SMANIEGO, ARJANE A.

TORTS

JANUARY 9, 2015
ATTY. OSTREA

Discussion Questions:
1 Caloy had a dog, Doggie, which got loose and bit Ekels. Can
Caloy avoid liability?
As a general rule, the possessor of an animal or whoever may make use
of the same is responsible for the damages which it may cause although it
may escape or be lost. This is applicable whether the animal is domestic,
domesticated, or wild. Exception to the general rule is when the damage
was caused by force majeure or by the person who suffered the damage.
(Article 2183 Civil Code). If the acts of a third person cannot be foreseen
or prevented, then the situation is similar to that of force majeure and the
possessor is not liable. (Francisco, Torts and Damages)
Caloy may avoid the liability if he can prove that his case falls under the
exceptions to the general rule i.e. when the damage was caused by force
majeure or by the person who suffered the damage, or if the acts of a
third person cannot be foreseen or prevented since the situation is similar
to that of force majeure.
2 Gardo had been driving for ten (10) years. One day while
Gardo was driving for Fredo, Gardo was texting his girlfriend
on his cellphone when he hit another car, causing damage and
injuries to the occupants of the car. What is Fredos liability?
How would his liability change if Fredo was not in the car at
the time of the accident?
The following are the requisites before an employer may be held liable
for the act of its employees:
1.) The employee was chosen by the employer personally or through
another;
2.) The service is to be rendered in accordance with orders which the
employer has the authority to give all times;
3.) That the elicit act of the employee was on the occasion or by reason
of the functions entrusted to him.
The employer is liable only if the employee was performing his
assigned task at the time the injury was caused. This includes any act
done by the employee in the furtherance of the interest of the
employer at the time of the infliction of the injury or damage. (Aquino,
T., Torts and Damages 2005, Second Ed., p697). The vicarious liability
of employers attaches only when the tortuous conduct of the employee
relates to, or is in the course of his employment (Valenzuela vs CA).

If all the above mentioned requisites are met, Fredo may be considered
as the employer of Gardo. Fredo as the employer of Gardo has a
vicarious liability since the tortuous conduct of Gardo relates to, or is in
the course of his employment (he was driving for Fredo). Fredos
liability would be different if he was not in the car at the time of the
accident if he sufficiently proved and raised as a defense that 1.) he
exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of Gardo as his
driver; and that 2.) the act or omission was made outside working
hours and in violation of companys rules and regulations.
3 Harry was drinking a bottle of Coke which he had bought at a
7-11 when he noticed a strange taste. He looked more closely
and saw that there was a cockroach inside the bottle. What is
the liability of Coca-Cola Philippines and the owner of the 7-11
store?

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

The Consumer Act (R.A. 7394) provides that any Filipino or foreign
manufacturer, producer and importer, independently of fault shall be
liable for redress for damages caused to consumers by defects
resulting from:
design;
manufacture;
construction;
assembly and erection;
formulas and handling and making up; or
presentation or packing of their products as well as for the insufficient
or inadequate information on the use and hazards thereof.
The strict liability under the Act is imposed on the manufacturer.
Coca-Cola Philippines as the manufacturer shall be liable for redress for
damages caused to Harry by presentation defects i.e. defects resulting
from handling, making up, presentation or packing of the products.
However there are defenses that a manufacturer and supplier may
raise in order for them to be absolved from liability. As for Coca-Cola
Philippines it may be absolved from liability when it evidences that 1.)
it did not place the product on the market; 2.) that although it did place
the product on the market such product has no defect; 3.) and that the
consumer or the third party is solely at fault.

Since the strict liability under the Act is imposed on the manufacturer, 711 shall not be held liable.
4 Aling Ising was walking through the local palengke of Bgy.
Tatalon in Quezon City when she fell into an open drainage

manhole, suffering injuries that required her hospitalization for

seven (7) days. Who are liable to Aling Ising?
Nuisance is defined in Article 694 of the Civil Code as any act, omission,
establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which:
a. Injures or endangers the health or safety of others;
b. Annoys or offends the senses;
c. Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality;
d. Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or
street, or any body of water; or
e. Hinders or impairs the user of property. (Article 694 Civil Code)
There is strict liability on the part of the owner or possessor of the
property where a nuisance is found because he is obliged to abate the
same irrespective of the presence or absence of fault or negligence. Every
successive owner or possessor of property who fails or refuses to abate a
nuisance in that property started by a former owner or possessor is liable
therefore in the same manner as the one who created it. (Article 686 Civil
Code).
There is strict liability on the part of the owner or possessor of the local
palengke of Bgy. Tatalon in Quezon City where the open manhole is found
because he/they is/are obliged to abate the same irrespective of the
presence or absence of fault or negligence.