oblicon cases compilation

7/24/2019 Oblicon Cases Compilation

1/21

Case 1

GSIS vs COA

Facts: GSIS granted several benefts to itsemployees. The COA sbse!ently disallo"edsome o# them. As a reslt$ the employees hadto retrn the benefts they received to GSIS.

The la" provides that retirement benefts are

e%empt #rom attachment$ garnishment$ levy$and e%ection. Section &' o# (A )*'1 e%emptsbenefts #rom +dicial processes$ andnconditionally e%empts benefts #rom !asi,

+dicial and administrative processes$inclding COA disallo"ances$ as "ell as allfnancial obligations o# the member. -ence$retirement benefts cannot be diminished byCOA disallo"ances.

Isse: Can the COA isallo"ances be dedcted#rom retirement benefts/

(ling: 0es. The COA disallo"ances "old havebeen dedcted #rom their salaries$ had theynot retired be#ore sch dedctions cold beeected. The respondents then had anobligation to retrn the amonts receivednder the principle o# soltio indebiti. Thedelivery o# benefts to respondents nder anerroneos interpretaton o# the la" grantingbenefts gave rise to an actionable obligation#or them to retrn the same.

2nder Article *134 o# the Civil COde$ i#something is received and ndly deliveredthrogh mista5e "hen there is no right todemand it$ the obligation to retrn the thingarises. 6ayment by reason o# mista5e in theconstrction or application o# a dobt#l ordi7clt !estion o# la" also comes "ithin thescope o# soltio indebiti.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Case *

Siga,an v. 8illaneva 9*';

Facts:

(espondent fled a complaint #or sm o#money against petitioner. (espondent claimedthat petitioner approached her inside the6hilippine


2/21

@as there overpayment made by 8illaneva/

(ling:

0es.

There are t"o types o# interest: monetaryandcompensatory.

Monetary interest: Interest is aCO6B


3/21

is established: 91; the event mst beindependent o# the hman "illD 9*; theoccrrence mst render it impossible #or thedebtor to #lfll the obligation in a normalmannerD and 9&; the obligor mst be #ree o#participation in$ or aggravation o#$ the in+ry tothe creditor.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

,,,,,,,,,,,,

Case 4

Makati Stock Exchange vs. Campos

acts

igel Campos 9Campos; "or5ed #or a "hile"ith a5ati Stoc5 B%change Inc. 9JSB;. Asthe only remaining incorporator$ Campos "asrecogniKed as li#etime Chairman Emeritus bythe oard o# Governors o# JSB on Feb '$1')'. The resoltion also gave him Initial6blic Oering 9I6Os; benefts o# *3L o# theshares bet"een stoc5 e%changes dividedamong the members. On Mne &$ 1''&(esoltion$ he "as booted ot #romsbscribing to the I6Os.


4/21

"old have someone to collect #rom. They"ere able to pay only p to a certain point.-o"ever #rom April *E$ 1')E to Mly *$ 1')Ethey de#alted and #ailed to retrn the

+e"elries amonting 6E*3$..2pon oraland "ritten demands there o# rigida re#sedto pay stating that it "as


5/21

them #rom agency to loan$ thereby convertinghis liability #rom criminal to civil. -e insiststhat his #ailre to complete his payments priorto the fling o# the complaint,a7davit by thecomplainants not"ithstanding$ the #act thatthe complainants later re!ired him to ma5e a#ormal proposal be#ore the barangayathorities on the payment o# the balance o#his otstanding obligations confrmed thatnovation had occrred.

The CA re+ected the claim o# egaos$ opiningas #ollo"s:

i5e"ise ntenable is the accsed,appellant>sargment that novation too5 place "hen theprivate complainants accepted his partialpayments be#ore the criminal in#ormation "asfled in cort and there#ore$ his criminalliability "as e%tingished.


