Barredo vs.

Garcia, 73 Phil 607

Facts: On May 3, 1936, there was a head-on collision between a taxi of the
Malate taxicab driven by Fontanilla and a carretela guided by Dimapilis. The
carretela was over-turned, and a passenger, a 16-year old boy, Garcia,
suffered injuries from which he died. A criminal action was filed against
Fontanilla, and he was convicted. The courtin the criminal case granted the
petition to reserve the civil action. Garcia and Almario, parents of the
deceased, on March 7, 1939, filed a civil action against Barredo,
the proprietor of the MalateTaxicab and employer of Fontanilla, making him
primarily and directly responsible under culpa acquiliana of Article 2180
of the Civil Code of the Philippines. It is undisputed that Fontanillas
negligence was the cause of the accident, as he was driving on the wrong
side of the road at high speed, and there was no showing that Barredo
exercised the diligence of a good father of a family, a defense to Article 2180
of the said Code. Barredos theory of defense is that Fontanillas negligence
being punished by the Revised Penal Code, his liability as employer is only
subsidiary, but Fontanilla, was not sued for civil liability. Hence, Barredo
claims that he cannot be held liable.

Issue: Whether or not Barredo, as employer is civilly liable for the acts of
Fontanilla, his employee.

Held: Quasi-delict or culpa acquiliana is a separate legal institution

under the Civil Code of the Philippines is entirely distinct and independent
from a delict or crime under the Revised Penal Code. In this jurisdiction, the
same negligent act causing damage may produce civil liability (subsidiary)
arising from a crime under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines; or create an action for quasi-delicto or culpa aquiliana under
Articles 2179 and 2180 of the Civil Code and the parties are free to choose
which course to take. And in the instant case, the negligent act of Fontanilla
produces two (2) liabilities of Barredo: First, a subsidiary one because of the
civil liability of Fontanilla arising from the latterscriminal negligence under
Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, and second, Barredos primary and
direct responsibility arising from his presumed negligence as
an employer under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Since the plaintiffs are free
to choose what remedy to take, they preferred the second, which is within
their rights. This is the more expedious and effective method of relief
because Fontanilla was either in prison or just been released or had no
property. Barredo was held liable for damages.
Elcano vs. Hill

Facts: Reginald Hill was prosecuted criminally for killing Agapito Elcano. At
the time of the occurrence, Reginald Hill is still a minor and is already legally
married. Reginald is still living and gets subsistence with his father, Marvin
Hill. Reginald was acquitted on the ground that his acts were not criminal
because of lack of intent to kill, coupled with mistakes.

Issues:

(1) Whether or not the present civil action for damages is alreadybarred by
the acquittal of Reginald.

(2) Whether or not Atty. Marvin Hill has a vicarious liability being the father of
a minor child who committed a delict.

Held: No. The acquittal of Reginald Hill in the criminal case has not
extinguished his liability for quasi-delicts, hence the acquittal is not a bar to
the instant action against him. To find the accused guilty in acriminal case,
proof beyond reasonable doubt is required unlike incivil cases,
preponderance of evidence is sufficient. The concept ofculpa acquiliana
includes acts which are criminal in character or in violation of the penal law,
whether voluntary or negligent. Also, Art 2177 CC provides that
Responsibility for fault or negligence is separate and distinct from the civil
liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. However, plaintiff
cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission.

While it is true that parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of

the child (ART 327CC), and under Art 397, emancipation takes place by
marriage of the minor, such emancipation is not absolute and full. Reginald
although married, was living with his father and still dependent from the
latter. ART 2180 applies to Atty. Marvin Hill notwithstanding the emancipation
by marriage of Reginald.

Singson vs BPI

23 SCRA 1117
FACTS: Singson, was one of the defendants in a civil case, in which judgment
had been rendered sentencing him and his co-defendants therein Lobregat
and Villa-Abrille & Co., to pay a sum of money to the plaintiff therein. Said
judgment became final and executory as only against Ville-Abrille for its
failure to file an appeal. A writ of garnishment was subsequently served
upon BPI in which the Singsons had a current account insofar as Villa-
Abrilles credits against the Bank were concerned.

Upon receipt of the said Writ of Garnishment, a clerk of the bank, upon
reading the name of the Singson in the title of the Writ of Garnishment as a
party defendants, without further reading the body and informing himself
that said garnishment was merely intended for the deposits of defendant
Villa-Abrille & Co., et al, prepared a letter informing Singson of the
garnishment of his deposits by the plaintiff in that case.

Subsequently, two checks issued by the plaintiff Julian C. Singson, one in

favor of B. M. Glass Service and another in favor of the Lega Corporation,
were dishonored by the bank. B. M. Glass Service then wrote to Singson that
the check was not honored by BPI because his account therein had already
been garnished and that they are now constrained to close his credit account
with them.

Singson wrote to BPI, claiming that his name was not included in the Writ of
Execution and Notice of Garnishment, which was served upon the bank. The
defendants lost no time to rectify the mistake that had been inadvertently
committed.

Thus this action for damages.

