Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Barredo vs Garcia and Almario (his driver’s negligence) but rather for his own automobile passed in such close proximity to the
negligence in selecting his employee (Article animal that it became frightened and turned its
July 17, 2011 1903). body across the bridge, got hit by the car and the
At about 1:30am on May 3, 1936, Fontanilla’s taxi limb was broken. The horse fell and its rider was
2. PICART vs. SMITH, JR. thrown off with some violenceAs a result of its
collided with a “kalesa” thereby killing the 16 year
old Faustino Garcia. Faustino’s parents filed a FACTS: On the Carlatan Bridge in La Union. Picart injuries the horse died. The plaintiff received
criminal suit against Fontanilla and reserved their was riding on his pony over said bridge. Before he contusions which caused temporary
right to file a separate civil suit. Fontanilla was had gotten half way across, Smith approached unconsciousness and required medical attention
eventually convicted. After the criminal suit, from the opposite direction in an automobile. As for several days.
Garcia filed a civil suit against Barredo – the the defendant neared the bridge he saw a
owner of the taxi (employer of Fontanilla). The horseman on it and blew his horn to give warning
suit was based on Article 1903 of the civil code of his approach. He continued his course and after From a judgment of the CFI of La Union absolving
(negligence of employers in the selection of their he had taken the bridge he gave two more Smith from liability Picart has appealed.
employees). Barredo assailed the suit arguing that successive blasts, as it appeared to him that the
his liability is only subsidiary and that the man on horseback before him was not observing
separate civil suit should have been filed against the rule of the road. ISSUE: WON Smith was guilty of negligence such
Fontanilla primarily and not him. as gives rise to a civil obligation to repair the
damage done
Picart saw the automobile coming and heard the
ISSUE: Whether or not Barredo is just subsidiarily warning signals. However, being perturbed by the
liable. novelty of the apparition or the rapidity of the HELD: the judgment of the lower court must be
approach, he pulled the pony closely up against reversed, and judgment is here rendered that the
the railing on the right side of the bridge instead Picart recover of Smith damages
HELD: No. He is primarily liable under Article of going to the left. He says that the reason he did
1903 which is a separate civil action against this was that he thought he did not have sufficient
negligent employers. Garcia is well within his time to get over to the other side. As the
YES
rights in suing Barredo. He reserved his right to automobile approached, Smith guided it toward
file a separate civil action and this is more his left, that being the proper side of the road for
expeditious because by the time of the SC the machine. In so doing the defendant assumed
that the horseman would move to the other side. The test by which to determine the existence of
judgment Fontanilla is already serving his
Seeing that the pony was apparently quiet, the negligence in a particular case may be stated as
sentence and has no property. It was also proven
defendant, instead of veering to the right while yet follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged
that Barredo is negligent in hiring his employees
some distance away or slowing down, continued negligent act use that person would have used in
because it was shown that Fontanilla had had
to approach directly toward the horse without the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of
multiple traffic infractions already before he hired
diminution of speed. When he had gotten quite negligence. The existence of negligence in a given
him – something he failed to overcome during
near, there being then no possibility of the horse case is not determined by reference to the
hearing. Had Garcia not reserved his right to file a
getting across to the other side, the defendant personal judgment of the actor in the situation
separate civil action, Barredo would have only
quickly turned his car sufficiently to the right to before him. The law considers what would be
been subsidiarily liable. Further, Barredo is not
escape hitting the horse; but in so doing the reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of
being sued for damages arising from a criminal act
ordinary intelligence and prudence and
1 | TORTS CASES 12/13/18 JESSIE MARIE DELA PEÑA
determines liability by that. The question as to antecedent negligence in planting himself on the required by section 56(a) of Act 3992 (Motor
what would constitute the conduct of a prudent wrong side of the road. But as we have already Vehicle Law), he could have seen and heard the
man in a given situation must of course be always stated, Smith was also negligent; and in such case approach of the train, and thus, there would have
determined in the light of human experience and the problem always is to discover which agent is been no collision.
