Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS:
Petitioners Lim and Hotel Nikko contend that pursuant to the doctrine
of volenti non fit injuria, they cannot be made liable for damages as
respondent Reyes assumed the risk of being asked to leave (and being
embarrassed and humiliated in the process) as he was a “gate-crasher.”
ISSUE:
Whether or not Hotel Nikko and Ruby Lim are jointly and severally
liable with Dr. Filart for damages under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code.
HELD:
The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria (“to which a person assents is
not esteemed in law as injury”) refers to self-inflicted injury or to the
consent to injury which precludes the recovery of damages by one who has
knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger, even if he is not
negligent in doing so.
The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court’s ruling that Ms. Lim
did not abuse her right to ask Mr. Reyes to leave the party as she talked to
him politely and discreetly. Considering the closeness of defendant Lim to
plaintiff when the request for the latter to leave the party was made such
that they nearly kissed each other, the request was meant to be heard by
him only and there could have been no intention on her part to cause
embarrassment to him. In the absence of any proof of motive on the part of
Ms. Lim to humiliate Mr. Reyes and expose him to ridicule and shame, it is
highly unlikely that she would shout at him from a very close distance. Ms.
Lim having been in the hotel business for twenty years wherein being polite
and discreet are virtues to be emulated, the testimony of Mr. Reyes that
she acted to the contrary does not inspire belief and is indeed incredible.
Ms. Lim, not having abused her right to ask Mr. Reyes to leave the party to
which he was not invited, cannot be made liable to pay for damages under
Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. Necessarily, neither can her
employer, Hotel Nikko, be held liable as its liability springs from that of its
employee. Had respondent simply left the party as requested, there was no
need for the police to take him out.
FACTS:
HELD:
The decision is partly correct. The Court finds the amount of P50,
000.00 as death indemnity proper, following prevailing jurisprudence, and
in line with controlling policy. The award of civil indemnity may be granted
without any need of proof other than the death of the victim. Though not
awarded by the trial court, the victim’s heirs are likewise entitled to moral
damages, pegged at P50, 000.00 by controlling case law, taking into
consideration the pain and anguish of the victim’s family brought about by
his death.
However, the award of P200, 000.00 as burial and other expenses
incurred in connection with the death of the victim must be deleted. The
records are bereft of any receipt or voucher to justify the trial court’s award
of burial and other expenses incurred in connection with the victim’s death.
The rule is that every pecuniary loss must be established by credible
evidence before it may be awarded. Credence can be given only to claims,
which are duly supported, by receipts or other credible evidence.
The trial court was correct in awarding damages for loss of earning
capacity despite the non-availability of documentary evidence. The court
based on testimony in several cases has awarded damages representing
net earning capacity. However the amount of the trial court’s award needs
to be re computed and modified accordingly.
In determining the amount of lost income, the following must be taken
into account: (1) the number of years for which the victim would otherwise
have lived; and (2) the rate of the loss sustained by the heirs of the
deceased. The second variable is computed by multiplying the life
expectancy by the net earnings of the deceased meaning total earnings
less expenses necessary in the creation of such earnings or income less
living and other incidental expenses considering that there is no proof of
living expenses of the deceased, net earnings are computed at fifty percent
of the gross earnings.
In this case, the court notes that the victim was 27 years old at the
time of his death and his mother testified that as a driver of the Tamaraw
FX taxi, he was earning P650.00 a day.
Based on the foregoing computation, the award of the trial court with regard
to lost income is thus modified accordingly.
The court ordered the accused to pay the heirs of the victim Christian
Bermudez the sum of P50, 000.000 as civil indemnity, the sum of P50,
000.00 as moral damages, and the sum of P2, 996,867.20 representing
lost earnings. The award of P200, 000.00 as burial and other expenses is
deleted for lack of substantial proof.
