case digests batch 4 - digests on kinds of negligence

8/13/2019 Case Digests Batch 4 - Digests on Kinds of Negligence

1/30

Ramos vs Pepsi-Cola

Facts

1. On June 30, 1958 Placido and Augusto Ramos sued Pepsi-Cola Bottling

Co. o t!e P.".and And#es Boni acio in t!e Cou#t o $i#st "nstance o %anilaas a conse&uence o a collision, on %a' 10, 1958, in(ol(ing t!e ca# o

Placido Ramos and a t#acto#-t#uc) and t#aile# o P*P*+"-CO A.

. +aid ca# as at t!e time o t!e collision d#i(en /' Augusto Ramos, son

and co-plainti o Placido. P*P+"-CO A s t#acto#-t#uc) as t!en d#i(en /'

its d#i(e# and co-de endant And#es Boni acio.

3. A te# t#ial t!e Cou#t o $i#st "nstance #ende#ed udgment on Ap#il 15,

1921, inding Boni acio negligent and decla#ing t!at P*P+"-CO A !ad not

su icientl' p#o(ed its !a(ing e e#cised t!e due diligence o a good at!e#

o a amil' to p#e(ent t!e damage. P*P+"-CO A and Boni acio, solida#il',

e#e o#de#ed to pa' t!e plainti sP ,238.50 actual damages4 P ,000.00

mo#al damages4 P ,000.00 as e empla#' damages4 and,

P1,000.00atto#ne' s ees, it! costs.

Issue

1. O6 Pepsi Cola !ad e e#cised due diligence in t!e selection o its d#i(e#s.

Ruling

1. Pepsi Cola !ad e e#cised due diligence in t!e selection o its d#i(e#s.

7!e uncont#adicted testimon' o Juan 7. Anasco, pe#sonnel manage# o

de endant compan', as to t!e e ect t!at de endant d#i(e# as i#st !i#ed as

a mem/e# o t!e /ottle c#op in t!e p#oduction depa#tment4 t!at !en !e as

!i#ed as a d#i(e#, e !ad si ed !im /' loo)ing into !is /ac)g#ound, as)ing

!im to su/mit clea#ances, p#e(ious e pe#ience, p!'sical e amination and

late# on, !e as sent to t!e pool !ouse to ta)e t!e usual d#i(e# s

e amination, consisting o $i#st, t!eo#etical e amination and second, t!e

p#actical d#i(ing e amination, all o !ic! !e !ad unde#gone, and t!at t!e

de endant compan' as a mem/e# o t!e +a et' Council.


2/30

"n (ie !e#eo , e a#e o t!e sense t!at de endant compan' !ad e e#cised

t!e diligence o a good at!e# o a amil' in t!e c!oice o# selection o

de endant d#i(e#. "n t!e case o Campo (s. Cama#ote, :R 6o. -91;< =1952>,

53 O.:.


3/30

)inluan vs C$

Facts

1. 7!e /us o ned /' $#ancisca @iluan, and d#i(en /' e#menigildo A&uino

#aced it! t!e o(e#ta)ing /us d#i(en /' :#ego#io u ana and o ned /'Pat#icio u ana.

. A&uino lost cont#ol o t!e /us, !itting a post and c#as!ing into a t#ee,

a te# !ic! it /u#st into lames !e#ein se(en pe#sons e#e )illed and

t!i#teen ot!e#s e#e in u#ed.

3. "n t!e complaint o# /#eac! o cont#act o ca##iage and damages iled /'

t!e !ei#s o t!ose !o pe#is!ed in t!e incident and Ca#olina +a/ado, an

in u#ed passenge#, @ilaun and A&uino iled t!i#d pa#t' complaints against

:#ego#io u ana and !is emplo'e#, Pat#icio u ana, contending t!at t!e

incident as t!ei# ault.

;. 7!e lo e# cou#t ound t!at t!e accident as due to t!e concu##ent

negligence o t!e d#i(e#s o t!e t o /uses and !eld /ot! t!e t o d#i(e#s

and t!ei# emplo'e#s ointl' and se(e#all' lia/le o# damages.

5. 7!e Cou#t o Appeals a i#med t!e inding o concu##ent negligence on t!e

pa#t o t!e t o /uses /ut !eld t!at onl' @ilaun is lia/le /ecause A&uino,

as d#i(e#, cannot /e made ointl' and se(e#all' lia/le in a cont#act o

ca##iage. "t #uled t!at t!e u ana cannot /e made lia/le since t!e

plainti s did not amend t!ei# complaints in t!e main action so as to

asse#t a claim against t!em.

Issue

1. !et!e# Pat#icio and :#ego#io u ana s!ould /e made e&uall' lia/le

alt!oug! t!e' e#e t!i#d-pa#t' de endants and not p#incipal de endants

Ruling

1. 7!e act t!at t!e #espondents e#e not sued as p#incipal de endants /ut

e#e /#oug!t into t!e cases as t!i#d pa#t' de endants s!ould not

p#eclude a inding o t!ei# lia/ilit'.

. +ection 5 Rule 1 o t!e Rules o Cou#t, p#ecluding a udgment in a(o# o

a plainti and against a t!i#d pa#t' de endant !e#e t!e plainti !as not


4/30

amended !is complaint to asse#t a claim against a t!i#d pa#t' de endant,

applies onl' to cases !e#e t!e t!i#d pa#t' de endant is /#oug!t in on an

allegation o lia/ilit' to t!e de endants. "t does not appl' !e#e a t!i#d

pa#t' de endant is impleaded on t!e g#ound o di#ect lia/ilit' to t!e

plainti s, in !ic! case no amendment o t!e plainti s complaint isnecessa#'.

3. "n t!is case t!e t!i#d-pa#t' complaints iled /' @iluan and A&uino c!a#ged

:#ego#io and Pat#icio u ana it! di#ect lia/ilit' to t!e plainti s.

Amendment o t!e complaint is not necessa#' and is me#el' a matte# o

o#m since t!e lia/ilit' o t!e u ana s as t!i#d-pa#t' de endant as

al#ead' asse#ted in t!e t!i#d-pa#t' complaint.

;. Rega#dless !et!e# t!e in u#' is &uasi-delict o# /#eac! o cont#act o

ca##iage, in case o in u#' to a passenge# due to t!e negligence o t!e

d#i(e# o t!e /us on !ic! !e as #iding and o t!e d#i(e# o anot!e#

(e!icle, t!e d#i(e#s as ell as t!e o ne#s o t!e t o (e!icles a#e ointl'

and se(e#all' lia/le o# damages.


5/30

*aliwang +ransit vs C$

Facts

1. On 31 Jul' 1980, eticia :a#cia, and !e# 5-'ea# old son, Allan :a#cia,

/oa#ded Bali ag 7#ansit Bus 032 /ound o# Ca/anatuan Cit' d#i(en /' Jaime +antiago. 7!e' too) t!e seat /e!ind t!e d#i(e#.