in view of the facts involved in the particular case. immediately and directly responsible. It will be
noted that the negligent acts of the two parties ISSUES: W/N Victorino Cusi was negligent and
were not contemporaneous, since the negligence such was the proximate cause of the collision
Could a prudent man, in the case under of the defendant succeeded the negligence of the
consideration, foresee harm as a result of the plaintiff by an appreciable interval. Under these Ruling:
course actually pursued? If so, it was the duty of circumstances the law is that the person who has
the actor to take precautions to guard against that the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm No.
harm. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by and fails to do so is chargeable with the
ignoring of the suggestion born of this prevision, is consequences, without reference to the prior
• Negligence has been defined by Judge Cooley in
always necessary before negligence can be held to negligence of the other party.
his work on Torts as "the failure to observe for the
exist. Stated in these terms, the proper criterion 3. Cusi v. PNR| Guerrero J.G.R. No. L- protection of the interests of another person that
for determining the existence of negligence in a 29889 May 31, 1979 degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the
given case is this: Conduct is said to be negligent circumstances justly demand, whereby such other
when a prudent man in the position of the person suffers injury."
FACTS
tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect
harmful to another was sufficiently probable to • All that the law requires is that it is always
• Spouses Cusi attended a birthday party in
warrant his foregoing conduct or guarding against incumbent upon a person to use that care and
Paranaque, Rizal. After the party which broke up
its consequences. diligence expected of reasonable men under
at about 11 o'clock that evening, the spouses
proceeded home in their Vauxhall car with similar circumstances.
Victorino Cusi at the wheel. Upon reaching the
Applying this test to the conduct of the defendant railroad tracks, finding that the level crossing bar • In this case, the warning devices installed at the
in the present case we think that negligence is was raised and seeing that there was no flashing railroad crossing were manually operated; there
clearly established. A prudent man, placed in the red light, and hearing no whistle from any coming were only 2 shifts of guards provided for the
position of the defendant, would in our opinion, train, Cusi proceeded to cross the tracks. At the operation thereof — one, the 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.
have recognized that the course which he was same time, a train bound for Lucena traversed the M. shift, and the other, the3:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M.
pursuing was fraught with risk, and would crossing, resulting in a collision between the two. shift. On the night of the accident, the train for
therefore have foreseen harm to the horse and the Lucena was on an unscheduled trip after 11:00
rider as reasonable consequence of that course. P.M. During that precise hour, the warning devices
• This accident caused the spouses to suffer
Under these circumstances the law imposed on were not operating for no one attended to them.
deformities and to lose the earnings they used to
the Smith the duty to guard against the threatened
enjoy as successful career people.
harm. Also, as observed by the lower court, the
• The defense is centered on the proposition that locomotive driver did not blow his whistle, thus:
the gross negligence of Victorino Cusi was the "... he simply sped on without taking an extra
It goes without saying that the plaintiff himself proximate cause of the collision; that had he made precaution of blowing his whistle.
was not free from fault, for he was guilty of a full stop before traversing the crossing as
2 | TORTS CASES 12/13/18 JESSIE MARIE DELA PEÑA
That the train was running at full speed is attested PETITIONER: Leonardo Kong, Jose Tiope & Elsa of the establishment as it was not nailed and
to by the fact that notwithstanding the application Panelo, being the branch manager, operations shaky, which was then also corroborated by the
of the emergency brakes, the train did not stop
manager & supervisor, respectively, under Jarco witnesses who used to work at the establishment.
until it reached a distance of around 100 meters."
Marketing That negligence being imputed to the mother was
• Victorino Cusi had exercised all the necessary RESPONDENT: Criselda & Conrado Aguilar not reasonable for she was at that moment was
precautions required of him as to avoid injury to - (Parents of Zhienith) signing the credit card slip.
himself and to others. We find no need for him to NATURE OF PETITION: Complaint for Damages SUPREME COURT DECISION: Petition for
have made a full stop; relying on his faculties of PREVIOUS DECISIONS: Petitioners was ordered by DISMISSAL was DENIED. And the previous
sight and hearing, Victorino Cusi had no reason to the respondents, the reimbursement of the
anticipate the impending danger judgment was AFFIRMED, imposing penalty, viz:
hospitalization, medical bills, and wake and
P50, 000.00 compensatory damage
funeral expenses used for the deceased, Zheinith
• The record shows that the spouses Cusi for the death of Zhienith, with legal
previously knew of the existence of the railroad Aguilar.
