statcon cases for final

8/11/2019 Statcon Cases for Final

1/52

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 188315 August 25, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,vs.ISIDRO FLORES LAGUA, Accuse-Appellant.

D ! " I S I O N

PERE!,J.

On appeal is the #$ %anua&' #(($ Decision)

of the "ou&t of Appeals in "A-*.R. "R-+.". No.((# finin appellant Isi&o Flo&es ' /aua uilt' be'on &easonable oubt of t0o 1#2 countsof &ape.

In )3) Info&4ations, 0hich a&e si4ila&l' 0o&e e5cept fo& the ates of the co44ission of thec&i4e an the ae of the co4plainant, file befo&e the Reional T&ial "ou&t 1RT"2 of Ma6ati"it', 7&anch )8(, oc6ete as "&i4inal "ases Nos. (9-(3) to (9-#), appellant 0as accuse of&apin AAA,#alleel' co44itte as follo0s:

That in o& about an so4eti4e u&in the 4onth of ;;;;;;;;;, in the "it' of Ma6ati, Met&oManila, Philippines, a place 0ithin the


2/52

AAA live 0ith he& aoptive 4othe&, 777,@since she 0as


3/52

PBS&. Insp. O&tiC confi&4e that she conucte the 4eico-leal e5a4ination on AAA. Results ofthe e5a4ination, as inicate in the 4eico-leal &epo&t, sho0 that the Hh'4en is 0ith p&esenceof eep heale lace&ation at ) ocloc6 an shallo0 heale lace&ation at # ocloc6 positions at theti4e of e5a4ination.H Sai &epo&t conclue that AAA is in a Hnon-vi&in state ph'sicall'.H))PBS&. Insp. O&tiC opine that the lace&ations coul have been cause b' an' soli ob


4/52

b' the "ou&t of Appeals of the t&ial cou&ts


5/52

establish appellants uilt be'on &easonable oubt. Mo&eove&, appellant faile to i4pute an' ill4otive on the pa&t of AAA to falsel' accuse hi4 of &ape.#

The OS* insists that AAAs failu&e to &epo&t p&o4ptl' the p&evious incients of &ape oes notent he& c&eibilit'. Appellants e5e&cise of 4o&al ascenanc' ove& AAA an that fact that she

0as une& ph'sical th&eat u&in those ti4es, coul have instille fea& on AAA f&o4 &epo&tinsai incients.#3

The OS* 4ove fo& 4oification of the penalt' f&o4 eath to &eclusion pe&petua 0ithouteliibilit' fo& pa&ole in liht of Republic Act No. $98.#$

Afte& an e5tensive &evie0 of the &eco&s, 0e fin no coent &eason to ove&tu&n the ecision of the"ou&t of Appeals.

Appellant 0as cha&e 0ith )3) counts of &ape, all of 0hich 0e&e co44itte 0ithin the span ofth&ee 192 'ea&s o& f&o4 Feb&ua&' )$$$ until )@ Octobe& #((#. e a&e in full acco& 0ith the

acuittal of appellant in the )$ counts of &ape. State othe&0ise, 0e a&ee 0ith appellantsconviction fo& t0o 1#2 counts of &ape.

In &ape cases, Hthe victi4s c&eibilit' beco4es the sinle 4ost i4po&tant issue. Fo& 0hen a0o4an sa's she 0as &ape, she sa's in effect all that is necessa&' to sho0 that &ape 0asco44itte thus, if he& testi4on' 4eets the test of c&eibilit', the accuse 4a' be convicte onthe basis the&eof.H9(

7oth the t&ial cou&t an the appellate cou&t foun AAAs testi4on' c&eible. The RT" consie&eit Hst&aihtfo&0a& an consistent on 4ate&ial points,H 0hile the "ou&t of Appeals esc&ibe it asHspontaneous, fo&th&iht, clea& an f&ee-f&o4-se&ious cont&aictions.H ell-ent&enche is the

leal p&ecept that 0hen the Hculpabilit' o& innocence of an accuse hines on the issue of thec&eibilit' of 0itnesses, the finins of fact of the "ou&t of Appeals affi&4in those of the t&ialcou&t, 0hen ul' suppo&te b' sufficient an convincin evience, 4ust be acco&e the hihest&espect, even finalit', b' this "ou&t an a&e not to be istu&be on appeal.H9)e see no &eason inthis case to epa&t f&o4 the p&inciple. Mo&eove&, 0e ive ue efe&ence to the t&ial cou&tsassess4ent of AAAs c&eibilit', havin ha the oppo&tunit' to 0itnesses fi&sthan an note he&e4eano&, conuct, an attitue une& &illin e5a4ination.9#

o&th' of &eite&ation is the oct&ine that H0hen the offene pa&t' is of tene& ae an i44atu&e,cou&ts a&e incline to ive c&eit to he& account of 0hat t&anspi&e, consie&in not onl' he&&elative vulne&abilit' but also the sha4e to 0hich she 0oul be e5pose if the 4atte& to 0hich

she testifie is not t&ue. hen a i&l, especiall' a 4ino&, sa's that she has been efile, she sa'sin effect all that is necessa&' to sho0 that &ape 0as inflicte on he&.H99

Out of the )3) counts of &ape cha&e aainst appellant, the p&osecution 0as onl' able to p&ovet0o counts. Appl'in the &ulin in People v. *a&cia,98the "ou&t of Appeals co&&ectl' ecla&e,thus:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_188315_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_188315_2010.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_188315_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_188315_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_188315_2010.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_188315_2010.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_188315_2010.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_188315_2010.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_188315_2010.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_188315_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_188315_2010.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_188315_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_188315_2010.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_188315_2010.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_188315_2010.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_188315_2010.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_188315_2010.html#fnt34


6/52

As to the othe& counts of &ape 1"&i4inal "ases Nos. (9-(3# to (9-#(2 i4pute aainst accuse-appellant, e fin hi4 not uilt' be'on &easonable oubt as the testi4on' of AAA 0as 4e&el'base on ene&al alleations that she 0as &ape b' the accuse-appellant on the ave&ae of th&ee192 ti4es a 0ee6 f&o4 Feb&ua&' )$$$ to )@ Octobe& #((#. AAAs ba&e state4ent is evientl'inaeuate an insufficient to p&ove the othe& cha&es of &ape as each an eve&' cha&e of &ape is

a sepa&ate an istinct c&i4e an that each of the4 4ust be p&oven be'on &easonable oubt. Onthat sco&e alone, the inefinite testi4onial evience that the victi4 0as &ape th&ee ti4es a 0ee6is eciel' inaeuate an &ossl' insufficient to establish the uilt of accuse-appellantthe&efo&e 0ith the &eui&e uantu4 of evience.9@

As &ea&s to the fi&st incient of &ape in )$$$, AAA &ecounte ho0 appellant fo&ce he& to havese5ual inte&cou&se 0ith hi4, thus:

L: hat happene afte& t0o 1#2 0ee6s

A: I 0as sleepin 0hen so4ebo' 0ent on top of 4' hea.

L: Tell us about 0hat ti4e 0as this 0hen this happene, 0hen 'ou sai 'ou noticeso4ebo' cli4bin up 'ou& be

A: $:9( in the evenin.

L: At that ti4e aain, 0he&e 0as 'ou& =777>

A: At 0o&6, si&.

L: hat happene afte& 'ou notice so4ebo' cli4bin up 'ou& be

A: I 0o6e up an I sa0 hi4 holin a b&ea 6nife.

5 5 5 5

L: Di 'ou 6no0 0ho 0as this pe&son 0ho cli4be 'ou& be an 0ho 0as holin a6nife

A: Jes, si&.

L: ho 0as that pe&son

A: HPapaH

L: hen 'ou sai HPapa,H 'ou a&e &efe&&in to the accuse

A: Jes, si&.

L: hat happene ne5t
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_188315_2010.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_188315_2010.html#fnt35


7/52

A: HTinusok nya yong kutsilyo sa leeg koH an he &e4ove his sho&ts.

L: At that ti4e, 0hat 0e&e 'ou then 0ea&in

A: Pa


8/52

A: The last ti4e 0as in Octobe& )@, #((#.

L: This last incient, esc&ibe to us 0he&e i it happen aain

A: In ou& house.

L: At about 0hat ti4e

A: $:9( in the evenin.

L: Na&&ate to us ho0 i this incient happen

A: The sa4e. +e 0ent to 4' be, holin a b&ea 6nife, pointin it to 4e an he &e4ove4' sho&ts an he also un&esse hi4self.

L: Then

A: An he inse&te his se5ual o&an into 4' vaina an afte& the incient, he left thehouse.93

Since AAA 0as al&ea' )9 'ea&s ol at the ti4e of the co44ission of the last incient of &ape,the applicable &ule is A&ticle #-A1a2 0hich states that &ape is co44itte b' a 4an havinca&nal 6no0lee of a 0o4an th&ouh fo&ce, th&eat, o& inti4iation.

AAAs testi4on' that she 0as efile b' appellant 0as co&&obo&ate b' the 4eical finins ofthe 4eico-leal e5pe&t. The p&esence of eep heale an shallo0 heale lace&ation onl'confi&4s AAAs clai4 of &ape.

In both &ape incients, the t&ial cou&t applie A&ticle #-7 of the Revise Penal "oe ini4posin the penalt' of eath, 0hich 0as late& 4oifie b' the "ou&t of Appeals to &eclusionpe&petua pu&suant to Republic Act No. $98. A&ticle #-7 p&ovies:

The eath penalt' shall also be i4pose if the c&i4e of &ape is co44itte 0ith an' of thefollo0in a&avatinBualif'in ci&cu4stances:

Hl2 hen the victi4 is une& eihteen 1)32 'ea&s of ae an the offene& is a pa&ent, ascenant,step-pa&ent, ua&ian, &elative b' consanuinit' o& affinit' 0ithin the thi& civil e&ee, o& theco44on-la0 spouse of the pa&ent of the victi4

5 5 5 5

The "ou&t of Appeals app&eciate the ualif'in ci&cu4stances of 4ino&it' an &elationship ini4posin the penalt' of &eclusion pe&petua. It &elie on the establishe fact that AAA 0as still a4ino& 0hen she 0as &ape an on the stipulate fact that appellant is he& ua&ian. One of theinstances 0he&ein the c&i4e of &ape 4a' be ualifie is 0hen the victi4 is a 4ino& AND the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_188315_2010.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_188315_2010.html#fnt38


9/52

accuse is he& ua&ian. At this point, 0e cannot subsc&ibe to this inte&p&etation an hence, 0ehol that the "ou&t of Appeals e&&e in consie&in the ualif'in ci&cu4stance of &elationship.

Inee, it 0as stipulate u&in the p&e-t&ial confe&ence that appellant is the ua&ian of AAA.+o0eve&, 0e cannot si4pl' invo6e this a4ission to consie& ua&ianship as a ualif'in

ci&cu4stance in the c&i4e of &ape. H"i&cu4stances that ualif' a c&i4e an inc&ease its penalt' toeath cannot be sub


10/52

5 5 5 5

It 0oul not be loical to sa' that the 0o& Hua&ianH in the thi& pa&a&aph of A&ticle 9880hich is 4entione toethe& 0ith pa&ents an &anpa&ents of the offene pa&t' 0oul have aconcept iffe&ent f&o4 the Hua&ianH in the &ecent a4en4ents of A&ticle 99@ 0he&e he is also

4entione in the co4pan' of pa&ents an ascenants of the victi4. In A&ticle 988, the inclusionof the ua&ian is onl' to invest hi4 0ith the po0e& to sin a s0o&n 0&itten co4plaint to initiatethe p&osecution of fou& c&i4es aainst chastit', 0hile his inclusion in the enu4e&ation of theoffene&s in A&ticle 99@ is to autho&iCe the i4position of the eath penalt' on hi4. ith 4uch4o&e &eason, the&efo&e, shoul the &est&ictive concept announce in De la "&uC, that is, that he bea leal o& . Since both loic an fact con


11/52

0ho4 he e5e&cises a li4ite e&ee of autho&it' fo& a te4po&a&' pe&io, 0e cannot i4pose theeath penalt' conte4plate fo& a &eal ua&ian une& the a4en4ents int&ouce b' RepublicAct No. @$, since he oes not fit into that cateo&'.8#

People v. De la "uesta89ahe&e to arcia0hen it &ule that the 4e&e fact that the 4othe& as6e

the accuse to loo6 afte& he& chil 0hile she 0as a0a' i not constitute the &elationship ofua&ian-0a& as conte4plate b' la0.88

*a&cia 0as fu&the& applie b' analo' in People v. Delanta&8@0he&e it 0as hel that theHua&ianH envisione in Section 9)1c2 of Republic Act No. )( is a pe&son 0ho has a leal&elationship 0ith a 0a&. In sai case, accuse 0as cha&e fo& violation of Section @, A&ticle IIIof Republic Act No. )( 0hen he pi4pe an )) 'ea& ol chil to at least t0o clients. The "ou&thel that the p&osecution faile to establish filiation albeit it consie&e accuse as a e factoua&ian. +o0eve&, this 0as not sufficient to


12/52

&ape onl' an sentence to suffe& the penalt' of &eclusion pe&petua fo& each count. +e is alsoo&e&e, fo& each count of &ape, to pa' the victi4 civil ine4nit' in the a4ount of P@(,(((.((,4o&al a4aes in the a4ount of P@(,(((.((, an e5e4pla&' a4aes in the a4ount ofP9(,(((.((.

SO ORD!R!D.

&OSE PORTUGAL PERE!Associate %ustice

! "ON"?R:

RENATO C. CORONA"hief %ustice"hai&pe&son

PRES'ITERO &. (ELASCO, &R.Associate %ustice

TERESITA &. LEONARDO)DECASTROAssociate %ustice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLOAssociate %ustice

" ! R T I F I " A T I O N

Pu&suant to Section )9, A&ticle VIII of the "onstitution, I he&eb' ce&tif' that the conclusions inthe above Decision 0e&e &eache in consultation befo&e the case 0as assine to the 0&ite& of the

opinion of the "ou&ts Division.

RENATO C. CORONA"hief %ustice


Manila

S!"OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 15*3*+ M 1*, 2005

AUTO 'US TRANSPORT S-STEMS, INC.,petitione&,vs.ANTONIO 'AUTISTA,&esponent.


13/52

D ! " I S I O N

CHICO)NA!ARIO,J.

7efo&e ?s is a Petition fo& Revie0 on "ertiorariassailin the Decision)an Resolution#of the

"ou&t of Appeals affi&4in the Decision9

of the National /abo& Relations "o44ission 1N/R"2.The N/R" &ulin 4oifie the Decision of the /abo& A&bite& 1finin &esponent entitle to thea0a& of )9th4onth pa' an se&vice incentive leave pa'2 b' eletin the a0a& of )9 th4onth pa'to &esponent.

THE FACTS

Since #8 Ma' )$$@, &esponent Antonio 7autista has been e4plo'e b' petitione& Auto 7usT&anspo&t S'ste4s, Inc. 1Autobus2, as &ive&-conucto& 0ith t&avel &outes Manila-Tuuea&ao via7auio, 7auio- Tuuea&ao via Manila an Manila-Tabu6 via 7auio. Responent 0as pai onco44ission basis, seven pe&cent 12 of the total &oss inco4e pe& t&avel, on a t0ice a 4onth

basis.On (9 %anua&' #(((, 0hile &esponent 0as &ivin Autobus No. ))8 alon Sta. Fe, NuevaViCca'a, the bus he 0as &ivin accientall' bu4pe the &ea& po&tion of Autobus No. )#8, as thelatte& vehicle suenl' stoppe at a sha&p cu&ve 0ithout ivin an' 0a&nin.

Responent ave&&e that the accient happene because he 0as co4pelle b' the 4anae4ent too bac6 to Ro5as, Isabela, althouh he ha not slept fo& al4ost t0ent'-fou& 1#82 hou&s, as he ha


14/52

+!R!FOR!, all p&e4ises consie&e, it is he&eb' foun that the co4plaint fo& IllealDis4issal has no le to stan on. It is he&eb' o&e&e DISMISS!D, as it is he&eb'DISMISS!D.

+o0eve&, still base on the above-iscusse p&e4ises, the &esponent 4ust pa' to the

co4plainant the follo0in:

a. his )9th4onth pa' f&o4 the ate of his hi&in to the ate of his is4issal,p&esentl' co4pute at P3,)).3

b. his se&vice incentive leave pa' fo& all the 'ea&s he ha been in se&vice 0ith the&esponent, p&esentl' co4pute at P)9,33.(@.

All othe& clai4s of both co4plainant an &esponent a&e he&eb' is4isse fo& lac6 of4e&it.@

Not satisfie 0ith the ecision of the /abo& A&bite&, petitione& appeale the ecision to theN/R" 0hich &ene&e its ecision on #3 Septe4be& #((), the ec&etal po&tion of 0hich &eas:

=T>he Rules an Reulations I4ple4entin P&esiential Dec&ee No. 3@), pa&ticula&l' Sec.9 p&ovies:

HSection 9. !4plo'e&s cove&e. The Dec&ee shall appl' to all e4plo'e&s e5ceptto:

555 555 555

e2 e4plo'e&s of those 0ho a&e pai on pu&el' co44ission, bouna&', o& tas6basis, pe&fo&4in a specific 0o&6, i&&espective of the ti4e consu4e in thepe&fo&4ance the&eof. 555.H

Reco&s sho0 that co4plainant, in his position pape&, a4itte that he 0as pai on aco44ission basis.

In vie0 of the fo&eoin, 0e ee4 it


15/52

Displease 0ith onl' the pa&tial &ant of its appeal to the N/R", petitione& souht the &evie0 ofsai ecision 0ith the "ou&t of Appeals 0hich 0as subseuentl' enie b' the appellate cou&t ina Decision ate ( Ma' #((#, the ispositive po&tion of 0hich &eas:

+!R!FOR!, p&e4ises consie&e, the!etitionis DISMISS!D fo& lac6 of 4e&it an

the assaile#ecision of &esponent "o44ission in N/R" N"R "A No. (#@38-#((( ishe&eb' AFFIRM!D in toto. No costs.

+ence, the instant petition.

ISSUES

). hethe& o& not &esponent is entitle to se&vice incentive leave

#. hethe& o& not the th&ee 192-'ea& p&esc&iptive pe&io p&ovie une& A&ticle #$) of the /abo&"oe, as a4ene, is applicable to &esponents clai4 of se&vice incentive leave pa'.

RULING OF THE COURT

The isposition of the fi&st issue &evolves a&oun the p&ope& inte&p&etation of A&ticle $@ of the/abo& "oe vis$%$visSection )1D2, Rule V, 7oo6 III of the I4ple4entin Rules an Reulationsof the /abo& "oe 0hich p&ovies:

Art. 95.RI*+T TO S!RVI"! IN"!NTIV! /!AV!

1a2 !ve&' e4plo'ee 0ho has &ene&e at least one 'ea& of se&vice shall be entitleto a 'ea&l' se&vice incentive leave of five a's 0ith pa'.

Book III, Rule V: SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE

SECTION 1."ove&ae. This &ule shall appl' to all e4plo'ees e5cept:

Q

12 Fiel pe&sonnel an othe& e4plo'ees 0hose pe&fo&4ance is unsupe&vise b'the e4plo'e& incluin those 0ho a&e enae on tas6 o& cont&act basis, pu&el'co44ission basis, o& those 0ho a&e pai in a fi5e a4ount fo& pe&fo&4in 0o&6i&&espective of the ti4e consu4e in the pe&fo&4ance the&eof . . .