. At a/out < 30 p.m., in %alim/a, :apan, 6ue(a *ci a, t!e /us passenge#s

sa a ca#go t#uc), o ned /' A J 7#ading, pa#)ed at t!e s!oulde# o t!e

national !ig! a'. "ts le t #ea# po#tion utted to t!e oute# lane, as t!e

s!oulde# o t!e #oad as too na##o to accommodate t!e !ole t#uc). A

)e#osene lamp appea#ed at t!e edge o t!e #oad o/(iousl' to se#(e as a

a#ning de(ice. 7!e t#uc) d#i(e#, and !is !elpe# e#e t!en #eplacing a lat

ti#e.

3. Bus d#i(e# +antiago as d#i(ing at an ino#dinatel' ast speed and ailed to

notice t!e t#uc) and t!e )e#osene lamp at t!e edge o t!e #oad.

+antiago s passenge#s u#ged !im to slo do n /ut !e paid t!em no !eed.

+antiago e(en ca##ied animated con(e#sations it! !is co-emplo'ees

!ile d#i(ing. !en t!e dange# o collision /ecame imminent, t!e /us

passenge#s s!outed DBa/angga ta'oEF. +antiago stepped on t!e /#a)e,

/ut it as too late. is /us #ammed into t!e stalled ca#go t#uc) )illing !im

instantl' and t!e t#uc) s !elpe#, and in u#' to se(e#al ot!e#s among t!em

!e#ein #espondents.

;. 7!us, a suit as iled against Bali ag 7#ansit, "nc., A J 7#ading and Julio

Reconti&ue o# damages in t!e R7C o Bulacan. A te# t#ial, it ound

Bali ag 7#ansit, "nc. lia/le o# !a(ing ailed to deli(e# :a#cia and !e# son

to t!ei# point o destination sa el' in (iolation o :a#cia s and Bali ag

7#ansit s cont#actual #elation4 and li)e ise ound A J and its t#uc) d#i(e#

lia/le o# ailu#e to p#o(ide its ca#go t#uc) it! an ea#l' a#ning de(ice in

(iolation o t!e %oto# @e!icle a . All e#e o#de#ed to pa' solida#il' t!e

:a#cia spouses.

5. On appeal, t!e CA modi ied t!e t#ial cou#t s Gecision /' a/sol(ing A J

7#ading #om lia/ilit'.

Issue


6/30

1. !et!e# o# not Bali ag s!ould /e !eld solel' lia/le o# t!e in u#ies.

Ruling

1. Hes.

As a common ca##ie#, Bali ag /#eac!ed its cont#act o ca##iage !en it ailed

to deli(e# its passenge#s, eticia and Allan :a#cia to t!ei# destination sa e

and sound. A common carrier is bound to carry its passengers safely

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

diligence of a very cautious person, with due regard for all the

circumstances. In a contract of carriage, it is presumed that the

common carrier was at fault or was negligent when a passenger dies

or is injured. Unless the presumption is rebutted, the court need not

even make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of

the common carrier. This statutory presumption may only be

overcome by evidence that the carrier exercised extraordinary

diligence as prescribed in Articles !"" and !## of the $ivil $ode.

Article !#% of the $ivil $ode provides that &$ommon carriers are

liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the

negligence or willful acts of the former's employees, although such

employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in

violation of the orders of the common carriers. This liability of the

common carriers do not cease upon proof that they exercised all the

diligence of a good father of a family in the selection or supervision

of their employees.(

+ection 3; =g> o t!e and 7#anspo#tation and 7#a ic Code p#o(ides D ig!ts

and #e lecto# !en pa#)ed o# disa/led. I App#op#iate pa#)ing lig!ts o# la#es

(isi/le one !und#ed mete#s a a' s!all /e displa'ed at t!e co#ne# o t!e


7/30

(e!icle !ene(e# suc! (e!icle is pa#)ed on !ig! a's o# in places t!at a#e not

ell-lig!ted o#, is placed in suc! manne# as to endange# passing t#a ic.

$u#t!e#mo#e, e(e#' moto# (e!icle s!all /e p#o(ided at all times it! /uilt-in

#e lecto#s o# ot!e# simila# a#ning de(ices eit!e# pasted, painted o# attac!ed

at its #ont and /ac) !ic! s!all li)e ise /e (isi/le at nig!t at least one!und#ed mete#s a a'. 6o (e!icle not p#o(ided it! an' o t!e #e&ui#ements

mentioned in t!is su/section s!all /e #egiste#ed. F

o e(e#, t!e e(idence s!o s t!at Reconti&ue and *cala placed a

)e#osene lamp o# to#c! at t!e edge o t!e #oad, nea# t!e #ea# po#tion o t!e

t#uc) to se#(e as an ea#l' a#ning de(ice. 7!is su/stantiall' complies it!

+ection 3; =g> o t!e and 7#anspo#tation and 7#a ic Code. 7!e la clea#l'

allo s t!e use not onl' o an ea#l' a#ning de(ice o t!e t#iangula#

#e lecto#i ed plates (a#iet' /ut also pa#)ing lig!ts o# la#es (isi/le 100 mete#s

a a'. "ndeed, Col. dela C#u !imsel admitted t!at a )e#osene lamp is an

accepta/le su/stitute o# t!e #e lecto#i ed plates. 6o negligence, t!e#e o#e,

ma' /e imputed to A J 7#ading and its d#i(e#, Reconti&ue.

7!e +up#eme Cou#t a i#med t!e Gecision o t!e Cou#t o Appeals =CA-:R C@-

31 ;2> it! t!e modi ication #educing t!e actual damages o# !ospitali ation

and medical ees to P5,01


8/30

etro anila +ransit Corp" vs C$

Facts

1. 6enita Custodio as a pa'ing passenge# o a pu/lic utilit' eepne', t!en

d#i(en /' Cale/ag and o ned /' ama'o, !en it collided it! a /us

d#i(en /' eona#do and o ned /' t!e %et#o %anila 7#ansit Co#p=%%7C>.. 7!e collision !appened a te# ailu#e o /ot! (e!icles to slo do n o# /lo

t!ei# !o#ns !en t!e' e#e simultaneousl' app#oac!ing t!e same

inte#section in 7aguig.

3. As a #esult o t!e collision, Custodio su e#ed p!'sical in u#ies. Assisted /'

!e# pa#ents, since s!e as still a mino#, s!e iled a complaint o# damages

against t!e d#i(e#s o t!e automo/iles and t!ei# #especti(e emplo'e#s.

;. At t!e t#ial cou#t, %%7C p#esented its t#aining o ice# and its t#anspo#t

supe#(iso# !o #especti(el' testi ied t!at

a> it as not onl' ca#e ul and diligent in c!oosing and sc#eening

applicants o# o/ openings

/> /ut as also st#ict and diligent in supe#(ising its emplo'ees

i. /' seeing to it t!at its emplo'ees e#e in p#ope# uni o#ms

ii. /#ie ed in t#a ic #ules and #egulations /e o#e t!e sta#t o dut'

iii. t!at it c!ec)ed its emplo'ees to dete#mine O6 t!e' e#e

positi(e o# alco!ol and

i(. t!at t!e' ollo ed ot!e# #ules and #egulations o t!e Bu#eau o

and 7#anspo#tation and o t!e compan'.

