You are on page 1of 8

Andamo vs.

Intermediate Appellate Court


G.R. No. 74761 November 6, 1990

Doctrine: It must be stressed that the use of ones property is not without limitations. Article 431
of the Civil Code provides that the owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such a manner
as to injure the rights of a third person. SIC UTERE TUO UT ALIENUM NON LAEDAS.

Facts: Petitioner spouses Andamo owned a parcel of land situated in Biga Silang, Cavite which
is adjacent to that of private respondent corporation, Missionaries of Our lady of La Salette, Inc.
Within the land of the latter, waterpaths and contrivances, including an artificial lake, were
constructed, which allegedly inundated and eroded petitioners land, caused a young man to
drown, damaged petitioners crops and plants, washed away costly fences, endangered the
lives of the petitioners and their laborers and some other destructions.
This prompted petitioner spouses to file a criminal action for destruction by means of inundation
under Article 324 of the RPC and a civil action for damages.

Issue: Whether petitioner spouses Andamo can claim damages for destruction caused by
respondents waterpaths and contrivances on the basis of Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil
Code on quasi-delicts.

Held: Yes. A careful examination of the aforequoted complaint shows that the civil action is one
under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. All the elements of a quasi-
delict are present, to wit: (a) damages suffered by the plaintiff, (b) fault or negligence of the
defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond; and (c) the connection of
cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by
the plaintiff.

Clearly, from petitioners complaint, the waterpaths and contrivances built by respondent
corporation are alleged to have inundated the land of petitioners. There is therefore, an
assertion of a causal connection between the act of building these waterpaths and the damage
sustained by petitioners. Such action if proven constitutes fault or negligence which may be the
basis for the recovery of damages.

It must be stressed that the use of ones property is not without limitations. Article 431 of the
Civil Code provides that the owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such a manner as to
injure the rights of a third person. SIC UTERE TUO UT ALIENUM NON LAEDAS. Moreover,
adjoining landowners have mutual and reciprocal duties which require that each must use his
own land in a reasonable manner so as not to infringe upon the rights and interests of others.
Although we recognize the right of an owner to build structures on his land, such structures
must be so constructed and maintained using all reasonable care so that they cannot be
dangerous to adjoining landowners and can withstand the usual and expected forces of nature.
If the structures cause injury or damage to an adjoining landowner or a third person, the latter
can claim indemnification for the injury or damage suffered.








Air France vs Carrascoso

In March 1958, Rafael Carrascoso and several other Filipinos were tourists en route to Rome from
Manila. Carrascoso was issued a first class round trip ticket by Air France. But during a stop-over in
Bangkok, he was asked by the plane manager of Air France to vacate his seat because a white man
allegedly has a better right than him. Carrascoso protested but when things got heated and upon
advise of other Filipinos on board, Carrascoso gave up his seat and was transferred to the planes
tourist class.
After their tourist trip when Carrascoso was already in the Philippines, he sued Air France for
damages for the embarrassment he suffered during his trip. In court, Carrascoso testified, among
others, that he when he was forced to take the tourist class, he went to the planes pantry where he
was approached by a plane purser who told him that he noted in the planes journal the following:

First-class passenger was forced to go to the tourist class against his will, and that the captain
refused to intervene
The said testimony was admitted in favor of Carrascoso. The trial court eventually awarded
damages in favor of Carrascoso. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Air France is assailing the decision of the trial court and the CA. It avers that the issuance of a first
class ticket to Carrascoso was not an assurance that he will be seated in first class because
allegedly in truth and in fact, that was not the true intent between the parties.
Air France also questioned the admissibility of Carrascosos testimony regarding the note made by
the purser because the said note was never presented in court.

ISSUE 1: Whether or not Air France is liable for damages and on what basis.
ISSUE 2: Whether or not the testimony of Carrasoso regarding the note which was not presented in
court is admissible in evidence.
HELD 1: Yes. It appears that Air Frances liability is based on culpa-contractual and on culpa
aquiliana.
Culpa Contractual
There exists a contract of carriage between Air France and Carrascoso. There was a contract to
furnish Carrasocoso a first class passage; Second, That said contract was breached when Air
France failed to furnish first class transportation at Bangkok; and Third, that there was bad faith
when Air Frances employee compelled Carrascoso to leave his first class accommodation
berth after he was already, seated and to take a seat in the tourist class, by reason of which he
suffered inconvenience, embarrassments and humiliations, thereby causing him mental anguish,
serious anxiety, wounded feelings and social humiliation, resulting in moral damages.
The Supreme Court did not give credence to Air Frances claim that the issuance of a first class
ticket to a passenger is not an assurance that he will be given a first class seat. Such claim is simply
incredible.
Culpa Aquiliana
Here, the SC ruled, even though there is a contract of carriage between Air France and Carrascoso,
there is also a tortuous act based on culpa aquiliana. Passengers do not contract merely for
transportation. They have a right to be treated by the carriers employees with kindness, respect,
courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to be protected against personal misconduct,
injurious language, indignities and abuses from such employees. So it is, that any rule or
discourteous conduct on the part of employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for
damages against the carrier. Air Frances contract with Carrascoso is one attended with public duty.
The stress of Carrascosos action is placed upon his wrongful expulsion. This is a violation of public
duty by the Air France a case of quasi-delict. Damages are proper.
HELD: 2: Yes. The testimony of Carrascoso must be admitted based on res gestae. The subject
of inquiry is not the entry, but the ouster incident. Testimony on the entry does not come within the
proscription of the best evidence rule. Such testimony is admissible.

