Ong vs. Metropolitan Water District MR. & MRS. ONG vs. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT (govt-owned corp.

) No. L-7664. 29 August 1958. Appeal from a judgment of the CFI, Rizal QC BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: Facts: Plaintiff spouses seek to recover from defendant, damages, funeral expenses and attorneys fees for the death of their son, Dominador Ong, in one of the swimming pools of the latter. After trial, the CFI dismissed the complaint for it found the action of the plaintiffs-appellants untenable. Issues: (1) WON plaintiffs have clearly established the fault/negligence of the defendants so as to make it liable for the damages sought; (2) WON the Doctrine of Last Clear Chance applies in the case at bench. (2) Ruling: (3) Judgment affirmed. (1) The person/s claiming damages has/have the burden of proving that the damages is caused by the fault/negligence of the person from whom the damages is claimed. Plaintiffs failed to overcome the burden. Defendant employed 6 well-trained lifeguards, male nurse, sanitary inspector and security guards to avoid danger to the lives of their patrons. The swimming pools are provided with ring buoy, tag roof and towing line. Also, conspicuously displayed in the pool area the rules and regulations for pool use. In that, it appears that defendant has taken all the necessary precautions to avoid/prevent danger/accidents which may cause injury to or even death of its patrons. (2) The Doctrine of last Clear Chance means that, a person who has the last clear chance to avoid the accident, notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent, is considered in law solely responsible for the consequences of the accident. Since minor Ong has went to the big swimming pool w/o any companion in violation of the rules and regulations of the defendant as regards the use of pools, and it appearing that the lifeguard responded to the call for help as soon as his attention was called to it, applying all efforts into play in order to bring minor Ong back to life, it is clear that there is no room for the application of the Doctrine to impute liability to appellee. Minor Ongs fault/negligence is the proximate and only cause of his death.

May 4, 2008Civil Aeronautics Administration v. CA G.R. No. L-51806, November 8, 1988 FACTS: Ernest E. Simke, a naturalized Filipino citizen, was Honorary Consul General of Israel in the Philippines. He went to Manila International Airport to meet his future son-in-law. As the plane was landing, he and his companions went to the viewing deck to watch the arrival of the plane. While walking, Simke slipped on an elevation 4 inches high and fell on his back, breaking his thigh bone in the process. He underwent a 3-hour operation and after recovery he filed a claim for damages against the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA), which was the government

entity in charge of the airport. ISSUE: Whether or not CAA was negligent HELD: CAA contended that the elevation in question "had a legitimate purpose for being on the terrace and was never intended to trip down people and injure them. It was there for no other purpose but to drain water on the floor area of the terrace." But upon ocular inspection by the trial court, it was found that the terrace was in poor condition. Under RA 776, the CAA is charged with the duty of planning, designing, constructing, equipping, expanding, maintenance...etc. of the Manila International Airport. Responsibility of CAA The SC held that pursuant to Art. 1173, "the fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the person, of the time, and of the place." Here, the obligation of the CAA in maintaining the viewing deck, a facility open to the public, requires that CAA insure the safety of the viewers using it. As these people come to look to where the planes and the incoming passengers are and not to look down on the floor or pavement of the viewing deck, the CAA should have thus made sure that no dangerous obstructions or elevations exist on the floor of the deck to prevent any undue harm to the public. Contributory Negligence Under Art. 2179, contributory negligence contemplates a negligent act or omission on the part of the plaintiff, which although not the proximate cause of his injury, CONTRIBUTED to his own damage. The Court found no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, considering the following test formulated in the early case of Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil. 809 (1918): The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent man would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The law here in effect adopts the standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet paterfamilias of the Roman law. The existence of the negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The law considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that. The question as to what would constitute the conduct of a prudent man in a given situation must of course be always determined in the light of human experience and in view of the facts involved in the particular case. Abstract speculations cannot be here of much value but this much can be profitably said: Reasonable men-overn their conduct by the circumstances which are before them or known to them. They are not, and are not supposed to be omniscient of the future. Hence they can be expected to take care only when there is something before them to suggest or warn of danger. Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration, foresee harm as a result of the course actually pursued' If so, it was the duty of the actor to take precautions to guard against that harm. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the suggestion born of this prevision, is always necessary before negligence can be held to exist.... [Picart v. Smith, supra, p. 813] The private respondent, who was the plaintiff in the case before the lower court, could not have reasonably foreseen the harm that would befall him, considering the attendant factual circumstances. Even if the private respondent had been looking where he was going, the step in

question could not easily be noticed because of its construction. "WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error, the Petition for review on certiorari is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 51172-R is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED."

Torts And Damages Case Digest: Taylor V. Manila Electric Railroad And Light Co.(1910) G.R. No. L-4977 March 22, 1910
FACTS: September 30, 1905 Sunday afternoon: David Taylor, 15 years of age, the son of a mechanical

engineer, more mature than the average boy of his age, and having considerable aptitude and training in mechanics with a boy named Manuel Claparols, about 12 years of age, crossed the footbridge to the Isla del Provisor, for the purpose of visiting Murphy, an employee of the defendant, who and promised to make them a cylinder for a miniature engine After leaving the power house where they had asked for Mr. Murphy, they walked across the open space in the neighborhood of the place where the company dumped in the cinders and ashes from its furnaces they found some twenty or thirty brass fulminating caps scattered on the ground These caps are approximately of the size and appearance of small pistol cartridges and each has attached to it 2 long thin wires by means of which it may be discharged by the use of electricity They are intended for use in the explosion of blasting charges of dynamite, and have in themselves a considerable explosive power
the boys picked up all they could find, hung them on stick, of which each took end, and carried them home After crossing the footbridge, they met Jessie Adrian, less than 9 years old, and they went to Manuel's home The boys then made a series of experiments with the caps trust the ends of the wires into an electric light socket - no result

break the cap with a stone - failed opened one of the caps with a knife, and finding that it was filled with a yellowish substance they got matches David held the cap while Manuel applied a lighted match to the contents An explosion followed, causing more or less serious injuries to all three
Jessie, who when the boys proposed putting a match to the contents of the cap, became frightened and started to run away, received a slight cut in the neck Manuel had his hand burned and wounded David was struck in the face by several particles of the metal capsule, one of which injured his right eye to such an extent as to the necessitate its removal by the surgeons Trial Court: held Manila Electric Railroad And Light Company liable ISSUE: 1. W/N the elemnents of quasi-delict to make Manila Electric Railroad And Light Company liable -

NO 2. W/N Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co. sufficiently proved that they employed all the
diligence of a good father of a family to avoid the damage - NO HELD: reversing the judgment of the court below ART. 1089 Obligations are created by law, by contracts, by quasi-contracts, and illicit acts and omissions or by those in which any kind of fault or negligence occurs.

ART. 1902 A person who by an act or omission causes damage to another when there is fault or negligence shall be obliged to repair the damage so done. ART. 1903 The obligation imposed by the preceding article is demandable, not only for personal acts and omissions, but also for those of the persons for whom they should be responsible. The father, and on his death or incapacity the mother, is liable for the damages caused by the minors who live with them.

xxx xxx xxx Owners or directors of an establishment or enterprise are equally liable for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter may be employed or on account of their duties. xxx xxx xxx The liability referred to in this article shall cease when the persons mentioned therein prove that they employed all the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid the damage. ART. 1908 The owners shall also be liable for the damage caused 1 By the explosion of machines which may not have been cared for with due diligence, and for kindling of explosive substances which may not have been placed in a safe and proper place. in order to establish his right to a recovery, must establish by competent evidence: Damages to the plaintiff Negligence by act or omission of which defendant personally, or some person for whose acts it must respond, was guilty. The connection of cause and effect between the negligence and the damage.
while we hold that the entry upon the property without express invitation or permission would not have relieved Manila Electric from responsibility for injuries incurred, without other fault on his part, if such injury were attributable to his negligence, the negligence in leaving the caps exposed on its premises was not the proximate cause of the injury received cutting open the detonating cap and putting match to its contents was the proximate cause of the explosion and of the resultant injuries inflicted Manila Electric is not civilly responsible for the injuries thus incurred 2 years before the accident, David spent 4 months at sea, as a cabin boy on one of the interisland transports. Later he took up work in his father's office, learning mechanical drawing and mechanical engineering. About a month after his accident he obtained employment as a mechanical draftsman and continued in that employment for 6 months at a salary of P2.50 a day; and it appears that he was a boy of more than average intelligence, taller and more mature both mentally and physically than most boys of 15 The series of experiments made by him in his attempt to produce an explosion, as described by Jessie who even ran away True, he may not have known and probably did not know the precise nature of the explosion which might be expected from the ignition of the contents of the cap, and of course he did not anticipate the resultant injuries which he incurred; but he well knew that a more or less dangerous explosion might be expected from his act, and yet he willfully, recklessly, and knowingly produced the explosion. It would be going far to say that "according to his maturity and capacity" he exercised such and "care and caution" as might reasonably be required of him, or that defendant or anyone else should be held civilly responsible for injuries incurred by him under such circumstances. The law fixes no arbitrary age at which a minor can be said to have the necessary capacity to understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of his own acts, so as to make it negligence on his part to fail to exercise due care and precaution in the commission of such acts; and indeed it would be impracticable and perhaps impossible so to do, for in the very nature of things the question of

