Ladymaridel’s Weblog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Archive for the ‘digested cases’ Category

Ong v Metropolitan Water District

Posted by ladymaridel on August 7, 2008

Ong vs. Metropolitan Water District

104 Phil. 397

  •  
      Facts: Dominador Ong, 14-year old son of plaintiffs, in company with two of his brothers went to swim at the defendant’s swimming pool. After paying the admission fee they went to one of the small pools where the water was shallow. Later Dominador told his brothers that he was going to the locker room in an adjoining building to drink a bottle of coke. Upon hearing this, his two brothers went to the bigger pool. Later another boy in the swimming pool informed a lifeguard employed by the defendant that somebody was swimming underwater for quite a long time. The lifeguard immediately jumped into the big swimming pool and retrieved te apparently lifeless body of Dominador Ong from the bottom. Artificial respiration and a resuscitator were applied by employees of the defendant upon Dominador for the purpose of reviving him. A doctor was summoned by employees of the defendant to revive the boy but all to no avail. This action was instituted by the parents of the boy to recover damages from the defendant for the death of their son.
  •  
      Held: There is sufficient evidence to show that the defendant 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 were provided with a ring buoy, toy roof, towing line, oxygen resuscitator and first aid medicine kit. The bottom of the pool was painted with black colors to ensure clear visibility. Rules and regulations were displayed in a conspicuous place. Six trained lifeguards were employed and their schedules were arranged so that tow guards were on duty at a time. A male nurse, a sanitary inspector and security guards were also employed. When the body of Dominador was retrieved the employees of the defendant did everything possible to bring him back to life. Under these circumstances the defendant proved that it did what was humanly possible to restore the life of the deceased. Defendant was, therefore, absolved from liability to the plaintiffs.

Same: Distinction of liability of employers under Art. 2180 and their liability for breach of contract.

The liability of owners, managers and employers for the negligence of their employees under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code should be distinguished from the liability of such owners, managers and employers for the negligence of their employees resulting in a breach of contract. The liability of owners, managers and employers for the negligence of their employees constituting breach of contract is governed by Arts. 1170, 1172 and 1173 of the Civil Code and not by Art. 2180 of the same Code. This distinction and the legal consequences arising therefrom is clearly discussed by the Supreme Court in the following

Posted in digested cases | Leave a Comment »

