143 SCRA 657 Civil Law Torts and Damages Human Relations Article 19

and 20 of the Civil Code Negligence

Petitioner was a domestic corporation engaged in the business of receiving and
transmitting messages. One of its employees had committed an error of sending
libelous messages to a certain Loreto Dionela.
SA IYO WALANG PAKINABANG DUMATING KA DIYAN WALA KANG PADALA
DITO KAHIT BULBUL MO
The said portion of the telegram was not intended for Loreto

As a consequence, a case was filed in the Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City.
Loreto sued RCPI for damages based on Article 19 and 20 of the Civil Code which
provides:
ART. 19.- Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of
his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good
faith.
ART. 20.-Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to
another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
In its defense, RCPI averred that there was no intention to malign Loreto and that the
attached message was an inside joke between RCPI employees which were not
meant to be attached. RCPI also disclaimed liability as it insisted it should be held
liable for the libelous acts of its employees.
Loreto however averred that the said message was read by his employees and it
affected greatly his business reputation
The decision was in favor of Dionela. When it was appealed to the Court of Appeals,
the decision of the RTC was affirmed. RCPI then went to the Supreme Court, praying
that it was not liable to the respondent since the criminal act from which the civil
liability arouses was an act of its employee; there was no sufficient publication of the
libelous telegram; and that the liability of the petitioner arising from Articles 19 and 20
of the Civil Code was erroneous

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code was violated by RCPI, as
claimed by the Court of Appeals.
2. Whether or not Dionela was entitled to have some indemnification from the
petitioner due to damages incurred by the latter.
RULING:
Respondent committed breach of contract through the negligence of its
employees. It was still said to be liable since every time a person transmits a
message through the facilities of the petitioner, a contract is entered into. In
contracts, the negligence of the employee is the negligence of the employer.
Libelous messages or matters were included in the message transmitted, without the
knowledge or consent of the sender. Breach of contract was committed then. As a
corporation, the petitioner can act only through its employees. Hence, the acts of its
employees in receiving and transmitting messages are the acts of the petitioner. To
hold that the petitioner is not liable directly for the acts of its employees in the pursuit
of petitioners business is to deprive the general public availing of the services of the
petitioner of an effective and adequate remedy. Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks
for itself) was the doctrine applied by considering the presence of facts or
circumstances surrounding the injury. The Court affirmed the assailed decision.

PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION VS. COURT OF

APPEALS, HON. REGINA ORDOEZ-BENITEZ, SEGUNDA R. BAUTISTA,
and ARSENIA D. BAUTISTA,
February 4, 1992
FACTS: Carlitos Bautista was a third year student at the Philippine School of
Business Administration. Assailants, who were not members of the schools
academic community, while in the premises of PSBA, stabbed Bautista to death.
This incident prompted his parents to file a suit against PSBA and its corporate
officers for damages due to their alleged negligence, recklessness and lack of
security precautions, means and methods before, during and after the attack on
the victim.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the compliant states no
cause of action against them based on quasi-delicts, as the said rule does not
cover academic institutions. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. Their
motion for reconsideration was likewise dismissed, and was affirmed by the
appellate court. Hence, the case was forwarded to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not PSBA is liable for the death of the student.
RULING: Because the circumstances of the present case evince a contractual
relation between the PSBA and Carlitos Bautista, the rules on quasi-delict do not
really govern. A perusal of Article 2176 shows that obligations arising from quasidelicts or tort, also known as extra-contractual obligations, arise only between
parties not otherwise bound by contract, whether express or implied. However,
this impression has not prevented this Court from determining the existence of a
tort even when there obtains a contract.
Article 2180, in conjunction with Article 2176 of the Civil Code, establishes the
rule in in loco parentis. Article 2180 provides that the damage should have been
caused or inflicted by pupils or students of the educational institution sought to be
held liable for the acts of its pupils or students while in its custody. However, this
material situation does not exist in the present case for, as earlier indicated, the

assailants of Carlitos were not students of the PSBA, for whose acts the school
could be made liable. But it does not necessarily follow that PSBA is absolved
form liability.
When an academic institution accepts students for enrollment, there is
established a contract between them, resulting in bilateral obligations which both
parties is bound to comply with. For its part, the school undertakes to provide the
student with an education that would presumably suffice to equip him with the
necessary tools and skills to pursue higher education or a profession. This
includes ensuring the safety of the students while in the school premises. On the
other hand, the student covenants to abide by the school's academic
requirements and observe its rules and regulations.
Failing on its contractual and implied duty to ensure the safety of their student,
PSBA is therefore held liable for his death.
Petition denied.

37 Phil 809 Civil Law Torts and Damages Doctrine of Last Clear Chance
FACTS:
In December 1912, Amado Picart was riding his horse and while they were on a
75 meter long bridge, he saw Frank Smith Jr.s car approaching. Smith blew his
horn thrice while he was still at a distance away because Picart and his horse
were on Smiths lane. But Picart did not move his horse to the other lane; instead
he moved his horse closer to the railing. Smith continued driving towards Picart
without slowing down and when he was already so near the horse he swerved to
the other lane. But the horse got scared so it turned its body across the bridge;
the horse struck the car and its limb got broken. Picart suffered injuries which
required several days of medical attention while the horse eventually died.
ISSUE: Whether or not Smith is negligent.
HELD: Yes. And so was Picart for planting himself on the wrong side of the road.
But Smiths negligence succeeded that of Picart. Smith saw at a distance when
he blew his horn that Picart and his horse did not move to the other lane so he
should have steered his car to the other lane at that point instead of swerving at
the last minute. He therefore had the last clear chance to avoid the unfortunate
incident. When Smiths car has approached the horse at such proximity it left no
chance for Picart extricate himself and vigilance on his part will not avert injury.
Picart can therefore recover damages from Smith but such should be
proportioned by reason of his contributory negligence.

