Torts and Damages Cases
CASE ISSUE
Aberca vs Ver GR L-69866 May a superior officer under the notion
of respondent superior be answerable
for damages, jointly and severally with
his subordinates, to the person whose
constitutional rights and liberties have
been violated?
Amadora vs CA GR L-47745 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.
Aquinas vs Inton GR 184202 whether or not the CA was correct in
holding Aquinas solidarily liable with
Yamyamin for the damages awarded to
Jose Luis.
RULING
The law speaks of an officer or employee or person 'directly' or
"indirectly" responsible for the violation of the constitutional rights and
liberties of another. Thus, it is not the actor alone (i.e. the one directly
responsible) who must answer for damages under Article 32; the person
indirectly responsible has also to answer for the damages or injury
caused to the aggrieved party.
NO. the Court finds under the facts as disclosed by the record and in
the light of the principles herein announced that none of the
respondents is liable for the injury inflicted by Pablito Damon on Alfredo
Amadora that resulted in the latter's death at the auditorium of the
Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos on April 13, 1972. While we deeply
sympathize with the petitioners over the loss of their son under the
tragic circumstances here related, we nevertheless are unable to extend
them the material relief they seek, as a balm to their grief, under the
law they have invoke
No. It cannot be said that Aquinas was guilty of outright neglect as
there was no ER-EE relationship existing between the school and
teacher.
Aquinas did not have control overYamyamin’s teaching
methods.Aquinas still had the responsibility of taking steps to
ensurethat only qualified outside catechists are allowed to teachits
young students.
Baksh vs CA GR 97336 Whether or not the respondent could
Deflowering claim payment for the damages
incurred by the petitioner
Bertalot vs Kinnare
Borjal vs CA gr 126466 Whether or not there are sufficient
grounds to constitute guilt of
petitioners for libel
The existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry per se is not an
actionable wrong. Where a man’s promise to marry is in fact the
proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a woman and his
representation to fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the proximate
cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress, proof that
he had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and that the promise
was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her
to accept him and to obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify
the award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because of such
promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the
willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter. It is
essential, however, that such injury should have been committed in a
manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.
'Although the proprietor of a natatorium is liable for injuries to a
patron, resulting from lack of ordinary care in providing for his safety,
without the fault of the patron, he is not, however, in any sense
deemed to be the insurer of the safety of patrons. And the death of a
patron within his premises does not cast upon him the burden of
excusing himself from any presumption of negligence' It was held that
there could be no recovery for the death by drowning of a fifteen-year
boy in defendant's natatorium, where it appeared merely that he was
lastly seen alive in water at the shallow end of the pool, and some ten
or fifteen minutes later was discovered unconscious, and perhaps
lifeless, at the bottom of the pool, all efforts to resuscitate him being
without avail.
NO. “In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be
identifiable although it is not necessary that he be named. It is also not
sufficient that the offended party recognized himself as the person
attacked or defamed, but it must be shown that at least a third person
could identify him as the object of the libelous publication.
Corpus vs Paje GR l-26737 Whether or not Corpus could claim the
damages from Paje & Victory Liner as
per the civil case she filed.
De los Santos vs CA gr W/N DY AND DYSON CORPORATION
169498 ARE JOINT EMPLOYERS OF SAGOSOY
AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE HELD
SUBSIDIARILY LIABLE FOR THE CIVIL
LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE CRIME
COMMITTED BY SAGOSOY.
Dingcong vs Kanaan 72 Phil Whether or not Dingcong is liable to
14 pay for the damages caused by
Echevarria.
NO. It has been ruled in this jurisdiction that the term “physical
injuries” in Article 33 include bodily injuries causing death. However,
there is an authority (Justice Capistrano) supporting the view that the
term “physical injuries” do not include the cases where the crime
committed is reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. However, it
was observed in one case that the well reasoned opinion of Justice
Capistrano in Corpus vs. Paje is not the controlling doctrine.
