Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
I.
INTRODUCTION
A.
Civil Code
o Articles 1156 to 1162, and 2176
Memorize: Articles 1157 and 2176
B.
Quasi-delict
obligations
distinguished
from
other
sources
of
Cases
those which arise from contract, rests upon the fact that in cases of
non-contractual obligation it is the wrongful or negligent act or
omission itself which creates the vinculum juris, whereas in contractual
relations the vinculum exists independently of the breach of the
voluntary duty assumed by the parties when entering into the
contractual relation.
These two fields, figuratively speaking, concentric; that is to say, the
mere act that a person is bound to another by contract does not
relieve him from extra-contractual liability to such person.
Quasi-delict v. Delicts
o Revised Penal Code
Articles 100 and 365
o
Cases
Barredo v. Garcia
Authorities support that the proposition that a quasi-delict or
culpa aquillana 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.
o 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. (old civ code yan)
Crime
Quasi- delict
Affect public interest
Only private concern
Penal code punishes or corrects the Indemnify; repairs damage
criminal act
Punished only if there is penal law
Includes all acts in w/c any kind of
fault or negligence intervenes
o
Elcano v. Hill
o
II.
QUASI-DELICT
A.
-
Elements
Cases
Andamo v. IAC
o
o
Lucas v. Tuano
o
o
o
o
Medical Negligence: (1) duty, (2) breach, (3) inury (4) proximate
causation
o Duty- standard behavior that imposes restrictions on ones
conduct; requires proof of professional relationship between the
physician and the agent.
Physician-agent rel is create when a patient engages the
services of a physician and the latter accepts or agrees to
provide care to the patient.
o Breach- occurs when the doctor fails to comply with, or
improperly performs his duties under professional standards
o Injury- resulted from the breach
o Proximate causation- when it appears, based on the evidence
and the expert testimony, that the negligence played an integral
part in causing the injury or damage, and that the injury or
damage was either a direct result, or a reasonably probable
consequence of the physicians negligence.
In our jurisdiction, the criterion remains to be the expert witness
special knowledge experience and practical training that qualify
him/her to explain highly technical medical matters to the Court.
Standard of diligence must be proven on the factual and legal basis
o Factual- provide the standard of diligence, which requires expert
witness
o Legal- the court will still decide whether or not the defendant
met the required standard of diligence
Experts Testimony- does not need to be in the same specialization as
the tortfeasor; as long as he/she has a special knowledge
Standard of care of attending physician and resident physician
is the same.
B.
Civil Code
o Articles 1161, 2176 and 2177
Memorize Article 2177
Cases
Joseph v. Bautista
o A cause of action is understood to be the delict or wrongful act or
omission committed by the defendant in violation of the primary
rights. It is true that a single act or omission can be violative of
various rights at the same time, as when the act constitutes juridically
a violation of several separate and distinct legal obligations. However,
where there is only one delict or wrong, there is but a single cause of
action regardless of the number of rights that may have been violated
belonging to one person. (better rule is that a single action can
give rise to 1 or more cause of action)
Padau v. Robles (cab accident, killing a kid)
o Civil liability coexists with criminal responsibility. In negligence cases,
the offended party has the option between an action for enforcement
of civil liability based on culpa criminal and action for recovery of
damages based on culpa aquiliana.
Atlantic Gulf v. CA
o In this case, there were two causes of action arising from two different
acts. (ruination of the land and usage of the land as depot or parkin)
Lim v. Kou Co (cement
o A single act or omission that causes damage to an offended party may
give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender- 1.
Delictarising from the criminal offense; 2. Independent civil liability
that may be pursued independently of the criminal proceeding.
o Because of the distinct and independent nature of the two kinds of civil
liabilities, jurisprudence holds that the offended party may pursue the
two types if civil liabilities simultaneously or cumulatively, without
offending the rules on forum shopping, litis pendentia, or res judicata.
subject to prohibition on double recovery
C.
Civil Code
o Article 2194 (Memorize)
Cases
The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a quasidelict is solidary. Where the obligation of the parties is solidary, either
of the parties is indispensable, and the other is not even a necessary
party because complete relief is available from either.
III. Negligence
III.
NEGLIGENCE
A. Concept
-
Civil Code
o Articles 2178, 1172, 1173, and 1733
Memorize: Articles 1172 to 1174
Cases
Picart v. Smith
o Test to determine the existence of negligence: Did the defendant in
doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution
which and ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same
situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.
o The question as to what constitute the conduct of a prudent man in a
given situation must of course be always determined in the light of
human experience and in view of the facts involved in the particular
case.
o Test of foreseeability: Could a prudent man in the case under
consideration foresee harm as a result of the course actually pursued?
o To know what a reasonable prudent man would have
done.
o Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of
the tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect harmful to another
was sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing the conduct or
guarding against its consequences.
o It will be noted that the negligent acts of two parties were not
contemporaneous, since the negligence of the defendant succeeded
the negligence of the plaintiff by an appreciable interval.
o Under these circumstances the law is that the person who has
the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and fails
to do so is chargeable with the consequences, without reference
to the prior negligence of the other party.
While contributory negligence does not constitute a bar to
recovery, it could be received in evidence to reduce the
damages.
US v. Bonifacio (deaf mute hit by a train)
o This does not mean that in every case in which one accidentally injures
or kills another he is criminally liable therfor, if at the moment he
PNB v. Santos
o Plaintiffs are not client of the bank= the more they have to be
careful if not client
o The contractual relationship between banks and their depositors is
governed by the Civil Code provisions on simple loan. Once a person
makes a deposit of his or her money to the bank, he or she is
considered to have lent the bank that money. The bank becomes his
or her debtor, and he or she becomes the creditor of the bank, which
is obligated to pay him or her on demand.
o The public reposes its faith and confidence upon banks, such that even
the humble wage-earner has not hesitated to entrust his lifes savings
to the bank of his choice, knowing that they will be safe in the custody
and will even earn some interest for him. This is why we have
recognized the fiduciary nature of the banks functions and attached
a special standard of diligence for the exercise of their functions.
