G.R. No. L-13602            April 6, 1918

LEUNG BEN, plaintiff, vs.P. J. O'BRIEN, JAMES A OSTRAND and GEO. R. HARVEY, judges of First Instance of city of Manila,defendants.

Thos. D. Aitken and W. A. Armstrong for plaintiff.Kincaid & Perkins for defendants.

STREET, J.:

This is an application for a writ of certiorari, the purpose of which is to quash an attachment issued from the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila under circumstances hereinbelow stated.

Upon December 12, 1917, an action was instituted in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila by P. J. O'Brien to recover of Leung Ben the sum of P15,000 alleged to have been lost by the plaintiff to the defendant in a series of gambling, banking and percentage games conducted ruing the two or three months prior to the institution of the suit. In his verified complaint the plaintiff asked for an attachment, under section 424, and 412 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the property of the defendant, on the ground that the latter was about to depart from the Philippine islands with intent to defraud his creditors. This attachment was issued; and acting under the authority thereof, the sheriff attached the sum of P15,000 which had been deposited by the defendant with the International Banking Corporation.

The defendant thereupon appeared by his attorney and moved the court to quash the attachment. Said motion having dismissed in the Court of First Instance, the petitioner, Leung Ben, the defendant in that action, presented to this court, upon January 8, 1918 his petition for the writ of certiorari directed against P. J. O'Brien and the judges of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila whose names are mentioned in the caption hereof. The prayer is that the Honorable James A. Ostrand, as the judge having cognizance of the action in said court be required to certify the record to this court for review and that the order of attachment which had been issued should be revoked and discharged. with costs. Upon the filing of said petition in this court the usual order was entered requiring the defendants to show cause why the writ should not issue. The response of the defendants, in the nature of a demurrer, was filed upon January 21, 1918; and the matter is now heard upon the pleadings thus presented.

The provision of law under which this attachment was issued requires that there should be accuse of action arising upon contract, express or implied. The contention of the petitioner is that the statutory action to recover money lost at gaming is that the statutory action to recover money lost at gaming is no such an action as is contemplated in this provision, and he therefore insists that the original complaint shows on its face that the remedy of attachment is not available in aid thereof; that the Court of First Instance acted in excess of its jurisdiction in granting the writ of attachment; that the petitioner has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise; and that consequently the writ of certiorari supplies the appropriate remedy for his relief.

The case presents the two following questions of law, either of which, if decided unfavorably to the petitioner, will be fatal to his application:

(1) Supposing that the Court of First Instance has granted an attachment for which there is no statutory authority, can this court entertain the present petition and grant the desired relief?

(2) Is the statutory obligation to restore money won at gaming an obligation arising from "contract, express or implied?"

We are of the opinion that the answer to the first question should be in the affirmative. Under section 514 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction by the writ of certiorari over the proceedings of Courts of First Instance, wherever said courts have exceeded their jurisdiction and there is no plaint, speedy, and adequate remedy. In the same section, it is further declared that the proceedings in the Supreme Court in such cases hall be as prescribed for Courts of First Instance in section 217-221, inclusive, of said Code. This Supreme Court, so far as applicable, the provisions contained in those section to the same extent as if they had been reproduced verbatim immediately after section 514. Turning to section 217, we find that, in defining the conditions under which certiorari can be maintained in a Court of First Instance substantially the same language is used as is the same remedy can be maintained in the Supreme Court of First Instance, substantially the same language is used as is found in section 514 relative to the conditions under which the same remedy can be maintained in the Supreme Court, namely, when the inferior tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy. In using these expressions the author of the Code of Civil Procedure merely adopted the language which, in American jurisdictions at least, had long ago reached the stage of stereotyped formula.

In section 220 of the same Code, we have a provision relative to the final proceedings in certiorari, and herein it is stated that the court shall determine whether the inferior tribunal has regularly pursued its authority it shall give judgment either affirming

annulling, or modifying the proceedings below, as the law requires. The expression, has not regularly pursued its authority as here used, is suggestive, and we think it should be construed in connection with the other expressions have exceeded their jurisdiction, as used in section 514, and has exceeded their jurisdiction as used in section 217. Taking the three together, it results in our opinion that any irregular exercise of juridical power by a Court of First Instance, in excess of its lawful jurisdiction, is remediable by the writ of certiorari, provided there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy; and in order to make out a case for the granting of the writ it is not necessary that the court should have acted in the matter without any jurisdiction whatever. Indeed the repeated use of expression excess of jurisdiction shows that the lawmaker contemplated the situation where a court, having jurisdiction should irregularly transcend its authority as well as the situation where the court is totally devoid of lawful power.

It may be observed in this connection that the word jurisdiction as used in attachment cases, has reference not only to the authority of the court to entertain the principal action but also to its authority to issue the attachment, as dependent upon the existence of the statutory ground. (6 C. J., 89.) This distinction between jurisdiction to issue the attachment as an ancillary remedy incident to the principal litigation is of importance; as a court's jurisdiction over the main action may be complete, and yet it may lack authority to grant an attachment as ancillary to such action. This distinction between jurisdiction over the ancillary has been recognized by this court in connection with actions involving the appointment of a receiver. Thus in Rocha & Co. vs. Crossfield and Figueras (6 Phil. Rep., 355), a receiver had been appointed without legal justification. It was held that the order making the appointment was beyond the jurisdiction of the court; and though the court admittedly had jurisdiction of the main cause, the order was vacated by this court upon application a writ of certiorari. (SeeBlanco vs. Ambler, 3 Phil. Rep., 358, Blanco vs. Ambler and McMicking 3 Phil. Rep., 735, Yangco vs. Rohde, 1 Phil. Rep., 404.)

By parity of reasoning it must follow that when a court issues a writ of attachment for which there is no statutory authority, it is acting irregularly and in excess of its jurisdiction, in the sense necessary to justify the Supreme Court in granting relief by the writ of certiorari. In applying this proposition it is of course necessary to take account of the difference between a ground of attachment based on the nature of the action and a ground of attachment based on the acts or the conditions of the defendant. Every complaint must show a cause of action some sort; and when the statue declares that the attachment may issue in an action arising upon contract, the express or implied, it announces a criterion which may be determined from an inspection of the language of the complaint. The determination of this question is purely a matter of law. On the other hand, when the stature declares that an attachment may be issued when the defendant is about to depart from the Islands, a criterion is announced which is wholly foreign to the cause of action; and the determination of it may involve a disputed question of fact which must be decided by the court. In making this determination, the court obviously acts within its powers; and it would be idle to suppose that the writ of certiorari would be available to reverse the action of a Court of First Instance in determining the sufficiency of the proof on such a disputed point, and in granting or refusing the attachment accordingly.

We should not be understood, in anything that has been said, as intending to infringe the doctrine enunciated by this court in Herrera vs. Barretto and Joaquin (25 Phil. Rep., 245), when properly applied. It was there held that we would not, upon application for a writ of certiorari, dissolve an interlocutory mandatory injunction that had been issued in a Court of First Instance as an incident in an action of mandamus. The issuance of an interlocutory injunction depends upon conditions essentially different from those involved in the issuance of an attachment. The injunction is designed primarily for the prevention of irreparable injury and the use of the remedy is in a great measure dependent upon the exercise of discretion. Generally, it may be said that the exercise of the injunctive powers is inherent in judicial authority; and ordinarily it would be impossible to distinguish between the jurisdiction of the court in the main litigation and its jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory injunction, for the latter is involved in the former. That the writ of certiorari can not be used to reverse an order denying a motion for a preliminary injunction is of course not to cavil. (Somes vs. Crossfield and Molina, 8 Phil. Rep., 284.)

But it will be said that the writ of certiorari is not available in this cae, because the petitioner is protected by the attachment bond, and that he has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy appeal. This suggestion seems to be sufficiently answered in the case of Rocha & Co vs. Crossfield and Figueras (6 Phil. Rep., 355), already referred to, and the earlier case there cited. The remedy by appeal is not sufficiently speedy to meet the exigencies of the case. An attachment is extremely violent, and its abuse may often result in infliction of damage which could never be repaired by any pecuniary award at the final hearing. To postpone the granting of the writ in such a case until the final hearing and to compel the petitioner to bring the case here upon appeal merely in order to correct the action of the trial court in the matter of allowing the attachment would seem both unjust and unnecessary.

Passing to the problem propounded in the second question it may be observed that, upon general principles,. recognize both the civil and common law, money lost in gaming and voluntarily paid by the loser to the winner can not in the absence of statue, be recovered in a civil action. But Act No. 1757 of the Philippine Commission, which defines and penalizes several forms of gambling, contains numerous provisions recognizing the right to recover money lost in gambling or in the playing of certain games (secs. 6, 7, 8, 9, 11). The original complaint in the action in the Court of First Instance is not clear as to the particular section of Act No. 1757 under which the action is brought, but it is alleged that the money was lost at gambling, banking, and percentage game in which the defendant was banker. It must therefore be assumed that the action is based upon the right of recovery given in Section 7 of said Act, which declares that an action may be brought against the banker by any person losing money at a banking or percentage game.

Is this a cause arising upon contract, express or implied, as this term is used in section 412 of the Code of Civil Procedure? To begin the discussion, the English version of the Code of Civil Procedure is controlling (sec. 15, Admin. Code, ed. of 1917). Furthermore it is universally admitted to be proper in the interpretation of any statute, to consider its historical antecedents and its juris prudential sources. The Code of Civil Procedure, as is well known, is an American contribution to Philippine legislation. It therefore speaks the language of the common-law and for the most part reflects its ideas. When the draftsman of this Code used the expression contract, express or implied, he used a phrase that has been long current among writers on American and English law; and it is therefore appropriate to resort to that system of law to discover the appropriate to resort to that system of law to discover the meaning which the legislator intended to convey by those meaning which the legislator intended to convey by those terms. We remark in passing that the expression contrato tracito, used in the official translation of the Code of Civil Procedure as the Spanish equivalent of implied contract, does not appear to render the full sense of the English expression.

The English contract law, so far as relates to simple contracts is planted upon two foundations, which are supplied by two very different conceptions of legal liability. These two conceptions are revealed in the ideas respectively underlying (1) the common- law debt and (2) the assumptual promise. In the early and formative stages of the common-law the only simple contract of which the courts took account was the real contract or contract re, in which the contractual duty imposed by law arises upon the delivery of a chattle, as in themutuum, commodatum, depositum, and the like; and the purely consensual agreements of the Roman Law found no congenial place in the early common law system.

In course of time the idea underlying the contract re was extended so as to include from one person to another under such circumstances as to constitute a justa cuas debendi. The obligation thereby created was a debt. The constitutive element in this litigation is found in the fact that the debtor has received something from the creditor, which he is bound by the obligation of law to return or pay for. From an early day this element was denominated the quid pro quo, an ungainly phrase coined by Mediaeval Latinity. The quid pro quo was primarily a materials or physical object, and its constituted the recompense or equivalent acquired by the debtor. Upon the passage of the quid pro quo from one party to the other, the law imposed that real contractual duty peculiar to the debt. No one conversant with the early history of English law would ever conceive of the debt as an obligation created by promise. It is the legal duty to pay or deliver a sum certain of money or an ascertainable quantity of ponderable or measurable chattles.

The ordinary debt, as already stated, originates in a contract in which a quid pro quo passes to the debtor at the time of the creation of the debt, but the term is equally applicable to duties imposed by custom or statute, or by judgment of a court.

The existence of a debt supposes one person to have possession of thing (res) which he owes and hence ought to turn over the owner. This obligation is the oldest conception of contract with which the common law is familiar; and notwithstanding the centuries that have rolled over Westminster Hall that conception remains as one of the fundamental bases of the common-law contract.

Near the end of the fifteenth century there was evolved in England a new conception of contractual liability, which embodied the idea of obligation resulting from promise and which found expression in the common law assumpsit, or parol promise supported by a consideration. The application of this novel conception had the effect of greatly extending the filed of contractual liability and by this means rights of action came to be recognized which had been unknown before. The action of assumpsit which was the instrument for giving effect to this obligation was found to be a useful remedy; and presently this action came to be used for the enforcement of common-law debts. The result was to give to our contract law the superficial appearance of being based more or less exclusively upon the notion of the obligation of promise.

An idea is widely entertained to the effect that all simple contracts recognized in the common-law system are referable to a singly category. They all have their roots, so many of us imagine, in one general notion of obligation; and of course the obligation of promise is supposed to supply this general notion, being considered a sort of menstruum in which all other forms of contractual obligation have been dissolved. This a mistake. The idea of contractual duty embodied in the debt which was the first conception of contract liability revealed in the common law, has remained, although it was detained to be in a measure obscured by the more modern conception of obligation resulting from promise.

What has been said is intended to exhibit the fact that the duty to pay or deliver a sum certain of money or an ascertainable quantity of ponderable or measurable chattles — which is indicated by them debt — has ever been recognized, in the common-law system, as a true contract, regardless, of the source of the duty or the manner in which it is create — whether derived from custom, statue or some consensual transaction depending upon the voluntary acts of the parties. the form of contract known as the debt is of the most ancient lineage; and when reference is had to historical antecedents, the right of the debt to be classed as a contract cannot be questioned. Indeed when the new form of engagement consisting of the parol promise supported by a consideration first appeared, it was looked upon as an upstart and its right to be considered a true contract was questioned. It was long customary to refer to it exclusively as an assumpsit, agreement, undertaking, or parol promise, in fact anything but a contract. Only in time did the new form of engagement attain the dignity of being classed among true contract.

The term implied takers us into shadowy domain of those obligations the theoretical classification of which has engaged the attention of scholars from the time of Gaius until our own day and has been a source of as much difficulty to the civilian as to the

common-law jurist. There we are concerned with those acts which make one person debtor to another without there having intervened between them any true agreement tending to produce a legal bond (vinculum juris). Of late years some American and English writers have adopted the term quasi-contract as descriptive of these obligations or some of them; but the expression more commonly used is implied contract.

Upon examination of these obligations, from the view point of the common-law jurisprudence, it will be found that they fall readily into two divisions according as they bear an analogy to the common-law debt or to the common law assumpsit. To exhibit the scope of these different classes of obligations is here impracticable. It is only necessary in this connection to observe that the most conspicuous division is that which comprises duties in the nature of debt. The characteristic feature of these obligations is that upon certain states of fact the law imposes an obligation to pay a sum certain of money; and it is characteristic of this obligation that the money in respect to which the duty is raised is conceived as being equivalent of something taken or detained under circumstances giving rise to the duty to return or compensate therefore. The proposition that no one shall be allowed to enrich himself unduly at the expense of another embodies the general principle here lying at the basis of obligation. The right to recover money improperly paid (repeticion de lo indebido) is also recognized as belong to this class of duties.

It will observed that according to the Civil Code obligations are supposed to be derived either from (1) the law, (2) contracts and quasi-contracts, (3) illicit acts and omission, or (4) acts in which some sort ob lame or negligence is present. This enumeration of sources of obligations and the obligation imposed by law are different types. The learned Italian jurist, Jorge Giorgi, criticises this assumption and says that the classification embodied in the code is theoretically erroneous. His conclusion is that one or the other of these categories should have been suppressed and merged in the other. (Giorgi, Teoria de las Obligaciones, Spanish ed., vol. 5 arts. 5, 7, 9.) The validity of this criticism is, we thin, self-evident; and it is of interest to note that the common law makes no distinction between the two sources of liability. The obligations which in the Code are indicated as quasi-contracts, as well as those arising ex lege, are in the common la system, merged into the category of obligations imposed by law, and all are denominated implied contracts.

Many refinements, more or less illusory, have been attempted by various writers in distinguishing different sorts of implied contracts, as for example, the contract implied as of fact and the contract implied as of law. No explanation of these distinctions will be here attempted. Suffice it to say that the term contract, express or implied, is used to by common-law jurists to include all purely personal obligations other than those which have their source in delict, or tort. As to these it may be said that, generally speaking, the law does not impose a contractual duty upon a wrongdoer to compensate for injury done. It is true that in certain situations where a wrongdoer unjustly acquired something at the expense of another, the law imposes on him a duty to surrender his unjust acquisitions, and the injured party may here elect to sue upon this contractual duty instead of suing upon the tort; but even here the distinction between the two liabilities, in contract and in tort, is never lost to sight; and it is always recognized that the liability arising out of the tort is delictual and not of a contractual or quasi-contractual nature.

In the case now under consideration the duty of the defendant to refund the money which he won from the plaintiff at gaming is a duty imposed by statute. It therefore arises ex lege. Furthermore, it is a duty to return a certain sum which had passed from the plaintiff to the defendant. By all the criteria which the common law supplies, this a duty in the nature of debt and is properly classified as an implied contract. It is well- settled by the English authorities that money lost in gambling or by lottery, if recoverable at all, can be recovered by the loser in an action of indebitatus assumpsit for money had and received. (Clarke vs. Johnson. Lofft, 759; Mason vs. Waite, 17 Mass., 560; Burnham vs. Fisher, 25 Vt., 514.) This means that in the common law the duty to return money won in this way is an implied contract, or quasi-contract.

It is no argument to say in reply to this that the obligation here recognized is called an implied contract merely because the remedy commonly used in suing upon ordinary contract can be here used, or that the law adopted the fiction of promise in order to bring the obligation within the scope of the action of assumpsit. Such statements fail to express the true import of the phenomenon. Before the remedy was the idea; and the use of the remedy could not have been approved if it had not been for historical antecedents which made the recognition of this remedy at one logical and proper. Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that the question is not how this duty but what sort of obligation did the author of the Code of Civil Procedure intend to describe when he sued the term implied contract in section 412.

In what has been said we have assumed that the obligation which is at the foundation of the original action in the court below is not a quasi-contract, when judge by the principles of the civil law. A few observations will show that this assumption is not by any means free from doubt. The obligation in question certainly does not fall under the definition of either of the two-quasi- contracts which are made the subject of special treatment in the Civil Code, for its does not arise from a licit act as contemplated in article 1895. The obligation is clearly a creation of the positive law — a circumstance which brings it within the purview of article 1090, in relation with article, 1089; and it is also derived from an illicit act, namely, the playing of a prohibited game. It is thus seen that the provisions of the Civil Code which might be consulted with a view to the correct theoretical classification of this obligation are unsatisfactory and confusing.

The two obligations treated in the chapter devoted to quasi-contracts in the Civil Code are (1) the obligation incident to the officious management of the affairs of other person (gestion de negocios ajenos) and (2) the recovery of what has been improperly paid (cabro de lo indebido). That the authors of the Civil Code selected these two obligations for special treatment

does not signify an intention to deny the possibility of the existence of other quasi-contractual obligations. As is well said by the commentator Manresa.

The number of the quasi-contracts may be indefinite as may be the number of lawful facts, the generations of the said obligations; but the Code, just as we shall see further on, in the impracticableness of enumerating or including them all in a methodical and orderly classification, has concerned itself with two only — namely, the management of the affairs of other person and the recovery of things improperly paid — without attempting by this to exclude the others. (Manresa, 2d ed., vol. 12, p. 549.)

It would indeed have been surprising if the authors of the Code, in the light of the jurisprudence of more than a thousand years, should have arbitrarily assumed to limit the quasi-contract to two obligations. The author from whom we have just quoted further observes that the two obligations in question were selected for special treatment in the Code not only because they were the most conspicuous of the quasi-contracts, but because they had not been the subject of consideration in other parts of the Code. (Opus citat., 550.)

It is well recognized among civilian jurists that the quasi- contractual obligations cover a wide range. The Italian jurist, Jorge Giorgi, to whom we have already referred, considers under this head, among other obligations, the following: payments made upon a future consideration which is not realized or upon an existing consideration which fails; payments wrongfully made upon a consideration which is contrary to law, or opposed to public policy; and payments made upon a vicious consideration or obtained by illicit means (Giorgi, Teoria de las Obligaciones, vol. 5, art. 130.)

Im permitting the recovery of money lost at play, Act No. 1757 has introduced modifications in the application of articles 1798, 180`, and 1305 of the Civil Code. The first two of these articles relate to gambling contracts, while article 1305 treats of the nullity of contracts proceeding from a vicious or illicit consideration. Taking all these provisions together, it must be apparent that the obligation to return money lost at play has a decided affinity to contractual obligations; and we believe that it could, without violence to the doctrines of the civil law, be held that such obligations is an innominate quasi-contract. It is, however, unnecessary to place the decision on this ground.

From what has been said it follows that in our opinion the cause of action stated in the complaints in the court below is based on a contract, express or implied and is therefore of such nature that the court had authority to issue writ of attachment. The application for the writ of certiorari must therefore be denied and the proceedings dismissed. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

MALCOLM, J., concurring:

As I finished reading the learned and interesting decision of the majority, the impression which remained was that the court was enticed by the nice and unusual points presented to make a hard case out of an easy one and unfortunately t do violence to the principles of certiorari. The simple questions are : Di the Court of First Instance of city of Manila exceed its jurisdiction in granting an attachments against the property of the defendant, now plaintiff? Has this defendant, now become the plaintiff, any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy? The answer are found in the decision of thinks court, in Herrera vs. Barretto and Joaquin ([1913], 25 Phil., 245), from which I quote the following:

It has been repeatedly held by this court that a writ of certiorari will not be issued unless it clearly appears that the court to which it is to be directed acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. It will not be issued to cure errors in the proceedings or to correct erroneous conclusions of law or of fact. If the court has jurisdiction. It will not be issued to cure errors in the proceedings to correct jurisdiction of the subject matter and f the person, decisions upon all question pertaining to the cause are decisions within its jurisdiction and, however irregular or erroneous they may be, cannot be corrected by certiorari. The Code of Civil Procedure giving Courts of First Instance general jurisdiction in actions for mandamus, it goes without saying that the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction in the present case to resolve every question arising in such an action and t decide every question presented to it which pertained to the cause. It has already been held by this court, that while it is a power to be exercised only in extreme case, a Court of First Instance has power to issue a mandatory injunction t stand until the final determination of the action in which it is issued. While the issuance of the mandatory injunction in this particular case may have been irregular and erroneous, a question concerning which we express no opinion, nevertheless its issuance was within the jurisdiction of the court and its action is not reveiwable on certiorari. It is not sufficient to say that it was issued wrongfully and without sufficient grounds and in the absence of the other party. The question is, Did the court act with jurisdiction?

It has been urged that the court exceeded its jurisdiction in requiring the municipal president t issue the license, for the reason that he was not the proper person to issue it and that, if he was the proper person, he had the right to exercise a discretion as to whom the license should be issued. We do not believe that either of these questions goes to the jurisdiction of the court to act. One of the fundamental question in amandamus against a public officer is whether or not that officer has the right to exercise discretion in the performance of the act which the plaintiff asks him to perform. It is one of the essential determinations of the cause. To claim that the resolution of that question may deprive the court of jurisdiction is to assert a novel proposition. It is equivalent to the contention that a court has jurisdiction if he decides right but no jurisdiction if he decides wrong. It may be stated generally that it is never necessary to decide the fundamental questions of a cause to determine whether the court has jurisdiction. The question of jurisdiction is preliminary and never touches the merits of the case. The determination of the fundamental questions of a cause are merely the exercise of a jurisdiction already conceded. In the case at bar no one denies the power, authority or jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance to take cognizance of an action formandamus and to decide very question which arises in that cause and pertains thereto. The contention that the decision of one of those question, if wrong, destroys jurisdiction involves an evident contradiction.

Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a cause — the right to act in a case. Since it is the power to hear and determine, it does not depend either upon the regularity of the exercise of that power or upon the rightfulness of the decision made. Jurisdiction should therefore be distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction. The authority to decide a case at all, and not the decision rendered therein, is what makes up jurisdiction. Where there is jurisdiction of the person and subject matter, as we have said before, the decision of all other questions arising in the case an exercise of that jurisdiction.

Then follows an elaborate citation and discussion of American authorities, including a decision of the United States Supreme Court and of the applicable Philippine cases. The decision continues"

The reasons givens in these cases last cited for the allowance of the writ of prohibition are applicable only to the class of cases with which the decision deal and do not in any way militate against the general proposition herein asserted. Those which relate to election contest are based upon the principle that those proceedings, are special in their nature and must be strictly followed, a material departure from the statute resulting a loss, or in an excess of jurisdiction. The cases relating to receivers are based, in a measure, upon the principle the appointment of a receiver being governed by the statute; and in part upon the theory that the appointment of a receiver in an improper case is in substance a bankruptcy proceeding, the taking of which is expressly prohibited by law. The case relative to the allowance of alimony pendente litewhen the answer denies the marriage is more difficult to distinguish. The reasons in support of the doctrine laid down in that case are given the opinion in full and they seem to place the particular case to which they refer in a class by itself.

It is not alight things that the lawmakers have abolished writs of error and with them certiorari and prohibition, in so far as they were methods by which the mere errors of an inferior curt could be corrected. As instruments to that end they no longer exist. Their place is no taken by the appeal. So long as the inferior court retains jurisdiction its errors can be corrected only by that method. The office of the writ ofcertiorari has been reduced to the correction of defects of jurisdiction solely and cannot legally be used for any other purpose. It is truly an extra ordinary remedy and in this jurisdiction, its use is restricted to truly extraordinary cases — cases in which the action of the inferior court is wholly void, where any further steps in the case would result in a waste of time and money and would produce no result whatever; where the parties, or their privies, would be utterly deceived; where a final judgment or decree would be nought but a snare and a delusion, deciding nothing, protecting nobody, a juridical pretension, a recorded falsehood, a standing menace. It is only to avoid such result as these that a writ of certiorari is issuable; and even here an appeal will lie if the aggrieved party prefers to prosecute it.

A full and thorough examination of all the decided cases in this court touching the question of certiorari and prohibition fully supports the proposition already stated that, where a Court of First Instance has jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the person, its decision of any question pertaining to the cause, however, erroneous, cannot be reviewed by certiorari, but must be corrected by appeal.

I see no reason to override the decision in Herrera vs. Barretto and Joaquin (supra). Accordingly, I can do no better than to make the language of Justice Moreland my own. applying these principles, it is self-evident that this court should no entertain the present petition and should not grant the desired relief.

FISHER, J., dissenting:

I am in full accord with the view that the remedy of certiorari may be invoked in such cases as this, but I am constrained to dissent from the opinion of the majority as regards the meaning of the term implied contract.

Section 412 of the code of Civil Procedure in connection with section 424, authorizes the preliminary attachment of the property of the defendant: "(1) In an action for the recovery of money or damages on a cause of action arising upon contract, express or implied, when the defendant is about to depart from the Philippine Islands, with intent to defraud his creditors; (2) . . .; (3) . . .; (4) . . .; (5) When the defendant has removed or disposed of his property, or is about to do so, with intent to defraud his creditors."

It is evident that the terms of paragraph five of the article cited are much broader than those of the first paragraph. The fifth paragraph is not limited to action arising from contract, but is by its terms applicable to actions brought for the purpose of enforcing extra-contractual rights as well as contract rights. The limitation upon cases falling under paragraph five is to be found, not in the character of the obligation for the enforcement for which the action is brought, but in the terms of article 4265, which requires that the affidavit show that the amount due the plaintiff . . . is as much as the sum for which the order is granted.

That is to say, when application is made for a preliminary attachment upon the ground that the plaintiff is about to dispose of his property with intent to defraud his creditors — thus bringing the case within the terms of paragraph five of the section — it is not necessary to show that the obligation in suit is contractual in its origin, but is sufficient to show that the breach of the obligation, as shown by the facts stated in the complaint and affidavit, imposes upon the defendant the obligation to pay a specific and definite sum. For example, if it is alleged in the complaint that the defendant by negligence, has caused the destruction by fire of a building belonging to plaintiff, and that such building was worth a certain sum of money, these facts would show a definite basis upon which to authorize the granting of the writ. But if it were averred that the defendant has published a libel concerning the plaintiff, to the injury of his feeling and reputation, there is no definite basis upon which to grant an attachment, because the amount of the damage suffered, being necessarily uncertain and indeterminate, cannot be ascertained definitely until the trail has been completed.

But it appears that the legislature although it has seen fit to authorize a preliminary attachment in aid of action of all kinds when the defendant is concealing his property with intent to defraud his creditors, has provided is about to depart from the country with intent to defraud his creditos, the writ will issue only when the action in aid of which it is sought arises from a contract express or implied. If an attachment were permitted upon facts bringing the application with the first paragraph of the section in support of action of any kind, whether the obligation sued upon is contractual or not, then paragraph five would by construction be made absolutely identical with paragraph one, and this would be in effect equivalent to the complete eliminated of the last two lines of the first paragraph. It is a rule of statutory construction that effect should be given to all parts of the statue, if possible. I can see no reason why the legislature should have limited cases falling within the firs paragraph to action arising from contract and have refrained from imposing this limitation with respect to cases falling within the terms of the fifth paragraph, but this should have no effect upon us in applying the law. Whether there be a good reason for it or not the distinction exists.

Had the phrase express or implied not been used to qualify contract, there would be no doubt whatever with regard to the meaning of the word. In the Spanish Civil law contract are always consensual, and it would be impossible to define as a contract the judicial relation existing between a person who has lost money at gaming and the winner of such money, simple because the law imposes upon the winner the obligation of making restitution. An obligation of this kind, far from being consensual in its origin, arises against the will of the debtor. To call such a relation a contract is, from the standpoint of the civil law, a contradiction in terms.

But is said that as the phase express or implied has been used to qualify the word contract and these words are found in statue which speaks the language of the common law, this implies the introduction into our law of the concept of the implied contract of the English common-law, a concept which embraces a certain class of obligation originating ex lege, which have been arbitrarily classified as contracts, so that they might be enforced by one of the formal actions of the common law which legal tradition and practice has reserved for the enforcement of contract. I cannot concur in this reasoning. I believe that when a technical juridical term of substantive law is used in the adjective law of these islands, we should seek its meaning in our own substantive law rather than in the law of America or of England. The code of Civil Procedure was not enacted to establish rules of substantive law, but upon the assumption of the existence of these rules.

In the case of Cayce vs. Curtis (Dallam's Decisions Texas Reports, 403), it appears that the legislature, at a time when that State still retained to a large extent the Spanish substantive civil law, enacted a statue in which the word bonds is used. In litigation involving the construction of that statute, one of the parties contended that the work bond should be given the technical meaning which it had in the English Common Law. The court rejected this contention saying —

On the first point it is urged by counsel for the appellant that the word bond used in the statute being a common law term, we must refer to the common law for its legal signification; and that by that law no instrument is a bond which is not under seal. The truth of the proposition that sealing is an absolute requisite to the validity of a bond at common law is readily admitted; but the applicability of that rule of the case under consideration is not perceived. This bond was taken at a time when the common law afforded no rule of decision or practice in this country, and consequently that law cannot be legitimately resorted to, even for the purpose for which it is invoked by the counsel for the appellant, unless it be shown that the civil law had not term of similar

import for we regard it as a correct rule of construction, that where technical terms are used in a statute they are to be referred for their signification to terms f similar import in the system of laws which prevails in the country where the statues is passed, and not to another system which is entirely foreign t the whole system of municipal regulations by which that country is governed. (Martin's Reports, vol. 3, 185; 7 Martin [N. S.], 162.)"

Consequently, I believe that in the interpretation of phase "contract, express or implied," we should apply the rules of our own substantive law. The phrase in itself offers no difficulty. The concept of the contract, under the Civil Code, as a legal relation of exclusively consensual origin, offers no difficulty. Nor is any difficulty encountered in the gramatical sense of the words express and "implied". Express according to the New International Dictionary is that which is directly and distinctly stated; expressed, not merely implied or left to interference. Therefore, a contract entered into by means of letters, in which the offer and the acceptance have been manifested by appropriate words, would be an "express contract." The word "imply" according to the same dictionary, is to involve in substance or essence, or by fair inference, or by construction of law, when not expressly stated in words or signs; to contain by implication to include virtually.

Therefore, if I enter a tailor shop and order a suit of clothes, although nothing is said regarding payment, it is an inference, both logical and legal, from my act that is my intention to pay the reasonable value of the garments. The contract is implied, therefore, is that in which the consent of the parties is implied.

Manresa, commenting upon article 1262 of the Civil Code, says:

The essence of consent is the agreement of the parties concerning that which is to constitute the contract . . . . The forms of this agreement may vary according to whether it is expressed verbally or in writing, by words or by acts. Leaving the other differences for consideration hereafter, we will only refer now to those which exist between express consent and implied consent . . . . It is unquestionable that implied consentmanifested by act or conduct, produces a contract. . . .

If it were necessary to have recourse to the English common law for the purpose of ascertaining the meaning of the phrase under consideration, we could find many decisions which gave it the same meaning as that for which I contend.

An implied contract is where one party receives benefits from another party, under such circumstances that the law presume a promise on the part of the party benefited to pay a reasonable price for the same. (Jones vs. Tucker [Del.], 84 Atlantic, 1012.)

It is true that English courts have extended the concept of the term contract to include certain obligations arisingex lege without consent, express or implied. True contracts created by implied consent are designated in the English common law as contracts implied in the fact, while the so-called contracts in which the consent is a fiction of law are called contracts implied by law. But is evident that the latter are not real contracts. They have been called contract arbitrarily by the courts of England, and those of the Untied States in which the English common law is in force, in order that certain actions arising ex lege may be enforced by the action of assumpsit. In the rigid formulism of the English common law the substantive right had to be accommodated to the form of action. As is stated in the monograph on the action of assumpsit in Ruling Case Law. (volume 2, 743) —

In theory it wan action to recover for the nonperformance f simple contracts, and the formula and proceedings were constructed and carried on accordingly. . . . From the reign of Elizabeth this action has been extended to almost every case where an obligation arises from natural reason, . . . and it is now maintained in many cases which its principles do not comprehend and where fictions and intendments are resorted to, to fit the actual cause of action to the theory of the remedy. It is thus sanctioned where there has been no . . . real contract, but where some duty is deemed sufficient to justify the court in imputing the promise to perform its, and hence in bending the transaction to the form of action.

