CANGCO vs MANILA RAILROAD CO

(GR 12191, 14 October 1918)

Facts: Pettoner Cangco s empoyed by defendant Mana Raroad Co. n Mana, and by vrtue
of hs empoyment, he s entted free rde from hs house n San Mateo to Mana and vce-versa.
On a fatefu nght around 8:00 PM at the staton of San Mateo where t was dmy ghted ,
pettoner whe aghtng the tran (though t was st movng very sowy to the pont of stop),
not knowng that there are sacks of meon ped at the edge of the patform stepped on the
ob|ects, causng hm to sp off baance. Pantff was drawn under the car n an unconscous
condton and as a resut serousy n|ured hm. Hs arm was amputated and he was prevented
from workng. He spent approx P800 pesos for hs medca expenses. Thereupon, he sued Mana
Raroad to recover damages on the ground of neggence of the servants and empoyees of the
defendant. The CFI rued that athough there s an apparent neggence on the part of the
defendant through ts empoyees but nevertheess, the pantff cannot recover because he had
faed to use due cauton n aghtng from the coach. Hence ths appea.
Issue: Whether or not Mana Raroad Company s abe to the pantff for the neggent acts of
ts empoyees, notwthstandng that pantff was aso neggent?
e!": Yes. Whe the pantff may have been neggent, the defendant s aso neggent. The case
fas under the category that of (1) cupa contractua, that s, contract of carrage by provdng
the passengers safe trave begnnng from the tme heIt s mportant to note that the foundaton
of the ega abty of the defendant s the contract of carrage, and that the obgaton to
respond for the damage whch pantff has suffered arses, f at a, from the breach of that
contract by reason of the faure of defendant to exercse due care n ts performance. That s to
say, ts abty s drect and mmedate, dfferng essentay, n ega vewpont from that
presumptve responsbty for the neggence of ts servants, mposed by artce 1903 of the Cv
Code, whch can be rebutted by proof of the exercse of due care n ther seecton and
supervson. Artce 1903 of the Cv Code s not appcabe to obgatons arsng ex contractu,
but ony to extra-contractua obgatons - or to use the technca form of expresson, that artce
reates ony to cupa aquana and not to cupa contractua. Responde at superor - One who
paces a powerfu automobe n the hands of a servant whom he knows to be gnorant of the
method of managng such a vehce, s hmsef guty of an act of neggence whch makes hm
abe for a the consequences of hs mprudence. Cupa Aquana or extra-contractua cupa The
abty arsng from extra-contractua cupa s aways based upon a vountary act or omsson
whch, wthout wfu ntent, but by mere neggence or nattenton, has caused damage to
another. From ths artce two thngs are apparent: (1) That when an n|ury s caused by the
neggence of a servant or empoyee there nstanty arses a presumpton of aw that there was
neggence on the part of the master or empoyer ether n seecton of the servant or empoyee,
or n supervson over hm after the seecton, or both; and (2) that that presumpton s |urs
tantum and not |urs et de |ure, and consequenty, may be rebutted. It foows necessary that f
the empoyer shows to the satsfacton of the court that n seecton and supervson he has
exercsed the care and dgence of a good father of a famy, the presumpton s overcome and
he s reeved from abty. Dstncton between non-contractua and contractua Obgaton The
fundamenta dstncton between obgatons of ths character and those whch arse from
contract, rests upon the fact that n cases of non-contractua obgaton t s the wrongfu or
neggent act or omsson tsef whch creates the vncuum |urs, whereas n contractua reatons
the vncuum |urs exsts ndependenty of the breach of the vountary duty assumed by the
partes when enterng nto the contractua reaton. The mere fact that a person s bound to
another by contract does not reeve hm from extra-contractua abty to such person.
Comparatve neggence - f the accdent was caused by pantffs own neggence, no abty s
mposed upon defendants neggence and pantffs neggence merey contrbuted to hs n|ury,
the damages shoud be apportoned. It s, therefore, mportant to ascertan f defendant was n
fact guty of neggence. Test on Contrbutory neggence: Was there anythng n the
crcumstances surroundng the pantff at the tme he aghted from the tran whch woud have
admonshed a person of average prudence that to get off the tran under the condtons then
exstng was dangerous?
F#LL CA$%
&O$% CANGCO, '!a()t(**+a''e!!a)t, vs, MANILA RAILROAD CO,, "e*e)"a)t+a''e!!ee,
At the tme of the occurrence whch gave rse to ths tgaton the pantff, |ose Cangco,
was n the empoyment of Mana Raroad Company n the capacty of cerk, wth a monthy wage
of P25. He ved n the puebo of San Mateo, n the provnce of Rza, whch s ocated upon the
ne of the defendant raroad company; and n comng day by tran to the company's offce n
the cty of Mana where he worked, he used a pass, supped by the company, whch entted hm
to rde upon the company's trans free of charge. Upon the occason n queston, |anuary 20,
1915, the pantff arose from hs seat n the second cass-car where he was rdng and, makng,
hs ext through the door, took hs poston upon the steps of the coach, sezng the uprght
guardra wth hs rght hand for support.
On the sde of the tran where passengers aght at the San Mateo staton there s a
cement patform whch begns to rse wth a moderate gradent some dstance away from the
company's offce and extends aong n front of sad offce for a dstance suffcent to cover the
ength of severa coaches. As the tran sowed down another passenger, named Emo Zuga,
aso an empoyee of the raroad company, got off the same car, aghtng safey at the pont
where the patform begns to rse from the eve of the ground. When the tran had proceeded a
tte farther the pantff |ose Cangco stepped off aso, but one or both of hs feet came n contact
wth a sack of watermeons wth the resut that hs feet spped from under hm and he fe
voenty on the patform. Hs body at once roed from the patform and was drawn under the
movng car, where hs rght arm was bady crushed and acerated. It appears that after the
pantff aghted from the tran the car moved forward possby sx meters before t came to a fu
stop.
The accdent occurred between 7 and 8 o'cock on a dark nght, and as the raroad staton
was ghted dmy by a snge ght ocated some dstance away, ob|ects on the patform where
the accdent occurred were dffcut to dscern especay to a person emergng from a ghted
car.
The expanaton of the presence of a sack of meons on the patform where the pantff
aghted s found n the fact that t was the customary season for harvestng these meons and a
arge ot had been brought to the staton for the shpment to the market. They were contaned n
numerous sacks whch has been ped on the patform n a row one upon another. The testmony
shows that ths row of sacks was so paced of meons and the edge of patform; and t s cear
that the fa of the pantff was due to the fact that hs foot aghted upon one of these meons at
the moment he stepped upon the patform. Hs statement that he faed to see these ob|ects n
the darkness s ready to be credted.
The pantff was drawn from under the car n an unconscous condton, and t appeared
that the n|ures whch he had receved were very serous. He was therefore brought at once to a
certan hospta n the cty of Mana where an examnaton was made and hs arm was
amputated. The resut of ths operaton was unsatsfactory, and the pantff was then carred to
another hospta where a second operaton was performed and the member was agan
amputated hgher up near the shouder. It appears n evdence that the pantff expended the
sum of P790.25 n the form of medca and surgca fees and for other expenses n connecton
wth the process of hs curaton.
Upon August 31, 1915, he nsttuted ths proceedng n the Court of Frst Instance of the
cty of Mana to recover damages of the defendant company, foundng hs acton upon the
neggence of the servants and empoyees of the defendant n pacng the sacks of meons upon
the patform and eavng them so paced as to be a menace to the securty of passenger
aghtng from the company's trans. At the hearng n the Court of Frst Instance, hs Honor, the
tra |udge, found the facts substantay as above stated, and drew therefrom hs concuson to
the effect that, athough neggence was attrbutabe to the defendant by reason of the fact that
the sacks of meons were so paced as to obstruct passengers passng to and from the cars,
nevertheess, the pantff hmsef had faed to use due cauton n aghtng from the coach and
was therefore precuded form recoverng. |udgment was accordngy entered n favor of the
defendant company, and the pantff appeaed.
It can not be doubted that the empoyees of the raroad company were guty of
neggence n png these sacks on the patform n the manner above stated; that ther presence
caused the pantff to fa as he aghted from the tran; and that they therefore consttuted an
effectve ega cause of the n|ures sustaned by the pantff. It necessary foows that the
defendant company s abe for the damage thereby occasoned uness recovery s barred by the
pantff's own contrbutory neggence. In resovng ths probem t s necessary that each of
these conceptons of abty, to-wt, the prmary responsbty of the defendant company and
the contrbutory neggence of the pantff shoud be separatey examned.
It s mportant to note that the foundaton of the ega abty of the defendant s the
contract of carrage, and that the obgaton to respond for the damage whch pantff has
suffered arses, f at a, from the breach of that contract by reason of the faure of defendant to
exercse due care n ts performance. That s to say, ts abty s drect and mmedate, dfferng
essentay, n ega vewpont from that presumptve responsbty for the neggence of ts
servants, mposed by artce 1903 of the Cv Code, whch can be rebutted by proof of the
exercse of due care n ther seecton and supervson. Artce 1903 of the Cv Code s not
appcabe to obgatons arsng ex contractu, but ony to extra-contractua obgatons - or to
use the technca form of expresson, that artce reates ony to cupa aquana and not to cupa
contractua.
Manresa (vo. 8, p. 67) n hs commentares upon artces 1103 and 1104 of the Cv Code,
ceary ponts out ths dstncton, whch was aso recognzed by ths Court n ts decson n the
case of Rakes vs. Atantc, Guf and Pacfc Co. (7 Ph. rep., 359). In commentng upon artce
1093 Manresa ceary ponts out the dfference between "cupa, substantve and ndependent,
whch of tsef consttutes the source of an obgaton between persons not formery connected
by any ega te" and cupa consdered as an accdent n the performance of an obgaton aready
exstng . . . ."
In the Rakes case (supra) the decson of ths court was made to rest squarey upon the
proposton that artce 1903 of the Cv Code s not appcabe to acts of neggence whch
consttute the breach of a contract.
Upon ths pont the Court sad:
The acts to whch these artces |1902 and 1903 of the Cv Code| are appcabe are
understood to be those not growng out of pre-exstng dutes of the partes to one another. But
where reatons aready formed gve rse to dutes, whether sprngng from contract or quas-
contract, then breaches of those dutes are sub|ect to artce 1101, 1103, and 1104 of the same
code. (Rakes vs. Atantc, Guf and Pacfc Co., 7 Ph. Rep., 359 at 365.)
Ths dstncton s of the utmost mportance. The abty, whch, under the Spansh aw, s,
n certan cases mposed upon empoyers wth respect to damages occasoned by the neggence
of ther empoyees to persons to whom they are not bound by contract, s not based, as n the
Engsh Common Law, upon the prncpe of respondeat superor - f t were, the master woud
be abe n every case and uncondtonay - but upon the prncpe announced n artce 1902 of
the Cv Code, whch mposes upon a persons who by ther faut or neggence, do n|ury to
another, the obgaton of makng good the damage caused. One who paces a powerfu
automobe n the hands of a servant whom he knows to be gnorant of the method of managng
such a vehce, s hmsef guty of an act of neggence whch makes hm abe for a the
consequences of hs mprudence. The obgaton to make good the damage arses at the very
nstant that the unskfu servant, whe actng wthn the scope of hs empoyment causes the
n|ury. The abty of the master s persona and drect. But, f the master has not been guty of
any neggence whatever n the seecton and drecton of the servant, he s not abe for the acts
of the atter, whatever done wthn the scope of hs empoyment or not, f the damage done by
the servant does not amount to a breach of the contract between the master and the person
n|ured.
It s not accurate to say that proof of dgence and care n the seecton and contro of the
servant reeves the master from abty for the atter's acts - on the contrary, that proof shows
that the responsbty has never exsted. As Manresa says (vo. 8, p. 68) the abty arsng from
extra-contractua cupa s aways based upon a vountary act or omsson whch, wthout wfu
ntent, but by mere neggence or nattenton, has caused damage to another. A master who
exercses a possbe care n the seecton of hs servant, takng nto consderaton the
quafcatons they shoud possess for the dscharge of the dutes whch t s hs purpose to
confde to them, and drects them wth equa dgence, thereby performs hs duty to thrd
persons to whom he s bound by no contractua tes, and he ncurs no abty whatever f, by
reason of the neggence of hs servants, even wthn the scope of ther empoyment, such thrd
person suffer damage. True t s that under artce 1903 of the Cv Code the aw creates a
presumpton that he has been neggent n the seecton or drecton of hs servant, but the
presumpton s rebuttabe and yed to proof of due care and dgence n ths respect.
The supreme court of Porto Rco, n nterpretng dentca provsons, as found n the Porto
Rco Code, has hed that these artces are appcabe to cases of extra-contractua cupa
excusvey. (Carmona vs. Cuesta, 20 Porto Rco Reports, 215.)
Ths dstncton was agan made patent by ths Court n ts decson n the case of Baha vs.
Lton|ua and Leynes, (30 Ph. rep., 624), whch was an acton brought upon the theory of the
extra-contractua abty of the defendant to respond for the damage caused by the
careessness of hs empoyee whe actng wthn the scope of hs empoyment. The Court, after
ctng the ast paragraph of artce 1903 of the Cv Code, sad:
From ths artce two thngs are apparent: (1) That when an n|ury s caused by the
neggence of a servant or empoyee there nstanty arses a presumpton of aw that there was
neggence on the part of the master or empoyer ether n seecton of the servant or empoyee,
or n supervson over hm after the seecton, or both; and (2) that that presumpton s |urs
tantum and not |urs et de |ure, and consequenty, may be rebutted. It foows necessary that f
the empoyer shows to the satsfacton of the court that n seecton and supervson he has
exercsed the care and dgence of a good father of a famy, the presumpton s overcome and
he s reeved from abty.
Ths theory bases the responsbty of the master utmatey on hs own neggence and
not on that of hs servant. Ths s the notabe pecuarty of the Spansh aw of neggence. It s, of
course, n strkng contrast to the Amercan doctrne that, n reatons wth strangers, the
neggence of the servant n concusvey the neggence of the master.
The opnon there expressed by ths Court, to the effect that n case of extra-contractua
cupa based upon neggence, t s necessary that there sha have been some faut attrbutabe
to the defendant personay, and that the ast paragraph of artce 1903 merey estabshes a
rebuttabe presumpton, s n compete accord wth the authortatve opnon of Manresa, who
says (vo. 12, p. 611) that the abty created by artce 1903 s mposed by reason of the breach
of the dutes nherent n the speca reatons of authorty or superorty exstng between the
person caed upon to repar the damage and the one who, by hs act or omsson, was the cause
of t.
On the other hand, the abty of masters and empoyers for the neggent acts or
omssons of ther servants or agents, when such acts or omssons cause damages whch
amount to the breach of a contact, s not based upon a mere presumpton of the master's
neggence n ther seecton or contro, and proof of exercse of the utmost dgence and care n
ths regard does not reeve the master of hs abty for the breach of hs contract.
Every ega obgaton must of necessty be extra-contractua or contractua. Extra-
contractua obgaton has ts source n the breach or omsson of those mutua dutes whch
cvzed socety mposes upon t members, or whch arse from these reatons, other than
contractua, of certan members of socety to others, generay embraced n the concept of
status. The ega rghts of each member of socety consttute the measure of the correspondng
ega dutes, many negatve n character, whch the exstence of those rghts mposes upon a
other members of socety. The breach of these genera dutes whether due to wfu ntent or to
mere nattenton, f productve of n|ury, gve rse to an obgaton to ndemnfy the n|ured party.
The fundamenta dstncton between obgatons of ths character and those whch arse from
contract, rests upon the fact that n cases of non-contractua obgaton t s the wrongfu or
neggent act or omsson tsef whch creates the vncuum |urs, whereas n contractua reatons
the vncuum exsts ndependenty of the breach of the vountary duty assumed by the partes
when enterng nto the contractua reaton.
Wth respect to extra-contractua obgaton arsng from neggence, whether of act or
omsson, t s competent for the egsature to eect - and our Legsature has so eected -
whom such an obgaton s mposed s moray cupabe, or, on the contrary, for reasons of pubc
pocy, to extend that abty, wthout regard to the ack of mora cupabty, so as to ncude
responsbty for the neggence of those person who acts or msson are mputabe, by a ega
fcton, to others who are n a poston to exercse an absoute or mted contro over them. The
egsature whch adopted our Cv Code has eected to mt extra-contractua abty - wth
certan we-defned exceptons - to cases n whch mora cupabty can be drecty mputed to
the persons to be charged. Ths mora responsbty may consst n havng faed to exercse due
care n the seecton and contro of one's agents or servants, or n the contro of persons who, by
reason of ther status, occupy a poston of dependency wth respect to the person made abe
for ther conduct.
The poston of a natura or |urdca person who has undertaken by contract to render
servce to another, s whoy dfferent from that to whch artce 1903 reates. When the sources
of the obgaton upon whch pantff's cause of acton depends s a neggent act or omsson, the
burden of proof rests upon pantff to prove the neggence - f he does not hs acton fas. But
when the facts averred show a contractua undertakng by defendant for the beneft of pantff,
and t s aeged that pantff has faed or refused to perform the contract, t s not necessary for
pantff to specfy n hs peadngs whether the breach of the contract s due to wfu faut or to
neggence on the part of the defendant, or of hs servants or agents. Proof of the contract and of
ts nonperformance s suffcent prma face to warrant a recovery.
As a genera rue . . . t s ogca that n case of extra-contractua cupa, a sung credtor
shoud assume the burden of proof of ts exstence, as the ony fact upon whch hs acton s
based; whe on the contrary, n a case of neggence whch presupposes the exstence of a
contractua obgaton, f the credtor shows that t exsts and that t has been broken, t s not
necessary for hm to prove neggence. (Manresa, vo. 8, p. 71 |1907 ed., p. 76|).
As t s not necessary for the pantff n an acton for the breach of a contract to show that
the breach was due to the neggent conduct of defendant or of hs servants, even though such
be n fact the actua cause of the breach, t s obvous that proof on the part of defendant that
the neggence or omsson of hs servants or agents caused the breach of the contract woud not
consttute a defense to the acton. If the neggence of servants or agents coud be nvoked as a
means of dschargng the abty arsng from contract, the anomaous resut woud be that
person actng through the medum of agents or servants n the performance of ther contracts,
woud be n a better poston than those actng n person. If one devers a vauabe watch to
watchmaker who contract to repar t, and the baee, by a persona neggent act causes ts
destructon, he s unquestonaby abe. Woud t be ogca to free hm from hs abty for the
breach of hs contract, whch nvoves the duty to exercse due care n the preservaton of the
watch, f he shows that t was hs servant whose neggence caused the n|ury? If such a theory
coud be accepted, |urdca persons woud en|oy practcay compete mmunty from damages
arsng from the breach of ther contracts f caused by neggent acts as such |urdca persons
can of necessty ony act through agents or servants, and t woud no doubt be true n most
nstances that reasonabe care had been taken n seecton and drecton of such servants. If one
devers securtes to a bankng corporaton as coatera, and they are ost by reason of the
neggence of some cerk empoyed by the bank, woud t be |ust and reasonabe to permt the
bank to reeve tsef of abty for the breach of ts contract to return the coatera upon the
payment of the debt by provng that due care had been exercsed n the seecton and drecton
of the cerk?
Ths dstncton between cupa aquana, as the source of an obgaton, and cupa
contractua as a mere ncdent to the performance of a contract has frequenty been recognzed
by the supreme court of Span. (Sentencas of |une 27, 1894; November 20, 1896; and December
13, 1896.) In the decsons of November 20, 1896, t appeared that pantff's acton arose ex
contractu, but that defendant sought to ava hmsef of the provsons of artce 1902 of the Cv
Code as a defense. The Spansh Supreme Court re|ected defendant's contenton, sayng:
These are not cases of n|ury caused, wthout any pre-exstng obgaton, by faut or
neggence, such as those to whch artce 1902 of the Cv Code reates, but of damages caused
by the defendant's faure to carry out the undertakngs mposed by the contracts . . . .
A bref revew of the earer decson of ths court nvovng the abty of empoyers for
damage done by the neggent acts of ther servants w show that n no case has the court ever
decded that the neggence of the defendant's servants has been hed to consttute a defense to
an acton for damages for breach of contract.
In the case of |ohnson vs. Davd (5 Ph. Rep., 663), the court hed that the owner of a
carrage was not abe for the damages caused by the neggence of hs drver. In that case the
court commented on the fact that no evdence had been adduced n the tra court that the
defendant had been neggent n the empoyment of the drver, or that he had any knowedge of
hs ack of sk or carefuness.
In the case of Baer Senor & Co's Successors vs. Compana Martma (6 Ph. Rep., 215), the
pantff sued the defendant for damages caused by the oss of a barge beongng to pantff
whch was aowed to get adrft by the neggence of defendant's servants n the course of the
performance of a contract of towage. The court hed, ctng Manresa (vo. 8, pp. 29, 69) that f
the "obgaton of the defendant grew out of a contract made between t and the pantff . . . we
do not thnk that the provsons of artces 1902 and 1903 are appcabe to the case."
In the case of Chapman vs. Underwood (27 Ph. Rep., 374), pantff sued the defendant to
recover damages for the persona n|ures caused by the neggence of defendant's chauffeur
whe drvng defendant's automobe n whch defendant was rdng at the tme. The court found
that the damages were caused by the neggence of the drver of the automobe, but hed that
the master was not abe, athough he was present at the tme, sayng:
. . . uness the neggent acts of the drver are contnued for a ength of tme as to gve the
owner a reasonabe opportunty to observe them and to drect the drver to desst therefrom. . . .
