ru t:e 3econd Di%ision- dismissed t:e 7etition for failure to com7ly 9it: Re%ised Circular 'o& "#//- 7articularly t:e requirement on t:e 7ayment of t:e 7rescribed doc8eting fees& 4/ 5n Aarc: /- ",,3- 4< 9e reinstated t:e 7etition and required t:e res7ondents to comment on t:e aforesaid 7etition& 2n t:e same Resolution- a tem7orary restraining order 9as issued by t:is Court enBoining res7ondent Cudge from furt:er 7roceeding 9it: Ci%il Case 'o& <#,!#*!)3 until furt:er orders from t:is Court& T:e 7etition :as merit& 2n :is Comment- 4: dated Aarc: 3- ",,3- res7ondent Ada=a maintains t:at :is claim before t:e trial court 9as merely a suit for damages based on tort by reason of 7etitioners; %arious malfeasance- misfeasance and nonfeasance in office- as 9ell as for %iolation by t:e 7etitioners of 3ection 3 (e$ of Re7ublic Act 'o& 3!",- ot:er9ise 8no9n as t:e Anti#Graft and Corru7t 6ractices Act& 2t 9as not a suit for malicious 7rosecution& 6ri%ate res7ondent is ta8ing us for a ride& A cursory 7erusal of t:e com7laint filed by Ada=a before res7ondent Cudge George Aacli#ing re%eals t:at it is one for malicious 7rosecution against t:e 7etitioners for t:e latter;s filing of t:e c:arge against :im of rebellion 9it: murder and frustrated murder& An examination of t:e records 9ould s:o9 t:at t:is latest 7osture as to t:e nature of :is cause of action is only being raised for t:e first time on a77eal& 'o9:ere in :is com7laint filed 9it: t:e trial court did res7ondent Ada=a allege t:at :is action is one based on tort or on 3ection 3 (e$ or Re7ublic Act 'o& 3!",& 3uc: a c:ange of t:eory cannot be allo9ed& ?:en a 7arty ado7ts a certain t:eory in t:e court belo9- :e 9ill not be 7ermitted to c:ange :is t:eory on a77eal- for to 7ermit :im to do so 9ould not only be unfair to t:e ot:er 7arty but it 9ould also be offensi%e to t:e basic rules of fair 7lay- Bustice and due 7rocess& 41 Any member of t:e 0ar- e%en if not too sc:ooled in t:e art of litigation- 9ould easily discern t:at Ada=a;s com7laint is no doubt a suit for damages for malicious 7rosecution against t:e :erein 7etitioners& 1nfortunately- :o9e%er- :is com7laint filed 9it: t:e trial court suffers from a fatal infirmity O t:at of failure to state a cause of action O and s:ould :a%e been dismissed rig:t from t:e start& ?e s:all s:o9 9:y& T:e term mali%ious prose%ution :as been defined in %arious 9ays& 2n American Burisdiction- it is defined as: 5ne begun in malice 9it:out 7robable cause to belie%e t:e c:arges can be sustained (4ustace %& Dec:ter- / Cal& A77& d& )!*- /3 6& d& . .$& 2nstituted 9it: intention of inBuring defendant and 9it:out 7robable cause- and 9:ic: terminates in fa%or of t:e 7erson 7rosecuted& For t:is inBury an action on t:e case lies- called t:e action of malicious 7rosecution (Fic8s %& 0rantley- , 3&4& +.,- "! Ga& *+G 4ggett %& Allen- ,* '&?& /!3- "", ?is& * .$& 42 2n 6:ili77ine Burisdiction- it :as been defined as: An action for damages broug:t by one against 9:om a criminal 7rosecution- ci%il suitor ot:er legal 7roceeding :as been instituted maliciously and 9it:out 7robable causeafter t:e termination of suc: 7rosecution- suit- or ot:er 7roceeding in fa%or of t:e defendant t:erein& T:e gist of t:e action is t:e 7utting of legal 7rocess in forceregularly- for t:e mere 7ur7ose of %exation or inBury (Cabasaan %& Anota- "+"*,#R'o%ember ",- ",.*$& 40 T:e statutory basis for a ci%il action for damages for malicious 7rosecution are found in t:e 7ro%isions of t:e 'e9 Ci%il Code on Fuman Relations and on damages 7articularly Articles ",- !- "*- ,- 3 - 33- 3.- ") and ", (/$& 49 To constitute malicious 7rosecution- :o9e%er- t:ere must be 7roof t:at t:e 7rosecution 9as 7rom7ted by a sinister design to %ex and :umiliate a 7erson- and t:at it

205
9as initiated deliberately by t:e defendant 8no9ing t:at :is c:arges 9ere false and groundless& Concededly- t:e mere act of submitting a case to t:e aut:orities for 7rosecution does not ma8e one liable for malicious 7rosecution& 45 T:us- in order for a malicious 7rosecution suit to 7ros7er- t:e 7laintiff must 7ro%e t:ree (3$ elements: ("$ t:e fact of t:e 7rosecution and t:e furt:er fact t:at t:e defendant 9as :imself t:e 7rosecutor and t:at t:e action finally terminated 9it: an acquittalG ( $ t:at in bringing t:e action- t:e 7rosecutor acted 9it:out 7robable causeG and (3$ t:at t:e 7rosecutor 9as actuated or im7elled by legal malice- t:at is by im7ro7er or sinister moti%e& /; All t:ese requisites must concur& Cudging from t:e face of t:e com7laint itself filed by Ada=a against t:e :erein 7etitioners- none of t:e foregoing requisites :a%e been alleged t:erein- t:us rendering t:e com7laint dismissible on t:e ground of failure to state a cause of action under 3ection " (g$- Rule "* of t:e Re%ised Rules of Court& T:ere is not:ing in t:e records 9:ic: s:o9s- and t:e com7laint does not allege- t:at Criminal Case 'o& <#,!#""/..- filed by t:e 7etitioners against res7ondent Ada=a for Rebellion 9it: Aurder and Frustrated Aurder- :as been finally terminated and t:erein accused Ada=a acquitted of t:e c:arge& 'ot e%en Ada=a :imself- t:ru counsel- ma8es any 7ositi%e asse%eration on t:is as7ect t:at 9ould establis: :is acquittal& 2nsofar as Criminal Case 'o& <#,!#""/.. is concerned- 9:at a77ears clear from t:e records only is t:at res7ondent :as been disc:arged on a 9rit of habeas %orpus and granted bail& /4 T:is is not- :o9e%er- considered t:e termination of t:e action contem7lated under 6:ili77ine Burisdiction to 9arrant t:e institution of a malicious 7rosecution suit against t:ose res7onsible for t:e filing of t:e information against :im& T:e com7laint li8e9ise does not ma8e any allegation t:at t:e 7rosecution acted 9it:out 7robable cause in filing t:e criminal information dated A7ril "/- ",,! for rebellion 9it: murder and frustrated murder& 4lementarily defined- 7robable cause is t:e existence of suc: facts and circumstances as 9ould excite t:e belief- in a reasonable mind- acting on t:e facts 9it:in t:e 8no9ledge of t:e 7rosecutor- t:at t:e 7erson c:arged 9as guilty of t:e crime for 9:ic: :e 9as 7rosecuted& 2t is 9ell#settled t:at one cannot be :eld liable for maliciously instituting a 7rosecution 9:ere one :as acted 9it: 7robable cause& 4lse9ise stated- a suit for malicious 7rosecution 9ill lie only in cases 9:ere a legal 7rosecution :as been carried on 9it:out 7robable cause& T:e reason for t:is rule is t:at it 9ould be a %ery great discouragement to 7ublic Bustice- if 7rosecutors- 9:o :ad tolerable ground of sus7icion- 9ere liable to be sued at la9 9:en t:eir indictment miscarried& // 2n t:e case under consideration- t:e decision of t:e 37ecial Team of 6rosecutors to file t:e information for rebellion 9it: murder and frustrated murder against res7ondent Ada=a- among ot:erscannot be dismissed as t:e mere 7roduct of 9:im or ca7rice on t:e 7art of t:e 7rosecutors 9:o conducted t:e 7reliminary in%estigation& 3aid decision 9as fully Bustified in an eig:teen ("/$#7age Resolution dated A7ril ")- ",,!& /< ?:ile it is true t:at t:e 7etitioners 9ere fully a9are of t:e 7re%ailing Buris7rudence enunciated in &eople v& -ernande+- /: 9:ic: 7roscribes t:e com7lexing of murder and ot:er common crimes 9it: rebellion- 7etitioners 9ere of t:e :onest con%iction t:at t:e Fernande= Case can be differentiated from t:e 7resent case& T:e 7etitioners t:us argued: 5f course 9e are a9are of t:e ruling in &eople vs& Fernande=- ,, 6:il& .".- 9:ic: :eld t:at common crimes li8e murder- arson- etc& are absorbed by rebellion& Fo9e%er- t:e Fernande= case is different from t:e 7resent case before us& 2n t:e Fernande= caset:e common crimes of murder- arson- etc& 9ere found by t:e fiscal to :a%e been committed as a necessary means to commit rebellion- or in furt:erance t:ereof& T:ust:e fiscal filed an information for rebellion alleging t:ose common crimes as a necessary means of committing t:e offense c:arged under t:e second 7art of Article +/- R6C& ?e- :o9e%er- find no occasion to a77ly t:e Fernande= ruling since as intimated abo%et:e crimes of murder and frustrated murder in t:is case 9ere absolutely unnecessary to

206
commit rebellion alt:oug: t:ey 9ere t:e natural consequences of t:e unla9ful bombing& Fence- t:e a77licable 7ro%ision is t:e first 7art of Article +/ of t:e R6C& /1 ?:ile t:e 3u7reme Court in t:e case of Enrile v& #ala+ar- /2 addressing t:e issue of 9:et:er or not t:e Fernande= doctrine is still good la9- in a "!#3 %ote- did not sustain t:e 7osition es7oused by t:e :erein 7etitioners on t:e matter- t:ree Bustices /0 felt t:e need to re#study t:e Fernande= ruling in lig:t of 7resent#day de%elo7ments- among 9:om 9as t:en C:ief Custice Aarcelo Fernan 9:o 9rote a dissenting o7inion in t:is 9ise: 2 am constrained to 9rite t:is se7arate o7inion on 9:at seems to be a rigid ad:erence to t:e ",.* ruling of t:e Court& T:e numerous c:allenges to t:e doctrine enunciated in t:e case of &eople vs&-ernande+- ,, 6:il& .". (",.*$- s:ould at once demonstrate t:e need to redefine t:e a77licability of said doctrine so as to ma8e it conformable 9it: acce7ted and 9ell#settled 7rinci7les of criminal la9 and Buris7rudence& To my mind- t:e Fernande= doctrine s:ould not be inter7reted as an all#embracing aut:ority for t:e rule t:at all common crimes committed on t:e occasion- or in furt:erance of- or in connection 9it:- rebellion are absorbed by t:e latter& To t:at extent2 cannot go along 9it: t:e %ie9 of t:e maBority in t:e instant case t:at >Fernande= remains binding doctrine o7erating to 7ro:ibit t:e com7lexing of rebellion 9it: any ot:er offense committed on t:e occasion t:ereof- eit:er as a means necessary to its commission or as an unintended effect of an acti%ity t:at constitutes rebellion> (7& ,Decision$& T:e Fernande= doctrine :as ser%ed t:e 7ur7ose for 9:ic: it 9as a77lied by t:e Court in ",.* during t:e communist#ins7ired rebellion of t:e Fu8s& T:e c:anges in our society in t:e s7an of 3+ years since t:en :a%e far#reac:ing effects on t:e all# embracing a77licability of t:e doctrine considering t:e emergence of alternati%e modes of sei=ing t:e 7o9ers of t:e duly#constituted Go%ernment not contem7lated in Articles "3+ and "3. of t:e Re%ised 6enal Code and t:eir consequent effects on t:e li%es of our 7eo7le& T:e doctrine 9as good la9 t:en- but 2 belie%e t:at t:ere is a certain as7ect of t:e Fernande= doctrine t:at needs clarification& /9 A77arently- not e%en t:e 3u7reme Court t:en 9as of one mind in debun8ing t:e t:eory being ad%anced by t:e 7etitioners in t:is case- some of 9:om 9ere also t:e 7etitioners in t:e Enrile case& 'e%ert:eless- 9e :eld in Enrilet:at t:e 2nformation filed t:erein 7ro7erly c:arged an offense O t:at of sim7le rebellion O /5 and t:ereu7on ordered t:e remand of t:e case to t:e trial court for t:e 7rosecution of t:e named accused <; in t:e 2nformation t:erein& Follo9ing t:is lead- t:e 2nformation against Ada=a in Criminal Case 'o& <#,!#""/.. 9as not quas:ed- but 9as instead treated li8e9ise as c:arging t:e crime of sim7le rebellion& A doubtful or difficult question of la9 may become t:e basis of good fait: and- in t:is regardt:e la9 al9ays accords to 7ublic officials t:e 7resum7tion of good fait: and regularity in t:e 7erformance of official duties& <4 Any 7erson 9:o see8s to establis: ot:er9ise :as t:e burden of 7ro%ing bad fait: or ill#moti%e& Fere- since t:e 7etitioners 9ere of t:e :onest con%iction t:at t:ere 9as 7robable cause to :old res7ondent Ada=a for trial for t:e crime of rebellion 9it: murder and frustrated murder- and since Ada=a :imself- t:roug: counsel- did not allege in :is com7laint lac8 of 7robable cause- 9e find t:at t:e 7etitioners cannot be :eld liable for malicious 7rosecution& 'eedless to say7robable cause 9as not 9anting in t:e institution of Criminal Case 'o& <#,!#""/.. against Ada=a& As to t:e requirement t:at t:e 7rosecutor must be im7elled by malice in bringing t:e unfounded action- suffice it to state t:at t:e 7resence of 7robable cause signifies- as a legal consequence- t:e absence of malice& </ At t:e ris8 of being re7etitious- it is e%ident in t:is case t:at 7etitioners 9ere not moti%ated by malicious intent or by a sinister design to unduly :arass 7ri%ate

207
res7ondent- but only by a 9ell#founded belief t:at res7ondent Ada=a can be :eld for trial for t:e crime alleged in t:e information& All told- t:e com7laint- dated Culy ""- ",,!- filed by Ada=a before 0ranc: "!! of t:e Regional Trial Court against t:e 7etitioners does not allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for malicious 7rosecution& (ac8 of cause of action- as a ground for a motion to dismiss under 3ection " (g$- Rule "* of t:e Re%ised Rules of Court- must a77ear on t:e face of t:e com7laint itself- meaning t:at it must be determined from t:e allegations of t:e com7laint and from none ot:er& << T:e infirmity of t:e com7laint in t:is regard is only too ob%ious to :a%e esca7ed res7ondent Budge;s attention& 6aragra7: "+ of t:e com7laint 9:ic: states: xxx xxx xxx "+& T:e malicious 7rosecution- nay 7ersecution- of 7laintiff for a non#existent crime :ad se%erely inBured and besmirc:ed 7laintiff;s name and re7utation and fore%er stigmati=ed :is stature as a 7ublic figure- t:ereby causing :im extreme 7:ysical suffering- serious anxiety- mental anguis:- moral s:oc8 and social :umiliation&<: is a mere conclusion of la9 and is not an a%erment or allegation of ultimate facts& 2t does nott:erefore- aid in any 9ise t:e com7laint in setting fort: a %alid cause of action against t:e 7etitioners& 2t is 9ort:y to note t:at t:is case 9as ele%ated to t:e 7ublic res7ondent Court of A77eals and no9 to t:is Court because of res7ondent Cudge Aacli#ing;s denial of 7etitioners; motion to dismiss t:e Ada=a com7laint& T:e ordinary 7rocedure- as a general rule- is t:at 7etitioners s:ould :a%e filed an ans9er- go to trial- and if t:e decision is ad%erse- reiterate t:e issue on a77eal& <1 T:is general rule:o9e%er- is subBect to certain exce7tions- among 9:ic: are- if t:e court denying t:e motion to dismiss acts 9it:out or in excess of Burisdiction or 9it: gra%e abuse of discretion- in 9:ic: case %ertiorari under Rule *. may be a%ailed of& T:e reason is t:at it 9ould be unfair to require t:e defendants (7etitioners in t:is case$ to undergo t:e ordeal and ex7ense of trial under suc: circumstances- because t:e remedy of a77eal t:en 9ould t:en not be 7lain and adequate& <2 Cudge Aacli#ing committed gra%e abuse of discretion in denying 7etitioners; motion to dismiss t:e Ada=a com7laint- and t:us 7ublic res7ondent Court of A77eals s:ould :a%e issued t:e 9rit of %ertiorari 7rayed for by t:e 7etitioners and annulled t:e February /- ",," and Aay "+- ",," 5rders of res7ondent Cudge& 2t 9as grie%ous error on t:e 7art of t:e courta 0uo not to :a%e done so& T:is :as to be corrected& Res7ondent Ada=a;s baseless action cannot be sustained for t:is 9ould unBustly com7el t:e 7etitioners to needlessly go t:roug: a 7rotracted trial and t:ereby unduly burden t:e court 9it: one more futile and inconsequential case& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e 7etition is GRA'T4D& T:e Resolutions of res7ondent Court of A77eals dated Canuary 3"- ",, and 3e7tember - ",, affirming t:e February /- ",," and Aay "+- ",," 5rders of res7ondent Cudge George C& Aacli#ing are all :ereby '1((2F24D A'D 34T A32D4& Res7ondent Cudge is D2R4CT4D to ta8e no furt:er action on Ci%il Case 'o& <#,!#*!)3 exce7t to D23A233 t:e same&

Ra'a", Pa$#)B) V. T." H n #a!," O%Ba# L"&)%$", J(dA", C') Ca?)D, +#anB. II and +)"n&"n)d +aBa, B % G&R& 'o& (#."/3 & A7ril *- ",/, 6AD2((A- J.:

208
6etition for re%ie9 on %ertiorari of t:e 5rder 4 of t:e Court of First 2nstance of Ca7i=- 0ranc: 22on t:e motion for reconsideration flied by 7ri%ate res7ondent 0ien%enido 0acalocos- dismissing t:e com7laint for damages against t:e latter- doc8eted as Ci%il Case 'o& E#3,3)& 6etitioner Rafael 6atricio- an ordained Cat:olic 7riest- and acti%ely engaged in social and ci%ic affairs in 6ilar- Ca7i=- 9:ere :e is residing- 9as a77ointed Director General of t:e ",)* Religious and Aunici7al To9n Fiesta of 6ilar- Ca7i=& 5n "* Aay ",)* at about "!:!! o;cloc8 in t:e e%ening- 9:ile a benefit dance 9as on#going in connection 9it: t:e celebration of t:e to9n fiesta- 7etitioner toget:er 9it: t9o ( $ 7olicemen 9ere 7osted near t:e gate of t:e 7ublic auditorium to c:ec8 on t:e assigned 9atc:ers of t:e gate& 6ri%ate res7ondent 0ien%enido 0acalocos- 6resident of t:e Association of 0arangay Ca7tains of 6ilar- Ca7i= and a member of t:e 3angguniang 0ayan- 9:o 9as in a state of drun8enness and standing near t:e same gate toget:er 9it: :is com7anions- struc8 a bottle of beer on t:e table causing an inBury on :is :and 9:ic: started to bleed& T:en- :e a77roac:ed 7etitioner in a :ostile manner and as8ed t:e latter if :e :ad seen :is 9ounded :and- and before 7etitioner could res7ond- 7ri%ate res7ondent- 9it:out 7ro%ocation- :it 7etitioner;s face 9it: :is bloodied :and& As a consequence- a commotion ensued and 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as broug:t by t:e 7olicemen to t:e munici7al building& / As a result of t:e incident- a criminal com7laint for >3lander by Deed 9as flied by 7etitioner 9it: t:e Aunici7al Trial Court of 6ilar- Ca7i=- doc8eted as Criminal Case 'o& /- but t:e same 9as dismissed& < 3ubsequently- a com7laint for damages 9as filed by 7etitioner 9it: t:e court a 0uo& 2n a decision : dated "/ A7ril ",)/- t:e court ruled in fa%or of :erein 7etitioner (as com7lainant$- :olding 7ri%ate res7ondent liable to t:e former for moral damages as a result of t:e 7:ysical suffering- moral s:oc8 and social :umiliation caused by 7ri%ate res7ondent;s act of :itting 7etitioner on t:e face in 7ublic& T:e dis7ositi%e 7art of t:e decision reads as follo9s: ?F4R4F5R4- t:e Court orders defendant to 7ay 7laintiff t:e damages as follo9s: a$ Aoral damages of 6"!-!!!&!! b$ 4xem7lary damages- 6"-!!!&!! and c$ Attorney;s fees- 6 -!!!&!!& 35 5RD4R4D& 1 5n , Cune ",)/- 7etitioner filed a motion for execution of Budgment- alleging t:at t:e "/ A7ril ",)/ decision :ad become final and executory after t:e la7se of t:irty (3!$ days from recei7t t:ereof by 7ri%ate res7ondent- 9it:out any motion for reconsideration or a77eal :a%ing been filed& 2 Fo9e%ersaid motion 9as denied by t:e court a 0uoon t:e ground t:at t:ere 9as a 7ending motion for reconsideration filed by 7ri%ate res7ondent& 0 3ubsequently- 7ri%ate res7ondent filed a su77lemental motion for reconsideration 9 and t:e court ordered 7etitioner to file a re7ly (o77osition$ t:ereto& 5 2n com7liance- 7etitioner flied a re7ly (o77osition$ to t:e motion for reconsideration- alleging t:at t:e filing of said motion and su77lement t:ereto 9as 9it:out notice to t:e ad%erse 7arty and 7roof of ser%ice:ence- t:e decision soug:t to be reconsidered :ad already become final and una77ealable& 4; 6ri%ate res7ondent filed a reBoinder (re7ly$ and a manifestation stating t:at 7etitioner 9as duly ser%ed 9it: a co7y of said motion for reconsideration by ordinary mail- attac:ing t:ereto t:e affida%it of Godofredo Alma=ol 9:o stated t:at :e mailed t:e en%elo7e to counsel for :erein 7etitioner& 44 T:e court a 0uo t:en sc:eduled t:e motion for oral argument and t:e 7arties 9ere allo9ed to extensi%ely argue t:eir res7ecti%e causes& 5n 3 August ",),- an order 4/ of dismissal of t:e 7etitioner;s com7laint 9as issued by t:e trial court- t:us O

209
5RD4R T:is is a motion for reconsideration of t:e decision of t:is Court dated A7ril "/- ",)/filed by counsel for defendant on Aay "/- ",)/& 2n %ie9 of t:e recent trend in t:e 3u7reme Court to liberally construe t:e Rules- and in %ie9 of 3ection - Rule "- t:e Court resol%es to gi%e due course to t:e motion& 17on re%ie9 of t:e facts of t:e case- it a77ears and t:e Court finds merit in t:e motion for reconsideration- 7articularly noting t:at t:ere is indeed no s:o9ing of com7ensatory damages being 7ro%ed& ?F4R4F5R4- tills Court reconsiders its decision to conform to t:e facts and t:e la9namely- t:at moral and exem7lary damages- in order to merit- t:e 7laintiff oug:t to :a%e 7ro%en actual or com7ensatory damages& ?F4R4F5R4- t:is case is ordered dismissed& 35 5RD4R4D& 'ot satisfied 9it: said order- 7etitioner filed t:e 7etition at bar contending t:at no co7y of t:e Aotion for consideration 9as ser%ed u7on 7etitioner and no 7roof of ser%ice as 9ell as notice of :earing 9ere attac:ed to said motion 9:en filed 9it: t:e court a 0uoH t:us- t:e motion for reconsideration did not interru7t t:e running of t:e 7eriod to a77eal& T:e alleged mailing of a co7y of said motion by ordinary mail did not- according to 7etitioner- cure t:e defect& 6etitioner furt:er argues t:at res7ondent;s admission t:at :e sla77ed :erein 7etitioner in 7ublic causing :im 7:ysical suffering and social :umiliation- entitles t:e latter to moral damages& Actual and com7ensatory damages need not be 7ro%en before an a9ard of moral damages can be granted- so 7etitioner contends& 5n t:e ot:er :and- 7ri%ate res7ondent claims t:at t:e order of t:e court a 0uo a77rising 7etitioner of t:e motion for reconsideration filed by 7ri%ate res7ondent and requiring t:e former to file a re7ly (o77osition$ t:ereto- :ad cured t:e defect of lac8 of 7roof of ser%ice and notice of :earing of said motion for reconsiderationG and t:at t:e a9ard of moral damages to 7etitioner is 9it:out basis for lac8 of 7roof of bad fait: on t:e 7art of 7ri%ate res7ondent& ?it: res7ect to t:e alleged lac8 of ser%ice on 7etitioner of a co7y of t:e motion and notice of :earing and failure to attac: to t:e motion 7roof of ser%ice t:ereof- t:e general rule is t:at notice of motion is required 9:ere a 7arty :as a rig:t to resist t:e relief soug:t by t:e motion and 7rinci7les of natural Bustice demand t:at :is rig:ts be not affected 9it:out an o77ortunity to be :eard& 4< 2n t:e case at bar- a co7y of t:e motion for reconsideration 9as ser%ed u7on 7etitioneralt:oug: ser%ice 9as effected t:roug: ordinary mail and not by registered mail as reqired by t:e rules& 0ut- 7etitioner 9as duly gi%en t:e full o77ortunity to be :eard and to argue :is case 9:en t:e court a 0uo required :im to file a re7ly (o77osition$ to t:e motion for reconsideration and subsequently set t:e motion for oral argument& ?:at t:e la9 really esc:e9s is not t:e lac8 of 7re%ious notice of :earing but t:e lac8 of o77ortunity to be :eard& 2t :as been :eld t:at 7arties s:ould not rely on mere tec:nicalities 9:ic:- in t:e interest of Bustice- may be relaxed& 4:T:e rifles of 7rocedure s:ould be %ie9ed as mere tools designed to facilitate t:e attainment of Bustice& T:eir strict and rigid a77lication- 9:ic: 9ould result in tec:nicalities t:at tend to frustrate rat:er t:an 7romote substantial Bustice- must be a%oided& 41 Aoreo%er- t:e case s:ould- as muc: as 7ossible- be decided on t:e merits and not merely on tec:nicalities& As to t:e 7etitioner;s claim for moral damages- 9e find t:e same to be meritorious& T:ere is no question t:at moral damages may be reco%ered in cases 9:ere a defendant;s 9rongful act or

210
omission :as caused t:e com7lainant 7:ysical suffering- mental anguis:- frig:t- serious anxietybesmirc:ed re7utation- 9ounded feelings- moral s:oc8- social :umiliation and similar inBury& 42 An a9ard of moral damages is allo9ed in cases s7ecified or analogous to t:ose 7ro%ided in Article ", of t:e Ci%il Code- to 9it: ART& ",& Aoral damages may be reco%ered in t:e follo9ing and analogous cases

("$ A criminal offense resulting in 7:ysical inBuriesG ( $ <uasi#delicts causing 7:ysical inBuriesG (3$ 3eduction- abduction- ra7e- or ot:er lasci%ious acts& (+$ Adultery or concubinageG (.$ 2llegal or arbitrary detention or arrestG (*$ 2llegal searc:G ()$ (ibel- slander or any ot:er form of defamationG (/$ Aalicious 7rosecutionG (,$ Acts mentioned in article 3!,G ("!$ Acts and actions referred to in articles "- *- )- /- ,- 3!- 3 - 3+- and 3.& xxx xxx xxx 6ri%ate res7ondent;s contention t:at t:ere 9as no bad fait: on :is 7art in sla77ing 7etitioner on t:e face and t:at t:e incident 9as merely accidental is not tenable& 2t 9as establis:ed before t:e court a 0uo t:at t:ere 9as an existing feud bet9een t:e families of bot: 7etitioner and 7ri%ate res7ondent and t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent sla77ed t:e 7etitioner 9it:out 7ro%ocation in t:e 7resence of se%eral 7ersons& T:e act of 7ri%ate res7ondent in :itting 7etitioner on t:e face is contrary to morals and good customs and caused t:e 7etitioner mental anguis:- moral s:oc8- 9ounded feelings and social :umiliation& 6ri%ate res7ondent :as to ta8e full res7onsibility for :is act and :is claim t:at :e 9as una9are of 9:at :e :ad done to 7etitioner because of drun8enness is definitely no excuse and does not relie%e :im of :is liability to t:e latter& 6ursuant to Art& " of t:e Ci%il Code in relation to 7ar& ("!$ of Art& ", of t:e same Code- >any 7erson 9:o 9ilfully causes loss or inBury to anot:er in a manner t:at is contrary to morals- good customs or 7ublic 7olicy s:all com7ensate t:e latter for t:e damage&> T:e fact t:at no actual or com7ensatory damage 9as 7ro%en before t:e trial court- does not ad%ersely affect 7etitioner;s rig:t to reco%er moral damages& Aoral damages may be a9arded in a77ro7riate cases referred to in t:e c:a7ter on :uman relations of t:e Ci%il Code (Articles ", to 3*$9it:out need of 7roof t:at t:e 9rongful act com7lained of :ad caused any 7:ysical inBury u7on t:e com7lainant& 40 2t is clear from t:e re7ort of t:e Code Commission t:at t:e reason underlying an a9ard of damages under Art& " of t:e Ci%il Code is to com7ensate t:e inBured 7arty for t:e moral in*ury caused u7on :is 7erson- t:us O &&& & Fully sensible t:at t:ere are countless ga7s in t:e statutes- 9:ic: lea%e so many %ictims of moral 9rongs :el7less- e%en t:oug: t:ey :a%e actually suffered material and moral inBury- t:e Commission :as deemed it necessary- in t:e interest of Bustice- to incor7orate in t:e 7ro7osed Ci%il Code t:e follo9ing rule:

211
ART& 3& Any 7erson 9:o 9ilfully causes loss or inBury to anot:er in a manner t:at is contrary to morals- good customs or 7ublic 7olicy s:all com7ensate t:e latter for t:e damage& xxx xxx xxx 2n addition to t:e a9ard of moral damages- exem7lary or correcti%e damages may be im7osed u7on :erein 7ri%ate res7ondent by 9ay of exam7le or correction for t:e 7ublic good& 45 4xem7lary damages are required by 7ublic 7olicy to su77ress t:e 9anton acts of t:e offender& T:ey are an antidote so t:at t:e 7oison of 9ic8edness may not run t:roug: t:e body 7olitic& /; T:e amount of exem7lary damages need not be 7ro%ed 9:ere it is s:o9n t:at 7laintiff is entitled to eit:er moraltem7erate or com7ensatory damages- as t:e case may be- /4 alt:oug: suc: a9ard cannot be reco%ered as a matter of rig:t& 2n cases 9:ere exem7lary damages are a9arded to t:e inBured 7arty- attorney;s fees are also reco%erable& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e 7etition is GRA'T4D& T:e order a77ealed from- dated 3 August ",),- is R4E4R34D and t:e decision of t:e court a 0uo dated "/ A7ril ",)/ is :ereby R42'3TAT4D& ?it: costs against 7ri%ate res7ondent&

G#and Un) n S(?"#-a#7"$, InB. and N",)a San$ % Fand)n %& J %" J. E%?)n J#., and $." H n #a!," C (#$ ' A??"a,% G&R& 'o& (#+/ .!&December /- ",), G14RR4R5- J. T:is is a 7etition tor certiorari by 9ay of a77eal from t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals 4 dated 3e7tember *- ",)) rendered in CA#G&R& 'o& .."/*#R entitled > Jose J. Espino, Jr., plaintiff7appellant. versus 1rand 3nion #upermar/et, )n%. and Nelia #antos7$andino, defendants# a77ellees-> t:e dis7ositi%e 7ortion of 9:ic: statesG ?F4R4F5R4- t:e a77ealed Budgment is :ereby re%ersed and set aside& Defendants are ordered to 7ay 7laintiff#Bointly and se%erally- t:e sum of 3e%enty#Fi%e T:ousand 6esos (6).-!!!&!!$ by 9ay of moral damages& T9enty#Fi%e T:ousand 6esos (6 .-!!!&!!$ as exem7lary damages- and Fi%e T:ousand 6esos (6.-!!!&!!$ as attorney;s fee- Costs of bot: instances s:all be taxed against t:e defendant defendants& T:e facts of t:e case are as stated in t:e decision of t:e res7ondent court to 9it: >17on t:e e%idence- and from t:e findings of t:e lo9er court- it a77ears t:at in t:e morning of August - ",)!- 7laintiff Cose C& 4s7ino& Cr&- a ci%il engineer and an executi%e of 6rocter and Gamble 6:ili77ines- 2nc&- and :is 9ife and t:eir t9o daug:ters 9ent to s:o7 at t:e defendants; 3out: 3u7ermar8et in Aa8ati& ?:ile :is 9ife 9as s:o77ing at t:e groceries section- 7laintiff bro9sed around t:e ot:er 7arts of t:e mar8et& Finding a cylindrical >rat tail> file 9:ic: :e needed in :is :obby and :ad been 9anting to buy- 7laintiff 7ic8ed u7 t:at item from one of t:e s:el%es& Fe :eld it in :is :and t:in8ing t:at it mig:t be lost- because of its tiny si=e- if :e 7ut it in :is 9ife;s grocery cart& 2n t:e course of t:eir s:o77ing- 7laintiff and :is 9ife sa9 t:e maid of 7laintiff;s aunt& ?:ile tal8ing to t:is maid7laintiff stuc8 t:e file into t:e front breast 7oc8et of :is s:irt 9it: a good 7art of t:e merc:andise ex7osed& >At t:e c:ec8#out counter- t:e 7laintiff 7aid for :is 9ife;s 7urc:ases 9:ic: amounted to 6))&!!but :e forgot to 7ay for t:e file& As :e 9as lea%ing by t:e exit of t:e su7ermar8et on :is 9ay to :is carcarrying t9o bags of groceries and accom7anied by :is 9ife and t9o daug:ter- 7laintiff 9as a77roac:ed by a uniformed guard of t:e su7ermar8et 9:o said: >4xcuse me- Ar&- 2 t:in8 you :a%e

212
somet:ing in your 7oc8et 9:ic: you :a%e not 7aid for&> (7& .- tsn- Aug& "3- ",)"$- 7ointing to :is left front breast 7oc8et& 3uddenly reminded of t:e file- 7laintiff a7ologi=ed t:us: >2 am sorry-> and :e turned bac8 to9ard t:e cas:ier to 7ay for t:e file& 0ut t:e guard sto77ed :im and led :im instead to9ard t:e rear of t:e su7ermar8et& T:e 7laintiff 7rotested but t:e guard 9as firm saying: >'o- Ar&- 7lease come 9it: me& 2t is t:e 7rocedure of t:e su7ermar8et to bring 7eo7le t:at 9e a77re:end to t:e bac8 of t:e su7ermar8et> (7& /- 2bid$& T:e time 9as bet9een , and "! o;cloc8& A cro9d of customers on t:eir 9ay into t:e su7ermar8et sa9 t:e 7laintiff being sto77ed and led by a uniformed guard to9ard t:e rear of t:e su7ermar8et& 6laintiff acquiesced and signaled to :is 9ife and daug:ters to 9ait& >2nto a cubicle 9:ic: 9as immediately adBacent to t:e area 9:ere deli%eries to t:e su7ermar8et 9ere being made- t:e 7laintiff 9as us:ered& T:e guard directed :im to a table and ga%e t:e file to t:e man seated at t:e des8& Anot:er man stood beside t:e 7laintiff& T:e man at t:e des8 loo8ed at t:e 7laintiff and t:e latter immediately ex7lained t:e circumstances t:at led to t:e finding of t:e file in :is 7ossession& T:e man at t:e des8 7ulled out a s:eet of 7a7er and began to as8 7laintiff;s name- ageresidence and ot:er 7ersonal data& 6laintiff 9as as8ed to ma8e a brief statement- and on t:e s:eet of 7a7er or >2ncident Re7ort> :e 9rote do9n t:e follo9ing: >?:ile tal8ing to my aunt;s maid 9it: my 9ife2 7ut t:is item in my s:irt 7oc8et& 2 forgot to c:ec8 it out 9it: my 9ife;s items> (4x:ibit A$& Aean9:ilet:e 7laintiff;s 9ife Boined :im and as8ed 9:at :ad ta8en :im so long& >T:e guard 9:o :ad accosted 7laintiff too8 :im bac8 inside t:e su7ermar8et in t:e com7any of :is 9ife& 6laintiff and :is 9ife 9ere directed across t:e main entrance to t:e s:o77ing area- do9n t:e line of c:ec8#out counters- to a des8 beside t:e first c:ec8out counter& To t:e 9oman seated at t:e des8- 9:o turned out to be defendant 'elia 3antos#Fandino- t:e guard 7resented t:e incident re7ort and t:e file- 4x:ibit 0& Defendant Fandino read t:e re7ort and addressing t:e guard remar8ed: >Anona8a9 na naman ito> (7& - 2d&$& 6laintiff ex7lained and narrated t:e incident t:at led to t:e finding of t:e file in :is 7oc8et- telling Fandino t:at :e 9as going to 7ay for t:e file because :e needed it& 0ut t:is defendant re7lied: >T:at is all t:ey say- t:e 7eo7le 9:om 9e cause not 7aying for t:e goods say&&& T:ey all intended to 7ay for t:e t:ings t:at are found to t:em&> (7& 3- 2d$& 6laintiff obBected and said t:at :e 9as a regular customer of t:e su7ermar8et& >4xtracting a 6.&!! bill from :is 7oc8et- 7laintiff told Fandino t:at :e 9as 7aying for t:e file 9:ose cost 9as 63&/.& Fandino reac:ed o%er and too8 t:e 6.&!! bill from 7laintiff 9it: t:ese 9ords: >?e are fining you 6.&!!& T:at is your t:e fine&> 6laintiff 9as s:oc8ed& Fe and :is 9ife obBected %igorously t:at :e 9as not a common criminal- and t:ey 9anted to get bac8 t:e 6.&!!& 0ut Fandino told t:em t:at t:e money 9ould be gi%en as an incenti%e to t:e guards 9:o a77re:end 7ilferers& 6eo7le 9ere milling around t:em and staring at t:e 7laintiff& 6laintiff ga%e u7 t:e discussion& Fe dre9 a 6.!&!! bill and too8 bac8 t:e file& Fandino directed :im to t:e nearest c:ec8#out counter 9:ere :e :ad to fall in line& T:e 7eo7le 9:o :eard t:e exc:ange of 9ords bet9een Fandino and 7laintiff continued to stare at :im& At t:e trial- 7laintiff ex7ressed :is embarrassment and :umiliation t:us: > 2 felt as t:oug: 2 9anted to disa77ear into a :ole on t:e ground> (7& 3+- 2d&$& After 7aying for t:e file7laintiff and :is 9ife 9al8ed as fast as t:ey could out of t:e su7ermar8et& Fis first im7ulse 9as to go bac8 to t:e su7ermar8et t:at nig:t to t:ro9 roc8s at its glass 9indo9s& 0ut reason 7re%ailed o%er 7assion and :e t:oug:t t:at Bustice s:ould ta8e its due course& >6laintiff 9as certain during t:e trial t:at 9:en :e signed t:e incident re7ort- 4x:ibit A- inside t:e cubicle at t:e bac8 of t:e su7ermar8et only :is brief statement of t:e facts (4x:ibit A# $- aside from :is name and 7ersonal circumstances- 9as 9ritten t:ereon& Fe s9ore t:at t:e follo9ing 9ere not in t:e incident re7ort at- t:e time :e signed it: 4x:ibit A#2 9:ic: says o77osite t:e stenciled 9ord 310C4CT >3:o7lifting> 4x:ibit A#3 9:ic: says o77osite t:e stenciled 9ords Action Ta8en: Released by Ars& Fandino after 7aying t:e item&

213
4x:ibit A#+ 9:ic: says o77osite t:e stenciled 9ords Remar8s 'oted: >Grd& 4breo requested Grd& 6aunil to a77re:end subBect s:o7lifter& 6ri%ate res7ondent;s com7laint filed on 5ctober /- ",)! is founded on Article " in relation to Article ", of t:e 'e9 Ci%il Code and 7rays for moral damages- exem7lary damages- attorney s fees and ;ex7enses of litigation- costs of t:e suit and t:e return of t:e 6.&!! fine& After trial- t:e Court of First 2nstance of 6asig- Ri=al- 0ranc: `2` dismissed t:e com7laint- 2nter7osing t:e a77eal to t:e Court of A77eals- t:e latter re%ersed and set aside t:e a77ealed Budgment- granting and damages as earlier stated& 'ot satisfied 9it: t:e decision of t:e res7ondent court- 7etitioners instituted t:e 7resent 7etition and submits t:e follo9ing grounds andHor assignment of errors- to 9it: 2 Res7ondent Court of A77eals erred in a9arding moral and exem7lary damages to t:e res7ondent 4s7ino under Articles ", and " in relation to Article ", of t:e Ci%il Codeconsidering t:at O A& Res7ondent 4s7ino 9as guilty of t:eftG 0& 6etitioners legitimately exercised t:eir rig:t of defense of 7ro7erty 9it:in t:e context of Article + , of t:e Ci%il Code negating t:e a77lication of Articles ", and " of t:e same CodeG C& 6etitioners acted u7on 7robable cause in sto77ing and in%estigating res7ondent 4s7ino for s:o7lifting and as :eld in %arious decisions in t:e 1nited 3tates on s:o7lifting- a merc:ant 9:o acts u7on 7robable cause s:ould not be :eld liable in damages by t:e sus7ected s:o7lifterG D& 6etitioners did not exercise t:eir rig:t maliciously- 9ilfully or in bad fait:G andHor 4& T:e 7roximate cause of res7ondent 4s7ino;s alleged inBury or suffering 9as :is o9n negligence or forgetfulnessG 7etitioners acted in good fait:& 22 Assuming arguendo t:at 7etitioners are :able for moral and exem7lary damages- t:e a9ard of 6).-!!!&!! for moral damages and 6 .-!!!&!! for exem7lary damages by t:e res7ondent Court of A77eals is not legally Bustified andHor is grossly excessi%e in t:e 7remises& 222 T:e a9ard of 6.-!!!&!! for attorney;s fees by t:e res7ondent Court of A77eals is unBustified and un9arranted under Article ",, of t:e Ci%il Code& ?e agree 9it: t:e :olding of t:e res7ondent a77ellate court t:at >t:e e%idence sustains t:e court;s finding t:at t:e 7laintiff :ad absolutely no intention to steal t:e file&> T:e totality of t:e facts and circumstances as found by t:e Court of A77eals unerringly 7oints to t:e conclusion t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent did not intend to steal t:e file and t:at is act of 7ic8ing u7 t:e file from t:e o7en s:elf 9as not criminal nor done 9it: malice or criminal intent for on t:e contrary- :e too8 t:e item 9it: t:e intention of buying and 7aying for it& T:is Court needs only to stress t:e follo9ing undis7uted facts 9:ic: strongly and con%incingly u7:old t:e conclusion t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as not >s:o7lifting&> T:us- t:e facts t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent after 7ic8ing t:e cylindrical >rat#tail> file costing 63&/. :ad 7laced it inside :is left front

214
breast 7oc8et 9it: a good 7ortion of t:e item ex7osed to %ie9 and t:at :e did not conceal it in :is 7erson or :id it from sig:t as 9ell as t:e fact t:at :e 7aid t:e 7urc:ases of :is 9ife amounting to 6))&!! at t:e c:ec8out counter of t:e 3u7ermar8et- o9ed t:at :e 9as not acting sus7iciously or furti%ely& And t:e circumstance t:at :e 9as 9it: :is family consisting of :is 9ife Ars& Caridad Cayme 4s7ino- and t:eir t9o daug:ters at t:e time negated any criminal intent on :is 7art to steal& Aoreo%er9:en 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as a77roac:ed by t:e guard of t:e 3u7ermar8et as :e 9as lea%ing by t:e exit to :is car 9:o told :im- >4xcuse me- Ar&- 2 t:in8 you :a%e somet:ing in your 7oc8et 9:ic: you :a%e not 7aid for-> 4s7ino- immediately a7ologi=ed and ans9ered- >2 am sorry-> 9:ic: indicated :is sincere a7ology or regrets& Fe turned bac8 to9ards t:e cas:ier to 7ay for t:e file 9:ic: 7ro%ed :is :onesty sincerity and good fait: in buying t:e item- and not to s:o7lift t:e same& Fis brief statement on t:e s:eet of 7a7er called t:e 2ncident Re7ort 9:ere 7ri%ate res7ondent 9rote t:e follo9ing: >?:ile tal8ing to my aunt;s maid 9it: my 9ife- 2 7ut t:is item in in my s:irt 7oc8et& 2 forgot to c:ec8 it out 9it: my 9ife;s item-> 9as an instant and contem7oraneous ex7lanation of t:e incident& Considering furt:er t:e 7ersonal circumstances of t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent& :is education7osition and c:aracter s:o9ing t:at :e is a graduate Aec:anical 4ngineer from 1&6& Class ",.!em7loyed as an executi%e of 6roctor & Gamble 6:ils&- 2nc&- a cor7orate manager inc:arge of motoring and 9are:ousing t:ereinG :onorably disc:arged from t:e 6:ili77ine Army in ",+*G a 6:ili77ine go%ernment 7ensionado of t:e 1nited 3tates for six mont:sG member of t:e 6:ili77ine %eterans (egionG aut:or of articles 7ublis:ed in t:e Aanila 3unday Times and 6:ili77ines Free 6ressG member of t:e Inig:ts of Columbus- Council 'o& 3)"3G son of t:e late Cose Aaria 4s7ino- retired AinisterDe7artment of Foreign Affairs at t:e 6:ili77ine 4mbassy ?as:ington- ?e are fully con%inced- as t:e trial and a77ellate courts 9ere- t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent did not intend to steal t:e article costing 63&/.& 'ot:ing in t:e records intimates or :ints 9:atsoe%er t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent :as :ad any 7olice record of any sort muc: less sus7icion of stealing or s:o7lifting& ?e do not lay do9n :ere any :ard#and#fast rule as to 9:at act or combination of acts constitute t:e crime of s:o7lifting for it must be stressed t:at eac: case must be considered and adBudged on a case#to#case basis and t:at in t:e determination of 9:et:er a 7erson sus7ected of s:o7lifting :as in trut: and in fact committed t:e same- all t:e attendant facts and circumstances s:ould be considered in t:eir entirety and not from any single fact or circumstance from 9:ic: to im7ute t:e stigma of s:o7lifting on any 7erson sus7ected and a77re:ended t:erefor& ?e li8e9ise concur 9it: t:e Court of A77eals t:at >(u$7on t:e facts and under t:e la9- 7laintiff :as clearly made t:e cause of action for damages against t:e defendants& Defendants 9ilfully caused loss or inBury to 7laintiff in a manner t:at 9as contrary to morals- good customs or 7ublic 7olicyma8ing t:em amenable to damages under Articles ", and " in relation to Article ", of t:e Ci%il Code&> / T:at 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as falsely accused of s:o7lifting is e%ident& T:e 2ncident Re7ort (4x:ibit A$ 9it: t:e entries t:ereon under 4x:ibit A#" 9:ic: says o77osite t:e stenciled 9ord 310C4CT: >3:o7lifting-> 4x:ibit A#3 9:ic: says o77osite t:e stenciled 9ords Action Ta8en: Relesed by Ars& Fandino after 7aying t:e item-> 4x:ibit A#+ 9:ic: says o77osite t:e stenciled 9ords Remar8s 'oted: Grd& 4breo requested Grd& 6aunil to a77re:end subBect s:o7lifter-> establis:ed t:e o7inionBudgment or t:in8ing of t:e management of 7etitioner;s su7ermar8et u7on 7ri%ate res7ondent;s act of 7ic8ing u7 t:e file& ln 7lain 9ords- 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as regarded and 7ronounced a s:o7lifter and :ad committed >s:o7lifting&> ?e also affirm t:e Court of A77eals; finding t:at 7etitioner 'elia 3antos Fandino- after reading t:e incident re7ort- remar8ed t:e follo9ing: >Ano- na8a9 na naman ito>& 3uc: a remar8 made in t:e 7resence of 7ri%ate res7ondent and 9it: reference to t:e incident re7ort 9it: its entries- 9as offensi%e to 7ri%ate res7ondent;s dignity and defamatory to :is c:aracter and :onesty& ?:en 4s7ino ex7lained t:at :e 9as going to 7ay t:e file but sim7ly forgot to do so- Fandino doubted t:e ex7lanation& saying: >T:at is all 9:at t:ey say- t:e 7eo7le 9:om 9e caug:t not 7aying for t:e goods say&&& t:ey all intended

215
to 7ay for t:e t:ings t:at are found to t:em&> 6ri%ate res7ondent obBected and said t:at :e 9as a regular customer of t:e 3u7ermar8et& T:e admission of Fandino t:at s:e required 7ri%ate res7ondent to 7ay a fine of 6.&!! and did in fact ta8e t:e 6.&!! bill of 7ri%ate res7ondent tendered by t:e latter to 7ay for t:e file- as a fine 9:ic: 9ould be gi%en as an incenti%e to t:e guards 9:o a77re:end 7ilferers clearly 7ro%ed t:at Fandino branded 7ri%ate res7ondent as a t:ief 9:ic: 9as not rig:t nor Bustified& T:e testimony of t:e guard t:at management instructed t:em to bring t:e sus7ected customers to t:e 7ublic area for t:e 7eo7le to see t:ose 8ind of customers in order t:at t:ey may be embarassed (7& *- tsn- 3e7t& 3!- ",)"$G t:at management 9anted >t:e customers to be embarrassed in 7ublic so t:at t:ey 9ill not re7eat t:e stealing again> (7& - tsn- Dec& "!- ",)"$G t:at t:e management as8ed t:e guards >to bring t:ese customers to different cas:iers in order t:at t:ey 9ill 8no9 t:at t:ey are 7ilferers> (7& - 2bid&$ may indicate t:e manner or 7attern 9:ereby a confirmed or self#confessed s:o7lifter is treated by t:e 3u7ermar8et management but in t:e case at bar- t:ere is no s:o9ing t:at suc: 7rocedure 9as ta8en in t:e case of t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent 9:o denied strongly and %e:emently t:e c:arge of s:o7lifting& 'onet:eless- t:e false accusation c:arged against t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent after detaining and interrogating :im by t:e uniformed guards and t:e mode and manner in 9:ic: :e 9as subBecteds:outing at :im- im7osing u7on :im a fine- t:reatening to call t:e 7olice and in t:e 7resence and :earing of many 7eo7le at t:e 3u7ermar8et 9:ic: broug:t and caused :im :umiliation and embarrassment- sufficiently rendered t:e 7etitioners liable for damages under Articles ", and " in relation to Article ", of t:e Ci%il Code& ?e rule t:at under t:e facts of t:e case at bar- 7etitioners 9ilfully caused loss or inBury to 7ri%ate res7ondent in a manner t:at 9as contrary to morals- good customs or 7ublic 7olicy& 2t is against morals- good customs and 7ublic 7olicy to :umiliate- embarrass and degrade t:e dignity of a 7erson& 4%eryone must res7ect t:e dignity- 7ersonality- 7ri%acy and 7eace of mind of :is neig:bors and ot:er 7ersons (Article *- Ci%il Code$& And one must act 9it: Bustice- gi%e e%eryone :is due and obser%e :onesty and good fait: (Article ",- Ci%il Code$& 6ri%ate res7ondent is entitled to damages but ?e :old t:at t:e a9ard of 3e%enty#Fi%e T:ousand 6esos (6).-!!!&!!$ for moral damages and T9enty#Fi%e T:ousand 6esos (6 .-!!!&!!- for exem7lary damages is unconscionable and excessi%e& ?:ile no 7roof of 7ecuniary loss is necessary in order t:at moral- nominal- tem7erateliquidated or exem7lary damages may be adBudicated- t:e assessment of suc: damages- exce7t liquidated ones- is left to t:e discretion of t:e court- according to t:e circumstances of eac: case (Art& "*- 'e9 Ci%il Code$& 2n t:e case at bar- t:ere is no question t:at t:e 9:ole incident t:at befell res7ondent :ad arisen in suc: a manner t:at 9as created un9ittingly by :is o9n act of forgetting to 7ay for t:e file& 2t 9as :is forgetfullness in c:ec8ing out t:e item and 7aying for it t:at started t:e c:ain of e%ents 9:ic: led to :is embarassment and :umiliation t:ereby causing :im mental anguis:9ounded feelings and serious anxiety& @et- 7ri%ate res7ondent;s act of omission contributed to t:e occurrence of :is inBury or loss and suc: contributory negligence is a factor 9:ic: may reduce t:e damages t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent may reco%er (Art& "+- 'e9 Ci%il Code$& Aoreo%er- t:at many 7eo7le 9ere 7resent and t:ey sa9 and :eard t:e ensuing interrogation and altercation a77ears to be sim7ly a matter of coincidence in a su7ermar8et 9:ic: is a 7ublic 7lace and t:e cro9d of onloo8ers:earers or bystanders 9as not deliberately soug:t or called by management to 9itness 7ri%ate res7ondent;s 7redicament& ?e do not belie%e t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as intentionally 7araded in order to :umiliate or embarrass :im because 7etitioner;s business de7ended for its success and 7atronage t:e good 9ill of t:e buying 7ublic 9:ic: can only be 7reser%ed and 7romoted by good 7ublic relations& As succinctly ex7ressed by Ar& Custice C& 0& (& Reyes in :is concurring and dissenting o7inion in 6angasinan Trans7ortation Com7any- 2nc- %s& (egas7i- " 3CRA .,/- t:e 7ur7ose of moral

216
damages is essentially indemnity or re7aration- bot: 7unis:ment or correction& Aoral damages are em7:atically not intended to enric: a com7lainant at t:e ex7ense of a defendantG t:ey are a9arded only to enable t:e inBured 7arty to obtain means- di%ersion or amusements t:at 9ill ser%e to alle%iate t:e moral suffering :e :as undergone- by reason of t:e defendant;s cul7able action& 2n ot:er 9ordst:e a9ard of moral damages is aimed at a restoration- 9it:in t:e limits of t:e 7ossible- of t:e s7iritual status 0uo ante and- it must be 7ro7ortionate to t:e suffering inflicted& 2n 5ur considered estimation and assessment- moral damages in t:e amount of Fi%e T:ousand 6esos (6.-!!!&!!$ is reasonable and Bust to a9ard to 7ri%ate res7ondent& T:e grant of T9enty#Fi%e T:ousand 6esos (6 .-!!!&!!$ as exem7lary damages is unBustified& 4xem7lary or correcti%e damages are im7osed by 9ay of exam7le or correction for t:e 7ublic good- in addition to t:e moral- tem7erate- liquidated or com7ensatory damages (Art& ,- 'e9 Ci%il Code$& 4xem7lary damages cannot be reco%ered as a matter of rig:tG t:e court 9ill decide 9:et:er or not t:ey could be adBudicated (Art& 3- 'e9 Ci%il Code$& Considering t:at exem7lary damages are a9arded for 9anton acts- t:at t:ey are 7enal in c:aracter granted not by 9ay of com7ensation but as a 7unis:ment to t:e offender and as a 9arning to ot:ers as a sort of deterrent- ?e :old t:at t:e facts and circumstances of t:e case at bar do not 9arrant t:e grant of exem7lary damages& 6etitioners acted in good fait: in trying to 7rotect and reco%er t:eir 7ro7erty- a rig:t 9:ic: t:e la9 accords to t:em& 1nder Article + ,- 'e9 Ci%il Code- t:e o9ner or la9ful 7ossessor of a t:ing :as a rig:t to exclude any 7erson from t:e enBoyment and dis7osal t:ereof and for t:is 7ur7ose- :e may use suc: force as may be reasonably necessary to re7el or 7re%ent an actual or t:reatened unla9ful 7:ysical in%asion or usur7ation of :is 7ro7erty& And since a 7erson 9:o acts in t:e fulfillment of a duty or in t:e la9ful exercise of a rig:t or office exem7ts :im from ci%il or criminal liability- 7etitioner may not be 7unis:ed by im7osing exem7lary damages against :im& ?e agree t:at 7etitioners acted u7on 7robable cause in sto77ing and in%estigating 7ri%ate res7ondent for ta8ing t:e file 9it:out 7aying for it:ence- t:e im7osition of exem7lary damages as a 9arning to ot:ers by 9ay of a deterrent is 9it:out legal basis& ?e- t:erefore- eliminate t:e grant of exem7lary damages to t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent& 2n t:e lig:t of t:e reduction of t:e damages- ?e :ereby li8e9ise reduce t:e original a9ard of Fi%e T:ousand 6esos (6.-!!!&!!$ as attorney;s fees to T9o T:ousand 6esos (6 -!!!&!!$& ?F4R4F5R4- 2' E24? 5F TF4 F5R4G52'G- t:e Budgment of t:e Court of A77eals is :ereby modified& 6etitioners are :ereby ordered to 7ay- Bointly and se%erally- to 7ri%ate res7ondent moral damages in t:e sum of Fi%e T:ousand 6esos (6.-!!!&!!$ and t:e amount of T9o T:ousand 6esos (6 -!!!&!!$ as and for attorney;s feesG and furt:er- to return t:e 6.&!! fine to 7ri%ate res7ondent& 'o costs&

S ,"dad Ca#?) &. L" n #a A. Va,- n$" G&R& 'o& "."/**&3e7tember ,- !!+ T2'GA- J.: Assailed in t:e instant 7etition for re%ie9 is t:e (e%ision of t:e Court of A77eals in C&A&#G&R& CE 'o& *,.3)-"7romulgated on ") Canuary !! & T:e a77ellate court re%ersed t:e trial courtXs decision denying res7ondentXs claim for damages against 7etitioner and ordered t:e latter to 7ay moral damages to t:e former in t:e amount of6"!!-!!!&!!& Res7ondent (eonora Ealmonte is a 9edding coordinator& Aic:elle del Rosario and Con 3ierra engaged :er ser%ices for t:eir c:urc: 9edding on "! 5ctober ",,*& At about +:3! 7&m& on t:at dayEalmonte 9ent to t:e Aanila Fotel 9:ere t:e bride and :er family 9ere billeted& ?:en s:e arri%ed at 3uite 3 *#A- se%eral 7ersons 9ere already t:ere including t:e bride- t:e brideXs 7arents and relati%est:e ma8e#u7 artist and :is assistant- t:e official 7:otogra7:ers- and t:e fas:ion designer& Among

217
t:ose 7resent 9as 7etitioner 3oledad Car7io- an aunt of t:e bride 9:o 9as 7re7aring to dress u7 for t:e occasion& After re7orting to t:e bride- Ealmonte 9ent out of t:e suite carrying t:e items needed for t:e 9edding rites and t:e gifts from t:e 7rinci7al s7onsors& 3:e 7roceeded to t:e Aaynila Restaurant 9:ere t:e rece7tion 9as to be :eld& 3:e 7aid t:e su77liers- ga%e t:e meal allo9ance to t:e band- and 9ent bac8 to t:e suite& 17on entering t:e suite- Ealmonte noticed t:e 7eo7le staring at :er& 2t 9as at t:is Buncture t:at 7etitioner allegedly uttered t:e follo9ing 9ords to Ealmonte: 8)/a' lang ang lumabas ng /'arto, nasaan ang dala mong bagE #aan /a pumuntaE )/a' lang and lumabas ng /'arto, i/a' ang /umuha.8 6etitioner t:en ordered one of t:e ladies to searc: EalmonteXs bag& 2t turned out t:at after Ealmonte left t:e room to attend to :er duties- 7etitioner disco%ered t:at t:e 7ieces of Be9elry 9:ic: s:e 7laced inside t:e comfort room in a 7a7er bag 9ere lost& T:e Be9elry 7ieces consist of t9o ( $ diamond rings- one ("$ set of diamond earrings- bracelet and nec8lace 9it: a total %alue of about one million 7esos& T:e :otel security 9as called in to :el7 in t:e searc:& T:e bags and 7ersonal belongings of all t:e 7eo7le inside t:e room 9ere searc:ed& Ealmonte 9as allegedly bodily searc:edinterrogated and trailed by a security guard t:roug:out t:e e%ening& (ater- 7olice officers arri%ed and inter%ie9ed all 7ersons 9:o :ad access to t:e suite and finger7rinted t:em including Ealmonte& During all t:e time Ealmonte 9as being interrogated by t:e 7olice officers- 7etitioner 8e7t on saying t:e 9ords >3iya lang ang lumabas ng 89arto&> EalmonteXs car 9:ic: 9as 7ar8ed at t:e :otel 7remises 9as also searc:ed but t:e searc: yielded not:ing& A fe9 days after t:e incident- 7etitioner recei%ed a letter from Ealmonte demanding a formal letter of a7ology 9:ic: s:e 9anted to be circulated to t:e ne9ly9edsX relati%es and guests to redeem :er smeared re7utation as a result of 7etitionerXs im7utations against :er& 6etitioner did not res7ond to t:e letter& T:us- on ! February ",,)- Ealmonte filed a suit for damages against :er before t:e Regional Trial Court (RTC$ of 6asig City- 0ranc: */ . 2n :er com7laint- Ealmonte 7rayed t:at 7etitioner be ordered to 7ay actual- moral and exem7lary damages- as 9ell as attorneyXs fees& Res7onding to t:e com7laint- 7etitioner denied :a%ing uttered 9ords or done any act to confront or single out Ealmonte during t:e in%estigation and claimed t:at e%eryt:ing t:at trans7ired after t:e t:eft incident 9as 7urely a 7olice matter in 9:ic: s:e :ad no 7artici7ation& 6etitioner 7rayed for t:e dismissal of t:e com7laint and for t:e court to adBudge Ealmonte liable on :er counterclaim& T:e trial court rendered its (e%ision on " August !!!- dismissing EalmonteXs com7laint for damages& 2t ruled t:at 9:en 7etitioner soug:t in%estigation for t:e loss of :er Be9elry- s:e 9as merely exercising :er rig:t and if damage results from a 7erson exercising :is legal rig:t- it is damnum abs0ue in*uria& 2t added t:at no 7roof 9as 7resented by Ealmonte to s:o9 t:at 7etitioner acted maliciously and in bad fait: in 7ointing to :er as t:e cul7rit& T:e court said t:at Ealmonte failed to s:o9 t:at s:e suffered serious anxiety- moral s:oc8- social :umiliation- or t:at :er re7utation 9as besmirc:ed due to 7etitionerXs 9rongful act& Res7ondent a77ealed to t:e Court of A77eals alleging t:at t:e trial court erred in finding t:at 7etitioner did not slander :er good name and re7utation and in disregarding t:e e%idence s:e 7resented& T:e Court of A77eals ruled differently& 2t o7ined t:at Ealmonte :as clearly establis:ed t:at s:e 9as singled out by 7etitioner as t:e one res7onsible for t:e loss of :er Be9elry& 2t cited t:e testimony of 3erena Aanding- corroborating EalmonteXs claim t:at 7etitioner confronted :er and uttered 9ords to t:e effect t:at s:e 9as t:e only one 9:o 9ent out of t:e room and t:at s:e 9as t:e one 9:o too8 t:e Be9elry& T:e a77ellate court :eld t:at EalmonteXs claim for damages is not 7redicated on t:e fact t:at s:e 9as subBected to body searc: and interrogation by t:e 7olice but rat:er 7etitionerXs act of 7ublicly accusing :er of ta8ing t:e missing Be9elry& 2t categori=ed 7etitionerXs utterance defamatory considering t:at it im7uted u7on Ealmonte t:e crime of t:eft& T:e court concluded t:at 7etitionerXs %erbal assault u7on Ealmonte 9as done 9it: malice and in bad fait: since it 9as made in t:e 7resence of many

218
7eo7le 9it:out any solid 7roof exce7t 7etitionerXs sus7icion& 3uc: unfounded accusation entitles Ealmonte to an a9ard of moral damages in t:e amount of 6"!!-!!!&!! for s:e 9as 7ublicly :umiliated- dee7ly insulted- and embarrassed& Fo9e%er- t:e court found no sufficient e%idence to Bustify t:e a9ard of actual damages& Fence- t:is 7etition& 6etitioner contends t:at t:e a77ellate courtXs conclusion t:at s:e 7ublicly :umiliated res7ondent does not conform to t:e e%idence 7resented& 3:e adds t:at e%en on t:e assum7tion t:at s:e uttered t:e 9ords com7lained of- it 9as not s:o9n t:at s:e did so 9it: malice and in bad fait:& 2n essence- 7etitioner 9ould 9ant t:is Court to re%ie9 t:e factual conclusions reac:ed by t:e a77ellate court& T:e cardinal rule ad:ered to in t:is Burisdiction is t:at a 7etition for re%ie9 must raise only questions of la9-3 and Budicial re%ie9 under Rule +. does not extend to an e%aluation of t:e sufficiency of e%idence unless t:ere is a s:o9ing t:at t:e findings com7lained of are totally de%oid of su77ort in t:e record or t:at t:ey are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion&+ T:is Court- 9:ile not a trier of facts- may re%ie9 t:e e%idence in order to arri%e at t:e correct factual conclusion based on t:e record es7ecially so 9:en t:e findings of fact of t:e Court of A77eals are at %ariance 9it: t:ose of t:e trial court- or 9:en t:e inference dra9n by t:e Court of A77eals from t:e facts is manifestly mista8en&. Contrary to t:e trial courtXs finding- 9e find sufficient e%idence on record tending to 7ro%e t:at 7etitionerXs im7utations against res7ondent 9as made 9it: malice and in bad fait:& 6etitionerXs testimony 9as s:orn of substance and consists mainly of denials& 3:e claimed not to :a%e uttered t:e 9ords im7uting t:e crime of t:eft to res7ondent or to :a%e mentioned t:e latterXs name to t:e aut:orities as t:e one res7onsible for t:e loss of :er Be9elry& ?ell#settled is t:e rule t:at denials- if unsubstantiated by clear and con%incing e%idence- are negati%e and self#ser%ing 9:ic: merit no 9eig:t in la9 and cannot be gi%en greater e%identiary %alue o%er t:e testimony of credible 9itnesses 9:o testify on affirmati%e matters&* Res7ondent- :o9e%er- :as successfully refuted 7etitionerXs testimony& <uite credibly- s:e :as narrated in great detail :er distressing ex7erience on t:at fateful day& 3:e testified as to :o9 rudely s:e 9as treated by 7etitioner rig:t after s:e returned to t:e room& 6etitioner immediately confronted :er and uttered t:e 9ords >)/a' lang ang lumabas ng /'arto. Nasaan ang dala mong bagE #aan /a pumuntaE )/a' ang /umuha&> T:ereafter- :er body 9as searc:ed including :er bag and :er car& ?orse- during t:e rece7tion- s:e 9as once more as8ed by t:e :otel security to go to t:e ladies room and s:e 9as again bodily searc:ed&) 3ereDa Aanding- a ma8e#u7 artist- corroborated res7ondentXs testimony& 3:e testified t:at 7etitioner confronted res7ondent in t:e 7resence of all t:e 7eo7le inside t:e suite accusing :er of being t:e only one 9:o 9ent out of t:e comfort room before t:e loss of t:e Be9elry& Aanding added t:at res7ondent 9as embarrassed because e%erybody else in t:e room t:oug:t s:e 9as a t:ief& / 2f only to debun8 7etitionerXs assertion t:at s:e did not utter t:e accusatory remar8s in question 7ublicly and 9it: malice- AandingXs testimony on t:e 7oint deser%es to be re7roduced& T:us< After t:at 9:at did s:e doJ A T:en (eo came out from t:e ot:er room s:e said- s:e is (sic$ t:e one 2 only sa9 from t:e comfort room& < 'o9- 9:at exact 9ord (sic$ 9ere said by Ars& Car7io on t:at matterJ A 3:e said >siya lang yung na8ita 8ong galing sa C&R&> < And 9:o 9as Ars& Car7io or t:e defendant referring toJ

219
A (eo Ealmonte& < Did s:e say anyt:ing else- t:e defendantJ A Fer Be9elry 9ere lost and (eo 9as t:e only one s:e sa9 in t:e C&R& After t:at s:e get (sic$ t:e 7a7er bag t:en t:e Be9elry 9ere already gone& < Did s:e confront t:e 7laintiff Ars& Ealmonte regarding t:at factJ A @es& < ?:at did t:e defendant Ars& Car7io tell t:e 7laintiff- Ars& EalmonteJ A >28a9 yung na8ita 8o sa C&R& na9a9ala yung ala:as 8o&> < ?:en t:e defendant Ars& Car7io said t:at to 7laintiff Ars& Ealmonte 9ere t:ere ot:er 7eo7le inside t:e roomJ A @es- sir& < ?ere t:ey able to :ear 9:at Ars& Car7io said to Ars& EalmonteJ A @es- sir& < ?:at 9as your t:in8ing at t:at time t:at Ars& Car7io said t:at to Ars& EalmonteJ A >'a8a8a:iya 8asi a8ala ng iba doon na talagang magnana8a9 siya& Iasi marami na 8aming nandodoon- dumating na yung couturier 7ati yung %ideo man and 9e sir& < ?:o 9as t:e 7erson you M9ereN alleging >na na8a8a:iya> 9:ose (sic$ being accused or being somebody 9:o stole t:ose item of Be9elryJ A >'a8a8a:iya 7ara 8ay (eo 8asi 7inagbibintangan siya& 3a dami namin doon siya yung na7agbintangan&> < And 9:o is (eo- 9:at is :er full nameJ A (eo Ealmonte& < Did t:e defendant tell t:is matter to ot:er 7eo7le inside t:e roomJ A @es- t:e mot:er of t:e bride& < And 9:o else did s:e tal8 toJ A T:e fat:er of t:e bride also& < And 9:at did t:e defendant tell t:e mot:er regarding t:is matterJ A >'a9a9ala yung ala:as 8o&> 3abi naman nung mot:er ba8a naman :indi mo dala tignan mo munang mabuti& < ?:o 9as t:at ot:er 7erson t:at s:e tal8ed toJ A Fat:er of t:e bride&,

220
3ignificantly- 7etitionerXs counsel elected not to 7ursue :er cross#examination of t:e 9itness on t:is 7oint follo9ing :er terse and firm declaration t:at s:e remembered 7etitionerXs exact defamatory 9ords in ans9er to t:e counselXs question&"! Caime 6a7io- 3ecurity 3u7er%isor at Aanila Fotel- li8e9ise contradicted 7etitionerXs allegation t:at s:e did not sus7ect or mention t:e name of res7ondent as :er sus7ect in t:e loss of t:e Be9elry&"" To 9arrant reco%ery of damages- t:ere must be bot: a rig:t of action- for a 9rong inflicted by t:e defendant- and t:e damage resulting t:erefrom to t:e 7laintiff& ?rong 9it:out damage- or damage 9it:out 9rong- does not constitute a cause of action&" 2n t:e s7:ere of our la9 on :uman relations- t:e %ictim of a 9rongful act or omission- 9:et:er done 9illfully or negligently- is not left 9it:out any remedy or recourse to obtain relief for t:e damage or inBury :e sustained& 2ncor7orated into our ci%il la9 are not only 7rinci7les of equity but also uni%ersal moral 7rece7ts 9:ic: are designed to indicate certain norms t:at s7ring from t:e fountain of good conscience and 9:ic: are meant to ser%e as guides for :uman conduct& "3 First of t:ese fundamental 7rece7ts is t:e 7rinci7le commonly 8no9n as >abuse of rig:ts> under Article ", of t:e Ci%il Code& 2t 7ro%ides t:at 8Every person must, in the e.er%ise of his rights and in the performan%e of his duties, a%t 'ith *usti%e, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith.8 To find t:e existence of an abuse of rig:t- t:e follo9ing elements must be 7resent: ("$ t:ere is a legal rig:t or dutyG ( $ 9:ic: is exercised in bad fait:G (3$ for t:e sole intent or 7reBudicing or inBuring anot:er& "+ ?:en a rig:t is exercised in a manner 9:ic: discards t:ese norms resulting in damage to anot:er- a legal 9rong is committed for 9:ic: t:e actor can be :eld accountable&". 5ne is not allo9ed to exercise :is rig:t in a manner 9:ic: 9ould cause unnecessary 7reBudice to anot:er or if :e 9ould t:ereby offend morals or good customs& T:us- a 7erson s:ould be 7rotected only 9:en :e acts in t:e legitimate exercise of :is rig:t- t:at is 9:en :e acts 9it: 7rudence and good fait:G but not 9:en :e acts 9it: negligence or abuse&"* Com7lementing t:e 7rinci7le of abuse of rig:ts are t:e 7ro%isions of Articles ! and " of t:e Ci%il Code 9:ic: read- t:us: Art& !& 4%ery 7erson 9:o- contrary to la9- 9illfully or negligently causes damage to anot:ers:all indemnify t:e latter for t:e same& Art& "& Any 7erson 9:o 9illfully causes loss or inBury to anot:er in a manner t:at is contrary to morals or good customs or 7ublic 7olicy s:all com7ensate t:e latter for t:e damage& T:e foregoing rules 7ro%ide t:e legal bedroc8 for t:e a9ard of damages to a 7arty 9:o suffers damage 9:ene%er one commits an act in %iolation of some legal 7ro%ision- or an act 9:ic: t:oug: not constituting a transgression of 7ositi%e la9- ne%ert:eless %iolates certain rudimentary rig:ts of t:e 7arty aggrie%ed& 2n t:e case at bar- 7etitionerXs %erbal re7roac: against res7ondent 9as certainly uncalled for considering t:at by :er o9n account nobody 8ne9 t:at s:e broug:t suc: 8ind and amount of Be9elry inside t:e 7a7er bag&") T:is being t:e case- s:e :ad no rig:t to attac8 res7ondent 9it: :er innuendos 9:ic: 9ere not merely inquisiti%e but outrig:tly accusatory& 0y o7enly accusing res7ondent as t:e only 7erson 9:o 9ent out of t:e room before t:e loss of t:e Be9elry in t:e 7resence of all t:e guests t:erein- and ordering t:at s:e be immediately bodily searc:ed- 7etitioner %irtually branded res7ondent as t:e t:ief& True- 7etitioner :ad t:e rig:t to ascertain t:e identity of t:e malefactor- but to malign res7ondent 9it:out an iota of 7roof t:at s:e 9as t:e one 9:o actually stole t:e Be9elry is an act 9:ic:by any standard or 7rinci7le of la9 is im7ermissible& 6etitioner :ad 9illfully caused inBury to res7ondent in a manner 9:ic: is contrary to morals and good customs& Fer firmness and resol%e to find :er missing Be9elry cannot Bustify :er acts to9ard res7ondent& 3:e did not act 9it: Bustice and good fait: for a77arently- s:e :ad no ot:er 7ur7ose in mind but to 7reBudice res7ondent& Certainly- 7etitioner

221
transgressed t:e 7ro%isions of Article ", in relation to Article accountable& " for 9:ic: s:e s:ould be :eld

59ing to t:e rule t:at great 9eig:t and e%en finality is gi%en to factual conclusions of t:e Court of A77eals 9:ic: affirm t:ose of t:e trial court- "/ 9e sustain t:e findings of t:e trial court and t:e a77ellate court t:at res7ondentXs claim for actual damages :as not been substantiated 9it: satisfactory e%idence during t:e trial and must t:erefore be denied& To be reco%erable- actual damages must be duly 7ro%ed 9it: reasonable degree of certainty and t:e courts cannot rely on s7eculation- conBecture or guess9or8&", Res7ondent- :o9e%er- is clearly entitled to an a9ard of moral damages& Aoral damages may be a9arded 9:ene%er t:e defendantXs 9rongful act or omission is t:e 7roximate cause of t:e 7laintiffXs 7:ysical suffering- mental anguis:- frig:t- serious anxiety- besmirc:ed re7utation- 9ounded feelingsmoral s:oc8- social :umiliation- and similar inBury ! in t:e cases s7ecified or analogous to t:ose 7ro%ided in Article ", of t:e Ci%il Code& "T:oug: no 7roof of 7ecuniary loss is necessary in order t:at moral damages may be adBudicated- courts are mandated to ta8e into account all t:e circumstances obtaining in t:e case and assess damages according to t:eir discretion& ?ort:y of note is t:at moral damages are not a9arded to 7enali=e t:e defendant- 3 or to enric: a com7lainantbut to enable t:e latter to obtain means- di%ersions or amusements t:at 9ill ser%e to alle%iate t:e moral suffering :e :as undergone- by reason of defendantXs cul7able action& 2n any case- a9ard of moral damages must be 7ro7ortionate to t:e sufferings inflicted& + 0ased on t:e foregoing Buris7rudential 7ronouncements- 9e rule t:at t:e a77ellate court did not err in a9arding moral damages& Considering res7ondentXs social standing- and t:e fact t:at :er 7rofession is based 7rimarily on trust re7osed in :er by :er clients- t:e seriousness of t:e im7utations made by 7etitioner :as greatly tarnis:ed :er re7utation and 9ill in one 9ay or t:e ot:er- affect :er future dealings 9it: :er clients- t:e a9ard of 6"!!-!!!&!! as moral damages a77ears to be a fair and reasonable assessment of res7ondentXs damages& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e instant &etition is D4'24D& Costs against 7etitioner&

+,a% F. O?," &. R(!"n D. T ##"%, A,"Cand"# AA()##", H"B$ # V),,an("&a, C)",)$ Ha!)$ , R !"#$ +a#!"#%, Ca#-"nB)$a R" d)Ba, C"%a# Sa#)n , R"na$ Va,"nB)a, T -a% P. A'#)Ba, H"ad ' T." Na$) na, C -?($"# C"n$"# and C.a)#-an ' $." C --)%%) n On A(d)$ G&R& 'o& " )*/.&Culy 3- ",,/ 61'5- J.: T:e 7etition at bar is a commendable effort on t:e 7art of 3enator 0las F& 57le to 7re%ent t:e s:rin8ing of t:e rig:t to 7ri%acy- 9:ic: t:e re%ered Ar& Custice 0randeis considered as >t:e most com7re:ensi%e of rig:ts and t:e rig:t most %alued by ci%ili=ed men&> 4 6etitioner 57le 7rays t:at 9e in%alidate Administrati%e 5rder 'o& 3!/ entitled >Ado7tion of a 'ational Com7uteri=ed 2dentification Reference 3ystem> on t9o im7ortant constitutional grounds-vi+: one- it is a usur7ation of t:e 7o9er of Congress to legislate- and t9o- it im7ermissibly intrudes on our citi=enry;s 7rotected =one of 7ri%acy& ?e grant t:e 7etition for t:e rig:ts soug:t to be %indicated by t:e 7etitioner need stronger barriers against furt:er erosion& A&5& 'o& 3!/ 9as issued by 6resident Fidel E& Ramos 5n December " - ",,* and reads as follo9s: AD56T25' 5F A 'AT25'A( C5A61T4R2Y4D 2D4'T2F2CAT25' R4F4R4'C4 3@3T4A

222
?F4R4A3- t:ere is a need to 7ro%ide Fili7ino citi=ens and foreign residents 9it: t:e facility to con%eniently transact business 9it: basic ser%ice and social security 7ro%iders and ot:er go%ernment instrumentalitiesG ?F4R4A3- t:is 9ill require a com7uteri=ed system to 7ro7erly and efficiently identify 7ersons see8ing basic ser%ices on social security and reduce- if not totally eradicate fraudulent transactions and misre7resentationsG ?F4R4A3- a concerted and collaborati%e effort among t:e %arious basic ser%ices and social security 7ro%iding agencies and ot:er go%ernment intrumentalities is required to ac:ie%e suc: a systemG '5?- TF4R4F5R4- 2- F2D4( E& RAA53- 6resident of t:e Re7ublic of t:e 6:ili77inesby %irtue of t:e 7o9ers %ested in me by la9- do :ereby direct t:e follo9ing: 3ec& "& Establishment of a National !ompoteri+ed )dentifi%ation ,eferen%e #ystem & A decentrali=ed 2dentification Reference 3ystem among t:e 8ey basic ser%ices and social security 7ro%iders is :ereby establis:ed& 3ec& & )nter7 gen%y !oordinating !ommittee& An 2nter#Agency Coordinating Committee (2ACC$ to dra9#u7 t:e im7lementing guidelines and o%ersee t:e im7lementation of t:e 3ystem is :ereby created- c:aired by t:e 4xecuti%e 3ecretary9it: t:e follo9ing as members: Fead- 6residential Aanagement 3taff 3ecretary- 'ational 4conomic De%elo7ment Aut:ority 3ecretary- De7artment of t:e 2nterior and (ocal Go%ernment 3ecretary- De7artment of Fealt: Administrator- Go%ernment 3er%ice 2nsurance 3ystemAdministrator- 3ocial 3ecurity 3ystemAdministrator- 'ational 3tatistics 5ffice Aanaging Director- 'ational Com7uter Center& 3ec& 3& #e%retariat& T:e 'ational Com7uter Center ('CC$ is :ereby designated as secretariat to t:e 2ACC and as suc: s:all 7ro%ide administrati%e and tec:nical su77ort to t:e 2ACC& 3ec& +& 2in/age mong gen%ies& T:e 6o7ulation Reference 'umber (6R'$ generated by t:e '35 s:all ser%e as t:e common reference number to establis: a lin8age among concerned agencies& T:e 2ACC 3ecretariat s:all coordinate 9it: t:e different 3ocial 3ecurity and 3er%ices Agencies to establis: t:e standards in t:e use of 0iometrics Tec:nology and in com7uter a77lication designs of t:eir res7ecti%e systems& 3ec& .& !ondu%t of )nformation (issemination !ampaign& T:e 5ffice of t:e 6ress 3ecretary- in coordination 9it: t:e 'ational 3tatistics 5ffice- t:e G323 and 333 as lead agencies and ot:er concerned agencies s:all underta8e a massi%e tri#media information dissemination cam7aign to educate and raise 7ublic a9areness on t:e im7ortance and use of t:e 6R' and t:e 3ocial 3ecurity 2dentification Reference&

223
3ec& *& $unding& T:e funds necessary for t:e im7lementation of t:e system s:all be sourced from t:e res7ecti%e budgets of t:e concerned agencies& 3ec& )& #ubmission of ,egular ,eports& T:e '35- G323 and 333 s:all submit regular re7orts to t:e 5ffice of t:e 6resident t:roug: t:e 2ACC- on t:e status of im7lementation of t:is underta8ing& 3ec& /& Effe%tivity& T:is Administrati%e 5rder s:all ta8e effect immediately& D5'4 in t:e City of Aanila- t:is " t: day of December in t:e year of 5ur (ord'ineteen Fundred and 'inety#3ix& (3GD&$ F2D4( E& RAA53 A&5& 'o& 3!/ 9as 7ublis:ed in four ne9s7a7ers of general circulation on Canuary - ",,) and Canuary 3- ",,)& 5n Canuary +- ",,)- 7etitioner filed t:e instant 7etition against res7ondents- t:en 4xecuti%e 3ecretary Ruben Torres and t:e :eads of t:e go%ernment agencies- 9:o as members of t:e 2nter#Agency Coordinating Committee- are c:arged 9it: t:e im7lementation of A&5& 'o& 3!/& 5n A7ril /- ",,)- 9e issued a tem7orary restraining order enBoining its im7lementation& 6etitioner contends: A& TF4 43TA0(23'A4'T 5F A 'AT25'A( C5A61T4R2Y4D 2D4'T2F2CAT25' R4F4R4'C4 3@3T4A R4<12R43 A (4G23(AT2E4 ACT& TF4 2331A'C4 5F A&5& '5& 3!/ 0@ TF4 6R432D4'T 5F TF4 R4610(2C 5F TF4 6F2(2662'43 23TF4R4F5R4- A' 1'C5'3T2T1T25'A( 131R6AT25' 5F TF4 (4G23(AT2E4 65?4R3 5F TF4 C5'GR433 5F TF4 R4610(2C 5F TF4 6F2(2662'43& 0& TF4 A66R56R2AT25' 5F 610(2C F1'D3 0@ TF4 6R432D4'T F5R TF4 2A6(4A4'TAT25' 5F A&5& '5& 3!/ 23 A' 1'C5'3T2T1T25'A( 131R6AT25' 5F TF4 4`C(132E4 R2GFT 5F C5'GR433 T5 A66R56R2AT4 610(2C F1'D3 F5R 4`64'D2T1R4& C& TF4 2A6(4A4'TAT25' 5F A&5& '5& 3!/ 2'32D2513(@ (A@3 TF4 GR51'D?5RI F5R A 3@3T4A ?F2CF ?2(( E25(AT4 TF4 02(( 5F R2GFT3 4'3FR2'4D 2' TF4 C5'3T2T1T25'& / Res7ondents counter#argue: A& TF4 2'3TA'T 64T2T25' 23 '5T A C13T2C2A0(4 CA34 A3 ?51(D ?ARRA'T A C1D2C2A( R4E24?G 0& A&5& '5& 3!/ M",,*N ?A3 23314D ?2TF2' TF4 4`4C1T2E4 A'D ADA2'23TRAT2E4 65?4R3 5F TF4 6R432D4'T ?2TF51T 4'CR5ACF2'G 5' TF4 (4G23(AT2E4 65?4R3 5F C5'GR433G C& TF4 F1'D3 '4C433AR@ F5R TF4 2A6(4A4'TAT25' 5F TF4 2D4'T2F2CAT25' R4F4R4'C4 3@3T4A AA@ 04 351RC4D FR5A TF4 01DG4T3 5F TF4 C5'C4R'4D AG4'C243G D& A&5& '5& 3!/ M",,*N 6R5T4CT3 A' 2'D2E2D1A(;3 2'T4R43T 2' 6R2EAC@& < ?e no9 resol%e& 2

224
As is usual in constitutional litigation- res7ondents raise t:e t:res:old issues relating to t:e standing to sue of t:e 7etitioner and t:e Busticiability of t:e case at bar& Aore s7ecifically- res7ondents a%er t:at 7etitioner :as no legal interest to u7:old and t:at t:e im7lementing rules of A&5& 'o& 3!/ :a%e yet to be 7romulgated& T:ese submissions do not deser%e our sym7at:etic ear& 6etitioner 57le is a distinguis:ed member of our 3enate& As a 3enator- 7etitioner is 7ossessed of t:e requisite standing to bring suit raising t:e issue t:at t:e issuance of A&5& 'o& 3!/ is a usur7ation of legislati%e 7o9er& : As tax7ayer and member of t:e Go%ernment 3er%ice 2nsurance 3ystem (G323$- 7etitioner can also im7ugn t:e legality of t:e misalignment of 7ublic funds and t:e misuse of G323 funds to im7lement A&5& 'o& 3!/& 1 T:e ri7eness for adBudication of t:e 6etition at bar is not affected by t:e fact t:at t:e im7lementing rules of A&5& 'o& 3!/ :a%e yet to be 7romulgated& 6etitioner 57le assails A&5& 'o& 3!/ as in%alid per se and as infirmed on its face& Fis action is not 7remature for t:e rules yet to be 7romulgated cannot cure its fatal defects& Aoreo%er- t:e res7ondents t:emsel%es :a%e started t:e im7lementation of A&5& 'o& 3!/ 9it:out 9aiting for t:e rules& As early as Canuary ",- ",,)- res7ondent 3ocial 3ecurity 3ystem (333$ caused t:e 7ublication of a notice to bid for t:e manufacture of t:e 'ational 2dentification (2D$ card& 2 Res7ondent 4xecuti%e 3ecretary Torres :as 7ublicly announced t:at re7resentati%es from t:e G323 and t:e 333 :a%e com7leted t:e guidelines for t:e national identification system& 0 All signals from t:e res7ondents s:o9 t:eir uns9er%ing 9ill to im7lement A&5& 'o& 3!/ and 9e need not 9ait for t:e formality of t:e rules to 7ass Budgment on its constitutionality& 2n t:is lig:t- t:e dissenters insistence t:at 9e tig:ten t:e rule on standing is not a commendable stance as its result 9ould be to t:rottle an im7ortant constitutional 7rinci7le and a fundamental rig:t& 22 ?e no9 come to t:e core issues& 6etitioner claims t:at A&5& 'o& 3!/ is not a mere administrati%e order but a la9 and :ence- beyond t:e 7o9er of t:e 6resident to issue& Fe alleges t:at A&5& 'o& 3!/ establis:es a system of identification t:at is all#encom7assing in sco7e- affects t:e life and liberty of e%ery Fili7ino citi=en and foreign resident- and more 7articularly- %iolates t:eir rig:t to 7ri%acy& 6etitioner;s sedulous concern for t:e 4xecuti%e not to tres7ass on t:e la9ma8ing domain of Congress is understandable& T:e blurring of t:e demarcation line bet9een t:e 7o9er of t:e (egislature to ma8e la9s and t:e 7o9er of t:e 4xecuti%e to execute la9s 9ill disturb t:eir delicate balance of 7o9er and cannot be allo9ed& Fence- t:e exercise by one branc: of go%ernment of 7o9er belonging to anot:er 9ill be gi%en a stricter scrutiny by t:is Court& T:e line t:at delineates (egislati%e and 4xecuti%e 7o9er is not indistinct& (egislati%e 7o9er is >t:e aut:ority- under t:e Constitution- to ma8e la9s- and to alter and re7eal t:em&> 9 T:e Constitutionas t:e 9ill of t:e 7eo7le in t:eir original- so%ereign and unlimited ca7acity- :as %ested t:is 7o9er in t:e Congress of t:e 6:ili77ines& 5 T:e grant of legislati%e 7o9er to Congress is broad- general and com7re:ensi%e& 4; T:e legislati%e body 7ossesses 7lenary 7o9er for all 7ur7oses of ci%il go%ernment& 44 Any 7o9er- deemed to be legislati%e by usage and tradition- is necessarily 7ossessed by Congress- unless t:e Constitution :as lodged it else9:ere& 4/ 2n fine- exce7t as limited by t:e Constitution- eit:er ex7ressly or im7liedly- legislati%e 7o9er embraces all subBects and extends to matters of general concern or common interest& 4< ?:ile Congress is %ested 9it: t:e 7o9er to enact la9s- t:e 6resident executes t:e la9s& 4: T:e executi%e 7o9er is %ested in t:e 6residents& 41 2t is generally defined as t:e 7o9er to enforce and administer t:e la9s& 42 2t is t:e 7o9er of carrying t:e la9s into 7ractical o7eration and enforcing t:eir due obser%ance& 40

225
As :ead of t:e 4xecuti%e De7artment- t:e 6resident is t:e C:ief 4xecuti%e& Fe re7resents t:e go%ernment as a 9:ole and sees to it t:at all la9s are enforced by t:e officials and em7loyees of :is de7artment& 49 Fe :as control o%er t:e executi%e de7artment- bureaus and offices& T:is means t:at :e :as t:e aut:ority to assume directly t:e functions of t:e executi%e de7artment- bureau and office or interfere 9it: t:e discretion of its officials& 45 Corollary to t:e 7o9er of control- t:e 6resident also :as t:e duty of su7er%ising t:e enforcement of la9s for t:e maintenance of general 7eace and 7ublic order& T:us- :e is granted administrati%e 7o9er o%er bureaus and offices under :is control to enable :im to disc:arge :is duties effecti%ely& /; Administrati%e 7o9er is concerned 9it: t:e 9or8 of a77lying 7olicies and enforcing orders as determined by 7ro7er go%ernmental organs& /4 2t enables t:e 6resident to fix a uniform standard of administrati%e efficiency and c:ec8 t:e official conduct of :is agents& // To t:is end- :e can issue administrati%e orders- rules and regulations& 6rescinding from t:ese 7rece7ts- 9e :old t:at A&5& 'o& 3!/ in%ol%es a subBect t:at is not a77ro7riate to be co%ered by an administrati%e order& An administrati%e order is: 3ec& 3& dministrative Orders& O Acts of t:e 6resident 9:ic: relate to 7articular as7ects of go%ernmental o7eration in 7ursuance of :is duties as administrati%e :ead s:all be 7romulgated in administrati%e orders& /< An administrati%e order is an ordinance issued by t:e 6resident 9:ic: relates to s7ecific as7ects in t:e administrati%e o7eration of go%ernment& 2t must be in :armony 9it: t:e la9 and s:ould be for t:e sole 7ur7ose of im7lementing t:e la9 and carrying out t:e legislati%e 7olicy& /: ?e reBect t:e argument t:at A&5& 'o& 3!/ im7lements t:e legislati%e 7olicy of t:e Administrati%e Code of ",/)& T:e Code is a general la9 and >incor7orates in a unified document t:e maBor structural- functional and 7rocedural 7rinci7les of go%ernance&> /1 and >embodies c:anges in administrati%e structure and 7rocedures designed to ser%e t:e 7eo7le&> /2 T:e Code is di%ided into se%en ()$ 0oo8s: 0oo8 2 deals 9it: 3o%ereignty and General Administration- 0oo8 22 9it: t:e Distribution of 6o9ers of t:e t:ree branc:es of Go%ernment- 0oo8 222 on t:e 5ffice of t:e 6resident- 0oo8 2E on t:e 4xecuti%e 0ranc:- 0oo8 E on Constitutional Commissions- 0oo8 E2 on 'ational Go%ernment 0udgeting- and 0oo8 E22 on Administrati%e 6rocedure& T:ese 0oo8s contain 7ro%isions on t:e organi=ation- 7o9ers and general administration of t:e executi%e- legislati%e and Budicial branc:es of go%ernment- t:e organi=ation and administration of de7artments- bureaus and offices under t:e executi%e branc:- t:e organi=ation and functions of t:e Constitutional Commissions and ot:er constitutional bodies- t:e rules on t:e national go%ernment budget- as 9ell as guideline for t:e exercise by administrati%e agencies of quasi#legislati%e and quasi#Budicial 7o9ers& T:e Code co%ers bot: t:e internal administration of go%ernment- i&e, internal organi=ation- 7ersonnel and recruitment- su7er%ision and disci7line- and t:e effects of t:e functions 7erformed by administrati%e officials on 7ri%ate indi%iduals or 7arties outside go%ernment& /0 2t cannot be sim7listically argued t:at A&5& 'o& 3!/ merely im7lements t:e Administrati%e Code of ",/)& 2t establis:es for t:e first time a 'ational Com7uteri=ed 2dentification Reference 3ystem& 3uc: a 3ystem requires a delicate adBustment of %arious contending state 7olicies O t:e 7rimacy of national security- t:e extent of 7ri%acy interest against dossier#gat:ering by go%ernment- t:e c:oice of 7olicies- etc& 2ndeed- t:e dissent of Ar& Custice Aendo=a states t:at t:e A&5& 'o& 3!/ in%ol%es t:e all# im7ortant freedom of t:oug:t& As said administrati%e order redefines t:e 7arameters of some basic rig:ts of our citi=enry vis7a7vis t:e 3tate as 9ell as t:e line t:at se7arates t:e administrati%e 7o9er of t:e 6resident to ma8e rules and t:e legislati%e 7o9er of Congress- it oug:t to be e%ident t:at it deals 9it: a subBect t:at s:ould be co%ered by la9& 'or is it correct to argue as t:e dissenters do t:at A&D& 'o& 3!/ is not a la9 because it confers no rig:t- im7oses no duty- affords no 7roctection- and creates no office& 1nder A&5& 'o& 3!/- a citi=en

226
cannot transact business 9it: go%ernment agencies deli%ering basic ser%ices to t:e 7eo7le 9it:out t:e contem7lated identification card& 'o citi=en 9ill refuse to get t:is identification card for no one can a%oid dealing 9it: go%ernment& 2t is t:us clear as daylig:t t:at 9it:out t:e 2D- a citi=en 9ill :a%e difficulty exercising :is rig:ts and enBoying :is 7ri%ileges& Gi%en t:is reality- t:e contention t:at A&5& 'o& 3!/ gi%es no rig:t and im7oses no duty cannot stand& Again- 9it: due res7ect- t:e dissenting o7inions unduly ex7and t:e limits of administrati%e legislation and consequently erodes t:e 7lenary 7o9er of Congress to ma8e la9s& T:is is contrary to t:e establis:ed a77roac: defining t:e traditional limits of administrati%e legislation& As 9ell stated by Fis:er: >& & & Aany regulations :o9e%er- bear directly on t:e 7ublic& 2t is :ere t:at administrati%e legislation must :e restricted in its sco7e and a77lication& Regulations are not su77osed to be a substitute for t:e general 7olicy#ma8ing t:at Congress enacts in t:e form of a 7ublic la9& Alt:oug: administrati%e regulations are entitled to res7ect- t:e aut:ority to 7rescribe rules and regulations is not an inde7endent source of 7o9er to ma8e la9s&> /9 222 Assuming- arguendo- t:at A&5& 'o& 3!/ need not be t:e subBect of a la9- still it cannot 7ass constitutional muster as an administrati%e legislation because facially it %iolates t:e rig:t to 7ri%acy& T:e essence of 7ri%acy is t:e >rig:t to be let alone&> /5 2n t:e ",*. case of Gris9old %& Connecticut- <; t:e 1nited 3tates 3u7reme Court ga%e more substance to t:e rig:t of 7ri%acy 9:en it ruled t:at t:e rig:t :as a constitutional foundation& 2t :eld t:at t:ere is a rig:t of 7ri%acy 9:ic: can be found 9it:in t:e 7enumbras of t:e First- T:ird- Fourt:- Fift: and 'int: Amendments-<4 vi+: 37ecific guarantees in t:e 0ill of Rig:ts :a%e 7enumbras formed by emanations from t:ese guarantees t:at :el7 gi%e t:em life and substance & & & %arious guarantees create =ones of 7ri%acy& T:e rig:t of association contained in t:e 7enumbra of t:e First Amendment is one- as 9e :a%e seen& T:e T:ird Amendment in its 7ro:ibition against t:e quartering of soldiers >in any :ouse> in time of 7eace 9it:out t:e consent of t:e o9ner is anot:er facet of t:at 7ri%acy& T:e Fourt: Amendment ex7licitly affirms t:e ;;rig:t of t:e 7eo7le to be secure in t:eir 7ersons- :ouses and effects- against unreasonable searc:es and sei=ures&> T:e Fift: Amendment in its 3elf#2ncrimination Clause enables t:e citi=en to create a =one of 7ri%acy 9:ic: go%ernment may not force :im to surrender to :is detriment& T:e 'int: Amendment 7ro%ides: >T:e enumeration in t:e Constitution- of certain rig:ts- s:all not be construed to deny or dis7arage ot:ers retained by t:e 7eo7le&> 2n t:e ",*/ case of Morfe v. Mutu%- </ 9e ado7ted t:e Gris9old ruling t:at t:ere is a constitutional rig:t to 7ri%acy& 37ea8ing t:ru Ar& Custice- later C:ief Custice- 4nrique Fernando9e :eld: xxx xxx xxx T:e Gris9old case in%alidated a Connecticut statute 9:ic: made t:e use of contrace7ti%es a criminal offence on t:e ground of its amounting to an unconstitutional in%asion of t:e rig:t of 7ri%acy of married 7ersonsG rig:tfully it stressed >a relations:i7 lying 9it:in t:e =one of 7ri%acy created by se%eral fundamental constitutional guarantees&> 2t :as 9ider im7lications t:oug:& T:e constitutional rig:t to 7ri%acy :as come into its o9n& 3o it is li8e9ise in our Burisdiction& T:e rig:t to 7ri%acy as suc: is accorded recognition inde7endently of its identification 9it: libertyG in itself- it is fully deser%ing of constitutional 7rotection& T:e language of 6rof& 4merson is 7articularly a7t: >T:e conce7t of limited go%ernment :as al9ays included t:e idea t:at go%ernmental 7o9ers sto7 s:ort of certain intrusions into t:e 7ersonal life of t:e citi=en& T:is is indeed one of

227
t:e basic distinctions bet9een absolute and limited go%ernment& 1ltimate and 7er%asi%e control of t:e indi%idual- in all as7ects of :is life- is t:e :allmar8 of t:e absolute state& 2n contrast- a system of limited go%ernment safeguards a 7ri%ate sector- 9:ic: belongs to t:e indi%idual- firmly distinguis:ing it from t:e 7ublic sector- 9:ic: t:e state can control& 6rotection of t:is 7ri%ate sector O 7rotection- in ot:er 9ords- of t:e dignity and integrity of t:e indi%idual O :as become increasingly im7ortant as modern society :as de%elo7ed& All t:e forces of a tec:nological age O industriali=ation- urbani=ation- and organi=ation O o7erate to narro9 t:e area of 7ri%acy and facilitate intrusion into it& 2n modern terms- t:e ca7acity to maintain and su77ort t:is encla%e of 7ri%ate life mar8s t:e difference bet9een a democratic and a totalitarian society&> 2ndeed- if 9e extend our Budicial ga=e 9e 9ill find t:at t:e rig:t of 7ri%acy is recogni=ed and ens:rined in se%eral 7ro%isions of our Constitution& << 2t is ex7ressly recogni=ed in section 3 ("$ of t:e 0ill of Rig:ts: 3ec& 3& ("$ T:e 7ri%acy of communication and corres7ondence s:all be in%iolable exce7t u7on la9ful order of t:e court- or 9:en 7ublic safety or order requires ot:er9ise as 7rescribed by la9& 5t:er facets of t:e rig:t to 7ri%acy are 7rotectad in %arious 7ro%isions of t:e 0ill of Rig:ts- vi+: <: 3ec& "& 'o 7erson s:all be de7ri%ed of life- liberty- or 7ro7erty 9it:out due 7rocess of la9- nor s:all any 7erson be denied t:e equal 7rotection of t:e la9s& 3ec& & T:e rig:t of t:e 7eo7le to be secure in t:eir 7ersons- :ouses 7a7ers- and effects against unreasonable searc:es and sei=ures of 9:ate%er nature and for any 7ur7ose s:all be in%iolable- and no searc: 9arrant or 9arrant of arrest s:all issue exce7t u7on 7robable cause to be determined 7ersonally by t:e Budge after examination under oat: or affirmation of t:e com7lainant and t:e 9itnesses :e may 7roduce- and 7articularly describing t:e 7lace to be searc:ed and t:e 7ersons or t:ings to be sei=ed& xxx xxx xxx 3ec& *& T:e liberty of abode and of c:anging t:e same 9it:in t:e limits 7rescribed by la9 s:all not be im7aired exce7t u7on la9ful order of t:e court& 'eit:er s:all t:e rig:t to tra%el be im7aired exce7t in t:e interest of national security- 7ublic safety- or 7ublic :ealt: as may be 7ro%ided by la9& xxx xxx xxx 3ec& /& T:e rig:t of t:e 7eo7le- including t:ose em7loyed in t:e 7ublic and 7ri%ate sectors- to form unions- associations- or societies for 7ur7oses not contrary to la9 s:all not be abridged& 3ec& ")& 'o 7erson s:all be com7elled to be a 9itness against :imself& Yones of 7ri%acy are li8e9ise recogni=ed and 7rotected in our la9s& T:e Ci%il Code 7ro%ides t:at >MeN%ery 7erson s:all res7ect t:e dignity- 7ersonality- 7ri%acy and 7eace of mind of :is neig:bors and ot:er 7ersons> and 7unis:es as actionable torts se%eral acts by a 7erson of meddling and 7rying into t:e 7ri%acy of anot:er& <1 2t also :olds a 7ublic officer or em7loyee or any 7ri%ate indi%idual liable for damages for any %iolation of t:e rig:ts and liberties of anot:er 7erson- <2 and recogni=es t:e 7ri%acy of letters and ot:er 7ri%ate communications& <0 T:e Re%ised 6enal Code ma8es a crime t:e %iolation of secrets by an officer- <9 t:e re%elation of trade and industrial secrets- <5 and tres7ass to

228
d9elling& :; 2n%asion of 7ri%acy is an offense in s7ecial la9s li8e t:e Anti#?ireta77ing (a9- :4 t:e 3ecrecy of 0an8 De7osits Act :/ and t:e 2ntellectual 6ro7erty Code& :< T:e Rules of Court on 7ri%ileged communication li8e9ise recogni=e t:e 7ri%acy of certain information& :: 1nli8e t:e dissenters- 9e 7rescind from t:e 7remise t:at t:e rig:t to 7ri%acy is a fundamental rig:t guaranteed by t:e Constitution- :ence- it is t:e burden of go%ernment to s:o9 t:at A&5& 'o& 3!/ is Bustified by some com7elling state interest and t:at it is narro9ly dra9n& A&5& 'o& 3!/ is 7redicated on t9o considerations: ("$ t:e need to 7ro%ides our citi=ens and foreigners 9it: t:e facility to con%eniently transact business 9it: basic ser%ice and social security 7ro%iders and ot:er go%ernment instrumentalities and ( $ t:e need to reduce- if not totally eradicate- fraudulent transactions and misre7resentations by 7ersons see8ing basic ser%ices& 2t is debatable 9:et:er t:ese interests are com7elling enoug: to 9arrant t:e issuance of A&5& 'o& 3!/& 0ut 9:at is not arguable is t:e broadnesst:e %agueness- t:e o%erbreadt: of A&5& 'o& 3!/ 9:ic: if im7lemented 9ill 7ut our 7eo7le;s rig:t to 7ri%acy in clear and 7resent danger& T:e :eart of A&5& 'o& 3!/ lies in its 3ection + 9:ic: 7ro%ides for a 6o7ulation Reference 'umber (6R'$ as a >common reference number to establis: a lin8age among concerned agencies> t:roug: t:e use of >0iometrics Tec:nology> and >com7uter a77lication designs&> 0iometry or biometrics is >t:e science of t:e a77licatin of statistical met:ods to biological factsG a mat:ematical analysis of biological data&> :1 T:e term >biometrics> :as e%ol%ed into a broad category of tec:nologies 9:ic: 7ro%ide 7recise confirmation of an indi%idual;s identity t:roug: t:e use of t:e indi%idual;s o9n 7:ysiological and be:a%ioral c:aracteristics& :2 A 7:ysiological c:aracteristic is a relati%ely stable 7:ysical c:aracteristic suc: as a finger7rint- retinal scan- :and geometry or facial features& A be:a%ioral c:aracteristic is influenced by t:e indi%idual;s 7ersonality and includes %oice 7rint- signature and 8eystro8e& :0 Aost biometric idenfication systems use a card or 7ersonal identificatin number (62'$ for initial identification& T:e biometric measurement is used to %erify t:at t:e indi%idual :olding t:e card or entering t:e 62' is t:e legitimate o9ner of t:e card or 62'& :9 A most common form of biological encoding is finger#scanning 9:ere tec:nology scans a fingerti7 and turns t:e unique 7attern t:erein into an indi%idual number 9:ic: is called a biocry7t& T:e biocry7t is stored in com7uter data ban8s :5 and becomes a means of identifying an indi%idual using a ser%ice& T:is tec:nology requires one;s fingerti7 to be scanned e%ery time ser%ice or access is 7ro%ided& 1; Anot:er met:od is t:e retinal scan& Retinal scan tec:nology em7loys o7tical tec:nology to ma7 t:e ca7illary 7attern of t:e retina of t:e eye& T:is tec:nology 7roduces a unique 7rint similar to a finger 7rint& 14 Anot:er biometric met:od is 8no9n as t:e >artificial nose&> T:is de%ice c:emically analy=es t:e unique combination of substances excreted from t:e s8in of 7eo7le& 1/ T:e latest on t:e list of biometric ac:ie%ements is t:e t:ermogram& 3cientists :a%e found t:at by ta8ing 7ictures of a face using infra#red cameras- a unique :eat distribution 7attern is seen& T:e different densities of bone- s8in- fat and blood %essels all contribute to t:e indi%idual;s 7ersonal >:eat signature&> 1< 2n t:e last fe9 decades- tec:nology :as 7rogressed at a gallo7ing rate& 3ome science fictions are no9 science facts& Today- biometrics is no longer limited to t:e use of finger7rint to identify an indi%idual& 2t is a ne9 science t:at uses %arious tec:nologies in encoding any and all biological c:aracteristics of an indi%idual for identification& 2t is note9ort:y t:at A&5& 'o& 3!/ does not state 9:at s7ecific biological c:aracteristics and 9:at 7articular biometrics tec:nology s:all be used to identify 7eo7le 9:o 9ill see8 its co%erage& Considering t:e banquest of o7tions a%ailable to t:e im7lementors of A&5& 'o& 3!/- t:e fear t:at it t:reatens t:e rig:t to 7ri%acy of our 7eo7le is not groundless& A&5& 'o& 3!/ s:ould also raise our antennas for a furt:er loo8 9ill s:o9 t:at it does not state 9:et:er encoding of data is limited to biological information alone for identification 7ur7oses& 2n factt:e 3olicitor General claims t:at t:e ado7tion of t:e 2dentification Reference 3ystem 9ill contribute to t:e >generation of 7o7ulation data for de%elo7ment 7lanning&> 1: T:is is an admission t:at t:e 6R' 9ill not be used solely for identification but t:e generation of ot:er data 9it: remote relation to t:e a%o9ed

229
7ur7oses of A&5& 'o& 3!/& Clearly- t:e indefiniteness of A&5& 'o& 3!/ can gi%e t:e go%ernment t:e ro%ing aut:ority to store and retrie%e information for a 7ur7ose ot:er t:an t:e identification of t:e indi%idual t:roug: :is 6R'& T:e 7otential for misuse of t:e data to be gat:ered under A&5& 'o& 3!/ cannot be undar7layed as t:e dissenters do& 6ursuant to said administrati%e order- an indi%idual must 7resent :is 6R' e%erytime :e deals 9it: a go%ernment agency to a%ail of basic ser%ices and security& Fis transactions 9it: t:e go%ernment agency 9ill necessarily be recorded O 9:et:er it be in t:e com7uter or in t:e documentary file of t:e agency& T:e indi%idual;s file may include :is transactions for loan a%ailmentsincome tax returns- statement of assets and liabilities- reimbursements for medication- :os7itali=ationetc& T:e more frequent t:e use of t:e 6R'- t:e better t:e c:ance of building a :uge formidable informatin base t:roug: t:e electronic lin8age of t:e files& 11 T:e data may be gat:ered for gainful and useful go%ernment 7ur7osesG but t:e existence of t:is %ast reser%oir of 7ersonal information constitutes a co%ert in%itation to misuse- a tem7tation t:at may be too great for some of our aut:orities to resist& 12 ?e can e%en grant- arguendo- t:at t:e com7uter data file 9ill be limited to t:e name- address and ot:er basic 7ersonal infomation about t:e indi%idual& 10 4%en t:at :os7itable assum7tion 9ill not sa%e A&5& 'o& 3!/ from constitutional infirmity for again said order does not tell us in clear and categorical terms :o9 t:ese information gat:ered s:all :e :andled& 2t does not 7ro%ide 9:o s:all control and access t:e data- under 9:at circumstances and for 9:at 7ur7ose& T:ese factors are essential to safeguard t:e 7ri%acy and guaranty t:e integrity of t:e information& 19 ?ell to note- t:e com7uter lin8age gi%es ot:er go%ernment agencies access to t:e information& @et- t:ere are no controls to guard against lea8age of information& ?:en t:e access code of t:e control 7rograms of t:e 7articular com7uter system is bro8en- an intruder- 9it:out fear of sanction or 7enalty- can ma8e use of t:e data for 9:ate%er 7ur7ose- or 9orse- mani7ulate t:e data stored 9it:in t:e system& 15 2t is 7lain and 9e :old t:at A&5& 'o& 3!/ falls s:ort of assuring t:at 7ersonal information 9:ic: 9ill be gat:ered about our 7eo7le 9ill only be 7rocessed for unequi%ocally s7ecified 7ur7oses& 2; T:e lac8 of 7ro7er safeguards in t:is regard of A&5& 'o& 3!/ may interfere 9it: t:e indi%idual;s liberty of abode and tra%el by enabling aut:orities to trac8 do9n :is mo%ementG it may also enable unscru7ulous 7ersons to access confidential information and circum%ent t:e rig:t against self#incriminationG it may 7a%e t:e 9ay for >fis:ing ex7editions> by go%ernment aut:orities and e%ade t:e rig:t against unreasonable searc:es and sei=ures& 24 T:e 7ossibilities of abuse and misuse of t:e 6R'- biometrics and com7uter tec:nology are accentuated 9:en 9e consider t:at t:e indi%idual lac8s control o%er 9:at can be read or 7laced on :is 2D- muc: less %erify t:e correctness of t:e data encoded& 2/T:ey t:reaten t:e %ery abuses t:at t:e 0ill of Rig:ts see8s to 7re%ent& 2< T:e ability of so7:isticated data center to generate a com7re:ensi%e cradle#to#gra%e dossier on an indi%idual and transmit it o%er a national net9or8 is one of t:e most gra7:ic t:reats of t:e com7uter re%olution& 2: T:e com7uter is ca7able of 7roducing a com7re:ensi%e dossier on indi%iduals out of information gi%en at different times and for %aried 7ur7oses& 21 2t can continue adding to t:e stored data and 8ee7ing t:e information u7 to date& Retrie%al of stored date is sim7le& ?:en information of a 7ri%ileged c:aracter finds its 9ay into t:e com7uter- it can be extracted toget:er 9it: ot:er data on t:e subBect& 22 5nce extracted- t:e information is 7utty in t:e :ands of any 7erson& T:e end of 7ri%acy begins& T:oug: A&5& 'o& 3!/ is undoubtedly not narro9ly dra9n- t:e dissenting o7inions 9ould dismiss its danger to t:e rig:t to 7ri%acy as s7eculati%e and :y7ot:etical& Again- 9e cannot countenance suc: a laidbac8 7osture& T:e Court 9ill not be true to its role as t:e ultimate guardian of t:e 7eo7le;s liberty if it 9ould not immediately smot:er t:e s7ar8s t:at endanger t:eir rig:ts but 9ould rat:er 9ait for t:e fire t:at could consume t:em&

230
?e reBect t:e argument of t:e 3olicitor General t:at an indi%idual :as a reasonable ex7ectation of 7ri%acy 9it: regard to t:e 'atioal 2D and t:e use of biometrics tec:nology as it stands on quic8sand& T:e reasonableness of a 7erson;s ex7ectation of 7ri%acy de7ends on a t9o#7art test: ("$ 9:et:er by :is conduct- t:e indi%idual :as ex:ibited an ex7ectation of 7ri%acyG and ( $ 9:et:er t:is ex7ectation is one t:at society recogni=es as reasonable&20 T:e factual circumstances of t:e case determines t:e reasonableness of t:e ex7ectation& 29 Fo9e%er- ot:er factors- suc: as customs- 7:ysical surroundings and 7ractices of a 7articular acti%ity- may ser%e to create or diminis: t:is ex7ectation& 25 T:e use of biometrics and com7uter tec:nology in A&5& 'o& 3!/ does not assure t:e indi%idual of a reasonable ex7ectation of 7ri%acy& 0; As tec:nology ad%ances- t:e le%el of reasonably ex7ected 7ri%acy decreases& 04 T:e measure of 7rotection granted by t:e reasonable ex7ectation diminis:es as rele%ant tec:nology becomes more 9idely acce7ted& 0/ T:e security of t:e com7uter data file de7ends not only on t:e 7:ysical inaccessibility of t:e file but also on t:e ad%ances in :ard9are and soft9are com7uter tec:nology& A&5& 'o& 3!/ is so 9idely dra9n t:at a minimum standard for a reasonable ex7ectation of 7ri%acy- regardless of tec:nology used- cannot be inferred from its 7ro%isions& T:e rules and regulations to be by t:e 2ACC cannot remedy t:is fatal defect& Rules and regulations merely im7lement t:e 7olicy of t:e la9 or order& 5n its face- A&5& 'o& gi%es t:e 2ACC %irtually infettered discretion to determine t:e metes and bounds of t:e 2D 3ystem& 'or do your 7resent la9s 7r%ide adequate safeguards for a reasonable ex7ectation of 7ri%acy& Common9ealt: Act& 'o& .," 7enali=es t:e disclosure by any 7erson of data furnis:ed by t:e indi%idual to t:e '35 9it: im7risonment and fine& 0< Re7ublic Act& 'o& ""*" 7ro:ibits 7ublic disclosure of 333 em7loyment records and re7orts& 0: T:ese la9s- :o9e%er- a77ly to records and data 9it: t:e '35 and t:e 333& 2t is not clear 9:et:er t:ey may be a77lied to data 9it: t:e ot:er go%ernment agencies forming 7art of t:e 'ational 2D 3ystem& T:e need to clarify t:e 7enal as7ect of A&5& 'o& 3!/ is anot:er reason 9:y its enactment s:ould be gi%en to Congress& 'ext- t:e 3olicitor General urges us to %alidate A&5& 'o& 3!/;s abridgment of t:e rig:t of 7ri%acy by using t:e rational relations:i7 test& 01 Fe stressed t:at t:e 7ur7oses of A&5& 'o& 3!/ are: ("$ to streamline and s7eed u7 t:e im7lementation of basic go%ernment ser%ices- ( $ eradicate fraud by a%oiding du7lication of ser%ices- and (3$ generate 7o7ulation data for de%elo7ment 7lanning& Fe cocludes t:at t:ese 7ur7oses Bustify t:e incursions into t:e rig:t to 7ri%acy for t:e means are rationally related to t:e end& 02 ?e are not im7ressed by t:e argument& 2n Morfe v. Mutu%- 00 9e u7:eld t:e constitutionality of R&A& 3!",- t:e Anti#Graft and Corru7t 6ractices Act- as a %alid 7olice 7o9er measure& ?e declared t:at t:e la9- in com7elling a 7ublic officer to ma8e an annual re7ort disclosing :is assets and liabilities:is sources of income and ex7enses- did not infringe on t:e indi%idual;s rig:t to 7ri%acy& T:e la9 9as enacted to 7romote morality in 7ublic administration by curtailing and minimi=ing t:e o77ortunities for official corru7tion and maintaining a standard of :onesty in t:e 7ublic ser%ice& 09 T:e same circumstances do not obtain in t:e case at bar& For one- R&A& 3!", is a statute- not an administrati%e order& 3econdly- R&A& 3!", itself is sufficiently detailed& T:e la9 is clear on 9:at 7ractices 9ere 7ro:ibited and 7enali=ed- and it 9as narro9ly dra9n to a%oid abuses& 2' t:e case at bar- A&5& 'o& 3!/ may :a%e been im7elled by a 9ort:y 7ur7ose- but- it cannot 7ass constitutional scrutiny for it is not narro9ly dra9n& And 9e no9 :od t:at 9:en t:e integrity of a fundamental rig:t is at sta8e- t:is court 9ill gi%e t:e c:allenged la9- administrati%e order- rule or regulation a stricter scrutiny& 2t 9ill not do for t:e aut:orities to in%o8e t:e 7resum7tion of regularity in t:e 7erformance of official duties& 'or is it enoug: for t:e aut:orities to 7ro%e t:at t:eir act is not irrational for a basic rig:t can be diminis:ed- if not defeated- e%en 9:en t:e go%ernment does not act irrationally& T:ey must satisfactorily s:o9 t:e 7resence of com7elling state interests and t:at t:e la9- rule or regulation is narro9ly dra9n to 7reclude abuses& T:is a77roac: is demanded by t:e ",/) Constitution 9:ose entire matrix is designed to 7rotect :uman rig:ts and to 7re%ent aut:oritarianism& 2n case of doubt- t:e

231
least 9e can do is to lean to9ards t:e stance t:at 9ill not 7ut in danger t:e rig:ts 7rotected by t:e Constitutions& T:e case of 4halen v. ,oe 05 %ited by t:e 3olicitor General is also off#line& 2n ?:alen- t:e 1nited 3tates 3u7reme Court 9as 7resented 9it: t:e question of 9:et:er t:e 3tate of 'e9 @or8 could 8ee7 a centrali=ed com7uter record of t:e names and addresses of all 7ersons 9:o obtained certain drugs 7ursuant to a doctor;s 7rescri7tion& T:e 'e9 @or8 3tate Controlled 3ubstance Act of ",) required 7:ysicians to identify 7arties obtaining 7rescri7tion drugs enumerated in t:e statute- i&e&drugs 9it: a recogni=ed medical use but 9it: a 7otential for abuse- so t:at t:e names and addresses of t:e 7atients can be recorded in a centrali=ed com7uter file of t:e 3tate De7artment of Fealt:& T:e 7laintiffs- 9:o 9ere 7atients and doctors- claimed t:at some 7eo7le mig:t decline necessary medication because of t:eir fear t:at t:e com7uteri=ed data may be readily a%ailable and o7en to 7ublic disclosureG and t:at once disclosed- it may stigmati=e t:em as drug addicts& 9; T:e 7laintiffs alleged t:at t:e statute in%aded a constitutionally 7rotected =one of 7ri%acy- i&e&- t:e indi%idual interest in a%oiding disclosure of 7ersonal matters- and t:e interest in inde7endence in ma8ing certain 8inds of im7ortant decisions& T:e 1&3& 3u7reme Court :eld t:at 9:ile an indi%idual;s interest in a%oiding disclosuer of 7ersonal matter is an as7ect of t:e rig:t to 7ri%acy- t:e statute did not 7ose a grie%ous t:reat to establis: a constitutional %iolation& T:e Court found t:at t:e statute 9as necessary to aid in t:e enforcement of la9s designed to minimi=e t:e misuse of dangerous drugs& T:e 7atient# identification requirement 9as a 7roduct of an orderly and rational legislati%e decision made u7on recommmendation by a s7ecially a77ointed commission 9:ic: :eld extensi%e :earings on t:e matter& Aoreo%er- t:e statute 9as narro9ly dra9n and contained numerous safeguards against indiscriminate disclosure& T:e statute laid do9n t:e 7rocedure and requirements for t:e gat:ering- storage and retrie%al of t:e informatin& 2t ebumerated 9:o 9ere aut:ori=ed to access t:e data& 2t also 7ro:ibited 7ublic disclosure of t:e data by im7osing 7enalties for its %iolation& 2n %ie9 of t:ese safeguards- t:e infringement of t:e 7atients; rig:t to 7ri%acy 9as Bustified by a %alid exercise of 7olice 7o9er& As 9e discussed abo%e- A&5& 'o& 3!/ lac8s t:ese %ital safeguards& 4%en 9:ile 9e stri8e do9n A&5& 'o& 3!/- 9e s7ell out in neon t:at t:e Court is not per se agains t:e use of com7uters to accumulate- store- 7rocess- ret%ie%e and transmit data to im7ro%e our bureaucracy& Com7uters 9or8 9onders to ac:ie%e t:e efficiency 9:ic: bot: go%ernment and 7ri%ate industry see8& Aany information system in different countries ma8e use of t:e com7uter to facilitate im7ortant social obBecti%e- suc: as better la9 enforcement- faster deli%ery of 7ublic ser%icesmore efficient management of credit and insurance 7rograms- im7ro%ement of telecommunications and streamlining of financial acti%ities& 94 1sed 9isely- data stored in t:e com7uter could :el7 good administration by ma8ing accurate and com7re:ensi%e information for t:ose 9:o :a%e to frame 7olicy and ma8e 8ey decisions& 9/ T:e benefits of t:e com7uter :as re%olutioni=ed information tec:nology& 2t de%elo7ed t:e internet- 9< introduced t:e conce7t of cybers7ace 9: and t:e information su7er:ig:9ay 9:ere t:e indi%idual- armed only 9it: :is 7ersonal com7uter- may surf and searc: all 8inds and classes of information from libraries and databases connected to t:e net& 2n no uncertain terms- 9e also underscore t:at t:e rig:t to 7ri%acy does not bar all incursions into indi%idual 7ri%acy& T:e rig:t is not intended to stifle scientific and tec:nological ad%ancements t:at en:ance 7ublic ser%ice and t:e common good& 2t merely requires t:at t:e la9 be narro9ly focused 91 and a com7elling interest Bustify suc: intrusions& 92 2ntrusions into t:e rig:t must be accom7anied by 7ro7er safeguards and 9ell#defined standards to 7re%ent unconstitutional in%asions& ?e reiterate t:at any la9 or order t:at in%ades indi%idual 7ri%acy 9ill be subBected by t:is Court to strict scrutiny& T:e reason for t:is stance 9as laid do9n in Morfe v. Mutu%- to 9it: T:e conce7t of limited go%ernment :as al9ays included t:e idea t:at go%ernmental 7o9ers sto7 s:ort of certain intrusions into t:e 7ersonal life of t:e citi=en& T:is is indeed one of t:e basic disctinctions bet9een absolute and limited go%ernment& 1ltimate and 7er%asi%e control of t:e indi%idual- in all as7ects of :is life- is t:e :allmar8 of t:e absolute state& 2n contrast- a system of limited go%ernment safeguards a 7ri%ate sector-

232
9:ic: belongs to t:e indi%idual- firmly distinguis:ing it from t:e 7ublic sector- 9:ic: t:e state can control& 6rotection of t:is 7ri%ate sector O 7rotection- in ot:er 9ords- of t:e dignity and integrity of t:e indi%idual O :as become increasingly im7ortant as modern society :as de%elo7ed& All t:e forces of a tec:nological age O industriali=ationurbani=ation- and organi=ation O o7erate to narro9 t:e area of 7ri%acy and facilitate intrusion into it& 2n modern terms- t:e ca7acity to maintain and su77ort t:is encla%e of 7ri%ate life mar8s t:e difference bet9een a democratic and a totalitarian society& 90 2E T:e rig:t to 7ri%acy is one of t:e most t:reatened rig:ts of man li%ing in a mass society& T:e t:reats emanate from %arious sources O go%ernments- Bournalists- em7loyers- social scientistsetc& 99 2n t: case at bar- t:e t:reat comes from t:e executi%e branc: of go%ernment 9:ic: by issuing A&5& 'o& 3!/ 7ressures t:e 7eo7le to surrender t:eir 7ri%acy by gi%ing information about t:emsel%es on t:e 7retext t:at it 9ill facilitate deli%ery of basic ser%ices& Gi%en t:e record#8ee7ing 7o9er of t:e com7uter- only t:e indifferent fail to 7ercei%e t:e danger t:at A&5& 'o& 3!/ gi%es t:e go%ernment t:e 7o9er to com7ile a de%astating dossier against unsus7ecting citi=ens& 2t is timely to ta8e note of t:e 9ell#9orded 9arning of Ial%in- Cr&- >t:e disturbing result could be t:at e%eryone 9ill li%e burdened by an unerasable record of :is 7ast and :is limitations& 2n a 9ay- t:e t:reat is t:at because of its record# 8ee7ing- t:e society 9ill :a%e lost its benign ca7acity to forget&> 95 5bli%ious to t:is counsel- t:e dissents still say 9e s:ould not be too quic8 in labelling t:e rig:t to 7ri%acy as a fundamental rig:t& ?e close 9it: t:e statement t:at t:e rig:t to 7ri%acy 9as not engra%ed in our Constitution for flattery& 2' E24? ?F4R45F- t:e 7etition is granted and Adminisrati%e 5rder 'o& 3!/ entitled >Ado7tion of a 'ational Com7uteri=ed 2dentification Reference 3ystem> declared null and %oid for being unconstitutional&

R)Ba#d Va,- n$", O%=a,d Ca#! n",,, D 8 D", Ca%$),, , R ,and +a#$ , -", L" O!,)Aa#, J(n G($)"##"D, R"8na,d +aAa$%)nA, J(n EN)n 8E A,!a, P"#B8 La?)d, R --", C ## And R ,and Fad(, &. F",)B)an +",- n$", J#. G&R& 'o& )+,3!&February "3- ",/, C5RT43- J.: 6etitioners in t:is s7ecial ci%il action for mandamus 9it: 7reliminary inBunction in%o8e t:eir rig:t to information and 7ray t:at res7ondent be directed:

(a$ to furnis: 7etitioners t:e list of t:e names of t:e 0atasang 6ambansa members belonging to t:e 1'2D5 and 6D6#(aban 9:o 9ere able to secure clean loans immediately before t:e February ) election t:ru t:e intercessionHmarginal note of t:e t:en First (ady 2melda AarcosG andHor (b$ to furnis: 7etitioners 9it: certified true co7ies of t:e documents e%idencing t:eir res7ecti%e loansG andHor (c$ to allo9 7etitioners access to t:e 7ublic records for t:e subBect information& (6etition- 77& +# .G 7aragra7:ing su77lied&N T:e contro%ersy arose 9:en 7etitioner Ealmonte 9rote res7ondent 0elmonte t:e follo9ing letter:

233
Cune +- ",/* Fon& Feliciano 0elmonte G323 General Aanager Arroceros- Aanila 3ir: As a la9yer- member of t:e media and 7lain citi=en of our Re7ublic- 2 am requesting t:at 2 be furnis:ed 9it: t:e list of names of t:e o77osition members of (t:e$ 0atasang 6ambansa 9:o 9ere able to secure a clean loan of 6 million eac: on guarranty (sic$ of Ars& 2melda Aarcos& ?e understand t:at 52C Ael (o7e= of Aanila 9as one of t:ose aforesaid A6s& (i8e9ise- may 9e be furnis:ed 9it: t:e certified true co7ies of t:e documents e%idencing t:eir loan& 4x7enses in connection :ere9it: s:all be borne by us& 2f 9e could not secure t:e abo%e documents could 9e :a%e access to t:emJ ?e are 7remising t:e abo%e request on t:e follo9ing 7ro%ision of t:e Freedom Constitution of t:e 7resent regime& T:e rig:t of t:e 7eo7le to information on matters of 7ublic concern s:all be recogni=ed& Access to official records- and to documents and 7a7ers 7ertaining to official acts- transactions or decisions- s:all be afforded t:e citi=en subBect to suc: limitation as may be 7ro%ided by la9& (Art& 2E- 3ec& *$& ?e trust t:at 9it:in fi%e (.$ days from recei7t :ereof 9e 9ill recei%e your fa%orable res7onse on t:e matter&Eery truly yours(3gd&$ R2CARD5 C& EA(A5'T4 MRollo- 7& )&N To t:e aforesaid letter- t:e De7uty General Counsel of t:e G323 re7lied: Cune ")- ",/* Atty& Ricardo C& Ealmonte "!/ 4& 0enin 3treet Caloocan City Dear Com7aDero: 6ossibly because :e must :a%e t:oug:t t:at it contained serious legal im7lications6resident & General Aanager Feliciano 0elmonte- Cr& referred to me for study and re7ly your letter to :im of Cune +- ",/* requesting a list of t:e o77osition members of 0atasang 6ambansa 9:o 9ere able to secure a clean loan of 6 million eac: on guaranty of Ars& 2melda Aarcos& Ay o7inion in t:is regard is t:at a confidential relations:i7 exists bet9een t:e G323 and all t:ose 9:o borro9 from it- 9:oe%er t:ey may beG t:at t:e G323 :as a duty to its customers to 7reser%e t:is confidentialityG and t:at it 9ould not be 7ro7er for t:e G323 to breac: t:is confidentiality unless so ordered by t:e courts&

234
As a %iolation of t:is confidentiality may mar t:e image of t:e G323 as a re7utable financial institution- 2 regret %ery muc: t:at at t:is time 9e cannot res7ond 7ositi%ely to your request& Eery truly yours(3gd&$ A4@'ARD5 A& T2R5 De7uty General Counsel MRollo- 7& +!&N 5n Cune !- ",/*- a77arently not :a%ing yet recei%ed t:e re7ly of t:e Go%ernment 3er%ice and 2nsurance 3ystem (G323$ De7uty General Counsel- 7etitioner Ealmonte 9rote res7ondent anot:er letter- saying t:at for failure to recei%e a re7ly- >(?$e are no9 considering oursel%es free to do 9:ate%er action necessary 9it:in t:e 7remises to 7ursue our desired obBecti%e in 7ursuance of 7ublic interest&> MRollo- 7& /&N 5n Cune *- ",/*- Ealmonte- Boined by t:e ot:er 7etitioners- filed t:e instant suit& 5n Culy ",- ",/*- t:e (aily E.press carried a ne9s item re7orting t:at "3) former members of t:e defunct interim and regular 0atasang 6ambansa- including ten ("!$ o77osition members- 9ere granted :ousing loans by t:e G323 MRollo- 7& +"&N 3e7arate comments 9ere filed by res7ondent 0elmonte and t:e 3olicitor General& After 7etitioners filed a consolidated re7ly- t:e 7etition 9as gi%en due course and t:e 7arties 9ere required to file t:eir memoranda& T:e 7arties :a%ing com7lied- t:e case 9as deemed submitted for decision& 2n :is comment res7ondent raises 7rocedural obBections to t:e issuance of a 9rit of mandamus- among 9:ic: is t:at 7etitioners :a%e failed to ex:aust administrati%e remedies& Res7ondent claims t:at actions of t:e G323 General Aanager are re%ie9able by t:e 0oard of Trustees of t:e G323& 6etitioners- :o9e%er- did not see8 relief from t:e G323 0oard of Trustees& 2t is t:erefore asserted t:at since administrati%e remedies 9ere not ex:austed- t:en 7etitioners :a%e no cause of action& To t:is obBection- 7etitioners claim t:at t:ey :a%e raised a 7urely legal issue- vi+., 9:et:er or not t:ey are entitled to t:e documents soug:t- by %irtue of t:eir constitutional rig:t to information& Fence- it is argued t:at t:is case falls under one of t:e exce7tions to t:e 7rinci7le of ex:austion of administrati%e remedies& Among t:e settled 7rinci7les in administrati%e la9 is t:at before a 7arty can be allo9ed to resort to t:e courts- :e is ex7ected to :a%e ex:austed all means of administrati%e redress a%ailable under t:e la9& T:e courts for reasons of la9- comity and con%enience 9ill not entertain a case unless t:e a%ailable administrati%e remedies :a%e been resorted to and t:e a77ro7riate aut:orities :a%e been gi%en o77ortunity to act and correct t:e errors committed in t:e administrati%e forum& Fo9e%er- t:e 7rinci7le of ex:austion of administrati%e remedies is subBect to settled exce7tions- among 9:ic: is 9:en only a question of la9 is in%ol%ed M6ascual %& 6ro%incial 0oard- "!* 6:il& +** (",.,$G Aguilar %& Ealencia- et al&- G&R& 'o& (#3!3,*- Culy 3!- ",)"- +! 3CRA "!G Aalabanan %& Ramento- G&R& 'o& (# )!- Aay "- ",/+- " , 3CRA 3.,&N T:e issue raised by 7etitioners- 9:ic: requires t:e inter7retation of t:e sco7e of t:e constitutional rig:t to information- is one 9:ic: can be 7assed u7on by t:e regular courts more com7etently t:an t:e G323 or its 0oard of Trustees- in%ol%ing as it does a 7urely legal question& T:us- t:e exce7tion of t:is case from t:e a77lication of t:e general rule on ex:austion of administrati%e remedies is 9arranted& Fa%ing dis7osed of t:is 7rocedural issue- ?e no9 address oursel%es to t:e issue of 9:et:er or not mandamus :es to com7el res7ondent to 7erform t:e acts soug:t by 7etitioners to be done- in 7ursuance of t:eir rig:t to information&

