Torts Digests III

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY.
LINDA JIMENO
JUNTILLA vs. CAMORO G.R. No: L-45637 May 3 ! "#5 $ACTS: The plaintiff, Juntanilla, was a passenger of the public utility jeepney bearing plate No. PUJ-71-7 on the course of the trip from anao !ity to !ebu !ity. The jeepney was "ri#en by "efen"ant $erfol !amoro. %t was registere" un"er the franchise of "efen"ant !lemente &ontanar but was actually owne" by "efen"ant &ernan"o $an'on.
R*s,o-.*-&s Co-&*-&%o-: That the acci"ent that cause" losses to the petitioner was beyon" the control of the respon"ents ta,ing into account that the tire that e*plo"e" was -*/0y +o'12& an" /as o-0y s0%12&0y 's*. at the time it blew up. C%&y Co'(& D*3%s%o-: %n fa#or of the petitioner an" against the respon"ents. :espon"ents are or"ere", jointly an" se#erally, to pay the plaintiff the sum of P735.55 as reimbursement for the lost .mega wrist watch, the sum of P4;<.<; as unreali'e" salary of the plaintiff from his employer, the further sum of P155.55 for the "octor/s fees an" me"icine, an a""itional sum of P=55.55 for attorney/s fees an" the costs. :espon"ent file" an appeal before !&% of !ebu
(hen the jeepney reache" )an"aue !ity, the right rear tire e*plo"e" causing the #ehicle to turn turtle. %n the process, the plaintiff who was sitting at the front seat was thrown out of the #ehicle. Upon lan"ing on the groun", the plaintiff momentarily lost consciousness. (hen he came to his senses, he foun" that he ha" a lacerate" woun" on his right palm. +si"e from this, he suffere" injuries on his left arm, right thigh an" on his bac,. $ecause of his shoc, an" injuries, he went bac, to anao !ity but on the way, he "isco#ere" that his -.mega/ wrist watch was lost. Upon his arri#al in anao !ity, he imme"iately entere" the anao !ity 0ospital to atten" to his injuries, an" also re1ueste" his father-in-law to procee" imme"iately to the place of the acci"ent an" loo, for the watch. %n spite of the efforts of his father-in-law, the wrist watch, which he bought for P234.75 67*h. 8$89 coul" no longer be foun".
C$I D*3%s%o-: :e#erse" the ju"gment> that the acci"ent was "ue to fortuitous e#ent> so the respon"ents were e*onerate" from liability. + tire blow-out, such as what happene" in the case at bar, is an ine#itable acci"ent that e*empts the carrier from liability, there being absence of a showing that there was miscon"uct or negligence on the part of the operator in the operation an" maintenance of the #ehicle in#ol#e". The fact that the right rear tire e*plo"e", "espite being bran" new, constitutes a clear case of caso fortuito which can be a proper basis for e*onerating the "efen"ants from liability. ISSUE: (hether or not tire blow out in this case is a fortuitous e#ent 4ELD: N.. %t is not a fortuitous e#ent. 0ence, respon"ents are liable. %n the case at bar, there are specific acts of negligence on the part of the respon"ents. 1. The recor"s show that the passenger 5**,-*y &'(-*. &'(&0* a-. 5'6,*. %-&o a .%&32 imme"iately after its right rear tire e*plo"e". 4. The e#i"ence shows that the passenger jeepney was ('--%-1 a& a
Juntilla file" !i#il !ase for breach of contract with "amages before the C%&y Co'(& o) C*+' C%&y, $ranch % against !lemente &ontanar, &ernan"o $an'on an" $erfol !amoro.
TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO
=.
v*(y )as& s,**. before the acci"ent. (e agree with the obser#ation of the petitioner that a public utility jeep running at a regular an" safe spee" will not jump into a "itch when its right rear tire blows up. There is also e#i"ence to show that the ,ass*-1*( 5**,-*y /as ov*(0oa.*. at the time of the acci"ent. The petitioner state" that there were three 6=9 passengers in the front seat an" fourteen 61;9 passengers in the rear.
0a#ing no pri#ity whate#er with the manufacturer or #en"or of the "efecti#e e1uipment, the passenger has no reme"y against him, while the carrier usually has. %t is but logical, therefore, that the carrier, while not an insurer of the safety of his passengers, shoul" ne#ertheless be hel" to answer for the flaws of his e1uipment if such flaws were at all "isco#erable. This is a case on contract of carriage. :emember that the "iligence re1uire" to be obser#e" by common carrier is e*traor"inary "iligence. 0owe#er, this was ob#iously not met by the common carrier. The contention of the respon"ents that if there were really injuries sustaine" by petitioner why was he treate" in anao instea" of being treate" in )an"aue !ity is UNT7N+$@7. !ity !ourt of !ebu foun" that the petitioner ha" a lacerate" woun" on his right palm asi"e from injuries on his left arm, right thigh an" on his bac,, an" that on his way bac, to anao !ity, he "isco#ere" that his 8.mega8 wrist watch was lost. These are fin"ings of facts of the !ity !ourt of !ebu which we fin" no reason to "isturb. N. %AA7NT%NB .P%N%.N. 4ERNANDE9 vs. COA G.R. No: 7 #7 Nov*6+*( 6! "#"
No e#i"ence was presente" to show that the acci"ent was "ue to a"#erse roa" con"itions or that precautions were ta,en by the jeepney "ri#er to compensate for any con"itions liable to cause acci"ents. T2* s'..*+0o/%-1-',! &2*(*)o(*! 3o'0. 2av* +**- 3a's*. +y &oo 6'32 a%( ,(*ss'(* %-5*3&*. %-&o &2* &%(* 3o',0*. +y &2* )a3& &2a& &2* 5**,-*y /as ov*(0oa.*. a-. s,**.%-1 a& &2* &%6* o) &2* a33%.*-&. Ess*-&%a0 (*7'%s%&*s o) 3aso )o(&'%&o: 619 The cause of the unforeseen an" une*pecte" occurrence, or of the failure of the "ebtor to comply with his obligation, must be in"epen"ent of the human will. 649 %t must be impossible to foresee the e#ent which constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to a#oi". 6=9 The occurrence must be such as to ren"er it impossible for the "ebtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner. 6;9 the obligor 6"ebtor9 must be free from any participation in the aggra#ation of the injury resulting to the cre"itor./ %n the case at bar, the cause of the unforeseen an" une*pecte" occurrence was not in"epen"ent of the human will. The acci"ent was cause" either through the negligence of the "ri#er or because of mechanical "efects in the tire. As &o &2* %ss'* o) 6*32a-%3a0 .*)*3&s! /2o 2as &2* 0%a+%0%&y8 The carrier has the liability. The injure" party, namely the passenger, has the right of "amages against the carrier an" not the manufacturer. (hy? $ecause the passenger has neither choice nor control o#er the carrier in the selection an" use of the e1uipment an" appliances in use by the carrier.
$ACTS:
s&
,2as* :%- &2* 6a%- o))%3*;:
Teo"oro ) . 0ernan"e' was the officer-in-charge an" special "isbursing officer of the Ternate $each Project of the Philippine Tourism +uthority in !a#ite. +s such, he went to the main office of the +uthority in )anila on July 1, 1C2=, to encash two chec,s co#ering the wages of the employees
an" the operating e*penses of the Project. 0e estimate" that the money woul" be a#ailable by ten o/cloc, in the morning an" that he woul" be bac, in Ternate by about two o/cloc, in the afternoon of the same "ay. &or some reason, howe#er, the processing of the chec,s was "elaye" an" was complete" only at three o/cloc, that afternoon. The petitioner "eci"e" ne#ertheless to encash them because the Project employees woul" be waiting for their pay the following "ay. 0e thought he ha" to "o this for their benefit as otherwise they woul" ha#e to wait until the following Tues"ay at the earliest when the main office woul" reopen. +n" so, on that afternoon of July 1, 1C2=, he collecte" the cash #alue of the chec,s an" left the main office with not an insubstantial amount of money in his han"s. <-. =2as* :,a'/% -a s%ya;: Typical man, nagisipg siya ,ung saan "a"aanD"i"irecho pauwi. The petitioner ha" two choices, to witE 619 return to Ternate, !a#ite, that same afternoon an" arri#e there in the early e#ening> or 649 ta,e the money with him to his house in )arilao, $ulacan, spen" the night there, an" lea#e for Ternate the following morning. 0e opte" for the secon", thin,ing it the safer one. +n" so, on that afternoon of July 1, 1C2=, at a little past three o/cloc,, he too, a passenger jeep boun" for his house in $ulacan. 3(. ,2as* :'-)o(&'-a&* *v*-& ;: %t was while the #ehicle was along 7pifanio "e los Aantos +#enue that two persons boar"e" with ,ni#es in han" an" robbery in min". .ne pointe" his weapon at the petitioner/s si"e while the other slit his poc,et an" forcibly too, the money he was carrying. The two then jumpe" out of the jeep an" ran. 0ernan"e', after the initial shoc,, imme"iately followe" in "esperate pursuit. 0e caught up with Firgilio +l#are' an" o#ercame him after a scuffle. The petitioner sustaine" injuries in the lip, arms an" ,nees. +l#are' was subse1uently charge" with robbery an" plea"e" guilty. $ut the hol"upper who escape" is still at large an" the stolen money he too, with him has not been reco#ere". The petitioner, in#o,ing the foregoing facts, )%0*. a (*7'*s& )o( (*0%*) )(o6 6o-*y a33o'-&a+%0%&y '-.*( S*3&%o- 63# o) &2* R*v%s*. A.6%-%s&(a&%v* Co.*. This was e#en in"orse" by the Beneral manager an" corporate
officer of PT+. The :egional irector, National !apital :egion, of the !ommission on +u"it, absol#e" 0ernan"e' of negligence. 0owe#er, the !ommission on +u"it, through then !hairman &rancisco A. Tantuico, Jr. "enie" the petitioner/s re1uest. Aabi niya, the loss is attribute" to &ernan"e'G negligence because ha" he brought the cash procee"s of the chec,s 6replenishment fun"9 to the $each Par, in Ternate, !a#ite, imme"iately after encashment for safe,eeping in his office, which is the normal proce"ure in the han"ling of public fun"s, the loss of sai" cash thru robbery coul" ha#e been aborte". =*&%&%o-*(>s Co-&*-&%o-: 1. 0e "eci"e" to encash the chec,s in the afternoon of July 1, 1C2=, which was a &ri"ay, out of concern for the employees of the Project, who were "epen"ing on him to ma,e it possible for them to collect their pay the following "ay. July 4 an" = being nonwor,ing "ays an" July ; being a holi"ay, they coul" recei#e such payment only on the following Tues"ay unless he brought the encashe" chec,s on that "ay, an" too, it to Ternate the following "ay. 4. The roa" to )arilao was nearer an" safer 6or so he reasonably thought9 an" there was less ris, in#ol#e" in his ta,ing the money the following morning to Ternate rather than on that same afternoon of July 1. T2* .(%v* &o T*(-a&* /o'0. &a?* &2(** 2o'(s! %-30'.%-1 a 3@-6%-'&* &(%3y30* (%.* a0o-1 &2* .a(? a-. 0o-*0y Na%3-T*(-a&* (oa.A a-. as 2* /o'0. +* s&a(&%-1 a)&*( &2(** oB30o3? %- &2* a)&*(-oo-! %& /as -o& 0%?*0y &2a& 2* /o'0. (*a32 2%s .*s&%-a&%o- +*)o(* -%12&)a00. =. The li,elihoo" of robbery "uring the time in 1uestion was stronger in Ternate than in )arilao, so he shoul" not be blame" if the robbery "i" occur while he was on the way to )arilao that afternoon. T2a& /as a )o(&'%&o's *v*-& &2a& 3o'0. -o& 2av* (*aso-a+0y +**- )o(*s**-! *s,*3%a00y o- &2a& +'sy 2%12/ay. ;. 0e ha" not been remiss in protecting the money in his custo"y> in fact, he imme"iately pursue" the hol"-uppers an" succee"e" in
catching one of them who was subse1uently prosecute" an" con#icte". %t might ha#e been "ifferent if he ha" simply resigne" himself to the robbery an" allowe" the culprits to go scot-free. $UT 07 +!T7 . 0%N+$.@ niya. Aolicitor Beneral .r"une' E petitioner was negligent. Auccessor Aolicitor Beneral !ha#e'E petitioner was N.T negligent. 0e sai", assuming he was guilty of contributory negligence, he ha" ma"e up for it with his efforts to retrie#e the money an" his capture of one of the robbers, who was e#entually con#icte". %n effect, !.+ issue" a memoran"um which statesE the petitioner shoul" not ha#e encashe" the chec,s as the hour was alrea"y late an" he ,new he coul" not return to Ternate before nightfall. The memo conclu"es that in "eci"ing to ta,e the money with him to )arilao after impru"ently with"rawing it from the main office, the petitioner was assuming a ris, from which he cannot now be e*cuse" after the loss of the money as a result of the robbery to which it was unreasonably e*pose". ISSUE: (hether or not petitionerGs acts are so tainte" with negligence or rec,lessness as to justify the "enial of the petitioner/s re1uest for relief from accountability for the stolen money 4ELD: N.. This was un"oubte"ly a fortuitous e#ent co#ere" by the sai" pro#isions, something that coul" not ha#e been reasonably foreseen although it coul" ha#e happene", an" "i". &or most of us, all we can rely on is a reasone" conjecture of what might happen, base" on common sense an" our own e*periences, or our intuition, if you will, an" without any mystic ability to peer into the future. Ao it was with the petitioner. %t is true that the petitioner miscalculate", but the !ourt feels he shoul" not be blame" for that. The "ecision he ma"e seeme" logical at that time an" was one that coul" be e*pecte" of a reasonable an" pru"ent person. Disposition The petitioner is entitle" to be relie#e" from accountability for the money forcibly ta,en from him. +!!.: %NB@H, the petition is
B:+NT7 . 6no "issenting opinion9 GOTESCO INCESTMENT COR=ORATION vs. C4ATTO G.R. No: #75#4 J'-* 6! ""<
$ACTS: %n the afternoon of June ;, 1C24 plaintiff Bloria 7. !hatto, an" her 13-year ol" "aughter, plaintiff @ina el'a 7. !hatto went to see the mo#ie /)other ear/ at Auperama % theater, owne" by "efen"ant Botesco %n#estment !orporation. They bought balcony tic,ets but e#en then were unable to fin" seats consi"ering the number of people patroni'ing the mo#ie. 0ar"ly ten 6159 minutes after entering the theater, the ceiling of its balcony collapse". The theater was plunge" into "ar,ness an" pan"emonium ensue". Ahoc,e" an" hurt, plaintiffs manage" to crawl un"er the fallen ceiling. +s soon as they were able to get out to the street they wal,e" to the nearby &7U 0ospital where they were confine" an" treate" for one 619 "ay. The ne*t "ay, they transferre" to the UAT hospital. Plaintiff Bloria !hatto was treate" in sai" hospital from June 3 to June 1C an" plaintiff @ina el'a !hatto from June 3 to 11. Per )e"ico @egal !ertificateissue" by r. 7rnesto B. $rion, plaintiff @ina el'a !hatto suffere" the following injuriesE Physical injuries of contusions an" abrasions. .n the other han", the fin"ings on plaintiff Bloria are as followsE Physical injuries, lacerate" woun"s an" abrasions. T2* CONCLUSIONS /*(* &2a& &2*(* /*(* .=2ys%3a0 %-5'(%*s -o&*. os'+5*3&. <.T2a& '-.*( -o(6a0 3o-.%&%o-! %- &2* a+s*-3* o) 3o6,0%3a&%o-! sa%. ,2ys%3a0 %-5'(%*s /%00 (*7'%(* 6*.%3a0 a&&*-.a-3* a-.Do(
%-3a,a3%&a&* &2* s'+5*3& )o( a ,*(%o. o) )(o6 &/o &o )o'( /**?s. ue to continuing pain in the nec,, hea"ache an" "i''iness, plaintiff went to %llinois, UA+ in July 1C24 for further treatment 67*h. 8789 Ahe was treate" at the !oo, !ounty 0ospital in !hicago, %llinois. Ahe staye" in the U.A. for about three 6=9 months "uring which time she ha" to return to the !oo, !ounty 0ospital fi#e 639 or si* 6<9 times. D*)*-.a-&>s Co-&*-&%o-: That the collapse of the ceiling of its theater was "one "ue to force majeure. %t maintaine" that its theater "i" not suffer from any structural or construction "efect. RTC D*3%s%o-: %n fa#or of injure" parties, !hattos 6mother an" "aughter9. !ourt awar"e" actual "amages 6lost earrings 4.3I, money in lost wallet 1I, traspo fees 355, passport, an" me"ications in hospital, atty fees 45I9. !ourt also awar"e" moral "amages 673I to mother, 15I to "aughter9 CA D*3%s%o-: +ffirme" "ecision of :T!. The errors assigne" by the Botesco are all without merit. ISSUE: (hether or not the collapse was "ue to force majeure. 4ELD: N.. &.:!7 )+J7U:7 (+A UN&.UN 7 %N T0%A !+A7. JJ Petitioner coul" ha#e easily "isco#ere" the cause of the collapse if in"ee" it were "ue to force majeure. Petitioner/s claim that the collapse of the ceiling of the theater/s balcony was "ue to force majeure is not e#en foun"e" on facts because its own witness, )r. Jesus @im .ng, a"mitte" that 8he coul" not gi#e any reason why the ceiling collapse".8 0a#ing interpose" it as a "efense, it ha" the bur"en to pro#e that the collapse was in"ee" cause" by force majeure. %t