negligence necessarily depends on the ability of the minor to understand the character of his own acts and their consequences he was sui juris in the sense that his age and his experience qualified him to understand and appreciate the necessity for the exercise of that degree of caution which would have avoided the injury which resulted from his own deliberate act; and that the injury incurred by him must be held to have been the direct and immediate result of his own willful and reckless act, so that while it may be true that these injuries would not have been incurred but for the negligence act of the defendant in leaving the caps exposed on its premises, nevertheless plaintiff's own act was the proximate and principal cause of the accident which inflicted the injury rule of the Roman law was: Quod quis ex culpa sua damnum sentit, non intelligitur sentire just thing is that a man should suffer the damage which comes to him through his own fault, and that he can not demand reparation therefor from another Negligence is not presumed, but must be proven by him who alleges it.

Ylarde vs. Aquino 163 SCRA 697 Facts: Private respondent Mariano Soriano was the principal of the Gabaldon Primary School, a public educational institution located in Pangasinan, private respondent Edgardo Aquino was a teacher therein. As part of work education, private respondent Aquino ordered the pupils to help Banez in the burying of the stones caused by the fittered remnants of World War II. When the depth was right enough to accommodate the concrete block, private respondent Aquino and his four pupils got out of the hole. Private respondent left the children to level the loose soil around the open hole while he went to see Banez to borrow some rope. Before leaving, private respondent Aquino allegedly told the children "not to touch the stone." After private respondent Aquino left, Alonso, Alcantara and Ylarde, playfully jumped into the pit. The remaining Abaga jumped on top of the concrete block causing it to slide down towards the opening. Alonso and Alcantara were able to scramble out of the excavation on time but unfortunately for Ylarde, the concrete block caught him, pinning him to the wall in a standing position. Ylarde sustained injuries, three days later, he died. Ylarde's parents, petitioners in this case, filed a suit for damages against both private respondents Aquino and Soriano. Issue: Whether or not both private respondents can be held liable for the death of Ylarde. Ruling: SC close by categorically stating that a truly careful and cautious person would have acted in all contrast to the way private respondent Aquino did. Moreover, a teacher who stands in loco parentis to his pupils would have made sure that the children are protected from all harm in his company. Were it not for his gross negligence, the unfortunate incident would not have occurred and the child Ylarde would probably be alive today, a grown- man of thirty-five. Due to his failure to take the necessary precautions to avoid the hazard, Ylarde's parents suffered great anguish all these years.

Calalas vs. Court of Appeals, 332 SCRA 356 , G.R. No. 122039, May 31, 2000 G.R. No. 122039 May 31, 2000 VICENTE CALALAS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ELIZA JUJEURCHE SUNGA and FRANCISCO SALVA, respondents.

MENDOZA, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision1 of the Court of Appeals, dated March 31, 1991, reversing the contrary decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Dumaguete City, and awarding damages instead to private respondent Eliza Jujeurche Sunga as plaintiff in an action for breach of contract of carriage. The facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, are as follows: At 10 o'clock in the morning of August 23, 1989, private respondent Eliza Jujeurche G. Sunga, then a college freshman majoring in Physical Education at the Siliman University, took a passenger jeepney owned and operated by petitioner Vicente Calalas. As the jeepney was filled to capacity of about 24 passengers, Sunga was given by the conductor an "extension seat," a wooden stool at the back of the door at the rear end of the vehicle. On the way to Poblacion Sibulan, Negros Occidental, the jeepney stopped to let a passenger off. As she was seated at the rear of the vehicle, Sunga gave way to the outgoing passenger. Just as she was doing so, an Isuzu truck driven by Iglecerio Verena and owned by Francisco Salva bumped the left rear portion of the jeepney. As a result, Sunga was injured. She sustained a fracture of the "distal third of the left tibia-fibula with severe necrosis of the underlying skin." Closed reduction of the fracture, long leg circular casting, and case wedging were done under sedation. Her confinement in the hospital lasted from August 23 to September 7, 1989. Her attending physician, Dr. Danilo V. Oligario, an orthopedic surgeon, certified she would remain on a cast for a period of three months and would have to ambulate in crutches during said period. On October 9, 1989, Sunga filed a complaint for damages against Calalas, alleging violation of the contract of carriage by the former in failing to exercise the diligence required of him as a common carrier. Calalas, on the other hand, filed a third-party complaint against Francisco Salva, the owner of the Isuzu truck. The lower court rendered judgment against Salva as third-party defendant and absolved Calalas of liability, holding that it was the driver of the Isuzu truck who was responsible for the accident. It took cognizance of another case (Civil Case No. 3490), filed by Calalas against Salva and Verena, for quasidelict, in which Branch 37 of the same court held Salva and his driver Verena jointly liable to Calalas for the damage to his jeepney. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the ruling of the lower court was reversed on the ground that Sunga's cause of action was based on a contract of carriage, not quasi-delict, and that the common carrier failed to exercise the diligence required under the Civil Code. The appellate court dismissed the third-party complaint against Salva and adjudged Calalas liable for damages to Sunga. The dispositive portion of its decision reads: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and another one is entered ordering defendant-appellee Vicente Calalas to pay plaintiff-appellant: (1) P50,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages; (2) P50,000.00 as moral damages; (3) P10,000.00 as attorney's fees; and (4) P1,000.00 as expenses of litigation; and (5) to pay the costs. SO ORDERED. Hence, this petition. Petitioner contends that the ruling in Civil Case No. 3490 that the negligence of Verena was the proximate cause of the accident negates his liability and that to rule otherwise would be to make the common carrier an insurer of the safety of its passengers. He contends that the bumping of the jeepney by the truck owned by Salva was a caso fortuito. Petitioner further assails the award of moral damages to Sunga on the ground that it is not supported by evidence.

The petition has no merit. The argument that Sunga is bound by the ruling in Civil Case No. 3490 finding the driver and the owner of the truck liable for quasi-delict ignores the fact that she was never a party to that case and, therefore, the principle ofres judicata does not apply. Nor are the issues in Civil Case No. 3490 and in the present case the same. The issue in Civil Case No. 3490 was whether Salva and his driver Verena were liable for quasi-delict for the damage caused to petitioner's jeepney. On the other hand, the issue in this case is whether petitioner is liable on his contract of carriage. The first, quasi-delict, also known as culpa aquiliana or culpa extra contractual, has as its source the negligence of the tortfeasor. The second, breach of contract or culpa contractual, is premised upon the negligence in the performance of a contractual obligation. Consequently, in quasi-delict, the negligence or fault should be clearly established because it is the basis of the action, whereas in breach of contract, the action can be prosecuted merely by proving the existence of the contract and the fact that the obligor, in this case the common carrier, failed to transport his passenger safely to his destination.2 In case of death or injuries to passengers, Art. 1756 of the Civil Code provides that common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as defined in Arts. 1733 and 1755 of the Code. This provision necessarily shifts to the common carrier the burden of proof. There is, thus, no basis for the contention that the ruling in Civil Case No. 3490, finding Salva and his driver Verena liable for the damage to petitioner's jeepney, should be binding on Sunga. It is immaterial that the proximate cause of the collision between the jeepney and the truck was the negligence of the truck driver. The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasi-delict, not in actions involving breach of contract. The doctrine is a device for imputing liability to a person where there is no relation between him and another party. In such a case, the obligation is created by law itself. But, where there is a pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, it is the parties themselves who create the obligation, and the function of the law is merely to regulate the relation thus created. Insofar as contracts of carriage are concerned, some aspects regulated by the Civil Code are those respecting the diligence required of common carriers with regard to the safety of passengers as well as the presumption of negligence in cases of death or injury to passengers. It provides: Art. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case. Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in articles 1734, 1735, and 1746, Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in articles 1755 and 1756. Art. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances. Art. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed by articles 1733 and 1755. In the case at bar, upon the happening of the accident, the presumption of negligence at once arose, and it became the duty of petitioner to prove that he had to observe extraordinary diligence in the care of his passengers. Now, did the driver of jeepney carry Sunga "safely as far as human care and foresight could provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances" as required by Art. 1755? We do not think so. Several factors militate against petitioner's contention. First, as found by the Court of Appeals, the jeepney was not properly parked, its rear portion being exposed about two meters from the broad shoulders of the highway, and facing the middle of the