YES. The evidence and the circumstances establish that Dy is the
registered owner of the van driven by Sagosoy in furtherance of the
business of Dyson Corporation; and that Dyson Corporation uses the
van driven by Sagosoy in its business operation and recognizes Sagosoy
as one of its employees per the latter's SSS records. Hence, both Dy
and Dyson Corporation can be deemed the employers of Sagosoy.
Yes. Dingcong as proprietor is liable for the negligent act of the guest
of his hotel (Echevarria). It was not shown that Dingcong exercised the
diligence of a good father in preventing the damage caused. The pipe
should have been repaired prior and Echevarria should have been
provided with a container to catch the drip. Therefore, Dingcong is liable
to pay for damages by reason of his negligence.
Filipinas vs Ago Medical GR
141994
Francisco vs CA 127 SCRA
371
Genson vs Adarle 153 SCRA
512
Globe Mackay vs CA 176
SCRA 778
Whether or not AMEC is entitled to
moral damages.
Whether or not Genson should be held
liable, personally or officially
Whether petitioners are liable for
damages to private respondent.
A juridical person is generally not entitled to moral damages because,
unlike a natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or such
sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish or
moral shock. Nevertheless, AMEC’s claim, or moral damages fall under
item 7 of Art – 2219 of the NCC.
This provision expressly authorizes the recovery of moral damages in
cases of libel, slander or any other form of defamation. Art 2219 (7)
does not qualify whether the plaintiff is a natural or juridical person.
Therefore, a juridical person such as a corporation can validly complain
for libel or any other form of defamation and claim for moral damages.
Moreover, where the broadcast is libelous per se, the law implied
damages. In such a case, evidence of an honest mistake or the want of
character or reputation of the party libeled goes only in mitigation of
damages. In this case, the broadcasts are libelous per se. thus, AMEC is
entitled to moral damages. However, we find the award P500,000 moral
damages unreasonable. The record shows that even though the
broadcasts were libelous, per se, AMEC has not suffered any substantial
or material damage to its reputation.
A guardian is a person in whom the law has entrusted the custody and
control of the person or estate or both of an infant, insane, or other
persons incapable of managing his own affair. Guardianship involves not
only custody, that is immediate care and control, but those of one in
loco parentis as well. Hence, even if their ward is already of age,
guardians have the same liability as persons exercising parental
authority.
NO. Buensalido’s arrangement with Arbatin was purely private in
nature, and had nothing to do with his being employed under Genson.
Thus, absent the showing of malice, bad faith or gross negligence on
the part of Genson, he cannot be held liable for the acts committed by
Buensalido and Arbatin.
All these reveal that petitioners are motivated by malicious and
unlawful intent to harass, oppress, and cause damage to private
respondent. The imputation of guilt without basis and the pattern of
harassment during the investigations of Tobias transgress the standards
of human conduct set forth in Article 19 of the Civil Code.
Guillang vs Bedania GR Whether or not Bedania was grossly
162987 negligent for recklessly maneuvering
the truck by making a sudden U-turn in
the highway without due regard to
traffic rules and the safety of other
motorists.
Hyatt vs Asia Dynamic GR Whether or not petitioner violated
163597 Section 1(b) of Rule 111of the Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure when it
filed the complaint in Civil Case No. MC
01-1493
YES, there is a presumption that a person driving a motor vehicle has
been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic
regulation. In this case, the trial court found that the Traffic Accident
Investigation Report showed that the truck committed a traffic violation
by executing a U-turn without signal lights. The trial court added that
Bedania violated another traffic rule when he abandoned the victims
after the collision. Bedania was grossly negligent in his driving and held
him liable for damages. Clearly, Bedanias negligence was the proximate
cause of the collision which claimed the life of Antero and his
companions.
YES. Prior to the filing of the case for recovery of sum of money before
the RTC, Hyatt had already filed separate criminal complaints for
violation of B.P. 22 against the officers of Asia which were pending
before the MTC. These cases involve the same checks which are the
subjects of Civil Case. Thus, upon filing of the criminal cases, the civil
action for the recovery of the amount of the checks was also impliedly
instituted under Section 1(b) of Rule 111.
