TORTS AND DAMAGES CASE DIGEST

!a"ts#

Lopez et.al vs. Pan Am, 16 SCRA 4 1

Then Senate Pro Tempore Lopez booked 1st class tickets from Tokyo to San Francisco. He was traveling with wife da!ghter and son"in"law. #n $ay %& 1'() they arrived in Tokyo only to discover that they no longer had 1 st class accommodations. They took flight !nder protest *ca!se Senator had sched!led meeting and wife had check"!p at $ayo clinic +amages claimed , breach of contract in bad faith Iss$e# %ON t&e' "an (e"ove( mo(al )ama*es +ELD- .es bad faith e/isted 0atio11 %%%)- moral damages are recoverable in breach of contracts where the defendant acted fra!d!lently or in bad faith %1 2adges of 2ad Faith a1 3mployee Herranz cancelled reservationof Lopez4 together with that of the 0!finos only the 0!finos cancelled b1 +espite knowledge that reserv ations have been cancelled when lopez party called in to confirm they ass!red them of 1st class accommodations 51 S!ch willf!l non"disclos!re of the cancellation or pretense that the reservations of the plaintiffs stood is the factor to which is attrib!table the breach of the res!lting contract &1 6t is h!miliating to be compelled to travel as s!ch contrary to what is rightf!lly to be e/pected from the contract!al !ndertaking $oral damages s!stained by Senator" social h!miliation wo!nded feelings mental ang!ish "senator siya ek ek "P 1)) ))) 7ife- discomfort s!stained in to!rist class for 15 ho!rs 8physical s!ffering P9) ))) da!ghter:h!sband- P%9 ))) for social h!miliation lose of prestige;

,$l$eta vs Pan Am, 4 SCRA -.

!a"ts- <person4s case, 0afael =!l!eta with his wife > da!ghter were passengers aboard flight ?o. @&1"%5 from Honol!l! to $anila. Plane had 5) min!te stop"over in 7ake island where they Apassengers1 were allowed to disembark. $r. =!l!eta disembarked so he co!ld relieve himself b!t fo!nd B0 f!ll of soldiers so he went to beachChmm Flight was delayed. He was later fo!nd. D .o! people almost made me miss yo!r flight. .o! have a defective anno!ncing system and 6 was not paged.E FwayCawayC later asked to open their bags <allegedly another person which they APan Fm1 were never able to identify mentioned something abo!t a bomb,. G. Siton airport manager offloaded $r. =!l!eta b!t allowed wife and da!ghter to contin!e with flight. Iss$e- non moral damages may be recovered. +ELD- .es 0atio11 %1- Fny person who willf!lly ca!ses lose or inH!ry to another in a manner that is contrary to morals good c!stoms or p!blic policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. %1 %%1I- $oral damages incl!de physical s!ffering mental ang!ish fright serio!s an/iety besmirched rep!tation wo!nded feelings moral shock social h!miliation and similar inH!ry. Tho!gh incabale of

pec!niary comp!tation moral damages may be recovered if they are the pro/imate res!lt of the defendant4s wrongf!l act:omission. a1 r!de reception Acaptain- 7hat in the hell do yo! think yo! are;1 b1 ab!sive lang!age:scornf!l reference- monkeys c1 !nfriendly attit!de !gly stares !nkind remarks received d1 arbitrary:high"handed decision of leaving him at island e1 wife s!ffered nervo!s breakdown beca!se of the embarrassment ins!lts h!miliations. 51 Bontract between carrier involves special > pec!liar obligations and d!ties. There4s a promise and d!ty of protection and co!rteo!s treatment &1 Bontract of air carriage generates a relation attended with a p!blic d!ty. ?eglect or malfeasance of carrier4s employees nat!rally co!ld give gro!nd for an action for damages 1 $ 9))T A he contrib!ted to gravity1

!a"ts#

/$t$0 vs. man1la Ele"t(1", 2 SCRA

$eralco Jaime went to .!t!k4s ho!se and told maid that he wanted to enter premises to check meter. .!t!k told him that meter was o!tside. Later electricity was c!t off and when .!t!k asked him what the tro!ble was he replied with another K!estion- 7hy she was paying only 9)L of bills. .!t!k tho!ght Jaime came to fi/ her defective meter which she had reported to $eralco4s collectors b!t Jaime told her that she was stealing electric c!rrent !sing by !sing a H!mper. Filed case for slander vs. Jaime convicted $eralco filed for theft , dismissed 6ss!e- $oral damages Held- .es 0atio- 7hile moral damages are incapable of pec!niary estimation they are made recoverable if they are the pro/imate res!lt of the defendant4s wrongf!l act or omissionM and since these damages affect aggrieved party4s moral feelings and personal pride D these sho!ld be weighed in the determination of the indemnity.E 6ss!e- 7#? there was bad faith H3L+- no really b!t D at the very least the facts of case show the appellant did it with reckless negligence 0atio1. when .!t!k reported incident company showed !nwillingness to entertain N said they wo!ld only if Jaime wo!ld be convicted in slander case %. then filed complaint for theftO "motivated p!rely by malice and ill"will and as a retaliatory meas!re for civil a/n filed by plaintiff " filed case only & mos after s!pposed discovery thereof %9)tho!"e/orbitant %9 ))) $+ "mental ang!ish by reason of false imp!tation " besmirched rep ridic!le h!miliation " personal circs and rep!tation considered

. S1me3

Sime/ engaged in e/portation of food prod!cts deposited 1))tho! with 2ank. Later iss!ed checks against acco!nt. 2o!nced. 2ank investigation- amt not credited to acco!nt and was immdtly rectified $+ at %)tho! 1. initial carelessness of bank aggravated by lack of promtit!fe in repairing error H!stifies award %. $P awarded not to penalize b!t to compensate plaintiff for inH!ries 5. Borpo- no $+ e/cept when it has good rep! that is debased res!lting in its social h!milation &. damages s!ffered

credit line cancelled orders not acted !pon pending receipt of payment rep!tation tarnished standing in biz com red!ced prestige as reliable debtor diminished

ma*4an$a

( petitioners were share tenant of defendants. +efendants diverted free flow of water from lots which ca!sed land to dry !p. +ef then asked them to vacate areas for they co!ld no longer plant witho!t water. $+ .3S 1. %%1' permits award for $+ for acts !nder %1 D any person who willf!lly ca!ses loss or inH!ry to another in a manner contrary to yada yadaE %. obvio!s they were denied H%) so they wo!ld vacate land. 15@ Tan Goepe $asa had been PT?04s tenant for 1) years. He wrote asking for conversion of share tenancy relation to one of leasehold applied for conversion a!thorized. P3T0 filed ( crim casesO $+ .3S 1. !nfo!nded s!ccessive complaints even witho!t oral testimonies prove e/istence of fact!al basis for $+ %. s!ffered h!miliation of incarceration 5. motive- harassment and embarrassment and retaliatory meas!re for conversion award

!o()

FactsPirl slapped another girl d!ring election. $+ .3S 1. %%1'- any person who willf!lly ca!ses loss or inH!ry to another in a manner contrary to //E %. slap is !nlawf!l aggression 5. face personifies one4s dignity and slapping it is a personal affront &. considering position and fact that it was election day nothing b!t shame h!miliation and dishonor wo!ld have been heaped !pon her by the indignities she had to s!ffer. 9tho!

. 4a*$m4a'an

Family went to watch concert and waiter spilled drinks on wife ?# $+ 1. embarrassment is not the mental ang!ish contemplated in %%1I for which $+ can be recovered %. mental s!ffering- distress or serio!s pain disting!ished from annoyance regret or ve/ation 1&%. Qda de medina FvarK!e was driving Heepney which smashed into $30FLB# post res!lting in passenger $edina4s death. Ft that time Bresencia had not acK!ired approval from PR2 service commission for the sale of Heepney. Fbso!lte owner was 0osario. ?# F?+

1. !ntenable since F?+ cannot co"e/ist with compensatory damages %. ?+4s p!rpose is to vindicate or recognize right that has been violated in order to precl!de f!rther contest thereon and not for the p!rpose of indemnifying plaintiff for any loss s!ffered by him 5. Bt4s award of compensatory:e/emplary damages are in themselves H!dicial recognition that plaintiff4s right was violated. 1&5. ?orthwest respondent then Bommissioner of P!blic Highways boarded plane with 1 st class ticket to Tokyo. 6n #kinawa he was compelled to transfer to to!rist. ?+ awarded 1. valid since BT did not grant F $ 3 damages special reasons to H!stify award a. position b. no e/planation why his ticket was marked as waitlisted c. was made to pay 1st class d. no e/planation why other person had better right thereto

Co*eo

F cert of p!blic convenience was iss!ed in favor of LS to ply BB ro!te. LS iss!ed resol!tion adopting 2andera system where coop members were allowed to K!e!e for passengers at pathway in e/change for %) pesos Fssoc. responded by forming h!man barricade and took over operations for 1) days ?+ awarded 7#? respondent !s!rped prop right of respondent .3S Bert of P!blic convenience is property and P!blic Service Law- can be sold beca!se it has considerable material val!e and a val!able assetScannot be taken witho!t d!e process of law Fssoc thr! barricade violated right of LS to operate services. %%%%- damages in every case where any property right has been invaded

A(aneta

Franeta import:e/port g!y iss!ed T9)) check which was later dishonoredSacco!nt closed. 2ank apologized and rectified error b!t % similar incidents happened again. T+ awarded 1. ok in cases where definite proof of pec!niary loss cannot be offered b!t Bt is convince that there has been s!ch a loss e/ample- inH!ry to commercial credit or to goodwill of firm here- he was a merchant of long standing and good rep!tation

NPC

?PB bo!ght st!ff from 6nternational Bommodities thr! rep ?FTL merchandising Borp.

Bontract- nonpayment"""L+ at a rate of %:9 of 1L of f!ll contract price for 1 st 5) days of defa!lt and &:9 of 1L for every day thereafter S!pplier failed to deliver d!e to inability to sec!re shipping space. L+ awarded 1. if agreed !pon the same sho!ld be enforced instead of awarding only nominal dams %. ?PB s!ffered- no prod!ction of fertilized coz s!lf!r not delivered 1&I. Singson 1. bro!ght a/n to recover act!al:compens dams pl!s certain amo!nt of atty4s fees. 3+ also claimed b!t amt not specified. 3+ awarded even if not alleged. 1. amo!nt need not be proved becoz its determination depends !pon B+ that may be awarded %. merely incidental or dependent !pon F+:B+

san M1*$el

Francisco $agno Bity Treas!rer seized delivery tr!cks of S$ which were levied against d!e to fail!re to pay ta/. S$ filed case for damages $agno filed co!nterclaim for moral and e/emplary ?o e/emplary"mere finding that allegations in complaint were not tr!e and that mistake in instit!ting action vs. wrong partySdo not H!stify award Pancific and $!nsayac- emailed by $J or JP

Ra)1o Comm

0BP6 transmitted condolence msg in hapi bday card placed in /mas gram envelope. Fccepted order b!t did not tell plaintiff- no more appropriate social envelopes 3+ may be awarded to aggrieved party" gross negligence: careless constit!te wanton miscond!ctS H!stifies award 195. People vs escano & separate crim actions for estafa were filed. Bonso for Hoint trial Rpon finding that offended parties seek to enforce civl liabilities by way of F+ respo H!dge ordered clerk to reK!ire payment of filing fees. Filing fees not reK!ired. " 7here civil a/n is instit!ted together with crim a/n the F+ claimed are not incl!ded in the comp!tation of filing fees. " are to be paid only if other items of damages are alleged in the complaint:info or if they are not so alleged shall constit!te a first lien on H!dgment 19&. Peneral 6nfo for libel alleged 1))$ worth of F$3 damages.

+ allegations were not incl!ded in info so co"acc!sed raised iss!e of non"payment of docket fees. ?o need for docket fees. " when amo!nt of damages is not alleged the corresponding filing fees need not be paid and shall simply constit!te a 1st lien on a H!dgment e/cept in award for act!al damages. " only when the amt of damages other than act!al is alleged in he complaint:info that corresponding filing fees shall be paid by #P !pon filing thereof in co!rt for trial I. U!asi"delict!al liability where there are contract relations Base @- Singson vs 2P6 %5 SB0F 111I ?at!re- Fppeal from J!dgment of the BF6 $anila FactsSingson was on the defendants in a civil case that ordered them to pay the s!m of 1)9 95'.9( to Philippine $illing Bo. Fs soon as the H!dgment became final and e/ec!tory co!rt served a writ of garnishment !pon 2P6"insofar as Qilla"Fbrille4s credits against bank were concerned. 2ank incl!ded Singson4s acco!nt and latter discovered this when 2$ Plass Service told him that the check he iss!ed was not honored by bank becoz it had been garnished. 2ank immediately rectified mistake res!lting in the temporary freeing of the acco!nt of the plaintiff. Singson filed action- for damages in conseK!ence of said illegal freezing of acco!nt. Lower co!rt decided that plaintiffs cannot recover !pon basis of K!asi"delict beca!se relation between parties was contract!al. 6ss!e- 7#? e/istence of contract bars commission of tort by one against the other and the conseK!ent recovery of damages therefor. Held- ?# 0atio- The e/istence of a contract between parties does not bar the commission of a tort by one against the other and the conseK!ential recovery of damages therefor. Base '- Fir France vs Barrascoso 1@ SB0F 199 ?at!re- Petition for review by certiorari of a decision of the BF Facts0afael Barrascoso was one of the &@ Filipino pilgrims who left $anila for Lo!rdes. He had a first class ro!nd trip ticket from $anila to 0ome. However when the plane was in 2angkok the $anager forced him to vacate his first class seat beca!se a white man had a better right to the seat. Barrascoso filed complaint for damages. 6ss!e- 7#? damages may be recovered on the basis of the e/p!lsion Held- .es 0atio The contract of air carriage generates a relation attended with p!blic d!ty. Passengers sho!ld be protected and ins!red a pleasant trip. 7rongf!l e/p!lsion is a violation of p!blic d!ty by the air carrier" a K!asi delict. +amages are proper. do!bt 7#? ticket was confirmed as first class is immaterial as claim is based on the wrongf!l e/p!lsion itself Base 1)- Bity of $anila vs 6FB 1I' SB0F &%@ ?at!re- Petition for certiorari to review the decision and the resol!tion of the BF. Facts7ife of deceased Qivencio Sto +omingo Sr. was granted a lease for a d!ration of 9) years AJ!ne ( 1'I1" J!ne ( %)%11 on a land in the ?orth Bemetery. Sr. was b!ried in said lot.

However in 1'I9 city officials ordered the e/h!mation and removal of the remains of sr. from said lot and said lot was leased to another family allegedly in accordance with Fdmin #rder ?o. 9 Series of 1'I9. 7ife was shocked and enraged AmalamangO1 6ss!e- 7#? operations of p!blic cemetery are governmental or proprietary f!nction Held- Proprietary 0atio- 6n the absence of special laws ?orth Bemetery is a patrimonial property created by resol!tion of $!nicipal 2oard. #wned therefor in its proprietary or private character Bity entered into contract of lease" e/ercise of proprietary f!nctions city may then s!e and be s!ed Bity is liable for the tort!o!s act committed by its agents to verify and check the d!ration of contract of lease. 6nterference with Bontracts Base 11- Pilchrist vs B!ddy %' Phil 9&% ?at!re- Fppeal from a H!dgment of the BF6 6loilo FactsB!ddy owner of the film =igomar entered into a contract with Pilchrist to rent the film for a week at 1%9 starting $ay %(. 2efore said date B!ddy ret!rned money to Pilchrist and told him that 3speHo and his partner wo!ld rent film for 59). Bo!rt iss!ed mandatory inH!nction ordering B!ddy to deliver film to Pilchrist and an e/ parte prelim inH!nction restraining 3speHo and partner from receiving and e/hibiting film !ntil f!rther orders from co!rt 6ss!e- 7#? 3speHo and partner were liable for interfering with the contract between Pilchrist and B!ddy they not knowing the identity of one of the contracting parties Held- .es 0atio mere right to compete co!ld not H!stify appellants in intentionally ind!cing B!ddy to take away Pilchrist4s contract!al rights liability arises from !nlawf!l acts and no from contract!al obligations as they were !nder no s!ch obligations to ind!ce B!ddy to violate his contract with Pilchrist 151& BB- Fny 5rd person who ind!ces another to violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party. 5. 5as1" elements o6 7$as18)el1"t$al l1a41l1t' 1. The act or omission in the breach of a legal d!ty Frticle %1I(. 7hoever by act or omission ca!ses damage to another there being fa!lt or negligence is obliged to pay for the damage done. S!ch fa!lt or negligence if there is no pre"e/isting contract!al relation between the parties is called a K!asi"delict and is governed by the provisions of this Bhapter.

Ra0es vs AG9P Co., . P&1l :-

?at!re- Fppeal from a H!dgment of BF6 $anila FactsPlaintiff4s leg was broken and was event!ally amp!tated beca!se of an incident at the company4s yard. The handcar4s track sagged tie broke rails slid off and ca!ght plaintiff Aor somethin4 like that1.

Ba!se- dislodging of the crosspiece or piling !nder the stringer by the water of the bay raised by recent typhoon. Plaintiff now charges defendant with negligence breach of d!ty on its part in failing to properly sec!re load of iron to vehicles or to skillf!lly b!ild tramway by maintaining inspecting and repairing it. p. 5I5. Bontrib!tory negligence The negligence of inH!red person does not operate as a bar to recovery b!t only in red!ction of the damages he may claim. Liability of 3mployer to 7orker arises o!t of contract!al relations between them reg!lated by 11)1 A#ld BB1 this contract binds employer to provide safe appliances for !se of employees

Can*"o vs Man1la Ra1l(oa) Co., s$p(a L1l1$s vs Man1la Ra1l(oa), :- P&1l .:;

?at!re- Fppeal from a H!dgment of BF6 $anila FactsPlaintiff was driving their St!debaker at 1'"%9 mi:hr to go sightseeing in PagsanHan Lag!na. 7ith him were his wife and &"year"old da!ghter. He was entirely !nacK!ainted with the conditions of the road and had no knowledge of the e/istence of a railroad crossing at +ayap Aview was obstr!cted by ho!ses trees and shr!bs. Ft abo!t I"@ meters from crossing plaintiff saw an a!tor!ck parked on left side of road with people alighting from it. He so!nded his horn for the people to get o!t of the way. Locomotive ?o. I15 str!ck their car right in the center. Fll of them got inH!red. AmalamangO1 6ss!e- 7#? $anila 0ailroad is liable for damages d!e to breach of legal d!ty Held- .3S for its negligence and the negligence of its employees 0atio The diligence of a good father of a family which the law reK!ires in order to avoid damage is not confined to the caref!l and pr!dent selection of s!bordinates or employees b!t incl!des inspection of their work and s!pervision of the discharge of their d!ties. no semaphore at crossing in +ayap to serve as warning of its e/istence in order that they might take the necessary preca!tions before crossing railroad flagman and switchman were not at his post engineer did not take necessary preca!tions even after he knew of flagman4s and switchman4s absence- did not slacken speed and did not contin!o!sly ring bell and blow whistle

/ama)a vs. Man1la Ra1l(oa),

P&1l ;

?at!re- Fppeal from 5 H!dgments of the BF6 $anila. Brossfield and +el 0osario JJ. FactsPlaintiffs amd 5 other companions hired a ta/icab from 2achrach Parage and Ta/icab Bo for a trip to Bavite QieHo. #n their way back while crossing the tracks of defendant railroad in San J!an m!nicipality of Bavite QieHo the a!tomobile was str!ck by a train and the plaintiffs inH!red.

6ss!e- 7#? ta/icab company f!lly discharged its d!ty when it f!rnished a s!itable car and selected a driver who had 9"( years e/perience Held- ?# 0atio d!ty not only to f!rnish a s!itable and proper car and select competent operator b!t also to s!pervise and where necessary instr!ct him properly s!pervision and instr!ction incl!des prom!lgation of proper r!les and reg!lations and the form!lation and p!blication of proper instr!ctions for their g!idance in cases where s!ch r!les are reg!lations are necessary c!stom of driver to approach and pass over railroad crossings witho!t lessening speed and other s!ch preca!tions president of company even testified that none of its drivers were acc!stomed to stop or even red!ce speed or take any preca!tion in approaching and passing over the railroad crossings no matter of what nat!re !nless they here *the signal of the car4 Asyemps !mamin pa ang gago1

Del Rosa(1o vs Man1la Ele"t(1" Co., :. P&1l 4.;

?at!re- Fppeal from a H!dgment of BF6 $anila FactsJose ?og!era noticed that an electric wire in +imas"Flang Street was b!rning and its connections smoking. He asked one Jose Soco to report the sit!ation to the $alabon station of the $anila 3lectric Bompany. $sg was transmitted at %-%9 pm. Ft & pm wire still wasn4t fi/ed and Flberto del 0osario ' years old to!ched the wire got electroc!ted and died !pon reaching St. L!ke4s. 6ss!e- 7#? there was an act:omission in breach of legal d!ty Held- .es 0atio delay in leaving the danger !ng!arded so long after the information of the tro!ble was received constit!ted negligence of the part of Bompany Fpparent Bontrib!tory ?egligence of Bhild- +id not relieve company of responsibility owing to the child4s immat!re years and nat!ral c!riosity to do something o!t of the ordinary

Del P(a)o vs Man1la Ele"t(1" Compan', :2 P&1l -<<

?at!re- Fppeal from H!dgment of the BF6 $anila Facts6gnacio del Prado4s right foot was ca!ght and cr!shed by car no. I& and had to be amp!tated the following day. He was r!nning across the street to catch the car b!t before his position had become sec!re and even before his raised right foot had reached the platform the motorman applied the power and the car gave a slight l!rch forward. Plaintiff4s foot slipped and his hand was Herked loose from the handpost and he fell to the gro!nd. 6ss!e- 7#? there was breach of legal d!ty Held- .es 0atio Fltho!gh motorman was not bo!nd to stop to let the plaintiff on it was his d!ty to do no act that wo!ld have the effect of increasing the plaintiff4s peril while he was attempting to board the car. Premat!re acceleration of car was breach of this d!ty. +!ty of carrier e/tends to persons boarding the cars as well as alighting therefrom. Plaintiff4s negligence in attempting o board moving car was not the pro/imate ca!se of the inH!ry. +irect and pro/imate ca!se was the premat!re acceleration.

Ast$)1llo vs Man1la Ele"t(1" CO, :: P&1l 42.

?at!re- Fppeal from a H!dgment of the BF6 $anila FactsJ!an Fst!dillo met his death thro!gh electroc!tion when he placed his right hand on a wire connected with an electric pole sit!ated near Santa L!cia Pate 6ntram!ros. 6ss!e- 7#? there was breach of legal d!ty Held- .3S 0atio Pole was located close eno!gh to p!blic place so that a person by reaching his arm o!t the f!ll length wo!ld be able to take hold of one of the wires Bity 3ngineer- even if wire was triple braid weather proof type if to!ched by a person wo!ld endanger life of that person by electroc!tion Bompliance with a franchise ordinance or a stat!te is not concl!sive proof that there was no negligence. The f!lfillment of the conditions does not render !nnecessary other preca!tions reK!ired by ordinary care. 2. !a$lt o( ne*l1*en"e 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provision of Article 1171 and !1, par , shall apply.

6f the law or contract does not state the diligence which 6 to be observed in the performance that which is e/pected of a good father of the family shall be reK!ired. 11I1. 0esponsibility arising from fra!d is demandable in all obligations. Fny waiver of an action for f!t!re fra!d is void. !1, par . "n case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non#performance of the obligation.

%(1*&t vs Man1la Ele"t(1" Co., 2; P&1l 122

?at!re- Fppeal from a H!dgment of the BF6 $anila FactsPlaintiff drove home in a calesa. 7hile crossing the tracks to enter his premises the horse st!mbled leaped forward and fell ca!sing vehicle to strike one of the rails with great force. Plaintiff was thrown from the vehicle and ca!sed the inH!ries complained of. Plaintiff was dr!nk d!ring that time. 6ss!e- 7#? there was negligence on part of company Held- .es 0atio a considerable portion of the ties were above the level of the street mere into/ication is not negligence nor does the mere fact of into/ication establish a want of ordinary care 6f person4s cond!ct is characterized by a proper degree of care and pr!dence it is immaterial whether he is dr!nk or sober.

Co(l1ss vs Man1la Ra1l(oa) Compan'

?at!re- +irect Fppeal from a decision of the BF6 Pampanga Facts0alph Borliss Jr. %1 was driving a Heep on his way back to Blark Fir Force 2ase. The Heep collided with a locomotive of $anila 0ailroad Bompany. The crossing bars were not p!t down and no g!ard was at the gateho!se when the accident happened. 6ss!e- 7#? there was negligence Held- .es on plaintiff4s part 0atio ?egligence is want of care reK!ired by the circ!mstances. 3ven if crossbars were not p!t down and that there was no g!ard plaintiff still had the d!ty to stop his Heep to avoid collision and that the main witness of the defendant"appellee who drove the engine was not K!alified to do so at the time of the accident. Plaintiff was s!fficiently warned Alocomotive had blown its siren or whistle1

=mal1 vs 2acani (' SB0F %(5 ?at!re- Petitioner for certiorari to review the decision of the BF6 Pangasinan. 2acani J. Facts+!ring a storm the transmission line of the Flcala 3lectric Plant were blown down and fell on the electric wire. 7ire was c!t one end of which was left hanging on the post and other fell to the gro!nd !nder the fallen banana plants.
The following morning barrio captain saw broken wire and warned people not to go near wire. He also saw Birpriano 2aldomero laborer at the plant and told latter abo!t the wire b!t 2aldomero said he co!ld not do it. 6nstead he was going to look for a lineman to do it. Later $an!el Saynes 5 years and @ months old chanced !pon the place to!ched the wire and got electroc!ted and s!bseK!ently died. 6ss!e- 7#? there was negligence Held- .es 3lectric plant 0atio didn4t bother to remove banana plants which posed great danger to the electric post s!pporting the electric wires !pon knowing possible danger d!e to effects of storm they did not c!t off from plant the flow of electricity 2aldomero did not take necessary preca!tion to prevent anybody from approaching the live wire Bompany4s liability for inH!ry ca!sed by his employees4 negligence is defined in par & %1@)The owner and manager of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages ca!sed by the employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasions of their f!nctions. Cont(14$to(' ne*l1*en"e %1I'. 7hen the plaintiff4s own negligence was the immediate and pro/imate ca!se of his inH!ry he cannot recover damages. 2!t if his negligence was only contrib!tory the immediate and pro/imate ca!se of the inH!ry being the defendant4s lack of d!e care the plaintiff may recover damages b!t the co!rts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. 0akes vs FP>P Bo s!pra

Last Clea( C&an"e Picart vs. Smith 5I Phil @)' ?at!reFactsPlaintiff Picart was riding a pony on a bridge. Seeing an a!tomobile ahead he improperly p!lled his horse over to the railing on the right. The driver of the a!tomobile however g!ided his car toward the plaintiff witho!t dimin!tion of speed !ntil he was only a few feet away. He then t!rned to the right b!t passed so closely to the horse that the latter being frightened H!mped aro!nd and was killed by the passing car. Picart was thrown off the horse and s!ffered cont!sions. 6ss!e- 7#? there was negligence Held- .es plaintiff was on the wrong side of bridge defendant is also liable !nder doctrine of last clear chance 0atio +efendant is also liable as he had the fair opport!nity to avoid the accident after he realized the sit!ation created by the negligence of the plaintiff co!ld by no means then place himself in a position of greater safety. Bontrol of sit!ation had passed to defendant and it was his d!ty to bring his car to an immediate stop or Seeing that there were no other persons on the bridge to take the other side and pass s!fficiently far away from the horse to avoid the danger of collision Test- Bond!ct is said to be negligent when a pr!dent man in the position of the tortfeasor wo!ld have foreseen that an effect harmf!l to another was s!fficiently probable to warrant his foregoing the cond!ct or g!arding against its conseK!ences. Phoeni/ Bonstr!ction vs 6FB 1&@ SB0F 595 ?at!re- Petition for review of the decision of the 6FB FactsLeonardo +ionisio was on his way from a cocktails"and"dinner meeting with his boss Adrove a Qolkswagen1. 7hile he was proceeding down the general Lac!na Street he claimed that his headlights s!ddenly failed and when he switched them to bright he saw a Ford d!mp tr!ck parked on the right hand side of the street. +!mptr!ck was parked askew and no lights or any so"called early warning reflector devices were set anywhere near the tr!ck. To avoid collision he swerved his car to the left b!t it was too late and his car smashed into the d!mp tr!ck. 6ss!e- 7#? there was negligence Held- .es primary for Phoeni/ Bontrib!tory for car driver 0atio 3mployer4s fail!re to e/ercise vigilance over its employee is evident from the improper parking of the tr!ck on the street at night along employee4s residence +octrine of last clear chance does not seem to have a role to play in a H!risdiction where the common law concept of contrib!tory negligence as an absol!te bar to recovery by the plaintiff has itself been reHected as it has been in %1I' of BB.

Plan People4s L!mber and Hardware vs ?L0B ?at!re- Petition for certiorari to review the H!dgment of the BF. Facts3ngineer Balibo was driving Heep owned by 2acnotan Bonsolidated 6nd!stries 6nc. 7ith him were 0oranes and Patos. Ft abo!t 9' yards after crossing the bridge a cargo tr!ck from the opposite direction collided with the Heep. Balibo was killed while his companions s!stained inH!ries. Tr!ck4s driver was !nh!rt. 7itnesses- Heep was zigzagging beca!se driver was dr!nk. 6ss!e- 7#? Balibo had the last clear chance to avoid the accident Held- .es 0atio 7hile still 5) meters away from tr!ck by stopping in his t!rn or swerving his Heep away from the tr!ck wither of which he had s!fficient time to do while r!nning at a speed of only 5) km:hr. Jeep driver4s d!ty was to seize the opport!nity of avoidance not merely to e/pect tr!ck to swerve and leave him a clear path. Aalso tr!ck was within its own lane and driver had already applied brakes1 2!stamante vs BF 1'5 SB0F ()5 ?at!re- Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the BF Facts+river Pravel and sand tr!ck $ontesiano $azda passenger b!s S!s!lin

#wner +el Pilar $agtibay and Serrado

Tr!ck and b!s collided. The front left side portion of the body of the tr!ck sideswiped the left sidewall of the passenger b!s ripping off the said wall from the driver4s sear to the last rear seat. Several passengers of the b!s were thrown o!t and died as a res!lt of their inH!ries. 7hile tr!ck was abo!t 5) meters away b!s driver saw the tr!ck4s front wheels wiggling and he also observed that tr!ck was heading towards his lane. Thinking that tr!ck driver was H!st Hoking b!s driver shifted from &th to 5rd gear so he co!ld overtake a G!bota hand tractor. 7hile in the process of overtaking tractor the % vehicles sideswiped each other.

6ss!e- 7#? doctrine of last clear chance applies to the case at bar Held- ?o 0atio case is not a s!it between the owners and drivers of colliding vehicles b!t a s!it bro!ght by the heirs of the deceased passengers against both owners and drivers of the vehicles. Bo!rt fo!nd tr!ck driver negligent- was r!nning fast - road was descending - vehicle was an old 1'&I cargo tr!ck whose front wheels were already wiggling Bo!rt also fo!nd b!s driver negligent" sho!ld have stopped b!s pr swerved it to the side of the road even down to its sho!lder $cGee vs 6FB %11 SB0F 91I ?at!re- Petition for review from the resol!tion of the then 6FB Facts+river

#wner

Bargo tr!ck Ford escort

0!ben Palang Jose Goh

Tayag and $analo

To avoid hitting % boys who s!ddenly darted from the right side of the road and into the lane of the car Jose Goh blew the horn of his car swerved to the left and entered the lane of the tr!ck. He attempted to ret!rn to his lane b!t before he co!ld do so he already collided with the cargo tr!ck. "Tr!ck and Ford collided in P!long P!lo 2ridge along $acFrth!r Highway. 5 people in the Ford escort died incl!ding the driver Jose Goh." 6ss!e- 7#? Goh was negligent Held- ?# emergency r!le applies 0atio emergency r!le- one who s!ddenly finds himself in a place of danger and is reK!ired to act witho!t tie to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger in not g!ilty of negligence if he fails to adopt what s!bseK!ently and !pon reflection may appear to have been a better method !nless the emergency in which he finds himself is bro!ght by his own negligence - Goh adopted best means to avoid hitting the % boys cargo tr!ck driver had last clear chance to avoid the accident !pon seeing that car had entered his lane to avoid the boys tr!ck driver did not red!ce its speed before the act!al impact of collision. Bar driver had given emergency signals for tr!ck to slow down so that car co!ld go back to its lane driving at &@ km:hr on a 5) km:hr bridge - %1@9 a person driving a vehicle is pres!med negligent if at the time of the mishap he was violating any traffic reg!lation P(es$me) ne*l1*en"e %1@&. 6? motor vehicle mishaps the owner is solidarily liable with his driver if the former who was in the vehicle co!ld have by the !se of d!e diligence prevented the misfort!ne. 6t is disp!tably pres!med that a driver was negligent if he had been fo!nd g!ilty of reckless driving or violating traffic reg!lations at least twice within the ne/t preceding % moths. "f the owner was not on the motor vehicle, the provisions of Article 1$! are applicable. 1$!. The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are li%ewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on occasion of their functions. %1@9. Rnless there is proof to the contrary it is pres!med that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap he was violating any traffic reg!lation. 1$$. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant if the death or in&ury results from his possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such as firearms and poison, e'cept when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business. 17(). "n case of death of or in&uries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed e'traordinary diligence as prescribed in 1733 and 17((. 1733. *ommon carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe e'traordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case.

+uch e'traordinary diligence is vigilance over the goods further e'pressed in 173,, 173(, and 17,( nos. (, ), 7 while the e'traordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in 17(( and 17(). 17((. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.

Teag!e vs. Fernandez 91 SB0F 1@1 ?at!re- Fppeal from decision of BF FactsThe 0ealistic 6nstit!te was a vocational school for hair and bea!ty c!lt!re. 6t was owned and operated by $ercedes Teag!e. The %nd floor of the b!ilding had only 1 stairway of abo!t 1.9 meters in width. Section &'1 of the 0evised #rdinances of the Bity of $anila provided that for a b!ilding s!ch as the one where the instit!te was at least % !nobstr!cted stairways of not less than 1 meter and %) cm in width sho!ld be constr!cted. #n #ct %& 1'99 a fire broke o!t in a store for s!rpl!s materials located 1) meters away from instit!te across the street. Fltho!gh no part of the Pil"Frmi b!ilding ca!ght fire & st!dents were fo!nd dead and several others inH!red on acco!nt of the panic which ens!ed and the s!bseK!ent stampede. 6ss!e- 7#? negligence co!ld be pres!med in the case at bar Held- .3S 0atio when the standard of care is fi/ed by law fail!re to conform to s!ch standard is negligence negligence per se or negligence in and of itself in the absence of a legal e/c!se. +eath of Lo!rdes Fernandez was d!e to the gross negligence of the defendant who failed to e/ercise d!e care and diligence for the safety of its st!dents in not providing the b!ilding with adeK!ate fire e/its and in not practicing fire drill e/ercises to avoid the stampede aside from the fact that the defendant did not have a permit to !se b!ilding as a schoolho!se. Res 1psa lo7$1t$( >t&e t&1n* spea0s 6o( 1tsel6? Ffrica vs Balte/ 1( SB0F &&@ ?at!re- Petition for review by certiorari of a decision of the BF Facts7hile Leandro Flores was transferring gasoline from a tank tr!ck into the !ndergro!nd tank of Balte/ an !nknown person lighted a cigarette and threw the b!rning match stick near the main valve of the !ndergro!nd tank. Fire broke o!t spread to and b!rned several neighboring ho!ses incl!ding personal properties and effects inside them. 6ss!e- 7#? the doctrine of res ipsa loK!it!r applies to the case at bar Held- .es 0atio res ipsa loK!it!r- where the thing which ca!sed the inH!ry complained of is shown to be !nder the management of the defendant or his servants and the accident is s!ch as in the ordinary co!rse of things does not happen if those who have its management or control !se proper care it affords reasonable evidence in the absence of e/planation by the defendant that the accident arose from want of care. 6ncident happened beca!se of want of care on Balte/4 part. station was located in a very b!sy district near the #brero market where it is common to see people smoking or lighting a cigarette

concrete walls Afire wall1 were only % V meters high and co!ld not avoid flames from leaping over it in case of fire station also ho!sed a garage and repair shop"overcrowding

0ep!blic vs L!zon Stevedoring Bo. %1 SB0F %I' ?at!re- Fppeal from a decision of the BF6 $anila FactsAoblicon case *to. So;;; $ay natatandaan pa ba tayong case d!n; 1 2arge owned by L!zon Stevedoring was being towed down the Pasig 0iver by t!gboats *bang!s4 and *2arbero.4 2arge rammed against one of the wooden piles of the ?agtahan bailey bridge smashing posts and ca!sing bridge to list. 0iver at the time was swollen and c!rrent swift on acco!nt of a heavy downpo!r. 6ss!e- 7#? doctrine of res ipsa loK!it!r applies to the case at bar Held- .es 0atio The !n!s!al event that the barge an immovable and stationary obHect e/cl!sively controlled by appellant rammed the bridge s!pports raises a pres!mption of negligence on the part of the appellant or its employees manning the barge or the t!gs that towed it. 6n the ordinary co!rse of events s!ch a thing does not happen if proper care is !sed. F.F. Br!z vs BF 1(& SB0F I51 ?at!re- Petition to review the decision of the BF FactsPregorio $able repeatedly approached 3ric Br!z to reK!est that a firewall be constr!cted between shop and private respondent4s residence. 0eK!est fell on deaf ears. Fire broke o!t in petitioner4s shop and both shop and ho!se were razed to the gro!nd. 6ss!e- 7#? doctrine of res ipsa loK!it!r applies to the case at bar Held- .es 0atio f!rnit!re man!fact!ring shop contained comb!stible materials s!ch as wood chips sawd!st paint varnish and f!el and l!bricants firewall sho!ld have been constr!cted as reK!ired by city ordinance fire co!ld have been ca!sed by a heated motor or a lit cigarette workers sometimes smoked inside shop Lay!gan vs 6FB 1(I SB0F 5(5 ?at!re- Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the then 6FB. Qeloso J. FactsPlaintiff and companion wee repairing the tire of their cargo tr!ck which was parked along the right side of the ?ational Highway. +efendant4s tr!ck b!mped the plaintiff and latter was inH!red and hospitalized. 6ss!e- 7on doctrine of res ipsa loK!it!r applies to the case at bar Held- ?# 0es ipsa loK!it!r A2lack4s1- a r!le of evidence whereby negligence of alleged wrongdoer may be inferred from mere fact that accident happened provided character accident and circ!mstances attending it lead reasonably to belief that in absence if negligence it wo!ld not have occ!rred and that thing which ca!sed inH!ry is shown to have been !nder management and control of alleged wrongdoer.

0atio doctrine can be invoked when and only when !nder the circ!mstance involved direct evidence is absent and not readily available 3vidence on record discloses that 5 or & meters from rear of parked tr!ck a lighted kerosene lamp was placed defendant did not check vehicle before he took it on the road and th!s was not able to discover that the brake fl!id pipe on the right was c!t

Ass$mpt1on o6 (1s0 A61al)a vs +1sole Nat$(e# Appeal 6(om a @$)*ment o6 t&e C!I, Ilo1lo !a"ts# A61al)a Aas emplo'e) as "a(eta0e( o6 )e6en)ant spo$sesB "a(a4aos. %&1le ten)1n* t&e an1mals, &e Aas *o(e) 4' one o6 t&em an) late( )1e) as a "onse7$en"e o6 &1s 1n@$(1es. Pla1nt166 see0s to &ol) )e6en)ants l1a4le $n)e( 1-<:# T&e possesso( o6 an an1mal, o( t&e one A&o $ses t&e same, 1s l1a4le 6o( an' )ama*es 1t ma' "a$se, even 16 s$"& an1mal s&o$l) es"ap(e 6(om &1m o( st(a' aAa'.

T&1s l1a41l1t' s&all "ease onl' 1n "ase t&e )ama*e s&o$l) a(1se 6(om 6o("e ma@e$(e o( 6(om 6a$lt o6 t&e pe(son A&o ma' &ave s$66e(e) 1t.

Iss$e# %ON )e6en)ant spo$ses a(e l1a4le +el)# NO Rat1o# stat$te (e6e(s to possesso( o( $se( o6 an1mal possesso( o( $se( &as t&e "$sto)' an) "ont(ol o6 t&e an1mal an) 1s t&e(e6o(e t&e one 1n appos1t1on to p(event 1t 6(om "a$s1n* )ama*e. One o6 t&e (1s0s o6 t&e "a(eta0e(Bs o""$pat1on A&1"& &e &a) vol$nta(1l' ass$me) an) 6o( A&1"& &e m$st ta0e t&e "onse7$en"es

ORTALI, v EC+ARRI J!ly 51 1'9I

!ACTS# 7hile driving his employer4s car 3standa str!ck a child ca!sing physical inH!ries to the latter. BonseK!ently a criminal case for Slight Physical 6nH!ries Thro!gh 0eckless 6mpr!dence was filed against 3standa. He pleaded g!ilty to the charge and was s!bseK!ently convicted. The child4s father plaintiff #rtaliz filed a complaint for damages against 3standa4s employer defendant 3charri. ISS=E# 7on #rtaliz4s complaint has s!fficient ca!se of action against 3charri as employer of 3standa +ELD# .3S Frticle %1@) states that -mployers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within their scope of their assigned tas%s, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. Frticle %1@& provides that "f the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Article 1$! applies. Having in view the above provisions of law the complaint of #rtaliz4s contained a s!fficient ca!se of action. The contention of 3charri that there sho!ld be allegation in the complaint that Dthe defendant was engaged in some kind of ind!stry and that employee committed the crime in the discharge of his d!ties in connection with the ind!stry E is !ntenable in view of Frticle %1@)-mployers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees ... even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry . Likewise the contention of 3charri that plaintiff sho!ld have reserved the civil action is !ntenable in view of Frticle 55"n cases of physical in&uries, a civil action for damages entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the in&ured party. +uch civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution ''' Order of dismissal of lower court revoked. C=ISON v NORTON 9 +ARRISON CO. #ctober 1& 1'5) !ACTS# F tr!ck owned by a certain Fntonio #ra was on its way to Santa $esa carrying large pieces of l!mber belonging to ?orton > Harrison Bo. The driver who was with two other people A2inoya and 2a!tistaM all 5 of them are below 1@1 !pon noticing that the l!mber had become loosened stopped the tr!ck for the p!rpose of rearranging it. However before it co!ld be rearranged some large pieces of l!mber fell from the tr!ck and pinned beneath it a I"year old boy who was passing by. The boy died instantly. The driver and his companion in the tr!ck were charged with the crime of homicide thro!gh reckless impr!dence to which they pleaded g!ilty. S!bseK!ently a complaint for damages was filed.

 SB wo!ld later confirm from testimony that1. the tr!ck in K!estion was owned by Fntonio #ra %. that the l!mber was owned by ?orton > Harrison Bo. 5. that #ra had reg!larly rented o!t his tr!ck to ?orton > Harrison Bo. for the p!rpose of transporting the latter4s l!mber &. that #ra was also employed by ?orton > Harrison Bo. as capataz Aforeman1 and that it was his d!ty as s!ch employee to direct the loading and transportation of l!mber 9. that the driver of the tr!ck and his companions were also in the employ of ?orton > Harrison b!t they were not the men who were directed by #ra to load the l!mber on the tr!ck BF6 absolved ?orton > Harrison from the complaint which alleged that the death of the boy was ca!sed by its negligence. ISS=E# 7on ?orton > Harrison sho!ld be held responsible +ELD# .3S 6t is evident that #ra was a contractor and employee at the same time of ?orton > Harrison Bo. However he is not an independent contractor. S!ch distinction is important beca!se ?orton > Harrison Bo as an employer of #ra retained the power of directing and controlling his work. Fs an employee of ?orton #ra was charged with the d!ty of directing the loading and transportation of the l!mber. Fnd it was the negligence in loading the l!mber and the !se of minors on the tr!ck which ca!sed the death of the boy. For his negligence defendant ?orton > Harrison Bo. is also responsible for the death. Judgment reversed. AmeHo mahirap intindihin ang syllogism ng decision1 C1lla(eal, "on"$(s Bonc!rs with the res!lt b!t the case at bar is governed by the provisions of Frticle %) in connection with Frticle 1I of the Penal Bode and Frticle 1)'% of the BB and not by Frt. 1')% > 1')5. #ra was a foreman of the defendants ?orton and Harrison for the loading and !nloading of their l!mber the falling of which ca!sed the death of the boy. Fs s!ch foreman #ra was the agent or employee of ?orton > Harrison. 6n the performance of his d!ties as foreman he !sed the services of 2a!tista and 2inoya for the loading and !nloading of said l!mber th!s making them &1s emplo'ees in s!ch work and conseK!ently the employees of ?orton and Harrison thro!gh him. Since there was a criminal complaint filed and s!fficient allegation in the present action that 2a!tista and 2inoya committed the crime of homicide thro!gh reckless impr!dence ?orton > Harrison are therefore civilly liable for the crime of homicide thro!gh reckless impr!dence committed by these % employees. C+INA AIRLINES LTD v CO=RT O! APPEALS $ay 1@ 1'') !ACTS#

 Jose Pagsibigan p!rchased a plane ticket for a $anila"Taipei"Hongkong"$anila flight from the Transaire Travel Fgency. The said agency contacted Philippine Firlines which at that time was a sales and ticketing agent of Bhina Firlines. PFL thro!gh its ticketing agent 0oberto 3spirit! iss!ed to Pagsibigan the plane ticket which showed that the latter had been booked at the J!ne 1) 1'(@ 9-%) P$ flight of Bhina Firlines departing from $anila for Taipei. 7hen Pagisibigan showed !p at the airport an ho!r before the s!pposed sched!led time of depart!re he was informed that the BFL plane he was s!pposed to take for Taipei had left at 1)-%) F$ that day. The PFL employees then made appropriate arrangements so that he co!ld take the PFL4s flight to Taipei the ff day. Pagsibigan took the re"sched!led flight. F few months after he filed a complaint for moral damages and attorney4s fees against PFL. He alleged that 3spirit! had been grossly negligent in his d!ties as a res!lt of which he s!ffered besmirched rep!tation embarrasment $F 7F and S? thereby warranting award for moral damages. 6n its defense PFL alleged that1. the depart!re time indicated on Pagsibigan4s plane ticket was f!rnished and confirmed by Bhina Firlines %. that Bhina Firlines did not inform the iss!ing PFL branch of the revised timetable of BFL flights PFL asserted a cross"claim against BFL. Bhina Firlines for its part averred 1. that all airlines incl!ding PFL were informed of the revised sched!le of flights %. that notices of these revised sked were f!rnished to all sales agent 5. that the iss!ing PFL branch had in fact been iss!ing and selling tickets based on the revised time sked BFL also asserted a cross claim against PFL. TB fo!nd PFL and 0oberto 3spirit! Hointly and severally liable by way of e/emplary damages. 6t did not award moral damages. BFL was e/onerated. BF r!led o!t claim for moral and e/emplary damages. 6t awarded nominal damages. ISS=E# 7ho sho!ld be held liable +ELD# PFL With respect to CAL . . . SB noted that Pagsibigan has opted to seek redress by p!rs!ing two remedies at the same time that is to enforce the civil liability of BFL for breach of contract and likewise to recover from PFL and 3spirit! for tort or c!lpa aK!iliana. 6n view of the proscription against do!ble recovery SB deemed it wise to determine the tr!e nat!re of the action instit!ted by Pagsibigan. Fccording to SB a per!sal of the complaint of Pagisbigan will disclose that the allegations therein make o!t a case for a K!asi"delict.

Had Pagisibigan intended to maintain an action based on breach of contract he co!ld have s!ed BFL alone considering that PFL is not a real party to the contract. 6t is th!s evident that when Pagsibigan sensed that he cannot hold BFL liable on a K!asi"delict he made a deto!r on appeal by claiming that his action against BFL is based on breach of contract of carriage. SB did not allow Pagsibigan to change his theory at this stage beca!se it wo!ld be !nfair for BFL as it wo!ld have no opport!nity to present f!rther evidence material to the new theory. 2!t there is no basis to hold BFL liable on a K!asi"delict. BF e/onerated BFL of any liability for fa!lt or negligence. With respect to PAL and Espiritu . . . PFL4s main defense is that is only an agent. Fs a general proposition an agent who d!ly acts as s!ch is not personally liable to 5rd persons. However there are admitted e/ceptions as in this case where the agent is being s!ed for damages arising from a tort committed by his employee. 6? an action premised on the employee4s negligence whereby Pagsibigan seeks recovery for the damages from both PFL and 3spirit! witho!t K!alification what is so!ght to be imposed is the direct and primary liability of PFL as an employer. 7hen an inH!ry is ca!sed by the negligence of an employee there instantly arises a pres!mption of law that there was negligence on the part of the employer. This pres!mption however may be reb!tted by a clear showing on the part of the employer that it has e/ercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and s!pervision of his employee. PFL failed to overcome s!ch pres!mption. Fs fo!nd by BF PFL was d!ly informed of BFL4s revised sked and in fact PFL had been iss!ing and selling ticket based on said revised time sked. For his negligence 3spirit! is primarily liable to Pagisbigan !nder Frticle %1I( of the BB. For the fail!re of PFL to reb!t the legal pres!mption of negligence it is also primarily liable !nder Frticle %1@) of BB. Rnder Frticle %1@) all that is reK!ired is that the employee by his negligene committed a K!asi"delict which ca!sed damage to another and this s!ffices to hold the employer primarily and solidarily liable for the tortio!s act of the employee. PFL however can demand from 3spirit! reimb!rsement of the amo!nt which it will have to pay the offended party4s claim. Decision modified. !ILAMER C+RISTIAN INSTIT=TE v IAC F!g!st 1I 1''% !ACTS# F!ntecha was a working st!dent being a part"time Hanitor and scholar of Filamer Bhristian 6nstit!te. #ne day F!ntecha who already had a st!dent4s driver4s license reK!ested $asa the school driver and son of the school president to allow him to drive the school vehicle. Fssenting to the reK!est $asa stopped the vehicle he was driving and allowed F!ntecha to take over behind the wheel. However after negotiating a sharp dangero!s c!rb F!ntecha came !pon a fast moving tr!ck so that he had to swerve to the right to avoid a collision. Rpon swerving they b!mped a pedestrian walking in his lane. The pedestrian died d!e to the accident.

ISS=E# 7on Filamer Bhristian 6nstit!te sho!ld be held liable +ELD# .3S First it sho!ld be noted that driving the vehicle to and from the ho!se of the school president were both Fllan and F!ntecha reside is an act in f!rtherance of the interest of the petitioner"school. The school Heep had to be bro!ght home so that the school driver can !se it to fetch st!dents in the morning of the ne/t school day. Th!s in learning how to drive while taking the vehicle home in the direction of Fllan4s home F!ntecha definitely was not having a Hoy ride or for enHoyment b!t !ltimately for the service for which the Heep was intended by the petitioner school. ASchool president had knowledge of F!ntecha4s desire to learn how to drive.1 Bo!rt is th!s constrained to concl!de that the act of F!ntecha in taking over the steering wheel was one done for and in behalf of his employer for which act the school cannot deny any responsibility by arg!ing that it was done beyond the scope of his Hanitorial d!ties. The fact that F!ntecha was not the school driver does not relieve the school from the b!rden of reb!tting the pres!mption of negligence on its part. 6t is s!fficient that the act of driving at the time of the incident was for the benefit of the school. Petitioner school has failed to show that it e/ercised diligence of a good father of a family. Petitioner has not shown that it has set forth r!les and g!idelines as wo!ld prohibit any one of its employees from taking control over its vehicles if one is not the official driver or prohibiting the a!thorized driver from letting anyone than him to drive the vehicle. F!rthermore school had failed to show that it impose sanctions or warned its employees against the !se of its vehicles by persons other than the driver. Th!s Filamer has an obligation to pay damages for inH!ry arising from the !nskilled manner by which F!ntecha drove the vehicle since the law imposes !pon the employers vicario!s liability for acts or omissions of its employees. The liability of the employer !nder Frticle %1@) is primary and solidary. However the employer shall have reco!rse against the negligent employee for whatever damages are paid to the heirs of the plaintiff. On La or Code!s "ule # The cla!se Dwithin the scope of their assigned tasksE Afo!nd in BB1 for p!rposes of raising the pres!mption of liability of an employer incl!des any act done by an employee in f!rtherance of the interests of the employer or for the acco!nt of the employe at the time of the infliction of the inH!ry or damage 3ven if somehow the employee driving the vehicle derived some benefit from the act the e/istence of a pres!mptive liability of the employer is determined by answering the K!estion of whether or not the servant was at the time of the accident performing any act in f!rtherance of his master4s b!siness. 0!le W which provides for the e/cl!sion of working scholars in the employment coverage and on which the petitioner is anchoring its defense is merely a g!ide to the enforcement of the s!bstantive law on labor. 6t is not the decisive law in a civil s!it for damage instit!ted by an inH!red person d!ring a vehic!lar accident against a working st!dent of a school and against the school itself. Present case does not involve a labor disp!te.

Fn implementing r!le on labor cannot be !sed by an employer s a shield to avoid liability !nder the s!bstantive provisions of the BB. $otion granted.

