You are on page 1of 2

1.

Paulan vs
Sarabia
2.Fe Cayao- 3 mos pregnant, vaginal bleeding, D&C procedure “raspa”, ectopic pregnancy, filed complaint for malpractice against doctor; doctor denied
Lasam v. allegations. In medical malpractice: duty breach injury proximate cause. The improper performance of the doctor must have been the
Ramolete proximate cause of the injury of the patient. Expert testimony is essential. In this case, spouses failed to present any expert testimony to
Pregnant; did support claim. The immediate cause of the accident resulting in Editha’s injury was her own omission when she did not return for a follow-up
not return to doc check up in defiance of the doctor’s orders. Cannot recover damages.
3.Taylor v Manila
4. Hidalgo 8 year old boy, along with friends his age, entered premises of an ice-plant factory, and took a bath in one of the tanks, and while bathing, boy
Enterprises v sank to the bottom of the tank, died. CA took the view that Hidalgo Enterprises maintained an attractive nuisance (the tanks) but SC took the
Balandan view of American jurisprudence that swimming pools, ponds or reservoir of water are not considered attractive nuisance. “Natures has created
Ice plant factory; streams which attract children. Against the danger of drowning, children are early instructed so they are sufficiently presumed to know the
boy drown danger; if the owner of private property creates an artificial pool on his own property, merely duplicating the work of nature without adding
any new danger, not liable.
4.Afialda v. Afialda was an employee of the spouses as caretaker of their carabaos. While tending the animals, he was gored by one of them and later died
Hisole as a consequence of his injuries that no fault nor force majeure. Family filed for action for damages holding spouses liable under 1905 CC The
Caretaker of possessor of an animal or one who uses the same is liable for any damages it may cause. The statute names “possessor or user” of the animal
carabaos died as the person liable for damages; it is one who has the custody and control of the animal. In this case, animal was in the custody and under the
control of the caretaker. Thus it was caretaker’s business to try to prevent animal from causing damage. Being injured was one of the risks
which he had voluntarily assumed. If only action was based on 1902 it is essential there be fault/negligence on spouses as owners, but
complaint no allegations on those point.
5. Ilocos Norte Owner of grocery store, wading into flood, electrocuted. Could not have assumed the risk!! She was protecting her merchandise. The maxim
Electric Comp v "volenti non fit injuria" relied upon by petitioner finds no application in the case at bar. It is imperative to note the surrounding circumstances
CA which impelled the deceased to leave the comforts of a roof and brave the subsiding typhoon. The deceased was on her way to her grocery
Electrocuted store to see to it that the goods were not flooded. As such, shall we punish her for exercising her right to protect her property from the floods
by imputing upon her the unfavorable presumption that she assumed the risk of personal injury? Definitely not.
6. Calalas Extension seat jeepney, injured
7.Nikko hotel Party not invited still went, asked to leave commotion; SC gave credence to manager’s side, having been in the industry for more than 20 years,
Actor humiliated it is part of her job to be discreet. Mr. Reyes, upon whom the burden rests to prove that indeed Ms. Lim loudly and rudely ordered him to
diva leave, could not offer any satisfactory explanation why Ms. Lim would do that and risk ruining a formal affair. On the contrary, Mr. Reyes, on
cross-examination, had even admitted that when Ms. Lim talked to him, she was very close—close enough for him to almost kiss her.
Moreover, the manner by which Ms. Lim asked Mr. Reyes to leave was likewise acceptable and humane under the circumstances. Without
proof of any ill-motive on her part, Ms. Lim’s act of by-passing Mrs. Filart cannot amount to abusive conduct especially because she did inquire
from Mrs. Filart’s companion who told her that Mrs. Filart did not invite Mr. Reyes. If at all, Ms. Lim is guilty only of bad judgment which, if
done with good intentions, cannot amount to bad faith.
8. Abogar v. Marathon, runner bumped by jeepney, parents filed damage against sponsor and intergames for negligence for lack of adequate measures to
cosmos bottling ensure safety of runners. SC: Safety and precautionary measures fell short of diligence demanded by the circumstances, thus guilty of
company negligence. No employees, relied only on cooperating agencies, and volunteers, patent inadequacy of the personnel to man the route.
Marathon boy Proximate cause of injury was on the part of Intergames, not jeepney because had they acted due diligence by undertaking the race on a
blocked-off road, vehicular accident could have been avoided. Doctrine of assumption of risk could not be applied; Rommel could not have
assumed the risk of death when he participated the marathon because death is not a normal risk incident to running race; he had every reason
to believe that organizers had taken adequate measures .