The act companed of must be contnued n the presence of the owner for such ength of tme
that the owner by hs acquescence, makes the drver's acts hs own.
In the case of Yamada vs. Mana Raroad Co. and Bachrach Garage & Taxcab Co. (33 Ph.
Rep., 8), t s true that the court rested ts concuson as to the abty of the defendant upon
artce 1903, athough the facts dscosed that the n|ury compant of by pantff consttuted a
breach of the duty to hm arsng out of the contract of transportaton. The express ground of the
decson n ths case was that artce 1903, n deang wth the abty of a master for the
neggent acts of hs servants "makes the dstncton between prvate ndvduas and pubc
enterprse;" that as to the atter the aw creates a rebuttabe presumpton of neggence n the
seecton or drecton of servants; and that n the partcuar case the presumpton of neggence
had not been overcome.
It s evdent, therefore that n ts decson Yamada case, the court treated pantff's acton
as though founded n tort rather than as based upon the breach of the contract of carrage, and
an examnaton of the peadngs and of the brefs shows that the questons of aw were n fact
dscussed upon ths theory. Vewed from the standpont of the defendant the practca resut
must have been the same n any event. The proof dscosed beyond doubt that the defendant's
servant was grossy neggent and that hs neggence was the proxmate cause of pantff's
n|ury. It aso affrmatvey appeared that defendant had been guty of neggence n ts faure to
exercse proper dscreton n the drecton of the servant. Defendant was, therefore, abe for the
n|ury suffered by pantff, whether the breach of the duty were to be regarded as consttutng
cupa aquana or cupa contractua. As Manresa ponts out (vo. 8, pp. 29 and 69) whether
neggence occurs an ncdent n the course of the performance of a contractua undertakng or
ts tsef the source of an extra-contractua undertakng obgaton, ts essenta characterstcs
are dentca. There s aways an act or omsson productve of damage due to careessness or
nattenton on the part of the defendant. Consequenty, when the court hods that a defendant s
abe n damages for havng faed to exercse due care, ether drecty, or n fang to exercse
proper care n the seecton and drecton of hs servants, the practca resut s dentca n ether
case. Therefore, t foows that t s not to be nferred, because the court hed n the Yamada case
that defendant was abe for the damages neggenty caused by ts servants to a person to
whom t was bound by contract, and made reference to the fact that the defendant was
neggent n the seecton and contro of ts servants, that n such a case the court woud have
hed that t woud have been a good defense to the acton, f presented squarey upon the theory
of the breach of the contract, for defendant to have proved that t dd n fact exercse care n the
seecton and contro of the servant.
The true expanaton of such cases s to be found by drectng the attenton to the reatve
spheres of contractua and extra-contractua obgatons. The fed of non- contractua obgaton
s much more broader than that of contractua obgatons, comprsng, as t does, the whoe
extent of |urdca human reatons. These two feds, fguratvey speakng, concentrc; that s to
say, the mere fact that a person s bound to another by contract does not reeve hm from extra-
contractua abty to such person. When such a contractua reaton exsts the obgor may
break the contract under such condtons that the same act whch consttutes the source of an
extra-contractua obgaton had no contract exsted between the partes.
The contract of defendant to transport pantff carred wth t, by mpcaton, the duty to
carry hm n safety and to provde safe means of enterng and eavng ts trans (cv code, artce
1258). That duty, beng contractua, was drect and mmedate, and ts non-performance coud
not be excused by proof that the faut was moray mputabe to defendant's servants.
The raroad company's defense nvoves the assumpton that even grantng that the
neggent conduct of ts servants n pacng an obstructon upon the patform was a breach of ts
contractua obgaton to mantan safe means of approachng and eavng ts trans, the drect
and proxmate cause of the n|ury suffered by pantff was hs own contrbutory neggence n
fang to wat unt the tran had come to a compete stop before aghtng. Under the doctrne of
comparatve neggence announced n the Rakes case (supra), f the accdent was caused by
pantff's own neggence, no abty s mposed upon defendant's neggence and pantff's
neggence merey contrbuted to hs n|ury, the damages shoud be apportoned. It s, therefore,
mportant to ascertan f defendant was n fact guty of neggence.
It may be admtted that had pantff wated unt the tran had come to a fu stop before
aghtng, the partcuar n|ury suffered by hm coud not have occurred. Defendant contends, and
ctes many authortes n support of the contenton, that t s neggence per se for a passenger to
aght from a movng tran. We are not dsposed to subscrbe to ths doctrne n ts absoute form.
We are of the opnon that ths proposton s too bady stated and s at varance wth the
experence of every-day fe. In ths partcuar nstance, that the tran was barey movng when
pantff aghted s shown concusvey by the fact that t came to stop wthn sx meters from the
pace where he stepped from t. Thousands of person aght from trans under these condtons
every day of the year, and sustan no n|ury where the company has kept ts patform free from
dangerous obstructons. There s no reason to beeve that pantff woud have suffered any
n|ury whatever n aghtng as he dd had t not been for defendant's neggent faure to perform
ts duty to provde a safe aghtng pace.
We are of the opnon that the correct doctrne reatng to ths sub|ect s that expressed n
Thompson's work on Neggence (vo. 3, sec. 3010) as foows:
The test by whch to determne whether the passenger has been guty of neggence n
attemptng to aght from a movng raway tran, s that of ordnary or reasonabe care. It s to be
consdered whether an ordnary prudent person, of the age, sex and condton of the passenger,
woud have acted as the passenger acted under the crcumstances dscosed by the evdence.
Ths care has been defned to be, not the care whch may or shoud be used by the prudent man
generay, but the care whch a man of ordnary prudence woud use under smar
crcumstances, to avod n|ury." (Thompson, Commentares on Neggence, vo. 3, sec. 3010.)
Or, t we prefer to adopt the mode of exposton used by ths court n Pcart vs. Smth (37
Ph. rep., 809), we may say that the test s ths; Was there anythng n the crcumstances
surroundng the pantff at the tme he aghted from the tran whch woud have admonshed a
person of average prudence that to get off the tran under the condtons then exstng was
dangerous? If so, the pantff shoud have dessted from aghtng; and hs faure so to desst was
contrbutory neggence.1awph!.net
As the case now before us presents tsef, the ony fact from whch a concuson can be
drawn to the effect that pantff was guty of contrbutory neggence s that he stepped off the
car wthout beng abe to dscern ceary the condton of the patform and whe the tran was yet
sowy movng. In consderng the stuaton thus presented, t shoud not be overooked that the
pantff was, as we fnd, gnorant of the fact that the obstructon whch was caused by the sacks
of meons ped on the patform exsted; and as the defendant was bound by reason of ts duty as
a pubc carrer to afford to ts passengers factes for safe egress from ts trans, the pantff
had a rght to assume, n the absence of some crcumstance to warn hm to the contrary, that
the patform was cear. The pace, as we have aready stated, was dark, or dmy ghted, and ths
aso s proof of a faure upon the part of the defendant n the performance of a duty owng by t
to the pantff; for f t were by any possbty concede that t had rght to pe these sacks n the
path of aghtng passengers, the pacng of them adequatey so that ther presence woud be
reveaed.
As pertnent to the queston of contrbutory neggence on the part of the pantff n ths
case the foowng crcumstances are to be noted: The company's patform was constructed upon
a eve hgher than that of the roadbed and the surroundng ground. The dstance from the steps
of the car to the spot where the aghtng passenger woud pace hs feet on the patform was
thus reduced, thereby decreasng the rsk ncdent to steppng off. The nature of the patform,
constructed as t was of cement matera, aso assured to the passenger a stabe and even
surface on whch to aght. Furthermore, the pantff was possessed of the vgor and agty of
young manhood, and t was by no means so rsky for hm to get off whe the tran was yet
movng as the same act woud have been n an aged or feebe person. In determnng the
queston of contrbutory neggence n performng such act - that s to say, whether the
passenger acted prudenty or reckessy - the age, sex, and physca condton of the passenger
are crcumstances necessary affectng the safety of the passenger, and shoud be consdered.
Women, t has been observed, as a genera rue are ess capabe than men of aghtng wth
safety under such condtons, as the nature of ther wearng appare obstructs the free
movement of the mbs. Agan, t may be noted that the pace was perfecty famar to the
pantff as t was hs day custom to get on and of the tran at ths staton. There coud,
therefore, be no uncertanty n hs mnd wth regard ether to the ength of the step whch he was
requred to take or the character of the patform where he was aghtng. Our concuson s that
the conduct of the pantff n undertakng to aght whe the tran was yet sghty under way was
not characterzed by mprudence and that therefore he was not guty of contrbutory neggence.
The evdence shows that the pantff, at the tme of the accdent, was earnng P25 a
month as a copyst cerk, and that the n|ures he has suffered have permanenty dsabed hm
from contnung that empoyment. Defendant has not shown that any other ganfu occupaton s
open to pantff. Hs expectancy of fe, accordng to the standard mortaty tabes, s
approxmatey thrty-three years. We are of the opnon that a far compensaton for the damage
suffered by hm for hs permanent dsabty s the sum of P2,500, and that he s aso entted to
recover of defendant the addtona sum of P790.25 for medca attenton, hospta servces, and
other ncdenta expendtures connected wth the treatment of hs n|ures.
The decson of ower court s reversed, and |udgment s hereby rendered pantff for the
sum of P3,290.25, and for the costs of both nstances. So ordered.
Areano, C.|., Torres, Street and Avancea, ||., concur.
Separate Opnons
MALCOLM, |., dssentng:
Wth one sentence n the ma|orty decson, we are of fu accord, namey, "It may be
admtted that had pantff wated unt the tran had come to a fu stop before aghtng, the
partcuar n|ury suffered by hm coud not have occurred." Wth the genera rue reatve to a
passenger's contrbutory neggence, we are kewse n fu accord, namey, "An attempt to aght
from a movng tran s neggence per se." Addng these two ponts together, shoud be absoved
from the compant, and |udgment affrmed.
|ohnson, |., concur.
ARAN%-A vs D% &O.A
Facts: Respondent De |oya, genera manager, proposed to the board of Ace Advsertsng Corp.,
to send Rcardo Tayor to the US to take up speca studes n teevson. The Board dd not act
upon the proposa. Nevertheess, sent Tayor to the US. Respondent assured Antono Araneta, a
company drector, that expenses w be handed by other partes whch ater was confrmed
through a memorandum. Whe abroad, Tayor contnued to receve hs saares. The tems
correspondng to hs saares appeared n vouchers prepared upon orders of, and approved by,
the respondent. Pettoner Lus Araneta, sgned three of the vouchers, others sgned by ether
respondent or Vcente Araneta, the company treasurer. A tod, Ace Advertsng dsbursed P5,
043.20 on account of Tayors trave and studes. Then a year after, Ace Advertsng fed a
compant before the CFI aganst respondent for the recovery of the tota sum dsbursed to Tayor
aegng that the trp was made wthout ts knowedge, authorty or ratfcaton. The respondent n
hs answer dened the charge and camed that the trp was nonetheess ratfed by the
companys board and at any event he had the dscreton as genera manager to authorze the
trp whch was for the companys beneft. A thrd party compant was fed by respondent
aganst, Vcente and Lus and Tayor. Respondent proved that some of the checks to cover the
expenses of Tayor were sgned by Vcente and Lus. In ther defense, Lus and Vcente camed
that they sgned the checks n good fath as they were approved by respondent. The CFI
rendered |udgment orderng the respondent to pay Ace for the amount dsbursed wth nterest at
a ega rate unt fu payment and dsmssed the thrd party compant. Respondent appeaed to
CA. CA affrmed the decson of tra court wth regard to ts decson n favor of Ace but reversed
the dsmssa of the 3rd party compant. CA found as a fact that Tayors trp had nether been
authorzed nor ratfed by Ace. It hed that Lus and Vcente were aso prvy to the authorzed
dsbursement of corporate mones wth the respondent. That when they approved sgned the
checks, they have gven ther stamp of approva. As t s estabshed that corporate funds were
dsbursed unauthorzed, the case s of a smpe quas-dect commtted by them aganst the
corporaton. Hence, ths appea.
Issue: Whether or not pettoner s guty of quas-dect, notwthstandng that he was occupyng
a contractua poston at Ace? Otherwse stated, whether or not quas-dect (tort) may be
commtted a party n a contract?
e!": Yes. The exstence of a contract between the partes consttutes no bar to the commsson
of a tort by one aganst the other and the consequent recovery of damages. Hs gut s manfest
on account of, n spte of hs beng a vce-presdent and drector of Ace, pettoner remaned
passve, throughout the perod of Tayors trp and to the payment of the atters saary. As such
he negected to perform hs dutes propery to the damage of the frm of whch he was an offcer.
F#LL CA$%
Petton for revew of the decson of the Court of Appeas n CA-G.R. 34277-R orderng Lus Ma.
Araneta (herenafter referred to as the pettoner) to ndemnfy Antono R. de |oya (herenafter
referred to as the respondent) for one-thrd of the sum of P5,043.20 whch the atter was
ad|udged to pay the Ace Advertsng Agency, Inc., the pantff n the recovery sut beow.
Sometme n November 1952 the respondent, then genera manager of the Ace Advertsng,
proposed to the board of drectors 1 that an empoyee, Rcardo Tayor, be sent to the Unted
States to take up speca studes n teevson. The board, however, faed to act on the proposa.
Nevertheess, n September 1953 the respondent sent Tayor abroad. |. Antono Araneta, a
company drector, nqured about the trp and was assured by the respondent that Tayor's
expenses woud be defrayed not by the company but by other partes. Ths was thereafter
confrmed by the respondent n a memorandum.
Whe abroad, from September 1, 1953 to March 15, 1954, Tayor contnued to receve hs
saares. The tems correspondng to hs saares appeared n vouchers prepared upon the orders
of, and approved by, the respondent and were ncuded n the sem-monthy payro checks for
the empoyees of the corporaton. The pettoner sgned three of these checks on November 27,
December 15 and December 29, 1953. The others were sgned by ether the respondent, or
Vcente Araneta (company treasurer) who put up part of the b connected wth Tayor's trp and
aso handed hm etters for devery n the Unted States. The Ace Advertsng dsbursed
P5,043.20, a tod, on account of Tayor's trave and studes.
On August 23, 1954 the Ace Advertsng fed a compant wth the court of frst nstance of
Mana aganst the respondent for recovery of the tota sum dsbursed to Tayor, aegng that the
trp was made wthout ts knowedge, authorty or ratfcaton. The respondent, n hs answer,
dened the charge and camed that the trp was nonetheess ratfed by the company's board of
drectors, and that n any event under the by-aws he had the dscreton, as genera manager, to
authorze the trp whch was for the company's beneft..
A 3rd-party compant was aso fed by the respondent aganst Vcente Araneta, the pettoner
and Rcardo Tayor. The respondent proved that Vcente Araneta, as treasurer of the frm, sgned
a check representng the company's share of the transportaton expense of Tayor to the Unted
States, and that a seres of payro checks from September 15, 1953 to December 31, 1953,
ncusve, whch ncuded the saares of Tayor, was sgned by Vcente Araneta and the pettoner
who s a vce-presdent of the company. Both Aranetas dsowned any persona abty, camng
that they sgned the checks n good fath as they were approved by the respondent..
On Apr 13, 1964 the tra court rendered |udgment orderng the respondent to pay the Ace
Advertsng "the sum of P5,043.20 wth nterest at the ega rate from August 23, 1954 unt fu
payment," and dsmssng the 3rd-party compant.
The respondent appeaed to the Court of Appeas, whch on August 2, 1965, rendered a decson
affrmng the tra court's |udgment n favor of the Ace Advertsng but reversng the dsmssa of
the 3rd-party compant. The appeate court found as a fact that Tayor's trp had been nether
authorzed nor ratfed by the company.
The appeate court's fu statement of ts categorca and unequvoca fndngs of fact on the
nature and extent of the partcpaton of the pettoner as we as Vcente Araneta s hereunder
quoted:
The evdence not ony s cear, but s even not dsputed at a by Vcente and Lus Araneta who
nether of them took the wtness stand to refute appeant's evdence, that as to Vcente t was to
hm that appeant frst broached the sub|ect-matter of sendng Tayor to Amerca, that Vcente
Araneta evnced unusua nterest, and went to the extent of entrustng Tayor wth etters for
devery to certan prncpas of Gregoro Araneta, Inc. n the Unted States, and he even sgned
the check for P105.20 to cover expenses for hs tax cearance, documentary stamps and
passport fees, n connecton wth the trp, on 8 September, 1953, and then on 5 October, 1953,
st another check for P868.00 whch was haf the amount for hs pane tcket; and as to Lus
Araneta, t not at a beng dsputed that when Tayor was aready n Amerca, hs saares whe
abroad were pad on vouchers and checks sgned ether by hm or by Vcente, or by appeant
hmsef; because of a these, the concuson s forced upon ths Court that t coud not but have
been but that both Vcente and Lus were nformed and gave ther approva to Tayor's trp, and
to the payment of hs trp expenses and saares durng hs absence, from corporate funds; f ths
was the case as t was, there can be no queston but that they two were aso prvy to the
unauthorzed dsbursement of the corporate moneys |onty wth the appeant; what had
happened was n truth and n fact a venture by them gven ther stamp of approva; and as t was
an unauthorzed act of expendture of corporate funds, and t was these three wthout whose
acts the same coud not have happened, the |urdca stuaton was a smpe quas-dect by them
commtted upon the corporaton, for whch sodary abty shoud have been mposed upon a
n the frst pace, Art. 2194, New Cv Code; and ony De |oya havng been sued and made abe
by the corporaton, t was the rght of the atter to ask that hs two |ont tortfeasors be made to
shouder ther proportona responsbty. (emphass supped)
The basc ega ssue s whether the pettoner s guty of a quas-dect as hed beow.
It s our vew, and we so hod, that the |udgment of the Court of Appeas shoud be uphed. The
pettoner's asserton that he sgned the questoned payro checks n good fath has not been
substantated, he n partcuar not havng testfed or offered testmony to prove such cam.
Upon the contrary, n spte of hs beng a vce-presdent and drector of the Ace Advertsng, the
pettoner remaned passve, throughout the perod of Tayor's stay abroad, concernng the
unauthorzed dsbursements of corporate funds for the atter. Ths pus the fact that he even
approved thrce payro checks for the payment of Tayor's saary, demonstrate qute dstncty
that the pettoner negected to perform hs dutes propery, to the damage of the frm of whch
he was an offcer. The fact that he was occupyng a contractua poston at the Ace Advertsng s
of no moment. The exstence of a contract between the partes, as has been repeatedy hed by
ths Court, consttutes no bar to the commsson of a tort by one aganst the other and the
consequent recovery of damages. 2
ACCORDINGLY, the |udgment of the Court of Appeas s affrmed, at pettoner's cost.
/ARR%DO vs GARCIA
The case of Barredo v. Garca (73 Ph. 607 (1942)) nvoves a 16-year od boy, one of the
passengers of a caretea, who ded as a resut of a coson wth a reckessy drven tax. In the
crmna acton, the parents of the vctm reserved ther rght to fe a separate cv acton. After
convcton of the drver wth the charge of homcde thru reckess mprudence, they proceeded to
fe a separate cv acton aganst the tax-owner based on Artce 2180 of the New Cv Code.
The tax-drver met ths wth the argument that the drver havng been convcted of crmna
neggence, Artce 100 n reaton to Artces 102-o3 of the Revsed Pena Code shoud govern hs
abty, whch, pursuant to sad provsons s ony subsdary, but snce the drver has not been
sued n a cv acton and hs property not yet exhausted, the pantffs have no recourse aganst
hm.
The Court, n sad case, rued n favor of the pantff, hodng that a quas-dect s "a separate
ega nsttuton under the Cv Code, wth a substantvty a ts own, and ndvduaty that s
entrey apart and ndependent from a dect or crme."
The Comment thus anayzes reated decsons on the matter of nterpretng and appyng Barredo
and Artce 2177 of the New Cv Code, whch ncude: Dana v. Batangas (93 Ph. 391 (1953)),
|ocson v. Goroso (22 SCRA 316 (1968)), Mendoza v. La Maorca (82 SCRA 243 (1978)), and
Padua v. Robes (66 SCRA 485 (1975)) on the one hand, and Tactaqun v. Paeo (21 SCRA 346
(1967)) on the other.
The Author concudes by statng that the doctrne n Barredo s mertorous but s susceptbe to
mprovement, n effect, posng a chaenge to egsators
+
Facts: On May 3, 1936, there was a head-on coson between a tax of the Maate taxcab
drven by Fontana and a carretea guded by Dmaps. The carretea was over-turned, and a
passenger, a 16-year od boy, Garca, suffered n|ures from whch he ded. A crmna acton was
fed aganst Fontana, and he was convcted. The court n the crmna case granted the petton
to reserve the cv acton. Garca and Amaro, parents of the deceased, on March 7, 1939, fed a
cv acton aganst Barredo, the propretor of the Maate Taxcab and empoyer of Fontana,
makng hm prmary and drecty responsbe under cupa acquana of Artce 2180 of the Cv
Code of the Phppnes. It s undsputed that Fontanas neggence was the cause of the
accdent, as he was drvng on the wrong sde of the road at hgh speed, and there was no
showng that Barredo exercsed the dgence of a good father of a famy, a defense to Artce
2180 of the sad Code. Barredos theory of defense s that Fontanas neggence beng punshed
by the Revsed Pena Code, hs abty as empoyer s ony subsdary, but Fontana, was not
sued for cv abty. Hence, Barredo cams that he cannot be hed abe.