235
?e s:all deal first 9it: t:e second and t:ird alternati%e acts soug:t to be done- bot: of 9:ic: in%ol%e t:e issue of 9:et:er or not 7etitioners are entitled to access to t:e documents e%idencing loans granted by t:e G323& T:is is not t:e first time t:at t:e Court is confronted 9it: a contro%ersy directly in%ol%ing t:e constitutional rig:t to information& 2n "aLada v. "uvera, G&R& 'o& *3,".- A7ril +-",/.- "3* 3CRA ) and in t:e recent case of 2egaspi v. !ivil #ervi%e !ommission, G&R& 'o& ) "",- Aay ,- ",/)-".! 3CRA .3!- t:e Court u7:eld t:e 7eo7le;s constitutional rig:t to be informed of matters of 7ublic interest and ordered t:e go%ernment agencies concerned to act as 7rayed for by t:e 7etitioners& T:e 7ertinent 7ro%ision under t:e ",/) Constitution is Art& """- 3ec& ) 9:ic: states: T:e rig:t of t:e 7eo7le to information on matters of 7ublic concern s:all be recogni=ed& Access to official records- and to documents- and 7a7ers 7ertaining to official actstransactions- or decisions- as 9ell as to go%ernment researc: data used as basis for 7olicy de%elo7ment- s:all be afforded t:e citi=en- subBect to suc: limitations as may be 7ro%ided by la9& T:e rig:t of access to information 9as also recogni=ed in t:e ",)3 Constitution- Art& 2E 3ec& * of 9:ic: 7ro%ided: T:e rig:t of t:e 7eo7le to information on ;matters of 7ublic concern s:all be recogni=ed& Access to official records- and to documents and 7a7ers 7ertaining to official actstransactions- or decisions- s:all be afforded t:e citi=en subBect to suc: limitations as may be 7ro%ided by la9& An informed citi=enry 9it: access to t:e di%erse currents in 7olitical- moral and artistic t:oug:t and data relati%e to t:em- and t:e free exc:ange of ideas and discussion of issues t:ereon- is %ital to t:e democratic go%ernment en%isioned under our Constitution& T:e cornerstone of t:is re7ublican system of go%ernment is delegation of 7o9er by t:e 7eo7le to t:e 3tate& 2n t:is system- go%ernmental agencies and institutions o7erate 9it:in t:e limits of t:e aut:ority conferred by t:e 7eo7le& Denied access to information on t:e inner 9or8ings of go%ernment- t:e citi=enry can become 7rey to t:e 9:ims and ca7rices of t:ose to 9:om t:e 7o9er :ad been delegated& T:e 7ostulate of 7ublic office as a 7ublic trust- institutionali=ed in t:e Constitution (in Art& `2- 3ec& "$ to 7rotect t:e 7eo7le from abuse of go%ernmental 7o9er- 9ould certainly be 9ere em7ty 9ords if access to suc: information of 7ublic concern is denied- exce7t under limitations 7rescribed by im7lementing legislation ado7ted 7ursuant to t:e Constitution& 6etitioners are 7ractitioners in media& As suc:- t:ey :a%e bot: t:e rig:t to gat:er and t:e obligation to c:ec8 t:e accuracy of information t:e disseminate& For t:em- t:e freedom of t:e 7ress and of s7eec: is not only critical- but %ital to t:e exercise of t:eir 7rofessions& T:e rig:t of access to information ensures t:at t:ese freedoms are not rendered nugatory by t:e go%ernment;s mono7oli=ing 7ertinent information& For an essential element of t:ese freedoms is to 8ee7 o7en a continuing dialogue or 7rocess of communication bet9een t:e go%ernment and t:e 7eo7le& 2t is in t:e interest of t:e 3tate t:at t:e c:annels for free 7olitical discussion be maintained to t:e end t:at t:e go%ernment may 7ercei%e and be res7onsi%e to t:e 7eo7le;s 9ill& @et- t:is o7en dialogue can be effecti%e only to t:e extent t:at t:e citi=enry is informed and t:us able to formulate its 9ill intelligently& 5nly 9:en t:e 7artici7ants in t:e discussion are a9are of t:e issues and :a%e access to information relating t:ereto can suc: bear fruit& T:e rig:t to information is an essential 7remise of a meaningful rig:t to s7eec: and ex7ression& 0ut t:is is not to say t:at t:e rig:t to information is merely an adBunct of and t:erefore restricted in a77lication by t:e exercise of t:e freedoms of s7eec: and of t:e 7ress& Far from it& T:e rig:t to information goes :and#in#:and 9it: t:e constitutional 7olicies of full publi% dis%losure F and honesty in

236
the publi% servi%e. FF 2t is meant to en:ance t:e 9idening role of t:e citi=enry in go%ernmental decision#ma8ing as 9ell as in c:ec8ing abuse in go%ernment& @et- li8e all t:e constitutional guarantees- t:e rig:t to information is not absolute& As stated in 2egaspi, t:e 7eo7le;s rig:t to information is limited to >matters of 7ublic concern-> and is furt:er >subBect to suc: limitations as may be 7ro%ided by la9&> 3imilarly- t:e 3tate;s 7olicy of full disclosure is limited to >transactions in%ol%ing 7ublic interest-> and is >subBect to reasonable conditions 7rescribed by la9&> Fence- before mandamus may issue- it must be clear t:at t:e information soug:t is of >7ublic interest> or >7ublic concern-> and is not exem7ted by la9 from t:e o7eration of t:e constitutional guarantee M(ega=7i %& Ci%il 3er%ice Commission, supra, at 7& .+ &N T:e Court :as al9ays gra77led 9it: t:e meanings of t:e terms >7ublic interest> and >7ublic concern>& As obser%ed in 2ega+pi: 2n determining 9:et:er or not a 7articular information is of 7ublic concern t:ere is no rigid test 9:ic: can be a77lied& >6ublic concern> li8e >7ublic interest> is a term t:at eludes exact definition& 0ot: terms embrace a broad s7ectrum of subBects 9:ic: t:e 7ublic may 9ant to 8no9- eit:er because t:ese directly affect t:eir li%es- or sim7ly because suc: matters naturally arouse t:e interest of an ordinary cite=en& 2n t:e final analysis- it is for t:e courts to determine on a case by case basis 9:et:er t:e matter at issue is of interest or im7ortance- as it relates to or affects t:e 7ublic& M)bid& at 7& .+"N 2n t:e "aLada case t:e 7ublic concern deemed co%ered by t:e constitutional rig:t to information 9as t:e need for adequate notice to t:e 7ublic of t:e %arious la9s 9:ic: are to regulate t:e actions and conduct of cite=ens& 2n2egaspi- it 9as t:e >legitimate concern of cite=ensof ensure t:at go%ernment 7ositions requiring ci%il ser%ice eligibility are occu7ied only by 7ersons 9:o are eligibles> M#upra at 7& .3,&N T:e information soug:t by 7etitioners in t:is case is t:e trut: of re7orts t:at certain Aembers of t:e 0atasang 6ambansa belonging to t:e o77osition 9ere able to secure >clean> loans from t:e G323 immediately before t:e February )- ",/* election t:roug: t:e intercession of t: eformer First (adyArs& 2melda Aarcos& T:e G323 is a trustee of contributions from t:e go%ernment and its em7loyees and t:e administrator of %arious insurance 7rograms for t:e benefit of t:e latter& 1ndeniably- its funds assume a 7ublic c:aracter& Aore 7articularly- 3ecs& .(b$ and +* of 6&D& ""+*- as amended (t:e Re%ised Go%ernment 3er%ice 2nsurance Act of ",))$- 7ro%ide for annual a77ro7riations to 7ay t:e contributions- 7remiums- interest and ot:er amounts 7ayable to G323 by t:e go%ernment- as em7loyer- as 9ell as t:e obligations 9:ic: t:e Re7ublic of t:e 6:ili77ines assumes or guarantees to 7ay& Considering t:e nature of its funds- t:e G323 is ex7ected to manage its resources 9it: utmost 7rudence and in strict com7liance 9it: t:e 7ertinent la9s or rules and regulations& T:us- one of t:e reasons t:at 7rom7ted t:e re%ision of t:e old G323 la9 (C&A& 'o& "/*- as amended$ 9as t:e necessity >to 7reser%e at all times t:e actuarial sol%ency of t:e funds administered by t:e 3ystem> M3econd ?:ereas Clause- 6&D& 'o& ""+*&N Consequently- as res7ondent :imself admits- t:e G323 >is not su77osed to grant ;clean loans&;> MComment- 7& /&N 2t is t:erefore t:e legitimate concern of t:e 7ublic to ensure t:at t:ese funds are managed 7ro7erly 9it: t:e end in %ie9 of maximi=ing t:e benefits t:at accrue to t:e insured go%ernment em7loyees& Aoreo%er- t:e su77osed borro9ers 9ere Aembers of t:e defunct 0atasang 6ambansa 9:o t:emsel%es a77ro7riated funds for t:e G323 and 9ere t:erefore ex7ected to be t:e first to see to it t:at t:e G323 7erformed its tas8s 9it: t:e greatest degree of fidelity and t:at an its transactions 9ere abo%e board& 2n sum- t:e 7ublic nature of t:e loanable funds of t:e G323 and t:e 7ublic office :eld by t:e alleged borro9ers ma8e t:e information soug:t clearly a matter of 7ublic interest and concern&

237
A second requisite must be met before t:e rig:t to information may be enforced t:roug: mandamus 7roceedings-vi+&- t:at t:e information soug:t must not be among t:ose excluded by la9& Res7ondent maintains t:at a confidential relations:i7 exists bet9een t:e G323 and its borro9ers& 2t is argued t:at a 7olicy of confidentiality restricts t:e indiscriminate dissemination of information& @et- res7ondent :as failed to cite any la9 granting t:e G323 t:e 7ri%ilege of confidentiality as regards t:e documents subBect of t:is 7etition& Fis 7osition is a77arently based merely on considerations of 7olicy& T:e Budiciary does not settle 7olicy issues& T:e Court can only declare 9:at t:e la9 is- and not 9:at t:e la9 s:ould be& 1nder our system of go%ernment- 7olicy issues are 9it:in t:e domain of t:e 7olitical branc:es of t:e go%ernment- and of t:e 7eo7le t:emsel%es as t:e re7ository of all 3tate 7o9er& Res7ondent :o9e%er contends t:at in %ie9 of t:e rig:t to 7ri%acy 9:ic: is equally 7rotected by t:e Constitution and by existing la9s- t:e documents e%idencing loan transactions of t:e G323 must be deemed outside t:e ambit of t:e rig:t to information& T:ere can be no doubt t:at rig:t to 7ri%acy is constitutionally 7rotected& 2n t:e landmar8 case of Morfe v. Mutu%M"3! 6:il& +". (",*/$3CRA + +N- t:is Court- s7ea8ing t:roug: t:en Ar& Custice Fernando- stated: &&& T:e rig:t to 7ri%acy as suc: is accorded recognition inde7endently of its identification 9it: libertyG in itself- it is fully deser%ing of constitutional 7rotection& T:e language of 6rof& 4merson is 7articularly a7t: >T:e conce7t of limited go%ernment :as al9ays included t:e idea t:at go%ernmental 7o9ers sto7 s:ort of certain intrusions into t:e 7ersonal life of t:e citi=en& T:is is indeed one of t:e basic distinctions bet9een absolute and limited go%ernment& 12timate and 7er%asi%e control of t:e indi%idual- in all as7ects of :is life- is t:e :allmar8 of t:e absolute& state- 2n contrast- a system of limited go%ernment safeguards a 7ri%ate sector- 9:ic: belongs to t:e indi%idual- firmly distinguis:ing it from t:e 7ublic sector- 9:ic: t:e state can control& 6rotection of t:is 7ri%ate sector O 7rotection- in ot:er 9ords- of t:e dignity and integrity of t:e indi%idual O :as become increasingly im7ortant as modem society :as de%elo7ed& All t:e forces of tec:nological age O industriali=ation- urbani=ation- and organi=ation O o7erate to narro9 t:e area of 7ri%acy and facilitate intrusion into it& 2n modern terms- t:e ca7acity to maintain and su77ort t:is encla%e of 7ri%ate life mar8s t:e difference bet9een a democratic and a totalitarian society&> Mat 77& +++#++.&N ?:en t:e information requested from t:e go%ernment intrudes into t:e 7ri%acy of a citi=en- a 7otential conflict bet9een t:e rig:ts to information and to 7ri%acy may arise& Fo9e%er- t:e com7eting interests of t:ese rig:ts need not be resol%ed in t:is case& A77arent from t:e abo%e#quoted statement of t:e Court in Morfe is t:at t:e rig:t to 7ri%acy belongs to t:e indi%idual in :is 7ri%ate ca7acity- and not to 7ublic and go%ernmental agencies li8e t:e G323& Aoreo%er- t:e rig:t cannot be in%o8ed by Buridical entities li8e t:e G323& As :eld in t:e case of 9assar !ollege v. 2oose 4ills Bis%uit !o. M",) F& ,/ ("," $N- a cor7oration :as no rig:t of 7ri%acy in its name since t:e entire basis of t:e rig:t to 7ri%acy is an inBury to t:e feelings and sensibilities of t:e 7arty and a cor7oration 9ould :a%e no suc: ground for relief& 'eit:er can t:e G323 t:roug: its General Aanager- t:e res7ondent- in%o8e t:e rig:t to 7ri%acy of its borro9ers& T:e rig:t is 7urely 7ersonal in nature M !f. At8inson %& Co:n Do:erty & Co&- " " Aic: 3) - /! '&?& /.- +* (&RA& ", ("/,,$G 3c:uyler %& Curtis- "+) '&@& +3+- + '&4& - 3" (&R&A& /* ("/,.$$- and :ence may be in%o8ed only by t:e 7erson 9:ose 7ri%acy is claimed to be %iolated& 2t may be obser%ed- :o9e%er- t:at in t:e instant case- t:e concerned borro9ers t:emsel%es may not succeed if t:ey c:oose to in%o8e t:eir rig:t to 7ri%acy- considering t:e 7ublic offices t:ey 9ere

238
:olding at t:e time t:e loans 9ere alleged to :a%e been granted& 2t cannot be denied t:at because of t:e interest t:ey generate and t:eir ne9s9ort:iness- 7ublic figures- most es7ecially t:ose :olding res7onsible 7ositions in go%ernment- enBoy a more limited rig:t to 7ri%acy as com7ared to ordinary indi%iduals- t:eir actions being subBect to closer 7ublic scrutiny M !f.Ayer 6roductions 6ty& (td& %& Ca7ulong- G&R& 'os& / 3/! and / 3,/- A7ril ,- ",//G #ee also Co:en %& Aarx- "" 6& d 3 " (",+,$&N Res7ondent next asserts t:at t:e documents e%idencing t:e loan transactions of t:e G323 are private in nature and :ence- are not co%ered by t:e Constitutional rig:t to information on matters of 7ublic concern 9:ic: guarantees >(a$ccess to offi%ial records- and to documents- and 7a7ers 7ertaining to offi%ial acts- transactions- or decisions> only& 2t is argued t:at t:e records of t:e G323- a go%ernment cor7oration 7erforming 7ro7rietary functions- are outside t:e co%erage of t:e 7eo7le;s rig:t of access to offi%ial records& 2t is furt:er contended t:at since t:e loan function of t:e G323 is merely incidental to its insurance function- t:en its loan transactions are not co%ered by t:e constitutional 7olicy of full 7ublic disclosure and t:e rig:t to information 9:ic: is a77licable only to >official> transactions& First of all- t:e >constituent O ministrant> dic:otomy c:aracteri=ing go%ernment function :as long been re7udiated& 2n !!$ v. !onfederation of 3nions and 1overnment !orporations and Offi%es (G&R& 'os& (# "+/+ and (# 3*!.- 'o%ember ,- ",*,- 3! 3CRA *++"- t:e Court said t:at t:e go%ernment- 9:et:er carrying out its so%ereign attributes or running some business- disc:arges t:e same function of ser%ice to t:e 7eo7le& Consequently- t:at t:e G323- in granting t:e loans- 9as exercising a 7ro7rietary function 9ould not Bustify t:e exclusion of t:e transactions from t:e co%erage and sco7e of t:e rig:t to information& Aoreo%er- t:e intent of t:e members of t:e Constitutional Commission of ",/*- to include go%ernment#o9ned and controlled cor7orations and transactions entered into by t:em 9it:in t:e co%erage of t:e 3tate 7olicy of fun 7ublic disclosure is manifest from t:e records of t:e 7roceedings: xxx xxx xxx TF4 6R432D2'G 5FF2C4R (Ar& Colayco$& Commissioner 3uare= is recogni=ed& AR& 31AR4Y& T:an8 you& Aay 2 as8 t:e Gentleman a fe9 questionJ AR& 56(4& Eery gladly& AR& 31AR4Y& T:an8 you& ?:en 9e declare a >7olicy of full 7ublic disclosure of all its transactions> O referring to t:e transactions of t:e 3tate O and 9:en 9e say t:e >3tate> 9:ic: 2 su77ose 9ould include all of t:e %arious agenciesde7artments- ministries and instrumentalities of t:e go%ernment&&&& AR& 56(4& @es- and indi%idual 7ublic officers- Ar& 6residing 5fficer& AR& 31AR4Y& )n%luding government7o'ned and %ontrolled %orporations. AR& 56(4& "hat is %orre%t, Mr. &residing Offi%er. AR& 31AR4Y& And 9:en 9e say >transactions> 9:ic: s:ould be distinguis:ed from contracts- agreements- or

239
treaties or 9:ate%er- does t:e Gentleman refer to t:e ste7s leading to t:e consummation of t:e contract- or does :e refer to t:e contract itselfJ AR& 56(4& "he 8transa%tions8 used here ) suppose is generi% and, therefore, it %an %over both steps leading to a %ontra%t, and already a %onsummated %ontra%t, Mr. &residing Offi%er. AR& 31AR4Y& T:is contem7lates inclusion of negotiations leading to t:e consummation of t:e transaction& AR& 56(4& @es- subBect only to reasonable safeguards on t:e national interest& AR& 31AR4Y& T:an8 you& ME Record of t:e Constitutional Commission +# .&N (4m7:asis su77lied&$ Considering t:e intent of t:e framers of t:e Constitution 9:ic:- t:oug: not binding u7on t:e Court- are ne%ert:eless 7ersuasi%e- and considering furt:er t:at go%ernment#o9ned and controlled cor7orations- 9:et:er 7erforming 7ro7rietary or go%ernmental functions are accountable to t:e 7eo7let:e Court is con%inced t:at transactions entered into by t:e G323- a go%ernment#controlled cor7oration created by s7ecial legislation are 9it:in t:e ambit of t:e 7eo7le;s rig:t to be informed 7ursuant to t:e constitutional 7olicy of trans7arency in go%ernment dealings& 2n fine- 7etitioners are entitled to access to t:e documents e%idencing loans granted by t:e G323- subBect to reasonable regulations t:at t:e latter may 7romulgate relating to t:e manner and :ours of examination- to t:e end t:at damage to or loss of t:e records may be a%oided- t:at undue interference 9it: t:e duties of t:e custodian of t:e records may be 7re%ented and t:at t:e rig:t of ot:er 7ersons entitled to ins7ect t:e records may be insured M(egas7i %& Ci%il 3er%ice Commission- supra at 7& .3/- quoting 3ubido %& 5=aeta- /! 6:il& 3/3- 3/)&N T:e 7etition- as to t:e second and t:ird alternati%e acts soug:t to be done by 7etitioners- is meritorious& Fo9e%er- t:e same cannot be said 9it: regard to t:e first act soug:t by 7etitioners- i&e&- >to furnis: 7etitioners t:e list of t:e names of t:e 0atasang 6ambansa members belonging to t:e 1'2D5 and 6D6#(aban 9:o 9ere able to secure clean loans immediately before t:e February ) election t:ru t:e intercessionHmarginal note of t:e t:en First (ady 2melda Aarcos&> Alt:oug: citi=ens are afforded t:e rig:t to information and- 7ursuant t:ereto- are entitled to >access to official records-> t:e Constitution does not accord t:em a rig:t to com7el custodians of official records to 7re7are lists- abstracts- summaries and t:e li8e in t:eir desire to acquire information on matters of 7ublic concern& 2t must be stressed t:at it is essential for a 9rit of mandamus to issue t:at t:e a77licant :as a 9ell#defined- clear and certain legal rig:t to t:e t:ing demanded and t:at it is t:e im7erati%e duty of defendant to 7erform t:e act required& T:e corres7onding duty of t:e res7ondent to 7erform t:e required act must be clear and s7ecific M(emi %& Ealencia- G&R& 'o& (# !)*/- 'o%ember ,-",*/-" * 3CRA !3G 5cam7o %& 3ubido- G&R& 'o& (# /3++- August )- ",)*- ) 3CRA ++3&N T:e request of t:e 7etitioners fails to meet t:is standard- t:ere being no duty on t:e 7art of res7ondent to 7re7are t:e list requested& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e instant 7etition is :ereby granted and res7ondent General Aanager of t:e Go%ernment 3er%ice 2nsurance 3ystem is 5RD4R4D to allo9 7etitioners access to documents and records e%idencing loans granted to Aembers of t:e former 0atasang 6ambansa- as 7etitioners may

240
s7ecify- subBect to reasonable regulations as to t:e time and manner of ins7ection- not incom7atible 9it: t:is decision- as t:e G323 may deem necessary&

A8"# P# d(B$) n% P$8. L$d. and MB",# 8 * MB",# 8 F),- P# d(B$) n% %& H n.IAnaB) M. Ca?(, nA and J(an P nB" En#)," G&R& 'o& / 3/!&A7ril ,- ",// F4(2C2A'5- J.: 6etitioner Fal Ac4lroy an Australian film ma8er- and :is mo%ie 7roduction com7any- 6etitioner Ayer 6roductions 7ty (td& (Ayer 6roductions$- 4 en%isioned- sometime in ",/)- t:e for commercial %ie9ing and for 6:ili77ine and international release- t:e :istolic 7eaceful struggle of t:e Fili7inos at 4D3A (47ifanio de los 3antos A%enue$& 6etitioners discussed t:is 6roBect 9it: local mo%ie 7roducer (o7e E& Cuban 9:o suggested t: t:ey consult 9it: t:e a77ro7riate go%ernment agencies and also 9it: General Fidel E& Ramos and 3enator Cuan 6once 4nrile- 9:o :ad 7layed maBor roles in t:e e%ents 7ro7osed to be filmed& T:e 7ro7osed motion 7icture entitled >T:e Four Day Re%olution> 9as endorsed by t:e Ao%ie Tele%ision Re%ie9 and Classification 0oard as 9el as t:e ot:er go%ernment agencies consulted& General Fidel Ramos also signified :is a77ro%al of t:e intended film 7roduction& 2n a letter dated "* December ",/)- 7etitioner Fal Ac4lroy informed 7ri%ate res7ondent Cuan 6once 4nrile about t:e 7roBected motion 7icture enclosing a syno7sis of it- t:e full text of 9:ic: is set out belo9: T:e Four Day Re%olution is a six :our mini#series about 6eo7le 6o9erOa unique e%ent in modern :istory t:at#made 7ossible t:e 6eaceful re%olution in t:e 6:ili77ines in ",/*& Faced 9it: t:e tas8 of dramatising t:ese rer8ble e%ents- screen9riter Da%id ?illiamson and :istory 6rof Al AcCoy :a%e c:osen a >docu#drama> style and created MfourN fictitious c:aracters to trace t:e re%olution from t:e deat: of 3enator Aquino- to t:e Feb re%olution and t:e fleeing of Aarcos from t:e country& T:ese c:aracter stories :a%e been 9o%en t:roug: t:e real e%ents to :el7 our :uge international audience understand t:is ordinary 7eriod inFili7ino :istory& First- t:ere;s Tony 5;'eil- an American tele%ision Bournalist 9or8ing for maBor net9or8& Tony reflects t:e a%erage American attitude to t:e 6:i:77inence Oonce a colony- no9 t:e :ome of crucially im7ortant military bases& Alt:oug: Tony is a9are of t:e corru7tion and of Aarcos; megalomania- for :im- t:ere a77ears to be no alternati%e to Aarcos exce7t t:e Communists& 'ext- Angie Fox a fiery Australian 7:oto#Bournalist& A ;ne9 girl in to9n-; s:e is quic8ly caug:t u7 in t:e e%ents as it becomes dear t:at t:e time :as come for a c:ange& T:roug: Angle and :er relations:i7 9it: one of t:e Reform Army Ao%ement Colonels (a fictitious c:aracter$- 9e follo9 t:e de%elo7ing discontent in t:e armed forces& T:eir disli8e for General Eer- t:eir strong loyalty to Defense Ainister 4nrile- and ultimately t:eir defection from Aarcos& T:e fourt: fictitious c:aracter is 0en 0alano- a middle#aged editor of a Aanila ne9s7a7er 9:o des7ises t:e Aarcos regime and is a su77orter an 7romoter of Cory Aquino& 0en :as t9o daug:ters- Ce:ea left 9ing la9yer 9:o is a secret member of t:e

241
'e9 6eo7le;s Army- and 4%a##a #6&R& girl- 7olitically moderate and %ery muc: in lo%e 9it: Tony& 1ltimately- s:e must c:oose bet9een :er lo%e and t:e re%olution& T:roug: t:e inter%ie9s and ex7eriences of t:ese central c:aracters- 9e s:o9 t:e com7lex nature of Fili7ino society- and t:intert9ining series of e%ents and c:aracters t:at triggered t:ese remar8able c:anges& T:roug: t:em also- 9e meet all of t:e 7rinci7al c:aracters and ex7erience directly dramatic recreation of t:e re%olution& T:e story incor7orates actual documentary footage filmed during t:e 7eriod 9:ic: 9e :o7e 9ill ca7ture t:e unique atmos7:ere and forces t:at combined to o%ert:ro9 6resident Aarcos& Da%id ?illiamson is Australia;s leading 7lay9rig:t 9it: some "+ :ugely successful 7lays to :is credit(Don;s 6arty-; ;T:e Club-; Tra%elling 'ort:$ and "" feature films (T:e @ear of (i%ing Dangerously-; Galli7oli-; ;6:ar (a7;$& 6rofessor AcCoy (1ni%ersity of 'e9 3out: ?ales$ is an American :istorian 9it: a dee7 understanding of t:e 6:ili77ines- 9:o :as 9or8ed on t:e researc: for t:is 7roBect for some "/ mont:s& Toget:er 9it: Da%i ?il:amgon t:ey :a%e de%elo7ed a scri7t 9e belie%e accurately de7icts t:e com7lex issues and e%ents t:at occurred during t: 7eriod & T:e six :our series is a Ac4lroy and Ac4lroy co#7roduction 9it: Fome 0ox 5ffice in American- t:e Australian 0roadcast Cor7oration in Australia and Yenit: 6roductions in t:e 1nited Iingdom T:e 7ro7osed motion 7icture 9ould be essentially a re#enact& ment of t:e e%ents t:at made 7ossible t:e 4D3A re%olutionG it is designed to be %ie9ed in a six#:our mini#series tele%ision 7lay7resented in a >docu#drama> style- creating four (+$ fictional c:aracters inter9o%en 9it: real e%entsand utili=ing actual documentary footage as bac8ground& 5n " December ",/)- 7ri%ate res7ondent 4nrile re7lied t:at >M:eN 9ould not and 9ill not a77ro%e of t:e use- a77ro7riation- re7roduction andHor ex:ibition of :is name- or 7icture- or t:at of any member of :is family in any cinema or tele%ision 7roduction- film or ot:er medium for ad%ertising or commercial ex7loitation> and furt:er ad%ised 7etitioners t:at ;in t:e 7roduction- airing- s:o9ingdistribution or ex:ibition of said or similar film- no reference 9:atsoe%er (9:et:er 9ritten- %erbal or %isual$ s:ould not be made to M:imN or any member of :is family- muc: less to any matter 7urely 7ersonal to t:em& 2t a77ears t:at 7etitioners acceded to t:is demand and t:e name of 7ri%ate res7ondent 4nrile 9as deleted from t:e mo%ie scri7t- and 7etitioners 7roceeded to film t:e 7roBected motion 7icture& 5n 3 February ",//- 7ri%ate res7ondent filed a Com7laint 9it: a77lication for Tem7orary Restraining 5rder and ?ilt of 6retion 9it: t:e Regional Trial Court of Aa8ati- doc8eted as Ci%il Case 'o& //#"." in 0ranc: "3+ t:ereof- see8ing to enBoin 7etitioners from 7roducing t:e mo%ie >T:e Four Day Re%olution>& T:e com7laint alleged t:at 7etitioners; 7roduction of t:e mini#series 9it:out 7ri%ate res7ondent;s consent and o%er :is obBection- constitutes an ob%ious %iolation of :is rig:t of 7ri%acy& 5n + February ",//- t:e trial court issued e.7parte a Tem7orary Restraining 5rder and set for :earing t:e a77lication for 7reliminary inBunction& 5n , Aarc: ",//- Fal Ac4lroy flied a Aotion to Dismiss 9it: 577osition to t:e 6etition for 6reliminary 2nBunction contending t:at t:e mini#series fim 9ould not in%ol%e t:e 7ri%ate life of Cuan 6once 4nrile nor t:at of :is family and t:at a 7reliminary inBunction 9ould amount to a 7rior restraint on t:eir rig:t of free ex7ression& 6etitioner Ayer 6roductions also filed its o9n Aotion to Dismiss alleging lac8 of cause of action as t:e mini#series :ad not yet been com7leted&

242
2n an 5rder / dated "* Aarc: ",//- res7ondent court issued a 9rit of 6reliminary 2nBunction against t:e 7etitioners- t:e dis7ositi%e 7ortion of 9:ic: reads t:us: ?F4R4F5R4- let a 9rit of 7reliminary inBunction be issued- ordering defendants- and all 7ersons and entities em7loyed or under contract 9it: t:em- including actorsactresses and members of t:e 7roduction staff and cre9 as 9ell as all 7ersons and entities acting on defendants; be:alf- to %ease and desist from produ%ing and filming the mini7series entitled '"he $our (ay ,evolution8 and from ma/ing any referen%e 'hatsoever to plaintiff or his family and from %reating any fi%titious %hara%ter in lieu of plaintiff 'hi%h nevertheless is based on, or bears rent substantial or mar/ed resemblan%e or similarity to, or is other'ise )dentifiable 'ith, plaintiff in t:e 7roduction and any similar film or 7:oto7lay- until furt:er orders from t:is Court- u7on 7laintiff;s filing of a bond in t:e amount of 6 -!!!-!!!&!!- to ans9er for 9:ate%er damages defendants may suffer by reason of t:e inBunction if t:e Court s:ould finally decide t:at 7laintiff 9as not entitled t:ereto& xxx xxx xxx (4m7:asis su77lied$ 5n Aarc: ",//- 7etitioner Ayer 6roductions came to t:is Court by a 6etition for certiorari dated " Aarc: ",// 9it: an urgent 7rayer for 6reliminary 2nBunction or Restraining 5rder- 9:ic: 7etition 9as doc8eted as G&R& 'o& (#/ 3/!& A day later- or on 3 Aarc: ",//- 7etitiioner Fal Ac4lroy also filed se7arate 6etition for certiorari 9it: 1rgent 6rayer for a Restraining 5rder or 6reliminary 2nBunction- dated Aarc: ",//doc8eted as G&R& 'o& (#/ 3,/& 0y a Resolution dated + Aarc: ",//- t:e 7etitions 9ere consolidated and 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as required to file a consolidated Ans9er& Furt:er- in t:e same Resolution- t:e Court granted a Tem7orary Restraining 5rder 7artially enBoining t:e im7lementation of t:e res7ondent Cudge;s 5rder of "* Aarc: ",// and t:e ?rit of 6reliminary 2nBunction issued t:erein- and allo9ing t:e 7etitioners to resume 7roducing and filming t:ose 7ortions of t:e 7roBected mini#series 9:ic: do not ma8e any reference to 7ri%ate res7ondent or :is family or to any fictitious c:aracter based on or res7ondent& 6ri%ate res7ondent seasonably filed :is Consolidated Ans9er on * A7ril ",// in%o8ing in t:e main a rig:t of 7ri%acy& 2 T:e constitutional and legal issues raised by t:e 7resent 6etitions are s:ar7ly dra9n& 6etitioners; claim t:at in 7roducing and >T:e Four Day Re%olution-> t:ey are exercising t:eir freedom of s7eec: and of ex7ression 7rotected under our Constitution& 6ri%ate res7ondent- u7on t:e ot:er :and- asserts a rig:t of 7ri%acy and claims t:at t:e 7roduction and filming of t:e 7roBected mini#series 9ould constitute an unla9ful intrusion into :is 7ri%acy 9:ic: :e is entitled to enBoy& Considering first 7etitioners; claim to freedom of s7eec: and of ex7ression t:e Court 9ould once more stress t:at t:is freedom includes t:e freedom to film and 7roduce motion 7ictures and to ex:ibit suc: motion 7ictures in t:eaters or to diffuse t:em t:roug: tele%ision& 2n our day and agemotion 7ictures are a uni%esally utili=ed %e:icle of communication and medium 5f ex7ression& Along 9it: t:e 7ress- radio and tele%ision- motion 7ictures constitute a 7rinci7al medium of mass communication for information- education and entertainment& 2n 1on+ales v. Katigba/-< former C:ief Custice Fernando- s7ea8ing for t:e Court- ex7lained:

243
"& Aotion 7ictures are im7ortant bot: as a medium for t:e communication of 2deas and t:e ex7ression of t:e artistic im7ulse& T:eir effect on t:e 7erce7tion by our 7eo7le of issues and 7ublic officials or 7ublic figures as 9ell as t:e 7re cultural traits is considerable& 'or as 7ointed out in Burstyn v. 4ilson (3+3 13 +,. M",+ "$ is t:e 2m7ortance of motion 7ictures as an organ of 7ublic o7inion lessened by t:e fact t:at t:ey are designed to entertain as 9ell as to inform; ( )bid- .!"$& T:ere is no clear di%iding line bet9een 9:at in%ol%es 8no9ledge and 9:at affords 7leasure& 2f suc: a distinction 9ere sustained- t:ere is a diminution of t:e basic rig:t to free ex7ression& &&& : T:is freedom is a%ailable in our country bot: to locally#o9ned and to foreign#o9ned motion 7icture com7anies& Furt:ermore t:e circumstance t:at t:e 7roduction of motion 7icture films is a commercial acti%ity ex7ected to yield monetary 7rofit- is not a disqualification for a%ailing of freedom of s7eec: and of ex7ression& 2n our community as in many ot:er countries- media facilities are o9ned eit:er by t:e go%ernment or t:e 7ri%ate sector but t:e 7ri%ate sector#o9ned media facilities commonly require to be sustained by being de%oted in 9:ole or in 7ailt to re%enue 7roducing acti%ities& 2ndeedcommercial media constitute t:e bul8 of suc: facilities a%ailable in our country and :ence to exclude commercially o9ned and o7erated media from t:e exerciseof constitutionally 7rotected om of s7eec: and of ex7ression can only result in t:e drastic contraction of suc: constitutional liberties in our country& T:e counter#balancing of 7ri%ate res7ondent is to a rig:t of 7ri%acy& 2t 9as demonstrated sometime ago by t:e t:en Dean 2rene R& Cortes t:at our la9- constitutional and statutory- does include a rig:t of 7ri%acy& 1 2t is left to case la9- :o9e%er- to mar8 out t:e 7recise sco7e and content of t:is rig:t in differing ty7es of 7articular situations& T:e rig:t of 7ri%acy or >t:e rig:t to be let alone-> 2 li8e t:e rig:t of free ex7ression- is not an absolute rig:t& A limited intrusion into a 7erson;s 7ri%acy :as long been regarded as 7ermissible 9:ere t:at 7erson is a 7ublic figure and t:e information soug:t to be elicited from :im or to be 7ublis:ed about :im constitute of a7ublic c:aracter& 03uccinctly 7ut- t:e rig:t of 7ri%acy cannot be in%o8ed resist 7ublication and dissemination of matters of 7ublic interest& 9 T:e interest soug:t to be 7rotected by t:e rig:t of 7ri%acy is t:e rig:t to be free from un'arranted7ublicityfrom t:e 'rongful 7ublici=ing of t:e 7ri%ate affairs and acti%ities of an indi%idual 'hi%h are outside the realm of legitimate publi% %on%ern& 5 2agun+ad v. 9da. de 1on+ales- 4; on 9:ic: 7ri%ate res7ondent relies :ea%ily- recogni=ed a rig:t to 7ri%acy in a context 9:ic: included a claim to freedom of s7eec: and of ex7ression& 2agun+ad in%ol%ed a suit fortion 7icture 7roducer as licensee and t:e 9ido9 and family of t:e late Aoises 6adilla as licensors& T:is agreement ga%e t:e licensee t:e rig:t to 7roduce a motion 6icture 6ortraying t:e life of Aoises 6adilla- a mayoralty candidate of t:e 'acionalista 6arty for t:e Aunici7ality of Aagallon- 'egros 5ccidental during t:e 'o%ember ",." elections and for 9:ose murder- Go%ernor Rafael (acson- a member of t:e (iberal 6arty t:en in 7o9er and :is men 9ere tried and con%icted& 44 2n t:e Budgment of t:e lo9er court enforcing t:e licensing agreement against t:e licensee 9:o :ad 7roduced t:e motion 7icture and ex:ibited it but refused to 7ay t:e sti7ulated royalties- t:e Court- t:roug: Custice Aelencio#Ferrera- said: 'eit:er do 9e agree 9it: 7etitioner;s subon t:at t:e (icensing Agreement is null and %oid for lac8 of- or for :a%ing an illegal cause or consideration- 9:ile it is true t:at 7etitioner bad 7led t:e rig:ts to t:e boo8 entitled >T:e Aoises 6adilla 3tory-> t:at did not dis7ense 9it: t:e need for 7rior consent and aut:ority from t:e deceased :eirs to 7ortray 7ublicly e7isodes in said deceased;s life and in t:at of :is mot:er and t:e member of :is family& As :eld in 3c:uyler %& Curtis- (M"/,.N-"+) '@ +3+-+ '4 3" (RA /*&+, Am 3t Re7 *)"$- ;a 7ri%ilege may be gi%en t:e sur%i%ing relati%es of a de7erson to 7rotect :is memory- but t:e 7ri%ilege 9ts for t:e benefit of t:e li%ing- to 7rotect t:eir feelings and to 7re%enta %iolation of t:eir o9n rig:ts in t:e c:aracter and memory of t:e deceased&;

244
6etitioners a%erment t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent did not :a%e any 7ro7erty rig:t o%er t:e life of Aoises 6adilla since t:e latter 9as a 7ublic figure- is neit:er 9ell ta8en& 0eing a 7ublic figure i7so facto does not automatically destroy in toto a 7erson;s rig:t to 7ri%acy& T:e rig:t to in%ade a 7erson;s 7ri%acy to disseminate 7ublic information does not extend to a fictional or no%eli=ed re7resentation of a 7erson- no matter :o9 7ublic a :e or s:e may be (Garner %& Triangle 6ublications- DC'@ ,) F& 3u77&- 31 .+, M",."N$& 2n t:e case at bar- 9:ile it is true t:at 7etitioner exerted efforts to 7resent a true#to#life 3tory 5f Aoises 6adilla- 7etitioner admits t:at :e included a little romance in t:e film because 9it:out it- it 9ould be a drab story of torture and brutality& 4/ 2n 2agun+ad- t:e Court :ad need- as 9e :a%e in t:e instant case- to deal 9it: contra7osed claims to freedom of s7eec: and of ex7ression and to 7ri%acy& (agun=ad t:e licensee in effect claimed- in t:e name of freedom of s7eec: and ex7ression- a rig:t to 7roduce a motion 7icture biogra7:y at least 7artly >fictionali=ed> of Aoises 6adilla 9it:out t:e consent of and 9it:out 7aying 7re#agreed royalties to t:e 9ido9 and family of 6adilla& 2n reBecting t:e licensee;s claim- t:e Court said: (astly- neit:er do 9e find merit in 7etitioners contention t:at t:e (icensing Agreement infringes on t:e constitutional rig:t of freedom of s7eec: and of t:e 7ress- in t:at- as a citi=en and as a ne9s7a7erman- :e :ad t:e rig:t to ex7ress :is t:oug:ts in film on t:e 7ublic life of Aoises 6adilla 9it:out 7rior restraint&T:e rig:t freedom of ex7ressionindeed- occu7ies a 7referred 7osition in t:e >:ierarc:y of ci%il liberties> (6:ili77ine 0looming Aills 4m7loyees 5rgani=ation %& 6:ili77ine 0looming Aills Co&- 2nc&- ." 3CRA "," M",*3N$& 2t is not- :o9e%er- 9it:out limitations& As :eld in Gon=ales %& Commission on 4lections- ) 3CRA /3.- /./ M",*!N: xxx xxx xxx T:e 7re%ailing doctine is t:at t:e clear and 7resent danger rule is suc: a limitation& Anot:er criterion for 7ermissible limitation on freedom of s7eec: and t:e 7ress- 9:ic: includes suc: %e:icles of t:e mass media as radio- tele%ision and t:e mo%ies- is t:e >balancing of interest test> (C:ief Custice 4nrique A& Fernando on t:e 0ill of Rig:ts",)! ed& 7& ),$& T:e 7rinci7le >requires a court to ta8e conscious and detailed consideration of t:e inter7lay of interests obser%able in gi%en situation or ty7e of situation> (3e7aration 57inion of t:e late C:ief Custice Castro in Gon=ales %& Commission on 4lections- supra- 7& /,,$& )n the %ase at bar, the interests observable are the right to priva%y asserted by respondent and the right of freedom of e.pression invo/ed by petitioner & ta8ing into account t:e inter7lay of t:ose interests- 9e :old t:at under the parti%ular %ir%umstan%es presented, and %onsidering the obligations assumed in the 2i%ensing greement entered into by petitioner, the validity of su%h agreement 'ill have to be upheld parti%ularly be%ause the limits of freedom of e.pression are rea%hed 'hen e.pression tou%hes upon matters of essentially private %on%ern.8 4< ?:et:er t:e >balancing of interests test> or t:e clear and 7resent danger test> be a77lied in res7ect of t:e instant 6etitions- t:e Court belie%es t:at a different conclusion must :ere be reac:ed: T:e 7roduction and filming by 7etitioners of t:e 7roBected motion 7icture >T:e Four Day Re%olution> does not- in t:e circumstances of t:is case- constitute an unla9ful intrusion u7on 7ri%ate res7ondent;s >rig:t of 7ri%acy&> "& 2t may be obser%ed at t:e outset t:at 9:at is in%ol%ed in t:e instant case is a 7rior and direct restraint on t:e 7art of t:e res7ondent Cudge u7on t:e exercise of s7eec: and of ex7ression by 7etitioners& T:e res7ondent Cudge :as restrained 7etitioners from filming and 7roducing t:e entire 7ro7osed motion 7icture& 2t is im7ortant to note t:at in (agun=ad- t:ere 9as no 7rior restrain of any

245
8ind im7osed u7on t:e mo%ie 7roducer 9:o in fact com7leted and ex:ibited t:e film biogra7:y of Aoises 6adilla& 0ecause of t:e s7eec: and of ex7ression- a 9eig:ty 7resum7tion of in%alidity %itiates& 4: T:e in%alidity of a measure of 7rior restraint doesnot- of course- mean t:at no subsequent liability may la9fully be im7osed u7on a 7erson claiming to exercise suc: constitutional freedoms& T:e res7ondent Cudge s:ould :a%e stayed :is :and- instead of issuing an ex#7arte Tem7orary Restraining 5rder one day after filing of a com7laint by t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent and issuing a 6reliminary 2nBunction t9enty ( !$ days laterG for t:e 7roBected motion 7icture 9as as yet uncom7leted and :ence not ex:ibited to any audience& 'eit:er 7ri%ate res7ondent nor t:e res7ondent trial Cudge 8ne9 9:at t:e com7leted film 9ould 7recisely loo8 li8e& T:ere 9as- in ot:er 9ords- no >clear and 7resent danger> of any %iolation of any rig:t to 7ri%acy t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent could la9fully assert& & T:e subBect matter of >T:e Four Day Re%olution> relates to t:e non#bloody c:ange of go%ernment t:at too8 7lace at 47ifanio de los 3antos A%enue in February ",/*- and t:e trian of e%ents 9:ic: led u7 to t:at denouement& Clearly- suc: subBect matter is one of 7ublic interest and concern& 2ndeed- it is7etitioners; argue- of international interest& T:e subBect t:us relates to a :ig:ly critical stage in t:e :istory of t:is countryand as suc:- must be regarded as :a%ing 7assed into t:e 7ublic domain and as an a77ro7riate subBect for s7eec: and ex7ression and co%erage by any form of mass media& T:e subBect mater- as set out in t:e syno7sis 7ro%ided by t:e 7etitioners and quoted abo%e- does not relate to t:e indi%idual life and certainly not to t:e 7ri%ate life of 7ri%ate res7ondent 6once 4nrile& 1nli8e in (agun=ad- 9:ic: concerned t:e life story of Aoises 6adilla necessarily including at least :is immediate family- 9:at 9e :a%e :ere is not a film biogra7:y- more or less fictionali=ed- of 7ri%ate res7ondent 6once 4nrile& >T:e Four Day Re%olution> is not 7rinci7ally about- nor is it focused u7ont:e man Cuan 6once 4nrile; but it is com7elled- if it is to be :istorical- to refer to t:e role 7layed by Cuan 6once 4nrile in t:e 7reci7itating and t:e constituent e%ents of t:e c:ange of go%ernment in February ",/*& 3& T:e extent of t:e instrusion u7on t:e life of 7ri%ate res7ondent Cuan 6once 4nrile t:at 9ould be entailed by t:e 7roduction and ex:ibition of >T:e Four Day Re%olution> 9ould- t:erefore- be limited in c:aracter& T:e extent of t:at intrusion- as t:is Court understands t:e syno7sis of t:e 7ro7osed filmmay be generally described as suc: intrusion as is reasonably necessary to 8ee7 t:at film a trut:ful :istorical account& 6ri%ate res7ondent does not claim t:at 7etitioners t:reatened to de7ict in >T:e Four Day Re%olution> any 7art of t:e 7ri%ate life of 7ri%ate res7ondent or t:at of any member of :is family& +& At all rele%ant times- during 9:ic: t:e momentous e%ents- clearly of 7ublic concern- t:at 7etitioners 7ro7ose to film 9ere ta8ing 7lace- 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as 9:at 6rofs& 6rosser and Ieeton :a%e referred to as a >7ublic figure:> publi% figure has been defined as a person 'ho, by his a%%omplishments, fame, or mode of living, or by adopting a profession or %alling 'hi%h gives the publi% a legitimate interest in his doings, his affairs, and his %hara%ter, has be%ome a 'publi% personage.' -e is, in other 'ords, a %elebrity. Obviously to be in%luded in this %ategory are those 'ho have a%hieved some degree of reputation by appearing before the publi%, as in t:e case of an actor- a 7rofessional baseball 7layer- a 7ugilist- or any ot:er entertainment& T:e list is- :o9e%er- broader t:an t:is& )t in%ludes publi% offi%ers, famous in%entors and ex7lorers- 'ar heroes and even ordinary soldiers- an infant 7rodigy- and no less a 7ersonage t:an t:e Grand 4xalted Ruler of a lodge& )t in%ludes, in short, anyone 'ho has arrived at a position 'here publi% attention is fo%used upon him as a person. #u%h publi% figures 'ere held to have lost, to some e.tent at least, their tight to priva%y. T:ree reasons 9ere gi%en- more or less indiscrimately- in t:e decisions> t:at t:ey :ad soug:t 7ublicity and consented to it- and so could not com7laint 9:en t:ey recei%ed itG that their personalities and their affairs has already publi%, and %ould no longer be regarded as their o'n private businessH and that the press had a privilege, under the !onstitution, to inform the publi% about those 'ho have be%ome legitimate

246
matters of publi% interest. 5n one or anot:er of t:ese grounds- and sometimes all- it 9as :eld t:at t:ere 9as no liability 'hen they 'ere given additional publi%ity, as to matters legitimately 'ithin the s%ope of the publi% interest they had aroused. "he privilege of giving publi%ity to ne's, and other matters of publi% interest, 'as held to arise out of the desire and the right of the publi% to /no' 'hat is going on in the 'orld, and the freedom of the press and other agen%ies of information to tell it. >'e9s> includes all e%ents and items of information 9:ic: are out of t:e ordinary :um#drum routine- and 9:ic: :a%e ;t:at indefinable quality of information 9:ic: arouses 7ublic attention&; To a %ery great extent t:e 7ress- 9it: its ex7erience or instinct as to 9:at its readers 9ill 9ant- :as succeeded in ma8ing its o9n definination of ne9s- as a glance at any morning ne9s7a7er 9ill sufficiently indicate& 2t includes :omicide and ot:e crimesarrests and 7olice raides- suicides- marriages and di%orces- accidents- a deat: from t:e use of narcotics- a 9oman 9it: a rare disease- t:e birt: of a c:ild to a t9el%e year old girl- t:e rea77earance of one su77osed to :a%e been murdered years ago- and undoubtedly many ot:er similar matters of genuine- if more or less de7lorable- 7o7ular a77eal& "he privilege of enlightening the publi% 'as not, ho'ever, limited, to the dissemination of ne's in the s%ene of %urrent events. )t e.tended also to information or edu%ation, or even entertainment and amusement, by boo/s, arti%les, pi%tures, films and broad%asts %on%erning interesting phases of human a%tivity in general, as 'ell as the reprodu%tion of the publi% s%ene in ne'sreels and travelogues. 2n determining 9:ere to dra9 t:e line- t:e courts 9ere in%ited to exercise a s7ecies of censors:i7 o%er 9:at t:e 7ublic may be 7ermitted to readG and t:ey 9ere understandably liberal in allo9ing t:e benefit of t:e doubt& 41 6ri%ate res7ondent is a >7ublic figure> 7recisely because- inter alia- of :is 7artici7ation as a 7rinci7al actor in t:e culminating e%ents of t:e c:ange of go%ernment in February ",/*& 0ecause :is 7artici7ation t:erein 9as maBor in c:aracter- a film reenactment of t:e 7eaceful re%olution t:at fails to ma8e reference to t:e role 7layed by 7ri%ate res7ondent 9ould be grossly un:istorical& T:e rig:t of 7ri%acy of a >7ublic figure> is necessarily narro9er t:an t:at of an ordinary citi=en& 6ri%ate res7ondent :as not retired into t:e seclusion of sim7le 7ri%ate citi=ens:i7& :e continues to be a >7ublic figure&> After a successful 7olitical cam7aign during 9:ic: :is 7artici7ation in t:e 4D3A Re%olution 9as directly or indirectly referred to in t:e 7ress- radio and tele%ision- :e sits in a %ery 7ublic 7lace- t:e 3enate of t:e 6:ili77ines& .& T:e line of equilibrium in t:e s7ecific context of t:e instant case bet9een t:e constitutional freedom of s7eec: and of ex7ression and t:e rig:t of 7ri%acy- may be mar8ed out in terms of a requirement t:at t:e 7ro7osed motion 7icture must be fairly trut:ful and :istorical in its 7resentation of e%ents& T:ere must- in ot:er 9ords- be no 8no9ing or rec8less disregard of trut: in de7icting t:e 7artici7ation of 7ri%ate res7ondent in t:e 4D3A Re%olution& "* T:ere must- furt:er- be no 7resentation of t:e 7ri%ate life of t:e un9illing 7ri%ate res7ondent and certainly no re%elation of intimate or embarrassing 7ersonal facts& ") T:e 7ro7osed motion 7icture s:ould not enter into 9:at Ame& Custice Aelencio#Ferrera in (agun=ad referred to as >matters of essentially 7ri%ate concern&> "/ To t:e extent t:at >T:e Four Day Re%olution> limits itself in 7ortraying t:e 7artici7ation of 7ri%ate res7ondent in t:e 4D3A Re%olution to t:ose e%ents 9:ic: are directly and reasonably related to t:e publi% fa%ts of t:e 4D3A Re%olution- t:e intrusion into 7ri%ate res7ondent;s 7ri%acy cannot be regarded as unreasonable and actionable& 3uc: 7ortrayal may be carried out e%en 9it:out a license from 7ri%ate res7ondent& 22 2n a Aanifestation dated 3! Aarc: ",//- 7etitioner Fal Ac4lroy informed t:is Court t:at a Tem7orary Restraining 5rder dated . Aarc: ",//- 9as issued by Cudge Teofilo Guadi= of t:e

247
Regional Trial Court of Aa8ati- 0ranc: "+)- in Ci%il Case 'o& //#+"3- entitled >Gregorio 0& Fonasan %s& Ayer 6roductions 6ty& (td&- Ac4lroy Film 6roductions- Fal Ac4lroy- (o7e Cuban and 6A6 Aotion for 6ictures 6roduction> enBoining :im and :is 7roduction com7any from furt:er filimg any scene of t:e 7roBected mini#series film& 6etitioner alleged t:at Fonasan;s com7laint 9as a >scissors and 7aste> 7leading- cut out straig:t grom t:e com7laint of 7ri%ate res7ondent 6once 4nrile in Ci%il Case 'o& //# "."& 6etitioner Ayer 6roductions- in a se7arate Aanifestation dated + A7ril ",//- broug:t to t:e attention of t:e Court t:e same information gi%en by 7etitoner Fal Ac4lroy- reiterating t:at t:e com7laint of Gregorio 0& Fonasan 9as substantially identical to t:at filed by 7ri%ate res7ondent :erein and stating t:at in refusing to Boin Fonasan in Ci%il Case 'o& //#"."- counsel for 7ri%ate res7ondent9it: 9:om counsel for Gregorio Fonasan are a77arently associated- deliberately engaged in >forum s:o77ing&> 6ri%ate res7ondent filed a Counter#Aanifestation on "3 A7ril ",// stating t:at t:e >slig:t similarity> bet9een 7ri%ate res7ondent;s com7laint and t:at on Fonasan in t:e construction of t:eir legal basis of t:e rig:t to 7ri%acy as a com7onent of t:e cause of action is understandable considering t:at court 7leadings are 7ublic recordsG t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent;s cause of action for in%asion of 7ri%acy is se7arate and distinct from t:at of Fonasan;s alt:oug: t:ey arose from t:e same tortious act of 7etitioners; t:at t:e rule on 7ermissi%e Boinder of 7arties is not mandatory and t:at- t:e cited cases on >forum s:o77ing> 9ere not in 7oint because t:e 7arties :ere and t:ose in Ci%il Case 'o& //#+"3 are not identical& For reasons t:at by no9 :a%e become clear- it is not necessary for t:e Court to deal 9it: t:e question of 9:et:er or not t:e la9yers of 7ri%ate res7ondent 6once 4nrile :a%e engaged in >forum s:o77ing&> 2t is- :o9e%er- im7ortant to dis7ose to t:e com7laint filed by former Colonel Fonasan 9:o:a%ing refused to subBect :imself to t:e legal 7rocesses of t:e Re7ublic and :a%ing become once again in fugiti%e from Bustice- must be deemed to :a%e forfeited any rig:t t:e mig:t :a%e :ad to 7rotect :is 7ri%acy t:roug: court 7rocesses& ?F4R4F5R4a$ t:e 6etitions for Certiorari are GRA'T4D D14 C51R34- and t:e 5rder dated "* Aarc: ",// of res7ondent trial court granting a ?rit of 6reliminary 2nBunction is :ereby 34T A32D4& T:e limited Tem7orary Restraining 5rder granted by t:is Court on + Aarc: ",// is :ereby A5D2F24D by enBoining unqualifiedly t:e im7lementation of res7ondent Cudge;s 5rder of "* Aarc: ",// and made 64RAA'4'T- and b$ Treating t:e Aanifestations of 7etitioners dated 3! Aarc: ",// and + A7ril ",// as se7arate 6etitions for Certiorari 9it: 6rayer for 6reliminary 2nBunction or Restraining 5rder- t:e Court- in t:e exercise of its 7lenary and su7er%isory Burisdiction- :ereby R4<12R43 Cudge Teofilo Guadi= of t:e Regional Trial Court of Aa8ati- 0ranc: "+)- fort:9it: to D23A233 Ci%il Case 'o& //#+"3 and accordingly to 34T A32D4 and D2335(E4 :is Tem7orary Restraining 5rder dated . Aarc: ",// and any 6reliminary 2nBunction t:at may :a%e been issued by :im& 'o 7ronouncement as to costs& S$. L ()% R"a,$8 C #? #a$) n %& C (#$ O' A??"a,% and C n#ad J. A#a-), G&R& 'o& (#+*!*"&'o%ember "+- ",/+ A<12'5- J.: T:is case is about t:e reco%ery of damages for a 9rongful ad%ertisement in t:e #unday "imes 9:ere 3aint (ouis Realty Cor7oration misre7resented t:at t:e :ouse of Doctor Conrado C& Aramil belonged to Arcadio 3& Arcadio& 3t& (ouis Realty caused to be 7ublis:ed 9it: t:e 7ermission of Arcadio 3& Arcadio (but 9it:out 7ermission of Doctor Aramil$ in t:e issue of t:e #unday "imes of December ".- ",*/ an

248
ad%ertisement 9it: t:e :eading >?F4R4 TF4 F4ART 23>& 0elo9 t:at :eading 9as t:e 7:otogra7: of t:e residence of Doctor Aramil and t:e r%adio family and t:en belo9 t:e 7:otogra7: 9as t:e follo9ing 9rite#u7: Fome is 9:ere t:e :eart is& And t:e :earts of AR& A'D AR3& ARCAD25 3& ARCAD25 and t:eir family :a%e been ca7tured by 0R55I32D4 F2((3& T:ey used to rent a small #bedroom :ouse in a cram7ed neig:bor:ood- sadly inadequate and un9:olesome for t:e needs of a large family& T:ey dream(ed$ of a more 7leasant 7lace free from t:e din and dust of city life yet near all facilities& 6lans too8 s:a7e 9:en t:ey :eard of 0R55I32D4 F2((3& ?it: t:rift and determination- t:ey boug:t a lot and built t:eir dream :ouse &&& for 63"-!!!& T:e Arcadios are no9 7art of t:e friendly- t:ri%ing community of 0R55I32D4 F2((3&&& a beautiful first#class subdi%ision 7lanned for 9:olesome family li%ing& T:e same ad%ertisement a77eared in t:e #unday "imes dated Canuary .- ",*,& Doctor Aramil a neuro7syc:iatrist and a member of t:e faculty of t:e 1& 4& Ramon Aagsaysay Aemorial Fos7italnoticed t:e mista8e& 5n t:at same date- :e 9rote 3t& (ouis Realty t:e follo9ing letter of 7rotest: Dear 3irs: T:is is anent to your ad%ertisements a77earing in t:e December ".- ",*/ and Canuary .- ",*, issues of t:e #unday "imes 9:ic: boldly de7icted my :ouse at t:e abo%e# mentioned address and im7lying t:at it belonged to anot:er 7erson& 2 am not a9are of any permission or authority on my partfor t:e use of my :ouse for suc: 7ublicity& "his unauthori+ed use of my house for your promotional gain and mu%h more the apparent distortions therein are ) believe not only transgression to my private property but also damaging to my prestige in the medi%al profession ) have had invited in several o%%asions numerous medi%al %olleagues, medi%al students and friends to my house and after reading your (e%ember <B advertisement some of them have uttered some remar/s purporting doubts as to my professional and personal integrity. #u%h sly remar/s although in light vein as 8it loo/s li/e your house,8 8ho' mu%h are you renting from the r%adiosE8, 8 li/e your 'ife portrayed in the papers as belonging to another husband,8 et%., have resulted in no little mental anguish on my part. 2 :a%e referred t:is matter to t:e (egal 6anel of t:e 6:ili77ine Aedical Association and t:eir final ad%ice is 7ending u7on my submission of su77orting o9ners:i7 7a7ers& 2 9ill t:erefore be constrained to 7ursue court action against your cor7oration unless you could satisfactorily ex7lain t:is matter 9it:in a 9ee8 u7on recei7t of t:is letter& T:e letter 9as recei%ed by 4rnesto Aagtoto- an officer of 3t& (ouis Realty in c:arge of ad%ertising& Fe sto77ed 7ublication of t:e ad%ertisement& Fe contacted Doctor Aramil and offered :is a7ologies& Fo9e%er- no rectification or a7ology 9as 7ublis:ed& 5n February !- ",*,- Aramil;s counsel demanded from 3t& (ouis Realty actual- moral and exem7lary damages of 6""!-!!! (4x:& D$& 2n its ans9er dated Aarc: "!- 3t& (ouis Realty claimed t:at t:ere 9as an :onest mista8e and t:at if Aramil so desired- rectification 9ould be 7ublis:ed in t:e Manila "imes (4x:& 3$& 2t 7ublis:ed in t:e issue of t:e Manila "imes of Aarc: "/- ",*, a ne9 ad%ertisement 9it: t:e Arcadio family and t:eir real :ouse& 0ut it did not 7ublis: any a7ology to Doctor Aramil and an ex7lanation of t:e error&

249
5n Aarc: ,- Aramil filed :is com7laint for damages& 3t& (ouis Realty 7ublis:ed in t:e issue of t:e Manila "imes of A7ril ".- ",*, t:e follo9ing >'5T2C4 5F R4CT2F2CAT25'> in a s7ace + by 3 inc:es: T:is 9ill ser%e as a notice t:at our 7rint ad ;?:ere t:e Feart is; 9:ic: a77eared in t:e Manila "imesissue of Aarc: "/- ",*, is a rectification of t:e same ad t:at a77eared in t:e Manila "imes issues rectification of t:e same ad t:at a77eal of December ".- ",*/ and Canuary .- ",*, 9:erein a 7:oto of t:e :ouse of anot:er 0roo8side Fomeo9ner (Dr& Aramil#7ri%ate res7ondent$ 9as mista8enly used as a bac8ground for t:e featured :omeo9ner;s t:e Arcadio family& T:e ad of Aarc: "/- ",*, s:o9s t:e Arcadio family 9it: t:eir real :ouse in t:e bac8ground- as 9as intended all along& Cudge Cose A& (euterio obser%ed t:at 3t& (ouis Realty s:ould :a%e immediately published a re%tifi%ation and apology& Fe found t:at as a result of 3t& (ouis Realty;s mista8e- magnified by its utter lac8 of sincerity- Doctor Aramil suffered mental anguis: and :is income 9as reduced by about 6"-!!! to 6"-.!! a mont:& Aoreo%er- t:ere 9as %iolation of Aramil;s rig:t to 7ri%acy (Art& *- Ci%il Code$& T:e trial court a9arded Aramil 6/-!!! as actual damages- 6 !-!!! as moral damages and 6 -!!! as attorney;s fees& 3t& (ouis Realty a77ealed to t:e Court of A77eals& T:e A77ellate Court affirmed t:at Budgment- 9it: Acting 6residing Custice Aagno 3& Gatmaitan as ponente- and Custices 3ixto A& Domondon and 3amuel F& Reyes concurring& T:e A77ellate Court reasoned out t:at 3t& (ouis Realty committed an actionable quasi#delict under articles " and * of t:e Ci%il Code because t:e questioned ad%ertisements 7ictured a beautiful :ouse 9:ic: did not belong to Arcadio but to Doctor Aramil 9:o- naturally- 9as annoyed by t:at contretem7s& 2n t:is a77eal- 3t& (ouis Realty contends t:at t:e A77ellate Court ignored certain facts and resorted to surmises and conBectures& T:is contention is un9arranted& T:e A77ellate Court ado7ted t:e facts found by t:e trial court& T:ose factual findings are binding on t:is Court& 3t& (ouis Realty also contends t:at t:e decision is contrary to la9 and t:at t:e case 9as decided in a 9ay not in conformity 9it: t:e rulings of t:is Court& 2t argues t:at t:e case is not co%ered by article * 9:ic: 7ro%ides t:at >e%ery 7erson s:all res7ect t:e dignity- 7ersonality- 7ri%acy and 7eace of mind of :is neig:bors and ot:er 7ersons>& >6rying into t:e 7ri%acy of anot:er;s residence> and >meddling 9it: or disturbing t:e 7ri%ate life or family relations of anot:er> and > similar a%ts>- >t:oug: t:ey may not constitute a criminal offense- s:all 7roduce a cause of action for damages- 7re%ention and ot:er relief>& T:e damages fixed by Cudge (euterio are sanctioned by Articles !!- !/ and ", of t:e Ci%il Code& Article ", allo9s moral damages for acts and actions mentioned in Article *& As lengt:ily ex7lained by Custice Gatmaitan- t:e acts and omissions of t:e firm fan under Article *& 3t& (ouis Realty;s em7loyee 9as grossly negligent in mixing u7 t:e Aramil and Arcadio residences in a 9idely circulated 7ublication li8e t:e #unday "imes& To suit its 7ur7ose- it ne%er made any 9ritten a7ology and ex7lanation of t:e mix#u7& 2t Bust contented itself 9it: a ca%alier >rectification >& 6ersons- 9:o 8no9 t:e residence of Doctor Aramil- 9ere confused by t:e distorted- lingering im7ression t:at :e 9as renting :is residence from Arcadio or t:at Arcadio :ad leased it from :im& 4it:er 9ay- :is 7ri%ate life 9as mista8enly and unnecessarily ex7osed& Fe suffered diminution of income and mental anguis:& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e Budgment of t:e A77ellate Court is affirmed& Costs against t:e 7etitioner&

250
R d#)A C nB"?B) n &. C (#$ O' A??"a,% and S?%. N"%$ # N)B ,a% and A,,"- N)B ,a% G&R& 'o& " !)!*& Canuary 3"- !!! 04((532((5- J&: 6etitioner Rodrigo Conce7cion assails in t:is 7etition for re%ie9 on %ertiorari t:e Decision of t:e Court of A77eals dated " December ",,+ 9:ic: affirmed t:e decision of t:e Regional Trial Court of 6asig City ordering :im to 7ay res7ondent s7ouses 'estor 'icolas and Allem 'icolas t:e sums of 6.!-!!!&!! for moral damages- 6 .-!!!&!! for exem7lary damages and 6"!-!!!&!! for attorneyXs fees- 7lus t:e costs of suit&i 6etitioner claims absence of factual and legal basis for t:e a9ard of damages& T:e courts a 0uo found t:at sometime in ",/. t:e s7ouses 'estor 'icolas and Allem 'icolas resided at 'o& ." A& Conce7cion 3t&- 3an Coaquin- 6asig City- in an a7artment leased to t:em by t:e o9ner t:ereof- Florence >0ing> Conce7cion- 9:o also resided in t:e same com7ound 9:ere t:e a7artment 9as located& 'estor 'icolas 9as t:en engaged in t:e business of su77lying go%ernment agencies and 7ri%ate entities 9it: office equi7ment- a77liances and ot:er fixtures on a cas: 7urc:ase or credit basis& Florence Conce7cion Boined t:is %enture by contributing ca7ital on condition t:at after :er ca7ital in%estment 9as returned to :er- any 7rofit earned 9ould be di%ided equally bet9een :er and 'estor& 3ometime in t:e second 9ee8 of Culy ",/. Rodrigo Conce7cion- brot:er of t:e deceased :usband of Florence- angrily accosted 'estor at t:e latterXs a7artment and accused :im of conducting an adulterous relations:i7 9it: Florence& Fe s:outed- 8-oy Nestor- /abit /a ni BingN . . . Binigyan /a pa pala ni Bing !on%ep%ion ng &<CC,CCC.CC para uma/yat ng Baguio. &ag/aa/yat mo at ng asa'a mo doon ay bababa /a uli para mag/asarilinan /ayo ni Bing.8 To clarify matters- 'estor 9ent 9it: Rodrigo- u7on t:e latterXs dare- to see some relati%es of t:e Conce7cion family 9:o allegedly 8ne9 about t:e relations:i7& Fo9e%er- t:ose 9:om t:ey 9ere able to see denied 8no9ledge of t:e alleged affair& T:e same accusation 9as :urled by Rodrigo against 'estor 9:en t:e t9o ( $ confronted Florence at t:e terrace of :er residence& Florence denied t:e im7utations and Rodrigo bac8trac8ed saying t:at :e Bust :eard t:e rumor from a relati%e& T:ereafter:o9e%er- Rodrigo called Florence o%er t:e tele7:one reiterating :is accusation and t:reatening :er t:at s:ould somet:ing :a77en to :is sic8 mot:er- in case t:e latter learned about t:e affair- :e 9ould 8ill Florence& C:ief As a result of t:is incident- 'estor 'icolas felt extreme embarrassment and s:ame to t:e extent t:at :e could no longer face :is neig:bors& Florence Conce7cion also ceased to do business 9it: :im by not contributing ca7ital anymore so muc: so t:at t:e business %enture of t:e 'icolas s7ouses declined as t:ey could no longer co7e 9it: t:eir commitments to t:eir clients and customers& To ma8e matters 9orse- Allem 'icolas started to doubt 'estorXs fidelity resulting in frequent bic8erings and quarrels during 9:ic: Allem e%en ex7ressed :er desire to lea%e :er :usband& Consequently'estor 9as forced to 9rite Rodrigo demanding 7ublic a7ology and 7ayment of damages& Rodrigo 7ointedly ignored t:e demand- for 9:ic: reason t:e 'icolas s7ouses filed a ci%il suit against :im for damages& 2n :is defense- Rodrigo denied t:at :e maligned 'estor by accusing :im 7ublicly of being Florence;s lo%er& Fe reasoned out t:at :e only desired to 7rotect t:e name and re7utation of t:e Conce7cion family 9:ic: 9as 9:y :e soug:t an a77ointment 9it: 'estor t:roug: Florence;s son Roncali to %entilate :is feelings about t:e matter& 2nitially- :e discussed 9it: 'estor certain as7ects of t:e Boint %enture in a friendly and amiable manner- and t:en only casually as8ed t:e latter about :is rumored affair 9it: :is sister#in#la9&

251
2n contesting t:e decision of t:e a77ellate court- 7etitioner Rodrigo Conce7cion raises t:e follo9ing issues: (a$ 9:et:er t:ere is basis in la9 for t:e a9ard of damages to 7ri%ate res7ondentst:e 'icolas s7ousesG and- (b$ 9:et:er t:ere is basis to re%ie9 t:e facts 9:ic: are of 9eig:t and influence but 9:ic: 9ere o%erloo8ed and misa77lied by t:e res7ondent a77ellate court& 4sm 6etitioner argues t:at in a9arding damages to 7ri%ate res7ondents- t:e Court of A77eals 9as 9it:out legal basis to Bustify its %erdict& T:e alleged act im7uted to :im by res7ondent s7ouses does not fall under Arts& *M N and ", of t:e Ci%il Code since it does not constitute libel- slander- or any ot:er form of defamation& 'eit:er does it in%ol%e 7rying into t:e 7ri%acy of anot:erXs residence or meddling 9it: or disturbing t:e 7ri%ate life or family relation of anot:er& 6etitioner also insists t:at certain facts and circumstances of t:e case 9ere manifestly o%erloo8ed- misunderstood or glossed o%er by res7ondent court 9:ic:- if considered- 9ould c:ange t:e %erdict& 2m7ugning t:e credibility of t:e 9itnesses for 7ri%ate res7ondents and t:e manner by 9:ic: t:e testimonial e%idence 9as analy=ed and e%aluated by t:e trial court- 7etitioner critici=ed t:e a77ellate court for not ta8ing into account t:e fact t:at t:e trial Budge 9:o 7enned t:e decision 9as in no 7osition to obser%e first#:and t:e demeanor of t:e 9itnesses of res7ondent s7ouses as :e 9as not t:e original Budge 9:o :eard t:e case& T:us- :is decision rendered 9as fla9ed& 4smsc T:e Court :as ruled often enoug: t:at its Burisdiction in a 7etition for re%ie9 on %ertiorari under Rule +. of t:e Re%ised Rules of Court is limited to re%ie9ing only errors of la9- not of fact- unless t:e factual findings com7lained of are de%oid of su77ort by t:e e%idence on record or t:e assailed Budgment is based on misa77re:ension of facts& M+N T:e reason be:ind t:is is t:at t:e 3u7reme Court res7ects t:e findings of t:e trial court on t:e issue of credibility of 9itnesses- considering t:at it is in a better 7osition to decide t:e question- :a%ing :eard t:e 9itnesses t:emsel%es and obser%ed t:eir de7ortment and manner of testifying during t:e trial& M.N T:us it accords t:e :ig:est res7ect- e%en finality- to t:e e%aluation made by t:e lo9er court of t:e testimonies of t:e 9itnesses 7resented before it& 4smmis T:e Court is also a9are of t:e long settled rule t:at 9:en t:e issue is on t:e credibility of 9itnesses- a77ellate courts 9ill not generally disturb t:e findings of t:e trial courtG :o9e%er- its factual findings may nonet:eless be re%ersed if by t:e e%idence on record or lac8 of it- it a77ears t:at t:e trial court erred&M*N 2n t:is res7ect- t:e Court is not generally inclined to re%ie9 t:e findings of fact of t:e Court of A77eals unless its findings are erroneous- absurd- s7eculati%e- conBectural- conflicting- tainted 9it: gra%e abuse of discretion- or contrary to t:e findings culled by t:e trial court of origin& M)N T:is rule of course cannot be unqualifiedly a77lied to a case 9:ere t:e Budge 9:o 7enned t:e decision 9as not t:e one 9:o :eard t:e case- because not :a%ing :eard t:e testimonies :imself- t:e Budge 9ould not be in a better 7osition t:an t:e a77ellate courts to ma8e suc: determination& Fo9e%er- it is also axiomatic t:at t:e fact alone t:at t:e Budge 9:o :eard t:e e%idence 9as not t:e one 9:o rendered t:e Budgment but merely relied on t:e record of t:e case does not render :is Budgment erroneous or irregular& T:is is so e%en if t:e Budge did not :a%e t:e fullest o77ortunity to 9eig: t:e testimonies not :a%ing :eard all t:e 9itnesses s7ea8 nor obser%ed t:eir de7ortment and manner of testifying& T:us t:e Court generally 9ill not find any misa77re:ension of facts as it can be fairly assumed under t:e 7rinci7le of regularity of 7erformance of duties of 7ublic officers t:at t:e transcri7ts of stenogra7:ic notes 9ere t:oroug:ly scrutini=ed and e%aluated by t:e Budge :imself& Fas sufficient reason t:en been laid before us by 7etitioner to engender doubt as to t:e factual findings of t:e court a 0uoJ ?e find none& A 7ainsta8ing re%ie9 of t:e e%idence on record con%inces us not to disturb t:e Budgment a77ealed from& T:e fact t:at t:e case 9as :andled by different Budges broo8s no consideration at all- for 7re7onderant e%idence consistent 9it: t:eir claim for damages :as been adduced by 7ri%ate res7ondents as to foreclose a re%ersal& 5t:er9ise- e%erytime a Cudge 9:o :eard a case- 9:olly or 7artially- dies or li%es t:e ser%ice- t:e case cannot be decided and a ne9 trial 9ill :a%e to be conducted& T:at 9ould be absurbG inconcei%able& 4smso

252
According to 7etitioner- 7ri%ate res7ondentsX e%idence is inconsistent as to time- 7lace and 7ersons 9:o :eard t:e alleged defamatory statement& ?e find t:is to be a gratuitous obser%ation- for t:e testimonies of all t:e 9itnesses for t:e res7ondents are unanimous t:at t:e defamatory incident :a77ened in t:e afternoon at t:e front door of t:e a7artment of t:e 'icolas s7ouses in t:e 7resence of some friends and neig:bors- and later on- 9it: t:e accusation being re7eated in t:e 7resence of Florence- at t:e terrace of :er :ouse& T:at t:is finding a77ears to be in conflict 9it: t:e allegation in t:e com7laint as to t:e time of t:e incident bears no momentous significance since an allegation in a 7leading is not e%idenceG it is a declaration t:at :as to be 7ro%ed by e%idence& 2f e%idence contrary to t:e allegation is 7resented- suc: e%idence controls- not t:e allegation in t:e 7leading itself- alt:oug: admittedly it may dent t:e credibility of t:e 9itnesses& 0ut not in t:e instant case& Asesm 2t is also argued by 7etitioner t:at 7ri%ate res7ondents failed to 7resent as 9itnesses t:e 7ersons t:ey named as eye9itnesses to t:e incident and t:at t:ey 7resented instead one Romeo Eillaruel 9:o 9as not named as a 7ossible 9itness during t:e 7re#trial 7roceedings& C:arging t:at EillaruelXs testimony is not credible and s:ould ne%er :a%e been accorded any 9eig:t at all- 7etitioner ca7itali=es on t:e fact t:at a great distance se7arates EillaruelXs residence and t:at of 7ri%ate res7ondents as reflected in t:eir :ouse numbers- t:e formerXs number being 'o& 3 A& Conce7cion 3t&- 9:ile t:at of t:e 'icolas s7ouses- 'o& ." along t:e same street& T:is being so- 7etitioner concludes- Eillaruel could not :a%e 9itnessed t:e ugly confrontation bet9een Rodrigo and 'estor& 2t a77ears :o9e%er from EillaruelXs testimony t:at at t:e time of t:e incident com7lained of- :e 9as staying in an a7artment inside t:e com7ound adBacent to t:at of t:e 'icolas s7ouses& ?:et:er :is a7artment 9as t:en numbered 3 is not stated& ?:at is definite and clear is :is statement t:at :e and 'estor 'icolas 9ere neig:bors on "+ Culy ",/.& T:ere are ot:er inconsistencies 7ointed out by 7etitioner in t:e testimonial e%idence of 7ri%ate res7ondents but t:ese are not of suc: significance as to alter t:e finding of facts of t:e lo9er court& Ainor inconsistencies e%en guarantee trut:fulness and candor- for t:ey erase any sus7icion of a re:earsed testimony&M,N2nconsistencies in t:e testimonies of 9itnesses 9it: on minor details and collateral matters do not affect t:e substance of t:eir testimonies&M"!N All told- t:ese factual findings 7ro%ide enoug: basis in la9 for t:e a9ard of damages by t:e Court of A77eals in fa%or of res7ondents& ?e reBect 7etitionerXs 7osture t:at no legal 7ro%ision su77orts suc: a9ard- t:e incident com7lained of neit:er falling under Art& ", nor Art& * of t:e Ci%il Code& 2t does not need furt:er elucidation t:at t:e incident c:arged of 7etitioner 9as no less t:an an in%asion on t:e rig:t of res7ondent 'estor as a 7erson& T:e 7:iloso7:y be:ind Art& * underscores t:e necessity for its inclusion in our ci%il la9& T:e Code Commission stressed in no uncertain terms t:at t:e :uman 7ersonality must be exalted& T:e sacredness of :uman 7ersonality is a concomitant consideration of e%ery 7lan for :uman amelioration& T:e touc:stone of e%ery system of la9- of t:e culture and ci%ili=ation of e%ery country- is :o9 far it dignifies man& 2f t:e statutes insufficiently 7rotect a 7erson from being unBustly :umiliated- in s:ort- if :uman 7ersonality is not exalted # t:en t:e la9s are indeed defecti%e&M""N T:us- under t:is article- t:e rig:ts of 7ersons are am7ly 7rotected- and damages are 7ro%ided for %iolations of a 7ersonXs dignity- 7ersonality- 7ri%acy and 7eace of mind& 4xsm 2t is 7etitionerXs 7osition t:at t:e act im7uted to :im does not constitute any of t:ose enumerated in Arts * and ",& 2n t:is res7ect- t:e la9 is clear& T:e %iolations mentioned in t:e codal 7ro%isions are not exclusi%e but are merely exam7les and do not 7reclude other similar or analogous acts& Damages t:erefore are allo9able for actions against a 7ersonXs dignitysuc: as 7rofane- insulting- :umiliating- scandalous or abusi%e language& M" N 1nder Art& ") of t:e Ci%il Code- moral damages 9:ic: include 7:ysical suffering- mental anguis:- frig:t- serious anxietybesmirc:ed re7utation- 9ounded feelings- moral s:oc8- social :umiliation- and similar inBury- alt:oug: inca7able of 7ecuniary com7utation- may be reco%ered if t:ey are t:e 7roximate result of t:e defendantXs 9rongful act or omission&

253
T:ere is no question t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent 'estor 'icolas suffered mental anguis:besmirc:ed re7utation- 9ounded feelings and social :umiliation as a 7roximate result of 7etitionerXs abusi%e- scandalous and insulting language& 6etitioner attem7ted to excul7ate :imself by claiming t:at :e made an a77ointment to see 'estor t:roug: a ne7:e9- Roncali- t:e son of Florence- so :e could tal8 9it: 'estor to find out t:e trut: about :is rumored illicit relations:i7 9it: Florence& Fe said t:at :e 9anted to 7rotect :is ne7:e9s and nieces and t:e name of :is late brot:er (FlorenceXs :usband$& M"3N Fo9 :e could be con%inced by some 9ay ot:er t:an a denial by 'estor- and :o9 :e 9ould 7rotect :is ne7:e9s and nieces and :is familyXs name if t:e rumor 9ere true- :e did not say& 6etitioner admitted t:at :e :ad already tal8ed 9it: Florence :erself o%er t:e tele7:one about t:e issue- 9it: t:e latter %e:emently denying t:e alleged immoral relations:i7& @et- :e could not let t:e matter rest on t:e strengt: of t:e denial of :is sister#in#la9& Fe :ad to go and confront 'estor- e%en in 7ublic- to t:e latter;s :umiliation& Testifying t:at until t:at %ery afternoon of :is meeting 9it: 'estor :e ne%er 8ne9 res7ondent:ad ne%er seen :im before- and 9as una9are of :is business 7artners:i7 9it: Florence- :is subsequent declarations on t:e 9itness stand :o9e%er belie t:is lac8 of 8no9ledge about t:e business %enture for in t:at alleged encounter :e as8ed 'estor :o9 t:e business 9as going- 9:at 9ere t:e collection 7roblems- and :o9 9as t:e money being s7ent& Fe e%en 8ne9 t:at t:e name of t:e business- $loral Enterprises- 9as coined by combining t:e first syllables of t:e name Florence and Allem- t:e name of 'estorXs 9ife& Fe said t:at :e casually as8ed 'estor about t:e rumor bet9een :im and Florence 9:ic: 'estor denied& 'ot content 9it: suc: denial- :e dared 'estor to go 9it: :im to s7ea8 to :is relati%es 9:o 9ere t:e source of :is information& 'estor 9ent 9it: :im and t:ose t:ey 9ere able to tal8 to denied t:e rumor& Iycalr ?e cannot :el7 noting t:is inordinate interest of 7etitioner to 8no9 t:e trut: about t:e rumor and 9:y :e 9as not satisfied 9it: t:e se7arate denials made by Florence and 'estor& Fe :ad to confront 'estor face to face- in%ade t:e latterXs 7ri%acy and :url defamatory 9ords at :im in t:e 7resence of :is 9ife and c:ildren- neig:bors and friends- accusing :im # a married man # of :a%ing an adulterous relations:i7 9it: Florence& T:is definitely caused 7ri%ate res7ondent muc: s:ame and embarrassment t:at :e could no longer s:o9 :imself in :is neig:bor:ood 9it:out feeling distraug:t and debased& T:is broug:t dissension and distrust in :is family 9:ere before t:ere 9as none& T:is is 9:y a fe9 days after t:e incident- :e communicated 9it: 7etitioner demanding 7ublic a7ology and 7ayment of damages- 9:ic: 7etitioner ignored& Calr8y 2f indeed t:e confrontation as described by 7ri%ate res7ondents did not actually :a77en- t:en t:ere 9ould :a%e been no cause or moti%e at all for t:em to consult 9it: t:eir la9yer- immediately demand an a7ology- and not obtaining a res7onse from 7etitioner- file an action for damages against t:e latter& T:at t:ey decided to go to court to see8 redress bes7ea8s of t:e %alidity of t:eir claim& 5n t:e ot:er :and- it is interesting to note t:at 9:ile ex7laining at great lengt: 9:y Florence Conce7cion testified against :im- 7etitioner ne%er ad%anced any reason 9:y t:e 'icolas s7ouses- 7ersons :e ne%er 8ne9 and 9it: 9:om :e :ad no dealings in t:e 7ast- 9ould sue :im for damages& 2t also :as not esca7ed our attention t:at- faced 9it: a la9suit by 7ri%ate res7ondents- 7etitioner sent :is la9yer- a certain Atty& Causa7in- to tal8 not to t:e 'icolas s7ouses but to Florence- as8ing :er not to be in%ol%ed in t:e case- ot:er9ise :er name 9ould be messily dragged into it& <uite succinctly- Florence told t:e la9yer t:at it 9as not for :er to decide and t:at s:e could not do anyt:ing about it as s:e 9as not a 7arty to t:e court case& WHEREFORE- in lig:t of t:e foregoing 7remises- t:e assailed Decision of t:e Court of A77eals affirming t:e Budgment of t:e Regional Trial Court of 6asig City- 0r& "*)- :olding Rodrigo Conce7cion liable to t:e s7ouses 'estor 'icolas and Allem 'icolas for 6.!-!!!&!! as moral damages- 6 .-!!!&!! for exem7lary damages- 6"!-!!!&!! for attorney;s fees- 7lus costs of suit- is AFF2RA4D&

254

Pa%$ # +. T"nB.a&"D &. V)B"n$a F. E%BaG , "$ a,. G&R& 'o& (#",*)"&'o%ember ,- ",*. R4@43- C&0&(&- J.: Direct a77eal- on factual and legal questions- from t:e Budgment of t:e Court of First 2nstance of Cebu- in its Ci%il Case 'o& R#+"))- denying t:e claim of t:e 7laintiff#a77ellant- 6astor 0& Tenc:a%e=for legal se7aration and one million 7esos in damages against :is 9ife and 7arents#in#la9- t:e defendants#a77ellees- Eicente- Aamerto and Aena-" all surnamed >4scaDo-> res7ecti%ely& T:e facts- su77orted by t:e e%idence of record- are t:e follo9ing: Aissing :er late afternoon classes on + February ",+/ in t:e 1ni%ersity of 3an Carlos- Cebu City- 9:ere s:e 9as t:en enrolled as a second year student of commerce- Eicenta 4scaDo- ) years of age (scion of a 9ell#to#do and socially 7rominent Fili7ino family of 37anis: ancestry and a >s:eltered colegiala>$- exc:anged marriage %o9s 9it: 6astor Tenc:a%e=- 3 years of age- an engineer- ex#army officer and of undistinguis:ed stoc8- 9it:out t:e 8no9ledge of :er 7arents- before a Cat:olic c:a7lain- (t& Aoises (a%ares- in t:e :ouse of one Cuan Alburo in t:e said city& T:e marriage 9as t:e culmination of a 7re%ious lo%e affair and 9as duly registered 9it: t:e local ci%il register& Eicenta;s letters to 6astor- and :is to :er- before t:e marriage- indicate t:at t:e cou7le 9ere dee7ly in lo%e& Toget:er 9it: a friend- 6acita 'oel- t:eir matc:ma8er and go#bet9een- t:ey :ad 7lanned out t:eir marital future 9:ereby 6acita 9ould be t:e go%erness of t:eir first#bornG t:ey started sa%ing money in a 7iggy ban8& A fe9 9ee8s before t:eir secret marriage- t:eir engagement 9as bro8enG Eicenta returned t:e engagement ring and acce7ted anot:er suitor- Coseling (ao& Fer lo%e for 6astor bec8onedG s:e 7leaded for :is return- and t:ey reconciled& T:is time t:ey 7lanned to get married and t:en elo7e& To facilitate t:e elo7ement- Eicenta :ad broug:t some of :er clot:es to t:e room of 6acita 'oel in 3t& Aary;s Fall- 9:ic: 9as t:eir usual trysting 7lace& Alt:oug: 7lanned for t:e midnig:t follo9ing t:eir marriage- t:e elo7ement did not- :o9e%ermateriali=e because 9:en Eicente 9ent bac8 to :er classes after t:e marriage- :er mot:er- 9:o got 9ind of t:e intended nu7tials- 9as already 9aiting for :er at t:e college& Eicenta 9as ta8en :ome 9:ere s:e admitted t:at s:e :ad already married 6astor& Aamerto and Aena 4scaDo 9ere sur7risedbecause 6astor ne%er as8ed for t:e :and of Eicente- and 9ere disgusted because of t:e great scandal t:at t:e clandestine marriage 9ould 7ro%o8e (t&s&n&- %ol& 222- 77& ""!.#!*$& T:e follo9ing morning- t:e 4scaDo s7ouses soug:t 7riestly ad%ice& Fat:er Reynes suggested a recelebration to %alidate 9:at :e belie%ed to be an in%alid marriage- from t:e stand7oint of t:e C:urc:- due to t:e lac8 of aut:ority from t:e Arc:bis:o7 or t:e 7aris: 7riest for t:e officiating c:a7lain to celebrate t:e marriage& T:e recelebration did not ta8e 7lace- because on * February ",+/ Aamerto 4scaDo 9as :anded by a maid- 9:ose name :e claims :e does not remember- a letter 7ur7ortedly coming from 3an Carlos college students and disclosing an amorous relations:i7 bet9een 6astor Tenc:a%e= and 6acita 'oelG Eicenta translated t:e letter to :er fat:er- and t:ereafter 9ould not agree to a ne9 marriage& Eicenta and 6astor met t:at day in t:e :ouse of Ars& 6ilar Aende=ona& T:ereafter- Eicenta continued li%ing 9it: :er 7arents 9:ile 6astor returned to :is Bob in Aanila& Fer letter of Aarc: ",+/ (4x:& >A>$- 9:ile still solicitous of :er :usband;s 9elfare- 9as not as endearing as :er 7re%ious letters 9:en t:eir lo%e 9as aflame& Eicenta 9as bred in Cat:olic 9ays but is of a c:angeable dis7osition- and 6astor 8ne9 it& 3:e fondly acce7ted :er being called a >Bellyfis:&> 3:e 9as not 7re%ented by :er 7arents from communicating 9it: 6astor (4x:& >"#4scaDo>$- but :er letters became less frequent as t:e days 7assed& As of Cune- ",+/ t:e ne9ly9eds 9ere already estranged (4x:& > #4scaDo>$& Eicenta :ad gone

255
to Cimene=- Aisamis 5ccidental- to esca7e from t:e scandal t:at :er marriage stirred in Cebu society& T:ere- a la9yer filed for :er a 7etition- drafted by t:en 3enator 4mmanuel 6elae=- to annul :er marriage& 3:e did not sign t:e 7etition (4x:& >0#.>$& T:e case 9as dismissed 9it:out 7reBudice because of :er non#a77earance at t:e :earing (4x:& >0#+>$& 5n + Cune ",.!- 9it:out informing :er :usband- s:e a77lied for a 7ass7ort- indicating in :er a77lication t:at s:e 9as single- t:at :er 7ur7ose 9as to study- and s:e 9as domiciled in Cebu Cityand t:at s:e intended to return after t9o years& T:e a77lication 9as a77ro%ed- and s:e left for t:e 1nited 3tates& 5n August ",.!- s:e filed a %erified com7laint for di%orce against t:e :erein 7laintiff in t:e 3econd Cudicial District Court of t:e 3tate of 'e%ada in and for t:e County of ?as:oe- on t:e ground of >extreme cruelty- entirely mental in c:aracter&> 5n " 5ctober ",.!- a decree of di%orce>final and absolute>- 9as issued in o7en court by t:e said tribunal& 2n ",." Aamerto and Aena 4scaDo filed a 7etition 9it: t:e Arc:bis:o7 of Cebu to annul t:eir daug:ter;s marriage to 6astor (4x:& >D>$& 5n "! 3e7tember ",.+- Eicenta soug:t 7a7al dis7ensation of :er marriage (4x:& >D># $& 5n "3 3e7tember ",.+- Eicenta married an American- Russell (eo Aoran- in 'e%ada& 3:e no9 li%es 9it: :im in California- and- by :im- :as begotten c:ildren& 3:e acquired American citi=ens:i7 on / August ",./& 0ut on 3! Culy ",..- Tenc:a%e= :ad initiated t:e 7roceedings at bar by a com7laint in t:e Court of First 2nstance of Cebu- and amended on 3" Aay ",.*- against Eicenta F& 4scaDo- :er 7arents- Aamerto and Aena 4scaDo- 9:om :e c:arged 9it: :a%ing dissuaded and discouraged Eicenta from Boining :er :usband- and alienating :er affections- and against t:e Roman Cat:olic C:urc:- for :a%ing- t:roug: its Diocesan Tribunal- decreed t:e annulment of t:e marriage- and as8ed for legal se7aration and one million 7esos in damages& Eicenta claimed a %alid di%orce from 7laintiff and an equally %alid marriage to :er 7resent :usband- Russell (eo AoranG 9:ile :er 7arents denied t:at t:ey :ad in any 9ay influenced t:eir daug:ter;s acts- and counterclaimed for moral damages& T:e a77ealed Budgment did not decree a legal se7aration- but freed t:e 7laintiff from su77orting :is 9ife and to acquire 7ro7erty to t:e exclusion of :is 9ife& 2t allo9ed t:e counterclaim of Aamerto 4scaDo and Aena 4scaDo for moral and exem7lary damages and attorney;s fees against t:e 7laintiff#a77ellant- to t:e extent of 6+.-!!!&!!- and 7laintiff resorted directly to t:is Court& T:e a77ellant ascribes- as errors of t:e trial court- t:e follo9ing: "& 2n not declaring legal se7arationG in not :olding defendant Eicenta F& 4scaDo liable for damages and in dismissing t:e com7laintG& & 2n not :olding t:e defendant 7arents Aamerto 4scano and t:e :eirs of DoDa Aena 4scaDo liable for damagesG& 3 2n :olding t:e 7laintiff liable for and requiring :im to 7ay t:e damages to t:e defendant 7arents on t:eir counterclaimsG and& +& 2n dismissing t:e com7laint and in denying t:e relief soug:t by t:e 7laintiff& T:at on + February ",+/ t:e 7laintiff#a77ellant- 6astor Tenc:a%e=- and t:e defendant# a77ellee- Eicenta 4scaDo- 9ere %alidly married to eac: ot:er- from t:e stand7oint of our ci%il la9- is clearly establis:ed by t:e record before us& 0ot: 7arties 9ere t:en abo%e t:e age of maBority- and ot:er9ise qualifiedG and bot: consented to t:e marriage- 9:ic: 9as 7erformed by a Cat:olic 7riest (army c:a7lain (a%ares$ in t:e 7resence of com7etent 9itnesses& 2t is no9:ere s:o9n t:at said 7riest 9as not duly aut:ori=ed under ci%il la9 to solemni=e marriages&

256
T:e c:a7lain;s alleged lac8 of ecclesiastical aut:ori=ation from t:e 7aris: 7riest and t:e 5rdinary- as required by Canon la9- is irrele%ant in our ci%il la9- not only because of t:e se7aration of C:urc: and 3tate but also because Act 3*"3 of t:e 6:ili77ine (egislature (9:ic: 9as t:e marriage la9 in force at t:e time$ ex7ressly 7ro%ided t:at O 34C& "& Essential re0uisites& 4ssential requisites for marriage are t:e legal ca7acity of t:e contracting 7arties and consent& (4m7:asis su77lied$ T:e actual aut:ority of t:e solemni=ing officer 9as t:us only a formal requirement- andt:erefore- not essential to gi%e t:e marriage ci%il effects-3 and t:is is em7:asi=ed by section ) of said marriage act- 9:ic: 7ro%ided t:e follo9ing: 34C& )& $ailure to %omply 'ith formal re0uirements& 'o marriage s:all be declared in%alid because of t:e absence of one or se%eral of t:e formal requirements of t:is Act if- 9:en it 9as 7erformed- t:e s7ouses or one of t:em belie%ed in good fait: t:at t:e 7erson 9:o solemni=ed t:e marriage 9as actually em7o9ered to do so- and t:at t:e marriage 9as 7erfectly legal& T:e good fait: of all t:e 7arties to t:e marriage (and :ence t:e %alidity of t:eir marriage$ 9ill be 7resumed until t:e contrary is 7ositi%ely 7ro%ed ((ao %s& Dee Tim- +. 6:il& )3,- )+.G Francisco %s& Cason- *! 6:il& ++ - ++/$& 2t is 9ell to note :ere t:at in t:e case at bar- doubts as to t:e aut:ority of t:e solemni=ing 7riest arose only after t:e marriage- 9:en Eicenta;s 7arents consulted Fat:er Reynes and t:e arc:bis:o7 of Cebu& Aoreo%er- t:e %ery act of Eicenta in abandoning :er original action for annulment and subsequently suing for di%orce im7lies an admission t:at :er marriage to 7laintiff 9as %alid and binding& Defendant Eicenta 4scaDo argues t:at 9:en s:e contracted t:e marriage s:e 9as under t:e undue influence of 6acita 'oel- 9:om s:e c:arges to :a%e been in cons7iracy 9it: a77ellant Tenc:a%e=& 4%en granting- for argument;s sa8e- t:e trut: of t:at contention- and assuming t:at Eicenta;s consent 9as %itiated by fraud and undue influence- suc: %ices did not render :er marriage ab initio %oid- but merely %oidable- and t:e marriage remained %alid until annulled by a com7etent ci%il court& T:is 9as ne%er done- and admittedly- Eicenta;s suit for annulment in t:e Court of First 2nstance of Aisamis 9as dismissed for non#7rosecution& 2t is equally clear from t:e record t:at t:e %alid marriage bet9een 6astor Tenc:a%e= and Eicenta 4scaDo remained subsisting and undissol%ed under 6:ili77ine la9- not9it:standing t:e decree of absolute di%orce t:at t:e 9ife soug:t and obtained on " 5ctober ",.! from t:e 3econd Cudicial District Court of ?as:oe County- 3tate of 'e%ada- on grounds of >extreme cruelty- entirely mental in c:aracter&> At t:e time t:e di%orce decree 9as issued- Eicenta 4scaDo- li8e :er :usband- 9as still a Fili7ino citi=en&+ 3:e 9as t:en subBect to 6:ili77ine la9- and Article ". of t:e Ci%il Code of t:e 6:ili77ines (Re7& Act 'o& 3/*$- already in force at t:e time- ex7ressly 7ro%ided: (a9s relating to family rig:ts and duties or to t:e status- condition and legal ca7acity of 7ersons are binding u7on t:e citi=ens of t:e 6:ili77ines- e%en t:oug: li%ing abroad& T:e Ci%il Code of t:e 6:ili77ines- no9 in force- does not admit absolute di%orce- 0uo ad vin%ulo matrimoniiG and in fact does not e%en use t:at term- to furt:er em7:asi=e its restricti%e 7olicy on t:e matter- in contrast to t:e 7receding legislation t:at admitted absolute di%orce on grounds of adultery of t:e 9ife or concubinage of t:e :usband (Act )"!$& 2nstead of di%orce- t:e 7resent Ci%il Code only 7ro%ides for legal separation (Title 2E- 0oo8 "- Arts& ,) to "!/$- and- e%en in t:at case- it ex7ressly 7rescribes t:at >t:e marriage bonds s:all not be se%ered> (Art& "!*- sub7ar& "$& For t:e 6:ili77ine courts to recogni=e and gi%e recognition or effect to a foreign decree of absolute di%orce beti%een Fili7ino citi=ens could be a 7atent %iolation of t:e declared 7ublic 7olicy of t:e state- s7ecially in %ie9 of t:e t:ird 7aragra7: of Article ") of t:e Ci%il Code t:at 7rescribes t:e follo9ing:

257
6ro:ibiti%e la9s concerning 7ersons- t:eir acts or 7ro7erty- and t:ose 9:ic: :a%e for t:eir obBect 7ublic order- 7olicy and good customs- s:all not be rendered ineffecti%e by la9s or Budgments 7romulgated- or by determinations or con%entions agreed u7on in a foreign country& 4%en more- t:e grant of effecti%ity in t:is Burisdiction to suc: foreign di%orce decrees 9ould- in effect- gi%e rise to an irritating and scandalous discrimination in fa%or of 9ealt:y citi=ens- to t:e detriment of t:ose members of our 7olity 9:ose means do not 7ermit t:em to soBourn abroad and obtain absolute di%orces outside t:e 6:ili77ines& From t:is 7oint of %ie9- it is irrele%ant t:at a77ellant 6astor Tenc:a%e= s:ould :a%e a77eared in t:e 'e%ada di%orce court& 6rimarily because t:e 7olicy of our la9 cannot be nullified by acts of 7ri%ate 7arties (Ci%il Code-Art& ")- Bam quot&$G and additionally- because t:e mere a77earance of a non#resident consort cannot confer Burisdiction 9:ere t:e court originally :ad none (Area %s& Ca%ier- ,. 6:il& .),$& From t:e 7receding facts and considerations- t:ere flo9s as a necessary consequence t:at in t:is Burisdiction Eicenta 4scaDo;s di%orce and second marriage are not entitled to recognition as %alidG for :er 7re%ious union to 7laintiff Tenc:a%e= must be declared to be existent and undissol%ed& 2t follo9s- li8e9ise- t:at :er refusal to 7erform :er 9ifely duties- and :er denial of %onsortium and :er desertion of :er :usband constitute in la9 a 9rong caused t:roug: :er fault- for 9:ic: t:e :usband is entitled to t:e corres7onding indemnity (Ci%il Code- Art& ")*$& 'eit:er an unsubstantiated c:arge of deceit nor an anonymous letter c:arging immorality against t:e :usband constitute- contrary to :er claim- adequate excuse& ?:erefore- :er marriage and co:abitation 9it: Russell (eo Aoran is tec:nically >intercourse 9it: a 7erson not :er :usband> from t:e stand7oint of 6:ili77ine (a9- and entitles 7laintiff#a77ellant Tenc:a%e= to a decree of >legal se7aration under our la9- on t:e basis of adultery> (Re%ised 6enal Code- Art& 333$& T:e foregoing conclusions as to t:e unto9ard effect of a marriage after an in%alid di%orce are in accord 9it: t:e 7re%ious doctrines and rulings of t:is court on t:e subBect- 7articularly t:ose t:at 9ere rendered under our la9s 7rior to t:e a77ro%al of t:e absolute di%orce act (Act )"! of t:e 6:ili77ine (egislature$& As a matter of legal :istory- our statutes did not recogni=e di%orces a vin%ulo before ",")- 9:en Act )"! became effecti%eG and t:e 7resent Ci%il Code of t:e 6:ili77ines- in disregarding absolute di%orces- in effect merely re%erted to t:e 7olicies on t:e subBect 7re%ailing before Act )"!& T:e rulings- t:erefore- under t:e Ci%il Code of "//,- 7rior to t:e Act abo%e# mentioned- are no9- fully a77licable& 5f t:ese- t:e decision in ,amire+ vs. 1mur- + 6:il& /..- is of 7articular interest& 3aid t:is Court in t:at case: As t:e di%orce granted by t:e Frenc: Court must be ignored- it results t:at t:e marriage of Dr& Aory and (eona Castro- celebrated in (ondon in ",!.- could not legali=e t:eir relationsG and t:e circumstance t:at t:ey after9ards 7assed for :usband and 9ife in 39it=erland until :er deat: is 9:olly 9it:out legal significance& T:e claims of t:e %ery c:ildren to 7artici7ate in t:e estate of 3amuel 0is:o7 must t:erefore be reBected& T:e rig:t to in:erit is limited to legitimatelegitimated and ac8no9ledged natural c:ildren& T:e c:ildren of adulterous relations are 9:olly excluded& T:e 9ord >descendants> as used in Article ,+" of t:e Ci%il Code cannot be inter7reted to include illegitimates born of adulterous relations& (4m7:asis su77lied$ 4xce7t for t:e fact t:at t:e successional rig:ts of t:e c:ildren- begotten from Eicenta;s marriage to (eo Aoran after t:e in%alid di%orce- are not in%ol%ed in t:e case at bar- t:e 1mur case is aut:ority for t:e 7ro7osition t:at suc: union is adulterous in t:is Burisdiction- and- t:erefore- Bustifies an action for legal se7aration on t:e 7art of t:e innocent consort of t:e first marriage- t:at stands undissol%ed in 6:ili77ine la9& 2n not so declaring- t:e trial court committed error& True it is t:at our ruling gi%es rise to anomalous situations 9:ere t:e status of a 7erson (9:et:er di%orced or not$ 9ould de7end on t:e territory 9:ere t:e question arises& Anomalies of t:is

258
8ind are not ne9 in t:e 6:ili77ines- and t:e ans9er to t:em 9as gi%en in Barretto vs. 1on+ales- ./ 6:il& **): T:e :ards:i7 of t:e existing di%orce la9s in t:e 6:ili77ine 2slands are 9ell 8no9n to t:e members of t:e (egislature& 2t is t:e duty of t:e Courts to enforce t:e la9s of di%orce as 9ritten by (egislature if t:ey are constitutional& Courts :a%e no rig:t to say t:at suc: la9s are too strict or too liberal& (7& ) $ T:e a77ellant;s first assignment of error is- t:erefore- sustained& Fo9e%er- t:e 7laintiff#a77ellant;s c:arge t:at :is 9ife;s 7arents- Dr& Aamerto 4scaDo and :is 9ife- t:e late DoDa Aena 4scaDo- alienated t:e affections of t:eir daug:ter and influenced :er conduct to9ard :er :usband are not su77orted by credible e%idence& T:e testimony of 6astor Tenc:a%e= about t:e 4scaDo;s animosity to9ard :im stri8es us to be merely conBecture and exaggeration- and are belied by 6astor;s o9n letters 9ritten before t:is suit 9as begun (4x:& > # 4scaDo> and >Eicenta-> Rec& on A77&- 77& )!# )+$& 2n t:ese letters :e ex7ressly a7ologi=ed to t:e defendants for >misBudging t:em> and for t:e >great un:a77iness> caused by :is >im7ulsi%e blunders> and >sinful 7ride-> >effrontery and audacity> MsicN& 6laintiff 9as admitted to t:e 4scaDo :ouse to %isit and court Eicenta- and t:e record s:o9s not:ing to 7ro%e t:at :e 9ould not :a%e been acce7ted to marry Eicente :ad :e o7enly as8ed for :er :and- as good manners and breeding demanded& 4%en after learning of t:e clandestine marriage- and des7ite t:eir s:oc8 at suc: unex7ected e%ent- t:e 7arents of Eicenta 7ro7osed and arranged t:at t:e marriage be recelebrated in strict conformity 9it: t:e canons of t:eir religion u7on ad%ice t:at t:e 7re%ious one 9as canonically defecti%e& 2f no recelebration of t:e marriage ceremony 9as :ad it 9as not due to defendants Aamerto 4scaDo and :is 9ife- but to t:e refusal of Eicenta to 7roceed 9it: it& T:at t:e s7ouses 4scaDo did not see8 to com7el or induce t:eir daug:ter to assent to t:e recelebration but res7ected :er decision- or t:at t:ey abided by :er resol%e- does not constitute in la9 an alienation of affections& 'eit:er does t:e fact t:at Eicenta;s 7arents sent :er money 9:ile s:e 9as in t:e 1nited 3tatesG for it 9as natural t:at t:ey s:ould not 9is: t:eir daug:ter to li%e in 7enury e%en if t:ey did not concur in :er decision to di%orce Tenc:a%e= ( ) Am& Cur& "3!#"3 $& T:ere is no e%idence t:at t:e 7arents of Eicenta- out of im7ro7er moti%es- aided and abetted :er original suit for annulment- or :er subsequent di%orceG s:e a77ears to :a%e acted inde7endentlyand being of age- s:e 9as entitled to Budge 9:at 9as best for :er and as8 t:at :er decisions be res7ected& Fer 7arents- in so doing- certainly cannot be c:arged 9it: alienation of affections in t:e absence of malice or un9ort:y moti%es- 9:ic: :a%e not been s:o9n- good fait: being al9ays 7resumed until t:e contrary is 7ro%ed& 34C& . ,& 2iability of &arents, 1uardians or Kin& O T:e la9 distinguis:es bet9een t:e rig:t of a 7arent to interest :imself in t:e marital affairs of :is c:ild and t:e absence of rig:ts in a stranger to intermeddle in suc: affairs& Fo9e%er- suc: distinction bet9een t:e liability of 7arents and t:at of strangers is only in regard to 9:at 9ill Bustify interference& A 7arent isliable for alienation of affections resulting from :is o9n malicious conduct- as 9:ere :e 9rongfully entices :is son or daug:ter to lea%e :is or :er s7ouse- but :e is not liable unless :e acts maliciously- 9it:out Bustification and from un9ort:y moti%es& Fe is not liable 9:ere :e acts and ad%ises :is c:ild in good fait: 9it: res7ect to :is c:ild;s marital relations in t:e interest of :is c:ild as :e sees it- t:e marriage of :is c:ild not terminating :is rig:t and liberty to interest :imself in- and be extremely solicitous for- :is c:ild;s 9elfare and :a77iness- e%en 9:ere :is conduct and ad%ice suggest or result in t:e se7aration of t:e s7ouses or t:e obtaining of a di%orce or annulment- or 9:ere :e acts under mista8e or misinformation- or 9:ere :is ad%ice or interference are indiscreet or unfortunate- alt:oug: it :as been :eld t:at t:e 7arent is liable for consequences resulting from rec8lessness& Fe may in good fait: ta8e :is c:ild into :is :ome and afford :im or :er 7rotection and su77ort- so long as :e :as not maliciously enticed :is c:ild a9ay- or does not maliciously entice or cause :im or :er to stay a9ay- from :is or :er

259
s7ouse& T:is rule :as more frequently been a77lied in t:e case of ad%ice gi%en to a married daug:ter- but it is equally a77licable in t:e case of ad%ice gi%en to a son& 6laintiff Tenc:a%e=- in falsely c:arging Eicenta;s aged 7arents 9it: racial or social discrimination and 9it: :a%ing exerted efforts and 7ressured :er to see8 annulment and di%orceunquestionably caused t:em unrest and anxiety- entitling t:em to reco%er damages& ?:ile t:is suit may not :a%e been im7elled by actual malice- t:e c:arges 9ere certainly rec8less in t:e face of t:e 7ro%en facts and circumstances& Court actions are not establis:ed for 7arties to gi%e %ent to t:eir 7reBudices or s7leen& 2n t:e assessment of t:e moral damages reco%erable by a77ellant 6astor Tenc:a%e= from defendant Eicente 4scaDo- it is 7ro7er to ta8e into account- against :is 7atently unreasonable claim for a million 7esos in damages- t:at (a$ t:e marriage 9as celebrated in secret- and its failure 9as not c:aracteri=ed by 7ublicity or undue :umiliation on a77ellant;s 7artG (b$ t:at t:e 7arties ne%er li%ed toget:erG and (c$ t:at t:ere is e%idence t:at a77ellant :ad originally agreed to t:e annulment of t:e marriage- alt:oug: suc: a 7romise 9as legally in%alid- being against 7ublic 7olicy (cf& Art& //- Ci%& Code$& ?:ile a77ellant is unable to remarry under our la9- t:is fact is a consequence of t:e indissoluble c:aracter of t:e union t:at a77ellant entered into %oluntarily and 9it: o7en eyes rat:er t:an of :er di%orce and :er second marriage& All told- 9e are of t:e o7inion t:at a77ellant s:ould reco%er 6 .-!!! only by 9ay of moral damages and attorney;s fees& ?it: regard to t:e 6+.-!!! damages a9arded to t:e defendants- Dr& Aamerto 4scaDo and Aena 4scaDo- by t:e court belo9- 9e o7ine t:at t:e same are excessi%e& ?:ile t:e filing of t:is unfounded suit must :a%e 9ounded said defendants; feelings and caused t:em anxiety- t:e same could in no 9ay :a%e seriously inBured t:eir re7utation- or ot:er9ise 7reBudiced t:em- la9suits :a%ing become a common occurrence in 7resent society& ?:at is im7ortant- and :as been correctly establis:ed in t:e decision of t:e court belo9- is t:at said defendants 9ere not guilty of any im7ro7er conduct in t:e 9:ole de7lorable affair& T:is Court- t:erefore- reduces t:e damages a9arded to 6.-!!! only& 3umming u7- t:e Court rules: ("$ T:at a foreign di%orce bet9een Fili7ino citi=ens- soug:t and decreed after t:e effecti%ity of t:e 7resent Ci%il Code (Re7& Act 3/*$- is not entitled to recognition as %alid in t:is BurisdictionG and neit:er is t:e marriage contracted 9it: anot:er 7arty by t:e di%orced consort- subsequently to t:e foreign decree of di%orce- entitled to %alidity in t:e countryG ( $ T:at t:e remarriage of di%orced 9ife and :er co#:abitation 9it: a 7erson ot:er t:an t:e la9ful :usband entitle t:e latter to a decree of legal se7aration conformably to 6:ili77ine la9G (3$ T:at t:e desertion and securing of an in%alid di%orce decree by one consort entitles t:e ot:er to reco%er damagesG (+$ T:at an action for alienation of affections against t:e 7arents of one consort does not lie in t:e absence of 7roof of malice or un9ort:y moti%es on t:eir 7art& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e decision under a77eal is :ereby modified as follo9sG ("$ AdBudging 7laintiff#a77ellant 6astor Tenc:a%e= entitled to a decree of legal se7aration from defendant Eicenta F& 4scaDoG ( $ 3entencing defendant#a77ellee Eicenta 4scaDo to 7ay 7laintiff#a77ellant Tenc:a%e= t:e amount of 6 .-!!! for damages and attorneys; feesG (3$ 3entencing a77ellant 6astor Tenc:a%e= to 7ay t:e a77ellee- Aamerto 4scaDo and t:e estate of :is 9ife- t:e deceased Aena 4scaDo- 6.-!!! by 9ay of damages and attorneys; fees&

260
D#. R)B S. JaB($)n &. P" ?," ' $." P.),)??)n"% G&R& 'o& "+!*!+&Aarc: *- !! E2T1G- J.: 2n an accusatory 2nformation- dated Culy ",,*- 7etitioner- City Fealt: 5fficer Rico Cacutin of Cagayan de 5ro City- 9as c:arged before t:e 3andiganbayan- Fourt: Di%ision- 9it: t:e crime of 3exual Farassment- t:usly: >T:at sometime on or about !" December ",,.- in Cagayan de 5ro City- and 9it:in t:e Burisdiction of t:is Fonorable Court 7ursuant to t:e 7ro%isions of RA ),).- t:e accused- a 7ublic officer- being t:en t:e City Fealt: 5fficer of Cagayan de 5ro City 9it: salary grade * but a :ig: ran8ing official by ex7ress 7ro%ision of RA ),).- committing t:e offense in relation to :is official functions and ta8ing ad%antage of :is 7osition- did t:ere and t:en- 9illfullyunla9fully and criminally- demand- solicit- request sexual fa%ors from As& Culiet <& @ee- a young year#old 9oman- single and fres: graduate in 0ac:elor of 3cience in 'ursing 9:o 9as see8ing em7loyment in t:e office of t:e accused- namely: by demanding from As& @ee t:at s:e s:ould- ex7ose :er body and allo9 :er 7ri%ate 7arts to be mas:ed and stimulated by t:e accused- 9:ic: sexual fa%or 9as made as a condition for t:e em7loyment of As& @ee in t:e Family 6rogram of t:e 5ffice of t:e accused- t:us constituting sexual :arassment&>" 17on :is arraignment- 7etitioner 7led not guilty to t:e offense c:argedG :ence- trial 7roceeded& Culiet <& @ee- t:en a #year old fres: graduate of nursing- a%erred t:at on / 'o%ember ",,. :er fat:er accom7anied :er to t:e office of 7etitioner at t:e City Fealt: 5ffice to see8 em7loyment& CulietXs fat:er and 7etitioner 9ere c:ild:ood friends& Culiet 9as informed by t:e doctor t:at t:e City Fealt: 5ffice :ad Bust t:en filled u7 t:e %acant 7ositions for nurses but t:at :e 9ould still see if :e mig:t be able to :el7 :er& T:e follo9ing day- , 'o%ember ",,.- Culiet and :er fat:er returned to t:e City Fealt: 5fficeand t:ey 9ere informed by 7etitioner t:at a medical grou7 from Texas- 1&3&A&- 9as coming to to9n in December to loo8 into 7utting u7 a clinic in (a7asan- Cagayan de 5ro- 9:ere s:e mig:t be considered& 5n !" December ",,.- around nine oXcloc8 in t:e morning- s:e and :er fat:er 9ent bac8 to t:e office of 7etitioner& T:e latter informed :er t:at t:ere 9as a %acancy in a family 7lanning 7roBect for t:e city and t:at- if s:e 9ere interested- :e could inter%ie9 :er for t:e Bob& 6etitioner t:en started 7utting u7 to :er a number of questions& ?:en as8ed at one 7oint 9:et:er or not s:e already :ad a boyfriend- s:e said >no&> 6etitioner suggested t:at 7er:a7s if :er fat:er 9ere not around- s:e could afford to be :onest in :er ans9ers to t:e doctor& T:e fat:er- ta8ing t:e cue- decided to lea%e& 6etitioner t:en inquired 9:et:er s:e 9as still a %irgin- ex7laining to :er :is t:eory on t:e %arious as7ects of %irginity& Fe >:y7ot:etically> as8ed 9:et:er s:e 9ould tell :er family or friends if a male friend :a77ened to intimately touc: :er& 6etitioner later offered :er t:e Bob 9:ere s:e 9ould be t:e subBect of a >researc:> 7rogram& 3:e 9as requested to be bac8 after lunc:& 0efore 7roceeding to 7etitionerXs office t:at afternoon- Culiet dro77ed by at t:e nearby c:urc: to see8 di%ine guidance as s:e felt so >confused&> ?:en s:e got to t:e office- 7etitioner made se%eral tele7:one calls to some :os7itals to inquire 9:et:er t:ere 9as any a%ailable o7ening for :er& 'ot finding any- 7etitioner again offered :er a Bob in t:e family 7lanning researc: underta8ing& 3:e ex7ressed :esitation if a 7:ysical examination 9ould include >:ugging> :er but 7etitioner assured :er t:at :e 9as only 8idding about it& 6etitioner t:en in%ited :er to go bo9ling& 6etitioner told :er to meet :im at 0orBa 3treet so t:at 7eo7le 9ould not see t:em on board t:e same car toget:er& 3oon- at t:e designated 7lace- a 9:ite car dri%en by 7etitioner sto77ed& 3:e got in& 6etitioner :eld :er 7ulse and told :er not to be scared& After dro77ing by at :is :ouse to 7ut on :is bo9ling attire- 7etitioner got bac8 to t:e car&

261
?:ile dri%ing- 7etitioner casually as8ed :er if s:e already too8 :er bat:- and s:e said s:e 9as so in a :urry t:at s:e did not find time for it& 6etitioner t:en inquired 9:et:er s:e :ad %aricose %einsand s:e said >no&> 6etitioner told :er to raise :er foot and lo9er :er 7ants so t:at :e mig:t confirm it& 3:e felt assured t:at it 9as all 7art of t:e researc:& 6etitioner still 7us:ed :er 7ants do9n to :er 8nees and :eld :er t:ig:& Fe 7ut :is :ands inside :er 7anty until :e reac:ed :er 7ubic :air& 3ur7rised- s:e exclaimed >hala /aW> and instincti%ely 7ulled :er 7ants u7& 6etitioner t:en touc:ed :er abdomen 9it: :is rig:t :and saying 9ords of endearment and letting t:e bac8 of :is 7alm touc: :er fore:ead& Fe told :er to raise :er s:irt to c:ec8 9:et:er s:e :ad nodes or lum7s& 3:e :esitated for a 9:ile bute%entually- raised it u7 to :er na%el& 6etitioner t:en fondled :er breast& 3:oc8ed at 9:at 7etitioner dids:e lo9ered :er s:irt and embraced :er bag to co%er :erself- telling :im angrily t:at s:e 9as t:roug: 9it: t:e researc:& Fe begged :er not to tell anybody about 9:at :ad Bust :a77ened& 0efore s:e alig:ted from t:e car- 7etitioner urged :er to reconsider :er decision to quit& Fe t:en :anded o%er to :er 63!!&!! for :er ex7enses& Arri%ing :ome- s:e told :er mot:er about :er meeting 9it: Dr& Cacutin and t:e money :e ga%e :er but s:e did not gi%e t:e rest of t:e story& Fer mot:er scolded :er for acce7ting t:e money and instructed :er to return it& 2n t:e morning of !+ December ",,+- Culiet re7aired to t:e clinic to return t:e money to 7etitioner but s:e 9as not able to see :im until about one oXcloc8 in t:e afternoon& 3:e tried to gi%e bac8 t:e money but 7etitioner refused to acce7t it& A 9ee8 later- Culiet told :er sister about t:e incident& 5n "* December ",,.- s:e attem7ted to slas: :er 9rist 9it: a fastener rig:t after relating t:e incident to :er mot:er& 'oticing t:at Culiet 9as suffering from some 7syc:ological 7roblem- t:e family referred :er to Dr& Aerlita Ada=a for counseling& Dr& Ada=a 9ould later testify t:at Culiet- toget:er 9it: :er sister- came to see :er on " December ",,.- and t:at Culiet a77eared to be emotionally disturbed- blaming :erself for being so stu7id as to allo9 Dr& Cacutin to molest :er& Dr& Ada=a concluded t:at CulietXs frustration 9as due to 7ost trauma stress& 6etitioner contradicted t:e testimony of Culiet @ee& Fe claimed t:at on / 'o%ember ",,. :e :ad a cou7le of 7eo7le 9:o 9ent to see :im in :is office- among t:em- Culiet and :er fat:er- 6at& Custin @ee- 9:o 9as a boy:ood friend& ?:en it 9as t:eir turn to tal8 to 7etitioner- 6at& @ee introduced :is daug:ter Culiet 9:o ex7ressed :er 9is: to Boin t:e City Fealt: 5ffice& 6etitioner re7lied t:at t:ere 9as no %acancy in :is office- adding t:at only t:e City Aayor really :ad t:e 7o9er to a77oint city 7ersonnel& 5n !" December ",,.- t:e afternoon 9:en t:e alleged incident :a77ened- :e 9as in a meeting 9it: t:e Committee on A9ards in t:e 5ffice of t:e City Aayor& 5n !+ December ",,.- 9:en Culiet said s:e 9ent to :is office to return t:e 63!!&!!- :e did not re7ort to t:e office for :e 9as sc:eduled to lea%e for Da%ao at :3. 7&m& to attend a :earing before t:e 5ffice of t:e 5mbudsman for Aindanao& Fe submitted in e%idence a 7:otoco7y of :is 7lane tic8et& Fe asserted t:at t:e com7laint for sexual :arassment- as 9ell as all t:e ot:er cases filed against :im by Ei%ian @u- 2ryn 3alcedoAellie Eillanue%a and 6amela Rodis- 9ere but forms of 7olitical :arassment directed at :im& T:e 3andiganbayan- t:roug: its Fourt: Di%ision- rendered its decision- dated !. 'o%ember ",,,- 7enned by Ar& Custice Rodolfo G& 6alattao- finding t:e accused- Dr& Rico Cacutin- guilty of t:e crime of 3exual Farassment under Re7ublic Act 'o& )/))& T:e 3andiganbayan concluded: >?F4R4F5R4- Budgment is :ereby rendered- convicting t:e accused R2C5 CAC1T2' @ 3A(C4D5 of t:e crime of 3exual Farassment- defined and 7unis:ed under R&A& 'o& )/))7articularly 3ecs& 3 and ) of t:e same Act- 7ro7erly 8no9n as t:e Anti#3exual Farassment Act of ",,.- and is :ereby sentenced to suffer t:e 7enalty of im7risonment of six (*$ mont:s and to 7ay a fine of T9enty T:ousand (6 !-!!!&!!$ 6esos- 9it: subsidiary im7risonment in case of insol%ency& Accused is furt:er ordered to indemnify t:e offended 7arty in t:e amount of T:ree Fundred T:ousand (63!!-!!!&!!$ 6esos- by 9ay of moral damagesG T9o Fundred T:ousand (6 !!-!!!&!!$ 6esos- by 9ay of 4xem7lary damages and to 7ay t:e cost of suit&>

262
2n t:e instant recourse- it is contended t:at # >2& 6etitioner cannot be con%icted of t:e crime of sexual :arassment in %ie9 of t:e ina77licability of Re7ublic Act 'o& )/)) to t:e case at bar& >22& 6etitioner M:as beenN denied x x x :is constitutional rig:t to due 7rocess of la9 and 7resum7tion of innocence on account of t:e insufficiency of t:e 7rosecution e%idence to sustain :is con%iction&>3 T:e abo%e contentions of 7etitioner are not meritorious& 3ection 3 of Re7ublic Act )/)) 7ro%ides: >34C& 3& ?or8- 4ducation or Training#related 3exual Farassment Defined& Z ?or8- education or training#related sexual :arassment is committed by an em7loyer- em7loyee- managersu7er%isor- agent of t:e em7loyer- teac:er- instructor- 7rofessor- coac:- trainor- or any ot:er 7erson 9:o- :a%ing aut:ority- influence or moral ascendancy o%er anot:er in a 9or8 or training or education en%ironment- demands- requests or ot:er9ise requires any sexual fa%or from t:e ot:er- regardless of 9:et:er t:e demand- request or requirement for submission is acce7ted by t:e obBect of said Act& >(a$ 2n a 9or8#related or em7loyment en%ironment- sexual :arassment is committed 9:en: >("$ T:e sexual fa%or is made as a condition in t:e :iring or in t:e em7loyment- re# em7loyment or continued em7loyment of said indi%idual- or in granting said indi%idual fa%orable com7ensation- terms- conditions- 7romotions- or 7ri%ilegesG or t:e refusal to grant t:e sexual fa%or results in limiting- segregating or classifying t:e em7loyee 9:ic: in any 9ay 9ould discriminate- de7ri%e or diminis: em7loyment o77ortunities or ot:er9ise ad%ersely affect said em7loyee&> 6etitioner 9as t:e City Fealt: 5fficer of Cagayan de 5ro City- a 7osition :e :eld 9:en com7lainant- a ne9ly graduated nurse- sa9 :im to enlist :is :el7 in :er desire to gain em7loyment& Fe did try to s:o9 an interest in :er 7lig:t- :er fat:er being a boy:ood friend- but finding no o7ening suitable for :er in :is office- :e as8ed :er about acce7ting a Bob in a family 7lanning researc: 7roBect& 2t all started from t:ereG t:e 3andiganbayan recited t:e rest of t:e story: >x x x& 3ucceeding in con%incing t:e com7lainant t:at :er 7:ysical examination 9ould be a 7art of a researc:- accused as8ed com7lainant if s:e 9ould agree t:at :er 7ri%ate 7arts (bolts$ 9ould be seen& Accused assured :er t:at 9it: :er coo7eration in t:e researc:- s:e 9ould gain 8no9ledge from it& As com7lainant loo8ed u7on t:e accused 9it: utmost re%erence- res7ectand 7aternal guidance- s:e agreed to undergo t:e 7:ysical examination& At t:is Bunctureaccused abru7tly sto77ed t:e inter%ie9 and told t:e com7lainant to go :ome and be bac8 at :!! oXcloc8 in t:e afternoon of t:e same day- December "- ",,.& Com7lainant returned at :!! oXcloc8 in t:e afternoon- but did not 7roceed immediately to t:e office of t:e accused- as s:e dro77ed by a nearby c:urc: to as8 di%ine guidance- as s:e 9as confused and at a loss on :o9 to resol%e :er 7resent 7redicament& At 3:!! oXcloc8 in t:e afternoon- s:e 9ent bac8 to t:e office of t:e accused& And once inside- accused called u7 a certain Aadonna- inquiring if t:ere 9as a %acancy- but :e 9as told t:at s:e 9ould only acce7t a registered nurse& Com7lainant 9as about to lea%e t:e office of t:e accused 9:en t:e latter 7re%ailed u7on :er to stay because :e 9ould call one more :os7ital& 2n :er 7resence- a call 9as made& 0ut again accused told :er t:at t:ere 9as no %acancy& As all efforts to loo8 for a Bob in ot:er :os7itals failed- accused rene9ed t:e offer to t:e com7lainant to be a 7art of t:e researc: in t:e Family 6lanning 6rogram 9:ere t:ere 9ould be 7:ysical examination& T:ereafter- accused motioned :is t9o ( $ secretaries to go out of t:e room& 17on mo%ing closer to t:e com7lainant- accused as8ed :er if s:e 9ould agree to t:e offer& Com7lainant told :im s:e 9ould not agree because t:e researc: included :ugging& Fe t:en assured :er t:at :e 9as Bust 8idding and t:at a 7re#

263
sc:ooler and :ig: sc:ooler :a%e already been subBected to suc: examination& ?it: assurance gi%en- com7lainant c:anged :er mind and agreed to t:e researc:- for s:e is no9 con%inced t:at s:e 9ould be of :el7 to t:e researc: and 9ould gain 8no9ledge from it& At t:is 7ointaccused as8ed :er if s:e 9as a ctomboyX- s:e ans9ered in t:e negati%e& Fe t:en instructed :er to go 9it: :im but :e 9ould first 7lay bo9ling- and later 7roceed 9it: t:e researc: (7:ysical examination$& 5n t:e understanding of t:e com7lainant t:at t:ey 9ill 7roceed to t:e clinic 9:ere t:e researc: 9ill be conducted- s:e agreed to go 9it: t:e accused& 0ut accused instructed :er to 7roceed to 0orBa 3t& 9:ere s:e 9ill Bust 9ait for :im- as it 9as not good for 7eo7le to see t:em riding in a car toget:er& 3:e 9al8ed from t:e office of t:e accused and 7roceeded to 0orBa 3t& as instructed& And after a 9:ile- a 9:ite car arri%ed& T:e door 9as o7ened to :er and s:e 9as instructed by t:e accused to come inside& 2nside t:e car- :e called :er attention 9:y s:e 9as in a 7ensi%e mood& 3:e retorted s:e 9as not& As t:ey 9ere seated side by side- t:e accused :eld :er 7ulse and told :er not to be scared& Fe informed :er t:at :e 9ould go :ome for a 9:ile to 7ut on :is bo9ling attire& After a s:ort 9:ile- :e came bac8 inside t:e car and as8ed :er if s:e :as ta8en a bat:& 3:e ex7lained t:at s:e 9as not able to do so because s:e left t:e :ouse :urriedly& 3till 9:ile inside t:e car- accused directed :er to raise :er foot so :e could see 9:et:er s:e :as %aricose %eins on :er legs& T:in8ing t:at it 9as 7art of t:e researc:- s:e did as instructed& Fe told :er to raise it :ig:er- but s:e 7rotested& Fe t:en instructed :er to lo9er :er 7ants instead& 3:e did lo9er :er 7ants- ex7osing :alf of :er legs& 0ut t:en t:e accused 7us:ed it for9ard do9n to :er 8nees and grabbed :er legs& Fe told :er to raise :er s:irt& Feeling as if s:e :ad lost control of t:e situation- s:e raised :er s:irt as instructed& 3:oc8ed- s:e exclaimed- c:ala 8aWX because :e tried to insert :is :and into :er 7anty& Accused t:en :eld :er abdomen- saying- cyou are li8e my daug:ter- cDayXW (Eisayan 9ord of endearment$-X and let t:e bac8 of :is 7alm touc: :er fore:ead- indicating t:e traditional 9ay of ma8ing t:e young res7ect t:eir elders& Fe again told :er to raise :er s:irt& Feeling embarrassed and uncomfortable- yet unsure 9:et:er s:e 9as entertaining malice- s:e raised :er s:irt u7 to :er breast& Fe t:en fondled :er breast& Reacting- s:e im7ulsi%ely lo9er :er s:irt and embraced :er bar 9:ile silently as8ing God 9:at 9as :a77ening to :er and as8ing t:e courage to resist accusedXs 7:ysical ad%ances& After a s:ort 9:ile- s:e as8ed :im if t:ere could be a rig:t 7lace for 7:ysical examination 9:ere t:ere 9ould be many doctors& Fe Bust exclaimed- cso you li8e t:at t:ere are many doctorsWX T:en :e as8ed :er if s:e :as toot: decay& T:in8ing t:at :e 9as 7lanning to 8iss :er- s:e ans9ered t:at s:e :as lots of decayed teet:& Fe ad%ised :er t:en to :a%e t:em treated& Finally- s:e informed :im t:at s:e 9ould not continue 9it: t:e researc:& T:e accused retorted t:at com7lainant 9as entertaining malice and reminded :er of 9:at s:e earlier agreedG t:at s:e 9ould not tell anybody about 9:at :a77ened& Fe t:en 7romised to gi%e :er 6".-!!!&!! so t:at s:e could ta8e t:e examination& 3:e 9as about to o7en t:e door of t:e car 9:en :e suddenly grabbed :er t:ig:- but t:is timecom7lainant instantly 7arried :is :and 9it: :er bag&>+ ?:ile t:e City Aayor :ad t:e exclusi%e 7rerogati%e in a77ointing city 7ersonnel- it s:ould stand to reason- ne%ert:eless- t:at a recommendation from 7etitioner in t:e a77ointment of 7ersonnel in t:e munici7al :ealt: office could carry good 9eig:t& 2ndeed- 7etitioner :imself 9ould a77ear to :a%e con%eyed- by :is 9ords and actions- an im7ression t:at :e could facilitate CulietXs em7loyment& 2ndeed- 7etitioner 9ould not :a%e been able to ta8e undue liberalities on t:e 7erson of Culiet :ad it not been for :is :ig: 7osition in t:e City Fealt: 5ffice of Cagayan de 5ro City& T:e findings of t:e 3andiganbayan 9ere bolstered by t:e testimony of Ei%ian @u- 7etitionerXs secretary bet9een ",), to ",,+- of 2ryn (ago 3alcedo- 6ublic Fealt: 'urse 22- and of Fara: Dongallo y Al8uino- a city :ealt: nurse- all of 9:om 9ere said to :a%e li8e9ise been %ictims of 7er%erse be:a%ior by 7etitioner& T:e 3andiganbayan rig:tly reBected t:e defense of alibi 7roffered by 7etitioner- i&e&- t:at :e 9as at a meeting of t:e Committee on A9ardsG t:e court a 0uo said:

264
>T:ere are some obser%ations 9:ic: t:e Court 9ould li8e to 7oint out on t:e e%idence adduced by t:e defense- 7articularly in t:e Ainutes of t:e meeting of t:e A9ards Committee- as testified to by 9itness Ayrna Aaagad on 3e7tember /- ",,/& >First- admitted- Teresita 2& Ro=abal 9as t:e immediate su7er%isor of 9itness Ayrna Aaagad& T:e 'otices to :old t:e meeting (4x:& c3#AX and c3#0X$ 9ere signed by Teresita Ro=abal& 0ut t:e Ainutes of t:e meeting- 4x:& c.X- 9as signed by Ayrna Aaagad and not by Teresita Ro=abal& T:e documents- 4x:s& c3#AX and c3#0X certify t:at t:e officially designated secretary of t:e A9ards Committee 9as Teresita Ro=abal& >3econd- 9:y 9as Ayrna Aaagad in 7ossession of t:e attendance logboo8 and :o9 9as s:e able to 7ersonally bring t:e same in court 9:en s:e testified on 3e7tember /- ",,/- 9:en in fact- s:e admitted during :er testimony t:at s:e retired from t:e go%ernment ser%ice on December "- ",,)J 3urely- Ayrna Aaagad could not still be t:e custodian of t:e logboo8 9:en s:e testified& >And finally- in t:e logboo8- under t:e sub#:eading- c5t:ers 6resent-X t:e attendance of t:ose 9:o attended 9as indi%idually :and9ritten by t:e 7ersons concerned 9:o 9rote and signed t:eir names& 0ut in t:e case of Dr& Tiro and Dr& Rico Cacutin- t:eir names 9ere :and9ritten by cler8 3yl%ia Tan#'erry- not by Dr& Tiro and Dr& Cacutin& Fo9e%er- Ayrna Aaagad testified t:at t:e logboo8 9as 7assed around to attending indi%iduals inside t:e conference room&> Aost im7ortantly- t:e 3u7reme Court is not a trier of facts- and t:e factual findings of t:e 3andiganbayan must be res7ected by- if not indeed conclusi%e u7on- t:e tribunal- * no cogent reasons :a%ing been sufficiently s:o9n to no9 :old ot:er9ise& T:e assessment on t:e credibility of 9itnesses is a matter best left to t:e trial court because of its unique 7osition of being able to obser%e t:at elusi%e and incommunicable e%idence on t:e de7ortment of 9itnesses at t:e stand- an o77ortunity t:at is denied t:e a77ellate court&) Conformably 9it: 7re%ailing Buris7rudence- t:e grant of moral and exem7lary damages by t:e 3andiganbayan must be tem7ered to reasonable le%els& Aoral damages are not intended to enric: a com7lainant but are a9arded only to enable an inBured 7arty obtain some means t:at 9ould :el7 ob%iate t:e sufferings sustained on account of t:e cul7able action of an offender& 2ts a9ard must not a77ear to be t:e result of 7assion or undue 7reBudice- and it must al9ays reasonably a77roximate t:e extent of inBury and be 7ro7ortional to t:e 9rong committed& 2ndeed- Culiet s:ould be recom7ensed for :er mental anguis:& Dr& Aerlita F& Ada=a- a 7syc:ological counseling ex7ert- :as found Culiet to be emotionally and 7syc:ologically disturbed and suffering from 7ost trauma stress follo9ing :er un7leasant ex7erience 9it: 7etitioner& T:e Court finds it fitting to a9ard in fa%or of Culiet @ee 63!-!!!&!! moral damages& 2n addition- s:e s:ould be entitled to 6 !-!!!&!! exem7lary damages to ser%e as a deterrent against- or as a negati%e incenti%e to curb- socially deleterious actions& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e questioned decision of t:e 3andiganbayan in Criminal Case 'o& 3),,finding Dr& Rico Cacutin y 3alcedo G12(T@ of t:e crime of 3exual Farassment defined and 7unis:ed under Re7ublic Act 'o& )/))- 7articularly 3ections 3 and ) t:ereof- and 7enali=ing :im 9it: im7risonment of six (*$ mont:s and to 7ay a fine of T9enty T:ousand (6 !-!!!&!!$ 6esos- 9it: subsidiary im7risonment in case of insol%ency- is AFF2RA4D& T:e 3andiganbayanXs a9ard of moral and exem7lary damages are A5D2F24DG instead- 7etitioner is ordered to indemnify t:e offended 7artyCuliet @ee- in t:e amount of 63!-!!!&!! and 6 !-!!!&!! by 9ay of- res7ecti%ely- moral damages and exem7lary damages& Costs against 7etitioner&

P.),)??)n" A" ,(% A($ >M $)&" Un)$"d C #? #a$) n andH # F#anB)% C.(a &. Na$) na, La! # R",a$) n% C --)%%) n and R %a,)nda C. C #$"D