A ca&eful pe&usal of sai p&ovisions of la0 0ill &esult in the conclusion that the &ant of se&viceincentive leave has been eli4ite b' the I4ple4entin Rules an Reulations of the /abo&"oe to appl' onl' to those e4plo'ees not e5plicitl' e5clue b' Section ) of Rule V. Acco&into the I4ple4entin Rules, Se&vice Incentive /eave shall not appl' to e4plo'ees classifie asHfiel pe&sonnel.H The ph&ase Hothe& e4plo'ees 0hose pe&fo&4ance is unsupe&vise b' thee4plo'e&H 4ust not be une&stoo as a sepa&ate classification of e4plo'ees to 0hich se&viceincentive leave shall not be &ante. Rathe&, it se&ves as an a4plification of the inte&p&etation of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt7


16/52

the efinition of fiel pe&sonnel une& the /abo& "oe as those H0hose actual hou&s of 0o&6 inthe fiel cannot be ete&4ine 0ith &easonable ce&taint'.H3

The sa4e is t&ue 0ith &espect to the ph&ase Hthose who are engaged on task or contract basis,purely commission basis.& Sai ph&ase shoul be &elate 0ith Hfiel pe&sonnel,H appl'in the &ule

on e'usdem generis that ene&al an unli4ite te&4s a&e &est&aine an li4ite b' the pa&ticula&te&4s that the' follo0.$+ence, e4plo'ees enae on tas6 o& cont&act basis o& pai on pu&el'co44ission basis a&e not auto4aticall' e5e4pte f&o4 the &ant of se&vice incentive leave,unless, the' fall une& the classification of fiel pe&sonnel.

The&efo&e, petitione&s contention that &esponent is not entitle to the &ant of se&vice incentiveleave


17/52

As obse&ve b' the /abo& A&bite& an concu&&e in b' the "ou&t of Appeals:

It is of


18/52

action acc&ue 4o&e than th&ee 192 'ea&s befo&e the filin of the 4one' clai4, sai cause ofaction has al&ea' p&esc&ibe in acco&ance 0ith A&ticle #$).)9

"onseuentl', in cases of nonpa'4ent of allo0ances an othe& 4oneta&' benefits, if it isestablishe that the benefits bein clai4e have been 0ithhel f&o4 the e4plo'ee fo& a pe&io

lone& than th&ee 192 'ea&s, the a4ount pe&tainin to the pe&io be'on the th&ee-'ea&p&esc&iptive pe&io is the&efo&e ba&&e b' p&esc&iption. The a4ount that can onl' be e4ane b'the a&ieve e4plo'ee shall be li4ite to the a4ount of the benefits 0ithhel 0ithin th&ee 192'ea&s befo&e the filin of the co4plaint.)8

It is essential at this point, ho0eve&, to &econiCe that the se&vice incentive leave is a cu&iousani4al in &elation to othe& benefits &ante b' the la0 to eve&' e4plo'ee. In the case of se&viceincentive leave, the e4plo'ee 4a' choose to eithe& use his leave c&eits o& co44ute it to its4oneta&' euivalent if not e5hauste at the en of the 'ea&.)@Fu&the&4o&e, if the e4plo'eeentitle to se&vice incentive leave oes not use o& co44ute the sa4e, he is entitle upon his&esination o& sepa&ation f&o4 0o&6 to the co44utation of his acc&ue se&vice incentive leave.

As enunciate b' the "ou&t in0ernande v. 234":)

The clea& polic' of the /abo& "oe is to &ant se&vice incentive leave pa' to 0o&6e&s inall establish4ents, subve&' e4plo'ee 0ho has &ene&eat least one 'ea& of se&vice shall be entitle to a 'ea&l' se&vice incentive leave of fivea's 0ith pa'.H Se&vice incentive leave is a &iht 0hich acc&ues to eve&' e4plo'ee 0hohas se&ve H0ithin )# 4onths, 0hethe& continuous o& b&o6en &ec6one f&o4 the ate thee4plo'ee sta&te 0o&6in, incluin autho&iCe absences an pai &eula& holia'sunless the 0o&6in a's in the establish4ent as a 4atte& of p&actice o& polic', o& thatp&ovie in the e4plo'4ent cont&acts, is less than )# 4onths, in 0hich case sai pe&io

shall be consie&e as one 'ea&.H It is also&commutable to its money e/uivalent if notused or exhausted at the end of the year.&n other words, an employee who has servedfor one year is entitled to it.He may use it as leave days or he may collect its monetaryvalue. To li4it the a0a& to th&ee 'ea&s, as the solicito& ene&al &eco44ens, is to unul'&est&ict such &iht.)=Italics supplie>

"o&&esponinl', it can be conscientiousl' euce that the cause of action of an entitlee4plo'ee to clai4 his se&vice incentive leave pa' acc&ues f&o4 the 4o4ent the e4plo'e& &efusesto &e4une&ate its 4oneta&' euivalent if the e4plo'ee i not 4a6e use of sai leave c&eits butinstea chose to avail of its co44utation. Acco&inl', if the e4plo'ee 0ishes to accu4ulate hisleave c&eits an opts fo& its co44utation upon his &esination o& sepa&ation f&o4 e4plo'4ent,his cause of action to clai4 the 0hole a4ount of his accu4ulate se&vice incentive leave shalla&ise 0hen the e4plo'e& fails to pa' such a4ount at the ti4e of his &esination o& sepa&ationf&o4 e4plo'4ent.

Appl'in A&ticle #$) of the /abo& "oe in liht of this peculia&it' of the se&vice incentive leave,0e can conclue that the th&ee 192-'ea& p&esc&iptive pe&io co44ences, not at the en of the 'ea&0hen the e4plo'ee beco4es entitle to the co44utation of his se&vice incentive leave, but f&o4
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt17


19/52

the ti4e 0hen the e4plo'e& &efuses to pa' its 4oneta&' euivalent afte& e4an of co44utationo& upon te&4ination of the e4plo'ees se&vices, as the case 4a' be.

The above const&ual of A&t. #$), vis$%$visthe &ules on se&vice incentive leave, is in 6eepin 0iththe &ui4enta&' p&inciple that in the i4ple4entation an inte&p&etation of the p&ovisions of the

/abo& "oe an its i4ple4entin &eulations, the 0o&6in4ans 0elfa&e shoul be thep&i4o&ial an pa&a4ount consie&ation.)3The polic' is to e5ten the applicabilit' of the ec&eeto a &eate& nu4be& of e4plo'ees 0ho can avail of the benefits une& the la0, 0hich is inconsonance 0ith the avo0e polic' of the State to ive 4a5i4u4 ai an p&otection to labo&.)$

In the case at ba&, &esponent ha not 4ae use of his se&vice incentive leave no& e4ane fo&its co44utation until his e4plo'4ent 0as te&4inate b' petitione&. Neithe& i petitione&co4pensate his accu4ulate se&vice incentive leave pa' at the ti4e of his is4issal. It 0as onl'upon his filin of a co4plaint fo& illeal is4issal, one 4onth f&o4 the ti4e of his is4issal, that&esponent e4ane f&o4 his fo&4e& e4plo'e& co44utation of his accu4ulate leave c&eits.+is cause of action to clai4 the pa'4ent of his accu4ulate se&vice incentive leave thus acc&ue

f&o4 the ti4e 0hen his e4plo'e& is4isse hi4 an faile to pa' his accu4ulate leave c&eits.The&efo&e, the p&esc&iptive pe&io 0ith &espect to his clai4 fo& se&vice incentive leave pa' onl'co44ence f&o4 the ti4e the e4plo'e& faile to co4pensate his accu4ulate se&vice incentiveleave pa' at the ti4e of his is4issal. Since &esponent ha file his 4one' clai4 afte& onl' one4onth f&o4 the ti4e of his is4issal, necessa&il', his 4one' clai4 0as file 0ithin thep&esc&iptive pe&io p&ovie fo& b' A&ticle #$) of the /abo& "oe.

/HEREFORE, p&e4ises consie&e, the instant petition is he&eb' D!NI!D. The assaileDecision of the "ou&t of Appeals in "A-*.R. SP. No. 39$@ is he&eb' AFFIRM!D. No "osts.

SO ORDERED.!uno, )"hairman*, +ustria$5artine, "alle'o, 6r., and Tinga, 77.,concu&.


Manila

S!"OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 1835+ &u% 30, 200*

ANIANO A. AL'ON, Petitione&,vs.'A-ANI F. FERNANDO, C#t Mo o M#4#, ENGR. ALFONSO ESPIRITO, C#tEg#%% o M#4#, ENGR. ANAI MADERAL, Ass#stt C#t Eg#%% o M#4#,6 NATI(IDAD CA'AL7UINTO, C#t T%su% o M#4#, Responents.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt19


20/52

R ! S O / ? T I O N

CORONA,J.:

Ma' a local ove&n4ent unit 1/*?2 valil' use public funs to une&ta6e the 0ienin, &epai&

an i4p&ove4ent of the sie0al6s of a p&ivatel'-o0ne subivision

This is the issue p&esente fo& the "ou&ts &esolution in

this petition fo& &evie0 on ce&tio&a&i)0hich assails the Dece4be& ##, #((( ecision#an Ma' 9(,#(() &esolution of the "ou&t of Appeals in "A-*.R. SP No. @.