Issue: Whether or not Barredo, as empoyer s cvy abe for the acts of Fontana, hs
empoyee.
e!": Ouas-dect or cupa acquana s a separate ega nsttuton under the Cv Code of the
Phppnes s entrey dstnct and ndependent from a dect or crme under the Revsed Pena
Code. In ths |ursdcton, the same neggent act causng damage may produce cv abty
(subsdary) arsng from a crme under Artce 103 of the Revsed Pena Code of the Phppnes;
or create an acton for quas-decto or cupa aquana under Artces 2179 and 2180 of the Cv
Code and the partes are free to choose whch course to take. And n the nstant case, the
neggent act of Fontana produces two (2) abtes of Barredo: Frst, a subsdary one because
of the cv abty of Fontana arsng from the atters crmna neggence under Artce 103 of
the Revsed Pena Code, and second, Barredos prmary and drect responsbty arsng from hs
presumed neggence as an empoyer under Artce 2180 of the Cv Code. Snce the pantffs are
free to choose what remedy to take, they preferred the second, whch s wthn ther rghts. Ths
s the more expedous and effectve method of reef because Fontana was ether n prson or
|ust been reeased or had no property. Barredo was hed abe for damages.
Difference bet Crime and Quasi-delict
1) crmes - pubc nterest; quas-dect - ony prvate nterest; 2) Pena code punshes or corrects
crmna acts; Cv Code by means of ndemnfcaton merey repars the damage; 3) dects are
not as broad as quas-dects; crmes are ony punshed f there s a pena aw; quas-dects
ncude any knd of faut or neggence ntervenes
NOTE: not a voatons of pena aw produce cv responsbty. e.g. contraventon of ordnances,
voaton of game aws, nfracton of rues of traffc when nobody s hurt4) crme - gut beyond
reasonabe doubt; cv - mere preponderance of evdence- Presumptons: 1) n|ury s caused by
servant or empoyee, there nstanty arses presumpton of neggence of master or empoyer n
seecton, n supervson or both 2) presumpton s |urs tantum not |urs et de |ure
TF may be rebutted by provng exercse of dgence of a good father of the famy- bass of cv
aw abty: not respondent superor but the reatonshp of paterfamas- motor accdents -
need of stressng and accentuatng the responsbty of owners of motor vehces.
DIG%$- II
I$$#%: Whether or not Barredo s |ust subsdary abe.
%LD: No. He s prmary abe under Artce 1903 whch s a separate cv acton aganst
neggent empoyers. Garca s we wthn hs rghts n sung Barredo. He reserved hs rght to fe
a separate cv acton and ths s more expedtous because by the tme of the SC |udgment
Fontana s aready servng hs sentence and has no property. It was aso proven that Barredo s
neggent n hrng hs empoyees because t was shown that Fontana had had mutpe traffc
nfractons aready before he hred hm - somethng he faed to overcome durng hearng. Had
Garca not reserved hs rght to fe a separate cv acton, Barredo woud have ony been
subsdary abe. Further, Barredo s not beng sued for damages arsng from a crmna act (hs
drvers neggence) but rather for hs own neggence n seectng hs empoyee (Artce 1903).
%LCANO vs ILL
77 SCRA 100 - May 26, 1977
Torts and Damages - Cv Labty from Ouas Dects vs Cv Labty from Crmes
FAC-$: Regnad H, a mnor, caused the death of Agapto (son of Ecano). Ecano fed a
crmna case aganst Regnad but Regnad was acqutted for "ack of ntent couped wth
mstake." Ecano then fed a cv acton aganst Regnad and hs dad (Marvn H) for damages
based on Artce 2180 of the Cv Code. H argued that the cv acton s barred by hs sons
acqutta n the crmna case; and that f ever, hs cv abty as a parent has been extngushed
by the fact that hs son s aready an emancpated mnor by reason of hs marrage.
I$$#%: Whether or not Marvn H may be hed cvy abe under Artce 2180.
%LD: Yes. The acqutta of Regnad n the crmna case does not bar the fng of a separate
cv acton. A separate cv acton es aganst the offender n a crmna act, whether or not he s
crmnay prosecuted and found guty or acqutted, provded that the offended party s not
aowed, f accused s actuay charged aso crmnay, to recover damages on both scores, and
woud be entted n such eventuaty ony to the bgger award of the two, assumng the awards
made n the two cases vary. In other words, the extncton of cv abty referred to n Par. (e) of
Secton 3, Rue 111, refers excusvey to cv abty founded on Artce 100 of the Revsed Pena
Code, whereas the cv abty for the same act consdered as a quas-dect ony and not as a
crme s not extngushed even by a decaraton n the crmna case that the crmna act charged
has not happened or has not been commtted by the accused. Brefy stated, cupa aquana
ncudes vountary and neggent acts whch may be punshabe by aw.
Whe t s true that parenta authorty s termnated upon emancpaton of the chd (Artce 327,
Cv Code), and under Artce 397, emancpaton takes pace "by the marrage of the mnor
chd", t s, however, aso cear that pursuant to Artce 399, emancpaton by marrage of the
mnor s not reay fu or absoute. Thus "Emancpaton by marrage or by vountary concesson
sha termnate parenta authorty over the chds person. It sha enabe the mnor to admnster
hs property as though he were of age, but he cannot borrow money or aenate or encumber rea
property wthout the consent of hs father or mother, or guardan. He can sue and be sued n
court ony wth the assstance of hs father, mother or guardan." Therefore, Artce 2180 s
appcabe to Marvn H - the SC however rued snce at the tme of the decson, Regnad s
aready of age, Marvns abty shoud be subsdary ony - as a matter of equty.
DIG%$- II
Issues:
Whether or not quas-dect s restrcted to neggence and cannot appy to vountary acts or
omssons producng n|ury (or feony)?
Whether or not a father may be hed abe for the act of hs emancpated chd consttutng
quas-dect?
e!": No. To repeat the Barredo case, under Artce 2177, acqutta from an accusaton of
crmna neggence, whether on reasonabe doubt or not, sha not be a bar to a subsequent cv
acton, not for cv abty arsng from crmna neggence, but for damages due to a quas-
dect or cupa aquana athough t mentons the word "neggence" but accordng to |ustce
Bocobo t must be construed accordng to "the sprt that gveth ft- rather than that whch s
tera that keth the ntent of the awmaker shoud be observed n appyng the same." Crmna
prosecuton and cv acton are two dfferent thngs.
On the second ssue (obsoete), yes, the father may be hed abe. Whe t s true that marrage
of a chd emancpates hm from the parenta authorty of hs parents, what matters reay s
whether or not such mnor s competey emancpated as defned by aw. In the case at bar, hs
emancpaton s ony parta for as provded by aw he can sue and be sued n court wth the
assstance of hs parents, he cannot manage hs own propertes wthout the approva of hs
parents, and thrd as n the facts, he rees for subsstence from hs parents.
F#LL CA$%
G.R. No. L-24803 May 26, 1977
PEDRO ELCANO and PATRICIA ELCANO, n ther capacty as Ascendants of Agapto Ecano,
deceased, pantffs-appeants, vs. REGINALD HILL, mnor, and MARVIN HILL, as father and
Natura Guardan of sad mnor, defendants-appeees.
Appea from the order of the Court of Frst Instance of Ouezon Cty dated |anuary 29, 1965 n
Cv Case No. O-8102, Pedro Ecano et a. vs. Regnad H et a. dsmssng, upon moton to
dsmss of defendants, the compant of pantffs for recovery of damages from defendant
Regnad H, a mnor, marred at the tme of the occurrence, and hs father, the defendant
Marvn H, wth whom he was vng and gettng subsstence, for the kng by Regnad of the
son of the pantffs, named Agapto Ecano, of whch, when crmnay prosecuted, the sad
accused was acqutted on the ground that hs act was not crmna, because of "ack of ntent to
k, couped wth mstake."
Actuay, the moton to dsmss based on the foowng grounds:
1. The present acton s not ony aganst but a voaton of secton 1, Rue 107, whch s now Rue
III, of the Revsed Rues of Court;
2. The acton s barred by a pror |udgment whch s now fna and or n res-ad|udcata;
3. The compant had no cause of acton aganst defendant Marvn H, because he was reeved
as guardan of the other defendant through emancpaton by marrage. (P. 23, Record |p. 4,
Record on Appea.|)
was frst dened by the tra court. It was ony upon moton for reconsderaton of the defendants
of such dena, reteratng the above grounds that the foowng order was ssued:
Consderng the moton for reconsderaton fed by the defendants on |anuary 14, 1965 and after
thoroughy examnng the arguments theren contaned, the Court fnds the same to be
mertorous and we-founded.
WHEREFORE, the Order of ths Court on December 8, 1964 s hereby reconsdered by orderng
the dsmssa of the above entted case.
SO ORDERED.
Ouezon Cty, Phppnes, |anuary 29, 1965. (p. 40, Record |p. 21, Record on Appea.)
Hence, ths appea where pantffs-appeants, the spouses Ecano, are presentng for Our
resouton the foowng assgnment of errors:
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE CASE BY UPHOLDING THE CLAIM OF DEFENDANTS
THAT -
I THE PRESENT ACTION IS NOT ONLY AGAINST BUT ALSO A VIOLATION OF SECTION 1, RULE 107,
NOW RULE 111, OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT, AND THAT SECTION 3(c) OF RULE 111,
RULES OF COURT IS APPLICABLE;
II THE ACTION IS BARRED BY A PRIOR |UDGMENT WHICH IS NOW FINAL OR RES-AD|UDICTA;
III THE PRINCIPLES OF OUASI-DELICTS, ARTICLES 2176 TO 2194 OF THE CIVIL CODE, ARE
INAPPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE; and
IV THAT THE COMPLAINT STATES NO CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT MARVIN HILL
BECAUSE HE WAS RELIEVED AS GUARDIAN OF THE OTHER DEFENDANT THROUGH
EMANCIPATION BY MARRIAGE. (page 4, Record.)
It appears that for the kng of the son, Agapto, of pantffs-appeants, defendant- appeee
Regnad H was prosecuted crmnay n Crmna Case No. 5102 of the Court of Frst Instance of
Ouezon Cty. After due tra, he was acqutted on the ground that hs act was not crmna
because of "ack of ntent to k, couped wth mstake." Parenthetcay, none of the partes has
favored Us wth a copy of the decson of acqutta, presumaby because appeants do not
dspute that such ndeed was the bass stated n the courts decson. And so, when appeants
fed ther compant aganst appeees Regnad and hs father, Atty. Marvn H, on account of
the death of ther son, the appeees fed the moton to dsmss above-referred to.
As We vew the foregong background of ths case, the two decsve ssues presented for Our
resouton are:
1. Is the present cv acton for damages barred by the acqutta of Regnad n the crmna case
wheren the acton for cv abty, was not reversed?
2. May Artce 2180 (2nd and ast paragraphs) of the Cv Code he apped aganst Atty. H,
notwthstandng the undsputed fact that at the tme of the occurrence companed of. Regnad,
though a mnor, vng wth and gettng subsstenee from hs father, was aready egay marred?
The frst ssue presents no more probem than the need for a reteraton and further carfcaton
of the dua character, crmna and cv, of faut or neggence as a source of obgaton whch
was frmy estabshed n ths |ursdcton n Barredo vs. Garca, 73 Ph. 607. In that case, ths
Court postuated, on the bass of a schoary dssertaton by |ustce Bocobo on the nature of cupa
aquana n reaton to cupa crmna or deto and mere cupa or faut, wth pertnent ctaton of
decsons of the Supreme Court of Span, the works of recognzed cvans, and earer
|ursprudence of our own, that the same gven act can resut n cv abty not ony under the
Pena Code but aso under the Cv Code. Thus, the opnon hods:
The, above case s pertnent because t shows that the same act machnst. come under both the
Pena Code and the Cv Code. In that case, the acton of the agent keth un|ustfed and
frauduent and therefore coud have been the sub|ect of a crmna acton. And yet, t was hed to
be aso a proper sub|ect of a cv acton under artce 1902 of the Cv Code. It s aso to be noted
that t was the empoyer and not the empoyee who was beng sued. (pp. 615-616, 73 Ph.). 1
It w be notced that the defendant n the above case coud have been prosecuted n a crmna
case because hs neggence causng the death of the chd was punshabe by the Pena Code.
Here s therefore a cear nstance of the same act of neggence beng a proper sub|ect matter
ether of a crmna acton wth ts consequent cv abty arsng from a crme or of an entrey
separate and ndependent cv acton for faut or neggence under artce 1902 of the Cv Code.
Thus, n ths |ursdcton, the separate ndvduaty of a cuas-deto or cupa aquana, under the
Cv Code has been fuy and ceary recognzed, even wth regard to a neggent act for whch
the wrongdoer coud have been prosecuted and convcted n a crmna case and for whch, after
such a convcton, he coud have been sued for ths cv abty arsng from hs crme. (p. 617,
73 Ph.) 2
It s most sgnfcant that n the case |ust cted, ths Court specfcay apped artce 1902 of the
Cv Code. It s thus that athough |. V. House coud have been crmnay prosecuted for reckess
or smpe neggence and not ony punshed but aso made cvy abe because of hs crmna
neggence, nevertheess ths Court awarded damages n an ndependent cv acton for faut or
neggence under artce 1902 of the Cv Code. (p. 618, 73 Ph.) 3
The ega provsons, authors, and cases aready nvoked shoud ordnary be suffcent to
dspose of ths case. But nasmuch as we are announcng doctrnes that have been tte
understood, n the past, t mght not he napproprate to ndcate ther foundatons.
Frsty, the Revsed Pena Code n artces 365 punshes not ony reckess but aso smpe
neggence. If we were to hod that artces 1902 to 1910 of the Cv Code refer ony to faut or
neggence not punshed by aw, accordngy to the tera mport of artce 1093 of the Cv Code,
the ega nsttuton of cupa aquana woud have very tte scope and appcaton n actua fe.
Death or n|ury to persons and damage to property- through any degree of neggence - even the
sghtest - woud have to be Indemnfed ony through the prncpe of cv abty arsng from a
crme. In such a state of affars, what sphere woud reman for cuas-deto or cupa aquana? We
are oath to mpute to the awmaker any ntenton to brng about a stuaton so absurd and
anomaous. Nor are we, n the nterpretaton of the aws, dsposed to uphod the etter that keth
rather than the sprt that gveth fe. We w not use the tera meanng of the aw to smother
and render amost feess a prncpe of such ancent orgn and such fu-grown deveopment as
cupa aquana or cuas-deto, whch s conserved and made endurng n artces 1902 to 1910 of
the Spansh Cv Code.
Secondary, to fnd the accused guty n a crmna case, proof of gut beyond reasonabe doubt
s requred, whe n a cv case, preponderance of evdence s suffcent to make the defendant
pay n damages. There are numerous cases of crmna neggence whch cannot be shown
beyond reasonabe doubt, but can be proved by a preponderance of evdence. In such cases, the
defendant can and shoud be made responsbe n a cv acton under artces 1902 to 1910 of
the Cv Code. Otherwse. there woud be many nstances of unvndcated cv wrongs. "Ub |us
Idemnfed remedum." (p. 620,73 Ph.)
Fourthy, because of the broad sweep of the provsons of both the Pena Code and the Cv Code
on ths sub|ect, whch has gven rse to the overappng or concurrence of spheres aready
dscussed, and for ack of understandng of the character and effcacy of the acton for cupa
aquana, there has grown up a common practce to seek damages ony by vrtue of the cv
responsbty arsng from a crme, forgettng that there s another remedy, whch s by nvokng
artces 1902-1910 of the Cv Code. Athough ths habtua method s aowed by, our aws, t has
nevertheess rendered practcay useess and nugatory the more expedtous and effectve
remedy based on cupa aquana or cupa extra-contractua. In the present case, we are asked to
hep perpetuate ths usua course. But we beeve t s hgh tme we ponted out to the harms
done by such practce and to restore the prncpe of responsbty for faut or neggence under
artces 1902 et seq. of the Cv Code to ts fu rgor. It s hgh tme we caused the stream of
quas-dect or cupa aquana to fow on ts own natura channe, so that ts waters may no
onger be dverted nto that of a crme under the Pena Code. Ths w, t s beeved, make for the
better safeguardng or prvate rghts because t reator, an ancent and addtona remedy, and
for the further reason that an ndependent cv acton, not dependng on the ssues, mtatons
and resuts of a crmna prosecuton, and entrey drected by the party wronged or hs counse,
s more key to secure adequate and effcacous redress. (p. 621, 73 Ph.)
Contrary to an mmedate mpresson one mght get upon a readng of the foregong excerpts
from the opnon n Garca that the concurrence of the Pena Code and the Cv Code theren
referred to contempate ony acts of neggence and not ntentona vountary acts - deeper
refecton woud revea that the thrust of the pronouncements theren s not so mted, but that
n fact t actuay extends to faut or cupa. Ths can be seen n the reference made theren to the
Sentence of the Supreme Court of Span of February 14, 1919, supra, whch nvoved a case of
fraud or estafa, not a neggent act. Indeed, Artce 1093 of the Cv Code of Span, n force here
at the tme of Garca, provded textuay that obgatons "whch are derved from acts or
omssons n whch faut or neggence, not punshabe by aw, ntervene sha be the sub|ect of
Chapter II, Tte XV of ths book (whch refers to quas-dects.)" And t s precsey the underne
quafcaton, "not punshabe by aw", that |ustce Bocobo emphaszed coud ead to an utmo
constructon or nterpretaton of the etter of the aw that "keth, rather than the sprt that
gveth ft- hence, the rung that "(W)e w not use the tera meanng of the aw to smother and
render amost feess a prncpe of such ancent orgn and such fu-grown deveopment as
cupa aquana orquas-deto, whch s conserved and made endurng n artces 1902 to 1910 of
the Spansh Cv Code." And so, because |ustce Bacobo was Charman of the Code Commsson
that drafted the orgna text of the new Cv Code, t s to be noted that the sad Code, whch
was enacted after the Garca doctrne, no onger uses the term, 11 not punshabe by aw,"
thereby makng t cear that the concept of cupa aquana ncudes acts whch are crmna n
character or n voaton of the pena aw, whether vountary or matter. Thus, the correspondng
provsons to sad Artce 1093 n the new code, whch s Artce 1162, smpy says, "Obgatons
derved from quas-decto sha be governed by the provsons of Chapter 2, Tte XVII of ths
Book, (on quas-dects) and by speca aws." More precsey, a new provson, Artce 2177 of the
new code provdes:
ART. 2177. Responsbty for faut or neggence under the precedng artce s entrey separate
and dstnct from the cv abty arsng from neggence under the Pena Code. But the pantff
cannot recover damages twce for the same act or omsson of the defendant.
Accordng to the Code Commsson: "The foregong provson (Artce 2177) through at frst sght
startng, s not so nove or extraordnary when we consder the exact nature of crmna and cv
neggence. The former s a voaton of the crmna aw, whe the atter s a "cupa aquana" or
quas-dect, of ancent orgn, havng aways had ts own foundaton and ndvduaty, separate
from crmna neggence. Such dstncton between crmna neggence and "cupa
extracontractua" or "cuas-deto" has been sustaned by decson of the Supreme Court of Span
and mantaned as cear, sound and perfecty tenabe by Maura, an outstandng Spansh |urst.
Therefore, under the proposed Artce 2177, acqutta from an accusaton of crmna neggence,
whether on reasonabe doubt or not, sha not be a bar to a subsequent cv acton, not for cv
abty arsng from crmna neggence, but for damages due to a quas-dect or cupa
aquana. But sad artce forestas a doube recovery.", (Report of the Code) Commsson, p.
162.)
Athough, agan, ths Artce 2177 does seem to teray refer to ony acts of neggence, the
same argument of |ustce Bacobo about constructon that uphods "the sprt that gveth ft-
rather than that whch s tera that keth the ntent of the awmaker shoud be observed n
appyng the same. And consderng that the premnary chapter on human reatons of the new
Cv Code defntey estabshes the separabty and ndependence of abty n a cv acton for
acts crmna n character (under Artces 29 to 32) from the cv responsbty arsng from crme
fxed by Artce 100 of the Revsed Pena Code, and, n a sense, the Rues of Court, under
Sectons 2 and 3 (c), Rue 111, contempate aso the same separabty, t s "more congruent
wth the sprt of aw, equty and |ustce, and more n harmony wth modern progress"- to borrow
the fectous reevant anguage n Rakes vs. Atantc. Guf and Pacfc Co., 7 Ph. 359, to hod, as
We do hod, that Artce 2176, where t refers to "faut or neggenca covers not ony acts "not
punshabe by aw" but aso acts crmna n character, whether ntentona and vountary or
neggent. Consequenty, a separate cv acton es aganst the offender n a crmna act,
whether or not he s crmnay prosecuted and found guty or acqutted, provded that the
offended party s not aowed, f he s actuay charged aso crmnay, to recover damages on
both scores, and woud be entted n such eventuaty ony to the bgger award of the two,
assumng the awards made n the two cases vary. In other words, the extncton of cv abty
referred to n Par. (e) of Secton 3, Rue 111, refers excusvey to cv abty founded on Artce
100 of the Revsed Pena Code, whereas the cv abty for the same act consdered as a quas-
dect ony and not as a crme s not extngushed even by a decaraton n the crmna case that
the crmna act charged has not happened or has not been commtted by the accused. Brefy
stated, We here hod, n reteraton of Garca, that cupa aquana ncudes vountary and
neggent acts whch may be punshabe by aw.4
It resuts, therefore, that the acqutta of Regna H n the crmna case has not extngushed hs
abty for quas-dect, hence that acqutta s not a bar to the nstant acton aganst hm.
Comng now to the second ssue about the effect of Regnads emancpaton by marrage on the
possbe cv abty of Atty. H, hs father, t s aso Our consdered opnon that the concuson
of appeees that Atty. H s aready free from responsbty cannot be uphed.