interest of 6% per annum from April
crossing, having stopped at the guardhouse to ask FACTS: Zheinith, a 6 year old child, died due to 27, 1984
for directions before proceeding to the party. At multiple injuries she sustained during the collapse
the crossing, they found the level bar raised, no P99,420.86 as reimbursement for
of the counter at the business establishment
warning lights flashing nor warning bells ringing, hospitalization expenses incurred,
owned by the petitioners. That in the afternoon of
nor whistle from an oncoming train. They safely with legal interest of 6% per annum
traversed the crossing. May 9, 1983, Criselda and Zheinith was at the 2 nd
from April 27, 1984
floor of the Syvel’s Department Store in Makati
On their return home, the situation at the crossing City, Criselda was signing her credit card slip at P100, 000.00 as moral and exemplary
did not in the least change, except for the absence the payment and verification counter when she damages
of the guard or flagman. Hence, on the same felt a loud thud. And when she looked behind her, P20, 000.00 in the concept of
impression that the crossing was safe for passage beheld her daughter on the floor, pinned by bulk attorney’s fees
as before, Victorino Cusi merely slackened his
of the store’s gift-wrapping counter/structure.
speed and proceeded to cross the tracks, driving REASONS: Petitioner Panelo and other store
at the proper rate of speed for going over railroad CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER: They should supervisor were personally informed by the
crossings not be held liable for the death of Zheinith, as the witnesses while they were still working at the said
counter that befell her was caused by the establishment that the counter was unstable for
negligence of both Criselda and Zheinith. Being the the reason that it was not nailed on the floor. Yet,
4. JARCO MARKETING v. COURT OF mother, she must assure the safety of her child. neither initiated any concrete action to remedy
APPEALS Criselda attributed negligence when she let go of the situation.
Zheinith which allowed her to come near the
CRIME: Even if the court attributes contributory
counter.
negligence to ZHIENETH and assume that she
TOPIC: Art. 12 – Exempting Circumstances CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT: The fall of
climbed over the counter, no injury should have
(Accident) the counter being the proximate cause of death of
occurred if the counter was stable and sturdy.
Zheinith was because of negligence of the owner
(c) the occurrence must be such as to render it Petitioners merely presented the police report of Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor
impossible for the debtor to fulfill obligations in a the Parañaque Police Station on the robbery consists in the omission of that diligence which is
normal manner; and, committed based on the report of petitioners’ required by the nature of the obligation and
employees which is not sufficient to establish corresponds with the circumstances of the
(d) the obligor must be free from any participation robbery. Such report also does not prove that persons, of time and of the place. When negligence
in the aggravation of the injury or loss. petitioners were not at fault. On the contrary, by shows bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171
The burden of proving that the loss was due to a the very evidence of petitioners, the CA did not err and 2201, paragraph 2 shall apply.
fortuitous event rests on him who invokes it. And, in finding that petitioners are guilty of concurrent
in order for a fortuitous event to exempt one from or contributory negligence as provided in Article
liability, it is necessary that one has committed no 1170 of the Civil Code, to wit: If the law or contract does not state the diligence
negligence or misconduct that may have which is to be observed in the performance, that
occasioned the loss. which is expected of a good father of a family shall
Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of their be required.
obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or
6 | TORTS CASES 12/13/18 JESSIE MARIE DELA PEÑA
Furthermore, petitioner Sicam’s admission that considered it not feasible to require insurance of
the vault was open at the time of robbery is clearly pawned articles against burglary.
We expounded in Cruz v. Gangan that negligence a proof of petitioners’ failure to observe the care,
is the omission to do something which a precaution and vigilance that the circumstances
reasonable man, guided by those considerations justly demanded.
which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human The robbery in the pawnshop happened in 1987,
affairs, would do; or the doing of something which The robbery in this case happened in petitioners’ and considering the above-quoted amendment,
a prudent and reasonable man would not do. It is pawnshop and they were negligent in not there is no statutory duty imposed on petitioners
want of care required by the circumstances. exercising the precautions justly demanded of a to insure the pawned jewelry in which case it was
pawnshop. error for the CA to consider it as a factor in
concluding that petitioners were negligent.