In Ma' )$$$, the "it' of Ma&i6ina une&too6 a public 0o&6s p&o


21/52

The&eafte&, petitione& elevate the case to the "ou&t of Appeals via a petition fo& ce&tio&a&i,p&ohibition, in


22/52

The 0o& Hst&eet,H in its co&&ect an o&ina&' usae, inclues not onl' the &oa0a' use fo&ca&&iaes an vehicula& t&affic ene&all' but also the po&tion use fo& peest&ian t&avel .#)The pa&tof the st&eet set asie fo& the use of peest&ians is 6no0n as a sie0al6. ##

Mo&eove&, une& subivision la0s,#9lots allotte b' subivision evelope&s as &oa lots inclue

&oas,sidewalks, alle's an plantin st&ips.#8

Thus, 0hat is t&ue fo& subivision &oas o& st&eetsapplies to subivision sie0al6s as 0ell. O0ne&ship of the sie0al6s in a p&ivate subivisionbelons to the subivision o0ne&Bevelope& until it is eithe& t&ansfe&&e to the ove&n4ent b'0a' of onation o& acui&e b' the ove&n4ent th&ouh e5p&op&iation.

Section 99@ of RA )( is clea& an specific that no public 4one' o& p&ope&t' shall beapp&op&iate o& applie fo& p&ivate pu&poses. This is in consonance 0ith the funa4entalp&inciple in local fiscal a4inist&ation that local ove&n4ent funs an 4onies shall be spentsolel' fo& public pu&poses.#@

In!ascual v. 6ecretary of !ublic Works,#the "ou&t lai o0n the test of valiit' of a public

e5penitu&e: it is the essential cha&acte& of the i&ect ob


23/52

municipal funds.H9#It pa&ticula&l' &efe&s to Hmunicipal&oas an b&iesH an Hsi4ila&facilities.H99

Appl'in the &ules of e'usdem generis, the ph&ase Hsi4ila& facilitiesH &efe&s to o& incluesinf&ast&uctu&e facilities li6e sie0al6s o0ne b' the /*?. Thus, RA )( conte4plates that onl'

the const&uction, i4p&ove4ent, &epai& an 4aintenance of inf&ast&uctu&e facilities o0ne b' the/*? 4a' be ban6&olle 0ith local ove&n4ent funs.

"lea&l', the uestion of o0ne&ship of the open spaces 1incluin the sie0al6s2 in Ma&i6ina*&eenheihts Subivision is 4ate&ial to the ete&4ination of the valiit' of the challeneapp&op&iation an isbu&se4ent 4ae b' the "it' of Ma&i6ina. Si4ila&l' sinificant is thecha&acte& of the i&ect ob


24/52

Pu&suant to Section )9, A&ticle VIII of the "onstitution, I ce&tif' that the conclusions in the above&esolution ha been &eache in consultation befo&e the case 0as assine to the 0&ite& of theopinion of the "ou&ts Division.

RE-NATO S. PUNO

Actin "hief %ustice


Manila

S!"OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 1*8+23 &u 9, 2008

DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC. :TROPIFRESH DI(ISION;,Petitione&,vs.HON. REINATO G. 7UILALA # $#s


25/52

RT" enie sai 4otion. Dole 4ove fo& pa&tial &econsie&ation &aisin the sa4e issues but its4otion 0as enie.

The&eafte&, Dole file a petition fo& ce&tio&a&i 0ith the "ou&t of Appeals contenin that the aliassu44ons 0as not p&ope&l' se&ve. The appellate cou&t, ho0eve&, &ule othe&0ise. It &easone

that Doles p&esient ha 6no0n of the se&vice of the alias su44ons althouh he i notpe&sonall' &eceive an sin it. It also hel that in toa's co&po&ate setup, ocu4ents a&esseto co&po&ate office&s a&e &eceive in thei& behalf b' thei& staff.Dole souht &econsie&ation, butits 4otion 0as li6e0ise enie.

+ence, this petition 0he&e petitione& &aises the lone issue:

+!T+!R OR NOT T+! "O?RT OF APP!A/S "OMMITT!D AN !RROR OF /A+!N IT A//O!D S?7STIT?T!D S!RVI"! ON A PRIVAT! "ORPORATION +!NIT +!/D T+AT DO/! AS VA/ID/J S!RV!D IT+ S?MMONS IN SPIT! OF T+!FA"T T+AT S?MMONS AS NOT S!RV!D ON ITS PR!SID!NT, MANA*IN*

PARTN!R, *!N!RA/ MANA*!R, "ORPORAT! S!"R!TARJ, TR!AS?R!R OR IN-+O?S! "O?NS!/ T+!R!7J I*NORIN* T+! R?/! ON S!RVI"! OF S?MMONS ONPRIVAT! DOM!STI" "ORPORATIONS.

Si4pl' state, the issue in this case is 0hethe& the&e 0as a vali se&vice of su44ons onpetitione& fo& the t&ial cou&t to acui&e


26/52

In this case, it appea&s that on Ap&il #9, #((9, Ma&ifa Dela "&uC, a leal assistant, &eceive thealias su44ons.)#"ont&a&' to p&ivate &esponents clai4 that it 0as &eceive upon inst&uction ofthe p&esient of the co&po&ation as inicate in the Office&s Retu&n, such fact oes not appea& inthe &eceivin cop' of the alias su44ons 0hich Ma&ifa Dela "&uC sine. The&e 0as no eviencethat she 0as autho&iCe to &eceive cou&t p&ocesses in behalf of the p&esient. "onsie&in that the

se&vice of su44ons 0as 4ae on a leal assistant, not e4plo'e b' he&ein petitione& an 0ho isnot one of the esinate pe&sons une& Section )), Rule )8, the t&ial cou&t i not valil'acui&e


27/52

A T T ! S T A T I O N

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision ha been &eache in consultation befo&e thecase 0as assine to the 0&ite& of the opinion of the "ou&ts Division.

LEONARDO A. 7UISUM'INGAssociate %ustice"hai&pe&son


Pu&suant to Section )9, A&ticle VIII of the "onstitution, an the Division "hai&pe&sonsAttestation, I ce&tif' that the conclusions in the above Decision ha been &eache in consultationbefo&e the case 0as assine to the 0&ite& of the opinion of the "ou&ts Division.

RE-NATO S. PUNO

"hief %ustice


Manila

!N 7AN"

G.R. No. L)8+82 A=# 28, 195*

MARCELINO '. FLORENTINO 6 LOURDES T. !ANDUETA,petitione&s-appellants,vs.PHILIPPINE NATIONAL 'AN,&esponent-appellee.

5arcelino (. 0lorentino for appellants.

4amon de los 4eyes for appellee.

&UGO,J.

The petitione&s an appellants file 0ith the "ou&t of Fi&st Instance of /a ?nion a petition fo&

mandamusaainst &esponent an appellee, Philippine National 7an6, to co4pel it to accept thebac6pa' ce&tificate of petitione& Ma&celino 7. Flo&entino issue to hi4 b' the Republic of thePhilippines, to pa' an inebteness to the Philippine National 7an6 in the su4 of P,3(( secu&eb' &eal estate 4o&tae on ce&tain p&ope&ties.

The case 0as sub4itte on an a&ee state4ent of facts, 0hich &eas as follo0s:

Pa&ties he&ein &ep&esente b' counsel, have a&ee on the follo0in facts:


28/52

). That the petitione&s a&e inebte to the &esponent ban6 in the a4ount of P,3(( plusinte&est, the sa4e havin been incu&&e on %anua&' #, )$@9, 0hich is ue on %anua&' #,)$@8.

#. That the sai loan is secu&e b' a 4o&tae of &eal p&ope&ties.

9. That the petitione& Ma&celino 7. Flo&entino is a hole& of 7ac6pa' Ac6no0le4entNo. )#) ate Octobe& , )$@8, in the a4ount of P##,3$.99 b' vi&tue of Republic ActNo. 3$ app&ove on %une #(, )$@9 an.

8. That on Dece4be& #, )$@9, petitione&s offe&e to pa' thei& loan 0ith the &esponentban6 0ith thei& bac6pa' ce&tificate, but the &esponent ban6, on Dece4be& #$, )$@9,&efuse to accept petitione&Ks offe& to pa' the sai inebteness 0ith the latte&Ks bac6pa'ce&tificate

The leal p&ovision involve is section # of Republic Act No. 3$, 0hich p&ovies:

S!". #. Section t0o of the sai Act 1Republic Act 9(82 as a4ene b' Republic ActNu4be&e !iht hun&e, is fu&the& a4ene to &ea:

S!". #. The T&easu&e& of the Philippines shall, upon application of all pe&sons specifiein section one he&eof an 0ithin one 'ea& f&o4 the app&oval of this Act, an une& such&ules an &eulations as 4a' be p&o4ulate b' the Sec&eta&' of Finance, ac6no0leean file &euests fo& the &econition of the &iht of the sala&ies o& 0aes as p&ovie insection one he&eof, an notice of such ac6no0le4ent shall be issue to the applicant0hich shall state the total a4ount of such sala&ies o& 0aes ue the applicant, an ce&tif'that it shall be &eee4e b' the *ove&n4ent of the Philippines 0ithin ten 'ea&s f&o4 the

ate of thei& issuance 0ithout inte&est:!rovided, That upon application an sub


29/52

The contention of the &esponent-appellee, Philippine National 7an6 is that sai ualif'inclause &efe&s to all the anteceents, 0he&eas the appellantKs contention is that it &efe&s onl' to thelast anteceent.

Incientall', it 4a' be state that one of the pu&poses of Republic Act No. 3$ 0as to inclue

vete&ans of the Philippine A&4' an thei& 0ives o& o&phans a4on the beneficia&ies of the7ac6pa' /a0, Republic Act No. 9(8, in &econition of thei& &eat sac&ifices in the &esistance4ove4ent. as sho0n b' the follo0in uotation f&o4 the "on&essional Reco&:

. . . This pa&ticula& bill, +ouse 7ill No. )##3, has been file b' this public se&vant fo&th&ee ob


30/52

As the&e 0oul have been no nee to pe&4it b' la0 the use of bac6pa' ce&tificates in pa'4ent ofebts to p&ivate pe&sons, if the' a&e 0illin to accept the4, the pe&4ission necessa&il' &efe&s tothe *ove&n4ent of the Philippines, its aencies o& othe& inst&u4entalities, etc.