highway in a diagonal angle. This is a violation of the R.A. No. 4136, as amended, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, which provides: Sec. 54. Obstruction of Traffic. No person shall drive his motor vehicle in such a manner as to obstruct or impede the passage of any vehicle, nor, while discharging or taking on passengers or loading or unloading freight, obstruct the free passage of other vehicles on the highway. Second, it is undisputed that petitioner's driver took in more passengers than the allowed seating capacity of the jeepney, a violation of 32(a) of the same law. It provides: Exceeding registered capacity. No person operating any motor vehicle shall allow more passengers or more freight or cargo in his vehicle than its registered capacity. The fact that Sunga was seated in an "extension seat" placed her in a peril greater than that to which the other passengers were exposed. Therefore, not only was petitioner unable to overcome the presumption of negligence imposed on him for the injury sustained by Sunga, but also, the evidence shows he was actually negligent in transporting passengers. We find it hard to give serious thought to petitioner's contention that Sunga's taking an "extension seat" amounted to an implied assumption of risk. It is akin to arguing that the injuries to the many victims of the tragedies in our seas should not be compensated merely because those passengers assumed a greater risk of drowning by boarding an overloaded ferry. This is also true of petitioner's contention that the jeepney being bumped while it was improperly parked constitutes caso fortuito. A caso fortuito is an event which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, was inevitable.3 This requires that the following requirements be present: (a) the cause of the breach is independent of the debtor's will; (b) the event is unforeseeable or unavoidable; (c) the event is such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner, and (d) the debtor did not take part in causing the injury to the creditor.4 Petitioner should have foreseen the danger of parking his jeepney with its body protruding two meters into the highway. Finally, petitioner challenges the award of moral damages alleging that it is excessive and without basis in law. We find this contention well taken. In awarding moral damages, the Court of Appeals stated: Plaintiff-appellant at the time of the accident was a first-year college student in that school year 19891990 at the Silliman University, majoring in Physical Education. Because of the injury, she was not able to enroll in the second semester of that school year. She testified that she had no more intention of continuing with her schooling, because she could not walk and decided not to pursue her degree, major in Physical Education "because of my leg which has a defect already." Plaintiff-appellant likewise testified that even while she was under confinement, she cried in pain because of her injured left foot. As a result of her injury, the Orthopedic Surgeon also certified that she has "residual bowing of the fracture side." She likewise decided not to further pursue Physical Education as her major subject, because "my left leg . . . has a defect already." Those are her physical pains and moral sufferings, the inevitable bedfellows of the injuries that she suffered. Under Article 2219 of the Civil Code, she is entitled to recover moral damages in the sum of P50,000.00, which is fair, just and reasonable. As a general rule, moral damages are not recoverable in actions for damages predicated on a breach of contract for it is not one of the items enumerated under Art. 2219 of the Civil Code.5 As an exception, such damages are recoverable: (1) in cases in which the mishap results in the death of a passenger, as provided in Art. 1764, in relation to Art. 2206(3) of the Civil Code; and (2) in the cases in which the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith, as provided in Art. 2220.6 In this case, there is no legal basis for awarding moral damages since there was no factual finding by the appellate court that petitioner acted in bad faith in the performance of the contract of carriage. Sunga's contention that petitioner's admission in open court that the driver of the jeepney failed to assist her in

going to a nearby hospital cannot be construed as an admission of bad faith. The fact that it was the driver of the Isuzu truck who took her to the hospital does not imply that petitioner was utterly indifferent to the plight of his injured passenger. If at all, it is merely implied recognition by Verena that he was the one at fault for the accident. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated March 31, 1995, and its resolution, dated September 11, 1995, are AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the award of moral damages is DELETED. SO ORDERED. Bellosillo and Buena, JJ., concur. Quisumbing and De Leon, Jr., JJ., are on leave. Footnotes 1 Per Justice Artemon D. Luna and concurred in by Justices Hector L. Hofilena and B.A. Adefuin-dela Cruz. 2 See B. BALDERRAMA, THE PHILIPPINE LAW ON TROTS AND DAMAGES 20 (1953). 3 CIVIL CODE, ART. 1174. 4 Juan F. Nakpil & Sons v. Court of Appeals, 144 SCRA 596 (1986); Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, 138 SCRA 553 (1985); Republic v. Luzon Stevedoring Corp., 128 Phil. 313 (1967). 5 Fores v. Miranda, 67 105 Phil. 267 (1959); Mercado v. Lira, 3 SCRA 124 (1961). 6 Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Esguerra, 117 SCRA 741 (1982); Sabena Belgian World Airlines v. Court of Appeals, 171 SCRA 620 (1989); China Airlines, Ltd. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 169 SCRA 226 (1989).

BATACLAN vs MEDINA FACTS: One midnight, a bus of the Medina Transportation, operated by owner MarianoMedina left on its way to Pasay driven by Conrado Saylon. There were 18 passengers including the driver and conductor. Among the passengers was Juan Bataclan At about 2am, while the bus was running within Cavite, one of the front tires burst and the vehicle began to zig-zag until it fell into a canal or ditch on the rightside of the road and turned turtle. Some of the passengers managed to leave the bus the best way they could, othershad to be helped or pulled out, while the three passengers seated beside the driver,including Bataclan, could not get out of the overturned bus. After half an hour, came about ten men, one of them carrying a lighted torchmade of bamboo with a wick on one end, evidently fueled with petroleum. Thesemen presumably approach the overturned bus, and almost immediately, a fiercefire started, burning and all but consuming the bus, including the four passengerstrapped inside it. It would appear that as the bus overturned, gasoline began to leak and escapefrom the gasoline tank on the side of the chassis, spreading over and permeatingthe body of the bus and the ground under and around it, and that the lighted torch brought by one of the men who answered the call for help set it on fire. Bataclans widow, and sued Mariano Medina for recovery of compensatory,moral, and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. After trial, the CFI awarded P1,000 to the plaintiffs plus P600 as attorney's fee, plus P100, the value of the merchandise being carried by Bataclan to Pasay City for sale and which was lost in

the fire. The plaintiffs and the defendants appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, but the latter endorsed the appeal to usbecause of the value involved in the claim in the complaint. ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the death of Juan and the other passengers? RULING: ART. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinarydiligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of eachcase.Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in articles 1734, 1735, and 1745, Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while theextra ordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in articles 1755 and 1756. ART. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmostdiligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.ART. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently,unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755ART. 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the former'semployees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the order of the common carriers.This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in theselection and supervision of their employees.ART. 1763. A common carrier responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the common carrier's employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. We agree with the trial court that the case involves a breach of contract of transportation for hire , the Medina Transportation having undertaken to carry Bataclansafely to his destination, Pasay City. We also agree with the trial court that there wasnegligence on the part of the defendant, through his agent, the driver Sayl on. Thereis evidence to show that at the time of the blow out, the bus was speeding, as testified to by one of the passengers, and as shown by the fact that according to the testimony of thewitnesses, including that of the defense, from the point where one of the front tires burstup to the canal where the bus overturned after zig-zaging, there was a distance of about150 meters. The chauffeur, after the blow-out, must have applied the brakes in order tostop the bus, but because of the velocity at which the bus must have been running, itsmomentum carried it over a distance of 150 meters before it fell into the canal and turnedturtle.There is no question that under the circumstances, the defendant carrier is liable. Theonly question is to what degree. The trial court was of the opinion that the proximatecause of the death of Bataclan was not the overturning of the bus, but rather, the fire that burned the bus, including himself and his copassengers who were unable to leave it; thatat the time the fire started, Bataclan, though he must have suffered physical injuries, perhaps serious, was still alive, and so damages were awarded, not for his death, but for the physical injuries suffered by him. We disagree . A satisfactory definition of proximatecause is found in Volume 38, pages 695-696 of American jurisprudence, cited by plaintiffs-appellants in their brief. It is as follows:. . . 'that cause, which,