Dela Torre v. Imbuido
o The critical and clinching factor in a medical negligence case is proof of
the causal connection between the negligence and the injuries. A
verdict in a malpractice action cannot be based on speculation or
conjecture. Causation must be proven within a reasonable
medical probability based upon competent expert testimony.
Li v. Soliman
o Battery- unauthorized physical contact
o Four essential elements to prove in a malpractice action based
upon the doctrine of informed consent:
(1) The physician had a duty to disclose material risks;
(2) S/he failed to disclose or inadequately disclosed those risks;
(3) As a direct and proximate result of the failure to disclose, the
patient consented to treatment s/he otherwise would not have
consented to and
(4) Plaintiff was injured by the proposed treatment
o Exception to informed consent
1. Emergency
2. Incompetent patient
3. Minor treatment
Adarne v. Aldaba
o An attorney is not bound to exercise extraordinary diligence, but only
a reasonable degree of care and skill, having reference to the
character of the business he undertakes to do. He is not
answerable for every error or mistake, and will be protected as long as
he acts honestly and in good faith to the best of his skill and
knowledge.
Issac v. A.L. Amnen
o Principles governing the liability of common carrier: (1) the
liability of carrier is contractual and arises upon breach of its
obligation. (2) a carrier is obliged to carry its passenger with
the utmost diligence of a very cautious person, having due
regard for all the circumstances; (3) a carrier is presumed to be
at fault or to have acted negligently in case of death of, injury
to, passengers, it being its duty to prove that it exercised
extraordinary diligence; and (4) the carrier is not an insurer
against all risk of travel
o Proximate cause of injury is the negligence the plaintiff so plaintiff
cannot recover.
Calvo v. UPCB
o To prove the exercise of diligence required, it must prove that it used
all reasonable means to ascertain the nature and characteristic of
goods tendered for transport and that it exercised due care in the
handling thereof.
Rjdo Tape v. CA
o Standard care of public utility (utmost diligence)
B. Negligence as proximate cause
-
Cases
accused. And since we are dealing with criminal conviction, the proof
that the accused caused the victims death must convince a rational
mind beyond reasonable doubt.
Phoenix Construction (car hit a improperly parked truck)
o Foreseeable intervening Causes. If the intervening cause is one which
in ordinary human experience is reasonably to be anticipated, or one
which the defendant has reason to anticipate under the particular
circumstances, the defendant may be negligent, among other reasons,
because of failure to guard against it; or the defendant may be
negligent only for that reason.
o Of more importance are the nature of the negligent act or omission of
each party and the character and gravity of the risks created by such
act or omission for the rest of the community.
Austria v. CA (almost the same facts as Phoenix)
o But the reckless driving of the accused was judged to be the proximate
cause of the collision. As the court said That he had no opportunity to
avoid the collision is of his own making and this should not relieve him
of liability.
Umali v. Bacani (a child got electrocuted by a live wire)
o We cannot agree with petitioners theory that the parents negligence
constituted the proximate cause of the victims death because the real
proximate cause was the fallen live wire which posed a threat to life
and property on that morning due to the series of negligence
adverted to above committed by the defendants employees ad which
could have killed any other person who might be accident get into
contact with it.
o Negligence of the employee is presumed to be the negligence of the
employer because the employer is supposed to exercise supervision
over the work of the employees. This liability is primary and direct.
Calalas v. CA (college student rode a jeepney and sat on an extension seat.
Jeepney was hit by an Isuzu truck)
o The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasidelict, not in actions involving breach of contract. The doctrine is a
device for imputing liability to a person where there is no relation
between hi and another party. In such case, the obligation is created
by law itself.
o But where the is a pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties, it is the parties themselves who create the obligation, and the
function of the law is merely to regulate the relation thus created.
o Bad faith must be in the performance of the contract.
C. Proof of Negligence
Rules of Court
o Rule 131, Sections 1, 2 and 3(d)
Case
D. Presumption of Negligence
(i)
-
Cases
Cases
US v. Juanillo
o The operator of an automobile is bound to exercise care in proportion
to the verying danger and risks of highway and commensurate with
the danger naturally incident to the use of such vehicle.
o In determining the degree of care an operator of an automobile should
use, when on the highway, it is proper to take into consideration the
place, presence, or absence of other travelers, the speed of
automobile, its size, appearance, manner of movement, and the
amount of noise it makes, and anything that indicates unusual or
peculiar danger.
o Under such conditions appellant being in charge of the powerful
machine, capable of doing great damage if not skillfully manipulated,
was bound to use a high degree of common right to the highway.
o A driver of an automobile, under such circumstances, is required
to use a greater degree of care than drivers of animals, for the
reason that the machine is capable of greater destruction, and
further more, it is absolutely under the power and control of the
driver; whereas a horse, or other animal can and does to some
extent aid in averting an accident.
Chapman v. Underwood
o An owner who sits in his automobile, or other vehicle, and permits his
driver to continue in a violation of the law by the performance of
negligent acts, after he has had a reasonable opportunity to observe
them and to direct that the driver cease therefrom, becomes himself
responsible for such acts.
o If the driver, by a sudden act of negligence, and without the
owner having a reasonable opportunity to prevent the act or its
continuance, injures a person or violates the criminal law, the
owner of the automobile, although present therein at the time
the act was committed, is not responsible, either civilly or
criminally, therefore.
Caedo v. Yu Khe Thai (accident in EDSA involving a caratella)
o The test of imputed negligence under Article 2184 of the Civil Code is,
to a great degree, necessarily subjective. Car owners are not held to a
uniform and inflexible standard of diligence, as are professional
drivers.
o The test of his negligence, within the meaning of Article 2184, is his
omission to do that which the evidence of his own senses tells him he
should do in order to avoid the accident.
tortious incidents, for the latter need only to rely on the public
registration of a motor vehicle as conclusive evidence of ownership.