Whe t s true that parenta authorty s termnated upon emancpaton of the chd (Artce 327,
Cv Code), and under Artce 397, emancpaton takes pace "by the marrage of the mnor
(chd)", t s, however, aso cear that pursuant to Artce 399, emancpaton by marrage of the
mnor s not reay fu or absoute. Thus "(E)mancpaton by marrage or by vountary concesson
sha termnate parenta authorty over the chds person. It sha enabe the mnor to admnster
hs property as though he were of age, but he cannot borrow money or aenate or encumber rea
property wthout the consent of hs father or mother, or guardan. He can sue and be sued n
court ony wth the assstance of hs father, mother or guardan."
Now under Artce 2180, "(T)he obgaton mposed by artce 2176 s demandabe not ony for
ones own acts or omssons, but aso for those of persons for whom one s responsbe. The
father and, n case of hs death or ncapacty, the mother, are responsbe. The father and, n
case of hs death or ncapacty, the mother, are responsbe for the damages caused by the
mnor chdren who ve n ther company." In the nstant case, t s not controverted that
Regnad, athough marred, was vng wth hs father and gettng subsstence from hm at the
tme of the occurrence n queston. Factuay, therefore, Regnad was st subservent to and
dependent on hs father, a stuaton whch s not unusua.
It must be borne n mnd that, accordng to Manresa, the reason behnd the |ont and sodary
abty of presuncon wth ther offendng chd under Artce 2180 s that s the obgaton of the
parent to supervse ther mnor chdren n order to prevent them from causng damage to thrd
persons. 5 On the other hand, the cear mpcaton of Artce 399, n provdng that a mnor
emancpated by marrage may not, nevertheess, sue or be sued wthout the assstance of the
parents, s that such emancpaton does not carry wth t freedom to enter nto transactons or do
any act that can gve rse to |udca tgaton. (See Manresa, Id., Vo. II, pp. 766-767, 776.) And
surey, kng someone ese nvtes |udca acton. Otherwse stated, the marrage of a mnor
chd does not reeve the parents of the duty to see to t that the chd, whe st a mnor, does
not gve answerabe for the borrowngs of money and aenaton or encumberng of rea property
whch cannot be done by ther mnor marred chd wthout ther consent. (Art. 399; Manresa,
supra.)
Accordngy, n Our consdered vew, Artce 2180 appes to Atty. H notwthstandng the
emancpaton by marrage of Regnad. However, nasmuch as t s evdent that Regnad s now
of age, as a matter of equty, the abty of Atty. H has become mng, subsdary to that of hs
son.
WHEREFORE, the order appeaed from s reversed and the tra court s ordered to proceed n
accordance wth the foregong opnon. Costs aganst appeees.
M%NDO0A vs ARRI%--A
Facts: Pettoner, Edgardo Mendoza, seeks a revew on certorar of the Orders of respondent
|udge n Cv Case No. 80803 dsmssng hs Compant for Damages based on quas-dect
aganst respondents Feno Tmbo and Rodofo Saazar. On October 22 a three- way vehcuar
accdent occurred aong Mac-Arthur Hghway, Marao, Buacan, nvovng a Mercedes Benz
owned and drven by pettoner; a prvate |eep owned and drven by respondent Rodofo Saazar;
and a grave and sand truck owned by respondent Fepno Tmbo and drven by Fredde
Montoya. Two separate Informaton for Reckess Imprudence Causng Damage to Property were
fed aganst Rodofo Saazar and Fredde Montoya. The cause of acton was due to how truck-
drver Montoya was for causng damage to the |eep owned by Saazar, by httng t at the rght
rear porton thereby causng sad |eep to ht and bump an oncomng car, whch happened to be
pettoner's Mercedes Benz. The case aganst |eep-owner-drver Saazar, was for causng damage
to the Mercedes Benz. The Court of Frst Instance rendered |udgment fndng the accused Fredde
Montoya guty beyond reasonabe doubt of the crme of damage to property thru reckess
mprudence. The tra Court absoved |eep-owner-drver Saazar of any abty n vew of ts
fndngs that the coson between Saazar's |eep and pettoner's car was the resut of the former
havng been bumped from behnd by the truck drven by Montoya. Nether was pettoner
awarded damages as he was not a companant aganst truck-drver Montoya but ony aganst
|eep-owner. After the termnaton of the crmna cases, pettoner fed a cv case aganst
respondents |eep-owner-drver Saazar and Feno Tmbo, the atter beng the owner of the
grave and sand truck drven by Montoya, for dentfcaton for the damages sustaned by hs car
as a resut of the coson. |eep-owner-drver Saazar and truck-owner Tmbo were |oned as
defendants, ether n the aternatve or n sodum. Truck-owner Tmbo fed a Moton to Dsmss
on the grounds that the Compant s barred by a pror |udgment n the crmna cases and that t
fas to state a cause of acton. An Opposton thereto was fed by pettoner. In an order
respondent |udge dsmssed the Compant aganst truck-owner Tmbo for reasons stated n the
aforementoned Moton to Dsmss, pettoner sought before ths Court the revew of that
dsmssa, to whch petton we gave due course. Upon moton of |eep-owner-drver Saazar,
respondent |udge aso dsmssed the case as aganst the former. Respondent |udge reasoned out
that "whe t s true that an ndependent cv acton for abty under Artce 2177 of the Cv
Code coud be prosecutedndependenty of the crmna acton for the offense from whch t
arose, the New Rues of Court, whch took effect on |anuary 1, 1964, requres an express
reservaton of the cv acton to be made n the crmna acton; otherwse, the same woud be
barred pursuant to Secton 2, Rue 111. Pettoner's Moton for Reconsderaton thereof was
dened n the order dated wth respondent |udge suggestng that the ssue be rased to a hgher
Court "for a more decsve nterpretaton of the rue. Pettoner then fed a Suppementa Petton
to revew the ast two mentoned Orders that requred |eep-owner-drver Saazar to fe an
Answer.
Issue: Is the acton aganst respondents barred because of a pror |udgment?
e!": Pettoner's cause of acton beng based on quas-dect, respondent |udge commtted
reversbe error when he dsmssed the cv sut aganst the truck-owner, as sad case may
proceed ndependenty of the crmna proceedngs and regardess of the resut of the atter. The
court hed- t s a we-setted rue that for a pror |udgment to consttute a bar to a subsequent
case, the foowng requstes must concur: (1) t must be a fna |udgment; (2) t must have been
rendered by a Court havng |ursdcton over the sub|ect matter and over the partes; (3) t must
be a |udgment on the merts; and (4) there must be, between the frst and second actons,
Identty of partes, Identty of sub|ect matter and Identty of cause of acton. It s conceded that
the frst three requstes of res |udcata are present. However, we agree wth pettoner that there
s no Identty of cause of acton between the crmna case and the cv case. Obvous s the fact
that n sad crmna case truck-drver Montoya was not prosecuted for damage to pettoner's car
but for damage to the |eep. Nether was truck-owner Tmbo a party n sad case. In fact as the
tra Court had put t "the owner of the Mercedes Benz cannot recover any damages from the
accused Fredde Montoya, he (Mendoza) beng a companant ony aganst Rodofo Saazar n the
crmna case. And more mportanty, n the crmna cases, the cause of acton was the
enforcement of the cv abty arsng from crmna
neggence under Artce of the Revsed Pena Code, whereas the cv case s based on quas-
dect under Artce 2180, n reaton to Artce 2176 of the Cv Code Pettoner's cause of acton
aganst Tmbo n the cv case s based on quas-dect s evdent from the rectas n the
compant . The court decare, therefore, that n so far as truck-owner Tmbo s concerned, the
cv case s not barred by the fact that pettoner faed to reserve, n the crmna acton, hs rght
to fe an ndependent cv acton based on quas-dect.
N%C%$I-O vs 1ARA$
G,R, No, L+12323
Facts: In the mornng of |anuary 28, 1964, Severna Garces and her one-year od son, Precano
Necesto, carryng vegetabes, boarded passenger auto truck or bus No. 199 of the Phppne
Rabbt Bus Lnes at Agno, Pangasnan. The passenger truck, drven by Francsco Bandone, then
proceeded on ts reguar run from Agno to Mana. After passng Mangatarem, Pangasnan truck
No. 199 entered a wooden brdge, but the front whees swerved to the rght; the drver ost
contro, and after wreckng the brdge's wooden ras, the truck fe on ts rght sde nto a creek
where water was breast deep. The mother, Severna Garces, was drowned; the son, Precano
Necesto, was n|ured, sufferng abrasons and fracture of the eft femur. Subsequenty, actons
for damages were brought drecty aganst the operator of the bus. The atter peaded that the
accdent was due to "engne or mechanca troube" ndependent or beyond the contro of the
defendants or of the drver Bandone. After |ont tra, the Court of Frst Instance found that the
bus was proceedng sowy due to the bad condton of the road; that the accdent was caused by
the fracture of the rght steerng knucke, whch was defectve n that ts center or core was not
compact but "bubbed and ceuous", a condton that coud not be known or ascertaned by the
carrer despte the fact that reguar thrty-day nspectons were made of the steerng knucke,
snce the stee exteror was smooth and shny to the depth of 3/16 of an nch a around; that the
knuckes are desgned and manufactured for heavy duty and may ast up to ten years; that the
knucke of bus No. 199 that broke on |anuary 28, 1954, was ast nspected on |anuary 5,1954,
and was due to be nspected agan on February 5th. Hence, the tra court, hodng that the
accdent was excusvey due to fortutous event, dsmssed both actons. Hence ths appea.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the carrer s abe for the n|ures and damages sustaned by the passengers.
2. Whether or not the cause of the accdent s that of fortutous event.
e!":
1. Yes. The Supreme Court hed that the preponderance of authorty s n favor of the doctrne
that a passenger s entted to recover damages from a carrer for an n|ury resutng from a
defect n an appance purchased from a manufacturer, whenever t appears that the defect
woud have been dscovered by the carrer f t had exercsed the degree of care whch under the
crcumstances was ncumbent upon t, wth regard to nspecton and appcaton of the necessary
tests. For the purposes of ths doctrne, the manufacturer s consdered as beng n aw the agent
or servant of the carrer, as far as regards the work of constructng the appance. Accordng to
ths theory, the good repute of the manufacturer w not reeve the carrer from abty" (10 Am.
|ur. 205, s,1324; and cases cted theren). The ratonae of the carrer's abty s the fact that
the passenger has nether choce nor contro over the carrer n the seecton and use of the
equpment and appances n use by the carrer. Havng no prvty whatever wth the
manufacturer or vendor of the defectve equpment, the passenger has no remedy aganst hm,
whe the carrer usuay has. It s but ogca, therefore, that the carrer, whe not n nsurer of
the safety of hs passengers, shoud nevertheess be hed to answer for the faws of hs
equpment f such faws were at a dscoverabe.
2. As to the second ssue, the record s to the effect that the ony test apped to the steerng
knucke n queston was a purey vsua nspecton every thrty days, to see f any cracks
deveoped. It nowhere appears that ether the manufacturer or the carrer at any tme tested the
steerng knucke to ascertan whether ts strength was up to standard, or that t had no hdden
faws woud mpar that strength. Ths perodca vsua nspecton of the steerng knucke as
practced by the carrer's agents dd not measure up to the requred ega standard of "utmost
dgence of very cautous persons" - "as far as human care and foresght can provde", and
therefore that the knucke's faure cannot be consdered a fortutous event that exempts the
carrer from responsbty (Lasam vs. Smth, 45 Ph. 657; Son vs. Cebu Autobus Co., 94 Ph.,
892.).
F#LL CA$%
GERMAN NECESITO, ET AL., pantffs-appeants, vs. NATIVIDAD PARAS, ET AL., defendants-
appeees.
These cases nvove ex contractu aganst the owners and operators of the common carrer known
as Phppne Rabbt Bus Lnes, fed by one passenger, and the hers of another, who n|ured as a
resut of the fa nto a rver of the vehce n whch they were rdng.
In the mornng of |anuary 28, 1964, Severna Garces and her one-year od son, Precano
Necesto, carryng vegetabes, boarded passenger auto truck or bus No. 199 of the Phppne
Rabbt Bus Lnes at Agno, Pangasnan. The passenger truck, drven by Francsco Bandone, then
proceeded on ts reguar run from Agno to Mana. After passng Mangatarem, Pangasnan truck
No. 199 entered a wooden brdge, but the front whees swerved to the rght; the drver ost
contro, and after wreckng the brdges wooden ras, the truck fe on ts rght sde nto a creek
where water was breast deep. The mother, Severna Garces, was drowned; the son, Precano
Necesto, was n|ured, sufferng abrasons and fracture of the eft femur. He was brought to the
Provnca Hospta at Dagupan, where the fracture was set but wth fragments one centmeter
out of ne. The money, wrst watch and cargo of vegetabes were ost.
Two actons for damages and attorneys fees totang over P85,000 havng been fed n the
Court of Frst Instance of Tarac (Cases Nos. 908 and 909) aganst the carrer, the atter peaded
that the accdent was due to "engne or mechanca troube" ndependent or beyond the contro
of the defendants or of the drver Bandone.
After |ont tra, the Court of Frst Instance found that the bus was proceedng sowy due to the
bad condton of the road; that the accdent was caused by the fracture of the rght steerng
knucke, whch was defectve n that ts center or core was not compact but "bubbed and
ceuous", a condton that coud not be known or ascertaned by the carrer despte the fact that
reguar thrty-day nspectons were made of the steerng knucke, snce the stee exteror was
smooth and shny to the depth of 3/16 of an nch a around; that the knuckes are desgned and
manufactured for heavy duty and may ast up to ten years; that the knucke of bus No. 199 that
broke on |anuary 28, 1954, was ast nspected on |anuary 5, 1954, and was due to be nspected
agan on February 5th. Hence, the tra court, hodng that the accdent was excusvey due to
fortutous event, dsmssed both actons. Pantffs appeaed drecty to ths Court n vew of the
amount n controversy.
We are ncned to agree wth the tra court that t s not key that bus No. 199 of the Phppne
Rabbt Lnes was drven over the deepy rutted road eadng to the brdge at a speed of 50 mes
per hour, as testfed for the pantffs. Such conduct on the part of the drver woud have
provoked nstant and vehement protest on the part of the passengers because of the attendant
dscomfort, and there s no trace of any such compant n the records. We are thus forced to
assume that the proxmate cause of the accdent was the reduced strength of the steerng
knucke of the vehce caused by defects n castng t. Whe appeants hnt that the broken
knucke exhbted n court was not the rea fttng attached to the truck at the tme of the
accdent, the records they regstered no ob|ecton on that ground at the tra beow. The ssue s
thus reduced to the queston whether or not the carrer s abe for the manufacturng defect of
the steerng knucke, and whether the evdence dscoses that n regard thereto the carrer
exercsed the dgence requred by aw (Art. 1755, new Cv Code).
ART. 1755. A common carrer s bound to carry the passengers safey as far as human care and
foresght can provde, usng the utmost dgence of very cautous persons, wth a due regard for
the a the crcumstances.
It s cear that the carrer s not an nsurer of the passengers safety. Hs abty rests upon
neggence, hs faure to exercse the "utmost" degree of dgence that the aw requres, and by
Art. 1756, n case of a passengers death or n|ury the carrer bears the burden of satsfyng the
court that he has duy dscharged the duty of prudence requred. In the Amercan aw, where the
carrer s hed to the same degree of dgence as under the new Cv Code, the rue on the
abty of carrers for defects of equpment s thus expressed: "The preponderance of authorty s
n favor of the doctrne that a passenger s entted to recover damages from a carrer for an
n|ury resutng from a defect n an appance purchased from a manufacturer, whenever t
appears that the defect woud have been dscovered by the carrer f t had exercsed the degree
of care whch under the crcumstances was ncumbent upon t, wth regard to nspecton and
appcaton of the necessary tests. For the purposes of ths doctrne, the manufacturer s
consdered as beng n aw the agent or servant of the carrer, as far as regards the work of
constructng the appance. Accordng to ths theory, the good repute of the manufacturer w not
reeve the carrer from abty" (10 Am. |ur. 205, s, 1324; see aso Pennsyvana R. Co. vs. Roy,
102 U. S. 451; 20 L. Ed. 141; Southern R. Co. vs. Hussey, 74 ALR 1172; 42 Fed. 2d 70; and Ed
Note, 29 ALR 788; Ann. Cas. 1916E 929).
The ratonae of the carrers abty s the fact that the passenger has nether choce nor contro
over the carrer n the seecton and use of the equpment and appances n use by the carrer.
Havng no prvty whatever wth the manufacturer or vendor of the defectve equpment, the
passenger has no remedy aganst hm, whe the carrer usuay has. It s but ogca, therefore,
that the carrer, whe not n nsurer of the safety of hs passengers, shoud nevertheess be hed
to answer for the faws of hs equpment f such faws were at a dscoverabe. Thus Hannen, |., n
Francs vs. Cockre, LR 5 O. B. 184, sad:
In the ordnary course of thngs, the passenger does not know whether the carrer has hmsef
manufactured the means of carrage, or contracted wth someone ese for ts manufacture. If the
carrer has contracted wth someone ese the passenger does not usuay know who that person
s, and n no case has he any share n the seecton. The abty of the manufacturer must
depend on the terms of the contract between hm and the carrer, of whch the passenger has no
knowedge, and over whch he can have no contro, whe the carrer can ntroduce what
stpuatons and take what securtes he may thnk proper. For n|ury resutng to the carrer
hmsef by the manufacturers want of care, the carrer has a remedy aganst the manufacturer;
but the passenger has no remedy aganst the manufacturer for damage arsng from a mere
breach of contract wth the carrer . . . . Uness, therefore, the presumed ntenton of the partes
be that the passenger shoud, n the event of hs beng n|ured by the breach of the
manufacturers contract, of whch he has no knowedge, be wthout remedy, the ony way n
whch effect can be gven to a dfferent ntenton s by supposng that the carrer s to be
responsbe to the passenger, and to ook for hs ndemnty to the person whom he seected and
whose breach of contract has caused the mschef. (29 ALR 789)
And n the eadng case of Morgan vs. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. 15 LRA (NS) 790, 16 Ann. Cas.
608, the Court, n hodng the carrer responsbe for damages caused by the fracture of a car
axe, due to a "sand hoe" n the course of moudng the axe, made the foowng observatons.
The carrer, n consderaton of certan we-known and hghy vauabe rghts granted to t by the
pubc, undertakes certan dutes toward the pubc, among them beng to provde tsef wth
sutabe and safe cars and vehces n whch carry the traveng pubc. There s no such duty on
the manufacturer of the cars. There s no recproca ega reaton between hm and the pubc n
ths respect. When the carrer eects to have another bud ts cars, t ought not to be absoved by
that facts from ts duty to the pubc to furnsh safe cars. The carrer cannot essen ts
responsbty by shftng ts undertakng to anothers shouders. Its duty to furnsh safe cars s
sde by sde wth ts duty to furnsh safe track, and to operate them n a safe manner. None of ts
dutes n these respects can be subet so as to reeve t from the fu measure prmary exacted
of t by aw. The carrer seects the manufacturer of ts cars, f t does not tsef construct them,
precsey as t does those who grade ts road, and ay ts tracks, and operate ts trans. That t
does not exercse contro over the former s because t eects to pace that matter n the hands of
the manufacturer, nstead of retanng the supervsng contro tsef. The manufacturer shoud be
deemed the agent of the carrer as respects ts duty to seect the matera out of whch ts cars
and ocomotve are but, as we as n nspectng each step of ther constructon. If there be tests
known to the crafts of car buders, or ron mouders, by whch such defects mght be dscovered
before the part was ncorporated nto the car, then the faure of the manufacturer to make the
test w be deemed a faure by the carrer to make t. Ths s not a vcarous responsbty. It
extends, as the necessty of ths busness demands, the rue of respondeat superor to a stuaton
whch fas ceary wthn ts scope and sprt. Where an n|ury s nfcted upon a passenger by the
breakng or wreckng of a part of the tran on whch he s rdng, t s presumaby the resut of
neggence at some pont by the carrer. As stated by |udge Story, n Story on Baments, sec.
601a: "When the n|ury or damage happens to the passenger by the breakng down or
overturnng of the coach, or by any other accdent occurrng on the ground, the presumpton
prma face s that t occurred by the neggence of the coachmen, and onus proband s on the
propretors of the coach to estabsh that there has been no neggence whatever, and that the
damage or n|ury has been occasoned by nevtabe casuaty, or by some cause whch human
care and foresght coud not prevent; for the aw w, n tenderness to human fe and mb, hod
the propretors abe for the sghtest neggence, and w compe them to repe by satsfactory
proofs every mputaton thereof." When the passenger has proved hs n|ury as the resut of a
breakage n the car or the wreckng of the tran on whch he was beng carred, whether the
defect was n the partcuar car n whch he was rdng or not, the burden s then cast upon the
carrer to show that t was due to a cause or causes whch the exercse of the utmost human sk
and foresght coud not prevent. And the carrer n ths connecton must show, f the accdent was
due to a atent defect n the matera or constructon of the car, that not ony coud t not have
dscovered the defect by the exercse of such care, but that the buders coud not by the
exercse of the same care have dscovered the defect or foreseen the resut. Ths rue appes the
same whether the defectve car beonged to the carrer or not.