5. 7C ound /ot! d#i(e#s concu##entl' negligent. As oint to#t easo#s, /ot!

d#i(e#s, as ell as ama'o=o ne# o t!e eepne'> e#e !eld solida#il'

lia/le o# damages sustained /' Custodio. %%7C as a/sol(ed on t!e

g#ound t!at it e e#cised diligence o a good at!e# o a amil' in selecting

and supe#(ising its emplo'ees.

2. CA modi ied 7C s decision /' !olding %%7C solida#il' lia/le it! t!e ot!e#

de endants on t!e g#ound t!at t!e testimonies o t!e t#aining o ice# and

t#anspo#t supe#(iso# e#e not enoug! to o(e#come t!e p#esumption o

negligence4 t!e' e#e not a/le to p#esent an' e(idence t!at its d#i(e# !as

complied it! all t!e clea#ances and t#ainings, and e(idence as to t!e

alleged #itten guidelines o t!e compan'.


9/30

Issue

1. O6 %%7C e e#cised due diligence

. O6 %%7C s!ould /e !eld solida#il' lia/le it! t!e ot!e# de endants

Ruling1. 6o

. Conclusion o CA is mo#e i#ml' g#ounded on u#isp#udence and ampl'

suppo#ted /' e(idence o #eco#d t!an t!at o 7C.

3. "t is p#ocedu#all' #e&ui#ed o# eac! pa#t' in case to p#o(e !is o n

a i#mati(e asse#tion /' t!e deg#ee o e(idence #e&ui#ed /' la . +uc!

pa#t' must p#esent all a(aila/le e(idence at !is disposal in t!e manne#

t!at ma' /e necessa#' to /utt#ess !is claim.

;. "n t!e instant case, inasmuc! as t!e itnesses =t#aining supe#(iso# and

t#anspo#t supe#(iso#> d elt on me#e gene#alities, t!e' cannot /e

conside#ed as su icientl' pe#suasi(e p#oo t!at %%7C o/se#(ed due

diligence in t!e selection and supe#(ision o emplo'ees.

5. %%7C s!ould !a(e p#esented ot!e# e(idence, o/ ect o# documenta#', to

/utt#ess an appa#entl' /iased testimon'. Gecla#ations a#e not enoug!.

2. ence, %%7C ell s!o#t o t!e #e&ui#ed e(identia#' &uantum as ould

con(incingl' and undou/tedl' p#o(e its diligence


10/30

Calalas vs C$

Facts

1. At 10 o cloc) in t!e mo#ning o August 3, 1989, +unga, t!en a college

#es!man, too) a passenge# eepne' o ned and ope#ated /' Calalas. Ast!e eepne' as illed to capacit' o a/out ; passenge#s, +unga as

gi(en /' t!e conducto# an ?e tension seat,? a ooden stool at t!e /ac) o

t!e doo# at t!e #ea# end o t!e (e!icle. On t!e a' to Po/lacion +i/ulan,

6eg#os Occidental, t!e eepne' stopped to let a passenge# o . As s!e

as seated at t!e #ea# o t!e (e!icle, +unga ga(e a' to t!e outgoing

passenge#.

. Just as s!e as doing so, an "su u t#uc) d#i(en /' @e#ena and o ned /'

+al(a /umped t!e le t #ea# po#tion o t!e eepne', in u#ing +unga

necessitating !e# con inement and to am/ulate in c#utc!es o# 3 mont!s

3. +unga iled a complaint o# damages against Calalas, alleging (iolation o

t!e cont#act o ca##iage, to !ic! Calalas in tu#n iled a t!i#d-pa#t'

complaint against +al(a, t!e o ne# o t!e "su u t#uc)

;. 7!e lo e# cou#t #ende#ed udgment against +al(a as t!i#d-pa#t'

de endant and a/sol(ed Calalas o lia/ilit', !olding t!at it as t!e d#i(e#

o t!e "su u t#uc) !o as #esponsi/le o# t!e accident, ta)ing

cogni ance o anot!e# case =Ci(il Case 6o. 3;90>, iled /' Calalas against

+al(a and @e#ena, o# &uasi-delict, in !ic! B#anc! 3< o t!e same cou#t

!eld +al(a and !is d#i(e# @e#ena ointl' lia/le to Calalas o# t!e damage

to !is eepne'

5. On appeal, t!e CA #e(e#sed on t!e g#ound t!at +unga s cause o action

as /ased on a cont#act o ca##iage, not &uasi-delict, and t!at t!e

common ca##ie# ailed to e e#cise t!e diligence #e&ui#ed unde# t!e Ci(il

Code, and dismissed t!e t!i#d-pa#t' complaint against +al(a and

ad udged Calalas lia/le o# damages to +unga

Issue

1. !et!e# t!e decision in t!e case o# &uasi delict /et een Calalas on one

!and and +al(a and @e#ena on t!e ot!e# !and, is #es udicata to t!e issue

in t!is case


11/30

. !et!e# Calalas e e#cised t!e e t#ao#dina#' diligence #e&ui#ed in t!e

cont#act o ca##iage

3. !et!e# mo#al damages s!ould /e a a#ded

Ruling

1. 7!e a#gument t!at +unga is /ound /' t!e #uling in Ci(il Case 6o. 3;90

inding t!e d#i(e# and t!e o ne# o t!e t#uc) lia/le o# &uasi-delict igno#es

t!e act t!at s!e as ne(e# a pa#t' to t!at case and, t!e#e o#e, t!e

p#inciple o #es udicata does not appl'. 6o# a#e t!e issues in Ci(il Case

6o. 3;90 and in t!e p#esent case t!e same. 7!e issue in Ci(il Case 6o.

3;90 as !et!e# +al(a and !is d#i(e# @e#ena e#e lia/le o# &uasi-delict

o# t!e damage caused to petitione# s eepne'. On t!e ot!e# !and, t!e

issue in t!is case is !et!e# petitione# is lia/le on !is cont#act o ca##iage.

7!e i#st, &uasi-delict, also )no n as culpa a&uiliana o# culpa e t#a

cont#actual, !as as its sou#ce t!e negligence o t!e to#t easo#. 7!e

second, /#eac! o cont#act o# culpa cont#actual, is p#emised upon t!e

negligence in t!e pe# o#mance o a cont#actual o/ligation. Conse&uentl',

in &uasi-delict, t!e negligence o# ault s!ould /e clea#l' esta/lis!ed

/ecause it is t!e /asis o t!e action, !e#eas in /#eac! o cont#act, t!e

action can /e p#osecuted me#el' /' p#o(ing t!e e istence o t!e cont#act

and t!e act t!at t!e o/ligo#, in t!is case t!e common ca##ie#, ailed to

t#anspo#t !is passenge# sa el' to !is destination. "n case o deat! o#

in u#ies to passenge#s, A#t. 1


12/30

to a person where there is no relation between him and another

party. "n suc! a case, t!e o/ligation is c#eated /' la itsel . But, !e#e

t!e#e is a p#e-e isting cont#actual #elation /et een t!e pa#ties, it is t!e

pa#ties t!emsel(es !o c#eate t!e o/ligation, and t!e unction o t!e la

is me#el' to #egulate t!e #elation t!us c#eated.

. e do not t!in) so. $i#st, t!e eepne' as not p#ope#l' pa#)ed, its #ea#

po#tion /eing e posed a/out t o mete#s #om t!e /#oad s!oulde#s o t!e

!ig! a', and acing t!e middle o t!e !ig! a' in a diagonal angle.

+econd, it is undisputed t!at petitione# s d#i(e# too) in mo#e passenge#s

t!an t!e allo ed seating capacit' o t!e eepne'. 7!e act t!at +unga as

seated in an ?e tension seat? placed !e# in a pe#il g#eate# t!an t!at to

!ic! t!e ot!e# passenge#s e#e e posed. 7!e#e o#e, not onl' as

petitione# una/le to o(e#come t!e p#esumption o negligence imposed on

!im o# t!e in u#' sustained /' +unga, /ut also, t!e e(idence s!o s !e

as actuall' negligent in t#anspo#ting passenge#s. e ind it !a#d to gi(e

se#ious t!oug!t to petitione# s contention t!at +unga s ta)ing an

?e tension seat? amounted to an implied assumption o #is). "t is a)in to

a#guing t!at t!e in u#ies to t!e man' (ictims o t!e t#agedies in ou# seas

s!ould not /e compensated me#el' /ecause t!ose passenge#s assumed a

g#eate# #is) o d#o ning /' /oa#ding an o(e#loaded e##'. 7!is is also t#ue

o petitione# s contention t!at t!e eepne' /eing /umped !ile it as

imp#ope#l' pa#)ed constitutes caso o#tuito. A caso o#tuito is an e(ent

!ic! could not /e o#eseen, o# !ic!, t!oug! o#eseen, as ine(ita/le.

7!is #e&ui#es t!at t!e ollo ing #e&ui#ements /e p#esent

a. t!e cause o t!e /#eac! is independent o t!e de/to# s ill4

/. t!e e(ent is un o#eseea/le o# una(oida/le4

c. t!e e(ent is suc! as to #ende# it impossi/le o# t!e de/to# to ul ill

!is o/ligation in a no#mal manne#, and

d. t!e de/to# did not ta)e pa#t in causing t!e in u#' to t!e c#edito#.

Petitione# s!ould !a(e o#eseen t!e dange# o pa#)ing !is eepne' it! its

/od' p#ot#uding t o mete#s into t!e !ig! a'.


13/30

3. As a gene#al #ule, mo#al damages a#e not #eco(e#a/le in actions o#

damages p#edicated on a /#eac! o cont#act o# it is not one o t!e items

enume#ated unde# A#t. 19 o t!e Ci(il Code. As an e ception, suc!

damages a#e #eco(e#a/le

a. in cases in !ic! t!e mis!ap #esults in t!e deat! o a passenge#, asp#o(ided in A#t. 1 o t!e Ci(il Code4

and

/. in t!e cases in !ic! t!e ca##ie# is guilt' o #aud o# /ad ait!, as

p#o(ided in A#t. 0.

"n t!is case, t!e#e is no legal /asis o# a a#ding mo#al damages since

t!e#e as no actual inding /' t!e appellate cou#t t!at petitione# acted in

/ad ait! in t!e pe# o#mance o t!e cont#act o ca##iage.


14/30

$ir France vs Carrascoso

Facts

1. Ra ael Ca##ascoso as pa#t o a g#oup o pilg#ims lea(ing o# ou#des. Ai#

$#ance, t!#oug! PA , issued to Ca##ascoso a i#st class #ound t#ip tic)et.. $#om %anila to Bang)o), !e t#a(eled in i#st class /ut at Bang)o), t!e

manage# o Ai# $#ance o#ced !im to (acate !is seat, /ecause a ? !ite

man? !ad a ?/ette# #ig!t? to it.

3. e #e used and e(en !ad a !eated discussion it! t!e manage# /ut a te#

/eing paci ied /' ello passenge#s, !e #eluctantl' ga(e up t!e seat.

;. Ai# $#ance asse#ts t!at t!e tic)et does not #ep#esent t!e t#ue and

complete intent and ag#eement o t!e pa#ties, and t!at t!e issuance o a

i#st class tic)et did not gua#antee a i#st class #ide =depends upon t!e

a(aila/ilit' o seats>. C$" and CA disposed o t!is contention.

Issue

1. O6 Ca##ascoso as entitled to t!e i#st class seat !e claims ---- H*+

. O6 Ca##ascoso is entitled to mo#al damages ----- H*+

Ruling

1. Hes to /ot!

. 7o ac!ie(e sta/ilit' in t!e #elation /et een passenge# and ai# ca##ie#,

ad!e#ence to t!e tic)et issued is desi#a/le. uoting t!e cou#t, ? e cannot

unde#stand !o a #eputa/le i#m li)e Ai# $#ance could !a(e t!e

indisc#etion to gi(e out tic)ets it ne(e# meant to !ono# at all. "t #ecei(ed

t!e co##esponding amount in pa'ment o t!e tic)ets and 'et it allo ed

t!e passenge# to /e at t!e me#c' o its emplo'ees. "t is mo#e in )eeping

it! t!e o#dina#' cou#se o /usiness t!at t!e compan' s!ould )no

!et!e# o# not t!e tic)ets it issues a#e to /e !ono#ed o# not.?

3. *(idence o /ad ait! as p#esented it!out o/ ection on t!e pa#t o t!e

Ca##ascoso. "n t!e case, it could !a(e /een eas' o# Ai# $#ance to p#esent

its manage# to testi ' at t!e t#ial o# secu#e !is deposition /ut de endant

did neit!e#. 7!e#e is also no e(idence as to !et!e# o# not a p#io#

#ese#(ation as made /' t!e !ite man.


15/30

;. 7!e manage# not onl' p#e(ented Ca##ascoso #om en o'ing !is #ig!t to a

1st class seat, o#se !e imposed !is a#/it#a#' ill. e o#ci/l' e ected !im

#om !is seat, made !im su e# t!e !umiliation o !a(ing to go to tou#ist

class ust to gi(e a' to anot!e# passenge# !ose #ig!t as not

esta/lis!ed. Ce#tainl', t!is is /ad ait!.5. Passenge#s do not cont#act me#el' o# t#anspo#tation. 7!e' !a(e a #ig!t

to /e t#eated /' t!e ca##ie# s emplo'ees it! )indness, #espect, cou#tes'

and due conside#ation. 7!e' a#e entitled to /e p#otected against pe#sonal

is conduct, in u#ious language, indignities and a/use #om suc!

emplo'ees. An' discou#teous conduct on t!e pa#t o emplo'ees to a#ds a

passenge# gi(es t!e latte# an action o# damages against t!e ca##ie#.

2. * empla#' damages e#e also a a#ded. 7!e manne# o e ectment its

into t!e condition o# e empla#' damages t!at de endant acted in a

anton, #audulent, #ec)less, opp#essi(e o# male(olent manne#.

KBad $ait! - state o mind a i#mati(el' ope#ating it! u#ti(e design o# it!

some moti(e o sel -inte#est o# ill ill o# o# ulte#io# pu#pose


16/30

*arredo vs arcia

Facts

1. On %a' 3, 1932, t!e#e as a !ead-on collision /et een a ta i o t!e

%alate ta ica/ d#i(en /' $ontanilla and a ca##etela guided /' Gimapilis. 7!e ca##etela as o(e#-tu#ned, and a passenge#, a 12-'ea# old /o',

:a#cia, su e#ed in u#ies #om !ic! !e died.

. A c#iminal action as iled against $ontanilla, and !e as con(icted. 7!e

cou#t in t!e c#iminal case g#anted t!e petition to #ese#(e t!e ci(il action.

3. :a#cia and Alma#io, pa#ents o t!e deceased, on %a#c! a#ising #om a c#ime unde# A#ticle 103 o t!e Re(ised

Penal Code o t!e P!ilippines4 o# c#eate an action o# &uasi-delicto o#


17/30

culpa a&uiliana unde# A#ticles 1

lia/ilities o Ba##edo $i#st, a su/sidia#' one /ecause o t!e ci(il lia/ilit' o

$ontanilla a#ising #om t!e latte# s c#iminal negligence unde# A#ticle 103o t!e Re(ised Penal Code, and second, Ba##edo s p#ima#' and di#ect

#esponsi/ilit' a#ising #om !is p#esumed negligence as an emplo'e# unde#

A#ticle 180 o t!e Ci(il Code.

;. +ince t!e plainti s a#e #ee to c!oose !at #emed' to ta)e, t!e'

p#e e##ed t!e second, !ic! is it!in t!ei# #ig!ts. 7!is is t!e mo#e

e pedious and e ecti(e met!od o #elie /ecause $ontanilla as eit!e# in

p#ison o# ust /een #eleased o# !ad no p#ope#t'. Ba##edo as !eld lia/le

o# damages.

5. e is p#ima#il' lia/le unde# $rticle &.(/ !ic! is a sepa#ate ci(il action

against negligent emplo'e#s. :a#cia is ell it!in !is #ig!ts in suing

Ba##edo. e #ese#(ed !is #ig!t to ile a sepa#ate ci(il action and t!is is

mo#e e peditious /ecause /' t!e time o t!e +C udgment $ontanilla is

al#ead' se#(ing !is sentence and !as no p#ope#t'. "t as also p#o(en t!at

Ba##edo is negligent in !i#ing !is emplo'ees /ecause it as s!o n t!at

$ontanilla !ad !ad multiple t#a ic in #actions al#ead' /e o#e !e !i#ed !im

L somet!ing !e ailed to o(e#come du#ing !ea#ing. ad :a#cia not

#ese#(ed !is #ig!t to ile a sepa#ate ci(il action, Ba##edo ould !a(e onl'

/een su/sidia#il' lia/le. $u#t!e#, Ba##edo is not /eing sued o# damages

a#ising #om a c#iminal act =!is d#i(e# s negligence> /ut #at!e# o# !is o n

negligence in selecting !is emplo'ee =A#ticle 1903>.


18/30

analo vs Robles +ransportation Co

Facts

1. On August 9, 19;


19/30

Issue

1. O6 A#ticles 10 and 103 o t!e Re(ised Penal Code e#e #epealed /'

t!e 6e Ci(il Code, p#omulgated in 1950, pa#ticula#l', /' t!e #epealing

clause unde# !ic! comes A#ticle


20/30

)irata vs 1choa

Facts

1. A#senio @i#ata died as a #esult o !a(ing /een /umped !ile al)ingalong 7a t A(enue /' a passenge# eepne' d#i(en /' %a imo Bo#illa and#egiste#ed in t!e name o @icto#ia Oc!oa.

. An action o# !omicide t!#oug! #ec)less imp#udence as institutedagainst %a imo Bo#illa in t!e C$" o Ri al.

3. Att'. $#ancisco, t!e p#i(ate p#osecuto#, made a #ese#(ation to ilesepa#atel' t!e ci(il action o# damages against t!e d#i(e# o# !isc#iminal lia/ilit', !ic! !e late# on it!d#e and p#esented e(idence ont!e damages.

;. 7!e ei#s o A#senio @i#ata again #ese#(ed t!ei# #ig!t to institute asepa#ate ci(il action.

5. 7!e' commenced an action o# damages /ased on &uasi-delict againstt!e d#i(e# %a imo Bo#illa and t!e #egiste#ed o ne# o t!e (e!icle,@icto#ia Oc!oa.

2. P#i(ate #espondents iled a motion to dismiss on t!e g#ound t!at t!e#e isanot!e# action pending o# t!e same cause.


21/30

3. "n t!is case, t!e petitione#s a#e not see)ing to #eco(e# t ice o# t!esame negligent act. Be o#e t!e C#iminal Case as decided, t!e'mani ested in t!e said case t!at t!e' e#e iling a sepa#ate ci(il action

o# damages against t!e o ne# and d#i(e# o t!e passenge# eepne'/ased on &uasi-delict.

;. Ac&uittal #om an accusation o c#iminal negligence, !et!e# on#easona/le dou/t o# not, s!all not /e a /a# to a su/se&uent ci(il action,not o# ci(il lia/ilit' a#ising #om c#iminal negligence, /ut o# damagesdue to a &uasi-delict o# culpa a&uiliana .

5. 7!e sou#ce o damages soug!t to /e en o#ced in t!e Ci(il Case is &uasi-delict, not an act o# omission punis!a/le /' la . Nnde# A#t. 115< o t!eCi(il Code, &uasi-delict and an act o# omission punis!a/le /' la a#et o di e#ent sou#ces o o/ligation.

2. %o#eo(e#, o# petitione#s to p#e(ail in t!e Ci(il Case, t!e' !a(e onl' to

esta/lis! t!ei# cause o action /' p#eponde#ance o e(idence.Philippine Rabbit *us 2ines vs I$C

Facts

1. At 11am on Gecem/e# ;, 1922, Catalina Pascua, Ca#idad Pascua,Adelaida *stomo, *#linda %e#iales, %e#cedes o#en o, Ale and#o %o#alesand enaida Pa#e as /oa#ded t!e eepne' o ned /' spouses "sid#o%angune and :uille#ma Ca##eon and d#i(en /' 7#an&uilino %analo atGau, %a/alacat,Pampanga /ound o# Ca#men, Rosales, Pangasinan tospend C!#istmas it! t!ei# amilies o# P ;.00.

