NEGLIGENCE

TORTS

ONG V METROPOLITAN
WATER DISTRICT
FACTS:
One afternoon, Dominador Ong, a 14-year old
high school student and a boy scout, and his
brothers Ruben and Eusebio, went to defendants
swimming pools. They immediately went to one of
the small pools where the water was shallow.

 At about 4:35 p.m., Dominador Ong told his

brothers that he was going to the locker room in
an adjoining building to drink a bottle of coke.
Upon hearing this, Ruben and Eusebio went to the
bigger pool leaving Dominador in the small pool.
Between 4:40 to 4:45 p.m., some boys informed a
bather Andres Hagad, Jr., that somebody was
swimming under water for quite a long time.
Another boy informed lifeguard Manuel Abao of
the same happening and Abao immediately
jumped into the big swimming pool and retrieved
the apparently lifeless body of Dominador Ong
from the bottom.

 Plaintiffs spouses seek to recover from defendant

damages for the death of their son Dominador Ong
in one of the swimming pools operated by
defendant.
Defendant admits the fact that plaintiffs son was
drowned in one of its swimming pools but avers
that his death was caused by his own negligence or
by unavoidable accident. Defendant also avers that
it had exercised due diligence in the selection of,
and supervision over, its employees and that it had
observed the diligence required by law under the
circumstances.

ISSUE: Whether or not defendant is guilty of

negligence and hence liable for damages for
the death of Dominador Ong
HELD:No. Defendant is not guilty of
negligence and is not liable for damages for
the death of Dominador Ong.

Article 2176
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged
to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no preexisting contractual
relation between the parties, is called a quasi
delict and is governed by the provisions of this
Chapter.

Article 2180
The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is
demandable not only for ones own acts or
omissions, but also for those persons for whom one
is responsible.

The rule is well settled that the owners of resorts

to which people generally are expressly or by
implication invited are legally bound to exercise
ordinary care and prudence in the management
and maintenance of such resorts, to the end of
making them reasonably safe for visitors. (Larkin
vs. Saltair Beach Co., 30 Utah 86, 83 Pac. 688).

Although the proprietor of a natatorium is liable

for injuries to a patron, resulting from lack of
ordinary care in providing for his safety, without
the fault of the patron, he is not, however, in any
sense deemed to be the insurer of the safety of
patrons. And the death of a patron within his
premises does not cast upon him the burden of
excusing himself from any presumption of
negligence (Bertalot vs. Kinnare, 72 Ill. App. 52, 22
A. L. R. 635; Flora vs. Bimini Water Co., 161 Cal.
495, 119 Pac. 661).

Since the present action is one for damages founded

on culpable negligence, the principle to be observed
is that the person claiming damages has the burden
of proving that the damage is caused by the fault or
negligence of the person from whom the damage is
claimed, or of one of his employees (Walter A. Smith
& Co. vs. Cadwallader Gibson Lumber Co., 55 Phil.
517).
Have appellants established by sufficient
evidence the existence of fault or negligence
on the part of appellee so as to render it liable
for damages for the death of Dominador Ong?

There is sufficient evidence to show that appellee has

taken all necessary precautions to avoid danger to
the lives of its patrons or prevent accident which
may cause their death:
The swimming pools are provided with a ring
buoy, toy roof, towing line, oxygen resuscitator
and a first aid medicine kit.
The bottom of the pools is painted with black
colors so as to insure clear visibility.
There is on display in a conspicuous place within
the area certain rules and regulations governing
the use of the pools.

 Appellee employs six lifeguards who are all trained

as they had taken a course for that purpose and
were issued certificates of proficiency. These
lifeguards work on schedule prepared by their chief
and arranged in such a way as to have two guards
at a time on duty to look after the safety of the
bathers.
There is a male nurse and a sanitary inspector
with a clinic provided with oxygen resuscitator.
There are security guards who are available
always in case of emergency.

The record also shows that when the body of minor

Ong was retrieved from the bottom of the pool, the
employees of appellee did everything possible to bring
him back to life.

He was placed at the edge of the pool, lifeguard

Abao immediately gave him manual artificial
respiration. Soon thereafter, nurse Armando Rule
arrived, followed by sanitary inspector Iluminado
Vicente who brought with him an oxygen
resuscitator. When they found that the pulse of the
boy was abnormal, the inspector immediately
injected him with camphorated oil. When the
manual artificial respiration proved ineffective they
applied the oxygen resuscitator until its contents
were exhausted. And while all these efforts were
being made, they sent for Dr. Ayuyao from the
University of the Philippines who however came late
because upon examining the body found him to be
already dead.

MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION,,

vs. SEBASTIAN M. BAKING
FACTS:
Respondent went to the clinic of Dr. Cesar Sy for a
medical check-up. Finding that respondents blood
sugar and triglyceride were above normal levels,
Dr. Sy gave respondent two medical prescriptions
Diamicron for his blood sugar and Benalize
tablets for his triglyceride

Respondent then proceeded to petitioner Mercury

Drug Corporation to buy the prescribed medicines.
However, the saleslady misread the prescription for
Diamicron as a prescription for Dormicum. Thus,
what was sold to respondent was Dormicum, a
potent sleeping tablet.
Unaware that what was given to him was the
wrong medicine, respondent took one pill of
Dormicum on three consecutive days. On the third
day he took the medicine, respondent figured in a
vehicular accident. The car he was driving collided
with the car of one Josie Peralta. Respondent fell
asleep while driving. He could not remember
anything about the collision nor felt its impact.

ISSUE: Whether petitioner was negligent, and

if so, whether such negligence was the
proximate cause of respondents accident

Yes. Petitioner was negligent

To sustain a claim based Article 2176, the following
requisites must concur:
(a) damage suffered by the plaintiff;
(b) fault or negligence of the defendant; and,
(c) connection of cause and effect between the fault or
negligence of the defendant and the damage
incurred by the plaintiff.

In the instant case:

There is no dispute that respondent suffered
damages
Petitioners employee was grossly negligent in
selling to respondent Dormicum, instead of the
prescribed Diamicron.

It is generally recognized that the drugstore business

is imbued with public interest. The health and
safety of the people will be put into jeopardy if
drugstore employees will not exercise the
highest degree of care and diligence in selling
medicines.
Considering that a fatal mistake could be a matter of
life and death for a buying patient, the said employee
should have been very cautious in dispensing
medicines. She should have verified whether the
medicine she gave respondent was indeed the one
prescribed by his physician. The care required must
be commensurate with the danger involved, and the
skill .

 As a result of the negligent act of petitioner,

respondent suffered damage.

Yes. The negligence of petitioner was the

proximate cause of the damage suffered by
respondent.
Proximate cause is defined as any cause that
produces injury in a natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening
cause, such that the result would not have occurred
otherwise.
Proximate cause is determined from the facts of
each case, upon a combined consideration of logic,
common sense, policy, and precedent.

In the instant case,

The vehicular accident could not have occurred had
petitioners employee been careful in reading Dr. Sys
prescription. Without the potent effects of
Dormicum, a sleeping tablet, it was unlikely that
respondent would fall asleep while driving his car,
resulting in a collision.

LIABILITY OF PETITIONER FOR

NEGLIGENT ACTS OF ITS EMPLOYEE
ART. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176
is demandable not only for ones own acts or
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom
one is responsible.
The owners and managers of an establishment or
enterprise are likewise responsible for damages
caused by their employees in the service of the
branches in which the latter are employed or on the
occasion of their functions.

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused

by their employees and household helpers acting
within the scope of their assigned tasks, even
though the former are not engaged in any
business or industry.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall
cease when the persons herein mentioned prove
that they observed the diligence of a good father of
a family to prevent damage

When an injury is caused by the negligence of an

employee, there instantly arises a presumption of the
law that there has been negligence on the part of the
employer, either in the selection of his employee or in
the supervision over him, after such selection.
The presumption, however, may be rebutted by a clear
showing on the part of the employer that he has
exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a
family in the selection and supervision of his employee.

Here, petitioner's failure to prove that it exercised the

due diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of its employee will make it
solidarily liable for damages caused by the latter.

SO PING BUN v CA
FACTS:
Tek Hua TRADING Co, through its MANAGING
partner, So Pek Giok, entered into four lease
agreements with lessor Dee C. Chuan & Sons Inc.
(DCCSI). Subjects of four (4) lease contracts were
premises used the areas to store its textiles.
When the contracts expired, the parties did not
renew the contracts, but Tek Hua continued to
occupy the premises.

 In 1976, Tek Hua TRADING Co. was dissolved.

Later, the original members of Tek Hua TRADING
Co. including Manuel C. Tiong, formed Tek Hua
Enterprising Corp., herein respondent corporation.
So Pek Giok, managing partner of Tek Hua
Trading, died in 1986. So Pek Giok's grandson,
petitioner So Ping Bun, occupied the warehouse for
his own textile business, Trendsetter Marketing.
Sometime later, lessor DCCSI sent letters
addressed to Tek Hua Enterprises with new lease
contracts enclosed for signing. Private respondents
did not answer any of these letters. Still, the lease
contracts were not rescinded.

 Private respondent Tiong sent a letter to petitioner

requesting him to vacate all his stocks in the subject
warehouses since they will be needing the same in
their new stock business.
Petitioner refused to vacate. Instead, petitioner
requested formal contracts of lease with DCCSI in
favor Trendsetter Marketing. So Ping Bun claimed
that after the death of his grandfather, So Pek Giok,
he had been occupying the premises for his textile
business and religiously paid rent. DCCSI acceded
to petitioner's request. The lease contracts in favor
of Trendsetter were executed.

 Private respondents pressed for the nullification of

the lease contracts between DCCSI and petitioner.
They also claimed damages.
Both the trial court and CA found So Ping Bun
guilty of tortious interference of contract. The
lease contracts were ordered anulled, made
permanent the preliminary injunction and
awarded attorneys fees in favor of PR. No
damages was however awarded.

ISSUE: Whether So Ping Bun is guilty of

tortious interference
HELD: Yes. So Ping Bun is guilty of tortious
interference. However, he is not liable for
damages.

Damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results

from injury, and damages are the recompense or
compensation awarded for the damage suffered.
One becomes liable in an action for damages for a
nontrespassory invasion of another's interest in the
private use and enjoyment of asset if
(a) the other has property rights and privileges with
respect to the use or enjoyment interfered with,
(b) the invasion is substantial,

(c) the defendant's conduct is a legal cause of the

invasion, and
(d) the invasion is either intentional and
unreasonable or unintentional and actionable under
general negligence rules

TORT INTERFERENCE
A duty which the law of torts is concerned with is
respect for the property of others, and a cause of
action ex delicto may be predicated upon an
unlawful interference by one person of the
enjoyment by the other of his private property. This
may pertain to a situation where a third person
induces a party to renege on or violate his
undertaking under a contract.

The elements of tort interference are:

1. existence of a valid contract;
2. knowledge on the part of the third person of the
existence of contract; and
3. interference of the third person is without legal
justification or excuse.
In the instant case, petitioner's Trendsetter
Marketing asked DCCSI to execute lease contracts
in its favor, and as a result petitioner deprived
respondent corporation of the latter's property
right.

HOWEVER, interference with the business

relations of another may be justified when the
defendant acts for the sole purpose of furthering
his own FINANCIAL or economic interest.
There was no malice in the interference of a
contract, and the impulse behind one's conduct lies
in a proper business interest rather than in
wrongful motives, a party cannot be a malicious
interferer.

It is not necessary that the interferer's interest

outweigh that of the party whose rights are invaded,
and that an individual acts under an economic
interest that is substantial, not merely de minimis,
such that wrongful and malicious motives are
negatived, for he acts in self-protection.
It is sufficient if the impetus of his conduct lies in a
proper business interest rather than in wrongful
motives

In the instant case, it is clear that petitioner So

Ping Bun prevailed upon DCCSI to lease the
warehouse to his enterprise at the expense of
respondent corporation. Though petitioner took
interest in the property of respondent corporation
and benefited from it, nothing on record imputes
deliberate wrongful motives or malice on him.

While we do not encourage tort interferers seeking their

economic interest to intrude into existing contracts at
the expense of others, however, we find that the conduct
herein complained of did not transcend the limits
forbidding an obligatory award for damages in the
absence of any malice. The business desire is there to
make some gain to the detriment of the contracting
parties. Lack of malice, however, precludes damages. But
it does not relieve petitioner of the legal liability for
entering into contracts and causing breach of existing
ones. The respondent appellate court correctly confirmed
the permanent injunction and nullification of the lease
contracts between DCCSI and Trendsetter Marketing,
without awarding damages. The injunction saved the
respondents from further damage or injury caused by
petitioner's interference.