In the case now before us, the record s to the effect that the ony test apped to the steerng
knucke n queston was a purey vsua nspecton every thrty days, to see f any cracks
deveoped. It nowhere appears that ether the manufacturer or the carrer at any tme tested the
steerng knucke to ascertan whether ts strength was up to standard, or that t had no hdden
faws woud mpar that strength. And yet the carrer must have been aware of the crtca
mportance of the knuckes resstance; that ts faure or breakage woud resut n oss of baance
and steerng contro of the bus, wth dsastrous effects upon the passengers. No argument s
requred to estabsh that a vsua nspecton coud not drecty determne whether the resstance
of ths crtcay mportant part was not mpared. Nor has t been shown that the weakenng of
the knucke was mpossbe to detect by any known test; on the contrary, there s testmony that
t coud be detected. We are satsfed that the perodca vsua nspecton of the steerng knucke
as practced by the carrers agents dd not measure up to the requred ega standard of "utmost
dgence of very cautous persons" - "as far as human care and foresght can provde", and
therefore that the knuckes faure can not be consdered a fortutous event that exempts the
carrer from responsbty (Lasam vs. Smth, 45 Ph. 657; Son vs. Cebu Autobus Co., 94 Ph.
892.)
It may be mpractcabe, as appeee argues, to requre of carrers to test the strength of each
and every part of ts vehces before each trp; but we are of the opnon that a due regard for the
carrers obgatons toward the traveng pubc demands adequate perodca tests to determne
the condton and strength of those vehce portons the faure of whch may endanger the safe
of the passengers.
As to the damages suffered by the pantffs, we agree wth appeee that no aowance may be
made for mora damages, snce under Artce 2220 of the new Cv Code, n case of suts for
breach of contract, mora damages are recoverabe ony where the defendant acted frauduenty
or n bad fath, and there s none n the case before us. As to exempary damages, the carrer has
not acted n a "wanton, frauduent, reckess, oppressve or maevoent manner" to warrant ther
award. Hence, we beeve that for the mnor Precano Necesto (G. R. No. L-10605), an
ndemnty of P5,000 woud be adequate for the abrasons and fracture of the femur, ncudng
medca and hosptazaton expenses, there beng no evdence that there woud be any
permanent mparment of hs facutes or body functons, beyond the ack of anatomca
symmetry. As for the death of Severna Garces (G. R. No. L-10606) who was 33 years od, wth
seven mnor chdren when she ded, her hers are obvousy entted to ndemnty not ony for
the ncdenta oses of property (cash, wrst watch and merchandse) worth P394 that she carred
at the tme of the accdent and for the bura expenses of P490, but aso for the oss of her
earnngs (shown to average P120 a month) and for the deprvaton of her protecton, gudance
and company. In our |udgment, an award of P15,000 woud be adequate (cf Acantara vs. Surro,
49 O.G. 2769; 93 Ph. 472).
The ow ncome of the pantffs-appeants makes an award for attorneys fees |ust and equtabe
(Cv Code, Art. 2208, par. 11). Consderng that he two cases fed were tred |onty, a fee of
P3,500 woud be reasonabe.
In vew of the foregong, the decson appeaed from s reversed, and the defendants-appeees
are sentenced to ndemnfy the pantffs-appeants n the foowng amounts: P5,000 to
Precano Necesto, and P15,000 to the hers of the deceased Severna Garces, pus P3,500 by
way of attorneys fees and tgaton expenses. Costs aganst defendants-appeees. So ordered.
Paras, C.|. Bengzon, Reyes, A., Bautsta Angeo, Concepcon, and Endenca, ||., concur.
Fex, |., concurs n the resut.
R E S O L U T I O N
September 11, 1958
REYES, |. B. L., |.:
Defendants-appeees have Submtted a moton askng ths Court to reconsder ts decson of
|une 30, 1958, and that the same be modfed wth respect to (1) ts hodng the carrer abe for
the breakage of the steerng knucke that caused the autobus No. 199 to overturn, whereby the
passengers rdng n t were n|ured; (2) the damages awarded, that appeees argue to be
excessve; and (3) the award of attorneys fees.
(1) The rue prevang n ths |ursdcton as estabshed n prevous decsons of ths Court, cted
n our man opnon, s that a carrer s abe to ts passengers for damages caused by
mechanca defects of the conveyance. As eary as 1924, n Lasam vs. Smth, 45 Ph. 659 ths
Court rued:
As far as the record shows, the accdent was caused ether by defects n the automobe or ese
through the neggence of ts drver. That s not caso fortuto.
And n Son vs. Cebu Autobus Company, 94 Ph. 892, ths Court hed a common carrer abe n
damages to passenger for n|ures cause by an accdent due to the breakage of a fauty drag-nk
sprng.
It can be seen that whe the courts of the Unted States are at varance on the queston of a
carrers abty for atent mechanca defects, the rue n ths |ursdcton has been consstent n
hodng the carrer responsbe. Ths Court has quoted from Amercan and Engsh decsons, not
because t fet bound to foow the same, but merey n approva of the ratonae of the rue as
expressed theren, snce the prevous Phppne cases dd not enarge on the deas underyng
the doctrne estabshed thereby.
The new evdence sought to be ntroduced do not warrant the grant of a new tra, snce the
proposed proof avaabe when the orgna tra was hed. Sad evdence s not newy dscovered.
(2) Wth regard to the ndemnty awarded to the chd Precano Necesto, the n|ures suffered
by hm are ncapabe of accurate pecunary estmaton, partcuary because the fu effect of the
n|ury s not ascertanabe mmedatey. Ths uncertanty, however, does not precude the rght to
an ndemnty, snce the n|ury s patent and not dened (Cv Code, Art. 2224). The reasons
behnd ths award are expounded by the Code Commsson n ts report:
There are cases where from the nature of the case, defnte proof of pecunary oss cannot be
offered, athough the court s convnced that there has been such oss. For nstance, n|ury to
ones commerca credt or to the goodw of a busness frm s often hard to show wth certanty
n terms of money. Shoud damages be dened for that reason? The |udge shoud be empowered
to cacuate moderate damages n such cases, rather than that the pantff shoud suffer, wthout
redress, from the defendants wrongfu act." (Report of the Code Commsson, p. 75)
In awardng to the hers of the deceased Severna Garces an ndemnty for the oss of her
"gudance, protecton and company," athough t s but mora damage, the Court took nto
account that the case of a passenger who des n the course of an accdent, due to the carrers
neggence consttutes an excepton to the genera rue. Whe, as ponted out n the man
decson, under Artce 2220 of the new Cv Code there can be no recovery of mora damages for
a breach of contract n the absence of fraud mace or bad fath, the case of a voaton of the
contract of carrage eadng to a passengers death escapes ths genera rue, n vew of Artce
1764 n connecton wth Artce 2206, No. 3 of the new Cv Code.
ART. 1764. Damages n cases comprsed n ths Secton sha be awarded n accordance wth Tte
XVIII of ths Book, concernng Damages. Artce 2206 sha aso appy to the death of a passenger
caused by the breach of contract by a comman carrer. ART. 2206. . . .
(3) The spouse, egtmate and egmate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may
demand mora damages for menta angush by reason of the death of the deceased.
Beng a speca rue mted to cases of fata n|ures, these artces preva over the genera rue
of Art. 2220. Speca provsons contro genera ones (Lchauco & Co. vs. Aposto, 44 Ph. 138;
Sanco vs. Lzarraga, 55 Ph. 601).
It thus appears that under the new Cv Code, n case of accdent due to a carrers neggence,
the hers of a deceased passenger may recover mora damages, even though a passenger who s
n|ured, but manages to survve, s not entted to them. There s, therefore, no confct between
our man decson n the nstant case and that of Cachero vs. Mana Yeow Tax Cab Co., 101
Ph. 523, where the passenger suffered n|ures, but dd not ose hs fe.
(3) In the Cachero case ths Court dsaowed attorneys fees to the n|ured pantff because the
tgaton arose out of hs exaggerated and unreasonabe deeds for an ndemnty that was out of
proporton wth the compensatory damages to whch he was soey entted. But n the present
case, pantffs orgna cams can not be deemed a pror whoy unreasonabe, snce they had a
rght to ndemnty for mora damages besdes compensatory ones, and mora damages are not
determned by set and nvarabe bounds.
Nether does the fact that the contract between the passengers and ther counse was on a
contngent bass affect the formers rght to counse fees. As ponted out for appeants, the
Courts award s an party and not to counse. A tgant who mprovdenty stpuate hgher
counse fees than those to whch he s awfuy entted, does not for that reason earn the rght to
a arger ndemnty; but, by party of reasonng, he shoud not be deprved of counse fees f by
aw he s entted to recover them.
We fnd no reason to ater the man decson heretofore rendered. Utmatey, the poston taken
by ths Court s that a common carrers contract s not to be regarded as a game of chance
wheren the passenger stakes hs mb and fe aganst the carrers property and profts.
Wherefore, the moton for reconsderaton s hereby dened. So ordered.
$ICAM %- AL vs &ORG%
G,R, No, 149315, Au6ust 8, 2225
FAC-$: On dfferent dates, Luu |orge pawned severa peces of |ewery wth Agenca de R. C.
Scam ocated n Paraaque to secure a oan.
On October 19, 1987, two armed men entered the pawnshop and took away whatever cash and
|ewery were found nsde the pawnshop vaut.
On the same date, Scam sent Luu a etter nformng her of the oss of her |ewery due to the
robbery ncdent n the pawnshop. Respondent Luu then wrote back expressng dsbeef, then
requested Scam to prepare the pawned |ewery for wthdrawa on November 6, but Scam faed
to return the |ewery.
Luu, |oned by her husband Cesar, fed a compant aganst Scam wth the RTC of Makat
seekng ndemnfcaton for the oss of pawned |ewery and payment of AD, MD and ED as we as
AF.
The RTC rendered ts Decson dsmssng respondents compant as we as pettoners
countercam. Respondents appeaed the RTC Decson to the CA whch reversed the RTC,
orderng the appeees to pay appeants the actua vaue of the ost |ewery and AF. Pettoners
MR dened, hence the nstant petton for revew on Certorar.
I$$#%: are the pettoners abe for the oss of the pawned artces n ther possesson?
(Pettoners nsst that they are not abe snce robbery s a fortutous event and they are not
neggent at a.)
%LD: The Decson of the CA s AFFIRMED. YES.
Artce 1174 of the Cv Code provdes:
Art. 1174. Except n cases expressy specfed by the aw, or when t s otherwse decared by
stpuaton, or when the nature of the obgaton requres the assumpton of rsk, no person sha
be responsbe for those events whch coud not be foreseen or whch, though foreseen, were
nevtabe.
Fortutous events by defnton are extraordnary events not foreseeabe or avodabe. It s
therefore, not enough that the event shoud not have been foreseen or antcpated, as s
commony beeved but t must be one mpossbe to foresee or to avod. The mere dffcuty to
foresee the happenng s not mpossbty to foresee the same.
To consttute a fortutous event, the foowng eements must concur:
(a) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence or of the faure of the debtor to
compy wth obgatons must be ndependent of human w;
(b) t must be mpossbe to foresee the event that consttutes the caso fortuto or, f t can be
foreseen, t must be mpossbe to avod;
(c) the occurrence must be such as to render t mpossbe for the debtor to fuf obgatons n a
norma manner; and,
(d) the obgor must be free from any partcpaton n the aggravaton of the n|ury or oss.
The burden of provng that the oss was due to a fortutous event rests on hm who nvokes t.
And, n order for a fortutous event to exempt one from abty, t s necessary that one has
commtted no neggence or msconduct that may have occasoned the oss.
Scam had testfed that there was a securty guard n ther pawnshop at the tme of the robbery.
He kewse testfed that when he started the pawnshop busness n 1983, he thought of openng
a vaut wth the nearby bank for the purpose of safekeepng the vauabes but was dscouraged
by the Centra Bank snce pawned artces shoud ony be stored n a vaut nsde the pawnshop.
The very measures whch pettoners had aegedy adopted show that to them the possbty of
robbery was not ony foreseeabe, but actuay foreseen and antcpated. Scams testmony, n
effect, contradcts pettoners defense of fortutous event.
Moreover, pettoners faed to show that they were free from any neggence by whch the oss of
the pawned |ewery may have been occasoned.
Robbery per se, |ust ke carnappng, s not a fortutous event. It does not forecose the possbty
of neggence on the part of heren pettoners.
Pettoners merey presented the poce report of the Paraaque Poce Staton on the robbery
commtted based on the report of pettoners empoyees whch s not suffcent to estabsh
robbery. Such report aso does not prove that pettoners were not at faut. On the contrary, by
the very evdence of pettoners, the CA dd not err n fndng that pettoners are guty of
concurrent or contrbutory neggence as provded n Artce 1170 of the Cv Code, to wt:
Art. 1170. Those who n the performance of ther obgatons are guty of fraud, neggence, or
deay, and those who n any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are abe for damages.
**
Artce 2123 of the Cv Code provdes that wth regard to pawnshops and other estabshments
whch are engaged n makng oans secured by pedges, the speca aws and reguatons
concernng them sha be observed, and subsdary, the provsons on pedge, mortgage and
antchress.
The provson on pedge, partcuary Artce 2099 of the Cv Code, provdes that the credtor
sha take care of the thng pedged wth the dgence of a good father of a famy. Ths means
that pettoners must take care of the pawns the way a prudent person woud as to hs own
property.
In ths connecton, Artce 1173 of the Cv Code further provdes:
Art. 1173. The faut or neggence of the obgor conssts n the omsson of that dgence whch s
requred by the nature of the obgaton and corresponds wth the crcumstances of the persons,
of tme and of the pace. When neggence shows bad fath, the provsons of Artces 1171 and
2201, paragraph 2 sha appy.
If the aw or contract does not state the dgence whch s to be observed n the performance,
that whch s expected of a good father of a famy sha be requred.
We expounded n Cruz v. Gangan that neggence s the omsson to do somethng whch a
reasonabe man, guded by those consderatons whch ordnary reguate the conduct of human
affars, woud do; or the dong of somethng whch a prudent and reasonabe man woud not do.
It s want of care requred by the crcumstances.
A revew of the records ceary shows that pettoners faed to exercse reasonabe care and
cauton that an ordnary prudent person woud have used n the same stuaton. Pettoners
were guty of neggence n the operaton of ther pawnshop busness. Scams testmony
reveaed that there were no securty measures adopted by pettoners n the operaton of the
pawnshop. Evdenty, no suffcent precauton and vgance were adopted by pettoners to
protect the pawnshop from unawfu ntruson. There was no cear showng that there was any
securty guard at a. Or f there was one, that he had suffcent tranng n securng a pawnshop.
Further, there s no showng that the aeged securty guard exercsed a that was necessary to
prevent any untoward ncdent or to ensure that no suspcous ndvduas were aowed to enter
the premses. In fact, t s even doubtfu that there was a securty guard, snce t s qute
mpossbe that he woud not have notced that the robbers were armed wth caber .45 pstos
each, whch were aegedy poked at the empoyees. Sgnfcanty, the aeged securty guard was
not presented at a to corroborate pettoner Scams cam; not one of pettoners empoyees
who were present durng the robbery ncdent testfed n court.
Furthermore, pettoner Scams admsson that the vaut was open at the tme of robbery s
ceary a proof of pettoners faure to observe the care, precauton and vgance that the
crcumstances |usty demanded.
The robbery n ths case happened n pettoners pawnshop and they were neggent n not
exercsng the precautons |usty demanded of a pawnshop.
F#LL CA$%
Before us s a Petton for Revew on Certorar fed by Roberto C. Scam, |r. (pettoner Scam)
and Agenca de R.C. Scam, Inc. (pettoner corporaton) seekng to annu the Decson1 of the
Court of Appeas dated March 31, 2003, and ts Resouton2 dated August 8, 2003, n CA G.R. CV
No. 56633.
It appears that on dfferent dates from September to October 1987, Luu V. |orge (respondent
Luu) pawned severa peces of |ewery wth Agenca de R. C. Scam ocated at No. 17 Agurre
Ave., BF Homes Paraaque, Metro Mana, to secure a oan n the tota amount of P59,500.00.
On October 19, 1987, two armed men entered the pawnshop and took away whatever cash and
|ewery were found nsde the pawnshop vaut. The ncdent was entered n the poce botter of
the Southern Poce Dstrct, Paraaque Poce Staton as foows:
Investgaton shows that at above TDPO, whe vctms were nsde the offce, two (2) mae
undentfed persons entered nto the sad offce wth guns drawn. Suspects(sc) (1) went straght
nsde and poked hs gun toward Romeo Scam and thereby ted hm wth an eectrc wre whe
suspects (sc) (2) poked hs gun toward Dvna Mata and Isabeta Rodrguez and ordered them to
ay (sc) face fat on the foor. Suspects asked forcby the case and assorted pawned |eweres
tems mentoned above.
Suspects after takng the money and |eweres fed on board a Marson Toyota undentfed pate
number.3
Pettoner Scam sent respondent Luu a etter dated October 19, 1987 nformng her of the oss
of her |ewery due to the robbery ncdent n the pawnshop. On November 2, 1987, respondent
Luu then wrote a etter4 to pettoner Scam expressng dsbeef statng that when the robbery
happened, a |ewery pawned were deposted wth Far East Bank near the pawnshop snce t had
been the practce that before they coud wthdraw, advance notce must be gven to the
pawnshop so t coud wthdraw the |ewery from the bank. Respondent Luu then requested
pettoner Scam to prepare the pawned |ewery for wthdrawa on November 6, 1987 but
pettoner Scam faed to return the |ewery.
On September 28, 1988, respondent Luu |oned by her husband, Cesar |orge, fed a compant
aganst pettoner Scam wth the Regona Tra Court of Makat seekng ndemnfcaton for the
oss of pawned |ewery and payment of actua, mora and exempary damages as we as
attorney's fees. The case was docketed as Cv Case No. 88-2035.
Pettoner Scam fed hs Answer contendng that he s not the rea party-n-nterest as the
pawnshop was ncorporated on Apr 20, 1987 and known as Agenca de R.C. Scam, Inc; that
pettoner corporaton had exercsed due care and dgence n the safekeepng of the artces
pedged wth t and coud not be made abe for an event that s fortutous.
Respondents subsequenty fed an Amended Compant to ncude pettoner corporaton.
Thereafter, pettoner Scam fed a Moton to Dsmss as far as he s concerned consderng that
he s not the rea party-n-nterest. Respondents opposed the same. The RTC dened the moton
n an Order dated November 8, 1989.5
After tra on the merts, the RTC rendered ts Decson6 dated |anuary 12, 1993, dsmssng
respondents compant as we as pettoners countercam. The RTC hed that pettoner Scam
coud not be made personay abe for a cam arsng out of a corporate transacton; that n the
Amended Compant of respondents, they asserted that "pantff pawned assorted |eweres n
defendants' pawnshop"; and that as a consequence of the separate |urdca personaty of a
corporaton, the corporate debt or credt s not the debt or credt of a stockhoder.
The RTC further rued that pettoner corporaton coud not be hed abe for the oss of the
pawned |ewery snce t had not been rebutted by respondents that the oss of the pedged
peces of |ewery n the possesson of the corporaton was occasoned by armed robbery; that
robbery s a fortutous event whch exempts the vctm from abty for the oss, ctng the case
of Austra v. Court of Appeas;7 and that the partes transacton was that of a pedgor and
pedgee and under Art. 1174 of the Cv Code, the pawnshop as a pedgee s not responsbe for
those events whch coud not be foreseen.
Respondents appeaed the RTC Decson to the CA. In a Decson dated March 31, 2003, the CA
reversed the RTC, the dspostve porton of whch reads as foows:
WHEREFORE, premses consdered, the nstant Appea s GRANTED, and the Decson dated
|anuary 12, 1993,of the Regona Tra Court of Makat, Branch 62, s hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE, orderng the appeees to pay appeants the actua vaue of the ost |ewery amountng to
P272,000.00, and attorney' fees of P27,200.00.8
In fndng pettoner Scam abe together wth pettoner corporaton, the CA apped the doctrne
of percng the ve of corporate entty reasonng that respondents were msed nto thnkng that
they were deang wth the pawnshop owned by pettoner Scam as a the pawnshop tckets
ssued to them bear the words "Agenca de R.C. Scam"; and that there was no ndcaton on the
pawnshop tckets that t was the pettoner corporaton that owned the pawnshop whch
expaned why respondents had to amend ther compant mpeadng pettoner corporaton.
The CA further hed that the correspondng dgence requred of a pawnshop s that t shoud
take steps to secure and protect the pedged tems and shoud take steps to nsure tsef aganst
the oss of artces whch are entrusted to ts custody as t derves earnngs from the pawnshop
trade whch pettoners faed to do; that Austra s not appcabe to ths case snce the robbery
ncdent happened n 1961 when the crmnaty had not as yet reached the eves attaned n the
present day; that they are at east guty of contrbutory neggence and shoud be hed abe for
the oss of |eweres; and that robberes and hod-ups are foreseeabe rsks n that those engaged
n the pawnshop busness are expected to foresee.
The CA concuded that both pettoners shoud be |onty and severay hed abe to respondents
for the oss of the pawned |ewery.
Pettoners moton for reconsderaton was dened n a Resouton dated August 8, 2003.