Besides, when the dialogue
between Carrascoso and the purser happened, the impact of the startling occurrence was still fresh
and continued to be felt. The excitement had not as yet died down. Statements then, in this
environment, are admissible as part of the res gestae. The utterance of the purser regarding his
entry in the notebook was spontaneous, and related to the circumstances of the ouster incident. Its
trustworthiness has been guaranteed. It thus escapes the operation of the hearsay rule. It forms part
of the res gestae.

LRT vs. NAVIDAD
G.R. No. 145804. February 6, 2003


FACTS:
Navidad was drunk when he entered the boarding platform of the LRT. He got into an
altercation with the SG Escartin. They had a fistfight and Navidad fell onto the tracks and
was killed when a train came and ran over him.

The Heirs of Navidad filed a complaint for damages against Escartin, the train driver,
(Roman) the LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization and Prudent Security Agency (Prudent).
The trial court found Prudent and Escartin jointly and severally liable for damages to the
heirs. The CA exonerated Prudent and instead held the LRTA and the train driver Romero
jointly and severally liable as well as removing the award for compensatory damages and
replacing it with nominal damages.

The reasoning of the CA was that a contract of carriage already existed between Navidad
and LRTA (by virtue of his havA ing purchased train tickets and the liability was caused by
the mere fact of Navidad's death after being hit by the train being managed by the LRTA
and operated by Roman. The CA also blamed LRTA for not having presented expert
evidence showing that the emergency brakes could not have stopped the train on time.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether or not LRTA and/or Roman is liable for the death.
(2) Whether or not Escartin and/or Prudent are liable.
(3) Whether or not nominal damages may coexist with compensatory damages.

HELD:
(1) Yes. The foundation of LRTA's liability is the contract of carriage and its obligation to
indemnify the victim arising from the breach of that contract by reason of its failure to
exercise the high diligence required of a common carrier.
(2) Fault was not established. Liability will be based on Tort under Art. 2176 of the New Civil
Code.
(3) No. It is an established rule that nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory
damages.



RATIO:

Liability of LRTA Read Arts. 1755,1756, 1759 and 1763 of the New Civil Code

A common carrier is required by these above statutory provisions to use utmost diligence in
carrying passengers with due regard for all circumstances. This obligation exists not only
during the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises where
they ought to be in pursuance to then contract of carriage.

Art. 1763 renders a common carrier liable for death of or injury to passengers (a) through
the negligence or wilful acts of its employees or (b) on account of willful acts or negligence
of other passengers or of strangers if the common carriers employees through theexercise
of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. In case of such death
or injury, a carrier is presumed to have been at fault or been negligent, and by simple proof
of injury, the passenger is relieved of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the
carrier or of its employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is
due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure.

Liability of Security Agency If Prudent is to be held liable, it would be for a tort under
Art. 2176 in conjunction with Art. 2180. Once the fault of the employee Escartin is
established, the employer, Prudent, would be held liable on the presumption that it did not
exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of its
employees.


Relationship between contractual and non-contractual breach How then must the
liability of the common carrier, on the one hand, and an independent contractor, on the
other hand, be described? It would be solidary. A contractual obligation can be breached by
tort and when the same act or omission causes the injury, one resulting in culpa
contractual and the other in culpa aquiliana, Article 2194 of the Civil Code can well apply. In
fine, a liability for tort may arise even under a contract, where tort is that which breaches
the contract. Stated differently, when an act which constitutes a breach of ontract would
have itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability had no contract existed
between the parties, the contract can be said to have been breached by tort, thereby
allowing the rules on tort to apply.

Nominal Damages - The award of nominal damages in addition to actual damages
is untenable. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which
has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not
for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. It is an established
rule that nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory damages. The award was
deleted/\.