265
G&R& 'o& " +*")&A7ril /- !!! 04((532((5- J.: T:is 7etition see8s to set aside t:e Decision of ". February ",,* and t:e Resolution of / Aarc: ",,* of 7ublic res7ondent 'ational (abor Relations Commission in '(RC 'CR CA 'o& !!,).3#,. ('(RC 'CR Case 'o& !!#" #!/).,#,+$ 9:ic: modified t:e decision of t:e (abor Arbiter finding 7etitioners not guilty of illegal dismissal& 6etitioner 6:ili77ine Aeolus Automoti%e 1nited Cor7oration (6AA1C$ is a cor7oration duly organi=ed and existing under 6:ili77ine la9s- 7etitioner Francis C:ua is its 6resident 9:ile 7ri%ate res7ondent Rosalinda C& Corte= 9as a com7any nurse of 7etitioner cor7oration until :er termination on ) 'o%ember ",,+& 5n . 5ctober ",,+ a memorandum 9as a issued by As& Ayrna 6alomares- 6ersonnel Aanager of 7etitioner cor7oration- addressed to 7ri%ate res7ondent Rosalinda C& Corte= requiring :er to ex7lain 9it:in forty#eig:t (+/$ :ours 9:y no disci7linary action s:ould be ta8en against :er (a$ for t:ro9ing a sta7ler at 6lant Aanager ?illiam C:ua- :er su7erior- and uttering in%ecti%es against :im on August ",,+G (b$ for losing t:e amount of 6"-+//&!! entrusted to :er by 6lant Aanager C:ua to be gi%en to Ar& Fang of t:e C(AC De7artment on 3 August ",,+G and- (c$ for as8ing a co#em7loyee to 7unc:#in :er time card t:us ma8ing it a77ear t:at s:e 9as in t:e office in t:e morning of * 3e7tember ",++ 9:en in fact s:e 9as not& T:e memorandum :o9e%er 9as refused by 7ri%ate res7ondent alt:oug: it 9as read to :er and discussed 9it: :er by a co#em7loyee& 3:e did not also submit t:e required ex7lanation- so t:at 9:ile :er case 7ending in%estigation t:e com7any 7laced :er under 7re%enti%e sus7ension for t:irty (3!$ days effecti%e , 5ctober ",,+ to ) 'o%ember ",,+& 5n ! 5ctober ",,+- 9:ile Corte= 9as still under 7re%enti%e sus7ension- anot:er memorandum 9as issued by 7etitioner cor7oration gi%ing :er se%enty#t9o () $ :ours to ex7lain 9:y no disci7linary action s:ould be ta8en against :er for allegedly failing to 7rocess t:e ATA a77lications of :er nine (,$ co#em7loyees 9it: t:e Allied 0an8ing Cor7oration& 5n " 5ctober ",,+ 7ri%ate res7ondent also refused to recei%e t:e second memorandum alt:oug: it 9as read to :er by a co# em7loyee& A co7y of t:e memorandum 9as also sent by t:e 6ersonnel Aanager to 7ri%ate res7ondent at :er last 8no9n address by registered mail& Aean9:ile- 7ri%ate res7ondent submitted a 9ritten ex7lanation 9it: res7ect to t:e loss of t:e 6"-+//&!! and t:e 7unc:ing#in of :er time card by a co#em7loyee& 5n 3 'o%ember ",,+ a t:ird memorandum 9as issued to 7ri%ate res7ondent- t:is time informing :er of :er termination from t:e ser%ice effecti%e ) 'o%ember ",,+ on grounds of gross and :abitual neglect of duties- serious misconduct and fraud or 9illful breac: of trust& 5n * December ",,+ 7ri%ate res7ondent filed 9it: t:e (abor Arbiter a com7laint for illegal dismissal- non#7ayment of annual ser%ice incenti%e lea%e 7ay- "3t: mont: 7ay and damages against 6AA1C and its 7resident Francis C:ua& 5n "! Culy ",,. t:e (abor Arbiter rendered a decision :olding t:e termination of Corte= as %alid and legal- at t:e same time dismissing :er claim for damages for lac8 of merit& 5n a77eal to t:e '(RC- 7ublic res7ondent re%ersed on ". February ",,* t:e decision of t:e (abor Arbiter and found 7etitioner cor7oration guilty of illegal dismissal of 7ri%ate res7ondent Corte=& T:e '(RC ordered 7etitioner 6AA1C to reinstate res7ondent Corte= to :er former 7osition 9it: bac8 9ages com7uted from t:e time of dismissal u7 to :er actual reinstatement& 5n "" Aarc: ",,* 7etitioners mo%ed for reconsideration& 5n / Aarc: ",,* t:e motion 9as deniedG* :ence- t:is 7etition for %ertiorari c:allenging t:e '(RC Decision and Resolution& T:e crux of t:e contro%ersy may be narro9ed do9n to t9o ( $ main issues: 9:et:er t:e '(RC

266
gra%ely abused its discretion in :olding as illegal t:e dismissal of 7ri%ate res7ondent- and 9:et:er s:e is entitled to damages in t:e e%ent t:at t:e illegality of :er dismissal is sustained& T:e (abor Code as amended 7ro%ides s7ecific grounds by 9:ic: an em7loyer may %alidly terminate t:e ser%ices of an em7loyee 9:ic: grounds s:ould be strictly construed since a 7erson;s em7loyment constitutes >7ro7erty> under t:e context of t:e constitutional 7rotection t:at >no 7erson s:all be de7ri%ed of life- liberty or 7ro7erty 9it:out due 7rocess of la9> and- as suc:- t:e burden of 7ro%ing t:at t:ere exists a %alid ground for termination of t:e em7loyment rests u7on t:e em7loyer&/ (i8e9ise- in lig:t of t:e em7loyee;s rig:t to security of tenure- 9:ere a 7enalty less 7uniti%e t:an dismissal 9ill suffice- 9:ate%er misste7s may :a%e been committed by labor oug:t not to be %isited 9it: a consequence so se%ere& A 7erusal of t:e termination letter indicates t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as disc:arged from em7loyment for >serious misconduct- gross and :abitual neglect of duties and fraud or 9illful breac: of trust&> 37ecifically O "& 5n August - ",,+- you committed acts constituting gross disres7ect to your su7erior Ar& ?illiam C:ua- t:e 6lant Aanager& & 5n August 3- ",,+- t:e 6lant Aanager entrusted you t:e amount of 6"-+//&!! to be sent to C(AC for Ar& Fang but t:e money 9as allegedly lost in your 7ossession and 9as not reco%ered& 3& 5n 3e7tember *- ",,+- you caused someone else to 7unc:#in your time card to s:o9 t:at you 9ere at 9or8 9:en in fact you 9ere doing a 7ersonal errand for Ric:ard Tan& As 7er time card you 9ere in at /:! A&A& but you only arri%ed at " :3. 6&A& +& 5n Culy /- ",,+- you recei%ed an amount of 6,!!&!! from Aiss (ucy (ao to o7en an ATA card of nine (,$ em7loyees& 5n 3e7tember +- ",,+- one of t:e em7loyees com7lained by t:e name of Tirso Aquino about t:e status of :is ATA Card and u7on query from t:e ban8 it 9as found out t:at no a77lication and no de7osit for said 7erson :as been made& (i8e9ise- it 9as found out t:at you did not o7en t:e ATA Card and de7osit t:e 6/!!&!! for t:e / ot:er em7loyees& 2t turned out t:at said de7osit 9as made after a mont: later& As to t:e first c:arge- res7ondent Corte= claims t:at as early as :er first year of em7loyment :er 6lant Aanager- ?illiam C:ua- already manifested a s7ecial li8ing for :er- so muc: so t:at s:e 9as recei%ing s7ecial treatment from :im 9:o 9ould oftentimes in%ite :er >for a date-> 9:ic: s:e 9ould as often refuse& 5n many occasions- :e 9ould ma8e sexual ad%ances O touc:ing :er :ands- 7utting :is arms around :er s:oulders- running :is fingers on :er arms and telling :er s:e loo8ed beautiful& T:e s7ecial treatment and sexual ad%ances continued during :er em7loyment for four (+$ years but s:e ne%er reci7rocated :is flirtations- until finally- s:e noticed t:at :is attitude to9ards :er c:anged& Fe made :er understand t:at if s:e 9ould not gi%e in to :is sexual ad%ances :e 9ould cause :er termination from t:e ser%iceG and :e made good :is t:reat 9:en :e started :arassing :er& 3:e Bust found out one day t:at :er table 9:ic: 9as equi77ed 9it: tele7:one and intercom units and containing :er 7ersonal belongings 9as transferred 9it:out :er 8no9ledge to a 7lace 9it: neit:er tele7:one nor intercom- for 9:ic: reason- an argument ensued 9:en s:e confronted ?illiam C:ua resulting in :er being c:arged 9it: gross disres7ect& Res7ondent Corte= ex7lains- as regards t:e second c:arge- t:at t:e money entrusted to :er for transmittal 9as not lostG instead- s:e ga%e it to t:e com7any 7ersonnel in#c:arge for 7ro7er transmittal as e%idenced by a recei7t duly signed by t:e latter& " ?it: res7ect to t:e t:ird im7utation- 7ri%ate res7ondent admits t:at s:e as8ed someone to 7unc:#in :er time card because at t:at time s:e 9as doing an errand for one of t:e com7any;s officers- Ric:ard Tan- and t:at 9as 9it: t:e 7ermission of ?illiam C:ua& 3:e maintains t:at s:e did it

267
in good fait: belie%ing t:at s:e 9as any9ay only accommodating t:e request of a com7any executi%e and done for t:e benefit of t:e com7any 9it: t:e acquiescence of :er boss- ?illiam C:ua& 0esidest:e 7ractice 9as a77arently tolerated as t:e em7loyees 9ere not getting any re7rimand for doing so& As to t:e fourt: c:arge regarding :er alleged failure to 7rocess t:e ATA cards of :er co# em7loyees- 7ri%ate res7ondent claims t:at s:e :as no 8no9ledge t:ereof and t:erefore denies it& After all- s:e 9as em7loyed as a com7any nurse and not to 7rocess ATA cards for :er co#em7loyees& T:e 3u7reme Court- in a litany of decisions on serious misconduct 9arranting dismissal of an em7loyee- :as ruled t:at for misconduct or im7ro7er be:a%ior to be a Bust cause for dismissal (a$ it must be seriousG (b$ must relate to t:e 7erformance of t:e em7loyee;s dutiesG and- (c$ must s:o9 t:at t:e em7loyee :as become unfit to continue 9or8ing for t:e em7loyer& "+ T:e act of 7ri%ate res7ondent in t:ro9ing a sta7ler and uttering abusi%e language u7on t:e 7erson of t:e 7lant manager may be considered- from a lay man;s 7ers7ecti%e- as a serious misconduct& Fo9e%er- in order to consider it a serious misconduct t:at 9ould Bustify dismissal under t:e la9- it must :a%e been done in relation to t:e 7erformance of :er duties as 9ould s:o9 :er to be unfit to continue 9or8ing for :er em7loyer& T:e acts com7lained of- under t:e circumstances t:ey 9ere done- did not in any 9ay 7ertain to :er duties as a nurse& Fer em7loyment identification card discloses t:e nature of :er em7loyment as a nurse and no ot:er& ". Also- t:e memorandum informing :er t:at s:e 9as being 7re%enti%ely sus7ended 7ending in%estigation of :er case 9as addressed to :er as a nurse& As regards t:e t:ird alleged infraction- i&e., t:e act of 7ri%ate res7ondent in as8ing a co# em7loyee to 7unc:#in :er time card- alt:oug: a %iolation of com7any rules- li8e9ise does not constitute serious misconduct& $irstly- it 9as done by :er in good fait: considering t:at s:e 9as as8ed by an officer to 7erform a tas8 outside t:e office- 9:ic: 9as for t:e benefit of t:e com7any- 9it: t:e consent of t:e 7lant manager& #e%ondly- it 9as :er first time to commit suc: infraction during :er fi%e (.$#year ser%ice in t:e com7any& $inally- t:e com7any did not lose anyt:ing by reason t:ereof as t:e offense 9as immediately 8no9n and corrected& 5n alleged infraction 'o& +- as may be gleaned from and admitted in t:e memorandum of 7etitioners to 7ri%ate res7ondent dated ! 5ctober ",,+ ") and t:e notice of termination dated 3 'o%ember ",,+t:e money entrusted to :er 9as in fact de7osited in t:e res7ecti%e accounts of t:e em7loyees concerned- alt:oug: belatedly& ?e agree 9it: t:e submission of t:e 3olicitor General t:at O T:e mere delayHfailure to o7en an ATA account for nine em7loyees is not sufficient- by itself- to su77ort a conclusion t:at Rosalinda is guilty of gross and :abitual neglect of duties& $irst7etitioner did not sho' that opening an "M is one of her primary duties as %ompany nurse& #e%ond- 7etitioner failed to sho' that ,osalinda intentionally, /no'ingly, and purposely delayed the opening of "M a%%ounts for petitioner's employees & 2t is of common 8no9ledge t:at a ban8 im7oses u7on an a77licant certain requirements before an ATA account can be o7ened- i&e& 7ro7erly filled u7 a77lication forms- identification cards- minimum de7osit etc& 2n t:e instant case- 7etitioner did not 7ro%e t:at t:e delay 9as caused by Rosalinda;s neglect or 9illful act (em7:asis su77lied$& Gross negligence im7lies a 9ant or absence of or failure to exercise slig:t care or diligence- or t:e entire absence of care& 2t e%inces a t:oug:tless disregard of consequences 9it:out exerting any effort to a%oid t:em& T:e negligence- to 9arrant remo%al from ser%ice- s:ould not merely be gross but also habitual& (i8e9ise- t:e ground >'illful breac: by t:e em7loyee of t:e trust re7osed in :im by :is em7loyer> must be founded on facts establis:ed by t:e em7loyer 9:o must clearly and con%incingly 7ro%e by substantial e%idence t:e facts and incidents u7on 9:ic: loss of confidence in t:e em7loyee may fairly be made to rest& ! All t:ese requirements 7rescribed by la9 and Buris7rudence are 9anting in t:e case at bar& 5n t:e issue of moral and exem7lary damages- t:e '(RC ruled t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as not entitled to reco%er suc: damages for :er failure to 7ro%e t:at 7etitioner cor7oration :ad been

268
moti%ated by malice or bad fait: or t:at it acted in a 9anton- o77ressi%e or male%olent manner in terminating :er ser%ices& 2n disbelie%ing t:e ex7lanation 7roffered by 7ri%ate res7ondent t:at t:e transfer of :er table 9as t:e res7onse of a s7urned lot:ario- 7ublic res7ondent quoted t:e (abor Arbiter O Com7lainant;s assertion t:at t:e cause of t:e altercation bet9een :er and t:e 6lant Aanager 9:ere s:e t:re9 a sta7ler to :im and uttered in%ecti%es against :im 9as :er refusal to submit to :is ad%ances to :er 9:ic: started from :er early days of em7loyment and lasted for almost four years- is :ardly belie%able& For indeed- if t:ere 9as suc: :arassment- 9:y 9as t:ere no com7laints (si%$ from :er during t:at 7eriodJ ?:y did s:e stay t:ere for so longJ 0esides- it could not :a%e ta8en t:at 7eriod for t:e 6lant Aanager to react& T:is assertion of t:e com7lainant deser%es no credence at all& 6ublic res7ondent in t:us concluding a77ears baffled 9:y it too8 7ri%ate res7ondent more t:an four (+$ years to ex7ose ?illiam C:ua;s alleged sexual :arassment& 2t reasons out t:at it 9ould :a%e been more 7re7ared to su77ort :er 7osition if :er act of t:ro9ing t:e sta7ler and uttering in%ecti%es on ?illiam C:ua 9ere :er immediate reaction to :is amorous o%ertures& 2n t:at case- according to 7ublic res7ondent- s:e 9ould :a%e been Bustified for suc: outburst because s:e 9ould :a%e been merely 7rotecting :er 9oman:ood- :er 7erson and :er rig:ts& ?e are not 7ersuaded& T:e gra%amen of t:e offense in sexual :arassment is not t:e %iolation of t:e em7loyee;s sexuality but t:e abuse of 7o9er by t:e em7loyer& Any em7loyee- male or femalemay rig:tfully cry >foul> 7ro%ided t:e claim is 9ell substantiated& 3trictly s7ea8ing- t:ere is no time 7eriod 9it:in 9:ic: :e or s:e is ex7ected to com7lain t:roug: t:e 7ro7er c:annels& T:e time to do so may %ary de7ending u7on t:e needs- circumstances- and more im7ortantly- t:e emotional t:res:old of t:e em7loyee& 6ri%ate res7ondent admittedly allo9ed four (+$ years to 7ass before finally coming out 9it: :er em7loyer;s sexual im7ositions& 'ot many 9omen- es7ecially in t:is country- are made of t:e stuff t:at can endure t:e agony and trauma of a 7ublic- e%en cor7orate- scandal& 2f 7etitioner cor7oration :ad not issued t:e t:ird memorandum t:at terminated t:e ser%ices of 7ri%ate res7ondent- 9e could only s7eculate :o9 muc: longer s:e 9ould 8ee7 :er silence& Aoreo%er- fe9 7ersons are 7ri%ileged indeed to transfer from one em7loyer to anot:er& T:e deart: of quality em7loyment :as become a daily >monster> roaming t:e streets t:at one may not be ex7ected to gi%e u7 one;s em7loyment easily but to :ang on to it- so to s7ea8- by all tolerable means& 6er:a7s- to 7ri%ate res7ondent;s mind- for as long as s:e could out9it :er em7loyer;s 7loys s:e 9ould continue on :er Bob and consider t:em as mere occu7ational :a=ards& T:is uneasiness in :er 7lace of 9or8 t:ri%ed in an atmos7:ere of tolerance for four (+$ years- and one could only imagine t:e 7re%ailing anxiety and resentment- if not bitterness- t:at beset :er all t:at time& 0ut ?illiam C:ua faced reality soon enoug:& 3ince :e :ad no 7lace in 7ri%ate res7ondent;s :eart- so must s:e :a%e no 7lace in :is office& 3o- :e 7ro%o8ed :er- :arassed :er- and finally dislodged :erG and for finally %enting :er 7ent#u7 anger for years- :e >found> t:e 7erfect reason to terminate :er& 2n determining entitlement to moral and exem7lary damages- 9e restate t:e bases t:erefor& 2n moral damages- it suffices to 7ro%e t:at t:e claimant :as suffered anxiety- slee7less nig:tsbesmirc:ed re7utation and social :umiliation by reason of t:e act com7lained of& 4xem7lary damages- on t:e ot:er :and- are granted in addition to- inter alia- moral damages >by 9ay of exam7le or correction for t:e 7ublic good> if t:e em7loyer ;;acted in a 9anton- fraudulent- rec8less- o77ressi%e or male%olent manner&> Anxiety 9as gradual in 7ri%ate res7ondent;s fi%e (.$#year em7loyment& 2t began 9:en :er 7lant manager s:o9ed an ob%ious 7artiality for :er 9:ic: 9ent out of :and 9:en :e started to ma8e it clear t:at :e 9ould terminate :er ser%ices if s:e 9ould not gi%e in to :is sexual ad%ances& 3exual :arassment is an im7osition of mis7laced >su7eriority> 9:ic: is enoug: to dam7en an em7loyee;s

269
s7irit in :er ca7acity for ad%ancement& 2t affects :er sense of BudgmentG it c:anges :er life& 2f for t:is alone 7ri%ate res7ondent s:ould be adequately com7ensated& T:us- for t:e anxiety- t:e seen and unseen :urt t:at s:e suffered- 7etitioners s:ould also be made to 7ay :er moral damages- 7lus exem7lary damages- for t:e o77ressi%e manner 9it: 9:ic: 7etitioners effected :er dismissal from t:e ser%ice- and to ser%e as a fore9arning to lec:erous officers and em7loyers 9:o ta8e undue ad%antage of t:eir ascendancy o%er t:eir em7loyees& All told- t:e 7enalty of dismissal is too excessi%e and not 7ro7ortionate to t:e alleged infractions committed considering t:at it does not a77ear t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as an incorrigible offender or t:at s:e inflicted serious damage to t:e com7any- nor 9ould :er continuance in t:e ser%ice be 7atently inimical to :er em7loyer;s interest& 4%en t:e sus7ension im7osed u7on :er 9:ile :er case 9as 7ending in%estigation a77ears to be unBustified and uncalled for& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e Decision of 7ublic res7ondent 'ational (abor Relations Commssion finding t:e dismissal of 7ri%ate res7ondent Rosalinda C& Corte= to be 9it:out Bust cause and ordering 7etitioners 6:ili77ine Aeolus Automoti%e 1nited Cor7oration andHor Francis C:ua to 7ay :er bac8 9ages com7uted from t:e time of :er dismissal- 9:ic: s:ould be full bac8 9ages- is AFF2RA4D& Fo9e%er- in %ie9 of t:e strained relations bet9een t:e ad%erse 7arties- instead of reinstatement ordered by 7ublic res7ondent- 7etitioners s:ould 7ay 7ri%ate res7ondent se7aration 7ay equi%alent to one ("$ mont: salary for e%ery year of ser%ice until finality of t:is Budgment& 2n addition- 7etitioners are ordered to 7ay 7ri%ate res7ondent 6 .-!!!&!! for moral damages and 6"!-!!!&!! for exem7lary damages& Costs against 7etitioners&

R A",) A!"#Ba, R d ,' +"n %a, N"%$ # + d)n N ", E$a!aA Dan), D" La F("n$", +","n D)aD> F, #"%, Man(", Ma#) G(D-an, A,an JaD-)n"D, Ed=)n L ?"D, A,'#"d Man% %, A,"C Ma#B",)n , E,)Da!"$. P# $aB) >Ma#B",)n , J %"?. O,a8"#, Ca#, % Pa,-a, Ma#B Pa, , R ,and Sa,($)n, +"nIa-)n S"%A(nd , A#$(# Ta!a#a, Ed=)n T(,a,)an And R"!"BBa T(,a,)an &. MaI. G"n. Fa!)an V"#, C ,. F)d", S)nA% n, C ,. R ,and A!ad),,a, C ,. G"#a#d +. Lan$ #)a, C ,. Ga,)," K)n$ana#, 4%$ L$. C ,. Pan'), M. LaB% n, MaI. R d ,' AA()na,d , Ca?$. Dan), P)Da## , 4%$ L$. P"d# TanA , 4%$ L$. R -" R)Ba#d , 4%$ L$. Ra(, +aBa,% , M%A$ +)"n&"n)d +a,a!a And R"A) na, T#)a, C (#$, Na$) na, Ca?)$a, J(d)B)a, R"A) n, +#anB. XB& 3516 G&R& 'o& (#*,/**&A7ril ".- ",// @A6- J.: T:is 7etition for certiorari 7resents %ital issues not :eretofore 7assed u7on by t:is Court& 2t 7oses t:e question 9:et:er t:e sus7ension of t:e 7ri%ilege of t:e 9rit of :abeas cor7us bars a ci%il action for damages for illegal searc:es conducted by military 7ersonnel and ot:er %iolations of rig:ts and liberties guaranteed under t:e Constitution& 2f suc: action for damages may be maintained- 9:o can be :eld liable for suc: %iolations: only t:e military 7ersonnel directly in%ol%ed andHor t:eir su7eriors as 9ell& T:is case stems from alleged illegal searc:es and sei=ures and ot:er %iolations of t:e rig:ts and liberties of 7laintiffs by %arious intelligence units of t:e Armed Forces of t:e 6:ili77ines- 8no9n as Tas8 Force Aa8abansa (TFA$ ordered by General Fabian Eer >to conduct 7re#em7ti%e stri8es against 8no9n communist#terrorist (CT$ underground :ouses in %ie9 of increasing re7orts about CT 7lans to so9 disturbances in Aetro Aanila-> 6laintiffs allege- among ot:ers- t:at com7lying 9it: said orderelements of t:e TFA raided se%eral 7laces- em7loying in most cases defecti%ely issued Budicial searc: 9arrantsG t:at during t:ese raids- certain members of t:e raiding 7arty confiscated a number of 7urely 7ersonal items belonging to 7laintiffsG t:at 7laintiffs 9ere arrested 9it:out 7ro7er 9arrants issued by t:e courtsG t:at for some 7eriod after t:eir arrest- t:ey 9ere denied %isits of relati%es and la9yersG t:at 7laintiffs 9ere interrogated in %iolation of t:eir rig:ts to silence and counselG t:at military men 9:o interrogated t:em em7loyed t:reats- tortures and ot:er forms of %iolence on t:em in order to obtain incriminatory information or confessions and in order to 7unis: t:emG t:at all %iolations of 7laintiffs

270
constitutional rig:ts 9ere 7art of a concerted and deliberate 7lan to forcibly extract information and incriminatory statements from 7laintiffs and to terrori=e- :arass and 7unis: t:em- said 7lans being 7re%iously 8no9n to and sanctioned by defendants& 6laintiffs soug:t actualHcom7ensatory damages amounting to 63,-!3!&!!G moral damages in t:e amount of at least 6".!-!!!&!! eac: or a total of 63-!!!-!!!&!!G exem7lary damages in t:e amount of at least 6".!-!!!&!! eac: or a total of 63-!!!-!!!&!!G and attorney;s fees amounting to not less t:an 6 !!-!!!&!!& A motion to dismiss 9as filed by defendants- t:roug: t:eir counsel- t:en 3olicitor#General 4stelito Aendo=a- alleging t:at ("$ 7laintiffs may not cause a Budicial inquiry into t:e circumstances of t:eir detention in t:e guise of a damage suit because- as to t:em- t:e 7ri%ilege of t:e 9rit of :abeas cor7us is sus7endedG ( $ assuming t:at t:e courts can entertain t:e 7resent action- defendants are immune from liability for acts done in t:e 7erformance of t:eir official dutiesG and (3$ t:e com7laint states no cause of action against t:e defendants& 577osition to said motion to dismiss 9as filed by 7laintiffs Aarco 6alo- Danilo de la Fuente- 0enBamin 3esgundo- 'el 4tabag- Alfredo Aansos and Rolando 3alutin on Culy /- ",/3- and by 7laintiffs 4d9in (o7e=- Aanuel Aario Gu=man- Alan Casmine=- 'estor 0odino- Carlos 6alma- Arturo Tabara- Cose7: 5layer- Rodolfo 0enosa- 0elen Dia=Flores- Rogelio Aberca- Alex Aarcelino and 4li=abet: Aarcelino on Culy "- ",/3& 5n 'o%ember )",/3- a Consolidated Re7ly 9as filed by defendants; counsel& T:en- on 'o%ember /- ",/3- t:e Regional Trial Court- 'ational Ca7ital Region- 0ranc: ,.Cudge ?illelmo C& Fortun- 6residing- issued a resolution granting t:e motion to dismiss& 2 sustainedloc8- stoc8 and barrel- t:e defendants; contention ("$ t:e 7laintiffs may not cause a Budicial inquiry into t:e circumstances of t:eir detention in t:e guise of a damage suit because- as to t:em- t:e 7ri%ilege of t:e 9rit of :abeas cor7us is sus7endedG ( $ t:at assuming t:at t:e court can entertain t:e 7resent action- defendants are immune from liability for acts done in t:e 7erformance of t:eir official dutiesG and (3$ t:at t:e com7laint states no cause of action against defendants- since t:ere is no allegation t:at t:e defendants named in t:e com7laint confiscated 7laintiffs; 7urely 7ersonal 7ro7erties in %iolation of t:eir constitutional rig:ts- and 9it: t:e 7ossible exce7tion of AaBor Rodolfo Aguinaldo and 3ergeant 0ien%enido 0alabo committed acts of torture and maltreatment- or t:at t:e defendants :ad t:e duty to exercise direct su7er%ision and control of t:eir subordinates or t:at t:ey :ad %icarious liability as em7loyers under Article "/! of t:e Ci%il Code& T:e lo9er court stated- >After a careful study of defendants; arguments- t:e court finds t:e same to be meritorious and must- t:erefore- be granted& 5n t:e ot:er :and- 7laintiffs; arguments in t:eir o77osition are lac8ing in merit&> A motion to set aside t:e order dismissing t:e com7laint and a su77lemental motion for reconsideration 9as filed by t:e 7laintiffs on 'o%ember "/- ",/3- and 'o%ember +- ",/3res7ecti%ely& 5n December ,- ",/3- t:e defendants filed a comment on t:e aforesaid motion of 7laintiffs- furnis:ing a co7y t:ereof to t:e attorneys of all t:e 7laintiffs- namely- Attys& Cose ?& Dio8no6roco7io 0eltran- Rene 3armiento- 4fren Aercado- Auguso 3anc:e=- Antonio (& Rosales- 6edro 0& 4lla Cr&- Arno E& 3anidad- Alexander 6adilla- Co8er Arroyo- Rene 3aguisag- Ramon 4sguerra and Felicitas Aquino& 5n December ".- ",/3- Cudge Fortun issued an order %oluntarily in:ibiting :imself from furt:er 7roceeding in t:e case and lea%ing t:e resolution of t:e motion to set aside t:e order of dismissal to Cudge (ising- >to 7reclude any sus7icion t:at :e (Cudge Fortun$ cannot resol%e Mt:eN aforesaid 7ending motion 9it: t:e cold neutrality of an im7artial Budge and to 7ut an end to 7laintiffs assertion t:at t:e undersigned :as no aut:ority or Burisdiction to resol%e said 7ending motion&> T:is order 7rom7ted 7laintiffs to reesol%e an am7lificatory motion for reconsideration signed in t:e name of t:e Free (egal Assistance Grou7 (F(AG$ of Aabini (egal Aid Committee- by Attys& Co8er 6& Arroyo- Felicitas Aquino and Arno 3anidad on A7ril " - ",/+& 5n Aay -",/+- t:e defendants filed a comment on said am7lificatory motion for reconsideration&

271
2n an order dated Aay ""- ",/+- t:e trial court- Cudge 4steban (ising- 6residing- 9it:out acting on t:e motion to set aside order of 'o%ember /- ",/3- issued an order- as follo9s: 2t a77earing from t:e records t:at- indeed- t:e follo9ing 7laintiffs- Rogelio AbercaDanilo de la Fuente and Aarco 6alo- re7resented by counsel- Atty& Cose ?& Dio8noAlan Casmine= re7resented by counsel- Atty& Augusta 3anc:e=- 37ouses Alex Aarcelino and 4li=abet: 6rotacio#Aarcelino- re7resented by counsel- Atty& 6roco7io 0eltran- Alfredo Aansos re7resented by counsel- Atty& Rene 3armiento- and Rolando 3alutin- re7resented by counsel- Atty& 4fren Aercado- failed to file a motion to reconsider t:e 5rder of 'o%ember /- ",/3- dismissing t:e com7laint- nor inter7osed an a77eal t:erefrom 9it:in t:e reglementary 7eriod- as 7rayed for by t:e defendants- said 5rder is no9 final against said 7laintiffs& Assailing t:e said order of Aay ""- ",/+- t:e 7laintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration on Aay /-",/+- alleging t:at it 9as not true t:at 7laintiffs Rogelio Aberca- Danilo de la Fuente- Aarco 6alo- Alan Casmine=- Alex Aarcelino- 4li=abet: 6rotacio#Aarcelino- Alfredo Aansos and Rolando 3alutin failed to file a motion to reconsider t:e order of 'o%ember /- ",/3 dismissing t:e com7laint9it:in t:e reglementary 7eriod& 6laintiffs claimed t:at t:e motion to set aside t:e order of 'o%ember /",/3 and t:e am7lificatory motion for reconsideration 9as filed for all t:e 7laintiffs- alt:oug: signed by only some of t:e la9yers& 2n its resolution of 3e7tember "- ",/+- t:e res7ondent court dealt 9it: bot: motions ("$ to reconsider its order of Aay ""- ",/+ declaring t:at 9it: res7ect to certain 7laintiffs- t:e resolution of 'o%ember /- ",/3 :ad already become final- and ( $ to set aside its resolution of 'o%ember /- ",/3 granting t:e defendants; motion to dismiss& 2n t:e dis7ositi%e 7ortion of t:e order of 3e7tember "",/+- t:e res7ondent court resol%ed: ("$ T:at t:e motion to set aside t:e order of finality- dated Aay ""- ",/+- of t:e Resolution of dismissal of t:e com7laint of 7laintiffs Rogelio Aberca- Danilo de la Fuente- Aarco 6alo- Alan Casmine= Alex Aarcelino- 4li=abet: 6rotacio#AarcelinoAlfredo Aansos and Rolando 3alutin is deed for lac8 of meritG ( $ For lac8 of cause of action as against t:e follo9ing defendants- to 9it: "& Gen Fabian Eer & Col& Fidel 3ingson 3& Col& Rolando Abadilla +& (t& Col& Conrado (antoria- Cr& .& Col& Galileo Aontanar *& Col& 6anfilo (acson )& Ca7t& Danilo 6i=aro /& " (t 6edro Tango ,& (t& Romeo Ricardo "!& (t& Raul 0acalso

272
t:e motion to set aside and reconsider t:e Resolution of dismissal of t:e 7resent action or com7laint- dated 'o%ember /- ",/3- is also denied but in so far as it affects and refers to defendants- to 9it: "& AaBor Rodolfo Aguinaldo- and & Aaster 3gt& 0ien%enido 0alaba t:e motion to reconsider and set aside t:e Resolution of dismissal dated 'o%ember 3",/3 is granted and t:e Resolution of dismissal is- in t:is res7ect- reconsidered and modified& Fence- 7etitioners filed t:e instant 7etition for certiorari on Aarc: ".- ",/. see8ing to annul and set aside t:e res7ondent court;s resolution of 'o%ember /- ",/3- its order of Aay ""- ",/+- and its resolution dated 3e7tember "- ",/+& Res7ondents 9ere required to comment on t:e 7etition9:ic: it did on 'o%ember ,- ",/.& A re7ly 9as filed by 7etitioners on August *- ",/*& ?e find t:e 7etition meritorious and decide to gi%e it due course& At t:e :eart of 7etitioners; com7laint is Article 3 of t:e Ci%il Code 9:ic: 7ro%ides: ART& 3 & Any 7ublic officer or em7loyee- or any 7ri%ate indi%idual 9:o directly or indirectly obstructs- defeats- %iolates or in any manner im7edes or im7airs any of t:e follo9ing rig:ts and liberties of anot:er 7erson s:all be liable to t:e latter for damages: ("$ Freedom of religionG ( $ Freedom of s7eec:G (3$ Freedom to 9rite for t:e 7ress or to maintain a 7eriodical 7ublicationG (+$ Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detentionG (.$ Freedom of suffrageG (*$ T:e rig:t against de7ri%ation of 7ro7erty 9it:out due 7rocess ()$ of la9G (/$ T:e rig:t to a Bust com7ensation 9:en 7ri%ate 7ro7erty is ta8en for 7ublic useG (,$ T:e rig:t to t:e equal 7rotection of t:e la9sG ("!$ T:e rig:t to be secure in one;s 7erson- :ouse- 7a7ers- and effects against unreasonable searc:es and sei=uresG (""$ T:e liberty of abode and of c:anging t:e sameG (" $ T:e 7ri%acy of cmmunication and corres7ondenceG ("3$ T:e rig:t to become a member of associations or societies for 7ur7oses not contrary to la9G ("+$ T:e rig:t to ta8e 7art in a 7eaceable assembly to 7etition t:e Go%ernment for redress of grie%ancesG (".$ T:e rig:t to be free from in%oluntary ser%itude in any formG

273
("*$ T:e rigt: of t:e accused against excessi%e bailG (")$ T:e rigt: of t:e aaccused to be :eard by :imself and counsel- to be informed of t:e nature and cause of t:e accusation against :im- to :a%e a s7eedy and 7ublic trialto meet t:e 9itnesses face to face- and to :a%e com7ulsory 7rocess to secure t:e attendance of 9itness in be:alfG ("/$ Freedom from being com7elled to be a 9itness against ones self- or from being forced to confess guilt- or from being induced by a 7romise of immunity or re9ard to ma8e suc: confession- exce7t 9:en t:e 7erson confessing becomes a 3tate 9itnessG (",$ Freedom from excessi%e fines or cruel and unusual 7unis:ment- unless t:e same is im7osed or inflicted in accordance 9it: a statute 9:ic: :as not been Budicially declared unconstitutionalG and ( !$ Freedom of access to t:e courts& 2n any of t:e cases referred to in t:is article- 9:et:er or not t:e defendant;s act or omission constitutes a criminal offense- t:e against grie%ed 7arty :as a rig:t to commence an entirely se7arate and distinct ci%il action for damages- and for ot:er relief& 3uc: ci%il action s:all 7roceed inde7endently of any criminal 7rosecution (if t:e latter be instituted$- and may be 7ro%ed by a 7re7onderance of e%idence& T:e indemnity s:all include moral damages& 4xem7lary damages may also be adBudicated& T:e res7onsibility :erein set fort: is not demandable from a Budge unless :is act or omission constitutes a %iolation of t:e 6enal Code or ot:er 7enal statute& 2t is ob%ious t:at t:e 7ur7ose of t:e abo%e codal 7ro%ision is to 7ro%ide a sanction to t:e dee7ly c:eris:ed rig:ts and freedoms ens:rined in t:e Constitution& 2ts message is clearG no man may see8 to %iolate t:ose sacred rig:ts 9it: im7unity& 2n times of great u7:ea%al or of social and 7olitical stress9:en t:e tem7tation is strongest to yield O borro9ing t:e 9ords of C:ief Custice Claudio Tee:an8ee O to t:e la9 of force rat:er t:an t:e force of la9- it is necessary to remind oursel%es t:at certain basic rig:ts and liberties are immutable and cannot be sacrificed to t:e transient needs or im7erious demands of t:e ruling 7o9er& T:e rule of la9 must 7re%ail- or else liberty 9ill 7eris:& 5ur commitment to democratic 7rinci7les and to t:e rule of la9 com7els us to reBect t:e %ie9 9:ic: reduces la9 to not:ing but t:e ex7ression of t:e 9ill of t:e 7redominant 7o9er in t:e community& >Democracy cannot be a reign of 7rogress- of liberty- of Bustice- unless t:e la9 is res7ected by :im 9:o ma8es it and by :im for 9:om it is made& 'o9 t:is res7ect im7lies a maximum of fait:- a minimum of 2dealism& 5n going to t:e bottom of t:e matter- 9e disco%er t:at life demands of us a certain residuum of sentiment 9:ic: is not deri%ed from reason- but 9:ic: reason ne%ert:eless controls& 3ee8ing to Bustify t:e dismissal of 7laintiffs; com7laint- t:e res7ondents 7ostulate t:e %ie9 t:at as 7ublic officers t:ey are co%ered by t:e mantle of state immunity from suit for acts done in t:e 7erformance of official duties or function 2n su77ort of said contention- res7ondents maintain t:at O Res7ondents are members of t:e Armed Forces of t:e 6:ili77ines& T:eir 7rimary duty is to safeguard 7ublic safety and order& T:e Constitution no less 7ro%ides t:at t:e 6resident may call t:em >to 7re%ent or su7ress la9less %iolence- in%asion- insurrection or rebellion- or imminent danger t:ereof&> (Constitution- Article E22- 3ection ,$& 5n Canuary ")- ",/"- t:e 6resident issued 6roclamation 'o& !+. lifting martial la9 but 7ro%iding for t:e continued sus7ension of t:e 7ri%ilege of t:e 9rit of :abeas cor7us in %ie9 of t:e remaining dangers to t:e security of t:e nation& T:e 7roclamation also

274
7ro%ided >t:at t:e call to t:e Armed Forces of t:e 6:ili77ines to 7re%ent or su77ress la9less %iolence- insuitection rebellion and sub%ersion s:all continue to be in force and effect&> 6etitioners allege in t:eir com7laint t:at t:eir causes of action 7roceed from res7ondent General Eer;s order to Tas8 Force Aa8abansa to launc: 7re#em7ti%e stri8es against communist terrorist underground :ouses in Aetro Aanila& 6etitioners claim t:at t:is order and its subsequent im7lementation by elements of t:e tas8 force resulted in t:e %iolation of t:eir constitutional rig:ts against unla9ful searc:es- sei=ures and arrestrig:ts to counsel and to silence- and t:e rig:t to 7ro7erty and t:at- t:ereforeres7ondents Eer and t:e named members of t:e tas8 force s:ould be :eld liable for damages& 0ut- by launc:ing a 7re#em7ti%e stri8e against communist terrorists- res7ondent members of t:e armed forces merely 7erformed t:eir official and constitutional duties& To allo9 7etitioners to reco%er from res7ondents by 9ay of damages for acts 7erformed in t:e exercise of suc: duties run contrary to t:e 7olicy considerations to s:ield res7ondents as 7ublic officers from undue interference 9it: t:eir duties and from 7otentially disabling t:reats of :ability (Aarlon %& Fit=gerald "! 3& Ct& )3"#" Forbes %& C:uoco Tiaco- "* 6:il& *3+$- and u7on t:e necessity of 7rotecting t:e 7erformance of go%ernmental and 7ublic functions from being :arassed unduly or constantly interru7ted by 7ri%ate suits (AcCallan %& 3tate- 3. Cal& A77& *!.G Aetran %& 6aredes- ), 6:il& /",$& xxx xxx xxx T:e immunity of 7ublic officers from liability arising from t:e 7erformance of t:eir duties is no9 a settled Buris7rudence Al=ua %& Co:nson- " 6:il& 3!/G Yulueta %& 'icolas- "! 6:il& ,++G 37alding %& Eilas- "*" 13 +/3G +! (& 4d& )/!- "* 3& Ct& *3"G 0arr %& Aateo3*!G 0ut= %& 4conomon- +3/ 13 +)/G .) (& 4d& d /,.- ,/ 3& Ct& /,+G 3c:euer %& R:odes- +"* 13 3 G Forbes %& C:uoco Tiaco- su7raG Ailler %& de (eune- *! F& d ",/G 3ami %& 13- *") F& d )..$& Res7ondents#defendants 9:o merely obeyed t:e la9ful orders of t:e 6resident and :is call for t:e su77ression of t:e rebellion in%ol%ing 7etitioners enBoy suc: immunity from 3uit& ?e find res7ondents; in%ocation of t:e doctrine of state immunity from suit totally mis7laced& T:e cases in%o8ed by res7ondents actually in%ol%ed acts done by officers in t:e 7erformance of official duties 9ritten t:e ambit of t:eir 7o9ers& As :eld in Forbes- etc& %s& C:uoco Tiaco and Crossfield: 'o one can be :eld legally res7onsible in damages or ot:er9ise for doing in a legal manner 9:at :e :ad aut:ority- under t:e la9- to do& T:erefore- if t:e Go%ernor#General :ad aut:ority- under t:e la9 to de7ort or ex7el t:e defendants- and circumstances Bustifying t:e de7ortation and t:e met:od of carrying it out are left to :im- t:en :e cannot be :eld liable in damages for t:e exercise of t:is 7o9er& Aoreo%er- if t:e courts are 9it:out aut:ority to interfere in any manner- for t:e 7ur7ose of controlling or interferring 9it: t:e exercise of t:e 7olitical 7o9ers %ested in t:e c:ief executi%e aut:ority of t:e Go%ernment- t:en it must follo9 t:at t:e courts cannot inter%ene for t:e 7ur7ose of declaring t:at :e is liable in damages for t:e exeercise of t:is aut:ority& 2t may be t:at t:e res7ondents- as members of t:e Armed Forces of t:e 6:ili77ines- 9ere merely res7onding to t:eir duty- as t:ey claim- >to 7re%ent or su77ress la9less %iolence- insurrectionrebellion and sub%ersion> in accordance 9it: 6roclamation 'o& !.+ of 6resident Aarcos- des7ite t:e lifting of martial la9 on Canuary )- ",/"- and in 7ursuance of suc: obBecti%e- to launc: 7re# em7ti%e

275
stri8es against alleged communist terrorist underground :ouses& 0ut t:is cannot be construed as a blan8et license or a ro%ing commission untramelled by any constitutional restraint- to disregard or transgress u7on t:e rig:ts and liberties of t:e indi%idual citi=en ens:rined in and 7rotected by t:e Constitution& T:e Constitution remains t:e su7reme la9 of t:e land to 9:ic: all officials- :ig: or lo9ci%ilian or military- o9e obedience and allegiance at all times& Article 3 of t:e Ci%il Code 9:ic: renders any 7ublic officer or em7loyee or any 7ri%ate indi%idual liable in damages for %iolating t:e Constitutional rig:ts and liberties of anot:er- as enumerated t:erein- does not exem7t t:e res7ondents from res7onsibility& 5nly Budges are excluded from liability under t:e said article- 7ro%ided t:eir acts or omissions do not constitute a %iolation of t:e 6enal Code or ot:er 7enal statute& T:is is not to say t:at military aut:orities are restrained from 7ursuing t:eir assigned tas8 or carrying out t:eir mission 9it: %igor& ?e :a%e no quarrel 9it: t:eir duty to 7rotect t:e Re7ublic from its enemies- 9:et:er of t:e left or of t:e rig:t- or from 9it:in or 9it:out- see8ing to destroy or sub%ert our democratic institutions and im7eril t:eir %ery existence& ?:at 9e are merely trying to say is t:at in carrying out t:is tas8 and mission- constitutional and legal safeguards must be obser%ed- ot:er9iset:e %ery fabric of our fait: 9ill start to unra%el& 2n t:e battle of com7eting 2deologies- t:e struggle for t:e mind is Bust as %ital as t:e struggle of arms& T:e linc:7in in t:at 7syc:ological struggle is fait: in t:e rule of la9& 5nce t:at fait: is lost or com7romised- t:e struggle may 9ell be abandoned& ?e do not find merit in res7ondents; suggestion t:at 7laintiffs; cause of action is barred by t:e sus7ension of t:e 7ri%ilege of t:e 9rit of :abeas cor7us& Res7ondents contend t:at >6etitioners cannot circum%ent t:e sus7ension of t:e 7ri%ilege of t:e 9rit by resorting to a damage suit aimed at t:e same 7ur7ose#Budicial inquiry into t:e alleged illegality of t:eir detention& ?:ile t:e main relief t:ey as8 by t:e 7resent action is indemnification for alleged damages t:ey suffered- t:eir causes of action are inextricably based on t:e same claim of %iolations of t:eir constitutional rig:ts t:at t:ey in%o8ed in t:e :abeas cor7us case as grounds for release from detention& ?ere t:e 7etitioners allo9ed t:e 7resent suit- t:e Budicial inquiry barred by t:e sus7ension of t:e 7ri%ilege of t:e 9rit 9ill ta8e 7lace& T:e net result is t:at 9:at t:e courts cannot do- i&e& o%erride t:e sus7ension ordered by t:e 6resident7etitioners 9ill be able to do by t:e mere ex7edient of altering t:e title of t:eir action&> ?e do not agree& ?e find merit in 7etitioners; contention t:at t:e sus7ension of t:e 7ri%ilege of t:e 9rit of :abeas cor7us does not destroy 7etitioners; rig:t and cause of action for damages for illegal arrest and detention and ot:er %iolations of t:eir constitutional rig:ts& T:e sus7ension does not render %alid an ot:er9ise illegal arrest or detention& ?:at is sus7ended is merely t:e rig:t of t:e indi%idual to see8 release from detention t:roug: t:e 9rit of :abeas cor7us as a s7eedy means of obtaining :is liberty& Aoreo%er- as 7ointed out by 7etitioners- t:eir rig:t and cause of action for damages are ex7licitly recogni=ed in 6&D& 'o& ").. 9:ic: amended Article ""+* of t:e Ci%il Code by adding t:e follo9ing to its text: Fo9e%er- 9:en t:e action (for inBury to t:e rig:ts of t:e 7laintiff or for a quasi#delict$ arises from or out of any act- acti%ity or conduct of any 7ublic officer in%ol%ing t:e exercise of 7o9ers or aut:ority arising from Aartial (a9 including t:e arrest- detention andHor trial of t:e 7laintiff- t:e same must be broug:t 9it:in one ("$ year& 6etitioners :a%e a 7oint in contending t:at e%en assuming t:at t:e sus7ension of t:e 7ri%ilege of t:e 9rit of :abeas cor7us sus7ends 7etitioners; rig:t of action for damages for illegal arrest and detention- it does not and cannot sus7end t:eir rig:ts and causes of action for inBuries suffered because of res7ondents; confiscation of t:eir 7ri%ate belongings- t:e %iolation of t:eir rig:t to remain silent and to counsel and t:eir rig:t to 7rotection against unreasonable searc:es and sei=ures and against torture and ot:er cruel and in:uman treatment&

276
Fo9e%er- 9e find it unnecessary to address t:e constitutional issue 7ressed u7on us& 5n Aarc: .- ",/*- 6resident Cora=on C& Aquino issued 6roclamation 'o& - re%o8ing 6roclamation 'os& !+. and !+.#A and lifting t:e sus7ension of t:e 7ri%ilege of t:e 9rit of :abeas cor7us& T:e question t:erefore :as become moot and academic& T:is brings us to t:e crucial issue raised in t:is 7etition& Aay a su7erior officer under t:e notion of res7ondent su7erior be ans9erable for damages- Bointly and se%erally 9it: :is subordinates- to t:e 7erson 9:ose constitutional rig:ts and liberties :a%e been %iolatedJ Res7ondents contend t:at t:e doctrine of respondent superior is a77licable to t:e case& ?e agree& T:e doctrine of respondent superior :as been generally limited in its a77lication to 7rinci7al and agent or to master and ser%ant (i&e& em7loyer and em7loyee$ relations:i7& 'o suc: relations:i7 exists bet9een su7erior officers of t:e military and t:eir subordinates& 0e t:at as it may- :o9e%er- t:e decisi%e factor in t:is case- in our %ie9- is t:e language of Article 3 & T:e la9 s7ea8s of an officer or em7loyee or 7erson ;directly; or >indirectly> res7onsible for t:e %iolation of t:e constitutional rig:ts and liberties of anot:er& T:us- it is not t:e actor alone (i&e& t:e one directly res7onsible$ 9:o must ans9er for damages under Article 3 G t:e 7erson indirectly res7onsible :as also to ans9er for t:e damages or inBury caused to t:e aggrie%ed 7arty& 0y t:is 7ro%ision- t:e 7rinci7le of accountability of 7ublic officials under t:e Constitution acquires added meaning and asgilrnes a larger dimension& 'o longer may a su7erior official relax :is %igilance or abdicate :is duty to su7er%ise :is subordinates- secure in t:e t:oug:t t:at :e does not :a%e to ans9er for t:e transgressions committed by t:e latter against t:e constitutionally 7rotected rig:ts and liberties of t:e citi=en& 6art of t:e factors t:at 7ro7elled 7eo7le 7o9er in February ",/* 9as t:e 9idely :eld 7erce7tion t:at t:e go%ernment 9as callous or indifferent to- if not actually res7onsible for- t:e ram7ant %iolations of :uman rig:ts& ?:ile it 9ould certainly be go nai%e to ex7ect t:at %iolators of :uman rig:ts 9ould easily be deterred by t:e 7ros7ect of facing damage suits- it s:ould nonet:eless be made clear in no ones terms t:at Article 3 of t:e Ci%il Code ma8es t:e 7ersons 9:o are directly- as 9ell as indirectly- res7onsible for t:e transgression Boint tortfeasors& 2n t:e case at bar- t:e trial court dro77ed defendants General Fabian Eer- Col& Fidel 3ingsonCol& Rolando Abadilla- Col& Gerardo (antoria- Cr&- Col& Galileo Iintanar- Col& 6anfilo (acson- Ca7t& Danilo 6i=arro- lst (t& 6edro Tango- (t& Romeo Ricardo and (t& Ricardo 0acalso from t:e acts of t:eir subordinates& 5nly AaBor Rodolfo Aguinaldo and Aaster 3gt& 0ien%enido 0alaba 9ere 8e7t as defendants on t:e ground t:at t:ey alone ;:a%e been s7ecifically mentioned and 2dentified to :a%e allegedly caused inBuries on t:e 7ersons of some of t:e 7laintiff 9:ic: acts of alleged 7:ysical %iolence constitute a delict or 9rong t:at ga%e rise to a cause of action& 0ut suc: finding is not su77orted by t:e record- nor is it in accord 9it: la9 and Buris7rudence& Firstly- it is 9rong to at t:e 7laintiffs; action for damages . 3ection "- Article ",& to ;acts of alleged 7:ysical %iolence> 9:ic: constituted delict or 9rong& Article 3 clearly s7ecifies as actionable t:e act of %iolating or in any manner im7eding or im7airing any of t:e constitutional rig:ts and liberties enumerated t:erein- among ot:ers O "& Freedom from arbitrary arrest or illegal detentionG & T:e rig:t against de7ri%ation of 7ro7erty 9it:out due 7rocess of la9G 3& T:e rig:t to be secure in one;s 7erson- :ouse- 7a7ers and effects against unreasonable searc:es and sei=uresG +& T:e 7ri%acy of communication and corres7ondenceG

277
.& Freedom from being com7elled to be a 9itness against one;s self- or from being forced to confess guilt- or from being induced by a 7romise of immunity or re9ard to ma8e a confession- exce7t 9:en t:e 7erson confessing becomes a state 9itness& T:e com7laint in t:is litigation alleges facts s:o9ing 9it: abundant clarity and details- :o9 7laintiffs; constitutional rig:ts and liberties mentioned in Article 3 of t:e Ci%il Code 9ere %iolated and im7aired by defendants& T:e com7laint s7ea8s of- among ot:ers- searc:es made 9it:out searc: 9arrants or based on irregularly issued or substantially defecti%e 9arrantsG sei=ures and confiscation9it:out 7ro7er recei7ts- of cas: and 7ersonal effects belonging to 7laintiffs and ot:er items of 7ro7erty 9:ic: 9ere not sub%ersi%e and illegal nor co%ered by t:e searc: 9arrantsG arrest and detention of 7laintiffs 9it:out 9arrant or under irregular- im7ro7er and illegal circumstancesG detention of 7laintiffs at se%eral undisclosed 7laces of ;safe:ouses> 9:ere t:ey 9ere 8e7t incommunicado and subBected to 7:ysical and 7syc:ological torture and ot:er in:uman- degrading and brutal treatment for t:e 7ur7ose of extracting incriminatory statements& T:e com7laint contains a detailed recital of abuses 7er7etrated u7on t:e 7laintiffs %iolati%e of t:eir constitutional rig:ts& 3econdly- neit:er can it be said t:at only t:ose s:o9n to :a%e 7artici7ated >directly> s:ould be :eld liable& Article 3 of t:e Ci%il Code encom7asses 9it:in t:e ambit of its 7ro%isions t:ose directlyas 9ell as indirectly- res7onsible for its %iolation& T:e res7onsibility of t:e defendants- 9:et:er direct or indirect- is am7ly set fort: in t:e com7laint& 2t is 9ell establis:ed in our la9 and Buris7rudence t:at a motion to dismiss on t:e ground t:at t:e com7laint states no cause of action must be based on 9:at a77ears on t:e face of t:e com7laint& To determine t:e sufficiency of t:e cause of action- only t:e facts alleged in t:e com7laintand no ot:ers- s:ould be considered& 0 For t:is 7ur7ose- t:e motion to dismiss must :y7ot:etically admit t:e trut: of t:e facts alleged in t:e com7laint& A77lying t:is test- it is difficult to Bustify t:e trial court;s ruling- dismissing for lac8 of cause of action t:e com7laint against all t:e defendants- exce7t AaBor Rodolfo Aguinaldo and Aaster 3gt& 0ien%enido 0alaba& T:e com7laint contained allegations against all t:e defendants 9:ic:- if admitted :y7ot:etically- 9ould be sufficient to establis: a cause or causes of action against all of t:em under Article 3 of t:e Ci%il Code& T:is brings us to t:e last issue& ?as t:e trial court correct in dismissing t:e com7laint 9it: res7ect to 7laintiffs Rogelio Aberca- Danilo de la 6uente- Aarco 6alo- Alan Ca=mine=- Alex Aarcelino4li=abet: 6rotacio#Aarcelino- Alfredo Aansos and Rolando 3alutin- on t:e basis of t:e alleged failure of said 7laintiffs to file a motion for reconsideration of t:e court;s resolution of 'o%ember /- ",/3granting t:e res7ondent;s motion to dismissJ 2t is undis7uted t:at a timely motion to set aside said order of 'o%ember /- ",/3 9as filed by ;7laintiffs- t:roug: counsel& True- t:e motion 9as signed only by Atty& Co8er 6& Arroyo- counsel for 0enBamin 3esgulidoG Atty& Antonio Rosales- counsel for 4d9in (o7e= and Aanuel Aartin Gu=manG Atty& 6edro 0& 4lla- Cr&- counsel for 'estor 0odino and Carlos 6almaG Atty& Arno E& 3anidad- counsel for Arturo TabaraG Atty& Felicitas 3& Aquino- counsel for Cose7: 5layerG and Atty& Alexander 6adillacounsel for Rodolfo 0enosa& 0ut t:e body of t:e motion itself clearly indicated t:at t:e motion 9as filed on be:alf of all t:e 7laintiffs& And t:is must :a%e been also t:e understanding of defendants; counsel :imself for 9:en :e filed :is comment on t:e motion- :e furnis:ed co7ies t:ereof- not Bust to t:e la9yers 9:o signed t:e motion- but to all t:e la9yers of 7laintiffs- to 9it: Attys& Cose Dio8no- 6roco7io 0eltran- Rene 3armiento- 4fren Aercado- Augusto 3anc:e=- Antonio Rosales- 6edro 4fla Cr&- Arno 3anidadAlexander 6adilla- Co8er Arroyo- Rene 3aguisag- Ramon 4sguerra and Felicitas 3& Aquino& 2n filing t:e motion to set aside t:e resolution of 'o%ember /- ",/3- t:e signing attorneys did so on be:alf of all t:e 7laintiff& T:ey needed no s7ecific aut:ority to do t:at& T:e aut:ority of an

278
attorney to a77ear for and in be:alf of a 7arty can be assumed- unless questioned or c:allenged by t:e ad%erse 7arty or t:e 7arty concerned- 9:ic: 9as ne%er done in t:is case& T:us- it 9as gra%e abuse on t:e 7art of res7ondent Budge to ta8e it u7on :imself to rule t:at t:e motion to set aside t:e order of 'o%ember /- ",.3 dismissing t:e com7laint 9as filed only by some of t:e 7laintiffs- 9:en by its %ery language it 9as clearly intended to be filed by and for t:e benefit of all of t:em& 2t is ob%ious t:at t:e res7ondent Budge too8 umbrage under a contri%ed tec:nicality to declare t:at t:e dismissal of t:e com7laint :ad already become final 9it: res7ect to some of t:e 7laintiffs 9:ose la9yers did not sign t:e motion for reconsideration& 3uc: action tainted 9it: legal infirmity cannot be sanctioned& Accordingly- 9e grant t:e 7etition and annul and set aside t:e resolution of t:e res7ondent court- dated 'o%ember /- ",/3- its order dated Aay ""- ",/+ and its resolution dated 3e7tember "",/+& (et t:e case be remanded to t:e res7ondent court for furt:er 7roceedings& ?it: costs against 7ri%ate res7ondents&

MVRS PU+LICATIONS, INC., MARS C. LACONSAY, MYLA C. AGUJA and AGUSTINO G. +INEGAS, JR &. ISLAMIC DA@WAH COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., A+DULRAHMAN R.T. LINZAG, I+RAHIM F.P. ARCILLA, A+DUL RASHID DE GUZMAN, AL>FARED DA SILVA and I+RAHIM +.A. JUNIO G&R& 'o& "3.3!*&Canuary /- !!3 04((532((5- J&: ) may utterly detest 'hat you 'rite, but ) shall fight to the death to ma/e it possible for you to %ontinue 'riting it. O Voltaire E5(TA2R4;3 65'T2F2CA( E4R34 bestirs once again t:e basic liberties to free s7eec: and free 7ress O liberties t:at belong as 9ell- if not more- to t:ose 9:o question- 9:o do not conform- 9:o differ& For t:e ultimate good 9:ic: 9e all stri%e to ac:ie%e for oursel%es and our 7osterity can better be reac:ed by a free exc:ange of ideas- 9:ere t:e best test of trut: is t:e 7o9er of t:e t:oug:t to get itself acce7ted in t:e com7etition of t:e free mar8et O not Bust t:e ideas 9e desire- but including t:ose t:oug:ts 9e des7ise&" 23(AA2C DA;?AF C51'C2( 5F TF4 6F2(2662'43- 2'C&- a local federation of more t:an se%enty ()!$ Auslim religious organi=ations- and indi%idual Auslims A0D1(RAFAA' R&T& (2'YAG20RAF2A F&6& ARC2((A- A0D1( RA3F2D D4 G1YAA'- A(#FAR4D DA 32(EA and 20RAF2A 0&A& C1'25- filed in t:e Regional Trial Court of Aanila a com7laint for damages in t:eir o9n be:alf and as a class suit in be:alf of t:e Auslim members nation9ide against AER3 610(2CAT25'3- 2'C&- AAR3 C& (AC5'3A@- A@(A C& AG1CA and AG13T2'5 G& 02'4GA3- CR&- arising from an article 7ublis:ed in t:e " August ",, issue of 0ulgar- a daily tabloid& T:e article reads: > 2 M B N)NDOJ Na ang mga baboy at /ahit anong uri ng hayop sa Mindanao ay hindi /ina/ain ng mga MuslimJ &ara sa /anila ang mga ito ay isang sagradong bagay. -indi nila ito /ailangang /ainin /ahit na sila pa ay magutom at ma'alan ng ulam sa tu'ing sila ay /a/ain. 1inaga'a nila itong (iyos at sinasamba pa nila ito sa tu'ing ara' ng /anilang pangingilin lalung7lalo na sa ara' na tinata'ag nilang ',amadan'&> T:e com7laint alleged t:at t:e libelous statement 9as insulting and damaging to t:e AuslimsG t:at t:ese 9ords alluding to t:e 7ig as t:e God of t:e Auslims 9as not only 7ublis:ed out of s:eer ignorance but 9it: intent to :urt t:e feelings- cast insult and dis7arage t:e Auslims and 2slam- as a

279
religion in t:is country- in %iolation of la9- 7ublic 7olicy- good morals and :uman relationsG t:at on account of t:ese libelous 9ords Bulgar insulted not only t:e Auslims in t:e 6:ili77ines but t:e entire Auslim 9orld- es7ecially e%ery Auslim indi%idual in non#Auslim countries& AER3 610(2CAT25'3- 2'C&- and AG13T2'5 G& 02'4GA3- CR&- in t:eir defense- contended t:at t:e article did not mention res7ondents as t:e obBect of t:e article and t:erefore 9ere not entitled to damagesG and- t:at t:e article 9as merely an ex7ression of belief or o7inion and 9as 7ublis:ed 9it:out malice nor intention to cause damage- 7reBudice or inBury to Auslims& 5n 3! Cune ",,. t:e trial court dismissed t:e com7laint :olding t:at t:e 7laintiffs failed to establis: t:eir cause of action since t:e 7ersons allegedly defamed by t:e article 9ere not s7ecifically identified O 2t must be noted t:at t:e 7ersons allegedly defamed- t:e :erein 7laintiffs- 9ere not identified 9it: s7ecificity& T:e subBect article 9as directed at t:e Auslims 9it:out mentioning or identifying t:e :erein 7laintiffs x x x& 2t is t:us a77arent t:at t:e alleged libelous article refers to t:e larger collecti%ity of Auslims for 9:ic: t:e readers of t:e libel could not readily identify t:e 7ersonalities of t:e 7ersons defamed& Fence- it is difficult for an indi%idual Auslim member to 7ro%e t:at t:e defamatory remar8s a77ly to :im& T:e e%idence 7resented in t:is case failed to con%ince t:is court t:at- indeed- t:e defamatory remar8s really a77lied to t:e :erein 7laintiffs& 5n ) August ",,/ t:e Court of A77eals re%ersed t:e decision of t:e trial court& 2t o7ined t:at it 9as >clear from t:e dis7uted article t:at t:e defamation 9as directed to all ad:erents of t:e 2slamic fait:& 2t stated t:at 7igs 9ere sacred and idoli=ed as god by members of t:e Auslim religion& T:is libelous im7utation undeniably a77lied to t:e 7laintiff#a77ellants 9:o are Auslims s:aring t:e same religious beliefs&> 2t added t:at t:e suit for damages 9as a >class suit> and t:at 23(AA2C DA;?AF C51'C2( 5F TF4 6F2(2662'43- 2'C&;s religious status as a Auslim umbrella organi=ation ga%e it t:e requisite 7ersonality to sue and 7rotect t:e interests of all Auslims&+ Fence- t:e instant 7etition for re%ie9 assailing t:e findings of t:e a77ellate court (a$ on t:e existence of t:e elements of libel- (b$ t:e rig:t of res7ondents to institute t:e class suit- and- (c$ t:e liability of 7etitioners for moral damages- exem7lary damages- attorney;s fees and costs of suit& Defamation- 9:ic: includes libel and slander- means t:e offense of inBuring a 7erson;s c:aracter- fame or re7utation t:roug: false and malicious statements&. 2t is t:at 9:ic: tends to inBure re7utation or to diminis: t:e esteem- res7ect- good 9ill or confidence in t:e 7laintiff or to excite derogatory feelings or o7inions about t:e 7laintiff&* 2t is t:e 7ublication of anyt:ing 9:ic: is inBurious to t:e good name or re7utation of anot:er or tends to bring :im into disre7ute& ) Defamation is an in%asion of a relational interest since it in%ol%es t:e o7inion 9:ic: ot:ers in t:e community may :a%eor tend to :a%e- of t:e 7laintiff& 2t must be stressed t:at 9ords 9:ic: are merely insulting are not actionable as libel or slander 7er se- and mere 9ords of general abuse :o9e%er o77robrious- ill#natured- or %exatious- 9:et:er 9ritten or s7o8en- do not constitute a basis for an action for defamation in t:e absence of an allegation for s7ecial damages&, T:e fact t:at t:e language is offensi%e to t:e 7laintiff does not ma8e it actionable by itself&"! Declarations made about a large class of 7eo7le cannot be inter7reted to ad%ert to an identified or identifiable indi%idual& Absent circumstances s7ecifically 7ointing or alluding to a 7articular member of a class- no member of suc: class :as a rig:t of action "" 9it:out at all im7airing t:e equally demanding rig:t of free s7eec: and ex7ression- as 9ell as of t:e 7ress- under t:e Bill of ,ights&" T:us- in Ne's'ee/, )n%. v. )ntermediate ppellate !ourt-"3 9e dismissed a com7laint for libel against Ne's'ee/, )n%&- on t:e ground t:at 7ri%ate res7ondents failed to state a cause of action since t:ey made no allegation in t:e com7laint t:at anyt:ing contained in t:e article com7lained of s7ecifically referred to any of t:em& 6ri%ate res7ondents- incor7orated associations of sugarcane

280
7lanters in 'egros 5ccidental claiming to :a%e /-.!! members and se%eral indi%idual members- filed a class action suit for damages in be:alf of all sugarcane 7lanters in 'egros 5ccidental& T:e com7laint filed in t:e Court of First 2nstance of 0acolod City alleged t:at 'e9s9ee8- 2nc&- committed libel against t:em by t:e 7ublication of t:e article >2sland of Fear> in its 9ee8ly ne9smaga=ine allegedly de7icting 'egros 6ro%ince as a 7lace dominated by 9ealt:y lando9ners and sugar 7lanters 9:o not only ex7loited t:e im7o%eris:ed and under7aid sugarcane 9or8ers but also brutali=ed and 8illed t:em 9it: im7unity& 6ri%ate res7ondents alleged t:at t:e article s:o9ed a deliberate and malicious use of false:ood- slanted 7resentation andHor misre7resentation of facts intended to 7ut t:e sugarcane 7lanters in a bad lig:t- ex7ose t:em to 7ublic ridicule- discredit and :umiliation in t:e 6:ili77ines and abroad- and ma8e t:em t:e obBects of :atred- contem7t and :ostility of t:eir agricultural 9or8ers and of t:e 7ublic in general& ?e ratiocinated O x x x 9:ere t:e defamation is alleged to :a%e been directed at a grou7 or class- it is essential t:at t:e statement must be so s9ee7ing or all#embracing as to a77ly to e%ery indi%idual in t:at grou7 or class- or sufficiently s7ecific so t:at eac: indi%idual in t:e class or grou7 can 7ro%e t:at t:e defamatory statement s7ecifically 7ointed to :im- so t:at :e can bring t:e action se7arately- if need be x x x x T:e case at bar is not a class suit& 2t is not a case 9:ere one or more may sue for t:e benefit of all- or 9:ere t:e re7resentation of class interest affected by t:e Budgment or decree is indis7ensable to ma8e eac: member of t:e class an actual 7arty& ?e :a%e :ere a case 9:ere eac: of t:e 7laintiffs :as a se7arate and distinct re7utation in t:e community& T:ey do not :a%e a common or general interest in t:e subBect matter of t:e contro%ersy& 2n t:e 7resent case- t:ere 9as no fairly identifiable 7erson 9:o 9as allegedly inBured by t:e Bulgar article& 3ince t:e 7ersons allegedly defamed could not be identifiable- 7ri%ate res7ondents :a%e no indi%idual causes of actionG :ence- t:ey cannot sue for a class allegedly dis7araged& 6ri%ate res7ondents must :a%e a cause of action in common 9it: t:e class to 9:ic: t:ey belong to in order for t:e case to 7ros7er& An indi%idual Auslim :as a re7utation t:at is 7ersonal- se7arate and distinct in t:e community& 4ac: Auslim- as 7art of t:e larger Auslim community in t:e 6:ili77ines of o%er fi%e (.$ million 7eo7lebelongs to a different trade and 7rofessionG eac: :as a %arying interest and a di%ergent 7olitical and religious %ie9 O some may be conser%ati%e- ot:ers liberal& A Auslim may find t:e article dis:onorablee%en blas7:emousG ot:ers may find it as an o77ortunity to strengt:en t:eir fait: and educate t:e non# belie%ers and t:e >infidels&> T:ere is no inBury to t:e re7utation of t:e indi%idual Auslims 9:o constitute t:is community t:at can gi%e rise to an action for grou7 libel& 4ac: re7utation is 7ersonal in c:aracter to e%ery 7erson& Toget:er- t:e Auslims do not :a%e a single common re7utation t:at 9ill gi%e t:em a common or general interest in t:e subBect matter of t:e contro%ersy& 2n r%and v. "he Evening !all &ublishing !ompany - t:e 1nited 3tates Court of A77eals :eld t:at one guiding 7rinci7le of grou7 libel is t:at defamation of a large group does not give rise to a %ause of a%tion on the part of an individual unless it %an be sho'n that he is the target of the defamatory matter& T:e rule on libel :as been restricti%e& 2n an American case- a 7erson :ad allegedly committed libel against all 7ersons of t:e Ce9is: religion& T:e Court :eld t:at t:ere could be no libel against an extensi%e community in common la9& 2n an 4nglis: case- 9:ere libel consisted of allegations of immorality in a Cat:olic nunnery- t:e Court considered t:at if t:e libel 9ere on t:e 9:ole Roman Cat:olic C:urc: generally- t:en t:e defendant must be absol%ed& "* ?it: regard to t:e largest sectors in society- including religious grou7s- it may be generally concluded t:at no criminal action at t:e be:est of t:e state- or ci%il action on be:alf of t:e indi%idual- 9ill lie& 2n anot:er case- t:e 7laintiffs claimed t:at all Auslims- numbering more t:an *!! million- 9ere defamed by t:e airing of a national tele%ision broadcast of a film de7icting t:e 7ublic execution of a

281
3audi Arabian 7rincess accused of adultery- and alleging t:at suc: film 9as >insulting and defamatory> to t:e 2slamic religion&") T:e 1nited 3tates District Court of t:e 'ort:ern District of California concluded t:at t:e 7laintiffs; 7rayer for j ! 0illion in damages arising from >an international cons7iracy to insult- ridicule- discredit and abuse follo9ers of 2slam t:roug:out t:e 9orld- Arabs and t:e Iingdom of 3audi Arabia> bordered on t:e >fri%olous-> ruling t:at t:e 7laintiffs :ad failed to demonstrate an actionable claim for defamation& T:e California Court stressed t:at t:e aim of t:e la9 on defamation 9as to prote%t individualsG a grou7 may be sufficiently large t:at a statement concerning it could not defame indi%idual grou7 members& 6:ili7 ?ittenberg- in :is boo8 >(angerous 4ords: 1uide to the 2a' of 2ibel ->", discusses t:e ina77ro7riateness of any action for tortious libel in%ol%ing large grou7s- and 7ro%ides a succinct illustration: T:ere are grou7ings 9:ic: may be finite enoug: so t:at a descri7tion of t:e body is a descri7tion of t:e members& Fere t:e 7roblem is merely one of e%aluation& 2s t:e descri7tion of t:e member im7licit in t:e descri7tion of t:e body- or is t:ere a 7ossibility t:at a descri7tion of t:e body may consist of a %ariety of 7ersons- t:ose included 9it:in t:e c:arge- and t:ose excluded from itJ A general c:arge t:at t:e la9yers in t:e city are s:ysters 9ould ob%iously not be a c:arge t:at all of t:e la9yers 9ere s:ysters& A c:arge t:at t:e la9yers in a local 7oint in a great city- suc: as Times 3quare in 'e9 @or8 City- 9ere s:ysters 9ould ob%iously not include all of t:e la9yers 9:o 7racticed in t:at districtG but a statement t:at all of t:e la9yers 9:o 7racticed in a 7articular building in t:at district 9ere s:ysters 9ould be a s7ecific c:arge- so t:at any la9yer :a%ing an office 9it:in t:at building could sue& 2f t:e grou7 is a %ery large one- t:en t:e alleged libelous statement is considered to :a%e no a77lication to anyone in 7articular- since one mig:t as 9ell defame all man8ind& 'ot only does t:e grou7 as suc: :a%e no actionG t:e 7laintiff does not establis: any 7ersonal reference to :imself& ! At 7resent- modern societal grou7s are bot: numerous and com7lex& T:e same 7rinci7le follo9s 9it: t:ese grou7s: as t:e si=e of t:ese grou7s increases- t:e c:ances for members of suc: grou7s to reco%er damages on tortious libel become elusi%e& T:is 7rinci7le is said to embrace t9o ( $ im7ortant 7ublic 7olicies: first- 9:ere t:e grou7 referred to is large- t:e courts 7resume t:at no reasonable reader 9ould ta8e t:e statements as so literally a77lying to eac: indi%idual memberG and se%ond- t:e limitation on liability 9ould satisfactorily safeguard freedom of s7eec: and ex7ression- as 9ell as of t:e 7ress- effecting a sound com7romise bet9een t:e conflicting fundamental interests in%ol%ed in libel cases& 2n t:e instant case- t:e Auslim community is too %ast as to readily ascertain 9:o among t:e Auslims 9ere 7articularly defamed& T:e si=e of t:e grou7 renders t:e reference as indeterminate and generic as a similar attac8 on Cat:olics- 6rotestants- 0udd:ists or Aormons 9ould do& T:e 9ord >Auslim> is descri7ti%e of t:ose 9:o are belie%ers of 2slam- a religion di%ided into %arying sects- suc: as t:e 3unnites- t:e 3:iites- t:e I:ariBites- t:e 3ufis and ot:ers based u7on 7olitical and t:eological distinctions& >Auslim> is a name 9:ic: describes only a general segment of t:e 6:ili77ine 7o7ulationcom7rising a :eterogeneous body 9:ose construction is not so 9ell defined as to render it im7ossible for any re7resentati%e identification& T:e C:ristian religion in t:e 6:ili77ines is li8e9ise di%ided into different sects: Cat:olic- 0a7tist47isco7alian- 6resbyterian- (ut:eran- and ot:er grou7s t:e essence of 9:ic: may lie in an ins7ired c:arlatan- 9:ose tem7le may be a corner :ouse in t:e fringes of t:e countryside& As 9it: t:e C:ristian religion- so it is 9it: ot:er religions t:at re7resent t:e nation;s culturally di%erse 7eo7le and minister to eac: one;s s7iritual needs& T:e Auslim 7o7ulation may be di%ided into smaller grou7s 9it: %arying agenda- from t:e 7rayerful conser%ati%e to t:e 7assionately radical& T:ese di%isions in t:e Auslim 7o7ulation may still be too large and ambiguous to 7ro%ide a reasonable inference to any 7ersonality

282
9:o can bring a case in an action for libel& T:e foregoing are in essence t:e same %ie9 sc:olarly ex7ressed by Ar& Custice Reynato 3& 6uno in t:e course of t:e deliberations in t:is case& ?e extensi%ely re7roduce :ereunder :is com7re:ensi%e and 7enetrating discussion on grou7 libel O Defamation is made u7 of t:e t9in torts of libel and slander O t:e one being- in general9ritten- 9:ile t:e ot:er in general is oral& 2n eit:er form- defamation is an in%asion of t:e interest in re7utation and good name& T:is is a >relational interest> since it in%ol%es t:e o7inion ot:ers in t:e community may :a%e- or tend to :a%e of t:e 7laintiff& T:e la9 of defamation 7rotects t:e interest in re7utation O t:e interest in acquiring- retaining and enBoying one;s re7utation as good as one;s c:aracter and conduct 9arrant& T:e mere fact t:at t:e 7laintiff;s feelings and sensibilities :a%e been offended is not enoug: to create a cause of action for defamation& Defamation requires t:at somet:ing be communicated to a t:ird 7erson t:at may affect t:e o7inion ot:ers may :a%e of t:e 7laintiff& T:e un7ri%ileged communication must be s:o9n of a statement t:at 9ould tend to :urt 7laintiff;s re7utation- to im7air 7laintiff;s standing in t:e community& Alt:oug: t:e gist of an action for defamation is an inBury to re7utation- t:e focus of a defamation action is u7on t:e allegedly defamatory statement itself and its 7redictable effect u7on t:ird 7ersons& A statement is ordinarily considered defamatory if it >tendMsN to ex7ose one to 7ublic :atred- s:ame- obloquy- contumely- odium- contem7t- ridicule- a%ersion- ostracismdegradation or disgracex x x&> T:e Restatement of Torts defines a defamatory statement as one t:at >tends to so :arm t:e re7utation of anot:er as to lo9er :im in t:e estimation of t:e community or to deter t:ird 7ersons from associating or dealing 9it: :im&> Consequently as a 7rerequisite to reco%ery- it is necessary for t:e 7laintiff to 7ro%e as 7art of :is prima fa%iecase t:at t:e defendant ("$ 7ublis:ed a statement t:at 9as ( $ defamatory (3$ of and concerning t:e 7laintiff& T:e rule in libel is t:at t:e action must be broug:t by t:e 7erson against 9:om t:e defamatory c:arge :as been made& 2n t:e American Burisdiction- no action lies by a t:ird 7erson for damages suffered by reason of defamation of anot:er 7erson- e%en t:oug: t:e 7laintiff suffers some inBury t:erefrom& For reco%ery in defamation cases- it is necessary t:at t:e 7ublication be >of and concerning t:e 7laintiff&> 4%en 9:en a 7ublication may be clearly defamatory as to somebody- if t:e 9ords :a%e no 7ersonal a77lication to t:e 7laintiff- t:ey are not actionable by :im& 2f no one is identified- t:ere can be no libel because no one;s re7utation :as been inBured xxxx 2n fine- in order for one to maintain an action for an alleged defamatory statement- it must a77ear t:at t:e 7laintiff is t:e 7erson 9it: reference to 9:om t:e statement 9as made& T:is 7rinci7le is of %ital im7ortance in cases 9:ere a grou7 or class is defamed since- usually- t:e larger t:e collecti%e- t:e more difficult it is for an indi%idual member to s:o9 t:at :e 9as t:e 7erson at 9:om t:e defamation 9as directed& 2f t:e defamatory statements 9ere directed at a small- restricted grou7 of 7ersons- t:ey a77lied to any member of t:e grou7- and an indi%idual member could maintain an action for defamation& ?:en t:e defamatory language 9as used to9ard a small grou7 or class- including e%ery member- it :as been :eld t:at t:e defamatory language referred to eac: member so t:at eac: could maintain an action& T:is small grou7 or class may be a Bury- 7ersons engaged in certain businesses- 7rofessions or em7loyments- a restricted subdi%ision of a 7articular classa society- a football team- a family- small grou7s of union officials- a board of 7ublic officers- or engineers of a 7articular com7any&

283
2n contrast- if defamatory 9ords are used broadly in res7ect to a large class or grou7 of 7ersons- and t:ere is not:ing t:at 7oints- or by 7ro7er colloquium or innuendo can be made to a77ly- to a 7articular member of t:e class or grou7- no member :as a rig:t of action for libel or slander& ?:ere t:e defamatory matter :ad no s7ecial- 7ersonal a77lication and 9as so general t:at no indi%idual damages could be 7resumed- and 9:ere t:e class referred to 9as so numerous t:at great %exation and o77ression mig:t gro9 out of t:e multi7licity of suits- no 7ri%ate action could be maintained& T:is rule :as been a77lied to defamatory 7ublications concerning grou7s or classes of 7ersons engaged in a 7articular business- 7rofession or em7loyment- directed at associations or grou7s of association officials- and to t:ose directed at miscellaneous grou7s or classes of 7ersons& Distinguis:ing a small grou7 O 9:ic: if defamed entitles all its members to sue from a large grou7 O 9:ic: if defamed entitles no one to sue O is not al9ays so sim7le& 3ome aut:orities :a%e noted t:at in cases 7ermitting reco%ery- t:e grou7 generally :as t9enty fi%e ( .$ or fe9er members& Fo9e%er- t:ere is usually no articulated limit on si=e& 3uits :a%e been 7ermitted by members of fairly large grou7s 9:en some distinguis:ing c:aracteristic of t:e indi%idual or grou7 increases t:e li8eli:ood t:at t:e statement could be inter7reted to a77ly indi%idually& For exam7le- a single 7layer on t:e *! to )! man 58la:oma 1ni%ersity football team 9as 7ermitted to sue 9:en a 9riter accused t:e entire team of ta8ing am7:etamines to >:o7 u7> its 7erformanceG t:e indi%idual 9as a fullbac8- i.e.- a significant 7osition on t:e team and :ad 7layed in all but t9o of t:e team;s games& A 7rime consideration- t:erefore- is t:e 7ublic 7erce7tion of t:e si=e of t:e grou7 and 9:et:er a statement 9ill be inter7reted to refer to e%ery member& T:e more organi=ed and co:esi%e a grou7- t:e easier it is to tar all its members 9it: t:e same brus: and t:e more li8ely a court 9ill 7ermit a suit from an indi%idual e%en if t:e grou7 includes more t:an t9enty fi%e ( .$ members& At some 7oint- :o9e%er- increasing si=e may be seen to dilute t:e :arm to indi%iduals and any resulting inBury 9ill fall beneat: t:e t:res:old for a %iable la9suit& x x x x T:ere are many ot:er grou7ings of men t:an t:ose t:at are contained 9it:in t:e foregoing grou7 classifications& T:ere are all t:e religions of t:e 9orld- t:ere are all t:e 7olitical and ideological beliefsG t:ere are t:e many colors of t:e :uman race& Grou7 defamation :as been a fertile and dangerous 9ea7on of attac8 on %arious racial- religious and 7olitical minorities& 3ome states- t:erefore- :a%e 7assed statutes to 7re%ent concerted efforts to :arass minority grou7s in t:e 1nited 3tates by ma8ing it a crime to circulate insidious rumors against racial and religious grou7s& T:us far- any ci%il remedy for suc: broadside defamation :as been lac8ing& T:ere :a%e been numerous attem7ts by indi%idual members to see8 redress in t:e courts for libel on t:ese grou7s- but %ery fe9 :a%e succeeded because it felt t:at t:e grou7s are too large and 7oorly defined to su77ort a finding t:at t:e 7laintiff 9as singled out for 7ersonal attac8 x x x x (citations omitted$& 5ur conclusion t:erefore is t:at t:e statements 7ublis:ed by 7etitioners in t:e instant case did not s7ecifically identify nor refer to any 7articular indi%iduals 9:o 9ere 7ur7ortedly t:e subBect of t:e alleged libelous 7ublication& Res7ondents can scarcely claim to :a%ing been singled out for social censure 7ointedly resulting in damages& A contrary %ie9 is ex7ressed t:at 9:at is in%ol%ed in t:e 7resent case is an intentional tortious act causing mental distress and not an action for libel& T:at o7inion in%o8es !haplins/y v. Ne' -ampshire 9:ere t:e 1&3& 3u7reme Court :eld t:at 9ords :ea7ing extreme 7rofanity- intended merely to incite :ostility- :atred or %iolence- :a%e no social %alue and do not enBoy constitutional 7rotectionG and Beauharnais v. )llinois 9:ere it 9as also ruled t:at :ate s7eec: 9:ic: denigrates a grou7 of 7ersons identified by t:eir religion- race or et:nic origin defames t:at grou7 and t:e la9 may

284
%alidly 7ro:ibit suc: s7eec: on t:e same ground as defamation of an indi%idual& ?e do not agree to t:e contrary %ie9 articulated in t:e immediately 7receding 7aragra7:& 6rimarily- an >emotional distress> tort action is 7ersonal in nature- i.e&- it is a ci%il action filed by an individual + to assuage t:e inBuries to :is emotional tranquility due to 7ersonal attac8s on :is c:aracter& 2t :as no a77lication in t:e instant case since no 7articular indi%idual 9as identified in t:e dis7uted article of Bulgar& Also- t:e 7ur7orted damage caused by t:e article- assuming t:ere 9as anyfalls under t:e 7rinci7le of relational harm O 9:ic: includes :arm to social relations:i7s in t:e community in t:e form of defamationG as distinguis:ed from t:e 7rinci7le of rea%tive harm O 9:ic: includes inBuries to indi%idual emotional tranquility in t:e form of an infli%tion of emotional distress& 2n t:eir com7laint- res7ondents clearly asserted an alleged :arm to t:e standing of Auslims in t:e community- es7ecially to t:eir acti%ities in 7ro7agating t:eir fait: in Aetro Aanila and in ot:er non# Auslim communities in t:e country& 2t is t:us beyond ca%il t:at t:e 7resent case falls 9it:in t:e a77lication of t:e relational harm 7rinci7le of tort actions for defamation- rat:er t:an t:e rea%tive harm prin%iple on 9:ic: t:e conce7t of emotional distress 7ro7erly belongs& Aoreo%er- under t:e #e%ond ,estatement of the 2a'- to reco%er for t:e intentional infliction of emotional distress t:e 7laintiff must s:o9 t:at: (a$ T:e conduct of t:e defendant 9as intentional or in rec8less disregard of t:e 7laintiffG (b$ T:e conduct 9as extreme and outrageousG (c$ T:ere 9as a causal connection bet9een t:e defendant;s conduct and t:e 7laintiff;s mental distressG and- (d$ T:e 7laintiff;s mental distress 9as extreme and se%ere& >4xtreme and outrageous conduct> means conduct t:at is so outrageous in c:aracter- and so extreme in degree- as to go beyond all 7ossible bounds of decency- and to be regarded as atrociousand utterly intolerable in ci%ili=ed society& T:e defendant;s actions must :a%e been so terrifying as naturally to :umiliate- embarrass or frig:ten t:e 7laintiff& Generally- conduct 9ill be found to be actionable 9:ere t:e recitation of t:e facts to an a%erage member of t:e community 9ould arouse :is resentment against t:e actor- and lead :im or :er to exclaim- >5utrageousW> as :is or :er reaction& >4motional distress> means any :ig:ly un7leasant mental reaction suc: as extreme griefs:ame- :umiliation- embarrassment- anger- disa77ointment- 9orry- nausea- mental suffering and anguis:- s:oc8- frig:t- :orror- and c:agrin& >3e%ere emotional distress-> in some Burisdictions- refers to any ty7e of se%ere and disabling emotional or mental condition 9:ic: may be generally recogni=ed and diagnosed by 7rofessionals trained to do so- including 7osttraumatic stress disorder- neurosis7syc:osis- c:ronic de7ression- or 7:obia& T:e 7laintiff is required to s:o9- among ot:er t:ings- t:at :e or s:e :as suffered emotional distress so se%ere t:at no reasonable 7erson could be ex7ected to endure itG severity of the distress is an element of the %ause of a%tion, not simply a matter of damages& Any 7arty see8ing reco%ery for mental anguis: must 7ro%e more t:an mere 9orry- anxiety%exation- embarrassment- or anger& (iability does not arise from mere insults- indignities- t:reatsannoyances- 7etty ex7ressions- or ot:er tri%ialities& 2n determining 9:et:er t:e tort of outrage :ad been committed- a 7laintiff is necessarily ex7ected and required to be :ardened to a certain amount of criticism- roug: language- and to occasional acts and 9ords t:at are definitely inconsiderate and un8indG t:e mere fact t:at t:e actor 8no9s t:at t:e ot:er 9ill regard t:e conduct as insulting- or 9ill :a%e :is feelings :urt- is not enoug:& -ustler Maga+ine v. $al'ell illustrates t:e test case of a ci%il action for damages on intentional infliction of emotional distress& A 7arody a77eared in Fustler maga=ine featuring t:e American fundamentalist 7reac:er and e%angelist Re%erend Cerry Fal9ell de7icting :im in an inebriated state :a%ing an incestuous- sexual liaison 9it: :is mot:er in an out:ouse& Fal9ell sued Fustler and its 7ublis:er (arry Flynt for damages& T:e 1nited 3tates District Court for t:e ?estern District of Eirginia ruled t:at t:e 7arody 9as not libelous- because no reasonable reader 9ould :a%e understood it as a factual assertion t:at Fal9ell engaged in t:e act described& T:e Bury- :o9e%er- a9arded j !!-!!! in damages on a se7arate count of >intentional infliction of emotional distress-> a cause of action t:at did

285
not require a false statement of fact to be made& T:e 1nited 3tates 3u7reme Court in a unanimous decision o%erturned t:e Bury %erdict of t:e Eirginia Court and :eld t:at ,everend $al'ell may not re%over for intentional infli%tion of emotional distress& 2t 9as argued t:at t:e material mig:t be deemed outrageous and may :a%e been intended to cause se%ere emotional distress- but t:ese circumstances 9ere not sufficient to o%ercome t:e free s7eec: rig:ts guaranteed under t:e First Amendment of t:e 1nited 3tates Constitution& 3im7ly stated- an intentional tort causing emotional distress must necessarily gi%e 9ay to t:e fundamental rig:t to free s7eec:& 2t must be obser%ed t:at alt:oug: Fal9ell 9as regarded by t:e 1&3& Fig: Court as a >7ublic figure-> :e 9as anindividual parti%ularly singled out or identified in t:e 7arody a77earing on Fustler maga=ine& Also- t:e emotional distress allegedly suffered by Re%erend Fal9ell in%ol%ed a reacti%e interest O an emotional res7onse to t:e 7arody 9:ic: su77osedly inBured :is 7syc:ological 9ell# being& Eerily- our 7osition is clear t:at t:e conduct of 7etitioners 9as not extreme or outrageous& 'eit:er 9as t:e emotional distress allegedly suffered by res7ondents so se%ere t:at no reasonable 7erson could be ex7ected to endure it& T:ere is no e%idence on record t:at 7oints to t:at result& 6rofessor ?illiam 6rosser- %ie9s tort actions on intentional infliction of emotional distress in t:is manner3+ O T:ere is %irtually unanimous agreement t:at suc: ordinary defendants are not liable for mere insult- indignity- annoyance- or e%en t:reats- 9:ere t:e case is lac8ing in ot:er circumstances of aggra%ation& T:e reasons are not far to see8& 5ur manners- and 9it: t:em our la9- :a%e not yet 7rogressed to t:e 7oint 9:ere 9e are able to afford a remedy in t:e form of tort damages for all intended mental disturbance& (iability of course cannot be extended to e%ery tri%ial indignity x x x x T:e 7laintiff must necessarily be ex7ected and required to be :ardened to a certain amount of roug: language- and to acts t:at are definitely inconsiderate and un8ind x x x T:e 7laintiff cannot reco%er merely because of :urt feelings& 6rofessor Cal%ert Aagruder reinforces 6rosser 9it: t:is succinct obser%ation- vi+: T:ere is no occasion for t:e la9 to inter%ene in e%ery case 9:ere someone;s feelings are :urt& T:ere must still be freedom to ex7ress an unflattering o7inion- and some safety %al%e must be left t:roug: 9:ic: irascible tem7ers may blo9 off relati%ely :armless steam& T:us- it is e%ident t:at e%en American courts are reluctant to ado7t a rule of reco%ery for emotional :arm t:at 9ould >o7en u7 a 9ide %ista of litigation in t:e field of bad manners-> an area in 9:ic: a >toug:ening of t:e mental :ide> 9as t:oug:t to be a more a77ro7riate remedy& 3* 6er:a7s of greater concern 9ere t:e questions of causation- 7roof- and t:e ability to accurately assess damages for emotional :arm- eac: of 9:ic: continues to concern courts today& 2n t:is connection- t:e doctrines in !haplins/y and Beauharnais :ad largely been su7erseded by subsequent First Amendment doctrines& 0ac8 in sim7ler times in t:e :istory of free ex7ression t:e 3u7reme Court a77eared to es7ouse a t:eory- 8no9n as t:e "'o7!lass "heory- t:at treated certain ty7es of ex7ression as taboo forms of s7eec:- beneat: t:e dignity of t:e First Amendment& T:e most celebrated statement of t:is %ie9 9as ex7ressed in!haplins/y: T:ere are certain 9ell#defined and narro9ly limited classes of s7eec:- t:e 7re%ention and 7unis:ment of 9:ic: :a%e ne%er been t:oug:t to raise any Constitutional 7roblem& T:ese include t:e le9d and obscene- t:e 7rofane- t:e libelous- and t:e insulting or >fig:ting> 9ords O t:ose 9:ic: by t:eir %ery utterance inflict inBury or tend to incite an immediate breac: of t:e 7eace& 2t :as been 9ell obser%ed t:at suc: utterances are no essential 7art of any ex7osition of ideas- and are of suc: slig:t social %alue as a ste7 to trut: t:at any benefit t:at may be deri%ed from t:em is clearly out9eig:ed by t:e social interest in order and morality&

286
Today- :o9e%er- t:e t:eory is no longer %iableG modern First Amendment 7rinci7les :a%e 7assed it by& American courts no longer acce7t t:e %ie9 t:at s7eec: may be 7roscribed merely because it is >le9d-> >7rofane-> >insulting> or ot:er9ise %ulgar or offensi%e&3/ !ohen v. !alifornia is illustrati%e: 6aul Robert Co:en 9ore a Bac8et bearing t:e 9ords >Fuc8 t:e Draft> in a (os Angeles court:ouse in A7ril ",*/- 9:ic: caused :is e%entual arrest& Co:en 9as con%icted for %iolating a California statute 7ro:ibiting any 7erson from >disturbMingN t:e 7eace x x x by offensi%e conduct&> T:e 1&3& 3u7reme Court conceded t:at Co:en;s ex7leti%e contained in :is Bac8et 9as >%ulgar-> but it concluded t:at :is s7eec: 9as nonet:eless 7rotected by t:e rig:t to free s7eec:& 2t 9as neit:er considered an >incitement> to illegal action nor >obscenity&> 2t did not constitute insulting or >fig:ting> 9ords for it :ad not been directed at a 7erson 9:o 9as li8ely to retaliate or at someone 9:o could not a%oid t:e message& 2n ot:er 9ords- no one 9as 7resent in t:e (os Angeles court:ouse 9:o 9ould :a%e regarded Co:en;s s7eec: as a direct 7ersonal insult- nor 9as t:ere any danger of reacti%e %iolence against :im& No spe%ifi% individual 'as targeted in the allegedly defamatory 'ords printed on !ohen's *a%/et& T:e con%iction could only be Bustified by California;s desire to exercise t:e broad 7o9er in 7reser%ing t:e cleanliness of discourse in t:e 7ublic s7:ere- 9:ic: t:e 1&3& 3u7reme Court refused to grant to t:e 3tate- :olding t:at no obBecti%e distinctions can be made bet9een %ulgar and non%ulgar s7eec:- and t:at t:e emoti%e elements of s7eec: are Bust as essential in t:e exercise of t:is rig:t as t:e 7urely cogniti%e& As Ar& Custice Farlan so eloquently 9rote: >M5Nne man;s %ulgarity is anot:er man;s lyric x x x 9ords are often c:osen as muc: for t:eir emoti%e as t:eir cogniti%e force&> +! ?it: !ohen- t:e 1&3& 3u7reme Court finally laid t:e Constitutional foundation for Budicial 7rotection of 7ro%ocati%e and 7otentially offensi%e s7eec:& 3imilarly- libelous s7eec: is no longer outside t:e First Amendment 7rotection& 5nly one small 7iece of t:e "'o7!lass "heory in !haplins/y sur%i%es O 1&3& courts continue to treat >obscene> s7eec: as not 9it:in t:e 7rotection of t:e First Amendment at all& ?it: res7ect to t:e >fig:ting 9ords> doctrine- 9:ile it remains ali%e it 9as modified by t:e current rigorous clear and 7resent danger test& T:us- in !ohen t:e 1&3& 3u7reme Court in a77lying t:e test :eld t:at t:ere 9as no s:o9ing t:at Co:en;s Bac8et bearing t:e 9ords >Fuc8 t:e Draft> :ad t:reatened to 7ro%o8e imminent %iolenceG and t:at 7rotecting t:e sensibilities of onloo8ers 9as not sufficiently com7elling interest to restrain Co:en;s s7eec:& Beauharnais- 9:ic: closely follo9ed t:e !haplins/y doctrine- suffered t:e same fate as !haplins/y& 2ndeed- 9:enBeauharnais 9as decided in ",. - t:e T9o#Class T:eory 9as still flouris:ing& ?:ile concededly t:e 1&3& Fig: Tribunal did not formally abandon Beauharnais- t:e seminal s:ifts in 1&3& constitutional Buris7rudence substantially undercut Beauharnais and seriously undermined 9:at is left of its %itality as a 7recedent& Among t:e cases t:at dealt a crus:ing im7act on Beauharnais and rendered it almost certainly a dead letter case la9 are Brandenburg v. Ohio- andagain- !ohen v. !alifornia& T:ese decisions recogni=e a muc: narro9er set of 7ermissible grounds for restricting s7eec: t:an did Beauharnais& 2n Brandenburg- a77ellant 9:o 9as a leader of t:e Iu Ilux Ilan 9as con%icted under t:e 5:io Criminal 3yndicalism 3tatute for ad%ocating t:e necessity- duty and 7ro7riety of crime- sabotage%iolence- or unla9ful met:ods of terrorism as a means of accom7lis:ing industrial or 7olitical reformsG and for %oluntarily assembling 9it: a grou7 formed to teac: or ad%ocate t:e doctrines of criminal syndicalism& A77ellant c:allenged t:e statute and 9as sustained by t:e 1&3& 3u7reme Court- :olding t:at t:e ad%ocacy of illegal action becomes 7unis:able only if su%h advo%a%y is dire%ted to in%iting or produ%ing imminent la'less a%tion and is li/ely to in%ite or produ%e su%h a%tion & 4xce7t in unusual instances- Brandenburg 7rotects t:e ad%ocacy of la9lessness as long as suc: s7eec: is not translated into action& T:e im7ortance of t:e Brandenburg ruling cannot be o%erem7:asi=ed& 6rof& 3molla affirmed t:at >Brandenburgmust be understood as o%erruling Beauharnais and eliminating t:e 7ossibility of

287
treating grou7 libel under t:e same First Amendment standards as indi%idual libel&> +* 2t may 9ell be considered as one of t:e lync:7ins of t:e modern doctrine of free s7eec:- 9:ic: see8s to gi%e s7ecial 7rotection to 7olitically rele%ant s7eec:& 2n any case- res7ondents; lac8 of cause of action cannot be cured by t:e filing of a class suit& As correctly 7ointed out by Ar& Custice Cose C& Eitug during t:e deliberations- >an element of a class suit is t:e adequacy of re7resentation& 2n determining t:e question of fair and adequate re7resentation of members of a class- t:e court must consider (a$ 9:et:er t:e interest of t:e named 7arty is coextensi%e 9it: t:e interest of t:e ot:er members of t:e classG (b$ t:e 7ro7ortion of t:ose made 7arties as it so bears to t:e total members:i7 of t:e classG and- (c$ any ot:er factor bearing on t:e ability of t:e named 7arty to s7ea8 for t:e rest of t:e class& T:e rules require t:at courts must ma8e sure t:at t:e 7ersons inter%ening s:ould be sufficiently numerous to fully 7rotect t:e interests of all concerned& 2n t:e 7resent contro%ersy- 2slamic Da;9a: Council of t:e 6:ili77ines- 2nc&- see8s in effect to assert t:e interests not only of t:e Auslims in t:e 6:ili77ines but of t:e 9:ole Auslim 9orld as 9ell& 6ri%ate res7ondents ob%iously lac8 t:e sufficiency of numbers to re7resent suc: a global grou7G neit:er :a%e t:ey been able to demonstrate t:e identity of t:eir interests 9it: t:ose t:ey see8 to re7resent& 1nless it can be s:o9n t:at t:ere can be a safe guaranty t:at t:ose absent 9ill be adequately re7resented by t:ose 7resent- a class suitgi%en its magnitude in t:is instance- 9ould be una%ailing&> (i8e9ise on t:e matter of damages- 9e agree t:at >moral damages may be reco%ered only if t:e 7laintiff is able to satisfactorily 7ro%e t:e existence of t:e factual basis for t:e damages and its causal connection 9it: t:e acts com7lained of- and so it must be- as moral damages alt:oug: inca7able of 7ecuniary estimation are designed not to im7ose a 7enalty but to com7ensate for inBury sustained and actual damages suffered&.! 4xem7lary damages- on t:e ot:er :and- may only be a9arded if claimant is able to establis: :is rig:t to moral- tem7erate- liquidated or com7ensatory damages& 1nfortunately- neit:er of t:e requirements to sustain an a9ard for eit:er of t:ese damages 9ould a77ear to :a%e been adequately establis:ed by res7ondents&> 2n a 7luralistic society li8e t:e 6:ili77ines 9:ere misinformation about anot:er indi%idual;s religion is as common7lace as self#a77ointed critics of go%ernment- it 9ould be more a77ro7riate to res7ect t:e fair criticism of religious 7rinci7les- including t:ose 9:ic: may be outrageously a77allingimmensely erroneous- or t:ose couc:ed as fairly informati%e comments& T:e greater danger in our society is t:e 7ossibility t:at it may encourage t:e frequency of suits among religious fundamentalists9:et:er C:ristian- Auslim- Findu- 0udd:ist- Ce9is:- or ot:ers& T:is 9ould unnecessarily ma8e t:e ci%il courts a battleground to assert t:eir s7iritual ideas- and ad%ance t:eir res7ecti%e religious agenda& 2t need not be stressed t:at t:is Court :as no 7o9er to determine 9:ic: is 7ro7er religious conduct or beliefG neit:er does it :a%e t:e aut:ority to rule on t:e merits of one religion o%er anot:ernor declare 9:ic: belief to u7:old or cast asunder- for t:e %alidity of religious beliefs or %alues are outside t:e s7:ere of t:e Budiciary& 3uc: matters are better left for t:e religious aut:orities to address 9:at is rig:tfully 9it:in t:eir doctrine and realm of influence& Courts must be %ie97oint#neutral 9:en it comes to religious matters if only to affirm t:e neutrality 7rinci7le of free s7eec: rig:ts under modern Buris7rudence 9:ere >MaNll ideas are treated equal in t:e eyes of t:e First Amendment O e%en t:ose ideas t:at are uni%ersally condemned and run counter to constitutional 7rinci7les&> 1nder t:e rig:t to free s7eec:- >t:ere is no suc: t:ing as a false idea& Fo9e%er 7ernicious an o7inion may seem- 9e de7end for its correction not on t:e conscience of Budges and Buries but on t:e com7etition of ot:er ideas&> (enying certiorari and affirming t:e a77ellate court decision 9ould surely create a c:illing effect on t:e constitutional guarantees of freedom of s7eec:- of ex7ression- and of t:e 7ress& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e 7etition is GRA'T4D& T:e assailed Decision of t:e Court of A77eals dated ) August ",,/ is R4E4R34D and 34T A32D4- and t:e Decision of t:e RTC#0r& +- Aanila- dismissing t:e com7laint for lac8 of merit- is R42'3TAT4D and AFF2RA4D& 'o 7ronouncement as to costs&

288
A#$(# + #Ia, A.K.A. A#$ + #Ia, And MaC)- S ,)&"n &. C (#$ O' A??"a,% And F#anB)%B W"nB"%,a G&R& 'o& " *+**&Canuary "+- ",,, 04((532((5- J.: 64R64T1A((@ FAGR2DD4' as t:e 7ublic is about losing one of t:e most basic yet oft :otly contested freedoms of man- t:e issue of t:e rig:t of free ex7ression be stirs and 7resents itself time and again- in cyclic occurrence- to in%eigle- nay- c:allenge t:e courts to re#sur%ey its e%er s:ifting terrain- ex7lore and furro9 its :eretofore unc:arted moors and %alleys and finally redefine t:e metes and bounds of its contro%ersial domain& T:is- 7rominently- is one suc: case& 6er:a7s- ne%er in Buris7rudential :istory :as any freedom of man undergone radical doctrinal metamor7:oses t:an :is rig:t to freely and o7enly ex7ress :is %ie9s& 0lac8stone;s 7ontifical comment t:at >9:ere blas7:emous- immoral- treasonable- sc:ismatical- seditious- or scandalous libels are 7unis:ed by 4nglis: la9 &&& t:e liberty of t:e 7ress- 7ro7erly understood- is by no means infringed or %iolated-> found 8indred ex7ression in t:e landmar8 o7inion of 4ngland;s 3tar C:amber in t:e 2ibelis $amosis case in "*!3& T:at case establis:ed t9o maBor 7ro7ositions in t:e 7rosecution of defamatory remar8s: first- t:at libel against a 7ublic 7erson is a greater offense t:an one directed against an ordinary man- and second- t:at it is immaterial t:at t:e libel be true& 1ntil re7ublicanism caug:t fire in early America- t:e %ie9 from t:e to7 on libel 9as no less dismal& 4%en t:e %enerable Custice Folmes a77eared to 9affle as :e s9ayed from t:e conce7t of criminal libel liability under t:e clear and 7resent danger rule- to t:e ot:er end of t:e s7ectrum in defense of t:e constitutionally 7rotected status of un7o7ular o7inion in free society& Eie9ed in modern times and t:e current re%olution in information and communication tec:nology- libel 7rinci7les formulated at one time or anot:er :a%e 9axed and 9aned t:roug: t:e years in t:e constant ebb and flo9 of Budicial re%ie9& At t:e %ery least- t:ese 7rinci7les :a%e lost muc: of t:eir fla%or- dro9ned and s9am7ed as t:ey :a%e been by t:e ceaseless caco7:ony and din of t:oug:t and discourse emanating from Bust about e%ery source and direction- aided no less by an increasingly 7o9erful and irre7ressible mass media& 6ublic discourse- laments Inig:t- :as been de%alued by its utter commonalityG and 9e agree- for its logical effect is to benumb t:oug:t and sensibility on 9:at may be considered as criminal illegitimate encroac:ments on t:e rig:t of 7ersons to enBoy a good- :onorable and re7utable name& T:is may ex7lain t:e im7erce7tible demise of criminal 7rosecutions for libel and t:e trend to rely instead on indemnity suits to re7air any damage on one;s re7utation& 2n t:is 7etition for re%ie9- 9e are as8ed to re%erse t:e Court of A77eals in >Francisco ?enceslao %& Arturo 0orBal and Aaximo 3oli%en-> CA#G&R& 'o& +!+,*- :olding on . Aarc: ",,* t:at 7etitioners Arturo 0orBal and Aaximo 3oli%en are solidarily liable for damages for 9riting and 7ublis:ing certain articles claimed to be derogatory and offensi%e to 7ri%ate res7ondent Francisco ?enceslao& 6etitioners Arturo 0orBal and Aaximo 3oli%en are among t:e incor7orators of 6:ili77ines Today2nc& (6T2$- no9 6:il3TAR Daily- 2nc&- o9ner of T:e 6:ili77ine 3tar- a daily ne9s7a7er& At t:e time t:e com7laint 9as filed- 7etitioner 0orBal 9as its 6resident 9:ile 3oli%en 9as (and still is$ 6ublis:er and C:airman of its 4ditorial 0oard& Among t:e regular 9riters of T:e 6:ili77ine 3tar is 0orBal 9:o runs t:e column Jay'al/er& 6ri%ate res7ondent Francisco ?enceslao- on t:e ot:er :and- is a ci%il engineer- businessmanbusiness consultant and Bournalist by 7rofession& 2n ",// :e ser%ed as a tec:nical ad%iser of Congressman Fabian 3ison- t:en C:airman of t:e Fouse of Re7resentati%es 3ub#Committee on 2ndustrial 6olicy&

289
During t:e congressional :earings on t:e trans7ort crisis sometime in 3e7tember ",// underta8en by t:e Fouse 3ub#Committee on 2ndustrial 6olicy- t:ose 9:o attended agreed to organi=e t:e First 'ational Conference on (and Trans7ortation (F'C(T$ to be 7artici7ated in by t:e 7ri%ate sector in t:e trans7ort industry and go%ernment agencies concerned in order to find 9ays and means to sol%e t:e trans7ortation crisis& Aore im7ortantly- t:e obBecti%e of t:e F'C(T 9as to draft an omnibus bill t:at 9ould embody a long#term land trans7ortation 7olicy for 7resentation to Congress& T:e conference 9:ic:- according to 7ri%ate res7ondent- 9as estimated to cost around 6"-/".-!!!&!! 9ould be funded t:roug: solicitations from %arious s7onsors suc: as go%ernment agencies- 7ri%ate organi=ations- trans7ort firms- and indi%idual delegates or 7artici7ants& 5n / February ",/,- at t:e organi=ational meeting of t:e F'C(T- 7ri%ate res7ondent Francisco ?enceslao 9as elected 4xecuti%e Director& As suc:- :e 9rote numerous solicitation letters to t:e business community for t:e su77ort of t:e conference& 0et9een Aay and Culy ",/, a series of articles 9ritten by 7etitioner 0orBal 9as 7ublis:ed on different dates in :is column Jay'al/er& T:e articles dealt 9it: t:e alleged anomalous acti%ities of an >organi=er of a conference> 9it:out naming or identifying 7ri%ate res7ondent& 'eit:er did it refer to t:e F'C(T as t:e conference t:erein mentioned& <uoted :ereunder are excer7ts from t:e articles of 7etitioner toget:er 9it: t:e dates t:ey 9ere 7ublis:ed& =< May <>:> Anot:er self#7roclaimed >:ero> of t:e 4D3A Re%olution goes around organi=ing >seminars and conferences> for a :uge fee& T:is is a sim7le 7loy coated in Ba==y letter:eads and slic8 7rose& T:e >:ero> :as t:e gall to solicit fees from anybody 9it: buc8s to s7are& Recently- in :is usual straig:tfor9ard style- Trans7ortation 3ecretary Rainerio >Ray> Reyes- as8ed t:at :is name- be stric8en off from t:e letter:eads t:e >:ero> :as been using to im7lement one of :is 7et >seminars&> Reyes said: >2 9ould li8e to reiterate my request t:at you delete my name&> 'ote t:at Ray Reyes is an :onest man 9:o 9ould confront anybody eyeball to eyeball 9it:out blin8ing& > June <>:> Anot:er questionable 7ortion of t:e so#called conference is its unaut:ori=ed use of t:e names of 6resident Aquino and 3ecretary Ray Reyes& T:e conference 7rogram being circulated claims t:at 6resident Aquino and Reyes 9ill be main s7ea8ers in t:e conference& @et- t:e 9ord is t:at Cory and Reyes :a%e not acce7ted t:e in%itation to a77ear in t:is confab& Ray Reyes e%en says t:at t:e conference s:ould be unmas8ed as a moneyma8ing gimmic8& <> June <>:> & & & some 3-!!! fund solicitation letters 9ere sent by t:e organi=er to e%ery Tom- Dic8 and Farry and to almost all go%ernment agencies& And t:e letter:eads carried t:e names of Reyes and 6eriquet& Agrarian Reform 3ecretary on lea%e 6:ili7 Cuico recei%ed one- but :e decided to find out front Reyes :imself 9:at t:e 7roBect 9as all about& Ray Reyes- in effect- ad%ised Cuico to 7ut t:e fund solicitation letter in t:e 9aste bas8et& 'o9- if t:e 3-!!! 7ersons and agencies a77roac:ed by t:e organi=er s:elled out "-!!! eac:- t:at;s easily 63 million to a 7roBect t:at seems so unso7:isticated& 0ut note t:at one garment com7any ga%e 6"!!-!!!- after 9:ic: t:e Garments Regulatory 0oard :eaded by Trade and 2ndustry 1ndersecretary Gloria Aaca7agal#Arroyo 9as a77roac:ed by t:e organi=er to ex7edite t:e garment license a77lication of t:e 6"!!-!!! donor& ;< June <>:>

290
A >conference organi=er> associated 9it: s:ady deals seems to :a%e a lot of tras: tuc8ed inside :is closet& T:e Cay9al8er continues to recei%e information about t:e man;s dubious deals& Fis notoriety- in according to reliable sources- :as reac:ed t:e 6remier Guest Fouse 9:ere :is name is s7o8en li8e dung& xxx xxx xxx T:e first information says t:at t:e >organi=er> tried to mulct :alf a million 7esos from a garment 7roducer and ex7orter 9:o 9as being in%estigated for %iolation of t:e rules of t:e Garments- Textile- 4mbroidery and A77arel 0oard& T:e >organi=er> told t:e garment ex7orter t:at t:e case could be fixed for a sum of 6.!!-!!!&!!& T:e organi=er got t:e s:oc8 of :is life 9:en t:e ex7orter told :im: >2f 2 :a%e t:at amount& 2 9ill :ire t:e best la9yers- not you&> T:e organi=er left in a :uff- :is t:ic8 face %ery 7ale& xxx xxx xxx Friends in go%ernment and t:e 7ri%ate sector :a%e 7romised t:e Cay9al8er more >do7e> on t:e >organi=er&> 2t seems t:at :e 9as not only indiscreetG :e e%en failed to co%er :is trac8s& @ou 9ill be :earing more of t:e >organi=er;s> ex7loits from t:is corner soon& ;; June <>:> T:e sc:eming >organi=er> 9e :a%e been 9riting about seems to :a%e been s7reading :is 9ings too far& A congressional source :as informed t:e Cay9al8er t:at t:e sc:emer once 9or8ed for a congressman from t:e 'ort: as some sort of a consultant on economic affairs& T:e first t:ing t:e >organi=er> did 9as to initiate :earings and round# t:e#table discussions 9it: 7eo7le from t:e business- ex7ort and O :is fa%orite O t:e garments sector& xxx xxx xxx T:e >organi=er;s> 7rinci7al gamely 9ent along- t:in8ing t:at :is >consultant> :ad not:ing but t:e good of t:ese sectors in mind& 2t 9as only later t:at :e reali=ed t:at t:e >consultant> 9as acting 9it: a burst of energy >in aid of extortion&> T:e >consultant> 9as fired& xxx xxx xxx T:ere seems to be no end to 9:at a man could do to 7ursue :is dubious 9ays& Fe :as tried to o7erate under a guise of a 9ell#meaning- reformist& Fe :as intellectual 7retensions O and sometimes :e succeeds in getting :is t:oug:ts in t:e inside 7ages of some ne9s7a7ers- 9it: t:e aid of some nai%e ne9s7a7er 7eo7le& Fe :as been turning out a lot of funny#loo8ing ad%ice on in%estments- ex7ort gro9t:- and t:e li8e& xxx xxx xxx A cabinet secretary :as one big 9is:& Fe is :o7ing for a broad 7o9er to ban croo8s and influence#7eddlers from entering t:e 7remises of :is de7artment& 0ut t:e Cabinet man mig:t not get :is 9is:& T:ere is one >organi=er> 9:o- e%en if 7:ysically banned- call still concoct 9ays of doing :is t:ing& ?it:out a tinge of remorse- t:e >organi=er> could fill u7 :is letter:eads 9it:- names of Cabinet members- congressmen- and re7utable 7eo7le from t:e 7ri%ate sector to s:ore u7 :is s:ady re7utation and co%er u7 :is notoriety& = July <>:>

291
A su77osed conference on trans7ortation 9as a big failure& T:e attendance 9as %ery 7oor and t:e fe9 9:o 7artici7ated in- t:e affair 9ere mostly leaders of Bee7ney dri%ers; grou7s& 'one of t:e go%ernment officials in%ol%ed in regulating 7ublic trans7ortation 9as t:ere& T:e big names in t:e industry also did not 7artici7ate& ?it: suc: a 7oor attendance- one 9onders 9:y t:e conference organi=ers 9ent a:ead 9it: t:e affair and tried so :ard to con%ince 3-!!! com7anies and indi%iduals to contribute to t:e affair& xxx xxx xxx T:e conference 9as doomed from t:e start& 2t 9as bound to fail& T:e 7ersonalities 9:o count in t:e field of trans7iration refused to attend t:e affair or 9it:dre9 t:eir su77ort after finding out t:e bac8ground of t:e organi=er of t:e conference& Fo9 could a conference on trans7ortation succeed 9it:out t:e 7artici7ation of t:e big names in t:e industry and go%ernment 7olicy#ma8ersJ 6ri%ate res7ondent reacted to t:e articles& Fe sent a letter to T:e 6:ili77ine 3tar insisting t:at :e 9as t:e >organi=er> alluded to in 7etitioner 0orBal;s columns& : 2n a subsequent letter to T:e 6:ili77ine 3tar- 7ri%ate res7ondent refuted t:e matters contained in 7etitioner 0orBal;s columns and o7enly c:allenged :im in t:is manner O To test if 0orBal :as t:e guts to bac8 u7 :is :olier t:an t:ou attitude- 2 am 7re7ared to relinquis: t:is 7osition in case it is found t:at 2 :a%e misa77ro7riated e%en one 7eso of F'C(T money& 5n t:e ot:er :and- if 2 can 7ro%e t:at 0orBal :as used :is column as a >:ammer> to get clients for :is 6R Firm- AA 0orBal Associates- :e s:ould resign from t:e 3TAR and ne%er again 9rite a column& 2s it a dealJ T:ereafter- 7ri%ate res7ondent filed a com7laint 9it: t:e 'ational 6ress Club ('6C$ against 7etitioner 0orBal for unet:ical conduct& Fe accused 7etitioner 0orBal of using :is column as a form of le%erage to obtain contracts for :is 7ublic relations firm- AA 0orBal Associates& 2n turn- 7etitioner 0orBal 7ublis:ed a reBoinder to t:e c:allenge of 7ri%ate res7ondent not only to 7rotect :is name and :onor but also to refute t:e claim t:at :e 9as using :is column for c:aracter assassination& A77arently not satisfied 9it: :is com7laint 9it: t:e '6C- 7ri%ate res7ondent filed a criminal case for libel against 7etitioners 0orBal and 3oli%en- among ot:ers& Fo9e%er- in a Resolution dated ) August ",,!- t:e Assistant 6rosecutor :andling t:e case dismissed t:e com7laint for insufficiency of e%idence& T:e dismissal 9as sustained by t:e De7artment of Custice and later by t:e 5ffice of t:e 6resident& 5n 3" 5ctober ",,! 7ri%ate res7ondent instituted against 7etitioners a ci%il action for damages based on libel subBect of t:e instant case& 2n t:eir ans9er- 7etitioners inter7osed com7ulsory counterclaims for actual- moral and exem7lary damages- 7lus attorney;s fees and costs& After due consideration- t:e trial court decided in fa%or of 7ri%ate res7ondent ?enceslao and ordered 7etitioners 0orBal and 3oli%en to indemnify 7ri%ate res7ondent 6"-!!!-!!!&!! for actual and com7ensatory damages- in addition to 6 !!-!!!&!! for moral damages- 6"!!-!!!&!! for exem7lary damages6 !!-!!!&!! for attorney;s fees- and to 7ay t:e costs of suit& T:e Court of A77eals affirmed t:e decision of t:e court a 0uo but reduced t:e amount of t:e monetary a9ard to 6""!-!!!&!! actual damages- 6 !!-!!!&!! moral damages and 6).-!!!&!! attorney;s fees 7lus costs& 2n a !#7age Decision 7romulgated . Aarc: ",,*- t:e a77ellate court ruled inter alia t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as sufficiently identifiable- alt:oug: not named- in t:e questioned articlesG t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as in fact defamed by 7etitioner 0orBal by describing :im %ariously as a >self#7roclaimed :ero-> >a conference organi=er associated 9it: s:ady deals 9:o :as a lot of tras: tuc8ed inside :is closet-> >t:ic8 face-> and >a 7erson 9it: dubious 9aysG> t:at 7etitioner;s claim of 7ri%ilege communication 9as una%ailing since t:e 7ri%ileged c:aracter of t:e articles 9as lost by t:eir 7ublication in a ne9s7a7er of general circulationG t:at 7etitioner could :a%e 7erformed :is

292
officer as a ne9s7a7erman 9it:out necessarily transgressing t:e rig:ts of ?enceslao by calling t:e attention of t:e go%ernment offices concerned to examine t:e aut:ority by 9:ic: ?enceslao acted9arning t:e 7ublic against contributing to a conference t:at- according to :is 7erce7tion- lac8ed t:e uni%ocal indorsement of t:e res7onsible go%ernment officials- or sim7ly informing t:e 7ublic of t:e letters ?enceslao 9rote and t:e fa%ors :e requested or demandedG and- t:at 9:en :e im7uted dis:onesty- false:ood and misre7resentation- s:amelessness and intellectual 7retentions to ?enceslao- 7etitioner 0orBal crossed t:e t:in but clear line t:at se7arated fair comment from actionable defamation& 6ri%ate res7ondent manifested :is desire to a77eal t:at 7ortion of t:e a77ellate court;s decision 9:ic: reduced t:e amount of damages a9arded :im by filing 9it: t:is Court a 6etition for 4xtension of Time to File 6etition and a Aotion for 3us7ension of Time to File 6etition& Fo9e%er- in a Resolution dated ) Aay ",,*- t:e 3econd Di%ision denied bot: motions: t:e first- for being 7remature- and t:e second- for being a 9rong remedy& 5n ! 'o%ember ",,* 9:en t:e First Di%ision consolidated and transferred t:e 7resent case to t:e 3econd Di%ision- t:ere 9as no longer any case t:ereat 9it: 9:ic: to consolidate t:is case since G&R& 'o& " +3,* :ad already been dis7osed of by t:e 3econd Di%ision almost six (*$ mont:s earlier& 5n t:eir 7art- 7etitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but t:e Court of A77eals denied t:e motion in its Resolution of " 3e7tember ",,*& Fence t:e instant 7etition for re%ie9& T:e 7etitioners contend t:at t:e Court of A77eals erred: (a$ in ruling t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent ?enceslao 9as sufficiently identified by 7etitioner 0orBal in t:e questioned articlesG (b$ in refusing to accord serious consideration to t:e findings of t:e De7artment of Custice and t:e 5ffice of t:e 6resident t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent ?enceslao 9as not sufficiently identified in t:e questioned articles- t:is not9it:standing t:at t:e degree of 7roof required in a 7reliminary in%estigation is merely prima fa%iee%idence 9:ic: is significantly less t:an t:e 7re7onderance of e%idence required in ci%il casesG (c$ in ruling t:at t:e subBect articles do not constitute qualifiedly 7ri%ileged communicationG (d$ in refusing to a77ly t:e >7ublic official doctrine> laid do9n in 'e9 @or8 Times %& 3ulli%anG (e$ in ruling t:at t:e questioned articles lost t:eir 7ri%ileged c:aracter because of t:eir 7ublication in a ne9s7a7er of general circulationG (f$ in ruling t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent :as a %alid cause of action for libel against 7etitioners alt:oug: :e failed to 7ro%e actual malice on t:eir 7art- and t:at t:e 7rosecutors of t:e City of Aanilat:e De7artment of Custice- and e%entually- t:e 5ffice of t:e 6resident- :ad already resol%ed t:at t:ere 9as no sufficient e%idence to 7ro%e t:e existence of libelG and- (g$ assuming arguendo t:at 0orBal s:ould be :eld liable- in adBudging 7etitioner 3oli%en solidarily liable 9it: :im& T:us- 7etitioners 7ray for t:e re%ersal of t:e a77ellate court;s ruling- t:e dismissal of t:e com7laint against t:em for lac8 of merit- and t:e a9ard of damages on t:eir counterclaim& T:e 7etition is im7ressed 9it: merit& 2n order to maintain a libel suit- it is essential t:at t:e %ictim be identifiable alt:oug: it is not necessary t:at :e be named& 2t is also not sufficient t:at t:e offended 7arty recogni=ed :imself as t:e 7erson attac8ed or defamed- but it must be s:o9n t:at at least a t:ird 7erson could identify :im as t:e obBect of t:e libelous 7ublication& Regrettably- t:ese requisites :a%e not been com7lied 9it: in t:e case at bar& 2n ruling for 7ri%ate res7ondent- t:e Court of A77eals found t:at 0orBal;s column 9ritings sufficiently identified ?enceslao as t:e >conference organi=er&> 2t cited t:e First 'ational Conference on (and Trans7ortation- t:e letter:eads used listing different tele7:one numbers- t:e donation of 6"!!-!!!&!! from Culiano (im and t:e reference to t:e ;>organi=er of t:e conference> O t:e %ery same a77ellation em7loyed in all t:e column items O as :a%ing sufficiently establis:ed t:e identity of 7ri%ate res7ondent ?enceslao for t:ose 9:o 8ne9 about t:e F'C(T 9:o 9ere 7resent at its ince7tion- and 9:o :ad 7ledged t:eir assistance to it& ?e :old ot:er9ise& T:ese conclusions are at %ariance 9it: t:e e%idence at :and& T:e questioned articles 9ritten by 0orBal do not identify 7ri%ate res7ondent ?enceslao as t:e organi=er of

293
t:e conference& T:e first of t:eJay'al/er articles 9:ic: a77eared in t:e 3" Aay ",/, issue of T:e 6:ili77ine 3tar yielded not:ing to indicate t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as t:e 7erson referred to t:erein& 3urely- as obser%ed by 7etitioners- t:ere 9ere millions of >:eroes> of t:e 4D3A Re%olution and anyone of t:em could be >self#7roclaimed> or an >organi=er of seminars and conferences&> As a matter of factin :is , Cune ",/, column 7etitioner 0orBal 9rote about t:e >so#called First 'ational Conference on (and Trans7ortation 9:ose 7rinci7al organi=ers are not s7ecified> (em7:asis su77lied$& 'eit:er did t:e F'C(T letter:eads disclose t:e identity of t:e conference organi=er since t:ese contained only an enumeration of names 9:ere 7ri%ate res7ondent Francisco ?enceslao 9as described as 4xecuti%e Director and 37o8esman and not as a conference organi=er& T:e 7rintout and tentati%e 7rogram of t:e conference 9ere de%oid of any indication of ?enceslao as organi=er& T:e 7rintout 9:ic: contained an article entitled >?:o 5rgani=ed t:e 'C(TJ> did not e%en mention 7ri%ate res7ondent;s name- 9:ile t:e tentati%e 7rogram only denominated 7ri%ate res7ondent as >Eice C:airman and 4xecuti%e Director-> and not as organi=er& 'o less t:an 7ri%ate res7ondent :imself admitted t:at t:e F'C(T :ad se%eral organi=ers and t:at :e 9as only a 7art of t:e organi=ation- t:us O 2 9ould li8e to clarify for t:e record t:at 2 9as only a 7art of t:e organi=ation& 2 9as in%ited t:en because 2 9as t:e :ead of t:e tec:nical 7anel of t:e Fouse of Re7resentati%es 3ub#Committee on 2ndustrial 6olicy t:at too8 care of congressional :earings& 3ignificantly- 7ri%ate res7ondent :imself entertained doubt t:at :e 9as t:e 7erson s7o8en of in 0orBal;s columns& T:e former e%en called u7 columnist 0orBal to inquire if :e (?enceslao$ 9as t:e one referred to in t:e subBect articles& Fis letter to t:e editor 7ublis:ed in t:e + Cune ",/, issue of T:e 6:ili77ine 3tar e%en s:o9ed 7ri%ate res7ondent ?enceslao;s uncertainty O Alt:oug: :e used a subterfuge- 2 9as almost certain t:at Art 0orBal referred to t:e First 'ational Conference on (and Trans7ortation (Cune ,#3!$ and me in t:e second 7aragra7: of :is Aay 3" column & & & 2dentification is grossly inadequate 9:en e%en t:e alleged offended 7arty is :imself unsure t:at :e 9as t:e obBect of t:e %erbal attac8& 2t is 9ell to note t:at t:e re%elation of t:e identity of t:e 7erson alluded to came not from 7etitioner 0orBal but from 7ri%ate res7ondent :imselfG 9:en :e su77lied t:e information t:roug: :is + Cune ",/, letter to t:e editor& Fad 7ri%ate res7ondent not re%ealed t:at :e 9as t:e >organi=er> of t:e F'C(T referred to in t:e 0orBal articles- t:e 7ublic 9ould :a%e remained in blissful ignorance of :is identity& 2t is t:erefore clear t:at on t:e element of identifiability alone t:e case falls& T:e abo%e disquisitions not9it:standing- and on t:e assum7tion arguendo t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent :as been sufficiently identified as t:e subBect of 0orBal;s dis7uted comments- 9e no9 7roceed to resol%e t:e ot:er issues and 7ass u7on t:e 7ertinent findings of t:e courts a 0uo& T:e t:ird- fourt:- fift: and sixt: assigned errors all re%ol%e around t:e 7rimary question of 9:et:er t:e dis7uted articles constitute 7ri%ileged communications as to exem7t t:e aut:or from liability& T:e trial court ruled t:at 7etitioner 0orBal cannot :ide be:ind t:e 7ro7osition t:at :is articles are 7ri%ileged in c:aracter under t:e 7ro%isions of Art& 3.+ of T:e Re%ised 6enal Code 9:ic: state O Art& 3.+& Requirement for 7ublicity& O 4%ery defamatory im7utation is 7resumed to be malicious- e%en if it be true- if no good intention and Bustifiable moti%e for ma8ing it is s:o9n- exce7t in t:e follo9ing cases:

294
"$ A 7ri%ate communication made by any 7erson to anot:er in t:e 7erformance of any legal- moral or social dutyG and$ A fair and true re7ort- made in good fait:- 9it:out any comments or remar8s- of any Budicial or ot:er official 7roceedings 9:ic: are not of confidential nature- or of any statement- re7ort or s7eec: deli%ered in said 7roceedings- or of any ot:er act 7erformed by 7ublic officers in t:e exercise of t:eir functions& Res7ondent court ex7lained t:at t:e 9ritings in question did not fall under any of t:e exce7tions described in t:e abo%e#quoted article since t:ese 9ere neit:er >7ri%ate communications> nor >fair and true re7ort & & & 9it:out any comments or remar8s&> 0ut t:is is incorrect& A 7ri%ileged communication may be eit:er absolutely 7ri%ileged or qualifiedly 7ri%ileged& Absolutely 7ri%ileged communications are t:ose 9:ic: are not actionable e%en if t:e aut:or :as acted in bad fait:& An exam7le is found in 3ec& ""- Art&E2- of t:e ",/) Constitution 9:ic: exem7ts a member of Congress from liability for any s7eec: or debate in t:e Congress or in any Committee t:ereof& 17on t:e ot:er :and- qualifiedly 7ri%ileged communications containing defamatory im7utations are not actionable unless found to :a%e been made 9it:out good intention Bustifiable moti%e& To t:is genre belong >7ri%ate communications> and >fair and true re7ort 9it:out any comments or remar8s&> 2ndis7utably- 7etitioner 0orBal;s questioned 9ritings are not 9it:in t:e exce7tions of Art& 3.+ of T:e Re%ised 6enal Code for- as correctly obser%ed by t:e a77ellate court- t:ey are neit:er 7ri%ate communications nor fair and true re7ort 9it:out any comments or remar8s& Fo9e%er t:is does not necessarily mean t:at t:ey are not 7ri%ileged& To be sure- t:e enumeration under Art& 3.+ is not an exclusi%e list of qualifiedly 7ri%ileged communications since fair commentaries on matters of 7ublic interest are li8e9ise 7ri%ileged& T:e rule on 7ri%ileged communications :ad its genesis not in t:e nation;s 7enal code but in t:e 0ill of Rig:ts of t:e Constitution guaranteeing freedom of s7eec: and of t:e 7ress& As early as ","/- in 3nited #tates v. !aLete- t:is Court ruled t:at 7ublications 9:ic: are 7ri%ileged for reasons of 7ublic 7olicy are 7rotected by t:e constitutional guaranty of freedom of s7eec:& T:is constitutional rig:t cannot be abolis:ed by t:e mere failure of t:e legislature to gi%e it ex7ress recognition in t:e statute 7unis:ing libels& T:e conce7t of 7ri%ileged communications is im7licit in t:e freedom of t:e 7ress& As :eld in Eli+alde v. 1utierre+ /4and reiterated in #antos v. !ourt of ppeals O To be more s7ecific- no cul7ability could be im7uted to 7etitioners for t:e alleged offending 7ublication 9it:out doing %iolence to t:e conce7t of 7ri%ileged communications im7licit in t:e freedom of t:e 7ress& As 9as so 9ell 7ut by Custice Aalcolm in 0ustos: >6ublic 7olicy- t:e 9elfare of society- and t:e orderly administration of go%ernment :a%e demanded 7rotection of 7ublic o7inion& T:e ine%itable and incontestable result :as been t:e de%elo7ment and ado7tion of t:e doctrine of 7ri%ilege&> T:e doctrine formulated in t:ese t9o ( $ cases resonates t:e rule t:at 7ri%ileged communications must- sui generis- be 7rotecti%e of 7ublic o7inion& T:is closely ad:eres to t:e democratic t:eory of free s7eec: as essential to collecti%e self#determination and esc:e9s t:e strictly libertarian %ie9 t:at it is 7rotecti%e solely of self#ex7ression 9:ic:- in t:e 9ords of @ale 3terling 6rofessor 59en Fiss- ma8es its a77eal to t:e indi%idualistic et:os t:at so dominates our 7o7ular and 7olitical culture& 2t is t:erefore clear t:at t:e restricti%e inter7retation %ested by t:e Court of A77eals on t:e 7enal 7ro%ision exem7ting from liability only 7ri%ate communications and fair and true re7ort 9it:out comments or remar8s defeats- rat:er t:an 7romotes- t:e obBecti%e of t:e rule on 7ri%ileged communications- sadly contri%ing as it does- to su77ress t:e :ealt:y effloresence of 7ublic debate and o7inion as s:ining linc:7ins of truly democratic societies&