Hence, the nstant petton for revew wth the foowng assgnment of errors:
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND WHEN IT DID, IT OPENED ITSELF TO REVERSAL, WHEN IT
ADOPTED UNCRITICALLY (IN FACT IT REPRODUCED AS ITS OWN WITHOUT IN THE MEANTIME
ACKNOWLEDGING IT) WHAT THE RESPONDENTS ARGUED IN THEIR BRIEF, WHICH ARGUMENT
WAS PALPABLY UNSUSTAINABLE.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED, AND WHEN IT DID, IT OPENED ITSELF TO REVERSAL BY THIS
HONORABLE COURT, WHEN IT AGAIN ADOPTED UNCRITICALLY (BUT WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING
IT) THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS IN THEIR BRIEF WITHOUT ADDING ANYTHING MORE
THERETO DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SAID ARGUMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS COULD NOT
HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED IN VIEW OF UNREBUTTED EVIDENCE ON RECORD.9
Anent the frst assgned error, pettoners pont out that the CAs fndng that pettoner Scam s
personay abe for the oss of the pawned |eweres s "a vrtua and uncrtca reproducton of
the arguments set out on pp. 5-6 of the Appeants bref."10
Pettoners argue that the reproduced arguments of respondents n ther Appeants Bref suffer
from nfrmtes, as foows:
(1) Respondents concusvey asserted n paragraph 2 of ther Amended Compant that Agenca
de R.C. Scam, Inc. s the present owner of Agenca de R.C. Scam Pawnshop, and therefore, the
CA cannot rue aganst sad concusve asserton of respondents;
(2) The ssue resoved aganst pettoner Scam was not among those rased and tgated n the
tra court; and
(3) By reason of the above nfrmtes, t was error for the CA to have perced the corporate ve
snce a corporaton has a personaty dstnct and separate from ts ndvdua stockhoders or
members.
Anent the second error, pettoners pont out that the CA fndng on ther neggence s kewse
an unedted reproducton of respondents bref whch had the foowng defects:
(1) There were unrebutted evdence on record that pettoners had observed the dgence
requred of them, .e, they wanted to open a vaut wth a nearby bank for purposes of
safekeepng the pawned artces but was dscouraged by the Centra Bank (CB) snce CB rues
provde that they can ony store the pawned artces n a vaut nsde the pawnshop premses and
no other pace;
(2) Pettoners were ad|udged neggent as they dd not take nsurance aganst the oss of the
pedged |eweres, but t s |udca notce that due to hgh ncdence of crmes, nsurance
companes refused to cover pawnshops and banks because of hgh probabty of osses due to
robberes;
(3) In Hernandez v. Charman, Commsson on Audt (179 SCRA 39, 45-46), the vctm of robbery
was exonerated from abty for the sum of money beongng to others and ost by hm to
robbers.
Respondents fed ther Comment and pettoners fed ther Repy thereto. The partes
subsequenty submtted ther respectve Memoranda.
We fnd no mert n the petton.
To begn wth, athough t s true that ndeed the CA fndngs were exact reproductons of the
arguments rased n respondents (appeants) bref fed wth the CA, we fnd the same to be not
fatay nfrmed. Upon examnaton of the Decson, we fnd that t expressed ceary and dstncty
the facts and the aw on whch t s based as requred by Secton 8, Artce VIII of the Consttuton.
The dscreton to decde a case one way or another s broad enough to |ustfy the adopton of the
arguments put forth by one of the partes, as ong as these are egay tenabe and supported by
aw and the facts on records.11
Our |ursdcton under Rue 45 of the Rues of Court s mted to the revew of errors of aw
commtted by the appeate court. Generay, the fndngs of fact of the appeate court are
deemed concusve and we are not duty-bound to anayze and cabrate a over agan the
evdence adduced by the partes n the court a quo.12 Ths rue, however, s not wthout
exceptons, such as where the factua fndngs of the Court of Appeas and the tra court are
confctng or contradctory13 as s obtanng n the nstant case.
However, after a carefu examnaton of the records, we fnd no |ustfcaton to absove pettoner
Scam from abty.
The CA correcty perced the ve of the corporate fcton and ad|udged pettoner Scam abe
together wth pettoner corporaton. The rue s that the ve of corporate fcton may be perced
when made as a shed to perpetrate fraud and/or confuse egtmate ssues. 14 The theory of
corporate entty was not meant to promote unfar ob|ectves or otherwse to shed them.15
Notaby, the evdence on record shows that at the tme respondent Luu pawned her |ewery, the
pawnshop was owned by pettoner Scam hmsef. As correcty observed by the CA, n a the
pawnshop recepts ssued to respondent Luu n September 1987, a bear the words "Agenca de
R. C. Scam," notwthstandng that the pawnshop was aegedy ncorporated n Apr 1987. The
recepts ssued after such aeged ncorporaton were st n the name of "Agenca de R. C.
Scam," thus nevtaby mseadng, or at the very east, creatng the wrong mpresson to
respondents and the pubc as we, that the pawnshop was owned soey by pettoner Scam and
not by a corporaton.
Even pettoners counse, Atty. Marca T. Bagos, n hs etter16 dated October 15, 1987
addressed to the Centra Bank, expressy referred to pettoner Scam as the propretor of the
pawnshop notwthstandng the aeged ncorporaton n Apr 1987.
We aso fnd no mert n pettoners' argument that snce respondents had aeged n ther
Amended Compant that pettoner corporaton s the present owner of the pawnshop, the CA s
bound to decde the case on that bass.
Secton 4 Rue 129 of the Rues of Court provdes that an admsson, verba or wrtten, made by a
party n the course of the proceedngs n the same case, does not requre proof. The admsson
may be contradcted ony by showng that t was made through papabe mstake or that no such
admsson was made.
Thus, the genera rue that a |udca admsson s concusve upon the party makng t and does
not requre proof, admts of two exceptons, to wt: (1) when t s shown that such admsson was
made through papabe mstake, and (2) when t s shown that no such admsson was n fact
made. The atter excepton aows one to contradct an admsson by denyng that he made such
an admsson.17
The Commttee on the Revson of the Rues of Court expaned the second excepton n ths wse:
x x x f a party nvokes an "admsson" by an adverse party, but ctes the admsson "out of
context," then the one makng the "admsson" may show that he made no "such" admsson, or
that hs admsson was taken out of context.
x x x that the party can aso show that he made no "such admsson", .e., not n the sense n
whch the admsson s made to appear.
That s the reason for the modfer "such" because f the rue smpy states that the admsson
may be contradcted by showng that "no admsson was made," the rue woud not reay be
provdng for a contradcton of the admsson but |ust a dena.18 (Emphass supped).
Whe t s true that respondents aeged n ther Amended Compant that pettoner corporaton
s the present owner of the pawnshop, they dd so ony because pettoner Scam aeged n hs
Answer to the orgna compant fed aganst hm that he was not the rea party-n-nterest as
the pawnshop was ncorporated n Apr 1987. Moreover, a readng of the Amended Compant n
ts entrety shows that respondents referred to both pettoner Scam and pettoner corporaton
where they (respondents) pawned ther assorted peces of |ewery and ascrbed to both the
faure to observe due dgence commensurate wth the busness whch resuted n the oss of
ther pawned |ewery.
Markedy, respondents, n ther Opposton to pettoners Moton to Dsmss Amended Compant,
nsofar as pettoner Scam s concerned, averred as foows:
Roberto C. Scam was named the defendant n the orgna compant because the pawnshop
tckets nvoved n ths case dd not show that the R.C. Scam Pawnshop was a corporaton. In
paragraph 1 of hs Answer, he admtted the aegatons n paragraph 1 and 2 of the Compant.
He merey added "that defendant s not now the rea party n nterest n ths case."
It was defendant Scam's omsson to correct the pawnshop tckets used n the sub|ect
transactons n ths case whch was the cause of the nstant acton. He cannot now ask for the
dsmssa of the compant aganst hm smpy on the mere aegaton that hs pawnshop busness
s now ncorporated. It s a matter of defense, the mert of whch can ony be reached after
consderaton of the evdence to be presented n due course.19
Unmstakaby, the aeged admsson made n respondents' Amended Compant was taken "out
of context" by pettoner Scam to sut hs own purpose. Ineuctaby, the fact that pettoner
Scam contnued to ssue pawnshop recepts under hs name and not under the corporaton's
name mtates for the percng of the corporate ve.
We kewse fnd no mert n pettoners' contenton that the CA erred n percng the ve of
corporate fcton of pettoner corporaton, as t was not an ssue rased and tgated before the
RTC.
Pettoner Scam had aeged n hs Answer fed wth the tra court that he was not the rea
party-n-nterest because snce Apr 20, 1987, the pawnshop busness ntated by hm was
ncorporated and known as Agenca de R.C. Scam. In the pre-tra bref fed by pettoner Scam,
he submtted that as far as he was concerned, the basc ssue was whether he s the rea party n
nterest aganst whom the compant shoud be drected.20 In fact, he subsequenty moved for
the dsmssa of the compant as to hm but was not favoraby acted upon by the tra court.
Moreover, the ssue was squarey passed upon, athough erroneousy, by the tra court n ts
Decson n ths manner:
x x x The defendant Roberto Scam, |r kewse denes abty as far as he s concerned for the
reason that he cannot be made personay abe for a cam arsng from a corporate transacton.
Ths Court sustans the contenton of the defendant Roberto C. Scam, |r. The amended compant
tsef asserts that "pantff pawned assorted |eweres n defendant's pawnshop." It has been hed
that " as a consequence of the separate |urdca personaty of a corporaton, the corporate debt
or credt s not the debt or credt of the stockhoder, nor s the stockhoder's debt or credt that of
a corporaton.21
Ceary, n vew of the aeged ncorporaton of the pawnshop, the ssue of whether pettoner
Scam s personay abe s nextrcaby connected wth the determnaton of the queston
whether the doctrne of percng the corporate ve shoud or shoud not appy to the case.
The next queston s whether pettoners are abe for the oss of the pawned artces n ther
possesson.
Pettoners nsst that they are not abe snce robbery s a fortutous event and they are not
neggent at a.
We are not persuaded.
Artce 1174 of the Cv Code provdes:
Art. 1174. Except n cases expressy specfed by the aw, or when t s otherwse decared by
stpuaton, or when the nature of the obgaton requres the assumpton of rsk, no person sha
be responsbe for those events whch coud not be foreseen or whch, though foreseen, were
nevtabe.
Fortutous events by defnton are extraordnary events not foreseeabe or avodabe. It s
therefore, not enough that the event shoud not have been foreseen or antcpated, as s
commony beeved but t must be one mpossbe to foresee or to avod. The mere dffcuty to
foresee the happenng s not mpossbty to foresee the same. 22
To consttute a fortutous event, the foowng eements must concur: (a) the cause of the
unforeseen and unexpected occurrence or of the faure of the debtor to compy wth obgatons
must be ndependent of human w; (b) t must be mpossbe to foresee the event that
consttutes the caso fortuto or, f t can be foreseen, t must be mpossbe to avod; (c) the
occurrence must be such as to render t mpossbe for the debtor to fuf obgatons n a norma
manner; and, (d) the obgor must be free from any partcpaton n the aggravaton of the n|ury
or oss. 23
The burden of provng that the oss was due to a fortutous event rests on hm who nvokes t.24
And, n order for a fortutous event to exempt one from abty, t s necessary that one has
commtted no neggence or msconduct that may have occasoned the oss. 25
It has been hed that an act of God cannot be nvoked to protect a person who has faed to take
steps to foresta the possbe adverse consequences of such a oss. One's neggence may have
concurred wth an act of God n producng damage and n|ury to another; nonetheess, showng
that the mmedate or proxmate cause of the damage or n|ury was a fortutous event woud not
exempt one from abty. When the effect s found to be party the resut of a person's
partcpaton -- whether by actve nterventon, negect or faure to act -- the whoe occurrence s
humanzed and removed from the rues appcabe to acts of God. 26
Pettoner Scam had testfed that there was a securty guard n ther pawnshop at the tme of
the robbery. He kewse testfed that when he started the pawnshop busness n 1983, he
thought of openng a vaut wth the nearby bank for the purpose of safekeepng the vauabes
but was dscouraged by the Centra Bank snce pawned artces shoud ony be stored n a vaut
nsde the pawnshop. The very measures whch pettoners had aegedy adopted show that to
them the possbty of robbery was not ony foreseeabe, but actuay foreseen and antcpated.
Pettoner Scams testmony, n effect, contradcts pettoners defense of fortutous event.
Moreover, pettoners faed to show that they were free from any neggence by whch the oss of
the pawned |ewery may have been occasoned.
Robbery per se, |ust ke carnappng, s not a fortutous event. It does not forecose the possbty
of neggence on the part of heren pettoners. In Co v. Court of Appeas,27 the Court hed:
It s not a defense for a repar shop of motor vehces to escape abty smpy because the
damage or oss of a thng awfuy paced n ts possesson was due to carnappng. Carnappng
per se cannot be consdered as a fortutous event. The fact that a thng was unawfuy and
forcefuy taken from another's rghtfu possesson, as n cases of carnappng, does not
automatcay gve rse to a fortutous event. To be consdered as such, carnappng entas more
than the mere forcefu takng of another's property. It must be proved and estabshed that the
event was an act of God or was done soey by thrd partes and that nether the camant nor the
person aeged to be neggent has any partcpaton. In accordance wth the Rues of Evdence,
the burden of provng that the oss was due to a fortutous event rests on hm who nvokes t -
whch n ths case s the prvate respondent. However, other than the poce report of the aeged
carnappng ncdent, no other evdence was presented by prvate respondent to the effect that
the ncdent was not due to ts faut. A poce report of an aeged crme, to whch ony prvate
respondent s prvy, does not suffce to estabsh the carnappng. Nether does t prove that there
was no faut on the part of prvate respondent notwthstandng the partes' agreement at the pre-
tra that the car was carnapped. Carnappng does not forecose the possbty of faut or
neggence on the part of prvate respondent.28
|ust ke n Co, pettoners merey presented the poce report of the Paraaque Poce Staton on
the robbery commtted based on the report of pettoners' empoyees whch s not suffcent to
estabsh robbery. Such report aso does not prove that pettoners were not at faut.
On the contrary, by the very evdence of pettoners, the CA dd not err n fndng that pettoners
are guty of concurrent or contrbutory neggence as provded n Artce 1170 of the Cv Code,
to wt:
Art. 1170. Those who n the performance of ther obgatons are guty of fraud, neggence, or
deay, and those who n any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are abe for damages.29
Artce 2123 of the Cv Code provdes that wth regard to pawnshops and other estabshments
whch are engaged n makng oans secured by pedges, the speca aws and reguatons
concernng them sha be observed, and subsdary, the provsons on pedge, mortgage and
antchress.
The provson on pedge, partcuary Artce 2099 of the Cv Code, provdes that the credtor
sha take care of the thng pedged wth the dgence of a good father of a famy. Ths means
that pettoners must take care of the pawns the way a prudent person woud as to hs own
property.
In ths connecton, Artce 1173 of the Cv Code further provdes:
Art. 1173. The faut or neggence of the obgor conssts n the omsson of that dgence whch s
requred by the nature of the obgaton and corresponds wth the crcumstances of the persons,
of tme and of the pace. When neggence shows bad fath, the provsons of Artces 1171 and
2201, paragraph 2 sha appy.
If the aw or contract does not state the dgence whch s to be observed n the performance,
that whch s expected of a good father of a famy sha be requred.
We expounded n Cruz v. Gangan30 that neggence s the omsson to do somethng whch a
reasonabe man, guded by those consderatons whch ordnary reguate the conduct of human
affars, woud do; or the dong of somethng whch a prudent and reasonabe man woud not
do.31 It s want of care requred by the crcumstances.
A revew of the records ceary shows that pettoners faed to exercse reasonabe care and
cauton that an ordnary prudent person woud have used n the same stuaton. Pettoners
were guty of neggence n the operaton of ther pawnshop busness. Pettoner Scam testfed,
thus:
Court:
O. Do you have securty guards n your pawnshop?
A. Yes, your honor.
O. Then how come that the robbers were abe to enter the premses when accordng to you there
was a securty guard?
A. Sr, f these robbers can rob a bank, how much more a pawnshop.
O. I am askng you how were the robbers abe to enter despte the fact that there was a securty
guard?
A. At the tme of the ncdent whch happened about 1:00 and 2:00 o'cock n the afternoon and t
happened on a Saturday and everythng was quet n the area BF Homes Paraaque they
pretended to pawn an artce n the pawnshop, so one of my empoyees aowed hm to come n
and t was ony when t was announced that t was a hod up.
O. Dd you come to know how the vaut was opened?
A. When the pawnshop s offca (sc) open your honor the pawnshop s party open. The
combnaton s off.
O. No one open (sc) the vaut for the robbers?
A. No one your honor t was open at the tme of the robbery.
O. It s cear now that at the tme of the robbery the vaut was open the reason why the robbers
were abe to get a the tems pawned to you nsde the vaut.
A. Yes sr.32
Reveang that there were no securty measures adopted by pettoners n the operaton of the
pawnshop. Evdenty, no suffcent precauton and vgance were adopted by pettoners to
protect the pawnshop from unawfu ntruson. There was no cear showng that there was any
securty guard at a. Or f there was one, that he had suffcent tranng n securng a pawnshop.
Further, there s no showng that the aeged securty guard exercsed a that was necessary to
prevent any untoward ncdent or to ensure that no suspcous ndvduas were aowed to enter
the premses. In fact, t s even doubtfu that there was a securty guard, snce t s qute
mpossbe that he woud not have notced that the robbers were armed wth caber .45 pstos
each, whch were aegedy poked at the empoyees.33 Sgnfcanty, the aeged securty guard
was not presented at a to corroborate pettoner Scam's cam; not one of pettoners'
empoyees who were present durng the robbery ncdent testfed n court.
Furthermore, pettoner Scam's admsson that the vaut was open at the tme of robbery s
ceary a proof of pettoners' faure to observe the care, precauton and vgance that the
crcumstances |usty demanded. Pettoner Scam testfed that once the pawnshop was open, the
combnaton was aready off. Consderng pettoner Scam's testmony that the robbery took
pace on a Saturday afternoon and the area n BF Homes Paraaque at that tme was quet, there
was more reason for pettoners to have exercsed reasonabe foresght and dgence n
protectng the pawned |eweres. Instead of takng the precauton to protect them, they et open
the vaut, provdng no dffcuty for the robbers to cart away the pawned artces.
We, however, do not agree wth the CA when t found pettoners neggent for not takng steps to
nsure themseves aganst oss of the pawned |eweres.
Under Secton 17 of Centra Bank Crcuar No. 374, Rues and Reguatons for Pawnshops, whch
took effect on |uy 13, 1973, and whch was ssued pursuant to Presdenta Decree No. 114,
Pawnshop Reguaton Act, t s provded that pawns pedged must be nsured, to wt:
Sec. 17. Insurance of Offce Budng and Pawns- The pace of busness of a pawnshop and the
pawns pedged to t must be nsured aganst fre and aganst burgary as we as for the
atter(sc), by an nsurance company accredted by the Insurance Commssoner.
However, ths Secton was subsequenty amended by CB Crcuar No. 764 whch took effect on
October 1, 1980, to wt:
Sec. 17 Insurance of Offce Budng and Pawns - The offce budng/premses and pawns of a
pawnshop must be nsured aganst fre. (emphass supped).
where the requrement that nsurance aganst burgary was deeted. Obvousy, the Centra Bank
consdered t not feasbe to requre nsurance of pawned artces aganst burgary.
The robbery n the pawnshop happened n 1987, and consderng the above-quoted amendment,
there s no statutory duty mposed on pettoners to nsure the pawned |ewery n whch case t
was error for the CA to consder t as a factor n concudng that pettoners were neggent.
Nevertheess, the preponderance of evdence shows that pettoners faed to exercse the
dgence requred of them under the Cv Code.
The dgence wth whch the aw requres the ndvdua at a tmes to govern hs conduct vares
wth the nature of the stuaton n whch he s paced and the mportance of the act whch he s to
perform.34 Thus, the cases of Austra v. Court of Appeas,35 Hernandez v. Charman,
Commsson on Audt36 and Cruz v. Gangan37 cted by pettoners n ther peadngs, where the
vctms of robbery were exonerated from abty, fnd no appcaton to the present case.
In Austra, Mara Abad receved from Guermo Austra a pendant wth damonds to be sod on
commsson bass, but whch Abad faed to subsequenty return because of a robbery commtted
upon her n 1961. The ncdent became the sub|ect of a crmna case fed aganst severa
persons. Austra fed an acton aganst Abad and her husband (Abads) for recovery of the
pendant or ts vaue, but the Abads set up the defense that the robbery extngushed ther
obgaton. The RTC rued n favor of Austra, as the Abads faed to prove robbery; or, f
commtted, that Mara Abad was guty of neggence. The CA, however, reversed the RTC
decson hodng that the fact of robbery was duy estabshed and decared the Abads not
responsbe for the oss of the |ewery on account of a fortutous event. We hed that for the
Abads to be reeved from the cv abty of returnng the pendant under Art. 1174 of the Cv
Code, t woud ony be suffcent that the unforeseen event, the robbery, took pace wthout any
concurrent faut on the debtors part, and ths can be done by preponderance of evdence; that
to be free from abty for reason of fortutous event, the debtor must, n addton to the casus
tsef, be free of any concurrent or contrbutory faut or neggence.38
We found n Austra that under the crcumstances prevang at the tme the Decson was
promugated n 1971, the Cty of Mana and ts suburbs had a hgh ncdence of crmes aganst
persons and property that rendered trave after nghtfa a matter to be seduousy avoded
wthout sutabe precauton and protecton; that the conduct of Mara Abad n returnng aone to
her house n the evenng carryng |ewery of consderabe vaue woud have been neggence per
se and woud not exempt her from responsbty n the case of robbery. However we dd not hod
Abad abe for neggence snce, the robbery happened ten years prevousy; .e., 1961, when
crmnaty had not reached the eve of ncdence obtanng n 1971.
In contrast, the robbery n ths case took pace n 1987 when robbery was aready prevaent and
pettoners n fact had aready foreseen t as they wanted to depost the pawn wth a nearby
bank for safekeepng. Moreover, unke n Austra, where no neggence was commtted, we found
pettoners neggent n securng ther pawnshop as earer dscussed.