TITLE: D.M. Consunji Inc. v Court of Appeals and Maria J. Juego

CITATION: GR No. 137873, April 20, 2001 | 357 SCRA 249
FACTS:
Around 1:30PM of November 2, 1990, Jose Juergo, a construction worker of D.M. Consunji
Inc. fell 14 floors from the Renaissance Tower, Pasig City. He was immediately rushed to
Rizal Medical Center in Pasig City. The attending physician, Dr. Errol de Yzo, pronounce
Jose dead on arrival (DOA) at around 2:15PM.
Jose Juergo, together with Jessie Jaluag and Delso Destajo, performing their work as
carpenter at the elevator core of the 14th floor of Tower D, Renaissance Tower Building were
on board a platform. Jose was crushed to death when the platform fell due to removal or
looseness of the pin, which was merely inserted to the connecting points of the chain block
and platform but without a safety lock. Luckily, Jessie and Delso jumped out of safety.
PO3 Rogelio Villanueva of the Eastern Police District investigated the tragedy and filed report
dated Nov. 25, 1990. Maria Juergo, Joses widow filed a complaint on May 9, 1991 for
damages in the RTC and was rendered a favorable decision to receive support from DM
Consunji amounting to P644,000.
DM Consunji seeks reversal of the CA decision.
ISSUE: Whether Maria Juergo can still claim damages with D.M. Consunji apart from the
death benefits she claimed in the State Insurance Fund.
HELD:
The respondent is not precluded from recovering damages under the civil code. Maria
Juergo was unaware of petitioners negligence when she filed her claim for death benefits
from the State Insurance Fund. She filed the civil complaint for damages after she received a
copy of the police investigation report and the Prosecutors Memorandum dismissing the
criminal complaint against petitioners personnel.
Supreme Court remanded to the RTC of Pasig City to determine whether the award decreed
in its decision is more than that of the Employees Compensation Commission (ECC). Should
the award decreed by the trial court be greater than that awarded by the ECC, payments
already made to private respondent pursuant to the Labor Code shall be deducted therefrom.

G.R. No. 145804

February 6, 2003

Lessons Applicable: Actionable Document (transportation)

HELD: NO. Affirmed with Modification: (a) nominal damages is

Laws Cited: Art. 1755,Art. 1756,Art. 1759,Art. 1763

DELETED (CANNOT co-exist w/ compensatory damages) (b) Roman is

absolved.

FACTS:

Law and jurisprudence dictate that a common carrier, both from

October 14, 1993, 7:30 p.m. : Drunk Nicanor Navidad (Nicanor)

the nature of its business and for reasons of public policy, is

entered the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a token.

burdened with the duty off exercising utmost diligence in ensuring

While Nicanor was standing at the platform near the LRT tracks,

the safety of passengers

the guard Junelito Escartin approached him.

Civil Code:

Due to misunderstanding, they had a fist fight

Art. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers

Nicanor fell on the tracks and killed instantaneously upon being hit

safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the

by a moving train operated by Rodolfo Roman

utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all

December 8, 1994: The widow of Nicanor, along with her children,

the circumstances

filed a complaint for damages against Escartin, Roman, LRTA,

Art. 1756. In case of death or injuries to passengers,

Metro Transit Org. Inc. and Prudent (agency of security guards) for

common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have

the death of her husband.

acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed

LRTA and Roman filed a counter-claim against Nicanor and a cross-

extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755

claim against Escartin and Prudent

Art. 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries

Prudent: denied liability averred that it had exercised due

to passengers through the negligence or wilful acts of the formers

diligence in the selection and surpervision of its security guards

employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the

LRTA and Roman: presented evidence

scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the

Prudent and Escartin: demurrer contending that Navidad had failed

commoncarriers

to prove that Escartin was negligent in his assigned task

RTC: In favour of widow and against Prudent and Escartin,

complaint against LRT and Roman were dismissed for lack of merit

CA: reversed by exonerating Prudent and held LRTA and Roman

liable

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

ISSUE: W/N LRTA and Roman should be liable according to the

contract of carriage

Art. 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by

a passenger on account of the wilful acts or negligence of other

through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family

Labels: 2003, Actionable Document, Art. 1755, Art. 1756, Art. 1759, Art. 1763, Case

could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.

Digest, February 6,G.R. No. 145804, Juris Doctor, LRTA v.

Carriers presumed to be at fault or been negligent and by simple

Navidad, transportation, transportation case digest

establish the fault or negligence of the carrier or of its employees

and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is
due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure
Where it hires its own employees or avail itself of the services of an
outsider or an independent firm to undertake the task, the common
carrier is NOT relieved of its responsibilities under the contract of
carriage

GR: Prudent can be liable only for tort under Art. 2176 and related
provisions in conjunction with Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. (Tort
may arise even under a contract, where tort [quasi-delict liability]
is that which breaches the contract)

EX: if employers liability is negligence or fault on the part of the

employee, employer can be made liable on the basis of the
presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise
diligentissimi patris families in the selection and supervision of its
employees.

EX to the EX: Upon showing due diligence in the selection and

supervision of the employee

Factual finding of the CA: NO link bet. Prudent and the death of
Nicanor for the reason that the negligence of Escartin was NOT
proven

bet. Nicanor and Roman

passengers or of strangers, if the common carriers employees

proof of injury, the passenger is relieaved of the duty to still

Contractual tie bet. LRT and Nicanor is NOT itself a juridical relation

NO showing that Roman himself is guilty of any culpable act

or omission, he must also be absolved from liability

Roman can be liable only for his own fault or negligence