295
To reiterate- fair commentaries on matters of 7ublic interest are 7ri%ileged and constitute a %alid defense in an action for libel or slander& T:e doctrine of fair comment means t:at 9:ile in general e%ery discreditable im7utation 7ublicly made is deemed false- because e%ery man is 7resumed innocent until :is guilt is Budicially 7ro%ed- and e%ery false im7utation is deemed maliciousne%ert:eless- 9:en t:e discreditable im7utation is directed against a 7ublic 7erson in :is 7ublic ca7acity- it is not necessarily actionable& 2n order t:at suc: discreditable im7utation to a 7ublic official may be actionable- it must eit:er be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false su77osition& 2f t:e comment is an ex7ression of o7inion- based on establis:ed facts- t:en it is immaterial t:at t:e o7inion :a77ens to be mista8en- as long as it mig:t reasonably be inferred from t:e facts& T:ere is no denying t:at t:e questioned articles dealt 9it: matters of 7ublic interest& 2n :is testimony- 7ri%ate res7ondent s7elled out t:e obBecti%es of t:e conference t:us O & & & T:e 7rinci7al conference obBecti%e is to come u7 9it: a draft of an 5mnibus 0ill t:at 9ill embody a long term land trans7ortation 7olicy for 7resentation to Congress in its next regular session in Culy& 3ince last Canuary- t:e 'ational Conference on (and Trans7ortation ('C(T$- t:e conference secretariat- :as been enlisting su77ort from all sectors to ensure t:e success of t:e 7roBect& 6ri%ate res7ondent li8e9ise testified t:at t:e F'C(T 9as raising funds t:roug: solicitation from t:e 7ublic # <: 'o9- in t:is first letter- you :a%e attac:ed a budget and it says :ere t:at in t:is seminar of t:e First 'ational Conference on (and Trans7ortation- you 9ill need around 5ne million eig:t :undred fifteen t:ousand 7esos- is t:at rig:tJ A: T:at 9as t:e budget estimate- sir& <: Fo9 do you intend as executi%e officer- to raise t:is fund of your seminarJ A: ?ell- from s7onsors suc: as go%ernment agencies and 7ri%ate sectors or organi=ations as 9ell as indi%idual trans7ort firms and from indi%idual delegatesH7artici7ants& T:e declared obBecti%e of t:e conference- t:e com7osition of its members and 7artici7ants- and t:e manner by 9:ic: it 9as intended to be funded no doubt lend to its acti%ities as being genuinely imbued 9it: 7ublic interest& An organi=ation suc: as t:e F'C(T aiming to rein%ent and res:a7e t:e trans7ortation la9s of t:e country and see8ing to source its funds for t:e 7roBect from t:e 7ublic at large cannot dissociate itself from t:e 7ublic c:aracter of its mission& As suc:- it cannot but in%ite close scrutiny by t:e media obliged to inform t:e 7ublic of t:e legitimacy of t:e 7ur7ose of t:e acti%ity and of t:e qualifications and integrity of t:e 7ersonalities be:ind it& T:is in effect is t:e strong message in Ne' Dor/ "imes v. #ullivan 9:ic: t:e a77ellate court failed to consider or- for t:at matter- to :eed& 2t insisted t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as not- 7ro7erly s7ea8ing- a >7ublic official> nor a >7ublic figure-> 9:ic: is 9:y t:e defamatory im7utations against :im :ad not:ing to do 9it: :is tas8 of organi=ing t:e F'C(T& Ne' Dor/ "imes v. #ullivan 9as decided by t:e 1& 3& 3u7reme Court in t:e ",*!s at t:e :eig:t of t:e bloody rioting in t:e American 3out: o%er racial segregation& T:e t:en City Commissioner (& 0& 3ulli%an of Aontgomery- Alabama- sued 'e9 @or8 Times for 7ublis:ing a 7aid 7olitical ad%ertisement es7ousing racial equality and describing 7olice atrocities committed against students inside a college cam7us& As commissioner :a%ing c:arge o%er 7olice actions 3ulli%an felt t:at :e 9as sufficiently

296
identified in t:e ad as t:e 7er7etrator of t:e outrageG consequently- :e sued 'e9 @or8 Times on t:e basis of 9:at :e belie%ed 9ere libelous utterances against :im& T:e 1& 3& 3u7reme Court s7ea8ing t:roug: Ar& Custice ?illiam C& 0rennan Cr& ruled against 3ulli%an :olding t:at :onest criticisms on t:e conduct of 7ublic officials and 7ublic figures are insulated from libel Budgments& T:e guarantees of freedom of s7eec: and 7ress 7ro:ibit a 7ublic official or 7ublic figure from reco%ering damages for a defamatory false:ood relating to :is official conduct unless :e 7ro%es t:at t:e statement 9as made 9it: actual malice- i&e&- 9it: 8no9ledge t:at it 9as false or 9it: rec8less disregard of 9:et:er it 9as false or not& T:e raison d' Otre for t:e 'e9 @or8 Times doctrine 9as t:at to require critics of official conduct to guarantee t:e trut: of all t:eir factual assertions on 7ain of libel Budgments 9ould lead to self# censors:i7- since 9ould be critics 9ould be deterred from- %oicing out t:eir criticisms e%en if suc: 9ere belie%ed to be true- or 9ere in fact true- because of doubt 9:et:er it could be 7ro%ed or because of fear of t:e ex7ense of :a%ing to 7ro%e it& 2n t:e 7resent case- 9e deem 7ri%ate res7ondent a 7ublic figure 9it:in t:e 7ur%ie9 of t:e 'e9 @or8 Times ruling& At any rate- 9e :a%e also defined >7ublic figure> in yers &rodu%tion &ty., 2td. v. !apulong /5 as O & & & & a 7erson 9:o- by :is accom7lis:ments- fame- mode of li%ing- or by ado7ting a 7rofession or calling 9:ic: gi%es t:e 7ublic a legitimate interest in :is doings- :is affairs and :is c:aracter- :as become a >7ublic 7ersonage&> Fe is- in ot:er 9ords- a celebrity& 5b%iously to be included in t:is category are t:ose 9:o :a%e ac:ie%ed some degree of re7utation by a77earing before t:e 7ublic- as in t:e case of an actor- a 7rofessional baseball 7layer- a 7ugilist- or any ot:er entertainer& T:e list is- :o9e%er- broader t:an t:is& 2t includes 7ublic officers- famous in%entors and ex7lorers- 9ar :eroes and e%en ordinary soldiers- infant 7rodigy- and no less a 7ersonage t:an t:e Great 4xalted Ruler of t:e lodge& 2t includes- in s:ort- anyone 9:o :as arri%ed at a 7osition 9:ere t:e 7ublic attention is focused u7on :im as a 7erson& T:e F'C(T 9as air underta8ing infused 9it: 7ublic interest& 2t 9as 7romoted as a Boint 7roBect of t:e go%ernment and t:e 7ri%ate sector- and organi=ed by to7 go%ernment officials and 7rominent businessmen& For t:is reason- it attracted media mileage and dre9 7ublic attention not only to t:e conference itself but to t:e 7ersonalities be:ind as 9ell& As its 4xecuti%e Director and s7o8esman7ri%ate res7ondent consequently assumed t:e status of a 7ublic figure& 0ut e%en assuming e.7gratia argumenti t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent- des7ite t:e 7osition :e occu7ied in t:e F'C(T- 9ould not qualify as a 7ublic figure- it does not necessarily follo9 t:at :e could not %alidly be t:e subBect of a 7ublic comment e%en if :e 9as not a 7ublic official or at least a 7ublic figure- for :e could be- as long as :e 9as in%ol%ed in a 7ublic issue& 2f a matter is a subBect of 7ublic or general interest- it cannot suddenly became less so merely because a 7ri%ate indi%idual is in%ol%ed or because in some sense t:e indi%idual did not %oluntarily c:oose to become in%ol%ed& T:e 7ublic;s 7rimary interest is in t:e e%entG t:e 7ublic focus is on t:e conduct of t:e 7artici7ant and t:e contenteffect and significance of t:e conduct- not t:e 7artici7ant;s 7rior anonymity or notoriety& T:ere is no denying t:at t:e questioned articles dealt 9it: matters of 7ublic interest& A reading of t:e im7utations of 7etitioner 0orBal against res7ondent ?enceslao s:o9s t:at all t:ese necessarily bore u7on t:e latter;s official conduct and :is moral and mental fitness as 4xecuti%e Director of t:e F'C(T& T:e nature and functions of :is 7osition 9:ic: included solicitation of funds- dissemination of information about t:e F'C(T in order to generate interest in t:e conference- and t:e management and coordination of t:e %arious acti%ities of t:e conference demanded from :im utmost :onesty- integrity and com7etence& T:ese are matters about 9:ic: t:e 7ublic :as t:e rig:t to be informed- ta8ing into account t:e %ery 7ublic c:aracter of t:e conference itself&

297
Concededly- 7etitioner 0orBal may :a%e gone o%erboard in t:e language em7loyed describing t:e >organi=er of t:e conference&> 5ne is tem7ted to 9onder if it 9as by some misc:ie%ous gambit t:at :e 9ould also dare test t:e limits of t:e >9ild blue yonder> of free s7eec: in t:is Burisdiction& 0ut no matter :o9 intem7erate or de7recatory t:e utterances a77ear to be- t:e 7ri%ilege is not to be defeated nor rendered inutile for- as succinctly ex7ressed by Ar& Custice 0rennan in Ne' Dor/ "imes v. #ullivan>MDNebate on 7ublic issues s:ould be unin:ibited- robust and 9ide o7en- and t:at it may 9ell include %e:ement- caustic and sometimes un7leasantly s:ar7 attac8s on t:e go%ernment and 7ublic officials& T:e Court of A77eals concluded t:at since malice is al9ays 7resumed in t:e 7ublication of defamatory matters in t:e absence of 7roof to t:e contrary- t:e question of 7ri%ilege is immaterial& ?e reBect t:is 7ostulate& ?:ile- generally- malice can be 7resumed from defamatory 9ords- t:e 7ri%ileged c:aracter of a communication destroys t:e 7resum7tion of malice& T:e onus of 7ro%ing actual malice t:en lies on 7laintiff- 7ri%ate res7ondent ?enceslao :erein& Fe must bring :ome to t:e defendant- 7etitioner 0orBal :erein- t:e existence of malice as t:e true moti%e of :is conduct& Aalice connotes ill 9ill or s7ite and s7ea8s not in res7onse to duty but merely to inBure t:e re7utation of t:e 7erson defamed- and im7lies an intention to do ulterior and unBustifiable :arm& Aalice is bad fait: or bad moti%e& 2t is t:e essence of t:e crime of libel& 2n t:e milieu obtaining- can it be reasonably inferred t:at in 9riting and 7ublis:ing t:e articles in question 7etitioner 0orBal acted 9it: maliceJ 6rimarily- 7ri%ate res7ondent failed to substantiate by 7re7onderant e%idence t:at 7etitioner 9as animated by a desire to inflict un*ustifiable harm on :is re7utation- or t:at t:e articles 9ere 9ritten and 7ublis:ed 'ithout good motives or *ustifiable ends& 5n t:e ot:er :and- 9e find 7etitioner 0orBal to :a%e acted in good fait:& Ao%ed by a sense of ci%ic duty and 7rodded by :is res7onsibility as a ne9s7a7erman- :e 7roceeded to ex7ose and denounce 9:at :e 7ercei%ed to be a 7ublic dece7tion& 3urely- 9e cannot begrudge :im for t:at& 4%ery citi=en :as t:e rig:t to enBoy a good name and re7utation- but 9e do not consider t:at 7etitioner 0orBal :as %iolated t:at rig:t in t:is case nor abused :is 7ress freedom& Furt:ermore- to be considered malicious- t:e libelous statements must be s:o9n to :a%e been 9ritten or 7ublis:ed 9it: t:e 8no9ledge t:at t:ey are false or in rec8less disregard of 9:et:er t:ey are false or not& >Rec8less disregard of 9:at is false or not> means t:at t:e defendant entertains serious doubt as to t:e trut: of t:e 7ublication- or t:at :e 7ossesses a :ig: degree of a9areness of t:eir 7robable falsity& T:e articles subBect of t:e instant case can :ardly be said to :a%e been 9ritten 9it: 8no9ledge t:at t:ese are false or in rec8less disregard of 9:at is false or not& T:is is not to say :o9e%er t:at t:e %ery serious allegations of 7etitioner 0orBal assumed by 7ri%ate res7ondent to be directed against :im are true& 0ut 9e ne%ert:eless find t:ese at least to :a%e been based on reasonable grounds formed after t:e columnist conducted se%eral 7ersonal inter%ie9s and after considering t:e %aried documentary e%idence 7ro%ided :im by :is sources& T:us- t:e follo9ing are su77orted by documentary e%idence: (a$ t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent requested Gloria Aaca7agal#Arroyo- t:en :ead of t:e Garments and Textile 4x7ort 0oard (GT40$- to ex7edite t:e 7rocessing and release of t:e im7ort a77ro%al and certificate of a%ailability of a garment firm in exc:ange for t:e monetary contribution of Culiano (im- 9:ic: necessitated a re7ly from t:e office of Gloria Aaca7agal#Arroyo ex7laining t:e 7rocedure of t:e GT40 in 7rocessing a77lications and clarifying t:at all a77licants 9ere treated equallyG (b$ t:at Antonio 6eriquet 9as designated C:airman of t:e 4xecuti%e Committee of t:e F'C(T not9it:standing t:at :e :ad 7re%iously declined t:e offerG :4 and- (c$ t:at des7ite t:e fact t:at t:en 6resident Aquino and :er 3ecretary of Trans7ortation Rainerio Reyes declined t:e in%itation to be guest s7ea8ers in t:e conference- t:eir names 9ere still included in t:e- 7rintout of t:e F'C(T& Added to t:ese are t:e admissions of 7ri%ate res7ondent t:at: (a$ :e assisted Culiano (im in :is a77lication

298
for a quota allocation 9it: t:e GT40 in exc:ange for monetary contributions to t:e F'C(TG (b$ :e included t:e name of t:en 3ecretary of Trans7ortation Rainerio Reyes in t:e 7romotional materials of t:e conference not9it:standing t:e latter;s refusal to lend :is name to and 7artici7ate in t:e F'C(TG and- (c$ :e used different letter:eads and tele7:one numbers& 4%en assuming t:at t:e contents of t:e articles are false- mere error- inaccuracy or e%en falsity alone does not 7ro%e actual malice& 4rrors or misstatements are ine%itable in any sc:eme of truly free ex7ression and debate& Consistent 9it: good fait: and reasonable care- t:e 7ress s:ould not be :eld to account- to a 7oint of su77ression- for :onest mista8es or im7erfections in t:e c:oice of language& T:ere must be some room for misstatement of fact as 9ell as for misBudgment& 5nly by gi%ing t:em muc: lee9ay and tolerance can t:ey courageously and effecti%ely function as critical agencies in our democracy& 2n Bulletin &ublishing !orp. v. Noel 9e :eld # A ne9s7a7er es7ecially one national in reac: and co%erage- s:ould be free to re7ort on e%ents and de%elo7ments in 9:ic: t:e 7ublic :as a legitimate interest 9it: minimum fear of being :auled to court by one grou7 or anot:er on criminal or ci%il c:arges for libel- so long as t:e ne9s7a7er res7ects and 8ee7s 9it:in t:e standards of morality and ci%ility 7re%ailing 9it:in t:e general community& To a%oid t:e self#censors:i7 t:at 9ould necessarily accom7any strict liability for erroneous statements- rules go%erning liability for inBury to re7utation are required to allo9 an adequate margin of error by 7rotecting some inaccuracies& 2t is for t:e same reason t:at t:e 'e9 @or8 Times doctrine requires t:at liability for defamation of a 7ublic official or 7ublic figure may not be im7osed in t:e absence of 7roof of >actual malice> on t:e 7art of t:e 7erson ma8ing t:e libelous statement& At any rate- it may be salutary for 7ri%ate res7ondent to 7onder u7on t:e ad%ice of Ar& Custice Aalcolm ex7ressed in 3.#. v. Bustos- t:at >t:e interest of society and t:e maintenance of good go%ernment demand a full discussion of 7ublic affairs& Com7lete liberty to comment on t:e conduct of 7ublic men is a scal7el in t:e case of free s7eec:& T:e s:ar7 incision of its 7robe relie%es t:e abscesses of officialdom& Aen in 7ublic life may suffer under a :ostile and unBust accusationG t:e 9ound may be assuaged by t:e balm of a clear conscience& A 7ublic official must not be too t:in# s8inned 9it: reference to comments u7on :is official acts&> T:e foregoing dis7osition renders t:e second and se%ent: assigned errors moot and academic- :ence- 9e find no necessity to 7ass u7on t:em& ?e must :o9e%er ta8e t:is o77ortunity to li8e9ise remind media 7ractitioners of t:e :ig: et:ical standards attac:ed to and demanded by t:eir noble 7rofession& T:e danger of an unbridled irrational exercise of t:e rig:t of free s7eec: and 7ress- t:at is- in utter contem7t of t:e rig:ts of ot:ers and in 9illful disregard of t:e cumbrous res7onsibilities in:erent in it- is t:e e%entual self#destruction of t:e rig:t and t:e regression of :uman society into a %eritable Fobbesian state of nature 9:ere life is s:ort- nasty and brutis:& T:erefore- to recogni=e t:at t:ere can be no absolute >unrestraint> in s7eec: is to truly com7re:end t:e quintessence of freedom in t:e mar8et7lace of social t:oug:t and actiongenuine freedom being t:at 9:ic: is limned by t:e freedom of ot:ers& 2f t:ere is freedom of t:e 7ressoug:t t:ere not also be freedom from t:e 7ressJ 2t is in t:is sense t:at self#regulation as distinguis:ed from self#censors:i7 becomes t:e ideal mean for- as Ar& Custice Fran8furter :as 9arned- >M?Nit:out & & & a li%ely sense of res7onsibility- a free 7ress may readily become a 7o9erful instrument of inBustice&> (est 9e be misconstrued- t:is is not to diminis: nor constrict t:at s7ace in 9:ic: ex7ression freely flouris:es and o7erates& For 9e :a%e al9ays strongly maintained- as 9e do no9- t:at freedom of ex7ression is man;s birt:rig:t #constitutionally 7rotected and guaranteed- and t:at it :as become t:e singular role of t:e 7ress to act as its >defensor fidei> in a democratic society suc: as ours& 0ut it is also 9ort: 8ee7ing in mind t:at t:e 7ress is t:e ser%ant- not t:e master- of t:e citi=enry- and its freedom does not carry 9it: it an restricted :unting license to 7rey on t:e ordinary citi=en&

299
5n 7etitioners; counterclaim for damages- 9e find t:e e%idence too meager to sustain any a9ard& 2ndeed- 7ri%ate res7ondent cannot be said to :a%e instituted t:e 7resent suit in abuse of t:e legal 7rocesses and 9it: :ostility to t:e 7ressG or t:at :e acted maliciously- 9antonly- o77ressi%elyfraudulently and for t:e sole 7ur7ose of :arassing 7etitioners- t:ereby entitling t:e latter to damages& 5n t:e contrary- 7ri%ate res7ondent acted 9it:in :is rig:ts to 7rotect :is :onor from 9:at :e 7ercei%ed to be malicious im7utations against :im& 6roof and moti%e t:at t:e institution of t:e action 9as 7rom7ted by a sinister design to %ex and :umiliate a 7erson must be clearly and 7re7onderantly establis:ed to entitle t:e %ictim to damages& T:e la9 could not :a%e meant to im7ose a 7enalty on t:e rig:t to litigate- nor s:ould counsel;s fees be a9arded e%ery time a 7arty 9ins a suit& For!o& J 4%ery man :as a rig:t to discuss matters of 7ublic interest& A clergyman 9it: :is floc8an admiral 9it: :is fleet- a general 9it: :is army- a Budge 9it: :is BuryG 9e are- all of ust:e subBect of 7ublic discussion& T:e %ie9 of our court :as been t:us stated: >2t is only in des7otisms t:at one must s7ea8sub rosa- or in 9:is7ers- 9it: bated breat:- around t:e corner- or in t:e dar8 on a subBect touc:ing t:e common 9elfare& 2t is t:e brig:test Be9el in t:e cro9n of t:e la9 to s7ea8 and maintain t:e golden mean bet9een defamation- on one :and- and a :ealt:y and robust rig:t of free 7ublic discussion- on t:e ot:er& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e 7etition is GRA'T4D& T:e Decision of t:e Court of A77eals of . Aarc: ",,* and its Resolution of " 3e7tember ",,* denying reconsideration are- R4E4R34D and 34T A32D4- and t:e com7laint for damages against 7etitioners is D23A2334D& 6etitioners; counterclaim for damages is li8e9ise D23A2334D for lac8 of merit& 'o costs concluding 9it: t:e 9isdom in 4arren v. &ulit+er &ublishing

E%$"!an C. Man(", &. T." H n. E#nan) C#(D PaG A% J(dA" O' T." C (#$ O' F)#%$ In%$anB" O' R)Da,, +#. X&))), Q.C., An$ n) A. +a#anda, Ed%", La!a8"n And R ,and Ga$-a)$an. G&R& 'o& (#+*!),& A7ril ")- ",/, CR1Y- J.: 5ne 9onders 9:y t:e res7ondent Budge did not immediately grant t:e 7etitioner;s motion to quas: t:e information on t:e ob%ious and %alid ground t:at t:e facts c:arged did not constitute an offense& T:is decisi%e act could :a%e a%oided t:e needless molestation of one more citi=en and cleared t:e clogged doc8ets of t:is Court of still anot:er of t:e 7rosecutions big and small so ram7ant during t:ose days of martial la9& Aore im7ortantly- it 9ould :a%e affirmed once again t:e freedom of ex7ression guaranteed in t:e 0ill of Rig:ts to 9:ic: e%ery one 9as entitled e%en under t:e ",)3 Constitution& T:is case goes bac8 to A7ril "- ",)*- 9:en a raid 9as conducted by t:e agents of t:e no9 defunct Anti#3muggling Action Center on t9o rooms in t:e To8yo Fotel in 0inondo- Aanila- 7ursuant to a 9arrant of sei=ure and detention issued by t:e Acting Collector of Customs of Aanila on A7ril !",)*& 4T:e raid resulted in t:e sei=ure of se%eral articles allegedly smuggled into t:e country by t:eir o9ners- t:ree of 9:om 9ere tourists from Fong8ong& T:ese articles subsequently became t:e subBect of sei=ure 7roceedings in t:e 0ureau of Customs but most of t:em 9ere ordered released u7on 7roof t:at t:e customs duties and ot:er c:arges t:ereon :ad been duly 7aid as e%idenced by t:e corres7onding official recei7ts& 5nly a fe9 items >of no commercial %alue> 9ere ordered confiscated& ?:ile t:e sei=ure 7roceedings 9ere 7ending- t:e 7etitioner- as counsel for t:e o9ners of t:e sei=ed articles- sent a letter dated A7ril ",-",)*- to t:e C:airman of t:e A3AC in 9:ic: :e com7lained about t:e conduct of t:e raid and demanded t:at t:e 7ersons res7onsible t:erefore be in%estigated& T:e letter follo9s in full:

300
43T40A' C& AA'14( Attorney at (a9 *+3 Car%aBal 3treet 0inondo- AanilaA7ril ,-",)* T:e C:airman A3AC- Cam7 Aguinaldo <ue=on City 3ir: T:is is in be:alf of my clients- Ars& 'g ?oo Fay and :er son- Ar& (ee Iee Aing- 9:o soug:t my :el7 in re7orting to your goodself t:eir 2 com7laint about certain acts committed by A3AC men 9:ic:- from all a77earances- constitute criminal offenses& 2 am referring to t:e raid t:ey conducted on A7ril "- ",)* at about +:3! in t:e afternoon at To8yo Fotel- 5ng7in 3treet- 0inondo- Aanila- 7ursuant to a >?arrant of 3ei=ure and Detention> (sei=ure 2dentification 'o& "+, $ issued by t:e Acting Collector of Customs on A7ril !- ",)*& T:e raiding team- about "! in number and :eaded by one Amado enrol- too8 ad%antage of t:e fact t:at Ars& 'g ?oo Fay 9as alone in :er :otel room& T:e A3AC agents- des7ite Ars& 'g;s 7rotest and claim of innocence- forced t:eir 9ay into t:e room and ransac8ed t:e 7lace for alleged untaxed goods& 'ot only did t:ey ta8e e%eryt:ing t:ey could find in t:e room- but also forcibly too8 from :er 7erson t:e 9rist 9atc: and Bade bracelet (gold 7lated s:e 9as 9earing at t:e time& T:ey also forced o7en :er :andbag and di%ested :er of :er 9allet containing )! Fong8ong dollars- as 9ell as :er nec8lace and :er son;s 9rist 9atc: 9:ic: s:e :ad 7laced in said :andbag& Ars& 'g 9as also subBected to t:e indignities of being searc:ed by a male 7erson& After em7tying t:e room of its contents- t:e raiding team 7resented to :er a carbon co7y of a list 7ur7orting to s:o9 t:e goods sei=ed& T:e list- :o9e%er- a77ears not only illegible but does not reflect all t:e goods t:at 9ere ta8en a9ay by t:e A3AC agents& ?:at is more- said men- li8e9ise ta8ing ad%antage of t:e absence of Ars& 'g;s son- o9ner of some of t:e articles- falsified t:e signature of t:e latter by 9riting :is name on t:e s7ace designated as >o9ner>- ma8ing it a77ear t:at :e ((ee Iee Aing$ :ad ac8no9ledged t:at t:e list co%ers all t:e items sei=ed& T:e documents and ot:er 7a7ers 7resented to me by my clients re%eal t:at t:e articles sei=ed 9ere declared at t:e Aanila 2nternational Air7ort u7on arri%al- and 9ere 7ro7erly a77raised& T:e corres7onding customs c:arges 9ere li8e9ise 7aid& 2t is e%identt:erefore- t:at my clients 9ere %ictims of foul 7lay masterminded by no less t:an la9 enforcers 9:o 7rey on tourists- 7articularly C:inese- for ob%ious reasons& 2 examined t:e records in t:e 0ureau of Customs and found out t:at it 9as on t:e basis of an affida%it executed by A3AC Agent Rolando Gatmaitan and t:e letter#request sent by t:e Eice#C:airman of A3AC 0rig& Gen& Ramon Y& Aguirre- to t:e Collector of Customs t:at 7rom7ted t:e latter to issue t:e 9arrant in question& 2n t:is connection- 2 must state- 9it: all fran8ness- t:at t:ere 9as undue :aste in t:e request for t:e issuance of t:e 9arrant- because it is discernible from a mere reading of t:e affida%it t:at its contents are mere 7ro#forma and :earsay statements of t:e abo%enamed A3AC agent& 2t could not :a%e- as it no9 a77ears- Bustified t:e drastic action soug:t to be accom7lis:ed& 'eedless to state- t:e incident com7lained of not only :as caused considerable damage to my clients but to our country as 9ell& 2t is for t:is reason t:at 9e demand for an immediate and full dress in%estigation of t:e A3AC officers and men 9:o too8 7art in or caused t:e issuance of t:e 9arrant- as 9ell as t:ose 9:o 7artici7ated in t:e raid-

301
9it: t:e %ie9 of 7urging t:e go%ernment of undesirablesG and t:at 7ending suc: in%estigation t:e said officers and men be sus7ended from furt:er 7erforming t:eir duties& Eery truly yours(3GD&$ 43T40A' C& AA'14( T:e C:airman of t:e A3AC ordered t:e in%estigation as demanded- but t:e agents c:arged 9ere all exonerated in a decision dated August .- ",)*& 'ot satisfied 9it: 9:at :e later described as a >:ome to9n decision-> t:e 7etitioner- on be:alf of :is clients- filed a com7laint for robbery against t:e same agents 9it: t:e 5ffice of t:e City Fiscal of Aanila& T:is 9as later 9it:dra9n- :o9e%er- on ad%ice of t:e inquest fiscal 9:o said t:at t:e case mig:t come under t:e Burisdiction of t:e military tribunal& T:e 7etitioner says :e t:en 9ent to Cam7 Aguinaldo but 9as discouraged from filing t:e com7laint t:ere 9:en lie 9as told t:at it 9ould ta8e about a year to com7lete t:e 7reliminary in%estigation alone& T:e o9ners of t:e sei=ed articles t:en instituted a ci%il com7laint for damages 9:ic: t:e 7etitioner filed for t:em in t:e Court of First 2nstance of Aanila on Cune )-",)*& T:ree days later- t:ere a77eared in t:e Cune "!- ",)* issue of t:e 0ulletin Today t:e follo9ing re7ort: T51R23T3 314 AG4'T3- 5FF2C2A( Four C:inese- t:ree of 9:om 9ere tourists from Fong8ong- :a%e filed a case for damages against a customs official and "" agents of t:e go%ernment;s anti#smuggling action center A3AC in connection 9it: a raid conducted in t:eir :otel rooms- more t:an a mont: ago& T:e case 9as doc8eted in Aanila;s court of first instance (CF2$ as Ci%il Case 'o& "! *,+& T:e com7laints also alleged t:ey lost assorted materials amounting to 6+*-!!3&+!& 'amed res7ondents in t:e case 9ere acting customs collector Ramon Y& AguirreRolando Gatmaitan- Antonio 0aranda- Amado A& Tirol- Francisco C& 3antos- 4dsel (abayen- Cose Robles- 'estor 4usebio- Freddie 5cnila- Renato <uiro=- 6edro Cunanan- Cr&- and 4nrique 6ere=- all of A3AC T:e acting customs collector 9as im7leaded in t:e case in :is official ca7acity for :a%ing issued t:e 9arrant t:at led to t:e criminal offenses com7lained of& Aquirre- A3AC %ice#c:airman- 9as named as defendant for soliciting t:e issuance of a 9arrant of sei=ure and detention re7ortedly on t:e basis of c:arges contained in an affida%it executed by Gatmaitan- anot:er A3AC agent& 4steban Aanuel filed t:e case in be:alf of t:e 7laintiffs com7osed of Aanila resident 'g Tee- and Fong Iong %isitors 'g ?oo Fay- C:eng 6i8 @ing and (ee Iee Aing 9:o came to t:e 6:ili77ines to %isit t:eir relati%es and friends& T:e agents allegedly subBected 'g ?oo Fay to indignities and too8 :er nec8lacebracelet and 9rist 9atc:& T:ey allegedly sei=ed many articles %alued at 6 )-!!! 9:ic: :a%e remained unaccounted for in t:e list submitted by t:e defendants as t:e in%entory of t:e items confiscated& 5n t:e basis of t:ese antecedent facts- an information for libel 9as filed against t:e 7etitioner(ee Iee Aing and 'g ?oo Fay in t:e Court of First 2nstance of Ri=al& A reading of t:e information

302
does not s:o9 9:y t:e t9o C:inese 9ere included in t:e c:argeG all it said 9as t:at t:ey 9ere t:e clients of t:e 7etitioner& As for t:e 7etitioner :imself- it 9as alleged t:at :e :ad committed t:e crime of libel by 9riting t:e letter of A7ril ,- ",)* (9:ic: 9as quoted in full$ and by causing t:e 7ublication of t:e ne9s item in t:e 0ulletin Today& T:e subBect of t:is 7etition is t:e order of t:e res7ondent Budge dated Aarc: 3- ",))- denying t:e motion to quas: filed by t:e 7etitioner- 9:o :ad claimed t:at :is letter to t:e A3AC C:airman 9as not actionable because it 9as a 7ri%ileged communicationG t:at t:e ne9s re7ort in t:e 0ulletin Today 9as not based on t:e letter#com7laintG and t:at in any case it 9as a fair and true re7ort of a Budicial 7roceeding and t:erefore also 7ri%ileged& Fis motion for reconsideration :a%ing been also denied in t:e order dated A7ril )-",))- :e no9 see8s relief from t:is Court against 9:at :e claims as t:e gra%e abuse of discretion committed by t:e res7ondent Budge in sustaining t:e information& 2t is 7er:a7s indicati%e of t:e 9ea8ness of t:e res7ondents; 7osition t:at 9:en as8ed to comment on t:e 7etitioner;s motion to quas:- t:e city fiscal ne%er did so during a 7eriod of more t:an ninety days& 2t 9as left to a 7ri%ate 7rosecutor to enter :is o9n a77earance t:ereafter- 7resumably because t:e fiscal did not seem to be %ery ent:usiastic about t:e case- and to file t:e comment for t:e 7ri%ate res7ondents :imself (ater- 9:en t:e 7etitioner came to t:is Court and 9e required a comment from t:e 3olicitor General- t:is official com7lied only after as8ing for (and getting$ t9enty#six extensions for a total of nine mont:s and se%en days- and at t:at t:e comment 9as only a :alf#:earted defense of t:e c:allenged orders& Des7ite t:e 7etitioner;s effecti%e rebuttal in :is re7ly- t:e 3olicitor General did not as8 for lea%e to file a reBoinder as if :e :ad lost all taste for combat not9it:standing t:e many 7oints raised by t:e 7etitioner t:at :ad to be refuted& 6er:a7s it 9as Bust as 9ell& (i8e a good general- t:e 3olicitor General 7robably understood t:at t:e battle 9as lost& 2ndeed it 9as& 2n fact- it s:ould ne%er :a%e commenced& From t:e 7urely 7rocedural 7ers7ecti%e- t:ere is muc: to fault about t:e information& T:e t9o C:inese clients 9:o 9ere im7leaded 9it: t:e 7etitioner 9ere c:arged 9it: absolutely nothing7rom7ting t:e res7ondent Budge to 7erem7torily dismiss t:e information as to t:em& ?orse- t:e information im7uted to t:e remaining accused t9o different offenses- to 9it- 9riting t:e allegedly libelous letter and causing t:e 7ublication of t:e allegedly libelous ne9s re7ort& T:is 9as not allo9ed under Rule ""!- 3ection " - of t:e Rules of Court- 7ro%iding t:at >a com7laint or information must c:arge but one offense- exce7t only in t:ose cases in 9:ic: existing la9s 7rescribe a single 7unis:ment for %arious offenses&> 2f libelous t:e letter and t:e ne9s re7ort constituted se7arate offenses t:at s:ould :a%e been c:arged in se7arate informations& (Fo9e%er- not :a%ing been raised in t:e motion to quas:- t:at ground 9as deemed 9ai%ed under Rule ".- 3ection /- of t:e Rules of Court&$ From t:e %ie97oint of substanti%e la9- t:e c:arge is e%en more defecti%e- if not ridiculous& Any one 9it: an elementary 2 8no9ledge of constitutional la9 and criminal la9 9ould :a%e 8no9n t:at neit:er t:e letter nor t:e ne9s account 9as libelous& T:e a77licable 7ro%ision in t:e Re%ised 6enal Code reads as follo9s: Article 3.+& ,e0uirement for publi%ity& O 4%ery defamatory im7utation is 7resumed to be malicious- e%en if it be true- if no good intention and Bustifiable moti%e for ma8ing it is s:o9n- exce7t in t:e follo9ing cases: "& A 7ri%ate communication made by any 7erson to anot:er in t:e 7erformance of any legal- moral or social dutyG and

303
& A fair and true re7ort- made in good fait:- 9it:out comments or remar8s- of any Budicial- legislati%e or ot:er official 7roceedings 9:ic: are not of confidential nature- or of any statement- re7ort or s7eec: deli%ered in said 7roceedings- or of any ot:er act 7erformed by 7ublic officers in t:e exercise of t:eir functions& T:e letter comes under 2tem " as it 9as addressed by t:e 7etitioner to t:e A3AC C:airman to com7lain against t:e conduct of :is men 9:en t:ey raided t:e C:inese tourists; rooms in t:e To8yo Fotel& 2t 9as sent by t:e 7etitioner mainly in :is ca7acity as a la9yer in t:e disc:arge of :is legal duty to 7rotect :is clients& ?:ile :is 7rinci7al 7ur7ose 9as to %indicate :is clients; interests against t:e abuses committed by t:e A3AC agents- :e could also in%o8e :is ci%ic duty as a 7ri%ate indi%idual to ex7ose anomalies in t:e 7ublic ser%ice& T:e com7laint 9as addressed to t:e official 9:o :ad aut:ority o%er t:em and could im7ose t:e 7ro7er disci7linary sanctions& 3ignificantly- as an index of good fait:t:e letter 9as sent 7ri%ately directly to t:e addressee- 9it:out any fanfare or 7ublicity& As for t:e ne9s re7ort- it is difficult to belie%e t:at t:e 7etitioner- an ordinary citi=en 9it:out any 8no9n ties to t:e ne9s7a7ers- could :a%e by :imself caused t:e 7ublication of suc: an ex7losi%e item& T:ere is no prima fa%ies:o9ing t:at- by some 8ind of influence :e :ad o%er t:e 7eriodical- :e succeeded in :a%ing it 7ublis:ed to defame t:e A3AC agents& 2t does not a77ear eit:er t:at t:e re7ort 9as 7aid for li8e an ad%ertisement& T:is loo8s instead to be t:e result of t:e resourcefulness of t:e ne9s7a7er in disco%ering matters of 7ublic interest for dutiful disclosure to its readers& 2t s:ould be 7resumed t:at t:e re7ort 9as included in t:e issue as 7art of t:e ne9s7a7er;s co%erage of im7ortant current e%ents as selected by its editorial staff& At any rate- t:e ne9s item comes under 2tem of t:e abo%equoted article as it is a true and fair re7ort of a Budicial 7roceeding- made in good fait: and 9it:out comments or remar8s& T:is is also 7ri%ileged& Aoreo%er- it is not correct to say- as t:e 3olicitor General does- t:at Article 3.+ is not a77licable because t:e com7laint re7orted as filed 9ould not by itself alone constitute a Budicial 7roceeding e%en before t:e issues are Boined and trial is begun& T:e doctrine :e in%o8es is no longer controlling& T:e case of C:oa Te8 Fee %& 6:ili77ine 6ublis:ing Co&- 9:ic: :e dies- :as been su7erseded by Cuenco %& Cuenco- 9:ere t:e Court categorically :eld: ?e are firmly con%inced t:at t:e correct rule on t:e matter s:ould be t:at a fair and true re7ort of a com7laint filed in court 9it:out remar8s nor comments even before an ans'er is filed or a decision 7romulgated s:ould be co%ered by t:e 7ri%ilege& (4m7:asis 7ro%ided$ 2t may also be argued t:at t:e com7laint- standing by itself- is a 7ublic record and may be 7ublis:ed as suc: under Rule "3.- 3ection of t:e Rules of Court unless t:e court directs ot:er9ise in t:e interest of morality or decency& 2t is true t:at t:e matters mentioned in Article 3.+ as exce7tions to t:e general rule are not absolutely 7ri%ileged and are still actionable& Fo9e%er- since 9:at is 7resumed is not malice but in fact lac8 of malice- it is for t:e 7rosecution to o%ercome t:at 7resum7tion by 7roof t:at t:e accused 9as actually moti%ated by malice& Absent suc: 7roof- t:e c:arge must fail& ?e are not unmindful of t:e contention t:at t:e information s:ould not be dismissed outrig:t because t:e 7rosecution must first be gi%en a c:ance to introduce e%idence to o%ercome t:e 7resum7tion& T:is is indeed t:e normal 7rocedure& Fo9e%er- 9:ere it a77ears from t:e allegations in t:e information itself t:at t:e accused acted in good fait: and for Bustifiable ends in ma8ing t:e allegedly libelous im7utations- and in 7ertinent 7leadings- t:ere is no need to 7rolong t:e 7roceedings to t:e i 7reBudice of t:e defendant& T:e Court can and s:ould dismiss t:e c:arge 9it:out furt:er adoas 9e :eld in 6eo7le %& Andres: T:e 7rosecution claims t:at t:e trial court erred in dismissing t:e case on a mere motion to quas:- contending t:at t:e trial Budge;s conclusion on t:e face of t:e

304
information t:at defendant# a77ellee 9as 7rom7ted only by good moti%es assumes a fact to be 7ro%ed- and t:at t:e alleged 7ri%ileged nature of defendant# a77ellee;s 7ublication is a matter of defense and is not a 7ro7er ground for dismissal of t:e com7laint for libel ((u C:u 3ing- et al& %s& (u Tiong Gui )* 6:il& **,$& ?:en in t:e information itself it a77ears t:at t:e communication alleged to be libelous is contained in an a77ro7riate 7leading in a court 7roceeding- the privilege be%omes at on%e apparent and defendant need not 'ait until the trial and produ%e eviden%e before he %an raise the 0uestion of privilege& And if- added to t:is- t:e questioned im7utations a77ear to be really 7ertinent and rele%ant to defendant;s 7lea for reconsideration based on com7lainant;s su77osed 7artiality and abuse of 7o9er from 9:ic: defendant :as a rig:t to see8 relief in %indication of :is client;s interest as a litigant in com7lainant;s court- it 'ould be%ome evident that the fa%ts thus alleged in the information 'ould not %onstitute an offense of libel. As :as already been said by t:is Court: As to t:e degree of rele%ancy or 7ertinency necessary to ma8e alleged defamatory matter 7ri%ileged- t:e courts are inclined to be liberal& T:e matter to 9:ic: t:e 7ri%ilege does not extend must be so 7al7ably 9anting in relation to t:e subBect matter of t:e contro%ersy t:at no reasonable man can doubt its irrele%ancy and im7ro7riety& Fa%ing t:is in mind- it %an not be said that the trial %ourt %ommitted a reversible error in this %ase of finding that the allegations in the information itself present a %ase of an absolutely privileged %ommuni%ation *ustifying the dismissal of the %ase. T:e t9o exce7tions 7ro%ided for under Article 3.+ are based on t:e 9ider guarantee of freedom of ex7ression as an institution of all re7ublican societies& T:is in turn is 7redicated on t:e 7ro7osition t:at t:e ordinary citi=en :as a rig:t and a duty to in%ol%e :imself in matters t:at affect t:e 7ublic 9elfare and- for t:is 7ur7ose- to inform :imself of suc: matters& T:e %itality of re7ublicanism deri%es from an alert citi=enry t:at is al9ays ready to 7artici7ate in t:e discussion and resolution of 7ublic issues& T:ese issues include t:e conduct of go%ernment functionaries 9:o are accountable to t:e 7eo7le in t:e 7erformance of t:eir assigned 7o9ers- 9:ic: after all come from t:e 7eo7le t:emsel%es& 4%er citi=en :as a rig:t to ex7ect from all 7ublic ser%ants utmost fidelity to t:e trust re7osed in t:em and t:e maximum of efficiency and integrity in t:e disc:arge of t:eir functions& 4%ery citi=en :as a rig:t to com7lain and critici=e if t:is :o7e is betrayed& 2t is no less im7ortant to obser%e t:at t:is %igilance is not only a rig:t but a res7onsibility of t:e :ig:est order t:at s:ould not be s:ir8ed for fear of official re7risal or because of mere ci%ic let:argy& ?:ene%er t:e citi=en disco%ers official anomaly- it is :is duty to ex7ose and denounce it- t:at t:e cul7rits may be 7unis:ed and t:e 7ublic ser%ice cleansed e%en as t:e rig:ts %iolated are %indicated or redressed& 2t can ne%er be o%erstressed t:at indifference to ine7tness 9ill breed more ine7tness and t:at toleration of corru7tion 9ill breed more corru7tion& T:e sins of t:e 7ublic ser%ice are im7utable not only to t:ose 9:o actually commit t:em but also to t:ose 9:o by t:eir silence or inaction 7ermit and encourage t:eir commission& T:e res7onsibility to re%ie9 t:e conduct of t:e go%ernment functionaries is es7ecially addressed to t:e la9yer because :is training enables :im- better t:an most citi=ens- to determine if t:e la9 :as been %iolated or irregularities :a%e been committed- and to ta8e t:e needed ste7s to remedy t:e 9rong and 7unis: t:e guilty& T:e res7ondents contend t:at t:e letter 9as 9ritten by t:e 7etitioner to influence t:e sei=ure 7roceedings 9:ic: 9ere t:en 7ending& 4%en assuming t:at to be true- suc: 7ur7ose did not necessarily ma8e t:e letter malicious- es7ecially if it is considered t:at t:e com7laint against t:e A3AC agents could not be raised in t:e said 7roceedings& T:e A3AC C:airman- not t:e Collector of Customs- :ad Burisdiction to disci7line t:e agents&

305
2t s:ould also be noted- as furt:er e%idence of lac8 of malice- t:at e%en after t:e sei=ure 7roceedings :ad been concluded in fa%or of t:e 7etitioner;s clients- :e 7ursued t:eir com7laint against t:e A3AC agents in t:e fiscal;s office in Aanila and t:en 9it: t:e military aut:orities in Cam7 Aguinaldo- ending 9it: t:e filing of t:e ci%il case for damages in t:e court of first instance of Aanila& 2t 9ould be a sad day indeed if for denouncing %enality in go%ernment- t:e citi=en could be called to tas8 and be :imself 7unis:ed on t:e ground of malicious defamation& 2f e%ery accuser 9ere :imself to be accused for disc:arging :is duty as :e sees it- t:en 9ill t:e 9rong#doer :a%e been granted in effect- and by t:is Court no less- an undeser%ed immunity for :is misdeeds or omissions& T:e 7ri%ate indi%idual 9ould be barred from com7laining about 7ublic misconduct& 4%ery criticism :e ma8es 9ould be tainted 9it: malice and 7ronounced as criminal& T:e next ste7 may 9ell be a cons7iracy among t:ose in t:e go%ernment to co%er u7 eac: ot:er;s faults and to insulate t:emsel%es from t:e legitimate efforts of t:e 7eo7le to question t:eir conduct& T:e second exce7tion is Bustified under t:e rig:t of e%ery citi=en to be informed on matters of 7ublic interest- 9:ic:- significantly- 9as first recogni=ed in t:e ",)3 Constitution& 4%en if it 9ere nott:e rig:t 9ould still be embraced in t:e broader safeguard of freedom of ex7ression- for t:e sim7le reason t:at t:e rig:t to s7ea8 intelligently on >matters t:at touc: t:e existing order> necessarily im7orts t:e a%ailability of adequate official information on suc: matters& 3urely- t:e exercise of suc: rig:t cannot ins7ire belief if based only on conBectures and rumors and :alf#trut:s because direct access to t:e facts is not allo9ed to t:e ordinary citi=en& T:is rig:t is no9 effecti%ely enBoyed 9it: t:e :el7 of t:e mass media- 9:ic: :a%e fortunately resumed t:eir roles as an inde7endent conduit of information bet9een t:e go%ernment and t:e 7eo7le& 2t is t:e recogni=ed duty of t:e media to re7ort to t:e 7ublic 9:at is going on in t:e go%ernment- including t:e 7roceedings in any of its de7artments or agencies- sa%e only in exce7tional cases in%ol%ing decency or confidentiality 9:en disclosure may be 7ro:ibited&To 7rotect t:em in t:e disc:arge of t:is mission- t:e la9 says t:at as long as t:e account is a fair and true re7ort of suc: 7roceedings- and made 9it:out any remar8s or comment- it is considered 7ri%ileged and malice is not 7resumed& 2ts 7ublication is encouraged rat:er t:an su77ressed or 7unis:ed& T:is is one reason 9:y t:e Court loo8s 9it: disa77ro%al on censors:i7 in general as an unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of ex7ression- Censors:i7 7resumes malice at t:e outset- 2t 7re%ents inquiry into 7ublic affairs and curtails t:eir disclosure and discussion- lea%ing t:e 7eo7le in t:e dar8 as to 9:at is :a77ening in t:e 7ublic ser%ice& 0y loc8ing t:e 7ublic 7ortals to t:e citi=en- 9:o can only guess at t:e goings on in t:e forbidden 7recints- censors:i7 se7arates t:e 7eo7le from t:eir go%ernment& T:is certainly s:ould not be 7ermitted& >A free 7ress stands as one of t:e great inter7reters bet9een t:e go%ernment and t:e 7eo7le-> declared Custice 3ut:erland of t:e 1&3& 3u7reme Court& >To allo9 it to be fettered is to fetter oursel%es&> 2t is curious t:at t:e ones most ob%iously res7onsible for t:e 7ublication of t:e allegedly offensi%e ne9s re7ort- namely- t:e editorial staff and t:e 7eriodical itself- 9ere not at all im7leaded& T:e c:arge 9as le%eled against t:e 7etitioner and- >curiouser> still- :is clients 9:o :ad not:ing to do 9it: t:e editorial 7olicies of t:e ne9s7a7er& T:ere is :ere a manifest effort to 7ersecute and intimidate t:e 7etitioner for :is temerity in accusing t:e A3AC agents 9:o a77arently enBoyed s7ecial 7ri%ileges O and 7er:a7s also immunities O during t:ose o77ressi%e times& T:e non#inclusion of t:e 7eriodicals 9as a trans7arent :y7ocrisy- an ostensibly 7ious if not at all con%incing 7retense of res7ect for freedom of ex7ression t:at 9as in fact one of t:e most desecrated liberties during t:e 7ast des7otism& ?e are con%inced t:at t:e information against t:e 7etitioner s:ould ne%er :a%e been filed at all and t:at t:e res7ondent Budge committed gra%e abuse of discretion in denying t:e motion to quas: t:e information on t:e ground t:at t:e allegation 7etitions t:erein did not constitute an offense& T:e 7etitioner is entitled to t:e relief :e see8s from t:ose 9:o in t:e guise of la9 and t:roug: t:e instrumentality of t:e trial court 9ould im7ose u7on :im t:is 9arrant tyranny&

306
ACC5RD2'G(@- t:e 7etition is GRA'T4D& T:e orders of t:e res7ondent Budge dated Aarc: 3- ",))- and A7ril )- ",))- are 34T A32D4 and Criminal Case 'o& <#)!+.- in :is court- is D23A2334D& Costs against t:e res7ondents&

E,"n)$a L"d"%-a S),&a, "$ a,. &. E%$."# P"#a,$a G&R& 'o& (#"3""+&August ,- ",*" R4@43- C&0&(&- J&: A77ellants s7ouses 3aturnino 3il%a and 4lenita (edesma3il%a 7ray for reconsideration of t:is Court;s decision of 'o%ember .- ",*!- claiming t:at O ("$ A77ellant 4lenita 3il%a s:ould be a9arded moral damages for 4st:er 6eralta;s unaut:ori=ed use of t:e designation of >Ars& 4st:er 3il%a>G ( $ T:e a9ard of 7ecuniary damages against a77ellant 3aturnino 3il%a is un9arranted by t:e facts and t:e la9& 2t is contended t:at t:e 7ro:ibition im7osed u7on a77ellee 4st:er 6eralta from re7resenting :erself- directly or indirectly- as t:e 9ife of 3aturnino 3il%a s:ould result in an a9ard of moral damages in fa%or of a77ellant 4lenita (edesma- 9:ose exclusi%e rig:t to t:e a77ellation is recogni=ed by t:e decision& T:is argument misa77re:ends t:e bias of t:e decision& 4st:er 6eralta 9as forbidden from re7resenting :erself as Ars& 3aturnino 3il%a for t:e reason t:at it 9as 7ro%ed in t:is case t:at s:e 9as not legally married to :im- and because :e is no9 la9fully married to 4lenita (edesma& 0ut an a9ard of damages in t:e latter;s fa%or 9ould require a furt:er finding t:at t:e assum7tion of t:e dis7uted status by 4st:er 6eralta 9as made in bad fait: or t:roug: cul7able negligence and no suc: finding :as been made in t:e decision& T:e facts are t:at t:e 4st:er in good fait: regarded :erself as 3aturnino;s la9ful 9ife- and t:at t:e man :imself led :er into t:is belief 7rior to :is desertion& T:at later on- un8no9n to 4st:er- 3il%a s:ould :a%e married :is co#a77ellant in t:e 1nited 3tates is not sufficient to im7ose u7on 4st:er any liability for damages or to destroy :er original good fait:- t:ere being no 7roof t:at t:e existence of a %alid marriage bet9een 3aturnino and 4lenita 9as adequately dri%en :ome to 4st:er before t:is case 9as instituted& T:at t:e t9o a77ellants 3il%a 9ere li%ing toget:er as :usband and 9ife 9as certainly not sufficient 7roof- considering 3aturnino 3il%a;s 7ast :istory and conduct& Fo9 9as a77ellee to 8no9 t:at 3aturnino;s connection 9it: 4lenita (edesma 9as any more legitimate t:an :is 7re%ious one 9it: a77ellee :erselfJ Aoreo%er- t:e trial court found 4lenita 3il%a;s claim for damages not adequately 7ro%ed- and 9e :a%e not found in t:e record any Bustification to de7art from t:at finding& 22 As to t:e a9ard of damages against 3aturnino 3il%a- it is to be noted t:at 9:ile t:e latter;s liability 9as extra#contractual in origin- still- under t:e Ci%il Code of "//,- t:e damages resulting from a tort are measured in t:e same manner as t:ose due from a contractual debtor in bad fait:- since :e must ans9er for suc: damages- 9:et:er :e :ad foreseen t:em or not- Bust as :e must indemnify not only for dumnum emergens but also forlu%rum %essans- as required by Article ""!*& Article ",! of t:e "//, Ci%il Code of 37ain formulated no standard for measuring 0uasideli%tual damages- t:e article merely 7rescribing t:at t:e guilty 7arty >s:all be liable for t:e damages so done>& T:is indefiniteness led modern ci%il la9 9riters to :old t:at t:e standards set in Articles ""!* and ""!)- 7lace in t:e general rules on obligations- >rigen 7or igual 7ara las contractuales y las extra contractuales- las 7reestablecidas y las que broten e.7lege de actos ilicitos>& (Roces- 'otesto Fis:er- >(os DaDos Ci%iles y su Re7aracion-> (", )$& 3ince liability for damages arises in eit:er case from a breac: of a 7re# existing obligation (to be:a%e 9it:out fault or negligence in case of quasi#delicts- and- in case of

307
contracts- to obser%e t:e conduct required by t:e sti7ulation$-it is logical to conclude 9it: 6laniol t:at >(a res7onsabilidad contractual y la extra contractual tienen el mismo fundamento- 7or lo que se :allan suBetas en 7rinci7io a identicas regalas> (* 6laniol#Ri7ert- Derec:o Ci%il- 7& . ,-sec& 3)/$& Giorgi is of t:e same o7inion (. Teoria de 5bligaciones- 77& "33- !)# !/$& 3o is de Cossio y Corral(>4l Dolo en el Derec:o Ci%il>- 77& "3 #"33$: 6ero si ello es asi- resulta claro que la a7roximacionentre esta clase de cul7a y la contractuales cada dia mayor-:asta el extremo de que- segun :emos antes indicado solamente se 7ueden seDalar diferencias accessorias- y muc:as %eces a7arentes entre una y otra& 4n 7rimer termino- 7orque el conce7tode cul7a contractual se extiende no solo a las obligacionesnacidas ex contractu- sino- en general- a todas aquellas 7reexistentes entre las 7artes a la realidad del acto daDoso (obligaciones legales$& de otra 7arte- 7orque si bien consideramoslas cosas- la res7onsabilidad llamada extracontractual- deri%a siem7re del quebrantamiento de un deber general- im7licitamentereconocido 7or la ley- cual es el de que todos deben actuar socialmente con la debida diligencia- e%itando causar dano a los demas- y una derc:o que todo ciudadano tine- correlati%amente-a no ser daKLKado en su 7atrimonio y bienes 7or la conducta dolosa o negligente de los demas& 4n tal sentido- :abria siem7re entre el autor del daDo y la %ictima- una relacion Buridica-constituida 7or este derec:o y aquel deber& 4ste idea de unidad entre ambas instituciones se traduce en que las 7retendidadas diferencias en order a la extension de la indemni=acion- en ambos casos- no 7uedan defenderse a la %ista de los 7rece7tos de nuestro Derec:o 7ositi%o& 4n efectono contiene el Ca7itulo 22 del Titulo `E2 del (ibro 2E de nuestroCodigo ci%il norma alguna referente a la extension de la indemni=acion que en cada caso :aya de 7restarse- lo que nosobliga for=osamente a acudir a las normas general contenidasen el Ca7itulo 22- del Titulo 2 de dic:o libro- 2E- relati%eo a los >efectos de los obligaciones>- que ninguna ra=on 7eermite limitar&a naturale=a contractual- ya que el articulo "&"!" :able genericamente de obligaciones el "&"! - de >todas las obligaciones>Gel "&"!3- de toda clase de obligaciones>- y en ninguno de los articulos subsifuientes se :ace referencia a una clase es7ecial de obligaciones- sino a todas en general& <ue las dis7osiciones de este Ca7itulo son a7licables en loscasos de cul7a extracontractuales doctrina constantemente reconocida- 7or la Buris7rudencia del Tribunal 3u7remo& Asi-en la sentencia de "+ de diciembre de "/,+- concretandose a losarticulos "&"!"- "&"!3 y "&"!+afirma que son de caracter generaly a77licables a toda clase de obligaciones- no ofreciendocontradiccion con las es7eciales de los articulos "&,! y "&,!3G la sentencia de ". de enero de ",! - 7ermite inter7retar los articulos"&,! - t "&,!3 7or los "&"!3 y "&"!*- a los efectos de determinar los elementos que :an de entrar en la indemni=acion&(a misma doctrina se mantiene en la senencia de de diciembrede ",+*- y en otras muc:as que 7uedieramos aducir& ?:et:er or not t:e damages a9arded to a77ellee are a natural and direct consequence of 3il%a;s deceitful maneu%ers in ma8ing lo%e to a77ellee- and inducing :er to yield to :is ad%ances and li%e 9it: :im as :is 9ife (9:en 3il%a 8ne9 all t:e time t:at :e could not marry 4st:er 6eralta because of :is undissol%ed marriage to an Australian 9oman- a 7rior 9edloc8 t:at :e concealed from a77ellee$is a question of a77reciation& 2t is clear t:at 4st:er 6eralta 9ould not :a%e consented to t:e liaison :ad t:ere been no concealment of 3il%a;s 7re%ious marriage- or t:at t:e birt: of t:e c:ild 9as a direct result of t:is connection& T:at 4st:er :ad to su77ort t:e c:ild because 3il%a abandoned :er before it 9as born is li8e9ise 7atent u7on t:e record- and 9e can not see :o9 said a77ellant can be excused from liability t:erefor& 3il%a;s seduction and subsequent abandonment of a77ellee and :is illegitimate c:ild 9ere li8e9ise t:e direct cause for t:e filling of t:e su77ort case in Aanila- and in order to 7rosecute t:e same- a77ellee :ad to quit :er em7loyment in Da%ao& ?:ile t:e case could :a%e been filed in Da%ao9e do not belie%e t:at t:is error in selecting a more fa%orable %enue (due to :er unfamiliarity 9it: t:e

308
tec:nicalities of t:e la9$ s:ould be allo9ed to neutrali=ed t:e a77ellant 3il%a;s res7onsibility as t:e 7rimary causati%e factor of t:e 7reBudice and damage suffered by a77ellee& 2t is argued t:at t:e maintenance of t:e c:ild can not be considered as an element of damage because t:e c:ild;s case for su77ort 9as dismissed& T:is contention fails to ta8e into account t:e action t:ere 9as for su77ort as an ac8no9ledged natural c:ild- and t:at under t:e Ci%il Code of "//, (t:e la9 in force 9:en t:e c:ild 9as born$- t:e rig:t of natural c:ildren to be su77orted by t:eir fat:er de7ended exclusi%ely on t:e recognition by t:e fat:er of :is 7aternityG t:e rule being t:at O t:e mere fact of birt: ga%e no legal rig:t to t:e c:ild- and im7osed no legal duty u7on t:e fat:er- exce7t- 7er:a7s- in cases arising under t:e criminal la9&& & & T:e fat:er 9as not- 7rior to t:e Ci%il Code- and is not no9- bound to recogni=e :is natural son by reason of t:e mere fact t:at :e is t:e fat:er& & & & 0ut as to t:e fat:er t:e question is- and al9ays :as been- Fas :e 7erformed any acts 9:ic: indicate :is intention to recogni=e t:e c:ild as :isJ> (0uena%entura %s& 1rbano- . 6:il&- 77& #3$& 2t follo9s t:at in said suit- t:e real issue 9as 9:et:er t:e c:ild :ad been duly recogni=ed- t:e su77ort being a mere consequence of t:e recognition& T:erefore- t:e failure of t:e c:ild;s action for su77ort did not adBudge t:at :e 9as not t:e defendant;s c:ild- but t:at t:e defendant ne%er recogni=ed :im as suc:& T:at t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eal (CA#G&R& 'o& +.3 #R$ reBecting t:e c:ild;s action did not declare :im 9it:out rig:t to su77ort under all circumstances can be seen from t:e follo9ing statement in t:e decision: T:e 7roofs so far found in t:e record may 7ossibly 9arrant t:e filing of an action for com7ulsory recognition- under 7aragra7:s 3 and + of Art& /3- but t:ere 9as no action 7resented to t:at effect& 6lainly- t:e issues and 7arties being different- t:e result of t:e c:ild;s action can not constitute res *udi%ata 9it: regard to t:e mot:er;s claim for damages against t:e fat:er on account of t:e amounts s:e 9as com7elled to s7end for t:e maintenance of t:eir c:ild& 5n t:e contrary- t:e %ery fact t:at t:e c:ild 9as not allo9ed to collect su77ort from t:e fat:er (a77ellant t:erein$ merely em7:asi=es t:e account of :is birt: and rearing- 9:ic:- in turn- 9as a direct consequence of a77ellant;s tortious conduct& 3ince 4st:er 6eralta :ad ex7ressly t:at s:e :ad to su77ort t:e c:ild (Record of A77eal- 7& )- in fine$-and :ad 7rayed for suc: relief >as may be deemed Bust and equitable in t:e 7remises>- t:ere is no reason 9:y :er ex7enses for t:e c:ild;s maintenance s:ould not be ta8en into account& A77ellants submit t:at t:e damages allo9ed for maintenance of t:e son s:ould be limited to 6*!!&!! a year- because t:e income tax la9 allo9s only t:at muc: deduction for eac: c:ild& ?e do not belie%e t:at income tax deductions constitute a reasonable basis for an a9ard of damages- since t:ey are fixed an entirely different 7ur7ose (to arri%e at t:e net taxable income$ and merely re7resent t:e amount t:at t:e state is 9illing to exem7t from taxation& At t:at- it s:ould be noted t:at t:e deductible amount :as been lately increased to 6"-!!!&!! 7er annum& 0ut e%en at 6*!!&!! 7er annum- t:e damage suffered by a77ellee on t:is count- from ",+. to ",*!- already amount to around 6,-!!!&!! a year- to 9:ic: must be added t:e loss of a77ellee;s salary as executi%e of t:e Girl 3couts in Da%aoG so t:at t:e 6".-!!!&!! damages a9arded by t:e court belo9 is by no means excessi%e- as already :eld in our decision in c:ief& A77ellants also contend t:at t:e claim for 7ecuniary damages :as 7rescribed- because t:ey date bac8 to ",+.& 3uffice it to note t:at t:e defense of 7rescri7tion 9as not in%o8ed by a77ellants against t:e claim for 7ecuniary damages- and t:is defense must be regarded as 9ai%ed in relation to t:e same& A77ellant;s re7ly to t:e a77ellee;s first %ounter%laim in :er second amended ans9er (9:ic: 9as for actual or 7ecuniary damages$ read as follo9s (Ans9er to Counterclaim- Rec& A77& 7& 33$:

309
"& O T:at 7laintiff is 9it:out 8no9ledge or information sufficient to to form a belief as to t:e trut: of t:e allegations continued under 7aragra7:s *- )- /- ,- "!- "" and " of t:e first counterclaim and- t:erefore- s7ecifically denies t:e same& T:e defense of 7rescri7tion 9as actually inter7osed only against t:e se%ond %ounter%laim- in t:is 9ise: "& O T:at t:e cause of action alleged in t:e se%ond %ounter%laim :as already 7rescribed more t:an ten years :a%ing already ela7sed& (Ans9er to Counterclaim- Rec& A77&- 7& 3+$& T:e second counterclaim referred to 9as for damages due to >mental torture- anguis: and :urt feelings- all to :er damage in t:e amount of 6 .!-!!!&> (Rec& A77& 7& /$&17on t:e ot:er :and- our o9n a9ard for moral damages 9as based- not on t:e deceit 7racticed by 3il%a in securing 4st:er;s assent to li%e maritally 9it: :im- but on :is subsequent :arassment of :er in ",+.- by filing suit against :er in different 7ro%inces and ot:er9ise a77lying 7ressure to cause :er to abandon :er c:ild;s case& As t:is cause of action arose less t:an t:ree years before t:e 7resent action 9as filed- t:e defense of 7rescri7tion is rendered untenable against it- for t:e limitation 7eriod :ad not yet ex7ired 9:en t:e suit 9as broug:t&

An)$a Tan &. S$anda#d VaB((- O), C ., J(,)$ S$ D -)nA , IA-)d) R)B , and R(#a, T#an%)$ C . G&R& 'o& (#+"*!&Culy ,- ",. 0A1T23TA A'G4(5- J.: Anita Tan is t:e o9ner of t:e :ouse of strong materials based in t:e City of Aanila- 6:ili77ines& 5n Aay 3- ",+,- t:e 3tandard Eacuum 5il Com7any ordered t:e deli%ery to t:e Rural Transit Com7any at its garage at Ri=al A%enue 4xtension- City of Aanila- of "-, . gallons of gasoline using a gasoline tan8#truc8 trailer& T:e truc8 9as dri%en by Culito 3to& Domingo- 9:o 9as :el7ed 2gmidio Rico& ?:ile t:e gasoline 9as being disc:arged to t:e underground tan8- it caug:t fire- 9:ereu7on Culito 3to& Domingo dro%e t:e truc8 across t:e Ri=al A%enue 4xtension and u7on reac:ing t:e middle of t:e street :e abondoned t:e truc8 9it: continued mo%ing to t:e o77osite side of t:e first street causing t:e buildings on t:at side to be burned and detroyed& T:e :ouse of Anita Tan 9as among t:ose destroyed and for its re7air s:e s7ent 6" -!!!& As an aftermat: of t:e fire- Culito 3to& Domingo and 2migidio Rico 9ere c:arged 9it: arson t:roug: rec8less im7rudence in t:e Court of First 2nstance of Aanila 9:ere- after trial- bot: 9ere acquitted- t:e court :olding t:at t:eir negligence 9as not 7ro%en and t:e fire 9as due to an unfortunate accident& Anita Tan t:en broug:t t:e action against t:e 3tandard Eacuum 5il Com7any and t:e Rural Transit Com7anyG- including t:e t9o em7loyees- see8ing to reco%er t:e damages s:e :as suffered for t:e destruction of :er :ouse& Defendants filed se7arate motions to dismiss alleging in substance t:at ( a$ 7laintiff;s action is barred by 7rior Budgment and (b$ 7laintiff;s com7laint states no cause of actionG and t:is motion :a%ing been sustained- 7laintiff ele%ated t:e case to t:is Court im7uting eig:t errors to t:e court a 0uo& T:e record discloses t:at t:e lo9er court dismissed t:is case in %ie9 of t:e acquittal of t:e t9o em7loyees of defendant 3tandard Eacuum 5il Com7any 9:o 9ere c:arged 9it: arson t:roug: rec8less im7rudence in t:e Court of First 2nstance of Aanila& 2n concluding t:at accused 9ere not guilty of t:e acts c:arged because of t:e fire 9as accidental- t:e court made t:e follo9ing findings: >t:e accused 2migidio Rico cannot in any manner be :eld res7onsible for t:e fire to t:e t:ree :ouses and goods t:erein abo%e mentioned& Fe 9as not t:e cause of it- and :e too8 all t:e necessary 7recautions against suc: contingency as :e 9as confronted 9it:& T:e e%idence t:ro9s no lig:t on t:e cause of fire& T:e 9itnesses for t:e 7rosecution and for t:e defense testified t:at t:ey did not 8no9

310
9:at caused t:e fire& 2t 9as unfortunate accident for 9:ic: t:e accused 2igmidio Rico cannot be :eld res7onsible&> And a similar finding 9as made 9it: res7ect to t:e ot:er accused t:at t:e information filed against t:e accused by t:e Fiscal contains an itemi=ed statement of t:e damages suffered by t:e %ictims- including t:e one suffered by Anita Tan- t:ereby indicating t:e intention of t:e 7rosecution to demand indemnity from t:e accused in t:e same action- but t:at not9it:standing t:is statement 9it: res7ect to damages- Anita Tan did not ma8e any reser%ation of :er rig:t to file a se7arate ci%il action against t:e accused as required by t:e Rules of Court Rule "!)- section "#( a$& As Anita Tan failed to ma8e reser%ation- and t:e accused 9ere acquitted- t:e lo9er court ruled t:at s:e is no9 barred from filing t:is action against t:e defendants& T:is ruling is so far as defendants Culio 3to& Domingo and 2migidio Rico are concerned is correct& T:e rule is t:at >extinction of t:e 7enal action does not carry 9it: it extinction of t:e ci%ilunless t:e extinction 7roceeds from t:e declaration in a final Budgment t:at t:e fact from 9:ic: t:e ci%il mig:t arise did not exist> (Rule "!)- section "#d- Rules of Court$& T:is 7ro%ision means t:at t:e acquittal of t:e accused from t:e criminal c:arge 9ill not necessarily extinguis: t:e ci%il liability unless t:e court declares in t:e Budgment t:at t:e fact from 9:ic: t:e ci%il liability mig:t arise and did not exist& Fere it is true t:at Culito 3to& Domingo and 2gmidio Rico 9ere acquitted- t:e court :olding t:at t:ey 9ere not res7onsible for t:e fire t:at destroyed t:e :ouse of t:e 7laintiff-O9:ic: as a rule 9ill not necessarily extinguis: t:eir ci%il liability-Obut t:e court 9ent furt:er by stating t:at t:e e%idence t:ro9s no lig:t on t:e cause of fire and t:at it 9as an unfortunate accident for 9:ic: t:e accused cannot be :eld res7onsible& 2n our o7inion- t:is declaration fits 9ell into t:e exce7tion of t:e rule 9:ic: exem7ts t:e t9o accused from ci%il liability& ?:en t:e court acquitted t:e accused because t:e fire 9as due to an unfortunate accident it actually said t:at t:e fire 9as due to a fortuitous e%ent for 9:ic: t:e accused are not to blame& 2t actually exonerated t:em from ci%il liability& 0ut t:e case ta8es a different as7ect 9it: res7ect to t:e ot:er defendants& For one t:ing- t:e 7rinci7le of res *udi%ata cannot a77ly to t:em for t:e sim7le reason t:at t:ey 9ere not included as co# accused in t:e criminal case& 'ot :a%ing been included in t:e criminal case t:ey cannot enBoy t:e benefit resulting from t:e acquittal of t:e accused& T:is benefit can only be claimed by t:e accused if a subsequent action is later ta8en against t:em under t:e Re%ised 6enal Code& And t:is action can only be maintained if 7ro7er reser%ation is made and t:ere is no ex7ress declaration t:at t:e basis of t:e ci%il action :as not existed& 2t is- t:erefore- an error for t:e lo9er court to dismiss t:e case against t:ese t9o defendants more so 9:en t:eir ci%il liability is 7redicated or facts ot:er t:an t:ose attributed to t:e t9o em7loyees in t:e criminal case& Ta8e- for instance- of t:e 3tandard Eacuum 5il Com7any& t:is com7any is sued not 7recisely because of su77osed negligent acts of its t9o em7loyees Culito 3to& Domingo and 2gmidio Rico but because of acts of its o9n 9:ic: mig:t :a%e contributed to t:e fire t:at destroyed t:e :ouse of t:e 7laintiff& T:e com7laint contains definite allegations of negligent acts 7ro7erly attributable to t:e com7any 9:ic: 7ro%en and not refuted may ser%e as basis of its ci%il liability& T:us- in 7aragra7: . of t:e first cause of action- it is ex7ressly alleged t:at t:is com7any- t:roug: its em7loyees- failed to ta8e t:e necessary 7recautions or measures to insure safety and a%oid :arm to 7erson and damage to 7ro7erty as 9ell as to obser%e t:at degree of care- 7recaution and %igilance 9:ic: t:e circumstances Bustly demanded- t:ereby causing t:e gasoline t:ey 9ere unloading to catc: fire& t:e 7recautions or measures 9:ic: t:is com7any :as allegedly failed to ta8e to 7re%ent fire are not clearly stated- but t:ey are matters of e%idence 9:ic: need not no9 be determined& 3uffice it to say t:at suc: allegation furnis:es enoug: basis for a cause of action against t:is com7any& T:ere is no need for t:e 7laintiff to ma8e a reser%ation of :er rig:t to file a se7arate ci%il action- for as t:is court already :eld in a number of cases- suc: reser%ation is not necessary 9:en t:e ci%il action contem7lated is not deri%ed from t:e criminal liability but one based on %ulpa a0uiliana under t:e 5ld Ci%il Code (articles ",! to ","!$& T:ese t9o acts are se7arate and distinct and s:ould not be confused one 9it: t:e ot:er& 6laintiff can c:oose eit:er (Asuncion 6ar8er %s& Fon& A&C 6anlilio supra- 7& "&$

311
T:e case of t:e Rural Transit Co& is e%en more different as it is 7redicated on a s7ecial 7ro%isions of t:e Re%ised 6enal Code& T:us- article "!"- Rule - of said Code 7ro%ides: Art& "!"& ,ules regarding %ivil liability in %ertain %ases& O T:e exem7tion from criminal liability establis:ed in subdi%isions "- - 3- . and * of article " and in subdi%ision + of article "" of t:is Code does not include exem7tion from ci%il liability- 9:ic: s:all be enforced to t:e follo9ing rules: xxx xxx xxx

3econd& 2n cases falling 9it:in subdi%ision + of article ""- t:e 7ersons for 9:ose benefit t:e :arm :as been 7re%ented s:all be ci%illy liable in 7ro7ortion to t:e benefit 9:ic: t:ey :a%e recei%ed& And on t:is 7oint- t:e com7laint contains t:e follo9ing a%erments: 3& T:at after t:e corres7onding trial t:e said defendants 9ere acquitted and defendant Culio 3to& Domingo 9as acquitted- on t:e ground t:at :e so acted causing damage to anot:er in order to a%oid a greater e%il or inBury- under article ""- 7aragra7: + of t:e Re%ised 6enal Codeas s:o9n by t:e 7ertinent 7ortion of t:e decision of t:is Fonorable Court in said case- dated 5ctober /- ",+,- 9:ic: reads as follo9s: 1nder t:e foregoing facts- t:ere can be no doubt t:at :ad t:e accused Culito 3to& Domingo not ta8en t:e gasoline tan8#truc8 trailer out in t:e street- a bigger conflagration 9ould :a%e occurred in Ri=al A%enue 4xtension- and- 7er:a7s- t:ere mig:t :a%e been se%eral deat:s and bearing in mind t:e 7ro%isions of Article ""- 7aragra7: + of t:e Re%ised 6enal Code t:e accused Culito 3to& Domingo incurred no criminal liability& +& T:at it 9as consequently t:e defendant Rural Transit Co&- from 9:ose 7remises t:e burning gasoline tan8#truc8 trailer 9as dri%en out by defendant Culito 3to& Domingo in order to a%oid a greater e%il or inBury- for 9:ose benefit t:e :arm :as been 7re%ented under article "!"- second subsection of t:e Re%ised 6enal Code& Considering t:e abo%e quoted la9 and facts- t:e cause of action against t:e Rural Transit Com7any can :ardly be dis7uted- it a77earing t:at t:e damage caused to t:e 7laintiff 9as broug:t about mainly because of t:e desire of dri%er Culito 3to& Domingo to a%oid greater e%il or :arm- 9:ic: 9ould :a%e been t:e case :ad :e not broug:t t:e tan8#truc8 trailer to t:e middle of t:e street- for t:en t:e fire 9ould :a%e caused t:e ex7losion of t:e gasoline de7osit of t:e com7any 9:ic: 9ould :a%e resulted in a conflagration of muc: greater 7ro7ortion and consequences to t:e :ouses nearby or surrounding it& 2t cannot be denied t:at t:is com7any is one of t:ose for 9:ose benefit a greater :arm :as been 7re%ented- and as suc: it comes 9it:in t:e 7ur%ie9 of said 7enal 7ro%ision& T:e acquittal of t:e accused cannot- t:erefore- be deemed a bar to a ci%il action against t:is com7any because its ci%il liability is com7letely di%orced from t:e criminal liability of t:e accused& T:e rule regarding reser%ation of t:e rig:t to file a se7arate ci%il action does not a77ly to it& ?:erefore- t:e order a77ealed from is :ereby modified as follo9s: it is affirmed 9it: regard to defendants Culito 3to& Domingo and 2gmidio RicoG but it is reser%ed 9it: regard to defendants 3tandard Eacuum 5il Com7any and Rural Transit Com7any- 9it: costs&

P" ?," ' $." P.),)??)n"% &. R A",) +a8 $a% Y C #d &a G&R& 'o& "! !!)&3e7tember - ",,+ R5A4R5- J.: 2n Criminal Case 'o& C#3 ") filed before 0ranc: "*- RTC Roxas City- Rogelio 0ayotas y

312
Cordo%a 9as c:arged 9it: Ra7e and e%entually con%icted t:ereof on Cune ",- ",," in a decision 7enned by Cudge Aanuel 4& AutaBay& 6ending a77eal of :is con%iction- 0ayotas died on February +",, at t:e 'ational 0ilibid Fos7ital due to cardio res7iratory arrest secondary to :e7atic ence7:alo7at:y secondary to :i7ato carcinoma gastric malingering& Consequently- t:e 3u7reme Court in its Resolution of Aay !- ",, dismissed t:e criminal as7ect of t:e a77eal& Fo9e%er- it required t:e 3olicitor General to file its comment 9it: regard to 0ayotas; ci%il liability arising from :is commission of t:e offense c:arged& 2n :is comment- t:e 3olicitor General ex7ressed :is %ie9 t:at t:e deat: of accused#a77ellant did not extinguis: :is ci%il liability as a result of :is commission of t:e offense c:arged& T:e 3olicitor General- relying on t:e case of&eople v& #endaydiego insists t:at t:e a77eal s:ould still be resol%ed for t:e 7ur7ose of re%ie9ing :is con%iction by t:e lo9er court on 9:ic: t:e ci%il liability is based& Counsel for t:e accused#a77ellant- on t:e ot:er :and- o77osed t:e %ie9 of t:e 3olicitor General arguing t:at t:e deat: of t:e accused 9:ile Budgment of con%iction is 7ending a77eal extinguis:es bot: :is criminal and ci%il 7enalties& 2n su77ort of :is 7osition- said counsel in%o8ed t:e ruling of t:e Court of A77eals in &eople v& !astillo and O%femia / 9:ic: :eld t:at t:e ci%il obligation in a criminal case ta8es root in t:e criminal liability and- t:erefore- ci%il liability is extinguis:ed if accused s:ould die before final Budgment is rendered& ?e are t:us confronted 9it: a single issue: Does deat: of t:e accused 7ending a77eal of :is con%iction extinguis: :is ci%il liabilityJ 2n t:e aforementioned case of &eople v& !astillo- t:is issue 9as settled in t:e affirmati%e& T:is same issue 7osed t:erein 9as 7:rased t:us: Does t:e deat: of Alfredo Castillo affect bot: :is criminal res7onsibility and :is ci%il liability as a consequence of t:e alleged crimeJ 2t resol%ed t:is issue t:ru t:e follo9ing disquisition: Article /, of t:e Re%ised 6enal Code is t:e controlling statute& 2t reads- in 7art: Art& /,& -o' %riminal liability is totally e.tinguished & O Criminal liability is totally extinguis:ed: "& 0y t:e deat: of t:e con%ict- as to t:e 7ersonal 7enaltiesG and as to t:e 7ecuniary 7enalties liability t:erefor is extinguis:ed only 9:en t:e deat: of t:e offender occurs before final BudgmentG ?it: reference to Castillo;s criminal liability- t:ere is no question& T:e la9 is 7lain& 3tatutory construction is unnecessary& 3aid liability is extinguis:ed& T:e ci%il liability- :o9e%er- 7oses a 7roblem& 3uc: liability is extinguis:ed only 9:en t:e deat: of t:e offender occurs before final Budgment& 3addled u7on us is t:e tas8 of ascertaining t:e legal im7ort of t:e term >final Budgment&> 2s it final Budgment as contradistinguis:ed from an interlocutory orderJ 5r- is it a Budgment 9:ic: is final and executoryJ ?e go to t:e genesis of t:e la9& T:e legal 7rece7t contained in Article /, of t:e Re%ised 6enal Code :eretofore transcribed is lifted from Article "3 of t:e 37anis: 4l Codigo 6enal de "/)! 9:ic:- in 7art- recites: (a res7onsabilidad 7enal se extingue& "& 6or la muerte del reo en cuanto a las 7enas 7ersonales siem7re- y res7ecto a las 7ecuniarias- solo cuando a su fallecimiento no :ubiere

313
recaido senten%ia firme& xxx xxx xxx T:e code of "/)! & & & it 9ill be obser%ed em7loys t:e term > senten%ia firme&> ?:at is >sentencia firme> under t:e old statuteJ ``E222 4nciclo7edia Curidica 4s7aDola- 7& +)3- furnis:es t:e ready ans9er: 2t says: 34'T4'C2A F2RA4& (a sentencia que adquiere la fuer=a de las definiti%as 7or no :aberse utili=ado 7or las 7artes litigantes recurso alguno contra ella dentro de los terminos y 7la=os legales concedidos al efecto& >3entencia firme> really s:ould be understood as one 9:ic: is definite& 0ecause- it is only 9:en Budgment is suc: t:at- as Aedina y Aaranon 7uts it- t:e crime is confirmed O >en condena determinadaG> or- in t:e 9ords of Groi=ard- t:e guilt of t:e accused becomes O >una %erdad legal&> 6rior t:ereto- s:ould t:e accused die- according to Eiada- >no :ay legalmente- en tal caso- ni reo- ni delito- ni res7onsabilidad criminal de ninguna clase&> And- as Cudge Ia7unan 9ell ex7lained- 9:en a defendant dies before Budgment becomes executory- >t:ere cannot be any determination by final Budgment 9:et:er or not t:e felony u7on 9:ic: t:e ci%il action mig:t arise exists-> for t:e sim7le reason t:at >t:ere is no 7arty defendant&> (2 Ia7unan- Re%ised 6enal Code- Annotated7& + "& 3enator Francisco :olds t:e same %ie9& Francisco- Re%ised 6enal Code- 0oo8 5ne- nd ed&- 77& /.,#/*!$ T:e legal im7ort of t:e term >final Budgment> is similarly reflected in t:e Re%ised 6enal Code& Articles ) and )/ of t:at legal body mention t:e term >final Budgment> in t:e sense t:at it is already enforceable& T:is also brings to mind 3ection )- Rule ""* of t:e Rules of Court 9:ic: states t:at a Budgment in a criminal case becomes final >after t:e la7se of t:e 7eriod for 7erfecting an a77eal or 9:en t:e sentence :as been 7artially or totally satisfied or ser%ed- or t:e defendant :as ex7ressly 9ai%ed in 9riting :is rig:t to a77eal&> 0y fair intendment- t:e legal 7rece7ts and o7inions :ere collected funnel do9n to one 7ositi%e conclusion: T:e term final Budgment em7loyed in t:e Re%ised 6enal Code means Budgment beyond recall& Really- as long as a Budgment :as not become executory- it cannot be trut:fully said t:at defendant is definitely guilty of t:e felony c:arged against :im& 'ot t:at t:e meaning t:us gi%en to final Budgment is 9it:out reason& For 9:ere- as in t:is case- t:e rig:t to institute a se7arate ci%il action is not reser%ed- t:e decision to be rendered must- of necessity- co%er >bot: t:e criminal and t:e ci%il as7ects of t:e case&> &eople vs& Dusi%o ('o%ember ,- ",+ $5&G&- 'o& "!!- 7& ,*+& 3ee also: &eople vs& Moll- */ 6:il&- * *- *3+G $ran%is%o- Criminal 6rocedure- ",./ ed&- Eol& 2- 77& 3+- 3*& Correctly- Cudge Ia7unan obser%ed t:at as >t:e ci%il action is based solely on t:e felony committed and of 9:ic: t:e offender mig:t be found guilty- t:e deat: of t:e offender extinguis:es t:e ci%il liability&> 2 Ia7unan- Re%ised 6enal CodeAnnotated- supra& Fere is t:e situation obtaining in t:e 7resent case: Castillo;s criminal liability is out& Fis ci%il liability is soug:t to be enforced by reason of t:at criminal liability& 0ut t:en- if 9e dismiss- as 9e must- t:e criminal action and let t:e ci%il as7ect remain- 9e 9ill be faced 9it: t:e anomalous situation 9:ereby 9e 9ill be called u7on to clam7 ci%il liability in a case 9:ere t:e source t:ereof O criminal liability O does not exist& And- as 9as 9ell

314
stated in Bautista, et al& vs& Estrella, et al&CA#G&R& 'o& ", *#R- 3e7tember "- ",./- >no 7arty can be found and :eld criminally liable in a ci%il suit-> 9:ic: solely 9ould remain if 9e are to di%orce it from t:e criminal 7roceeding&> T:is ruling of t:e Court of A77eals in t:e !astillo case 9as ado7ted by t:e 3u7reme Court in t:e cases of &eople of the &hilippines v& Bonifa%io lison, et al&- &eople of the &hilippines v& Jaime Jose, et al& and &eople of the &hilippines v& #atorre by dismissing t:e a77eal in %ie9 of t:e deat: of t:e accused 7ending a77eal of said cases& As :eld by t:en 3u7reme Court Custice Fernando in t:e lison case: T:e deat: of accused#a77ellant 0onifacio Alison :a%ing been establis:ed- and considering t:at t:ere is as yet no final Budgment in %ie9 of t:e 7endency of t:e a77ealt:e criminal and ci%il liability of t:e said accused#a77ellant Alison 9as extinguis:ed by :is deat: (Art& /,- Re%ised 6enal CodeG Reyes; Criminal (a9- ",)" Re%& 4d&- 7& )")citing 6eo7le %& Castillo and 5femia C&A&- .* 5&G& +!+.$G consequently- t:e case against :im s:ould be dismissed& 5n t:e ot:er :and- t:is Court in t:e subsequent cases of Buenaventura Belamala v& Mar%elino &olinar 0 and2amberto "orri*os v& "he -onorable !ourt of ppeals ruled differently& 2n t:e former- t:e issue decided by t:is court 9as: ?:et:er t:e ci%il liability of one accused of 7:ysical inBuries 9:o died before final Budgment is extinguis:ed by :is demise to t:e extent of barring any claim t:erefore against :is estate& 2t 9as t:e contention of t:e administrator#a77ellant t:erein t:at t:e deat: of t:e accused 7rior to final Budgment extinguis:ed all criminal and ci%il liabilities resulting from t:e offense- in %ie9 of Article /,- 7aragra7: " of t:e Re%ised 6enal Code& Fo9e%er- t:is court ruled t:erein: ?e see no merit in t:e 7lea t:at t:e ci%il liability :as been extinguis:ed- in %ie9 of t:e 7ro%isions of t:e Ci%il Code of t:e 6:ili77ines of ",.! (Re7& Act 'o& 3/*$ t:at became o7erati%e eig:teen years after t:e re%ised 6enal Code& As 7ointed out by t:e Court belo9- Article 33 of t:e Ci%il Code establis:es a ci%il action for damages on account of 7:ysical inBuries- entirely separate and distin%t from the %riminal a%tion& Art& 33& 2n cases of defamation- fraud- and 7:ysical inBuries- a ci%il action for damages- entirely se7arate and distinct from t:e criminal action- may be broug:t by t:e inBured 7arty& 3uc: ci%il action s:all 7roceed inde7endently of t:e criminal 7rosecution- and s:all require only a 7re7onderance of e%idence& Assuming t:at for lac8 of ex7ress reser%ation- 0elamala;s ci%il action for damages 9as to be considered instituted toget:er 9it: t:e criminal action still- since bot: 7roceedings 9ere terminated 9it:out final adBudication- t:e ci%il action of t:e offended 7arty under Article 33 may yet be enforced se7arately& 2n "orri*os- t:e 3u7reme Court :eld t:at: xxx xxx xxx 2t s:ould be stressed t:at t:e extinction of ci%il liability follo9s t:e extinction of t:e criminal liability under Article /,- only 9:en t:e ci%il liability arises from t:e criminal act as its only basis& 3tated differently- 9:ere t:e ci%il liability does not exist inde7endently of t:e criminal res7onsibility- t:e extinction of t:e latter by deat:- ipso fa%to extinguis:es t:e former- provided- of course- t:at deat: su7er%enes before final Budgment& T:e said 7rinci7le does not a77ly in instant case 9:erein t:e ci%il liability s7rings neit:er solely nor originally from t:e crime itself but from a ci%il contract of 7urc:ase and sale&

315
(4m7:asis ours$ xxx xxx xxx 2n t:e abo%e case- t:e court 9as con%inced t:at t:e ci%il liability of t:e accused 9:o 9as c:arged 9it: estafa could li8e9ise trace its genesis to Articles ",- ! and " of t:e Ci%il Code since said accused :ad s9indled t:e first and second %endees of t:e 7ro7erty subBect matter of t:e contract of sale& 2t t:erefore concluded: >Consequently- 9:ile t:e deat: of t:e accused :erein extinguis:ed :is criminal liability including fine- :is ci%il liability based on t:e la9s of :uman relations remains&> T:us it allo9ed t:e a77eal to 7roceed 9it: res7ect to t:e ci%il liability of t:e accusednot9it:standing t:e extinction of :is criminal liability due to :is deat: 7ending a77eal of :is con%iction& To furt:er Bustify its decision to allo9 t:e ci%il liability to sur%i%e- t:e court relied on t:e follo9ing ratiocination: 3ince 3ection "- Rule 3 of t:e Rules of Court requires t:e dismissal of all money claims against t:e defendant 9:ose deat: occurred 7rior to t:e final Budgment of t:e Court of First 2nstance (CF2$- t:en it can be inferred t:at actions for reco%ery of money may continue to be :eard on a77eal- 9:en t:e deat: of t:e defendant su7er%enes after t:e CF2 :ad rendered its Budgment& 2n suc: case- ex7lained t:is tribunal- >t:e name of t:e offended 7arty s:all be included in t:e title of t:e case as 7laintiff#a77ellee and t:e legal re7resentati%e or t:e :eirs of t:e deceased#accused s:ould be substituted as defendants#a77ellants&> 2t is- t:us- e%ident t:at as Buris7rudence e%ol%ed from Castillo to TorriBos- t:e rule establis:ed 9as t:at t:e sur%i%al of t:e ci%il liability de7ends on 9:et:er t:e same can be 7redicated on sources of obligations ot:er t:an delict& 3tated differently- t:e claim for ci%il liability is also extinguis:ed toget:er 9it: t:e criminal action if it 9ere solely based t:ereon- i&e&- ci%il liability e. deli%to& Fo9e%er- t:e 3u7reme Court in &eople v& #endaydiego, et al& de7arted from t:is long# establis:ed 7rinci7le of la9& 2n t:is case- accused 3endaydiego 9as c:arged 9it: and con%icted by t:e lo9er court of mal%ersation t:ru falsification of 7ublic documents& 3endaydiego;s deat: su7er%ened during t:e 7endency of t:e a77eal of :is con%iction& T:is court in an un7recedented mo%e resol%ed to dismiss 3endaydiego;s a77eal but only to t:e extent of :is criminal liability& Fis ci%il liability 9as allo9ed to sur%i%e alt:oug: it 9as clear t:at suc: claim t:ereon 9as exclusi%ely de7endent on t:e criminal action already extinguis:ed& T:e legal im7ort of suc: decision 9as for t:e court to continue exercising a77ellate Burisdiction o%er t:e entire a77eal7assing u7on t:e correctness of 3endaydiego;s con%iction des7ite dismissal of t:e criminal action- for t:e 7ur7ose of determining if :e is ci%illy liable& 2n doing so- t:is Court issued a Resolution of Culy /",)) stating t:us: T:e claim of com7lainant 6ro%ince of 6angasinan for t:e ci%il liability sur%i%ed 3endaydiego because :is deat: occurred after final Budgment 9as rendered by t:e Court of First 2nstance of 6angasinan- 9:ic: con%icted :im of t:ree com7lex crimes of mal%ersation t:roug: falsification and ordered :im to indemnify t:e 6ro%ince in t:e total sum of 6*"-!+/& 3 (s:ould be 6.)-!+/& 3$& T:e ci%il action for t:e ci%il liability is deemed im7liedly instituted 9it: t:e criminal action in t:e absence of ex7ress 9ai%er or its reser%ation in a se7arate action (3ec& "- Rule """ of t:e Rules of Court$& T:e ci%il action for t:e ci%il liability is se7arate and distinct from t:e criminal action (6eo7le and Aanuel %s& Coloma- "!. 6:il& " /)G Roa %s& De la Cru=- "!) 6:il& /$& ?:en t:e action is for t:e reco%ery of money and t:e defendant dies before final Budgment in t:e Court of First 2nstance- it s:all be dismissed to be 7rosecuted in t:e

316
manner es7ecially 7ro%ided in Rule /) of t:e Rules of Court (3ec& "- Rule 3 of t:e Rules of Court$& T:e im7lication is t:at- if t:e defendant dies after a money Budgment :ad been rendered against :im by t:e Court of First 2nstance- t:e action sur%i%es :im& 2t may be continued on a77eal (TorriBos %s& Court of A77eals- (#+!33*- 5ctober +- ",).G *) 3CRA 3,+$& T:e accountable 7ublic officer may still be ci%illy liable for t:e funds im7ro7erly disbursed alt:oug: :e :as no criminal liability (1&3& %s& 4l%ina- + 6:il& 3!G 6:ili77ine 'ational 0an8 %s& Tugab- ** 6:il& ./3$& 2n %ie9 of t:e foregoing- not9it:standing t:e dismissal of t:e a77eal of t:e deceased 3endaydiego insofar as :is criminal liability is concerned- t:e Court Resol%ed to continue exercising a77ellate Burisdiction o%er :is 7ossible ci%il liability for t:e money claims of t:e 6ro%ince of 6angasinan arising from t:e alleged criminal acts com7lained of- as if no criminal case :ad been instituted against :im- t:us ma8ing a77licable- in determining :is ci%il liability- Article 3! of t:e Ci%il Code & & & and- for t:at 7ur7ose- :is counsel is directed to inform t:is Court 9it:in ten ("!$ days of t:e names and addresses of t:e decedent;s :eirs or 9:et:er or not :is estate is under administration and :as a duly a77ointed Budicial administrator& 3aid :eirs or administrator 9ill be substituted for t:e deceased insofar as t:e ci%il action for t:e ci%il liability is concerned (3ecs& "* and ")- Rule 3- Rules of Court$& 3ucceeding cases raising t:e identical issue :a%e maintained ad:erence to our ruling in #endaydiegoG in ot:er 9ords- t:ey 9ere a reaffirmance of our abandonment of t:e settled rule t:at a ci%il liability solely anc:ored on t:e criminal (ci%il liability e. deli%to$ is extinguis:ed u7on dismissal of t:e entire a77eal due to t:e demise of t:e accused& 0ut 9as it Budicious to :a%e abandoned t:is old rulingJ A re#examination of our decision in #endaydiego im7els us to re%ert to t:e old ruling& To restate our resolution of Culy /- ",)) in #endaydiego: T:e resolution of t:e ci%il action im7liedly instituted in t:e criminal action can 7roceed irres7ecti%e of t:e latter;s extinction due to deat: of t:e accused 7ending a77eal of :is con%iction- 7ursuant to Article 3! of t:e Ci%il Code and 3ection "- Rule 3 of t:e Re%ised Rules of Court& Article 3! of t:e Ci%il Code 7ro%ides: ?:en a se7arate ci%il action is broug:t to demand ci%il liability arising from a criminal offense- and no criminal 7roceedings are instituted during t:e 7endency of t:e ci%il case- a 7re7onderance of e%idence s:all li8e9ise be sufficient to 7ro%e t:e act com7lained of& Clearly- t:e text of Article 3! could not 7ossibly lend su77ort to t:e ruling in #endaydiego& 'o9:ere in its text is t:ere a grant of aut:ority to continue exercising a77ellate Burisdiction o%er t:e accused;s ci%il liability e. deli%to9:en :is deat: su7er%enes during a77eal& ?:at Article 3! recogni=es is an alternati%e and se7arate ci%il action 9:ic: may be broug:t to demand ci%il liability arising from a criminal offense inde7endently of any criminal action& 2n t:e e%ent t:at no criminal 7roceedings are instituted during t:e 7endency of said ci%il case- t:e quantum of e%idence needed to 7ro%e t:e criminal act 9ill :a%e to be t:at 9:ic: is com7atible 9it: ci%il liability and t:at is- 7re7onderance of e%idence and not 7roof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt& Citing or in%o8ing Article 3! to Bustify t:e sur%i%al of t:e ci%il action des7ite extinction of t:e criminal 9ould in effect merely beg t:e question of 9:et:er ci%il liability e. deli%to sur%i%es u7on extinction of t:e criminal action due to deat: of t:e accused during a77eal of :is con%iction& T:is is because 9:et:er asserted in t:e criminal action or in a se7arate ci%il action- ci%il liability e. deli%to is extinguis:ed by t:e deat: of

317
t:e accused 9:ile :is con%iction is on a77eal& Article /, of t:e Re%ised 6enal Code is clear on t:is matter: Art& /,& -o' %riminal liability is totally e.tinguished& O Criminal liability is totally extinguis:ed: "& 0y t:e deat: of t:e con%ict- as to t:e 7ersonal 7enaltiesG and as to 7ecuniary 7enalties- liability t:erefor is extinguis:ed only 9:en t:e deat: of t:e offender occurs before final BudgmentG xxx xxx xxx Fo9e%er- t:e ruling in #endaydiego de%iated from t:e ex7ressed intent of Article /,& 2t allo9ed claims for ci%il liability e. deli%to to sur%i%e by ipso fa%to treating t:e ci%il action im7liedly instituted 9it: t:e criminal- as one filed under Article 3!- as t:oug: no criminal 7roceedings :ad been filed but merely a se7arate ci%il action& T:is :ad t:e effect of con%erting suc: claims from one 9:ic: is de7endent on t:e outcome of t:e criminal action to an entirely ne9 and se7arate one- t:e 7rosecution of 9:ic: does not e%en necessitate t:e filing of criminal 7roceedings& 5ne 9ould be :ard 7ut to 7in7oint t:e statutory aut:ority for suc: a transformation& 2t is to be borne in mind t:at in reco%ering ci%il liability e. deli%tot:e same :as 7erforce to be determined in t:e criminal action- rooted as it is in t:e court;s 7ronouncement of t:e guilt or innocence of t:e accused& T:is is but to render fealty to t:e intendment of Article "!! of t:e Re%ised 6enal Code 9:ic: 7ro%ides t:at >e%ery 7erson criminally liable for a felony is also ci%illy liable&> 2n suc: cases- extinction of t:e criminal action due to deat: of t:e accused 7ending a77eal ine%itably signifies t:e concomitant extinction of t:e ci%il liability& Mors Omnia #olvi& Deat: dissol%es all t:ings& 2n sum- in 7ursuing reco%ery of ci%il liability arising from crime- t:e final determination of t:e criminal liability is a condition 7recedent to t:e 7rosecution of t:e ci%il action- suc: t:at 9:en t:e criminal action is extinguis:ed by t:e demise of accused#a77ellant 7ending a77eal t:ereof- said ci%il action cannot sur%i%e& T:e claim for ci%il liability s7rings out of and is de7endent u7on facts 9:ic:- if true- 9ould constitute a crime& 3uc: ci%il liability is an ine%itable consequence of t:e criminal liability and is to be declared and enforced in t:e criminal 7roceeding& T:is is to be distinguis:ed from t:at 9:ic: is contem7lated under Article 3! of t:e Ci%il Code 9:ic: refers to t:e institution of a se7arate ci%il action t:at does not dra9 its life from a criminal 7roceeding& T:e 3endaydiego resolution of Culy /",))- :o9e%er- failed to ta8e note of t:is fundamental distinction 9:en it allo9ed t:e sur%i%al of t:e ci%il action for t:e reco%ery of ci%il liability e. deli%to by treating t:e same as a se7arate ci%il action referred to under Article 3!& 3urely- it 9ill ta8e more t:an Bust a summary Budicial 7ronouncement to aut:ori=e t:e con%ersion of said ci%il action to an inde7endent one suc: as t:at contem7lated under Article 3!& 2ronically :o9e%er- t:e main decision in 3endaydiego did not a77ly Article 3!- t:e resolution of Culy /- ",)) not9it:standing& T:us- it 9as :eld in t:e main decision: 3endaydiego;s a77eal 9ill be resol%ed only for t:e 7ur7ose of s:o9ing :is criminal liability 9:ic: is t:e basis of t:e ci%il liability for 9:ic: :is estate 9ould be liable& 2n ot:er 9ords- t:e Court- in resol%ing t:e issue of :is ci%il liability- concomitantly made a determination on 9:et:er 3endaydiego- on t:e basis of e%idenced adduced- 9as indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt of committing t:e offense c:arged& T:us- it u7:eld 3endaydiego;s con%iction and 7ronounced t:e same as t:e sour%e of :is ci%il liability& Consequently- alt:oug: Article 3! 9as not a77lied in t:e final determination of 3endaydiego;s ci%il liability- t:ere 9as a reo7ening of t:e criminal action already extinguis:ed 9:ic: ser%ed as basis for 3endaydiego;s ci%il liability& ?e reiterate: 17on deat: of t:e accused 7ending a77eal of :is con%iction- t:e criminal action is extinguis:ed inasmuc: as t:ere is no longer a defendant to stand as t:e accusedG t:e ci%il action instituted t:erein for reco%ery of ci%il liability e. deli%to is ipso fa%to extinguis:ed- grounded as it is on t:e criminal&

318
3ection "- Rule 3 of t:e Rules of Court 9as also in%o8ed to ser%e as anot:er basis for t:e #endaydiegoresolution of Culy /- ",))& 2n citing 3ec& "- Rule 3 of t:e Rules of Court- t:e Court made t:e inference t:at ci%il actions of t:e ty7e in%ol%ed in #endaydiego consist of money claims- t:e reco%ery of 9:ic: may be continued on a77eal if defendant dies 7ending a77eal of :is con%iction by :olding :is estate liable t:erefor& Fence- t:e Court;s conclusion: >?:en t:e action is for t:e reco%ery of money> >and t:e defendant dies before final Budgment in t:e court of First 2nstance- it s:all be dismissed to be 7rosecuted in t:e manner es7ecially 7ro%ided> in Rule /) of t:e Rules of Court (3ec& "- Rule 3 of t:e Rules of Court$& T:e im7lication is t:at- if t:e defendant dies after a money Budgment :ad been rendered against :im by t:e Court of First 2nstance- t:e action sur%i%es :im& 2t may be continued on a77eal& 3adly- reliance on t:is 7ro%ision of la9 is mis7laced& From t:e stand7oint of 7rocedural la9t:is course ta8en in#endaydiego cannot be sanctioned& As correctly obser%ed by Custice Regalado: xxx xxx xxx 2 do not:o9e%eragree 9it: t:e Bustification ad%anced in bot: "orri*os and #endaydiego 9:ic:- relying on t:e 7ro%isions of 3ection "- Rule 3 of t:e Rules of Court- dre9 t:e strained im7lication t:erefrom t:at 9:ere t:e ci%il liability instituted toget:er 9it: t:e criminal liabilities :ad already 7assed beyond t:e Budgment of t:e t:en Court of First 2nstance (no9 t:e Regional Trial Court$- t:e Court of A77eals can continue to exercise a77ellate Burisdiction t:ereo%er des7ite t:e extinguis:ment of t:e com7onent criminal liability of t:e deceased& T:is 7ronouncement- 9:ic: :as been follo9ed in t:e Court;s Budgments subsequent and consonant to "orri*os and #endaydiego- s:ould be set aside and abandoned as being clearly erroneous and unBustifiable& 3aid 3ection " of Rule 3 is a rule of ci%il 7rocedure in ordinary ci%il actions& T:ere is neit:er aut:ority nor Bustification for its a77lication in criminal 7rocedure to ci%il actions instituted toget:er 9it: and as 7art of criminal actions& 'or is t:ere any aut:ority in la9 for t:e summary con%ersion from t:e latter category of an ordinary ci%il action u7on t:e deat: of t:e offender& & & & Aoreo%er- t:e ci%il action im7liedly instituted in a criminal 7roceeding for reco%ery of ci%il liability e. deli%to can :ardly be categori=ed as an ordinary money claim suc: as t:at referred to in 3ec& "- Rule 3 enforceable before t:e estate of t:e deceased accused& 5rdinary money claims referred to in 3ection "- Rule 3 must be %ie9ed in lig:t of t:e 7ro%isions of 3ection .- Rule /* in%ol%ing claims against t:e estate- 9:ic: in #endaydiego 9as :eld liable for 3endaydiego;s ci%il liability& >?:at are contem7lated in 3ection " of Rule 3- in relation to 3ection . of Rule /*- are contractual money claims 9:ile t:e claims in%ol%ed in ci%il liability e. deli%to may include e%en t:e restitution of 7ersonal or real 7ro7erty&> 3ection .- Rule /* 7ro%ides an exclusi%e enumeration of 9:at claims may be filed against t:e estate& T:ese are: funeral ex7ensesex7enses for t:e last illness- Budgments for money and claim arising from contracts- ex7ressed or im7lied& 2t is clear t:at money claims arising from delict do not form 7art of t:is exclusi%e enumeration& Fence- t:ere could be no legal basis in ("$ treating a ci%il action e. deli%to as an ordinary contractual money claim referred to in 3ection "- Rule 3 of t:e Rules of Court and ( $ allo9ing it to sur%i%e by filing a claim t:erefor before t:e estate of t:e deceased accused& Rat:er- it s:ould be extinguis:ed u7on extinction of t:e criminal action engendered by t:e deat: of t:e accused 7ending finality of :is con%iction&

319
Accordingly- 9e rule: if t:e 7ri%ate offended 7arty- u7on extinction of t:e ci%il liability e. deli%to desires to reco%er damages from t:e same a%t or omission %omplained of, :e must subBect to 3ection "- Rule """ (",/. Rules on Criminal 6rocedure as amended$ file a se7arate ci%il action- t:is time 7redicated not on t:e felony 7re%iously c:arged but on ot:er sources of obligation& T:e source of obligation u7on 9:ic: t:e se7arate ci%il action is 7remised determines against 9:om t:e same s:all be enforced& 2f t:e same act or omission com7lained of also arises from 0uasi7deli%t or may- by 7ro%ision of la9- result in an inBury to 7erson or 7ro7erty (real or 7ersonal$- t:e se7arate ci%il action must be filed against t:e executor or administrator of t:e estate of t:e accused 7ursuant to 3ec& "- Rule /) of t:e Rules of Court: 3ec& "& %tions 'hi%h may and 'hi%h may not be brought against e.e%utor or administrator& O 'o action u7on a claim for t:e reco%ery of money or debt or interest t:ereon s:all be commenced against t:e executor or administratorG but actions to reco%er real or 7ersonal 7ro7erty- or an interest t:erein- from t:e estate- or to enforce a lien t:ereon- and a%tions to re%over damages for an in*ury to person or property, real or personal, may be commenced against :im& T:is is in consonance 9it: our ruling in 0elamala 9:ere 9e :eld t:at- in reco%ering damages for inBury to 7ersons t:ru an inde7endent ci%il action based on Article 33 of t:e Ci%il Code- t:e same must be filed against t:e executor or administrator of t:e estate of deceased accused and not against t:e estate under 3ec& .- Rule /* because t:is rule ex7licitly limits t:e claim to t:ose for funeral ex7enses- ex7enses for t:e last sic8ness of t:e decedent- Budgment for money and claims arising from contract- ex7ress or im7lied& Contractual money claims- 9e stressed- refers only to purely personal obligations ot:er t:an t:ose 9:ic: :a%e t:eir source in delict or tort& Con%ersely- if t:e same act or omission com7lained of also arises from contract- t:e se7arate ci%il action must be filed against t:e estate of t:e accused- 7ursuant to 3ec& .- Rule /* of t:e Rules of Court& From t:is lengt:y disquisition- 9e summari=e our ruling :erein: "& Deat: of t:e accused 7ending a77eal of :is con%iction extinguis:es :is criminal liability as 9ell as t:e ci%il liability based solely t:ereon& As o7ined by Custice Regalado- in t:is regard- >t:e deat: of t:e accused 7rior to final Budgment terminates :is criminal liability and only t:e ci%il liability dire%tly arising from and based solely on t:e offense committed- i&e&- ci%il liability e. deli%to in senso stri%tiore&> & Corollarily- t:e claim for ci%il liability sur%i%es not9it:standing t:e deat: of accused- if t:e same may also be 7redicated on a source of obligation ot:er t:an delict& Article "".) of t:e Ci%il Code enumerates t:ese ot:er sources of obligation from 9:ic: t:e ci%il liability may arise as a result of t:e same act or omission: a$ (a9 b$ Contracts c$ <uasi#contracts d$ & & & e$ <uasi#delicts 3& ?:ere t:e ci%il liability sur%i%es- as ex7lained in 'umber abo%e- an action for reco%ery t:erefor may be 7ursued but only by 9ay of filing a se7arate ci%il action and subBect to 3ection "- Rule """ of t:e ",/. Rules on Criminal 6rocedure as amended& T:is se7arate ci%il action may be enforced eit:er

320
against t:e executorHadministrator or t:e estate of t:e accused- de7ending on t:e source of obligation u7on 9:ic: t:e same is based as ex7lained abo%e& +& Finally- t:e 7ri%ate offended 7arty need not fear a forfeiture of :is rig:t to file t:is se7arate ci%il action by 7rescri7tion- in cases 9:ere during t:e 7rosecution of t:e criminal action and 7rior to its extinction- t:e 7ri%ate#offended 7arty instituted toget:er t:ere9it: t:e ci%il action& 2n suc: case- t:e statute of limitations on t:e ci%il liability is deemed interru7ted during t:e 7endency of t:e criminal case- conformably 9it: 7ro%isions of Article "".. of t:e Ci%il Code- t:at s:ould t:ereby a%oid any a77re:ension on a 7ossible 7ri%ation of rig:t by 7rescri7tion& A77lying t:is set of rules to t:e case at benc:- 9e :old t:at t:e deat: of a77ellant 0ayotas extinguis:ed :is criminal liability and t:e ci%il liability based solely on t:e act com7lained of- i&e&- ra7e& Consequently- t:e a77eal is :ereby dismissed 9it:out qualification& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e a77eal of t:e late Rogelio 0ayotas is D23A2334D 9it: costs de ofi%io&

Ma#)a T"#"%a Y. C(ad#a, M)n # R"?#"%"n$"d !8 H"# Fa$."# U,)%"% P. C(ad#a, "$ a,. &. A,' n% M n' #$ G&R& 'o& (# +"!"&3e7tember 3!- ",)! AAIA(2'TA(- J.: T:is is an action for damages based on 0uasi7deli%t- decided by t:e Court of First 2nstance of 'egros 5ccidental fa%orably to t:e 7laintiffs and a77ealed by t:e defendant to t:e Court of A77eals9:ic: certified t:e same to us since t:e facts are not in issue& Aaria Teresa Cuadra- " - and Aaria Teresa Aonfort- "3- 9ere classmates in Grade 3ix at t:e Aabini 4lementary 3c:ool in 0acolod City& 5n Culy ,- ",* t:eir teac:er assigned t:em- toget:er 9it: t:ree ot:er classmates- to 9eed t:e grass in t:e sc:ool 7remises& ?:ile t:us engaged Aaria Teresa Aonfort found a 7lastic :eadband- an ornamental obBect commonly 9orn by young girls o%er t:eir :air& Co8ingly s:e said aloud t:at s:e :ad found an eart:9orm and- e%idently to frig:ten t:e Cuadra girltossed t:e obBect at :er& At t:at 7recise moment t:e latter turned around to face :er friend- and t:e obBect :it :er rig:t eye& 3marting from t:e 7ain- s:e rubbed t:e inBured 7art and treated it 9it: some 7o9der& T:e next day- Culy "!- t:e eye became s9ollen and it 9as t:en t:at t:e girl related t:e incident to :er 7arents- 9:o t:ereu7on too8 :er to a doctor for treatment& 3:e under9ent surgical o7eration t9ice- first on Culy ! and again on August +- ",* - and stayed in t:e :os7ital for a total of t9enty#t:ree days- for all of 9:ic: t:e 7arents s7ent t:e sum of 6"-)!3&).& Des7ite t:e medical efforts:o9e%er- Aaria Teresa Cuadra com7letely lost t:e sig:t of :er rig:t eye& 2n t:e ci%il suit subsequently instituted by t:e 7arents in be:alf of t:eir minor daug:ter against Alfonso Aonfort- Aaria Teresa Aonfort;s fat:er- t:e defendant 9as ordered to 7ay 6"-)!3&!! as actual damagesG 6 !-!!!&!! as moral damagesG and 6 -!!!&!! as attorney;s fees- 7lus t:e costs of t:e suit& T:e legal issue 7osed in t:is a77eal is t:e liability of a 7arent for an act of :is minor c:ild 9:ic: causes damage to anot:er under t:e s7ecific facts related abo%e and t:e a77licable 7ro%isions of t:e Ci%il Code- 7articularly Articles ")* and "/! t:ereof- 9:ic: read: ART& ")*& ?:oe%er by act or omission causes damage to anot:er- t:ere being fault or negligence- is obliged to 7ay for t:e damage done& 3uc: fault or negligence- if t:ere is no 7re#existing contractual relation bet9een t:e 7arties- is called a 0uasi7deli%t and is go%erned by 7ro%isions of t:is C:a7ter& ART "/!& T:e obligation im7osed by Article ")* is demandable not only for one;s o9n acts or omissions- but also for t:ose of 7ersons for 9:om one is res7onsible&

321
T:e fat:er and- in case of :is deat: or inca7acity are res7onsible for t:e damages caused by t:e minor c:ildren 9:o li%e in t:eir com7any& xxx xxx xxx T:e res7onsibility treated of in t:is Article s:all cease 9:en t:e 7ersons :erein mentioned 7ro%e t:at t:ey obser%ed all t:e diligence of a good fat:er of a family to 7re%ent damage& T:e underlying basis of t:e liability im7osed by Article ")* is t:e fault or negligence accom7anying t:e act or t:e omission- t:ere being no 9illfulness or intent to cause damage t:ereby& ?:en t:e act or omission is t:at of one 7erson for 9:om anot:er is res7onsible- t:e latter t:en becomes :imself liable under Article "/!- in t:e different cases enumerated t:erein- suc: as t:at of t:e fat:er or t:e mot:er under t:e circumstances abo%e quoted& T:e basis of t:is %icarious- alt:oug: 7rimary- liability is- as in Article ")*- fault or negligence- 9:ic: is 7resumed from t:at 9:ic: accom7anied t:e causati%e act or omission& T:e 7resum7tion is merely prima fa%ie and may t:erefore be rebutted& T:is is t:e clear and logical inference t:at may be dra9n from t:e last 7aragra7: of Article "/!- 9:ic: states >t:at t:e res7onsibility treated of in t:is Article s:all cease 9:en t:e 7ersons :erein mentioned 7ro%e t:at t:ey obser%ed all t:e diligence of a good fat:er of a family to 7re%ent damage&> 3ince t:e fact t:us required to be 7ro%en is a matter of defense- t:e burden of 7roof necessarily rests on t:e defendant& 0ut 9:at is t:e exact degree of diligence contem7lated- and :o9 does a 7arent 7ro%e it in connection 9it: a 7articular act or omission of a minor c:ild- es7ecially 9:en it ta8es 7lace in :is absence or outside :is immediate com7anyJ 5b%iously t:ere can be no meticulously calibrated measure a77licableG and 9:en t:e la9 sim7ly refers to >all t:e diligence of a good fat:er of t:e family to 7re%ent damage-> it im7lies a consideration of t:e attendant circumstances in e%ery indi%idual case- to determine 9:et:er or not by t:e exercise of suc: diligence t:e damage could :a%e been 7re%ented& 2n t:e 7resent case t:ere is not:ing from 9:ic: it may be inferred t:at t:e defendant could :a%e 7re%ented t:e damage by t:e obser%ance of due care- or t:at :e 9as in any 9ay remiss in t:e exercise of :is 7arental aut:ority in failing to foresee suc: damage- or t:e act 9:ic: caused it& 5n t:e contrary- :is c:ild 9as at sc:ool- 9:ere it 9as :is duty to send :er and 9:ere s:e 9as- as :e :ad t:e rig:t to ex7ect :er to be- under t:e care and su7er%ision of t:e teac:er& And as far as t:e act 9:ic: caused t:e inBury 9as concerned- it 9as an innocent 7ran8 not unusual among c:ildren at 7lay and 9:ic: no 7arent- :o9e%er careful- 9ould :a%e any s7ecial reason to antici7ate muc: less guard against& 'or did it re%eal any misc:ie%ous 7ro7ensity- or indeed any trait in t:e c:ild;s c:aracter 9:ic: 9ould reflect unfa%orably on :er u7bringing and for 9:ic: t:e blame could be attributed to :er 7arents& T:e %ictim- no doubt- deser%es no little commiseration and sym7at:y for t:e tragedy t:at befell :er& 0ut if t:e defendant is at all obligated to com7ensate :er suffering- t:e obligation :as no legal sanction enforceable in court- but only t:e moral com7ulsion of good conscience& T:e decision a77ealed from is re%ersed- and t:e com7laint is dismissed- 9it:out 7ronouncement as to costs&

MaBa#) Ta-a#A , C",% Ta-a#A And A(#",)a Ta-a#A &. H n. C (#$ ' A??"a,%, T." H n. A#)%$ n L. R(!) , RTC J(dA", +#anB. /;, V)Aan, I, B % S(#K V)B$ # +(nd BK and C,a#a +(nd B G&R& 'o& /.!++&Cune 3- ",, F4(2C2A'5- J.: 5n ! 5ctober ",/ - Adelberto 0undoc- t:en a minor of "! years of age- s:ot Cennifer Tamargo 9it: an air rifle causing inBuries 9:ic: resulted in :er deat:& Accordingly- a ci%il com7laint for

322
damages 9as filed 9it: t:e Regional Trial Court- 0ranc: !- Eigan- 2locos 3ur- doc8eted as Ci%il Case 'o& 3+.)#E- by 7etitioner Aacario Tamargo- Cennifer;s ado7ting 7arent- and 7etitioner s7ouses Celso and Aurelia Tamargo- Cennifer;s natural 7arents against res7ondent s7ouses Eictor and Clara 0undocAdelberto;s natural 7arents 9it: 9:om :e 9as li%ing at t:e time of t:e tragic incident& 2n addition to t:is case for damages- a criminal information or Fomicide t:roug: Rec8less 2m7rudence 9as filed MCriminal Case 'o& ") #EN against Adelberto 0undoc& Adelberto- :o9e%er- 9as acquitted and exem7ted from criminal liability on t:e ground t:at :e bad acted 9it:out discernment& 6rior to t:e incident- or on "! December ",/"- t:e s7ouses 3abas and Felisa Ra7isura :ad filed a 7etition to ado7t t:e minor Adelberto 0undoc in 37ecial 6roceedings 'o& !3)3#T before t:e t:en Court of First 2nstance of 2locos 3ur& T:is 7etition for ado7tion 9as grunted on- "/ 'o%ember ",/ - t:at is- after Adelberto :ad s:ot and 8illed Cennifer& 2n t:eir Ans9er- res7ondent s7ouses 0undoc- Adelberto;s natural 7arents- reciting t:e result of t:e foregoing 7etition for ado7tion- claimed t:at not t:ey- but rat:er t:e ado7ting 7arents- namely t:e s7ouses 3abas and Felisa Ra7isura- 9ere indis7ensable 7arties to t:e action since 7arental aut:ority :ad s:ifted to t:e ado7ting 7arents from t:e moment t:e successful 7etition for ado7tion 9as filed& 6etitioners in t:eir Re7ly contended t:at since Adelberto 0undoc 9as t:en actually li%ing 9it: :is natural 7arents- 7arental aut:ority :ad not ceased nor been relinquis:ed by t:e mere filing and granting of a 7etition for ado7tion& T:e trial court on 3 December ",/) dismissed 7etitioners; com7laint- ruling t:at res7ondent natural 7arents of Adelberto indeed 9ere not indis7ensable 7arties to t:e action& 6etitioners recei%ed a co7y of t:e trial court;s Decision on ) December ",/)& ?it:in t:e ".#day reglementary 7eriod- or on "+ December ",/)- 7etitioners filed a motion for reconsideration follo9ed by a su77lemental motion for reconsideration on ". Canuary ",//& 2t a77earing- :o9e%er- t:at t:e motions failed to com7ly 9it: 3ections + and . of Rule ". of t:e Re%ised Rules of Court O t:at notice of t:e motion s:all be gi%en to all 7arties concerned at least t:ree (3$ days before t:e :earing of said motionG and t:at said notice s:all state t:e time and 7lace of :earing O bot: motions 9ere denied by t:e trial court in an 5rder dated "/ A7ril ",//& 5n / A7ril ",//- 7etitioners filed a notice of a77eal& 2n its 5rder dated * Cune ",//- t:e trial court dismissed t:e notice at a77eal- t:is time ruling t:at t:e notice :ad been filed beyond t:e ".#day reglementary 7eriod ending December ",/)& 6etitioners 9ent to t:e Court of A77eals on a 7etition for mandamus and %ertiorari questioning t:e trial court;s Decision dated 3 December ",/) and t:e 5rders dated "/ A7ril ",// and * Cune ",//- T:e Court of A77eals dismissed t:e 7etition- ruling t:at 7etitioners :ad lost t:eir rig:t to a77eal& 2n t:e 7resent 6etition for Re%ie9- 7etitioners once again contend t:at res7ondent s7ouses 0undoc are t:e indis7ensable 7arties to t:e action for damages caused by t:e acts of t:eir minor c:ild- Adelberto 0undoc& Resolution of t:is 6etition :inges on t:e follo9ing issues: ("$ 9:et:er or not 7etitioners- not9it:standing loss of t:eir rig:t to a77eal- may still file t:e instant 6etitionG con%ersely9:et:er t:e Court may still ta8e cogni=ance of t:e case e%en t:roug: 7etitioners; a77eal :ad been filed out of timeG and ( $ 9:et:er or not t:e effects of ado7tion- insofar as 7arental aut:ority is concerned may be gi%en retroacti%e effect so as to ma8e t:e ado7ting 7arents t:e indis7ensable 7arties in a damage case filed against t:eir ado7ted c:ild- for acts committed by t:e latter- 9:en actual custody 9as yet lodged 9it: t:e biological 7arents& "& 2t 9ill be recalled t:at- 7etitioners; motion (and su77lemental motion$ for reconsideration filed before t:e trial court- not :a%ing com7lied 9it: t:e requirements of 3ection "3- Rule +"- and 3ection +- Rule ".- of t:e Re%ised Rules of Court- 9ere considered pro forma and :ence did not interru7t and sus7end t:e reglementary 7eriod to a77eal: t:e trial court :eld t:at t:e motions- not :a%ing contained a notice of time and 7lace of :earing- :ad become useless 7ieces of 7a7er 9:ic: did not interru7t t:e

323
reglementary 7eriod& As in fact re7eatedly :eld by t:is Court- 9:at is mandatory is t:e ser%ice of t:e motion on t:e o77osing counsel indicating t:e time and 7lace of :earing& 2n %ie9- :o9e%er- of t:e nature of t:e issue raised in t:e instant& 6etition- and in order t:at substantial Bustice may be ser%ed- t:e Court- in%o8ing its rig:t to sus7end t:e a77lication of tec:nical rules to 7re%ent manifest inBustice- elects to treat t:e notice of a77eal as :a%ing been seasonably filed before t:e trial court- and t:e motion (and su77lemental motion$ for reconsideration filed by 7etitioner in t:e trial court as :a%ing interru7ted t:e reglementary 7eriod for a77eal& As t:e Court :eld in 1regorio v. !ourt of ppeals: Dismissal of a77ealG 7urely on tec:nical grounds is fro9ned u7on 9:ere t:e 7olicy of t:e courts is to encourage :earings of a77eal on t:eir merits& T:e rules of 7rocedure oug:t not be a77lied in a %ery rigid tec:nical sense- rules of 7rocedure are used only to :el7 secure not o%erride- substantial Bustice& if d tec:nical and rigid enforcement of t:e rules is made t:eir aim 9ould be defeated& & 2t is not dis7uted t:at Adelberto 0undoc;s %oluntary act of s:ooting Cennifer Tamargo 9it: an air rifle ga%e rise to a cause of action on 0uasi7deli%t against :im& As Article ")* of t:e Ci%il Code 7ro%ides: ?:oe%er by act or omission causes damage to anot:er- t:ere being fault or negligence- is obliged to 7ay for t:e damage done& 3uc: fault or negligence- if t:ere is no 7re#existing contractual relation bet9een t:e 7arties- is called a 0uasi7deli%t & & & 17on t:e ot:er :and- t:e la9 im7oses ci%il liability u7on t:e fat:er and- in case of :is deat: or inca7acity- t:e mot:er- for any damages t:at may be caused by a minor %hild 9:o li%es 9it: t:em& Article "/! of t:e Ci%il Code reads: T:e obligation im7osed by article ")* is demandable not only for one;s o9n acts or omissions- but also for t:ose of 7ersons for 9:om one is res7onsible& T:e fat:er and- in case of :is deat: or inca7acity- t:e mot:er- are res7onsible for t:e damages caused by t:e minor %hildren 'ho live in their %ompany. xxx xxx xxx T:e res7onsibility treated of in t:is Article s:all cease 9:en t:e 7erson :erein mentioned 7ro%e t:at t:ey obser%ed all t:e diligence of a good fat:er of a family to 7re%ent damage& (4m7:asis su77lied$ T:is 7rinci7le of 7arental liability is a s7ecies of 9:at is frequently designated as %icarious liability- or t:e doctrine of >im7uted negligence> under Anglo#American tort la9- 9:ere a 7erson is not only liable for torts committed by :imself- but also for torts committed by ot:ers 9it: 9:om :e :as a certain relations:i7 and for 9:om :e is res7onsible& T:us- 7arental liability is made a natural or logical consequence of t:e duties and res7onsibilities of 7arents O t:eir 7arental aut:ority O 9:ic: includes t:e instructing- controlling and disci7lining of t:e c:ild& T:e basis for t:e doctrine of %icarious liability 9as ex7lained by t:e Court in !ang%o v. Manila ,ailroad !o. in t:e follo9ing terms: ?it: res7ect to extra#contractual obligation arising from negligence- 9:et:er of act or omission- it is com7etent for t:e legislature to elect O and our (egislature :as so elected O to limit suc: liability to cases in 9:ic: t:e 7erson u7on 9:om suc: an obligation is im7osed is morally cul7able or- on t:e contrary- for reasons of 7ublic 7olicy& to extend t:at liability- 9it:out regard to t:e lac8 of moral cul7ability- so as to include responsibility for the negligen%e of those persons 'hose a%ts or omissions are imputable - by a legal fiction- to others 'ho are in a position to e.er%ise an absolute or limited %ontrol over them & T:e legislature 9:ic: ado7ted our Ci%il Code :as elected to limit e.tra7%ontra%tual liability O 9it: certain 9ell#defined exce7tions

324
O to %ases in 'hi%h moral %ulpability %an be dire%tly imputed to the persons to be %harged. T:is moral res7onsibility may consist in :a%ing failed to exercise due care in one;s o9n acts- or in having failed to e.er%ise due %are in t:e selection and control of one;s agent or ser%ants- or in the %ontrol of persons 'ho, by reasons of their status, o%%upy a position of dependen%y 'ith respe%t to the person made liable for their %ondu%t. 0 (4m7:asis 3u77lied$ T:e ci%il liability im7osed u7on 7arents for t:e torts of t:eir minor c:ildren li%ing 9it: t:em- may be seen to be based u7on t:e 7arental aut:ority %ested by t:e Ci%il Code u7on suc: 7arents& T:e ci%il la9 assumes t:at 9:en an unemanci7ated c:ild li%ing 9it: its 7arents commits a tortious acts- t:e 7arents 9ere negligent in t:e 7erformance of t:eir legal and natural duty closely to su7er%ise t:e c:ild 9:o is in t:eir custody and control& 6arental liability is- in ot:er 9ords- anc:ored u7on 7arental aut:ority cou7led 9it: 7resumed 7arental dereliction in t:e disc:arge of t:e duties accom7anying suc: aut:ority& T:e 7arental dereliction is- of courseonly 7resumed and t:e 7resum7tion can be o%ertuned under Article "/! of t:e Ci%il Code by 7roof t:at t:e 7arents :ad exercised all t:e diligence of a good fat:er of a family to 7re%ent t:e damage& 2n t:e instant case- t:e s:ooting of Cennifer by Adelberto 9it: an air rifle occured 9:en 7arental aut:ority 9as still lodged in res7ondent 0undoc s7ouses- t:e natural 7arents of t:e minor Adelberto& 2t 9ould t:us follo9 t:at t:e natural 7arents 9:o :ad t:en actual custody of t:e minor Adelberto- are t:e indis7ensable 7arties to t:e suit for damages& T:e natural 7arents of Adelberto- :o9e%er- stoutly maintain t:at because a decree of ado7tion 9as issued by t:e ado7tion court in fa%or of t:e Ra7isura s7ouses- 7arental aut:ority 9as %ested in t:e latter as ado7ting 7arents as of the time of the filing of the petition for adoption t:at is- before Adelberto :ad s:ot Cennifer 9:ic: an air rifle& T:e 0undoc s7ouses contend t:at t:ey 9ere t:erefore free of any 7arental res7onsibility for Adelberto;s allegedly tortious conduct& Res7ondent 0undoc s7ouses rely on Article 3* of t:e C:ild and @out: ?elfare Code 9:ic: reads as follo9s: Art& 3*& (e%ree of doption& O 2f- after considering t:e re7ort of t:e De7artment of 3ocial ?elfare or duly licensed c:ild 7lacement agency and t:e e%idence submitted before it- t:e court is satisfied t:at t:e 7etitioner is qualified to maintain- care for- and educate t:e c:ild- t:at t:e trial custody 7eriod :as been com7leted- and t:at t:e best interests of t:e c:ild 9ill be 7romoted by t:e ado7tion- a de%ree of adoption shall be entered, 'hi%h shall be effe%tive he date the original petition 'as filed. T:e decree s:all state t:e name by 9:ic: t:e c:ild is t:encefort: to be 8no9n& (4m7:asis su77lied$ T:e 0undoc s7ouses furt:er argue t:at t:e abo%e Article 3* s:ould be read in relation to Article 3, of t:e same Code: Art& 3,& Effe%t of doption. O T:e ado7tion s:all: xxx xxx xxx ( $ (issolve the authority vested in the natural parents- exce7t 9:ere t:e ado7ter is t:e s7ouse of t:e sur%i%ing natural 7arentG xxx xxx xxx (4m7:asis su77lied$ and urge t:at t:eir 6arental aut:ority must be deemed to :a%e been dissol%ed as of t:e time t:e 6etition for ado7tion 9as filed&

325
T:e Court is not 7ersuaded& As earlier noted- under t:e Ci%il Code- t:e basis of 7arental liability for t:e torts of a minor c:ild is t:e relations:i7 existing bet9een t:e 7arents and t:e minor c:ild li%ing 9it: t:em and o%er 9:om- t:e la9 7resumes- t:e 7arents exercise su7er%ision and control& Article ./ of t:e C:ild and @out: ?elfare Code- re#enacted t:is rule: Article ./ "orts O 6arents and guardians are res7onsible for t:e damage caused by t:e c:ild under t:eir 7arental aut:ority in a%%ordan%e 'ith the %ivil !ode. (4m7:asis su77lied$ Article " of t:e Family Code of t:e 6:ili77ines :as similarly insisted u7on t:e requisite t:at t:e c:ild- doer of t:e tortious act- s:all :a%e beer in t:e actual custody of t:e 7arents soug:t to be :eld liable for t:e ensuing damage: Art& "& 6arents and ot:er 7ersons exercising 7arental aut:ority s:all be ci%illy liable for t:e inBuries and damages caused by t:e acts or omissions of t:eir unemanci7ated c:ildren living in their %ompanyand under t:eir 7arental aut:ority subBect to t:e a77ro7riate defenses 7ro%ided by la9& (4m7:asis su77lied$ ?e do not belie%e t:at 7arental aut:ority is 7ro7erly regarded as :a%ing been retroacti%ely transferred to and %ested in t:e ado7ting 7arents- t:e Ra7isura s7ouses- at t:e time t:e air rifle s:ooting :a77ened& ?e do not consider t:at retroacti%e effect may be gi%er to t:e decree of ado7tion so as to im7ose a liability u7on t:e ado7ting 7arents accruing at a time 'hen adopting parents had no a%tual or physi%ally %ustody over the adopted %hild & Retroacti%e affect may 7er:a7s be gi%en to t:e granting of t:e 7etition for ado7tion 9:ere suc: is essential to 7ermit t:e accrual of some benefit or ad%antage in fa%or of t:e ado7ted c:ild& 2n t:e instant case- :o9e%er- to :old t:at 7arental aut:ority :ad been retroacti%ely lodged in t:e Ra7isura s7ouses so as to burden t:em 9it: liability for a tortious act t:at t:ey could not :a%e foreseen and 9:ic: t:ey could not :a%e 7re%ented (since t:ey 9ere at t:e time in t:e 1nited 3tates and :ad no 7:ysical custody o%er t:e c:ild Adelberto$ 9ould be unfair and unconscionable& 3uc: a result- moreo%er- 9ould be inconsistent 9it: t:e 7:iloso7:ical and 7olicy basis underlying t:e doctrine of %icarious liability& 6ut a little differently- no 7resum7tion of 7arental dereliction on t:e 7art of t:e ado7ting 7arents- t:e Ra7isura s7ouses- could :a%e arisen since Adelberto 9as not in fact subBect to t:eir control at t:e time t:e tort 9as committed& Article 3. of t:e C:ild and @out: ?elfare Code fortifies t:e conclusion reac:ed abo%e& Article 3. 7ro%ides as follo9s: Art& 3.& "rial !ustody& O 'o 7etition for ado7tion s:all be finally granted unless and until t:e ado7ting 7arents are gi%en by t:e courts a supervised trial %ustody period of at least six mont:s to assess t:eir adBustment and emotional readiness for t:e legal union& (uring the period of trial %ustody, parental authority shall be vested in the adopting parents. (4m7:asis su77lied$ 1nder t:e abo%e Article 3.- 7arental aut:ority is 7ro%isionally %ested in t:e ado7ting 7arents during t:e 7eriod of trial custody- i.e&- before t:e issuance of a decree of ado7tion- pre%isely be%ause the adopting parents are given a%tual %ustody of the %hild during su%h trial period & 2n t:e instant caset:e trial custody 7eriod eit:er :ad not yet begun or bad already been com7leted at t:e time of t:e air rifle s:ootingG in any case- actual custody of Adelberto 9as t:en 9it: :is natural 7arents- not t:e ado7ting 7arents& Accordingly- 9e conclude t:at res7ondent 0undoc s7ouses- Adelberto;s natural 7arents- 9ere indis7ensable 7arties to t:e suit for damages broug:t by 7etitioners- and t:at t:e dismissal by t:e trial court of 7etitioners; com7laint- t:e indis7ensable 7arties being already before t:e court- constituted gra%e abuse of discretion amounting to lac8 or excess of Burisdiction& ?F4R4F5R4- 7remises considered- t:e 6etition for Re%ie9 is :ereby GRA'T4D D14 C51R34 and t:e Decision of t:e Court of A77eals dated * 3e7tember ",//- in C&A&#G&R& 'o& 36#

326
".!"* is :ereby R4E4R34D and 34T A32D4& 6etitioners; com7laint filed before t:e trial court is :ereby R42'3TAT4D and t:is case is R4AA'D4D to t:at court for furt:er 7roceedings consistent 9it: t:is Decision& Costs against res7ondent 0undoc s7ouses& T:is Decision is immediately executory&

