CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE ISSUE: WON Smith was guilty of negligence such as
gives rise to a civil obligation to repair the damage done Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall HELD: the judgment of the lower court must be indemnify the latter for the same. reversed, and judgment is here rendered that the Picart recover of Smith damages Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor YES consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds The test by which to determine the existence of with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of negligence in a particular case may be stated as follows: the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use provisions of articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall that person would have used in the same situation? If apply. not, then he is guilty of negligence. The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference If the law or contract does not state the diligence which to the personal judgment of the actor in the situation is to be observed in the performance, that which is before him. The law considers what would be reckless, expected of a good father of a family shall be required. blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary (1104a) intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that. The question as to what would constitute the Picart v. Smith conduct of a prudent man in a given situation must of FACTS: On the Carlatan Bridge in La Union. Picart was course be always determined in the light of human riding on his pony over said bridge. Before he had experience and in view of the facts involved in the gotten half way across, Smith approached from the particular case. opposite direction in an automobile. As the defendant neared the bridge he saw a horseman on it and blew his Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration, horn to give warning of his approach. He continued his foresee harm as a result of the course actually pursued? course and after he had taken the bridge he gave two If so, it was the duty of the actor to take precautions to more successive blasts, as it appeared to him that the guard against that harm. Reasonable foresight of harm, man on horseback before him was not observing the rule followed by ignoring of the suggestion born of this of the road. prevision, is always necessary before negligence can be held to exist. Stated in these terms, the proper criterion Picart saw the automobile coming and heard the for determining the existence of negligence in a given warning signals. However, being perturbed by the case is this: Conduct is said to be negligent when a novelty of the apparition or the rapidity of the approach, prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would have he pulled the pony closely up against the railing on the foreseen that an effect harmful to another was right side of the bridge instead of going to the left. He sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing conduct or says that the reason he did this was that he thought he guarding against its consequences. did not have sufficient time to get over to the other side. As the automobile approached, Smith guided it toward his left, that being the proper side of the road for the Applying this test to the conduct of the defendant in the machine. In so doing the defendant assumed that the present case we think that negligence is clearly horseman would move to the other side. Seeing that the established. A prudent man, placed in the position of the pony was apparently quiet, the defendant, instead of defendant, would in our opinion, have recognized that veering to the right while yet some distance away or the course which he was pursuing was fraught with risk, slowing down, continued to approach directly toward and would therefore have foreseen harm to the horse the horse without diminution of speed. When he had and the rider as reasonable consequence of that course. gotten quite near, there being then no possibility of the Under these circumstances the law imposed on the horse getting across to the other side, the defendant Smith the duty to guard against the threatened harm. quickly turned his car sufficiently to the right to escape hitting the horse; but in so doing the automobile passed It goes without saying that the plaintiff himself was not in such close proximity to the animal that it became free from fault, for he was guilty of antecedent frightened and turned its body across the bridge, got hit negligence in planting himself on the wrong side of the by the car and the limb was broken. The horse fell and road. But as we have already stated, Smith was also its rider was thrown off with some violenceAs a result of negligent; and in such case the problem always is to its injuries the horse died. The plaintiff received discover which agent is immediately and directly contusions which caused temporary unconsciousness responsible. It will be noted that the negligent acts of the and required medical attention for several days. two parties were not contemporaneous, since the negligence of the defendant succeeded the negligence of From a judgment of the CFI of La Union absolving Smith the plaintiff by an appreciable interval. Under these from liability Picart has appealed. 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. Jarco v. Aguilar The fact that a former employee of the store, Gonzales, accompanied Zhieneth to the hospital belied the theory that Zhieneth climbed the counter. Facts This employee Gonzales said that when Zhieneth was Jarco Marketing owns Syvel’s Department Store; Kong, asked by the doctor what she did, she said “Nothing, Tiope, and Panelo are store managers; Sps. Aguilar are I did not come near the counter and the counter just the parents of daughter Zhieneth. fell on me.” This should be accorded credit according Criselda and Zhieneth Aguilar (6 years old) were at the to the spouses. 