In the ancient English common law procedure the form of the action was regarded as being much more important than the substantive right to be enforced. If no form of action was found in which the facts would fit, so much the worse for the facts! to avoid the injustices to which this condition of affairs gave rise, the judges invented those fictions which permitted them to preserve the appearance of conservatism and change the law without expressly admitting that they were doing so. The indispensable averment, that they were doing so. The indispensable avernment without which the action of assumpsit would not lie, was that the defendant promised to pay plaintiff the amount demanded. (Sector vs. Holmes, 17 Vs., 566.) In true contracts, whether express or implied, this promise in fact exists. In obligations arising ex lege there is no such promise, and therefore the action of assumpsit could not be maintained, and therefore the action of assumpsit could not be maintained, although by reason of its relative simplicity it was one of the most favored forms of action. In order to permit the litigant to make use of this form of action for the enforcement of ascertain classes of obligations arising ex lege, the judges invented the fiction of the promise of the defendant to pay the amount of the obligation, and as this fictitious promise give the appearance of consensuality to the legal relations of the parties, the name of implied contract is given to that class of extra-contractual obligations enforcible by the action of assumpsit.

Now, it is not be supposed that it was the intention of the Legislature in making use in the first paragraph of article 412 of the phrase contract, express or implied to corrupt the logical simplicity of our concept of obligations by importing into our law the antiquated fictions of the mediaeval English common law. If one of the concepts of the term "implied contract" in the English common law, namely, that in which consent is presume from the conduct of the debtor, harmonizes with the concept of the contract in our law, why should we reject that meaning and hold that the Legislature intended to use this phrase in the foreign and illogical sense of a contract arising without consent? This is a civil law country. why should we be compelled to study the fictions of the ancient English common law, in order to be informed as to the meaning of the word contract in the law of the Philippine Islands? Much more reasonable to my mind was the conclusion of the Texas court, under similar circumstances, to the effect to be referred for their signification to terms of similar import in the system of laws which prevails in the country where the statue is passed." (Cayce vs. Curtis, supra.)

My conclusion is that the phase contract, express or implied should be interpreted in the grammatical sense of the words and limited to true contracts, consensual obligations arising from consent, whether expressed in words, writing or signs, or presumed from conduct. As it is evident that the defendant in the present case never promised, him in the gambling game in question, his obligation to restor the amounts won, imposed by the law, is no contractual, but purely extra-contractual and therefore the action brought not being one arising upon contract express or implied, the plaintiff is not entitled to a preliminary attachment upon the averment that the defendant is about to depart from the Philippine Islands with with intent t defraud his creditors, no averment being made in the compliant or in the affidavit that the defendant has removed or disposed of his property, or is about to depart with intent to defraud his creditors, so as to bring the case within the terms of the fifth paragraph of section 412.

I am unable to agree with the contention of the application (Brief, p. 39) here that the phase in question should be interpreted in such a way as to include all obligations, whether arising from consent or ex lege, because that is equivalent to eliminating all distinction between the first and the fifth paragraphs by practically striking out the first two lines of paragraph one. The Legislature has deliberately established this distinction, and while we may be unable to see any reason why it should have been made, it is our duty to apply and interpret the law, and we are not authorized under the guise of interpretation to virtually repeal part of the statute.

Nor can it be said that the relations between the parties litigant constitute a quasi-contract. In the first place, quasi- contracts are "lawful and purely voluntary acts by which the authors thereof become obligated in favor of a third person. . . ." The act which gave rise to the obligation ex lege relied upon by the plaintiff in the court below is illicit — an unlawful gambling game. In the second place, the first paragraph of section 412 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not authorize an attachment in actions arising out of quasi contracts, but only in actions arising out of contract, express or implied.

I am therefore of the opinion that the court below was without jurisdiction to issue that writ of attachment and that the writ should be declared null and void.

Avanceña, J., concurs.

G.R. No. L-26002            October 31, 1969

ABELARDO BAUTISTA and ROBERTO TAN TING, petitioners-appellees, vs.FEDERICO O. BORROMEO, INC., HONORABLE CESAR C. CRUZ, Judge of the Municipal Court of Mandaluyong, Rizal and JESUS BAUTISTA, Deputy Sheriff of Manila as Special Sheriff, respondents-appellants.

Dante O. Tinga and Leopoldo V. Repotente, Jr. for petitioners-appellees.Modesto S. Mendoza for respondents-appellants.

SANCHEZ, J.:

Respondents-appellants seek to overturn the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal of January 6, 1966 granting petitioners-appellees' petition for relief from judgment, setting aside the July 23, 1965 decision of the Municipal Court of Mandaluyong, Rizal, in Civil Case 1365 and ordering a new trial.

The background facts are as follows:

On September 15, 1964, the Ford truck of petitioner Roberto Tan Ting driven by Abelardo Bautista, the other petitioner, and the Volkswagen delivery panel truck owned by respondent Federico O. Borromeo, Inc. (hereinafter called Borromeo) were involved in a traffic accident along Epifanio de los Santos Avenue. In said traffic accident, Quintin Delgado, a helper in Borromeo's delivery panel truck, sustained injuries which resulted in his instantaneous death. Borromeo had to pay Delgado's widow the sum of P4,444 representing the compensation (death benefit) and funeral expenses due Delgado under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

On June 17, 1965, upon the averment that the said vehicular accident was caused by petitioners' negligence, Borromeo started suit in the Municipal Court of Mandaluyong, Rizal to recover from petitioners the compensation and funeral expenses it paid to the widow of Quintin Delgado.1

At the scheduled hearing of the case on July 23, 1965, neither petitioners nor their counsel appeared. Borromeo was thus allowed to present its evidence ex parte. On the same day, July 23, 1965, the municipal court rendered judgment in favor of Borromeo and against the petitioners in the principal sum of P4,444, and P500 attorney's fees, and costs. Respondents aver that this judgment has been executed and satisfied.

On August 6, 1965, petitioners received copy of the municipal court's decision.

On August 13, 1965, petitioners moved to set aside the decision. On August 14, 1965, this motion was denied.

On August 16, 1965, copy of this order of denial was sent by registered mail to counsel of petitioners. Said counsel did not receive this registered mail and the mail matter was returned to the court unclaimed. However, said counsel learned of this denial on September 2, 1965 allegedly "in the course of his investigation."

Petitioners filed a notice of appeal dated September 2, 1965. They, however, paid the appellate docket fee and deposited their cash appeal bond only on September 28, 1965. Their appeal was consequently turned down by the municipal court, for the reason that the deposit of the bond and the payment of the docket fee were done after the lapse of the reglementary period.

Nothing was done by petitioners until October 26, 1965, when they lodged a petition for relief from the inferior court's judgment in the Court of First Instance of Rizal.2 They there claimed excusable negligence for the failure of petitioners' counsel to appear in the July 23, 1965 hearing at the municipal court and asserted that they had a good and substantial defense in that "there was no contractual relationship between the parties, whether express or implied." They sought preliminary injunction, prayed for trial de novo on the merits. A restraining order was at first issued by the court; but the prayer for preliminary injunction was eventually denied.

Respondents' answer contended that the petition for relief was filed out of time; that petitioners' counsel's failure to attend the hearing of July 23, 1965 does not constitute excusable negligence; and that the affidavits attached to the petition do not show good and substantial defense.

Petitioners thereafter moved for judgment on the pleadings. No objection thereto was interposed by respondents. The lower court then rendered the judgment mentioned in the first part of this opinion.

A move to reconsider failed. Hence, this appeal.

We vote to reverse the lower court's judgment for the following reasons:

1. The petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court is unavailable to petitioners.

A basic precept is that when another remedy at law is open to a party, he cannot sue out a petition for relief under Rule 38.3 Thus, a petition for relief is not a substitute for appeal. It has been held that where a defendant could have appealed — but did not appeal — from the decision of the inferior court to the Court of First Instance but instead filed a petition for relief, his petition was inappropriate as it "would amount to reviving his right to appeal which he had irretrievably lost through the gross inaction of his counsel."4

Here, petitioners learned of the municipal court judgment on August 6, 1965, when they received a copy of its decision. They moved to set aside that judgment on August 13, 1965. At that time, a petition for relief could not be availed of because the judgment of the municipal court had not yet become final.5 But, on September 2, 1965, petitioners learned of the court's order of August 14, 1965 denying their motion to set aside. They could have appealed. Because, nothing in the record suggests that the notices to petitioners to take delivery of the registered envelope — containing the inferior court's resolution denying petitioners' motion to set aside the decision — were ever served on said petitioners. On the contrary, Teresita Roxas, secretary of petitioners' counsel, in her affidavit dated October 23, 1965, Annex E of the petition for relief, categorically denied receipt of any such notice, thus: "That I have not received any registry notice corresponding to a registered mail at the Manila Post Office containing an order by the Municipal Court of Mandaluyong, Rizal, dated August 14, 1965."6

But petitioners did not perfect their appeal to the Court of First Instance on time — they paid the appellate docket fee and deposited their appeal bond only on September 28, eleven (11) days late. Clearly, their failure to seasonably appeal was through their own fault.

And, when they did file a petition for relief on October 26, 1965, it was way beyond the sixty-day period from August 6, 1965, the time they first learned of the judgment to be set aside, as required by Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.

We accordingly, rule that petitioners' petition for relief must fail.

2. Petitioners failed to make out a case of excusable negligence for counsel's non-attendance at the July 23, 1965 hearing.

Their counsel, Atty. Leopoldo V. Repotente, Jr., explains his failure to attend the hearing in this wise — "he relied on the assurance of his associate, Atty. Lucenito N. Tagle, that the latter will attend to the case for him since on that same date he (Atty. Repotente) had another case before the City Court of Quezon City." In his sworn statement, Atty. Tagle in turn stated that he was unable to attend the hearing despite his promise to do so because, in his own words, "when I transferred to my new office at A & T Building, Escolta, Manila, the record of this case was misplaced, mislaid or otherwise lost by my helpers and was not among those turned over to my possession" and "it was only a few days after the date of hearing on July 23, 1965, that I found the record of this case in one of the drawers of my table in my former office and it was only then that I realized my failure to attend the hearing on July 23, 1965, ... ."

We cannot view such negligence of petitioners' two attorneys as excusable. There was no plausible reason for Repotente to entrust the hearing of the case to another lawyer. His lame excuse was that he requested Tagle to attend the hearing of said case for him because he had another hearing at the City Court of Quezon City. This is unworthy of serious consideration. For, as respondents aver — and this is not denied by petitioners — the hearing of July 23, 1965 before the municipal court was set in open court during the initial date of hearing held on July 1, 1965 after Atty. Repotente consulted his calendar. When Repotente agreed in open court to set the trial of the case for July 23, 1965, it may very well be presumed that his other case in Quezon City was not yet calendared for hearing. He could not have, in good faith, agreed to set the case for hearing on the day on which he had another previously scheduled trial. Further, he failed to notify his clients of the hearing set for July 23, 1965; they also failed to appear thereat. Certainly, Repotentes' inadvertence cannot be labeled as excusable.

Nor may Atty. Tagle offer as excuse the fact that the record of the case "was misplaced, mislaid or otherwise lost." This is a stereotyped excuse. It is resorted to by lawyers in order to win new trial of the case and thereby move farther away the day of reckoning. To be remembered is that the life of each case is in its record. If the record of the case was misplaced, mislaid or lost, he should have nevertheless attended the scheduled hearing and requested for a postponement by reason thereof. But he did not. Appropriate it is to recall here that a prudent lawyer keeps a separate record or diary of hearings of cases he handles and of his professional engagements. A lawyer's schedules of hearings — intended as reminder — are not noted by the lawyer in his record of the case. That would be useless for the purpose.

There is then no excusable negligence to which the petition for relief can cling.

3. Even on the merits, petitioners' case must fall.

Borromeo paid the widow of its employee, Quintin Delgado, compensation (death benefit) and funeral expenses for the latter's death while in the course of employment. This obligation arises from law — Section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.7 The same law in its Section 6 also provides that "[i]n case an employee suffers an injury for which compensation is due under this Act by any other person besides his employer, it shall be optional with such injured employee either to claim compensation from his employer, under this Act, or sue such other person for damages, in accordance with law; and in case compensation is claimed and allowed in accordance with this Act, the employer who paid such compensation or was found liable to pay the same, shall succeed the injured employee to the right of recovering from such person what he paid: ..."8

It is evident from the foregoing that "if compensation is claimed and awarded, and the employer pays it, the employer becomes subrogated to and acquires, by operation of law, the worker's rights against the tortfeasor."9

No need then there is to establish any contractual relationship between Quintin Delgado and herein petitioners. Indeed, there is none. The cause of action of respondent corporation is one which does not spring from a creditor-debtor relationship. It arises by virtue of its subrogation to the right of Quintin Delgado to sue the guilty party. Such subrogation is sanctioned by the Workmen's Compensation Law aforesaid. It is as a subrogee to the rights of its deceased employee, Quintin Delgado, that Borromeo filed a suit against petitioners in the Municipal Court of Mandaluyong, Rizal. 10

FOR THE REASONS GIVEN, the appealed decision of January 6, 1966 under review is hereby reversed and the petition for relief is hereby dismissed.

Costs against petitioners-appellees. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ.,concur.

G.R. No. L-7089             August 31, 1954

DOMINGO DE LA CRUZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs.NORTHERN THEATRICAL ENTERPRISES INC., ET AL., defendants-appellees.

Conrado Rubio for appellant.Ruiz, Ruiz, Ruiz, Ruiz, and Benjamin Guerrero for appellees.

MONTEMAYOR, J.:

The facts in this case based on an agreed statement of facts are simple. In the year 1941 the Northern Theatrical Enterprises Inc., a domestic corporation operated a movie house in Laoag, Ilocos Norte, and among the persons employed by it was the plaintiff DOMINGO DE LA CRUZ, hired as a special guard whose duties were to guard the main entrance of the cine, to maintain peace and order and to report the commission of disorders within the premises. As such guard he carried a revolver. In the afternoon of July 4, 1941, one Benjamin Martin wanted to crash the gate or entrance of the movie house. Infuriated by the refusal of plaintiff De la Cruz to let him in without first providing himself with a ticket, Martin attacked him with a bolo. De la Cruz defendant himself as best he could until he was cornered, at which moment to save himself he shot the gate crasher, resulting in the latter's death.

For the killing, De la Cruz was charged with homicide in Criminal Case No. 8449 of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte. After a re-investigation conducted by the Provincial Fiscal the latter filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted by the court in January 1943. On July 8, 1947, De la Cruz was again accused of the same crime of homicide, in Criminal Case No. 431 of the same Court. After trial, he was finally acquitted of the charge on January 31, 1948. In both criminal cases De la Cruz employed a lawyer to defend him. He demanded from his former employer reimbursement of his expenses but was refused, after which he filed the present action against the movie corporation and the three members of its board of directors, to recover not only the amounts he had paid his lawyers but also moral damages said to have been suffered, due to his worry, his neglect of his interests and his family as well in the supervision of the cultivation of his land, a total of P15,000. On the basis of the complaint and the answer filed by defendants wherein they asked for the dismissal of the complaint, as well as the agreed statement of facts, the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte after rejecting the theory of the plaintiff that he was an agent of the defendants and that as such agent he was entitled to reimbursement of the expenses incurred by him in connection with the agency (Arts. 1709-1729 of the old Civil Code), found that plaintiff had no cause of action and dismissed the complaint without costs. De la Cruz appealed directly to this Tribunal for the reason that only questions of law are involved in the appeal.

We agree with the trial court that the relationship between the movie corporation and the plaintiff was not that of principal and agent because the principle of representation was in no way involved. Plaintiff was not employed to represent the defendant corporation in its dealings with third parties. He was a mere employee hired to perform a certain specific duty or task, that of acting as special guard and staying at the main entrance of the movie house to stop gate crashers and to maintain peace and order within the premises. The question posed by this appeal is whether an employee or servant who in line of duty and while in the performance of the task assigned to him, performs an act which eventually results in his incurring in expenses, caused not directly by his master or employer or his fellow servants or by reason of his performance of his duty, but rather by a third party or stranger not in the employ of his employer, may recover said damages against his employer.

The learned trial court in the last paragraph of its decision dismissing the complaint said that "after studying many laws or provisions of law to find out what law is applicable to the facts submitted and admitted by the parties, has found none and it has no other alternative than to dismiss the complaint." The trial court is right. We confess that we are not aware of any law or judicial authority that is directly applicable to the present case, and realizing the importance and far-reaching effect of a ruling on the subject-matter we have searched, though vainly, for judicial authorities and enlightenment. All the laws and principles of law we have found, as regards master and servants, or employer and employee, refer to cases of physical injuries, light or serious, resulting in loss of a member of the body or of any one of the senses, or permanent physical disability or even death, suffered in line of duty and in the course of the performance of the duties assigned to the servant or employee, and these cases are mainly governed by the Employer's Liability Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act. But a case involving damages caused to an employee by a stranger or outsider while said employee was in the performance of his duties, presents a novel question which under present legislation we are neither able nor prepared to decide in favor of the employee.

In a case like the present or a similar case of say a driver employed by a transportation company, who while in the course of employment runs over and inflicts physical injuries on or causes the death of a pedestrian; and such driver is later charged criminally in court, one can imagine that it would be to the interest of the employer to give legal help to and defend its employee in order to show that the latter was not guilty of any crime either deliberately or through negligence, because should the employee be finally held criminally liable and he is found to be insolvent, the employer would be subsidiarily liable. That is why, we repeat, it is to the interest of the employer to render legal assistance to its employee. But we are not prepared to say and to

hold that the giving of said legal assistance to its employees is a legal obligation. While it might yet and possibly be regarded as a normal obligation, it does not at present count with the sanction of man-made laws.

If the employer is not legally obliged to give, legal assistance to its employee and provide him with a lawyer, naturally said employee may not recover the amount he may have paid a lawyer hired by him.

Viewed from another angle it may be said that the damage suffered by the plaintiff by reason of the expenses incurred by him in remunerating his lawyer, is not caused by his act of shooting to death the gate crasher but rather by the filing of the charge of homicide which made it necessary for him to defend himself with the aid of counsel. Had no criminal charge been filed against him, there would have been no expenses incurred or damage suffered. So the damage suffered by plaintiff was caused rather by the improper filing of the criminal charge, possibly at the instance of the heirs of the deceased gate crasher and by the State through the Fiscal. We say improper filing, judging by the results of the court proceedings, namely, acquittal. In other words, the plaintiff was innocent and blameless. If despite his innocence and despite the absence of any criminal responsibility on his part he was accused of homicide, then the responsibility for the improper accusation may be laid at the door of the heirs of the deceased and the State, and so theoretically, they are the parties that may be held responsible civilly for damages and if this is so, we fail to see now this responsibility can be transferred to the employer who in no way intervened, much less initiated the criminal proceedings and whose only connection or relation to the whole affairs was that he employed plaintiff to perform a special duty or task, which task or duty was performed lawfully and without negligence.

Still another point of view is that the damages incurred here consisting of the payment of the lawyer's fee did not flow directly from the performance of his duties but only indirectly because there was an efficient, intervening cause, namely, the filing of the criminal charges. In other words, the shooting to death of the deceased by the plaintiff was not the proximate cause of the damages suffered but may be regarded as only a remote cause, because from the shooting to the damages suffered there was not that natural and continuous sequence required to fix civil responsibility.

In view of the foregoing, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. No costs.

Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-36902 January 30, 1982

LUIS PICHEL, petitioner, vs.PRUDENCIO ALONZO, respondent.

 

GUERRERO, J.:

This is a petition to review on certiorari the decision of the Court of First Instance of Basilan City dated January 5, 1973 in Civil Case No. 820 entitled "Prudencio Alonzo, plaintiff, vs. Luis Pichel, defendant."

This case originated in the lower Court as an action for the annulment of a "Deed of Sale" dated August 14, 1968 and executed by Prudencio Alonzo, as vendor, in favor of Luis Pichel, as vendee, involving property awarded to the former by the Philippine Government under Republic Act No. 477. Pertinent portions of the document sued upon read as follows:

That the VENDOR for and in consideration of the sum of FOUR THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P4,200.00), Philippine Currency, in hand paid by the VENDEE to the entire satisfaction of the VENDOR, the VENDOR hereby sells transfers, and conveys, by way of absolute sale, all the coconut fruits of his coconut land, designated as Lot No. 21 - Subdivision Plan No. Psd- 32465, situated at Balactasan Plantation, Lamitan, Basilan City, Philippines;

That for the herein sale of the coconut fruits are for all the fruits on the aforementioned parcel of land presently found therein as well as for future fruits to be produced on the said parcel of land during the years period; which shag commence to run as of SEPTEMBER 15,1968; up to JANUARY 1, 1976 (sic);

That the delivery of the subject matter of the Deed of Sale shall be from time to time and at the expense of the VENDEE who shall do the harvesting and gathering of the fruits;

That the Vendor's right, title, interest and participation herein conveyed is of his own exclusive and absolute property, free from any liens and encumbrances and he warrants to the Vendee good title thereto and to defend the same against any and all claims of all persons whomsoever. 1

After the pre-trial conference, the Court a quo issued an Order dated November 9, 1972 which in part read thus:

The following facts are admitted by the parties:

Plaintiff Prudencio Alonzo was awarded by the Government that parcel of land designated as Lot No. 21 of Subdivision Plan Psd 32465 of Balactasan, Lamitan, Basilan City in accordance with Republic Act No. 477. The award was cancelled by the Board of Liquidators on January 27, 1965 on the ground that, previous thereto, plaintiff was proved to have alienated the land to another, in violation of law. In 197 2, plaintiff's rights to the land were reinstated.

On August 14, 1968, plaintiff and his wife sold to defendant an the fruits of the coconut trees which may be harvested in the land in question for the period, September 15, 1968 to January 1, 1976, in consideration of P4,200.00. Even as of the date of sale, however, the land was still under lease to one, Ramon Sua, and it was the agreement that part of the consideration of the sale, in the sum of P3,650.00, was to be paid by defendant directly to Ramon Sua so as to release the land from the clutches of the latter. Pending said payment plaintiff refused to snow the defendant to make any harvest.

In July 1972, defendant for the first time since the execution of the deed of sale in his favor, caused the harvest of the fruit of the coconut trees in the land.

xxx xxx xxx

Considering the foregoing, two issues appear posed by the complaint and the answer which must needs be tested in the crucible of a trial on the merits, and they are:

First.— Whether or nor defendant actually paid to plaintiff the full sum of P4,200.00 upon execution of the deed of sale.

Second.— Is the deed of sale, Exhibit 'A', the prohibited encumbrance contemplated in Section 8 of Republic Act No. 477? 2

Anent the first issue, counsel for plaintiff Alonzo subsequently 'stipulated and agreed that his client ... admits fun payment thereof by defendant. 3 The remaining issue being one of law, the Court below considered the case submitted for summary judgment on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, and the admission of facts and documentary evidence presented at the pre-trial conference.

The lower court rendered its decision now under review, holding that although the agreement in question is denominated by the parties as a deed of sale of fruits of the coconut trees found in the vendor's land, it actually is, for all legal intents and purposes, a contract of lease of the land itself. According to the Court:

... the sale aforestated has given defendant complete control and enjoyment of the improvements of the land. That the contract is consensual; that its purpose is to allow the enjoyment or use of a thing; that it is onerous because rent or price certain is stipulated; and that the enjoyment or use of the thing certain is stipulated to be for a certain and definite period of time, are characteristics which admit of no other conclusion. ... The provisions of the contract itself and its characteristics govern its nature. 4

The Court, therefore, concluded that the deed of sale in question is an encumbrance prohibited by Republic Act No. 477 which provides thus:

Sec. 8. Except in favor of the Government or any of its branches, units, or institutions, land acquired under the provisions of this Act or any permanent improvements thereon shall not be thereon and for a term of ten years from and after the date of issuance of the certificate of title, nor shall they become liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the expiration of such period.

Any occupant or applicant of lands under this Act who transfers whatever rights he has acquired on said lands and/or on the improvements thereon before the date of the award or signature of the contract of sale, shall not be entitled to apply for another piece of agricultural land or urban, homesite or residential lot, as the case may be, from the National Abaca and Other Fibers Corporation; and such transfer shall be considered null and void.5

The dispositive portion of the lower Court's decision states:

WHEREFORE, it is the judgment of this Court that the deed of sale, Exhibit 'A', should be, as it is, hereby declared nun and void; that plaintiff be, as he is, ordered to pay back to defendant the consideration of the sale in the sum of P4,200.00 the same to bear legal interest from the date of the filing of the complaint until paid; that defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of P500.00 as attorney's fees.

Costs against the defendant. 6

Before going into the issues raised by the instant Petition, the matter of whether, under the admitted facts of this case, the respondent had the right or authority to execute the "Deed of Sale" in 1968, his award over Lot No. 21 having been cancelled previously by the Board of Liquidators on January 27, 1965, must be clarified. The case in point is Ras vs. Sua 7 wherein it was categorically stated by this Court that a cancellation of an award granted pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 477 does not automatically divest the awardee of his rights to the land. Such cancellation does not result in the immediate reversion of the property subject of the award, to the State. Speaking through Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, this Court ruled that "until and unless an appropriate proceeding for reversion is instituted by the State, and its reacquisition of the ownership and possession of the land decreed by a competent court, the grantee cannot be said to have been divested of whatever right that he may have over the same property." 8

There is nothing in the record to show that at any time after the supposed cancellation of herein respondent's award on January 27, 1965, reversion proceedings against Lot No. 21 were instituted by the State. Instead, the admitted fact is that the award was reinstated in 1972. Applying the doctrine announced in the above-cited Ras case, therefore, herein respondent is not deemed to have lost any of his rights as grantee of Lot No. 21 under Republic Act No. 477 during the period material to the case at bar, i.e., from the cancellation of the award in 1965 to its reinstatement in 1972. Within said period, respondent could exercise all the rights pertaining to a grantee with respect to Lot No. 21.

This brings Us to the issues raised by the instant Petition. In his Brief, petitioner contends that the lower Court erred:

1. In resorting to construction and interpretation of the deed of sale in question where the terms thereof are clear and unambiguous and leave no doubt as to the intention of the parties;

2. In declaring — granting without admitting that an interpretation is necessary — the deed of sale in question to be a contract of lease over the land itself where the respondent himself waived and abandoned his claim that said deed did not express the true agreement of the parties, and on the contrary, respondent admitted at the pre-trial that his agreement with petitioner was one of sale of the fruits of the coconut trees on the land;

3. In deciding a question which was not in issue when it declared the deed of sale in question to be a contract of lease over Lot 21;

4. In declaring furthermore the deed of sale in question to be a contract of lease over the land itself on the basis of facts which were not proved in evidence;

5. In not holding that the deed of sale, Exhibit "A" and "2", expresses a valid contract of sale;

6. In not deciding squarely and to the point the issue as to whether or not the deed of sale in question is an encumbrance on the land and its improvements prohibited by Section 8 of Republic Act 477; and

7. In awarding respondent attorney's fees even granting, without admitting, that the deed of sale in question is violative of Section 8 of Republic Act 477.

The first five assigned errors are interrelated, hence, We shall consider them together. To begin with, We agree with petitioner that construction or interpretation of the document in question is not called for. A perusal of the deed fails to disclose any ambiguity or obscurity in its provisions, nor is there doubt as to the real intention of the contracting parties. The terms of the agreement are clear and unequivocal, hence the literal and plain meaning thereof should be observed. Such is the mandate of the Civil Code of the Philippines which provides that:

Art. 1370. If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall control ... .

Pursuant to the afore-quoted legal provision, the first and fundamental duty of the courts is the application of the contract according to its express terms, interpretation being resorted to only when such literal application is impossible. 9

Simply and directly stated, the "Deed of Sale dated August 14, 1968 is precisely what it purports to be. It is a document evidencing the agreement of herein parties for the sale of coconut fruits of Lot No. 21, and not for thelease of the land itself as found by the lower Court. In clear and express terms, the document defines the object of the contract thus: "the herein sale of the coconut fruits are for an the fruits on the aforementioned parcel of land during the years ...(from) SEPTEMBER 15, 1968; up to JANUARY 1, 1976." Moreover, as petitioner correctly asserts, the document in question expresses a valid contract of sale. It has the essential elements of a contract of sale as defined under Article 1485 of the New Civil Code which provides thus:

Art. 1458. By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent.

A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional.

The subject matter of the contract of sale in question are the fruits of the coconut trees on the land during the years from September 15, 1968 up to January 1, 1976, which subject matter is a determinate thing. Under Article 1461 of the New Civil Code, things having a potential existence may be the object of the contract of sale. And inSibal vs. Valdez, 50 Phil. 512, pending crops which have potential existence may be the subject matter of the sale. Here, the Supreme Court, citing Mechem on Sales and American cases said which have potential existence may be the subject matter of sale. Here, the Supreme Court, citing Mechem on Sales and American cases said:

Mr. Mechem says that a valid sale may be made of a thing, which though not yet actually in existence, is reasonably certain to come into existence as the natural increment or usual incident of something already in existence, and then belonging to the vendor, and the title will vest in the buyer the moment the thing comes into existence. (Emerson vs. European Railway Co., 67 Me., 387; Cutting vs. Packers Exchange, 21 Am. St. Rep. 63) Things of this nature are said to have a potential existence. A man may sell property of which he is potentially and not actually possess. He may make a valid sale of the wine that a vineyard is expected to produce; or the grain a field may grow in a given time; or the milk a cow may yield during the coming year; or the wool that shall thereafter grow upon sheep; or what may be taken at the next case of a fisherman's net; or

fruits to grow; or young animals not yet in existence; or the goodwill of a trade and the like. The thing sold, however, must be specific and Identified. They must be also owned at the time by the vendor. (Hull vs. Hull 48 Conn. 250 (40 Am. Rep., 165) (pp. 522-523).

We do not agree with the trial court that the contract executed by and between the parties is "actually a contract of lease of the land and the coconut trees there." (CFI Decision, p. 62, Records). The Court's holding that the contract in question fits the definition of a lease of things wherein one of the parties binds himself to give to another the enjoyment or use of a thing for a price certain and for a period which may be definite or indefinite (Art. 1643, Civil Code of the Philippines) is erroneous. The essential difference between a contract of sale and a lease of things is that the delivery of the thing sold transfers ownership, while in lease no such transfer of ownership results as the rights of the lessee are limited to the use and enjoyment of the thing leased.

In Rodriguez vs. Borromeo, 43 Phil. 479, 490, the Supreme Court held:

Since according to article 1543 of the same Code the contract of lease is defined as the giving or the concession of the enjoyment or use of a thing for a specified time and fixed price, and since such contract is a form of enjoyment of the property, it is evident that it must be regarded as one of the means of enjoyment referred to in said article 398, inasmuch as the terms enjoyment, use, and benefit involve the same and analogous meaning relative to the general utility of which a given thing is capable. (104 Jurisprudencia Civil, 443)

In concluding that the possession and enjoyment of the coconut trees can therefore be said to be the possession and enjoyment of the land itself because the defendant-lessee in order to enjoy his right under the contract, he actually takes possession of the land, at least during harvest time, gather all of the fruits of the coconut trees in the land, and gain exclusive use thereof without the interference or intervention of the plaintiff-lessor such that said plaintiff-lessor is excluded in fact from the land during the period aforesaid, the trial court erred. The contract was clearly a "sale of the coconut fruits." The vendor sold, transferred and conveyed "by way of absolute sale, all the coconut fruits of his land," thereby divesting himself of all ownership or dominion over the fruits during the seven-year period. The possession and enjoyment of the coconut trees cannot be said to be the possession and enjoyment of the land itself because these rights are distinct and separate from each other, the first pertaining to the accessory or improvements (coconut trees) while the second, to the principal (the land). A transfer of the accessory or improvement is not a transfer of the principal. It is the other way around, the accessory follows the principal. Hence, the sale of the nuts cannot be interpreted nor construed to be a lease of the trees, much less extended further to include the lease of the land itself.

The real and pivotal issue of this case which is taken up in petitioner's sixth assignment of error and as already stated above, refers to the validity of the "Deed of Sale", as such contract of sale, vis-a-vis the provisions of Sec. 8, R.A. No. 477. The lower Court did not rule on this question, having reached the conclusion that the contract at bar was one of lease. It was from the context of a lease contract that the Court below determined the applicability of Sec. 8, R.A. No. 477, to the instant case.

Resolving now this principal issue, We find after a close and careful examination of the terms of the first paragraph of Section 8 hereinabove quoted, that the grantee of a parcel of land under R.A. No. 477 is not prohibited from alienating or disposing of the natural and/or industrial fruits of the land awarded to him. What the law expressly disallows is the encumbrance or alienation of the land itself or any of the permanent improvements thereon. Permanent improvements on a parcel of land are things incorporated or attached to the property in a fixed manner, naturally or artificially. They include whatever is built, planted or sown on the land which is characterized by fixity, immutability or immovability. Houses, buildings, machinery, animal houses, trees and plants would fall under the category of permanent improvements, the alienation or encumbrance of which is prohibited by R.A. No. 477. While coconut trees are permanent improvements of a land, their nuts are natural or industrial fruits which are meant to be gathered or severed from the trees, to be used, enjoyed, sold or otherwise disposed of by the owner of the land. Herein respondents, as the grantee of Lot No. 21 from the Government, had the right and prerogative to sell the coconut fruits of the trees growing on the property.

By virtue of R.A. No. 477, bona fide occupants, veterans, members of guerilla organizations and other qualified persons were given the opportunity to acquire government lands by purchase, taking into account their limited means. It was intended for these persons to make good and productive use of the lands awarded to them, not only to enable them to improve their standard of living, but likewise to help provide for the annual payments to the Government of the purchase price of the lots awarded to them. Section 8 was included, as stated by the Court a quo, to protect the grantees from themselves and the incursions of opportunists who prey on their misery and poverty." It is there to insure that the grantees themselves benefit from their respective lots, to the exclusion of other persons.

The purpose of the law is not violated when a grantee sells the produce or fruits of his land. On the contrary, the aim of the law is thereby achieved, for the grantee is encouraged and induced to be more industrious and productive, thus making it possible for him and his family to be economically self-sufficient and to lead a respectable life. At the same time, the Government is assured of payment on the annual installments on the land. We agree with herein petitioner that it could not have been the

intention of the legislature to prohibit the grantee from selling the natural and industrial fruits of his land, for otherwise, it would lead to an absurd situation wherein the grantee would not be able to receive and enjoy the fruits of the property in the real and complete sense.