NOTES:
A review of the records clearly shows that
petitioners failed to exercise reasonable care and We, however, do not agree with the CA when it
caution that an ordinarily prudent person would found petitioners negligent for not taking steps to Nevertheless, the preponderance of evidence
have used in the same situation. Petitioners were insure themselves against loss of the pawned shows that petitioners failed to exercise the
guilty of negligence in the operation of their jewelries. diligence required of them under the Civil Code.
pawnshop business. Sicam’s testimony revealed 9. Corinthian Gardens vs Sps.
that there were no security measures adopted by Under Section 17 of Central Bank Circular No. 374,
Tanjuangco, GR 160795, June 27, 2008
petitioners in the operation of the pawnshop. Rules and Regulations for Pawnshops, which took
effect on July 13, 1973, and which was issued FACTS:
Evidently, no sufficient precaution and vigilance
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 114, Reynaldo and Maria Luisa Tanjangco own
were adopted by petitioners to protect the Lots 68 and 69 located at Corinthian Gardens
pawnshop from unlawful intrusion. There was no Pawnshop Regulation Act, it is provided that
pawns pledged must be insured, to wit: Subdivision, Quezon City, which is managed
clear showing that there was any security guard at by petitioner Corinthian Gardens Association,
all. Or if there was one, that he had sufficient Sec. 17. Insurance of Office Building and Pawns- Inc. ). On the other hand, Frank and Teresita
training in securing a pawnshop. Further, there is The place of business of a pawnshop and the Cuaso own Lot 65 which is adjacent to the
no showing that the alleged security guard pawns pledged to it must be insured against fire Tanjangcos' lots.
exercised all that was necessary to prevent any and against burglary as well as for the latter(sic), Before the Cuasos constructed their
untoward incident or to ensure that no suspicious house on Lot 65, a relocation survey was
by an insurance company accredited by the
individuals were allowed to enter the premises. In necessary. As Geodetic Engineer Democrito
Insurance Commissioner.
fact, it is even doubtful that there was a security De Dios conducted all the previous surveys for
However, this Section was subsequently amended the subdivision's developer, Corinthian
guard, since it is quite impossible that he would
by CB Circular No. 764 which took effect on referred Engr. De Dios to the Cuasos. Before,
not have noticed that the robbers were armed
during and after the construction of the said
with caliber .45 pistols each, which were allegedly October 1, 1980, to wit:
house, Corinthian conducted periodic ocular
poked at the employees. Significantly, the alleged inspections in order to determine compliance
Sec. 17 Insurance of Office Building and Pawns –
security guard was not presented at all to with the approved plans pursuant to the
The office building/premises and pawns of a
corroborate petitioner Sicam’s claim; not one of Manual of Rules and Regulations of
pawnshop must be insured against fire. (emphasis
petitioners’ employees who were present during Corinthian. Unfortunately, after the Cuasos
supplied).
the robbery incident testified in court. constructed their house employing the
where the requirement that insurance against services of C.B. Paraz Construction Co., Inc.
burglary was deleted. Obviously, the Central Bank
7 | TORTS CASES 12/13/18 JESSIE MARIE DELA PEÑA
build their perimeter fence encroached on the and, at the very least, contributed to the injury left leg, so he brought Albayda to PH Air Force
Tanjangcos' Lot 69 by 87 square meters. suffered by the Tanjangcos. General Hospital. Completo asserted that he was
No amicable settlement was reached an experienced driver, and that he already
between the parties. Thus, the Tanjangcos 10. Hrs. of Completo vs Albayada, GR reduced his speed to 20km even before reaching
demanded that the Cuasos demolish the 172200, July 6, 2010 the intersection. In contrast, Albayda rode his
perimeter fence but the latter failed and bicycle at high speed, causing him to lose control
refused, prompting the Tanjangcos to file with Facts of the bicycle. Completo said that Albayda had no
the RTC a suit against the Cuasos for Recovery Albayda is a Master Sergeant of the PH Air Force, cause of action.