coul" not ha#e collapse" without a cause. That )r. .ng coul" not offer any e*planation "oes not imply force majeure. The real reason why )r. .ng coul" not e*plain the cause or reason is that either he "i" not actually con"uct the in#estigation or that he is, as the respon"ent !ourt implie"ly hel", incompetent. 0e is not an engineer, but an architect who ha" not e#en passe" the go#ernment/s e*amination. (hat is significant is the fin"ing of the trial court, affirme" by the respon"ent !ourt, that the collapse was .'* &o 3o-s&('3&%o- .*)*3&s. There was no e#i"ence offere" to o#erturn this fin"ing. The buil"ing was constructe" barely four 6;9 years prior to the acci"ent in 1uestion. %t was not shown that any of the causes "enominate" as force majeure obtaine" imme"iately before or at the time of the collapse of the ceiling. S'32 .*)*3&s 3o'0. 2av* +**- *as%0y .%s3ov*(*. %) o-0y ,*&%&%o-*( *E*(3%s*. .'* .%0%1*-3* a-. 3a(* %- ?**,%-1 a-. 6a%-&a%-%-1 &2* ,(*6%s*s. F'& as .%s30os*. +y &2* &*s&%6o-y o) M(. O-1! &2*(* /as -o a.*7'a&* %-s,*3&%o- o) &2* ,(*6%s*s +*)o(* &2* .a&* o) &2* a33%.*-&. 0is answers to the lea"ing 1uestions on inspection "isclose" neither the e*act "ates of sai" inspection nor the nature an" e*tent of the same. That the structural "esigns an" plans of the buil"ing were "uly appro#e" by the !ity 7ngineer an" the buil"ing permits an" certificate of occupancy were issue" "o not at all pro#e that there were no "efects in the construction, especially as regar"s the ceiling, consi"ering that no testimony was offere" to pro#e that it was e#er inspecte" at all. 8The owner or proprietor of a place of public amusement implie"ly warrants that the premises, appliances an" amusement "e#ices are safe for the purpose for which they are "esigne", the "octrine being subject to no other e*ception or 1ualification than that he "oes not contract against un,nown "efects not "isco#erable by or"inary or reasonable means.8 IM=LIED GARRANTY 8(here a patron of a theater or other place of public amusement is injure", an" the thing that cause" the injury is wholly an" e*clusi#ely un"er the control an" management of the "efen"ant, an" the acci"ent is such as in the
or"inary course of e#ents woul" not ha#e happene" if proper care ha" been e*ercise", its occurrence raises a presumption or permits of an inference of negligence on the part of the "efen"ant.8 T2a& ,(*s'6,&%o- o( %-)*(*-3* /as -o& ov*(3o6* +y &2* ,*&%&%o-*(. IM=ORTANT: 7#en assuming for the sa,e of argument that, as petitioner #igorously insists, the cause of the collapse was "ue to force majeure, petitioner woul" still be liable because it was guilty of negligence, which the trial court "enominate" asgross. +s gleane" from $ou#ier/s "efinition of an" !oc,burn/s eluci"ation on force majeure, for one to be e*empt from any liability because of it, he must ha#e e*ercise" care, i.e., he shoul" not ha#e been guilty of negligence. (0+T %A &.:!7 )+J7U:7? /%ne#itable acci"ent or casualty> an acci"ent pro"uce" by any physical cause which is irresistible> such as lightning, tempest, perils of the sea, inun"ation, or earth1ua,e> the su""en illness or "eath of a person. 6$@+!IAT.N7 "efinition9
if such animal shoul" escape from him or stray away. This liability shall cease only in case the "amage shoul" arise from force majeure or from the fault of the person who may ha#e suffere" it9. )oreo#er, )argarita claime" that 1C53 "i" not "istinguish between "amage cause" to a stranger an" "amage cause" to the careta,er. 0owe#er, the spouses mo#e" for the caseGs "ismissal for lac, of cause of action> the lower court grante" the same. %t also rule" that owner of an animal was answerable only for "amages cause" to a stranger an" not to its careta,er. ISSUE: (hether or not the spouses are liable when the "amage is cause" to its careta,er. 4ELD: No. The animal was in the custo"y an" un"er the control of the careta,er, who was pai" for his wor, as such. .b#iously, it was the careta,er/s business to try to pre#ent the animal from causing injury or "amage to anyone, inclu"ing himself. +n" being injure" by the animal un"er those circumstances was one of the ris,s of the occupation which he ha" #oluntarily assume" an" for which he must ta,e the conse1uences. Aimply, un"er article 1C53 of the !i#il !o"e, the owner of an animal is not liable for injury cause" by it to its careta,er. INELCO vs. CA G.R. No: 534@
A$IALDA vs. 4ISOLE G.R. No: L-<@75 Nov*6+*( <"! @4"
$ACTS: @oreto +fial"a, Aps. 0isoleGs careta,er of their carabaos, was gore" by one of the carabaos an" conse1uently "ie". )argarita, @oretoGs sister, allege" that the mishap was "ue neither to @oretoGs fault nor to force majeure. Ahe hel" the spouses liable base" on article 1C53 6The possessor of an animal, or the one who uses the same, is liable for any "amages it may cause, e#en
Nov*6+*( 6! "#"
$ACTS:
(hen typhoon BeningGs rain an" floo" ha" rece"e", %sabel procee"e" towar"s the "irection of the &i#e Aisters 7mporium, which %sabel owne", to loo, after the merchan"ise that might ha" been "amage". Ahe was followe" by +i"a, a salesgirl at the grocery, an" @in"a, tic,et seller at the cinema. %sabel su""enly screame" K+yL an" 1uic,ly san, into the water. +i"a an" @in"a saw an electric wire "angling from a post an" mo#ing in sna,e-li,e fashion in the water> the two girls as,e" for help from 7rnesto, but the latter turne" bac, shouting that the water was groun"e". 7rnesto tol" +ntonio, %sabelGs son-in-law, on what ha" transpire". +ntonio imme"iately re1ueste" the people of %N7@!. to cut off the electric current. The bo"y was subse1uently reco#ere" about meters from an electric post. (hile these were happening, 7ngr. Juan of the National Power !orporation notice" fluctuations in the electric meter which in"icate" such abnormalities as groun"e" or short-circuite" lines. Upon inspection, he saw electric lines hanging from the posts to the groun", yet he "i" not see any %N7@!. lineman within the #icinity> while he was at the intersection of Buerrero, the area where %sabel was allege"ly electrocute", he saw a =5 meter electric wire strung across the street. 7ngr. Juan later on learnt of %sabelGs mishap. %sabelGs bo"y on the same "ay was e*amine" by r. !astro. 0e foun" cyanotic which in"icate" "eath by electrocution. The "octor also foun" an electrically charge" woun" or a first "egree burn. Auits ensue". %N7@!. claime" that Buerrero At. "i" not suffer from any "efect that might constitute ha'ar" to life an" property. +bijero, furthermore, testifie" that he switche" off the streets lights in sai" street, an" that he "i" not see any bro,en wires near the #icinity. r. $riones was also presente" conten"ing that %sabel "i" not "ie because of electrocution, i.e. since there was no autopsy, the cause cannot be speculate"> cyanosis coul" not ha#e been foun" in the bo"y because it only appears in li#e person. &inally, assuming arguen"o %sabel was electrocute", %N7@!. argue" that %sabel was being negligent when she cause" the installation of a burglar "eterrent in her steel gate without the companyGs ,nowle"ge, an" that this burglar "eterrent was
turne" on which cause" the charge" electric current. !&% rule" in fa#or of %N7@!., but the !+ re#erse" the formerGs "ecision. ISSUE: (hether or not the "ecease" "ie" of electrocution> 649 whether or not petitioner may be hel" liable for the "ecease"/s "eath.
4ELD: 1. Hes. $y a prepon"erance of e#i"ence, pri#ate respon"ents were able to show that the "ecease" "ie" of electrocution, e.g. burnt woun"s, testimonies of r. !astro, +i"a, an" @in"a. )ore so, the nature of the woun"s can lea" to no other conclusion than that they were burns, an" there was nothing else in the street where the #ictim was wa"ing through which coul" cause a burn e*cept the "angling li#e wire of "efen"ant company. The !ourt also rule" that the Ksteel gateGs burglar "eterrentL argument by %N7@!. was not supporte" by e#i"ence. A! relie" on the witnessesG testimonies an" applie" the principle of res gestae 6transE things "one9. :e1uisites of res gestaeE 619 that the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence> 649 that the statements were ma"e before the "eclarant ha" time to contri#e or "e#ise> 6=9 that the statements ma"e must concern the occurrence in 1uestion an" its imme"iately atten"ing circumstances. :es gestae is an e*ception to the hearsay rule on the groun"s of trustworthiness an" necessity. 8Trustworthiness8 because the statements are ma"e instincti#ely, an" 8necessity8 because such natural an" spontaneous utterances are more con#incing than the testimony of the same person on the stan". Therefore, the fact that 7rnesto was not presente" to testify "oes not ma,e the testimony of @in"a an" +i"a hearsay since the sai" "eclaration is part of the
res gestae. (hile it may be true that, as petitioner argues, 7rnesto was not an actual witness to the instant when the "ecease" san, into the waist"eep water, he acte" upon the call of help of +i"a an" @in"a with the ,nowle"ge of, an" imme"iately after, the sin,ing of the "ecease". %n fact the startling e#ent ha" not yet cease" when 7rnesto entere" the scene consi"ering that the #ictim remaine" submerge". Un"er such a circumstance, it is un"eniable that a state of min" characteri'e" by ner#ous e*citement ha" been triggere" in 7rnestoGs being as anybo"y un"er the same contingency coul" ha#e e*perience". +s such, (e cannot honestly e*clu"e his shouts that the water was groun"e" from the res gestae just because he "i" not actually see the sin,ing of the "ecease" nor hear her scream 8+y.8 4. Hes. (hile it is true that typhoons an" floo"s are consi"ere" +cts of Bo" for which no person may be hel" responsible, it was not sai" e#entuality which "irectly cause" the #ictim/s "eath. %t was through the inter#ention of petitioner/s negligence that "eath too, place. :elying on 7ngr. JuanGs attestation, i.e. that there was no lineman at Buerrero At. an" that %N7@!. office was close", !ourt rule" that %N7@!. was negligent in seeing to it that no harm is "one to the general public, especially "uring after a calamity. !onsi"ering that electricity is an agency, subtle an" "ea"ly, the measure of care re1uire" of electric companies must be commensurate with or proportionate to the "anger. The "uty of e*ercising this high "egree of "iligence an" care e*ten"s to e#ery place where persons ha#e a right to be. %n a""ition, when an act of Bo" combines or concurs with the negligence of %N7@!. to pro"uce an injury, %N7@!. is liable if the injury woul" not ha#e resulte" but for its own negligent con"uct or omission. The ma*im 8#olenti non fit injuria8 6transE to a willing person, injury is not "one9 relie" upon by %N7@!. in or"er to absol#e itself from liability fin"s no application in the case at bar. %t is
imperati#e to note the surroun"ing circumstances which impelle" the "ecease" to lea#e the comforts of a roof an" bra#e the subsi"ing typhoon. &or it has been hel" that a person is e*cuse" from the force of the rule, that when he #oluntarily assents to a ,nown "anger he must abi"e by the conse1uences, if an emergency is foun" to e*ist or if the life or property of another is in peril, or when he see,s to rescue his en"angere" property 6eh ,itang ,ita naman naten na ,aya lang naman syang lumusong sa baha ay para i-chec, ang ,anyang mga pro"u,to. Iasalanan ba yun ni %sabel? Ayempre hin"iM9. .ther pointE The e*clusion of moral "amages an" attorney/s fees awar"e" by the lower court was properly ma"e by the respon"ent !+, the charge of malice an" ba" faith on the part of respon"ents in instituting this case being a mere pro"uct of wishful thin,ing an" speculation. +war" of "amages an" attorney/s fees is unwarrante" where the action was file" in goo" faith> there shoul" be no penalty on the right to litigate. %f "amage results from a person/s e*ercising his legal rights, it is "amnum abs1ue injuria 6transE loss without injury9.
RAMOS vs. =E=SI-COLA a-. FONI$ACIO G.R. No: L-<<533 $*+('a(y "! "67
$ACTS: !ar of Placi"o an" a tractor-truc, an" trailer of P7PA% ha" a collision. The
car was "ri#en by +ugusto, son of Placi"o. P7PA%Gs tractor-truc, was then "ri#en by +n"res. Placi"o an" +gusto then sue" P7PA% for "amages in the !&% of )anila. !&% foun" +n"res negligent> P7PA% was also ma"e liable for failure to e*ercise "ue "iligence of a goo" father of a family to pre#ent the "amage. $oth were hel" soli"arily liable. Upon appeal, !+ sustaine" +n"resGs liability, but absol#e" P7PA% for sufficiently e*ercising "ue "iligence in the selection of its "ri#er, +n"res. The appellate court relie" on JuanGs Npersonnel managerO testimony that +n"res was subjecte" to theoretical an" practical e*amination before hiring, an" on the ruling of !ampo #. !amarote whereby the !ourt pronounce" thatE %n or"er that the "efen"ant may be consi"ere" as ha#ing e*ercise" all the "iligence of a goo" father of a family, he shoul" ha#e been satisfie" with the mere possession of a professional "ri#er/s license> he shoul" ha#e carefully e*amine" the applicant for employment as to his 1ualifications, his e*periences an" recor" of ser#ice.
+lternati#ely, no 1uestion is raise" as to "ue "iligence in the super#ision by P7PA%-!.@+ of its "ri#er. +ppellants/ other assignment of errors are li,ewise outsi"e the pur#iew of this !ourts/ re#iewing power. Thus, the 1uestion of whether P7PA%-!.@+ #iolate" the :e#ise" )otor Fehicle @aw an" rules an" regulations relate" thereto, not ha#ing been raise" an" argue" in the !ourt of +ppeals, cannot be #entilate" herein for the first time. +n" the matter of whether or not P7PA%-!.@+ "i" acts to ratify the negligent act of its "ri#er is a factual issue not proper herein
Resolution on Motion for Consideration ecision of the !ourt of +ppeals shoul" still be affirme" in toto.
+ugusto an" Placi"o assaile" the cre"ibility of Juan, saying it was biase".
Petitioners impute to P7PA%-!.@+ the #iolation of ).F... +"ministrati#e .r"er No. 1, in that at the time of the collision the trailer-truc,, which ha" a total weight of =5,555 ,g., was 6a9 being "ri#en at a spee" of about =5 ,ph, or beyon" the 13 ,ph limit set an" 6b9 was not e1uippe" with a rear-#ision mirror nor pro#i"e" with a helper for the "ri#er. %t will be note" that the 13 ,ph limit refers only to trailers or semi-trailers ha#ing a gross weight of more than 4,555 ,g., +N which are not e1uippe" with effecti#e bra,es on at least two opposite wheels of the rear a*le. This is the con"ition set, wherein trailers without such bra,es may be registere" from year to year for operation, i.e. they shoul" not be operate" at any time at a spee" in e*cess of 13 ,ilometers per hour in conjunction with a tractortruc,. $ut there was no fin"ing by the !ourt of +ppeals that the truc,-trailer here "i" not ha#e such bra,es. %n the absence of such fact, it is subpar. ; 6e9, supra, that will apply. +n" petitioners a"mit that the truc,-trailer was being "ri#en at about =5 ,.p.h. %t is a fact that "ri#er $onifacio was not accompanie" by a helper on the night of the collision since he was foun" to be "ri#ing alone. 0owe#er, there is no fin"ing that the tractor-truc, "i" not ha#e a rear-#ision mirror. To be sure, the recor"s "isclose that Pat. :o"olfo Pahate, the traffic
ISSUE: (hether or not P7PA% shoul" be hel" liable 6because Juan was not cre"ible9.
4ELD: No. Aupreme !ourt is not a trier of facts. The !ourt has consistently respecte" the fin"ings of the !ourt of +ppeals, with some few e*ceptions, which "o not obtain herein.
policeman who went to the collision scene, testifie" that he saw the tractortruc, there but he "oes not remember if it ha" any rear-#ision mirror. This cannot pro#e lac, of rear- #ision mirror. +n" the cite" pro#ision is complie" if either of the two alternati#es, i.e., ha#ing a rear-#ision mirror or a helper, is present. Atate" otherwise, sai" pro#ision is #iolate" only where there is a positi#e fin"ing that the tractor-truc, "i" not ha#e both rear-#ision mirror an" a helper for the "ri#er. That is not the case here.
