You are on page 1of 5

US v. Ah Chong GR No.

L-5272,
March 19, 1910
Facts: The defendant, Ah Chong, was
employed as a cook in one of the
Officers quarters at Fort McKinley,
Rizal Province. Together living with him
in the said quarters was the deceased,
Pascual Gualberto, who was employed
as a houseboy. There had been several
robberies in Fort McKinley prior to the
incident thus prompting the defendant
and his roommate to reinforce the
flimsy hook used to lock the door of
their room by placing a chair against
it. The defendant and the deceased
had an understanding that when
either returned at night, he should
knock on the door and say his name.
On the night of Aug. 14, 1908, Ah
Chong, who was alone in his room,
was awakened by someone trying to
force open the door of the room. The
defendant called out twice, asking the
identity of the person but heard no
answer. Fearing that the intruder was
a robber or a thief, the defendant
called out that he would kill the
intruder if he tried to enter. At that
moment, the door was forced open
and the defendant was struck first
above the knee by the edge of the
chair. Because of the darkness of the
room, the defendant thought he was
being hit by the intruder and tried to
defend himself by striking wildly at the
intruder using a common kitchen knife
which he kept under his pillow. It
turned out that the said intruder was
actually the defendants roommate,
Pascual Gualberto. The roommate was
brought to the military hospital where
he died from the effects of the wound
the following day.

Issue: WON the defendant was


criminally liable for committing a
felony.
Held: Defendant was not criminally
liable and exonerated. In order for
mistake of fact to be held as a valid
defense, there has to be several
requisites. One, that the act done
would have been lawful had the facts
been as the accused believed them to
be. Two, that the intention of the
accused in performing the act should
be lawful, and lastly, that the mistake
must be without fault or carelessness
on the part of the accused. In the case
at bar, had the intruder been a robber
as the defendant believed him to be,
then Ah Chong acted in good faith,
without malice or criminal intent, and
would have been wholly exempt from
criminal liability and that he cannot be
said to have been guilty of negligence
or recklessness.
CHUA QUA vs. CLAVE, G.R. No. L49549
August
30,
1990
Facts: The case was about an affair
and marriage of 30 years old teacher
Evelyn Chua in Tay Tung High School in
Bacolod City to her 16 years old
student. The petitioner teacher was
suspended without pay and was
terminated of his employment for
Abusive
and
Unethical
Conduct
Unbecoming of a Dignified School
Teacher which was filed by a public
respondent as a clearance for
termination. A 30-year-old elementaryschool teacher had an affair with, and
married, her 16-year-old student.
Evelyn Chua was a teacher in Tay Tung
High School in Bacolod City, more

specifically the Grade Six class


adviser. One of her pupils was Bobby
Qua, who apparently needed remedial
instructions which she extended to
him in school after their classroom
lessons. In the course of this, the two
fell in love, and with the consent of
Bobby's mother, got married in a civil
ceremony in Iloilo City on December
24, 1975, and in a church wedding in
Bacolod City on January 10, 1976.
Because of this, Evelyn Chua was fired
by the school for immoral conduct.
Issue: Was her dismissal valid?
Whether or not there is substantial
evidence to prove that the antecedent
facts which culminated in the marriage
between petitioner and her student
constitute immorality and or grave
misconduct?
Held: The Supreme Court declared the
dismissal illegal saying: If the two
eventually fell in love despite the
disparity in their ages and academic
level, this only leads to the truism that
the heart has reason of its own which
reason does not know. Finding that
there is no substantial evidence of the
imputed immoral acts, it follows that
the alleged violation of Code of Ethics
governing school teachers would have
no basis. Private respondent utterly
failed to show that petitioner took
advantage of her position to court her
student.
The
deviation
of
the
circumstances of their marriage from
the usual societal pattern cannot be
considered
as
a
defiance
of
contemporary
social
mores.

Chi Ming Tsoi vs. CA GR


119190, January 16, 1997

No.

FACTS: Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao


Tsoi were married in 1988. After the
celebration of their wedding, they
proceed to the house of defendants
mother.
There
was
no
sexual
intercourse between them during their
first night and same thing happened
until their fourth night. In an effort to
have their honeymoon in a private
place, they went to Baguio but Ginas
relatives went with them. Again, there
was no sexual intercourse since the
defendant avoided by taking a long
walk during siesta or sleeping on a
rocking chair at the living room. Since
May 1988 until March 1989 they slept
together in the same bed but no
attempt of sexual intercourse between
them. Because of this, they submitted
themselves for medical examination to
a urologist in Chinese General Hospital
in 1989. The result of the physical
examination of Gina was disclosed,
while that of the husband was kept
confidential
even
the
medicine
prescribed. There were allegations
that the reason why Chi Ming Tsoi
married her is to maintain his
residency status here in the country.
Gina does not want to reconcile with
Chi Ming Tsoi and want their marriage
declared void on the ground of
psychological incapacity. On the other
hand, the latter does not want to have
their marriage annulled because he
loves her very much, he has no defect
on his part and is physically and
psychologically capable and since
their relationship is still young, they
can still overcome their differences.
Chi Ming Tsoi submitted himself to