in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by anyefficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the resultwould not have occurred.' And more comprehensively, 'the proximate legal causeis that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, eachhaving a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final eventin the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsiblefor the first event should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, havereasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury tosome person might probably result therefrom. It may be that ordinarily, when a passenger bus overturns, and pins down a passenger,merely causing him physical injuries, if through some event, unexpected andextraordinary, the overturned bus is set on fire, say, by lightning, or if some highwaymenafter looting the vehicle sets it on fire, and the passenger is burned to death, one mightstill contend that the proximate cause of his death was the fire and not the overturning of the vehicle. But in the present case under the circumstances obtaining in the same, we donot hesitate to hold that the proximate cause was the overturning of the bus, this for thereason that when the vehicle turned not only on its side but completely on its back, theleaking of the gasoline from the tank was not unnatural or unexpected; that the coming of the men with a lighted torch was in response to the call for help, made not only by the passengers, but most probably, by the driver and the conductor themselves, and that because it was dark (about 2:30 in the morning), the rescuers had to carry a light withthem, and coming as they did from a rural area where lanterns and flashlights were notavailable; and what was more natural than that said rescuers should innocently approachthe vehicle to extend the aid and effect the rescue requested from them. In other words,the coming of the men with a torch was to be expected and was a natural sequence of theoverturning of the bus, the trapping of some of its passengers and the call for outsidehelp. What is more, the burning of the bus can also in part be attributed to the negligenceof the carrier, through is driver and its conductor. According to the witness, the driver andthe conductor were on the road walking back and forth. They, or at least, the driver should and must have known that in the position in which the overturned bus was,gasoline could and must have leaked from the gasoline tank and soaked the area in andaround the bus, this aside from the fact that gasoline when spilled, specially over a largearea, can be smelt and directed even from a distance, and yet neither the driver nor theconductor would appear to have cautioned or taken steps to warn the rescuers not to bringthe lighted torch too near the bus. Said negligence on the part of the agents of the carrier come under the codal provisions above-reproduced, particularly, Articles 1733, 1759 and1763.As regard the damages to which plaintiffs are entitled, considering the earning capacity of the deceased, as well as the other elements entering into a damage award, we are satisfiedthat the amount of SIX THOUSAND (P6,000) PESOS would constitute satisfactorycompensation, this to include compensatory, moral, and other damages. We also believethat plaintiffs are entitled to attorney's fees, and assessing the legal services rendered by plaintiffs' attorneys not only in the trial court, but also in the course of the appeal, and notlosing sight of the able briefs prepared by them, the attorney's fees may well be fixed atEIGHT HUNDRED (P800) PESOS for the loss of merchandise carried by the deceasedin the bus, is adequate and will not be disturbed.There is one phase of this case which disturbs if it does not shock us. According to theevidence, one of the passengers who, because of the injuries suffered by her, washospitalized, and while in the hospital, she was visited by the defendant Mariano Medina,and in the course of his visit, she overheard him speaking to one of his bus inspectors,telling said inspector to have the tires of the

bus changed immediately because they werealready old, and that as a matter of fact, he had been telling the driver to change the saidtires, but that the driver did not follow his instructions. If this be true, it goes to prove that

Jarco Marketing Co. v. CA

Facts: Petitioner is the owner of Syvel's Department Store, Makati City. Petitioners Leonardo Kong, Jose Tiope and Elisa Panelo are the store's branch manager, operations manager, and supervisor, respectively. Private respondents Conrado and Criselda Aguilar are spouses and the parents of Zhieneth Aguilar. On May 9, 1983, Criselda and Zhieneth were at the department store. Criselda was signing her credit card slip when she heard a loud thud. She looked behind her and beheld her daughter pinned beneath the gift-wrapping counter structure. She was crying and shouting for help. He was brought to Makati Medical Center, where she died after 14 days. She was 6 years old. Private respondents demanded upon petitioners the reimbursement of the hospitalization, medical bills and wake and funeral expenses which they had incurred. Petitioners refused to pay. Consequently, private respondents filed a complaint for damages wherein they sought the payment of P157,522.86 for actual damages, P300,000 for moral damages, P20,000 for attorney's fees and an unspecified amount for loss of income and exemplary damages. The trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the proximate cause of the fall of the counter was Zhieneths act of clinging to it. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court. It found that petitioners were negligent in maintaining a structurally dangerous counter. The counter was defective, unstable and dangerous. It also ruled that the child was absolutely incapable of negligence or tort. Petitioners now seek for the reversal of this decision. Issues: (1) Whether the death of ZHIENETH was accidental or attributable to negligence (2) In case of a finding of negligence, whether the same was attributable to private respondents for maintaining a defective counter or to CRISELDA and ZHIENETH for failing to exercise due and reasonable care while inside the store premises Held: (1) An accident pertains to an unforeseen event in which no fault or negligence attaches to the defendant. It is "a fortuitous circumstance, event or happening; an event happening without any human agency, or if happening wholly or partly through human agency, an event which under the circumstances is unusual or unexpected by the person to whom it happens." On the other hand, negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence is "the failure to observe, for the protection of the interest of another person, that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury." The test in determining the existence of negligence is: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. We rule that the tragedy which befell ZHIENETH was no accident and that ZHIENETH's death could only be attributed to negligence. (2) It is axiomatic that matters relating to declarations of pain or suffering and statements made to a physician are generally considered declarations and admissions. All that is required for their admissibility as part of the res gestae is that they be made or uttered under the influence of a startling event before the declarant had the time to think and concoct a falsehood as witnessed by the person who testified in

court. Under the circumstances thus described, it is unthinkable for ZHIENETH, a child of such tender age and in extreme pain, to have lied to a doctor whom she trusted with her life. We therefore accord credence to Gonzales' testimony on the matter, i.e., ZHIENETH performed no act that facilitated her tragic death. Sadly, petitioners did, through their negligence or omission to secure or make stable the counter's base. Without doubt, petitioner Panelo and another store supervisor were personally informed of the danger posed by the unstable counter. Yet, neither initiated any concrete action to remedy the situation nor ensure the safety of the store's employees and patrons as a reasonable and ordinary prudent man would have done. Thus, as confronted by the situation petitioners miserably failed to discharge the due diligence required of a good father of a family. Anent the negligence imputed to ZHIENETH, we apply the conclusive presumption that favors children below nine (9) years old in that they are incapable of contributory negligence. Even if we attribute contributory negligence to ZHIENETH and assume that she climbed over the counter, no injury should have occurred if we accept petitioners' theory that the counter was stable and sturdy. For if that was the truth, a frail six-year old could not have caused the counter to collapse. The physical analysis of the counter by both the trial court and Court of Appeals and a scrutiny of the evidence on record reveal otherwise, i.e., it was not durable after all. Shaped like an inverted "L," the counter was heavy, huge, and its top laden with formica. It protruded towards the customer waiting area and its base was not secured. CRISELDA too, should be absolved from any contributory negligence. Initially, ZHIENETH held on to CRISELDA's waist, later to the latter's hand. CRISELDA momentarily released the child's hand from her clutch when she signed her credit card slip. At this precise moment, it was reasonable and usual for CRISELDA to let go of her child. Further, at the time ZHIENETH was pinned down by the counter, she was just a foot away from her mother; and the giftwrapping counter was just four meters away from CRISELDA. The time and distance were both significant. ZHIENETH was near her mother and did not loiter as petitioners would want to impress upon us. She even admitted to the doctor who treated her at the hospital that she did not do anything; the counter just fell on her.

G.R. No. L-44748 August 29, 1986 RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILS., INC. (RCPI). petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and LORETO DIONELA, respondents. O. Pythogoras Oliver for respondents. PARAS, J.: Before Us, is a Petition for Review by certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals, modifying the decision of the trial court in a civil case for recovery of damages against petitioner corporation by reducing the award to private respondent Loreto Dionela of moral damages from P40,000 to Pl5,000, and attorney's fees from P3,000 to P2,000. The basis of the complaint against the defendant corporation is a telegram sent through its Manila Office to the offended party, Loreto Dionela, reading as follows: 176 AS JR 1215PM 9 PAID MANDALUYONG JUL 22-66 LORETO DIONELA CABANGAN LEGASPI CITY WIRE ARRIVAL OF CHECK FER LORETO DIONELA-CABANGAN-WIRE ARRIVAL OF CHECK-PER 115 PM SA IYO WALANG PAKINABANG DUMATING KA DIYAN-WALA-KANG PADALA DITO KAHIT BULBUL MO (p. 19, Annex "A")