ISSUE: WON the existence of a contract between the parties bars a plaintiffs
claim for damages based on torts?

HELD: NO. The existence of a contract between the parties does not bar the
commission of a tort by the one against the order and the consequent
recovery of damages therefore. Indeed, this view has been, in effect,
reiterated in a comparatively recent case. Thus, in Air France vs. Carrascoso,
involving an airplane passenger who, despite his first-class ticket, had been
illegally ousted from his first-class accommodation and compelled to take a
seat in the tourist compartment, was held entitled to recover damages from
the air-carrier, upon the ground of tort on the latters part, for, although the
relation between a passenger and a carrier is contractual both in origin and
nature the act that breaks the contract may also be a tort.
In view, however, of the facts obtaining in the case at bar, and considering,
particularly, the circumstance, that the wrong done to the plaintiff was
remedied as soon as the President of the bank realized the mistake he and
his subordinate employee had committed, the Court finds that an award of
nominal damages the amount of which need not be proven in the sum
of P1,000, in addition to attorneys fees in the sum of P500, would suffice to
vindicate plaintiffs rights.

Vicarious liability for quasi-delict

The liability for quasi-delict extends to those persons for whom one is
responsible, including an employee.[6] This is generally referred to as
vicarious or imputed liability.[7] Although the employer is not the actual
tortfeasor, the law makes him vicariously liable on the basis of the civil law
principle of pater familias for failure to exercise due care and vigilance over
the acts of ones subordinates to prevent damage to another. In the last
paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the employer may invoke the
defense that he observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage.[8]

Castilex Industrial Corporation v. Vasquez

G.R. No. 132266, 21 December 1999

Complainants are the heirs of Romeo So Vasquez who died after being hit by
a company-issued vehicle driven by Benjamin Abad, who was a manager of
defendant Castilex Industrial Corporation. The incident happened around
2:00 am when Abad was on his way home from a lively restaurant after
doing overtime work and leaving with the vehicle. In their Defense, Castilex
claimed that Abad was not acting within the scope of his functions when the
incident happened.

HELD: Castilex Industrial Corporation was not liable. The mere fact that
ABAD was using a service vehicle at the time of the injurious incident is not
of itself sufficient to charge [the Corporation] with liability for the negligent
operation of said vehicle unless it appears that he was operating the vehicle
within the course or scope of his employment.

Andamo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

G.R. No. 74761 November 6, 1990

Fernan, C.J.
Doctrine: It must be stressed that the use of ones property is not without
limitations. Article 431 of the Civil Code provides that the owner of a thing
cannot make use thereof in such a manner as to injure the rights of a third
person. SIC UTERE TUO UT ALIENUM NON LAEDAS.

Facts: Petitioner spouses Andamo owned a parcel of land situated in Biga

Silang, Cavite which is adjacent to that of private respondent corporation,
Missionaries of Our lady of La Salette, Inc. Within the land of the latter,
waterpaths and contrivances, including an artificial lake, were constructed,
which allegedly inundated and eroded petitioners land, caused a young man
to drown, damagaed petitioners crops and plants, washed away costly
fences, endangered the livesofthepetitioners and their laborers and some
other destructions.
This prompted petitioner spouses to file a criminal action for destruction by
means of inundation under Article 324 of the RPC and a civil action for
damages.

Issue: Whether petitioner spouses Andamo can claim damages for

destruction caused by respondents waterpaths and contrivances on the
basis of Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts.

Held: Yes. A careful examination of the aforequoted complaint shows that the
civil action is one under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-
delicts. All the elements of a quasi-delict are present, to wit: (a) damages
suffered by the plaintiff, (b) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some
other person for whose acts he must respond; and (c) the connection of
cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the
damages incurred by the plaintiff. 11

Clearly, from petitioners complaint, the waterpaths and contrivances built by

respondent corporation are alleged to have inundated the land of petitioners.
There is therefore, an assertion of a causal connection between the act of
building these waterpaths and the damage sustained by petitioners. Such
action if proven constitutes fault or negligence which may be the basis for
the recovery of damages.

It must be stressed that the use of ones property is not without limitations.
Article 431 of the Civil Code provides that the owner of a thing cannot make
use thereof in such a manner as to injure the rights of a third person. SIC
UTERE TUO UT ALIENUM NON LAEDAS. Moreover, adjoining landowners have
mutual and reciprocal duties which require that each must use his own land
in a reasonable manner so as not to infringe upon the rights and interests of
others. Although we recognize the right of an owner to build structures on his
land, such structures must be so constructed and maintained using all
reasonable care so that they cannot be dangerous to adjoining landowners
and can withstand the usual and expected forces of nature. If the structures
cause injury or damage to an adjoining landowner or a third person, the
latter can claim indemnification for the injury or damage suffered.

Caveat: Anyone who claims this digest as his own without proper authority
shall be held liable under the law of Karma.