The criminal action for violation of B.P. 22 shall be deemed to include
the corresponding civil action. The reservation to file a separate civil
action is no longer needed. Purpose behind the law: The inclusion of the
civil action in the criminal case is expected to significantly lower the
number of cases filed before the courts for collection based on
dishonored checks. It is also expected to expedite the disposition of
these cases.
Ilocos vs CA 179 SCRA 5 Whether petitioner may be held liable
for the deceased’s death.
Juaniza vs Jose 89 SCRA 306 Whether or not Rosalia can be held
jointly and severally liable for damages
with Eugenio.
The essential characteristics that resulted in the rule that the defendant
will not be excused from liability if the fortuitous event is not the sole
cause of the injury. In other words, the negligence of the defendant
which concurred with the fortuitous event or which resulted in the
aggravation of the injury of the plaintiff will make him liable even if
there was a fortuitous event. When an act of God combines or concurs
with the negligence of the defendant to produce an injury, the
defendant is liable if the injury would not have resulted but for his own
negligent conduct or omission. The whole occurrence is humanized and
removed from the rules applicable to acts of God.
The doctrine of assumption of risk is consistent with the Latin maxim
volenti non fit injuria. The doctrine involves three (3) elements or
requirements: (1) the plaintiff must know that the risk is present; (2)
he must further understand its nature; and that (3) his choice to incur it
is free and voluntary. In relation to the last requisite, it has been held
that the plaintiff is excused from the force of the rule if an emergency is
found to exist or if the life or property of another is in peril or when he
seeks to rescue his endangered property.The deceased was
electrocuted when she ventured out of her house and waded through
floodwaters. The defendant company was found to have failed to
prevent the fallen lines from causing damage.
No. It is settled in our jurisprudence that only the registered owner of a
public service vehicle is responsible for damages that may arise from
consequences incident to its operation, or maybe caused to any of the
passengers therein.
The co-ownership provided in Article 147 applied only when the parties
are not incapacitated to marry. Hence, the jeepney belongs to the
conjugal partnership with the lawful wife. The common-law wife not
being the registered owner cannot be held liable for the damages
caused by its operation. There is therefore no basis for her liability in
the damages arising from the death of and physical injuries suffered by
the passengers.
Justiniani vs Castillo GR L-
41114
Lagunzad vs Gonzales
Libi vs IAC 214 SCRA 16
Death in unwanted situations
Whether or not the respondent Fiscal
may be restrained from conducting a
preliminary investigation on a
complaint for libel instituted on the
basis of statements embodied in a
separate complaint.
Whether or not the Licensing
Agreement infringes on the
constitutional right of freedom of
speech and of the press.
WON the parents should be held liable
for such damages.
YES. in the case of Sison vs. David [G.R. No. L-11268, Jan. 28, 1961 ]
is that statements made in a pleading in a civil action are absolutely
privileged and no action for libel may be founded thereon provided such
statements are pertinent and relevant to the subject under inquiry,
however false and malicious they may be.
If the rule were otherwise, the courts would be flooded with libel suits
from irate litigants who will be suing each other on the basis of each
and every pleading. Such a rule will breed endless vexatious litigations
contrary to public policy and the orderly administration of justice.
No. In the case at bar, the interests observable are the right to privacy
asserted by respondent and the right of -freedom of expression invoked
by petitioner. Taking into account the interplay of those interests, we
hold that under the particular circumstances presented, and considering
the obligations assumed in the Licensing Agreement entered into by
petitioner, the validity of such agreement will have to be upheld
particularly because the limits of freedom of expression are reached
when expression touches upon matters of essentially private concern.