. Npon #eac!ing /a##io +ina'oan, +an %anuel, 7a#lac, t!e #ig!t #ea# !eelo t!e eepne' detac!ed causing it to #un in an un/alanced position.G#i(e# %analo stepped on t!e /#a)e, causing t!e eepne' to ma)e a N-tu#n, in(ading and e(entuall' stopping on t!e opposite lane o t!e #oad=t!e eepne' s #ont aced t!e sout! = #om !e#e it came> and its #ea#

aced t!e no#t! =to a#ds !e#e it as going>>.

3. 7!e eepne' occupied and /loc)ed t!e g#eate# po#tion o t!e este#nlane, !ic! is t!e #ig!t o a' o (e!icles coming #om t!e no#t!.

;. Petitione# P!il. Ra//it Bus ines claims t!at almost immediatel' a te# t!esudden N-tu#n t!e /us /umped t!e #ig!t #ea# po#tion o t!e eep.Ge endants, on t!e ot!e# !and, claim t!at t!e /us stopped a e minutes/e o#e !itting t!e eepne'.

5. *it!e# a', as a #esult o t!e collision, t!#ee passenge#s o t!e eepne'=Catalina Pascua, *#linda %e#iales and Adelaida *stomo> died !ile t!eot!e# eepne' passenge#s sustained p!'sical in u#ies.

2. A c#iminal complaint as iled against t!e t o d#i(e#s o# %ultipleomicide. 7!e case against delos Re'es =d#i(e# o P!il. Ra//it> as


22/30

dismissed o# insu icien' o e(idence. %analo = eepne' d#i(e#>,!o e(e#,as con(icted and sentenced to su e# imp#isonment.

,Ra//it and delos Re'es as de endants. Plainti sanc!o#ed t!ei# suits against spouses %angune and Ca##eon and %analoon t!ei# cont#actual lia/ilit'. As against Ra//it and delos Re'es, plainti s/ased t!ei# suits on t!ei# culpa/ilit' o# a &uasi-delict. $il#ite#s :ua#ant'Assu#ance Co#po#ation, "nc. as also impleaded as additional de endantin t!e i#st case onl'.

9. 7!e t#ial cou#t #uled in a(o# o t!en plainti s, inding de endantsnegligent and !a(ing /#eac!ed t!e cont#act o ca##iage it! t!ei#passenge#s and o#de#ing t!em, ointl' and se(e#all', to pa' t!e plainti sdamages.

10. 7!e "AC #e(e#sed t!e #uling o t!e t#ial cou#t, appl'ing p#ima#il'

a> t!e doct#ine o last clea# c!ance/> t!e p#esumption t!at d#i(e#s !o /ump t!e #ea# o anot!e# (e!icle

guilt' and t!e cause o t!e accident unless cont#adicted /' ot!e#e(idence

c> t!e su/stantial acto# test = !ic! concluded t!at /us d#i(e# delosRe'es, 6O7 eepne' d#i(e# %analo, as negligent>.

Issue

1. !o a#e lia/le o# t!e deat! and in u#ies o t!e passenge#M - 7#ial cou#tdecision #einstated it! modi ication. Onl' "sid#o %angune, :uille#ma

Ca##eon and $il#ite#s :ua#ant' Assu#ance Co#po#ation, "nc. a#e lia/le tot!e (ictims o# t!ei# !ei#s.

Ruling

1. 7!e p#inciple o ? the last clear# chance is applica/le in a suit /et eent!e o ne#s and d#i(e#s o t!e t o colliding (e!icles. "t does not a#ise

!e#e a passenge# demands #esponsi/ilit' #om t!e ca##ie# to en o#ce itscont#actual o/ligations.


23/30

. $o# it ould /e ine&uita/le to e empt t!e negligent d#i(e# o t!e eepne'and its o ne#s on t!e g#ound t!at t!e ot!e# d#i(e# as li)e ise guilt' onegligence.

3. 7!e "AC e##ed in appl'ing t!e p#esumption t!at t!e d#i(e# !o /umps t!e#ea# o anot!e# (e!icle is guilt' and t!e cause o t!e accident, unless

cont#adicted /' ot!e# e(idence. 7!is p#esumption is /ased on t!e#esponsi/ilit' gi(en to a #ea# (e!icle o a(oiding a collision it! t!e #ont(e!icle o# it is t!e #ea# (e!icle !o !as ull cont#ol o t!e situation as it isin a position to o/se#(e t!e (e!icle in #ont o it. +uc! p#esumption is#e/utted /' t!e e(idence t!at s!o s t!at t!e eepne', !ic! as t!ent#a(eling on t!e easte#n s!oulde#, ma)ing a st#aig!t, s)id ma#) oapp#o imatel' 35 mete#s, c#ossed t!e easte#n lane at a s!a#p angle,ma)ing a s)id ma#) o app#o imatel' 15 mete#s #om t!e easte#ns!oulde# to t!e point o impact. =Basicall', t!e N-tu#n as sudden anddelos Re'es could not !a(e #easona/l' anticipated it e(en t!oug! !e ast!e #ea# (e!icle>

;. i)e ise, t!e /us cannot /e made lia/le unde# t!e su/stantial acto# test=t!at i t!e acto# s conduct is a su/stantial acto# in /#inging a/out !a#mto anot!e#, t!e act t!at t!e acto# neit!e# o#esa no# s!ould !a(e

o#eseen t!e e tent o t!e !a#m o# t!e manne# in !ic! it occu##ed doesnot p#e(ent !im #om /eing lia/le>. Cont#a#' to t!e indings o t!eappellate cou#t, t!e /us as t#a(elling it!in t!e speed limit allo ed in!ig! a's. e also !ad onl' a e seconds to #eact to t!e situation. 7o#e&ui#e delos Re'es to a(oid t!e collision is to as) too muc! #om !im.Aside #om t!e time element in(ol(ed, t!e#e e#e no options a(aila/le to!im to !a(e a(oided t!e collision. 7!e p#o imate cause o t!e accident

as t!e negligence o eepne' d#i(e# %analo and spouses %angune andCa##eon. 7!e' all ailed to e e#cise t!e p#ecautions t!at a#e needed

p#ecisel' p#o !ac (ice..5. "n culpa cont#actual, t!e moment a passenge# dies o# is in u#ed, t!e

ca##ie# is p#esumed to !a(e /een at ault o# to !a(e acted negligentl',and t!is disputa/le p#esumption ma' onl' /e o(e#come /' e(idence t!at!e !ad o/se#(ed e t#a-o#dina#' diligence as p#esc#i/ed in A#ticles 1


24/30

a(oid t!e ca##ie#s lia/ilit'.