another physical examination and the


result was there is no evidence of
impotency and he is capable of
erection.
ISSUE: Whether
Chi
Ming
Tsois
refusal to have sexual intercourse with
his wife constitutes psychological
incapacity.
HELD: The abnormal reluctance or
unwillingness to consummate his
marriage is strongly indicative of a
serious personality disorder which to
the mind of the Supreme Court clearly
demonstrates an utter insensitivity or
inability
to
give
meaning
and
significance to the marriage within the
meaning of Article 36 of the Family
Code. If a spouse, although physically
capable but simply refuses to perform
his or her essential marital obligations
and the refusal is senseless and
constant, Catholic marriage tribunals
attribute the causes to psychological
incapacity than to stubborn refusal.
Furthermore, one of the essential
marital obligations under the Family
Code is to procreate children thus
constant
non-fulfilment
of
this
obligation will finally destroy the
integrity and wholeness of the
marriage.
Salud Villanueva Vda. De Bataclan
vs Mariano Medina
Facts: Pass-midnight in September
1952, Juan Bataclan rode a bus owned
by Mariano Medina from Cavite to
Pasay. While on its way, the driver of
the bus was driving fast and when he
applied the brakes it cause the bus to
be overturned. The driver, the
conductor, and some passengers were

able to free themselves from the bus


except Bataclan and 3 others. The
passengers called the help of the
villagers and as it was dark, the
villagers brought torch with them. The
driver and the conductor failed to warn
the would-be helpers of the fact that
gasoline
has
spilled
from
the
overturned bus so a huge fire ensued
which engulfed the bus thereby killing
the 4 passengers trapped inside. It
was also found later in trial that the
tires of the bus were old.
ISSUE: Whether or not the proximate
cause of the death of Bataclan et al
was their burning by reason of the
torches which ignited the gasoline.
HELD: No. The proximate cause was
the overturning of the bus which was
caused by the negligence of the driver
because he was speeding and also he
was already advised by Medina to
change the tires yet he did not. Such
negligence resulted to the overturning
of the bus. The torches carried by the
would-be helpers are not to be
blamed. It is just but natural for the
villagers to respond to the call for help
from the passengers and since it is a
rural area which did not have
flashlights, torches are the natural
source of lighting. Further, the smell of
gas could have been all over the place
yet the driver and the conductor failed
to provide warning about said fact to
the villagers.
WHAT IS PROXIMATE CAUSE?
Proximate cause is that cause, which,
in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening
cause, produces the injury, and

without which the result would not


have occurred.
And
more
comprehensively,
the
proximate legal cause is that acting
first and producing the injury, either
immediately or by setting other events
in motion, all constituting a natural
and continuous chain of events, each
having a close causal connection with
its immediate predecessor, the final
event in the chain immediately
effecting the injury as a natural and
probable result of the cause which first
acted, under such circumstances that
the person responsible for the first
event should, as an ordinary prudent
and
intelligent
person,
have
reasonable ground to expect at the
moment of his act or default that an
injury to some person might probably
result therefrom.
Jose Cangco vs Manila Railroad
Co.
Facts: On January 20, 1915, Cangco
was riding the train of Manila Railroad
Co (MRC). He was an employee of the
latter and he was given a pass so that
he could ride the train for free. When
he was nearing his destination at
about 7pm, he arose from his seat
even though the train was not at full
stop. When he was about to alight
from the train (which was still slightly
moving) he accidentally stepped on a
sack of watermelons which he failed to
notice due to the fact that it was dim.
This caused him to lose his balance at
the door and he fell and his arm was
crushed by the train and he suffered
other serious injuries. He was dragged
a few meters more as the train slowed
down.

It was established that the employees


of MRC were negligent in piling the
sacks of watermelons. MRC raised as a
defense the fact that Cangco was also
negligent as he failed to exercise
diligence in alighting from the train as
he did not wait for it to stop.
ISSUE: Whether or not Manila Railroad
Co is liable for damages.
HELD: Yes. Alighting from a moving
train while it is slowing down is a
common practice and a lot of people
are doing so every day without
suffering injury. Cangco has the vigor
and agility of young manhood, and it
was by no means so risky for him to
get off while the train was yet moving
as the same act would have been in
an aged or feeble person. He was also
ignorant of the fact that sacks of
watermelons were there as there were
no appropriate warnings and the place
was dimly lit.
The Court also elucidated on the
distinction between the liability of
employers under Article 2180 and
their liability for breach of contract [of
carriage]:
NOTES: But, if the master has not
been
guilty
of
any
negligence
whatever in the selection and direction
of the servant, he is not liable for the
acts of the latter, whatever done
within the scope of his employment or
not, if the damage done by the
servant does not amount to a breach
of the contract between the master
and the person injured.
The liability arising from
contractual culpa is always

extrabased

upon a voluntary act or omission


which, without willful intent, but by
mere negligence or inattention, has
caused damage to another.
These two fields, figuratively speaking,
concentric; that is to say, the mere
fact that a person is bound to another
by contract does not relieve him from
extra-contractual liability to such
person. When such a contractual
relation exists the obligor may break
the contract under such conditions
that the same act which constitutes
the source of an extra-contractual

obligation had no contract existed


between the parties.
Manresa: Whether negligence occurs
an incident in the course of the
performance
of
a
contractual
undertaking or in itself the source of
an
extra-contractual
undertaking
obligation, its essential characteristics
are identical.
Vinculum Juris: (def) It means an
obligation of law, or the right of the
obligee to enforce a civil matter in a
court of law.