2nd floor of Syvel’s Department Store. Criselda was Negligence could not be imputed to Criselda since it signing her credit card slip when she felt a sudden gust was reasonable for her to let go of Zhieneth at that of wind and heard a loud thud. When she looked behind moment that she was signing the credit card slip. her, she saw her daughter pinned by the bulk of the The proximate cause was petitioner’s negligence in store’s gift wrapping counter. She asked the assistance of failing to institute measures to have the counter the people around her, and she was immediately rushed permanently nailed. to Makati Medical Center where she was operated. The In response, here is what the petitioners have to say: next day, she lost her speech. She died 14 days after the Zhieneth’s death was an ACCIDENT. accident. The cause of her death was attributed to the Nailing the counter to the ground was not necessary injuries sustained. because it has been there for the longest time without After her burial, Sps. Aguilar demanded the any prior accident and it’s just in a corner. reimbursement of hospitalization, medical bills, and The criminal case for homicide through simple wake and funeral expenses from the petitioners, but they negligence filed against them was dismissed, and they refused to pay. Sps. Aguilar filed a complaint for were acquitted. damages, seeking the payment of actual [157k~] and The CA reversed RTC, ruling in favor of Sps. Aguilar. moral [300k] damages, attorney’s fees [20k], and for loss Petitioners were negligent in maintaining a of income and exemplary damages. structurally dangerous counter [it’s shaped like an The petitioners denied any liability for Zhieneth’s inverted L; the top is wider than the base; weight of injuries and death. They also said the complaint was the upper portion not evenly distributed nor malicious, so they sought the dismissal of the complaint supported by the narrow base]. Two former and an award of moral and exemplary damages, as well employees brought this to the attention of the as attorney’s fees. management but the latter ignored their concern. CA said the incident could have been avoided had Criselda was negligent in exercising care and petitioners repaired this defective counter. The diligence over her daughter by allowing her to freely contention that it has been there for a long time roam around in a store with glassware and appliances without a prior incident is immaterial. Zhieneth was guilty of contributory negligence for Zhieneth was incapable of negligence or other tort. climbing the counter, thereby triggering its collapse Criselda was absolved of any negligence. Counter was made of sturdy wood with strong Testimony of Gonzales (former employee) given support, and it has never fell nor collapsed for the credit past 15 years since its construction Awarded actual damages, compensatory damages Jarco Marketing maintained that it observed due [denied award of funeral expenses for lack of proof to diligence of a good father of the family substantiate it] Other petitioners raised due care and diligence in the CA denied petitioners’ MfR, so they are now seeking the performance of its duties reversal of said decision, saying that since the action is RTC found that the preponderance of evidence favored based on tort, any finding of negligence on the part of the store, et al, saying that the proximate cause was Sps. Aguilar would negate their claim for damages, Zhieneth’s act of clinging to the counter, and that where said negligence was the proximate cause of the Criselda’s negligence contributed to the accident. The injury sustained. They also assailed the testimony of RTC found that the counter was not an attractive Gonzales who was already separated from the store nuisance [something that would attract children to (tarnished by ill-feelings and all). approach, get on or use it], since the counter was situated at the end or corner of the 2nd floor. Issues and Holding WON Zhieneth’s death was accidental or attributable to Here are the assertions of Sps. Aguilar: negligence. ATTRIBUTABLE TO NEGLIGENCE Zhieneth should be entitled to the conclusive presumption that a child below 9 is incapable of WON negligence was attributable to petitioners [for contributory negligence. maintaining a defective counter] or to Sps. Aguilar [for Even if she is capable of contributory negligence, it failing to exercise due and reasonable care while inside was physically impossible for her to have propped the store]. FAULT OF PETITIONERS herself on the counter considering her small frame, Ratio and height and weight of the counter. Accident v. Negligence – they are intrinsically contradictory ACCIDENT pertains to an unforeseen event in which no Zhieneth was just a foot away from her mother, and the fault or negligence attaches to defendant (or if it happens counter was just four meters away from Criselda wholly or partly through human agency, it is an event (contrary to statements that Zhieneth was loitering at which under the circumstances is unusual or unexpected that time). by the person to whom it happens); there is exercise of ordinary care here Gan Vs. CA
NEGLIGENCE is the omission to do something which a
Facts: In the morning of 4 July 1972, the accused Hedy reasonable man, guided by those considerations which Gan was driving along North Bay Boulevard, Tondo, ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would Manila. There were two vehicles parked on one side of do, or the doing of something which a prudent and the road, one following the other. As the car driven by reasonable man would not do Gan approached the place where the two vehicles were Alternatively, it is the failure to observe, for the parked, there was a vehicle coming from the opposite protection of another person’s interest, that degree of direction, followed by another which tried to overtake care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances the one in front of it thereby encroaching the lane of the justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury car driven by Gan. To avoid a head-on collision, Gan swerved to the right and as a consequence, hit an old Picart v. Smith lays down the test to determine WON man who was about to cross the street, pinning him negligence exists: Did the defendant in doing the alleged against the rear of one of the parked vehicles. The force negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which of the impact caused the parked vehicle to move an ordinary prudent person would have used in the forward hitting the other parked vehicle in front of it. same situation? If not, he is guilty of negligence. The pedestrian was injured, Gan's car and the two parked vehicle suffered damages. The pedestrian was SC found that Zhieneth performed no act that facilitated pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. her death. Basis is her statement to the doctor as related Gan was convicted of Homicide thru reckless by former employee Gonzales. It was made part of the imprudence. On appeal, CA modified the trial court's res gestae since she made the statement immediately decision convicting Gan of Homicide thru simple subsequent