Doctrine: It must be stressed that the use of ones property is not without limitations. Article 431 of the Civil Code provides that the owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such a manner as to injure the rights of a third person. SIC UTERE TUO UT ALIENUM NON LAEDAS.
Facts: Petitioner spouses Andamo owned a parcel of land situated in Biga Silang, Cavite which is adjacent to that of private respondent corporation, Missionaries of Our lady of La Salette, Inc. Within the land of the latter, waterpaths and contrivances, including an artificial lake, were constructed, which allegedly inundated and eroded petitioners land, caused a young man to drown, damaged petitioners crops and plants, washed away costly fences, endangered the lives of the petitioners and their laborers and some other destructions. This prompted petitioner spouses to file a criminal action for destruction by means of inundation under Article 324 of the RPC and a civil action for damages.
Issue: Whether petitioner spouses Andamo can claim damages for destruction caused by respondents waterpaths and contrivances on the basis of Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts.
Held: Yes. A careful examination of the aforequoted complaint shows that the civil action is one under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. All the elements of a quasi- delict are present, to wit: (a) damages suffered by the plaintiff, (b) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond; and (c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff.
Clearly, from petitioners complaint, the waterpaths and contrivances built by respondent corporation are alleged to have inundated the land of petitioners. There is therefore, an assertion of a causal connection between the act of building these waterpaths and the damage sustained by petitioners. Such action if proven constitutes fault or negligence which may be the basis for the recovery of damages.
It must be stressed that the use of ones property is not without limitations. Article 431 of the Civil Code provides that the owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such a manner as to injure the rights of a third person. SIC UTERE TUO UT ALIENUM NON LAEDAS. Moreover, adjoining landowners have mutual and reciprocal duties which require that each must use his own land in a reasonable manner so as not to infringe upon the rights and interests of others. Although we recognize the right of an owner to build structures on his land, such structures must be so constructed and maintained using all reasonable care so that they cannot be dangerous to adjoining landowners and can withstand the usual and expected forces of nature. If the structures cause injury or damage to an adjoining landowner or a third person, the latter can claim indemnification for the injury or damage suffered.
Air France vs Carrascoso
In March 1958, Rafael Carrascoso and several other Filipinos were tourists en route to Rome from Manila. Carrascoso was issued a first class round trip ticket by Air France. But during a stop-over in Bangkok, he was asked by the plane manager of Air France to vacate his seat because a white man allegedly has a better right than him. Carrascoso protested but when things got heated and upon advise of other Filipinos on board, Carrascoso gave up his seat and was transferred to the planes tourist class. After their tourist trip when Carrascoso was already in the Philippines, he sued Air France for damages for the embarrassment he suffered during his trip. In court, Carrascoso testified, among others, that he when he was forced to take the tourist class, he went to the planes pantry where he was approached by a plane purser who told him that he noted in the planes journal the following:
First-class passenger was forced to go to the tourist class against his will, and that the captain refused to intervene The said testimony was admitted in favor of Carrascoso. The trial court eventually awarded damages in favor of Carrascoso. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Air France is assailing the decision of the trial court and the CA. It avers that the issuance of a first class ticket to Carrascoso was not an assurance that he will be seated in first class because allegedly in truth and in fact, that was not the true intent between the parties. Air France also questioned the admissibility of Carrascosos testimony regarding the note made by the purser because the said note was never presented in court.
ISSUE 1: Whether or not Air France is liable for damages and on what basis. ISSUE 2: Whether or not the testimony of Carrasoso regarding the note which was not presented in court is admissible in evidence. HELD 1: Yes. It appears that Air Frances liability is based on culpa-contractual and on culpa aquiliana. Culpa Contractual There exists a contract of carriage between Air France and Carrascoso. There was a contract to furnish Carrasocoso a first class passage; Second, That said contract was breached when Air France failed to furnish first class transportation at Bangkok; and Third, that there was bad faith when Air Frances employee compelled Carrascoso to leave his first class accommodation berth after he was already, seated and to take a seat in the tourist class, by reason of which he suffered inconvenience, embarrassments and humiliations, thereby causing him mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and social humiliation, resulting in moral damages. The Supreme Court did not give credence to Air Frances claim that the issuance of a first class ticket to a passenger is not an assurance that he will be given a first class seat. Such claim is simply incredible. Culpa Aquiliana Here, the SC ruled, even though there is a contract of carriage between Air France and Carrascoso, there is also a tortuous act based on culpa aquiliana. Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have a right to be treated by the carriers employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to be protected against personal misconduct, injurious language, indignities and abuses from such employees. So it is, that any rule or discourteous conduct on the part of employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the carrier. Air Frances contract with Carrascoso is one attended with public duty. The stress of Carrascosos action is placed upon his wrongful expulsion. This is a violation of public duty by the Air France a case of quasi-delict. Damages are proper. HELD: 2: Yes. The testimony of Carrascoso must be admitted based on res gestae. The subject of inquiry is not the entry, but the ouster incident. Testimony on the entry does not come within the proscription of the best evidence rule. Such testimony is admissible.