D=ACIT v CO=RT O! APPEALS $ay 1@ 1'@' !ACTS# The Heep being driven by defendant Sabiniano collided with another Heep which had then % passengers on it. Fs a res!lt of the collision the passengers of the other Heep s!ffered inH!ry and the a!tomobile itself had to be repaired beca!se of the e/tensive damage. F case was filed against Sabiniano as driver and against +!avit as owner of the Heep. +!avit admitted ownership of the Heep b!t denied that Sabiniano was his employee. Sabiniano himself admitted that he took +!avit4s Heep from the garage witho!t consent or a!thority of the owner. He testified f!rther that +!avit even filed charges against him for theft of the Heep b!t which +!avit did not p!sh thro!gh as the parents of Sabiniano apologized to +!avit on his behalf. TB fo!nd Sabiniano negligent in driving the vehicle b!t absolved +!avit on the gro!nd that there was no employer"employee relationship between them and that former took the vehicle witho!t consent or a!thority of the latter. BF held the two of them Hointly and severally liable. ISS=E# 7on the owner of a private vehicle which fig!red in an accident can be held liable !nder Frticle %1@) of the BB when the said vehicle was neither driven by an employee of the owner nor taken with the consent of the latter. +ELD# ?# 6n /uquillo v 0ayot A1'5'1 SB r!led that an owner of a vehicle cannot be held liable for an accident involving a vehicle if the same was driven witho!t his consent or knowledge and by a person not employed by him. This r!ling is still relevant and applicable and hence m!st be !pheld. BF4s reliance on the cases of -re1o v 2epte and 3argas v 4angcay is misplaced and cannot be s!stained. 6n -re1o v 2epte case defendant Jepte was held liable for the death of 3rezo even if he was not really the owner of the tr!ck that killed the latter beca!se he represented himself as its owner to the $otor Qehicles #ffice and had it registered !nder his nameM he was th!s estopped from later on denying s!ch representation. 6n 3argas Qargas sold her Heepney to a 5rd person b!t she did not s!rrender to the $otor Qehicles #ffice the corresponding FB plates. So when the Heepney later on fig!red in an accident she was held liable by the co!rt. holding that the operator of record contin!es to be the operator of vehicle in contemplation of law as regards the p!blic and 5rd persons.

 The circ!mstances of the above cases are entirely different from those in the present case. Herein petitioner does not deny ownership of vehicle b!t denies having employed or a!thorized the driver Sabiniano. The Heep was virt!ally stolen from the petitioner4s garage. Decision and resolution annulled and set aside. D=LA/ v CO=RT O! APPEALS Fpril 5 1''9 !ACTS# 7hile 2enigno Torz!ela was on d!ty as sec!rity g!ard of D2ig 2ang sa FlabangE he shot and killed Ftty. ?apoleon +!lay after an altercation occ!rred between them in the premises of said establishment. The heirs of +!lay filed a complaint for damages !nder Frticle %1I( against Torz!ela and Safeg!ard 6nvestigation and Sec!irty Bo. 6nc. and:or S!perg!ard Sec!rity Borp alleged employers of defendant Torz!ela. 6n the complaint Safeg!ard and S!perg!ard were impleaded as alternative defedants for while Safeg!ard appears to be the employer of Torz!ela S!perg!ard impliedly acknowledged responsibility for his acts by e/tending sympathies to the plaintiffs. $eanwhile an 6nformation charging Torz!ela with homicide was filed with 0TB $akati. S!perg!ard:Safeg!ard alleged that a complaint of petitioner for damages based on negligence !nder Frticle %1I( cannot lie beca!se said article is applicable only to K!asi"offenses. They alleged that Torz!ela4s act of shooting was committed with deliberate intent Adolo1 and he acted beyond the scope of his d!ty. Rpon motion TB H!dge dismissed the complaint against the alternative defendants on the gro!nd that the complaint did not state facts necessary to constit!te a K!asi"delict since it does not mention any negligence on the part of Torz!ela. ISS=E# 7on petitioner can s!stain a valid ca!se of action !nder Frticle %1I( against the employer of Torz!ela +ELD# .3S 6t is !ndisp!ted that 2enigno Torz!ela is being prosec!ted for homicide for the fatal shooting of +!lay. 0!le 111 of the 0!les on Briminal Proced!re provides that +ection 1. When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. 6t is well"settled that the filing of an independent civil action before the prosec!tion in the criminal action presents evidence is even far better than a compliance with the reK!irement of an e/press reservation. This is precisely what the petitioners opted to do in this case. However the private respondents opposed the civil action on the gro!nd that the same is fo!nded on a delict and not on a K!asi"delict as the shooting was not attended by negligence. 7hat is then the nat!re of petitioner4s action;

 Bontrary to the theory of private respondents there is no H!stification for limiting the scope of Frticle %1I( of the BB to acts or omissions res!lting from negligence. 7ell"entrenched is the doctrine that Frticle %1I( covers not only acts committed with negligence b!t also acts which are vol!ntary and intentional A+ee -lcano v 5ill 6 Andamo v "A*7 Fnd as arg!ed by petitioners Torz!ela4s act of shooting +!lay is also actionable !nder Frticle 55 of the BB beca!se the term Dphysical inH!riesE fo!nd therein has already been constr!ed to incl!de bodily inH!ries ca!sing death 8*apuno v 9epsico7 6ndependent civil action may be filed !nder Frticle 55 so long as the crime is not the res!lt of criminal negligence as in the instant case. 6t having been established that the instant action is not e/"delicto petitioners may proceed directly against Torz!ela and the private respondents. 2eca!se of the principle of vicario!s responsibility it is inc!mbent !pon Safeg!ard and:or S!perg!ard to prove that they e/ercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and s!pervision of their employee. The petitioner4s complaint s!fficiently alleged an actionable breach on the part of Torz!ela and S!perg!ard and:or Safeg!ard. 2RT 7#? the shooting was attended by negligence or act!ally done within the scope of Torz!ela4s d!tiesM 7#? S!perg!ard and:or Safeg!ard failed to e/ercise d!e diligence are matters that sho!ld be resolved after trial on merits. Case remanded to "%C for trial on merits. DE LEON 5RODERAGE CO INC v CA Febr!ary %@ 1'(% !ACTS# Fngeline Steen s!ffered inH!ries as a res!lt of the collision between the passenger Heepney she was riding and the cargo tr!ck owned by +e Leon 2rokerage and recklessly driven by its employee L!na. L!na had been prosec!ted and convicted of the crime of homicide with physical inH!ries thr! reckless impr!dence. The driver of the passenger Heepney was acK!itted. 6n this criminal action L!na reserved her right to file a separate civil action. She event!ally filed an action for recovery of moral and e/emplary damages against L!na and +e Leon 2rokerage. To prove L!na4s negligence she presented the H!dgment of conviction TB held the % solidarily liable. BF affirmed. Ft the appellate co!rt +e Leon claimed that1. complaint is not clear whether she was s!ing for damages res!lting from K!asi"delict or for civil liability arising from crime since the averments are more characteristic of an action of the latter nat!re %. H!dgment of conviction inadmissible as evidence of a K!asi"delict 5. L!na was not in the discharge of his d!ties at the time of the accident &. it cannot be held solidarily liable with L!na ISS=E# 7hat is the nat!re of Steen4s ca!se of action- K!asi"delict or delict +ELD# U!asi"delict Steen4s complaint is based on K!asi"delict.

1. She alleged that she s!ffered inH!ries beca!se of L!na4s carelessness and impr!dence %. She averred that there e/ists an employer"employee relationship between L!na and +e Leon Since there is the averment in ?o. % there is a clear statement of a right of action !nder Frticle %1@) of the BB. Bomplaint does not and did not have to allege that +e Leon did not e/ercise d!e diligence in choosing and s!pervising L!na beca!se this is a matter of defense. Ft any rate whatever do!bts as to the nat!re of Steen4s action are resolved by her prayer that the % be held solidarily liable. ?otwithstanding the presentation of the H!dgment of conviction it is clear that Steen did not base her s!it on criminal conviction. The mention of criminal conviction merely tended to s!pport her claim that L!na had been recklessly negligent in driving the tr!ck which ca!sed her inH!ries. Steen did not have to wait for the termination of the criminal proceeding or to reserve in the same her right to file a separate civil action. She waited for the res!lts of the criminal action beca!se she wanted to be s!re which driver and respective employer she co!ld rightly s!e since both L!na and the driver of the Heep were prosec!ted. Fnd she reserved beca!se otherwise the co!rt in the criminal proceeding wo!ld have awarded her indemnity since the civil action for recovery of civil liability is deemed instit!ted with the criminal action. The reservation in the criminal action does not precl!de a s!bseK!ent action based on a K!asi"delict. 6t cannot be inferred therefrom that Steen had chosen to file the very civil action she had reserved. Ft any rate it is obvio!s that +e Leon !nderstood that it was being held liable !nder the BB beca!se of its affirmative defense that it e/ercised the diligence of a good father of a family " a defense available only to employer being s!ed !nder a K!asi"delict. 7as L!ina in the performance of his d!ties at the time of the collision; He testified that on the day of the accident he was instr!cted to go to the province. 0eason for his ret!rn to $anila is not clear b!t it does not appear that he was on errand of his own. 6n the absence of determinative proof that there was a cessation or s!spension of his service +e Leon m!st still be held liable since it failed to prove e/ercise of d!e diligence. ?ote- that owner of vehicle m!st also be in the vehicle at the time of the accident refers to owners of vehicles not incl!ded in the terms of Frt. %1@) as Downers of an establishment or enterprise.E Judgment affirmed.

5A+IA v LITONE=A AND LE/NES $arch 5) 1'1% !ACTS# Fa!sta LitonH!a p!rchased an a!tomobile and later t!rned it over to 6nternational garage which is owned and managed by his son 0amon 0amirez. Fs part of the daily operations of his b!siness 0amirez rented the a!tomobile donated by his mother to $ariano Leynes. 0amirez also s!pplied Leynes a cha!ffe!r and a machinist for the p!rpose of conveying to and from 2alayan and T!y.

 7hile in 2alayan the a!tomobile ref!sed to obey the direction of the driver in t!rning a corner d!e to a defect in the steering gear. Fs a conseK!ence it rammed into the wall of a ho!se against which the da!ghter of plaintiff 2ahia was leaning at the time. The a!tomobile cr!shed the child to death. 2ahia then filed an action against the Fa!sta Adonor of a!to1 and Leynes !nder who was directing and controlling the operation of the a!tomobile at the time of the accident. 0amirez was not made a party. TB fo!nd Leynes liable b!t dismissed complait against Fa!sta. ISS=E# 7ho sho!ld be held responsible +ELD# SB opined that the action as to Fa!sta was properly dismissed. Fltho!gh the mother p!rchased the a!tomobile she t!rned it over to the garage of her son for !se therein. The establishment belonged to the son 0amirez and he had the f!ll management and control of it and received all the profits therefrom. 6t appears that Fa!sta was not aware of the contract with Leynes. 7hile she may have been in one sense the owner of the machine that fact does not !nder the other facts of the case make her responsible for the res!lts of the accident. The H!dgment against Leynes m!st be reversed and the complaint against him m!st be dismissed. 7hile is may be said that at the time of the accident the cha!ffe!r who was driving the a!to was a servant of Leynes in as m!ch as the profits derived from the trips of the a!to belonged to him and the a!to was operated !nder his direction nevertheless this fact is not concl!sive in making him responsible for the negligence of the cha!ffe!r or for the defects in the a!to itself. Rnder Frticle 1')5 of the BB Anow Frticle %1I(1 % things are apparent1. pres!mption of negligence on the part of the employer whenever there is an inH!ry ca!sed by the negligence employee %. pres!mption is H!ris tant!m and may be reb!tted. 6n the instant case the death of the child ca!sed by a defect in the steering gear immediately raised the pres!mption that Leynes was negligence in selecting a defective a!tomobile or in his fail!re to maintain it in good condition after selection. Fs to selection SB fo!nd that defendant had e/ercised d!e diligence when he obtained the machine from a rep!table garage which so far as appeared in good condition. The workmen were likewise selected from a standard garage were d!ly licensed and apparently thoro!ghly competent. The machine had been !sed b!t a few ho!rs when the accident occ!rred and it is clear from the evidence that the defendant had no notice either act!al or constr!ctive of the defective condition of the steering gear. S!fficient time had not elapsed to reK!ire an e/amination of the machine by the defendant as a part of his d!ty of inspection and s!pervision. 7hile it does not appear that the defendant form!lated r!les and reg!lations for the g!idance of the drivers and gave them proper instr!ctions designed for the protection of the p!blic and the passengers the evidence shows that the death of the child was not ca!sed by a fail!re to prom!lgate r!les and reg!lations. 6t was ca!sed by a defect in the machine as to which the defendant has shown himself free from responsibility. METRO MANILA TRANSIT CORP v CA J!ne %1 1''5

!ACTS# ?enita B!stodio was a paying passenger of a p!blic !tility Heepney then driven by Balebag and owned by Lamayo when it collided with a b!s driven by Leonardo and owned by the $etro $anila Transit Borp A$$TB1. The collision happened after fail!re of both vehicles to slow down or blow their horns when they were sim!ltaneo!sly approaching the same intersection in Tag!ig. Fs a res!lt of the collision B!stodio s!ffered physical inH!ries. Fssisted by her parents since she was still a minor she filed a complaint for damages against the drivers of the a!tomobiles and their respective employers. Ft the trial co!rt $$TB presented its training officer and its transport s!pervisor who respectively testified that1. it was not only caref!l and diligent in choosing and screening applicants for Hob openings %. b!t was also strict and diligent in s!pervising its employees a. by seeing to it that its employees were in proper !niforms b. briefed in traffic r!les and reg!lations before the start of d!ty and c. that it checked its employees to determine 7#? they were positive for alcohol and d. that they followed other r!les and reg!lations of the 2!rea! of Land Transportation and of the company. TB fo!nd both drivers conc!rrently negligent. Fs Hoint tortfeasors both drivers as well as Lamayo Aowner of the Heepney1 were held solidarily liable for damages s!stained by B!stodio. $$TB was absolved on the gro!nd that it e/ercised diligence of a good father of a family in selecting and s!pervising its employees. BF modified TB4s decision by holding $$TB solidarily liable with the other defendants on the gro!nd that the testimonies of the training officer and transport s!pervisor were not eno!gh to overcome the pres!mption of negligenceM they were not able to present any evidence that its driver has complied with all the clearances and trainings and evidence as to the alleged written g!idelines of the company. ISS=E# +id $$TB e/ercise d!e diligence. Sho!ld it be held solidarily liable with the other defendants +ELD# ?o Boncl!sion of BF is more firmly gro!nded on H!rispr!dence and amply s!pported by evidence of record than that of TB. 6t is proced!rally reK!ired for each party in case to prove his own affirmative assertion by the degree of evidence reK!ired by law. S!ch party m!st present all available evidence at his disposal in the manner that may be necessary to b!ttress his claim. 6n the instant case inasm!ch as the witnesses4 Atraining s!pervisor and transport s!pervisor1 dwelt on mere generalities they cannot be considered as s!fficiently pers!asive proof that $$TB observed d!e diligence in the selection and s!pervision of employees. $$TB sho!ld have presented other evidence obHect or doc!mentary to b!ttress an apparently biased testimony. +eclarations are not eno!gh. Hence $$TB fell short of the reK!ired evidentiary K!ant!m as wo!ld convincingly and !ndo!btedly prove its diligence.

 7ith the allegation and s!bseK!ent proof of negligence against the defendant driver and of an employer"employee relationship between him and $$TB in this instance the case is !ndo!btedly based on a K!asi"delict !nder Frticle %1@). Fs held in :utierre1 v :utierre1, where the inH!ry is d!e to the conc!rrent negligence of the drivers of the colliding vehicles the drivers and owners of the said vehicles shall be primarily directly and solidarily liable for damages and it is immaterial that one action is based on K!asi"delict and the other on c!lpa contract!al as the solidarity of the obligation is H!stified by the very nat!re thereof. Judgment of CA affirmed. $$%C solidaril& lia le.

G=TIERRE, v CA ?ovember %' 1'I( !ACTS# 2enigno P!tierrez was awarded by the 2!rea! of P!blic 7orks the contract to constr!ct a drainage in $anila. He engaged +omingo 2alisala as proHect engineer. Rnder the s!pervision of 2alisalisa the workers of P!tierrez d!g !p a street by means of crane. The earth and the m!d dig !p were scooped by the crane and d!mped against the e/terior side of the adobe stone of F. $abini 3lementary School along the street. 7hen the pile of earth and m!d reached the height of the fence the crane4s steel scooper was !sed to press them down. 2eca!se of the heavy stress th!s placed on the fence a portion of it gave way and collapsed. 7hen the adobe wall collapsed a school child who was then playing inside the school gro!nds was hit and pinned down by the falling debris of the wall. She was b!ried !nderneath and event!ally died. The parents of the child filed a s!it for act!al moral and e/emplary damages against P!tierrez and 2alisalisa. TB ordered the % Hointly and severally to pay the parents of the deceased moral and e/emplary damages act!al e/penses attorney4s fees and costs of s!it. BF affirmed H!dgment. ISS=E# Fre defendants liable for moral and e/emplary damages. +ELD# .3S 3mployer"employee relationship e/isted between the them and the crane operators1. the contract between the government and P!tierrez stip!lated that the contractor wo!ld f!rnish himself his own labor plant. %. the crane operator was act!ally operating and managing the heavy eK!ipment in the constr!ction site of the defendants in connection with their constr!ction Hob 5. defense of alleged non"e/istence of s!ch relationship cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. SB K!oted with approval the basis of TB4s award for moral and e/emplary damages. ;egligence of defendants has been clearly established by evidence. "ndeed, no evidence is necessary to show that defendants were negligent in the performance of their obligation.

They ought to have %nown that it was not the right thing to do#to pile up the big volume of earth against the wall, which was fragile, being made only of adobe held together by mortar and w<out reinforcements. The collapse, therefore, could be reasonably e'pected by any person of ordinary prudence, if not intelligence. They should have foreseen the danger but they failed to ta%e the necessary precautions. =or this omission on their part, they should be held responsible for moral and e'emplary damages. >ore so with respect to :utierre1 so that other contractors similarly situated will be more careful. Judgment affirmed. %ALTER SMIT+ 9 CO vs CAD%ALLADER FFBTS- #n F!g. 5) 1'%( steamer Helen B owned by Badwallader commanded by Bapt. $ig!el Lasa str!ck the wharf of 7alter Smith at the port of #l!tanga =amboanga in the co!rse of its mane!vers. The wharf was partially demolished and the timber piled on it were thrown into the water. TB held that Badwallader was not liable since the partial demolition was d!e to the e/cessive weight of timber piled and bad conditions of piles s!pporting the wharf. The wharf was old. The steamship slightly str!ck the wharf b!t not with s!ch force since it was diffic!lt for her to strike it with s!ch force. TB however did not make any definite findings on the negligence of the captain. 7S infers that there was negligence on the part of the captain of ship and that the impact of the ship with the wharf was d!e to the e/cessive force with which the captain ordered the winches to work. 6SSR3- 7#? Badwallader as owner of the steamship is liable for the damages ca!sed by said steamship H3L+- ?o. 0FT6#- This case deals with an obligation arising from c!lpa aK!iliana or negligence and m!st be decided in accordance with Frt 1')%"1')5. Two things are apparent from Frt 1')51. 7hen an inH!ry is ca!sed by the negligence of a servant or employee there instantly arises a pres!mption of law that there was negligence on the part of the master or employer either in the selection of the servant or employee or in s!pervision over him after selection or both. %. This pres!mption is &uris tantum and not &uris et de &ure and conseK!ently may be reb!tted. 6n Frt. 1')5- X#wners or directors of any establishment or b!siness are in the same way liable for any damages ca!sed by their employees while engaged in the branch of the service in which employed or on the occasion of the performance of their d!ties. X///X Xthe liability imposed in this article shall cease in case the persons s!bHect thereto prove that they e/ercised all the diligence of a good father of the family to prevent the damageX 6n this case Badwallader proved that the Bapt. Lasa and all officers of Helen B were d!ly licensed to hold their positions when the wharf collapsed and they were chosen for their rep!ted skill in directing and navigating the Helen B safely caref!lly and efficiently. Th!s the pres!mption of liability against the defendant had been overcome by the e/ercise of diligence and car of a good father of the family in selecting Bapt. Lasa. Badwallader is th!s absolved from all liability. ONG vs METROPOLITAN %ATER DISTRICT FFBTS- $etropolitan 7ater +istrict owns and operates 5 swimming pools in 2alara UB. 6n J!ly 9 1'9% +ominador #ng 1& went with his bros to the pool. 2etween &-&)"&-&9 some boys noticed him swimming !nderwater for a long time. The lifeg!ard $an!el FbaYo was then informed and he immediately H!mped and retrieved the apparently lifeless body of #ng from the bottom. They e/erted efforts to revive him b!t the boy died.

6SSR3- 7#? the death of the #ng can be attrib!ted to the negligence of defendant and:or its employees so as to entitle plaintiff to recover damages. H3L+- ?# 0FT6#- The spo!ses #ng who were claiming for damages had the b!rden of proving that the damage is ca!sed by the fa!lt or negligence of $7+ or one of its employees and were not able to do so. The operator of swimming pools will not be held liable for the drowning or death of a patron if said operator had e/ercised d!e diligence in the selection of and s!pervision over its employees and that it had observed the diligence reK!ired by law !nder the circ!mstances " in that it had taken all necessary preca!tions to avoid danger to the lives of its patrons or prevent accident which may ca!se their death. 6n this case there is s!fficient evidence to show that $7+ had taken all necessary preca!tions1. Swimming pools are eK!ipped with ring b!oy toy roof towing line o/ygen res!scitator and first aid medicine kit. %. 2ottom of pool is painted w: black colors to ins!re clear visibility. 5. 0!les and reg!lations governing !se of pools are on display at conspic!o!s places. &. ( trained and proficient lifeg!ards were employed and are on d!ty two at a time. 9. F male n!rse and sanitary inspector were employed. (. There is a clinic provided with o/ygen res!scitator. I. Sec!rity g!ards are always available. The employees of $7+ also did everything possible to bring the boy to life. FbaYo gave him man!al artificial respirator the n!rse and sanitary inspector inHected camphorated oil and applied o/ygen res!scitator a doctor was sent for. Fll of these show that $7+ has done what is h!manly possible !nder the circ!mstances to restore life to #ng and for that reason it is !nfair to hold it liable for his death. Lastly the +octrine of last clear chance can never apply where the party charged is reK!ired to act instantaneo!sly and if the inH!ry cannot be avoided by the application of all means at hand after the peril is and sho!ld have been discovered. ST. !RANCIS +IG+ SC+OOL vs CA FFBTS- Ferdinand Bastillo 6"B of St. Francis High School Hoined a picnic of 1"2 and 1"B at Talaan 2each Sariaya U!ezon. #n female teacher was apparently drowning and some st!dents came to her resc!e. Ferdinand died as a res!lt. The parents filed complaint against the school and the teachers contending that the death of their son was d!e to the fail!re of petitioners to e/ercise proper diligence of a good father of the family. TB fo!nd ( teachers liable b!t dismissed the case against the school principal and one teacher. BF fo!nd school and principal liable with the teachers. 6SSR3- 7#? Frt %1@) in relation to Frt. %1I( is applicable to the case at bar H3L+- ?o. 0FT6#- 2efore the employer may be held liable for the negligence of his employee !nder Frt %1@) the act or omission which ca!sed the damage m!st have occ!rred while the employee was in the performance of his assigned task. 6n the case at bar the teachers :petitioners were not in the performance of their act!al task. The incident happened not within school premises not on a school day and while the teachers and st!dents were holding a p!rely private affair. S!ch picnic had no permit from the school head or the principal since it was not a school sanctioned activity. 6t was also not an e/tra"c!rric!lar activity. 6n addition the negligence attrib!ted to the teachers was not proven. The class adviser of 1"B did her best and e/ercised diligence of a good father of a family to prevent any !ntoward incident or damage to all st!dents who Hoined the picnic as evidenced by1. inviting % P.3. teachers and sco!t masters who have knowledge first aid application and swimming.

%. life savers were especially bro!ght by the teachers in case of emergency. 5. 2oth P.3. teachers did all what is h!manely possible to save the child. +6SS3?T- Padilla The pres!mption in Frt %1@) is not concl!sive and sho!ld be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that the owner or manager e/ercised the care and diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and s!pervision of the employees ca!sing the inH!ry or damage. 6n this case the principal knew of the picnic was in fact invited b!t did nothing abo!t it. Principal sho!ld have taken appropriate meas!res to ens!re the safety of his st!dents. His silence and negligence in performing his role as principal head of the school m!st be constr!ed as an implied consent of the activity. Padilla agrees with BF that no proof was presented to absolve the manager:principal. 5ELI,AR vs 5RA,AS FFBTS- Pedro 2alizar operator of Samar 3/press Transit filed a complaint against Forencio 2razas et al. He claims that d!e to their gross negligence in not providing the ferryboat with safety devices one of his a!totr!cks while being transported fell into the river and was s!bmerged for 5) hrs. Fs a conseK!ence he s!ffered act!al and moral damages. The defendants were being s!ed in their capacity as employees of 2!rea! of P!blic Highways. 2razas filed motion to dismmiss claiming that the plaintiff has no ca!se of action against them beca!se they are being s!ed in their official capacities and therefor the claim for damages sho!ld be directed against the State. TB dismissed the complaint. 6SSR3- 7#? dismissal of case was correct H3L+- ?o. 0atio- Fltho!gh Frt. %1@) BB provides for the liability of an employer for the tortio!s acts of his employees this does not e/empt the employees from personal liability especially if there are no persons having direct s!pervision over them or if there is proof of the e/istence of negligence on their part. So the inH!red party can bring an action directly against the a!thor of the negligent act or omission altho!gh he may s!e as Hoint defendants s!ch a!thor and the person responsible for him. The fact that the d!ties and positions of defendants were indicated does not mean that they are being s!ed in their official capacities especially as the present action is not one against the government. CASTILEF IND=STRIAL CORP vs CASG=E, FFBTS- #n F!g. %@ 1'@@ aro!nd 1-5)"% am 0omeo QasK!ez was driving his motorcycle aro!nd the #smeYa 0ot!nda in the normal flow and collided with the company pick"!p driven by 2enHamin Fbad who was going against the flow of the the traffic in the same 0ot!nda. QasK!ez died at the hospital on Sept. 9 1'@@. Fbad signed an acknowledgement of 0esponsible party wherein he wo!ld pay all the e/penses. QasK!ez parents commenced an action for damages against Fbad and Bastile/. TB held that both m!st pay Hointly and solidarily. BF affirmed b!t held that the liability of Bastile/ is only vicario!s and not solidary. 6SSR3- 7#? an employer may be held vicario!sly As!bsidiarily1 liable for the death res!lting from the negligent operation by a managerial employee of a company"iss!ed vehicle H3L+- ?# 0FT6#- Frt %1@) par 9 says that 7#? engaged in any b!siness or ind!stry an employer is liable for the torts committed by emplyees within the scope of his assigned tasks. 2!t it is necessary to first establish

the employee"employer rel4nship. Then the plaintiff m!st show to hold emplyer liable that the employee was acting within the scope of his assigned task when the tort complained of was committed. 6t is only then that the employer can interpose the defense of d!e diligence in the selection and s!pervision of its employee. 6n the case at bar it is !ndisp!ted that Fbad was prod!ction manager of Bastile/. Ft the night of the incident he did some overtime work at petitioner4s office. Thereafter he went to a resta!rant at a place known as a Dhaven for prostit!tes pimps and dr!g p!shers and addictsE The Bo!rt finds that Fbad was engaged in affairs of his own A had a woman in the car with him not young enough to call him /addy??1 or was carrying o!t a personal p!rpose not in line with his d!ties at the time he fig!red in a vehic!lar accident. 6t was % am and way beyond normal working ho!rs. His overtime had ended. Since there is a pa!city Ascarcity ins!fficiency1 of evidence that Fbad was acting within the scope of the f!nctions entr!sted to him Bastile/ had no d!ty to show that it e/ercised the diligence of a good father of a family in providing Fbad with a service vehicle. Th!s H!stice and eK!ity reK!ire that Bastile/ be relieved of vicario!s liability for the conseK!ences of the negligence of Fbad in driving its vehicle. State MERRIT vs GOCBT O! P+IL. ISLAND FFBTS- $errit riding on a motorcycle at a speed of 1)"1% mi:hr collided with an amb!lance of the Peneral Hospital which t!rned s!ddenly and !ne/pectedly witho!t having so!nded any whistle or horn $errit was severely inH!red. His condition had !ndergone depreciation and his efficiency as a contractor was affected. TB held that Pov4t is liable for damages s!stained by plaintiff even if the collision was d!e to the negligence of cha!ffe!r. 6SSR3- 7#? Pov4t may be held liable in this case H3L+- ?# 0FT6#- Frt 1')5 par 9 of #ld BB states that@The +tate is liable in this sense when it acts through a special agent but not when the damage should have been caused by the official to whom properly it pertained to do the act performed, in which case the provisions of the preceding article shall be applicableA Th!s the responsibility of the State is limited by Frt 1')5 to the case wherein it acts thro!gh a special agent who in representing the state and being bo!nd to act as an agent thereof e/ec!tes the tr!st confided to him. Special agent is one who receives a definite and fi/ed order or commission foreign to the e/ercise of the d!ties of his office if he is a special official. Frt. 1')5 does not apply to e/ec!tive agent who is an employee of the active administration and who on his own responsibility performs the f!nctions which are inherent and nat!rally pertain to his office which are reg!lated by law and reg!lations. The cha!ffe!r of the amb!lance of the Peneral Hospital was not a special agent th!s the Pov4t is not liable. ROSETE C A=DITOR GENERAL FFBTS- 6nside the b!ilding !sed by 3mergency Bontrol Fdministration as a bodega in which oil and gasoline were stored Jose Frayno ignited his cigarette"lighter near a 9"gallon dr!m into which gasoline was being drained. F fire er!pted b!rning the bodega as well as neighboring ho!ses incl!ding the ho!se and personal property of 0osete. The storing of gasoline and other comb!stible materials reK!ires the sec!ring of license and permit and 3BF was not granted s!ch permit.

6SSR3- 7#? Pov4t is liable for the damages ca!sed by the fire H3L+- ?# 0FT6#- Frt 1')5 par 9 applies in this case @The +tate is liable in this sense when it acts through a special agent but not when the damage should have been caused by the official to whom properly it pertained to do the actA performed, in which case the provisions of the preceding article shall be applicableA There was no showing that whatever negligence may be imp!ted to 3BF was done by a special agent. The officers of 3BF did not act as special agents of government within the meaning in Frt 1')5 when they stored gasoline in the wareho!se of 3BF. Th!s the Pov4t is not liable. +6SS3?T- Perfecto J 3BF is a special agent of the Pov4t since it was organized by the gov4t for the same s!bstantial p!rpose as Phil 0elief and 0ehabilitation p!rposes. Fll persons and entities acting by commission of the gov4t s!ch as governmental enterprises and other organs of the gov4t created for activities ordinarily of !ngovernmental nat!re are special agents. Th!s the government is liable for the damages ca!sed by 3BF. PALA!OF vs PROCINCE O! ILOCOS NORTE FFBTS- Sabas Torralba was employed as driver of Provincial Pov4t of 6locos ?orte detailed to the #ffice of +istrict 3nginner. 7hile driving his tr!ck in compliance with his d!ties he ran over Proceto Palafo/ killing him. Palafo/ was convicted of homicide thro!gh reckless impr!dence. Heirs bagan proceedings for damages against provincial gov4t. 6SSR3- 7#? Prov4l Pov4t is liable H3L+- ?# 0FT6#- To attach liability to the state a declaration m!st be made that Torralba was a special agent within the scope of Frt 1')5 par 9. 2!t this principle applies only to the 6ns!lar Pov4t as disting!ished from prov4l or m!nicipal gov4ts. The heirs of Palafo/ invoked the doctrine of respondeat superior that the master shall answer as ill!strated in $endoza case concerning liability of m!nicipal corporations for negligent acts of its employees. $endoza held that if the negligent employee was engaged in the performance of governmental d!ties as disting!ished from proprietary or b!siness f!nctions the government is not liable. The constr!ction or maintenance of roads in which the driver worked at the time of the accident is admittedly governmental activities. Hence Pov4t is not liable. REP=5LIC vs PALACIO FFBTS- #rtiz instit!ted action against Handong 6rrigation Fssociation to recover possession of land which H6F allegedly entered and occ!pied at the ind!cement of 6rrigation Service Rnit an agency !nder the +ept. of P!blic 7orks and Bomm!nications. F writ of e/ec!tion and order of garnishment was served against the deposits and tr!st f!nds of 6SR to pay for the damages to #rtiz .BF !pheld on the basis that 6SR is engaged in the private b!siness of p!rchase and sale of irrigation p!mps.

6SSR3- 7#? State or its f!nd can be made liable for damages H3L+ - ?# 0FT6#- The 6SR liability in ind!cing H6F to invade and occ!py land of #rtiz arose from torts and not from contract. 6t is a well"entrenched r!le in this H!risdiction that embodied in Frt %1@) of BB that the State is only liable for torts ca!sed by its special agents especially commissioned to carry o!t the acts complained of o!tside of s!ch agent4s reg!lar d!ties. There being no proof that the making of the tort!o!s ind!cement was a!thorized neither the state nor its f!nds can be made liable. #ther iss!es3ven if the liability of the state had been H!dicially ascertained the state is at liberty to determine for itself whether to pay the H!dgment or not. Th!s e/ec!tion cannot iss!e on a H!dgment against the state. Fontanilla v $aliaman A1'& SB0F &@(1 Facts ?6F driver Parcia b!mped a bicycle ridden by petitioners4 son and +eligo. The son dies beca!se of inH!ries s!stained from the accident. The SB held that ?6F was negligent in the s!pervision of Parcia and was therefore liable !nder Frt %1@)A(1 BB in relation to Frt %1I( BB. Hence this motion for reconsideration. SolPen relying on P+ 99% and Fngat 0iver 6rrigation System et al v Fngat 0iver workers4 Rnion arg!es that ?6F does not perform solely proprietary f!nctions b!t is an agency of government tasked with governmental f!nctions and is therefore not liable for the tortio!s act of Parcia who was not its special agent. 6ss!e- 7hether ?6F may be held liable for damages ca!sed by the negligent acts of its employees Held- /ES ?6F was created for the p!rpose of Dconstr!cting improving rehabilitating and administering all national irrigation systems in the Philippines incl!ding all comm!nal and p!mp irrigation proHects.E The state and the comm!nity as a whole are largely benefited by the services the agency renders b!t these f!nctions are only 1n"1)ental to t&e p(1n"1pal a1m of the agency which is the irrigation of lands. ?6F is a government agency veste) A1t& a "o(po(ate pe(sonal1t' sepa(ate an) )1st1n"t from the government ASec 1 0F 5()11 th!s is governed by the Borporation Law. Rnder Sec % P+ 99% ?6F is alloAe) to "olle"t 6ees an) ot&e( "&a(*es as may be necessary to cover the cost of operation maintenance and ins!rance and to recover the cost of constr!ction etc. ?6F may also s$e an) 4e s$e) in co!rt. 6t is a!thorized to e3e("1se t&e poAe(s o6 a "o(po(at1on !nder the Borporation Law insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the ?6F charter. 03B#? +3?63+ 76TH F6?FL6T. $ercado v BF A1)@ Phil &1&1 Facts$an!el Jr. and F!g!sto K!arreled over a pitogo. Fs a res!lt F!g!sto wo!nded $an!el Jr. on the right cheek with a piece of razor. F!g!sto was the aggressor. The incident occ!rred in Lo!rdes Batholic School where both were classmates. BF holds Biriaco F!g!sto4s father and herein petitioner liable for moral damages and e/penses for the inH!ry inflicted by his son. Hence this petition. Petitioner arg!es that the teacher or head of the school sho!ld be held liable beca!se the incident took place in a Batholic School witho!t the father4s fa!lt. 6ss!e- 7hether teachers or head of the school can be held liable !nder Frt %1@)

Held- ?# Frt %1@) last par- Lastly teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages ca!sed by their p!pils and st!dents or apprentices so long as they remain in their c!stody. The provision only applies to an instit!tion of arts and trades and not to any academic ed!cational instit!tion A3/conde v Bap!no1. DSo long as they remain in their c!stody E seems to contemplate a sit!ation where a p$p1l l1ves an) 4oa()s A1t& t&e tea"&e( s!ch that the "ont(ol, )1(e"t1on, an) 1n6l$en"e of the latter s!persedes that of the parents. The liability for tort!o!s acts of the st!dent passes from the parent to the teacher. S!ch a sit!ation does not e/ist in the case at bar since the st!dents go home to their parents after class. +ecision reversed " petitioner not liable for moral damages Palisoc v 2rillantes A&1 SB0F 9&@1 FactsPalisoc and +affon were classmates at the $anila Technical 6nstit!te A$T61 a non"academic instit!tion. 7hile +affon was working on a machine at the school4s laboratory he remarked that Palisoc was acting like a foreman. Palisoc slightly slapped +affon in the face. The latter retaliated with a barrage of blows ca!sing Palisoc to retreat. 7hile retreating Palisoc st!mbled on an engine block and fell !nconscio!s. He died thereafter. The ca!se of death was internal inH!ries Dprobably ca!sed by strong fist blows.E +affon was of legal age at the time of the incident hence the parents were not liable !nder Frt %1@). The trial co!rt fo!nd +affon g!ilty for K!asi"delict A7hy not a felony;1 b!t absolved the defendants" officials of $T6 citing the r!ling in $ercado v BF. 6ss!e- 7hether defendants"school officials are Hointly and severally liable as tortfeasors Held- .3S Qalenton Ahead1 and U!ib!le Ateacher1 are liable for damages !nder Frt %1@) BB. 2rillantes is not liable as being a member of the school4s board of directors. School heads and teachers to a certain e/tent stand 1n lo"o pa(ent1s to st!dents who remain in their c!stody. B!stody as !sed in Frt %1@) means the p(ote"t1ve an) s$pe(v1so(' "$sto)' that the school and its heads and teachers e/ercise over their st!dents for as lon* as t&e' a(e 1n atten)an"e in the school incl!ding recess time. The basis of the pres!mption of negligence in Frt %1@) is some "$lpa 1n v1*1lan)o that the parents teachers etc. are s!pposed to have inc!rred in the e/ercise of their a!thority. 7here the parent places the child !nder the c!stody of the teacher the latter and not the parent sho!ld be the one responsible for the tort!o!s act of the child. J!dgment modified " +affon Qalenton and U!ib!le are Hointly and severally liable

+issent A$akalintal1 The size of enrollment of ed!cational instit!tions makes it highly !nrealistic to consider st!dents as Din the c!stodyE of teachers or school heads merely from the fact of enrollment and class attendance !nless the latter can prove d!e diligence. The restrictive interpretation of Frt %1@) in $ercado sho!ld be maintained. Rnder Frt %1@) parents are responsible for the tortio!s acts of their minor children who live in their company. Since the basis of liability of teachers and school heads is in loco parentis the said provision sho!ld be applied by analogy i.e. Dso long as they remain in their c!stodyE sho!ld be eK!ated with Dwho live in their companyM and school heads and teachers sho!ld not be responsible for damages ca!sed by children who are no longer minors.

Fmadora v BF A1() scra 5191 FactsPabling +affon shot classmate Flfredo Fmadora in the a!ditori!m of Bolegio de San Jose. He was convicted of homicide thr! reckless impr!dence. Flfredo4s parents filed a civil action to recover damages against BSJ its rector the high school principal the dean of boys and the physics teacher together with Pabling and two other st!dents. The BF6 fo!nd the school officials liable for damages. The BF however reversed the BF6 decision beca!se- 11 Frt %1@) was not applicable since BSJ was not a school of arts and tradesM %1 the st!dents were not in the c!stody of the school at the time of the incident since the semester had already endedM 51 there was no clear identification of the g!nM and &1 the defendants had e/ercised the necessary diligence in preventing the inH!ry. 6n this petition for certiorari petitioners contend that Flfredo went to school to finish his physics e/periment as a prereK!isite for grad!ationM hence he was !nder the c!stody of the private respondents. The private respondents on the other hand contend that Flfredo went to school to s!bmit his physics e/perimentM hence he was no longer !nder their c!stody since the semester had already ended. 6ss!e11 7hether Frt %1@) applies to establishments which are technically not schools of arts and trades %1 7hether private respondents are liable for damages !nder Frt %1@) Held11 .3S A(t 21;< appl1es to all s"&ools academic as well as non"academic. Teachers in general shall be liable for the acts of their st!dents e/cept where the school is technical in nat!re in which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable. Following the cannon of reddendo sing!la sing!lis DteachersE sho!ld apply to the words Dp!pils and st!dentsE and Dheads of establishments of arts and tradesE to the word Dapprentices.E %1 ?# The same vigilance is e/pected from the teacher over his st!dents regardless of the nat!re of the school where he is teaching. The inH!ry s!bHect of liability is ca!sed by the st!dent and not by the school or any of its personnel and eK!ipment. 6t may be inflicted by any st!dent regardless of the school where he is registered. The st!dent is !nder the c!stody of school a!thorities as long as he is $n)e( t&e "ont(ol an) 1n6l$en"e o6 t&e s"&ool an) A1t&1n 1ts p(em1ses whether the semester has already beg!n or has already ended. Fs long as it can be shown that the st!dent is in the school in the p!rs!it of a legitimate st!dent obHective in the e/ercise of a legitimate st!dent right and even in the enHoyment of a legitimate st!dent privilege the responsibility of the school contin!es. The teacher"in"charge is liable for his st!dents4 torts as he is designated to e/ercise s!pervision over them. $oreover the teacher is liable regardless of the st!dent4s age. 6n this case none of the private respondents were held liable. The rector dean of boys and high school principal cannot be held liable beca!se they were not teachers"in"charge. The physics teacher was not negligent. The school cannot be held directly liable since Frt %1@) only speaks of teacher or head of the school of arts and trades. P3T6T6#? +3?63+ " sorry na lang PF0T6FL +6SS3?T A$elencio"Herrera1 0estrictive meaning given to DteacherE as Dteacher"in"chargeE contravenes the concept of s!bstit!te parental a!thority. School may be held liable as an employer for damages ca!sed by their employees !nder Frt %1@).

Salvosa v 6FB A1(( SB0F %I&1 FactsJimmy Fbon was the d!ly appointed armorer of the 2ag!io Bolleges Fo!ndation 0#TB. He received his appointment from the FFP who also pays his salary and gives him orders. He was also a commerce st!dent of the same school. #n that fatef!l night of 5 $arch 1'II Fbon shot fellow st!dent ?apoleon Bastro in 2BF4s parking space. Bastro died and Fbon was convicted of homicide. Bastro4s heirs s!e Fbon 2BF and its officers for damages. The trial co!rt held Fbon 2BF and 2en Salvosa A2BF Pres1 liable for damages. The 6FB affirmed the decision with modification. Hence this petition. 6FB r!led that the shooting incident occ!rred at abo!t dismissal time and was therefore within the Drecess timeE referred to in Palisoc v 2rillantes. 6ss!e- 7hether petitioner can be held solidarily liable with Fbon for damages !nder Frt %1@) Held- ?# B!stody refers to protective and s!pervisory c!stody that the school and its heads and teachers e/ercise over its st!dents as long as they are in attendance in the school incl!ding recess time. Becess as embraced in the phrase at attendance in the school is a tempo(a(' a)@o$(nment o6 s"&ool a"t1v1t1es where the st!dent remains within call of his mentor and is not permitted to leave the school premises or the area within which the school activity is cond!cted. 2y its nat!re it )oes not 1n"l$)e )1sm1ssal. The mere fact of being enrolled or being in the premises of the school witho!t more does not constit!te attending school or being in the protective and supervisory custody of the school as contemplated in the law. Fbon cannot be considered to have been at attendance in the school or in the c!stody of 2BF when he shot Bastro. Therefore the petitioners cannot be held solidarily liable with Fbon for damages !nder Frt %1@). 03Q30S3+ " petitioners are not solidarily liable .larde v FK!ino A1(5 scra ('I1 FactsPetitioners in this case are the parents of ?ovelito .larde who died as a res!lt of inH!ries s!ffered after being cr!shed by a h!ge bo!lder. ?ovelito was among 1@ st!dents aged ten to eleven reK!ested by their teacher herein private respondent 3dgardo FK!ino to help dig a hole beside a one"ton concrete block where the said block may be b!ried. 7hen the hole was deep eno!gh to accommodate the block FK!ino went to see 2anez who was abo!t 5)m away. He left the boys to level the soil aro!nd the hole and allegedly told them not to to!ch the stone. F few min!tes after he left the boys H!mped into the pit. #ne of them H!mped on top of the concrete block ca!sing it to slide towards the pit4s opening. The concrete block pinned .larde before he co!ld get o!t. Petitioners4 s!it was dismissed by the lower co!rt for the ff reasons- 11 digging was in line with 7ork3dM %1 FK!ino e/ercised !tmost diligenceM and 51 .larde4s death was d!e to his own reckless impr!dence. The BF affirmed the lower co!rt4s decision. Hence this petition. 6ss!e- 7hether respondents are liable for damages- FK!ino for negligence !nder Frt %1I( and Soriano Athe school principal1 as head of school !nder Frt %1@) Held- FK!ino " .3S Soriano " ?# Soriano is not liable since he is the head of an academic instit!tion. #nly heads of schools of arts and trades are liable for torts committed by their st!dents AFmadora v BF1. FK!ino4s negligent act of leaving his st!dents in s!ch a dangero!s site is the pro/imate ca!se of .larde4s death. He left the children to level the soil aro!nd the e/cavation when it was so apparent that

the h!ge stone was on the brink of falling. He went to an area where he wo!ld not be able to check on the children4s safety and left the children close to the e/cavation an obvio!sly attractive n!isance. ?at!ral for the children to play aro!nd The bo!lder falling into the pit was a nat!ral conseK!ence of its weight and the loose soil F teacher in loco parentis sho!ld make s!re that the children are protected from all harm while in his company. 6n this case petitioner was clearly negligent in his d!ty. P3T6T6#? P0F?T3+ " FK!ino pays damages PS2F v BF A%)9 SB0F I%'1 FactsBarlitos 2a!tista a st!dent of PS2F was stabbed in the school4s premises by o!tsiders. He dies prompting his parents to file an action for damages against PS2F. PS2F files a motion to dismiss arg!ing that it is beyond the ambit of Frt %1@) since it is an academic instit!tion. The lower co!rt denied their motion to dismiss. Their motion for recon was also denied. The BF affirmed the lower co!rt4s decision by citing the Palisoc r!ling that Frt %1@) is applicable to all kinds of ed!cational instit!tions. Hence this petition. 6ss!e- 7hether PS2F can be held liable for damages Held- .3S Frt %1@) does not apply since the persons who ca!sed the inH!ry were not st!dents of PS2F for whose acts the school co!ld be made liable. There is a contract!al relation that e/ists between academic instit!tions and st!dents enrolled therein. The academic instit!tion !ndertakes to provide the st!dent with ed!cation. There is also an implicit obligation of providing st!dents with an atmosphere cond!cive to learning i.e. provide the proper sec!rity meas!res. 2eca!se of this contract!al obligation the r!les on K!asi"delict do not really govern. F contract!al relation is a condition sine K!a on to the school4s liability for negligence !nless the negligence occ!rs in bad faith. Petition denied Soliman Jr v T!ason A%)' scra &I1 Facts$a/imo Soliman Jr. a st!dent of 0ep!blic Bentral Bolleges was shot in the premises of 0BB by sec!rity g!ard Jimmy Solomon. He filed a civil complaint for damages against 0BB 0L sec!rity Fgency and Solomon. 0BB filed a motion to dismiss arg!ing that it cannot be held liable beca!se- 11 it is not the employer of SolomonM and %1 Frt %1@) does not apply beca!se Solomon is not a st!dent of 0BB. The 0TB granted the motion to dismiss and denied petitioner4s motion for recon. Hence this petition. 6ss!e- 7hether 0BB can be held liable for damages Held- .3S Frt %1@) does not apply beca!se Solomon is not an employee or st!dent of 0BB. Fs a general r!le a client or c!stomer of a sec!rity agency has no hand in selecting the g!ards that will be assigned to it. The d!ty to observe d!e diligence in selecting the g!ards cannot in the ordinary co!rse of events be demanded from the client. 6nstr!ctions given by the client to the g!ard are no more than reK!ests commonly envisaged in the contract of services with the agency. 0espondent H!dge was in serio!s error when he dismissed the action on the gro!nds that Soliman4s only ca!se of action was Frt %1@). J!dge sho!ld have allowed petitioner to prove acts that constit!te a breach of obligation e' contractu or e' lege on the part of 0BB.

Petition granted " case remanded to 0TB for f!rther proceedings %. effect of acK!ittal Frt. %'. 7hen the acc!sed in a criminal prosec!tion is acK!itted on the gro!nd that his g!ilt has not been proved beyond reasonable do!bt a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instit!ted. S!ch action reK!ires only a preponderance of evidence. Rpon motion of the defendant the co!rt may reK!ire the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in case the complaint sho!ld be fo!nd to be malicio!s. Jarantilla vs BF P3T6T6#? to review decision of BF Facts Jose G!an Sing sideswiped by a Qolkswagen 2eetle driven by Jarantilla res!lting to physical inH!ries Jarantilla accordingly sharged with serio!s physical inH!ries thro!gh reckless impr!dence G!an Sing did not reserve right to instit!te a separate civil action and he intervened in the prosec!tion of said crim case thro!gh a private prosec!tor. Petitioner Jarantilla acK!itted on Dreasonable do!btE S!bseK!ently Sing filed Bivil Base for damages involving the same s!bHect matter and act in previo!s crim case. 6ss!e- 7#? G!an Sing can file a separate action for Bivil Liability arising from the same act or omission wherein Jarantilla was acK!itted in the criminal action on reasonable do!bt and no civil liability was adH!dicated or awarded in the H!dgment of acK!ittal. Held- .es 6f the acc!sed in a criminal prosec!tion is acK!itted on the gro!nd that his g!ilt has not been proven beyond reasonable do!bt a civil action for the same act or omission may be instit!ted. "" 6t is allowed !nder Frticle %' of the Bivil Bode. Fnother relevant doctrine given by H!rispr!dence- 6f the co!rt fails to make any prono!ncement favorable or !nfavorable as to the civil liability of the acc!sed then this amo!nts to a reservation of the right to have the civil liability litigated and determined in a separate action. The r!les nowhere provide that if a co!rt fails to determine the civil liability it becomes no longer enforceable. There is also pers!asive logic in the view that the acK!ittal of the acc!sed foreclosed the civil liability based on Frticle 1)) 0PB. 6f there is an acK!ittal then the ca!sative act or omission becomes divested of its penal element and becomes in effect a K!asi"delict. .the allegations of the complaint by G!an Sing s!pports and is constit!tive of a case for K!asi"delict. 7rit prayed for +enied. People vs. 0itter 5. preH!dicial K!estions Frt. 5(. Pre"H!dicial K!estions which m!st be decided before any criminal prosec!tion may be instit!ted or may proceed shall be governed by r!les of co!rt which the S!preme Bo!rt shall prom!lgate and which shall not be in conflict with the provisions of this Bode. =apanta vs $ontesa #06P6?FL FBT6#? in the SB. Prohibition Facts $ay 1'9@- #limpia .co filed in BF6 of 2!lacan crim case of 2igamy against =apanta as he contracted marriage with her when he was still validly married to a certain 3strella P!arin. J!ne 1'9@- =apanta filed in BF6 of Pampanga a civil case against .co for the ann!lment of their marriage on the gro!nd of d!ress force and intimidation. .co filed motion to dismiss b!t denied.

Sept 1'9@- =apanta filed motion in crim case of 2igamy to s!spend proceedings therein on the gro!nd that the determination of the iss!e involved in civil case was a p(e@$)1"1al 7$est1on. $tion denied and $tion for 0econ denied. Ffter pleading not g!ilty in crim case filed this action in SB. 6ss!e- 7#? crim case sho!ld be s!spended : 7#? there was a preH!dicial K!estion. Held- .es 6f there arises an iss!e:K!estion in a case the resol!tion of which is a logical antecedent of the iss!e involved therein and the cognizance of which pertains to another trib!nal then there is a preH!dicial K!estion. There is a preH!dicial K!estion in the case at bar. Fs seen in the r!le a preH!dicial K!estion has two elements- A11K!estion m!st be determinative of the case before the co!rt and A%1 H!risdiction to try the same m!st be lodged in another co!rt. Here determination of force will prove that his act of contracting a second marriage while there was a s!bsisting one was invol!ntary. #n the second element the ann!lment case was filed in Pampanga. 7rit prayed for granted. $erced vs +iez #06P6?FL Fction in the S!preme Bo!rt. Bertiorari with prohibition. Facts Jan 1'9@- Fb!ndio $erced filed a complaint for ann!lment of his second marriage with 3lizabeth Beasar alleging thather relatives forced threatened and intimidated him into signing an affidavit to the effect that he and Liz had been living together as h!sband and wife for over 9 yrs.M that this affidavit was !sed in sec!ring their marriage of e/ceptional character w:o need for a marriage licenseM that he was forced into marrying Liz before $!nicipal J!dge Al!cky g!y 1 - immediately left Liz after marriage and never lived with her - he was asked to ret!rn to Beb! b!t ref!sed scared he might be forced to live with Liz Feb 1'9@- 3lizabeth Beasar filed crim complaint for bigamy against $erced as he was previo!sly married to a 3!frocina Tan. $erced filed motion hold trial of crim case $otion +enied. 6ss!e- 7#? action to ann!l marriage is a preH!dicial K!estion in a prosec!tion to 2igamy. Held- .es. 6f there arises an iss!e:K!estion in a case the resol!tion of which is a logical antecedent of the iss!e involved therein and the cognizance of which pertains to another trib!nal then there is a preH!dicial K!estion. 7itho!t the element of consent a marriage wo!ld be illegal and void. 2!t the K!estion of invalidity can not be decided in the criminal action for 2igamy b!t in a civil action for ann!lment. Since A11 the validity of the marriage cannot be determined in the criminal case and A%1 since prosec!tion for bigamy does not lie !nless the elements of a valid second marriage appears it is necessary then that a decision in a civil action to the effect that the second marriage contains all the essentials of a valid marriage m!st first be sec!red. SB adds that the principle of preH!dicial K!estion is to be applied even if there is only one co!rt before which the civil action and the criminal action are to be litigated. Petition granted. Ppl vs Fragon FPP3FL from the order of the BF6 of Beb! Facts Fragon charged in the BF6 of Beb! with the crime of 2igamy for having contracted marriage w: 3figenia Palomer when his marriage with $artina Podinez was still s!bsisting.