of Possession with Damages. and Completo was the taxi driver of a Toyota Several people testified for each side, but here
** The Cuasos ascribed negligence to C.B. Corolla which was owned by Abiad. Albayda was are some notes on the testimony of the owner of
Paraz for its failure to ascertain the proper riding a bike on his way to the office, when the taxi driver, Abiad. Abiad said that aside from
specifications of their house, and to Engr. De Completo’s taxi bumped and sideswept him, being a soldier, he also held franchises of taxicabs
Dios for his failure to undertake an accurate causing serious physical injuries. He [Albayda] and passenger jeepneys, and being a taxicab
relocation survey, thereby, exposing them to was brought to the PH Air Force General Hospital, operator, he would wake up early to personally
litigation. The Cuasos also faulted Corinthian but he was transferred to the AFP Medical Center check the taxicabs. When Completo applied as a
for approving their relocation survey and because he sustained a fracture and there was no taxicab driver, Abiad required him to show his
building plans without verifying their orthopedic doctor available in the first hospital. bio-data, NBI clearance, and driver’s license.
accuracy and in making representations as to He was confined from 27 Aug 1997 to 11 Feb Completo never figured in a vehicular accident
Engr. De Dios' integrity and competence. The 1998, and again in 23 Feb to 22 Mar 1998 [approx. since he was employed, and according to Abiad, he
Cuasos alleged that had Corinthian exercised 7 months]. [Completo] was a good driver and good man.
diligence in performing its duty, they would Conciliation before the barangay failed, so RTC rendered judgment in favor of Albayda,
not have been involved in a boundary dispute Albayda filed a complaint for physical injuries and the defendants are ordered to pay actual
with the Tanjangcos. Thus, the Cuasos opined through reckless imprudence against Completo [46k] and moral [400k] damages, and attorney’s
that Corinthian should also be held before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay. fees [25k]. Upon appeal at the CA, the court
answerable for any damages that they might Completo filed a counter-charge of damage to affirmed RTC’s decision with modifications [no
incur as a result of such construction. property through reckless imprudence against more actual damages; awarded temperate
Albayda. The Office of the City Prosecutor damages [40k]; moral damages only 200k;
ISSUE: recommended the filing of an information for Completo and Abiad are solidarily liable to pay
Whether or not the Corinthian Garden’s Albayda’s complaint, and Completo’s complaint Albayda; added legal interest].
Association is liable for negligence, in [against Albayda] was dismissed. Albayda Issues and Holding
approving the building plan and whether or manifested his reservation to file a separate civil 1. WON CA erred in finding that Completo was
not it acted in good faith in doing so. action for damages against Completo and Abiad. the one who caused the collision. NO
Albayda alleged that Completo’s negligence is 2. WON Abiad failed to prove that he observed
HELD: the proximate cause of the incident. He demanded the diligence of a good father of the family.
the following damages and their respective YES
YES, Corinthian cannot and should not be amounts: Actual damages – 276,550; Moral
allowed to justify or excuse its negligence by 3. WON the award of moral and temperate
damages – 600,000; Exemplary damages – damages and attorney’s fees for Albayda had
claiming that its approval of the Cuasos' 200,000; Attorney’s fees – 25,000 + 1,000
building plans was only limited to a so-called no basis. NO / NO / YES
per court appearance. Ratio
"table inspection and not actual site On the other hand, Completo alleged that he
measurement. Corinthian's failure to prevent On Negligence
was carefully driving the taxicab when he heard a It is a rule in negligence suits that the plaintiff has
the encroachment of the Cuasos' perimeter strange sound from the taxicab’s rear right side.