The subsidiary liability of parents for damages caused by their minor
children imposed under Art 2180 of the Civil Code and Art. 101 of
Revised Penal Code covered obligations arising from both quasi-delicts
and criminal offenses. The court held that the civil liability of the
parents for quasi-delict of their minor children is primary and not
subsidiary and that responsibility shall cease when the persons can
prove that they observe all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage.
Lim vs CA G.R. 125817
LLorante vs CA 202 SCRA
309
Theories on Personal Law:
1. Domiciliary theory – the
personal laws of a person are
determined by his domicile
2. Nationality theory – the
nationality or citizenship
determines the personal laws
of the individual
LRTA vs Natividad gr 145804
Whether or not Donato Gonzales was
the real party in interest in the suit,
despite the fact that he is not the
registered owner under the certificate
of public convenience.
Whether or not Paula Llorente was
entitled to inherit from the estate of
Lorenzo Llorente.
Whether or not there was a perfected
contract of carriage between Navidad
and LRTA
YES. It was private respondent himself who had been wronged and was
seeking compensation for the damage done to him. Certainly, it would
be the height of inequity to deny him his right. In light of the foregoing,
it is evident that private respondent has the right to proceed against
petitioners for the damage caused on his passenger jeepney as well as
on his business. Any effort then to frustrate his claim of damages by the
ingenuity with which petitioners framed the issue should be
discouraged, if not repelled. The Court also upheld that it is but just to
award Gonzales 236,000.00 as compensatory damages for
indemnification for damages comprehends not only the value of the loss
suffered but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain
Since Lorenzo was an American citizen, issues arising from the case
are governed by foreign law. The CA and RTC called to the fore
the renvoi doctrine, where the case was referred back to the law of the
decedent’s domicile, in this case, the Philippine law. Most US laws follow
the domiciliary theory. Thus, the Philippine law applies when
determining the validity of Lorenzo’s will.
Contract of carriage was deemed created from the moment Navidad
paid the fare at the LRT station and entered the premises of the latter,
entitling Navidad to all the rights and protection under a contractual
relation. The appellate court had correctly held LRTA and Roman liable
for the death of Navidad in failing to exercise
Magbanua vs IAC 137 SCRA
329
Magno vs People GR 133896
Manila doctors vs So Un Chua
WON the tenants of defendants were
entitled to moral and exemplary
damages.
WON Dolores is guilty of libel
whether or not petitioner may refuse
respondent to leave the hospital
premises for non-payment of hospital
bills s
YES. Under the law, the landowners has an obligation to keep the
tenant in the peaceful and continuous cultivation of his landholding. In
this case, it shows that the petitioners were denied irrigation water for
their farm lots in order to make them vacate their landholdings. The
defendants violated the plaintiff's rights and caused prejudiced to the
latter by the diversion of water. Under Article 2219 (10), the Civil Code
permits the award of moral damages for acts mentioned in Article 21 of
the same Code which provides, Any person who willfully causes loss or
injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs
or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. The
defendants acted in an oppressive manner which is contrary to the
morals of the petitioners and therefore, they are liable for the
compensation to the latter
YES. Writing to a person other than the person defamed is sufficient to
constitute publication, for the person to whom the letter is addressed is
a third person in relation to its writer and the person defamed
therein.32 Fe, the wife, is, in context, a third person to whom the
publication was made.
NO. Notwithstanding the provision of R.A. 9439 [antidetentionlaw] that
“[i]t shall be unlawful for any hospital or medical clinic in the country to
detain” patients, there are instances wherein hospitals can legally
detain a patient against his will. In the case of Manila Doctors Hospital
v. So Un Chua and Vicky Ty1, the Supreme Court enumerated these
instances, to wit, (1) the patient is a detained or convicted prisoner, (2)
the patient is suffering from a very contagious disease where his
release will be prejudicial to public health, (3) when the patient is
mentally ill such that his release will endanger public safety, (4) in other
exigent cases as may be provided by law.