Anothe& &eason is that it is 4atte& of ene&al 6no0lee that 4an' officials an e4plo'ees of the

Philippine *ove&n4ent, 0ho ha se&ve u&in the %apanese Occupation, have al&ea' &eceivethei& bac6pa' ce&tificates an use the4 fo& the pa'4ent of the obliations to the *ove&n4entan its entities fo& ebts incu&&e befo&e the app&oval of Republic Act No. 9(8.

The case of Dio6no vs. Rehabilitation Finance "o&po&ation, $) Phil., (3 1%ul' )), )$@#2, isiffe&ent f&o4 the p&esent one. In the Dio6no case, his ebt to the Rehabilitation Finance"o&po&ation 0as incu&&e on %anua&' #, )$@(. +e b&ouht the action on Nove4be& )(, )$@(,une& the p&ovisions of Republic Act No. 9(8 1section #2, 0hich 0as app&ove on %une )3, )$83that is, one 'ea& an al4ost eiht 4onths befo&e Dio6no coul not avail hi4self of the p&ovisionsof section # of Act No. 9(8, because sai section p&ovies that the application fo& &econition ofbac6pa' 4ust have been file 0ithin one 'ea& afte& the app&oval of sai Act No. 9(8, an the

ebt 4ust be subsistin at the ti4e of sai app&oval, Dio6no havin incu&&e the ebt on %anua&'#, )$@(, an b&ouht action on Nove4be& )(, )$@(. It 0as, the&efo&e, isc&etiona&' in theDio6no case fo& the Rehabilitation Finance "o&po&ation to accept o& not his bac6pa' ce&tificate inpa'4ent.

The Sec&eta&' of %ustice, in his Opinion No. ##, se&ies of )$83, hel that the ph&ase H0ho 4a'be 0illin to accept the sa4e fo& such settle4entH ualifies onl' its i44eiate anteceent anoes not appl' to the *ove&n4ent o& its aencies.

The appellee asse&ts in his b&ief that the Sec&eta&' of %ustice, in his lette& of %une )$, )$@9,&e4a&6e that the clause H0ho 4a' be 0illin to accept such settle4entH &efe&s to all

anteceents, incluin the *ove&n4ent an its aencies. e a&e not i4p&esse 0ith thisobse&vation of the Sec&eta&', fo& 0e believe that his Opinion No. ##, se&ies of )$83, co&&ect fo&the &easons 0e have state above.

In the p&esent case, Ma&celino 7. Flo&entino incu&&e his ebt to the Philippine National 7an6 on%anua&' #, )$@9 hence, the obliation 0as subsistin 0hen the +mendatory +ct 2o. 9:;0asapp&ove. "onseuentl', the p&esent case falls sua&el' une& the p&ovisions of section # of the+mendatory +ct 2o. 9:;.

In vie0 of the fo&eoin, the ecision appeale f&o4 is &eve&se, an the appellee is o&e&e toaccept the bac6pa' ce&tificate above 4entione of the appellant, Ma&celino 7. Flo&entino, in

pa'4ent of his above cite ebt to the appellee, 0ithout inte&est f&o4 Dece4be& #, )$@9, theate 0hen he offe&e sai bac6pa' ce&tificate in pa'4ent. ithout p&onounce4ent as to costs. Itis o&e&e.

!aras, (engon, ".7., 5ontemayor, 4eyes, +., 7ugo, (autista +ngelo, "oncepcion, 4eyes, 7. (.3. and -ndencia, 77.,concu&.


31/52


Manila

!N 7AN"

G.R. No. L-47745 April 15, 1988

JOSE S. AMADORA, LORETA A. AMADORA, JOSE A. AMADORA JR., NORMA A.YLAYA PANTALEON A. AMADORA, JOSE A. AMADORA III, LUY A. AMADORA,ROSALINDA A. AMADORA, PER!ETO A. AMADORA, SERRE A. AMADORA,"IENTE A. AMADORA #$% MARIA TISALINA A. AMADORA, petitionersvs.&ONORA'LE OURT O! APPEALS, OLEGIO DE SAN JOSE-REOLETOS,"ITOR LLU& SERGIO P. DLMASO JR., ELESTINO DION, ANIANOA'ELLANA, PA'LITO DA!!ON ()r* )i+ p#r$(+ #$% $#(*r#l *#r%i#$+, MR. #$%

MRS. NIANOR GUM'AN, #$% ROLANDO "ALENIA, ()r* )i+ *#r%i#$, A.!RANISO ALONSO, respondents.

Jose S. Amadora & Associates for petitioners.

Padilla Law Office for respondents.

RU, J.:

Like any prospective graduate, Alfredo Amadora was looking forward to the commencement exercises where he would ascend the stage and

in the presence of his relatives and friends receive his high school diploma. These ceremonies were scheduled on April 16, 19!. As it turnedout, though, fate would intervene and deny him that awaited experience. "n April 1#, 19!, while they were in the auditorium of their school,the $olegio de %an &ose'(ecoletos, a classmate, )a*lito +amon, fired a gun that mortally hit Alfredo, ending all his expectations and his life

as well. The victim was only seventeen years old.1

+affon was convicted of homicide thru reckless imprudence . /Additionally, the herein petitioners, as thevictims parents, filed a civil action for damages under Article !1- of the $ivil $ode against the $olegiode %an &ose'(ecoletos, its rector the high school principal, the dean of *oys, and the physics teacher,together with +affon and two other students, through their respective parents. The complaint against thestudents was later dropped. After trial, the $ourt of /irst 0nstance of $e*u held the remaining defendantslia*le to the plaintiffs in the sum of )!9,9-., representing death compensation, loss of earningcapacity, costs of litigation, funeral expenses, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorneys fees . 0

"n appeal to the respondent court, however, the decision was reversed and all the defendants werecompletely a*solved .4

0n its decision, which is now the su*2ect of this petition for certiorariunder (ule 3 of the (ules of $ourt,the respondent court found that Article !1- was not applica*le as the $olegio de %an &ose'(ecoletoswas not a school of arts and trades *ut an academic institution of learning. 0t also held that the studentswere not in the custody of the school at the time of the incident as the semester had already ended, thatthere was no clear identification of the fatal gun and that in any event the defendant, had exercised thenecessary diligence in preventing the in2ury. 5


32/52

The *asic undisputed facts are that Alfredo Amadora went to the %an &ose'(ecoletos on April 1#, 19!,and while in its auditorium was shot to death *y )a*lito +affon, a classmate. "n the implications andconse4uences of these facts, the parties sharply disagree.

The petitioners contend that their son was in the school to show his physics experiment as a prere4uisiteto his graduation5 hence, he was then under the custody of the private respondents. The private

respondents su*mit that Alfredo Amadora had gone to the school only for the purpose of su*mitting hisphysics report and that he was no longer in their custody *ecause the semester had already ended.

There is also the 4uestion of the identity of the gun used which the petitioners consider important *ecauseof an earlier incident which they claim underscores the negligence of the school and at least one of theprivate respondents. 0t is not denied *y the respondents that on April , 19!, %ergio +amaso, &r., thedean of *oys, confiscated from &ose um*an an unlicensed pistol *ut later returned it to him withoutmaking a report to the principal or taking any further action .As um*an was one of the companions of+affon when the latter fired the gun that killed Alfredo, the petitioners contend that this was the samepistol that had *een confiscated from um*an and that their son would not have *een killed if it had not*een returned *y +amaso. The respondents say, however, that there is no proof that the gun was thesame firearm that killed Alfredo.

(esolution of all these disagreements will depend on the interpretation of Article !1- which, as ithappens, is invoked *y *oth parties in support of their conflicting positions. The pertinent part of thisarticle reads as follows7

Lastly, teachers or heads of esta*lishments of arts and trades shall *e lia*le for damagescaused *y their pupils and students or apprentices so long as they remain in theircustody.

Three cases have so far *een decided *y the $ourt in connection with the a*ove'4uoted provision, to wit78xconde v. $apuno 7ercado v. $ourt of Appeals, 8and )alisoc v. :rillantes. 9These will *e *rieflyreviewed in this opinion for a *etter resolution of the case at *ar.

0n the 8xconde $ase, +ante $apuno, a student of the :alintawak 8lementary %chool and a :oy %cout,

attended a (i;al +ay parade on instructions of the city school supervisor. After the parade, the *oy*oarded a 2eep, took over its wheel and drove it so recklessly that it turned turtle, resulting in the death oftwo of its passengers. +ante was found guilty of dou*le homicide with reckless imprudence. 0n theseparate civil action flied against them, his father was held solidarily lia*le with him in damages under

Article 19#


33/52

0n Palisoc vs. Brillantes, decided on "cto*er , 191, a 16'year old student was killed *y a classmate withfist *lows in the la*oratory of the anila Technical 0nstitute. Although the wrongdoer @ who was alreadyof age @ was not *oarding in the school, the head thereof and the teacher in charge were held solidarilylia*le with him. The $ourt declared through &ustice Teehankee7

The phrase used in the cited article @ >so long as

@ means the protective and supervisory custody that the school and its heads andteachers exercise over the pupils and students for as long as they are at attendance inthe school, including recess time. There is nothing in the law that re4uires that for suchlia*ility to attach, the pupil or student who commits the tortious act must live and *oard inthe school, as erroneously held *y the lower court, and the dictain ercado since the school involved at *ar is a non'academic school, the 4uestion as to the applica*ilityof the cited codal provision to academic institutions will have to await another case wherein it mayproperly *e raised.>

This is the case.