to the startling occurrence. It is axiomatic imprudence. that matters relating to declarations of pain or suffering and statements made to a physician are generally Issue: WON CA erred in convicting petitioner Gan for considered declarations and admissions. Also, the court Homicide thru simple imprudence. considered the fact that Zhieneth was of a tender age (and in so much pain!), so it would be unthinkable that Ruling: SC reversed CA's decision, acquitting petitioner. she would lie. Under the emergency rule, one who suddenly fonds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act w/o Other findings: tme to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, Petitioners were informed of the danger posed by the if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon unstable counter, yet they did not act on the matter, so reflection may appear to have been a better method, they failed to discharge the due diligence required of a unless the emergency in which he finds himself is good father of a family. brought about by his own negligence. Applying the above test to the case at bar, the SC finds They failed to establish that the testimonies of former the petitioner not guilty of the crime of simple employees were biased. imprudence resulting in Homicide. Conclusive presumption that children below 9 are incapable of contributory negligence is applied. China Airlines v. People
Judge Sangco [book author] says that children below 9 is
conclusively presumed to have acted without FACTS: discernment, and are exempt from criminal liability. Since negligence may be a felony and a QD, it required Jose Pagsibigan purchased a plane ticket for a Manila- discernment as a condition of liability, so therefore, said Taipei-Hongkong-Manila flight from the Transaire children are presumed to be incapable of negligence. Travel Agency.The said agency contacted Philippine Airlines (PAL) which at that time was a sales Even if contributory negligence would be attributed to and ticketing agent of China Airlines (CAL).PAL, Zhieneth, no injury should have occurred if petitioners’ through its ticketing agent Roberto Espiritu, issued theory that the counter is stable and sturdy is to be to Pagsibigan the plane ticket which showed that the believed. latter had been booked at the June 10, 1968 5:20 PM flight of China Airlines, departing from Manila for Criselda is absolved from any contributory negligence, Taipei.When Pagisibigan showed up at the airport an since it was reasonable for her to let go of her child to hour before the supposed scheduled time of departure, sign a slip. he was informed that the CAL plane he was supposed to take for Taipei had left at 10:20 AM that day.The PAL employees then made appropriate arrangements so be rebutted by clear showing on the part of the employer that he could take the PAL’s flight toTaipei the following that it has exercised the care and diligence of a good day. Pagsibigan took the re-scheduled flight.A few father of a family in the selection and supervision of his months after, he filed a complaint for moral damages employee. PAL failed to overcome such presumption. and attorney’s fees against PAL. He alleged that Espiritu As found by CA, PAL was duly informed of CAL’s had been grossly negligent in his duties.In its defense, revised schedule, and in fact, PAL had been issuing PAL alleged that: (1) the departure time indicated on and selling ticket based on said revised time schedule. Pagsibigan’s plane ticket was furnished and confirmed For his negligence, Espiritu is primarily liable by CAL; and (2) CAL did not inform the issuing PAL to Pagisbigan under Article 2176 of the CC. For the branch of the revised timetable of CAL flights. Hence, failure of PAL to rebut the legal presumption of PAL asserted a cross-claim against CAL.CAL, for its negligence, it is also primarily liable under Article 2180 part, averred that: (1) all airlines, including PAL, were of CC. Under Article 2180, all that is required is that the informed of the revised schedule of flights; (2) notices of employee, by his negligence, committed a quasi-delict these revised schedule were furnished to all sales agent; which caused damage to another, and this suffices to and (3) the issuing PAL branch had in fact been issuing hold the employer primarily and solidarily liable for the and selling tickets based on the revised time schedule. tortious act of the employee. PAL, however, can demand Thus, CAL also asserted a cross claim against PAL. from Espiritu reimbursement of the amount which it will have to pay the offended party’s claim. The trial court found PAL and Roberto Espiritu jointly and severally liable by way of exemplary damages. It did not award moral damages. CAL was exonerated.CA ruled out the claim for moral and exemplary damages, and instead awarded nominal damages.
ISSUE:Who should be held liable?
HELD:
The SC noted that Pagsibigan has opted to seek redress
by pursuing two remedies at the same time, that is, to enforce the civil liability of CAL for breach of contract and, likewise, to recover from PAL and Espiritu for tort or culpa aquiliana.A perusal of the complaint of Pagisbigan will disclose that the allegations therein make out a case for a quasi-delict. Had Pagisibigan intended to maintain an action based on breach of contract, he could have sued CAL alone considering that PAL is not a real party to the contractIt is thus evident that when Pagsibigan sensed that he cannot hold CAL liable on a quasi-delict, he made a detour on appeal, by claiming that his action against CAL is based on breach of contract of carriage.SC did not allowPagsibigan to change his theory at this stage because it would be unfair for CAL as it would have no opportunity to present further evidence material to the new theory.But there is no basis to hold CAL liable on a quasi-delict, hence its exoneration from any liability for fault or negligence.
With respect to PAL and Espiritu, PAL’s main defense is
that is only an agent. As a general proposition, an agent who duly acts as such is not personally liable to third persons. However, there are admitted exceptions, as in this case where the agent is being sued for damages arising from a tort committed by his employee. In an action premised on the employee’s negligence, whereby Pagsibigan seeks recovery for the damages from both PAL and Espiritu without qualification, what is sought to be imposed is the direct and primary liability of PAL as an employer. When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the employer. This presumption, however, may