Torts Midterms Transcript PDF

TORTS & DAMAGES (2019) MIDTERM REVIEWER ATTY.
RASHID VEDRA PANDI
TORTS & DAMAGES Ruling:

PART I - TORTS § Applying the elements of quasi-delict, obviously, there is
damage because there were physical injuries. As to the 2nd
QUASI-DELICT element, SC ruled that the mere fact that the lock is defective,
it should have been foreseen by the school that when the door
Introductory Concepts will not open, the person locked will try to get out through the
window. And when that person gets out through the window,
What is the LAW OF TORTS for? he will fall because there were no safety grills. IOW, the
ü Corrective justice injuries that will be sustained from the fall are product of a
ü Compensation natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
- you want to compensate the victim for the loss, for anxiety intervening cause that originated from CLC's own negligence.
and everything, and all the damage caused Reasonable causal connection between the damage suffered
ü Civil redress and that of the act in question has also been established.
ü Optimal deterrence § Res ipsa loquitur which means ‘the thing speaks for itself’
- the moment you award damages, you can deter or shape applies. The child would not have made use of the window if
social behavior, not just by penalizing people and bringing he were able to open the door to begin with. Why should
them to jail, but also by asking monetary compensation there be a resort to an external opening or an abnormal
from them; because admitted, money can actually change opening if the locks were functioning?
how people view things. § Fault vs. Negligence:
ü Loss distribution o F – voluntary act or omission which causes damage to the
- This is relevant when we speak of alternative causes of right of another, giving rise to an obligation on the part of
action. For example, there is a pedestrian nga nabanggaan, the actor to repair such damage.
because nagbangga sad ang duha ka vehicles so you want to N – failure to observe for the protection of the interest of
distribute the loss so that the victim will have an immediate another person that degree of care, precaution and vigilance
relief or remedy under the circumstances. which the circumstances justly demand.
ü Redress of social grievances o F – requires the execution of a positive act which causes
- you want to shape behavior, you want to penalize acts that damage to another
are not desirable in any civilize country. N – omission to do acts which result in damage to another
QUASI-DELICT Revised Penal Code

o Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for Article 3. Definitions. – Acts and omissions punishable by law
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre- are felonies (delitos).
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but
also by means of fault (culpa).
CHILD LEARNING VS. TAGORIO There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate
intent and there is fault when the wrongful act results from
Doctrine: imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
ü Elements of Quasi-Delict
o Damages suffered by the plaintiff; TN: Article 2176 can cover acts that are done with intent or those
o Fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person that are done with reckless imprudence, lack of foresight, etc. It
for whose acts he must respond; and can cover acts that are even punished by the RPC (like Reckless
o The connection of cause and effect between the Imprudence resulting to Homicide) or by other laws. It can also
fault/negligence of the defendant and the damages cover acts that are willfully done. There’s what we call Special
suffered by the plaintiff. Torts. Those are your torts under human relations, Art. 21 and 27
of NCC, because these acts, while they are not punishable by law,
Facts: they require intent for there to be claims of damages. (Baksh and
Timothy Tagario entered the CR on the 3rd floor of their school. Carrascoso cases discussed below)
He found himself locked and couldn’t open the door. He called for
help but no one answered. He panicked and tried opening the …‘some other person for whose acts he must respond’ in the 2nd
window. He fell three stories below and obtained serious multiple element of quasi-delict
physical injuries. The school alleged that there was no fault or § This refers to the vicarious liability provided in Art. 2180, NCC:
negligence on its part and the proximate cause of the injury was
the kid’s contributory negligence. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only
for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons
Issue: for whom one is responsible.
Is the school liable to pay damages on the basis of quasi-delict?
YES The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother,
are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children
who live in their company.
ALIANZA | DOLIENTE | GAYANES | LIMPANGUG | MAC MAC | PAJAO | REYES | TABADA U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | PAGE 1 OF 35
TORTS & DAMAGES (2019) MIDTERM REVIEWER ATTY. RASHID VEDRA PANDI
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or TORT VS. QUASI-DELIC T
incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live § Quasi-delict, as defined in Art. 2176 of the Civil Code, is
in their company. homologous but not identical to tort under the common law.
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise TORT AS A COMMON LAW CONCEPT
are likewise responsible for damages caused by their § We borrowed the concept of torts from Anglo-American
employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are jurisdiction.
employed or on the occasion of their functions. § The common law concept of tort is much broader than the civil
law concept of quasi-delict.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their § Torts is broader as it may or may not include the criminal
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of aspect of the act or omission.
their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged § Torts is much broader than culpa aquiliana because it includes
in any business or industry. not only negligence, but also intentional criminal acts as well
such as:
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a o assault and battery
special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by o false imprisonment and
the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which o deceit.
case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. § TN: The 3 acts mentioned are only considered as torts in the
US unlike in the Philippines where we also consider them as
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades crimes.
shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students § False imprisonment can actually include physical restraint and
or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody. even just emotional restraint. You don’t have to physically
restrain someone but the words that you’ve uttered, the
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the threats that you’ve thrown against that person, such person is
persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the constrained not to act accordingly.
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
Filling the Vacuum
§ Art. 21, NCC: Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to
ELCANO VS. HILL another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs
or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
Facts: § As discussed, RPC covers intentional and malicious acts while
Reginald Hill (minor; married; still living with his father and NCC covers negligent acts. There’s a vacuum, right? There are
receiving subsistence from him) caused the death of Agapito (son instances when it’s not strictly under quasi-delict but not also
of Elcano). Elcano filed a criminal case against Reginald but penalized by law. That’s when there was a need to fill that
Reginald was acquitted. Elcano then filed a civil action against vacuum, and that’s human relations.
Reginald and his dad (Marvin Hill) for damages based on Article § Art. 21 is designed to expand the concept of torts or quasi-
2180 of the Civil Code. Marvin Hill argued that his civil liability as delict in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for
a parent has been extinguished by the fact that his son is already the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for
an emancipated minor by reason of his marriage. human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in the
statute books. Because you can easily get away with it, right?
Issue: When I know that it is not penalized under the RPC or not
Is Article 2180 applicable on Marvin Hill? YES covered under Article 2176, then I can just escape any
accountability or responsibility for that matter. Hence, we
Ruling: must have a catch-all basis for all wrongs which we cannot
§ As regards to emancipation (during the time this case was specifically enumerate under our laws.
penned), emancipation of the child does not necessarily
follow the absolute relief of parent’s responsibility. One of the
restrictions is that the unemancipated child cannot enter into GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH V. CA
litigation without the consent of the parent. In this case, it is
evident that the young Hill is not actually, absolutely, generally Doctrine:
emancipated from the parent since he was still living with his ü Art. 21, NCC is designed to expand the concept of torts or
father and receiving subsistence from him. (TN: no more quasi-delict in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal
‘unemancipated’ minors now) remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is
impossible for human foresight to specifically enumerate and
Article 100, RPC punish in the statute books.
§ Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
§ As previously discussed, there’s also fault or negligence in the Facts:
RPC. So, even the RPC recognizes that for every criminal act ‘Filipina Girl’ filed a complaint for damages against ‘Foreign Boy’
there has to be a corresponding civil liability. A victim is not for the alleged violation of their agreement to get married.
precluded actually from invoking or filing a complaint for culpa Foreign Boy courted and proposed to marry her and she agreed.
aquiliana even if the act amounts in a criminal offense, or even Foreign Boy forced her to live with him in the Lozano apartments.
if the act is voluntary. She was a virgin at that time. He repudiated the marriage
agreement and asked her not to live with him anymore and that Forestalling Double Recovery
he is already married to someone. § Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the
preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil
Issue: liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the
Can the girl file for damages? YES plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or
omission of the defendant.
Ruling: § Purpose: to prevent unjust enrichment.
§ A breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable § Main purpose of recovery: only indemnification. So, you’ve
wrong. But it’s possible for you to file an action for damages been broken hearted once, right? How many times you go
on the ground that it was due to the deceit employed. over the pain? Have you gone through insurance? Diba the
§ Moral Seduction – when the woman was compelled to allow purpose is indemnification and not for you to enrich yourself
herself to be deflowered due to the promising words, etc. using that situation.
§ Claim for damages – when the moving intent of why the
woman gave in to the request of marital, or sexual congress is CULPA AQUILIANA vs. CULPA CRIMINAL
due to fraud and deceit employed and that there is willful § “Absent evidence of negligence therefore, accused-appellant
injury to her honor and reputation. cannot be held liable for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
§ A heart balm suit pertains to that case filed wherein it seeks Damage to Property with Physical Injuries as defined in Article
to recover damages to mend a broken heart. Breaches of 365 of the Revised Penal Code.
promise to marry is very common in the US before. Because
when you’re promised with marriage, and then that person Key Differences Criminal Aquiliana
would breach that promise, you need a balm for your broken Interest involved Public interest Private concern
heart. Diba a balm is a reliever. It can relieve you from Purpose Retribution Indemnification
itchiness. Your lip balm, for example, for your dry lips. So that’s Scope of the remedy Lesser scope Broader scope
what a heart-balm suit is. It’s intended for victims of breaches
of a promise to marry, in the form of monetary compensation. Culpa criminal covers only lesser scope because there must be a
§ The SC award damages in this case because that poor barrio law that clearly punishes the act before you can claim or have
lass, who works in a restaurant, was deceived. The SC was very redress in the court. For example, you went to Pennsylvannia and
biased in this case, it’s very obvious with how former CJ whistling is penalized there. And then you whistled. You will be
Leonen penned it. In the latter part of its decision, it states penalized under the law of Pennsylvannia but remember that such
that the SC will not allow foreigners to make a mockery of the law punishing such act needs to be published first. It can only be a
public policy including the culture of the Philippines. criminal offense if it is clearly covered by a statute or such act is
§ The SC has to rule on the basis of the provision of law. Article criminal in nature because it would be oppressive if someone is
2176 cannot be applied since the foreigner is not negligent penalized for an act that is not covered by law. Criminal cases are
just because he committed a breach on his promise to marry. more serious than other cases. The purpose of criminal law is for
The SC applied Article 21 instead. SC discussed that Article 21 deterrence. You want to regulate or make sure that everyone is a
was actually designed to expand the concept of torts. law-abiding citizen. How do you make that if you did not publish
§ Without Art. 21, that Filipino woman would not have any the law covering those prohibited acts? So, it is a guard for
recourse. ‘Principle of mirisi’ nalang jud. But again, the SC said arbitrary prosecution and a way for the general public to regulate
that Article 21 serves as a gap filler. their regular conduct. This is important because nowadays, we
have the revenge pornography. When is it revenge pornography
or just sharing of your intimate moments? Unless there is a law
SPECIAL TORTS specifically defining revenge pornography, you cannot penalize
§ There has to be fault or negligence before you can claim someone for sharing mutually taken photo. Moreover, criminal
damages under Art. 2176. And Art. 2176 can also include offenses entail severe punishment and serious offenses as
voluntary acts or acts done with intent which is covered by opposed to civil cases.
Special Torts (309 and 21).
§ Art. 309. Any person who shows disrespect to the dead, or RVP: In practice, you file criminal case rather than civil case
wrongfully interferes with a funeral shall be liable to the family because then, the accused will now sit down with you to
of the deceased for damages, material and moral. negotiate. Because it’s different when you received summons
§ Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to in a criminal case or an arrest warrant than just a mere
another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs summons in a civil case.
or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
§ In Article 309, you have to prove that the person has the intent
to ridicule or disrespect the dead. What if he is just an Ground for Effect on Civil Effect on
oblivious individual? Buang lang gyud. For him, it is okay Acquittal in the Liability Ex Delicto Responsibility for
especially in a country with cross-cultural setting. When you Criminal Case Quasi-Delict
are not aware with the culture of others, you might be doing Accused is not the Acquittal closes An acquittal or
acts that are not accepted by the customs and traditions of the author of the act the door to civil conviction in the
others. complained of. liability based on criminal case is
§ For damages to be covered under Special torts, you have to the crime or ex entirely irrelevant
prove willful intent which is still covered under Article 2176. delicto in the civil case
The fact from Acquittal closes based on quasi-
which the civil the door to civil
liability might arise liability based on delict or culpa operate or act on the matter? You cannot employ just any
did not exist. the crime or ex aquiliana. other standards, it has to be local to the specific ailment or
delicto specific kind of operation. So, you cannot have testimonies
Accused is Civil liability ex from cardiologists, for example or from dermatologist.
acquitted based on delicto may be
reasonable doubt proved by CULPA AQUILIANA vs. CULPA CONTRACTUAL
of his guilt. preponderance of § Negligence in culpa contractual is only incidental to the
evidence performance of the obligation because culpa contractual
assumes that there is an existing contractual obligation
This is the summary of the interplay between ex delicto and quasi- between the parties. So, when there is negligence that
delict. Make no mistake and ayaw na jud mo kalibog, regardless of happened that breaks the contract, then it means that it was
how the trial court ruled on the matter because effect on only incidental to what was already entered into between the
responsibility for quasi-delict is independent. It has a substantivity parties, and all you have to do is to take a look at the contract
on its own. So regardless of the reason for the acquittal, the effect and determine whether there's been default on the part of the
on responsibility for quasi-delict will be untouched. The reason for obligor.
the acquittal will only be material for civil liability ex delicto; and § The negligence in culpa aquiliana is direct and primary
you can only create that if the accused is acquitted based on because you don't have a reference point. The parties don't
reasonable doubt of his guilt. Other than that, the first two even know each other. For example, the pedestrian was just
instances, absolutely barred. unfortunately hit by the vehicle. In this case, it is direct and
primary because it is not dependent upon any other
CIVIL LIABILITY EX DELICTO instrument.
§ Section 2(b) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure § In culpa contractual, the plaintiff only needs to establish the
which reads: existence of the contract and the obligor’s failure to perform
(b) Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it his obligation. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove or
extinction of the civil, UNLESS the extinction proceeds even allege that the obligor’s non-compliance was due to fault
from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from or negligence.
which the civil might arise did not exist. § In culpa contractual, you only have to prove two things: 1) the
§ Such provision only pertains to Civil Liability Ex Delicto in existence of a contract and 2) default. In culpa aquiliana on
relation to Art. 100, RPC. It does not cover civil liability arising the other hand, you have to prove the very damage and the
from fault or negligence or quasi delict under your New Civil very negligent act without which you have no legal leg to stand
Code on.
§ Art. 100, RPC. Civil Liability of a person guilty of felony. Every
person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. BASIC PRINCIPLES
§ Culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil
Code.
LUMANTAS, MD VS. CALAPIZ § As what you’ve learned in ObliCon, obligation arises from
separate sources. And one can proceed independently from
Facts: the other.
This case involves parents who admitted their child to the hospital § ‘Reserving an action for damages’ – only refers to the civil
for emergency appendectomy. Then the child was advised by the liability arising from culpa criminal. IOW, even if you did not
doctor to undergo circumcision. So, he was circumcised, and then reserve your right to file a separate action for damages in the
after a while, some issues arose from the said surgery. This criminal case, you can still file a culpa-aquiliana case.
resulted to trauma resulting damages to the child and to the § The pre-existing contract between the parties bar the
parents. The accused was acquitted on the ground of insufficiency applicability of the law on quasi-delict.
of evidence but was ordered to pay moral damages. § You can only claim for quasi-delict if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation, right? Why is it that if there is a pre-
Issue: existing contractual relation you do not find recourse in quasi-
WON civil liability is still possible despite his acquittal of the crime? delict? Because there's already a source of obligation. When
YES there is a contract, it's easier to pinpoint who is at fault and
who is not at fault because basically, the contract lays down
Ruling: their rights and obligations of both parties.
§ The SC did not rule that the accused is absolutely not the § However, this rule is NOT absolute because even if there is a
author of the offense. There was also no finding or an express contract between the parties, the tort can be the one that
declaration that the facts from which the civil liability might breaks the contract. It means that there is a breach in the
arise did not exist. It's just that there's insufficiency of contract between the parties and that breach itself would
evidence; meaning, it is akin to acquittal based on reasonable constitute the tort or culpa aquiliana.
doubt. And if it's an acquittal based on reasonable doubt, that § Test to determine whether a quasi-delict can be deemed to
does not preclude damages for civil liability ex delicto. underlie the breach on a contract:
§ In medical malpractice cases, we have what we call "locality Where, without a pre-existing contract between two
rule". Because how will you know if it's a medical malpractice? parties, an act or omission can nonetheless amount to an
You have to review what are the standard operating actionable tort by itself, the fact that the parties are
procedures under the specific case. If it's appendectomy, how contractually bound is no bar to the application of quasi-
should the locality or the doctors involved in appendectomy delict provisions to the case.
COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC. VS. CA passenger was not able to take the same Air France flight as
promised in the contract.
Facts: § The act here that breached the contract which is also a tort in
Some parents of the students complained to Lydia Geronimo that itself is the act of wrongful expulsion. Against his will, he was
the Coke and Sprite softdrinks she sold contained fiber-like matter forced to take another seat in place of a white man who
and other foreign substances. She brought the said bottles for allegedly had the better right. But evidence disclosed that he
examination to DOH and it was found out that the soft drinks “are had no better right because kinsay una ni-book, si koya.
adulterated.” As a result, her per day sales of soft drinks severely § You need to know whether the breach is caused by an act that
plummeted that she had to close her shop for losses. She amounts to a tort in itself. How will you know? There’s this
demanded damages from Coca-Cola. She argued that the case she test in this case – where without a pre-existing contract
was filing was based on quasi-delict, so the prescription period is between the parties, an act or omission can nonetheless
4 years. However, the respondent contended that the action was amount to an actionable tort in itself. Meaning, close your
based on implied warranties which has prescription period of 6 eyes to the fact that there was a contract. If in itself, the act
months. would amount to a violation of a right even without that
contract, then the exception will apply. What is the violation
Issue: here? It is in violation of Art. 21 because naulawan sya,
What prescription period should be applied? gisinghag2xan sya.
§ Now, for example, si Carrascoso, nadigyas lang didto sa sulod
Ruling + RVP: sa eroplano then na-amputate sya. Di ka pwede mag culpa
§ The action is based on quasi-delict so it was filed within the aquiliana ana because that same incident happened in the
prescriptive period of 4 years. It was based on quasi-delict performance of the obligation. So if naay contract and naay
because although there was a contract between Coca-Cola violation of human relations, that is a red flag that the
and Lydia, the quasi-delict was the breach upon the contract. exception will apply.
§ SC ruled based only on the allegations of the complaint. It did § Kato si Carrascoso, dili tungod gi-insulto sya, wa naka deliver,
not make a categorical finding on whether Coca-Cola was wa na satisfy ang contract of carriage. Tungod jud to na wa na
negligent. The case was remanded to the trial court. sya nibalik ug sakay kay nahadluk sya the same predicament
ang iya ma go through. Kay naulawan baya sad siya, giingnan
pa gale ‘I will throw you out of the window’ and the specific
AIR FRANCE V. CARRASCOSO reference to ‘white man’. There is an implicit racism involved
especially this is Air France. So, the act that breached the
contract (failure to transport) is a tort in itself because of the
Doctrines:
presence of bad faith.
ü The act that breaks the contract may also be a tort.
Facts:
REGINO V. PANGASINAN COLLEGES OF SCIENCE AND
Plaintiff was a member of a group of 48 Filipino pilgrims that left
TECHNOLOGY
Manila for Lourdes. Air France, through its authorized agent, PAL,
issued to plaintiff a “first class” round trip airplane ticket from
Manila to Rome. From Manila to Bangkok, plaintiff travelled in first Facts:
class, but at Bangkok, the Manager of the defendant airline forced Two students were disallowed to take their final examinations
plaintiff to vacate the “first class” seat that he was occupying since they refused to buy tickets for the fund-raising project of the
because, in the words of the witness Cuento, there was a “white school. Gipa-gawas sila nya gi-announce pa jud na in today’s exam,
man”, who, the Manager alleged, had a better right to the seat. these 2 individuals cannot take. The student filed an action for
When asked to vacate his “first class” seat, the plaintiff refused damages but she was no longer enrolled in the said school during
and told defendant’s Manager that his seat would be taken over the filing of the case.
his dead body. After some commotion, plaintiff reluctantly gave
his “first class” seat in the plane. Consequently, the plaintiff, Issue:
desiring no repetition of the inconvenience and embarrassments WON the school is liable for damages? YES
brought by defendant's breach of contract, was forced to take a
Pan American World Airways plane on his return trip from Madrid Ruling + RVP:
to Manila. § In this case, there is a pre-existing contractual relation
between a student and a school but despite that, the SC
Issue: awarded damages because gipakauwawan man ang student.
WON action based on quasi-delict is proper despite the presence § Based on the facts, she is not really claiming based on culpa
of pre-existing contract? YES contractual because she is no longer enrolled in that school to
begin with. What she’s asking before the court is damages kay
Ruling + RVP: na-insulto man sya.
§ GR: The pre-existing contract between the parties bars the
applicability of the law in quasi-delict. However, in this case,
quasi-delict was applied even if there is an existing contract of
carriage.
§ ‘The act that breaks the contract may also be a tort.’ IOW,
there has to be a breach of a contract first. In this case, the
TORRES MADRID BROKERAGE INC. (TMBI) VS FEB MITSUI AND because of the doctrine of last fair (clear na karon) chance,
BMTI wala na siya giconsider sa SC. In this case man gud, the driver
of the motorized vehicle, Smith, layo palang, even before
Facts: arriving at the bridge, he saw them already. He just kept on
Sony had engaged TMBI in facilitating, processing, withdrawing blowing the horn, and despite that, wala jud ni-move ang
and delivering the shipment of various electronic goods from the horse. So, under the circumstances, he should have occupied
port of Manila to its warehouse in Laguna. TMBI subcontracted the other side of the lane, knowing that no other person is
BMT Trucking services since it did not own any delivery truck actually using it. Actually, gi-measure pa gali ang distance
which Sony did not object to the arrangement. 4 trucks left BMT’s diba? Ang length ug ang width sa bridge. Layu-layo pa jud siya.
garage but only 3 arrived at the warehouse. TMBI filed a complaint Taas taas pa iyang opportunity to adjust, while on the other
for “hijacking”. Mitsui, insurer of Sony, paid for the loss. hand, katong si pony rider maglisod na siya to retract and
change his course.
Issue: § Test of negligence: (1) same situation, (2) prudent person, (3)
WON an action for damages based on quasi-delict can be filed? reasonable care and caution.
NO
Ruling + RVP: GAID VS. PEOPLE