Barredo vs. Garcia and Almario

Posted by ladymaridel on August 7, 2008

Barredo vs. Garcia and Almario

73 Phil. 607

  •  
      Facts: A head-on collision between a taxicab owned by Barredo and a carretela occurred. The carretela was overturned and one of its passengers, a 16-year old boy, the son of Garcia and Almario, died as a result of the injuries which he received. The driver of the taxicab, a employee of Barredo, was prosecuted for the crime and was convicted. When the criminal case was instituted, Garcia and Almario reserved their right to institute a separate civil action for damages. Subsequently, Garcia and Almario instituted a civil action for damages against Barredo, the employer of the taxicab driver.
  •  
      Held: “The pivotal question in this case is whether the plaintiffs may bring this separate civil action against Fausto Barredo thus making him primarily and directly responsible under Article 1903 of the Civil Code as an employer of Pedro Fontanilla. The defendant maintains that Fontanilla’s negligence being punishable by the Penal Code, his (defendant’s) liability as an employer is only subsidiary, according to said Penal Code, but Fontanilla has not been sued in a civil action and his property has not been exhausted. To decide the main issue, we must cut thru the tangle that has, in the minds of many, confused and jumbled together delitos and cuasi delitos, or crimes under the Penal Code and fault or negligence under Articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. This should be done because justice may be lost in a labyrinth, unless principles and remedies are distinctly envisaged. Fortunately, we are aided in our inquiry by the luminous presentation of this perplexing subject by renowned jurists and we are likewise guided by the decisions of this Court in previous cases as well as by the solemn clarity of the considerations in several sentences of the Supreme Tribunal of Spain.
  •  
      “Authorities support the proposition that a quasi-delict or ‘culpa aquiliana’ is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code, with a substantivity all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from a delict or crime. Upon this principle, and on the wording and spirit of Article 1903 of the Civil Code, the primary and direct responsibility of employers may be safely anchored.
  •  
      x x x x x
  •  
      “It will thus be seen that while the terms of Article 1902 of the Civil Code seem to be broad enough to cover the driver’s negligence in the instant case, nevertheless Article 1903 limits cuasi-delitos TO ACTS OR OMISSIONS ‘NOT PUNISHABLE BY LAW.’ But inasmuch as Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code punishes not only reckless but even simple imprudence or negligence, the fault or negligence under Article 1902 of the Civil Code has apparently been crowded out. It is this overlapping that makes the “confusion worse confounded.’ However, a closer study shows that such a concurrence of scope in regard to negligent acts does not destroy the distinction between the civil liability arising from a crime and the responsibility for cuasi-delitos or culpa extra-contractual. The same negligent act causing damages may produce civil liability arising from a crime under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code; or create an action for cuasi-delito or culpa extra-contractual under Articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code.
  •  
      “The individuality of cuasi-delito or culpa extra-contractual looms clear and uamistakable [sic] unmistakable. This legal institution is of ancient lineage, one of its early ancestors being the Lex Aquilia in Roman Law. In fact, in Spanish legal terminology, this responsibility is often referred to as culpa aquiliana. The Partidas also contributed to the genealogy of the present fault or negligence under the Civil Code: x x x .
  •  
      “The distinctive nature of cuasi-delitos survives in the Civil Code. According to Article 1089, one of the five sources of obligations is the legal institution of cuasi-delito or culpa extra-contractual: ‘ los actos . . . . en que intervenga cualqier genero de culpa or negligencia.’ Then Article 1093 provides that this kind of obligation shall be governed by Chapter 11 of Title XVI of Book IV , meaning Articles 1902-1910. This portion of the civil Code is exclusively devoted to the legal institution of culpa aquiliana.
  •  
      “Some of the differences between crimes under the Penal Code are:
  •  
      “1. That crimes affect the public interest, while quasi-delitos are only of private concern.
  •  
      “2. That consequently, the Penal Code punishes or corrects the criminal act, while the Civil Code, by means of indemnification, merely repairs the damage.
  •  
      “3. That delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts, because for the former are punished only if there is a penal law clearly covering them, while the latter, cuasi-delitos, include all acts in which ‘ any kind of fault or negligence intervenes.’ However, it should be noted that not all violations of the penal law produce civil responsibility, such as begging in contravention of ordinances, violation of the game laws, infraction of the rules of traffic when nobody is hurt.
  •  
      x x x x x
  •  
      “The foregoing authorities clearly demonstrate the separate individuality of cuasi-delitos or culpa aquiliana under the Civil Code. Specifically they show that there is a distinction between civil liability arising from criminal negligence (governed by the Penal Code) and responsibility for fault or negligence under Articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code, and that the same negligent act may produce either a civil liability arising from a crime under the Penal Code, or a separate responsibility for fault or negligence under Articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code, and that the same negligent act may produce either a civil liability arising from a crime under the penal Code, or a separate responsibility for fault or negligence under Articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code. Still more concretely the authorities above cited render it inescapable to conclude that the employer – in this case the defendant-petitioner – is primarily and directly liable under Article 1903 of the Civil Code.”

The Barredo case was decided by the Supreme Court prior to the present Civil Code. However, the principle enunciated in said case, that responsibility for fault or negligence as quasi-delict is distinct and separate from negligence penalized under the Revised Penal Code, is now specifically embodied in Art. 2177 of the Civil Code

Posted in digested cases | Leave a Comment »