PRIVATE RENTAL
Owner/lessor liable together with
driver
RENT-A-CAR
Lessor/owner not liable (driver only is
liable)
Anonuevo v. CA
o Art 2185 does not apply to non-motorized vehicle such as a bicycle.
o The mere fact of violation is not sufficient basis for an inference that
such violation was the proximate cause of the injured complained.
However, if the very injury has happened which was intended to be
prevented by the statute, it has been held that violation of the statute
will be deemed to be the proximate cause of the injury.
o Negligence per se- violation of a statutory duty
o The petitioner has the burden of showing a causal connection between
the injury received and the violation of the LT and Traffic Code.
c. Statutes and ordinances/administrative rules
-
Cases
(iii)
ccc
Civil Code
o Article 2188 (Memorize)
- Case
Araneta v. Arreglado
o Father was negligent for allowing the child to have possession of the
firearm.
IV.
A.
DEFENSES
Plaintiffs negligence is the proximate cause of injury
Civil Code
o Article 2179 (Memorize)
Cases
Taylor v. Manila Electric (kid went to the premises of manila electric and got
an explosive device)
o The test is simple. Distinction must be made between accident and the
injury, between the event itself, without which there could have been
no accident, and those acts of the victim not entering into it,
independent of it, but contributing to his own proper hurt.
o related to attractive nuisance but not applicable because the court
took in to account the mental capacity of Taylor.
o The explosive cups left by Meralco would have not exploded if Taylor
did not get it and played with it.
Fernando v. CA (men cleaned the septic tank and died)
o The proximate cause of the victims was due to their negligence. There
was no order to commence the cleaning of the septic tank. They
should have known the risk in cleaning a septic tank that was not
emptied for several years.
PLDT v. CA
o It is basic that private respondents cannot charge PLDT for their
injuries where their own failure to exercise due and reasonable care
was the cause thereof.
o Lack of warning is not the proximate cause because the
defendant pass by the road almost everyday and knew of the
existence of the excavation.
o He was also swerving and was driving fast.
Kim v. Philippine Aerial Taxi. Co. (passenger of the hydroplanes atat bumaba,
got himself injured by the propeller)
o The plaintiff ought to know that a propeller, be it that of a ship or of an
aeroplane, is dangerous while in motion and that to approach is to run
the risk of being caught and injured thereby.
o Also, he did not wait for the instructions of the plane employees
before going out of the plane.
American Express v. Cordero (credit card of Cordero was cut into half which
caused embarrassment)
o Amex cut the card in half because they were not able to determine if it
was really Cordero who was using the card. Cordero refused to talk to
their representative when asked to in order to verify his identity.
Because of his refusal to talk, the card was cut.
BJDC Construction v. Lanuzo (motorbicycle accident)
o BJDC was not negligent because there was proper lighting. Victim did
not wear helmet, which could have saved his life.
o He should be familiar with the road and should have known that a
construction was going on
Cagayan v. Rapanan (electric wire, motorcycle accident)
o Motorcycle was the proximate cause because the driver was driving
really fast and lost control.
o Mishap already occurred before reaching the electric wire.
B.
Contributory negligence
Civil Code
o Article 2179 (Memorize)
Cases
Assumption of Risk
o ORDINARY RISK
Requisites:
(1) You know
(2) You understand
(3) Nevertheless, you still voluntary and freely exposed
yourself to the risk
Exception:
o However, a person is excused if an emergency is found to
exist or
o if the life or property of another is in peril or
o when he seeks to rescue his endangered property
Cases
Afialda v. Hisole
o Under article 1905 of the Civil Code, the owner of an animal is not
liable for injury caused by it to its caretaker.
o The owner would be liable only if he had been negligent
or at fault
Ilocos Norte v. CA
o Exception to the assumption of risk
o However, a person is excused if an emergency is found to
exist or
o if the life or property of another is in peril or
o when he seeks to rescue his endangered property
Transporto v. Mijares(firecracker case)
o full knowledge and extent of the risk
D.
o
o
-
Cases
It will be noted that the negligent acts of the two parties were not
contemporaneous since the negligence of the defendant succeeded the
negligence of the plaintiff by an appreciable interval. Under these
circumstances the law is that the person who has the last fair chance
to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the
consequences, without references to the prior negligence of the other
party.
Philippine National Railways Corp. v. Vizcara (jeepney got hit by a train while
on way to quezon wala daw stop look and listen)
o The doctrine of last clear chance is not applicable in the instant case.
o The doctrine of last clear chance provides that where
both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is
appreciably later in point of time than that of the other,
or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or
negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident,
the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the
impending harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with
the consequences arising therefrom.
The antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude
recovery of damages caused by the supervening
negligence of the latter, who had the last fair chance to
prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due
diligence.
Achevara v. Ramos(driver of the jeepney no longer had the opportunity to
avoid collision)
o The doctrine of last clear chance does not apply where the
party charged is required to act instantaneously, and the injury
cannot be avoided by the application of all means at hand after
the peril is or should have been discovered.
Bank of America v. Phil Racing Club
o In instances where both parties are at fault, this Court has consistently
applied the doctrine of last clear chance in order to assign liability.
o In the case at bar, petitioner cannot evade responsibility for the
loss by attributing negligence on the part of the respondent
because even if we concur that the latter was indeed negligent
in pre-signing blank checks, the former had the last clear
chance to avoid the loss.
They could have called.
Lapanday v. Angala(Uturn accident)
o We rule both parties are negligent so last clear chance is applicable.
o De Ocampo, had the last clear chance to avoid the collision. DE
Ocampo was driving the rear vehicle, he had full control of the
situation since he was in a position to observe the vehicle in front of
him.
Prescription
Civil Code
o Article 1146
Cases
Fortuitous Event
o
o
o
o
Civil Code
o Article 1174 (Memorize)
Cases
Gotesco v. Chatto (Mother and child watched a movie, the cinemas ceiling
collapsed)
o That Mr. Ong could not offer any explanation does not imply force
majeure.
o Such defects could have been easily discovered if only petitioner
exercised due diligence.
