TORTS DIGEST (Day 1)

People vs. Ballesteros

285 SCRA 438 (January 29, 1998)
Facts:
Carmelo Agliam, his half-brother Eduardo and Ronnel Tolentino along with Vidal Agliam, his
brother Jerry Agliam, Robert Cacal, Raymundo Bangi and Marcial Barid went to the barangay
hall to attend a dance.
The group did not stay long because they sensed some hostility from Cesar Galo and his
companions who were giving them dagger looks.
The group had barely left when, within fifty meters from the dance hall, their owner jeep was
fired upon from the rear. The precipitate attack upon the jeep left two people dead (Eduardo and
Jerry) and four others injured.
Based upon the affidavits of Carmelo and Vidal Agliam, warrants for the arrest of Ballesteros,
Galo and Bulusan were issued for the crime of double murder with multiple frustrated murder.
The trial court found the three accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, qualified by
treachery awarding the heirs of Eduardo and Jerry:
1. Compensatory damages in the amount of PhP50,000.00
2. Moral damages in the amount of PhP20,0000
3. Actual damages in the amount of 61,785.00 (Jerry) & P35,755.00 (Eduardo)
Issue: Whether or not the trial court is correct in the award of damages?
Held:
As to moral and to actual damages, yes. As to compensatory damages, no.
Damages may be defined as the pecuniary compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an
injury sustained, or as otherwise expressed, the pecuniary consequences, which the law
imposes for the breach of some duty or the violation of some right.
Actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in satisfaction of, or in recompense for,
loss or injury sustained, whereas moral damages may be invoked when the complainant has
experienced mental anguish, serious anxiety, physical suffering, moral shock and so forth, and
had furthermore shown that these were the proximate result of the offender's wrongful act or
omission.
Before actual or compensatory damages could be granted, the party making a claim for such
must present the best evidence available, receipts, vouchers, and the like, as corroborated by
his testimony. Here, the claim for actual damages by the heirs of the victims is not controverted,
the same having been fully substantiated by receipts accumulated by them and presented to the
court. Therefore, the award of actual damages is proper.
However, the order granting compensatory damages to the heirs of Jerry Agliam and Eduardo
Tolentino Sr. must be amended. Consistent with the policy of this Court, the amount of fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) is given to the heirs of the victims by way of indemnity, and
not as compensatory damages.
As regards moral damages, the trial court in its discretion may determine the amount of
psychological pain, damage and injury caused to the heirs of the victims, although inestimable.
Hence, we see no reason to disturb its findings as to this matter.

Custodio vs. Court of Appeals

253 SCRA 483 (February 9, 1996)
Facts:
Mabasa bought a parcel of land with an apartment in Interior P. Burgos St., Taguig, Metro
Manila. There were tenants occupying the apartment at the time of purchase.
Taking P. Burgos St. as the point of reference, on the left side going to Mabasas apartment, the
row of houses are as follows: That of Custodio, then of Santos, then that of Mabasa. On the
right side is that of Morato and a septic tank. The first passageway from the apartment to P.
Burgos St. is through these houses. The second passageway goes through the septic tank, with
a width of less than 1 meter.
Sometime later, one of the apartments tenants vacated it. Mabasa checked the premises and
saw that the Santoses built an adobe fence, making the first passageway narrower.
Morato also built an adobe fence in such a way that the entire passageway was enclosed. Then
the remaining tenants vacated the area. Santos claimed that she built the fence because of an
incident involving her daughter and a passing bicycle. She also mentioned that some drunk
tenants would bang their doors and windows.
The RTC granted a right of way and damages in favor of Custodio and the Santoses.
The CA modified it, ordering an award of damages to Mabasa. Custodio questioned the right of
way and award of damages in the SC.
Issue: Whether or Not the award of damages is proper.
Held:
Firstly, the Custodios are barred from questioning the grant of the right of way, because they
failed to appeal the decision. The decision has become final. As to the award of damages, the
CA erred in awarding damages in favor of private respondents Mabasa. The mere fact that
Mabasa suffered losses does not give rise to a right to recover damages. To warrant the
recovery of damages, there must be both a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by Custodio,
and damage resulting to Mabasa.
Wrong without damage, or damage without wrong does not constitute a cause of action, since
damages are merely part of the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong.
In the case at bar, there were no previous easements existing in favor of Mabasa. The
construction of the adobe fence is a natural use and enjoyment of ones property in a general
and ordinary manner.
Nobody can complain of being injured here, because the inconvenience arising from said use
can be considered as a mere consequence of community life.

Barredo v. Garcia
July 8, 1942
Facts:
Taxi driven by Pedro Fontanilla, owned by Barredo, collided with a carretela carrying 16-year old
Garcia, who later on died.
Faustino was convicted of his criminal negligence.
Parents moved to file a civil case against employer Barredo.
Barredo claims that since Fontanillas offense is covered by the RPC, his liability as an employer
must only be subsidiary under Art 103 of the RPC.
Issue: WoN a separate civil action may be instituted against Barredo as an employer-- YES
Doctrine:
The same negligent act causing damage may produce civil liability arising from a crime under
Art 100 of the RPC, or create an action for cuasi-delito or culpa extra- contractual under articles
1902-1910 of the Old Civil Code.
Quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code with a
substantivity all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from delict or
crime. Upon this principle and on the wording and spirit of Article 1903 of the Old Civil Code, the
primary and direct responsibility of employers may be safely anchored.
Art. 1903. Those arising from wrongful or negligent acts or omissions not punishable by law
shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 2 of Title XVI of this book.
Not punishable by law: liability of an employer arising out of his relation to his employee who is
theoffender is not to be regarded as derived from negligence punished by the law, within the
meaning of Arts 1902 and 1903.
Note: The court goes on to say that a strict interpretation of not punishable by law would
render the scope and application of QD very limited since the RPC also covers negligent crimes.
1. Court decided to not use the letter that killeth rather than the spirit that giveth life. (Meaning:
QD may now also cover acts that are punishable by the RPC, specifically, those criminal acts
committed through negligenceArt 365 of the RPC.)
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required in criminal cases, while only a preponderance of
evidence is needed in civil cases. If all negligent acts could only be prosecuted under the RPC,
many wrongs (not proven beyond reasonable doubt) will be unvindicated
.
This provides for a more expeditious way of obtaining relief since the employees property need
not be exhausted anymore. The plaintiff may make the employers directly responsible.

Virata vs. Ochoa

Facts:

In September 1975, Borilla was driving a jeep when he hit Arsenio Virata thereby causing the
latters death.

The heirs of Virata sued Borilla through an action for homicide through reckless imprudence in
the CFI of Rizal.

Viratas lawyer reserved their right to file a separate civil action the he later withdrew said
motion.

But in June 1976, pending the criminal case, the Viratas again reserved their right to file a
separate civil action.

Borilla was eventually acquitted as it was ruled that what happened was a mere accident.

The heirs of Virata then sued Borilla and Ochoa (the owner of the jeep and employer of Borilla)
for damages based on quasi delict.

Ochoa assailed the civil suit alleging that Borilla was already acquitted and that the Viratas were
merely trying to recover damages twice. The lower court agreed with Ochoa and dismissed the
civil suit.

ISSUE: Whether or not the heirs of Virata may file a separate civil suit.
HELD:

Yes. It is settled that in negligence cases the aggrieved parties may choose between an action
under the Revised Penal Code or of quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines.

What is prohibited by Article 2177 of the Civil Code of the Philippines is to recover twice for the
same negligent act.

Therefore, under the proposed Article 2177, acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence,
whether on reasonable doubt or not, shall not be a bar to a subsequent civil action, not for civil
liability arising from criminal negligence, but for damages due to a quasi-delict or culpa
aquiliana. But said article forestalls a double recovery.