6/21

The Trial Cort dismissed the case andheld that the 2n+ieng>s oer to sell "as neveraccepted by the 6etitioners #or the reason thatthey did not agree pon the terms andconditions o# the proposed sale$ meaning$there "as no contract o# sale at all. t$ thelo"er cort rled that shold the de#endantssbse!ently oer their property #or sale at aprice o# 611,million or belo"$ plaintis "illhave the right o# frst re#sal. This decision"as a7rmed by the CA. In the meantime$ in 1''$ the property "assold to e en (ealty$ 6rivate (espondent inthis case. The title to the property "astrans#erred to the name o# e en and the6etitioners "ere as5ed to vacate the premises.ecase o# this$ petitioners fled a motion #ore%ection o# the CA +dgement. At frst$ CAdirected the Sheri to e%ecte an orderdirecting the 2n+iengs to isse a eed o# Salein the 6etitioner>s #avor and nllifed the saleto e en (ealty. t then$ the CA reverseditsel# "hen the 6rivate (espondents Appealed.ISS2B:@hether or not the Contract o# Sale isper#ected by the grant o# a (ight o# First(e#sal/

(2I


7/21

Is the penalty demandable even a#ter thee%tingishment o# the principal obligation/

&/


8/21

employees reason that they shold be givenbonses ot o# a moral obligation. 2nder Art.14*& o# the t ma5esomeone comply "ith natral obligationsnder the la"$ 2T i# the person volntarilycomplied$ then that person cannot ta5e itbac5. The person "ho "as paid can retain themoney or "hatever "as given him$ a#ter thatvolntary act. In this case$ there "as novolntary act by the company.

s part o# the "age or salary.

,t even i# it is not part o# the salary or "age$it can still be demanded$ provided that it "asgiven in the past.

t these t"o circmstances are not presentin the case.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Case 1

6 vs Con#esor

Facts: On Feb. 1$ 1'4$ sposes Con#essorand Movita 8illa#erte obtained a loan #rom 696hp*; evidenced in a promissory note thatthey "ill pay +ointly in 1 years. The debt hasnot been paid even a#ter 1 years andCon#esor$ alone$ signed a second promissorynote on April 11$ 1'=1 ac5no"ledging the loanand promising to pay on or be#ore Mne13$1'=1. The same has not been paid and 6fled a complaint on Sep 11$ 1'E in the City

Cort o# Iloilo. Said cort rled in #avor o# 6Dan appeal "as fled in the Cort o# FirstInstance o# Iloilo and the decision o# the lo"ercort "as reversed. 6 no" fled #or ( andcontends that the lo"er cort #ailed torecogniKe that Con#esor is still liable$ either inhis personal capacity or other"ise becase theright to prescription may be renonced or"aived.

Isse:

Is 6 correct in contending that Con#esor"aived his right to prescription by e%ectingthe second promissory note/

(ling:

0es$ 6 is correct. First$ there is no dobt thatthe frst promissory note has alreadyprescribed. -o"ever$ "hen e%ecting the

second promissory note$ Con#esorac5no"ledges the debt and e%presslyrenonced and "aived his right to prescriptioncovering the frst note. 9Art. 111*;. The statteo# limitations sch as prescriptionH only barsthe remedy o# 6 bt not the debt itsel#

There#ore$ "hen the frst note prescribed$ 6has been barred #rom remedy. -o"ever$ thee%ection o# the second promissory notereanimates the remedy. Ths$ sposes areliable and decision o# CoFI is reversed anddecision o# City Cort is reinstated.


9/21

1QbR$ *QaR$ and &QaR Bsta#aD 9&; Article &)The#tD 94; Article &* (obberyD 93; Article &1*Occpation o# (eal 6roperty or 2srpation o#(eal (ights in 6ropertyD and 9=; Article &1)Other eceits.