Servando v. Phil Steam (cargoes of petitioner arrived and was discharged at
BOC warehouse which got burned)
o There was no negligence on the part of the defendants. They did not
incur delay
Edgar Cokaliong v. UCPB (ship with cargo got burnt w/c originated from
unchecked crack in the engine)
o Fire was not a force majeure because it resulted from the negligence
of the officers of the vessel to inspect their ship frequently.
G.
Waiver
Civil Code
o Articles 6 and 1170
Cases
Emergency
Cases
Gan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-44264, September 19, 1988 (old man)
o One who suddenly finds himself in the place of danger and is
required to act without time to consider the best means that
maybe adopted to avoid the impending danger is not guilty of
negligence unless the emergency in which he finds himself is
brought about by his own negligence.
McKee v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 211 SCRA 517 (1992)
o Kids suddenly cross the road, which gave the driver no time to
contemplate which is the means possible.
Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 115024 & 117944, February 7,
1996
o The conduct which is required of an individual in emergency cases is
dictated not exclusively by the suddenness of the event which
absolutely negate thoroughly care, but by the over-all nature of the
nature of the circumstances.
Delsan Transport Lines, Inc., v. C&A Construction, Inc., G.R. No. 156034,
October 1, 2003
o It is the ship captains fault the brought them to the emergency
situation.
Orix Metro Leasing and Finance Corporation v. Mangalinao, G.R. Nos. 174089
& 174266, January 25, 2012
o
I.
Cases
Farolan v. Solmac Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 83589, March 13, 1991
o Presumption of regularity in the exercise of duty if a public officer or
employee.
o There was no bad faith since they just exercised their duty.
BPI Express Card Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120639,
September 25, 1998
o Applicable. Bank exercised its right to collect payment.
Custodio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116100, February 9, 1996
o
Amonoy v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 140420, February 15, 2001
o With bad faith. Despite receipt of TRO, the destruction of the building
was still continued.
DOLE Philippines, Inc., v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 174646, August 22, 2012
o With bad faith and injury because DOLE, destroyed the banana
plantation.
V.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
-
Civil Code
o Articles 2180 to 2182 (Memorize)
A.
Cases
Exconde v. Capuno, 101 Phil. 843 (1957) (a 15 year old kid, was convicted of
double homicide, his father argued that he should not be held liable with the
kid because he was not present during the accident, but the law said that he
is liable for his minor child.)
o The civil liability which the law imposes upon the father, and, in case
of his death or incapacity, the mother, for any damages that may be
caused by the minor children who live with them, is obvious.
o This is a necessary consequence of the parental authority they
exercise over them.
o The only way by which they can relieve themselves of this
liability is if they prove that they exercised all the diligence of a
good father of a family to prevent the damages.
Tamargo v. Court of Appeals, 209 SCRA 518 (1992) (a kid shot another
person with air rifle; the shooter kid was then adopted after the shooting)
o Imputed negligence- where a person is not only liable for torts
committed by himself, but also for torts committed by others with
whom he has a certain relationship and for whom he is responsible.
o The civil law assumes that when an unemancipated child living with its
parents commits a tortious at, the parents were negligent in the
performace of their legal and natural duty closely to supervise the
child who is in their custody and control.
o The presumption of parental dereliction on the part of the adopting
parents could have arising since Adelberto was not in fact subject to
their control at the time the tort was committed.
Libi v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 214 SCRA 16 (1992) (ex boyfriend shot
ex girlfriend)
o The civil liability of parents for quasi delicts of their minor
children, as contemplated in Article 2180 of the Civil Code, is
primary and not subsidiary.
o If we apply Article 2194 of said code which provides for solidary
liability of joint tortfeasors, the person responsible for the act or
omission, in this case the minor and the father and, in case of
his death or incapacity, the mother, are solidary liable.
o We are also persuaded that the liabilyt of the parents for felonies
committed by their minor children is likewise primary, not subsidiary.
Cuadra v. Monfort, G.R. No. L-24101, September 30, 1970 (school girl was
hit in the eye with an object by the classmate)
o all diligence of a good father of the family to prevent damage- it
implies a consideration of the attendant circumstances in every
individual case, to determine whether or ot by the exercise of such
diligence the damage could have been prevented.
o His child was at school where it was his duty to send her and where
she was, as he had right to expect her to be, under the care and
supervision of the teacher.
o It was an innocent prank not unusual among the children at play
and special reason to anticipate much less guard against. The
plaintiffs were not able to collect.
St. Marys Academy v. Carpitanos, G.R. No. 143363, February 6, 2002
(accident during school activity. The jeepney driven by the minor has its
steering wheel detached)
o For the petitioner to be liable, there must be a finding that the act or
omission considered as negligent was the proximate cause of the
injury caused because the negligence, must have a causal connection
to the accident.
B.
Jose v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 118441-42, January 18, 2000(Ford escort
bumped a Bus, ford driver and passenger came from party and a part of the
car was broken)
o Therefore, before the presumption of the employers negligence in the
selection and supervision of its employees can arise, the negligence of
the employee must first be established.
o The failure to prove the employees negligence during the trial is
fatal to proving the employers vicarious liability.
o The allegation that John Macarubo was the authorized driver of the
Ford Escort is not equivalent to an allegation that he was an employee
of Juanita Macarubo.
o That John Macarubo was the authorized driver of the car simply
means that he drove the Ford Escort with the permission of
Juanita Macarubo, the registered owner.
Bahia v. Litonjua, 30 Phil. 624 (1915) (newly purchased cars steering gear
malfunctioned and caused an accident)
o The action against Litonjua is dismissed. Although she purchased the
automobile, she turned it over to the garage of her son for use therein.
The establishment belonged to his son and had the full management of
control of such garage.
When an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or employee
there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence
on the part of the master or employer either in the selection or
supervision of the servant or employee.
o This is rebuttable.
o This theory bases the responsibility of the master ultimately on
his own negligence and not on that of his servant.
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., v. Phil-American Forwarders, Inc., G.R. No.
L-25142, March 25, 1975 (manager of Phil-American was sued for the
accident involving the driver of Phil-American)
o It may be gathered from the context of Article 2180 that the term
manager is used in the sense of employer.
o Hence, Balingit as manager can not be held liable because he
himself may be regarded as an employee of his employer, PhilAmerican Forwarders, Inc.
