Mr.
Lihim
Torts
Merrit Vs. Government
Facts :
While Merrit riding on his motorcycle, collided
with the ambulance of General Hospital.Due to
collision, Merrit severely injured which caused
damaged to his skull and according to the doctor
who examine him, there was a little hope that he
would live. As a consequence, the plaintiff
suffered in the efficiency of his work as a
contractor. The collision in committed by the
chauffeur of the ambulance whos a government
employee. With this, Act No 2457 was enacted
to authorize Merit to bring suit against the
government in order to determine the amount of
damages sustained by Merrit.
Issue : Whether or Not the Government should
be held liable for the negligent acts of its
employee
Held: The Government is only liable for the acts
of its agent, officers, and employees when they
act as special agents. The chauffeur of the
ambulance was not such an agent of the General
Hospital.
The court held that it is not for them to
determine the damages sustained by Merrit but
by legislative enactment by Legislature.
Rosete Vs. Auditor General
Facts :
Inocencio Rosete, owner of the building filed a
claim againts the government when fire broke
out from the contigoces warehouse of the
Emergency Contrl Administration (ECA) which
owned by the Government.Rosete claimed
reimbursement for the damages if sustained such
fire but the Auditor General denies its claim
Rosete alleged that the cause of fire was the
storage of gasoline inside the warehouse of
ECA, which is a violation of city ordinance of
Manila.
ISSUE : Whether or not Rosete Inocencio can
claim damages to the government for the
damages sustained caused by fire of government
employee
HELD: No, under Article 1903 of Civil Code ,
the responsibility of the state limited only to its
act made by its special agent, it is the one who
receives a definite and fixed order or
commission, foreign to the exercise of the duties
of his office if he is a special official, so that in
representation of the state and being bound to
act as an agent thereof, he executes the trust
confided to him. This close not apply to any
executive agent who is an employee of the
active administration and who is own
responsibility performs the function which are
inherent in and naturally pertains to his office
and which are regulated by law and regulations -
There be no showing that act if negligence was
done by special agent because officers of ECA
did not act as special agents within the meaning
of Article 1903 The auditor general contends
that even the officials and employees of ECA
were negligent the government cannot be
prejudiced by the illegal acts or tortious acts of
its servants.
J.Perfecto dissenting - whether or not ECA is a
special agent -Yes, Paragraph 5 article 1903 the
word official comprises all officials and
employees of the government Who exercises
duties of their respective public office.( All
persons in the active service of the government
regardless of Department and branch are agents
of the state of the people . All of them are
properly designated as servants of all people and
Servants are considered agents)
Fontanilla Vs. Maliaman
Facts : On Aug. 21, 1976, a pick up owned and
operated by National Irrigation Administration
driven by Hugo Garcia its employees and driver,
bumped a tricycle ridden by Fontanilla, as a
result Fontanilla died. The trial court held
Mr. Lihim
Torts
ordering NIA to pay damages to petitioner. NIA
filed MR, but denied by trial court. The NIA
appealed to CA, but instead if filing its brief,
they directed to the SC filing instant petition.
Issue : Whether or not the award of damages is
legally proper based on quasidelict filed by
petitioners Fontanilla on the death of their son.
Held : The court held under Article 2176 and
2180 of CC 2176 provides that whoever by act
or omission causes damage to another, there
being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
damage done, if there is no pre existing
contractual relation between the parties is called
quasi-delict. Article 2180 provides that
Employers shall be liable for the damages
caused by their employees and household
helpers acting within the scope of their assigned
task even though the former are not engaged in
any business or industry. The state is responsible
in like manner where it acts done through
special agents but when the damage has been
caused by the official to whom the task done
properly pertains, Article 2176 shall be
applicable. - Under par. 6 of Article 2180, the
government had voluntarily assumed liability for
the acts done through special agents .The states
agent if a public official, must not only be
especially commissioned to do a particular task
but such task must be foreign to said official`s
usual governmental functions. If the agents not a
public official, and is commissioned to perform
non governmental functions, then the state
assumes the role of an ordinary employer and
will be held liable as such for its agent torts.
Delos Santos Vs. IAC
Facts:
The petitioners brought an action against the
private respondent and the Provincial Engineer
for having constructed a road and artificial creek
without their knowledge and consent, they
constructed in zigzag manner which meandered
the creek through their property. The Solicitor
General acting on behalf of the respondent filed
a motion to dismiss since suits were against the
state which could not be maintained without
state's consent .
ISSUE : Whether or not State cannot be sued
without its consent
HELD: No, the court held that doctrine of
governmental immunity from suit cannot serve
as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice to
its citizen. Property taken for public use shall be
subject to just compensation. Damages maybe
awarded to the petitioners in the form of legal
interest on the price of the land from the time of
its unlawful taking.