Di ka maka culpa aquiliana diri kay the breach happened in the
performance of the obligation man (contract of carriage). Again, Doctrine:
ang telltale ra jud guys is human relations na breaches. ü The test of negligence is objective.
Facts:
ACT OR OMISSION Petitioner was driving his passenger jeepney along a 2-lane road
where the Laguindingan National High School is located. Around
NEGLIGENCE 12 noon, a 14 year-old student, Dayata, was seen by eyewitness
§ It has been defined as the failure to observe for the protection Bongolto sitting near a store on the left side of the road. From
of the interests of another person that degree of care, where he was (at the left side of the road), Dayata raised his left
precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly hand to flag down petitioner’s jeepney which was traveling on the
demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. right lane of the road. However, neither did petitioner nor the
§ We view it according to the circumstances, and not according conductor, Mellalos, saw anybody flagging down the jeepney to
to the particular perception of the actor. Because when you ride at that point. The next thing Bongalto saw was that Dayatas’
are faced with an emergency, you are not expected to be the feet were pinned to the rear wheel of the jeepney, after which, he
most reasonable person on earth. We will have to evaluate laid flat on the ground behind the jeepney. Another prosecution
your acts according to the imaginary ‘good father of the witness, Actub, who was also situated on the left side of the street
family’ but directly in front of the school gate, heard a strong impact
coming from the jeep sounding as if the driver forced to accelerate
in order to hurdle an obstacle. Dayata was then seen lying on the
PICART VS. SMITH ground and caught in between the rear tires. Petitioner felt that
the left rear tire of the jeepney had bounced and the vehicle tilted
Doctrines: to the right side. The autopsy report stated cranio-cerebral
ü Test of Negligence: Did the defendant in doing the alleged injuries as the cause of death.
negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an
ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same Ruling + RVP:
situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. § In determining the negligence of Gaid, 2 tests are to be
ü Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the considered: first phase (when the driver hit the victim) and
admonition born of this provision, is always necessary before second phase (when the driver did not stop after hitting the
negligence can be held to exist. victim). In the first phase, the driver wasn’t liable because
there was no negligence on his part. It was established that
Facts: the student was on the opposite side of the road. The driver
The plaintiff was riding a pony on a bridge. Seeing an automobile was not expected to look at the road where the student was.
ahead, he improperly pulled his horse over to the railing on the It was the victim’s negligence which brought to him his own
right. The driver of the automobile, however, guided his car injuries (which ultimately led to his death huhu). As regards to
toward the plaintiff without diminution of speed until he was only the second phase, even if there was a contributory negligence
a few feet away. He then turned to the right but passed so closely on the part of Gaid, he would still not be made ultimately
to the horse that the latter being frightened, jumped around and liable since it was not the proximate cause that produced the
was killed by the passing car. injury.
§ The proximate cause of the death was the fractured head
Issue: obtained by the victim. Such fracturing was during the first
WON Smith was guilty of negligence? YES stage pa lang wherein he (victim) was found to be negligent.
Therefore, that could not set the motion of negligence on the
Ruling + RVP: part of the driver because sa sinugdanan pa lang, victim was
§ The pony rider was not in the proper lane. The SC recognized negligent. IOW, he fractured his head because of his failure to
that there could have been contributory negligence, but observe proper diligence. By virtue of the doctrine of
proximate cause, you cannot attribute the death to the ü The prime mover was parked negligently – the skewed
subsequent acts of the driver. In fact, the SC made that even parking of the prime mover on the national road posed a
if nihunong si driver right away, it could not save the day for serious risk
the victim because of the initial point of impact pa lang, patay ü It was incumbent upon the owner to take some measures to
na siya daan. prevent that risk, or at least minimize it, which it failed to do
§ Before negligence could exist, there has to be: as it was not equipped with triangular, collapsible
ü Reasonable foresight of harm – not present in this case, reflectorized plates. Respondent’s contention that he
because wa man siya nakakita sa bata. The jeepney was placed bananas on the road as a warning was held to be
already full so there was no way for him to lingi-lingi sa pikas. insufficient, considering that it was dark.
Besides, there was a conductor naman. Usually, the ü There was no spare tire – Thus, the prime mover remained
conductor will just hail you. Also, they were traversing improperly parked for a substantial amount of time.
through a school. So iyaha rajung primary responsibility was ü The driver could have still parked it properly since there was
what was before him. He cannot be expected to look still ample space in the area.
sideways, and unfortunately, that’s where the victim was L ü The driver was found sleeping inside the prime mover.
ü If you have foreseen the harm, you must observe proper ü The owner of the prime mover allowed the driver to
admonition to avoid it – fulfilled because when he realized maneuver the vehicle even though it was his first time
nga naa siyay naligsan, nihunong and in fact, girescue dayun driving a prime mover which he’s actually unacquainted
si poor boy. with.
§ The test of negligence is objective. It’s subjective with respect ü The driver could have immediately called the owner and
to the facts or to the specific factual antecedents but it’s asked for assistance rather than staying with the improperly
objective with respect to kinsa na tawo imong gamiton na parked prime mover. If that were the case, wala unta to
standard. It’s always the reasonable prudent person faced naabtan ug 4am. To think mga 10pm pa gud sya na-flatan.
with the same circumstance. So, while the facts may vary, you There would have been sufficient amount of time for him to
have a uniform tao from which you can gauge whether have replaced the vehicle’s tires.
negligence was there. § Proximate Cause: The vehicles actually meet sa tunga. Both
vehicles did not occupy their respective lanes because they
had to adjust man diba. Ingun ang owner sa Prime Mover nga
DY TEBAN VS. JOSE CHING contributory negligence daw kuno on the part of the two
vehicles. But SC said no kay they would not have acted in that
Facts: manner kung wala to siyang illegally or abnormally parked nga
Catamora was driving a Nissan van owned by Dy Teban Trading, vehicle. So the proximate cause really was the skewed parking
Inc. along the National Highway. Around 4am, Joana Paula of the prime mover.
passenger bus was cruising on the opposite lane towards the van.
In between the 2 vehicles was a parked prime mover with a trailer,
owned by Liberty Forest, Inc. The night before, the prime mover PHIL HAWK CORP VS. VIVIAN TAN LEE
with trailer suffered a tire blowout. The driver, Limbaga, parked
the prime mover askew occupying a substantial portion of the Doctrine:
national highway, on the lane of the passenger bus. He parked the ü Foreseeability is the fundamental test of negligence.
prime mover with trailer at the shoulder of the road with the left
wheels still on the cemented highway and the right wheels on the Facts:
sand and gravel shoulder of the highway. The prime mover was The accident involved a motorcycle, a passenger jeep, and a bus.
not equipped with EWD required under LOI No. 229. As substitute, Before the collision, the motorcycle was on the left side of the
Limbaga placed a banana trunk with leaves on the front and the road, just as the parked passenger jeep was. When the motorcycle
rear portion of the prime mover to warn incoming motorists. It is was about to make a turn, a bus owned by Philippine Hawk
alleged that Limbaga likewise placed kerosene lighted tin cans on Corporation and was being driven by Avila, hit them which caused
the front and rear of the trailer. To avoid hitting the parked prime Vivian physical injuries and death of her husband. But before the
mover occupying its lane, the incoming passenger bus swerved to incident, the driver of the bus has already seen the motorcycle 15
the right, onto the lane of the approaching Nissan van. Ortiz saw meters away pa sya.
two bright and glaring headlights and the approaching passenger
bus. He pumped his break slowly, swerved to the left to avoid the Ruling + RVP:
oncoming bus but the van hit the front of the stationary prime § The bus at that point could have foreseen that there would be
mover. The passenger bus hit the rear of the prime mover. Ortiz an impact because 15 meters away pa lang, kita na siya nga
and Catamora only suffered minor injuries. The Nissan van, naay mi-crossover nga motorcycle. The same could be said of
however, became inoperable as a result of the incident. Petitioner the motorcycle knowing that naay bus out there. Unya nganu
filed a complaint for damages against private respondents. niliko man ka? But I do not understand why the SC said that
only the bus is at fault. The motorcycle turned right to the lane
Issue: where the bus was. And ingun si SC, the bus driver actually saw
WON the owner of the prime mover and its driver are negligent? that. Instead of slowing down, nagpadayun gihapon sa iyang
YES speed maong nagbangga.
§ Ang iyang allegation is that actually SC, I tried my best.
Ruling: Niswerve daw siya sa right para makaiwas. Ana si SC how did
§ The owner of the prime mover was made liable because of the you bump the jeep kung ni turn kag right. Diba? Wa unta
following reckless moves of its driver: nabanggaan ang jeepney. Ang nahitabo gyud was niuna si
motorcycle. But then the blame was on the bus because of Ruling:
foreseeability. § He was found negligent because he:
ü was not supposed to ask help from his students but should
PROXIMATE CAUSE have hired adult manual laborers instead
§ Proximate Cause is defined as that cause, which, in natural ü required the children to remain inside the pit even after they
and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient had finished digging, knowing that the huge block was lying
intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which, the nearby and could be easily pushed by any pupil
result would not have occurred. ü ordered them to level the soil when it was so apparent that
§ There is no exact mathematical formula to determine the huge stone was at the brink of falling
proximate cause. ü went to a place where he would not be able to check on the
§ Standard of conduct is the level of expected conduct that is children’s safety
required by the nature of the obligation and corresponding to ü left the children close to the excavation, an obviously
the circumstances of the person, time and place. attractive nuisance
§ In ascertaining the standard, you use common sense, human § The hole is an attractive nuisance because as held by the SC,
experience, logic, policy, precedent etc. after a day of digging, the children have the right to enjoy the
fruits of their labor.
§ loco parentis – substitute parents; teachers are deemed
Circumstances of the person substitute parents of the students
§ This is an illustration that the degree of diligence required of a
particular person, either the victim or the accused, will vary
YLARDE ET AL VS. AQUINO ET AL according to the circumstance of that person. The
circumstances include age, personality of that person, etc.
Doctrines: § It should be remembered that he was only 10 years old at the
ü ARTICLE 2180, NCC: “Lastly, teachers or heads of time of the incident. As such, he is expected to be playful and
establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages daring. His actuations were natural to a boy his age. Going
caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as back to the facts, it was not only him but the three of them
they remain in their custody.” who jumped on the block. From this, it is clear that he only did
ü The degree of care required to be exercised must vary with the what any other 10-year old child would do in the same
capacity of the person endangered to care for himself. situation.
ü A minor should not be held to the same degree of care as an
adult, but his conduct should be judged according to the
average conduct of persons of his age and experience. FRANCISCO VS. CHEMICAL BANK CARRIERS
ü A teacher who stands in loco parentis to his pupils would have
made sure that the children are protected from all harm in his Facts:
company. CBCI alleged that its diesel fuels were delivered and sold to
Francisco by Bacsa who represent himself as an employee of CBCI.
Facts: However, Bacsa was not authorized by CBCI and that Bacsa only
Soriano was the principal of the Gabaldon Primary School in stole the diesel fuels. CBCI wanted to recover the diesel fuels from
Pangasinan. Aquino was a teacher therein. At that time, the Francisco but this cannot longer be done because Francisco had
school was littered with several concrete blocks which were already sold it to third persons. Hence, CBCI filed this case for
remnants of the old school shop that was destroyed in World War damages against Francisco.
II. Realizing that the huge stones were serious hazards to the
schoolchildren, teacher Banez started burying them one by one The heirs of Francisco argued that since Francisco was blind, the
and was able to bury 10 of these blocks all by himself. Aquino standard of conduct that was required of him was that of a
decided to help clear the area so he gathered 18 of his male reasonable person under like disability. Moreover, they insist that
students and ordered them to dig beside a 1 ton concrete block a Francisco exercised due care in purchasing the diesel fuel by doing
hole where the stone can be buried. It was left unfinished so the the following: (1) Francisco asked his son to check the identity of
following day he called 4 of the 18 students including Ylarde to Bacsa; (2) Francisco required direct delivery from Petron, the
complete the excavation. Defendant left the children to level the supplier of CBCI; (3) Francisco required that he be named as the
loose soil while he went to see Banez for the key to the school consignee in the invoice; and (4) Francisco required separate
workroom where he can get some rope. It was alleged that before receipts from Bacsa to evidence actual payment.
leaving, he told the children “not to touch the stone”. After he
left, the children playfully jumped into the pit when suddenly the Issue:
concrete block slide down. Unfortunately, Ylarde was pinned to WON Francisco is negligent? YES
the wall causing serious physical injuries which as a consequence
led to his death 3 days after. The parents of the victim filed a suit Ruling + RVP:
for damages against both Aquino (teacher) and Soriano § How do you determine the degree of diligence required of the
(principal). blind man, Francisco? A blind man who is also engaged in the
same circumstance or the same business.
Issue: § Remember the test: prudence, reasonable care, same
Were there acts and omissions on the part of Aquino amounting situation. The degree of diligence required of a blind man
to fault or negligence which have direct causal relation to the involved in this business cannot be the same degree of
death of his pupil Ylarde? YES diligence required of any other blind man na kanang naa sa
streets for example. So just because they’re, blind it doesn’t business, banks are expected to exercise the highest degree of
mean you associate them altogether. diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees.
§ Despite Francisco’s blindness, he was negligent since:
ü He merely relied on the identification card of Bacsa to Facts:
determine if he was authorized by CBCI. He did not do any Tan deposited a postdated check with the bank. The check was
other background check on the identity and authority of duly entered in his bank record. Allegedly, upon advice and
Bacsa. instruction of the bank that such check was already cleared and
ü He already expressed his misgivings about the diesel fuel, backed up by sufficient funds, Tan, on the same date, withdrew
fearing that they might be stolen property, yet he did not from his account. A day after, he deposited P50k because he has
verify with CBCI the authority of Bacsa to sell the diesel fuel. issued several checks to his business partners. However, his
ü He relied on the receipts issued by Bacsa which were suppliers and business partners went back to him alleging that
typewritten on a half sheet of plain bond paper. If Francisco such checks bounced for insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, Tan
exercised reasonable diligence, he should have asked for an informed the bank to take positive steps regarding the matter.
OR issued by CBCI. Nonetheless, the bank did not bother nor offer any apology
ü The delivery to Francisco, as indicated in Petron’s invoice, regarding the incident. Afterwards he filed a complaint for
does not show that CBCI authorized Bacsa to sell the diesel damages claiming that, since he is a businessman who has
fuel to Francisco. CBCI is a foreign name to him. For the past established a good reputation in the business, he lost some of this
several years, he has been transacting with Caltex, Petron clients due to lack of trust.
and Shell, the top 3 famous suppliers of diesel. So, that fact
alone should have impelled him to do further research. Issue:
§ SC noted that the fact that Francisco actually had made these WON the bank is negligent? YES
several other stringent conditions, there’s actually a
testament na sya mismo nagduha2x na and naa nay idea of Ruling:
the illicit nature of the gasoline that he’s purchasing because § The bank is liable due to the negligent act of its employee.
OW, why would he require one official receipt and one Banking business is imbued with public interest; thus a higher
acknowledgment receipt? The acknowledgment receipt is degree of diligence is required. The mistake made by the
actually to personalize the transaction and to involve Bacsa to employee was that prior to clearing of the check, he allowed
begin with. Tan to withdraw in which case there was a violation in the
§ It is important to consider that this blind man was already bank policy.
doing such business for 15 years and that he has also asked § The bank in this case is merely a collecting bank (CB), meaning
the assistance of his children. So, under the circumstances, he it has to clear the check first from kinsa ang drawee bank (DB).
cannot seek refuge to the fact of his blindness because the It did not do so and in the process, ni-ingon pa gani siya nga
circumstances themselves presented in the manner that he "pwede na jud nimo ma gamit sir".
could have done further research or further inquiry. Truth is it § There was also no notice furnished to Tan that debit has been
turned a blind eye to them because he was given a better made in his account.
bargain. And that is true for all illicit acts. § The negligent act of the employee binds the employer
§ So, circumstances will vary according to the person. Just because under Art 2180, "the owners and managers of an
because the person is blind does not mean you lower the establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for
degree of diligence. You have to relate it to the degree of damages caused by their employees in the service of the
diligence of a blind businessman for 15 yrs and not just of any branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion
other person. of their functions."
§ Banks are required to exercise extraordinary diligence
because the banks are imbued with public interest. There's a
Nature of the obligation fiduciary nature between the depositor and the bank. With
the public losing trust in banks, they will not deposit, and
Most Common: Common Carriers – extraordinary diligence when they will not deposit, the bank cannot grant loans. In
effect, it alters and changes the economy and that's why it
actually has a public interest function. There's a need to
ASSOCIATED BANK VS. TAN maintain the highest integrity of banks because they are
influential in circulating the money.
Doctrines: § The employer was made liable because banks can only act
ü The banking business is impressed with public interest. through its employees or tellers and agents. Because you see
Consequently, the highest degree of diligence is expected, and the bank as an institution, but you deal with the tellers
high standards of integrity and performance are even required everyday. Remember guys, that the bank is not only required
of it. By the nature of its functions, a bank is under obligation to exercise extraordinary diligence in its operations but that
to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care. extraordinary diligence extends to the selection and
ü The degree of diligence required of banks is more than that of supervision of your tellers and employees. Two-fold na sa
a good father of a family where the fiduciary nature of their bank. Generally man gud, selection and supervision lang or in
relationship with their depositors is concerned. the operations lang, but even in the process of hiring your
ü As a general rule, a bank is liable for the wrongful or tortuous tellers or security guards or managers, you're supposed to
acts and declarations of its officers or agents within the course prove that you exercise extraordinary diligence already. By the
and scope of their employment. Due to the very nature of their very nature of the obligation required of banks, this degree of
diligence is also required of it.
PACIS VS. MORALES Issue:

§ A person in possession or control of dangerous WON CAA is liable? YES
instrumentalities has the duty to take exceptional precautions
to prevent any injury being done thereby. Ruling:
§ That would include maybe if you’re dealing with toxic § The SC paid attention to the area in question, it is supposed to
substances or corrosives. When you’re engaged in that form be a viewing deck so people are expected to look at that
of business you are expected to exercise a higher degree of specific area where they can view flying planes or the
diligence. passengers. Under the circumstances, they are not expected
to bow down or look down.
§ The SC also noted that architecturally, it should look like a stair
Circumstances of place but it was framed and constructed in a manner that it doesn’t
look like a stair but functions as a stair because ang edges daw
kay outward daw. Ingon ang SC they should have done more
R TRANSPORT CORP VS. LUSITO YU especially that this area is frequented by passengers,
individuals or well-wishers. CAA knew of the existence of the
dangerous elevation. Its failure to have it repaired or altered
Facts: in order to eliminate the existing hazard constitutes such
What happened was Yu, the wife alighted the bus along EDSA in negligence as to warrant a finding of liability based on quasi-
front of Robinson's Galleria. Behind the bus that she alighted from delict
was another bus. The driver of this bus was Gimena. In this case,
Gimena did not slow down considering that the place was a cross
road, and this was in Robinsons Galleria so there were a lot of
Award of Moral Damages…
shoppers. So what happened was Gimena did not slow down at all
such that he hit Loreta Yu so hard that her brains actually spewed
out of her skull. Her husband then filed a complaint and impleaded
REGALA VS. CARIN
the bus driver, the bus operator which was R Transport, and also
Metro Manila Transport which was the registered owner.
Doctrine:
Ruling: ü Malice or bad faith implies a conscious and intentional design
§ Negligent act: The act committed by Gimena when he did not to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral
slowdown in driving along EDSA, considering the place. obliquity; it is different from the negative idea of negligence in
§ The employer was also negligent in the selection and that malice or bad faith contemplates a state of mind
supervision of its employee because under 2180 there is a affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will.
liability for the employers for the damages caused by their
employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. Facts:
§ How do you determine whether the employer has discharged Regala and Carin are adjacent neighbors. Regala decided to add a
that burden in the selection and supervision of drivers? The second-storey to his house, under the guise of merely building an
rule is, once the negligence of the employee is established, extension to it, and asked Carin for permission to bore a hole
which it was in this case, automatically there is a presumption through a perimeter wall shared by both to which Carin verbally
that the employer was negligent. It is incumbent upon him to consented. Carin filed action for moral damages since she suffered
prove that he exercised the diligence of a good father of a from the dust and debris, from the noise coming from the
family. In this case, there was no evidence presented by the construction, there is already an encroachment, invasion of
employer that he was able to discharge the burden. The SC privacy, and illegal construction of scaffoldings in his property.
then relied on the presumption. Carin also raised the fact that Regala belatedly applied for a
building permit.
CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION VS. CA Issue:

WON moral damages can be awarded? NO
Facts:
Ruling:
Simke, a consul of Israel in the Philippines, went to the Manila
§ The fact that Regala belatedly applied for a building permit did
International Airport to meet his future son-in-law. In order to get
not support Carin’s cause. SC said that if at all, that would
a better view of the incoming passengers, he and his group
make him administratively liable. But it has nothing to do with
proceeded to the viewing deck or terrace of the airport. While
Carin’s cause.
walking on the terrace filled with other people, he slipped over an
§ SC made a distinction between the negative idea of negligence
elevation about 4-in high at the far end of the terrace. The lines of
and that of bad faith.
the tiling are continuous but there was no warning sign to direct
§ There was no finding of negligence because Regala exerted
one's attention to the change in the elevation of the floorings. And
efforts nonetheless – their scaffoldings, there were
so, Simke fell on his back and broke his thigh bone. He asked for
testimonies of the architects, etc. The fact that Regala did not
damages for the medical expenses incurred, for the fact that he’s
secure a permit or that he lied about his real intention, it is not
supposed to attend a meeting outside but then he had to deputize
material because very high threshold man ang allegation of
it, and for the fact that he had to cancel invitations of the wedding
bad faith. But the SC noted that obvious naman under the
of his daughter because how can he attend when he is going thru
circumstances that there is a form of uneasiness caused by the
medication in the hospital.
construction but since the Court cannot pinpoint the bad faith,
but it is obvious that there’s a damage suffered, that’s when Ruling:

you award nominal damages. It is actually for those you § The IRR of the Labor Code do not enlighten what the phrase
cannot actualize, you cannot prove or you cannot present by "adequate and immediate" medical attendance means in
concrete evidence but you just know that there’s a damage relation to an "emergency." It would thus appear that the
suffered nonetheless. determination of what it means is left to the employer, except
§ The Court awarded nominal damages but not moral nor when a full-time registered nurse or physician are available
exemplary damages because it was not proven that they were on-site as required.
not able to sleep properly at night, or there was a violation of § But here, Mr. Hao could not have contemplated that the
the right to privacy, etc, kay kelangan lagi ang causal degree of adequate and immediate medical assistance
connection. required for a person with a chicken pox is to warrant a better
medical facility, and not just a tertiary medical facility, such as
TN: You measure degree of conduct or diligence according to the the community hospital. So in the end, Mr. Hao, considering
nature of the obligation, person (illiterate, child, pregnant, etc.), also that he has no background in medicine, is considered to
time (night, rainy season, at dusk or dawn, etc), place (crowded, have provided the employee the necessary, adequate and
etc). There will be no clear-cut cases. You have to argue your way immediate medical assistance by advising Bladimir to take a 3-
out or your way in. So, you have to consider the factual predicates day rest and to later have him brought to the nearest hospital.
of the hypothetical problem given to you. Just remember: § AT ALL EVENTS, the alleged negligence of Hao cannot be
standard of conduct, test of negligence, and proximate cause. considered as the proximate cause of the death of Bladimir.
§ TWO ELEMENTS to establish Proximate Cause:
1. the act or omission played a SUBSTANTIAL part in bringing
CAUSAL RELATION BETWEEN ACT OR OMISSION AND DAMAGE about or actually causing the injury or damage (does not
even require such a high threshold); and
2. that the injury or damage was either a direct result or a
OCEAN BUILDERS VS. SPS. CUBACUB reasonably probable CONSEQUENCE of the act or omission.
§ These tests were not met in this case. There was no substantial
Doctrine: contribution on the part of Hao in bringing about the injury
ü An injury or damage is proximately caused by an act or failure because first, he told his worker that he should rest, and when
to act, whenever it appears from the evidence in the case that his condition worsened, he and some of the laborers brought
the act or omission played a SUBSTANTIAL part in bringing him to the community hospital to be treated. He also called
about or actually causing the injury or damage, and that the the parents of Bladimir to inform them of his condition.
injury or damage was either a direct result or a reasonably § There was an allegation that there was a substantial
probable CONSEQUENCE of the act or omission. contribution because of the management’s failure to
quarantine or the failure to actually isolate the co-worker
Facts: alleged to have a chicken pox before from whom Bladimir
Bladimir was an employee of Ocean Builders Construction Corp. contracted the disease. However, this allegation was based on
He was afflicted with chicken pox. He was advised by Hao, the the testimony of the manager that he knew that chicken pox
company's general manager, to rest for 3 days. 3 days later, he heals within three days as was the case of another worker, but
went about his usual chores of manning the gate of the company that is without reference as to when it happened. It is relevant
premises and even cleaned the company vehicles. Later in the to establish when was the previous case of chicken pox to
afternoon, however, he asked a co-worker to accompany him to determine whether or not there was a remote connection
his house so he could rest. When Hao knew about it, he gave between that disease contracted by Bladimir and that of the
Bladimir P1k and ordered the co-worker to bring him to the previous worker. Since it was not established at what point in
nearest hospital instead. He was confined and was transferred to time did that previous worker contracted the chicken pox,
another hospital where he was placed in the ICU and died the there could not be an allegation of negligence on the part of
following day. The death certificate issued by the hospital Hao.
recorded Bladimir's immediate cause of death as cardio-
respiratory arrest and the antecedent cause as pneumonia. On the
other hand, the death certificate issued by Dr. Frias recorded the DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE
causes of death as cardiac arrest, multiple organ system failure,
septicemia and chicken pox. The parents later filed a complaint for
damages against petitioners, alleging that Hao was guilty of TAYLOR VS. MANILA ELECTRIC
negligence since it is the duty of petitioners to provide adequate
medical assistance to the employees pursuant to Labor Code. The Doctrines:
company had only 7 regular employees and 20 contractual ü No fault which would relieve defendant of responsibility for
employees (short of the min 50 workers that an establishment injuries resulting from negligence can be attributed to the
must have for it to be required to have a full-time registered plaintiff, a well-grown boy of 15 years of age, because of his
nurse). entry upon defendant’s unenclosed premises without express
permission or invitation; but it is a wholly different question
Issue: whether such a youth can be said to have been free from fault
WON there was failure on the part of the company to provide the when he willfully and deliberately cut upon the detonating cap,
required medical assistance to Bladimir which was the proximate and placed a match to the contents, knowing, as he
cause of his death? NO undoubtedly did, that his action would result in an explosion.
Facts: expect adults to have the same curiosity as children. Also take
The defendant is a foreign corporation engaged in the operation note here na the Court took into consideration the expertise
of a street railway and an electric light system in Manila. Taylor, and experiences of this child. He was a 15-year-old boy but
was 15 years of age; had an experience working as a cabin crew in above any ordinary 15-year-old boy because of his exposure
a ship; works in the office of his father who is a mechanical to machines and knowledge of how they work and why they
engineer and mechanical draftsman. He, 1 boy and a girl (9 yo) work.
went to the company’s premises to visit Murphy (employee) since
the latter promised to make them a cylinder for a miniature
engine. Since he was not in his quarters, they wandered and found MERCURY DRUG VS. BAKING
some 20 or 30 brass fulminating caps scattered on the ground.
They tried to break the cap with a stone and hammer but failed, Doctrines:
so they opened one of the caps with a knife and finding that it was ü The care required must be commensurate with the danger
filed with a yellowish substance they lighted it with a match and involved, and the skill employed must correspond with the
explosion followed causing them injuries and removal of the right superior knowledge of the business which the law demands.
eye of Taylor. Taylor’s parents were saying that negligence should
not be attributed to him because he is merely a 15-yr old boy. Facts:
Baking went to the clinic of Dr. Sy for a medical check-up.
Issue: Respondent was given 2 medical prescriptions Diamicron for his
WON the corporation is liable? NO blood sugar and Benalize tablets for his triglyceride. Respondent
then proceeded to Mercury Drug Corporation to buy the
Ruling + RVP: prescribed medicines. However, the saleslady misread the
§ To be clear, Taylor’s unlawful entry in the premises will not prescription for Diamicron as a prescription for Dormicum, a
absolve the company from liability, applying the Doctrine of potent sleeping tablet. On the third day of taking the medicine,
Implied Invitation. Under this doctrine, leaving a tempting respondent figured in a vehicular accident. The car he was driving
thing for children to play in an area where they would be likely collided with the car of Josie Peralta due to falling asleep while
to gather for that purpose, may be equivalent to an invitation driving. He could not remember anything about the collision nor
to them to make use of it. Because of the nature of the felt its impact. Suspecting that the tablet he took may have a
defendant company’s business, it is attractive to children and bearing on his physical and mental state at the time of the
would result to an implied invitation to come and enjoy the collision, respondent returned to Dr. Sy’s clinic. Dr. Sy was shocked
premises. The area itself had a dumping ground of their to find that what was sold to respondent was Dormicum, instead
rejected materials so according to the Court, children are of the prescribed Diamicron. Baking filed a case against Mercury
curious in itself to discover the surrounding items. That relates drug.
to the doctrine of attractive nuisance because in these
specific premises, there are a lot of activities going on. In fact, Issue:
gi-mention sa case na while they were passing through, there WON Mercury Drug Corporation is liable? YES
were activities going on. So there is a higher propensity for the
curious minds to go inside and see what’s going on. Ruling + RVP:
§ Although the item in dispute was found within the company’s § Petitioner’s employee was grossly negligent in selling to
premises as it was just left there, the corporation was still free respondent Dormicum, instead of the prescribed Diamicron.
from negligence. Taylor was not an ordinary 15-year-old boy Considering that a fatal mistake could be a matter of life and
as he was more intelligent, more mature, and knew that what death for a buying patient, the said employee should have
they were doing would cause an explosion. Further, the been very cautious in dispensing medicines. She should have
youngest child, Jenny (9 years old), ran away when the two verified whether the medicine she gave to the respondent was
boys were experimenting on the item. By the fact that she was indeed the one prescribed by his physician.
already aware in that instance that something wrong could § Here, the vehicular accident could not have occurred had
happen, then there should be a higher degree of expectation petitioner’s employee been careful in reading Dr. Sy’s
required of a 15-year-old boy who has an aptitude for prescription. Without the potent effects of Dormicum, a
mechanical engineering. He could have known of that specific sleeping tablet, it was unlikely that respondent would fall
instance na when he forcefully opened those items and lit a asleep while driving his car, resulting in a collision.
match stick, something is going to happen but he did not § Complementing Article 2176 is Article 2180 of the same Code.
exercise the degree of diligence required under the The employer of a negligent employee is liable for the
circumstances. damages caused by the latter. When an injury is caused by the
§ This is why important ang proximate cause because while negligence of an employee, there instantly arises a
those items were taken from the company’s premises, there presumption of the law that there has been negligence on the
is a sufficient lapse of time from that negligence (because part of the employer, either in the selection of his employee
there was negligence man for failure to police your own or in the supervision over him, after such selection. The
premises) and the damage. So, there was a sufficient presumption, however, may be rebutted by a clear showing
intervening cause which actually precludes recovery from the on the part of the employer that he has exercised the care and
employer. diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and
§ Although you have absolute property rights over your supervision of his employee. Thus, petitioner's failure to prove
premises, you make sure your activities will not harm other that it exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family
people pursuant to the no harm principle under Property Law. in the selection and supervision of its employee will make it
§ TN: The Doctrine of Implied Invitation or Doctrine of Attractive solidarily liable for damages caused by the latter.
Nuisance usually applies to children lang because you don’t
§ Baking took the sleeping pills for 3 days. That established violation was not the proximate cause. There was no causal
proximate cause. It was not the mere purchase or the mere connection. The Cimarron was actually on its proper lane.
sale. It’s the fact nga nagkamali, giinom sufficiently for 3 days, Regardless of it being heavy or it had only one headlight, it
and ni-effect pud ang medicine. Bisag wrong ang prescription wasn’t those acts that caused the accident. It was the act of
but if he figured in an accident on that same day and has not overtaking.
taken the pill yet, there is no proximate cause. It’s just that in § But-for test: The omission to perform a duty constitutes the
this case, he has been taking the pills for 3 days. Meaning, ni- proximate cause only when the doing of the said act would
effect na gyud ang medicine. Nilutaw na gyud sa iyang blood have prevented the injury. In this case, even if Cimarron did
stream. So don’t forget about these small details. not commit said violations, it would not change the fact that
§ Your degree of diligence should also commensurate to the the accident could not have been avoided.
kind of business you engage in. OW, we will be at the mercy § Take note that the Congress prescribes all these regulations
of unscrupulous careless pharmacists. because there is an evil that is intended to be suppressed like
lights for you to be visible. But if dili na siya ang core sa
controversy, then there is no negligence per se. If the evil
SANITARY STEAM LAUNDRY VS. CA sought to be prevented has nothing to do with omission, there
is no negligence per se because Article 2185 is just a
Doctrines: presumption of negligence. And because it is a disputable
ü What is negligence per se? The mere fact of violation of a presumption, then you can present facts or evidence to
statute is not sufficient basis for an inference that such controvert the presumption.
violation was the proximate cause of the injury complained.
ü However, if the very injury that has happened was the one
intended to be prevented by the statute, it has been held that DOCTRINE OF IMPUTED NEGLIGENCE
violation of the statute will be deemed to be the proximate
cause of the injury. Article 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily
ü Negligence per se need not be sufficient in itself in establishing liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could
liability for damages. have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune.
ü Negligence per se is without legal consequence unless it is a It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had
contributing cause of the injury. been found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic
regulations at least twice within the next preceding 2 months.
Facts:
The driver of the Mercedes Benz panel truck claimed that a If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Article
jeepney in front of him suddenly stopped. He said he stepped on 2180 are applicable.
the brakes to avoid hitting the jeepney which caused his vehicle to
swerve to the left and encroach on a portion of the opposite lane. Article 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed
As a result, his panel truck collided with the Cimarron on the that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the
north-bound lane which caused the death of 3 persons and the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.
injuries of several others. The driver was held liable for negligence.
However, he argued that the Cimarron driver should likewise be Art. 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the
held liable for two reasons: (1) it had only one headlight, which part of the defendant if the death or injury results from his
resulted to “decreased visibility” and (2) the fact that the vehicle possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such as firearms
was overloaded and its front seat overcrowded (4 pax) and poison, except when the possession or use thereof is
“decreased its maneuverability.” They tried to argue that because indispensable in his occupation or business.
of the traffic violations committed by the Cimarron, it was
‘negligence per se.’ (The common trend among these provisions is that you are
presumed to be negligent when during the accident, you’re
Issue: violating traffic rules.)
WON the Cimarron’s violation of the law in itself is sufficient to
make the driver liable because of negligence per se? NO
ANONUEVO VS. CA
Ruling + RVP:
§ It means that you don’t need to look at factual circumstances Doctrines:
because the law itself provides that the moment you fail to ü The failure of the bicycle owner to comply with accepted safety
abide by the rules and regulations, it amounts to negligence. practices, whether or not imposed by ordinance or statute, is
So, it’s a violation of a statutory duty. But such fact of violation not sufficient to negate or mitigate recovery unless a causal
is not enough in itself to make you liable. There must be a connection is established between such failure and the injury
causal connection between the violation and damage or injury sustained.
that resulted.
§ Just because there is a violation of a statute, it does not Facts:
automatically mean that there was contributory negligence on Villagracia was traveling on his bicycle, while Anonuevo, traversing
the part of the Cimarron. If the truck had not overtaken, the the opposite lane was driving a Lancer car owned by Procter and
accident would not have happened. Gamble Inc., the employer of his brother. Anonuevo was in the
§ The violation of the law must be shown to be the proximate course of making a left turn when the collision occurred. When
cause of the injury or damage sustained. In this case, the the vehicle made its turn, at or about 10 miles before, the driver
already saw the bicycle. The area of the accident was well lit. In tree and sacks of palay. Unfortunately, the jitney still hit the left
fact, there was a jeepney prior to the Lancer which actually fender of the tractor-trailer before it was thrown a few meters
stopped to give way for the cyclist. Villagracia sustained serious away. The tractor-trailer was likewise damaged. Multiple death
injuries and had to undergo 4 operations. Villagracia instituted an and injuries to those in the jitney resulted.
action for damages against P&G Phils., Inc. and Anonuevo.
Anonuevo claims that Villagracia violated traffic regulations when Gregorio’s testimony (passenger of jitney): During the direct
he failed to register his bicycle or install safety gadgets (no lights examination, he testified that while the jitney was passing through
and horns). Thus, pursuant to Article 2185 of the Civil Code, a curve going downward, he saw a tractor-trailer coming from the
Villagracia is presumed to be negligent. opposite direction and encroaching on the jitney's lane. The jitney
was hit by the tractor-trailer and it was dragged further causing
Issue: death and injuries to its passengers. However, during rebuttal, he
Does Art. 2185, NCC cover non-motorized vehicles? NO testified that it was the jitney that was going uphill and the tractor-
trailer was the one running down very fast and encroaching on
Ruling + RVP: their lane. He argued that at the time of the incident, Jabon was
§ At the time the law was drafted, horses and tartanillas were prohibited from driving the truck due to the restriction imposed
one of the main sources of transportation, yet Congress on his driver's license, i.e., restriction code 2 and 3. But Jabon was
deliberately only included “motorized vehicles.” able to sufficiently explain that the LTO merely erred in not
§ Reason: Motorized vehicles by their very nature have more including restriction code 8 in his license.
power and force because they are not bound by the limits of
physical exertion. They are more prone to bringing upon Ruling + RVP:
damage to other around them, as opposed to non-motorized § Jabon’s testimony must be given greater weight because his
vehicles. concentration as driver is more focused than that of a mere
§ Despite the fact that the cyclist was violating traffic rules, the passenger. In the case of a running or travelling vehicle, the
driver of the Lancer car was held liable. Thus, they said that driver is concentrated on his driving continuously from
even though the cyclist was violating traffic rules at the time moment to moment even in long trips. While in the case of a
of mishap, but because of the speed that the vehicle was mere passenger, he does not have to direct his attention to
running on, the vehicular accident occurred – and the driver’s the safe conduct of the travelling vehicle (most of the time,
reckless conduct worked in the cyclist’s favor. makigchika2x ra sya, etc). Moreover, the passenger's vision is
§ Basically, the reflectors and/or horns (as per required by the not as good as that of the driver from the vantage point of the
ordinance) were intended to enable the cyclist to make its driver's seat especially in nighttime, thus rendering a
presence known and serve as an effective warning against passenger's opportunity for observation on the antecedent
other vehicles. However, even if the cyclist had installed these causes of the collision lesser than that of the driver.
warning devices, the accident could still have happened § Driving without a proper license is a violation of traffic
because the driver was going at a very fast speed that even if regulation. The rule on negligence per se must admit
he stepped on the brake, he still could not avoid the bicycle. qualifications that may arise from the logical consequences of
The proximate cause is not the traffic violation but his the facts leading to the mishap. But the doctrine should not be
‘kaskaserong pagmamaneho’. rendered inflexible so as to deny relief when in fact there is no
§ SC looked into the legislative intent. It did not apply it very causal relation between the statutory violation and the injury
strictly so as to defeat its purpose and preclude damages. sustained.
Quasi-delicts are about indemnification, so we are not really § This case is a very good example where dili jud klaro kinsa ang
looking at violations per se. So what if he failed to register? negligent. This is a battle of facts. One inconsistent testimony
Bahala na siya ana. He may face administrative sanctions, but can kill your base. And the SC paid special attention to the
it will not bar recovery. inconsistency and the fact that the vehicle was going uphill
and the other downhill. If you’re going uphill, you are likely not
accelerating. So, there is higher propensity or probability for
TISON VS. POMASIN the vehicle going down to speed up because it is pure gravity
on your vehicle. We say that it is comparative and relative
Doctrines: because we compare the situations of the parties. Mao tong
ü The doctrine of imputed negligence should not be rendered relevant gyud na ang isa, ang driver ang mitestify, nya kaning
inflexible so as to deny relief when in fact there is no causal isa kay passenger lang, ang isa going uphill, the other kay
relation between the statutory violation and the injury downhill, etc. So you pay attention even to the smallest detail
sustained. when it boils down to facts and when the obvious questions
ü Negligence is relative or comparative, dependent upon the and issues are of equal importance.
situation of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance
which the particular circumstances reasonably require.
DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR
Facts:
In order to allow resort to the doctrine, the following essential
Jabon’s testimony (driver of tractor trailer): While driving, he requisites must be satisfied: [COC]
noticed a jitney on the opposite lane falling off the shoulder of the o The accident was of a kind that does not ordinarily occur
road. Thereafter, it began running in a zigzag manner and heading unless someone is negligent;
towards the direction of the truck. To avoid collision, Jabon o The instrumentality or agency that caused the injury was
immediately swerved the tractor-trailer to the right where it hit a under the exclusive control of the person charged; and
o The injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary grave risks of injury might be incurred from a proposed course
action or contribution of the person injured. (No contributory of treatment, so that a patient, exercising ordinary care for his
negligence) own welfare, and faced with a choice of undergoing the
proposed treatment, or alternative treatment, or none at all,
may intelligently exercise his judgment by reasonably
SPOUSES AFRICA VS. CALTEX PHILS. balancing the probable risks against the probable benefits.
Doctrine: Facts:
ü 3rd element of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur: Rosit figured in an accident and he went to a doctor named Dr.
Absence of explanation by the defendant how the accident Gestuvo. Dr. Gestuvo, assuming that Rosit cannot afford it and
arose that there were no small screws available on hand, cut large
screws to make them smaller and used them to fasten the metal
Facts: plate. Later on, Rosit discovered that the screws were touching his
A fire broke out at the Caltex service station in Manila. It started molar and so he was advised to go to a doctor in Cebu to have an
while gasoline was being hosed from a tank truck into the operation, now using smaller screws. He sued his previous doctor
underground storage, right at the opening of the receiving truck for it when he found out that it was the bigger screws that were
where the nozzle of the hose was inserted. The fire then spread to used on him.
and burned several neighboring houses, including the personal
properties and effects inside them. This led to the filing of the case Issue:
by the neighbors against the gasoline station. WON Dr. Gestuvo is liable? YES
Issue: Ruling:
WON Caltex Phils is liable pursuant to the doctrine of res ipsa § Locality Rule – it is the standard of care required to be
loquitur? YES observed by the members of that same group under the same
circumstances.
Ruling: § Applying the elements for the application of the said doctrine:
§ The Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur is applicable in this case o Not ordinary – Rosit proved that one of the screws installed
since there was no direct evidence to prove how the fire by Dr. Gestuvo struck his molar. Had Dr. Gestuvo used the
started out in the gasoline station. proper size and length of screws and placed the same in the
§ Applying the elements for the application of the said doctrine: proper locations, these would not have struck Rosit’s teeth
o Not ordinary – Although the gasoline has the tendency to causing him pain and requiring him to undergo a corrective
burn, with all its appliances and equipment, it is not a place surgery.
where burning is normal under the ordinary circumstances. o Exclusive control – The operation which resulted in the
o Exclusive control – The owner has the exclusive control with screw hitting Rosit’s molar was indeed performed by Dr.
respect to its appliances, equipment and supervision of his Gestuvo. No other doctor caused such.
employees. o No contributory negligence – It was not shown that Rosit’s
o Absence of explanation by the defendant how the accident lung disease could have contributed to the pain. What is
arose – The person who knew or could have known how the clear is that he suffered because one of the screws that Dr.
fire started were the owner and its employees; but they Gestuvo installed hit his molar.
gave no explanation thereof whatsoever. § Clearly, the res ipsa loquitur doctrine finds application in the
§ This is a place frequented with many people. So, given the instant case and no expert testimony is required to establish
location of the place and the delicate nature of the business, the negligence of Dr. Gestuvo.
a lot is expected of the owner. § On a final note, nasuko ang SC actually because of the failure
to comply with the doctrine of informed consent. The fact that
the doctor operated using large screws only because he
ROSIT V. DAVAO DOCTORS HOSPITAL thought the patient cannot afford the smaller ones. So, it is
really important to inform your client about the procedure,
probability of success, what are the side effects, etc. maybe di
Doctrines:
sya mupadayon sa operation.
ü 3rd element of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur:
The injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary
action of the person injured.
SOLIDUM V. PEOPLE
ü Doctrine of Common Knowledge:
1. An average man of common intelligence would know that
striking a tooth with any foreign object much less a screw Doctrine:
would cause severe pain. ü Res ipsa liquitor is not available in a malpractice suit if the only
2. The operation which resulted in the screw hitting Rosit’s showing is that the desired result of an operation or treatment
molar was performed by Dr. Gestuvo and no other. was not accomplished. The real question, therefore, is WON in
3. It was not shown that Rosit’s lung disease could have the process of the operation, any extraordinary incident or
contributed to the pain. unusual event outside the routine performance occurred which
ü Doctrine of Informed Consent: is beyond the regular scope of customary professional activity
A physician has a duty to disclose what a reasonably in such operations, which if unexplained would themselves
prudent physician in the medical community in the exercise of reasonably speak to the average man as the negligent case or
reasonable care would disclose to his patient as to whatever causes of the untoward consequence. If there was such
extraneous intervention, the doctrine of res ipsa liquitor may was profuse bleeding inside her body. The husband argued that
be utilized and the dependent is called upon to explain the there was medical malpractice.
matter, by evidence of exculpation, if he could.
Issue:
Facts: WON the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable? NO
Gerald was born with an imperforated anus. Two days after his
birth, he underwent colostomy, a surgical procedure to bring one Ruling + RVP:
end of the large intestine out through the abdominal walls, § Res ipsa loquitur will not apply because there was actually an
enabling him to excrete through a colostomy bag attached to the explanation as to what caused the death of the wife. IOW,
side of his body. When he was 3 yrs old, he was admitted for a when there is sufficient explanation as to a certain injury
pull-through operation. Dr. Resurreccion headed the surgical suffered by the plaintiff or here, the plaintiff's wife, res ipsa
team, and was assisted by Dr. Lucerio, Dr. Valeria and Dr. Tibio. loquitur will not apply.
The anesthesiologist included Drs. Abella, Razon and Solidum. § But there was an allegation na wala daw natarong ug tahi.
During the operation, Gerald experienced bradycardia and went What the doctor did was only single suturing. And there was a
into a coma. His coma lasted for 2 weeks, but he regained witness presented by the plaintiff that that there should have
consciousness only after a month. He could no longer see, hear, been a double suturing. However, this witness was not
or move. A complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in serious capable because he overstated his qualifications, and aside
physical injuries were filed by Gerald’s parents against the team from that, he was not a competent expert witness on that
of doctors alleging that there was failure in monitoring the field. The plaintiff also presented another witness, a lawyer,
anesthesia administered to Gerald. but just testified as to the medical jurisprudence and not as a
doctor. On the other hand, the witnesses of the defendant
Issue: sufficiently established that the wife was actually suffering
WON the team of doctors are liable for medical negligence? NO from the DIC and it was not because of the single suturing that
was done by the respondent doctor.
Ruling + RVP:
§ Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable: Take Note:
o Not ordinary – absent because even though it would not § The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not a rule of substantive
normally occur that the person under surgery would have law, but merely a mode of proof or a mere procedural
bradycardia, that fact alone would not prove the negligence convenience.
of the doctors because they exercised all the necessary § The doctrine is not meant to and does not dispense with the
diligence with the standard of care in the medical field that requirement of proof of culpable negligence against the party
the doctors should do. By their testimonies, it was really charged.
established that 1% halothane was used and that the § Ordinarily, if you are alleging damage, you have to prove
doctors administered proper dosage to the child and that negligence on the part of the defendant. But if we can prove
there were other causes that could have been attributed to res ipsa loquitur and there is no other direct evidence that the
the bradycardia which led to the child’s death. plaintiff can get except for the fact that is withheld by the
o Exclusive control – present since the doctors had the defendant's side, the burden would shift to the convenience
exclusive control as they were the ones who employed the of the plaintiff because he/she does not have any other way
anesthesia. to get evidence of such negligence. Going back to the Caltex
o No contributory negligence – present since it was not due case, it was mainly the employee of the Caltex who was
to any fault of Gerald. pouring the gasoline. So if you are the defendant, of course
you would not give such facts because that would necessarily
prove your negligence. So that's what mere procedural
BORROMEO VS. FAMILY CARE HOSPITAL convenience means. IOW, not just because res ipsa loquitur
applies, it follows that you are free from discharging burden
Doctrines of proof. Because it's not a rule of substantive law, it's just an
ü Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not a rule of substantive law, initial jump for the plaintiff, a prima facie evidence showing
but merely a mode of proof or a mere procedural that there was a violation of the rule because OW he will be
convenience. compelled to prove that there is a breach of duty and he will
ü Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence that presumes negligence not be able to do that because there is no direct evidence man
from the very nature of the accident itself using common di ba. So what we do is, since this is a situation before us,
human knowledge or experience. obviously there was damage, prove to us that you were not
ü The fact that the injury rarely occurs does not in itself prove negligent under the circumstances.
that the injury was probably caused by someone’s negligence. § The general rule on the necessity of expert testimony applies
ü There was no palpably negligent act. The common experience only to such matters clearly within the domain of medical
of mankind does not suggest that death would not be science and not to matters that are within the common
expected without negligence knowledge of mankind which may be testified to by anyone
familiar with the facts.
Facts: § As to the first element of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (not
The husband filed a case against the doctor who attended to his ordinary to occur), you relate that to the doctrine of common
wife. His wife was operated for the removal of her appendix but knowledge. What test do you employ in determining
after 16 hours from the operation, the wife died because there ‘ordinary’? You ask the layman WON for him, that will never
occur if there is no negligence under the circumstances. For
example, the sponge or scissors was left in the body of the
person injured after the operation, there is obviously forward sa evidence. It’s not concerned with the sufficiency of that
negligence there. That's one of the episodes in Grey's evidence. So, the general principle of law is that “he who alleges
Anatomy. the facts has the burden of proving it,” and this applies even in
§ Therefore, if there are variations or competing facts as to why international law.
the accident happened and there is a need for medical
experts, then res ipsa loquitur will not apply. It will only apply In your criminal cases, when the accused invokes self-defense,
for obvious cases of negligence like in the case of Rosit vs. that shifts the burden. Now, the accused will be presenting
Davao Doctor’s Hospital. Pag opera di ba, it is very obvious na evidence on his behalf. In civil cases also, when the doctrine of res
pag ninggamit kag longer nga screw and mutouch siya sa teeth ipsa loquitor applies, there’s a shift on the part of the defendant
or sa molar tooth, it will really cause pain. It is obvious. to prove that there was no negligence under the circumstances.
§ But there are cases na dili sure unsai cause sa death. That case
na gi-allege na ang cause daw sa death is negligence but it is
actually reaction lang sa body sa bata with respect to the BJDC CONSTRUCTION VS. LANUZO
operation (Solidum v. People). So, it is not obvious. It is not the
kind of accident nga makaingon ang common person who has § This case is regarding a construction company wherein the
no knowledge in medical science na "hala negligent sya." But principal who goes to and from work hit one of the barricades
if a stranger in the streets na wala kibaw unsai medical science and the argument was that the construction company failed
nya muingon na "ay sala gyud nas doctor" that is Res Ipsa in its obligation to provide enough lights to allow motors to
Loquitur. pass by safely.
§ IOW, you employ the tests of common math. Now, if it needs § SC considered the investigation report by the policemen and
the specific knowledge of medical science or of the doctors, also argued on the presumption of regularity in the discharge
that is not res ipsa loquitur anymore especially pag mu employ of official functions. It’s merely a disputable presumption but
na silag such words that we don’t understand like reflex, blood in that case, wala may giprovide na evidence ang plaintiff na
clotting etc. (nosebleed). A layman does not know all of these mali ang entries in the report.
things. So, you only apply res ipsa loquitur if obvious kaayu nga § Lighting permit was also introduced by the defendant pero
naai sayup. But if problema lang because gamay ang dosage lighting permit raman na, diba? Applying for a permit is one
nga gi apply (Solidum v. People), either wala sya completely thing; actual installation of the lights is another. But that was
natahi (Borromeo vs. Family Care Hospital), those call for not questioned by the other side.
testimonies of medical experts; therefore dispensing res ipsa § SC considered that at the time the accident happened, the
loquitur. construction has been going on for a month already and these
§ Remember ha dili sya automatic guilt or automatic negligence. victims actually pass by that place on a daily basis. So how can
It is just a spring board for the plaintiff to prove that there was you not foresee or see that danger that lies ahead?
a breach of duty. That's an allegation but it still has to be § Under the defense on “Own Negligence”, he was negligent
proven. because (1) he wasn’t wearing a helmet, and (2) he was
§ The fact that the accident rarely occurs does not mean res ipsa actually in the process of overtaking another vehicle, which is
loquitur applies. Naa man isa ka case na rare ra kuno tong the reason why he hit the barricade and threw himself few
radicardia vago vagal reflex kanang less lang mu pump ug meters away from the point of impact. So, the plaintiff in this
oxygen ang imong heart so rare na sya mahitabo during case was not able to discharge his duty of providing evidence
surgical operations but just because it is rare does not mean it to support his case.
is common. It does not make sense right? But that is how it is
because you apply the doctrine of common knowledge. ALANO VS. MAGUD-LOGMAO
§ Res Ipsa Loquitur is a rule of presumption. You do not presume
when there is an evidence to the contrary. Res ipsa loquitur is
§ This case is about harvesting of the organs where there was a
under the heading ‘presumed negligence’ because you
mistake as to the proper identification of the victim. The case
presume negligence muna just so the plaintiff can prove his
was filed by the parents eventually because of the negligence.
claim or the defendant can disprove his alleged negligence. It
They were not questioning the facts about harvesting of the
is really important that there is no direct evidence, because if
organs, they were rather questioning the reasonableness of
there is, then the court has a basis to rule whether or not
the time it took before the doctors finally decided it was time
negligence was indeed present.
to harvest.
§ But the doctors were able to adduce evidence of certifications
from GMA-7, ABS-CBN. They also had notified the NBI. They
BURDEN OF PROOF actually asked people from all walks of life to announce kung
kinsa jud ni siya but there was mistake man sad gud because
Burden of proof is your physical duty in presenting before the what was really on the patient’s data sheet and on the
courts of law the evidence to support your case. Quantum of summary report are different names. So the question was,
proof, on the other hand, is concerned with the sufficiency of the was there sufficient time before ka nag-decide to harvest?
proof that you’ve given before the court. That’s why you have § The Court said yes because this was in the 1980s. If karon to
proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, preponderance nahitabo, 24 hours is railroaded because we now have the
of evidence in civil cases. technology. In fact, we can keep the organs in ice-boxes.
§ The events transpired in 1980s and considering medical
Preponderance of evidence merely asks which evidence is heavier technology and the advancements of that time, 24 hours is
under the circumstances. So you compare the evidence of the enough. Because dapat diba, fresh pa.
plaintiff and that of the defendant. Make no mistake. Burden of
proof is THE DUTY. It merely asks the question, kinsa ang mu-
§ The patient in this case was brain-dead already. Meaning, if di COMPLETE DEFENSES
ka mu-harvest right away, wala nay purpose ang organs
because they might no longer function; so it defeats the whole They absolutely bar recovery.
purpose. So wala naka-provide og evidence ang plaintiff in this
case to show the Court that the 24 hours was not reasonable PLAINTIFF’S OWN NEGLIGENCE
under the circumstances.
§ Since it was established that it wasnt NKI's fault regarding the
mistaken identity, the remedy for the heirs is to file against FE CAYAO-LASAM VS. SPS. RAMOLETE
the original hospital instead, the East Avenue Medical Center.
§ The confusion actually started because of the patient's data Doctrine:
sheet filled in by the medical center. But grabeha sd no, pila ü Where the immediate cause of an accident resulting in an
ka days nawala and daghan na kaayu balita sa GMA and ABS- injury is the plaintiff’s own act, which contributed to the
CBN. Nakapablotter man sila March 3 ang ilang blotter. And principal occurrence as one of its determining factors, he
kanus a nag harvest ug organs? Nag announce sila mga days cannot recover damages for the injury.
before that and then he was found in a cheap casket.
Facts:
3 months pregnant Mrs. Ramolete was brought to Lorma Medical
DEFENSES Center (LMC) due to vaginal bleeding. Upon advice of petitioner
related via telephone, she was admitted to the LMC. A pelvic
Elements of Quasi-Delict sonogram was conducted revealing the fetus weak cardiac
pulsation. The following day, Editha repeat pelvic sonogram
The elements of quasi-delict are: showed that aside from the fetus weak cardiac pulsation, no fetal
1. Damages suffered by the plaintiff; movement was also appreciated. Due to persistent and profuse
2. Fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person vaginal bleeding, petitioner advised her to undergo “raspa”. She
for whose acts he must respond; and was discharged the following day. Editha supposed to have a
3. The connection of cause and effect between the follow-up evaluation a month after but she did not return. 2
fault/negligence of the defendant and the damages suffered months after, she was once again brought at the LMC, as she was
by the plaintiff suffering from vomiting and severe abdominal pains. She was
attended by Drs. Dela Cruz, Mayo and Komiya. Dr. Mayo allegedly
When you invoke the defenses, one of the elements must be informed Editha that there was a dead fetus in the latter’s womb,
affected or must not be present. after Editha went laparectomy, she was found to have massive
1. Plaintiff’s own negligence – 1st and 2nd elements are absent intra-abdominal hemorrhage and ruptured uterus. Thus, she had
because the fault is on the victim herself or himself. to go hysterectomy and as a result no more chance to bear a child.
2. Assumption of risk – 1st and 3rd elements are absent. Nag-
assume ka sa risk while crying belatedly. At first you will say, Issue:
“I am willing to suffer this” and when you suffered, you will WON the proximate cause of the injury is Mrs. Ramolete’s own
say, “Oh, sorry. I changed my mind!” So walang element of negligence? YES
damage.
3. Doctrine of last clear chance – 3rd element is absent. Along Ruling:
with the supervening event na doctrine. Wala may reasonable § When complainant was discharged on July 31, 1994, herein
connection between the injury and the damage sustained or respondent advised her to return on August 4, 1994 or 4 days
the injury sustained because naa namay supervening after the D&C. This advice was clear in complainant’s
negligence on the part of the defendant. Discharge Sheet. However, complainant failed to do so. This
4. Emergency Rule – 2nd element is absent because under the being the case, the chain of continuity as required in order
circumstances, your mind is so clouded. You will not be judged that the doctrine of proximate cause can be validly invoked
based on the peaceful mind of an average reasonable person was interrupted. Had she returned, the respondent could
just sitting in your office. have examined her thoroughly.
5. Prescription – 1st element is absent. You may no longer suffer § Besides, the tool kuno na ginagamit sa raspa could not have
damage if you slept on your rights. So maybe you weren’t possibly reached that point where the “hostilities” actually
really damaged because had there been damage, you would happened.
have immediately called upon the courts to grant you the § The omission in not returning for a follow-up evaluation
relief that you so deserved. played a substantial part in bringing about Mrs. Ramolete’s
own injury. Had she returned, the doctor could have
conducted the proper medical tests and procedure necessary
to determine her health condition and applied the
corresponding treatment which could have prevented the
rupture of her uterus.
BJDC CONSTRUCTION VS. LANUZO § What if kayo ang fence, nga di gyud nimo ma-kita ang pool
inside, pero nikatkat gyud ang bata, and because of that, he
Supra. saw the pool nga naa’y mga floaters. So, should the property
owner be liable? No, because it’s no longer an implied
§ The autopsy result noted that, there’s a medical jargon out invitation because it cannot be seen right away. OW, if you
there, which the cause of death was actually the fracture in his lower the threshold, then all property owners will be liable
head and the court said: had there been a helmet – that would regardless of how much they guard their property.
not have been the proximate cause of the death. So, that’s
why the Court found a way to pin it on him – by not wearing a
helmet. So, he was negligent because of that. Kay even daw TAYLOR VS. MANILA ELECTRIC
kuno na-bangga siya atong barricades, he would not have died
under normal circumstances kung nag helmet lang unta sya. Supra.
But because of the lack of helmet, na-fractured iyang skull
which was the proximate cause of the death. § In this case, both gates were open to the public, which
explains why the attractive nuisance doctrine was made
applicable.
HIDALGO ENTERPRISES VS. BALANDAN § The reason for the law is you invited them to embrace danger.
§ In this case, Taylor was not considered a child of tender years
Doctrines: because of his particular penchant in mechanical engineering.
ü Exception to the complete defense of plaintiff’s own Had it been that he was in love in other forms of art, which has
negligence: Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance nothing to do with the accident, he would have been
ü One who maintains on his premises dangerous considered a child of tender years.
instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract
children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to
prevent children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, ASSUMPTION OF RISK
is liable to a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even
if the child is technically a trespasser in the premises.
ü Danger is apparent to those of age, but is so enticing or ABROGAR VS. COSMOS BOTTLING
alluring to children of tender years. Attractiveness is an
implied invitation to children. Doctrines:
ü Knowledge of the risk is the watchword of assumption of risk.
Facts: ü The doctrine of assumption of risk means that one who
Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. was the owner of an ice-plant factory, in voluntarily exposes himself to an obvious, known and
whose premises were installed two tanks full of water, 9 feet appreciated danger assumes the risk of injury that may result
deep, for cooling purposes of its engine. While the factory therefrom.
compound was surrounded with fence, the tanks themselves were ü As a defense in negligence cases, the doctrine of assumption
not provided with any kind of fence or top covers. The edges of of risk requires the concurrence of three elements, namely:
the tank were barely a foot high from the surface of the ground. 1. The plaintiff must know that the risk is present;
Through the wide gate entrance, which was continually open, 2. The plaintiff must further understand its nature; and
motor vehicles hauling ice and persons buying said commodity 3. The plaintiff’s choice to incur it must be free and
passed, and anyone could easily enter the said factory, as he voluntary.
pleased. There was no guard assigned on the gate. At about noon, ü Knowledge of the general danger is not enough the knowledge
Mario Balandan, a boy barely 8 years old, while playing with other must be of the specific rick that caused the harm to the
boys of his age, entered the factory premises through the gate, to plaintiff.
take a bath in one of said tanks; and while bathing, Mario drowned ü In theory, the standard to be applied is a subjective one, and
and died. The child’s parents left for Manila on that unlucky day should be geared to the particular plaintiff and his situation,
leaving their son under the care of no responsible individual. rather than that of the reasonable person of ordinary prudence
who appears in contributory negligence.
Issue: ü A person does not comprehend the risk involved in a known
WON the doctrine of attractive nuisance is applicable? NO situation because of his youth, or lack of information or
experience, and thus will not be taken to consent to assume
Ruling + RVP: the risk.
§ The water tank was not an attractive nuisance because it ü To be considered the proximate cause of the injury, the
merely replicates what nature offers, because if attractive negligence need not be the event closest in time to the injury;
nuisance man gani na siya, we might as well blame God for the a cause is still proximate, although farther in time in relation
creations around us, right? For the lakes, the ponds, and the to the injury, if the happening of it sets other foreseeable
waterfalls. events into motion resulting ultimately in the damage.
§ So, how do you make that water tank an attractive nuisance? ü But whenever a new cause intervenes, which is not a
You put slides; you color it pink, blue, yellow; you put consequence of the first wrongful cause, which is not under
additional music on. control of the wrongdoer, which could not have been
§ Why is this an exception? Although the child was negligent, foreseen by the exercise of reasonable diligence, and except
the fact that there was an implied invitation, negligent na ang for which the final injurious consequences could not have
tag-iya.
happened, then such injurious consequence must be deemed lower the threshold, you provide a leeway for unscrupulous
too remote. owners to get away with it just by saying that you assumed the
ü Efficient Intervening Cause – An intervening cause, to be risk.
considered, efficient, must be one not produced by a wrongful § The knowledge must be on the specific risk and in this case,
act or omission, but independent of it, and adequate to bring by the mere fact that you signed up for a junior marathon, you
the injurious results. Any cause intervening between the first assumed maybe perhaps other risks but not the risk of dying
wrongful cause and the final injury which might reasonably as a result of a vehicular accident. “Kinsa man puy mag-expect
have been foreseen or anticipated by the original wrongdoer anha na nagmarathon dinha na maligsan siya?”
is not such an efficient intervening cause as will relieve the § How then would we know that a person has a specific
original wrong of its character as the proximate cause of the knowledge? The Court said, it’s a question that is purely
final injury. subjective and because it is subjective, we do not apply the
due diligence of a good father of a family test or that of a
Facts: reasonable prudent person.
Rommel Abrogar, participant, surveyed the route of the junior § Each one of us has a different appetite for risk. For you, it may
marathon and even attended a briefing before the race. He was be too risky because you’re not a risk taker, but for others, the
aware that the marathon would pass through a national road and same kind of risk may not be that risky for them. So, the
that the said road would not be blocked off from traffic. He was knowledge must be specific to the risk assumed. This is also
already 18 years of age, voluntarily participated in the marathon in relation to the second element, you will not be able to
with his parents' consent, and was well aware of the traffic understand the real nature of the risk if that is not the kind of
hazards along the route. risk that you had in mind. Maybe you have assumed a risk but
it’s a whole new species of risk; and because of that, you
Issue: WON doctrine of assumption of risk is applicable? NO assumed an endeavor expecting that it is only up to a certain
extent of possible consequences.
Ruling + RVP: § The third element is also not present in this case because of
§ In determining the diligence required, we have to consider the the youth and lack of human experience. The Court said that
circumstances of persons, time and place. In this case, the even assuming that there is consent; that consent was not
participants were minors (persons), the event happened in a given freely and voluntarily. This is because there’s a
street where the participants had to run alongside moving presumption that when you are young, you are reckless and
vehicular traffic, and that it was held on a Sunday morning, maybe you are not aware of the real, possible, practical and
when traffic along the route was at its lightest. legal consequences of your actions. That is why you had that
§ It can only be considered an efficient intervening cause if (1) it attractive nuisance doctrine to begin with because of one’s
is a product of the original act; (2) it is within the control of the tender age.
original wrongdoer; and (3) it was foreseeable under the § When the child signed the waiver, he did not sign up for him
circumstances. to die as a consequence. Maybe he signed for an injury or
§ The argument of Intergames is that the proximate cause was sprained ankle as a consequence but it does not include death
the negligence of the jeepney. The SC said that the jeep would in marathon because it could not be the kind of knowledge
not have been there if you were able to block the road. No that the child has assumed.
matter how remote, the nexus is that it is still continuing.
§ Is the injury a natural consequence of the failure to block the
road? Yes. Is it under the control of the organizers? Yes NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN, ET AL VS. REYES
because you have other options for the route. Is it foreseeable
for the jeep to be around? Yes. Doctrines:
§ The fact that there was a jeep cannot be considered as ü The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria refers to self-inflicted
efficient intervening cause under the 3 standards. injury or to the consent to injury which precludes the recovery
§ Knowledge of the risk is the watchword for the assumption of of damages by one who has knowingly and voluntarily exposed
the risk. You can only waive a right that is yours and you should himself to danger, even if he is not negligent in doing so.
waive it voluntarily. It is always based on consent like based ü What are acts contra bonus mores?
on the principle of mirisi. 1. There is an act which is legal;
§ General Knowledge of the risk is not enough. It has to be a 2. The act is contrary to morals, good custom, public order,
specific knowledge of the risk because you cannot be or public policy; and
considered to have assumed the risk you did not contemplate. 3. The acts are done with intent to injure.
§ Assumption of risk is a defense on the part of the defendant.
If somebody died or suffered an injury, and you lower the Facts:
threshold, you lower the possibility of that poor individual in Roberto Reyes, more popularly known by the screen name "Amay
getting relief in accordance to the course of law. Bisaya," was an actor of long standing; a co-host of a radio
§ There are gazillions of possibilities out there. One wrongful act program over DZRH; a Board Member of the Music Singer
can create a dozen of possibilities and you cannot pinpoint a Composer (MUSICO) chaired by popular singer Imelda Papin; a
specific risk. “Oh I assume this specific risk,” but maybe you showbiz Coordinator of Citizen Crime Watch; and 1992 official
were thinking a different kind of risk and not this risk. So even candidate of the KBL Party for Governor of Bohol; and an awardee
if you go, for example, to Badian for canyoneering, maybe of a number of humanitarian organizations of the Philippines. He
there are risks in mind such as physical injuries and risk of alleged that at around 6pm, while he was having coffee at the
drowning. But it should be the very risk that is specifically lobby of Hotel Nikko, he was spotted by his friend, Dr. Filart, who
tailored to the very activity in question. It’s for good reasons then approached him. He alleged that Dr. Filart invited him to join
because remember this is an exception to the rule. When you
her in a party at the hotel's penthouse in celebration of the natal Take Note
day of the hotel's manager, Mr. Tsuruoka. However, Dr. Filart said § Doctrine of Assumption of Risk cannot be applied if there is
that she never invited Mr. Reyes to the party and it was Mr. Reyes patent negligence on the part of the wrongdoer, e.g. if wala
who volunteered to carry the basket of fruits intended for the jud ka nag provide ug life vest, helmet etc. because that lowers
celebrant as he was likewise going to take the elevator, not to the the threshold of diligence required on the part of this
penthouse but to Altitude 49. When they reached the penthouse, individual. If at all, they can mitigate the responsibility.
she reminded Mr. Reyes to go down as he was not properly § The cornerstone of assumption of risk is knowledge because
dressed and was not invited. All the while, she thought that Mr. how can someone assume something he didn’t even know
Reyes already left the place, but she later saw him at the bar existed.
talking to Col. Batung. Ruby Lim, the Hotel's Executive Secretary
for the past 20 years, asked some guests who had conversation Waiver Illustration
with Mr. Reyes to ask him to leave the party but he still lingered. What if in the case of a marathon, gibutang jud mismo sa waiver
She then decided to personally ask him to leave as he was not na apil ang vehicular accident sa risks assumed, would it serve as
invited to the said party where there was an instruction from the a defense? There’s a general principle in law that one cannot
celebrant himself to keep it intimate, inviting only his closest bargain away statutory responsibility. Even in your transportation
friends and employees. To her surprise, he began screaming and law, one cannot stipulate a diligence lower than that of a good
making a big scene, and even threatened to dump food on her. father of a family. When a statute is specifically designed to
Later on, a Makati policeman approached and asked him to step protect a certain interest, we cannot bargain it away by a mere
out of the hotel. Petitioners Lim and Hotel Nikko contend that expedient of a contractual stipulation. At the very least, it may be
pursuant to the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria, they cannot be a mitigating circumstance. Most of these contracts are contracts
made liable for damages as Reyes assumed the risk of being asked of adhesion. You don’t go out there to read a contract when you
to leave (and being embarrassed and humiliated in the process) as are very excited for the activity. And these are fine prints man pud.
he was a "gate-crasher." It could help you in the case but it will not be the end all or the be-
all of your whole case. But at least, that’s one way of showing that
Issue: you are not negligent under the circumstances; if at all,
WON the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria is applicable? NO contributory negligence nalang ang imung ma-assume.
Ruling + RVP: Risk in Sports Illustration