The assailed ecision disposed o# the case ont"o 9*; points: 91; the dropping o# respondents(oberto S. enedicto and Salvador 9ddy;

Tan as respondents in this case de to theirdeath$ consistent "ith or rlings in People v$&ayotasQand&enedicto v$ Court of

#ppealsD and 9*; the Corts fnding that theOmbdsman did not commit grave abse o#discretion in dismissing petitioners criminalcomplaint against respondents.

+ssue

@O< criminal complaint may contineand be prosected as an independent civil

action/

-uling

1. eath o# an accsed pending appeal o# hisconviction e%tingishes his criminal liability as"ell as the civil liability based solely thereon.As opined by Mstice (egalado$ in this regard$the death o# the accsed prior to fnal

+dgment terminates his criminal liabilityand only the civil liability directlyarising #romand based solely on the oense committed$i.e.$ civil liability e' delicto insenso strictiore.

*. Corollarily$ the claim #or civil liabilitysrvives not"ithstanding the death o#accsed$ i# the same may also be predicatedon a sorce o# obligation other than delict.Article 113E o# the Civil Code enmeratesthese other sorces o# obligation #rom "hichthe civil liability may arise as a reslt o# thesame act or omission:

a; a"

b; Contracts

c; Vasi,contracts

d; %%% %%% %%%

e; Vasi,delicts

&. @here the civil liability srvives$ ase%plained in


10/21

Case 1*

"&&-+$% "A/&$ and &/&$A "A/3A$&-A,plainti7s vs. 8%"& 3A/C&, defendant(.-. $o. /'15515. 26 April 19:0.

(acts:

6laintis are the legitimate parents o# Carlos

Salen "ho died #rom "onds cased byGmersindo alce$ a legitimate son o#de#endant "ho "as then single$ minor belo"1) yrs old and "as living "ith de#endant. As areslt o# C. SalenWs death$ G. alce "asaccsed and convicted o# homicide and "assentenced to imprisonment and to pay theamont o# 6s*$.. 6laintis broght thisaction against de#endant be#ore CFI to recoverthe sm o# 6s*$.$ "ith legal interest.e#endant$ in his ans"er$ set p the de#ensethat the la" pon "hich plaintis predicate

their right to recover does not here apply #orthe reason that la" re#ers to !asi,delicts andnot to criminal cases. CFI sstained the theoryo# de#endant.

ssue:

@hether de#endant can be held sbsidiaryliable to pay the indemnity o# 6s*$ ."hich his son "as sentenced to pay in thecriminal case fled against him

)uling:

0BS. The particlar la" that governs this caseis Article *1)$ the pertinent portion o# "hichprovides: PThe #ather and$ in case o# his deathor incapacity$ the mother$ are responsible #ordamages cased by the minor children "holived in their company.P To hold that thisprovision does not apply to the instant casebecase it only covers obligations "hich arise#rom !asi,delicts and not obligations "hicharise #rom criminal oenses$ "old reslt inthe absrdity that "hile #or an act "here mere

negligence intervenes the #ather or mothermay stand sbsidiarily liable #or the damagecased by his or her son$ no liability "oldattach i# the damage is cased "ith criminalintent. 8erily$ the void that apparently e%ists inthe (evised 6enal Code is sbserved by thisparticlar provision o# or Civil Code$ as maybe gleaned #rom some recent decisions o# thisCort "hich cover e!al or identical cases.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Case 1&

M&!-%P%/+!A$ 3A$; A$ !-*"!

C%MPA$) vs. A$A (-AC& -%"A/&" A$)% )*; !%

G.(.


11/21

@hether or not petitioner ban5 breached itscontract "ith respondents in issing a -oldotH against the latter

-uling

0es. The -old otH clase in the Application

and Agreement #or eposit AccontXXX$ in"hich the petitioner anchors its right to"ithhold respondents> deposits$ does not applyto the present case. Said clase applies only i#there is a valid and e%isting obligation arising#rom any o# the sorces o# obligationenmerated in Article 113E o# the Civil Code$to "it: la"$ contracts$ !asi,contracts$ delict$and !asi,delict. In this case$ petitioner #ailedto sho" that respondents have an obligation toit nder any la"$ contract$ !asi,contract$delict$ or !asi,delict.