Sabina Exconde vs Delfin and Dante Capuno

101 Phil 843 Civil Law Torts and Damages Liability of Parents

Dante Capuno was a 15 year old boy who was a pupil of Balintawak
Elementary School. In March 1949, he attended a boy scout parade for Dr.
Jose Rizal. While they were inside a jeep, he took control of the wheels which
he later lost control of causing the jeep to go turtle thereby killing two other
students, Isidoro Caperina and one other. Isidoros mother, Sabina Exconde,
sued Dante Capuno for the death of her son. Pending the criminal action, the
mother reserved her right to file a separate civil action which she
subsequently filed against Dante and his dad, Delfin Capuno.

ISSUE: Whether or not Delfin Capuno, as the father of Dante is liable for
damages.

HELD: Yes. The civil liability which the law imposes upon the father, and, in
case of his death or incapacity, the mother, for any damages that may be
caused by the minor children who live with them, is obvious. This is
necessary consequence of the parental authority they exercise over them
which imposes upon the parents the duty of supporting them, keeping them
in their company, educating them and instructing them in proportion to their
means, while, on the other hand, gives them the right to correct and
punish them in moderation. The only way by which they can relieve
themselves of this liability is if they prove that they exercised all the
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage which Delfin
failed to prove.

On the other hand, the school is not liable. It is true that under the law,
teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable for any damages caused
by their pupils or apprentices while they are under their custody, but this
provision only applies to an institution of arts and trades and not to any
academic educational institution.
JUSTICE J.B.L. REYES Dissenting:

Delfin Capuno should be relieved from liability. There is no sound reason for
limiting the liability to teachers of arts and trades and not to academic ones.
What substantial difference is there between them in so far as, concerns the
proper supervision and vigilance over their pupils? It cannot be seriously
contended that an academic teacher is exempt from the duty of watching do
not commit a tort to the detriment of third persons, so long as they are in a
position to exercise authority and supervision over the pupil.

Jose Amadora vs Court of Appeals

Civil Law Torts and Damages Article 2180 Liability of Schools of Arts and
Trades and Academic Schools Liability of Teachers and Heads of School

In April 1972, while the high school students of Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos
were in the school auditorium, a certain Pablito Daffon fired a gun. The stray
bullet hit Alfredo Amadora. Alfredo died. Daffon was convicted of reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide. The parents of Alfredo sued the school for
damages under Article 2180 of the Civil Code because of the schools
negligence.

The trial court ruled in favor of Amadora. The trial court ruled that the
principal, the dean of boys, as well as the teacher-in-charge are all civilly
liable. The school appealed as it averred that when the incident happened,
the school year has already ended. Amadora argued that even though the
semester has already ended, his son was there in school to complete a
school requirement in his Physics subject. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor
of the school. The CA ruled that under the last paragraph of Article 2180,
only schools of arts and trades (vocational schools) are liable not academic
schools like Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos.

ISSUE: Whether or not Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, an academic school, is

liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code for the tortuous act of its students.

HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court made a re-examination of the provision on the
last paragraph of Article 2180 which provides:

Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable

for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices so long as
they remain in their custody.
The Supreme Court said that it is time to update the interpretation of the
above law due to the changing times where there is hardly a distinction
between schools of arts and trade and academic schools. That being said,
the Supreme Court ruled that ALL schools, academic or not, may be held
liable under the said provision of Article 2180.

The Supreme Court however clarified that the school, whether academic or
not, should not be held directly liable. Its liability is only subsidiary.

For non-academic schools, it would be the principal or head of school who

should be directly liable for the tortuous act of its students. This is because
historically, in non-academic schools, the head of school exercised a closer
administration over their students than heads of academic schools. In short,
they are more hands on to their students.

For academic schools, it would be the teacher-in-charge who would be

directly liable for the tortuous act of the students and not the dean or the
head of school.

The Supreme Court also ruled that such liability does not cease when the
school year ends or when the semester ends. Liability applies whenever the
student is in the custody of the school authorities as long as he is under the
control and influence of the school and within its premises, whether the
semester has not yet begun or has already ended at the time of the
happening of the incident. As long as it can be shown that the student is in
the school premises in pursuance of a legitimate student objective, in the
exercise of a legitimate student right, and even in the enjoyment of a
legitimate student right, and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student
privilege, the responsibility of the school authorities over the student
continues. Indeed, even if the student should be doing nothing more than
relaxing in the campus in the company of his classmates and friends and
enjoying the ambience and atmosphere of the school, he is still within the
custody and subject to the discipline of the school authorities under the
provisions of Article 2180.

At any rate, the REMEDY of the teacher, to avoid direct liability, and for the
school, to avoid subsidiary liability, is to show proof that he, the teacher,
exercised the necessary precautions to prevent the injury complained of, and
the school exercised the diligence of a bonus pater familias.

In this case however, the Physics teacher in charge was not properly named,
and there was no sufficient evidence presented to make the said teacher-in-
charge liable. Absent the direct liability of the teachers because of the
foregoing reason, the school cannot be held subsidiarily liable too.

This case abandoned fully the cases of Exconde vs Capuno and Mercado vs
Court of Appeals.

Salud Villanueva Vda. De Bataclan vs Mariano Medina

102 Phil 181 Civil Law Torts and Damages Proximate Cause

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.