Wright vs. Manila Electric

Posted by ladymaridel on August 7, 2008

Wright vs. Manila Electirc

28 Phil. 122

  •  
      Facts: Defendant was operating an electric street railway in the City of Manila and its suburbs, including the municipality of Caloocan. Plaintiff’s residence in Caloocan fronted the street along which defendant’s tracks ran, so that to enter his premises from the street plaintiff was obliged to cross defendant’s tracks. On the night of August 8, 1909 plaintiff drove home in a calesa and in crossing the tracks to enter his premises the horse stumbled, leaped forward, and fell causing the vehicle to strike one of the rails with great force. The fall of the horse and the collision of the vehicle with the rails, resulting in a sudden stop, threw plaintiff from the vehicle and caused the injuries complained of. It was found that at the point where plaintiff crossed the tracks on the right in question not only the rails were above-ground, but that the ties upon which the rails rested projected from one-third to one-half of their depth out of the ground, thus making the tops of the rails rise some 5 to6 inches or more above the level of the street.
  •  
      Held: “A street car company which maintains its tracks in the public highway, at a point where they are crossed by travelers, in such condition that the rails and a considerable portion of the ties are above the level of the street, is negligent and is responsible to a person who, having to pass over said tracks at right angles with a vehicle in the nighttime, is injured by reason of the condition of the tracks, he using ordinary care and prudence in making the crossing”. Defendant was held liable.”

Posted in digested cases | Leave a Comment »

Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf

Posted by ladymaridel on August 7, 2008

Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf

7 Phil. 359

  •  
      Facts: Plaintiff was one of a gang of eight laborers employed by the defendant to transport rails from a barge in the harbor to the company’s yard near the Malecon in Manila. The rails were being transported on two-hand cars immediately following one another. The rails lay upon two cross pieces or sills secured to the cars but without side pieced or guars to prevent them from slipping off. At a certain spot at or near the water’s edge the track sagged, the tie broke, the car either canted or upset, the rails lid off and caught the plaintiff breaking his leg which was afterwards amputated at about the knee. The sagging of the track and the breaking of the tie, which was the immediate occasion of the accident, was due to the dislodging of the crosspiece or piling under the stringer by the water of the bay raised by a recent typhoon. It appeared that a day before the accident the attention of the defendant’s foreman was called by one of the laborers to the defect in the track but the same was not repaired. Action was instituted by plaintiff to recover damages from his employer the defendant. One of the questions was whether under the facts the defendant was negligent or not.
  •  
      Held: “… On the principles it was the duty of the defendant to build and to maintain its track in reasonably sound condition, so as to protect[s] its workingmen from unnecessary danger. It is plain that in one respect or the other it failed in its duty, otherwise the accident could not have occurred; consequently the negligence of the defendant is established.” Defendant was held liable.

Posted in digested cases | 1 Comment »

Fabre v CA

Posted by ladymaridel on June 20, 2008

Facts: Petitioners were owners of 1982 model Mazda minibus.  They are the bus principally in connection with a bus service for their children which they operated in Manila.  They hired Cabil as their driver.  On November 2, 1982, private respondent word for the World Christian Fellowship (WWCF) arranged with petitioners for the transportation of members of young adult ministry from Manila to La Union and back.  The usual route to la Union was through Carmen Pangasinan but unfortunately, the bridge of Carmen was under repair so that the driver was forced to take the detour through Lingayen.  At the right, they met an accident, the bus hit a fence and a coconut tree that caused passengers to be injured including respondent Antonio.  The latter filed a criminal complaint against the driver, the trial court decided in favor of respondents.  All evidence presented have shown the negligent set of the defendants, which ultimately resulted to the accident.  Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Trial Court, hence this petition.

Issue: Whether petitioners were negligent and liable for the injuries suffered by respondents.

Held: Petitioners failed to exercise due negligence in the operation of which considering the time and the place of the accident.  The fact that he was driving so fast, it was raining so dark, the driving was going negligent and should be liable for the injuries suffered by respondents.