Additionally$ the criminal case 9pending$ nofnal +dgment o# conviction againstrespondent; "as non,e%istent at the time the-old otH isse "as orderedD that is to say$there "as no legal basis #or the issance o#sch since (osales "as not liable nder any o#the fve sorces o# obligation. Ths$ petitioneris gilty o# breach o# contract "hen itn+stifably re#sed to release respondents>deposit despite demand. -aving breached itscontract "ith respondents$ petitioner is liable

#or damages.


12/21

released him. ater on$ Saldaga fled acomplaint against FB2 since the school "asobligated to provide stdents "ith a sa#e andsecre environment and an atmospherecondcive #or learning. FB2 then fled a Third,6arty Complaint against Gala%y to indemni#ythem o# "hatever cost "ill be incrred.

The trial cort rled that FB2 and de Mess are

liable to"ards Saldaga. In trn$ Gala%y and itspresident$ Imperial$ are liable to FB2 and de

Mess. -o"ever$ the Cort o# Appeals reversedthe decision. -ence the present petition.

+""*&

@ho is liable #or the damages "hich the Cort"ill prononce/

-*/+$(

The Cort held that FB2 is solidarily liable #orthe damages incrred by Saldaga. FB2 mstpay #or the hospital bills "ith thecorresponding interest declaredD temperatedamagesD moral damagesD attorney>s #ess andlitigation e%penses. e Mess is not liable sincehe is not part the e%ceptions "hen anindividal is attached to the liabilities o# thecorporation.1

Since Gala%y provided FB2 "ith an n!alifedsecrity gard$ they are made liable to thedamages that FB2 pays to Saldaga. Imperial$

the president o# Gala%y$ is solidarily liablebecase the Cort fnds it that he "as grosslynegligent "ith managing the secrity agency.Imperial also assred Saldaga that Gala%y"ill sholder the payments #or hishospitaliKation bt it "as not #lflled.

A+!+%$A/ +$% +/+ $+ =*A"+'&/+C!$A CA"&> M%-& %$ ;+$"A )* A$($AA) !*/*3A(%$ A;A /+A3+/+!) %-!& AMA(&". So$ GAAZ0 A


13/21

possession; against several persons allegedlyillegally occpying its properties in aesa$VeKon City. Among the de#endants in thee+ectment case "as eoncio (amoy$ one o# theplaintis in the case at bar. On April *)$ 1')'the TC rendered +dgment #or B(ACO todemolish or remove the bilding and strctrethey bilt on the land o# the plainti and tovacate the premises. On Mne *$ 1''' s #ailre to do so istantamont to bad #aith. Thsrespondent eoncio (amoy$ "hotestifed as to his "onded #eelingsmay be a"arded moral damages-o"ever$ "ith regard to e%emplarydamages$ Article **&* o# the Civil Code

provides that in contracts and !asicontracts$ the cort may a"arde%emplary damages i# the de#endant$ inthis case B(ACO$ acted in a "anton$#radlent$ rec5less$ oppressive$ omalevolent manner. The Cort fnds thatB(ACO #ell short o# e%ercising the dediligence re!ired$ bt its actionscannot be considered "anton#radlent$ rec5less$ oppressive omalevolent. Ths$ in this casee%emplary damages shold not be

a"arded. Since the Cortdoes not deem it proper to a"arde%emplary damages in this case$ thenthe CAWs a"ard #or attorneyWs #eesshold li5e"ise be deleted #ollo"ingArticle **) o# the Civil Code.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Case 1=


14/21

CrK vs TaKon

As re!ested by the #amily o# Teles#oroedor$ CrK 9petitioner; made permanentimprovements on the said land having an areao# more or less * !inones. In 1'3*$ Tason YCo. availed o# CrK> services as anintermediary "ith the edors$ to "or5 #or theamicable settlement in a civil case. The said

case involved 3 !iones o# land$ o# "hich the* !iones o# #ormed part o# the land. On1'=&$ a compromise agreement bet"een theedors and Tason Y Co. "as entered and"as approved by cort. CrK alleged that

Tason Y Co. promised to convey him the&$ s!. meters o# land occpied by him"hich "as part o# the * !iones o# land"ithin 1 years #rom the date o# signing o# thecompromise agreement bet"een the edorsand the latter as consideration o# his services.