Plaintiff-respondent Loreto Dionela alleges that the defamatory words on the telegram sent to him not only wounded his feelings but also caused him undue embarrassment and affected adversely his business as well because other people have come to know of said defamatory words. Defendant corporation as a defense, alleges that the additional words in Tagalog was a private joke between the sending and receiving operators and that they were not addressed to or intended for plaintiff and therefore did not form part of the telegram and that the Tagalog words are not defamatory. The telegram sent through its facilities was received in its station at Legaspi City. Nobody other than the operator manned the teletype machine which automatically receives telegrams being transmitted. The said telegram was detached from the machine and placed inside a sealed envelope and delivered to plaintiff, obviously as is. The additional words in Tagalog were never noticed and were included in the telegram when delivered. The trial court in finding for the plaintiff ruled as follows: There is no question that the additional words in Tagalog are libelous. They clearly impute a vice or defect of the plaintiff. Whether or not they were intended for the plaintiff, the effect on the plaintiff is the same. Any person reading the additional words in Tagalog will naturally think that they refer to the addressee, the plaintiff. There is no indication from the face of the telegram that the additional words in Tagalog were sent as a private joke between the operators of the defendant. The defendant is sued directly not as an employer. The business of the defendant is to transmit telegrams. It will open the door to frauds and allow the defendant to act with impunity if it can escape liability by the simple expedient of showing that its employees acted beyond the scope of their assigned tasks. The liability of the defendant is predicated not only on Article 33 of the Civil Code of the Philippines but on the following articles of said Code: ART. 19.- Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. ART. 20.-Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. There is sufficient publication of the libelous Tagalog words. The office file of the defendant containing copies of telegrams received are open and held together only by a metal fastener. Moreover, they are open to view and inspection by third parties. It follows that the plaintiff is entitled to damages and attorney's fees. The plaintiff is a businessman. The libelous Tagalog words must have affected his business and social standing in the community. The Court fixes the amount of P40,000.00 as the reasonable amount of moral damages and the amount of P3,000.00 as attorney's fee which the defendant should pay the plaintiff. (pp. 15-16, Record on Appeal) The respondent appellate court in its assailed decision confirming the aforegoing findings of the lower court stated: The proximate cause, therefore, resulting in injury to appellee, was the failure of the appellant to take the necessary or precautionary steps to avoid the occurrence of the humiliating incident now complained of. The company had not imposed any safeguard against such eventualities and this void in its operating procedure does not speak well of its concern for their clientele's interests. Negligence here is very patent. This negligence is imputable to appellant and not to its employees. The claim that there was no publication of the libelous words in Tagalog is also without merit. The fact that a carbon copy of the telegram was filed among other telegrams and left to hang for the public to see, open for inspection by a third party is sufficient publication. It would have been otherwise perhaps had the telegram been placed and kept in a secured place where no one may have had a chance to read it without appellee's permission. The additional Tagalog words at the bottom of the telegram are, as correctly found by the lower court, libelous per se, and from which malice may be presumed in the absence of any showing of good

intention and justifiable motive on the part of the appellant. The law implies damages in this instance (Quemel vs. Court of Appeals, L-22794, January 16, 1968; 22 SCRA 44). The award of P40,000.00 as moral damages is hereby reduced to P15,000.00 and for attorney's fees the amount of P2,000.00 is awarded. (pp. 22-23, record) After a motion for reconsideration was denied by the appellate court, petitioner came to Us with the following: ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS I The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in holding that Petitioner-employer should answer directly and primarily for the civil liability arising from the criminal act of its employee. II The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in holding that there was sufficient publication of the alleged libelous telegram in question, as contemplated by law on libel. III The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in holding that the liability of petitioner-company-employer is predicated on Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code, Articles on Human Relations. IV The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in awarding Atty's. fees. (p. 4, Record) Petitioner's contentions do not merit our consideration. The action for damages was filed in the lower court directly against respondent corporation not as an employer subsidiarily liable under the provisions of Article 1161 of the New Civil Code in relation to Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code. The cause of action of the private respondent is based on Arts. 19 and 20 of the New Civil Code (supra). As well as on respondent's breach of contract thru the negligence of its own employees. 1 Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of receiving and transmitting messages. Everytime a person transmits a message through the facilities of the petitioner, a contract is entered into. Upon receipt of the rate or fee fixed, the petitioner undertakes to transmit the message accurately. There is no question that in the case at bar, libelous matters were included in the message transmitted, without the consent or knowledge of the sender. There is a clear case of breach of contract by the petitioner in adding extraneous and libelous matters in the message sent to the private respondent. As a corporation, the petitioner can act only through its employees. Hence the acts of its employees in receiving and transmitting messages are the acts of the petitioner. To hold that the petitioner is not liable directly for the acts of its employees in the pursuit of petitioner's business is to deprive the general public availing of the services of the petitioner of an effective and adequate remedy. In most cases, negligence must be proved in order that plaintiff may recover. However, since negligence may be hard to substantiate in some cases, we may apply the doctrine of RES IPSA LOQUITUR (the thing speaks for itself), by considering the presence of facts or circumstances surrounding the injury. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment of the appellate court is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Feria (Chairman), Fernan, Alampay, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Professional Services, Inc V. CA (2010)

G.R. No. 126297 February 2, 2010 Lessons Applicable: Liability for Torts (Corporate Law) FACTS:

Enrique Agana told his wife Natividad Agana to go look for their neighbor, Dr. Ampil, a surgeon staff member of Medical City, a prominent and known hospital Natividad suffered from injury due to 2 gauges left inside her body so they sued Professional Inc. (PSI) Despite, the report of 2 missing gauzes after the operation PSI did NOT initiate an investigation ISSUE: W/N PSI should be liable for tort. HELD: YES. 15M + 12% int. until full satisfaction. While PSI had no power to control the means/method by which Dr. Ampil conducted the surgery on Natividad, they had the power to review or cause the review PSI had the duty to tread on as captain of the ship for the purpose of ensuing the safety of the patients availing themselves of its services and facilities PSI defined its standards of corporate conduct: Even after her operation to ensure her safety as a patient NOT limited to record the 2 missing gauzes Extended to determining Dr. Ampils role in it, bringing the matter to his attention and correcting his negligence Admission bars itself from arguing that its corp. resp. is NOT yet in existence at the time Natividad underwent treatment Dr. Ampil - medial negligence PSI - Corporate Negligence NOTE: Liability unique to this case because of implied agency and admitted corporate duty 26 years already and Dr. Ampil's status could no longer be ascertained

G.R. No. 72964 January 7, 1988 FILOMENO URBANO, petitioner, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: This is a petition to review the decision of the then Intermediate Appellate Court which affirmed the decision of the then Circuit Criminal Court of Dagupan City finding petitioner Filomeno Urban guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. The records disclose the following facts of the case. At about 8:00 o'clock in the morning of October 23, 1980, petitioner Filomeno Urbano went to his ricefield at Barangay Anonang, San Fabian, Pangasinan located at about 100 meters from the tobacco seedbed of Marcelo Javier. He found the place where he stored his palay flooded with water coming from the irrigation canal nearby which had overflowed. Urbano went to the elevated portion of the canal to see what happened and there he saw Marcelo Javier and Emilio Erfe cutting grass. He asked them who was responsible for the opening of the irrigation canal and Javier admitted that he was the one. Urbano then got angry and demanded that Javier pay for his soaked palay. A quarrel between them ensued. Urbano unsheathed his bolo (about 2 feet long, including the handle, by 2 inches wide) and hacked Javier hitting him on the right palm of his hand, which was used in parrying the bolo hack. Javier who was then unarmed ran away from Urbano but was overtaken by Urbano who hacked him again hitting Javier on the left leg with

the back portion of said bolo, causing a swelling on said leg. When Urbano tried to hack and inflict further injury, his daughter embraced and prevented him from hacking Javier. Immediately thereafter, Antonio Erfe, Emilio Erfe, and Felipe Erfe brought Javier to his house about 50 meters away from where the incident happened. Emilio then went to the house of Barangay Captain Menardo Soliven but not finding him there, Emilio looked for barrio councilman Felipe Solis instead. Upon the advice of Solis, the Erfes together with Javier went to the police station of San Fabian to report the incident. As suggested by Corporal Torio, Javier was brought to a physician. The group went to Dr. Guillermo Padilla, rural health physician of San Fabian, who did not attend to Javier but instead suggested that they go to Dr. Mario Meneses because Padilla had no available medicine. After Javier was treated by Dr. Meneses, he and his companions returned to Dr. Guillermo Padilla who conducted a medico-legal examination. Dr. Padilla issued a medico-legal certificate (Exhibit "C" dated September 28, 1981) which reads: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This is to certify that I have examined the wound of Marcelo Javier, 20 years of age, married, residing at Barangay Anonang, San Fabian, Pangasinan on October 23, 1980 and found the following: 1 -Incised wound 2 inches in length at the upper portion of the lesser palmar prominence, right. As to my observation the incapacitation is from (7-9) days period. This wound was presented to me only for medico-legal examination, as it was already treated by the other doctor. (p. 88, Original Records) Upon the intercession of Councilman Solis, Urbano and Javier agreed to settle their differences. Urbano promised to pay P700.00 for the medical expenses of Javier. Hence, on October 27, 1980, the two accompanied by Solis appeared before the San Fabian Police to formalize their amicable settlement. Patrolman Torio recorded the event in the police blotter (Exhibit A), to wit: xxx xxx xxx Entry Nr 599/27 Oct '80/103OH/ Re entry Nr 592 on page 257 both parties appeared before this Station accompanied by brgy. councilman Felipe Solis and settled their case amicably, for they are neighbors and close relatives to each other. Marcelo Javier accepted and granted forgiveness to Filomeno Urbano who shoulder (sic) all the expenses in his medical treatment, and promising to him and to this Office that this will never be repeated anymore and not to harbour any grudge against each other. (p. 87, Original Records.) Urbano advanced P400.00 to Javier at the police station. On November 3, 1980, the additional P300.00 was given to Javier at Urbano's house in the presence of barangay captain Soliven. At about 1:30 a.m. on November 14, 1980, Javier was rushed to the Nazareth General Hospital in a very serious condition. When admitted to the hospital, Javier had lockjaw and was having convulsions. Dr. Edmundo Exconde who personally attended to Javier found that the latter's serious condition was caused by tetanus toxin. He noticed the presence of a healing wound in Javier's palm which could have been infected by tetanus. On November 15, 1980 at exactly 4:18 p.m., Javier died in the hospital. The medical findings of Dr. Exconde are as follows: Date Diagnosis 11-14-80 ADMITTED due to trismus adm. at DX TETANUS 1:30 AM Still having frequent muscle spasm. With diffi#35, 421 culty opening his mouth. Restless at times. Febrile