City of Manila Vs. Teotico
Facts :
Teotico while waiting the jeepney to take him
down, as he stepped down the curb to bound the
jeepney, he fell inside an uncovered manhole
causing his eyeglasses to be broken and causing
broken pieces to pierce his left eyelid. When he
brought to the hospital, the doctor injected him
anti-tetanus and charged him P 1,400. Due to its
happening, he filed a complaint for damages
against City Mayor, Engineer City health office,
treasurer and Chief of Police. Trial court
dismissed the petition, City of Manila appealled
on CA, it was affirmed but with modification
that City of Manila is ordered to pay damages in
the amount of 6,750.00. The city of manila
appealed contending that under the city charter
of manila, the city shall not be liable or held for
damages or injuries to persons or property
arising from the failure of the Mayor, Municipal
Board or any other city officer. That it should
prevail over Article 2189 of civil code which
provides that "Provinces, cities and
Municipalities shall be liable for damages for the
death or injuries suffered by any person of
defective conditions of road, streets, bridges,
public buildings and other public works under
their supervision and control.
Issue : whether or not Charter City of Manila
should prevent over Article 2189 of CC in so far
as payment for damages to Teotico is concerned.
Mr. Lihim
Torts
Held : The court held that even RA 409 City
Charter of Manila us a special law which should
prevail general law Article 2189 civil code but
P. Burgos St. where the accident happened is
within the territorial jurisdiction of the City of
Manila by which applying Article 2189 civil
code, Even if P. Burgos street is national
highway the control and supervision over said
street is under the city of manila. The court held
that City of Manila is guilty of negligence in
connection with the maintenance of said road
and therefore liable to pay Teotico for medical
fees, lost income, moral Damages and attorney's
fee.
Republic vs. Palacio
Facts :
On Apri 2, 1960, Ildefonso Ortiz file an action
against Handong Irrigation Association Inc. A
corporation under DPWH, to recover possession
with damages for allegedly entering and
occupying of private respondents lot without its
consent. The solicitor general moved for the
dismissal of the complaint, claiming that
Irrigation Service Unit of DPWH has no
juridical personality to sue and to be sued. But
CFI denied its motion. - On January 29, 1962
Solicitor General received a copy of
garnishment against the deposit of the irrigation
trust fund, the Solicitor General countered that
such matter is public funds and therefore exempt
from attachment and execution. Upon denial of
his motion, Solicitor General filed action
through certiorari with the CA. - The CA ruled
sustaining the order of CFI holding that
irrigation service is engaged in the private
business of purchase and sale of irrigation
pumps and systems. By engaging in private
business, the irrigation service unit had actually
consented to the suit.
ISSUE : Whether or not Irrigation fund may be
subjected to Garnishment to satisfy judgement
of private respondents.
HELD : No, the court held reversing judgement
of CA, holding that selling of irrigation pumps
to farmers cannot be accorded as the government
is entering transaction in private capacity, since
it is not intended to earn profit or financial gain
to its operator its main purpose is to utilize said
funds in furtherance of its operation of the
project (under the memorandum of agreement of
1954 entered into by irrigation service unit and
US government) - The ISU liability for invading
the land of Ortiz arose from tort and not from
contract, therefore under article 2180 of civil
code , the state is liable only for torts caused by
its special agents especially commissioned to
carry out the acts complained of outside of such
agent's regular duties. There being no proof that
the making of tortious acts was authorized,
neither the state nor its funds can be made liable
therefore.
Nature of
Liability (joint or Solidary)
Lanuzo vs Ping
Facts :
On Nov. 25, 1969 complaint for damages was
filed against the owner of freight truck Sy Bon
Ping and his driver Salvador Mendoza for
ramming up the residential lot and store of
Lanuzo, causing damage amounting to P
13,000.00 and over that the store lost monthly
income of P300. The defendant move to dismiss
on the ground that a criminal case for Reckless
Imprudence resulting in damage of property was
already pending in court. The plaintiff avers that
they had made an express reservation in the
criminal case to institute civil action for
damages. The lower court denied defendants
motion. Upon appeal to CA, they urged that civil
action was prematurely instituted under Rule
117 of Rules of court and further contended that
even assuming their liability , the lower court
erred in holding them jointly and severally
liable.
Mr. Lihim
Torts

Issue : Whether or not Ping and Mendoza are subsidiarily.The lower court again dismissed
jointly and severally liable to herein plaintiff their petition. Hence, this appeal.
Lanuzo
Issue: Whether or not Lily Tan being the owner
Held : The court held that the civil action under operator is only subsidiary liable with her driver.