nlike in 8xconde and ercado, the $olegio de %an &ose'(ecoletos has *een directly impleaded and issought to *e held lia*le under Article !1-5 and unlike in )alisoc, it is not a school of arts and trades *utan academic institution of learning. The parties herein have also directly raised the 4uestion of whether ornot Article !1- covers even esta*lishments which are technically not schools of arts and trades, and, if

so, when the offending student is supposed to *e >in its custody.>

After an exhaustive examination of the pro*lem, the $ourt has come to the conclusion that the provisionin 4uestion should apply to all schools, academic as well as non'academic. Bhere the school is academicrather than technical or vocational in nature, responsi*ility for the tort committed *y the student will attachto the teacher in charge of such student, following the first part of the provision. This is the general rule. 0nthe case of esta*lishments of arts and trades, it is the head thereof, and only he, who shall *e held lia*leas an exception to the general rule. 0n other words, teachers in general shall *e lia*le for the acts of theirstudents except where the school is technical in nature, in which case it is the head thereof who shall *eanswera*le. /ollowing the canon of reddendo singula singulis>teachers> should apply to the words>pupils and students> and >heads of esta*lishments of arts and trades> to the word >apprentices.>

The $ourt thus conforms to the dissenting opinion expressed *y &ustice &.:.L. (eyes in 8xconde where

he said in part7

0 can see no sound reason for limiting Art. 19# of the "ld $ivil $ode to teachers of artsand trades and not to academic ones. Bhat su*stantial difference is there *etween theminsofar as concerns the proper supervision and vice over their pupilsC 0t cannot *eseriously contended that an academic teacher is exempt from the duty of watching thathis pupils do not commit a tort to the detriment of third )ersons, so long as they are in aposition to exercise authority and %upervision over the pupil. 0n my opinion, in the phrase>teachers or heads of esta*lishments of arts and trades> used in Art. 19# of the old $ivil


34/52

$ode, the words >arts and trades> does not 4ualify >teachers> *ut only >heads ofesta*lishments.> The phrase is only an updated version of the e4uivalent terms>preceptores y artesanos> used in the 0talian and /rench $ivil $odes.

0f, as conceded *y all commentators, the *asis of the presumption of negligence of Art.19# in some culpa in vigilando that the parents, teachers, etc. are supposed to have

incurred in the exercise of their authority, it would seem clear that where the parentplaces the child under the effective authority of the teacher, the latter, and not the parent,should *e the one answera*le for the torts committed while under his custody, for thevery reasonDthat the parent is not supposed to interfere with the discipline of the schoolnor with the authority and supervision of the teacher while the child is under instruction.

And if there is no authority, there can *e no responsi*ility.

There is really no su*stantial distinction *etween the academic and the non'academic schools insofar astorts committed *y their students are concerned. The same vigilance is expected from the teacher overthe students under his control and supervision, whatever the nature of the school where he is teaching.The suggestion in the 8xconde and ercado $ases is that the provision would make the teacher or eventhe head of the school of arts and trades lia*le for an in2ury caused *y any student in its custody *ut if thatsame tort were committed in an academic school, no lia*ility would attach to the teacher or the school

head. All other circumstances *eing the same, the teacher or the head of the academic school would *ea*solved whereas the teacher and the head of the non'academic school would *e held lia*le, and simply*ecause the latter is a school of arts and trades.

The $ourt cannot see why different degrees of vigilance should *e exercised *y the school authorities onthe *asis only of the nature of their respective schools. There does not seem to *e any plausi*le reasonfor relaxing that vigilance simply *ecause the school is academic in nature and for increasing suchvigilance where the school is non'academic. Eota*ly, the in2ury su*2ect of lia*ility is caused *y the studentand not *y the school itself nor is it a result of the operations of the school or its e4uipment. The in2urycontemplated may *e caused *y any student regardless of the school where he is registered. The teachercertainly should not *e a*le to excuse himself *y simply showing that he is teaching in an academicschool where, on the other hand, the head would *e held lia*le if the school were non'academic.

These 4uestions, though, may *e asked7 0f the teacher of the academic school is to *e held answera*lefor the torts committed *y his students, why is it the head of the school only who is held lia*le where thein2ury is caused in a school of arts and tradesC And in the case of the academic or non' technical school,why not apply the rule also to the head thereof instead of imposing the lia*ility only on the teacherC

The reason for the disparity can *e traced to the fact that historically the head of the school of arts andtrades exercised a closer tutelage over his pupils than the head of the academic school. The old schoolsof arts and trades were engaged in the training of artisans apprenticed to their master who personally anddirectly instructed them on the techni4ue and secrets of their craft. The head of the school of arts andtrades was such a master and so was personally involved in the task of teaching his students, whousually even *oarded with him and so came under his constant control, supervision and influence. :ycontrast, the head of the academic school was not as involved with his students and exercised onlyadministrative duties over the teachers who were the persons directly dealing with the students. The head

of the academic school had then


35/52

The other matter to *e resolved is the duration of the responsi*ility of the teacher or the head of theschool of arts and trades over the students. 0s such responsi*ility co'extensive with the period when thestudent is actually undergoing studies during the school term, as contended *y the respondents andimpliedly admitted *y the petitioners themselvesC

/rom a reading of the provision under examination, it is clear that while the custody re4uirement, to

repeat Palisoc v. Brillantes, does not mean that the student must *e *oarding with the school authorities,it does signify that the student should *e within the control and under the influence of the schoolauthorities at the time of the occurrence of the in2ury. This does not necessarily mean that such, custody*e co'terminous with the semester, *eginning with the start of classes and ending upon the close thereof,and excluding the time *efore or after such period, such as the period of registration, and in the case ofgraduating students, the period *efore the commencement exercises. 0n the view of the $ourt, the studentis in the custody of the school authorities as long as he is under the control and influence of the schooland within its premises, whether the semester has not yet *egun or has already ended.

0t is too tenuous to argue that the student comes under the discipline of the school only upon the start ofclasses notwithstanding that *efore that day he has already registered and thus placed himself under itsrules. Eeither should such discipline *e deemed ended upon the last day of classes notwithstanding thatthere may still *e certain re4uisites to *e satisfied for completion of the course, such as su*mission of

reports, term papers, clearances and the like. +uring such periods, the student is still su*2ect to thedisciplinary authority of the school and cannot consider himself released altogether from o*servance of itsrules.

As long as it can *e shown that the student is in the school premises in pursuance of a legitimate studento*2ective, in the exercise of a legitimate student right, and even in the en2oyment of a legitimate studentright, and even in the en2oyment of a legitimate student privilege, the responsi*ility of the schoolauthorities over the student continues. 0ndeed, even if the student should *e doing nothing more thanrelaxing in the campus in the company of his classmates and friends and en2oying the am*ience andatmosphere of the school, he is still within the custody and su*2ect to the discipline of the schoolauthorities under the provisions of Article !1-.

+uring all these occasions, it is o*viously the teacher'in'charge who must answer for his students torts,

in practically the same way that the parents are responsi*le for the child when he is in their custody. Theteacher'in'charge is the one designated *y the dean, principal, or other administrative superior toexercise supervision over the pupils in the specific classes or sections to which they are assigned. 0t is notnecessary that at the time of the in2ury, the teacher *e physically present and in a position to prevent it.$ustody does not connote immediate and actual physical control *ut refers more to the influence exertedon the child and the discipline instilled in him as a result of such influence. Thus, for the in2uries caused *ythe student, the teacher and not the parent shag *e held responsi*le if the tort was committed within thepremises of the school at any time when its authority could *e validly exercised over him.

0n any event, it should *e noted that the lia*ility imposed *y this article is supposed to fall directly on theteacher or the head of the school of arts and trades and not on the school itself. 0f at all, the school,whatever its nature, may *e held to answer for the acts of its teachers or even of the head thereof underthe general principle of respondeat superior, *ut then it may exculpate itself from lia*ility *y proof that it

had exercised the diligence of a bonus paterfamilias.

%uch defense is, of course, also availa*le to the teacher or the head of the school of arts and tradesdirectly held to answer for the tort committed *y the student. As long as the defendant can show that hehad taken the necessary precautions to prevent the in2ury complained of, he can exonerate himself fromthe lia*ility imposed *y Article !1-, which also states that7


36/52

The responsi*ility treated of in this article shall cease when the )ersons hereinmentioned prove that they o*served all the diligence of a good father of a family toprevent damages.

0n this connection, it should *e o*served that the teacher will *e held lia*le not only when he is acting inloco parentis for the law does not re4uire that the offending student *e of minority age. nlike the parent,

who wig *e lia*le only if his child is still a minor, the teacher is held answera*le *y the law for the act ofthe student under him regardless of the students age. Thus, in the )alisoc $ase, lia*ility attached to theteacher and the head of the technical school although the wrongdoer was already of age. 0n this sense,

Article !1- treats the parent more favora*ly than the teacher.

The $ourt is not unmindful of the apprehensions expressed *y &ustice akalintal in his dissenting opinionin )alisoc that the school may *e unduly exposed to lia*ility under this article in view of the increasingactivism among the students that is likely to cause violence and resulting in2uries in the school premises.That is a valid fear, to *e sure. Eevertheless, it should *e repeated that, under the present ruling, it is notthe school that will *e held directly lia*le. oreover, the defense of due diligence is availa*le to it in caseit is sought to *e held answera*le as principal for the acts or omission of its head or the teacher in itsemploy.

The school can show that it exercised proper measures in selecting the head or its teachers and theappropriate supervision over them in the custody and instruction of the pupils pursuant to its rules andregulations for the maintenance of discipline among them. 0n almost all cases now, in fact, thesemeasures are effected through the assistance of an ade4uate security force to help the teacher physicallyenforce those rules upon the students. s should *olster the claim of the school that it has takenade4uate steps to prevent any in2ury that may *e committed *y its students.