11-15-80 Referred. Novaldin 1 amp. inj. IM. Sudden cessation of respiration and HR after muscular spasm. 02 inhalation administered. Ambo bag resuscitation and cardiac massage done but to no avail. Pronounced dead by Dra. Cabugao at 4:18 P.M. PMC done and cadaver brought home by relatives. (p. 100, Original Records) In an information dated April 10, 1981, Filomeno Urbano was charged with the crime of homicide before the then Circuit Criminal Court of Dagupan City, Third Judicial District. Upon arraignment, Urbano pleaded "not guilty." After trial, the trial court found Urbano guilty as charged. He was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of from TWELVE (12) YEARS of prision mayor, as minimum to SEVENTEEN (17) years, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal, as maximum, together with the accessories of the law, to indemnify the heirs of the victim, Marcelo Javier, in the amount of P12,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. He was ordered confined at the New Bilibid Prison, in Muntinlupa, Rizal upon finality of the decision, in view of the nature of his penalty. The then Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the conviction of Urbano on appeal but raised the award of indemnity to the heirs of the deceased to P30,000.00 with costs against the appellant. The appellant filed a motion for reconsideration and/or new trial. The motion for new trial was based on an affidavit of Barangay Captain Menardo Soliven (Annex "A") which states: That in 1980, I was the barrio captain of Barrio Anonang, San Fabian, Pangasinan, and up to the present having been re-elected to such position in the last barangay elections on May 17, 1982; That sometime in the first week of November, 1980, there was a typhoon that swept Pangasinan and other places of Central Luzon including San Fabian, a town of said province; That during the typhoon, the sluice or control gates of the Bued irrigation dam which irrigates the ricefields of San Fabian were closed and/or controlled so much so that water and its flow to the canals and ditches were regulated and reduced; That due to the locking of the sluice or control gates of the dam leading to the canals and ditches which will bring water to the ricefields, the water in said canals and ditches became shallow which was suitable for catching mudfishes; That after the storm, I conducted a personal survey in the area affected, with my secretary Perfecto Jaravata; That on November 5, 1980, while I was conducting survey, I saw the late Marcelo Javier catching fish in the shallow irrigation canals with some companions; That few days there after,or on November l5, l980, I came to know that said Marcelo Javier died of tetanus. (p. 33, Rollo) The motion was denied. Hence, this petition. In a resolution dated July 16, 1986, we gave due course to the petition. The case involves the application of Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that "Criminal liability shall be incurred: (1) By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended ..." Pursuant to this provision "an accused is criminally responsible for acts committed by him in violation of law and for all the natural and logical consequences resulting therefrom." (People v. Cardenas, 56 SCRA 631).

The record is clear that Marcelo Javier was hacked by the petitioner who used a bolo as a result of which Javier suffered a 2-inch incised wound on his right palm; that on November 14, 1981 which was the 22nd day after the incident, Javier was rushed to the hospital in a very serious condition and that on the following day, November 15, 1981, he died from tetanus. Under these circumstances, the lower courts ruled that Javier's death was the natural and logical consequence of Urbano's unlawful act. Hence, he was declared responsible for Javier's death. Thus, the appellate court said: The claim of appellant that there was an efficient cause which supervened from the time the deceased was wounded to the time of his death, which covers a period of 23 days does not deserve serious consideration. True, that the deceased did not die right away from his wound, but the cause of his death was due to said wound which was inflicted by the appellant. Said wound which was in the process of healing got infected with tetanus which ultimately caused his death. Dr. Edmundo Exconde of the Nazareth General Hospital testified that the victim suffered lockjaw because of the infection of the wound with tetanus. And there is no other way by which he could be infected with tetanus except through the wound in his palm (tsn., p. 78, Oct. 5, 1981). Consequently, the proximate cause of the victim's death was the wound which got infected with tetanus. And the settled rule in this jurisdiction is that an accused is liable for all the consequences of his unlawful act. (Article 4, par. 1, R.P.C. People v. Red, CA 43 O.G. 5072; People v. Cornel 78 Phil. 418). Appellant's allegation that the proximate cause of the victim's death was due to his own negligence in going back to work without his wound being properly healed, and lately, that he went to catch fish in dirty irrigation canals in the first week of November, 1980, is an afterthought, and a desperate attempt by appellant to wiggle out of the predicament he found himself in. If the wound had not yet healed, it is impossible to conceive that the deceased would be reckless enough to work with a disabled hand. (pp. 20-21, Rollo) The petitioner reiterates his position that the proximate cause of the death of Marcelo Javier was due to his own negligence, that Dr. Mario Meneses found no tetanus in the injury, and that Javier got infected with tetanus when after two weeks he returned to his farm and tended his tobacco plants with his bare hands exposing the wound to harmful elements like tetanus germs. The evidence on record does not clearly show that the wound inflicted by Urbano was infected with tetanus at the time of the infliction of the wound. The evidence merely confirms that the wound, which was already healing at the time Javier suffered the symptoms of the fatal ailment, somehow got infected with tetanus However, as to when the wound was infected is not clear from the record. In Vda. de Bataclan, et al. v. Medina (102 Phil. 1181), we adopted the following definition of proximate cause: xxx xxx xxx ... A satisfactory definition of proximate cause is found in Volume 38, pages 695-696 of American Jurisprudence, cited by plaintiffs-appellants in their brief. It is as follows: ... "that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred."And more comprehensively, "the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an

ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom." (at pp. 185-186) The issue, therefore, hinges on whether or not there was an efficient intervening cause from the time Javier was wounded until his death which would exculpate Urbano from any liability for Javier's death. We look into the nature of tetanusThe incubation period of tetanus, i.e., the time between injury and the appearance of unmistakable symptoms, ranges from 2 to 56 days. However, over 80 percent of patients become symptomatic within 14 days. A short incubation period indicates severe disease, and when symptoms occur within 2 or 3 days of injury the mortality rate approaches 100 percent. Non-specific premonitory symptoms such as restlessness, irritability, and headache are encountered occasionally, but the commonest presenting complaints are pain and stiffness in the jaw, abdomen, or back and difficulty swallowing. As the progresses, stiffness gives way to rigidity, and patients often complain of difficulty opening their mouths. In fact, trismus in the commonest manifestation of tetanus and is responsible for the familiar descriptive name of lockjaw. As more muscles are involved, rigidity becomes generalized, and sustained contractions called risus sardonicus. The intensity and sequence of muscle involvement is quite variable. In a small proportion of patients, only local signs and symptoms develop in the region of the injury. In the vast majority, however, most muscles are involved to some degree, and the signs and symptoms encountered depend upon the major muscle groups affected. Reflex spasm usually occur within 24 to 72 hours of the first symptom, an interval referred to as the onset time. As in the case of the incubation period, a short onset time is associated with a poor prognosis. Spasms are caused by sudden intensification of afferent stimuli arising in the periphery, which increases rigidity and causes simultaneous and excessive contraction of muscles and their antagonists. Spasms may be both painful and dangerous. As the disease progresses, minimal or inapparent stimuli produce more intense and longer lasting spasms with increasing frequency. Respiration may be impaired by laryngospasm or tonic contraction of respiratory muscles which prevent adequate ventilation. Hypoxia may then lead to irreversible central nervous system damage and death. Mild tetanus is characterized by an incubation period of at least 14 days and an onset time of more than 6 days. Trismus is usually present, but dysphagia is absent and generalized spasms are brief and mild. Moderately severe tetanus has a somewhat shorter incubation period and onset time; trismus is marked, dysphagia and generalized rigidity are present, but ventilation remains adequate even during spasms. The criteria for severe tetanus include a short incubation time, and an onset time of 72 hrs., or less, severe trismus, dysphagia and rigidity and frequent prolonged, generalized convulsive spasms. (Harrison's Principle of Internal Medicine, 1983 Edition, pp. 1004-1005; Emphasis supplied) Therefore, medically speaking, the reaction to tetanus found inside a man's body depends on the incubation period of the disease. In the case at bar, Javier suffered a 2-inch incised wound on his right palm when he parried the bolo which Urbano used in hacking him. This incident took place on October 23, 1980. After 22 days, or on November 14, 1980, he suffered the symptoms of tetanus, like lockjaw and muscle spasms. The following day, November 15, 1980, he died. If, therefore, the wound of Javier inflicted by the appellant was already infected by tetanus germs at the time, it is more medically probable that Javier should have been infected with only a mild cause of tetanus because the symptoms of tetanus appeared on the 22nd day after the hacking