8. 7!e +C modi ied t!e decision !olding spouses %angune and Ca##eon ointl' and se(e#all' lia/le it! %analo. 7!e d#i(e# cannot /e !eld ointl'and se(e#all' lia/le it! t!e ca##ie# in case o /#eac! o t!e cont#act oca##iage. $i#stl', t!e cont#act o ca##iage is /et een t!e ca##ie# and t!e

passenge#, and in t!e e(ent o cont#actual lia/ilit', t!e ca##ie# ise clusi(el' #esponsi/le to t!e passenge#, e(en i suc! /#eac! /e due tot!e negligence o !is d#i(e#. "n ot!e# o#ds, t!e ca##ie# can neit!e# s!i t!is lia/ilit' on t!e cont#act to !is d#i(e# no# s!a#e it it! !im, o# !isd#i(e# s negligence is !is. +econdl', t!at ould ma)e t!e ca##ie# s lia/ilit'pe#sonal instead o me#el' (ica#ious and conse&uentl', entitled to##eco(e# onl' t!e s!a#e !ic! co##esponds to t!e d#i(e# cont#adicto#' tot!e e plicit p#o(ision o A#ticle 181 o t!e 6e Ci(il Code.

GOC7R"6*

7!e principle of #the last clear# chance is applica/le in a suit /et een t!eo ne#s and d#i(e#s o t!e t o colliding (e!icles. "t does not a#ise !e#e apassenge# demands #esponsi/ilit' #om t!e ca##ie# to en o#ce its cont#actualo/ligations. $o# it ould /e ine&uita/le to e empt t!e negligent d#i(e# and itso ne#s on t!e g#ound t!at t!e ot!e# d#i(e# as li)e ise guilt' o negligence.

"n culpa cont#actual, t!e moment a passenge# dies o# is in u#ed, t!e ca##ie# isp#esumed to !a(e /een at ault o# to !a(e acted negligentl', and t!isdisputa/le p#esumption ma' onl' /e o(e#come /' e(idence t!at !e !ado/se#(ed e t#a-o#dina#' diligence as p#esc#i/ed in A#ticles 1


25/30

acalinao vs 1ng

Facts

1. %acalinao and Ong e#e emplo'ed as utilit' man and d#i(e#,#especti(el', at t!e :enet#on "nte#national %a#)eting =:enet#on>, a

single p#op#ieto#s!ip o ned and ope#ated /' +e/astian. On Ap#il 5,199 , +e/astian inst#ucted %a(alinao, Ong and t o t#uc) !elpe#s todeli(e# a !ea(' piece o mac!ine#' L a #eacto#Qmoto# o# mi ingc!emicals, to +e/astian s manu actu#ing plant in Angat, Bulacan.

. !ile in t!e p#ocess o compl'ing it! t!e o#de#, t!e (e!icle d#i(en /'Ong, :enet#on s "su u *l 7#uc) it! plate noo. P%P-102 !it and/umped t!e #ont po#tion o p#i(ate eepne' along Ca'pom/o,+ta.%a#ia, Bulacan at a#ound 11 0 in t!e mo#ning.

3. Bot! (e!icles incu##ed se(e#e damages !ile t!e passenge#s sustainedp!'sical in u#ies as a conse&uence o t!e collision. %acalinao incu##edt!e most se#ious in u#ies among t!e passenge#s o t!e t#uc).

;. e as initiall' /#oug!t to t!e +ta. %a#ia Gist#ict ospital o# i#st aidt#eatment /ut in (ie o t!e se(e#it' o !is condition, !e ast#ans e##ed to t!e P!ilippine O#t!opedic Cente# at t!e instance o+e/astian.

5. e as again mo(ed to Capitol %edical Cente# /' !is pa#ents, o#medical #easons t!en to P: o# inancial conside#ation.

2. %acalinao s /od' as pa#al' ed and immo/ili ed #om t!e nec) do nas a #esult o t!e accident and pe# docto# s ad(ice, !is oot asamputated. e also su e#ed #om /ed so#es and in ection.


26/30

against Ong

Ruling

1. 7!e e(idence on #eco#d coupled it! t!e doctrine of res ipsalo!uitur su icientl' esta/lis!es Ongs negligence.

. Application o Goct#ine o Res "psa o&uitu#

a. 7!e p!otog#ap!s o t!e accident dese#(e su/stantial cogitation

/. P!'sical e(idence is a mute /ut an elo&uent mani estation ot#ut! !ic! #an)s !ig! in ou# !ie#a#c!' o t#ust o#t!' e(idence.

c. "n t!is case, !ile t!e#e is dea#t! o testimonial e(idence toenlig!ten us a/out !at actuall' !appened, p!otog#ap!sdepicting t!e #elati(e positions o t!e (e!icles immediatel'

a te# t!e accident too) place do e ist. "t is ell esta/lis!ed t!atp!otog#ap!s, !en dul' (e#i ied and s!o n /' e t#insice(idence to /e ait! ul #ep#esentations o t!e su/ ect as o t!etime in &uestion, a#e in t!e disc#etion o t!e t#ial cou#t,admissi/le in e(idence as aids in a##i(ing at an unde#standingo t!e e(idence, t!e situation o# condition o o/ ects o#p#emises o# t!e ci#cumstances o an accident.

d. Anot!e# piece o e(idence !ic! suppo#ts a inding onegligence against Ong is t!e police #epo#t o t!e incident. 7!e#epo#t states t!at t!e "su u t#uc) as t!e one !ic! !it t!e le tpo#tion o t!e p#i(ate eepne'. "t must still /e #emem/e#ed t!at

alt!oug! police /lotte#s a#e o little p#o/ati(e (alue, t!e' a#ene(e#t!eless admitted and conside#ed in t!e a/sence ocompetent e(idence to #e ute t!e acts stated t!e#ein. *nt#iesin police #eco#ds made /' a police o ice# in t!e pe# o#mance ot!e dut' especiall' en oined /' la a#e p#ima acie e(idence ot!e act t!e#ein stated, and t!ei# p#o/ati(e (alue ma' /e eit!e#su/stantiated o# nulli ied /' ot!e# competent e(idence.

e. !ile not constituting di#ect p#oo o Ong s negligence, t!eo#egoing pieces o e(idence usti ' t!e application o #es ipsa

lo&uitu#, a atin p!#ase !ic! lite#all' means Dt!e t!ing o#t#ansaction spea)s o# itsel .F

3. 3octrine of Res Ipsa 2o!uitur recogni+es that parties mayestablish prima facie negligence without direct proof, thus, itallows the principle to substitute for specific proof ofnegligence. It permits the plaintiff to present along with proofof the accident, enough of the attending circumstances toinvoke the doctrine, create an inference or presumption ofnegligence and thereby place on the defendant the burden of

proving that there was no negligence on his part.


27/30

;. +he doctrine can be invo4ed only when under thecircumstances, direct evidence is absent and not readilyavailable" 7!is is /ased in pa#t upon t!e t!eo#' t!at t!e de endant inc!a#ge o t!e inst#umentalit' !ic! causes t!e in u#' eit!e# )no s t!ecause o t!e accident o# !as t!e /est oppo#tunit' o asce#taining it

!ile t!e plainti !as no )no ledge, and is t!e#e o#e compelled toallege negligence in gene#al te#ms and #el' upon t!e p#oo o t!e!appening o t!e accident in o#de# to esta/lis! negligence.