§ The doctrine of assumption of risk does not apply because One joined an athletic game and there is a risk that he may be
what is under fire is the principle of contra bonus mores injured; for example, Karate, mixed martial arts, etc. Will the
(Article 21, NCC). assumption of risk lower or higher if you decided to fight with
§ (1) There is an act which is legal – The act of asking Reyes to someone not your size? Note that how we calibrate the required
leave was legal because he was not invited. degree of diligence is also dependent upon the specific
§ (2) The act is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or circumstances. There are gains in joining these events or sports
public policy – It was not contrary to morals to ask him to leave competitions. You win millions of dollars. So because there is that
because he was a gatecrasher. bargaining chip or golden pot at the end of the rainbow, most
§ (3) The acts are done with intent to injure – absent. It was even people will actually be deemed to have assumed the risk especially
the first time that Reyes and Lim met so how could there be of the very nature of the event – it's a contact sports and it does
intent to injure? If there's intent to injure, there must be prior not take a genius for you to realize that maybe at the end of the
acts which made you deliberate on how to injure that person. round, you will lose your limb di ba. And since you're willing to do
In this case, wala. that because of the prize waiting for you, you cannot claim relief
§ The most inconsistent testimony was the face to face from the organizers. It's sui generis, it's a class on its own because
conversation – how could you have been shouted at or of the very nature of the event itself. This is also true in
ridiculed if you said that you were so close enough to kiss? gymnastics, basketball, and the like. There's very recent case
§ The CA was like "oh ing ani man jud ning mga pobreing tao about that right? Dapat in the absence of negligence on the part
daog-daogon lang." The SC said that no, in fact, he was a of the owner to properly sweep or shine the court para di ma-slide
celebrity. He sang with Imelda Papin, apparently that is a ang players. So absence such, there is an assumption of risk on the
status symbol. He hosts a radio program. IOW, he was not part of the athletes.
treated that way because of his lowly status in life.
§ You do not assume the risk of being humiliated when you gate Recovery from insurance company illustration
crash a party. Athletes usually have insurance. If they claim from the insurance
§ The SC made so many assumptions in this case. When you’re company, they are no longer allowed to pursue the owner
in the hotel industry, you’re supposed to be courteous and because quasi-delict is indemnifying in nature. The moment you
candid. That does not happen all the time. But Ms Lim in this have been indemnified, you cannot seek double compensation
case has a particular interest in asking him to leave because because that is unjust enrichment already. And naa pa juy idea of
she was the organizer and she is also afraid of the possible subrogation.
consequences from her senior official or boss. She was the one
baya who came up with the list. Medical interns acquiring diseases inllustration
§ SC ruled that dili muapply ang assumption of risk. So the Kung matakdan sila ug contagious diseases while nagduty, di sila
question is do you assume the risk of being humiliated if you maka file ug cases sa hospital or the school because there's an
gate crash a party? assumption of risk. You chose that profession. It was not like you
were being brought into that situation. Because there are higher
risks again, and the reason why people take risks is because there
will be higher stakes at the end of the day.
Far from your legal arguments is the moral arguments. We should Ruling:
not take cases in isolation. We have to take the totality of the Although it was shown that the driver of URC was clearly driving
circumstances. in such a precarious way, it was clear that the driver of the bus has
Subjective lang sya because daghan man tang biases as to what a the ability to avoid the collision pursuant to the doctrine of the
risk is and how much pain can you tolerate, especially if you’re last clear chance. It was shown that there was no indication on the
dealing with babies, poor individuals, haplesss victims, you have part of the bus driver that he was trying to evade from the URC
to sound like you’re really going to die for that client because apart vehicle. It was not slowing down in the event that it was clear to
from applying the law, judges really apply their heart before him that the URC-owned vehicle was speeding. The bus driver
deciding. It is not the rules of court but it is the rules of THE court. knew even before the L3 got close to it that the URC van was
The battle ground is so different from what we've been trying to traveling fast as it was creating dust clouds from traversing the
prepare for really. shoulder of the opposite lane.
RVP: I’m not a huge fan of how the SC actually decided the case,
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE; DOCTRINE OF because it nonetheless pinned the blame to the Greenstar bus for
SUPERVENING NEGLIGENCE; DOCTRINE OF DISCOVERED PERIL; being remised on its duty to avoid the impending danger despite
OR THE ‘HUMINATARIAN DOCTRINE’ the fact that the other vehicle was already zigzagging and is
completely unaware of the situation. But the SC said maybe he
The doctrine of last clear chance provides that where both parties was asleep, maybe there are faulty breaks or something because
are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in he reached the right shoulder and in the same time nibalik ra sad
point of time than that of the other, or where it is impossible to dayun siya, so as to say that the Greenstar bus has the last clear
determine whose fault or negligence brought about the chance to avoid the injury. And the SC said it did not slow down, it
occurrence of the incident, the one who had the last clear did not even go to the farthest end just so it can avoid the injury.
opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so, is The proof being that the initial point of impact happened almost
chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom. in the middle of the road.
GREENSTAR EXPRESS VS. UNIVERSAL ROBINA PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS V. COURT OF APPEALS
Facts: Doctrine:
This is a case about a speeding draft owned by Respondent ü The antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude
Universal Robina Corp (URC), it was found out in this case that the recovery of damages caused by the supervening negligence of
driver of such draft was using the vehicle for personal uses. The the latter, who had the last fair chance to prevent the
petitioner in this case was a bus owned by Greenstar Express. The impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.
two vehicles in this case collided.
Facts:
Greenstar: PNR is a government subsidiary operating the Philippine National
The employer must be liable for the act of his employee, which is Railways. This case involves a collision between the vehicle driven
the driver of the delivery van of the URC because it is presumed by the private respondent and the train operated by the PNR in an
since the driver here is negligent, the presumption arises that the intersection.
employer URC is also liable. The driver here is negligent for
sleeping while driving the company car. Since it was used by the PNR:
manager of the Corporation, therefore the burden rests on the There was contributory negligence on the part of Vizcara as he
employer to prove that the negligent act of the driver would not was driving towards the intersection without considering the
impute liability to the employer. The manager is negligent because presence of a railway. Even though there was a truck in front of
he didn’t use reasonable care and caution while driving, because him, it was not safe for him to assum that just because the truck
at the time of the collision, he left immediately. Even assuming went through and did not have any accident, it would already be
that the driver of Greenstar bus is liable, there is no last fair safe for him to also pass through the railway. By the nature of the
opportunity for him to avoid the collision because it is too close to situation, he should always be cautious if ever there is an
avoid the incident. The second point is that even assuming that intersection. Granting that Vizcara would argue that there was no
the bus driver is negligent, still URC is liable because it is the warning signs, it’s also the responsibility on his part to look out for
registered owner of the van used. any danger that might befall him, because the nature of the
intersection in a railway would be dangerous and he cannot
URC: assume that the safety of the car in front of him would also inure
Its driver, Sayson, is not negligent because when the collision to his safety.
happened, the deceased (driver of URC) was driving at a fast
speed. It was mentioned in the case that dust clouds were present Vizcara’s family:
upon the happening of the accident. Because of the driving speed Negligence is on the part of PNR as it failed to install safety
of the L3 and because it was also not known the exact reason why devices, i.e. the stop look and listen signage was poorly
the deceased driver couldn’t control his speed, it is he who was maintained. Since there was no negligence on the part of Vizcara,
negligent because of the speed he was going at which further the doctrine of last clear chance cannot be applied.
caused the collision. No last clear chance because there was no
opportunity for the driver to avoid the accident.
Ruling + RVP: 80kph, with "full bright lights". Temporarily blinded, he