 

 

Posted in digested cases | Leave a Comment »

Casupanan v Laroya

Posted by ladymaridel on June 20, 2008

  • Two vehicles, one (“Laroya”)
  • other owned by (“Capitulo” )driven by (“Casupanan”)
  • Laroya filed a criminal case against Casupanan for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property
  • Casupanan and Capitulo filed a civil case against Laroya for quasi-delict,
  • When the civil case was filed, the criminal case was then at its preliminary investigation stage.
  • FORUM SHOPPING-dismisssed civil case
  • Casupanan and Capitulo insisted that the civil case is a separate civil action which can proceed independently of the criminal case.
  • RTC>order of dismissal issued by the MCTC is a final order which disposes of the case and therefore the proper remedy should have been an appeal.
  • The Capas RTC further held that a special civil action for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal.  Finally, the Capas RTC declared that even on the premise that the MCTC erred in dismissing the civil case, such error is a pure error of judgment and not an abuse of discretion.
  • Casupanan and Capitulo filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the Capas RTC denied the same in the Resolution of August 24, 2000.

Issue raised is whether an accused in a pending criminal case for reckless imprudence can validly file, simultaneously and independently, a separate civil action for quasi-delict against the private complainant in the criminal case.

 

aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65.

 Clearly, the Capas RTC’s order dismissing the petition for certiorari, on the ground that the proper remedy is an ordinary appeal, is erroneous.

Forum-Shopping

The essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to secure a favorable judgment. Forum-shopping is present when in the two or more cases pending, there is identity of parties, rights of action and reliefs sought.

However, there is no forum-shopping in the instant case because the law and the rules expressly allow the filing of a separate civil action which can proceed independently of the criminal action.

they have different causes of action. The criminal case is based on culpa criminal punishable under the Revised Penal Code while the civil case is based on culpa aquiliana actionable under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code. 

Any aggrieved person can invoke these articles provided he proves, by preponderance of evidence, that he has suffered damage because of the fault or negligence of another.

paragraph 6, Section 1, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure (“2000 Rules” for brevity) expressly requires the accused to litigate his counterclaim in a separate civil action, to wit:

“SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. – (a) x x x.

No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which could have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action.”  (Emphasis supplied)

Conclusion

Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, the independent civil action in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code is not deemed instituted with the criminal action but may be filed separately by the offended party even without reservation.  The commencement of the criminal action does not suspend the prosecution of the independent civil action under these articles of the Civil Code.   The suspension in Section 2 of the present Rule 111 refers only to the civil action arising from the crime, if such civil action is reserved or filed before the commencement of the criminal action.

The two cases can proceed simultaneously and independently of each other. 

Second, the accused, who is presumed innocent, has a right to invoke Article 2177 of the Civil Code, in the same way that the offended party can avail of this remedy which is independent of the criminal action. 

One final point.   The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure took effect on December 1, 2000 while the MCTC issued the order of dismissal on December 28, 1999 or before the amendment of the rules. The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure must be given retroactive effect

HELD > Petition for review is GRANTED.Civil Case No. 2089 is REINSTATED.

Posted in digested cases | Leave a Comment »

Regino v Pangasinan College of Science and Technology

Posted by ladymaridel on June 19, 2008

Petitioner Khristine Rea M. Regino was a first year computer science student at Respondent Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology (PCST).

 financial support of her relatives.

2nd sem, enrolled in logic and statistics subjects under Respondents Rachelle A. Gamurot and Elissa Baladad, respectively, as teachers.

PCST held a fund raising campaign dubbed the “Rave Party and Dance Revolution,” the proceeds of which were to go to the construction of the school’s tennis and volleyball courts.

EACH=two tickets at the price of P100 each.

The project was allegedly implemented by recompensing students who purchased tickets with additional points in their test scores; those who refused to pay were denied the opportunity to take the final examinations.

Refused – scheduled dates of the final examinations in logic and statistics, her teachers — Respondents Rachelle A. Gamurot and Elissa Baladad — allegedly disallowed her from taking the tests. 

Sit out and ejected

RTC > lack of cause of action

CHED, not the courts, had jurisdiction over the controversy

Liability for Tort

The acts of respondents supposedly caused her extreme humiliation, mental agony and “demoralization of unimaginable proportions” in violation of Articles 19, 21 and 26 of the Civil Code. 