7hile case pending Palomer filed in same BF6 of Beb! a civil case to ann!l her marriage with Fragon since the latter forced her to marry him thro!gh force threats and intimidation of bodily harm. Fragon- filed motion in crim case to dismiss said case on the gro!nd that the civil action for ann!lment of the second marriage is a preH!dicial K!estion. Trial co!rt denied. 6ss!e- 7#? s!ch constit!tes a preH!dicial K!estion. Held- ?o. Fragon can not !se his own malfeasance to defeat the action based on his criminal act. The civil action does not decide that defendant"appellant Fragon did not enter the marriage against his will and consent beca!se the complaint does not allege that he was the victim of force and intimidationM it does not determine the e/istence of any of the elements of the charge of 2igamy. F decision thereon is not essential to the determination of the criminal charge. Th!s it is not a preH!dicial K!estion. Flso dapat nag"motion for recon m!na si Fragon #rder appealed from affirmed.

0!le 111 Asee 0#B1 HR$F? 03LFT6#?S F. 2asic principlesM ab!se of right Frt. 1'. 3very person m!st in the e/ercise of his rights and in the performance of his d!ties act with H!stice give everyone his d!e and observe honesty and good faith. Frt. %). 3very person who contrary to law wilf!lly or negligently ca!ses damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same. Frt. %1. Fny person who wilf!lly ca!ses loss or inH!ry to another in a manner that is contrary to morals good c!stoms or p!blic policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. Pe vs Pe Plaintiffs bro!ght this action before the Bo!rt of First 6nstance of $anila to recover moral compensatory e/emplary and corrective damages in the amo!nt of P'& ))).)) e/cl!sive of attorneyZs fees and e/penses of litigation. Plaintiffs are the parents brothers and sisters of one Lolita Pe %& years old and !nmarried +efendant Flfonso Pe is a married man and works as agent of La Perla Bigar and Bigarette Factory. He stayed in the town of Pasan $arind!K!e in connection with occ!pation. Lolita was staying with her parents in the same town. +efendant was an adopted son of a Bhinaman named Pe 2eco a collateral relative of LolitaZs father. 2eca!se of s!ch fact and the similarity in their family name defendant became close to the plaintiffs who regarded him as a member of their family. Sometime in 1'9% defendant freK!ented the ho!se of Lolita ""to teach him how to pray the rosary Ayan ang style1 The two event!ally fell in love with each other. Started their clandestine love affair. 0!mors reached Lolita4s parents forbidden to see each other. 3ven filed deportation proceedings against defendant. The affair contin!ed nonetheless. Sometime in Fpril 1'9I Lolita was staying with her brothers and sisters at their residence at 9&" 2 3spaYa 3/tension U!ezon Bity. #n Fpril 1& 1'9I Lolita disappeared from said ho!se. Fo!nd - note on a cr!mpled piece of paper inside LolitaZs aparador "" a letter of defendant to Lolita The disappearance of Lolita was reported to the police a!thorities and the ?26 b!t !p to the present there is no news or trace of her whereabo!ts.

+efense- granting that the facts alleged were tr!e they do not constit!te a valid ca!se of action. trial co!rt- Bomplaint not actionable"" failed to prove that defendant deliberately and in bad faith tried to win LolitaZs affection. X6n the absence of proof on this point the co!rt may not pres!me that it was the defendant who deliberately ind!ced s!ch relationshipE

6ss!e- 7#? damages sho!ld be granted. Held- .es The circ!mstances !nder which defendant tried to win LolitaZs affection cannot lead to any other concl!sion than that it was he who thr! an ingenio!s scheme or trickery sed!ced the latter to the e/tent of making her fall in love with him. This is shown by the fact that defendant freK!ented the ho!se of Lolita on the prete/t that he wanted her to teach him how to pray the rosary. He was forbidden to see Lolita b!t nevertheless proceded with the love affair. 6ndeed no other concl!sion can be drawn from this chain of events than that defendant not only deliberately b!t thro!gh a clever strategy s!cceeded in winning the affection and love of Lolita to the e/tent of having illicit relations with her. The wrong he has ca!sed her and her family is indeed immeas!rable considering the fact that he is a married man. Qerily he has committed an inH!ry to LolitaZs family in a manner contrary to morals good c!stoms and p!blic policy as contemplated in Frticle %1 of the new Bivil Bode. +amages awardedP9 ))).)) as damages and P% 9)).)) as attorneyZs fees and e/penses of litigation.

Hermosisima vs BF P3T6T6#? for review by certiorari Facts Soledad Babigas an Francisco Hermosisima were sweeathearts before. Giko impregnated Soledad in a boat cabin A$:Q 3scaYo to which Giko was apprentice pilot1.. promised to marry her b!t then married 0omanita Perez. Soledad Babigas filed with BF6 of Beb! a complaint for A11 the acknowledgement of her child Bhris Hermosisima as nat!ral child of Francisco Hermosisima as well as A%1 for s!pport of said child and A51 damages for breach of promise. Francisco admitted paternity and willingness to s!pport 2RT denied ever promising Soledad marriage. BF6 ordered payment of P & 9)) for act!al and compensatory damages P9 ))) as moral damages and P9)) as attorney4s fees aside from s!pport to child AP5) : month1. BF affirmed even increasing the act!al and moral damages. There was sed!ction and therefore liable for moral damages. 6ss!e- 7#? moral damages are recoverable for breach of promise to marry. Held- ?o SyK!ia case- Fction for breach of promise to marry has no standing in the civil law apart from the right to recover money or property advanced !pon the faith of s!ch promise. SB does not find Giko morally g!ilty of sed!ction beca!se the BF6 itself fo!nd that complainant Ds!rrendered herselfE to petitioner beca!se Doverwhelmed by her love for himE she Dwanted to bindE him Dby having a fr!it of their engagement even before they had the benefit of clergyE. 7assmer vs Qaldez FactsFranciso Qelez and 2eatriz 7assmer decided to get married on September & 1'9&. Two days before the wedding Francisco left a note for his bride"to"be7ill have to postpone wedding"$y mother opposes it. Fm leaving on the Bonvair today. The ne/t day he sent her the ff. telegram?#TH6?P BHF?P3+ 03ST FSSR03+ 03TR0?6?P Q30. S##? FP#L#P6=3 $F$F PFPF L#Q3 PFG6?P

2eatriz s!ed for damages b!t Qelez claimed thathis fail!re to marry plaintiff was d!e to fort!ito!s event and circ!mstances beyond his control that breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong.

6ss!e- 7#? there co!ld be an action for damages Held- .es b!t based on Frticle %1 0atio1. Frticle %1 provides- Fny person who willf!lly ca!ses loss or inH!ry to another in a manner that is contrary to morals good c!stoms or p!blic policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. %. +amages invitations were printed and distrib!ted dresses bo!ght matrimonial bedO 2ridal showers and gifts received 5. moral damages are recoverable Frticle %%1' A1)1- moral damages are recoverable in the cases mentioned in Frticle %1 &. e/emplary damages based on %%5%- defendant acted in wanton fra!d!lent reckless oppressive or malevolent manner Pashem Shookat 2aksh vs BF Facts$arilo! Ponzales alleged that petitioner co!rted her sometime in F!g!st 1'@I and promised to marry her after the end of the school semester of the same year. Petitioner visited her parents to sec!re their approval to the marriage. S!bseK!ently petitioner forced her to live with him. Later petitioner began maltreating her and d!ring a confrontation before the barangay captain of P!ilig petitioner rep!diated their marriage agreement and told her that he was married to someone in 2acolod Bity. Petitioner denied all allegation and even alleged that Ponzales had deceived him by stealing his money and passport. 6ss!e- 7#? an action for damages e/ists Held- .es based on Frticle %1 0atio1. Frticle %1 together with Frticles 1' and %) has broadened the scope of the law on civil wrongs %. the basis for the award was the fra!d and deceit behind the promise to marry and the willf!l inH!ry to her honor and rep!tation she had se/ with him not beca!se of l!st b!t beca!se of moral sed!ction Dman4s promise to marry is the pro/imate ca!se of the acceptance of his love his representation to f!lfill that promise 6s the pro/imate ca!se of the giving of herself !nto him in a se/!al congressE 5. cannot be held liable for criminal sed!ction beca!se girl was above 1@ Qelayo etc vs Shell see $el4s digest. Salamat melOO !a"ts# The Bommercial Fir Lines 6nc ABFL61 is a Philippine corporation engaged in the air transportation b!siness. The Shell Bompany of the Philippine 6slands Adefendant1 is a corporation organized in 3ngland and licensed to do b!siness here. BFL6Zs f!el needs are s!pplied by the defendant. )@:)(:&@ " BFL6 organized a l!ncheon meeting to inform all its creditors that the company was in a state of insolvency and had to stop operation. Fitzgerald represented the defendant in s!ch meeting. BFL6Zs total indebtedness to the defendant at that time was P19% (&1.(@.

BFL6Zs 2oard of +irectors e/plained that there was a proposed sale of BFL6Zs assets in favor of Philippine Fir Lines. BFL6Zs balance sheet was also presented to the creditors. The balance sheet incl!ded a B"9& plane in the Rnited States. 6n the same meeting the creditors agreed on the ff11 That a working committee Acomposed of three parties1 shall be created which wo!ld s!pervise the preservation of BFL6Zs assets while the creditors attempted to agree on a fair distrib!tion of s!ch assetsM %1 That all of the creditors present sho!ld avoid presenting its claim before an insolvency co!rt. 6n case the creditors do not come to an agreement only then can insolvency proceedings be filed. Fitzgerald was appointed to represent the creditors in the working committee. )@:)':&@ " The working committee met for the first time to st!dy the way of making a fair division of the assets. #n the very same day the defendant company assigned its credit against BFL6 in favor of Shell #il Bompany an Fmerican Borporation for TI' &&). The ne/t day the credit was increased to T@9)@1.%'. )@:1%:&@ " Shell #il Bompany filed a complaint against BFL6 before the S!perior Bo!rt of Balifornia for the collection of the assigned credit. F writ of attachment was applied for and iss!ed against the B"9& plane. AFs a res!lt of this writ the proceeds of the event!al sale of the plane wo!ld pertain e/cl!sively to Shell #il instead of all the creditors1 $eanwhile the stockholders of BFL6 decided to effect the sale of BFL6Zs properties to PFL. Shortly thereafter the ?atZl Firports Borporation A?FB another creditor of BFL61 learned of the action in the RS so it filed its own complaint with attachment before the BF6 of $anila. 1):)I:&@ " Rpon learning of the action in the RS BFL6 filed a petition for vol!ntary insolvency. The order of insolvency was iss!ed by the co!rt so the complaint of ?FB was directed to the insolvency co!rt. Qelayo was appointed assignee of BFL6 in the insolvency proceedings. He immediately so!ght a writ of inH!nction to restrain defendant from prosec!ting the complaint filed in Balifornia. The co!rt denied the petition for iss!ance of a writ of inH!nction beca!se a Phil. co!rt wo!ld not be in a position to enforce its orders against Shell #il Bompany which is an Fmerican corp. o!tside of the H!risdiction of the Phils. Having failed to restrain the progress of the attachment s!it in Balifornia Qelayo now confines his action to the recovery of damages against the defendant. The lower co!rt dismissed the complaint for damages. Hence this appeal.

Iss$e# 7#? there was a betrayal of tr!st and confidence on the part of defendant company which can be made the basis for damages. +el)# .3S Rat1o# 6t is obvio!s that defendant effected the transfer of its credit !pon learning of the precario!s economic sit!ation of BFL6. The transfer made witho!t the knowledge of the other creditors was a shrewd and s!rprise move that enabled defendant to collect almost all if not the entire amo!nt of its credit.

A6n other words Fitzgerald and defendant company met with the other creditors for the p!rpose of reaching an agreement for the fair distZn of assets 2RT at the same time it had already divested itself of its credit1 The defendant took advantage of its knowledge that an insolvency proceeding was to be instit!ted if the creditors did not agree as to the manner of distZn. This is a clear violation of Sec. 5I of the insolvency Law which states thatC"f any person, before the assignment is made, having notice of the commencement of proceedings in insolvency, or having reason to believe that insolvency proceedings are about to be commenced, embe11les or disposes of any money, goods, chattels or effects of the insolvent, he is chargeable therewith, and liable to an action by the assignee for double the value of the property sought to be embe11led or disposed of...C 6n addition Frt. %1 of the Bivil Bode provides thatCAny person who willfully causes loss or in&ury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.C This provision was intended to cover the !ntold n!mbers of moral wrongs which is impossible for h!man foresight to provide for specifically in the stat!tes. ?ote- 3ven if the new civil code only took effect in 1'9) and the acts complained of took place in 1'&@ the provisions of the new civil code wo!ld still apply p!rs!ant to Frt. %%95 which states thatC0ut if a right should be declared for the first time in this *ode, it shall be effective at once, even though the act or event which may give rise thereto may have been done or may have occurred under the prior legislation, provided said new right does not pre&udice or impair any vested or acquired right of the same origin.C Hence the co!rt holds defendant liable to pay Qelayo Aas assignee of the insolvent BFL61 a s!m do!ble the amo!nt of the val!e of the plane at the time the credit was transferred. Aa s!m eK!al to the val!e of the plane as compensatory damages and the same amo!nt as e/emplary damages1. Since there is no clear proof on record abo!t the real val!e of the plane the val!e shall be determined in the lower co!rt. ?ote- The Bo!rt did not strictly apply Sec. 5I of 6nsolvency Law since what the defendant disposed of was act!ally his own credit and not any property of the insolvent company. However the effect as to the amo!nt of damages awarded is the same. ?#T3- 6n the motion for recon filed by defendant it was arg!ed that the other creditors were not preH!diced at all by the transfer of the credit. However the SB belied this claim by e/plaining that if no attachment of the plane was made the other creditors wo!ld receive appro/. &9L of their claims and not H!st 5)L. 6t is clear that the other creditors were preH!diced.

J!dgment reversed. A3/emplary damages were red!ced to P%9))) after the motion for recon was filed1

Plobe vs $ckay Facts0estit!to Tobias was employed by petitioner as p!rchasing agent and admin assistant to the engineering operations manager. Sometime in 1'I% Tobias reported anomalies in company- fictitio!s p!rchases and other fra!d!lent transactions for which it lost several tho!sands of pesos.

However Herbert Hendrry 3/ec!tive Qice President and Peneral $anager confronted him by stating that he was the n!mber one s!spect and ordered him to take a forced one week leave not to comm!nicate with the office to leave his table drawers open and to leave the office keys. 7hen he reported back to work Hendry called him a crook and a swindler. He was also ordered to take a lie detector test and to s!bmit specimens of his handwriting signat!re and initials. Tobias was also told that a h!ndred more s!its can be field against him. 6nvestigation instit!ted by company res!lted to ff$anila police- cleared Tobias of any participation Private investigator- fo!nd him g!ilty b!t also stated that f!rther investigations were to be cond!cted $$ Police Bhief +oc!ment 3/aminer- Tobias not g!ilty. Tobias passed lie detector test. Bompany still filed ( criminal cases 9 for estafa thr! falsification of commercial doc!ments and 1 for discovering secrets thr! seiz!re of correspondence. Fll were dismissed for ins!fficiency of evidence. 7hen Tobias so!ght employment with 03T3LB# Hendry wrote company stating that Plobe $ackay dismissed Tobias d!e to dishonesty. 6ss!e- 7#? petitioners are liable for damages to private respondent Held- .es Frticle 1' and remedied by Frticle %). 0atioFrt. 1'. 3very person m!st in the e/ercise of his rights and in the performance of his d!ties act with H!stice give everyone his d!e and observe honesty and good faith. Frt. %). 3very person who contrary to law willf!lly or negligently ca!ses damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same. 1. 3ven if they claimed that it was their right to dismiss Tobias they ab!sed the right that they invoke ca!sing damage to Tobias and for which latter m!st be indemnified. %. The imp!tation of g!ilt witho!t basis and the pattern of harassment d!ring the investigations of Tobias transgress the standards o h!man cond!ct !nder article 1'. 5. +amn!m absK!e inH!ria- damages or loss which does not constit!te a violation of a legal right or amo!nt to a legal wrong is not actionable ?F to case at bar coz the ab!sive manner in which the right to dismiss was e/ercised amo!nted to a legal wrong Flbenson vs BF FactsFlbenson delivered mild steel plates to P!aranteed 6nd!stries 6nc. F Pacific 2anking Borporation Bheck was given and drawn against the acco!nt of 3L 7oodworks. S!ch check was later dishonored for the reason DFcco!nt Blosed.E Bompany traced so!rce of check and later discovered that the signat!re belonged to one 3!genio 2altao. Flbenson made an e/traH!dical demand !pon 2altao b!t latter denied that he iss!ed the check or that the signat!re was his. Bompany filed a complaint against 2altao for violation of 2P %%. 6t was later discovered that private respondent had son- 3!gene 2altao 666 who manages the biz establishment 3L 7oodworks. Father filed complaint for damages. 6ss!e- 7#? petitioner is liable for damages

Held- ?# 0atio1. no ab!se of right %. honestly belived that it was private respondent who iss!ed check based on ff inK!iries S3B records showed that president to P!aranteed was 3!gene 2altao 2ank said signat!re belonged to 32 32 did not do his part in clarifying that there were in fact 5 3bs Jr. Sr. and the 666. 5. there was no malicio!s prosec!tion- there m!st be proof that the prosec!tion was prompted by a sinister design to ve/ and h!miliate a person and that it was intiated deliberately by defendant knowing that his charges were false and gro!ndless 3lements of ab!se of right !nder Frticle 1'1. there is a legal right or d!ty %. e/ercised in bad faith 5. for the sole intent of preH!dicing or inH!ring another 3lements !nder Frticle %1- contra bon!s mores1. there is an act which is legal %. b!t which is contrary to morals good c!stom p!blic order or p!blic policy 5. it is done with intent to inH!re 2. RnH!st enrichment Art. . -very person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the e'pense of the latter without &ust or legal ground, shall return the same to him. Art. 3. -ven when an act or event causing damage to anotherDs property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited. Art. 1(,. "f something is received when there is no right to demand it, and it was unduly delivered through mista%e, the obligation to return it arises. 81$E(7 B. Protection of disadvantaged Art. ,. "n all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental wea%ness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection. Art. 133 . When one of the parties is unable to read, or if the contract is in a language not understood by him, and mista%e or fraud is alleged, the person enforcing the contract must show that the terms thereof have been fully e'plained to the former. 8n7 +. #stentatio!s display of wealth Art. (. Thoughtless e'travagance in e'penses for pleasure or display during a period of acute public want or emergency may be stopped by order of the courts at the instance of any government or private charitable institution. 3. 0espect for dignity personality privacy and peace of ind of another Art. ). -very person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other reliefF

817 9rying into the privacy of anotherDs residenceF 8 7 >eddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of anotherG 837 "ntriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friendsG 8,7 3e'ing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition. Fyer vs Bap!long Facts$T0B2 other govt agencies and Pres 0amos approved the making of a film entitled The Fo!r day 0evol!tion. P!rs!ant to this Fyer Prod!ctions wrote 3nrile abo!t film and enclosed a synopsis. 3nrile replied and stated that no reference whatsoever sho!ld be made to him or any member of his family m!ch less to any matter p!rely personal to them. Fyer acceded and proceed to film the pict!re b!t 3nrile filed Bomplaint with Fpplication for Temporary 0estraining #rder and 7rit of Prelim 6nH!nction stating that petitioner4s prod!ction of film witho!t his consent and over his obHection constit!tes a violation of his right to privacy. 6ss!e- 7#? the prod!ction and filming of pict!re constit!ted an !nlawf!l intr!sion !pon his right to privacy Held- ?# 0atio1. film was not yet completed th!s no clear and present danger of any violation of any right to privacy e/isted %. film was abo!t 3+SF revol!tion and does not relate to the individ!al life and certainly not to the private life of 3nrile 5. intr!sion is limited to what it necessary to keep film a tr!thf!l historical acco!nt &. The right of privacy of a p!blic fig!re is narrower than that of an ordinary citizen. PR2L6B F6PR03- F person who by his accomplishments fame or mode of living or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the p!blic a legitimate interest in hi s doings his affairs and his character has become a p!blic personage. Tenchavez vs 3scaYo FactsQicenta 3scaYo and Pastor Tenchavez secretly got married before a Batholic chaplain and planned to elope. The elopement did not materialize beca!se Qicenta4s mother discovered s!ch marriage. Her parents asked the advice of one Father 0eynes and s!bseK!ently agreed to recelebrate the marriage. However Qicenta ref!sed to proceed with the ceremony beca!se a letter from the st!dents of san Barlos Bollege disclosed that Pastor and their matchmaker Pacita ?oel had an amoro!s relationship. Qicenta left for the States acK!ired a foreign divorce and married an Fmerican 0!ssel Leo $oran in ?evada. H!sband field complaintQs. Parents- for having diss!aded and disco!raged Qicenta from Hoining her h!sband and alienating her affections Qs. 0oman Batholic Bh!rch- for having decreed ann!lment Parents filed co!nterclaim for moral and e/emplary damages. 6ss!e- 7#? there is an action for alienation of affections against parents Held- ?# 0atio-

1. no proof of malice %. parents themselves s!ggested that the marriage be celebrated again 5. also Qicenta appeared to have acted independently and being of age she was entitled to H!dge what was best for her and ask that her decisions be respected TH303 7FS F QFL6+ $F006FP3 between Qicenta and Pastor- remember personsCsoC Qicenta4s ref!sal to perform her wifely d!ties and her denial of consorti!m and her desertion of h!sband constit!te in law a wrong ca!sed thro!gh her fa!lt for which the h!sband is entitled to the corresponding indemnity A%1I(1 &9 ))) damages awarded to parents deemed e/cessive filing of s!it nay have wo!nded their feelings and ca!sed an/iety b!t this has not serio!sly inH!red their rep!tation or otherwise preH!diced them laws!its having become a common occ!rrence in present society. F. +ereliction of d!ty Frt. %I. Fny person s!ffering material or moral loss beca!se a p!blic servant or employee ref!ses or neglects witho!t H!st ca!se to perform his official d!ty may file an action for damages and other relief against he latter witho!t preH!dice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.

Fmaro vs Samang!it FactsJose Fmaro was assa!lted and shot near the city government b!ilding of Silay. S!bseK!ently they went to the office of the chief of police b!t the latter harassed and terrorized them. 2eca!se of that incident they gave !p their right and interest in the prosec!tion of the crime. However Bity $ayor advised appellee to investigate crime. 6nfo was then filed. Base is based on article %1 and:or %I. 6ss!e- 7#? chief of police was g!ilty of dereliction of d!ty Held- .es 0atio1. ref!sal to perform official d!ty witho!t H!st ca!se gives rise to an action for damages =!l!eta vs ?icholas FactsPlaintiff filed a complaint for libel against the provincial governor of 0izal and the staff members of Phil. Free Press. Provincial fiscal rendered opinion stating that there was no prima facie case- statements were made in good faith and for the sole p!rpose of serving the best interests of the p!blic. Fiscal absolved governor and staff. 6ss!e- 7on there was dereliction of d!ty Held- ?# 0atio1. ref!sal to prosec!te beca!se of ins!fficient evidence is not ref!sal witho!t H!st ca!se to perform an official d!ty %. Fiscal is also !nder the d!ty not to prosec!te if there are ins!fficient evidence to s!pport a case

PROCINCES, CITIES, M=NICIPALITIES

EIMENE, v CIT/ O! MANILA FFBTS- Jimenez bo!ght bagoong at the Santa Fna p!blic market at the time that it was flooded with ankle"deep water. Fs he t!rned aro!nd to go home he stepped on an !ncovered opening w:c co!ld not be seen beca!se of dirty rainwater. F dirty and r!sty &"inch nail st!ck inside the !ncovered opening pierced his left leg to a depth of 1V inches. His left leg swelled and he developed fever. He was confined for %) days walked w:cr!tches for 19 days and co!ld not operate his school b!ses. He s!ed Bity of $anila and Fsiatic 6ntegrated Borp !nder whose administration the Sta. Fna had been placed by virt!e of $anagement and #perating Bontract. TB fo!nd for respondent. BF reversed and held Fsiatec liable and absolved Bity of $anila. 6SSR3- 7#? Bity of $anila sho!ld be Hointly and solidarily liable with Fsiatec H3L+- .3S 0FT6#- 6n the Bity of $anila v Teotico case it was held that Frt 1 Sec & of 0F &)' which Bity of $anila is invoking in this case establishes a general r!le reg!lating the liability of Bity #f $anila while Frt %1@' BB governs the liability d!e to Ddefective streets p!blic b!ildings and other p!blic worksE in partic!lar and is therefore decisive in this case. 6t was also held that for liability !nder %1@' to attach "ont(ol and s$pe(v1s1on by the province city or m!nicipality over the defective p!blic b!ilding in K!estion is eno!gh. 6t is not necessary that s!ch belongs to s!ch province city or m!nicipality. 6n the case at bar there is no K!estion that Sta. Fna p!blic market remained !nder the control of the Bity as evidenced by1. the contract bet Fsiatec and Bity which e/plicitly states that Dprior approvalE of the Bity is still needed in the operations. %. $ayor 2agatsing of $anila admitted s!ch control and s!pervision in his letter to Finance Sec. Qirata 8@The *ity retains the power of supervision and control over its public mar%etsH7 5. Bity employed a market master for the Sta. Fna p!blic $arket whose primary d!ty is to take direct s!pervision and control of that partic!lar p!blic market &. Sec. 5) of Ta/ Bode DThe treasurer shall e'ercise direct and immediate supervision, administration and control over public mar%etsH E 6t is th!s the d!ty of the Bity to e/ercise reasonable care to keep the p!blic market reasonably safe for people freK!enting the place for their marketing needs. #rdinary preca!tions co!ld have been taken d!ring good weather to minimize danger to life and limb. The drainage hole co!ld have been placed !nder the stalls rather than the passageways. The Bity sho!ld have seen to it that the openings were covered. 6t was evident that the certain opening was already !ncovered and 9 months after this incident it was still !ncovered. There were also findings that d!ring floods vendors wo!ld remove the iron grills to

hasten the flow of water. S!ch acts were not prohibited nor penalized by the Bity. ?o warning sign of impending danger was evident. Petitioner had the right to ass!me there were no openings in the middle of the passageways and if any that they were adeK!ately covered. Had it been covered petitioner wo!ld not have fallen into it. Th!s the negligence of the Bity is the pro/imate ca!se of the inH!ry s!ffered. Fsiatec and Bityy are Hoint tortfeasors and are solidarily liable. PROPRIETORS O! 5=ILDING, !ACTOR/ ETC. G=ILATCO v CIT/ O! DAG=PAN FFBTS- Pilatco ABo!rt 6nterpreter1 was abo!t to board a tricycle at a sidewalk when at Perez 2lvd when she accidentally fell into a manhole ca!sing her right leg to be fract!red. Perez 2lvd is a ?ational 0oad !nder the control and s!pervision of Bity of +ag!pan. S!ch manhole is partially covered by a flowerpot leaving a gaping hole abo!t % ft long and 1V feet wide. She was hospitalized operated on and confined. She had been deprived of income. She s!ed for damages. 6SSR3- 7#? Bontrol or s!pervision over a national road by the Bity of +ag!pan e/ists which makes Bity liable !nder Frt %1@' H3L+- .es. 0FT6#- Frt %1@' says - Provinces cities and m!nicipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of or inH!ries s!ffered by any person by reason of the defective conditions of roads streets bridges p!blic b!ildings and other p!blic works !nder their control and s!pervision. Th!s it is not even necessary that s!ch defective road or street belongs to the Bity. 6n the case at bar the control and s!pervision of the national road e/ists and is provided for in the charter of +ag!pan. 6t provided that the laying o!t constr!ction and improvement of streets aven!es and alleys and sidewalks and reg!lation of the !se thereof may be legislated by the $!nicipal 2oard. S!ch control and s!pervision is e/ercised thro!gh the Bity 3ngineer Tangco who aside from his official capacity as Bity 3ngineer was also 3/ #fficio Highway 3ngineer 3/ #fficio Bity 3ngineer of 2!rea! of P!blic 7orks and 2!ilding #fficial and received compensation for these f!nctions. The f!nction of s!pervision over streets p!blic b!ildings and p!blic works pertaining thro!gh the Bity 3ngineer is co!rsed thro!gh a $aintenance Foreman and a $aintenance 3ngineer. Fltho!gh these two officials are employees of the ?at4l Pov4t they are detailed with the Bity of +ag!pan and hence receive instr!ction and s!pervision from the city thro!gh the Bity 3ngineer. Hence the Bity is liable. M=NICIPALIT/ O! SAN !ERNANDO v !IRME FFBTS- F collision occ!rs involving a passen*e( @eepne' driven by 2alagot and owned by ?ieverras a *(avel an) san) t($"0 driven by $anandeg and owned by QelasK!ez and a )$mp t($"0 driven by 2islig and owned by the m!nicipality of San Fernando La Rnion. Several passengers incl!ding 2aniYa died and & were inH!red. Heirs of 2aniYa instit!ted a complaint for damages against Heepney owner and driver. The owner and driver of Heepney filed 5rd Party complaint against $!n. of San Fernando and driver of d!mp tr!ck. S!bseK!ently the case was transferred to 2ranch presided by Firme. The complaint was amended to implead $!n. of San Fernando and d!mp tr!ck driver as defendants who raised the defenses of lack of ca!se of action nons!ability of the State negligence of owner and driver of the Heepney as the pro/imate ca!se of collision. Firme rendered $!n. of San Fernando and d!mp tr!ck driver liable Hointly and severally.