Manliclic vs Calaunan GR
150157
Civil Liability is extinguished
if the criminal case resulted
in acquittal with a finding
that the fact complained of
was not actually committed,
apply only to dependent civil
actions, meaning, civil
liability arising from crimes of
ex delicto
Matura vs Laya GR L-44550-
51
MERALCO vs CA GR L-39019
Art 21
whether or not Manliclic can still be
held liable for the collision even if
exonerating in the criminal case
WON the court erred I n holding her
liable for moral and exemplary
damages.
Whether or not, in the absence of bad
faith in disconnecting the service to
Chavez family, MERALCO and Yambao
could be held liable for damages
For failure to adduce proof that it exercised the diligence of a
good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its
employees, petitioner Philippine Rabbit Bus Liner Inc. (PRBLI) is held
solidarily responsible for the damages caused by petitioner
Manliclic’s negligence.
Note: Effect of judgment of acquittal in a criminal case involving same
act/omission judgment of acquittal in a criminal case involving same
act/omission
Not a bar to recover civil damages EXCEPT when judgment pronounces
that the negligence from which damage arise is non-existent
In criminal cases, the damages to be adjudicated may either be
increased or reduced depending on the presence of aggravating or
mitigating circumstances. Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides that
exemplary damages may be awarded in criminal cases when the crime
was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. The award
of moral damages was reduced because the accused acted under the
influence of passion and obfuscation. Hence, no exemplary damages
may be awarded if no aggravating circumstance is present.
YES, MERALCO and YAMBAO CAN BE HELD LIABLE.
There is no abuse of discretion in the part of the CA in affirming the
assailed decision of the CFI Manila. The right to disconnect the electric
service of a delinquent customer shall be accompanied by a given notice
48 hours in advanced as provided for in Section 97 of the Revised Order
No. 1 of the Public Service Commission
NPC vs CA 294 SCRA 209
Occena vs Icamina WON petitioner is entitled to an award
of damages arising from the remarks
uttered by private respondent and
found by the trial court to be
defamatory
One of the trucks owned by petitioner NPC figured in a head-on-collision
with another vehicle resulting in death of three (3) passengers of the
latter as well as physical injuries to the other passengers. NPC denied
liability by claiming that the driver of the truck was not its employee but
that of PHESCO Incorporated. The Supreme Court rejected the
argument ruling that NPC was liable as a direct employer of the driver
under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, PHESCO being a “labor-only”
contractor. Given the above considerations, it is apparent that Article
2180 of the Civil Code and not the Labor Code will determine the
liability of NPC in a civil suit for damages instituted by an injured person
for any negligent act of the employees of the “labor-only” contractor.
This is consistent with the ruling that a finding that a contractor was a
“labor-only” contractor is equivalent to a finding that an employer-
employee relationship existed between the owner (principal contractor)
and the “labor-only” contractor, including the latter’s workers.
It must be remembered that every defamatory imputation is presumed
to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable
motive for making it is shown. And malice may be inferred from the
style and tone of publication subject to certain exceptions which are not
present in the case at bar. Calling petitioner who was a barangay
captain an ignoramus, traitor, tyrant and Judas is clearly an imputation
of defects in petitioner’s character sufficient to cause him
embarrassment and social humiliation. Petitioner testified to the feelings
of shame and anguish he suffered as a result of the incident complained
of.
From the evidence presented, we rule that for the injury to his feelings
and reputation, being a barangay captain, petitioner is entitled to moral
damages
PCI Leasing and Finance Inc.
vs UCPB Insurance Inc.
People vs Ruiz 110 SCRA 155
Phl bank of commerce vs CA
269 SCRA 695
Whether petitioner, as registered
owner of a motor vehicle that figured
in a quasi-delict may be held liable,
jointly and severally, with the driver
thereof, for the damages caused to
third parties.
WON applying the last clear chance,
PBC’s teller is negligent for failing to
avoid the injury by not exercising the
proper validation procedure
the CA found petitioner liable for the damage caused by the collision
since under the Public Service Act, if the property covered by a
franchise is transferred or leased to another without obtaining the
requisite approval, the transfer is not binding on the Public Service
Commission and, in contemplation of law, the grantee continues to be
responsible under the franchise in relation to the operation of the
vehicle, such as damage or injury to third parties due to collisions.