PNR is negligent. As to the issue on the application of the doctrine instinctively swerved to the right to avoid colliding with the
of last clear chance, you only apply the doctrine of last clear oncoming vehicle, and bumped plaintiff's car, which he did not
chance if you have 2 negligence’s. There is no occasion to speak of see because it was midnight blue in color.
the doctrine if it can be established that only one party is 2. Valenzuela had no parking lights or early warning device, and
negligent. That’s why you have to have concurring negligence the area was poorly lighted.
between the defendant and the plaintiff, because then you will 3. Plaintiff's car was improperly parked (no-parking area).
analyze kinsa ang nay last clear chance to avert the impending
danger. There is no need of analysis if it can be proven that only a Valenzuela’s contentions:
single party is responsible for the injury. Which is why it speaks of 1. According to the witness, the defendant’s car was driving too
antecedents and supervening negligence because it presupposes fast and it was zigzagging
that both parties have committed certain acts causing the injury. 2. When Li got out of his car, witness smelled the defendant of
That’s when you analyze which of the party has the last clear alcohol
chance of avoiding the injury. in this case, the Doctrine of Last 3. As to the improperly parked car, there was an emergency that
Clear Chance was inapplicable because it has been proven that the has to be faced and it would be dangerous for her part and of
proximate cause of the injury or accident was the failure on the the other moving vehicles along the highway for her to
part of PNR to install safety devices (stop, look and listen sign). The continue driving on such condition. Further, it was parked on
Supreme Court even said that in this era of modern technology, the shoulder of the road which would prevent other vehicles
seriously, naa paka anang mga labels nimo “on board” and it’s not to have bumped her.
even adequately maintained.
Both the trial court and the CA found for petitioner. However, the
latter modified the former’s decision in reducing the amount of
EMERGENCY RULE damages. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
VALENZUELA VS. CA WON petitioner Valenzuela is guilty of contributory negligence to
preclude her from claiming damages? NO
Doctrine:
ü Under the "emergency rule", an individual who suddenly finds Ruling:
himself in a situation of danger and is required to act without Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured
much time to consider the best means that may be adopted party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered,
to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence if he which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform
fails to undertake what subsequently and upon reflection for his own protection. Based on the foregoing definition, the
may appear to be a better solution, UNLESS the emergency standard or act to which, according to petitioner Li, Valenzuela
was brought by his own negligence. ought to have conformed for her own protection was not to park
ü The conduct which is required of an individual in such cases is at all at any point of Aurora Boulevard, a no parking zone. We
dictated not exclusively by the suddenness of the event which cannot agree. Courts have traditionally been compelled to
absolutely negates thoughtful care, but by the over-all nature recognize that an actor who is confronted with an emergency is
of the circumstances. not to be held up to the standard of conduct normally applied to
an individual who is in no such situation.
Facts:
Under the "emergency rule", an individual who suddenly finds
At around 2:00am, Valenzuela was driving a midnight blue himself in a situation of danger and is required to act without
Mitsubishi lancer from her restaurant to her home. Before much time to consider the best means that may be adopted to
reaching A. Lake Street, she noticed something wrong with her avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails
tires; she stopped at a lighted place where there were people to to undertake what subsequently and upon reflection may appear
solicit help if needed since rear right tire was flat and that she to be a better solution, unless the emergency was brought by his
cannot reach her home in that car's condition, she parked along own negligence.
the sidewalk, put on her emergency lights, alighted from the car,
and went to the rear to open the trunk. She was standing at the A woman driving a vehicle suddenly crippled by a flat tire on a
left side of the rear of her car pointing to the tools to a man who rainy night will not be faulted for stopping at a point which is both
will help her fix the tire when she was suddenly bumped by a 1987 convenient for her to do so and which is not a hazard to other
Mitsubishi Lancer driven by defendant Li. Because of the impact motorists. She is not expected to run the entire boulevard in
plaintiff was thrown against the windshield of the car of the search for a parking zone or turn on a dark street or alley where
defendant and then fell to the ground. Plaintiff's left leg was she would likely find no one to help her. It would be hazardous for
severed up to the middle of her thigh and was eventually fitted her not to stop and assess the emergency because the hobbling
with an artificial leg. vehicle would be both a threat to her safety and to other
motorists.
Defendant Richard Li:
1. Denied that he was negligent and alleged that when he was Under the circumstances described, Valenzuela did exercise the
driving along the inner portion of the right lane of Aurora Blvd, standard reasonably dictated by the emergency and could not be
he was suddenly confronted, in the vicinity of A. Lake Street, considered to have contributed to the unfortunate circumstances
with a car coming from the opposite direction, travelling at which eventually led to the amputation of one of her lower
extremities. The emergency which led her to park her car on a
sidewalk in Aurora Boulevard was not of her own making, and it All the passengers of the Nissan Pathfinder died while the
was evident that she had taken all reasonable precautions. occupants of the trucks escaped serious injuries and death. As
their letters to the registered owners of the trucks demanding
Obviously in the case at bench, the only negligence ascribable was compensation for the accident were ignored, the 4 minor children
the negligence of Li on the night of the accident. The of the Mangalinao spouses through their legal guardian,
circumstances established by the evidence adduced in the court consequently a Complaint for damages based on quasi-delict.
below plainly demonstrate that Li was grossly negligent in driving
his Mitsubishi Lancer. It bears emphasis that he was driving at a Orix Contentions:
fast speed at about 2:00A.M. after a heavy downpour had settled 1. It was Loreto’s reckless driving of his truck which suddenly
into a drizzle rendering the street slippery. There is ample stopped and slid across the highway.
testimonial evidence on record to show that he was under the 2. They claimed that Sonny had exercised the expected diligence
influence of liquor. Under these conditions, his chances of required of an employer; that Antonio had been all along
effectively dealing with changing conditions on the road were driving with care; and, that with the abrupt and unexpected
significantly lessened. collision of the vehicles before him and their precarious
proximity, he had no way of preventing his truck from hitting
In this case, there was no showing why there was a flat tire to the Pathfinder.
begin with. I think there was just a presumption that that was a 3. Antonio had no choice but to ram the rear of the Pathfinder
force majeure. That while she was driving along the road, the tire because if he had gone through the other side, he would not
just blew up. In fact, she was not sure. The reason why she have passed through because the space was too narrow. And
stopped was because she wanted to inquire from people whether if he did so, he would have fallen unto the houses under that
the tires could still make it, and the people said: “No, it can’t. Just express way so he should not be held liable.
park it there.” And she chose an area that was well-lit so she can 4. Conclusion: The Isuzu should not be held liable for having
ask for assistance. So emergency rule is based on the idea that acted that way. (emergency rule inoked)
your mental faculties are affected when you’re confronted with
an emergency situation like that – but again, remember, that the Mangalinao:
“emergency rule” will not apply if you were also negligent as in the The Isuzu should still be held liable since there is no “emergency
case of… rule” to apply here because first and foremost, according to the
statements of the Isuzu truck, the Fuso truck was already
zigzagging for 15-20 minutes. Despite that, he did not do any
ORIX METRO LEASING AND FINANCE CORPORATION V. action. Also, by the nature of the circumstances, it was also raining
MANGALINAO Y DIZON at that time, so he should have slowed down. According to the
Isuzu driver, he had slowed down to 50kph, which is still not a
Facts: defense that will say that he is not negligent. Also, he states that
A multiple-vehicle collision in North Luzon Expressway (NLEX) he was 3 cars away from the Pathfinder, which is in fact not true,
resulting in the death of all the passengers in one vehicle, because if he indeed slowed down, and if indeed he was aware of
including the parents and a sibling of the surviving orphaned the attendant circumstances, it would not have rammed or
minor heirs, compelled the latter to file an action for damages bumped the rear of the Pathfinder to such extent that it caused
against the registered owners and drivers of the two 10-wheeler extensive damage.
trucks that collided with their parents’ Nissan Pathfinder
(Pathfinder). Ruling + RVP:
The Court is not convinced that the Isuzu has no fault or
3 vehicles were traversing the 2-lane northbound NLEX. It was negligence on its part during the accident, because firstly, the
raining that night. Edurese was driving a Pathfinder carrying accident shows that the rear of the Pathfinder is so damaged that
Isabela-bound passengers who were the owners of said vehicle, it runs contrary to the claim of the Isuzu that he was not speeding
Mangalinao spouses, their daughter Marriane, housemaid Andres and that he was 3 cars away. Also, we find that the “emergency
and helper Jebueza. rule” does not apply because considering the circumstances, it
was a wet and rainy day, and he should have slowed down to avoid
Before them on the outer lane was a Pampanga-bound Fuso 10- the accident from happening. The “emergency rule” does not
wheeler truck (Fuso), driven by Loreto, which was then already apply when the accident is caused by fault or negligence of the
moving in an erratic and swerving motion. Following behind the party invoking said rule. So, another defense you can invoke,
Pathfinder was another 10-wheeler truck, an Isuzu Cargo (Isuzu), which is a complete defense is the “emergency rule.” This is based
driven by Antonio. on human experience, that when one is confronted with an
emergency situation, you cannot be expected to act and be
Just when the Pathfinder was already cruising along the NLEX’s completely rational because your human senses are already
fast lane and about to overtake the Fuso, the latter suddenly affected. So, although subsequently there could have been better
swerved to the left and cut into the Pathfinder’s lane thereby means of adapting to the situation, that will not be the standard
blocking its way. As a result, the Pathfinder hit the Fuso’s left door because that’s the standard of a person acting under normal
and left body. The impact caused both vehicles to stop in the circumstances – but when you’re confronted with an emergency,
middle of the expressway. Almost instantly, the inevitable pileup you have a different psyche, you have a different mental makeup,
happened. Although Antonio stepped on the brakes, the Isuzu’s which makes the Court rule that maybe whatever misgivings you
front crashed into the rear of the Pathfinder leaving it a total have committed will be excusable under the circumstances
wreck. provided you have not brought yourself to that very situation.
The driver of the Isuzu was actually proven to have driven the argument. Your evidence could be the specific condition of the
truck in a very fast manner, as shown in the damage caused to the tires at the time of the accident.
Pathfinder. The testimony of the driver was disproven by the
factual predicates of the case: it was raining; it was in a highway; So when I ask about the defense. You just remember all the
and stuff like that. So, they cannot invoke the rule because they defenses you have. “Your Honor, we are invoking the
have committed negligence. emergency rule”; “Your Honor, we believe that the proximate
cause was the negligence of the plaintiff himself.” Before you
Q&A: start with the facts, tell us first: “What’s your banner
argument?” Then you prove it with the factual predicates. So
Q: Can it be argued in the case of Valenzuela that the girl was first, start with “What’s your battle cry?” – mamili lang moa
negligent in taking care of her wheels? I can’t remember what tong mga own negligence, last clear chance, assumption of risk,
exactly but I believe we had a similar case, but the party was etc. – that will be your exam question.
held to be negligent for not taking care of his/her wheels, and
found to be negligent. Could it not be argued that if only she
took care of her wheels on a regular basis, then the accident PRESCRIPTION
could not have happened?
A: I think that would be a suitable argument if we are pinning Art. 1148. The following actions must be instituted within 4 years:
the liability to a repair shop because under the circumstances, 1. Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;
maka-pin man gyud ka ug responsibility on her part. How do 2. Upon a quasi-delict.
we prove this case, whether Valenzuela did actually examine o The day the quasi-delict occurred or was committed
the tires? Dili man siguro ka given the obligation to examine o The institution of a criminal action cannot have the effect of
your tires on a daily basis, but that obligation is expected on interrupting the institution of a civil action based on a quasi-
vulcanizing or repair shops. So, depende sa factual predicates delict
ang suitability sa argument – it will really depend on the
obligations, the circumstances, the persons, the place, etc. I If based on quas-delict:
think it’s difficult to prove whether or not she exercised § 4 years
diligence in taking care of the tires because she can easily claim § Reckoning point?
that she did that that morning. How can the defense disprove o The law did not specify.
that, diba? There’s no way of knowing. But you can. If there’s a o Case law: from the day the quasi-delict occurred
window opportunity to do that. But it’s easy if for example,
repair shop ato i-pin, so there is an expectation of responsibility TN: The institution of a criminal action will NOT affect or interrupt
already, but you down ordinarily require motorists to check the running of the prescriptive period.
their tires on a daily basis, right? I don’t think that’s required
under the circumstances. But make no mistake, you can
actually find a way. That just because you’re facing an CAPUNO VS. PEPSI
emergency does not mean that you’d just base the decision-
making process through your own lens. It’s not solely on your
The parties actually filed a motion for intervention in the criminal
own lens, you still have to look at the totality of the
case, but unfortunately it was denied, and they never appealed
circumstances. In this case, it was raining, she chose an area
such denial. 5 years after, they filed a case for quasi-delict. The SC
that was well-lit so she can call for assistance. She even asked
said no because it has already prescribed – the accident happened
for a second opinion as to the condition of the tire. Mura’g na
in 1953, but they only filed the case in 1958. So, in fact, gi-assume
prove gyud nga she was in good faith ba. And although, that’s
ra sa Court that the case was filed purely based on quasi-delict;
a no parking zone, there’s no other way because the boulevard
OW unta, pending pa baya ang criminal action ani nga time, noh?
stretches a distance. And in fact, buotan man siya because well-
So since it’s based on quasi-delict, it’s independent of the criminal
lit iyang gi-pila para mabantayan siya and she parked near the
action. So, the fact that there is a criminal action does not toll the
sidewalk.
running of the prescriptive period.
Q: The negligence that would negate the “emergency rule,” is
Q&A
it any type? Like, maybe slight, or gross?
A: The law did not make a distinction. Although, you can argue
Q: Where do you count the day of prescription? On the day of
nga dili siya efficient nga negligence, or dili siya the negligence
accident or on the day the person died?
that would preclude recovery. But yeah, the law does not make
A: It will be on the day of accident. In quasi-delict, you do not
a distinction.
qualify man the extent of injury. The fact is that an injury
occurred although a supervening event made it more serious
Q: In the case of Valenzuela, would the same ruling apply had
or damaging.
it been a common carrier? Since a common carrier is required
to exercise extraordinary diligence? And as I remember, sir, in
Q: What if the ailment did not manifest like after months pa na
our Transpo class, the failure to check the condition, the wear
manifest?
and tear of the tires, it’s already a conclusive presumption that
A: You go to the heart of quasi-delict – the indemnification of
the driver was negligent.
injury. So, you do not strictly apply because this is not a criminal
A: Yeah, you can do that because diba the degree of diligence
case. And if it can be proven that a damage has been caused
will have to be based on the circumstances of persons. If you’re
and the proximate cause was the act of the defendant, then
a common carrier, you’re required a much higher standard of
diligence – extraordinary diligence. Actually, you can plug that
the plaintiff may recover. Lenient man ta under rules of reasons: (1) the deceased was a pocket miner (small scale miner)
evidence and prescription. and it was proven by evidence that due to the excavation done by
these pocket miners, the lines went down (all the pocket miners
Q: Can it be said that the purpose of prescriptive period is the but not HIS specific excavation); (2) since it was alleged that it was
speedy disposition of case like in the case of Buhi? the only path that he went there everyday, then he could have
A: Speedy disposition of the case only applies in criminal case. been aware by the dangers that already existed in the location; (3)
The accused is interested in having terminated the case early. I since he was aware that he was carrying a bamboo and that it was
think dili siya mainvoke in cases of quasi delict. raining, he could have exercised a little more diligence considering
that there were dangling wires along the way.
Casionan:
INCOMPLETE / PARTIAL DEFENSE The lines of NAPOCOR were already sagging beyond the regulated
distance. There was presumed negligence on the part of
DOCTRINE OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE NAPOCOR in not properly maintaining their wires. Second of all, it
was noted in the case that this is the only path that is usually used
Contributory negligence is an impartial defense because then, the by the parties to get from that area to another. Furthermore, it
indemnification will have to be proportionately allocated between was also raining, it is normal and natural that electric current will
the plaintiff and the defendant because the latter cannot escape have to flow from the sagging wires.
the fact that he also contributed to his or her own injury. You
measure that by saying that the victim’s lack of ordinary care or Issue:
foresight actually concurred with the defendant’s negligence. WON Casionan was guilty of contributory negligence? NO
How would we know whether the victim displayed lack of
foresight? The victim will have to perform an overt act which will Ruling:
show that he blatantly disregarded the possibility of an impending There is no contributory negligence on the part of Casionan for
danger upon his person or upon his property if such is the case. So the following reasons:
dapat, we have to assert a positive act on the part of the victim to (1) Napocor cannot transfer its liability to maintain the electric
show that he was remised in observing the diligence required of wires by imputing negligence to Casionan because in the
him under the circumstances. first place, it is the one responsible for maintaining such
wires. NPC already violated the rules since the wires were
§ Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured already sagging 8-10 ft above which supposedly is 18-20 feet
party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has above the ground.
suffered, which falls below the standard which he is required (2) With regard to the argument that Casionan was a pocket
to conform for his own protection. miner, in relation to negligence per se, mere violation of the
§ It is an act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care on law does not necessarily mean that the person guilty is
the part of the person injured which, concurring with the already liable. There must be causation between the
defendant’s negligence, is the proximate cause of the injury. violation of the law and the injury incurred, unless the very
§ There is contributory negligence when the party’s act showed injury that happened was precisely what was intended to be
lack of ordinary care and foresight that such act could cause prevented by the statute (Anonuevo v. CA). In this case,
him harm or put his life in danger. there is no proximate cause between being an unlicensed
§ It is an act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care on pocket miner and the electrocution that Casionan incurred.
the part of the person injured which, concurring with the The fact that they were not issued a permit by the DENR to
defendant’s negligence, is the proximate cause of the injury. do pocket mining is no justification for NPC to simply leave
§ To hold a person as having contributed to his injuries, it must their transmission lines dangling 8-10 feet above the ground
be shown that he performed an act that brought about his posing danger to the life and limb of everyone in the said
injuries in disregard of warnings or signs of an impending community. The pocket miners, are also human beings who
danger to health and body. have to eke out a living in the only way they know how.
RVP: The required distance was 18-20 feet from the ground. In this
NAPOCOR VS. HEIRS OF CASIONAN case, the bamboo pole was 14 feet long and people approximately
are 5-6 feet tall. So, if you add the height of a person and the
bamboo pole, it would still reach the pole. But I would argue using
Facts:
the BUT-IF Test that if it’s 18-20 feet, 18 feet being the minimum,
Noble was 19 y/0 working as a pocket miner. They were cutting
and you carrying the pole, there is still actually an opportunity for
bamboos. While they were walking on the trail where high tension
the pole to touch the wires. Although, it was already established
wires were dangling (placed 8-10 ft). The other end of his bamboo
naman nila daan na horizontal ang pagcarry sa pole, but
touched the wires and he died. His parents sued the NAPOCOR.
Horizontal? Mu.change man japun nah. One is not expected to
balance it out especially when you’re going downhill, then uphill
NAPOCOR:
nasad. There’s actually a window for argument in this case na wala
It claimed that it was not the wire nor the electrocution that
na-use sa defense. Even if muingon si SC na it was the usual
proximately caused his death because (1) their lines were properly
passage way for every member of the community, but note that
installed; and (2) had it been electrocution, the strength of the
not everyone is bringing with them poles when they passed by the
lines would have burned the deceased. It is the fault of the
trail. So, there is this specific act that would have contributed to
deceased because he was carrying bamboo. If it will be held liable,
his injury.
it still argues that the award of damages must be mitigated due to
the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased for three
NATIONAL TRANSMISSION COMMISSION VS. DE JESUS extraordinary negligence then we have to still impute
negligence on the first bank despite of the second bank having
Facts: the last clear chance.
Baby John De Jesus is a lineman and he died of electrocution while A: Ma apply gihapon ang last clear chance sa bank. It's just very
doing a repair on one of the posts. So, his heirs filed a case against specific to that case. Also, the doctrine of contributory
the employer, National Transmission Commission (NTC). negligence does not require that there be antecedent or
concurrent negligence. Supervening and antecedent
If asked how to argue (some are not found in the case)… negligence only applies to the doctrine of last clear chance
even if the doctrine of last clear chance will not apply as in the
Heirs: cases we've studied, contributory negligence could still be
It was NTC’s fault for hiring a foreman (Manahan) who was not applied by the SC. There are instances actually wherein banks
very used to the situation – as to the area and as to the task at are successful in invoking that they had the last fair opportunity
hand; that it gave an order which the deceased lineman could not of averting the danger, the only reason why in this specific case,
ordinarily carry out which eventually led to his death. Secondly, kay kung ikaw man gud ang depositary, you are more familiar
while the defense may argue that there was contributory with signature, opportunities to verify and get to know your
negligence on his part, it was still the fault of the company for not clients better. You also have extraordinary diligence required
providing him with the proper gear in order to be safe in going up. of banks by the public interest rule/doctrine. You can actually
apply it but in the factual predicate sometimes it will not be
NTC: applicable under the circumstances. It does not only apply in
The proximate cause of the death is the own negligence of the vehicular accidents, it applies in instances where there is
deceased De Jesus. He was a worker of a line and he was provided supervening negligence and there was a prior antecedent
with safety equipment. The allegations that the company did not negligence.
provide these gears is indeed rebutted by the evidence that the
deceased himself asked the foreman that he be given the
grounding cluster to protect himself. The deceased was negligent LIABILITY FOR ACT OR OMISSION
in doing his duties as he was informed during the training to
exercise all the safety requirements. But assuming that there was BY THE TORTFEASOR
negligence on the company’s part in hiring the foreman, De Jesus
was still negligent for obeying the foreman’s orders in climbing
without the required grounding cluster. LOADMASTERS V GLODEL BROKERAGE
Ruling: Facts:
When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, there R&B Insurance issued a marine policy in favor of Columbia to
instantly arises a presumption of the law that there was insure the shipment of 132 bundles of electric copper cathodes
negligence on the part of the employer, either in the selection of against all risks. The cargoes were shipped on board the vessel ".
his employee or in the supervision over him after such selection. Columbia engaged the services of Glodel (a corporation engaged
This presumption can be overcome by a clear showing on the part in the business of customs brokering) for the release and
of the employer that he has exercised the care and diligence of a withdrawal of the cargoes from the pier and the subsequent
good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his delivery to its warehouses/plants. Glodel, in turn, engaged the
employee. The petitioner, however, failed to overcome the services of Loadmasters for the use of its delivery trucks to
presumption of negligence in the presence case. However, we transport the cargoes to Columbia's warehouses/plants. The
agree that De Jesus was guilty of contributory negligence because goods were loaded on board 12 trucks owned by Loadmasters,
he should have insisted on wearing the required grounding cluster driven by its employed drivers and accompanied by its employed
notwithstanding his foreman’s directive to proceed without it. De truck helpers. 6 truckloads of copper cathodes were to be
Jesus, as a lineman, has the opportunity to insist because he ought delivered to Bulacan, while the other 6 were destined for
to know the dangers of his work and that without those grounding Valenzuela City. Of the 6 trucks en route to Bulacan, only 5
clusters, it would impose threat to his life. Going against the order reached the destination. Later on, the said truck was recovered
of the superior would be justified if it would impose threat to but without the copper cathodes. Because of this incident, R&B
one’s own life, and he should have thought about that Insurance paid the claim for insurance indemnity. The insurance
company, thereafter, filed a complaint for damages against both
In this case, 20% was imputed on De Jesus because he failed to Loadmasters and Glodel. It claimed that it had been subrogated
insist to ask for the protective gears. "to the right of the consignee to recover from the party/parties
who may be held legally liable for the loss." Loadmasters argued
Q&A: that it cannot be considered an agent of Glodel because it never
represented the latter in its dealings with the consignee. Glodel
Q: Sir, query on the Allied Bank case sir. One of the banks said has no recourse against it for its failure to file a cross-claim. Glodel,
that there was a last clear chance because the second bank has in its Comment, counters that Loadmasters is liable to it under its
the chance to avoid the damage. However, the SC said that still cross-claim because the latter was grossly negligent in the
the doctrine of last clear chance shall be applied because the transportation of the subject cargo. With respect to Loadmasters'
first bank had contributory negligence. Since the negligence claim that it is already estopped from filing a cross-claim, Glodel
was not concurrent, therefore, contributory negligence should insists that it can still do so even for the first time on appeal
not have been applied. However, according to SC, because of because there is no rule that provides otherwise. Finally, Glodel
the public interest, the bank should have exercised argues that its relationship with Loadmasters is that of Charter
wherein the transporter (Loadmasters) is only hired for the § Under the circumstances they are solidarily liable. So, what
specific job of delivering the merchandise. Thus, the diligence could be the recourse then of Glodel? There's a
required in this case is merely ordinary diligence or that of a good pronouncement by the SC that barred na siya because the
father of the family, not the extraordinary diligence required of cross-claim was not alleged.
common carriers. § Take note that even if breach of contract ang isa, and then ang
isa kay quasi-delict, pwede ra niya idungan ang iyang suit.
Glodel’s defense is force majeure. When we speak of sources of liability, ang atung reference
point is always the victim. Kinsa man ang victim in this case?
Ruling + RVP: It's Columbia but subrogated by the insurance company. So
§ As to Loadmaster's argument that it's not privy to the with respect to the insurance company and Glodel, there's a
contract, the SC said that it cannot dispense with the privity of nexus which is the contractual obligation between Glodel and
the contract because ultimately, as what I understood, he was Loadmaster. The nexus is quasi-delict because it was also
an employee of Glodel since Glodel contracted him to remised in its duty in making sure that the delivery trucks
transport the goods. would be able to deliver to the warehouse in Valenzuela.
§ Both Loadmaster and Glodel are jointly and severally liable. § So mao na sya, when you have proven already that you have
Liability for quasi-delict is solidary so even if Loadmasters was two tortfeasors, their obligation will now be solidary. It does
not privy to the contract between Glodel and Columbia, not matter kinsa imong ikiha, it does not matter whether the
liability may still arise or tort may still arise regardless of the negligence of one is lesser compared to the negligence of the
fact that there was an absence of contractual relationship other because it is solidary. OW, if we wait who is more
between Loadmasters and Columbia. negligent, then the victim will be at the mercy of these
§ Before you can prove that there is solidary liability, you still competing violators of the law. Ang mahitabo is bayri sa na
have to prove that there has been quasi-delict. So what's the sya, kamo nai bahala magdecide mu apportion among
quasi-delict in this case? Loadmasters lost the goods of yourselves kinsa ang naai bigger chunk of the indemnities
Columbia but it does not have a contract with Columbia. given to the victim. So as long as you have adequately
Glodel was the one who had a contract with Columbia. So it protected the victim already, that is the reason behind the
should be Glodel’s responsibility but it was Loadmaster which rule.
actually transported the goods and actually lost the goods. But § Muapply lang ang solidary liability under 2194 if ma-prove
this does not mean that Glodel is freed from liability. Glodel is nimo nga two or more persons were indeed liable under quasi-
still responsible because it contracted with Loadmaster. From delict. Kani, nadiscuss lang ni sya tungod kay ang employees
what I understood, the court said that they did not dispute man gyud ang sad-an ani ba, the drivers and the helper.
that the cargo was lost so it would appear that they are both § So, the nature of Load masters liability is quasi delict. The
responsible for the loss because Glodel did not exercise the nature of Glodel's responsibility or liability is culpa
diligence required in insuring that Loadmaster would comply contractual. Either way both have contributed to the loss and
with its obligation to transport the goods safely and therefore they will be deemed joint tortfeasors.
completely to the warehouse of Columbia. But also § It does not matter whether the negligence of one is heavier or
Loadmaster was negligent in choosing the drivers of its grave compared to the other. In the eyes of the victim, both
vehicles because all 6 went but only 5 arrived so Loadmaster of you are negligent. I deserve what is due me under the
was not able to exercise the diligence required of an employer circumstances. But as between the two parties, their
in choosing employees. negligence are different and they can actually file separate
§ The nature of Loadmaster's liability is solidary with Glodel. cases against each other. Our point of reference is the victim.
Loadmaster is liable even in the absence of a contract. In this In the eyes of the victim same mo ug liability.
case, Loadmaster was a common carrier and it has the duty to § REMEMBER: EACH WRONGDOER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
transport the goods safely to its destination. But this duty is ENTIRE RESULT AND NOT JUST FOR THE BITS AND PIECES OF
with respect to Glodel, not with respect to Columbia. HIS/HER CONTRIBUTION TO THE LOSS.
Remember, we only speak of common carrier's liability when
there is a contract of carriage.
§ Despite absence of a contract between Loadmaster and VICARIOUS LIABILITY
Columbia, Loadmaster can still be held liable for tort under
Art. 2176 because as what we have learned from previous Parents
discussions, that one may still be liable for tort even if there is
no contractual obligation between two parties. Article 2180 of the Civil Code reads:
§ But take note that there’s an exception that even in the The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for
presence of contract, quasi-delict can still be the cause of one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for
action – when the act that breaches the contract is in itself the whom one is responsible.
tort. (Carrascuso case) xxx
§ In this case, the source of obligation of Loadmaster is quasi- The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are
delict because of the absence of contract. Either way, they will responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who
be solidarily liable because both of them committed a breach live in their company.
of difference of sources of obligations, that's why you apply
2194 now. You apply joint tortfeasors rule when you can prove
that the tortfeasors actually are liable, although the sources of
the liability may be different – quasi-delict and culpa-
contractual.
TAMARGO V. CA § Parental Liability is anchored upon Parental Authority. You