The land "as not conveyed to him by Tason Y

Co. CrK #rther alleged that Tason Y Co. "asn+stly enriched at his e%pense since theyen+oyed the benefts o# the improvements hemade on the land ac!ired by the latter.

Isse:

1 @hether or not a presmed !asi,contract be emerged as against onepart "hen the sb+ect matter thereo# isalready covered by a contract "ithanother party.

* Is Tason Y Co. obliged to reimbrseCrK #or the improvements on the land/

(ling:

A(T. *14*. Certain la"#l volntary andnilateral acts give rise to the +ridicalrelation o# !asi,contract to the end that noone shill be n+stly enriched or beneftedat the e%pense o# another.

1 It is obvios that a presmed !asi,

contract cannot emerge as againstone party "hen the sb+ect matter isalready covered by an e%istingcontract "ith another party.6redicated on the principle that noone shold be allo"ed to n+stlyenrich himsel# at the e%pense o#another$ Article *1*4 creates thelegal fction o# a !asi,contractprecisely becase o# the absence o#

any actal agreement bet"een theparties concerned.

* @hile it is tre that there "as noagreement bet"een plainti andde#endants herein #or theimprovement o# the 3 !inones

since the latter are presentlyen+oying and tiliKing the beneftsbroght abot throgh plaintiWslabor and e%penses$ de#endantsshold pay and reimbrse himthere#or nder the principle that Wnoone may enrich himsel# at thee%pense o# another.W In this postre$the complaint states a case o#action against the de#endants.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Case 1E

SAB CASB$ AS2


15/21

96CSI;.On ecember 1E$ 1'E)$ thebs fgred in an accident in rien to recover the sm o#613$ alleged to have been lost by eng

en to the de#endant in a series o# gambling$ban5ing$ and percentage games condcteddring the t"o or three months prior to theinstittion o# the sit. The plainti as5ed #or anattachment against the property o# thede#endant$ on the grond that the latter "asabot to depart #rom the 6hilippines "ithintent to de#rad his creditors. Thisattachment "as issed and the sheriattached the sm o# 613$ "hich had beendeposited by the O>rien "ith the Internationaan5ing Corporation. The provision o# la"


16/21

nder "hich this attachment "as issedre!ires that there shold be a case o# actionarising pon contract$ e%press or implied. Thecontention o# the petitioner is that thestattory action to recover money lost atgaming is not sch an action as iscontemplated in this provision$ and he insiststhat the original complaint sho"s on its #acethat the remedy o# attachment is not availablein aid thereo#D that the Cort o# First Instanceacted in e%cess o# its +risdiction in grantingthe "rit o# attachmentD that the petitioner hasno plain$ speedy$ and ade!ate remedy byappeal or other"iseD and that conse!entlythe "rit o# certiorari spplies the appropriateremedy #or this relie#.

ISS2B: @hether or not the stattory obligationto restore money "on at gaming is anobligation arising #rom contract$ e%press orimplied.

(2I


17/21

assistance. The de#endants are not nder anyobligation to pay the #ees claimed 9Anobligation according to CC Art. 1)' is createdby la"$ contracts$ !asi,contracts$ Y by illicitacts Y omissions or by those in "hich any 5indo# #altNnegligence occrs.;.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

,,,,,,,

Case *&

+A$A ". 3A!A$(A" !-A$"P%-!A!+%$,C%.

AC!"

On Mne *1$ 1'43$ Trc5


18/21

&lcano vs ill

EE SC(A 1 \ ay *=$ 1'EE

Article 11=* \ Obligations arising #rom !asidelicts

FACTS: (eginald -ill$ a minor$ legally marriedbt living "ith his #ather$ Atty. arvin -ill "ith

"hom he "as getting sbsistence$ 5illedAgapito Blcano. A#ter de trial$ (eginald "asac!itted on the grond that his act "as notcriminal becase o# Plac5 o# intent to 5ill$copled "ith mista5e.P Ths$ Sposes Blcanoappealed$ fling a civil action against (eginaldand his dad 9arvin -ill; #or damages basedon Article *1) o# the Civil Code. -ill argedthat the civil action is barred by his son>sac!ittal in the criminal caseD and that his civilliability as a parent has been e%tingished bythe #act that his son is already an emancipated

minor by reason o# his marriage.

ISS2BS:

91; @hether or not the present civil action #ordamages is already barred by the ac!ittal o#(eginald.

9*; @hether or not Atty. arvin -ill has avicarios liability being the #ather o# a minorchild "ho committed a delict.

-B:


19/21

+""*&@as private respondent entitled to damages/

-*/+$(0es. Article *1E= o# the Civil Code$ "hichdefnes a !asi,delict ths:

P@hoever by act or omission cases damageto another$ there being #alt or negligence$ is

obliged to pay #or the damage done. Sch #altor negligence$ i# there is no pre,e%istingcontractal relation bet"een the parties$ iscalled a0uasi%delict and is governed by theprovisions o# this Chapter.P

limited to negligent acts or omissions ande%cldes the notion o# "ill#lness orintent. 1uasi%delict$ 5no"n in Spanish legaltreatises as culpa a0uiliana$ is a civil la"concept "hile torts is an Anglo,American orcommon la" concept. .ortsis mch broader

than culpa a0uiliana becase it incldes notonly negligence$ bt international criminal actsas "ell sch as assalt and battery$ #alseimprisonment and deceit. In the generalscheme o# the 6hilippine legal systemenvisioned by the Commission responsible #ordra#ting the


20/21

person sers in+ry. The la" onemployer,employee relationships statesthat the liability o# an employer #or thenegligence o# his employee is not basedon the principle o# respondeat sperior$bt that o# pater #amilias. The employeris e%pected to e%ert de diligencere!ired #rom a good #ather o# the#amily in selection and spervision o# hisemployees. This primary liability isembodied in Art. *1) in relation to Art.*1E=. The !estion o# diligentspervision depends on thecircmstances o# employment. I# there"as$ it "old have been relieved o#liability. In this case$ the company #ailedto demonstrate the de care anddiligence re!ired. ased on theprinciple o# bons pater #amilias$ itoght to be +ointly and severally liable#or in+ries cased to a third person.

A+!+%$A/ +$%-MA!+%$

A"ard #or damages mst be commensrate tothe sering inicted. In this case$ becasethere "as psychological pain$ damage andin+ry$ the resltant an%iety$ sleeplessness$mental and physical pain are inestimable$ thea"ard o# 61$ instead o# 63J is +stifable.

i>s allegations "ere never corroborated and"ere obviosly sel#,serving.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Case *)

!& MA$+/A -A+/-%A C%., plainti7'appellant,

vs.

/A C%MPA+A !-A$"A!/A$!+CA,

defendant'appellee.!& A!/A$!+C (*/ B PAC++C C%.,defendant'appellant.

acts

The anila (ailroad Company had t"olocomotive boilers in the steamship Alicante"hich belongs to the Compaia Transatlanticade arcelona 9Steamship Company;. ecasetheir e!ipment "as ins7cient$ the

Steamship Company had to employ theAtlantic$ Gl# and 6acifc Company 9herea#tercalled the Atlantic Company; #or assistance indischarging the boilers ot o# the ship>s hold$as they "ere having probably the beste!ipment o# any contracting company in thecity #or this prpose. The man in chargenamed eyden #ailed in his frst attempt attrans#er. The sling "as ad+sted improperlyand the boiler #ell to the bottom o# the ship>shold. The boiler "as li#ted again bt a boltbro5e$ and the boiler #ell again.