In Hernandez, Teodoro Hernandez was the OIC and speca dsbursng offcer of the Ternate
Beach Pro|ect of the Phppne Toursm n Cavte. In the mornng of |uy 1, 1983, a Frday, he
went to Mana to encash two checks coverng the wages of the empoyees and the operatng
expenses of the pro|ect. However for some reason, the processng of the check was deayed and
was competed at about 3 p.m. Nevertheess, he decded to encash the check because the
pro|ect empoyees woud be watng for ther pay the foowng day; otherwse, the workers woud
have to wat unt |uy 5, the earest tme, when the man offce woud open. At that tme, he had
two choces: (1) return to Ternate, Cavte that same afternoon and arrve eary evenng; or (2)
take the money wth hm to hs house n Marao, Buacan, spend the nght there, and eave for
Ternate the foowng day. He chose the second opton, thnkng t was the safer one. Thus, a
tte past 3 p.m., he took a passenger |eep bound for Buacan. Whe the |eep was on Epfano de
os Santos Avenue, the |eep was hed up and the money kept by Hernandez was taken, and the
robbers |umped out of the |eep and ran. Hernandez chased the robbers and caught up wth one
robber who was subsequenty charged wth robbery and peaded guty. The other robber who
hed the stoen money escaped. The Commsson on Audt found Hernandez neggent because
he had not brought the cash proceeds of the checks to hs offce n Ternate, Cavte for
safekeepng, whch s the norma procedure n the handng of funds. We hed that Hernandez
was not neggent n decdng to encash the check and brngng t home to Marao, Buacan
nstead of Ternate, Cavte due to the ateness of the hour for the foowng reasons: (1) he was
moved by unsefsh motve for hs co-empoyees to coect ther wages and saares the foowng
day, a Saturday, a non-workng, because to encash the check on |uy 5, the next workng day
after |uy 1, woud have caused dscomfort to aborers who were dependent on ther wages for
sustenance; and (2) that choosng Marao as a safer destnaton, beng nearer, and n vew of the
comparatve hazards n the trps to the two paces, sad decson seemed ogca at that tme. We
further hed that the fact that two robbers attacked hm n broad dayght n the |eep whe t was
on a busy hghway and n the presence of other passengers coud not be sad to be a resut of hs
mprudence and neggence.
Unke n Hernandez where the robbery happened n a pubc utty, the robbery n ths case took
pace n the pawnshop whch s under the contro of pettoners. Pettoners had the means to
screen the persons who were aowed entrance to the premses and to protect tsef from
unawfu ntruson. Pettoners had faed to exercse precautonary measures n ensurng that the
robbers were prevented from enterng the pawnshop and for keepng the vaut open for the day,
whch paved the way for the robbers to easy cart away the pawned artces.
In Cruz, Dr. Fona O. Cruz, Camanava Dstrct Drector of Technoogca Educaton and Sks
Deveopment Authorty (TESDA), boarded the Lght Ra Transt (LRT) from Sen. Puyat Avenue to
Monumento when her handbag was sashed and the contents were stoen by an undentfed
person. Among those stoen were her waet and the government-ssued ceuar phone. She then
reported the ncdent to the poce authortes; however, the thef was not ocated, and the
cephone was not recovered. She aso reported the oss to the Regona Drector of TESDA, and
she requested that she be freed from accountabty for the cephone. The Resdent Audtor
dened her request on the ground that she acked the dgence requred n the custody of
government property and was ordered to pay the purchase vaue n the tota amount of
P4,238.00. The COA found no suffcent |ustfcaton to grant the request for reef from
accountabty. We reversed the rung and found that rdng the LRT cannot per se be denounced
as a neggent act more so because Cruzs mode of transt was nfuenced by tme and money
consderatons; that she boarded the LRT to be abe to arrve n Caoocan n tme for her 3 pm
meetng; that any prudent and ratona person under smar crcumstance can reasonaby be
expected to do the same; that possesson of a cephone shoud not hnder one from boardng
the LRT coach as Cruz dd consderng that whether she rode a |eep or bus, the rsk of theft
woud have aso been present; that because of her reatvey ow poston and pay, she was not
expected to have her own vehce or to rde a taxcab; she dd not have a government assgned
vehce; that pacng the cephone n a bag away from covetous eyes and hodng on to that bag
as she dd s ordnary suffcent care of a cephone whe traveng on board the LRT; that the
records dd not show any specfc act of neggence on her part and neggence can never be
presumed.
Unke n the Cruz case, the robbery n ths case happened n pettoners' pawnshop and they
were neggent n not exercsng the precautons |usty demanded of a pawnshop.
WHEREFORE, except for the nsurance aspect, the Decson of the Court of Appeas dated March
31, 2003 and ts Resouton dated August 8, 2003, are AFFIRMED.
Costs aganst pettoners.
-% $1O#$%$ AFRICA et a! vs, CAL-%7 et a!
G,R, No, L+12983 Marc8 91, 1933
FAC-$: A fre broke out at the Catex servce staton at the corner of Antpoo street and Rza
Avenue, Mana. It started whe gasone was beng hosed from a tank truck nto the
underground storage, rght at the openng of the recevng tank where the nozze of the hose was
nserted (a ghted matchstck was thrown by a stranger near the openng, causng the fre). The
fre spread to and burned severa neghborng houses. Ther owners, among them pettoners
here, sued respondents Catex (Ph.), Inc. and Boquren, the frst as aeged owner of the staton
and the second as ts agent n charge of operaton. Neggence on the part of both of them was
attrbuted as the cause of the fre. The tra court and the CA found that pettoners faed to
prove neggence and that respondents had exercsed due care n the premses and wth respect
to the supervson of ther empoyees. Hence ths petton.
I$$#%: WON, wthout proof as to the cause and orgn of the fre, the doctrne of res psa oqutur
shoud appy so as to presume neggence on the part of appeees.
%LD: the decson appeaed from s reversed and respondents-appeees are hed abe
sodary to appeants,
Both the tra court and the appeate court refused to appy the doctrne n the nstant case on
the grounds that "as to (ts) appcabty . n the Phppnes, there seems to he nothng
defnte," and that whe the rues do not prohbt ts adopton n approprate cases, "n the case
at bar, however, we fnd no practca use for such doctrne."
The queston deserves more than such summary dsmssa. The doctrne has actuay been
apped n ths |ursdcton, n the case of Esprtu vs. Phppne Power and Deveopment Co
The prncpe enuncated n the aforequoted case appes wth equa force here. The gasone
staton, wth a ts appances, equpment and empoyees, was under the contro of appeees. A
fre occurred theren and spread to and burned the neghborng houses. The persons who knew
or coud have known how the fre started were appeees and ther empoyees, but they gave no
expanaton thereof whatsoever. It s a far and reasonabe nference that the ncdent happened
because of want of care.
Even then the fre possby woud not have spread to the neghborng houses were t not for
another neggent omsson on the part of defendants, namey, ther faure to provde a concrete
wa hgh enough to prevent the fames from eapng over t.. Defendants neggence, therefore,
was not ony wth respect to the cause of the fre but aso wth respect to the spread thereof to
the neghborng houses.
There s an admsson on the part of Boquren n hs amended answer to the second amended
compant that "the fre was caused through the acts of a stranger who, wthout authorty, or
permsson of answerng defendant, passed through the gasone staton and neggenty threw a
ghted match n the premses." No evdence on ths pont was adduced, but assumng the
aegaton to be true - certany any unfavorabe nference from the admsson may be taken
aganst Boquren - t does not extenuate hs neggence. A decson of the Supreme Court of
Texas, upon facts anaogous to those of the present case, states the rue whch we fnd
acceptabe here. "It s the rue that those who dstrbute a dangerous artce or agent, owe a
degree of protecton to the pubc proportonate to and commensurate wth a danger nvoved .
we thnk t s the generay accepted rue as apped to torts that f the effects of the actors
neggent conduct actvey and contnuousy operate to brng about harm to another, the fact
that the actve and substantay smutaneous operaton of the effects of a thrd persons
nnocent, tortous or crmna act s aso a substanta factor n brngng about the harm, does not
protect the actor from abty. Stated n another way, "The ntenton of an unforeseen and
unexpected cause s not suffcent to reeve a wrongdoer from consequences of neggence, f
such neggence drecty and proxmatey cooperates wth the ndependent cause n the resutng
n|ury."
Decson REVERSED. Catex abe.
F#LL CA$%
Ths case s before us on a petton for revew of the decson of the Court of Appeas, whch
affrmed that of the Court of Frst Instance of Mana dsmssng pettoners' second amended
compant aganst respondents.
The acton s for damages under Artces 1902 and 1903 of the od Cv Code. It appears that n
the afternoon of March 18, 1948 a fre broke out at the Catex servce staton at the corner of
Antpoo street and Rza Avenue, Mana. It started whe gasone was beng hosed from a tank
truck nto the underground storage, rght at the openng of the recevng tank where the nozze
of the hose was nserted. The fre spread to and burned severa neghborng houses, ncudng
the persona propertes and effects nsde them. Ther owners, among them pettoners here,
sued respondents Catex (Ph.), Inc. and Mateo Boquren, the frst as aeged owner of the staton
and the second as ts agent n charge of operaton. Neggence on the part of both of them was
attrbuted as the cause of the fre.
The tra court and the Court of Appeas found that pettoners faed to prove neggence and that
respondents had exercsed due care n the premses and wth respect to the supervson of ther
empoyees.
The frst queston before Us refers to the admssbty of certan reports on the fre prepared by
the Mana Poce and Fre Departments and by a certan Captan Tno of the Armed Forces of the
Phppnes. Portons of the frst two reports are as foows:
1. Poce Department report: -
Investgaton dscosed that at about 4:00 P.M. March 18, 1948, whe Leandro Fores was
transferrng gasone from a tank truck, pate No. T-5292 nto the underground tank of the Catex
Gasone Staton ocated at the corner of Rza Avenue and Antpoo Street, ths Cty, an unknown
Fpno ghted a cgarette and threw the burnng match stck near the man vave of the sad
underground tank. Due to the gasone fumes, fre suddeny bazed. Ouck acton of Leandro
Fores n pung off the gasone hose connectng the truck wth the underground tank prevented
a terrfc exposon. However, the fames scattered due to the hose from whch the gasone was
spoutng. It burned the truck and the foowng accessoras and resdences.
2. The Fre Department report: -
In connecton wth ther aegaton that the premses was (sc) subeased for the nstaaton of a
coca-coa and cgarette stand, the companants furnshed ths Offce a copy of a photograph
taken durng the fre and whch s submtted herewth. t appears n ths pcture that there are n
the premses a coca-coa cooer and a rack whch accordng to nformaton gathered n the
neghborhood contaned cgarettes and matches, nstaed between the gasone pumps and the
underground tanks.
The report of Captan Tno reproduced nformaton gven by a certan Bento Moraes regardng
the hstory of the gasone staton and what the chef of the fre department had tod hm on the
same sub|ect.
The foregong reports were rued out as "doube hearsay" by the Court of Appeas and hence
nadmssbe. Ths rung s now assgned as error. It s contended: frst, that sad reports were
admtted by the tra court wthout ob|ecton on the part of respondents; secondy, that wth
respect to the poce report (Exhbt V-Afrca) whch appears sgned by a Detectve Zapanta
aegedy "for Savador Capaco," the atter was presented as wtness but respondents waved
ther rght to cross-examne hm athough they had the opportunty to do so; and thrdy, that n
any event the sad reports are admssbe as an excepton to the hearsay rue under secton 35 of
Rue 123, now Rue 130.
The frst contenton s not borne out by the record. The transcrpt of the hearng of September
17, 1953 (pp. 167-170) shows that the reports n queston, when offered as evdence, were
ob|ected to by counse for each of respondents on the ground that they were hearsay and that
they were "rreevant, mmatera and mpertnent." Indeed, n the court's resouton ony Exhbts
|, K, K-5 and X-6 were admtted wthout ob|ecton; the admsson of the others, ncudng the
dsputed ones, carred no such expanaton.
On the second pont, athough Detectve Capaco dd take the wtness stand, he was not
examned and he dd not testfy as to the facts mentoned n hs aeged report (sgned by
Detectve Zapanta). A he sad was that he was one of those who nvestgated "the ocaton of
the fre and, f possbe, gather wtnesses as to the occurrence, and that he brought the report
wth hm. There was nothng, therefore, on whch he need be cross-examned; and the contents
of the report, as to whch he dd not testfy, dd not thereby become competent evdence. And
even f he had testfed, hs testmony woud st have been ob|ectonabe as far as nformaton
gathered by hm from thrd persons was concerned.
Pettoners mantan, however, that the reports n themseves, that s, wthout further testmona
evdence on ther contents, fa wthn the scope of secton 35, Rue 123, whch provdes that
"entres n offca records made n the performance of hs duty by a pubc offcer of the
Phppnes, or by a person n the performance of a duty specay en|oned by aw, are prma face
evdence of the facts theren stated."
There are three requstes for admssbty under the rue |ust mentoned: (a) that the entry was
made by a pubc offcer, or by another person specay en|oned by aw to do so; (b) that t was
made by the pubc offcer n the performance of hs dutes, or by such other person n the
performance of a duty specay en|oned by aw; and (c) that the pubc offcer or other person
had suffcent knowedge of the facts by hm stated, whch must have been acqured by hm
personay or through offca nformaton (Moran, Comments on the Rues of Court, Vo. 3 |1957|
p. 398).
Of the three requstes |ust stated, ony the ast need be consdered here. Obvousy the matera
facts rected n the reports as to the cause and crcumstances of the fre were not wthn the
persona knowedge of the offcers who conducted the nvestgaton. Was knowedge of such
facts, however, acqured by them through offca nformaton? As to some facts the sources
thereof are not even dentfed. Others are attrbuted to Leopodo Medna, referred to as an
empoyee at the gas staton were the fre occurred; to Leandro Fores, drver of the tank truck
from whch gasone was beng transferred at the tme to the underground tank of the staton;
and to respondent Mateo Boquren, who coud not, accordng to Exhbt V-Afrca, gve any reason
as to the orgn of the fre. To quafy ther statements as "offca nformaton" acqured by the
offcers who prepared the reports, the persons who made the statements not ony must have
persona knowedge of the facts stated but must have the duty to gve such statements for
record.1
The reports n queston do not consttute an excepton to the hearsay rue; the facts stated
theren were not acqured by the reportng offcers through offca nformaton, not havng been
gven by the nformants pursuant to any duty to do so.
The next queston s whether or not, wthout proof as to the cause and orgn of the fre, the
doctrne of res psa oqutur shoud appy so as to presume neggence on the part of appeees.
Both the tra court and the appeate court refused to appy the doctrne n the nstant case on
the grounds that "as to (ts) appcabty ... n the Phppnes, there seems to he nothng
defnte," and that whe the rues do not prohbt ts adopton n approprate cases, "n the case
at bar, however, we fnd no practca use for such doctrne." The queston deserves more than
such summary dsmssa. The doctrne has actuay been apped n ths |ursdcton, n the case of
Esprtu vs. Phppne Power and Deveopment Co. (CA-G.R. No. 3240-R, September 20, 1949),
wheren the decson of the Court of Appeas was penned by Mr. |ustce |.B.L. Reyes now a
member of the Supreme Court.
The facts of that case are stated n the decson as foows:
In the afternoon of May 5, 1946, whe the pantff-appeee and other companons were oadng
grass between the muncpates of Bay and Caauan, n the provnce of Laguna, wth cear
weather and wthout any wnd bowng, an eectrc transmsson wre, nstaed and mantaned by
the defendant Phppne Power and Deveopment Co., Inc. aongsde the road, suddeny parted,
and one of the broken ends ht the head of the pantff as he was about to board the truck. As a
resut, pantff receved the fu shock of 4,400 vots carred by the wre and was knocked
unconscous to the ground. The eectrc charge coursed through hs body and caused extensve
and serous mutpe burns from sku to egs, eavng the bone exposed n some parts and
causng ntense pan and wounds that were not competey heaed when the case was tred on
|une 18, 1947, over one year after the mshap.
The defendant theren dscamed abty on the ground that the pantff had faed to show any
specfc act of neggence, but the appeate court overrued the defense under the doctrne of
res psa oqutur. The court sad:
The frst pont s drected aganst the suffcency of pantff's evdence to pace appeant on ts
defense. Whe t s the rue, as contended by the appeant, that n case of noncontractua
neggence, or cupa aquana, the burden of proof s on the pantff to estabsh that the
proxmate cause of hs n|ury was the neggence of the defendant, t s aso a recognzed
prncpa that "where the thng whch caused n|ury, wthout faut of the n|ured person, s under
the excusve contro of the defendant and the n|ury s such as n the ordnary course of thngs
does not occur f he havng such contro use proper care, t affords reasonabe evdence, n the
absence of the expanaton, that the n|ury arose from defendant's want of care."
And the burden of evdence s shfted to hm to estabsh that he has observed due care and
dgence. (San |uan Lght & Transt Co. v. Requena, 244, U.S. 89, 56 L. ed. 680.) Ths rue s
known by the name of res psa oqutur (the transacton speaks for tsef), and s pecuary
appcabe to the case at bar, where t s unquestoned that the pantff had every rght to be on
the hghway, and the eectrc wre was under the soe contro of defendant company. In the
ordnary course of events, eectrc wres do not part suddeny n far weather and n|ure peope,
uness they are sub|ected to unusua stran and stress or there are defects n ther nstaaton,
mantenance and supervson; |ust as barres do not ordnary ro out of the warehouse wndows
to n|ure passersby, uness some one was neggent. (Byrne v. Boade, 2 H & Co. 722; 159 Eng.
Reprnt 299, the eadng case that estabshed that rue). Consequenty, n the absence of
contrbutory neggence (whch s admttedy not present), the fact that the wre snapped suffces
to rase a reasonabe presumpton of neggence n ts nstaaton, care and mantenance.
Thereafter, as observed by Chef Baron Poock, "f there are any facts nconsstent wth
neggence, t s for the defendant to prove."
It s true of course that decsons of the Court of Appeas do not ay down doctrnes bndng on
the Supreme Court, but we do not consder ths a reason for not appyng the partcuar doctrne
of res psa oqutur n the case at bar. Gasone s a hghy combustbe matera, n the storage
and sae of whch extreme care must be taken. On the other hand, fre s not consdered a
fortutous event, as t arses amost nvaraby from some act of man. A case strkngy smar to
the one before Us s |ones vs. She Petroeum Corporaton, et a., 171 So. 447:
Arthur O. |ones s the owner of a budng n the cty of Hammon whch n the year 1934 was
eased to the She Petroeum Corporaton for a gasone fng staton. On October 8, 1934,
durng the term of the ease, whe gasone was beng transferred from the tank wagon, aso
operated by the She Petroeum Corporaton, to the underground tank of the staton, a fre
started wth resutng damages to the budng owned by |ones. Aegng that the damages to hs
budng amounted to $516.95, |ones sued the She Petroeum Corporaton for the recovery of
that amount. The |udge of the dstrct court, after hearng the testmony, concuded that pantff
was entted to a recovery and rendered |udgment n hs favor for $427.82. The Court of Appeas
for the Frst Crcut reversed ths |udgment, on the ground the testmony faed to show wth
reasonabe certanty any neggence on the part of the She Petroeum Corporaton or any of ts
agents or empoyees. Pantff apped to ths Court for a Wrt of Revew whch was granted, and
the case s now before us for decson.1wph1.t
In resovng the ssue of neggence, the Supreme Court of Lousana hed:
Pantff's petton contans two dstnct charges of neggence - one reatng to the cause of the
fre and the other reatng to the spreadng of the gasone about the fng staton.
Other than an expert to assess the damages caused pantff's budng by the fre, no wtnesses
were paced on the stand by the defendant.
Takng up pantff's charge of neggence reatng to the cause of the fre, we fnd t estabshed
by the record that the fng staton and the tank truck were under the contro of the defendant
and operated by ts agents or empoyees. We further fnd from the uncontradcted testmony of
pantff's wtnesses that fre started n the underground tank attached to the fng staton whe
t was beng fed from the tank truck and whe both the tank and the truck were n charge of
and beng operated by the agents or empoyees of the defendant, extended to the hose and tank
truck, and was communcated from the burnng hose, tank truck, and escapng gasone to the
budng owned by the pantff.
Predcated on these crcumstances and the further crcumstance of defendant's faure to expan
the cause of the fre or to show ts ack of knowedge of the cause, pantff has evoked the
doctrne of res psa oqutur. There are many cases n whch the doctrne may be successfuy
nvoked and ths, we thnk, s one of them.
Where the thng whch caused the n|ury companed of s shown to be under the management of
defendant or hs servants and the accdent s such as n the ordnary course of thngs does not
happen f those who have ts management or contro use proper care, t affords reasonabe
evdence, n absence of expanaton by defendant, that the accdent arose from want of care. (45
C.|. #768, p. 1193).
Ths statement of the rue of res psa oqutur has been wdey approved and adopted by the
courts of ast resort. Some of the cases n ths |ursdcton n whch the doctrne has been apped
are the foowng, vz.: Maus v. Broderck, 51 La. Ann. 1153, 25 So. 977; Hebert v. Lake Chares
Ice, etc., Co., 111 La. 522, 35 So. 731, 64 L.R.A. 101, 100 Am. St. Rep. 505; Ws v. Vcksburg,
etc., R. Co., 115 La. 63, 38 So. 892; Bents v. Page, 115 La. 560, 39 So. 599.
The prncpe enuncated n the aforequoted case appes wth equa force here. The gasone
staton, wth a ts appances, equpment and empoyees, was under the contro of appeees. A
fre occurred theren and spread to and burned the neghborng houses. The persons who knew
or coud have known how the fre started were appeees and ther empoyees, but they gave no
expanaton thereof whatsoever. It s a far and reasonabe nference that the ncdent happened
because of want of care.