9. Picart v Smith
10.Allied Banking If the plaintiff’s negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the
v BPI plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. While BPI’s negligence was the proximate cause of
Check was the loss, Allied Bank was not totally free from fault since it is guilty of contributory negligence in accepting the postdated check in the first
cleared place. Thus, the Court held that both banks should be held liable and apportioned the damage between BPI and Allied Bank on a 60-40 ratio,
respectively.
11. Pantranco Family were on their way to picnic, rode jeepney. While on the road, a bus was speeding and encroached on the lane of the jeepney, and
North Bus v subsequently bumped it. Bus claims that jeepney should be liable because of doctrine of last clear chance to avoid the collision. But SC last
Bascos clear chance doctrine can never apply where the party charged is required to act instantaneously and if the injury cannot be avoided by the
Picnic application of all means at hand. In ths case, the bus was speeding, no opportunity to avoid the bus.
12. Glan People’s Engineer Calibo rode jeepney, Zacarias rode cargo truck. Collision. Family of Calibo filed charges. RTC said Calibo was negligent; CA reversed
Lumber & ruling holding Zacarias liable. SC reversed CA’s judgment. According to testimony, jeep was timetravelling beyond its own lane and intruding
Hardware v. IAC into the lane of the truck by at least 11cm width of space. There is also uncontradicted evidence that jeep was zigzagging; there is also finding
Drunk driver that Calibo had been drinking shortly before the accident, leaving from a beach party and was advised not to drive; his driver’s license could
not be found on his person at the scene of accident. The truck was already at full stop 30 m away from jeep when the jeep plowed into it.
Calibo had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.
13. Felisa De Roy The firewall of a burned out building owned by petitioners collapsed and destroyed the tailoring shop occupied by the family of respondents,
& Virgilio Ramos resulting in injuries of respondents and death of daughter. They have been warned by petitioners to vacate their shop in view of its proximity
v. Bernal to the weakened wall but the PR failed to so. RTC says petitioners guilty; CA affirmed in toto. P is liable under CC “the proprietor of a building is
Burned firewall responsible for the damage resulting from its collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs.” SC also rejected P’s argument that
PR had last clear change to avoid the accident if only they heeded the warning to vacate the tailoring shop, which means that their P’s prior
negligence should be disregarded. Last clear change has been applied to vehicular accidents, which is inapplicable to this case.
14.PLDT v Jeepney ran over a mound of earth and fell into an open trench which was an exaction undertaken by PLDT. PR’s claims PLDT is liable for the
Esteban lack of any warning signs. SC said that the accident was due to PR’s lack of diligence. Evidence would show that the jeep must have been
Accident mound running quite fast OW if it was running 25k/km as claimed, he could have braked the vehicle the moment it struck the accident mound; he
should not have run on dim lights but used regular lights which should have made him see the accident mound in time. Esteban had the last
clear chance to avoid the accident. He is precluded from recovering damages.
15. Ong v MWD Plaintiff’s son drowned in one of MWD’s swimming pool. MWD avers that his death was because of his own negligence. Parents strived to
Swimming pool prove that MWD failed to take necessary precautions and that its employees were negligent but sufficient evidence belie their allegations.
boy Lifeguard was not reading magazine, he immediately dived into the pool, employees did everything they can to save the boy. They even
claimed that MWD has last clear chance, having the last opportunity to save the boy but failed to do so. Doctrine cannot be applied because no
records show how the boy came into the big swimming pool. The LCC does not apply where the party charged is required to act
instantaneously. There is also strong suggestion from expert evidence that Ong might have dived where pool was only 5.5 deep and in doing
so, bumped his forehead against the pool, of which he was stunned, which eventually led to his drowing.
16. Achevara v Owner-type jeepney v Passenger-type jeepney. O’s side: Passenger jeepney tried to overtake a motorcycle and enchroached O’s lane which
Ramos caused the collision. P’s side: o jeepney was driving in a zigzag manner, and it was the one that enchroached P’s lane. Evidence show that O
driver was driving a defective jeepney, its wheel detached, and the accident happened at P’s lane. DLC does not apply in this case Valdez no
longer had the opportunity to avoid the collision when it was owner-type jeepney that encroached the lane of passenger jeep.
17.PNR v Vizcara Jeepney crossed the rail track when the train rammed upon it. No crossing bar, lights, signages were poorly maintained. PNR negligent. No
Jeepney rail contributory negligence on the part of jeepney driver; no crossing bar, or at least stoplight, had no reason to anticipate the danger. DLC does
track not also apply. The jeepney driver was unsuspecting of the unfortunate incident.
18.Greenstar LV Mitsubishi van and bus. DLC applies. Sayson testified that he already saw the van 250 meters away yet he did not take any defensive
Express v maneuver or necessary precautions by reducing speed to prevent the accident. Instead, he maintained his current speed, and thus the collision
Universal Robina took place. To add insult to the injury, he fled right away after the collision happened.