Respondent through counsel, in his Answer to the Petition contends that even granting arguendo that he executed a deed of sale of the coconut fruits, he has the "privilege to change his mind and claim it as (an) implied lease," and he has the "legitimate right" to file an action for annulment "which no law can stop." He claims it is his "sole construction of the meaning of the transaction that should prevail and not petitioner. (sic). 10 Respondent's counsel either misapplies the law or is trying too hard and going too far to defend his client's hopeless cause. Suffice it to say that respondent-grantee, after having received the consideration for the sale of his coconut fruits, cannot be allowed to impugn the validity of the contracts he entered into, to the prejudice of petitioner who contracted in good faith and for a consideration.

The issue raised by the seventh assignment of error as to the propriety of the award of attorney's fees made by the lower Court need not be passed upon, such award having been apparently based on the erroneous finding and conclusion that the contract at bar is one of lease. We shall limit Ourselves to the question of whether or not in accordance with Our ruling in this case, respondent is entitled to an award of attorney's fees. The Civil Code provides that:

Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:

(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;

(2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest;

(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff;

(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff;

(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable claim;

(6) In actions for legal support;

(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers;

(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws;

(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime;

(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;

(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered.

In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable.

We find that none of the legal grounds enumerated above exists to justify or warrant the grant of attorney's fees to herein respondent.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the judgment of the lower Court is hereby set aside and another one is entered dismissing the Complaint. Without costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Fernandez, Melencio-Herrera and Plana, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 91958 January 24, 1991

WILFREDO D. LICUDAN and CRISTINA LICUDAN-CAMPOS, petitioners, vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and ATTY. TEODORO O. DOMALANTA, respondents.

Arnold V. Guerrero & Associates for petitioners.

Teodoro O. Domalanta for and on his behalf as private respondent.

 

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:p

The practice of law is a profession rather than trade. Courts must guard against the charging of unconscionable and excessive fees by lawyers for their services when engaged as counsel. Whether or not the award of attorney's fees in this case is reasonable, being in the nature of contingent fees, is the principal issue.

This petition for review on certiorari assails:

1) The Decision of the public respondent dated September 12, 1989 which dismissed the petitioners' appeal thereby upholding the reasonableness of the respondent lawyer's lien as attorney's fees over the properties of his clients; and

2) The Resolution of the public respondent dated January 30, 1990 which denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

The grounds relied upon by the petitioners are as follows:

The respondent Court, in upholding the entitlement of private respondent-attorney on the attorney's fees he claimed, decided the question in a manner not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of this Honorable Tribunal.

The respondent Court, in refusing to review and determine the propriety, reasonableness and validity of the attorney's fees claimed by the private respondent-attorney, departed from the usual course of judicial proceedings.

The respondent Court, in failing to declare the attorney's fees claimed by the private respondent-attorney as unconscionable, excessive, unreasonable, immoral and unethical, decided the question in a way not in accord with law and with applicable decisions of this Honorable Tribunal. (Petition, pp. 12-13; Rollo, pp. 16-17)

The following are the antecedent facts pertinent to the case at bar:

The respondent lawyer was retained as counsel by his brother-in-law and sister, the now deceased petitioners' parents, spouses Aurelio and Felicidad Licudan. His services as counsel pertained to two related civil cases docketed as Civil Case No. Q-12254 for partition and Civil Case No. Q-28655 for a sum of money in connection with the redemption of the property subject matter of the two cases covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 818 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City. In both cases, the respondent lawyer obtained a judgment in favor of his clients.

On August 13,1979, the respondent lawyer filed a Petition for Attorney's Lien with Notification to his Clients which substantially alleged that his clients executed two written contracts for professional services in his favor which provided that:

a) The undersigned counsel is entitled to own 97.5 square meters of the plaintiff's share of the lot in question.

b) The undersigned counsel shall have a usufructuary right for a period of ten (10) years of plaintiffs' share of the lot in question.

c) And that all damages accruing to plaintiffs to be paid by the defendant is for the undersigned counsel.(Annex "H" of the Petition, Rollo, p. 54)

On September 19, 1979, the trial court handling Civil Case No. Q-12254 ordered the annotation at the back of TCT No. 818 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City of the respondent lawyer's Contract for Professional Services dated August 30, 1979 signed by petitioner Wilfredo Licudan and Aurelio Licudan on his own behalf and on behalf of his daughter, petitioner Cristina Licudan-Campos. The said trial court's Order, being one of two Orders being essentially challenged in this petition, is reproduced below:

Before the court for consideration is a Petition for Attorney's Lien filed by Atty. Teodoro D. Domalanta, counsel for the plaintiff, praying that his attorney's fees be annotated as a lien at the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 818 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, subject matter of this case.

For the protection of the plaintiffs, the court required the plaintiff Aurelio Licudan as well as his son to appear this morning. Plaintiff Aurelio Licudan together with his son Wilfredo Licudan, who appears to be intelligent and in fact he speaks (the) English language well, appeared. Both Aurelio and Wilfredo Licudan manifested that they have freely and voluntarily signed the Contract for Professional Services, dated August 30, 1979 and notarized before Notary Public Amado Garrovillas as Doc. No. 32, Page 8, Book No. XIX, Series of 1979.

Considering the manifestation of plaintiff, Aurelio Licudan and Alfredo (sic) Licudan that they have entered freely and voluntarily in the said contract of professional services, let the same be annotated at the back of TCT 818 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, upon payment of the required legal fees. (CA Decision, pp. 7-8; Rollo, pp. 36-37)

The Contract for Professional Services dated August 30, 1979 differs from the earlier contractual provisions in that it entitled the respondent lawyer to one-third (1/3) of the subject property or 90.5 square meters and provided for usufructuary rights over the entire lot in question in favor of the respondent lawyer's son, Teodoro M. Domalanta, Jr. for an agreed consideration. (Annex "J" of the Petition; Rollo, p. 59)

On July 25, 1985, the respondent lawyer filed a motion ex parte to amend the Order dated September 19, 1979 so as to conform with an additional professional fee covering 31 square meters more of the lot for services rendered in Civil Case No. Q-28655 as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 1, 1983 executed by Aurelio Licudan in favor of the respondent lawyer.

On September 6, 1985, the trial court ordered the respondent lawyer to submit a subdivision plan in conformity with his attorney's fees contract under which one-third (1/3) of the property or 90.5 square meters was alloted to him.

On September 23, 1985, the respondent lawyer filed a motion for reconsideration praying for the amendment of the Order dated September 19, 1979 to conform with the Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 1, 1983 which was executed after the annotation of the original attorney's lien of 90.5 square meters.

On September 30, 1985, the trial court denied the motion on the ground that the respondent lawyer cannot collect attorney's fees for other cases in the action for partition.

On October 4, 1985, the respondent lawyer filed a second motion for reconsideration of the Order dated September 6, 1985 explaining that what he sought to be included in the Order dated September 19, 1979 is the additional attorney's fees for handling the redemption case which was but a mere offshoot of the partition case and further manifesting that the additional 31 square meters as compensation for the redemption case must be merged with the 90.5 square meters for the partition case to enable the said respondent lawyer to comply with the Order dated September 6,1985 which directed him to submit a subdivision plan as required.

On October 21, 1985, the trial court issued the second Order being assailed in this petition. The said Order reads:

Acting on the "Second Motion for Reconsideration" filed by Atty. Teodoro Domalanta and finding the same to be justified, let an attorney's lien be annotated in the title of the property for 31 square meters as attorney's fees of said Atty. Teodoro Domalanta in addition to the original 90.5 square meters. (CA Decision, p. 8; Rollo, p. 37)

On August 22, 1986, more than ten (10) months after the Orders of September 6, 1985 and October 21, 1985 had become final and executory, the petitioners as substituted heirs of the respondent lawyers' deceased clients filed a motion to set aside orders on the ground that the award of professional fees covering 121.5 square meters of the 271.5 square meter lot is unconscionable and excessive.

After the respondent lawyer filed his Opposition to the above petitioners' motion, the lower court, on August 29, 1986, finding that the petitioners as substituted plaintiffs are not in full agreement with the respondent lawyer's claim for attorney's fees, set aside its Orders dated September 6, 1985 and October 21, 1985.

On September 16, 1986, the respondent lawyer filed a motion for reconsideration stressing the fact that the payment of the professional services was pursuant to a contract which could no longer be disturbed or set aside because it has already been implemented and had since then become final. This motion was denied on October 3, 1986.

On November 15, 1986, the respondent lawyer filed a motion to set aside the orders dated August 29, 1986 and October 3, 1986 reiterating his position that the Orders of September 6, 1985 and October 21, 1985 have become final and are already implemented. The respondent lawyer further asked for the modification of the October 21, 1985 Order to reflect 60.32 square meters instead of 31 square meters only since the stipulation in the Additional Contract for Professional Services entitled him to 60.32 square meters.

After the petitioners' Opposition to the said motion was filed, the trial court, on February 26, 1987, rendered an Order with the following dispositive portion:

WHEREFORE, this Court has no alternative but to set aside its orders of 29 August 1986 and 3 October 1986 and declare its Orders of 19 September 1979 and 21 October 1985 irrevocably final and executory. (CA Decision, p. 5; Rollo, p. 34)

On Appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the respondent lawyer by dismissing the appeal and the prayed for writ of preliminary injunction. Their subsequent motion for reconsideration having been denied', the petitioners filed the instant petition.

The petitioners fault the respondent Court for its failure to exercise its inherent power to review and determine the propriety of the stipulated attorney's fees in favor of the respondent lawyer and accuse the respondent lawyer of having committed an unfair advantage or legal fraud by virtue of the Contract for Professional Services devised by him after the trial court awarded him attorney's fees for P1,000.00 only instead of respecting the trust and confidence of the highest level reposed on him considering the close blood and affinal relationship between him and his clients.

The petitioners contend that under the award for professional services, they may have won the case but would lose the entire property won in litigation to their uncle-lawyer. They would be totally deprived of their house and lot and the recovered damages considering that of the 271.5 square meters of the subject lot, the respondent lawyer is claiming 121.5 square meters and the remaining portion of 150 square meters would also go to attorney's fees since the said portion pertains to the lawyer's son by way of usufruct for ten (10) years.

The aforesaid submissions by the petitioners merit our consideration.

It is a well-entrenched rule that attorney's fees may be claimed in the very action in which the services in question have been rendered or as an incident of the main action. The fees may be properly adjudged after such litigation is terminated and the subject of recovery is at the disposition of the court. (see Camacho v. Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA 604 [1989]; Quirante v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 169 SCRA 769 [1989]).

It is an equally deeply-rooted rule that contingent fees are not per se prohibited by law. They are sanctioned by Canon 13 of the Canons of Professional Ethics and Canon 20, Rule 20.01 of the recently promulgated Code of Professional Responsibility. However, as we have held in the case of Tanhueco v. De Dumo (172 SCRA 760 [1989]):

. . . When it is shown that a contract for a contingent fee was obtained by undue influence exercised by the attorney upon his client or by any fraud or imposition, or that the compensation is clearly excessive, the Court must and will protect the aggrieved party. (Ulanday v. Manila Railroad Co., 45 Phil. 540 [1923]; Grey v. Insular Lumber Co., 97 Phil. 833 [1955]).

In the case at bar, the respondent lawyer caused the annotation of his attorney's fees lien in the main action for partition docketed as Civil Case No. Q-12254 on the basis of a Contract for Professional Services dated August 30, 1979. We find reversible error in the Court of Appeals' holding that:

When the reasonableness of the appellee's lien as attorney's fees over the properties of his clients awarded to him by the trial court had not been questioned by the client, and the said orders had already become final and executory, the same could no longer be disturbed, not even by the court which rendered them (Tañada v. Court of Appeals, 139 SCRA 419). (CA Decision p. 7; Rollo, p. 36)

On the contrary, we rule that the questioned Orders dated September 19, 1979 and October 21, 1985 cannot become final as they pertain to a contract for a contingent fee which is always subject to the supervision of the Court with regard to its reasonableness as unequivocally provided in Section 13 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which reads:

13. Contingent Fees.—

A contract for a contingent fee, where sanctioned by law, should be reasonable under all the circumstances of the case including the risk and uncertainty of the compensation, but should alwaysbe subject to the supervision of a court, as to its reasonableness. (Emphasis supplied).

There is no dispute in the instant case that the attorney's fees claimed by the respondent lawyer are in the nature of a contingent fee. There is nothing irregular about the execution of a written contract for professional services even after the termination of a case as long as it is based on a previous agreement on contingent fees by the parties concerned and as long as the said contract does not contain stipulations which are contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy or public order.

Although the Contract for Professional Services dated August 30, 1979 was apparently voluntarily signed by the late Aurelio Licudan for himself and on behalf of his daughter, petitioner Cristina Licudan-Campos and by the petitioner Wilfredo Licudan who both manifested in open court that they gave their free and willing consent to the said contract we cannot allow the said contract to stand as the law between the parties involved considering that the rule that in the presence of a contract for professional services duly executed by the parties thereto, the same becomes the law between the said parties is not absolute but admits an exception—that the stipulations therein are not contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy or public order (see Philippine American Life Insurance Company v. Pineda, 175 SCRA 416 [1989]; Syjuco v. Court of Appeals, 172 SCRA 111 [1989]).

Under Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. In determining whether or not the lawyer fees are fair and reasonable, Rule 20-01 of the same Code enumerates the factors to be considered in resolving the said issue. They are as follows:

a) The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required;

b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;

c) The importance of the subject matter;

d) The skill demanded;

e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proferred case;

f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP Chapter to which he belongs;

g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the service;

h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;

i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and

j) The professional standing of the lawyer.

A similar provision is contained under Section 24, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court which partly states that:

Sec. 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees. — An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services, with a view to the importance of the subject matter of the controversy, the extent of the services rendered, and the professional standing of the attorney. . . . A written contract for services shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.

All that the respondent lawyer handled for his deceased sister and brother-in-law was a simple case of partition which necessitated no special skill nor any unusual effort in its preparation. The subsequent case for redemption was admittedly but an

offshot of the partition case. Considering the close blood and affinal relationship between the respondent lawyer and his clients, there is no doubt that Atty. Domalanta took advantage of the situation to promote his own personal interests instead of protecting the legal interests of his clients. A careful perusal of the provisions of the contract for professional services in question readily shows that what the petitioners won was a pyrrhic victory on account of the fact that despite the successful turnout of the partition case, they are now practically left with nothing of the whole subject lot won in the litigation. This is because aside from the 121.5 square meters awarded to Atty. Domalanta as attorney's fees, the said contract for professional services provides that the remaining portion shall pertain to the respondent lawyer's son by way of usufruct for ten (10) years. There should never be an instance where a lawyer gets as attorney's fees the entire property involved in the litigation. It is unconscionable for the victor in litigation to lose everything he won to the fees of his own lawyer.

The respondent lawyer's argument that it is not he but his son Teodoro M. Domalanta, Jr. who is claiming the usufructuary right over the remaining portion of the subject lot is inaccurate. The records show that the matter of usufruct is tied up with this case since the basis for the said usufructuary right is the contract for professional services the reasonableness of which is being questioned in this petition. We find the ten-year usufruct over the subject lot part and parcel of the attorney's fees being claimed by the respondent lawyer.

In resolving the issue of reasonableness of the attorney's fees, we uphold the time-honoured legal maxim that a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession so that his basic ideal becomes one of rendering service and securing justice, not money-making. For the worst scenario that can ever happen to a client is to lose the litigated property to his lawyer in whom an trust and confidence were bestowed at the very inception of the legal controversy. We find the Contract for Professional Services dated August 30, 1979, unconscionable and unreasonable. The amount of P20,000.00 as attorney's fees, in lieu of the 121.5 square meters awarded to the respondent lawyer and the ten-year usufructuary right over the remaining portion of 150 square meters by the respondent lawyer's son, is, in the opinion of this Court, commensurate to the services rendered by Atty. Domalanta.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' decision of September 12, 1989 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Atty. Domalanta is awarded reasonable attorney's fees in the amount of P20,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Feliciano and Bidin, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-48006             July 8, 1942

FAUSTO BARREDO, petitioner, vs.SEVERINO GARCIA and TIMOTEA ALMARIO, respondents.

Celedonio P. Gloria and Antonio Barredo for petitioner.Jose G. Advincula for respondents.

BOCOBO, J.:

This case comes up from the Court of Appeals which held the petitioner herein, Fausto Barredo, liable in damages for the death of Faustino Garcia caused by the negligence of Pedro Fontanilla, a taxi driver employed by said Fausto Barredo.

At about half past one in the morning of May 3, 1936, on the road between Malabon and Navotas, Province of Rizal, there was a head-on collision between a taxi of the Malate Taxicab driven by Pedro Fontanilla and a carretela guided by Pedro Dimapalis. The carretela was overturned, and one of its passengers, 16-year-old boy Faustino Garcia, suffered injuries from which he died two days later. A criminal action was filed against Fontanilla in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and he was convicted and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of one year and one day to two years of prision correccional. The court in the criminal case granted the petition that the right to bring a separate civil action be reserved. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence of the lower court in the criminal case. Severino Garcia and Timotea Almario, parents of the deceased on March 7, 1939, brought an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Fausto Barredo as the sole proprietor of the Malate Taxicab and employer of Pedro Fontanilla. On July 8, 1939, the Court of First Instance of Manila awarded damages in favor of the plaintiffs for P2,000 plus legal interest from the date of the complaint. This decision was modified by the Court of Appeals by reducing the damages to P1,000 with legal interest from the time the action was instituted. It is undisputed that Fontanilla 's negligence was the cause of the mishap, as he was driving on the wrong side of the road, and at high speed. As to Barredo's responsibility, the Court of Appeals found:

... It is admitted that defendant is Fontanilla's employer. There is proof that he exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. (See p. 22, appellant's brief.) In fact it is shown he was careless in employing Fontanilla who had been caught several times for violation of the Automobile Law and speeding (Exhibit A) — violation which appeared in the records of the Bureau of Public Works available to be public and to himself. Therefore, he must indemnify plaintiffs under the provisions of article 1903 of the Civil Code.

The main theory of the defense is that the liability of Fausto Barredo is governed by the Revised Penal Code; hence, his liability is only subsidiary, and as there has been no civil action against Pedro Fontanilla, the person criminally liable, Barredo cannot be held responsible in the case. The petitioner's brief states on page 10:

... The Court of Appeals holds that the petitioner is being sued for his failure to exercise all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of Pedro Fontanilla to prevent damages suffered by the respondents. In other words, The Court of Appeals insists on applying in the case article 1903 of the Civil Code. Article 1903 of the Civil Code is found in Chapter II, Title 16, Book IV of the Civil Code. This fact makes said article to a civil liability arising from a crime as in the case at bar simply because Chapter II of Title 16 of Book IV of the Civil Code, in the precise words of article 1903 of the Civil Code itself, is applicable only to "those (obligations) arising from wrongful or negligent acts or commission notpunishable by law.

The gist of the decision of the Court of Appeals is expressed thus:

... We cannot agree to the defendant's contention. The liability sought to be imposed upon him in this action is not a civil obligation arising from a felony or a misdemeanor (the crime of Pedro Fontanilla,), but an obligation imposed in article 1903 of the Civil Code by reason of his negligence in the selection or supervision of his servant or employee.

The pivotal question in this case is whether the plaintiffs may bring this separate civil action against Fausto Barredo, thus making him primarily and directly, responsible under article 1903 of the Civil Code as an employer of Pedro Fontanilla. The defendant maintains that Fontanilla's negligence being punishable by the Penal Code, his (defendant's) liability as an employer is only subsidiary, according to said Penal code, but Fontanilla has not been sued in a civil action and his property has not been exhausted. To decide the main issue, we must cut through the tangle that has, in the minds of many confused and jumbled together delitos and cuasi delitos, or crimes under the Penal Code and fault or negligence under articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. This should be done, because justice may be lost in a labyrinth, unless principles and remedies are distinctly envisaged. Fortunately, we are aided in our inquiry by the luminous presentation of the perplexing subject by renown jurists and we are

likewise guided by the decisions of this Court in previous cases as well as by the solemn clarity of the consideration in several sentences of the Supreme Tribunal of Spain.

Authorities support the proposition that a 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 article 1903 of the Civil Code, the primary and direct responsibility of employers may be safely anchored.

The pertinent provisions of the Civil Code and Revised Penal Code are as follows:

CIVIL CODE

ART. 1089 Obligations arise from law, from contracts and quasi-contracts, and from acts and omissions which are unlawful or in which any kind of fault or negligence intervenes.

x x x           x x x           x x x

ART. 1092. Civil obligations arising from felonies or misdemeanors shall be governed by the provisions of the Penal Code.

ART. 1093. Those which are derived from acts or omissions in which fault or negligence, not punishable by law, intervenes shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter II, Title XVI of this book.

x x x           x x x           x x x

ART 1902. Any person who by an act or omission causes damage to another by his fault or negligence shall be liable for the damage so done.

ART. 1903. The obligation imposed by the next preceding article is enforcible, not only for personal acts and omissions, but also for those of persons for whom another is responsible.

The father and in, case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are liable for any damages caused by the minor children who live with them.

Guardians are liable for damages done by minors or incapacitated persons subject to their authority and living with them.

Owners or directors of an establishment or business are equally liable for any damages caused by their employees while engaged in the branch of the service in which employed, or on occasion of the performance of their duties.

The State is subject to the same liability when it acts through a special agent, but not if the damage shall have been caused by the official upon whom properly devolved the duty of doing the act performed, in which case the provisions of the next preceding article shall be applicable.

Finally, teachers or directors of arts trades are liable for any damages caused by their pupils or apprentices while they are under their custody.

The liability imposed by this article shall cease in case the persons mentioned therein prove that they are exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage.

ART. 1904. Any person who pays for damage caused by his employees may recover from the latter what he may have paid.

REVISED PENAL CODE

ART. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. — Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.

ART. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. — The exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 of article 12 and in subdivision 4 of article 11 of this Code does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced to the following rules:

First. In cases of subdivision, 1, 2 and 3 of article 12 the civil liability for acts committed by any imbecile or insane person, and by a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has acted without discernment shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on their part.

Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authority, legal guardianship, or control, or if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property, excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil law.

Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of article 11, the person for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received.

The courts shall determine, in their sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable.

When the respective shares can not be equitably determined, even approximately, or when the liability also attaches to the Government, or to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever the damage has been caused with the consent of the authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations.

Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of article 12, the persons using violence or causing the fear shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, those doing the act shall be liable, saving always to the latter that part of their property exempt from execution.

ART. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavern keepers and proprietors of establishment. — In default of persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavern keepers, and any other persons or corporation shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall have been committed by them or their employees.

Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses lodging therein, or the person, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the directions which such innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect to the care of and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or intimidation against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeeper's employees.

ART. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. — The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.

x x x           x x x           x x x

ART. 365. Imprudence and negligence. — Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be imposed.

Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act which would otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods; if it would have constituted a less serious felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed."

It will thus be seen that while the terms of articles 1902 of the Civil Code seem to be broad enough to cover the driver's negligence in the instant case, nevertheless article 1093 limits cuasi-delitos to acts or omissions "not punishable by law." But inasmuch as article 365 of the Revised Penal Code punishes not only reckless but even simple imprudence or negligence, the fault or negligence under article 1902 of the Civil Code has apparently been crowded out. It is this overlapping that makes the "confusion worse confounded." However, a closer study shows that such a concurrence of scope in regard to negligent acts does not destroy the distinction between the civil liability arising from a crime and the responsibility for cuasi-delitos or culpa extra-contractual. The same negligent act causing damages may produce civil liability arising from a crime under article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, or create an action for cuasi-delito or culpa extra-contractual under articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code.

The individuality of cuasi-delito or culpa extra-contractual looms clear and unmistakable. This legal institution is of ancient lineage, one of its early ancestors being the Lex Aquilia in the Roman Law. In fact, in Spanish legal terminology, this responsibility is often referred to as culpa aquiliana. The Partidas also contributed to the genealogy of the present fault or

negligence under the Civil Code; for instance, Law 6, Title 15, of Partida 7, says: "Tenudo es de fazer emienda, porque, como quier que el non fizo a sabiendas en daño al otro, pero acaescio por su culpa."

The distinctive nature of cuasi-delitos survives in the Civil Code. According to article 1089, one of the five sources of obligations is this legal institution of cuasi-delito or culpa extra-contractual: "los actos . . . en que intervenga cualquier genero de culpa o negligencia." Then article 1093 provides that this kind of obligation shall be governed by Chapter II of Title XVI of Book IV, meaning articles 1902-0910. This portion of the Civil Code is exclusively devoted to the legal institution of culpa aquiliana.

Some of the differences between crimes under the Penal Code and the culpa aquiliana or cuasi-delito under the Civil Code are:

1. That crimes affect the public interest, while cuasi-delitos are only of private concern.

2. That, consequently, the Penal Code punishes or corrects the criminal act, while the Civil Code, by means of indemnification, merely repairs the damage.

3. That delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts, because the former are punished only if there is a penal law clearly covering them, while the latter, cuasi-delitos, include all acts in which "any king of fault or negligence intervenes." However, it should be noted that not all violations of the penal law produce civil responsibility, such as begging in contravention of ordinances, violation of the game laws, infraction of the rules of traffic when nobody is hurt. (See Colin and Capitant, "Curso Elemental de Derecho Civil," Vol. 3, p. 728.)

Let us now ascertain what some jurists say on the separate existence of quasi-delicts and the employer's primary and direct liability under article 1903 of the Civil Code.

Dorado Montero in his essay on "Responsibilidad" in the "Enciclopedia Juridica Española" (Vol. XXVII, p. 414) says:

El concepto juridico de la responsabilidad civil abarca diversos aspectos y comprende a diferentes personas. Asi, existe una responsabilidad civil propiamente dicha, que en ningun casl lleva aparejada responsabilidad criminal alguna, y otra que es consecuencia indeclinable de la penal que nace de todo delito o falta."

The juridical concept of civil responsibility has various aspects and comprises different persons. Thus, there is a civil responsibility, properly speaking, which in no case carries with it any criminal responsibility, and another which is a necessary consequence of the penal liability as a result of every felony or misdemeanor."

Maura, an outstanding authority, was consulted on the following case: There had been a collision between two trains belonging respectively to the Ferrocarril Cantabrico and the Ferrocarril del Norte. An employee of the latter had been prosecuted in a criminal case, in which the company had been made a party as subsidiarily responsible in civil damages. The employee had been acquitted in the criminal case, and the employer, the Ferrocarril del Norte, had also been exonerated. The question asked was whether the Ferrocarril Cantabrico could still bring a civil action for damages against the Ferrocarril del Norte. Maura's opinion was in the affirmative, stating in part (Maura, Dictamenes, Vol. 6, pp. 511-513):

Quedando las cosas asi, a proposito de la realidad pura y neta de los hechos, todavia menos parece sostenible que exista cosa juzgada acerca de la obligacion civil de indemnizar los quebrantos y menoscabos inferidos por el choque de los trenes. El titulo en que se funda la accion para demandar el resarcimiento, no puede confundirse con las responsabilidades civiles nacidas de delito, siquiera exista en este, sea el cual sea, una culpa rodeada de notas agravatorias que motivan sanciones penales, mas o menos severas. La lesion causada por delito o falta en los derechos civiles, requiere restituciones, reparaciones o indemnizaciones, que cual la pena misma atañen al orden publico; por tal motivo vienen encomendadas, de ordinario, al Ministerio Fiscal; y claro es que si por esta via se enmiendan los quebrantos y menoscabos, el agraviado excusa procurar el ya conseguido desagravio; pero esta eventual coincidencia de los efectos, no borra la diversidad originaria de las acciones civiles para pedir indemnizacion.

Estas, para el caso actual (prescindiendo de culpas contractuales, que no vendrian a cuento y que tiene otro regimen), dimanan, segun el articulo 1902 del Codigo Civil, de toda accion u omision, causante de daños o perjuicios, en que intervenga culpa o negligencia. Es trivial que acciones semejantes son ejercitadas ante los Tribunales de lo civil cotidianamente, sin que la Justicia punitiva tenga que mezclarse en los asuntos. Los articulos 18 al 21 y 121 al 128 del Codigo Penal, atentos al espiritu y a los fines sociales y politicos del mismo, desenvuelven y ordenan la materia de responsabilidades civiles nacidas de delito, en terminos separados del regimen por ley comun de la culpa que se denomina aquiliana, por alusion a precedentes legislativos del Corpus Juris. Seria intempestivo un paralelo entre aquellas ordenaciones, y la de la obligacion de indemnizar a titulo de culpa civil; pero viene al caso y es necesaria una de las diferenciaciones que en el tal paralelo se notarian.

Los articulos 20 y 21 del Codigo Penal, despues de distribuir a su modo las responsabilidades civiles, entre los que sean por diversos conceptos culpables del delito o falta, las hacen extensivas a las empresas y los establecimientos al servicio de los cuales estan los delincuentes; pero con caracter subsidiario, o sea, segun el texto literal, en defecto de los que sean responsables criminalmente. No coincide en ello el Codigo Civil, cuyo articulo 1903, dice; La obligacion que impone el articulo anterior es exigible, no solo por los actos y omisiones propios, sino por los de aquellas personas de quienes se debe responder; personas en la enumeracion de las cuales figuran los dependientes y empleados de los establecimientos o empresas, sea por actos del servicio, sea con ocasion de sus funciones. Por esto acontece, y se observa en la jurisprudencia, que las empresas, despues de intervenir en las causas criminales con el caracter subsidiario de su responsabilidad civil por razon del delito, son demandadas y condenadas directa y aisladamente, cuando se trata de la obligacion, ante los tribunales civiles.

Siendo como se ve, diverso el titulo de esta obligacion, y formando verdadero postulado de nuestro regimen judicial la separacion entre justicia punitiva y tribunales de lo civil, de suerte que tienen unos y otros normas de fondo en distintos cuerpos legales, y diferentes modos de proceder, habiendose, por añadidura, abstenido de asistir al juicio criminal la Compañia del Ferrocarril Cantabrico, que se reservo ejercitar sus acciones, parece innegable que la de indemnizacion por los daños y perjuicios que le irrogo el choque, no estuvo sub judice ante el Tribunal del Jurado, ni fue sentenciada, sino que permanecio intacta, al pronunciarse el fallo de 21 de marzo. Aun cuando el veredicto no hubiese sido de inculpabilidad, mostrose mas arriba, que tal accion quedaba legitimamente reservada para despues del proceso; pero al declararse que no existio delito, ni responsabilidad dimanada de delito, materia unicasobre que tenian jurisdiccion aquellos juzgadores, se redobla el motivo para la obligacion civil ex lege, y se patentiza mas y mas que la accion para pedir su cumplimiento permanece incolume, extraña a lacosa juzgada.

As things are, apropos of the reality pure and simple of the facts, it seems less tenable that there should be res judicata with regard to the civil obligation for damages on account of the losses caused by the collision of the trains. The title upon which the action for reparation is based cannot be confused with the civil responsibilities born of a crime, because there exists in the latter, whatever each nature, a culpasurrounded with aggravating aspects which give rise to penal measures that are more or less severe. The injury caused by a felony or misdemeanor upon civil rights requires restitutions, reparations, or indemnifications which, like the penalty itself, affect public order; for this reason, they are ordinarily entrusted to the office of the prosecuting attorney; and it is clear that if by this means the losses and damages are repaired, the injured party no longer desires to seek another relief; but this coincidence of effects does not eliminate the peculiar nature of civil actions to ask for indemnity.

Such civil actions in the present case (without referring to contractual faults which are not pertinent and belong to another scope) are derived, according to article 1902 of the Civil Code, from every act or omission causing losses and damages in which culpa or negligence intervenes. It is unimportant that such actions are every day filed before the civil courts without the criminal courts interfering therewith. Articles 18 to 21 and 121 to 128 of the Penal Code, bearing in mind the spirit and the social and political purposes of that Code, develop and regulate the matter of civil responsibilities arising from a crime, separately from the regime under common law, of culpa which is known as aquiliana, in accordance with legislative precedent of the Corpus Juris. It would be unwarranted to make a detailed comparison between the former provisions and that regarding the obligation to indemnify on account of civil culpa; but it is pertinent and necessary to point out to one of such differences.

Articles 20 and 21 of the Penal Code, after distriburing in their own way the civil responsibilities among those who, for different reasons, are guilty of felony or misdemeanor, make such civil responsibilities applicable to enterprises and establishments for which the guilty parties render service, but with subsidiary character, that is to say, according to the wording of the Penal Code, in default of those who are criminally responsible. In this regard, the Civil Code does not coincide because article 1903 says: "The obligation imposed by the next preceding article is demandable, not only for personal acts and omissions, but also for those of persons for whom another is responsible." Among the persons enumerated are the subordinates and employees of establishments or enterprises, either for acts during their service or on the occasion of their functions. It is for this reason that it happens, and it is so observed in judicial decisions, that the companies or enterprises, after taking part in the criminal cases because of their subsidiary civil responsibility by reason of the crime, are sued and sentenced directly and separatelywith regard to the obligation, before the civil courts.

Seeing that the title of this obligation is different, and the separation between punitive justice and the civil courts being a true postulate of our judicial system, so that they have different fundamental norms in different codes, as well as different modes of procedure, and inasmuch as the Compaña del Ferrocarril Cantabrico has abstained from taking part in the criminal case and has reserved the right to exercise its actions, it seems undeniable that the action for indemnification for the losses and damages caused to it by the collision was not sub judice before the Tribunal del Jurado, nor was it the subject of a sentence, but it remained intact when the decision of March 21 was rendered. Even if the verdict had not been that of acquittal, it has already been shown that such action had been legitimately reserved till after the criminal prosecution; but because of the declaration of the non-existence of the felony and the non-existence of the responsibility arising from the crime, which was the sole subject matter upon which the Tribunal del Jurado had jurisdiction, there is greater reason for the civil obligation ex lege, and it becomes clearer that the action for its enforcement remain intact and is not res judicata.