J %" S. A-ad #a, L #"$a A. A-ad #a, J %" A. A-ad #a J#., N #-a A. Y,a8a Pan$a," n A. A-ad #a, J %" A. A-ad #a I)), L(B8 A. A-ad #a, R %a,)nda A. A-ad #a, P"#'"B$ A. A-ad #a, S"##"B A. A-ad #a, V)B"n$" A. A-ad #a And Ma#)a T)%Ba,)na A. A-ad #a &. H n #a!," C (#$ ' A??"a,%, C ,"A) D" San J %">R"B ,"$ %, V)B$ # L,(B. S"#A) P. D,-a% J#., C","%$)n D)B n, An)an A!",,ana, Pa!,)$ Da'' n $.#( .H)% Pa#"n$% and Na$(#a, G(a#d)an%, M#. and M#%. N)Ban # G(-!an, And R ,and Va,"nB)a, $.#( .)% G(a#d)an, A. F#anB)%B A, n% G&R& 'o& (#+))+.&A7ril ".- ",// CR1Y- J.: (i8e any 7ros7ecti%e graduate- Alfredo Amadora 9as loo8ing for9ard to t:e commencement exercises 9:ere :e 9ould ascend t:e stage and in t:e 7resence of :is relati%es and friends recei%e :is :ig: sc:ool di7loma& T:ese ceremonies 9ere sc:eduled on A7ril "*- ",) & As it turned outt:oug:- fate 9ould inter%ene and deny :im t:at a9aited ex7erience& 5n A7ril "3- ",) - 9:ile t:ey 9ere in t:e auditorium of t:eir sc:ool- t:e Colegio de 3an Cose#Recoletos- a classmate- 6ablito Damon- fired a gun t:at mortally :it Alfredo- ending all :is ex7ectations and :is life as 9ell& T:e %ictim 9as only se%enteen years old& Daffon 9as con%icted of :omicide t:ru rec8less im7rudence & Additionally- t:e :erein 7etitioners- as t:e %ictim;s 7arents- filed a ci%il action for damages under Article "/! of t:e Ci%il Code against t:e Colegio de 3an Cose#Recoletos- its rector t:e :ig: sc:ool 7rinci7al- t:e dean of boys- and t:e 7:ysics teac:er- toget:er 9it: Daffon and t9o ot:er students- t:roug: t:eir res7ecti%e 7arents& T:e com7laint against t:e students 9as later dro77ed& After trial- t:e Court of First 2nstance of Cebu :eld t:e remaining defendants liable to t:e 7laintiffs in t:e sum of 6 ,+-,/+&!!- re7resenting deat: com7ensation- loss of earning ca7acity- costs of litigation- funeral ex7enses- moral damagesexem7lary damages- and attorney;s fees & 5n a77eal to t:e res7ondent court- :o9e%er- t:e decision 9as re%ersed and all t:e defendants 9ere com7letely absol%ed & 2n its decision- 9:ic: is no9 t:e subBect of t:is 7etition for %ertiorari under Rule +. of t:e Rules of Court- t:e res7ondent court found t:at Article "/! 9as not a77licable as t:e Colegio de 3an Cose# Recoletos 9as not a sc:ool of arts and trades but an academic institution of learning& 2t also :eld t:at t:e students 9ere not in t:e custody of t:e sc:ool at t:e time of t:e incident as t:e semester :ad already ended- t:at t:ere 9as no clear identification of t:e fatal gun and t:at in any e%ent t:e defendant- :ad exercised t:e necessary diligence in 7re%enting t:e inBury& T:e basic undis7uted facts are t:at Alfredo Amadora 9ent to t:e 3an Cose#Recoletos on A7ril "3- ",) - and 9:ile in its auditorium 9as s:ot to deat: by 6ablito Daffon- a classmate& 5n t:e im7lications and consequences of t:ese facts- t:e 7arties s:ar7ly disagree& T:e 7etitioners contend t:at t:eir son 9as in t:e sc:ool to s:o9 :is 7:ysics ex7eriment as a 7rerequisite to :is graduationG :ence- :e 9as t:en under t:e custody of t:e 7ri%ate res7ondents& T:e 7ri%ate res7ondents submit t:at Alfredo Amadora :ad gone to t:e sc:ool only for t:e 7ur7ose of submitting :is 7:ysics re7ort and t:at :e 9as no longer in t:eir custody because t:e semester :ad already ended& T:ere is also t:e question of t:e identity of t:e gun used 9:ic: t:e 7etitioners consider im7ortant because of an earlier incident 9:ic: t:ey claim underscores t:e negligence of t:e sc:ool and at least one of t:e 7ri%ate res7ondents& 2t is not denied by t:e res7ondents t:at on A7ril )- ",) 3ergio Damaso- Cr&- t:e dean of boys- confiscated from Cose Gumban an unlicensed 7istol but later returned it to :im 9it:out ma8ing a re7ort to t:e 7rinci7al or ta8ing any furt:er action & As Gumban

327
9as one of t:e com7anions of Daffon 9:en t:e latter fired t:e gun t:at 8illed Alfredo- t:e 7etitioners contend t:at t:is 9as t:e same 7istol t:at :ad been confiscated from Gumban and t:at t:eir son 9ould not :a%e been 8illed if it :ad not been returned by Damaso& T:e res7ondents say- :o9e%er- t:at t:ere is no 7roof t:at t:e gun 9as t:e same firearm t:at 8illed Alfredo& Resolution of all t:ese disagreements 9ill de7end on t:e inter7retation of Article "/! 9:ic:as it :a77ens- is in%o8ed by bot: 7arties in su77ort of t:eir conflicting 7ositions& T:e 7ertinent 7art of t:is article reads as follo9s: (astly- teac:ers or :eads of establis:ments of arts and trades s:all be liable for damages caused by t:eir 7u7ils and students or a77rentices so long as t:ey remain in t:eir custody& T:ree cases :a%e so far been decided by t:e Court in connection 9it: t:e abo%e#quoted 7ro%ision- to 9it: 4xconde %& Ca7uno- Aercado %& Court of A77eals- and 6alisoc %& 0rillantes& T:ese 9ill be briefly re%ie9ed in t:is o7inion for a better resolution of t:e case at bar& 2n t:e 4xconde Case- Dante Ca7uno- a student of t:e 0alinta9a8 4lementary 3c:ool and a 0oy 3cout- attended a Ri=al Day 7arade on instructions of t:e city sc:ool su7er%isor& After t:e 7aradet:e boy boarded a Bee7- too8 o%er its 9:eel and dro%e it so rec8lessly t:at it turned turtle- resulting in t:e deat: of t9o of its 7assengers& Dante 9as found guilty of double :omicide 9it: rec8less im7rudence& 2n t:e se7arate ci%il action flied against t:em- :is fat:er 9as :eld solidarily liable 9it: :im in damages under Article ",!3 (no9 Article "/!$ of t:e Ci%il Code for t:e tort committed by t:e ".# year old boy& T:is decision- 9:ic: 9as 7enned by Custice 0autista Angelo on Cune ,-",.)- excul7ated t:e sc:ool in an obiter di%tum (as it 9as not a 7arty to t:e case$ on t:e ground t:at it 9as riot a sc:ool of arts and trades& Custice C&0&(& Reyes- 9it: 9:om Custices 3abino 6adilla and Alex Reyes concurreddissented- arguing t:at it 9as t:e sc:ool aut:orities 9:o s:ould be :eld liable (iability under t:is rule:e said- 9as im7osed on ("$ teac:ers in generalG and ( $ :eads of sc:ools of arts and trades in 7articular& T:e modifying clause >of establis:ments of arts and trades> s:ould a77ly only to >:eads> and not >teac:ers&> 4xconde 9as reiterated in t:e Aercado Case- and 9it: an elaboration& A student cut a classmate 9it: a ra=or blade during recess time at t:e (ourdes Cat:olic 3c:ool in <ue=on City- and t:e 7arents of t:e %ictim sued t:e cul7rits 7arents for damages& T:roug: Custice (abrador- t:e Court declared in anot:er obiter (as t:e sc:ool itself :ad also not been sued t:at t:e sc:ool 9as not liable because it 9as not an establis:ment of arts and trades& Aoreo%er- t:e custody requirement :ad not been 7ro%ed as t:is >contem7lates a situation 9:ere t:e student li%es and boards 9it: t:e teac:ersuc: t:at t:e control- direction and influences on t:e 7u7il su7ersede t:ose of t:e 7arents&> Custice C&0&(& Reyes did not ta8e 7art but t:e ot:er members of t:e court concurred in t:is decision 7romulgated on Aay 3!- ",*!& 2n &aliso% vs. Brillantes- decided on 5ctober +- ",)"- a "*#year old student 9as 8illed by a classmate 9it: fist blo9s in t:e laboratory of t:e Aanila Tec:nical 2nstitute& Alt:oug: t:e 9rongdoer O 9:o 9as already of age O 9as not boarding in t:e sc:ool- t:e :ead t:ereof and t:e teac:er in c:arge 9ere :eld solidarily liable 9it: :im& T:e Court declared t:roug: Custice Tee:an8ee: T:e 7:rase used in t:e cited article O >so long as (t:e students$ remain in t:eir custody> O means t:e 7rotecti%e and su7er%isory custody t:at t:e sc:ool and its :eads and teac:ers exercise o%er t:e 7u7ils and students for as long as t:ey are at attendance in t:e sc:ool- including recess time& T:ere is not:ing in t:e la9 t:at requires t:at for suc: liability to attac:- t:e 7u7il or student 9:o commits t:e tortious act must li%e and board in the s%hool- as erroneously :eld by t:e lo9er court- and

328
t:e di%ta in Aercado (as 9ell as in 4xconde$ on 9:ic: it relied- must no9 be deemed to :a%e been set aside by t:e 7resent decision& T:is decision 9as concurred in by fi%e ot:er members- including Custice C&0&(& Reyes- 9:o stressed- in ans9er to t:e dissenting o7inion- t:at e%en students already of age 9ere co%ered by t:e 7ro%ision since t:ey 9ere equally in t:e custody of t:e sc:ool and subBect to its disci7line& Dissenting 9it: t:ree ot:ers- Custice Aa8alintal 9as for retaining t:e custody inter7retation in Aercado and submitted t:at t:e rule s:ould a77ly only to torts committed by students not yet of age as t:e sc:ool 9ould be acting only in lo%o parentis. 2n a footnote- Custice Tee:an8ee said :e agreed 9it: Custice Reyes; dissent in t:e 4xconde Case but added t:at >since t:e sc:ool in%ol%ed at bar is a non#academic sc:ool- t:e question as to t:e a77licability of t:e cited codal 7ro%ision to academic institutions 9ill :a%e to a9ait anot:er case 9:erein it may 7ro7erly be raised&> T:is is t:e case& 1nli8e in 4xconde and Aercado- t:e Colegio de 3an Cose#Recoletos :as been directly im7leaded and is soug:t to be :eld liable under Article "/!G and unli8e in 6alisoc- it is not a sc:ool of arts and trades but an academic institution of learning& T:e 7arties :erein :a%e also directly raised t:e question of 9:et:er or not Article "/! co%ers e%en establis:ments 9:ic: are tec:nically not sc:ools of arts and trades- and- if so- 9:en t:e offending student is su77osed to be >in its custody&> After an ex:austi%e examination of t:e 7roblem- t:e Court :as come to t:e conclusion t:at t:e 7ro%ision in question s:ould a77ly to all sc:ools- academic as 9ell as non#academic& ?:ere t:e sc:ool is academic rat:er t:an tec:nical or %ocational in nature- res7onsibility for t:e tort committed by t:e student 9ill attac: to t:e teac:er in c:arge of suc: student- follo9ing t:e first 7art of t:e 7ro%ision& T:is is t:e general rule& 2n t:e case of establis:ments of arts and trades- it is t:e :ead t:ereof- and only :e- 9:o s:all be :eld liable as an exce7tion to t:e general rule& 2n ot:er 9ords- teac:ers in general s:all be liable for t:e acts of t:eir students exce7t 9:ere t:e sc:ool is tec:nical in nature- in 9:ic: case it is t:e :ead t:ereof 9:o s:all be ans9erable& Follo9ing t:e canon of reddendo singula singulis >teac:ers> s:ould a77ly to t:e 9ords >7u7ils and students> and >:eads of establis:ments of arts and trades> to t:e 9ord >a77rentices&> T:e Court t:us conforms to t:e dissenting o7inion ex7ressed by Custice C&0&(& Reyes in 4xconde 9:ere :e said in 7art: 2 can see no sound reason for limiting Art& ",!3 of t:e 5ld Ci%il Code to teac:ers of arts and trades and not to academic ones& ?:at substantial difference is t:ere bet9een t:em insofar as concerns t:e 7ro7er su7er%ision and %ice o%er t:eir 7u7ilsJ 2t cannot be seriously contended t:at an academic teac:er is exem7t from t:e duty of 9atc:ing t:at :is 7u7ils do not commit a tort to t:e detriment of t:ird 6ersons- so long as t:ey are in a 7osition to exercise aut:ority and 3u7er%ision o%er t:e 7u7il& 2n my o7inion- in t:e 7:rase >teac:ers or :eads of establis:ments of arts and trades> used in Art& ",!3 of t:e old Ci%il Code- t:e 9ords >arts and trades> does not qualify >teac:ers> but only >:eads of establis:ments&> T:e 7:rase is only an u7dated %ersion of t:e equi%alent terms >7rece7tores y artesanos> used in t:e 2talian and Frenc: Ci%il Codes& 2f- as conceded by all commentators- t:e basis of t:e 7resum7tion of negligence of Art& ",!3 in some%ulpa in vigilando t:at t:e 7arents- teac:ers- etc& are su77osed to :a%e incurred in t:e exercise of t:eir aut:ority- it 9ould seem clear t:at 9:ere t:e 7arent 7laces t:e c:ild under t:e effecti%e aut:ority of t:e teac:er- t:e latter- and not t:e 7arent- s:ould be t:e one ans9erable for t:e torts committed 9:ile under :is custodyfor t:e %ery reasonHt:at t:e 7arent is not su77osed to interfere 9it: t:e disci7line of t:e

329
sc:ool nor 9it: t:e aut:ority and su7er%ision of t:e teac:er 9:ile t:e c:ild is under instruction& And if t:ere is no aut:ority- t:ere can be no res7onsibility& T:ere is really no substantial distinction bet9een t:e academic and t:e non#academic sc:ools insofar as torts committed by t:eir students are concerned& T:e same %igilance is ex7ected from t:e teac:er o%er t:e students under :is control and su7er%ision- 9:ate%er t:e nature of t:e sc:ool 9:ere :e is teac:ing& T:e suggestion in t:e 4xconde and Aercado Cases is t:at t:e 7ro%ision 9ould ma8e t:e teac:er or e%en t:e :ead of t:e sc:ool of arts and trades liable for an inBury caused by any student in its custody but if t:at same tort 9ere committed in an academic sc:ool- no liability 9ould attac: to t:e teac:er or t:e sc:ool :ead& All ot:er circumstances being t:e same- t:e teac:er or t:e :ead of t:e academic sc:ool 9ould be absol%ed 9:ereas t:e teac:er and t:e :ead of t:e non#academic sc:ool 9ould be :eld liable- and sim7ly because t:e latter is a sc:ool of arts and trades& T:e Court cannot see 9:y different degrees of %igilance s:ould be exercised by t:e sc:ool aut:orities on t:e basis only of t:e nature of t:eir res7ecti%e sc:ools& T:ere does not seem to be any 7lausible reason for relaxing t:at %igilance sim7ly because t:e sc:ool is academic in nature and for increasing suc: %igilance 9:ere t:e sc:ool is non#academic& 'otably- t:e inBury subBect of liability is caused by t:e student and not by t:e sc:ool itself nor is it a result of t:e o7erations of t:e sc:ool or its equi7ment& T:e inBury contem7lated may be caused by any student regardless of t:e sc:ool 9:ere :e is registered& T:e teac:er certainly s:ould not be able to excuse :imself by sim7ly s:o9ing t:at :e is teac:ing in an academic sc:ool 9:ere- on t:e ot:er :and- t:e :ead 9ould be :eld liable if t:e sc:ool 9ere non#academic& T:ese questions- t:oug:- may be as8ed: 2f t:e teac:er of t:e academic sc:ool is to be :eld ans9erable for t:e torts committed by :is students- 9:y is it t:e :ead of t:e sc:ool only 9:o is :eld liable 9:ere t:e inBury is caused in a sc:ool of arts and tradesJ And in t:e case of t:e academic or non# tec:nical sc:ool- 9:y not a77ly t:e rule also to t:e :ead t:ereof instead of im7osing t:e liability only on t:e teac:erJ T:e reason for t:e dis7arity can be traced to t:e fact t:at :istorically t:e :ead of t:e sc:ool of arts and trades exercised a closer tutelage o%er :is 7u7ils t:an t:e :ead of t:e academic sc:ool& T:e old sc:ools of arts and trades 9ere engaged in t:e training of artisans apprenti%ed to t:eir master 9:o 7ersonally and directly instructed t:em on t:e tec:nique and secrets of t:eir craft& T:e :ead of t:e sc:ool of arts and trades 9as suc: a master and so 9as 7ersonally in%ol%ed in t:e tas8 of teac:ing :is students- 9:o usually e%en boarded 9it: :im and so came under :is constant control- su7er%ision and influence& 0y contrast- t:e :ead of t:e academic sc:ool 9as not as in%ol%ed 9it: :is students and exercised only administrati%e duties o%er t:e teac:ers 9:o 9ere t:e 7ersons directly dealing 9it: t:e students& T:e :ead of t:e academic sc:ool :ad t:en (as no9$ only a %icarious relations:i7 9it: t:e students& Consequently- 9:ile :e could not be directly faulted for t:e acts of t:e students- t:e :ead of t:e sc:ool of arts and trades- because of :is closer ties 9it: t:em- could be so blamed& 2t is conceded t:at t:e distinction no longer obtains at 7resent in %ie9 of t:e ex7ansion of t:e sc:ools of arts and trades- t:e consequent increase in t:eir enrollment- and t:e corres7onding diminution of t:e direct and 7ersonal contract of t:eir :eads 9it: t:e students& Article "/!- :o9e%erremains unc:anged& 2n its 7resent state- t:e 7ro%ision must be inter7reted by t:e Court according to its clear and original mandate until t:e legislature- ta8ing into account t:e c:arges in t:e situation subBect to be regulated- sees fit to enact t:e necessary amendment& T:e ot:er matter to be resol%ed is t:e duration of t:e res7onsibility of t:e teac:er or t:e :ead of t:e sc:ool of arts and trades o%er t:e students& 2s suc: res7onsibility co#extensi%e 9it: t:e 7eriod 9:en t:e student is actually undergoing studies during t:e sc:ool term- as contended by t:e res7ondents and im7liedly admitted by t:e 7etitioners t:emsel%esJ From a reading of t:e 7ro%ision under examination- it is clear t:at 9:ile t:e custody requirement- to re7eat &aliso% v. Brillantes- does not mean t:at t:e student must be boarding 9it: t:e

330
sc:ool aut:orities- it does signify t:at t:e student s:ould be 9it:in t:e control and under t:e influence of t:e sc:ool aut:orities at t:e time of t:e occurrence of t:e inBury& T:is does not necessarily mean t:at suc:- custody be co#terminous 9it: t:e semester- beginning 9it: t:e start of classes and ending u7on t:e close t:ereof- and excluding t:e time before or after suc: 7eriod- suc: as t:e 7eriod of registration- and in t:e case of graduating students- t:e 7eriod before t:e commencement exercises& 2n t:e %ie9 of t:e Court- t:e student is in t:e custody of t:e sc:ool aut:orities as long as :e is under t:e control and influence of t:e sc:ool and 9it:in its 7remises- 9:et:er t:e semester :as not yet begun or :as already ended& 2t is too tenuous to argue t:at t:e student comes under t:e disci7line of t:e sc:ool only u7on t:e start of classes not9it:standing t:at before t:at day :e :as already registered and t:us 7laced :imself under its rules& 'eit:er s:ould suc: disci7line be deemed ended u7on t:e last day of classes not9it:standing t:at t:ere may still be certain requisites to be satisfied for com7letion of t:e coursesuc: as submission of re7orts- term 7a7ers- clearances and t:e li8e& During suc: 7eriods- t:e student is still subBect to t:e disci7linary aut:ority of t:e sc:ool and cannot consider :imself released altoget:er from obser%ance of its rules& As long as it can be s:o9n t:at t:e student is in t:e sc:ool 7remises in 7ursuance of a legitimate student obBecti%e- in t:e exercise of a legitimate student rig:t- and e%en in t:e enBoyment of a legitimate student rig:t- and e%en in t:e enBoyment of a legitimate student 7ri%ilege- t:e res7onsibility of t:e sc:ool aut:orities o%er t:e student continues& 2ndeed- e%en if t:e student s:ould be doing not:ing more t:an relaxing in t:e cam7us in t:e com7any of :is classmates and friends and enBoying t:e ambience and atmos7:ere of t:e sc:ool- :e is still 9it:in t:e custody and subBect to t:e disci7line of t:e sc:ool aut:orities under t:e 7ro%isions of Article "/!& During all t:ese occasions- it is ob%iously t:e teac:er#in#c:arge 9:o must ans9er for :is students; torts- in 7ractically t:e same 9ay t:at t:e 7arents are res7onsible for t:e c:ild 9:en :e is in t:eir custody& T:e teac:er#in#c:arge is t:e one designated by t:e dean- 7rinci7al- or ot:er administrati%e su7erior to exercise su7er%ision o%er t:e 7u7ils in t:e s7ecific classes or sections to 9:ic: t:ey are assigned& 2t is not necessary t:at at t:e time of t:e inBury- t:e teac:er be 7:ysically 7resent and in a 7osition to 7re%ent it& Custody does not connote immediate and actual 7:ysical control but refers more to t:e influence exerted on t:e c:ild and t:e disci7line instilled in :im as a result of suc: influence& T:us- for t:e inBuries caused by t:e student- t:e teac:er and not t:e 7arent s:ag be :eld res7onsible if t:e tort 9as committed 9it:in t:e 7remises of t:e sc:ool at any time 9:en its aut:ority could be %alidly exercised o%er :im& 2n any e%ent- it s:ould be noted t:at t:e liability im7osed by t:is article is su77osed to fall directly on t:e teac:er or t:e :ead of t:e sc:ool of arts and trades and not on t:e sc:ool itself& 2f at allt:e sc:ool- 9:ate%er its nature- may be :eld to ans9er for t:e acts of its teac:ers or e%en of t:e :ead t:ereof under t:e general 7rinci7le ofrespondeat superior- but t:en it may excul7ate itself from liability by 7roof t:at it :ad exercised t:e diligence of abonus paterfamilias. 3uc: defense is- of course- also a%ailable to t:e teac:er or t:e :ead of t:e sc:ool of arts and trades directly :eld to ans9er for t:e tort committed by t:e student& As long as t:e defendant can s:o9 t:at :e :ad ta8en t:e necessary 7recautions to 7re%ent t:e inBury com7lained of- :e can exonerate :imself from t:e liability im7osed by Article "/!- 9:ic: also states t:at: T:e res7onsibility treated of in t:is article s:all cease 9:en t:e 6ersons :erein mentioned 7ro%e t:at t:ey obser%ed all t:e diligence of a good fat:er of a family to 7re%ent damages& 2n t:is connection- it s:ould be obser%ed t:at t:e teac:er 9ill be :eld liable not only 9:en :e is acting in lo%o parentis for t:e la9 does not require t:at t:e offending student be of minority age& 1nli8e t:e 7arent- 9:o 9ig be liable only if :is c:ild is still a minor- t:e teac:er is :eld ans9erable by t:e la9 for t:e act of t:e student under :im regardless of t:e student;s age& T:us- in t:e 6alisoc Case- liability

331
attac:ed to t:e teac:er and t:e :ead of t:e tec:nical sc:ool alt:oug: t:e 9rongdoer 9as already of age& 2n t:is sense- Article "/! treats t:e 7arent more fa%orably t:an t:e teac:er& T:e Court is not unmindful of t:e a77re:ensions ex7ressed by Custice Aa8alintal in :is dissenting o7inion in 6alisoc t:at t:e sc:ool may be unduly ex7osed to liability under t:is article in %ie9 of t:e increasing acti%ism among t:e students t:at is li8ely to cause %iolence and resulting inBuries in t:e sc:ool 7remises& T:at is a %alid fear- to be sure& 'e%ert:eless- it s:ould be re7eated t:at- under t:e 7resent ruling- it is not t:e sc:ool t:at 9ill be :eld directly liable& Aoreo%er- t:e defense of due diligence is a%ailable to it in case it is soug:t to be :eld ans9erable as 7rinci7al for t:e acts or omission of its :ead or t:e teac:er in its em7loy& T:e sc:ool can s:o9 t:at it exercised 7ro7er measures in selecting t:e :ead or its teac:ers and t:e a77ro7riate su7er%ision o%er t:em in t:e custody and instruction of t:e 7u7ils 7ursuant to its rules and regulations for t:e maintenance of disci7line among t:em& 2n almost all cases no9- in factt:ese measures are effected t:roug: t:e assistance of an adequate security force to :el7 t:e teac:er 7:ysically enforce t:ose rules u7on t:e students& As s:ould bolster t:e claim of t:e sc:ool t:at it :as ta8en adequate ste7s to 7re%ent any inBury t:at may be committed by its students& A fortiori- t:e teac:er :imself may in%o8e t:is defense as it 9ould ot:er9ise be unfair to :old :im directly ans9erable for t:e damage caused by :is students as long as t:ey are in t:e sc:ool 7remises and 7resumably under :is influence& 2n t:is res7ect- t:e Court is dis7osed not to ex7ect from t:e teac:er t:e same measure of res7onsibility im7osed on t:e 7arent for t:eir influence o%er t:e c:ild is not equal in degree& 5b%iously- t:e 7arent can ex7ect more obedience from t:e c:ild because t:e latter;s de7endence on :im is greater t:an on t:e teac:er& 2t need not be stressed t:at suc: de7endence includes t:e c:ild;s su77ort and sustenance 9:ereas submission to t:e teac:er;s influence- besides being coterminous 9it: t:e 7eriod of custody is usually enforced only because of t:e students; desire to 7ass t:e course& T:e 7arent can instill more las disci7line on t:e c:ild t:an t:e teac:er and so s:ould be :eld to a greater accountability t:an t:e teac:er for t:e tort committed by t:e c:ild& And if it is also considered t:at under t:e article in question- t:e teac:er or t:e :ead of t:e sc:ool of arts and trades is res7onsible for t:e damage caused by t:e student or a77rentice e%en if :e is already of age O and t:erefore less tractable t:an t:e minor O t:en t:ere s:ould all t:e more be Bustification to require from t:e sc:ool aut:orities less accountability as long as t:ey can 7ro%e reasonable diligence in 7re%enting t:e inBury& After all- if t:e 7arent :imself is no longer liable for t:e student;s acts because :e :as reac:ed maBority age and so is no longer under t:e former;s controlt:ere is t:en all t:e more reason for leniency in assessing t:e teac:er;s res7onsibility for t:e acts of t:e student& A77lying t:e foregoing considerations- t:e Court :as arri%ed at t:e follo9ing conclusions: "& At t:e time Alfredo Amadora 9as fatally s:ot- :e 9as still in t:e custody of t:e aut:orities of Colegio de 3an Cose#Recoletos not9it:standing t:at t:e fourt: year classes :ad formally ended& 2t 9as immaterial if :e 9as in t:e sc:ool auditorium to finis: :is 7:ysics ex7eriment or merely to submit :is 7:ysics re7ort for 9:at is im7ortant is t:at :e 9as t:ere for a legitimate 7ur7ose& As 7re%iously obser%ed- e%en t:e mere sa%oring of t:e com7any of :is friends in t:e 7remises of t:e sc:ool is a legitimate 7ur7ose t:at 9ould :a%e also broug:t :im in t:e custody of t:e sc:ool aut:orities& & T:e rector- t:e :ig: sc:ool 7rinci7al and t:e dean of boys cannot be :eld liable because none of t:em 9as t:e teac:er#in#c:arge as 7re%iously defined& 4ac: of t:em 9as exercising only a general aut:ority o%er t:e student body and not t:e direct control and influence exerted by t:e teac:er 7laced in c:arge of 7articular classes or sections and t:us immediately in%ol%ed in its disci7line& T:e e%idence of t:e 7arties does not disclose 9:o t:e teac:er#in#c:arge of t:e offending student 9as& T:e mere fact t:at Alfredo Amadora :ad gone to sc:ool t:at day in connection 9it: :is 7:ysics re7ort did not

332
necessarily ma8e t:e 7:ysics teac:er- res7ondent Celestino Dicon- t:e teac:er#in#c:arge of Alfredo;s 8iller& 3& At any rate- assuming t:at :e 9as t:e teac:er#in#c:arge- t:ere is no s:o9ing t:at Dicon 9as negligent in enforcing disci7line u7on Daffon or t:at :e :ad 9ai%ed obser%ance of t:e rules and regulations of t:e sc:ool or condoned t:eir non#obser%ance& Fis absence 9:en t:e tragedy :a77ened cannot be considered against :im because :e 9as not su77osed or required to re7ort to sc:ool on t:at day& And 9:ile it is true t:at t:e offending student 9as still in t:e custody of t:e teac:er#in#c:arge e%en if t:e latter 9as 7:ysically absent 9:en t:e tort 9as committed- it :as not been establis:ed t:at it 9as caused by :is laxness in enforcing disci7line u7on t:e student& 5n t:e contrary- t:e 7ri%ate res7ondents :a%e 7ro%ed t:at t:ey :ad exercised due diligence- t:roug: t:e enforcement of t:e sc:ool regulations- in maintaining t:at disci7line& +& 2n t:e absence of a teac:er#in#c:arge- it is 7robably t:e dean of boys 9:o s:ould be :eld liable es7ecially in %ie9 of t:e unrefuted e%idence t:at :e :ad earlier confiscated an unlicensed gun from one of t:e students and returned t:e same later to :im 9it:out ta8ing disci7linary action or re7orting t:e matter to :ig:er aut:orities& ?:ile t:is 9as clearly negligence on :is 7art- for 9:ic: :e deser%es sanctions from t:e sc:ool- it does not necessarily lin8 :im to t:e s:ooting of Amador as it :as not been s:o9n t:at :e confiscated and returned 7istol 9as t:e gun t:at 8illed t:e 7etitioners; son& .& Finally- as 7re%iously obser%ed- t:e Colegio de 3an Cose#Recoletos cannot be :eld directly liable under t:e article because only t:e teac:er or t:e :ead of t:e sc:ool of arts and trades is made res7onsible for t:e damage caused by t:e student or a77rentice& 'eit:er can it be :eld to ans9er for t:e tort committed by any of t:e ot:er 7ri%ate res7ondents for none of t:em :as been found to :a%e been c:arged 9it: t:e custody of t:e offending student or :as been remiss in t:e disc:arge of :is duties in connection 9it: suc: custody& 2n sum- t:e Court finds under t:e facts as disclosed by t:e record and in t:e lig:t of t:e 7rinci7les :erein announced t:at none of t:e res7ondents is liable for t:e inBury inflicted by 6ablito Damon on Alfredo Amadora t:at resulted in t:e latter;s deat: at t:e auditorium of t:e Colegio de 3an Cose#Recoletos on A7ril "3- ",) & ?:ile 9e dee7ly sym7at:i=e 9it: t:e 7etitioners o%er t:e loss of t:eir son under t:e tragic circumstances :ere related- 9e ne%ert:eless are unable to extend t:em t:e material relief t:ey see8- as a balm to t:eir grief- under t:e la9 t:ey :a%e in%o8ed& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e 7etition is D4'24D- 9it:out any 7ronouncement as to costs& 2t is so ordered&

P.),)??)n" SB. , ' +(%)n"%% Ad-)n)%$#a$) n, J(an D. L)-, +"nIa-)n P. Pa(,)n , An$ n) M. MaA$a,a%, C ,. P"d# SaB# And L$. M. S #)an &. C (#$ ' A??"a,%, H n. R"A)na O#d G"D>+"n)$"D, In ."# Ba?aB)$8 a% P#"%)d)nA J(dA" ' +#anB. :0, R"A) na, T#)a, C (#$, Man),a, S"A(nda R. +a($)%$a and A#%"n)a D. +a($)%$a G&R& 'o& /+*,/& February +- ",, 6AD2((A- J.: A stabbing incident on 3! August ",/. 9:ic: caused t:e deat: of Carlitos 0autista 9:ile on t:e second#floor 7remises of t:e 6:ili77ine 3c:ool of 0usiness Administration (630A$ 7rom7ted t:e 7arents of t:e deceased to file suit in t:e Regional Trial Court of Aanila (0ranc: +)$ 7resided o%er by Cudge (no9 Court of A77eals Bustice$ Regina 5rdoDe=#0enite=- for damages against t:e said 630A and its cor7orate officers& At t:e time of :is deat:- Carlitos 9as enrolled in t:e t:ird year commerce course at t:e 630A& 2t 9as establis:ed t:at :is assailants 9ere not members of t:e sc:ool;s academic community but 9ere elements from outside t:e sc:ool& 37ecifically- t:e suit im7leaded t:e 630A and t:e follo9ing sc:ool aut:orities: Cuan D& (im (6resident$- 0enBamin 6& 6aulino (Eice#6resident$- Antonio A& Aagtalas (TreasurerHCas:ier$- Col&

333
6edro 3acro (C:ief of 3ecurity$ and a (t& A& 3oriano (Assistant C:ief of 3ecurity$& 3ubstantially- t:e 7laintiffs (no9 7ri%ate res7ondents$ soug:t to adBudge t:em liable for t:e %ictim;s untimely demise due to t:eir alleged negligence- rec8lessness and lac8 of security 7recautions- means and met:ods beforeduring and after t:e attac8 on t:e %ictim& During t:e 7roceedings a 0uo- (t& A& 3oriano terminated :is relations:i7 9it: t:e ot:er 7etitioners by resigning from :is 7osition in t:e sc:ool& Defendants a 0uo (no9 7etitioners$ soug:t to :a%e t:e suit dismissed- alleging t:at since t:ey are 7resumably sued under Article "/! of t:e Ci%il Code- t:e com7laint states no cause of action against t:em- as Buris7rudence on t:e subBect is to t:e effect t:at a%ademi% institutions- suc: as t:e 630A- are beyond t:e ambit of t:e rule in t:e afore#stated article& T:e res7ondent trial court- :o9e%er- o%erruled 7etitioners; contention and t:ru an order dated / December ",/)- denied t:eir motion to dismiss& A subsequent motion for reconsideration 9as similarly dealt 9it: by an order dated . Canuary ",//& 6etitioners t:en assailed t:e trial court;s dis7osition before t:e res7ondent a77ellate court 9:ic:- in a decision 7romulgated on "! Cune ",//- affirmed t:e trial court;s orders& 5n August ",//- t:e res7ondent a77ellate court resol%ed to deny t:e 7etitioners; motion for reconsideration& Fence- t:is 7etition& At t:e outset- it is to be obser%ed t:at t:e res7ondent a77ellate court 7rimarily anc:ored its decision on t:e la9 of0uasi7deli%ts- as enunciated in Articles ")* and "/! of t:e Ci%il Code& 6ertinent 7ortions of t:e a77ellate court;s no9 assailed ruling state: Article "/! (formerly Article ",!3$ of t:e Ci%il Code is an ado7tion from t:e old 37anis: Ci%il Code& T:e comments of Aanresa and learned aut:orities on its meaning s:ould gi%e 9ay to 7resent day c:anges& T:e la9 is not fixed and flexible ( si%$G it must be dynamic& 2n fact- t:e greatest %alue and significance of la9 as a rule of conduct in (si%$ its flexibility to ado7t to c:anging social conditions and its ca7acity to meet t:e ne9 c:allenges of 7rogress& Construed in t:e lig:t of modern day educational system- Article "/! cannot be construed in its narro9 conce7t as :eld in t:e old case of E.%onde vs& !apuno and Mer%ado vs& !ourt of ppealsG :ence- t:e ruling in t:e &aliso% case t:at it s:ould a77ly to all 8inds of educational institutions- academic or %ocational& At any rate- t:e la9 :olds t:e teac:ers and :eads of t:e sc:ool staff liable unless t:ey relie%e t:emsel%es of suc: liability 7ursuant to t:e last 7aragra7: of Article "/! by >7ro%ing t:at t:ey obser%ed all t:e diligence to 7re%ent damage&> T:is can only be done at a trial on t:e merits of t:e case& ?:ile 9e agree 9it: t:e res7ondent a77ellate court t:at t:e motion to dismiss t:e com7laint 9as correctly denied and t:e com7laint s:ould be tried on t:e merits- 9e do not :o9e%er agree 9it: t:e 7remises of t:e a77ellate court;s ruling& Article "/!- in conBunction 9it: Article ")* of t:e Ci%il Code- establis:es t:e rule of in lo%o parentis& T:is Court discussed t:is doctrine in t:e afore#cited cases of E.%onde, Mendo+a, &aliso% and- more recently- in madora vs&!ourt of ppeals& 2n all suc: cases- it :ad been stressed t:at t:e la9 (Article "/!$ 7lainly 7ro%ides t:at t:e damage s:ould :a%e been caused or inflicted by pupils or students of :e educational institution soug:t to be :eld liable for t:e acts of its 7u7ils or students 9:ile in its custody& Fo9e%er- t:is material situation does not exist in t:e 7resent case for- as earlier indicated- t:e assailants of Carlitos 'ere not students of the &#B , for 9:ose acts t:e sc:ool could be made liable& Fo9e%er- does t:e a77ellate court;s failure to consider suc: material facts mean t:e excul7ation of t:e 7etitioners from liabilityJ 2t does not necessarily follo9&

334
?:en an academic institution acce7ts students for enrollment- t:ere is establis:ed a %ontra%t bet9een t:em- resulting in bilateral obligations 9:ic: bot: 7arties are bound to com7ly 9it:& 0 For its 7art- t:e sc:ool underta8es to 7ro%ide t:e student 9it: an education t:at 9ould 7resumably suffice to equi7 :im 9it: t:e necessary tools and s8ills to 7ursue :ig:er education or a 7rofession& 5n t:e ot:er :and- t:e student co%enants to abide by t:e sc:ool;s academic requirements and obser%e its rules and regulations& 2nstitutions of learning must also meet t:e im7licit or >built#in> obligation of 7ro%iding t:eir students 9it: an atmos7:ere t:at 7romotes or assists in attaining its 7rimary underta8ing of im7arting 8no9ledge& Certainly- no student can absorb t:e intricacies of 7:ysics or :ig:er mat:ematics or ex7lore t:e realm of t:e arts and ot:er sciences 9:en bullets are flying or grenades ex7loding in t:e air or 9:ere t:ere looms around t:e sc:ool 7remises a constant t:reat to life and limb& 'ecessarilyt:e sc:ool must ensure t:at adequate ste7s are ta8en to maintain 7eace and order 9it:in t:e cam7us 7remises and to 7re%ent t:e brea8do9n t:ereof& 0ecause t:e circumstances of t:e 7resent case e%ince a contractual relation bet9een t:e 630A and Carlitos 0autista- t:e rules on quasi#delict do not really go%ern& A 7erusal of Article ")* s:o9s t:at obligations arising from quasi#delicts or tort- also 8no9n as extra#contractual obligationsarise only bet9een 7arties not ot:er9ise bound by contract- 9:et:er ex7ress or im7lied& Fo9e%er- t:is im7ression :as not 7re%ented t:is Court from determining t:e existence of a tort e%en 9:en t:ere obtains a contract& 2n ir $ran%e vs& !arras%oso (" + 6:il& ) $- t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as a9arded damages for :is un9arranted ex7ulsion from a first#class seat aboard t:e 7etitioner airline& 2t is noted:o9e%er- t:at t:e Court referred to t:e 7etitioner#airline;s liability as one arising from tort- not one arising from a contract of carriage& 2n effect- ir $ran%e is aut:ority for t:e %ie9 t:at liability from tort may exist e%en if t:ere is a contract- for t:e act t:at brea8s t:e contract may be also a tort& (Austro# America 3&3& Co& %s& T:omas- +/ Fed& 3"$& T:is %ie9 9as not all t:at re%olutionary- for e%en as early as ","/- t:is Court 9as already of a similar mind& 2n!ang%o vs& Manila ,ailroad (3/ 6:il& )/!$- Ar& Custice Fis:er elucidated t:us: T:e field of non#contractual obligation is muc: broader t:an t:at of contractual obligation- com7rising- as it does- t:e 9:ole extent of Buridical :uman relations& T:ese t9o fields- figurati%ely s7ea8ing- concentricG t:at is to say- t:e mere fact t:at a 7erson is bound to anot:er by contract does not relie%e :im from extra#contractual liability to suc: 7erson& ?:en suc: a contractual relation exists t:e obligor may brea8 t:e contract under suc: conditions t:at the same a%t 'hi%h %onstitutes a brea%h of the %ontra%t 'ould have %onstituted the sour%e of an e.tra7%ontra%tual obligation had no %ontra%t e.isted bet'een the parties& 2mmediately 9:at comes to mind is t:e c:a7ter of t:e Ci%il Code on Fuman Relations7articularly Article "- 9:ic: 7ro%ides: Any 7erson 9:o 'ilfully causes loss or inBury to anot:er in a manner that is %ontrary to morals, good %ustom or publi% poli%y s:all com7ensate t:e latter for t:e damage& (em7:asis su77lied$& ir $ran%e 7enali=ed t:e racist 7olicy of t:e airline 9:ic: emboldened t:e 7etitioner;s em7loyee to forcibly oust t:e 7ri%ate res7ondent to cater to t:e comfort of a 9:ite man 9:o allegedly >:ad a better rig:t to t:e seat&> 2n ustro7 meri%an- supra- t:e 7ublic embarrassment caused to t:e 7assenger 9as t:e Bustification for t:e Circuit Court of A77eals- (3econd Circuit$- to a9ard damages to t:e latter& From t:e foregoing- it can be concluded t:at s:ould t:e act 9:ic: breac:es a contract be done in bad fait: and be %iolati%e of Article "- t:en t:ere is a cause to %ie9 t:e act as constituting a quasi#delict&

335
2n t:e circumstances obtaining in t:e case at bar- :o9e%er- t:ere is- as yet- no finding t:at t:e contract bet9een t:e sc:ool and 0autista :ad been breac:ed t:ru t:e former;s negligence in 7ro%iding 7ro7er security measures& T:is 9ould be for t:e trial court to determine& And- e%en if t:ere be a finding of negligence- t:e same could gi%e rise generally to a breac: of contractual obligation only& 1sing t:e test of !ang%o- supra- t:e negligence of t:e sc:ool 9ould not be rele%ant absent a contract& 2n factt:at negligence becomes material only because of t:e contractual relation bet9een 630A and 0autista& 2n ot:er 9ords- a contractual relation is a condition sine 0ua nonto t:e sc:ool;s liability& T:e negligence of t:e sc:ool cannot exist inde7endently of t:e contract- unless t:e negligence occurs under t:e circumstances set out in Article " of t:e Ci%il Code& T:is Court is not unmindful of t:e attendant difficulties 7osed by t:e obligation of sc:oolsabo%e#mentioned- for conce7tually a sc:ool- li8e a common carrier- cannot be an insurer of its students against all ris8s& T:is is s7ecially true in t:e 7o7ulous student communities of t:e so#called >uni%ersity belt> in Aanila 9:ere t:ere :a%e been re7orted se%eral incidents ranging from gang 9ars to ot:er forms of :ooliganism& 2t 9ould not be equitable to ex7ect of sc:ools to antici7ate all ty7es of %iolent tres7ass u7on t:eir 7remises- for not9it:standing t:e security measures installed- t:e same may still fail against an indi%idual or grou7 determined to carry out a nefarious deed inside sc:ool 7remises and en%irons& 3:ould t:is be t:e case- t:e sc:ool may still a%oid liability by 7ro%ing t:at t:e breac: of its contractual obligation to t:e students 9as not due to its negligence- :ere statutorily defined to be t:e omission of t:at degree of diligence 9:ic: is required by t:e nature of t:e obligation and corres7onding to t:e circumstances of 7ersons- time and 7lace& As t:e 7roceedings a 0uo :a%e yet to commence on t:e substance of t:e 7ri%ate res7ondents; com7laint- t:e record is bereft of all t:e material facts& 5b%iously- at t:is stage- only t:e trial court can ma8e suc: a determination from t:e e%idence still to unfold& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e foregoing 7remises considered- t:e 7etition is D4'24D& T:e court of origin (RTC- Aanila- 0r& +)$ is :ereby ordered to continue 7roceedings consistent 9it: t:is ruling of t:e Court& Costs against t:e 7etitioners&

S$. Ma#8L% ABad"-8 &. W),,)a- Ca#?)$an % and L(B)a S. Ca#?)$an %, G(ada Dan)",, Ja-"% Dan)", I), Ja-"% Dan)",, S#., and V)&"nB) V),,an("&a G&R& 'o& "+33*3& February *- !! 6ARD5- J&:

T." Ca%"

T:e case is an a77eal via %ertiorari from t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals as 9ell as t:e resolution denying reconsideration- :olding 7etitioner liable for damages arising from an accident t:at resulted in t:e deat: of a student 9:o :ad Boined a cam7aign to %isit t:e 7ublic sc:ools in Di7olog City to solicit enrollment&

T." FaB$%

T:e facts- as found by t:e Court of A77eals- are as follo9s:

336
bClaiming damages for t:e deat: of t:eir only son- 3:er9in Car7itanos- s7ouses ?illiam Car7itanos and (ucia Car7itanos filed on Cune ,- ",,. a case against Cames Daniel 22 and :is 7arents- Cames Daniel 3r& and Guada Daniel- t:e %e:icle o9ner- Ei%encio Eillanue%a and 3t& AaryXs Academy before t:e Regional TrialCourt of Di7olog City& b5n ! February ",,)- 0ranc: * of t:e Regional Trial Court of Di7olog City rendered its decision t:e dis7ositi%e 7ortion of 9:ic: reads as follo9s: bc?F4R4F5R4- 6R4A2343 C5'32D4R4D- Budgment is :ereby rendered in t:e follo9ing manner: "& Defendant 3t& AaryXs Academy of Di7olog City- is :ereby ordered to 7ay 7laintiffs ?illiam Car7itanos and (uisa Car7itanos- t:e follo9ing sums of money: a& F2FT@ TF513A'D 64353 (6.!-!!!&!!$ indemnity for t:e loss of life of 3:er9in 3& Car7itanosG b& F5RT@ TF513A'D 64353 (6+!-!!!&!!$ actual damages incurred by 7laintiffs for burial and related ex7ensesG c& T4' TF513A'D 64353 (6"!-!!!&!!$ for attorneyXs feesG d& F2E4 F1'DR4D TF513A'D 64353 (6.!!-!!!&!!$ for moral damagesG and to 7ay costs& & T:eir liability being only subsidiary- defendants Cames Daniel- 3r& and Guada Daniel are :ereby ordered to 7ay :erein 7laintiffs t:e amount of damages abo%e#stated in t:e e%ent of insol%ency of 7rinci7al obligor 3t& AaryXs Academy of Di7olog CityG 3& Defendant Cames Daniel 22- being a minor at t:e time of t:e commission of t:e tort and 9:o 9as under s7ecial 7arental aut:ority of defendant 3t& AaryXs Academy- is A035(E4D from 7aying t:e abo%e#stated damages- same being adBudged against defendants 3t& AaryXs Academy- and subsidiarily- against :is 7arentsG +& Defendant Ei%encio Eillanue%a is :ereby A035(E4D of any liability& Fis counterclaim not being in order as earlier discussed in t:is decision- is :ereby D23A2334D& 2T 23 35 5RD4R4D&dX (Decision- 77& 3 #33G Records- 77& !.# !*$&d bFrom t:e records it a77ears t:at from "3 to ! February ",,.- defendant#a77ellant 3t& AaryXs Academy of Di7olog City conducted an enrollment dri%e for t:e sc:ool year ",,.#",,*& A facet of t:e enrollment cam7aign 9as t:e %isitation of sc:ools from 9:ere 7ros7ecti%e enrollees 9ere studying& As a student of 3t& AaryXs Academy- 3:er9in Car7itanos 9as 7art of t:e cam7aigning grou7& Accordingly- on t:e fateful day- 3:er9in- along 9it: ot:er :ig: sc:ool students 9ere riding in a Aitsubis:i Bee7 o9ned by defendant Ei%encio Eillanue%a on t:eir 9ay to (arayan 4lementary 3c:ool(arayan- Da7itan City& T:e Bee7 9as dri%en by Cames Daniel 22 t:en ". years old and a student of t:e same sc:ool& Allegedly- t:e latter dro%e t:e Bee7 in a rec8less manner and as a result t:e Bee7 turned turtle& b3:er9in Car7itanos died as a result of t:e inBuries :e sustained from t:e accident&d 2n due time- 7etitioner 3t& AaryXs academy a77ealed t:e decision to t:e Court of A77eals& 5n February ,- !!!- t:e Court of A77eals 7romulgated a decision reducing t:e actual damages to 6 .-!!!&!! but ot:er9ise affirming t:e decision a 0uo, in toto&

337
5n February ,- !!!- 7etitioner 3t& AaryXs Academy filed a motion for reconsideration of t:e decision& Fo9e%er- on Aay - !!!- t:e Court of A77eals denied t:e motion& Fence- t:is a77eal&

T." I%%("%

"$ ?:et:er t:e Court of A77eals erred in :olding t:e 7etitioner liable for damages for t:e deat: of 3:er9in Car7itanos& $ ?:et:er t:e Court of A77eals erred in affirming t:e a9ard of moral damages against t:e 7etitioner&

T." C (#$L% R(,)nA

?e re%erse t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals& T:e Court of A77eals :eld 7etitioner 3t& AaryXs Academy liable for t:e deat: of 3:er9in Car7itanos under Articles "/ and ", of t:e Family Code- 7ointing out t:at 7etitioner 9as negligent in allo9ing a minor to dri%e and in not :a%ing a teac:er accom7any t:e minor students in t:e Bee7& 1nder Article "/ of t:e Family Code- t:e follo9ing s:all :a%e s7ecial 7arental aut:ority o%er a minor c:ild 9:ile under t:eir su7er%ision- instruction or custody: ("$ t:e sc:ool- its administrators and teac:ersG or ( $ t:e indi%idual- entity or institution engaged in c:ild care& T:is s7ecial 7arental aut:ority and res7onsibility a77lies to all aut:ori=ed acti%ities- 9:et:er inside or outside t:e 7remises of t:e sc:ool- entity or institution& T:us- suc: aut:ority and res7onsibility a77lies to field tri7sexcursions and ot:er affairs of t:e 7u7ils and students outside t:e sc:ool 7remises 9:ene%er aut:ori=ed by t:e sc:ool or its teac:ers& 1nder Article ", of t:e Family Code- if t:e 7erson under custody is a minor- t:ose exercising s7ecial 7arental aut:ority are 7rinci7ally and solidarily liable for damages caused by t:e acts or omissions of t:e unemanci7ated minor 9:ile under t:eir su7er%ision- instruction- or custody& Fo9e%er- for 7etitioner to be liable- t:ere must be a finding t:at t:e act or omission considered as negligent 9as t:e 7roximate cause of t:e inBury caused because t:e negligence must :a%e a causal connection to t:e accident& b2n order t:at t:ere may be a reco%ery for an inBury- :o9e%er- it must be s:o9n t:at t:e cinBury for 9:ic: reco%ery is soug:t must be t:e legitimate consequence of t:e 9rong doneG t:e connection bet9een t:e negligence and t:e inBury must be a direct and natural sequence of e%ents- unbro8en by inter%ening efficient causes&X 2n ot:er 9ords- t:e negligence must be t:e 7roximate cause of t:e inBury& For- cnegligence- no matter in 9:at it consists- cannot create a rig:t of action unless it is t:e 7roximate cause of t:e inBury com7lained of&X And ct:e 7roximate cause of an inBury is t:at cause9:ic:- in natural and continuous sequence- unbro8en by any efficient inter%ening cause- 7roduces t:e inBury- and 9it:out 9:ic: t:e result 9ould not :a%e occurred&Xd

338
2n t:is case- t:e res7ondents failed to s:o9 t:at t:e negligence of 7etitioner 9as t:e 7roximate cause of t:e deat: of t:e %ictim& Res7ondents Daniel s7ouses and Eillanue%a admitted t:at t:e immediate cause of t:e accident 9as not t:e negligence of 7etitioner or t:e rec8less dri%ing of Cames Daniel 22- but t:e detac:ment of t:e steering 9:eel guide of t:e Bee7& 2n t:eir comment to t:e 7etition- res7ondents Daniel s7ouses and Eillanue%a admitted t:e documentary ex:ibits establis:ing t:at t:e cause of t:e accident 9as t:e detac:ment of t:e steering 9:eel guide of t:e Bee7& Fence- t:e cause of t:e accident 9as not t:e rec8lessness of Cames Daniel 22 but t:e mec:anical defect in t:e Bee7 of Ei%encio Eillanue%a& Res7ondents- including t:e s7ouses Car7itanos- 7arents of t:e deceased 3:er9in Car7itanos- did not dis7ute t:e re7ort and testimony of t:e traffic in%estigator 9:o stated t:at t:e cause of t:e accident 9as t:e detac:ment of t:e steering 9:eel guide t:at caused t:e Bee7 to turn turtle& 3ignificantly- res7ondents did not 7resent any e%idence to s:o9 t:at t:e 7roximate cause of t:e accident 9as t:e negligence of t:e sc:ool aut:orities- or t:e rec8less dri%ing of Cames Daniel 22& Fence- t:e res7ondentsX reliance on Article ", of t:e Family Code t:at bt:ose gi%en t:e aut:ority and res7onsibility under t:e 7receding Article s:all be 7rinci7ally and solidarily liable for damages caused by acts or omissions of t:e unemanci7ated minord 9as unfounded& Furt:er- t:ere 9as no e%idence t:at 7etitioner sc:ool allo9ed t:e minor Cames Daniel 22 to dri%e t:e Bee7 of res7ondent Ei%encio Eillanue%a& 2t 9as C:ed Eillanue%a- grandson of res7ondent Ei%encio Eillanue%a- 9:o :ad 7ossession and control of t:e Bee7& Fe 9as dri%ing t:e %e:icle and :e allo9ed Cames Daniel 22- a minor- to dri%e t:e Bee7 at t:e time of t:e accident& Fence- liability for t:e accident- 9:et:er caused by t:e negligence of t:e minor dri%er or mec:anical detac:ment of t:e steering 9:eel guide of t:e Bee7- must be 7inned on t:e minorXs 7arents 7rimarily& T:e negligence of 7etitioner 3t& AaryXs Academy 9as only a remote cause of t:e accident& 0et9een t:e remote cause and t:e inBury- t:ere inter%ened t:e negligence of t:e minorXs 7arents or t:e detac:ment of t:e steering 9:eel guide of t:e Bee7& bT:e 7roximate cause of an inBury is t:at cause- 9:ic:- in natural and continuous sequence- unbro8en by any efficient inter%ening cause- 7roduces t:e inBury- and 9it:out 9:ic: t:e result 9ould not :a%e occurred&d Considering t:at t:e negligence of t:e minor dri%er or t:e detac:ment of t:e steering 9:eel guide of t:e Bee7 o9ned by res7ondent Eillanue%a 9as an e%ent o%er 9:ic: 7etitioner 3t& AaryXs Academy :ad no control- and 9:ic: 9as t:e 7roximate cause of t:e accident- 7etitioner may not be :eld liable for t:e deat: resulting from suc: accident& Consequently- 9e find t:at 7etitioner li8e9ise cannot be :eld liable for moral damages in t:e amount of 6.!!-!!!&!! a9arded by t:e trial court and affirmed by t:e Court of A77eals& T:oug: inca7able of 7ecuniary com7utation- moral damages may be reco%ered if t:ey are t:e 7roximate result of t:e defendantXs 9rongful act or omission& 2n t:is case- t:e 7roximate cause of t:e accident 9as not attributable to 7etitioner& For t:e reason t:at 7etitioner 9as not directly liable for t:e accident- t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals ordering 7etitioner to 7ay deat: indemnity to res7ondent Car7itanos must be deleted& Aoreo%er- t:e grant of attorneyXs fees as 7art of damages is t:e exce7tion rat:er t:an t:e rule& T:e 7o9er of t:e court to a9ard attorneyXs fees under Article !/ of t:e Ci%il Code demands

339
factual- legal and equitable Bustification&T:us- t:e grant of attorneyXs fees against t:e 7etitioner is li8e9ise deleted& 2ncidentally- t:ere 9as no question t:at t:e registered o9ner of t:e %e:icle 9as res7ondent Eillanue%a& Fe ne%er denied and in fact admitted t:is fact& ?e :a%e :eld t:at t:e registered o9ner of any %e:icle- e%en if not used for 7ublic ser%ice- 9ould 7rimarily be res7onsible to t:e 7ublic or to t:ird 7ersons for inBuries caused t:e latter 9:ile t:e %e:icle 9as being dri%en on t:e :ig:9ays or streets&d Fence- 9it: t:e o%er9:elming e%idence 7resented by 7etitioner and t:e res7ondent Daniel s7ouses t:at t:e accident occurred because of t:e detac:ment of t:e steering 9:eel guide of t:e Bee7it is not t:e sc:ool- but t:e registered o9ner of t:e %e:icle 9:o s:all be :eld res7onsible for damages for t:e deat: of 3:er9in Car7itanos&

T." Fa,,

WHEREFORE- t:e Court R4E4R343 and 34T3 A32D4 t:e decision of t:e Court of A77ealsM"/N and t:at of t:e trial court&M",N T:e Court remands t:e case to t:e trial court for determination of t:e liability of defendants- excluding 7etitioner 3t& AaryXs Academy- Di7olog City& 'o costs& SO ORDERED.

Ma. L (#d"% Va,"nD(",a &. C (#$ ' A??"a,%, R)B.a#d L) and A,"Cand"# C --"#B)a,, InB. G&R& 'o& "".! +&February )- ",,* IA61'A'- J&: T:ese t9o 7etitions for re%ie9 on %ertiorari under Rule +. of t:e Re%ised Rules of Court stem from an action to reco%er damages by 7etitioner (ourdes Ealen=uela in t:e Regional Trial Court of <ue=on City for inBuries sustained by :er in a %e:icular accident in t:e early morning of Cune +- ",,!& T:e facts found by t:e trial court are succinctly summari=ed by t:e Court of A77eals belo9: T:is is an action to reco%er damages based on quasi#delict- for serious 7:ysical inBuries sustained in a %e:icular accident& 6laintiff;s %ersion of t:e accident is as follo9s: At around :!! in t:e morning of Cune +- ",,!7laintiff Aa& (ourdes Ealen=uela 9as dri%ing a blue Aitsubis:i lancer 9it: 6late 'o& FF1 .+ from :er restaurant at Aarcos :ig:9ay to :er :ome at 6alan=a 3treet- Araneta A%enue& 3:e 9as tra%elling along Aurora 0l%d& 9it: a com7anion- Cecilia Ramon- :eading to9ards t:e direction of Aanila& 0efore reac:ing A& (a8e 3treet- s:e noticed somet:ing 9rong 9it: :er tiresG s:e sto77ed at a lig:ted 7lace 9:ere t:ere 9ere 7eo7le- to %erify 9:et:er s:e :ad a flat tire and to solicit :el7 if needed& Fa%ing been told by t:e 7eo7le 7resent t:at :er rear rig:t tire 9as flat and t:at s:e cannot reac: :er :ome in t:at car;s condition- s:e 7ar8ed along t:e side9al8- about "#"H feet a9ay- 7ut on :er emergency lig:ts- alig:ted from t:e car- and 9ent to t:e rear to o7en t:e trun8& 3:e 9as standing at t:e left side of t:e rear of :er car 7ointing to t:e tools to a man 9:o 9ill :el7 :er fix t:e tire 9:en s:e 9as suddenly bum7ed by a ",/) Aitsubis:i (ancer dri%en by defendant Ric:ard (i and registered in t:e name of defendant Alexander Commercial- 2nc& 0ecause of t:e im7act 7laintiff 9as t:ro9n against t:e 9inds:ield of t:e car of t:e defendant- 9:ic: 9as destroyed- and t:en fell to t:e ground& 3:e 9as 7ulled out from under defendant;s car& 6laintiff;s left leg 9as se%ered u7 to t:e middle of :er t:ig:-

340
9it: only some s8in and sucle connected to t:e rest of t:e body& 3:e 9as broug:t to t:e 14RA Aedical Aemorial Center 9:ere s:e 9as found to :a%e a >traumatic am7utation- legleft u7 to distal t:ig: (abo%e 8nee$>& 3:e 9as confined in t:e :os7ital for t9enty ( !$ days and 9as e%entually fitted 9it: an artificial leg& T:e ex7enses for t:e :os7ital confinement (6" !-!!!&!!$ and t:e cost of t:e artificial leg (6 )-!!!&!!$ 9ere 7aid by defendants from t:e car insurance& 2n :er com7laint- 7laintiff 7rayed for moral damages in t:e amount of 6" million- exem7lary damages in t:e amount of 6"!!-!!!&!! and ot:er medical and related ex7enses amounting to a total of 6"/!-!!!&!!- including loss of ex7ected earnings& Defendant Ric:ard (i denied t:at :e 9as negligent& Fe 9as on :is 9ay :ome- tra%elling at .. 87:G considering t:at it 9as raining- %isibility 9as affected and t:e road 9as 9et& Traffic 9as lig:t& Fe testified t:at :e 9as dri%ing along t:e inner 7ortion of t:e rig:t lane of Aurora 0l%d& to9ards t:e direction of Araneta A%enue- 9:en :e 9as suddenly confronted- in t:e %icinity of A& (a8e 3treet- 3an Cuan- 9it: a car coming from t:e o77osite direction- tra%elling at /! 87:- 9it: >full brig:t lig:ts>& Tem7orarily blinded- :e instincti%ely s9er%ed to t:e rig:t to a%oid colliding 9it: t:e oncoming %e:icle- and bum7ed 7laintiff;s car- 9:ic: :e did not see because it 9as midnig:t blue in color- 9it: no 7ar8ing lig:ts or early 9arning de%ice- and t:e area 9as 7oorly lig:ted& Fe alleged in :is defense t:at t:e left rear 7ortion of 7laintiff;s car 9as 7rotruding as it 9as t:en >at a standstill diagonally> on t:e outer 7ortion of t:e rig:t lane to9ards Araneta A%enue (7ar& "/- Ans9er$& Fe confirmed t:e testimony of 7laintiff;s 9itness t:at after being bum7ed t:e car of t:e 7laintiff s9er%ed to t:e rig:t and :it anot:er car 7ar8ed on t:e side9al8& Defendants counterclaimed for damages- alleging t:at 7laintiff 9as rec8less or negligent- as s:e 9as not a licensed dri%er& T:e 7olice in%estigator- 6fc& Felic Ramos- 9:o 7re7ared t:e %e:icular accident re7ort and t:e s8etc: of t:e t:ree cars in%ol%ed in t:e accident- testified t:at t:e 7laintiff;s car 9as >near t:e side9al8>G t:is 9itness did not remember 9:et:er t:e :a=ard lig:ts of 7laintiff;s car 9ere onand did not notice if t:ere 9as an early 9arning de%iceG t:ere 9as a street lig:t at t:e corner of Aurora 0l%d& and F& Roman- about "!! meters a9ay& 2t 9as not mostly dar8- i&e& >t:ings can be seen> (7& "*- tsn- 5ct& /- ",,"$& A 9itness for t:e 7laintiff- Rogelio Rodrigue=- testified t:at after 7laintiff alig:ted from :er car and o7ened t:e trun8 com7artment- defendant;s car came a77roac:ing %ery fast ten meters from t:e sceneG t:e car 9as >=ig=agging>& T:e rear left side of 7laintiff;s car 9as bum7ed by t:e front rig:t 7ortion of defendant;s carG as a consequence- t:e 7laintiff;s car s9er%ed to t:e rig:t and :it t:e 7ar8ed car on t:e side9al8& 6laintiff 9as t:ro9n to t:e 9inds:ield of defendant;s car- 9:ic: 9as destroyed- and landed under t:e car& Fe stated t:at defendant 9as under t:e influence of liquor as :e could >smell it %ery 9ell> (77& +3- ),- tsn- Cune ")- ",,"$& After trial- t:e lo9er court sustained t:e 7laintiff;s submissions and found defendant Ric:ard (i guilty of gross negligence and liable for damages under Article ")* of t:e Ci%il Code& T:e trial court li8e9ise :eld Alexander Commercial- 2nc&- (i;s em7loyer- Bointly and se%erally liable for damages 7ursuant to Article "/!& 2t ordered t:e defendants to Bointly and se%erally 7ay t:e follo9ing amounts: "& 6+"-/+!&!!- as actual damages- re7resenting t:e miscellaneous ex7enses of t:e 7laintiff as a result of :er se%ered left legG & T:e sums of (a$ 63)-.!!&!!- for t:e unreali=ed 7rofits because of t:e sto77age of 7laintiff;s 0istro (a Conga restaurant t:ree (3$ 9ee8s after t:e accident on Cune +- ",,!G (b$ 6 !-!!!&!!- a mont:- as unreali=ed 7rofits of t:e 7laintiff in :er 0istro (a Conga restaurantfrom August- ",,! until t:e date of t:is Budgment and (c$ 63!-!!!&!!- a mont: for unreali=ed 7rofits in 7laintiff;s t9o ( $ beauty salons from Culy- ",,! until t:e date of t:is decisionG

341
3& 6"-!!!-!!!&!!- in moral damagesG +& 6.!-!!!&!!- as exem7lary damagesG .& 6*!-!!!&!!- as reasonable attorney;s feesG and *& Costs& As a result of t:e trial court;s decision- defendants filed an 5mnibus Aotion for 'e9 Trial and for Reconsideration- citing testimony in Criminal Case 5&C& 'o& /!+3*) (6eo7le %s& Ric:ard (i$tending to s:o9 t:at t:e 7oint of im7act- as de7icted by t:e 7ieces of glassHdebris from t:e 7arties; cars- a77eared to be at t:e center of t:e rig:t lane of Aurora 0l%d& T:e trial court denied t:e motion& Defendants fort:9it: filed an a77eal 9it: t:e res7ondent Court of A77eals& 2n a Decision rendered Aarc: 3!- ",,+- t:e Court of A77eals found t:at t:ere 9as >am7le basis from t:e e%idence of record for t:e trial court;s finding t:at t:e 7laintiff;s car 9as 7ro7erly 7ar8ed at t:e rig:t- beside t:e side9al8 9:en it 9as bum7ed by defendant;s car&>" Dismissing t:e defendants; argument t:at t:e 7laintiff;s car 9as im7ro7erly 7ar8ed- almost at t:e center of t:e road- t:e res7ondent court noted t:at e%idence 9:ic: 9as su77osed to 7ro%e t:at t:e car 9as at or near center of t:e rig:t lane 9as ne%er 7resented during t:e trial of t:e case& T:e res7ondent court furt:ermore obser%ed t:at: Defendant (i;s testimony t:at :e 9as dri%ing at a safe s7eed of .. 8m&H:our is self ser%ingG it 9as not corroborated& 2t 9as in fact contradicted by eye9itness Rodrigue= 9:o stated t:at :e 9as outside :is beer:ouse located at Aurora 0oule%ard after A& (a8e 3treet- at or about :!! a&m& of Cune +- ",,! 9:en :is attention 9as caug:t by a beautiful lady (referring to t:e 7laintiff$ alig:ting from :er car and o7ening t:e trun8 com7artmentG :e noticed t:e car of Ric:ard (i >a77roac:ing %ery fast ten ("!$ meters a9ay from t:e scene>G defendant;s car 9as =ig=agging>- alt:oug: t:ere 9ere no :oles and :a=ards on t:e street- and >bum7ed t:e leg of t:e 7laintiff> 9:o 9as t:ro9n against t:e 9inds:ield of defendant;s care- causing its destruction& Fe came to t:e rescue of t:e 7laintiff- 9:o 9as 7ulled out from under defendant;s car and 9as able to say >:urting 9ords> to Ric:ard (i because :e noticed t:at t:e latter 9as under t:e influence of liquor- because :e >could smell it %ery 9ell> (7& 3*- et& se0&- tsn- Cune ")",,"$& Fe 8ne9 t:at 7laintiff o9ned a beer:ouse in 3ta& Aesa in t:e ",)!;s- but did not 8no9 eit:er 7laintiff or defendant (i before t:e accident& 2n agreeing 9it: t:e trial court t:at t:e defendant (i 9as liable for t:e inBuries sustained by t:e 7laintiff- t:e Court of A77eals- in its decision- :o9e%er- absol%ed t:e (i;s em7loyer- Alexander Commercial- 2nc& from any liability to9ards 7etitioner (ourdes Ealen=uela and reduced t:e amount of moral damages to 6.!!-!!!&!!& Finding Bustification for exem7lary damages- t:e res7ondent court allo9ed an a9ard of 6.!-!!!&!! for t:e same- in addition to costs- attorney;s fees and t:e ot:er damages& T:e Court of A77eals- li8e9ise- dismissed t:e defendants; counterclaims& Consequently- bot: 7arties assail t:e res7ondent court;s decision by filing t9o se7arate 7etitions before t:is Court& Ric:ard (i- in G&R& 'o& ""),++- contends t:at :e s:ould not be :eld liable for damages because t:e 7roximate cause of t:e accident 9as Aa& (ourdes Ealen=uela;s o9n negligence& Alternati%ely- :e argues t:at in t:e e%ent t:at t:is Court finds :im negligent- suc: negligence oug:t to be mitigated by t:e contributory negligence of Ealen=uela& 5n t:e ot:er :and- in G&R& 'o& "".! +- Aa& (ourdes Ealen=uela assails t:e res7ondent court;s decision insofar as it absol%es Alexander Commercial- 2nc& from liability as t:e o9ner of t:e car dri%en by Ric:ard (i and insofar as it reduces t:e amount of t:e actual and moral damages a9arded by t:e trial court&+ As t:e issues are intimately related- bot: 7etitions are :ereby consolidated&

342
2t is 7lainly e%ident t:at t:e 7etition for re%ie9 in G&R& 'o& ""),++ raises no substantial questions of la9& ?:at it- in effect- attem7ts to :a%e t:is Court re%ie9 are factual findings of t:e trial court- as sustained by t:e Court of A77eals finding Ric:ard (i grossly negligent in dri%ing t:e Aitsubis:i (ancer 7ro%ided by :is com7any in t:e early morning :ours of Cune +- ",,!& T:is 9e 9ill not do& As a general rule- findings of fact of t:e Court of A77eals are binding and conclusi%e u7on usand t:is Court 9ill not normally disturb suc: factual findings unless t:e findings of fact of t:e said court are 7al7ably unsu77orted by t:e e%idence on record or unless t:e Budgment itself is based on a misa77re:ension of facts& 2n t:e first 7lace- Ealen=uela;s %ersion of t:e incident 9as fully corroborated by an uninterested 9itness- Rogelio Rodrigue=- t:e o9ner#o7erator of an establis:ment located Bust across t:e scene of t:e accident& 5n trial- :e testified t:at :e obser%ed a car being dri%en at a >%ery fast> s7eed- racing to9ards t:e general direction of Araneta A%enue&* Rodrigue= furt:er added t:at :e 9as standing in front of :is establis:ment- Bust ten to t9enty feet a9ay from t:e scene of t:e accident- 9:en :e sa9 t:e car :it Ealen=uela- :urtling :er against t:e 9inds:ield of t:e defendant;s Aitsubis:i (ancer- from 9:ere s:e e%entually fell under t:e defendant;s car& 37ontaneously reacting to t:e incident- :e crossed t:e street- noting t:at a man ree8ing 9it: t:e smell of liquor :ad alig:ted from t:e offending %e:icle in order to sur%ey t:e incident& ) 4qually im7ortant- Rodrigue= declared t:at :e obser%ed Ealen=uela;s car 7ar8ed 7arallel and %ery near t:e side9al8- contrary to (i;s allegation t:at Ealen=uela;s car 9as close to t:e center of t:e rig:t lane& ?e agree t:at as bet9een (i;s >self#ser%ing> asse%erations and t:e obser%ations of a 9itness 9:o did not e%en 8no9 t:e accident %ictim 7ersonally and 9:o immediately ga%e a statement of t:e incident similar to :is testimony to t:e in%estigator immediately after t:e incident- t:e latter;s testimony deser%es greater 9eig:t& As t:e court em7:asi=ed: T:e issue is one of credibility and from 5ur o9n examination of t:e transcri7t- ?e are not 7re7ared to set aside t:e trial court;s reliance on t:e testimony of Rodrigue= negating defendant;s assertion t:at :e 9as dri%ing at a safe s7eed& ?:ile Rodrigue= dri%es only a motorcycle- :is 7erce7tion of s7eed is not necessarily im7aired& Fe 9as subBected to cross# examination and no attem7t 9as made to question &:is com7etence or t:e accuracy of :is statement t:at defendant 9as dri%ing >%ery fast>& T:is 9as t:e same statement :e ga%e to t:e 7olice in%estigator after t:e incident- as told to a ne9s7a7er re7ort (4x:& >6>$& ?e see no com7elling basis for disregarding :is testimony& T:e alleged inconsistencies in Rodrigue=; testimony are not borne out by an examination of t:e testimony& Rodrigue= testified t:at t:e scene of t:e accident 9as across t:e street 9:ere :is beer:ouse is located about ten to t9enty feet a9ay (77& 3.#3*- tsn- Cune ")- ",,"$& Fe did not state t:at t:e accident trans7ired immediately in front of :is establis:ment& T:e o9ners:i7 of t:e (ambingan se Iambingan is not materialG t:e business is registered in t:e name of :is mot:er- but :e ex7lained t:at :e o9ns t:e establis:ment (7& .- tsn- Cune !- ",,"$& Aoreo%ert:e testimony t:at t:e streetlig:ts on :is side of Aurora 0oule%ard 9ere on t:e nig:t t:e accident trans7ired (7& /$ is not necessarily contradictory to t:e testimony of 6fc& Ramos t:at t:ere 9as a streetlig:t at t:e corner of Aurora 0oule%ard and F& Roman 3treet (7& +.- tsn- 5ct& !- ",,"$& ?it: res7ect to t:e 9eat:er condition- Rodrigue= testified t:at t:ere 9as only a dri==le- not a :ea%y rain and t:e rain :as sto77ed and :e 9as outside :is establis:ment at t:e time t:e accident trans7ired (77& *+#*.- tsn- Cune ")- ",,"$& T:is 9as consistent 9it: 7laintiff;s testimony t:at it 9as no longer raining 9:en s:e left 0istro (a Conga (77& "!#""- tsn- A7ril ,",,"$& 2t 9as defendant (i 9:o stated t:at it 9as raining all t:e 9ay in an attem7t to ex7lain 9:y :e 9as tra%elling at only .!#.. 87:& (7& ""- tsn- 5ct& "+- ",,"$& As to t:e testimony of 6fc& Ramos t:at it 9as raining- :e arri%ed at t:e scene only in res7onse to a tele7:one call after t:e accident :ad trans7ired (77& ,#"!- tsn- 5ct& /- ",,"$& ?e find no substantial inconsistencies in Rodrigue=;s testimony t:at 9ould im7air t:e essential integrity of :is testimony or reflect on :is

343
:onesty& ?e are com7elled to affirm t:e trial court;s acce7tance of t:e testimony of said eye9itness& Against t:e unassailable testimony of 9itness Rodrigue= 9e note t:at (i;s testimony 9as 7e77ered 9it: so many inconsistencies leading us to conclude t:at :is %ersion of t:e accident 9as merely adroitly crafted to 7ro%ide a %ersion- ob%iously self#ser%ing- 9:ic: 9ould excul7ate :im from any and all liability in t:e incident& Against Ealen=uela;s corroborated claims- :is allegations 9ere neit:er bac8ed u7 by ot:er 9itnesses nor by t:e circumstances 7ro%en in t:e course of trial& Fe claimed t:at :e 9as dri%ing merely at a s7eed of .. 87:& 9:en >out of no9:ere :e sa9 a dar8 maroon lancer rig:t in front of :im- 9:ic: 9as (t:e$ 7laintiff;s car>& Fe alleged t:at u7on seeing t:is sudden >a77arition> :e 7ut on :is bra8es to no a%ail as t:e road 9as sli77ery& 5ne 9ill :a%e to sus7end disbelief in order to gi%e credence to (i;s disingenuous and 7atently self#ser%ing asse%erations& T:e a%erage motorist alert to road %onditions 9ill :a%e no difficulty a77lying t:e bra8es to a car tra%eling at t:e s7eed claimed by (i& Gi%en a lig:t rainfall- t:e %isibility of t:e streetand t:e road conditions on a 7rinci7al metro7olitan t:oroug:fare li8e Aurora 0oule%ard- (i 9ould :a%e :ad am7le time to react to t:e c:anging conditions of t:e road if :e 9ere alert # as e%ery dri%er s:ould be # to t:ose conditions& Dri%ing exacts a more t:an usual toll on t:e senses& 6:ysiological >fig:t or flig:t> mec:anisms are at 9or8- 7ro%ided suc: mec:anisms 9ere not dulled by drugs- alco:olex:austion- dro9siness- etc& (i;s failure to react in a manner 9:ic: 9ould :a%e a%oided t:e accident could t:erefore :a%e been only due to eit:er or bot: of t:e t9o factors: "$ t:at :e 9as dri%ing at a >%ery fast> s7eed as testified by Rodrigue=G and $ t:at :e 9as under t:e influence of alco:ol& 4it:er factor 9or8ing inde7endently 9ould :a%e diminis:ed :is res7onsi%eness to road conditions- since normally :e 9ould :a%e slo9ed do9n 7rior to reac:ing Ealen=uela;s car- rat:er t:an be in a situation forcing :im to suddenly a77ly :is bra8es& As t:e trial court noted (quoted 9it: a77ro%al by res7ondent court$: 3econdly- as narrated by defendant Ric:ard (i to t:e 3an Cuan 6olice immediately after t:e incident- :e said t:at 9:ile dri%ing along Aurora 0l%d&- out of no9:ere :e sa9 a dar8 maroon lancer rig:t in front of :im 9:ic: 9as 7laintiff;s car- indicating- again- t:ereby t:at- indeed- :e 9as dri%ing %ery fast- obli%ious of :is surroundings and t:e road a:ead of :im- because if :e 9as not- t:en :e could not :a%e missed noticing at a still far distance t:e 7ar8ed car of t:e 7laintiff at t:e rig:t side near t:e side9al8 9:ic: :ad its emergency lig:ts on- t:ereby a%oiding forcefully bum7ing at t:e 7laintiff 9:o 9as t:en standing at t:e left rear edge of :er car& 3ince- according to :im- in :is narration to t:e 3an Cuan 6olice- :e 7ut on :is bra8es 9:en :e sa9 t:e 7laintiff;s car in front of :im- but t:at it failed as t:e road 9as 9et and sli77ery- t:is goes to s:o9 again- t:at- contrary to :is claim- :e 9as- indeed- running %ery fast& For- 9ere it ot:er9ise- :e could :a%e easily com7letely sto77ed :is car- t:ereby a%oiding t:e bum7ing of t:e 7laintiff- not9it:standing t:at t:e road 9as 9et and sli77ery& Eerily- since- if- indeed- :e 9as running slo9- as :e claimed- at only about .. 8ilometers 7er :our- t:en- ins7ite of t:e 9et and sli77ery road- :e could :a%e a%oided :itting t:e 7laintiff by t:e mere ex7edient or a77lying :is bra8es at t:e 7ro7er time and distance& 2t could not be true- t:erefore- as :e no9 claims during :is testimony- 9:ic: is contrary to 9:at :e told t:e 7olice immediately after t:e accident and is- t:erefore- more belie%able- t:at :e did not actually ste7 on :is bra8es but sim7ly s9er%ed a little to t:e rig:t 9:en :e sa9 t:e on# coming car 9it: glaring :eadlig:ts- from t:e o77osite direction- in order to a%oid it& For- :ad t:is been 9:at :e did- :e 9ould not :a%e bum7ed t:e car of t:e 7laintiff 9:ic: 9as 7ro7erly 7ar8ed at t:e rig:t beside t:e side9al8& And- it 9as not e%en necessary for :im to s9er%e a little to t:e rig:t in order to safely a%oid a collision 9it: t:e on#coming car- considering t:at Aurora 0l%d& is a double lane a%enue se7arated at t:e center by a dotted 9:ite 7aint- and

344
t:ere is 7lenty of s7ace for bot: cars- since :er car 9as running at t:e rig:t lane going to9ards Aanila on t:e on#coming car 9as also on its rig:t lane going to Cubao& Fa%ing come to t:e conclusion t:at (i 9as negligent in dri%ing :is com7any#issued Aitsubis:i (ancer- t:e next question for us to determine is 9:et:er or not Ealen=uela 9as li8e9ise guilty of contributory negligence in 7ar8ing :er car alongside Aurora 0oule%ard- 9:ic: entire area (i 7oints outis a no 7ar8ing =one& ?e agree 9it: t:e res7ondent court t:at Ealen=uela 9as not guilty of contributory negligence& Contributory negligence is conduct on t:e 7art of t:e inBured 7arty- contributing as a legal cause to t:e :arm :e :as suffered- 9:ic: falls belo9 t:e standard to 9:ic: :e is required to conform for :is o9n 7rotection& 0ased on t:e foregoing definition- t:e standard or act to 9:ic:- according to 7etitioner (i- Ealen=uela oug:t to :a%e conformed for :er o9n 7rotection 9as not to 7ar8 at all at any 7oint of Aurora 0oule%ard- a no 7ar8ing =one& ?e cannot agree& Courts :a%e traditionally been com7elled to recogni=e t:at an actor 9:o is confronted 9it: an emergency is not to be :eld u7 to t:e standard of conduct normally a77lied to an indi%idual 9:o is in no suc: situation& T:e la9 ta8es stoc8 of im7ulses of :umanity 9:en 7laced in t:reatening or dangerous situations and does not require t:e same standard of t:oug:tful and reflecti%e care from 7ersons confronted by unusual and oftentimes t:reatening conditions& 1nder t:e >emergency rule> ado7ted by t:is Court in 1an vs& !ourt of ppeals- an indi%idual 9:o suddenly finds :imself in a situation of danger and is required to act 9it:out muc: time to consider t:e best means t:at may be ado7ted to a%oid t:e im7ending danger- is not guilty of negligence if :e fails to underta8e 9:at subsequently and u7on reflection may a77ear to be a better solution- unless t:e emergency 9as broug:t by :is o9n negligence& A77lying t:is 7rinci7le to a case in 9:ic: t:e %ictims in a %e:icular accident s9er%ed to t:e 9rong lane to a%oid :itting t9o c:ildren suddenly darting into t:e street- 9e :eld- in M% Kee vs& )ntermediate ppellate !ourt- t:at t:e dri%er t:erein- Cose Io:- >ado7ted t:e best means 7ossible in t:e gi%en situation> to a%oid :itting t:e c:ildren& 1sing t:e >emergency rule> t:e Court concluded t:at Io:- in s7ite of t:e fact t:at :e 9as in t:e 9rong lane 9:en t:e collision 9it: an oncoming truc8 occurred- 9as not guilty of negligence& ?:ile t:e emergency rule a77lies to t:ose cases in 9:ic: reflecti%e t:oug:t- or t:e o77ortunity to adequately 9eig: a t:reatening situation is absent- t:e conduct 9:ic: is required of an indi%idual in suc: cases is dictated not exclusi%ely by t:e suddenness of t:e e%ent 9:ic: absolutely negates t:oroug:ful care- but by t:e o%er#all nature of t:e circumstances& A 9oman dri%ing a %e:icle suddenly cri77led by a flat tire on a rainy nig:t 9ill not be faulted for sto77ing at a 7oint 9:ic: is bot: con%enient for :er to do so and 9:ic: is not a :a=ard to ot:er motorists& 3:e is not ex7ected to run t:e entire boule%ard in searc: for a 7ar8ing =one or turn on a dar8 street or alley 9:ere s:e 9ould li8ely find no one to :el7 :er& 2t 9ould be :a=ardous for :er not to sto7 and assess t:e emergency (sim7ly because t:e entire lengt: of Aurora 0oule%ard is a no#7ar8ing =one$ because t:e :obbling %e:icle 9ould be bot: a t:reat to :er safety and to ot:er motorists& 2n t:e instant case- Ealen=uela- u7on reac:ing t:at 7ortion of Aurora 0oule%ard close to A& (a8e 3t&- noticed t:at s:e :ad a flat tire& To a%oid 7utting :erself and ot:er motorists in danger- s:e did 9:at 9as best under t:e situation& As narrated by res7ondent court: >3:e sto77ed at a lig:ted 7lace 9:ere t:ere 9ere 7eo7le- to %erify 9:et:er s:e :ad a flat tire and to solicit :el7 if needed& Fa%ing been told by t:e 7eo7le 7resent t:at :er rear rig:t tire 9as flat and t:at s:e cannot reac: :er :ome s:e 7ar8ed along t:e side9al8- about " "H feet a9aybe:ind a Toyota Corona Car&> ! 2n fact- res7ondent court noted- 6fc& Felix Ramos- t:e in%estigator on t:e scene of t:e accident confirmed t:at Ealen=uela;s car 9as 7ar8ed %ery close to t:e side9al8& T:e s8etc: 9:ic: :e 7re7ared after t:e incident s:o9ed Ealen=uela;s car 7artly straddling t:e side9al8clear and at a con%enient distance from motorists 7assing t:e rig:t lane of Aurora 0oule%ard& T:is fact 9as itself corroborated by t:e testimony of 9itness Rodrigue=&

345
1nder t:e circumstances described- Ealen=uela did exercise t:e standard reasonably dictated by t:e emergency and could not be considered to :a%e contributed to t:e unfortunate circumstances 9:ic: e%entually led to t:e am7utation of one of :er lo9er extremities& T:e emergency 9:ic: led :er to 7ar8 :er car on a side9al8 in Aurora 0oule%ard 9as not of :er o9n ma8ing- and it 9as e%ident t:at s:e :ad ta8en all reasonable 7recautions& 5b%iously in t:e case at benc:- t:e only negligence ascribable 9as t:e negligence of (i on t:e nig:t of t:e accident& >'egligence- as it is commonly understood is conduct 9:ic: creates an undue ris8 of :arm to ot:ers&>2t is t:e failure to obser%e t:at degree of care- 7recaution- and %igilance 9:ic: t:e circumstances Bustly demand- 9:ereby suc: ot:er 7erson suffers inBury& ?e stressed- in !orliss vs& Manila ,ailroad !ompany- t:at negligence is t:e 9ant of care required by t:e circumstances& T:e circumstances establis:ed by t:e e%idence adduced in t:e court belo9 7lainly demonstrate t:at (i 9as grossly negligent in dri%ing :is Aitsubis:i (ancer& 2t bears em7:asis t:at :e 9as dri%ing at a fast s7eed at about :!! A&A& after a :ea%y do9n7our :ad settled into a dri==le rendering t:e street sli77ery& T:ere is am7le testimonial e%idence on record to s:o9 t:at :e 9as under t:e influence of liquor& 1nder t:ese conditions- :is c:ances of effecti%ely dealing 9it: c:anging conditions on t:e road 9ere significantly lessened& As 6resser and Ieaton em7:asi=e: M1Nnder 7resent day traffic conditions- any dri%er of an automobile must be 7re7ared for t:e sudden a77earance of obstacles and 7ersons on t:e :ig:9ay- and of ot:er %e:icles at intersections- suc: as one 9:o sees a c:ild on t:e curb may be required to antici7ate its sudden das: into t:e street- and :is failure to act 7ro7erly 9:en t:ey a77ear may be found to amount to negligence& (i;s ob%ious un7re7aredness to co7e 9it: t:e situation confronting :im on t:e nig:t of t:e accident 9as clearly of :is o9n ma8ing& ?e no9 come to t:e question of t:e liability of Alexander Commercial- 2nc& (i;s em7loyer& 2n denying liability on t:e 7art of Alexander Commercial- t:e res7ondent court :eld t:at: T:ere is no e%idence- not e%en defendant (i;s testimony- t:at t:e %isit 9as in connection 9it: official matters& Fis functions as assistant manager sometimes required :im to 7erform 9or8 outside t:e office as :e :as to %isit buyers and com7any clients- but :e admitted t:at on t:e nig:t of t:e accident :e came from 0F Fomes 6aranaque :e did not :a%e >business from t:e com7any> (77& .# *- ten- 3e7t& 3- ",,"$& T:e use of t:e com7any car 9as 7artly required by t:e nature of :is 9or8- but t:e 7ri%ilege of using it for non#official business is a >benefit>a77arently referring to t:e fringe benefits attac:ing to :is 7osition& 1nder t:e ci%il la9- an em7loyer is liable for t:e negligence of :is em7loyees in t:e disc:arge of t:eir res7ecti%e duties- t:e basis of 9:ic: liability is not respondeat superior- but t:e relations:i7 of pater familias- 9:ic: t:eory bases t:e liability of t:e master ultimately on :is o9n negligence and not on t:at of :is ser%ant (Cuison %& 'orton and Farrison Co&- .. 6:il& "/$& 0efore an em7loyer may be :eld liable for t:e negligence of :is em7loyee- t:e act or omission 9:ic: caused damage must :a%e occurred 9:ile an em7loyee 9as in t:e actual 7erformance of :is assigned tas8s or duties (Francis Fig: 3c:ool %s& Court of A77eals- ",+ 3CRA 3+"$& 2n defining an em7loyer;s liability for t:e acts done 9it:in t:e sco7e of t:e em7loyee;s assigned tas8s- t:e 3u7reme Court :as :eld t:at t:is includes any act done by an em7loyee- in furt:erance of t:e interests of t:e em7loyer or for t:e account of t:e em7loyer at t:e time of t:e infliction of t:e inBury or damage (Filamer C:ristian 2nstitute %s& 2ntermediate A77ellate Court" 3CRA *3)$& An em7loyer is ex7ected to im7ose u7on its em7loyees t:e necessary disci7line called for in t:e 7erformance of any act >indis7ensable to t:e business and beneficial to t:eir em7loyer> (at 7& *+.$&

346
2n lig:t of t:e foregoing- ?e are unable to sustain t:e trial court;s finding t:at since defendant (i 9as aut:ori=ed by t:e com7any to use t:e com7any car >eit:er officially or socially or e%en bring it :ome>- :e can be considered as using t:e com7any car in t:e ser%ice of :is em7loyer or on t:e occasion of :is functions& Dri%ing t:e com7any car 9as not among :is functions as assistant managerG using it for non#official 7ur7oses 9ould a77ear to be a fringe benefit- one of t:e 7er8s attac:ed to :is 7osition& 0ut to im7ose liability u7on t:e em7loyer under Article "/! of t:e Ci%il Code- earlier quoted- t:ere must be a s:o9ing t:at t:e damage 9as caused by t:eir em7loyees in t:e ser%ice of t:e em7loyer or on t:e occasion of t:eir functions& T:ere is no e%idence t:at Ric:ard (i 9as at t:e time of t:e accident 7erforming any act in furt:erance of t:e com7any;s business or its interests- or at least for its benefit& T:e im7osition of solidary liability against defendant Alexander Commercial Cor7oration must t:erefore fail& ?e agree 9it: t:e res7ondent court t:at t:e relations:i7 in question is not based on t:e 7rinci7le of respondeat superior- 9:ic: :olds t:e master liable for acts of t:e ser%ant- but t:at of pater familias- in 9:ic: t:e liability ultimately falls u7on t:e em7loyer- for :is failure to exercise t:e diligence of a good fat:er of t:e family in t:e selection and su7er%ision of :is em7loyees& 2t is u7 to t:is 7oint:o9e%er- t:at our agreement 9it: t:e res7ondent court ends& 1tili=ing t:e bonus pater familias standard ex7ressed in Article "/! of t:e Ci%il Code- 9e are of t:e o7inion t:at (i;s em7loyerAlexander Commercial- 2nc& is Bointly and solidarily liable for t:e damage caused by t:e accident of Cune +- ",,!& First- t:e case of #t& $ran%is -igh #%hool vs& !ourt of ppeals u7on 9:ic: res7ondent court :as 7laced undue reliance- dealt 9it: t:e subBect of a sc:ool and its teac:er;s su7er%ision of students during an extracurricular acti%ity& T:ese cases no9 fall under t:e 7ro%ision on s7ecial 7arental aut:ority found in Art& "/ of t:e Family Code 9:ic: generally encom7asses all aut:ori=ed sc:ool acti%ities- 9:et:er inside or outside sc:ool 7remises& 3econd- t:e em7loyer;s 7rimary liability under t:e conce7t of pater familias embodied by Art "/! (in relation to Art& ")*$ of t:e Ci%il Code is quasi#delictual or tortious in c:aracter& Fis liability is relie%ed on a s:o9ing t:at :e exercised t:e diligence of a good fat:er of t:e family in t:e selection and su7er%ision of its em7loyees& 5nce e%idence is introduced s:o9ing t:at t:e em7loyer exercised t:e required amount of %are in selecting its em7loyees- :alf of t:e em7loyer;s burden is o%ercome& T:e question of diligent supervision- :o9e%er- de7ends on t:e circumstances of em7loyment& 5rdinarily- e%idence demonstrating t:at t:e em7loyer :as exercised diligent su7er%ision of its em7loyee during t:e 7erformance of t:e latter;s assigned tas8s 9ould be enoug: to relie%e :im of t:e liability im7osed by Article "/! in relation to Article ")* of t:e Ci%il Code& T:e em7loyer is not ex7ected to exercise su7er%ision o%er eit:er t:e em7loyee;s 7ri%ate acti%ities or during t:e 7erformance of tas8s eit:er unsanctioned by t:e former or unrelated to t:e em7loyee;s tas8s& T:e case at benc: 7resents a situation of a different c:aracter- in%ol%ing a 7ractice utili=ed by large com7anies 9it: eit:er t:eir em7loyees of managerial ran8 or t:eir re7resentati%es& 2t is customary for large com7anies to 7ro%ide certain classes of t:eir em7loyees 9it: courtesy %e:icles& T:ese com7any cars are eit:er 9:olly o9ned and maintained by t:e com7any itself or are subBect to %arious 7lans t:roug: 9:ic: em7loyees e%entually acquire t:eir %e:icles after a gi%en 7eriod of ser%ice- or after 7aying a to8en amount& Aany com7anies 7ro%ide liberal >car 7lans> to enable t:eir managerial or ot:er em7loyees of ran8 to 7urc:ase cars- 9:ic:- gi%en t:e cost of %e:icles t:ese days- t:ey 9ould not ot:er9ise be able to 7urc:ase on t:eir o9n& 1nder t:e first exam7le- t:e com7any actually o9ns and maintains t:e car u7 to t:e 7oint of turno%er of o9ners:i7 to t:e em7loyeeG in t:e second exam7le- t:e car is really o9ned and maintained by t:e em7loyee :imself& 2n furnis:ing %e:icles to suc: em7loyees- are com7anies totally absol%ed of res7onsibility 9:en an accident in%ol%ing a com7any#issued car occurs during 7ri%ate use after normal office :oursJ

347
Aost 7:armaceutical com7anies- for instance- 9:ic: 7ro%ide cars under t:e first 7lan- require rigorous tests of road 9ort:iness from t:eir agents 7rior to turning o%er t:e car (subBect of com7any maintenance$ to t:eir re7resentati%es& 2n ot:er 9ords- li8e a good fat:er of a family- t:ey entrust t:e com7any %e:icle only after t:ey are satisfied t:at t:e em7loyee to 9:om t:e car :as been gi%en full use of t:e said com7any car for com7any or 7ri%ate 7ur7oses 9ill not be a t:reat or menace to :imself- t:e com7any or to ot:ers& ?:en a com7any gi%es full use and enBoyment of a com7any car to its em7loyee- it in effect guarantees t:at it is- li8e e%ery good fat:er- satisfied t:at its em7loyee 9ill use t:e 7ri%ilege reasonably and res7onsi%ely& 2n t:e ordinary course of business- not all com7any em7loyees are gi%en t:e 7ri%ilege of using a com7any#issued car& For large com7anies ot:er t:an t:ose cited in t:e exam7le of t:e 7receding 7aragra7:- t:e 7ri%ilege ser%es im7ortant business 7ur7oses eit:er related to t:e image of success an entity intends to 7resent to its clients and to t:e 7ublic in general- or # for 7ractical and utilitarian reasons # to enable its managerial and ot:er em7loyees of ran8 or its sales agents to reac: clients con%eniently& 2n most cases- 7ro%iding a com7any car ser%es bot: 7ur7oses& 3ince im7ortant business transactions and decisions may occur at all :ours in all sorts of situations and under all 8inds of guises- t:e 7ro%ision for t:e unlimited use of a com7any car t:erefore prin%ipally ser%es t:e business and good9ill of a com7any and only in%identally t:e 7ri%ate 7ur7oses of t:e indi%idual 9:o actually uses t:e car- t:e managerial em7loyee or com7any sales agent& As suc:- in 7ro%iding for a com7any car for business use andHor for t:e 7ur7ose of furt:ering t:e com7any;s image- a com7any o9es a res7onsibility to t:e 7ublic to see to it t:at t:e managerial or ot:er em7loyees to 9:om it entrusts %irtually unlimited use of a com7any issued car are able to use t:e com7any issue ca7ably and res7onsibly& 2n t:e instant case- (i 9as an Assistant Aanager of Alexander Commercial- 2nc& 2n :is testimony before t:e trial court- :e admitted t:at :is functions as Assistant Aanager did not require :im to scru7ulously 8ee7 normal office :ours as :e 9as required quite often to 7erform 9or8 outside t:e office- %isiting 7ros7ecti%e buyers and contacting and meeting 9it: com7any clients& T:ese meetings- clearly- 9ere not strictly confined to routine :ours because- as a managerial em7loyee tas8ed 9it: t:e Bob of re7resenting :is com7any 9it: its clients- meetings 9it: clients 9ere bot: social as 9ell as 9or8#related functions& T:e ser%ice car assigned to (i by Alexander Commercial- 2nc& t:erefore enabled bot: (i # as 9ell as t:e cor7oration # to 7ut u7 t:e front of a :ig:ly successful entityincreasing t:e latter;s good9ill before its clientele& 2t also facilitated meeting bet9een (i and its clients by 7ro%iding t:e former 9it: a con%enient mode of tra%el& Aoreo%er- (i;s claim t:at :e :a77ened to be on t:e road on t:e nig:t of t:e accident because :e 9as coming from a social %isit 9it: an officemate in 6aranaque 9as a bare allegation 9:ic: 9as ne%er corroborated in t:e court belo9& 2t 9as ob%iously self#ser%ing& Assuming :e really came from :is officemate;s 7lace- t:e same could gi%e rise to s7eculation t:at :e and :is officemate :ad Bust been from a 9or8#related function- or t:ey 9ere toget:er to discuss sales and ot:er 9or8 related strategies& 2n fine- Alexander Commercial- inc& :as not demonstrated- to our satisfaction- t:at it exercised t:e care and diligence of a good fat:er of t:e family in entrusting its com7any car to (i& 'o allegations 9ere made as to 9:et:er or not t:e com7any too8 t:e ste7s necessary to determine or ascertain t:e dri%ing 7roficiency and :istory of (i- to 9:om it ga%e full and unlimited use of a com7any car& 'ot :a%ing been able to o%ercome t:e burden of demonstrating t:at it s:ould be absol%ed of liability for entrusting its com7any car to (i- said com7any- based on t:e 7rinci7le of bonus pater familias- oug:t to be Bointly and se%erally liable 9it: t:e former for t:e inBuries sustained by Aa& (ourdes Ealen=uela during t:e accident& Finally- 9e find no reason to o%erturn t:e amount of damages a9arded by t:e res7ondent court- exce7t as to t:e amount of moral damages& 2n t:e case of moral damages- 9:ile t:e said damages are not intended to enric: t:e 7laintiff at t:e ex7ense of a defendant- t:e a9ard s:ould nonet:eless be commensurate to t:e suffering inflicted& 2n t:e instant case 9e are of t:e o7inion t:at

348
t:e reduction in moral damages from an amount of 6"-!!!-!!!&!! to 6/!!-!!!-!! by t:e Court of A77eals 9as not Bustified considering t:e nature of t:e resulting damage and t:e 7redictable se0uelae of t:e inBury& As a result of t:e accident- Aa& (ourdes Ealen=uela under9ent a traumatic am7utation of :er left lo9er extremity at t:e distal left t:ig: Bust abo%e t:e 8nee& 0ecause of t:is- Ealen=uela 9ill fore%er be de7ri%ed of t:e full ambulatory functions of :er left extremity- e%en 9it: t:e use of state of t:e art 7rost:etic tec:nology& ?ell beyond t:e 7eriod of :os7itali=ation (9:ic: 9as 7aid for by (i$- s:e 9ill be required to undergo adBustments in :er 7rost:etic de%ise due to t:e s:rin8age of t:e stum7 from t:e 7rocess of :ealing& T:ese adBustments entail costs- 7rost:etic re7lacements and mont:s of 7:ysical and occu7ational re:abilitation and t:era7y& During :er lifetime- t:e 7rost:etic de%ise 9ill :a%e to be re7laced and re#adBusted to c:anges in t:e si=e of :er lo9er limb effected by t:e biological c:anges of middle#age- meno7ause and aging& Assuming s:e reac:es meno7ause- for exam7le- t:e 7rost:etic 9ill :a%e to be adBusted to res7ond to t:e c:anges in bone resulting from a 7reci7itate decrease in calcium le%els obser%ed in t:e bones of all 7ost#meno7ausal 9omen& 2n ot:er 9ords- t:e damage done to :er 9ould not only be 7ermanent and lasting- it 9ould also be 7ermanently c:anging and adBusting to t:e 7:ysiologic c:anges 9:ic: :er body 9ould normally undergo t:roug: t:e years& T:e re7lacements- c:anges- and adBustments 9ill require corres7onding adBusti%e 7:ysical and occu7ational t:era7y& All of t:ese adBustments- it :as been documented- are 7ainful& T:e foregoing discussion does not e%en scratc: t:e surface of t:e nature of t:e resulting damage because it 9ould be :ig:ly s7eculati%e to estimate t:e amount of 7syc:ological 7ain- damage and inBury 9:ic: goes 9it: t:e sudden se%ering of a %ital 7ortion of t:e :uman body& A 7rost:etic de%ice- :o9e%er tec:nologically ad%anced- 9ill only allo9 a reasonable amount of functional restoration of t:e motor functions of t:e lo9er limb& T:e sensory functions are fore%er lost& T:e resultant anxiety- slee7lessness- 7syc:ological inBury- mental and 7:ysical 7ain are inestimable& As t:e amount of moral damages are subBect to t:is Court;s discretion- 9e are of t:e o7inion t:at t:e amount of 6"-!!!-!!!&!! granted by t:e trial court is in greater accord 9it: t:e extent and nature of t:e inBury # 7:ysical and 7syc:ological # suffered by Ealen=uela as a result of (i;s grossly negligent dri%ing of :is Aitsubis:i (ancer in t:e early morning :ours of t:e accident& ?F4R4F5R4- 6R4A2343 C5'32D4R4D- t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals is modified 9it: t:e effect of R42'3TAT2'G t:e Budgment of t:e Regional Trial Court&

T." S? (%"% +"#na!" A'#)Ba and S ,"dad C. A'#)Ba, and $." H")#% ' D -)nAa OnA &. Ca,$"C 3P.),.6, InB., Ma$" + M()#"n and $." C (#$ ' A??"a,% G&R& 'o& (#" ,/*&Aarc: 3"- ",** AAIA(2'TA(&- J.: T:is case is before us on a 7etition for re%ie9 of t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals- 9:ic: affirmed t:at of t:e Court of First 2nstance of Aanila dismissing 7etitioners; second amended com7laint against res7ondents& T:e action is for damages under Articles ",! and ",!3 of t:e old Ci%il Code& 2t a77ears t:at in t:e afternoon of Aarc: "/- ",+/ a fire bro8e out at t:e Caltex ser%ice station at t:e corner of Anti7olo street and Ri=al A%enue- Aanila& 2t started 9:ile gasoline 9as being :osed from a tan8 truc8 into t:e underground storage- rig:t at t:e o7ening of t:e recei%ing tan8 9:ere t:e no==le of t:e :ose 9as inserted& T:e fire s7read to and burned se%eral neig:boring :ouses- including t:e 7ersonal 7ro7erties and effects inside t:em& T:eir o9ners- among t:em 7etitioners :ere- sued res7ondents Caltex (6:il&$2nc& and Aateo 0oquiren- t:e first as alleged o9ner of t:e station and t:e second as its agent in c:arge of o7eration& 'egligence on t:e 7art of bot: of t:em 9as attributed as t:e cause of t:e fire&

349
T:e trial court and t:e Court of A77eals found t:at 7etitioners failed to 7ro%e negligence and t:at res7ondents :ad exercised due care in t:e 7remises and 9it: res7ect to t:e su7er%ision of t:eir em7loyees& T:e first question before 1s refers to t:e admissibility of certain re7orts on t:e fire 7re7ared by t:e Aanila 6olice and Fire De7artments and by a certain Ca7tain Tinio of t:e Armed Forces of t:e 6:ili77ines& 6ortions of t:e first t9o re7orts are as follo9s: "& 6olice De7artment re7ort: O 2n%estigation disclosed t:at at about +:!! 6&A& Aarc: "/- ",+/- 9:ile (eandro Flores 9as transferring gasoline from a tan8 truc8- 7late 'o& T#. , into t:e underground tan8 of t:e Caltex Gasoline 3tation located at t:e corner of Ri=al A%enue and Anti7olo 3treet- t:is City- an un8no9n Fili7ino lig:ted a cigarette and t:re9 t:e burning matc: stic8 near t:e main %al%e of t:e said underground tan8& Due to t:e gasoline fumes- fire suddenly bla=ed& <uic8 action of (eandro Flores in 7ulling off t:e gasoline :ose connecting t:e truc8 9it: t:e underground tan8 7re%ented a terrific ex7losion& Fo9e%ert:e flames scattered due to t:e :ose from 9:ic: t:e gasoline 9as s7outing& 2t burned t:e truc8 and t:e follo9ing accessorias and residences& & T:e Fire De7artment re7ort: O 2n connection 9it: t:eir allegation t:at t:e 7remises 9as (sic$ subleased for t:e installation of a coca#cola and cigarette stand- t:e com7lainants furnis:ed t:is 5ffice a co7y of a 7:otogra7: ta8en during t:e fire and 9:ic: is submitted :ere9it:& it a77ears in t:is 7icture t:at t:ere are in t:e 7remises a coca#cola cooler and a rac8 9:ic: according to information gat:ered in t:e neig:bor:ood contained cigarettes and matc:es- installed bet9een t:e gasoline 7um7s and t:e underground tan8s& T:e re7ort of Ca7tain Tinio re7roduced information gi%en by a certain 0enito Aorales regarding t:e :istory of t:e gasoline station and 9:at t:e c:ief of t:e fire de7artment :ad told :im on t:e same subBect& T:e foregoing re7orts 9ere ruled out as >double :earsay> by t:e Court of A77eals and :ence inadmissible& T:is ruling is no9 assigned as error& 2t is contended: first- t:at said re7orts 9ere admitted by t:e trial court 9it:out obBection on t:e 7art of res7ondentsG secondly- t:at 9it: res7ect to t:e 7olice re7ort (4x:ibit E#Africa$ 9:ic: a77ears signed by a Detecti%e Ya7anta allegedly >for 3al%ador Ca7acillo-> t:e latter 9as 7resented as 9itness but res7ondents 9ai%ed t:eir rig:t to cross#examine :im alt:oug: t:ey :ad t:e o77ortunity to do soG and t:irdly- t:at in any e%ent t:e said re7orts are admissible as an exce7tion to t:e :earsay rule under section 3. of Rule " 3- no9 Rule "3!& T:e first contention is not borne out by t:e record& T:e transcri7t of t:e :earing of 3e7tember ")- ",.3 (77& "*)#")!$ s:o9s t:at t:e re7orts in question- 9:en offered as e%idence- 9ere obBected to by counsel for eac: of res7ondents on t:e ground t:at t:ey 9ere :earsay and t:at t:ey 9ere >irrele%ant- immaterial and im7ertinent&> 2ndeed- in t:e court;s resolution only 4x:ibits C- I- I#. and `# * 9ere admitted 'ithout ob*e%tionG t:e admission of t:e ot:ers- including t:e dis7uted ones- carried no suc: ex7lanation& 5n t:e second 7oint- alt:oug: Detecti%e Ca7acillo did ta8e t:e 9itness stand- :e 9as not examined and :e did not testify as to t:e facts mentioned in :is alleged re7ort (signed by Detecti%e Ya7anta$& All :e said 9as t:at :e 9as one of t:ose 9:o in%estigated >t:e location of t:e fire and- if 7ossible- gat:er 9itnesses as to t:e occurrence- and t:at :e broug:t t:e re7ort 9it: :im& T:ere 9as not:ing- t:erefore- on 9:ic: :e need be cross#examinedG and t:e contents of t:e re7ort- as to 9:ic: :e did not testify- did not t:ereby become com7etent e%idence& And e%en if :e :ad testified- :is

350
testimony 9ould still :a%e been obBectionable as far as information gat:ered by :im from t:ird 7ersons 9as concerned& 6etitioners maintain- :o9e%er- t:at t:e re7orts in t:emsel%es- t:at is- 9it:out furt:er testimonial e%idence on t:eir contents- fall 9it:in t:e sco7e of section 3.- Rule " 3- 9:ic: 7ro%ides t:at >entries in official records made in t:e 7erformance of :is duty by a 7ublic officer of t:e 6:ili77ines- or by a 7erson in t:e 7erformance of a duty s7ecially enBoined by la9- are prima fa%ie e%idence of t:e facts t:erein stated&> T:ere are t:ree requisites for admissibility under t:e rule Bust mentioned: (a$ t:at t:e entry 9as made by a 7ublic officer- or by anot:er 7erson s7ecially enBoined by la9 to do soG (b$ t:at it 9as made by t:e 7ublic officer in t:e 7erformance of :is duties- or by suc: ot:er 7erson in t:e 7erformance of a duty s7ecially enBoined by la9G and (c$ t:at t:e 7ublic officer or ot:er 7erson :ad sufficient 8no9ledge of t:e facts by :im stated- 9:ic: must :a%e been acquired by :im 7ersonally or t:roug: official information (Aoran- Comments on t:e Rules of Court- Eol& 3 M",.)N 7& 3,/$& 5f t:e t:ree requisites Bust stated- only t:e last need be considered :ere& 5b%iously t:e material facts recited in t:e re7orts as to t:e cause and circumstances of t:e fire 9ere not 9it:in t:e 7ersonal 8no9ledge of t:e officers 9:o conducted t:e in%estigation& ?as 8no9ledge of suc: facts:o9e%er- acquired by t:em t:roug: official informationJ As to some facts t:e sources t:ereof are not e%en identified& 5t:ers are attributed to (eo7oldo Aedina- referred to as an em7loyee at t:e gas station 9ere t:e fire occurredG to (eandro Flores- dri%er of t:e tan8 truc8 from 9:ic: gasoline 9as being transferred at t:e time to t:e underground tan8 of t:e stationG and to res7ondent Aateo 0oquiren- 9:o could not- according to 4x:ibit E#Africa- gi%e any reason as to t:e origin of t:e fire& To qualify t:eir statements as >official information> acquired by t:e officers 9:o 7re7ared t:e re7orts- t:e 7ersons 9:o made t:e statements not only must :a%e 7ersonal 8no9ledge of t:e facts stated but must :a%e t:e duty to gi%e suc: statements for record&" T:e re7orts in question do not constitute an exce7tion to t:e :earsay ruleG t:e facts stated t:erein 9ere not acquired by t:e re7orting officers t:roug: official information- not :a%ing been gi%en by t:e informants 7ursuant to any duty to do so& T:e next question is 9:et:er or not- 9it:out 7roof as to t:e cause and origin of t:e fire- t:e doctrine of res ipsa lo0uitur s:ould a77ly so as to 7resume negligence on t:e 7art of a77ellees& 0ot: t:e trial court and t:e a77ellate court refused to a77ly t:e doctrine in t:e instant case on t:e grounds t:at >as to (its$ a77licability &&& in t:e 6:ili77ines- t:ere seems to :e not:ing definite-> and t:at 9:ile t:e rules do not 7ro:ibit its ado7tion in a77ro7riate cases- >in t:e case at bar- :o9e%er- 9e find no 7ractical use for suc: doctrine&> T:e question deser%es more t:an suc: summary dismissal& T:e doctrine :as actually been a77lied in t:is Burisdiction- in t:e case of Espiritu vs. &hilippine &o'er and (evelopment !o& (CA#G&R& 'o& 3 +!#R- 3e7tember !- ",+,$- 9:erein t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals 9as 7enned by Ar& Custice C&0&(& Reyes no9 a member of t:e 3u7reme Court& T:e facts of t:at case are stated in t:e decision as follo9s: 2n t:e afternoon of Aay .- ",+*- 9:ile t:e 7laintiff#a77ellee and ot:er com7anions 9ere loading grass bet9een t:e munici7alities of 0ay and Calauan- in t:e 7ro%ince of (aguna- 9it: clear 9eat:er and 9it:out any 9ind blo9ing- an electric transmission 9ire- installed and maintained by t:e defendant 6:ili77ine 6o9er and De%elo7ment Co&- 2nc& alongside t:e roadsuddenly 7arted- and one of t:e bro8en ends :it t:e :ead of t:e 7laintiff as :e 9as about to board t:e truc8& As a result- 7laintiff recei%ed t:e full s:oc8 of +-+!! %olts carried by t:e 9ire and 9as 8noc8ed unconscious to t:e ground& T:e electric c:arge coursed t:roug: :is body and caused extensi%e and serious multi7le burns from s8ull to legs- lea%ing t:e bone ex7osed in some 7arts and causing intense 7ain and 9ounds t:at 9ere not com7letely :ealed 9:en t:e case 9as tried on Cune "/- ",+)- o%er one year after t:e mis:a7&

351
T:e defendant t:erein disclaimed liability on t:e ground t:at t:e 7laintiff :ad failed to s:o9 any s7ecific act of negligence- but t:e a77ellate court o%erruled t:e defense under t:e doctrine of res ipsa lo0uitur& T:e court said: T:e first 7oint is directed against t:e sufficiency of 7laintiff;s e%idence to 7lace a77ellant on its defense& ?:ile it is t:e rule- as contended by t:e a77ellant- t:at in case of noncontractual negligence- or %ulpa a0uiliana- t:e burden of 7roof is on t:e 7laintiff to establis: t:at t:e 7roximate cause of :is inBury 9as t:e negligence of t:e defendant- it is also a recogni=ed 7rinci7al t:at >9:ere t:e t:ing 9:ic: caused inBury- 9it:out fault of t:e inBured 7erson- is under t:e exclusi%e control of t:e defendant and t:e inBury is suc: as in t:e ordinary course of t:ings does not occur if :e :a%ing suc: control use 7ro7er care- it affords reasonable e%idence- in t:e absence of t:e ex7lanation- t:at t:e inBury arose from defendant;s 9ant of care&> And t:e burden of e%idence is s:ifted to :im to establis: t:at :e :as obser%ed due care and diligence& (3an Cuan (ig:t & Transit Co& %& Requena- ++- 1&3& /,- .* (& ed& */!&$ T:is rule is 8no9n by t:e name of res ipsa lo0uitur (t:e transaction s7ea8s for itself$- and is 7eculiarly a77licable to t:e case at bar- 9:ere it is unquestioned t:at t:e 7laintiff :ad e%ery rig:t to be on t:e :ig:9ay- and t:e electric 9ire 9as under t:e sole control of defendant com7any& 2n t:e ordinary course of e%ents- electric 9ires do not 7art suddenly in fair 9eat:er and inBure 7eo7leunless t:ey are subBected to unusual strain and stress or t:ere are defects in t:eir installationmaintenance and su7er%isionG Bust as barrels do not ordinarily roll out of t:e 9are:ouse 9indo9s to inBure 7assersby- unless some one 9as negligent& (0yrne %& 0oadle- F & Co& ) G "., 4ng& Re7rint ,,- t:e leading case t:at establis:ed t:at rule$& Consequently- in t:e absence of contributory negligence (9:ic: is admittedly not 7resent$- t:e fact t:at t:e 9ire sna77ed suffices to raise a reasonable 7resum7tion of negligence in its installation- care and maintenance& T:ereafter- as obser%ed by C:ief 0aron 6olloc8- >if t:ere are any facts inconsistent 9it: negligence- it is for t:e defendant to 7ro%e&> 2t is true of course t:at decisions of t:e Court of A77eals do not lay do9n doctrines binding on t:e 3u7reme Court- but 9e do not consider t:is a reason for not a77lying t:e 7articular doctrine of res ipsa lo0uitur in t:e case at bar& Gasoline is a :ig:ly combustible material- in t:e storage and sale of 9:ic: extreme care must be ta8en& 5n t:e ot:er :and- fire is not considered a fortuitous e%ent- as it arises almost in%ariably from some act of man& A case stri8ingly similar to t:e one before 1s is Cones %s& 3:ell 6etroleum Cor7oration- et al&- ")" 3o& ++): Art:ur 5& Cones is t:e o9ner of a building in t:e city of Fammon 9:ic: in t:e year ",3+ 9as leased to t:e 3:ell 6etroleum Cor7oration for a gasoline filling station& 5n 5ctober /- ",3+during t:e term of t:e lease- 9:ile gasoline 9as being transferred from t:e tan8 9agon- also o7erated by t:e 3:ell 6etroleum Cor7oration- to t:e underground tan8 of t:e station- a fire started 9it: resulting damages to t:e building o9ned by Cones& Alleging t:at t:e damages to :is building amounted to j."*&,.- Cones sued t:e 3:ell 6etroleum Cor7oration for t:e reco%ery of t:at amount& T:e Budge of t:e district court- after :earing t:e testimony- concluded t:at 7laintiff 9as entitled to a reco%ery and rendered Budgment in :is fa%or for j+ )&/ & T:e Court of A77eals for t:e First Circuit re%ersed t:is Budgment- on t:e ground t:e testimony failed to s:o9 9it: reasonable certainty any negligence on t:e 7art of t:e 3:ell 6etroleum Cor7oration or any of its agents or em7loyees& 6laintiff a77lied to t:is Court for a ?rit of Re%ie9 9:ic: 9as granted- and t:e case is no9 before us for decision&<J'phK<.LMt 2n resol%ing t:e issue of negligence- t:e 3u7reme Court of (ouisiana :eld: 6laintiff;s 7etition contains t9o distinct c:arges of negligence O one relating to t:e cause of t:e fire and t:e ot:er relating to t:e s7reading of t:e gasoline about t:e filling station& 5t:er t:an an ex7ert to assess t:e damages caused 7laintiff;s building by t:e fire- no 9itnesses 9ere 7laced on t:e stand by t:e defendant&

352
Ta8ing u7 7laintiff;s c:arge of negligence relating to t:e cause of t:e fire- 9e find it establis:ed by t:e record t:at t:e filling station and t:e tan8 truc8 9ere under t:e control of t:e defendant and o7erated by its agents or em7loyees& ?e furt:er find from t:e uncontradicted testimony of 7laintiff;s 9itnesses t:at fire started in t:e underground tan8 attac:ed to t:e filling station 9:ile it 9as being filled from t:e tan8 truc8 and 9:ile bot: t:e tan8 and t:e truc8 9ere in c:arge of and being o7erated by t:e agents or em7loyees of t:e defendant- extended to t:e :ose and tan8 truc8- and 9as communicated from t:e burning :ose- tan8 truc8- and esca7ing gasoline to t:e building o9ned by t:e 7laintiff& 6redicated on t:ese circumstances and t:e furt:er circumstance of defendant;s failure to ex7lain t:e cause of t:e fire or to s:o9 its lac8 of 8no9ledge of t:e cause- 7laintiff :as e%o8ed t:e doctrine of res ipsa lo0uitur& T:ere are many cases in 9:ic: t:e doctrine may be successfully in%o8ed and t:is- 9e t:in8- is one of t:em& ?:ere t:e t:ing 9:ic: caused t:e inBury com7lained of is s:o9n to be under t:e management of defendant or :is ser%ants and t:e accident is suc: as in t:e ordinary course of t:ings does not :a77en if t:ose 9:o :a%e its management or control use 7ro7er care- it affords reasonable e%idence- in absence of ex7lanation by defendant- t:at t:e accident arose from 9ant of care& (+. C&C& ^)*/- 7& "",3$& T:is statement of t:e rule of res ipsa lo0uitur :as been 9idely a77ro%ed and ado7ted by t:e courts of last resort& 3ome of t:e cases in t:is Burisdiction in 9:ic: t:e doctrine :as been a77lied are t:e follo9ing- vi+&: Aaus %& 0roderic8- ." (a& Ann& "".3- . 3o& ,))G Febert %& (a8e C:arles 2ce- etc&- Co&- """ (a& . - 3. 3o& )3"- *+ (&R&A& "!"- "!! Am& 3t& Re7& .!.G ?illis %& Eic8sburg- etc&- R& Co&- "". (a& *3- 3/ 3o& /, G 0ents %& 6age- "". (a& .*!- 3, 3o& .,,& T:e 7rinci7le enunciated in t:e aforequoted case a77lies 9it: equal force :ere& T:e gasoline station- 9it: all its a77liances- equi7ment and em7loyees- 9as under t:e control of a77ellees& A fire occurred t:erein and s7read to and burned t:e neig:boring :ouses& T:e 7ersons 9:o 8ne9 or could :a%e 8no9n :o9 t:e fire started 9ere a77ellees and t:eir em7loyees- but t:ey ga%e no ex7lanation t:ereof 9:atsoe%er& 2t is a fair and reasonable inference t:at t:e incident :a77ened because of 9ant of care& 2n t:e re7ort submitted by Ca7tain (eoncio Aariano of t:e Aanila 6olice De7artment (4x:& `#" Africa$ t:e follo9ing a77ears: 2n%estigation of t:e basic com7laint disclosed t:at t:e Caltex Gasoline 3tation com7lained of occu7ies a lot a77roximately "! m x "! m at t:e sout:9est corner of Ri=al A%enue and Anti7olo& T:e location is 9it:in a %ery busy business district near t:e 5brero Aar8et- a railroad crossing and %ery t:ic8ly 7o7ulated neig:bor:ood 9:ere a great number of 7eo7le mill around t until gasoline te%er be t:e?actB%ities of t:ese 7eo7leor lig:ting a cigarette cannot be excluded and t:is constitute a secondary :a=ard to its o7eration 9:ic: in turn endangers t:e entire neig:bor:ood to conflagration& Furt:ermore- aside from 7recautions already ta8en by its o7erator t:e concrete 9alls sout: and 9est adBoining t:e neig:bor:ood are only #"H meters :ig: at most and cannot a%oid t:e flames from lea7ing o%er it in case of fire&

353
Records s:o9 t:at t:ere :a%e been t9o cases of fire 9:ic: caused not only material damages but des7eration and also 7anic in t:e neig:bor:ood& Alt:oug: t:e soft drin8s stand :ad been eliminated- t:is gasoline ser%ice station is also used by its o7erator as a garage and re7air s:o7 for :is fleet of taxicabs numbering ten or moreadding anot:er ris8 to t:e 7ossible outbrea8 of fire at t:is already small but cro9ded gasoline station& T:e foregoing re7ort- :a%ing been submitted by a 7olice officer in t:e 7erformance of :is duties on t:e basis of :is o9n 7ersonal obser%ation of t:e facts re7orted- may 7ro7erly be considered as an exce7tion to t:e :earsay rule& T:ese facts- descri7ti%e of t:e location and obBecti%e circumstances surrounding t:e o7eration of t:e gasoline station in question- strengt:en t:e 7resum7tion of negligence under t:e doctrine of res i7sa loquitur- since on t:eir face t:ey called for more stringent measures of caution t:an t:ose 9:ic: 9ould satisfy t:e standard of due diligence under ordinary circumstances& T:ere is no more eloquent demonstration of t:is t:an t:e statement of (eandro Flores before t:e 7olice in%estigator& Flores 9as t:e dri%er of t:e gasoline tan8 9agon 9:o- alone and 9it:out assistance- 9as transferring t:e contents t:ereof into t:e underground storage 9:en t:e fire bro8e out& Fe said: >0efore loading t:e underground tan8 t:ere 9ere no 7eo7le- but 9:ile t:e loading 9as going on- t:ere 9ere 7eo7le 9:o 9ent to drin8 coca#cola (at t:e coca#cola stand$ 9:ic: is about a meter from t:e :ole leading to t:e underground tan8&> Fe added t:at 9:en t:e tan8 9as almost filled :e 9ent to t:e tan8 truc8 to close t:e %al%e- and 9:ile :e :ad :is bac8 turned to t:e >man:ole> :e:eard someone s:out >fire&> 4%en t:en t:e fire 7ossibly 9ould not :a%e s7read to t:e neig:boring :ouses 9ere it not for anot:er negligent omission on t:e 7art of defendants- namely- t:eir failure to 7ro%ide a concrete 9all :ig: enoug: to 7re%ent t:e flames from lea7ing o%er it& As it 9as t:e concrete 9all 9as only #"H meters :ig:- and beyond t:at :eig:t it consisted merely of gal%ani=ed iron s:eets- 9:ic: 9ould 7redictably crum7le and melt 9:en subBected to intense :eat& Defendants; negligence- t:erefore- 9as not only 9it: res7ect to t:e cause of t:e fire but also 9it: res7ect to t:e s7read t:ereof to t:e neig:boring :ouses& T:ere is an admission on t:e 7art of 0oquiren in :is amended ans9er to t:e second amended com7laint t:at >t:e fire 9as caused t:roug: t:e acts of a stranger 9:o- 9it:out aut:ority- or 7ermission of ans9ering defendant- 7assed t:roug: t:e gasoline station and negligently t:re9 a lig:ted matc: in t:e 7remises&> 'o e%idence on t:is 7oint 9as adduced- but assuming t:e allegation to be true O certainly any unfa%orable inference from t:e admission may be ta8en against 0oquiren O it does not extenuate :is negligence& A decision of t:e 3u7reme Court of Texas- u7on facts analogous to t:ose of t:e 7resent case- states t:e rule 9:ic: 9e find acce7table :ere& >2t is t:e rule t:at t:ose 9:o distribute a dangerous article or agent- o9e a degree of 7rotection to t:e 7ublic 7ro7ortionate to and commensurate 9it: a danger in%ol%ed &&& 9e t:in8 it is t:e generally acce7ted rule as a77lied to torts t:at ;if t:e effects of t:e actor;s negligent conduct acti%ely and continuously o7erate to bring about :arm to anot:er- t:e fact t:at t:e acti%e and substantially simultaneous o7eration of t:e effects of a t:ird 7erson;s innocent- tortious or criminal act is also a substantial factor in bringing about t:e :armdoes not 7rotect t:e actor from liability&; (Restatement of t:e (a9 of Torts- %ol& - 7& ""/+- ^+3,$& 3tated in anot:er 9ay- >T:e intention of an unforeseen and unex7ected cause- is not sufficient to relie%e a 9rongdoer from consequences of negligence- if suc: negligence directly and 7roximately coo7erates 9it: t:e inde7endent cause in t:e resulting inBury&> (AacAfee- et al& %s& Tra%er;s Gas Cor7oration- ".3 3&?& nd ++ &$ T:e next issue is 9:et:er Caltex s:ould be :eld liable for t:e damages caused to a77ellants& T:is issue de7ends on 9:et:er 0oquiren 9as an inde7endent contractor- as :eld by t:e Court of A77eals- or an agent of Caltex& T:is question- in t:e lig:t of t:e facts not contro%erted- is one of la9 and :ence may be 7assed u7on by t:is Court& T:ese facts are: ("$ 0oquiren made an admission t:at :e 9as an agent of CaltexG ( $ at t:e time of t:e fire Caltex o9ned t:e gasoline station and all t:e

354
equi7ment t:ereinG (3$ Caltex exercised control o%er 0oquiren in t:e management of t:e stateG (+$ t:e deli%ery truc8 used in deli%ering gasoline to t:e station :ad t:e name of CA(T4` 7ainted on itG and (.$ t:e license to store gasoline at t:e station 9as in t:e name of Caltex- 9:ic: 7aid t:e license fees& (4x:ibit T#AfricaG 4x:ibit 1#AfricaG 4x:ibit `#. AfricaG 4x:ibit `#* AfricaG 4x:ibit @#Africa$& 2n 0oquiren;s amended ans9er to t:e second amended com7laint- :e denied t:at :e directed one of :is dri%ers to remo%e gasoline from t:e truc8 into t:e tan8 and alleged t:at t:e >alleged dri%er- if one t:ere 9as- 9as not in :is em7loy- t:e dri%er being an em7loyee of t:e Caltex (6:il&$ 2nc& andHor t:e o9ners of t:e gasoline station&> 2t is true t:at 0oquiren later on amended :is ans9er- and t:at among t:e c:anges 9as one to t:e effect t:at :e 9as not acting as agent of Caltex& 0ut t:en again- in :is motion to dismiss a77ellants; second amended com7laint t:e ground alleged 9as t:at it stated no cause of action since under t:e allegations t:ereof :e 9as merely acting as agent of Caltex- suc: t:at :e could not :a%e incurred 7ersonal liability& A motion to dismiss on t:is ground is deemed to be an admission of t:e facts alleged in t:e com7laint& Caltex admits t:at it o9ned t:e gasoline station as 9ell as t:e equi7ment t:erein- but claims t:at t:e business conducted at t:e ser%ice station in question 9as o9ned and o7erated by 0oquiren& 0ut Caltex did not 7resent any contract 9it: 0oquiren t:at 9ould re%eal t:e nature of t:eir relations:i7 at t:e time of t:e fire& T:ere must :a%e been one in existence at t:at time& 2nstead- 9:at 9as 7resented 9as a license agreement manifestly tailored for 7ur7oses of t:is case- since it 9as entered into s:ortly before t:e ex7iration of t:e one#year 7eriod it 9as intended to o7erate& T:is so#called license agreement (4x:ibit .#Caltex$ 9as executed on 'o%ember ,- ",+/- but made effecti%e as of Canuary "- ",+/ so as to co%er t:e date of t:e fire- namely- Aarc: "/- ",+/& T:is retroacti%ity 7ro%ision is quite significant- and gi%es rise to t:e conclusion t:at it 9as designed 7recisely to free Caltex from any res7onsibility 9it: res7ect to t:e fire- as s:o9n by t:e clause t:at Caltex >s:all not be liable for any inBury to 7erson or 7ro7erty 9:ile in t:e 7ro7erty :erein licensed- it being understood and agreed t:at (2C4'344 (0oquiren$ is not an em7loyee- re7resentati%e or agent of (2C4'35R (Caltex$&> 0ut e%en if t:e license agreement 9ere to go%ern- 0oquiren can :ardly be considered an inde7endent contractor& 1nder t:at agreement 0oquiren 9ould 7ay Caltex t:e 7urely nominal sum of 6"&!! for t:e use of t:e 7remises and all t:e equi7ment t:erein& Fe could sell only Caltex 6roducts& Aaintenance of t:e station and its equi7ment 9as subBect to t:e a77ro%al- in ot:er 9ords control- of Caltex& 0oquiren could not assign or transfer :is rig:ts as licensee 9it:out t:e consent of Caltex& T:e license agreement 9as su77osed to be from Canuary "- ",+/ to December 3"- ",+/- and t:ereafter until terminated by Caltex u7on t9o days 7rior 9ritten notice& Caltex could at any time cancel and terminate t:e agreement in case 0oquiren ceased to sell Caltex 7roducts- or did not conduct t:e business 9it: due diligence- in t:e Budgment of Caltex& Termination of t:e contract 9as t:erefore a rig:t granted only to Caltex but not to 0oquiren& T:ese 7ro%isions of t:e contract s:o9 t:e extent of t:e control of Caltex o%er 0oquiren& T:e control 9as suc: t:at t:e latter 9as %irtually an em7loyee of t:e former& Ta8ing into consideration t:e fact t:at t:e o7erator o9ed :is 7osition to t:e com7any and t:e latter could remo%e :im or terminate :is ser%ices at 9illG t:at t:e ser%ice station belonged to t:e com7any and bore its tradename and t:e o7erator sold only t:e 7roducts of t:e com7anyG t:at t:e equi7ment used by t:e o7erator belonged to t:e com7any and 9ere Bust loaned to t:e o7erator and t:e com7any too8 c:arge of t:eir re7air and maintenanceG t:at an em7loyee of t:e com7any su7er%ised t:e o7erator and conducted 7eriodic ins7ection of t:e com7any;s gasoline and ser%ice stationG t:at t:e 7rice of t:e 7roducts sold by t:e o7erator 9as fixed by t:e com7any and not by t:e o7eratorG and t:at t:e recei7ts signed by t:e o7erator indicated t:at :e 9as a mere agent- t:e finding of t:e Court of A77eals t:at t:e o7erator 9as an agent of t:e com7any and not an inde7endent contractor s:ould not be disturbed& To determine t:e nature of a contract courts do not :a%e or are not bound to rely u7on t:e name or title gi%en it by t:e contracting 7arties- s:ould t:ereby a contro%ersy as to 9:at t:ey

355
really :ad intended to enter into- but t:e 9ay t:e contracting 7arties do or 7erform t:eir res7ecti%e obligations sti7ulated or agreed u7on may be s:o9n and inquired into- and s:ould suc: 7erformance conflict 9it: t:e name or title gi%en t:e contract by t:e 7arties- t:e former must 7re%ail o%er t:e latter& (3:ell Com7any of t:e 6:ili77ines- (td& %s& Firemens; 2nsurance Com7any of 'e9ar8- 'e9 Cersey- "!! 6:il& ).)$& T:e 9ritten contract 9as a77arently dra9n for t:e 7ur7ose of creating t:e a77arent relations:i7 of em7loyer and inde7endent contractor- and of a%oiding liability for t:e negligence of t:e em7loyees about t:e stationG but t:e com7any 9as not satisfied to allo9 suc: relations:i7 to exist& T:e e%idence s:o9s t:at it immediately assumed control- and 7roceeded to direct t:e met:od by 9:ic: t:e 9or8 contracted for s:ould be 7erformed& 0y reser%ing t:e rig:t to terminate t:e contract at 9ill- it retained t:e means of com7elling submission to its orders& Fa%ing elected to assume control and to direct t:e means and met:ods by 9:ic: t:e 9or8 :as to be 7erformed- it must be :eld liable for t:e negligence of t:ose 7erforming ser%ice under its direction& ?e t:in8 t:e e%idence 9as sufficient to sustain t:e %erdict of t:e Bury& (Gulf Refining Com7any %& Rogers- .) 3&?& d- "/3$& Caltex furt:er argues t:at t:e gasoline stored in t:e station belonged to 0oquiren& 0ut no cas: in%oices 9ere 7resented to s:o9 t:at 0oquiren :ad boug:t said gasoline from Caltex& 'eit:er 9as t:ere a sales contract to 7ro%e t:e same& As found by t:e trial court t:e Africas sustained a loss of 6,-!!.&/!- after deducting t:e amount of 6 -!!!&!! collected by t:em on t:e insurance of t:e :ouse& T:e deduction is no9 c:allenged as erroneous on t:e ground t:at Article !) of t:e 'e9 Ci%il Code- 9:ic: 7ro%ides for t:e subrogation of t:e insurer to t:e rig:ts of t:e insured- 9as not yet in effect 9:en t:e loss too8 7lace& Fo9e%er- regardless of t:e silence of t:e la9 on t:is 7oint at t:at time- t:e amount t:at s:ould be reco%ered be measured by t:e damages actually suffered- ot:er9ise t:e 7rinci7le 7ro:ibiting unBust enric:ment 9ould be %iolated& ?it: res7ect to t:e claim of t:e :eirs of 5ng 6)-.!!&!! 9as adBudged by t:e lo9er court on t:e basis of t:e assessed %alue of t:e 7ro7erty destroyed- namely- 6"-.!!&!!disregarding t:e testimony of one of t:e 5ng c:ildren t:at said 7ro7erty 9as 9ort: 6+-!!!&!!& ?e agree t:at t:e court erred- since it is of common 8no9ledge t:at t:e assessment for taxation 7ur7oses is not an accurate gauge of fair mar8et %alue- and in t:is case s:ould not 7re%ail o%er 7ositi%e e%idence of suc: %alue& T:e :eirs of 5ng are t:erefore entitled to 6"!-!!!&!!& ?:erefore- t:e decision a77ealed from is re%ersed and res7ondents#a77ellees are :eld liable solidarily to a77ellants- and ordered to 7ay t:em t:e aforesaid sum of 6,-!!.&/! and 6"!-!!!&!!res7ecti%ely- 9it: interest from t:e filing of t:e com7laint- and costs&

P),)?)na% S.",, P"$# ,"(- C #? #a$) n &. T." H n #a!," C (#$ ' A??"a,% and C,a#)$a T. Ca-aB. G&R& 'o& "!+*./& A7ril )- ",,3 CAA653- CR&- C 7: ?as t:e :ydro#7ressure test of t:e underground storage tan8 in 7ri%ate res7ondent Clarita T& Camac:o;s gasoline station conducted by an inde7endent contractor or notJ A negati%e ans9er 9ill ma8e 7etitioner 6ili7inas 3:ell 6etroleum Cor7oration (3:ell- for bre%ity$ liable for t:e said inde7endent contractor;s acts or omissionsG ot:er9ise- no& T:is is t:e issue t:at t:is Court is called u7on to resol%e in t:is case& T:e facts are as follo9s: 6ri%ate res7ondent Clarita T& Camac:o (7ri%ate res7ondent for s:ort$ 9as t:e o7erator of a gasoline station in 'aguilian Road- 0aguio City- 9:erein s:e sells 7etitioner 3:ell;s 7etroleum 7roducts& 3ometime in A7ril ",/3- 7ri%ate res7ondent requested 7etitioner to conduct a :ydro# 7ressure test on t:e underground storage tan8s of t:e said station in order to determine 9:et:er or