Besides, when the dialogue between Carrascoso and the purser happened, the impact of the startling occurrence was still fresh and continued to be felt. The excitement had not as yet died down. Statements then, in this environment, are admissible as part of the res gestae. The utterance of the purser regarding his entry in the notebook was spontaneous, and related to the circumstances of the ouster incident. Its trustworthiness has been guaranteed. It thus escapes the operation of the hearsay rule. It forms part of the res gestae.
LRT vs. NAVIDAD G.R. No. 145804. February 6, 2003
FACTS: Navidad was drunk when he entered the boarding platform of the LRT. He got into an altercation with the SG Escartin. They had a fistfight and Navidad fell onto the tracks and was killed when a train came and ran over him.
The Heirs of Navidad filed a complaint for damages against Escartin, the train driver, (Roman) the LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization and Prudent Security Agency (Prudent). The trial court found Prudent and Escartin jointly and severally liable for damages to the heirs. The CA exonerated Prudent and instead held the LRTA and the train driver Romero jointly and severally liable as well as removing the award for compensatory damages and replacing it with nominal damages.
The reasoning of the CA was that a contract of carriage already existed between Navidad and LRTA (by virtue of his havA ing purchased train tickets and the liability was caused by the mere fact of Navidad's death after being hit by the train being managed by the LRTA and operated by Roman. The CA also blamed LRTA for not having presented expert evidence showing that the emergency brakes could not have stopped the train on time.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not LRTA and/or Roman is liable for the death. (2) Whether or not Escartin and/or Prudent are liable. (3) Whether or not nominal damages may coexist with compensatory damages.
HELD: (1) Yes. The foundation of LRTA's liability is the contract of carriage and its obligation to indemnify the victim arising from the breach of that contract by reason of its failure to exercise the high diligence required of a common carrier. (2) Fault was not established. Liability will be based on Tort under Art. 2176 of the New Civil Code. (3) No. It is an established rule that nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory damages.
RATIO:
Liability of LRTA Read Arts. 1755,1756, 1759 and 1763 of the New Civil Code
A common carrier is required by these above statutory provisions to use utmost diligence in carrying passengers with due regard for all circumstances. This obligation exists not only during the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises where they ought to be in pursuance to then contract of carriage.
Art. 1763 renders a common carrier liable for death of or injury to passengers (a) through the negligence or wilful acts of its employees or (b) on account of willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers if the common carriers employees through theexercise of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. In case of such death or injury, a carrier is presumed to have been at fault or been negligent, and by simple proof of injury, the passenger is relieved of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the carrier or of its employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure.
Liability of Security Agency If Prudent is to be held liable, it would be for a tort under Art. 2176 in conjunction with Art. 2180. Once the fault of the employee Escartin is established, the employer, Prudent, would be held liable on the presumption that it did not exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of its employees.
Relationship between contractual and non-contractual breach How then must the liability of the common carrier, on the one hand, and an independent contractor, on the other hand, be described? It would be solidary. A contractual obligation can be breached by tort and when the same act or omission causes the injury, one resulting in culpa contractual and the other in culpa aquiliana, Article 2194 of the Civil Code can well apply. In fine, a liability for tort may arise even under a contract, where tort is that which breaches the contract. Stated differently, when an act which constitutes a breach of ontract would have itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability had no contract existed between the parties, the contract can be said to have been breached by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.
