You are on page 1of 8

Nuisance

LINDA RANA v. TERESITA LEE WONG (G.R. No. 192861, June 30, 2014)

FACTS:

Spouses Lana elevated and cemented a portion of a 10-meter wide subdivision road that runs
between the Rana and Wong properties in order to level the said portion with their gate. Spouses Rana
likewise backfilled a portion of the perimeter fence separating the Rana and Uy properties without erecting a
retaining wall that would hold the weight of the added filling materials. Hence, Wong, Spouses Ong and
Spouses Uy filed a Complaint for Abatement of Nuisance with Damages against Spouses Rana before the
RTC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the parties (Spouses Rana, Wong, Spouses Ong and Spouses Uy) are entitled for
Damages based on a Nuisance.

HELD:

Yes. Under Article 694 of the Civil Code, a nuisance is defined as any act or omission,
establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which: (1) injures or endangers the health or
safety of others; or (2) annoys or offends the senses; or (3) shocks, defies or disregards decency or
morality; or (4) obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of
water; or (5) hinders or impairs the use of property. A nuisance may either be: (a) a nuisance per se (or one
which affects the immediate safety of persons and property and may summarily abated under the
undefined law of necessity) or (b) a nuisance per accidens (or that which depends upon certain conditions
and circumstances, and its existence being a question of fact, it cannot be abated without due hearing
thereon in a tribunal authorized to decide whether such a thing does in law constitute a nuisance.)

Wong et als demolition of Spouses Ranas subject portion is unwarranted. Hence, damages ought
to be awarded in favor of Spouses Rana particularly that of (a) nominal damages for the vindication and
recognition of Spouses Ranas right to be heard before the court prior to Wongs abatement of subject
portion and (b) temperate damages for the pecuniary loss owing to the demolition of the subject portion,
which had been established albeit uncertain as to the actual amount of loss. Spouses Ranas entitlement to
such damages, however, only stands in theory because the actual award thereof is precluded by the
damage they themselves have caused Wong, et al., in view of their construction of the subject portion. By
constructing the subject portion, Spouses Rana introduced a nuisance per accidens that transgressed the
rights of Wong et al., to unobstructed use of and free passage over the subject road. Therefore, Spouses
Rana should be similarly liable for nominal damages. Under Article 2216 of the Civil Code, courts have
discretion to determine awards of nominal and temperate damages without actual proof of pecuniary loss,
as in this case. Hence, the Court finds it prudent to sustain the CAs verdict of offsetting the damage caused
by said parties against each other.

With respect to the claims for moral damages, although the Court found the parties to have
sustained nominal damages as a result of other parties acts, an award of moral damages would
nonetheless be improper in this case. Article 2217 of the Civil Code states that moral damages include
physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral
shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. In the case at bar, it was not proven that the damage caused
by Spouses Rana against Wong, et al., arising from the elevation and cementing of the subject portion and
subject backfilling, and Spouses Uy against Spouses Rana, by virtue of their 2 square meter encroachment,
could be characterized as a form of or had resulted in physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious
anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, or any other similar
injury. Neither it convincingly shown that the present controversies fall within the class of cases enumerated
under Article 2219.

Similarly, the Supreme Court deems an award of exemplary damages would be inappropriate since
these damages are imposed only by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the
moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
Bank

PILIPINAS BANK v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (G.R. No. 105410, July 25, 1994)

Facts:

Florencio Reyes issued post-dated checks to Winner Industrial Corporation and Vicente Tiu as
payments for the purchased shoe materials and rubber shoes. To cover the face value of the checks,
Florencio Reyes requested PCIB Money Shops Manager, Mike Potenciano to effect the withdrawal of
P32,000.00 from his savings account therein and have it deposited with his current account with Pilipinas
Bank, Bian Branch. In depositing in the name of Florencio Reyes, Roberto Santos or the person requested
to make the deposit, inquired from the teller (Efren Alagasi) the current account number of Florencio Reyes
to complete the deposit slip he was accomplishing. Santos was informed that it was 815 and so this was
the current account number he placed on the deposit slip below the depositors name, Florencio Reyes.
Noting that the account number coincided with the name Florencio, Efren Alagasi thought it was for
Florencio Amador who owned the listed account number. Alagasi thus posted in Florencio Amadors account
not noticing that the depositors surname in the deposit slip was Reyes. When the checks was presented for
payment, they were dishonored for the reason that the check was drawn against insufficient fund.

Issues:

Whether or not the first sentence of Article 2179 of the Civil Code shall be applied in the case at bar
in view that Reyes own representative (Roberto Santos) committed the mistake in writing down the correct
account number.

Whether or not Florencio Reyes is entitled for moral damages and exemplary damages.