FACTS:
"On May 10, 1992, at around 12:00 o'clock midnight, Eduardo Edem
was driving a "Luring Taxi" along Ortigas Avenue, near Rosario, Pasig,
going towards Cainta. Thereafter, the driver executed a U-turn to traverse
the same road, going to the direction of EDSA. At this point, the Nissan
Pathfinder traveling along the same road going to the direction of Cainta
collided with the taxicab. The point of impact was so great that the taxicab
was hit in the middle portion and was pushed sideward, causing the driver
to lose control of the vehicle. The taxicab was then dragged into the nearby
Question Tailoring Shop, thus, causing damage to the said tailoring shop,
and its driver, Eduardo Eden, sustained injuries as a result of the incident."
ISSUE:
What are the liabilities of both parties?
RULING:
The driver of the oncoming Nissan Pathfinder vehicle was liable and
the driver of the U-turning taxicab was contributorily liable. It is established
that Castro was driving at a speed faster than 50 kilometers per hour
because it was a downhill slope. But as he allegedly stepped on the brake,
it locked causing his Nissan Pathfinder to skid to the left and consequently
hit the taxicab. Malfunction or loss of brake is not a fortuitous event.
Between the owner and his driver, on the one hand, and third parties such
as commuters, drivers and pedestrians, on the other, the former is
presumed to know about the conditions of his vehicle and is duty bound to
take care thereof with the diligence of a good father of the family. A
mechanically defective vehicle should avoid the streets. As petitioner's
vehicle was moving downhill, the driver should have slowed down since a
downhill drive would naturally cause the vehicle to accelerate. Moreover,
the record shows that the Nissan Pathfinder was on the wrong lane when
the collision occurred.
FACTS:
The trial court found Mercury Drug and Del Rosario jointly and
severally liable to pay respondents. The Court of Appeals affirmed the said
decision.
ISSUE:
RULING:
In this case, the petitioner Mercury Drug does not provide for back-up
driver for long trips. As the time of the accident, Del Rosario has been
driving for more than thirteen hours, without any alternate. Moreover, Del
Rosario took the driving test and psychological exam for the position of
Delivery Man and not as Truck Man.
With this, petitioner Mercury Drug is liable jointly and severally liable
to pay the respondents.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether petitioner is solidarily liable.
RULING:
FACTS:
On April 04, 1984, Natividad Agana was admitted at the Medical City
General Hospital because of difficulty of bowel movement and bloody anal
discharge. Dr. Ampil diagnosed her to be suffering from “cancer of the
sigmoid”. Thus, Dr. Ampil, assisted by the medical staff of Medical City,
performed a surgery upon her. During the surgery, he found that the
malignancy in her sigmoid area had spread to her left ovary, necessitating
the removal of certain portions of it. Thus, Dr. Ampil obtained the consent
of Natividad’s husband topermit Dr. Fuentes to perform hysterectomy upon
Natividad. Dr. Fuentes performed and completed the hysterectomy.
Afterwards, Dr. Ampil took over, completed the operation and closed the
incision. The operation, however, appeared to be flawed as the attending
nurses entered in the corresponding Record of Operation that there were 2
lacking sponge and announced that it was searched by the surgeon but to
no avail.
ISSUE:
Whether there is an employee-employer relationship in order to hold
PSI solidary liable.
RULING:
Wherefore PSI and Dr. Ampil are liable jointly and severally.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether a creditor can sue the surviving spouse for the collection of
a debt which is owed by the conjugal partnership of gains, or whether such
claim must be filed in proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the
decedent.
RULING:
The Court held that the respondent cannot sue the surviving spouse
of a decedent in an ordinary proceeding for the collection of a sum of
money chargeable against the conjugal partnership. Because when the
husband died, their conjugal partnership was automatically dissolved and
debts chargeable against it is to be paid in the settlement of estate
proceedings.
Moreover, respondent does not cite any provision of law which provides
that when there are two or more lessees, or in this case, sublessees, the
latter's obligation to pay the rent is solidary.Thus, the liability of the
sublessees is merely joint. Since the obligation of the Manuel and Alipio
spouses is chargeable against their respective conjugal partnerships, the
unpaid balance of P50,600.00 should be divided into two so that each
couple is liable to pay the amount of P25,300.00. Hence, the petition is
granted.
PH CREDIT CORP VS CA
GR No. 109648 November 22, 2001
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Is the petitioner’s liability pursuant to the Decision of the Labor
Arbiter dated March 10, 1987, solidary or not?
RULING: