FGU Insurance Corporation vs.

Court of Appeals

Facts:
This was a two-car collision at dawn.Two vehicles,
both Mitsubishi colt lancers. The car bearing Plate no.PDG
435 owned by Lydia F. Soriano was being driven at the
outer lane of the high way by Benjamin Jacildone, while the
other car, with Plate No.PCT 792, owned by respondent
FILCAR Transport, Inc. and driven by Peter Dahl-Jensen as
lessee, was at the center lane left of the other vehicle. Upon
approaching the corner of Pioneer Street, the car owned by
FILCAR swerved to the right hitting the left side of the car of
Soriano. At that time Dahl-Jensen, a Danish tourist, did not
possess a Philippine drivers license.
As a consequence, petitioner FGU Insurance Corporation,
in view of its insurance contract with Soriano, paid the latter
P25,382.20. By way of Subrogation, it sued Dahl-Jensen
and respondent FILCAR as well as respondent Fortune
Insurance Corporation as Insurer of FILCAR for quasi-
delict.

Issue:
Whether or not Lydia Soriano may recover
damages based on quasi-delict from private respondent
FILCAR?
Ruling:
No.FILCAR Transport cannot be held liable for the
negligence of Peter. To sustain a claim based thereon the
following requisite must concur, damages suffered by the
plaintiff, fault or negligence of the defendant and connection
of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the
defendant and the damage incurred by the plaintiff.

Air France vs. Court of Appeals

Facts:
Petitioner denied the request of private respondent
to shorten the latters trip by deleting some of the cities in
the itinerary contained in the ticket with certain segments
thereof by marking of non-endorsable and valid on Air
France only due to his ear infections. Despite respondents
protest and offer to pay any pay difference, petitioner did
not recant in its position. Hence, the respondent filed a
complaint for breach of contract of carriage and damages.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner is guilty of breach of
contract of carriage and liable for damages?

Ruling:
It is essential before an award of damages that the
claimant must satisfactorily prove during trial, the existence
of factual basis of damages and its casual connection to the
defendants act. Mere refusal to accede to the passengers
wishes does not necessarily translate into damages in the
absence of bad faith.The court ruled that respondent failed
to show wanton, malevolent or reckless misconduct
imputable to petitioner in its refusal to reroute.


Air France vs. Carascoso
Facts:
Rafael Carrascoso was part of a group of pilgrims
leaving for Lourdes. Air France, through Philippine Airlines,
issued to Carrascoso a first class round trip ticket. From
Manila to Bangkok, he traveled in first class but at Bangkok,
the manager of Air France forced him to vacate his seat,
because a white has a better right to it. He refused and
even had a heated discussion with the manager but after
being pacified by fellow passengers, he reluctantly gave up
the seat. When he came back to the Philippines, he brought
an action for damages against Air France.

Issue: Whether or not Rafael Carrascoso is entitled to
damages?
Ruling:
Yes, while it is true that in order that a person be held liable
for quasi-delict, there must be no pre existing contractual
relationship between the parties, yet, if there is an act that
violates the contract independently, the act can give rise to
liability under quasi delict. And to constitute a breach of
contract, the act must be tortiuous in order to award the
damage.

Go vs.Court of Appeals

Facts:
Private respondent got married and its video coverage was
provided y petitioners. After claiming the tape three times,
petitioners failed to present it as was not yet processed.
The parties then agreed that the tape would be ready upon
respondents return from their honey moon. After their
return respondents found out that the tape had been erased
by petitioners. Respondents then filed a case for specific
performance and damages.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent are entitled for moral damages
Ruling:
Generally, moral damages cannot be recovered in an action
for breach of contract because this case is not among
enumerated under Article 2219 of the New Civil Code.
However, it is also accepted in this jurisdiction that liability
for quasi-delict may exists, when the act that violates the
contract may constitutea quasi delict. Consequently,Moral
damages are recoverable for the breach of contract which
palpably, wanton, reckless, malicious or in bad faith,
oppressive or abusive as in the case at bar.
Ong vs. Metropolitan Water District
Facts:
Dominador Ong, 14-year old son of plaintiffs, in company
with two of his brothers went to swim at the defendants
swimming pool. After paying the admission fee they went to
one of the small pools where the water was shallow. Later
Dominador told his brothers that he was going to the locker
room in an adjoining building to drink a bottle of coke. Upon
hearing this, his two brothers went to the bigger pool. Later
another boy in the swimming pool informed a lifeguard
employed by the defendant that somebody was swimming
underwater for quite a long time. The lifeguard immediately
jumped into the big swimming pool and retrieved te
apparently lifeless body of Dominador Ong from the bottom.
Artificial respiration and a resuscitator were applied by
employees of the defendant upon Dominador for the
purpose of reviving him. A doctor was summoned by
employees of the defendant to revive the boy but all to no
avail. This action was instituted by the parents of the boy to
recover damages from the defendant for the death of their
son.
Issue:
Whether or not defendant is negligent so as to entitle the
plaintiff to recover damages?
Ruling:
There is sufficient evidence to show that the defendant has
taken all necessary precautions to avoid danger to the lives
of its patrons or prevent accident which may cause their
death. The swimming pools were provided with a ring buoy,
toy roof, towing line, oxygen resuscitator and first aid
medicine kit. The bottom of the pool was painted with black
colors to ensure clear visibility. Rules and regulations were
displayed in a conspicuous place. Six trained lifeguards
were employed and their schedules were arranged so that
tow guards were on duty at a time. A male nurse, a sanitary
inspector and security guards were also employed. When
the body of Dominador was retrieved the employees of the
defendant did everything possible to bring him back to life.
Under these circumstances the defendant proved that it did
what was humanly possible to restore the life of the
deceased. Defendant was, therefore, absolved from liability
to the plaintiffs.
Civil Aeronautics Administration vs. Court of Appeals
Facts:
Private respondent slipped over an elevation situated in the
terrace of the airport which resulted to the fall and breaking
of his thigh bone. As a consequence,private respondent
filed for damages in which the court of appellate court
affirmed the trial courts decision.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner is guilty of negligence and thus be
rightfully charged with the damages being claimed?
Ruling:
Yes, the legal foundation of Civil Aeronautics
Administrations liability for quasi-delict is found in article
2176 of the new civil code.As the CAA knew of the
existence of dangerous elevation which it claims through
was made precisely in accordance with the plans and
specifications of the building for the proper drainage of the
open terrace, its failure to have it repaired or altered in
order to eliminate the existing hazard constitutes such
negligence as to warrant a finding of liability based on
quasi-delict upon Civil Aeronautics Administration.

Wild Valley Shipping Co,Ltd vs. Court of Appeals
Facts:
Philippine Roxas, a vessel owned by respondent went to
Venizuela to load iron ores. When the vessel was ready to
leave port, Mr.Vasquez. On official pilot of Venezuela was
designated to navigate Philippine Roxas through the
Arinoco river.During their travel Philippine Roxas
experienced some vibrations but pilot assured them that its
just the result of the shallowness of the channel. When it
happened again, the captain asked that the double bottom
tanks be checked. Later, Philippine Roxas ran around in the
arinoco river, thus obstructing the ingress and egress of
vessel as a result of which the vessel owned by the
petitioner was unable to sail out of Puerto Ordez on that
day.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is liable for damages it
caused to the petitioner?

Ruling:
No, the digence of a good father of the family requires only
that diligence which an ordinary prudent man would
exercise with regard to his own property. This is exercised
by respondent when the vessel sailed only after the main
engine, machineries and other auxiliaries were checked by
a competent pilot, the officer, who is experienced in
navigating the arinocos river and the inspection of double
botton tanks where the vibration occurred.


Corinthian Gardens Association vs Sps Tanjangco and
Sps Cuaso

Sps Tanjancos and Sps Cuasos own lots 68-69
and 65, respectively, in Corinthian . The builders employed
by Cuasos made amistake in the measurement of the lot,
and encroached the perimeter of Sps Tanjancos. No
amicable settlement was reached between theparties,
wherein the Tanjancos demanded that the Cuasos
demolish the
fence but the Cuasos didnt. Tanjancos filed with RTC a suit
for recover
yof possession. The Cuasos filed a third-party complaint
againstCorinthian, CB Paraz (the house builder) and Engr
De Dios (thegeodetic engineer who made the
measurements). RTC ruled in favor of Tanjancos, but
ordering the demolition of the fence and ruling that
CBParaz grossly negligent for not taking into account the
correct
boundaries of the Cuasos lot. Third party complaint vs
Corinthian and
Engr De Dios dismissed. CA reversed: Cuasos builders
IBF, CB Paraz,Corinthian and Engr De Dios negligent. Only
Corinthian filed MOR,which was denied, hence this petition.
The area sought to be demolished is part of the Cuasos
residence.

Issue:
Whether or not there is negligence on part of
Corinthian in allowing the Cuasos tobuild on the land of the
Tanjancos?

Ruling:
Yes. Corinthian cannot and should not be allowed
to justify or excuse its negligence by claiming that its
approval of the Cuasosbuilding plans was only limited to a
so-called "table inspection;" and not actual site
measurement. To accept some such postulate is to put a
premium on negligence. Corinthian was not organized
solely for the defendants Cuasos. It is also the subdivision
of the plaintiffs-spousesTanjangcos - and of all others who
have their dwelling units or abodes therein. Pertinently, its
Manual of Rules and Regulations stipulates inSection 3
thereof (under the heading Construction). By its Manual of
Rules and Regulations, it is reasonable to assume that
Corinthian, through its representative, in the approval of
building plans, and in the conduct of periodic inspections of
on-going construction projects within the subdivision, is
responsible in insuring compliance with the approved plans,
inclusive of the construction of perimeter walls, which in this
caseis the subject of dispute between the Tanjangcos and
the Cuasos.It is not just or equitable to relieve Corinthian of
any liability when, by its very own rules, it imposes its
authority over all its members to the endthat "no new
construction can be started unless the plans are approved
by the Association and the appropriate cash bond and pre-
construction fees are paid." Moreover, Corinthian can
impose sanctions for violating these rules. Thus, the
proposition that the inspection is merely a "table inspection"
and, therefore, should exempt Corinthian from liability, is
unacceptable. After all, if the supposed inspection is merely
a "table inspection" and the approval granted to every
member is a mere formality, then the purpose of the rules
would be defeated. Compliance therewith would not be
mandatory, and sanctions imposed for violations could be
disregarded. Corinthian's imprimatur on the construction of
the Cuasos' perimeter wall over the property of the
Tanjangcos assured theCuasos that everything was in
order. In sum, Corinthians failure to prevent the
encroachment of the Cuasosperimeter wall into
Tanjangcos property despite the inspection conducted
constitutes negligence and, at the very least, contributed to
the injury suffered by the Tanjangcos.


Calalas vs. Sunga


Facts;
It is immaterial that the proximate cause of the
collision between the jeepney and the truck was the
negligence of the truck driver. The doctrine of proximate
cause is applicable only in actions for quasi-delict, not in
actions involving breach of contract. The doctrine is a
device for imputing liability to a person where there is no
relation between him and another party. In such a case, the
obligation is created by law itself. But, where there is a pre-
existing contractual relation between the parties, it is the
parties themselves who create the obligation, and the
function of the law is merely to regulate the relation thus
created. Insofar as contracts of carriage are concerned,
some aspects regulated by the Civil Code are those
respecting the diligence required of common carriers with
regard to the safety of passengers as well as the
presumption of negligence in cases of death or injury to
passengers.
In case of death or injuries to passengers, Art.
1756 of the Civil Code provides that common carriers are
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently
unless they prove that they observed extraordinary
diligence as defined in Arts. 1733 and 1755 of the Code.
This provision necessarily shifts to the common carrier the
burden of proof.
The driver of jeepney did not carry safely as far as
human care and foresight could provide, using the utmost
diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all
the circumstances" as required by Art. 1755. First, the
jeepney was not properly parked, its rear portion being
exposed about two meters from the broad shoulders of the
highway, and facing the middle of the highway in a diagonal
angle. The petitioner's driver took in more passengers than
the allowed seating capacity of the jeepney. These are
violations of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code.
Therefore, there is no assumption of risk by the passenger.
Regino v Pangasinan College of Science and
Technology
Petitioner Khristine Rea M. Regino was a first year
computer science student at Respondent Pangasinan
Colleges of Science and Technology (PCST).
financial support of her relatives.
2
nd
sem, enrolled in logic and statistics subjects under
Respondents Rachelle A. Gamurot and Elissa Baladad,
respectively, as teachers.
PCST held a fund raising campaign dubbed the Rave
Party and Dance Revolution, the proceeds of which were
to go to the construction of the schools tennis and
volleyball courts.
EACH=two tickets at the price of P100 each.
The project was allegedly implemented by
recompensing students who purchased tickets with
additional points in their test scores; those who refused to
pay were denied the opportunity to take the final
examinations.
Refused scheduled dates of the final examinations in
logic and statistics, her teachers Respondents Rachelle
A. Gamurot and Elissa Baladad allegedly disallowed her
from taking the tests.
Sit out and ejected
RTC > lack of cause of action
CHED, not the courts, had jurisdiction over the
controversy
Liability for Tort
The acts of respondents supposedly caused
her extreme humiliation, mental agony and
demoralization of unimaginable proportions in
violation of Articles 19, 21 and 26 of the Civil
Code.
Article 26. Every person shall respect the
dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of
his neighbors and other persons. The following
and similar acts, though they may not constitute a
criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action
for damages, prevention and other relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy of anothers
residence;
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the
private life or family relations of
another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be
alienated from his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on
account of his beliefs, lowly station
in life, place of birth, physical
defect, or other personal
condition.
In sum, the Court holds that the Complaint alleges
sufficient causes of action against respondents, and that it
should not have been summarily dismissed. Needless to
say, the Court is not holding respondents liable for the acts
complained of. That will have to be ruled upon in due
course by the court a quo.
The trial court is DIRECTED to reinstate the Complaint
and, with all deliberate speed, to continue the proceedings
in Civil Case No. U-7541. No costs.
Cerezo vs.Court of Appeals
FACTS:

Noontime, June 26, 1993 -- A Country Bus Lines passenger
bus collided with a tricycle in Pampanga. The driver of the
tricycle Tuazon filed a complaint for damages against Mrs.
Cerezo, the owner of the bus lines, her husband, Atty.
Cerezo, and bus driver Foronda.

According to the facts alleged in the complaint, Tuazon was
driving on the proper lane. There was a "Slow Down" sign
which Foronda ignored. After the complaint was filed, alias
summons was served upon the person of Atty. Cerezo, the
Tarlac Provincial Prosecutor.

In their reply, Mrs. Cerezo contended that the trial court did
not acquire jurisdiction because there was no service of
summons on Foronda. Moreover, Tuazon failed to reserve
his right to institute a separate civil action for damages in
the criminal action.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Mrs. Cerezo is liable for damages

HELD:

Mrs. Cerezo's contention is wrong. Tuazon's case is not
based on criminal law but on quasi-delict under the Civil
Code.

The same negligent act may produce civil liability arising
from a delict under Art. 103, RPC, or may give rise to an
action for quasi-delict under Art. 2180, C.C. An aggrieved
party may choose between the two remedies. An action
based on quasi-delict may proceed independently from the
criminal action. There is, however, a distinction between
civil liability arising from a delict and civil liability arising
from a quasi-delict. The choice of remedy whether to sue
for a delict or a quasi-delict, affects the procedural and
jurisdictional issues of the action.

Tuazon's action is based on quasi-delict under Art. 2180:
Employer's liability.

Foronda is not an indispensable party, contrary to Mrs.
Cerezo's contention. An indispensable party is one whose
interest is affected by the court's action in the litigation, and
without whom no final resolution of the case is possible.
However, Mrs. Cerezo's liability as an employer in action for
quasi-delict is not only solidary, it is also primary and direct.

The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for
a quasi-delict is solidary. Where there is a solidary liability
on the part of the debtors, as in this case, each debtor is
liable for the entire obligation. Hence, each debtor is liable
to pay for the entire obligation in full. There is no merger or
renunciation of rights, but only mutual representation.
Where the obligation of the parties is solidary, either of the
parties is indispensable, and the other is not even a
necessary party because complete relief is available from
either. Therefore, jurisdiction over Foronda is not even
necessary as Tuazon may collect from Mrs. Cerezo alone.

Moreover, an employer's liability based on a quasi-delict is
primary and direct, while the employer's liability based on a
delict is merely subsidiary. The words "primary and direct,"
as contrasted with "subsidiary," refers to the remedy
provided by law for enforcing the obligation rather than to
the character and limits of the obligation. Although liability
under Art. 2180 originates from the negligent act of the
employee, the aggrieved party may sue the employer
directly. When an employee causes damage, the law
presumes that the employer has himself committed an act
of negligence in not preventing or avoiding the damage.
This is the fault that the law condemns. While the employer
is civilly liable in a subsidiary capacity for the employee's
criminal negligence, the employer is also civilly liable
directly and separate for his own civil negligence in failing to
exercise due diligence in selecting and supervising his
employee. The idea that the employer's liability is wholly
subsidiary is wrong.

The action can be brought directly against the person
responsible (for another) without including the author of the
act. The action against the principal is accessory in the
sense that it implies the existence of a prejudicial act
committed by the employee, but is not subsidiary in the
sense that it cannot be instituted till after the judgment
against he author of the act or at least, that it is subsidiary
to the principal action; action for responsibility (of the
employer) is in itself a principal action.

In contrast, an action based on a delict seeks to enforce the
subsidiary liability of the employer for the criminal
negligence of the employee as provided in Art. 103, RPC.
To hold the employer liable in a subsidiary capacity under a
delict, the aggrieved party must initiate a criminal action
where the employee's delict and corresponding primary
liability are established. If the present action proceeds from
a delict, then the trial court's jurisdiction over Foronda is
necessary.

However, the action filed by Tuazon was based on a quasi-
delict, which is separate and independent from an action
based on a delict. Hence, there was no need to reserve the
filing of a separate civil action. The purpose of allowing the
filing the of an independent action based on quasi-delict
against the employer is to facilitate the remedy for civil
wrongs.

Taylor vs. Manila Electric Railroad
Facts:
September 30, 1905 Sunday afternoon, David Taylor, 15
years of age, the son of mechanical engineer, more mature
than the average boy of his age, and having considerable
aptitude and training mechanics with a boy named Manuel
Claparols, about 12years of age, crossed the footbridge to
make them cylinder for a miniature engine.After leaving the
power house where they had asked for Mr. Murphy, they
walked across the open space in the neighborhood of the
place where the company dumped in the cinders and ashes
from its furnaces. They found some twenty or thirty brass
fulminating caps scattered on the ground.These caps are
approximately of the size and appearance of small pistol
cartridges and each has attached to it 2 long thin wires by
means of which it may be discharged by the use of
electricity.They are intended for use in the explosion of
blasting charges of dynamite, and have in themselves
considerable explosive power. The boys picked up all they
could find,hung them on stick, of which each took end, and
carried them home. After crossing the footbridge, they met
Jessie Adrian, less than 9 years of age and they went to
Manuels home. The boys then made a series of
experiments with the caps. Trust the ends of the wires into
an electric light socket,break the cap with a stone, opened
one of the caps with a knife, and finding with a yellowish
substance they got matches. David held the cap while
Manuel applied a lighted match to the contents. An
explosion followed, causing more or less serious injuries to
all three. Jessie who when the boys proposed putting match
to the contents of the cap,became frightened and started to
run away, received a slight cut in the neck. Manuel had his
hnd burned and wounded. David was struck in the face
several particles of the metal capsule, one of which injured
his right eye to such an extent as to the necessitate its
removal by the surgeons.
Issue:
Whether or not Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company
is liable on the damages suffered by Taylor?
Ruling:
No. Manila Electric Railroad is not liable,the negligence in
leaving the caps exposed on its premises was not the
proximate cause of the injury received.The cutting open the
detonating cap and putting match to its contents was the
proximate cause of the explosion and of the resultant
injuries inflicted.