5. Re!uisites of application of res ipsa lo!uitur

a. 7!e accident is o a )ind !ic! o#dina#il' does not occu# in t!ea/sence o someone s negligence4

/. "t is caused /' an inst#umentalit' it!in t!e e clusi(e cont#ol ot!e de endant o# de endants4

c. 7!e possi/ilit' o cont#i/uting conduct !ic! ould ma)e t!eplainti #esponsi/le is eliminated

2. 7!e cou#t !eld t!at all t!e a/o(e #e&uisites a#e p#esent in t!e case at/a#. "n t!is case, %acalinao could no longe# testi ' as to t!e cause ot!e accident since !e is dead. Petitione#s, !ile su/stituting t!ei# sonas plainti , !a(e no actual )no ledge a/out t!e e(ent since t!e' e#enot p#esent at t!e c#ucial moment.


28/30

5antos vs Pi6ardo

Facts

1. Gionisio %. +i/a'an as c!a#ged it! #ec)less imp#udence #esulting tomultiple !omicide and multiple p!'sical in u#ies due to t!e (e!icle

collision /et een @i#on 7#ansit /us d#i(en /' +i/a'an and a ite @anAce. %7C penali ed +i/a'an it! imp#isonment o# t o = > 'ea#s, ou#=;> mont!s and one =1> da' to ou# =;> 'ea#s and t o = > mont!s.

. o e(e# t!e municipal ci#cuit t#ial cou#t made no p#onouncement as tot!e ci(il lia/ilit'. 7!e petitione#s iled a complaint o# damages to t!e#espondents pu#suant to t!ei# #ese#(ation to ile a sepa#ate ci(il actionciting +i/a'an s udgment con(iction. @i#on mo(ed to dismiss t!e casealleging t!at t!e g#ounds o# t!e cause o action !ad al#ead'p#esc#i/ed =&uasi-delict p#esc#i/es in ; 'ea#s #om acc#ual o cause oaction>.

3. 7!e petitione#s opposed t!e motion to dismiss contending t!at t!e#ig!t to ile a sepa#ate action in t!is case p#esc#i/es in ten =10> 'ea#s#ec)oned #om t!e inalit' o t!e udgment in t!e c#iminal action. Ast!e#e as no appeal o t!e decision con(icting +i/a'an, t!e complaint

!ic! as iled /a#el' t o = > 'ea#s t!ence as clea#l' iled it!in t!ep#esc#ipti(e pe#iod.

;. 7C dismissed case t!e case. Again t!e petitione#s iled a#econside#ation t!at t!e complaint is not /ased on &uasi- delict /ut ont!e inal udgment o con(iction in t!e c#iminal case !ic! p#esc#i/esten =10> 'ea#s upon t!e inalit' o t!e udgment. 7!e motion o##econside#ation o t!e petitione#s as denied /' t!e t#ial cou#t /asedon &uasi-delict in A#ticle 11;2 o t!e Ci(il Code t!at t!e complaint as

iled mo#e t!an ou# =;> 'ea#s a te# t!e (e!icula# acti(ities t!e#e o#e ital#ead' p#esc#i/ed.

5. On t!e petition o# ce#tio#a#i it! CA, it as dismissed t!e same e##o#in t!e c!oice o# mode o appeal. "t also denies t!e petitione#s motion

o# #econside#ation since t!e petitione#s ailed to allege t!at t!epetition as /#oug!t it!in t!e #ecogni ed e ceptions o# t!eallo ance o ce#tio#a#i in lieu o appeal.

2. Petitione#s insist t!at it s!ould /een o#ced in t!e complaint t!at a#osein e delicto and not /ased on &uasi-delict. +ince t!e action is /asedon t!e c#iminal lia/ilit' o p#i(ate #espondents, t!e cause o action

acc#ued #omt !e inalit' o t!e udgment o con(iction.


29/30

sitting A#t. 103 o Re(ised Penal Code t!e ci(il aspect o t!e case e#einstituted in t!e c#iminal case and no #ese#(ation to ile a sepa#ate ci(ilcase as made.

9. Respondents li)e ise allege t!at t!e petitione#s s!ould !a(e appealedt!e ad(e#se o#de# o t!e t#ial cou#t. Petitione#s iled a #epl' and t!e

p#i(ate #espondents also illed a #e oinde# /ot! in #eite#ation o t!ei#a#guments.

10. ence t!is petition.

Issues

1. !et!e# o# not t!e dismissal o t!e action as /ased on culpaa&uiliana is a /a# to t!e en o#cement o t!e su/sidia#' lia/ilit' o t!eemplo'e#M

Ruling

1. 6o, t!e dismissal o t!e action /ased on culpa a&uiliana is not a /a# tot!e su/sidia#' lia/ilit' o t!e emplo'e#.

1ur Revised Penal Code provides that every person criminallyliable for a felony is also civilly liable" 5uch civil liability mayconsist of restitution, reparation of the damage caused andindemnification of conse!uential damages" 7hen a criminalaction is instituted, the civil liability arising from the offense isimpliedly instituted with the criminal action, sub8ect to threenotable exceptions9

first , !en t!e in u#ed pa#t' expressly waives t!e #ig!t to#eco(e# damages #om t!e accused4

second , !en t!e o ended pa#t' reserves !is #ig!t to!a(e t!e ci(il damages dete#mined in a sepa#ate action ino#de# to ta)e ull cont#ol and di#ection o t!e p#osecution o!is cause4 and

third , !en t!e in u#ed pa#t' actuall' e e#cises t!e #ig!t tomaintain a p#i(ate suit against t!e o ende# /' institutinga civil action prior to the filing of the criminal case .

Petitione#s e p#essl' made a #ese#(ation o t!ei# #ig!t to ile asepa#ate ci(il action as a #esult o t!e c#ime committed /' +i/a'an.On account o t!is #ese#(ation, t!e municipal ci#cuit t#ial cou#t, in itsdecision con(icting +i/a'an, did not ma)e an' p#onouncement as tot!e latte# s ci(il lia/ilit'.

Besides, in cases o negligence, t!e o ended pa#t' !as t!e c!oice/et een an action to en o#ce ci(il lia/ilit' a#ising #om c#ime unde#t!e Re(ised Penal Code and an action o# quasi delict unde# t!e Ci(il


30/30

Code.

An act o# omission causing damage to anot!e# ma' gi(e #ise to t osepa#ate ci(il lia/ilities on t!e pa#t o t!e o ende#, i.e. ,

1. ci(il lia/ilit' ex delicto , unde# A#ticle 100 o t!e Re(ised PenalCode4 and

. independent ci(il lia/ilities, suc! as t!ose

a. not a#ising #om an act o# omission complained o as aelon', e.g. , culpa contractual o# o/ligations a#ising #om

la unde# A#ticle 31 o t!e Ci(il Code, intentional to#tsunde# A#ticles 3 and 3;, and culpa aquiliana unde#A#ticle 1

case digests batch 4 - digests on kinds of negligence

Documents