The award of moral damages was reduced because there was no
aggravating circumstance but there were three mitigating
circumstances. Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides that exemplary
damages may be awarded in criminal cases when the crime was
committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Hence, no
exemplary damages may be awarded if no aggravating circumstance is
present.
Depositor may file an action for damages under Article 2176 of the New
Civil Code if through the fault of the bank’s employee, the secretary of
the depositor was able to fraudulently divert his funds from his account
to the account of the secretary’s husband. There was contributory
negligence on the part of the depositor but considered the negligence of
the bank and its employees as the proximate cause of the loss.
Picart vs Smith ON Smith was guilty of negligence such
as gives rise to a civil obligation to
repair the damage done
PSBA vs CA 205 SCRA 729 Whether or not PSBA is liable for the
death of the student.
The question as to what would constitute the conduct of a prudent man
in a given situation must of course be always determined in the light of
human experience and in view of the facts involved in the particular
case.
Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration, foresee harm as
a result of the course actually pursued? If so, it was the duty of the
actor to take precautions to guard against that harm.
Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of
the tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect harmful to another
was sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing conduct or guarding
against its consequences.
It will be noted that the negligent acts of the two parties were not
contemporaneous, since the negligence of the defendant succeeded the
negligence of the plaintiff (wrong side of the road) by an appreciable
interval.
Under these circumstances the law is that the person who has the last
fair chance to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable
with the consequences, without reference to the prior negligence of the
other party.
o School's responsibility in loco parentis over its own students: the
harm or negligent act must be committed by its students against
another student, not by an outsider. But it does not necessarily follow
that PSBA is absolved form liability. Failing on its contractual and
implied duty to ensure the safety of their student, PSBA is therefore
held liable for his death.
Purita Miranda Vestil vs IAC
G.R. 74431
Quezon City Government vs
Dacara G.R. 150304
Whether or not the Vestils liable
for damages.
Whether or not Engr Ramir Thompson
and the Quezon City Government be
held liable for damages due to the
injuries suffered by Dacara Jr
Yes. The cause of Theness’ death was the dog bites. She developed
hydrophobia, a symptom of rabies, and had died due to broncho-
pneumonia, a complication of rabies. The Vestils are the possessors of
the property and Purita is the only heir residing in CebuCity Under
Article 2183, regardless if the animal was tame or vicious or if it had
been lost and removed from the control of the Vestils, liability still
attach because one who possesses an animal for utility, pleasure or
service must answer for the damage which the animal may had caused.
Theness is just 3 years old and could not be faulted for any of actions of
alleged provocations. Notably, the Vestils had offered to assist in the
hospitalization expense, even if they declared the Uys to merely be
their casual acquaintances only.
Yes. The negligence of Engr Ramir J Thompson as an instrumentality of
the Quezon City Government is the proximate cause of the injuries and
damage to property suffered by Fulgencio Dacara’s (respondent) son,
which make the LGU subsidiarily liable for the damage incurred. The
petitioner’s claim that they were not negligent insisting that they placed
all the necessary precautionary signs to alert the public of the roadside
construction, but none were presented , gave a more substantial
support to the report of the policeman who responded to the scene of
incident that no precautionary signs were found on the said place of
incident. Thus, the LGU and Engr Ramir J Thompson as its
instrumentality were held negligent in the exercise of their functions
where as capsulized under Article 2189 of the New Civil Code that Local
Government and its employees should be responsible not only for the
maintenance roads/ streets but also for the safety of the public. Hence,
compensatory damages was awarded to the respondent.
Ramos vs CA 321 scra 584 Whether or not the private
respondents were negligent
Saludaga vs FEU ISSUE#1: What is the source of FEU’s
obligation to indemnify Saludaga?
What is needed to prove that this
obligation of FEU exists?