wall into Tanjangcos' property - despite the the burden of proving by a preponderance of
He found Albayda lying on the road, holding his evidence the motorist’s breach in his duty of care
inspection conducted - constitutes negligence
8 | TORTS CASES 12/13/18 JESSIE MARIE DELA PEÑA
owed to the plaintiff, that the motorist was measures for breaches. To establish these factors Morales for repairs, which he placed
negligent in failing to exercise the diligence in a trial involving the issue of vicarious inside a drawer. Since Morales would be
required to avoid injury to the plaintiff, and that [secondary] liability, employers must submit going to Manila, he left the keys to the
such negligence was the proximate cause of the concrete proof, including documentary evidence. store with the caretakers. It appears that
injury suffered. NCC 2176 quoted, and said that ABIAD’S EVIDENCE CONSISTED ENTIRELY OF the caretakers took the gun from the
the question of the motorist’s negligence is a TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE, AND THIS IS drawer and placed it on top of a table.
question of fact. Usually, more will be required of INSUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE LEGAL Attracted by the sight of the gun, the
a motorist [25mi/hr = 37ft/sec] than a bicyclist PRESUMPTION THAT HE WAS NEGLIGENT IN young Alfred got hold of the same.
[10mi/hr = 15ft/sec] in discharging the duty of THE SELECTION AND SUPERVISION OF Matibag asked Alfred to return the gun.
care because of the physical advantages the COMPLETO. The latter followed and handed the gun to
former has over the latter. On Damages Matibag. It went off, the bullet hitting the
It was proven by a preponderance of evidence that CA rightfully deleted the award of actual damages young Alfred in the head.
Completo failed to exercise reasonable diligence. because Albayda failed to present documentary
He was overspeeding at the time he hit evidence to establish the amount incurred. A criminal case for homicide was filed
Albayda’s bicycle; he did not slow down even Temperate damages may be recovered when the against Matibag. Matibag, however, was
when he approached the intersection court finds that some pecuniary loss has been acquitted of the charge against him
Such negligence was the sole and proximate suffered but its amount cannot be proved with because of the exempting circumstance of
cause of the injuries sustained by Albayda certainty. Moral damages are awarded in QDs “accident” under Art. 12, par. 4 of the RPC.
It was proven that Albayda had the right of way causing physical injuries, so the award is proper.
since he reached the intersection ahead of The award of attorney’s fees is deleted for failure By agreement of the parties, the evidence
Completo to prove that petitioners acted in bad faith in adduced in the criminal case for homicide
NCC 2180 cited – obligation imposed by NCC 2176 refusing to satisfy respondent’s just and valid against Matibag was reproduced and
is demandable also for those persons for whom claim. adopted by them as part of their evidence
one is responsible. Employers are liable for in the instant case.
damage caused by employees, but the 11. Pacis vs Morales, GR 169467, Feb. 25,
responsibility ceases upon proof that employers 2010 The trial court rendered its decision in
observed the diligence of the good father of the FACTS: petitioners filed with the trial favor of petitioners, ordering the
family in the selection and supervision of court a civil case for damages against defendant to pay plaintiffs indemnity for
employees. The burden of proof is on the respondent Morales. the death of Alfred, actual damages for
employer. The responsibility of two or more the hospitalization and burial, expenses
persons who are liable for QD is solidary. The Petitioners are the parents of Alfred Pacis, incurred by the plaintiffs, compensatory
employer’s civil liability for his employee’s a 17-year old student who died in a damages, MD and AF.
negligent acts is also primary and direct, owing to shooting incident inside the Top Gun Respondent appealed to the CA, which
his own negligence in selecting and supervising Firearms and Ammunitions Store in reversed the trial court’s Decision and
them, and this liability attaches even if the Baguio City. Morales is the owner of the absolved respondent from civil liability
employer is not in the vehicle at the time of gun store. under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. MR
collision. denied, hence this petition.
In the selection of employees, employers are On the fateful day, Alfred was in the gun
required to examine them as to their store, with Matibag and Herbolario as ISSUE: Was Morales negligent?
qualifications, experience, and service sales agents and caretakers of the store
records. With respect to supervision, employers while owner Morales was in Manila. The HELD: Petition granted. The CA decision
should formulate SOPs and monitor their gun which killed Alfred is a gun owned by is set aside and the trial court’s Decision
implementation, and impose disciplinary a store customer which was left with reinstated.