)etro )anila boun" for its terminal at $icutan. +s both #ehicles approache" the intersection of $P +#enue an" 0oney"ew :oa" they faile" to slow "own an" slac,en their spee"> neither "i" they blow their horns to warn approaching #ehicles. +s a conse1uence, a collision between them occurre", the passenger jeepney ramming the left si"e portion of the ))T! bus. The collision impact cause" plaintiff-appellant Nenita !usto"io to hit the front win"shiel" of the passenger jeepney an" 6she9 was thrown out therefrom, falling onto the pa#ement unconscious with serious physical injuries. Ahe was brought to the )e"ical !ity 0ospital where she regaine" consciousness only after one 619 wee,. Thereat, she was confine" for twenty-four 64;9 "ays, an" as a conse1uence, she was unable to wor, for three an" one half months 6=1D49. + complaint for "amages was file" by herein pri#ate respon"ent, who being then a minor was assiste" by her parents, against all of therein name" "efen"ants following their refusal to pay the e*penses incurre" by the former as a result of the collision. Aai" "efen"ants "enie" all the material allegations in the complaint an" pointe" an accusing finger at each other as being the party at fault. &urther, herein petitioner ))T!, a go#ernment-owne" corporation an" one of the "efen"ants in the court a quo, along with its "ri#er, Bo"ofre"o @eonar"o, contrarily a#erre" in its answer with cross-claim an" counterclaim that the ))T! bus was "ri#en in a pru"ent an" careful manner by "ri#er @eonar"o an" that it was the passenger jeepney which was "ri#en rec,lessly consi"ering that it hit the left mi""le portion of the ))T! bus, an" that it was "efen"ant @amayo, the owner of the jeepney an" employer of "ri#er !alebag, who faile" to e*ercise "ue "iligence in the selection an" super#ision of employees an" shoul" thus be hel" soli"arily liable for "amages cause" to the ))T! bus through the fault an" negligence of its employees. efen"ant Fictorino @amayo allege" that the "amages suffere" by therein plaintiff shoul" be borne by "efen"ants ))T! an" its "ri#er, Bo"ofre"o @eonar"o, because the latter/s negligence was the sole an" pro*imate cause of the acci"ent an" that ))T! faile" to e*ercise "ue "iligence in the selection an" super#ision of its employees. )ilagros Barbo testifie" that, as a training officer of ))T!, she was in
+ motor #ehicle owner is not an absolute insurer against all "amages cause" by its "ri#er. +rticle 4125 of our !i#il !o"e is #ery e*plicit that the owner/s responsibility shall cease once it pro#es that it has obser#e" the "iligence of a goo" father of a family to pre#ent "amage. Neither coul" (e apply the respon"ent superior principle. Un"er +rticle 4125 of the !i#il !o"e, the basis of an employer/s liability is his own negligence, not that of his employees. The former is ma"e responsible for failing to properly an" "iligently select an" super#ise his erring employees. (e "o not - an" ha#e ne#er - followe" the respon"ent superior rule. METRO MANILA vs. CA
$ACTS: +t about si* o/cloc, in the morning of +ugust 42, 1C7C, plaintiff-appellant Nenita !usto"io boar"e" as a paying passenger a public utility jeepney, then "ri#en by "efen"ant +gu"o !alebag an" owne" by his co-"efen"ant Fictorino @amayo, boun" for her wor,, where she then wor,e" as a machine operator earning P1<.43 a "ay. (hile the jeepney was tra#elling at a fast clip along $P +#enue, $icutan, Taguig, another fast mo#ing #ehicle, a )etro )anila Transit !orp. 6))T!9 bus "ri#en by "efen"ant Bo"ofre"o !. @eonar"o was negotiating 0oney"ew :oa", $icutan, Taguig,
charge of the selection of the company/s bus "ri#ers, con"ucting for this purpose a series of training programs an" e*aminations. +ccor"ing to her, new applicants for job openings at ))T! are preliminarily re1uire" to submit certain "ocuments such as National $ureau of %n#estigation 6N$%9 clearance, birth or resi"ence certificate, % pictures, certificate or "iploma of highest e"ucational attainment, professional "ri#er/s license, an" wor, e*perience certification. :e-entry applicants, asi"e from the foregoing re1uirements, are a""itionally suppose" to submit company clearance for shortages an" "amages an" re#enue performance for the prece"ing year. Upon satisfactory compliance with sai" re1uisites, applicants are recommen"e" for an" subjecte" to a Preliminary inter#iew, followe" by a recor" chec, to fin" out whether they are inclu"e" in the list of un"esirable employees gi#en by other companies. ))T!/s Transport Auper#isor, !hristian $autista, testifie" that it was his "uty to monitor the "aily operation of buses in the fiel", to counterchec, the "ispatcher on "uty prior to the operation of the buses in the morning an" to see to it that the bus crew follow written gui"elines of the company, which inclu"e seeing to it that its employees are in proper uniform, briefe" in traffic rules an" regulations before the start of "uty, fit to "ri#e an", in general, follow other rules an" regulations of the $ureau of @an" Transportation as well as of the company. C RTC R'0%-1: Trial court, foun" both "ri#ers of the colli"ing #ehicles concurrently negligent for non-obser#ance of appropriate traffic rules an" regulations an" for failure to ta,e the usual precautions when approaching an intersection. +s joint tortfeasors, both "ri#ers, as well as "efen"ant @amayo, were hel" soli"arily liable for "amages sustaine" by plaintiff !usto"io. efen"ant ))T!, on the bases of the e#i"ence presente" was, howe#er, absol#e" from liability for the acci"ent on the groun" that it was not only careful an" "iligent in choosing an" screening applicants for job openings but was also strict an" "iligent in super#ising its employees by seeing to it that its employees were in proper uniforms, briefe" in traffic rules an" regulations before the start of "uty, an" that it chec,e" its employees to "etermine whether or not they were positi#e for alcohol an" followe" other rules an" regulations an" gui"elines of the $ureau of @an" Transportation an" of the
company. CA R'0%-1: !ourt of +ppeals mo"ifie" the trial court/s "ecision by hol"ing ))T! soli"arily liable with the other "efen"ants for the "amages awar"e" by the trial court because of their concurrent negligence, conclu"ing that while there is no har" an" fast rule as to what constitutes sufficient e#i"ence to pro#e that an employer has e*ercise" the "ue "iligence re1uire" of it in the selection an" super#ision of its employees, base" on the 1uantum of e#i"ence a""uce" the sai" appellate court was not "ispose" to say that ))T! ha" e*ercise" the "iligence re1uire" of a goo" father of a family in the selection an" super#ision of its "ri#er, Bo"ofre"o @eonar"o. ISSUES: 1. (hether or not the oral testimonies of witnesses e#en without the presentation "ocumentary e#i"ence, pro#e that "ri#er @eonar"o ha" complie" with all the hiring an" clearance re1uirements an" ha" un"ergone all trainings, tests an" e*aminations preparatory to actual employment, an" that sai" positi#e testimonies spell out the rigi" proce"ure for screening of job applicants an" the super#ision of its employees in the fiel" 4. (hether or not petitioner e*ercise" "ue "iligence in the selection an" super#ision of its employees 4ELD: 1. (hile there is no rule which re1uires that testimonial e#i"ence, to hol" sway, must be corroborate" by "ocumentary e#i"ence, or e#en subject e#i"ence for that matter, inasmuch as the witnesses/ testimonies "welt on mere generalities, we cannot consi"er the same as sufficiently persuasi#e proof that there was obser#ance of "ue "iligence in the selection an" super#ision of employees. Petitioner/s attempt to pro#e its diligentissimi patris familias in the selection an" super#ision of employees through oral e#i"ence must fail as it was unable to buttress the same with any other e#i"ence, object or "ocumentary, which might ob#iate the apparent biase" nature of the testimony. %t is proce"urally re1uire" for each party in a case to pro#e his own
affirmati#e assertion by the "egree of e#i"ence re1uire" by law. The party, whether plaintiff or "efen"ant, who asserts the affirmati#e of the issue has the bur"en of presenting at the trial such amount of e#i"ence re1uire" by law to obtain a fa#orable ju"gment. %t is entirely within each of the parties "iscretion, consonant with the theory of the case it or he see,s to a"#ance an" subject to such proce"ural strategy followe" thereby, to present all a#ailable e#i"ence at its or his "isposal in the manner which may be "eeme" necessary an" beneficial to pro#e its or his position, pro#i"e" only that the same shall measure up to the 1uantum of e#i"ence re1uire" by law. %n ma,ing proof in its or his case, it is paramount that the best an" most complete e#i"ence be formally entere". (hether or not the "iligence of a goo" father of a family has been obser#e" by petitioner is a matter of proof which un"er the circumstances in the case at bar has not been clearly establishe". %t is not felt by the !ourt that there is enough e#i"ence on recor" as woul" o#erturn the presumption of negligence, an" for failure to submit all e#i"ence within its control, assuming the putati#e e*istence thereof, petitioner ))T! must suffer the conse1uences of its own inaction an" in"ifference. 4. %n any e#ent, we "o not fin" the e#i"ence presente" by petitioner sufficiently con#incing to pro#e the "iligence of a goo" father of a family, which for an employer "octrinally translates into its obser#ance of "ue "iligence in the selection an" super#ision of its employees but which man"ate, to use an oft-1uote" phrase, is more often honore" in the breach than in the obser#ance. Petitioner attempte" to essay in "etail the company/s proce"ure for screening job applicants an" super#ising its employees in the fiel", through the testimonies of )ilagros Barbo, as its training officer, an" !hristian $autista, as its transport super#isor, both of whom naturally an" e*pecte"ly testifie" for ))T!. Their statements stri,e us as both presumptuous an" in the nature of petitio principii, couche" in generalities an" shorn of any supporting e#i"ence to boost their #erity.
The case at bar is clearly within the co#erage of +rticle 417< an" 4177, in relation to +rticle 4125, of the !i#il !o"e pro#isions on quasi-delicts as all the elements thereof are present, to witE 619 "amages suffere" by the plaintiff, 649 fault or negligence of the "efen"ant or some other person for whose act he must respon", an" 6=9 the connection of cause an" effect between fault or negligence of the "efen"ant an" the "amages incurre" by plaintiff. %t is to be note" that petitioner was originally sue" as employer of "ri#er @eonar"o un"er +rticle 4125. +rticle 4125 applicable only where there is an employer-employee relationship, although it is not necessary that the employer be engage" in business or in"ustry. 7mployer is liable for torts committe" by his employees within the scope of their assigne" tas,s. $ut, it is necessary first to establish the employment relationship. .nce this is "one, the plaintiff must show, to hol" the employer liable, that the employee was acting within the scope of his assigne" tas, when the tort complaine" of was committe". %t is only then that the "efen"ant, as employer, may fin" it necessary to interpose the "efense of "ue "iligence in the selection an" super#ision of employees. The "iligence of a goo" father of a family re1uire" to be obser#e" by employers to pre#ent "amages un"er +rticle 4125 refers to "ue "iligence in the selection an" super#ision of employees in or"er to protect the public. (ith the allegation an" subse1uent proof of negligence against the "efen"ant "ri#er an" of an employer-employee relation between him an" his co-"efen"ant ))T! in this instance, the case in un"oubte"ly base" on a quasi-delict un"er +rticle 4125. (hen the employee causes "amage "ue to his own negligence while performing his own "uties, there arises the juris tantum presumption that the employer is negligent, rebuttable only by proof of obser#ance of the "iligence of a goo" father of a family. &or failure to rebut such legal presumption of negligence in the selection an" super#ision of employees, the employer is li,ewise responsible for "amages, the basis of the liability being the relationship of pater familias or on the employer/s own negligence. ue "iligence in the super#ision of employees inclu"es the formulation of suitable rules an" regulations for the gui"ance of employees an" the issuance of proper instructions inten"e" for the protection of the public an"
persons with whom the employer has relations through his or its employees an" the imposition of necessary "isciplinary measures upon employees in case of breach or as may be warrante" to ensure the performance of acts in"ispensable to the business of an" beneficial to their employer. %n or"er that the "efense of "ue "iligence in the selection an" super#ision of employees may be "eeme" sufficient an" plausible, it is not enough to emptily in#o,e the e*istence of sai" company gui"elines an" policies on hiring an" super#ision. +s the negligence of the employee gi#es rise to the presumption of negligence on the part of the employer, the latter has the bur"en of pro#ing that it has been "iligent not only in the selection of employees but also in the actual super#ision of their wor,. &inally, we belie#e that respon"ent court acte" in the e*ercise of soun" "iscretion when it affirme" the trial court/s awar", without re1uiring the payment of interest thereon as an item of "amages just because of "elay in the "etermination thereof, especially since pri#ate respon"ent "i" not specifically pray therefor in her complaint. +rticle 4411 of the !i#il !o"e pro#i"es that in quasi-delicts, interest as a part of the "amages may be awar"e" in the "iscretion of the court, an" not as a matter of right. A..%&%o-a0 Iss'*: Prefatorily, pri#ate respon"ent 1uestions the timeliness of the filing of the petition at bar in #iew of the proce"ural stricture that the timely perfection of an appeal is both a man"atory an" juris"ictional re1uirement. This is a legitimate concern on the part of pri#ate respon"ent an" presents an opportune occasion to once again clarify this point as there appears to be some confusion in the application of the rules an" interpretati#e rulings regar"ing the computation of reglementary perio"s at this stage of the procee"ings. The recor"s of this case re#eal that the "ecision of respon"ent !ourt of +ppeals, "ate" .ctober =1, 1CC1, was recei#e" by ))T! on No#ember 12, 1CC1 1< an" it seasonably file" a motion for the reconsi"eration thereof on No#ember 42, 1CC1. 17 Aai" motion for reconsi"eration was "enie" by respon"ent court in its resolution "ate" &ebruary 17, 1CC4, which in turn was recei#e" by ))T! on )arch C, 1CC4. 12 Therefore, it ha", pursuant to Aection 1, :ule ;3 of the :ules of !ourt, fifteen 6139 "ays therefrom or up
to )arch 4;, 1CC4 within which to file its petition, for re#iew on certiorari. +nticipating, howe#er, that it may not be able to file sai" petition before the lapse of the reglementary perio" therefor, ))T! file" a motion on )arch 1C, 1CC4 for an e*tension of thirty 6=59 "ays to file the present petition, with proof of ser#ice of copies thereof to respon"ent court an" the a"#erse parties. The !ourt grante" sai" motion, with the e*ten"e" perio" to be counte" from the e*piration of the reglementary perio". 1C !onse1uently, pri#ate respon"ent ha" thirty 6=59 "ays from )arch 4;, 1CC4 within which to file its petition, or up to +pril 4=, 1CC4, an" the e#entual filing of sai" petition on +pril 1;, 1CC4 was well within the perio" grante" by the !ourt. (e "igress to reiterate, in #iew of erroneous submissions that we continue to recei#e, that in the case of a petition for re#iew on certiorari from a "ecision ren"ere" by the !ourt of +ppeals, Aection 1, :ule ;3 of the :ules of !ourt, which has long since been clarifie" in @acsamana #s. The 0on. Aecon" Apecial !ases i#ision of the %nterme"iate +ppellate !ourt, et al., 45 allows the same to be file" 8within fifteen 6139 "ays from notice of ju"gment or of the "enial of the motion for reconsi"eration file" in "ue time, an" paying at the same time to the correspon"ing "oc,et fee.8 %n other wor"s, in the e#ent a motion for reconsi"eration is file" an" "enie", the perio" of fifteen 6139 "ays begins to run all o#er again from notice of the "enial resolution. .therwise put, if a motion for reconsi"eration is file", the reglementary perio" within which to appeal the "ecision of the !ourt of +ppeals to the Aupreme !ourt is rec,one" from the "ate the party who inten"s to appeal recei#e" the or"er "enying the motion for reconsi"eration. 41 &urthermore, a motion for e*tension of time to file a petition for re#iew may be file" with this !ourt within sai" reglementary perio", paying at the same time the correspon"ing "oc,et fee. HRAMER vs. CA