ISSUE#2: In the alternative, is FEU
vicariously liable under Article 2180 of
the Civil Code.
Res ipsa loquitur – a procedural or evidentiary rule which means “the
thing or the transaction speaks for itself.” It is a maxim for the rule that
the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding
circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a presumption of
negligence, or make out a plaintiff’s prima facie case, and present a
question of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation, where
ordinarily in a medical malpractice case, the complaining party must
present expert testimony to prove that the attending physician was
negligent.
This doctrine finds application in this case. On the day of the operation,
Erlinda Ramos already surrendered her person to the private
respondents who had complete and exclusive control over her. Apart
from the gallstone problem, she was neurologically sound and fit. Then,
after the procedure, she was comatose and brain damaged—res ipsa
loquitur!—the thing speaks for itself!
HELD#1: Culpa contractual. It is settled that in culpa contractual, the
mere proof of the existence of the contract and the failure of its
compliance justify, prima facie, a corresponding right of relief. In the
instant case, we find that, when petitioner was shot inside the campus
by no less the security guard who was hired to maintain peace and
secure the premises, there is a prima facie showing that respondents
failed to comply with its obligation to provide a safe and secure
environment to its students.
HELD#2: NO.[R]espondents cannot be held liable for damages under
Article 2180 of the Civil Code because respondents are not the
employers of Rosete. The latter was employed by Galaxy. The
instructions issued by respondents Security Consultant to Galaxy and its
security guards are ordinarily no more than requests commonly
envisaged in the contract for services entered into by a principal and a
security agency. They cannot be construed as the element of control as
to treat respondents as the employers of Rosete.
Santiago vs de leon GR
16180
Santos vs CA GR L-45031
St Joseph College vs Miranda
GR 182353
whether or not the publication of a
complaint filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission before any
judicial action is taken thereon is
privileged as a report of a judicial
proceeding.
Whether or not SJC is liable for the
accident of the student.
One who was hurt while trying to rescue another who was injured
through negligence may recover damages. The person responsible for
the proximate cause of the injury shall be the one liable.
“Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be
true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown,
except in the following cases:
1. A private communication made by any person to another in the
performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or
remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which
are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech
delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public
officers in the exercise of their functions.”
Paragraph 2 aforequoted refers to a qualifiedly privileged
communication, the character of which is a matter of defense that may
be lost by positive proof of express malice on the part of the accused.
Once it is established that the article is of a privileged character, the
onus of proving actual malice rests on the plaintiff who must then
convince the court that the offender was prompted by malice or ill will.
When this is accomplished the defense of privilege becomes unavailing.
YES. The Supreme Court found that the school and the teacher acted
with negligence and failed to exercise the requisite degree of care and
caution.
Schools, administrators and teachers should not take lightly the special
responsibility they have for the students under their care. They are not
only responsible for their students’ lessons but their lives as well, i.e.,
theirs students’ safety, security and well-being. As can be seen in the
cases and their tragic consequences, there may be no second chances,
and mistakes made and lessons learned may prove just too costly.
St. Mary’s Academy vs WON petitioner should be held liable
William Carpitanos G.R. for the damages.
143363
Tenchavez vs Escano GR L- WON there is an action for alienation
19671 of affections against parents
UE vs Jader Whether or not an educational
institution be held liable for damages
for misleading a student into believing
that the latter had satisfied all the
requirements for graduation when such
is not the case
Hence, liability for the accident, whether caused by the negligence of
the minor driver or mechanical detachment of the steering wheel guide
of the jeep, must be pinned on the minor’s parents primarily. The
negligence of petitioner St. Mary’s Academy was only a remote cause of
the accident. Between the remote cause and the injury, there
intervened the negligence of the minor’s parents or the detachment of
the steering wheel guide of the jeep.
“The proximate cause of an injury 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.”
The typhoon was an act of God or what we may call force majeure, NPC
cannot escape liability because its negligence was the proximate cause
of the loss and damage.
NO.