356
not t:e sales losses s:e 9as incurring for t:e 7ast se%eral mont:s 9ere due to lea8ages t:erein& 6etitioner acceded to t:e said request and on A7ril )- ",/3- one Cesus >Cessie> Feliciano toget:er 9it: ot:er 9or8ers- came to 7ri%ate res7ondent;s station 9it: a Cob 5rder from 7etitioner to 7erform t:e :ydro#7ressure test& 5n t:e same day- Feliciano and :is men drained t:e underground storage tan8 9:ic: 9as to be tested of its remaining gasoline& After 9:ic:- t:ey filled t:e tan8 9it: 9ater t:roug: a 9ater :ose from t:e de7osit tan8 of 7ri%ate res7ondent& T:en- after requesting one of 7ri%ate res7ondent;s gasoline boys to s:ut off t:e 9ater 9:en t:e tan8 9as filled- Feliciano and :is men left& At around :!! a&m& t:e follo9ing day- 7ri%ate res7ondent sa9 t:at t:e 9ater :ad reac:ed t:e li7 of t:e 7i7e of t:e underground storage tan8 and so- s:e s:ut off t:e 9ater faucet& At around .:3! a&m&- 7ri%ate res7ondent;s :usband o7ened t:e station and started selling gasoline& 0ut at about *:!! a&m&- t:e customers 9:o :ad boug:t gasoline returned to t:e station com7laining t:at t:eir %e:icles stalled because t:ere 9as 9ater in t:e gasoline t:at t:ey boug:t& 5n account of t:is- 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as constrained to re7lace t:e gasoline sold to t:e said customers& Fo9e%er- a certain 4duardo Eillanue%a- one of t:e customers- filed a com7laint 9it: t:e 7olice against 7ri%ate res7ondent for selling t:e adulterated gasoline& 2n addition- :e caused t:e incident to be 7ublis:ed in t9o local ne9s7a7ers& Feliciano- 9:o arri%ed later t:at morning- did not 8no9 9:at caused t:e 9ater 7ollution of t:e gasoline in t:e adBacent storage tan8& 3o :e called u7 'ic8 Aanalo- 3u7erintendent of 3:ell;s 6oro 6oint 2nstallation at 3an Fernando- (a 1nion- and referred t:e matter to t:e latter& Aanalo 9ent u7 to 0aguio in t:e afternoon to in%estigate& T:ereafter- :e and Feliciano again filled 9it: 9ater t:e underground storage tan8 undergoing :ydro#7ressure test 9:ereat t:ey noticed t:at t:e 9ater 9as transferring to t:e ot:er tan8s from 9:ence came t:e gasoline being sold& Aanalo as8ed 7ermission from 3:ell;s Aanila 5ffice to exca%ate t:e underground 7i7es of t:e station& 17on being granted 7ermission to do so- Feliciano and :is men began exca%ating t:e dri%e9ay of 7ri%ate res7ondent;s station in order to ex7ose t:e underground 7i7eline& T:e tas8 9as continued by one Daniel >Danny> 6ascua 9:o re7laced Feliciano- 6ascua remo%ed t:e corroded 7i7eline and installed ne9 inde7endent %ent 7i7e for eac: storage tan8& Aean9:ile- 7etitioner undertoo8 to settle t:e criminal com7laint filed by Eillanue%a& 3ubsequently- Eillanue%a filed an Affida%it of Desistance- declaring- inter alia O >TFAT- after careful e%aluation of t:e surrounding circumstances- es7ecially t:e ex7lanation of t:e re7resentati%es of 3F4(( 6:ils&- t:at t:e gasoline tan8s of Ars& Camac:o 9ere subBect to Fydro test- in suc: a 9ay t:at 9ater 9as used for t:e said test- 2 belie%e t:at s:e may not :a%e :ad anyt:ing to do 9it: t:e filling of 9ater in t:e tan8 of my carG xxx xxx xxx TFAT- said re7resentati%es of 3F4(( 6:ils& :a%e interceded for and in be:alf of Ars& Camac:o and :a%e fully satisfied my claim against :er& TFAT- in %ie9 of all t:e foregoing 2 do not intend to 7rosecute t:e case and 2 am t:erefore as8ing for t:e dismissal of t:e case against Ars& Camac:o&> T:ereafter- 7ri%ate res7ondent demanded from 7etitioner t:e 7ayment of damages in t:e amount of 6"!-!!!&!!& 6etitioner- instead- offered 7ri%ate res7ondent additional credit line and ot:er beneficial terms- 9:ic: offer 9as- :o9e%er- reBected& cdre7 3ubsequently- or on 5ctober " - ",/3- 7ri%ate res7ondent filed before t:e trial court a com7laint for damages against 7etitioner due to t:e latter;s alleged negligence in t:e conduct of t:e :ydro#7ressure test in :er gasoline station& For its 7art- 7etitioner denied liability because- according to

357
it- t:e :ydro#7ressure test on t:e underground storage tan8s 9as conducted by an inde7endent contractor& T:e trial court dismissed 7ri%ate res7ondent;s com7laint for damages for t:e reason t:at: >T:e :ydro#7ressure test 9:ic: broug:t about t:e incident 9as conducted by Cesus Feliciano9:o 9as neit:er an em7loyee nor agent nor re7resentati%e of t:e defendant& Cesus Feliciano is res7onsible for :is o9n acts and omissions& Fe alone 9as in control of t:e manner of :o9 :e is to underta8e t:e :ydro#7ressure test& Considering t:at t:e conduct of said :ydro#7ressure test 9as under t:e sole and exclusi%e control and su7er%ision of Cesus Feliciano- t:e o%erflo9 9it: 9ater causing t:e same to si7 into t:e adBoining tan8 cannot be attributed to t:e fault or negligence of defendant& From t:e ad%erse decision of t:e trial court- 7ri%ate res7ondent a77ealed to t:e Court of A77eals 9:ic: court re%ersed t:e decision of t:e trial court& T:us>6R4A2343 C5'32D4R4D- t:e decision being a77ealed from is :ereby 34T A32D4 and- in lieu t:ereof- anot:er rendered ordering defendant to 7ay 7laintiff: "& 6"!!-!!!&!! as moral damagesG & 6 -*3,& . and 6".-!!!&!! re7resenting t:e actual losses suffered by 7laintiff as a result of t:e 9ater 7ollution of t:e gasoline& 'o costs& 35 5RD4R4D&> 6etitioner mo%ed to :a%e t:e abo%e decision reconsidered but t:e same 9as denied in a Resolution dated Aarc: ,- ",, & Fence- t:is recourse& As stated at t:e %ery outset- t:e 7i%otal issue in t:is case is 9:et:er or not 7etitioner s:ould be :eld accountable for t:e damage to 7ri%ate res7ondent due to t:e :ydro#7ressure test conducted by Cesus Feliciano& 2t is a 9ell#entrenc:ed rule t:at an em7loyer#em7loyee relations:i7 must exist before an em7loyer may be :eld liable for t:e negligence of :is em7loyee& 2t is li8e9ise firmly settled t:at t:e existence or non#existence of t:e em7loyer#em7loyee relations:i7 is commonly to be determined by examination of certain factors or as7ects of t:at relations:i7& T:ese include: (a$ t:e manner of selection and engagement of t:e 7utati%e em7loyeeG (b$ t:e mode of 7ayment of 9agesG (c$ t:e 7resence or absence of a 7o9er to control t:e 7utati%e em7loyee;s conduct- alt:oug: t:e latter is t:e most im7ortant element& 2n t:is case- res7ondent Court of A77eals :eld 7etitioner liable for t:e damage caused to 7ri%ate res7ondent as a result of t:e :ydro#7ressure test conducted by Cesus Feliciano due to t:e follo9ing circumstances: "& Feliciano 9as :ired by 7etitionerG & Fe recei%ed :is instructions from t:e Field 4ngineer of 7etitioner- Ar& Roberto AitraG 3& ?:ile :e 9as at 7ri%ate res7ondent;s ser%ice station- :e also recei%ed instructions from 'ic8 Aanalo- 7etitioner;s 6oro 6oint De7ot 3u7erintendentG +& 2nstructions from 7etitioner;s Aanila 5ffice 9ere also relayed to :im 9:ile :e 9as at &t:e Bob site at 0aguio CityG

358
.& Fis 9or8 9as under t:e constant su7er%ision of 7etitioner;s engineerG *& 0efore :e could com7lete t:e 9or8- :e 9as instructed by Ar& Aanalo- 7etitioner;s 3u7erintendent- to discontinue t:e same and it 9as turned o%er to Daniel 6ascua- 9:o 9as li8e9ise :ired by 7etitioner& 0ased on t:e foregoing- res7ondent Court of A77eals concluded t:at Feliciano 9as not an inde7endent contractor but 9as under t:e control and su7er%ision of 7etitioner in t:e 7erformance of t:e :ydro#7ressure test- :ence- it :eld 7etitioner liable for t:e former;s acts and omissions& ?e are not in accord 9it: t:e abo%e finding of res7ondent Court of A77eals& As a7tly :eld by t:e trial court- 7etitioner did not exercise control and su7er%ision o%er Feliciano 9it: regard to t:e manner in 9:ic: :e conducted t:e :ydro#7ressure test& All t:at 7etitioner did- t:roug: its Field 4ngineer- Roberto Aitra- 9as relay to Feliciano t:e request of 7ri%ate res7ondent for a :ydro#7ressure test- to determine any 7ossible lea8ages in t:e storage tan8s in :er gasoline station& T:e mere :iring of Feliciano by 7etitioner for t:at 7articular tas8 is not t:e form of control and su7er%ision contem7lated by may be t:e basis for establis:ing an em7loyer#em7loyee relations:i7 bet9een 7etitioner and Feliciano& T:e fact t:at t:ere 9as no suc: control is furt:er am7lified by t:e absence of any 3:ell re7resentati%e in t:e Bob site time 9:en t:e test 9as conducted& Roberto Aitra 9as ne%er t:ere& 5nly Feliciano and :is men 9ere& True- it 9as 7etitioner 9:o sent Feliciano to 7ri%ate res7ondent;s gasoline station in conduct t:e :ydro#7ressure test as 7er t:e request of 7ri%ate res7ondent :erself& 0ut t:is single act did not automatically ma8e Feliciano an em7loyee of 7etitioner& As discussed earlier- more t:an mere :iring is required& 2t must furt:er be establis:ed t:at 7etitioner is t:e one 9:o is 7aying Felicia;s salary on a regular basisG t:at it :as t:e 7o9er to dismiss said em7loyee- and more im7ortantly- t:at 7etitioner :as control and su7er%ision o%er t:e 9or8 of Feliciano& T:e last requisite 9as sorely missing in t:e instant case& A careful 7erusal of t:e records 9ill lead to t:e conclusion t:at Feliciano is an inde7endent contractor& 3ection / of Rule E222- 0oo8 222 of t:e 5mnibus Rules 2m7lementing t:e (abor Code 7ro%ides: >3ec& /& Cob contracting& O T:ere is Bob contracting 7ermissible under t:e Code if t:e follo9ing conditions are met: ("$ T:e contractor carries on an inde7endent business and underta8es t:e contract 9or8 on :is o9n account under :is o9n res7onsibility according to :is o9n manner and met:od- free from t:e control and direction of :is em7loyer or 7rinci7al in all matters connected 9it: t:e 7erformance of t:e 9or8 exce7t as to t:e results t:ereofG and ( $ T:e contractor :as substantial ca7ital or in%estment in t:e form of tools- equi7ment- mac:ineries9or8 7remises- and ot:er materials 9:ic: are necessary in t:e conduct of :is business&> Feliciano is inde7endently maintaining a business under a duly registered business name- >CF3 Re7air and Aaintenance 3er%ice-> and is duly registered 9it: t:e 0ureau of Domestic Trade& Fe does not enBoy a fixed salary but instead c:arges a lum7 sum consideration for e%ery 7iece of 9or8 :e accom7lis:es& 2f :e is not able to finis: :is 9or8- :e does not get 7aid- as 9:at :a77ened in t:is case& Furt:er- Feliciano utili=es :is o9n tools and equi7ment and :as a com7lement of 9or8ers& 'eit:er is :e required to 9or8 on a regular basis& 2nstead- :e merely a9aits calls from clients suc: as 7etitioner 9:ene%er re7airs and maintenance ser%ices are requested& Aoreo%er- Feliciano does not exclusi%ely ser%ice 7etitioner because :e can acce7t ot:er business but not from ot:er oil com7anies& All t:ese are t:e :allmar8s of an inde7endent contractor& 0eing an inde7endent contractor- Feliciano is res7onsible for :is o9n acts and omissions& As :e alone 9as in control o%er t:e manner of :o9 :e 9as to underta8e t:e :ydro#7ressure test- :e alone

359
must bear t:e consequences of :is negligence- if any- in t:e conduct of t:e same& Anent t:e issue of damages- t:e same :as been rendered moot by t:e failure of 7ri%ate res7ondent to establis: an em7loyer#em7loyee relations:i7 bet9een 7etitioner and Feliciano& Absent said relations:i7- 7etitioner cannot be :eld liable for t:e acts and omissions of t:e inde7endent contractor- Feliciano& ?F4R4F5R4- 7remises considered- t:e a77ealed decision of res7ondent Court of A77eals is :ereby 34T A32D4 and t:e decision of t:e trial court R42'3TAT4D& ?it:out 7ronouncement as to costs&

P(#)$a M)#anda V"%$), and AA(%$)n V"%$), &. In$"#-"d)a$" A??",,a$" C (#$, Da&)d U8 and T"#"%)$a U8 G&R& 'o& )++3"&'o%ember *- ",/, CR1Y- J.: (ittle T:eness Tan 1y 9as dead at t:e age of t:ree& Fer 7arents said s:e died because s:e 9as bitten by a dog of t:e 7etitioners- but t:e latter denied t:is- claiming t:ey :ad not:ing to do 9it: t:e dog& T:e 1ys sued t:e Eestils- 9:o 9ere sustained by t:e trial court& 5n a77eal- t:e decision of t:e court a 0uo 9as re%ersed in fa%or of t:e 1ys& T:e Eestils are no9 before us& T:ey as8 us to set aside t:e Budgment of t:e res7ondent court and to reinstate t:at of t:e trial court& 5n Culy ,- ",".- T:eness 9as bitten by a dog 9:ile s:e 9as 7laying 9it: a c:ild of t:e 7etitioners in t:e :ouse of t:e late Eicente Airanda- t:e fat:er of 6urita Eestil- at F& Ramos 3treet in Cebu City& 3:e 9as rus:ed to t:e Cebu General Fos7ital- 9:ere s:e 9as treated for >multi7le lacerated 9ounds on t:e fore:ead> and administered an anti#rabies %accine by Dr& Antonio TautBo& 3:e 9as disc:arged after nine days but 9as readmitted one 9ee8 later due to >%omiting of sali%a&> T:e follo9ing day- on August ".- ",).- t:e c:ild died& T:e cause of deat: 9as certified as bronc:o#7neumonia& 3e%en mont:s later- t:e 1ys sued for damages- alleging t:at t:e Eestils 9ere liable to t:em as t:e 7ossessors of >Andoy-> t:e dog t:at bit and e%entually 8illed t:eir daug:ter& T:e Eestils reBected t:e c:arge- insisting t:at t:e dog belonged to t:e deceased Eicente Airanda- t:at it 9as a tame animal- and t:at in any case no one :ad 9itnessed it bite T:eness& After trial- Cudge Cose R& Ramolete of t:e Court of First 2nstance of Cebu sustained t:e defendants and dismissed t:e com7laint& T:e res7ondent court arri%ed at a different conclusion 9:en t:e case 9as a77ealed& 2t found t:at t:e Eestils 9ere in 7ossession of t:e :ouse and t:e dog and so s:ould be res7onsible under Article "/3 of t:e Ci%il Code for t:e inBuries caused by t:e dog& 2t also :eld t:at t:e c:ild :ad died as a result of t:e dog bites and not for causes inde7endent t:ereof as submitted by t:e a77ellees& Accordingly- t:e Eestils 9ere ordered to 7ay t:e 1ys damages in t:e amount of 63!-!!!&!! for t:e deat: of T:eness- 6" -!!!&!! for medical and :os7itali=ation ex7enses- and 6 -!!!&!! as attorney;s fees& 2n t:e 7roceedings no9 before us- 6urita Eestil insists t:at s:e is not t:e o9ner of t:e :ouse or of t:e dog left by :er fat:er as :is estate :as not yet been 7artitioned and t:ere are ot:er :eirs to t:e 7ro7erty& 6ursuing t:e logic of t:e 1ys- s:e claims- e%en :er sister li%ing in Canada 9ould be :eld res7onsible for t:e acts of t:e dog sim7ly because s:e is one of Airanda;s :eirs& Fo9e%er- t:at is :ardly t:e 7oint& ?:at must be determined is t:e 7ossession of t:e dog t:at admittedly 9as staying in t:e :ouse in question- regardless of t:e o9ners:i7 of t:e dog or of t:e :ouse& Article "/3 reads as follo9s: T:e 7ossessor of an animal or 9:oe%er may ma8e use of t:e same is res7onsible for t:e damage 9:ic: it may cause- alt:oug: it may esca7e or be lost& ;T:is res7onsibility s:all cease only in case t:e damages s:ould come from for%e ma*eure from t:e fault of t:e 7erson 9:o :as suffered damage&

360
T:us- in fialda v. -isole- a 7erson :ired as careta8er of a carabao gored :im to deat: and :is :eirs t:ereu7on sued t:e o9ner of t:e animal for damages& T:e com7laint 9as dismissed on t:e ground t:at it 9as t:e careta8er;s duty to 7re%ent t:e carabao from causing inBury to any one- including :imself& 6urita Eestil;s testimony t:at s:e 9as not in 7ossession of Airanda;s :ouse is :ardly credible& 3:e said t:at t:e occu7ants of t:e :ouse left by :er fat:er 9ere related to :im (>one 9ay or t:e ot:er>$ and maintained t:emsel%es out of a common fund or by some 8ind of arrangement (on 9:ic::o9e%er- s:e did not elaborate $& 3:e mentioned as many as ten of suc: relati%es 9:o :ad stayed in t:e :ouse at one time or anot:er alt:oug: t:ey did not a77ear to be close 8in& 3:e at least im7lied t:at t:ey did not 7ay any rent- 7resumably because of t:eir relation 9it: Eicente Airanda not9it:standing t:at s:e :erself did not seem to 8no9 t:em %ery 9ell& T:ere is contrary e%idence t:at t:e occu7ants of t:e :ouse- 9ere boarders (or more of boarders t:an relati%es$ 9:o 7aid t:e 7etitioners for 7ro%iding t:em 9it: meals and accommodations& 2t also a77ears t:at 6urita Eestil :ad :ired a maid- Dolores Cumao#as- 9:o did t:e coo8ing and cleaning in t:e said :ouse for its occu7ants& Fer mot:er- 6acita- 9:o 9as a nursemaid of 6urita :erself- categorically declared t:at t:e 7etitioners 9ere maintaining boarders in t:e :ouse 9:ere T:eness 9as bitten by a dog& Anot:er 9itness- Aarcial (ao- testified t:at :e 9as indeed a boarder and t:at t:e Eestils 9ere maintaining t:e :ouse for business 7ur7oses& And alt:oug: 6urita denied 7aying t:e 9ater bills for t:e :ouse- t:e 7ri%ate res7ondents submitted documentary e%idence of :er a77lication for 9ater connection 9it: t:e Cebu ?ater District- 9:ic: strongly suggested t:at s:e 9as administering t:e :ouse in question& ?:ile it is true t:at s:e is not really t:e o9ner of t:e :ouse- 9:ic: 9as still 7art of Eicente Airanda;s estate- t:ere is no doubt t:at s:e and :er :usband 9ere its 7ossessors at t:e time of t:e incident in question& 3:e 9as t:e only :eir residing in Cebu City and t:e most logical 7erson to ta8e care of t:e 7ro7erty- 9:ic: 9as only six 8ilometers from :er o9n :ouse& Aoreo%er- t:ere is e%idence s:o9ing t:at s:e and :er family regularly 9ent to t:e :ouse- once or t9ice 9ee8ly- according to at least one 9itness- and used it %irtually as a second :ouse& 2nterestingly- :er o9n daug:ter 9as 7laying in t:e :ouse 9it: T:eness 9:en t:e little girl 9as bitten by t:e dog& T:e dog itself remained in t:e :ouse e%en after t:e deat: of Eicente Airanda in ",)3 and until ",).- 9:en t:e incident in question occurred& 2t is also note9ort:y t:at t:e 7etitioners offered to assist t:e 1ys 9it: t:eir :os7itali=ation ex7enses alt:oug: 6urita said s:e 8ne9 t:em only casually& T:e 7etitioners also argue t:at e%en assuming t:at t:ey 9ere t:e 7ossessors of t:e dog t:at bit T:eness t:ere 9as no clear s:o9ing t:at s:e died as a result t:ereof& 5n t:e contrary- t:e deat: certificate ") declared t:at s:e died of bronc:o#7neumonia- 9:ic: :ad not:ing to do 9it: t:e dog bites for 9:ic: s:e :ad been 7re%iously :os7itali=ed& T:e Court need not in%ol%e itself in an extended scientific discussion of t:e causal connection bet9een t:e dog bites and t:e certified cause of deat: exce7t to note t:at- first- T:eness de%elo7ed :ydro7:obia- a sym7tom of rabies- as a result of t:e dog bites- and second- t:at as7:yxia bronc:o#7neumonia- 9:ic: ultimately caused :er deat:- 9as a com7lication of rabies& T:at T:eness became afraid of 9ater after s:e 9as bitten by t:e dog is establis:ed by t:e follo9ing testimony of Dr& TautBo: C51RT: 2 t:in8 t:ere 9as mention of rabies in t:e re7ort in t:e second admissionJ A: 'o9- t:e c:ild 9as continuously %omiting Bust before 2 referred to Dr& Co earlier in t:e morning and t:en t:e fat:er- because t:e c:ild 9as as8ing for 9ater- t:e fat:er tried to gi%e t:e c:ild 9ater and t:is c:ild 9ent under t:e bed- s:e did not li8e to drin8 t:e 9ater and t:ere 9as frig:t in :er eyeballs& For t:is reason- because 2 9as in danger t:ere 9as rabies- 2 called Dr& Co& <: 2n ot:er 9ords- t:e c:ild :ad :ydro7:obiaJ A: @es- sir& As for t:e lin8 bet9een rabies and bronc:o#7neumonia- t:e doctor :ad t:e follo9ing to say under oat::

361
A: 'o9- as " said before- bronc:o#7neumonia can result from 7:ysical- c:emical and bacterial means& &&& 2t can be t:e result of infection- no9- so if you :a%e any ot:er disease 9:ic: can lo9er your resistance you can also get 7neumonia& xxx xxx xxx <: ?ould you say t:at a 7erson 9:o :as rabies may die of com7lication 9:ic: is bronc:o#7neumoniaJ A: @es& <: For t:e record- 2 am manifesting t:at t:is boo8 s:o9n t:e 9itness is 8no9 as C1RR4'T D2A'5323 & TR4ATA4'T- ",*/ by Fenry 0rainerd- 3:eldon Aargen and Ailton C:aton& 'o9- 2 in%ite your attention- doctor- to 7age )." of t:is boo8 under t:e title >Rabies&> T:ere is on t:is 7age- >6rognosis> as a result of rabies and it says: 5nce t:e sym7toms- :a%e a77eared deat: ine%itably occurs after #3 days as a result of cardiac or res7iratory failure or generali=ed 7aralysis& After a 7ositi%e diagnosis of rabies or after a bite by a sus7ected animal if t:e animal cannot be obser%ed or if t:e bite is on t:e :ead- gi%e rabies %accine (duc8 embryo$& Do you belie%e in t:is statementJ A: @es& <: ?ould you say t:erefore t:at 7ersons 9:o :a%e rabies may die of res7iratory failure 9:ic: lea%e in t:e form of bronco#7neumoniaJ A: 0ronc:o#7neumonia can be a com7lication of rabies& 5n t:e strengt: of t:e foregoing testimony- t:e Court finds t:at t:e lin8 bet9een t:e dog bites and t:e certified cause of deat: :as bee7 satisfactorily establis:ed& ?e also reiterate our ruling in #ison v. #un 2ife ssuran%e !ompany of !anada, t:at t:e deat: certificate is not conclusi%e 7roof of t:e cause of deat: but only of t:e fact of deat:& 2ndeed- t:e e%idence of t:e c:ild;s :ydro7:obia is sufficient to con%ince us t:at s:e died because s:e 9as bitten by t:e dog e%en if t:e deat: certificate stated a different cause of deat:& T:e 7etitioner;s contention t:at t:ey could not be ex7ected to exercise remote control of t:e dog is not acce7table& 2n fact- Article "/3 of t:e Ci%il Code :olds t:e 7ossessor liable e%en if t:e animal s:ould >esca7e or be lost> and so be remo%ed from :is control& And it does not matter eit:er t:at- as t:e 7etitioners also contend- t:e dog 9as tame and 9as merely 7ro%o8ed by t:e c:ild into biting :er& T:e la9 does not s7ea8 only of %icious animals but co%ers e%en tame ones as long as t:ey cause inBury& As for t:e alleged 7ro%ocation- t:e 7etitioners forget t:at T:eness 9as only t:ree years old at t:e time s:e 9as attac8ed and can :ardly be faulted for 9:ate%er s:e mig:t :a%e done to t:e animal& 2t is 9ort: obser%ing t:at t:e abo%e defenses of t:e 7etitioners are an im7lied reBection of t:eir original 7osture t:at t:ere 9as no 7roof t:at it 9as t:e dog in t:eir fat:er;s :ouse t:at bit T:eness& According to Aanresa t:e obligation im7osed by Article "/3 of t:e Ci%il Code is not based on t:e negligence or on t:e 7resumed lac8 of %igilance of t:e 7ossessor or user of t:e animal causing t:e damage& 2t is based on natural equity and on t:e 7rinci7le of social interest t:at :e 9:o 7ossesses animals for :is utility- 7leasure or ser%ice must ans9er for t:e damage 9:ic: suc: animal may cause& ?e sustain t:e findings of t:e Court of A77eals and a77ro%e t:e monetary a9ards exce7t only as to t:e medical and :os7itali=ation ex7enses- 9:ic: are reduced to 6 -! *&*,- as 7rayed for in t:e com7laint& ?:ile t:ere is no recom7ense t:at can bring bac8 to t:e 7ri%ate res7ondents t:e c:ild t:ey :a%e lost- t:eir 7ain s:ould at least be assuaged by t:e ci%il damages to 9:ic: t:ey are entitled& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e c:allenged decision is AFF2RA4D as abo%e modified& T:e 7etition is D4'24D- 9it: costs against t:e 7etitioners& 2t is so ordered&

362
P"d# J. V",a%B &. Man),a E,"B$#)B C ., W),,)a- Sn8d"#, )$% P#"%)d"n$K J .n C $$ n and H"#-"n"A),d +. R"8"%, )$% V)B">P#"%)d"n$%K and Ana%$aB) A. AAan G&R& 'o& (#"/3,!& August *- ",)" - J.: T:e 7resent case is direct a77eal (7rior to Re7ublic Act .++!$ by t:e :erein 7laintiff#a77ellant6edro C& Eelasco (7etitioner in (#"+!3.G res7ondent in (#"3,, $ i from t:e decision of t:e Court of First 2nstance of Ri=al- <ue=on City 0ranc:- in its Ci%il Case 'o& "3..- absol%ing t:e defendants from a com7laint for t:e abatement of t:e sub#station as a nuisance and for damages to :is :ealt: and business in t:e amount of 6+/)-*!!&!!& 2n ",+/- a77ellant Eelasco boug:t from t:e 6eo7leXs Fomesite and Fousing Cor7oration t:ree (3$ adBoining lots situated at t:e corner of 3out: D and 3out: * 3treets- Diliman- <ue=on City& T:ese lots are 9it:in an area =oned out as a bfirst residenced district by t:e City Council of <ue=on City& 3ubsequently- t:e a77ellant sold t9o ( $ lots to t:e Aeralco- but retained t:e t:ird lot- 9:ic: 9as fart:est from t:e street#corner- 9:ereon :e built :is :ouse& 2n 3e7tember- ",.3- t:e a77ellee com7any started t:e construction of t:e sub#station in question and finis:ed it t:e follo9ing 'o%ember- 9it:out 7rior building 7ermit or aut:ority from t:e 6ublic 3er%ice Commission (Aeralco %s& 6ublic 3er%ice Commission- "!, 6:il& *!3$& T:e facility reduces :ig: %oltage electricity to a current suitable for distribution to t:e com7anyXs consumersnumbering not less t:an /-.!! residential :omes- o%er 3!! commercial establis:ments and about 3! industries (T&s&n&- ", 5ctober ",.,- 7age ")*.$& T:e substation :as a rated ca7acity of b transformers at .!!! I%a eac: or a total of "!-!!! I%a 9it:out fan coolingG or * .! I%a eac: or a total of " -.!! I%a 9it: fan coolingd (4x:ibit bA#3k$& 2t 9as constructed at a distance of "! to ! meters from t:e a77ellantXs :ouse (T&s&n&- "* Culy ",.*- 7age * G ", December ",.*- 7age 3+3G " Cune ",.,7age ,$& T:e com7any built a stone and cement 9all at t:e sides along t:e streets but along t:e side adBoining t:e a77ellantXs 7ro7erty it 7ut u7 a sa9ale 9all but later c:anged it to an interlin8 9ire fence& 2t is undis7uted t:at a sound unceasingly emanates from t:e substation& ?:et:er t:is sound constitutes an actionable nuisance or not is t:e 7rinci7al issue in t:is case& 6laintiff#a77ellant Eelasco contends t:at t:e sound constitutes an actionable nuisance under Article *,+ of t:e Ci%il Code of t:e 6:ili77ines- reading as follo9s: A nuisance is any act- omission- establis:ment- business condition of 7ro7erty or anyt:ing else 9:ic:: ("$ 2nBuries or endangers t:e :ealt: or safety of ot:ersG or ( $ Annoys or offends t:e sensesG xxx xxx xxx because subBection to t:e sound since ",.+ :ad disturbed t:e concentration and slee7 of said a77ellant- and im7aired :is :ealt: and lo9ered t:e %alue of :is 7ro7erty& ?:erefore- :e soug:t a Budicial decree for t:e abatement of t:e nuisance and as8ed t:at :e be declared entitled to reco%er com7ensatory- moral and ot:er damages under Article ! of t:e Ci%il Code& ART& ! & 2n crimes and 0uasi#delicts- t:e defendant s:all be liable for all damages 9:ic: are t:e natural and 7robable consequences of t:e act or omission com7lained of& 2t is not necessary t:at suc: damages :a%e been foreseen or could :a%e reasonably been foreseen by t:e defendant& After trial- as already obser%ed- t:e court belo9 dismissed t:e claim of t:e 7laintiff- finding t:at t:e sound of substation 9as una%oidable and did not constitute nuisanceG t:at it could not :a%e caused t:e diseases of anxiety neurosis- 7yelone7:ritis- ureteritis- lumbago and anemiaG and t:at t:e items of damage claimed by 7laintiff 9ere not adequate 7ro%ed& 6laintiff t:en a77ealed to t:is Court& T:e general rule is t:at e%eryone is bound to bear t:e :abitual or customary incon%eniences t:at

363
result from t:e 7roximity of ot:ers- and so long as t:is le%el is not sur7assed- :e may not com7lain against t:em& 0ut if t:e 7reBudice exceeds t:e incon%eniences t:at suc: 7roximity :abitually bringst:e neig:bor 9:o causes suc: disturbance is :eld res7onsible for t:e resulting damage- " being guilty of causing nuisance& ?:ile no 7re%ious adBudications on t:e s7ecific issue :a%e been made in t:e 6:ili77ines- our la9 of nuisances is of American origin- and a re%ie9 of aut:orities clearly indicates t:e rule to be t:at t:e causing or maintenance of disturbing noise or sound may constitute an actionable nuisance (E& 4d& 'ote- 3 A(R- d " /,$& T:e basic 7rinci7les are laid do9n in Tortorella %s& Traiser & Co&- 2nc&- ,! A(R " !*: A noise may constitute an actionable nuisance- Rogers %s& 4lliott- "+* Aass- 3+,- ". '&4& )*/+ Am& 3t& Re7& 3"*- 3te%ens %& Roc87ort Granite Co&- "* Aass& +/*- "!+ '&4& 3)"- Ann& Cas& ",".0",.+- 3todder %& Rosen Tal8ing Aac:ine Co&- +" Aass& +.- "3. '& 4& ."A& (& R& "",)- but it must be a noise 9:ic: affects inBuriously t:e :ealt: or comfort of ordinary 7eo7le in t:e %icinity to an unreasonable extent& 2nBury to a 7articular 7erson in a 7eculiar 7osition or of s7ecially sensiti%e c:aracteristics 9ill not render t:e noise an actionable nuisance& Rogers %& 4lliott- "+* Aass& 3+,- ". '& 4& )*/- + Am& 3t& Re7& 3"*& 2n t:e conditions of 7resent li%ing noise seems inse7arable from t:e conduct of many necessary occu7ations& 2ts 7resence is a nuisance in t:e 7o7ular sense in 9:ic: t:at 9ord is used- but in t:e absence of statute noise becomes actionable only 9:en it 7asses t:e limits of reasonable adBustment to t:e conditions of t:e locality and of t:e needs of t:e ma8er to t:e needs of t:e listener& ?:at t:ose limits are cannot be fixed by any definite measure of quantity or quality& T:ey de7end u7on t:e circumstances of t:e 7articular case& T:ey may be affected- but are not controlledby =oning ordinances& 0eane %& F& C& 6orter- 2nc&- /! Aass& .3/- "/ '& 4& / 3- Aars:al %& Folbroo8)* Aass& 3+"- ")) '& 4& .!+- 3trac:an %& 0eacon 5il Co&- ." Aass& +),- "+* '& 4& )/)& T:e delimitation of designated areas to use for manufacturing- industry or general business is not a license to emit e%ery noise 7rofitably attending t:e conduct of any one of t:em& 0ean %& F& C& 6orter- 2nc&& /! Aass& .3/- "/ '& 4& / 3& T:e test is 9:et:er rig:ts of 7ro7erty of :ealt: or of comfort are so inBuriously affected by t:e noise in question t:at t:e sufferer is subBected to a loss 9:ic: goes beyond t:e reasonable limit im7osed u7on :im by t:e condition of li%ing- or of :olding 7ro7erty- in a 7articular locality in fact de%oted to uses 9:ic: in%ol%e t:e emission of noise alt:oug: ordinary care is ta8en to confine it 9it:in reasonable boundsG or in t:e %icinity of 7ro7erty of anot:er o9ner 9:o t:oug: creating a noise is acting 9it: reasonable regard for t:e rig:ts of t:ose affected by it& 3te%ens %& Roc87ort Granite Co&- "* Aass& +/*- "!+ '4 3)"- Ann& Cas& ",".0- "!.+& ?it: 7articular reference to noise emanating from electrical mac:inery and a77liances- t:e court- in Ientuc8y & ?est Eirginia 6o9er Co& %& Anderson- ".* 3& ?& d /.)- after a re%ie9 of aut:orities- ruled as follo9s: T:ere can be no doubt but t:at commercial and industrial acti%ities 9:ic: are la9ful in t:emsel%es may become nuisances if t:ey are so offensi%e to t:e senses t:at t:ey render t:e enBoyment of life and 7ro7erty uncomfortable& 2t is no defense t:at s8ill and care :a%e been exercised and t:e most im7ro%ed met:ods and a77liances em7loyed to 7re%ent suc: result& ?:eat Cul%ert Com7any %& Cen8ins- +* Iy& 3",- .. 3& ?& d +G +* C&C& */3- )!.G ! R& C& (& +3/G Annotations- 3 A& (& R& "+!)G ,! A& (& R& " !)& 5f course- t:e creation of trifling annoyance and incon%enience does not constitute an actionable nuisance- and t:e locality and surroundings are of im7ortance& T:e fact t:at t:e cause of t:e com7laint must be substantial :as often led to ex7ressions in t:e o7inions t:at to be a nuisance t:e noise must be deafening or loud or excessi%e and unreasonable& 1sually it 9as s:o9n to be of t:at c:aracter& T:e determinating factor 9:en noise alone is t:e cause of com7laint is not its intensity or %olume& 2t is t:at t:e noise is of suc: c:aracter as to 7roduce actual 7:ysical discomfort and annoyance to a 7erson of ordinary sensibilities- rendering adBacent 7ro7erty less comfortable and %aluable& 2f t:e noise does t:at it can 9ell be said to be substantial and unreasonable in degreeG and reasonableness is a question of fact de7endent u7on all t:e circumstances and conditions& ! R& C& (&

364
++.- +.3G ?:eat Cul%ert Com7any %& Cen8ins- supra& T:ere can be no fixed standard as to 9:at 8ind of noise constitutes a nuisance& 2t is true some 9itnesses in t:is case say t:ey :a%e been annoyed by t:e :umming of t:ese transformers- but t:at fact is not conclusi%e as to t:e nonexistence of t:e cause of com7laint- t:e test being t:e effect 9:ic: is :ad u7on an ordinary 7erson 9:o is neit:er sensiti%e nor immune to t:e annoyance concerning 9:ic: t:e com7laint is made& 2n t:e absence of e%idence t:at t:e com7lainant and :is family are su7ersensiti%e to distracting noises- it is to be assumed t:at t:ey are 7ersons of ordinary and normal sensibilities& Rou8o%ina %& 2sland Farm Creamery Com7any"*! Ainn& 33.- !! '& ?& 3.!- 3/ A& (& R& ".! & xxx xxx xxx 2n ?:eat Cul%ert Com7any %s& Cen8ins- supra- 9e :eld an inBunction 9as 7ro7erly decreed to sto7 t:e noise from t:e o7eration of a metal cul%ert factory at nig:t 9:ic: interfered 9it: t:e slee7 of t:e occu7ants of an adBacent residence& 2t is true t:e clanging- ri%eting and :ammering of metal 7lates 7roduces a sound different in c:aracter from t:e steady :um or bu== of t:e electric mac:inery described in t:is case& 2n t:e Cen8ins case t:e noise 9as loud- discordant and intermittent& Fere it is interminable and monotonous& T:erein lies t:e 7:ysical annoyance and disturbance& T:oug: t:e noise be :armonious and slig:t and tri%ial in itself- t:e constant and monotonous sound of a cric8et on t:e eart:- or t:e dri7 of a lea8ing faucet is irritating- uncomfortable- distracting and disturbing to t:e a%erage man and 9oman& 3o it is t:at t:e intolerable- steady monotony of t:is ceaseless sound- loud enoug: to interfere 9it: ordinary con%ersation in t:e d9elling- 7roduces a result generally deemed sufficient to constitute t:e cause of it an actionable nuisance& T:us- it :as been :eld t:e continuous and monotonous 7laying of a 7:onogra7: for ad%ertising 7ur7oses on t:e street e%en t:oug: t:ere 9ere %arious records- singing- s7ea8ing and instrumental- inBuriously affected 7laintiffXs em7loyees by a gradual 9ear on t:eir ner%ous systems- and ot:er9ise- is a nuisance aut:ori=ing an inBunction and damages& Fran8 F& 3todder- et al& %& Rosen Tal8ing Aac:ine Com7any- +" Aass& +.- "3. '& 4& ."A& (& R& "",)& T:e 7rinci7les t:us laid do9n ma8e it readily a77arent t:at inquiry must be directed at t:e c:aracter and intensity of t:e noise generated by t:e 7articular substation of t:e a77ellee& As can be antici7ated- c:aracter and loudness of sound being of subBecti%e a77reciation in ordinary 9itnessesnot muc: :el7 can be obtained from t:e testimonial e%idence& T:at of 7laintiff Eelasco is too 7lainly biased and emotional to be of muc: %alue& Fis exaggerations are readily a77arent in 7aragra7: E of :is amended com7laint- signed by :im as 9ell as :is counsel- 9:erein t:e noise com7lained of as # fearful :a=ardous noise and clangor are 7roduced by t:e said electric transformer of t:e A4CXs substation- a77roximating a noise of a reacti%ated about#to#ex7lode %olcano- 7er:a7s li8e t:e ner%e 9rac8ing noise of t:e torture c:amber in GermanyXs Dac:au or 0uc:en9ald (Record on A77eal- 7age *$& T:e estimate of t:e ot:er 9itnesses on t:e 7oint of inquiry are %ague and im7recise- and fail to gi%e a definite idea of t:e intensity of t:e sound com7lained of& T:us: 53CAR 3A'T53- C:ief 0uilding 2ns7ector- De7artment of 4ngineering- <ue=on City bt:e sound (at t:e front door of 7laintiff EelascoXs :ouse$ becomes noticeable only 9:en 2 tried to concentrate ee&&d (T&s&n&- "* Culy ",.*- 7age .!$ 34RAF2' E2((ARAYA- 0uilding 2ns7ector be&& li8e a :ig: 7itc: note&d (t:e trial courtXs descri7tion as to t:e imitation of noise made by 9itness:dee&& more of a :issing sound$ (T&s&n&- "* Culy ",.*- 7ages .,#*!$ C5'3TA'C25 35R2A- City 4lectrician bee&& :umming soundd e&& bof a running card& (T&s&n&- "* Culy ",.*- 7age /)$ C534 R& A(EAR4Y- 3anitary 4ngineer- <ue=on City Fealt: De7artment be&& substation emits a continuous rumbling sound 9:ic: is audible 9it:in t:e 7remises and at about a radius of )! meters&d b2 stayed t:ere from *:!! 7&m& to about ":!! oXcloc8 in t:e morningd e&& bincreases 9it: t:e a77roac: of t9ilig:t&d (T&s&n&- . 3e7tember ",.*- 7ages +!#++$

365
'5R04RT5 3& AA5RA'T5- <ue=on City Aayor (for 3! minutes in t:e street at a distance of " to ". meters from sub#station$ b2 felt no effect on myself&d be&& no M7iercing noiseNd (T&s&n&- "/ 3e7tember ",.*- 7age "/,$ 6AC2F2C5 A13TR2A- arc:itect- a77ellantXs neig:bor: be&& li8e an a77roac:ing air7lane e&& around fi%e 8ilometers a9ay&d (T&s&n&- ", 'o%ember ",.*- 7ages )*# ))$ A'G4( D4( R53AR25- radiologist- a77ellantXs neig:bor: be&& as if it is a running motor or a running dynamo- 9:ic: disturbs t:e ear and t:e :earing of a 7erson&d T&s&n&- + December ",.*- 7age "$ A'T5'25 D& 6AG12A- la9yer b2t may be li8ened to t:e sound emitted by t:e 9:istle of a boat at a far distance but it is %ery audible&d (T&s&n&- ", December ",.*- 7age 3!,$ R4'4 R5DR2G14Y- sugar 7lanter and sugar bro8er- a77ellantXs neig:bor b2t sounds li8e a big motor running continuously&d (T&s&n&- ", December ",.*- 7age 3+)$ 32A6(2C25 04(23AR25- Army ca7tain- (on a %isit to Eelasco$ b2 can com7are t:e noise to an air7lane C#+) being started Z t:e motor&d MDid not notice t:e noise from t:e substation 9:en 7assing by- in a car- Eelasco;s :ouseN (T&s&n&- ) Canuary ",.)- 7ages ""#" $ AA'5(5 C5'3TA'T2'5- businessman- a77ellantXs neig:bor b2t disturbs our concentration of mind&d (T&s&n&- "! Canuary ",.)- 7age ""$ 64DR5 62CA- businessman- a77ellantXs neig:bor: be&& ?e can :ear it %ery 9ell Mat a distance of "!! to ".! metersN& (T&s&n&- "! Canuary ",.)- 7age +"$ C2R4'45 61'YA(A'- la9yer be&& a continuous droning- e&& li8e t:e sound of an air7lane&d (T&s&n&") Canuary ",.)- 7age 3/.$ CA2A4 C& YAG12RR4- C:ief- 'euro#6syc:iatry 3ection- E& (una Gen& Fos7ital be&& com7arati%ely t:e sound 9as really loud to bot:er a man slee7ing&d (T&s&n&- ") Canuary ",.)- 7age +!*$ ?e are t:us constrained to rely on quantitati%e measurements s:o9n by t:e record& 1nder instructions from t:e Director of Fealt:- sam7lings of t:e sound intensity 9ere ta8en by Dr& Cesus Almonte using a sound le%el meter and ot:er instruments& ?it:in t:e com7ound of t:e 7laintiff# a77ellant- near t:e 9ire fence ser%ing as 7ro7erty line bet9een :im and t:e a77ellee- on ) August ",.) at "":+. a&m&- t:e sound le%el under t:e sam7aloc tree 9as +*#+/ decibels- 9:ile be:ind EelascoXs 8itc:en- t:e meter registered +,#.!G at t:e same 7laces on , August ",.)- at *:!! a&m&t:e readings 9ere .*#., and *"#* decibels- res7ecti%elyG on ) 3e7tember ",.)- at ,:3! a&m&- t:e sound le%el under t:e sam7aloc tree 9as )+#)* decibelsG and on / 3e7tember ",.) at 3:3. in t:e morning- t:e reading under t:e same tree 9as )! decibels- 9:ile near t:e 8itc:en it 9as ),#/! decibels& 3e%eral measurements 9ere also ta8en inside and outside t:e :ouse (4x:ibit b''#)- b#fd$& T:e ambient sound of t:e locality- or t:at sound le%el c:aracteristic of it or t:at sound 7redominating minus t:e sound of t:e sub#station is from / to 3 decibels& (T&s&n&- * Aarc: ",./- 7ages *#)$ Aamerto 0uenafe- su7erintendent of t:e a77elleeXs electrical laboratory- also too8 sound le%el sam7lings& 5n ", December ",./- bet9een ):!! to ):3! oXcloc8 in t:e e%ening- at t:e substation com7ound near t:e 9ire fence or 7ro7erty line- t:e readings 9ere .. and .+ and still near t:e fence close to t:e sam7aloc tree- it 9as . decibelsG outside but close to t:e concrete 9all- t:e readings 9ere + to +3 decibelsG and near t:e transformers- it 9as )* decibels (4x:ibit b"3k$& 0uenafe also too8 sam7lings at t:e 'ort: General Fos7ital on + Canuary ",., bet9een ,:!. to ,:+. in t:e e%ening& 2n t:e different rooms and 9ards from t:e first to t:e fourt: floors- t:e readings %aried from +. to *) decibels& Tec:nical c:arts submitted in e%idence s:o9 t:e follo9ing intensity le%els in decibels of some familiar sounds: a%erage residence: +!G a%erage office: ..G a%erage automobile- ". feet: )!G noisiest s7ot at 'iagara Falls: , (4x:ibit b""# 0d$G a%erage d9elling: 3.G quiet office: +!G a%erage office: .!G con%ersation: *!G 7neumatic roc8 drill: "3! (4x:ibit b" k$G quiet :ome Z a%erage li%ing room: +!G :ome %entilation fan- outside sound of good :ome airconditioner or automobile at .! feet: )! (4x:ibit b".# Ad$& T:us t:e im7artial and obBecti%e e%idence 7oints to t:e sound emitted by t:e a77elleeXs substation transformers being of muc: :ig:er le%el t:an t:e ambient sound of t:e locality& T:e measurements

366
ta8en by Dr& Almonte- 9:o is not connected 9it: eit:er 7arty- and is a 7:ysician to boot (unli8e a77elleeXs electrical su7erintendent 0uenafe$- a77ear more reliable& T:e conclusion must be t:atcontrary to t:e finding of t:e trial court- t:e noise continuously emitted- day and nig:t- constitutes an actionable nuisance for 9:ic: t:e a77ellant is entitled to relief- by requiring t:e a77ellee com7any to ado7t t:e necessary measures to deaden or reduce t:e sound at t:e 7laintiffXs :ouse- by re7lacing t:e interlin8 9ire fence 9it: a 7artition made of sound absorbent material- since t:e relocation of t:e substation is manifestly im7racticable and 9ould be 7reBudicial to t:e customers of t:e 4lectric Com7any 9:o are being ser%iced from t:e substation& A77ellee com7any insists t:at as t:e 7laintiffXs o9n e%idence (4x:ibit b''#)McNb$ t:e intensity of t:e sound (as measured by Dr& Almonte$ inside a77ellantXs :ouse is only +* to +) decibels at t:e consultation room- and +3 to +. decibels 9it:in t:e treatment room- t:e a77ellant :ad no ground to com7lain& T:is argument is not meritorious- because t:e noise at t:e bedrooms 9as determined to be around *+#*. decibels- and t:e medical e%idence is to t:e effect t:at t:e basic root of t:e a77ellantXs ailments 9as :is inability to slee7 due to t:e incessant noise 9it: consequent irritation- t:us 9ea8ening :is constitution and ma8ing :im easy 7rey to 7at:ogenic germs t:at could not ot:er9ise affect a 7erson of normal :ealt:& 2n Ientuc8y and ?est Eirginia Co&- 2nc& %s& Anderson- ".* 3?& /.)- t:e a%erage of t:ree readings along t:e 7laintiffXs fence 9as only ++ decibels but- because t:e sound from t:e sub#station 9as interminable and monotonous- t:e court aut:ori=ed an inBunction and damages& 2n t:e 7resent case- t:e t:ree readings along t:e 7ro7erty line are . - .+ and .. decibels& 6laintiffXs case is manifestly stronger& A77ellee com7any argues t:at t:e 7laintiff s:ould not be :eard to com7lain because t:e sound le%el at t:e 'ort: General Fos7ital- 9:ere silence is obser%ed- is e%en :ig:er t:an at :is residence& T:is com7arison lac8s basis because it :as not been establis:ed t:at t:e :os7ital is located in surroundings similar to t:e residential =one 9:ere t:e 7laintiff li%ed or t:at t:e sound at t:e :os7ital is similarly monotonous and ceaseless as t:e sound emitted by t:e sub#station& Constancio 3oria testified t:at bT:e 9ay t:e transformers are built- t:e :umming sound cannot be a%oidedd& 5n t:is testimony- t:e com7any em7:asi=es t:at t:e substation 9as constructed for 7ublic con%enience& Admitting t:at t:e sound cannot be eliminated- t:ere is no 7roof t:at it cannot be reduced& T:at t:e sub#station is needed for t:e Aeralco to be able to ser%e 9ell its customers is no reason- :o9e%er- 9:y it s:ould be o7erated to t:e detriment and discomfort of ot:ers& T:e fact t:at t:e Aeralco :ad recei%ed no com7laint alt:oug: it :ad been o7erating :ereabouts for t:e 7ast .! years 9it: substations similar to t:e one in contro%ersy is not a %alid argument& T:e absence of suit neit:er lessens t:e com7anyXs liability under t:e la9 nor 9ea8ens t:e rig:t of ot:ers against it to demand t:eir Bust due& As to t:e damages caused by t:e noise- a77ellant Eelasco- :imself a 7:ysician- claimed t:at t:e noise- as a 7reci7itating factor- :as caused :im anxiety neurosis- 9:ic:- in turn- 7redis7osed :im to- or is concomitant 9it:- t:e ot:er ailments 9:ic: :e 9as suffering at t:e time of t:e trial- namely7yelone7:ritis- ureteritis and ot:ersG t:at t:ese resulted in t:e loss of :is 7rofessional income and reduced :is life ex7ectancy& T:e brea8do9n of :is claims is as follo9s: (oss of 7rofessional earnings 6" -*!! Damage to life ex7ectancy "/!-!!! Aoral damages "!!-!!! (oss due to frustration of sale of :ouse " .-!!! 4xem7lary damages .-!!! AttorneysX fees +.-!!!

367
A :ost of ex7ert 9itnesses and %oluminous medical literature- laboratory findings and statistics of income 9ere introduced in su77ort of t:e abo%e claims& T:e medical e%idence of 7laintiffXs doctors 7re7onderates o%er t:e ex7ert e%idence for defendant#a77ellee- not merely because of its 7ositi%e c:aracter but also because t:e 7:ysicians 7resented by 7laintiff :ad actually treated :im- 9:ile t:e defense ex7erts :ad not done so& T:us t:e e%idence of t:e latter 9as to a large extent conBectural& T:at a77ellantXs 7:ysical ailments s:ould be due to infectious organisms does not alter t:e fact t:at t:e loss of slee7- irritation and tension due to excessi%e noise 9ea8ened :is constitution and made :im easy 7rey to t:e infection& Regarding t:e amount of damages claimed by a77ellant- it is 7lain t:at t:e same are exaggerated& To begin 9it:- t:e alleged loss of earnings at t:e rate of 6",-!!! 7er annum is 7redicated on t:e 2nternal Re%enue assessment- 4x:ibit b<<#"k- 9:erein a77ellant 9as found to :a%e undeclared income of 6/-33/& ! in additional to :is declared gross income of 6"!-,).&!! for ",.+& T:ere is no com7etent s:o9ing- :o9e%er- t:at t:e source of suc: undeclared income 9as a77ellantXs 7rofession& 2n fact- t:e inference 9ould be to t:e contrary- for :is gross income from t:e 7re%ious years ",." to ",.3 M4x:ibits ><<#" (d$> to ><<#" (f$>N 9as only 6/-!/.&!!- 6.-/*!&!! and 6)-" !&!!res7ecti%ely- an a%erage of 6)-!!!&!! 7er annum& Aoreo%er- 9:ile :is ",+) and ",+/ income 9as larger (6,-,,.&!! and 6""-,!!&!!$- it a77ears t:at 6.-!!! t:ereof 9as t:e a77ellantXs annual salary from t:e <ue=on Aemorial Foundation- 9:ic: 9as not really connected 9it: t:e usual earnings deri%ed from 7ractice as a 7:ysician& Considering- t:erefore- :is actual earnings- t:e claimed moral damages of 6"!!-!!!&!! are utterly dis7ro7ortionate& T:e alleged losses for s:ortening of a77ellantXslife ex7ectancy are not only inflated but s7eculati%e& As to t:e demand for exem7lary or 7uniti%e damages- t:ere a77ears no adequate basis for t:eir a9ard& ?:ile t:e a77ellee Aanila 4lectric Com7any 9as con%icted for erecting t:e substation in question 9it:out 7ermit from t:e 6ublic 3er%ice Commission- ?e find reasonable its ex7lanation t:at its officials and counsel :ad originally deemed t:at suc: 7ermit 9as not required as t:e installation 9as aut:ori=ed by t:e terms of its franc:ise (as amended by Re7ublic Act 'o& ".!$ requiring it to s7end 9it:in . years not less t:an forty million 7esos for maintenance and additions to its electric system- including needed 7o9er 7lants and substations& 'eit:er t:e absence of suc: 7ermit from t:e 6ublic 3er%ice Commission nor t:e lac8 of 7ermit from t:e <ue=on City aut:orities (a 7ermit t:at 9as subsequently granted$ is incom7atible 9it: t:e Com7anyXs good fait:- until t:e courts finally ruled t:at its inter7retation of t:e franc:ise 9as incorrect& T:ere are- moreo%er- se%eral factors t:at mitigate defendantXs liability in damages& T:e first is t:at t:e noise from t:e substation does not a77ear to be an exclusi%e causati%e factor of 7laintiff# a77ellantXs illnesses& T:is is 7ro%ed by t:e circumstance t:at no ot:er 7erson in EelascoXs o9n :ouse:old nor in :is immediate neig:bor:ood 9as s:o9n to :a%e become sic8 des7ite t:e noise com7lained of& T:ere is also e%idence t:at at t:e time t:e 7laintiff#a77ellant a77ears to :a%e been largely indebted to %arious credit institutions- as a result of :is unsuccessful gubernatorial cam7aignand t:is court can ta8e Budicial cogni=ance of t:e fact t:at financial 9orries can affect unfa%orably t:e debtorXs dis7osition and mentality& T:e ot:er factor militating against full reco%ery by t:e 7etitioner Eelasco in :is 7assi%ity in t:e face of t:e damage caused to :im by t:e noise of t:e substation& Reali=ing as a 7:ysician t:at t:e latter 9as disturbing or de7ri%ing :im of slee7 and affecting bot: :is 7:ysical and mental 9ell being:e did not ta8e any ste7s to bring action to abate t:e nuisance or remo%e :imself from t:e affected area as soon as t:e deleterious effects became noticeable& To e%ade t:em a77ellant did not e%en :a%e to sell :is :ouseG :e could :a%e leased it and rented ot:er 7remises for slee7ing and maintaining :is office and t:us 7reser%e :is :ealt: as ordinary 7rudence demanded& 2nstead :e obstinately stayed until :is :ealt: became gra%ely affected- a77arently :o7ing t:at :e 9ould t:ereby saddle a77ellee 9it: large damages&

368
T:e la9 in t:is Burisdiction is clear& Article !3 7rescribes t:at bT:e 7arty suffering loss or inBury must exercise t:e diligence of a good fat:er of a family to minimi=e t:e damages resulting from t:e act or omission in questiond& T:is codal rule- 9:ic: embodies t:e 7re%ious Buris7rudence on t:e 7oint- 3 clearly obligates t:e inBured 7arty to underta8e measures t:at 9ill alle%iate and not aggra%ate :is condition after t:e infliction of t:e inBury- and 7laces u7on :im t:e burden of ex7laining 9:y :e could not do so& T:is 9as not done& A77ellant Eelasco introduced e%idence to t:e effect t:at :e tried to sell :is :ouse to Cose Ealencia- Cr&- in 3e7tember- ",.3- and on a *! day o7tion- for 6,.-!!!&!!- but t:at t:e 7ros7ecti%e buyer bac8ed out on account of :is 9ife obBecting to t:e noise of t:e substation& T:ere is no reliable e%idence- :o9e%er- :o9 muc: 9ere a77ellantXs lot and :ouse 9ort:- eit:er before t:e o7tion 9as gi%en to Ealencia or after :e refused to 7roceed 9it: t:e sale or e%en during t:e inter%ening 7eriod& T:e existence of a 7re%ious offer for 6" .-!!!&!!- as claimed by t:e 7laintiff- 9as not corroborated by Ealencia& ?:at Ealencia testified to in :is de7osition is t:at 9:en t:ey 9ere negotiating on t:e 7rice Eelasco mentioned to :im about an offer by someone for 6" .-!!!&!!& T:e testimony of Ealencia 7ro%es t:at in t:e dialogue bet9een :im and Eelasco- 7art of t:e subBect of t:eir con%ersation 9as about t:e 7rior offer- but it does not corroborate or 7ro%e t:e reality of t:e offer for 6" .-!!!&!!& T:e testimony of Eelasco on t:is 7oint- standing alone- is not credible enoug:- 9:at 9it: :is 7enc:ant for meta7:or and exaggeration- as 7re%iously ad%erted to& 2t is urged in a77ellantXs brief- along t:e lines of :is o9n testimony- t:at since one ("$ transformer 9as measured by 9itness- Cimene= 9it: a noise intensity of +)& decibels at a distance of 3!&+/ meters- t:e t9o ( $ transformers of t:e substation s:ould create an intensity of ,+&+ decibels at t:e same distance& 2f t:is 9ere true- t:en t:e residence of t:e 7laintiff is more noisy t:an t:e noisiest s7ot at t:e 'iagara Falls- 9:ic: registers only , decibels (4x:ibit b".#Ad$& 3ince t:ere is no e%idence u7on 9:ic: to com7ute any loss or damage allegedly incurred by t:e 7laintiff by t:e frustration of t:e sale on account of t:e noise- :is claim t:erefore 9as correctly disallo9ed by t:e trial court& 2t may be added t:at t:ere is no s:o9ing of any furt:er attem7ts on t:e 7art of a77ellant to dis7ose of t:e :ouse- and t:is fact suffices to raise doubts as to 9:et:er :e truly intended to dis7ose of it& Fe :ad no actual need to do so in order to esca7e deterioration of :is :ealt:as :eretofore noted& Des7ite t:e 9ide ga7 bet9een 9:at 9as claimed and 9:at 9as 7ro%ed- t:e 7laintiff is entitled to damages for t:e annoyance and ad%erse effects suffered by :im since t:e substation started functioning in Canuary- ",.+& Considering all t:e circumstances disclosed by t:e record- as 9ell as a77ellantXs failure to minimi=e t:e deleterious influences from t:e substation- t:is Court is of t:e o7inion t:at an a9ard in t:e amount of 6 !-!!!&!!- by 9ay of moderate and moral damages u7 to t:e 7resent- is reasonable& Reco%ery of attorneyXs fees and litigation ex7enses in t:e sum of 6.-!!!&!! is also Bustified Z t:e factual and legal issues 9ere intricate (t:e transcri7t of t:e stenogra7:ic notes is about .-!!! 7ages- side from an im7ressi%e number of ex:ibits$- and raised for t:e first time in t:is Burisdiction& T:e last issue is 9:et:er t:e City 4ngineer of <ue=on City- Anastacio A& Agan- a co#defendantmay be :eld solidarily liable 9it: Aeralco& Agan 9as included as a 7arty defendant because :e allegedly ("$ did not require t:e Aeralco to secure a building 7ermit for t:e construction of t:e substationG ( $ e%en defended its construction by not insisting on suc: building 7ermitG and (3$ did not initiate its remo%al or demolition and t:e criminal 7rosecution of t:e officials of t:e Aeralco& T:e record does not su77ort t:ese allegations& 5n t:e first 7lea- it 9as not AganXs duty to require t:e Aeralco to secure a 7ermit before t:e construction but for Aeralco to a77ly for it- as 7er 3ection "& 5rdinance 'o& ".3!- of <ue=on City& T:e second allegation is not true- because Agan

369
9rote t:e Aeralco requiring it to submit t:e 7lan and to 7ay 7ermit fees (T&s&n&- "+ Canuary ",*!7ages !/"# !/ $& 5n t:e t:ird allegation- no la9 or ordinance :as been cited s7ecifying t:at it is t:e city engineerXs duty to initiate t:e remo%al or demolition of- or for t:e criminal 7rosecution of- t:ose 7ersons 9:o are res7onsible for t:e nuisance& Re7ublic Act .3)- 3ection + (d$- relied u7on by t:e 7laintiff- requires an order by- or 7re%ious a77ro%al of- t:e mayor for t:e city engineer to cause or order t:e remo%al of buildings or structures in %iolation of la9 or ordinances- but t:e mayor could not be ex7ected to ta8e action because :e 9as of t:e belief- as :e testified- t:at t:e sound bdid not :a%e any effect on :is body&d F5R TF4 F5R4G52'G R4A35'3- t:e a77ealed decision is :ereby re%ersed in 7art and affirmed in 7art& T:e defendant#a77ellee Aanila 4lectric Com7any is :ereby ordered to eit:er transfer its substation at 3out: D and 3out: * 3treets- Diliman- <ue=on City- or ta8e a77ro7riate measures to reduce its noise at t:e 7ro7erty line bet9een t:e defendant com7anyXs com7ound and t:at of t:e 7laintiff#a77ellant to an a%erage of forty (+!$ to fifty (.!$ decibels 9it:in ,! days from finality of t:is decisionG and to 7ay t:e said 7laintiff#a77ellant 6 !-!!!&!! in damages and 6.-!!!&!! for attorneyXs fees& 2n all ot:er res7ects- t:e a77ealed decision is affirmed& 'o costs&

P.),)? S. Y( &. T." H n #a!," C (#$ ' A??"a,%, T." H n #a!," P#"%)d)nA J(dA", RTC ' Man),a, +#anB. XCC)& 3<:6 and Un)%)a M"#B.and)%)nA C ., InB. G&R& 'o& /**/3& Canuary "- ",,3 A4(5- J.: 6etitioner- t:e exclusi%e distributor of t:e Fouse of Aayfair 9allco%ering 7roducts in t:e 6:ili77ines- cried foul 9:en :is former dealer of t:e same goods- :erein 7ri%ate res7ondent7urc:ased t:e merc:andise from t:e Fouse of Aayfair in 4ngland t:roug: F'F Trading in ?est Germany and sold said merc:andise in t:e 6:ili77ines& 0ot: t:e court of origin and t:e a77ellate court reBected 7etitioner;s t:esis t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as engaged in a sinister form of unfair com7etition 9it:in t:e context of Article / of t:e 'e9 Ci%il Code (77& 3 and *+- ,ollo$& Fence- t:e 7etition at bar& T:ere is no dis7ute t:at 7etitioner :as :ad an exclusi%e sales agency agreement 9it: t:e Fouse of Aayfair since ",/) to 7romote and 7rocure orders for Aayfair 9allco%ering 7roducts from customers in t:e 6:ili77ines (Annex >0>- 6etitionG 7& 3!- ,ollo$& 4%en as 7etitioner 9as suc: exclusi%e distributor- 7ri%ate res7ondent- 9:ic: 9as t:en 7etitioner;s dealer- im7orted t:e some goods via t:e F'F Trading 9:ic: e%entually sold t:e merc:andise in t:e domestic mar8et (T3'- 3e7tember !",//- 7& ,G 7& "")- ,ollo$& 2n t:e suit for inBunction 9:ic: 7etitioner filed before t:e Regional Trial Court of t:e 'ational Ca7ital Cudicial Region stationed at Aanila- 7etitioner 7ressed t:e idea t:at :e 9as 7ractically by#7assed and t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent acted in concert 9it: t:e F'F Trading in misleading Aayfair into belie%ing t:at t:e goods ordered by t:e trading firm 9ere intended for s:i7ment to 'igeria alt:oug: t:ey 9ere actually s:i77ed to and sold in t:e 6:ili77ines (6aragra7: .- Com7laint: 7& 3+- ,ollo$& 6ri%ate res7ondent 7rofessed ignorance of t:e exclusi%e contract in fa%or of 7etitioner& 4%en t:en- 7ri%ate res7ondent res7onded by asserting t:at 7etitioner;s understanding 9it: Aayfair is binding only bet9een t:e 7arties t:ereto (6aragra7: .- Ans9erG 7& .!- ,ollo$& 2n t:e course of :earing t:e arguments for and against t:e issuance of t:e requested 9rit of 7reliminary inBunction- 7etitioner im7ressed before t:e lo9er court t:at :e is see8ing to enBoin t:e sale and distribution by 7ri%ate res7ondent of t:e same goods in t:e mar8et (T3'- 3e7tember !- ",//- 7& 3.G 7& "+ - ,ollo$ but t:e Fonorable Cesar E& AleBandria- 6residing Cudge of 0ranc: 3+ 9as un7erturbed- t:usly: Resol%ing 7laintiff;s motion embodied in t:e com7laint for t:e issuance of a 9rit of 7reliminary inBunction after :earing- but 9it:out 7reBudging t:e merits of t:e case- and finding from t:e e%idences adduced by t:e 7laintiff- t:at t:e terms and conditions of t:e agency agreement- 4x:ibit >A#inB&> bet9een t:e 7laintiff and T:e Fouse of Aayfair of 4ngland for t:e exclusi%e distributors:i7 by t:e 7laintiff of t:e latter;s goods- a7ertain to

370
t:emG t:at t:ere is no 7ri%ity of contract bet9een t:e 7laintiff and t:e defendantG t:at t:e contro%ersy in t:is case arose from a breac: of contract by t:e F'F Trading of Germany- for :a%ing s:i77ed goods it :ad 7urc:ased from T:e Fouse of Aayfair to t:e 6:ili77ines: t:at as s:o9n in 4x:& >C#inB&>- t:e Fouse of Aayfair 9as demanding 7ayment of +-.!!&!! from t:e F'F Trading for restitution of 7laintiff;s alleged loss on account of t:e s:i7ment of t:e goods in question :ere in t:e 6:ili77ines and no9 in t:e 7ossession of t:e defendantG it a77ears to t:e Court t:at to restrain t:e defendant from selling t:e goods it :as ordered from t:e F'F Trading of Germany- 9ould be 9it:out legal Bustification& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e motion for t:e issuance of a 9rit of 7reliminary inBunction to restrain t:e defendant from selling t:e goods it :as ordered from t:e F'F Trading of Germany is :ereby D4'24D& (7& *+-,ollo&$ T:e indifference of t:e trial court to9ards 7etitioner;s su77lication occasioned t:e filing of a 7etition for re%ie9 on%ertiorari 9it: t:e Court of A77eals but Custice 5rdoDe=#0enite=- 9it: 9:om Custices 0ellosillo and Ialalo concurred- reacted in t:e same nonc:alant fas:ion& According to t:e a77ellate court- 7etitioner 9as not able to demonstrate t:e unequi%ocal rig:t 9:ic: :e soug:t to 7rotect and t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent is a com7lete stranger vis7a7vis t:e co%enant bet9een 7etitioner and Aayfair& A7art from t:ese considerations- t:e re%ie9ing aut:ority noted t:at 7etitioner could be fully com7ensated for t:e 7reBudice :e suffered Budging from t:e tenor of Aayfair;s corres7ondence to F'F Trading 9:erein Aayfair too8 t:e cudgels for 7etitioner in see8ing com7ensation for t:e latter;s loss as a consequence of 7ri%ate res7ondent;s sc:eme (7& ),- ,olloG 77& 3# ,- ,ollo$& 2n t:e 7etition at :and- 7etitioner anc:ors :is 7lea for redress on :is 7erce7tion t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent :as distributed and continues to sell Aayfair co%ering 7roducts in contra%ention of 7etitioner;s exclusi%e rig:t conferred by t:e co%enant 9it: t:e Fouse of Aayfair& 5n Aarc: "3- ",/,- a tem7orary restraining order 9as issued to last until furt:er notice from t:is Court directed against 7ri%ate res7ondent (7& "//- ,ollo$& 'ot9it:standing suc: 7roscri7tion7ri%ate res7ondent 7ersisted in t:e distribution and sole (7& !/G /# ,- ,ollo$- triggering 7etitioner;s motion to cite 7ri%ate res7ondent;s manager in contem7t of court (7& 3- ,ollo$& Considering t:at 7ri%ate res7ondent;s manager- Fran8 3ia- admitted t:e acts com7lained of- a fine of 6.!!&!! 9as im7osed on :im but :e failed to 7ay t:e same 9it:in t:e fi%e#day 7eriod 7ro%ided in 5ur Resolution of Cune "",/, (7& 3*- ,ollo$& Did res7ondent a77ellate court correctly agree 9it: t:e lo9er court in disallo9ing t:e 9rit solicited by :erein 7etitionerJ T:at t:e exclusi%e sales contract 9:ic: lin8s 7etitioner and t:e Fouse of Aayfair is solely t:e concern of t:e 7ri%ies t:ereto and cannot t:us extend its c:ain as to bind 7ri%ate res7ondent :erein is?e belie%e- beside t:e 7oint& Eerily- inBunction is t:e a77ro7riate remedy to 7re%ent a 9rongful interference 9it: contracts by strangers to suc: contracts 9:ere t:e legal remedy is insufficient and t:e resulting inBury is irre7arable (Gilc:rist %s& Cuddy- , 6:il& .+ M",".NG +#A &adilla- Ci%il Code Annotated- ",// 4d&- 7& ,!$& T:e liability of 7ri%ate res7ondent- if any- does not emanate from t:e four corners of t:e contract for undoubtedly- 1nisia Aerc:andising Co&- 2nc& is not a 7arty t:ereto but its accountability is >an inde7endent act generati%e of ci%il liability> (Day9alt %s& Cor7oracion de 66& Agustinos Recoletos- 3, 6:il& ./) M",",NG + &aras- Ci%il Code of t:e 6:ili77ines Annotated- ",/" "!t: 4d&- 7& +3,G + "olentino- Commentaries and Curis7rudence on t:e Ci%il Code- ",/* 4d&7& +3,$& T:ese obser%ations- :o9e%er- do not in t:e least con%ey t:e message t:at ?e :a%e 7laced t:e cart a:ead of t:e :orse- so to s7ea8- by 7ronouncing 7ri%ate res7ondent;s liability at t:is stage in %ie9 of t:e 7endency of t:e main suit for inBunction belo9& ?e are sim7ly rectifying certain mis7erce7tions entertained by t:e a77ellate court as regards t:e feasibility of requesting a 7reliminary inBunction to enBoin a stranger to an agreement& To 5ur mind- t:e rig:t to 7erform an exclusi%e distributors:i7 agreement and to rea7 t:e 7rofits

371
resulting from suc: 7erformance are 7ro7rietary rig:ts 9:ic: a 7arty may 7rotect (3! m. Jur. #e%tion <>- 77& )"#) : Jurado- Comments and Curis7rudence on Obligations and !ontra%ts- ",/3 /t: Re%& 4d&- 7& 33*$ 9:ic: may ot:er9ise not be diminis:ed- nay- rendered illusory by t:e ex7edient act of utili=ing or inter7osing a 7erson or firm to obtain goods from t:e su77lier to defeat t:e %ery 7ur7ose for 9:ic: t:e exclusi%e distributors:i7 9as conce7tuali=ed- at t:e ex7ense of t:e sole aut:ori=ed distributor (+3 !.J.#& .,)$& Anot:er circumstance 9:ic: res7ondent court o%erloo8ed 9as 7etitioner;s suggestion- 9:ic: 9as not dis7uted by :erein 7ri%ate res7ondent in its comment- t:at t:e Fouse of Aayfair in 4ngland 9as du7ed into belie%ing t:at t:e goods ordered t:roug: t:e F'F Trading 9ere to be s:i77ed to 'igeria only- but t:e goods 9ere actually sent to and sold in t:e 6:ili77ines& A 7loy of t:is c:aracter is a8in to t:e scenario of a t:ird 7erson 9:o induces a 7arty to renege on or %iolate :is underta8ing under a contract- t:ereby entitling t:e ot:er contracting 7arty to relief t:erefrom ( rti%le <=<A- 'e9 Ci%il Code$& T:e breac: caused by 7ri%ate res7ondent 9as e%en aggra%ated by t:e consequent di%ersion of trade from t:e business of 7etitioner to t:at of 7ri%ate res7ondent caused by t:e latter;s s7ecies of unfair com7etition as demonstrated no less by t:e sales effected ins7ite of t:is Court;s restraining order& T:is brings 1s to t:e irre7arable misc:ief 9:ic: res7ondent court misa77reciated 9:en it refused to grant t:e relief sim7ly because of t:e obser%ation t:at 7etitioner can be fully com7ensated for t:e damage& A %ontrario- t:e inBury is irre7arable 9:ere it is continuous and re7eated since from its constant and frequent recurrence- no fair and reasonable redress can be :ad t:erefor by 7etitioner insofar as :is good9ill and business re7utation as sole distributor are concerned& ?it:al- to ex7ect 7etitioner to file a com7laint for e%ery sale effected by 7ri%ate res7ondent 9ill certainly court multi7licity of suits (3 $ran%is%o- Re%ised Rules of Court- ",/. 4dition- 7& *"$& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e 7etition is :ereby GRA'T4D& T:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals dated Canuary "3- ",/, in CA#G&R& 36 'o& "*!", and t:e 5rder dated 5ctober "*- ",// issued by t:e magistrate at t:e court of origin are :ereby R4E4R34D and 34T A32D4& (et t:is case be remanded to t:e court of origin for issuance of a 9rit of 7reliminary inBunction u7on 7etitioner;s 7osting of a bond in t:e sum of Fifty T:ousand (6.!-!!!&!!$ 6esos to be a77ro%ed by said court- to remain effecti%e during t:e trial on t:e merits until final determination of t:e case& T:e manager of 7ri%ate res7ondent& Fran8 3ia- is :ereby ordered to 7ay to t:e Cler8 of Court 9it:in fi%e (.$ days from notice :ereof t:e fine of 6.!!&!!- as 7re%iously im7osed on :im- 9it: a 9arning t:at failure to do so 9ill be dealt 9it: more se%erely& 17on issuance of t:e 9rit of 7reliminary inBunction- t:e restraining order issued on Aarc: "3",/, by t:is Court s:all be deemed automatically lifted&

C. S. G),B.#)%$ &. E. A. C(dd8, "$ a,. J %" F"#nand"D E%?"I and Ma#)an Za,da##)aAa G&R& 'o& (#,3.*& February "/- ",". TR4'T- J.: An a77eal by t:e defendants- Cose Fernande= 4s7eBo and Aariano Yaldarriaga- from a Budgment of t:e Court of First 2nstance of 2loilo- dismissing t:eir cross#com7laint u7on t:e merits for damages against t:e 7laintiff for t:e alleged 9rongful issuance of a mandatory and a 7reliminary inBunction& 17on t:e a77lication of t:e a77ellee an e. parte mandatory inBunction 9as issued on t:e d of Aay- ","3- directing t:e defendant- 4& A& Cuddy- to send to t:e a77ellee a certain cinematogra7: film called >Yigomar> in com7liance 9it: an alleged contract 9:ic: :ad been entered into bet9een t:ese t9o 7arties- and at t:e time an e. parte 7reliminary inBunction 9as issued restraining t:e a77ellants from recei%ing and ex:ibiting in t:eir t:eater t:e Yigomar until furt:er orders of t:e court& 5n t:e *t: of t:at mont: t:e a77ellants a77eared and mo%ed t:e court to dissol%e t:e 7reliminary inBunction& ?:en t:e case 9as called for trial on August *- t:e a77ellee mo%ed for t:e dismissal of t:e com7laint >for t:e reason t:at t:ere is no furt:er necessity for t:e maintenance of t:e inBunction&> T:e motion 9as granted 9it:out obBection as to Cuddy and denied as to t:e a77ellants in order to gi%e

372
t:em an o77ortunity to 7ro%e t:at t:e inBunction 9ere 9rongfully issued and t:e amount of damages suffered by reason t:ereof& T:e 7ertinent 7art of t:e trial court;s findings of fact in t:is case is as follo9s: 2t a77ears in t:is case t:at Cuddy 9as t:e o9ner of t:e film Yigomar and t:at on t:e +t: of A7ril :e rented it to C& 3& Gilc:rist for a 9ee8 for 6" .- and it 9as to be deli%ered on t:e *t: of Aay- t:e 9ee8 beginning t:at day& A fe9 days 7rior to t:is Cuddy sent t:e money bac8 to Gilc:rist- 9:ic: :e :ad for9arded to :im in Aanila- saying t:at :e :ad made ot:er arrangements 9it: :is film& T:e ot:er arrangements 9as t:e rental to t:ese defendants 4s7eBo and :is 7artner for 63.! for t:e 9ee8 and t:e inBunction 9as as8ed by Gilc:rist against t:ese 7arties from s:o9ing it for t:e 9ee8 beginning t:e *t: of Aay& 2t a77ears from t:e testimony in t:is case- conclusi%ely- t:at Cuddy 9illfully %iolated :is contract- :e being t:e o9ner of t:e 7icture- 9it: Gilc:rist because t:e defendants :ad offered :im more for t:e same 7eriod& Ar& 4s7eBo at t:e trial on t:e 7ermanent inBunction on t:e *t: of Aay admitted t:at :e 8ne9 t:at Cuddy 9as t:e o9ner of t:e film& Fe 9as trying to get it t:roug: :is agents 6at:e 0rot:ers in Aanila& Fe is t:e agent of t:e same concern in 2loilo& T:ere is in e%idence in t:is case on t:e trial today as 9ell as on t:e *t: of Aay- letters s:o9ing t:at t:e 6at:e 0rot:ers in Aanila ad%ised t:is man on t9o different occasions not to contend for t:is film Yigomar because t:e rental 7rice 9as 7ro:ibiti%e and assured him also that he %ould not get the film for about si. 'ee/s & T:e last of t:ese letters 9as 9ritten on t:e *t: of A7ril- 9:ic: s:o9ed conclusi%ely t:at :e 8ne9 t:ey :ad to get t:is film from Cuddy and from t:is letter t:at t:e agent in Aanila could not get it- but :e made Cuddy an offer :imself and Cuddy acce7ted it because :e 9as 7aying about t:ree times as muc: as :e :ad contracted 9it: Gilc:rist for& T:erefore- in t:e o7inion of t:is court- t:e defendants failed signally to s:o9 t:e inBunction against t:e defendant 9as 9rongfully 7rocured& T:e a77ellants duly exce7ted to t:e order of t:e court denying t:eir motion for ne9 trial on t:e ground t:at t:e e%idence 9as insufficient to Bustify t:e decision rendered& T:ere is lac8ing from t:e record before us t:e de7osition of t:e defendant Cuddy- 9:ic: a77arently t:ro9s lig:t u7on a contract entered into bet9een :im and t:e 7laintiff Gilc:rist& T:e contents of t:is de7osition are discussed at lengt: in t:e brief of t:e a77ellants and an endea%or is made to s:o9 t:at no suc: contract 9as entered into& T:e trial court- 9:ic: :ad t:is de7osition before it- found t:at t:ere 9as a contract bet9een Cuddy and Gilc:rist& 'ot :a%ing t:e de7osition in question before us- it is im7ossible to say :o9 strongly it militates against t:is findings of fact& 0y a series of decisions 9e :a%e construed section "+3 and +,) ( $ of t:e Code of Ci%il 6rocedure to require t:e 7roduction of all t:e e%idence in t:is court& T:is is t:e duty of t:e a77ellant and- u7on :is failure to 7erform it- 9e decline to 7roceed 9it: a re%ie9 of t:e e%idence& 2n suc: cases 9e rely entirely u7on t:e 7leadings and t:e findings of fact of t:e trial court and examine only suc: assigned errors as raise questions of la9& (Ferrer vs. 'eri AbeBuela- , 6:il& Re7&- 3 +G Ealle vs. Galera- "! 6:il& Re7&- *",G 3al%acion vs. 3al%acion- "3 6:il& Re7&- 3**G 0reta vs. 3mit:- 0ell & Co&- ". 6:il& Re7&- ++*G Arroyo vs. @ulo- "/ 6:il& Re7&- 3*G 5lsen & Co& vs. Aatson- (ord & 0elser Co&- ", 6:il& Re7&- "! G 0lum vs.0arretto- ", 6:il& Re7&- "*"G Cuyugan vs. Aguas- ", 6:il& Re7&- 3),G Aa7a vs. C:a%es- ! 6:il& Re7&- "+)G Aansvs. Garry- ! 6:il& Re7&- "3+&$ 2t is true t:at some of t:e more recent of t:ese cases ma8e exce7tions to t:e general rule& T:us- in 5lsen & Co& vs. Aatson- (ord & 0elser Co&- (", 6:il& Re7&- "! $- t:at 7ortion of t:e e%idence before us tended to s:o9 t:at gra%e inBustice mig:t result from a strict reliance u7on t:e findings of fact contained in t:e Budgment a77ealed from& ?e- t:erefore- ga%e t:e a77ellant an o77ortunity to ex7lain t:e omission& 0ut 9e required t:at suc: ex7lanation must s:o9 a satisfactory reason for t:e omission- and t:at t:e missing 7ortion of t:e e%idence must be submitted 9it:in sixty days or cause s:o9n for failing to do so& T:e ot:er cases ma8ing exce7tions to t:e rule are based u7on 7eculiar circumstances 9:ic: 9ill seldom arise in 7ractice and need not :ere be set fort:- for t:e reason t:at t:ey are 9:olly ina77licable to t:e 7resent case& T:e a77ellants 9ould be entitled to indulgence only under t:e doctrine of t:e 5lsen case& 0ut from t:at 7ortion of t:e record before us- 9e are not inclined to belie%e t:at t:e missing de7osition 9ould be sufficient to Bustify us in re%ersing t:e findings of fact of t:e trial court t:at t:e contract in question :ad been made& T:ere is in t:e record not only t:e 7ositi%e

373
and detailed testimony of Gilc:rist to t:is effect- but t:ere is also a letter of a7ology from Cuddy to Gilc:rist in 9:ic: t:e former enters into a lengt:y ex7lanation of :is reasons for leasing t:e film to anot:er 7arty& T:e latter could only :a%e been called fort: by a bro8en contract 9it: Gilc:rist to lease t:e film to :im& ?e- t:erefore- fail to find any reason for o%erloo8ing t:e omission of t:e defendants to bring u7 t:e missing 7ortion of t:e e%idence and- ad:ering to t:e general rule abo%e referred to7roceed to examine t:e questions of la9 raised by t:e a77ellants& From t:e abo%e#quoted findings of fact it is clear t:at Cuddy- a resident of Aanila- 9as t:e o9ner of t:e >YigomarG> t:at Gilc:rist 9as t:e o9ner of a cinematogra7: t:eater in 2loiloG t:at in accordance 9it: t:e terms of t:e contract entered into bet9een Cuddy and Gilc:rist t:e former leased to t:e latter t:e >Yigomar> for ex:ibition in :is (Gilc:rist;s$ t:eater for t:e 9ee8 beginning Aay *","3G and t:at Cuddy 9illfully %iolate :is contract in order t:at :e mig:t acce7t t:e a77ellant;s offer of 63.! for t:e film for t:e same 7eriod& Did t:e a77ellants 8no9 t:at t:ey 9ere inducing Cuddy to %iolate :is contract 9it: a t:ird 7arty 9:en t:ey induced :im to acce7t t:e 63.!J 4s7eBo admitted t:at :e 8ne9 t:at Cuddy 9as t:e o9ner of t:e film& Fe recei%ed a letter from :is agents in Aanila dated A7ril *- assuring him that he %ould not get the film for about si. 'ee/s & T:e arrangement bet9een Cuddy and t:e a77ellants for t:e ex:ibition of t:e film by t:e latter on t:e *t: of Aay 9ere 7erfected after A7ril *- so t:at t:e six 9ee8s 9ould include and extend beyond Aay *& T:e a77ellants must necessarily :a%e 8no9n at t:e time t:ey made t:eir offer to Cuddy t:at t:e latter :ad boo8ed or contracted t:e film for six 9ee8s from A7ril *& T:erefore- t:e ine%itable conclusion is t:at t:e a77ellants 8no9ingly induced Cuddy to %iolate :is contract 9it: anot:er 7erson& 0ut t:ere is no s7ecific finding t:at t:e a77ellants 8ne9 t:e identity of t:e ot:er 7arty& 3o 9e must assume t:at t:ey did not 8no9 t:at Gilc:rist 9as t:e 7erson 9:o :ad contracted for t:e film& T:e a77ellants ta8e t:e 7osition t:at if t:e 7reliminary inBunction :ad not been issued against t:em t:ey could :a%e ex:ibited t:e film in t:eir t:eater for a number of days beginning Aay *- and could :a%e also subleased it to ot:er t:eater o9ners in t:e nearby to9ns and- by so doing- could :a%e cleared- during t:e life of t:eir contract 9it: Cuddy- t:e amount claimed as damages& Ta8ing t:is %ie9 of t:e case- it 9ill be unnecessary for us to inquire 9:et:er t:e mandatory inBunction against Cuddy 9as 7ro7erly issued or not& 'o question is raised 9it: reference to t:e issuance of t:at inBunction& T:e rig:t on t:e 7art of Gilc:rist to enter into a contract 9it: Cuddy for t:e lease of t:e film must be fully recogni=ed and admitted by all& T:at Cuddy 9as liable in an action for damages for t:e breac: of t:at contract- t:ere can be no doubt& ?ere t:e a77ellants li8e9ise liable for interfering 9it: t:e contract bet9een Gilc:rist and Cuddy- t:ey not 8no9ing at t:e time t:e identity of one of t:e contracting 7artiesJ T:e a77ellants claim t:at t:ey :ad a rig:t to do 9:at t:ey did& T:e ground u7on 9:ic: t:e a77ellants base t:is contention is- t:at t:ere 9as no %alid and binding contract bet9een Cuddy and Gilc:rist and t:at- t:erefore- t:ey :ad a rig:t to com7ete 9it: Gilc:rist for t:e lease of t:e film- t:e rig:t to com7ete being a Bustification for t:eir acts& 2f t:ere :ad been no contract bet9een Cuddy and Gilc:rist t:is defense 9ould be tenable- but t:e mere rig:t to com7ete could not Bustify t:e a77ellants in intentionally inducing Cuddy to ta8e a9ay t:e a77ellee;s contractual rig:ts& C:ief Custice ?ells in ?al8er vs. Cronin ("!) Aass&- ...$- said: >4%eryone :as a rig:t to enBoy t:e fruits and ad%antages of :is o9n enter7rise- industry- s8ill and credit& Fe :as no rig:t to be free from malicious and 9anton interference- disturbance or annoyance& 2f disturbance or loss come as a result of com7etition- or t:e exercise of li8e rig:ts by ot:ers- it is damnum abs0ue in*uria- unless some su7erior rig:t by contract or ot:er9ise is interfered 9it:&> 2n Read vs. Friendly 3ociety of 57erati%e 3tonemasons (M",! N I& 0&- //$- Darling- C&- said: >2 t:in8 t:e 7laintiff :as a cause of action against t:e defendants- unless t:e court is satisfied t:at- 9:en t:ey interfered 9it: t:e contractual rig:ts of 7laintiff- t:e defendants :ad a sufficient Bustification for t:eir interferenceG & & & for it is not a Bustification t:at lt:ey acted bona fide in t:e best interests of t:e society of masons-; i& e&- in t:eir o9n interests& 'or is it enoug: t:at lt:ey 9ere not actuated by im7ro7er moti%es&; 2 t:in8 t:eir sufficient Bustification for interference 9it: 7laintiff;s rig:t must be an equal or su7erior rig:t in t:emsel%es- and t:at no one can legally excuse :imself to a man- of 9:ose contract :e :as 7rocured t:e breac:- on t:e ground t:at :e acted on a 9rong understanding of :is

374
o9n rig:ts- or 9it:out malice- or bona fide- or in t:e best interests of :imself- or e%en t:at :e acted as an altruist- see8ing only good of anot:er and careless of :is o9n ad%antage&> (<uoted 9it: a77ro%al in 0ee8man vs. Aarsters- ",. Aass&- !.&$ 2t is said t:at t:e ground on 9:ic: t:e liability of a t:ird 7arty for interfering 9it: a contract bet9een ot:ers rests- is t:at t:e interference 9as malicious& T:e contrary %ie9- :o9e%er- is ta8en by t:e 3u7reme Court of t:e 1nited 3tates in t:e case of Angle vs. Rail9ay Co& ("." 1& 3&- "$& T:e only moti%e for interference by t:e t:ird 7arty in t:at case 9as t:e desire to ma8e a 7rofit to t:e inBury of one of t:e 7arties of t:e contract& T:ere 9as no malice in t:e case beyond t:e desire to ma8e an unla9ful gain to t:e detriment of one of t:e contracting 7arties& 2n t:e case at bar t:e only moti%e for t:e interference 9it: t:e Gilc:rist O Cuddy contract on t:e 7art of t:e a77ellants 9as a desire to ma8e a 7rofit by ex:ibiting t:e film in t:eir t:eater& T:ere 9as no malice beyond t:is desireG but t:is fact does not relie%e t:em of t:e legal liability for interfering 9it: t:at contract and causing its breac:& 2t is- t:erefore- clear- under t:e abo%e aut:orities- t:at t:ey 9ere liable to Gilc:rist for t:e damages caused by t:eir acts- unless t:ey are relie%ed from suc: liability by reason of t:e fact t:at t:ey did not 8no9 at t:e time t:e identity of t:e original lessee (Gilc:rist$ of t:e film& T:e liability of t:e a77ellants arises from unla9ful acts and not from contractual obligations- as t:ey 9ere under no suc: obligations to induce Cuddy to %iolate :is contract 9it: Gilc:rist& 3o t:at if t:e action of Gilc:rist :ad been one for damages- it 9ould be go%erned by c:a7ter - title "*- boo8 + of t:e Ci%il Code& Article ",! of t:at code 7ro%ides t:at a 7erson 9:o- by act or omission- causes damages to anot:er 9:en t:ere is fault or negligence- s:all be obliged to re7air t:e damage do done& T:ere is not:ing in t:is article 9:ic: requires as a condition 7recedent to t:e liability of a tort#feasor t:at :e must 8no9 t:e identity of a 7erson to 9:om :e causes damages& 2n fact- t:e c:a7ter 9:erein t:is article is found clearly s:o9s t:at no suc: 8no9ledge is required in order t:at t:e inBured 7arty may reco%er for t:e damage suffered& 0ut t:e fact t:at t:e a77ellants; interference 9it: t:e Gilc:rist contract 9as actionable did not of itself entitle Gilc:rist to sue out an inBunction against t:em& T:e allo9ance of t:is remedy must be Bustified under section "*+ of t:e Code of Ci%il 6rocedure- 9:ic: s7ecifies t:e circumstance under 9:ic: an inBunction may issue& 17on t:e general doctrine of inBunction 9e said in De%esa vs. Arbes ("3 6:il& Re7&- )3$: An inBunction is a >s7ecial remedy> ado7ted in t:at code (Act 'o& ",!$ from American 7racticeand originally borro9ed from 4nglis: legal 7rocedure- 9:ic: 9as t:ere issued by t:e aut:ority and under t:e seal of a court of equity- and limited- as in order cases 9:ere equitable relief is soug:t- to cases 9:ere t:ere is no >7lain- adequate- and com7lete remedy at la9-> 9:ic: >9ill not be granted 9:ile t:e rig:ts bet9een t:e 7arties are undetermined- exce7t in extraordinary cases 9:ere material and irre7arable inBury 9ill be done-> 'hi%h %annot be %ompensated in damages- and 9:ere t:ere 9ill be no adequate remedy- and 'hi%h 'ill not, as a rule, be granted, to ta/e property out of the possession of one party and put it into that of another9:ose title :as not been establis:ed by la9& ?e subsequently affirmed t:e doctrine of t:e De%esa case in 6alafox vs. Aadamba (", 6:il&Re7&- +++$- and 9e ta8e t:is occasion of again affirming it- belie%ing- as 9e do- t:at t:e indiscriminate use of inBunctions s:ould be discouraged& Does t:e fact t:at t:e a77ellants did not 8no9 at t:e time t:e identity of t:e original lessee of t:e film militate against Gilc:rist;s rig:t to a 7reliminary inBunction- alt:oug: t:e a77ellant;s incurred ci%il liability for damages for suc: interferenceJ 2n t:e examination of t:e adBudicated cases- 9:ere in inBunctions :a%e been issued to restrain 9rongful interference 9it: contracts by strangers to suc: contracts- 9e :a%e been unable to find any case 9:ere t:is 7recise question 9as in%ol%ed- as in all of t:ose cases 9:ic: 9e :a%e examined- t:e identity of bot: of t:e contracting 7arties 9as 8no9n to t:e tort#feasors& ?e mig:t say- :o9e%er- t:at t:is fact does not seem to :a%e a controlling feature in t:ose cases& T:ere is not:ing in section "*+ of t:e Code of Ci%il 6rocedure 9:ic: indicates- e%en remotely-

375
t:at before an inBunction may issue restraining t:e 9rongful interference 9it: contrast by strangers- t:e strangers must 8no9 t:e identity of bot: 7arties& 2t 9ould seem t:at t:is is not essential- as inBunctions frequently issue against munici7al cor7orations- 7ublic ser%ice cor7orations- 7ublic officers- and ot:ers to restrain t:e commission of acts 9:ic: 9ould tend to inBuriously affect t:e rig:ts of 7erson 9:ose identity t:e res7ondents could not 7ossibly :a%e 8no9n before:and& T:is court :as :eld t:at in a 7ro7er case inBunction 9ill issue at t:e instance of a 7ri%ate citi=en to restrain ultra vires acts of 7ublic officials& (3e%erino vs. Go%ernor#General- "* 6:il& Re7&- 3**&$ 3o 9e 7roceed to t:e determination of t:e main question of 9:et:er or not t:e 7reliminary inBunction oug:t to :a%e been issued in t:is case& As a rule- inBunctions are denied to t:ose 9:o :a%e an adequate remedy at la9& ?:ere t:e c:oice is bet9een t:e ordinary and t:e extraordinary 7rocesses of la9- and t:e former are sufficientt:e rule 9ill not 7ermit t:e use of t:e latter& ()n re Debs- "./ 1& 3&- .*+&$ 2f t:e inBury is irre7arable- t:e ordinary 7rocess is inadequate& 2n ?a:le vs.Reinbac: ()* 2ll&- 3 $- t:e su7reme court of 2llinois a77ro%ed a definition of t:e term >irre7arable inBury> in t:e follo9ing language: >0y lirre7arable inBury; is not meant suc: inBury as is beyond t:e 7ossibility of re7air- or beyond 7ossible com7ensation in damages- nor necessarily great inBury or great damage- but t:at s7ecies of inBury- 9:et:er great or small- t:at oug:t not to be submitted to on t:e one :and or inflicted on t:e ot:erG and- because it is so large on t:e one :and- or so small on t:e ot:er- is of suc: constant and frequent recurrence t:at no fair or reasonable redress can be :ad t:erefor in a court of la9&> (<uoted 9it: a77ro%al in 'as:%ille R& R& Co& vs.AcConnell- / Fed&- *.&$ T:e case at bar is some9:at no%el- as t:e only contract 9:ic: 9as bro8en 9as t:at bet9een Cuddy and Gilc:rist- and t:e 7rofits of t:e a77ellee de7ended u7on t:e 7atronage of t:e 7ublic- for 9:ic: it is conceded t:e a77ellants 9ere at liberty to com7lete by all fair does not deter t:e a77lication of remar8ed in t:e case of t:e >tic8et scal7ers> (/ Fed&- *.$- t:e no%elty of t:e facts does not deter t:e a77lication of equitable 7rinci7les& T:is court ta8es Budicial notice of t:e general c:aracter of a cinematogra7: or motion#7icture t:eater& 2t is a quite modern form of t:e 7lay :ouse- 9:erein- by means of an a77aratus 8no9n as a cinematogra7: or cinematogra7:- a series of %ie9s re7resenting closely successi%e 7:ases of a mo%ing obBect- are ex:ibited in ra7id sequence- gi%ing a 7icture 9:ic:o9ing to t:e 7ersistence of %ision- a77ears to t:e obser%er to be in continuous motion& (T:e 4ncyclo7edia 0ritanica- %ol& *- 7& 3)+&$ T:e subBects 9:ic: :a%e lent t:emsel%es to t:e art of t:e 7:otogra7:er in t:is manner :a%e increased enormously in recent years- as 9ell as :a%e t:e 7laces 9:ere suc: ex:ibition are gi%en& T:e attendance- and- consequently- t:e recei7ts- at one of t:ese cinematogra7: or motion#7icture t:eaters de7ends in no small degree u7on t:e excellence of t:e 7:otogra7:s- and it is quite common for t:e 7ro7rietor of t:e t:eater to secure an es7ecially attracti%e ex:ibit as :is >feature film> and ad%ertise it as suc: in order to attract t:e 7ublic& T:is feature film is de7ended u7on to secure a larger attendance t:at if its 7lace on t:e 7rogram 9ere filled by ot:er films of mediocre quality& 2t is e%ident t:at t:e failure to ex:ibit t:e feature film 9ill reduce t:e recei7ts of t:e t:eater& Fence- Gilc:rist 9as facing t:e immediate 7ros7ect of diminis:ed 7rofits by reason of t:e fact t:at t:e a77ellants :ad induced Cuddy to rent to t:em t:e film Gilc:rist :ad counted u7on as :is feature film& 2t is quite a77arent t:at to estimate 9it: any decree of accuracy t:e damages 9:ic: Gilc:rist 9ould li8ely suffer from suc: an e%ent 9ould be quite difficult if not im7ossible& 2f :e allo9ed t:e a77ellants to ex:ibit t:e film in 2loilo- it 9ould be useless for :im to ex:ibit it again- as t:e desire of t:e 7ublic to 9itness t:e 7roduction 9ould :a%e been already satisfied& 2n t:is extremity- t:e a77ellee a77lied for and 9as granted- as 9e :a%e indicated- a mandatory inBunction against Cuddy requiring :im to deli%er t:e Yigomar to Gilc:rist- and a 7reliminary inBunction against t:e a77ellants restraining t:em from ex:ibiting t:at film in t:eir t:eater during t:e 9ee8s :e (Gilc:rist$ :ad a rig:t to ex:ibit it& T:ese inBunction sa%ed t:e 7laintiff :armless from damages due to t:e un9arranted interference of t:e defendants- as 9ell as t:e difficult tas8 9:ic: 9ould :a%e been set for t:e court of estimating t:em in case t:e a77ellants :ad been allo9ed to carry out t:eir illegal 7lans& As to 9:et:er or not t:e mandatory inBunction s:ould :a%e been issued- 9e are not- as 9e :a%e said- called u7on to determine& 3o far as t:e 7reliminary inBunction issued against t:e a77ellants is concerned- 9:ic: 7ro:ibited t:em from ex:ibiting t:e Yigomar during t:e 9ee8 9:ic: Gilc:rist desired to ex:ibit it- 9e are of t:e o7inion

376
t:at t:e circumstances Bustified t:e issuance of t:at inBunction in t:e discretion of t:e court& ?e are not lac8ing in aut:ority to su77ort our conclusion t:at t:e court 9as Bustified in issuing t:e 7reliminary inBunction against t:e a77ellants& 17on t:e 7recise question as to 9:et:er inBunction 9ill issue to restrain 9rongful interference 9it: contracts by strangers to suc: contracts- it may be said t:at courts in t:e 1nited 3tates :a%e usually granted suc: relief 9:ere t:e 7rofits of t:e inBured 7erson are deri%ed from :is contractual relations 9it: a large and indefinite number of indi%iduals- t:us reducing :im to t:e necessity of 7ro%ing in an action against t:e tort#feasor t:at t:e latter 9as res7onsible in eac: case for t:e bro8en contract- or else obliging :im to institute indi%idual suits against eac: contracting 7arty and so ex7osing :im to a multi7licity of suits& 37erry & Futc:inson Co& vs. Aec:anics; Clot:ing Co& (" / Fed&- /!!$G 37erry & Futc:inson Co& vs. (ouis ?eber & Co& ("*" Fed&- ",$G 37erry & Futc:inson Co& vs. 6ommer (",, Fed&- 3!,$G 9ere all cases 9:erein t:e res7ondents 9ere inducing retail merc:ants to brea8 t:eir contracts 9it: t:e com7any for t:e sale of t:e latters; trading stam7s& 2nBunction issued in eac: case restraining t:e res7ondents from interfering 9it: suc: contracts& 2n t:e case of t:e 'as:%ille R& R& Co& vs. AcConnell (/ Fed&- *.$- t:e court- among ot:er t:ings- said: >5ne 9:o 9rongfully interferes in a contract bet9een ot:ers- and- for t:e 7ur7ose of gain to :imself induces one of t:e 7arties to brea8 it- is liable to t:e 7arty inBured t:erebyG and :is continued interference may be ground for an inBunction 9:ere t:e inBuries resulting 9ill be irre7arable&> 2n Famby & Toomer vs. Georgia 2ron & Coal Co& (" ) Ga&- ), $- it a77ears t:at t:e res7ondents 9ere interfering in a contract for 7rison labor- and t:e result 9ould be- if t:ey 9ere successful- t:e s:utting do9n of t:e 7etitioner;s 7lant for an indefinite time& T:e court :eld t:at alt:oug: t:ere 9as no contention t:at t:e res7ondents 9ere insol%ent- t:e trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a 7reliminary inBunction against t:e res7ondents& 2n 0ee8man vs. Aarsters (",. Aass&- !.$- t:e 7laintiff :ad obtained from t:e Camesto9n Fotel Cor7oration- conducting a :otel 9it:in t:e grounds of t:e Camesto9n 4x7osition- a contract 9:ereby :e 9as made t:eir exclusi%e agent for t:e 'e9 4ngland 3tates to solicit 7atronage for t:e :otel& T:e defendant induced t:e :otel cor7oration to brea8 t:eir contract 9it: t:e 7laintiff in order to allo9 :im to act also as t:eir agent in t:e 'e9 4ngland 3tates& T:e court :eld t:at an action for damages 9ould not :a%e afforded t:e 7laintiff adequate relief- and t:at an inBunction 9as 7ro7er com7elling t:e defendant to desist from furt:er interference 9it: t:e 7laintiff;s exclusi%e contract 9it: t:e :otel com7any& 2n Citi=ens; (ig:t- Feat & 6o9er Co& vs. Aontgomery (ig:t & ?ater 6o9er Co& (")" Fed&- ..3$t:e court- 9:ile admitting t:at t:ere are some aut:orities to t:e contrary- :eld t:at t:e current aut:ority in t:e 1nited 3tates and 4ngland is t:at: T:e %iolation of a legal rig:t committed 8no9ingly is a cause of action- and t:at it is a %iolation of a legal rig:t to interfere 9it: contractual relations recogni=ed by la9- if t:ere be no sufficient Bustification for t:e interference& (<uinn vs. (eat:am- supra- ."!G Angle vs. C:icago- etc&- Ry& Co&- "." 1& 3&- "G "+ 3u7& Ct&- +!G 3/ (& 4d&- ..G Aartens vs. Reilly- "!, ?is&- +*+- /+ '& ?&/+!G Rice vs. Aanley- ** '& @&- / G 3 Am& Re7&- 3!G 0itterman vs. (& & '& R& R& Co&- !) 1& 3&!.G / 3u7& Ct&- ,"G . (& 4d&- ")"G 0ee8man vs.Aarsters- ",. Aass&- !.G /! '& 4&- /")G "" (& R& A& M'& 3&N !"G " Am& 3t& Re7&- 3 G 3out: ?ales Ainers; Fed& vs. Glamorgan Coal Co&A77eal Cases- ",!.- 7& 3,&$ 3ee also 'ims on 1nfair 0usiness Com7etition- 77& 3."# 3)"& 2n 3 4lliot on Contracts- section .""- it is said: >2nBunction is t:e 7ro7er remedy to 7re%ent a 9rongful interference 9it: contract by strangers to suc: contracts 9:ere t:e legal remedy is insufficient and t:e resulting inBury is irre7arable& And 9:ere t:ere is a malicious interference 9it: la9ful and %alid contracts a 7ermanent inBunction 9ill ordinarily issue 9it:out 7roof of ex7ress malice& 3o- an inBunction may be issued 9:ere t:e com7lainant to brea8 t:eir contracts 9it: :im by agreeing to indemnify 9:o brea8s :is contracts of em7loyment may be adBoined from including ot:er em7loyees to brea8 t:eir contracts and enter into ne9 contracts 9it: a ne9 em7loyer of t:e ser%ant 9:o first

377
bro8e :is contract& 0ut t:e remedy by inBunction cannot be used to restrain a legitimate com7etitiont:oug: suc: com7etition 9ould in%ol%e t:e %iolation of a contract& 'or 9ill equity ordinarily enBoin em7loyees 9:o :a%e quit t:e ser%ice of t:eir em7loyer from attem7ting by 7ro7er argument to 7ersuade ot:ers from ta8ing t:eir 7laces so long as t:ey do not resort to force or intimidations on obstruct t:e 7ublic t:oroug:fares&> 0ee8man vs. Aarster- supra- is 7ractically on all fours 9it: t:e case at bar in t:at t:ere 9as only one contract in question and t:e 7rofits of t:e inBured 7erson de7ended u7on t:e 7atronage of t:e 7ublic& Famby & Toomer vs.Georgia 2ron & Coal Co&- supra- is also similar to t:e case at bar in t:at t:ere 9as only one contract- t:e interference of 9:ic: 9as sto77ed by inBunction&

G" . W. Da8=a,$ &. La C #? #aB) n D" L % Pad#"% AA(%$)n % R"B ,"$ %, "$ a,. G&R& 'o& (#"3.!.& February +- ",", 3TR44T- J.: 2n t:e year ",! - Teodorica 4ndencia- an unmarried 9oman- resident in t:e 6ro%ince of Aindoro- executed a contract 9:ereby s:e obligated :erself to con%ey to Geo& ?& Day9alt- a tract of land situated in t:e barrio of Aangarin- munici7ality of 0ulalacao- no9 3an Cose- in said 7ro%ince& 2t 9as agreed t:at a deed s:ould be executed as soon as t:e title to t:e land s:ould be 7erfected by 7roceedings in t:e Court of (and Registration and a Torrens certificate s:ould be 7roduced t:erefore in t:e name of Teodorica 4ndencia& A decree recogni=ing t:e rig:t of Teodorica as o9ner 9as entered in said court in August ",!*- but t:e Torrens certificate 9as not issued until later& T:e 7arties- :o9e%ermet immediately u7on t:e entering of t:is decree and made a ne9 contract 9it: a %ie9 to carrying t:eir original agreement into effect& T:is ne9 contract 9as executed in t:e form of a deed of con%eyance and bears date of August "*- ",!*& T:e sti7ulated 7rice 9as fixed at 6+-!!!- and t:e area of t:e land enclosed in t:e boundaries defined in t:e contract 9as stated to be +. :ectares and a fraction& T:e second contract 9as not immediately carried into effect for t:e reason t:at t:e Torrens certificate 9as not yet obtainable and in fact said certificate 9as not issued until t:e 7eriod of 7erformance contem7lated in t:e contract :ad ex7ired& Accordingly- u7on 5ctober 3- ",!/- t:e 7arties entered into still anot:er agreement- su7erseding t:e old- by 9:ic: Teodorica 4ndencia agreed u7on recei%ing t:e Torrens title to t:e land in question- to deli%er t:e same to t:e Fong8ong and 3:ang:ai 0an8 in Aanila- to be for9arded to t:e Croc8er 'ational 0an8 in 3an Francisco- 9:ere it 9as to be deli%ered to t:e 7laintiff u7on 7ayment of a balance of 63-"!!& T:e Torrens certificate 9as in time issued to Teodorica 4ndencia- but in t:e course of t:e 7roceedings relati%e to t:e registration of t:e land- it 9as found by official sur%ey t:at t:e area of t:e tract inclosed in t:e boundaries stated in t:e contract 9as about "& +/ :ectares of +. :ectares as stated in t:e contract& 2n %ie9 of t:is de%elo7ment Teodorica 4ndencia became reluctant to transfer t:e 9:ole tract to t:e 7urc:aser- asserting t:at s:e ne%er intended to sell so large an amount of land and t:at s:e :ad been misinformed as to its area& T:is attitude of :ers led to litigation in 9:ic: Day9alt finally succeeded- u7on a77eal to t:e 3u7reme Court- in obtaining a decree for s7ecific 7erformanceG and Teodorica 4ndencia 9as ordered to con%ey t:e entire tract of land to Day9alt 7ursuant to t:e contract of 5ctober 3- ",!/- 9:ic: contract 9as declared to be in full force and effect& T:is decree a77ears to :a%e become finally effecti%e in t:e early 7art of t:e year ","+&" T:e defendant- (a Cor7oracion de los 6adres Recoletos- is a religious cor7oration- 9it: its domicile in t:e city of Aanila& 3aid cor7oration 9as formerly t:e o9ner of a large tract of land- 8no9n as t:e 3an Cose 4state- on t:e island of Aindoro- 9:ic: 9as sold to t:e Go%ernment of t:e 6:ili77ine 2slands in t:e year ",!,& T:e same cor7oration 9as at t:is time also t:e o9ner of anot:er estate on t:e same island immediately adBacent to t:e land 9:ic: Teodorica 4ndencia :ad sold to Geo& ?& Day9altG and for many years t:e Recoletos Fat:ers :ad maintained large :erds of cattle on t:e farms

378
referred to& T:eir re7resentati%e- c:arged 9it: management of t:ese farms- 9as fat:er 2sidoro 3an=:imself a members of t:e order& Fat:er 3an= :ad long been 9ell acquainted 9it: Teodorica 4ndencia and exerted o%er :er an influence and ascendency due to :is religious c:aracter as 9ell as to t:e 7ersonal friends:i7 9:ic: existed bet9een t:em& Teodorica a77ears to be a 9oman of little 7ersonal force- easily subBect to influence- and u7on all t:e im7ortant matters of business 9as accustomed to see8- and 9as gi%en- t:e ad%ice of fat:er 3an= and ot:er members of :is order 9it: 9:om s:e came in contact& Fat:er 3an= 9as fully a9are of t:e existence of t:e contract of ",! by 9:ic: Teodorica 4ndencia agreed to sell :er land to t:e 7laintiff as 9ell as of t:e later im7ortant de%elo7ments connected 9it: t:e :istory of t:at contract and t:e contract substituted successi%ely for itG and in 7articular Fat:er 3an=- as 9ell as ot:er members of t:e defendant cor7oration- 8ne9 of t:e existence of t:e contract of 5ctober 3- ",!/- 9:ic:- as 9e :a%e already seen finally fixed t:e rig:ts of t:e 7arties to t:e 7ro7erty in question& ?:en t:e Torrens certificate 9as finally issued in ",!, in fa%or of Teodorica 4ndencia- s:e deli%ered it for safe8ee7ing to t:e defendant cor7oration- and it 9as t:en ta8en to Aanila 9:ere it remained in t:e custody and under t:e control of 6& Cuan (abarga t:e 7rocurador and c:ief official of t:e defendant cor7oration- until t:e deli%er t:ereof to t:e 7laintiff 9as made com7ulsory by reason of t:e decree of t:e 3u7reme Court in ","+& ?:en t:e defendant cor7oration sold t:e 3an Cose 4state- it 9as necessary to bring t:e cattle off of t:at 7ro7ertyG and- in t:e first :alf of ",!,- some -3*/ :ead 9ere remo%ed to t:e estate of t:e cor7oration immediately adBacent to t:e 7ro7erty 9:ic: t:e 7laintiff :ad 7urc:ased from Teodorica 4ndencia& As Teodorica still retained 7ossession of said 7ro7erty Fat:er 3an= entered into an arrangement 9it: :er 9:ereby large numbers of cattle belonging to t:e defendant cor7oration 9ere 7astured u7on said land during a 7eriod extending from Cune "- ",!,- to Aay "- ","+& 1nder t:e first cause stated in t:e com7laint in t:e 7resent action t:e 7laintiff see8s to reco%er from t:e defendant cor7oration t:e sum of 6 +-!!!- as damages for t:e use and occu7ation of t:e land in question by reason of t:e 7asturing of cattle t:ereon during t:e 7eriod stated& T:e trial court came to t:e conclusion t:at t:e defendant cor7oration 9as liable for damages by reason of t:e use and occu7ation of t:e 7remises in t:e manner statedG and fixed t:e amount to be reco%ered at 6 -+,)& T:e 7laintiff a77ealed and :as assigned error to t:is 7art of t:e Budgment of t:e court belo9- insisting t:at damages s:ould :a%e been a9arded in a muc: larger sum and at least to t:e full extent of 6 +-!!!- t:e amount claimed in t:e com7laint& As t:e defendant did not a77eal- t:e 7ro7erty of allo9ing damages for t:e use and occu7ation of t:e land to t:e extent o 6 -+,)- t:e amount a9arded- is not no9 in question an t:e only t:ing :ere to be considered- in connection 9it: t:is branc: of t:e case- is 9:et:er t:e damages allo9ed under t:is :ead s:ould be increased& T:e trial court rig:tly ignored t:e fact t:at t:e defendant cor7oration :ad 7aid Teodorica 4ndencia of ruse and occu7ation of t:e same land during t:e 7eriod in question at t:e rate of 6+ . 7er annum- inasmuc: as t:e final decree of t:is court in t:e action for s7ecific 7erformance is conclusi%e against :er rig:t- and as t:e defendant cor7oration :ad notice of t:e rig:ts of t:e 7laintiff under t:is contract of 7urc:ase- it can not be 7ermitted t:at t:e cor7oration s:ould esca7e liability in t:is action by 7ro%ing 7ayment of rent to a 7erson ot:er t:an t:e true o9ner& ?it: reference to t:e rate of 9:ic: com7ensation s:ould be estimated t:e trial court came to t:e follo9ing conclusion: As to t:e rate of t:e com7ensation- t:e 7laintiff contends t:at t:e defendant cor7oration maintained at leas one t:ousand :ead of cattle on t:e land and t:at t:e 7asturage 9as of t:e %alue of forty centa%os 7er :ead mont:ly- or 6+-/!! annually- for t:e 9:ole tract& T:e court can not acce7t t:is %ie9& 2t is rat:er im7robable t:at "- +/ :ectares of 9ild Aindoro land 9ould furnis: sufficient 7asturage for one t:ousand :ead of cattle during t:e entire year- andconsidering t:e locality- t:e rate of forty centa%os 7er :ead mont:ly seems too :ig:& T:e e%idence s:o9s t:at after :a%ing reco%ered 7ossession of t:e land t:e 7laintiff rented it to t:e defendant cor7oration for fifty centa%os 7er :ectares annually- t:e tenant to 7ay t:e taxes on t:e land- and t:is a77ears to be a reasonable rent& T:ere is no reason to su77ose t:at t:e land

379
9as 9ort: more for gra=ing 7ur7oses during t:e 7eriod from ",!, to ","3- t:an it 9as at t:e later 7eriod& 17on t:is basis t:e 7laintiff is entitled to damages in t:e sum of 7 -+,)- and is under no obligation to reimburse t:e defendants for t:e land taxes 7aid by eit:er of t:em during t:e 7eriod t:e land 9as occu7ied by t:e defendant cor7oration& 2t may be mentioned in t:is connection t:at t:e (onto8 tract adBoining t:e land in question and containing o%er t:ree t:ousand :ectares a77ears to :a%e been leased for only 6"-!!! a year- 7lus t:e taxes& From t:is it 9ill be seen t:at t:e trial court estimated t:e rental %alue of t:e land for gra=ing 7ur7oses at .! centa%os 7er :ectare 7er annum- and roug:ly ado7ted t:e 7eriod of four years as t:e time for 9:ic: com7ensation at t:at rate s:ould be made& As t:e court :ad already found t:at t:e defendant 9as liable for t:ese damages from Cune- "- ",!,- to Aay "- ","+- or a 7eriod of four years and ele%en mont:s- t:ere seems some ground for t:e contention made in t:e a77ellant;s first assignment of error t:at t:e court;s com7utation 9as erroneous- e%en acce7ting t:e rule u7on 9:ic: t:e damages 9ere assessed- as it is manifest t:at at t:e rate of .! centa%os 7er :ectare 7er annumt:e damages for four years and ele%en mont:s 9ould be 63-!,!& 'ot9it:standing t:is circumstance- 9e are of t:e o7inion t:at t:e damages assessed are sufficient to com7ensate t:e 7laintiff for t:e use and occu7ation of t:e land during t:e 9:ole time it 9as used& T:ere is e%idence in t:e record strongly tending to s:o9 t:at t:e 9rongful use of t:e land by t:e defendant 9as not continuous t:roug:out t:e year but 9as confined mostly to t:e reason 9:en t:e forage obtainable on t:e land of t:e defendant cor7oration 9as not sufficient to maintain its cattlefor 9:ic: reason it became necessary to allo9 t:em to go o%er to 7asture on t:e land in questionG and it is not clear t:at t:e 9:ole of t:e land 9as used for 7asturage at any time& Considerations of t:is c:aracter 7robably led t:e trial court to ado7t four years as roug:ly being t:e 7eriod during 9:ic: com7ensation s:ould be allo9ed& 0ut 9:et:er t:is 9as ad%ertently done or not- 9e see no sufficient reason- in t:e uncertainty of t:e record 9it: reference to t:e number of t:e cattle gra=ed and t:e 7eriod 9:en t:e land 9as used- for substituting our guess for t:e estimate made by t:e trial court& 2n t:e second cause of action stated in t:e com7laint t:e 7laintiff see8s to reco%er from t:e defendant cor7oration t:e sum of 6.!!-!!!- as damages- on t:e ground t:at said cor7oration- for its o9n selfis: 7ur7oses- unla9fully induced Teodorica 4ndencia to refrain from t:e 7erformance of :er contract for t:e sale of t:e land in question and to 9it::old deli%ery to t:e 7laintiff of t:e Torrens titleand furt:er- maliciously and 9it:out reasonable cause- maintained :er in :er defense to t:e action of s7ecific 7erformance 9:ic: 9as finally decided in fa%or of t:e 7laintiff in t:is court& T:e cause of action :ere stated is based on liability deri%ed from t:e 9rongful interference of t:e defendant in t:e 7erformance of t:e contract bet9een t:e 7laintiff and Teodorica 4ndenciaG and t:e large damages laid in t:e com7laint 9ere- according to t:e 7roof submitted by t:e 7laintiff- incurred as a result of a combination of circumstances of t:e follo9ing nature: 2n ",""- it a77ears- t:e 7laintiff- as t:e o9ner of t:e land 9:ic: :e :ad boug:t from Teodorica 4ndencia entered into a contract (4x:ibit C$ 9it: 3& 0& ?a8efield- of 3an Francisco- for t:e sale and dis7osal of said lands to a sugar gro9ing and milling enter7rise- t:e successful launc:ing of 9:ic: de7ended on t:e ability of Day9alt to get 7ossession of t:e land and t:e Torrens certificate of title& 2n order to accom7lis: t:is end- t:e 7laintiff returned to t:e 6:ili77ine 2slands- communicated :is arrangement to t:e defendant-- and made re7eated efforts to secure t:e registered title for deli%ery in com7liance 9it: said agreement 9it: ?a8efield& Teodorica 4ndencia seems to :a%e yielded :er consent to t:e consummation of :er contract- but t:e Torrens title 9as t:en in t:e 7ossession of 6adre Cuan (abarga in Aanila- 9:o refused to deli%er t:e document& Teodorica also 9as in t:e end contract 9it: t:e 7laintiff- 9it: t:e result t:at t:e 7laintiff 9as 8e7t out of 7ossession until t:e ?a8efield 7roBect for t:e establis:ment of a large sugar gro9ing and milling enter7rise fell t:roug:& 2n t:e lig:t of 9:at :as :a77ened in recent years in t:e sugar industry- 9e feel Bustified in saying t:at t:e 7roBect abo%e referred to- if carried into effect- must ine%itably :a%e 7ro%ed a great success& T:e determination of t:e issue 7resented in t:is second cause of action requires a consideration of t9o 7oints& T:e first is 9:et:er a 7erson 9:o is not a 7arty to a contract for t:e sale of land ma8es :imself liable for damages to t:e %endee- beyond t:e %alue of t:e use and occu7ation- by colluding 9it: t:e %endor and maintaining :im in t:e effort to resist an action for s7ecific 7erformance&

380
T:e second is 9:et:er t:e damages 9:ic: t:e 7laintiff see8s to reco%er under t:is :ead are too remote and s7eculati%e to be t:e subBect of reco%ery& As 7reliminary to a consideration of t:e first of t:ese questions- 9e deem it 9ell it dis7ose of t:e contention t:at t:e members of t:e defendants cor7oration- in ad%ising and 7rom7ting Teodorica 4ndencia not to com7ly 9it: t:e contract of sale- 9ere actuated by im7ro7er and malicious moti%es& T:e trial court found t:at t:is contention 9as not sustained- obser%ing t:at 9:ile it 9as true t:at t:e circumstances 7ointed to an entire sym7at:y on t:e 7art of t:e defendant cor7oration 9it: t:e efforts of Teodorica 4ndencia to defeat t:e 7laintiff;s claim to t:e land- t:e fact t:at its officials may :a%e ad%ised :er not to carry t:e contract into effect 9ould not constitute actionable interference 9it: suc: contract& 2t may be added t:at 9:en one considers t:e :ards:i7 t:at t:e ultimate 7erformance of t:at contract entailed on t:e %endor- and t:e doubt in 9:ic: t:e issue 9as in%ol%ed O to t:e extent t:at t:e decision of t:e Court of t:e First 2nstance 9as unfa%orable to t:e 7laintiff and t:e 3u7reme Court itself 9as di%ided O t:e attitude of t:e defendant cor7oration- as ex:ibited in t:e conduct of its pro%uradorCuan (abarga- and ot:er members of t:e order of t:e Recollect Fat:ers- is not difficult to understand& To our mind a fair conclusion on t:is feature of t:e case is t:at fat:er Cuan (abarga and :is associates belie%ed in good fait: t:at t:e contract cold not be enforced and t:at Teodorica 9ould be 9ronged if it s:ould be carried into effect& Any ad%ice or assistance 9:ic: t:ey may :a%e gi%en 9as- t:erefore7rom7ted by no mean or im7ro7er moti%e& 2t is not- in our o7inion- to be denied t:at Teodorica 9ould :a%e surrendered t:e documents of title and gi%en 7ossession of t:e land but for t:e influence and 7rom7tings of members of t:e defendants cor7oration& 0ut 9e do not credit t:e idea t:at t:ey 9ere in any degree influenced to t:e gi%ing of suc: ad%ice by t:e desire to secure to t:emsel%es t:e 7altry 7ri%ilege of gra=ing t:eir cattle u7on t:e land in question to t:e 7reBudice of t:e Bust rig:ts of t:e 7laintiff& T:e attorney for t:e 7laintiff maintains t:at- by interfering in t:e 7erformance of t:e contract in question and obstructing t:e 7laintiff in :is efforts to secure t:e certificate of tittle to t:e land- t:e defendant cor7oration made itself a co#7artici7ant 9it: Teodorica 4ndencia in t:e breac: of said contractG and inasmuc: as fat:er Cuan (abarga- at t:e time of said unla9ful inter%ention bet9een t:e contracting 7arties- 9as fully a9are of t:e existence of t:e contract (4x:ibit C$ 9:ic: t:e 7laintiff :ad made 9it: 3& 0& ?a8efield- of 3an Francisco- it is insisted t:at t:e defendant cor7oration is liable for t:e loss consequent u7on t:e failure of t:e 7roBect outlined in said contract& 2n t:is connection reliance is 7laced by t:e 7laintiff u7on certain American and 4nglis: decisions in 9:ic: it is :eld t:at a 7erson 9:o is a stranger to contract may- by an unBustifiable interference in t:e 7erformance t:ereof- render :imself liable for t:e damages consequent u7on non# 7erformance& 2t is said t:at t:e doctrine of t:ese cases 9as recogni=ed by t:is court in Gilc:rist vs. Cuddy ( , 6:il& Re7&- .+ $G and 9e :a%e been earnestly 7ressed to extend t:e rule t:ere enunciated to t:e situation :ere 7resente& 3ome9:at more t:an :alf a century ago t:e 4nglis: Court of t:e <ueen;s 0enc: sa9 its 9ay clear to 7ermit an action for damages to be maintained against a stranger to a contract 9rongfully interfering in its 7erformance& T:e leading case on t:is subBect is (umley vs. Gye (M"/.3N- 4l& & 0l&"*$& 2t t:ere a77eared t:at t:e 7laintiff- as manager of a t:eatre- :ad entered into a contract 9it: Aiss Co:anna ?agner- an o7era singer-- 9:ereby s:e bound :erself for a 7eriod to sing in t:e 7laintiff;s t:eatre and no9:ere else& T:e defendant- 8no9ing of t:e existence of t:is contract- and- as t:e declaration alleged- >maliciously intending to inBure t:e 7laintiff-> enticed and 7roduced Aiss ?agner to lea%e t:e 7laintiff;s em7loyment& 2t 9as :eld t:at t:e 7laintiff 9as entitled to reco%er damages& T:e rig:t 9:ic: 9as :ere recogni=ed :ad its origin in a rule- long familiar to t:e courts of t:e common la9to t:e effect t:at any 7erson 9:o entices a ser%ant from :is em7loyment is liable in damages to t:e master& T:e master;s interest in t:e ser%ice rendered by :is em7loyee is :ere considered as a distinct subBect of Buridical rig:t& 2t being t:us acce7ted t:at it is a legal 9rong to brea8 u7 a relation of 7ersonal ser%ice- t:e question no9 arose 9:et:er it is illegal for one 7erson to interfere 9it: any contract relation subsisting bet9een ot:ers& 6rior to t:e decision of (umley vs. Gye MsupraN it :ad been su77osed t:at t:e liability :ere under consideration 9as limited to t:e cases of t:e enticement of menial ser%ants- a77rentices- and ot:ers to 9:om t:e 4nglis: 3tatutes of (aborers 9ere a77licable&

381
0ut in t:e case cited t:e maBority of t:e Budges concurred in t:e o7inion t:at t:e 7rinci7le extended to all cases of :iring& T:is doctrine 9as follo9ed by t:e Court of A77eal in 0o9en vs. Fall (M"//"N- * <& 0&- Di%&- 333$G and in Tem7erton vs. Russell (M"/,3N- <& 0&- )".$- it 9as :eld t:at t:e rig:t of action for maliciously 7rocuring a breac: of contract is not confined to contracts for 7ersonal ser%ices- but extends to contracts in general& 2n t:at case t:e contract 9:ic: t:e defendant :ad 7rocured to be breac:ed 9as a contract for t:e su77ly of building material& Aalice in some form is generally su77osed to be an essential ingredient in cases of interference 9it: contract relations& 0ut u7on t:e aut:orities it is enoug: if t:e 9rong#doer- :a%ing 8no9ledge of t:e existence of t:e contract relations- in bad fait: sets about to brea8 it u7& ?:et:er :is moti%e is to benefit :imself or gratify :is s7ite by 9or8ing misc:ief to t:e em7loyer is immaterial& Aalice in t:e sense of ill#9ill or s7ite is not essential& 17on t:e question as to 9:at constitutes legal Bustification- a good illustration 9as 7ut in t:e leading case& 2f a 7arty enters into contract to go for anot:er u7on a Bourney to a remote and un:ealt:ful climate- and a t:ird 7erson- 9it: a bona fide 7ur7ose of benefiting t:e one 9:o is under contract to go- dissuades :im from t:e ste7- no action 9ill lie& 0ut if t:e ad%ice is not disinterested and t:e 7ersuasion is used for >t:e indirect 7ur7ose of benefiting t:e defendant at t:e ex7ense of t:e 7laintiff-> t:e intermedler is liable if :is ad%ice is ta8en and t:e contract bro8en& T:e doctrine embodied in t:e cases Bust cited :as sometimes been found useful- in t:e com7licated relations of modern industry- as a means of restraining t:e acti%ities of labor unions and industrial societies 9:en im7ro7erly engaged in t:e 7romotion of stri8es& An illustration of t:e a77lication of t:e doctrine in question in a case of t:is 8ind is found in 3out: ?ales Ainers Federation vs. Glamorgan Coal Co& (M",!.N$- A& C&- 3,$& 2t t:ere a77eared t:at certain miners em7loyed in t:e 7laintiff;s collieries- acting under t:e order of t:e executi%e council of t:e defendant federation- %iolated t:eir contract 9it: t:e 7laintiff by abstaining from 9or8 on certain days& T:e federation and council acted 9it:out any actual malice or ill#9ill to9ards t:e 7laintiff- and t:e only obBect of t:e order in question 9as t:at t:e 7rice of coal mig:t t:ereby be 8e7t u7- a factor 9:ic: affected t:e miner;s 9age scale& 2t 9as :eld t:at no sufficient Bustification 9as s:o9n and t:at t:e federation 9as liable& 2n t:e 1nited 3tates- t:e rule establis:ed in 4ngland by (umley vs. Gye MsupraN and subsequent cases is commonly acce7ted- t:oug: in a fe9 of t:e 3tates t:e broad idea t:at a stranger to a contract can be :eld liable u7on its is reBected- and in t:ese Burisdictions t:e doctrine- if acce7ted at all- is limited to t:e situation 9:ere t:e contract is strictly for 7ersonal ser%ice& (0oyson vs. T:orn- ,/ Cal&- .)/G C:ambers & Aars:all vs. 0ald9in ," Iy&- " "G 0ourlier vs. Aacauley- ," Iy&- "3.G Glencoe (and & Gra%el Co& vs. Fudson 0ros& Com& Co&- "3/ Ao&- +3,&$ 2t s:ould be obser%ed in t:is connection t:at- according to t:e 4nglis: and American aut:orities- no question can be made as to t:e liability to one 9:o interferes 9it: a contract existing bet9een ot:ers by means 9:ic:- under 8no9n legal cannons- can be denominated an unla9ful means& T:us- if 7erformance is 7re%ented by force- intimidation- coercion- or t:reats- or by false or defamatory statements- or by nuisance or riot- t:e 7erson using suc: unla9ful means is- under all t:e aut:orities- liable for t:e damage 9:ic: ensues& And in Burisdictions 9:ere t:e doctrine of (umley vs. Gye MsupraN is reBected- no liability can arise from a meddlesome and malicious interference 9it: a contract relation unless some suc: unla9ful means as t:ose Bust indicated are used& (3ee cases last abo%e cited&$ T:is brings us to t:e decision made by t:is court in Gilc:rist vs. Cuddy ( , 6:il& Re7&- .+ $& 2t t:ere a77eared t:at one Cuddy- t:e o9ner of a cinematogra7:ic film- let it under a rental contract to t:e 7laintiff Gilc:rist for a s7ecified 7eriod of time& 2n %iolation of t:e terms of t:is agreement- Cuddy 7roceeded to turn o%er t:e film also under a rental contract- to t:e defendants 4s7eBo and Yaldarriaga& Gilc:rist t:ereu7on restored to t:e Court of First 2nstance and 7roduced an inBunction restraining t:e defendants from ex:ibiting t:e film in question in t:eir t:eater during t:e 7eriod s7ecified in t:e contract of Cuddy 9it: Gilc:rist& 17on a77eal to t:is court it 9as in effect :eld t:at t:e inBunction 9as not im7ro7erly granted- alt:oug: t:e defendants did not- at t:e time t:eir contract 9as made- 8no9 t:e

382
identity of t:e 7laintiff as t:e 7erson :olding t:e 7rior contract but did 8no9 of t:e existence of a contract in fa%or of someone& 2t 9as also said arguendo- t:at t:e defendants 9ould :a%e been liable in damages under article ",! of t:e Ci%il Code- if t:e action :ad been broug:t by t:e 7laintiff to reco%er damages& T:e force of t:e o7inion is- 9e t:in8- some9:at 9ea8ened by t:e criticism contain in t:e concurring o7inion- 9:ere it is said t:at t:e question of breac: of contract by inducement 9as not really in%ol%ed in t:e case& Ta8ing t:e decision u7on t:e 7oint 9:ic: 9as rally decided- it is aut:ority for t:e 7ro7osition t:at one 9:o buys somet:ing 9:ic: :e 8no9s :as been sold to some ot:er 7erson can be restrained from using t:at t:ing to t:e 7reBudice of t:e 7erson :a%ing t:e 7rior and better rig:t& Translated into terms a77licable to t:e case at bar- t:e decision in Gilc:rist vs. Cuddy ( , 6:il& Re7&- .+ $- indicates t:at t:e defendant cor7oration- :a%ing notice of t:e sale of t:e land in question to Day9alt- mig:t :a%e been enBoined by t:e latter from using t:e 7ro7erty for gra=ing its cattle t:ereon& T:at t:e defendant cor7oration is also liable in t:is action for t:e damage resulting to t:e 7laintiff from t:e 9rongful use and occu7ation of t:e 7ro7erty :as also been already determined& 0ut it 9ill be obser%ed t:at in order to sustain t:is liability it is not necessary to resort to any subtle exegesis relati%e to t:e liability of a stranger to a contract for unla9ful interference in t:e 7erformance t:ereof& 2t is enoug: t:at defendant use t:e 7ro7erty 9it: notice t:at t:e 7laintiff :ad a 7rior and better rig:t& Article ",! of t:e Ci%il Code declares t:at any 7erson 9:o by an act or omissionc:aracteri=ed by fault or negligence- causes damage to anot:er s:all be liable for t:e damage so done& 2gnoring so muc: of t:is article as relates to liability for negligence- 9e ta8e t:e rule to be t:at a 7erson is liable for damage done to anot:er by any cul7able actG and by >cul7able act> 9e mean any act 9:ic: is blame9ort:y 9:en Budged by acce7ted legal standards& T:e idea t:us ex7ressed is undoubtedly broad enoug: to include any rational conce7tion of liability for t:e tortious acts li8ely to be de%elo7ed in any society& T:us considered- it cannot be said t:at t:e doctrine of (umley vs. Gye MsupraN and related cases is re7ugnant to t:e 7rinci7les of t:e ci%il la9& 'e%ert:eless- it must be admitted t:at t:e codes and Buris7rudence of t:e ci%il la9 furnis: a some9:at uncongenial field in 9:ic: to 7ro7agate t:e idea t:at a stranger to a contract may sued for t:e breac: t:ereof& Article " .) of t:e Ci%il Code declares t:at contracts are binding only bet9een t:e 7arties and t:eir 7ri%ies& 2n conformity 9it: t:is it :as been :eld t:at a stranger to a contract :as no rig:t of action for t:e nonfulfillment of t:e contract exce7t in t:e case es7ecially contem7lated in t:e second 7aragra7: of t:e same article& (1y Tam and 1y @et vs. (eonard- 3! 6:il& Re7&- +)"&$ As obser%ed by t:is court in Aanila Railroad Co& vs. Com7aDia Transatlantica- R& G& 'o& ""3"/ (3/ 6:il& Re7&- /).$- a contract- 9:en effectually entered into bet9een certain 7arties- determines not only t:e c:aracter and extent of t:e liability of t:e contracting 7arties but also t:e 7erson or entity by 9:om t:e obligation is exigible& T:e same idea s:ould a77arently be a77licable 9it: res7ect to t:e 7erson against 9:om t:e obligation of t:e contract may be enforcedG for it is e%ident t:at t:ere must be a certain mutuality in t:e obligation- and if t:e stranger to a contract is not 7ermitted to sue to enforce it:e cannot consistently be :eld liable u7on it& 2f t:e t9o antagonistic ideas 9:ic: 9e :a%e Bust broug:t into Buxta7osition are ca7able of reconciliation- t:e 7rocess must be accom7lis:ed by distinguis:ing clearly bet9een t:e rig:t of action arising from t:e im7ro7er interference 9it: t:e contract by a stranger t:ereto- considered as an inde7endent act generate of ci%il liability- and t:e rig:t of action e. %ontra%tu against a 7arty to t:e contract resulting from t:e breac: t:ereof& Fo9e%er- 9e do not 7ro7ose :ere to 7ursue t:e matter furt:er- inasmuc: as- for reasons 7resently to be stated- 9e are of t:e o7inion t:at neit:er t:e doctrine of (umley vs. Gye MsupraN nor t:e a77lication made of it by t:is court in Gilc:rist vs. Cuddy ( , 6:il& Re7&- .+ $- affords any basis for t:e reco%ery of t:e damages 9:ic: t:e 7laintiff is su77osed to :a%e suffered by reason of :is inability to com7ly 9it: t:e terms of t:e ?a8efield contract& ?:ate%er may be t:e c:aracter of t:e liability 9:ic: a stranger to a contract may incur by ad%ising or assisting one of t:e 7arties to e%ade 7erformance- t:ere is one 7ro7osition u7on 9:ic: all must agree& T:is is- t:at t:e stranger cannot become more extensi%ely liable in damages for t:e non7erformance of t:e contract t:an t:e 7arty in 9:ose be:alf :e intermeddles& To :old t:e stranger liable for damages in excess of t:ose t:at could be reco%ered against t:e immediate 7arty to t:e

