Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
FACTS:
Julie Ann Gotiong and Wendell Libi, both minors, were sweethearts until the
former broke up with the latter after she found out that Wendell was irresponsible and
sadistic. Wendell wanted reconciliation but was not granted by Julie so it prompted him to
FACTS:
resort to threats. One day, they were found dead from a single gunshot wound each
coming from the same Smith and Wesson revolver licensed in the name of petitioner
While driving from her restaurant atAraneta Avenue towards the direction of
CresencioLibi. There being no eyewitnesses to the crime, the parents of Julie herein private
Manila, Ma. Lourdes Valenzuela noticed that she had a flat tire so she parked along the
respondents claimed that with the use of the same gun, Wendell took his own life after
sidewalk, placed her emergency lights and sought help. While she was pointing her tools to
killing Julie.
the man who would help her fixed the tires, she was suddenly hit by another car driven by
Richard Li who was intoxicated. She was sent to UERM where she stayed for 20 days and
The parents of Julie filed a civil case against the parents of Wendell to recover
her leg was amputated and was replaced with an artificial one. She filed an action to
damages. Trial court dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence but was set
aside by CA and held petitioners liable under Art. 2180 of the NCC.Hence this case.
The RTC found Richard guilty of gross negligence and liable for damages under
ISSUE:
2176 of the Civil Code. Alexander Commercial Inc., Lis employer, was also found jointly
and severally liable.Upon appeal, CA agreed with the decision of the lower court regarding
Whether or not the parents of Wendell Libi should be held liable for vicarious
the liability of Li. However, CA absolved the liability of Alexander Commercial Inc. CA also
liability.
RULING:
Hence, both parties assailed the respondent courts decision by filing two separate
petitions.
YES. The subsidiary liability of parents for damages caused by their minor children
imposed under Art 2180 of the Civil Code and Art. 101 of Revised Penal Code covered
ISSUE:
obligations arising from both quasi-delicts and criminal offenses. The court held that the
Whether or not Alexander Commercial Inc., as Lis employer, be held jointly and
civil liability of the parents for quasi-delict of their minor children is primary and not
severally liable.
subsidiary and that responsibility shall cease when the persons can prove that they
observe all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. However, Wendells
RULING:
mother testified that her husband owns a gun which he kept in a safety deposit box inside
YES. The Court agreed with the CA that the relationship of the employer and
a drawer in their bedroom. Each of the spouses had their own key. She likewise admitted
employee was not based on the principle of respondent superior, which held the master
that during the incident, the gun was no longer in the safety deposit box. Wendell could
liable for acts of the servant, but that of pater familias, in which the liability ultimately fell
not have gotten hold of the gun unless the key was left negligently lying around and that
upon the employer for his failure to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in
he has free access of the mothers bag where the key was kept. The spouses failed to
the selection and supervision of his employees. Under the concept of pater familias
observe and exercise the required diligence of a good father to prevent such damage.
RULING:
embodied by Article 2180, the employer may be relieved from any liability upon showing
that he exercised the diligence of a good father of the family. Once the evidence is
NO. The Supreme Court do not believe that parental authority is properly regarded
introduced showing that the employer exercised the required amount of care, half of the
as having been retroactively transferred to and vested in the adopting parents at the time
the air rifle shooting happened. The Supreme Court do not consider that retroactive effect
may be given to the decree of adoption so as to impose a liability upon the adopting parents
Alexander Commercial Inc. had not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court
accruing at a time when adopting parents had no actual or physically custody over the
that it exercised the care and diligence of a good father of the family in entrusting its
adopted child. Retroactive affect may perhaps be given to the granting of the petition for
company car to Li. No allegations were made as to whether or not the company took the
adoption where such is essential to permit the accrual of some benefit or advantage in
steps necessary to determine or ascertain the driving proficiency and history of Li to whom
favor of the adopted child. In the instant case, however, to hold that parental authority had
it gave full and unlimited use of a company car. Not having been able to overcome the
been retroactively lodged in the adopting spouses so as to burden them with liability for a
burden of demonstrating that should be absolved of liability for entrusting its company car
tortious act that they could not have foreseen and which they could not have prevented
to Li, said company based on the principle of bonus pater familias, ought to be jointly and
would be unfair and unconscionable, it would be inconsistent with the philosophical and
severally liable with Li for the injuries sustained by Valenzuela during the accident.
accused was not in fact subject to their control at the time the tort was committed.
FACTS:
spouses
Bundoc
are
the
natural
parents
of
the
minor
accused
AdelbertoBundoc who shot and killed Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle. The parents of the
FACTS:
victim filed a civil complaint for damages against the natural parents of the accused on the
ground of quasi-delict under the doctrine of vicarious liability. The natural parents of the
Alfredo Amadora was a highschool graduating student of Colegio de San JoseRecoletos. Three days before his graduation he went to the school to show his physics
experiment as a prerequisite for his graduation. While he was at the school's auditorium,
he was shot to death by his classmate PablitoDaffon. Daffon was convicted of homicide
thru reckless imprudence. Additionally, Alfredo's parents filed a civil action for damages
under article 2180 of the civil code against Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, its rector the
highschool principal, the dean of boys and the physics teacher. The Court of Appeals
completely absolved all the said defendants. Hence the petition.
accused contended that they are free from any parental responsibility arising from the
crime committed by their son, on the ground that parental authority was shifted to the
adopters of their son by virtue of an issuance of a decree of adoption. The natural parents
contended that the decree has a retroactive effect to the time the petition for adoption was
filed, which in this case was filed before the shooting incident happened but was decreed
after the accused killed the victim.
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
Whether or not in the given circumstance the adopting parents are liable under the
RULING:
NO. The high school principal and the dean of boys cannot be held liable because
none of them was the teacher-in-charge, each of them was exercising only a general
authority over the student body and not the direct control and influence exerted by the
teacher placed in charge of particular classes or sections and thus immediately involved in
its discipline. The evidence of the parties does not disclose who the teacher-in-charge of the
offending student was. The mere fact that Alfredo had gone to school that day in
connection with his physics report did not necessarily make the physics teacher, the
teacher-in-charge of Alfredo's killer. At any rate, assuming that he was the teacher-incharge, there is no showing that he was negligent in enforcing discipline upon Daffon or
that he had waived observance of the rules and regulations of the school or condoned their
non-observance. His absence when the tragedy happened cannot be considered against
him because he was not supposed or required to report to school on that day. And while it
is true that the offending student was still in the custody of the teacher-in-charge even if
the latter was physically absent when the tort was committed, it has not been established
that it was caused by his laxness in enforcing discipline upon the student. On the
contrary, the private respondents have proved that they had exercised due diligence,
through the enforcement of the school regulations, in maintaining that discipline. In the
absence of a teacher-in-charge, it is probably the dean of boys who should be held liable
especially in view of the unrefuted evidence that he had earlier confiscated an unlicensed
gun from one of the students and returned the same later to him without taking
disciplinary action or reporting the matter to higher authorities. While this was clearly
negligence on his part, for which he deserves sanctions from the school, it does not
necessarily link him to the shooting of Alfredo as it has not been shown that he confiscated
the gun and the returned pistol was the gun that killed the victim. Colegio de San JoseRecoletos cannot be held directly liable under the article because only the teacher or the
head of the school of arts and trades is made responsible for the damage caused by the
student or apprentice. Neither can it be held to answer for the tort committed by any of the
other private respondents for none of them has been found to have been charged with the
custody of the offending student or has been remiss in the discharge of his duties in
connection with such custody.