have the authority over the child, you have the authority to
Doctrines: lock the doors, you have the authority to keep the safe locks
ü Parental liability is made a natural or logical consequence of or mag impose kag curfew, i-grounded nimo siya.
the duties and responsibilities of parents — their parental § The child must be in their custody and control, meaning even
authority — which includes the instructing, controlling and if the child has been emancipated already by becoming 18
disciplining of the child. years old, it does not matter so long as it can be proven that
ü The legislature which adopted our Civil Code has elected to the child is still in your custody and control. And that applies
limit extra-contractual liability to cases in which moral in our country right, it’s not like the US or other Westerm
culpability can be directly imputed to the persons to be countries wherein you have to go out outside your house na
charged. the moment you reach the age of majority. Okay, so parental
ü The civil law assumes that when an unemancipated child living liability is anchored upon parental authority.
with its parents commits a tortious act, the parents were § What the SC will be looking for is that MORAL CULPABILITY,
negligent in the performance of their legal and natural duty meaning, do you have the moral obligation over the offending
closely to supervise the child who is in their custody and minor? And how do you determine whether the parent or the
control. guardian has a moral obligation? There are certain standards
ü Parental liability is anchored upon parental authority coupled given by law.
with presumed parental dereliction in the discharge of the § For example, you have to have actual custody of the offending
duties accompanying such authority. minor because the PH law presupposes that with parental
ü Actual custody is required. The Family Code insists upon the authority comes parental responsibility because there is a
requisite that the child shall have been in the actual custody of presumption that so long as he/she stays under your own roof
the parents sought to be held liable for the ensuing damage: then you have the obligation for whatever acts that the minor
Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental child has done especially if you contextualize this in PH setting,
authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and we have a very strong familial tie.
damages caused by the acts or omissions of their § So, it is just presumed that when the child is under your wing,
unemancipated children living in their company and then you’re responsible for the acts of the child. IOW, you can
under their parental authority subject to the refute that presumption by showing that you’ve exercised the
appropriate defenses provided by law. diligence required under the circumstances which is diligence
of a good father of a family.
Facts: § Actual custody is required because that is how you exercise
This is a case wherein the child who was supposed to be adopted control – when he/she is under your custody.
actually killed another minor child. But then during the incident, § The child has to live under the company of the parents; OW,
the adopting parents were still in the US. Because pending pa man the reason for the law will now cease because even if 17yrs
ang application sa adoption, in fact there was no custody for 6 old sya but she/he has left the house for 2 yrs, you can no
mos. Trial custody diba in your persons, when you adopt a child longer create that nexus of parental authority, medjo distant
there will be a trial custody for 6 mos to see whether compatible na sya although maka argue ghapon ka nga you should have
mo or pwede mo together mo live in harmony. The natural exerted reasonable efforts to contact your child. So under the
parents gi-sue ani, ni-file sila MTD because wala daw ang circumstances, pag wala nai actual custody wala na juy
indispensable parties, being the putative parents, the adopting connection si child sa iyahang parents, then you cannot make
parents. the parents liable.
§ LIVING UNDER THE ROOF + MINORITY. ‘Under the parent’s
Issue: custody’ presupposes nga the minor child cannot take care of
WON the effects of adoption, insofar as parental authority is himself pa man which is why you need to surrogate protection
concerned, may be given retroactive effect so as to make the from your parents. In fact, ingon ang SC in this case, ang
adopting parents the indispensable parties in a damages case filed kanang retroactive effect, that is only for anything beneficial
against their adopted child, for acts committed by the latter when to the adopted child. You don’t apply retroactivity when it will
actual custody was yet lodged with the biological parents? NO be absurd under the circumstances as when you make a
couple in good faith na muadopt sa bata unya wala pa gani ang
RVP + Ruling: custody, wala pa gani ang trial na mu live sila for 6months nya
§ Parental liability is based on your ability to control the child. imo na sila ihold responsible. I don’t think it appeals to the
Because with the ability to control is the ability to discipline very core of humanity nga naa sila sa US and you make them
and instruct, diba. liable.
§ Therefore, it is very important then that the child must be in
the actual custody of the parents they want to be held liable.
Because the basis for vicarious liability of parents is moral LIBI VS. IAC
culpability – the ability to exert moral influence and moral
control over the erring child. Facts:
§ There is a provision in your Adoption law that the moment na There was a lover’s quarrel and then there were two gunshots. Dili
grant na ang adoption decree, then muretroact ag iyang man klaro sa case pero ang ruling sa RTC is i-remand paman ni
effect. But the Court clarified that the retroactive effect is for balik. This is related to torts because we want to determine the
the purposes beneficial to the adopted child. It cannot be nature of the liability of the parents in this case. But dili pa gyud
applied mutatis mutandis or by extension to make third klaro whether there is suicide or whether the boyfriend shot the
persons liable to an act they had no control of whatsoever.
girlfriend first and then after, shot himself. So, the facts are not Owners and Managers of Establishment
clear whether there was suicide or whether there was homicide.
There were even allegations but the SC did not pass upon it as to CASTILEX INDUSTRIAL CORP. VS. VASQUEZ, JR.
nganong open ang safe, nganong wala kabalo ang parents that
apparently, the son is actually an informant of the CIDG or tig- Doctrines: (Read this case; too many principles; landmark case)
report sa mga drugs cases or sa mga drug syndicates. So, naay ü The phrase “even though the former are not engaged in any
imputations ang SC as to how the parents were remissed in their business or industry” found in the fifth paragraph should be
duty to properly and responsively supervise the minor child. interpreted to mean that it is not necessary for the employer
Because apparently, the gun that was used was owned by the to be engaged in any business or industry to be liable for the
father which was taken from the safety deposit box nga ang yabi negligence of his employee who is acting within the scope of
nga naa ra pirme sa bag ni mommy. his assigned task.
Ruling + RVP:
4th Par. 5th Par.
§ Our concern stems from our readings that if the liability of the
owners and managers of an employers in general,
parents for crimes or quasi-delicts of their minor children is
establishment or enterprise whether or not engaged in
subsidiary, then the parents can neither invoke nor be
any business or industry
absolved of civil liability on the defense that they acted with
covers negligent acts of encompasses negligent acts
the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damages.
employees committed either of employees acting within
§ On the other hand, if such liability imputed to the parents is
in the service of the branches the scope of their assigned
considered direct and primary, that diligence would
or on the occasion of their task
constitute a valid and substantial defense.
functions
§ Art. 2180.
xxx
ü Article 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when
demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also
the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all
for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
Xxx
§ Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise
liable for quasi-delict is solidary.
are likewise responsible for damages caused by their
§ Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has
employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are
no parents or guardian, the minor or insane person shall be
employed or on the occasion of their functions.
answerable with his own property in an action against him
where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
§ This is actually a proof na dili subsidiary ang nature sa liability
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of
under 2180 because without parents, or even in the absence
their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged
of a guardian, the minor or the person so charged with the
in any business or industry.
negligence for the offense or fault will be answerable with his
xxx
own property. That is not true for your RPC because you will
realize that mu-come up lang ang liability sa employer in
ü The fifth paragraph is an expansion of the former in both
default on the person originally charged. So in your sales, you
employer coverage and acts included.
have the rule of exclusion, preclusion, na kailangan i-exhaust
ü Negligent acts of employees, whether or not the employer is
tanan properties sa original debtor before you can run against
engaged in a business or industry, are covered so long as they
the surety or the guarantor.
were acting within the scope of their assigned task, even
§ The parents are and should be held primarily liable for the civil
though committed neither in the service of the branches nor
liability arising from criminal offenses committed by their
on the occasion of their functions.
minor children under their legal authority or control, or who
ü For, admittedly, employees oftentimes wear different hats.
live in their company, unless it is proven that the former acted
They perform functions which are beyond their office, title or
with the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent such
designation but which, nevertheless, are still within the call of
damages.
duty.
§ Under the Family Code, either parent could now be primarily
ü Under the fifth paragraph of Article 2180, an employer is liable
liable. It’s no longer father sa ayha mother.
for the torts committed by employees within the scope of his
§ Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the enforcement of such
assigned tasks, whether or not engaged in any business or
liability shall be effected against the father and, in case of his
industry.
death or incapacity, the mother.
ü But it is necessary to establish the employer-employee
§ However, under the Family Code, this civil liability is now the
relationship; once this is done, the plaintiff must show that the
responsibility of the parents and those who exercise parental
employee was acting within the scope of his assigned task
authority over the minor offender, without such alternative
when the tort complained of was committed in order to hold
qualification.
the employer liable.
ü It is only then that the employer may find it necessary to
interpose the defense of due diligence in the selection and
supervision of the employee.
Facts: Wala gyuy gibutang didto na gisugo sya na mamick-up ug