“Article 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons.  The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:

(1)   Prying into the privacy of another’s residence;

(2)   Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;

(3)   Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;

(4)   Vexing or humiliating another on account of his beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.” 

 

In sum, the Court holds that the Complaint alleges sufficient causes of action against respondents, and that it should not have been summarily dismissed.  Needless to say, the Court is not holding respondents liable for the acts complained of.  That will have to be ruled upon in due course by the court a quo.

The trial court is DIRECTED to reinstate the Complaint and, with all deliberate speed, to continue the proceedings in Civil Case No. U-7541.  No costs.

 

Posted in digested cases | Leave a Comment »

CDCP v ESTRELLA

Posted by ladymaridel on June 19, 2008

 

Tayabas Bus Co. (BLTB) and Construction Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP) liable for damages.  

           

Rebecca G. Estrella and her granddaughter, Rachel E. Fletcher, boarded in San Pablo City, a BLTB bus bound for Pasay City.

 

bus was rammed from behind by a tractor-truck of CDCP in the South Expressway. 

 

COMPLAINT damages against CDCP(now PNCC), BLTB, Espiridion Payunan, Jr. and Wilfredo Datinguinoo

 

Payunan, Jr. and Datinguinoo, who were the drivers of CDCP and BLTB buses, respectively, were negligent and did not obey traffic laws;

 

CDCP – include a third-party complaint against Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance, Inc

TC > CDCP and BLTB and their employees liable for damages

 

LC> BLTB, as a common carrier, was bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the safety of its passengers.  It must carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.  Thus, where a passenger dies or is injured, the carrier is presumed to have been at fault or has acted negligently.  BLTB’s inability to carry respondents to their destination gave rise to an action for breach of contract of carriage while its failure to rebut the presumption of negligence made it liable to respondents for the breach.

 

            CDCP, tractor-truck it owned bumped the BLTB bus from behind.  Evidence showed that CDCP’s driver was reckless and driving very fast at the time of the incident.  The gross negligence of its driver raised the presumption that CDCP was negligent either in the selection or in the supervision of its employees which it failed to rebut thus making it and its driver liable

 

CA affirmed

            actual or compensatory damage sought by respondents for the injuries they sustained in the form of hospital bills were already liquidated and were ascertained. 6% interest per annum and also awarded attorney’s fees equivalent to 30%.  Respondents are entitled to exemplary and moral damages.  Claim of CDCP against Phoenix had already prescribed.

 

The case filed by respondents against petitioner is an action for culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict under Article 2176

   In this regard, Article 2180 provides that the obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable for the acts or omissions of those persons for whom one is responsible. 

Consequently, an action based on quasi-delict may be instituted against the employer for an employee’s act or omission.   The liability for the negligent conduct of the subordinate is direct and primary, but is subject to the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee.

TC and CA> solidarily liable with BLTB for the actual damages suffered by respondents because of the injuries they sustained.  It was established that Payunan, Jr. was driving recklessly because of the skid marks as shown in the sketch of the police investigator.

SC> affirmed with modification

Posted in digested cases | Leave a Comment »

Air France v Carrascoso

Posted by ladymaridel on June 19, 2008

Air France v Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155

Nature: Petition for Review by Certiorari of a decision of CA

 

FACTS:

 

Rafael Carrascoso was one of the 28 Filipino pilgrims who left Manila for Lourdes. He had a first class round trip ticket from Manila to ROME.

 

However, when the plane was in Bangkok, the Manager forced him to vacate his first class seat because a white man had a better right to the seat.  Carrascoso filed complaint for damages.

 

ISSUE: won damages may be recovered on the basis of expulsion

HELD> Yes

 

Ratio:

            The contract of air carriage generates a relation attended with public duty. Passengers should be protected and insured a pleasant trip

            Wrongful expulsion is a violation of public duty by the air carrier – a quasi delict.  Damages are proper.

            Doubt WON ticket was confirmed as first class is immaterial as claim is based on the wrongful expulsion itself

Posted in digested cases | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.