Laurent, a jurist who has written a monumental work on the French Civil Code, on which the Spanish Civil Code is largely based and whose provisions on cuasi-delito or culpa extra-contractual are similar to those of the Spanish Civil Code, says, referring to article 1384 of the French Civil Code which corresponds to article 1903, Spanish Civil Code:

The action can be brought directly against the person responsible (for another), without including the author of the act. The action against the principal is accessory in the sense that it implies the existence of a prejudicial act committed by the employee, but it is not subsidiary in the sense that it can not be instituted till after the judgment against the author of the act or at least, that it is subsidiary to the principal action; the action for responsibility (of the employer) is in itself a principal action. (Laurent, Principles of French Civil Law, Spanish translation, Vol. 20, pp. 734-735.)

Amandi, in his "Cuestionario del Codigo Civil Reformado" (Vol. 4, pp. 429, 430), declares that the responsibility of the employer is principal and not subsidiary. He writes:

Cuestion 1. La responsabilidad declarada en el articulo 1903 por las acciones u omisiones de aquellas personas por las que se debe responder, es subsidiaria? es principal? Para contestar a esta pregunta es necesario saber, en primer lugar, en que se funda el precepto legal. Es que realmente se impone una responsabilidad por una falta ajena? Asi parece a primera vista; pero semejante afirmacion seria contraria a la justicia y a la maxima universal, segun la que las faltas son personales, y cada uno responde de aquellas que le son imputables. La responsabilidad de que tratamos se impone con ocasion de un delito o culpa, pero no por causa de ellos, sino por causa del causi delito, esto es, de la imprudencia o de la negligencia del padre, del tutor, del dueño o director del establecimiento, del maestro, etc. Cuando cualquiera de las personas que enumera el articulo citado (menores de edad, incapacitados, dependientes, aprendices) causan un daño, la ley presume que el padre, el tutor, el maestro, etc., han cometido una falta de negligencia para prevenir o evitar el daño. Esta falta es la que la ley castiga. No hay, pues, responsabilidad por un hecho ajeno, sino en la apariencia; en realidad la responsabilidad se exige por un hecho propio. La idea de que esa responsabilidad sea subsidiaria es, por lo tanto, completamente inadmisible.

Question No. 1. Is the responsibility declared in article 1903 for the acts or omissions of those persons for who one is responsible, subsidiary or principal? In order to answer this question it is necessary to know, in the first place, on what the legal provision is based. Is it true that there is a responsibility for the fault of another person? It seems so at first sight; but such assertion would be contrary to justice and to the universal maxim that all faults are personal, and that everyone is liable for those faults that can be imputed to him. The responsibility in question is imposed on the occasion of a crime or fault, but not because of the same, but because of the cuasi-delito, that is to say, the imprudence or negligence of the father, guardian, proprietor or manager of the establishment, of the teacher, etc. Whenever anyone of the persons enumerated in the article referred to (minors, incapacitated persons, employees, apprentices) causes any damage, the law presumes that the father, guardian, teacher, etc. have committed an act of negligence in not preventing or avoiding the damage. It is this fault that is condemned by the law. It is, therefore, only apparent that there is a responsibility for the act of another; in reality the responsibility exacted is for one's own act. The idea that such responsibility is subsidiary is, therefore, completely inadmissible.

Oyuelos, in his "Digesto: Principios, Doctrina y Jurisprudencia, Referentes al Codigo Civil Español," says in Vol. VII, p. 743:

Es decir, no responde de hechos ajenos, porque se responde solo de su propia culpa, doctrina del articulo 1902; mas por excepcion, se responde de la ajena respecto de aquellas personas con las que media algun nexo o vinculo, que motiva o razona la responsabilidad. Esta responsabilidad, es directa o es subsidiaria? En el orden penal, el Codigo de esta clase distingue entre menores e incapacitados y los demas, declarando directa la primera (articulo 19) y subsidiaria la segunda (articulos 20 y 21); pero en el orden civil, en el caso del articulo 1903, ha de entenderse directa, por el tenor del articulo que impone la responsabilidad precisamente "por los actos de aquellas personas de quienes se deba responder."

That is to say, one is not responsible for the acts of others, because one is liable only for his own faults, this being the doctrine of article 1902; but, by exception, one is liable for the acts of those persons with whom there is a bond or tie which gives rise to the responsibility. Is this responsibility direct or subsidiary? In the order of the penal law, the Penal Code distinguishes between minors and incapacitated persons on the one hand, and other persons on the other, declaring that the responsibility for the former is direct (article 19), and for the latter, subsidiary (articles 20 and 21); but in the scheme of the civil law, in the case of article 1903, the responsibility should be understood as direct, according to the tenor of that articles, for precisely it imposes responsibility "for the acts of those persons for whom one should be responsible."

Coming now to the sentences of the Supreme Tribunal of Spain, that court has upheld the principles above set forth: that a quasi-delict or culpa extra-contractual is a separate and distinct legal institution, independent from the civil responsibility arising from criminal liability, and that an employer is, under article 1903 of the Civil Code, primarily and directly responsible for the negligent acts of his employee.

One of the most important of those Spanish decisions is that of October 21, 1910. In that case, Ramon Lafuente died as the result of having been run over by a street car owned by the "compañia Electric Madrileña de Traccion." The conductor was prosecuted in a criminal case but he was acquitted. Thereupon, the widow filed a civil action against the street car company, paying for damages in the amount of 15,000 pesetas. The lower court awarded damages; so the company appealed to the Supreme Tribunal, alleging violation of articles 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code because by final judgment the non-existence of fault or negligence had been declared. The Supreme Court of Spain dismissed the appeal, saying:

Considerando que el primer motivo del recurso se funda en el equivocado supuesto de que el Tribunal a quo, al condonar a la compañia Electrica Madrileña al pago del daño causado con la muerte de Ramon La fuente Izquierdo, desconoce el valor y efectos juridicos de la sentencia absolutoria deictada en la causa criminal que se siguio por el mismo hecho, cuando es lo cierto que de este han conocido las dos jurisdicciones bajo diferentes as pectos, y como la de lo criminal declrao dentro de los limites de su competencia que el hecho de que se trata no era constitutivo de delito por no haber mediado descuido o negligencia graves, lo que no excluye, siendo este el unico fundamento del fallo absolutorio, el concurso de la culpa o negligencia no califacadas, fuente de obligaciones civiles segun el articulo 1902 del Codigo, y que alcanzan, segun el 1903, netre otras perosnas, a los Directores de establecimientos o empresas por los daños causados por sus dependientes en determinadas condiciones, es manifesto que la de lo civil, al conocer del mismo hehco baho este ultimo aspecto y al condenar a la compañia recurrente a la indemnizacion del daño causado por uno de sus empleados, lejos de infringer los mencionados textos, en relacion con el articulo 116 de la Ley de Enjuciamiento Criminal, se ha atenido estrictamente a ellos, sin invadir atribuciones ajenas a su jurisdiccion propia, ni contrariar en lo mas minimo el fallo recaido en la causa.

Considering that the first ground of the appeal is based on the mistaken supposition that the trial court, in sentencing the Compañia Madrileña to the payment of the damage caused by the death of Ramon Lafuente Izquierdo, disregards the value and juridical effects of the sentence of acquittal rendered in the criminal case instituted on account of the same act, when it is a fact that the two jurisdictions had taken cognizance of the same act in its different aspects, and as the criminal jurisdiction declared within the limits of its authority that the act in question did not constitute a felony because there was no grave carelessness or negligence, and this being the only basis of acquittal, it does no exclude the co-existence of fault or negligence which is not qualified, and is a source of civil obligations according to article 1902 of the Civil Code, affecting, in accordance with article 1903, among other persons, the managers of establishments or enterprises by reason of the damages caused by employees under certain conditions, it is manifest that the civil jurisdiccion in taking cognizance of the same act in this latter aspect and in ordering the company, appellant herein, to pay an indemnity for the damage caused by one of its employees, far from violating said legal provisions, in relation with article 116 of the Law of Criminal Procedure, strictly followed the same, without invading attributes which are beyond its own jurisdiction, and without in any way contradicting the decision in that cause. (Emphasis supplied.)

It will be noted, as to the case just cited:

First. That the conductor was not sued in a civil case, either separately or with the street car company. This is precisely what happens in the present case: the driver, Fontanilla, has not been sued in a civil action, either alone or with his employer.

Second. That the conductor had been acquitted of grave criminal negligence, but the Supreme Tribunal of Spain said that this did not exclude the co-existence of fault or negligence, which is not qualified, on the part of the conductor, under article 1902 of the Civil Code. In the present case, the taxi driver was found guilty of criminal negligence, so that if he had even sued for his civil responsibility arising from the crime, he would have been held primarily liable for civil damages, and Barredo would have been held subsidiarily liable for the same. But the plaintiffs are directly suing Barredo, on his primary responsibility because of his own presumed negligence — which he did not overcome — under article 1903. Thus, there were two liabilities of Barredo: first, the subsidiary one because of the civil liability of the taxi driver arising from the latter's criminal negligence; and, second, Barredo's primary liability as an employer under article 1903. The plaintiffs were free to choose which course to take, and they preferred the second remedy. In so doing, they were acting within their rights. It might be observed in passing, that the plaintiff choose the more expeditious and effective method of relief, because Fontanilla was either in prison, or had just been released, and besides, he was probably without property which might be seized in enforcing any judgment against him for damages.

Third. That inasmuch as in the above sentence of October 21, 1910, the employer was held liable civilly, notwithstanding the acquittal of the employee (the conductor) in a previous criminal case, with greater reason should Barredo, the employer in the case at bar, be held liable for damages in a civil suit filed against him because his taxi driver had been convicted. The degree of negligence of the conductor in the Spanish case cited was less than that of the taxi driver, Fontanilla, because the former was acquitted in the previous criminal case while the latter was found guilty of criminal negligence and was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of one year and one day to two years of prision correccional.

(See also Sentence of February 19, 1902, which is similar to the one above quoted.)

In the Sentence of the Supreme Court of Spain, dated February 14, 1919, an action was brought against a railroad company for damages because the station agent, employed by the company, had unjustly andfraudulently, refused to deliver certain articles consigned to the plaintiff. The Supreme Court of Spain held that this action was properly under article 1902 of the Civil Code, the court saying:

Considerando que la sentencia discutida reconoce, en virtud de los hechos que consigna con relacion a las pruebas del pleito: 1.º, que las expediciones facturadas por la compañia ferroviaria a la consignacion del actor de las vasijas vacias que en su demanda relacionan tenian como fin el que este las devolviera a sus remitentes con vinos y alcoholes; 2.º, que llegadas a su destino tales mercanias no se quisieron entregar a dicho consignatario por el jefe de la estacion sin motivo justificado y con intencion dolosa, y 3.º, que la falta de entrega de estas expediciones al tiempo de reclamarlas el demandante le originaron daños y perjuicios en cantidad de bastante importancia como expendedor al por mayor que era de vinos y alcoholes por las ganancias que dejo de obtener al verse privado de servir los pedidos que se le habian hecho por los remitentes en los envases:

Considerando que sobre esta base hay necesidad de estimar los cuatro motivos que integran este recurso, porque la demanda inicial del pleito a que se contrae no contiene accion que nazca del incumplimiento del contrato de transporte, toda vez que no se funda en el retraso de la llegada de las mercancias ni de ningun otro vinculo contractual entre las partes contendientes, careciendo, por tanto, de aplicacion el articulo 371 del Codigo de Comercio, en que principalmente descansa el fallo recurrido, sino que se limita a pedir la reparaction de los daños y perjuicios producidos en el patrimonio del actor por la injustificada y dolosa negativa del porteador a la entrega de las mercancias a su nombre consignadas, segun lo reconoce la sentencia, y cuya responsabilidad esta claramente sancionada en el articulo 1902 del Codigo Civil, que obliga por el siguiente a la Compañia demandada como ligada con el causante de aquellos por relaciones de caracter economico y de jurarquia administrativa.

Considering that the sentence, in question recognizes, in virtue of the facts which it declares, in relation to the evidence in the case: (1) that the invoice issued by the railroad company in favor of the plaintiff contemplated that the empty receptacles referred to in the complaint should be returned to the consignors with wines and liquors; (2) that when the said merchandise reached their destination, their delivery to the consignee was refused by the station agent without justification and with fraudulent intent, and (3) that the lack of delivery of these goods when they were demanded by the plaintiff caused him losses and damages of considerable importance, as he was a wholesale vendor of wines and liquors and he failed to realize the profits when he was unable to fill the orders sent to him by the consignors of the receptacles:

Considering that upon this basis there is need of upholding the four assignments of error, as the original complaint did not contain any cause of action arising from non-fulfillment of a contract of transportation, because the action was not based on the delay of the goods nor on any contractual relation between the parties litigant and, therefore, article 371 of the Code of Commerce, on which the decision appealed from is based, is not applicable; but it limits to asking for reparation for losses and damages produced on the patrimony of the plaintiff on account of the unjustified and fraudulent refusal of the carrier to deliver the goods consigned to the plaintiff as stated by the sentence, and the carrier's responsibility is clearly laid down in article 1902 of the Civil Code which binds, in virtue of the next article, the defendant company, because the latter is connected with the person who caused the damage by relations of economic character and by administrative hierarchy. (Emphasis supplied.)

The above case is pertinent because it shows that the same act may come under both the Penal Code and the Civil Code. In that case, the action of the agent was unjustified and fraudulent and therefore could have been the subject of a criminal action. And yet, it was held to be also a proper subject of a civil action under article 1902 of the Civil Code. It is also to be noted that it was the employer and not the employee who was being sued.

Let us now examine the cases previously decided by this Court.

In the leading case of Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co. (7 Phil., 359, 362-365 [year 1907]), the trial court awarded damages to the plaintiff, a laborer of the defendant, because the latter had negligently failed to repair a tramway in consequence of which the rails slid off while iron was being transported, and caught the plaintiff whose leg was broken. This Court held:

It is contended by the defendant, as its first defense to the action that the necessary conclusion from these collated laws is that the remedy for injuries through negligence lies only in a criminal action in which the official criminally responsible must be made primarily liable and his employer held only subsidiarily to him. According to this theory the plaintiff should have procured the arrest of the representative of the company accountable for not repairing the track, and on his prosecution a suitable fine should have been imposed, payable primarily by him and secondarily by his employer.

This reasoning misconceived the plan of the Spanish codes upon this subject. Article 1093 of the Civil Code makes obligations arising from faults or negligence not punished by the law, subject to the provisions of Chapter II of Title XVI. Section 1902 of that chapter reads:

"A person who by an act or omission causes damage to another when there is fault or negligence shall be obliged to repair the damage so done.

"SEC. 1903. The obligation imposed by the preceeding article is demandable, not only for personal acts and omissions, but also for those of the persons for whom they should be responsible.

"The father, and on his death or incapacity, the mother, is liable for the damages caused by the minors who live with them.

x x x           x x x           x x x

"Owners or directors of an establishment or enterprise are equally liable for the damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter may be employed or in the performance of their duties.

x x x           x x x           x x x

"The liability referred to in this article shall cease when the persons mentioned therein prove that they employed all the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid the damage."

As an answer to the argument urged in this particular action it may be sufficient to point out that nowhere in our general statutes is the employer penalized for failure to provide or maintain safe appliances for his workmen. His obligation therefore is one 'not punished by the laws' and falls under civil rather than criminal jurisprudence. But the answer may be a broader one. We should be reluctant, under any conditions, to adopt a forced construction of these scientific codes, such as is proposed by the defendant, that would rob some of these articles of effect, would shut out litigants against their will from the civil courts, would make the assertion of their rights dependent upon the selection for prosecution of the proper criminal offender, and render recovery doubtful by reason of the strict rules of proof prevailing in criminal actions. Even if these articles had always stood alone, such a construction would be unnecessary, but clear light is thrown upon their meaning by the provisions of the Law of Criminal Procedure of Spain (Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal), which, though never in actual force in these Islands, was formerly given a suppletory or explanatory effect. Under article 111 of this law, both classes of action, civil and criminal, might be prosecuted jointly or separately, but while the penal action was pending the civil was suspended. According to article 112, the penal action once started, the civil remedy should be sought therewith, unless it had been waived by the party injured or been expressly reserved by him for civil proceedings for the future. If the civil action alone was prosecuted, arising out of a crime that could be enforced only on private complaint, the penal action thereunder should be extinguished. These provisions are in harmony with those of articles 23 and 133 of our Penal Code on the same subject.

An examination of this topic might be carried much further, but the citation of these articles suffices to show that the civil liability was not intended to be merged in the criminal nor even to be suspended thereby, except as expressly provided in the law. Where an individual is civilly liable for a negligent act or omission, it is not required that the injured party should seek out a third person criminally liable whose prosecution must be a condition precedent to the enforcement of the civil right.

Under article 20 of the Penal Code the responsibility of an employer may be regarded as subsidiary in respect of criminal actions against his employees only while they are in process of prosecution, or in so far as they determine the existence of the criminal act from which liability arises, and his obligation under the civil law and its enforcement in the civil courts is not barred thereby unless by the election of the injured person. Inasmuch as no criminal proceeding had been instituted, growing our of the accident in question, the provisions of the Penal Code can not affect this action. This construction renders it unnecessary to finally determine here whether this subsidiary civil liability in penal actions has survived the laws that fully regulated it or has been abrogated by the American civil and criminal procedure now in force in the Philippines.

The difficulty in construing the articles of the code above cited in this case appears from the briefs before us to have arisen from the interpretation of the words of article 1093, "fault or negligence not punished by law," as applied to the comprehensive definition of offenses in articles 568 and 590 of the Penal Code. It has been shown that the liability of an employer arising out of his relation to his employee who is the offender is not to be regarded as derived from negligence punished by the law, within the meaning of articles 1902 and 1093. More than this, however, it cannot be said to fall within the class of acts unpunished by the law, the consequence of which are regulated by articles 1902 and

1903 of the Civil Code. The acts to which these articles are applicable are understood to be those not growing out of pre-existing duties of the parties to one another. But where relations already formed give rise to duties, whether springing from contract or quasi contract, then breaches of those duties are subject to articles 1101, 1103, and 1104 of the same code. A typical application of this distinction may be found in the consequences of a railway accident due to defective machinery supplied by the employer. His liability to his employee would arise out of the contract of employment, that to the passengers out of the contract for passage, while that to the injured bystander would originate in the negligent act itself.

In Manzanares vs. Moreta, 38 Phil., 821 (year 1918), the mother of the 8 of 9-year-old child Salvador Bona brought a civil action against Moreta to recover damages resulting from the death of the child, who had been run over by an automobile driven and managed by the defendant. The trial court rendered judgment requiring the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of P1,000 as indemnity: This Court in affirming the judgment, said in part:

If it were true that the defendant, in coming from the southern part of Solana Street, had to stop his auto before crossing Real Street, because he had met vehicles which were going along the latter street or were coming from the opposite direction along Solana Street, it is to be believed that, when he again started to run his auto across said Real Street and to continue its way along Solana Street northward, he should have adjusted the speed of the auto which he was operating until he had fully crossed Real Street and had completely reached a clear way on Solana Street. But, as the child was run over by the auto precisely at the entrance of Solana Street, this accident could not have occurred if the auto had been running at a slow speed, aside from the fact that the defendant, at the moment of crossing Real Street and entering Solana Street, in a northward direction, could have seen the child in the act of crossing the latter street from the sidewalk on the right to that on the left, and if the accident had occurred in such a way that after the automobile had run over the body of the child, and the child's body had already been stretched out on the ground, the automobile still moved along a distance of about 2 meters, this circumstance shows the fact that the automobile entered Solana Street from Real Street, at a high speed without the defendant having blown the horn. If these precautions had been taken by the defendant, the deplorable accident which caused the death of the child would not have occurred.

It will be noticed that the defendant in the above case could have been prosecuted in a criminal case because his negligence causing the death of the child was punishable by the Penal Code. Here is therefore a clear instance of the same act of negligence being a proper subject-matter either of a criminal action with its consequent civil liability arising from a crime or of an entirely separate and independent civil action for fault or negligence under article 1902 of the Civil Code. Thus, in this jurisdiction, the separate individually of a cuasi-delito or culpa aquiliana under the Civil Code has been fully and clearly recognized, even with regard to a negligent act for which the wrongdoer could have been prosecuted and convicted in a criminal case and for which, after such a conviction, he could have been sued for this civil liability arising from his crime.

Years later (in 1930) this Court had another occasion to apply the same doctrine. In Bernal and Enverso vs. House and Tacloban Electric & Ice Plant, Ltd., 54 Phil., 327, the parents of the five-year-old child, Purificacion Bernal, brought a civil action to recover damages for the child's death as a result of burns caused by the fault and negligence of the defendants. On the evening of April 10, 1925, the Good Friday procession was held in Tacloban, Leyte. Fortunata Enverso with her daughter Purificacion Bernal had come from another municipality to attend the same. After the procession the mother and the daughter with two others were passing along Gran Capitan Street in front of the offices of the Tacloban Electric & Ice Plant, Ltd., owned by defendants J. V. House, when an automobile appeared from the opposite direction. The little girl, who was slightly ahead of the rest, was so frightened by the automobile that she turned to run, but unfortunately she fell into the street gutter where hot water from the electric plant was flowing. The child died that same night from the burns. The trial courts dismissed the action because of the contributory negligence of the plaintiffs. But this Court held, on appeal, that there was no contributory negligence, and allowed the parents P1,000 in damages from J. V. House who at the time of the tragic occurrence was the holder of the franchise for the electric plant. This Court said in part:

Although the trial judge made the findings of fact hereinbefore outlined, he nevertheless was led to order the dismissal of the action because of the contributory negligence of the plaintiffs. It is from this point that a majority of the court depart from the stand taken by the trial judge. The mother and her child had a perfect right to be on the principal street of Tacloban, Leyte, on the evening when the religious procession was held. There was nothing abnormal in allowing the child to run along a few paces in advance of the mother. No one could foresee the coincidence of an automobile appearing and of a frightened child running and falling into a ditch filled with hot water. The doctrine announced in the much debated case of Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co. ([1907]), 7 Phil., 359), still rule. Article 1902 of the Civil Code must again be enforced. The contributory negligence of the child and her mother, if any, does not operate as a bar to recovery, but in its strictest sense could only result in reduction of the damages.

It is most significant that in the case just cited, this Court specifically applied article 1902 of the Civil Code. It is thus that although J. V. House could have been criminally prosecuted for reckless or simple negligence and not only punished but also made civilly liable because of his criminal negligence, nevertheless this Court awarded damages in an independent civil action for fault or negligence under article 1902 of the Civil Code.

In Bahia vs. Litonjua and Leynes (30 Phil., 624 [year 1915), the action was for damages for the death of the plaintiff's daughter alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the servant in driving an automobile over the child. It appeared that the cause of the mishap was a defect in the steering gear. The defendant Leynes had rented the automobile from the International Garage of Manila, to be used by him in carrying passengers during the fiesta of Tuy, Batangas. Leynes was ordered by the lower court to pay P1,000 as damages to the plaintiff. On appeal this Court reversed the judgment as to Leynes on the ground that he had shown that the exercised the care of a good father of a family, thus overcoming the presumption of negligence under article 1903. This Court said:

As to selection, the defendant has clearly shown that he exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family. He obtained the machine from a reputable garage and it was, so far as appeared, in good condition. The workmen were likewise selected from a standard garage, were duly licensed by the Government in their particular calling, and apparently thoroughly competent. The machine had been used but a few hours when the accident occurred and it is clear from the evidence that the defendant had no notice, either actual or constructive, of the defective condition of the steering gear.

The legal aspect of the case was discussed by this Court thus:

Article 1903 of the Civil Code not only establishes liability in cases of negligence, but also provides when the liability shall cease. It says:

"The liability referred to in this article shall cease when the persons mentioned therein prove that they employed all the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid the damage."

From this article two things are apparent: (1) That when an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or employee there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the matter or employer either in the selection of the servant or employee, or in supervision over him after the selection, or both; and (2) that presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure, and consequently, may be rebutted. It follows necessarily that if the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in selection and supervision he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family, the presumption is overcome and he is relieve from liability.

This theory bases the responsibility of the master ultimately on his own negligence and not on that of his servant.

The doctrine of the case just cited was followed by this Court in Cerf vs. Medel (33 Phil., 37 [year 1915]). In the latter case, the complaint alleged that the defendant's servant had so negligently driven an automobile, which was operated by defendant as a public vehicle, that said automobile struck and damaged the plaintiff's motorcycle. This Court, applying article 1903 and following the rule in Bahia vs. Litonjua and Leynes, said in part (p. 41) that:

The master is liable for the negligent acts of his servant where he is the owner or director of a business or enterprise and the negligent acts are committed while the servant is engaged in his master's employment as such owner.

Another case which followed the decision in Bahia vs. Litonjua and Leynes was Cuison vs. Norton & Harrison Co., 55 Phil., 18 (year 1930). The latter case was an action for damages brought by Cuison for the death of his seven-year-old son Moises. The little boy was on his way to school with his sister Marciana. Some large pieces of lumber fell from a truck and pinned the boy underneath, instantly killing him. Two youths, Telesforo Binoya and Francisco Bautista, who were working for Ora, an employee of defendant Norton & Harrison Co., pleaded guilty to the crime of homicide through reckless negligence and were sentenced accordingly. This Court, applying articles 1902 and 1903, held:

The basis of civil law liability is not respondent superior but the relationship of pater familias. This theory bases the liability of the master ultimately on his own negligence and not on that of his servant. (Bahia vs.Litonjua and Leynes [1915], 30 Phil., 624; Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co. [1918], 38 Phil., 768.)

In Walter A. Smith & Co. vs. Cadwallader Gibson Lumber Co., 55 Phil., 517 (year 1930) the plaintiff brought an action for damages for the demolition of its wharf, which had been struck by the steamer Helen C belonging to the defendant. This Court held (p. 526):

The evidence shows that Captain Lasa at the time the plaintiff's wharf collapsed was a duly licensed captain, authorized to navigate and direct a vessel of any tonnage, and that the appellee contracted his services because of his reputation as a captain, according to F. C. Cadwallader. This being so, we are of the opinion that the presumption of liability against the defendant has been overcome by the exercise of the care and diligence of a good father of a family in selecting Captain Lasa, in accordance with the doctrines laid down by this court in the cases cited above, and the defendant is therefore absolved from all liability.

It is, therefore, seen that the defendant's theory about his secondary liability is negatived by the six cases above set forth. He is, on the authority of these cases, primarily and directly responsible in damages under article 1903, in relation to article 1902, of the Civil Code.

Let us now take up the Philippine decisions relied upon by the defendant. We study first, City of Manila vs. Manila Electric Co., 52 Phil., 586 (year 1928). A collision between a truck of the City of Manila and a street car of the Manila Electric Co. took place on June 8, 1925. The truck was damaged in the amount of P1,788.27. Sixto Eustaquio, the motorman, was prosecuted for the crime of damage to property and slight injuries through reckless imprudence. He was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of P900, to indemnify the City of Manila for P1,788.27, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Unable to collect the indemnity from Eustaquio, the City of Manila filed an action against the Manila Electric Company to obtain payment, claiming that the defendant was subsidiarily liable. The main defense was that the defendant had exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. This Court held, in part, that this case was governed by the Penal Code, saying:

With this preliminary point out of the way, there is no escaping the conclusion that the provisions of the Penal Code govern. The Penal Code in easily understandable language authorizes the determination of subsidiary liability. The Civil Code negatives its application by providing that civil obligations arising from crimes or misdemeanors shall be governed by the provisions of the Penal Code. The conviction of the motorman was a misdemeanor falling under article 604 of the Penal Code. The act of the motorman was not a wrongful or negligent act or omission not punishable by law. Accordingly, the civil obligation connected up with the Penal Code and not with article 1903 of the Civil Code. In other words, the Penal Code affirms its jurisdiction while the Civil Code negatives its jurisdiction. This is a case of criminal negligence out of which civil liability arises and not a case of civil negligence.

x x x           x x x           x x x

Our deduction, therefore, is that the case relates to the Penal Code and not to the Civil Code. Indeed, as pointed out by the trial judge, any different ruling would permit the master to escape scot-free by simply alleging and proving that the master had exercised all diligence in the selection and training of its servants to prevent the damage. That would be a good defense to a strictly civil action, but might or might not be to a civil action either as a part of or predicated on conviction for a crime or misdemeanor. (By way of parenthesis, it may be said further that the statements here made are offered to meet the argument advanced during our deliberations to the effect that article 0902 of the Civil Code should be disregarded and codal articles 1093 and 1903 applied.)

It is not clear how the above case could support the defendant's proposition, because the Court of Appeals based its decision in the present case on the defendant's primary responsibility under article 1903 of the Civil Code and not on his subsidiary liability arising from Fontanilla's criminal negligence. In other words, the case of City of Manila vs. Manila Electric Co., supra, is predicated on an entirely different theory, which is the subsidiary liability of an employer arising from a criminal act of his employee, whereas the foundation of the decision of the Court of Appeals in the present case is the employer's primary liability under article 1903 of the Civil Code. We have already seen that this is a proper and independent remedy.

Arambulo vs. Manila Electric Co. (55 Phil., 75), is another case invoked by the defendant. A motorman in the employ of the Manila Electric Company had been convicted o homicide by simple negligence and sentenced, among other things, to pay the heirs of the deceased the sum of P1,000. An action was then brought to enforce the subsidiary liability of the defendant as employer under the Penal Code. The defendant attempted to show that it had exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in selecting the motorman, and therefore claimed exemption from civil liability. But this Court held:

In view of the foregoing considerations, we are of opinion and so hold, (1) that the exemption from civil liability established in article 1903 of the Civil Code for all who have acted with the diligence of a good father of a family, is not applicable to the subsidiary civil liability provided in article 20 of the Penal Code.

The above case is also extraneous to the theory of the defendant in the instant case, because the action there had for its purpose the enforcement of the defendant's subsidiary liability under the Penal Code, while in the case at bar, the plaintiff's cause of action is based on the defendant's primary and direct responsibility under article 1903 of the Civil Code. In fact, the above case destroys the defendant's contention because that decision illustrates the principle that the employer's primary responsibility under article 1903 of the Civil Code is different in character from his subsidiary liability under the Penal Code.

In trying to apply the two cases just referred to, counsel for the defendant has failed to recognize the distinction between civil liability arising from a crime, which is governed by the Penal Code, and the responsibility for cuasi-delito or culpa aquiliana under the Civil Code, and has likewise failed to give the importance to the latter type of civil action.

The defendant-petitioner also cites Francisco vs. Onrubia (46 Phil., 327). That case need not be set forth. Suffice it to say that the question involved was also civil liability arising from a crime. Hence, it is as inapplicable as the two cases above discussed.

The foregoing authorities clearly demonstrate the separate individuality of cuasi-delitos or culpa aquiliana under the Civil Code. Specifically they show that there is a distinction between civil liability arising from criminal negligence (governed by the Penal Code) and responsibility for fault or negligence under articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code, and that the same negligent act may produce either a civil liability arising from a crime under the Penal Code, or a separate responsibility for fault or negligence under articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code. Still more concretely, the authorities above cited render it inescapable to conclude that the employer — in this case the defendant-petitioner — is primarily and directly liable under article 1903 of the Civil Code.

The legal provisions, authors, and cases already invoked should ordinarily be sufficient to dispose of this case. But inasmuch as we are announcing doctrines that have been little understood in the past, it might not be inappropriate to indicate their foundations.

Firstly, the Revised Penal Code in article 365 punishes not only reckless but also simple negligence. If we were to hold that articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code refer only to fault or negligence not punished by law, according to the literal import of article 1093 of the Civil Code, the legal institution of culpa aquiliana would have very little scope and application in actual life. Death or injury to persons and damage to property through any degree of negligence — even the slightest — would have to be indemnified only through the principle of civil liability arising from a crime. In such a state of affairs, what sphere would remain for cuasi-delito or culpa aquiliana? We are loath to impute to the lawmaker any intention to bring about a situation so absurd and anomalous. Nor are we, in the interpretation of the laws, disposed to uphold the letter that killeth rather than the spirit that giveth life. We will not use the literal meaning of the law to smother and render almost lifeless a principle of such ancient origin and such full-grown development as culpa aquiliana or cuasi-delito, which is conserved and made enduring in articles 1902 to 1910 of the Spanish Civil Code.

Secondly, to find the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is required, while in a civil case, preponderance of evidence is sufficient to make the defendant pay in damages. There are numerous cases of criminal negligence which can not be shown beyond reasonable doubt, but can be proved by a preponderance of evidence. In such cases, the defendant can and should be made responsible in a civil action under articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code. Otherwise, there would be many instances of unvindicated civil wrongs. Ubi jus ibi remedium.

Thirdly, to hold that there is only one way to make defendant's liability effective, and that is, to sue the driver and exhaust his (the latter's) property first, would be tantamount to compelling the plaintiff to follow a devious and cumbersome method of obtaining relief. True, there is such a remedy under our laws, but there is also a more expeditious way, which is based on the primary and direct responsibility of the defendant under article 1903 of the Civil Code. Our view of the law is more likely to facilitate remedy for civil wrongs, because the procedure indicated by the defendant is wasteful and productive of delay, it being a matter of common knowledge that professional drivers of taxis and similar public conveyance usually do not have sufficient means with which to pay damages. Why, then, should the plaintiff be required in all cases to go through this roundabout, unnecessary, and probably useless procedure? In construing the laws, courts have endeavored to shorten and facilitate the pathways of right and justice.

At this juncture, it should be said that the primary and direct responsibility of employers and their presumed negligence are principles calculated to protect society. Workmen and employees should be carefully chosen and supervised in order to avoid injury to the public. It is the masters or employers who principally reap the profits resulting from the services of these servants and employees. It is but right that they should guarantee the latter's careful conduct for the personnel and patrimonial safety of others. As Theilhard has said, "they should reproach themselves, at least, some for their weakness, others for their poor selection and all for their negligence." And according to Manresa, "It is much more equitable and just that such responsibility should fall upon the principal or director who could have chosen a careful and prudent employee, and not upon the injured person who could not exercise such selection and who used such employee because of his confidence in the principal or director." (Vol. 12, p. 622, 2nd Ed.) Many jurists also base this primary responsibility of the employer on the principle of representation of the principal by the agent. Thus, Oyuelos says in the work already cited (Vol. 7, p. 747) that before third persons the employer and employee "vienen a ser como una sola personalidad, por refundicion de la del dependiente en la de quien le emplea y utiliza." ("become as one personality by the merging of the person of the employee in that of him who employs and utilizes him.") All these observations acquire a peculiar force and significance when it comes to motor accidents, and there is need of stressing and accentuating the responsibility of owners of motor vehicles.