$ACTS: The &D$ )arjolea, a fishing boat owne" by 7rnesto Iramer, Jr. an" )arta
Iramer, was na#igating its way from )arin"u1ue to )anila. Aomewhere near )aricabon %slan" an" !ape Aantiago, the boat figure" in a collision with an inter-islan" #essel, the )DF +sia Philippines owne" byTrans-+sia Ahipping @ines, %nc. +s a conse1uence of the collision, the &D$ )arjolea san,, ta,ing with it its fish catch.The $oar" conclu"e" that the loss of the &D$ )arjolea an" its fish catch was "ue to the negligence of the employees of Trans-+sia. The Iramers institute" a !omplaint for "amages against the pri#ate respon"ent before $ranch 117 of the :egional Trial !ourt in Pasay !ity. Trans-+sia file" a motion see,ing the "ismissal of the !omplaint on the groun" of prescription. 0e argue" that un"er +rticle 11;< of the !i#il !o"e, the prescripti#e perio" for instituting a !omplaint for "amages arising from a 1uasi-"elict li,e a maritime collision is four years. 0e maintaine" that the petitioners shoul" ha#e file" their !omplaint within four years from the "ate when their cause of action accrue", i.e., from +pril 2, 1C7< when the maritime collision too, place, an" that accor"ingly, the !omplaint file" on )ay =5, 1C23 was institute" beyon" the four-year prescripti#e perio".
"amages arising from a 1uasi-"elict li,e a maritime collision is four years. 0e maintaine" that the petitioners shoul" ha#e file" their !omplaint within four years from the "ate when their cause of action accrue", i.e., from +pril 2, 1C7< when the maritime collision too, place, an" that accor"ingly, the !omplaint file" on )ay =5, 1C23 was institute" beyon" the four-year prescripti#e perio". RTC R'0%-1: The trial court obser#e" that in ascertaining negligence relating to a maritime collision, there is a nee" to rely on highly technical aspects atten"ant to such collision, an" that the $oar" of )arine %n1uiry was constitute" pursuant to the Philippine )erchant )arine :ules an" :egulations, which too, effect on January 1, 1C73 by #irtue of @etter of %nstruction No. 452 issue" on +ugust 14, 1C7; by then Presi"ent &er"inan" 7. )arcos, precisely to answer the nee". The trial court went on to say that the four-year prescripti#e perio" pro#i"e" in +rticle 11;< of the !i#il !o"e shoul" begin to run only from +pril 4C, 1C24, the "ate when the negligence of the crew of the )DF +sia Philippines ha" been finally ascertaine". CA R'0%-1: %n a ecision "ate" No#ember 47, 1C27, 7 an" clarifie" in a :esolution "ate" January 14, 1C22, 2 the !ourt of +ppeals grante" the Petition file" by the pri#ate respon"ent an" or"ere" the trial court to "ismiss the !omplaint. The pertinent portions of the ecision of the appellate court are as follows P %t is clear that the cause of action of pri#ate respon"ent 6the herein petitioners 7rnesto Iramer, Jr. an" )arta Iramer9 accrue" from the occurrence of the mishap because that is the precise time when "amages were inflicte" upon an" sustaine" by the aggrie#e" party an" from which relief from the court is presently sought. Pri#ate respon"ents shoul" ha#e imme"iately institute" a complaint for "amages base" on a 1uasi-"elict within four years from the sai" marine inci"ent because its cause of action ha" alrea"y "efinitely ripene" at the onset of the collision. &or this reason, he 6sic9 coul" cite the negligence on the part of the personnel of the petitioner to e*ercise "ue care an" lac, of 6sic9 "iligence to pre#ent the collision that resulte" in the total loss of their * * * boat.
=*&%&%o-*(>s Co-&*-&%o-: The maritime collisions ha#e peculiarities an" characteristics which only persons with special s,ill, training an" e*perience li,e the members of the $oar" of )arine %n1uiry can properly analy'e an" resol#e. The running of the prescripti#e perio" was tolle" by the filing of the marine protest an" that their cause of action accrue" only on +pril 4C, 1C24, the "ate when the ecision ascertaining the negligence of the crew of the )DF +sia Philippines ha" become final, an" that the four-year prescripti#e perio" un"er +rticle 11;< of the !i#il !o"e shoul" be compute" from the sai" "ate. R*s,o-.*-&Bs Co-&*-&%o-: The pri#ate respon"ent file" a )otion see,ing the "ismissal of the !omplaint on the groun" of prescription. 0e argue" that un"er +rticle 11;< of the !i#il !o"e, = the prescripti#e perio" for instituting a !omplaint for
(e can only e*ten" scant consi"eration to respon"ent ju"ge/s reasoning that in #iew of the nature of the marine collision that allege"ly in#ol#es highly technical aspects, the running of the prescripti#e perio" shoul" only commence from the finality of the in#estigation con"ucte" by the )arine $oar" of %n1uiry 6sic9 an" the "ecision of the !omman"ant, Philippine !oast Buar", who has original juris"iction o#er the mishap. &or one, while it is true that the fin"ings an" recommen"ation of the $oar" an" the "ecision of the !omman"ant may be helpful to the court in ascertaining which of the parties are at fault, still the former 6court9 is not boun" by sai" fin"ings an" "ecision. %n"ee", the same fin"ings an" "ecision coul" be entirely or partially a"mitte", mo"ifie", amen"e", or "isregar"e" by the court accor"ing to its lights an" ju"icial "iscretion. &or another, if the accrual of a cause of action will be ma"e to "epen" on the action to be ta,en by certain go#ernment agencies, then necessarily, the tolling of the prescripti#e perio" woul" hinge upon the "iscretion of such agencies. Aai" alternati#e it is easy to foresee woul" be fraught with ha'ar"s. Their in#estigations might be "elaye" an" lag an" then witnesses in the meantime might not be a#ailable or "isappear, or certain "ocuments may no longer be a#ailable or might be mislai". ... C ISSUE: (hether or not a !omplaint for "amages institute" by the petitioners against the pri#ate respon"ent arising from a marine collision is barre" by presciption 4ELD: H7A Un"er +11;< !!, an action base" upon a 1uasi-"elict must be institute" within four 6;9 years. The prescripti#e perio" begins from the "ay the 1uasi"elict is committe". %n Paulan #s. Aarabia, this !ourt rule" that in an action for "amages arising from the collision of two 649 truc,s, the action being base" on a 1uasi-"elict, the four 6;9 year prescripti#e perio" must be counte" from the "ay of the collision. %n 7spanol #s. !hairman, Philippine Feterans +"ministration, this !ourt hel"E The right of action accrues when there e*ists a cause of action, which
consists of = elements, namelyE a9 a right in fa#or of the plaintiff by whate#er means an" un"er whate#er law it arises or is create"> b9 an obligation on the part of "efen"ant to respect such right> an" c9 an act or omission on the part of such "efen"ant #iolati#e of the right of the plaintiff ... %t is only when the last element occurs or ta,es place that it can be sai" in law that a cause of action has arisen. &rom the foregoing ruling, it is clear that the prescripti#e perio" must be counte" when the last element occurs or ta,es place, that is, the time of the commission of an act or omission #iolati#e of the right of the plaintiff, which is the time when the cause of action arises. %t is therefore clear that in this action for "amages arising from the collision of 4 #essels the ; year prescripti#e perio" must be counte" from the "ay of the collision. The aggrie#e" party nee" not wait for a "etermination by an a"ministrati#e bo"y li,e a $oar" of )arine %n1uiry, that the collision was cause" by the fault or negligence of the other party before he can file an action for "amages. %mme"iately after the collision the aggrie#e" party can see, relief from the courts by alleging such negligence or fault of the owners, agents or personnel of the other #essel. Thus, the respon"ent court correctly foun" that the action of petitioner has prescribe". The collision occurre" on +pril 2, 1C7<. The complaint for "amages was file" in court only on )ay =5, 1 C23, was beyon" the ; year prescripti#e perio". Disposition petition is "ismisse". ALLIED FANHING vs. CA NATURE : Petition see,ing the re#ersal of the "ecision of !+ in 8Joselito Q. Hujuico #s. 0on. omingo . Panis, :T! Ju"ge of )anila an" +llie" $an,ing !orp.,81 an" the resolution "enying petitioner/s motion for reconsi"eration of the sai" "ecision. $ACTS : )ar 43, 1C77 - :espon"ent Hujuico, a ran,ing officer in Beneral $an, an" Trust !ompany 6B7N$+NI9 an" a member of the family owning control
of the sai" ban,, obtaine" a loan from the sai" institution in the amount of 355I. Pri#ate respon"ent issue" a promissory note in fa#or of B7N$+NI. )arch 43, 1C77 R the )onetary $oar" of the !entral $an, issue" a resolution forbi""ing B7N$+NI from "oing business in the Phil. %t was followe" by another resolution or"ering the li1ui"ation of B7N$+NI. %n the )emoran"um of +greement between +llie" $an,ing !orp 6+llie"9 an" +mulfo +urellano as li1ui"ator of B7N$+NI, +llie" ac1uire" all the assets an" assume" the liabilityies of B7N$+NI, inclu"ing the recei#able "ue from Hujuico. Hujuico faile" to comply with his obligation prompting +llie" to file a complaint for the collection of a sum of money before the !&% )anila 6now :T!9. &irst caseE !+ affirme" :T! "ecision in a special procee"ing fin"ing that the li1ui"ation of B7N$+NI was ma"e in ba" faith. This "ecision "eclare" as null an" #oi" the li1ui"ation of B7N$+NI. %t was then that Hujuico file" the thir" party complaint to transfer liability for the "efault impute" against him by the petitioner to the propose" thir"-party 1 "efen"ants because of their tortious acts which pre#ente" him from performing his obligations. Aecon" an" current procee"ing 61C279 R Hujuico file" a motion to a"mit +mmen"e"DAupplemental +nswer an" a Thir" Party !omplaint to impea" the !entral $an, an" +urellano as thir"-party "efen"ants. The complaint allege" that by reason of the tortuous interference by the !$ with the affairs of B7N$+NI, he was pre#ente" from performing his obligation such that he shoul" not be hel" liable thereon. :T! Ju"ge )intu "enie" the thir"party complaint but a"mitte" the amen"e"Dsupplemental answer. The case was re-raffle" where presi"ing Ju"ge Panis reiterate" the or"er ma"e by Ju"ge )intu. $oth parties file" for motions of partial reconsi"eration, which were both "enie". !+, in a petition for certiorari 1uestioning the "enie" motions, ren"ere" a "ecision nullifying the :T! or"er. The :T! ju"ge was foun" to be in gra#e abuse of "iscretion an" was or"ere" to a"mit the thir"-party complaint. Petitioner claims that the cause of action allege" in the thir"-party complaint has alrea"y prescribe". $eing foun"e" on what was terme" as 8tortious interference,8 petitioner asserts that un"er the !! on 1uasi-"elict8
1
the action against thir"-party "efen"ants shoul" ha#e been file" within four 6;9 years from the "ate the cause of action accrue". .n the theory that the cause of action accrue" on )arch 43, 1C77, the "ate when the )onetary $oar" or"ere" B7N$+NI to "esist from "oing business in the Philippines, petitioner maintains that the claim shoul" ha#e been file" at the latest on )arch 43, 1C21. .n the other han", pri#ate respon"ent relies on the 8 octrine of :elations8 or 8:elations $ac, octrine8 to support his claim that the cause of action as against the propose" thir"-party "efen"ant accrue" only on ecember 14,1C2< when the "ecision in !+ 6first case9became final an" e*ecutory. %t is conten"e" that while the thir" party complaint was file" only on June 17,1C27, it must be "eeme" to ha#e been institute" on &ebruary 7, 1C7C when the complaint in the case was file". ISSUES: 1. (hether or not there was groun" to a"mit the thir"-party complaint 4. (hether or not the cause of action un"er the thir"-party complaint prescribe" 4ELD: 1. H7A The first instance is allowable an" shoul" be allowe" if it will help in clarifying in a single procee"ing the multifarious issues in#ol#e" arising from a single transaction. +fter going through the recor"s of this case, this !ourt fin"s that the thir"party plaintiffs claim is premise" not only on what was allege" as the tortious interference by the thir"-party "efen"ants with the affairs of B7N$+NI. )ore importantly, attention shoul" ha#e been focuse" on the fact that this allegation is we""e" to a "ecision ren"ere" by the !ourt of +ppeals in !+-B.:. !F No. 5=<;4 which affirme" the "ecision of the :egional Trial !ourt in Apecial Procee"ings No. 157214. 2 (e 1uote the pertinent portion of the affirme" "ecision, to witE $ase" on the foregoing facts, the !ourt fin"s the li1ui"ation of B$T! as embo"ie" in +nne* 8+8 an" +nne* 8$8 of the petition, which merely a"opte" the bi" of the @ucio Tan group as the li1ui"ation plan of B$T! as plainly arbitrary an" ma"e in ba" faith an" therefore the same must be
annulle" an" set asi"e. ... C 6%talics supplie"9. This "ecision, which "eclare" as null an" #oi" the li1ui"ation of B7N$+NI, prompte" pri#ate respon"ent herein to file a thir"-party complaint against the !entral $an, an" +rnulfo +urellano on the theory that he has a right to procee" against them in respect of +@@%7 /s claim. %n the wor"s of pri#ate respon"ent, he 8NsOee,s to transfer liability for the "efault impute" against him by the petitioner to the propose" thir"-party "efen"ants because of their tortious acts which pre#ente" him from performing his obligations. 15 Thus, if at the outset the issue appeare" to be a simple ma,er/s liability on a promissory note, it became comple* by the ren"ition of the aforestate" "ecision. The ju"gment of the !+ in its first "ecision is the substanti#e basis of pri#ate respon"ent/s propose" thir"-party complaint. There is merit in pri#ate respon"ent/s position that if hel" liable on the promissory note, they are see,ing, by means of the thir"-party complaint, to transfer unto the thir"-party "efen"ants liability on the note by reason of the illegal li1ui"ation of B7N$+NI which was the basis for the assignment of the promissory note. %f there was any confusion at all on the groun"Ds allege" in the thir"-party complaint, it was the claim of thir"-party plaintiff for other "amages in a""ition to any amount which he may be calle" upon to pay un"er the original complaint. (hile these allegations in the propose" thir"party complaint may cause "elay in the "isposition of the main suit, it cannot be outrightly asserte" that it woul" not ser#e any purpose. The tests to "etermine whether the claim for in"emnity in a thir"-party claim is 8in respect of plaintiff /s claim8 areE 6a9 whether it arises out of the same transaction on which the plaintiff/s claim is base", or whether the thir"-party/s claim, although arising out of another or "ifferent contract or transaction, is connecte" with the plaintiffs claim> 6b9 whether the thir"party "efen"ant woul" be liable to the plaintiff or to the "efen"ant for all or part of the plaintiffs claim against the original "efen"ant, although the thir"party "efen"ant/s liability arises out of another transaction> or 6c9 whether the thir"-party "efen"ant may assert any "efense which the thir"-party plaintiff has, or may ha#e against plaintiffs claim. 6!apayas # !&% +lbay9 The claim of thir"-party plaintiff, pri#ate respon"ent herein, can be
accommo"ate" un"er tests 6a9 an" 6b9 abo#ementione". 4. H7A The action for "amages institute" by pri#ate respon"ent arising from the 1uasi"elict or allege" 8tortious interference8 shoul" be file" within four ; years from the "ay the cause of action accrue". %t is from the "ate of the act or omission #iolati#e of the right of a party when the cause of action arises an" it is from this "ate that the prescripti#e perio" must be rec,one". 67spaSol #s. !hairman, Philippine Feterans +"mistration9 (hile the thir" party complaint in this case may be a"mitte" as abo#e "iscusse", since the cause of action accrue" on )arch 43, 1C25 when the )onetary $oar" or"ere" the B7N$+NI to "esist from "oing business in the Philippines while the thir" party complaint was file" only on June 17, 1C27, conse1uently, the action has prescribe". The thir" party complaint shoul" not be a"mitte". DispositionE Petition is B:+NT7 . The "ecision of !+ "enying the motion for reconsi"eration file" by petitioner are hereby re#erse" an" set asi"e an" "eclare" null an" #oi", an" another ju"gment is hereby ren"ere" sustaining the or"ers of the :T! "enying the a"mission of the thir" party complaint FATACLAN vs. MEDINA G.R. No: L- @ <6 O3o&+*( <<! "57