Nominal Damages - The award of nominal damages in addition to actual damages is untenable. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. It is an established rule that nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory damages. The award was deleted/\.
Manliclic v. Calaunan Ponente: Chico-Nazario Third Division Nature: Petition for review on certiorari
FACTS: 1. The vehicles involved in this case are: (1) Philippine Rabbit Bus owned by petitioner PRBLI and driven by petitioner Mauricio Manliclic; and (2) owner-type jeep owned by respondent Modesto Calaunan and driven by Marcelo Mendoza 2. At approximately Kilometer 40 of the North Luzon Expressway in Barangay Lalangan, Plaridel, Bulacan, the two vehicles collided. - The front right side of the Philippine Rabbit Bus hit the rear left side of the jeep causing the latter to move to the shoulder on the right and then fall on a ditch with water resulting to further extensive damage. - Respondent suffered minor injuries while his driver was unhurt. 3. By reason of such collision, a criminal case was filed charging petitioner Manliclic with Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property with Physical Injuries. 4. Subsequently on 2 December 1991, respondent filed a complaint for damages against petitioners Manliclic and PRBLI 5. The criminal case was tried ahead of the civil case. 6. When the civil case was heard, counsel for respondent prayed that the transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs)
of the testimonies in the criminal case be received in evidence in the civil case in as much as these witnesses are not available to testify in the civil case. 7. The versions of the parties are summarized by the trial court as follows:
Respondents version: - According to the respondent and his driver, the jeep was cruising at the speed of 60 to 70 kilometers per hour on the slow lane of the expressway when the Philippine Rabbit Bus overtook the jeep and in the process of overtaking the jeep, the Philippine Rabbit Bus hit the rear of the jeep on the left side. - At the time the Philippine Rabbit Bus hit the jeep, it was about to overtake the jeep. In other words, the Philippine Rabbit Bus was still at the back of the jeep when the jeep was hit. - Fernando Ramos corroborated the testimony of and Marcelo Mendoza. He said that he was on another jeep following the Philippine Rabbit Bus and the jeep of plaintiff when the incident took place. He testified that the jeep of plaintiff swerved to the right because it was bumped by the Philippine Rabbit bus from behind.
Petitioners version: - The petitioner explained that when the Philippine Rabbit bus was about to go to the left lane to overtake the jeep, the latter jeep swerved to the left because it was to overtake another jeep in front of it. - Petitioner PRBLI maintained that it observed and exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employee 8. RTC ruled in favor of the respondent. CA found no reversible error and affirmed the RTCs decision.
ISSUES: 1. Whether the TSNs from the criminal case may be admitted in evidence for the civil case. 2. Whether the petitioner, Manliclic, may be held liable for the collision and be found negligent notwithstanding the declaration of the CA in the criminal case that there was an absence of negligence on his part. 3. Whether the petitioner, PRBLI, exercised due diligence and supervision of its employee.
HELD: The petitioner, Manliclic, is civilly liable for the damages for his negligence or reckless imprudence based on quasi-delict. The PRBLI is held solidarily liable for the damages caused by the petitioner Manliclics negligence.
1. Admissibility of the TSNs Petitioners contention: - The TSNs should not be admitted to evidence for failure to comply with the requisites of Sec. 47, Rule 130 of the ROC - The petitioner, PRBLI, had no opportunity to cross examine the witnesses because the criminal case was filed exclusively against Manliclic. - Admission of the TSNs will deprive the petitioner of due process. Court: - The testimonies are still admissible on the ground that the petitioner failed to object on their admissibility. - Failure to object to the inclusion of the evidence is a waiver on the provision of the law. - In addition, the petitioner even offered in evidence the TSN containing the testimony of Ganiban. - The court disagrees that it would deprive the petitioner of due process. For the failure of the petitioner to object at the proper time, it waived its right to object for the non compliance with the ROC.
2. Civil liability arising from crime v. Quasi-delict/Culpa Acquiliana Petitioner: - The version of the petitioner deserves more credit as the petitioner was already acquitted by the CA of the charge of Reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with physical injuries. Court: - From the complaint, it can be gathered that the civil case for damages was one arising from or based on quasi-delict: Petitioner Manliclic was sued for his negligence or reckless imprudence in causing the collision, while petitioner PRBLI was sued for its failure to exercise the diligence of a good father in the selection and supervision of its employees - it appears that petitioner Manliclic was acquitted not on reasonable doubt, but on the ground that he is not the author of the act complained of which is based on Section 2(b) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure which reads: (b) Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist.