Fourthly, because of the broad sweep of the provisions of both the Penal Code and the Civil Code on this subject, which has given rise to the overlapping or concurrence of spheres already discussed, and for lack of understanding of the character and efficacy of the action for culpa aquiliana, there has grown up a common practice to seek damages only by virtue of the civil responsibility arising from a crime, forgetting that there is another remedy, which is by invoking articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. Although this habitual method is allowed by our laws, it has nevertheless rendered practically useless and nugatory the more expeditious and effective remedy based on culpa aquiliana or culpa extra-contractual. In the present case, we are asked to help perpetuate this usual course. But we believe it is high time we pointed out to the harm done by such practice and to restore the principle of responsibility for fault or negligence under articles 1902 et seq. of the Civil Code to its full rigor. It is high time we caused the stream of quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana to flow on its own natural channel, so that its waters may no longer be diverted into that of a crime under the Penal Code. This will, it is believed, make for the better safeguarding of private rights because it re-establishes an ancient and additional remedy, and for the further reason that an independent civil action, not

depending on the issues, limitations and results of a criminal prosecution, and entirely directed by the party wronged or his counsel, is more likely to secure adequate and efficacious redress.

In view of the foregoing, the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be and is hereby affirmed, with costs against the defendant-petitioner.

Yulo, C.J., Moran, Ozaeta and Paras, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 34840           September 23, 1931

NARCISO GUTIERREZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs.BONIFACIO GUTIERREZ, MARIA V. DE GUTIERREZ, MANUEL GUTIERREZ, ABELARDO VELASCO, and SATURNINO CORTEZ, defendants-appellants.

L.D. Lockwood for appellants Velasco and Cortez.San Agustin and Roxas for other appellants.Ramon Diokno for appellee.

MALCOLM, J.:

This is an action brought by the plaintiff in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the five defendants, to recover damages in the amount of P10,000, for physical injuries suffered as a result of an automobile accident. On judgment being rendered as prayed for by the plaintiff, both sets of defendants appealed.

On February 2, 1930, a passenger truck and an automobile of private ownership collided while attempting to pass each other on the Talon bridge on the Manila South Road in the municipality of Las Piñas, Province of Rizal. The truck was driven by the chauffeur Abelardo Velasco, and was owned by Saturnino Cortez. The automobile was being operated by Bonifacio Gutierrez, a lad 18 years of age, and was owned by Bonifacio's father and mother, Mr. and Mrs. Manuel Gutierrez. At the time of the collision, the father was not in the car, but the mother, together will several other members of the Gutierrez family, seven in all, were accommodated therein. A passenger in the autobus, by the name of Narciso Gutierrez, was en route from San Pablo, Laguna, to Manila. The collision between the bus and the automobile resulted in Narciso Gutierrez suffering a fracture right leg which required medical attendance for a considerable period of time, and which even at the date of the trial appears not to have healed properly.

It is conceded that the collision was caused by negligence pure and simple. The difference between the parties is that, while the plaintiff blames both sets of defendants, the owner of the passenger truck blames the automobile, and the owner of the automobile, in turn, blames the truck. We have given close attention to these highly debatable points, and having done so, a majority of the court are of the opinion that the findings of the trial judge on all controversial questions of fact find sufficient support in the record, and so should be maintained. With this general statement set down, we turn to consider the respective legal obligations of the defendants.

In amplification of so much of the above pronouncement as concerns the Gutierrez family, it may be explained that the youth Bonifacio was in incompetent chauffeur, that he was driving at an excessive rate of speed, and that, on approaching the bridge and the truck, he lost his head and so contributed by his negligence to the accident. The guaranty given by the father at the time the son was granted a license to operate motor vehicles made the father responsible for the acts of his son. Based on these facts, pursuant to the provisions of article 1903 of the Civil Code, the father alone and not the minor or the mother, would be liable for the damages caused by the minor.

We are dealing with the civil law liability of parties for obligations which arise from fault or negligence. At the same time, we believe that, as has been done in other cases, we can take cognizance of the common law rule on the same subject. In the United States, it is uniformly held that the head of a house, the owner of an automobile, who maintains it for the general use of his family is liable for its negligent operation by one of his children, whom he designates or permits to run it, where the car is occupied and being used at the time of the injury for the pleasure of other members of the owner's family than the child driving it. The theory of the law is that the running of the machine by a child to carry other members of the family is within the scope of the owner's business, so that he is liable for the negligence of the child because of the relationship of master and servant. (Huddy On Automobiles, 6th ed., sec. 660; Missell vs. Hayes [1914], 91 Atl., 322.) The liability of Saturnino Cortez, the owner of the truck, and of his chauffeur Abelardo Velasco rests on a different basis, namely, that of contract which, we think, has been sufficiently demonstrated by the allegations of the complaint, not controverted, and the evidence. The reason for this conclusion reaches to the findings of the trial court concerning the position of the truck on the bridge, the speed in operating the machine, and the lack of care employed by the chauffeur. While these facts are not as clearly evidenced as are those which convict the other defendant, we nevertheless hesitate to disregard the points emphasized by the trial judge. In its broader aspects, the case

is one of two drivers approaching a narrow bridge from opposite directions, with neither being willing to slow up and give the right of way to the other, with the inevitable result of a collision and an accident.

The defendants Velasco and Cortez further contend that there existed contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, consisting principally of his keeping his foot outside the truck, which occasioned his injury. In this connection, it is sufficient to state that, aside from the fact that the defense of contributory negligence was not pleaded, the evidence bearing out this theory of the case is contradictory in the extreme and leads us far afield into speculative matters.

The last subject for consideration relates to the amount of the award. The appellee suggests that the amount could justly be raised to P16,517, but naturally is not serious in asking for this sum, since no appeal was taken by him from the judgment. The other parties unite in challenging the award of P10,000, as excessive. All facts considered, including actual expenditures and damages for the injury to the leg of the plaintiff, which may cause him permanent lameness, in connection with other adjudications of this court, lead us to conclude that a total sum for the plaintiff of P5,000 would be fair and reasonable. The difficulty in approximating the damages by monetary compensation is well elucidated by the divergence of opinion among the members of the court, three of whom have inclined to the view that P3,000 would be amply sufficient, while a fourth member has argued that P7,500 would be none too much.

In consonance with the foregoing rulings, the judgment appealed from will be modified, and the plaintiff will have judgment in his favor against the defendants Manuel Gutierrez, Abelardo Velasco, and Saturnino Cortez, jointly and severally, for the sum of P5,000, and the costs of both instances.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Villamor, Ostrand, Romualdez, and Imperial, JJ., concur.

VILLA-REAL, J.:

I vote for an indemnity of P7,500.

G.R. No. L-12219            March 15, 1918

AMADO PICART, plaintiff-appellant, vs.FRANK SMITH, JR., defendant-appellee.

Alejo Mabanag for appellant.G. E. Campbell for appellee.

STREET, J.:

In this action the plaintiff, Amado Picart, seeks to recover of the defendant, Frank Smith, jr., the sum of P31,000, as damages alleged to have been caused by an automobile driven by the defendant. From a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of La Union absolving the defendant from liability the plaintiff has appealed.

The occurrence which gave rise to the institution of this action took place on December 12, 1912, on the Carlatan Bridge, at San Fernando, La Union. It appears that upon the occasion in question the plaintiff was riding on his pony over said bridge. Before he had gotten half way across, the defendant approached from the opposite direction in an automobile, going at the rate of about ten or twelve miles per hour. As the defendant neared the bridge he saw a horseman on it and blew his horn to give warning of his approach. He continued his course and after he had taken the bridge he gave two more successive blasts, as it appeared to him that the man on horseback before him was not observing the rule of the road.

The plaintiff, it appears, saw the automobile coming and heard the warning signals. However, being perturbed by the novelty of the apparition or the rapidity of the approach, he pulled the pony closely up against the railing on the right side of the bridge instead of going to the left. He says that the reason he did this was that he thought he did not have sufficient time to get over to the other side. The bridge is shown to have a length of about 75 meters and a width of 4.80 meters. As the automobile approached, the defendant guided it toward his left, that being the proper side of the road for the machine. In so doing the defendant assumed that the horseman would move to the other side. The pony had not as yet exhibited fright, and the rider had made no sign for the automobile to stop. Seeing that the pony was apparently quiet, the defendant, instead of veering to the right while yet some distance away or slowing down, continued to approach directly toward the horse without diminution of speed. When he had gotten quite near, there being then no possibility of the horse getting across to the other side, the defendant quickly turned his car sufficiently to the right to escape hitting the horse alongside of the railing where it as then standing; but in so doing the automobile passed in such close proximity to the animal that it became frightened and turned its body across the bridge with its head toward the railing. In so doing, it as struck on the hock of the left hind leg by the flange of the car and the limb was broken. The horse fell and its rider was thrown off with some violence. From the evidence adduced in the case we believe that when the accident occurred the free space where the pony stood between the automobile and the railing of the bridge was probably less than one and one half meters. As a result of its injuries the horse died. The plaintiff received contusions which caused temporary unconsciousness and required medical attention for several days.

The question presented for decision is whether or not the defendant in maneuvering his car in the manner above described was guilty of negligence such as gives rise to a civil obligation to repair the damage done; and we are of the opinion that he is so liable. As the defendant started across the bridge, he had the right to assume that the horse and the rider would pass over to the proper side; but as he moved toward the center of the bridge it was demonstrated to his eyes that this would not be done; and he must in a moment have perceived that it was too late for the horse to cross with safety in front of the moving vehicle. In the nature of things this change of situation occurred while the automobile was yet some distance away; and from this moment it was not longer within the power of the plaintiff to escape being run down by going to a place of greater safety. The control of the situation had then passed entirely to the defendant; and it was his duty either to bring his car to an immediate stop or, seeing that there were no other persons on the bridge, to take the other side and pass sufficiently far away from the horse to avoid the danger of collision. Instead of doing this, the defendant ran straight on until he was almost upon the horse. He was, we think, deceived into doing this by the fact that the horse had not yet exhibited fright. But in view of the known nature of horses, there was an appreciable risk that, if the animal in question was unacquainted with automobiles, he might get exited and jump under the conditions which here confronted him. When the defendant exposed the horse and rider to this danger he was, in our opinion, negligent in the eye of the law.

The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The law here in effect adopts the standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet paterfamilias of the Roman law. The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The law considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that.

The question as to what would constitute the conduct of a prudent man in a given situation must of course be always determined in the light of human experience and in view of the facts involved in the particular case. Abstract speculations cannot here be of much value but this much can be profitably said: Reasonable men govern their conduct by the circumstances which are before them or known to them. They are not, and are not supposed to be, omniscient of the future. Hence they can be expected to take care only when there is something before them to suggest or warn of danger. Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration, foresee harm as a result of the course actually pursued? If so, it was the duty of the actor to take precautions to guard against that harm. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by ignoring of the suggestion born of this prevision, is always necessary before negligence can be held to exist. Stated in these terms, the proper criterion for determining the existence of negligence in a given case is this: Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect harmful to another was sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing conduct or guarding against its consequences.

Applying this test to the conduct of the defendant in the present case we think that negligence is clearly established. A prudent man, placed in the position of the defendant, would in our opinion, have recognized that the course which he was pursuing was fraught with risk, and would therefore have foreseen harm to the horse and the rider as reasonable consequence of that course. Under these circumstances the law imposed on the defendant the duty to guard against the threatened harm.

It goes without saying that the plaintiff himself was not free from fault, for he was guilty of antecedent negligence in planting himself on the wrong side of the road. But as we have already stated, the defendant was also negligent; and in such case the problem always is to discover which agent is immediately and directly responsible. It will be noted that the negligent acts of the two parties were not contemporaneous, since the negligence of the defendant succeeded the negligence of the plaintiff by an appreciable interval. Under these circumstances the law is that the person who has the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the prior negligence of the other party.

The decision in the case of Rkes vs. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co. (7 Phil. Rep., 359) should perhaps be mentioned in this connection. This Court there held that while contributory negligence on the part of the person injured did not constitute a bar to recovery, it could be received in evidence to reduce the damages which would otherwise have been assessed wholly against the other party. The defendant company had there employed the plaintiff, as a laborer, to assist in transporting iron rails from a barge in Manila harbor to the company's yards located not far away. The rails were conveyed upon cars which were hauled along a narrow track. At certain spot near the water's edge the track gave way by reason of the combined effect of the weight of the car and the insecurity of the road bed. The car was in consequence upset; the rails slid off; and the plaintiff's leg was caught and broken. It appeared in evidence that the accident was due to the effects of the typhoon which had dislodged one of the supports of the track. The court found that the defendant company was negligent in having failed to repair the bed of the track and also that the plaintiff was, at the moment of the accident, guilty of contributory negligence in walking at the side of the car instead of being in front or behind. It was held that while the defendant was liable to the plaintiff by reason of its negligence in having failed to keep the track in proper repair nevertheless the amount of the damages should be reduced on account of the contributory negligence in the plaintiff. As will be seen the defendant's negligence in that case consisted in an omission only. The liability of the company arose from its responsibility for the dangerous condition of its track. In a case like the one now before us, where the defendant was actually present and operating the automobile which caused the damage, we do not feel constrained to attempt to weigh the negligence of the respective parties in order to apportion the damage according to the degree of their relative fault. It is enough to say that the negligence of the defendant was in this case the immediate and determining cause of the accident and that the antecedent negligence of the plaintiff was a more remote factor in the case.

A point of minor importance in the case is indicated in the special defense pleaded in the defendant's answer, to the effect that the subject matter of the action had been previously adjudicated in the court of a justice of the peace. In this connection it appears that soon after the accident in question occurred, the plaintiff caused criminal proceedings to be instituted before a justice of the peace charging the defendant with the infliction of serious injuries (lesiones graves). At the preliminary investigation the defendant was discharged by the magistrate and the proceedings were dismissed. Conceding that the acquittal of the defendant at the trial upon the merits in a criminal prosecution for the offense mentioned would be res adjudicata upon the question of his civil liability arising from negligence -- a point upon which it is unnecessary to express an opinion -- the action of the justice of the peace in dismissing the criminal proceeding upon the preliminary hearing can have no effect. (See U. S. vs. Banzuela and Banzuela, 31 Phil. Rep., 564.)

From what has been said it results that the judgment of the lower court must be reversed, and judgment is her rendered that the plaintiff recover of the defendant the sum of two hundred pesos (P200), with costs of other instances. The sum here awarded is estimated to include the value of the horse, medical expenses of the plaintiff, the loss or damage occasioned to articles of his apparel, and lawful interest on the whole to the date of this recovery. The other damages claimed by the plaintiff are remote or otherwise of such character as not to be recoverable. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson, Araullo, Avanceña, and Fisher, JJ., concur. Johnson, J., reserves his vote.

Separate Opinions

MALCOLM, J., concurring:

After mature deliberation, I have finally decided to concur with the judgment in this case. I do so because of my understanding of the "last clear chance" rule of the law of negligence as particularly applied to automobile accidents. This rule cannot be invoked where the negligence of the plaintiff is concurrent with that of the defendant. Again, if a traveler when he reaches the point of collision is in a situation to extricate himself and avoid injury, his negligence at that point will prevent a recovery. But Justice Street finds as a fact that the negligent act of the interval of time, and that at the moment the plaintiff had no opportunity to avoid the accident. Consequently, the "last clear chance" rule is applicable. In other words, when a traveler has reached a point where he cannot extricate himself and vigilance on his part will not avert the injury, his negligence in reaching that position becomes the condition and not the proximate cause of the injury and will not preclude a recovery. (Note especially Aiken vs. Metcalf [1917], 102 Atl., 330.)

G.R. No. L-12191             October 14, 1918

JOSE CANGCO, plaintiff-appellant, vs.MANILA RAILROAD CO., defendant-appellee.

Ramon Sotelo for appellant.Kincaid & Hartigan for appellee.

 

FISHER, J.:

          At the time of the occurrence which gave rise to this litigation the plaintiff, Jose Cangco, was in the employment of Manila Railroad Company in the capacity of clerk, with a monthly wage of P25. He lived in the pueblo of San Mateo, in the province of Rizal, which is located upon the line of the defendant railroad company; and in coming daily by train to the company's office in the city of Manila where he worked, he used a pass, supplied by the company, which entitled him to ride upon the company's trains free of charge. Upon the occasion in question, January 20, 1915, the plaintiff arose from his seat in the second class-car where he was riding and, making, his exit through the door, took his position upon the steps of the coach, seizing the upright guardrail with his right hand for support.

          On the side of the train where passengers alight at the San Mateo station there is a cement platform which begins to rise with a moderate gradient some distance away from the company's office and extends along in front of said office for a distance sufficient to cover the length of several coaches. As the train slowed down another passenger, named Emilio Zuñiga, also an employee of the railroad company, got off the same car, alighting safely at the point where the platform begins to rise from the level of the ground. When the train had proceeded a little farther the plaintiff Jose Cangco stepped off also, but one or both of his feet came in contact with a sack of watermelons with the result that his feet slipped from under him and he fell violently on the platform. His body at once rolled from the platform and was drawn under the moving car, where his right arm was badly crushed and lacerated. It appears that after the plaintiff alighted from the train the car moved forward possibly six meters before it came to a full stop.

          The accident occurred between 7 and 8 o'clock on a dark night, and as the railroad station was lighted dimly by a single light located some distance away, objects on the platform where the accident occurred were difficult to discern especially to a person emerging from a lighted car.

          The explanation of the presence of a sack of melons on the platform where the plaintiff alighted is found in the fact that it was the customary season for harvesting these melons and a large lot had been brought to the station for the shipment to the market. They were contained in numerous sacks which has been piled on the platform in a row one upon another. The testimony shows that this row of sacks was so placed of melons and the edge of platform; and it is clear that the fall of the plaintiff was due to the fact that his foot alighted upon one of these melons at the moment he stepped upon the platform. His statement that he failed to see these objects in the darkness is readily to be credited.

          The plaintiff was drawn from under the car in an unconscious condition, and it appeared that the injuries which he had received were very serious. He was therefore brought at once to a certain hospital in the city of Manila where an examination was made and his arm was amputated. The result of this operation was unsatisfactory, and the plaintiff was then carried to another hospital where a second operation was performed and the member was again amputated higher up near the shoulder. It appears in evidence that the plaintiff expended the sum of P790.25 in the form of medical and surgical fees and for other expenses in connection with the process of his curation.

          Upon August 31, 1915, he instituted this proceeding in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila to recover damages of the defendant company, founding his action upon the negligence of the servants and employees of the defendant in placing the sacks of melons upon the platform and leaving them so placed as to be a menace to the security of passenger alighting from the company's trains. At the hearing in the Court of First Instance, his Honor, the trial judge, found the facts substantially as above stated, and drew therefrom his conclusion to the effect that, although negligence was attributable to the defendant by reason of the fact that the sacks of melons were so placed as to obstruct passengers passing to and from the cars, nevertheless, the plaintiff himself had failed to use due caution in alighting from the coach and was therefore precluded form recovering. Judgment was accordingly entered in favor of the defendant company, and the plaintiff appealed.

          It can not be doubted that the employees of the railroad company were guilty of negligence in piling these sacks on the platform in the manner above stated; that their presence caused the plaintiff to fall as he alighted from the train; and that they therefore constituted an effective legal cause of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. It necessarily follows that the defendant

company is liable for the damage thereby occasioned unless recovery is barred by the plaintiff's own contributory negligence. In resolving this problem it is necessary that each of these conceptions of liability, to-wit, the primary responsibility of the defendant company and the contributory negligence of the plaintiff should be separately examined.

          It is important to note that the foundation of the legal liability of the defendant is the contract of carriage, and that the obligation to respond for the damage which plaintiff has suffered arises, if at all, from the breach of that contract by reason of the failure of defendant to exercise due care in its performance. That is to say, its liability is direct and immediate, differing essentially, in legal viewpoint from that presumptive responsibility for the negligence of its servants, imposed by article 1903 of the Civil Code, which can be rebutted by proof of the exercise of due care in their selection and supervision. Article 1903 of the Civil Code is not applicable to obligations arising ex contractu, but only to extra-contractual obligations — or to use the technical form of expression, that article relates only to culpa aquiliana and not to culpa contractual.

          Manresa (vol. 8, p. 67) in his commentaries upon articles 1103 and 1104 of the Civil Code, clearly points out this distinction, which was also recognized by this Court in its decision in the case of Rakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co. (7 Phil. rep., 359). In commenting upon article 1093 Manresa clearly points out the difference between "culpa, substantive and independent, which of itself constitutes the source of an obligation between persons not formerly connected by any legal tie" and culpa considered as an accident in the performance of an obligation already existing . . . ."

          In the Rakes case (supra) the decision of this court was made to rest squarely upon the proposition that article 1903 of the Civil Code is not applicable to acts of negligence which constitute the breach of a contract.

          Upon this point the Court said:

          The acts to which these articles [1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code] are applicable are understood to be those not growing out of pre-existing duties of the parties to one another. But where relations already formed give rise to duties, whether springing from contract or quasi-contract, then breaches of those duties are subject to article 1101, 1103, and 1104 of the same code. (Rakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co., 7 Phil. Rep., 359 at 365.)

          This distinction is of the utmost importance. The liability, which, under the Spanish law, is, in certain cases imposed upon employers with respect to damages occasioned by the negligence of their employees to persons to whom they are not bound by contract, is not based, as in the English Common Law, upon the principle ofrespondeat superior — if it were, the master would be liable in every case and unconditionally — but upon the principle announced in article 1902 of the Civil Code, which imposes upon all persons who by their fault or negligence, do injury to another, the obligation of making good the damage caused. One who places a powerful automobile in the hands of a servant whom he knows to be ignorant of the method of managing such a vehicle, is himself guilty of an act of negligence which makes him liable for all the consequences of his imprudence. The obligation to make good the damage arises at the very instant that the unskillful servant, while acting within the scope of his employment causes the injury. The liability of the master is personal and direct. But, if the master has not been guilty of any negligence whatever in the selection and direction of the servant, he is not liable for the acts of the latter, whatever done within the scope of his employment or not, if the damage done by the servant does not amount to a breach of the contract between the master and the person injured.

          It is not accurate to say that proof of diligence and care in the selection and control of the servant relieves the master from liability for the latter's acts — on the contrary, that proof shows that the responsibility has never existed. As Manresa says (vol. 8, p. 68) the liability arising from extra-contractual culpa is always based upon a voluntary act or omission which, without willful intent, but by mere negligence or inattention, has caused damage to another. A master who exercises all possible care in the selection of his servant, taking into consideration the qualifications they should possess for the discharge of the duties which it is his purpose to confide to them, and directs them with equal diligence, thereby performs his duty to third persons to whom he is bound by no contractual ties, and he incurs no liability whatever if, by reason of the negligence of his servants, even within the scope of their employment, such third person suffer damage. True it is that under article 1903 of the Civil Code the law creates a presumption that he has been negligent in the selection or direction of his servant, but the presumption is rebuttable and yield to proof of due care and diligence in this respect.

          The supreme court of Porto Rico, in interpreting identical provisions, as found in the Porto Rico Code, has held that these articles are applicable to cases of extra-contractual culpa exclusively. (Carmona vs. Cuesta, 20 Porto Rico Reports, 215.)

          This distinction was again made patent by this Court in its decision in the case of Bahia vs. Litonjua and Leynes, (30 Phil. rep., 624), which was an action brought upon the theory of the extra-contractual liability of the defendant to respond for the damage caused by the carelessness of his employee while acting within the scope of his employment. The Court, after citing the last paragraph of article 1903 of the Civil Code, said:

          From this article two things are apparent: (1) That when an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or employee there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the master or employer either in selection of the servant or employee, or in supervision over him after the selection, or both; and (2) that that

presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure, and consequently, may be rebutted. It follows necessarily that if the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in selection and supervision he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family, the presumption is overcome and he is relieved from liability.

          This theory bases the responsibility of the master ultimately on his own negligence and not on that of his servant. This is the notable peculiarity of the Spanish law of negligence. It is, of course, in striking contrast to the American doctrine that, in relations with strangers, the negligence of the servant in conclusively the negligence of the master.

          The opinion there expressed by this Court, to the effect that in case of extra-contractual culpa based upon negligence, it is necessary that there shall have been some fault attributable to the defendant personally, and that the last paragraph of article 1903 merely establishes a rebuttable presumption, is in complete accord with the authoritative opinion of Manresa, who says (vol. 12, p. 611) that the liability created by article 1903 is imposed by reason of the breach of the duties inherent in the special relations of authority or superiority existing between the person called upon to repair the damage and the one who, by his act or omission, was the cause of it.

          On the other hand, the liability of masters and employers for the negligent acts or omissions of their servants or agents, when such acts or omissions cause damages which amount to the breach of a contact, is not based upon a mere presumption of the master's negligence in their selection or control, and proof of exercise of the utmost diligence and care in this regard does not relieve the master of his liability for the breach of his contract.

          Every legal obligation must of necessity be extra-contractual or contractual. Extra-contractual obligation has its source in the breach or omission of those mutual duties which civilized society imposes upon it members, or which arise from these relations, other than contractual, of certain members of society to others, generally embraced in the concept of status. The legal rights of each member of society constitute the measure of the corresponding legal duties, mainly negative in character, which the existence of those rights imposes upon all other members of society. The breach of these general duties whether due to willful intent or to mere inattention, if productive of injury, give rise to an obligation to indemnify the injured party. The fundamental distinction between obligations of this character and those which arise from contract, rests upon the fact that in cases of non-contractual obligation it is the wrongful or negligent act or omission itself which creates the vinculum juris, whereas in contractual relations the vinculum exists independently of the breach of the voluntary duty assumed by the parties when entering into the contractual relation.

          With respect to extra-contractual obligation arising from negligence, whether of act or omission, it is competent for the legislature to elect — and our Legislature has so elected — whom such an obligation is imposed is morally culpable, or, on the contrary, for reasons of public policy, to extend that liability, without regard to the lack of moral culpability, so as to include responsibility for the negligence of those person who acts or mission are imputable, by a legal fiction, to others who are in a position to exercise an absolute or limited control over them. The legislature which adopted our Civil Code has elected to limit extra-contractual liability — with certain well-defined exceptions — to cases in which moral culpability can be directly imputed to the persons to be charged. This moral responsibility may consist in having failed to exercise due care in the selection and control of one's agents or servants, or in the control of persons who, by reason of their status, occupy a position of dependency with respect to the person made liable for their conduct.

          The position of a natural or juridical person who has undertaken by contract to render service to another, is wholly different from that to which article 1903 relates. When the sources of the obligation upon which plaintiff's cause of action depends is a negligent act or omission, the burden of proof rests upon plaintiff to prove the negligence — if he does not his action fails. But when the facts averred show a contractual undertaking by defendant for the benefit of plaintiff, and it is alleged that plaintiff has failed or refused to perform the contract, it is not necessary for plaintiff to specify in his pleadings whether the breach of the contract is due to willful fault or to negligence on the part of the defendant, or of his servants or agents. Proof of the contract and of its nonperformance is sufficient prima facie to warrant a recovery.

          As a general rule . . . it is logical that in case of extra-contractual culpa, a suing creditor should assume the burden of proof of its existence, as the only fact upon which his action is based; while on the contrary, in a case of negligence which presupposes the existence of a contractual obligation, if the creditor shows that it exists and that it has been broken, it is not necessary for him to prove negligence. (Manresa, vol. 8, p. 71 [1907 ed., p. 76]).

          As it is not necessary for the plaintiff in an action for the breach of a contract to show that the breach was due to the negligent conduct of defendant or of his servants, even though such be in fact the actual cause of the breach, it is obvious that proof on the part of defendant that the negligence or omission of his servants or agents caused the breach of the contract would not constitute a defense to the action. If the negligence of servants or agents could be invoked as a means of discharging the liability arising from contract, the anomalous result would be that person acting through the medium of agents or servants in the performance of their contracts, would be in a better position than those acting in person. If one delivers a valuable watch to watchmaker who contract to repair it, and the bailee, by a personal negligent act causes its destruction, he is unquestionably liable. Would it be logical to free him from his liability for the breach of his contract, which involves the duty to exercise due care in the preservation of the watch, if he shows that it was his servant whose negligence caused the injury? If such a theory could

be accepted, juridical persons would enjoy practically complete immunity from damages arising from the breach of their contracts if caused by negligent acts as such juridical persons can of necessity only act through agents or servants, and it would no doubt be true in most instances that reasonable care had been taken in selection and direction of such servants. If one delivers securities to a banking corporation as collateral, and they are lost by reason of the negligence of some clerk employed by the bank, would it be just and reasonable to permit the bank to relieve itself of liability for the breach of its contract to return the collateral upon the payment of the debt by proving that due care had been exercised in the selection and direction of the clerk?

          This distinction between culpa aquiliana, as the source of an obligation, and culpa contractual as a mere incident to the performance of a contract has frequently been recognized by the supreme court of Spain. (Sentencias of June 27, 1894; November 20, 1896; and December 13, 1896.) In the decisions of November 20, 1896, it appeared that plaintiff's action arose ex contractu, but that defendant sought to avail himself of the provisions of article 1902 of the Civil Code as a defense. The Spanish Supreme Court rejected defendant's contention, saying:

          These are not cases of injury caused, without any pre-existing obligation, by fault or negligence, such as those to which article 1902 of the Civil Code relates, but of damages caused by the defendant's failure to carry out the undertakings imposed by the contracts . . . .

          A brief review of the earlier decision of this court involving the liability of employers for damage done by the negligent acts of their servants will show that in no case has the court ever decided that the negligence of the defendant's servants has been held to constitute a defense to an action for damages for breach of contract.

          In the case of Johnson vs. David (5 Phil. Rep., 663), the court held that the owner of a carriage was not liable for the damages caused by the negligence of his driver. In that case the court commented on the fact that no evidence had been adduced in the trial court that the defendant had been negligent in the employment of the driver, or that he had any knowledge of his lack of skill or carefulness.

          In the case of Baer Senior & Co's Successors vs. Compania Maritima (6 Phil. Rep., 215), the plaintiff sued the defendant for damages caused by the loss of a barge belonging to plaintiff which was allowed to get adrift by the negligence of defendant's servants in the course of the performance of a contract of towage. The court held, citing Manresa (vol. 8, pp. 29, 69) that if the "obligation of the defendant grew out of a contract made between it and the plaintiff . . . we do not think that the provisions of articles 1902 and 1903 are applicable to the case."

          In the case of Chapman vs. Underwood (27 Phil. Rep., 374), plaintiff sued the defendant to recover damages for the personal injuries caused by the negligence of defendant's chauffeur while driving defendant's automobile in which defendant was riding at the time. The court found that the damages were caused by the negligence of the driver of the automobile, but held that the master was not liable, although he was present at the time, saying:

          . . . unless the negligent acts of the driver are continued for a length of time as to give the owner a reasonable opportunity to observe them and to direct the driver to desist therefrom. . . . The act complained of must be continued in the presence of the owner for such length of time that the owner by his acquiescence, makes the driver's acts his own.

          In the case of Yamada vs. Manila Railroad Co. and Bachrach Garage & Taxicab Co. (33 Phil. Rep., 8), it is true that the court rested its conclusion as to the liability of the defendant upon article 1903, although the facts disclosed that the injury complaint of by plaintiff constituted a breach of the duty to him arising out of the contract of transportation. The express ground of the decision in this case was that article 1903, in dealing with the liability of a master for the negligent acts of his servants "makes the distinction between private individuals and public enterprise;" that as to the latter the law creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence in the selection or direction of servants; and that in the particular case the presumption of negligence had not been overcome.

          It is evident, therefore that in its decision Yamada case, the court treated plaintiff's action as though founded in tort rather than as based upon the breach of the contract of carriage, and an examination of the pleadings and of the briefs shows that the questions of law were in fact discussed upon this theory. Viewed from the standpoint of the defendant the practical result must have been the same in any event. The proof disclosed beyond doubt that the defendant's servant was grossly negligent and that his negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. It also affirmatively appeared that defendant had been guilty of negligence in its failure to exercise proper discretion in the direction of the servant. Defendant was, therefore, liable for the injury suffered by plaintiff, whether the breach of the duty were to be regarded as constituting culpa aquiliana or culpa contractual. As Manresa points out (vol. 8, pp. 29 and 69) whether negligence occurs an incident in the course of the performance of a contractual undertaking or its itself the source of an extra-contractual undertaking obligation, its essential characteristics are identical. There is always an act or omission productive of damage due to carelessness or inattention on the part of the defendant. Consequently, when the court holds that a defendant is liable in damages for having failed to exercise due care, either directly, or in failing to exercise proper care in the selection and direction of his servants, the practical result is identical in either case. Therefore, it follows that it is not to be inferred, because the court held in the Yamada case that defendant was

liable for the damages negligently caused by its servants to a person to whom it was bound by contract, and made reference to the fact that the defendant was negligent in the selection and control of its servants, that in such a case the court would have held that it would have been a good defense to the action, if presented squarely upon the theory of the breach of the contract, for defendant to have proved that it did in fact exercise care in the selection and control of the servant.

          The true explanation of such cases is to be found by directing the attention to the relative spheres of contractual and extra-contractual obligations. The field of non- contractual obligation is much more broader than that of contractual obligations, comprising, as it does, the whole extent of juridical human relations. These two fields, figuratively speaking, concentric; that is to say, the mere fact that a person is bound to another by contract does not relieve him from extra-contractual liability to such person. When such a contractual relation exists the obligor may break the contract under such conditions that the same act which constitutes the source of an extra-contractual obligation had no contract existed between the parties.