Ratio: 1. no proof of malice
2. parents themselves suggested that the marriage be celebrated again
3. also, Vicenta appeared to have acted independently and being of
age, she was entitled to 4. judge what was best for her and ask that her
decisions be respected
Yes. The Supreme Court held that UE is liable for damages. It is the
contractual obligation of the school to timely inform and furnish
sufficient notice and information to each and every student as to where
he or she had already complied with the entire requirement for the
conferment of a degree or whether they should be included among
those who will graduate. The school cannot be said to have acted in
good faith. Absence of good faith must be sufficiently established for a
successful prosecution by the aggrieved party in suit for abuse of right
under Article 19 of the Civil Code
United States vs Baggay 20 W/N Baggay was exempt from
Phil 142 criminal liability making him exempt
from civil liability as well
Valenzuela vs CA 253 SCRA W/N Valenzuela was guilty of
303 contributory negligence
§ NO. Article 17 of the Penal Code states: Every person criminally
liable for a crime or misdemeanor is also civilly liable§ Article 18 of the
same code says: The exemption from criminal liability declared in Nos.
1, 2, 3, 7, and 10 of article 8 does not include exemption from civil
liability, which shall be enforced, subject to the following:
(1) In cases 1, 2, and 3, the persons who are civilly liable for acts
committed by a lunatic or imbecile, or a person under 9 years of age, or
over this age and under 15, who has not acted with the exercise of
judgment, are those who have them under their authority, legal
guardianship or power, unless they prove that there was no blame or
negligence on their part.
Should there be no person having them under his authority, legal
guardian, or power, if such person be insolvent, the said lunatics,
imbeciles, or minors shall answer with their own property, excepting
that part which is exempted for their support in accordance with the
civil law.
NO. Contributory negligence is 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. “emergency rule” an individual who suddenly finds himself in
a situation of danger and is required to act without much time to
consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending
danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake what
subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be a better solution,
unless the emergency was brought by his own negligence. She is not
expected to run the entire boulevard in search for a parking zone or
turn on a dark Street or alley where she would likely find no one to help
her. She stopped at a lighted place where there were people, to verify
whether she had a flat tire and to solicit help if needed. she parked
along the sidewalk, about 1½ feet away, behind a Toyota Corona Car.
Vedana vs Valencia 295 SCRA WON or not the judge is guilty of Respondent guilty of violating Canons 2, 3 and 22 of the Code of
1 violating the canons of Judicial Ethics Judicial Ethics. The Code mandates that the conduct of a judge must be
free of a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to his performance of
his judicial duties, but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a
private individual. A public official is also judged by his private morals.
A judge, in order to promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary, must behave with propriety at all times. A
judge’s official life can not simply be detached or separated from his
personal existence.

Worcester vs Ocampo 22 Phil So long as sufficient circumstances are present which establish that the
42 offending statements refer to the plaintiff, the requirement that the
defamed is identified is satisfied.the application of the slanderous words
to the plaintiff and the extrinsic matters alleged in the declaration may
be shown by the testimony of witnesses who knew the parties and
circumstances and who can state their judgment and opinion upon the
application and meaning of the terms used by the defendant: It is said
that where the words are ambiguous on the face of the libel, to whom it
was intended to be applied, the judgment and opinion of witnesses, who
from their knowledge of the parties and circumstances are able to form
a conclusion as to the defendant’s intention and application of the libel
is evidence for the information of the jury.

Yuchengco vs Manila WON the publication made by Manila When malice in fact is proven, assertions and proofs that the libelous
Chronicle Chronicle is covered by privilege articles are qualifiedly privileged communications are futile, since being
communication qualifiedly privileged communications merely prevents the presumption
of malice from attaching in a defamatory imputation. He cannot,
therefore, be considered a public figure. Since Yuchengco, the person
defamed in the subject articles, is neither as public officer nor a public
figure, said articles cannot be considered as qualifiedly privileged
communications even if they deal with matters of public concern.