- In spite of said ruling, petitioner Manliclic can still be held liable for the mishap. The afore- quoted section applies only to a civil action arising from crime or ex delicto and not to a civil action arising from quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana. - The extinction of civil liability referred to in the quoted provision, refers exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas the civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by the accused.
In sum, the court distinguished civil liability arising from a crime and that arising from quasi- delict:
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM A CRIME (a) if an accused is acquitted based on reasonable doubt on his guilt, his civil liability arising from the crime may be proved by preponderance of evidence only. (b) if an accused is acquitted on the basis that he was not the author of the act or omission complained of (or that there is declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist), said acquittal closes the door to civil liability based on the crime or ex delicto.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM QUASI-DELICT - 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. - The same negligence causing damages may produce civil liability arising from a crime under the Penal Code, or create an action for quasi-delicts or culpa extra-contractual under the Civil Code. The acquittal of the accused, even if based on a finding that he is not guilty, does not carry with it the extinction of the civil liability based on quasi delict. - civil liability arising from quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana, same will not be extinguished by an acquittal, whether it be on ground of reasonable doubt or that accused was not the author of the act or omission complained of (or that there is declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist). - An acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirely irrelevant in the civil case based on quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana.
- The petitioners urge the court to give more credence to their version of the story however, as they constitute a question of fact, it may not be raised as a subject for a petition for review. Findings of the trial court and appellate court are binding on the Supreme Court. - The testimony of the petitioner about the jeep of the respondent overtaking another vehicle in the criminal case was not consistent with what he gave to the investigator which is evidently a product of an after-thought - If one would believe the testimony of the defendant, Mauricio Manliclic, and his conductor, Oscar Buan, that the Philippine Rabbit Bus was already somewhat parallel to the jeep when the collision took place, the point of collision on the jeep should have been somewhat on the left side thereof rather than on its rear. Furthermore, the jeep should have fallen on the road itself rather than having been forced off the road.
3. PRBLIs liability - Under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code, when an injury is caused by the negligence of the employee, there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the master or employer either in the selection of the servant or employee, or in supervision over him after selection or both. - The liability of the employer under Article 2180 is direct and immediate; it is not conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent employee and a prior showing of the insolvency of such employee. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the private respondents to prove that they exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employee.
Petitioners contention: - PRBLI maintains that it had shown that it exercised the required diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees - In the matter of selection, it showed the screening process that petitioner Manliclic underwent before he became a regular driver. - As to the exercise of due diligence in the supervision of its employees, it argues that presence of ready investigators is sufficient proof that it exercised the required due diligence in the supervision of its employees Court: - In the selection of prospective employees, employers are required to examine them as to their qualifications, experience and service records. In the supervision of employees, the employer must formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation and impose disciplinary measures for the breach thereof. - As the negligence of the employee gives rise to the presumption of negligence on the part of the employer, the latter has the burden of proving that it has been diligent not only in the selection of employees but also in the actual supervision of their work. - The trial court found that petitioner PRBLI exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection but not in the supervision of its employees - it seems that the Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines has a very good procedure of recruiting its driver as well as in the maintenance of its vehicles. There is no evidence though that it is as good in the supervision of its personnel. o no evidence introduced that there are rules promulgated by the bus company regarding the safe operation of its vehicle and in the way its driver should manage and operate the vehicles o no showing that somebody in the bus company has been employed to oversee how its driver should behave while operating their vehicles o The presence of ready investigators after the occurrence of the accident is not enough. Same does not comply with the guidelines set forth with regard to the supervision. o Regular supervision of employees, that is, prior to any accident, should have been shown and established. o the lack of supervision can further be seen by the fact that there is only one set of manual containing the rules and regulations for all the drivers - For failure to adduce proof that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees, petitioner PRBLI is held solidarily responsible for the damages caused by petitioner Manliclics negligence.
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for review is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that (1) the award of moral damages shall be reduced to P50,000.00; and (2) the award of exemplary damages shall be lowered to P50,000.00.