          The contract of defendant to transport plaintiff carried with it, by implication, the duty to carry him in safety and to provide safe means of entering and leaving its trains (civil code, article 1258). That duty, being contractual, was direct and immediate, and its non-performance could not be excused by proof that the fault was morally imputable to defendant's servants.

          The railroad company's defense involves the assumption that even granting that the negligent conduct of its servants in placing an obstruction upon the platform was a breach of its contractual obligation to maintain safe means of approaching and leaving its trains, the direct and proximate cause of the injury suffered by plaintiff was his own contributory negligence in failing to wait until the train had come to a complete stop before alighting. Under the doctrine of comparative negligence announced in the Rakes case (supra), if the accident was caused by plaintiff's own negligence, no liability is imposed upon defendant's negligence and plaintiff's negligence merely contributed to his injury, the damages should be apportioned. It is, therefore, important to ascertain if defendant was in fact guilty of negligence.

          It may be admitted that had plaintiff waited until the train had come to a full stop before alighting, the particular injury suffered by him could not have occurred. Defendant contends, and cites many authorities in support of the contention, that it is negligence per se for a passenger to alight from a moving train. We are not disposed to subscribe to this doctrine in its absolute form. We are of the opinion that this proposition is too badly stated and is at variance with the experience of every-day life. In this particular instance, that the train was barely moving when plaintiff alighted is shown conclusively by the fact that it came to stop within six meters from the place where he stepped from it. Thousands of person alight from trains under these conditions every day of the year, and sustain no injury where the company has kept its platform free from dangerous obstructions. There is no reason to believe that plaintiff would have suffered any injury whatever in alighting as he did had it not been for defendant's negligent failure to perform its duty to provide a safe alighting place.

          We are of the opinion that the correct doctrine relating to this subject is that expressed in Thompson's work on Negligence (vol. 3, sec. 3010) as follows:

          The test by which to determine whether the passenger has been guilty of negligence in attempting to alight from a moving railway train, is that of ordinary or reasonable care. It is to be considered whether an ordinarily prudent person, of the age, sex and condition of the passenger, would have acted as the passenger acted under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence. This care has been defined to be, not the care which may or should be used by the prudent man generally, but the care which a man of ordinary prudence would use under similar circumstances, to avoid injury." (Thompson, Commentaries on Negligence, vol. 3, sec. 3010.)

          Or, it we prefer to adopt the mode of exposition used by this court in Picart vs. Smith (37 Phil. rep., 809), we may say that the test is this; Was there anything in the circumstances surrounding the plaintiff at the time he alighted from the train which would have admonished a person of average prudence that to get off the train under the conditions then existing was dangerous? If so, the plaintiff should have desisted from alighting; and his failure so to desist was contributory negligence.1awph!l.net

          As the case now before us presents itself, the only fact from which a conclusion can be drawn to the effect that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence is that he stepped off the car without being able to discern clearly the condition of the platform and while the train was yet slowly moving. In considering the situation thus presented, it should not be overlooked that the plaintiff was, as we find, ignorant of the fact that the obstruction which was caused by the sacks of melons piled on the platform existed; and as the defendant was bound by reason of its duty as a public carrier to afford to its passengers facilities for safe egress from its trains, the plaintiff had a right to assume, in the absence of some circumstance to warn him to the contrary, that the platform was clear. The place, as we have already stated, was dark, or dimly lighted, and this also is proof of a failure upon the part of the defendant in the performance of a duty owing by it to the plaintiff; for if it were by any possibility concede that it had right to pile these sacks in the path of alighting passengers, the placing of them adequately so that their presence would be revealed.

          As pertinent to the question of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff in this case the following circumstances are to be noted: The company's platform was constructed upon a level higher than that of the roadbed and the surrounding

ground. The distance from the steps of the car to the spot where the alighting passenger would place his feet on the platform was thus reduced, thereby decreasing the risk incident to stepping off. The nature of the platform, constructed as it was of cement material, also assured to the passenger a stable and even surface on which to alight. Furthermore, the plaintiff was possessed of the vigor and agility of young manhood, and it was by no means so risky for him to get off while the train was yet moving as the same act would have been in an aged or feeble person. In determining the question of contributory negligence in performing such act — that is to say, whether the passenger acted prudently or recklessly — the age, sex, and physical condition of the passenger are circumstances necessarily affecting the safety of the passenger, and should be considered. Women, it has been observed, as a general rule are less capable than men of alighting with safety under such conditions, as the nature of their wearing apparel obstructs the free movement of the limbs. Again, it may be noted that the place was perfectly familiar to the plaintiff as it was his daily custom to get on and of the train at this station. There could, therefore, be no uncertainty in his mind with regard either to the length of the step which he was required to take or the character of the platform where he was alighting. Our conclusion is that the conduct of the plaintiff in undertaking to alight while the train was yet slightly under way was not characterized by imprudence and that therefore he was not guilty of contributory negligence.

          The evidence shows that the plaintiff, at the time of the accident, was earning P25 a month as a copyist clerk, and that the injuries he has suffered have permanently disabled him from continuing that employment. Defendant has not shown that any other gainful occupation is open to plaintiff. His expectancy of life, according to the standard mortality tables, is approximately thirty-three years. We are of the opinion that a fair compensation for the damage suffered by him for his permanent disability is the sum of P2,500, and that he is also entitled to recover of defendant the additional sum of P790.25 for medical attention, hospital services, and other incidental expenditures connected with the treatment of his injuries.

          The decision of lower court is reversed, and judgment is hereby rendered plaintiff for the sum of P3,290.25, and for the costs of both instances. So ordered.

          Arellano, C.J., Torres, Street and Avanceña, JJ., concur.

 

Separate Opinions

 

MALCOLM, J., dissenting:

          With one sentence in the majority decision, we are of full accord, namely, "It may be admitted that had plaintiff waited until the train had come to a full stop before alighting, the particular injury suffered by him could not have occurred." With the general rule relative to a passenger's contributory negligence, we are likewise in full accord, namely, "An attempt to alight from a moving train is negligence per se." Adding these two points together, should be absolved from the complaint, and judgment affirmed.

Johnson, J., concur.

G.R. No. 1719            January 23, 1907

M. H., RAKES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.THE ATLANTIC, GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY, defendant-appellant.

A. D. Gibbs for appellant. F. G. Waite, & Thimas Kepner for appellee.

TRACEY, J.:

This is an action for damages. The plaintiff, one of a gang of eight negro laborers in the employment of the defendant, was at work transporting iron rails from a barge in the harbor to the company's yard near the malecon in Manila. Plaintiff claims that but one hand car was used in this work. The defendant has proved that there were two immediately following one another, upon which were piled lengthwise seven rails, each weighing 560 pounds, so that the ends of the rails lay upon two crosspieces or sills secured to the cars, but without side pieces or guards to prevent them from slipping off. According to the testimony of the plaintiff, the men were either in the rear of the car or at its sides. According to that defendant, some of them were also in front, hauling by a rope. At a certain spot at or near the water's edge the track sagged, the tie broke, the car either canted or upset, the rails slid off and caught the plaintiff, breaking his leg, which was afterwards amputated at about the knee.

This first point for the plaintiff to establish was that the accident happened through the negligence of the defendant. The detailed description by the defendant's witnesses of the construction and quality of the track proves that if was up to the general stranded of tramways of that character, the foundation consisting on land of blocks or crosspieces of wood, by 8 inches thick and from 8 to 10 feet long laid, on the surface of the ground, upon which at a right angle rested stringers of the same thickness, but from 24 to 30 feet in length. On the across the stringers the parallel with the blocks were the ties to which the tracks were fastened. After the road reached the water's edge, the blocks or crosspieces were replaced with pilling, capped by timbers extending from one side to the other. The tracks were each about 2 feet wide and the two inside rails of the parallel tracks about 18 inches apart. It was admitted that there were no side pieces or guards on the car; that where no ends of the rails of the track met each other and also where the stringers joined, there were no fish plates. the defendant has not effectually overcome the plaintiff's proof that the joints between the rails were immediately above the joints between the underlying stringers.

The cause of the sagging of the tracks and the breaking of the tie, which was the immediate occasion of the accident, is not clear in the evidence, but is found by the trial court and is admitted in the briefs and in the argument to have been the dislodging of the crosspiece or piling under the stringer by the water of the bay raised by a recent typhoon. The superintendent of the company attributed it to the giving way of the block laid in the sand. No effort was made to repair the injury at the time of the occurrence. According to plaintiffs witnesses, a depression of the track, varying from one half inch to one inch and a half, was therafter apparent to the eye, and a fellow workman of the plaintiff swears that the day before the accident he called the attention of McKenna, the foreman, to it and asked by simply straightening out the crosspiece, resetting the block under the stringer and renewing the tie, but otherwise leaving the very same timbers as before. It has not proven that the company inspected the track after the typhoon or had any proper system of inspection.

In order to charge the defendant with negligence, it was necessary to show a breach of duty on its part in failing either to properly secure the load on iron to vehicles transporting it, or to skillfully build the tramway or to maintain it in proper condition, or to vigilantly inspect and repair the roadway as soon as the depression in it became visible. It is upon the failure of the defendant to repair the weakened track, after notice of its condition, that the judge below based his judgment.

This case presents many important matters for our decision, and first among them is the standard of duty which we shall establish in our jurisprudence on the part of employees toward employees.

The lack or the harshness of legal rules on this subject has led many countries to enact designed to put these relations on a fair basis in the form of compensation or liability laws or the institution of insurance. In the absence of special legislation we find no difficulty in so applying the general principles of our law as to work out a just result.

Article 1092 of the Civil Code provides:

Civil obligations, arising from crimes or misdemeanors, shall be governed by the provisions of the Penal Code.

And article 568 of the latter code provides:

He who shall execute through reckless negligence an act that if done with malice would constitute a grave crime, shall be punished.

And article 590 provides that the following shall be punished:

4. Those who by simple imprudence or negligence, without committing any infraction of regulations, shall cause an injury which, had malice intervened, would have constituted a crime or misdemeanor.

And finally by articles 19 and 20, the liability of owners and employers for the faults of their servants and representatives is declared to be civil and subsidiary in its character.

It is contented by the defendant, as its first defense to the action, that the necessary conclusion from these collated laws is that the remedy for injuries through negligence lies only in a criminal action in which the official criminally responsible must be made primarily liable and his employer held only subsidiarily to him. According to this theory the plaintiff should have procured the arrest of the representative of the company accountable for not repairing the tract, and on his prosecution a suitable fine should have been imposed, payable primarily by him and secondarily by his employer.

This reasoning misconceived the plan of the Spanish codes upon this subject. Article 1093 of the Civil Code makes obligations arising from faults or negligence not punished by the law, subject to the provisions of Chapter 11 of Title XVI. Section 1902 of that chapter reads:

A person who by an act or omission causes damage to another when there is fault or negligence shall be obliged to repair the damage so done.

SEC. 1903. The obligation imposed by the preceding article is demandable, not only for personal acts and omissions, but also for those of the persons for whom they should be responsible.

The father, and on his death or incapacity, the mother, is liable for the damages caused by the minors who live with them.

xxx           xxx           xxx

Owners or directors of an establishment or enterprise are equally liable for the damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter may be employed or in the performance of their duties.

xxx           xxx           xxx

The liability referred to in this article shall cease when the persons mentioned therein prove that they employed all the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid the damages.

As an answer to the argument urged in this particular action it may be sufficient to point out that nowhere in our general statutes is the employer penalized for failure to provide or maintain safe appliances for his workmen. His obligation therefore is one "not punished by the law " and falls under civil rather than criminal jurisprudence. But the answer may be a broader one. We should be reluctant, under any conditions, to adopt a forced construction of these scientific codes, such as is proposed by the defendant, that would rob some of these articles of effect, would shut out litigants their will from the civil courts, would make the assertion of their rights dependent upon the selection for prosecution of the proper criminal offender, and render recovery doubtful by reason of the strict rules of proof prevailing in criminal actions. Even if these articles had always stood alone, such a construction would be unnecessary, but clear light is thrown upon their meaning by the provisions of the Law of Criminal Procedure of Spain (Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal), which, though n ever in actual force in these Islands, was formerly given a suppletory or explanatory effect. Under article 111 of this law, both classes of action, civil and criminal, might be prosecuted jointly or separately, but while the penal action was pending the civil was suspended. According to article 112, the penal action once started, the civil remedy should be sought therewith, unless it had been waived by the party injured or been expressly reserved by him for civil proceedings for the future. If the civil action alone was prosecuted, arising out of a crime that could be enforced by only on private complaint, the penal action thereunder should be extinguished. These provisions are in harmony with those of articles 23 and 133 of our Penal Code on the same subject.

An examination of this topic might be carried much further, but the citations of these articles suffices to show that the civil liability was not intended to be merged in the criminal nor even to be suspended thereby, except as expressly provided by law. Where an individual is civilly liable for a negligent act or omission, it is not required that the inured party should seek out a third person criminally liable whose prosecution must be a condition precedent to the enforcement of the civil right.

Under article 20 of the Penal Code the responsibility of an employer may be regarded as subsidiary in respect of criminal actions against his employees only while they are process of prosecution, or in so far as they determinate the existence of the criminal act from which liability arises, and his obligation under the civil law and its enforcement in the civil courts is not barred thereby unless by election of the injured person. Inasmuch as no criminal in question, the provisions of the Penal Code can not affect this action. This construction renders it unnecessary to finally determine here whether this subsidiary civil liability in penal actions survived the laws that fully regulated it or has been abrogated by the American civil and criminal procedure now in force in the Philippines.

The difficulty in construing the articles of the code above cited in this case appears from the briefs before us to have arisen from the interpretation of the words of article 1093, "fault or negligence not punished by law," as applied to the comprehensive definition of offenses in articles 568 and 590 of the Penal Code. It has been shown that the liability of an employer arising out of his relation to his employee who is the offender is not to be regarded as derived from negligence punished by the law, within the meaning of articles 1092 and 1093. More than this, however, it can not be said to fall within the class of acts unpunished by the law, the consequences of which are regulated by articles 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code. The acts to which these articles are applicable are understood to be those and growing out of preexisting duties of the parties to one another. But were relations already formed give rise to duties, whether springing from contract or quasi contract, then breaches of those duties are subject to articles 1101, 1103, and 1104, of the same code. A typical application of the distinction may be found in the consequences of a railway accident due to defective machinery supplied by the employer. His liability to his employee would arise out of the contract of employment, that to the passengers out of the contract for passage. while that to that injured bystander would originate in the negligent act itself. This distinction is thus clearly set forth by Manresa in his commentary on article 1093.

We are with reference to such obligations, that culpa, or negligence, may be understood in two difference senses; either as culpa, substantive and independent, which on account of its origin arises in an obligation between two persons not formerly bound by any other obligation; or as an incident in the performance of an obligation; or as already existed, which can not be presumed to exist without the other, and which increases the liability arising from the already exiting obligation.

Of these two species of culpa the first one mentioned, existing by itself, may be also considered as a real source of an independent obligation, and, as chapter 2, title 16 of this book of the code is devoted to it, it is logical to presume that the reference contained in article 1093 is limited thereto and that it does not extend to those provisions relating to the other species of culpa (negligence), the nature of which we will discuss later. (Vol. 8, p. 29.)

And in his commentary on articles 1102 and 1104 he says that these two species of negligence may be somewhat inexactly described as contractual and extra-contractual, the letter being the culpa aquiliana of the Roman law and not entailing so strict an obligation as the former. This terminology is unreservedly accepted by Sanchez-Roman (Derecho Civil, fourth section, Chapter XI, Article II, No. 12), and the principle stated is supported be decisions of the supreme court of Spain, among them those of November 20, 1896 (80 Jurisprudencia Civil, No. 151), and June 27, 1894 (75 Jurisprudencia Civil, No. 182). The contract is one for hire and not one of mandate. (March 10, 1897, 81 Jurisprudencia Civil, No. 107.)

Spanish Jurisprudencia prior to the adoption of the Working Men's Accident Law of January 30, 1900, throws uncertain light on the relation between master and workman. Moved by the quick industrial development of their people, the courts of France early applied to the subject the principles common to the law of both countries, which are lucidly discussed by the leading French commentators.

The original French theory, resting the responsibility of owners of industrial enterprises upon articles 1382, 1383, and 1384 of the Code Napoleon, corresponding in scope to articles 1902 and 1903 of the Spanish Code, soon yielded to the principle that the true basis is the contractual obligation of the employer and employee. (See 18 Dalloz, 196, Title Travail, 331.)

Later the hardships resulting from special exemptions inserted in contracts for employment led to the discovery of a third basis for liability in an article of he French Code making the possessor of any object answerable for damage done by it while in his charge. Our law having no counterpart of this article, applicable to every kind of object, we need consider neither the theory growing out of it nor that of "professional risk" more recently imposed by express legislation, but rather adopting the interpretation of our Civil Code above given, find a rule for this case in the contractual obligation. This contractual obligation, implied from the relation and perhaps so inherent in its nature to be invariable by the parties, binds the employer to provide safe appliances for the use of the employee, thus closely corresponding to English and American Law. On these principles it was the duty of the defendant to build and to maintain its track in reasonably sound condition, so as to protect its workingmen from unnecessary danger. It is plain that in one respect or the other it failed in its duty, otherwise the accident could not have occurred; consequently the negligence of the defendant is established.

Another contention of the defense is that the injury resulted to the plaintiff as a risk incident to his employment and, as such, one assumed by him. It is evident that this can not be the case if the occurrence was due to the failure to repair the track or to duly inspect, it for the employee is not presumed to have stipulated that the employer might neglect his legal duty. Nor may it be excused upon the ground that the negligence leading to the accident was that of a fellow-servant of the injured man. It is not

apparent to us that the intervention of a third person can relieve the defendant from the performance of its duty nor impose upon the plaintiff the consequences of an act or omission not his own. Sua cuique culpa nocet. This doctrine, known as "the fellow-servant, rule," we are not disposed to introduce into our jurisprudence. Adopted in England by Lord Abinger in the case of Prescottvs. Fowler (3 Meeson & Welsby, 1) in 1837, it has since been effectually abrogated by "the Employers' Liability Acts" and the "Compensation Law." The American States which applied it appear to be gradually getting rid of it; for instance, the New York State legislature of 1906 did away with it in respect to railroad companies, and had in hand a scheme for its total abolition. It has never found place in the civil law of continental Europe. (Dalloz, vol. 39, 1858, Title Responsibilite, 630, and vol. 15, 1895, same title, 804. Also more recent instances in Fuzier-Herman, Title Responsibilite Civile, 710.)

The French Cour de Cassation clearly laid down the contrary principle in its judgment of June 28, 1841, in the case of Reygasse, and has since adhered to it.

The most controverted question in the case is that of the negligence of the plaintiff, contributing to the accident, to what extent it existed in fact and what legal effect is to be given it. In two particulars is he charged with carelessness:

First. That having noticed the depression in the track he continued his work; and

Second. That he walked on the ends of the ties at the side of the car instead of along the boards, either before or behind it.

As to the first point, the depression in the track night indicate either a serious or a rival difficulty. There is nothing in the evidence to show that the plaintiff did or could see the displaced timber underneath the sleeper. The claim that he must have done so is a conclusion drawn from what is assumed to have been a probable condition of things not before us, rather than a fair inference from the testimony. While the method of construction may have been known to the men who had helped build the road, it was otherwise with the plaintiff who had worked at this job less than two days. A man may easily walk along a railway without perceiving a displacement of the underlying timbers. The foreman testified that he knew the state of the track on the day of the accident and that it was then in good condition, and one Danridge, a witness for the defendant, working on the same job, swore that he never noticed the depression in the track and never saw any bad place in it. The sagging of the track this plaintiff did perceive, but that was reported in his hearing to the foreman who neither promised nor refused to repair it. His lack of caution in continuing at his work after noticing the slight depression of the rail was not of so gross a nature as to constitute negligence, barring his recovery under the severe American rule. On this point we accept the conclusion of the trial judge who found as facts that "the plaintiff did not know the cause of the one rail being lower than then other" and "it does not appear in this case that the plaintiff knew before the accident occurred that the stringers and rails joined in the same place."

Were we not disposed to agree with these findings they would, nevertheless, be binding upon us, because not "plainly and manifestly against the weight of evidence," as those words of section 497, paragraph 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure were interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States in the De la Rama case (201 U. S., 303).

In respect of the second charge of negligence against the plaintiff, the judgment below is not so specific. While the judge remarks that the evidence does not justify the finding that the car was pulled by means of a rope attached to the front end or to the rails upon it, and further that the circumstances in evidence make it clear that the persons necessary to operate the car could not walk upon the plank between the rails and that, therefore, it was necessary for the employees moving it to get hold upon it as best they could, there is no specific finding upon the instruction given by the defendant to its employees to walk only upon the planks, nor upon the necessity of the plaintiff putting himself upon the ties at the side in order to get hold upon the car. Therefore the findings of the judge below leave the conduct of the plaintiff in walking along the side of the loaded car, upon the open ties, over the depressed track, free to our inquiry.

While the plaintiff and his witnesses swear that not only were they not forbidden to proceed in this way, but were expressly directed by the foreman to do so, both the officers of the company and three of the workmen testify that there was a general prohibition frequently made known to all the gang against walking by the side of the car, and the foreman swears that he repeated the prohibition before the starting of this particular load. On this contradiction of proof we think that the preponderance is in favor of the defendant's contention to the extent of the general order being made known to the workmen. If so, the disobedience of the plaintiff in placing himself in danger contributed in some degree to the injury as a proximate, although not as its primary cause. This conclusion presents sharply the question, What effect is to be given such an act of contributory negligence? Does it defeat a recovery, according to the American rule, or is it to be taken only in reduction of damages?

While a few of the American States have adopted to a greater or less extent the doctrine of comparative negligence, allowing a recovery by a plaintiff whose own act contributed to his injury, provided his negligence was slight as compared with that of the defendant, and some others have accepted the theory of proportional damages, reducing the award to a plaintiff in proportion to his responsibility for the accident, yet the overwhelming weight of adjudication establishes the principle in American jurisprudence that any negligence, however slight, on the part of the person injured which is one of the causes proximately contributing to his injury, bars his recovery. (English and American Encyclopedia of law, Titles "Comparative Negligence" and Contributory Negligence.")

In Grant Trunk Railway Company vs. Ives (144 U. S., 408, at page 429) the Supreme Court of the United States thus authoritatively states the present rule of law:

Although the defendant's' negligence may have been the primary cause of the injury complained of, yet an action for such injury can not be maintained if the proximate and immediate cause of the injury can be traced to the want of ordinary care and caution in the person injured; subject to this qualification, which has grown up in recent years (having been first enunciated in Davies vs. Mann, 10 M. & W., 546) that the contributory negligence of the party injured will not defeat the action if it be shown that the defendant might, by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the injured party's negligence.

There are may cases in the supreme court of Spain in which the defendant was exonerated, but when analyzed they prove to have been decided either upon the point that he was not negligent or that the negligence of the plaintiff was the immediate cause of the casualty or that the accident was due to casus fortuitus. Of the first class in the decision of January 26, 1887 (38 Jurisprudencia Criminal, No. 70), in which a railway employee, standing on a car, was thrown therefrom and killed by the shock following the backing up of the engine. It was held that the management of the train and engine being in conformity with proper rules of the company, showed no fault on its part.

Of the second class are the decision of the 15th of January, the 19th of February, and the 7th of March, 1902, stated in Alcubilla's Index of that year; and of the third class the decision of the 4th of June, 1888 (64Jurisprudencia Civil, No. 1), in which the breaking down of plaintiff's dam by the logs of the defendant impelled against it by the Tajo River, was held due to a freshet as a fortuitous cause.

The decision of the 7th of March, 1902, on which stress has been laid, rested on two bases, one, that the defendant was not negligent, because expressly relieved by royal order from the common obligation imposed by the police law of maintaining a guard at the road crossing; the other, because the act of the deceased in driving over level ground with unobstructed view in front of a train running at speed, with the engine whistle blowing was the determining cause of the accident. It is plain that the train was doing nothing but what it had a right to do and that the only fault lay with the injured man. His negligence was not contributory, it was sole, and was of such an efficient nature that without it no catastrophe could have happened.

On the other hand, there are many cases reported in which it seems plain that the plaintiff sustaining damages was not free from contributory negligence; for instance, the decision of the 14th of December, 1894 (76Jurisprudencia Civil, No. 134), in which the owner of a building was held liable for not furnishing protection to workmen engaged in hanging out flags, when the latter must have perceived beforehand the danger attending the work.

None of those cases define the effect to be given the negligence of a plaintiff which contributed to his injury as one of its causes, though not the principal one, and we are left to seek the theory of the civil law in the practice of other countries.

In France in the case of Marquant, August 20, 1879, the cour de cassation held that the carelessness of the victim did not civilly relieve the person without whose fault the accident could not have happened, but that the contributory negligence of the injured man had the effect only of reducing the damages. The same principle was applied in the case of Recullet, November 10, 1888. and that of Laugier of the 11th of November, 1896. (Fuzier-Herman, Title Responsibilite Cirile, 411, 412.) Of like tenor are citations in Dalloz (vol. 18, 1806, Title Trail, 363, 364, and vol. 15, 1895, Title Responsibilite, 193, 198).

In the Canadian Province of Quebee, which has retained for the most part the French Civil Law, now embodied in a code following the Code Napoleon, a practice in accord with that of France is laid down in many cases collected in the annotations to article 1053 of the code edited by Beauchamps, 1904. One of these is Luttrell vs. Trottier, reported in La Revue de Jurisprudence, volume 6, page 90, in which the court of Kings bench, otherwise known as the court of appeals, the highest authority in the Dominion of Canada on points of French law, held that contributory negligence did not exonerate the defendants whose fault had been the immediate cause of the accident, but entitled him to a reduction of damages. Other similar cases in the provincial courts have been overruled by appellate tribunals made up of common law judges drawn from other provinces, who have preferred to impose uniformally throughout the Dominion the English theory of contributory negligence. Such decisions throw no light upon the doctrines of the civil law. Elsewhere we find this practice embodied in legislation; for instance, section 2 of article 2398 of the Code of Portugal reads as follows:

If in the case of damage there was fault or negligence on the part of the person injured or in the part of some one else, the indemnification shall be reduced in the first case, and in the second case it shall be appropriated in proportion to such fault or negligence as provided in paragraphs 1 and 2 of section 2372.

And in article 1304 of the Austrian Code provides that the victim who is partly changeable with the accident shall stand his damages in proportion to his fault, but when that proportion is incapable of ascertainment, he shall share the liability equally with the person principally responsible. The principle of proportional damages appears to be also adopted in article 51 of the Swiss Code. Even in the United States in admirality jurisdictions, whose principles are derived from the civil law, common fault in cases

of collision have been disposed of not on the ground of contradictor negligence, but on that of equal loss, the fault of the one part being offset against that of the other. (Ralli vs. Troop, 157 U. S. 386; 97.)

The damage of both being added together and the sum equally divided, a decree is entered in favor of the vessel sustaining the greater loss against the other for the excess of her damages over one-half of the aggregate sum. (The Manitoba, 122 U. S., 97)

Exceptional practice appears to prevail in maritime law in other jurisdictions. The Spanish Code of Commerce, article 827, makes each vessel for its own damage when both are the fault; this provision restricted to a single class of the maritime accidents, falls for short of a recognition of the principle of contributory negligence as understood in American Law, with which, indeed, it has little in common. This is a plain from other articles of the same code; for instance, article 829, referring to articles 826, 827, and 828, which provides: "In the cases above mentioned the civil action of the owner against the person liable for the damage is reserved, as well as the criminal liability which may appear."

The rule of the common law, a hard and fast one, not adjustable with respects of the faults of the parties, appears to have grown out the original method of trial by jury, which rendered difficult a nice balancing of responsibilities and which demanded an inflexible standard as a safeguard against too ready symphaty for the injured. It was assumed that an exact measure of several concurring faults was unattainable.

The reason why, in cases of mutual concurring negligence, neither party can maintain an action against the other, is, not the wrong of the one is set off against the wrong of the other; it that the law can not measure how much of the damage suffered is attributable to the plaintiff's own fault. If he were allowed to recover, it might be that he would obtain from the other party compensation for hiss own misconduct. (Heil vs.Glanding, 42 Penn. St. Rep., 493, 499.)

The parties being mutually in fault, there can be no appointment of damages. The law has no scales to determine in such cases whose wrongdoing weighed most in the compound that occasioned the mischief. (Railroad vs. Norton, 24 Penn. St. 565, 469.)

Experience with jury trials in negligence cases has brought American courts to review to relax the vigor of the rule by freely exercising the power of setting aside verdicts deemed excessive, through the device of granting new trials, unless reduced damages are stipulated for, amounting to a partial revision of damages by the courts. It appears to us that the control by the court of the subject matter may be secured on a moral logical basis and its judgment adjusted with greater nicety to the merits of the litigants through the practice of offsetting their respective responsibilities. In the civil law system the desirable end is not deemed beyond the capacity of its tribunals.

Whatever may prove to be the doctrine finally adopted in Spain or in other countries under the stress and counter stress of novel schemers of legislation, we find the theory of damages laid down in the judgment the most consistent with the history and the principals of our law in these Islands and with its logical development.

Difficulty seems to be apprehended in deciding which acts of the injured party shall be considered immediate causes of the accident. The test is simple. Distinction must be between the accident and the injury, between the event itself, without which there could have been no accident, and those acts of the victim not entering into it, independent of it, but contributing under review was the displacement of the crosspiece or the failure to replace it. this produced the event giving occasion for damages — that is, the shinking of the track and the sliding of the iron rails. To this event, the act of the plaintiff in walking by the side of the car did not contribute, although it was an element of the damage which came to himself. Had the crosspiece been out of place wholly or partly thorough his act of omission of duty, the last would have been one of the determining causes of the event or accident, for which he would have been responsible. Where he contributes to the principal occurrence, as one of its determining factors, he can not recover. Where, in conjunction with the occurrence, he contributes only to his own injury, he may recover the amount that the defendant responsible for the event should pay for such injury, less a sum deemed a suitable equivalent for his own imprudence.

Accepting, though with some hesitation, the judgment of the trial court, fixing the damage incurred by the plaintiff at 5,000 pesos, the equivalent of 2,500 dollars, United States money, we deduct therefrom 2,500 pesos, the amount fairly attributable to his negligence, and direct judgment to be entered in favor of the plaintiff for the resulting sum of 2,500 pesos, with cost of both instances, and ten days hereafter let the case be remanded to the court below for proper action. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J. Torres and Mapa, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

WILLARD, J., dissenting:

The knowledge which the plaintiff had in regard to the condition of the track is indicated by his own evidence. He testified, among other things, as follows:

Q.       Now, describe the best you can the character of the track that ran from the place where you loaded the irons from the barge up to the point where you unloaded them on the ground.

A.       — Well, it was pretty bad character.

xxx           xxx           xxx

Q.       And you were familiar with the track before that its construction?

A.       Familiar with what?

Q.       Well, you have described it here to the court.

A.       Oh, yes; I knew the condition of the track.

Q.       You knew its conditions as you have described it here at the time you were working around there?

A.       Yes, sir.

xxx           xxx           xxx

Q.       And while operating it from the side it was necessary for you to step from board to board on the cross-ties which extended out over the stringers?

A.       Yes, sir.

Q.       And these were very of irregular shape, were they not?

A.       They were in pretty bad condition.

xxx           xxx           xxx

Q.       And it was not safe to walk along on the outside of these crosspieces?

A.       It was safe if the car stayed on the track. We didn't try to hold the load on. We tried to hold the car back, keep it from going too fast, because we knew the track was in bad condition just here, and going down too fast we could be liable to run off most any time.

Q.       You knew the track was in bad condition when you got hold?

A.       Sure, it was in bad condition.

xxx           xxx           xxx

Q.       And the accident took place at that point where you believed it to be so dangerous?

A.       Yes, sir.

Q.       But you knew it was dangerous?

A.       Why certainly, anybody could see it; but a workingman had to work in those days or get arrested for a vag here in Manila.

The court below, while it found that the plaintiff knew in a general way of the bad condition of the track, found that he was not informed of the exact cause of the accident, namely, the washing away of the large crosspiece laid upon the ground or placed upon the posts as the foundation upon which the stripers rested. This finding of fact to my mind is plainly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence. Ellis, a witness for the plaintiff, testified that on the morning of the accident he called the attention of McKenna, the foreman, to the defective condition of the track at his precise point where the accident happened. His testimony in part is as follows:

A.       I called Mr. McKenna. I showed him the track and told him I didn't think it was safe working, and that if he didn't fix it he was liable to have an accident; I told him I thought if he put fish plates on it would it. He said, you keep on fishing around here for fish plates and you will be fishing for another job the first thing you know." He says, "You see to much."

xxx           xxx           xxxQ.       Who else was present at the time you had this conversation with Mr. McKenna?A.       Well, at that conversation as far as I can remember, we were all walking down the track and I know that McCoy and Mr. Blakes was along at the time. I remember them two, but we were all walking down the track in a bunch, but I disremember them.

xxx           xxx           xxx

Q.       Was that the exact language that you used, that you wanted some fish plates put on?

A.       No, sir: I told him to look at that track. I says get some fish plates. I says if there was any fish plates we would fix that.

Q.       What did the fish plates have to do with that?

A.       It would have strengthened that joint.

Q.       Why didn't you put the 8 by 8 which was washed crossways in place?

A. That would have been taken the raising of the track and digging out along this upright piece and then putting it up again.

The plaintiff himself testified that he was present with Ellis at the time this conversation was had with McKenna. It thus appears that on the morning in question the plaintiff and McKenna were standing directly over the place where the accident happened later in the day. The accident was caused, as the court below found, by the washing away or displacement of the large 8 by 8 piece of timber. This track was constructed as all other tracks are, all of it open work, with no floor over the ties, and of course see the ground and the entire construction of the road, including these large 8 by 8 pieces, the long stringers placed thereon, the ties placed on these stringers, and the rails placed on the ties. The plaintiff himself must have seen that the 8 by 8 piece of timber was out of place.