$ACTS: Ahortly after mi"night, bus No. =5 of the )e"ina Transportation, operate" by its owner, "efen"ant )ariano )e"ina, un"er a certificate of public con#enience, left the town of +ma"eo, !a#ite, on its way to Pasay !ity,
"ri#en by its regular chauffeur, !onra"o Aaylon. There were about eighteen passengers, inclu"ing the "ri#er an" con"uctor. +mong the passengers were Juan $ataclan, seate" besi"e an" to the right of the "ri#er, &elipe @ara, seate" to the right of $ataclan, another passenger apparently from the Fisayan %slan"s whom the witnesses just calle" Fisaya, apparently not ,nowing his name, seate" on the left si"e of the "ri#er, an" a woman name" Natalia Fillanue#a, seate" just behin" the four last mentione". while the bus was running within the juris"iction of %mus, !a#ite, one of the front tires burst an" the #ehicle began to 'ig-'ag until it fell into a canal or "itch on the right si"e of the roa" an" turne" turtle. Aome of the passengers manage" to lea#e the bus the best way they coul", others ha" to be helpe" or pulle" out, while the three passengers seate" besi"e the "ri#er, name" $ataclan, @ara an" the Fisayan an" the woman behin" them name" Natalia Fillanue#a, coul" not get out of the o#erturne" bus. Aome of the passengers, after they ha" clambere" up to the roa", hear" groans an" moans from insi"e the bus, particularly, shouts for help from $ataclan an" @ara, who sai" that they coul" not get out of the bus. There, is nothing in the e#i"ence to show whether or not the passengers alrea"y free from the wrec,, inclu"ing the "ri#er an" the con"uctor, ma"e any attempt to pull out or e*tricate an" rescue the four passengers trappe" insi"e the #ehicle, but calls or shouts for help were ma"e to the houses in the neighborhoo". +fter half an hour, came about ten men, one of them carrying a lighte" torch ma"e of bamboo with a wic, on one en", e#i"ently fuele" with petroleum. These men presumably approache" the o#erturne" bus, an" almost imme"iately, a fierce fire starte", burning an" all but consuming the bus, inclu"ing the four passengers trappe" insi"e it. %t woul" appear that as the bus o#erturne", gasoline began to lea, an" escape from the gasoline tan, on the si"e of the chassis, sprea"ing o#er an" permeating the bo"y of the bus an" the groun" un"er an" aroun" it, an" that the lighte" torch brought by one of the men who answere" the call for help set it on fire. That same "ay, the charre" bo"ies of the four "oome" passengers insi"e the bus were remo#e" an" "uly i"entifie", specially that of Juan $ataclan. $y reason of his "eath, his wi"ow, Aalu" Fillanue#a, in her name an" in behalf of her fi#e minor chil"ren, brought the present suit to reco#er from )ariano )e"ina compensatory, moral, an" e*emplary "amages an" attorney/s fees in the total amount of P27,135. +fter trial, the !ourt of &irst %nstance of !a#ite awar"e" P1,555 to the plaintiffs, plus P<55 as attorney/s fee, plus P155, the
#alue of the merchan"ise being carrie" by $ataclan to Pasay !ity for sale an" which was lost in the fire. The plaintiffs an" the "efen"ants appeale" the "ecision to the !ourt of +ppeals, but the latter court en"orse" the appeal to us because of the #alue in#ol#e" in the claim in the complaint.
ISSUE: (hether or not the pro*imate cause of the burning of the bus was its o#erturning.
4ELD: Hes. Pro*imate cause is /that cause, which, in natural an" continuous se1uence, unbro,en by any efficient inter#ening cause, pro"uces the injury, an" without which the result woul" not ha#e occurre"./ +n" more comprehensi#ely, /the pro*imate legal cause is that acting first an" pro"ucing the injury, either imme"iately or by setting other e#ents in motion, all constituting a natural an" continuous chain of e#ents, each ha#ing a close causal connection with its imme"iate pre"ecessor, the final e#ent in the chain imme"iately effecting the injury as a natural an" probable result of the cause which first acte", un"er such circumstances that the person responsible for the first e#ent shoul", as an or"inarily pru"ent an" intelligent person, ha#e reasonable groun" to e*pect at the moment of his act or "efault that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom.8
%t may be that or"inarily, when a passenger bus o#erturns, an" pins "own a passenger, merely causing him physical injuries, if through some e#ent, une*pecte" an" e*traor"inary, the o#erturne" bus is set on fire, say, by lightning, or if some highwaymen after looting the #ehicle sets it on fire, an" the passenger is burne" to "eath, one might still conten" that the pro*imate cause of his "eath was the fire an" not the o#erturning of the
#ehicle. $ut in the present case an" un"er the circumstances obtaining in the same, we "o not hesitate to hol" that the pro*imate cause of the "eath of $ataclan was the o#erturning of the bus, this for the reason that when the #ehicle turne" not only on its si"e but completely on its bac,, the lea,ing of the gasoline from the tan, was not unnatural or une*pecte"> that the coming of the men with a lighte" torch was in response to the call for help, ma"e not only by the passengers, but most probably, by the "ri#er an" the con"uctor themsel#es, an" that because it was #ery "ar, 6about 4E=5 in the morning9, the rescuers ha" to carry a light with them> an" coming as they "i" from a rural area where lanterns an" flashlights were not a#ailable, they ha" to use a torch, the most han"y an" a#ailable> an" what was more natural than that sai" rescuers shoul" innocently approach the o#erturne" #ehicle to e*ten" the ai" an" effect the rescue re1ueste" from them. %n other wor"s, the coming of the men with the torch was to be e*pecte" an" was a natural se1uence of the o#erturning of the bus, the trapping of some of its passengers an" the call for outsi"e help. (hat is more, the burning of the bus can also in part be attribute" to the negligence of the carrier, through its "ri#er an" its con"uctor. +ccor"ing to the witnesses, the "ri#er an" the con"uctor were on the roa" wal,ing bac, an" forth. They, or at least, the "ri#er shoul" an" must ha#e ,nown that in the position in which the o#erturne" bus was, gasoline coul" an" must ha#e lea,e" from the gasoline tan, an" soa,e" the area in an" aroun" the bus, this asi"e from the fact that gasoline when spille", specially o#er a large area, can be smelt an" "etecte" e#en from a "istance, an" yet neither the "ri#er nor the con"uctor woul" appear to ha#e cautione" or ta,en steps to warn the rescuers not to bring the lighte" torch too near the bus. Aai" negligence on the part of the agents of the carrier come un"er the co"al pro#isions abo#e- repro"uce", particularly, +rticles 17==, 173C an" 17<=.
$ACTS: $ibiano )orta, mar,et master of the +g"ao Public )ar,et file" a re1uisition re1uest with the !hief of Property of the !ity Treasurer/s .ffice for the re-emptying of the septic tan, in +g"ao. +n in#itation to bi" was issue" to +urelio $ertulano, @ito !atarsa, &eliciano $ascon, &e"erico $olo an" +ntonio AuSer, Jr. $ascon won the bi". .n No#ember 4<, 1C73 $ascon was notifie" an" he signe" the purchase or"er. 0owe#er, before such "ate, specifically on No#ember 44, 1C73, bi""er $ertulano with four other companions namely Joselito Barcia, (illiam @iagoso, +lberto &ernan"o an" Jose &ajar"o, Jr. were foun" "ea" insi"e the septic tan,. The bo"ies were remo#e" by a fireman. .ne bo"y, that of Joselito Barcia, was ta,en out by his uncle, anilo Barcia an" ta,en to the :egional 0ospital but he e*pire" there. The !ity 7ngineer/s office in#estigate" the case an" learne" that the fi#e #ictims entere" the septic tan, without clearance from it nor with the ,nowle"ge an" consent of the mar,et master. %n fact, the septic tan, was foun" to be almost empty an" the #ictims were presume" to be the ones who "i" the re-emptying. r. Juan +bear of the !ity 0ealth .ffice autopsie" the bo"ies an" in his reports, put the cause of "eath of all fi#e #ictims as -asphy*ia/ cause" by the "iminution of o*ygen supply in the bo"y wor,ing below normal con"itions. The lungs of the fi#e #ictims burst, swelle" in hemorrhagic areas an" this was "ue to their inta,e of to*ic gas, which, in this case, was sulfi"e gas pro"uce" from the waste matter insi"e the septic tan,.8
$ERNANDO vs. CA G.R. No: "<@#7 May #! ""<
The trial court "ismisse" the case file" by the petitioners against a#ao !ity. The !ourt of +ppeals on the other han" re#erse" the "ecision of the :T!. %t or"ere" the grant of "amages to petitioners by a#ao !ity. $oth parties file" for motion for reconsi"eration. The !+ re#erse" its "ecision an" it "ismisse" the case file" by the petitioners.
ISSUE:
(hether or not the pro*imate cause of the "eath of #ictims was "ue to the negligence of a#ao !ity an" as such, the latter shoul" be hel" liable.
4ELD: No. To be entitle" to "amages for an injury resulting from the negligence of another, a claimant must establish the relation between the omission an" the "amage. 0e must pro#e un"er +rticle 417C of the New !i#il !o"e that the "efen"ant/s negligence was the imme"iate an" pro*imate cause of his injury. Pro*imate cause has been "efine" as that cause, which, in natural an" continuous se1uence unbro,en by any efficient inter#ening cause, pro"uces the injury, an" without which the result woul" not ha#e occurre" 6F"a. "e $ataclan, et al. #. )e"ina, 154 Phil. 121, 12<9. Proof of such relation of cause an" effect is not an ar"uous one if the claimant "i" not in any way contribute to the negligence of the "efen"ant. 0owe#er, where the resulting injury was the pro"uct of the negligence of both parties, there e*ists a "ifficulty to "iscern which acts shall be consi"ere" the pro*imate cause of the acci"ent.
one. Upon learning from the report of the mar,et master about the nee" to clean the septic tan, of the public toilet in +g"ao Public )ar,et, the public respon"ent imme"iately respon"e" by issuing in#itations to bi" for such ser#ice. Thereafter, it awar"e" the bi" to the lowest bi""er, )r. &eliciano $ascon. The public respon"ent, therefore, lost no time in ta,ing up reme"ial measures to meet the situation. %t is li,ewise an un"ispute" fact that "espite the public respon"ent/s failure to re-empty the septic tan, since 1C3<, people in the mar,et ha#e been using the public toilet for their personal necessities but ha#e remaine" unscathe". The absence of any acci"ent was "ue to the public respon"ent/s compliance with the sanitary an" plumbing specifications in constructing the toilet an" the septic tan,. 0ence, the to*ic gas from the waste matter coul" not ha#e lea,e" out because the septic tan, was air-tight. The only in"ication that the septic tan, in the case at bar was full an" nee"e" emptying was when water came out from it. Het, e#en when the septic tan, was full, there was no report of any casualty of gas poisoning "espite the presence of people li#ing near it or passing on top of it or using the public toilet for their personal necessities.
The test is simple. istinction must be ma"e between the acci"ent an" the injury, between the e#ent itself, without which there coul" ha#e been no acci"ent, an" those acts of the #ictim not entering into it, in"epen"ent of it, but contributing to his own proper hurt. Petitioners fault the city go#ernment of a#ao for failing to clean a septic tan, for the perio" of 1C years resulting in an accumulation of hy"rogen sulfi"e gas which ,ille" the laborers. They conten" that such failure was compoun"e" by the fact that there was no warning sign of the e*isting "anger an" no efforts e*erte" by the public respon"ent to neutrali'e or ren"er harmless the effects of the to*ic gas. They submit that the public respon"ent/s gross negligence was the pro*imate cause of the fatal inci"ent. (hile it may be true that the public respon"ent has been remiss in its "uty to re-empty the septic tan, annually, such negligence was not a continuing
Petitioners ma"e a lot of fuss o#er the lac, of any #entilation pipe in the toilet to emphasi'e the negligence of the city go#ernment an" presente" witnesses to attest on this lac,. 0owe#er, this strategy bac,fire" on their faces. Their witnesses were not e*pert witnesses. .n the other han", 7ngineer emetrio +lin"a"a of the city go#ernment testifie" an" "emonstrate" by "rawings how the safety re1uirements li,e emission of gases in the construction of both toilet an" septic tan, ha#e been complie" with. 0e state" that the #entilation pipe nee" not be constructe" outsi"e the buil"ing as it coul" also be embo"ie" in the hollow bloc,s as is usually "one in resi"ential buil"ings. The petitioners submitte" no competent e#i"ence to corroborate their oral testimonies or rebut the testimony gi#en by 7ngr. +lin"a"a.
%t woul" appear that an acci"ent such as to*ic gas lea,age from the septic tan, is unli,ely to happen unless one remo#es its co#ers. The acci"ent in
the case at bar occurre" because the #ictims on their own an" without authority from the public respon"ent opene" the septic tan,. !onsi"ering the nature of the tas, of emptying a septic tan, especially one which has not been cleane" for years, an or"inarily pru"ent person shoul" un"oubte"ly be aware of the atten"ant ris,s. The #ictims are no e*ception> more so with )r. $ertulano, an ol" han" in this ,in" of ser#ice, who is presume" to ,now the ha'ar"s of the job. 0is failure, therefore, an" that of his men to ta,e precautionary measures for their safety was the pro*imate cause of the acci"ent. (hen a person hol"s himself out as being competent to "o things re1uiring professional s,ill, he will be hel" liable for negligence if he fails to e*hibit the care an" s,ill of one or"inarily s,ille" in the particular wor, which he attempts to "o. The fatal acci"ent in this case woul" not ha#e happene" but for the #ictims/ negligence. The mar,et master ,new that wor, on the septic tan, was still forthcoming. %t must be remembere" that the bi""ing ha" just been con"ucte". +lthough the winning bi""er was alrea"y ,nown, the awar" to him was still to be ma"e by the !ommittee on +war"s. Upon the other han", the acci"ent which befell the #ictims who are not in any way connecte" with the winning bi""er happene" before the awar" coul" be gi#en. !onsi"ering that there was yet no awar" an" or"er to commence wor, on the septic tan,, the "uty of the mar,et master or his security guar"s to super#ise the wor, coul" not ha#e starte". +lso, the #ictims coul" not ha#e been seen wor,ing in the area because the septic tan, was hi""en by a garbage storage which is more or less ten 6159 meters away from the comfort room itself. The surreptitious way in which the #ictims "i" their job without clearance from the mar,et master or any of the security guar"s goes against their goo" faith. 7#en their relati#es or family members "i" not ,now of their plan to clean the septic tan,.
Petitioner &ilomeno Urbano went to his ricefiel" at $arangay +nonang, Aan &abian, Pangasinan locate" at about 155 meters from the tobacco see"be" of )arcelo Ja#ier. 0e foun" the place where he store" his palay floo"e" with water coming from the irrigation canal nearby which ha" o#erflowe". Urbano went to the ele#ate" portion of the canal to see what happene" an" there he saw )arcelo Ja#ier an" 7milio 7rfe cutting grass. 0e as,e" them who was responsible for the opening of the irrigation canal an" Ja#ier a"mitte" that he was the one. Urbano then got angry an" "eman"e" that Ja#ier pay for his soa,e" palay. + 1uarrel between them ensue". Urbano unsheathe" his bolo 6about 4 feet long, inclu"ing the han"le, by 4 inches wi"e9 an" hac,e" Ja#ier hitting him on the right palm of his han", which was use" in parrying the bolo hac,. Ja#ier who was then unarme" ran away from Urbano but was o#erta,en by Urbano who hac,e" him again hitting Ja#ier on the left leg with the bac, portion of sai" bolo, causing a swelling on sai" leg. (hen Urbano trie" to hac, an" inflict further injury, his "aughter embrace" an" pre#ente" him from hac,ing Ja#ier. %mme"iately thereafter, +ntonio 7rfe, 7milio 7rfe, an" &elipe 7rfe brought Ja#ier to his house about 35 meters away from where the inci"ent happene". 7milio then went to the house of $arangay !aptain )enar"o Aoli#en but not fin"ing him there, 7milio loo,e" for barrio councilman &elipe Aolis instea". Upon the a"#ice of Aolis, the 7rfes together with Ja#ier went to the police station of Aan &abian to report the inci"ent. +s suggeste" by !orporal Torio, Ja#ier was brought to a physician. The group went to r. Buillermo Pa"illa, rural health physician of Aan &abian, who "i" not atten" to Ja#ier but instea" suggeste" that they go to r. )ario )eneses because Pa"illa ha" no a#ailable me"icine. +n amicable settlement was entere" into by Ja#ier an" Urbano. +t about 1E=5 a.m. on No#ember 1;, 1C25, Ja#ier was rushe" to the Na'areth Beneral 0ospital in a #ery serious con"ition. (hen a"mitte" to the hospital, Ja#ier ha" loc,jaw an" was ha#ing con#ulsions. r. 7"mun"o 7*con"e who personally atten"e" to Ja#ier foun" that the latter/s serious con"ition was cause" by tetanus to*in. 0e notice" the presence of a healing woun" in Ja#ier/s palm which coul" ha#e been infecte" by tetanus. .n No#ember 13, 1C25 at e*actly ;E12 p.m., Ja#ier "ie" in the hospital.
