30. PAL v.

CA 106 SCRA 391

Facts
Mejia shipped thru Philippine Airlines, one unit of microwave oven from U.S.A. to
Manila.
Upon arrival in Manila, the front glass door of the oven was broken and the damage made
it unserviceable.
Mejia made demands to PAL for the payment of the damaged microwave oven but PAL
made no action.
Hence, Mejia filed an action for damages against PAL
PAL answered that it only acted in good faith and that it has always exercised the
required diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees
Mejia was engaged in catering and restaurant business. Hence, the oven was really
important for Mejia.
PALs defense: plaintiffs claim was filed out of time under paragraph 12, a(1) of the Air
Waybill which provides: (a) the person entitled to delivery must make a complaint to the
carrier in writing in case: (1) of visible damage to the goods, immediately after discovery
of the damage and at the latest within 14 days from the receipt of the goods.

ISSUE: Whether or not PAL is liable for damages

RULING: YES

The Air Waybill is a contract of adhesion. The pronouncements regarding strict construction of
ambiguous provisions of the said contract are construed against the drafter.

There is no absolute obligation on the part of a carrier to accept a cargo. Where a common carrier
accepts a cargo for shipment for valuable consideration, it takes the risk of delivering it in good
condition as when it was loaded. And if the fact of improper packing is known to the carrier or
its personnel, or apparent upon observation but it accepts the goods notwithstanding such
condition, it is not relieved of liability for loss or injury resulting therefrom.

Even if the claim for damages was conditioned on the timely filing of a formal claim, under
Article 1186 of the Civil Code that condition was deemed fulfilled, considering that the
collective action of PALs personnel in tossing around the claim and leaving it unresolved for an
indefinite period of time was tantamount to voluntarily preventing its fulfilment.
46. Philam Insurance v. CA
Gr. No. 165413 February 22, 2012

Facts:
Four gensets from U.S.A. were ordered by Citibank
AHIC insured these gensets
The insurance policy provided that the claim may be paid in the Philippines by Philam
Insurance the local settling agent of AHIC
MIS (broker-forwarder) instructed to place the 13 ton genset at the top of Citibanks
building
DMCI was the one who accepted the task of doing such
DMCI used a crane with a 20 ton loading capacity
However, during the lifting process, both the cranes and the genset fell and got damaged
Citibank demanded from DMCI the full value of the damaged genset, including the
insurance and freight mounting
DMCI refused to pay alleging that it was an accident
Citibank then filed an insurance claim with Philam
Philam paid the claim and demanded reimbursement from DMCI
Since, DMCI refused to pay, Philam filed a complaint

Issue:
Whether DMCI was negligent such as to warrant the petitioners claim

Ruling:

Philam life failed to establish DMCI negligence. Therefore, Philams petition is denied.

To be held liable, it must be established that DMCI was negligent and the negligence must be the
proximate cause of the damage to the genset.

Negligence is the want of care required by the circumstances.It is a conduct that involves an
unreasonably great risk of causing damage; or, more fully, a conduct that falls below the
standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonably great risk of
harm.The test of negligence is as follows:

Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration, foresee harm as a

result of the course actually pursued? If so, it was the duty of the actor to take
precautions to guard against that harm. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by
ignoring of the suggestion born of this prevision, is always necessary before
negligence can be held to exist.

Circumstances would show that the acts of the crane operator were rational and justified.
The question as to what would 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. Abstract speculations cannot here be of much value but this much
can be profitably said
62. Afialda v. Hisole (1949)

MARGARITAAFIALDA, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
BASILIO HISOLE and FRANCISCO HISOLE, defendants-appellees.

Facts:
Loreto Afialda (deceased) was employed by spouses Hisole
As caretaker or their carabaos
While looking after the carabaos, Loreto was gored by a carabao
Such incident killed Loreto

Plaintiff seeks to hold defendants liable under article 1905 of the Civil Code, which
reads:

The possessor of an animal, or the one who uses the same, is liable for any damages it
may cause, even if such animal should escape from him or stray away.

This liability shall cease only in case, the damage should arise from force majeure or
from the fault of the person who may have suffered it.

Lower court: that the owner is only liable for damages caused to a stranger
and that as to caretaker : only when the owner is negligent

Issue:
Whether or not the owner of the animal is liable

Ruling:

Possessor or user was the caretaker

it was his job to prevent the animals from causing harm
it was part of the risks he voluntarily accepted

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts decision. The petitioners should have brought
action in accordance with the WORKMANS COMPENSATION OR WHEN UNDER
1902(quasi-delict) there must be a proof of negligence on the part of the owner
78. Dulay v. CA Gr. No. 108017
April 3, 1995

Facts:

A fight occurred at the Big Bang sa Alabang

Where Atty. Dulay was shot and killed by the security guard on duty.
Hence, Maria the wife of Atty. Dulay filed an action for damages against Safeguard
Investigation and Security Co. and/or Superguard Corp.
The action was dismissed by the trial court.
Petitioners take exception to the assailed decision and insist that quasi-delicts are not
limited to acts of negligence but also cover acts that are intentional and voluntary.
Consequently, a criminal case was filed against the security guard
Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court
Petitioners further contend that under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code, private
respondents are primarily liable for their negligence either in the selection or supervision
of their employees. .
The petitioners then filed a petition for review.

Issue: Whether or not the security companies are liable.

Ruling:

The petitioners were able to sufficiently alleged an actionable breach on the part of the
respondents. Hence, the lower court was wrong when it dismissed the case.
The question whether the security agencies failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a
family; will be answered after the trial on merits (this was not discussed in the case).

The petition for review was granted by the Supreme Court.

94. Aquino v. Heirs of Calayag Gr. No. 158461
August 22, 2012

Facts:
Raymunda was the wife of Rodrigo Calayag.
Raymunda was pregnant and when she experienced bleeding and labor pains Rodrigo
brought her to St. Michaels Clinic
Dr. Unite told them that she has to have a caesarean section and must be transferred to
SHH.
SHH was operated and owned by Dr. Reyes.
There, Dr. Unite delivered a stillborn 8 month old baby
Few minutes after giving birth, the operating team noticed that Raymunda had become
cyanotic (turning blue or purple).
Suddenly, her vital signs were gone but after a few minutes the team was able to revive
her.
Raymunda was in comatose. Hence, they sought the Dr. Farinas opinion.
Dr. Farinas found out that Raymunda suffered a cardiac arrest during the operation.
Raymunda was moved to MCM where a neurologist examined her.
The neurologist, Dr. Libarnes found her to in vegetative state (absence of responsiveness
and awareness)
Dr. Unite removed the stitches of Raymundas surgical wound. Later that day, the wound
split open causing her intestines to jut out.
Raymunda never regained consciousness. Hence, Rodrigo brought her home since the
doctors could no longer do anything to improve her condition.
Rodrigo then filed a complaint for damages against Dr. Unite, Aquino and Reyes.
Rodrigo claimed that Dr. Unite and Aquino failed to exercise the diligence required for
operating on Raymunda. As for Dr. Reyes, that he was negligent in supervising the wor of
Dr. Unite and Aquino
RTC: The three doctors are liable
CA: Affirmed

Issues:
1. Whether or not Dr. Unite and Dr. Aquino acted negligently in handling Raymundas
operation, resulting in her death.
2. Whether or not Dr. Reyes is liable, as the hospital owner, for the negligence of Dr. Unite
and Dr. Aquino.

Ruling:
The cause of action against the doctors in these cases is commonly known as medical
malpractice. It is a form of negligence which consists in the physician or surgeon's failure to
apply to his practice that degree of care and skill that the profession generally and ordinarily
employs under similar conditions and circumstances.
In these cases, the court always seeks guidance from expert testimonies.
To prove that there is medical malpractice the plaintiff must establish the following:
(a) Duty; (b) breach; (c) injury; and (4)proximate causation.
The evidence should show that the physician, either failed to do something which a reasonably
prudent physician or surgeon would have done, or that he or she did something that a reasonably
prudent physician or surgeon would not have done; and that the failure or action caused injury to
the patient.

According to Dr. Libarnes(neurologist) an anesthetic accident during Raymundas caesarean

section causes a cardiorespiratory arrest that deprived her brain of oxygen. The damage could
have been averted if the doctors immediately detected and resuscitated her on time.

Dr. Aquino gave Raymunda a high spinal anesthesia instead of a low or mid-spinal anaesthesia.
The record on the operation shows that the attending doctors did not know that Raymunda had a
cardiac-arrest. Such act itself is already considered malpractice.

No evidence has been presented that raymunda suffered her fate because of defective hospital
facilities or poor staff support of surgeons. Hence, Dr. Reyes cannot be held to be liable.
Nor would the doctrine of ostensible agency or doctrine of apparent authority make Dr. Reyes
liable to Raymunda's heirs for her death. Two factors must be present under this doctrine: 1) the
hospital acted in a manner which would lead a reasonable person to believe that the person
claimed to be negligent was its agent or employee; and 2) the patient relied on such belief.

Therefore, Dr. Aquino and Unite are liable for damages.

110. Velayo v. Shell 100 Phil 168

Facts:

Cali is corporation and its fuel needs are being satisfied by Shell
According to Shell, Cali still has an unpaid balance of 175 thousand pesos
Cali informally convened a lunch meeting with all its creditors, there it was announced
that CALI was in the state of insolvency and had to stop operation.
Then followed a discussion on the payment of claims of creditors and the preferences
claimed for accounts. They agreed that no case should be filed yet as they are still trying
to create a plan on how to pay their creditors. Cali also added that in case a suit is filed
against it, it will submit itself to voluntary insolvency proceedings.
The creditors were not able to have an understanding as to the preference. Hence, a
working committee was formed on this matter. The working committee is also tasked to
supervise the supervision of the properties of CALI
Fitzgerald (Credit Manager of Shell) was appointed as one of the members of the
committee.
Shell effected a credit transfer against CALI to American Corporation Shell Oil
Company.
The American Corporation then filed a case against CALI in California for the collection
of the assigned credit attaching CALIs C-54 airplane.
Upon knowledge of such, the National Airports Corp. also filed a case and CALI filed a
petition for voluntary insolvency.
Velayo was then appointed as the assignee in the proceedings.
Velayo then instituted a case against Shell to restrain Shell from prosecuting in
California.
Velayo petition was denied by the court. Hence, he confined his action to the recovery of
damages against shell. Which the court also dismissed.

Issue:

1. Whether or not Shell was taking advantage of its knowledge of the existence of CALIs
airplane.

Ruling:

Shell upon learning that it cannot obtain the full amount of the credit owed by CALI, it made an
assignment to its sister American corporation. There are damaging effects of said assignment.
The telegraphic transfer at the back of CALI is a perceptive act of Shell to be able to collect all
of its credit. The transfer of credit will only be justified if Mr. Fitzgerald was not part of the
working committee and informed the others during the meeting that he had no authority to bind
his principal.

Shell took advantage of its knowledge that an insolvency proceeding will be instituted by CALI
in case the creditors will not be able to come up with an agreement. It also had known the
probability that no agreement will be reached, hence it made the transfer for its own good.

Art 19. Any person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performances of his duties, act
with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith. (NCC)

Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to
morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. (NCC)

A moral wrong or injury, even if it does not constitute a violation of a statute law, should be
compensated by damages. Moral damages (Art. 2217) may be recovered (Art. 2219). In Article
20, the liability for damages arises from a wilful or negligent act contrary to law. In this article,
the act is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.

Sec. 37. Embezzlement, etc. If any person, before the assignment is made, having notice of
the commencement of the proceedings in insolvency, or having reason to believe that insolvency
proceedings are about to be commenced, embezzles or disposes of any of the moneys, goods,
chattels, or effects of the insolvent, he is chargeable therewith, and liable to an action by the
assignee for double the value of the property so embezzled or disposed of, to be recovered for the
benefit of the insolvent's estate. (Insolvency Law)

Shell should be liable for indemnity for acts it committed in badfaith and with betrayal of
confidence.

Wherefore, Shell must pay CALI double the amount of CALIs airplane at the time Shells credit
is transferred to its sister corporation in U.S.A
126. MVRS Publication v. Islamic Dawah

Facts:

Islamic Dawah Council of the Philippines, Inc. is a local federation of Muslim religious
organizations and muslim individuals.
Islamic Dawah filed a complaint for damages in behalf of their Muslim members
nationwide (class suit) against MVRS.
This was due to an article published by MVRS that Muslims do not eat animals
especially pigs and that they are treating these animals as sacred and gods.
The complaint alleged that the libellous statement was insulting and damaging to the
Muslims. That the article was published out of sheer ignorance.
MVRS contended that the article was merely an expression of belief or opinion.
Trial court dismissed the case.
Court of Appeals reversed the decision.

Issue: Whether MVRS should be liable for damages.

Ruling:
Defamation, which includes libel and slander, means the offense of injuring a person's character,
fame or reputation through false and malicious statements. However, the fact that the language is
offensive to the plaintiff does not make it actionable by itself.

Declarations made about a large class of people cannot be interpreted to advert to an identified or
identifiable individual. Absent circumstances specifically pointing or alluding to a particular
member of a class, no member of such class has a right of action without at all impairing the
equally demanding right of free speech and expression, as well as of the press, under the Bill of
Rights.

In the case at bar, there was no identifiable person who was injured by the article. Hence, the
plaintiffs have no individual cause of action, therefore, it cannot file a class suit.
There is no injury to the reputation of the individual Muslims who constitute this community that
can give rise to an action for group libel. Each reputation is personal in character to every
person. Together, the Muslims do not have a single common reputation that will give them a
common or general interest in the subject matter of the controversy.

Defamation is made up of the twin torts of libel and slander the one being, in general, written,
while the other in general is oral. In either form, defamation is an invasion of the interest in
reputation and good name. This is a relational interest since it involves the opinion others in the
community may have, or tend to have of the plaintiff. (Justice Puno)
An Emotional distress tort action is personal in nature. It is founded on personal attacks to an
individual. Such, is not applicable in this case since no individual was indentified in the article.
To recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress the plaintiff must show that:
(a) The conduct of the defendant was intentional or in reckless disregard of the plaintiff;
(b) The conduct was extreme and outrageous;
(c) There was a causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's mental
distress; and,
(d) The plaintiff's mental distress was extreme and severe

"Extreme and outrageous conduct" means conduct that is so outrageous in character, and so
extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as
atrocious, and utterly intolerable in civilized society.

"Emotional distress" means any highly unpleasant mental reaction such as extreme grief, shame,
humiliation, embarrassment, anger, disappointment, worry, nausea, mental suffering and anguish,
shock, fright, horror, and chagrin.

"Severe emotional distress," refers to any type of severe and disabling emotional or mental
condition which may be generally recognized and diagnosed by professionals trained to do so,
including posttraumatic stress disorder, neurosis, psychosis, chronic depression, or phobia.
The plaintiff is required to show, among other things, that he or she has suffered emotional
distress so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it; severity of the
distress is an element of the cause of action, not simply a matter of damages.

An element of a class suit is the adequacy of representation. In determining the question of fair
and adequate representation of members of a class, the court must consider (a) whether the
interest of the named party is coextensive with the interest of the other members of the class; (b)
the proportion of those made parties as it so bears to the total membership of the class; and, (c)
any other factor bearing on the ability of the named party to speak for the rest of the class.

Therefore the petition is dismissed

142. Hyatt Industrial v. Asia Dynamic

Facts:

Hyatt filed a complaint for recovery of sum of money against Asia Dynamic Electrix
Corporation.
According to Hyatt, Asia Dyanamic purchased from the former various electrical
conduits and fitting worth more than 1 million pesos.
Asia Dynamic issued several checks as payment but all were dishonored by the bank.
Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds: (1) the civil action
was deemed included in the criminal actions for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
(B.P. 22) previously filed by petitioner against the officers of respondent corporation; (2)
Section 1(b) of Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibits the filing
of a separate civil action in B.P. 22 cases; and (3) respondent was guilty of forum
shopping and unjust enrichment.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss in its order dated December 10, 2001. It ruled
that since the act complained of arose from the alleged non-payment of the petitioner of
its contractual debt, and not the issuance of checks with insufficient funds, in accordance
with Article 31 of the Civil Code, the civil action could proceed independently of the
criminal actions.
Court of Appeals reversed the trial courts decision.

Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct.

Ruling:

It appears that prior to the filing of the present case, Hyatt had already filed a separate criminal
action for violation of BP 22 against Asia Dynamic. Upon filing of the criminal cases for
violation of B.P. 22, the civil action for the recovery of the amount of the checks was also
impliedly instituted under Section 1(b) of Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. The
reservation to file a separate civil action is no longer needed.

The court denied the petition.

158. Dichoso v. CA

Facts:

Spouses Gaspar and Maria Beldad owned a 16 hectar parcel of land.

When Gaspar died, his protion of the land was divided into three among; Vivencia,
Asuncion and Custadia.
This is in accordance to the extrajudicial settlement.
Vivencia sold a portion of his lot to Ernesto, who have been in actual possession of the
lot.
Asuncion sold to Ramos her share of the land, but in the deed, the lot sold by Asuncion is
bigger than what she actually owns.
Teodolfo Ramos took possession of the land upon its purchase.
Dichoso on the otherhand claims that the disputed land is inside his property.
There was an allegation that Teodoro seized the produce of the said land together with
Constabulary soldiers. The cavans were owned by Dischosos tenant.
Then, Dichoso also took away 6 cavans of rice from Teodolfoos land
Teodolfo filed an action for quieting of title over the disputed land.
The court decided in favour of Teodolfo.

Issue:
Whether or not the court was correct that Ramos is the owner of the disputed land.

Ruling:

It was found out that Vivencia ceded 1 hectare of land in favour of Asuncion. However, what was
covered in the original certificate of title in accordance with the extrajudicial settlement
agreement insofar as Vivencias share, remains the same.

The area being claimed by Teodolfo went beyond the irrigation ditch. This is contrary to the
technical description in the deed of sale in favour of Teodolfo.

Actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed, but must be duly proved, and proved with
reasonable degree of certainty. A court cannot rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork as to
the fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have suffered
and on evidence of the actual amount thereof.

It is undisputed that the land in question yields an average of twenty (20) sacks of palay per
planting and that it is planted to palay twice a year. Teodolfo's share of the harvest is only one-
third (1/3). In view of his dispossession from 1964 and the fact that Dischoso tenant has vacated
the land that same year, Dischoso cannot allege that his tenant is entitled to his two-thirds (2/3)
share.

174. Morris v. CA

Facts:

Morris and Whittier had a series of business meetings with Japanese businessmen in
Japan.
Staats Travel Service booked them as first class passengers.
When they reached to the counter in the airport, they noticed that their papers were not
being processed.
There they found out that there were no seats available.
Morris called Staats, Staats then confirmed their booking.
The petitioners returned to the counter but the persons in-charge only ignored them.
Petitioners went to the supervisors desk to check the flight manifest, they saw their
names on top of the list of first class section had been crossed out.
The supervisor said that he can no longer anything.
Petitioners checked in at 3:10 and their flight was 3:50
According to the Airlines employee that the economy class was overbooked. Then the
petitioners arrived 40 minutes before the flight and that the flight manifest was already
closed. Since there was overbooking, some passengers were upgraded to first class.

Issue: Whether the petitioners are entitled to damages.

Ruling:

In awarding moral damages for breach of contract of carriage, the breach must be wanton and
deliberately injurious or the one responsible acted fraudulently or with malice or bad faith. Moral
damages are generally not recoverable in culpa contractual except when bad faith had been
proven. However, the same damages may be recovered when breach of contract of carriage
results in the death of a passenger.

The award of exemplary damages has likewise no factual basis. It is a requisite that the act must
be accompanied by bad faith or done in wanton, fraudulent or malevolent manner--circumstances
which are absent in this case. In addition, exemplary damages cannot be awarded as the requisite
element of compensatory damages was not present.

The rule is that moral damages are recoverable in a damage suit predicated upon a breach of
contract of carriage only where (a) the mishap results in the death of a passenger and (b) it is
proved that the carrier was guilty of fraud and bad faith even if death does not result.
The petitioners arrived late, hence, the Airline employees were not in bad faith nor there was
fraud.

They were denied to board the plane because they failed to check in on time.
Hence, they are not entitled to damages.

190. Locsin v. Hizon

Facts:

Enriquita Locsin was the registered owner of a lot at Don Antonio Heights Subdivision.
She filed an ejectment case against Billy Aceron.
Aceron was able to comply with his part of the compromise agreement but Locsin was
unaware of such when she went to USA.
Locsin continued to pay the real property taxes of the subject property.
Locsin lost the copy of the TCT of the subject lot and she was able to obtain a new one.
When she asked her lawyer to check the status of the lot, she found out that the new TCT
was cancelled by Bolos and was able to secure a new one.
Bolos then sold it to Bernardo, which was titled under Carlos name.
Bernardo then filed a motion for issuance of the Writ of execution for the enforcement of
the compromise agreement.
And that the property was occupied and up for sale.
Locsin asked Carlos to return the lot since her signature in the deed of sale was a forgery.
Carlos said that they will come up with a win-win situation, however Carlos has already
sold it to his sister and brother-in-law (Spouses Guevara)
Spouses Guevara then mortgaged it with DCC to obtain a loan.
Locsin then filed an action for reconveyance and cancellation of the TCT obtained
by the Guevaras.
RTC: Dimissed the case
CA: Locsin cannot recover the lot.

Issue: Whether or not Locsin is entitled to the land in dispute.

Ruling:

An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another without notice that
some other person has a right to or interest in it, and who pays a full and fair price at the time of
the purchase or before receiving any notice of another persons claim.

According to the Mirror Doctrine Every person dealing with registered land may rely on the
correctness of the certificate of title issued and is not obliged to go beyond the certificate to
determine the condition of the property. The following are the exceptions:
1. The party has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably
cautious man to make such inquiry or when the purchaser has knowledge of a defect or the lack
of title in his vendor or of sufficient facts to induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire into the
status of the title of the property in litigation.
2. The presence of anything which excites or arouses suspicion should then prompt the vendee to
look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the vendor appearing on the face of said
certificate. One who falls within the exception can neither be denominated an innocent purchaser
for value nor a purchaser in good faith and, hence, does not merit the protection of the law.

Carlos is not an innocent purchaser for value. Bernardo was Carlos agent. Bernardo negotiated
with Bolos. Hence, the principal is chargeable and bound by the knowledge of or notice to, his
agent. Bernardo knew about Locsin and the Compromise agreement.

The Spouses Guevara are not innocent purchasers. They were not able to present adequate
evidence for such.

Locsin is entitled to nominal danages. nominal damages are "recoverable where a legal right is
technically violated and must be vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual
present loss of any kind or where there has been a breach of contract and no substantial injury or
actual damages whatsoever have been or can be shown. that petitioner was unduly deprived of
her ownership rights over the property, and was compelled to litigate for its recovery, for almost
ten (10) years.

The amount of damages to be awarded shall be determined by the court depending upon the
relevant circumstances. Considering the length of time that Locsin was deprived of her property
she is entitled to P75,000.00 as nominal damages.
206. Bricktown v. Amor Tierra

Facts:

Bricktown represented by its president Velarde, executed 2 contracts to sell in favour of

Amor Tierra Develpment Corporation.
It pertains to 96 residential lots sold to Amor Tierra.
However, Amor Tierra was not able to pay its obligations on the agreed dates.
It only paid more than one million pesos compared to the total selling price of more than
21 million.
Bricktown then sent Amor Tierra a notice of cancellation of contract for the latters
continuous failure to pay.
Several months later, Amor Tierra demanded the refund of its payments to Bricktown
plus interest.
RTC: Declared the contract to have been rescinded and ordered Bricktown to refund the
payments made by Amor Tierra plus interest.
CA: Affirmed

Issue:
Whether the amounts already remitted by Amor Tierra were rightly forfeited by Bricktown.

Ruling:

It will be unconscionable to sanction Bricktown. It is not equitable to impose interest from the
time of the judicial demand, for, Amor Tierra should not be allowed to totally free itself from its
own breach.

The contract was validly rescinded and Bricktown must refund the amount of P1,334,443.21 plus
12% interest per annum to commence only upon the finality of the decision.
22. Bataclan v. Medina

Facts:

The bus was running fast on its way to its destination

Hence, the bus turned turtle
Most of the passengers, including the driver and conductor were able to get out
They could smell the gasoline leaking from the bus.
Then residents about ten men, bringing fire torches approached them
Unaware of what happened, the residents went near the bus, which caused the fire.
Hence, 4 passengers who were not yet able to get out of the bus died.
CFI :
o 1,000 award
o 600 attorneys fees
o 100 for the merchandise brought by Bataclan
ART. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public
policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and
for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of
each case.

Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in
articles 1734, 1735, and 1745, Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the extra ordinary diligence for the
safety of the passengers is further set forth in articles 1755 and 1756.

ART. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human
care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with
a due regard for all the circumstances.

ART. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed
to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed
extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755

ART. 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through
the negligence or willful acts of the former's employees, although such employees may
 have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the order of the common
carriers.

This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees.

ART. 1763. A common carrier responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account
of the willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the common
carrier's employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family
could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.

There was a breach of contract of contract of transportation for hire

There was negligence on the part of Medina through his agent, his driver - SAYLON
The driver was driving the bus too fast

ISSUE : To what extent is Medina liable?

RULING :
RTCs opinion : the proximate cause of the death of Bataclan was not the overturning of the
bus, but rather, the fire that burned the bus, including himself and his co-passengers who
were unable to leave it; that at the time the fire started, Bataclan, though he must have
suffered physical injuries, perhaps serious, was still alive, and so damages were awarded, not
for his death, but for the physical injuries suffered by him.

SC:

The proximate cause was the overturning of the bus

When the bus overturned completely, the leaking of the gasoline was a natural
consequence
the place was a rural area hence, fire/torch was there main source of light, since it was
already dark
Hence, the residents were innocent and they went there to aid the victims, not knowing
that the gas was already leaking
The driver and conductor must have taken precautions on warning the people against the
leaked gasoline
8. Picart v. Smith

Facts:

Picart was riding on his pony at the Cartalan Bridge.

Frank Smith was riding his car approaching from the opposite direction.
The horse was on the left side of the road, the lane where Smiths car should be
traversing.
Smith blew his horns to warn the Rider of the horse but it did not heed to his warning.
However, Smith did not decrease his speed despite such fact.
Hence, the car hit the horse, due to the impact it fell of the bridge, while the rider was
thrown.

Issue: Whether Smith was guilty of negligence. \

Ruling:

Yes, Smith was guilty of negligence.

The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be stated as
follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution
which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is
guilty of negligence.

The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the personal
judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The law considers what would be reckless,
blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines
liability by that. What would 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.

The Picart was not free from fault, for he was guilty of antecedent negligence for being on the
wrong side of the road. But the defendant was also negligent; and in such case the problem
always is to discover which agent is immediately and directly responsible.

It 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 reference to the prior
negligence of the other party.

It was ruled that contributory negligence does not bar the recovery of damages, but it is a ground
to decrease the amount of damages. Smith was ordered to pay damages on the death of the horse
and pay the medical expenses of Picart.