A fortiori, the teacher himself may invoke this defense as it would otherwise *e unfair to hold him directlyanswera*le for the damage caused *y his students as long as they are in the school premises andpresuma*ly under his influence. 0n this respect, the $ourt is disposed not to expect from the teacher thesame measure of responsi*ility imposed on the parent for their influence over the child is not e4ual indegree. "*viously, the parent can expect more o*edience from the child *ecause the latters dependenceon him is greater than on the teacher. 0t need not *e stressed that such dependence includes the childs

support and sustenance whereas su*mission to the teachers influence, *esides *eing coterminous withthe period of custody is usually enforced only *ecause of the students desire to pass the course. Theparent can instill more las discipline on the child than the teacher and so should *e held to a greateraccounta*ility than the teacher for the tort committed *y the child.

And if it is also considered that under the article in 4uestion, the teacher or the head of the school of artsand trades is responsi*le for the damage caused *y the student or apprentice even if he is already of age@ and therefore less tracta*le than the minor @ then there should all the more *e 2ustification to re4uirefrom the school authorities less accounta*ility as long as they can prove reasona*le diligence inpreventing the in2ury. After all, if the parent himself is no longer lia*le for the students acts *ecause hehas reached ma2ority age and so is no longer under the formers control, there is then all the more reasonfor leniency in assessing the teachers responsi*ility for the acts of the student.

Applying the foregoing considerations, the $ourt has arrived at the following conclusions7

1. At the time Alfredo Amadora was fatally shot, he was still in the custody of the authorities of $olegio de%an &ose'(ecoletos notwithstanding that the fourth year classes had formally ended. 0t was immaterial ifhe was in the school auditorium to finish his physics experiment or merely to su*mit his physics report forwhat is important is that he was there for a legitimate purpose. As previously o*served, even the meresavoring of the company of his friends in the premises of the school is a legitimate purpose that wouldhave also *rought him in the custody of the school authorities.


37/52


38/52

MELENIO-&ERRERA, J., concurring and dissenting7

0 concur, except with respect to the restricted meaninggiven the term >teacher> in Article !1- of the $ivil $odeas >teacher'in'charge.> This would limit lia*ility tooccasions where there are classes under the immediatecharge of a teacher, which does not seem to *e theintendment of the law.

As 0 understand it, the philosophy of the law is that

whoever stands in loco parentiswill have the same dutiesand o*ligations as parents whenever in such a standing.Those persons are mandatorily held lia*le for the tortiousacts of pupils and students so long as the latter remain intheir custody, meaning their protective and supervisorycustody.

Thus Article #9 of the $ivil $ode enumerates the personswho stand in locoparentis and there*y exercise su*stituteparental authority7

Art. #9 The following persons shall exercisesu*stitute parental authority7

xxx xxx xxx

!= Teachers and professors

xxx xxx xxx

= +irectors of trade esta*lishments, with regardto apprentices5


39/52

Article #3! of the $ivil $ode further provides7

Art. #6!. The relations *etween teacher andpupil, professor and student, are fixed *y

government regulations and those of each schoolor institution....

:ut even such rules and regulations as may *e fixed cannot contravene the concept of su*stitute parental authority.

The rationale of lia*ility of school heads and teachers forthe tortious acts of their pupils was explained in Palisoc

vs. Brillantes


40/52

And while a school is, admittedly, not directly lia*le sinceArticle !1- speaks only of teachers and schools heads,yet, *y virtue of the same provision, the school, as their

employer, may *e held lia*le for the failure of its teachersor school heads to perform their mandatory legal duties assu*stitute parents teachers andprofessors> vis'a'vis their pupils, from >directors of tradeesta*lishments, with regard to their apprentices.>

GUTIERRE, JR., J., concurring7

0 concur in the $ourts opinion so carefully analy;ed andcrafted *y &ustice 0sagani A. $ru;. Fowever, 0 would like tostress the need for a ma2or amendment to, if not acomplete scrapping of, Article !1- of the $ivil $odeinsofar as it refers to teachers or heads of esta*lishments


41/52

of arts and trades in relation to pupils and students orapprentices. The seventh paragraph of Art. !1- is a relicof the past and contemplates a situation long gone and out

of date. 0n a Palisoc v. Brillantes technological>colleges and universities are no different from students inli*eral arts or professional schools. Apprentices now workin regular shops and factories and their relationship to the

employer is covered *y laws governing the employmentrelationship and not *y laws governing the teacher@student relationship.

%econd, except for kindergarten, elementary, and perhapsearly high school students, teachers are often no longero*2ects of veneration who are given the respect due tosu*stitute parents. any students in their late teens or

early adult years view some teachers as part of a*ourgeois or reactionary group whose advice on*ehaviour, deportment, and other non'academic matters isnot only resented *ut actively re2ected. 0t ,seems mostunfair to hold teachers lia*le on a presumption+uristantumof negligence for acts of students even undercircumstances where strictly speaking there could *e no in

loco parentisrelationship. Bhy do teachers have to provethe contrary of negligence to *e freed from solidary lia*ilityfor the acts f *om*'throwing or pistol packing studentswho would 2ust as soon hurt them as they would othermem*ers of the so'called'esta*lishment.


42/52

The ordinary rules on 4uasi'delicta should apply toteachers and schools of whatever nature insofar as grownup students are concerned. The provision of Art. !1- of

the $ivil $ode involved in this case has outlived itspurpose. The $ourt cannot make law. 0t can only apply thelaw with its imperfections. Fowever, the $ourt can suggestthat such a law should *e amended or repealed.

Sp#r#( Opi$io$+

MELENIO-&ERRERA, J., concurring and dissenting7

0 concur, except with respect to the restricted meaninggiven the term >teacher> in Article !1- of the $ivil $odeas >teacher'in'charge.> This would limit lia*ility tooccasions where there are classes under the immediate

charge of a teacher, which does not seem to *e theintendment of the law.

As 0 understand it, the philosophy of the law is thatwhoever stands in loco parentiswill have the same dutiesand o*ligations as parents whenever in such a standing.Those persons are mandatorily held lia*le for the tortious

acts of pupils and students so long as the latter remain intheir custody, meaning their protective and supervisorycustody.


43/52

Thus Article #9 of the $ivil $ode enumerates the personswho stand in locoparentis and there*y exercise su*stituteparental authority7

Art. #9 The following persons shall exercisesu*stitute parental authority7

xxx xxx xxx

!= Teachers and professors

xxx xxx xxx

= +irectors of trade esta*lishments, with regardto apprentices5

Article #3! of the $ivil $ode further provides7

Art. #6!. The relations *etween teacher andpupil, professor and student, are fixed *y

government regulations and those of each schoolor institution....

:ut even such rules and regulations as may *e fixed cannot contravene the concept of su*stitute parental authority.

The rationale of lia*ility of school heads and teachers forthe tortious acts of their pupils was explained in Palisoc

vs. Brillantes


44/52

proper supervision of the students activitiesduring the whole time that they are at attendancein the school, including recess time, as well as to

take the necessary precautions to protect thestudents in their custody from dangers andha;ards that would reasona*ly *e anticipated,including in2uries that some students themselvesmay inflict wilfully or through negligence on theirfellow students.


45/52

xxx xxx xxx

)arenthetically, from the enumeration in Article #9 of the$ivil $ode, supra, it is apparent that the $ode $ommission

had already segregated the classification of >teachers andprofessors> vis'a'vis their pupils, from >directors of tradeesta*lishments, with regard to their apprentices.>

GUTIERRE, JR., J., concurring7

0 concur in the $ourts opinion so carefully analy;ed andcrafted *y &ustice 0sagani A. $ru;. Fowever, 0 would like to

stress the need for a ma2or amendment to, if not acomplete scrapping of, Article !1- of the $ivil $odeinsofar as it refers to teachers or heads of esta*lishmentsof arts and trades in relation to pupils and students orapprentices. The seventh paragraph of Art. !1- is a relicof the past and contemplates a situation long gone and outof date. 0n a Palisoc v. Brillantes technological>colleges and universities are no different from students inli*eral arts or professional schools. Apprentices now workin regular shops and factories and their relationship to theemployer is covered *y laws governing the employment

relationship and not *y laws governing the teacher@student relationship.

%econd, except for kindergarten, elementary, and perhapsearly high school students, teachers are often no longer


46/52

o*2ects of veneration who are given the respect due tosu*stitute parents. any students in their late teens orearly adult years view some teachers as part of a

*ourgeois or reactionary group whose advice on*ehaviour, deportment, and other non'academic matters isnot only resented *ut actively re2ected. 0t ,seems mostunfair to hold teachers lia*le on a presumption+uristantumof negligence for acts of students even undercircumstances where strictly speaking there could *e no inloco parentisrelationship. Bhy do teachers have to provethe contrary of negligence to *e freed from solidary lia*ility

for the acts f *om*'throwing or pistol packing studentswho would 2ust as soon hurt them as they would othermem*ers of the so'called'esta*lishment.

The ordinary rules on 4uasi'delicta should apply toteachers and schools of whatever nature insofar as grownup students are concerned. The provision of Art. !1- of

the $ivil $ode involved in this case has outlived itspurpose. The $ourt cannot make law. 0t can only apply thelaw with its imperfections. Fowever, the $ourt can suggestthat such a law should *e amended or repealed.


Manila

T+IRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 15+90* No?%@% 2, 200*

&OA7UINITA P. CAPILI, Petitione&,vs.SPS. DOMINADOR CARDABA 6 ROSALITA CARDABA,Responents.


47/52

D ! " I S I O N

7UISUM'ING,J.:

7efo&e us is a petition fo& &evie0 assailin the Decision)ate Octobe& )3, #((# of the "ou&t of

Appeals in "A-*.R. "V. No. @88)#, ecla&in petitione& liable fo& nelience that &esulte in theeath of %as4in "a&aa, a school chil ae )#, en&olle in *&ae , of San Roue !le4enta&'School, 0he&e petitione& is the p&incipal. /i6e0ise assaile is the Resolution#ate Ma&ch #(,#((9 en'in &econsie&ation.