If the testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses is to be believed, the displacement was more markedly apparent even than it would appear from the testimony of the defendant's witnesses. According to the plaintiff's witnesses, the water at high tide reached the place in question and these 8 by 8 pieces were therefore not laid upon the ground but were placed upon posts driven into the ground, the height of the posts at this particular place being, according to the testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses, from a foot to two feet and a half. As has been said, Ellis testified that the reason why they did not put the 8 by 8 back in its place was because that would have required the raising up of the track and digging out along this upright piece and then putting it up again.

It conclusively appears from the evidence that the plaintiff, before the accident happened, knew the exact condition of the track and was informed and knew of the defect which caused the accident. There was no promise on the part of McKenna to repair the track.

Under the circumstances the plaintiff was negligent in placing himself on the side of the car where he knew that he would be injured by the falling of the rails from the car when they reached this point in the track where the two stringers were without any support of their ends. He either should have refused to work at all or he should have placed himself behind the car, on the other side of it, or in front of it, drawing it with a rope. He was guilty of contributory negligence and is not entitled to recover.

It is, said however, that contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff in a case like this is no defense under the law in force in these Islands. To this proposition I can not agree. The liability of the defendant is based in the majority opinion upon articles 1101 and 1103 of the Civil Code.

In order to impose such liability upon the defendant, it must appear that its negligence caused the accident. The reason why contradictory negligence on the part of the plaintiff is a defense in this class of cases is that the negligence of the defendant did not alone cause the accident. If nothing but that negligence had existed, the accident would not have happened and, as I understand it, in every case in which contradictory negligence is a defense it is made so because the negligence of the plaintiff is the cause of the accident, to this extent, that if the plaintiff had not been negligent the accident would not have happened, although the defendant was also negligent. In other words, the negligence of the defendant is not alone sufficient to cause the accident. It requires also the negligence of the plaintiff.

There is, so far as I know, nothing in the Civil Code relating to contributory negligence. The rule of the Roman law was: "Quod quis ex culap sua damnum sentit, no intelligitur damnum sentire." (Digest, book, 50, tit. 17, rule 203.)

The partidas contain the following provisions:

The just thing is that a man should suffer the damage which comes to him through his own fault, and that he can not demand reparation therefor from another. (Law 25, tit. 5, partida 3.)

And they even said that when a man received an injury through his own acts, the grievance should be against himself and not against another. (Law 2, tit. 7, partida 2.)

In several cases in the supreme court of Spain the fact has been negligence that the plaintiff was himself guilty of negligence, as in the civil judgments of the 4th of June, 1888, and of the 20th of February, 1887, and in the criminal judgments of the 20th of February 1888, the 90th of March, 1876, and the 6th of October, 1882. These cases do not throw much light upon the subject. The judgment of the 7th of March, 1902 (93 Jurisprudencia Civil, 391), is, however, directly in point. In that case the supreme court of Spain said:

According to the doctrine expressed in article 1902 of the Civil Code, fault or negligence is a source of obligation when between such negligence and the injury thereby caused there exists the relation of cause and effect; but in the injury caused should not be the result of acts or omissions of a third party, the latter has no obligation to repair the same, even though such acts or omissions were imprudent or unlawful, and much less when it is shown that the immediate cause of the injury was the negligence of the injured person party himself.

Found the reasons above stated, and the court below having found that the death of the deceased was due to his own imprudence, and not therefore due to the absence of a guard at the grade crossing where the accident occurred, it seems clear that court in acquitting the railroad company of the complaint filed by the widow did not violate the provisions of the aforesaid article of the Civil Code.

For the same reason, although the authority granted to the railroad company to open the grade crossing without a special guard was nullified by the subsequent promulgation of the railroad police law and the regulations for the execution of the same, the result would be identical, leaving one of the grounds upon which the judgment of acquittal is based, to wit, that the accident was caused by the imprudence of the injured party himself, unaffected.

It appears that the accident in this case took place at a grade crossing where, according to the claim of the plaintiff, it was the duty of the railroad company to maintain husband was injured by a train at this crossing, his negligence contributing to the injury according to the ruling of the court below. This judgment, then, amounts to a holding that a contributory negligence is a defense according to the law of Spain. (See also judgment of the 21st of October, 1903, vol. 96 p. 400, Jurisprudencia Civil.)

Although in the Civil Code there is no express provision upon the subject, in the Code of Commerce there is found a distinct declaration upon it in reference to damages caused by collission at sea. Article 827 of the Code of Commerce is as follows:

If both vessels may be blamed for the collission, each one shall for liable for his own damages, and both shall jointly responsible for the loss and damages suffered to their cargoes.

That article is an express recognition of the fact that in collision cases contributory negligence is a defense,

I do not think that this court is justified in view of the Roman law, of the provisions of the Partidas, of the judgment of March 7, 1902, of article 827 of the Code of Commerce, and in the absence of any declaration upon the subject in the Civil Code, in saying that it was the intention rule announced in the majority opinion, a rule dimetrically opposed to that put in force by the Code of Commerce.

The chief, is not the only, reason stated in the opinion for adopting the rule that contradictory negligence is not a defense seems to be that such is the holding of the later French decisions.

As to whether, if any liability existed in this case, it would be necessary in accordance with the provisions of the Penal Code, or primary, in accordance with the provision of the Civil Code, I express no opinion.

The judgment should, I think, be reversed and the defendant acquitted of the complaint.

G.R. No. L-47851 October 3, 1986

JUAN F. NAKPIL & SONS, and JUAN F. NAKPIL, petitioners, vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS, UNITED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., JUAN J. CARLOS, and the PHILIPPINE BAR ASSOCIATION, respondents.

G.R. No. L-47863 October 3, 1986

THE UNITED CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents.

G.R. No. L-47896 October 3, 1986

PHILIPPINE BAR ASSOCIATION, ET AL., petitioners, vs.COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents.

 

PARAS, J.:

These are petitions for review on certiorari of the November 28, 1977 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 51771-R modifying the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch V, in Civil Case No. 74958 dated September 21, 1971 as modified by the Order of the lower court dated December 8, 1971. The Court of Appeals in modifying the decision of the lower court included an award of an additional amount of P200,000.00 to the Philippine Bar Association to be paid jointly and severally by the defendant United Construction Co. and by the third-party defendants Juan F. Nakpil and Sons and Juan F. Nakpil.

The dispositive portion of the modified decision of the lower court reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:

(a) Ordering defendant United Construction Co., Inc. and third-party defendants (except Roman Ozaeta) to pay the plaintiff, jointly and severally, the sum of P989,335.68 with interest at the legal rate from November 29, 1968, the date of the filing of the complaint until full payment;

(b) Dismissing the complaint with respect to defendant Juan J. Carlos;

(c) Dismissing the third-party complaint;

(d) Dismissing the defendant's and third-party defendants' counterclaims for lack of merit;

(e) Ordering defendant United Construction Co., Inc. and third-party defendants (except Roman Ozaeta) to pay the costs in equal shares.

SO ORDERED. (Record on Appeal p. 521; Rollo, L- 47851, p. 169).

The dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals reads:

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is modified to include an award of P200,000.00 in favor of plaintiff-appellant Philippine Bar Association, with interest at the legal rate from November 29, 1968 until full payment to be paid jointly and severally by defendant United Construction Co., Inc. and third party defendants (except Roman Ozaeta). In all other respects, the judgment dated September 21, 1971 as modified in the

December 8, 1971 Order of the lower court is hereby affirmed with COSTS to be paid by the defendant and third party defendant (except Roman Ozaeta) in equal shares.

SO ORDERED.

Petitioners Juan F. Nakpil & Sons in L-47851 and United Construction Co., Inc. and Juan J. Carlos in L-47863 seek the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals, among other things, for exoneration from liability while petitioner Philippine Bar Association in L-47896 seeks the modification of aforesaid decision to obtain an award of P1,830,000.00 for the loss of the PBA building plus four (4) times such amount as damages resulting in increased cost of the building, P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; and P100,000.00 as attorney's fees.

These petitions arising from the same case filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila were consolidated by this Court in the resolution of May 10, 1978 requiring the respective respondents to comment. (Rollo, L-47851, p. 172).

The facts as found by the lower court (Decision, C.C. No. 74958; Record on Appeal, pp. 269-348; pp. 520-521; Rollo, L-47851, p. 169) and affirmed by the Court of Appeals are as follows:

The plaintiff, Philippine Bar Association, a civic-non-profit association, incorporated under the Corporation Law, decided to construct an office building on its 840 square meters lot located at the comer of Aduana and Arzobispo Streets, Intramuros, Manila. The construction was undertaken by the United Construction, Inc. on an "administration" basis, on the suggestion of Juan J. Carlos, the president and general manager of said corporation. The proposal was approved by plaintiff's board of directors and signed by its president Roman Ozaeta, a third-party defendant in this case. The plans and specifications for the building were prepared by the other third-party defendants Juan F. Nakpil & Sons. The building was completed in June, 1966.

In the early morning of August 2, 1968 an unusually strong earthquake hit Manila and its environs and the building in question sustained major damage. The front columns of the building buckled, causing the building to tilt forward dangerously. The tenants vacated the building in view of its precarious condition. As a temporary remedial measure, the building was shored up by United Construction, Inc. at the cost of P13,661.28.

On November 29, 1968, the plaintiff commenced this action for the recovery of damages arising from the partial collapse of the building against United Construction, Inc. and its President and General Manager Juan J. Carlos as defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the collapse of the building was accused by defects in the construction, the failure of the contractors to follow plans and specifications and violations by the defendants of the terms of the contract.

Defendants in turn filed a third-party complaint against the architects who prepared the plans and specifications, alleging in essence that the collapse of the building was due to the defects in the said plans and specifications. Roman Ozaeta, the then president of the plaintiff Bar Association was included as a third-party defendant for damages for having included Juan J. Carlos, President of the United Construction Co., Inc. as party defendant.

On March 3, 1969, the plaintiff and third-party defendants Juan F. Nakpil & Sons and Juan F. Nakpil presented a written stipulation which reads:

1. That in relation to defendants' answer with counterclaims and third- party complaints and the third-party defendants Nakpil & Sons' answer thereto, the plaintiff need not amend its complaint by including the said Juan F. Nakpil & Sons and Juan F. Nakpil personally as parties defendant.

2. That in the event (unexpected by the undersigned) that the Court should find after the trial that the above-named defendants Juan J. Carlos and United Construction Co., Inc. are free from any blame and liability for the collapse of the PBA Building, and should further find that the collapse of said building was due to defects and/or inadequacy of the plans, designs, and specifications p by the third-party defendants, or in the event that the Court may find Juan F. Nakpil and Sons and/or Juan F. Nakpil contributorily negligent or in any way jointly and solidarily liable with the defendants, judgment may be rendered in whole or in part. as the case may be, against Juan F. Nakpil & Sons and/or Juan F. Nakpil in favor of the plaintiff to all intents and purposes as if plaintiff's complaint has been duly amended by including the said Juan F. Nakpil & Sons and Juan F. Nakpil as parties defendant and by alleging causes of action against them including, among others, the defects or inadequacy of the plans, designs, and specifications prepared by them and/or failure in the performance of their contract with plaintiff.

3. Both parties hereby jointly petition this Honorable Court to approve this stipulation. (Record on Appeal, pp. 274-275; Rollo, L-47851,p.169).

Upon the issues being joined, a pre-trial was conducted on March 7, 1969, during which among others, the parties agreed to refer the technical issues involved in the case to a Commissioner. Mr. Andres O. Hizon, who was ultimately appointed by the trial court, assumed his office as Commissioner, charged with the duty to try the following issues:

1. Whether the damage sustained by the PBA building during the August 2, 1968 earthquake had been caused, directly or indirectly, by:

(a) The inadequacies or defects in the plans and specifications prepared by third-party defendants;

(b) The deviations, if any, made by the defendants from said plans and specifications and how said deviations contributed to the damage sustained;

(c) The alleged failure of defendants to observe the requisite quality of materials and workmanship in the construction of the building;

(d) The alleged failure to exercise the requisite degree of supervision expected of the architect, the contractor and/or the owner of the building;

(e) An act of God or a fortuitous event; and

(f) Any other cause not herein above specified.

2. If the cause of the damage suffered by the building arose from a combination of the above-enumerated factors, the degree or proportion in which each individual factor contributed to the damage sustained;

3. Whether the building is now a total loss and should be completely demolished or whether it may still be repaired and restored to a tenantable condition. In the latter case, the determination of the cost of such restoration or repair, and the value of any remaining construction, such as the foundation, which may still be utilized or availed of (Record on Appeal, pp. 275-276; Rollo, L-47851, p. 169).

Thus, the issues of this case were divided into technical issues and non-technical issues. As aforestated the technical issues were referred to the Commissioner. The non-technical issues were tried by the Court.

Meanwhile, plaintiff moved twice for the demolition of the building on the ground that it may topple down in case of a strong earthquake. The motions were opposed by the defendants and the matter was referred to the Commissioner. Finally, on April 30, 1979 the building was authorized to be demolished at the expense of the plaintiff, but not another earthquake of high intensity on April 7, 1970 followed by other strong earthquakes on April 9, and 12, 1970, caused further damage to the property. The actual demolition was undertaken by the buyer of the damaged building. (Record on Appeal, pp. 278-280; Ibid.)

After the protracted hearings, the Commissioner eventually submitted his report on September 25, 1970 with the findings that while the damage sustained by the PBA building was caused directly by the August 2, 1968 earthquake whose magnitude was estimated at 7.3 they were also caused by the defects in the plans and specifications prepared by the third-party defendants' architects, deviations from said plans and specifications by the defendant contractors and failure of the latter to observe the requisite workmanship in the construction of the building and of the contractors, architects and even the owners to exercise the requisite degree of supervision in the construction of subject building.

All the parties registered their objections to aforesaid findings which in turn were answered by the Commissioner.

The trial court agreed with the findings of the Commissioner except as to the holding that the owner is charged with full nine supervision of the construction. The Court sees no legal or contractual basis for such conclusion. (Record on Appeal, pp. 309-328; Ibid).

Thus, on September 21, 1971, the lower court rendered the assailed decision which was modified by the Intermediate Appellate Court on November 28, 1977.

All the parties herein appealed from the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court. Hence, these petitions.

On May 11, 1978, the United Architects of the Philippines, the Association of Civil Engineers, and the Philippine Institute of Architects filed with the Court a motion to intervene as amicus curiae. They proposed to present a position paper on the liability of architects when a building collapses and to submit likewise a critical analysis with computations on the divergent views on the

design and plans as submitted by the experts procured by the parties. The motion having been granted, the amicus curiae were granted a period of 60 days within which to submit their position.

After the parties had all filed their comments, We gave due course to the petitions in Our Resolution of July 21, 1978.

The position papers of the amicus curiae (submitted on November 24, 1978) were duly noted.

The amicus curiae gave the opinion that the plans and specifications of the Nakpils were not defective. But the Commissioner, when asked by Us to comment, reiterated his conclusion that the defects in the plans and specifications indeed existed.

Using the same authorities availed of by the amicus curiae such as the Manila Code (Ord. No. 4131) and the 1966 Asep Code, the Commissioner added that even if it can be proved that the defects in theconstruction alone (and not in the plans and design) caused the damage to the building, still the deficiency in the original design and jack of specific provisions against torsion in the original plans and the overload on the ground floor columns (found by an the experts including the original designer) certainly contributed to the damage which occurred. (Ibid, p. 174).

In their respective briefs petitioners, among others, raised the following assignments of errors: Philippine Bar Association claimed that the measure of damages should not be limited to P1,100,000.00 as estimated cost of repairs or to the period of six (6) months for loss of rentals while United Construction Co., Inc. and the Nakpils claimed that it was an act of God that caused the failure of the building which should exempt them from responsibility and not the defective construction, poor workmanship, deviations from plans and specifications and other imperfections in the case of United Construction Co., Inc. or the deficiencies in the design, plans and specifications prepared by petitioners in the case of the Nakpils. Both UCCI and the Nakpils object to the payment of the additional amount of P200,000.00 imposed by the Court of Appeals. UCCI also claimed that it should be reimbursed the expenses of shoring the building in the amount of P13,661.28 while the Nakpils opposed the payment of damages jointly and solidarity with UCCI.

The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not an act of God-an unusually strong earthquake-which caused the failure of the building, exempts from liability, parties who are otherwise liable because of their negligence.

The applicable law governing the rights and liabilities of the parties herein is Article 1723 of the New Civil Code, which provides:

Art. 1723. The engineer or architect who drew up the plans and specifications for a building is liable for damages if within fifteen years from the completion of the structure the same should collapse by reason of a defect in those plans and specifications, or due to the defects in the ground. The contractor is likewise responsible for the damage if the edifice fags within the same period on account of defects in the construction or the use of materials of inferior quality furnished by him, or due to any violation of the terms of the contract. If the engineer or architect supervises the construction, he shall be solidarily liable with the contractor.

Acceptance of the building, after completion, does not imply waiver of any of the causes of action by reason of any defect mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

The action must be brought within ten years following the collapse of the building.

On the other hand, the general rule is that no person shall be responsible for events which could not be foreseen or which though foreseen, were inevitable (Article 1174, New Civil Code).

An act of God has been defined as an accident, due directly and exclusively to natural causes without human intervention, which by no amount of foresight, pains or care, reasonably to have been expected, could have been prevented. (1 Corpus Juris 1174).

There is no dispute that the earthquake of August 2, 1968 is a fortuitous event or an act of God.

To exempt the obligor from liability under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, for a breach of an obligation due to an "act of God," the following must concur: (a) the cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the will of the debtor; (b) the event must be either unforseeable or unavoidable; (c) the event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (d) the debtor must be free from any participation in, or aggravation of the injury to the creditor. (Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, 138 SCRA 553; Estrada v. Consolacion, 71 SCRA 423; Austria v. Court of Appeals, 39 SCRA 527; Republic of the Phil. v. Luzon Stevedoring Corp., 21 SCRA 279; Lasam v. Smith, 45 Phil. 657).

Thus, if upon the happening of a fortuitous event or an act of God, there concurs a corresponding fraud, negligence, delay or violation or contravention in any manner of the tenor of the obligation as provided for in Article 1170 of the Civil Code, which results in loss or damage, the obligor cannot escape liability.

The principle embodied in the act of God doctrine strictly requires that the act must be one occasioned exclusively by the violence of nature and all human agencies are to be excluded from creating or entering into the cause of the mischief. When the effect, the cause of which is to be considered, is found to be in part the result of the participation of man, whether it be from active intervention or neglect, or failure to act, the whole occurrence is thereby humanized, as it were, and removed from the rules applicable to the acts of God. (1 Corpus Juris, pp. 1174-1175).

Thus it has been held that when the negligence of a person concurs with an act of God in producing a loss, such person is not exempt from liability by showing that the immediate cause of the damage was the act of God. To be exempt from liability for loss because of an act of God, he must be free from any previous negligence or misconduct by which that loss or damage may have been occasioned. (Fish & Elective Co. v. Phil. Motors, 55 Phil. 129; Tucker v. Milan, 49 O.G. 4379; Limpangco & Sons v. Yangco Steamship Co., 34 Phil. 594, 604; Lasam v. Smith, 45 Phil. 657).

The negligence of the defendant and the third-party defendants petitioners was established beyond dispute both in the lower court and in the Intermediate Appellate Court. Defendant United Construction Co., Inc. was found to have made substantial deviations from the plans and specifications. and to have failed to observe the requisite workmanship in the construction as well as to exercise the requisite degree of supervision; while the third-party defendants were found to have inadequacies or defects in the plans and specifications prepared by them. As correctly assessed by both courts, the defects in the construction and in the plans and specifications were the proximate causes that rendered the PBA building unable to withstand the earthquake of August 2, 1968. For this reason the defendant and third-party defendants cannot claim exemption from liability. (Decision, Court of Appeals, pp. 30-31).

It is well settled that the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and on this court (cases cited in Tolentino vs. de Jesus, 56 SCRA 67; Cesar vs. Sandiganbayan, January 17, 1985, 134 SCRA 105, 121), unless (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjectures; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting , (6) the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellees (Ramos vs. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., February 8, 1967, 19 SCRA 289, 291-292; Roque vs. Buan, Oct. 31, 1967, 21 SCRA 648, 651); (7) the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) said findings of facts are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents (Garcia vs. CA, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 622; Alsua-Bett vs. Court of Appeals, July 30, 1979, 92 SCRA 322, 366); (10) the finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by evidence on record (Salazar vs. Gutierrez, May 29, 1970, 33 SCRA 243, 247; Cited in G.R. No. 66497-98, Sacay v. Sandiganbayan, July 10, 1986).

It is evident that the case at bar does not fall under any of the exceptions above-mentioned. On the contrary, the records show that the lower court spared no effort in arriving at the correct appreciation of facts by the referral of technical issues to a Commissioner chosen by the parties whose findings and conclusions remained convincingly unrebutted by the intervenors/amicus curiae who were allowed to intervene in the Supreme Court.

In any event, the relevant and logical observations of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals that "while it is not possible to state with certainty that the building would not have collapsed were those defects not present, the fact remains that several buildings in the same area withstood the earthquake to which the building of the plaintiff was similarly subjected," cannot be ignored.

The next issue to be resolved is the amount of damages to be awarded to the PBA for the partial collapse (and eventual complete collapse) of its building.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of the trial court based on the report of the Commissioner that the total amount required to repair the PBA building and to restore it to tenantable condition was P900,000.00 inasmuch as it was not initially a total loss. However, while the trial court awarded the PBA said amount as damages, plus unrealized rental income for one-half year, the Court of Appeals modified the amount by awarding in favor of PBA an additional sum of P200,000.00 representing the damage suffered by the PBA building as a result of another earthquake that occurred on April 7, 1970 (L-47896, Vol. I, p. 92).

The PBA in its brief insists that the proper award should be P1,830,000.00 representing the total value of the building (L-47896, PBA's No. 1 Assignment of Error, p. 19), while both the NAKPILS and UNITED question the additional award of P200,000.00 in favor of the PBA (L- 47851, NAKPIL's Brief as Petitioner, p. 6, UNITED's Brief as Petitioner, p. 25). The PBA further urges that the unrealized rental income awarded to it should not be limited to a period of one-half year but should be computed on a continuing basis at the rate of P178,671.76 a year until the judgment for the principal amount shall have been satisfied L- 47896, PBA's No. 11 Assignment of Errors, p. 19).

The collapse of the PBA building as a result of the August 2, 1968 earthquake was only partial and it is undisputed that the building could then still be repaired and restored to its tenantable condition. The PBA, however, in view of its lack of needed funding, was unable, thru no fault of its own, to have the building repaired. UNITED, on the other hand, spent P13,661.28 to

shore up the building after the August 2, 1968 earthquake (L-47896, CA Decision, p. 46). Because of the earthquake on April 7, 1970, the trial court after the needed consultations, authorized the total demolition of the building (L-47896, Vol. 1, pp. 53-54).

There should be no question that the NAKPILS and UNITED are liable for the damage resulting from the partial and eventual collapse of the PBA building as a result of the earthquakes.

We quote with approval the following from the erudite decision penned by Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez (now an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) while still an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals:

There is no question that an earthquake and other forces of nature such as cyclones, drought, floods, lightning, and perils of the sea are acts of God. It does not necessarily follow, however, that specific losses and suffering resulting from the occurrence of these natural force are also acts of God. We are not convinced on the basis of the evidence on record that from the thousands of structures in Manila, God singled out the blameless PBA building in Intramuros and around six or seven other buildings in various parts of the city for collapse or severe damage and that God alone was responsible for the damages and losses thus suffered.

The record is replete with evidence of defects and deficiencies in the designs and plans, defective construction, poor workmanship, deviation from plans and specifications and other imperfections. These deficiencies are attributable to negligent men and not to a perfect God.

The act-of-God arguments of the defendants- appellants and third party defendants-appellants presented in their briefs are premised on legal generalizations or speculations and on theological fatalism both of which ignore the plain facts. The lengthy discussion of United on ordinary earthquakes and unusually strong earthquakes and on ordinary fortuitous events and extraordinary fortuitous events leads to its argument that the August 2, 1968 earthquake was of such an overwhelming and destructive character that by its own force and independent of the particular negligence alleged, the injury would have been produced. If we follow this line of speculative reasoning, we will be forced to conclude that under such a situation scores of buildings in the vicinity and in other parts of Manila would have toppled down. Following the same line of reasoning, Nakpil and Sons alleges that the designs were adequate in accordance with pre-August 2, 1968 knowledge and appear inadequate only in the light of engineering information acquired after the earthquake. If this were so, hundreds of ancient buildings which survived the earthquake better than the two-year old PBA building must have been designed and constructed by architects and contractors whose knowledge and foresight were unexplainably auspicious and prophetic. Fortunately, the facts on record allow a more down to earth explanation of the collapse. The failure of the PBA building, as a unique and distinct construction with no reference or comparison to other buildings, to weather the severe earthquake forces was traced to design deficiencies and defective construction, factors which are neither mysterious nor esoteric. The theological allusion of appellant United that God acts in mysterious ways His wonders to perform impresses us to be inappropriate. The evidence reveals defects and deficiencies in design and construction. There is no mystery about these acts of negligence. The collapse of the PBA building was no wonder performed by God. It was a result of the imperfections in the work of the architects and the people in the construction company. More relevant to our mind is the lesson from the parable of the wise man in the Sermon on the Mount "which built his house upon a rock; and the rain descended and the floods came and the winds blew and beat upon that house; and it fen not; for it was founded upon a rock" and of the "foolish upon the sand. And the rain descended and man which built his house the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell and great was the fall of it. (St. Matthew 7: 24-27)." The requirement that a building should withstand rains, floods, winds, earthquakes, and natural forces is precisely the reason why we have professional experts like architects, and engineers. Designs and constructions vary under varying circumstances and conditions but the requirement to design and build well does not change.

The findings of the lower Court on the cause of the collapse are more rational and accurate. Instead of laying the blame solely on the motions and forces generated by the earthquake, it also examined the ability of the PBA building, as designed and constructed, to withstand and successfully weather those forces.

The evidence sufficiently supports a conclusion that the negligence and fault of both United and Nakpil and Sons, not a mysterious act of an inscrutable God, were responsible for the damages. The Report of the Commissioner, Plaintiff's Objections to the Report, Third Party Defendants' Objections to the Report, Defendants' Objections to the Report, Commissioner's Answer to the various Objections, Plaintiffs' Reply to the Commissioner's Answer, Defendants' Reply to the Commissioner's Answer, Counter-Reply to Defendants' Reply, and Third-Party Defendants' Reply to the Commissioner's Report not to mention the exhibits and the testimonies show that the main arguments raised on appeal were already raised during the trial and fully considered by the lower Court. A reiteration of these same arguments on appeal fails to convince us that we should reverse or disturb the lower Court's factual findings and its conclusions drawn from the facts, among them:

The Commissioner also found merit in the allegations of the defendants as to the physical evidence before and after the earthquake showing the inadequacy of design, to wit:

Physical evidence before the earthquake providing (sic) inadequacy of design;

1. inadequate design was the cause of the failure of the building.

2. Sun-baffles on the two sides and in front of the building;

a. Increase the inertia forces that move the building laterally toward the Manila Fire Department.

b. Create another stiffness imbalance.

3. The embedded 4" diameter cast iron down spout on all exterior columns reduces the cross-sectional area of each of the columns and the strength thereof.

4. Two front corners, A7 and D7 columns were very much less reinforced.

Physical Evidence After the Earthquake, Proving Inadequacy of design;

1. Column A7 suffered the severest fracture and maximum sagging. Also D7.

2. There are more damages in the front part of the building than towards the rear, not only in columns but also in slabs.

3. Building leaned and sagged more on the front part of the building.

4. Floors showed maximum sagging on the sides and toward the front corner parts of the building.

5. There was a lateral displacement of the building of about 8", Maximum sagging occurs at the column A7 where the floor is lower by 80 cm. than the highest slab level.

6. Slab at the corner column D7 sagged by 38 cm.

The Commissioner concluded that there were deficiencies or defects in the design, plans and specifications of the PBA building which involved appreciable risks with respect to the accidental forces which may result from earthquake shocks. He conceded, however, that the fact that those deficiencies or defects may have arisen from an obsolete or not too conservative code or even a code that does not require a design for earthquake forces mitigates in a large measure the responsibility or liability of the architect and engineer designer.

The Third-party defendants, who are the most concerned with this portion of the Commissioner's report, voiced opposition to the same on the grounds that (a) the finding is based on a basic erroneous conception as to the design concept of the building, to wit, that the design is essentially that of a heavy rectangular box on stilts with shear wan at one end; (b) the finding that there were defects and a deficiency in the design of the building would at best be based on an approximation and, therefore, rightly belonged to the realm of speculation, rather than of certainty and could very possibly be outright error; (c) the Commissioner has failed to back up or support his finding with extensive, complex and highly specialized computations and analyzes which he himself emphasizes are necessary in the determination of such a highly technical question; and (d) the Commissioner has analyzed the design of the PBA building not in the light of existing and available earthquake engineering knowledge at the time of the preparation of the design, but in the light of recent and current standards.

The Commissioner answered the said objections alleging that third-party defendants' objections were based on estimates or exhibits not presented during the hearing that the resort to engineering references posterior to the date of the preparation of the plans was induced by the third-party defendants themselves who submitted computations of the third-party defendants are erroneous.

The issue presently considered is admittedly a technical one of the highest degree. It involves questions not within the ordinary competence of the bench and the bar to resolve by themselves. Counsel for the third-party defendants has aptly remarked that "engineering, although dealing in mathematics, is not an exact science

and that the present knowledge as to the nature of earthquakes and the behaviour of forces generated by them still leaves much to be desired; so much so "that the experts of the different parties, who are all engineers, cannot agree on what equation to use, as to what earthquake co-efficients are, on the codes to be used and even as to the type of structure that the PBA building (is) was (p. 29, Memo, of third- party defendants before the Commissioner).

The difficulty expected by the Court if tills technical matter were to be tried and inquired into by the Court itself, coupled with the intrinsic nature of the questions involved therein, constituted the reason for the reference of the said issues to a Commissioner whose qualifications and experience have eminently qualified him for the task, and whose competence had not been questioned by the parties until he submitted his report. Within the pardonable limit of the Court's ability to comprehend the meaning of the Commissioner's report on this issue, and the objections voiced to the same, the Court sees no compelling reasons to disturb the findings of the Commissioner that there were defects and deficiencies in the design, plans and specifications prepared by third-party defendants, and that said defects and deficiencies involved appreciable risks with respect to the accidental forces which may result from earthquake shocks.

(2) (a) The deviations, if any, made by the defendants from the plans and specifications, and how said deviations contributed to the damage sustained by the building.

(b) The alleged failure of defendants to observe the requisite quality of materials and workmanship in the construction of the building.

These two issues, being interrelated with each other, will be discussed together.

The findings of the Commissioner on these issues were as follows:

We now turn to the construction of the PBA Building and the alleged deficiencies or defects in the construction and violations or deviations from the plans and specifications. All these may be summarized as follows:

a. Summary of alleged defects as reported by Engineer Mario M. Bundalian.

(1) Wrongful and defective placing of reinforcing bars.

(2) Absence of effective and desirable integration of the 3 bars in the cluster.

(3) Oversize coarse aggregates: 1-1/4 to 2" were used. Specification requires no larger than 1 inch.

(4) Reinforcement assembly is not concentric with the column, eccentricity being 3" off when on one face the main bars are only 1 1/2' from the surface.

(5) Prevalence of honeycombs,

(6) Contraband construction joints,

(7) Absence, or omission, or over spacing of spiral hoops,

(8) Deliberate severance of spirals into semi-circles in noted on Col. A-5, ground floor,

(9) Defective construction joints in Columns A-3, C-7, D-7 and D-4, ground floor,

(10) Undergraduate concrete is evident,

(11) Big cavity in core of Column 2A-4, second floor,

(12) Columns buckled at different planes. Columns buckled worst where there are no spirals or where spirals are cut. Columns suffered worst displacement where the eccentricity of the columnar reinforcement assembly is more acute.

b. Summary of alleged defects as reported by Engr. Antonio Avecilla.

Columns are first (or ground) floor, unless otherwise stated.

(1) Column D4 — Spacing of spiral is changed from 2" to 5" on centers,

(2) Column D5 — No spiral up to a height of 22" from the ground floor,

(3) Column D6 — Spacing of spiral over 4 l/2,

(4) Column D7 — Lack of lateral ties,

(5) Column C7 — Absence of spiral to a height of 20" from the ground level, Spirals are at 2" from the exterior column face and 6" from the inner column face,

(6) Column B6 — Lack of spiral on 2 feet below the floor beams,

(7) Column B5 — Lack of spirals at a distance of 26' below the beam,

(8) Column B7 — Spirals not tied to vertical reinforcing bars, Spirals are uneven 2" to 4",

(9) Column A3 — Lack of lateral ties,

(10) Column A4 — Spirals cut off and welded to two separate clustered vertical bars,

(11) Column A4 — (second floor Column is completely hollow to a height of 30"

(12) Column A5 — Spirals were cut from the floor level to the bottom of the spandrel beam to a height of 6 feet,

(13) Column A6 — No spirals up to a height of 30' above the ground floor level,

(14) Column A7— Lack of lateralties or spirals,

c. Summary of alleged defects as reported by the experts of the Third-Party defendants.

Ground floor columns.

(1) Column A4 — Spirals are cut,

(2) Column A5 — Spirals are cut,

(3) Column A6 — At lower 18" spirals are absent,

(4) Column A7 — Ties are too far apart,

(5) Column B5 — At upper fourth of column spirals are either absent or improperly spliced,

(6) Column B6 — At upper 2 feet spirals are absent,

(7) Column B7 — At upper fourth of column spirals missing or improperly spliced.

(8) Column C7— Spirals are absent at lowest 18"

(9) Column D5 — At lowest 2 feet spirals are absent,

(10) Column D6 — Spirals are too far apart and apparently improperly spliced,

(11) Column D7 — Lateral ties are too far apart, spaced 16" on centers.

There is merit in many of these allegations. The explanations given by the engineering experts for the defendants are either contrary to general principles of engineering design for reinforced concrete or not applicable to the requirements for ductility and strength of reinforced concrete in earthquake-resistant design and construction.