Manliclic v. Calaunan
Ponente: Chico-Nazario
Third Division
Nature: Petition for review on certiorari

FACTS:
1. The vehicles involved in this case are: (1) Philippine Rabbit Bus owned by petitioner PRBLI and
driven by petitioner Mauricio Manliclic; and (2) owner-type jeep owned by respondent Modesto
Calaunan and driven by Marcelo Mendoza
2. At approximately Kilometer 40 of the North Luzon Expressway in Barangay Lalangan, Plaridel,
Bulacan, the two vehicles collided.
- The front right side of the Philippine Rabbit Bus hit the rear left side of the jeep causing the
latter to move to the shoulder on the right and then fall on a ditch with water resulting to
further extensive damage.
- Respondent suffered minor injuries while his driver was unhurt.
3. By reason of such collision, a criminal case was filed charging petitioner Manliclic with Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property with Physical Injuries.
4. Subsequently on 2 December 1991, respondent filed a complaint for damages against petitioners
Manliclic and PRBLI
5. The criminal case was tried ahead of the civil case.
6. When the civil case was heard, counsel for respondent prayed that the transcripts of stenographic
notes (TSNs)

of the testimonies in the criminal case be received in evidence in the civil case in as
much as these witnesses are not available to testify in the civil case.
7. The versions of the parties are summarized by the trial court as follows:

Respondents version:
- According to the respondent and his driver, the jeep was cruising at the speed of 60 to 70
kilometers per hour on the slow lane of the expressway when the Philippine Rabbit Bus
overtook the jeep and in the process of overtaking the jeep, the Philippine Rabbit Bus hit the
rear of the jeep on the left side.
- At the time the Philippine Rabbit Bus hit the jeep, it was about to overtake the jeep. In other
words, the Philippine Rabbit Bus was still at the back of the jeep when the jeep was hit.
- Fernando Ramos corroborated the testimony of and Marcelo Mendoza. He said that he was on
another jeep following the Philippine Rabbit Bus and the jeep of plaintiff when the incident
took place. He testified that the jeep of plaintiff swerved to the right because it was bumped
by the Philippine Rabbit bus from behind.

Petitioners version:
- The petitioner explained that when the Philippine Rabbit bus was about to go to the left lane to
overtake the jeep, the latter jeep swerved to the left because it was to overtake another jeep
in front of it.
- Petitioner PRBLI maintained that it observed and exercised the diligence of a good father of a
family in the selection and supervision of its employee
8. RTC ruled in favor of the respondent. CA found no reversible error and affirmed the RTCs
decision.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the TSNs from the criminal case may be admitted in evidence for the civil case.
2. Whether the petitioner, Manliclic, may be held liable for the collision and be found negligent
notwithstanding the declaration of the CA in the criminal case that there was an absence of
negligence on his part.
3. Whether the petitioner, PRBLI, exercised due diligence and supervision of its employee.

HELD: The petitioner, Manliclic, is civilly liable for the damages for his negligence or reckless
imprudence based on quasi-delict. The PRBLI is held solidarily liable for the damages caused by the
petitioner Manliclics negligence.

1. Admissibility of the TSNs
Petitioners contention:
- The TSNs should not be admitted to evidence for failure to comply with the requisites of Sec.
47, Rule 130 of the ROC
- The petitioner, PRBLI, had no opportunity to cross examine the witnesses because the criminal
case was filed exclusively against Manliclic.
- Admission of the TSNs will deprive the petitioner of due process.
Court:
- The testimonies are still admissible on the ground that the petitioner failed to object on their
admissibility.
- Failure to object to the inclusion of the evidence is a waiver on the provision of the law.
- In addition, the petitioner even offered in evidence the TSN containing the testimony of
Ganiban.
- The court disagrees that it would deprive the petitioner of due process. For the failure of the
petitioner to object at the proper time, it waived its right to object for the non compliance with
the ROC.

2. Civil liability arising from crime v. Quasi-delict/Culpa Acquiliana
Petitioner:
- The version of the petitioner deserves more credit as the petitioner was already acquitted by
the CA of the charge of Reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with physical
injuries.
Court:
- From the complaint, it can be gathered that the civil case for damages was one arising from or
based on quasi-delict: Petitioner Manliclic was sued for his negligence or reckless imprudence
in causing the collision, while petitioner PRBLI was sued for its failure to exercise the diligence
of a good father in the selection and supervision of its employees
- it appears that petitioner Manliclic was acquitted not on reasonable doubt, but on the ground
that he is not the author of the act complained of which is based on Section 2(b) of Rule 111
of the Rules of Criminal Procedure which reads:
(b) Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction
proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did
not exist.

