digest_philippine rabbit vs phippine-american forwarders inc (63 scra 231, 25 march 1975)

7/17/2019 Digest_Philippine Rabbit vs Phippine-American Forwarders Inc (63 SCRA 231, 25 March 1975)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digestphilippine-rabbit-vs-phippine-american-forwarders-inc-63-scra-231 1/3

/archie.manansala

CEU Law, Torts and Damages, AY 2015-2016

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines and Felix Pangalangan, plaintiff-appellants vs.Philippine-American Forwarders, Inc. (PAFI), Archimedes Balingit and

Fernando Pineda, defendant-appellees

GR No. L-25142, 25 March 1975, 63 SCRA 231

Doctrines

Remedial Law (Civil Procedure) – When a party deliberately adopts a certain

theory and the case is decided upon that theory in the court below, he will notbe permitted to change his theory on appeal because, to permit him to do so,could be unfair to the adverse party.

Thus, the Supreme Court disregarded Pangalangan and Philippine Rabbit’ sargument that the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil be used against PAFI,Archimedes Balingit and his wife. The issue was not raised in the trial court

below. The case has to be decided based on allegations stated in the pleadings(complaint) of the appellants, where it was assumed that Balingit and his wifehas separate legal personality from Philippine-American Forwarders.

Civil Law (Torts) – The terms “employers” and “owners and managers of anestablishment or enterprise” (dueños o directores de un establicimiento oempresa) used in Article 2180 of the New Civil Code (formerly Article 1903, the1889 Civil Code of Spain/Old Civil Code) does not include manager ofcorporation. The Supreme Court interpreted the term “manager” (directores,

Spanish) is used in the sense of employer, as it may be gathered from thearticle’s context.

Thus, the Supreme Court held that Balingit, as manager and employee ofPhilippine-American Forwarders, is not liable for damages awarded toPangalangan and Philippine Rabbit.

Type of Appeal

Appeal on pure question of law by Philippine Rabbit and Pangalangan of theCourt of the First Instance Tarlac decision, which dismissed liability ofPhilippine-American Forwarders’ manager Archimedes Balingit.

Facts

Pangalangan and Philippine Rabbit alleged that on 24 November 1962,Fernando Pineda drove recklessly the freight truck owned by his employerPhilippine-American Forwarders along the national highway at Sto. Tomas,

Pampanga. It bumped the Philippine Rabbit bus driven by Felix Pangalangan.As a result of the accident, Pangalangan was injured and the damaged bus



/archie.manansala


cannot be used for seventy-nine (79) days, causing loss of income amounting toPhP8,665.81 to Philippine Rabbit.

Philippine Rabbit and Pangalangan as plaintiffs, filed a case for damages

against the defendants Philippine-American Forwarders, its manager

Archimedes Balingit and the driver Fernando Pineda for damages and lostincome sustained by Philippine Rabbit and the injuries sustained byPangalangan.

Balingit stated in defense that he is not Pineda’ s employer and he asked for thedismissal of the plaintiffs’ case as they had no cause of action against him.

The CFI Tarlac held only PAFI and Pineda liable for damages and injuriessustained and dismissed Balingit’ s liability. As a result, Philippine Rabbit andPangalangan appealed the trial court’ s decision to the Supreme Court.

Issues

In their appeal, Felix Pangalangan and Philippine Rabbit raised the issues:

1.

Whether the trial court was right in dismissing the liability of PAFImanager Archimedes Balingit to the damage sustained by them?

2. Whether the issue that Phil-American Forwarders, Inc. and Balingit andhis wife should be treated as one and the same civil personality can beraised and adjudged on appeal?

Legal Provisions

The New Civil Code states:

Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, therebeing fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault ornegligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties,is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.(1902a)

Article 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only forone's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is

responsible.

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible

for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.

Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitatedpersons who are under their authority and live in their company.



/archie.manansala


The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewiseresponsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the

branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and

household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even thoughthe former are not engaged in any business or industry.

The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent;but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the taskdone properly pertains, in which case what is provided in article 2176 shall beapplicable.

Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable fordamages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they

remain in their custody.

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons hereinmentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a familyto prevent damage. (1903a)

Held by the Supreme Court

The trial court’ s decision on appeal is AFFIRMED and costs against plaintiff-appellants.

The Supreme Court held that based on the allegations of the complaint of

appellants Philippine Rabbit and Pangalangan, Balingit has no liability basedon tort or quasi-delict as manager of Phil-American Forwarders, Inc. inconnection with the vehicular accident because he may be regarded as anemployee of Phil-American Forwarders, Inc. The Supreme Court interpreted theterm “manager” (directores, Spanish) is used in the sense of employer, as itmay be gathered from the article’s context.

The Supreme Court disregarded the appellant’ s argument raised on appeal thatthe doctrine of piercing the corporate veil be used against PAFI, Archimedes

Balingit and his wife. Since that issue was not raised in the trial court below, itcannot be raised also on appeal. The case has to be decided based on

allegations stated in the pleadings (complaint) of the appellants, where it wasassumed that Balingit and his wife has a separate legal personality from that ofPhilippine-American Forwarders, Inc.

digest_philippine rabbit vs phippine-american forwarders inc (63 scra 231, 25 march 1975)

Documents