Sec. 3 (a) (b) of rule 111 of Rules of court which
Held: the court held that Lily Tan is jointly and
should be suspended after the institution of the
severally liable with his driver under art. 2180 of
criminal action, is that arising from delict, and
the Civil Code. However, she can demand
not the civil action based on quasi-delict or
reimbursement from the driver whatever
culpa aquiliana under article 2176 of civil code,
payment she just paid to the plaintiff.
truck driver Salvador Mendoza is primarily
liable for his own negligence in recklessly
driving the truck. Under article 2180, Employer
Sy Bon Ping is also liable for the legal Viluan vs CA
presumption of his negligence in the selection Facts :
and supervision of his employee and his liability
is primary and solidary. Although, employer is On February 16, 1958, the passenger bus owned
solidary liable, he can demand reimbursement by petitioner driven by Herminigildo Aquino hit
from his employee (driver) whatever amount he a post and crashed a tree causing it to raze fire. it
will pay to the offended party for damages appears that when the bus near the gate of
claimed by the latter. Gabaldon building, Another bus driven by
Gregorio Hufana and owner Patricio Hufana,
tried to overtake the bus, but instead of giving
Malipol vs. Tan way, it increased its speed and as a result ,it
bumped a tree and then burst into flame, causing
Facts : 7 persons dead. Upon trial, the lower court
found out that the accident was due to the
On February 6, 1965 at 8 in the evening,
concurrent negligence of the drivers of the two
Pantalleon Malijan was hit by a gasoline tanker
buses and held both to be jointly and severally
driven by Ernesto Labsan. Due to internal
liable for damages, together with their respective
hemorrage suffred by Malijan, he instantly died.
employers. Both petitioner and their respective
The mother of Malijan brought action against
drivers appealed to the CA. Affirming the
Lily Lim Tan, owner operator of said gasoline
decision of the lower court but modified the
truck. However, despite demands for payment of
assessment of liabilities of the parties holding
damages, owner operator refused to pay. They
that only Viluan should be made liable with the
were served with summons but failed to file its
plaintiff since Hufana the other defendant was
answer hence, the court set them in default and
not impleaded as the principal in the cause of
rendered decision in favor of the plaintiff,
action. Aggrieved Viluan filed an appeal with
ordering Lily Tan to pay Malijan. On September
the SC contending that the proximate cause of
21, 1966, appellants filed motion for new trial
the accident was the concureent negligence of
alleging that they were not given sufficient time
the two bus drivers therefore bus company
to defend themselves since the lawyer handling
should be equally liable with him in paying
their case committed suicide and there was lack
damage suits to the victim.
of time to answer when the records of the case
were transferred to their new lawyer who will Issue: Whether or not Hufana should be equally
handle the case. Lily Tan also contends that she liable with Viluan in payment of damages to the
should not be held solidary liable for the acts of victims.
her driver that her liability must only be
Mr. Lihim
Torts
Held : Yes, the Court held, Although they are
not sued as principal defendants but a third party
defendants, it should not preclude themselves by
paying their liabilities since the proximate cause
was the negligent of the bus drivers. Although
the liability of petitioner Viluan arose from
contract, then respondents arose contract from
quasi-delict, the court citing the case of
Gutierrez vs Gutierrez, that in case of injury
to a passenger due to negligence of the driver
of the bus which he was riding and of the
On December 28, 2016, while
respondent Juliegene Cleofas
was off duty, she visited one of
her close friend Ms. April
Poquiz at the latters residence.
She revealed her a confidential
matter about Dr. Montecino the
herein complainant. On that
same evening, Ms. April
Poquiz called the respondent,
who again repeated the
confidential information that
was revealed earlier to Ms.
Poquiz, upon the latter request.
The respondent is unaware that
while she was talking to Ms.
Poquiz thru telephone
conversation, Dr. Montecino
was listening at that time,
which caused the latter to file
an administrative charges
against respondent in violation
of the revised rules on
administrative investigations in
civil service under Rule 10,
Sec. 46 A-3 as alleged by Dr.
Montecino that such
driver or another vehicle, the drivers as well
as the owners of the two vehicles are jointly
and severally liable for damages.
Case Summary
Juliegene Cleofas vs Dr. Marlon
Montecino
information being relayed to
Ms. Poquiz caused him to
besmirched his reputation as a
doctor and such allegation has
no basis at all without even
proof that he engages in such
kind of activity. Respondents,
however, claimed that she had
no intention to destroy the
reputation of Dr. Montecino as
she had never created any
rumour within and outside
workplace where they work in
the same hospital at Dr. Jose
Fabella Memorial Hospital. The
respondent further claimed that
she had never been subjected to
any administrative complaint
with similar nature. The
respondents already submitted
her evidence both documentary
and testimonial to prove her
innocence. The main issue for
resolution of this case is
whether or not respondent
committed Grave Misconduct,
Disgraceful and Immoral
Mr. Lihim
Torts
Conduct, obtaining or using
any statement filed under the
code of conduct and Ethical
Standards and for violation of
existing Civil Service Law and
Rules of Serious Nature. The
respondent is willing to settle
the dispute amicably, under
such terms and conditions that
are fair and reasonable to both
parties.