URFANO vs. =EO=LE G.R. No: 7<"64 Ja-'a(y 7! "## $ACTS:
+ criminal case was file" against Urbano for 0omici"e. The trial court foun" him guilty. %+! affirme" the trial courtGs "ecision. 0e file" for a motion for new trialDreconsi"eration but was "enie". The petitioner reiterates his position that the pro*imate cause of the "eath of )arcelo Ja#ier was "ue to his own negligence, that r. )ario )eneses foun" no tetanus in the injury, an" that Ja#ier got infecte" with tetanus when after two wee,s he returne" to his farm an" ten"e" his tobacco plants with his bare han"s e*posing the woun" to harmful elements li,e tetanus germs. ISSUE: (hether or not the woun" cause" by Urbano is the pro*imate cause of the "eath of Ja#ier. (hether or not the woun" is just a remote cause. 4ELD: No an" yes. The e#i"ence on recor" "oes not clearly show that the woun" inflicte" by Urbano was infecte" with tetanus at the time of the infliction of the woun". The e#i"ence merely confirms that the woun", which was alrea"y healing at the time Ja#ier suffere" the symptoms of the fatal ailment, somehow got infecte" with tetanus. 0owe#er, as to when the woun" was infecte" is not clear from the recor". Pro*imate cause /that cause, which, in natural an" continuous se1uence, unbro,en by any efficient inter#ening cause, pro"uces the injury, an" without which the result woul" not ha#e occurre"./ %n the case at bar, Ja#ier suffere" a 4-inch incise" woun" on his right palm when he parrie" the bolo which Urbano use" in hac,ing him. This inci"ent too, place on .ctober 4=, 1C25. +fter 44 "ays, or on No#ember 1;, 1C25, he suffere" the symptoms of tetanus, li,e loc,jaw an" muscle spasms. The following "ay, No#ember 13, 1C25, he "ie". %f, therefore, the woun" of Ja#ier inflicte" by the appellant was alrea"y infecte" by tetanus germs at the time, it is more me"ically probable that
Ja#ier shoul" ha#e been infecte" with only a mil" cause of tetanus because the symptoms of tetanus appeare" on the 44n" "ay after the hac,ing inci"ent or more than 1; "ays after the infliction of the woun". Therefore, the onset time shoul" ha#e seen more than si* "ays. Ja#ier, howe#er, "ie" on the secon" "ay from the onset time. The more cre"ible conclusion is that at the time Ja#ier/s woun" was inflicte" by the appellant, the se#ere form of tetanus that ,ille" him was not yet present. !onse1uently, Ja#ier/s woun" coul" ha#e been infecte" with tetanus after the hac,ing inci"ent. !onsi"ering the circumstance surroun"ing Ja#ier/s "eath, his woun" coul" ha#e been infecte" by tetanus 4 or = or a few but not 45 to 44 "ays before he "ie". The rule is that the "eath of the #ictim must be the "irect, natural, an" logical conse1uence of the woun"s inflicte" upon him by the accuse". +n" since we are "ealing with a criminal con#iction, the proof that the accuse" cause" the #ictim/s "eath must con#ince a rational min" beyon" reasonable "oubt. The me"ical fin"ings, howe#er, lea" us to a "istinct possibility that the infection of the woun" by tetanus was an efficient inter#ening cause later or between the time Ja#ier was woun"e" to the time of his "eath. The infection was, therefore, "istinct an" foreign to the crime. oubts are present. There is a li,elihoo" that the woun" was but the remote cause an" its subse1uent infection, for failure to ta,e necessary precautions, with tetanus may ha#e been the pro*imate cause of Ja#ier/s "eath with which the petitioner ha" nothing to "o. + prior an" remote cause cannot be ma"e the basis of an action if such remote cause "i" nothing more than furnish the con"ition or gi#e rise to the occasion by which the injury was ma"e possible, if there inter#ene" between such prior or remote cause an" the injury a "istinct, successi#e, unrelate", an" efficient cause of the injury, e#en though such injury woul" not ha#e happene" but for such con"ition or occasion. %f no "anger e*iste" in the con"ition e*cept because of the in"epen"ent cause, such con"ition was not the pro*imate cause. +n" if an in"epen"ent negligent act or "efecti#e con"ition sets into operation the circumstances, which result in injury because of the prior "efecti#e con"ition, such subse1uent act or con"ition is the pro*imate cause./
=4OENII vs. IAC
truc, entruste" to him by his employer Phoeni*.
$ACTS: %n the early morning of 13 No#ember 1C73 P at about 1E=5 a.m. P pri#ate respon"ent @eonar"o ionisio was on his way home from a coc,tails-an""inner meeting with his boss, the general manager of a mar,eting corporation. uring the coc,tails phase of the e#ening, ionisio ha" ta,en 8a shot or two8 of li1uor. ionisio was "ri#ing his Fol,swagen car an" ha" just crosse" the intersection of Beneral @acuna an" Beneral Aantos Atreets at $ang,al, )a,ati, not far from his home, an" was procee"ing "own Beneral @acuna Atreet, when his car hea"lights 6in his allegation9 su""enly faile". 0e switche" his hea"lights on 8bright8 an" thereupon he saw a &or" "ump truc, looming some 4-1D4 meters away from his car. The "ump truc,, owne" by an" registere" in the name of petitioner Phoeni* !onstruction %nc. 68Phoeni*89, was par,e" on the right han" si"e of Beneral @acuna Atreet 6i.e., on the right han" si"e of a person facing in the same "irection towar" which ionisio/s car was procee"ing9, facing the oncoming traffic. The "ump truc, was par,e" as,ew 6not parallel to the street curb9 in such a manner as to stic, out onto the street, partly bloc,ing the way of oncoming traffic. There were no lights nor any so-calle" 8early warning8 reflector "e#ices set anywhere near the "ump truc,, front or rear. The "ump truc, ha" earlier that e#ening been "ri#en home by petitioner +rman"o U. !arbonel, its regular "ri#er, with the permission of his employer Phoeni*, in #iew of wor, sche"ule" to be carrie" out early the following morning, ionisio claime" that he trie" to a#oi" a collision by swer#ing his car to the left but it was too late an" his car smashe" into the "ump truc,. +s a result of the collision, ionisio suffere" some physical injuries inclu"ing some permanent facial scars, a 8ner#ous brea,"own8 an" loss of two gol" bri"ge "entures.
Phoeni* an" !arbonel, on the other han", countere" that the pro*imate cause of ionisio/s injuries was his own rec,lessness in "ri#ing fast at the time of the acci"ent, while un"er the influence of li1uor, without his hea"lights on an" without a curfew pass. Phoeni* also sought to establish that it ha" e*ercise" "ue rare in the selection an" super#ision of the "ump truc, "ri#er.
The trial court ren"ere" ju"gment in fa#or of ionisio an" against Phoeni* an" !arbonel an" awar"e" "amages in fa#or of the former.
Phoeni* an" !arbonel appeale" to the %nterme"iate +ppellate !ourt. That court in !+-B.:. No. <3;7< affirme" the "ecision of the trial court but mo"ifie" the awar" of "amages. The awar" for "amages was re"uce".
ISSUE: (hat was the pro*imate cause of the acci"ent?
4ELD: (e agree with the !ourt of &irst %nstance an" the %nterme"iate +ppellate !ourt that the legal an" pro*imate cause of the acci"ent an" of ionisio/s injuries was the wrongful P or negligent manner in which the "ump truc, was par,e" in other wor"s, the negligence of petitioner !arbonel. That there was a reasonable relationship between petitioner !arbonel/s negligence on the one han" an" the acci"ent an" respon"ent/s injuries on the other han", is 1uite clear. Put in a slightly "ifferent manner, the collision of ionisio/s car
ionisio commence" an action for "amages in the !ourt of &irst %nstance of Pampanga basically claiming that the legal an" pro*imate cause of his injuries was the negligent manner in which !arbonel ha" par,e" the "ump
with the "ump truc, was a natural an" foreseeable conse1uence of the truc, "ri#er/s negligence.
The petitioners, howe#er, urge that the truc, "ri#er/s negligence was merely a 8passi#e an" static con"ition8 an" that pri#ate respon"ent ionisio/s negligence was an 8efficient inter#ening cause an" that conse1uently ionisio/s negligence must be regar"e" as the legal an" pro*imate cause of the acci"ent rather than the earlier negligence of !arbonel. (e note that the petitioners/ arguments are "rawn from a rea"ing of some of the ol"er cases in #arious juris"ictions in the Unite" Atates but we are unable to persua"e oursel#es that these arguments ha#e any #ali"ity for our juris"iction. (e note, firstly, that e#en in the Unite" Atates, the "istinctions between 8cause8 an" 8con"ition8 which the /petitioners woul" ha#e us a"opt ha#e alrea"y been 8almost entirely "iscre"ite".8
mention in the decisions! but the distinction is now almost entirely discredited. So )a( as %& 2as a-y va0%.%&y a& a00! %& 6's& (*)*( &o &2* &y,* o) 3as* /2*(* &2* )o(3*s s*& %- o,*(a&%o- +y &2* .*)*-.a-& 2av* 3o6* &o (*s& %- a ,os%&%o- o) a,,a(*-& sa)*&y! a-. so6* -*/ )o(3* %-&*(v*-*s. But even in such cases, it is not the distinction between cause and condition which is important but the nature of the ris" and the character of the intervening cause. The truc, "ri#er/s negligence far from being a 8passi#e an" static con"ition8 was rather an in"ispensable an" efficient cause. The collision between the "ump truc, an" the pri#ate respon"ent/s car woul" in an probability not ha#e occurre" ha" the "ump truc, not been par,e" as,ew without any warning lights or reflector "e#ices. The improper par,ing of the "ump truc, create" an unreasonable ris, of injury for anyone "ri#ing "own Beneral @acuna Atreet an" for ha#ing so create" this ris,, the truc, "ri#er must be hel" responsible. %n our #iew, ionisio/s negligence, although later in point of time than the truc, "ri#er/s negligence an" therefore closer to the acci"ent, was not an efficient inter#ening or in"epen"ent cause. (hat the Petitioners "escribe as an 8inter#ening cause8 was no more than a foreseeable conse1uent manner which the truc, "ri#er ha" par,e" the "ump truc,. %n other wor"s, the petitioner truc, "ri#er owe" a "uty to pri#ate respon"ent ionisio an" others similarly situate" not to impose upon them the #ery ris, the truc, "ri#er ha" create". ionisio/s negligence was not of an in"epen"ent an" o#erpowering nature as to cut, as it were, the chain of causation in fact between the improper par,ing of the "ump truc, an" the acci"ent, nor to se#er the juris #inculum of liability.
-o&*: Cause and condition. Ma-y 3o'(&s 2av* so'12& &o .%s&%-1'%s2 +*&/**- &2* a3&%v* J3a's*J o) &2* 2a(6 a-. &2* *E%s&%-1 J3o-.%&%o-sJ ',o- /2%32 &2a& 3a's* o,*(a&*.. I) &2* .*)*-.a-& 2as 3(*a&*. o-0y a ,ass%v* s&a&%3 3o-.%&%o- /2%32 6a.* &2* .a6a1* ,oss%+0*! &2* .*)*-.a-& %s sa%. -o& &o +* 0%a+0*. But so far as the fact of causation is concerned, in the sense of necessary antecedents which have played an important part in producing the result it is quite impossible to distinguish between active forces and passive situations, particularly since, as is invariably the case, the latter are the result of other active forces which have gone before. T2* .*)*-.a-& /2o s,%00s 1aso0%-* a+o'& &2* ,(*6%s*s 3(*a&*s a J3o-.%&%o-!J +'& &2* a3& 6ay +* 3'0,a+0* +*3a's* o) &2* .a-1*( o) )%(*. G2*- a s,a(? %1-%&*s &2* 1aso0%-*! &2* 3o-.%&%o- 2as .o-* 7'%&* as 6'32 &o +(%-1 a+o'& &2* )%(* as &2* s,a(?A a-. s%-3* &2a& %s &2* v*(y (%s? /2%32 &2* .*)*-.a-& 2as 3(*a&*.! &2* .*)*-.a-& /%00 -o& *s3a,* (*s,o-s%+%0%&y. Even the lapse of a considerable time during which the condition remains static will not necessarily affect liability! o-* /2o .%1s a &(*-32 %- &2* 2%12/ay 6ay s&%00 +* 0%a+0* &o a-o&2*( /2o )a-s %-&o %& a 6o-&2 a)&*(/a(.. Cause and condition still find occasional
Pri#ate respon"ent ionisio/s negligence was 8only contributory,8 that the 8imme"iate an" pro*imate cause8 of the injury remaine" the truc, "ri#er/s 8lac, of "ue care8 an" that conse1uently respon"ent ionisio may reco#er "amages though such "amages are subject to mitigation by the courts.
=ILI=INAS FANH vs. CA $ACTS: +s payments for the purchase" shoe materials an" rubber shoes, &lorencio :eyes issue" post"ate" chec,s to (inner %n"ustrial !orporation for P45,C47.55 an" Ficente Tui, for P11,;1C.35.
13, 1C7C, the .ctober 15, 1C7C chec, was re"eposite" but was again "ishonore". @i,ewise, the .ctober 14, 1C7C chec, in fa#or of Ficente Tui when presente" for payment on that same "ate met the same fate but was a"#ise" to try the ne*t clearing. Two "ays after the .ctober 15 chec, was again "ishonore", the payee returne" the same to &lorencio :eyes an" "eman"e" a cash payment of its face #alue which he "i" if only to sa#e his name. The .ctober 14, 1C7C chec, was re"eposite" on .ctober 12, 1C7C, but again "ishonore" for the reason that the chec, was "rawn against insufficient fun".
To co#er the face #alue of the chec,s, plaintiff, on .ctober 15, 1C7C, re1ueste" P!%$ )oney Ahop/s manager )i,e Potenciano to effect the with"rawal of P=4,555.55 from his sa#ings account therein an" ha#e it "eposite" with his current account with Pilipinas $an,. :oberto Aantos was re1ueste" to ma,e the "eposit.
&urious o#er the inci"ent, he imme"iately procee"e" to the ban, an" urge" an imme"iate #erification of his account.
%n "epositing in the name of &@.:7N!%. :7H7A, he in1uire" from the teller the current account number of &lorencio :eyes to complete the "eposit slip he was accomplishing. 0e was informe" that it was 82138 an" so this was the same current account number he place" on the "eposit slip below the "epositor/s name &@.:7N!%. :7H7A. Nothing that the account number coinci"e" with the name &lorencio, 7fren +lagasi, then !urrent +ccount $oo,,eeper of Pilipinas $an,, thought it was for &lorencio +ma"or who owne" the liste" account number. 0e, thus, poste" the "eposte" in the latter/s account not noticing that the "epositor/s surname in the "eposit slip was :7H7A.
Upon #erification, the ban, notice" the error. The P=4,555.55 "eposit poste" in the account of &lorencio +ma"or was imme"iately transferre" to the account of :eyes upon being cleare" by &lorencio +ma"or that he "i" not effect a "eposit in the amount of P=4,555.55. The transfer ha#ing been effecte", the ban, then honore" the .ctober 14, 1C7C, chec,.
Trial !ourt ren"ere" a "ecision an" or"ere" the petitioner to pay the pri#ate respon"ent for "amages.
.n .ctober 11, 1C7C, the .ctober 15, chec, in fa#or of (inner %n"ustrial !orporation was presente" for payment. Aince the le"ger of &lorencio :eyes in"icate" that his account ha" only a balance of P;,572.;=, it was "ishonore" an" the payee was a"#ise" to try it for ne*t clearing. .n .ctober
The petitioner then subse1uently appeale" a"n on of the contention is that the :espon"ent !ourt of +ppeals erre" on a matter of law, in not applying the first sentence of +rticle 417C, New !i#il !o"e, in #iew of its own fin"ing that respon"ent :eyes/ own representati#e committe" the mista,e in writing "own the correct account number.
ISSUE: (hat was the pro*imate cause of the injury to :eyes?
a6o'-& %-vo0v*. a-. &2* (*,*(3'ss%o-s %& /o'0. 3(*a&* o- &2* &o&a0%&y o) &2* ,*(so- -o&a+0* o) /2%32 %s &2* 3(*.%& s&a-.%-1 o) &2* ,*(so%-vo0v*. s2o'0. a 6%s&a?* 2a,,*-. T2* 32*3?s %ss'*. +y &2* ,0a%-&%)) %&2* 3o'(s* o) 2%s +'s%-*ss /*(* .%s2o-o(*. +y &2* +a-? +*3a's* &2* 0*.1*( o) $0o(*-3%o R*y*s %-.%3a&*. a +a0a-3* %-s'))%3%*-& &o 3ov*( &2* )a3* va0'* o) 32*3?s. KUE9ON CITY vs. DACARA $ACTS:
4ELD: &or +rticle 417C of the !i#il !o"e to apply, it must be establishe" that pri#ate respon"ent/s own negligence was the imme"iate an" pro*imate cause of his injury. The concept of pro*imate cause is well "efine" in our corpus of jurispru"ence as 8any cause which, in natural an" continuous se1uence, unbro,en by any efficient inter#ening cause, pro"uces the result complaine" of an" without which woul" not ha#e occurre" an" from which it ought to ha#e been forseen or reasonably anticipate" by a person of or"inary case that the injury complaine" of or some similar injury, woul" result therefrom as a natural an" probable conse1uence.8 I- &2* 3as* a& +*-32! &2* ,(oE%6a&* 3a's* o) &2* %-5'(y %s &2* -*10%1*-3* o) ,*&%&%o-*(Bs *6,0oy** %- *((o-*o's0y ,os&%-1 &2* 3as2 .*,os%& o) ,(%va&* (*s,o-.*-& %- &2* -a6* o) a-o&2*( .*,os%&o( /2o 2a. a s%6%0a( )%(s& -a6*
&ulgencio acara, Jr., son of &ulgencio P. acara, Ar. an" owner of /27 Toyota !orolla ;-"oor Ae"an while "ri#ing the sai" #ehicle, ramme" into a pile of earthDstreet "iggings foun" at )atahimi, At., Tue'on !ity, which was then being repaire" by the Tue'on !ity go#ernment. +s a result, acarra Jr. allege"ly sustaine" bo"ily injuries an" the #ehicle suffere" e*tensi#e "amage for it turne" turtle when it hit the pile of earth.
JA,,0y%-1 &2* &*s&! &2* +a-? *6,0oy** %s! o- &2a& +as%s! .**6*. &o 2av* )a%0*. &o *E*(3%s* &2* .*1(** o) 3a(* (*7'%(*. %- &2* ,*()o(6a-3* o) 2%s .'&%*s. As *a(0%*( s&a&*.! &2* +a-? *6,0oy** ,os&*. &2* 3as2 .*,os%& %&2* a33o'-& o) $0o(*-3%o A6a.o( )(o6 2%s ass'6,&%o- &2a& &2* -a6* $0o(*-3%o a,,*a(%-1 o- &2* 0*.1*( /%&2o'&! 2o/*v*(! 1o%-1 &2(o'12 &2* )'00 -a6*! %s &2* sa6* $0o(*-3%o s&a&*. %- &2* .*,os%& s0%,. 4* s2o'0. 2av* 3o-&%-'o's0y 1o-* +*yo-. 6*(* ass'6,&%o-! /2%32 /as ,(ov*- &o +* *((o-*o's! a-. ,(o3**.*. /%&2 30*a( 3*(&a%-&y! 3o-s%.*(%-1 &2*
%n"emnification was sought from the city go#ernment which howe#er, yiel"e" negati#e results. !onse1uently, &ulgencio P. acara ,for an" in behalf of his minor son, Jr., file" a !omplaint for "amages against the Tue'on !ity an" 7ngr. :amir Tiam'on, as "efen"ants, before the :egional Trial !ourt, National !apital Ju"icial :egion, $ranch 151, Tue'on !ity, "oc,ete" as !i#il !ase No. T-22-4==. &U@B7N!%. praye" that the amount of not less than P45,555.55 actual or compensatory "amages, P135,555.55 moral "amages, P=5,555.55 e*emplary "amages, an" P45,555.55 attorney/s fees an" costs of the suit be awar"e" to him.
%n an +nswer "efen"ants a"mitte" the occurrence of the inci"ent but allege" that the subject "iggings was pro#i"e" with a mounN"O of soil an" barrica"e" with reflectori'e" traffic paint with stic,s place" before or after it which was #isible "uring the inci"ent on &ebruary 42, 1C22 at 1E55 +.). %n short, "efen"ants claime" that they e*ercise" "ue care by pro#i"ing the
area of the "iggings all necessary measures to a#oi" acci"ent. 0ence, the reason why &ulgencio acara, Jr. fell into the "iggings was precisely because of the latter/s negligence an" failure to e*ercise "ue care.
4ELD: )aintaining that they were not negligent, petitioners insist that they place" all the necessary precautionary signs to alert the public of a roa"si"e construction. They argue that the "ri#er 6&ulgencio acara Jr.9 of respon"ent/s car was o#erspee"ing, an" that his own negligence was therefore the sole cause of the inci"ent.
The :T! rule" in fa#or of the complainant 6 acarra9 since he e#i"ence proffere" by the complainant was foun" to be sufficient proof of the negligence of herein petitioners. %t is un"er +rticle 412C of the !i#il !o"e.
Petitioners appeale" to the !+ an" maintaine" that they ha" obser#e" "ue "iligence an" care in installing pre#enti#e warning "e#ices, an" that it was in fact the plaintiff who ha" faile" to e*ercise pru"ence by "ri#ing too fast to a#oi" the "iggings. )oreo#er, the lower court allege"ly erre" in using +rticle 412C of the !i#il !o"e, which suppose"ly applie" only to liability for the "eath or injuries suffere" by a person, not for "amage to property.
Pro*imate cause is "efine" as any cause that pro"uces injury in a natural an" continuous se1uence, unbro,en by any efficient inter#ening cause, such that the result woul" not ha#e occurre" otherwise. 13 Pro*imate cause is "etermine" from the facts of each case, upon a combine" consi"eration of logic, common sense, policy an" prece"ent.
That the negligence of petitioners was the pro*imate cause of the acci"ent was aptly "iscusse" in the lower court/s fin"ing, which we 1uoteE
CA R'0%-1: The !+ agree" with the :T!/s fin"ing that petitioners/ negligence was the pro*imate cause of the "amage suffere" by respon"ent. Noting the failure of petitioners to present e#i"ence to support their contention that precautionary measures ha" in"ee" been obser#e".
8&acts obtaining in this case are crystal clear that the acci"ent of &ebruary 42, 1C22 which cause" almost the life an" limb of &ulgencio acara, Jr. when his car turne" turtle was the e*istence of a pile of earth from a "igging "one relati#e to the base failure at )atahimi, Atreet nary a lighting "e#ice or a reflectori'e" barrica"e or sign perhaps which coul" ha#e ser#e" as an a"e1uate warning to motorist especially "uring the thic, of the night where "ar,ness is per#asi#e.
ISSUE: (hat was the pro*imate cause of the acci"ent? 8!ontrary to the testimony of the witnesses for the "efense that there were signs, gasera which was burie" so that its light coul" not be blown off by
the win" an" barrica"e, none was e#er presente" to stress the point that sufficient an" a"e1uate precautionary signs were place" at )atahimi, Atreet. %f in"ee" signs were place" thereat, how then coul" it be e*plaine" that accor"ing to the report e#en of the policeman which for clarity is 1uote" again, none was foun" at the scene of the acci"ent. The pro#isions of +rticle 412C of the New !i#il !o"e capsuli'es the responsibility of the city go#ernment relati#e to the maintenance of roa"s an" bri"ges since it e*ercises the control an" super#ision o#er the same. &ailure of the "efen"ant to comply with the statutory pro#ision foun" in the subject-article is tantamount to negligence per se which ren"ers the !ity go#ernment liable. 0arsh application of the law ensues as a result thereof but the state assume" the responsibility for the maintenance an" repair of the roa"s an" bri"ges an" neither e*ception nor e*culpation from liability woul" "eem just an" e1uitable. %n"ee", both the trial an" the appellate courts/ fin"ings, which are amply substantiate" by the e#i"ence on recor", clearly point to petitioners/ negligence as the pro*imate cause of the "amages suffere" by respon"ent/s car. No a"e1uate reason has been gi#en to o#erturn this factual conclusion.
in cases of 1uasi-"elicts, e*emplary "amages may be reco#ere" if the "efen"ant acte" with gross negligence. ;5 Bross negligence means such utter want of care as to raise a presumption that the persons at fault must ha#e been conscious of the probable conse1uences of their carelessness, an" that they must ha#e ne#ertheless been in"ifferent 6or worse9 to the "anger of injury to the person or property of others. ;1 The negligence must amount to a rec,less "isregar" for the safety of persons or property. Auch a circumstance obtains in the instant case. + fin"ing of gross negligence can be "iscerne" from the ecisions of both the !+ an" the trial court. (e 1uote from the :T! ecisionE 8Aa" to state that the !ity Bo#ernment through its instrumentalities ha#e faile" to show the mo"icum of responsibility, much less, care e*pecte" of them by the constituents of this !ity. %t is e#en more "eplorable that it was a case of a street "igging in a si"e street which cause" the acci"ent in the socalle" /premier city./8
No moral "amagesE there was no cre"ible proof that woul" justify an awar" of moral "amages base" on +rticle 441C649 of the !i#il !o"e. ell-settle" is the rule that moral "amages cannot be awar"e" -- whether in a ci#il == or a criminal case=; -- in the absence of proof of physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious an*iety, besmirche" reputation, woun"e" feelings, moral shoc,, social humiliation, or similar injury. =3 The awar" of moral "amages must be soli"ly anchore" on a "efinite showing that respon"ent actually e*perience" emotional an" mental sufferings. )ere allegations "o not suffice> they must be substantiate" by clear an" con#incing proof.
The !+ reiterate" the fin"ing of the trial court that petitioners/ negligence was clear, consi"ering that there was no warning "e#ice whatsoever at the e*ca#ation site.
+war" of e*emplary "amagesE +rticle 44=1 of the !i#il !o"e man"ates that
The facts of the case show a complete "isregar" by petitioners of any a"#erse conse1uence of their failure to install e#en a single warning "e#ice at the area un"er reno#ation. !onsi"ering further that the street was "imly lit,;; the nee" for a"e1uate precautionary measures was e#en greater. $y carrying on the roa" "iggings without any warning or barrica"e, petitioners "emonstrate" a wanton "isregar" for public safety. %n"ee", the &ebruary 42, 1C22 inci"ent was boun" to happen "ue to their gross negligence. %t is clear that un"er the circumstances, there is sufficient factual basis for a fin"ing of gross negligence on their part.
GAFETO vs. ARANETA
)eanwhile, one of the passengers, %lano, ha" alighte" while the carromata was as yet alongsi"e the si"ewal,> but the other, Bayetano, ha" unfortunately retaine" his seat, an" after the runaway horse ha" procee"e" up the street to a point in front of the )ission 0ospital, the sai" Bayetano jumpe" or fell from the rig, an" in so "oing recei#e" injuries from which he soon "ie".
$ACTS: $asilio %lano an" Proceso Bayetano too, a carromata 6,alesa9 near Pla'a Bay, in %loilo, going to a coc,pit. (hen the "ri#er ha" turne" his horse an" starte" in the "irection in"icate", the "efen"ant, +gaton +raneta, steppe" out into the street, an" laying his han"s on the reins, stoppe" the horse, at the same time protesting to the "ri#er that he himself ha" calle" this carromata first. The "ri#er, one Julio Pagnaya, replie" that he ha" not hear" or seen the call of +raneta, an" that he ha" ta,en up the two passengers as the first who ha" offere" employment. Pagnaya then pulle" on the reins of the bri"le to free the horse from the control of +raneta, in or"er that the #ehicle might pass on. .wing, howe#er, to the looseness of the bri"le on the horse/s hea" or to the rottenness of the material of which it was ma"e, the bit came out of the horse/s mouth> an" it became necessary for the "ri#er to get out, which he "i", in or"er to fin" the bri"le. The horse was then pulle" o#er to near the curb an" Pagnaya trie" to fi* the bri"le.
!onsolacion Babeto, the wofe of Proceso, institute" a claim of "amages against +raneta. !&% rule" in her fa#or an" or"ere" the +raneta to pay the amount of P=,555.55.
ISSUE: (hether or not +raneta/s action is the pro*imate cause of the "amage "one to Bayetano.
4ELD: No. The A! re#erse" the "ecision of the !&%. +raneta was absol#e" from the complaint.
The horse, being free from the control of the bit, became "isturbe" an" mo#e" forwar", in "oing which he pulle" one of the wheels of the carromata up on the si"ewal, an" pushe" Pagnaya o#er. +fter going a few years further the si"e of the carromata struc, a police telephone bo* which was fi*e" to a post on the si"ewal,, upon which the bo* came "own with a crash an" frightene" the horse to such an e*tent that he set out at full spee" up the street.
The stopping of the rig by +raneta in the mi""le of the street was too remote from the acci"ent that presently ensue" to be consi"ere" the legal or pro*imate cause thereof. )oreo#er, by getting out an" ta,ing his post at the hea" of the horse, the "ri#er was the person primarily responsible for the control of the animal, an" the "efen"ant cannot be charge" with liability for the acci"ent resulting from the action of the horse thereafter.
Pagnaya testifies to one fact which, if it were fully accre"ite", woul" possibly put a "ifferent comple*ion on the case> for he says that when the horse was pulle" o#er to the curb, the "efen"ant, by way of emphasi'ing his #erbal "enunciation of Pagnaya, gesticulate" with one of his arms an" inci"entally brought his han" "own on the horse/s nose. This, accor"ing to Pagnaya, is what ma"e the horse run away. There is no other witness who testifies to this> an" it is noteworthy that %lano "oes not mention it. + "eci"e" prepon"erance of the e#i"ence in our opinion is against it.
for the safe berthing of the #essel to $erth ;. Ba#ino statione" himself in the bri"ge, with the master of the #essel, Fictor Ia#an,o#, besi"e him. The sea was calm an" the win" was i"eal for "oc,ing maneu#ers.
The e#i"ence in"icates that the bri"le was ol", an" the leather of which it was ma"e was probably so wea, as to be easily bro,en. Pagnaya ha" a natural interest in refuting this fact, as well as in e*culpating himself in other respects> an" we are of the opinion that the se#eral witnesses who testifie" for the "efen"ant ga#e a more cre"ible account of the affair than the witnesses for the plaintiff. +ccor"ing to the witnesses for the "efen"ant, it was Pagnaya who jer,e" the rein, thereby causing the bit it come out of the horse/s mouth> an" they say that Pagnaya, after alighting, le" the horse o#er to the curb, an" procee"e" to fi* the bri"le> an" that in so "oing the bri"le was slippe" entirely off, when the horse, feeling himself free from control, starte" to go away.
(hen the #essel reache" the lan"mar,, one-half mile from the pier, Ba#ino or"ere" the engine stoppe". Then, Ba#ino or"ere" the anchor "roppe". Ia#an,o# relaye" the or"ers to the crew of the #essel on the bow. The left anchor, with two 649 shac,les, were "roppe". 0owe#er, the anchor "i" not ta,e hol" as e*pecte". The spee" of the #essel "i" not slac,en. + commotion ensue" between the crew members.
+fter Ba#ino notice" that the anchor "i" not ta,e hol", he or"ere" the engines half-astern. +bellana, notice" that the #essel was approaching the pier fast. Ia#an,o# li,ewise notice" that the anchor "i" not ta,e hol". Ba#ino thereafter ga#e the 8full-astern8 co"e. $efore the right anchor an" a""itional shac,les coul" be "roppe", the bow of the #essel ramme" into the apron of the pier causing consi"erable "amage to the pier. The #essel also sustaine" "amage.
$AR EAST S4I==ING vs. CA
PP+ file" before the :T! a complaint for a sum of money against &7A!, !apt. Aenen !. Ba#ino an" the )P+ praying that the "efen"ants therein be hel" jointly an" se#erally liable to pay the plaintiff actual an" e*emplary "amages plus costs of suit.
$ACTS: )DF P+F@. +:, flying un"er the flagship of the UAA:, owne" an" operate" by the &ar 7astern Ahipping !ompany 6&7A!9, arri#e" at the Port of )anila from Fancou#er, $ritish !olumbia at about 7am. The #essel was assigne" $erth ; of the )anila %nternational Port 6)%P9. !aptain :oberto +bellana was tas,e" by the Philippine Port +uthority 6PP+9 to super#ise the berthing of the #essel. +ppellant Aenen Ba#ino was assigne" by the +ppellant )anila Pilots/ +ssociation 6)P+9 to con"uct "oc,ing maneu#ers :T! or"ere" the "efen"ants therein jointly an" se#erally to pay the PP+ the amount of P1,53=,=55.55 representing actual "amages an" the costs of suit.
!+ affirme" e*cept that if foun" no employer-employee relationship
e*isting between herein pri#ate respon"ents )P+ an" !apt. Ba#ino. %t rule" that the liability of )P+ is anchore", not on +rticle 4125, but on the pro#isions of !ustoms +"ministrati#e .r"er No. 13-<3, 7 an" accor"ingly mo"ifie" sai" "ecision by hol"ing )P+, along with its co-"efen"ants therein, still soli"arily liable to PP+ but entitle" )P+ to reimbursement from !apt. Ba#ino for such amount of the a"ju"ge" pecuniary liability in e*cess of the amount e1ui#alent to se#enty-fi#e percent 673U9 of its prescribe" reser#e fun".
soli"ary liability for "amages sustaine" by PP+. %t posits that the #essel was being pilote" by !apt. Ba#ino with !apt. Iaban,o# besi"e him all the while, as the former too, o#er the helm of )F Pa#lo"ar when it ramme" an" "amage" the apron of the pier of $erth No. ;. Their concurrent negligence was the imme"iate an" pro*imate cause of the collision between the #essel an" the pier P !apt. Ba#ino, for his negligence in the con"uct of "oc,ing maneu#ers for the safe berthing of the #essel> an" !apt. Iaban,o#, for failing to counterman" the or"ers of the harbor pilot an" to ta,e o#er an" steer the #essel himself in the face of imminent "anger, as well as for merely relying on !apt. Ba#ino "uring the berthing proce"ure.