Martin v. Court of Appeals, 205 SCRA 591 (1992) (a private car, driven by
someone else and not the owner, rammed a meralco post; Meralco sued the
owner and not the driver)
o No evidence was adduced by the plaintiff to show that the defendant
was the employer of the driver at the time of the accident.
o The ownership of the car and the circumstance of the accident, are not
enough bases for the inference that the petitioner is the employer of
Nestor Martin.
o The more plausible assumption is that Nestor (driver) is a close
relative of the the petitioner and on the date in question borrowed the
car for some private purpose. Nestor would probably not have been
accommodated if he were a mere employee for employees do not
usually enjoy the use of their employers car at two oclock in the
morning.
o if the plaintiff, upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of
action, fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which he
bases his claim, the defendant is under no obligation to prove his
exception or defense.
St. Francis High School v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82465, February 25,
1991 (student trying to rescue a female teacher from drowning drowned)
o It is clear that before an employer may be held liable for the
negligence of his employee, the act or omission which caused the
damage or prejudice must have occurred while an employee was in
the performance of his assigned tasks.
o In the case at bar, the teachers were not in the actual
performance of their assigned tasks. The incident happened
Mercury Drug Corporation v. Huang, G.R. No. 172122, June 22, 2007 (big
truck of mercury figured in an accident with a car)
o Driver was found negligent
o The liability of the employer under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code is direct
and immediate. It is not conditioned in a prior recourse against the
negligent employee, or a prior showing of insolvency of such
employee. It is also joint and solidary with the employee.
o Mercury was negligent in the SS of employee.
No NBI Clearance.
Car used in the training was a Gallant not a truck.
Last driving seminar was 12 years ago
No back up driver despite the accused driver was already
13 hours in the road.
Sanitary Steam Laundry v. Court of Appeals, 300 SCRA 20 (1998)( Sanitarys
panel truck figured in an accident with a Cimmaron; Sanitary did not require
NBI Clearance and Psychological test because no law requires it)
o Sanitary was negligent in the SS of the driver.
o It said that it is required of its all employees to have an NBI Clearance
but it was now able to show the NBI Clearance of the driverit is not
enough that requiring employees an NBI Clearance is an exercise of
due diligence
o Although no law requires a psychological test, it is a reliable indicator
that employer exercised due diligence in the SS.
o No test of skill, physical and mental and emotional were
conducted.
o There was even failure on the part of defendant to present its
concerned employees 204 file.
o
o
The driver had easy access to the keys and Nuval did not act as if the
car was stolen or they did not look for it.
Third parties are not bound to by the allegation that the driver was
only authorized to operate the jeep only when the employers children
were on board the vehicle.
o Giving credence to this outlandish theory would enable
employers to escape their legal liabilities with impunity. Such
loophole is easy and is simply unacceptable.
Jayme v. Apostol, G.R. No. 163609, November 27, 2008 (the driver of the
municipality figured in an accident while transporting the mayor to airport)
o To sustain claims against employers for the acts of their emloyees, the
following requisites must be established:
1.
That the employee was chosen by the employer personally or
through another
2.
That the service to be rendered in accordance with the
orders which the mployer has the authority to give at all
times
3.
That the illicit act of employee was on the occasion or by
reason of the functions entrusted to him
o It must be established that the injurious or tortious act was committed
at the time the employee was performing his functions.
o Employer-employee relationship is not assumed. It is incumbent upon
the plaintiff to prove the relationship by preponderant evidence.
o It was Municipality who was the employer of the driver based on the
four-fold test. The driver was subsequently assigned to the Mayor
o An employer-employee relationship still exists even if the
employee was loaned by the employer to another person
because the control over the employee subsists.
o Assuming arguendo that the Mayor had authority to give intructions,
he still is not liable.
o The mere giving of instructions to the driver does not establish
that the passenger has control over the vehicle.
o Those instruction or directions are ordinarily no more than
requests commonly envisaged in the contract for services
entered into with the security agency.
o The law on the matter is clear: only the negligent driver, the drivers
employer, and the registered owner of the vehicle are liable.
Filcar Transport Services v. Espinas, G.R. No. 174156, June 20, 2012( driver
of car registered under Filcar, met an accident in an intersection with
Espinas)
o It is a well settled that in case of motor vehicle mishaps, the registered
owner of the motor vehicle is considered as the employer of the
tortfeasor-driver, and is made primarily liable for tort committed by
the latter under Art 2176, in relation with Article 2180.
o The aim of motor vehicle registration is to identify the owner so that if
any accident happens, or that any damage or injury is caused by the
vehicle on the public highways, responsibility therefor can be fixed on
a definite individual, the registered owner.
o Thus whether there is an employer-employee relationship between the
registered owner and the driver is irrelevant in determining the liability
of the registered owner who the law holds primarily and directly
responsible for any accident, injury or death caused by the operation
of the vehicle in the streets and highways.
Del Carmen v. Bacoy, G.R. No. 173870, April 25, 2012
Maranan v. Perez, G.R. No. L-22272, June 26, 1967 (taxi driver stabbed and
killed its passenger)
o The new Civil Code of the Philippines expressly akes the common
carrier liable for intentional assulats committed by its employees upon
its passengers, by the wording of Art. 1759
o It is enough that the assult happens within the course of the
employees duty. It is no defense for the carrier that the act was done
in excess if authority or in disobedience of the carriers orders. The
carriers liability here is absolute in the sense that it practically secures
the passengers from assaults committed by its own employees.
o Three reasons for this rule:
a. The special undertaking of the carrier requires that it furnish
its passenger that full measure of protection afforded by the
exercise of the high degree of care prescribed by the law,
inter alia from violence and insults at the hands of strangers
and other passengers, but above all, from the acts of the
carriers own servants charged with the passengers safety
b. Said liability of the carrier for the servants violation of duty
to passengers, is the result of the formers confiding in the
servants hands the performance of his contract to safely
transport the passenger with the utmost care prescribed by
law
c. As between the carrier and the passenger, the former must
bear the risk of wrongful acts or negligence of the carriers
employees against passengers, since it, and not the
passengers, has power to select and remove them.
o It is the carriers strict obligation to select its drivers and similar
employees with due regard not to their technical competence and
physical ability, but also, no less important, to their total personality,
including their patterns of behavior, moral fibers, and social attitude.
Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 584 (1999) and Ramos v. Court of
Appeals, 380 SCRA 467 (2002) (patient died because of wrong or improper
intubation) doctrines from Jason Arteches digest
1st decision
o captain of the ship doctrine
Nogales v. Capitol Medical Center, G.R. No. 142625, December 19, 2006 (the
victim died after delivery because of the negligence of the attending
physician)
o In general, a hospital is not liable for the negligence of an independent
contractor-physician.
o Exception: The hospital may be held liable if the physician is the
ostensible agent of the hospital. This exception is also known
the doctrine of apparent authority.
o The doctrine of apparent authority involves two factors to determine
the liability of an independent- contractor physician.
a. Whether the hospital acted in a manner, which would lead a
reasonable person to conclude that, the individual who was
alleged to be negligent was an employee or agent of the
hospital.
b. Whether the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the conduct of
the hospital or its agent, consistent with ordinary care and
prudence.
Professional Services, Inc., v. Agana, 513 SCRA 478 (2007) and Professional
Services, Inc., v. Agana, G.R. Nos. 126297, 126467, 127590, February 2,
2010
Casumpang v. Cortejo, G.R. Nos. 171127, 171217 & 17122, March 11, 2015
Ramos v. COL Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 184905, August 28,
2009(accident in katipunan)
o If the master is injured by the negligence of a third person and by the
concurring contributory negligence of his own servant or agent, the
latters negligence is imputed to his superior and will defeat the
superiors action against the third person, assuming of course that the
contributory negligence was the proximate cause of the injury of which
the complaint is made.
C.
The State
TORTFEASOR
FUNCTION
STATE LIABLE?
Public Officer
Governmental
functions
Public Officer
Function foreign
to office
Proprietary
Function
Public Officer
Private Individual
Private Individual
Governmental
function
Proprietary
function
Cases
Merritt v. Government of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 11154, March 21,
1916 (guy in a motorcycle had an accident with an ambulance of General
Hospital)
o That the responsibility of the state is limited to case wherein it acts
through a special agent (and a special agent is one who receives a
definite and fixed order or commission, foreign to the exercise
of the duties of his office if he is a special official) so that in
representation of the state and being bound to act as an agent
thereof, he executes the thrust confided in him.
o This concept does not apply to any executive agent who is an
employee of the active administration and who on his own
responsibility performs the functions which are inherent in and
naturally pertain to his office and which are regulated by law
and the regulations.
If student committed acts under 2176- teacher only liable and not school
If teacher committed acts under 2176- school is also liable under 2180
Family Code
Person VL
Parents/
Sub PA
For whom
Children below 18
(Fam Code, 221)
Parents
(pursuant
deep pocket
theory)
Special
PA
(S,A,T,I)
Guardians
Requisites
1. Living in
company
2.
under
their
authority
1. must be
living in their
company
Defenses
Due
diligence to
prevent
damage
Liab
Direct
Primary
Due
diligence
prevent
damage
Due
diligence
prevent
damage
&
to
Direct
Primary
Direct
Primary
&
to
Direct
Primary
&
1. Living in
company
2.
under
their
authority
&
Family Code
o Articles 218 and 219
Cases
Mercado v. Court of Appeals, 108 Phil. 414 (1960) (students fight over
pitogo)
o Custody- contemplates a situation where the pupil lives and boards
with the teacher, such the control, direction, and onfluence on the
pupil supersedes those of the parents.
o The control or influence over the conduct and actions of the
pupil would pass from the father and mother to the teacher;and
so would the responsibility for the torts of the pupil.
Palisoc v. Brillantes, 41 SCRA 557 (1971) (two students had a fist fight in the
laboratory which caused the death of one of them)
o custody- means protective and supervisory custody that the school
and its heads and teachers exercise over the pupil and students for as
long as they are at attendance in school, including recess time.
o There is nothing in the law that student ust live and board in the
school
Amadora v. Court of Appeals, 160 SCRA 315 (1988) (student shot by a gun
another student)
o The provision in question should apply to all schools, academic as well
as non-academic.
o In other words, teachers in general shall be liable for the acts of
their students except where the school is technical in nature, in
which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable.
Following the canon of reddendo singular singulis,
teachers should apply to the words pupils and
students and heads of establishment of arts and trades
to the word apprentices.
o The is really no substantial distinction between the academic
and non-academic schools isofar as torts committed by their
students are concerned. The same vigilance is expected from
the teacher over the students under his control and supervision,
ehatever the nature of the school where he is teaching.
o The student is in the custody of the school authorities as long as
he is under the control and influence of the school and within its
premises, whether the semester has not yet begun or has
already ended.
As long as it can be shown that the student is in the
school premises in pursuance of a legitimate student
objective, in the exercise of his legitimate student right,
and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student right,
and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student
Ylarde v. Aquino, G.R. No. L-33722, July 29, 1988 (4 students dug a hole in
order to burry a big stone)
o Applying the doctrine in amadora, the principal cannot be held liable
for the reason that the school he heads is an academic school and not
a school of arts and trades.
Salvosa v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70458, October 5, 1988
(ROTC armorer and student at Baguio College Foundation shot someone)
o A student not at attendance in the school cannot be in recess thereat.
A recess as the concept is embraced in the phrase at attendance in
the school contemplates a situation of temporary adjournment of
school activities where the student still remains within call of his
mentor and is not permitted to leave the school premises, or the area
within the school activity is conducted.
Aquinas School v. Inton, G.R. No. 184202, January 26, 2011 (student was
kicked by a new teacher)
o Under the circumstances, it was quite evident that Aquinas did not
have control over Yamyamins teaching methods.
o Aquinas still had the responsibility of taking steps to ensure that
only qualified outside catechists are allowed to teach its young
students.
o Aquinas took all the steps to avoid the occurrence of such
injury. Therefore they are not liable.