(Atty: kadtong namiga sa Fuente). Ang nahitabo ani is, si daddy babaye. There is no special benefit to the employer.
nabangga. Ni-counter flow siya sa Fuente Circle and the parents sa § But if you are forced to argue on behalf of the plaintiff, then
nabanggaan (Honda Tricycle) filed a case but they also impleaded mangita lang mu ug special benefit to the employer bisan
the employer which is Castilex. Obviously, the defense is that he gamay and then you blow it out of proportion. Maghasty
was not performing his functions at that time of the incident. generalization and slippery slope argument na gyud ka bah.
Understandably, this employer who was 29 years old (and could But just try to make sure na connected sad siya gamay.
not be a daddy as stated by the SC) came from a work in Mandaue
and took him how many hours. He was in a drinking spree with his “acts done within the scope of the employee’s assigned tasks”
batchmates and friends and on that time, nakabangga siya. Ngano (Himu2x lang ta’g tests, so you can remember J)
daw gi-implead ang employer? Because it’s engaged daw in
business and industry. o THE FURTHERANCE TEST – any act done by an employee in
furtherance of the interests of the employer or for the
Ruling + RVP: account of the employer at the time of the infliction of the
§ Par. 5 should be interpreted to mean that it is not necessary injury or damages.
for the employer to engage in any business or industry. It’s a o THE SPECIAL BUSINESS BENEFIT TEST – Even if it’s not falling
catch all, so anything that’s not falling under par. 4 will be under the specific functions of the employee, but then at the
under par. 5 because the requirements under par. 4 are time of the accident, there was actually a special business
specific – either you are in the establishment itself, or in one benefit that inured to the employer, then the employer will
of the branches. be liable. This is for cases wherein lunch break tuod but naa’y
§ In this case, wala na-prove nga at the time when the employee gisugo gamay lang nga ipahapit si employer, and that small
in this case, the manager caused the accident, there was no special business benefit ties it to the employee himself or
showing that he was performing functions of his office, herself. So, kanang maghatag ka ug sakyanan, diba gibutang
correct? It was purely a private affair. man ni sa case, some companies actually provide vehicles to
§ The accident happened at 2 AM in the morning, ana si their employees. Based on U.S. Court decisions, if intended
Supreme Court, dili daw na siya performing his usual tasks. sya para early makaabot sa office ang EE, or so dali niya ma
The circumstances were not in his favor, and layo man gud perform iyang task, therefore there’s a special business
kaayo ang Mandaue, right? benefit, right? So, the fact nga gigamit na nga vehicle sa
§ The fifth paragraph is an expansion of the former in employer employee, for private affair, but naa siya’y gihapit gamay nga
coverage. Why employer coverage? Because the employer nakabenfit sa employer, then the employer will be liable.
may or may not be engaged in business and industry. So, o SPECIAL ERRAND / ROVING COMMISSION RULE - where the
there’s an expansion as to employer coverage and acts employee's duties require him to circulate in a general area
included. with no fixed place or hours of work, or to go to and from his
§ Why is there an expansion on acts included? Because it covers home to various outside places of work, and his employer
anything that is within the scope; while the 4th paragraph furnishes him with a vehicle to use in his work, the employee
pertains to acts committed within the branches or in the continues in the service of his employer until he actually
performance of their official functions only. reaches home.
§ Actually, the grey area is in the 5th paragraph because we’re
not sure whether at the time of the accident, the employee
was precisely performing an act that is related or within the Employers
scope of his official functions.
§ The reason being – kani importante ni – that employees often
wear different hats. In the interim, you may be tasked to FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE V. COURT OF APPEALS
perform jobs by your employer which is not specifically
enumerated in the employment contract. Unya mag
Facts:
determine ta’g test to identify whether or not the act
Nabangga-an sa working student ang isa ka.82-year old. The
performed is related to the official functions. So, just to be
working student drove a jeepney and the authorized driver of the
safe, just go straight to the 5th paragraph, because that’s
jeepney is Allan Masa. But in filing the case, Allan Masa was never
where much room for argument is available.
impleaded. The boy or the working student was impleaded, the
§ Under the 5th paragraph, it is necessary to establish er-ee
school and the president of the school was impleaded, but never
relationship. Once this is done, the plaintiff must show that
Allan Masa who was supposed to be the authorized driver of the
the employee was acting within the scope of his assigned task.
jeepney. Why was it so important to implead him as the party-
§ So what needs to be done first? Establish employer-employee
defendant? Because he is the employee of the school and the
relationship. Establish that the employee has committed the
moment na employee siya, you have already created that
wrongful act and was acting within the scope of his official
connection with the school. It was negligent on his part for
functions – and when that happens, the burden is now shifted
allowing the working student to drive the jeepney, so his
to the employer to prove diligence in the selection and
negligence could be attributed to the school. But yet again, he was
supervision of such employee.
never impleaded in the case.
§ In this case, the vehicle was provided for the company but
then the nexus or the connection between the employer on
A good argument in this case was to invoke Sec. 14 of the Labor
one hand and the accident on the other is remote. Layu kaayu
Code on working students, that there is no employer-employee
ang Mandaue to Fuente, unya 2 am, unya dugay na kaayo siya
relationship provided that there was a good faith intent to allow
nahuman sa iyang overtime work and it was purely private.
the student to finish the course.
Ruling + RVP: 1-C and even the physical education instructors who performed
§ In this case, there was no employer-employee relationship the resuscitation. The principal was impleaded as well. So the
because working student raman siya. defense of the school is that Art 2180 is not applicable and that
§ While the vehicle was owned by the school, it was not within they are not liable under the circumstances. The incident
the scope of his functions. So, it’s important that we check happened not within the school premises, not on a school day and
whether or not the accident occurred at a time when the is a purely private affair which is a picnic. The picnic has no permit
employee was performing his official functions. from the school and the principal because it was neither a school-
§ Private respondents’ attempt to hold petitioner Filamer sanctioned activity nor considered as an extra-curricular activity.
directly and primarily answerable to the injured party under What was the brilliant argument in this case? That the principal
Article 2180 of the Civil Code would have prospered had they had knowledge of the event and because of that knowledge, she
proceeded against Allan Masa, the authorized driver of the should be made liable as well.
Pinoy jeep and undisputably an employee of petitioner.
§ It was Allan’s irresponsible act of entrusting the wheels of the Ruling + RVP:
vehicle to the inexperienced Funtecha which set into motion § Mere knowledge is not enough because otherwise, luoy kaayu
the chain of events leading to the accident resulting in injuries imung principal and administrator. What if nananghid ni ang
to Kapunan, Sr. teacher pero wala ka nisugot? The teacher will nonetheless
§ But under the present set of circumstances, even if the trial proceed with the activity. The mere fact na naa na and the
court did find Allan guilty of negligence, such conclusion would teacher violated your prohibition anyway, you cannot be held
not be binding on him. It must be recalled that Allan was never liable. It is not fair under the circumstances. So, the mere fact
impleaded in the complaint for damages and should be that the principal was aware does not amount to acquiescence
considered as a stranger as far as the trial court's judgment is or implied consent to perform the activity.
concerned. It is axiomatic that no man shall be affected by a § The parents actually consented that the child participate in
proceeding to which he is a stranger. the activity because the mom cooked adobo for the kid. In
fact, she showed regret di ba.
§ Side Note: Kamu gani victim, ayaw lagi mu pagtabi2x sa mga
PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. V. PHIL-AMERICAN unknown persons. ‘nakonsensencya man ngani ka, maypa
FORWARDERS, INC. wala nimu sya pakuyoga.’ That was taken against her.
Remember the other case, katung na-hospital and nadunggan
Oowners and managers do not pertain to managers in general. sa nurse gihapon di ba? So just stay silent, just let the lawyer
They do not pertain to, for example, the directors of a corporation. do the talking.
Based on the preparatory works of the former interpretation of § So in this case, it’s not an extra-curricular activity, it was not
the Code, it actually just means employers. Because you can be a sanctioned by the school, and the teachers were not
manager of a sole proprietorship, you can be a manager of KAKKA performing their assigned tasks. There was no educational
Ice Cream. They can go by different names, what we look at is the value out of the activity, they were simply swimming in
nature of the relationship, with respect to the employee. So, they dangerous waters.
do not mean managers under your partnership, or under your § Further the teachers were freed of liability because there was
corporation code. So, when we speak of directors, we don’t mean a showing that they actually exercised due diligence.
the directors of a corporation, or the managers of a partnership. Nanginvite pa siya ug PE instructors, and then there was timely
We just simply mean the owners of the establishment, or the resuscitation, etc.
person having control over the acts of the employees.
FRANCO V. IAC
ST. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL V. CA
SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY PRIMARY LIABILITY UNDER
Doctrines: UNDER THE REVISED PENAL THE CIVIL CODE
ü When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee CODE
there instantly arises a presumption of the law that there was liability originates from a liability is based on culpa
negligence on the part of the employer either in the selection delict committed by the aquiliana which holds the
of his employee or in the supervision over him after such employee who is primarily employer primarily liable for
selection. liable therefor and upon tortious acts of its employees
ü The presumption however may be rebutted by a clear showing whose primary liability his
on the part of the employer that it had exercised the care and employer’s subsidiary liability (RVP: Meaning, we will not
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and is to be based even talk about subsidiary
supervision of his employee. liability because the law itself
(RVP: So in your subsidiary provides that the employer
Facts: liability, there has to be would be primarily liable.)
Sec. 1-B and 1-C went out for a picnic but then it was not someone primarily liable first.
sanctioned by the principal and the school although the principal Meaning, if no case has been
was aware that there was a picnic going on. There was a teacher filed to the person who
who was drowning and this kid tried to save the teacher. But in committed the criminal
the process of saving the teacher, he drowned himself. In fact, offense, there is no subsidiary
there are three others daw na nalunod ani na picnic. So the liability to speak because
parents of the child sued all the teachers including the adviser sa there is no one primarily liable
or the accused has died in Q&A:

between or nag suicide in
between. That is if your cause Q: In subsidiary liability, why is it that the defense of due
of action is based on the delict diligence in the selection and supervision is not available? Why
committed under RPC.) is it available as defense for the employer if it's liability under
it is imperative that there subject to the defense that the civil code?
should be a criminal action the former exercised all the A: First, there has to be conviction, right? So you're assured
whereby the employee's diligence of a good father of a that the case is properly ventilated, that the facts are properly
criminal negligence or delict family in the selection and sifted through. Lahi man gud ang nature gyud sa criminal
and corresponding liability supervision of his employees. offense – it's stricter, it's more rigid so therefore you're rest
therefor are proved assured that the parties are able to plug their case. Second,
the conviction of the subsidiary lang man iyang liability, right? So it has to be shown
employee primarily liable is a first that the employee that has committed the act can no
condition sine qua non for the longer pay for himself or using his account, his own properties
employer's subsidiary liability and money. As to liability under civil code, direct man gud. You
can even file a case without impleading the wrongdoer himself
Article 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers so it's really easy to pin down liability on the part of the
and proprietors of establishments. In default of the persons employer, so the only defense available for him is that I did my
criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other best in selecting and supervising this specific employee. It's
persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes committed unfair. The reason why there is a defense is because direct and
in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal primary siya. You don't even have to hear out unsay defense sa
ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall have wrongdoer. The victim can go straight right away to the
been committed by them or their employees. employer. As to liability under RPC, the victim will have to file
a case first against the erring employee and then secure
(RVP: In your Art 102 sa RPC, naka butang mismo sa first line, in conviction. So dugay2x pa jud na siya mahitabo which is why
default of the persons criminal liable, meaning in the absence or in the law offers another layer of protection on the part of the
the failure of the person so charged to pay or to indemnify that's employer under your civil code. So again, conviction,
the time you'll go after the employer. That is not the case for your insolvency, subsidiary liability. That's under your Art 103 in
civil code because the employer is primarily liable there. in RPC, it relation to 102 of the RPC.
is imperative that there should be a criminal action filed in court
first whereby the employee's criminal negligence or delict and Sample Problem: (Nakabangga si driver-ee)
corresponding liability therefor are proved. There has to be a This is what you prove if what you want is subsidiary liability
conviction of the employee primarily liable. Without a conviction under the RPC:
there is no subsidiary liability to speak of.) 1) The guilt of the driver had been proven beyond reasonable
doubt, meaning conviction;
Article 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. The 2) The accused driver is insolvent, meaning way kwarta si
subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall convicted employee to pay for the indemnification; if it can
also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations be proven because the courts has means of determining
engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their whether the person is insolvent then anha pa ka mu-secure
servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the sa employer;
discharge of their duties. 3) It is the subsidiary liability of the employers to pay for the
damage done by their employee (driver) based on the
principle that every person criminally liable is also civilly
L.G. FOODS CORP. V. PAGAPONG-AGRAVIADOR liable.
Doctrines: TN: You can merge all the civil causes of action--culpa contractual,
ü Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the liability of the culpa aquilana – all the culpas you have in the world. In the
employer is direct or immediate. criminal case, either you waive na lang or you file an independent
ü It is not conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent civil action or you reserve.
employee and a prior showing of insolvency of such employee.
Background of the case: REGISTERED OWNER RULE

This is a very interesting case right but wala nahuman ang case
because nag suicide si person nga naka ligis ug 7 year old child.
The defendant said that there could not be an occasion na ma CARAVAN TRAVEL AND TOURS INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. ABEJAR
subsidiarily liable siya. Unfortunately for him, the complaint was
predicated not on subsidiary liability but on liability as an This case harmonized the registered owner rule and article 2180.
employer under the civil code. What was alleged was negligence, The problem arises when the registered-owner of the vehicle and
failure to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision. the employer are the same person. (landmark case)
So, it really depends on the face of complaint – kung unsay nature
sa allegations for you to determine the nature of liability of the
employer.
Background of the case: you can just go the the LTO. It is something that can be
easily done.
The case is about a 18 yr old girl nga nabanggaan sa caravan 2) Once the plaintiff successfully proves ownership, there
vehicle. The first part tells us that the person who can claim arises a disputable presumption that the requirements of
damages need not be the parent. It could be the brother or Article 2180 have been proven. As a consequence, the
anyone regardless of paternity, filiation or any blood connection. burden of proof shifts to the defendant to show that no
Nag motion to dismiss ang caravan kay wala daw legal standing liability under Article 2180 has arisen. Why the defendant?
ang aunt nga nagfile sa case. The aunt adopted the 18 y/o age of It is because because the plaintiff does not have the
majority. And so giprove nila nga anyone can file the case as long machinery or power to prove whether or not there was
as the child is under the custody of the aunt. The SC said nga just due diligence on the part of the employer. Dili man ka
because aunt lang siya, it does not make the pain less because of paukayun sa employer sa ilang office whether naa silay
the fact nga 6 y/o pa lang siya nipuyo ana nga aunt, she has built policies etc. For practicality purposes, dili dapat na
a connection with the victim. SC even said that anyone can file the obligation on the part of the victim because machinery is
case in behalf of the victim as long as maprove nga naa gyud limited on that respect; as compared sa first step, it is just
damage. In this case, it can only imagine the loss on the part of the purely physical act of checking the registered owner sa
aunt who took care of the victim. LTO.
The second part is about the registered owner rule vis-a-vis Conclusion:
article 2180. The harmonization only applies if the registered owner is the
§ Article 2180 requires proof of two things: first, an employment employer at the same time, meaning mu apply ghapon ang
relationship between the driver and the owner; and second, 2180 but ang na change lang is what is the burden of proof on
that the driver acted within the scope of his or her assigned the part of the plaintiff and on the part of the defendant. The
tasks. defenses under 2180 are also available for registered owner if
§ Article 2180 requires two things: (1) existence of employer- the registered owner is the employer at the same time. But if
employee relationship; and (2) the employee acted within the dili sya employer, wala na tong ER-EE relationship. Ang imuha
scope of his assigned task. You have 3 tests to determine: (1) nlang gyung defense, gkawat na siya, gkawat ang key, hijacked,
Furtherance test; (2) Special Benefit test; and (3) roving holdapped, etc. Even if naai hijacking, or whatever happens in
commission (4:23). You just employ any of the test. the road, tan awn man ghapon whether you were negligent
§ On the other hand, applying the registered-owner rule only under the circumstances. Tan awn man ghapon if ang imong
requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant- employer is employee ning follow sa standard operating procedure.
the registered owner of the vehicle.
Three ways to rebut the presumption (defendant’s part):
Registered Owner Rule 1) Prove that there is no employer-employee relationship (like
§ The registration of motor vehicles is not to make said four-fold test, control test, economic test etc. sa labor law or
registration the operative act by which ownership in vehicles because independent contractor siya, etc.); or
is transferred, but to permit the use and operation of the 2) Prove that the employee acted outside his assigned task (you
vehicle upon any public highway. may use any of the 3 tests – furtherance test, special benefit
§ Its main aim is to identify the owner so that if any accident test and roving commission); or
happens, or that any damage or injury is caused by the vehicle 3) Prove that you exercised the diligence in the selection and
on the public highways, responsibility therefor can be fixed on supervision of the employee.
a definite individual, the registered owner.
§ This rule provides that the liability will be upon the registered
owner. Here, you check kinsa ang registered owner sa vehicle DEFENSE: DUE DILIGENCE IN THE SELECTION AND SUPERVISION
and then you can directly file a case against the vehicle. The OF EMPLOYEES
aim for this is when accident happens, liability can be fixed to
a definite individual. It is a common defense sa mga registered
owner nga nabaligya ko naman na ang ownership na-transfer OUR LADY OF LOURDES HOSPITAL V. SPOUSES CAPANZANA
na and so the victim has no time to check all the conveyances.
It is not the duty of the victim, OW, the victim will be left at
Background of the case:
the mercy of the owners and lengthen the process until
In this case, the nurses were held to be negligent because it took
kapuyun na ang victim and so dili na lang magfile ug case.
them 10 minutes to attend to the physician, nahurot na ang
dextrose, ninghubag na, nagkaon kaon lang silag pancit so under
HARMONIZATION: ARTICLE 2180 VIS-À-VIS REGISTERED
the circumstances, the hospital was held to be negligent although
OWNER RULE
the SC conceded that there was diligence in the selection kay
murag kadtong mga nurses qualified man jud. Pero even if it was
The employee committed a negligent act while acting within his
proven by the hospital that there was diligence in the selection
assigned task and using the employer’s vehicle. The existence
because the nurses were qualified and competent, the hospital
of employer-employee relationship was duly established.
was remiss in its obligation in the subsequent supervision (mga
tardy, mao pai na assign sa graveyard, nagbuzz several times ang
In this case, both the registered-owner rule and Article 2180 bantay, wala man gyuy reaction, ang dextrose nahurot na).
apply. The following must be done:
Moreover, duha man gani unta required na nurse but the other
1) The plaintiff must first establish that the employer is the
one is actually a midwife. Upon realizing nga midwife diay to,
registered owner of the vehicle in question. Why the
ilahang gi-change ang time log sa isa ka nurse para duha na sila
plaintiff? It is because registration is of public record like
magduty from 11pm to 6am. But this is about two doctors, an

anesthesiologist and a surgeon nga gifilean ug case sa bana
because na brain dead na ang iyahang wife. But it was held na ang
proximate cause jud is the failure to supply oxygen tanks
immediately and the failure on the part of the nurses to respond.
Sige tawn balik balik ang bantay unya wala lang, nagchika chika
lang sila and it has also been proven by the records that these
nurses are late comers and habitual absentees and despite that it
is provided in the company handbook na dapat naay sanction, it
was proven na walai sanctions imposed upon these nurses. So
wala jud na prove sa employer and diligence sa supervision.
Doctrines:
ü The issuance of company policies must be coupled with proof
of compliance.
ü The mere formulation of various company policies on safety
without showing that they were being complied with is not
sufficient to exempt petitioner from liability arising from
negligence of its employees. This is in connection with
supervision. The selection part is you need to show like
competency training, driver’s license etc. In one case, non-
professional license ang gipresent and he was driving a trailer
truck. And to have non-prof license only in driving such a huge
truck is a proof of negligence on the part of the employer.
(Caravan Travel and Tours International, Inc. v. Abejar) To
prove supervision, you come up with policies, protocols and
standard operating procedures. It is not enough to only have a
handbook. It is also very important to prove compliance and
implementation of that handbook; OW it would be very easy
to just ask a law firm to come up with a compliance handbook
and use it then as proof.
ü Under Article 2180, an employer may be held liable for the
negligence of its employees based on its responsibility under a
relationship of patria potestas. The liability of the employer
under this provision is “direct and immediate”; it is not
conditioned upon a prior recourse against the negligent
employee or a prior showing of the insolvency of that
employee. The employer may only be relieved of responsibility
upon a showing that it exercised the diligence of a good father
of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees.
The rule is that once negligence of the employee is shown, the
burden is on the employer to overcome the presumption of
negligence on the latter’s part by proving observance of the
required diligence.
ü It must be emphasized that even though it proved due
diligence in the selection of its nurses, the hospital was able to
dispose of only half the burden it must overcome.

Torts Midterms Transcript PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Torts Midterms Transcript PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TORTS & DAMAGES (2019) MIDTERM REVIEWER ATTY.

RASHID VEDRA PANDI

TORTS & DAMAGES Ruling:

QUASI-DELICT Revised Penal Code

Ruling + RVP: GAID VS. PEOPLE

PACIS VS. MORALES Issue:

CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION VS. CA Issue:

but it is obvious that there’s a damage suffered, that’s when Ruling:

Ruling + RVP: Risk in Sports Illustration

Ruling + RVP: 80kph, with "full bright lights". Temporarily blinded, he

TAMARGO V. CA § Parental Liability is anchored upon Parental Authority. You

Facts: Wala gyuy gibutang didto na gisugo sya na mamick-up ug

or the accused has died in Q&A:

Background of the case: REGISTERED OWNER RULE

magduty from 11pm to 6am. But this is about two doctors, an

You might also like