=*&%o-*(Bs Co-&*-&%o-: Aince the )F P+F@. +: was un"er compulsory pilotage at the time of the inci"ent, it was the compulsory pilot, !apt. Ba#ino, who was in comman" an" ha" complete control in the na#igation an" "oc,ing of the #essel. %t is the pilot who superse"es the master for the time being in the comman" an" na#igation of a ship an" his or"ers must be obeye" in all respects connecte" with her na#igation. !onse1uently, he was solely responsible for the "amage cause" upon the pier apron, an" not the owners of the #essel. %t claims that the master of the boat "i" not commit any act of negligence when he faile" to counterman" or o#errule the or"ers of the pilot because he "i" not see any justifiable reason to "o so. %n other wor"s, the master cannot be faulte" for relying absolutely on the competence of the compulsory pilot. %f the master "oes not obser#e that a compulsory pilot is incompetent or physically incapacitate", the master is justifie" in relying on the pilot. ISSUE: (hether or not the "efen"ants are liable for the "amage sustaine".
4ELD: The A! affirme" the ruling of the !+.
The Port of )anila is within the )anila Pilotage istrict which is un"er compulsory pilotage pursuant to Aection 2, +rticle %%% of Philippine Ports +uthority +"ministrati#e .r"er No. 5=-23. %n case of compulsory pilotage, the respecti#e "uties an" responsibilities of the compulsory pilot an" the master ha#e been specifie" by the same regulation in this wiseE
R*s,o-.*-&Bs Co-&*-&%o-: PP+, in its comment, pre"ictably in full agreement with the ruling of respon"ent court on the soli"ary liability of &7A!, )P+ an" !apt. Ba#ino, stresses the concurrent negligence of !apt. Ba#ino, the harbor pilot, an" !apt. Fi,tor Iaban,o#, shipmaster of )F Pa#lo"ar, as the basis of their Aec. 11. !ontrol of #essels an" liability for "amage. P .n compulsory pilotage groun"s, the 4a(+o( =%0o& ,(ov%.%-1 &2* s*(v%3* &o a v*ss*0 s2a00 +* (*s,o-s%+0* )o( &2* .a6a1* 3a's*. &o a v*ss*0 o( &o 0%)* a-.
,(o,*(&y a& ,o(&s .'* &o 2%s -*10%1*-3* o( )a'0&. 0e can only be absol#e" from liability if the acci"ent is cause" by force majeure or natural calamities pro#i"e" he has e*ercise" pru"ence an" e*tra "iligence to pre#ent or minimi'e "amage.
+ pilot, in maritime law, is a person "uly 1ualifie", an" license", to con"uct a #essel into or out of ports, or in certain waters. %n a broa" sense, the term 8pilot8 inclu"es both 619 those whose "uty it is to gui"e #essels into or out of ports, or in particular waters an" 649 those entruste" with the na#igation of #essels on the high seas.
The )aster shall retain o#erall comman" of the #essel e#en on pilotage groun"s whereby he can counterman" or o#errule the or"er or comman" of the 0arbor Pilot on bear". %n such e#ent, any "amage cause" to a #essel or to life an" property at ports by reason of the fault or negligence of the )aster shall be the responsibility an" liability of the registere" owner of the #essel concerne" without preju"ice to recourse against sai" )aster.
Un"er 7nglish an" +merican authorities, the pilot superse"es the master for the time being in the comman" an" na#igation of the ship, an" his or"ers must be obeye" in all matters connecte" with her na#igation. 0e becomes the master pro hac #ice an" shoul" gi#e all "irections as to spee", course, stopping an" re#ersing anchoring, towing an" the li,e. +n" when a license" pilot is employe" in a place where pilotage is compulsory, it is his "uty to insist on ha#ing effecti#e control of the #essel, or to "ecline to act as pilot. The pilot "oes not ta,e entire charge of the #essel, but is "eeme" merely the a"#iser of the master, who retains comman" an" control of the na#igation e#en in localities where pilotage is compulsory.
Auch liability of the owner or )aster of the #essel or its pilots shall be "etermine" by competent authority in appropriate procee"ings in the light of the facts an" circumstances of each particular case.
There is a presumption of fault against a mo#ing #essel that stri,es a stationary object such as a "oc, or na#igational ai". The mo#ing #essel must show that it was without fault or that the collision was occasione" by the fault of the stationary object or was the result of ine#itable acci"ent. Auch #essel must e*haust e#ery reasonable possibility which the circumstances a"mit an" show that in each, they "i" all that reasonable care re1uire". %n the absence of sufficient proof in rebuttal, the presumption of fault attaches to a mo#ing #essel which colli"es with a fi*e" object an" ma,es a prima facie case of fault against the #essel.
%n this case, !apt. Ba#ino was assigne" to pilot )F Pa#lo"ar into $erth ;. Upon assuming such office as compulsory pilot, !apt. Ba#ino is hel" to the uni#ersally accepte" high stan"ar"s of care an" "iligence re1uire" of a pilot, whereby he assumes to ha#e s,ill an" ,nowle"ge in respect to na#igation in the particular waters o#er which his license e*ten"s superior to an" more to be truste" than that of the master. + pilot shoul" ha#e a thorough ,nowle"ge of general an" local regulations an" physical con"itions affecting the #essel in his charge an" the waters for which he is license", such as a particular harbor or ri#er.
Gav%-oBs N*10%1*-3*: Ba#ino was not sure if the anchor was "roppe" on time thereby causing the inci"ent. +s pilot, Ba#ino shoul" ha#e seen to it that the or"er was carrie" out, an" he coul" ha#e "one this in a number of ways, one of which was to
inspect the bow of the #essel where the anchor mechanism was installe".
&urther, Ba#ino/s reaction was e#en 6hapha'ar"9 because instea" of arresting fully the momentum of the #essel with the help of the tugboats, Ba#ino or"ere" merely 8half-astern8. %t too, Ba#ino another minute to or"er a 8full-astern8. $y then, it was too late. The #essel/s momentum coul" no longer be arreste" an", barely a minute thereafter, the bow of the #essel hit the apron of the pier. Patently, Ba#ino miscalculate". 0e faile" to react an" un"erta,e a"e1uate measures to arrest fully the momentum of the #essel after the anchor faile" to claw to the seabe". (hen he reacte", the same was e#en 6hapha'ar"9. Ba#ino faile" to rec,on the bul, of the #essel, its si'e an" its cargo. 0e erroneously belie#e" that only one 619 anchor woul" suffice an" e#en when the anchor faile" to claw into the seabe" or against a har" object in the seabe", Ba#ino faile" to or"er the other anchor "roppe" imme"iately.
the master of a #essel to ta,e charge of the situation an" see to the maneu#ering of the #essel himself. %nstea", !apt. Ia#an,o# chose to rely blin"ly upon his pilot, who by this time was pro#en ill-e1uippe" to cope with the situation.
%n sum, where a compulsory pilot is in charge of a ship, the master being re1uire" to permit him to na#igate it, if the master obser#es that the pilot is incompetent or physically incapable, then it is the "ury of the master to refuse to permit the pilot to act. $ut if no such reasons are present, then the master is justifie" in relying upon the pilot, but not blin"ly. Un"er the circumstances of this case, if a situation arose where the master, e*ercising that reasonable #igilance which the master of a ship shoul" obser#e that the pilot was so na#igating the #essel that she was going into "anger, an" there was in the e*ercise of reasonable care an" #igilance an opportunity for the master to inter#ene so as to sa#e the ship from "anger, the master shoul" ha#e acte" accor"ingly. The master of a #essel must e*ercise a "egree of #igilance commensurate with the circumstances.
Ca,&. Ha+a-?ovBs N*10%1*-3*: 0e was remiss in the "ischarge of his "uties as master of the ship, lea#ing the entire "oc,ing proce"ure up to the pilot, instea" of maintaining watchful #igilance o#er this ris,y maneu#er. Ia#an,o# refuse" to act e#en as Ba#ino faile" to act. 7#en as Ba#ino ga#e mere 8half-astern8 or"er, Ia#an,o# supinely stoo" by. The #essel was alrea"y about twenty 6459 meters away from the pier when Ba#ino ga#e the 8full-astern8 or"er. 7#en then, Ia#an,o# "i" nothing to pre#ent the #essel from hitting the pier simply because he relie" on the competence an" plan of Ba#ino. (hile the 8full-astern// maneu#er momentarily arreste" the momentum of the #essel, it was, by then, too late. +ll along, Ia#an,o# stoo" supinely besi"e Ba#ino, "oing nothing but relay the comman"s of Ba#ino. %nscrutably, then, Ia#an,o# was negligent. M=ABs 0%a+%0%&y: )P+ is jointly an" soli"arily liable with its member pilot. !apt. Ba#ino, in the absence of employer-employee relationship an" in applying !ustoms +"ministrati#e .r"er No. 13-<3, as basis for the a"ju"ge" soli"ary liability of )P+ an" !apt. Ba#ino. P+:. VVF%%. P %n all pilotage "istricts where pilotage is compulsory, there shall be create" an" maintaine" by the pilots or pilots/ association, in the manner hereinafter prescribe", a reser#e fun" e1ual to P1,555.55 for each pilot thereof for the purpose of paying claims for "amages to #essels or property cause" through acts or omissions of its members while ren"ere" in compulsory pilotage ser#ice. %n )anila, the reser#e fun" shall be P4,555.55 for each pilot.
Un"er normal circumstances, the abo#ementione" facts woul" ha#e cause"
P+:. VVF%%%. P + pilots/ association shall not be liable un"er these regulations for "amage to any #essel, or other property, resulting from acts of a member of an association in the actual performance of his "uty for a greater amount than se#enty-fi#e per centum 673U9 of its prescribe" reser#e fun"> it being un"erstoo" that if the association is hel" liable for an amount greater than the amount abo#e-state", the e*cess shall be pai" by the personal fun"s of the member concerne".
SAFIDO vs. CUSTODIO
$ACTS: %n $arrio 0alang, @aguna, two truc,s, one "ri#en by Nicasio )u"ales an" belonging to @aguna-Tayabas $us !ompany 6@T$9, an" the other 6<*< truc,9 "ri#en by +ser @agun"a an" owne" by Prospero Aabi"o, going in opposite "irections met each other in a roa" cur#e. +gripino !usto"io a passenger of @T$ bus, who was hanging on the left si"e as truc, was full of passengers was si"eswipe" by the trac, "ri#en by +ser @agun"a. +s a result, +gripino !usto"io was injure" an" "ie". %t was foun" that the @T$ bus with full loa" to passengers was negotiating a sharp cur#e of a bumpy an" sli"ing "ownwar" a slope, whereas the <*< truc, was climbing up with no cargoes or passengers on boar" but for three helpers, owner Aabi"o an" "ri#er @agun"a. Petitioners/ truc, was running at a consi"erable spee", "espite the fact that it was negotiating a sharp cur#e, an", instea" of being close to its right si"e of the roa", sai" truc, was "ri#en on its mi""le portion an" so near the passenger bus coming from the opposite "irection as to si"eswipe a passenger ri"ing on its running boar".
There being no employer-employee relationship, clearly +rticle 4125 of the !i#il !o"e is inapplicable since there is no #icarious liability of an employer to spea, of.
+rt. 1457 of the !i#il !o"e pro#i"es that there is soli"ary liability only when the obligation e*pressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation re1uires soli"arity. Plainly, !ustoms +"ministrati#e .r"er No. 13-<3, which as an implementing rule has the force an" effect of law, can #ali"ly pro#i"e for soli"ary liability.
8 !ustoms +"ministrati#e .r"er No. 13-<3 may be a mere rule an" regulation issue" by an a"ministrati#e agency pursuant to a "elegate" authority to fi* 8the "etails8 in the e*ecution or enforcement of a policy set out in the law itself. Nonetheless, sai" a"ministrati#e or"er, which a""s to the proce"ural or enforcing pro#isions of substanti#e law, is legally bin"ing an" recei#es the same statutory force upon going into effect. %n that sense, it has e1ual, not lower, statutory force an" effect as a regular statute passe" by the legislature.8
The !&% an" the !+ conclu"e" that the @aguna-Tayabas $us !o. an" its "ri#er Nicasio )u"ales, ha" #iolate" the contract of carriage with +gripino !usto"io, whereas petitioners Aabi"o an" @agun"a were guilty of a 1uasi "elict, by reason of which all of them were hel" soli"arity liable.
ISSUE: (hether or not petitioners are liable for the "eath of !usto"io.
4ELD: The carrier an" its "ri#er were clearly guilty of negligence for ha#ing allowe" +gripino !usto"io to ri"e on the running boar" of the bus, in #iolation of Aection ;4 of +ct No. =CC4, an" that this negligence was the pro*imate cause of +gripino/s "eath. %t shoul" be note", howe#er, that the lower court ha", li,ewise, foun" the petitioners guilty of contributory negligence, which was as much a pro*imate cause of the acci"ent as the carrier/s negligence, for petitioners/ truc, was running at a consi"erable spee", "espite the fact that it was negotiating a sharp cur#e, an", instea" of being close to its right si"e of the roa", sai" truc, was "ri#en on its mi""le portion an" so near the passenger bus coming from the opposite "irection as to si"eswipe a passenger ri"ing on its running boar".
carrier an" its "ri#er, because the latter/s liability arises from a breach of contract, whereas that of the former springs from a 1uasi "elict. The rule is, howe#er, thatE
+ccor"ing to the great weight of authority, where the concurrent or successi#e negligent acts or omission of two or more persons, although acting in"epen"ently of each other, are, in combination, the "irect an" pro*imate cause of a single injury to a thir" person, an" it is impossible to "etermine in what proportion each contribute" to the injury, either is responsible for the whole injury, e#en though his act alone might not ha#e cause" the entire injury, or the same "amage might ha#e resulte" from the acts of the other tort-feasor ... . 6=2 +m. Jur. C;<, C;7.9
&urther, the !+ ga#e weight to the testimony of petitioner @agun"a to the effect that he saw the passengers ri"ing on the running boar" of the bus while the same was still 3 or se#en 7 meters away from the truc, "ri#en by him. %n"ee", the "istance between the two 649 #ehicles was such that he coul" ha#e a#oi"e" si"eswiping sai" passengers if his truc, were not running at a great spee".
+lthough the negligence of the carrier an" its "ri#er is in"epen"ent, in its e*ecution, of the negligence of the truc, "ri#er an" its owner, both acts of negligence are the pro*imate cause of the "eath of +gripino !usto"io. %n fact, the negligence of the first two 649 woul" not ha#e pro"uce" this result without the negligence of petitioners/ herein. (hat is more, petitioners/ negligence was the last, in point of time, for !usto"io was on the running boar" of the carrier/s bus sometime before petitioners/ truc, came from the opposite "irection, so that, in this sense, petitioners/ truc, ha" the last clear chance.
Petitioners conten" that they shoul" not be hel" soli"arily liable with the

Torts Digests III

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Torts Digests III

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY.

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

,2as* :%- &2* 6a%- o))%3*;:

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

A$IALDA vs. 4ISOLE G.R. No: L-<@75 Nov*6+*( <"! @4"

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

$ERNANDO vs. CA G.R. No: "<@#7 May #! ""<

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

URFANO vs. =EO=LE G.R. No: 7<"64 Ja-'a(y 7! "## $ACTS:

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

=4OENII vs. IAC

truc, entruste" to him by his employer Phoeni*.

ISSUE: (hat was the pro*imate cause of the acci"ent?

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

ISSUE: (hat was the pro*imate cause of the injury to :eyes?

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

GAFETO vs. ARANETA

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

$AR EAST S4I==ING vs. CA

!+ affirme" e*cept that if foun" no employer-employee relationship

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

4ELD: The A! affirme" the ruling of the !+.

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

Un"er normal circumstances, the abo#ementione" facts woul" ha#e cause"

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

SAFIDO vs. CUSTODIO

TORTS CASE DIGESTS 3C ATTY. LINDA JIMENO

You might also like

A$IALDA vs. 4ISOLE G.R. No: L-<@75 Nov6+( <"! @4"