6SSR3- 7#? the respondent Bo!rt committed grave ab!se of discretion when it deferred and failed to resolve the defense of non"s!ability of the state H3L+- .3S 0FT6#- Rnder Frt WQ6 sec 5 Bonsti Law the State may not be s!ed witho!t its consent. Bonsent can be implied or e/pressed. 3/pressed consent may be embodied in a general s!ch as Fct ?o. 5)5@ which provides for the standing consent of the State to be s!ed in cases of money claimsM or special law s!ch as in the $erritt case. 6mplied consent is when gov4t enters into b!siness contracts descending to the level of the other contracting party or when State files a complaint opening itself to co!nter claim. $!nicipal Borp. are s!able beca!se their charters grant them the competence to s!e and be s!ed. ?evertheless they are not liable for the torts committed by them in the discharge of governmental f!nctions. Fnd can be held answerable if it is shown that they were acting in proprietary capacity. 6n the case at bar the driver of d!mp tr!ck was on his way to ?ag!ilian 0iver to get a load of sand and gravel for the repair of San Fernando4s m!nicipal streets a governmental f!nction. The m!nicipality cannot be held liable for the torts committed by its reg!lar employee who was then engaged in the discharge of governmental f!nctions. Hence the H!dgment of Firme is reversed. GOTESCO INCESTMENT CORP v C+ATTO FFBTS- Ploria Bhatto and her 19"yr old da!ghter Lina went to see a movie D$other +earE at S!perama 6 owned by Potesco 6nvestment Borp. Plenty of people were watching the film so they co!ld not find seats at the balcony level. Hardly 1) mins after entering the theater the ceiling of its balcony collapsed. Pandemoni!m ens!ed in the darkness of the theater b!t the two women were able to crawl their way o!t and walked to nearby F3R hospital. 2oth were treated for physical inH!ries which wo!ld incapacitate them for a period of %"& weeks. 6SSR3- 7#? Potesco is liable H3L+- .es. 0FT6#- 6t is settled that the owner or proprietor of a place of p!blic am!sement 1mpl1e)l' Aa((ants that the premises appliances and am!sement devices are safe for the p!rpose for which they are designed the doctrine being s!bHect to no other e/ception or K!alification than that he does not contract against !nknown defects not discoverable by ordinary or reasonable means. This implied warranty has given rise to the r!le that7here a patron of a theater or other place of p!blic am!sement is inH!red and the thing that ca!sed the inH!ry is wholly and e/cl!sively !nder the control and management of the defendants and the accident is s!ch as in the ordinary co!rse of events wo!ld not have happened if proper care had been e/ercised its occ!rrence raises a pres!mption or permits of an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant. This pres!mption was not overcome by Potesco. The co!rt fo!nd that the collapse was d!e to the constr!ction defects and not force ma&eure as Potesco claimed. S!ch defects co!ld have been easily discovered if only Potesco e/ercised d!e diligence and care in keeping and maintaining the premises. 3ven if the str!ct!ral designs were approved and permitted by the Bity engineer this does not prove at all that there was no defects in the constr!ction. Fs disclosed by the testimony there was no adeK!ate inspection of the premises before the date of the accident. Fnd ass!ming that the ca!se of the collapse was d!e to force maHe!re Potesco wo!ld still be liable beca!se it was g!ilty of negligence.

DINGCONG CS DANAAN 8than%s to 0anwar7 Nat$(e# Petition for review on Bertiorari !a"ts# +ingcong brothers are co"lessees in the !pper floor of the ho!se owned by Saenz 2rothers established the central hotel in the b!ilding where they were the managers F g!est 3chivarria occ!pied room 1) of the hotel for P5) per month Ganaans occ!pied the lower floor of the hotel where they established a bazaar 3chivarria let his fa!cet leak while the pipes of the hotel were !ndergoing repairs F b!cket was placed !nderneath the leaking fa!cet to catch the dripping water [ the b!cket overflowed 7ater seeped thro!gh the floor [ the merchandise in the bazaar below got wet and damaged worth aro!nd P1T Ganaans bro!ght an action for damages against the managers Abrothers +ingcong1 and 3chivarria Aperson who let the fa!cet leak1 BF6 absolved 1 +ingcong brother only Akasi namatay na y!ng isa1 b!t held 3chivarria liable BF reversed [ holding +ingcong liable for the damages Iss$e- 7#? the manager can be held liable +el)# .3S Rat1o# +ingcong as a co"lessee and manager of the hotel has to answer for the damage ca!sed by things that thrown or falling from the hotel AFrt. 1'1) of the Bodigo Bivil1 3chivarria was a g!est of the hotel and was the direct ca!se of the damage 2!t +ingcong did ?#T e/ercise the diligence of a good father of the family He knew that the pipes of the hotel were !nder repair pres!med that the g!est 3chivarria wo!ld !se the fa!cet b!t only provided a b!cket to deal with the problem of the leaks E$)*ment A661(me)

A'ELLA(A v $A"A)E $ay %' 1'I& NAT=RE# Petition for certiorari from an order of the BF6 of $isamis #ccidental !ACTS# F cargo tr!ck driven by Francisco Fbellana had a collision with a motorized pedicab res!lting in inH!ries to its passengers. F criminal case for physical inH!ries thro!gh reckless impr!dence was filed with the Bity Bo!rt of #zamis Bity against Fbellana. He was fo!nd g!ilty as charged with award of damages in favor of the offended parties. Fbellana appealed the decision with the BF6. Ft this stage the offended parties filed with another branch of BF6 of $isamis #ccidental a separate and independent civil action for damages in connection with the accident. 6n s!ch complaint for damages the alleged employer of Fbellana was incl!ded as defendant.

 The defendants so!ght the dismissal of the complaint on the gro!nd that there was no reservation for the filing thereof in the Bity Bo!rt. They arg!ed that it was not allowable at this stage where the criminal case was already on appeal at the BF6. BF6 H!dge denied the motion to dismiss rationalizing that1. J!dgment of the Bity Bo!rt on the criminal case was vacated on appeal. Trial de novo will be cond!cted. 8A new trial or retrial had in which the whole case is retried as if no trial whatever had been had in the first instance7. %. 6n view of the above and since the co!rt ABF61 has not yet beg!n the trial Ade novo1 offended parties may e/pressly waive in the BF6 the civil action impliedly instit!ted with the criminal action and reserve their right to instit!te a separate action. These they did. Hence this petition. ISS=E# 7#? petitioners may still file a separate civil action for damages considering that the H!dgment of conviction of lower co!rt had been vacated on appeal and a trial de novo had been ordered +ELD# .es. Section 1 0!le 111 with Section I 0!le 1%5. RATIO# Petitioners contention that Section 1 of 0!le 111 means that a separate civil action can be filed only at the instit!tion of the criminal action and never on appeal to the ne/t higher co!rt is erroneo!s. Fbove interpretation ignores what is so e/plicitly provided in Section I of 0!le 1%5- DFn appealed case shall be tried in all respects anew in the BF6 as if it had been originally instit!ted in the co!rt.E This r!le is s!pported by a n!mber of cases- 9eople v *arreon, Andres v Wolfe, *risostomo v /ir. of 9risons, 9eople v 2amisola Flso the restrictive interpretation of petitioners wo!ld give rise to a serio!s constit!tional K!estion as regards Frticle 55 of the BB- in cases of physical inH!ries a civil action for damages entirely separate and independent from the criminal action may be bro!ght by inH!red party. The grant of power to this Bo!rt !nder the Bonstit!tion does not e/tend to any dimin!tion increase or modification of s!bstantive right s!ch as that provided for in Frticle 55. Bo!rt sho!ld avoid constr!ing a stat!te or legal norm in s!ch a manner as wo!ld give rise to a constit!tional do!bt. Lastly any co!nsel m!st not ignore the basic p!rpose of litigation which is to ass!re parties H!stice accdg to law. He is not to fall prey to the vice of literalness. Petition dismissed. *A+,L% v CA #ctober 9 1'') Nat$(e# Petition for review of the decision of the BF !ACTS#

 7hile driving a motorcycle owned by .ak!lt Phils. Larry Salvado employee of same company sideswiped a 9 year old boy who was then standing on a sidewalk. Jan. ( 1'@5 "" Salvado was charged with the crime of reckless impr!dence res!lting to slight physical inH!ries in an information filed with the Bity Bo!rt of $anila. #ct. 1' 1'@& [ F complaint for damages was filed by offended party against .ak!lt and Salvado in the 0TB of $anila. $ay %( 1'@' [ 0TB rendered decision in the civil case ordering defendants to pay Hointly and severally the plaintiff. +efendants filed a petition for certiorari in the BF challenging the H!risdiction of the 0TB over said civil case. They contended that1. a civil action for damages cannot be filed independently of the criminal action !nder Frt 55 the criminal negligence being witho!t malice %. a separate civil action may not be filed !nless reservation thereof is e/pressly made BF dismissed the petition. $otion for recon denied. ISS=E# 7#? a civil action instit!ted after the criminal action was filed prosper even if there was no reservation to file a separate civil action +ELD# .es. Section 1 0!le 111 1'@9 0!les of Briminal Proced!re An.b.- 1'@9 0BP being proced!ral may apply retrospectively to the present case1 RATIO# 6n this case the offended party has not waived the civil action nor reserved the right to instit!te it separately. ?either has the offended party instit!ted the civil action prior to the criminal action. However the civil action in this case was filed in co!rt before the presentation of the evidence for the prosec!tion in the criminal action of which the H!dge presiding on the criminal case was d!ly informed so that in the disposition of the criminal action no damages was awarded. Fct!al filing of the civil action is even far better than a compliance with the reK!irement of an e/press reservation that sho!ld be made by the offended party before the prosec!tion presents its evidence. Fforecited revised r!le reK!iring s!ch previo!s reservation also covers K!asi"delict as defined !nder Frt %1I( arising from same act or omission of the acc!sed as in this case. Petition denied. A(DA$O v -AC ?ovember ( 1'') NAT=RE# Petition for certiorari prohibition and mandam!s to review the decision of the then 6FB !ACTS#

 The $issionaries of #!r Lady of Law Salette 6nc. a religio!s corporation b!ilt thro!gh its agents waterpaths and contrivances incl!ding an artificial lake on a parcel of land which it owned. However said constr!ctions allegedly in!ndated an adHacent land owned by petitioner spo!ses Fndamo. The in!ndation allegedly ca!sed a yo!ng man to drown damaged petitioners4 crops and plants washed away costly fences endangered the lives of petitioners and their laborers among other damages. J!ly 1'@% "" Petitioners then instit!ted a criminal action before the 0TB of Bavite against the officers and directros of the corporatio for destr!ction by means of in!ndation !nder Frt 5%9 of 0PB. Febr!ary %% 1'@5 [ Petitioners filed a civil for damages against same corporation. Fpril %( 1'@& "" Rpon corporation4s motion to dismiss or s!spend the civil action trial co!rt iss!ed an order suspending f!rther hearings in the civil case !ntil after H!dgment in the related criminal case. F!g!st %I 1'@& [ Rpon motion of corporation trial co!rt dismissed the civil case for lack of H!risdiction as the criminal case which was instit!ted ahead of the civil case was still !nresolved. 6FB affirmed decision of TB. $otion for recon denied. ISS=E# 7#? a corporation which has b!ilt thro!gh its agents waterpaths water cond!ctors and contrivances within its land thereby ca!sing in!ndation and damage to an adHacent land can be held civilly liable for damages !nder Frticles %1I( and %1II of the BB on K!asi"delicts such that the resulting civil case can proceed independently of the criminal case +ELD# .es. RATIO# +ismissal of the civil case is erroneo!s considering that it is predicated on a K!asi"delict. F caref!l e/amination of the petitioners4 complaint shows that the civil action is one !nder Frticles %1I( and %1II of the BB on K!asi"delicts. Fll the elements of a K!asi"delict are present- damages s!ffered fa!lt or negligence of defendant and ca!sal connection between the two s!ch that if proven wo!ld make a clear case of a K!asi"delict or c!lpa aK!iliana. Frticle %1I( whenever it refers to Dfa!lt or negligenceE covers not only acts Dnot p!nishable by lawE b!t also acts criminal in character whether intentional and vol!ntary or negligence. BonseK!ently a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act whether or not he is criminally prosec!ted and fo!nd g!ilty or acK!itted provided that the offended party is not allowed Aif the tortfeasor is act!ally charged also criminally1 to recover damages on both scores and wo!ld be entitled in s!ch event!ality only to the bigger award of the two ass!ming the awards made in the two cases vary. 8+ee *astillo v *A7 Fs held by the SB in A1ucena v 9otenciano, in K!asi"delicts the civil action is entirely independent of the criminal case accdg to Frticles 55 and %1II.

To s!bordinate the civil action contemplated in the said articles to the res!lt of the criminal porsec!tion [ whether it be conviction or acK!ittal [ wo!ld render meaningless the independent character of the civil action and the clear inH!ncttion in Frticle 51 that his action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the res!lt of the latter. Decision reversed and set aside.

PFL 6nc. vs BF 1'') Facts?icanor Padilla was one of the 55 persons who died while on board PFL plane that crashed on $t. 2aco $indoro on ?ovember %5 1'(). Padilla4s mother his only heir filed a complaint demanding ())tho! as act!al and compensatory damages pl!s e/emplary damages and ()tho! as attorney4s fees. Trial co!rt based its award on the life e/pectancy of the deceased and awarded the ff1. &IItho!- e/pected income %. 1)tho!- moral damages 5. 1)tho!- attorney4s fees &. and to pay costs PFL invoked RS law and claimed that in determining loss of earnings arising from death the basis sho!ld be the life e/pectancy of the deceased #0 the beneficiary whichever is shorter. 6ss!e- 7#? the deceased4s life e/pectancy sho!ld be made the basis in determining loss of earnings. Held- .3S resort to foreign H!rispr!dence is proper only when there is no law or decision available locally to settle controversy 0atio1. 1I(& and %%)(- award of damages for death is comp!ted on the basis of the life e/pectancy of the deceased Frt. 1I(&. +amages in cases comprised in this Section shall be awarded in accordance with Title WQ666 of this 2ook concerning +amages. Frticle %%)( shall also apply to the death of a passenger ca!sed by the breach of contract by a common carrier. Frt. %%)(. The amo!nt of damages for death ca!sed by a crime or K!asi"delict shall be at least three tho!sand pesos even tho!gh there may have been mitigating circ!mstances. 6n additionA11 The defendant shall be liable for t&e loss o6 t&e ea(n1n* "apa"1t' o6 t&e )e"ease) and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latterM s!ch indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the co!rt !nless the deceased on acco!nt of permanent physical disability not ca!sed by the defendant had no earning capacity at the time of his deathM A%1 6f the deceased was obliged to *1ve s$ppo(t according to the provisions of Frticle %'1 the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent4s inheritance by the law of testate or intestate s!ccession may demand s!pport from the person ca!sing the death for a period not e/ceeding five years the e/act d!ration to be fi/ed by the co!rtM A51 The spo!se legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand mo(al )ama*es 6o( mental an*$1s& by reason of the death of the deceased. %. basis of act!al damages proven manager and a!ditor of Fllied #verseas Trading Bompany and Padilla Shipping Bompany testified to Padilla4s income

damages awarded based on earning capacity&1Itho! gross ann!al income of %5 1)) [ '%)) living e/penses8 15 ')) net income / 5) years life e/pectancy with legal rate of interest of (L per ann!m from the date of H!dgment on F!g!st 51 1'I5 Heirs of Bastro vs 2!stos 1'(' Facts2!stos killed Bastro and was fo!nd g!ilty of homicide by lower co!rt. Fs to the award of damages the BF amended its decision and deleted (tho! moral damages 15 5@) loss of earnings Petitioners prayed that BF4s original decision be affirmed in toto. 6ss!e- 7hat are the items of damages recoverable in cases of death; Held- moral damages and loss of earnings awarded 0atio7hen death occ!rs as a res!lt of crime the heirs are entitled to the ff damages1. indemnity for the death of the victim at least 5 tho! even if there are mitigating circ!mstances %. indemnity for loss of earning capacity pl!s amo!nt for s!pport if deceased was obliged to give any to any person 5. e/emplary damages fi/ed by co!rt considered separate from fines when crime is attended by one or more aggravating circ!mstances &. moral damages for mental ang!ish fi/ed by co!rt recoverable by descendants 9. attorney4s fees and e/penses of litigation act!al amo!nt only when separate civil action has been filed or when e/emplary damges are awarded (. interests in proper cases I. moral damages loss of earning capacity are recoverable separately from the indemnity for death\ Bapistrano conc!rs- d!ty of fiscal to demand payment award sho!ld be made individ!ally People vs U!ilaton 1''% FactsU!ilation killed the officer"in"charge of P0#F3$ and was fo!nd g!ilty of m!rder. He was f!rther sentenced to indeminify heirs 1)) tho! for death %( &&9 for act!al damages for b!rial and related e/penses %9) ))) moral damages 6ss!e- correctness of damages Held1. act!al damages of %( &&9- FFF60$3+- brother was able to present receipts of e/penses %. 1)) ))) indemnity for death- 03+RB3+ to 9)tho! based on prevailing H!rispr!dence

5. %9) ))) moral damages- SB said that TB l!mped the ff monetary obligations !nder *moral damages4 loss of earning capacity- 11& )))- gross earnings [ living e/penses ed!cational s!pport for sisters- 1)tho! mental ang!ish s!ffered- %)tho! awarded his mother s!ffered a mild stroke

DAMAGES

A. Gene(al P(ov1s1ons Frt. %1'9. The provisions of this Title shall be respectively applicable to all obligations mentioned in Frticle 119I. Frt. %1'(. The r!les !nder this Title are witho!t preH!dice to special provisions on damages form!lated elsewhere in this Bode. Bompensation for workmen and other employees in case of death inH!ry or illness is reg!lated by special laws. 0!les governing damages laid down in other laws shall be observed insofar as they are not in conflict with this Bode. Frt. %1'I. +amages may beA11 Fct!al or compensatoryM A%1 $oralM A51 ?ominalM A&1 Temperate or moderateM A91 LiK!idatedM or A(1 3/emplary or corrective. Frt. %1'@. The principles of the general law on damages are hereby adopted insofar as they are not inconsistent with this Bode. 5. A"t$al an) "ompensato(' )ama*es Frt. %1''. 3/cept as provided by law or by stip!lation one is entitled to an adeK!ate compensation only for s!ch pec!niary loss s!ffered by him as he has d!ly proved. S!ch compensation is referred to as act!al or compensatory damages. Component elements# Frt. %%)). 6ndemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the val!e of the loss s!ffered b!t also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain. A11)(1 Frt. %%)9. +amages may be recoveredA11 For loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal inH!ryM A%1 For inH!ry to the plaintiffZs b!siness standing or commercial credit. Gene(al Ente(p(1ses v L1an*a 5a' Lo**1n* >11 SCRA . ?

Facts Peneral 3nterprises AP31 entered into a contract with Lianga 2ay Logging AL21 whereby the former was designated as distrib!tor of the logs s!pplied by the latter. P3 is entitled to 15L of the gross f.o.b. val!e of the logs e/ported. The contract was to remain effective for two years beginning J!ne 1 1'9'. #n #ctober %I 1'9' however L2 sent written notice to P3 stating that it won4t be able to s!pply logs for e/port d!e to !navailability of additional logging machinery and restrictions imposed by the Phil. Povt. 7ithin a fo!r" month period L2 gave a total of five notices to P3 stating vario!s reasons for non"performance of its obligation to s!pply the logs. P3 on the other hand reminded L2 to f!lfill its obligations !nder the contract as otherwise it wo!ld be held liable for breach. Par @Ab1 of their agreement gives the valid ca!ses for s!spension of the contract among which are- a1 the enactment of national or local law or ordinanceM b1 iss!ance of any prohibitive or restrictive orderM and c1 any other ca!se not within the control of the party making relief from any of the reK!irements of the contract. P34s reminder was left !nheeded. Hence it filed an action for breach of contract and recovery of damages with the BF6. The co!rt r!led in its favor awarding P&))k as act!al damages P1))k as e/emplary damages and P&)k as attorney4s fees and litigation e/penses. Hence this appeal. 6ss!e- 7#? act!al and e/emplary damages and attorney4s fees are H!stified Held- .3S Aact!al and attorney4s fees1 ?# Ae/emplary1 6t sho!ld be noted that L2 is g!ilty of breach of contract as the ca!ses cited for non"performance of its obligation are not among those e/pressly stated in the contract. $oreover L2 mentioned that it had an e/cess of 1$ logs per month. 6t also agreed to s!pply %))$ brd ft of logs to Japanese b!yers over a five year period. Sin!ngalingO Frt %%)) BB- indemnification for damages comprehends not only the val!e of the loss s!ffered b!t also that of the profits which the creditor fails to obtain. #ver a five month period beginning J!ne 1'9' P3 sold over I$ brd ft of logs to Gorea and earned PI'k in commissions. 7hen L2 failed to deliver the logs beginning Jan!ary 1'() P3 ceased to earn any commission. +a) L5 "ont1n$e) to )el1ve( t&e lo*s as 1t Aas 4o$n) p$(s$ant to t&e a*(eement, 1t 1s (easona4le to e3pe"t t&at GE Ao$l) &ave "ont1n$e) to ea(n 1ts "omm1ss1on 1n m$"& t&e same manne( as 1t $se) to 1n "onne"t1on A1t& t&e p(ev1o$s s&1pment o6 lo*s, A&1"& "lea(l' 1n)1"ate) t&at 1t 6a1le) to ea(n 1ts "omm1ss1ons 1t s&o$l) )$(1n* t&1s pe(1o) o6 t1me, A&1"& 1s app(o31matel' P4<<0 >1. mont&s (ema1n1n* 1n "ont(a"t F 2M 4() 6t pe( mont& F P<.<1 "omm1ss1on pe( 4() 6t?. Mat&emat1"al *en1$s not (e7$1(e)H P1))k as e/emplary damages is oppressive considering that L2 did not act in a wanton Anoodles1 oppressive or malevolent manner. P9)k is s!fficient for its reprehensible act of resorting to half"tr!ths in order to H!stify its desistance from the contract. Fttorney4s fees H!stified considering the importance of the litigation and the amo!nt of time and effort involved. +3B6S6#? $#+6F63+ 5as1lan L$m4e( v Ca*a'an T1m4e( >2 SCRA .66? Facts 6n the amended terms of their contract Bagayan Timber ABT1 agreed to deliver I&)k brd ft of e/portable logs to 2asilan L!mber A2L1 by September 1 1'91. The latter thro!gh the 3ast Fsiatic Bompany A3FB1 sold the logs to a Japanese b!yer. The logs were to be loaded on the Ganats! $ar! over a two"day period. However the ship stayed in port for a total of eight days d!e to ins!fficient logs and poor stevedoring service. The BF6 awarded 2L additional dem!rrage and dead freight e/penses amo!nting to T'k. 6n reversing the BF6 decision the BF held that no damages may be recovered witho!t satisfactory proof of the real e/istence of s!ch damages AFrts %%)) and %%)1 BB1. Hence this appeal.