incident or more than 14 days after the infliction of the wound. Therefore, the onset time should have been more than six days. Javier, however, died on the second day from the onset time. The more credible conclusion is that at the time Javier's wound was inflicted by the appellant, the severe form of tetanus that killed him was not yet present. Consequently, Javier's wound could have been infected with tetanus after the hacking incident. Considering the circumstance surrounding Javier's death, his wound could have been infected by tetanus 2 or 3 or a few but not 20 to 22 days before he died. The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused. (People v. Cardenas, supra) And since we are dealing with a criminal conviction, the proof that the accused caused the victim's death must convince a rational mind beyond reasonable doubt. The medical findings, however, lead us to a distinct possibility that the infection of the wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or between the time Javier was wounded to the time of his death. The infection was, therefore, distinct and foreign to the crime. (People v. Rellin, 77 Phil. 1038). Doubts are present. There is a likelihood that the wound was but the remote cause and its subsequent infection, for failure to take necessary precautions, with tetanus may have been the proximate cause of Javier's death with which the petitioner had nothing to do. As we ruled in Manila Electric Co. v. Remoquillo, et al. (99 Phil. 118). "A prior and remote cause cannot be made the be of an action if such remote cause did nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made possible, if there intervened between such prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated, and efficient cause of the injury, even though such injury would not have happened but for such condition or occasion. If no danger existed in the condition except because of the independent cause, such condition was not the proximate cause. And if an independent negligent act or defective condition sets into operation the instances which result in injury because of the prior defective condition, such subsequent act or condition is the proximate cause." (45 C.J. pp. 931-932). (at p. 125) It strains the judicial mind to allow a clear aggressor to go scot free of criminal liability. At the very least, the records show he is guilty of inflicting slight physical injuries. However, the petitioner's criminal liability in this respect was wiped out by the victim's own act. After the hacking incident, Urbano and Javier used the facilities of barangay mediators to effect a compromise agreement where Javier forgave Urbano while Urbano defrayed the medical expenses of Javier. This settlement of minor offenses is allowed under the express provisions of Presidential Decree G.R. No. 1508, Section 2(3). (See also People v. Caruncho, 127 SCRA 16). We must stress, however, that our discussion of proximate cause and remote cause is limited to the criminal aspects of this rather unusual case. It does not necessarily follow that the petitioner is also free of civil liability. The well-settled doctrine is that a person, while not criminally liable, may still be civilly liable. Thus, in the recent case ofPeople v. Rogelio Ligon y Tria, et al. (G.R. No. 74041, July 29, 1987), we said: xxx xxx xxx ... While the guilt of the accused in a criminal prosecution must be established beyond reasonable doubt, only a preponderance of evidence is required in a civil action for damages. (Article 29, Civil Code). The judgment of acquittal extinguishes the civil liability of the accused only when it includes a declaration that the facts from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. (Padilla v. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 559).

The reason for the provisions of article 29 of the Civil Code, which provides that the acquittal of the accused on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt does not necessarily exempt him from civil liability for the same act or omission, has been explained by the Code Commission as follows: The old rule that the acquittal of the accused in a criminal case also releases him from civil liability is one of the most serious flaws in the Philippine legal system. It has given use to numberless instances of miscarriage of justice, where the acquittal was due to a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court as to the guilt of the accused. The reasoning followed is that inasmuch as the civil responsibility is derived from the criminal offense, when the latter is not proved, civil liability cannot be demanded. This is one of those causes where confused thinking leads to unfortunate and deplorable consequences. Such reasoning fails to draw a clear line of demarcation between criminal liability and civil responsibility, and to determine the logical result of the distinction. The two liabilities are separate and distinct from each other. One affects the social order and the other, private rights. One is for the punishment or correction of the offender while the other is for reparation of damages suffered by the aggrieved party. The two responsibilities are so different from each other that article 1813 of the present (Spanish) Civil Code reads thus: "There may be a compromise upon the civil action arising from a crime; but the public action for the imposition of the legal penalty shall not thereby be extinguished." It is just and proper that, for the purposes of the imprisonment of or fine upon the accused, the offense should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. But for the purpose of indemnity the complaining party, why should the offense also be proved beyond reasonable doubt? Is not the invasion or violation of every private right to be proved only by a preponderance of evidence? Is the right of the aggrieved person any less private because the wrongful act is also punishable by the criminal law? "For these reasons, the Commission recommends the adoption of the reform under discussion. It will correct a serious defect in our law. It will close up an inexhaustible source of injustice-a cause for disillusionment on the part of the innumerable persons injured or wronged." The respondent court increased the P12,000.00 indemnification imposed by the trial court to P30,000.00. However, since the indemnification was based solely on the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt in the homicide case, the civil liability of the petitioner was not thoroughly examined. This aspect of the case calls for fuller development if the heirs of the victim are so minded. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The questioned decision of the then Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court of Appeals, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petitioner is ACQUITTED of the crime of homicide. Costs de oficio. SO ORDERED. Fernan, (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin and,Cortes, JJ., concur.

Teague vs. Fernandez, 51 SCRA 181 Nature: Appeal from decision of CA Facts: The Realistic Institute was a vocational school for hair and beauty culture. It was owned and operated by Mercedes Teague.

The 2nd floor of the building had only 1 stairway, of about 1.5 meters in width. Section 491 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila provided that for a building such as the one where the institute was, at least 2 unobstructed stairways of not less than 1 meter and 20 cm in width should be constructed. On Oct 24, 1955, a fire broke out in a store for surplus materials located 10 meters away from institute, across the street. Although no part of the Gil-Armi building caught fire, 4 students were found dead and several others injured on account of the panic which ensued and the subsequent stampede. Issue: WON negligence could be presumed in the case at bar Held: YES Ratio: when the standard of care is fixed by law, failure to conform to such standard is negligence, negligence per se or negligence in and of itself, in the absence of a legal excuse. Death of Lourdes Fernandez was due to the gross negligence of the defendant who failed to exercise due care and diligence for the safety of its students in not providing the building with adequate fire exits and in not practicing fire drill exercises to avoid the stampede, aside from the fact that the defendant did not have a permit to use building as a schoolhouse.

BAHIA v LITONJUA AND LEYNES March 30, 1912 FACTS: Fausta Litonjua purchased an automobile and later turned it over to International garage, which is owned and managed by his son Ramon Ramirez. As part of the daily operations of his business, Ramirez rented the automobile donated by his mother to Mariano Leynes. Ramirez also supplied Leynes a chauffeur and a machinist for the purpose of conveying to and from Balayan and Tuy. While in Balayan, the automobile refused to obey the direction of the driver in turning a corner due to a defect in the steering gear. As a consequence, it rammed into the wall of a house against which the daughter of plaintiff Bahia was leaning at the time. The automobile crushed the child to death. Bahia then filed an action against the Fausta (donor of auto), and Leynes,under who was directing and controlling the operation of the automobile at the time of the accident. Ramirez was not made a party. TC found Leynes liable but dismissed complait against Fausta. ISSUE: Who should be held responsible HELD: SC opined that the action as to Fausta was properly dismissed. Although the mother purchased the automobile, she turned it over to the garage of her son for use therein. The establishment belonged to the son, Ramirez, and he had the full management and control of it and received all the profits therefrom. It appears that Fausta was not aware of the contract with Leynes. While she may have been in one sense the owner of the machine, that fact does not, under the other facts of the case, make her responsible for the results of the accident.