Held:

No. For Article 2179 of the Civil Code to apply, it must be established that private respondents own
negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury. In the case at bar, the proximate cause of
the injury is the negligence of Pilipinas Banks employee in erroneously posting the cash deposit of
Florencio Reyes in the name of another depositor who had a similar first name. The employee (Efren
Alagassi) should have continuously gone beyond mere assumption, which was proven to be erroneous, and
proceeded with clear certainty, considering the amount involved and the repercussions it would create.

Yes, in case of moral damages and No, in case of exemplary damages. In light of the negligence of
the bank, its liability against Florencio Reyes for moral damages cannot be impugned. The bank is not
expected to be infallible but it must bear the blame for not discovering the mistake of its teller despite the
established procedure of the bank personnel to check and countercheck each transaction for possible
errors. Apparently, the same was not done with due care. While the banks negligence may not have been
attended with malice and bad faith, nevertheless, it caused serious anxiety, embarrassment and humiliation
to Florencio Reyes for which he shall be entitled to recover reasonable moral damages. However, in the
case of exemplary damages, the same cannot be granted in the absence of malice and bad faith.
Transportation Case: Land

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS CORPORATION v. PURIFICACION VIZCARA, et al., (G.R. No.


190022, February 15, 2012)

Facts:

On May 14, 2004, at about 3 o clock in the morning, Reynaldo Vizcarra was driving a passenger
jeepney headed towards Bicol to deliver onion crops with his companions Cresencio, Crispin, Samuel,
Dominador and Joel. While crossing the railroad track in Tiaong, Quezon, a PNR train, then being operated
by Japhet Estranas, suddenly turned up and rammed the passenger jeepney. The collision resulted to the
instantaneous death of Reynaldo, Cresencio, Crispin and Samuel and serious physical injuries sustained by
Dominador and Joel. At the time of the accident, there was no level crossing installed at the railroad
crossing and the Stop, Look and Listen signage was poorly maintained. The Stop signage has faded while
the Listen signage was partly blocked by another signboard. Hence, the survivors (Dominador and Joel)
and the heirs of the deceased persons filed an action for damages against PNR.

Issue:

Whether or not PNRs negligence was the proximate cause of the accident and is thus liable for
damages.

Held:

Yes. The Supreme Court held that PNRs negligence was the proximate cause of the accident and is
thus liable for civil liability for damages arising therefrom. Article 2176 of the New Civil Code prescribes a
civil liability for damages caused by a persons act or omission constituting fault or negligence. It states that
whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there was no pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties, is called quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this chapter. In Layugan vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court, negligence was defined as the omission of something which a reasonable man, guided by
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something
which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. In the case at bar, the record reveals that it was PNRs
failure to install adequate safety devices at the railroad crossing which proximately caused the collision.
Having established the fact of negligence on the part of PNR, they were rightfully held liable for damages.
Transportation Case: Water

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS and TOMAS ALCANTARA (G.R. No. 60501,
March 5, 1993)

Facts:

Tomas Alcantara, Executive Vice President and General Manager of Iligan Cement Corporation, was
the first class passenger of Cathay Pacific Airways on its flight from Manila to Hongkong to Jakarta. Upon
his arrival in Jakarta, Tomas discovered that his luggage containing not only of his clothing and articles for
personal use but also papers and documents needed for the conference was missing. When he inquired
about his missing luggage from Cathays representative from Jakarta, he was told that his luggage was left
behind in Hongkong. After more than twenty-four hours after his arrival, his luggage finally reached Jakarta
but it was not delivered to him at his hotel and was required by Cathay Pacific to be picked up by an official
of the Philippine Embassy. Hence, Tomas Alcantara filed a complaint praying for temperate, moral and
exemplary damages, plus attorneys fees.

Issue:

Whether Cathay Pacific is liable for temperate, moral and exemplary damages.

Held:

Yes, in case of moral and exemplary damages. If the defendant airline is shown to have acted
fraudulently or in bad faith, the award of moral and exemplary damages is proper. Cathay Pacific breached
its contract of carriage with Tomas Alcantara when it failed to deliver his luggage at the designated place
and time, it being the obligation of a common carrier to carry its passengers and their luggage safely to their
destination, which includes the duty not to delay their transportation and the evidence shows that Cathay
Pacific acted fraudulently or in bad faith. Moral damages predicated upon breach of contract of carriage
may only be recoverable in instances where the mishap results in the death of a passenger or where the
carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith. In the case at bar, Cathay was grossly negligent and reckless when it
failed to deliver the luggage to Tomas at the appointed time and place. Moreover, the language and conduct
of Cathays representative toward Tomas when he inquired about his missing luggage was discourteous and
arbitrary to justify the grant of moral damages.