The acquittal of the driver, Maximo Borilla, of the crime charged is not a bar to the prosecution
of a civil case for damages based on quasi-delict.

Mendoza vs. La Mallorca Bus Co.

Facts:
In April 1950, the freight truck owned by Mendoza was bumped by a bus owned by La Mallorca
Bus Company. Mendoza sued the bus driver for damage to property thru reckless imprudence.
Mendoza reserved his right to file a separate civil action.
The bus driver was subsequently convicted of the crime charged.
Mendoza then filed a civil case based on Article 2180 against LMBC as the employer of the bus
driver. However, the civil case was dismissed by reason of prescription as the case was filed 6
years after the collision.
Mendoza then filed a new suit against LMBC this time under Article 103 of the Revised Penal
Code. LMBC argued that the dismissal of the civil case is a bar for filing another case under
Article 103 of the RPC by reason of res judicata. The lower court as well as the Court of
Appeals agreed with LMBC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of the civil case based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code is a bar for
filing another action based on Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code.
HELD:

No. Civil action based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code and the civil action based on Article 103
of the RPC are two independent and separate actions based on distinct causes of actions
therefore res judicata can not lie.
Article 2180 of the Civil Code makes an employer primarily and directly liable for reason of his
own negligence, either in the selection or supervision of his driver.
Article 103 of the RPC makes an employer subsidiarily liable for damages caused by his
negligent employee who is convicted from a previous criminal suit.
In other words, Article 2180 of the CC is predicated upon the employers own negligence while
Article 103 of the RPC is predicated upon the a crime committed by an employee of the
employer.

Dulay vs. Court of Appeals

243 SCRA 220 (1995) [see infra]
Facts:
An altercation between Benigno Torzuela and Atty. Napoleon Dulay occurred at the Big Bang sa
Alabang, Alabang Village, Muntinlupa, in which Torzuela, a security guard in the said carnival
shot and killed Atty. Dulay with a .38 caliber revolver belonging to Torzuelas security agency.
Petitioner Maria Benita Dulay, widow of the deceased Atty. Dulay filed an action for damages
against Torzuela and SAFEGUARD and/or SUPERGUARD security agency, which were
impleaded as alternative defendants being the employer/s of Torzuela.
Petitioner Dulay alleged in her complaint that the incident resulting in the death of Atty. Dulay
was due to the concurring negligence of the defendants, Torzuelas wanton and reckless
discharge of the firearm issued to him by defendant SAFEGUARD and/or SUPERGUARD
SUPERGUARD filed a motion to dismiss claiming that Torzuelas act of shooting was beyond
the scope of his duties and that the alleged act of shooting was committed with deliberate intent
(dolo), and therefore, the civil liability is governed by the Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code:
Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of a felony. - Every person criminally liable for a felony is also
civilly liable.
SUPERGUARD alleged that the complaint for damages based on negligence under Article 2176
of the Civil Code, could not lie, since the civil liability under Art. 2176 applies only to quasioffenses under Art. 365 of the RPC.
The RTC upheld the arguments of SAFEGUARD. Thus in their appeal, the Dulays allege that:
without stating the facts showing such negligence are mere conclusions of lawx x x
Respondent judge also declared that the complaint was one for damages founded on crimes
punishable under Art.100 &103, RPC as distinguished from those arising from quasi-delict.
The CA affirmed the decision of the lower court, hence, the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issue: WON, Article 2176 covers only acts of negligence
HELD:
No. Contrary to the theory of SAFEGUARD, there is no justification for limiting the scope of
Article 2176 of the Civil Code to acts or omissions resulting from negligence.
Well-entrenched is the doctrine that article 2176 covers not only acts committed with
negligence, but also those which are voluntary and intentional fault or negligence, under the
article covers not only acts criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or
negligent.