The boiler "as #ond to be so badly damaged$that it had to be reshipped to Bngland$ "hereit "as rebilt and then retrned to anila

Total damages amonted to 6*&$&4&.*' #romrepairs$ e%penses$ and loss o# the se o# theboiler. An action "as institted by the (ailroadCompany against the Steamship Company"here the latter cased the Atlantic Company

to be broght as a co,de#endant.

The +dge o# the Cort o# First Instance gave+dgment in #avor o# the plainti against theAtlantic Company$ bt absolved the SteamshipCompany #rom the complaint$ the lo"er cortfnding that the mishap "as de to the grossnegligence o# one eyden. The plainti hasappealed #rom the action o# the cort in #ailingto give +dgment against the SteamshipCompany$ "hile the Atlantic company hasappealed #rom the +dgment against it.

+ssue:

@N< the Steamship Company is liable to theplainti by reason o# having delivered theboiler in !estion in a damaged condition andis the Atlantic company liable to be made torespond to the Steamship Company #or theamont the latter may be re!ired to pay tothe plainti #or the damage done/

-uling:

0es. The +dgment entered in the Cort o# FirstInstance mst$ there#ore be reversed not only"ith respect to the +dgment entered in #avoro# the plainti directly against the Atlanticcompany bt also "ith respect to theabsoltion o# the Steamship company and the#rther #ailre o# the cort to enter +dgmentin #avor o# the latter against the AtlanticCompany.


21/21

The Steamship Company is liable to theplainti #or the in+ry done to the boiler "hileit "as being discharged #rom the ship$ theyhave the dty to carry it and to carry it sa#ely.

The Steamship Company also cannot escapeliability +st becase it employed anindependent contractor to discharge theboilers$ and that the employed contractor hadbeen negligent. 9Art 1104Y 1105;

As to the liability o# Atlantic Company toSteamship Company$ Art 1104 o# the CivilCode provides that liability arising #romnegligence is demandable in the #lflment o#all 5inds o# obligations. Bven i# the Atlanticcompany may have made a reservation as toits responsibility #or the damage that mightoccr 9that the ris5 in the discharge o# theboilers "as assmed by Steamship Company;$this does not relieve them #rom the dty o#e%ercising reasonable s5ill and care. It is their

dty to e%ercise de care in theaccomplishment o# the "or5D and noreservation "hereby the person rendering theservices see5s to escape #rom theconse!ences o# a violation o# this obligationscan vie"ed "ith #avor. Altantic Companycannot also apply Article 1'& "hich "oldcease their liability i# they proved that theye%ercised the diligence o# a good #ather o# the#amily in the selection o# eyden$ becasethose are applicable only "hen there isabsence o# agreement$ and not #rom

obligations arising #rom contract.

The (ailroad Company can only recoverdamages #rom the Steamship Company sinceit is "ith this company that the contract o#areightment "as made$ not #rom AtlanticCompany #or lac5 o# privity.

The Compa_a Transatlantic de arcelonashold be and is hereby ad+dged to pay to

the anila (ailroad Company the sm o#t"enty nine thosand three hndred #ortythree pesos and t"enty nine centavos96*&$&4&.*'; "ith interest #rom ay 11$ 1'14$ntil paidD and "hen this +dgment is satisfed$the Compaia Transatlantic de arcelona isdeclared to be entitled to recover the sameamont #rom the Atlantic Y 6acifc Gl#Company$ against "hom +dgment is to thisend hereby rendered in #avor o# the Compaia

Transatlantica de arcelona.

oblicon cases compilation

Documents