JAZZTINE M. ARTIZUELA made the street slippery.

made the street slippery. There was also ample evidence showing that he was under the influence
TORTS AND DAMAGES
VALENZUELA VS. CA
Facts: Ma. Lourdes Valenzuela was driving a blue Mitsubishi lancer from her restaurant at Marcos highway
to her home in Araneta Avenue. She was with a companion. While driving she noticed something was
wrong with her tires. She stopped at a lighted place and verified it to ask help if needed. She was told by the
people present that her tire was flat and decided to park her car and turned on the emergency lights. She
alighted from her car and assisted the man who will be fixing her tire when suddenly she was bumped by a
1987 Mitsubishi Lancer driven by Richard Li and registered under Alexander Commercial, Inc. This accident
resulted to her confinement for 20 days and amputation of her knee. The expenses for the hospital
amounted to Php 120,000 and the cost of the artificial leg was
Php 27,000 which were paid by defendants from the car insurance. Valenzuela asked for Php 1M for moral
damages, Php 100,000 for exemplary damages and Php 180,000 for other medical and related expenses.
of liquor.
2) No. Contributory negligence is the conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal
cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to
conform for his own protection. Valenzuela did exercise standard reasonably dictated by
emergence. It could not be considered as contributory to the accident that happened to her. The
emergency that led her to park her car on a sidewalk of Aurora Boulevard was not her fault. It was
evident that she took all the reasonable precautions.
3) Yes. Under the civil law, an employer is liable for the negligence of his employees in the discharge
of their respective duties, the basis of which liability is not respondeat superior but the relationship
of pater familias which theory bases the liability of the master ultimately on his own negligence
and not on that of his servant. Alexander Commercial, Inc. did not demonstrate that it exercised
the care and diligence of a good father of the family in entrusting its company car to Li. It was not
shown that the company took the necessary steps in determining the driving proficiency and
history of Li.

Richard Li denied the allegation that he was negligent. He claimed that Valenzuelas car was improperly FALLO: Wherefore, premises considered, the decision of the Court of Appeals is modified with the effect of
parked and the area was poor lighted. He also counterclaimed for damages for Valenzuela was negligent reinstating the judgment of the Regional Trial Court.
for driving without a license. A witness testified that Lis car was approaching the scene very fast. He stated
that Li was under the influence of alcohol since he could smell it.
GAN VS CA
The trial court found Li guilty of gross negligence and liable for damages under Article 2176 of the Civil
Code. It also held Alexander Commercial, Inc. Lis employer jointly and severally liable for the damages Doctrine: EMERGENCY RULE. A corollary rule is what is known in the law as the emergency rule.
under Article 2180. The Court of Appeals sustained that Li was liable for the damages but absolved "Under that rule, one who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to
Alexander Commercial Inc., Lis employer, from any liability against Valenzuela. It dismissed the defendants consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if
counterclaims. he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless
the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence."
ISSUES:
(Prior Proceedings)
1) Whether or not Li shall be held liable for the damages? CFI Manila: Gan was convicted of Homicide thru Reckless Imprudence.
2) Whether or not Valenzuela was also negligent on her part? CA: Judgment modified, Homicide thru simple imprudence.
3) Whether or not Alexander Commercial, Inc., Lis employer, shall be jointly and severally liable for SC: Reversed CA, acquitted Gan.
the damages?
FACTS: HedyGan was driving a Toyota car along North Bay Boulevard, Tondo, Manila. While in front of
RULING: house no. 694 of North Bay Boulevard, there were two vehicles, a truck and a jeepney parked on one side
1) Yes. Negligence is commonly understood as the conduct which creates an undue risk of harm to of the road, one following the other about two to three meters from each other. As the car driven by the
others. It is the failure to observe that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which accused approached the place where the two vehicles were parked, there was a vehicle coming from the
circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. The circumstances opposite direction, followed by another which tried to overtake and bypass the one in front of it and thereby
established by the evidence showed that Li was grossly negligent in driving the Mitsubishi Lancer. encroached the lane of the car driven by the accused. To avoid a head-on collision with the oncoming
It was emphasized that he was driving at a fast speed at 2:00 AM after a heavy downpour which vehicle, the defendant swerved to the right and as a consequence, the front bumper of the Toyota Crown
Sedan hit an old man who was about to cross the boulevard from south to north, pinning him against the
rear of the parked jeepney. The force of the impact caused the parked jeepney to move forward hitting the
rear of the parked truck ahead of it. The pedestrian was injured, the Toyota Sedan was damaged on its
front, the jeep suffered damages on its rear and front parts, and the truck sustained scratches at the
wooden portion of its rear. The body of Isidoro Casino was immediately brought to the hospital but was
(pronounced) dead on arrival.
ISSUE: Did the CA erred in holding that when the petitioner saw a car travelling directly towards her, she
should have stepped on the brakes immediately or in swerving her vehicle to the right should have also ISSUE: Whether or not Suelto is guilty of reckless imprudence which resulted in the damage of Valdellons
stepped on the brakes or lessened her speed, to avoid the death of a pedestrian?
keep its monolithicness, and to insure the safety and stability of the building." In a letter addressed to the
bus company and Suelto, Valdellon demanded payment of P148,440.00, within 10 days from receipt
thereof, to cover the cost of the damage to the terrace. he bus company and Suelto offered a P30,000.00
settlement which Valdellon refused. Valdellon filed a criminal complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in
damage to property against Suelto. After the requisite preliminary investigation, an Information was filed
with the RTC of Quezon City. Valdellon also filed a separate civil complaint against Suelto and the bus
company for damages. She prayed that after due proceedings, judgment be rendered in her favor.
property