The judgment against Leynes must be reversed and the complaint against him must be dismissed. While is may be said that, at the time of the accident, the chauffeur who was driving the auto was a servant of Leynes, in as much as the profits derived from the trips of the auto belonged to him and the auto was operated under his direction, nevertheless, this fact is not conclusive in making him responsible for the negligence of the chauffeur or for the defects in the auto itself. Under Article 1903 of the CC (now Article 2176), 2 things are apparent: 1. presumption of negligence on the part of the employer whenever there is an injury caused by the negligence employee 2. presumption is juris tantum and may be rebutted. In the instant case, the death of the child caused by a defect in the steering gear immediately raised the presumption that Leynes was negligence in selecting a defective automobile or in his failure to maintain it in good condition after selection. As to selection, SC found that defendant had exercised due diligence when he obtained the machine from a reputable garage, which so far as appeared in good condition. The workmen were likewise selected from a standard garage, were duly licensed, and apparently thoroughly competent. The machine had been used but a few hours when the accident occurred and it is clear from the evidence that the defendant had no notice, either actual or constructive of the defective condition of the steering gear. Sufficient time had not elapsed to require an examination of the machine by the defendant as a part of his duty of inspection and supervision. While it does not appear that the defendant formulated rules and regulations for the guidance of the drivers and gave them proper instructions designed for the protection of the public and the passengers, the evidence shows that the death of the child was not caused by a failure to promulgate rules and regulations. It was caused by a defect in the machine as to which the defendant has shown himself free from responsibility.

DE LEON BROKERAGE CO INC v CA February 28, 1962 FACTS: Angeline Steen suffered injuries as a result of the collision between the passenger jeepney she was riding and the cargo truck owned by De Leon Brokerage and recklessly driven by its employee, Luna. Luna had been prosecuted and convicted of the crime of homicide with physical injuries thru reckless imprudence. The driver of the passenger jeepney was acquitted. In this criminal action, Luna reserved her right to file a separate civil action. She eventually filed an action for recovery of moral and exemplary damages against Luna and De Leon Brokerage. To prove Lunas negligence, she presented the judgment of conviction TC held the 2 solidarily liable. CA affirmed. At the appellate court, De Leon claimed that: 1. complaint is not clear whether she was suing for damages resulting from quasi-delict or for civil liability arising from crime, since the averments are more characteristic of an action of the latter nature 2. judgment of conviction inadmissible as evidence of a quasi-delict 3. Luna was not in the discharge of his duties at the time of the accident 4. it cannot be held solidarily liable with Luna ISSUE: What is the nature of Steens cause of action: quasi-delict or delict HELD: Quasi-delict

Steens complaint is based on quasi-delict. 1. She alleged that she suffered injuries because of Lunas carelessness and imprudence 2. She averred that there exists an employer-employee relationship between Luna and De Leon Since there is the averment in No. 2, there is a clear statement of a right of action under Article 2180 of the CC. Complaint does not, and did not have to allege that De Leon did not exercise due diligence in choosing and supervising Luna, because this is a matter of defense. At any rate, whatever doubts as to the nature of Steens action are resolved by her prayer that the 2 be held solidarily liable. Notwithstanding the presentation of the judgment of conviction, it is clear that Steen did not base her suit on criminal conviction. The mention of criminal conviction merely tended to support her claim that Luna had been recklessly negligent in driving the truck, which caused her injuries. Steen did not have to wait for the termination of the criminal proceeding or to reserve in the same her right to file a separate civil action. She waited for the results of the criminal action because she wanted to be sure which driver and respective employer she could rightly sue, since both Luna and the driver of the jeep were prosecuted. And she reserved because otherwise, the court in the criminal proceeding would have awarded her indemnity, since the civil action for recovery of civil liability is deemed instituted with the criminal action. The reservation in the criminal action does not preclude a subsequent action based on a quasi-delict. It cannot be inferred therefrom that Steen had chosen to file the very civil action she had reserved. At any rate, it is obvious that De Leon understood that it was being held liable under the CC because of its affirmative defense that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family - a defense available only to employer being sued under a quasi-delict. Was Luina in the performance of his duties at the time of the collision? He testified that on the day of the accident he was instructed to go to the province. Reason for his return to Manila is not clear, but it does not appear that he was on errand of his own. In the absence of determinative proof that there was a cessation or suspension of his service, De Leon must still be held liable since it failed to prove exercise of due diligence. Note: that owner of vehicle must also be in the vehicle at the time of the accident refers to owners of vehicles not included in the terms of Art. 2180 as owners of an establishment or enterprise.

CASTILEX INDUSTRIAL CORP vs VASQUEZ FACTS: On Aug. 28, 1988, around 1:30-2 am, Romeo Vasquez was driving his motorcycle around the who was going against the flow of the the traffic in the same Rotunda. Vasquez died at the hospital on Sept. 5, 1988. Abad signed an acknowledgement of Responsible party wherein he would pay all the expenses. Vasquez parents commenced an action for damages against Abad and Castilex. TC held that both must pay jointly and solidarily. CA affirmed but held that the liability of Castilex is only vicarious and not solidary. ISSUE: WON an employer may be held vicariously (subsidiarily) liable for the death resulting from the negligent operation by a managerial employee of a company-issued vehicle HELD: NO RATIO: Art 2180 par 5 says that WON engaged in any business or industry, an employer is liable for the torts committed by emplyees within the scope of his assigned tasks. But it is necessary to first establish

the employee-employer relnship. Then the plaintiff must show, to hold emplyer liable, that the employee was acting within the scope of his assigned task when the tort complained of was committed. It is only then that the employer can interpose the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employee. In the case at bar, it is undisputed that Abad was production manager of Castilex. At the night of the incident, he did some overtime work at petitioners office. Thereafter he went to a restaurant at a place known as a haven for prostitutes, pimps,and drug pushers and addicts The Court finds that Abad was engaged in affairs of his own (had a woman in the car with him not young enough to call him Daddy!!) or was carrying out a personal purpose not in line with his duties at the time he figured in a vehicular accident. It was 2 am and way beyond normal working hours. His overtime had ended. Since there is a paucity (scarcity, insufficiency) of evidence that Abad was acting within the scope of the functions entrusted to him, Castilex had no duty to show that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in providing Abad with a service vehicle. Thus, justice and equity require that Castilex be relieved of vicarious liability for the consequences of the negligence of Abad in driving its vehicle.

Child Learning Center v Tagario G.R. No. 150920November 25, 2005 Facts: This petition started with a tort case filed with the Regional Trial Court of Makati by Timothy Tagorio and his parents, Basilio R. Tagorio and Herminia Tagorio, docketed as Civil Case No. 91-1389. The complaint1alleged that during the school year 1990-1991, Timothy was a Grade IVstudent at Marymount School, an academic institution operated andmaintained by Child Learning Center, Inc. (CLC). In the afternoon of March 5, 1991, between 1 and 2 p.m., Timothy entered the boys comfort room at the third floor of the Marymount building to answer the call of nature. He,however, found himself locked inside and unable to get out. Timothy started to panic and so he banged and kicked the door and yelled several times for help. When no help arrived he decided to open the window to call for help. In the process of opening the window, Timothy went right through and fell down three stories. Timothy was hospitalized and given medical treatment for serious multiple physical in juries.An action under Article 2176 of the Civil Code was filed byres pondents against the CLC, the members of its Board of Directors, namely Spouses Edgardo and Sylvia Limon, Alfonso Cruz, Carmelo Narciso and Luningning Salvador, and the Administrative Officer of Marymount School,Ricardo Pilao. In its defense, CLC maintained that there was nothing defective about the locking mechanism of the door and that the fall of Timothy was not due to its fault or negligence. CLC further maintained that it had exercised the due care and diligence of a good father of a family toensure the safety, well-being and convenience of its students. Issue: Whether the Institution of Child Learning Center, Inc is negligent. Held: Yes. In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of the Civil Code,plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of evidence: (1) the damagessuffered by the plaintiff; (2) the fault or negligence of the defendant orsome other person for whose act he must respond; and (3) the connectionof cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the damagesincurred. Fault, in general, signifies a voluntary act or omission which causesdamage to the right of another giving rise to an obligation on the part of

theactor to repair such damage. Negligence is the failure to observe for theprotection of the interest of another person that degree of care, precautionand vigilance which the circumstances justly demand. Fault requires theexecution of a positive act which causes damage to another whilenegligence consists of the omission to do acts which result in damage toanother. The fact, however, that Timothy fell out through the windowshows that the door could not be opened from the inside. That sufficientlypoints to the fact that something was wrong with the door, if not the doorknob, under the principle of res ipsa loquitor. The doctrine of res ipsaloquitor applies where (1) the accident was of such character as to warrant an inference that it would not have happened except for the defendants negligence; (2) the accident must have been caused by an agency orinstrumentality within the exclusive management or control of the personcharged with the negligence complained of; and (3) the accident must nothave been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of theperson injured. Petitioners are clearly answerable for failure to see to it thatthe doors of their school toilets are at all times in working condition. Thefact that a student had to go through the window, instead of the door,shows that something was wrong with the door. Our pronouncement thatTimothy climbed out of the window because he could not get out using the door, negates petitioners other contention that the proximate cause of theaccident was Timothys own negligence. The injuries he sustained from the fall were the product of a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any intervening cause, that originated from CLCs own negligence.