The facts a&e as follo0s:

On Feb&ua&' ), )$$9, %as4in "a&aa 0as 0al6in alon the pe&i4ete& fence of the San Roue!le4enta&' School 0hen a b&anch of a caimitot&ee locate 0ithin the school p&e4ises fell onhe&, causin he& instantaneous eath. Thus, he& pa&ents - Do4inao& an Rosalita "a&aa - filea case fo& a4aes befo&e the Reional T&ial "ou&t of Palo, /e'te aainst petitione&.

The "a&aas allee in thei& co4plaint that even as ea&l' as Dece4be& )@, )$$#, a &esient ofthe barangay, !uf&onio /e&ios, &epo&te on the possible ane& the t&ee pose to passe&sb'./e&ios even pointe to the petitione& the t&ee that stoo nea& the p&incipals office. The "a&aasave&&e that petitione&s &oss nelience an lac6 of fo&esiht cause the eath of thei& auhte&.

Petitione& enie the accusation an sai that at that ti4e /e&ios ha onl' offe&e to bu' the t&ee.She also enie 6no0in that the t&ee 0as ea an &ottin. To p&ove he& point, she p&esente0itnesses 0ho atteste that she ha b&ouht up the offe& of /e&ios to the othe& teache&s u&in a4eetin on Dece4be& )@, )$$# an assine Re4eios Palaa to neotiate the sale.

In a Decision9

ate Feb&ua&' @, )$$, the t&ial cou&t is4isse the co4plaint fo& failu&e of the&esponents to establish nelience on the pa&t of the petitione&.

On appeal, the "ou&t of Appeals &eve&se the t&ial cou&ts ecision. The appellate cou&t foun theappellee 1he&ein petitione&2 liable fo& %as4ins eath, as follo0s:

Fo&eoin p&e4ises consie&e, the instant appeal is GRANTED. Appellee %oauinita "apili ishe&eb' ecla&e liable fo& nelience &esultin to the eath of %as4in D. "a&aa. She is he&eb'o&e&e to ine4nif' appellants, pa&ents of %as4in, the follo0in a4ounts:

). Fo& the life of %as4in D. "a&aa P@(,(((.((

#. Fo& bu&ial e5penses )@,()(.((

9. Fo& 4o&al a4aes @(,(((.((

8. Fo& atto&ne's fees an litiation )(,(((.((.e5penses
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_157906_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_157906_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_157906_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_157906_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_157906_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_157906_2006.html#fnt4


48/52

SO ORDERED.8

Petitione&s 4otion fo& &econsie&ation 0as enie. Petitione& no0 co4es befo&e us sub4ittinthe follo0in issues fo& ou& &esolution:

I

+!T+!R OR NOT T+! "O?RT OF APP!A/S VIS--VIS T+! S!T OF FA"TSSTAT!D IN T+! "+A//!N*!D D!"ISION, !RR!D IN FINDIN* T+!P!TITION!R N!*/I*!NT AND T+!R!FOR! /IA7/! FOR DAMA*!S ?ND!RARTI"/! ##( OF T+! "IVI/ "OD! AND IN ORD!RIN* T+! P!TITION!R TOPAJ DAMA*!S TO T+! R!SPOND!NTS AND

II

+!T+!R OR NOT T+! "O?RT OF APP!A/S !RR!D IN D!NJIN*

P!TITION!RS MOTION FOR R!"ONSID!RATION.@

On the othe& han, &esponents posit the follo0in issue:

hethe& o& not the Decision of the +ono&able "ou&t of Appeals, T0elfth Division, in "A *.R."V. No. @88)# p&o4ulate on Octobe& )3, #((# Q shoul be affi&4e an &especte, thus&e4ain unistu&be.

P&i4a&il', the issue is 0hethe& petitione& is nelient an liable fo& the eath of %as4in "a&aa.

Petitione& asse&ts that she 0as not nelient about the isposal of the t&ee since she ha assine

he& ne5t-in-&an6, Palaa, to see to its isposal that espite he& ph'sical inspection of the school&ouns, she i not obse&ve an' inication that the t&ee 0as al&ea' &otten no& i an' of he& )@teache&s info&4 he& that the t&ee 0as al&ea' &ottenan that 4o&al a4aes shoul not be&ante aainst he& since the&e 0as no f&au no& ba faith on he& pa&t.

On the othe& han, &esponents insist that petitione& 6ne0 that the t&ee 0as ea an &ottin, 'et,she i not e5e&cise &easonable ca&e an caution 0hich an o&ina&' p&uent pe&son 0oul haveone in the sa4e situation.

To bein, 0e have to point out that 0hethe& petitione& 0as nelient o& not is a uestion of fact0hich is ene&all' not p&ope& in a petition fo& &evie0, an 0hen this ete&4ination is suppo&te

b' substantial evience, it beco4es conclusive an binin on this "ou&t.

3

+o0eve&, the&e is ane5ception, that is, 0hen the finins of the "ou&t of Appeals a&e incon&uent 0ith the finins ofthe lo0e& cou&t.$In ou& vie0, the e5ception fins application in the p&esent case.

The t&ial cou&t ave c&eence to the clai4 of petitione& that she ha no 6no0lee that the t&ee0as al&ea' ea an &ottin an that /e&ios 4e&el' info&4e he& that he 0as oin to bu' thet&ee fo& fi&e0oo. It &ule that petitione& e5e&cise the e&ee of ca&e an viilance 0hich theci&cu4stances &eui&e an that the&e 0as an absence of evience that 0oul &eui&e he& to use a
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_157906_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_157906_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_157906_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_157906_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_157906_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_157906_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_157906_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_157906_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_157906_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_157906_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_157906_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_157906_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_157906_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_157906_2006.html#fnt10


49/52

hihe& stana& of ca&e 4o&e than that &eui&e b' the attenant ci&cu4stances. )(The "ou&t ofAppeals, on the othe& han, &ule that petitione& shoul have 6no0n of the conition of the t&eeb' its 4e&e sihtin an that no 4atte& ho0 hectic he& scheule 0as, she shoul have ha the t&ee&e4ove an not 4e&el' eleate the tas6 to Palaa. The appellate cou&t &ule that the eacaimitot&ee 0as a nuisance that shoul have been &e4ove soon afte& petitione& ha chance

upon it.))

A nelient act is an inave&tent act it 4a' be 4e&el' ca&elessl' one f&o4 a lac6 of o&ina&'p&uence an 4a' be one 0hich c&eates a situation involvin an un&easonable &is6 to anothe&because of the e5pectable action of the othe&, a thi& pe&son, an ani4al, o& a fo&ce of natu&e. Anelient act is one f&o4 0hich an o&ina&' p&uent pe&son in the acto&s position, in the sa4e o&si4ila& ci&cu4stances, 0oul fo&esee such an app&eciable &is6 of ha&4 to othe&s as to cause hi4not to o the act o& to o it in a 4o&e ca&eful 4anne&.)#

The p&obabilit' that the b&anches of a ea an &ottin t&ee coul fall an ha&4 so4eone isclea&l' a ane& that is fo&eseeable. As the school p&incipal, petitione& 0as tas6e to see to the

4aintenance of the school &ouns an safet' of the chil&en 0ithin the school an its p&e4ises.That she 0as una0a&e of the &otten state of a t&ee 0hose fallin b&anch ha cause the eath of achil spea6s ill of he& ischa&e of the &esponsibilit' of he& position.

In eve&' to&t case file une& A&ticle #) of the "ivil "oe, plaintiff has to p&ove b' ap&epone&ance of evience: 1)2 the a4aes suffe&e b' the plaintiff 1#2 the fault o& nelienceof the efenant o& so4e othe& pe&son fo& 0hose act he 4ust &espon an 192 the connection ofcause an effect bet0een the fault o& nelience an the a4aes incu&&e.)9

The fact, ho0eve&, that &esponents auhte&, %as4in, ie as a &esult of the ea an &ottin t&ee0ithin the schools p&e4ises sho0s that the t&ee 0as inee an obvious ane& to an'one passin

b' an calls fo& application of the p&inciple of res ipsa lo/uitur.The oct&ine of res ipsa lo/uiturapplies 0he&e 1)2 the accient 0as of such cha&acte& as to0a&&ant an infe&ence that it 0oul not have happene e5cept fo& the efenants nelience 1#2the accient 4ust have been cause b' an aenc' o& inst&u4entalit' 0ithin the e5clusive4anae4ent o& cont&ol of the pe&son cha&e 0ith the nelience co4plaine of an 192 theaccient 4ust not have been ue to an' volunta&' action o& cont&ibution on the pa&t of the pe&sonin


50/52

The concept of res ipsa lo/uiturhas been e5plaine in this 0ise:

hile nelience is not o&ina&il' infe&&e o& p&esu4e, an 0hile the 4e&e happenin of anaccient o& in


51/52

ti4e petitione& ave inst&uction to he& assistant Palaa on Dece4be& )@, )$$#, to the ti4e theincient occu&&e on Feb&ua&' ), )$$9. "lea&l', she faile to chec6 seasonabl' if the ane&pose b' the &ottin t&ee ha been &e4ove. Thus, 0e cannot accept he& efense of lac6 ofnelience.

/astl', petitione& uestions the a0a& of 4o&al a4aes. Mo&al a4aes a&e a0a&e if thefollo0in ele4ents e5ist in the case: 1)2 an in


52/52

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision ha been &eache in consultation befo&e thecase 0as assine to the 0&ite& of the opinion of the "ou&ts Division.

LEONARDO A. 7UISUM'INGAssociate %ustice

"hai&pe&son


Pu&suant to Section )9, A&ticle VIII of the "onstitution, an the Division "hai&pe&sonsAttestation, I ce&tif' that the conclusions in the above Decision ha been &eache in consultationbefo&e the case 0as assine to the 0&ite& of the opinion of the "ou&ts Division.

ARTEMIO (. PANGANI'AN"hief %ustice

statcon cases for final

Documents