- In spite of said ruling, petitioner Manliclic can still be held liable for the mishap. The afore-
quoted section applies only to a civil action arising from crime or ex delicto and not to a civil
action arising from quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana.
- The extinction of civil liability referred to in the quoted provision, refers exclusively to civil
liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas the civil liability for the
same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a
declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not
been committed by the accused.

In sum, the court distinguished civil liability arising from a crime and that arising from quasi-
delict:

CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM A CRIME
(a) if an accused is acquitted based on reasonable doubt on his guilt, his civil liability arising from
the crime may be proved by preponderance of evidence only.
(b) if an accused is acquitted on the basis that he was not the author of the act or omission
complained of (or that there is declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil
might arise did not exist), said acquittal closes the door to civil liability based on the crime or
ex delicto.


CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM QUASI-DELICT
- A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code with a
substantivity all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from a delict
or crime.
- The same negligence causing damages may produce civil liability arising from a crime under
the Penal Code, or create an action for quasi-delicts or culpa extra-contractual under the Civil
Code. The acquittal of the accused, even if based on a finding that he is not guilty,
does not carry with it the extinction of the civil liability based on quasi delict.
- civil liability arising from quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana, same will not be extinguished by an
acquittal, whether it be on ground of reasonable doubt or that accused was not the author of
the act or omission complained of (or that there is declaration in a final judgment that the fact
from which the civil liability might arise did not exist).
- An acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirely irrelevant in the civil case based on
quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana.

- The petitioners urge the court to give more credence to their version of the story however, as
they constitute a question of fact, it may not be raised as a subject for a petition for review.
Findings of the trial court and appellate court are binding on the Supreme Court.
- The testimony of the petitioner about the jeep of the respondent overtaking another vehicle in
the criminal case was not consistent with what he gave to the investigator which is evidently a
product of an after-thought
- If one would believe the testimony of the defendant, Mauricio Manliclic, and his conductor,
Oscar Buan, that the Philippine Rabbit Bus was already somewhat parallel to the jeep when
the collision took place, the point of collision on the jeep should have been somewhat on the
left side thereof rather than on its rear. Furthermore, the jeep should have fallen on the road
itself rather than having been forced off the road.

3. PRBLIs liability
- Under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code, when an injury is caused by the negligence of the
employee, there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of
the master or employer either in the selection of the servant or employee, or in supervision
over him after selection or both.
- The liability of the employer under Article 2180 is direct and immediate; it is not conditioned
upon prior recourse against the negligent employee and a prior showing of the insolvency of
such employee. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the private respondents to prove that they
exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their
employee.

Petitioners contention:
- PRBLI maintains that it had shown that it exercised the required diligence in the selection and
supervision of its employees
- In the matter of selection, it showed the screening process that petitioner Manliclic underwent
before he became a regular driver.
- As to the exercise of due diligence in the supervision of its employees, it argues that presence
of ready investigators is sufficient proof that it exercised the required due diligence in the
supervision of its employees
Court:
- In the selection of prospective employees, employers are required to examine them as to their
qualifications, experience and service records. In the supervision of employees, the employer
must formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation and impose
disciplinary measures for the breach thereof.
- As the negligence of the employee gives rise to the presumption of negligence on the part of
the employer, the latter has the burden of proving that it has been diligent not only in the
selection of employees but also in the actual supervision of their work.
- The trial court found that petitioner PRBLI exercised the diligence of a good father of
a family in the selection but not in the supervision of its employees
- it seems that the Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines has a very good procedure of recruiting its driver
as well as in the maintenance of its vehicles. There is no evidence though that it is as good in
the supervision of its personnel.
o no evidence introduced that there are rules promulgated by the bus company regarding
the safe operation of its vehicle and in the way its driver should manage and operate the
vehicles
o no showing that somebody in the bus company has been employed to oversee how its
driver should behave while operating their vehicles
o The presence of ready investigators after the occurrence of the accident is not enough.
Same does not comply with the guidelines set forth with regard to the supervision.
o Regular supervision of employees, that is, prior to any accident, should have been shown
and established.
o the lack of supervision can further be seen by the fact that there is only one set of manual
containing the rules and regulations for all the drivers
- For failure to adduce proof that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family
in the selection and supervision of its employees, petitioner PRBLI is held solidarily
responsible for the damages caused by petitioner Manliclics negligence.

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for review is DENIED. The decision of the Court
of Appeals is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that (1) the award of moral damages shall be
reduced to P50,000.00; and (2) the award of exemplary damages shall be lowered to P50,000.00.