St. Joseph's College v. Miranda, G.R. No. 182353, June 29, 2010 (student
got his eyes injured by chemicals during experiments)
o The proximate cause was the concurrent failure of the petitioners to
prevent foreseeable mishap that occurred during the conduct of the
science experiment.
o Art. 218 of the Family Code
E.
Right to Reimbursement
Case
Mendoza v. Spouses Gomez, G.R. No. 160110, June 18, 2014 (truck bumped
by a bus)
o Registered owner is liable. The defenses available under Article 2180 is
no longer available because of motor vehicle registration law.
o However, under the civil law, the registered owner of the
motor vehicle has a right to be indemnified by the actual
employer of the driver.
o Under Article 2181, whoever pays for the damages caused by
his dependents or employees may recover from the latter what
he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim.
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 6610204, August 30, 1990 (Bus hit jeepney who is in the improper lane because it
rear wheel was detached)
o This is an action for breach of contract. The carrier can neither shift his
liability on the contract to his driver nor share it with him, for his
drivers negligence is his.
o Secondly if we make the driver jointly and severally liable
with the carrier, that would make the carriers liability
personl instead of merely vicarious and consequently,
entitled to reover only the share which corresponds to
the driver, contradictory to the explicit provision of
Article 2181.
See Cerezo v. Tuazon, G.R. No. 141538, March 23, 2004
F.
Distinguished from subsidiary liability under the Revised
Penal Code
-
Cases
Bantoto v. Bobis, 18 SCRA 690 (1966) (Jeepney driver bumped a 3 year old
child)
o The masters liability, under the Revised Penal Code, for the crimes
committed by his servants and employees in the discharge of their
duties is not predicated upon the insolvency of the latter.
o In this case, both employer and employee are charged in the criminal
case.
Yonaha v. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 397 (1996) (driver of Tamaraw
bumped someone and killed it)
o The execution against employer must not issue as just matter of
course, and it behooves the court, as a measure of due process to the
employer, to determine and resolve a priori, in a hearing set for the
purpose the legal applicability and propriety of employers liability. The
requirement is mandatory even when it appears prima facie
that the execution against the convicted employee cannot be
satisfied.
o The court must convince itself of the ff:
o The convicted employee is in truth in the employ of the
employer
o Latter is engaged in industry
o The employee has committed the crime to which civil liability
attaches while in the performance of his duties as such
o Employee is insolvent
VI.
PRIMARY LIABILITY
-
Civil Code
o Articles 2183 to 2193, and 1723 (Memorize)
A.
Possessors/users of animals
Case
Vestil v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 179 SCRA 47 (1989) (dog bit a 3 year
old girl)
o Vestil were the occupants of the house so they are in possession of the
dog as well because they used the said house for business by renting
it.
o Manresa: Article 2183 is not based on the negligence or on the
presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or use of the animal
causing the damage. It is based on natural equity and on the
principle of social interest that he who possesses animals for
his utility, pleasure or service must answer for the damage
which such animal may cause.
o Petitioners contention that they cannot exercise remote control over
the dog is not acceptable. Art 2183 holds the possessor liable even if
the animal should escape or lost
B.
C.
Case
Coca-Cola Bottlers v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110295, October 18, 1993.
(there is fiber like matter in the softdrinks offered by the canteen)
o Vendees remedies
o Implied warranty
o Annulment of contract upon proof of error or fraud
o Quasi-delict
Quasi-delict may still exist despite the presence of
contractual relations.
o Under these three remedies, the vendee can claim damages.
D.
Municipal Corporations
Cases
Guilatco v. City of Dagupan, 171 SCRA 382 (1989) (petitioner, while waiting
for a tricycle in a sidewalk, fell on a manhole)
o The engineer exercise control or supervision over the public works in
question.
o Although the engineers are employees of the National
Government, they are detailed with the City of Dagupan and
hence receive instruction and supervision from the city through
the City Engineer.
E.
Building Proprietors
Cases
De Roy v. Court of Appeals, 157 SCRA 757 (1988) (building firewall collapsed
and destroyed the house of the defendant)
o Petitioner is liable under Article 2190, which provides that the
proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damage
resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack
of necessary repairs.
F.
Engineers/Architects/Contractors
Cases
Nakpil & Sons v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47851, October 3, 1986, and
Nakpil & Sons v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47851, April 15, 1988 (PBA
building was not able to withstand an earthquake because of the fault in the
architectural design)
o 1st case
o to be exempt from liability under Article 1174 due to an act of
God the ff must concur:
a. the cause of the breach must be independent of the will
of the debtor
b. the event must be either unforeseeable or unavoidable
c. the event must be such as to render it impossible for the
debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner
d. the debtor must be free from ay participation in, or
aggravation of the injury to the creditor.
o 2nd Case
o citing Tucker v. Milan
One who negligently creates a dangerous condition
cannot escape liability for the natural and probable
consequences thereof, although the act of a third person,
or an act of God for which he is not responsible,
intervenes to precipitate the loss.
o There is no need for PBA to provide full-time supervision
because the construction involves highly technical matters
VII.
A.
Civil Code
o Articles 19 to 21 (Memorize)
Cases
Far East Bank and Trust Company v. Pacilan, G.R. No. 157314, July
29, 2005 ( Defendant issued checks, his account was insufficiently
funded do the petitioner bank closed his account;defendant overdrawn
a lot of times)
o Elements of abuse of rights
a. The existence of a legal right or duty
b. Which is exercised in bad faith
c. For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring
another
o The law always presumes good faith and any person who seeks
to be awarded damages due to acts of another has the burden
of proving that the latter acted in bad faith or with ill-motive.
o Defendant improperly handled his account
o he overdrawn, used different signature s
Rellosa v. Pellosis, G.R. No. 138964, August 9, 2001(defendant, lessee
of petitioner. Defendants house was demolished by petitioner after
selling it and without letting def exercise their right to first refusal)
o A right is a power, privilege, or immunity guaranteed under a
constitution, statute or decisional law, or recognized as a result
of long usage, constructive of a legally enforceable claim of one
person against another.
o When petitioners implemented the demolition, it was only after
five days after the defendants received the notice. They still
have time to appeal and the said decision is not yet final and
executory.