However, Alcantara is not entitled to temperate damages in the absence of showing that he
sustained some pecuniary loss.
Profession

MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION v. SEBASTIAN M. BAKING (G.R. No. 156037, May 28, 2007)

Facts:

Sebastian Baking went to the clinic of Dr. Cesar Sy for a medical check-up. After certain procedures
and examinations, Dr. Sy found that Bakings triglyceride and blood sugar were above normal levels.
Hence, Dr. Sy gave two medical prescriptionsDiamicron for his blood sugar and Benalize for his
triglyceride. Baking then proceeded to Mercury Drug Alabang to purchase the prescribed medicines.
However, the saleslady misread the prescription for Diamicron as Dormicum, a sleeping tablet. Unaware
that he was given the wrong medicine, Baking took one pill of Dormicum for three consecutive days. On the
third day, Baking fell asleep while driving and thus figured in a vehicular accident where he collided with the
car of a Josie Peralta. Suspecting that the tablet he took may have a bearing on his physical and mental
state at the time of collision, Baking returned to the clinic of Dr. Sy. Upon being shown the medicine, Dr. Sy
was shocked to find that what was sold to Baking was Dormicum instead of Diamicron. Thereafter, Baking
filed a complaint for damages against Mercury Drug Corp.

Issue:

Whether or not Mercury Drug is liable for damages.

Held:

Yes. Mercury is liable for damages. Article 2176 of the New Civil Code provides that: whoever by
act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
done. Such fault or negligence, if there was no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is
called quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this chapter. To sustain the claim based on the
above provision, the following requisites must concur: (1) damage suffered by the plaintiff; (2) fault or
negligence of the defendant; (3) connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the
defendant and the damage incurred by the plaintiff. Mercury Drugs employee was grossly negligent in
selling the wrong medicine. Considering that a fatal mistake could be a matter of life and death for a buying
patient, the said employee should have been very cautious in dispensing medicines.

Moreover, Article 2180 of the New Civil Code also provides that the obligation imposed by Article
2176 is demandable not only for ones own act or omission, but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible. xxx The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for
damages caused by their employees in the service of their branches in which the latter are employed or on
the occasion of their functions. xxx Thus, it is clear that the employer of a negligent employee is liable for
the damages caused by the latter. When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, there
instantly arises a presumption of the law that there has been negligence on the part of the employer, either
in the selection of his employee or in the supervision over him, after such selection. The presumption
however may be rebutted by a clear showing on the part of the employer that he has exercised the care and
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee. In the case at bar,
Mercury Drugs failure to prove that it exercised the due diligence of the good father of the family in the
selection and supervision of its employee will make it solidarily liable for damages caused by the latter.

As regards the award of moral damages, Baking has adequately established the factual basis for its
award when he testified that he suffered mental anguish and anxiety as a result of the accident caused by
the negligence of Mercury Drugs employee.
In addition, the Court also deems it necessary to award exemplary damages. Article 2229 allows the
grant of exemplary damages by way of example or correction for the public good. Since the drugstore
business is affected with public interest, they should have exerted utmost diligence in the selection and
supervision of its employees. And on the part of the employee concerned, she should have been extremely
cautious in dispensing pharmaceutical products.
Employer

SAFEGUARD SECURITY AGENCY, INC. v. LAURO TANGCO, et al., (G.R. No. 165732, December 14,
2006)

Facts:

On November 3, 1997, at about 2:50 pm, Evangeline Tangco went to Ecology Bank, Katipunan
Branch, Quezon City, to renew her time deposit per advise of the banks cashier as she would sign a
specimen card. Evangeline, a duly licensed firearm holder with corresponding permit to carry the same
outside her residence, approach security guard Pajarillo from Safeguard Security Agency, who was
stationed outside the bank, and pulled out her firearm from her bag to deposit the same for safekeeping.
Suddenly, Pajarillo shot Evangeline with his service shotgun hitting her abdomen instantly causing her
death. Lauro Tangco, Evangelines husband, filed a criminal case for homicide and reserved their right to file
a separate civil action in the same criminal case. Likewise, Lauro also filed a complaint for damages against
Pajarillo for negligently shooting Evangeline and against Safeguard for failing to observe the diligence of a
good father of a family to prevent the damage committed by its Security Guard.

Issue:

1. Whether or not Safeguard, as employer of Pajarillo, is solidarily liable with Pajarillo.


2. Whether or not Lauro, et al., may be awarded with moral damages.

Held:

Yes. Article 2180 of the Civil Code provides that the obligation imposed by Article 2176 is
demandable not only for the ones own acts or omissions, but also for those persons for whom one is
responsible. xxx Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household
helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks even though the former are not engaged in any
business or industry. xxx The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein
mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. As
employer of Pajarillo, Safeguard is primarily and solidarily liable for the quasi-delict committed by the former.
Safeguard is presumed to be negligent in the selection and supervision of his employee by operation of law.

Yes. Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides that the spouse, legitimate children and illegitimate
descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason
of death of the deceased.

**School Case: ST. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL V COURT OF APPEALS

**Love and Lust Case: BEATRIZ WASSMER V VELEZ FRANCISCO

You might also like