383
contract 9ould lead to results at once grotesque and unBust& 2n t:e case at bar- as Teodorica 4ndencia 9as t:e 7arty directly bound by t:e contract- it is ob%ious t:at t:e liability of t:e defendant cor7oratione%en admitting t:at it :as made itself co7artici7ant in t:e breac: of t:e contract- can in no e%en exceed :ers& T:is leads us to consider at t:is 7oint t:e extent of t:e liability of Teodorica 4ndencia to t:e 7laintiff by reason of :er failure to surrender t:e certificate of title and to 7lace t:e 7laintiff in 7ossession& 2t s:ould in t:e first 7lace be noted t:at t:e liability of Teodorica 4ndencia for damages resulting from t:e breac: of :er contract 9it: Day9alt 9as a 7ro7er subBect for adBudication in t:e action for s7ecific 7erformance 9:ic: Day9alt instituted against :er in ",!, and 9:ic: 9as litigated by :im to a successful conclusion in t:is court- but 9it:out obtaining any s7ecial adBudication 9it: reference to damages& 2ndemnification for damages resulting from t:e breac: of a contract is a rig:t inse7arably annexed to e%ery action for t:e fulfillment of t:e obligation (art& "" +- Ci%il Code$G and its is clear t:at if damages are not soug:t or reco%ered in t:e action to enforce 7erformance t:ey cannot be reco%ered in an inde7endent action& As to Teodorica 4ndencia- t:erefore- it s:ould be considered t:at t:e rig:t of action to reco%er damages for t:e breac: of t:e contract in question 9as ex:austed in t:e 7rior suit& Fo9e%er- :er attorneys :a%e not seen fit to inter7ose t:e defense of res *udi%ata in :er be:alfG and as t:e defendant cor7oration 9as not a 7arty to t:at action- and suc: defense could not in any e%ent be of any a%ail to it- 9e 7roceed to consider t:e question of t:e liability of Teodorica 4ndencia for damages 9it:out refernce to t:is 7oint& T:e most t:at can be said 9it: refernce to t:e conduct of Teodorica 4ndencia is t:at s:e refused to carry out a contract for t:e sale of certain land and resisted to t:e last an action for s7ecific 7erformance in court& T:e result 9as t:at t:e 7laintiff 9as 7re%ented during a 7eriod of se%eral years from exerting t:at control o%er t:e 7ro7erty 9:ic: :e 9as entitled to exert and 9as mean9:ile unable to dis7ose of t:e 7ro7erty ad%antageously& 'o9- 9:at is t:e measure of damages for t:e 9rongful detention of real 7ro7erty by t:e %ender after t:e time :as come for :im to 7lace t:e 7urc:aser in 7ossessionJ T:e damages ordinarily and normally reco%erable against a %endor for failure to deli%er land 9:ic: :e :as contracted to deli%er is t:e %alue of t:e use and occu7ation of t:e land for t:e time during 9:ic: it is 9rongfully 9it::eld& And of course 9:ere t:e 7urc:aser :as not 7aid t:e 7urc:aser money- a deduction may be made in res7ect to t:e interest on t:e money 9:ic: constitutes t:e 7urc:ase 7rice& 3ubstantially t:e same rule :olds 9it: res7ect to t:e liability of a landlord 9:o fails to 7ut :is tenant in 7ossession 7ursuant to contract of lease& T:e measure of damages is t:e %alue of t:e lease:old interest- or use and occu7ation- less t:e sti7ulated rent- 9:ere t:is :as not been 7aid& T:e rule t:at t:e measure of damages for t:e 9rongful detention of land is normally to be found in t:e %alue of use and occu7ation is- 9e belie%e- one of t:e t:ings t:at may be considered certain in t:e la9 (3, cyc&- "*3!G + Cyc&- "!. 3edge9ic8 on Damages- 'int: ed&- sec& "/.&$ O almost as 9ellsettledindeed- as t:e rule t:at t:e measure of damages for t:e 9rongful detention of money is to be found in t:e interest& ?e recogni=e t:e 7ossibility t:at more extensi%e damages may be reco%ered 9:ere- at t:e time of t:e creation of t:e contractual obligation- t:e %endor- or lessor- is a9are of t:e use to 9:ic: t:e 7urc:aser or lessee desires to 7ut t:e 7ro7erty 9:ic: is t:e subBect of t:e contract- and t:e contract is made 9it: t:e eyes of t:e %endor or lessor o7en to t:e 7ossibility of t:e damage 9:ic: may result to t:e ot:er 7arty from :is o9n failure to gi%e 7ossession& T:e case before us is not t:is c:aracterinasmuc: as at t:e time 9:en t:e rig:ts of t:e 7arties under t:e contract 9ere determined- not:ing 9as 8no9n to any to t:em about t:e 3an Francisco ca7italist 9:o 9ould be 9illing to bac8 t:e 7roBect 7ortrayed in 4x:ibit C& T:e extent of t:e liability for t:e breac: of a contract must be determined in t:e lig:t of t:e situation in existence at t:e time t:e contract is madeG and t:e damages ordinarily reco%erable are in all e%ents limited to suc: as mig:t be reasonable are in all e%ents limited to suc: as mig:t be reasonably foreseen in t:e lig:t of t:e facts t:en 8no9n to t:e contracting 7arties& ?:ere t:e 7urc:aser desires to 7rotect :imself- in t:e contingency of t:e failure of t:e %endor 7rom7tly to gi%e

384
7ossession- from t:e 7ossibility of incurring ot:er damages t:an suc: as t:e incident to t:e normal %alue of t:e use and occu7ation- :e s:ould cause to be inserted in t:e contract a clause 7ro%iding for sti7ulated amount to t:e 7aid u7on failure of t:e %endor to gi%e 7ossessionG and not case :as been called to our attention 9:ere- in t:e absence of suc: a sti7ulation- damages :a%e been :eld to be reco%erable by t:e 7urc:aser in excess of t:e normal %alue of use and occu7ation& 5n t:e contraryt:e most fundamental conce7tions of t:e la9 relati%e to t:e assessment of damages are inconsistent 9it: suc: idea& T:e 7rinci7les go%erning t:is branc: of t:e la9 9ere 7rofoundly considered in t:e case Fadley vs. 0axendale (, 4xc:&- 3+"$- decided in t:e 4nglis: Court of 4xc:equer in "/.+G and a fe9 9ords relati%e to t:e 7rinci7les go%erning 9ill :ere be found instructi%e& T:e decision in t:at case is considered a leading aut:ority in t:e Buris7rudence of t:e common la9& T:e 7laintiffs in t:at case 9ere 7ro7rietors of a mill in Gloucester- 9:ic: 9as 7ro7elled by steam- and 9:ic: 9as engaged in grinding and su77lying meal and flour to customers& T:e s:aft of t:e engine got bro8en- and it became necessarily t:at t:e bro8en s:aft be sent to an engineer or foundry man at Green9ic:- to ser%e as a model for casting or manufacturing anot:er t:at 9ould fit into t:e mac:inery& T:e bro8en s:aft could be deli%ered at Green9ic: on t:e second day after its recei7ts by t:e carrier it& 2t 9as deli%ered to t:e defendants- 9:o 9ere common carriers engaged in t:at business bet9een t:ese 7oints- and 9:o :ad told 7laintiffs it 9ould be deli%ered at Green9ic: on t:e second day after its deli%ery to t:em- if deli%ered at a gi%en :our& T:e carriers 9ere informed t:at t:e mill 9as sto77ed- but 9ere not informed of t:e s7ecial 7ur7ose for 9:ic: t:e bro8en s:aft 9as desired to for9arded- T:ey 9ere not told t:e mill 9ould remain idle until t:e ne9 s:aft 9ould be returned- or t:at t:e ne9 s:aft could not be manufactured at Green9ic: until t:e bro8en one arri%ed to ser%e as a model& T:ere 9as delay beyond t:e t9o days in deli%ering t:e bro8en s:aft at Green9ic:- and a corres7onding delay in starting t:e mill& 'o ex7lanation of t:e delay 9as offered by t:e carriers& T:e suit 9as broug:t to reco%er damages for t:e lost 7rofits of t:e mill- cause by t:e delay in deli%ering t:e bro8en s:aft& 2t 9as :eld t:at t:e 7laintiff could not reco%er& T:e discussion contained in t:e o7inion of t:e court in t:at case leads to t:e conclusion t:at t:e damages reco%erable in case of t:e breac: of a contract are t9o sorts- namely- ("$ t:e ordinarynatural- and in a sense necessary damageG and ( $ s7ecial damages& 5rdinary damages is found in all breac:es of contract 9:ere t:e are no s7ecial circumstances to distinguis: t:e case s7ecially from ot:er contracts& T:e consideration 7aid for an un7erformed 7romise is an instance of t:is sort of damage& 2n all suc: cases t:e damages reco%erable are suc: as naturally and generally 9ould result from suc: a breac:- >according to t:e usual course of t:ings&> 2n case in%ol%ing only ordinary damage no discussion is e%er indulged as to 9:et:er t:at damage 9as contem7lated or not& T:is is conclusi%ely 7resumed from t:e immediateness and ine%itableness of t:e damage- and t:e reco%ery of suc: damage follo9s as a necessary legal consequence of t:e breac:& 5rdinary damage is assumed as a matter of la9 to be 9it:in t:e contem7lation of t:e 7arties& 37ecial damage- on t:e ot:er :and- is suc: as follo9s less directly from t:e breac: t:an ordinary damage& 2t is only found in case 9:ere some external condition- a7art from t:e actual terms to t:e contract exists or inter%enes- as it 9ere- to gi%e a turn to affairs and to increase damage in a 9ay t:at t:e 7romisor- 9it:out actual notice of t:at external condition- could not reasonably be ex7ected to foresee& Concerning t:is sort of damage- Fadley vs.0axendale ("/.+$ MsupraN lays do9n t:e definite and Bust rule t:at before suc: damage can be reco%ered t:e 7laintiff must s:o9 t:at t:e 7articular condition 9:ic: made t:e damage a 7ossible and li8ely consequence of t:e breac: 9as 8no9n to t:e defendant at t:e time t:e contract 9as made& T:e statement t:at s7ecial damages may be reco%ered 9:ere t:e li8eli:ood of suc: damages flo9ing from t:e breac: of t:e contract is contem7lated and foreseen by t:e 7arties needs to be su77lemented by a 7ro7osition 9:ic:- t:oug: not enunciated in Fadley vs. 0axendale- is yet clearly to be dra9n from subsequent cases& T:is is t:at 9:ere t:e damage 9:ic: a 7laintiff see8s to reco%er as s7ecial damage is so far s7eculati%e as to be in contem7lation of la9 remote- notification of t:e s7ecial conditions 9:ic: ma8e t:at damage 7ossible cannot render t:e defendant liable t:erefor& To bring

385
damages 9:ic: 9ould ordinarily be treated as remote 9it:in t:e category of reco%erable s7ecial damages- it is necessary t:at t:e condition s:ould be made t:e subBect of contract in suc: sense as to become an ex7ress or im7lied term of t:e engagement& Forne vs. Aidland R& Co& ((& R&- / C& 6&- "3"$ is a case 9:ere t:e damage 9:ic: 9as soug:t to be reco%ered as s7ecial damage 9as really remoteand some of t:e Budges rig:tly 7laces t:e disallo9ance of t:e damage on t:e ground t:at to ma8e suc: damage reco%erable- it must so far :a%e been 9it:in t:e contem7lation of t:e 7arties as to form at least an im7lied term of t:e contract& 0ut ot:ers 7roceeded on t:e idea t:at t:e notice gi%en to t:e defendant 9as not sufficiently full and definite& T:e result 9as t:e same in eit:er %ie9& T:e facts in t:at case 9ere as follo9s: T:e 7laintiffs- s:oe manufacturers at I- 9ere under contract to su77ly by a certain day s:oes to a firm in (ondon for t:e Frenc: go%ernment& T:ey deli%ered t:e s:oes to a carrier in sufficient time for t:e goods to reac: (ondon at t:e time sti7ulated in t:e contract and informed t:e railroad agent t:at t:e s:oes 9ould be t:ro9n bac8 u7on t:eir :ands if t:ey did not reac: t:e destination in time& T:e defendants negligently failed to for9ard t:e good in due season& T:e sale 9as t:erefore lost- and t:e mar8et :a%ing fallen- t:e 7laintiffs :ad to sell at a loss& 2n t:e 7receding discussion 9e :a%e considered t:e 7laintiff;s rig:t c:iefly against Teodorica 4ndenciaG and 9:at :as been said suffices in our o7inion to demonstrate t:at t:e damages laid under t:e second cause of action in t:e com7laint could not be reco%ered from :er- first- because t:e damages laid under t:e second cause of action in t:e com7laint could not be reco%ered from :er- firstbecause t:e damages in question are s7ecial damages 9:ic: 9ere not 9it:in contem7lation of t:e 7arties 9:en t:e contract 9as made- and secondly- because said damages are too remote to be t:e subBect of reco%ery& T:is conclusion is also necessarily fatal to t:e rig:t of t:e 7laintiff to reco%er suc: damages from t:e defendant cor7oration- for- as already suggested- by ad%ising Teodorica not to 7erform t:e contract- said cor7oration could in no e%ent render itself more extensi%ely liable t:an t:e 7rinci7le in t:e contract& 5ur conclusion is t:at t:e Budgment of t:e trial court s:ould be affirmed- and it is so ordered9it: costs against t:e a77ellant&

S P)nA +(n &. C (#$ ' A??"a,%, T"7 H(a En$"#?#)%"% C #?. and Man(", C. T) nA G&R& 'o& " !..+&3e7tember "- ",,, <1231A02'G- J.: T:is 7etition for %ertiorari c:allenges t:e Decision of t:e Court of A77eals dated 5ctober "!",,+- and t:e Resolution dated Cune .- ",,.- in CA#G&R& CE 'o& 3/)/+& T:e a77ellate court affirmed t:e decision of t:e Regional Trial Court of Aanila- 0ranc: 3.- exce7t for t:e a9ard of attorney;s feesas follo9s: ?F4R4F5R4- foregoing considered- t:e a77eal of res7ondent#a77ellant 3o 6ing 0un for lac8 of merit is D23A2334D& T:e a77ealed decision dated A7ril !- ",, of t:e court a 0uo is modified by reducing t:e attorney;s fees a9arded to 7laintiff Te8 Fua 4nter7rising Cor7oration from 6.!!-!!!&!! to 6 !!-!!!&!!& T:e facts are as follo9s: 2n ",*3- Te8 Fua Trading Co- t:roug: its managing 7artner- 3o 6e8 Gio8- entered into lease agreements 9it: lessor Dee C& C:uan & 3ons 2nc& (DCC32$& 3ubBects of four (+$ lease contracts 9ere 7remises located at 'os& ,3!- ,3!#2nt&- , +#0 and , +#C- 3oler 3treet- 0inondo- Aanila& Te8 Fua used t:e areas to store its textiles& T:e contracts eac: :ad a one#year term& T:ey 7ro%ided t:at s:ould t:e lessee continue to occu7y t:e 7remises after t:e term- t:e lease s:all be on a mont:#to#mont: basis& ?:en t:e contracts ex7ired- t:e 7arties did not rene9 t:e contracts- but Te8 Fua continued to occu7y t:e 7remises& 2n ",)*- Te8 Fua Trading Co& 9as dissol%ed& (ater- t:e original members of Te8 Fua Trading Co& including Aanuel C& Tiong- formed Te8 Fua 4nter7rising Cor7&- :erein res7ondent cor7oration&

386
3o 6e8 Gio8- managing 7artner of Te8 Fua Trading- died in ",/*& 3o 6e8 Gio8;s grandson7etitioner 3o 6ing 0un- occu7ied t:e 9are:ouse for :is o9n textile business- Trendsetter Aar8eting& 5n August "- ",/,- lessor DCC32 sent letters addressed to Te8 Fua 4nter7rises- informing t:e latter of t:e .] increase in rent effecti%e 3e7tember "- ",/,& T:e rent increase 9as later on reduced to !] effecti%e Canuary "- ",,!- u7on ot:er lessees; demand& Again on December "- ",,!- t:e lessor im7lemented a 3!] rent increase& 4nclosed in t:ese letters 9ere ne9 lease contracts for signing& DCC32 9arned t:at failure of t:e lessee to accom7lis: t:e contracts s:all be deemed as lac8 of interest on t:e lessee;s 7art- and agreement to t:e termination of t:e lease& 6ri%ate res7ondents did not ans9er any of t:ese letters& 3till- t:e lease contracts 9ere not rescinded& 5n Aarc: "- ",,"- 7ri%ate res7ondent Tiong sent a letter to 7etitioner 9:ic: reads as follo9s: Aarc: "- ",," Ar& 3o 6ing 0un ,3! 3oler 3treet 0inondo- Aanila Dear Ar& 3oDue to my closed (si%$ business associate (si%$ for t:ree decades 9it: your late grandfat:er Ar& 3o 6e8 Gio8 and late fat:er- Ar& 3o C:ong 0on- 2 allo9ed you tem7orarily to use t:e 9are:ouse of Te8 Fua 4nter7rising Cor7& for se%eral years to generate your 7ersonal business& 3ince 2 decided to go bac8 into textile business- 2 need a 9are:ouse immediately for my stoc8s& T:erefore- 7lease be ad%ised to %acate all your stoc8s in Te8 Fua 4nter7rising Cor7& ?are:ouse& @ou are :ereby gi%en "+ days to %acate t:e 7remises unless you :a%e good reasons t:at you :a%e t:e rig:t to stay& 5t:er9ise- 2 9ill be constrained to ta8e measure to 7rotect my interest& 6lease gi%e t:is urgent matter your 7referential attention to a%oid incon%enience on your 7art& Eery truly yours(3gd$ Aanuel C& Tiong AA'14( C& T25'G 6resident 6etitioner refused to %acate& 5n Aarc: +- ",, - 7etitioner requested formal contracts of lease 9it: DCC32 in fa%or Trendsetter Aar8eting& 3o 6ing 0un claimed t:at after t:e deat: of :is grandfat:er- 3o 6e8 Gio8- :e :ad been occu7ying t:e 7remises for :is textile business and religiously 7aid rent& DCC32 acceded to 7etitioner;s request& T:e lease contracts in fa%or of Trendsetter 9ere executed& 2n t:e suit for inBunction- 7ri%ate res7ondents 7ressed for t:e nullification of t:e lease contracts bet9een DCC32 and 7etitioner& T:ey also claimed damages& After trial- t:e trial court ruled: ?F4R4F5R4- Budgment is rendered: "& Annulling t:e four Contracts of (ease (4x:ibits A- A#" to A#3- inclusi%e$ all dated Aarc: ""- ",,"- bet9een defendant 3o 6ing 0un- doing business under t:e name and style of >Trendsetter Aar8eting>- and defendant Dee C& C:uan & 3ons- 2nc& o%er t:e 7remises located at 'os& , +#0- , +#C- ,3! and ,3!- 2nt&- res7ecti%ely- 3oler 3treet- 0inondo AanilaG

387
& Aa8ing 7ermanent t:e 9rit of 7reliminary inBunction issued by t:is Court on Cune "- ",,"G 3& 5rdering defendant 3o 6ing 0un to 7ay t:e aggrie%ed 7arty- 7laintiff Te8 Fua 4nter7rising Cor7oration- t:e sum of 6.!!-!!!&!!- for attorney;s feesG +& Dismissing t:e com7laint- insofar as 7laintiff Aanuel C& Tiong is concerned- and t:e res7ecti%e counterclaims of t:e defendantG .& 5rdering defendant 3o 6ing 0un to 7ay t:e costs of t:is la9suitG T:is Budgment is 9it:out 7reBudice to t:e rig:ts of 7laintiff Te8 Fua 4nter7rising Cor7oration and defendant Dee C& C:uan & 3ons- 2nc& to negotiate for t:e rene9al of t:eir lease contracts o%er t:e 7remises located at 'os& ,3!- ,3!#2nt&- , +#0 and , +#C 3oler 3treet- 0inondo- Aanila- under suc: terms and conditions as t:ey agree u7on7ro%ided t:ey are not contrary to la9- 7ublic 7olicy- 7ublic order- and morals& 35 5RD4R4D& 6etitioner;s motion for reconsideration of t:e abo%e decision 9as denied& 5n a77eal by 3o 6ing 0un- t:e Court of A77eals u7:eld t:e trial court& 5n motion for reconsideration- t:e a77ellate court modified t:e decision by reducing t:e a9ard of attorney;s fees from fi%e :undred t:ousand (6.!!-!!!&!!$ 7esos to t9o :undred t:ousand (6 !!-!!!&!!$ 7esos& 6etitioner is no9 before t:e Court raising t:e follo9ing issues: 2& ?F4TF4R TF4 A664((AT4 C51RT 4RR4D 2' AFF2RA2'G TF4 TR2A( C51RT;3 D4C2325' F2'D2'G 35 62'G 01' G12(T@ 5F T5RT1513 2'T4RF4R4'C4 5F C5'TRACTJ 22& ?F4TF4R TF4 A664((AT4 C51RT 4RR4D 2' A?ARD2'G ATT5R'4@;3 F443 5F 6 !!-!!!&!! 2' FAE5R 5F 6R2EAT4 R4365'D4'T3& T:e foregoing issues in%ol%e- essentially- t:e correct inter7retation of t:e a77licable la9 on tortuous conduct- 7articularly unla9ful interference 9it: contract& ?e :a%e to begin- ob%iously- 9it: certain fundamental 7rinci7les on torts and damages& Damage is t:e loss- :urt- or :arm 9:ic: results from inBury- and damages are t:e recom7ense or com7ensation a9arded for t:e damage suffered& 5ne becomes liable in an action for damages for a nontres7assory in%asion of anot:er;s interest in t:e 7ri%ate use and enBoyment of asset if (a$ t:e ot:er :as 7ro7erty rig:ts and 7ri%ileges 9it: res7ect to t:e use or enBoyment interfered 9it:- (b$ t:e in%asion is substantial- (c$ t:e defendant;s conduct is a legal cause of t:e in%asion- and (d$ t:e in%asion is eit:er intentional and unreasonable or unintentional and actionable under general negligence rules& T:e elements of tort interference are: ("$ existence of a %alid contractG ( $ 8no9ledge on t:e 7art of t:e t:ird 7erson of t:e existence of contractG and (3$ interference of t:e t:ird 7erson is 9it:out legal Bustification or excuse& A duty 9:ic: t:e la9 of torts is concerned 9it: is res7ect for t:e 7ro7erty of ot:ers- and a cause of action e. deli%to may be 7redicated u7on an unla9ful interference by one 7erson of t:e enBoyment by t:e ot:er of :is 7ri%ate 7ro7erty& T:is may 7ertain to a situation 9:ere a t:ird 7erson induces a 7arty to renege on or %iolate :is underta8ing under a contract& 2n t:e case before us- 7etitioner;s Trendsetter Aar8eting as8ed DCC32 to execute lease contracts in its fa%or- and as a result 7etitioner de7ri%ed res7ondent cor7oration of t:e latter;s 7ro7erty rig:t& Clearly- and as correctly %ie9ed by t:e a77ellate court- t:e t:ree elements of tort interference abo%e#mentioned are 7resent in t:e instant case&

388
Aut:orities debate on 9:et:er interference may be Bustified 9:ere t:e defendant acts for t:e sole 7ur7ose of furt:ering :is o9n financial or economic interest& 5ne %ie9 is t:at- as a general ruleBustification for interfering 9it: t:e business relations of anot:er exists 9:ere t:e actor;s moti%e is to benefit :imself& 3uc: Bustification does not exist 9:ere :is sole moti%e is to cause :arm to t:e ot:er& Added to t:is- some aut:orities belie%e t:at it is not necessary t:at t:e interferer;s interest out9eig: t:at of t:e 7arty 9:ose rig:ts are in%aded- and t:at an indi%idual acts under an economic interest t:at is substantial- not merely de minimis- suc: t:at 9rongful and malicious moti%es are negati%ed- for :e acts in self#7rotection& Aoreo%er Bustification for 7rotecting one;s financial 7osition s:ould not be made to de7end on a com7arison of :is economic interest in t:e subBect matter 9it: t:at of ot:ers& 2t is sufficient if t:e im7etus of :is conduct lies in a 7ro7er business interest rat:er t:an in 9rongful moti%es& As early as 1il%hrist vs& !uddy- 9e :eld t:at 9:ere t:ere 9as no malice in t:e interference of a contract- and t:e im7ulse be:ind one;s conduct lies in a 7ro7er business interest rat:er t:an in 9rongful moti%es- a 7arty cannot be a malicious interferer& ?:ere t:e alleged interferer is financially interested- and suc: interest moti%ates :is conduct- it cannot be said t:at :e is an officious or malicious intermeddler& 2n t:e instant case- it is clear t:at 7etitioner 3o 6ing 0un 7re%ailed u7on DCC32 to lease t:e 9are:ouse to :is enter7rise at t:e ex7ense of res7ondent cor7oration& T:oug: 7etitioner too8 interest in t:e 7ro7erty of res7ondent cor7oration and benefited from it- not:ing on record im7utes deliberate 9rongful moti%es or malice on :im& 3ec& "3"+ of t:e Ci%il Code categorically 7ro%ides also t:at- >Any t:ird 7erson 9:o induces anot:er to %iolate :is contract s:all be liable for damages to t:e ot:er contracting 7arty&> 6etitioner argues t:at damage is an essential element of tort interference- and since t:e trial court and t:e a77ellate court ruled t:at 7ri%ate res7ondents 9ere not entitled to actual- moral or exem7lary damages- it follo9s t:at :e oug:t to be absol%ed of any liability- including attorney;s fees& 2t is true t:at t:e lo9er courts did not a9ard damages- but t:is 9as only because t:e extent of damages 9as not quantifiable& ?e :ad a similar situation in 1il%hrist- 9:ere it 9as difficult or im7ossible to determine t:e extent of damage and t:ere 9as not:ing on record to ser%e as basis t:ereof& 2n t:at case 9e refrained from a9arding damages& ?e belie%e t:e same conclusion a77lies in t:is case& ?:ile 9e do not encourage tort interferers see8ing t:eir economic interest to intrude into existing contracts at t:e ex7ense of ot:ers- :o9e%er- 9e find t:at t:e conduct :erein com7lained of did not transcend t:e limits forbidding an obligatory a9ard for damages in t:e absence of any malice& T:e business desire is t:ere to ma8e some gain to t:e detriment of t:e contracting 7arties& (ac8 of malice:o9e%er- 7recludes damages& 0ut it does not relie%e 7etitioner of t:e legal liability for entering into contracts and causing breac: of existing ones& T:e res7ondent a77ellate court correctly confirmed t:e 7ermanent inBunction and nullification of t:e lease contracts bet9een DCC32 and Trendsetter Aar8eting- 9it:out a9arding damages& T:e inBunction sa%ed t:e res7ondents from furt:er damage or inBury caused by 7etitioner;s interference& (astly- t:e reco%ery of attorney;s fees in t:e conce7t of actual or com7ensatory damages- is allo9ed under t:e circumstances 7ro%ided for in Article !/ of t:e Ci%il Code& 5ne suc: occasion is 9:en t:e defendant;s act or omission :as com7elled t:e 7laintiff to litigate 9it: t:ird 7ersons or to incur ex7enses to 7rotect :is interest& 0ut 9e :a%e consistently :eld t:at t:e a9ard of considerable damages s:ould :a%e clear factual and legal bases& 2n connection 9it: attorney;s fees- t:e a9ard s:ould be commensurate to t:e benefits t:at 9ould :a%e been deri%ed from a fa%orable Budgment& 3ettled is t:e rule t:at fairness of t:e a9ard of damages by t:e trial court calls for a77ellate re%ie9 suc: t:at t:e a9ard if far too excessi%e can be reduced& T:is ruling a77lies 9it: equal force on t:e a9ard of attorney;s fees& 2n a long line of cases 9e said- >2t is not sound 7olicy to 7lace in 7enalty on t:e rig:t to litigate& To com7el t:e defeated 7arty to 7ay t:e fees of counsel for :is successful o77onent 9ould t:ro9 9ide o7en t:e door of tem7tation to t:e o77osing 7arty and :is counsel to s9ell t:e fees to undue 7ro7ortions&>

389
Considering t:at t:e res7ondent cor7oration;s lease contract- at t:e time 9:en t:e cause of action accrued- ran only on a mont:#to#mont: basis 9:ence before it 9as on a yearly basis- 9e find e%en t:e reduced amount of attorney;s fees ordered by t:e Court of A77eals still exorbitant in t:e lig:t of 7re%ailing Buris7rudence& Consequently- t:e amount of t9o :undred t:ousand (6 !!-!!!&!!$ a9arded by res7ondent a77ellate court s:ould be reduced to one :undred t:ousand (6"!!-!!!&!!$ 7esos as t:e reasonable a9ard or attorney;s fees in fa%or of 7ri%ate res7ondent cor7oration& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e 7etition is :ereby D4'24D& T:e assailed Decision and Resolution of t:e Court of A77eals in CA#G&R& CE 'o& 3/)/+ are :ereby AFF2RA4D- 9it: A5D2F2CAT25' t:at t:e a9ard of attorney;s fees is reduced from t9o :undred t:ousand (6 !!-!!!&!!$ to one :undred t:ousand (6"!!-!!!&!!$ 7esos& 'o 7ronouncement as to costs&

S.",, C -?an8 ' $." P.),)??)n"%, L$d &. In%(,a# P"$# ,"(- R"')n)nA C ., L$d., and C (#$ ' A??"a,% G&R& 'o& (#",++"&Cune 3!- ",*+ 6AR4D43- J.: 6etitioner- 3:ell Co& of t:e 6:il&- (td& (3:ell for s:ort$- is a cor7oration engaged in t:e sale of 7etroleum 7roducts- including lubricating oil& T:e 7ac8ages and containers of its goods bear its trademar8- labeled or stenciled t:ereon& Defendant 2nsular 6etroleum Refining Co&- (td& (2nsular for s:ort$- is a registered limited 7artners:i7- 9:ose 7rinci7al business is collecting used lubricating oil 9:ic:- t:ru a scientific 7rocess- is refined and mar8eted to t:e 7ublic at a 7rice muc: lo9er t:an t:at of ne9 lubricating oil& From t:e used oil- res7ondent 7roduces t9o ty7es of lubricating oil one- a straig:t mineral oil classified as second grade or lo9#grade oilG and anot:er- a first grade or :ig:#grade oil& T:e essential difference bet9een t:e t9o ty7es lies in t:e fact t:at t:e :ig:#grade oil contains an additi%e element 9:ic: is not found in t:e ot:er ty7e& 2n mar8eting t:ese t9o ty7es of oil- res7ondent- as a 7ractice- utili=es for t:e :ig: grade oil containers- 7ainted blac8 on t:e sides and yello9 on to7 and on t:e bottom 9it: its tradename stenciled t:ereon- 9it: a s7ecial sealing de%ice at its o7ening 9:ic: cannot be remo%ed unless t:e oil is used& 2n selling its lo9#grade oil- res7ondent use miscellaneous containers- 9:ic: its general manager Donald Aead describes- >generally- 9e used miscellaneous containers 9:ic: 9e :a%e on :and- se%eral drums- may be all drums- 9it: mar8s- on t:em- 9e :a%e se%eral used drums may be belonging to t:e 1&3& Army or ot:er drums may be belonging to t:e Caltex- or t:e 3tan%ac 9e :a%e some t:at belonged to t:e 1nion- miscellaneous drums of ot:er com7anies- but t:ey are used drums& &&& And some of t:ose miscellaneous containers are t:e 3:ell containers& &&& but before filling the empty drums 'e obliterate the mar/ings of the drums- 9:et:er it is army ty7e drums or 9:et:er it is a 1nion brand or 9:et:er it is a Eal%oline or Caltex or 3:ell or 3tandard Eacuum drum>& 2n one transaction- :o9e%er- 9:ic: 9as consummated 9it: Conrado 1ic:angco a dealer of 7etitioner;s gasoline and lubricating oil- t:e lo9#grade oil t:at 9as sold to said o7erator 9as contained in a drum 9it: t:e 7etitioner;s mar8 or brand >3:ell> still stenciled 9it:out :a%ing been erased& T:e circumstances leading to t:e consummation of t:is isolated transaction:a%e been summed- u7 by t:e Court of A77eals as follo9s: T:is single transaction bet9een 7laintiff and defendant 9as effected- according to Conrado 1ic:angco an o7erator of a 3:ell ser%ice station at t:e corner of 3an Andres and Tuason 6ri%ado 3treets- Aanila- and 9:o :as been losing during t:e first eig:t and ten mont:s of o7eration of :is station- alt:oug: :e :ad money to bac8 u7 :is losses- 9:en a certain F& 6ecson (o=ano- in agent of t:e defendant- re7aired at :is station and > tried to %onvin%e me that )nsoil is a good oil>& As a matter of fact- :e tried to s:o9 me a c:emical analysis of 2nsoil 9:ic: :e claimed 9as %ery close to t:e analysis of 3:ell oilG and :e also told me t:at :e could sell t:is 8ind of oil (2nsoil$ to me at a muc: c:ea7er 7rice so t:at 2 could ma8e a bigger margin of 7rofits <& ?:at did you re7lyJ A& 2 told Ar& F& 6ecson (o=ano t:at if :is intention 9as to sell me 2nsoil for me to 7ass as any of t:e 3:ell oils- 2 9as not agreeable because 2 did not 9ant to c:eat my customers& &&& & <& @ou ordered a 3:ell drum from Ar& (o=ano on your o9n %olition or on orders of t:e 3:ell managementJ A& ?ell- t:is is t:e story as to :o9 2 :a77ened to order

390
t:at one drum of 2nsoil oil t:at 9as inside t:at 3:ell drum& ?:en Ar& (o=ano 9as insistent t:at 2 buy 2nsoil 7ac8age in a 3:ell drum 2 called u7 Ar& Cres7o and 2 ris8ed :im in effect 9:y 9e :a%e to 8ill oursel%es 9:en t:ere is a man :ere 9:o came to my station and told me t:at :e :as oil t:at a77roximates t:e analysis of 3:ell oil 9:ic: :e could sell to me at a %ery muc: c:ea7er 7rice- and Ar& Cres7o told me >t:at is not true>- and t:en :e furt:er added- > %an you order one drum of that oil for me & C:arge it against me&> 2 told :im >@es 2 9ill&> 3o 2 ordered t:at one drum of 2nsoil from Ar& F& 6ecson (o=ano& <& Do you 8no9 9:et:er t:at one drum of oil 'as ever sold by you or by the #hell %ompany to the publi% J A& )t 'as never re7sold to the publi%. ) re7sold it to the #hell !ompany of the &hilippines & <& @ou mean you boug:t in your o9n name and you sold it to t:e 3:ell com7any at a 7rofitJ A& ) sold it to the #hell %ompany be%ause it 'as an order of Mr. !respo & 2 did not 7rofit anyt:ing from it- 2 Bust c:arged t:em t:e in%oice 7rice& &&& & <& Ay question to you is: -e never made any misrepresentation to you that he 'as selling you any oil other than )nsoil Motor oil, straight mineral # E No. =C J A& T:at is 9:at :e told me& &&& & <& And it is also a fact t:at you stated in t:e Fiscal;s 5ffice and in t:e Court of First 2nstance during t:e trial t:ere t:at t:ere 9as no seal 9:atsoe%er a77earing in t:e o7ening of t:e drumG is t:at correctJ A& T:ere 9as no seal by t:e 2nsoil or by t:e 3:ell Com7any& T:e e%idence of t:e abo%e transaction 9as an 2n%oice issued by t:e defendant;s agentdescribing t:e goods sold as >)nsoil Motor Oil (straig:t mineral$ 3A4 3! O " drum O 6)*&!! O (seller;s drum$&> T:e incident bet9een 7etitioner;s o7erator and res7ondent;s agent- broug:t about t:e 7resentation 9it: t:e Aanila CF2- a case for damages on t:e allegation of unfair com7etition and a Criminal Case 'o& + ! ! under t:e Re%ised 6enal Code (Art& "/,$ against Donald Aead- Aanager6edro Iayanan and F& Tecson (o=ano& 2n t:e criminal case- t:e accused t:erein 9ere acquitted- t:e Court :a%ing found t:at t:e element of deceit 9as absent& 2n t:e ci%il case- 7etitioner :erein in%o8ed t9o causes of action: ("$ t:at res7ondent in selling its lo9#grade oil in 3:ell containers- 9it:out erasing t:e mar8s or brands labeled or stencilled t:ereonintended to mislead t:e buying 7ublic to t:e 7reBudice of 7etitioner and t:e general 7ublicG and ( $ defendant :ad attem7ted to 7ersuade 3:ell dealers to 7urc:ase its lo9#grade oil and to 7ass t:e same to t:e 7ublic as 3:ell oil- by reason of 9:ic: 7etitioner bad suffered damages in t:e form of decrease in sales- estimated at least 6"!-!!!&!!& A 7rayer for double t:e actual damages 9as made- 7ursuant to section 3 of Re7ublic Act "**- 6.-!!!&!! for attorneys fees- 6"-!!!&!! for legal ex7enses and 6 .-!!!&!! for exem7lary damages& A 9rit of 7reliminary inBunction 9as requested to enBoin res7ondent :erein to cease and desist from using for t:e sale of any of its 7roducts and more 7articularly for t:e sale of its lo9#grade lubricating oil& 3:ell containers 9it: 3:ell mar8ings still on t:em& T:e motion to dissol%e t:e inBunction granted- 9as denied by t:e court a 0uo& Res7ondent 2nsular ans9ering t:e com7laint- after t:e usual admissions and denials- alleged t:at it >:as ne%er attem7ted to 7ass off its 7roducts as t:at of anot:er nor to 7ersuade anyone to do t:e same>- and t:at t:e action is barred by t:e decision in t:e criminal case 'o& + ! !& A counterclaim for 6/"-!!!&!! for actual- moral and exem7lary damages- 6+-!!!&!! for attorney;s fees and 6.-!!!&!! for legal ex7enses 9it: inter7osed by res7ondent& After trial- t:e CF2 found for 3:ell and ordered res7ondent to 7ay 6 !-!!!&!! for actual damages- 6.-!!!&!! for attorney;s fees- 6"-!!!&!! for legal ex7enses and 6"!-!!!&!! by 9ay of exem7lary damages and t:e costs& 2n re%ersing t:e abo%e Budgment- t:e Court of A77eals- disquisitioned: 5n t:e question of 9:et:er or not- as a matter of fact- t:e defendant is guilty of unfair com7etition in t:e conduct of its trade or business in t:e mar8eting of its lo9#grade oil7articularly in t:e single transa%tion bet'een defendant's agent and plaintiff's dealer- as :ereinabo%e narrated- 9e deem it 9ise to 7reface t:e discussion by citing certain 7assages in t:e decision of t:e 3u7reme Court in t:e case of lhambra !igar, et%. v. Mo*i%a- ) 6:il& Re7&

391
**- t:us: >'o inflexible rule can be laid do9n as to 9:at 9ill constitute unfair com7etition& Ea%h %ase is, in a measure, a la' unto itself. 3nfair %ompetition is dumps a 0uestion of fa%t & T:e question to be determined in e%ery case is 9:et:er or not- as a matter of fact- t:e name or mar8 used by t:e defendant :as 7re%iously come to indicate and designate 7laintiffs goods- or- to state it in anot:er 9ay- 9:et:er defendant- as a matter of fa%t - isby :is conduct- 7assing off defendant;s goods as 7laintiffs goods or :is business as 7laintiff;s business& "he universal test 0uestion is 'hether the publi% is li/ely to be de%eived& &&& & Nothing less than %ondu%t tending to pass off one man's goods or business as that of another 'ill %onstitute unfair %ompetition. %tual or probable de%eption and %onfusion on the part of the %ustomers by reason of defendant's pra%ti%es must al'ays appear&> 4ncom7assing t:e facts of t:e case to t:e foregoing ruling in t:e Al:ambra case- it clearly a77ears t:at defendant;s 7ractices in mar8eting its lo9#grade oil did not %ause a%tual or probable de%eption and %onfusion on the part of the general publi% - because- as s:o9n from t:e establis:ed facts- 9it: t:e exce7tion of t:at single transaction regarding t:e one drum of oil sold by t:e defendant;s agent to t:e 7laintiff;s dealer- as aforesaid- before mar8eting to t:e 7ublic its lo9#grade oil in containers t:e brands or mar8s of t:e different com7anies stenciled on the %ontainers are totally obliterated and erased. "he defendant did not pass off or attempt to pass off upon the publi% its goods as the goods of another. "here is neither e.press nor implied representation to that effe%t & T:e 7ractices do not s:o9 a conduct to t:e end and 7robable effect to 9:ic: is to decei%e t:e 7ublic- or 7ass off its goods as t:ose of anot:er& 6roof of t:is may be clearly deduced from t:e fact t:at- 9it: t:e exce7tion of t:e sale of one drum of lo9#grade oil by defendant;s agent to 1ic:angco no ot:er com7anies 9:ose drums or containers :a%e been used by t:e defendant in its business :a%e filed any com7laint to 7rotect against t:e 7ractices of t:e defendant& &&& & 'o9 9e s:all d9ell on t:e transaction bet9een defendant;s agent and 7laintiff;s dealer1ic:angco to determine 9:et:er or not- as a matter of fact- t:e defendant is guilty of unfair com7etition& "here is eviden%e sho'ing that the use of the defendant of the drum or %ontainer 'ith the #hell brand sten%iled thereon 'as 'ith the /no'ledge and %onsent of 3i%hang%o. "here is also the %ategori%al testimony of 3i%hang%o that defendant's agent did not ma/e any representation that said agent 'as selling any oil other than )nsoil motor oil. "he sales invoi%e states that )nsoil Oil 'as sold & True- t:at a drum 9it: t:e brand 3:ell remaining unerased 9as used by t:e defendant& 0ut- 1ic:angco 9as a77rised before:and t:at a 3:ell drum 9ould be used- and in fact t:e instruction of Cres7o to 1ic:angco could mean O to buy )nsoil oil %ontained in a #hell drum. "he buyer %ould not have been de%eived or %onfused that he 'as not buying )nsoil Oil. "here is reason to believe that the transa%tion 'as %onsummated in pursuan%e of a plan of Mr. !respo to obtain eviden%e for the filing of a %ase. "he oil 'as never sold to the publi% be%ause the plaintiff never intended or %ontemplated doing so& T:e ot:er issue discussed by t:e Court of A77eals- t:at is- 9:et:er t:e acquittal of t:e officers and em7loyees of t:e res7ondent in t:e criminal case (supra$- constituted a bar to t:e filing of t:e ci%il case or amounted to res Budicata- is- to our mind- not necessary to resol%e in t:e instant a77eal& Fo9e%er- ?e agree 9it: t:e a77ellate court t:at t:ere is no res *udi%ata& 2n t:e 7etition- 3:ell claims t:ree (3$ errors allegedly committed by t:e Court of A77eals- all of 9:ic: 7ose t:e singular issue of 9:et:er res7ondent in t:e isolated transaction- stated else9:ere in t:is o7inion- committed an act of unfair com7etition and s:ould be :eld liable& T:e com7laint 9as 7redicated on section , of Re7& Act 'o& "**- defining unfair com7etitionto 9it: Any 7erson 9:o s:all em7loy dece7tion or any ot:er means contrary to good fait: by 9:ic: :e s:all 7ass off t:e goods manufactured by :im or in 9:ic: :e deals- &&& for t:ose of t:e one

392
:a%ing establis:ed suc: good9ill- or 9:o s:all commit any act calculated to 7roduce said result- s:all be guilty of unfair com7etition- and s:all be subBect to an action t:erefor& From t:e abo%e definition and aut:orities inter7retati%e of t:e same- it is seen t:at to :old a defendant guilty of unfair com7etition- no less t:an satisfactory and con%incing e%idence is essentials:o9ing t:at t:e defendant :as 7assed of or attem7ted to 7ass off :is o9n goods as t:ose of anot:er and t:at t:e customer 9as decei%ed 9it: res7ect to t:e origin of t:e goods& 2n ot:er 9ords- t:e in:erent element of unfair com7etition is fraud or deceit& (2 'im;s T:e (a9 of 1nfair Com7etition and Trademar8s- +t: ed& 77& . #.3- and cases cited t:ereinG 1& 3& %& Iybur=- / 6:il& +).- citing 6aul on Trademar8s- sec& !,G 2 Callman;s- T:e (a9 of 1nfair Com7etition and Trademar8s- 3 ,G Roger;s 'e9 Directions in t:e (a9 of 1nfair Com7etition- (",+!$ '& @& (& Re%& 3")- 3 !G Al:ambra Cigar- etc& %& AoBica- , 6:il& **- refer to 7assage quoted in t:e decision of C&A& supra$& As no inflexible rule can be laid do9n as to 9:at 9ill constitute unfair com7etitionG as eac: case is- in a measure- a la9 unto itself and as unfair com7etition is al9ays a question of fact- t:e determination of 9:et:er unfair com7etition 9as committed in t:e case at bar- must :a%e to de7end u7on t:e fact as found by t:e Court of A77eals- to t:e definiti%eness of 9:ic: ?e are bound (2 Aoran;s Rules of Court- ",.) 4d& 7& *,, & cases cited t:erein$& >&&& T:e 3u7reme Court can not examine t:e question of 9:et:er or not t:e Court of A77eals 9as rig:t 9:en t:at tribunal concluded from t:e uncontro%erted e%idence t:at t:ere :ad been no deceit&> (De (una- et al& %& (inatoc- )+ 6:il& ".$& And t:e facts of t:e case at bar- are- as found and ex7osed by t:e Court of A77eals in t:e 7ortion of its decision abo%e#quoted& 'ot Bust because a manufacturer used a container still bearing a com7etitor;s mar8ing in t:e sale of one;s 7roducts- irres7ecti%e of to 9:om and :o9 t:e sale is made- can t:ere be a conclusion t:at t:e buying 7ublic :as been misled or 9ill be misled- and- t:erefore- unfair com7etition is born& T:e single transaction at bar 9ill not render defendant;s act an unfair com7etition- muc: in t:e same 9ay t:at t:e a77earance of one s9allo9 does not ma8e a season- summer& 2t 9as found by t:e Court of A77eals t:at in all transactions of t:e lo9#grade 2nsoil- exce7t t:e 7resent one- all t:e mar8s and brands on t:e containers used 9ere erased or obliterated& T:e drum in question did not reac: t:e buying 7ublic& 2t 9as merely a s:ell dealer or an o7erator of a 3:ell 3tation 9:o 7urc:ased t:e drum not to be resold to t:e 7ublic- but to be sold to t:e 7etitioner com7any- 9it: a %ie9 of obtaining e%idence against someone 9:o mig:t :a%e been committing unfair business 7ractices- for t:e dealer :ad found t:at :is income 9as d9indling in :is gasoline station& 1ic:angco t:e 3:ell dealer- testified t:at (o=ano (res7ondent;s agent$ did not all ma8e any re7resentation t:at :e ((o=ano$ 9as selling any oil ot:er t:an 2nsoil motor oil- a fact 9:ic: finds corroboration in t:e recei7t issued for t:e sale of t:e drum& 1ic:angco 9as a77rised before:and t:at (o=ano 9ould sell 2nsoil oil in a 3:ell drum& T:ere 9as no e%idence t:at defendant or its agent attem7ted to 7ersuade 1ic:angco or any 3:ell dealer- for t:at matter- to 7urc:ase its lo9#grade oil and to 7ass t:e same to t:e 7ublic as 3:ell oil& 2t 9as s:o9n t:at 3:ell and ot:er oil com7anies- deli%er oil to oil dealers or gasoline stations in drums- t:ese dealers transfer t:e contents of t:e drums to retailing dis7ensers 8no9n as >tall boys>from 9:ic: t:e oil is retailed to t:e 7ublic by liters& T:is Court is not una9are of t:e decisions cited by 7etitioner to bolster its contention& ?e find t:ose cases- :o9e%er- not a77licable to t:e one at bar& T:ose cases 9ere 7redicated on facts and circumstances different from t:ose of t:e 7resent& 2n one case- t:e trade name of 7laintiff 9as stam7ed on t:e goods of defendant and t:ey 9ere being 7assed as t:ose of t:e 7laintiff& T:is circumstance does not obtain :ere& From t:ese cases- one feature common to all comes out in bold relief and t:at is- t:e com7eting 7roducts in%ol%ing t:e offending bottles- 9ra77ers- 7ac8ages or mar8s reac:ed- t:e :ands of t:e ultimate consumer- so bottled- 9ra77ed- 7ac8age or mar8ed& 2n ot:er 9ordsit is t:e form in 9:ic: t:e 9ares or 7roducts come to t:e ultimate consumer t:at 9as significantG for- as :as been 9ell said- t:e la9 of unfair com7etition does not 7rotect 7urc:asers against false:ood 9:ic: t:e tradesman may tellG t:e false:ood must be told by t:e article itself in order to ma8e t:e la9 of unfair com7etition a77licable& 6etitioner contends t:at t:ere :ad been a mar8ed decrease in t:e %olume of sales of lo9#

393
grade oil of t:e com7any- for 9:ic: reason it argues t:at t:e sale of res7ondent;s lo9#grade oil in 3:ell containers 9as t:e cause& ?e are reluctant to s:are t:e logic of t:e argument& ?e are more inclined to belie%e t:at se%eral factors contributed to t:e decrease of suc: sales& 0ut let us assume- for 7ur7oses of argument- t:at t:e 7resence of res7ondent;s lo9#grade oil in t:e mar8et contributed to suc: decrease& Aay suc: e%entuality ma8e res7ondent liable for unfair com7etitionJ T:ere is no 7ro:ibition for res7ondent to sell its goods- e%en in 7laces 9:ere t:e goods of 7etitioner :ad long been sold or extensi%ely ad%ertised& Res7ondent s:ould not be blamed if some 7etitioner;s dealers by 2nsoil oil- as long as res7ondent does not decei%e said dealers& 2f 7etitioner;s dealers 7ass off 2nsoil oil as 3:ell oil- t:at is t:eir res7onsibility& 2f t:ere 9as any suc: effort to decei%e t:e 7ublic- t:e dealers to 9:om t:e defendant (res7ondent$ sold its 7roducts and not t:e latter- 9ere& legally res7onsible for suc: dece7tion& T:e 7assing of said oil- t:erefore- as 7roduct of 3:ell 9as not 7erformed by t:e res7ondent or its agent- but 7etitioner;s dealers- 9:ic: act res7ondent :ad no control 9:ate%er& And t:is could easily be done- for- as res7ondents; counsel 7ut it O T:e 7oint 9e 9ould li8e to dri%e :ome is t:at if a 3F4(( dealer 9ants to fool t:e 7ublic by 7assing off 2'352( as 3F4(( oil :e could do t:is by t:e sim7le ex7edient of 7lacing t:e 2'352( oil or any ot:er oil for t:at matter in t:e >tall boys> and dis7ense it to t:e 7ublic as 3F4(( oil& 4hatever %ontainer )N#O)2 uses 'ould be of no moment& &&& absence of a clear s:o9ing- t:at 2'352( and t:e 3F4(( dealer conni%ed or cons7ired- 9e res7ectfully maintain t:at t:e res7onsibility of 2'352( ceases from t:e moment its oil- if e%er it :as e%er been doneis transferred by a 3F4(( dealer to a 3F4(( >tall boy>& And t:e existence of conni%ance or cons7iracy- bet9een dealer 1ic:angco and Agent (o=ano :as not in t:e least been insinuated& 6etitioner submits t:e ado7tion in t:e case at bar of t:e >ser%ice station is 7ac8age t:eory> O t:at t:e ser%ice stations of oil com7anies are 7ac8ages in t:emsel%es- suc: t:at all 7roducts emanating t:erefrom are ex7ected to be t:ose of t:e com7any 9:ose mar8s t:e station bear- t:at 9:en a motorist dri%es to a 3:ell station- :e does so 9it: t:e intention of buying 3:ell 7roducts and t:at :e is naturally guided by the mar/ing of the station itself.Fence- it constitutes a deceit on t:e buying 7ublicto sell to said motorist any ot:er 8ind of 7roducts 9it:out a77rising t:em before:and t:at t:ey are not 3:ell 7roducts& (T:ird assignment of error$& 2n %ie9- :o9e%er- of t:e findings and conclusions reac:edt:ere seem to be no need of discussing t:e merits and demerits of t:e t:eory- or 9:et:er t:e same is a77licable or not- to t:e 7resent case& C5'F5RAA0(@ ?2TF A(( TF4 F5R4G52'G- ?e find t:at t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals a77ealed from- is in accordance 9it: t:e fact- t:e la9 and Buris7rudence on t:e matter& T:e same is affirmed- 9it: costs against 7etitioner- in bot: instances&

S? (%"% C#)%$)n and +#)A)da C(%$ d) and S? (%"% L)$ and Ma#)a C#)%$)na San$ % &. C (#$ ' A??"a,%, H")#% ' PaB)')B C. Ma!a%a and R"A) na, T#)a, C (#$ a' Pa%)A, M"$# Man),a, +#anB. 494 G&R& 'o& ""*"!!& February ,- ",,* R4GA(AD5- J&: T:is 7etition for re%ie9 on %ertiorari assails t:e decision of res7ondent Court of A77eals in CA# G&R& CE 'o& ,"".- 7romulgated on 'o%ember "!- ",,3- 9:ic: affirmed 9it: modification t:e decision of t:e trial court- as 9ell as its resolution dated Culy /- ",,+ denying 7etitioner;s motion for reconsideration& 5n August *- ",/ - Ci%il Case 'o& +)+** for t:e grant of an easement of rig:t of 9ay 9as filed by 6acifico Aabasa against Cristino Custodio- 0rigida R& Custodio- Rosalina R& Aorato- (ito 3antos and Aaria Cristina C& 3antos before t:e Regional Trial Court of 6asig and assigned to 0ranc: t:ereof&

394
T:e generati%e facts of t:e case- as synt:esi=ed by t:e trial court and ado7ted by t:e Court of A77eals- are as follo9s: 6erusing t:e record- t:is Court finds t:at t:e original 7laintiff 6acifico Aabasa died during t:e 7endency of t:is case and 9as substituted by 5felia Aabasa- :is sur%i%ing s7ouse Mand c:ildrenN& T:e 7laintiff o9ns a 7arcel of land 9it: a t9o#door a7artment erected t:ereon situated at 2nterior 6& 0urgos 3t&- 6alingon- Ti7as- Tagig- Aetro Aanila& T:e 7laintiff 9as able to acquire said 7ro7erty t:roug: a contract of sale 9it: s7ouses Aamerto Rayos and Teodora <uintero as %endors last 3e7tember ",/"& 3aid 7ro7erty may be described to be surrounded by ot:er immo%ables 7ertaining to defendants :erein& Ta8ing 6& 0urgos 3treet as t:e 7oint of referenceon t:e left side- going to 7laintiff;s 7ro7erty- t:e ro9 of :ouses 9ill be as follo9s: T:at of defendants Cristino and 0rigido Custodio- t:en t:at of (ito and Aaria Cristina 3antos and t:en t:at of 5felia Aabasa& 5n t:e rig:t side (is$ t:at of defendant Rosalina Aorato and t:en a 3e7tic Tan8 (4x:ibit >D>$& As an access to 6& 0urgos 3treet from 7laintiff;s 7ro7erty- t:ere are t9o 7ossible 7assage9ays& T:e first 7assage9ay is a77roximately one meter 9ide and is about ! meters distan(t$ from Aabasa;s residence to 6& 0urgos 3treet& 3uc: 7at: is 7assing in bet9een t:e 7re%iously mentioned ro9 of :ouses& T:e second 7assage9ay is about 3 meters in 9idt: and lengt: from 7laintiff Aabasa;s residence to 6& 0urgos 3treetG it is about * meters& 2n 7assing t:ru said 7assage9ay- a less t:an a meter 9ide 7at: t:roug: t:e se7tic tan8 and 9it: .#* meters in lengt:- :as to be tra%ersed& 4hen said property 'as pur%hased by Mabasa, there 'ere tenants o%%upying the remises and 'ho 'ere a%/no'ledged by plaintiff Mabasa as tenants & -o'ever, sometime in $ebruary, <>:;, one of said tenants va%ated the apartment and 'hen plaintiff Mabasa 'ent to see the premises, he sa' that there had been built an adobe fen%e in the first passage'ay ma/ing it narro'er in 'idth& 3aid adobe fence 9as first constructed by defendants 3antoses along t:eir 7ro7erty 9:ic: is also along t:e first 7assage9ay& Defendant Aorato constructed :er adobe fence and e%en extended said fence in suc: a 9ay t:at t:e entire 7assage9ay 9as enclosed& (4x:ibit >"#3antoses and Custodios- 4x:& >D> for 7laintiff- 4x:s& >"#C>- >"#D> and >"#4>$ nd it 'as then that the remaining tenants of said apartment va%ated the area & Defendant Aa& Cristina 3antos testified t:at s:e constructed said fence because t:ere 9as an incident 9:en :er daug:ter 9as dragged by a bicycle 7edalled by a son of one of t:e tenants in said a7artment along t:e first 7assage9ay& 3:e also mentioned some ot:er incon%eniences of :a%ing (at$ t:e front of :er :ouse a 7at:9ay suc: as 9:en some of t:e tenants 9ere drun8 and 9ould bang t:eir doors and 9indo9s& 3ome of t:eir foot9ear 9ere e%en lost& & & & (4m7:asis in original textG corrections in 7arent:eses su77lied$ 5n February )- ",,!- a decision 9as rendered by t:e trial court- 9it: t:is dis7ositi%e 7art: Accordingly- Budgment is :ereby rendered as follo9s: "$ 5rdering defendants Custodios and 3antoses to gi%e 7laintiff 7ermanent access ingress and egress- to t:e 7ublic streetG $ 5rdering t:e 7laintiff to 7ay defendants Custodios and 3antoses t:e sum of 4ig:t T:ousand 6esos (6/-!!!$ as indemnity for t:e 7ermanent use of t:e 7assage9ay& T:e 7arties to s:oulder t:eir res7ecti%e litigation ex7enses& 'ot satisfied t:ere9it:- t:erein 7laintiff re7resented by :is :eirs- :erein 7ri%ate res7ondents9ent to t:e Court of A77eals raising t:e sole issue of 9:et:er or not t:e lo9er court erred in not a9arding damages in t:eir fa%or& 5n 'o%ember "!- ",,3- as earlier stated- t:e Court of A77eals rendered its decision affirming t:e Budgment of t:e trial court 9it: modification- t:e decretal 7ortion of 9:ic: dis7oses as follo9s: ?F4R4F5R4- t:e a77ealed decision of t:e lo9er court is :ereby AFF2RA4D ?2TF A5D2F2CAT25' only insofar as t:e :erein grant of damages to 7laintiffs#a77ellants& T:e Court

395
:ereby orders defendants#a77ellees to 7ay 7laintiffs#a77ellants t:e sum of 3ixty Fi%e T:ousand (6*.-!!!$ 6esos as Actual Damages- T:irty T:ousand (63!-!!!$ 6esos as Aoral Damages- and Ten T:ousand (6"!-!!!$ 6esos as 4xem7lary Damages& T:e rest of t:e a77ealed decision is affirmed to all res7ects& 5n Culy /- ",,+- t:e Court of A77eals denied 7etitioner;s motion for reconsideration& 6etitioners t:en too8 t:e 7resent recourse to us- raising t9o issues- namely- 9:et:er or not t:e grant of rig:t of 9ay to :erein 7ri%ate res7ondents is 7ro7er- and 9:et:er or not t:e a9ard of damages is in order& ?it: res7ect to t:e first issue- :erein 7etitioners are already barred from raising t:e same& 6etitioners did not a77eal from t:e decision of t:e court a 0uo granting 7ri%ate res7ondents t:e rig:t of 9ay- :ence t:ey are 7resumed to be satisfied 9it: t:e adBudication t:erein& ?it: t:e finality of t:e Budgment of t:e trial court as to 7etitioners- t:e issue of 7ro7riety of t:e grant of rig:t of 9ay :as already been laid to rest& For failure to a77eal t:e decision of t:e trial court to t:e Court of A77eals- 7etitioners cannot obtain any affirmati%e relief ot:er t:an t:ose granted in t:e decision of t:e trial court& T:at decision of t:e court belo9 :as become final as against t:em and can no longer be re%ie9ed- muc: less re%ersed- by t:is Court& T:e rule in t:is Burisdiction is t:at 9:ene%er an a77eal is ta8en in a ci%il casean a77ellee 9:o :as not :imself a77ealed may not obtain from t:e a77ellate court any affirmati%e relief ot:er t:an 9:at 9as granted in t:e decision of t:e lo9er court& T:e a77ellee can only ad%ance any argument t:at :e may deem necessary to defeat t:e a77ellant;s claim or to u7:old t:e decision t:at is being dis7uted- and :e can assign errors in :is brief if suc: is required to strengt:en t:e %ie9s ex7ressed by t:e court a 0uo& T:ese assigned errors- in turn- may be considered by t:e a77ellate court solely to maintain t:e a77ealed decision on ot:er grounds- but not for t:e 7ur7ose of re%ersing or modifying t:e Budgment in t:e a77ellee;s fa%or and gi%ing :im ot:er affirmati%e reliefs& Fo9e%er- 9it: res7ect to t:e second issue- 9e agree 9it: 7etitioners t:at t:e Court of A77eals erred in a9arding damages in fa%or of 7ri%ate res7ondents& T:e a9ard of damages :as no substantial legal basis& A reading of t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals 9ill s:o9 t:at t:e a9ard of damages 9as based solely on t:e fact t:at t:e original 7laintiff- 6acifico Aabasa- incurred losses in t:e form of unreali=ed rentals 9:en t:e tenants %acated t:e leased 7remises by reason of t:e closure of t:e 7assage9ay& Fo9e%er- t:e mere fact t:at t:e 7laintiff suffered losses does not gi%e rise to a rig:t to reco%er damages& To 9arrant t:e reco%ery of damages- t:ere must be bot: a rig:t of action for a legal 9rong inflicted by t:e defendant- and damage resulting to t:e 7laintiff t:erefrom& ?rong 9it:out damage- or damage 9it:out 9rong- does not constitute a cause of action- since damages are merely 7art of t:e remedy allo9ed for t:e inBury caused by a breac: or 9rong& T:ere is a material distinction bet9een damages and inBury& 2nBury is t:e illegal in%asion of a legal rig:tG damage is t:e loss- :urt- or :arm 9:ic: results from t:e inBuryG and damages are t:e recom7ense or com7ensation a9arded for t:e damage suffered& T:us- t:ere can be damage 9it:out inBury in t:ose instances in 9:ic: t:e loss or :arm 9as not t:e result of a %iolation of a legal duty& T:ese situations are often called damnum abs0ue in*uria& 2n order t:at a 7laintiff may maintain an action for t:e inBuries of 9:ic: :e com7lains- :e must establis: t:at suc: inBuries resulted from a breac: of duty 9:ic: t:e defendant o9ed to t:e 7laintiff a concurrence of inBury to t:e 7laintiff and legal res7onsibility by t:e 7erson causing it& T:e underlying basis for t:e a9ard of tort damages is t:e 7remise t:at an indi%idual 9as inBured in contem7lation of la9& T:us- t:ere must first be t:e breac: of some duty and t:e im7osition of liability for t:at breac: before damages may be a9ardedG it is not sufficient to state t:at t:ere s:ould be tort liability merely because t:e 7laintiff suffered some 7ain and suffering& Aany accidents occur and many inBuries are inflicted by acts or omissions 9:ic: cause damage or loss to anot:er but 9:ic: %iolate no legal duty to suc: ot:er 7erson- and consequently create no cause of action in :is fa%or& 2n suc: cases- t:e consequences must be borne by t:e inBured

396
7erson alone& T:e la9 affords no remedy for damages resulting from an act 9:ic: does not amount to a legal inBury or 9rong& 2n ot:er 9ords- in order t:at t:e la9 9ill gi%e redress for an act causing damage- t:at act must be not only :urtful- but 9rongful& T:ere must be damnum et in*uria& 2f- as may :a77en in many casesa 7erson sustains actual damage- t:at is- :arm or loss to :is 7erson or 7ro7erty- 9it:out sustaining any legal inBury- t:at is- an act or omission 9:ic: t:e la9 does not deem an inBury- t:e damage is regarded as damnum abs0ue in*uria& 2n t:e case at bar- alt:oug: t:ere 9as damage- t:ere 9as no legal inBury& Contrary to t:e claim of 7ri%ate res7ondents- 7etitioners could not be said to :a%e %iolated t:e 7rinci7le of abuse of rig:t& 2n order t:at t:e 7rinci7le of abuse of rig:t 7ro%ided in Article " of t:e Ci%il Code can be a77lied- it is essential t:at t:e follo9ing requisites concur: ("$ T:e defendant s:ould :a%e acted in a manner t:at is contrary to morals- good customs or 7ublic 7olicyG ( $ T:e acts s:ould be 9illfulG and (3$ T:ere 9as damage or inBury to t:e 7laintiff& T:e act of 7etitioners in constructing a fence 9it:in t:eir lot is a %alid exercise of t:eir rig:t as o9ners- :ence not contrary to morals- good customs or 7ublic 7olicy& T:e la9 recogni=es in t:e o9ner t:e rig:t to enBoy and dis7ose of a t:ing- 9it:out ot:er limitations t:an t:ose establis:ed by la9& 2t is 9it:in t:e rig:t of 7etitioners- as o9ners- to enclose and fence t:eir 7ro7erty& Article +3! of t:e Ci%il Code 7ro%ides t:at >(e$%ery o9ner may enclose or fence :is land or tenements by means of 9allsditc:es- li%e or dead :edges- or by any ot:er means 9it:out detriment to ser%itudes constituted t:ereon&> At t:e time of t:e construction of t:e fence- t:e lot 9as not subBect to any ser%itudes& T:ere 9as no easement of 9ay existing in fa%or of 7ri%ate res7ondents- eit:er by la9 or by contract& T:e fact t:at 7ri%ate res7ondents :ad no existing rig:t o%er t:e said 7assage9ay is confirmed by t:e %ery decision of t:e trial court granting a com7ulsory rig:t of 9ay in t:eir fa%or after 7ayment of Bust com7ensation& 2t 9as only t:at decision 9:ic: ga%e 7ri%ate res7ondents t:e rig:t to use t:e said 7assage9ay after 7ayment of t:e com7ensation and im7osed a corres7onding duty on 7etitioners not to interfere in t:e exercise of said rig:t& Fence- 7rior to said decision- 7etitioners :ad an absolute rig:t o%er t:eir 7ro7erty and t:eir act of fencing and enclosing t:e same 9as an act 9:ic: t:ey may la9fully 7erform in t:e em7loyment and exercise of said rig:t& To re7eat- 9:ate%er inBury or damage may :a%e been sustained by 7ri%ate res7ondents by reason of t:e rig:tful use of t:e said land by 7etitioners is damnum abs0ue in*uria&") A 7erson :as a rig:t to t:e natural use and enBoyment of :is o9n 7ro7erty- according to :is 7leasure- for all t:e 7ur7oses to 9:ic: suc: 7ro7erty is usually a77lied& As a general rule- t:ereforet:ere is no cause of action for acts done by one 7erson u7on :is o9n 7ro7erty in a la9ful and 7ro7er manner- alt:oug: suc: acts incidentally cause damage or an una%oidable loss to anot:er- as suc: damage or loss is damnum abs0ue in*uria& ?:en t:e o9ner of 7ro7erty ma8es use t:ereof in t:e general and ordinary manner in 9:ic: t:e 7ro7erty is used- suc: as fencing or enclosing t:e same as in t:is case- nobody can com7lain of :a%ing been inBured- because t:e inco%enience arising from said use can be considered as a mere consequence of community life& T:e 7ro7er exercise of a la9ful rig:t cannot constitute a legal 9rong for 9:ic: an action 9ill lie- alt:oug: t:e act may result in damage to anot:er- for no legal rig:t :as been in%aded& 5ne may use any la9ful means to accom7lis: a la9ful 7ur7ose and t:oug: t:e means ado7ted may cause damage to anot:er- no cause of action arises in t:e latter;s fa%or& An inBury or damage occasioned t:ereby is damnum abs0ue in*uria& T:e courts can gi%e no redress for :ards:i7 to an indi%idual resulting from action reasonably calculated to ac:ie%e a la9ful means&
!

?F4R4F5R4- under t:e com7ulsion of t:e foregoing 7remises- t:e a77ealed decision of res7ondent Court of A77eals is :ereby R4E4R34D and 34T A32D4 and t:e Budgment of t:e trial court is corres7ondingly R42'3TAT4D&

397
S)- na ManDana#"% &. Ra'a", M #"$a G&R& 'o& (#" 3!*& 5ctober - ","/ Torres- J.: 2n t:e case 9:ic: is broug:t for t:e reco%ery of t:e damages resulting from t:e deat: of t:e c:ild 3al%ador 0ona- of from / to , years of age- 9:o :ad been run o%er by an automobile dri%en and managed by t:e defendant on t:e morning of Aarc: .- ","*- a Budgment 9as rendered on August 3","*- 9:ereby t:e said defendant 9as sentenced to 7ay t:e sum of 6"-!!! as indemnity c:ild- and to 7ay t:e costs& From t:is Budgment- an a77eal 9as ta8en by t:e defendant after :is motion for a ne9 trial :ad been o%erruled- and t:e case is no9 before t:is court by bill of exce7tions& T:e statement of facts is at once admitted- and 9e find no reason for disturbing t:e findings made by t:e trail Budge in :is Budgement a77ealed from- 9:erein t:e defendant 9as found liable for t:e accident 9:ic: occurred to t:e said c:ild on 3olana 3treet on t:e morning of said day- and consequently- t:e defendant- as t:e one 9:o :ad cause t:e accident- is bound to indemnify t:e mot:er of t:e deceased c:ild in t:e amount of 6"-!!!- 9:ic: 9as deemed by t:e trial Budge to be t:e %alue of t:e damages occasioned to t:e mot:er for t:e loss and deat: of a member of :er family& To t:e reasons gi%en by t:e trail Budge as grounds for :is decision- 9e deem 7ertinent to add t:e follo9ing: 2f it 9ere true t:at t:e defendant- in coming from t:e sout:ern 7art of 3olana 3treet- :ad to sto7 :is auto before crossing Real 3treet- because :e :ad met %e:icles 9:ic: 9ere going along t:e latter street or 9ere coming from t:e o77osite direction along 3olana street- it is to be belie%ed t:at- 9:en :e against stated to run :is auto across said Real 3treet and to continue its 9ay along 3olana 3treet nort:9ard- :e s:ould :a%e adBusted t:e s7eed of t:e auto 9:ic: :e 9as o7erating until :e :ad fully crossed Real 3treet and :ad com7letely reac:ed a clear 9ay on 3olana 3treet& 0ut- as t:e c:ild 9as run o%er by t:e auto 7recisely at t:e entrance of 3olana 3treet- t:is accident could not :a%e occurredif t:e auto :ad been running at a slo9 s7eed- aside form t:e fact t:at t:e defendant- at t:e moment of crossing Real 3treet and entering 3olana 3treet- in a nort:9ard direction- could :a%e seen t:e c:ild in t:e act of crossing t:e latter street from t:e side9al8 on t:e rig:t to t:at on t:e leftG and if t:e accident :ad occurred in suc: a 9ay t:at after t:e automobile :ad run o%er t:e body of t:e c:ild- and t:e c:ildXs body :ad already been stretc:ed out on t:e ground- t:e automobile still mo%ed along a distance of about meters- t:is circumstance s:o9s t:e fact t:at t:e automobile entered 3olana 3treet form Real 3treet- at a :ig: s7eed 9it:out t:e defendant :a%ing blo9n t:e :orn& 2f t:ese 7recautions :ad been ta8en by t:e defendant- t:e de7lorable accident 9:ic: caused t:e deat: of t:e c:ild 9ould not :a%e occurred& 2n %ie9 of t:e foregoing considerations as 9ell as t:ose contained in t:e Budgment of t:e trial court- 9:ic:- 9e belie%e t:at :e errors assigned by t:e a77ellant are t:ereby refuted and t:at t:erefore t:e Budgment a77ealed from- s:ould be- as it :ereby is- affirmed- 9it: t:e costs against t:e a77ellant& 3o ordered& 3e7arate 57inions AA(C5(A- C&- concurring: T:e facts are fe9 and sim7le& A male c:ild- / or , years of age- 9as 8illed t:roug: t:e negligence of t:e defendant in dri%ing :is automobile& T:e mot:er of t:e dead boy is a 9ido9- a 7oor 9as:er9oman& 3:e brings action against t:e defendant to reco%er damages for :er loss in t:e amount of 6.-!!!& ?it:out t:ere :a%ing been tendered any s7ecial 7roof of t:e amount of damages sufferedt:e trial court found t:e defendant res7onsible and condemned :im to 7ay to 7laintiff t:e sum of 6"-!!!& T:e decision of t:is Court :anded do9n by Custice Torres- affirms t:e Budgment of t:e Court of First 2nstance& 2f necessary- t:e decision of t:e 3u7reme Court of (ouisiana in t:e case of 0ur%ant %s& ?olfe M","!N- " * (a&- )/)$- could be cited as corroborati%e aut:ority& T:e 7rinci7les of la9 9:ic: measure t:e 7ecuniary res7onsibility of t:e defendant- not discussed in t:e main o7inion- are more difficult& 3ince t:e time of Grotius and e%en before- la9yers

398
and 7ublicists :a%e s7eculated as to 9:et:er t:e loss of a :uman life s:ould be com7ensated in money- and if so- as to t:e amount 9:ic: s:ould be allo9ed& At Common (a9 no ci%il action lies for damages caused by t:e deat: of a :uman being by t:e 9rongful or negligent act of anot:er& T:e maxim is actio 7ersonalis moritur cum 7ersona& (Aobile (ife 2ns& Co& %s& 0rame M"/)/N- ,. 1&3&- ).+G 0a8er %s& 0olton- " Cam7b&- +,3&$ T9o different modes of reasoning :a%e arri%ed at t:is result& T:e first and older t:eory 9as t:e merger of t:e 7ri%ate rig:t in t:e 7ublic 9rong& (T:e 4&0& ?ard- Cr& M"//3N- "* Fed&- ..&$ T:e second and younger t:eory 9as t:at t:e deat: of a :uman being cannot be com7lained of as a ci%il inBury& under t:e latter doctrine- it :as been re7eatedly :eld t:at a ci%il action by a 7arent for t:e deat: of a minor c:ild cannot be maintained& (Iramer %s& 3an Francisco mar8et 3treet R& Co& M"/*+N- . Cal&- +3+G Cac8son %s& 6ittsburg- C&C& & 3t& (& R& Co& M"/,+N- "+! 2nd&- +"G ?ilson %s& 0umstead M"//"N- " 'eb&- "G 3ulli%an %s& 1nion 6& R& Co& "//!NFed&- ++)G 5sborn %s& Gillett M"/)3N- (&R& / 4xc:&- //G ?eems %s& Aat:ieson- + macq& F&(& Cas& ".G Gulf- C& & 3&F& ry& Co& %s& 0eall M"/,)N- ," Tex&- 3"!& 3ee +" (&R&A&/!)- 'ote&$ 0y t:e Ci%il (a9- 7articularly as existing in 37ain- France- 6orto Rico- and (ouisiana- t:e true 7rinci7le is some9:at beclouded& T:us- in (ouisiana- a 3tate fa%ored by Frenc: and 37anis: antecedents- t:e exact question of 9:et:er an action for damages caused by t:e :omicide of a :uman being can be maintained- 9as 7resented by able counsel for t:e o7inion of distinguis:ed Burists& and it 9as :eld in a decision- later ex7ressly affirmed- t:at- under t:e Ci%il (a9- t:e action could not be maintained by t:e sur%i%ing 9ife or c:ildren& (Fubg: %s& ne9 5rlenas & Carrollton R&R& Co& M"/."N- * (a& Ann&- +,.G Fermann %s& 'e9 5rleans & Carrollton R&R& Co& M"/.*N- "" (a Ann&- .G + 6ort:ier 6andectes- 7& ),G la9 "3G ) 6artida- title ".- la9 3&$ T:e same question :as arisen in 6orto Rico& 2t :as t:ere been :eld t:at by t:e ci%il la9 in force in 6orto Rico a ci%il action lies for negligence resulting in deat:& (0orrero %s& cia& Anonyma dela (u= 4lectrica de 6once M",!3N- " 6orto Rico Fed&- "++G Dia= %s& 3an Cuan (ig:t & Transit co& M",""N- ") 6orto Rico- *+&$ T:e rig:t to sue for deat: from negligence of a defendant- by 7ersons entitled to su77ort by t:e deceased :as not been c:anged by t:e ne9 ci%il Code of 6orto Rico& (Torres %s& 6once Rail9ay & (ig:t Co& M",!3N- " 6orto Rico Fed&- +)*&$ 2n 37ain- from 9:ic: bot: t:e Ci%il (a9 of 6orto Rico and t:e 6:ili77ines 9ere deri%ed- it :as been decided t:at suc: an action could be maintained& (Decision of t:e su7reme court of 37ain of December "+- "/,+&$ 2n France- t:e :ig:est court :as inter7reted t:e Code 'a7oleon as sanctioning actions by t:ose damaged by t:e deat: of anot:er against 7ersons by 9:ose fault t:e deat: :a77ened& (C:a%oix %s& 4nfants Du7ort M"/.3N- " Cournal du 6alais *"+G RollondXs case- ", 3irey*,&$ T:at e%en in t:ose Burisdictions in 9:ic: t:e Common (a9 :as force- t:e obser%ance of t:e 7rinci7le :as been resisted- is disclosed by t:e action of Fa9aii in :olding t:at t:ere can be a reco%ery for deat: by 9rongful act& (T:e 3c:ooner Robert (e9ers Co& %s& Ie8auo:a M",! N- ""+ Fed&- /+,&$ T:at t:e im7ro7riety of t:e Budge#made rule 9as early disclosed- is s:o9n by t:e numerous statutesbeginning 9it: (ord Cam7bellXs Act- 9:ic: 9ere enacted to co%er t:e deficiency by 7ermitting of a rig:t by t:e Ci%il (a9- because of a statute- an action 9ill no9 lie for 7ecuniary and ot:er damages caused by deat:& (AcCubbin %s& Fastings M"/).N- ) (a& Ann&- )"3&$ And finally- t:at eminent aut:orities recogni=e liability in case of deat: by negligence is disclosed by t:e mere mention of suc: names as Grotius- 6uffendorf- and Domat-& For instance- Grotius in :is Rig:ts of ?ar and 6eace said: 4xem7lo :aec sint& Fomicida inBustus- tenetur sol%ere im7ensas- si quae factae sunt in medicos- et iis quos occisus alere exofficio solebat- 7uta 7arentibus- uxoribus liberis dare tantumquantum illa s7es alimentorum- ratione :abita aetatis occissi- %alebat Z sicuti Fercules legitur 27:iti a se occissi leberis mulctam 7e7endissi- quo facilius ex7iaretur& Aic:ael 47:esius ad quintum 'ocomac:iorum AristotillisG Alla 8ai o 6:oenut:ies elabe tro7on tine Z 5 gare e gune e oi 7aides- e oi suggenies tou 7:oneut:entos elabe tro7on tine e8eino dedotai& 3ed et qui occisus est acci7it aliquo modo& quae enim uxor eBus et liberi et cognati acci7iunt- i7se quodommodo acci7it& (oquimur de :omicida inBusto- id est- qui non :abuit Bus id faciendi unde mors sequitur& quare si quis Bus :aburit sed

399
in caritatem 7ecca%irit ut qui furgere nolout- non tenebitur& Eetae autem in libero :omine aestimatio non fit- secus in ser%o qui %endi 7otuit& M"" (a& Ann&.&N T:e follo9ing may be for exam7le: Any man slaying anot:er- unBustly- is bound to disc:arge t:e ex7enses- if any are contracted- for 7:ysicians- and to gi%e to t:ose 9:om t:e slain 9as in duty accustomed to maintain#suc: as 7arents- 9i%es- c:ildren#as muc: as t:at :o7e of maintenance#regard being :ad to t:e age of t:e deceased#9as 9ort:: t:us- Fercules is said to :a%e made re7aration (7aid a fine$ to t:e C:ildren of 27:itus- slain by :im- in order t:at ex7iation mig:t more easily be made& Aic:ael- t:e 47:esian- says u7on t:e .t: of t:e 'icomac:ii of Aristotle: bbut also t:e 7erson slain recei%es- in some sort- for 9:at t:e 9ife or c:ildren or relations of t:e 7erson slain recei%e is- in some sort gi%en :im&d ?e are s7ea8ing of an unBust manslayer: t:at is- one 9:o :ad not t:e rig:t of doing t:at from 9:ence deat: follo9s& ?:erefore- if any one may :a%e :ad t:e rig:t- but :as sinned against c:arity- as 9:en one (being assaulted$ :as been un9illing to flee- :e s:all not be bound& but of life- in case of a free manno %aluation is made- ot:er9ise- in case of a sla%e 9:o can be sold& 0ot: because of t:e ci%il origin of t:e a77licable la9 in t:e 6:ili77ines- because 9e re not fettered b t:e :ars: common la9 rule on t:e subBect- because it is t:e modern and more equitable 7rinci7le- and because reason and natural Bustice are eloquent ad%ocates- 9e :old t:at an action for damages can be maintained in t:is Burisdiction for t:e deat: of a 7erson by 9rongful act& 2t can be admitted- since obBection :as not been made- t:at t:e 7rimary rig:t of action is in t:e 7arent& T:e second 7:ase of our inquiry- 7ertaining to t:e amount of com7ensation for t:e loss of a :uman life- must no9 be settled& bDamaged :as been defined by 4scric:e as t:e detriment- inBury- or loss 9:ic: are occasioned by reason of fault of anot:er in t:e 7ro7erty or 7erson&d (4scric:e- Diccionario Ra=onado de (egislacion y Curis7rudencia- %ol& - 7& .,)&$ 5f 9:atsoe%er nature t:e damage be- and from 9:atsoe%er cause it may 7roceed- t:e 7erson 9:o :as done t:e inBury oug:t to re7air it by an indemnity 7ro7ortionate to :is fault and to t:e loss caused t:ereby& (Cus:ing- DomatXs Ci%il (a9- 7& )+"&$ Damnum (daDo or a loss$ must be s:o9n to sustain an action for damages& 6:ili77ine la9 as found in t:e 9ell 8no9n article ",! of t:e Ci%il Code- deri%ed from 6artida E22- Title E- is to t:is effect& 2n order to gi%e rise to t:e obligation im7osed by t:is article of t:e Ci%il Code- t:e coincidence of t9o distinct requisites is necessary- %is: ("$ T:at t:ere exist an inBury or damage not originating in acts or omissions of t:e 7reBudiced 7erson demanding indemnification t:ereforeG ( $ t:at said inBury or damage be caused by t:e fault or negligence of a 7erson ot:er t:an t:e sufferer& (" Aanresa- Comentarios al Codigo Ci%il- 7& *!+&$ T:ose see8ing to recou7 damages must ordinarily establis: t:eir 7ecuniary loss by satisfactory 7roof& (Decisions of t:e su7reme court of 37ain- December "+- "/,+G 'o%ember "3 and *- "/,.G December )- "/,*G 3e7tember 3!- "/,/- and December "*- ",!3G 3an= %s& (a%in M",!*N- * 6:il&- ,,G to Guioc#Co %s& Del Rosario M",!)N- / 6:il&- .+*G Dia= %s& 3an Cuan (ig:t and Transit Co& M",""N- ") 6orto Rico- *+&$ T:e customary elements of damages must be s:o9n& 0ut in certain cases- t:e la9 7resumes a loss because of t:e im7ossibility of exact 7roof and com7utation in res7ect to t:e amount of t:e loss sustained& 2n ot:er 9ords- t:e loss can be 7ro%ed eit:er by e%idence or by 7resum7tion& For instance- 9:ere t:e elation of :usband and 9ife or 7arent and c:ild exist- 7ro%ided t:e c:ild is s:o9n to be a minor- t:e la9 7resumes a 7ecuniary loss to t:e sur%i%or from t:e fact of deat:- and it is not necessary to submit 7roof as to suc: loss& (C:icago %s& 3c:olten M"/)+N- ). 222&- +*/G Roc8fordetc& R& col& %s& Delaney M"/)*NG Atro7s %s& Costello M"/,+N- / ?as:&- "+,G Aason %s& 3out:ern R& Co M",!!N- ./ 3& C& )!G AcIec:ney %s& Redmond- ,+ 222& A77&- +)!G Coliet %s& ?eston222& A77l&- .G Ielly %s& T9enty#t:ird 3t& R& Co&- "+ '&@& 3t&- *,,G Dun:ene %s& 5:io (& 2ns& etc& co&- " Disn&- .)G Dia= %s& 3an Cuan (ig:t & Transit Co& su7ra&$ 2n one of t:e cited cases- (City of C:icago %s& Fesing$ on an action to reco%er damages

400
resulting to t:e 7arents- laboring 7eo7le- by t:e deat: of t:eir c:ild four years old t:roug: negligence on t:e 7art of t:e City of C:icago- t:e court said: 5nly 7ecuniary damages can be reco%ered in suc: actions as t:is& 'ot:ing can be gi%en as solace or for berea%ement suffered& 1nder instructions declaring t:e true rule for estimating t:e damages- t:e Bury found for 7laintiff- in t:e sum of j/!!- but one of t:e errors assigned is- t:e amount found is excessi%e& As a matter of la9- 9e cannot so declare- and as a matter of fact- :o9 can 9e 8no9 t:e amount is in excess of t:e 7ecuniary damages sustainedJ ?:en 7roof is made of t:e age an relations:i7 of t:e deceased to next of 8in- t:e Bury may estimate t:e 7ecuniary damages from t:e facts 7ro%en- in connection 9it: t:eir o9n 8no9ledge and ex7eriences in relation to matters of common obser%ation& 2t is not indis7ensable t:ere s:ould be 7roof of actual ser%ices of 7ecuniary %alue rendered to next of 8ind- nor t:at any 9itness s:ould ex7ress an o7inion as to t:e %alue of ser%ices t:at may :a%e been or mig:t be rendered& ?:ere t:e deceased 9as a minor- and left a fat:er 9:o 9ould :a%e been entitle dot :is ser%ices :ad :e li%ed- t:e la9 im7lies a 7ecuniary loss- for 9:ic: com7ensation- under t:e statute- may be gi%en& T:e discretion of a Bury- 9:ere t:ere is a Bury- or of t:e trial court- 9:ere t:e court 7ossesses suc: faculty- in fixing t:e amount of damages- 9ill not be interfered 9it: by t:e a77ellate court unless t:is discretion :as been 7al7ably abused& 3ince in t:e %ery nature of t:ings t:e %alue of a :uman life cannot be exactly estimated in money- and since t:e elements 9:ic: go to ma8e u7 any %alue are 7ersonal to eac: case- muc: must de7end on t:e good sense and sound Budgment of t:e Bury or Budge& T:e rule :as been a77lied to t:e deat: of minor c:ildren 9:ere t:ere 9as not:ing to s:o9 7assion- 7reBudice- or ignorance on t:e 7art of t:e Bury& (3ee "3 Cyc&- 3).#3))&$ T:e rig:t of action for deat: and t:e 7resum7tion in fa%or of com7ensation begin admitted- t:e difficulty of estimating in money t:e 9ort: of a life s:ould not 8ee7 a court from Budicially com7ensating t:e inBured 7arty as nearly as may be 7ossible for t:e 9rong& True- man is inca7able of measuring exactly in t:e delicate scales of Bustice t:e %alue of a :uman life& True- t:e feelings of a mot:er on seeing :er little son torn and mangled Z ex7iring Z dead Z could ne%er be assuaged 9it: money& Trueall t:e treasure in natureXs %aults could not being to com7ensate a 7arent for t:e loss of a belo%ed c:ild& 'e%ert:eless- 9it:in t:e bounds of :uman 7o9ers- t:e negligent s:ould ma8e re7aration for t:e loss& Attem7ts at a77roximation in money for deat: :a%e been made& Aany American statutes :a%e arbitrarily limited t:e amounts t:at could e reco%ered to fi%e t:ousand dollars or ten t:ousand dollars& T:e federal Courst :a%e intimated t:at t:ese statutory limits s:ould only be ta8en as a guide to t:e 7ermissible amount of damages& (C:eat:am %s& Red Ri%er (ine M"/,3N- .* Fed&- +/G T:e 5ceanic M"/,+N- *" Fed&- 33/G FarmersX (& & t& co& %s& Toledo A&A& & '&A& Ry& co& M"/,.N- *) Fed& )3&$ 2n (ouisiana- j -.!! & j3-!!!- j+-!!!- and j*-!!! 9ere allo9ed in t:e res7ecti%e cases for t:e deat: of a c:ild& 2n 6orto Rico- j"-!!! and j"-.!! :as been allo9ed for suc: a loss& 2n t:e 6:ili77ines- t:e rule :as been in criminal cases to allo9 as a matter of course 6"-!!! as indemnity to t:e :eirs of t:e deceased& T:e foregoing is belie%ed to be a fair statement of t:e 7ertinent general 7rinci7les& 0efore closing- notice s:ould be ta8en of t:e leading decisions of t:e su7reme court of 37ain and t:e su7reme court of 6orto Rico& T:e first is t:e decision of t:e su7reme court of 37ain of December "+"/,+& 4ulogio 3anta Aaria died in Aadrid in "/,"- in consequence of a fall from t:e 9all of t:e rac8et 8no9n as bCai#alai-d 9:ic: :e 9as climbing for t:e 7ur7ose of 7lacing t:e customary flags to announce t:e o7ening of t:e game& T:e facts 9ere in%estigated t:roug: criminal 7roceedings 9:ic: 9ere discontinued- and t:en t:e 9ido9 of t:e deceased- in :er o9n be:alf and on be:alf of :er infant daug:ter- Teodora- instituted a ci%il action in t:e 7ro7er court- alleging t:at bt:e cause of t:e fatal accident resided in t:e fault and omission of t:e o9ners of t:e rac8et- because- as t:ey 8ne9 and sa9- neit:er t:e 7lace for t:e raising of t:e flags nor t:e road t:at :ad to be gone o%er to reac: it 9ere in a condition to insure safetyGd t:at at :is deat: :er :usband :ad left t9o c:ildren- one named Anastasio- of "+ years- :ad by :is first marriage- and anot:er named Teodora- of 3 years :ad by :is

401
second marriage 9it: t:e 7laintiffG t:at t:e damages caused and for 9:ic: t:e defendants s:ould be :eld res7onsible 9ere of a t9ofold c:aracter Z t:at is- one :a%ing reference to affection and t:e ot:er to t:e loss of t:e modest 7ay 9:ic:- ca7itali=ed at . 7er cent and added to t:e sum demandable for t:e first mentioned consideration- amounted to "-+ . 7esetas& T:e defendants alleged t:at t:e deat: of t:e 7laintiffXs :usband could not be ascribed to any fault- omission- or negligence on t:eir 7art- etc&and 7rayed t:at t:e com7laint be dismissed& After :earing t:e case t:e court rendered Budgment condemning t:e defendants to 7ay t:e sum of .-!!! 7esetas to t:e :eirs of t:e ceased as indemnification for t:e latterXs deat:& An a77eal from said Budgment :a%ing been ta8en by t:e 7laintifft:e defendants Boined in said a77eal and t:e bAudiencia territorial-d in deciding t:e case- adBudged t:e defendants to 7ay t:e 7laintiff in :er o9n rig:t and as re7resentati%e of :er daug:ter- Teodora- .-!!! 7esetas- as indemnification for t:e deat: of :er :usband- affirming in t:ese terms- t:e Budgment a77ealed form- and reser%ing to t:e ot:er c:ild of t:e deceased- 9:o 9as not a 7arty in t:is case- :is rig:t li8e9ise to demand indemnification& T:e defendants t:en too8 an a77eal for annulment of Budgment to t:e su7reme court- alleging t:at %arious la9s :ad been %iolated and- among ot:er 7articulars- t:at t:e Budgment did not state t:e amount at 9:ic: t:e court %alued t:e life of 3anta Aaria nor 9as anyt:ing allo9ed t:e 7laintiffs on t:e score of affection or for damages- nor 9as t:e 7rinci7le mentioned u7on 9:ic: t:e court :ad acted to fix t:e sum of .-!!! 7esetas& T:e su7reme court of 37ain affirmed t:e Budgment a77ealed from in its o7inion of December "+- "/,+- t:e grounds 9:ereof are t:e follo9ing: As to t:e ground t:e court :ad for concluding- in %ie9 of t:e e%idence- t:at t:e deat: of t:e unfortunate 4ulogio 3anta Aaria 9as due to t:e omission on t:e 7art of t:e a77ellants- o9ners- and managers of t:e rac8et (ball game$ 8no9n as bCai#Alai-d of suc: 7recautions as 9ere called for to forestall t:e dangers attending t:e 7lacing and remo%al of t:e streamers- 9:ic: t:e deceased :ad been doing 9it: t:eir 8no9ledge and consent- and for t:eir benefit- 9e find t:at said court :as correctly a77lied articles "!,3- ",! - and ",!3- and t:at it :as not %iolated articles ""!"- ""!3- and ""!+ of t:e Ci%il Code- because- according to t:e first#mentioned article- obligations arising from acts or omissions- in 9:ic: faults or negligence- not 7unis:ed by la9- occur- are subBect to t:e 7ro%isions of said articles ",! and ",!3- and- according to t:e latter- indemnification for t:e damage done lies 9:ene%er t:e act or omission :as been t:e cause of t:e damage and all t:e diligence of a good fat:er of a family :as not been obser%ed- eit:er 9:en t:e act or omission is 7ersonal 9it: t:e 7arty- or 9:en it :as reference to 7ersons for 9:om :e s:ould be res7onsibleG and because t:e 7ro%isions of articles ""!"- ""!3- and ""!+ are of a general c:aracter and a77licable to all 8inds of obligations and do not come in conflict 9it: t:e s7ecial 7ro%isions of articles ",! and ",!3G T:e indemnification corres7onding to t:e damage caused by a guilty act or omission- not constituting a crime- s:ould be declared- as are all indemnifications- in e%ery suit- in accordance 9it: t:e 7articular damage caused to t:e claimants- and as in t:e Budgment t:is :as been done 9it: res7ect to Cuana Alon=o Celada and :er daug:ter- t:e only 7laintiffs- by fixing t:e sum due t:em- said Budgment does not %iolate article ",! of t:e code- and muc: less does it %iolate article 3*! of t:e (a9 of Ci%il 6rocedureG T:e amount of t:e indemnification adBudged is based on t:e e%idence ta8en and on t:e facts admitted by bot: 7arties in t:eir 7leadings at t:e trial- 9:erefore t:ere :as been no %iolation of article " "+- t:oug: lac8 of 7roof- as alleged& As :as :eretofore been intimated- t:e Ci%il (as in 6orto Rico- deri%ed from t:e same source as t:at of t:e 6:ili77ines- can 9ell be loo8ed to for 7ersuasi%e aut:ority& T:us- as disclosed by t:e facts in t:e decision coming from t:e 7en of Custice Del Toro- one Dia= broug:t a suit against t:e 3an Cuan (ig:t & Transit Co& to reco%er t:e sum of j*-!!! as damages& T:e district court of 3an Cuan rendered Budgment declaring t:at t:e facts and t:e la9 9ere in fa%or of t:e 7laintiff and against t:e defendantand decreeing t:at t:e former s:ould obtain from t:e latter t:e sum of j3-!!! as damages& T:e su7reme court of 6orto Rico said t:e issue 9as- t:at inasmuc: as 7laintiff :as failed to 7roduce any e%idence of t:e amount of damage sustained- Budgment s:ould not be rendered in t:is form& After setting fort: t:e decision of t:e su7reme court of 37ain of December "+- "/,+- :ereinbefore

402
described- and ot:er aut:orities- t:e court said: A77lying t:e foregoing 7rinci7les and t:ose contained in section "/!+ of t:e Re%ised Ci%il Code to t:e s7ecific case under consideration- 9e find t:at in t:e com7laint it is alleged t:at t:e com7lainant sustained damages 9:ic: :e estimates of j*-!!!- and t:at t:e immediate and natural cause of said damages 9as t:e careless act of one of t:e em7loyees of t:e defendant- 9:o 9as in its ser%ice and 9:ile in t:e disc:arge of :is duties& T:e e%idence ta8en does not s:o9 t:at t:e com7lainant failed to earn- as a result of t:e inBuries recei%ed- a stated sum of money- or t:at :e :ad to 7ay t:e 7:ysician 9:o attended :im anot:er stated sum- etc&G but it does s:o9 t:at t:e com7lainant- a man of ." years of age- 9:o 9or8ed as a farmer and :a98ed about :is 7roducts- su77orting :imself and :is family 9it: :is labor- 9:ile ste77ing out of one of t:e electric cars of t:e defendant- at 3to7 )"H of t:e 3an Cuan#Rio 6iedras linefell to t:e ground o9ing to t:e carelessness and inattention of t:e motorman in starting t:e car before it 9as timeG t:at :e recei%ed a se%ere blo9 9:ic: rendered :im unconscious for some momentsfractured :is lo9er Ba9- and caused abrasions on :is legs and ot:er 7arts of :is bodyG t:at :e remained at t:e :os7ital- :a%ing :is inBuries nursed- for more or less one mont:- and t:at- on being examined at t:e trial#t:at is- one year and fi%e mont:s after :is fall#:e 7resented on t:e rig:t side of :is face- as a consequence of t:e fracture- a contraction 9:ic: means 7aralysis- and could s7ea8- but :ardly masticate- and only 9it: difficulty could o7en and close :is mout:& 2t does not a77ear from t:e e%idence t:at :e com7lainant :as been disabled- but it does a77ear t:at at t:e time t:e e%idence 9as ta8en :e 9as suffering from ner%ous illness- according to t:e o7inion of Dr& 3ta:l- one of t:e ex7erts 9:o testified at t:e trial& 1nder t:ese circumstances t:e Budge- in accordance 9it: t:e la9 and Buris7rudence- :ad to estimate for :imself t:e damage caused and determine t:e amount of indemnification 9:ic: t:e defendant s:ould 7ay t:e com7lainant& And is so doing t:e curt did not commit t:e errors attributed to it by t:e a77ellant& T:e question in t:e 7resent case is not one of 7uniti%e or exem7lary damages- but of com7ensation for damages sustained& 2n order to allo9 suc: com7ensation it is not necessary t:at t:e com7lainant s:ould 7ro%e :is loss in terms of dollars and cents- it being sufficient- in cases of t:is nature to 7ro%e t:at t:e 7laintiff- t:roug: t:e fault or negligence of t:e defendant and not t:roug: :is o9n fault and negligence- :ad sustained a real damage- consisting of 7:ysical 7ains- loss of 9or8confinement in a :os7ital- mental suffering- etc& T:e indemnification in t:is case 9as fixed by t:e lo9er court of j -!!!- and alt:oug: it could 7er:a7s :a%e been calculated at less- 9e do not find t:at it is immoderately inadequate- and t:is being so 9e s:ould not alter it& (Dia= %s& 3an Cuan (ig:t & Transit co&- su7ra&$ 2n anot:er case- t:at of Gon=ale= %s& T:e 3an Cuan (ig:t & Transit co& M",""N- 6orto Rico- "".$ reco%ery for damages 9as not 7ermitted& 2n t:e latter case- it 9as said: T:is is an a77eal from t:e first section of t:e district court of 3an Cuan see8ing to re%erse a Budgment t:erein rendered on December "- ",!,- in fa%or of t:e defendant& T:is suit 9as initiated in t:e district court of 3an Cuan t:roug: a com7laint 7resented by Ramon Gon=ale= 3oto- alleging t:erein t:at t:e defendant com7any- t:e 3an Cuan (ig:t and Transit Co&- :ad negligently caused t:e deat: of Cuan Cordo%a 3oto- son of t:e 7laintiff- in t:e 9ard of 3anturce- bet9een sto7s " and - on t:e trolley line of defendant- about December - ",!+- t:e fat:er of t:e deceased not a77earing also as a com7lainant on account of :is deat: :a%ing occurred after t:at of :is son but 7re%ious to t:e filing of t:e com7laint& ?e :a%e stated said first ground alleged for re%ersal in t:e form in 9:ic: it :as been ex7ressed by counsel for t:e defendantG but 7ossibly it mig:t also :a%e been set fort: more clearly as follo9s: b4%en su77osing t:at t:e 7laintiff :ad s:o9n t:at t:e deat: of :er son :ad been caused t:roug: t:e negligence of t:e defendant com7any- could damages be a9arded :er 9it:out s:o9ing by 7roof t:eir existence and t:e amount t:ereofJd 5ur Ci%il Code no9 in force- in section "/!3- reads as follo9s:

403
A 7erson 9:o by an act or omission causes damage to anot:er- 9:en t:ere is fault or negligence- s:all be obliged to re7air t:e damage so done& 3o t:at t:e claim of t:e 7laintiff :erein is sustained by t:is 7rece7t of t:e la9 9:ic: establis:es :er rig:t to be indemnified by t:e defendant for t:e damage caused :er on account of t:e deat: of :er son- if said deat: 9as broug:t about by any act or omission of said com7any- t:roug: its fault or negligence& T:is is our substanti%e la9 in t:e matter of damages and it is in accordance 9it: its 7ro%isionsas inter7reted by t:e ruling Buris7rudence- t:at courts s:ould decide questions submitted to t:em for decision- and t:erefore t:e 7laintiff is entitled- in cases 9:ere t:ere may exist fault or negligence on t:e 7art of t:e defendant com7any- to reco%er from t:e defendant com7any t:e damages t:at may :a%e been actually caused to :er- 9:ate%er t:ey may be& xxxxxxxxx As may be seen- t:is Buris7rudence (of 37ain$ is in accordance 9it: t:e legal 7rece7t of t:e code t:at only t:ose damages actually caused may be a9arded- and- t:erefore- to enable t:e court to decide 9:at damages :a%e been caused- it is necessary to 7ro%e t:e real existence of t:e damages and t:e corres7onding facts from 9:ic: t:e court can deduce t:e amount t:ereof& 5f course- t:e 7laintiff ma8es a claim only for :erself for 7ecuniary loss sustained by :er on account of t:e deat: of :er son- and t:e boy :imself does not ma8e any claim because :e did not li%e to do soG :ence t:e mot:er 9ould ne%er :a%e been entitled to any ot:er damages t:an t:ose arising out of t:e loss of t:e ser%ices of :er son- and ne%er to t:ose damages 9:ic: :e :imself mig:t :a%e been entitled to claim :ad :e not died- or arising from t:e inBuries t:at :e :imself mig:t :a%e suffered on account of t:e accident& T:e damages 9:ic: 9ould gi%e t:e 7laintiff in t:is case a rig:t to reco%ery against t:e defendant are only t:e loss of su77ort- or contributions t:ereto- 9:ic: t:e son 9as accustomed to ma8e to :is mot:er from :is earnings and of 9:ic: s:e may :a%e been de7ri%ed by :is deat:& 0ut does t:e e%idence introduced by t:e 7laintiff su77ort :er claim to reco%er suc: damagesJ ?e are of t:e o7inion t:at it does not- because s:e :as not 7ro%en t:at :er son 9as really earning t:e amount alleged in t:e com7laint- nor any ot:er sum 9:ate%er- no alleged in t:e com7laint- nor any ot:er sum 9:ate%er- nor alleged in t:e com7laint- nor any ot:er sum 9:ate%er- no :o9 muc: money :e 9as earning by :is 9or8 eit:er in Arecibo or in 3an Cuan during t:e days immediately 7receding :is deat: or at any time& And 9e are of t:e o7inion t:at t:is is a necessary requisite- because- as t:e Ci%il Code declares t:at reco%ery may be :ad for t:e damage caused- t:e damages accruing to t:e 7laintiff must be s:o9n so t:at t:e trial Budge may :a%e data on 9:ic: to base :is decision& 2n t:is action no e%idence 9:ate%er :as been 7roduced in t:is res7ect& T:e only fact 7ro%en in regard to t:is 7oint is t:at Cuan Cordo%a 3oto 9as 8illed by a collision 9it: t:e trolley carG t:at :e 9as earning somet:ing 9:en :e 9as 7re%iously in Arecibo& 2t is not s:o9n 9:at occu7ation :e :ad- nor :o9 muc: money :e earned 9:ile :e 9as t:ere nor 9:ile :e 9as in 3an Cuan- nor is it s:o9n t:at :is mot:er deri%ed any benefit from :is 9agesG and from t:is e%idence t:e court cannot consider as 7ro%en :e amount of t:e damages- nor e%en t:eir existence& 2t :as not been s:o9 t:at t:e deat: of :er son caused any material or 7ecuniary damages to :is mot:er- t:e 7laintiff :erein- nor t:e amount t:ereof& T:erefore- an essential requisite for a Budgment against t:e defendant com7any is lac8ing- and e%en su77osing t:at s:e :ad an action for damages t:roug: negligence of t:e com7any in t:e deat: of t:e boy- 9e could not find a Budgment against t:e defendant com7any- for lac8 of e%idence in regard to t:e existence of t:e 7ecuniary damages sustained and facts from 9:ic: to infer t:e amount t:ereof& T:erefore- t:e defendantXs motion for a Budgment in its fa%or on t:is first ground 9as 7ro7erly sustained& As 9ill be readily 7ercei%ed- :a%ing dug out t:e a77licable aut:orities- and :a%ing set t:em before us- our tas8 still is far from com7lete& 5n t:e one :and- t:e ob%ious conclusion 9ould be t:atinasmuc: as 7laintiff :as failed to 7ro%e :er 7ecuniary loss- s:e cannot reco%er- or- for t:e same reason- to return t:e case to t:e lo9er court for furt:er e%idence& T:is is t:e ob%ious 9ay& To one

404
trained in t:e Common (a9- and inculcated 9it: all t:e doctrines of t:e American la9 of damages- it is t:e logical 9ay& 2s it t:e Bust and natural 9ayJ T:e first re7ly 9ould be t:at t:e ci%il la9 aut:orities are- li8e t:e common la9 cases- against reco%ery 9it:out 7roof of loss& 2f necessary- :o9e%er- t:e t:ree decisions Bust described- could be differentiated from t:e 7resent facts& T:e decision of t:e su7reme court of 37ain- it is to be remembered- in%ol%ed an action for t:e deat: of a man of mature years& T:e first decision of t:e su7reme court of 6orto Rico recogni=es t:e 7rinci7le of 7resum7ti%e reco%ery& T:e second decision of t:e su7reme court of reco%ery& T:e second decision of t:e su7reme court of 6orto Rico concerned an action for t:e deat: of a son of sufficient age to :a%e an earning ca7acity& 'one of t:ese is our case& Fere 7resent is t:e case of a young c:ild- 9:ose deat: is caused by 9rongful act- lea%ing a 7oor mot:er to be t:e loser& To ans9er in a different 9ay- let us ma8e a com7arison& T:e facts before us- and t:e facts before t:e su7reme court of 2llinois in analogous cases- are substantially identical& ?e :a%e 7roof of t:e age of t:e deceased- 7roof of t:e name of t:e next of 8in- and 7roof t:at t:e mot:er is a laboring 9oman& 1nder bot: t:e Common (a9 and t:e Ci%il (a9- 7laintiffXs damage- broadly s7ea8ing- is for t:e loss of t:e ser%ices of t:e deceased- or for su77ort by t:e deceased& 6laintiff :a%ing s:o9n t:at t:e deceased 9as :er son and t:at :e 9as / or , years of age at t:e time of deat:- it 9as neit:er necessary nor 7ossible to 7ro%e loss of ser%ices or su77ort- or to 7ro%e s7ecial damage as if t:e obBect of t:e loss :ad been a :orse or ot:er animal& 'o doubt t:e damage could be greatly en:anced by s:o9ing t:e 7ersonal c:aracteristics of t:e deceased& 5utside of t:is- :o9e%er- t:e 7ecuniary loss may be estimated from t:e facts at :and 9it: reference to t:e general 8no9ledge 9:ic: all 7ossess& To force t:e 7laintiff to 7ro%e :er loss exactly 9ould be to as8 t:e im7ossible Z 9ould be in effect to return to t:e old common la9 rule 9:ic: 7ro:ibits a reco%ery& 6:ysical and gross criteria- as t:e :e9ing of 9ood and carrying of 9ater- are indeed no standards at all& 4%en if t:e case 9as to be reo7ened- t:e 7laintiff could 9it: extreme difficulty 7resent any better e%idence t:an t:at no9 before us& As 9e :a%e t:e basis of satisfactory facts from 9:ic: to infer t:e amount of damage- as t:e la9 7resumes a 7ecuniary loss because of t:e deat:- and as t:e trial Budge :as made an intelligent com7utation- 9e s:ould rest :ere- 9it: 8no9ledge t:at- 9it:in t:e 8en of :uman 9isdom- Bustice :as been done& 5n a careful consideration of t:e entire field of t:e la9 on t:e subBect of damages- 9e come to t:e conclusion t:at t:e amount- in t:e nature of an indemnity allo9ed by t:e trial court- is neit:er excessi%e nor immoderately inadequate- and s:ould stand& Cudgment- t:erefore- s:ould be affirmed&

L(B) A,Aa##a &. S)C$ Sand"Ia% G&R& 'o& (#/3/.& Aarc: +- ","+ TR4'T- J.: T:is is a ci%il action for 7ersonal inBuries recei%ed from a collision 9it: t:e defendant;s automobile due to t:e negligence of t:e defendant- 'ho 'as driving the %ar& T:e negligence of t:e defendant is not questioned and t:is case in%ol%es only t:e amount of damages 9:ic: s:ould be allo9ed& As a result of t:e inBuries recei%ed- 7laintiff 9as obliged to s7end ten days in t:e :os7italduring t:e first four or fi%e of 9:ic: :e could not lea%e :is bed& After being disc:arged from t:e :os7ital- :e recei%ed medical attention from a 7ri%ate 7ractitioner for se%eral days& T:e latter testified t:at after t:e last treatment t:e 7laintiff described :imself as being 9ell& 5n t:e trial t:e 7laintiff testified t:at :e :ad done no 9or8 since t:e accident- 9:ic: occurred on Culy ,- "," - and t:at :e 9as not yet entirely reco%ered& 6laintiff testified t:at :is earning ca7acity 9as 6.! 7er mont:& 2t is not clear at 9:at time 7laintiff became entirely 9ell again- but as to t:e doctor to 9:om :e described :imself as

405
being 9ell stated t:at t:is 9as about t:e last of Culy- and t:e trial too8 7lace 3e7tember ",- t9o mont:s; 7ay 9ould seem sufficient for t:e actual time lost from :is 9or8& 6laintiff furt:er testified t:at :e 7aid t:e doctor 6/ and ex7ended 6 for medicines& T:is ex7enses- amounting in all to 6""! s:ould also be allo9ed& 6laintiff sold t:e 7roducts of a distillery on a "! 7er cent commission and made an a%erage of 6.! 7er mont:& Fe :ad about t9enty regular customers 9:o- it seems- 7urc:ased in small quantitiesnecessitating regular and frequent deli%eries& 3ince t:e accident :is 9ife :ad done somet:ing in a small 9ay to 8ee7 u7 t:is business but t:e total orders ta8en by :er 9ould not net t:em o%er 6".& Fe lost all :is regular customers but four- ot:er agents filing t:eir orders since :is accident& 2t too8 :im about four years to build u7 t:e business :e :ad at t:e time of t:e accident- and :e could not say :o9 long it 9ould ta8e :im to get bac8 t:e business :e :ad lost& 1nder t:is state of facts- t:e lo9er court- 9:ile recogni=ing t:e Bustness of :e claim- refused to allo9 :im anyt:ing for inBury to :is business due to :is enforced absence t:erefrom- on t:e ground t:at t:e doctrine of Mar%elo vs. 9elas%o ("" 6:il&- Re7&- ))$ is o77osed t suc: allo9ance& T:e trial court;s o7inion a77ears to be based u7on t:e follo9ing quotation from Eiada (%ol& " 7& .3,$- quoted in t:at decision: >& & & 9it: regard to t:e offense of lesiones- for exam7le- t:e ci%il liability is almost al9ays limited to indemnity for damage to t:e 7arty aggrie%ed for t:e time during 9:ic: :e 9as inca7acitated for 9or8G & & &> T:is statement- :o9e%er- deri%es its force- not from any 7ro%ision of t:e la9 a77licable to lesiones- but is a mere deduction from t:e o7eration of t:e la9 u7on t:e cases arising under it& T:at t:e inter7retation 7laced u7on t:is statement of Eiada by t:e lo9er court is eit:er not correct- or t:at it does not a77ly to actions for 7ersonal inBuries under article ",! of t:e Ci%il Code- is a77arent from t:e decisions of t:e su7reme court of 37ain of Canuary /- ",!*- Canuary ".- ",! - and 5ctober ",",!,- to 9:ic: a more extended reference 9ill be made furt:er on in t:is o7inion& T:ere is not:ing said in t:e decision in question 7ro:ibiting t:e allo9ance of com7ensatory damages- nor does t:ere seem to be anyt:ing contained t:erein o77osed to t:e allo9ance of suc: damages occurring subsequent to t:e institution of t:e action& 2n fact- it a77ears from t:e follo9ing quotation t:at t:e court 9ould :a%e been dis7osed to consider fa%orably t:e 7laintiff;s claim for inBury to :er business :ad t:e e%idence 7resented it& 'o e%idence 9as t:en offered by t:e 7laintiff to s:o9 t:at t:is slig:t lameness in any 9ay interfered 9it: t:e conduct of :er business or t:at s:e could ma8e any less amount t:erein t:an s:e could ma8e if s:e did not suffer from t:is direct& T:e court- t:erefore- did not err in allo9ing :er no furt:er damages on t:is account- be%ause there 'as no eviden%e that she had suffered any& T:e alleged damages 9:ic: t:e court refused to entertain in t:at case and under t:e discussion of 9:ic: a77ears t:e abo%e quotation from Eiada- 9ere for 7ain and suffering t:e 7laintiff may :a%e ex7erienced& T:e court said: >For t:e 7rofits 9:ic: t:e 7laintiff failed to obtain- s7o8en of in t:e latter 7art of t:is article- t:e 7laintiff 9as allo9ed to reco%er- and t:e question is- 9:et:er t:e %alue of t:e loss 9:ic: s:e suffered %an be e.tended to pain 'hi%h she e.perien%ed by reason of t:e accident&> Actions for damages suc: as t:e case at bar are based u7on article ",! of t:e Ci%il Code9:ic: reads as follo9s: >A 7erson 9:o- by act or omission- causes damage to anot:er 9:ere t:ere is fault or negligence s:all be obliged to re7air t:e damage so done&> 5f t:is article- t:e su7reme court of 37ain- in its decision of February )- ",!!- in considering t:e indemnity im7osed by it- said: >2t is undis7uted t:at said re7aration- to be efficacious and substantial- must rationally include t:e generic idea of com7lete indemnity- suc: as is defined and ex7lained in article ""!* of t:e said (Ci%il$ Code&> Articles ""!* and ""!) of t:e Ci%il Code read as follo9s: ""!*& 2ndemnity for losses and damages includes not only t:e amount of t:e loss 9:ic: may :a%e been suffered- but also t:at of t:e 7rofit 9:ic: t:e creditor may :a%e failed to reali=e-

406
reser%ing t:e 7ro%isions contained in t:e follo9ing articles& ""!)& T:e losses and damages for 9:ic: a debtor in good fait: is liable- are t:ose foreseen or 9:ic: may :a%e been foreseen- at t:e time of constituting t:e obligation- and 9:ic: may be a necessary consequence of its nonfulfillment& 2n case of fraud- t:e debtor s:all be liable for all t:ose 9:ic: clearly may originate from t:e nonfulfillment of t:e obligation& Fraud is not an element of t:e 7resent case- and 9e are not t:erefore concerned 9it: it& T:e liability of t:e 7resent defendant includes only t:ose damages 9:ic: 9ere >foreseen or may :a%e been foreseen> at t:e time of t:e accident- and 9:ic: are t:e necessary and immediate consequences of :is fault& 2n discussing t:e question of damages under t:e ci%il la9- Gutierre= (%ol& +77& *+- *.$ says: 2n t:e im7ossibility of laying do9n a surer rule- t:e Code understands 8no9n damages to be t:ose 9:ic: in t:e 7rudent discernment of t:e Budge merit suc: a qualification- alt:oug: t:eir consequences may not be direct- immediate ine%itable& 2f it is a question of losses occasioned t:roug: ot:er causes- exce7t fraud- and t:e contracting 7arties :a%e not co%enanted any indemnity for t:e case of nonfulfillment- t:en t:e re7aration of t:e losses or damages s:all only com7rise t:ose t:at fault& T:is rule may not be %ery clear- but is t:e only one 7ossible in a matter more of t:e domain of 7rudence t:an of la9& 2n its decision of A7ril "/- ",!"- t:e su7reme court of 37ain said: >'eit:er 9ere t:e errors incurred t:at are mentioned in t:e t:ird assignment- since t:e indemnity for damages is understood to a77ly to t:ose caused t:e com7lainant directly- and not to t:ose 9:ic:- indirectly and t:roug: more or less logical deductions- may affect t:e interests of t:e yuntamiento de 9iana- as occurs in t:e 7resent case 9:ere t:e increase of 9ealt: concerns not only t:e yuntamiento but also t:e 7ro%ide and t:e state- yet- not on t:is account does any action lie in t:eir be:alf as deri%ed from t:e contracts 9it: 1rioste&> T:is doctrine is also affirmed in t:e more recent decision of Aarc: "/- ",!,- in t:e follo9ing 9ords: >For t:e calculation of t:e damages claimed- it is necessary- 7ursuant to t:e 7ro%isions of article , + of t:e (a9 of Ci%il 6rocedure- to gi%e due regard to t:e nature of t:e obligation t:at 9as unfulfilled and to t:e reasonable consequences of its nonfulfillment- because t:e con%iction soug:t can be im7osed only 9:en t:ere exists a natural and true relation bet9een suc: nonfulfillment and damages- 9:ate%er- reason t:ere may be to demand t:em on anot:er account&> 2n t:e case of 1ar%ia 1amo vs. !ompania Madrilena de lumbrado, et% & ("!" Curis- 7&- ** $- it a77eared t:at an em7loyee of t:e defendant com7any 9:ose duty it 9as to clean and lig:t t:e street lam7s left as ste7ladder leaning against a tree 9:ic: stood in a 7ublic 7romenade& T:e se%en#year old son of t:e 7laintiff climbed t:e tree by means of t:e ladder- and 9:ile endea%oring to cut some branc:es fell to t:e ground- sustaining se%ere inBuries 9:ic: e%entually caused :is deat:& T:e 7laintiff lost in t:e lo9er courts and on a77eal to t:e su7reme court t:e decision of t:ose lo9er courts 9as affirmed 9it: t:e follo9ing statementG T:at in t:is sense O aside from t:e fitness of t:e Budgment a77ealed from- inasmuc: as t:e acquittal of t:e defendant 7arty resol%es all t:e issues argued at t:e trial- if no counterclaim 9as made O t:e assignments of error in t:e a77eal cannot be sustained- because- 9:ile t:e act of 7lacing t:e ste7ladder against t:e tree in t:e manner and for t:e 7ur7oses aforestated9as not 7ermissible it 9as regularly allo9ed by t:e local aut:orities- and t:at fact did not 7recisely determine t:e inBury- 9:ic: 9as due first to t:e abandonment of t:e c:ild by :is 7arents and secondly to :is o9n im7rudence- according to t:e findings of t:e trial court- not legally obBected to in t:e a77ealG so it is beyond 7erad%enture t:at t:e circumstances necessary for im7osing t:e obligations arising from guilt or negligence do not concur in t:e 7resent case& T:e court :ere sim7ly :eld t:at t:e inBury to t:e c:ild could not be considered as t:e 7robable

407
consequence of an inBury 9:ic: could :a%e been foreseen from t:e act of t:e com7any;s em7loyee in lea%ing t:e ladder leaning against t:e tree& 2n (e lba vs. #o%iedad nonima de "ranvias ("! Curis- 7&- , /$- a 7assenger 9as standing on t:e 7latform of a street car 9:ile it 9as in motion 9:en- on rounding a cur%e- t:e 7laintiff fell off and under t:e car- t:ereby sustaining se%ere inBuries 9:ic: too8 se%eral mont:s to :eal& Fe 9as not allo9ed to reco%er in t:e lo9er courts and on a77eal t:e su7reme court sustained t:e inferior tribunals saying: ?:ereas- considering t:e circumstances of t:e accident t:at :a77ened to D& Antonio Aorales de Alba- suc: as t:ey 9ere :eld by t:e trail court to :a%e been 7ro%ed- t:e e%idence does not disclose t:at any liability 9:ate%er in t:e said accident- for acts or omissions- may be c:arged against t:e em7loyees of t:e street car- as being guilty t:roug: fault or negligence- since it 9as s:o9n t:at t:e car 9as not tra%eling at any unusual s7eed nor 9as t:is increased on rounding t:e cur%e- but t:at t:e accident 9as solely due to t:e fact t:at t:e car in turning made a mo%ement 9:ic: caused t:e 7laintiff to lose :is balanceG and 9:ereas no act 9:ate%er :as been 7ro%ed of any %iolation of t:e regulations- nor can it be required of street#car em7loyees9:o :a%e to attend to t:eir res7ecti%e duties- t:at t:ey s:ould foresee and be on t:e alert to notify t:e 7ossibility of danger 9:en not greater t:an t:at 9:ic: is more or less in:erent to t:is mode of tra%elG t:erefore t:e a77eal can not be u7:eld- and 9it: all t:e more reason since t:e 7assenger 9:o ta8es t:e ris8 of tra%elling on t:e 7latform- es7ecially 9:en t:ere is an unoccu7ied seat in t:e car- s:ould be on :is guard against a contingency so natural as t:at of losing :is balance to a greater or less extent 9:en t:e car rounds a cur%e& 2n !respo vs. 1ar%ia ("" Curis7&- ),*$- t:e 7laintiff- a ser%ant 9oman- ) years old- 9as inBured in t:e 7erformance of :er duties by t:e sudden and unex7ected failure of t:e u77er floor of a :ouse in 9:ic: s:e 9as 9or8ing& T:e o9ner and t:e arc:itect of t:e building 9ere made defendants and after due trial it 9as :eld t:at no res7onsibility attac:ed to t:em for t:e failure of t:e floorconsequently t:e 7laintiff 9as not allo9ed to reco%er& 5n :er a77eal to t:e su7reme court t:at tribunal said: ?:ereas t:e trial court :eld- in %ie9 of all t:e e%idence adduced- including t:e ex7ert and ot:er testimony- t:at t:e act 9:ic: occasioned t:e inBury suffered by DoDa Aaria Alonso Cres7o- 9as accidental- 9it:out fault of anybody- and consequently fortuitous- and t:at- in so considering it to absol%e t:e defendants- :e did not incur t:e second error assigned on t:e a77eal- because9it:out o%erloo8ing t:e im7ort and legal %alue of t:e affida%it adduced at t:e trial- :e :eld t:at t:e defendants in t:eir conduct 9ere not liable for any omission t:at mig:t constitute suc: fault or negligence as 9ould oblige t:em to indemnify t:e 7laintiffG and to su77ort t:e error assigned no legal 7ro%ision 9:ate%er 9as cited suc: as 9ould require a different finding- nor 9as any ot:er aut:entic document 7roduced t:an t:e aforesaid affida%it 9:ic: contained an account of t:e ocular ins7ection and t:e ex7ert;s re7ort- 9:ic:- as 9ell as t:e testimony of t:e 9itnessest:e trial court 9as able to 7ass u7on in accordance 9it: its exclusi%e 7o9er#all 7oints of 7roof 9:ic: do not re%eal any mista8e on t:e 7art of t:e Budge- 9:ose o7inion t:e a77ellant 9ould substitute 9it: :is o9n by a different inter7retation& T:ese aut:orities are sufficient to s:o9 t:at liability for acts e. deli%to under t:e Ci%il Code is 7recisely t:at embraced 9it:in t:e >7roximate cause> of t:e Anglo#3axon la9 of torts& T:e general rule- as frequently stated- is t:at in order t:at an act omission may be t:e 7roximate cause of an inBury- t:e inBury must be t:e natural and 7robable consequence of t:e act or omission and suc: as mig:t :a%e been foreseen by an ordinarily res7onsible and 7rudent man- in t:e lig:t of t:e attendant circumstances- as li8ely to result t:erefrom & & & According to t:e latter aut:orities foreseeableness- as an element of 7roximate cause- does not de7end u7on 9:et:er an ordinarily reasonable and 7rudent man 9ould or oug:t in ad%ance to :a%e antici7ated t:e result 9:ic: :a77ened- but 9:et:er- if suc: result and t:e c:ain of e%ents connecting it 9it: t:e act com7lained of :ad occurred to :is mind- t:e same

408
9ould :a%e seemed natural and 7robable and according to t:e ordinary course of nature& T:us- as said in one case- >A 7erson guilty of negligence- or an unla9ful act- s:ould be :eld res7onsible for all t:e consequences 9:ic: a 7rudent and ex7erienced man- fully acquainted 9it: all t:e circumstances 9:ic: in fact existed- 9ould at t:e time of t:e negligent or unla9ful act :a%e t:oug:t reasonable to follo9- if t:ey :ad occurred to :is mind&> (?abas: R& etc& Co& vs. Co8er- /" 2ll& A77& **!- **+G Cooley on Torts- sec& ".&$ T:e %ie9 9:ic: 2 s:all endea%or to Bustify is t:at- for t:e 7ur7ose of ci%il liability- t:ose consequences- and t:ose only- are deemed >immediate-> >7roximate-> or- to antici7ate a little>natural and 7robable-> 9:ic: a 7erson of a%erage com7etence and 8no9ledge- being in t:e li8e case 9it: t:e 7erson 9:ose conduct is com7lained of- and :a%ing t:e li8e o77ortunities of obser%ation- mig:t be ex7ected to foresees as li8ely to follo9 u7on suc: conduct& T:is is only 9:ere t:e 7articular consequence is not 8no9n to :a%e been intended or foreseen by t:e actor& 2f 7roof of t:at be fort:coming- 9:et:er t:e consequence 9as >immediate> or not does not matter& T:at 9:ic: a man actually foresees is to :im- at all e%ents- natural and 7robable& (?ebb;s 6olloc8 on Torts- 7& 3 &$ T:ere is anot:er line of definitions 9:ic: :a%e for t:eir basis >t:e natural and 7robable consequences> or >t:e direct and immediate consequences> of t:e defendant;s act& (Coyce on Damages- sec& / &$ 2t 9ill be obser%ed t:at t:e su7reme court of 37ain- in t:e abo%e decisions- :as rat:er inclined to t:is line of definitions of 9:at results a defendant is liable for as a consequence of :is 9rongful acts9:ile t:e Ci%il Code uses t:e 7:raseology- >t:ose foreseen or 9:ic: may :a%e been foreseen&> From eit:er %ie97oint t:e met:od of arri%ing at t:e liability of t:e 9rongdoer under t:e Ci%il Code and under t:e Anglo 3axon la9 is t:e same& 3uc: 9as t:e :olding of t:is court in "aylor vs. M. E. ,. and 2. !o. ("* 6:il& Re7&- /- ".$: ?e agree 9it: counsel for a77ellant t:at under t:e Ci%il Code- as under t:e generally acce7ted doctrine in t:e 1nited 3tates- t:e 7laintiff in an action suc: as t:at under consideration- in order to establis: :is rig:t to a reco%ery- must establis: by com7etent e%idence: ("$ Damages to t:e 7laintiff& ( $ 'egligence by act or omission of 9:ic: defendant 7ersonally- or some 7erson for 9:ose acts it must res7ond- 9as guilty& (3$ T:e connection of cause and effect bet9een t:e negligence and t:e damages& T:ese 7ro7ositions are- of course- elementary- and do not admit of discussion- t:e real difficulty arising in t:e a77lication of t:ese 7rinci7les to t:e 7articular facts de%elo7ed in t:e case under consideration& 6arent:etically it may be said t:at 9e are not no9 dealing 9it: t:e doctrine of com7arati%e (contributory$ negligence 9:ic: 9as establis:ed by ,a/es vs. . 1. and &. !o& () 6:il& Re7&- 3.,$and Eades vs. . 1. and &. !o. (", 6:il&- Re7&- .*"&$ T:e rules for t:e measure of damages- once t:at liability is determined- are- :o9e%ersome9:at different& T:e Ci%il Code requires t:at t:e defendant re7air t:e damage caused by :is fault or negligence& 'o distinction is made t:erein bet9een damage caused maliciously and intentionally and damages caused t:roug: mere negligence in so far as t:e ci%il liability of t:e 9rongdoer in concerned& 'or is t:e defendant required to do more t:an re7air t:e damage done- or- in ot:er 9ordsto 7ut t:e 7laintiff in t:e same 7osition- so far as 7ecuniary com7ensation can do so- t:at :e 9ould :a%e been in :ad t:e damage not been inflicted& 2n t:is res7ect t:ere is a notable difference bet9een t:e t9o systems& 1nder t:e Anglo#3Axon la9- 9:en malicious or 9illful intention to cause t:e damage is an element of t:e defendant;s act- it is quite generally regarded as an aggra%ating circumstance for 9:ic: t:e 7laintiff is entitled to more t:an mere com7ensation for t:e inBury inflicted& T:ese are called exem7lary or 7uniti%e damages- and no 7ro%ision is made for t:em in article ",! of t:e Ci%il Code& Again it is quite common under t:e 4nglis: system to a9ard 9:at is called nominal damages

409
9:ere t:ere is only a tec:nical %iolation of t:e 7laintiff;s rig:ts resulting in no substantial inBury to :im& T:is branc: of damages is also un8no9n under t:e Ci%il Code& 2f no damages :a%e actually occurred t:ere can be none to re7air and t:e doctrine of nominal damages is not a77licable& T:us it :as been often :eld by t:e su7reme court of 37ain t:at a mere noncom7liance 9it: t:e obligations of a contract is not sufficient to sustain a Budgment for damages& 2t must be s:o9n t:at damages actually existed& (Decision of February "!- ",!+&$ Again- in its decision of Canuary ,- "/,)- t:at :ig: tribunal said t:at as a logical consequence of t:e requirements of articles ""!"- ")"/- and ",! t:at :e 9:o causes damages must re7air t:em- t:eir existence must be 7ro%ed& 2n at least one case decided by t:is court 9e :eld in effect t:at nominal damages could not be allo9ed& (Aercadovs. Abangan- "! 6:il&- Re7&- *)*&$ T:e 7ur7ose of t:e la9 in a9arding actual damages is to re7air t:e 9rong t:at :as been doneto com7ensate for t:e inBury inflicted- and not to im7ose a 7enalty& Actual damages are not de7endent on nor graded by t:e intent 9it: 9:ic: t:e 9rongful act is done&> (Field vs. Aunster"" Tex& Ci%&- A77l&- 3+"- 3 3& ?&- +")&$ >T:e 9ords >actual damages> s:all be construed to include all damages t:at t:e 7laintiff may :e :as suffered in res7ect to :is 7ro7erty- businesstrade- 7rofession- or occu7ation- and no ot:er damages 9:ate%er&> (Gen 3tat& Ainn& "/,+sec&- .+"/&$ >Actual damages are com7ensatory only&> ((ord- 59en and Co& vs. ?ood- " ! 2o9a- 3!3- ,+ '& ?&- /+ &$ > lCom7ensatory damages; as indicated by t:e 9ord em7loyed to c:aracteri=e t:em- sim7ly ma8e good or re7lace t:e loss caused by t:e 9rong& T:ey 7roceed from a sense of natural Bustice- and are designed to re7air t:at of 9:ic: one :as been de7ri%ed by t:e 9rong of anot:er&> (Reid vs. Ter9illiger- ""* '& @&- .3!G '& 4&- "!,"&$ >Com7ensatory damages; are suc: as a9arded to com7ensate t:e inBured 7arty for caused by t:e 9rong- and must be only suc: as ma8e Bust and fair com7ensation- and are due 9:en t:e 9rong is establis:ed- 9:et:er it 9as committed maliciously O t:at is- 9it: e%il intention O or not& (?imer vs. Allbaug:- )/ 2o9a- ),G + '& ?&- ./)G "* Am& 3t& Re7&- + &$ Finally- t:is court :as itself :eld t:at actual damages are t:e extent of t:e reco%ery allo9ed to t:e 7laintiff& 2nMar/er vs. 1ar%ia (. 6:il&- Re7&- ..)$- 9:ic: 9as an action for damages for breac: of contract- t:is court said: >4xce7t in t:ose cases 9:ere t:e la9 aut:ori=es t:e im7osition of 7uniti%e or exem7lary damages- t:e 7arty claiming damages must establis: by com7etent e%idence t:e amount of suc: damages- and courts can not gi%e Budgment for a greater amount t:an t:ose actually 7ro%en&> ?e are of t:e o7inion t:at t:e requirements of article ",! - t:at t:e defendant re7air t:e damage done can only mean 9:at is set fort: in t:e abo%e definitions- Anyt:ing s:ort of t:at 9ould not re7air t:e damages and anyt:ing beyond t:at 9ould be excessi%e& Actual com7ensatory damages are t:ose allo9ed for tortious 9rongs under t:e Ci%il CodeG not:ing more- not:ing less& According to t:e text of article ""!* of t:e Ci%il Code- 9:ic:- according to t:e decision of February )- ",,! (referred to abo%e$- is t:e generic conce7tion of 9:at article ",! embraces- actual damages include not only loss already suffered- but loss of 7rofits 9:ic: may not :a%e been reali=ed& T:e allo9ance of loss of 7ros7ecti%e 7rofits could :ardly be more ex7licitly 7ro%ided for& 0ut it may not be amiss to refer to t:e decisions of t:e su7reme court of 37ain for its inter7retation of t:is article& T:e decisions are numerous u7on t:is 7oint& T:e decisions are as e7itomi=ed by 3anc:e= Roman (%ol& "!& /"$- inter7rets article ""!* as follo9s: 6ursuant to articles ""!* and ""!) of t:e same Code- 9:ic: go%ern in general t:e matter of indemnity due for t:e nonfulfillment of obligations- t:e indemnity com7rises- not only t:e %alue of loss suffered- but also t:at of t:e 7ros7ecti%e 7rofit t:at 9as not reali=ed- and t:e obligation of t:e debtor in good fait: is limited to suc: losses and damages as 9ere foreseen or mig:t :a%e been foreseen at t:e time t:e obligation 9as incurred and 9:ic: are a necessary consequence of :is failure of fulfillment& (osses and damages under suc: limitations and frustrated 7rofits must- t:erefore- be 7ro%ed directly by means of t:e e%idence t:e la9 aut:ori=es& T:e decisions of Canuary /- ",!* (7ublis:ed in "+ Curis7& del Codigo Ci%il- ."*$ :ad to do 9it:

410
t:e follo9ing case: T:e 7laintiff- a 7ainter by occu7ation- 9as engaged to 7aint t:e 7oles from 9:ic: 9ere sus7ended t:e trolley 9ires of a traction com7any& ?:ile at 9or8 on February /- ",!"- t:e electric current 9as negligently turned on by t:e com7any- 9:ereby 7laintiff recei%ed a se%ere s:oc8causing :im to fall to t:e ground& 6laintiff sustained inBuries 9:ic: too8 se%eral mont:s to :eal and :is rig:t arm 9as 7ermanently disabled by t:e accident& T:e age of t:e 7laintiff is not stated& Fis daily 9age 9as four pesetas& Fe 9as a9arded .-!!! pesetas by t:e trial court and t:is Budgment 9as affirmed on a77eal to t:e su7reme court& T:is 9as equi%alent to a77roximately t9enty year;s salary& 2n its decision of Canuary ".- ",! (7ublis:ed in "! Curis7& del Codigo Ci%il&- *!$- t:e su7reme court :ad t:e follo9ing case under consideration: 6laintiff;s son 9as a tra%elling salesman +/ years of age- 9:o recei%ed an annual salary of -.!! pesetas and ex7enses& ?:ile tra%elling on defendant;s train an accident occurred 9:ic: caused :is deat:& T:e accident 9as :eld to be due to t:e failure of t:e defendant com7any to 8ee7 its trac8 and roadbed in good re7air& 6laintiff 9as allo9ed 3.-!!! pesetas for t:e deat: of :er son& t:is 9ould be equi%alent to about fourteen years; salary& in t:e case dated 5ctober ",- ",!, (7ublis:ed in ""* Curis7& del Codigo Ci%il- " !$- 7laintiff as suing for t:e deat: of :is son caused from inBuries inflicted by t:e defendant;s bull 9:ile 7laintiff and :is son 9ere tra%elling along a 7ublic road& T:e age of t:e son is not gi%en& 6laintiff 9as a9arded 3-!!! 7esetas damages& 2n eac: of t:e abo%e#mentioned cases t:e su7reme court refused to 7ass on t:e amount of damages 9:ic: :ad been a9arded& 2t a77ears to be t:e un%arying rule of t:e su7reme court of 37ain to acce7t t:e amount of damages a9arded by trial courts- its only inquiry being as to 9:et:er damages :a%e actually occurred as t:e result of t:e defendant;s fault or negligence& (Decision of Culy .- ",!,&$ T:e reason 9:y t:e su7reme court of 37ain refuses to consider t:e amount of damages a9arded is to be found in t:e great im7ortance attac:ed by it to t:e 7ro%ision of t:e 2ey de En*ui%iamiento !ivil- articles *., and "*, - 'o& )& 2n its auto of Aarc: "*- ",!! (7ublis:ed in / Curis7& del Codigo Ci%il- .!3$- t:e follo9ing comment is made on t:ese articles: As t:is su7reme court :as re7eatedly :eld- t:e 9eig:t gi%en by t:e trial Budge to t:e testimony9it: good discernment or ot:er9ise- can not be a matter for re%ersal- not e%en 9it: t:e su77ort of 'o& ) of article "*, of t:e 2ey de En*ui%iamiento !ivil- as it is exclusi%ely submitted to :im7ursuant to t:e 7ro%isions of article *., of t:e said la9 and article " +/ of t:e Code& T:e 7ractice of t:is court- under our Code of Ci%il 6rocedure- does not 7ermit of our going to suc: lengt:s in sustaining t:e findings of fact in trial courts& ?e :a%e re7eatedly :eld t:at due 9eig:t 9ill be gi%en in t:is court to t:e findings of fact by trial courts by reason of t:eir o77ortunities to see and :ear t:e 9itnesses testify- note t:eir demeanor and bearing u7on t:e stand- etc&- but 9:en t:e decision of t:e trial court- after 7ermitting due allo9ance for its su7erior ad%antages in 9eig:ing t:e e%idence of t:e case- a77ears to us to be against t:e fair 7re7onderance of t:at e%idence- it is our duty to re%erse or set aside t:e findings of fact made by t:e trial court and render suc: Budgment as t:e facts of t:e same deem to us to 9arrant& (Code of Ci%&- 6roc&- sec& +,*&$ ?e need go to no ot:er branc: of la9 t:an t:at of damages to su77ort t:is statement& 2n t:e follo9ing case t:e damages a9arded by t:e lo9er court 9ere reduced after a consideration of t:e e%idenceG 37arre%o:n vs. Fis:er ( 6:il& Re7&- *)*$G Cam7bell and Go#Tauco vs. 0e:n- Aeyer and Co& (3 6:il&- Re7&- .,!$G Causin vs. Ca8osalem ,. 6:il&- Re7&- "..$G Aar8er vs. Garcia (. 6:il&- Re7&- ..)$G 1y 6iaoco vs. 5smeDa (, 6:il&- Re7&- ,,$G Aacleod vs.6:il& 6ub& Co& (" 6:il&- Re7&- + )$G 5rense vs. Caucian ("/ 6:il& Re7&- ..3$& 2n Rodrigue= vs. Findlay and Co& ("+ 6:il& Re7&- ,+$G and Cordoba y Conde vs. Castle 0ros& ("/ 6:il& Re7&- 3")$- t:e damages a9arded by t:e lo9er court 9ere increased on a77eal after a consideration of t:e e%idence& 2n 0rode8 vs. (arson ("/ 6:il&- Re7&- + .$it 9as :eld t:at t:e damages a9arded by t:e lo9er court 9ere base on too uncertain e%idence- and t:e case 9as remanded for a ne9 trial as to t:e amount of damages sustained& Also in 3aldi%ar vs. Aunici7ality of Talisay ("/ 6:il&- Re7&- 3* $- 9:ere t:e lo9er court exonerated t:e defendant from liability- t:is court- after a consideration of t:e e%idence- :eld t:at t:e defendant 9as liable and remanded t:e case for t:e 7ur7ose of a ne9 trial in order to ascertain t:e amount of damages sustained&

411
2n t:is res7ect t:e la9 of damages under article ",! - as laid do9n by t:e decisions of t:e su7reme court of 37ain- :as been indirectly modified by t:e 7resent Code of Ci%il 6rocedure so t:at t:e finding of t:e lo9er court as to t:e amount of damages is not conclusi%e on a77eal& Actual damages- under t:e American system- include 7ecuniary recom7ense for 7ain and suffering- inBured feelings- and t:e li8e& Article ",! - as inter7reted by t:is court in Mar%elo vs. 9elas%o ("" 6:il&- Re7&- /)$- does not extend to suc: incidents& Aside from t:is exce7tion- actual damages- in t:is Burisdiction- in t:e sense t:at t:ey mean Bust com7ensation for t:e loss suffered- are 7ractically synonymous 9it: actual damages under t:e American system& T:is court :as already gone some distance in incor7orating into our Buris7rudence t:ose 7rinci7les of t:e American la9 of actual damages 9:ic: are of a general and abstract nature& 2n 0aer 3enior and Co&;s 3uccessorsvs. Com7aDia Aaritima (* 6:il& Re7&- ".$- t:e American 7rinci7le of admiralty la9 t:at t:e liability of t:e s:i7 for a to9 is not so great as t:at for :er cargo 9as a77lied in determining t:e res7onsibility of a s:i7- under t:e Code of Commerce- for :er to9& 2n Rodrigue=- vs. Findlay and Co& ("+ 6:il&- Re7&- ,+$- 9:ic: 9as an action for breac: of contract of 9arranty- t:e follo9ing 7rinci7le- su77orted entirely by American aut:ority- 9as used in com7uting t:e amount of damages due t:e 7laintiff: T:e damages reco%erable of a manufacturer or dealer for t:e breac: of 9arranty of mac:inery9:ic: :e contracts to furnis:- or 7lace in o7eration for a 8no9n 7ur7ose are not confined to t:e difference in %alue of t:e mac:inery as 9arranted and as it 7ro%es to be- but includes suc: consequential damages as are t:e direct- immediate- and 7robable result of t:e breac:& 2n lda+ vs. 1ay () 6:il&- Re7&- */$- it 9as :eld t:at t:e earnings or 7ossible earnings of a 9or8man 9rongfully disc:arged s:ould be considered in mitigation of :is damages for t:e breac: of contract by :is em7loyer- 9it: t:e remar8 t:at not:ing :ad been broug:t to our attention to t:e contrary under 37anis: Buris7rudence& 2n $ernande+ vs. M. E. ,. and 2. !o. ("+ 6:il&- Re7&- )+$- a release or com7romise for 7ersonal inBury sustained by negligence attributed to t:e defendant com7any 9as :eld a bar to an action for t:e reco%ery of furt:er damages- on t:e strengt: of American 7recedents& 2n "aylor vs. M. E. ,. and 2. !o., supra- in t:e course of an extended reference to American case la9- t:e doctrine of t:e so#called >Turntable> and >Tor7edo> cases 9as ado7ted by t:is court as a factor in determining t:e question of liability for damages in suc: cases as t:e one t:e court t:e t:en :ad under consideration& 2n Aartine= vs. Ean 0us8ir8 ("/ 6:il&- ),$- t:is court- after remar8ing t:at t:e rules under t:e 37anis: la9 by 9:ic: t:e fact of negligence is determined are- generally s7ea8ing- t:e same as t:ey are in Anglo#3axon countries- a77ro%ed t:e follo9ing 9ell#8no9n rule of t:e Anglo#3axon la9 of negligence- relying exclusi%ely u7on American aut:orities: >& & & acts- t:e 7erformance of 9:ic: :as not 7ro%en destructi%e or inBurious and 9:ic: :a%e been generally acquiesced in by society for so long a time as to :a%e ri7ened into a custom- cannot be :eld to be unreasonable or im7rudent and t:atunder t:e circumstances- t:e dri%er 9as not guilty of negligence in so lea%ing :is team 9:ile assisting in unloading :is 9agon& T:is court does not- as a rule- content itself in t:e determination of cases broug:t before it- 9it: a mere reference to or quotation of t:e articles of t:e codes or la9s a77licable to t:e questions in%ol%ed- for t:e reason t:at it is committed to t:e 7ractice of citing 7recedents for its rulings 9:ere%er 7racticable& (3ee 5cam7o vs. Cabangis- ". 6:il Re7&- * *&$ 'o better exam7le of t:e necessity of am7lifying t:e treatment of a subBect gi%en in t:e code is afforded t:an article ",! of t:e Ci%il Code& T:at article requires t:at t:e defendant re7air t:e damage done& T:ere is- :o9e%er- a 9orld of difficulty in carrying out t:e legislati%e 9ill in t:is 7articular& T:e measure of damages is an ultimate fact- to be determined from t:e e%idence submitted to t:e court& T:e question is sometimes a nice one to determine- 9:et:er t:e offered e%idence in suc: as soug:t to be considered by t:e court in fixing t:e quantum of damagesG and 9:ile t:e com7lexity of :uman affairs is suc: t:at t9o cases are seldom exactly ali8e- a t:oroug: discussion of eac: case may 7ermit of t:eir more or less definite

412
classification- and de%elo7 leading 7rinci7les 9:ic: 9ill be of great assistance to a court in determining t:e question- not only of damages- but of t:e 7rior one of negligence& ?e are of t:e o7inion t:at as t:e Code is so indefinite (e%en t:oug: from necessity$ on t:e subBect of damages arising from fault or negligence- t:e benc: and bar s:ould :a%e access to and a%ail t:emsel%es of t:ose great- underlying 7rinci7les 9:ic: :a%e been gradually and conser%ati%ely de%elo7ed and t:oroug:ly tested in Anglo# 3axon courts& A careful and intelligent a77lication of t:ese 7rinci7les s:ould :a%e a tendency to 7re%ent mista8es in t:e rulings of t:e court on t:e e%idence offered- and s:ould assist in determining damages- generally- 9it: some degree of uniformity& T:e la9 of damages :as not- for some reason- 7ro%ed as fa%orite a t:eme 9it: t:e ci%il#la9 9riters as 9it: t:ose of t:e common#la9 sc:ool& T:e decisions of t:e su7reme court of 37ain- t:oug: numerous on damages arising from contractual obligations- are exceedingly fe9 u7on damages for 7ersonal inBuries arising e. deli%to& T:e reasons for t:is are not im7ortant to t:e 7resent discussion& 2t is sufficient to say t:at t:e la9 of damages :as not recei%ed t:e elaborate treatment t:at it :as at t:e :ands of t:e Anglo#3axon Burists& 2f 9e in t:is Burisdiction desire to base our conclusions in damage cases u7on controlling 7rinci7les- 9e may de%elo7 t:ose 7rinci7les and incor7orate t:em into our Buris7rudence by t:at difficult and tedious 7rocess 9:ic: constitutes t:e centuries#old :istory of Anglo# 3axon Buris7rudenceG or 9e may a%ail oursel%es of t:ese 7rinci7les in t:eir 7resent state of de%elo7ment 9it:out furt:er effort t:an it costs to refer to t:e 9or8s and 9ritings of many eminent text# 9riters and Burists& ?e s:all not attem7t to say t:at all t:ese 7rinci7les 9ill be a77licable in t:is Burisdiction& 2t must be constantly borne in mind t:at t:e la9 of damages in t:is Burisdiction 9as concei%ed in t:e 9omb of t:e ci%il la9 and under an entirely different form of go%ernment& T:ese influences :a%e :ad t:eir effect u7on t:e customs and institutions of t:e country& 'or are t:e industrial and social conditions t:e same& An Act 9:ic: mig:t constitute negligence or damage :ere- and %ice %ersa& As stated in 3tory on 0ailments- section " - >2t 9ill t:ence follo9 t:at- in different times and in different countries- t:e standard (of diligence$ is necessary %ariable 9it: res7ect to t:e facts- alt:oug: it may be uniform 9it: res7ect to t:e 7rinci7le& 3o t:at it may :a77en t:at t:e same acts 9:ic: in one country or in one age may be deemed negligent acts- may at anot:er time or in anot:er country be Bustly deemed an exercise of ordinary diligence&> T:e abstract rules for determining negligence and t:e measure of damages are- :o9e%errules of natural Bustice rat:er t:an man#made la9- and are a77licable under any enlig:tened system of Buris7rudence& T:ere is all t:e more reason for our ado7ting t:e abstract 7rinci7les of t:e Anglo# 3axon la9 of damages- 9:en 9e consider t:at t:ere are at least t9o im7ortant la9s o n our statute boo8s of American origin- in t:e a77lication of 9:ic: 9e must necessarily be guided by American aut:orities: t:ey are t:e (ibel (a9 (9:ic:- by t:e 9ay- allo9s damages for inBured feelings and re7utation- as 9ell as 7uniti%e damages- in a 7ro7er case$- and t:e 4m7loyer;s (iability Act& T:e case at bar in%ol%es actual inca7acity of t:e 7laintiff for t9o mont:s- and loss of t:e greater 7ortion of :is business& As to t:e damages resulting from t:e actual inca7acity of t:e 7laintiff to attend to :is business t:ere is no question& T:ey are- of course- to be allo9ed on t:e basis of :is earning ca7acity- 9:ic: in t:is case- is 6.! 7er mont:& t:e difficult question in t:e 7resent case is to determine t:e damage 9:ic: :as results to :is business t:roug: :is enforced absence& 2n 3an= vs. (a%in 0ros& (* 6:il& Re7&- ,,$- t:is court- citing numerous decisions of t:e su7reme court of 37ain- :eld t:at e%idence of damages >must rest u7on satisfactory 7roof of t:e existence in reality of t:e damages alleged to :a%e been suffered&> 0ut- 9:ile certainty is an essential element of an a9ard of damages- it need not be a mat:ematical certainty& T:at t:is is true is adduced not only from t:e 7ersonal inBury cases from t:e su7reme court of 37ain 9:ic: 9e :a%e discussed abo%e- but by many cases decided by t:is court- reference to 9:ic: :as already been made& As stated in Coyce on Damages- section ).- >0ut to deny t:e inBured 7arty t:e rig:t to reco%er any actual damages in cases f torts because t:ey are of suc: a nature a cannot be t:us certainly measured- 9ould be to enable 7arties to 7rofit by and s7eculate u7on t:eir o9n 9rongsG suc: is not t:e la9&> As to t:e elements to be considered in estimating t:e damage done to 7laintiff;s business by reason of :is accident- t:is same aut:or- citing numerous aut:orities- :as t:e follo9ing to say: 2t is 7ro7er to consider t:e business t:e 7laintiff is engaged in- t:e nature and extent of suc: business- t:e

413
im7ortance of :is 7ersonal o%ersig:t and su7erintendence in conducting it- and t:e consequent loss arising from :is inability to 7rosecure it& T:e business of t:e 7resent 7laintiff required :is immediate su7er%ision& All t:e 7rofits deri%ed t:erefrom 9ere 9:olly due to :is o9n exertions& 'or are :is damages confined to t:e actual time during 9:ic: :e 9as 7:ysically inca7acitated for 9or8- as is t:e case of a 7erson 9or8ing for a sti7ulated daily or mont:ly or yearly salary& As to 7ersons 9:ose labor is t:us com7ensated and 9:o com7letely reco%er from t:eir inBuries- t:e rule may be said to be t:at t:eir damages are confined to t:e duration of t:eir enforced absence from t:eir occu7ation& 0ut t:e 7resent 7laintiff could not resume :is 9or8 at t:e same 7rofit :e 9as ma8ing 9:en t:e accident occurred& Fe :ad built u7 an establis:ing business 9:ic: included some t9enty regular customers& T:ese customers re7resented to :im a regular income& 2n addition to t:is :e made sales to ot:er 7eo7le 9:o 9ere not so regular in t:eir 7urc:ases& 0ut :e could figure on ma8ing at least some sales eac: mont: to ot:ers besides :is regular customers& Ta8en as a 9:ole :is a%erage mont:ly income from :is business 9as about 6.!& As a result of t:e accident- :e lost all but four of :is regular customers and :is recei7ts d9indled do9n to 7ractically not:ing& 5t:er agents :ad in%aded :is territory- and u7on becoming 7:ysically able to attend to :is business- :e found t:at 9ould be necessary to start 9it: 7ractically no regular trade- and eit:er 9in bac8 :is old customers from :is com7etitors or else secure ot:ers& During t:is 7rocess of reestablis:ing :is 7atronage :is income 9ould necessarily be less t:an :e 9as ma8ing at t:e time of t:e accident and 9ould continue to be so for some time& 5f course- if it could be mat:ematically determined :o9 muc: less :e 9ill earn during t:is rebuilding 7rocess t:an :e 9ould :a%e earned if t:e accident :ad not occurred- t:at 9ould be t:e amount :e 9ould be entitled to in t:is action& 0ut manifestly t:is ideal com7ensation cannot be ascertained& T:e question t:erefore resol%es itself into 9:et:er t:is damage to :is business can be so nearly ascertained as to Bustify a court in a9arding any amount 9:ate%er& ?:en it is s:o9n t:at a 7laintiff;s business is a going concern 9it: a fairly steady a%erage 7rofit on t:e in%estment- it may be assumed t:at :ad t:e interru7tion to t:e business t:roug: defendant;s 9rongful act not occurred- it 9ould :a%e continued 7roducing t:is a%erage income >so long as is usual 9it: t:ings of t:at nature&> ?:en in addition to t:e 7re%ious a%erage income of t:e business it is furt:er s:o9n 9:at t:e reduced recei7ts of t:e business are immediately after t:e cause of t:e interru7tion :as been remo%ed- t:ere can be no manner of doubt t:at a loss of 7rofits :as resulted from t:e 9rongful act of t:e defendant& 2n t:e 7resent case- 9e not only :a%e t:e %alue of 7laintiff;s business to :im Bust 7rior to t:e accident- but 9e also :a%e its %alue to :im after t:e accident& At t:e trial- :e testified t:at :is 9ife :ad earned about fifteen 7esos during t:e t9o mont:s t:at :e 9as disabled& T:at t:is almost total destruction of :is business 9as directly c:argeable to defendant;s 9rongful act- t:ere can be no manner of doubtG and t:e mere fact t:at t:e loss can not be ascertained 9it: absolute accuracy- is no reason for denying 7laintiff;s claim altoget:er& As stated in one case- it 9ould be a re7roac: to t:e la9 if :e could not reco%er damages at all& (0ald9in vs. Aarque=- ," Ga&+!+$ 6rofits are not excluded from reco%ery because t:ey are 7rofitsG but 9:en excluded- it is on t:e ground t:at t:ere are no %riteria by 9:ic: to estimate t:e amount 9it: t:e certainty on 9:ic: t:e adBudications of courts- and t:e findings of Buries- s:ould be based& (0rig:am vs. Carlisle (Ala&$- .* Am& Re7&- /- as quoted in ?ilson vs. ?ern9ag- ") 6a&- / &$ T:e leading 4nglis: case on t:e subBect is 6:illi7s vs. (ondon and 3out:9estern Ry& Co& (. <& 0& D&- )//G +" (&T&- " "G / 4ng& Rul& Cases- ++)$& T:e 7laintiff 9as a 7:ysician 9it: a %ery lucrati%e 7ractice& 2n one case :e :ad recei%ed a fee of .-!!! guineasG but it a77eared t:at :is a%erage income 9as bet9een *-!!! and )-!!! 7ounds sterling 7er year& T:e re7ort does not state definitely :o9 serious 7laintiff;s inBuries 9ere- but a77arently :e 9as 7ermanently disabled& T:e follo9ing instruction to t:e Bury 9as a77ro%ed- and 9e t:in8 s:ould be set out in t:is o7inion as a77licable to t:e 7resent case: @ou cannot 7ut t:e 7laintiff bac8 again into :is original 7osition- but you must bring your reasonable common sense to bear- and you must al9ays recollect t:at t:is is t:e only occasion

414
on 9:ic: com7ensation can be gi%en& Dr& 6:ili7s can ne%er sue again for it& @ou :a%et:erefore- not to gi%e :im com7ensation a 9rong at t:e :ands of t:e defendants- and you must ta8e care o gi%e :im full- fair com7ensation& for t:at 9:ic: :e :as suffered& T:e Bury;s a9ard 9as se%en t:ousand 7ounds& 17on a ne9 trial- on t:e ground of t:e insufficiency of t:e damages a9arded- 7laintiff recei%ed "*-!!! 7ounds& 5n t:e second a77eal0ram9ell- (& C&- 7ut t:e case of a laborer earning . s:illings a 9ee8- 9:o- on account of inBury- 9as totally inca7acitated for 9or8 for t9enty#six 9ee8s- and t:en for ten 9ee8s could not earn more t:an ten s:illings a 9ee8- and 9as not li8ely to get into full 9or8 for anot:er t9enty 9ee8s& T:e 7ro7er measure of damages 9ould be in t:at case . s:illings a 9ee8 t9enty#six 9ee8s- 7lus ". s:illings a 9ee8 for t:e ten and t9enty 9ee8s- and damages for bodily suffering and medical ex7enses& Damages for bodily suffering- of course- are not- for reasons stated abo%e- a77licable to t:is BurisdictionG ot:er9ise 9e belie%e t:is exam7le to be t:e ideal com7ensation for loss of 7rofits 9:ic: courts s:ould stri8e to reac:- in cases li8e t:e 7resent& 2n Coslin vs. Grand Ra7ids 2ce and Coal Co& (.3 Aic:&- 3 $- t:e court said: >T:e 7laintiff- in ma8ing 7roof of :is damages- offered testimony to t:e effect t:at :e 9as an attorney at la9 of ability and in good standing- and t:e extent and %alue of :is 7ractice- and t:at- in substance- t:e inBury :ad rendered :im inca7able of 7ursuing :is 7rofession& T:is 9as obBected to as irrele%ant- immaterial and incom7etent& ?e t:in8 t:is 9as com7etent& 2t 9as 9it:in t:e declaration t:at :is standing in :is 7rofession 9as suc: as to command res7ect- and 9as 7ro7er to be s:o9n- and :is ability to earn- and t:e extent of :is 7ractice- 9ere a 7ortion of t:e loss :e :ad sustained by t:e inBury com7lained of& T:ere 9as no error in 7ermitting t:is 7roof- and 9e furt:er t:in8 it 9as com7etent- u7on t:e question of damages under t:e e%idence in t:is case- for t:e 7laintiff to s:o9- by Cudge Foyt- as 9as done- t:at an interru7tion in :is legal business and 7ractice for eig:t mont:s 9as a damage to :im& 2t seems to :a%e been a 7art of t:e legitimate consequences of t:e 7laintiff;s inBury&> 2n (uc8 vs. City of Ri7on (. ?is&- ",*$- 7laintiff 9as allo9ed to 7re%ent t:at s:e 9as a mid9ife and s:o9 t:e extent of :er earnings 7rior to t:e accident in order to establis: t:e damage done to :er business& T:e 7ioneer case of Gobel vs. Foug: ( * Ainn&- . $ contains 7er:a7s one of t:e clearest statements of t:e rule and is generally considered as one of t:e leading cases on t:is subBect& 2n t:at case t:e court said: ?:en a regular and establis:ed business- t:e %alue of 9:ic: may be ascertained- :as been 9rongfully interru7ted- t:e true general rule for com7ensating t:e 7arty inBured is to ascertain :o9 muc: less %aluable t:e business 9as by reason of t:e interru7tion- and allo9 t:at as damages& T:is gi%es :im only 9:at t:e 9rongful act de7ri%ed :im of& T:e %alue of suc: a business de7ends mainly on t:e ordinary 7rofits deri%ed from it& 3uc: %alue cannot be ascertained 9it:out s:o9ing 9:at t:e usual 7rofits areG nor are t:e ordinary 7rofits incident to suc: a business contingent or s7eculati%e- in t:e sense t:at excludes 7rofits from consideration as an element of damages& ?:at t:ey 9ould :a%e been- in t:e ordinary course of t:e business- for a 7eriod during 9:ic: it 9as interru7ted- may be s:o9n 9it: reasonable certainty& ?:at effect extraordinary circumstances 9ould :a%e :ad u7on t:e business mig:t be contingent and conBectural- and any 7rofits antici7ated from suc: cause 9ould be obnoxious to t:e obBection t:at t:ey are merely s7eculati%eG but a :istory of t:e business- for a reasonable time 7rior to a 7eriod of interru7tion- 9ould enable t:e Bury to determine :o9 muc: 9ould be done under ordinary circumstances- and in t:e usual course- during t:e gi%en 7eriodG and t:e usual rate of 7rofit being s:o9n- of course t:e aggregate becomes only a matter of calculation& 2n t:e %ery recent case of ?ellington vs. 37encer (58la&- "3 3& ?&- *).$- 7laintiff :ad rented a building from t:e defendant and used it as a :otel& Defendant sued out a 9rongful 9rit of attac:ment u7on t:e equi7ment of t:e 7laintiff- 9:ic: caused :im to abandon :is :otel business& After remar8ing t:at t:e earlier cases :eld t:at no reco%ery could be :ad for 7ros7ecti%e 7rofits- but t:at t:e later aut:orities :a%e :eld t:at suc: damages may be allo9ed 9:en t:e amount is ca7able of 7roof- t:e court :ad t:e follo9ing to say:

415
?:ere t:e 7laintiff :as Bust made :is arrangements to begin business- and :e is 7re%ented from beginning eit:er by tort or a breac: of contract- or 9:ere t:e inBury is to a 7articular subBect matter- 7rofits of 9:ic: are uncertain- e%idence as to ex7ected 7rofits must be excluded from t:e Bury because of t:e uncertainty& T:ere is as muc: reason to belie%e t:at t:ere 9ill be no 7rofits as to belie%e t:at t:ere 9ill be no 7rofits- but no suc: argument can be made against 7ro%ing a usual 7rofit of an establis:ed business& 2n t:is case t:e 7laintiff- according to :is testimony- :ad an establis:ed business- and 9as earning a 7rofit in t:e business- and :ad been doing t:at for a sufficient lengt: of time t:at e%idence as to 7ros7ecti%e 7rofits 9as not entirely s7eculati%e& Aen 9:o :a%e been engaged in business calculate 9it: a reasonable certainty t:e income from t:eir business- ma8e t:eir 7lans to li%e accordingly- and t:e %alue of suc: business is not a matter of s7eculation as to exclude e%idence from t:e Bury& A good exam7le of a business not establis:ed for 9:ic: loss of 7rofits 9ill be allo9ed may be found in t:e 3tatesvs. Dur8in (*. Ian&- "!"$& 6laintiffs formed a 7artners:i7- and entered t:e 7lumbing business in t:e city of To7e8a in A7ril& 2n Culy of t:e same year- t:ey broug:t an action against a 7lumbers; association on t:e ground t:at t:e latter :ad formed an unla9ful combination in restraint of trade and 7re%ented t:em from securing su77lies for t:eir business 9it:in a reasonable time& T:e court said: 2n t:e 7resent case t:e 7laintiffs :ad only been in business a s:ort time O not so long t:at it can be said t:at t:ey :ad an establis:ed business& t:ey :ad contracted t:ree Bobs of 7lumbing:ad finis:ed t9o- and lost money on bot:G not- :o9e%er- because of any misconduct or 9rongful acts on t:e 7art of t:e defendants or eit:er of t:em& T:ey carried no stoc8 in tradeand t:eir manner of doing business 9as to secure a contract and t:en 7urc:ase t:e material necessary for its com7letion& 2t is not s:o9n t:at t:ey :ad any means or ca7ital in%ested in t:e business ot:er t:an t:eir tools& 'eit:er of t:em :ad 7rior t:ereto managed or carried on a similar business& 'or 9as it s:o9n t:at t:ey 9ere ca7able of so managing t:is business as to ma8e it earn a 7rofit& T:ere 9as little of t:at class of business being done at t:e time- and littleif any- 7rofit deri%ed t:erefrom& T:e 7laintiffs; business lac8ed duration- 7ermanency- and recognition& 2t 9as an ad%enture- as distinguis:ed from an establis:ed business& 2ts 7rofits 9ere s7eculati%e and remote- existing only in antici7ation& T:e la9- 9it: all its %igor and energy in its effort to rig:t or 9rongs and damages for inBuries sustained- may not enter into a domain of s7eculation or conBecture& 2n %ie9 of t:e c:aracter and condition of t:e 7laintiffs; businesst:e Bury :ad not sufficient e%idence from 9:ic: to ascertain 7rofits& 5t:er cases 9:ic: :old t:at t:e 7rofits of an establis:ed business may be considered in calculating t:e measure of damages for an interru7tion of it are: ?il8inson vs. Dunbar ("+, '& C&- !$G Iinney vs. Croc8er ("/ ?is&- /!$G 3ac:ra vs. Aanila (" ! la&- .* $G Iramer vs. City of (os Angeles ("+) Cal&- **/$G Augge vs. 4r8man ("*" 2ll& A77&- "/!$G Fredonia Gas Co& vs. 0ailey ,)) Ian&- ,*$G Aorro9 vs. Ao& 6ac& R& Co& ("+! Ao& A77&- !!$G City of 2ndiana7olis vs. Gaston (./ 2nd&- +$G 'ational Fibre 0oard vs. Auburn 4lectric (ig:t Co& (,. Ae&- 3"/$G 3ut:erland on Damages- sec& )!& ?e :a%e no9 outlined t:e 7rinci7les 9:ic: s:ould go%ern t:e measure of damages in t:is case& ?e are of t:e o7inion t:at t:e lo9er court :ad before it sufficient e%idence of t:e damage to 7laintiff;s business in t:e 9ay of 7ros7ecti%e loss of 7rofits to Bustify it in calculating :is damages as to :is item& T:at e%idence :as been 7ro7erly ele%ated to t:is court of re%ie9& 1nder section +,* of t:e Code of Ci%il 6rocedure- 9e are aut:ori=ed to enter final Budgment or direct a ne9 trial- as may best subser%e t:e ends of Bustice& ?e are of t:e o7inion t:at t:e e%idence 7resented as to t:e damage done to 7laintiff;s business is credible and t:at it is sufficient and clear enoug: u7on 9:ic: to base a Budgment for damages& 6laintiff :a%ing :ad four years; ex7erience in selling goods on commission- it must be 7resumed t:at :e 9ill be able to rebuild :is business to its former 7ro7ortionsG so t:at at some time in t:e future :is commissions 9ill equal t:ose :e 9as recei%ing 9:en t:e accident occurred& Aided by :is ex7erience- :e s:ould be able to rebuild t:is business to its former 7ro7ortions in muc: less time t:an it too8 to establis: it as it stood Bust 7rior to t:e accident& 5ne year s:ould be sufficient time in 9:ic: to do t:is& T:e 7rofits 9:ic: 7laintiff 9ill recei%e from t:e business in t:e course of its reconstruction 9ill gradually increase& T:e inBury to 7laintiff;s business begins 9:ere t:ese 7rofits

416
lea%e off- and- as a corollary- t:ere is 9:ere defendant;s liability begins& 17on t:is basis- 9e fix t:e damages to 7laintiff;s business at 6 .!& T:e Budgment of t:e lo9er court is set aside- and t:e 7laintiff is a9arded t:e follo9ing damagesG ten 7esos for medical ex7ensesG one :undred 7esos for t:e t9o mont:s of :is enforced absence from :is businessG and t9o :undred and fifty 7esos for t:e damage done to :is business in t:e 9ay of loss of 7rofits- or a total of t:ree :undred and sixty 7esos& 'o costs 9ill be allo9ed in t:is instance&

R A",) E. Ra- % and E#,)nda Ra- %, )n $.")# =n !".a,' and a% na$(#a, A(a#d)an% ' $." -)n #%, R --", Ra- %, R 8 R d"#)B7 Ra- % and R n Ra8- nd Ra- % &. C (#$ ' A??"a,%, D", % San$ % M"d)Ba, C"n$"#, D#. O#,)n H %a7a and D#a. P"#'"B$a G($)"##"D G&R& 'o& " +3.+ December ,- ",,, IA61'A'- J.: T:e Fi77ocratic 5at: mandates 7:ysicians to gi%e 7rimordial consideration to t:e :ealt: and 9elfare of t:eir 7atients& 2f a doctor fails to li%e u7 to t:is 7rece7t- :e is made accountable for :is acts& A mista8e- t:roug: gross negligence or incom7etence or 7lain :uman error- may s7ell t:e difference bet9een life and deat:& 2n t:is sense- t:e doctor 7lays God on :is 7atient;s fate& " 2n t:e case at bar- t:e Court is called u7on to rule 9:et:er a surgeon- an anest:esiologist and a :os7ital s:ould be made liable for t:e unfortunate comatose condition of a 7atient sc:eduled for c:olecystectomy& 6etitioners see8 t:e re%ersal of t:e decision 3 of t:e Court of A77eals- dated , Aay ",,.9:ic: o%erturned t:e decision + of t:e Regional Trial Court- dated 3! Canuary ",, - finding 7ri%ate res7ondents liable for damages arising from negligence in t:e 7erformance of t:eir 7rofessional duties to9ards 7etitioner 4rlinda Ramos resulting in :er comatose condition& T:e antecedent facts as summari=ed by t:e trial court are re7roduced :ereunder: 6laintiff 4rlinda Ramos 9as- until t:e afternoon of Cune ")- ",/.- a +)#year old (4x:& >A>$ robust 9oman (T3'- 5ctober ",- ",/,- 7& "!$& 4xce7t for occasional com7laints of discomfort due to 7ains allegedly caused by t:e 7resence of a stone in :er gall bladder (T3'- Canuary "3- ",//- 77& +#.$- s:e 9as as normal as any ot:er 9oman& Aarried to Rogelio 4& Ramos- an executi%e of 6:ili77ine (ong Distance Tele7:one Com7any- s:e :as t:ree c:ildren 9:ose names are Rommel Ramos- Roy Roderic8 Ramos and Ron Raymond Ramos (T3'- 5ctober ",- ",/,- 77& .#*$& 0ecause t:e discomforts some:o9 interfered 9it: :er normal 9ays- s:e soug:t 7rofessional ad%ice& 3:e 9as ad%ised to undergo an o7eration for t:e remo%al of a stone in :er gall bladder (T3'- Canuary "3- ",//- 7& .$& 3:e under9ent a series of examinations 9:ic: included blood and urine tests (4x:s& >A> and >C>$ 9:ic: indicated s:e 9as fit for surgery& T:roug: t:e intercession of a mutual friend- Dr& 0uen%iaBe (T3'- Canuary "3- ",//- 7& )$- s:e and :er :usband Rogelio met for t:e first time Dr& 5rlino Fo=a8a (s:ould be Fosa8aG see T3'- February !- ",,!- 7& 3$- one of t:e defendants in t:is case- on Cune "!- ",/.& T:ey agreed t:at t:eir date at t:e o7erating table at t:e D(3AC (anot:er defendant$- 9ould be on Cune ")- ",/. at ,:!! A&A&& Dr& Fosa8a decided t:at s:e s:ould undergo a >c:olecystectomy> o7eration after examining t:e documents (findings from t:e Ca7itol Aedical Center- F41 Fos7ital and D(3AC$ 7resented to :im& Rogelio 4& Ramos- :o9e%er- as8ed Dr& Fosa8a to loo8 for a good anest:esiologist& Dr& Fosa8ain turn- assured Rogelio t:at :e 9ill get a good anest:esiologist& Dr& Fosa8a c:arged a fee of 6"*-!!!&!!- 9:ic: 9as to include t:e anest:esiologist;s fee and 9:ic: 9as to be 7aid after t:e o7eration (T3'- 5ctober ",- ",/,- 77& "+#".# 3- 3"#33G T3'-

417
February )- ",,!- 7& "3G and T3'- 'o%ember ,- ",/,- 77& 3#+- "!- ")$& A day before t:e sc:eduled date of o7eration- s:e 9as admitted at one of t:e rooms of t:e D(3AC- located along 4& Rodrigue= A%enue- <ue=on City (T3'- 5ctober ",-",/,7& ""$& At around ):3! A&A& of Cune ")- ",/. and 9:ile still in :er room- s:e 9as 7re7ared for t:e o7eration by t:e :os7ital staff& Fer sister#in#la9- Ferminda Cru=- 9:o 9as t:e Dean of t:e College of 'ursing at t:e Ca7itol Aedical Center- 9as also t:ere for moral su77ort& 3:e reiterated :er 7re%ious request for Ferminda to be 9it: :er e%en during t:e o7eration& After 7raying- s:e 9as gi%en inBections& Fer :ands 9ere :eld by Ferminda as t:ey 9ent do9n from :er room to t:e o7erating room (T3'- Canuary "3",//- 77& ,#""$& Fer :usband- Rogelio- 9as also 9it: :er (T3'- 5ctober ",- ",/,- 7& "/$& At t:e o7erating room- Ferminda sa9 about t9o or t:ree nurses and Dr& 6erfecta Gutierre=- t:e ot:er defendant- 9:o 9as to administer anest:esia& Alt:oug: not a member of t:e :os7ital staff- Ferminda introduced :erself as Dean of t:e College of 'ursing at t:e Ca7itol Aedical Center 9:o 9as to 7ro%ide moral su77ort to t:e 7atientto t:em& Ferminda 9as allo9ed to stay inside t:e o7erating room& At around ,:3! A&A&- Dr& Gutierre= reac:ed a nearby 7:one to loo8 for Dr& Fosa8a 9:o 9as not yet in (T3'- Canuary "3- ",//- 77& ""#" $& Dr& Gutierre= t:ereafter informed Ferminda Cru= about t:e 7ros7ect of a delay in t:e arri%al of Dr& Fosa8a& Ferminda t:en 9ent bac8 to t:e 7atient 9:o as8ed- >Aindy- 9ala 7a ba ang Doctor>J T:e former re7lied- >Fu9ag 8ang mag#alaala- darating na iyon> ()bid&$& T:ereafter- Ferminda 9ent out of t:e o7erating room and informed t:e 7atient;s :usband- Rogelio- t:at t:e doctor 9as not yet around ( id&- 7& "3$& ?:en s:e returned to t:e o7erating room- t:e 7atient told :er- >Aindy- ini7 na ini7 na a8o- i8u:a mo a8o ng ibang Doctor&> 3o- s:e 9ent out again and told Rogelio about 9:at t:e 7atient said (id&7& ".$& T:ereafter- s:e returned to t:e o7erating room& At around "!:!! A&A&- Rogelio 4& Ramos 9as >already dying MandN 9aiting for t:e arri%al of t:e doctor> e%en as :e did :is best to find somebody 9:o 9ill allo9 :im to 7ull out :is 9ife from t:e o7erating room (T3'- 5ctober ",- ",/,- 77& ",# !$& Fe also t:oug:t of t:e feeling of :is 9ife- 9:o 9as inside t:e o7erating room 9aiting for t:e doctor to arri%e (ibid&$& At almost " :!! noon- :e met Dr& Garcia 9:o remar8ed t:at :e (Dr& Garcia$ 9as also tired of 9aiting for Dr& Fosa8a to arri%e ( id&- 7& "$& ?:ile tal8ing to Dr& Garcia at around " :"! 6&A&- :e came to 8no9 t:at Dr& Fosa8a arri%ed as a nurse remar8ed- >'andiyan na si Dr& Fosa8a- dumating na ra9&> 17on :earing t:ose 9ords:e 9ent do9n to t:e lobby and 9aited for t:e o7eration to be com7leted (id&- 77& "*- ,# 3!$& At about " :". 6&A&- Ferminda Cru=- 9:o 9as inside t:e o7erating room 9it: t:e 7atient- :eard somebody say t:at >Dr& Fosa8a is already :ere&> 3:e t:en sa9 7eo7le inside t:e o7erating room >mo%ing- doing t:is and t:at- MandN 7re7aring t:e 7atient for t:e o7eration> (T3'- Canuary "3- ",//- 7& "*$& As s:e :eld t:e :and of 4rlinda Ramoss:e t:en sa9 Dr& Gutierre= intubating t:e :a7less 7atient& 3:e t:ereafter :eard Dr& Gutierre= say- >ang :ira7 ma#intubate nito- mali yata ang 7ag8a8a7aso8& 5 lumala8i ang tiyan> (id&- 7& ")$& 0ecause of t:e remar8s of Dra& Gutierre=- s:e focused :er attention on 9:at Dr& Gutierre= 9as doing& 3:e t:ereafter noticed bluis: discoloration of t:e nailbeds of t:e left :and of t:e :a7less 4rlinda e%en as Dr& Fosa8a a77roac:ed :er& 3:e t:en :eard Dr& Fosa8a issue an order for someone to call Dr& Calderon- anot:er anest:esiologist (id&- 7& ",$& After Dr& Calderon arri%ed at t:e o7erating room- s:e sa9 t:is anest:esiologist trying to intubate t:e 7atient& T:e 7atient;s nailbed became bluis: and t:e 7atient 9as 7laced in a trendelenburg 7osition O a 7osition 9:ere t:e :ead of t:e 7atient is 7laced in a 7osition lo9er t:an :er feet 9:ic: is an indication t:at t:ere is a decrease of blood su77ly to t:e 7atient;s brain ()d&- 77& ",# !$& 2mmediately t:ereafter-

418
s:e 9ent out of t:e o7erating room- and s:e told Rogelio 4& Ramos >t:at somet:ing 9rong 9as & & & :a77ening> ()bid&$& Dr& Calderon 9as t:en able to intubate t:e 7atient (T3'- Culy .- ",,"- 7& ,$& Aean9:ile- Rogelio- 9:o 9as outside t:e o7erating room- sa9 a res7iratory mac:ine being rus:ed to9ards t:e door of t:e o7erating room& Fe also sa9 se%eral doctors rus:ing to9ards t:e o7erating room& ?:en informed by Ferminda Cru= t:at somet:ing 9rong 9as :a77ening- :e told :er (Ferminda$ to be bac8 9it: t:e 7atient inside t:e o7erating room (T3'- 5ctober ",- ",/,- 77& .# /$& Ferminda Cru= immediately rus:ed bac8- and sa9 t:at t:e 7atient 9as still in trendelenburg 7osition (T3'- Canuary "3- ",//- 7& !$& At almost 3:!! 6&A& of t:at fateful day- s:e sa9 t:e 7atient ta8en to t:e 2ntensi%e Care 1nit (2C1$& About t9o days t:ereafter- Rogelio 4& Ramos 9as able to tal8 to Dr& Fosa8a& T:e latter informed t:e former t:at somet:ing 9ent 9rong during t:e intubation& Reacting to 9:at 9as told to :im- Rogelio reminded t:e doctor t:at t:e condition of :is 9ife 9ould not :a%e :a77ened- :ad :e (Dr& Fosa8a$ loo8ed for a good anest:esiologist (T3'- 5ctober ",- ",/,- 7& 3"$& Doctors Gutierre= and Fosa8a 9ere also as8ed by t:e :os7ital to ex7lain 9:at :a77ened to t:e 7atient& T:e doctors ex7lained t:at t:e 7atient :ad bronc:os7asm (T3'- 'o%ember ".- ",,!- 77& *# )$& 4rlinda Ramos stayed at t:e 2C1 for a mont:& About four mont:s t:ereafter or on 'o%ember ".- ",/.- t:e 7atient 9as released from t:e :os7ital& During t:e 9:ole 7eriod of :er confinement- s:e incurred :os7ital bills amounting to 6,3-.+ & . 9:ic: is t:e subBect of a 7romissory note and affida%it of underta8ing executed by Rogelio 4& Ramos in fa%or of D(3AC& 3ince t:at fateful afternoon of Cune ")- ",/.- s:e :as been in a comatose condition& 3:e cannot do anyt:ing& 3:e cannot mo%e any 7art of :er body& 3:e cannot see or :ear& 3:e is li%ing on mec:anical means& 3:e suffered brain damage as a result of t:e absence of oxygen in :er brain for four to fi%e minutes (T3'- 'o%ember ,- ",/,- 77& "# $& After being disc:arged from t:e :os7ital- s:e :as been staying in t:eir residence- still needing constant medical attention- 9it: :er :usband Rogelio incurring a mont:ly ex7ense ranging from 6/-!!!&!! to 6"!-!!!&!! (T3'- 5ctober ",- ",/,- 77& 3 #3+$& 3:e 9as also diagnosed to be suffering from >diffuse cerebral 7arenc:ymal damage> (4x:& >G>G see also T3'December "",/,7& *$& T:us- on / Canuary ",/*- 7etitioners filed a ci%il case * for damages 9it: t:e Regional Trial Court of <ue=on City against :erein 7ri%ate res7ondents alleging negligence in t:e management and care of 4rlinda Ramos& During t:e trial- bot: 7arties 7resented e%idence as to t:e 7ossible cause of 4rlinda;s inBury& 6laintiff 7resented t:e testimonies of Dean Ferminda Cru= and Dr& Aariano Ga%ino to 7ro%e t:at t:e sustained by 4rlinda 9as due to lac8 of oxygen in :er brain caused by t:e faulty management of :er air9ay by 7ri%ate res7ondents during t:e anest:esia 7:ase& 5n t:e ot:er :and- 7ri%ate res7ondents 7rimarily relied on t:e ex7ert testimony of Dr& 4duardo Camora- a 7ulmonologist- to t:e effect t:at t:e cause of brain damage 9as 4rlinda;s allergic reaction to t:e anest:etic agent- T:io7ental 3odium (6entot:al$& After considering t:e e%idence from bot: sides- t:e Regional Trial Court rendered Budgment in fa%or of 7etitioners- to 9it: After e%aluating t:e e%idence as s:o9n in t:e finding of facts set fort: earlier- and a77lying t:e aforecited 7ro%isions of la9 and Buris7rudence to t:e case at bar- t:is Court finds and so :olds t:at defendants are liable to 7laintiffs for damages& T:e defendants

419
9ere guilty of- at t:e %ery least- negligence in t:e 7erformance of t:eir duty to 7laintiff# 7atient 4rlinda Ramos& 5n t:e 7art of Dr& 6erfecta Gutierre=- t:is Court finds t:at s:e omitted to exercise reasonable care in not only intubating t:e 7atient- but also in not re7eating t:e administration of atro7ine (T3'- August !- ",,"- 77& .#"!$- 9it:out due regard to t:e fact t:at t:e 7atient 9as inside t:e o7erating room for almost t:ree (3$ :ours& For after s:e committed a mista8e in intubating Mt:eN 7atient- t:e 7atient;s nailbed became bluis: and t:e 7atient- t:ereafter- 9as 7laced in trendelenburg 7osition- because of t:e decrease of blood su77ly to t:e 7atient;s brain& T:e e%idence furt:er s:o9s t:at t:e :a7less 7atient suffered brain damage because of t:e absence of oxygen in :er (7atient;s$ brain for a77roximately four to fi%e minutes 9:ic:- in turn- caused t:e 7atient to become comatose& 5n t:e 7art of Dr& 5rlino Fosa8a- t:is Court finds t:at :e is liable for t:e acts of Dr& 6erfecta Gutierre= 9:om :e :ad c:osen to administer anest:esia on t:e 7atient as 7art of :is obligation to 7ro%ide t:e 7atient a good anest:esiologist;- and for arri%ing for t:e sc:eduled o7eration almost t:ree (3$ :ours late& 5n t:e 7art of D(3AC (t:e :os7ital$- t:is Court finds t:at it is liable for t:e acts of negligence of t:e doctors in t:eir >7ractice of medicine> in t:e o7erating room& Aoreo%er- t:e :os7ital is liable for failing t:roug: its res7onsible officials- to cancel t:e sc:eduled o7eration after Dr& Fosa8a inexcusably failed to arri%e on time& 2n :a%ing :eld t:us- t:is Court reBects t:e defense raised by defendants t:at t:ey :a%e acted 9it: due care and 7rudence in rendering medical ser%ices to 7laintiff#7atient& For if t:e 7atient 9as 7ro7erly intubated as claimed by t:em- t:e 7atient 9ould not :a%e become comatose& And- t:e fact t:at anot:er anest:esiologist 9as called to try to intubate t:e 7atient after :er (t:e 7atient;s$ nailbed turned bluis:- belie t:eir claim& Furt:ermore- t:e defendants s:ould :a%e resc:eduled t:e o7eration to a later date& T:is- t:ey s:ould :a%e done- if defendants acted 9it: due care and 7rudence as t:e 7atient;s case 9as an electi%e- not an emergency case& xxx xxx xxx ?F4R4F5R4- and in %ie9 of t:e foregoing- Budgment is rendered in fa%or of t:e 7laintiffs and against t:e defendants& Accordingly- t:e latter are ordered to 7ay- Bointly and se%erally- t:e former t:e follo9ing sums of money- to 9it: "$ t:e sum of 6/-!!!&!! as actual mont:ly ex7enses for t:e 7laintiff 4rlinda Ramos rec8oned from 'o%ember ".- ",/. or in t:e total sum of 6*3 -!!!&!! as of A7ril ".- ",, - subBect to its being u7datedG $ t:e sum of 6"!!-!!!&!! as reasonable attorney;s feesG 3$ t:e sum of 6/!!-!!!&!! by 9ay of moral damages and t:e furt:er sum of 6 !!-!!!-!! by 9ay of exem7lary damagesG and+$ t:e costs of t:e suit& 35 5RD4R4D& 6ri%ate res7ondents seasonably inter7osed an a77eal to t:e Court of A77eals& T:e a77ellate court rendered a Decision- dated , Aay ",,.- re%ersing t:e findings of t:e trial court& T:e decretal 7ortion of t:e decision of t:e a77ellate court reads: ?F4R4F5R4- for t:e foregoing 7remises t:e a77ealed decision is :ereby R4E4R34D- and t:e com7laint belo9 against t:e a77ellants is :ereby ordered D23A2334D& T:e counterclaim of a77ellant De (os 3antos Aedical Center is GRA'T4D but only insofar as a77ellees are :ereby ordered to 7ay t:e un7aid :os7ital bills amounting to 6,3-.+ & .- 7lus legal interest for Bustice must be tem7ered 9it:

420
mercy& 35 5RD4R4D& T:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals 9as recei%ed on , Cune ",,. by 7etitioner Rogelio Ramos 9:o 9as mista8enly addressed as >Atty& Rogelio Ramos&> 'o co7y of t:e decision- :o9e%er9as sent nor recei%ed by t:e Coronel (a9 5ffice- t:en counsel on record of 7etitioners& Rogelio referred t:e decision of t:e a77ellate court to a ne9 la9yer- Atty& (igsay- only on ! Cune ",,.- or four (+$ days before t:e ex7iration of t:e reglementary 7eriod for filing a motion for reconsideration& 5n t:e same day- Atty& (igsay- filed 9it: t:e a77ellate court a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration& T:e motion for reconsideration 9as submitted on + Culy ",,.& Fo9e%er- t:e a77ellate court denied t:e motion for extension of time in its Resolution dated . Culy ",,.& ,Aean9:ile7etitioners engaged t:e ser%ices of anot:er counsel- Atty& 3illano- to re7lace Atty& (igsay& Atty& 3illano filed on ) August ",,. a motion to admit t:e motion for reconsideration contending t:at t:e 7eriod to file t:e a77ro7riate 7leading on t:e assailed decision :ad not yet commenced to run as t:e Di%ision Cler8 of Court of t:e Court of A77eals :ad not yet ser%ed a co7y t:ereof to t:e counsel on record& Des7ite t:is ex7lanation- t:e a77ellate court still denied t:e motion to admit t:e motion for reconsideration of 7etitioners in its Resolution- dated , Aarc: ",,*- 7rimarily on t:e ground t:at t:e fifteen#day (".$ 7eriod for filing a motion for reconsideration :ad already ex7ired- to 9it: ?e said in our Resolution on Culy .- ",,.- t:at t:e filing of a Aotion for Reconsideration cannot be extendedG 7recisely- t:e Aotion for 4xtension ( ,ollo- 7& " $ 9as denied& 2t is- on t:e ot:er :and- admitted in t:e latter Aotion t:at 7laintiffsHa77ellees recei%ed a co7y of t:e decision as early as Cune ,- ",,.& Com7utation 9ise- t:e 7eriod to file a Aotion for Reconsideration ex7ired on Cune +& T:e Aotion for Reconsideration- in turn- 9as recei%ed by t:e Court of A77eals already on Culy +- necessarily- t:e ".#day 7eriod already 7assed& For t:at alone- t:e latter s:ould be denied& 4%en assuming admissibility of t:e Aotion for t:e Reconsideration- but after considering t:e CommentH577osition- t:e former- for lac8 of merit- is :ereby D4'24D& 35 5RD4R4D& A co7y of t:e abo%e resolution 9as recei%ed by Atty& 3illano on "" A7ril ",,*& T:e next day- or on " A7ril ",,*- Atty& 3illano filed before t:is Court a motion for extension of time to file t:e 7resent 7etition for %ertiorari under Rule +.& T:e Court granted t:e motion for extension of time and ga%e 7etitioners additional t:irty (3!$ days after t:e ex7iration of t:e fifteen#day (".$ 7eriod counted from t:e recei7t of t:e resolution of t:e Court of A77eals 9it:in 9:ic: to submit t:e 7etition& T:e due date fell on ) Aay ",,*& T:e 7etition 9as filed on , Aay ",,*- 9ell 9it:in t:e extended 7eriod gi%en by t:e Court& 6etitioners assail t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals on t:e follo9ing grounds: 2 2' 61TT2'G A1CF R4(2A'C4 5' TF4 T43T2A5'243 5F R4365'D4'T3 DRA& G1T24RR4Y- DRA& CA(D4R5' A'D DR& CAA5RAG 22 2' F2'D2'G TFAT TF4 '4G(2G4'C4 5F TF4 R4365'D4'T3 D2D '5T CA134 TF4 1'F5RT1'AT4 C5AAT534 C5'D2T25' 5F 64T2T25'4R 4R(2'DA RAA53G 222 2' '5T A66(@2'G TF4 D5CTR2'4 5F ,E# )&# 2O53)"3,& 0efore 9e discuss t:e merits of t:e case- 9e s:all first dis7ose of t:e 7rocedural issue on t:e timeliness of t:e 7etition in relation to t:e motion for reconsideration filed by 7etitioners 9it: t:e Court of A77eals& 2n t:eir Comment- " 7ri%ate res7ondents contend t:at t:e 7etition s:ould not be gi%en due course since t:e

421
motion for reconsideration of t:e 7etitioners on t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals 9as %alidly dismissed by t:e a77ellate court for :a%ing been filed beyond t:e reglementary 7eriod& ?e do not agree& A careful re%ie9 of t:e records re%eals t:at t:e reason be:ind t:e delay in filing t:e motion for reconsideration is attributable to t:e fact t:at t:e decision of t:e Court of A77eals 9as not sent to t:en counsel on record of 7etitioners- t:e Coronel (a9 5ffice& 2n fact- a co7y of t:e decision of t:e a77ellate court 9as instead sent to and recei%ed by 7etitioner Rogelio Ramos on , Cune ",,. 9:erein :e 9as mista8enly addressed as Atty& Rogelio Ramos& 0ased on t:e ot:er communications recei%ed by 7etitioner Rogelio Ramos- t:e a77ellate court a77arently mistoo8 :im for t:e counsel on record& T:usno co7y of t:e decision of t:e counsel on record& 6etitioner- not being a la9yer and una9are of t:e 7rescri7ti%e 7eriod for filing a motion for reconsideration- referred t:e same to a legal counsel only on ! Cune ",,.& 2t is elementary t:at 9:en a 7arty is re7resented by counsel- all notices s:ould be sent to t:e 7arty;s la9yer at :is gi%en address& ?it: a fe9 exce7tions- notice to a litigant 9it:out notice to :is counsel on record is no notice at all& 2n t:e 7resent case- since a co7y of t:e decision of t:e a77ellate court 9as not sent to t:e counsel on record of 7etitioner- t:ere can be no sufficient notice to s7ea8 of& Fence- t:e delay in t:e filing of t:e motion for reconsideration cannot be ta8en against 7etitioner& Aoreo%er- since t:e Court of A77eals already issued a second Resolution- dated , Aarc: ",,*9:ic: su7erseded t:e earlier resolution issued on . Culy ",,.- and denied t:e motion for reconsideration of 7etitioner- 9e belie%ed t:at t:e recei7t of t:e former s:ould be considered in determining t:e timeliness of t:e filing of t:e 7resent 7etition& 0ased on t:is- t:e 7etition before us 9as submitted on time& After resol%ing t:e foregoing 7rocedural issue- 9e s:all no9 loo8 into t:e merits of t:e case& For a more logical 7resentation of t:e discussion 9e s:all first consider t:e issue on t:e a77licability of t:e doctrine of res ipsa lo0uitur to t:e instant case& T:ereafter- t:e first t9o assigned errors s:all be tac8led in relation to t:e res ipsa lo0uitur doctrine& ,es ipsa lo0uitur is a (atin 7:rase 9:ic: literally means >t:e t:ing or t:e transaction s7ea8s for itself&> T:e 7:rase >res ipsa lo0uitur;; is a maxim for t:e rule t:at t:e fact of t:e occurrence of an inBuryta8en 9it: t:e surrounding circumstances- may 7ermit an inference or raise a 7resum7tion of negligence- or ma8e out a 7laintiff;s prima fa%iecase- and 7resent a question of fact for defendant to meet 9it: an ex7lanation& ?:ere t:e t:ing 9:ic: caused t:e inBury com7lained of is s:o9n to be under t:e management of t:e defendant or :is ser%ants and t:e accident is suc: as in ordinary course of t:ings does not :a77en if t:ose 9:o :a%e its management or control use 7ro7er care- it affords reasonable e%idence- in t:e absence of ex7lanation by t:e defendant- t:at t:e accident arose from or 9as caused by t:e defendant;s 9ant of care& T:e doctrine of res ipsa lo0uitur is sim7ly a recognition of t:e 7ostulate t:at- as a matter of common 8no9ledge and ex7erience- t:e %ery nature of certain ty7es of occurrences may Bustify an inference of negligence on t:e 7art of t:e 7erson 9:o controls t:e instrumentality causing t:e inBury in t:e absence of some ex7lanation by t:e defendant 9:o is c:arged 9it: negligence& 2t is grounded in t:e su7erior logic of ordinary :uman ex7erience and on t:e basis of suc: ex7erience or common 8no9ledge- negligence may be deduced from t:e mere occurrence of t:e accident itself& Fence- res ipsa lo0uitur is a77lied in conBunction 9it: t:e doctrine of common 8no9ledge& Fo9e%er- muc: :as been said t:at res ipsa lo0uitur is not a rule of substanti%e la9 and- as suc:- does not create or constitute an inde7endent or se7arate ground of liability& 2nstead- it is considered as merely e%identiary or in t:e nature of a 7rocedural rule& 2t is regarded as a mode of 7roof- or a mere 7rocedural of con%enience since it furnis:es a substitute for- and relie%es a 7laintiff oft:e burden of 7roducing s7ecific 7roof of negligence& 2n ot:er 9ords- mere in%ocation and a77lication of t:e doctrine does not dis7ense 9it: t:e requirement of 7roof of negligence& 2t is sim7ly a ste7 in t:e 7rocess of suc: 7roof- 7ermitting t:e 7laintiff to 7resent along 9it: t:e 7roof of t:e accident- enoug: of t:e attending circumstances to in%o8e t:e doctrine- creating an inference or 7resum7tion of negligence- and to t:ereby 7lace on t:e defendant t:e burden of going for9ard 9it: t:e 7roof& 3till-

422
before resort to t:e doctrine may be allo9ed- t:e follo9ing requisites must be satisfactorily s:o9n: "& T:e accident is of a 8ind 9:ic: ordinarily does not occur in t:e absence of someone;s negligenceG & 2t is caused by an instrumentality 9it:in t:e exclusi%e control of t:e defendant or defendantsG and 3& T:e 7ossibility of contributing conduct 9:ic: 9ould ma8e t:e 7laintiff res7onsible is eliminated& 2n t:e abo%e requisites- t:e fundamental element is t:e >control of instrumentality> 9:ic: caused t:e damage& 3uc: element of control must be s:o9n to be 9it:in t:e dominion of t:e defendant& 2n order to :a%e t:e benefit of t:e rule- a 7laintiff- in addition to 7ro%ing inBury or damagemust s:o9 a situation 9:ere it is a77licable- and must establis: t:at t:e essential elements of t:e doctrine 9ere 7resent in a 7articular incident& Aedical mal7ractice cases do not esca7e t:e a77lication of t:is doctrine& T:us- res ipsa lo0uitur :as been a77lied 9:en t:e circumstances attendant u7on t:e :arm are t:emsel%es of suc: a c:aracter as to Bustify an inference of negligence as t:e cause of t:at :arm& T:e a77lication of res ipsa lo0uitur in medical negligence cases 7resents a question of la9 since it is a Budicial function to determine 9:et:er a certain set of circumstances does- as a matter of la9- 7ermit a gi%en inference& Alt:oug: generally- ex7ert medical testimony is relied u7on in mal7ractice suits to 7ro%e t:at a 7:ysician :as done a negligent act or t:at :e :as de%iated from t:e standard medical 7rocedure9:en t:e doctrine of res ipsa lo0uitur is a%ailed by t:e 7laintiff- t:e need for ex7ert medical testimony is dis7ensed 9it: because t:e inBury itself 7ro%ides t:e 7roof of negligence& T:e reason is t:at t:e general rule on t:e necessity of ex7ert testimony a77lies only to suc: matters clearly 9it:in t:e domain of medical science- and not to matters t:at are 9it:in t:e common 8no9ledge of man8ind 9:ic: may be testified to by anyone familiar 9it: t:e facts& 5rdinarily- only 7:ysicians and surgeons of s8ill and ex7erience are com7etent to testify as to 9:et:er a 7atient :as been treated or o7erated u7on 9it: a reasonable degree of s8ill and care& Fo9e%er- testimony as to t:e statements and acts of 7:ysicians and surgeons- external a77earances- and manifest conditions 9:ic: are obser%able by any one may be gi%en by non#ex7ert 9itnesses& Fence- in cases 9:ere t:e res ipsa lo0uitur is a77licablet:e court is 7ermitted to find a 7:ysician negligent u7on 7ro7er 7roof of inBury to t:e 7atient- 9it:out t:e aid of ex7ert testimony- 9:ere t:e court from its fund of common 8no9ledge can determine t:e 7ro7er standard of care& ?:ere common 8no9ledge and ex7erience teac: t:at a resulting inBury 9ould not :a%e occurred to t:e 7atient if due care :ad been exercised- an inference of negligence may be dra9n gi%ing rise to an a77lication of t:e doctrine of res ipsa lo0uitur 9it:out medical e%idence- 9:ic: is ordinarily required to s:o9 not only 9:at occurred but :o9 and 9:y it occurred& ?:en t:e doctrine is a77ro7riate- all t:at t:e 7atient must do is 7ro%e a nexus bet9een t:e 7articular act or omission com7lained of and t:e inBury sustained 9:ile under t:e custody and management of t:e defendant 9it:out need to 7roduce ex7ert medical testimony to establis: t:e standard of care& Resort to res ipsa lo0uitur is allo9ed because t:ere is no ot:er 9ay- under usual and ordinary conditions- by 9:ic: t:e 7atient can obtain redress for inBury suffered by :im& T:us- courts of ot:er Burisdictions :a%e a77lied t:e doctrine in t:e follo9ing situations: lea%ing of a foreign obBect in t:e body of t:e 7atient after an o7eration- inBuries sustained on a :ealt:y 7art of t:e body 9:ic: 9as not under- or in t:e area- of treatment- remo%al of t:e 9rong 7art of t:e body 9:en anot:er 7art 9as intended- 8noc8ing out a toot: 9:ile a 7atient;s Ba9 9as under anest:etic for t:e remo%al of :is tonsils- and loss of an eye 9:ile t:e 7atient 7laintiff 9as under t:e influence of anest:etic- during or follo9ing an o7eration for a77endicitis- among ot:ers& 'e%ert:eless- des7ite t:e fact t:at t:e sco7e of res ipsa lo0uitur :as been measurably enlarged- it does not automatically a77ly to all cases of medical negligence as to mec:anically s:ift t:e burden of 7roof to t:e defendant to s:o9 t:at :e is not guilty of t:e ascribed negligence& ,es ipsa lo0uitur is not a rigid or ordinary doctrine to be 7erfunctorily used but a rule to be cautiously a77liedde7ending u7on t:e circumstances of eac: case& 2t is generally restricted to situations in mal7ractice

423
cases 9:ere a layman is able to say- as a matter of common 8no9ledge and obser%ation- t:at t:e consequences of 7rofessional care 9ere not as suc: as 9ould ordinarily :a%e follo9ed if due care :ad been exercised& A distinction must be made bet9een t:e failure to secure results- and t:e occurrence of somet:ing more unusual and not ordinarily found if t:e ser%ice or treatment rendered follo9ed t:e usual 7rocedure of t:ose s8illed in t:at 7articular 7ractice& 2t must be conceded t:at t:e doctrine of res ipsa lo0uitur can :a%e no a77lication in a suit against a 7:ysician or surgeon 9:ic: in%ol%es t:e merits of a diagnosis or of a scientific treatment& T:e 7:ysician or surgeon is not required at :is 7eril to ex7lain 9:y any 7articular diagnosis 9as not correct- or 9:y any 7articular scientific treatment did not 7roduce t:e desired result& T:us- res ipsa lo0uitur is not a%ailable in a mal7ractice suit if t:e only s:o9ing is t:at t:e desired result of an o7eration or treatment 9as not accom7lis:ed& T:e real question- t:erefore- is 9:et:er or not in t:e 7rocess of t:e o7eration any extraordinary incident or unusual e%ent outside of t:e routine 7erformance occurred 9:ic: is beyond t:e regular sco7e of customary 7rofessional acti%ity in suc: o7erations- 9:ic:- if unex7lained 9ould t:emsel%es reasonably s7ea8 to t:e a%erage man as t:e negligent cause or causes of t:e unto9ard consequence& 2f t:ere 9as suc: extraneous inter%entions- t:e doctrine of res ipsa lo0uitur may be utili=ed and t:e defendant is called u7on to ex7lain t:e matter- by e%idence of excul7ation- if :e could& ?e find t:e doctrine of res ipsa lo0uitur a77ro7riate in t:e case at bar& As 9ill :ereinafter be ex7lained- t:e damage sustained by 4rlinda in :er brain 7rior to a sc:eduled gall bladder o7eration 7resents a case for t:e a77lication of res ipsa lo0uitur& A case stri8ingly similar to t:e one before us is 9oss vs& Brid'ell- 9:ere t:e Iansas 3u7reme Court in a77lying t:e res ipsa lo0uitur stated: T:e 7laintiff :erein submitted :imself for a mastoid o7eration and deli%ered :is 7erson o%er to t:e care- custody and control of :is 7:ysician 9:o :ad com7lete and exclusi%e control o%er :im- but t:e o7eration 9as ne%er 7erformed& At t:e time of submission :e 9as neurologically sound and 7:ysically fit in mind and body- but :e suffered irre7arable damage and inBury rendering :im decerebrate and totally inca7acitated& T:e inBury 9as one 9:ic: does not ordinarily occur in t:e 7rocess of a mastoid o7eration or in t:e absence of negligence in t:e administration of an anest:etic- and in t:e use and em7loyment of an endoctrac:eal tube& 5rdinarily a 7erson being 7ut under anest:esia is not rendered decerebrate as a consequence of administering suc: anest:esia in t:e absence of negligence& 17on t:ese facts and under t:ese circumstances a layman 9ould be able to say- as a matter of common 8no9ledge and obser%ation- t:at t:e consequences of 7rofessional treatment 9ere not as suc: as 9ould ordinarily :a%e follo9ed if due care :ad been exercised& Fere t:e 7laintiff could not :a%e been guilty of contributory negligence because :e 9as under t:e influence of anest:etics and unconscious- and t:e circumstances are suc: t:at t:e true ex7lanation of e%ent is more accessible to t:e defendants t:an to t:e 7laintiff for t:ey :ad t:e exclusi%e control of t:e instrumentalities of anest:esia& 17on all t:e facts- conditions and circumstances alleged in Count 22 it is :eld t:at a cause of action is stated under t:e doctrine of res ipsa lo0uitur& 2ndeed- t:e 7rinci7les enunciated in t:e aforequoted case a77ly 9it: equal force :ere& 2n t:e 7resent case- 4rlinda submitted :erself for c:olecystectomy and ex7ected a routine general surgery to be 7erformed on :er gall bladder& 5n t:at fateful day s:e deli%ered :er 7erson o%er to t:e carecustody and control of 7ri%ate res7ondents 9:o exercised com7lete and exclusi%e control o%er :er& At t:e time of submission- 4rlinda 9as neurologically sound and- exce7t for a fe9 minor discomforts- 9as li8e9ise 7:ysically fit in mind and body& Fo9e%er- during t:e administration of anest:esia and 7rior to t:e 7erformance of c:olecystectomy s:e suffered irre7arable damage to :er brain& T:us- 9it:out undergoing surgery- s:e 9ent out of t:e o7erating room already decerebrate and totally inca7acitated& 5b%iously- brain damage- 9:ic: 4rlinda sustained- is an inBury 9:ic: does not normally occur in t:e 7rocess of a gall bladder o7eration& 2n fact- t:is 8ind of situation does not in t:e absence of negligence

424
of someone in t:e administration of anest:esia and in t:e use of endotrac:eal tube& 'ormally- a 7erson being 7ut under anest:esia is not rendered decerebrate as a consequence of administering suc: anest:esia if t:e 7ro7er 7rocedure 9as follo9ed& Furt:ermore- t:e instruments used in t:e administration of anest:esia- including t:e endotrac:eal tube- 9ere all under t:e exclusi%e control of 7ri%ate res7ondents- 9:o are t:e 7:ysicians#in#c:arge& (i8e9ise- 7etitioner 4rlinda could not :a%e been guilty of contributory negligence because s:e 9as under t:e influence of anest:etics 9:ic: rendered :er unconscious& Considering t:at a sound and unaffected member of t:e body (t:e brain$ is inBured or destroyed 9:ile t:e 7atient is unconscious and under t:e immediate and exclusi%e control of t:e 7:ysicians- 9e :old t:at a 7ractical administration of Bustice dictates t:e a77lication of res ipsa lo0uitur& 17on t:ese facts and under t:ese circumstances t:e Court 9ould be able to say- as a matter of common 8no9ledge and obser%ation- if negligence attended t:e management and care of t:e 7atient& Aoreo%er- t:e liability of t:e 7:ysicians and t:e :os7ital in t:is case is not 7redicated u7on an alleged failure to secure t:e desired results of an o7eration nor on an alleged lac8 of s8ill in t:e diagnosis or treatment as in fact no o7eration or treatment 9as e%er 7erformed on 4rlinda& T:us- u7on all t:ese initial determination a case is made out for t:e a77lication of t:e doctrine of res ipsa lo0uitur& 'onet:eless- in :olding t:at res ipsa lo0uitur is a%ailable to t:e 7resent case 9e are not saying t:at t:e doctrine is a77licable in any and all cases 9:ere inBury occurs to a 7atient 9:ile under anest:esia- or to any and all anest:esia cases& 4ac: case must be %ie9ed in its o9n lig:t and scrutini=ed in order to be 9it:in t:e res ipsa lo0uitur co%erage& Fa%ing in mind t:e a77licability of t:e res ipsa lo0uitur doctrine and t:e 7resum7tion of negligence allo9ed t:erein- t:e Court no9 comes to t:e issue of 9:et:er t:e Court of A77eals erred in finding t:at 7ri%ate res7ondents 9ere not negligent in t:e care of 4rlinda during t:e anest:esia 7:ase of t:e o7eration and- if in t:e affirmati%e- 9:et:er t:e alleged negligence 9as t:e 7roximate cause of 4rlinda;s comatose condition& Corollary t:ereto- 9e s:all also determine if t:e Court of A77eals erred in relying on t:e testimonies of t:e 9itnesses for t:e 7ri%ate res7ondents& 2n sustaining t:e 7osition of 7ri%ate res7ondents- t:e Court of A77eals relied on t:e testimonies of Dra& Gutierre=- Dra& Calderon and Dr& Camora& 2n gi%ing 9eig:t to t:e testimony of Dra& Gutierre=t:e Court of A77eals rationali=ed t:at s:e 9as candid enoug: to admit t:at s:e ex7erienced some difficulty in t:e endotrac:eal intubation of t:e 7atient and t:us- cannot be said to be co%ering :er negligence 9it: false:ood& T:e a77ellate court li8e9ise o7ined t:at 7ri%ate res7ondents 9ere able to s:o9 t:at t:e brain damage sustained by 4rlinda 9as not caused by t:e alleged faulty intubation but 9as due to t:e allergic reaction of t:e 7atient to t:e drug T:io7ental 3odium (6entot:al$- a s:ort#acting barbiturate- as testified on by t:eir ex7ert 9itness- Dr& Camora& 5n t:e ot:er :and- t:e a77ellate court reBected t:e testimony of Dean Ferminda Cru= offered in fa%or of 7etitioners t:at t:e cause of t:e brain inBury 9as traceable to t:e 9rongful insertion of t:e tube since t:e latter- being a nurse- 9as allegedly not 8no9ledgeable in t:e 7rocess of intubation& 2n so :olding- t:e a77ellate court returned a %erdict in fa%or of res7ondents 7:ysicians and :os7ital and absol%ed t:em of any liability to9ards 4rlinda and :er family& ?e disagree 9it: t:e findings of t:e Court of A77eals& ?e :old t:at 7ri%ate res7ondents 9ere unable to dis7ro%e t:e 7resum7tion of negligence on t:eir 7art in t:e care of 4rlinda and t:eir negligence 9as t:e 7roximate cause of :er 7iteous condition& 2n t:e instant case- t:e records are :el7ful in furnis:ing not only t:e logical scientific e%idence of t:e 7at:ogenesis of t:e inBury but also in 7ro%iding t:e Court t:e legal nexus u7on 9:ic: liability is based& As 9ill be s:o9n :ereinafter- 7ri%ate res7ondents; o9n testimonies 9:ic: are reflected in t:e transcri7t of stenogra7:ic notes are re7lete of sign7osts indicati%e of t:eir negligence in t:e care and management of 4rlinda& ?it: regard to Dra& Gutierre=- 9e find :er negligent in t:e care of 4rlinda during t:e anest:esia 7:ase& As borne by t:e records- res7ondent Dra& Gutierre= failed to 7ro7erly intubate t:e 7atient& T:is fact 9as attested to by 6rof& Ferminda Cru=- Dean of t:e Ca7itol Aedical Center 3c:ool of 'ursing

425
and 7etitioner;s sister#in#la9- 9:o 9as in t:e o7erating room rig:t beside t:e 7atient 9:en t:e tragic e%ent occurred& ?itness Cru= testified to t:is effect: ATT@& 6ACAR43: <: 2n 7articular- 9:at did Dra& 6erfecta Gutierre= do- if any on t:e 7atientJ A: 2n 7articular- 2 could see t:at s:e 9as intubating t:e 7atient& <: Do you 8no9 9:at :a77ened to t:at intubation 7rocess administered by Dra& Gutierre=J ATT@& A(C4RA: 3:e 9ill be incom7etent @our Fonor& C51RT: ?itness may ans9er if s:e 8no9s& A: As :a%e said- 2 9as 9it: t:e 7atient- 2 9as beside t:e stretc:er :olding t:e left :and of t:e 7atient and all of a sudden :eard some remar8s coming from Dra& 6erfecta Gutierre= :erself& 3:e 9as saying >Ang :ira7 ma#intubate nito- mali yata ang 7ag8a8a7aso8& 5 lumala8i ang tiyan& xxx xxx xxx ATT@& 6ACAR43: <: From 9:om did you :ear t:ose 9ords >lumala8i ang tiyan>J A: From Dra& 6erfecta Gutierre=& xxx xxx xxx <: After :earing t:e 7:rase >lumala8i ang tiyan-> 9:at did you notice on t:e 7erson of t:e 7atientJ A: 2 notice (si%$ some bluis: discoloration on t:e nailbeds of t:e left :and 9:ere 2 9as at& <: ?:ere 9as Dr& 5rlino FoMsNa8a t:en at t:at 7articular timeJ A: 2 sa9 :im a77roac:ing t:e 7atient during t:at time& <: ?:en :e a77roac:ed t:e 7atient- 9:at did :e do- if anyJ A: Fe made an order to call on t:e anest:esiologist in t:e 7erson of Dr& Calderon& <: Did Dr& Calderon- u7on being called- arri%e inside t:e o7erating roomJ A: @es sir& <: ?:at did MsN:e do- if anyJ A: M3N:e tried to intubate t:e 7atient& <: ?:at :a77ened to t:e 7atientJ A: ?:en Dr& Calderon try (si%$ to intubate t:e 7atient- after a 9:ile t:e 7atient;s nailbed became bluis: and 2 sa9 t:e 7atient 9as 7laced in trendelenburg 7osition& xxx xxx xxx <: Do you 8no9 t:e reason 9:y t:e 7atient 9as 7laced in t:at

426
trendelenburg 7ositionJ A: As far as 2 8no9- 9:en a 7atient is in t:at 7osition- t:ere is a decrease of blood su77ly to t:e brain& xxx xxx xxx T:e a77ellate court- :o9e%er- disbelie%ed Dean Cru=;s testimony in t:e trial court by declaring t:at: A 7erusal of t:e standard nursing curriculum in our country 9ill s:o9 t:at intubation is not taug:t as 7art of nursing 7rocedures and tec:niques& 2ndeed- 9e ta8e Budicial notice of t:e fact t:at nurses do not- and cannot- intubate& 4%en on t:e assum7tion t:at s:e is fully ca7able of determining 9:et:er or not a 7atient is 7ro7erly intubated- 9itness Ferminda Cru=- admittedly- did not 7ee7 into t:e t:roat of t:e 7atient& (T3'- Culy .",,"- 7& "3$& Aore im7ortantly- t:ere is no e%idence t:at s:e e%er auscultated t:e 7atient or t:at s:e conducted any ty7e of examination to c:ec8 if t:e endotrac:eal tube 9as in its 7ro7er 7lace- and to determine t:e condition of t:e :eart- lungs- and ot:er organs& T:us- 9itness Cru=;s categorical statements t:at a77ellant Dra& Gutierre= failed to intubate t:e a77ellee 4rlinda Ramos and t:at it 9as Dra& Calderon 9:o succeeded in doing so clearly suffer from lac8 of sufficient factual bases& +) 2n ot:er 9ords- 9:at t:e Court of A77eals is trying to im7ress is t:at being a nurse- and considered a layman in t:e 7rocess of intubation- 9itness Cru= is not com7etent to testify on 9:et:er or not t:e intubation 9as a success& ?e do not agree 9it: t:e abo%e reasoning of t:e a77ellate court& Alt:oug: 9itness Cru= is not an anest:esiologist- s:e can %ery 9ell testify u7on matters on 9:ic: s:e is ca7able of obser%ing suc: as- t:e statements and acts of t:e 7:ysician and surgeon- external a77earances- and manifest conditions 9:ic: are obser%able by any one& T:is is 7recisely allo9ed under t:e doctrine of res ipsa lo0uitur 9:ere t:e testimony of ex7ert 9itnesses is not required& 2t is t:e acce7ted rule t:at ex7ert testimony is not necessary for t:e 7roof of negligence in non#tec:nical matters or t:ose of 9:ic: an ordinary 7erson may be ex7ected to :a%e 8no9ledge- or 9:ere t:e lac8 of s8ill or 9ant of care is so ob%ious as to render ex7ert testimony unnecessary& ?e ta8e Budicial notice of t:e fact t:at anest:esia 7rocedures :a%e become so common- t:at e%en an ordinary 7erson can tell if it 9as administered 7ro7erly& As suc:- it 9ould not be too difficult to tell if t:e tube 9as 7ro7erly inserted& T:is 8ind of obser%ation- 9e belie%e- does not require a medical degree to be acce7table& At any rate- 9it:out doubt- 7etitioner;s 9itness- an ex7erienced clinical nurse 9:ose long ex7erience and sc:olars:i7 led to :er a77ointment as Dean of t:e Ca7itol Aedical Center 3c:ool at 'ursing- 9as fully ca7able of determining 9:et:er or not t:e intubation 9as a success& 3:e :ad extensi%e clinical ex7erience starting as a staff nurse in C:icago- 2llinoisG staff nurse and clinical instructor in a teac:ing :os7ital- t:e F41#'RAFG Dean of t:e (aguna College of 'ursing in 3an 6ablo CityG and t:en Dean of t:e Ca7itol Aedical Center 3c:ool of 'ursing& .!Re%ie9ing 9itness Cru=; statements- 9e find t:at t:e same 9ere deli%ered in a straig:tfor9ard manner- 9it: t:e 8ind of detailclarity- consistency and s7ontaneity 9:ic: 9ould :a%e been difficult to fabricate& ?it: :er clinical bac8ground as a nurse- t:e Court is satisfied t:at s:e 9as able to demonstrate t:roug: :er testimony 9:at truly trans7ired on t:at fateful day& Aost of all- :er testimony 9as affirmed by no less t:an res7ondent Dra& Gutierre= 9:o admitted t:at s:e ex7erienced difficulty in inserting t:e tube into 4rlinda;s trac:ea- to 9it: ATT@& (2G3A@: <: 2n t:is 7articular case- Doctora- 9:ile you 9ere intubating at your first attem7t (si%$- you did not immediately see t:e trac:eaJ DRA& G1T24RR4Y: A: @es sir&

427
<: Did you 7ull a9ay t:e tube immediatelyJ A: @ou do not 7ull t:e & & & <: Did you or did you notJ A: 2 did not 7ull t:e tube& <: ?:en you said >ma:ira7 yata ito-> 9:at 9ere you referring toJ A: >Aa:ira7 yata itong i#intubate-> t:at 9as t:e 7atient& <: 3o- you found some difficulty in inserting t:e tubeJ A: @es- because of (si%$ my first attem7t- 2 did not see rig:t a9ay& Curiously in t:e case at bar- res7ondent Dra& Gutierre= made t:e :a7:a=ard defense t:at s:e encountered :ards:i7 in t:e insertion of t:e tube in t:e trac:ea of 4rlinda because it 9as 7ositioned more anteriorly (slig:tly de%iated from t:e normal anatomy of a 7erson$ ma8ing it :arder to locate andsince 4rlinda is obese and :as a s:ort nec8 and 7rotruding teet:- it made intubation e%en more difficult& T:e argument does not con%ince us& 2f t:is 9as indeed obser%ed- 7ri%ate res7ondents adduced no e%idence demonstrating t:at t:ey 7roceeded to ma8e a t:oroug: assessment of 4rlinda;s air9ay7rior to t:e induction of anest:esia- e%en if t:is 9ould mean 7ost7oning t:e 7rocedure& From t:eir testimonies- it a77ears t:at t:e obser%ation 9as made only as an aftert:oug:t- as a means of defense& T:e 7re#o7erati%e e%aluation of a 7atient 7rior to t:e administration of anest:esia is uni%ersally obser%ed to lessen t:e 7ossibility of anest:etic accidents& 6re#o7erati%e e%aluation and 7re7aration for anest:esia begins 9:en t:e anest:esiologist re%ie9s t:e 7atient;s medical records and %isits 9it: t:e 7atient- traditionally- t:e day before electi%e surgery& 2t includes ta8ing t:e 7atient;s medical :istoryre%ie9 of current drug t:era7y- 7:ysical examination and inter7retation of laboratory data& T:e 7:ysical examination 7erformed by t:e anest:esiologist is directed 7rimarily to9ard t:e central ner%ous system- cardio%ascular system- lungs and upper air'ay& A t:oroug: analysis of t:e 7atient;s air9ay normally in%ol%es in%estigating t:e follo9ing: cer%ical s7ine mobility- tem7oromandibular mobility- 7rominent central incisors- diseased or artificial teet:- ability to %isuali=e u%ula and t:e t:yromental distance& .* T:us- 7:ysical c:aracteristics of t:e 7atient;s u77er air9ay t:at could ma8e trac:eal intubation difficult s:ould be studied& .) ?:ere t:e need arises- as 9:en initial assessment indicates 7ossible 7roblems (suc: as t:e alleged s:ort nec8 and 7rotruding teet: of 4rlinda$ a t:oroug: examination of t:e 7atient;s air9ay 9ould go a long 9ay to9ards decreasing 7atient morbidity and mortality& 2n t:e case at bar- res7ondent Dra& Gutierre= admitted t:at s:e sa9 4rlinda for t:e first time on t:e day of t:e o7eration itself- on ") Cune ",/.& 0efore t:is date- no 7rior consultations 9it:- or 7re# o7erati%e e%aluation of 4rlinda 9as done by :er& 1ntil t:e day of t:e o7eration- res7ondent Dra& Gutierre= 9as una9are of t:e 7:ysiological ma8e#u7 and needs of 4rlinda& 3:e 9as li8e9ise not 7ro7erly informed of t:e 7ossible difficulties s:e 9ould face during t:e administration of anest:esia to 4rlinda& Res7ondent Dra& Gutierre=; act of seeing :er 7atient for t:e first time only an :our before t:e sc:eduled o7erati%e 7rocedure 9as- t:erefore- an act of exce7tional negligence and 7rofessional irres7onsibility& T:e measures cautioning 7rudence and %igilance in dealing 9it: :uman li%es lie at t:e core of t:e 7:ysician;s centuries#old Fi77ocratic 5at:& Fer failure to follo9 t:is medical 7rocedure ist:erefore- a clear indi%ia of :er negligence& Res7ondent Dra& Gutierre=- :o9e%er- attem7ts to gloss o%er t:is omission by 7laying around 9it: t:e trial court;s ignorance of clinical 7rocedure- :o7ing t:at s:e could get a9ay 9it: it& Res7ondent Dra& Gutierre= tried to muddle t:e difference bet9een an electi%e surgery and an emergency surgery Bust so :er failure to 7erform t:e required 7re#o7erati%e e%aluation 9ould esca7e unnoticed& 2n :er testimony s:e asserted: ATT@& (2G3A@: <: ?ould you agree- Doctor- t:at it is good medical 7ractice to see t:e

428
7atient a day before so you can introduce yourself to establis: good doctor#7atient relations:i7 and gain t:e trust and confidence of t:e 7atientJ DRA& G1T24RR4Y: A: As 2 said in my 7re%ious statement- it de7ends on t:e o7erati%e 7rocedure of t:e anest:esiologist and in my case- 9it: electi%e cases and normal cardio#7ulmonary clearance li8e t:at- 2 usually don;t do it exce7t on emergency and on cases t:at :a%e an abnormalities (si%$& ./ Fo9e%er- t:e exact o77osite is true& 2n an emergency 7rocedure- t:ere is :ardly enoug: time a%ailable for t:e fastidious demands of 7re#o7erati%e 7rocedure so t:at an anest:esiologist is able to see t:e 7atient only a fe9 minutes before surgery- if at all& 4lecti%e 7rocedures- on t:e ot:er :and- are o7erati%e 7rocedures t:at can 9ait for days- 9ee8s or e%en mont:s& Fence- in t:ese cases- t:e anest:esiologist 7ossesses t:e luxury of time to be at t:e 7atient;s beside to do a 7ro7er inter%ie9 and clinical e%aluation& T:ere is am7le time to ex7lain t:e met:od of anest:esia- t:e drugs to be used- and t:eir 7ossible :a=ards for 7ur7oses of informed consent& 1sually- t:e 7re#o7erati%e assessment is conducted at least one day before t:e intended surgery- 9:en t:e 7atient is relaxed and coo7erati%e& 4rlinda;s case 9as electi%e and t:is 9as 8no9n to res7ondent Dra& Gutierre=& T:us- s:e :ad all t:e time to ma8e a t:oroug: e%aluation of 4rlinda;s case 7rior to t:e o7eration and 7re7are :er for anest:esia& Fo9e%er- s:e ne%er sa9 t:e 7atient at t:e bedside& 3:e :erself admitted t:at s:e :ad seen 7etitioner only in t:e o7erating room- and only on t:e actual date of t:e c:olecystectomy& 3:e negligently failed to ta8e ad%antage of t:is im7ortant o77ortunity& As suc:- :er attem7t to excul7ate :erself must fail& Fa%ing establis:ed t:at res7ondent Dra& Gutierre= failed to 7erform 7re#o7erati%e e%aluation of t:e 7atient 9:ic:- in turn- resulted to a 9rongful intubation- 9e no9 determine if t:e faulty intubation is truly t:e 7roximate cause of 4rlinda;s comatose condition& 6ri%ate res7ondents re7eatedly :ammered t:e %ie9 t:at t:e cerebral anoxia 9:ic: led to 4rlinda;s coma 9as due to bronc:os7asm ., mediated by :er allergic res7onse to t:e drug- T:io7ental 3odium- introduced into :er system& To9ards t:is end- t:ey 7resented Dr& Camora- a Fello9 of t:e 6:ili77ine College of 6:ysicians and Di7lomate of t:e 6:ili77ine 37ecialty 0oard of 2nternal Aedicine9:o ad%anced 7ri%ate res7ondents; t:eory t:at t:e oxygen de7ri%ation 9:ic: led to anoxic ence7:alo7at:y- 9as due to an un7redictable drug reaction to t:e s:ort#acting barbiturate& ?e find t:e t:eory of 7ri%ate res7ondents unacce7table& First of all- Dr& Camora cannot be considered an aut:ority in t:e field of anest:esiology sim7ly because :e is not an anest:esiologist& 3ince Dr& Camora is a 7ulmonologist- :e could not :a%e been ca7able of 7ro7erly enlig:tening t:e court about anest:esia 7ractice and 7rocedure and t:eir com7lications& Dr& Camora is li8e9ise not an allergologist and could not t:erefore 7ro7erly ad%ance ex7ert o7inion on allergic#mediated 7rocesses& Aoreo%er- :e is not a 7:armacologist and- as suc:could not :a%e been ca7able- as an ex7ert 9ould- of ex7laining to t:e court t:e 7:armacologic and toxic effects of t:e su77osed cul7rit- T:io7ental 3odium (6entot:al$& T:e ina77ro7riateness and absurdity of acce7ting Dr& Camora;s testimony as an ex7ert 9itness in t:e anest:etic 7ractice of 6entot:al administration is furt:er su77orted by :is o9n admission t:at :e formulated :is o7inions on t:e drug not from t:e 7ractical ex7erience gained by a s7ecialist or ex7ert in t:e administration and use of 3odium 6entot:al on 7atients- but only from reading certain references- to 9it: ATT@& (2G3A@: <: 2n your line of ex7ertise on 7ulmonology- did you :a%e any occasion to use 7entot:al as a met:od of managementJ DR& CAA5RA:

429
A: ?e do it in conBunction 9it: t:e anest:esiologist 9:en t:ey :a%e to intubate our 7atient& <: 0ut not in 7articular 9:en you 7ractice 7ulmonologyJ A: 'o& <: 2n ot:er 9ords- your 8no9ledge about 7entot:al is based only on 9:at you :a%e read from boo8s and not by your o9n 7ersonal a77lication of t:e medicine 7entot:alJ A: 0ased on my 7ersonal ex7erience also on 7entot:al& <: Fo9 many times :a%e you used 7entot:alJ A: T:ey used it on me& 2 9ent into bronc:os7asm during my a77endectomy& <: And because t:ey :a%e used it on you and on account of your o9n 7ersonal ex7erience you feel t:at you can testify on 7entot:al :ere 9it: medical aut:orityJ A: 'o& T:at is 9:y 2 used references to su77ort my claims& An anest:etic accident caused by a rare drug#induced bronc:os7asm 7ro7erly falls 9it:in t:e fields of anest:esia- internal medicine#allergy- and clinical 7:armacology& T:e resulting anoxic ence7:alo7at:y belongs to t:e field of neurology& ?:ile admittedly- many bronc:os7astic#mediated 7ulmonary diseases are 9it:in t:e ex7ertise of 7ulmonary medicine- Dr& Camora;s field- t:e anest:etic drug#induced- allergic mediated bronc:os7asm alleged in t:is case is 9it:in t:e disci7lines of anest:esiology- allergology and 7:armacology& 5n t:e basis of t:e foregoing transcri7t- in 9:ic: t:e 7ulmonologist :imself admitted t:at :e could not testify about t:e drug 9it: medical aut:ority- it is clear t:at t:e a77ellate court erred in gi%ing 9eig:t to Dr& Camora;s testimony as an ex7ert in t:e administration of T:io7ental 3odium& T:e 7ro%ision in t:e rules of e%idence * regarding ex7ert 9itnesses states: 3ec& +,& Opinion of e.pert 'itness& O T:e o7inion of a 9itness on a matter requiring s7ecial 8no9ledge- s8ill- ex7erience or training 9:ic: :e is s:o9n to 7ossess- may be recei%ed in e%idence& Generally- to qualify as an ex7ert 9itness- one must :a%e acquired s7ecial 8no9ledge of t:e subBect matter about 9:ic: :e or s:e is to testify- eit:er by t:e study of recogni=ed aut:orities on t:e subBect or by 7ractical ex7erience& *3 Clearly- Dr& Camora does not qualify as an ex7ert 9itness based on t:e abo%e standard since :e lac8s t:e necessary 8no9ledge- s8ill- and training in t:e field of anest:esiology& 5ddly- a7art from submitting testimony from a s7ecialist in t:e 9rong field- 7ri%ate res7ondents; intentionally a%oided 7ro%iding testimony by com7etent and inde7endent ex7erts in t:e 7ro7er areas& Aoreo%er- 7ri%ate res7ondents; t:eory- t:at T:io7ental 3odium may :a%e 7roduced 4rlinda;s coma by triggering an allergic mediated res7onse- :as no su77ort in e%idence& 'o e%idence of stridors8in reactions- or 9:ee=ing O some of t:e more common accom7anying signs of an allergic reaction O a77ears on record& 'o laboratory data 9ere e%er 7resented to t:e court& 2n any case- 7ri%ate res7ondents t:emsel%es admit t:at T:io7ental induced- allergic#mediated bronc:os7asm :a77ens only %ery rarely& 2f courts 9ere to acce7t 7ri%ate res7ondents; :y7ot:esis 9it:out su77orting medical 7roof- and against t:e 9eig:t of a%ailable e%idence- t:en e%ery anest:etic accident 9ould be an act of God& 4%idently- t:e T:io7ental#allergy t:eory %igorously asserted by 7ri%ate res7ondents 9as a mere aftert:oug:t& 3uc: an ex7lanation 9as ad%anced in order to ad%anced in order to absol%e t:em of any and all res7onsibility for t:e 7atient;s condition& 2n %ie9 of t:e e%idence at :and- 9e are inclined to belie%e 7etitioners; stand t:at it 9as t:e faulty intubation 9:ic: 9as t:e 7roximate cause of 4rlinda;s comatose condition&

430
6roximate cause :as been defined as t:at 9:ic:- in natural and continuous sequenceunbro8en by any efficient inter%ening cause- 7roduces inBury- and 9it:out 9:ic: t:e result 9ould not :a%e occurred& An inBury or damage is 7roximately caused by an act or a failure to act- 9:ene%er it a77ears from t:e e%idence in t:e case- t:at t:e act or omission 7layed a substantial 7art in bringing about or actually causing t:e inBury or damageG and t:at t:e inBury or damage 9as eit:er a direct result or a reasonably 7robable consequence of t:e act or omission& 2t is t:e dominant- mo%ing or 7roducing cause& A77lying t:e abo%e definition in relation to t:e e%idence at :and- faulty intubation is undeniably t:e 7roximate cause 9:ic: triggered t:e c:ain of e%ents leading to 4rlinda;s brain damage andultimately- :er comatosed condition& 6ri%ate res7ondents t:emsel%es admitted in t:eir testimony t:at t:e first intubation 9as a failure& T:is fact 9as li8e9ise obser%ed by 9itness Cru= 9:en s:e :eard res7ondent Dra& Gutierre= remar8ed- >Ang :ira7 ma#intubate nito- mali yata ang 7ag8a8a7aso8& 5 lumala8i ang tiyan&> T:ereafter- 9itness Cru= noticed abdominal distention on t:e body of 4rlinda& T:e de%elo7ment of abdominal distention- toget:er 9it: res7iratory embarrassment indicates t:at t:e endotrac:eal tube entered t:e eso7:agus instead of t:e res7iratory tree& 2n ot:er 9ords- instead of t:e intended endotrac:eal intubation 9:at actually too8 7lace 9as an eso7:ageal intubation& During intubationsuc: distention indicates t:at air :as entered t:e gastrointestinal tract t:roug: t:e eso7:agus instead of t:e lungs t:roug: t:e trac:ea& 4ntry into t:e eso7:agus 9ould certainly cause some delay in oxygen deli%ery into t:e lungs as t:e tube 9:ic: carries oxygen is in t:e 9rong 7lace& T:at abdominal distention :ad been obser%ed during t:e first intubation suggests t:at t:e lengt: of time utili=ed in inserting t:e endotrac:eal tube (u7 to t:e time t:e tube 9as 9it:dra9n for t:e second attem7t$ 9as fairly significant& Due to t:e delay in t:e deli%ery of oxygen in :er lungs 4rlinda s:o9ed signs of cyanosis& As stated in t:e testimony of Dr& Fosa8a- t:e lac8 of oxygen became a77arent only after :e noticed t:at t:e nailbeds of 4rlinda 9ere already blue& Fo9e%er- 7ri%ate res7ondents contend t:at a second intubation 9as executed on 4rlinda and t:is one 9as successfully done& ?e do not t:in8 so& 'o e%idence exists on record- beyond 7ri%ate res7ondents; bare claims- 9:ic: su77orts t:e contention t:at t:e second intubation 9as successful& Assuming t:at t:e endotrac:eal tube finally found its 9ay into t:e 7ro7er orifice of t:e trac:ea- t:e same ga%e no guarantee of oxygen deli%ery- t:e :allmar8 of a successful intubation& 2n fact- cyanosis 9as again obser%ed immediately after t:e second intubation& 6roceeding from t:is e%ent (cyanosis$- it could not be claimed- as 7ri%ate res7ondents insist- t:at t:e second intubation 9as accom7lis:ed& 4%en granting t:at t:e tube 9as successfully inserted during t:e second attem7t- it 9as ob%iously too late& As a7tly ex7lained by t:e trial court- 4rlinda already suffered brain damage as a result of t:e inadequate oxygenation of :er brain for about four to fi%e minutes& T:e abo%e conclusion is not 9it:out basis& 3cientific studies 7oint out t:at intubation 7roblems are res7onsible for one#t:ird ("H3$ of deat:s and serious inBuries associated 9it: anest:esia& *, 'e%ert:eless- ninety#eig:t 7ercent (,/]$ or t:e %ast maBority of difficult intubations may be antici7ated by 7erforming a t:oroug: e%aluation of t:e 7atient;s air9ay 7rior to t:e o7eration& )! As stated before:and- res7ondent Dra& Gutierre= failed to obser%e t:e 7ro7er 7re#o7erati%e 7rotocol 9:ic: could :a%e 7re%ented t:is unfortunate incident& Fad a77ro7riate diligence and reasonable care been used in t:e 7re#o7erati%e e%aluation- res7ondent 7:ysician could :a%e been muc: more 7re7ared to meet t:e contingency broug:t about by t:e 7ercei%ed anatomic %ariations in t:e 7atient;s nec8 and oral area- defects 9:ic: 9ould :a%e been easily o%ercome by a 7rior 8no9ledge of t:ose %ariations toget:er 9it: a c:ange in tec:nique& )" 2n ot:er 9ords- an ex7erienced anest:esiologistadequately alerted by a t:oroug: 7re#o7erati%e e%aluation- 9ould :a%e :ad little difficulty going around t:e s:ort nec8 and 7rotruding teet:& ) Fa%ing failed to obser%e common medical standards in 7re# o7erati%e management and intubation- res7ondent Dra& Gutierre=; negligence resulted in cerebral anoxia and e%entual coma of 4rlinda& ?e no9 determine t:e res7onsibility of res7ondent Dr& 5rlino Fosa8a as t:e :ead of t:e surgical team& As t:e so#called >ca7tain of t:e s:i7-> it is t:e surgeon;s res7onsibility to see to it t:at t:ose under :im 7erform t:eir tas8 in t:e 7ro7er manner& Res7ondent Dr& Fosa8a;s negligence can be found in :is failure to exercise t:e 7ro7er aut:ority (as t:e >ca7tain> of t:e o7erati%e team$ in not

431
determining if :is anest:esiologist obser%ed 7ro7er anest:esia 7rotocols& 2n fact- no e%idence on record exists to s:o9 t:at res7ondent Dr& Fosa8a %erified if res7ondent Dra& Gutierre= 7ro7erly intubated t:e 7atient& Furt:ermore- it does not esca7e us t:at res7ondent Dr& Fosa8a :ad sc:eduled anot:er 7rocedure in a different :os7ital at t:e same time as 4rlinda;s c:olecystectomy- and 9as in fact o%er t:ree :ours late for t:e latter;s o7eration& 0ecause of t:is- :e :ad little or no time to confer 9it: :is anest:esiologist regarding t:e anest:esia deli%ery& T:is indicates t:at :e 9as remiss in :is 7rofessional duties to9ards :is 7atient& T:us- :e s:ares equal res7onsibility for t:e e%ents 9:ic: resulted in 4rlinda;s condition& ?e no9 discuss t:e res7onsibility of t:e :os7ital in t:is 7articular incident& T:e unique 7ractice (among 7ri%ate :os7itals$ of filling u7 s7ecialist staff 9it: attending and %isiting >consultants-> )+ 9:o are allegedly not :os7ital em7loyees- 7resents 7roblems in a77ortioning res7onsibility for negligence in medical mal7ractice cases& Fo9e%er- t:e difficulty is only more a77arent t:an real& 2n t:e first 7lace- :os7itals exercise significant control in t:e :iring and firing of consultants and in t:e conduct of t:eir 9or8 9it:in t:e :os7ital 7remises& Doctors 9:o a77ly for >consultant> slots%isiting or attending- are required to submit 7roof of com7letion of residency- t:eir educational qualificationsG generally- e%idence of accreditation by t:e a77ro7riate board (di7lomate$- e%idence of fello9s:i7 in most cases- and references& T:ese requirements are carefully scrutini=ed by members of t:e :os7ital administration or by a re%ie9 committee set u7 by t:e :os7ital 9:o eit:er acce7t or reBect t:e a77lication& ). T:is is 7articularly true 9it: res7ondent :os7ital& After a 7:ysician is acce7ted- eit:er as a %isiting or attending consultant- :e is normally required to attend clinico#7at:ological conferences- conduct bedside rounds for cler8s- interns and residents- moderate grand rounds and 7atient audits and 7erform ot:er tas8s and res7onsibilities- for t:e 7ri%ilege of being able to maintain a clinic in t:e :os7ital- andHor for t:e 7ri%ilege of admitting 7atients into t:e :os7ital& 2n addition to t:ese- t:e 7:ysician;s 7erformance as a s7ecialist is generally e%aluated by a 7eer re%ie9 committee on t:e basis of mortality and morbidity statistics- and feedbac8 from 7atients- nurses- interns and residents& A consultant remiss in :is duties- or a consultant 9:o regularly falls s:ort of t:e minimum standards acce7table to t:e :os7ital or its 7eer re%ie9 committeeis normally 7olitely terminated& 2n ot:er 9ords- 7ri%ate :os7itals- :ire- fire and exercise real control o%er t:eir attending and %isiting >consultant> staff& ?:ile >consultants> are not- tec:nically em7loyees- a 7oint 9:ic: res7ondent :os7ital asserts in denying all res7onsibility for t:e 7atient;s condition- t:e control exercised- t:e :iringand t:e rig:t to terminate consultants all fulfill t:e im7ortant :allmar8s of an em7loyer#em7loyee relations:i7- 9it: t:e exce7tion of t:e 7ayment of 9ages& 2n assessing 9:et:er suc: a relations:i7 in fact exists- t:e control test is determining& Accordingly- on t:e basis of t:e foregoing- 9e rule t:at for t:e 7ur7ose of allocating res7onsibility in medical negligence cases- an em7loyer#em7loyee relations:i7 in effect exists bet9een :os7itals and t:eir attending and %isiting 7:ysicians& T:is being t:e case- t:e question no9 arises as to 9:et:er or not res7ondent :os7ital is solidarily liable 9it: res7ondent doctors for 7etitioner;s condition& T:e basis for :olding an em7loyer solidarily res7onsible for t:e negligence of its em7loyee is found in Article "/! of t:e Ci%il Code 9:ic: considers a 7erson accountable not only for :is o9n acts but also for t:ose of ot:ers based on t:e former;s res7onsibility under a relations:i7 of patria potestas& 3uc: res7onsibility ceases 9:en t:e 7ersons or entity concerned 7ro%e t:at t:ey :a%e obser%ed t:e diligence of a good fat:er of t:e family to 7re%ent damage& )/ 2n ot:er 9ords- 9:ile t:e burden of 7ro%ing negligence rests on t:e 7laintiffs- once negligence is s:o9n- t:e burden s:ifts to t:e res7ondents (7arent- guardian- teac:er or em7loyer$ 9:o s:ould 7ro%e t:at t:ey obser%ed t:e diligence of a good fat:er of a family to 7re%ent damage& 2n t:e instant case- res7ondent :os7ital- a7art from a general denial of its res7onsibility o%er res7ondent 7:ysicians- failed to adduce e%idence s:o9ing t:at it exercised t:e diligence of a good fat:er of a family in t:e :iring and su7er%ision of t:e latter& 2t failed to adduce e%idence 9it: regard to t:e degree of su7er%ision 9:ic: it exercised o%er its 7:ysicians& 2n neglecting to offer suc: 7roof- or 7roof of a similar nature- res7ondent :os7ital t:ereby failed to disc:arge its burden under t:e last

432
7aragra7: of Article "/!& Fa%ing failed to do t:is- res7ondent :os7ital is consequently solidarily res7onsible 9it: its 7:ysicians for 4rlinda;s condition& 0ased on t:e foregoing- 9e :old t:at t:e Court of A77eals erred in acce7ting and relying on t:e testimonies of t:e 9itnesses for t:e 7ri%ate res7ondents& 2ndeed- as s:o9n by t:e abo%e discussions- 7ri%ate res7ondents 9ere unable to rebut t:e 7resum7tion of negligence& 17on t:ese disquisitions 9e :old t:at 7ri%ate res7ondents are solidarily liable for damages under Article ")* ), of t:e Ci%il Code& ?e no9 come to t:e amount of damages due 7etitioners& T:e trial court a9arded a total of 6*3 -!!!&!! 7esos (s:ould be 6*"*-!!!&!!$ in com7ensatory damages to t:e 7laintiff- >subBect to its being u7dated> co%ering t:e 7eriod from ". 'o%ember ",/. u7 to ". A7ril ",, - based on mont:ly ex7enses for t:e care of t:e 7atient estimated at 6/-!!!&!!& At current le%els- t:e 6/!!!Hmont:ly amount establis:ed by t:e trial court at t:e time of its decision 9ould be grossly inadequate to co%er t:e actual costs of :ome#based care for a comatose indi%idual& T:e calculated amount 9as not e%en arri%ed at by loo8ing at t:e actual cost of 7ro7er :os7ice care for t:e 7atient& ?:at it reflected 9ere t:e actual ex7enses incurred and 7ro%ed by t:e 7etitioners after t:ey 9ere forced to bring :ome t:e 7atient to a%oid mounting :os7ital bills& And yet ideally- a comatose 7atient s:ould remain in a :os7ital or be transferred to a :os7ice s7eciali=ing in t:e care of t:e c:ronically ill for t:e 7ur7ose of 7ro%iding a 7ro7er milieu adequate to meet minimum standards of care& 2n t:e instant case for instance- 4rlinda :as to be constantly turned from side to side to 7re%ent bedsores and :y7ostatic 7neumonia& Feeding is done by nasogastric tube& Food 7re7aration s:ould be normally made by a dietitian to 7ro%ide :er 9it: t:e correct daily caloric requirements and %itamin su77lements& Furt:ermore- s:e :as to be seen on a regular basis by a 7:ysical t:era7ist to a%oid muscle atro7:y- and by a 7ulmonary t:era7ist to 7re%ent t:e accumulation of secretions 9:ic: can lead to res7iratory com7lications& Gi%en t:ese considerations- t:e amount of actual damages reco%erable in suits arising from negligence s:ould at least reflect t:e correct minimum cost of 7ro7er care- not t:e cost of t:e care t:e family is usually com7elled to underta8e at :ome to a%oid ban8ru7tcy& Fo9e%er- t:e 7ro%isions of t:e Ci%il Code on actual or com7ensatory damages 7resent us 9it: some difficulties& ?ell#settled is t:e rule t:at actual damages 9:ic: may be claimed by t:e 7laintiff are t:ose suffered by :im as :e :as duly 7ro%ed& T:e Ci%il Code 7ro%ides: Art& ",,& O 4xce7t as 7ro%ided by la9 or by sti7ulation- one is entitled to an adequate com7ensation only for suc: 7ecuniary loss suffered by :im as :e :as duly 7ro%ed& 3uc: com7ensation is referred to as actual or com7ensatory damages& 5ur rules on actual or com7ensatory damages generally assume t:at at t:e time of litigationt:e inBury suffered as a consequence of an act of negligence :as been com7leted and t:at t:e cost can be liquidated& Fo9e%er- t:ese 7ro%isions neglect to ta8e into account t:ose situations- as in t:is case- 9:ere t:e resulting inBury mig:t be continuing and 7ossible future com7lications directly arising from t:e inBury- 9:ile certain to occur- are difficult to 7redict& 2n t:ese cases- t:e amount of damages 9:ic: s:ould be a9arded- if t:ey are to adequately and correctly res7ond to t:e inBury caused- s:ould be one 9:ic: com7ensates for 7ecuniary loss incurred and 7ro%ed- u7 to t:e time of trialG and one 9:ic: 9ould meet 7ecuniary loss certain to be suffered but 9:ic: could not- from t:e nature of t:e case- be made 9it: certainty& /! 2n ot:er 9ordstem7erate damages can and s:ould be a9arded on to7 of actual or com7ensatory damages in instances 9:ere t:e inBury is c:ronic and continuing& And because of t:e unique nature of suc: casesno incom7atibility arises 9:en bot: actual and tem7erate damages are 7ro%ided for& T:e reason is t:at t:ese damages co%er t9o distinct 7:ases& As it 9ould not be equitable O and certainly not in t:e best interests of t:e administration of Bustice O for t:e %ictim in suc: cases to constantly come before t:e courts and in%o8e t:eir aid in see8ing adBustments to t:e com7ensatory damages 7re%iously a9arded O tem7erate damages are

433
a77ro7riate& T:e amount gi%en as tem7erate damages- t:oug: to a certain extent s7eculati%e- s:ould ta8e into account t:e cost of 7ro7er care& 2n t:e instant case- 7etitioners 9ere able to 7ro%ide only :ome#based nursing care for a comatose 7atient 9:o :as remained in t:at condition for o%er a decade& Fa%ing 7remised our a9ard for com7ensatory damages on t:e amount 7ro%ided by 7etitioners at t:e onset of litigation- it 9ould be no9 muc: more in ste7 9it: t:e interests of Bustice if t:e %alue a9arded for tem7erate damages 9ould allo9 7etitioners to 7ro%ide o7timal care for t:eir lo%ed one in a facility 9:ic: generally s7eciali=es in suc: care& T:ey s:ould not be com7elled by dire circumstances to 7ro%ide substandard care at :ome 9it:out t:e aid of 7rofessionals- for anyt:ing less 9ould be grossly inadequate& 1nder t:e circumstances- an a9ard of 6"-.!!-!!!&!! in tem7erate damages 9ould t:erefore be reasonable& 2n 9alen+uela vs& !ourt of ppeals- / t:is Court 9as confronted 9it: a situation 9:ere t:e inBury suffered by t:e 7laintiff 9ould :a%e led to ex7enses 9:ic: 9ere difficult to estimate because 9:ile t:ey 9ould :a%e been a direct result of t:e inBury (am7utation$- and 9ere certain to be incurred by t:e 7laintiff- t:ey 9ere li8ely to arise only in t:e future& ?e a9arded 6"-!!!-!!!&!! in moral damages in t:at case& Describing t:e nature of t:e inBury- t:e Court t:erein stated: As a result of t:e accident- Aa& (ourdes Ealen=uela under9ent a traumatic am7utation of :er left lo9er extremity at t:e distal left t:ig: Bust abo%e t:e 8nee& 0ecause of t:isEalen=uela 9ill fore%er be de7ri%ed of t:e full ambulatory functions of :er left extremitye%en 9it: t:e use of state of t:e art 7rost:etic tec:nology& ?ell beyond t:e 7eriod of :os7itali=ation (9:ic: 9as 7aid for by (i$- s:e 9ill be required to undergo adBustments in :er 7rost:etic de%ise due to t:e s:rin8age of t:e stum7 from t:e 7rocess of :ealing& T:ese adBustments entail costs- 7rost:etic re7lacements and mont:s of 7:ysical and occu7ational re:abilitation and t:era7y& During t:e lifetime- t:e 7rost:etic de%ise 9ill :a%e to be re7laced and readBusted to c:anges in t:e si=e of :er lo9er limb effected by t:e biological c:anges of middle#age- meno7ause and aging& Assuming s:e reac:es meno7ause- for exam7le- t:e 7rost:etic 9ill :a%e to be adBusted to res7ond to t:e c:anges in bone resulting from a 7reci7itate decrease in calcium le%els obser%ed in t:e bones of all 7ost#meno7ausal 9omen& 2n ot:er 9ords- t:e damage done to :er 9ould not only be 7ermanent and lasting- it 9ould also be 7ermanently c:anging and adBusting to t:e 7:ysiologic c:anges 9:ic: :er body 9ould normally undergo t:roug: t:e years& T:e re7lacements- c:anges- and adBustments 9ill require corres7onding adBusti%e 7:ysical and occu7ational t:era7y& All of t:ese adBustments- it :as been documented- are 7ainful& xxx xxx xxx A 7rost:etic de%ise- :o9e%er tec:nologically ad%anced- 9ill only allo9 a reasonable amount of functional restoration of t:e motor functions of t:e lo9er limb& T:e sensory functions are fore%er lost& T:e resultant anxiety- slee7lessness- 7syc:ological inBurymental and 7:ysical 7ain are inestimable& T:e inBury suffered by 4rlinda as a consequence of 7ri%ate res7ondents; negligence is certainly muc: more serious t:an t:e am7utation in t:e Ealen=uela case& 6etitioner 4rlinda Ramos 9as in :er mid#forties 9:en t:e incident occurred& 3:e :as been in a comatose state for o%er fourteen years no9& T:e burden of care :as so far been :eroically s:ouldered by :er :usband and c:ildren- 9:o- in t:e inter%ening years :a%e been de7ri%ed of t:e lo%e of a 9ife and a mot:er& Aean9:ile- t:e actual 7:ysical- emotional and financial cost of t:e care of 7etitioner 9ould be %irtually im7ossible to quantify& 4%en t:e tem7erate damages :erein a9arded 9ould be inadequate if 7etitioner;s condition remains unc:anged for t:e next ten years& ?e recogni=ed- in Ealen=uela t:at a discussion of t:e %ictim;s actual inBury 9ould not e%en

434
scratc: t:e surface of t:e resulting moral damage because it 9ould be :ig:ly s7eculati%e to estimate t:e amount of emotional and moral 7ain- 7syc:ological damage and inBury suffered by t:e %ictim or t:ose actually affected by t:e %ictim;s condition& /+T:e :usband and t:e c:ildren- all 7etitioners in t:is case- 9ill :a%e to li%e 9it: t:e day to day uncertainty of t:e 7atient;s illness- 8no9ing any :o7e of reco%ery is close to nil& T:ey :a%e fas:ioned t:eir daily li%es around t:e nursing care of 7etitioneraltering t:eir long term goals to ta8e into account t:eir life 9it: a comatose 7atient& T:ey- not t:e res7ondents- are c:arged 9it: t:e moral res7onsibility of t:e care of t:e %ictim& T:e family;s moral inBury and suffering in t:is case is clearly a real one& For t:e foregoing reasons- an a9ard of 6 -!!!-!!!&!! in moral damages 9ould be a77ro7riate& Finally- by 9ay of exam7le- exem7lary damages in t:e amount of 6"!!-!!!&!! are :ereby a9arded& Considering t:e lengt: and nature of t:e instant suit 9e are of t:e o7inion t:at attorney;s fees %alued at 6"!!-!!!&!! are li8e9ise 7ro7er& 5ur courts face unique difficulty in adBudicating medical negligence cases because 7:ysicians are not insurers of life and- t:ey rarely set out to intentionally cause inBury or deat: to t:eir 7atients& Fo9e%er- intent is immaterial in negligence cases because 9:ere negligence exists and is 7ro%en- t:e same automatically gi%es t:e inBured a rig:t to re7aration for t:e damage caused& 4stablis:ed medical 7rocedures and 7ractices- t:oug: in constant flux are de%ised for t:e 7ur7ose of 7re%enting com7lications& A 7:ysician;s ex7erience 9it: :is 7atients 9ould sometimes tem7t :im to de%iate from establis:ed community 7ractices- and :e may end a distinguis:ed career using unort:odox met:ods 9it:out incident& Fo9e%er- 9:en failure to follo9 establis:ed 7rocedure results in t:e e%il 7recisely soug:t to be a%erted by obser%ance of t:e 7rocedure and a nexus is made bet9een t:e de%iation and t:e inBury or damage- t:e 7:ysician 9ould necessarily be called to account for it& 2n t:e case at bar- t:e failure to obser%e 7re#o7erati%e assessment 7rotocol 9:ic: 9ould :a%e influenced t:e intubation in a salutary 9ay 9as fatal to 7ri%ate res7ondents; case& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e decision and resolution of t:e a77ellate court a77ealed from are :ereby modified so as to a9ard in fa%or of 7etitioners- and solidarily against 7ri%ate res7ondents t:e follo9ing: "$ 6"-3. -!!!&!! as actual damages com7uted as of t:e date of 7romulgation of t:is decision 7lus a mont:ly 7ayment of 6/-!!!&!! u7 to t:e time t:at 7etitioner 4rlinda Ramos ex7ires or miraculously sur%i%esG $ 6 -!!!-!!!&!! as moral damages- 3$ 6"-.!!-!!!&!! as tem7erate damagesG +$ 6"!!-!!!&!! eac: as exem7lary damages and attorney;s feesG and- .$ t:e costs of t:e suit&

L" ? ,d A#an"$a &. +an7 ' A-"#)Ba G&R& 'o& (# .+"+& Culy 3!- ",)" AAIA(2'TA(- J.: 6etition for re%ie9 by %ertiorari of t:e decision of Court of A77eals in CA#G&R& 'o& (#3+.!/#R modifying t:at of t:e Court of First 2nstance of Aanila in t:e Case 'o& . ++ & (eo7oldo Araneta- t:e 7etitioner :erein- 9as a local merc:ant engaged in t:e im7ort and ex7ort business& 5n Cune 3!- ",*" :e issued a c:ec8 for j.!! 7ayable to cas: and dra9n against t:e 3an Francisco main office of t:e 0an8 of America- 9:ere :e :ad been maintaining a dollar current account since ",+/& At t:at time :e :ad a credit balance of j. 3&/" in :is account- confirmed by t:e ban8;s assistant cas:ier in a letter to Araneta dated 3e7tember )- ",*"& Fo9e%er- 9:en t:e c:ec8 9as recei%ed by t:e ban8 on 3e7tember /- ",*"- a day after t:e date of t:e letter- it 9as dis:onored and stam7ed 9it: t:e notation >Account Closed&> 17on inquiry by Araneta as to 9:y :is c:ec8 :ad been dis:onored- t:e 0an8 of America ac8no9ledged t:at it 9as an error- ex7laining t:at for some reason t:e c:ec8 :ad been encoded 9it: 9rong account number- and 7romising t:at >9e s:all ma8e e%ery effort to see t:at t:is does not reoccur&> T:e ban8 sent a letter of a7ology to t:e 7ayee of t:e c:ec8- a Ar& Farry Gregory of Fong8ong- stating t:at >t:e c:ec8 9as returned t:roug: an error on our 7art and s:ould not reflect

435
ad%ersely u7on Ar& Araneta&> 2n all 7robability t:e matter 9ould :a%e been considered closed- but anot:er incident of a similar nature occurred later& 5n Aay .- and 3"- ",* Araneta issued C:ec8 'o& ""! for j.!! and C:ec8 'o& """ for j".!- res7ecti%ely- bot: 7ayable to cas: and dra9n against t:e 0an8 of America& T:ese t9o c:ec8s 9ere recei%ed by t:e ban8 on Cune 3- ",* & T:e first c:ec8 a77eared to :a%e come into t:e :ands of Rufina 3aldana- 9:o de7osited it to :er account t:e First 'ational City 0an8 of 'e9 @or8- 9:ic: in turn cleared it t:roug: t:e Federal Reser%e 0an8& T:e second c:ec8 a77eared to :a%e been cleared t:roug: t:e ?ells Fargo 0an8& Des7ite t:e sufficiency of Araneta;s de7osit balance to co%er bot: c:ec8s- t:ey 9ere again stam7ed 9it: t:e notation >Account Closed> and returned to t:e res7ecti%e clearing ban8s& 2n t:e 7articular case of C:ec8 'o& ""!- it 9as actually 7aid by t:e 0an8 of America to t:e First 'ational City 0an8& 3ubsequently- :o9e%er- t:e 0an8 of America- claiming t:at t:e 7ayment :ad been inad%ertently made- returned t:e c:ec8 to t:e First 'ational City 0an8 9it: t:e request t:at t:e amount t:ereof be credited bac8 to t:e 0an8 of America& 2n turn- t:e First 'ational City 0an8 9rote to t:e de7ositor of t:e c:ec8- Rufina 3aldana- informing :er about its return 9it: t:e notation >Account Closed> and as8ing :er consent to t:e deduction of its amount from :er de7osit& Fo9e%er- before Ars& 3aldana;s re7ly could be recei%ed- t:e 0an8 of America recalled t:e c:ec8 from t:e First 'ational City 0an8 and :onored it& 2n %ie9 of t:e foregoing incidents- Araneta- t:roug: counsel- sent a letter to t:e 0an8 of America demanding damages in t:e sum of j !-!!!& ?:ile admitting res7onsibility for t:e incon%enience caused to Araneta- t:e ban8 claimed t:at t:e amount demanded 9as excessi%e- and offered to 7ay t:e sum of 6 -!!!&!!& T:e offer 9as reBected& 5n December ""- ",* Araneta filed t:e com7laint in t:is case against t:e 0an8 of America for t:e reco%ery of t:e follo9ing: "& Actual or com7ensatory damages 63!-!!!&!! & Aoral damages !-!!!&!! 3& Tem7erate damages .!-!!!&!! +& 4xem7lary damages "!-!!!&!! .& Attorney;s fees "!-!!!&!! T5TA( 6" !-!!!&!! T:e Budgment of t:e trial court a9arded all t:e item 7rayed for- but on a77eal by t:e defendant t:e Court of A77eals eliminated t:e a9ard of com7ensatory and tem7erate damages and reduced t:e moral damages to 6/-!!!&!!- t:e exem7lary damages to 6"-!!!&!! and t:e attorney;s fees to 6"-!!!&!!& 'ot satisfied 9it: t:e decision of t:e a77ellate court t:e 7laintiff filed t:e instant 7etition for re%ie9- alleging t9o reasons 9:y it s:ould be allo9ed- as follo9s: ("$ T:e Court of A77eals erred in :olding t:at tem7erate damages cannot be a9arded 9it:out 7roof of actual 7ecuniary loss& T:ere is absolutely no legal basis for t:is rulingG 9orse yet- it runs counter to t:e %ery 7ro%isions of ART& "* of t:e 'e9 Ci%il Code and to t:e establis:ed Buris7rudence on t:e matterG ( $ T:e Court of A77eals erred in not :olding t:at moral damages may be reco%ered as an item se7arate and distinct from t:e damages reco%erable for inBury to business standing and commercial credit& T:is in%ol%es t:e a77lication of 7aragra7: ( $ of Art& !. of t:e 'e9 Ci%il Code 9:ic: u7 to no9 :as not yet recei%ed an aut:oritati%e inter7retation from t:e 3u7reme Court& &&& & 2n :is brief- :o9e%er- t:e 7etitioner assigned fi%e (.$ errors committed by t:e a77ellate courtnamely: ("$ in concluding t:at t:e 7etitioner- on t:e basis of t:e e%idence- :ad not sufficiently 7ro%en :is claim for actual damages- 9:ere suc: e%idence- bot: testimonial and documentary- stands uncontradicted on t:e recordG ( $ in :olding t:at tem7erate damages cannot be a9arded to t:e

436
7etitioner 9it:out 7roof of actual 7ecuniary lossG (3$ in not granting moral damages for mental anguis:besmirc:ed re7utation- 9ounded feelings- social :umiliation- etc&- se7arate and distinct from t:e damages reco%erable for inBury to business re7utationG (+$ in reducing- 9it:out any ostensible reasont:e a9ard of exem7lary damages granted by t:e lo9er courtG and (.$ in reducing- 9it:out s7ecial reason- t:e a9ard of attorney;s fees by t:e lo9er court& ?e consider t:e second and t:ird errors- as t:ey 7resent t:e issues raised in t:e 7etition for re%ie9 and on t:e basis of 9:ic: it 9as gi%en due course& 2n disallo9ing t:e a9ard of tem7erate damages- t:e Court of A77eals ruled: 2n %ie9 of all t:e foregoing considerations 9e :old t:at t:e 7laintiff :as not 7ro%en :is claim t:at t:e t9o c:ec8s for j.!! eac: 9ere in 7artial 7ayment of t9o orders for Be9els 9ort: 6.!-!!! eac:& Fe :as li8e9ise not 7ro%en t:e actual damage 9:ic: :e claims :e :as suffered& And in %ie9 of t:e fact t:at :e :as not 7ro%en t:e existence of t:e su77osed contract for :imself to buy Be9els at a 7rofit t:ere is not e%en an occasion for an a9ard of tem7erate damages on t:is score& T:is ruling is no9 assailed as erroneous and 9it:out legal basis& T:e 7etitioner maintains t:at in an action by a de7ositor against a ban8 for damages resulting from t:e 9rongful dis:onor of t:e de7ositor;s c:ec8s- tem7erate damages for inBury to business standing or commercial credit may be reco%ered e%en in t:e absence of definite 7roof of direct 7ecuniary loss to t:e 7laintiff- a finding O as it 9as found by t:e Court of A77eals O t:at t:e 9rongful acts of t:e res7ondent :ad ad%ersely affected :is credit being sufficient for t:e 7ur7ose& T:e follo9ing 7ro%isions of t:e Ci%il Code are in%o8ed: ART& !.& Damages may be reco%ered: ("$ For loss or im7airment of earning ca7acity in cases of tem7orary or 7ermanent 7ersonal inBuryG ( $ For inBury to t:e 7laintiff;s business standing or commercial credit& ART& "*& 'o 7roof of 7ecuniary loss is necessary in order t:at moral- nominaltem7erate- liquidated or exem7lary damages may be adBudicated& T:e assessment of suc: damages- exce7t liquidated ones- is left to t:e discretion of t:e court- according to t:e circumstances of eac: case& Also in%o8ed by t:e 7etitioner is t:e case of tlanta National Ban/ vs. (avis- ,* Ga 33+- 3 34 ",!G " and t:e follo9ing citations in American Curis7rudence: 2n some states 9:at are called >tem7erate damages> are allo9ed in certain classes of cases- 9it:out 7roof of actual or s7ecial damages- 9:ere t:e 9rong done must in fact :a%e caused actual damage to t:e 7laintiff- t:oug: from t:e nature of t:e case- :e cannot furnis: inde7endent- distinct 7roof t:ereof& Tem7erate damages are more t:an nominal damages- and- rat:er- are suc: as 9ould be a reasonable com7ensation for t:e inBury sustained& &&& & (". Am& Cur& +!!$ &&& & 2t :as been generally- alt:oug: not uni%ersally- :eld- in an action based u7on t:e 9rongful act of a ban8 dis:onoring c:ec8s of a merc:ant or trader :a%ing sufficient funds on de7osit 9it: t:e ban8- t:at substantial damages 9ill be 7resumed to follo9 suc: act as a necessary and natural consequence- and accordingly- t:at s7ecial damages need not be s:o9n& 5ne of t:e reasons gi%en for t:is rule is t:at t:e dis:onor of a merc:ant;s or trader;s c:ec8 is tantamount or analogous- to a slander of :is trade or business- im7uting to :im insol%ency or bad fait:& &&& & ("! Am& Cur& d& .+.$ 5n t:e ot:er :and t:e res7ondent argues t:at since t:e 7etitioner in%o8es Article !. of t:e Ci%il Code- 9:ic: s7ea8s of actual or com7ensatory damages for inBury to business standing or commercial credit- :e may not claim t:em as tem7erate damages and t:ereby dis7ense 9it: 7roof of 7ecuniary loss under Article "*& T:e res7ondent cites Article +- 9:ic: 7ro%ides t:at >tem7erate or moderate damages- 9:ic: are more t:an nominal but less t:an com7ensatory damages may be

437
reco%ered 9:en t:e court finds t:at some 7ecuniary loss :as been suffered but its amount cannotfrom t:e nature of t:e case- 7ro%ed 9it: certainty-> and contends t:at t:e 7etitioner failed to s:o9 any suc: loss in t:is case& T:e question- t:erefore- is 9:et:er or not on t:e basis of t:e findings of t:e Court of A77ealst:ere is reason to conclude t:at t:e 7etitioner did sustain some 7ecuniary loss alt:oug: no sufficient 7roof of t:e amount t:ereof :as been adduced& 2n reBecting t:e claim for tem7erate damages t:e said Court referred s7ecifically to t:e 7etitioner;s failure to 7ro%e >t:e existence of a su77osed contract for :im to buy Be9els at a 7rofit-> in connection 9it: 9:ic: :e issued t:e t9o c:ec8s 9:ic: 9ere dis:onored by t:e res7ondent& T:is may be true as far as it goes- t:at is- 9it: 7articular reference to t:e alleged loss in t:at 7articular transaction& 0ut it does not detract from t:e finding of t:e same Court t:at actual damages :ad been suffered- t:us: &&& 5b%iously- t:e c:ec8 7assed t:e :ands of ot:er ban8s since it 9as cleared in t:e 1nited 3tates& T:e ad%erse reflection against t:e credit of Araneta 9it: said ban8s 9as not cured nor ex7lained by t:e letter of a7ology to Ar& Gregory& xxx xxx xxx &&& T:is incident ob%iously affected t:e credit of Araneta 9it: Aiss 3aldana& xxx xxx xxx Fo9e%er- in so far as t:e credit of Araneta 9it: t:e First 'ational City 0an8- 9it: Aiss Rufina 3aldana and 9it: any ot:er 7ersons 9:o may :a%e come to 8no9 about t:e refusal of t:e defendant to :onor said c:ec8s- t:e :arm 9as done &&& T:e financial credit of a businessman is a 7ri=ed and %aluable asset- it being a significant 7art of t:e foundation of :is business& Any ad%erse reflection t:ereon constitutes some material loss to :im& As stated in t:e case tlanta National Ban/ vs. (avis- supra- citing Aorse 0an8s- 3ec& +./- >it can :ardly be 7ossible t:at a customer;s c:ec8 can be 9rongfully refused 7ayment 9it:out some im7eac:ment of :is credit- 9:ic: must in fact be an actual inBury- t:oug: :e cannot- from t:e nature of t:e case- furnis: inde7endent- distinct 7roof t:ereof&> T:e Code Commission- in ex7laining t:e conce7t of tem7erate damages under Article ma8es t:e follo9ing comment: +-

2n some 3tates of t:e American 1nion- tem7erate damages are allo9ed& T:ere are cases 9:ere from t:e nature of t:e case- definite 7roof of 7ecuniary loss cannot be offered- alt:oug: t:e court is con%inced t:at t:ere :as been suc: loss& For instanceinBury to one;s commercial credit or to t:e good9ill of a business firm is often :ard to s:o9 9it: certainty in terms of money& 3:ould damages be denied for t:at reasonJ T:e Budge s:ould be em7o9ered to calculate moderate damages in suc: cases- rat:er t:an t:at t:e 7laintiff s:ould suffer- 9it:out redress from t:e defendant;s 9rongful act& T:e 7etitioner- as found by t:e Court of A77eals- is a merc:ant of long standing and good re7utation in t:e 6:ili77ines& 3ome of :is record is cited in t:e decision a77ealed from& ?e are of t:e o7inion t:at :is claim for tem7erate damages is legally Bustified& Considering all t:e circumstancesincluding t:e rat:er small si=e of t:e 7etitioner;s account 9it: t:e res7ondent- t:e amounts of t:e c:ec8s 9:ic: 9ere 9rongfully dis:onored- and t:e fact t:at t:e res7ondent tried to rectify t:e error soon after it 9as disco%ered- alt:oug: t:e rectification came after t:e damage :ad been caused- 9e belie%e t:at an a9ard of 6.-!!! by 9ay of tem7erate damages is sufficient& 1nder t:e t:ird error assigned by t:e 7etitioner in :is brief- 9:ic: is t:e second of t:e t9o reasons relie%e u7on in :is 7etition for re%ie9- :e contends t:at moral damages s:ould :a%e been granted for t:e inBury to :is business standing or commercial credit- se7arately from :is 9ounded feelings and mental anguis:& 2t is true t:at under Article ") of t:e Ci%il Code& >besmirc:ed re7utation> is a ground u7on 9:ic: moral damages may be claimed- but t:e Court of A77eals did ta8e t:is element into consideration in adBudging t:e sum of 6/-!!! in :is fa%or& ?e quote from t:e decision:

438
&&& t:e damages to :is re7utation as an establis:ed and 9ell 8no9n international trader entitled :imself to reco%er moral damages& xxx xxx xxx &&& 2t 9as li8e9ise establis:ed t:at 9:en 7laintiff learned t:at :is c:ec8s 9ere not :onored by t:e dra9ee 0an8- :is 9ounded feelings and t:e mental anguis: suffered by :im caused :is blood 7ressure to rise beyond normal limits- t:ereby necessitating medical attendance for an extended 7eriod& T:e trial court a9arded attorney;s fees in t:e amount of 6"!-!!!& T:is 9as reduced by t:e Court of A77eals to only 6"-!!!& Considering t:e nature and extent of t:e ser%ices rendered by t:e 7etitioner;s counsel bot: in t:e trial and a77ellate courts- t:e amount s:ould be increased to 6+-!!!& T:is may be done motu propio by t:is Court under Article !/ of t:e Ci%il Code- 9:ic: 7ro%ides t:at attorney;s fees may be reco%ered in t:e instances t:erein enumerated and >in any ot:er case 9:ere t:e Court deems- it first and equitable t:at attorney;s fees &&& s:ould be reco%ered-> 7ro%ided t:e amount t:ereof be reasonable in all cases& ?e do not entertain t:e first and fourt: errors assigned by t:e 7etitioner& 'eit:er of t:em 9as raised and ruled u7on as reasons for t:e allo9ance of :is 7etition for re%ie9- as required by 3ection of Rule +.& 0esides- t:e first error in%ol%es a question of fact and calls for a re%ie9 of t:e e%idence and a rea77raisal of its 7robati%e %alue O a tas8 not 9it:in t:e a77ellate Burisdiction of t:is case& And 9it: res7ect to t:e fourt: error- 9:ile t:ere 9as gross negligence on t:e 7art of t:e res7ondent- t:e record s:o9s- as :ereinbefore obser%ed- t:at it tried to rectify its error soon after t:e same 9as disco%ered- alt:oug: not in time to 7re%ent t:e damage to t:e 7etitioner& ?F4R4F5R4- t:e Budgment of t:e Court of A77eals is modified by a9arding tem7erate damages to t:e 7etitioner in t:e sum of 6.-!!! and increasing t:e attorney;s fees to 6+-!!!G and is affirmed in all ot:er res7ects& Costs against t:e res7ondent&