M.H.Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific
Facts: Plaintiff was one of a gang of eight laborers
employed by the defendant to transport rails from a barge in
the harbor to the companys yard near the Malecon in
Manila. The rails were being transported on two-hand cars
immediately following one another. The rails lay upon two
cross pieces or sills secured to the cars but without side
pieced or guars to prevent them from slipping off. At a
certain spot at or near the water edge the track sagged, the
tie broke, the car either canted or upset, the rails lid off and
caught the plaintiff breaking his leg which was afterwards
amputated at about the knee. The sagging of the track and
the breaking of the tie, which was the immediate occasion
of the accident, was due to the dislodging of the crosspiece
or piling under the stringer by the water of the bay raised by
a recent typhoon. It appeared that a day before the accident
the attention of the defendant foreman was called by one
of the laborers to the defect in the track but the same was
not repaired. Action was instituted by plaintiff to recover
damages from his employer the defendant. One of the
questions was whether under the facts the defendant was
negligent or not.
Ruling:
On the principles it was the duty of the defendant to build
and to maintain its track in reasonably sound condition, so
as to protect its workingmen from unnecessary danger. It is
plain that in one respect or the other it failed in its duty,
otherwise the accident could not have occurred;
consequently the negligence of the defendant is
established. Defendant was held liable.
PLDT vs. Court of Appeals
Facts:
Respondent Antonio and Gloria Esteban were riding their
jeep where it ran over a mound of larts and fell into an open
trench, an excavation allegedly undertaken by PLDT for
installation of its underground conduit system.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner PLDT should be held liable for
damages?
Ruling:
No, the proximate cause of the accident was the
unexplained swerving of the jeep from inside lane treach.
As residents of the street where the excavation and
accident occurred, respondents know the peril of the road.
It was his negligence that exposed him and his wife to
danger. He has also the last clear chance to avoid the
accident despite PLDTs negligence. He is therefore solely
responsible for the consequence of his imprudence.

Vda.De Bataclan vs. Medina
Facts:
A bus owned by Medina but driven by Saylon met an
accident when its front five burst and it began to zigzag until
it fell into a canal on the right side of the road and turn
turtle.Some of the passengers managed to leave the bus
but the four passengers were stuck inside including
petitioners husband. When the rescuers arrived, they were
carrying a torch and as soon as they approached the bus, a
five started burning, engulfing the bus and four passengers
therein.
Issue:
Whether or not Medina is liable for damages to the
petitioner?
Ruling:
Yes, the proximate cause and the accident was the
overturning of the bus and the leaking of the gasoline was
the natural consequence thereof. The driver is negligent for
failure to warn the rescuers not to bring a lighten torch.


Mallari Sr. vs. Bulletin Publishing Corporation
Facts:
Petitioner already saw the bulletin delivery ran was coming
from the opposite side and failing to consider the speed
thereof, since it was 5:00am, mindlessly occupied the left
lane and oversaked the two vehicles in front of it at a curve
in the highway, causing the collision, resulting in the death
of Reyes, a passenger of the jeepney driven by the
petititoner.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner is liable for the death of Reyes?
Ruling:
Yes, it is a settled rukle that a driver, abandoning his proper
lane for the purpose of overtaking another vehicle in an
ordinary situation, has the duty to see to it that the road is
clear and not to proceed if he cannot do so safely.
Remman Enterprises vs. Lat
Facts:
Petitioners and Lat are adjoining landowners.The latters
landis agricultural and planted mostlywith fruit trees while
the formers land occupying the elevated part is devoted to
its piggery business. Sometime Lat noticed that petitioners
waste disposal lagoon was already overflowing and
inundating Lats plantation.He made several representations
with petitioners but the latter fell on deaf ears. Thereafter he
filed a claim for damages.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner is liable?
Ruling:
Yes, Remman negligence was the direct cause of the
damage to Lats plantation. Lats land was flooded on
account of overflow of acidic and polluted water coming
from the piggery of Remman. This resulted in the
impairment of productivity of Lats land as well as the
eventual destruction and death of several fruit trees.