6ss!e- 7#? dem!rrage and dead freight not actually paid is recoverable in an action for breach of contract to s!pply Held- ?# Frt %1'' BB- recoverable damages m!st be d!ly proved i.e. not merely spec!lative Fct!al damage was ca!sed to 3FB who already paid dem!rrage and dead freight e/penses as evidenced by receipts to the Japanese b!yer. There is no proof that 2L had already paid 3FB said damages or that it had already been reK!ired to pay the same. Terms of the agreement holding BT liable for damages it may ca!se 2L are merely declaratory of the obligation ass!med ?ot demandable !pon breach b!t !pon proof of act!al damage s!ffered +3B6S6#? FFF60$3+ GA Ma"&1ne(1es v /apt1n"&a' >126 SCRA .;? Facts .aptinchay A.1 bo!ght a Fordson engine from PF $achineries APF$61 for PI 9(). He relied on the representations of the latter4s representative that the engine was brand"new. . was engaged in the tr!cking b!siness. The engine was installed in one of his tr!cks. 7ithin a week from delivery the engine started to have malf!nctions which necessitated s!ccessive trips to PF$64s repair shop. oil leak cl!tch disc release bearing h!b and tr!nion bolt propeller shaftCL3$#?O L3$#?O L3$#?O Rpon investigation the ff were discovered11 7orn"o!t screw co!rtesy of .4s mechanic %1 Tampered original motor n!mber co!rtesy of Bapt. Parcia4s macro" etching test 51 Two"tone paint A!nlike brand"new engine painted with single color1 co!rtesy of $anila Trading Bompany . instit!tes action for indemnification for damages. Trial Bo!rt orders PF$6 to pay . P9&k in act!al damages PI 9') as reimb!rsement for the p!rchase price of the engine and P%k in attorney4s fees. BF affirms the decision. Hence this petition. 6ss!e- 7#? award of damages is H!stified Held- .3S Areimb!rsement1 ?# Aact!al1 PF$6 committed a breach of contract of sale. The misrepresentation of the K!ality of the engine is tantamo!nt to fra!d or bad faith. Hence the award of PI 9') is H!stified. F0T %%)) BB entitles . to recover compensatory damages for act!al loss s!ffered and prospective profits while Frt %%)1 entitles him to recover all damages which may be attrib!ted to non"performance of the obligation. S!ch damages however have to be proven. 23ST 3Q6+3?B3 T3ST- F person claiming damages lucro cessante m!st prod!ce the best evidence of which his case is s!sceptible and if that evidence warrants the inference that he has been damaged by the loss of profits which he might with reasonable certainty have anticipated b!t for the defendant4s wrongf!l act he is entitled to recover. Fward of act!al damages is !nwarranted !nder best evidence test. DProHected profitE prepared by a $r. $acasieb AP5('.@@ profit per trip m!ltiplied by the n!mber of trips the tr!ck allegedly was !nable to make1 Fverage act!al profits of .4s tr!cks plying the $anila"2ag!io ro!te wo!ld have provided a more reasonable basis for act!al damages +3B6S6#? $#+6F63+- award of P9&k deleted

SONGCO v SELLNER De"em4e( 4, 1-1. FFBTS Songco and Sellner owned contig!o!s properties where a considerable K!antity of s!gar cane were planted. Sellner wanted to mill his cane to a nearby s!gar cane central. However the central were not s!re that they co!ld mill his cane and wo!ld not promise to take it. Sellner then conceived the idea of b!ying the cane of Songco which was going to be milled by the S!gar Bentral. $otives1. so that he co!ld r!n his own cane in at the same time Songco4s cane sho!ld be milled by the Bentral %. so that Sellner co!ld get a right of way over Songco4s land for conveying his own s!gar tot he central Fccordingly he bo!ght Songco4s s!gar cane as it stood. He e/ec!ted 5 promissory notes for the p!rchase price. Two of these notes were paid. Songco filed an action to recover the 5rd P?. 6n his defense Sellner alleged that Songco falsely represented that the cane wo!ld prod!ce 5 ))) pic!ls of s!gar b!t the crop as it t!rned o!t prod!ced % )1I pic!ls only. TB rendered H!dgment in favor of plaintiff. Hence this appeal. 6ncidentally plaintiffs s!ed o!t an attachment against the defendant at the time of the instit!tion of the s!it !pon the gro!nd that he was dispossessing of his property in fra!d of his creditors. Lower co!rt fo!nd that the charge that the defendant was dispossessing of plaintiffs4 property was completely ref!ted by proof showing that the defendant is a man of large reso!rces and had not attempted to convey away his property as alleged. 6t then awarded damages to the defendant eK!ivalent to the amo!nt act!ally paid o!t by him in proc!ring the dissol!tion of the attachment. +efendant appealed contending that the lower co!rt erred in ref!sing to award him f!rther damages for the inH!ry done to his credit. He alleged that one of his creditors !pon learning of the attachment withheld f!rther credit and forced him to sell a large K!antity of s!gar at a price m!ch lower than he wo!ld have received if he co!ld have carried it a few weeks longer.

ISS=E# 7#? defendant is entitled to f!rther damages for the alleged inH!ry arising o!t of the attachment +ELD# ?o Lower co!rt committed no error in ref!sing to award damages !pon the gro!nd cited by the defendant as s!ch damages were remote and spec!lative.

6t co!ld hardly be foreseen as a probable conseK!ence of the s!ing o!t of his attachment that the creditors might withheld their credit. Plaintiff certainly cannot be held acco!ntable for the complications of defendant4s affairs which made possible the damage which in fact res!lted. SB deemed it best not to dist!rb as well the decision of the lower co!rt not to award p!nitive damages claimed by the plaintiff on the gro!nd that the attachment was malicio!sly s!ed o!t.

Judgment affirmed. S3FQF? BF00630 6?B. v PT6 SP#0TS73F0 B#0P. Septem4e( 2;, 1-;4 FFBTS GTI Spo(tsAea( Co(p. >6o(me(l' GTI Ga(ments Co(p.? "ont(a"te) t&e se(v1"es o6 Seavan Ca((1e(, In". 6o( t&e t(anspo(t o6 "a(tons o6 )en1m @eans 6o( e3po(t.. +oAeve(, o6 t&e 2-4 "a(tons s$ppose) to 4e )el1ve(e) 4' GTI to So$t& +a(4o(, Po(t A(ea, 1<< "a(tons Ae(e lost en (o$te to t&e p1e(. It Ao$l) appea( late( t&at t&e 1<< "a(tons Ae(e )1ve(te) 4' t&e )(1ve( o6 SeavanBs )el1ve(' van, 1n "onn1van"e A1t& ot&e( pe(sons, to Aa(e&o$se 1n C. Mapa. A "on6ess1on to t&1s e66e"t Aas s1*ne) 4' t&e )(1ve(. GTI 61le) a "ase 6o( a s$m o6 mone' an) )ama*es. LoAe( "o$(t o()e(e) Seavan to pa' pla1nt166 t&e 66.# 1. 2. . 4. :. P1;20 I val$e o6 1<< "a(tons o6 )en1m @eans lost, pl$s t&e le*al (ate o6 1nte(est P16<D I Ta(166 an) C$stoms )$t1es pa1) 4' pla1nt166s on t&e lost 1tems P2.4M I (ep(esent1n* losses 1n t&e *oo)A1ll o6 pla1nt166 2<J o6 t&e total amo$nt I as an) 6o( atto(ne'Bs 6ees "ost o6 p(o"ee)1n*s

6SSR3- %ON t&e aAa() o6 )ama*es Aas "o((e"t H3L+- No T&e aAa() o6 P2.4M )ama*es a*a1nst a "la1m an) p(a'e( 1nvolv1n* lost me("&an)1se val$e) at onl' P1;20 an) A1t& 1ns$661"1ent ev1)en"e to s$ppo(t 1t 1s an a"t amo$nt1n* to *(ave a4$se o6 )1s"(et1on on t&e pa(t o6 t&e loAe( "o$(t. In ..A. $achineries/ -nc. v *aptincha&/ SC &el) t&at 1n o()e( 6o( )ama*es $n)e( A(t1"le 22<< o6 t&e CC to 4e (e"ove(e), t&e best evidence o4ta1na4le 4' t&e 1n@$(e) pa(t' m$st 4e p(esente). 5a(e asse(t1on o6 loss Ao$l) not s$661"e. In t&e 1nstant "ase, (espon)ents 6a1le) to 6$(n1s& t&e 4est ev1)en"e o4ta1na4le o( even s$661"1ent ev1)en"e 1n o()e( to Aa((ant t&e aAa() 4' t&e loAe( "o$(t o6 t&e amo$nt o6 P2.4M. T&e onl' 4as1s 6o( t&e aAa() Aas t&e test1mon' o6 t&e mana*e( o6 t&e 1nte(nat1onal )epa(tment o6 GTI t&at t&e(e Aas an o()e( o6 12,<<< p1e"es o6 "otton @eans pe( mont& 6o( t&e 'ea( 1-.;, 4$t t&e "$stome(s, a6te( &av1n* lea(ne) t&e loss, t&e o()e(s Ae(e "ompletel' "an"elle).

No )o"$ment o( A(1tten 1nst($ment Aas p(esente) to p(ove t&at t&e(e Ae(e (eall' o()e(s o6 t&at vol$me 6o( t&e 'ea( 1-.;, an) as 1n t&e *aptincha& "ase, no ev1)en"e Aas p(esente) to s&oA t&e ave(a*e a"t$al p(o61ts (eal1ze) 4' t&e (espon)ents )$(1n* t&e p(ev1o$s 'ea(s to ena4le t&e loAe( "o$(t to (easona4le as"e(ta1n t&e amo$nt o6 a"t$al )ama*es t&at t&e latte( s$66e(e). %&at Aas *1ven 1n test1mon' Ae(e t&e "o(po(at1onBs poss14le *(oss ea(n1n*s &a) 1ts 6o(e1*n "$stome(s not lea(ne) a4o$t t&e loss o6 t&e 1<< "a(tons o6 @eans. T&e ev1)en"e "annot Aa((ant t&e aAa() o6 )ama*es 6o( t&e loss o6 ant1"1pate) p(o61ts, m$"& less t&e amo$nt o6 P2.4M.

Award of damages of 9 .,m deleted. S$4(o*at1on# Frt. %%)I. 6f the plaintiffZs property has been ins!red and he has received indemnity from the ins!rance company for the inH!ry or loss arising o!t of the wrong or breach of contract complained of the ins!rance company shall be s!brogated to the rights of the ins!red against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract. 6f the amo!nt paid by the ins!rance company does not f!lly cover the inH!ry or loss the aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the deficiency from the person ca!sing the loss or inH!ry. PAN MALA/AN INS=RANCE CORP. v CA Ap(1l , 1--< FFBTS Banl!bang F!tomotive 0eso!rces Borp. obtained from Pan$alay an ins!rance for its $its!bishi Bolt Lancer . 7hile the policy was still in effect the ins!red car was hit by a pick"!p owned by 3rlinda Fabie b!t driven by another person. The car s!ffered damages in the amo!nt of P&%G. Panmalay defrayed the cost of repair of the ins!red car. 6t then demanded reimb!rsement from Fabie and her driver of said amo!nt b!t to no avail. Panmalay filed a complaint for damages with the 0TB of $akati against Fabie and the driver. Panmalay averred that the damages ca!sed to the ins!red car was settled !nder the Down damageE coverage of the ins!rance policy. Private respondents filed a motion to dismiss alleging that Panmalay had no ca!se of action since the Dwon damageE cla!se of the policy precl!ded s!brogation !nder Frt. %%)I of the BB. 6ndemnification !nder said article is on the ass!mption that there was no wrongdoer or no 5 rd party at fa!lt. 0TB dismissed Panmalay4s complaint. 0TB held that payment by Panmalay !nder the Down damageE cla!se was an admission by the ins!rer that the damage was ca!sed by the ass!red and:or its representatives. BF affirmed albeit on a somewhat different gro!nd. Fpplying the eH!sdem generis r!le BF held that Section 666"6 of the pplicy which was the basis for the settlement of the claim against ins!rance did not cover damage arising from collision or overt!rning d!e to the negligence of 5 rd parties as one of the ins!rable risks.

2oth trib!nals concl!ded that Panmalay co!ld not now invoke Frt %%)I and claim reimb!rsement.

ISS=E# 7#? Panmalay was s!brogated to the rights of Banl!bang against the driver and his employer +ELD# .es Frticle %%)I of the BB is fo!nded on the well"settled principle of s!brogation. 6f the ins!red property is destroyed or damages thro!gh the fa!lt or negligence of a party other than the ass!red then the ins!rer !pon payment to the ass!red will be s!brogated to the right of the ass!red to recover from the wrongdoer to the e/tent that the ins!rer has been obligated to pay. Payment by the ins!rer to the ass!red operates as an eK!itable assignment to the former of all the remedies which the latter may have against the 5 rd party whose negligence or wrongf!l act ca!sed the loss. The right of s!brogation is not dependent !pon any privity of contract or !pon written assignment of claim. 6t accr!es simply !pon payment of the ins!rance claim by the ins!rer. There are e/ceptions to this r!le1. if the ass!red by his won act releases the wrongdoer or 5 rd party liable for the loss or damage from liability %. where the ins!rer pays the ass!red the val!e of the lost goods witho!t notifying the carrier who has in good faith settled the ass!red4]s claim for loss 5. where the ins!rer pays the ass!red for a loss which is not a risk covered by the policy Avol!ntary pymt1 ?one of the e/ceptions are availing in the present case. FS T# LB 0RL6?P- 7hen Panmalay !tilized the phrase Down damageE"" a pharase which incidentally is not fo!nd in the ins!rance policySto define the basis for its settlement it simply meant that it had ass!med to reimb!rse the costs for repairing the damage to the ins!red vehicle. 6t is in this sense that the so"called Down damageE coverage of policy is different from the D5 rd party liabilityE coverage and from the Dproperty damaeE coverage. FS T# BF 0RL6?P- BF4s r!ling that the coverage of the ins!red risks !nder Section 666"6 of the policy does not incl!de damage to the ins!red vehicle arising from collision or overt!rning d!e to negligent acts of a 5rd party has no merit. ?ot only is it an erroneo!s interpretation of the provisions of the section b!t it also violates a f!ndamental r!le on the interpretation of property ins!rance contracts where interpretation sho!ld be liberally in favor of the ass!red and strictly against the ins!rer in cases of disagreement between the parties. The meaning advanced by Panmalay regarding the coverage of Section 666"6 of the policy is !ndeniable more beneficial to Banl!bang than that insisted !pon by the BF. 6n any case the very parties to the policy Banl!bang and Panmalay were not shown to be in disagreement regarding the meaning and coverage of Section 666"6. Hence it was improper for BF to assert its own interpretation of the contract that is contrary to the clear !nderstanding and intention of the parties to it.

Th!s SB held that Panmalay as s!brogee has no legal obstacle from filing the complaint for damages against the 5rd parties responsible for the damage to the car.

Atto(ne'Bs 6ees an) e3penses o6 l1t1*at1on Frt. %%)@. 6n the absence of stip!lation attorneyZs fees and e/penses of litigation other than H!dicial costs cannot be recovered e/ceptA11 7hen e/emplary damages are awardedM A%1 7hen the defendantZs act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to inc!r e/penses to protect his interestM A51 6n criminal cases of malicio!s prosec!tion against the plaintiffM A&1 6n case of a clearly !nfo!nded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiffM A91 7here the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in ref!sing to satisfy the plaintiffZs plainly valid H!st and demandable claimM A(1 6n actions for legal s!pportM AI1 6n actions for the recovery of wages of ho!sehold helpers laborers and skilled workersM A@1 6n actions for indemnity !nder workmenZs compensation and employerZs liability lawsM A'1 6n a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crimeM A1)1 7hen at least do!ble H!dicial costs are awardedM A111 6n any other case where the co!rt deems it H!st and eK!itable that attorneyZs fees and e/penses of litigation sho!ld be recovered. 6n all cases the attorneyZs fees and e/penses of litigation m!st be reasonable. POL/TRADE CORP v 5LANCO FFBTS- Polytrade Borp. filed fo!r ca!ses of action against Qictoria 2lanco to recover the p!rchase price of rawhide it delivered to the latter. 2lanco had converted s!ch rawhide into leather and sold it. TB fo!nd for Polytrade and 2lanco was ordered to pay the p!rchase price ^ interest. Fttorneys4 fees w:c amo!nted to P91 '(1.(5 or %9L of the total principal indebtedness e/cl!sive of interest was awarded. +efendant contends that this is e/orbitant and !nconscionable. 6SSR3- 7#? attorneys4 fees were e/orbitant and !nconscionable H3L+- ?o. 0FT6#- Rnder Frt %%%I liK!idated damages whether intended as an indemnity or a penalty shall be eK!itably red!ced if they are iniK!ito!s or !nconscionable. The amo!nt and character of the services rendered the nat!re and importance of litigation and the professional standing of the attorney may be an aid in the determination of the iniK!ity or !nconscionableness of attorney4s fees as liK!idated damages. 6n this case Polytrade4s lawyers are of high standing. 6n fact this case sho!ld not have gone to co!rt if 2lanco had complied w: his obligations. Flso the contin!ed maintenance of 2lanco of this s!it is plainly intended for delay. Hence the %9L rate of FF is not iniK!ito!s and !nconscionable.

?FTR03 #F FTT#0?3.4S F33S Fttorney4s fees AFF1 provided in contracts as recoverable against the other party as damages are not the attorney4s fees recoverable as between attorney and client as provided for in the 0!les of Bo!rt. 0ather the FF here is in the nat!re of liK!idated damages and the stip!lation therefore is aptly termed a penal cla!se. Fs long as s!ch stip!lation is not contrary to law morals or p!blic order it is strictly binding !pon defendants. S!ch FF as damages are awarded in favor of litigant who is the H!dgment creditor entitled to enforce the H!dgment and not his co!nsel.

RCPI v RODRIG=E, FFBTS- 0!f!s 0odrig!ez sent a cablegram to Taha in S!dan advising him of 004s arrival in S!dan and another to $erger in RS advising her of the sched of int4l 7FLS conference. The cablegrams were sent thro!gh 0BP6 which were in t!rn relayed to Plobe for transmission for their foreign destinations. However beca!se of the non"receipt of the cablegram Taha was not able to meet him in S!dan and the preparations for the int4l 7FLS conference had to be cancelled. 6t t!rned o!t that the message was delivered to the address on the message b!t the addressee was no longer staying there. This fact wasn4t reported to 00 in $anila. 00 s!ed for damages and was awarded P%) ))) attorney4s fees among others. 0BP6 contends that that the award of FF was improper beca!se there was no allegation in the complaint with FF. 00 also did not present any evidence to prove FF and the lower co!rt4s decision failed to e/plain why FF was being awarded. 6SSR3- 7#? 0BP6 is liable for attorney4s fees; H3L+- ?o. 0FT6#- 6n the recent case of Stronghold 6ns!rance Bompany 6nc. v BF the co!rt held that the reason for the award of FF m!st be stated in the te/t of the co!rt4s decision otherwise if it is stated only in the dispositive portion of the decision the same m!st be disallowed on appeal. 6n this case the award of F was stated only once H!st below the dispositive portion of the decision. The TB failed to H!stify the payment of FF by 0BP6 therefore the award of FF as part of its liability sho!ld be allowed. Inte(est Frt. %%)'. 6f the obligation consists in the payment of a s!m of money and the debtor inc!rs in delay the indemnity for damages there being no stip!lation to the contrary shall be the payment of the interest agreed !pon and in the absence of stip!lation the legal interest which is si/ per cent per ann!m. A11)@1 Frt. %%1). 6nterest may in the discretion of the co!rt be allowed !pon damages awarded for breach of contract. Frt. %%11. 6n crimes and K!asi"delicts interest as a part of the damages may in a proper case be adH!dicated in the discretion of the co!rt. Frt. %%1%. 6nterest d!e shall earn legal interest from the time it is H!dicially demanded altho!gh the obligation may be silent !pon this point. A11)'a1 Frt. %%15. 6nterest cannot be recovered !pon !nliK!idated claims or damages e/cept when the demand can be established with reasonably certainty. RE!ORMINA v TOMOL, ER FFBTS- F fire occ!rred b!rning the boat F2 Pacita 666 and fishing gear of the 0eforminas.

BonseK!ently they filed an action for recovery of damages for inH!ry to persons and loss of property. J!dge Tomol Jr awarded the 0eforminas damages with legal interest from the filing of the complaint !ntil paid. He f!rther rendered that by legal interest meant (L as provided for by Frt %%)' BB. 0eforminas contend that it sho!ld be 1%L by virt!e of Bentral 2ank Birc!lar ?o. &1(. 6SSR3- 7#? the legal interest is (L H3L+- .3S 0FT6#- B.2. Birc!lar &1( which too% effect 2uly E, 1E7, pursuant to 9/ 11) which amended Act )(( 8Isury 4aw7 which raised the legal interest fro (L to 1%L applies only to forbearances of money goods or credit and co!rt H!dgments. S!ch co!rt H!dgment refers only to H!dgments in litigations involving loans or forbearance of any money goods or credit. Fny other kind of monetary H!dgment does not fall !nder the coverage of said law for it is not within the ambit of a!thority granted to the central 2ank. #nly the legislat!re can change the laws. 6n this case the the decision of the H!dge is one rendered in an action for damages arising from inH!ry to persons and loss of property and does not involve a loan m!ch less forbearance of any money goods or credit. The law applicable is th!s F0T %%)' BB which states thatD 6f the obligation consists in the payment of a s!m of money and the debtor inc!rs in delay the indemnity for damages there being no stip!lation to the contrary shall be the payment of interest agreed !pon and in the absence of stip!lation the legal interest which is (L per ann!m. Plana Bonc!rring and +issentingRnder Sec 1 a of Fct %(99 as amended by P+ 11( the a!thority of B2 is to fi/ a ma/im!m rate of interest on loans and not to prescribe a fi/ed interest rate. S!ch a!thority given to B2 is absol!te and !nK!alified and therefore the delegation of power to it is void. 3/tent and scope of act!al damages 1. "ont(a"ts an) 7$as18"ont(a"ts Frt. %%)1. 6n contracts and K!asi"contracts the damages for which the obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the nat!ral and probable conseK!ences of the breach of the obligation and which the parties have foreseen or co!ld have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constit!ted. 6n case of fra!d bad faith malice or wanton attit!de the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attrib!ted to the non"performance of the obligation. A11)Ia1 Frt. %%19. 6n contracts K!asi"contracts and K!asi"delicts the co!rt may eK!itably mitigate the damages !nder circ!mstances other than the case referred to in the preceding article as in the following instancesA11 That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contractM A%1 That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a res!lt of the contractM A51 6n cases where e/emplary damages are to be awarded that the defendant acted !pon the advice of co!nselM A&1 That the loss wo!ld have res!lted in any eventM A91 That since the filing of the action the defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiffZs loss or inH!ry.

BasesPAL, In". vs CA, 1--< Facts?icanor Padilla was one of the 55 persons who died while on board PFL plane that crashed on $t. 2aco $indoro on ?ovember %5 1'(). Padilla4s mother his only heir filed a complaint demanding ())tho! as act!al and compensatory damages pl!s e/emplary damages and ()tho! as attorney4s fees. Trial co!rt based its award on the life e/pectancy of the deceased and awarded the ff9. &IItho!- e/pected income (. 1)tho!- moral damages I. 1)tho!- attorney4s fees @. and to pay costs PFL invoked RS law and claimed that in determining loss of earnings arising from death the basis sho!ld be the life e/pectancy of the deceased #0 the beneficiary whichever is shorter. 6ss!e- 7#? the deceased4s life e/pectancy sho!ld be made the basis in determining loss of earnings. Held- .3S resort to foreign H!rispr!dence is proper only when there is no law or decision available locally to settle controversy 0atio5. 1I(& and %%)(- award of damages for death is comp!ted on the basis of the life e/pectancy of the deceased Frt. 1I(&. +amages in cases comprised in this Section shall be awarded in accordance with Title WQ666 of this 2ook concerning +amages. Frticle %%)( shall also apply to the death of a passenger ca!sed by the breach of contract by a common carrier. Frt. %%)(. The amo!nt of damages for death ca!sed by a crime or K!asi"delict shall be at least three tho!sand pesos even tho!gh there may have been mitigating circ!mstances. 6n additionA11 The defendant shall be liable for t&e loss o6 t&e ea(n1n* "apa"1t' o6 t&e )e"ease) and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latterM s!ch indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the co!rt !nless the deceased on acco!nt of permanent physical disability not ca!sed by the defendant had no earning capacity at the time of his deathM A%1 6f the deceased was obliged to *1ve s$ppo(t according to the provisions of Frticle %'1 the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent4s inheritance by the law of testate or intestate s!ccession may demand s!pport from the person ca!sing the death for a period not e/ceeding five years the e/act d!ration to be fi/ed by the co!rtM A51 The spo!se legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand mo(al )ama*es 6o( mental an*$1s& by reason of the death of the deceased. &. basis of act!al damages proven manager and a!ditor of Fllied #verseas Trading Bompany and Padilla Shipping Bompany testified to Padilla4s income damages awarded based on earning capacity&1Itho! gross ann!al income of %5 1)) [ '%)) living e/penses8 15 ')) net income / 5) years life e/pectancy with legal rate of interest of (L per ann!m from the date of H!dgment on F!g!st 51 1'I5 2. "(1mes an) 7$as18)el1"ts

Frt. %%)%. 6n crimes and K!asi"delicts the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the nat!ral and probable conseK!ences of the act or omission complained of. 6t is not necessary that s!ch damages have been foreseen or co!ld have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant. Frt. %%)5. The party s!ffering loss or inH!ry m!st e/ercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages res!lting from the act or omission in K!estion. Frt. %%)&. 6n crimes the damages to be adH!dicated may be respectively increased or lessened according to the aggravating or mitigating circ!mstances. Frt. %%1&. 6n K!asi"delicts the contrib!tory negligence of the plaintiff shall red!ce the damages that he may recover. Frt. %%19. 6n contracts K!asi"contracts and K!asi"delicts the co!rt may eK!itably mitigate the damages !nder circ!mstances other than the case referred to in the preceding article as in the following instancesA11 That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contractM A%1 That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a res!lt of the contractM A51 6n cases where e/emplary damages are to be awarded that the defendant acted !pon the advice of co!nselM A&1 That the loss wo!ld have res!lted in any eventM A91 That since the filing of the action the defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiffZs loss or inH!ry. . "(1mes an) 7$as18)el1"ts (es$lt1n* 1n )eat& Frt. %%)(. The amo!nt of damages for death ca!sed by a crime or K!asi"delict shall be at least three tho!sand pesos even tho!gh there may have been mitigating circ!mstances. 6n additionA11 The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latterM s!ch indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the co!rt !nless the deceased on acco!nt of permanent physical disability not ca!sed by the defendant had no earning capacity at the time of his deathM A%1 6f the deceased was obliged to give s!pport according to the provisions of Frticle %'1 the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent4s inheritance by the law of testate or intestate s!ccession may demand s!pport from the person ca!sing the death for a period not e/ceeding five years the e/act d!ration to be fi/ed by the co!rtM A51 The spo!se legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental ang!ish by reason of the death of the deceased. Bases+e1(s o6 Cast(o vs 5$stos, 1-6Facts2!stos killed Bastro and was fo!nd g!ilty of homicide by lower co!rt. Fs to the award of damages the BF amended its decision and deleted (tho! moral damages 15 5@) loss of earnings Petitioners prayed that BF4s original decision be affirmed in toto. 6ss!e- 7hat are the items of damages recoverable in cases of death;

Held- moral damages and loss of earnings awarded 0atio7hen death occ!rs as a res!lt of crime the heirs are entitled to the ff damages@. indemnity for the death of the victim at least 5 tho! even if there are mitigating circ!mstances '. indemnity for loss of earning capacity pl!s amo!nt for s!pport if deceased was obliged to give any to any person 1). e/emplary damages fi/ed by co!rt considered separate from fines when crime is attended by one or more aggravating circ!mstances 11. moral damages for mental ang!ish fi/ed by co!rt recoverable by descendants 1%. attorney4s fees and e/penses of litigation act!al amo!nt only when separate civil action has been filed or when e/emplary damges are awarded 15. interests in proper cases 1&. moral damages loss of earning capacity are recoverable separately from the indemnity for death\ Bapistrano conc!rs- d!ty of fiscal to demand payment award sho!ld be made individ!ally People vs G$1laton, 1--2 FactsU!ilation killed the officer"in"charge of P0#F3$ and was fo!nd g!ilty of m!rder. He was f!rther sentenced to indeminify heirs 1)) tho! for death %( &&9 for act!al damages for b!rial and related e/penses %9) ))) moral damages 6ss!e- correctness of damages Held&. act!al damages of %( &&9- FFF60$3+- brother was able to present receipts of e/penses 9. 1)) ))) indemnity for death- 03+RB3+ to 9)tho! based on prevailing H!rispr!dence (. %9) ))) moral damages- SB said that TB l!mped the ff monetary obligations !nder *moral damages4 loss of earning capacity- 11& )))- gross earnings [ living e/penses ed!cational s!pport for sisters- 1)tho! mental ang!ish s!ffered- %)tho! awarded his mother s!ffered a mild stroke