HELD: Yes. The test for determining whether or not a person is negligent in doing an act whereby injury or
damage results to the person or property of another is this: Would a prudent man in the position of the
person to whom negligence is attributed foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence
of the course about to be pursued? If so, the law imposes the duty on the doer to take precaution against its
mischievous results and the failure to do so constitutes negligence. Applying the emergency rule (as
defined above), petitioner is not guilty of the crime. The amount of time afforded to the petitioner to react to
the situation she was in should be taken into account for it is undeniable that the suggested course of action
presupposes sufficient time for appellant to analyze the situation confronting her and to ponder on which of
the different courses of action would result in the least possible harm to herself and to others. Under the
circumstances narrated by petitioner, we find that the appellate court is asking too much from a mere mortal
like the petitioner who in the blink of an eye had to exercise her best judgment to extricate herself from a
difficult and dangerous situation caused by the driver of the overtaking vehicle. Petitioner certainly could not
be expected to act with all the coolness of a person under normal conditions. The danger confronting
petitioner was real and imminent, threatening her very existence. She had no opportunity for rational
thinking but only enough time to heed the very powerful instinct of self-preservation. Also, the respondent
court itself pronounced that the petitioner was driving her car within the legal limits. We therefore rule that
the "emergency rule" enunciated above applies with full force to the case at bar and consequently absolve
petitioner from any criminal negligence in connection with the incident under consideration.
MARIKINA AUTO LINE VS PEOPLE
FACTS: Erlinda V. Valdellon is the owner of a two-door commercial apartment located at No. 31 Kamias
Road, Quezon City. The Marikina Auto Line Transport Corporation (MALTC) is the owner-operator of a
passenger bus, its employee, was assigned as the regular driver of the bus. At around 2:00 p.m. on October
3, 1992, Suelto was driving the passenger bus along Kamias Road, Kamuning, Quezon City, going towards
EDSA. The bus suddenly swerved to the right and struck the terrace of the commercial apartment owned by
Valdellon. Upon Valdellons request, the court ordered Sergio Pontiveros, the Senior Building Inspection
Officer of the City Engineers Office, to inspect the damaged terrace. He recommended that since the
structural members made of concrete had been displaced, the terrace would have to be demolished "to
HELD: Yes. Respondent People of the Philippines was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
petitioner Suelto swerved the bus to the right with recklessness, thereby causing damage to the terrace of
private respondents apartment. Although she did not testify to seeing the incident as it happened, petitioner
Suelto himself admitted this in his answer to the complaint and when he testified in the trial court. Suelto
narrated that he suddenly swerved the bus to the right of the road causing it to hit the column of the terrace
of private respondent. Petitioners were burdened to prove that the damage to the terrace of private
respondent was not the fault of petitioner Suelto. We have reviewed the evidence on record and find that
petitioners failed to prove that petitioner acted on an emergency caused by the sudden intrusion of a
passenger jeepney into the lane of the bus he was driving. It was the burden of petitioners herein to prove
petitioner Sueltos defense that he acted on an emergency, that is, he had to swerve the bus to the right to
avoid colliding with a passenger jeep coming from EDSA that had overtaken another vehicle and intruded
into the lane of the bus.
It is clear from the photographs submitted by the prosecution that the commercial apartment of Dr. Valdellon
sustained heavy damage caused by the bus being driven by Suelto. "It seems highly improbable that the
said damages were not caused by a strong impact. And, it is quite reasonable to conclude that, at the time
of the impact, the bus was traveling at a high speed when Suelto tried to avoid the passenger jeepney."
The damages could not have been caused except by a speeding bus. Had the accused not been speeding,
he could have easily reduced his speed and come to a full stop when he noticed the jeep. Were he more
prudent in driving, he could have avoided the incident or even if he could not avoid the incident, the
damages would have been less severe.
The severe damages sustained could not have resulted had the accused acted as a reasonable and
prudent man would. The accused was not diligent as he claims to be. What is more probable is that the
accused had to swerve to the right and hit the commercial apartment of the plaintiff because he could not
make a full stop as he was driving too fast in a usually crowded street.