Ferdinand Castillo, a freshman student at the St. Francis High School, wanted to
join a school picnic. His parents, respondent spouses Dr. Romulo Castillo and Lilia Cadiz
Castillo, because of short notice, did not allow their son to join but merely allowed him to
bring food to the teachers for the picnic, with the directive that he should go back home
after doing so. However, because of persuasion of the teachers, Ferdinand went on with
them to the beach. During the picnic, one of the female teachers was apparently drowning.
Some of the students, including Ferdinand, came to her rescue, but in the process, it was
Ferdinand himself who drowned. He died. Respondent spouses filed a civil case against
petitioner and some of their teachers.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner school and teachers are liable.
RULING:
NO. Before an employer may be held liable for the negligence of his employee, the
act or omission which caused damage must have occurred while an employee was in the
performance of his assigned tasks.
In the case at bar, the teachers/petitioners were not in the actual performance of
their assigned tasks. What was held was a purely private affair, a picnic, which did not
have permit from the school since it was not a school sanctioned activity. Mere knowledge
by petitioner/principal of the planning of the picnic does not in any way consent to the
holding of the same.
No negligence could be attributable to the petitioners-teachers to warrant the
award of damages to the respondents-spouses. The class adviser of the section where
Ferdinand belonged did her best and exercised diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent any untoward incident or damages to all the students who joined the picnic.
FACTS:
FACTS:
Zheinith, a 6 year old child, died due to multiple injuries she sustained during the
Carlitos Bautista was a third year student at the Philippine School of Business
Administration. The assailants, who were not members of the schools academic
community, while in the premises of PSBA, stabbed Bautista to death. This incident
Criselda and Zheinithwas at the 2nd floor of the Syvels Department Store in
prompted his parents to file a suit against PSBA and its corporate officers for damages due
Makati City. Criselda was signing her credit card slip at the payment and verification
to their alleged negligence, recklessness and lack of security precautions, means and
counter when she felt a loud thud. When she looked behind her, beheld her daughter on
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the compliant states no
Petioners contention was that they should not be held liable for the death of
cause of action against them based on quasi-delicts, as the said rule does not cover
Zheinith, as the counter that befell her was caused by the negligence of both Criselda and
academic institutions.
Zheinith. Being the mother, she must assure the safety of her child. Criselda attributed
negligence when she let go of Zheinith which allowed her to come near the counter. On the
ISSUE:
other hand, the respondents contention was that the fall of the counter being the
proximate cause of death of Zheinith was because of negligence of the owner of the
establishment as it was not nailed and shaky.
RULING:
ISSUE:
YES. The circumstances of the present case show a contractual relation between
the PSBA and Carlitos Bautista, the rules on quasi-delict do not really govern. A perusal of
Article 2176 shows that obligations arising from quasi-delicts or tort, also known as extra-
RULING:
contractual obligations, arise only between parties not otherwise bound by contract,
whether express or implied. However, this impression has not prevented the Supreme
YES. Petitioner Panelo and other store supervisor were personally informed by the
Court from determining the existence of a tort even when there obtains a contract.
witnesses while they were still working at the said establishment that the counter was
unstable for the reason that it was not nailed on the floor. Yet, neither initiated any
Article 2180, in conjunction with Article 2176 of the Civil Code, establishes the
concrete action to remedy the situation. Even if the court attributes contributory
rule in in loco parentis. Article 2180 provides that the damage should have been caused or
negligence to ZHIENETH and assume that she climbed over the counter, no injury should
inflicted by pupils or students of the educational institution sought to be held liable for the
acts of its pupils or students while in its custody. However, this material situation does not
exist in the present case for, as earlier indicated, the assailants of Carlitos were not
It is also provided under Article 12, par. 2-3 of the Revised Penal Code, that a child
students of the PSBA, for whose acts the school could be made liable. But it does not
under nine (9) years of age must be conclusively incapable of contributory negligence.
a contract between them, resulting in bilateral obligations which both parties is bound to
comply with. For its part, the school undertakes to provide the student with an education
that would presumably suffice to equip him with the necessary tools and skills to pursue
higher education or a profession. This includes ensuring the safety of the students while in
FACTS:
the school premises. On the other hand, the student covenants to abide by the school's
immediate cause of the accident was not the reckless driving of James but the detachment
of the steering wheel guide of the jeep. Furthermore, there was no evidence that petitioner
allowed the minor to drive the jeep of Villanueva. The mechanical defect was an event over
which the school has no control hence they may not be held liable for the death resulting
from such accident.
The registered owner of any vehicle, even if not used for public service, would
primarily be responsible to the public or to 3rd persons for injuries caused while it is being
driven on the road. It is not the school, but the registered owner of the vehicle who shall
FACTS:
be held responsible for damages for the death of Sherwin. Case was remanded to the trial
court for determination of the liability of the defendants excluding herein petitioner.
FACTS:
Larayan Elementary School, Dapitan City. The jeep was driven by James Daniel II then 15
years old and a student of the same school. Allegedly, the latter drove the jeep in a reckless
Romeo Vasquez, the deceased son of herein respondents, was driving a motorcycle,
traveling counter-clockwise, but without any protective helmet or goggles. He was also only
carrying a Student's Permit to Drive at the time. Upon the other hand, Benjamin Abad was
a manager of Appellant Castilex Industrial Corporation, registered owner of a Toyota Hi-Lux
Pick-up, on the same date and time, drove the said company car out of a parking lot.
However, instead of going around the Osmea rotunda he made a short cut which was
against the flow of traffic in proceeding to his route. In the process, the motorcycle of
Vasquez and the pick-up of Abad collided with each other causing severe injuries to the
former. Abad stopped his vehicle and brought Vasquez to the Southern Islands Hospital
and later to the Cebu Doctor's Hospital. However, despite of the prompt medical attention,
Vasquez eventually died.
RULING:
ISSUE:
manner and as a result the jeep turned turtle. Sherwin Carpitanos died as a result of the
injuries he sustained from the accident. The parents of Sherwin filed a case against James
Daniel II and his parents, James Daniel Sr. and Guada Daniel, the vehicle owner, Vivencio
Villanueva and St. Marys Academy before the RTC of Dipolog City and claimed for
damages.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner St. Marys Academy is liable for damages for the
Whether or not an employer may be held vicariously liable for the death resulting
from the negligent operation by a managerial employee of a company-issued vehicle.
NO. For the petitioner to be held liable the act or omission to be considered
negligent must be the proximate cause of the injury caused thus, negligence needs to have
a causal connection to the accident. It must be direct and natural sequence of events,
RULING:
unbroken by any efficient intervening causes. The parents of the victim failed to show
such negligence on the part of the petitioner. The spouses Villanueva admitted that the
YES. A distinction must be made between the two provisions to determine what is
applicable. Both provisions apply to employers: the fourth paragraph, to owners and
managers of an establishment or enterprise; and the fifth paragraph, to employers in
general, whether or not engaged in any business or industry. The fourth paragraph covers
negligent acts of employees committed either in the service of the branches or on the
occasion of their functions, while the fifth paragraph encompasses negligent acts of
employees acting within the scope of their assigned task. The latter is an expansion of the
former in both employer coverage and acts included. Negligent acts of employees, whether
or not the employer is engaged in a business or industry, are covered so long as they were
acting within the scope of their assigned task, even though committed neither in the
service of the branches nor on the occasion of their functions. For, admittedly, employees
oftentimes wear different hats. They perform functions which are beyond their office, title
or designation but which, nevertheless, are still within the call of duty.
manager Balingit. In its defense, Balingit contends that he must not be implicated in the
said case because he was not Pineda's employer.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the terms "employers" and "owners and managers of an
establishment or enterprise" (dueos o directores de unestablicimiento o empresa) used in
article 2180 of the Civil Code embrace the manager of a corporation owning a truck.
RULING:
NO. The Court is of the opinion that those terms do not include the manager of a
corporation. It may be gathered from the context of article 2180 that the term "manager"
("director" in the Spanish version) is used in the sense of "employer".
Under the fifth paragraph of Article 2180, whether or not engaged in any business
or industry, an employer is liable for the torts committed by employees within the scope of
his assigned tasks. But it is necessary to establish the employer-employee relationship;
once this is done, the plaintiff must show, to hold the employer liable, that the employee
was acting within the scope of his assigned task when the tort complained of was
committed. It is only then that the employer may find it necessary to interpose the defense
of due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee.
MARTINV.COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 82248,30 January 1992
FACTS:
Ernesto Martin was the owner of a private car which crashed into a Meralco
Herein respondent Pineda was recklessly driving a freight truck owned by Phil-
electric post in Antipolo, Rizalwhile being driven by Nestor Martin. The car was wrecked
American Forwarders and bumped a bus driven by herein petitioner Pangalangan along
and the pole severely damaged. Meralco sued him for damages as the employer of Nestor
national highway at Sto. Tomas, Pampanga. As a result, petitioner suffered injuries and
Martin after he rejected the demand for reparation. His main defense was that Nestor
thereafter filed a case of damages against Pineda, Phil-American Frowarders and its
Martin was not his employee. He moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that no
evidence had been adduced to show that Nestor Martin was his employee. The motion was
denied. He did not rebut the plaintiff's allegation that he was Nestor Martin's employer. The
RTC ruled in favor of Meralco, which was affirmed by the CA, prompting this petition for
review.
G.R. No. 77716,17 February 1988
ISSUE:
Whether or not Ernesto Martin is liable for damages.
FACTS:
A Plymouth car driven by accused HernaniMelvida figured in an accidentwith a
RULING:
Victory Liner busdriven by accused Almario Rosas. Passenger of Plymouth car Dra.
Corazon Diaz-Leus was pinned to death inside
NO. Whether or not engaged in any business or industry, the employer under
the
car together
with another
passenger,Carbilledo.
Article 2180 is liable for the torts committed by his employees within the scope of their
assigned task. It is necessary first to establish the employment relationship. Thereafter, the
Upon arraignment Rosas and Melvida entered a plea of not guilty and after trial a
plaintiff must show, to hold the employer liable, that the employee was acting within the
decision was rendered by the trial court finding the accused Melvida guilty beyond
scope of his assigned task when the tort complained of was committed. It is only then that
reasonable doubt of the offense charged but accused Almario Rosasacquitted for failure to
the defendant, as employer, may find it necessary to interpose the defense of due diligence
establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. From said decision,CletoLeus and his
children, as legal heirs, appealed to the CA only with respect to the civil aspect.
In the case at bar, no evidence whatsoever was adduced by Meralco to show that
the petitioner was the employer of Nestor Martin at the time of the accident. The trial court
merely presumed the existence of the employer-employee relationship and held that the
ISSUE:
petitioner had not refuted that presumption. As the employment relationship between
Ernesto Martin and Nestor Martin could not be presumed, it was necessary for the plaintiff
Whether or not accused-appellee Almario Rosas could still be held civilly liable
to establish it by evidence. Meralco had the burden of proof, or the duty to present
evidence on the fact in issue necessary to establish his claim as required by the Revised
Rules of Court. Failure to do so was fatal to its action.It was enough for the petitioner to
deny the alleged employment relationship, without more, for he was not under obligation to
prove this negative averment. Wherefore, Ernesto is not liable for damages.
RULING:
NO. The findings of the Court of Appeals were a complete exoneration of Rosas.
The accident in question cannot be attributed to any negligence of appellee Rosas. Rosas
who was properly traversing his own lane should not be expected to anticipate and/or
the records of the petition failed to indicate the slightest indicia of an employer-employee
foresee that a private car coming from the North lane would be thrown to his path. The
relationship between the owner and the erring driver or any consent given by the owner for
proximate cause of the accident is the Plymouth car leaving its proper lane, swerving to its
left and intruding into the other lane. Since petitioner's appeal on the civil aspect is
predicated upon Rosas' alleged negligence which has been found not to exist, this Court
must likewise uphold the Court of Appeals' ruling that Rosas' acquittal in the criminal case
BANAL V. TADEO
carries with it the extinction of his civil liability which bars herein petitioners from
recovering damages from Rosas. Since Rosas is absolved from any act of negligence which
in effect prevents further recovery of any damages, the same is true with respect to his
FACTS:
employer victory Liner, Inc. which at most would have been only subsidiarily liable.
The respondent court issued an order rejecting the appearance of Atty. Nicolito L.
Bustos as private prosecutor on the ground that the charge is for the violation of BP Blg.
22 which does not provide for any civil liability or indemniy, hence, it is not a crime against
property but public order. Petitioner contends that indemniy may be recovered from
offender regardless of whether or not BP Blg. 22 so provides.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
The jeep driven by defendant Sabiniano collided with another jeep which had two
passengers. As a result, the passengers died and the automobile was greatly damaged. A
RULING:
case was filed against Sabiniano as driver and against Duavit as owner of the jeep.
Sabiniano himself admitted that he took Duavit's jeep from the garage without consent or
YES. Article 20 of the new civil code provides: "Every person who contrary to law,
authority of the owner. He testified further that Duavit even filed charges against him for
wilfully, or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same."
theft of the jeep, but which Duavit did not push through as the parents of Sabiniano
apologized to Duavit on his behalf.
ISSUE:
party may be had on account of the damage, loss or injury directly suffered as a
pay forms part of the penalty imposed by law for the commission of a crime.
Whether or not the owner of the private vehicle can be held liable when the vehicle
is neither driven by an employee of the owner nor taken with his consent.
HERNANDEZ V. DOLOR
RULING:
NO. The jeep was virtually stolen from the petitioner's garage. To hold petitioner
liable for the accident caused by the the negligence of Sabiniano who was neither his driver
FACTS:
nor employee would be absurd as it would be like holding liable the owner of a stolen
vehicle for an accident caused by the person who stole such vehicle. Where as in this case,
Lorenzo Menard Dolor, Jr. was driving an owner-type jeepney. As he was traversing
delict is solidary. In other words, the liability of joint tortfeasors is solidary. Verily, under
the road at Barangay Anilao East, Mabini, Batangas, his vehicle collided with a passenger
Article 2180 of the Civil Code, an employer may be held solidarily liable for the negligent
Hernandez. Boyet Dolor and his passenger, Oscar Valmocina, died as a result of the
collision. Fred Panopio, Rene Castillo and Joseph Sandoval, who were also on board the
owner-type jeep, suffered physical injuries. The collision also damaged the passenger
SYKI V. BEGASA
Respondents commenced an action and the trial court rendered a decision in favor of
respondents. Thus, petitioners appealed.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Respondent Salvador Begasa and his three companions flagged down a passenger
Whether or not Hernandez spouses was solidarily liable with Juan Gonzales.
jeepney driven by Joaquin Espina and owned by Aurora Pisuena. While respondent was
boarding the passenger jeepney, a truck driven by ElizaldeSablayan and owned by
RULING:
petitioner Ernesto Syki bumped the rear end of the passenger jeepney. Respondent fell and
YES. Article 2180 provides: The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable
fractured his left thigh bone. Respondent filed a complaint for damages for breach of
not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
common carriers contractual obligations and quasi-delict against Aurora Pisuena, herein
responsible.
petitioner Ernesto Syki, and ElizaldeSablayan. The trial court dismissed the complaint
against Aurora Pisuena, the owner and operator of the passenger jeepney but ordered
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and
petitioner Ernesto Syki and his truck driver, ElizaldeSablayan, to pay respondent Salvador
household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former
Begasa, jointly and severally, actual and moral damages. Petitioner filed the instant petition
and contents that the appellate court erred in not finding respondent Begasa guilty of
contributory negligence.
ISSUE:
RULING:
While the above provisions of law do not expressly provide for solidary liability, the
same can be inferred from the wordings of the first paragraph of Article 2180 which states
NO. Article 2179 provides that when the plaintiffs own negligence was the
that the obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or
immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being
the defendants lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall
Moreover, Article 2180 should be read with Article 2194 of the same Code, which
categorically states that the responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi-
There was no evidence that respondent Begasa and his three companions flagged
YES. There is no indication that there was greater risk in loading the cargoes
down the passenger jeepney in a prohibited area. All the facts showed was that the
outside the breakwater. It was that no tugboat towed back the barge to the pier after the
passenger
Magsaysay
cargoes were completely loaded. However, a material fact which the appellate court failed to
Streets, Bacolod City when petitioners driver bumped it from the rear. No city resolution,
properly consider and appreciate. the proximate cause of the loss of the cargoes. Had
traffic regulation or DPWH memorandum was presented to show that the passenger
the barge been towed back promptly to the pier, the deteriorating sea conditions
jeepney picked up respondent and his three companions in a prohibited area. Since the
notwithstanding, the loss could have been avoided. But the barge was left floating in open
negligence of petitioners driver was the sole and proximate cause of the accident,
sea until big waves set in causing it to sink along with the cargoes.
jeepney
was
near
the
corner
of
Araneta
and
petitioner is liable, under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, to pay damages to respondent
In the case of TVI, Its failure to promptly provide a tugboat did not only increase
the risk that might have been reasonably anticipated during the shipside operation, but
was the proximate cause of the loss.
INC.
during and after the occurrence of the storm in order that it may be exempted from liability
for the loss of the goods. While petitioner sent checkers and a supervisor on board the
vessel to counter-check the operations of TVI, it failed to take all available and reasonable
FACTS:
precautions to avoid the loss. After noting that TVI failed to arrange for the prompt towage
of the barge despite the deteriorating sea conditions, it should have summoned the same
favor of the consignee, Little Giant Steel Pipe Corporation and assigned it a place of berth
outside breakwater at the Manila South Harbor. Schmitz Transport, whose services the
consignee engaged to secure the requisite clearances, to receive the cargoes from the
shipside, and to deliver them to its warehouse, in turn engaged the services of TVI to send
a barge and tugboat at shipside. TVIs tugboat towed the barge to shipside and after
positioning the barge alongside the vessel, left and returned to the port terminal. Arrastre
FACTS:
operator Ocean Terminal Services Inc. commenced to unload the cargoes from the vessel
unto the barge. During that time, weather conditions had become inclement due to an
Plaintiff maintained a current account with defendant Far East Bank and Trust
approaching storm but after the unloading, no tugboat pulled the barge back. Due to
Company. The sole signatory to Samsung Constructions account was its Project Manager,
strong waves, the barge eventually capsized, washing the cargoes into the sea.
ISSUE:
A certain Roberto Gonzaga presented for payment a check payable to cash and
drawn against Petitioners current account. The Project managers signature was duly
authenticated by the bank teller with the formers specimen signature, counterchecked by
the branch Senior Assistant and another bank officer, and its genuineness acknowledged
RULING:
by the assistant accountant of petitioner, stating that the check was for the purchase of
10
equipment for Samsung Construction. Satisfied with the genuineness of the signature,
apartment when there had been built an adobe fence in the passageway making it
narrower in width. The trial court ordered then defendants Custodio and Santoses to give
Mabasa permanent access ingress and egress while ordering the latter to pay defendants
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
RULING:
RULING:
YES. The draweewho has paid upon the forged signature is held to bear the loss,
because he has been negligent in failing to recognize that the handwriting is not that of his
NO. The mere fact that the respondent suffered losses does not give rise to a right
customer. Quite palpably, the general rule remains that the draweewho has paid upon the
to recover damages. To warrant the recovery of damages, there must be both a right of
forged signature bears the loss. The exception to this rule arises only when negligence can
action for a legal wrong inflicted by the petitioner, and damage resulting to the respondent
be traced on the part of the drawer whose signature was forged, and the need arises to
therefrom. In the case at bar, although there was damage, there was no legal injury. The
weigh the comparative negligence between the drawer and the drawee to determine who
act of petitioners in constructing a fence within their lot is a valid exercise of their right as
should bear the burden of loss. The Court finds no basis to conclude that Samsung
owners, hence not contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. Whatever injury or
Construction was negligent in the safekeeping of its checks. And point of fact, it reported
damage may have been sustained by private respondents by reason of the rightful use of
the forgery almost immediately upon discovery. The Court recently emphasized that the
the said land by petitioners is damnum absque injuria. There is no cause of action for acts
highest degree of care and diligence is required of banks. Banks are engaged in a business
done by one person upon his own property in a lawful and proper manner, although such
impressed with public interest, and it is their duty to protect in return their many clients
and depositors who transact business with them. They have the obligation to treat their
MENDOZA V. CASUMPANG
clients account meticulously and with the highest degree of care, considering the fiduciary
nature of their relationship. The diligence required of banks, therefore, is more than that of
a good father of a family.
FACTS:
CRISTINO V. COURT OF APPEALS
Mendoza at the Iloilo Doctors Hospital. After her operation, Josephine experienced
FACTS:
recurring fever, nausea and vomiting. And barely three months thereafter, she noticed
while taking a bath something protruding from her genital. As she never underwent any
Respondent PacificoMabasa filed a civil case against petitioners for the grant of an
other operation except the one she had with Dr. Mendoza, it prompted her to file damage
easement of right of way. He was substituted by his surviving spouse, Ofelia, when he died
suit against the latter. However, she was substituted by her husband and their children as
during the pendency of the case. Respondent owns a parcel of land with a two-door
ISSUE:
premises and who were acknowledged by Mabasa as tenants. Some tenants vacated the
11
Whether or not Dr. Mendoza is guilty of gross negligence that an award of damages
is proper.
defendant must have acted or failed to act in such a way that an ordinary reasonable man
would have realized that certain interests of certain persons were unreasonably subjected
RULING:
YES. Exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the
The
public good as well as in cases of gross negligence. In the case at bar, a surgical operation
acts
of
negligence
of
Arnulfo
Ramos
and
Benigno
Valdez
were
is the responsibility of the surgeon performing it. To provide an example to the medical
despite knowledge of its mechanical defect, while Valdez did not immediately veer to the
profession and to stress the need for constant vigilance in attending to a patients health,
rightmost side of the road upon seeing the wiggling vehicle of Ramos. The doctrine of last
the award of exemplary damages in this case is in order. And in view of Josephines death
clear chance applies to a situation was guilty of prior or antecedent negligence, but the
defendant who had the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so
heirs.
is made liable for all the consequences of the accident, notwithstanding the prior
negligence of the plaintiff. However, the doctrine does not apply where the party charged is
ACHEVARA V. RAMOS
required to act instantaneously, and the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all
FACTS:
be said that it was Valdez who had the last clear chance to avoid the mishap, Valdez no
longer had the opportunity to avoid the collision. Considering that the time the owner-type
jeep encroached on the lane of Valdez to the time of impact was only a matter of seconds,
careless, and negligent manner when he tried to overtake a motorcycle, causing the
passenger jeep to encroach on the opposite lane and bump the oncoming vehicle driven by
Arnulfo Ramos. Petitioners denied the allegations and claimed that Valdez was driving
southward at a moderate speed when he saw an owner-type jeep coming from the south
FLORES V. PINEDA
and heading north, running in a zigzag manner, and encroaching on the west lane of the
road. To avoid a collision, Valdez drove the passenger jeep towards the shoulder of the
road, west of his lane, but the owner-type jeep continued to move toward the western lane
FACTS:
and bumped the left side of the passenger jeep. Petitioners alleged that it was Arnulfo
Ramos who was careless and negligent in driving a motor vehicle, which he very well knew
Teresita Pineda consulted Dr. Fredelicto Flores, where she complained of general
body weakness, loss of appetite, frequent urination and thirst, and on-and-off vaginal
bleeding. Dr. Fredelicto interviewed Teresita and subsequently advised her to return the
ISSUE:
next week for a general check-up. She failed to return the next week as advised, but when
her condition persisted, she further consulted Dr. Fredelicto at his UMDC clinic. The latter
did a routine check-up and ordered her to undergo an on-call D&C operation to be
performed by his wife, Dr. Felisima Flores. Teresita was taken to the operating room and
RULING:
12
indicated that her blood sugar was high. After the operation, Teresitas condition worsened.
check-writer, wherein in the blank for the 'Payee', the amount in words was written, with
She had difficulty in breathing and was rushed to the intensive care unit. Tests confirmed
that she was suffering from Diabetes Mellitus Type H. Insulin was administered on her but
Clearly there was an irregularity with the filling up of the blank checks as both
the medications were already too late and Teresita died eventually.
showed similar infirmities and irregularities and yet, the petitioner bank did not try to
ISSUE:
RULING:
RULING:
YES. Medical negligence occurs when a medical provider deviates from the
recognized standard of care in the treatment of patient. A negligence claim exists if a
YES. There was no dispute that the signatures in the checks are genuine but the
presence of irregularities on the face of the check should have alerted the bank to exercise
The attending physician should have postponed the D&C operation in order to
caution before encashing them. It is well-settled that banks are in the business impressed
conduct a confirmatory test to make a conclusive diagnosis of diabetes and to refer the
with public interest that they are duty bound to protect their clients and their deposits at
case to an expert. This clearly shows breach of duty. The act of the doctors in proceeding
all times. They must treat the accounts of these clients with meticulousness and a highest
the D&C operation without adequately preparing the victim is the logical cause of Teresitas
degree of care considering the fiduciary nature of their relationship. The diligence required
death. In Teresitas case, her laboratory test showed that her blood sugar level was way
above the normal blood sugar range. Thus, between the D&C and death was the diabetic
complication that could have been prevented with the observance of standard medical
and highly risky behavior which makes them also contributor to the loss. Its own
precautions.
negligence must therefore mitigate the petitioner's liability. Moreover, the person who stole
BANK OF AMERICA V. PHILIPPINE RACING CLUB
the checks is also an employee of the plaintiff, a cleck in its accounting department at that.
As the employer, PRC supposedly should have control and supervision over its own
employees.
The court held that the petitioner is liable for 60% of the total amount of damages
FACTS:
petitioner Bank of America. Its authorized signatories are the company President and Vice-
President. By virtue of a travel abroad for these officers, they pre-signed checks to
accommodate any expenses that may come up while they were abroad for a business trip.
FACTS:
The said pre-signed checks were left for safekeeping by PRCs accounting officer.
Unfortunately, the two of said checks came into the hands of one of its employees who
Spouses Tanjanco and Spouses Cuaso owned adjacent lots located at Corinthian
managed to encash it with petitioner bank. The said check was filled in with the use of a
13
Before, during and after the construction of the said house, Corinthian conducted
periodic ocular inspections in order to determine compliance with the approved plans
pursuant to the Manual of Rules and Regulations of Corinthian. Unfortunately, after the
Cuasos constructed their house, their perimeter fence encroached on the Tanjangcos Lot.
The Tanjangcos demanded that the Cuasos demolish the perimeter fence but the
FACTS:
latter failed and refused, prompting the Tanjangcos to file with the RTC a suit against the
NicanorNavidad, then drunk, entered the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a
Cuasos for Recovery of Possession with Damages. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of
token. While Navidad was standing on the platform near the LRT tracks, JunelitoEscartin,
the Tanjangcos, but held that the Cuasos are builders in good faith. The CA reversed such
the security guard assigned to the area approached Navidad. An altercation between the
two ensued that led to a fist fight. No evidence, however, was adduced to indicate how the
fight started or who, between the two, delivered the first blow or how Navidad later fell on
ISSUE:
the LRT tracks. At the exact moment that Navidad fell, an LRT train, operated by Rodolfo
Roman, was coming in. Navidad was struck by the moving train, and he was killed
Whether or not the petitioner is negligent and is thus liable for damages.
instantaneously.
RULING:
The
widow
of
Nicanorfiled
complaint
for
damages
against
JunelitoEscartin, Rodolfo Roman, the LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization, Inc., and
Prudent for the death of her husband. LRTA and Roman filed a counterclaim against
YES. The test to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be
Navidad and a cross-claim against Escartin and Prudent. Prudent, in its answer, denied
stated as follows: Did the defendant in committing the alleged negligent act use that
liability and averred that it had exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of
reasonable care and caution which an ordinary person would have used in the same
its security guards. The LRTA and Roman presented their evidence while Prudent and
situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The law, in effect, adopts the standard
Escartin, instead of presenting evidence, filed a demurrer contending that Navidad had
supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet paterfamilias in Roman law. The
ISSUE:
Whether or notPrudent is liable for tort under Article 2176, in conjunction with
It is not just or equitable to relieve Corinthian of any liability when, by its very own
RULING:
rules, it imposes its authority over all its members to the end that no new construction
can be started unless the plans are approved by the Association and the appropriate cash
NO. The premise for the employers liability is negligence or fault on the part of the
bond and pre-construction fees are paid. Moreover, Corinthian can impose sanctions for
employee. Once such fault is established, the employer can then be made liable on the
violating these rules. Corinthian's imprimatur on the construction of the Cuasos' perimeter
basis
wall over the property of the Tanjangcos assured the Cuasos that everything was in order.
exercise diligentissimipatris families in the selection and supervision of its employees. The
of
the
presumption juris
tantum that
the
employer
failed
to
liability is primary and can only be negated by showing due diligence in the selection and
supervision of the employee, a factual matter that has not been shown. Absent such a
wall into Tanjangcos property despite the inspection conducted constitutes negligence
showing, one might ask further, how then must the liability of the common carrier, on the
and, at the very least, contributed to the injury suffered by the Tanjangcos.
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
14
omission causes the injury, one resulting in culpa contractual and the other in culpa
particular, the petitioners failed to install safety railroad bars to prevent motorists from
aquiliana,Article 2194 of the Civil Code can well apply. In fine, a liability for tort may arise
crossing the tracks in order to give way to an approaching train. Aside from the absence of
even under a contract, where tort is that which breaches the contract. Stated differently,
a crossing bar, the Stop, Look and Listen signage installed in the area was poorly
when an act which constitutes a breach of contract would have itself constituted the source
maintained, hence, inadequate to alert the public of the impending danger. A reliable
of a quasi-delictual liability had no contract existed between the parties, the contract can
signaling device in good condition, not just a dilapidated Stop, Look and Listen signage, is
be said to have been breached by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.
needed to give notice to the public. It is the responsibility of the railroad company to use
Regrettably for LRT, as well as perhaps the surviving spouse and heirs of the late
reasonable care to keep the signal devices in working order. Failure to do so would be an
NicanorNavidad, this Court is concluded by the factual finding of the Court of Appeals that
indication of negligence.
there is nothing to link Prudent to the death of Nicanor, for the reason that the negligence
contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard
which he is required to conform for his own protection. It is an act or omission amounting
to want of ordinary care on the part of the person injured which, concurring with the
defendants negligence, is the proximate cause of the injury. Here, we cannot see how the
respondents could have contributed to their injury when they were not even aware of the
forthcoming danger. It was established during the trial that the jeepney carrying
FACTS:
the respondents was following a ten-wheeler truck which was only about three to five
Reynaldo Vizcara was driving a passenger jeepney headed towards Bicol with his
meters ahead. When the truck proceeded to traverse the railroad track, Reynaldo, the
companions. While crossing the railroad track, a PNR train, operated by respondent
driver of the jeepney, simply followed through. He did so under the impression that it was
Estranas, suddenly turned up and rammed the passenger jeepney. The collision resulted to
safe to proceed. Likewise, there was no crossing bar to prevent them from proceeding or, at
the instantaneous death of Reynaldo, Cresencio, Crispin, and Samuel. On the other hand,
least, a stoplight or signage to forewarn them of the approaching peril. Thus, relying on his
Dominador and Joel, sustained serious physical injuries. At the time of the accident, there
faculties of sight and hearing, Reynaldo had no reason to anticipate the impending danger.
was no level crossing installed at the railroad crossing. Additionally, the Stop, Look and
Listen signage was poorly maintained. Respondents filed an action for damages against
FACTS:
1. Whether or not the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the
Spouses Emilia BacoyMonsalud and Leonardo Monsalud, Sr. and their daughter
petitioners.
Glenda Monsalud, were run over by a Fuso passenger jeep driven by Allan Maglasang and
was registered in the name of petitioner. Consequently, a case was filed against Allan for
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Multiple Homicide before the RTC, which said court
RULING :
1. YES. Petitioners failure to install adequate safety devices at the railroad crossing
During the pendency of said criminal case, Emilias father, Geronimo Bacoy filed an
which proximately caused the collision. Petitioners fell short of the diligence expected of it,
independent civil action for damages based on culpa aquiliana to Allan and the petitioner.
taking into consideration the nature of its business, to forestall any untoward incident. In
15
Defendants refused to assume civil liability for the victims deaths. Petitioner averred that
Dr. Carlos Gerona, an orthopedic surgeon, treated petitioners' son, eight (8)-year-
the Monsaluds have no cause of action against them because Allan was not their employee
old Allen Key Bontilao, for a fractured right wrist. On June 4, 1992, Allen re-fractured the
anymore and the jeep was stolen when the incident happened. The RTC absolved the
same wrist and was brought back to the hospital. Respondent performed a closed
petitioner from all civil liability but was reversed by the CA.
reduction procedure, with Dr. Vicente Jabagat as the anesthesiologist. He allowed Allen to
go home after the post reduction x-ray showed that the bones were properly aligned, but
ISSUE:
advised Allen's mother, petitioner SherlinaBontilao, to bring Allen back for re-tightening of
the cast not later than June 15, 1992.
Whether or not the petitioner is liable for damages under the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur.
Allen, however, was brought back to the hospital only on June 22, 1992. By then, because
the cast had not been re-tightened, a rotational deformity had developed in Allen's arm.
RULING:
The x-ray examination showed that the deformity was caused by a re-displacement of the
bone fragments, so it was agreed that an open reduction surgery will be conducted by
YES. The SC held the petitioner liable for quasi-delict resulting from his jeeps use,
as all requisites under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur are present. First, no person just
walking along the road would suddenly be sideswiped and run over by an on-rushing
During the operation, Dr. Jabagat failed to intubate the patient after five attempts so
vehicle unless the one in charge of the said vehicle had been negligent. Second, the jeep
which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of petitioner as its owner.
anesthesia was administered through a gas mask. Respondent asked Dr. Jabagat if the
When
operation should be postponed given the failure to intubate, but Dr. Jabagat said that it
petitioner entrusted the ignition key to Rodrigo (Allans friend), he had the power to
was alright to proceed. Respondent verified that Allen was breathing properly before
instruct him with regard to the specific restrictions of the jeeps use, including who or who
proceeding with the surgery. As respondent was about to finish the suturing, Sherlina
may not drive it. As he is aware that the jeep may run without the ignition key, he also has
decided to go out of the operating room to make a telephone call and wait for her son.
the responsibility to park it safely and securely and to instruct his driver Rodrigo to
Later, she was informed that her son had died on the operating table. The cause of death
observe the same precaution. Lastly, there was no showing that the death of the victims
was
"asphyxia
due
to
congestion
and
edema
of
the
epiglottis.
ISSUE:
The aforementioned requisites having been met, there now arises a presumption of
negligence against the petitioner, which he could have overcome by evidence that he
exercised due care and diligence in preventing strangers from using his jeep. Absent the
circumstance of unauthorized use or that the subject vehicle was stolen which are valid
RULING:
defenses available to a registered owner, the petitioner cannot escape his civil liability on
this present case.
NO. The SC held that the court cannot properly declare that respondent failed to
exercise the required standard of care as lead surgeon as to hold him liable for damages for
BONTILAO V. GERONA
Allen's death under the doctrine of res ipsaloquitor. Petitioners failed to present substantial
evidence of any specific act of negligence on respondent's part or of the surrounding facts
and circumstances which would lead to the reasonable inference that the untoward
consequence was caused by respondent's negligence. In fact, under the established facts,
FACTS:
respondent appears to have observed the proper amount of care required under the
circumstances. Therefore res ipsaloquitor could not be invoked on this present case due to
16
lack of substantial evidence that the injury was caused by an agency or instrumentality
armory well-guarded. Jimmy Abon was supposed to be working in the armory with definite
under the exclusive control and management of the defendant, and that the injury was
instructions.
such that in the ordinary course of things would not happen if reasonable care had been
used.
Eastern Universitywhen he was shot by Alejandro Rosete, one of the security guards on
duty at the school premises. Rosete was brought to the police station where he explained
BCF is an ROTC Unit, Jimmy Abon as its duly appointed armorer. Not being an employee
of the BCF, he also received his salary from the AFP. Abon was also a commerce student of
the BCF.
ground that they breached their obligation to provide students with a safe and secure
environment and an atmosphere conducive to learning. Respondents, in turn, filed a Third-
In the parking space of BCF, Jimmy B. Abon shot Napoleon Castro, a student of
Party Complaint against Galaxy Development and Management Corporation, the agency
the University of Baguio, with an unlicensed firearm which the former took from the
contracted by respondent FEU to provide security services within its premises and Mariano
armory of the ROTC Unit of the BCF. As a result, Napoleon Castro died and Jimmy Abon
D. Imperial, Galaxy's President, to indemnify them for whatever would be adjudged in favor
was prosecuted for and convicted of the crime of Homicide by Military Commission No. 30,
of petitioner,
AFP.
Subsequently, the heirs of Napoleon Castro sued for damages, impleading Jimmy
student-school contract for a safe and secure environment and an atmosphere conducive
to learning.
the Board of BCF) and the Baguio Colleges Foundation Inc. as party defendants.
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners can be held solidarity liable with Jimmy Abon for
damages.
RULING:
RULING:
NO. Jimmy B. Abon cannot be considered to have been "at attendance in the
are bound to comply with. For its part, the school undertakes to provide the student with
school," or in the custody of BCF, when he shot Napoleon Castro. Logically, therefore,
an education that would presumably suffice to equip him with the necessary tools and
petitioners cannot, under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, be held solidarity liable for damages
skills to pursue higher education or a profession. On the other hand, the student
resulting from Abons acts. Record shows that before the shooting incident, Roberto Ungos,
covenants to abide by the schools academic requirements and observe its rules and
ROTC Unit Commandant, AFP, had instructed him not to leave the office and to keep the
regulations.
17
Respondent FEU failed to discharge the burden of proving that they exercised due
diligence. He was overspeeding at the time he hit Albaydas bicycle; he did not slow down
even when he approached the intersection. Such negligence was the sole and proximate
cause of the injuries sustained by Albayda. It was proven that Albayda had the right of way
since he reached the intersection ahead of Completo.
diligence in providing a safe learning environment for their students. It failed to show that
they undertook steps to ascertain and confirm that the security guards assigned to them
actually possess the qualifications required in the Security Service Agreement. Total
reliance on the security agency about these matters or failure to check the papers stating
Employers are liable for damage caused by employees, but the responsibility ceases
upon proof that employers observed the diligence of the good father of the family in the
selection and supervision of employees. The burden of proof is on the employer. The
employers civil liability for his employees negligent acts is also primary and direct, owing
to his own negligence in selecting and supervising them, and this liability attaches even if
the employer is not in the vehicle at the time of collision.
FACTS:
Albayda is a Master Sergeant of the PH Air Force, and Completo was the taxi driver
of a Toyota Corolla which was owned by Abiad. Albayda was riding a bike on his way to the
office, when Completos taxi bumped and sideswept him, causing serious physical injuries.
The Office of the City Prosecutor recommended the filing of an information for Albaydas
complaint, and Completos complaint was dismissed. Albayda manifested his reservation to
file a separate civil action for damages against Completo and Abiad.
FACTS:
Funtecha was a working student, being a part-time janitor and scholar of Filamer
ISSUE:
Christian Institute. One day, Funtecha, who already had a students drivers license,
requested Masa, the school driver and son of the school president, to allow him to drive the
Whether or not Abiad proved that he observed the diligence of a good father of
the family.
school vehicle. Assenting to the request, Masa stopped the vehicle he was driving and
allowed Funtecha to take over behind the wheel. However, after negotiating a sharp
RULING:
dangerous curb, Funtecha came upon a fast moving truck so that he had to swerve to the
right to avoid a collision. Upon swerving, they bumped a pedestrian walking in his lane.
YES. It is a rule in negligence suits that the plaintiff has the burden of proving by
a preponderance of evidence the motorists breach in his duty of care owed to the plaintiff,
that the motorist was negligent in failing to exercise the diligence required to avoid injury
to the plaintiff, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury suffered. It
was proven by a preponderance of evidence that Completo failed to exercise reasonable
18
RULING:
thereto, its provisions cover only the protection of BSP's properties, its officers, and
employees.
YES. The fact that Funtecha was not the school driver does not relieve the school
ISSUE:
from the burden of rebutting the presumption of negligence on its part. It is sufficient that
the act of driving at the time of the incident was for the benefit of the school.
Whether or not BSP may be held liable for the loss of the vehicle caused by the
Petitioner school has failed to show that it exercised diligence of a good father of
a family. Petitioner has not shown that it has set forth rules and guidelines as would
RULING:
prohibit any one of its employees from taking control over its vehicles if one is not the
official driver or prohibiting the authorized driver from letting anyone than him to drive the
NO. It is undisputed that the proximate cause of the loss of the Sps. Mamarils
vehicle. Furthermore, school had failed to show that it impose sanctions or warned its
vehicle was the negligent act of the security guards in allowing unidentified person to take
employees against the use of its vehicles by persons other than the driver. Thus, Filamer
the vehicle but there is nothing that point negligence on the part of BSP for it to be liable.
has an obligation to pay damages for injury arising from the unskilled manner by which
The two security guards are employees of AIB and where thus assigned by AIB to BSP in
Funtecha drove the vehicle since the law imposes upon the employers vicarious liability for
acts or omissions of its employees. The liability of the employer, under Article 2180, is
relationship between the security guard and BSP. The negligence of the security guard
primary and solidary. However, the employer shall have recourse against the negligent
cannot be attributed to BSP but rather to its true employer AIB. Liability for illegal or
employee for whatever damages are paid to the heirs of the plaintiff.
harmful acts committed by the security guards attaches to the employer agency, and not to
the clients or customers of such agency.
FACTS:
shall be assigned to it; the duty to observe the diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection of the guards cannot, in ordinary course of events, be demanded from a client
Spouses Benjamin Mamaril and Sonia P. Mamaril are jeepney operators. They
company whose premises or property are protected by the security guards. The fact that a
would park their six passenger jeepneys every night at the Boy Scout of the Philippines
client company may give instruction or direction to the security guards assigned to it, does
compound for a fee of P300.00 per month for each unit. However, one of the vehicles went
not, by itself render the client responsible as an employer of the security guards concerned
missing and was never recovered. BSP had contracted with AIB for its security and
protection. One night a male person who has the key of the vehicle took the lost jeepney
out of the compound and it was never recovered. Sps. Mamaril filed a complaint for
damages against BSP, AIB and the two security guards.
BSP denied any liability contending that not only did Sps. Mamaril directly deal
513 SCRA 478, 544 SCRA 178, 611 SCRA 282, 2 February 2010
with AIB with respect to the manner by which the parked vehicles would be handled, but
the parking ticket itself expressly stated that the "Management shall not be responsible for
loss of vehicle or any of its accessories or article left therein." It also claimed that Sps.
FACTS:
Mamaril erroneously relied on the Guard Service Contract. Apart from not being parties
19
2. NO. Dr. Fuentes performed the surgery and thereafter reported and showed his
difficulty of bowel movement and bloody anal discharge. Dr. Miguel Ampil diagnosed her to
work to Dr. Ampil who allowed Dr. Fuentes to leave the operating room under the "Captain
be suffering from cancer of the sigmoid. Dr. Ampil performed an anterior resection surgery
of the Ship" rule, the operating surgeon is the person in complete charge of the surgery
on Natividad and found that the malignancy in her sigmoid area had spread on her left
room and all personnel connected with the operation. Res ipsa loquitur is not a rule of
ovary, necessitating the removal of certain portions of it Dr. Ampil obtained the consent of
substantive law, hence, does not per se create or constitute an independent or separate
ground of liability, being a mere evidentiary rule mere invocation and application of the
that she consult an oncologist. The Aganas went to the United States to seek further
treatment and was told she was FREE from cancer. Natividad's daughter found a piece of
3. YES. Previously, employers cannot be held liable for the fault or negligence of its
gauze protruding from her vagina. Dr. Ampil proceeded to her house and extracted by
professionals. However, this doctrine has weakened since courts came to realize that
hand a piece of gauze and assuring that the pain will vanish. When the pain intensified,
modern hospitals are taking a more active role in supplying and regulating medical care to
NatividAd went to Polymedic General Hospital where Dr. Ramon Gutierrez found a foul-
its patients, by employing staff of physicians, among others. Hence, there is no reason to
smelling gauze which badly infected her vaginal vault which formed a recto-vaginal
fistula forcing her stool to excrete through the vagina. The spouses Agana then filed a
complaint for damages against Professional Services, Inc, Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes.
liable under Article 2176 in relation to Article 2180of the Civil Code or the principle
of respondeat superior. Even when no employment relationship exists but it is shown that
ISSUES:
the hospital holds out to the patient that the doctor is its agent, the hospital may still be
vicariously liable under Article 2176 in relation to Article 1431 and Article 1869 of the Civil
2. Whether or not Dr. Fuentes can be held liable under res ipsa loquitur.
Code or the principle of apparent authority. Moreover, regardless of its relationship with
3. Whether or not PSI should be liable for the negligence of Dr. Ampil.
RULING:
corporation. There is ample evidence that the hospital held out to the patient that the
doctorwas its agent. Present are the two factors that determine apparent authority: first,
1. YES. Leaving foreign substances in the wound after incision has been closed is
the hospital's implied manifestation to the patient which led the latter to conclude that the
at least prima facie negligence by the operating surgeon. Even if it has been shown that a
doctor was the hospital's agent; and second, the patients reliance upon the conduct of the
surgeon was required to leave a sponge in his patients abdomen because of the dangers
hospital and the doctor, consistent with ordinary care and prudence.
attendant upon delay, still, it is his legal duty to inform his patient within a reasonable
time by advising her of what he had been compelled to do, so she can seek relief from the
effects of the foreign object left in her body as her condition might permit. Whats worse in
this case is that he misled her by saying that the pain was an ordinary consequence of her
operation.
FACTS:
To successfully pursue this case of medical negligence, a patient must only prove
that a health care provider either failed to do something (or did something) which a
Pregnant with her fourth child, Corazon Nogales was under the exclusive prenatal
reasonably prudent health care provider would have done (or wouldnt have done), and that
care of Dr. Oscar Estrada beginning on her fourth month of pregnancy. Around midnight of
25 May 1976, Corazon started to experience mild labor pains prompting Corazon and
20
Rogelio Nogales to see Dr. Estrada at his home. After examining Corazon, Dr. Estrada
advised her immediate admission to the Capitol Medical Center.At 6:13 a.m., Corazon
started to experience convulsions. At 6:22 a.m., Dr. Estrada, assisted by Dr. Villaflor,
applied low forceps to extract Corazon's baby. In the process, a 1.0 x 2.5 cm. piece of
FACTS:
cervical tissue was allegedly torn.At 6:27 a.m., Corazon began to manifest moderate vaginal
Respondents car was hit by another while crossing an intersection. The other car
bleeding which rapidly became profuse. Corazon died at 9:15 a.m. The cause of death was
escaped from the scene of the incident, but Espinas was able to get its plate number and
ISSUE:
Respondent sent several letters to the petitioner, demanding payment for the
Whether or not CMC is vicariously liable for the negligence of Dr. Estrada.
damages sustained by his car. Respondent filed a complaint for damages against petitioner
and demanded that petitioner pay the actual damages sustained by his car.
RULING:
Petitioner denied any liability to Respondent and claimed that the incident was not
YES. Private hospitals, hire, fire and exercise real control over their attending and
due to its fault or negligence since the driver was not its employee but that of the
visiting "consultant" staff. The basis for holding an employer solidarily responsible for the
Corporate Secretary. Respondent said that they always exercised the due diligence required
negligence of its employee is found in Article 2180 of the Civil Code which considers a
person accountable not only for his own acts but also for those of others based on the
ISSUE:
Whether or not Filcar, as registered owner of the motor vehicle which figured in an
physician. There is, however, an exception to this principle. The hospital may be liable if
the physician is the "ostensible" agent of the hospital. This exception is also known as the
RULING:
YES. Filcar, as registered owner, is deemed the employer of the driver. Under
must show that: (1) the hospital, or its agent, acted in a manner that would lead a
Article 2176, in relation with Article 2180, of the Civil Code, an action predicated on an
reasonable person to conclude that the individual who was alleged to be negligent was an
employees act or omission may be instituted against the employer who is held liable for the
employee or agent of the hospital; (2) where the acts of the agent create the appearance of
authority, the plaintiff must also prove that the hospital had knowledge of and acquiesced
Although the employer is not the actual tortfeasor, the law makes him vicariously
in them; and (3) the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the conduct of the hospital or its
liable on the basis of the civil law principle of pater familias for failure to exercise due care
agent, consistent with ordinary care and prudence. In the instant case, CMC impliedly held
and vigilance over the acts of ones subordinates to prevent damage to another.
out Dr. Estrada as a member of its medical staff. Through CMC's acts, CMC clothed Dr.
Estrada with apparent authority thereby leading the Spouses Nogales to believe that Dr.
The Court did not agree with the petitioners contention that such provisions are
21
for the tort committed by the latter. The registered owner of the motor vehicle is the
NO. A client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-client relationship at
any time with or without cause. But this right of the client is not unlimited because good
faith is required in terminating the relationship. The limitation is based on Article 19 of
the Civil Code, which mandates that [e]very person must, in the exercise of his rights and
in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe
honesty and good faith. The right is also subject to the right of the attorney to be
compensated. This is clear from Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which
provides:
employer of the negligent driver, and the actual employer is considered merely as an agent
of such owner.
The rationale for the rule that a registered owner is vicariously liable for damages
caused by the operation of his motor vehicle is explained by the principle behind motor
vehicle registration which states that the main 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
xxx A client may at any time dismiss his attorney or substitute another in his
place, but if the contract between client and attorney has been reduced to writing and the
dismissal of the attorney was without justifiable cause, he shall be entitled to recover from
the client the full compensation stipulated in the contract. However, the attorney may, in
the discretion of the court, intervene in the case to protect his rights. For the payment of
his compensation the attorney shall have a lien upon all judgments for the payment of
money, and executions issued in pursuance of such judgment, rendered in the case
wherein his services had been retained by the client.
FACTS:
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal against
respondent in the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC ruled in her favor, however the
CA reduced the monetary award due to her.
In fine, it is basic that an attorney is entitled to have and to receive a just and
reasonable compensation for services performed at the special instance and request of his
client. The attorney who has acted in good faith and honesty in representing and serving
the interests of the client should be reasonably compensated for his service.
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the Court, assailing the CAs decision. However,
while her appeal was pending in the SC, the petitioner and the respondent entered into a
compromise agreement and thereafter moved for the dismissal/withdrawal of the case.
Before the Court could act on Malvars Motion to Dismiss/Withdraw Case, the
Court received a so-called Motion for Intervention to Protect Attorneys Rights from The
Law Firm of Dasal, Llasos and Associates, through its Of Counsel Retired Supreme Court
Associate Justice Bellosillo whereby the Intervenor sought, among others, that both
petitioner and respondent be held and ordered to pay jointly and severally the Intervenors
contingent fees, alleging that the petitioner unceremoniously and without any justifiable
reason terminated its legal service and required it to withdraw from the case.
FACTS:
A convoy of four dump trucks owned by NPC left MarawiCity bound for
ISSUE:
IliganCity. Unfortunately, enroute to its destination, one of the trucks driven by a certain
GavinoIlumba figured in a head-on-collision with a Toyota Tamaraw. The incident resulted
in the death of three persons riding in the Toyota Tamaraw, as well as physical injuries to
RULING:
22
The heirs of the victims filed a complaint for damages against NPC and PHESCO
With respect to the liability of NPC as the direct employer, Article 2180 of the Civil
before the then Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, Marawi City. When defendant
PHESCO filed its answer to the complaint, it contended that it was not the owner of the
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and
dump truck which collided with the Toyota Tamaraw but NPC. Moreover, it asserted that it
household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former
was merely a contractor of NPC with the main duty of supplying workers and technicians
for the latters projects. On the other hand, NPC denied any liability and countered that
the driver of the dump truck was the employee of PHESCO. The Court established the fact
In this regard, NPCs liability is direct, primary and solidary with PHESCO and the
driver. Of course, NPC, if the judgment for damages is satisfied by it, shall have recourse
against PHESCO and the driver who committed the negligence which gave rise to the
ISSUE:
action.
Whether or not NPC is liable for damages.
RULING:
YES. A finding that a contractor was a labor-only contractor is equivalent to a
finding that an employer-employee relationship existed between the owner (principal
contractor) and the labor-only contractor, including the latters workers.
23