Cebu Country Club, Inc., v. Elizagaque, G.R. No. 160273, January 18,
2008 (respondent wanted to join the club but he was rejected by the
Board)
o The exercise of right, though legal by itself, must nonetheless
be in accordance with the proper norm. When the right is
exercised arbitrarily, unjustly or excessively and results in
Nikko Hotel Manila Garden v. Reyes, G.R. No. 154259, February 28,
2005 (Reyes was not invited to the party of gen man of Nikko hotel)
o Volenti non fit injuria (to which a person assents is not
esteemed in law as injury
o Refers to self-inflicted injury or to the consent to injury
which precludes the recovery of damages by one who has
knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger,
even if he is not negligent in doing so.
o
Calatagan Golf Club, Inc., v. Clemente, G.R. No. 165443, April 16,
2009 (Calatagan foreclosed Clementes share for delinquency in paying
the monthly due;)
o A non-stock corporation like Calatagan is not exempt from that
obligation in its treatment of its members. The obligation of a
corporation to treat every person honestly and in good faith
extends even to its shareholders or members, even if the latter
find themselves contractually bound to perform certain
obligations to the corporation. A certificate of stock cannot be a
character of dehumanization.
o Clemente was not given due notice here.
University of the East v. Jader, G.R. No. 132344, February 17,
2000(school made paasa the student that he is eligible to graduate)
o It is the contractual obligation of the school to timely inform and
furnish sufficient notice and information to each and every
student as to whether he or she had already complied with all
the requirements for the conferment of a degree or whether
they would be included among the those who will graduate.
o Graduation ceremony is the educational institutions way of
announcing to the whole world that the students included in the
list of those who will be conferred a degree during the ceremony
have satisfied all the requirements for such degree.
Unjust Enrichment
Civil Code
o Articles 22 and 23 (Memorize)
Cases
Security Bank & Trust Company v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117009,
October 11, 1995 (
Uy v. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 147925-26, July 7, 2010
Car Cool Philippines, Inc., v. Ushio Realty and Development
Corporation, G.R. No. 138088, January 23, 2006
Almario v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 170928, September 11,
2007
Grandteq Industrial Steel Products, Inc., v. Margallo, G.R. No. 181393,
July 28, 2009
C.
Judicial Vigilance
-
Civil Code
o Article 24 (Memorize)
Case
1.
D.
Thoughtless Extravagance
E.
Civil Code
o Article 25 (Memorize)
Disrespect of Persons
Civil Code
o Article 26 (Memorize)
Cases
Dereliction of Duty
Civil Code
o Article 27 (Memorize)
Cases
Philippine Match Co., Ltd., v. City of Cebu, G.R. No. L-30745, January
18, 1978 (there was a tax ordinance; treasurer did not follow the
advise of city fiscal)
o The fiscals opinion on the legality of the ordinance is merly
advisory.
o The record clearly reveals that the city treasurer honestly
believed that he was justified under the tax ordinance in
collecting the sales tax.
o The city treasure acted within the scope of his authority and in
consonance with his bonafide interpretation of the tax
ordinance.
o A punlic officer is not personally liable to one inured in
consequence of an act performed within the scope of his official
authority, and in the line of his official duty.
Tuzon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 90107, August 21, 1992
(defendant was not issued business permit without signing the
agreement of )
o The record discloses that the resolution was uniformly applied to
all the threshers in in the municipality without discrimination.
Vital-Gozon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129132, July 8, 1998 (
doctor was demoted)
Unfair Competition
Civil Code
o Article 28 (Memorize)
Cases
Civil Code
o Article 32 (Memorize)
Cases
Civil Code
o Article 1314 (Memorize)
Cases
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
IX.
Rules of Court
o Rule 111
Civil Code
o Articles 29 to 31, and 33 to 36 (Memorize)
Cases
DAMAGES
A.
-
In General
Civil Code
o
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Case
Ong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117103, January 21, 1999
B.
1.
Actual Damages
Civil Code
o Articles 2199 to 2202, 2204 to 2213
o Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 799, series of 2013
Memorize: Articles 2199, 2200, 2201, 2202, 2204, 2205,
and 2208
Cases
PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 107518, October 8, 1998
Algarra v. Sandejas, 27 Phil. 284 (1914)
Cerrano v. Tan Chuco, G.R. No. 12907, August 1, 1918
Hicks v. Manila Hotel Company, G.R. No. 9973, November 6, 1914
Justiva v. Gustilo, 7 SCRA 72 (1963)
De Guia v. The Manila Electric Railroad & Light Company, G.R. No.
14335, January 28, 1920
Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 91852, August
15, 1995
Lim v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125817, January 16, 2002
Adrian Wilson International Associates, Inc., v. TMX Philippines,
Inc., G.R. No. 162608, July 26, 2010
People v. Mamaruncas, G.R. No. 179497, January 25, 2012
People v. Arellano, G.R. No. 122477, June 30, 2000
People v. Anticamara, G.R. No. 178771, June 8, 2011
Cariaga v. Laguna Tayabas Bus Company, G.R. No. L-11037,
December 29, 1960
Villa Rey Transit v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-25499, February
18, 1970
Cruz v. Sun Holidays, Inc., G.R. No. 186312, June 29, 2010
De Caliston v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-63135, June 24, 1983
Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
116617, November 16, 1998
Tamayo v. Seora, G.R. No. 176946, November 15, 2010
Philippine Hawk Corporation v. Lee, G.R. No. 166869, February 16,
2010
OMC Carriers, Inc., v. Nabua, G.R. No. 148974, July 2, 2010
Spouses Perea v. Spouses Zarate, G.R. No. 157917, August 29,
2012
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.