In the report submtted by Captan Leonco Marano of the Mana Poce Department (Exh. X-1
Afrca) the foowng appears:
Investgaton of the basc compant dscosed that the Catex Gasone Staton companed of
occupes a ot approxmatey 10 m x 10 m at the southwest corner of Rza Avenue and Antpoo.
The ocaton s wthn a very busy busness dstrct near the Obrero Market, a raroad crossng
and very thcky popuated neghborhood where a great number of peope m around t
unt
gasone
tever be theWact|vtes of these peopeor ghtng a cgarette cannot be excuded and ths
consttute a secondary hazard to ts operaton whch n turn endangers the entre neghborhood
to confagraton.
Furthermore, asde from precautons aready taken by ts operator the concrete was south and
west ad|onng the neghborhood are ony 2-1/2 meters hgh at most and cannot avod the fames
from eapng over t n case of fre.
Records show that there have been two cases of fre whch caused not ony matera damages
but desperaton and aso panc n the neghborhood.
Athough the soft drnks stand had been emnated, ths gasone servce staton s aso used by
ts operator as a garage and repar shop for hs feet of taxcabs numberng ten or more, addng
another rsk to the possbe outbreak of fre at ths aready sma but crowded gasone staton.
The foregong report, havng been submtted by a poce offcer n the performance of hs dutes
on the bass of hs own persona observaton of the facts reported, may propery be consdered
as an excepton to the hearsay rue. These facts, descrptve of the ocaton and ob|ectve
crcumstances surroundng the operaton of the gasone staton n queston, strengthen the
presumpton of neggence under the doctrne of res psa oqutur, snce on ther face they caed
for more strngent measures of cauton than those whch woud satsfy the standard of due
dgence under ordnary crcumstances. There s no more eoquent demonstraton of ths than
the statement of Leandro Fores before the poce nvestgator. Fores was the drver of the
gasone tank wagon who, aone and wthout assstance, was transferrng the contents thereof
nto the underground storage when the fre broke out. He sad: "Before oadng the underground
tank there were no peope, but whe the oadng was gong on, there were peope who went to
drnk coca-coa (at the coca-coa stand) whch s about a meter from the hoe eadng to the
underground tank." He added that when the tank was amost fed he went to the tank truck to
cose the vave, and whe he had hs back turned to the "manhoe" he, heard someone shout
"fre."
Even then the fre possby woud not have spread to the neghborng houses were t not for
another neggent omsson on the part of defendants, namey, ther faure to provde a concrete
wa hgh enough to prevent the fames from eapng over t. As t was the concrete wa was ony
2-1/2 meters hgh, and beyond that heght t conssted merey of gavanzed ron sheets, whch
woud predctaby crumpe and met when sub|ected to ntense heat. Defendants' neggence,
therefore, was not ony wth respect to the cause of the fre but aso wth respect to the spread
thereof to the neghborng houses.
There s an admsson on the part of Boquren n hs amended answer to the second amended
compant that "the fre was caused through the acts of a stranger who, wthout authorty, or
permsson of answerng defendant, passed through the gasone staton and neggenty threw a
ghted match n the premses." No evdence on ths pont was adduced, but assumng the
aegaton to be true - certany any unfavorabe nference from the admsson may be taken
aganst Boquren - t does not extenuate hs neggence. A decson of the Supreme Court of
Texas, upon facts anaogous to those of the present case, states the rue whch we fnd
acceptabe here. "It s the rue that those who dstrbute a dangerous artce or agent, owe a
degree of protecton to the pubc proportonate to and commensurate wth a danger nvoved ...
we thnk t s the generay accepted rue as apped to torts that 'f the effects of the actor's
neggent conduct actvey and contnuousy operate to brng about harm to another, the fact
that the actve and substantay smutaneous operaton of the effects of a thrd person's
nnocent, tortous or crmna act s aso a substanta factor n brngng about the harm, does not
protect the actor from abty.' (Restatement of the Law of Torts, vo. 2, p. 1184, #439). Stated
n another way, "The ntenton of an unforeseen and unexpected cause, s not suffcent to reeve
a wrongdoer from consequences of neggence, f such neggence drecty and proxmatey
cooperates wth the ndependent cause n the resutng n|ury." (MacAfee, et a. vs. Traver's Gas
Corporaton, 153 S.W. 2nd 442.)
The next ssue s whether Catex shoud be hed abe for the damages caused to appeants. Ths
ssue depends on whether Boquren was an ndependent contractor, as hed by the Court of
Appeas, or an agent of Catex. Ths queston, n the ght of the facts not controverted, s one of
aw and hence may be passed upon by ths Court. These facts are: (1) Boquren made an
admsson that he was an agent of Catex; (2) at the tme of the fre Catex owned the gasone
staton and a the equpment theren; (3) Catex exercsed contro over Boquren n the
management of the state; (4) the devery truck used n deverng gasone to the staton had the
name of CALTEX panted on t; and (5) the cense to store gasone at the staton was n the
name of Catex, whch pad the cense fees. (Exhbt T-Afrca; Exhbt U-Afrca; Exhbt X-5 Afrca;
Exhbt X-6 Afrca; Exhbt Y-Afrca).
In Boquren's amended answer to the second amended compant, he dened that he drected
one of hs drvers to remove gasone from the truck nto the tank and aeged that the "aeged
drver, f one there was, was not n hs empoy, the drver beng an empoyee of the Catex (Ph.)
Inc. and/or the owners of the gasone staton." It s true that Boquren ater on amended hs
answer, and that among the changes was one to the effect that he was not actng as agent of
Catex. But then agan, n hs moton to dsmss appeants' second amended compant the
ground aeged was that t stated no cause of acton snce under the aegatons thereof he was
merey actng as agent of Catex, such that he coud not have ncurred persona abty. A
moton to dsmss on ths ground s deemed to be an admsson of the facts aeged n the
compant.
Catex admts that t owned the gasone staton as we as the equpment theren, but cams
that the busness conducted at the servce staton n queston was owned and operated by
Boquren. But Catex dd not present any contract wth Boquren that woud revea the nature of
ther reatonshp at the tme of the fre. There must have been one n exstence at that tme.
Instead, what was presented was a cense agreement manfesty taored for purposes of ths
case, snce t was entered nto shorty before the expraton of the one-year perod t was
ntended to operate. Ths so-caed cense agreement (Exhbt 5-Catex) was executed on
November 29, 1948, but made effectve as of |anuary 1, 1948 so as to cover the date of the fre,
namey, March 18, 1948. Ths retroactvty provson s qute sgnfcant, and gves rse to the
concuson that t was desgned precsey to free Catex from any responsbty wth respect to
the fre, as shown by the cause that Catex "sha not be abe for any n|ury to person or
property whe n the property heren censed, t beng understood and agreed that LICENSEE
(Boquren) s not an empoyee, representatve or agent of LICENSOR (Catex)."
But even f the cense agreement were to govern, Boquren can hardy be consdered an
ndependent contractor. Under that agreement Boquren woud pay Catex the purey nomna
sum of P1.00 for the use of the premses and a the equpment theren. He coud se ony Catex
Products. Mantenance of the staton and ts equpment was sub|ect to the approva, n other
words contro, of Catex. Boquren coud not assgn or transfer hs rghts as censee wthout the
consent of Catex. The cense agreement was supposed to be from |anuary 1, 1948 to December
31, 1948, and thereafter unt termnated by Catex upon two days pror wrtten notce. Catex
coud at any tme cance and termnate the agreement n case Boquren ceased to se Catex
products, or dd not conduct the busness wth due dgence, n the |udgment of Catex.
Termnaton of the contract was therefore a rght granted ony to Catex but not to Boquren.
These provsons of the contract show the extent of the contro of Catex over Boquren. The
contro was such that the atter was vrtuay an empoyee of the former.
Takng nto consderaton the fact that the operator owed hs poston to the company and the
atter coud remove hm or termnate hs servces at w; that the servce staton beonged to the
company and bore ts tradename and the operator sod ony the products of the company; that
the equpment used by the operator beonged to the company and were |ust oaned to the
operator and the company took charge of ther repar and mantenance; that an empoyee of the
company supervsed the operator and conducted perodc nspecton of the company's gasone
and servce staton; that the prce of the products sod by the operator was fxed by the company
and not by the operator; and that the recepts sgned by the operator ndcated that he was a
mere agent, the fndng of the Court of Appeas that the operator was an agent of the company
and not an ndependent contractor shoud not be dsturbed.
To determne the nature of a contract courts do not have or are not bound to rey upon the name
or tte gven t by the contractng partes, shoud thereby a controversy as to what they reay
had ntended to enter nto, but the way the contractng partes do or perform ther respectve
obgatons stpuated or agreed upon may be shown and nqured nto, and shoud such
performance confct wth the name or tte gven the contract by the partes, the former must
preva over the atter. (She Company of the Phppnes, Ltd. vs. Fremens' Insurance Company
of Newark, New |ersey, 100 Ph. 757).
The wrtten contract was apparenty drawn for the purpose of creatng the apparent reatonshp
of empoyer and ndependent contractor, and of avodng abty for the neggence of the
empoyees about the staton; but the company was not satsfed to aow such reatonshp to
exst. The evdence shows that t mmedatey assumed contro, and proceeded to drect the
method by whch the work contracted for shoud be performed. By reservng the rght to
termnate the contract at w, t retaned the means of compeng submsson to ts orders.
Havng eected to assume contro and to drect the means and methods by whch the work has to
be performed, t must be hed abe for the neggence of those performng servce under ts
drecton. We thnk the evdence was suffcent to sustan the verdct of the |ury. (Guf Refnng
Company v. Rogers, 57 S.W. 2d, 183).
Catex further argues that the gasone stored n the staton beonged to Boquren. But no cash
nvoces were presented to show that Boquren had bought sad gasone from Catex. Nether
was there a saes contract to prove the same.
As found by the tra court the Afrcas sustaned a oss of P9,005.80, after deductng the amount
of P2,000.00 coected by them on the nsurance of the house. The deducton s now chaenged
as erroneous on the ground that Artce 2207 of the New Cv Code, whch provdes for the
subrogaton of the nsurer to the rghts of the nsured, was not yet n effect when the oss took
pace. However, regardess of the sence of the aw on ths pont at that tme, the amount that
shoud be recovered be measured by the damages actuay suffered, otherwse the prncpe
prohbtng un|ust enrchment woud be voated. Wth respect to the cam of the hers of Ong
P7,500.00 was ad|udged by the ower court on the bass of the assessed vaue of the property
destroyed, namey, P1,500.00, dsregardng the testmony of one of the Ong chdren that sad
property was worth P4,000.00. We agree that the court erred, snce t s of common knowedge
that the assessment for taxaton purposes s not an accurate gauge of far market vaue, and n
ths case shoud not preva over postve evdence of such vaue. The hers of Ong are therefore
entted to P10,000.00.
Wherefore, the decson appeaed from s reversed and respondents-appeees are hed abe
sodary to appeants, and ordered to pay them the aforesad sum of P9,005.80 and
P10,000.00, respectvey, wth nterest from the fng of the compant, and costs.
R%1#/LIC vs L#0ON $-%:%DORING
GR No, L+15411
FAC-$: In the eary afternoon of August 17, 1960, barge L-1892, owned by the Luzon
Stevedorng Corporaton was beng towed down the Pasg Rver by two tugboats when the barge
rammed aganst one of the wooden pes of the Nagtahan Baey brdge, smashng the posts and
causng the brdge to st. The rver, at the tme, was swoen and the current swft, on account of
the heavy downpour n Mana and the surroundng provnces on August 15 and 16, 1960. The
Repubc of the Phppnes sued Luzon Stevedorng for actua and consequenta damage caused
by ts empoyees, amountng to P200,000. Defendant Corporaton dscamed abty on the
grounds that t had exercsed due dgence n the seecton and supervson of ts empoyees that
the damages to the brdge were caused by force ma|eure, that pantff has no capacty to sue,
and that the Nagtahan Baey brdge s an obstructon to navgaton. After due tra, the court
rendered |udgment on |une 11, 1963, hodng the defendant abe for the damage caused by ts
empoyees and orderng t to pay pantff the actua cost of the repar of the Nagtahan baey
brdge whch amounted to P192,561.72, wth ega nterest from the date of the fng of the
compant.
I$$#%: Was the coson of appeant's barge wth the supports or pers of the Nagtahan Brdge
caused by fortutous event or force ma|eure?
R#LING: Yes. Consderng that the Nagtahan brdge was an mmovabe and statonary ob|ect
and uncontrovertedy provded wth adequate openngs for the passage of watercraft, ncudng
barges ke of appeant's, t was undenabe that the unusua event that the barge, excusvey
controed by appeant, rammed the brdge supports rases a presumpton of neggence on the
part of appeant or ts empoyees mannng the barge or the tugs that towed t. For n the
ordnary course of events, such a thng w not happen f proper care s used. In Ango Amercan
|ursprudence, the nference arses by what s known as the "res psa oqutur" rue. The appeant
strongy stressed the precautons taken by t on the day n queston: that t assgned two of ts
most powerfu tugboats to tow down rver ts barge L-1892; that t assgned to the task the more
competent and experenced among ts patrons, had the townes, engnes and equpment
doube-checked and nspected' that t nstructed ts patrons to take extra precautons; and
concudes that t had done a t was caed to do, and that the accdent, therefore, shoud be hed
due to force ma|eure or fortutous event. These very precautons, however, competey destroyed
the appeant's defense. For caso fortuto or force ma|eure (whch n aw are dentca n so far as
they exempt an obgor from abty) by defnton, are extraordnary events not foreseeabe or
avodabe, "events that coud not be foreseen, or whch, though foreseen, were nevtabe" (Art.
1174, Cv. Code of the Phppnes). It was, therefore, not enough that the event shoud not have
been foreseen or antcpated, as was commony beeved but t must be one mpossbe to
foresee or to avod. The mere dffcuty to foresee the happenng was not mpossbty to foresee
the same. The very measures adopted by appeant prove that the possbty of danger was not
ony foreseeabe, but actuay foreseen, and was not caso fortuto.
F#LL CA$%
Pettoner Lusteveco Empoyees Assocaton-CCLU (LEA) moved for reconsderaton of our
decson of December 31, 1965. It aso fed a moton - whch we granted that a exhbts n
Case 21-IPA Incdent 4 (L 18681) be forwarded to ths Court for perusa n resovng the moton
for reconsderaton. Sad exhbts have now been eevated to Us. Respondent Luzon Stevedorng
Corporaton (LUZON) fed an opposton to the moton for reconsderaton. And a repy to sad
opposton was kewse fed.
1. It s movant's vew that the nature of ts strke underwent, a change from economc to unfar
abor practce strke from the moment respondent LUZON refused ts aeged uncondtona offer
to return to work for 300 workers, dated |une 2, 1959, and thereby commtted unfar abor
practce. After the frst strke staged n |une, 1958, LUZON gave LEA up to |anuary 6, 1959 to
return to work. None returned to work wthn that perod. Four strkers, however, were aowed to
return to work on |anuary 26, 1959. Subsequenty, on |une 2, 1959, LEA, through a etter of ts
Presdent, offered to return to work "under the status quo as drected by the Court of Industra
Reatons n ts order of |une 21, 1958 wthout pre|udce to whatever the decson of sad Court
may make on the ssues nvoved n the second strke". (Exh. O-1, Case 21-IPA|4|; emphass
supped). In a etter dated |une 9, 1959 (Exh. O-2, Case 21-IPA |4| LUZON through ts Genera
Manager reped "We fee that nasmuch as the queston of the egaty or egaty of the second
strke s now before that Court |CIR|, and the Secretary of Labor has taken the ntatve of
concatng the abor dspute between the partes, your aforesad offer shoud be hed n
abeyance." In hs etter of |une 12, 1959, LEA's Presdent reterated the afore-stated offer to
return to work.
In ths Court's vew LEA's return-to-work offer was not uncondtona. It provded for a return to
work "as drected by the Court of Industra Reatons n ts order of |une 21, 1958". And sad CIR
order n turn provded, among other thngs, for payment of strke-duraton pay. (See p. 11 of CIR
Record, Vo. I, 21-IPA.) As the records dscose, LEA's return-to-work offer, therefore, mposed as
a condton, among others, the payment of strke-duraton pay. Accordngy, LEA, cannot nvoke
Consodated Labor Assocaton of the Phppnes vs. Marsman & Co. Inc., L-17038 and L-17057,
|uy 31, 1964 and smar cases to the effect that refusa of the company to accept an
uncondtona offer of the strkers to return to work consttutes unfar abor practce so as to
convert the strke nto a awfu one. And as regards the four strkers aowed to return to work,
ther acceptance cannot be deemed an act of dscrmnaton, t not havng been shown n the
records that ther offer to return to work mposed any condton as dd that of LEA wth respect to
the 300 other strkers.
2. Anent the reducton of Chrstmas bonus, LEA contends that there s no evdence on decrease
n percentage of proft as of December 31, 1958 to |ustfy sad reducton. Ths pont was aready
passed upon n the decson. The Chrstmas bonus not havng been ncuded n the Coectve
Barganng Agreement, t cannot be demanded by the unon. And even assumng that Chrstmas
bonus s a concesson wthn the purvew of Artce 10 of the Coectve Barganng Agreement,
provdng that "the Company agrees to mantan n effect a concessons presenty beng
extended to ts empoyees, whenever practcabe," st the same cannot demanded n vew of
the phrase "whenever practcabe." Furthermore, the Coectve Barganng Agreement expred
sometme n September 1958 whereas the Chrstmas bonus n queston was granted n
December 1958, three months after. Phppne Educaton Co. vs. CIR, 92 Ph. 385 s not n pont
for there the bonus had aready been prevousy set asde.
3. Regardng the Exhbts A, A-1 and A-2, LEA mantans that the CIR erred n dscredtng them
under the mpresson that they were found on top of the tabe of the unon Secretary after offce
hours. It s camed that they were found nsde the og book whch was on the tabe of the
nformaton poce. Ths reay makes no dfference. It s |ust as mprobabe, f not more so, for
company offcas to put nsde sad og book, notes confdenta and damagng as Exhbts A, A-1
and A-2, the og book beng accessbe to a the guards, who were the persons concerned.
4. As to the reasons for the strke, ths Court, contrary to LEA's mpresson, consdered not ony
the suspenson of the 7 securty guards; n fact, our decson stated the acts companed aganst
by the unon.
5. Regardng the charge that the CIR dd not vew the over-a atttude of the company towards
the unon, ths too s not correct. The CIR even dscussed the factua background of the strke n
page 2 of ts decson.
6. LEA woud agan press the argument n ts bref that t coud egay decare a strke even as
the causes for t were pendng n the CIR. We st fnd t unnecessary to dscuss the queston
whether LEA coud have thus egay gone on strke. The fact s that n vew of other
crcumstances, apart from the above queston, ts strke was ega.
7. The necessty of a strke notce s agan chaenged. Suffce t to reterate that, as the CIR
found, LUZON not havng engaged n unfar abor practce, the strke was but an economc one,
requrng a strke notce.
8. Seekng to excude from those whose dsmssas were authorzed by the CIR, strkers wth
pendng crmna cases, movant states anew ts contenton that what was nvoved were soated
acts of voence mputabe to both the company and the strkers. We fnd no reason, however to
dsturb the CIR's fndng that the voence Commtted durng the strke was not provoked by
LUZON.
9. LEA further contends that the CIR decson dsmsses 13 LEA members for havng been "actve
unonsts" and thus s dscrmnatory and ega. Sad dsmssas, authorzed by the CIR's decson,
however, are not for awfu unon actvty but precsey for partcpaton n an ega strke. They
are therefore n order.
10. Smary, the CIR rghty hed the strke of the Lusteveco Buk O Unon (LBOU) ega, as a
sympathetc strke to LEA's ega strke. It was not n ad|udcaton of the pendng sut n the CIR
as to the egaty of the certfcaton eecton n the Sta. Mesa Spways and Engneerng Company
and the ncuson of the Buk O Termna at Pandacan n sad eecton.
11. As to the notces sent by LUZON to the strkers, the same were not threats of dsmssa
eveed drecty at the strkers, but a pubcaton cang a strkers to return to work by |anuary
6, 1959 or an offer to accept the strkers back to ther |obs.
12. Anent the aeged permsson by the CIR for the Secretary of Labor to ntervene n the case
whe the same was pendng n court, the same has no reevance to the egaty or egaty of
LEA's strke.
13. It s asserted that the strke shoud be deemed as one aganst an unfar abor practce n vew
of LEA's "good fath" that LUZON's acts consttuted unfar abor practce. In Interwood Empoyees
Assocaton vs. Internatona Hardwood & Veneer Co., L-7409, May 18, 1956. 52 O.G. 3936, 3941,
the Court has rued that f the strkers act from an unawfu, egtmate, un|ust, unreasonabe, or
trva ground, reason or motve, even f they do so n good fath, and the Court of Industra
Reatons so fnds, the strke may be decared ega notwthstandng ther good fath.
14. Fnay, LEA nssts that the CIR msapprehended facts and arbtrary thrust asde the
evdence presented by the unon. Ths argument has been rased n the bref and was aready
passed upon by us n the decson. Substanta evdence supports the fndngs and concusons of
facts of the CIR, and for ths reason the same are affrmed. Preponderance of evdence, nvoked
by LEA, s not the crteron n these cases (Natona Fastener Corporaton of the Phppnes vs.
CIR, L-15834, |anuary 20, 1961).
Wherefore, the moton for reconsderaton s hereby dened for ack of mert. So ordered.