We shall first classify and consider defects which may have appreciable bearing or relation to' the earthquake-resistant property of the building.

As heretofore mentioned, details which insure ductility at or near the connections between columns and girders are desirable in earthquake resistant design and construction. The omission of spirals and ties or hoops at the bottom and/or tops of columns contributed greatly to the loss of earthquake-resistant strength. The plans and specifications required that these spirals and ties be carried from the floor level to the bottom reinforcement of the deeper beam (p. 1, Specifications, p. 970, Reference 11). There were several clear evidences where this was not done especially in some of the ground floor columns which failed.

There were also unmistakable evidences that the spacings of the spirals and ties in the columns were in many cases greater than those called for in the plans and specifications resulting again in loss of earthquake-resistant strength. The assertion of the engineering experts for the defendants that the improper spacings and the cutting of the spirals did not result in loss of strength in the column cannot be maintained and is certainly contrary to the general principles of column design and construction. And even granting that there be no loss in strength at the yield point (an assumption which is very doubtful) the cutting or improper spacings of spirals will certainly result in the loss of the plastic range or ductility in the column and it is precisely this plastic range or ductility which is desirable and needed for earthquake-resistant strength.

There is no excuse for the cavity or hollow portion in the column A4, second floor, and although this column did not fail, this is certainly an evidence on the part of the contractor of poor construction.

The effect of eccentricities in the columns which were measured at about 2 1/2 inches maximum may be approximated in relation to column loads and column and beam moments. The main effect of eccentricity is to change the beam or girder span. The effect on the measured eccentricity of 2 inches, therefore, is to increase or diminish the column load by a maximum of about 1% and to increase or diminish the column or beam movements by about a maximum of 2%. While these can certainly be absorbed within the factor of safety, they nevertheless diminish said factor of safety.

The cutting of the spirals in column A5, ground floor is the subject of great contention between the parties and deserves special consideration.

The proper placing of the main reinforcements and spirals in column A5, ground floor, is the responsibility of the general contractor which is the UCCI. The burden of proof, therefore, that this cutting was done by others is upon the defendants. Other than a strong allegation and assertion that it is the plumber or his men who may have done the cutting (and this was flatly denied by the plumber) no conclusive proof was presented. The engineering experts for the defendants asserted that they could have no motivation for cutting the bar because they can simply replace the spirals by wrapping around a new set of spirals. This is not quite correct. There is evidence to show that the pouring of concrete for columns was sometimes done through the beam and girder reinforcements which were already in place as in the case of column A4 second floor. If the reinforcement for the girder and column is to subsequently wrap around the spirals, this would not do for the elasticity of steel would prevent the making of tight column spirals and loose or improper spirals would result. The proper way is to produce correct spirals down from the top of the main column bars, a procedure which can not be done if either the beam or girder reinforcement is already in place. The engineering experts for the defendants strongly assert and apparently believe that the cutting of the spirals did not materially diminish the strength of the column. This belief together with the difficulty of slipping the spirals on the top of the column once the beam reinforcement is in place may be a sufficient motivation for the cutting of the spirals themselves. The defendants, therefore, should be held responsible for the consequences arising from the loss of strength or ductility in column A5 which may have contributed to the damages sustained by the building.

The lack of proper length of splicing of spirals was also proven in the visible spirals of the columns where spalling of the concrete cover had taken place. This lack of proper splicing contributed in a small measure to the loss of strength.

The effects of all the other proven and visible defects although nor can certainly be accumulated so that they can contribute to an appreciable loss in earthquake-resistant strength. The engineering experts for the defendants submitted an estimate on some of these defects in the amount of a few percent. If accumulated,

therefore, including the effect of eccentricity in the column the loss in strength due to these minor defects may run to as much as ten percent.

To recapitulate: the omission or lack of spirals and ties at the bottom and/or at the top of some of the ground floor columns contributed greatly to the collapse of the PBA building since it is at these points where the greater part of the failure occurred. The liability for the cutting of the spirals in column A5, ground floor, in the considered opinion of the Commissioner rests on the shoulders of the defendants and the loss of strength in this column contributed to the damage which occurred.

It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the proven defects, deficiencies and violations of the plans and specifications of the PBA building contributed to the damages which resulted during the earthquake of August 2, 1968 and the vice of these defects and deficiencies is that they not only increase but also aggravate the weakness mentioned in the design of the structure. In other words, these defects and deficiencies not only tend to add but also to multiply the effects of the shortcomings in the design of the building. We may say, therefore, that the defects and deficiencies in the construction contributed greatly to the damage which occurred.

Since the execution and supervision of the construction work in the hands of the contractor is direct and positive, the presence of existence of all the major defects and deficiencies noted and proven manifests an element of negligence which may amount to imprudence in the construction work. (pp. 42-49, Commissioners Report).

As the parties most directly concerned with this portion of the Commissioner's report, the defendants voiced their objections to the same on the grounds that the Commissioner should have specified the defects found by him to be "meritorious"; that the Commissioner failed to indicate the number of cases where the spirals and ties were not carried from the floor level to the bottom reinforcement of the deeper beam, or where the spacing of the spirals and ties in the columns were greater than that called for in the specifications; that the hollow in column A4, second floor, the eccentricities in the columns, the lack of proper length of splicing of spirals, and the cut in the spirals in column A5, ground floor, did not aggravate or contribute to the damage suffered by the building; that the defects in the construction were within the tolerable margin of safety; and that the cutting of the spirals in column A5, ground floor, was done by the plumber or his men, and not by the defendants.

Answering the said objections, the Commissioner stated that, since many of the defects were minor only the totality of the defects was considered. As regards the objection as to failure to state the number of cases where the spirals and ties were not carried from the floor level to the bottom reinforcement, the Commissioner specified groundfloor columns B-6 and C-5 the first one without spirals for 03 inches at the top, and in the latter, there were no spirals for 10 inches at the bottom. The Commissioner likewise specified the first storey columns where the spacings were greater than that called for in the specifications to be columns B-5, B-6, C-7, C-6, C-5, D-5 and B-7. The objection to the failure of the Commissioner to specify the number of columns where there was lack of proper length of splicing of spirals, the Commissioner mentioned groundfloor columns B-6 and B-5 where all the splices were less than 1-1/2 turns and were not welded, resulting in some loss of strength which could be critical near the ends of the columns. He answered the supposition of the defendants that the spirals and the ties must have been looted, by calling attention to the fact that the missing spirals and ties were only in two out of the 25 columns, which rendered said supposition to be improbable.

The Commissioner conceded that the hollow in column A-4, second floor, did not aggravate or contribute to the damage, but averred that it is "evidence of poor construction." On the claim that the eccentricity could be absorbed within the factor of safety, the Commissioner answered that, while the same may be true, it also contributed to or aggravated the damage suffered by the building.

The objection regarding the cutting of the spirals in Column A-5, groundfloor, was answered by the Commissioner by reiterating the observation in his report that irrespective of who did the cutting of the spirals, the defendants should be held liable for the same as the general contractor of the building. The Commissioner further stated that the loss of strength of the cut spirals and inelastic deflections of the supposed lattice work defeated the purpose of the spiral containment in the column and resulted in the loss of strength, as evidenced by the actual failure of this column.

Again, the Court concurs in the findings of the Commissioner on these issues and fails to find any sufficient cause to disregard or modify the same. As found by the Commissioner, the "deviations made by the defendants from the plans and specifications caused indirectly the damage sustained and that those deviations not only added but also aggravated the damage caused by the defects in the plans and specifications prepared by third-party defendants. (Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 128-142)

The afore-mentioned facts clearly indicate the wanton negligence of both the defendant and the third-party defendants in effecting the plans, designs, specifications, and construction of the PBA building and We hold such negligence as equivalent to bad faith in the performance of their respective tasks.

Relative thereto, the ruling of the Supreme Court in Tucker v. Milan (49 O.G. 4379, 4380) which may be in point in this case reads:

One who negligently creates a dangerous condition cannot escape liability for the natural and probable consequences thereof, although the act of a third person, or an act of God for which he is not responsible, intervenes to precipitate the loss.

As already discussed, the destruction was not purely an act of God. Truth to tell hundreds of ancient buildings in the vicinity were hardly affected by the earthquake. Only one thing spells out the fatal difference; gross negligence and evident bad faith, without which the damage would not have occurred.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED and considering the special and environmental circumstances of this case, We deem it reasonable to render a decision imposing, as We do hereby impose, upon the defendant and the third-party defendants (with the exception of Roman Ozaeta) a solidary (Art. 1723, Civil Code, Supra, p. 10) indemnity in favor of the Philippine Bar Association of FIVE MILLION (P5,000,000.00) Pesos to cover all damages (with the exception of attorney's fees) occasioned by the loss of the building (including interest charges and lost rentals) and an additional ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00) Pesos as and for attorney's fees, the total sum being payable upon the finality of this decision. Upon failure to pay on such finality, twelve (12%) per cent interest per annum shall be imposed upon afore-mentioned amounts from finality until paid. Solidary costs against the defendant and third-party defendants (except Roman Ozaeta).

SO ORDERED.

Feria (Chairman), Fernan, Alampay and Cruz, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 102970 May 13, 1993

LUZAN SIA, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and SECURITY BANK and TRUST COMPANY, respondents.

Asuncion Law Offices for petitioner.

Cauton, Banares, Carpio & Associates for private respondent.

 

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

The Decision of public respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 26737, promulgated on 21 August 1991,  1 reversing and setting aside the Decision, dated 19 February 1990, 2 of Branch 47 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila in Civil Case No. 87-42601, entitled "LUZAN SIA vs. SECURITY BANK and TRUST CO.," is challenged in this petition for review oncertiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules Court.

Civil Case No. 87-42601 is an action for damages arising out of the destruction or loss of the stamp collection of the plaintiff (petitioner herein) contained in Safety Deposit Box No. 54 which had been rented from the defendant pursuant to a contract denominated as a Lease Agreement. 3 Judgment therein was rendered in favor of the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, Security Bank & Trust Company, ordering the defendant bank to pay the plaintiff the sum of —

a) Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), Philippine Currency, as actual damages;

b) One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00), Philippine Currency, as moral damages; and

c) Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), Philippine Currency, as attorney's fees and legal expenses.

The counterclaim set up by the defendant are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.

No costs.

SO ORDERED. 4

The antecedent facts of the present controversy are summarized by the public respondent in its challenged decision as follows:

The plaintiff rented on March 22, 1985 the Safety Deposit Box No. 54 of the defendant bank at its Binondo Branch located at the Fookien Times Building, Soler St., Binondo, Manila wherein he placed his collection of stamps. The said safety deposit box leased by the plaintiff was at the bottom or at the lowest level of the safety deposit boxes of the defendant bank at its aforesaid Binondo Branch.

During the floods that took place in 1985 and 1986, floodwater entered into the defendant bank's premises, seeped into the safety deposit box leased by the plaintiff and caused, according to the plaintiff, damage to his stamps collection. The defendant bank rejected the plaintiff's claim for compensation for his damaged stamps collection, so, the plaintiff instituted an action for damages against the defendant bank.

The defendant bank denied liability for the damaged stamps collection of the plaintiff on the basis of the "Rules and Regulations Governing the Lease of Safe Deposit Boxes" (Exhs. "A-1", "1-A"), particularly paragraphs 9 and 13, which reads (sic):

"9. The liability of the Bank by reason of the lease, is limited to the exercise of the diligence to prevent the opening of the safe by any person other than the Renter, his authorized agent or legal representative;

xxx xxx xxx

"13. The Bank is not a depository of the contents of the safe and it has neither the possession nor the control of the same. The Bank has no interest whatsoever in said contents, except as herein provided, and it assumes absolutely no liability in connection therewith."

The defendant bank also contended that its contract with the plaintiff over safety deposit box No. 54 was one of lease and not of deposit and, therefore, governed by the lease agreement (Exhs. "A", "L") which should be the applicable law; that the destruction of the plaintiff's stamps collection was due to a calamity beyond obligation on its part to notify the plaintiff about the floodwaters that inundated its premises at Binondo branch which allegedly seeped into the safety deposit box leased to the plaintiff.

The trial court then directed that an ocular inspection on (sic) the contents of the safety deposit box be conducted, which was done on December 8, 1988 by its clerk of court in the presence of the parties and their counsels. A report thereon was then submitted on December 12, 1988 (Records, p. 98-A) and confirmed in open court by both parties thru counsel during the hearing on the same date (Ibid., p. 102) stating:

"That the Safety Box Deposit No. 54 was opened by both plaintiff Luzan Sia and the Acting Branch Manager Jimmy B. Ynion in the presence of the undersigned, plaintiff's and defendant's counsel. Said Safety Box when opened contains two albums of different sizes and thickness, length and width and a tin box with printed word 'Tai Ping Shiang Roast Pork in pieces with Chinese designs and character."

Condition of the above-stated Items —

"Both albums are wet, moldy and badly damaged.

1. The first album measures 10 1/8 inches in length, 8 inches in width and 3/4 in thick. The leaves of the album are attached to every page and cannot be lifted without destroying it, hence the stamps contained therein are no longer visible.

2. The second album measure 12 1/2 inches in length, 9 3/4 in width 1 inch thick. Some of its pages can still be lifted. The stamps therein can still be distinguished but beyond restoration. Others have lost its original form.

3. The tin box is rusty inside. It contains an album with several pieces of papers stuck up to the cover of the box. The condition of the album is the second abovementioned album." 5

The SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, hereinafter referred to as SBTC, appealed the trial court's decision to the public respondent Court of Appeals. The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 26737.

In urging the public respondent to reverse the decision of the trial court, SBTC contended that the latter erred in (a) holding that the lease agreement is a contract of adhesion; (b) finding that the defendant had failed to exercise the required diligence expected of a bank in maintaining the safety deposit box; (c) awarding to the plaintiff actual damages in the amount of P20,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00 and attorney's fees and legal expenses in the amount of P5,000.00; and (d) dismissing the counterclaim.

On 21 August 1991, the respondent promulgated its decision the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and instead the appellee's complaint is hereby DISMISSED. The appellant bank's counterclaim is likewise DISMISSED. No costs. 6

In reversing the trial court's decision and absolving SBTC from liability, the public respondent found and ruled that:

a) the fine print in the "Lease Agreement " (Exhibits "A" and "1" ) constitutes the terms and conditions of the contract of lease which the appellee (now petitioner) had voluntarily and knowingly executed with SBTC;

b) the contract entered into by the parties regarding Safe Deposit Box No. 54 was not a contract of deposit wherein the bank became a depositary of the subject stamp collection; hence, as contended by SBTC, the provisions of Book IV, Title XII of the Civil Code on deposits do not apply;

c) The following provisions of the questioned lease agreement of the safety deposit box limiting SBTC's liability:

9. The liability of the bank by reason of the lease, is limited to the exercise of the diligence to prevent the opening of the Safe by any person other than the Renter, his authorized agent or legal representative.

xxx xxx xxx

13. The bank is not a depository of the contents of the Safe and it has neither the possession nor the control of the same. The Bank has no interest whatsoever in said contents, except as herein provided, and it assumes absolutely no liability in connection therewith.

are valid since said stipulations are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy; and

d) there is no concrete evidence to show that SBTC failed to exercise the required diligence in maintaining the safety deposit box; what was proven was that the floods of 1985 and 1986, which were beyond the control of SBTC, caused the damage to the stamp collection; said floods were fortuitous events which SBTC should not be held liable for since it was not shown to have participated in the aggravation of the damage to the stamp collection; on the contrary, it offered its services to secure the assistance of an expert in order to save most of the stamps, but the appellee refused; appellee must then bear the lose under the principle of "res perit domino."

Unsuccessful in his bid to have the above decision reconsidered by the public respondent, 7 petitioner filed the instant petition wherein he contends that:

I

IT WAS A GRAVE ERROR OR AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENT COURT WHEN IT RULED THAT RESPONDENT SBTC DID NOT FAIL TO EXERCISE THE REQUIRED DILIGENCE IN MAINTAINING THE SAFETY DEPOSIT BOX OF THE PETITIONER CONSIDERING THAT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE EXIST (sic) PROVING THE CONTRARY.

II

THE RESPONDENT COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN EXCULPATING PRIVATE RESPONDENT FROM ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER BY REASON OF THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPHS 9 AND 13 OF THE AGREEMENT (EXHS. "A" AND "A-1").

III

THE RESPONDENT COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT UPHOLDING THE AWARDS OF THE TRIAL COURT FOR ACTUAL AND MORAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY'S FEES AND LEGAL EXPENSES, IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER. 8

We subsequently gave due course the petition and required both parties to submit their respective memoranda, which they complied with. 9

Petitioner insists that the trial court correctly ruled that SBTC had failed "to exercise the required diligence expected of a bank maintaining such safety deposit box . . . in the light of the environmental circumstance of said safety deposit box after the floods of 1985 and 1986." He argues that such a conclusion is supported by the evidence on record, to wit: SBTC was fully cognizant of the exact location of the safety deposit box in question; it knew that the premises were inundated by floodwaters in 1985 and 1986 and considering that the bank is guarded twenty-four (24) hours a day , it is safe to conclude that it was also aware of the inundation of the premises where the safety deposit box was located; despite such knowledge, however, it never bothered to inform the petitioner of the flooding or take any appropriate measures to insure the safety and good maintenance of the safety deposit box in question.

SBTC does not squarely dispute these facts; rather, it relies on the rule that findings of facts of the Court of Appeals, when supported by substantial exidence, are not reviewable on appeal by certiorari. 10

The foregoing rule is, of course, subject to certain exceptions such as when there exists a disparity between the factual findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals and the trial court. 11 Such a disparity obtains in the present case.

As We see it, SBTC's theory, which was upheld by the public respondent, is that the "Lease Agreement " covering Safe Deposit Box No. 54 (Exhibit "A and "1") is just that — a contract of lease — and not a contract of deposit, and that paragraphs 9 and 13 thereof, which expressly limit the bank's liability as follows:

9. The liability of the bank by reason of the lease, is limited to the exercise of the diligence to prevent the opening of the Safe by any person other than the Renter, his autliorized agent or legal representative;

xxx xxx xxx

13. The bank is not a depository of the contents of the Safe and it has neither the possession nor the control of the same. The Bank has no interest whatsoever said contents, except as herein provided, and it assumes absolutely no liability in connection therewith. 12

are valid and binding upon the parties. In the challenged decision, the public respondent further avers that even without such a limitation of liability, SBTC should still be absolved from any responsibility for the damage sustained by the petitioner as it appears that such damage was occasioned by a fortuitous event and that the respondent bank was free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury.

We cannot accept this theory and ratiocination. Consequently, this Court finds the petition to be impressed with merit.

In the recent case CA Agro-Industrial Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 13 this Court explicitly rejected the contention that a contract for the use of a safety deposit box is a contract of lease governed by Title VII, Book IV of the Civil Code. Nor did We fully subscribe to the view that it is a contract of deposit to be strictly governed by the Civil Code provision on deposit; 14 it is, as We declared, a special kind of deposit. The prevailing rule in American jurisprudence — that the relation between a bank renting out safe deposit boxes and its customer with respect to the contents of the box is that of a bailor and bailee, the bailment for hire and mutual benefit 15 — has been adopted in this jurisdiction, thus:

In the context of our laws which authorize banking institutions to rent out safety deposit boxes, it is clear that in this jurisdiction, the prevailing rule in the United States has been adopted. Section 72 of the General Banking Act [R.A. 337, as amended] pertinently provides:

"Sec. 72. In addition to the operations specifically authorized elsewhere in this Act, banking institutions other than building and loan associations may perform the following services:

(a) Receive in custody funds, documents, and valuable objects, and rent safety deposit boxes for the safequarding of such effects.

xxx xxx xxx

The banks shall perform the services permitted under subsections (a), (b) and (c) of this section asdepositories or as agents. . . ."(emphasis supplied)

Note that the primary function is still found within the parameters of a contract of deposit, i.e., the receiving in custody of funds, documents and other valuable objects for safekeeping. The renting out of the safety deposit boxes is not independent from, but related to or in conjunction with, this principal function. A contract of deposit may be entered into orally or in writing (Art. 1969, Civil Code] and, pursuant to Article 1306 of the Civil Code, the parties thereto may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. The depositary's responsibility for the safekeeping of the objects deposited in the case at bar is governed by Title I, Book IV of the Civil Code. Accordingly, the depositary would be liable if, in performing its obligation, it is found guilty of fraud, negligence, delay or contravention of the tenor of the agreement [Art. 1170, id.]. In the absence of any stipulation prescribing the degree of diligence required, that of a good father of a family is to be observed [Art. 1173, id.]. Hence, any stipulation exempting the depositary from any liability arising from the loss of the thing deposited on account of fraud, negligence or delay would be void for being contrary to law and public policy. In the instant case, petitioner maintains that conditions 13 and l4 of the questioned contract of lease of the safety deposit box, which read:

"13. The bank is a depositary of the contents of the safe and it has neither the possession nor control of the same.

"14. The bank has no interest whatsoever in said contents, except as herein expressly provided, and it assumes absolutely no liability in connection therewith."

are void as they are contrary to law and public policy. We find Ourselves in agreement with this proposition for indeed, said provisions are inconsistent with the respondent Bank's responsibility as a depositary under

Section 72 (a) of the General Banking Act. Both exempt the latter from any liability except as contemplated in condition 8 thereof which limits its duty to exercise reasonable diligence only with respect to who shall be admitted to any rented safe, to wit:

"8. The Bank shall use due diligence that no unauthorized person shall be admitted to any rented safe and beyond this, the Bank will not be responsible for the contents of any safe rented from it."

Furthermore condition 13 stands on a wrong premise and is contrary to the actual practice of the Bank. It is not correct to assert that the Bank has neither the possession nor control of the contents of the box since in fact, the safety deposit box itself is located in its premises and is under its absolute control; moreover, the respondent Bank keeps the guard key to the said box. As stated earlier, renters cannot open their respective boxes unless the Bank cooperates by presenting and using this guard key. Clearly then, to the extent above stated, the foregoing conditions in the contract in question are void and ineffective. It has been said:

"With respect to property deposited in a safe-deposit box by a customer of a safe-deposit company, the parties, since the relation is a contractual one, may by special contract define their respective duties or provide for increasing or limiting the liability of the deposit company, provided such contract is not in violation of law or public policy. It must clearly appear that there actually was such a special contract, however, in order to vary the ordinary obligations implied by law from the relationship of the parties; liability of the deposit company will not be enlarged or restricted by words of doubtful meaning. The company, in renting safe-deposit boxes, cannot exempt itself from liability for loss of the contents by its own fraud or negligence or that, of its agents or servants, and if a provision of the contract may be construed as an attempt to do so, it will be held ineffective for the purpose. Although it has been held that the lessor of a safe-deposit box cannot limit its liability for loss of the contents thereof through its own negligence, the view has been taken that such a lessor may limit its liability to some extent by agreement or stipulation ."[10 AM JUR 2d., 466]. (citations omitted) 16

It must be noted that conditions No. 13 and No. 14 in the Contract of Lease of Safety Deposit Box in CA Agro-Industrial Development Corp. are strikingly similar to condition No. 13 in the instant case. On the other hand, both condition No. 8 in CA Agro-Industrial Development Corp. and condition No. 9 in the present case limit the scope of the exercise of due diligence by the banks involved to merely seeing to it that only the renter, his authorized agent or his legal representative should open or have access to the safety deposit box. In short, in all other situations, it would seem that SBTC is not bound to exercise diligence of any kind at all. Assayed in the light of Our aforementioned pronouncements in CA Agro-lndustrial Development Corp., it is not at all difficult to conclude that both conditions No. 9 and No. 13 of the "Lease Agreement" covering the safety deposit box in question (Exhibits "A" and "1") must be stricken down for being contrary to law and public policy as they are meant to exempt SBTC from any liability for damage, loss or destruction of the contents of the safety deposit box which may arise from its own or its agents' fraud, negligence or delay. Accordingly, SBTC cannot take refuge under the said conditions.

Public respondent further postulates that SBTC cannot be held responsible for the destruction or loss of the stamp collection because the flooding was a fortuitous event and there was no showing of SBTC's participation in the aggravation of the loss or injury. It states:

Article 1174 of the Civil Code provides:

"Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.'

In its dissertation of the phrase "caso fortuito" the Enciclopedia Jurisdicada Española 17 says: "In a legal sense and, consequently, also in relation to contracts, a "caso fortuito" prevents (sic) 18 the following essential characteristics: (1) the cause of the unforeseen ands unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be independent of the human will; (2) it must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the "caso fortuito," or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid; (3) the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for one debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (4) the obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor." (cited in Servando vs. Phil., Steam Navigation Co.,supra). 19

Here, the unforeseen or unexpected inundating floods were independent of the will of the appellant bank and the latter was not shown to have participated in aggravating damage (sic) to the stamps collection of the

appellee. In fact, the appellant bank offered its services to secure the assistance of an expert to save most of the then good stamps but the appelle refused and let (sic) these recoverable stamps inside the safety deposit box until they were ruined. 20

Both the law and authority cited are clear enough and require no further elucidation. Unfortunately, however, the public respondent failed to consider that in the instant case, as correctly held by the trial court, SBTC was guilty of negligence. The facts constituting negligence are enumerated in the petition and have been summarized in thisponencia. SBTC's negligence aggravated the injury or damage to the stamp collection. SBTC was aware of the floods of 1985 and 1986; it also knew that the floodwaters inundated the room where Safe Deposit Box No. 54 was located. In view thereof, it should have lost no time in notifying the petitioner in order that the box could have been opened to retrieve the stamps, thus saving the same from further deterioration and loss. In this respect, it failed to exercise the reasonable care and prudence expected of a good father of a family, thereby becoming a party to the aggravation of the injury or loss. Accordingly, the aforementioned fourth characteristic of a fortuitous event is absent Article 1170 of the Civil Code, which reads:

Those who in the performance of their obligation are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages,

thus comes to the succor of the petitioner. The destruction or loss of the stamp collection which was, in the language of the trial court, the "product of 27 years of patience and diligence" 21 caused the petitioner pecuniary loss; hence, he must be compensated therefor.

We cannot, however, place Our imprimatur on the trial court's award of moral damages. Since the relationship between the petitioner and SBTC is based on a contract, either of them may be held liable for moral damages for breach thereof only if said party had acted fraudulently or in bad faith. 22 There is here no proof of fraud or bad faith on the part of SBTC.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The challenged Decision and Resolution of the public respondent Court of Appeals of 21 August 1991 and 21 November 1991, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 26737, are hereby SET ASIDE and the Decision of 19 February 1990 of Branch 47 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila in Civil Case No. 87-42601 is hereby REINSTATED in full, except as to the award of moral damages which is hereby set aside.

Costs against the private respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, Bidin, Romero and Melo, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-21749             September 29, 1967

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION, defendant-appellant.

Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.H. San Luis and L.V. Simbulan for defendant-appellant.

 REYES, J.B.L., J.:

          The present case comes by direct appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila (Case No. 44572) adjudging the defendant-appellant, Luzon Stevedoring Corporation, liable in damages to the plaintiff-appellee Republic of the Philippines.

          In the early afternoon of August 17, 1960, barge L-1892, owned by the Luzon Stevedoring Corporation was being towed down the Pasig river by tugboats "Bangus" and "Barbero"1 also belonging to the same corporation, when the barge rammed against one of the wooden piles of the Nagtahan bailey bridge, smashing the posts and causing the bridge to list. The river, at the time, was swollen and the current swift, on account of the heavy downpour of Manila and the surrounding provinces on August 15 and 16, 1960.

          Sued by the Republic of the Philippines for actual and consequential damage caused by its employees, amounting to P200,000 (Civil Case No. 44562, CFI of Manila), defendant Luzon Stevedoring Corporation disclaimed liability therefor, on the grounds that it had exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees; that the damages to the bridge were caused by force majeure; that plaintiff has no capacity to sue; and that the Nagtahan bailey bridge is an obstruction to navigation.

          After due trial, the court rendered judgment on June 11, 1963, holding the defendant liable for the damage caused by its employees and ordering it to pay to plaintiff the actual cost of the repair of the Nagtahan bailey bridge which amounted to P192,561.72, with legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint.

          Defendant appealed directly to this Court assigning the following errors allegedly committed by the court a quo, to wit:

I — The lower court erred in not holding that the herein defendant-appellant had exercised the diligence required of it in the selection and supervision of its personnel to prevent damage or injury to others.1awphîl.nèt

II — The lower court erred in not holding that the ramming of the Nagtahan bailey bridge by barge L-1892 was caused by force majeure.

III — The lower court erred in not holding that the Nagtahan bailey bridge is an obstruction, if not a menace, to navigation in the Pasig river.

IV — The lower court erred in not blaming the damage sustained by the Nagtahan bailey bridge to the improper placement of the dolphins.

V — The lower court erred in granting plaintiff's motion to adduce further evidence in chief after it has rested its case.

VI — The lower court erred in finding the plaintiff entitled to the amount of P192,561.72 for damages which is clearly exorbitant and without any factual basis.

          However, it must be recalled that the established rule in this jurisdiction is that when a party appeals directly to the Supreme Court, and submits his case there for decision, he is deemed to have waived the right to dispute any finding of fact made by the trial Court. The only questions that may be raised are those of law (Savellano vs. Diaz, L-17441, July 31, 1963; Aballe vs. Santiago, L-16307, April 30, 1963; G.S.I.S. vs. Cloribel, L-22236, June 22, 1965). A converso, a party who resorts to the Court of Appeals, and submits his case for decision there, is barred from contending later that his claim was beyond the jurisdiction of the aforesaid Court. The reason is that a contrary rule would encourage the undesirable practice of appellants' submitting their cases for decision to either court in expectation of favorable judgment, but with intent of attacking its jurisdiction should the decision be unfavorable (Tyson Tan, et al. vs. Filipinas Compañia de Seguros) et al., L-10096, Res. on Motion to Reconsider, March 23, 1966). Consequently, we are limited in this appeal to the issues of law raised in the appellant's brief.

          Taking the aforesaid rules into account, it can be seen that the only reviewable issues in this appeal are reduced to two:

1) Whether or not the collision of appellant's barge with the supports or piers of the Nagtahan bridge was in law caused by fortuitous event or force majeure, and

2) Whether or not it was error for the Court to have permitted the plaintiff-appellee to introduce additional evidence of damages after said party had rested its case.

          As to the first question, considering that the Nagtahan bridge was an immovable and stationary object and uncontrovertedly provided with adequate openings for the passage of water craft, including barges like of appellant's, it is undeniable that the unusual event that the barge, exclusively controlled by appellant, rammed the bridge supports raises a presumption of negligence on the part of appellant or its employees manning the barge or the tugs that towed it. For in the ordinary course of events, such a thing does not happen if proper care is used. In Anglo American Jurisprudence, the inference arises by what is known as the "res ipsa loquitur" rule (Scott vs. London Docks Co., 2 H & C 596; San Juan Light & Transit Co. vs. Requena, 224 U.S. 89, 56 L. Ed., 680; Whitwell vs. Wolf, 127 Minn. 529, 149 N.W. 299; Bryne vs. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 269 Mass. 130; 168 N.E. 540; Gribsby vs. Smith, 146 S.W. 2d 719).

          The appellant strongly stresses the precautions taken by it on the day in question: that it assigned two of its most powerful tugboats to tow down river its barge L-1892; that it assigned to the task the more competent and experienced among its patrons, had the towlines, engines and equipment double-checked and inspected; that it instructed its patrons to take extra precautions; and concludes that it had done all it was called to do, and that the accident, therefore, should be held due to force majeure or fortuitous event.

          These very precautions, however, completely destroy the appellant's defense. For caso fortuito or force majeure (which in law are identical in so far as they exempt an obligor from liability)2 by definition, are extraordinary events not foreseeable or avoidable, "events that could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable" (Art. 1174, Civ. Code of the Philippines). It is, therefore, not enough that the event should not have been foreseen or anticipated, as is commonly believed, but it must be one impossible to foresee or to avoid. The mere difficulty to foresee the happening is not impossibility to foresee the same: "un hecho no constituye caso fortuito por la sola circunstancia de que su existencia haga mas dificil o mas onerosa la accion diligente del presento ofensor" (Peirano Facio, Responsibilidad Extra-contractual, p. 465; Mazeaud Trait de la Responsibilite Civil, Vol. 2, sec. 1569). The very measures adopted by appellant prove that the possibility of danger was not only foreseeable, but actually foreseen, and was not caso fortuito.

          Otherwise stated, the appellant, Luzon Stevedoring Corporation, knowing and appreciating the perils posed by the swollen stream and its swift current, voluntarily entered into a situation involving obvious danger; it therefore assured the risk, and can not shed responsibility merely because the precautions it adopted turned out to be insufficient. Hence, the lower Court committed no error in holding it negligent in not suspending operations and in holding it liable for the damages caused.

          It avails the appellant naught to argue that the dolphins, like the bridge, were improperly located. Even if true, these circumstances would merely emphasize the need of even higher degree of care on appellant's part in the situation involved in the present case. The appellant, whose barges and tugs travel up and down the river everyday, could not safely ignore the danger posed by these allegedly improper constructions that had been erected, and in place, for years.

          On the second point: appellant charges the lower court with having abused its discretion in the admission of plaintiff's additional evidence after the latter had rested its case. There is an insinuation that the delay was deliberate to enable the manipulation of evidence to prejudice defendant-appellant.

          We find no merit in the contention. Whether or not further evidence will be allowed after a party offering the evidence has rested his case, lies within the sound discretion of the trial Judge, and this discretion will not be reviewed except in clear case of abuse.3

          In the present case, no abuse of that discretion is shown. What was allowed to be introduced, after plaintiff had rested its evidence in chief, were vouchers and papers to support an item of P1,558.00 allegedly spent for the reinforcement of the panel of the bailey bridge, and which item already appeared in Exhibit GG. Appellant, in fact, has no reason to charge the trial court of being unfair, because it was also able to secure, upon written motion, a similar order dated November 24, 1962, allowing reception of additional evidence for the said defendant-appellant.4

          WHEREFORE, finding no error in the decision of the lower Court appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed. Costs against the defendant-appellant.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.Bengzon, J.P. J., on leave, took no part.