P. Rnfair Bompetition

Frt. %@. Rnfair competition in agric!lt!ral commercial or ind!strial enterprises or in labor thro!gh the !se of force intimidation deceit machination or any other !nH!st oppressive or highhanded method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby s!ffers damage. H. Separate civil actions 1. Qiolation of civil rights Frt. 5%. Fny p!blic officer or employee or any private individ!al who directly or indirectly obstr!cts defeats violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damagesA11 Freedom of religionM A%1 Freedom of speechM A51 Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical p!blicationM A&1 Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detentionM A91 Freedom of s!ffrageM A(1 The right against deprivation of property witho!t d!e process of lawM AI1 The right to a H!st compensation when private property is taken for p!blic !seM A@1 The right to the eK!al protection of the lawsM A'1 The right to be sec!re in oneZs person ho!se papers and effects against !nreasonable searches and seiz!resM A1)1 The liberty of abode and of changing the sameM A111 The privacy of comm!nication and correspondenceM A1%1 The right to become a member of associations or societies for p!rposes not contrary to lawM A151 The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the government for redress of grievancesM A1&1 The right to be free from invol!ntary servit!de in any formM A191 The right of the acc!sed against e/cessive bailM A1(1 The right of the acc!sed to be heard by himself and co!nsel to be informed of the nat!re and ca!se of the acc!sation against him to have a speedy and p!blic trial to meet the witnesses face to face and to have comp!lsory process to sec!re the attendance of witness in his behalfM A1I1 Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against oneZs self or from being forced to confess g!ilt or from being ind!ced by a promise of imm!nity or reward to make s!ch confession e/cept when the person confessing becomes a State witnessM

A1@1 Freedom from e/cessive fines or cr!el and !n!s!al p!nishment !nless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a stat!te which has not been H!dicially declared !nconstit!tionalM and A1'1 Freedom of access to the co!rts. 6n any of the cases referred to in this article whether or not the defendantZs act or omission constit!tes a criminal offense the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages and for other relief. S!ch civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosec!tion Aif the latter be instit!ted1 and mat be proved by a preponderance of evidence. The indemnity shall incl!de moral damages. 3/emplary damages may also be adH!dicated. The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a H!dge !nless his act or omission constit!tes a violation of the Penal Bode or other penal stat!te. BasesLIM v PONCE DE LEON A$*$st 2-, 1-.: FFBTS Jikil Taha sold to Flberto Timbangcaya a motor la!nch. F year later Flberto filed a complaint with the office of the Provincial Fiscal of Palawan alleging that after the sale Jikil forcibly took away the motor la!nch from him. Ffter cond!cting a preliminary investigation Fiscal Francisco +e Leon filed with the BF6 an information for 0obbery with Force and 6ntimidation !pon Persons against Jikil. 7hen Fiscal +e Leon learned that the motor la!nch was in the town of 2alabac he wrote the Provincial Bommander to impo!nd and take c!stody of the motor la!nch. He reiterated his reK!est the %nd time. 6t was only then that the Provincial Bommander iss!ed an order to seize and impo!nd the motor la!nch. #rlando $addela was the one who carried o!t the order and accordingly seized the motor la!nch from +elfin Lim. +elfin Lim together with Jikil Taha e/erted efforts to recover the seized motor la!nch b!t they were in vain. They then filed a complaint for damages against Fiscal +e Leon and +etachment Bmmdr. $addela alleging that the seiz!re of the motor la!nch was witho!t a search warrant and was against Lim4s will. For the alleged violation of their constit!tional rights Lim and Jikil prayed for act!al moral and e/emplary damages. TB !pheld the validity of the seiz!re on the gro!nd that the a!thority to impo!nd the corp!s delicti in case pending the investigation is with the Provcl Fiscal who controls the prosec!tion and introd!ces evidence to the co!rt. ISS=E- 7#? there was a violation of a constit!tional right; 6f so sho!ld +e Leon and $addela be both held liable for dmgs; +ELD# .es. #nly +e Leon.

 ?o p!blic official has the right to enter the premises of another witho!t the proper search warrant or witho!t the owner4s consent for the p!rpose of search and seiz!re. Flso at the time the act complained of was committed there was no law or r!le that recognized the a!thority of Provincial Fiscals to iss!e a search warrant. The 1'59 constit!tion vested the power to iss!e a search warrant in a H!dge and in no other officer. +e Leon cannot invoke provisions of 0F I5% beca!se there is nothing in said law which confers !pon the provincial fiscals the a!thority to iss!e warrants m!ch less to order witho!t warrant the seiz!re of a personal property even if it is the corp!s delicti of a crime. 7hat 0F I5% did was to broaden the power of provincial fiscals to cond!ct preliminary investigation. 6n addition 0!le 1%% of 0oB states that in the seiz!re of a stolen property warrant is still necessary and s!ch warrant may be iss!ed by the H!dge alone after determination of probable ca!se. I+ v /elos BeyesF ?o amo!nt of incriminating evidence whatever its so!rce will s!pply the place of s!ch warrant. Frg!ment that there is lack of time to proc!re a search warrant is !ntenable. There is also no basis for apprehension that the m. la!nch will be moved o!t of 2alabac beca!se it had no engine. P$(s$ant to t&e p(ov1s1ons o6 A(t 2 an) 221-, a pe(son A&ose "onst1t$t1onal (1*&ts &ave 4een v1olate) 1s ent1tle) to a"t$al, mo(al )ama*es an) e3empla(' )ama*es 6(om t&e p$4l1" o661"e( o( emplo'ee (espons14le t&e(e6o(. 2!t only +elfin Lim sho!ld be awarded. Jikil is not entitled to recover any damages. Legality of seiz!re can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby and that the obHection to an !nlawf!l search and seiz!re is p!rely personal and cannot be availed of by 5 rd parties. 6t is impt. to note that to be held liable !nder Frt 5% it is eno!gh that there was a violation of the constit!tional rights of the plaintiffs and is not reK!ied that defendants sho!ld have acted in bad faith. #nly Fiscal +e Leon may be held liable and not $addela beca!se he impo!nded the motor la!nch !pon the order of his s!perior officer. 7hile a s!bordinate officer may be held liable for e/ec!ting !nlawf!l orders of his s!perior officer there are certain circ!mstances which wo!ld warrant $addela4s e/c!lpation from liability1. He was rel!ctant to impo!n the m.la!nch despite repeated orders. %. Faced with a possible disciplinary action from his commander $addela was left with no alternative b!t to seize the vessel. Decision reversed. A5ERCA v CER Fpril 19 1'@@ !ACTS#

 Peb. Fabian Qer ordered vario!s intelligence !nits of the FFP known as Task Force $akabansa to cond!ct pre"emptive strikes against known comm!nist"terrorist ABT1 !ndergro!nd ho!ses in view of increasing reports abo!t BT plans to sow dist!rbances in $$. P!rs!ant to said order elements of the TF$ were alleged to have done the ff.1. %. 5. &. 9. (. I. raided several places employing in most cases defectively iss!ed H!dicial search warrants confiscated a n!mber of p!rely personal items belonging to plaintiffs plaintiffs were arrested witho!t proper warrants iss!ed by the co!rts while in detention plaintiffs were denied visits of relatives and lawyers plaintiffs were interrogated in violation of their rights to silence and co!nsel military men who interrogated them employed threats tort!res and other forms of violence on them in order to obtain indiscriminatory information or confessions and in order to p!nish them. all violations of plaintiff4s constit!tional rights were part of a concerted plan to terrorize them and that said plans are known to and sanctioned by defendants.

Plaintiffs filed a civil action for act!al:compensatory moral e/emplary damages and attorney4s fees. F motion to dismiss was filed by defendants Athr! co!nsel 3stelito $endoza1 on the ff. gro!nds1. plaintiffs may not ca!se a H!dicial inK!iry into the circ!mstances of their detention in the g!ise of a damage s!it beca!se as to them the privilege of the writ of habeas corp!s is s!spended %. ass!ming that co!rts can entertain the present action defendants are imm!ne from liability for acts done in the performance of their official d!ties 5. complaint states no ca!se of action. Rpon motion 0TB J!dge Fort!n dismissed the case adopting lock stock and barrel the arg!ments of the defendants. Plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the order. Later J!dge Fort!n inhibited himself from the proceedingM J!dge Lising took over and witho!t acting on the motion to set aside Fort!n4s order declared the #rder as final. 2eca!se their prayer went !nheeded they filed this instant petition for certiorari. ISS=E# 7#? the s!spension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corp!s bars a civil action for damages for illegal searches cond!cted by military personnel and other violations of rights and liberties g!aranteed !nder the Bonstit!tion 7H# can be held liable- military personnel directly involved and:or their s!periors as well +ELD# ?oM their s!periors may be held liable as well 0epsondents4 invocation of the doctrine of state imm!nity from s!it totally misplaced. Boncededly it may be tr!e that they were merely responding to their d!ty say in accordance with $arcos4 Proclamation ?o. %)9& b!t this cannot be constr!ed as a blanket license or roving commission to disregard or transgress !pon the rights and liberties of the individ!al citizens. Frticle 5% of the BB which renders any p!blic officer or employee or any private individ!al liable in damages for violating the Bonstit!tional rights and liberties of another does not e/empt the respondents from responsibility. #nly H!dges are e/cl!ded from liability !nder the said article provided their acts or omissions do not constit!te a violation of the Penal Bode or other penal stat!te.

 There is no merit in respondents4 s!ggestion that plaintiff4s ca!se of action is barred by the s!spension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corp!s. The s!spension of the privilege does nor render valid an otherwise illegal arrest or detention. 7hat is s!spended is merely the right of an individ!al to seek release from detention thro!gh the writ of habeas corp!s as a speedy means of obtaining his liberty. $oreover their rights and ca!se of action for damages are even e/plicitly recognized in P+ 1I99 Areright of action for inH!ry arising from acts of p!blic officer connected to $artial Law1. +octrine of respondeat s!perior inapplicable in the instant case. The doctrine has been generally limited in its application to principal and agent or to master and servant Ai.e. employer and employee1 relationship. ?# s!ch relationship e/ists between s!perior officers of the military and their s!bordinates. 2e that as it may the decisive factor in this case is the lang!age of Frticle 5% where it is not the actor alone who m!st answer for damages. Hence it was erroneo!s on the TB for holding that defendants cannot be held responsible for the wrongf!l acts of their s!bordinates beca!se1. 6t is wrong to limit the plaintiff4s action for damages to Dacts of alleged physical violenceE which constit!ted delict or wrong. Frt. 5% clearly specifies as actionable the act of violating or in any manner impeding or impairing any of the constit!tional rights and liberties en!merated in said Frticle. %. ?either can it be said that only those shown to have participated DdirectlyE sho!ld be held liable. Frt. 5% encompasses those directly as well as indirectly responsible for its violation. Petition granted. M+P GARMENTS, INC v CA September % 1''& !ACTS# $HP Parments was granted by the 2oy Sco!ts of the Phils. an e/cl!sive franchise to sell and distrib!te official boy Sco!t !niforms s!pplies badges and insignias. 6t was also given a!thority to !ndertake the prosec!tion in co!rt of all illegal so!rces of sco!t !niforms and other sco!ting s!pplies. Fccordingly $HP tasked its employee Larry de P!zman to !ndertake s!rveillance and report to the PB of the activities of the respondents who were reported to selling Sco!t !niforms and paraphernalia witho!t a!thority. +e P!zman and 5 constab!lary men went to the stores of respondents and seized Sco!t !niforms witho!t warrant ca!sing commotion and embarassment to respondents. S!bseK!ently a criminal complaint for !nfair competition was filed against respondents. Fiscal dismissed the complaint and ordered the ret!rn of the seized articles. Thereafter the respondents filed a civil case against petitioners for s!ms of money and damages. TB ordered petitioners to pay. BF affirmed. ISS=E# 7#? petitioners sho!ld be held liable +ELD# .es

 SB held that the evidence did not H!stify the warrantless search and seiz!re of respondents4 goods1. progression of time between the receipt of the information and the raid of the stores shows there was s!fficient time to apply for a H!dicial warrant. %. no probable ca!se for the seiz!re The members of the PB raiding team sho!ld have been incl!ded in the complaint for violation of the respondents4 constit!tional rights. Still the omission will not e/c!lpate $HP Parments and +e P!zman. TB was correct in granting damages to respondents. $HP Parments and +e P!zman were indirectly involved in transgressing the right of respondents against !nreasonable searches and seiz!res. 1. 0aid was cond!cted with the active participation of employee +e P!zman. He did not lift a finger to stop the seiz!re of the boy and girl sco!t items. 2y standing by and apparently assenting thereto he was liable to the same e/tent as the officers themselves. %. So with the $HP Parments which even received for safekeeping the goods !nreasonably seized by the PB raiding team and +e P!zman and ref!sed to s!rrender them for K!ite a time despite the dismissal of its complaint against respondents. 5. 6f petitioners did not have a hand in the raid they sho!ld have filed a 5 rd party complaint against the raiding team for contrib!tion or any other relief. They did not. Judgment affirmed with modification. 5. +efamation fra!d and physical inH!ries Frt. 55. 6n cases of defamation fra!d and physical inH!ries a civil action for damages entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action may be bro!ght by the inH!red party. S!ch civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosec!tion and shall reK!ire only a preponderance of evidence. BasesCARANDANG v SANTIAGO AND CALENTON $ay %' 1'99 !ACTS# #n September 1 1'95 BF6 of 2atangas fo!nd Tomas Qalenton Jr. g!ilty of the crime of fr!strated homicide committed against the person of Besar Barandang. Barandang appealed the decision to the Bo!rt of Fppeals. Pending said appeal Barandang instit!ted with the BF6 of $anila a complaint to recover from Qalenton and his parents damages for the bodily inH!ries received on occasion of the commission of the crime of fr!strated homicide. Qalentons filed a motion to s!spend the trial of the civil case pending the termination of the criminal case in the BF. J!dge r!led that the trial of the civil case m!st await the res!lt of the criminal case on appeal. Fs motion for recon was denied this petition was filed. ISS=E# 7#? the civil case sho!ld await the res!lt of the criminal case on appeal The resol!tion of the above iss!e hinges on the interpretation of the term Dphysical inH!riesE as !sed in Frticle 55- won the term means physical inH!ries in the 0PB only or any physical inH!ry or bodily inH!ry whether inflicted with intent to kill or not.

+ELD# ?o Frticle 55 !ses the words DdefamationE Dfra!dE and Dphysical inH!ries.E +efamation and fra!d are !sed in their ordinary sense beca!se there are no specific provisions in the 0PB !sing these terms as means of offenses defined therein so that these two terms m!st have !sed not tom impart any technical meaning b!t in their generic sense. Hence it is evident then that the term Dphysical inH!riesE co!ld not have been !sed in its specific sense as a crime defined in the 0PB. 6n other words the term Dphysical inH!riesE sho!ld be !nderstood to mean any bodily inH!ry not the crime of physical inH!ries beca!se the terms !sed with the latter are general terms. 6n any case it was the intent of the Bode Bommission to establish a civil action for the bodily harm received by the complainant similar to the civil action for assa!lt and battery as they are !nderstood !nder Fmerican Law. Hence the civil action sho!ld lie whether the offense committed is that of physical inH!ries or fr!strated homicide or attempted homicide or even death. Writ granted. $F0B6F Q BF FFBTS- 2!s of Qictory Liner driven by Felardo PaHe collided with Heep driven by Blement $arcia. $arcia died and two others were inH!red. 6nformation for homicide and serio!s physical inH!ries thro!gh reckless impr!dence was filed. Bivil action for damages was s!bseK!ently filed. 7hile civil case was in progress PaHe was convicted by civil co!rt b!t acK!itted by BF saying that criminal negligence is wanting and that PaHe was not g!ilty of criminal negligence. BF6 dismissed civil case saying that PaHe cannot be held civilly liable after it had r!led in the criminal action that negligence was wanting and that the collision was a case of p!re accident. Hence this appeal. 6SSR3- 7#? action for damages for physical inH!ries res!lting from negligence is an independent separate and distinct from criminal action in Frt 55 H3L+- ?o. 0FT6#- 0eckless impr!dence or criminal negligence is not one of the three crimes mentioned in Frt 55. D 6n cases of defamation fra!d and physical inH!ries a civil action for damages entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action may be bro!ght by the inH!red party. S!ch civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosec!tion and shall reK!ire only preponderance of ecivence.E The inH!ries s!ffered by petitioners were alleged to be the res!lt of the criminal negligence . They were not inflicted with malice. Hence no independent civil action for damages may be instit!ted in connection therewith. F!rthermore if the act from which the civil liability arises is declared to be non"e/istent in the final H!dgment then the e/tinction of criminal liability will carry with it the e/tinction of civil liability. Sec 5 0!le 111 0#B. 5. ?onfeasance of police

Frt. 5&. 7hen a member of a city or m!nicipal police force ref!ses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property s!ch peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages and the city or m!nicipality shall be s!bsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings and a preponderance of evidence shall s!ffice to s!pport s!ch action. &. when no independent civil action is provided Frt. 59. 7hen a person claiming to be inH!red by a criminal offense charges another with the same for which no independent civil action is granted in this Bode or any special law b!t the H!stice of the peace finds no reasonable gro!nds to believe that a crime has been committed or the prosec!ting attorney ref!ses or fails to instit!te criminal proceedings the complaint may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender. S!ch civil action may be s!pported by a preponderance of evidence. Rpon the defendantZs motion the co!rt may reK!ire the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint sho!ld be fo!nd to be malicio!s. 6f d!ring the pendency of the civil action an information sho!ld be presented by the prosec!ting attorney the civil action shall be s!spended !ntil the termination of the criminal proceedings. Part 5- n!isance F. +efinition Frt. ('&. F n!isance is any act omission establishment b!siness condition of property or anything else whichA11 6nH!res or endangers the health or safety of othersM or A%1 Fnnoys or offends the sensesM or A51 Shocks defies or disregards decency or moralityM or A&1 #bstr!cts or interferes with the free passage of any p!blic highway or street or any body of waterM or A91 Hinders or impairs the !se of property. 2. Ginds 1. P!blic or private Frt. ('9. ?!isance is either p!blic or private. F p!blic n!isance affects a comm!nity or neighborhood or any considerable n!mber of persons altho!gh the e/tent of the annoyance danger or damage !pon individ!als may be !neK!al. F private n!isance is one that is not incl!ded in the foregoing definition. %. Per se or per accidens BasesILOIOLO COLD STORAGE CO CS M=NICIPAL CO=NCIL FFBTS- 6loilo Bold Storage Bo. constr!cted an ice and cold storage plant in 6loilo Bity. Sometime after the plant was completed and in operation nearby residents made complaints to the $!nicipal Bo!ncil that the smoke from the plant was very inH!rio!s to their health and comfort. Bo!ncil appointed committee to investigate and report !pon the matters in the complaint. Bo!ncil passed a resol!tion giving Bompany 1 month to elevate their smokestacks or else their operations will be stopped or s!spended. 6SSR3- 7#? a m!nicipal corporation can declare the company4s plant a n!isance as operated and prescribe method of abating it

H3L+- ?o. 0FT6#?!isance is anything that work h!rt inconvenience or damage A2lackstone1 Two classes area. ?!isance per se [ n!isances !nder any and all circ!mstances. b. ?!isance per accidens [ n!isance only beca!se of the special circ!mstances and conditions s!rro!nding it $!nicipal co!ncils have !nder the code the power to declare and abate n!isances b!t they do not have the power to find as a fact that a partic!lar thing is a n!isance when s!ch a thing is not a n!isance per se. ?either can they a!thorize the e/traH!dicial condemnation and destr!ction of a thing as a n!isance which in its nat!re sit!ation or !se is not s!ch. These things m!st be determined in the ordinary co!rts of law. However a n!isance which affects the immediate safety of persons or properties or those presenting an emergency may be s!mmarily abated !nder the !ndefined law of necessity. 6n this case the plant is not a n!isance per se. 6t is a legitimate ind!stry beneficial to the people and cond!cive to their health and comfort. 6f it were in fact a n!isance d!e to the manner of its operation that K!estion cannot be determined by a mere resol!tion of the board. The company is entitled to a fair and impartial hearing before a H!dicial trib!nal.

SITC+AL ET AL C AG=INO FFBTS- Si/ class s!its were bro!ght against the Bity 3ngineer of $anila to enHoin him from carrying o!t his threat to demolish the ho!ses of petitioners !pon the gro!nd that said ho!ses constit!te p!blic n!isances. S!ch ho!ses were constr!cted on p!blic streets and some on portions of riverbed. 6SSR3- 7#? S!ch ho!ses are p!blic n!isances and who may abate them H3L+- .es. 0FT6#Frt ('& BB provides that a n!isance is any act commission establishment b!siness condition of property or anything else which A&1 obstr!cts or interferes with the free passage of any p!blic highway or street or any body of water. Frt ('9 states that a p!blic n!isance affects a comm!nity or neighborhood. S!ch ho!ses of petitioners constr!cted witho!t governmental a!thority on p!blic streets and river beds obstr!ct at all times the free !se by the p!blic of said places and accordingly constit!tes a n!isance per se aside from p!blic n!isances. The Bity 3nginner has the d!ty to abate s!ch p!blic n!isances as stated in the Sec 51 0F &)' or the 0evised Bity Bharter of $anila. The provisions in Frt I)) and I)% BB being general provisions m!st yield to special provision specifically designed from the Bity of $anila. Sec 11%% of the 0evised #rdinance of the Bity of $anila e/plicitly a!thorizes the city engineer to remove at the owner4s e/penses !na!thorized obstr!ctions whenever the owner or person responsible therefor shall after official notice ref!se or neglect to remove the same. RAMCAR C MILLAR FFBTS- 0F$BF0 has been engaged in a!to"repair and body"b!ilding since 1'5@ in 3rmita $anila. Seven residents near or aro!nd the shop bro!ght an action to abate said establishment as a n!isance since activites of the shop give rise to m!ch noise and annoyance d!ring all ho!rs of the day !p to nightime and even on S!ndays and holidays. BF6 dismissed b!t BF reversed.

6SSR3- 7#? 0F$BF04s a!to"repair and body"b!ilding shop is a n!isance H3L+- .3S. 0FT6#0F$BF0 was granted a license to operate a garage and !nder #rdinance ?o. %@5) of $anila s!ch body"b!ilding shop is not within the p!rview of garage which means a shop for storing repairing and servicing motor vehicles. The zoning ordinance of the city prohibits also its body"b!ilding operations. The b!siness of 0F$BF0 is not a n!isance per se b!t in the acco!nt of its location it is a p!blic n!isance. However to abate this it is not necessary to remove all b!ildings and str!ct!res b!ilt in the place where it is presently located or those parts which may be !tilized for p!rs!its that are not forbidden by law or ordinance s!ch as a!to"repair. 6SSR3- 7#? there can be damages from n!isance H3L+- .3S 0FT6#- Frt ('I- The abatement of a n!isance does not precl!de the right of any person inH!red to recover damages for its past e/istence. Frt %1'(- The r!les !nder this title are witho!t preH!dice to special provisions on damages form!lated elsewhere in this code. DE A/ALA C 5ARRETTO FFBTS- +e Fyala proposed the erection of a combined brewery and ice plant on Balle Peneral Solano a fashionable residence street with large e/pensive ho!ses. %% residents and property owners on the same street filed a s!it or inH!nction against it on the gro!nd that it4s a n!isance. 6SSR3- 7#? s!ch brewery and ice plant is a n!isance H3L+- ?o. 0FT6#- The locality in K!estion is grad!ally being transformed from a fashionable residence area into an ind!strial center. There is now a coal yard wareho!se p!blic school cl!b l!mberyards sawmills and powerplant electrical railroad and light co. 6n addition Pasig 0iver is in it immediate the vicinity. #ne who settles in a district which has a nat!ral waterco!rse especially beneficial for transportation p!rposes or one who remains there in the light of the fact of its transformation into a trading or man!fact!ring center m!st s!bmit to the ordinary annoyances and discomforts which are incidental to the reasonable and general cond!ct of s!ch b!siness. 6n addition the locality s!rro!nding the site of the proposed plant has not s!fficiently shown that the plant will be incongr!o!s with it since another brewery is already in e/istence in the vicinity. The inH!nction will only be granted when there4s a pressing necessity and not H!st a trifling discomfort. B. Fbatement Frt. ('(. 3very s!ccessive owner or possessor of property who fails or ref!ses to abate a n!isance in that property started by a former owner or possessor is liable therefor in the same manner as the one who created it.

Frt. ('I. The abatement of a n!isance does not precl!de the right of any person inH!red to recover damages for its past e/istence. Frt. ('@. Lapse of time cannot legalize any n!isance whether p!blic or private. Frt. (''. The remedies against a p!blic n!isance areA11 F prosec!tion !nder the Penal Bode or any local ordinance- or A%1 F civil actionM or A51 Fbatement witho!t H!dicial proceedings. Frt. I)). The district health officer shall take care that one or all of the remedies against a p!blic n!isance are availed of. Frt. I)1. 6f a civil action is bro!ght by reason of the maintenance of a p!blic n!isance s!ch action shall be commenced by the city or m!nicipal mayor. Frt. I)%. The district health officer shall determine whether or not abatement witho!t H!dicial proceedings is the best remedy against a p!blic n!isance. Frt. I)5. F private person may file an action on acco!nt of a p!blic n!isance if it is specially inH!rio!s to himself. Frt. I)&. Fny private person may abate a p!blic n!isance which is specially inH!rio!s to him by removing or if necessary by destroying the thing which constit!tes the same witho!t committing a breach of the peace or doing !nnecessary inH!ry. 2!t it is necessaryA11 That demand be first made !pon the owner or possessor of the property to abate the n!isanceM A%1 That s!ch demand has been reHectedM A51 That the abatement be approved by the district health officer and e/ec!ted with the assistance of the local policeM and A&1 That the val!e of the destr!ction does not e/ceed three tho!sand pesos. Frt. I)9. The remedies against a private n!isance areA11 F civil actionM or A%1 Fbatement witho!t H!dicial proceedings. Frt. I)(. Fny person inH!red by a private n!isance may abate it by removing or if necessary by destroying the thing which constit!tes the n!isance witho!t committing a breach of the peace or doing !nnecessary inH!ry. However it is indispensable that the proced!re for e/traH!dicial abatement of a p!blic n!isance by a private person be followed. Frt. I)I. F private person or a p!blic official e/traH!dicially abating a n!isance shall be liable for damagesA11 6f he ca!ses !nnecessary inH!ryM or

A%1 6f an alleged n!isance is later declared by the co!rts to be not a real n!isance. Bases+. 3asement against n!isance Frt. (@%. 3very b!ilding or piece of land is s!bHect to the easement which prohibits the proprietor or possessor from committing n!isance thro!gh noise Harring offensive odor smoke heat d!st water glare and other ca!ses. Frt. (@5. S!bHect to zoning health police and other laws and reg!lations factories and shops may be maintained provided the least possible annoyance is ca!sed to the neighborhood. Bases-